The Express-Times reports (read it here) that a Bushkill man was pulled over and questioned by police after taking photographs in the Circle.The stop was made to investigate a complaint police received by the PNC Branch Manager, Lisa J. Crisafulli, who also confronted the 63 year old man before calling police according to the report.
Editor's Note: I have to admit I'm guilty of this offense as well. Prior to Nazareth Day this year I took several pictures including the ones posted here for the Nazareth Downtown Association web site.I've also encouraged my daughters to take pictures on our walks through town, which often brought us through the Circle and along Main Street.
It simply never occurred to me that it could be problematic. I should note when I was last in the Circle taking pictures I did it after 5:00 p.m. and most times our walks are on weekends, but as you can see by clicking the NDA link above, the PNC bank building is in clear view though my intention was to capture the Canon.
11 comments:
I am basing my opinions on the details of the article and I obviously do not know the entire story. However, I do believe this is harassment.
The police will cry that they have the authority to make these stops based on the Patriot Act. However, there is so much potential for abuse of those powers and this may be one instance. There is a bull's eye on American citizens' backs.
I guess we cant take pics on the west side either do to all the recent breakins hope the new chief gets to work soon
if I remember correctly what I read the gentleman didn't respond nicely to the bank gal when asked why? If someone I didn't know was taking pictures of my house I would ask why. If they didn't respond politely I too would call the police to check it out. If the response was politely then I don't think there would be a need to call the police. I do agree the police need to do a follow up. They do follow ups on all kind of minor calls. I don't think that is categorised as harassment.
Sandi - in many ways you are correct.
If someone was photographing my home, I would be asking questions too.
If the police receive a call, particularly from a bank manager reporting 'suspicious' behavior, they have no option but to investigate, because imagine the consequences if they were wrong and ignored it.
I can also see why a person in a public place taking pictures of their community, as I note I did as well, would be surprised and possibly offended if they were questioned by a stranger.
In the end, I can't see how a 63 year old man taking pictures of the buildings in the Circle would be viewed as suspicious, and I guess in many ways it saddens me to think he would be.
The photographer was acting within his legal rights. However, if an angered man is taking pictures of a bank and the surrounding areas, calling the police is the right thing to do. Sure enough though, the photographer doesn't actually have to respond, but should.
I understand that it could be a bit annoying having to explain your reasons to someone who has no business wondering anything about you. In this situation, a couple minor things such as the bankers attitude and what was actually said to the photographer have to be taken into consideration before we judge this person.
Sometimes people just need to be be cooperative, even when acting within' their rights.
AJ - Guess we were thinking about the same thing at the same time!
I agree with Sandi and AJ and our fearless blog author. I am not quite understanding papier boy. I think he has been sniffing too many chemicals on his (very cool actually) creations and reading lefty blogs at the same time. This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. You are confusing the incident at the Bridge at the Delaware Water Gap.
I would reserve judgement on the bank manager a bit, understanding that she probably is a little freaked out at being robbed TWICE. In Nazareth, none the less.
It sounds like the phtographer got defensive and was annoyed, and this is understandable, but alas as already posted sad that we have some to this in our society(not because of terrrorists, but theives and the like born right here in the US of A.
This purely investigatory stop was both legal and necessary. There was no civil rights violation.
Legal? Yes. Necessary? I'm not convinced.
Papier, Necessary so that police can assure themselves that this was not someone who intended to do harm at the bank. I'd agree that the potential for abuse of civil rights, always exists.
Why would a man who was innocently taking pictures get upset by an inquiry to what he was doing? If he meant no ill will, he should have not reacted poorly....
Post a Comment