Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: DC chief of police issued guidelines to her officers on citizen phot

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    DC chief of police issued guidelines to her officers on citizen phot

    http://boingboing.net/2012/07/26/dc-...s-extreme.html

    As part of a settlement with Jerome Vorus, who was ordered to stop taking pictures by DC cops, DC chief of police Cathy Lanier has issued guidelines to her officers on citizen photography of police activities. They are extremely excellent guidelines, too, as Timothy Lee writes in Ars Technica:

    "A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media," Chief Lanier writes. The First Amendment protects the right to record the activities of police officers, not only in public places such as parks and sidewalks, but also in "an individualís home or business, common areas of public and private facilities and buildings, and any other public or private facility at which the individual has a legal right to be present."

    Lanier says that if an officer sees an individual recording his or her actions, the officer may not use that as a basis to ask the citizen for ID, demand an explanation for the recording, deliberately obstruct the camera, or arrest the citizen. And she stresses that under no circumstances should the citizen be asked to stop recording.

    That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording "from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties." In that situation, she says, the officer may ask the person to move out of the way, but the officer "shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording."

    She also notes that "a person has the right to express criticism of the police activity being observed."
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    As part off the settlement? Really? Was not needed to be part of the settlement....the plaintiff should have been asking for $$$$$$ and when the case was won then this letter would have been sent out anyway to prevent further lawsuits.

    If you think PDs care about your 1st amendment rights you are mistaken .. they only care about $$$...because if they did care about your rights then this lawsuit would never had existed
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 07-26-2012 at 11:42 PM.

  3. #3
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    As part off the settlement? Really? Was not needed to be part of the settlement....the plaintiff should have been asking for $$$$$$ and when the case was won then this letter would have been sent out anyway to prevent further lawsuits.

    If you think PDs care about your 1st amendment rights you are mistaken .. they only care about $$$...because if they did care about your rights then this lawsuit would never had existed
    They don't care to pay out money either. The money won in lawsuits is not their money, it is the taxpayers, and they know they can always raise taxes. The government agencies in this country are beyond repair, and it is our duty to replace them with constitutional agencies that abide by the Federal and applicable State constitutions.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Well I for one agree with zack - her guidelines are excellent. Applause for her for standing up and implementing what's right.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    They don't care to pay out money either. The money won in lawsuits is not their money, it is the taxpayers, and they know they can always raise taxes. .
    Taxpayers learn of these output of their tax $$$ ... they vote accordingly. It becomes an issue on the campaign trail.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    Now that the lst Amendment is going to be respected in D.C., perhaps we can now address D.C.'s respect (or lack of same) for the 2nd Amendment.........................?

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    Now that the lst Amendment is going to be respected in D.C., perhaps we can now address D.C.'s respect (or lack of same) for the 2nd Amendment.........................?
    If D.C. changed their laws, she might be the one to implement them.

    I'm not holding my breath on D.C. changing it's laws, however. I personally believe D.C. should be downsized to only those buildings and properties which are strictly federal, such as the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court, while allowing all other property to be be returned to Virginia and Maryland, respectively. Although, if I'm not mistaken, "on July 16, 1790, the Residence Act approved the creation of a capital district as permitted by the U.S. Constitution. The District is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Congress and is therefore not a part of any U.S. state."

    Thus, the same problem exists for D.C. as it does for our entire country: We need to vote out all un-Constitutional members of our government.
    Last edited by since9; 07-30-2012 at 12:46 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    . . . which the cops then violated the next day. [url]bad link removd

    Pulled this from the notes in the article. She talked a good game.
    Last edited by MSG Laigaie; 08-14-2012 at 01:31 PM.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697
    msg. your link is missing the rest of the address. all i see is something about pinhole photography.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    214

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697
    ty tb !

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran Cavalryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    308
    It's nice to have this clarified but she only did it because the city and the department got bytch-slapped in a lawsuit, so she gains no points with me.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    If D.C. changed their laws, she might be the one to implement them.

    I'm not holding my breath on D.C. changing it's laws, however.
    Emily Miller's pieces on acquiring a gun in DC and the difficulties thereof caused them to eliminate a lot of the requirements. Heller II is still in the district court and a third amended complaint was filed to eliminate most of the rest.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Well I for one agree with zack - her guidelines are excellent. Applause for her for standing up and implementing what's right.

    Well, yeah. But she stood up for what's right after receiving a court order to do so!
    "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain

    I don't bother with pragmatic statistics while discussing my constitutional rights. The issue is far less complex, to me. Free men should be able to act like free men.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by trailblazer2003 View Post
    Told ya ! Have 1000 memos, they don't care ... either through a) money judgments or b) other actions

    I've had cops tell me I cannot record ... I don't back down ... they ALL back down ... 'cause they know better and that the consequences are there awaiting them if they want a quick lesson.

    They probably sent out a 2nd memo to ignore the first ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-06-2012 at 10:51 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    Actually, if ou want something very specific in your law suit it is better to settle for less money and "added training" or whatever you particularly want.

    If you actually go to court, you MAY get more money (the lawyers absolutely will) but you may not get your change in policy, or "required" training out the the court itself.

    No, some Judge did not order this statement from the DC CoP..it was a settlement...never went as far as to go to court. The person that sued settled for something more valuable to the community than just money in his particular pocket.

    Also, this helps the next guy if the city is sued for the same reason again...it ups the anti considerably...now the officer that violates someone's rights is not just violating their rights but also written policy. very good thing if you want that officer out of a job because he acts like a thug.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    54
    http://www.pixiq.com/article/washing...fiscate-camera

    Metropolitan police in Washington D.C. once again confiscated a man’s camera despite a general order forbidding them from doing do.
    Last edited by HyDef; 08-10-2012 at 10:20 PM.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post

    Also, this helps the next guy if the city is sued for the same reason again...it ups the anti considerably...now the officer that violates someone's rights is not just violating their rights but also written policy. very good thing if you want that officer out of a job because he acts like a thug.
    Policy means little .... unless it would sway a jury to give more $$$ but a previous lawsuit trial would do the same. With a settlement, it means little.

    As we see, policies mean nothing. Lawsuits are all about 1 thing: money. Everybody understands money. I have never sued to get the gov't to stop violating a right .. I sue for $$$ because they violated my right knowing that after a few suits, the gov't will stop w/o a need for a settlement.

    Small towns and cities don't have the money to continue in such manners.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 08-10-2012 at 11:47 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •