|
|
| Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! (422846) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 13 of 26 |
||
|
| (427247) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by tankertom on Wed May 9 10:27:37 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Nilet on Wed May 9 03:08:51 2007. why don't you just sue the baskets and get it over with? |
|
|
| (427337) | |
Re: How NOT to handle an encounter with police (Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed May 9 14:41:56 2007, in response to Re: How NOT to handle an encounter with police (Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!), posted by American Pig on Sat May 5 09:34:48 2007. I remember hearing on TV several years ago that if an officer wants to issue you a ticket and you have no ID you can be arrested. |
|
|
| (427344) | |
Re: How NOT to handle an encounter with police (Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!) |
|
|
Posted by tankertom on Wed May 9 15:11:58 2007, in response to Re: How NOT to handle an encounter with police (Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!), posted by BrooklynBus on Wed May 9 14:41:56 2007. Very true. A ticket is issued in lieu of an arrest. A police officer may legally arrest a person if that person committed an offense in the officer's presence (an offense includes minor violations too). If the person has no id the cop may not be able to write a ticket, ergo, an arrest may be made. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (427430) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed May 9 18:35:59 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Nilet on Wed May 9 03:08:51 2007. If you're not breaking the law, there's no reason not to let the police search whatever they want to search, right? If you're not a terrorist or criminal, there's no reason to object to the telescreen being installed in your house, right? After all, law-abiding citizens have no reason to worry,That's what the government and the police would like you to believe. |
|
|
| (427487) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by tankertom on Wed May 9 20:21:52 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by BrooklynBus on Wed May 9 18:35:59 2007. Do you think someone could come up with a better description than "law abiding"? I read so much about the "law abiding citizen" not being able to get a pistol carry permit. Obviously only the cops and criminals (with very few exceptions) are legally permitted to carry. Aren't we all "law abiding"? Somehow that phrase grates my ears. I can't think of a substitute for that hackneyed phrase. Do law abiding citizens speed? If a law abiding citizen jaywalks (or grabs a smoke on an outdoor elevated platform at 2AM) does he retain his/her status as "law abiding" even if he/she doesn't get caught? Innocent until proven guilty, right? |
|
|
| (433859) | |
Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 17:45:48 2007, in response to ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 29 20:42:32 2007.  I'd agreed to post updates relating to my incident with the cops and follow-up, so that I'll do. Sorry for bringing an otherwise-dead thread back to the front page. Anyway, a discussion with someone relatively knowledgeable in the field suggested that I might be able to back up my complaint with the CCRB by recovering my photos from the memory card with their deletion time-stamped. I called the CCRB offering to bring them the card. (After getting Terrapin's permission.) As it turns out, they don't want the card unless I can verify with the manufacturer that the photos can be recovered with time-stamped deletion. The manufacturer, it would seem, was Viking Interworks. The card says it's a Viking Interworks SD 256MB card, but with no further details that I could offer the company if I call. In fact, calling may be easier said than done, given the number of contacts. Do I call the business manager? Sales manager? What number? Maybe I should get my own photo recovery software and see if that comes up with a time stamp. Brian, you wouldn't happen to know offhand, would you? |
|
|
| (433863) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 21 17:53:49 2007, in response to Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 17:45:48 2007. Not having used data recovery software extensively, I don't know if it would tell you the time of deletion. Maybe someone else would know. |
|
|
| (433869) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Mon May 21 18:08:29 2007, in response to Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 17:45:48 2007. Memory cards use the FAT file system. Deleting a file involves changing the the first character of the file’s directory entry to xE5 and then moving the first cluster of the data to the free clusters chain. (So if no other files are written, an undelete utility merely has to replace the character and retrieve the data clusters).There is no field to timestamp the deletion event. |
|
|
| (433874) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007, in response to Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 17:45:48 2007. You're putting a lot of time and effort to try to screw someone's career for just doing his job. |
|
|
| (433877) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 18:22:54 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007. Performing an illegal search and seizure is not "just doing your job." Causing damage to somebody's property isn't "just doing your job." If the officers were just doing their job, I'd have no problem with them. I've encountered multiple officers who were just doing their jobs. Cops have limits on their power for a reason, and these cops tried to go past those limits. |
|
|
| (433879) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon May 21 18:24:15 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007. You're putting a lot of time and effort to try to screw someone's career for just doing his job.Her job wasn't to delete photos. Someone could have been mugged on the platform while the officer was away fiddling with Nilet's camera. |
|
|
| (433880) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon May 21 18:26:13 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007. Deleting the pictures went way beyond "doing his job"... Why is it so hard for cops to respect the fact that the rules say photography is legal. I simply can't understand that... |
|
|
| (433881) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 21 18:29:07 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007. I echo the words of the previous three responders. |
|
|
| (433883) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon May 21 18:30:05 2007, in response to Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 17:45:48 2007. Sounds like a question Selkirk could answer if he were around :-( |
|
|
| (433884) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon May 21 18:30:29 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007. To me, the handcuffing of someone without actually arresting should be enough. |
|
|
| (433885) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Mon May 21 18:32:04 2007, in response to Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 17:45:48 2007. I don't think the memory card manufacturer is relevant.Most camera memory cards are a FAT-16 filesystem, which is the old DOS filesystem. Hopefully you did not use the camera with that memory card in it subsequent to the incident. It might be possible to recover the deleted files by doing a sector-by-sector copy of the memory card raw image to a temporary file, and then running a utility such as Norton un-delete. You will probably recover most of the deleted photos. The photo files themselves will have EXIF data tags within them which will give the sequence number, and the date and time at which they were exposed. AFAIK, the time of deletion will not be recorded anywhere. |
|
|
| (433887) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 18:38:33 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by JohnL on Mon May 21 18:08:29 2007. Meh. :( |
|
|
| (433889) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon May 21 18:44:24 2007, in response to Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 17:45:48 2007. Maybe we should start wearing one of these when we go out on photo shoots...
|
|
|
| (433903) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 19:18:46 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007. Why not? What the police did to him was wrong.If a cop came up to you, and handcuffed and arrested you for taking pictures and then ran away with your camera would you do something or just sit there saying "oh, he's just doing his job" ? |
|
|
| (433913) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 19:32:57 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Nilet on Mon May 21 18:22:54 2007. They're only photos of subway trains...one would think a reasonable person could get over it and move on with their life! If it was a photo shoot that you got paid for on the other hand... |
|
|
| (433915) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 19:34:47 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 19:18:46 2007. He didn't run away with his camera. He erased his photos, and gave the camera back. |
|
|
| (433922) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Mon May 21 19:45:04 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 19:32:57 2007. Then the cop gets away with the harrassment and can go on to bully other photographers. |
|
|
| (433923) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 21 19:46:43 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 19:32:57 2007. An injustice is an injustice. |
|
|
| (433925) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon May 21 19:49:51 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 19:34:47 2007. still not going to change what he thinks even though he was told this 2 times already. |
|
|
| (433927) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon May 21 19:54:26 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 19:32:57 2007. It's more the principle than the photos. |
|
|
| (433928) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon May 21 19:54:36 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Grand concourse on Mon May 21 19:49:51 2007. Because it still doesn't make what the cop did right.... |
|
|
| (433929) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon May 21 19:57:18 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by BMTLines on Mon May 21 19:54:36 2007. i never said it was right, i'm stating that error only claims the cops took away the camera and conveniently leaves out the fact the camera was returned. |
|
|
| (433944) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 20:38:46 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by BrooklynBus on Mon May 21 19:54:26 2007. I beg to differ. I would be fairly outraged if a photographer was "harassed" by a police officer after doing a photo shoot with a model on the street (which the photographer was getting paid for) due to, let's say for arguments sake, blocking the sidewalk. Even though the sidewalk could be void of any pedestrian traffic at that moment, the cop still took it within his or her liberty to find out what the photographer was doing. If the cop were to delete the photographer's photos there, then yes, that would be horrible since the photographer makes a living (or part of his living) by doing photo shoots. These are hobby photographs of subway trains, with the only thing lost is time railfanned and digital images, and not to mention this is not the first incident that Nilet has been a part of when it comes to police officers and subway photography. |
|
|
| (433945) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 21 20:39:31 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 20:38:46 2007. Ready to meekly accept the loss of your rights? |
|
|
| (433946) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon May 21 20:40:29 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 19:34:47 2007. She had no right to erase the photos!!!!!Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (433947) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 20:43:47 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon May 21 20:39:31 2007. My rights? Let's examine what I did today.1) Woke up. 2) Ate breakfast. 3) Drove to work. 4) Ate lunch. 5) Drove home. 6) Found a parking space within 5 minutes. 7) Ate dinner. 8) Watching the Yanks/Red Sox game now. I don't think my rights of my daily routine are anywhere close to being eroded. I have taken photos in the subway many, many, many, many times and I have never even once been questioned. Give me a break with this "loss of your rights" stuff. You still have the right to do whatever the hell you wish. |
|
|
| (433948) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon May 21 20:44:25 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007. Harrassment is not part of the job.Maybe these cops don't deseverve a carrer in law enforcement. Jimmymc25 ps...if they took thier carees seriously, shouldn't they know what is allowed & not allowed? |
|
|
| (433950) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 20:44:59 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by jimmymc25 on Mon May 21 20:40:29 2007. No argument there, but to make a big hissy fit over this is ridiculous. Move on already! Better luck next time! Yeah, it sucks! Life's a bitch! |
|
|
| (433951) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 21 20:45:39 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 20:43:47 2007. But only when the police say so? |
|
|
| (433952) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon May 21 20:47:34 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 20:38:46 2007. I would think a photographer doing a commercial shoot on a City sidewalk would need some sort of permit and would therefore have permission to block a sidewalk. |
|
|
| (433954) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 20:49:04 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Grand concourse on Mon May 21 19:57:18 2007. Does it make a difference? |
|
|
| (433956) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon May 21 20:52:05 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 20:49:04 2007. Would you perfer to lose the camera or just the pictures if it were yours? |
|
|
| (433958) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 21 20:54:15 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 20:49:04 2007. Yes. |
|
|
| (433960) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon May 21 21:03:41 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 20:38:46 2007. These are hobby photographs of subway trains, with the only thing lost is time railfannedWhat you fail to take into consideration is the value of someone's time whether it is leisure time or work time. I am equally outraged when someone's hobby time is wasted as when someone's work time is wasted. BTW if you have a model with you it is easy to convince the cops to leave you alone:  |
|
|
| (433961) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by HarryP on Mon May 21 21:03:53 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007. "You're putting a lot of time and effort to try to screw someone's career for just doing his job."Dear Mr. Rosen, As a retired transit cop, I have no use for unprofessional behavior in police officers. It seems to me that you never knew how to treat people with dignity and respect. I've seen some of the comments you've made here on this board, and I find it hard to believe that you were once a police officer who was sworn to uphold the law. Remember one thing: You are now a civilian and off the JOB. It's a different world out here, and you're now on your own. You know what I mean. Sorry for this rant, but I finally had to say something. It's been a long time in coming. |
|
|
| (433963) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon May 21 21:07:10 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 20:49:04 2007. Of course it is more serious if the cops took away the camera and never gave it back compared to returning it, but deleting the images.From what you typed it seems it was the former rather than latter - to someone who doesn't know what happened they might think the cops are out to impound cameras like they do to cars. |
|
|
| (433964) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 21:07:38 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Grand concourse on Mon May 21 21:07:10 2007. I'm not suprised if that was true |
|
|
| (433965) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 21 21:11:33 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 20:49:04 2007. It's the difference between malicious mischief (destruction of property with a fairly small monetary value) and grand larceny.Both are crimes, but the latter is much more serious. |
|
|
| (433967) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 21:12:53 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by BMTLines on Mon May 21 21:03:41 2007. Even if that shot is a hobby shot (and not paid), I would be outraged if a cop were to delete that photograph, and others that would probably be like that one as well. Maybe I just don't see beauty in simple head on/tail end train shots anymore. |
|
|
| (433968) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon May 21 21:13:37 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 21:07:38 2007. 1, legal actions would be taken as cops cannot take property w/out just cause.2, it would be abuse of power and they could be reprimanded or suspended. So again, I HIGHLY doubt they are out to STEAL cameras. Just excise proper judgement [ie: don't freak out and remain calm and civil] and you won't have any problems. I mean you are a kid, they can't arrest you for nothing, yes they will yell at you, but that's mostly as far as they go and just go their seperate ways. You just need to face your fears and learn to manage them. |
|
|
| (433969) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon May 21 21:13:42 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by HarryP on Mon May 21 21:03:53 2007. It's always possible that his bark is worse than his bite. Just because he advocates the right of police officers to break the law when he posts on this board doesn't actually mean he was breaking the law himself when he was a police officer. We'll never know, of course. |
|
|
| (433970) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Mon May 21 21:14:41 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by HarryP on Mon May 21 21:03:53 2007. Very well said!I've been thinking about that myself. Thankyou. Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (433972) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon May 21 21:18:16 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by error46146 on Mon May 21 21:07:38 2007. I got yelled at 2 seperate times by the cops, both times I remained calm and civil. I explained my actions and they left me alone, and nothing further after that [no id's, no 50 questions, etc.]It happens, it happens just be prepared for it. |
|
|
| (433975) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon May 21 21:27:19 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Clayton on Mon May 21 21:12:53 2007. Maybe I just don't see beauty in simple head on/tail end train shots anymoreI can respect that. My interest in photography has also taken on a life of its own that goes beyond just trains. I hope to be exploring other areas more and more... This shot was taken with one of several photo clubs I joined that go around the city taking photographs with or without models. Click here for a you-tube video of the photo shoot where this pic was taken - WARNING - No nudes but still may not be safe for work! Coney Island Photo shoot |
|
|
| (433978) | |
Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Mon May 21 21:39:31 2007, in response to Re: Technical Details Required... (Cop Incident Update), posted by Jeff Rosen on Mon May 21 18:19:56 2007. It should be screwed. The NYPD is getting a BAD reputation AMONG LAW ENFORCEMENT NATIONWIDE. |
|
|
|
Page 13 of 26 |
||
