Police Incident with my camera

[threespires]

I'll now add another scenario into the discussion.

I've just looked at my dashcam and YES, the complainants did appear on my dashcam as I drove out of the car park. I see them with their iphone pointed at me and as she turned, I saw the image of my car on her iphone [it could have been another make of mobile phone].

I can only assume that they showed their photo to the police and that is how they traced me. Do I have a complaint against them for taking a photo of me and can I expect the police to question them? In my opinion, no - I can't expect that because I believe neither of us has done anything wrong.

I've now admitted that I did take a video of them. So in this scenario, do they have a right to stop me and aggressively ask why I'm taking dashcam pix & then make a complaint against me to the police with the hope that they will act on their complaint?

Don't ask me to show the video as I've deleted it.

[threespires]

Kitchski said:

You're making yourself sound like a total weirdo on this thread, and I hope it's just something lost in translation over the internet that's causing that.

Weirdo - maybe you're right, it's not for me to judge. Lets assume I am, does this affect my rights to enjoy my hobby?

From my point of view, I'm defending my right to use my camera without fear of aggression from the public and the support of this aggression by the police.

As I've mentioned, this is the 4th time that I've had police involvement because of my hobby of using a camera. The last time about six months ago I was accosted in an VERY aggressive way by a police officer when I took a shot of a police car. [See story above].

Why should I have to be on the receiving end of aggression from public and police for doing something that is perfectly legal?

To let you know the nature of my photography, the pix that I take are generally for publication on these pages or in my 365 forum group. So that's usually cars & street scenes or anything that might be of interest to forum members.

So I defend my right to use my camera and I defend my right not to be dealt with in an aggressive manner when using it and I defend my right to withhold any information that might incriminate me in the event that I am judged to have done something wrong.

Weirdo [whatever that might mean] - maybe, but that changes nothing.
Defending my rights to use my camera - Yes and please support me in that.

[threespires]

bigbob77 said:

Having read as many of the OP's posts as I could cope with, I now think that when he said "I declined to answer & he said 'fair enough' & left." he means that he literally didn't answer - just stood there in silence. Because it's HIS RIGHT not to answer

Correct, that's what happened.

[threespires]

steveo3002 said:

reading between the lines , does the o.p like pointing the camera straight in peoples faces then harp on about theres no law against it when challenged

having bother 4 times makes me wonder were the tesco folk over the other side of the car park or did he shove the camera in their faces hoping to cause a reaction

No, I've never stuck my camera in peoples faces.
I wasn't in Tesco car park, nor were the complainants. Tesco was in the background.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, I have 'form' with the police regarding pictures:-

1st time - I was questioned by a policeman [many years ago] when I was taking a picture of a Christmas tree.

2nd time, I was reported to the police when I took a picture of a newly constructed bug hotel [a pile of logs]in the park. No people, just the logs. This was 3 years ago.

3rd time [story mentioned above & happened last summer] I took a photo of a parked police car. The police lady became extremely aggressive with me, took my reg number & said she would search my Facebook pages. She knew that she was not in the photo.

4th time - The latest incident - Did I take a picture of these people or was I just pointing a camera in their general direction? Again, this has become a police incident.

I hope that by explaining my 4 brushes with the police might go some way to explaining why I am prepared to take the stance that I have decided to take.

The police should not be encouraging the public to feel that a person with a DSLR camera is doing something wrong & if somebody has a camera pointed in their direction that they have a right to complain to the police about it and expect action to be taken. As it stands, that is what happened last Friday.

Because this is the 4th time I've had a brush with the police, I have decided to stand up for myself. If that makes me a 'weirdo' or shows that I have a mental illness as mentioned above then so be it.

[threespires]

Cat said:

Where did the talk of aggression come from? In your OP there was no mention of it at all:-

Cat

He spoke to me in an aggressive tone and his stance was equally so. This contributed to my decision not to engage him in conversation.

[threespires]

TooMany2cvs said:

Autism spectrum disorders aren't a "mental illness".

I apologise, please forgive me... I'm unaware of the condition or it's meaning.

[threespires]

steveo3002 said:

so how close roughly were you away from the folk you upset

I was one side of the car park they were the other side loading their shopping into the back of their Golf.

[threespires]

Ken Figenus said:

Honestly mate. take it from someone that does this for a living...you will inevitably get challenged now and again; smile, say its for your portfolio (mention a creative theme maybe: water/trees/daily lives/hunters and gatherers in Tesco) and I'm sure you will then get no more grief. On the very odd occasion (like me...the once...and all those YouTubers doing nothing wrong, you can escalate and dig in your heels in if they really are overstepping the mark). Meantime chill and understand coppers would be pretty useless in protecting us if they never ever asked any questions! 95% of them are absolutely fine - but if they smell a rat...

Thank you, good point.

[threespires]

V6Pushfit said:

No, I am not the centre of the universe.

But like you, I am the centre of my universe and will defend my right to do what I want to do so long as it's legal.

This country has been at war in the Middle East for a number of years now on the pretext that we are giving others the right to do exactly that, giving people the freedom to live their lives as they want to without fear of harassment. But lets not get into that debate -

[threespires]

We were both in a car park next to Tesco. It was another supermarket that is next to Tesco. I was one side of the car park, they were the other. It was not a close up shot, but I did have a long zoom lens.

Just behind them was the Tesco store and further behind them the Cathedral.

[threespires]

That's exactly the spot. They were parked where the black Corsa is parked. I was standing about where the black BMW is parked.

There is a good shot of the Cathedral from that vantage point. There is also an arty shot of the Tesco sign framed by a branch.

As said above, there is not much else of interest.

I wonder if those lads sitting on the wall or the folks in the car park have complained to Google or the police about them being in the image.

[threespires]

As I have mentioned above. Yes, I agree that I could have handled the complainant better. One of the reasons I cold shouldered him was the aggression in his voice. The other was his body language which was equally aggressive. He was a big bloke & you'd give him a wide berth in the pub, particularly if he was angry.

Given this I chose not to enter conversation with him, which, upon previous occasions despite my calm and gentle attempt to persuade people that nothing weird is going on, has always ended up badly.

Why should I continually be on the receiving end of somebody's aggression purely because I have a camera in my hands. Nobody even knows if I actually took a photo with my camera or not. But I have admitted that my dashcam took a video of them both.

So is it right that a person can get the backing of the police if they see your dashcam and when you park up & get out of your car be on the receiving end of screams and aggressive attitude demanding to know why you have a dashcam taking videos. Then they rush off to the police, having taken a picture of me, and make a complaint which the police follow up.

I have done nothing wrong. Some here think I'm weird, maybe but how does that change anything. I'm being hounded for just because I'm holding a camera in my hands.

I've had enough of it and this time I shall fight it.

[threespires]

AstonZagato said:

This rather sums it up. He isn't being questioned by the police and the public for taking photos, he is being questioned for being rather weird.

For instance:

• He could have explained the situation to the MoP when first challenged. He chose not to do so. Weird.
• He could have explained the situation to the police when subsequently challenged. He chose not to do so. Weird.
• He could dispel the suspicion here by posting the innocent photo (that he may or may not have taken - weird). He has chosen not to do so. Weird.
• He could have come out here with a consistent story. He hasn't. Weird.

He is perfectly within his rights both to be a photographer and to be a bit weird. I'll defend those rights. However, he shouldn't be surprised about being questioned when being a photographer who is acting a bit weird. To believe he is being persecuted for this is, well, a bit weird.

I don't agree with anything you've said here.

1) if you'd been on the receiving end of his aggression, you'd have acted the way I did. To ignore him was my choice and I would gamble that you would have done the same thing at the time. Is that weird?
2) I've been asked by the police if I took a photo. I chose not to tell them, I feel this is right. I'm innocent until proven guilty and in this case, guilty of what? Is that weird?
3) how can I show a photo on here that I didn't take. Is that weird?
4) please point out where my story has been inconsistent?

What is weird about holding a camera in my hand?

[threespires]

stuartmmcfc said:

In the OP there was no mention of the man being aggressive. That's only been added by the OP in later posts along with other conflicting statements.

Please point out these conflicting statements....

[threespires]

XCP said:

'I've been asked by the police if I took a photo. I chose not to tell them.' Sums up the weirdness for me.

Why? What is weird about holding my cards close to my chest?

From my understanding, the police are not allowed to ask me if I've taken a photo nor are they allowed to ask to see that photo, if one was taken.

Why should I volunteer information that could incriminate me if it turns out that there could be a case against me?

Seriously, tell me what is weird about that.
Again, I ask you to tell me, what is weird about that?

[threespires]

I was standing close to where the black BMW is parked in the Aldi car park. Beyond the railings to the left is Tesco car park.
The complainant was parked exactly where the black Vauxhall is parked, they were loading their shopping into their hatchback.

I can see six people in this photo, if any of them took exception to Google taking their photo could they complain to the police and expect the police to create an incident because of it?



I looked through my viewfinder and there were a number of possible shots available.

1] A wide angle covering everything, that would have been a boring shot.
2] A zoomed shot of the Cathedral framed by the railings you can see. That could have looked quite arty and would fit in well with my 365 project.
3] A zoomed shot of the Tesco sign [not in view here] which was framed nicely by a tree and could have looked quite arty and fit in well with my 365 project.
4] A zoomed shot of a black Audi with black wheels and tints that was parked next to the complainants VW. This could have been an interesting shot for either Pistonheads or one of the many car photo groups that I belong to.

The complainant came from loading his VW back into the store, searched me out and asked me [aggressively] why was I taking photo's. I could either not answer him which I chose to do given his demeanor or I could have answered with this long and quite frankly boring explanation. Would he have understood my explanation - I doubt it.

That is why I chose to take the stance that I did and not answer him. In the many encounters that I've had regarding my photography the complainant is always aggressive and even after I've explained exactly why I'm taking a photo this does not go away.

In every case where I have been accosted it has always been because the complainant thought I was doing one thing when in fact I was doing something else.

Once I took a photo of a frosted cobweb, next thing that happened a bloke is runs after me aggressively demanding to know why I was taking a photo of his house. I said that I didn't take a photo of his house, he shouted at me saying I was lying & he saw me take a photo of his house. I showed him the photo that I had taken, it was of a cobweb. We parted company and he left muttering something which was not complimentary, I didn't hear what he said, probably 'weirdo'. As he lives close by I see him occasionally and I always get bad looks from him.

Am I weird? perhaps, many thought Christopher Jeffreys weird too and see how he was hounded.
For a bit of a giggle, please watch this short clip from Monty Python.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=chOtJdiBZR4

[threespires]

don'tbesilly said:

So a confrontational and aggressive passerby asked why you were taking photos, you blanked him, he said "fair enough" and then he walked away.

Sorry OP, it doesn't ring true does it?

I don't believe there wasn't more to this story that for whatever reason you're not telling.

That is exactly what happened.

[threespires]

V8LM said:

ETA - worth a read http://petapixel.com/2012/12/22/the-ethics-of-phot...

Thank you -

[threespires]

La Liga said:

ong?

"I'm a photographer and was taking a picture of that cathedral".

In hindsight, I agree with you.

[threespires]

mike80 said:

Google blurs peoples faces though.

Only in post processing. The original is still on their files.