Pretend cops bully videographer, videographer wins

Discuss

106 Responses to “Pretend cops bully videographer, videographer wins”

  1. holtt says:

    Takuan, one thing I learned in the past as a moderator was that you had to be very open and permissive of others opinions. Otherwise, as soon as you moderate something, your own integrity gets called into question. “Did he do this because he doesn’t agree with me? I know he has strong opinions from his posts.”

    I might suggest in the future you refer to moderation as “drugging and raping” just, so, you know… it’s in perspective.

  2. holtt says:

    Another way to rephrase it might be, “ask[ed] under which law he’s not allowed to [post light heartedness] there, the bully-boy hisses ‘shut up.’ Twice”

  3. cubey says:

    I think it’s ridiculous how people get up in arms over a security guard DOING THEIR JOB. They are trained to watch for suspicious actions and yet everyone attacks them for doing exactly that. How does it help our security to waste the time of security guards?

  4. cha0tic says:

    @Takuan #67 do you mean This Wasp Knife? As if sticking half a foot of pointy metal in someone wasn’t nasty enough and a knife that needs ammunition? WTF!

  5. SamSam says:

    Although the photographer clearly has a right to film on public property, it is pretty clear to me that he was going out deliberately to get in a fight with the police.

    This would count as “trolling” the police. Note of course that trolling might not always be a bad thing if it’s designed to prove a point.

    He was filming the street. The cop goes by unconcerned. He then focuses in on the cop, and stays on him, even after the cop was getting uncomfortable. When the cop does finally get uncomfortable enough to take the bait and (dumbly) puts his hand on the camera, the photographer immediately starts saying he’s been “assaulted.” Naturally this is not being “assaulted,” but the photographer had been hoping all along that he would be. In the succeeding argument, it’s clear that the photographer has planned all the things he’s going to say to make his case.

    Again, it’s probably good that this kind of trolling goes on to highlight a know problem. Then again, I just have to wonder how many cops he filmed before one of them finally took the bait.

  6. Antinous says:

    Cubey,

    I think that you might have accidentally wandered into the wrong blog. Or are you just trolling?

  7. Takuan says:

    just the clever, innocent principle.

  8. Jake0748 says:

    Cubey,

    Since when is filming or making photos a suspicious activity? How does street photography harm anyone’s security? Pardon my French, but what the fuck are you talking about?

  9. Takuan says:

    (does anybody know this guy? why does he want to be drugged and raped??)

  10. Takuan says:

    it’s actually an old tradition. In those happy, cold war days gone by, the CO2 “ice pick” )intended as a cork screw) was adopted by all sides as a quick, quiet means to silently murder each other. The medulla oblongata shot was classic good form, with solar plexus/aorta a distant second. Ah! the fun we had!

  11. Antinous says:

    Any violation of somebody’s personal space without consent is a common assault.

    I grab people’s asses for a living. Maybe I should add something to the waiver.

  12. Fnarf says:

    Ruckus @52, that’s a great link, but it’s US law. This happened in the UK. The UK version of The Photographer’s Rights is here: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

  13. asuffield says:

    why should that make a reasonable person afraid?

    Probably because it’s done by loud people wearing a uniform that has a history of shooting innocent people without warning.

    Besides, assault has no “reasonable person” test. It is concerned with the beliefs of the actual person. Their beliefs have to be “reasonable” (which basically means “rational” – based on observation and reasoning, not paranoia), but it is what they believed that counts, not what some third party would have believed in their position.

    This is consistent with all crimes against the person. You don’t want to look at whether a reasonable person would have had their leg broken, you look at whether the actual person did have their actual leg broken. These things all fall under the same group of laws.

  14. Spoon says:

    @#29 cubey

    I’ll agree that people go a little overboard and have crazy thoughts about the world falling apart, but you have to admit the two in the video are absolutely horrible at their ‘job’, and that most people would have been turned off of doing something they have every right to do and causes no one any harm, and fooling people into believing they don’t have a given freedom is a really bad thing to happen to society just because two duchebags don’t know how to interact in our civil society.

    It would be a little different if the video wasn’t so damning of the two ‘officers’. Their job might well be to go over, put their hand over the camera, and talk to the guy for a few minutes to see what was going on, and maybe attempt to get him to stop out of some courtesy to a member of the public who has complained, but the officers where jackasses.

    This article reminds me of how ‘How Cops Really Want to Police’ which really frightens me:
    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/how-cops-really-want-to-police/

    especially disturbing are those who think police taking matters into their own hands is ‘good’ because the people ‘appreciate it’.

  15. ROSSINDETROIT says:

    Hey RossinDetroit, what’s up with the steampunk tube powered audio amp you promised us?

    Sorry to be a jerk, but I was SO MUCH looking forward to it.

    Fair question. Thanks for asking. The project has been returned to the Design Committee yet again. The problem is that while I can build just about anything from a phono preamp to a kilowatt class power amp with materials on hand, I’m a bit challenged aesthetically. Here are some pix of a few other tube amps I’ve done.
    If I’m going to go to the considerable trouble to build another amp – goodness knows I don’t NEED any more – I don’t want to ruin it with amateurish aesthetics. I just don’t have the visual vocabulary to make it look Steampunk-y. As you can see from the pix of my other amps, previous designs have been strictly functional for the sake of compactness, safety and ease of build. Making a fancy chassis and brass doo-dads adds considerably to the complexity, and building tube amps is pretty challenging to begin with.
    To give me flexibility in the physical design to do some creative visual features I’m leaning toward a hybrid design: a tube preamp section with big good looking visible tubes on top and a solid state power amp stage hidden inside to provide at least 100W/channel so it can drive real-world speakers. I’d like the final product to be more than an expensive, good looking dust collector. I have the solid state amp modules built already.
    I planned to build this in July and demo it at the Southeast Michigan Audio Club meet in August. I’m still kinda on track to do that.
    As this develops I’ll be describing it on
    AudioKarma.org. Just do a forum search on ‘Boing Boing Steampunk’ and you’ll find it.

  16. Jake0748 says:

    Spoon @33, I really appreciate and agree with most of your comment. But I have to take strong exception to one point. I don’t really think that is is EVER anyone’s JOB to go up to a photographer and put their hand over his/her’s lens. (I guess I could imagine a few exceptions, like in the middle of an active battlefield or something). But it mainly seems that that kind of action would, by definition, be an assault.

  17. arkizzle says:

    Spoon, at the risk of being disemvowelled.. you’re a twat.

    (or really funny, but I’m having trouble convincing myself of that)

  18. asuffield says:

    so if a black person kills someone somewhere at some point then reasonable people will forever be allowed to fear all black people forever? awesome logic!

    Impressive gibberish. The UK police force is known to have a “secret” policy of shooting innocent people without warning if they are suspected of being a terrorist. This policy is called “Operation Kratos”. While we now know that it exists, we still do not know under what circumstances innocent people are subject to summary execution (“suspected of being a suicide bomber” could mean anything), so you have to assume you are at risk any time a member of the police force is present. This is not an extrapolation from past results. This is a documented policy.

    Note also that this is the same police force which has declared photography to be an indication of terrorism. If you are holding a camera and a police officer becomes “suspicious”, there is a very real policy to shoot you without warning.

    “but it is what they believed that counts, not what some third party would have believed in their position.”

    *cough* BULLSHIT *cough* and if otherwise I’m totally going to sick the cops on you for assaulting me on the internet… Where do you live where assault is unprovable? because I want to go there and file a metric crap ton of civil suits.

    More incomprehensible gibberish. I’m guessing that you’re claiming that the millions of assault cases heard in the UK every year are unproven. I can only presume that the total number of assault cases you have observed or reviewed is zero. Proving assault can in some cases be complicated, but it is done every day. It is no more difficult than the usual problem of proving intent, which occurs in most criminal trials, and is approached in the same way.

  19. Antinous says:

    I can imagine an attractive woman walking up to the photographer and with a wink and smile patting the guys cheek and saying ‘would you quit filming me?’

    The absence of people management skills is what amazes me. You can get almost anybody to do almost anything with a little bit of charm. If a scam artist can get people to give him their life savings to buy ant farms, how hard is it to chat up someone with a video camera? If you’re really concerned that someone is creating surveillance tapes for nefarious purposes, wouldn’t you want them to film you? Wouldn’t you want them to have the maximum amount of positive interaction with you? Wouldn’t that be far more likely to let them know that the local constabulary is part of the neighborhood and knows what’s going on around them? These guys are just recruiting for al-Qaeda by pissing everybody off.

  20. Elvis Pelt says:

    Cubey,

    The whole point of this is that photography is not a suspicious activity.

    Neither is understanding the law or standing up for your ever-dwindling rights, whether in the UK or the USA.

    Also, if anyone is wasting time, it’s the pseudo-cops.

  21. cubey says:

    I think I might have made my point badly, and accidentally gave the impression that I was trolling.

    I agree that the guards in question *might* have overreacted to a person with a camera, but we should keep in mind that they were probably ordered to do so.

    Even if it’s wrong to ban photography in public spaces (which I think it is), one has to ask whether it’s worth wasting the security guard’s time over a point of policy? The guard is not personally responsible for policy and has no input on making policy. They are doing their job as they have been instructed. If they have been told to go after photographers, then from what I saw in the video clip, they did their job. The fault lies with their policy-makers, not with the guards themselves.

  22. Antinous says:

    Cubey,

    Every time these things get to a higher-up, it turns out that the guards imagined the rule. Every time.

  23. Spoon says:

    @#34 Jake0748

    I’ll completely agree that it wouldn’t be part of their job, but I’m not sure I, or the law, would agree with you on the assault bit.

    I wouldn’t consider touching another person (or their property) as assault unless the person doing the touching is intending to, or should reasonably know that it could, cause harm to them (or their property), or if they’ve asked/told you to stop…

  24. Takuan says:

    the definition and doctrine varies by jurisdiction.
    But most democracies accept illegal touching as assault.

  25. Jake0748 says:

    Spoon, IANAL, but its my understanding that if you intentionally put your hands on someone without their permission (and I’m not counting if its unintentional, unavoidable, by mistake, etc.), then its an assault (or assault & battery, or just battery, or solar cell, or whatever).

    What’s the difference if someone comes up to you on the street and puts their hand over your camera, or slaps you in the face? Either way its unwanted physical contact.

  26. fnc says:

    It’s pretty obvious it’s the extended filming of the “officer” that sets him off. Which I think denotes a state of mind exactly opposite what it should be. ANYONE in a position of authority should understand that they are a figure working for the public and thus the public has a right to watch them at work. The best possible response for the officer would have been to wave and continue on as if nothing were out of sorts, but mentally note that someone was filming them and keep an eye out for an increase in that specific activity. This would have resulted in a)good PR and b) possibly useful information.

    All that results from paying undue attention to photographers is that the “bad people” will just wind up using photographers as a tool to attract attention away from activities that are actually suspicious. Or attractive women work too, apparently.

  27. fnc says:

    And by the way, I’ve attracted attention from the police while practicing low light photography along a street in an unpopulated area. But the police officer very quickly decided that there was no reason for concern and went on his way. I actually felt ~safer~ for the experience, knowing that officials were keeping their eyes open, but also being reasonable about what they would direct their limited energies towards.

  28. Takuan says:

    pure assumption. In any case , the Quasi-cop is guilty, guilty, guilty!

    Now, this is how I would do it: Multiple compatriots: Point man with break away camera starts filming as obviously as possible. Little old lady (co-conspirator) points out videoegrapher to cop – and fades away very quickly and quietly. Once cop takes bait, camera man pointed ignores him and turns away still filming to elicit the raising of a hand (whispered slur doesn’t hurt here if no chance of anyone else hearing it). As soon as cop raises hand, cameraman turns suddenly and jams camera into cop. Breakaway camera comes apart spectacularly and other agent in crowd screams “The cop hit him! The cop hit him!” – and fades away quickly. Camera man bends over and breaks concealed blood-pack on forehead and stands up with hands over face screaming “Why did you hit me!” This is all being filmed by several other confederates in crowd by now. Cop is now in crowd of witnesses that will all swear he struck the camera man and smashed his camera, any actual witnesses are long gone, everything is on tape from several angles. Other agents make calls from either public phones or pick-pocketed cellphones (taken during distraction) to public media about a “police riot” happening where the cops have fired in to the crowd. This is the cue for the fires to be started in public wastebaskets and a few windows smashed with rocks. All operatives at this level to perform one action and immediately leave. That ought to get things going. All video to be immediately uploaded to the web and spread at once.

  29. Spoon says:

    @#88 asuffield

    Do you think I’ve been claiming that the person who was harmed needed to have acted reasonably? because I was saying the person who did the harm had to be unreasonable.

    It’s reasonable people who say ‘yeah that girl was frightened, and it would have been avoided if that guy had acted reasonably’ not ‘that girl said she was frightened! send the guy to jail!!’

    I’ll also note that it’s not ‘well he was holding a camera when he saw the police officer, we have nothing to do but send the cop to jail for assault’ it’s ‘that guy’s nuts, he believes he will be shot on sight by police if they see him holding a camera, he really needs some professional help’

  30. justin says:

    Everyone knows terrorists fund their networks by selling stock footage of busy London streets. Good on the cops for trying to keep the money out of the jihadist’s hands.

  31. Fnarf says:

    The real problem with your notion, Cubey, is that it’s not actually up to either the guards OR the higher-ups what “suspicious activity” means. Britain doesn’t quite have the same constitutional protections that Americans do, but even there, the law is absolutely clear: just taking pictures, or videos, of a public street is not a crime. It’s just not.

    That fact doesn’t change just because a security guard, or even a real cop, or even a real cop’s supervisor, or even the Prime Minister or the frigging Queen, decides it ought to be.

    The guard here is enforcing a nonexistent policy. Now, maybe he’s just a dope who’s making up his own rules as he goes along, or maybe his boss told him “don’t let any of these people start videoing, for Christ’s sake”. It doesn’t matter. It’s NOT against the law, and it’s NOT a violation of anyone’s security.

    And the guard in the video is, in fact, himself committing what should be considered (in a rational world) a serious offense.

    When a criminal commits an offense, he’s just acting on his own behalf. When an officer of the law, whether or not he’s a volunteer or some other kind of reduced status, commits an offense, he is using the POWER OF THE STATE to commit it, which makes it much more serious. This photographer here has been abused BY THE STATE.

  32. arkizzle says:

    It’s not about “ever touches someone ever”. It’s about unwarranted physical contact.

    I didn’t think the ‘bonus points’ made your challenge ridiculous, your words did that well enough on their own. You are stretching the parameters beyond reasonable circumstance to make a miniscule point, just to say “see, I’m right”.

    If you can’t see a difference between saving the life of someone (and having to touch them in the process, presumably being granted tacit permission to touch them as they scream for help) and a stranger walking up to you and grabbing you or your property, then you are just trolling the point.

    My last words on this topic:

    An assault and battery is the unlawful
    touching of another
    . See Gnadt v.
    Commonwealth, 27 Va. App. 148, 151, 497
    S.E.2d 887, 888 (1998). Assault and battery
    is “the least touching of another, willfully
    or in anger
    .” Roger D. Groot, Criminal
    Offenses and Defenses in Virginia 29 (4th
    ed. 1998). The defendant does not have to
    intend to do harm; a battery may also be
    “done in a spirit of rudeness or insult.”
    Id. (footnote omitted). The touching need
    not result in injury. See Gnadt, 27
    Va. App. at 151, 497 S.E.2d at 888. A
    touching is not unlawful if the person
    consents or if the touching is justified or
    excused
    .”
    JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS
    __

    Assault by striking, beating or wounding under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(4) is the same as a simple battery.It does not require proof of a certain degree of injury or specific intent. See United States v. Guilbert, 692F.2d 1340, 1344 (11th Cir.1982). ” ‘The least touching of another’s person wilfully, or in anger, is a battery.’” United States v. Stewart, 568 F.2d 501, 505 (6th Cir.1978) (quoting 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries onthe Law of England § 120 (E. Christian ed. 1822))
    US v. Zoilo CHAVEZ
    __

    The least touching of another’s person wilfully, or in anger, is a battery: for the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it: every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner.
    William Blackstone, from Blackstone’s Commentaries as quoted in law.
    __

    If you are actually interested in finding out more (as opposed to having an argument), be my guest to trawl through the cases referenced in each instance above.. I’m not arsed.

  33. complicity says:

    @5: If a PCSO also volunteers as a special constable, what powers does he have? He’s grinding, so does he level up?

  34. arkizzle says:

    I would hope that reasonable people wouldn’t call me putting my hand over the camera of someone who is filming me after saying ‘could you please stop, why are you filming me?’ an ‘offensive touch’

    1. If you touch me or my equipment (no, Antinous..) I will be offended. How on earth do you have the right to put your grubby little hands on my thousand-pound lense (or indeed my £50 camera phone), or me?

    2. You certainly get to say ‘could you please stop filming me’, but not to demand ‘why’ I’m filming. And I have absolutely no obligation to answer either question or request, as we are in public. If it is a persistant issue where you are unfairly targetted, you can probably get a restraining order (although the paparazzi may disagree), but for a one-time met-in-the-street occurrance, there’s not much to do.

    So, as a reasonable person, I would call it an ‘offensive touch’. There is no need to touch; just talk.

  35. Antinous says:

    I’d need to see your equipment to decide if I want to touch it. Perhaps X-Tube.

  36. Modusoperandi says:

    Fnarf “The guard here is enforcing a nonexistent policy.”
    Apparently you’ve never heard of the Department of Nonexistent Policies. It’s right across the hall from the Dept of Silly Walks.

  37. catastrophegirl says:

    @#38 Spoon
    http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html#2

    assault doesn’t even have to involve touching, just causing fear of imminent peril is enough

    and battery includes touching someone without their permission whether you harm or even intend to harm them or not

    and

    “A police officer is privileged to apply the threat of force, or if necessary to apply actual force, in order to effect a lawful arrest.”

    but they key terms there are ‘police officer’ and ‘lawful arrest’

  38. Takuan says:

    please, anyone who quotes law, quote where so we can tell if it is meaningful

  39. squirrel says:

    Pretend cops? Come on. The job of a PCSO is very different to a regular police officer. I think it’s unfair to say that they fancy themselves as real cops. They may have gone about speaking to you in the wrong way, and their attitude may need changing, but they’re only doing their job. If they thought you looked suspicious filming people, then they have every right to ask you what you were doing. Maybe if you were more mature about the whole thing and spoke to the officers and answered their questions then they would’ve left you alone. Instead you’re looking to cause trouble and make them look bad.

    If you have a problem with a particular officer, then why don’t you make a complaint and show the police your footage instead of insulting an initiative that has made a lot of people feel safer in the community.

  40. noen says:

    If a scam artist can get people to give him their life savings to buy ant farms, how hard is it to chat up someone with a video camera? If you’re really concerned that someone is creating surveillance tapes for nefarious purposes, wouldn’t you want them to film you?

    This is why I don’t think any of this is really about security and why I keep trying to look behind the theater for the real reason. My best guess is that it has more to do with power not liking “the gaze” turned in on itself.

  41. Spoon says:

    @#100 arkizzle

    Are you kidding? Your case is an officer actually assaulting someone… not ‘touching’ them which isn’t necessarily assault… If you want to prove me wrong find case law that shows police can’t touch anyone ever, preferably it would be a conviction of an officer who picked up a little girl up to protect her from a rabid dog (bonus points if the officer lost partial or complete use of their leg in the incident)

    Again: it’s not necessarily illegal for a police officer to touch someone, even if they aren’t arresting them… and if that wasn’t complicated enough to confuse you heres some extra information: the police can also use excessive force while making an arrest which also would count as assault! so even if they did “, at that time, have any intent or purport to arrest him.” it could still be assault!

  42. asuffield says:

    I wouldn’t consider touching another person (or their property) as assault unless the person doing the touching is intending to, or should reasonably know that it could, cause harm to them (or their property)

    It is in fact, by definition, an assault – specifically, a common assault. Any violation of somebody’s personal space without consent is a common assault. Under English law, even the threat of such violation can be an assault (although this one’s trickier, it only applies under certain circumstances). All such assaults are summary offences with a maximum fine of £5000 or six months jail. For a minor infraction like this one, the fine would likely be in the region of £100, if he bothered to report it.

    Police forces are never exempted from assault unless they are placing you under arrest. If they don’t arrest you, they cannot use force against you in any form, except for the same self-defence provisions that apply to anybody else (“reasonable force” only, genuine belief of an imminent attack on their person) and similar things – they have no special powers other than arrest, and these PCSOs don’t even have that one.

    It is also important to note that assault is not causing actual harm, but rather causing somebody to believe harm is imminent. The act of causing harm itself is the crime of “battery”. They usually go together, but in this case no actual harm was done, so it’s only assault and not battery. English law is unusual in that it doesn’t use battery much – the assault is considered to be the real crime.

  43. Fnarf says:

    @43, the Department of Redundancy Department already has this area covered, so it’s good to see other departments taking charge as well. There can never be too many cooks, or too many policemen.

  44. Takuan says:

    I’m going to take an aluminum lens hood and put a razor edge on the outer circumference of the barrel. The next time someone tries to put a hand over it: cookie cutter! Maybe roll it in powdered sulphuric acid before hand. Or wire it to a BIG flash unit and taser them – could always blame it on a short circuit. Or how about a modified SeaWasp knife? Blow their grubby little mitt up like a balloon.

  45. Manny says:

    Someone mentioned the Union Station (DC) video and that reminded me to post something. I work across the street, so I went over to have a look myself. The place where the video was being shot overlooked the Amtrak part of the facility, where videography is allowed. To me, however, the spot seemed to be in the mall part of the facility, which has posted signs saying that they have the right to ask you to stop.

    I might be wrong about exactly where the boundary is, but I think it is reasonable to cut the rentacop some slack on this. This doesn’t excuse him for handling it so badly, of course.

  46. Antinous says:

    It’s privately managed public property. And even public spaces on private property, like the communal areas of malls, have often been regarded by US courts as de facto public property for photography purposes.

  47. arkizzle says:

    Spoon, you are obstinately arguing something you (clearly) know nothing about, to people who actually do know something about it. (I’m not including myself in that number) Here are some relevant links I found..

    RE:
    Wood v DPP

    Times, May 23, 2008. Also sourced as a transcript: 2008 WL 2033395

    QBD (Admin)

    Judgment Date: 14 May 2008

    From ukpoliceonline.co.uk:

    “Wood v DPP [2008] QBD” recently became a stated Case Law.

    Where a Police Officer takes hold of a person’s arm with no intention of arresting that person at that time, that action amounts to an unlawful assault. A police officer has no more right to lay hands on someone than any other member of the community.

    “Mr Bowden, on behalf of the appellant, submits trite law that a police officer is not acting in the execution of his duty if he seeks to restrain someone either when he has no grounds to arrest him, or when he is not purporting to arrest him, but merely to detain him or otherwise restrain him. In the latter situations, a police officer has no more right to lay hands on someone than any other member of the community. The person so restrained is entitled to use reasonable force to free himself.”
    __

    From policespecials.com:
    Outcome: Appeal allowed

    Abstract: Police officers committed a technical assault if they restrained a person but did not, at that time, have any intent or purport to arrest him. In the instant case, the defendant’s conviction for offences of assaulting police officers and of threatening behaviour were therefore quashed.

  48. arkizzle says:

    Takuan #98, the fade-away characters make this perfect!

  49. kitobor says:

    I especially like the part where the PCSO says “You’re not a tourist…”

    He seems to imply that a Londoner filming the streets of London is committing some sort of offence, but the thousands of photos and videos taken by tourists every day are completely acceptable!

  50. Spoon says:

    @#93 asuffield

    OK YES YES, it’s how a reasonable person sees the actions of the defendant, not how a reasonable person would act in the defendants shoes… I’ve got to say you’re about as bad at getting your point across as I try to be.

    as for your little:
    “(This one clearly falls under “carelessness”; all regular police are clearly told that they may not employ any kind of force unless the subject is under arrest, so they knew they shouldn’t be doing that)”

    At what point did all touching become force? and at what point did all force become assault? are all regular police clearly told by an internet lawyer that any touching of any person not under arrest will make the person feel as if harm where imminent?

    He may have ‘carelessly’ broken the rules of the particular police force he is on which may go something like ‘don’t swear at anyone, only call people sir or mam, only touch them if you’re going to arrest them’ but just because something can get an officer fired doesn’t mean it’s necessarily illegal… (and sadly vice versa)

  51. arkizzle says:

    X-Tube? Sorry, my contract won’t allow me to appear on non-affiliate sites.

    You may catch my action, on BigJunk.com..

    ..turns out bigjunk.com is an actual site, that redirects to a much more interesting fiasco (not featuring my tool)

  52. Jake0748 says:

    Ross @86 – OK, good answer. ;) I’m glad you didn’t just give up or forget about it. I’ll keep my eyes peeled. Keep up the good work.

  53. ROSSINDETROIT says:

    Maybe roll it in powdered sulphuric acid before hand. Or wire it to a BIG flash unit and taser them -

    That’s a good one. You’d need a metal rim on the hood split into two electrically insulated sections. Wire the two sections to the flash unit’s high voltage. It would work like the DIY Taser noted here a few weeks back. Someone puts their hand on your lens and you hit the flash button and give them a handful of high voltage.
    BTW, anyone who does this: rock on but you didn’t hear it from me.

  54. Antinous says:

    I prefer my junk a little bigger.

  55. Takuan says:

    how about spring loading the cookie cutter? Or using a blank shotgun shell (Like in the old shark Bangsticks) that drives the cutter when it’s pressed onto a fixed firing pin? The InstantKarmaCamera!

  56. shavenwarthog says:

    working “1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual” graphic:

    http://abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/19908/

  57. noen says:

    Do you even have elections in the UK any more? Didn’t Brown call them off? I’d be more worried about that if I were you. I mean it has to be obvious by now what is going on in the US, the UK, Canada, France. Having a bit of theater with mall cops might be satisfying but in the long run it won’t be enough.

  58. prentiz says:

    they’re not real cops, but deputied volunteers who fancy themselves real ones

    I think you’re confusing PCSOs with special constables. The latter are volunteers who carry out policing in their spare time for no pay (which many people think is a great community-minded thing to do). They have the same training, equipment and powers as normal police officers. They’re kind of like the Territorial Army or National Guard, but police rather than soldiers.

    These goons were PCSOs – a kind of cut rate police, or upscale traffic warden, invented by the Government as a cheap alternative to putting more real police officers on the street. They have only a very limited amount of training and less rigorous selection, but have no powers of arrest…

  59. tengu99 says:

    He’s just lucky he wasn’t filming in the U.S… he would have been tazered and in plastic cuffs.

  60. Anonymous says:

    Whilst I don’t doubt that there is a lot of mis-comprehension in the security sector at the moment as to the lawfulness of videotaping and photography in public places some of the comments shown here show the woeful lack of understanding as to the position the PCSOs occupy.

    A member of my family is a PCSO and I can say that they aren’t all little hitlers. They are often forced into a difficult position due to the lack of power given to them, indeed it’s not uncommon for police forces to use them as substitute officers (wrongly). When used correctly PCSOs are able to provide a valuable benefit to our overburdened police force it’s only when it goes wrong that the PCSOs role is compromised.

    Hope thats not to much of a rant!

  61. buddy66 says:

    @87

    He’s probably really funny; we just don’t get it. I’ve learned not to take too seriously anybody who uses the word ‘awesome’ for anything less than a live volcano or a meteor shower.

  62. Takuan says:

    any follow up on this yet? Did that idiot get fired or not?

  63. pork musket says:

    Absolutely ridiculous. I’m glad there are people that know their rights and are willing to defend them, even in the face of ‘authority’ figures.

    It does make a bit nervous about the next few generations of Brits and Americans that grow up where abuses like this are commonplace… truly an erosion of rights that’s convenient to ignore over a long period of time, but with very real consequences.

  64. Fran Six says:

    One of the major concerns of the atomic age generation (meaning wwii) is that the widespread advance of narcissism in society would lead to another fascist state. However, watching the video, I disagree that narcissism is at the heart of jackboot authority. I believe it will be the widespread advance of borderline-ism which will lead to a fascist state.

    Its just as much borderline-ism to tell someone to shut up and interrogate them for the use of a camera in public as it is to attract authority figures with the express purpose of challenging and attracting security to one’s self.

    Aside from that, you will never see the paparazzi come under these kinds of restrictions.

  65. raisedbywolves says:

    @ 33:

    Wow, that Freakonomics piece was absolutely fascinating. I’ve never heard of any of those things happening. Frontier justice in the city.

    I can understand the cops’ frustrations when it comes to domestic violence though. Used to have a neighbor who would beat up his wife. My roommates and I called the police all the time – but the guy would convince his wife to lie and say they’d been watching a movie with people screaming, and that her bruises just came from falling down the stairs.

    Yeah… If a cop had taken him out in front of the building and shined his lights on that asshole for everyone to see, I think we would’ve been overjoyed.

  66. dequeued says:

    Aha!

    I kept thinking “Dwight Schrute” in real life.

  67. GraemeM says:

    Whilst I am saddened by the current erosion of privacy in the name of saving us from terrorism, and the fact that most western governments are reaping rewards by criminalising anybody that has enough money to pay but not enough to fight back (that’s my soapbox piece for today).

    Watch the “officer” at the start, he is walking past and shows no sign of concern. As he approaches he becomes the subject of the shot, as he is about to walk past you can see the cogs in his head whirring and then he becomes objectionable.

    He has overreacted but I think that he did feel threatened and then had his authority questioned. This could have ended worse very easily as the attitude of the photographer in my opinion was antagonising.

    Oh, in the UK the police do not have to know the law (nobody can know all the law there is just too much of it) they just have to suspect that a law has been broken. I guess this is the same in most countries.

  68. koolkev says:

    Is England importing Burmese or Chinese security. That security guy may have been a former official in a not so free country. I think the thing that got this out is the large number of people around. If there were only the camera person and the official I can see a different outcome.

    Good work on sticking to your rights and not giving up.

  69. ruckus says:

    This link might be useful. It gives a pdf of a “Photographer’s Rights” (though it appears to be about 2 years old, and I honestly couldn’t tell you what’s changed since then) on a single page. Kind of like a “Know Your Rights” pamphlet (as the site explains)- you could carry it in your pocket!

    http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

  70. Pope Ratzo says:

    This isn’t a joke. Those of you in your twenties and thirties are going to face some very hard decisions about whether you’re going to stand up or whether you’re just going to let a corporatized security regime control your lives.

    And standing up is not going to be fun. It’s going to mean civil disobedience, general strikes, saying “No” when you need to say “Yes” to get a job, to make a living. It may mean paying less attention to that 50″ TV and Xbox that you put on your credit card.

    Remember those brave young people who stood in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square? That’s the kind of courage it’s going to take if your future is going to be anything but an authoritarian dystopia. Maybe you’d rather be watched and told what to do and where to go and how to act as long as you have those shiny consumer electronics. But the window of opportunity where the decision is yours to make is rapidly closing.

  71. asuffield says:

    Do you think I’ve been claiming that the person who was harmed needed to have acted reasonably? because I was saying the person who did the harm had to be unreasonable.

    You are wrong. Assault is the other way around. The actus reus (action that forms the crime) is to cause a person to have a genuine belief that harm is imminent. The mens rea (thought that forms the crime) is to either intend to cause this, or to cause it through carelessness or negligence. If both of these occur then it’s assault, period. There is no test for whether the criminal’s actions are “reasonable”. There is no real test for “reasonable” anywhere (if the person believes harm is imminent because they’re paranoid, and you had no way to know this, then there is no mens rea; if you did know it and used it to scare them, it is assault – this is not the “reasonable person” test, it’s just how the law is written).

    (This one clearly falls under “carelessness”; all regular police are clearly told that they may not employ any kind of force unless the subject is under arrest, so they knew they shouldn’t be doing that)

  72. Santa's Knee says:

    Pope Ratzo wrote:

    “Remember those brave young people who stood in front of tanks in (Tienanmen) Square?”

    You mean the ones who were slaughtered by the thousands? Yeah…

  73. Spoon says:

    #104 arkizzle

    See, I read ‘”A police officer has no more right to lay hands on someone than any other member of the community.”‘ as meaning a police officer can’t do -MORE- (I wish I could add -MORE- emphasis) than any other member of the public… and not ‘a police officer is breaking the law if he ever touches anyone ever’

    Now again, find some case law that says a police officer (or since we’ve broken it down to: anyone) is unable to touch anyone else ever…. and this time I won’t give ‘bonus points’ since that apparently made you think the challenge was ‘ridiculous’ and that I was throwing up straw men…

    Honestly, do you believe that a lack of ‘pressing charges’ is the only thing that would save a hero (from the definition of the word) from going to jail?! Or do you think laws are written to allow for common people to do what we wish to be common things?… actually just ignore this paragraph because you’re going to blow it off anyway….

  74. Takuan says:

    so you’re suggesting craven surrender?

  75. Cragsavage says:

    Mark, Mark, Mark…you already posted this snippet of stupid authoritarianism…

    http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/27/current-tv-on-photo.html

    Meaning 1 of 3 things

    1) You’re a busy man and can’t be expected to be perfect.
    2) Your brain slug is beginning to affect your memory
    3) I pay too much attention to Boingboing and need to get a life.

    I suspect a combination of 1 and 3 is accurate. But secretly I’m hoping it’s number 2.

  76. SpookyInteraction says:

    Nanny-state meets surveillance-state, with the predictably ugly result.

  77. tallulahcrackersJ says:

    are we free? or is it an illusion?

  78. Santa's Knee says:

    Takuan, there are things worth dying for – is this among them?

  79. Takuan says:

    4) he knows he posted it and reposted it because it is important and worth making sure as many people as possible know about it.

  80. Takuan says:

    Standing up for your basic freedoms and rights in the face of petty, illegal “authority”. If yoiu can’t tell some hobby bobby to shove it up his criminal ass, what chance do have when the real gestapo comes?

  81. jccalhoun says:

    It is disturbing that we can’t seem to photograph in public without getting hassled.

    That being said, man this video is irritating. Is all of Current television so smug and lame?

  82. Jake0748 says:

    Hey RossinDetroit, what’s up with the steampunk tube powered audio amp you promised us?

    Sorry to be a jerk, but I was SO MUCH looking forward to it.

  83. Anonymous says:

    @Prentiz

    A PCSO can arrest people, as can any citizen in the UK. The proviso for what is properly called an Any Person’s Arrest is that you actually have to have witnessed the crime being committed and that crime, upon first conviction, would carry a term of 5 years imprisonment or more. You must also call the police, you must inform the person that they are under arrest and the person has to be restrained – a hand on the shoulder is sufficient.

  84. Takuan says:

    (Shhh! don’t shake his elbow, he’s gusti-creating)

  85. Cragsavage says:

    Jeez Takuan…way to step on my lightheartedness…

    And in reference to your previous question – No, of course this PCSO did not get fired. As a general rule the police do not get fired. They especially do not get fired for acting like jumped up little fascists.

    The Independent Police Complaints Commission is one of the most pointless, ineffectual and self-serving public bodies in the UK. Check the handling of the Jean Charles De Menezes case. Nothing much happened there – and they’d shot an innocent man 8 times in the back of the head.

    No-one watches the watchmen.

  86. noen says:

    We understand the “position” that PCSO’s are in Any-mouse. We just don’t think it’s an excuse.

  87. jhum101 says:

    I’m pretty curious to hear the dialogue between “Shut up! Shut up!”, and when they walked away. Was it along the lines of: “Fine, I don’t even care!”?

  88. Takuan says:

    and that is why this should be reposted again and again – and that is why you can “die for” your little freedoms or end up really dying for your real freedoms

    and I don’t call that stepping on your lightheartedness, more like drugging and raping it.

  89. Cragsavage says:

    well…that’s 50% good and 50% bad…

    Which seems like pretty good odds…

    Bring on the drugs and the rape…

  90. Takuan says:

    @76 A defense then if you please; how do they serve?

  91. drblack says:

    I hope groups of people in the US and UK begin gathering in public places with cameras and taking pictures en mass.
    Most people are unaware of how draconian our societies have become,at least in the USA.
    If hundreds or thousands of people start taking pictures as a group it will raise awareness of the tyranny and make it impossible to stop.
    A person with evil in their minds could easily hide a camera.
    I can’t wait for the first rich tourist to be brutally arrested.
    The Police and governmnet are the greatest risk to Freedom in the UK and USA.

  92. Spoon says:

    @#40 Jake0748

    Generally it’s more about what a reasonable person thinks isn’t it? I can imagine an attractive woman walking up to the photographer and with a wink and smile patting the guys cheek and saying ‘would you quit filming me?’… I can also see a huge bear walking up and damaging the lens with his mighty paw while letting out an earthshaking roar… I believe the former, unlike the latter, would be acceptable in a reasonable society (and would get you arrested in saudi arabai)

    @#44 catastrophegirl

    The link says ‘an offensive touching’ I would hope that reasonable people wouldn’t call me putting my hand over the camera of someone who is filming me after saying ‘could you please stop, why are you filming me?’ an ‘offensive touch’

    @#46 asuffield

    Sure, but the law also requires that a reasonable person see it as “causing somebody to believe harm is imminent.” and I would really consider that as “harming” them in what I wrote above.

    If some dude was filming you as you where walking by, and I mean -really- filming you like the camera man in the video was, and it made you stop and say ‘can you stop filming me, why are you filming me?’ who exactly is doing the assaulting? how does putting your hand over the camera lens and motioning that it go down make you the bad guy? why should that make a reasonable person afraid?

  93. arkizzle says:

    Are you kidding?

    Spoon, are you? The statement by the judge makes reference to the action of “lay[ing] hands on someone”, generically. It’s not just about the specific circumstances of the case being dealt with. The point is made clearly:

    A police officer has no more right to lay hands on someone than any other member of the community.

    That’s it, no more.

    Regarding your ridiculous challenge, I imagine nobody feels like pressing charges when someone saves their life. You are really reaching here.

    And what you say about “the police can also use excessive force while making an arrest which also would count as assault!” is a strawman with no bearing, excessive force in the course of duty has little to do with unwarranted physical contact.

  94. Spoon says:

    @#58 asuffield

    “Probably because it’s done by loud people wearing a uniform that has a history of shooting innocent people without warning.”

    So it’s about history? so if a black person kills someone somewhere at some point then reasonable people will forever be allowed to fear all black people forever? awesome logic!

    “but it is what they believed that counts, not what some third party would have believed in their position.”

    *cough* BULLSHIT *cough* and if otherwise I’m totally going to sick the cops on you for assaulting me on the internet… Where do you live where assault is unprovable? because I want to go there and file a metric crap ton of civil suits.

    @#64 arkizzle

    if you where filming me I would just call the cops and have you arrested for assault, because ‘I feel I’ve been violated!!!’ and you would get your thousand pound camera taken away forever since you want to live in a society where someone touching your camera gets sent to the pokey it’s not far off from getting sent there for ‘STEALING MY SOUL, HE WAS STEALING MY SOUL!%!#^$@#$^’

    @#67 Takuan

    Better not, you would get sent to jail if someone actually touched it…

  95. djam says:

    The irony; an enforcer who actually doesn’t know the law!

  96. Antinous says:

    Speaking of soul stealing, when I was in Egypt and wanted to get a picture of someone without causing a ruckus, I would focus on a building and pretend to fiddle with the camera until they walked in front of me, then snap. I stole many souls. I left the bodies for Takuan.

  97. Takuan says:

    you’ll never take me alive you dirty coppers!

  98. Mark Frauenfelder says:

    You know — I remember watching it, but I wasn’t sure if I blogged it before. I searched the blog and couldn’t find it, so I posted it. My apologies! (Darn that brain slug.)

  99. Elvis Pelt says:

    I’m guessing it’s the awesome uniform that makes dudes like this (and mall security or those rentacops in the Union Station video) flip out and flex their tiny fascism muscles. I can’t understand the impulse. I’m glad I can’t understand the impulse.

  100. Cragsavage says:

    An apology? Ridiculous. I can’t remember what I did five minutes ago…let alone last month. But then…my own Brain Slug has been with for many years now…so I guess I’ve kind of got an excuse…

Leave a Reply