On 8/15/05, Glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, you have effectively encouraged the police to wrongfully detain > any other photographers who might be similarly harassed in the future. > There is no reason on earth they should have taken you to their police > station, or taken your names, or taken anything else for that matter -- > *especially* if they didn't do the same thing with the lady who was > harassing you. I'm not saying that I would do it personally, but I'm sure > that some people would have sued the police for false arrest or something > to that effect. Remember, any time you don't feel at liberty to leave, you > are under arrest -- whether the police officer tells you are literally > "under arrest" or not. (At least, that applies in the USA.) Those police > officers have detained you, taken away your freedom, intimidated you, quite > possibly caused you emotional anguish, etc. These are not things police > officers should be doing without good cause.
You are absolutely right, Glen. However, so were Juan and RR. The fact is, despite one's "rights" under the law, sometimes the pragmatic approach is the most effective. I'm sure that Juan and RR ended up losing less of their time/freedom by co-operating with the police and going along for the ride. Being confronational may have only provoked the men and women in blue into detaining them for a much longer period of time. It's fine to say "they could sue the police for false imprisonment" (which the police actions surely were), but to be honest, spending the night in jail and having equipment confiscated until trial may not be worth any amount one could extract from the powers that be in a lawsuit. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
