• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Video or Photography of Norfolk / VA State police / FBI training exercises prohibited

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
imported post

Dreamer wrote:
ProShooter wrote:
Obviously I dont know for certain, but a guess would be that the 2 hours needed to secure the scene were due to a hostage situation. The Chief stated that there would be hostages/actors. A realistic hostage situation would/could take several hours to diffuse.

Please cite a single civil mass shooting incident in the history of the US where there was an extended hostage situation that lasted more than 40 minutes.



Binghamton, NY - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30030756/ Gunman kills 13 people in a community center. The news article says:

"Thirty-seven people in all made it out of the building, including 26 who hid in the boiler room in the basement, cowering there for three hours while police methodically searched the building and tried to determine whether the gunman was still alive and whether he was holding any hostages, Zikuski said.

Those in the basement stayed in contact with police by cell phone, switching from one phone to another when their batteries ran out, Zikuski said. Others hid in closets and under desks.

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers. They then spent two hours searching the building".

Now in this example, the gunman killed himself, but no one knew that at the time. If people are still alive in the building and its unknown as to whether or not the shooter is still alive, a hostage situation must be assumed. I'm sure there are many more examples of why a hostage situation (or perceived situation) could take 2 hours. I wasnt participating in the exercise, so I can neither defend nor crucify the PD for their tactics. I can however, understandfrom my experiences how a situation like that could take several hours.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

ProShooter wrote:
Dreamer wrote:
ProShooter wrote:
Obviously I dont know for certain, but a guess would be that the 2 hours needed to secure the scene were due to a hostage situation. The Chief stated that there would be hostages/actors. A realistic hostage situation would/could take several hours to diffuse.

Please cite a single civil mass shooting incident in the history of the US where there was an extended hostage situation that lasted more than 40 minutes.



Binghamton, NY - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30030756/ Gunman kills 13 people in a community center. The news article says:

"Thirty-seven people in all made it out of the building, including 26 who hid in the boiler room in the basement, cowering there for three hours while police methodically searched the building and tried to determine whether the gunman was still alive and whether he was holding any hostages, Zikuski said.

Those in the basement stayed in contact with police by cell phone, switching from one phone to another when their batteries ran out, Zikuski said. Others hid in closets and under desks.

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers. They then spent two hours searching the building".

Now in this example, the gunman killed himself, but no one knew that at the time. If people are still alive in the building and its unknown as to whether or not the shooter is still alive, a hostage situation must be assumed. I'm sure there are many more examples of why a hostage situation (or perceived situation) could take 2 hours. I wasnt participating in the exercise, so I can neither defend nor crucify the PD for their tactics. I can however, understandfrom my experiences how a situation like that could take several hours.

You're all missing the BIG PICTURE!

We all know the most important thing is not the hostages lives...It's officer safety.:uhoh:
After all, it's a jungle out there.
:lol:
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

This is the statute they use to coerce, intimidate and harass photographers:

Code of Virginia: § 18.2-186.4. Use of a person's identity with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass another person, to publish the person's name or photograph along with identifying information as defined in clauses (iii) through (ix), or clause (xii) of subsection C of § 18.2-186.3, including identification of the person's primary residence address. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Any person who violates this section knowing or having reason to know that person is a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The sentence shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of six months.
§ 9.1-101. Definitions.
As used in this chapter or in Chapter 23 (§ 19.2-387 et seq.) of Title 19.2, unless the context requires a different meaning:
...
"Law-enforcement officer" means any full-time or part-time employee of a police department or sheriff's office which is a part of or administered by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, and who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the penal, traffic or highway laws of the Commonwealth, and shall include any (i) special agent of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (ii) police agent appointed under the provisions of § 56-353; (iii) officer of the Virginia Marine Police; (iv) conservation police officer who is a full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; (v) investigator who is a full-time sworn member of the security division of the State Lottery Department; (vi) conservation officer of the Department of Conservation and Recreation commissioned pursuant to § 10.1-115; or (vii) full-time sworn member of the enforcement division of the Department of Motor Vehicles appointed pursuant
to §46.2-217. Part-time employees are those compensated officers who are not full-time employees as defined by the employing police department or sheriff's office....
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

user wrote:
This is the statute they use to coerce, intimidate and harass photographers:

Code of Virginia: § 18.2-186.4. Use of a person's identity with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass another person, to publish the person's name or photograph along with identifying information as defined in clauses (iii) through (ix), or clause (xii) of subsection C of § 18.2-186.3, including identification of the person's primary residence address. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Any person who violates this section knowing or having reason to know that person is a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The sentence shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of six months.

So publishing a photo of a named cop is against the law in VA?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
user wrote:
This is the statute they use to coerce, intimidate and harass photographers:

Code of Virginia: § 18.2-186.4. Use of a person's identity with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass another person, to publish the person's name or photograph along with identifying information as defined in clauses (iii) through (ix), or clause (xii) of subsection C of § 18.2-186.3, including identification of the person's primary residence address. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Any person who violates this section knowing or having reason to know that person is a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. The sentence shall include a mandatory minimum term of confinement of six months.
So publishing a photo of a named cop is against the law in VA?

Only if you do it with intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass according to this particular statute.

I vaguely recall see cops mentioned in connection with this sort of thing. Is there another similar statute that expresslyprotects cops?
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

The theory is that the mere act of taking the picture is "harassment" and "intimidation". And that the act of photographing a cop is evidence of intent to publish the cop's personal information along with the picture. These cases never win, it's punishment by attorneys' fees.
 

t33j

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,384
Location
King George, VA
imported post

user wrote:
The theory is that the mere act of taking the picture is "harassment" and "intimidation".  And that the act of photographing a cop is evidence of intent to publish the cop's personal information along with the picture.  These cases never win, it's punishment by attorneys' fees.
Wouldn't that be harassment by the police?
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

t33j wrote:
user wrote:
The theory is that the mere act of taking the picture is "harassment" and "intimidation". And that the act of photographing a cop is evidence of intent to publish the cop's personal information along with the picture. These cases never win, it's punishment by attorneys' fees.
Wouldn't that be harassment by the police?
Boy, you catch on quick! ~ :p
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
imported post

The last time I researched this topic, there were only six such states, now it's doubled.

However, the Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, and Electronic Surveillance Act only applies to the contents of private conversations. Anything spoken in a public place is by definition not "private".
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

user wrote:
SNIP Anything spoken in a public place is by definition not "private".
(heh, heh, heh)

"Your honor, under the state's Sunshine Law/Freedom of Information Act, I can compel the state to create an transcript of the conversation between the detainee and the officer, as long as there is no on-going criminal investigation jeopardized by the release of the information. However, it can be very expensive for me and time-consuming for the state to compel such. I was just saving myself some money and the state some time."

:)
 
Top