UK Police Threaten Teenage Photojournalist 344
IonOtter writes "In what seems to be a common occurrence, and now a costly one, Metropolitan Police in the UK still don't seem to be getting the message that assaulting photographers is a bad idea. UK press photographer Jules Matteson details the event in his blog, titled The Romford Incident. The incident has already been picked up by The Register, The Independent, and the British Journal of Photography, which contains an official statement from the Metropolitan Police."
it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:4, Insightful)
The Independent may be less, well, un-Independent than most of the mainstream rags, but no-one pays much attention to it. And The Register is read by as many people who count as the scrawlings on the average 6th Form toilet wall.
It's not to say that the laws aren't being abused. It's that pompous claims like
The Independent forced senior officers to admit that the controversial legislation is being widely misused.
are more "haha I stuck it to the Man!" exaggeration than evidence of the Met receiving a genuine reprimand from those who represent us.
It's "THE Metropolitan Police" (Score:5, Insightful)
Qualifications (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets simplify it. When push comes to shove and they are chasing a theft suspect, the ability to run, react, tackle, and subdue are at the top of the list. The police officer could not be like Richard Stallman for example. The mere presence of some intellectual brilliance, probably removes any ability to "do the grunt work".
Re:Qualifications (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets simplify it. When push comes to shove and they are chasing a theft suspect, the ability to run, react, tackle, and subdue are at the top of the list. The police officer could not be like Richard Stallman for example. The mere presence of some intellectual brilliance, probably removes any ability to "do the grunt work".
Not just that, I've heard rumours (take them with as much salt as you think such a rumour from someone you've never met babbling on /. deserves) that at least one police force actively discriminates against people who are too smart because such people might start to think for themselves.
Civil Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems the UK is slowly but surely slipping away and turning into a police state. A human rights report a while ago called the UK an endemic surveillance society and the situation keeps getting worse. Unfortunately the problems around photography are not unique to the UK, I have personally been bothered in The Netherlands by security personnel on two occassions and have been asked to delete a photograph by two plainclothes policemen after taking a photo which had one of them in it. All three of these incidents happened in a public space. Under the fear mongering guises of combatting terrorism, crime and child porn and the influence of undemocratic powerful intellectual property lobies trying to protect an outdated business model from colapse our civil liberties are slowly being eroded away. I sincerely hope there will finally be a huge public backlash one of these days when people start to realize what's going on but so far most people appear to be content to let themselves be led like lambs to the slaughter.
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I want to agree there is a thin line between the right to freedom becoming a privilege [of those who know their laws and can effectively challenge law enforcement] or disappearing completely to intimidating tactics we've all witnessed in recent weeks (G20 [youtube.com], Toronto [facebook.com])
Now, unless one wants their country joining the likes of Russia, where journalist homicide has become normal practice, with six having been killed this year alone (9 the previous year), giving them as much bad press as possible should be the least we can do stand up for our rights (especially if you don't know them!).
As my grandfather tends to say (quoting somebody famous probably) - "there is just one step from comedy to tragedy". Adapt it as you will to the context, but the UK seems to have taken two steps too many in that direction in recent history. And that's just what made it to the press!
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:5, Insightful)
/., why must you engage in so much mutual masturbation? Liberals (in the classical "defender of liberty" sense, not in the US "not conservative" sense) are being downtrodden precisely because they think small.
Yes, it's great that senior officers have issued a memo to junior officers - not even a slap on the wrist - but the problems are:
Remember: in any reasonable state, it's not the policeman's job to write or interpret the law, and the police should never have the power of a law so vague as the Terrorism Acts. Are you not paying attention? The public aren't even allowed to know where certain Laws apply. This might protect a few people on the ground being harassed, but it's the worst way of sweeping the problem under the carpet.
Just a hunch (Score:5, Insightful)
but I think he failed the initial attitude test and they were trying to goad him into failing it even harder.
Not because of something he said, but the tone in which he said it and the fact he never let the officers get a word in edgeways.
(There is the other, orthogonal issue that nobody ever likes to admit that they're wrong - particularly not when they're in a position of authority - and as soon as something like that happens it's vanishingly unlikely to end nicely for the photographer because the only way it could end nicely is if the police officer could be persuaded to double-check that they were in the right, get told that they weren't, apologise and let the photographer go about their business, which gets less and less likely the longer it goes on because the longer it goes on, the bigger the cock-up the occifer has to admit to.)
Further example (Score:1, Insightful)
5:53 - "Hey! Ah! Fuck! You pushed me down the stairs! You pushed me down the stairs! Officer, you pushed me down the stairs!". Listen to the tone of voice.
From the blog, "I spent several hours yesterday in hospital with severe and debilitating back pain from being pushed down the stairs".
This guy sounds like a fucking clown from Monthy Python's Flying Circus.
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing gets the government scared like a big steam of bad press (which the internet is more than willing to provide).
There was this one hour TV show that I used to watch in the 1970s, it was an era when nobody could get any more than about 12 channels, and only 3 channels had anything anybody seriously wanted to watch, so this show had quite a following. It exposed governments, politicians and corporations that did evil and malicious things. The show was called 60 Minutes [wikipedia.org], and I figured that with all these big time, bad characters being exposed every week, then in a few years their should be absolutely no corruption whatsoever in government or industry, because these investigative reporters were exposing everything. Now it's a few decades later and this show is STILL exposing corruption in government and industry.
I find it ironic that the article claims the police made "a costly" mistake, because this huge multimillion dollar organization was fined 3,500 pounds. And no police officers were fired, jailed, or otherwise punished. In the mean time a chilling effect has been felt by photographers everywhere because they know they can get harassed by police officers anytime and anywhere; and have to spend time and money and energy filing a complaint and going to court with a good possibility that they will lose the case unless somebody happens to have HIDDEN camera evidence.
officers were advised that Section 44 powers [anti-terror laws] should not be used unnecessarily against photographers.
Ref: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-uturn-on-photographers-and-antiterror-laws-1834626.html [independent.co.uk] The bolding was mine. It's all very pathetic that this case is somehow framed to make it look like a victory for freedom.
Re:It's "THE Metropolitan Police" (Score:3, Insightful)
Police tend to adapt to their environment just like everyone else. If an area has a history of a particular type of incident or a particular type of people, they will begin to see everything as if it were similar. While there may well be corruption in the police department (having been a Dallas, TX resident, I know about corrupt police -- google "Terrell Bolton" to see) I tend to think that problems as large as this are more likely motivated by a fear of being accused of "not doing enough" to stop whatever.
One commenter here, marked troll, indicated precisely what many other people might be thinking: "What if he really WAS a terrorist? What then?"
People really need to understand what "terrorist" means. A photographer may or may not be a terrorist, but the act of photography should never be considered an act of terrorism. A terrorist is someone who would use a demonstrable threat of violence to intimidating people into acting a particular way. That is a wide definition, I know... perhaps too wide as this seems to also describe these police incidents pretty well... hrmmmm
Re:Journalist seems like a raging asshole. (Score:5, Insightful)
He sounds hysterical in the video and has an attitude problem from the very beginning.
No, he doesn't. Unless by attitude problem you mean he informs the cops that what he's doing is legal when they claim it isn't.
The police demonstrate, in the face of an aggressive asshole, a supreme amount of calm and reason.
lol -- the police demonstrate a supreme lack of reason, actually.
Re:Transparency (Score:1, Insightful)
Nothing gets the government scared like a big steam of bad press
Which is why the (free) press will be persecuted by anti-terrorism laws next
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:2, Insightful)
3500 pounds is chump change.
The policeman 'made something up' - a complete disgrace - then 'enforced it' - unforgivable.
Personal accountability should see at least triple that amount personally be deducted from constable plod + damages - loss of story is their job.
Re:It's "THE Metropolitan Police" (Score:1, Insightful)
One commenter here, marked troll, indicated precisely what many other people might be thinking: "What if he really WAS a terrorist? What then?"
Really? What if he was a serial killer? What if he was a rapist? What if he was a politician? What if he was a human being?
The answer should be the same, regardless of any answer to any of the questions above: the officer should be (publically) fired or demoted to a desk job. Like you say, detaining anyone for taking photographs of a public event is a clear abuse of power, regardless of the (made-up) laws that make it possible.
And I don't think the people need to understand what "terrorist" means. They need to understand that "terrorist" is an intentionally vague (legally ambiguous) umbrella term that may include anything the government does not like. Do you know that animal rights activists have been persecuted in The Netherlands under anti-terrorism laws?
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:2, Insightful)
>>the intentional vagary of the law
Absolutely. Causing "alarm and distress to a member of the public" is an offense in the UK.
In this case, though, you had a photographer that sounded like a total prat, ranting on about his rights and refusing to answer reasonable questions by a police officer (listen to the audio). In no surprising development, the person who antagonized the police got in trouble, whereas the other people in the area doing the same thing (http://julesmattsson.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-romford-incident/ and read the comments) were left alone.
As much as I'm all for civil rights and all that, being polite does a lot more to stop police harassment than being That Guy who watched an ACLU video one time on Youtube and decided he'd give the police what-for. In some states here in the US, you actually do have to answer reasonable questions from a police officer, which has caused all sorts of grief to the annoying twits that make up all sorts of rights that don't exist.
Not saying that the police don't harass people - I've been harassed several times in my life, either by myself and with friends, and once my father was threatened with jail because he wouldn't provide his SSN to the mentally unstable Texas Ranger asking for it, but in a LOT of these cases, if you don't walk around with a chip on your shoulder, the police don't either.
Re:THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM !! (Score:3, Insightful)
He may well be a terrorist !! What would you say then ?? Hm ??
I would say that the world needs many more of that sort of terrorist.
Re:Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
BS. There will be no change in Orwellianism in either the UK or the US unless and until the entire system is reformed. Witness the total farce that is the "change" Obama brought in.
Shut down Gitmo? Bring the troops home? Curtailing the free pass that the corporate sector gets on the taxpayer's dollar?
Nothing changed. Nothing meaningful to US foreign and long term policy anyway. The UK will be the same. This is because the policy makers and power brokers are not the figureheads that you vote for.
Here in Australia, our prime minister Kevin Rudd just got ousted by, and I quote from most of the major news outlets, "power brokers behind the scenes", among whom is her de-facto partner. I don't know about anyone else, but that to me indicates just how much is controlled by the electorate, and how much is controlled by powerful lobbyists who the public do not vote for and never even see.
Re:Lions and Donkeys (Score:4, Insightful)
but this isn't about keeping abreast of the latest developments in the law. this is about something really fundamental, which you'd hope coppers would learn really early on in their job, and would be reinforced by a pervasive culture:
1) "people don't have to do what I say just because I'm a copper. they have to do what I say insofar as I enforce the law"
2) "if someone's doing something legal and I don't want them to do it any more, I can't make it illegal just by telling them to stop"
3) "I'm not the parent of the members of the public I meet. I don't get to win every battle of wills because I am an officer of the law"
Re:It's "THE Metropolitan Police" (Score:3, Insightful)
Animal rights activists and other rights activists such as "pro-lifers" and green peace are well known to engage in extreme activities including vandalism, sabotage and violent acts. I can't say what the case was in the Netherlands, but it wouldn't be surprising if this were the case there as well. What would surprise me is if people who were known for sitting in circles singing protest songs were charged with terrorism.
Re:Journalist seems like a raging asshole. (Score:5, Insightful)
"it is however a conscious provocation" So what? Should the fact that it is a conscious provocation alter the police officer's behaviour in any way? also, note that speeding is a criminal offence. taking pictures of a public parade is not.
"an internal NUJ event on public property". wtf? what kind of "internal" event would take place on "public property"?? and what has that analogy got to do with filming a *public event* on public property and then subsequently filming *public servants* going about their *public duties*??
these copper twunts were irritated because this guy wouldn't do what they asked him to. but he wouldn't do what they asked him to, because he was *doing nothing wrong*.
"he sounds hysterical in the video" Of course he does! He's a 16-year old kid and these big burly twats keep on grabbing him and his camera for no reason other than that they've decided they don't want him to do what he's perfectly entitled to do.
hint: just because they wear a uniform doesn't make them automatically right.
"antagonising the police" isn't a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
"antagonising the police" isn't a crime. And, since they are not a member of the public because they are a Police Officer, that "Causing alarm and distress to a member of the public" doesn't apply to him (though it DOES apply to the total prat, therefore the officer broke the law you're asserting the pratt did.
I propose to you that the police officer was the pratt and not only that abused power and position to break the law.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:5, Insightful)
But the biggest point is that to make police behave in society you MUST embarrass the specific officer.
All this generalized crap is bullcrap.
the headline should be "Officer Freeman of 1234 West East street" was a complete dick to a journalist today. How often is OFFICER FREEMAN a complete disgrace to the city?"
You need to out the officer, publically humiliate them. It's the only weapon we have against the police.
When it's generalized and hidden it empowers the bad cops to continue to be bad and corrupt cops.
Re:Transparency (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe in 25 years, the government will really care what happens online. For now, they're all nicely isolated from that in their ivory towers of rich upbringings, knowing the right people, their party "firewalls" of support and funds, etc. To the current generation of MPs, the Internet (including all of us) might as well be some weird, barely relevant subculture, like Goths or Emos.
Re:Lions and Donkeys (Score:5, Insightful)
Not being up to date with legislation is no excuse for making up imaginary laws.
If they do not know something to be illegal, they should do nothing.
Re:Journalist seems like a raging asshole. (Score:3, Insightful)
Judging someone by the tone or pitch of their voice is idiotic. It is the content that matters.
Right (Score:1, Insightful)
The police demonstrate, in the face of an aggressive asshole, a supreme amount of calm and reason
That's funny, because every time I see video footage of such an event, it's the police who are screaming, yelling, attacking, and generally acting like exactly the aggressive asshole you describe.
Surprise, surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
All police are authoritarian jerks.
Yes, all not some.
Any individual police officer who has never done such a thing has ignored another officer doing so, covered up for another officer doing so, and so on. And hence is just as bad if not worse.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, though, you had a photographer that sounded like a total prat, ranting on about his rights and refusing to answer reasonable questions by a police officer
Fuck you.
The guy became "a total prat" after he was rouged up for taking a picture and had the police outright lie to him about what his rights were.
Pull your head out of the government's ass for a minute, your brain is starving for oxygen.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of these situations are caused by a mismatch between the respect police officers think they deserve and what they actually get.
Listening to the clip, it sounded like the police officer thought making the annoying kid stop photographing would be as simple as telling him to stop, because police are the authority and everyone should just do what they say, but instead the annoying kid asked which law was being used to prevent a legal activity. At that point they should have simply said their is no law, but please just wait until the parade starts. He probably wouldn't have, but since there is no law to stop him, that's all they could do. Instead they make up a cock and bull story which he immediately sees through and it's down hill from there.
From that point on the police keep upping the ante, hoping he's going to back down, which frankly was ridiculous given that they knew he was recording them making up these stupid reasons why he should stop. They got themselves painted into a corner by a 16 year old who played the situation very well, they couldn't just let him carry on because it would have dented their authority but at the same time there really was nothing they could do legally to stop him since nothing he was doing was illegal.
The Disturbing The Peace thing they actually arrested him on at the end was the only reasonable law they quoted and the only disturbance was caused after the police got involved.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, though, you had a photographer that sounded like a total prat, ranting on about his rights and refusing to answer reasonable questions by a police officer (listen to the audio).
Isn't it odd how different people can hear different things. For example, I heard the kid asking why he was being detained (consistently throughout the audio) and the Police trying to find some valid reason ... and failing!
The problem here was the intervention from the first police person (a cadet IIRC). Had the next (real!) copper who rocked up listened to the cadet's reason for intervention and then put him/her? straight and apologised to the kid photographer all would have been well, but he decided to back up the cadet instead! And why? Because Police always (ALWAYS ALWAYS!) stick together!
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:3, Insightful)
It is part of their job to interpret the law since you have to interpret it to apply it,
You're right. It is their job. The problem is, in the US, it has become their mantra to say its NOT their job to interpret the law, that's a judge's job. As such, they arrest and harass for anything and everything. And this is done because that's the PD's policy.
You see, the more people you can get into the system, the easier it is to track and control the public. If the public fears the PD for anything and everything, the public effectively becomes steeple; and that's the intent.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:3, Insightful)
Being polite may be a good idea tactically, but that doesn't justify the original problem of harrassing people taking photos and telling them they shouldn't be doing so. It's not just about whether we have sympathy for this individual person, it's what happens to everyone who might be in that situation of taking photos in public.
Meanwhile, it's okay for London to be covered in CCTV - if that adult cadet officer was so worried about parental permission, perhaps he could show me the parental permission that was given to the CCTV cameras, that were likely to have been filming the entire parade anyway?
It may be illegal to record the police (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you might embarrass them, or catch them doing something they shouldn't. Since they automatically have the advantage in any "he says, she says" kind of encounter, the solution from their perspective is obvious. Many places are making it illegal to photograph or record police [gizmodo.com].
Re:"antagonising the police" isn't a crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of genuine civil liberty is the ability to be as big of a dick to the cops as you want and not get arrested.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong.
A lawful order is directive given by a police officer in the execution of his duties AS DEFINED BY LAW. For instance, if an officer tells you to drop your pants and cluck like a chicken because he's bored, that is NOT a lawful order, and therefore you can not be prosecuted for failure to comply with it. If an officer tells you to get on the ground after he chases you through three backyards while he's investigating a robbery and you don't, or if he tells you to turn down the giant stereo on your back porch because you're violating the local noise ordinence and you don't, you have failed to comply with a lawful order. Big difference.
In this case, had the photographer been in the U.S., he would not have been guilty of failure to follow a lawful order, as the officer had no basis or authority to tell him to stop photographing.
True, but you just said it yourself, it's ABUSED. When an officer cites failure to follow a lawful order, when he had no authority to issue the order, the officer is in the wrong. The solution is to lower our tolerance to abuse of the system, and increase punishment for those abuses.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't get a search warrant. They didn't do jack shit. They just made me stand behind my car for two hours, while they stopped and questioned other drivers...... then I guess they decided I'd been "punished" enough (I was turning red) and let me back in my car. I then continued by vacation.
My trunk was empty other than the mini-spare tire.
The point is that I will not submit to unconstitutional, warrantless searches. I will not voluntarily give up my rights as a liberated person. You ever heard that story about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in the 1940s? I probably would have been part of it. Better to die free, than die licking some soldier's boots begging for mercy. Better to be an Individual than to be a lowly serf.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Or were you just being a pain in the ass for the sake of it?
You know what? You're right. I shouldn't be a pain in the ass. Nobody should. We should just voluntarily march into the gas chambers like polite little nobodies. The government is only looking out for us - why should we question their authority, or protect the Bill of Rights??? /end sarcasm
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:4, Insightful)
How long do you think it takes to get a search warrant? Two hours doesn't seem unreasonable if that's what you asked them to do.
That's not what he did. He asserted his rights and educated them on the law. Asshat. Illegal detainment is - illegal! Asserting your rights does not make your a criminal. No matter how much police want you to believe otherwise.
Or were you just being a pain in the ass for the sake of it?
What an asshat. YOU and people like YOU are the reason the world is turning into a shit hole. Obviously you LOVE fascism! And if you don't, stop acting you do and persecuting those who don't.
Re:Journalist seems like a raging asshole. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm
It is not conscious provocation, it is merely recording the events as and when they happen. I found it interesting that the spokesperson for the Met Police questioned why the journalist had recorded the incident.
The reason for recording said events is that without some form of recording, or without extensive independent witness corroboration, the courts almost always side with the police's version of what happened. regardless of how absurd the police version is.
In this instance we quite clearly hear the Police Officers inventing a series of criminal offences to justify their actions. Without the recording, it would be the police officers word against that of the journalist, he would have been arrested and no doubt charged and finally convicted for a public order offence, despite not actually committing any crime.
It seems there are way too many apologists for the police that are willing to excuse any and almost every action they do.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:3, Insightful)
But it is clear that the kid brought about his own downfall.
He hasn't been convicted of anything, and it smells like the Met will be having to get its chequebook out again. Then he will not have brought about his own downfall, but skillfully enacted Operation Just-Enough-Rope.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually I think nice people like me, who are polite to the police and find the police are polite back are not so much responsible for making the world worse. People who can't express a difference of opinion without being rude from the outset however, certainly do make the world a worse place than it would otherwise be.
Responsibilities are just as important as rights. One of those responsibilities is to treat public servants with respect. If you don't you shouldn't be surprised when they are awkward right back at you.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:3, Insightful)
Responsibilities are just as important as rights. One of those responsibilities is to treat public servants with respect. If you don't you shouldn't be surprised when they are awkward right back at you.
You just proved my point. Being rude is not carte blanche to break the law. And yet that's exactly what you justified. The fact you believe this is about being rude or polite, only further proves I'm right.
Re:"antagonising the police" isn't a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of being an adult is realizing that your actions have consequences.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:3, Insightful)
One of those responsibilities is to treat public servants with respect.
Assuming this, it does not follow that there is a legal requirement to treat public servants with respect. IOW, it may be immoral to mouth off to a police officer, or to mouth off to your neighbour, or to sleep with your neighbour, or to pray/not pray for the soul of your temptress neighbour, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
If I annoy the police officer (e.g. with a snarky remark) then the police officer might be reasonable to annoy me back as any citizen legally can (e.g. with another snarky remark). But there is no reason why his wearing the colour of law should give him the right to do more than any other citizen. Ideally he should learn some fucking restraint - I have immense respect for policemen who show decorum when they're being wound up.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:3, Insightful)
He was being "rude" by refusing to submit to an unauthorized search, but they were merely "awkward" by making him stand in the sun for 2 hours?
I am polite to police officers and agree one should be, but you are still full of it.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:4, Insightful)
What did you have in your trunk by the way? Something you didn't want them to see, Or were you just being a pain in the ass for the sake of it?
People like you are the reason this world sucks so very badly and is only getting worse. Do you really believe that if he had, say, 20 pounds of heroin in his trunk he would have thought that just refusing the search would save him? Would he now be posting about it on slashdot? The problem with stupid people is not only that they don't know they are stupid, but that they assume everyone else is just the same as they are. It was obviously a matter of principle (look it up) to him. Duh squared.
Re:"antagonising the police" isn't a crime (Score:1, Insightful)
Part of being an adult is realizing that your actions have consequences.
Yes, and the consequence of being a verbal douche to the police shouldn't be arrest and harassment by police. It should be everyone that agrees that he's being a douche ostracizing him in some way (dirty looks, walking away, laughing at him, just not engaging with him at all, etc...). I think the argument here is that the consequence for the kid were too high and the consequence for the police (who should be much more adult than a 16 year old and much more professional than a random guy roaming the street) are way too low.
Re:"antagonising the police" isn't a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it is [wikipedia.org].
Re:"antagonising the police" isn't a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Antagonising a police officer and being a dick to them will get you slapped with a 'Intentional harassment, alarm or distress' or a 'breach of the peace' charge which will result in you being arrested and probably fined or cautioned.
It seems to me that if the video going around is representative, it was not the 16-year-old freelance photographer who was being antagonistic. In fact, for a 16-year-old under those circumstances, I think he was impressively calm and polite. Rather, it appears to have been the police officers, including at least one senior officer, who were the trouble-makers. They appear to have been preventing the photographer from working legally, threatening in their behaviour, and physically abusive on several separate occasions, all the while failing to provide information that they are required by law to give while demanding information that they have no legal right to obtain.
Police officers are granted legal powers that most of us are not, and they must be held to a higher standard accordingly. If the video is representative then the senior officer who was throwing his weight around should be bust back down to walking the beat, outright fired, and/or subject to criminal prosecution, depending on how much of the abuse was actually due to him and how much just happened on his watch. I don't care how long he's been in the force or how senior he is: this wasn't an isolated slip, it was a senior officer and several of his subordinates openly and persistently abusing their position of authority. There is absolutely no excuse for that.
Likewise, every other officer who can be identified as supporting this behaviour should be disciplined and/or criminally prosecuted as appropriate. People like that need to be made into examples, and the video posted in every police station in the country.
Oh, and for bonus points, they trotted out some absurd line about terrorism towards the end of the incident. If a senior police officer really considered that boy to be a terrorist threat, I think I would rather take my chances with the terrorists than trust a police service with such poor judgement to protect me! In any case, if ever there was proof that so-called anti-terrorism laws are far too broad and subject to abuse by front-line officers, this is it. Either those laws need repealing, or a mandatory 10 year prison sentence for anyone who abuses them needs to be introduced.
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously illegal search of a trunk is far less harmful than gassing. So is the search ok? Just let that one slide? Ok, how about entering your home? If searching your trunk is ok, then entering your house is only a small step further. And if that's ok, then how about searching your home? How about detaining you without a warrant or cause? How about detention indefinately?
If you're going to selectively enforce your rights, which ones do you enforce? Who chooses? Where do you draw the line on what is 'worth it' and what is not? How long will it be before you realize that you didn't protect your rights and you now find that the precedent is set, and you no longer realistically have them?
Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a light out on your car, the officer could give you a ticket, or he could give you a warning. If youre polite, you'll probably get a warning. If you're rude, you'll likely get a ticket. This seems perfectly reasonable.
While it feels seductively comfortable, I'm not sure it's at all reasonable in a nation of laws. It's as objective as letting off the busty blonde or being harsh on the dusky bearded gent.
IOW, what law did only the impolite person break? Why is it OK for people who are good at showing themselves polite to get away with breaking more laws? The police force is a tool for helping to enforce the law, not a tool to change people's behaviour toward the police.
Perhaps one problem is giving officers apparent powers of insta-justice for many traffic and a few pedestrian behaviours.
Re:"antagonising the police" isn't a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"antagonising the police" isn't a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd have a pretty fucking short fuse too.
Then policeman's not the job for you. Just as you'd not be a paramedic if you broke down crying at every bloody body.
So people are rude and they lie. Imagine you're a computer, processing streams of sound and observed movement. The computer doesn't care if you speak angrily or wave your hands at it all day, and it doesn't react any better if you shower it with rosepetals - it's just processing. Now add human intelligence to enable your processing to excel, but avoid adding human emotion. Don't take it personally.
If you don't find yourself able to do this, there are plenty of jobs where your inability to rein in basic instincts won't affect other people's lives so much.
Re:"antagonising the police" isn't a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if the officer's actions are unlawful to begin with. It's hooligans in uniform that undermine respect for the law more than anything else.
You mean by filming them?