"I am not a terrorist!", "Photography is not a crime!" - The fightback starts here...

PDS said:
If you were a professional photographer you would know that everyone that attends a crime scene in anyway has to be identified!
Click to expand...

Oh, we're talking crime scene. Obviously, from an amateur's perspective, I'm more interested in our rights to perform photography in a public place in general. But OK, suppose I'm at a crime scene - that could be the result of various scenarios.

Say I'm passing a bank, camera around my neck on the way to take pictures somewhere else. Suddenly, masked men get out of a car and enter the bank, emerging minutes later with full bags and driving off at speed. I manage to take some pictures and of course wait for the police to arrive, having checked everyone in the bank is OK and raising the alarm if necessary. When the police arrive I give them my full details, co-operate fully and offer them my pictures as evidence after transferring to the other memory card.

Say I chance upon the scene moments after the police have arrived and before any pro togs are present. I take pictures from outside the cordon that the police have established, pictures of the police officer by the door controlling who goes in or out and pictures of the police cars outside the building, blue lights still flashing. I keep a respectable distance from the cordon, make sure I don't get in anyone's way and yes, as it's a crime scene I produce my driving licence as ID if requested. If asked why I'm photographing I explain that it's a newsworthy event likely to be of interest to the media. If the media are already present there is little point me taking pictures anyway.

An amateur friend of mine recently photographed nine (yes nine!) police cars parked outside a railway station where a person had fallen in front of a train. He was the only photographer present and one of his pictures made the front page of his local paper. Amateurs have every right in this type of situation.

Maybe I chance upon a dramatic road accident and stop to take pictures, once agian with no press in attendance. A police officer asks who I am. Now, I must admit I don't know if he is acting within the law in this situation but I have no wish to impede the police in their duties so would answer something like this, "Hello, I'm John Perriment, here's my license. Thank you for accomodating me, am I alright here without getting in the way? I see no other photographers are present and this is obviously of local news interest."

As I said earlier, I'm not as well versed as the pros in the etiquette of this type of situation and so I would welcome guidence from the police. If we were looking at an accident where people had been killed or seriously injured, to be honest I wouldn't have the desire to take photographs anyway. Perhaps that is why I'm not a pro. :)

Now, maybe there is no incident. I just happen to be in a public place taking photographs, as is my right. A police constable with a cheerful smile approaches and says something like, "That's a nice camera, I use a Nikon myself, what are you taking pictures of?" I reply, "Hello, I'm photographing that modern office block, I particularly like the way the old church opposite is reflected in the windows. Do you want to see what I've taken so far?"

Maybe it was a different police office who approached me, stern faced and very officious. "You're taking photographs in a sensitive area, I need to see some ID and examine your camera." My reply would be along the lines of, "Do I have to give that information?" "Under which law?" "You need reasonable grounds for suspicion, why do you suspect me?" "Make sure your name and warrant number are clearly recorded on the form as I will be making a complaint."

Now maybe the police were responding to a complaint from a worried member of the public concerned that I was a paedophile taking pictures of children for immoral purposes. Tricky situation, this. On the one hand it's abusing my lawful right to take photographs unimpeded in public (provided of course they are not for illegal purposes) while on the other hand the police do have a duty to investigate such complaints. I would be mortified to learn that I had aroused that type of suspicion and, indignant though I might be, in my own interests I would co-operate fully and willingly. In return I would expect discretion and respect from the investigating officer.

There are ways of approaching each type of situation and clearly in recent times the police have on many ocassions abused their powers, acted unlawfully, displayed an unfortunate lack of tact and demonstrated a surprising lack of knowledge of the law. Not all of them by any means, but a significant number. Enough for police chiefs and politicians to finally acknowledge that there is a serious problem and for Section 44 to be deemed illegal by the European Court.

Security guards are poorly regulated and even worse, on many ocassions showing a blatent disregard for the law and often breaking the law by using bullying tactics against photographers.

I don't consider the police an enemy. I want a professional, efficient, polite, knowledgable police force which I can trust and feel proud of - one which is not encumbered with questionable and poorly drafted legislation that at times appears to use the police for political purposes.
 
Home Secretary announces end to use of stop-and-search powers against individuals.

At long last.

"The Home Secretary Theresa May has announced that the police's controversial use of counterterrorism stop and search powers against individuals is to be scrapped with immediate effect.

Under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, officers could stop and search anyone in a designated area even if there was no suggestion they were acting suspiciously. It was used on more than 148,798 occasions last year alone, and was seen as a key element in the campaign against terrorism."
 
WOW goldenlight! What an answer!!! Anyway, pretty much spot-on.

Apart from this.. Maybe it was a different police office who approached me, stern faced and very officious. "You're taking photographs in a sensitive area, I need to see some ID and examine your camera." My reply would be along the lines of, "Do I have to give that information?" "Under which law?" "You need reasonable grounds for suspicion, why do you suspect me?" "Make sure your name and warrant number are clearly recorded on the form as I will be making a complaint."

On all other scenario's you agreed to show your ID. Why will your response change?

Now they have scrapped section 44 NO you don't have to. But if you have nothing to hide why not? Don't give them reason to get heavy handed. Show them some ID. If you feel compelled to show them your images, YOU show them, don't hand over your camera. Sometimes showing them the pictures you have taken will defuse the situation. If you are in a public place tell them unless they can explain otherwise, you have not broken any law.

If you watch any of these late night fly-on-the-wall police programmes, you will notice that most af the people that get taken to the station are the argumentative and abusive types... Don't go there! Stay calm. You know you have done nothing wrong..

BTW, I was only ever talking about 'crime scenes'. Nearly every incident police are called to is treated as a 'crime scene' until a senior officer has all the details.
 
PDS said:
WOW goldenlight! What an answer!!! Anyway, pretty much spot-on.

Apart from this.. Maybe it was a different police office who approached me, stern faced and very officious. "You're taking photographs in a sensitive area, I need to see some ID and examine your camera." My reply would be along the lines of, "Do I have to give that information?" "Under which law?" "You need reasonable grounds for suspicion, why do you suspect me?" "Make sure your name and warrant number are clearly recorded on the form as I will be making a complaint."

On all other scenario's you agreed to show your ID. Why will your response change?

Now they have scrapped section 44 NO you don't have to. But if you have nothing to hide why not? Don't give them reason to get heavy handed. Show them some ID. If you feel compelled to show them your images, YOU show them, don't hand over your camera. Sometimes showing them the pictures you have taken will defuse the situation. If you are in a public place tell them unless they can explain otherwise, you have not broken any law.

If you watch any of these late night fly-on-the-wall police programmes, you will notice that most af the people that get taken to the station are the argumentative and abusive types... Don't go there! Stay calm. You know you have done nothing wrong..

BTW, I was only ever talking about 'crime scenes'. Nearly every incident police are called to is treated as a 'crime scene' until a senior officer has all the details.
Click to expand...

Surely the point he was making is that when someone is backed into a corner, they will get defensive - if asked openly and politely, cooperation is all but guaranteed.

TBH, every police officer I've ever met [OK, bar one], though that's not many, has been courteous, friendly, helpful and polite. Once again, it's a situation where a little thought in the approach makes a huge difference to the result.

Imagine two scenarios:
1) You walk into a shop, and politely speak to a shop assistant asking whether they have something
2) You storm into a shop, walk up to within a few inches of the face of the nearest employee and say "give me ..."

Which one's most likely to work in your favour?

The same principle applies to the police, and from my experience the vast majority of them realise this, however, there are some grade A ******s in there. However, if you work in a decent-sized office, look around and tell me there's not at least one person who you feel is just a "difficult person"?
 
PDS said:
WOW goldenlight! What an answer!!! Anyway, pretty much spot-on.

Apart from this.. Maybe it was a different police office who approached me, stern faced and very officious. "You're taking photographs in a sensitive area, I need to see some ID and examine your camera." My reply would be along the lines of, "Do I have to give that information?" "Under which law?" "You need reasonable grounds for suspicion, why do you suspect me?" "Make sure your name and warrant number are clearly recorded on the form as I will be making a complaint."

On all other scenario's you agreed to show your ID. Why will your response change?

Now they have scrapped section 44 NO you don't have to. But if you have nothing to hide why not? Don't give them reason to get heavy handed. Show them some ID. If you feel compelled to show them your images, YOU show them, don't hand over your camera. Sometimes showing them the pictures you have taken will defuse the situation. If you are in a public place tell them unless they can explain otherwise, you have not broken any law.

If you watch any of these late night fly-on-the-wall police programmes, you will notice that most af the people that get taken to the station are the argumentative and abusive types... Don't go there! Stay calm. You know you have done nothing wrong..

BTW, I was only ever talking about 'crime scenes'. Nearly every incident police are called to is treated as a 'crime scene' until a senior officer has all the details.
Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

Note in my scenarios that the "friendly" poice officer didn't ask for ID, merely struck up a conversation which discretely allowed him to find out all he needed to know about what I was doing. What reasonable person would not respond in an equally friendly manner?

Faced with the heavy handed and blatent misuse of the Counter Terrorism Act portrayed in the other scenario then I'm afraid (to me at least) it's no longer a matter of photography but rather a matter of principle. I'm not prepared to tolerate that sort of behaviour (and there are plenty of documented cases when it has occurred) from a police officer and I would strongly resist even if it resulted in arrest. My arguements would continue long after I had arrived at the police station and into the court room if needed. If the police officer could provide me with a good reason why my actions should warrant suspicion (and it would have to be good, not just that I was taking photographs) then it might be a different matter, but even then I would expect respect. I refuse to live in a society where I have to fear the police and allow them unlimited powers. Respect them, yes, reasonably co-operate with them, yes, value them, yes - but fear them as in, say, China, North Korea or Zimabwe, NO!

An extreme comparison? Maybe, but I could see which way this was going. We were at the top of a long and slippery slope where a significant minority of police officers were routinely abusing their powers and the police in general were being unwittingly politicized by a government that was misguided at best and some might say cynicaly exploiting the security situation to impose contolls over freedom of information, fair reporting and freedom of movement that had the potential for far greater political abuse in the future.

Thankfully, with a change of government common sense now seems to be, at last, prevailing. It will be interesting to see how the change in policy is translated onto the streets and whether the vilification of photography in public can be redressed.
 
Last edited:
goldenlight said:
Hi Peter,

Note in my scenarios that the "friendly" poice officer didn't ask for ID, merely struck up a conversation which discretely allowed him to find out all he needed to know about what I was doing. What reasonable person would not respond in an equally friendly manner?

Faced with the heavy handed and blatent misuse of the Counter Terrorism Act portrayed in the other scenario then I'm afraid (to me at least) it's no longer a matter of photography but rather a matter of principle. I'm not prepared to tolerate that sort of behaviour (and there are plenty of documented cases when it has occurred) from a police officer and I would strongly resist even if it resulted in arrest. My arguments would continue long after I had arrived at the police station and into the court room if needed. If the police officer could provide me with a good reason why my actions should warrant suspicion (and it would have to be good, not just that I was taking photographs) then it might be a different matter, but even then I would expect respect. I refuse to live in a society where I have to fear the police and allow them unlimited powers. Respect them, yes, reasonably co-operate with them, yes, value them, yes - but fear them as in, say, China, North Korea or Zimabwe, NO!.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this...as much as the Letter of the Law is important, so is the way it's interpreted and acted upon by those charged with upholding it...
 
PDS said:
On all other scenario's you agreed to show your ID. Why will your response change?

Now they have scrapped section 44 NO you don't have to.
Click to expand...

You were never required by law to show ID (i.e. your name and address) under s44.

There are only limited circumstances when a police officer has that power:

  • if you have been arrested
  • if you're driving a vehicle
  • to serve a summons under s25 PACE 1984
  • to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for an offence
  • if he suspects you have engaged in "anti-social behaviour" under s50 of the Police Reform Act 2002

http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-2.html
 
Musicman said:
You were never required by law to show ID (i.e. your name and address) under s44.

There are only limited circumstances when a police officer has that power:

  • if you have been arrested
  • if you're driving a vehicle
  • to serve a summons under s25 PACE 1984
  • to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for an offence
  • if he suspects you have engaged in "anti-social behaviour" under s50 of the Police Reform Act 2002

http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-2.html
Click to expand...

Be careful. Much of that advice is out of date - it talks about non-arrestable offences, s25 PACE, etc, and all that went out years ago.

It's true regarding vehicles (though that's more to ensure that you're entitled to drive), but the rest is a little different. Now, any offence is arrestable under s24 PACE, subject to the "necessity test". Two things that would pass the "necessity test" would include a failure to state a) Your name or b) Your address. That is for the simple administrative reason that it would be impossible to serve a penalty notice or a court summons on you if you refused those details.

You are never required to give your name/address or any other details when being stopped & searched under any section or power. Do bear in mind, however, that refusing may make any reasonable officer think that you have something to hide.
 
Photo Plod said:
You are never required to give your name/address or any other details when being stopped & searched under any section or power. Do bear in mind, however, that refusing may make any reasonable officer think that you have something to hide.
Click to expand...

Metropolitan Police Stop and Search Frequently Asked Questions

Metropolitan Police Service said:
The police officer will ask for your name and address and date of birth. You do not have to give this information if you don’t want to, unless the police officer says they are reporting you for an offence.
Click to expand...

So is this a case of 'you're entitled to your rights until you choose to assert them' and that the MPS are misleading us by putting that in their advice to the public? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
oh, on your other point

Photo Plod said:
Now, any offence is arrestable under s24 PACE, subject to the "necessity test". Two things that would pass the "necessity test" would include a failure to state a) Your name or b) Your address. That is for the simple administrative reason that it would be impossible to serve a penalty notice or a court summons on you if you refused those details.
Click to expand...

While the scope of offences you may be arrested for has changed (to include just about anything) and, as far as I'm aware, the fundamental principle has not. You'd still have to do something which meant you're being arrested for a criminal offence or issued with an FPN or PND (Penalty Notice for Disorder).

Bear in mind that we're talking here in the context of photographers going about their lawful business and that I was primarily challenging the assertion that you had to provide ID under s44 (and indeed under s43 which I believe may still be used).
 
Splog said:
Hardly! .... If you are being reported for an offence then surely it would be reasonable for them to have your details .... Otherwise how could you be reported ...?
Click to expand...

It's the MPS FAQ for Stop and Search. You are not being reported for an offence.

From the same FAQ

http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm#whyme

MPS said:
Being stopped does not mean you are under arrest or have done something wrong. In some cases, people are stopped as part of a wide-ranging effort to catch criminals in a targeted public place.
Click to expand...
 
Musicman said:
So is this a case of 'you're entitled to your rights until you choose to assert them' and that the MPS are misleading us by putting that in their advice to the public? :thinking:
Click to expand...

It's nothing of the sort, and is perfectly correct.

If I'm reporting you for an offence, and you refuse to give your details, then you will be arrested. If you continue to refuse any details once in custody, you will ultimately end up being charged, remanded in custody overnight and taken to court the following day. You have the right to refuse all the way through the procedure, but there is a system in place to deal with that.
 
Musicman said:
It's the MPS FAQ for Stop and Search. You are not being reported for an offence.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Metropolitan Police Service
The police officer will ask for your name and address and date of birth. You do not have to give this information if you don’t want to, unless the police officer says they are reporting you for an offence.
Click to expand...
 
goldenlight said:
Hi Peter,

Note in my scenarios that the "friendly" poice officer didn't ask for ID, merely struck up a conversation which discretely allowed him to find out all he needed to know about what I was doing. What reasonable person would not respond in an equally friendly manner?

Faced with the heavy handed and blatent misuse of the Counter Terrorism Act portrayed in the other scenario then I'm afraid (to me at least) it's no longer a matter of photography but rather a matter of principle. I'm not prepared to tolerate that sort of behaviour (and there are plenty of documented cases when it has occurred) from a police officer and I would strongly resist even if it resulted in arrest. My arguements would continue long after I had arrived at the police station and into the court room if needed. If the police officer could provide me with a good reason why my actions should warrant suspicion (and it would have to be good, not just that I was taking photographs) then it might be a different matter, but even then I would expect respect. I refuse to live in a society where I have to fear the police and allow them unlimited powers. Respect them, yes, reasonably co-operate with them, yes, value them, yes - but fear them as in, say, China, North Korea or Zimabwe, NO!

An extreme comparison? Maybe, but I could see which way this was going. We were at the top of a long and slippery slope where a significant minority of police officers were routinely abusing their powers and the police in general were being unwittingly politicized by a government that was misguided at best and some might say cynicaly exploiting the security situation to impose contolls over freedom of information, fair reporting and freedom of movement that had the potential for far greater political abuse in the future.

Thankfully, with a change of government common sense now seems to be, at last, prevailing. It will be interesting to see how the change in policy is translated onto the streets and whether the vilification of photography in public can be redressed.
Click to expand...

Have just caught up on this.

A truly excellent post. Thank you! It represents my feelings exactly.

I'd just like to add that the police have always had a tendency to extend their powers into areas where they actually have none at all. When I were a lad, it were blokes with long hair. Hitch-hikers were always an easy target as well. The Misuse of Drugs Act was a handy one for police with arrest quotas to meet.
 
Last edited:
Photo Plod said:
It's nothing of the sort, and is perfectly correct.

If I'm reporting you for an offence, and you refuse to give your details, then you will be arrested. If you continue to refuse any details once in custody, you will ultimately end up being charged, remanded in custody overnight and taken to court the following day. You have the right to refuse all the way through the procedure, but there is a system in place to deal with that.
Click to expand...

Let me make it clear, I am talking in the context of a stop and search (or a stop and account) hence my reference to the MPS Stop and Search FAQ. Your post, which I quoted, is also talking about Stop and Search.

If I am being arrested or reported for an offence, then I understand clearly that the officer has a power to require me to provide my details. I do not suggest that anyone does anything other than co-operate with the request in those circumstances.
 
Last edited:
jamesb84 said:
All the guidance in the world is completely useless unless people on the ground know about it, and apply it correctly.
Click to expand...

And that has been at the heart of the problem all the way through. Appalling as the legislation for Sections 43 and 44 may be, the problem has been exacerbated by a repetitive failure in communication of guidelines as to how these laws should be applied and the ubiquitous use of these powers in situations where they are clearly inapproriate and unreasonable.
 
goldenlight said:
And that has been at the heart of the problem all the way through. Appalling as the legislation for Sections 43 and 44 may be, the problem has been exacerbated by a repetitive failure in communication of guidelines as to how these laws should be applied and the ubiquitous use of these powers in situations where they are clearly inapproriate and unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Entirely agree. There has been a wealth of information and resources for our side of it...the most recent of which appears...

HERE (Courtesy of EPUK)

However, it would be interesting to know if such conversations and guidance are available to police officers as well as photographers. I will admit that, although I spend a lot of time here...I don't regularly frequent Police forums on the net, so I'm not too sure.
 
jamesb84 said:
Entirely agree. There has been a wealth of information and resources for our side of it...the most recent of which appears...

HERE (Courtesy of EPUK)

However, it would be interesting to know if such conversations and guidance are available to police officers as well as photographers. I will admit that, although I spend a lot of time here...I don't regularly frequent Police forums on the net, so I'm not too sure.
Click to expand...

The photography debate doesn't feature large in the grand scheme of policing. Obviously, in a specialist forum such as this, photography is high on the agenda. To most police officers, it simply isn't. I haven't come across any forum discussions on the subject, and I don't recall hearing anyone really talking about it in the canteen / office (except as a hobby!)

Guidance in the Met is on the intranet, and officers have been repeatedly instructed through local briefings about the correct use of stop & search powers. I have no idea about other forces, and cannot speak for them.
 
Photo Plod said:
The photography debate doesn't feature large in the grand scheme of policing. Obviously, in a specialist forum such as this, photography is high on the agenda. To most police officers, it simply isn't. I haven't come across any forum discussions on the subject, and I don't recall hearing anyone really talking about it in the canteen / office (except as a hobby!)

Guidance in the Met is on the intranet, and officers have been repeatedly instructed through local briefings about the correct use of stop & search powers. I have no idea about other forces, and cannot speak for them.
Click to expand...

And there lies the problem. To us as photographers it is an extremely important part of policing. To the average police officer on the beat, there are probably a thousand more important issues. We shouldn't really blame the police for their lack of priority in what, to us, is a burning issue because there is no doubt that they do a difficult job which is getting more complex all the time. However, for this very reason it is encumbant upon us to stand up for our rights when incorrectly challenged and move this issue further up the agenda on the streets. Challenging injustices is what happens in a democracy and the police shouldn't really blame us for that, either. :)
 
Having experienced 'similar' situations, & watched the video of 'the assault' on Ian Tomlinson. is it just me, or did anyone else see Police trying to control a difficult crowd under stress. Tomlinson's ambling along, hampering officers trying to clear the area was always going to provoke some Police interaction. You can argue about the legitamacy of the treatment he received, the point being, not if he had a right to be there, but the situation would have been unlikely to occur had he displayed more alacrity in moving away from the Police or better judgement about being there at all. My real point, the photographer captureing the event also had a right to do so, but also was at risk of receiving a heavy handed treatment at the end of the long arm of the law. I imagine that at least sometimes these 'injured parties' (photographers)who fall out with 'authority' may well be ambling when sense would dictate not to be there at all. When tackled they know best & further obstruct proceedings. An official who's bad day just became worse would not be in the right to start threatening or worse, but their behavior may be understandable.
Some years ago whilst photographing a newly built estate a man followed me & demanded to know who I was / what I was doing. I explained out of courtesy, he demanded my camera, & was rather threatening. I again explained & told him he wasn't getting it, if he had any issues we could always get the Police. I like to think I was openhanded & non adversarial. I could have told him where to get off, but chose the former route.
If you believe Tomlisons death was brought forward by Police it probably still could have been avoided by not being there. I imagine some of these conflicts between 'authority' & photographers could be avoided by a different attitude. Of course you can't dictate someone else's attitude only your own, but perhaps that may avoid any 'conflict' in the first place.
 
Thanks for the tip.

I'll only shoot macro photos of bugs in my own garden in future then.
 
Must remember in future to run like hell everytime i see a policeman, yes thats the way to keep safe:(
 
STOWITBELOW said:
the situation would have been unlikely to occur had he displayed more alacrity in moving away from the Police
Click to expand...

You're right. If he'd jumped out of the way of the officer who rushed him from behind or rolled out of the way of the baton a bit more smartly when he was on the ground, he'd have avoided injury.
 
stowitbelow what do you suggest jean charles de menezes should have done to avoid the police
 
STOWITBELOW said:
Having experienced 'similar' situations, & watched the video of 'the assault' on Ian Tomlinson. is it just me, or did anyone else see Police trying to control a difficult crowd under stress. Tomlinson's ambling along, hampering officers trying to clear the area was always going to provoke some Police interaction. You can argue about the legitamacy of the treatment he received, the point being, not if he had a right to be there, but the situation would have been unlikely to occur had he displayed more alacrity in moving away from the Police or better judgement about being there at all. My real point, the photographer captureing the event also had a right to do so, but also was at risk of receiving a heavy handed treatment at the end of the long arm of the law. I imagine that at least sometimes these 'injured parties' (photographers)who fall out with 'authority' may well be ambling when sense would dictate not to be there at all. When tackled they know best & further obstruct proceedings. An official who's bad day just became worse would not be in the right to start threatening or worse, but their behavior may be understandable.
Some years ago whilst photographing a newly built estate a man followed me & demanded to know who I was / what I was doing. I explained out of courtesy, he demanded my camera, & was rather threatening. I again explained & told him he wasn't getting it, if he had any issues we could always get the Police. I like to think I was openhanded & non adversarial. I could have told him where to get off, but chose the former route.
If you believe Tomlisons death was brought forward by Police it probably still could have been avoided by not being there. I imagine some of these conflicts between 'authority' & photographers could be avoided by a different attitude. Of course you can't dictate someone else's attitude only your own, but perhaps that may avoid any 'conflict' in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this post is sarcastic, ironic or just expressing a truely astonishing point of view. :shrug:
 
goldenlight said:
I'm not sure if this post is sarcastic, ironic or just expressing a truely astonishing point of view. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You decide :)

Perhaps you don't like it that there are alternative views to yours & are thus astounded. This was just an illustration of how someone's behavior does have consequences, both Tomlinsons & the officers. His ambling through an area where there was public disorder resulted in an officers reaction of charging at him (presumably seeing him as part of the disorder). The offices action knocking him to the ground has raised the question whether he is responsible for Tomlinsons death. THE POINT - a change in either behavior would probably had a different outcome. I am drawing a comparison with how I suspect some of these 'photography' incident COULD be diffused by different behavior by either party. I am not apportioning blame. We can argue about the law, however it is the set of rules that govern our society. As such we should all follow it. That applies to both parties. The 'authority' figure (security guard, Police, whoever) & the photographer. On occasion who's in the right at that time is irrelavant. An incident could be avoided by different behavior by either party. Being right won't necessarily stop your arrest (lawful or not), an adversarial or pugnatious attitude undoubtedly will inflame an incident.
Watch the footage of Tomlinson he is not just making his way home. He very much appears to be demonstrating a reluctance to 'be moved on'. It's possible but I would be astounded if Tomlinson had not been advised to 'move on'. That may have been in the form 'F'#$* Off' consequently he took exception. We may never know what's occured before the strike & charge, but from what we've seen I don't believe we can just blame the officer. Prevention is better than cure, that incident was preventable. Incidentaly Im not sure if he was injured ? 'Assaulted' yes, any injury as a result ?
I would also say Jean Charles was altogether different, there is no suggestion that his behavior in any way would have altered events. (Short of staying in bed) It was mistaken identity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top