to photograph events. See them in court, instead. Seriously.

I am not suggesting people film when they are in physical danger, which they will be now more than ever.

Yes, some of our rights are gone, and soon the courts will be too.

That would include how much personal risk you're willing to assume. It's not that much different from people photograpy in general, except the stakes are higher.

Might also add, you might want to practice your ambient light photography and know how to shut off the flash on your camera or smartphone so you can be confident it's always off. Also, if you're in a fast-moving unpredictable situation, video can be your friend -- better a mediocre video frame captured than a crisp hi-res still you didn't get.

If you're going to be a professional photographer, you'll have equipment that will let you shoot from a safe distance and still get excellent photos. If you're not, just shoot what you can without exposing yourself to harm or death.

It's just advice, not orders. I can't give orders to anyone. Stay out of danger and capture what you can, but stay aware of your surroundings.

The person who shot the image in the OP is a professional photographer. That's clear. That person knows the risks and has the equipment to stay out of danger if necessary.

I once framed a dynamite shot of two bikers and let it go 'cuz y'know, they might have been camera shy.

They appear to be terrified in their head-to-toe armor, shrinking back from a slender woman in flats and a breezy dress.

Love that picture a little more every time I see it.

and the ethereal beauty of human courage.

That photo went viral, not just on the internet but major media outlets too.

I really question how you could possibly have never seen it.

Just my opinion of course.

The point was to share information regarding your rights to photograph police activity and be aware of risks when doing so.

You remind me of a former DUer who questioned my creds for not knowing who Stephen Colbert was because All Good Liberals all watched him always.

Odd opinions, imo.

Heathen.

Woe is me. But I decided my stable genius mind could overcome the overwhelming disprivilege of no cable TV. I am uppity, after all.

I've run into similar problems in the past on DU, where a newb once called me a "plucky bootstrap puller".

I felt so bad, I became unemployed for a year just to make up for it.


My genius mind is more along the "outbuilding" variety. Smokehouse. Hay barn. Silo. That sort of thing.

That photo was absolutely everywhere. Quite curious indeed that someone wouldn't have seen it.

[link:https://photographyisnotacrime.com/|

And I believe Carlos is a member here. He used to post when appropriate here for quite some time.

Until police are fired for abusing their power toward citizens they'll get worse & worse, more militarized. Everyone will have their pockets peeked into, bags searched, homes invaded if they aren't the 'right' class.

.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/aclu-apps-record-police-conduct

.

.

Private aircraft were restricted from flying over in the interest of the safety of people on the ground; that's the FAA's job. Legally they are given an amazing amount of leeway in making the determination.

Of course, when the government wants to promote something (ie an event that benefits political or corporate interests), no such restrictions are put in place and the media are allowed to virtually flood the skies with helicopters & other craft.

This is what the Republicans do; they apply laws unevenly. So do third world hellholes, dictatorships, theocratic nations, and similar systems of governance that are not "by the People, for the People".

Appointed by....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Huerta

brutality against protesters, THAT is the part that is more likely allowed under a trump regime than Obama.

I suppose the flying part is technically legal but the REASON for it is the issue here.

First responders request TFRs all the time for all sorts of reasons. Usually it's because they have aircraft operating in a certain area and they don't want to have to worry about news helicopters and aerial sightseers creating an unsafe situation. They just aren't that uncommon. There's one active right now north of Los Angeles for the fires. While it's certainly possible local law enforcement requested the TFR for nefarious purposes, the FAA is simply not going to second guess them, especially initially when time is of the essence.

I cant give you a link without doing a ton of research but it is in my ACLU magazine.

You KNOW they know that, so they must have thought it important to point out HERE due to the circumstances.

The ACLU can challenge whatever government action they want. For whatever reason the FAA ended this particular TFR early. So maybe the requesting authority withdrew their request, or maybe the FAA cancelled it upon review per the ACLU request, but whatever the reason was the system worked exactly as it's supposed to work and it doesn't mean there was any nefarious intent on behalf of the FAA. They are always going to at least initially honor any request from first responders for a TFR. Doing anything else just wouldn't be all that smart.

years ago I was in New Orleans taking some pictures of refinery nearby... security stopped and threatened to take my camera away from me... I was on road and was quite disturbed that he would do that... I did leave because it was just me and him...

Spend 10 minutes with " target="_blank">Steve Silverman. Then download Bambuser.