Some interesting discussion since I was last here, thats just what we need.
The people arguing in favour of the police in this incident all refer to one point over and over: the withholding of information by the journalist.
The implication of this is that you feel that by exercising your legal right to withhold that information you are arousing suspicion. I ask you to consider the wider implications of this, the notion that a legal act arouses suspicion.
Hacker, you listed the "facts", as you put it, asking us to remove the assumptions. I suggest you failed to list these adequatly. I invite you to consider the following, without reference to a specific act. For arguments sake, let us say that the incident I am about to detail took place in another country, say an african dictatorship.
####
A citizen is in a public place, one where he is free to move.
The citizen has not broken any law or shown any sign of doing so.
The citizen is approached by the authorities, who inform him that a person with no connection to the authorities has informed them that he is engaging in a
legal activity, but one which they do not like. The citizen exercises his legal right not to provide information.
The officer reiterates no less than three times that his only reason for questioning is a report from a another citizen of a man engaging in perfectly
legal activity.
More officials arrive and state that they do not require any suspicion in order to search the person or his things.
For a fourth time the officials note that they are acting on a report of the citizen carrying out an entirely
legal activity.
The official states that he DOESN'T NEED grounds on which to perform the stop and search.
At the end of the interaction, the official notes that the citizen is trying to catch the authorities abusing their powers.
###
Now, if you heard a report like that from a dictatorship what would you think? A person, engaging in legal activity, approached by the authorities due to a complaint about his entirely legal activity and subsequently detained when he continued to behave entirely legally. The authorities confirm that they do not know what their own authority is.
From the film it is blatantly obvious that the officers do not have the first clue what they actually are allowed to do, since they constantly ask each other and phone back to base twice. This shows that they lied when they provided certain information to the reporter.
Hacker, you seem to be arguing that obeying the law and observing your rights is reasonable grounds for suspicion. Being un-cooperative and obstruction are not the same things. You are not required to give details, and on a legal footing this does not provide any grounds for suspicion. It might annoy the police officer, but it should not impact, in any way, his actions in dealing with the situation.
You asked this
Look at it from the police officers point of view - what would you do? They are there as the result of a call and must deal with the incident - I would be interested to know how you would approach it;
I would try to uphold the law to the best of my abilities. The first thing to do would be to ask the man exactly what he was doing, as the officer did. I would probably have explained the reason I was stopping him and asked again for an explanation. I would have engaged him in conversation.
I would not have abused my powers when the man became un-cooperative as the officer did, as I would recognise that this was not grounds for suspicion. I would probably have been annoyed, I would hope that this would not negatively effect my own judgement. I say this with knowledge that less than a week earlier all members of the force were reminded that recording images is not illegal.
Maybe you have been fortunate enough not to have to deal with immediate aftermath of a bomb but unfortunately I have and I have witnessed up close and personal the death, maiming and destruction it can cause so this 'journalist' gets no sympathy from me for his behaviour. He was trying to set the police up (when they have got better things to do) and make a sensationalist piece of film backed up by a questionable report in the Guardian.
I am reminded here of a quote from Benjamin Franklin
Ben Franklin said:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
The journalist was only able to "set the police up" because they abused their powers. If they had sought to uphold the law and operate within their powers it would not have been possible to "set the police up" in any way. The police exist in order to uphold the law of the land. If you wish the law of the land to extend to detention due to lack of co-operation then I see no hope for liberty in this country. I have the right to be an asshole should I so choose, as long as I do not break any laws.
He was taking pictures and then acted like a knob - it's not that important. Sometimes you have to give up some of your 'liberties' for the greater good in order to preserve life.
I refer you once again to the quote from Franklin, it mirrors my own opinion on the matter.