On July 25, New York-based Photographer Martin J. Romero-Clark was apprehended due to climbing Ben Franklin Bridge to take some urban scenic photos. As a matter of course, it is dangerous and an illegal act to climb on a bridge, but now he is facing three felonies, each may carry a sentence of up to seven years.
Recently, we all witnessed photographers and models climbing high buildings and most of these incidents had widespread media coverage, and yet rooftop photography has always been very dangerous, even causing deaths. Luckily, Romero-Clark didn’t have an unfortunate accident during the incident, but now he is in a very serious legal situation.
Romero-Clark is a professional photographer, originally from Portland, Oregon. After graduating college as a business administrator in 2010, he started living in NYC and started his career as a professional photographer in 2011. He had never been in a trouble or arrested before, and he had no intentions of doing any harm on the day of the incident.
On the night of the incident, he and his friend were spotted by the police around 12:45 a.m., and taken down by seven police officers after the bridge was shut down. After his custody, all his photography gear, including a Nikon D810, Nikon 24mm f/2.8, and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 was confiscated at Delaware Port Authority office and now he is unable to work as a freelancer due to absence of his gear, which put him in a serious financial difficulty.
After all that’s happened, Romero-Clark is glad that no one got hurt in the end and he is remorseful, but now he is waiting for his trial on September 13, which he will be facing serious charges that may affect his life. In the meantime, his friend started a fund-raising campaign for the legal costs of his trial.
You might call this an irresponsible or a thoughtless incident, but considering all the possible consequences, do you think is it fair to get sentenced? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Thanks for sharing... with all the rooftop shooters in the world, there's the making of a great novel and/or screenplay in this and other stories.
Given only the information in the article, I highly doubt he'll actually receive anything close to the maximum sentence. As far as his legal woes, I find it difficult to have sympathy and I'm pretty disgusted that he's trying to raise money for other people to subsidize the consequences of his lack of forethought.
I'm going to guess that he knew before the fact that was he was doing was illegal and that he could potentially get arrested for it. Despite this, he chose to do it anyway and trigger a response from law enforcement just because he felt getting a photograph for himself was more important. I can understand that we may not all necessarily appreciate the full gravity of the potential consequences of our actions, but that fact doesn't (and shouldn't) absolve us of those consequences.
All things considered, I personally hope that he gets a slap on the wrist and that he learns his lesson, but I won't really be outraged if they decide to throw the book at him to set an example either. It's ultimately the bed he made for himself. I'm sure there are those on here that will feel differently and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but that's my 2 cents on the matter.
i agree with you. do the crime, do the time. he knew what he was doing, if not he isn't so smart. i would like to see him get his gear back though.
Does he pay taxes? It's a public bridge. He should get to do what he wants as long as he doesn't damage it or hurt anyone else. Most laws are stupid.
true but it's still the law.
Wow. I hope you never come to my city. What if he'd dropped some of his gear, which happens, or fell, which happens. What if it or he fell on someone else? So it's okay if he promises that nothing like that will happen?
Local media reported that they (Mr. Romero-Clark and an acquaintance) got frightened and were unable to get down. So the first responders essentially had to risk their lives to save them, while also shutting down the bridge to traffic during the incident. But the laws are stupid, right?
Another self entitled idiot who doesn't think of the consequences of what his dumb ideas can cause.
Yes, it's a public bridge. It also has a walkway that closes at 9pm. I have photographic from there all the time. They were not on the walkway. They were on top of the tower. Also they has to climb a number of fences and gates to get up there.
now if someone stole your camera or car or beat you up, would those be stupid laws that were broken?
Sorry, Jonathan, but most laws are not stupid and even if they are you need to follow them. You Antifa anarchists living in mommy's basement don't run the world.
Yes, it is a public bridge. Climbing on it creates two problems. The first is that it becomes a public nuisance, particularly if the climber/photographer gets hurt. The other issue is terrorism, and that is a very real issue today.
Stupidity to the next level. There are reason that there are places that's off limit. Why not climb into sewer, other infrastructure? They are crown property, some area are available to the public, not publicly owned, it does not mean you can do whatever you want on it. What a shame he still ask for donation for his legal fee, try to get more money to waste other tax payer's money in court. I won't donate anything to his fundraising. Oh, what kind of professional photographer do not have back up gear, those not professional enough I guess.
fund-raising campaign.... How hard am I laughing right now. I think a hefty fine would teach him enough of a lesson. Maybe 5-10k. It's New Jersey, I'm sure at least one car was broken into or person got mugged because these cops were dealing with his dumb ass instead of patrolling. Of course this kind of thing should all go into a charity fund, but instead it will probably go to pay for Chris Christie's lunches for the week.
"...taken down by seven police officers after the bridge was shot down."
They SHOT DOWN the bridge??? Must have made quite a splash.
Also, it seems unlikely his gear was "confiscated". I'd expect it to be held as evidence, then returned after the trial. Then again, there are some seriously draconian abuses of civil forfeiture laws in this country, so maybe that D810 has become the police department's new mugshot camera.
For more on civil forfeiture, see this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
There is not nearly enough information here for us unwashed bystanders forming a remotely informed opinion.
They have these things called "permits", guy. Next time, get one.
The fact that he is looking to raise money for his legal defense makes me wonder if he thinks he is a victim.
"You might call this an irresponsible or a thoughtless incident, but considering all the possible consequences, do you think is it fair to get sentenced?"
Unless the general public are allowed to climb up to the top of the bridge (which is not). Well of course he has to face the consequences of such reckless act. Whatever creativity inspired motive he has, or even he didn't mean to harm anyone on the process (he'll do if he falls down), stupidity must be punished.
This is just wrong. And does a disservice to photographers world wide. Get your permit if you "have to get the shot"... and if you are denied, move on, or figure out another "legal" way. I have no sympathies for those willing to break the law to "get the shot." Wonder how we would all feel about this article if the photographer had died?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/man-falls-death-climbing-s...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559011/photographer-falls-to-death...
Don't have to look too far to find out. It's stupid. It's illegal. It's dangerous. And yes, sometimes the police need to make a few examples to stop people from killing themselves or risking others lives.
I really feel badly for this guy. But, did he ever consider getting permission? I once came across some fantastic photos taken from the top of the Verezano Bridge in NYC. The photographer actually got permission + NYPD escort. It wasn't even work done for the city per se. He just knew who to ask and was persistent. Now, I'm sure all that wasn't free. But, hey, better that than legal trouble. I hope everything works out for him.
do you think is it fair to get sentenced?" Ummm YESSSS!!!! I'm getting extremely annoyed at the blatant disregard for others safety. These so called photographers are just selfish individuals not thinking about anyone but themselves. If he had fallen off the bridge, landed on the hood or roof a passing car or motorcyclist and killed the innocent traveler, who put them in harms way. HE DID.
This is just like the article when an angry truck driver was harassing a dumb unthinking photographer last year, when the photographer parked an Audi R8 in the middle of a so called "deserted road" with no common sense to have proper safety in place (police or city official present to control traffic.
Bottom line, think of others before acting like you are entitled to do what you want.
Fund raising for legal expenses from doing something illegal? Okay. I was just ran over by a train for shooting on the tracks. Fund raiser coming to pay my medical bills.
First of all, why did you post a photo of New York City when talking about a Philadelphia bridge?? And then to add insult to injury you call it a New Jersey bridge. Gather the facts before you write an article.
What is the issue? The photographer knew he was breaking the law and he knew the threat of terrorism is a real problem. Unless you are an anarchist, everyone should agree the photographer deserves at least a fine.