Abusive Police sergeant threatens photographer

[Funk]

Stories like this wouldn't be believed if they weren't on video... Shocking behaviour from the officer and I hope he gets his comeuppance. He was NOT entitled to take the camera or dictate deletion of images (although none actually were in the end). It's worrying that the Police still aren't aware of the law regarding photography in public places. Indeed, after terrorist attacks, Police often APPEAL for any pictures or video taken by members of the public! The old 'obstructing a Police officer' line got trotted out too...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10555381/Ab...

The Telegraph said:

Abusive policeman threatens to make photographer's day 'a living hell'

A police sergeant in Gloucester is filmed telling a photographer "you're lucky I didn't knock you out" as he seizes his camera and demands pictures are deleted off it

The local amateur photographer was taking pictures of the crash scene when Sgt Wallace approached and seized his camera. The police officer told him he would arrest him and ask for him to be remanded in custody if he did not delete photos from his camera. The officer is heard to say, "we'll nick you now and I will make your day a living hell, 'cos you'll be in that cell all day. What I'll probably do is I will ask for you to be remanded in custody and I will put you before the magistrate." He added: "You're lucky that I didn't knock you out. I swore at you, yeah. It got your attention, though, didn't it?"

Unknown to the officer, the man was videoing what happened on another device as the officer took his camera from him. A one point during the exchange a third party interrupts to defend the police officer, accusing the photographer of wasting the police's time. Gloucestershire police have already said they are investigating the sergeant's behaviour but now the county police and crime commissioner Martin Surl is calling for "utmost urgency". The incident, occurred after an 86 year old woman was knocked down by a car outside Tesco in Churchdown on Nov 19. She later died of her injuries. The officer can be heard saying he would arrest the man for obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty and seized the camera, insisting he delete the images on it. He later returned the camera, without deleting any images, but after approving them.

[B17NNS]

'I'll put you before a magistrate and he'll tell you what a tit you've been'.

Not quite panned out as expected that has it officer

[SpamDisco]

I can understand the frustration of the police, the lady involed in the accident later died, there does seem to be need for some people to post videos/photos immediately with thinking through the consequences.
Imagine finding out through a facebook/twitter pic that a member of your family had died!

[B17NNS]

SpamDisco said:

I can understand the frustration of the police, the lady involed in the accident later died, there does seem to be need for some people to post videos/photos immediately with thinking through the consequences.

It's the way information is shared these days unfortunately. People are hungry for it. The days of a well prepared, researched and factually accurate piece delivered a day or two after the fact are long gone. It's news on the fly, as it happens, constantly changing. The mainstream media started it with 24 hour news. People have just taken it to the next level. Want the gen on a rapidly unfolding story where do you look? Twitter for a lot of people. You can guarantee that's where the BBC et all look too.

Fair enough to judge the guy if he is insensitive with what he photographs. To prevent him from taking them in the first place or to censor him before the fact is just plain wrong IMO.

[Starfighter]

The local rag indicates that there is a little more to the story involving the Tog being on the wrong site of police tape and getting in the way. No excuse for what the copper said.

[Pixel Pusher]

The Telegraph said:

He later returned the camera, without deleting any images, but after approving them.

'After approving them' ?

I wonder if he asked for contact sheets or did it through Bridge?

[Gemm]

SpamDisco said:

I can understand the frustration of the police, the lady involed in the accident later died, there does seem to be need for some people to post videos/photos immediately with thinking through the consequences.
Imagine finding out through a facebook/twitter pic that a member of your family had died!

I agree with you. I just don't understand people who want to video/photograph an accident. I guess it's just the way these days ........

[2slo]

If the Police have gone to the bother of taping off the scene, then that is for good reason. Most likely to cordon off an area which, in the case of a serious or fatal RTC, could warrant forensic examination and the taking of photographs for evidential purposes by a Police photographer. If an amateur photographer or anyone else not connected with the investigation chooses to ignore that barrier and potentially disturb evidence, then they are being ignorant and need to be removed from the cordoned area hopefully before they damage or destroy evidence. Having said that, the amateur togs actions would not appear to condone how the Police officer dealt with him, if indeed what's reported is correct and it's the entire story. No one offering comment here appears to have witnessed this first hand so it's all reaction to second hand information.

[Simpo Two]

Gemm said:

I agree with you. I just don't understand people who want to video/photograph an accident. I guess it's just the way these days ........

It may be distasteful but police officers are paid to enforce laws not tastes. If he was inside the cordon that was stupid, but all the policeman had to do was ask him to stand the other side.

[adamfawsitt]

It doesn't matter what the circumstances are preceding or following, the video clip shown is totally unacceptable behaviour by the Police Officer which including swearing, reference to extreme violence (the knock out section), physical intimidation, abuse of power and, potentially, a threat of false imprisonment - not what anyone pays their taxes for.

Remember when the Police were supposed to keep the peace?

Edited by adamfawsitt on Tuesday 7th January 16:18

[NailedOn]

Time for the BiB brigade from SP&L to wade in and explain why you are wrong, the PO was right, you're lucky to live in good old GB etc..

[amancalledrob]

NailedOn said:

Time for the BiB brigade from SP&L to wade in and explain why you are wrong, the PO was right, you're lucky to live in good old GB etc..

I think the important message is really that some people are pricks, and some pricks are police officers

[grumbledoak]

Some pricks are amateur photographers, too, by the sound of it.

[amancalledrob]

grumbledoak said:

Some pricks are amateur photographers, too, by the sound of it.

Can't argue with that

[Simpo Two]

grumbledoak said:

Some pricks are amateur photographers, too, by the sound of it.

Indeed, but the taxpayer doesn't pay them to be so.

Just as there we are told there is 'no excuse for speeding', there is no excuse for Mr Plod's behaviour on this one, even if he was provoked. Having a bad day maybe, but no excuse.

[adamfawsitt]

Simpo Two said:

Indeed, but the taxpayer doesn't pay them to be so.

Just as there we are told there is 'no excuse for speeding', there is no excuse for Mr Plod's behaviour on this one, even if he was provoked. Having a bad day maybe, but no excuse.

Very well put.

[covboy]

Devils Advocate – supposition/guesswork mode - Would there have been a similar reaction if a MOP had been using a phone camera rather than a “professional” looking camera ?

[creampuff]

Simpo Two said:

Indeed, but the taxpayer doesn't pay them to be so.

Just as there we are told there is 'no excuse for speeding', there is no excuse for Mr Plod's behaviour on this one, even if he was provoked. Having a bad day maybe, but no excuse.

There is a thread on this in SP&L. It has been suggested that the photog has a legal right to take photos, but not a moral one.

There was a fatal crash, some chump with a camera comes wading in taking photos and gets told to fk off.

I'd say that is the nature of things. If one of the relatives of the victim had been there he may have been punched in the face instead.

[covboy]

creampuff said:

There is a thread on this in SP&L. It has been suggested that the photog has a legal right to take photos, but not a moral one.

There was a fatal crash, some chump with a camera comes wading in taking photos and gets told to fk off.

I'd say that is the nature of things. If one of the relatives of the victim had been there he may have been punched in the face instead.

I’m not trying to nit-pick, but it seems from the postings on SP&L that the photographer arrived after the ambulance had left and the unfortunate victim died later in hospital.