TV news photographer keeps camera rolling during scuffle with police officer

That cop did look pretty angry when he pounced the photographer all of the sudden.

A comment: the original article was produced by the TV station whose photog got into trouble, so of course it's slanted.

After reading it and seeing that the "incident" was a case where cops and a suspect exchanged gunfire, I think that more needs to come out in this story. Yes, adrenaline is high when you're a cop and being shot at, and having to shoot back. Very high.

Also, cops need to make sure civilians are cleared out of an area where they think there's a possibility of others--especially if it's a known gang area--deciding to support one of "their people." So it's a safety issue, too.

I haven't reviewed the film yet, but overall I hope that everyone takes into account all the factors. These situations usually aren't just about cops "picking on" people. And media --I've been there--of course try to "push the line", get just a few feet closer, or a few more seconds or couple of minutes of tape. The rule is: when a cop, especially when there's been a gun battle, tells you to move, you MOVE. Right then.

As for predatory, photogs and media are predatory. It's the nature of the beast. If you're not predatory, you don't get the good stuff.

One problem with that video: there's no context. The text with it says: "Watch the raw video of a confrontation early Thursday morning between
an Albuquerque police officer and a KOB Eyewitness News 4 photographer."

We don't know how many times the photog was told to move prior to this. It's clear that up at the police car, the officer was told to go tell the photog to move. The cop was obeying his orders.

The photog challenged the officer. That "I want your name and badget number" was an escalation, and the officer knew it. Then he went to his fake "oh thank you officer--his voice dripped with being condescending."

So the photog was wrong on some things. And we don't know if he was asked before to move. The cop wasn't circling like a shark, he was trying to figure out what to do. The photog made it personal. He should have put down his camera when first asked to move. We still don't know--was anyone killed in this gun battle? Or hurt?

Cops are human, and when adrenaline flows, it flows. I think the photog was trying to push his limits. Notice that everyone else is gone, no other media in the area. I'm not buying that he didn't know where to go. The media talk about it as they break up and move.

I suspect that this photog overstayed, knew he had, and then was deliberately confrontational.  The thing about "I'm not putting down my camera until..." was in effect a declaration of war. You put down the camera when the cop tells you to, especially in dangerous situations.

Primary offender: photog. Cop--did he over-react? Maybe. Let's learn the entire context. The cop needed backup, sometimes two heads are calmer than one, plus it means that the photog wouldn't have been able to make it so personal. Also, people are less likely to provoke two cops at a time.

Photog needs intense guidance from above, unless his TV station just wants to do anti-cop and photog victimology. Cop needs guidance from above, and next time, backup.

Just my opinion. And yes, at that point, when the photog was playing games rather than putting down his camera and moving, he was interfering with a police investigation, legally.

Interesting! Even in their story, the TV station doesn't identify the photographer--no name is cited. What happened to the five W's? If a suspect had been arrested, or a street situation had gone down, wouldn't they have named names?

Sure thing. Also indicted (by PEP): the TV station for not being fully honest and transparent. They need to name the photog. It was a public situation, and it's a matter of public record.

The photog's name is Rick Foley. I got that from the ABQ Journal.

I got this from a topix forum, filed by "ABQ Citizen." This provides fuller detail and more context.

There was an armed shooter in the area, according to this. Cops were searching for him. They were trying to find him and also keep civilians out of harm's way.

This poster has a good point: the photog hitting the cop with the camera lights  lit up the cop, giving someone a clear shot if they wanted it. Bad, bad move. Has anyone else ever been under those lights? I have. The photog effectively painted a well-lit "shoot here" target zone for an armed suspect who had already fired at police.

********

§ 12-2-19 RESISTING, OBSTRUCTING OR REFUSING TO OBEY AN OFFICER.
Resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey an officer consists of either:

(A)
Knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any officer of this state
or any other duly authorized person serving or attempting to serve or
execute any process or any rule or order of any of the courts of this
state or any other judicial writ or process; or

(B) Resisting or abusing any judge, magistrate or peace officer in the lawful discharge of his duties; or

(C)
Refusing to obey or comply with any lawful process or order given by
any police officer acting in the lawful discharge of his duties; or

(D) Interfering with, obstructing or opposing any officer in the lawful discharge of his regular and affixed duties.

__________

Very simply
-Traffic Stop
-Suspect exits vehicl and fires handgun at officers
-Officers return fire
-Suspect is hit, but still mobile
-Suspect runs and hides in the nearby neighborhood
-Officers set up a perimeter to contain the already violent suspect, armed with a handgun
-Channel 4 Cameraman (with full access to a police scanner) arrives on scene and is advised to back away from the perimeter
-Cameraman
becomes confrontational, distracting the officer from his primary job
responsibility of assisting to contain an armed suspect, and is given a
lawful order to leave the vicinity
-Cameraman demands the location
of the media staging area (information he could obtain himself by
calling 242-COPS and requesting the information).
-Officer does not immediately know, but returns to the patrol unit to obtain the information for the Cameraman.
-Officer provides location to the Cameraman and issues an additional lawful order for the Cameraman to leave immediately.
-Cameraman continues to argue with the officer, distracting the Officer with the camera light.
-Officers contacts the on-scene supervisor on the radio and advises of the issue.
-Supervisor advises Officer to remove the Cameraman
-Officer
returns and issues a final lawful order for the Cameraman to put his
camera away and leave,(KOB video clip begins here) yet the Cameraman
continues to engage the officer in dialogue, continuing to backlight
the officer toward the armed suspect.
-Officer tells the cameraman to turn of the camera and put it down.
-Cameraman
refuses to obey and is wrestled (not beaten as keeps popping up on this
page) into custody, using hands only, no chemical or electrical less
lethal methods.(KOB Video Clip ends here)
-Cameraman is placed in handcuffs temporarily until a misdemeanor citation is completed.
-Cameraman is un-cuffed and signs the citation.
-Cameraman leaves the scene.

Things to keep in mind...
-Armed
gunman is still outstanding...this suspect has already fired rounds at
police officers and it is later determined that the suspect has an
outstanding warrant for homicide. Deputy McGrane sound familiar?
-The
police cars in the background of the video shot are the opposite side
of the perimeter, placing the officer and cameraman within 1 city block
of the center of the perimeter.
-The officers are held liable for
what happens within a scene. If shots are fired, citizen is struck, the
liability falls on the officer if they had a resonable opportunity to
procure the safety of the citizen. The reason for having citizens stay
inside of their houses in the area as well, minimizing the risk to the
community, while maximizing limited resources to accomplish the task at
hand in a timely manners, without having to waste resources doing crowd
control.

This "raw video" has apparently been edited prior to
being published. I would expect the preceeding 10 minutes and the
following 10 minutes for it to be considered "raw".

It's called the Rodney King Syndrome.

good story mate