Had my first run in with the police today

gingerjon said:
When does it become acceptable to take pictures of scenes of death and injury?

There are (high quality) pics of fatal road traffic accidents on flickr. Anyone can find them on a safe search.
Click to expand...

When dose it become acceptable to censure what a person can and cannot photography legally irrespective of content ?
 
pxl8 said:
There seems to be a general (and perhaps irrational) distrust of people with cameras here, as if they are up to no good.

What is it about the guy with the DSLR that offends you so?
Do you feel the same towards someone taking snaps with a mobile phone and txt'ing it to their mates?
Do you feel the same towards someone who's simply standing and watching?
What if CCTV footage were to end up on road wars or similar?
Click to expand...

DSLR makes no difference to me unless he had a huge zoom lens.
Be it a mobile phone or a 1d I'd still be annoyed by people getting footage of what should be a private family moment.

There isnt any control on what happens to these photos, and I'm quite sure my grief wouldnt be helped by finding the photos as part of a slide show on youtube with lots of comments of people laughing (which is exactly what they do on youtube)
 
MJ Stebbings said:
I would be happier there was someone there to document it to try and prosicute the *******s that caused the accident
Click to expand...

So you're assuming that the accident was caused by a 3rd party and not self inflicted through driving without due care & attention, drink driving or swerving to avoid the little bunny wunny that ran into the path of the oncoming car?
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
When dose it become acceptable to censure what a person can and cannot photography legally irrespective of content ?
Click to expand...


acceptable or not.. if the people dealing with the accident (who are probably traumatised) ask you not to take any pics then put the camera down and for flips sake dont turn it into an argument. Its neither the time or the place to make the whole thing about you instead of the people doing a much more important job.
 
It might be my eyesight or summat but isn't the Incident Commander (Fire Service) holding a camera?

Lisa
 
leave1 said:
Honestly? I think I'd be more concerned with my family. And since I'd probably be in the car getting cut out with them, I find it hard to believe I'd even notice a lone photographer calmly taking 17 shots of the actual wreckage in a throng of gawping bystanders doing nothing but cringing and gasping.
Click to expand...

Are you the only driver in your family? An incident can happen in the strangest of circumstances.

Lisa
 
Yes, gathering all the evidence needed fom the scene of the crime, not from 60ft away.
 
Kev M said:
So you're assuming that the accident was caused by a 3rd party and not self inflicted through driving without due care & attention, drink driving or swerving to avoid the little bunny wunny that ran into the path of the oncoming car?
Click to expand...

If it was self inflicted, then its my own fault is it not?
As for the bunny, i knew the little git would get me back at some point for eating his brother :lol:

I was once riding my bike it slippery conditions, went to take a corner and the road markings caused my bike to disapear from underneath me. As i was laying on my back thinking how much my leg hurt, some guy came up to me laughing his arse off and asked if i was alright. His laughter caused me to start laughing and he helped me up. The moral of this story is...... dont let people catch you make an arse of yourself regardless of camera or not :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
minky_monkey said:
It`s black and white IMO. Either we can, or we can`t take pictures.
Click to expand...

Nope I don't see that. It's more a question of morals, i.e. whether you think it's right to take the shot, or if you took it, then your decision not to delete, to save or publish etc.

Now these are generally set by your upbringing and views of your peers, which is why a debate/thread like this is interesting/valuable.

badgerbaiter said:
when this came up on sportshooter.com forum I got shot down in flames. I was the only one who who didnt think it was necessarily right to shoot peoples grief and i got banned before the thread had gone 2 pages :)
Click to expand...

and why that was ridiculous
 
badgerbaiter said:
There isnt any control on what happens to these photos, and I'm quite sure my grief wouldnt be helped by finding the photos as part of a slide show on youtube with lots of comments of people laughing (which is exactly what they do on youtube)
Click to expand...

I've noticed you've done this kind of thing quite a lot in this thread: Taken things to extremes. Are you doing it to strengthen an argument that's ultimately weak without these kind of embellishments?

Why would you even mention youtube? You may as well say that it wouldn't help to find that I'd made gigantic 50 foot cutouts and placed them outside your home with internet acronyms like "ROFL" pasted over them. You could pretty much say anything in this regard, because you're literally making it up off the top of your head.

Where does youtube even come into it? I don't even partly understand why you'd take it there. :thinking:
 
leave1 said:
You may as well say that it wouldn't help to find that I'd made gigantic 50 foot cutouts and placed them outside your home with internet acronyms like "ROFL" pasted over them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this made me laugh ALOT!
 
leave1 said:
I've noticed you've done this kind of thing quite a lot in this thread: Taken things to extremes. Are you doing it to strengthen an argument that's ultimately weak without these kind of embellishments?

Why would you even mention youtube? You may as well say that it wouldn't help to find that I'd made gigantic 50 foot cutouts and placed them outside your home with internet acronyms like "ROFL" pasted over them. You could pretty much say anything in this regard, because you're literally making it up off the top of your head.

Where does youtube even come into it? I don't even partly understand why you'd take it there. :thinking:
Click to expand...

it was to explain that once a pic is on the internet you have no control as to where it ends up. youtube is the best example.
 
leave1 said:
I've noticed you've done this kind of thing quite a lot in this thread: Taken things to extremes. Are you doing it to strengthen an argument that's ultimately weak without these kind of embellishments?

Why would you even mention youtube? You may as well say that it wouldn't help to find that I'd made gigantic 50 foot cutouts and placed them outside your home with internet acronyms like "ROFL" pasted over them. You could pretty much say anything in this regard, because you're literally making it up off the top of your head.

Where does youtube even come into it? I don't even partly understand why you'd take it there. :thinking:
Click to expand...

I think the point here is that if you see a press tog, you know that those images are being taken for a specific reason. If it is a bystander who starts taking photos the people have no way of knowing your intention. You may think that BB's examples are extreme, but hey do happen on a regular basis.
 
MJ Stebbings said:
I would be happier there was someone there to document it to try and prosicute the *******s that caused the accident
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the person who took the offending shots only took shots of the aftermath, he (as I understand it, I might be incorrect), didn't film the events leading upto the collision, or the actual collison between the vehicles or whatever else might have been involved. My understanding is he is not a witness because he didn't witness anything other than stationary vehicles etc, etc. etc.

The crash investigators (if needed) are quite able to ascertain who was at fault in most of these cases. Hopefully some reliable witnesses will provide evidence if needed.

Lisa
 
I would be happier for someone with a DSLR photographing whats going on then someone with the latest 5mp camera phone or the Ixus they got lsat christmas taking pics.

Why didnt the coppers move EVERYONE on? Just because the OP had a DSLR, it made HIM the sick one? Has does that even make sense?!?
 
badgerbaiter said:
Be it a mobile phone or a 1d I'd still be annoyed by people getting footage of what should be a private family moment.
Click to expand...

Now this is an interesting point.

Reasonable expectation to privacy could mean:-

You are in a place where it's reasonable to expect the public can't see you, ie. at home.

or

You are in a situation that you would morally expect some privacy.

Now, as I understand it the law is the first even though laws are generally based on the moral view of the majority which kind of leads back to the point I made earlier. I can see a day when public photography will be illegal based on opinions such as yours. When enough people object to something as immoral laws do get written. Any law that tried to list what could and couldn't be photographed would be unworkable so the only solution is an outright ban.

So logically I have to ask is that a price you're willing to pay?
 
badgerbaiter said:
acceptable or not.. if the people dealing with the accident (who are probably traumatised) ask you not to take any pics then put the camera down and for flips sake dont turn it into an argument. Its neither the time or the place to make the whole thing about you instead of the people doing a much more important job.
Click to expand...

The OP was not breaking any laws, he was not interfering with the emergency services , irrespective of your personal views there is no reason for someone not to take photos - what gives anyone the right to make a moral judgment and enforce that onto another person ?

As i have said before this is a personal judgment call and everyone will have thier own views on if its right or wrong, but its a very slipper slope to try and enforce those views on another person.
 
Crazyhorse said:
Unfortunately, the person who took the offending shots only took shots of the aftermath, he (as I understand it, I might be incorrect), didn't film the events leading upto the collision, or the actual collison between the vehicles or whatever else might have been involved. My understanding is he is not a witness because he didn't witness anything other than stationary vehicles etc, etc. etc.

The crash investigators (if needed) are quite able to ascertain who was at fault in most of these cases. Hopefully some reliable witnesses will provide evidence if needed.

Lisa
Click to expand...

My point still stands though. Actually, id have been happier if he took pics of the coppers moaning at him and not moving the crowd on or dealing with the accident. Seriously!
 
badgerbaiter said:
acceptable or not.. if the people dealing with the accident (who are probably traumatised) ask you not to take any pics then put the camera down and for flips sake dont turn it into an argument. Its neither the time or the place to make the whole thing about you instead of the people doing a much more important job.
Click to expand...

And thus instilling habit into the Police thinking they can bend us over backwards at will.

It's a case of principle, and a right that we're slowly losing due to people too easily being pushed over by a man with a badge.
 
fabs said:
Because having a DSLR makes you stand out in a crowd, it's as simple as that!
Click to expand...

But still, why does that make him different to Johnny standing 5 paces to his right snapping away quite happily? Just because you stand out, doesnt mean you should be the target!
 
leave1 said:
Yes, he was taking many shots of the wreckage and of the victims.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go then, no need for another tog. :lol::lol:

Lisa
 
MJ Stebbings said:
But still, why does that make him different to Johnny standing 5 paces to his right snapping away quite happily? Just because you stand out, doesnt mean you should be the target!
Click to expand...

The point is that the person with the DSLR gets noticed, the one with the cameraphone doesn't. Not a case of the copper making a conscious choice between the two.
 
Crazyhorse said:
Well, there you go then, no need for another tog. :lol::lol:

Lisa
Click to expand...

I bet his shots wont make the local rag and remind people to slow down/not drink drive/ stop being total cocks behind the wheel of a car!
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
The OP was not breaking any laws, he was not interfering with the emergency services , irrespective of your personal views there is no reason for someone not to take photos - what give you the right to make a moral judgment and enforce that onto another person ?

As i have said before this is a personal judgment call and everyone will have thier own views on if its right or wrong, but its a very slipper slope to try and enforce those views on another person.
Click to expand...

i'm putting my opinion across. I respect even the opinions I dont agree with. I'm posting in this thread because I want to put my opinion across and also listen to other's opinions.
You are right, it is about morals and everyone has different ones depending on religion, upbringing and experience.
 
fabs said:
The point is that the person with the DSLR gets noticed, the one with the cameraphone doesn't. Not a case of the copper making a conscious choice between the two.
Click to expand...

So again, why didnt the move EVERYONE on?
 
MJ Stebbings said:
My point still stands though. Actually, id have been happier if he took pics of the coppers moaning at him and not moving the crowd on or dealing with the accident. Seriously!
Click to expand...

And I'd have liked to have seen some pics of the Police too - yum yum! :lol::lol:
-------------
Regarding Youtube etc, like it or not, there's some grim stuff on there, i don't look myself but the fact is there are a hell of a lot of sickos out there who take pleasure in exploiting people's misfortunes/grief.

I'm not saying Leave1 would do that at all, but some people do.

Lisa
 
fabs said:
You'd have to ask the copper that one.
Click to expand...

See, thats my point, that was all :)

Crazy Horse - Pervert... Althought there was a female copper there ;) :D Haha!

I do understand that photos end up on internet sites etc but surely a guy with a SLR wouldnt be the one posting them up?
 
badgerbaiter said:
so were you taking these photos as part of your job (i'm not leading you anywhere btw, I'm just interested)
Click to expand...

:lol:

This is the old "Why climb the mountain?" argument. Some people understand the answer "because it's there" and some don't. Both are right.

Still interested to know if the price of a complete ban on publich photography would be an acceptable price to pay?
 
leave1 said:
That deafening shutter noise drowning out the helicoptor, 30 police, scores of firecrew, engines running, people talking, cars roaring past?
Click to expand...

thats not what i meant.. i meant that the policeman is more likely to be drawn to the SLR not only because of the size but the noise compared to the other cameras.

Dont get me wrong.. Whilst i dont agree with you taking shots, I equally dont agree that any 'spectators' should have been taking shots - whatever they were using.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top