Had my first run in with the police today

I can understand the cops resenting you I suppose, when to all intents and purposes as far as they can see you're just Joe Public with a camera taking rubber necking to another degree, and they do tend to get to know the local press guys who usually attend these RTAs . They're probably no better thought of anyway.

It doesn't excuse them making grabs for your camera, and making complete clowns of themselves by threatening to invoke powers of seizure they just don't have. It's happening too damned often too, and it makes me worry about just who's looking after our streets these days when I'm lying in me bed at night. :suspect:

I'm not sure I'd have felt any great urge to photograph this scene though, or because "you're a photographer" you should, which seems to be a concensus here. ;)
 
I would personally never take a photograph at a RTA.

I do agree that some things need to be put across to get the message across so to speak, but i don't agree that every crash needs a photography taken of it, what is the point in that?

But i do agree in some cases, if it is a proper photographer that a photograph is taken of the crash scene and of the road so they can publish it in local newspapers to say like "Don't speed" etc

I don't really know what to suggest really.
 
As Kenny Rogers said "you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em"
 
leave1 said:
I'd like to see some proof of fractsers story. It sounds like you could swap her profession with pretty much anything media related and have the same story.

I'm pretty sure emergency crews wouldn't let someone close enough to the body that they would be able to identify the face. I don't want to call b******t, but if his head was only being held on my a few tendons, there would've been surely enough blood to cover his face. That means the reporter would've had to have been inches from him to indentify him.

Also, wouldn't she have recognized the car he was driving? She would've known instantly just by the car. Sounds like the story is horribly embellished for maximum impact. Which isn't fair, really.

Also, which local rag is posting pictures of mutilated corpses in it's pages? I've never seen anything like that in a newspaper.

sorry, I don't believe a word of it.
Click to expand...

My wife was one of the WPC`s on the scene.

Your views are misplaced and unfounded.

It happened.
 
so long as you don't interfer with the police investigation then you are free to take photos of any accident if you are inclined to do it.

If any police person trys to grab anything from you without due cause it its not legal and if they break anything then they are liable for the damage.

The only way they can see whats on the camera is if they caution you and then they can't delete it. I've never had any problem with police when taking photos unlike certain friends of mine lol
 
Let's be fair it's the crap end of the job innit ambulance chasing, and it's not gonna win you any big fan club when you're just pandering to the public demand for the gory details they can savour over their cornflakes in the morning. ;)
 
fabs said:
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. If it was obvious that your actions were causing distress to others then maybe you should have stopped when asked. Sometimes it's not about whether you are doing something legal or illegal, but doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with that, I admire you for standing your ground and from your account, the police were out of order and the guy who lunged at you is the real villan here but still, I would not have taken a pic.

Not saying your wrong but with all repect it, would not have been me.
 
Seems the pc brigade have made it on here aswell.

So do you think some of these photos shouldn't of been taken?

http://photosthatchangedtheworld.com/

We see programmes on the tv everyday of police work how much different is it to taking photos of it.I remember traffic cops featured atleast 1 RTA a week!
 
Hyster said:
Have to agree with that, I admire you for standing your ground and from your account, the police were out of order and the guy who lunged at you is the real villan here but still, I would not have taken a pic.

Not saying your wrong but with all repect it, would not have been me.
Click to expand...

I understand your view. I am new to photography and am taking any opportunity I can to take shots that I can learn from. It's not my ideal scenario, and I certainly won't be hunting for any further RTA's.

They are a sensitive issue and obviously a touchy subject to cover. I wondered if I was able to take some shots that could convey the seriousness of the tragedy. I weighed up the elements: It's Christmas, a lot of people are looking forward to a new year, drink driving, careless driving, lives changing in the blink of an eye. People putting their own lives at risk to help a stranger.

I thought, in my still naive mind that those were elements worthy of capture.

I honestly never once intended to trivialize the horrendous nature of a road traffic accident. I just saw a chance to learn something about photography. Maybe my timing or the nature of the event was misplaced, but my intention was completely innocent. I really and truly believed I was doing something from the heart.

The initial reaction of the policewoman put me on the defensive, and ultimately led to me staying maybe longer than I should have.

But I really wasn't there to rubberneck or give anyone something to stare at over their cornflakes.
 
ab$olut said:
Seems the pc brigade have made it on here aswell.

So do you think some of these photos shouldn't of been taken?

http://photosthatchangedtheworld.com/
Click to expand...

Some bloody great shots there. I just wasted 10 minutes reading the comments to the Sadaam hanging pics. :lol:

We see programmes on the tv everyday of police work how much different is it to taking photos of it.I remember traffic cops featured atleast 1 RTA a week!
Click to expand...

The public are fascinated by cop shows and it's real cheap air time. ;)
 
Leave1, you are a better man for me for dealing with that as well as you did. The subject is not something that i think i would have taken photos of but i can see why you did and can see no problem with it.
well done for standing your ground.
it always amazes me just how often this happens and that if the police dont know the law when it comes to photographers, just how much else they bluff theyre way through!?

if anyone does have a link to our rights then please post a link, the most recent i can find is from August 2004 and im sure much has changed due to events since then...
 
leave1 said:
I really and truly believed I was doing something from the heart.
Click to expand...

Then you were right to take your pics, conscience clear.

It would be good to have a definitive guide to the basic law (Scotland for me) to have in the camera bag. Frightning that the police would not be fully aware of the law.


@ ab$olut

There are a few there I would not personaly have taken, just because I would not be comfortable with it, don't suppose it one of us wrong or right, just different people with different personalities.
 
EdinburghGary said:
HE IS A PHOTOGRAPHER!!!

Why do we debate "taking photos", here of all places? People NEED to see these photos, I for one will be slowing down the next time I take my car out, as a result of that photo above.

Gary.
Click to expand...

haha yeah sure you and slow dont go!

i too take my hat of to you cause i would be locked up for flipping my lid!

Michael
 
leave1 said:
I understand your view. I am new to photography and am taking any opportunity I can to take shots that I can learn from. It's not my ideal scenario, and I certainly won't be hunting for any further RTA's.

They are a sensitive issue and obviously a touchy subject to cover. I wondered if I was able to take some shots that could convey the seriousness of the tragedy. I weighed up the elements: It's Christmas, a lot of people are looking forward to a new year, drink driving, careless driving, lives changing in the blink of an eye. People putting their own lives at risk to help a stranger.

I thought, in my still naive mind that those were elements worthy of capture.

I honestly never once intended to trivialize the horrendous nature of a road traffic accident. I just saw a chance to learn something about photography. Maybe my timing or the nature of the event was misplaced, but my intention was completely innocent. I really and truly believed I was doing something from the heart.

The initial reaction of the policewoman put me on the defensive, and ultimately led to me staying maybe longer than I should have.

But I really wasn't there to rubberneck or give anyone something to stare at over their cornflakes.
Click to expand...

At the end of of the day mate, you did nowt wrong, in fact you ended up being a lot righterer than the cops did, and certainly the geezer who took a swing at you. ;)
 
EdinburghGary said:
Looks like an absolutely horrific smash, my thoughts are with the victims.

With regards to your problem, people are just stupid. I cannot offer any other explanation. Well done for staying calm, I would be in a cell right now.

Gary.
Click to expand...
I think I would be in a cell,calm I am not lol.
 
This till going on? :thinking:

It's got nothing to do with political correctness. I never said the guy shouldn't have taken any pics. All I said was that sometimes there are other considerations to think of and, if things are getting heated and emotional, it's sometimes better to withdraw. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. It was always intended as someting else to think of in these situations, not a criticism.
 
2blue4u said:
:thinking: What strict rules about photography?

The only places you cannot take photographs in the UK, when standing on public land, is military and nuclear installations, Trafalgar Square and some other place in London (it might be Parliament Square). The irony is that these last two are always full of tourists and their cameras.
Click to expand...

The tube is not public land neither are train stations :)
 
This is an extract from the recently published Government guidance for stop and search, found recently but not sure when it was published.

2.8 PHOTOGRAPHY

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented by other legislation.

If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the TerrorismAct 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Filmandmemory cardsmay be seized as part of the search, but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device
on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.

Paul
 
Part of my job is to gather evidence at the scene of railway accidents. It is written in our training to get whatever information that may help find the root cause from any eyewitnesses. As long as a photographer does not put themselves in a position of potential danger, then I would welcome the taking of photographs regardless of how gory or insensitive this may be. I would take the photographers details so that they could be contacted later. Many types of evidence are perishable and unless they are recorded immediately, are lost forever.

Maybe if the OP had approached the police first then he may have been seen as an asset rather than a rubber necker like many who attend these incidents.

Beside all this, I do admire him for standing his ground and it is about time there were clear laws so we all know exactly where we stand.
:thumbs:
 
fracster said:
There was a "lady" reporter on one of the local rags who use to scan emergency service frequencies for bad RTA`s, she would then scoot off with her tog to photograph them.To say she was disliked by the Amb.Pol and Fire is a massive understatement.
Click to expand...

That was also illegal under Wireless Telegraphy act. If caught fine, seizure of equipment, possible jail time. Not possible as often now with all the police on TETRA/Airwave and the ambulance and fire services following.
In America its how most of the media outlets (tv,radio and papers) get to scenes to cover stories though - its not illegal there (or encrypted generally)
 
Seem to be reading a lot of this kind of stuff lately. You would think that the police encounter this kind fo thing sufficiently to know the law on the subject.
 
hmm.. seems like some people were injured in an accident but the person feeling most hard done by is the guy who got told he wasnt allowed to take photos.

I know that if one of my family was involved in a serious accident and i saw someone taking photos (especially with an SLR and decent size lens) they would be needing to call the firebrigade themselves to help them remove it from where the sun doesnt shine.

If one person starts taking pics then why not everyone? Then maybe they will all try and get a bit closer, or push their luck a bit further. Maybe they will start bringing 600mm lenses and a monopod.

The way i see it, there was a nasty crash and the most important people in that scenario are the victims and the people helping. Even if you felt it was out of order that the police had a go at you doesnt mean you couldnt just put your camera down and stop shooting.
If it was that important to have photographers there, then the switchboard at the other end of 999 would ask police, ambulance, fire brigade or photographer?
 
ab$olut said:
Seems the pc brigade have made it on here aswell.

So do you think some of these photos shouldn't of been taken?

http://photosthatchangedtheworld.com/
Click to expand...

This was my thoughts exactly at the beginning of this thread, thank god for photography and good photographers who document stuff like this, there's also another recent thread on here with similar photos, one of the photos that sticks in my mind is of the London bombings and some guy helping to carry guy another where he took some of the blast, i think you will know the one i mean, it's become quite iconic now, i'm not sure if it was taken by someone in the media or it was a member of the public, but it just brings home why we need a record of this sort of thing, and good on you mate for standing your ground, as i mentioned in another recent thread on a similar subject, it's about time the police learnt the laws they are supposed to be enforcing.
 
I totally agree, can you imagine if Robert Capa hadn't taking any images of war because it 'was in bad taste'?!... Reading through some of the responses of fellow 'photographers' ofer the last few pages though, worries me.

If you think documenting something, be it joyous, tragic or otherwise is a bad idea - you shouldn't ever have a camera in your hands.

Kudos for having the balls to photograph the situation though, keep it up.:clap:
 
Not wanting to stick my neck above the parapet too much but I am plod. It makes me cringe sometimes reading how some officers deal with togs. I've been on point at some scenes and had the local press guy trying desperately to get a shot of anything they can and it can get annoying trying to keep an eye on what they're up to and deal with queries etc. But to go and grab someones camera seems out of line to me.

You've got to remember as with all walks of life you learn in depth the things you deal with frequently and get woolly around the edges. I only trained in 05/06 and had no training on the rights of togs in public so I wouldn't expect someone with 20 years service who normally deals with pace1's and low level public order offences to be au fais (doesn't look right but it's 3 in the morning and my mind isn't working) with the laws around photography in public places.

I'd say your best bet is to print off one of the many PDF's available and carry it with you. I've got my warrant card to fend off any unwanted attention but a lot don't have that luxury.

As for shooting scenes of accidents. Don't be surprised if your camera is requested esp if there looks to be a fatality. For a shot to have evidential value it needs to be traceable. so the easiest would be camera and mem card seized and bagged as the officers evidence, sent to lab to be removed from memory card by 'expert', he signs off to say that the images removed are the genuine images taken etc... otherwise you open up the "so tell me tog... how exactly have you treated/edited/altered this image to show that my defendant was guilty? isn't it true that you knew the claimant from... surely that would give you motive to help out your friend..." It's just not worth it!

Keep up the good work :D
 
There's an increasing number of posts going around about 'Togs and Cops at war' and a lot of it seems to be needless. There's no question that a lot of it is feed by over zealous police officers diving in and giving photographers a hard time (just as security guards do) but it also seems that we're making it harder on ourselves than it needs to be sometimes.

On occasions like this incident, its not difficult to catch the eye of a police officer, quickly say that you're going to be taking some photographs (for whatever reason) and that you'll keep out of their way. You're not asking permission to take any photographs (you don't generally have to) but you're making your intentions known and heading off any confrontation before it happens. There's every chance you'll be approached by another officer but you can then say that you've cleared it with the other officer.

Yes, there's the chance that the first officer will say you can't take photographs there but just like the rest of us, they want a quiet life and to get on with the job in hand. If you're up front they're more likely to co-operate than to get the hump. If they say 'no' they would have stopped you as soon as they clocked you anyway.

I think that they way the OP reacted to the events he describes was admirable, but it's POSSIBLE it could have been avoided by having a quite word first. I wasn't there so I'm not judging him specifically on this incident. I'm saying that GENERALLY having a quite word goes a hell of a long way. Be pro-active and not re-active. Go to your local 'Cop Shop' and have a chat with the Community Relations Officer. Make yourself known to them. Of course you can say 'why should I' to that but the simple reason is that you're life as a photographer in your local area might just be easier as a result.

I'm in no way saying the police were right in the way they handled this specific incident but I am saying incidents like this can sometimes be avoided by being pro-active.
 
I'm not commenting on the actions of the police and the member of the public who became involved.

However, as a member of the emergency services myself, we DO NOT like bystanders taking photos. Very very bad taste indeed and something we are sickened by. Those photos taken by oppertunists normally end up on youtube or similar.

Also, having been involved in a serious rtc myself last year (which resulted in the other driver being convicted of dangerous driving and losing their licence as a result), if anyone had attempted to take photos of my smashed up vehicle, I would have let him/her have it with both barrels despite my injuries.

Regards
Lisa
 
but whats the differance witha bystander with a DSLR and someone who's a "pro" with a camera? would you feel the same if local/national news turned up to film/ cover the story?

All *******s IMO has thats life people get killed and its good to document it for future referance... letting others aware off the dangers and all that.

dont even know why im posting here has anything that needs to be said has been said.

thanks sim

edit: and just to add to the OP good on you for standing your ground if it was a national news etc they wouldnt have done that so dont let them do it to you :thumbs:
 
Interesting Post CrazyHorse.

Can I just balance that with an RTA I had a few years back when a motorist knocked me off my motorbike, then drove around me and left the scene.

With my motorbike on top of me I was more interested in getting the hot exhaust off my leg than remembering the numberplate, so I was extremely grateful to the bystander who got a couple of photos of the incident.
 
Think the original OP was chancing his arm to be perfectly honest.

Unless you were doing it just to prove you were allowed to, I can't really see the point. Save the battle for photographers rights for another place would be my advice.

At a rough guess, 154mm from your APS-C sensor camera and the height of the shot being about 3m (ish - just under 2 times the height of the copper n fireman) I'd say you were about 20m back from the scene. Too close?

Lastly, your composition is lacking, I don't like the partial van :D (<---thats a joke btw)

BTW
 
Crazyhorse said:
I'm not commenting on the actions of the police and the member of the public who became involved.

However, as a member of the emergency services myself, we DO NOT like bystanders taking photos. Very very bad taste indeed and something we are sickened by. Those photos taken by oppertunists normally end up on youtube or similar.

Also, having been involved in a serious rtc myself last year (which resulted in the other driver being convicted of dangerous driving and losing their licence as a result), if anyone had attempted to take photos of my smashed up vehicle, I would have let him/her have it with both barrels despite my injuries.

Regards
Lisa
Click to expand...

I am with the OP on this, although we only have his word on the story.

Last year I stopped at the scene of a Motorcycle fire to offer assistance, because I was in the race van I had a fire extinguisher, not a hope it was even going to tickle it though so we let it burn while the services arrived.

I did get some stunning images both of the fire and of the fire engine arriving through the smoke, I also got some cracking images of the guys fighting the fire.

One thing the Firemen did say was, if they are going in the paper can you not submit ones where we are identifiable, other than that they were keen to get copies for 'Training Purposes' and I was happy to oblige.

Even the Police man that arrived said hello in a very jolly manner.
 
Byker28i said:
Interesting Post CrazyHorse.

Can I just balance that with an RTA I had a few years back when a motorist knocked me off my motorbike, then drove around me and left the scene.

With my motorbike on top of me I was more interested in getting the hot exhaust off my leg than remembering the numberplate, so I was extremely grateful to the bystander who got a couple of photos of the incident.
Click to expand...


Hi

That's a good point, I appreciate what you are saying.

In my case last year, the other driver left the scene without stopping too but witnesses took her registration number and the police were at her house very quickly.

We (Fire Service) work closely with organisations such as BRAKE, the Police and Ambulance Service and hold rtc days at fire stations. These days are aimed at the 14-17 year olds. We do use some graphic photos of rtc's. We also have a 'crash car' (a car which has been involved in a serious rtc and driven by people of that age group at the time of the rtc). We also do a mock 'rtc' on the yard and have two actors blodied up and acting as victims. We feel it does have an impact on some of the youngsters, not all, obviously, but some of them.

Yes, we use graphic rtc footage and someone has obviously taken the photos but it's usually members of the emergency services who take them.

If the agencies need evidence, they have ways and means of gathering evidence and the services will take their own photos as appropriate.

People have quoted the London bombings where the Police asked for any photos the public had taken, sorry but I can't comment on that.

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone but if you meet the victims of rtc's even if they are not injured, some suffer terrible shock and even big hard me will just say they want their mum.

Lisa
 
I think there's a big difference between photographing an RTA for the sake of it and war reporting by the likes of Robert Capa. One is about educating and informing the public about national and global situations. The other has very little point at all. To try and draw comparisons between the two is at best clutching at straws to justify pretty pointless actions in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top