login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Bill to make cops liable for damage to cameras Search   Reply
Photographer
netmodel
Posts: 6,786
Austin, Texas, US


About time! I am shocked at how cops have been harrassing photographers and damaging their cameras and get away with it.

From news:

The Connecticut state senate approved a bill Thursday that would allow citizens to sue police officers who arrest them for recording in public, apparently the first of its kind in the nation.

As it is now, cops act with reckless immunity knowing the worst that can happen is their municipalties (read: taxpayers) would be responsible for shelling out lawsuits.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/connecticu … roves-bill
Apr 22 12 05:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ACPhotography
Posts: 8,622
Plainview, New York, US


netmodel wrote:
About time! I am shocked at how cops have been harrassing photographers and damaging their cameras and get away with it.

From news:

The Connecticut state senate approved a bill Thursday that would allow citizens to sue police officers who arrest them for recording in public, apparently the first of its kind in the nation.

As it is now, cops act with reckless immunity knowing the worst that can happen is their municipalties (read: taxpayers) would be responsible for shelling out lawsuits.

http://www.pixiq.com/article/connecticu … roves-bill

Someone should tell the media and the politicians to stop telling the sheep that someone with a camera is a terrorist....

Apr 22 12 05:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,794
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US


ACPhotography wrote:
Someone should tell the media and the politicians to stop telling the sheep that someone with a camera is a terrorist....

Police going after photographers for recording them is not a terrorists issue.... it's more of a Rodney king thing.

Apr 22 12 07:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Stickgunner
Posts: 83
Medford, Oregon, US


What does your title have to do with the article posted?  I read through it and must be tired as I'm missing it. 

If you read the below, it takes any teeth out of the bill.  Any officer acting outside the scope of their duty is already not covered by their department or city, so this is just a feel good law. 

"Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably believed that the interference was necessary to (1) lawfully enforce a criminal law or municipal ordinance; (2) protect public safety; (3) preserve the integrity of a crime scene or criminal investigation; (4) safeguard the privacy of a crime victim or other person; or (5) enforce Judicial Branch rules and policies that limit taking photographs, videotaping, or otherwise recording images in branch facilities."
Apr 22 12 11:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
alessandro2009
Posts: 7,364
Florence, Toscana, Italy


Why don't discuss similar news on the section:
MM Soapbox
instead on the Photography Talk?

For Usa people i suppose a similar topic could be particular interesting.
Apr 23 12 03:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Fred Greissing
Posts: 6,358
Los Angeles, California, US


This part stinks:

Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably believed....

WTF is this... "faith based enforcement"

How is reasonably believed established.

Oh I reasonably believed so I smashed his camera.

So then it's just up to a judge to decide if the cops belief was reasonable.

Plenty of waco judges around.

Remember the one caught jerking off during a trial.

A jury in Oklahoma has convicted a former judge of exposing himself by using a sexual device behind the bench while presiding over court cases.

The Creek County jury found Donald Thompson, 59, guilty on four counts of indecent exposure and recommended one year in prison and a $10,000 fine on each count.

The investigation into Thompson's actions began after a police officer saw a device known as a "sex pump" in the judge's courtroom.

Apr 23 12 08:30 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
the lonely photographer
Posts: 1,876
Beverly Hills, California, US


Fred Greissing wrote:
This part stinks:

Under the bill, officers cannot be found liable if they reasonably believed....

WTF is this... "faith based enforcement"

How is reasonably believed established.

Oh I reasonably believed so I smashed his camera.

So then it's just up to a judge to decide if the cops belief was reasonable.

Plenty of waco judges around.

Remember the one caught jerking off during a trial.


The bill has no teeth, its the civil servant against the citizen   ever try to contest a  bogus ticket?

Apr 23 12 08:36 am  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers