SF Golden Gate Bridge Protest

[ewink]

I just saw some video of a protest that happened on 1/1 at the Golden Gate Bridge.

In the video, some cops appears to be confronting a photog. One puts his hand on the photogs lens, which in reply the photog seems to smack the cops arm or shove him. Was fast, couldn't tell which. The other cops nearby then proceeded to what appeared to be arrest him.

Anyone know anything or have any details?

[engphotog21]

Where can it be seen at?

[ewink]

I only saw it on the local FOX station. I checked the SF TV stations websites and couldn't find any video. Dude had a professional looking camera, so I doubt he was with the protesters (or KRON :P). Just curious why this hasn't been mentioned so we could scold the cops; and the photog for losing his temper!

[Stoney]

on SFGate.com

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/default?o=1&f=/c/a/2007/01/02/BAGVRNBD3H1.DTL&type=default

[ewink]

Thanks.

Anyone know, are those Golden Gate Bridge officers cops or security guards?

[engphotog21]

Here's a part of the story I read on that site when I looked around...

"Early in the standoff, KGO television cameraman Randy Davis was cut on the nose and his camera damaged in a scuffle with a Bridge District police officer.

KGO news director Kevin Keeshan called the scuffle an illegal assault by a police officer and said the station intended to file a report with the Highway Patrol."


Seems that it was the state highway patrol officer that started the scuffle... They can't say that there isn't evidence...

[cameradog]

I suspect Randy Davis is about to enjoy a nice little settlement.

[Canonman]

Here is the video and transcript...

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4900158

cm

[Deaf and Blind]

Guess the fat fuc# cop had not had a chance to beat his wife much the night prior...

[ewink]

When an ABC7 News photographer asked to move past police to shoot the crowd, a bridge district officer told him the bridge is private property -- and this is what happened next (see video).
Doesn't CA have laws making this a moot issue? (I remember an issue with another photog an a mall parking lot...)

[Nooze Hound]

Guess the fat fuc# cop had not had a chance to beat his wife much the night prior...

well that's a little out of line.


However, back to sanity...
It does look like the office did instigate the issue by grabbing the camera first.
But what would the repercussions be of "swiping" his hand away like that?

[Chicago Dog]

But what would the repercussions be of "swiping" his hand away like that?

I was wondering the same thing. The officer was clearly out-of-line for grabbing the shooter's lens.

However, I don't think swatting his hand away like that was justified. He's still a uniformed officer, and -- wrong or not -- there's better ways to handle that situation. Letting it escalate to that level for a story like that was pointless.

The story was about closing the bridge to the protestors, not some shooter's "scuffle" with a cop.

It's a sad distraction to an otherwise interesting story.

[natspop]

Let me preface my statement with "pardon my honesty," but you poor slugs who refuse to defend your rights (and thus mine) in cases where police assault you, deserve a minimum of everything you get from them, and then a good old fashioned ass whooping from your colleagues immediately there after around the corner. Anything you do that can be reasonable in the eye of the law in defending yourself (and in this case your camera since it is on your shoulder it becomes an extension of YOU) from an assault by ANYONE, badge or not, can be a legal defense to your action. You couldn't bring UNresonable action like shooting the guy or beating him, (obviously) but to remove the offending persons hand in this case used to batter you (or your camera in this case that is on your shoulder) is completely legal and APPROPRIATE.. Now would I do this if I knew there would be no proof of the officers offense ? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But in THIS case, after seeing the video of not one fat guy assaulting, but one bridge officer and one CHP officer assaulting this photographer, then seeing any of you, even one of you, say anything whatsoever except in support of this photographer is at best embarrassing, and at worst worthy of it happening to you and people like yourselves witnessing it and doing nothing. It has happened to me twice in my career and in the first case it put 13 grand in my pocket, and the second time in another city it cost the city 27 grand for false arrest and equipment damage. If it weren't for other photographers FROM COMPETING stations who videotaped and stepped up to defend me in court, people like you here would be saying how now come on, these guys are under stress... Lets talk this out and pretend it didn't happen. C'mon guys grow some freakin' marbles and refuse to give up your rights in this country or when it happens to you you just might have people just like you as your only witness to the event. Show me where putting a camera on your shoulder gives someone the right to assault you twice anywhere in America.

[ItsShowtime!]

Natspop is RIGHT! I personally do not take SH** from any cop while I’m on the job because if I did I would never be able to fulfill my job of bringing what I see in the field to Air. The photog that was ATTACKED on the GG Bridge did everything correctly in DEFENDING himself and I hope he ends up with cash in hand!

[TXTechPhoto]

yeah I agree 100% with ya natspop, I see so many journalist who get too buddy buddy with cops today, and forget we work for the people not the pd.

[elvezz]

Any updates?

[schlagdrg]

I have to play devil's advocate here. I work overnights. One crime scene to the next. The cops I deal with are pretty cool. They know I have to do my job, and I know they have to do theirs. It's the little things that prevent confrontations.

Two recent examples:

Armed robbery in progress- I parked a 1/4mile away in a parking lot. I set the cam on sticks and let them do their search. When the scene was secure, I pulled up. They noticed I was way back and appreciated that I didn't get in their way. I got great vid and quick sot with the shift cdr.

Surveilance of a murder suspect- parked a mile away, and waited for the felony traffic stop. Once the suspect was in custody, I pulled up to the scene. Again I got the video.

Yes we do have a right to be there. But there are some of us, reporters and photogs, who have been extremely pushy and arrogant and have created bad feelings with the police.

Am I buddy-buddy with the police, yes and no. I have had a police officer save my life when a crack addict attacked me at a crime scene, addict broke my camera and gave me a concussion. He was body slammed to the ground and arrested.

I have also been the victim of excessive force. As a still photog, I was at a shooting scene. The cop ordered me back off the sidewalk, I complied and then took a picture. He apparently didn't like the flash going off. I soon found myself handcuffed and then struck about the head with a baton. Arrested, I spent the night in jail. Eventually charges were dismissed against me, he was sent to the traffic unit to write parking tickets.

Did I pursue a lawsuit? No. I still had to work the streets and I didn't want to be known as the photog who was suiting the police. It was suggested that if I did, I would find unwanted attention from the police in moving violations, parking violations...

I took it as a lesson learned. I could have made my images from either across the street or even behind the police car. But I was young and wanted to get that "Money" shot. We have "Freedom of the Press" here in the US. But in hindsight, I interferd with his active crime scene. There was a person lieing on the ground and bleeding to death after being shot. The suspect might have still been in the area and there was a large crowd of people at the scene. All he wanted to do was get the scene under control. And I got in his way.

FYI... I have guest lectured at sheriff's dept commanders course on media relations. It was a good exchange between myself and the law enforcement officers.

In this instance, did the photog fail to obey an order to backup? Interfere with the police in doing their work?

There is no excuse for any for any law enforcement officer to ever assault a member of the press. And there are avenues to follow if they do. Contact the PIO. File charges with the FBI on violating your civil rights (that gets their attention). Or the local community/police relations board.

We have to work with the police, and they can make our lives real difficult. Now I try to hang back and get my video, sometimes without them even knowing about it.

[Sentinel94]

In NY, you can't charge anyone that puts their grubby hands on your camera with assault. I don't agree, but that's the crux of it. We had an off duty cop go after a photog once and there were no assault charges filed. Sucks! Guess you have to get really hurt to consider it assault in NY. So before you get all puffed up and try the "That's assault" stuff, check the lawbooks to see what is really considered assault on your person.

[elvezz]

One can always file an assault charge when unwanted physical contact occurs. You may have to file the complaint yourself, but unwanted hostile contact is a crime anywhere and everywhere.

[cameradog]

One can always file an assault charge when unwanted physical contact occurs.

Assault is not contact. Assault is the threat of contact. If I pull my fist back as though I'm about to hit you, and you fear that you're about to be hit, that's assault.

When someone actually touches you without your permission or without authority to do so, that's battery. We usually see assault and battery together, but they don't have to be. If I run up behind you and punch you in the back of the head, that's a battery without assault. If you didn't see it coming, you couldn't have been in fear for your safety. Conversely, if I run up to your face and act like I'm going to hit you, but then don't, that's assault without battery.

The cop in this instance sure looks guilty of assault AND battery. He made the guy fear for his safety. Then he touched him without his permission and without any other acceptable reason to do so. He will argue that he had the authority to do so as a result of wearing a badge, as he does when subduing a criminal. A judge will find him to be mistaken. And then the department will end up paying for that photog's new Harley.

[Chicago Dog]

Let me preface my statement with "pardon my honesty," but you poor slugs who refuse to defend your rights (and thus mine) in cases where police assault you, deserve a minimum of everything you get from them, and then a good old fashioned ass whooping from your colleagues immediately there after around the corner.

That's all well-and-good. However, that initial story was boring. As soon as that cop grabbed the lens, the real story suddenly took a backseat. Right or not, I have absolutely no interest in sitting at the local lock-up as the incident's details are sorted out because of a boring-ass story like this.

Pick your fights. What happened here was certainly not worth it.

And, for the record, I'm not even remotely spineless. You can talk to the PIO who threatened to throw me in jail until I made him aware I was recording our "confrontation."

His boss was not happy with him.

[Canonman]

Pick your fights. What happened here was certainly not worth it.

Well I agree, up to a point. I watched the video segment over and over and listened as closely as possible to the audio.

It really appears that it's the same old issue of people who like to watch the news, but don't want to be the news. I think this cop was one of those. He didn't want to be the face shown on the local news so he tried to bat the camera away from focusing on him. Photog instinctively tried to protect his equipment by removing the offending (cop's) hand from the camera. Cop then gets an attitude of superiority and goes at the photog.

I didn't see the photog trying to go beyond the stopping point even though in the text of the story he indicated he had asked to.

I do hope that the cop in this video at least gets assigned to a media relations class all day on his day off w/o pay.

cm

[cameradog]

The shooter was right up there where the protesters were arguing with the cops. That's where he SHOULD have been, because that's where the story was happening. I don't understand how any legitimate news photographer could say that the guy shouldn't have been up there where the story was unfolding. Further, it seems clear from the tape that the only thing the photog did to provoke the cop was to raise his camera to his shoulder to get video of the exchange.

I don't see how Chicago Dog can even begin to argue that this was a case of someone not knowing when to pick his fights. There was no fight to pick here. The guy went to where the story was, regardless of whether Dog thinks it was boring, and did his job. The cop attacked him for doing his job, nothing more.

If you think the guy should have backed down, I would ask: How? He had already been attacked by the time there was any backing down to do. That's like me coming up and punching you in the face unprovoked, then trying to argue that you could have avoided that punch if you had backed down. WTF?

And if you don't think something like this should be pursued, you shouldn't be doing this for a living. Cops don't learn from the embarrassment of being on teevee acting like assholes. They think they look cool slapping cameras. They brag to their buddies about it. I've actually read it on the cops' message boards.

They learn their lesson when they get reprimanded or fired, and when their departments end up paying out heavy damages as a result of their actions. Sure, they'll b*tch and moan about it to their friends, but they'll usually stop doing it. And if they don't stop, at least there's already a record of the abuse of power the NEXT time, to help out the next photog who gets manhandled and to facilitate the process of firing their dumb asses.

Provoking the police is one thing, but to lay down on something like this would be nothing short of cowardice.

[Chicago Dog]

The shooter was right up there where the protesters were arguing with the cops. That's where he SHOULD have been, because that's where the story was happening.

And nobody's arguing otherwise. The shooter was in the right spot. Good for him.

I don't see how Chicago Dog can even begin to argue that this was a case of someone not knowing when to pick his fights. There was no fight to pick here. The guy went to where the story was, regardless of whether Dog thinks it was boring, and did his job. The cop attacked him for doing his job, nothing more.

If the reporter knew what she was doing, the "scuffle" between the officer and the shooter wouldn't have taken center stage. Instead, the producers even put it in the anchor intro.

This story was awful. There's a load of unanswered questions. Did the protestors not take the necessary steps, as the bridge authority claimed? What did the protestors do when they were turned away? What was their reaction? The protestors apparently broke rules the last time they marched: what were they?

Why are we hearing from three members of the Golden Gate Bridge organization, but not even one of the protestors?

Aside from nats, we didn't hear anything from the protestors! Everything was official sound. There's so much emotion there and so much potential, but the reporter fell back on that lame-ass "scuffle" to "illustrate" what was going on.

That incident had nothing to do with the story!

This event has plenty of elements, but where the hell is the story?

If you think the guy should have backed down, I would ask: How? He had already been attacked by the time there was any backing down to do.

Where did I ever say, "The guy should've backed down?" You should never back down in a situation like this. I completely agree.

When I said, "What happened here was certainly not worth it," I was referring to the slapping of the hand. It's not hard to see that the shooter was not missing any worthwhile shot.

In a situation like this, "Let go of the lens," works just as well. I hear it all the time. I've said it myself. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, I wind up swatting peoples' hands away, too. Swatting the officer's hand away like that right off the bat only escalated a situation that did not need to be escalated.

If I'm about to snag some great video and someone decides to cover up my lens, you bet your ass I'm going to start putting up a fight.

What the officer did is already on tape. The cop already looks bad. Did that shooter lose out on some great shot as a result? Is this story worth sitting in the local lock-up for a few hours just to say, "I told you so?"

After watching the final product, I'm going to have to say, "No."

That's like me coming up and punching you in the face unprovoked, then trying to argue that you could have avoided that punch if you had backed down.

Wow. That ranks right up there with one of Rosenblum's analogies, because what happened here is nothing like that.

If you walked up to me and punched me in the face without provocation, I hope you've got a good lawyer.

And if you don't think something like this should be pursued, you shouldn't be doing this for a living.
Provoking the police is one thing, but to lay down on something like this would be nothing short of cowardice.

If you can find any instance at all which I said, "This shouldn't be pursued," go ahead and quote it. Of course, you can just save yourself the time and realize that you're missing my point entirely.

Yes, the shooter should obviously pursue action against the bridge police. The fact that he was injured only compounds the importance of action. What that cop did and what the shooter suffered as a result was inexcusable.

Will he run into this cop again? Quite possibly. If they do cross paths again, the bridge police need to make sure that cop thinks twice when it comes to dealing with the media. The organization already looks bad. As Canonman said, give him media relations classes without pay. If he doesn't learn something, he'll at least recognize how much the experience sucks.

That shooter's already got the incident to tape. Asking the officer to remove his hand is not backing down. Anyone can argue that slapping his hand away is defensive. I, however, feel that it's the wrong type of act, given this situation.

Cooler heads prevail.

I will say this: I find it sort of ironic how a differing opinion on this board can cause those who disagree to quickly and madly spiral out of control simply because they don't understand.

That's a little dangerous, especially in our profession.

[elvezz]

Thanks for the clarification Cameradog

[cameradog]

Right or not, I have absolutely no interest in sitting at the local lock-up as the incident's details are sorted out because of a boring-ass story like this.

In other words, you think he should have backed down. You didn't say it outright, but it's implied. You think he should have taken some action to avoid being arrested. That implies backing down and letting the cop have his way.

Pick your fights. What happened here was certainly not worth it.

Not worth what? He was being attacked and moved instinctively to defend himself. Are you saying that if a protester were being beaten with a baton, that he shouldn't put his hands up to protect his head? That's basically what this guy did. You're saying he had no right to defend himself from bodily injury.

In a situation like this, "Let go of the lens," works just as well.

Yeah, just like "Oh Officer, please stop hitting me with your baton." I'm sure that works. Or how about, "Mr. Officer, sir, would you mind not spraying me with that OC?" Cops always stop attacking if you ask them nicely.

Watch the video again. The cop didn't just put his hand on the lens. He shoved it. The shooter put his hand up to stop it (which was his right in the case of battery), and the cop shoved it harder. No matter how you look at this, it was an assault and battery, and the photog had every right to defend himself under the circumstances.

[Chicago Dog]

The cop didn't just put his hand on the lens. He shoved it. The shooter put his hand up to stop it (which was his right in the case of battery), and the cop shoved it harder.

Actually, yes. That's exactly what happened (and no, I'm not being sarcastic).

We were arguing apples to oranges. It makes my entire point moot, because I thought the cop was just covering the lens with his hand. Had that been the case, I still don't think slapping the cop's hand away would've been a good call. But, that's not really the point here. He was actually shoved.

Still, you have to admit -- three interviews with bridge officials and not one protestor?
:)