But I’ve been known to let things slide, including copyright violations of my photos by a certain blogger who probably wouldn’t be stuck in traffic if he knew how to stand up for his rights.
This post is for you, Rick, in the hopes that you realize that dissent is sometimes the purest form of patriotism.
Not that you’ll be surprised, but this was not the first time I’ve been called an arrogant prick. And it won’t be the last. Hell, my own friends have called me that only for me to take it as a compliment.
The truth is, I get annoyed when people try to squash my First Amendment rights, something that has happened with way too much frequency over the years since “9/11 changed everything.”
I get irritated when cops and federal agents tell me I am not allowed to photograph buildings as I am standing on a county-funded bridge.
I get confrontational with security guards who tell me I am not allowed to photograph buildings from a public sidewalk.
And I get snippy when police officers order me to walk away from a crime scene because I happen to have a camera.
I spent too many years writing and shooting for daily newspapers, mostly covering law enforcement on the New Mexican/Mexican border as well as in San Bernardino and Phoenix — three areas with significant crime issues — to not know how to photograph a police investigation without interfering.
Do I piss off cops? At times, but not intentionally.
I am a very aggressive photojournalist who seeks the truest picture. I get as close as I can to my subject without crossing the line. If I arrive at a scene before the yellow ribbon is up, I get close enough without interfering. I allow the cops to do their job and hope they allow me to do my job.
Of course, that is not always the case.
I’m sure all those security guards, police officers and federal agents who have tried to squash my First Amendment rights over the years viewed me as “an arrogant prick” when I stood up for my rights, including that one uniformed bimbo from Homeland Security who tried to tell me that it’s illegal to photograph federal agents.
So you’re in good company, Rick.
But this is not to say that all police officers are this way. Most officers, especially those with a few years of experience under their belt, are fully aware of photographers’ rights (unfortunately not as much down here as in other parts of the country). They have no issue of being photographed because they have nothing to hide.
Maybe someday I’ll scan and post my photo collection of Border Patrol Agents searching cars along the Mexican border. Those federal agents didn’t seem to have a problem understanding the First Amendment. Then again, they had more pressing issues to deal with than with a curious photojournalist.
Funny thing is, Rick, when I first discovered your blog after reading your post on my arrest, I figured you were another right-wing fascist blogger from Miami. Another Parallel to the Ricky Ricardo cyber brigade.
But as I read more, I realized you were not one of the ignorant 30 percenters who still insist that the shrub is doing a heck of a job. You are, in fact, quite progressive.
So it’s a little confusing how you failed to see the dangers of a society that allow police to arrest people for photographing them against their wishes. Perhaps you were one of the 70 percenters who supported the war four years; a mainstream follower of mediocre masters.
The bottom line is, if there are no yellow ribbons at a crime scene, there are very little restrictions for a photographer. If that weren’t the case, I can assure you this would not have been the first time I was arrested for photographing police officers or otherwise restrictive areas.
–
2006 Miami car thief
2006 University of Miami student sit-in
2005 Miami car thief
2002 Phoenix gangbanger
1999 San Bernardino spot fire
Popularity: 2% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a
12 responses so far ↓
1 Habla Mierda // May 1, 2007 at 4:23 am
Maybe you should be more worried about the shoddy composition displayed in your photography rather than what you think a blogger is saying about you.
Furthermore, I fail to see how “standing up for your rights” helps traffic move along, but then again I don’t know the intricacies of transportation route managment.
Not that it’s going to matter much to someone as close-mided as you clearly present yourself to be; photographing a federal agent, while acting in his role as a federal agent, can, in some cases, be unlawful. There can be serious reprecussions to undercover activity, controlled deliveries, and intelligence gathering.
I’m fairly sure that you don’t have any formal education on First Amendment matters, but you might be well served to learn that the rights to yourself and to the press as guaranteed by the first amendment are not inflexible nor absolute.
2 Rick // May 1, 2007 at 5:07 am
You might want to point out to your readers that I also said in the post that you so kindly linked to…
“Okay, that having been said, if Miller’s description of the physical violence that the police officers allegedly used is correct, then the officers need to be investigated and an appropriate discipline handed out if they’re found to be guilty.
[...]
Slamming someone’s head into the pavement during this type of arrest is inexcusable.”
Although I may lean progressive, Carlos, and am not part of the Ricky Ricardo cyber brigade (now THAT ought to win you a lot of fans in Miami), I do call them as I see them. People who know you describe you as a “hothead” and based upon your own self-description, it looks like they’re probably right.
Even you seem to understand how your demeanor grates on the nerves of cops. But I’ll maintain here and I’ll always say that does not justify brutality. So although you may not like the term “arrogant prick,” I really don’t think we’re that far apart in how we view this incident.
By the way, a little heads up. Unless you know for a fact that the people whose pictures you’ve thrown up on your blog have been convicted, it’s generally not a good idea to label someone a “car thief,” for example. If you’ve followed the case and seen the adjudication, then go for it. Otherwise, things like lawsuits can tend to take away from your blogging time.
Oh, and welcome to the blogosphere!
.
3 Steve Klotz // May 1, 2007 at 9:41 am
My thumbnail understanding of the First Amendment is, it protects the free expression of arrogant pricks. The more arrogant pricks out there, the more opportunity to exercise the freedom the first amendment provides. This is a good thing.
You’re the third photographer I’ve come across over the last 3 years who has encountered law enforcement agents that have interfered with the photographers’ activities for no supportable legal reason. In 2 of the 3 cases, the photographer was arrested and charged with bullshit — in one, involving 5 uniformed police and a one-eyed, 165 pound 58 year old, it was “resisting arrest.”
We need cops, we need photographers, and we need the first amendment. Time for all to understand the rights and limitations of each other. Keep us informed of your trial developments.
4 Habla Mierda // May 1, 2007 at 9:57 am
Actually, labeling someone as a “car theif” before their conviction displays an appalling disregard for that person’s fifth amendment rights.
5 Eddieguardo // May 1, 2007 at 10:21 am
Give Rick a little slack. He’s covered this better than Fox News covers national elections.
6 Carlos Miller // May 1, 2007 at 11:33 am
Habla Mierda,
If you’re going to talk shit, at least stick to what you know. The two car thieves in the pictures have been convicted as well as this guy from the 2005 incident who spat on me from the back of a cop car, then vowed to kill me when he gets out of jail.
Not that I was intimidated, but do you think I’m not going to gather whatever personal information I can through public records on these individuals in case they try to follow through on their threats?
If I wasn’t certain they were convicted, I would have used the disclaimer “alleged” car thieves, as if I had not seen them getting dragged out of a car with a broken steering wheel column.
And a far as the federal agent goes, she was in full uniform as I mentioned. But that still doesn’t make a difference as there is no law that I’ve seen that prohibits me from photographing an undercover federal, state or local officer.
However, several times in the past when I’ve photographed drug raids, I’ve been asked not to publish photos of certain undercover officers, whether they were DEA, ATF or local officers, because they didn’t want their cover blown. And I’ve always complied.
But apparently, the Secret Service is above the law, according to this article that depicts how they forced photographer Bill Emory to expose his film outside the White House in 2004. Note there is no mention in the article of an actual law on the books regarding photographing secret service agents.
You can read Emory’s account as well as hear an audio clip of the actual incident here which should send chills down the spine of every American regardless of their political affiliation.
Had it been me, I would have made a federal case out of it.
7 Habla Mierda // May 1, 2007 at 12:34 pm
“as if I had not seen them getting dragged out of a car with a broken steering wheel column.”
That doesn’t mean a damn thing. I’ve seen plenty of people be arrested by the police. Hell, you were arrested by the police after refusing orders. To any passerby with a camera, it would have probably seemed like you deserved to be arrested.
As for photographing undercover agents, along with freedom of the press comes a certain level of responsibility when you name yourself the fourth estate. You’re not doing the agents a favor when you don’t publish their picture, you’re simply not being an irresponsible asshole.
8 Carlos Miller // May 1, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Habla Mierda,
Do you actually read what I write? This is what I said:
“If I wasn’t certain they were convicted, I would have used the disclaimer ‘alleged’ car thieves, as if I had not seen them getting dragged out of a car with a broken steering wheel column.”
In other words, I would have used the word “alleged” even though I may have personally believed they were car thieves because of what I had witnessed. I am aware that my beliefs do not constitute a conviction.
You chose the perfect username.
9 Carlos Miller // May 1, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Give Rick a little slack. He’s covered this better than Fox News covers national elections.
Yes, he is almost fair and balanced.
10 Carlos Miller // May 1, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Rick,
Yes, you did condemn their overly aggressive behavior from the beginning. And I will also credit you for reporting a few days later what your police officer friend told you about photographers’ rights. If only more officers were as informed as your friend.
In my case, the officers never once asked for ID. And when they approached me, all five of them left the scene of the accident investigation to deal with me.
I initially thought they had left the person they were talking to all by himself, but looking back on a photo I took as I approached the scene, which I will eventually post, I could see there was also an officer dressed in white at the scene; one of those guys who looks as if he handles only traffic cases.
So obviously this wasn’t that serious of an investigation.
11 Snuck off the Palmetto « Photography is not a crime; It’s a First Amendment right // Dec 17, 2007 at 5:34 am
[...] was Rick’s arrogant prick post that inspired me to start my own blog, in which I dedicated my second post to him. And in a way, I guess this post is also dedicated to [...]
12 genewitch // Feb 3, 2008 at 4:25 am
Man, your photos are really good. I have a photography story too, In pomona several years back there were huge fires, they had just started when i heard about them from a friend that had passed a ton of engines headed out that way on his way to my house. We drove out there with bottles of water and those little white masks that painters wear. I had an explorer and we loaded up. I took two cameras, but was only using a nikon 1.2MP to photograph, as it handled the dark scene best. We were told to move our car a bunch, and eventually we passed a threshold (via moving my car) where we had to show ID to be in the area. So we were on a bridge, and we got some slight harassment as lookieloos (even though we were talking to homeowners and offering them water and stuff). I got maybe 3 good pictures that night, but there’s nothing like BEING there seeing an entire neighborhood of skeletal houses just as glowing embers.
One of the most awesome things i’ve taken pictures of.
Oh, there was a protest down the road from my house a couple of years ago, and i went down there and took some pictures. i even asked the police that were on “standby” nearby if i could get a group photo. i asked whether there was any real threat, and they said no. so i took a few pictures of the crowd and went on with my day. That was in orange county, california.
Leave a Comment