A man with a camera and a smartphone was questioned for twenty minutes in his own neighborhood after a woman called the cops, fearing he was taking photographs of children in the park across the street. It turned out he was just a guy who lives nearby and has been photographing his neighborhood for three decades. Was this a little embarrassing for the woman? She might feel that way, but there are two sides to this story.
Essentially, the Internet (of photographers, perhaps) seems annoyed that another human being was concerned with someone taking photographs. Neither the fact that six policemen arrived to question the man for 20 minutes while looking through photographs on his phone to confirm he had not taken photos with that device either, as had been suggested, nor the fact that the man hadn't even actually taken any photographs yet help the situation seem any better. But was it really that bad?
So, she was wrong in her suspicions; I get it. But can you really blame her? The article quoted in this story suggests we should simply talk to people that we're worried might be photographing children in a not-so-innocent way. And that's true. That's one way to go.
On the other hand, I think it's hard for men (and I'm a dude, for the record) to understand the fear women go through every day. I've imagined it and I think it would be even presumptuous of the relatively socially forward-thinking me that I am to say that I fully understand. I had an experience walking in Detroit several years ago with a Hasselblad H4D-40 around my neck that scared me for the first time in my life. Until that point, I hadn't been scared — not once — walking down any street in the world (and I'd been around quite a bit, not to mention the better part of a year spent in Ghana back in high school).
Society — okay, so maybe not you or me, but maybe — has its effect on women regardless and in a much more profound, everyday, non-location-specific manner. There’s not much anyone can do about it without decades of slow progress.
Was this woman’s life or well-being threatened in that specific moment? Perhaps not. But it’s this same fear that is increased by the same media that posts and shouts of every child molester’s wrong-doings, taking advantage of the situation and constantly building fear surrounding the idea of men photographing children (don't get me wrong: child molesters are terrible, for lack of a better term at the moment, but it's the media's constant extension of every scenario that makes it seem like every man who smiles at a kid with ice cream on his or her face is a potential pervert).
But we have to live both sides of this with grace and a good attitude. We (as men) need to be understanding of the fact that, yes, it’s a bit creepy to photograph near, around, or in the general direction of children. As much as I want to photograph beautiful and interesting children, men, women, and everything in-between, the older I get, the weirder it gets for me to photograph at least the children. That part is just not quite the same for female photographers. And no, it may not be fair, even though we have the best intentions. However, I think a man with a camera near a park can go through a few minutes of questioning to satisfy everyone’s worry and make them feel comfortable for once.
The man in this story complained that his wife saw him with the officers when she came home and immediately thought the worst might have happened to their teenage son, causing her to shake with grief from her stirred worries. While it’s unfortunate that she was worried, that is simply a mother’s reaction and the very normal act of “jumping to the worst conclusion” that every mother does when the phone rings late at night or when receiving a text that plainly states, “call me.” At some point, worrying is just a part of life that we need to deal with and police shouldn't have to worry about someone else who might start to worry that someone they love might be hurt after simply seeing the police near their home.
So, why couldn’t the woman who called the cops just have asked this man what he was up to in the safety of broad daylight? First of all, the “safety of broad daylight” could easily be considered a myth for many women. And second, I’m sure she legitimately thought the man was a creep. What woman wants to walk up to a man like that and question him or perhaps tip him off and have him disappear into the wind? At some point, police are there for a reason: to be that safe barrier.
With all the stories about police brutality lately, calling the cops might be viewed as extreme. But by the sound of it, these policemen seem to have handled themselves the same way that the far majority of officers still seem to do so: with adequate restraint and good intention. Were six officers a bit much? Perhaps. But having backup simply keeps the officers as safe as possible and who isn’t for that, really?
No one was tackled. No one was arrested without cause. The man was simply questioned and 20 minutes of his day were “wasted” to satisfy the worry of another woman (and he didn’t have to give up access to his phone if he didn’t want to, but he obviously felt it was okay and in his best interest to cooperate and help prove his lack of ill will). It wasn’t the best day for anyone. But it wasn’t the crime of the century, either. Can we all just get over it?
What do you think? Was it an overreaction? Was the man “wrongly” questioned? Ready, set, comment.
UPDATE: It should be noted that taking pictures of anyone on public property is not a crime (at least not in the U.S.). There was obviously a huge assumption made that this man was taking photos of children and that he was planning on using them in some negative fashion. However, legally, there is nothing that is "wrong" or that can be done until this man uses those photos in that negative fashion, whatever it may be (not sure what you can do with photos of children in a park, but it is a "thing" at least in the mainstream news media and throughout Hollywood movies that somehow, pedophiles like to take photos of kids in parks).
Perhaps, given these facts and added considerations, the woman should have simply not reacted. At the same time, however, perhaps it should be the policemen's jobs to know the law and inform the woman there is nothing they can or should do at that moment. Thoughts?
[Via SomeNews]
I think this nightmareland characterization is largely a structure born of the media's portrayal of specific events. That's not to say there are major issues with certain policemen or policewomen, or even that the issue isn't as broad as effecting an entire precinct or an entire city. But by and large, MOST cops are honest, good, hardworking people that get thrown into this pile with the few "off" cases we hear about online and on TV (which are terrible, granted). But that's certainly not indicative of the larger truth (although it is indicative of the larger "picture" because the media has created this "image" for us).
That's fine to think that, but just know that you're living in a state of massive self-delusion if you adhere to this notion. 'Exposure to/perception via the media' and 'hundreds of hours of research' are not comparable metrics of understanding widespread, protected, police malfeasance. Informally, it's *widely* known—I mean internationally—that US police have very little accountability. Considering the number of unarmed people who are shot and killed each year, and how few charges are ever laid against officers (or even workplace disciplinary measures) one would think the statistics could speak for themselves — and yet, every time a case goes high-profile, all the machinery of pundits, officials, and even the public go into high gear to excuse their behaviour because of how 'tough their jobs are' and how "threatened" the officer felt.
And, this "nightmareland" characterisation, remember, wasnt limited to the police. As a non-American, it's very evident to an outsider the degree to which individual rights (particularly without regard to context or, at times, even facts) are practically fetishized in USA. You even have a mascot for this in that little "Don't Tread on Me" snake.
"we see cops as a person not as the faceless law."
One cop ... maybe ... being swarmed and surrounded by 6 cops?
Also, that conversation should have taken 2 minutes TOPS, not 20.
what are you doing.
enjoying the park
Can I see your camera?
No ... am I under arrest? Am I free to go?
End of conversation.
Lukas, The cops in America are just another gang. We fear them because they can do what they want up to and including murder and the courts will let them go.
My Brother moved to China and he will never move back. He feels more freedom there than in America!
6 cops, detained, illegally searched ... right ... that's all perfectly fine.</sarcasm>
Yeah...you're not (he's not, they're not) giving up any rights. It's just a few questions. So again, I'm saying...maybe it was slightly over the top. But when all is said and done, it's pretty mild and livable.
Adam,
Look at the video evidence! People have been killed by the police for "just a few questions!" They are there for your money, not your protection!
There is clarification in another article on the same subject that he had a film camera on a neck strap but never took a single photo that day. So the woman called the police only on suspicion that he might be taking photos, which is absolutely crazy. You are right that the police have to respond to citizen complaints, but there was absolutely no evidence of any crime. The Police were out of line in even asking to examine his phone without evidence.
Anyone can ASK to do something. He didn't HAVE to show them his phone...and had he refused, and had they then forced him or confiscated the phone or detained him, then there would have been a real problem...
Yup ... let me know how you feel when you are surrounded by 6 heavily armed police officers who are looking at you like you are a pedophile ... let's see how long your convictions last then.
I have no problem talking to cops. Most aren't heavily armed (I don't consider a pistol and some less lethal options like a taser and some pepper spray "heavily armed"). And if I didn't want to give something up that I didn't have to, I absolutely wouldn't. I don't understand...it's really quite simple.
Pepper spray or a taser WILL kill me but I'll admit that I'm more of an exception in that regard as I am asthmatic (severe) but you've already listed 3 weapons on each of the 6 officers.
I hope you never find yourself in that situation then where 6 officers surround you and demand that you give up your constitutionally protected rights.
Right, street photographers all belong in jail. /s
Doesn't the sentence, " We (as men) need to be understanding of the fact that, yes, it’s a bit creepy to photograph near, around, or in the general direction of children," assume that it's justified to see men as pedophiles more-so than women?
I understand the woman's concern, but isn't this attitude just feeding into the presumptions of guilt and overreactions?
It's wrong to assume a person is up to no good because they're black.
It's wrong to assume a woman wants sex because of what she's wearing.
But it's alright to assume someone is a pedophile because they're a man?
What?
I'm not saying it's right for people to assume they're pedophiles. I'm just bringing up the fact that you have to understand you're going to get some looks if you're some middle-aged guy taking photos of children for a few hours one day. Now, that's not exactly what happened, and nothing about that is wrong, technically. But there's a point where society SHOULD be one way, but IS another. And at some point, we just have to live with and deal with that and be prepared for that in our minds when we go out.
It's like, just like the guys with semi-automatic rifles that have licenses for them and carry them around in a highly populated area to prove a point.... Technically, if you have an open carry license for those guns, you're not doing anything wrong at all. You shouldn't be bothered, etc. But you've got to understand you're going to get some looks and some policemen questioning you at the VERY least if you're walking around with a 4-foot rifle on Main Street. That's a more extreme example, but the point is the same.
"The fact is that it is a little sketchy for a black man to be walking aimlessly around a neighborhood."
"The fact is that it is a bit creepy for a man to be photographing in the vicinity of children."
So it's a fact and not a perception? It appears to me that you are saying that these assumptions of male photographers are understandable, simply because of their maleness. I get the underlying message, but your choice of words really undermines it.
The way you say things matters, and can give certain connotations and reinforce negative attitudes.
Bravo!
"I'm just bringing up the fact that you have to understand you're going to get cat-called if you're some young girl walking down the street wearing slightly revealing clothing."
"I'm just bringing up the fact that you have to understand you're going to get taken advantage of if you're some young girl drinking a lot at a party."
Funny how things change when you change a few words. Just because some people have a belief, regardless if its commonly felt or pushed by the media, doesn't mean people should have their legal rights encroached upon. This situation seems quite minor, but even with the police being okay to the guy, the should have barely responded at all. I've seen videos of a single officer been sent to check on a guy walking around with an AR. The whole thing was resolved in a 5-10 minute conversation. Like that gun-toting 'murican, the photog isn't doing anything illegal; but I understand the police wanting to get down there and get a quick idea what he was doing to ease the public mind. Why they needed to respond with six officers and take up 20mins baffles me however.
The mother needs an education. But at least she just simply called the police and wasted everyones time and tax money rather than the psychos that seemingly regularly attack people that have a camera anywhere near a child.
Your scenarios are completely different from this. In your example, the person dressing a "certain way" isn't making the other person feel threatened. They are merely attracting unwanted attention that, in a perfect world, wouldn't be there.
In the other case, people are doing things that are threatening to those around them. And there are different degrees of how threatened people feel based on the action and based on the person's feelings.
Now, SHOULD that be threatening (a photographer around children)? Not at all, necessarily. But it is to some. I'm not saying it's right. But I'm saying that there is plenty of media craziness and plenty of scaring of women left and right to cause some extra (perhaps, overkill) caution. But it's all intertwined. At the end of the day, everyone needs to chill out (and men need to stop creating a system where women are constantly scared...but that's not just going to happen tomorrow...you're always going to have creeps toward women and children somewhere in the world to worry about...).
Just examples of how peoples perceptions aren't reality. People have the right to dress how they wish, and people have the right to photograph their neighborhood (and children if they wish). How people perceive these actions shouldn't matter.
I grew up a block down the road from the HQ of the biggest gang in New Zealand. Due to the nature of what I saw around me constantly, as a skinny white boy, I for a while held quite a lot of concern about Maoris and found natural everyday actions to be threatening at times. If I held on to the fear and beliefs that Maoris were violent people and today, crossed the street to avoid them or called the cops any time I saw them doing something slightly irregular I would be, rightfully so, considered racist. The woman in the story likely wouldn't have battered an eye if the photographer was female, yet automatically assumed that he was a pervert due to his gender.
If the woman in question held racist views and called the police because a large African-American man was hanging out nearby that may be a threat to her children.. would you have the same views on how justified her actions were/were not?
P.s. Not trying to a douche and attacking your views, just enjoy debate and discussion on topics such as this.
They're called counterexamples. It's a philosophy thing, when an argument is structurally or logically invalid, counterexamples are given taking that argument to extremes showing it IS invalid. In this case, your argument that men need to just deal with it is itself a slippery slope argument that is inherently horrible.
Adam, men and women actually do have sex together from time to time. It's great.
I'm squinting pretty hard but I don't see this system created by 'men' to scare 'women' that you mention. I think I'll have to call that one out as complete bullshit and possibly borderline 5th wave feminism.
In regard of creeps, I find there are just as many of the female gender.
Cheers for the post nonetheless and have a good one
Then perhaps you are part of the heteropatriarchal problem that so many are not attuned to?
I don't think so...
Then you're not squinting hard enough. Systemic phallogocentricism, heteronormativity, toxic masculinity, patriarchy, chauvenism, and sexism are all subtle realities of western civilization. Enumerating examples would be onerous, but there're more than ample resources if you're open to study. Go check out some Hannah Arendt, Judith Butler, Luce Irigaray, bell hooks, Foucault, Andrea Dworkin, Simone de Beauvoir, Derrida, Audre Lorde, GC Spivak, Geraldine Finn, Anna Mollow, Laverne Cox, Silvia Federici for a decent start.
And also to your point, yeah....the police, if anything, even, should have asked him, "Hey, are you photographing children for illicit use?" He should have said, "No. I'm just photographing in my neighborhood as I always do. Sometimes I do photograph children, though... But not for anything illicit." And they should have parted ways.
You say we have to live with this situation Adam. You assume the status quo (or what is becoming the status quo) is how things are and have to be.
I disagree, I think when something like this happens the response should be outrage online (and in person) so that all those encountering it have to double take and think "Woah, maybe I'm wrong and it isn't ok to have police investigate photographers taking photos in public places".
In your article you write "Essentially, the Internet (of photographers, perhaps) seems annoyed that another human being was concerned with someone taking photographs." Those internet people are those working to educate others on the rights of photographers and to combat this poisonous idea that taking photos of children who aren't yours is immoral or illegal. Your article has the opposite effect.
"some middle-aged guy taking photos of children for a few hours one day. Now, that's not exactly what happened"
Right. In fact, that is NOTHING even REMOTELY like what happened.
Just stop. You're only digging yourself deeper and deeper.
lol, i like how this has 8 thumbs down and all you're doing is pointing out the discordance between the mores of social reaction and to-the-letter legal rights. And you think Americans aren't defensive about individual legal rights? Looks like American photographers are a whole other breed.
He didn't even take a single photo. The police had no right to question him for sitting in a park. This fear mongering is exactly what is wrong in this country. Also, this is a minor correction but, his phone was a flip phone not a smartphone.
It appears that male photographers are the new Black man. In DC, recently, a young Black male college student was forcibly detained by white police officers after he open the entrance door of a bank for a white women and her baby. She called the police and told the dispatcher "she felt uncomfortable"by their presence. The police responded by nearly running the young man down and weapons drawn.
Male photographers are the new Black man in America.
Uhh...i don't think male photographers will *ever* be persecuted as much as black men (or black women, ftm)
Not willing to stir the pot much further but in my experience, people that complain about photographers tend to be a little... let's say... 'self-righteous'
This doesn't surprise me and it's not only when children are present that such concerns can be raised with police.
A few years ago I was walking to the bus as part of my commute into NYC and the moon was visible in the early morning sky. I wanted something in the foreground to make an interesting photo and used the turret on top of the local school building, which I passed each morning, with my compact 10x zoom point and shoot. It was cold that morning at around 7am, well before any children arrived, and I was wearing my black trenchcoat.
The next morning I noticed a police car parked on the corner by the school but didn't think much of it. That morning was warmer so I wasn't wearing my trenchcoat. The following morning I had my trenchcoat on again and there were 2 police cars which went ahead to intercept me. It seems a lady who lived nearby had reported a man in a trenchcoat taking photos of the school, so for 2 days they staked out the area.
They questioned me for a while and I showed them the photo, which was still on the camera (I was a little concerned when the first photo that came up was one I took on the day between, of a dirty NYPD van with "Wash Me" in the dirt on the back). They checked my background, thought the moon photo was cool and made a report that I wasn't a terrorist, while telling me to be cautious about taking photos around schools and public buildings.
In my case I offered to show my photos to explain why I was taking photos of part of the school building and to defuse the situation. It provided them with an understanding of what I was doing and allowed me to get on with my commute much quicker than if I'd seemed uncooperative.
To be honest I felt less compelled by them than I was mortified that someone would think I was up to something nefarious.
Unbelievable!
I was taking photos in an industrial part of town not to long ago. A girl called the cops because she thought I was shooting into her window. Ends up on the opposite side of the street she had a studio apartment. I had no idea, honestly, from the outside you would never have guessed someone lived there.
Cops came, asked to see the photos, I obliged. Even though there was nothing on my camera of her, her window, or any person for that matter, they not only asked me to change locations, as well as to erase the photos I had on my card. I refused.
The whole thing lasted 20 minutes. Finally I decided to leave, and they didn't push the issue with regards to the photos I on the card.
I understand people want to be cautious. But we have become SO SENSITIVE to everything. Relax people, not everyone is a criminal or pervert.
A good example of handling a mediocre pain in the butt with sensible instincts, simply answering their questions but also maintaining your rights.
It's unfortunate that she was mistaken, but who knows how many issues she's had with certain creeps in her life that led her to jump to that conclusion...
I don't know what Adam's problem is, but it's obvious by now that he feels a strange need to defend, rationalize and enable paranoia and hysteria.
Are you SERIOUS? It's not a mediocre pain it's a VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS! He was detained for over 20 minutes and forced to move to another location even though he had every right to be in that location!
COP: What you doing there buddy.
VICTIM: Photography.
COP: Can we see the pictures?
VICTIM: No. Am I being detained or arrested?
COP: No.
VICTIM: Have a good evening officers. *Goes back to shooting*
That should have taken 30 seconds.
Just out of interest... in the US (assuming you are in the US), is it illegal to be shooting her window?
In the UK if it is visible from a public place and you take the photo from that public place (or I think if you have the land owners permission) it is legal to take the shot.
I don't know the exact legality. But I do know that there are laws (at least in certain states...maybe even federally) that protect women (or men, for that matter) from so-called "peeping Toms" with or without cameras, even if the photos are taken from public property. Those laws are becoming slightly more stringent on average as time goes, but just with respect to protecting people's privacy when they're in the nude. By and large, however, there's still little that can be done if you live in an apartment building with big windows and stand in front of them naked. Of course, you just shouldn't do that if you don't want to be photographed... But the law does vary in some areas with respect to the specifics of what is and is not okay, there.
You can have expectation of privacy at home, so if someone will use long lens to photograph you from public property, that person is braking the law (in US).
Not true. If you can be seen from public, you can be photographed. If you don't want to be seen through the window, draw the shade. This has been tested in court. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/family-loses-legal-battle-photog-pic...
That was judges ruling in this particular situation. It doesn't make a law. The law is very vague. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" can be interpreted differently by different judges. Honestly if you are standing a front of the window, you can't expect much privacy, but if you are in bathroom with open doors and someone needs to use 800mm lens to see you there, probably he/she invades your privacy.
Unbelievable!!
When bored, i like to go to to Disneyland and report every solo male with a camera to security saying i think he is taking images of young children.
They might be totally innocent, but better to be safe than sorry right??
Nope. Total violation of the photographer's rights. I hope he took down badge numbers.
First off, The police DO NOT get to look at any of my photos or camera without a warrant. Period. And unless thew were placing me under arrest I would have been out of there in less than 5 minutes. Or I would be a very wealthy photographer after the lawsuits..