Tempers flared, rights were infringed, and violence ensued. Videographer Shawn Thomas exchanged heated words with NYPD Officer Efrain Rojas resulting in a unwarranted beatdown and arrest. The 10 minute clip depicts how quickly the controversy escalated over a simple camera phone, which apparently cost Thomas a bloodied lip from the police officer.
Clearly, there is a lot of content to unpack from this clip. But among other things, what are the implications for street photographers. Officer Rojas acted rashly and unprofessionally. Obviously, debates can emerge from a variety of circles about what went wrong, but let’s consider what this means for those of us wielding cameras.
Watch the clip and see the extent to which Thomas knows his rights. Similarly, look at his Youtube channel and see all his content that he has posted; he isn't arbitrarily antagonizing police officers for some reaction he can capture on tape. He is shooting with a purpose and I believe that is what the NYPD strongly dislikes.
Consider the level of tourism that floods NYC streets on a daily basis. Collectively, those tourists have a purpose or aim in their photography, yet no one feels strongly enough to hit them. Simply put, Thomas is capturing content that the NYPD does not want to be shared. Why doesn't the NYPD want that type of publicity? Well, it’s certainly portraying the underbelly of the department’s management, policy, and above all else, abuse of authority.
I presume that many citizens are surprised to what lengths the NYPD will go in order to subdue the revealment of those intra-organizational issues. But from a photographer’s standpoint, if anything is worth noting, it’s the power of an image that one can create. Photographing with a purpose has its consequences. It’s just appalling to see how negative those can be, particularly in the Land of the Free.
Because photograph will entrap the soul of your children... You are overprotective paranoid! You should seek professional help before you will harm your children!
Sorry Shawn but your condescending tone simply validates what I had originally thought. You were out to cause trouble, your past videos show that this is your hobby, you go out looking for trouble and it finds you. The whole world is not against you and I feel sorry for you that you feel this way. It seems like your friends were also videotaping the incident correct? Is there evidence that the officer struck you? I have yet to see it. I don't want to offend you but the story is a one sided story.
I feel sorry for you dumb ass,.
In locations where there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy your children can be photographed and you can call cops as much as you want. And if you will decide to confront the photographer and come close into his face he has a right to stand his ground. You will be the attacker.
The videogrpaher was recording for the same reason journalist or reporter would photograph/videograph. As a matter of fact he is a reporter because we just watched what happened there in the public metro station.
The videographer was recording from distance and the police officer was the aggressor.
There is a law for a reason and police supposed to enforce it not brake it. Police is not above the law.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one)
Tell me the law that the person committed to be arrested? Saying curse words are not a violation or any laws. And officers are not allowed to invade a civilians space like that. Either we as a people stand for the rights we died for or ...
It is ashame that Alexandra's Corner and Troy don't need or want their rights as free citizens. I, however, am still using my rights and will fight to defend them. When citizens exercise their rights to take video of police so they can't get away with acting like thugs and bullies they are doing us all a service. Well, all except for Alexandra's Corner and Troy who don't need their rights.
The lack of common sense seems to be on YOUR part. If for no other reason he could be recording the detainment for the purpose of holding the cop ACCOUNTABLE for his actions. That is the problem with NYC cops especially....they regularly violate the rights of citizens, ESPECIALLY citizens of color, and are never held accountable because their is never any physical proof that can be presented. Well, now that most people have some type of recording device they have to behave properly....well they SHOULD behave properly. The video is proof that they don't. You may never have been subjected to abuse at the hand of cops....others have. THAT ALONE is reason enough to record their actions.
Both didn't help the situation. Officer Rojas trolled the videographer by videotaping him, and the videographer provokes Rojas by being verbally aggressive. Granted, we're missing the stuff right after the fourth F-bomb to the surface. Who knows what happened?
It looks like an officer who was a little too confrontational with a citizen who was a little too confrontational. Why can't we have cops more like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23CPcTdY2M
Brian I don't understand why the Cop even has to justify arresting this person to a person with the video camera. Once again the person is looking for trouble.
idiot
Troy, you are the scum of the earth. A waste of skin.
Kyle my kids just read the blog post that you sent to me. Its something they do every morning when they wake up. Thank God they didn't read the emails. Surely to God you are not that type of person. I made a couple of comments that I don't agree with the videographers tactics and somehow this has escalated into this. My kids are inconsolable right now. They think the "bad man" is coming to get them. Please stop.
Yeah I was so impressed with how the officer handled himself in the video. The girl being arrested was acting up enough, but to have a cameraman vocally antagonizing the officer is really something. How the officer dealt with the situation, his choice in words, mannerisms, posture...incredible.
This guy was looking for trouble. No need for him to record the arrest and then become a smart ass with the officer.
It is still his <em>right</em> to record the officer.
What about the officers right to do his job? Would you like it if you got arrested and someone decided it was his "right" to film the arrest? It has nothing to do with rights, it has to do with getting a life. Its called common sense.
Did you hear his language? He didn't sound very educated. If he wasn't up to no good, then he would have explained to the cop what he's doing...problem is he wasn't doing anything but looking to antagonize and live off of tax payers money in jail some more! Working, decent people don't pull this crap! Nor use that mind of language. Why was he so disrespectful to an authority figure? The cop is an authority figure, he is on the job, and has a right to know why this guy is wasting time in a subway filming another cop doing his job.
He is an "authority figure", not the "authority", that would be We the People.
Poor Taste? Maybe. But it is within his rights. You can say the same of Larry Flynt and Hustler's battle to be able to allow comical parodies of public figures. In poor taste possibly but we need to have the rights of everyone including ones that operate on the fringes of society.
BTW if you want to discuss double standard for a bit, can an average Joe like this guy walk up to an outdoors cafe and start filming the people working there? (Just cause the cafe has tables outside?) just curious....or construction workers?
Yes. Yes you can., provided you record from a public area and aren't impeding traffic.
Yup, you can.
Common sense isn't law.
how was that guy stopping the officer from doing his job? Maybe the guy was filming to protect the guy getting arrested from police brutality, and seeing that this guy got beaten for standing 30 feet away not interfering at all, i'd say you can make a pretty good case for that.
If the guy was up in the officers faces then I totally get it but the guy was far away not saying a word.
Being a smart-ass is not against the law... in fact it is a protected right under the 1st amendment to the US constitution.
Police film arrests all the time. There have been judges that have gone so far as to say that video can ONLY be used in defense of police officers, not against them at trial. So they can kill you on film, and that film is thrown out. I think it's the duty of citizens to film officers to ensure that they're carrying out their job properly. We will see how you feel the first time you're harrassed. I only hope that there is someone there filming so that they have evidence that it happened.
You have no right to privacy in public. Thats how it is. if you want to defend the pig then you are a fucktard.
True, but the NYC subway system is not public property, it's private property owned and operated by the Metropolitan Transit Authority which is a public benefit corporation and operates like a quasi-private corporation.
Maybe if he was on public land, but the NYC subway is not public, it is private, as has been covered many times in stories like these.
So he actually does not have the right to record the officer.
As has been covered many times in this and other stories, yes everyone has a LEGAL, Constitutionally Protected Right to video record police in the NYC Subway system.
It doesn't even bother you that you speak out of pure ignorance, does it?
Actually I think the cop behaivor shows this kind of unsolicited videos are necessary. Unfortunately.
Probably not the smartest thing to do, antagonise a police officer...but other than dropping a few F-bombs, I don't know what he did wrong. So he was filming an arrest, so what? He wasn't hurting anyone. What if the police were arresting Brad Pitt, would that make it justifiable to film then? How many arrest videos have been filmed before assaults like Rodney King's were captured? The police film and/or record lots of their interactions, surely citizens have the same right.
Skip the first 5 minutes. Nothing happens. I think there's a spelling error at the end lol
Actually there's two.
The officer definitely acted out of line. He could have politely asked him to stop recording them if it really bothered him that much. All that said, I photograph on the streets of NY all the time and I have been warned on multiple occasions that the Subway is NOT public property, it's city property. So, recording someone, especially a city official, after they've asked you to stop while in the subway would be no different than doing it in a court room. Would you ask the bailiff for his badge number and if he read his training manual? You'd be held in contempt.
What is "City Property" if not "Public Property". We need to correct our thinking or read the laws.
Yes, it is legal to photograph anywhere on MTA property that you are legally allowed to be.
And it is in NO WAY the same as recording in a courtroom.
And what would be different. We pay for the courts! Film should be permitted.
There is an argument that filming in a courtroom will disrupt the course of justice by shifting focus from evidence to public opinion (ie. mob mentality). In other words, there is a argument to be made that filming in a courtroom will actually infringe upon the rights of the accused. And rights are what this is all about.
And what about the rights of the guy in handcuffs in on the subway bench?
The guy being cuffed has no legal expectation of privacy. Jorge, you need to spend more time in the law books before you continue arguing out of ignorance.
Filming in a courtroom is a double-edged sword. On the one hand courts are open to all and taping in court can reveal instances of judicial, prosecutorial, or defense misconduct. On the other hand, court proceedings have evolved over hundreds of years in a delicate balance to make sure that both sides get a fair hearing. Inserting a camera into that mix completely upsets the balance—for instance that's why OJ got off. Judge Ito and the prosecution team let their egos get the best of them; Ito totally lost control of his courtroom and the prosecutors lost control of the case because they became intoxicated by seeing themselves on the TV every night.
So I can see both sides of the cameras in courtroom debate. I think we should just keep it old school and bar photos and video alike; leave it to those awesome court illustrators.
Okay. I stand corrected on a few things. I should have looked them up before I opened my mouth; The NYC subway system is NOT city property. It is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which is a public benefit corporation and operates like a quasi-private corporation. So, it is technically private property.
As to being allowed to photograph on the MTA. According to their rules of conduct, "Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used." However, their rules of conduct also state, "All persons on or in any facility or conveyance of the Authority shall: (1) comply with all lawful orders and directives of any New York City police officer or Authority employee acting within the scope of his or her employment;"
Did the officer act accordingly? No, obviously not; he acted like a child. He should have politely asked the man to stop recording. That said, Shawn Thomas was asking for trouble the minute he started antagonizing and cursing at an already pissed off, immature police officer.
Yes, "city property" is technically "public property". By that definition though, court rooms, police stations, fire stations, city halls, etc... are all public property. Try filming or photographing in one of those without permission.
True, you cant go stand on the tracks and take pictures, you can not go to employee only areas and photograph. You may only photograph in places where the public is otherwise authorized to be. As for reflectors, and tripods?? You need to apply for a permit. It is not lawful for a police officer to order that a subject stop filming unless he has an reasonable suspicion (you have to articulate a reason) that the subject has, or is about to commit a crime. This was not the case here, regardless of how rude the subject was, it is not possible to articulate a crime (misdemeanor or felony) (remember a violation of law is not a crime in NYS)
Again, it's private property; the MTA decides who can and can't do what in their subway system.
The MTA got sued into submission in the Giuliani years, thats why you can now photogaph, it cost them too much money. We can be on both sides of the issue, it matters not. What matters is, The MTA will settle the lawsuit, and the officer will see some sort of penalty. The penalty might be as small as a transfer, or it may be days pay, we wont ever know, and nothing we say here will change that.
And the MTA said what? It said that people can record. Right Jimenez?
My point was not that it was City Property, I said it is public property managed by the State, not the City. But none of that is really important.
The fact is that the cop had no LEGAL AUTHORITY to ask, demand, or otherwise order anyone to stop recording.
Also, you can't antagonize someone who is antagonizing you. Drop the bias and employ some sound logic, if you can.
The subway system is NOT public property. It is private property, owned and operated by the MTA. According to their rules of conduct, the police have the legal authority to ask you to stop recording.
Your wrong, their rules say no such thing. In fact it says the opposite, in that it says that I can photography. But even if it did say what you said it did: 1- Their rules can't give the police anymore Authority over my rights than they already have, and 2- the cop never asked me to stop recording.
Patrol Guide under PG 208-03 Arrests - General Processing, effective 01-01-2000.
In pertinent part that section reads as follows:
OBSERVERS AT THE SCENE OF POLICE INCIDENTS
As a rule, when a police officer stops, detains or arrests a person in a public area, persons who happen to be in or are attached to the area are naturally in position to and are allowed to observe the police officer's actions. This right to observe is, of course, limited by reasons of safety to all concerned and as long as there is no substantive violation of law. The following guidelines should be utilized by police officers whenever the above situation exists:
a. A person remaining in the vicinity of a stop or arrest shall not be subject to arrest for Obstructing Governmental Administration (Penal Law, Section 195.05) unless the officer has probable cause to believe the person or persons are obstructing governmental administration.
b. None of the following constitutes probable cause for arrest or detention of an onlooker unless the safety of officers or other persons is directly endangered or the officer reasonably believes they are endangered or the law is otherwise violated:
(1) Speech alone, even though crude and vulgar
(2) Requesting and making notes of shield numbers or names of officers
(3) Taking photographs, videotapes or tape recordings
(4) Remaining in the vicinity of the stop or arrest.
c. Whenever an onlooker is arrested or taken into custody, the arresting officer shall request the patrol supervisor to the scene, or if unavailable, report the action to the supervisor where the person is taken.
This procedure is not intended in any manner to limit the authority of the police to establish police lines, e.g., crowd control at scenes of fires, demonstrations, etc. (emphasis added).