A video recently surfaced on YouTube showing a police officer pulling and pointing his gun at a man filming his activity. As a photographer, it would be easy to side with the cameraman but let’s try to see what happened and check both sides of the story.
What Happened in the Video?
The eight minute video is seen from the man camera presumably installed on the videographer’s chest, but he also carries a GoPro mounted on some handle or mini-steadycam. The videographer approaches a cop standing next to his police car and films him with the GoPro steadycam. The cop asks several times, “What are you filming for sir?” but the videographer doesn’t respond. Eventually, the cop politely asks the videographer to “put it down” (the steadycam) because he “doesn’t know what that is.” The videographer finally acknowledges the officer by saying “it’s a camera, you know what that is.” At this point, things escalate very quickly, and as the cop puts his hand on his weapon, the videographer’s voice becomes more aggressive. Eventually, the cop grabs his gun (pointing down) and the man shouts at the police officer. Finally, the cop points the gun at the man and keeps asking him to put “this thing down” which only reinforces the fury of the videographer. A few seconds later, two more officers show up, and the first cop lowers his gun. The next six minutes of the video is an uninterrupted flow of shouting and miscommunication between the officers and the man who calls the first cop a “tyrant” and other colorful names (pu**y, son of a b****).
In the post 911 context, police forces are trained to be suspicious of anything. Some officers can be too aggressive. Credit: Foundry Co / CC0 Creative Commons
A Provoking Videographer or an Unprofessional Police Officer?
I must admit that I feel very uneasy watching this video. It seems that the cop didn’t have to point his weapon at the videographer but, on the other hand, the man was not very cooperative by not answering the officer’s question in the first place. At no point was the police officer disrespectful. Perhaps he felt uncomfortable with the shape of the steadycam, he repeatedly said: “I don’t know what this is.” Faced with an uncooperative person standing a few feet away from him he may have felt threatened. It may sound stupid, but in a country full of firearms, and with an average of one cop shot to death per week, cops can be on edge. On the other side, the man was merely filming police activity and started shouting and calling names only after the cop grabbed his weapon. According to the local news report, the videographer is the founder of California Citizens Watch, a group that audits government entities. The YouTube account bears the same name. A quick look at his videos shows other “cop watch” films conducted by the same man. At this point, everything is up to interpretation. Pro-cop groups will say that this man was confronting an officer, looking to trigger an incident by not being cooperative. Pro-civil rights groups will argue that cop abuses are common in this country and the law gives citizens in some states the right to document police activity. California is one of them thanks to the Penal Code Section 148(g).
The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the picture or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a), nor does it constitute reasonable suspicion to detain the person or probable cause to arrest the person.
The videographer didn't have to comply with the officer’s request to put is camera down, and he only became upset and angry after the cop pointed his gun at him, which is understandable. There is some truth on both sides of the story. Cops feel vulnerable while on duty. It might be a long shot, but there have been several cases of criminals and terrorists filming their actions while committing homicides. Conversely, cop watch activists are necessary to raise awareness and prevent law enforcement abuses by restoring some balance of power. Far too many times in this country, cops walked away free of charge after shooting innocent people or photographers for absolutely no reasons.
As a landscape and urban photographer, I had many encounters with law enforcement personnel over the years, and being cooperative and friendly goes a long way. Sure, some of them were rude at first, but there is no need to escalate the issue. Plus, keep in mind that in the absence of a recording, it will be your word against the officer and the outcome may not be favorable for you. Like photographers, cops are people with good and bad days. We’ve all witnessed production assistants being poorly treated by photographers on set for no reasons, but angry artist don’t usually carry a gun. Attitude is important. In case of contact with the cops, it’s possible to be cooperative and polite without being submissive. State your right but follow the officer’s instructions, be calm and courteous.
Conclusion
Being a police officer is not easy but having the power to legally kill people during your job comes with extra-responsibility. Bad temper and poor judgment can cost lives, which is not acceptable. Too many times in the past, law enforcement agents got away with shooting people for dubious reasons. Lawmakers gave citizens the right and legal protection to document police activity in order create a checks and balances system and avoid abuses. Watching the video, it seems that the officer crossed the line by pointing the gun at a man that was not constituting an immediate threat despite what some may describe as an “annoying behavior.” But a YouTube video does not constitute an absolute proof as we don’t know the full extent of the story and I’m not a judge. Hopefully, the Justice and Internal Affairs department will be able to sort this out and take this officer out of the streets if necessary. For now, let’s remain calm without fueling the internet hysteria.
In any case, if an angry police officer confronts you during your work as a photographer, do not resist, stay calm and comply with the officer’s instructions — even if he is wrong. There will be plenty of time later on to contest the policeman’s actions. Resisting will only make your situation worse and could justify abusive behaviors afterward.
>> you feel that the officer shouldn't at lease use some caution?
The officer didn't use caution. He made a deadly threat without adequate reasons. That's a felony. Non-felonious "caution" is fine.
>> As soon as the officer reaches for his weapon the man starts to be agitated which should also raise one's concerns.
This is record breaking idiocy. You're really arguing that being "agitated" because someone is about to illegally point a weapon at you is suspicious. Do actually understand what guns are for?
.
Why not? In the video he did not remove his gun at first yet the man filming becomes agitated at the officer as he is simply preparing for his weapon to be removed. Then once the man is agitated he removes his gun. Hey I get it there are cops out there that over step their bounds. I just commented on a case that occurred in Kansas where a motorist is pulled over and the cops give a bogus excuse for pulling the person over. But in this case the guy filming was looking for trouble, even if he had to start it himself. He didn't have to stop filming and he could of simply answered the officer's questions.
Officer please shoot him next time. He blew that situation up just for the video. Just because you have a camera doesn't mean you get to instigate stuff with the police.
I worked with police officers, most are very friendly and far from abusing their authority. This officer was baiting the photog. You could tell by the way he was approaching the man with the wording of his questions. My guess is that the photog is known by officers in the area. Why do I assume this? no assumption the photog already was stating the SGT knew who he is. If the SGT knows (who this is) the men know too, it is part of the rank and file and how it works: Armed forces or police. Most officers don't like hostility. Would you want a photog with video cameras coming to your work and documenting everything you do? No one would. Officers are human too. The only difference is they can use force or abuse authority to make you stop. No one knows the backstory on the history of the photog and his relation (strained or not) to the officers in the area. I would consider this "tort" on both parties. Both are at fault, one for intentionally baiting. The other for being explosive verbally which only escalates the situation and gives the officer the needed excuse to subdue you with force. I very pro-police, generally, but not in situations where it is obvious that the officer is overstepping his authority boundary.
I saw a man with his cameras already recording walk up to an officer that is already on alert in the middle of a situation, and not answer the officer the first 3 times he asked what he was doing. Then when he did it was a rude "You know what it is..." He was performing for his video to get footage of a situation he created. "It's a gopro and I'm just filming police activity" in a calm non combative manner would've defused the entire situation, but that would've been a boring video.
This is as bad as the people that do something to police and then start recording once the officer responds to make it look like the officer just acted without reason. Regardless of a camera, the tone of his voice and frantic movements would put an officer on alert. Only difference is he should've pulled out a taser instead of his weapon. Terrorist love to video themselves killing people and shooting cops for fun or getting them in trouble seems to be the latest trend.
I agree. but it's tort on this video in particular. Why tort? because with authority comes responsibility and patience. These two factors weren't really show. So the photographer definitely was trying to get a reaction (out of the police) which he did (which shouldn't have happened).
I think there is a line to be crossed and he crossed it and wanted to for the sake of getting video. At some point an officer has to take steps to protect themselves.
I have to side with the cops on this one. The officer pointed his gun in the videotographer's direction but at no time was his finger on the trigger. The videotographer was clrealy trying to agitate the cop which he failed to do. All police officers remained calm, respectufl & professional. BTW the videotographer actually said a few times "upholster you weapon", a Freudian slip? (mabye).
In what universe is pointing a gun at someone but not putting your finger on the trigger appropriate? My Dad taught me that if you point a gun at someone you better be prepared to kill them. If this officer pointed his gun at me I would expect that he intends deadly harm against me. We can conjecture all day long if the officer knew it was a camera ( he did) or if the man’s behavior was antagonistic but the rule of law for the use of deadly force (which unholstering a gun portends) is in the defense of immediate threat to oneself or others. A pissed off citizen with says that he will not put down his camera doesn’t sound like an immediate threat to me and it especially shouldn’t to someone like a LEO that is trained in threat assessment.
I watched the video again. It's much worse than I thought. The officer starts by showing that he knows that the object is a camera, because he asks why he is being filmed. He then escalates to making a threat against an unarmed man. That's a threat of deadly force. This isn't just an administrative matter; this should be jail time.
The guy had two cameras. The cop was initially referring to the camera that captured the video we saw. What he was unsure of was the other one, which was a GoPro on a gimble. The guy with the cameras is the one who started escalating the situation - on purpose.
The gimble was what the officer was talking about and the guy was vague on purpose.
You are assuming the officer is referring to the camera in the man's hand. The man also has a camera on his chest so could the officer be referring to that camera? Could he not be confused by what the other object is since it is not simply just a camera as can be seen when he takes it away?
Once again: ***if the cop thought that he was under threat, he wouldn't even have mentioned filming.*** When you think your life is at threat, you don't care if you are being filmed. The cop started by objecting to being filmed, then looked for excuses. No device that the photographer was carrying looked remotely like a weapon - and the cameras did indeed look camera-like, what with being boxes with lenses. There really is no way around this, however disgustingly great your tendency to cringe before authority figures.
I'm an independent photojournalist, not connected to a media outlet, and have never had problems with the police and I'm around them, photographing them, all the time.
What is important to remember with this is that the guy shooting the video is not a photographer. He's an agitator looking to cause conflict with law enforcement so he can increase his YouTube views. There are hundreds of videos on YouTube just like this put out by people who call themselves "citizen journalists". They do it for views and ad revenue.
The guy capturing the video could have easily told the cop at the beginning what he was doing and why. "As part of an audit, I'm videoing you as is my first amendment right. I'll stand back at a reasonable distance and am not here to interfere with your job." Simple. But he chose not to say anything which escalated the situation. This is a typical tactic people like this use to "juice up" their videos.
If you've never seen a GoPro on that gimble device, then you would naturally ask what it was. The guy had two cameras, so it's logical as to why the cop asked what that was. Again, providing a simple answer would have led to calmer interaction.
Nothing strannge about a country that has youknowwhat for president...it's a sad state of affairs...
What does Trump have to do with this? Honest question. If you want I can provide you links to videos of this very thing happening when Obama was president.
I agree with the author. Even when you are in the right, there is no need to escalate things more than needed. He could have calmly asked the same questions without potentially escalating things to a point where someone could have been hurt.
Both of these people are in the wrong. He should not have been so close to the operating officers and he should have kept his mouth shut.. on the officer side, of course that officer new he was holding a camera. police aren't stupid. the officer also should have released his name and badge number. he is legally obligated to say who he is and what his officer ID is. I'm surprised this didn't turn out worse.
You do not know that the officer knew the object in the man's hand was a camera. The officer did know that a camera was on him but remember the man also had a camera strapped to his chest which I'm guessing the officer could identify. The object in the man's hand was more than just a camera and the officer might not have realized that a camera was part of that object. Look at the object as the officer moves it, again there is more there than a camera.
You'd have to be Hellen Keller to be unable to realize it's not a gun. How does a gopro on a top handle look like a gun? I mean unless you are mistaking it for an extremely tiny mini gun that fires 22lr rounds but even then that's a massive stretch.
Not even close to looking like a gun my dude. :/
A Provoking Videographer or an Unprofessional Police Officer? A lot of both. Two wrongs don't make a right, I guess.
The videographer was a jerk. Immediately, he went into confrontation mode. Perhaps he wanted "suicide by cop". I wasted 7:48 minutes of my life watching this video again. I was hoping there may have been something different.
"...but there have been several cases of criminals and terrorists filming their actions while committing homicides."
I bet that's what the police man thought. And I completely agree with him!
Even I would have thought that he's filming me to kill and upload to internet, so he extract the gun preventively that if the guy tried to kill him he can defense himself.
100% reason to policeman.
Land of the free? Nah
Sure it is. But expect to be treated with some suspicion when you're acting suspiciously. Common sense.
Up here North of the 49th, we expect this officer to be without his job very soon.
At no point did this "uncooperative" person ever threaten the officer, and he, by unholstering his sidearm, had already used force unlawfully.
http://www.wheatonslaw.com
Isn't dealing with annoying and a-hole behavior part of the job? Or maybe it costs too much to train officers to try a couple things before drawing their gun to prepare to shoot the man.
It all ended ok, the video guy didn't get shot and the cop got a couple paid days off to clean out the garage or go fishing. And neither of them learned anything.
I'm of two minds on this one:
On the one hand, the photographer is protected by the First Amendment in this case, because he was on public property, photographing a civil servant. I doubt very much that a cop, someone who is required to wear a body cam and whose cruisers are equipped with dash cams, doesn't know what a GoPro is.
On the other hand, if you're confronted by an officer who is willing to draw his gun because you're filming him, egging him on by getting loud, vulgar, and calling him "tyrant" probably isn't a smart idea.
After listening to and watching this video, all I can say is this VG is lucky he didn't get shot, although I'm sure he was white. Whereas, if he was a person of color he would have gotten shot as his behavior would have been deemed as aggressive and threatening. The way this VG carried on was in my opinion provoking the officer. The office after hearing certain key word (like the VG asking for his ID and get his Sargent and shouting PC-148g
should have never pulled his weapon there was nothing there threatening him so that was the mistake on the officers part. The VG should get a ticket for abusive behavior for that could have escalated to a much worst outcome. However, like I said if he had been a person of color shoot first ask question later. That unfortunately is the way of the US police force. No longer serve and protect.
What scares me the most is that I'm going to embark on a world trip and part of that is the US and as a person of color, I have to admit I do not feel safe in doing the work I'll be undertaking as I photograph my work at night in places where only the light of the near by lamp or door light is what I use, also because I shot nudes as well. I feel perfectly safe in Europe and other places, unfortunately the US has changed.
I have NO sympathy for the videographer. Not responding to the policeman's questions is a sure way to put the policeman on edge, and implies the photographer is hostile.
Not responding to a officer is not a hostile act. It implies nothing. Your projecting a false assumption. I may not respond to an officer because most lawyers tell you that any interaction with a LEO may be held against you. You have no obligation to assist their investigation into a crime of you or anybody else. The Supreme Court has also upheld that law inforcement may lie to you during their investigation. Not cooperating (which is different than resisting arrest) is your right and shoul not be treated by officers as an affront to their authority or a threat. If the officer treated his job as a job where sometimes he/she wins and sometimes they lose and not so personal and with a savior mentality it would be healthier for them and truly for the community they serve.
The videographer was way out of line and just looking for trouble. He should have went to jail.com
Man. That videographer is an arrogant piece of shit. If he would have done that to me and not stop recording when requested, I would have best the crap out of him. Arrogant shit