How to deal with Police when out photographing (& Photographers Rights)

[Cricket]

All very informative and thank you. I just ask that every photographer be sensitive to taking photographs of children whether they be in a public place, clothed or in swimmers and then placing those photos of said children on the internet in any form. Many parents go out of their way to ensure that their children's images are not freely available on the internet for some of our most depraved citizens so please do not make their efforts a lost cause.

[ricktas]

All very informative and thank you. I just ask that every photographer be sensitive to taking photographs of children whether they be in a public place, clothed or in swimmers and then placing those photos of said children on the internet in any form. Many parents go out of their way to ensure that their children's images are not freely available on the internet for some of our most depraved citizens so please do not make their efforts a lost cause.

I agree it is wise to ask first. However at present the laws of Australia do not distinguish about the age of a subject in a photo, except where the person is under 18 (or dressed to appear under 18) AND is in a sexual or sexually suggestive pose.

In Australia, a person (of any age) must expect to be photographed when in public. There is no such thing as privacy in a public place (beach/street/park, etc).

Whilst I think the 'intention' of 'protecting our children' is a good underlying message. People seem to dramatise the issue of strangers, when the vast majority of abuse of children occurs within the family unit, or from someone they already know. Strangers/photographers out taking photos, should be the least of their concerns.

[Colonel]

Whilst shooting motorbikes on the side of the Old Pacific Highway on the Central Coast (a very popular stretch of road for motorbikes) a police officer pulled up and asked me where my signs were? "What do you mean" I said. He then proceeded to tell me that if a motorcyclist happened to have an accident being distracted by myself taking photos I could possibly be held responsible! If I placed signs facing in each direction notifying oncoming traffic that a photographer was on that particular section then that would make everything ok.:confused013

If somebody knows the legalities of this situation then please enlighten me.

[ricktas]

Whilst shooting motorbikes on the side of the Old Pacific Highway on the Central Coast (a very popular stretch of road for motorbikes) a police officer pulled up and asked me where my signs were? "What do you mean" I said. He then proceeded to tell me that if a motorcyclist happened to have an accident being distracted by myself taking photos I could possibly be held responsible! If I placed signs facing in each direction notifying oncoming traffic that a photographer was on that particular section then that would make everything ok.:confused013

If somebody knows the legalities of this situation then please enlighten me.

Stupid. I wonder if a hot looking girl was walking along the footpath and a motorcyclist was distracted by her, if she would be held responsible for the accident? That cop was an idiot and needs to learn the laws he is supposed to uphold, not the ones the voices in his head are telling him.

[Colonel]

Stupid. I wonder if a hot looking girl was walking along the footpath and a motorcyclist was distracted by her, if she would be held responsible for the accident? That cop was an idiot and needs to learn the laws he is supposed to uphold, not the ones the voices in his head are telling him.

I think that is a great way to look at it ricktas. I don't understand his motivation to try and deter me from taking photos.

[thegrump]

In a recent challenge, rhymes with great, I saw a great opportunity with a great grate at a petrol station. Thinking that the attendant might get suss at me taking photos of a highly inflammable sight , I went inside and explained to him, that I was on a photo challenge and I needed a photo of something rhyming with great, and that I thought his huge grate running across his entire site could be a winning photo. He was more than willing to let me proceed. It also made me more relaxed so I could survey the possibilities.

123937

- - - Updated - - -


Whilst shooting motorbikes on the side of the Old Pacific Highway on the Central Coast (a very popular stretch of road for motorbikes) a police officer pulled up and asked me where my signs were? "What do you mean" I said. He then proceeded to tell me that if a motorcyclist happened to have an accident being distracted by myself taking photos I could possibly be held responsible! If I placed signs facing in each direction notifying oncoming traffic that a photographer was on that particular section then that would make everything ok.:confused013

If somebody knows the legalities of this situation then please enlighten me.

Years ago I navigated in a rally car. It was my job to give the driver ALL the info I could. On my first rally, I noticed a sign on the verge saying "CAUTION - Photographer" I did not mention this to the driver. The next thing that happened was a flash in the drivers eyes. This could have been serious as it was on a hair pin bend. BTW, It was a great shot.

[Colonel]

Years ago I navigated in a rally car. It was my job to give the driver ALL the info I could. On my first rally, I noticed a sign on the verge saying "CAUTION - Photographer" I did not mention this to the driver. The next thing that happened was a flash in the drivers eyes. This could have been serious as it was on a hair pin bend. BTW, It was a great shot.

I can certainly appreciate the danger of a flash in the eyes of a rally car driver driving at 10/10ths! It certainly would make more sense in my instance if I was using a flash also. Thanks for sharing your experience. Being a navigator for a rally car driver must require a lot of trust!

[Lance B]

Whilst shooting motorbikes on the side of the Old Pacific Highway on the Central Coast (a very popular stretch of road for motorbikes) a police officer pulled up and asked me where my signs were? "What do you mean" I said. He then proceeded to tell me that if a motorcyclist happened to have an accident being distracted by myself taking photos I could possibly be held responsible! If I placed signs facing in each direction notifying oncoming traffic that a photographer was on that particular section then that would make everything ok.:confused013

That's simply absurd. Driver distractions can occur with anything yet there are no requirements for those other distractions. What about a Cop with a hand held radar standing on the side of the road, which I would consider a much more distracting thing than a person with a camera. In fact, many people take one off photos of passing traffic or stand on the side of the road taking a photo across the lanes of traffic at say a point of interest across the road and yet there are no requirements for that.

[ameerat42]

I agree. The argument has to be extended. I have been distracted - well at first anyway - by the sudden
movement of those SCHOOPID roll-up signs. The world is full of stupid signs touting meaningless drivel.

[Cricket]

I got very distracted one day with two police officers strip searching a young woman on the footpath beside the road in the middle of the day. Hands down her shirt, up her shirt and pulling at almost every bit of clothing she had on. Now that, I found extremely distracting as a driver on the road. I also felt very offended for her as I felt that regardless of the crime she may or may not have committed they had no right to degrade her in such fashion in public view of many many people.

[thegrump]

I agree. The argument has to be extended. I have been distracted - well at first anyway - by the sudden
movement of those SCHOOPID roll-up signs. The world is full of stupid signs touting meaningless drivel.

am ... You just reminded me. A few years back while driving back from Geelong along the monotonous Freeway, I was distracted by a huge sign off in the distance. While concentrating on the sign and not my driving, on reaching a distance where I could read the sign, it said. "Loosing consecrations while driving kills" DOH

[Grant S]

I know a few ex and current NSW Police officers and the 3 I've spoken to say the bloke that told you off has no idea what he's talking about. None of them are aware of any legal requirement for signage when taking a photo roadside. Maybe he's a rally enthusiast?

[Liney]

Folks

First off thanks for a very interesting and informative thread. I'm still working though all the details, but the general thrust of the thread is good information.

The overarching rule I've always worked to is that I stay in Public places and only take images of things in public places. Add to that when I take the images I make it clear I am doing so, and what I am taking the image of, then no-one can be taken by surprise or accuse me of being sneaky.

I guess we are victims of the way technology and society have been moulded by the plethora of cameras on phones and laptops and the desire in some parts of society to take and publish images of everything they do on social media. A group of young women snapping selfies with phones and sticking them on facebook or whatever means that we are more likely to be photographed without our knowing about it, and no-one ever seems to be concerned with this happening in every street in the country.

Contrast that with a single photographer, obviously carrying a sophisticated camera and taking great concentration on looking for something to point the camera at. Whenever a case is reported of inappropriate images being taken of children, the culprit always seems to be reported as a single person seen acting in a suspicious manner. What people remember is what the media wanted them to concentrate on, unfortunately it's only a small step from the image of a single honest photographer to the single person holding a camera with other motives!

I have found myself on occasion framing an image then stopping and thinking "do I really want to take this image?" I've lined up a great shot of a fountain and some young kid wanders into my view, and while the image could well be enhanced by the happy smiling toddler, I find myself thinking about whether I want to risk having this image in my photo records. If questioned could I justify this image? Could I convince the authorities that I had no malice or evil intention when I took this image?

On the subject of putting signs up to warn people, as someone who works in the safety profession I get into endless discussions about signage and whether it should be applied to various scenarios. While signage has it's uses, it can also be overused and in that case it can be more of a hazard. Putting up a sign as a warning could lead the driver to be distracted looking for me when he should be keeping his eyes on the road. Saying that if I was taking images of passing cars I would ensure that I was not likely to cause a distraction or cause the driver to lose concentration.

[J.davis]

I was approached the other day for taking pics, all was OK, but, If you where asked to remove your pics from your camera, could you not ask the 'asking person' to delete the pictures off their phone too.

[Mark L]

I have found myself on occasion framing an image then stopping and thinking "do I really want to take this image?" I've lined up a great shot of a fountain and some young kid wanders into my view, and while the image could well be enhanced by the happy smiling toddler, I find myself thinking about whether I want to risk having this image in my photo records. If questioned could I justify this image? Could I convince the authorities that I had no malice or evil intention when I took this image?

What's the problem. Non-pornographic image of a youngster taken in a public space.
And Colonel, if you where in public space the policeman had nothing better to do, and as Grant suggested, he "has no idea what he's talking about"
A few things to look at ,
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://content.photojojo.com/photo-technique/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/
http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

[Liney]

Mark

Agree with you in that the image is in a public place and "non-pornographic", but how many images of young children in public places do you need to have before you could be accused of "stalking innocent children"? People making snap judgements based on limited information, if I had 10 images on my camera when stopped and questioned about my motives, and 7 of those included children, it would not take long for someone to reach the wrong conclusion. My point is that we will be judged not by our actual intentions but by an interpretation of the evidence. The public in general may be more likely to believe the worst about a situation

[spootz01]

The problem I've had in the past isn't with police, in fact I've actually had police officers defend my position, it is with the general public. I was once borderline attacked by a mother who thought I was taking photos of her daughters. even when I showed her every photo I had taken that day and that none of them contained her daughters, and I pointed out that her daughters were behind me she still wouldn't drop it. It was only by chance that a police officer happened upon the situation and managed to stay level headed enough to realise the facts of the situation.

Some people just refuse to believe that they are wrong.

[Hamster]

I wish there was a rule about taking photographs of motorcyclists on the road. I've been photographed a couple of times now by government photographers sitting in Nissan X Trails. Both times they had the audacity to send me a bill for their work when I didn't even commission it!
Next time I'll point out they should have had a sign.

[I @ M]

I wish the was a rule about taking photographs of motorcyclists on the road. I've been photographed a couple of times now by government photographers sitting in Nissan X Trails. Both times they had the audacity to send me a bill for their work when I didn't even commission it!
Next time I'll point out they should have had a sign.

That is pure gold, post of the month ------ :th3:

[Gazza]

I wish there was a rule about taking photographs of motorcyclists on the road. I've been photographed a couple of times now by government photographers sitting in Nissan X Trails. Both times they had the audacity to send me a bill for their work when I didn't even commission it!
Next time I'll point out they should have had a sign.
:lol:

[Mark L]

Next time I'll point out they should have had a sign.
At the very least they should have got you to sign a release form since they're making money from the photos of you.
And it's not even the police doing this any more. Bloody privatisation.

[Hamster]

At the very least they should have got you to sign a release form since they're making money from the photos of you.
And it's not even the police doing this any more. Bloody privatisation.

Good point! Although I may have to switch to an open face helmet to have a go at that one.

[Kym]

Here we go agian... In the UK

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/01/port_of_tyne_security_hassled_photographer_public_road/

[bobt]

Here we go agian... In the UK

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/01/port_of_tyne_security_hassled_photographer_public_road/

Small minded prats ....... give a man a uniform or "authority" and they instantly regress into power mad Richard Craniums.

I went into a shopping complex last week to photograph a really interesting display by the door. First I took photos from the doorway and no-one minded. The moment I crossed the threshold a guard told me I couldn't take photos. I stepped back one pace, and all was well with him. Idiot.

[ameerat42]

You should have said the magic words to him, Bob:
"Mumbo-Jumbo".

That usually goes down well - with a little explanatory preface like:
"Ah whadda lodda..."

A bit of arm-waving helps carry the meaning across, too.:nod:

[spootz01]

I went into a shopping complex last week to photograph a really interesting display by the door. First I took photos from the doorway and no-one minded. The moment I crossed the threshold a guard told me I couldn't take photos. I stepped back one pace, and all was well with him. Idiot.

As much as I hate to I must play devils advocate in this case. The security guard is 100% correct. Outside of the shopping centre is public property and no one can tell you not to take photos. Inside the shopping centre is private property and therefore ownership (the security guard by extension) can reserve the right to prohibit photography as has happened here.

[I @ M]

As much as I hate to I must play devils advocate in this case. The security guard is 100% correct. Outside of the shopping centre is public property and no one can tell you not to take photos. Inside the shopping centre is private property and therefore ownership (the security guard by extension) can reserve the right to prohibit photography as has happened here.

Without us knowing the full property boundaries of the mentioned shopping centre it is a little ill advised to say that anyone is 100% correct in this particular situation.
We even have a forum rule covering legal advice ------

[30] Requesting/Providing Financial, Medical or Legal Advice on Ausphotography:

Australian Photography is a website with broad topic coverage. However, when it comes to medical, financial and legal advice, it's always recommended to seek advice from a qualified professional, rather than asking about it on Australian Photography. As such, Australian Photography takes no legal responsibility for posts seeking or providing Medical, Financial or Legal advice. Members use any advice provided via Ausphotography at their own risk. The site owner, moderators or members cannot be held liable for any Medical, Financial or Legal advice posted on the site.

[bobt]

As much as I hate to I must play devils advocate in this case. The security guard is 100% correct. Outside of the shopping centre is public property and no one can tell you not to take photos. Inside the shopping centre is private property and therefore ownership (the security guard by extension) can reserve the right to prohibit photography as has happened here.

Yeah ... I know he was legally right, but the common sense approach just wasn't happening. The difference of a couple of inches might be within his realm to police, but considering I bridged more than that gap with a turn of the lens made it a pretty ridiculous distinction. There was another guard there as well, and even he commented to the first guy that he was being a tad picky!

As it happened, there were two identical displays - one at either end of the mall. So I took a couple of shots from one end, and then walked down to the other end where the guards were elsewhere engaged.

Sometimes common sense takes a holiday I think ......

Anyway ... I got the shot i wanted - nothing spectacular - just something that I rather liked when I saw it.

124279

[Cricket]

I think a great number of photographers been accosted by Security Guards in the name of National Security. I was taking this photograph of the Caltex Oil Refinery at Lytton, Port of Brisbane for some images for industrial and I got accosted by the security guard there telling me I was not permitted to take photographs of the refinery even though I too was on a public road which ran to the car park for the Fort Lytton National Park. I was nowhere near the restricted area, was a good 200mtrs away. He ran the length of the road to accost me and I thought he was going to have a heart attack. I managed to keep my photos but the guy did make me feel like a terrorist and was quite aggressive. I think we all need to understand that we have given up a lot of our freedoms for knee jerk reactions under the guise of National Security. BTW I am a grey haired old grannie and really look like a terrorist ................NOT

124280

[bobt]

I am a grey haired old grannie and really look like a terrorist ................NOT

Ahhhhh ... never underestimate the fear we grey haired terrorist look-alikes instill in the young. I too have been looked upon not simply as a terrorist but as a potential child molester and general purpose criminal!

They take one look at us and think "This person has clearly reached their use-by date and is likely to blow themselves up in one final act of desperation, and why not - if we looked that old we would also lose the will to live!"

We old, grey haired people are also dangerous because we are so invisible. No-one notices us, so we are well equipped to sneak into oil refineries and blow things up.

[arthurking83]

:lol:



Small minded prats ....... give a man a uniform or "authority" and they instantly regress into power mad Richard Craniums.

I went into a shopping complex last week to photograph a really interesting display by the door. First I took photos from the doorway and no-one minded. The moment I crossed the threshold a guard told me I couldn't take photos. I stepped back one pace, and all was well with him. Idiot.

And almost certainly(with ~101% confidence) 1000 other patrons were happily snapping away with their iPhones and he was oblivious to this fact! :rolleyes:

999 of them were the actual terrorists scoping out the place .. but the important point was that he stopped you taking photos of mannequins and did his job properly! :p


Guards remind me of an old 90's musical band ... can't really remember their name all that well(grey hair y'know!) .. maybe Simple Minds :D



♫ Slow change may pull us apart
When the light gets into your heart, baby

Don't you, forget about me
Don't, don't, don't, don't
Don't you, forget about me ♫

[ricktas]

As much as I hate to I must play devils advocate in this case. The security guard is 100% correct. Outside of the shopping centre is public property and no one can tell you not to take photos. Inside the shopping centre is private property and therefore ownership (the security guard by extension) can reserve the right to prohibit photography as has happened here.

Not entirely correct. Outdoor land can be privately owned. Even some roads and footpaths are private property. You need to know you are standing on public land when you take your photo.

[I @ M]

I've been known to terrorize a few subjects yet I don't have grey hair. Actually, I don't have any hair so maybe that is the problem. :D

[The dingo]

I've only ever come across a few situations where I need to advocate for my own rights or explain the law or defend myself.
Security guards are under-trained and, once in uniform, they want to tell everyone what to do.
I am almost always polite until they want to tell me what they will do or what they want me to do. Then I hand them a copy of the Arts-Law Society print-out on The Rights of the Street Photographer.

I respect the police for doing their job. What concerns me is that suspicion and complaint come before rights. Unless there is a distinct suspicion of an offence I WILL HAPPILY REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING THEY ASK OF ME.

Usually, the police come to their senses when they know they are faced with a person who is knowledgeable and forthright.

I am a firm believer that we are given laws to follow. I do that with the utmost integrity and care.

I also expect that others will support me in following the laws of the land.

The first assumption is that I am following the law. Thats the starting point. I am innocent until a crime has been committed and I am proven guilty in a court of law, not in a public place because someone didn't like what I was doing and is ignorant of the laws surrounding my activity. It would be far better for the police to approach the complainant and explain that I am within my rights to do what I am doing.

Thought crime is not yet enforceable. 1984 has well passed.

In other countries, this principle doesn't necessarily apply. Treat carefully in any communist or arab country, any part of south-east Asia, most of the US, Tesco's Car Park and at Stockport railway station. Its not the law you need to concern yourself with; its the drunks.

Only this very day did I have a bloke let his dog shit on my front lawn and refuse to clean it up. I took a photo and told him I would report him to the council. He told me I had no right to take his picture. Yeah, right!

[The dingo]

I am reminded of a situation when I was taking pictures of my grand daughter playing in a fountain in a public space. My wife was with me also taking pictures. There were other children in the area.
A bloke sided up to me and told me I had to stop taking pictures of his kids. I explained to him what I was doing but he insisted on looking at the shots. I refused and told him of my rights. He wouldn't have a bar of it and began getting aggressive.
The amusing thing was that my wife was continuing to take shots while I got harrassed by the irate parent. She had a smile on her face, knowing I was getting the brunt of it.

When I pointed this out the aggressor, he calmly said "she's a woman. "she's not going to perv on my kids like you are". At that point, my wife burst into laughter and screamed out.
"Get the pervert out of here", pointing at me.

Such is the life of a bloke with a camera.

[ameerat42]

What amazes me is that such whackoes can speak:eek::confused013
I mean, it fell apart with "She's a woman...":rolleyes::confused013

[Plays With Light]

I am almost always polite until they want to tell me what they will do or what they want me to do. Then I hand them a copy of the Arts-Law Society print-out on The Rights of the Street Photographer.
Thanks for mentioning this, Tom, I just downloaded a copy to my phone and have it already scrolled down to the part about photographing buildings so I can show it quickly, as that's what I get pestered about from time to time by security guards. Must be the shaved head and facial piercings that draws attention to me, dunno why! :confused013

It's located here (https://www.artslaw.com.au/images/uploads/Street_photographers_rights_2016.pdf) if others want a copy too.

[The dingo]

Thanks for mentioning this, Tom, I just downloaded a copy to my phone and have it already scrolled down to the part about photographing buildings so I can show it quickly, as that's what I get pestered about from time to time by security guards. Must be the shaved head and facial piercings that draws attention to me, dunno why! :confused013

It's located here (https://www.artslaw.com.au/images/uploads/Street_photographers_rights_2016.pdf) if others want a copy too.

My pleasure Alex. My appearance has had the boot heads following me from time to time. Most days I look like a drug runner or a pimp, depending on my mood. I walk with a stick for support. When a kid asks me what the stick is for I tell them it's for beating up small children who ask me questions. And all this is done without a single piercing, tattoo or shaved head.

[Hamster]

Only this very day did I have a bloke let his dog shit on my front lawn and refuse to clean it up. I took a photo and told him I would report him to the council. He told me I had no right to take his picture. Yeah, right!

I take it you've got his name and address and can provide that to the council too, plus evidence it was his dog that did it in photo form....etc etc. Can see that getting you very far.

Now if you had a handy bag you could pick up the shit yourself. Once it is contained in your hand it's your choice whether you fold the bag over the shit, and place the whole thing in the bin.....or ask said dog owner if he would like to consider changing his opinion on clearing up after his dog, while holding said shit in a "custard pie flinging" kind of stance. Be prepared for this to degenerate rapidly.

[The dingo]

I take it you've got his name and address and can provide that to the council too, plus evidence it was his dog that did it in photo form....etc etc. Can see that getting you very far.

Now if you had a handy bag you could pick up the shit yourself. Once it is contained in your hand it's your choice whether you fold the bag over the shit, and place the whole thing in the bin.....or ask said dog owner if he would like to consider changing his opinion on clearing up after his dog, while holding said shit in a "custard pie flinging" kind of stance. Be prepared for this to degenerate rapidly.

Gee, hamster, you're expecting a bit from me. I don't do dog doo. It gets hosed off and into the street drain. hat's a close as I get.

I also confronted him with my 'dog defender' stick. I've had it for 10 years and it is well used. Some blood stains add character.

Personally, I don't get dogs at all. Why anyone would have such a critter in their possession utterly dumbfounds me. The whole dog/human relationship is bazaar. I'd get it more if we ate them. Companionship? What's that about? Isn't that what other humans are for? Protection? From what? Other dogs? No! 12000 incidents of dog bites in 2016 should tell us something. They don't like us.
Get a goldfish. They won't remember you from day to day and you don't need to take them for a walk so they can shit on my lawn or bark at my window at 3am.

[Geoff79]

Oh wow, really? I love my family and close friends (all one of him) but aside from that I'd take a dog any day of the week over a human.

I'm more dumbfounded how you could not love a dog! Sure, some are crap, but there's an easy fix to that. Just buy a pug. [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Barrakooda]

To the OP & being new to the forum, appreciate the post. Some good advice there.

[ricktas]

To the OP & being new to the forum, appreciate the post. Some good advice there.

Hope we get to see some of your photography soon, eh?

[Hired Goon]

I got hassled by a security guard tonight while taking a photo of the entrance to the Riparian Plaza building in Brisbane.

I was set up on the very edge of the footpath (one step back and I'd be on the road) and the footpath is very wide (about 20 feet or more to the entrance) and (AFAIK) not causing any impediment to pedestrians. I'm always mindful of this and don't setup my tripod anywhere that blocks people from moving (mostly because I don't want someone knocking over my camera).

Anyway this bloke comes out of the security door and tells me to stop taking photos or he's calling the police. Something about "no photography allowed", asking me "who I work for", etc. I mentioned that I'm an amateur only interested in the architecture and that I was in a public place. He replied that the footpath was private property, and invited me to stand on the road if I wanted to continue.
I decided it was wise to just move on, but will be looking into this claim that an entire footpath can be private property :umm:

I did get one or two shots before the hired goon interrupted :nod:

[ameerat42]

...looking into this claim that an entire footpath can be private property :umm:

I did get one or two shots before the hired goon interrupted :nod:

1. That claim is destined to be one of the greatest works of fiction.
2. Send him a copy of his ugly mug:rolleyes: -- if you got one.

[Plays With Light]

will be looking into this claim that an entire footpath can be private property :umm:
I would be extremely surprised if a sidewalk could be considered private property unless it was a private one adjacent to a building and there was another meant for the public out by the roadside, but that's definitely not the case here.

[John King]

In Victoria the entire roadway, including footpaths up to the property boundaries, are public property, reserved under s.4 of the Crown Lands Reserve Act (1978). I'm certain it will be the same in Queensland!

[Ionica]

Maybe tell him he is harassing you on public property, and that you will call the police ?

[Brendo09]

/\ This.

It's a public walkway. In extremely rare cases private property exists to the road, but the chances on a busy street in a city... nil.

Sadly many professions work on bluff and bluster. Asking you as he did has probably worked in the past for this gentleman, and worked again on this occasion. Doesn't make it true, though.

[bricabrac89]

Great post Nick and some good replies from others also.

I came here from a link on whirlpool and was unaware this forum existed so I have just registered.

[jim]

So, have we seen this yet?
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/photographer-shot-police-officer-caught-body-cam-109876

[ameerat42]

Enjoy the new status quo: Whackotism:rolleyes:

You sure have to be Brave to live in a land that's Free of intelligence:rolleyes:

[JTPhotographics]

No good story ever starts out 'In the Marshal Islands'.

Not that I have ever been stopped by security (I prefer to get away from people and the city) I would remind said security guard that his responsibilities are to the private property the he is emplyoed to look after and if they continue to harass I would simply call the police.

[Mark L]

^
wow, don't understand this other than posting as way to keep looking at my photos.:rolleyes: