Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 26, 2004, 1:29 AM   #1
Senior Member
UrbanPhotos's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 382
Default Oh no... photographer shoots guard, and not with a camera

A guard approached a man to question him when he was taking pictures of a chemical plant, and the man shot the guard with a gun. He didn't die.

Here's a link to an article about it:

I'm worried that this will give guards and police even more motivation to detain people for taking pictures. I've had police and security guards question me and tell me to stop taking pictures of certain buildings. Since the terrorist attacks in the US, people being approached by police and even arrested has been more common.
UrbanPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 26, 2004, 2:27 AM   #2
Senior Member
sensovision's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 198

wow that's sounds scary, for all my life I've made photos of some objects such as seaports(which actually was forbidden to photo, which I discover a bit later :? ) and other facilities and never had problems with a security. In place I live, I think that it's possible to take pictures of anything and anywhere... authorities wouldn't bother themselves with such folks.
sensovision is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2004, 7:18 AM   #3
Senior Member
voxmagna's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162

A professional TV moviecam on the shoulder can look awfully like a shoulder missile launcher on the spur of a moment, so I wouldn't want to be pointing one around sensitive areas if there's a 'shoot first, ask questions after' mentality. Perhaps this is where the A80 flip screen comes in handy - holding the camera at belt level. VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2004, 12:10 PM   #4
Senior Member
digcamfan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422

The guard was doing his job. He saw suspicious activity and investigated.

The "photographer"/murderer wannabe was obviously casing the facility to determine weaknesses in the security.

Keep this in mind: An "innocent photo" that you take of a sensitive site and then publicly post online could be used by others to discern security at that site.

Also, if you insist on taking photos of a sensitive site, then you
will and should "pay the consequences" of such behavior.

If, on the other hand, prior to taking any photos, you identify yourself and provide ID and
state your intentions to authorities, you may be allowed to photograph.

You may also be denied permission. When you are denied permission this forum member recommends that you not complain your "rights". Instead say...

"Thank you. I understand."


"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."***

***Barry Goldwater

Even as an "ordinary citizen", you can report suspicious activity.

Somewhere, there is someone who knows the identity of the "photographer"/murderer wannabe. I do hope that they
come forward with his name and location.

Responses welcomed.
digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2004, 1:10 PM   #5
Senior Member
eric s's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803


This in fact happened in Iraq during the war/post-war. The man had a video camera and was filming a tank and the street. The gunner (not main gun, I think it was the machinegun) shot him dead on the spot.

He was in proper garb and was standing by himself (i.e. not hiding) in the road. His assistant (who was nearby) survived and watched the whole thing.

I don't blame the soldier for being suspicious. They have to make their own judgements and some times you have very little time to make that judgement. I don't believe the government took this mistake seriously enough nor did they make changes to protocols (like make journalists wear more special clothing while doing that type of shooting.)

Now I also believe that nothing anyone has in Iraq that is shoulder launchable could dent an M1 Abrams Tank, but would I trust my life to that believe in that situation? I don't know. And if I'm lucky, I'll never know.


While I generally agree with what you said, I'll also say that I think the government is going too far some times. I've read of a multi-hour detention of a photographer for shooting picture of the moon over the Golden Gate Bridge. Was it legal to detain him? Yes. I believe 24-hours is legal, if you can show cause, without charging them.

But it is my believe that if the government is going to take things this seriously (and they should) they also need to consider the effects of what they are doing. They need to get better at vetting people because they are going to be detaining a lot of people and the ill-will this will produce needs to be managed correctly.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2004, 1:53 PM   #6
Senior Member
blinblue's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 158

Which is why I like to take pictures of nature. Not much the government can complain about that...
blinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 27, 2004, 5:13 AM   #7
Senior Member
eric s's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803


Infortunately, this isn't always true. I can think of a few places that has nice nature shots that I won't go near because there is a sewage treatmant plant near by, or an airport. I shoot nature/birds too.... it isn't always that easy.

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:31 AM.