View Full Version : Because you have no rights
The Arkansas State Police have suspended a trooper who arrested a news photographer and the agency has transferred the trooper out of the Highway Patrol Division. State police state spokesman Bill Sadler says Trooper Tom Weindruch was suspended for two days without pay and was transferred to the Administrative Services Division in Little Rock.
Stephens Media photographer Bill Lawson was arrested December 10th by Weindruch at the scene of a house fire in Maumelle, prompting Lawson to file a complaint against Weindruch. Lawson was arrested and handcuffed, then released at the scene with a citation for obstructing government operations. Prosecutors quickly dropped the charge. Lawson complained that Weindruch was abusive.
A state police panel concluded that Lawson's accusations could not be proven, but state police director Colonel Winford Phillips chose to discipline Weindruch anyway. The colonel says Weindruch showed poor judgment and that Weindruch's actions harmed the reputation of the Arkansas State Police.
oftheherd
03-28-2008, 05:17
Nice to see a posting that shows the other side of the story.
Pherdinand
03-28-2008, 05:22
the key word is "everyone", nikonhswebmaster.
Maybe not everyone is posting about it. Only people who feel like that are posting anything about it so that's what we see. But there are many silent and satisfied individuals.
And when one goes voting on this level, well... the winner takes it all.
I just don't understand the title of this thread.
"fear is that little darkroom where you develop negatives"
Someone once said, but I can't remember who
the photographer was covering a house fire and was arrested..... It was a title designed to show this particular photographer's predicament
not in anyway political statement - lord knows there are other countries, other states, other places in the world that this guy got off easy...
it was to show that even if you work for a news agency, are accredited, and are doing your job, you can still be arrested...
but conversely, maybe the photog did something to piss off the cops....
If it was Joe Schmoe out at the scene taking photos, ok, I could understand a cop maybe telling him to knock it off. But the press, there's no excuse unless he was standing in the way. And I doubt that very much.
I'm honestly more afraid of being hassled and having my life disturbed by some cop with an authority complex than I am of a terrorist threat. This country is going to hell when the people are more afraid of its police than its enemies.
you know... there's nothing of note if the photographer has a normal mundane day without confrontation...
a photographer arrested, chased off, or film confiscated makes more of a story than :
A photographer was spotted taking pictures in downtown New York. He was not arrested or accosted in any way
dazedgonebye
03-28-2008, 06:18
Maybe there's more detail somewhere about this story, but this doesn't tell us enough to know who was in the right, only who got detained and who got punished.
It's entirely possible that the photographer was interfering. I've met a few members of the media that were more than a little arrogant about their place in things.
As I said though, we can't tell from this.
I'll take it as a positive that the state of Arkansas is making a strong statement regarding the treatment of photographers/reporters...and I'll hope the Trooper wasn't hung out to dry for doing the right thing, but stepping on the wrong toes.
Well, I agree with the general feeling here...
But, I may see another side to the story (athough I'm not american and so I'm not fully aware of the legislation there):
A cop makes a mistake, and is abusive, ok.
Now, he is juged by a state police panel and found clear, then the chief of police, decided nonetheless to punish him.
So, one of the two possibilities:
The Police panel is completely biased towrd the cop
or
The chief of police is so affraid of its bad name in the press that he punishes the cop without no solid base.
either way, not a very brilliant situation.
Al Patterson
03-28-2008, 06:31
Everyone keeps posting the results of the fear being promoted as a normal way of life in the US. If you don't like a culture of fear and repression, the elections are coming, vote for fear or don't vote for fear, your choice.
If you vote for continued fear and suspicion, you cannot blame the government for acting on your wishes.
Since both parties are using fear to whip up their base, the only way to "don't vote for fear" is to not vote...
oftheherd
03-28-2008, 06:33
It is interesting that even when another side is shown, that many here in the forum want to jump on the old saw that police are just going to step on everybody's rights. Come on, be happy that a photographer was found to have been within his rights.
Now that I have said that, I have to agree we really don't know enough facts about this. Was the photographer pushing the envelope? Wouldn't be the first time. Did the cop overreact? Wouldn't be the first time. The panel couldn't find evidence to side with the photographer. That may mean they were biased towards the cop, or that they were just being honest, saying there isn't enough evidence to prove the photographer's story.
We aren't getting it all. I can assure you that no police union is going to stand for a cop being punished if there isn't a good reason. Something happened. It would be unusual to handcuff someone, which ususally implies arrest, and not follow up, but rather just let them go. Not unheard of, but unusual. That, along with some indications of overzealousness, may have been what allowed the chief there to take some action without fear of it being challenged by the police union. I don't know. As I said (and others here), we aren't getting all the story.
mfunnell
03-28-2008, 06:38
If it was Joe Schmoe out at the scene taking photos, ok, I could understand a cop maybe telling him to knock it off. But the press, there's no excuse unless he was standing in the way. And I doubt that very much.
As it happens, until this point I wasn't that scared. But now I am. "The Press" has, and should have, no more rights than the general public. The general public, however, should have many rights. "Official" permission or permission from an official should have absolutely bleedin' nothin' to do with it. The moment we, collectively, believe that someone "from a newspaper" has more right to be at the scene than, well, "just" a member of the public, we're already in big trouble.
I'm honestly more afraid of being hassled and having my life disturbed by some cop with an authority complex than I am of a terrorist threat. This country is going to hell when the people are more afraid of its police than its enemies.That, perhaps, is an issue I can sympathise with. But it is NOTHING compared to your earlier-expressed attitude. Someone exceeding their authority is much, much easier to deal with than an entire world-view that has already conceded all authority to those who "are authorised" (by who? on what authority?? but I'm now asking questions of the wind...)
...Mike
more info:
LITTLE ROCK - A state trooper who arrested a Stephens Media reporter in December at the scene of a Maumelle house fire has been suspended for two days and transferred out of the Highway Patrol Division of the Arkansas State Police, a state police spokesman said Wednesday.
Trooper Tom Weindruch, 33, was suspended without pay Friday and Monday and was transferred to the Administrative Services Division in Little Rock, state police spokesman Bill Sadler said.
Weindruch, who had been assigned to the Highway Patrol Division's Troop A in Little Rock, will also be ineligible to compete for a promotion or receive special assignments for one year. He did not appeal the disciplinary action, Sadler said.
A phone message left for Weindruch at state police headquarters was not immediately returned Wednesday.
Weindruch arrested Bill Lawson, 59, a reporter and photographer for central Arkansas newspapers owned by Stephens Media, while Lawson was attempting to take pictures of a house fire for the Maumelle Monitor on Dec. 10. Stephens Media also owns The Morning News.
Weindruch wrote in his arrest report that Lawson took flash pictures of him, temporarily impairing his vision, after Weindruch told him to return to his vehicle. Weindruch placed Lawson in handcuffs and later released him at the scene with a citation for obstructing governmental operations.
A judge dismissed the citation four days later after a prosecutor decided not to pursue the charge.
Lawson filed a complaint over his arrest, alleging Weindruch physically roughed him up; would not let him sit down while he was in handcuffs even though he has health problems; yelled and screamed at him; and was rude, abusive and threatening.
Lawson said he was trying to photograph the fire, with Weindruch in the foreground, when Weindruch became belligerent toward him.
A three-person review board investigated the complaint and reported to State Police Director Col. Winford Phillips in January that it found Lawson's complaint to be unsubstantiated, although it said Weindruch showed poor judgment in the incident.
Specifically, the review board said Weindruch showed poor judgment in responding to the fire scene when no one requested his assistance; failing to advise state police dispatchers of his location and intent; engaging in unnecessary verbal exchanges with Lawson; arresting Lawson; and failing to notify his supervisor of the incident.
The review board based its findings on interviews with witnesses and a videotape from Weindruch's state police vehicle, though the panel noted that Weindruch's video camera was not activated until after Lawson was in handcuffs, and there was no radio log to indicate when Weindruch first made contact with Lawson.
Phillips chose to take disciplinary action despite the board's recommendation, stating in a March 10 letter to Weindruch that the incident "has adversely affected the reputation of the Arkansas State Police for professionalism."
Phillips also noted that Weindruch has received three letters of reprimand and a letter of warning because of previous incidents. The incidents included a traffic stop Weindruch made in 2004, eight days before he graduated from recruit school, and his pursuit of a traffic violator in his personal vehicle in 2006.
"The above history does not lend itself towards not imposing some disciplinary action in the immediate matter," Phillips wrote.
Those letters of reprimand and warning were not released when the Arkansas News Bureau submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for Weindruch's personnel file in December. Sadler said Wednesday the letters were placed in a "job performance file," not in Weindruch's personnel file.
"We believe those letters are exempt from release under the FOIA" if they do not pertain to termination or suspension, Sadler said.
Weindruch's personnel file also did not include eight previous complaints citizens have filed against him. The Arkansas News Bureau obtained those complaints under a second FOIA request in February, after Attorney General Dustin McDaniel issued an opinion - in an unrelated matter - that citizens' complaints against law officers are subject to the FOIA.
All but one of the previous complaints accused Weindruch of angry or violent behavior.
Lawson said Wednesday he was disappointed that state police officials apparently did not believe him, but he said it was "obviously positive" that Weindruch will no longer be patrolling state highways.
"I think he not only exercised poor judgment, I think he has an anger management problem," Lawson said.
SolaresLarrave
03-28-2008, 07:00
The cop is at fault here. He should have arrested someone who has committed a crime, or is in the process of breaking the law. What did he do? Use the power he was invested with to pursue someone who annoyed him. In my book, that's abuse of power. If he got temporarily blinded by a flash, it wasn't impairing enough to deter him from arresting "the culprit." Had he lost life or limb, or be in risk thereof... that's another story. From where I'm sitting now, he simply overreacted, took it out on the photographer and should have thought twice about it.
I'm glad Lawson, the photographer, reported Weindruch. The latter seems to have a "vigilante" complex: not a good thing. Only Clint Eastwood can pull that out.
sweathog
03-28-2008, 07:12
It would be unusual to handcuff someone, which ususally implies arrest, and not follow up, but rather just let them go. Not unheard of, but unusual.
For the record, only a week or so ago I was arrested and then dearrested within about tenty minutes. What was I arrested for? Obstruction of the course of justice. What had I done? Politely asked the officer why he wanted me to get into his van when he could perfectly well perform his enquiries in the street. Given that there were 8 officers and four of us there it wasn't like we'd have got far if we'd made a run for it.
A bit offtopic, but it happens more than you'd think.
Roger Hicks
03-28-2008, 07:45
I actually found this quite encouraging.
Cop behaves like arsehole.
Cop is disciplined.
Seems fair.
Cheers,
R.
foto_fool
03-28-2008, 08:48
How I read the article is that the enquiry board was only not able to substantiate Lawson's claim of abusive behavior by the trooper. No surprise - the guy's video camera was off. Clearly this officer broke so many protocols (showing up at a scene he was not summoned to, not radioing in his intention to exit his vehicle at the scene, not turning on his video camera as he exited his vehicle, and not reporting his actions to his superior), and seems to have a history of doing so, that the Director felt discipline was needed.
On the other hand, there is at least the possibility that the photographer might have been using his flash aggressively. Something set the trooper off.
Sad thing - when this cop finally looses his job or quits, he is still going to have a gun permit and is going to end up a mall security guard somewhere, where he can do some real damage.
dazedgonebye
03-28-2008, 09:07
Reading the full article would certainly sway me against the cop.
Did that really say he has his first reprimand 8 days before graduation? Not exactly going in to the job with the attitude of being a public servant.
I agree with the earlier comment that this is an example of things working as they should.
Cop abuses power, acts that fool, gets disciplined. Appropriate message is sent to his fellow cops.
There is one candidate that suggests hope rather than fear
Still, this is weird, isn't it?
Why would anybody be arrested for taking photos in the first place?
I can only think of very few reason why this might be justifiable.
dazedgonebye
03-28-2008, 10:58
There is one candidate that suggests hope rather than fear
Cumbyah. :rolleyes:
Cumbyah. :rolleyes:
was this guy an independent? I never heard of him...
dazedgonebye
03-28-2008, 11:46
was this guy an independent? I never heard of him...
I'm writing him in.
Actually, I'm a Ralph Wiggum (http://www.digthewig08.com/)supporter.
Remember, "Pick a Winner."
crawdiddy
03-28-2008, 12:01
Since both parties are using fear to whip up their base, the only way to "don't vote for fear" is to not vote...
No, I don't accept the premise that both parties are using fear. If you want to criticize Democrats, make a better (different) argument.
Btw, this line of discussion is straying off-topic.
Al Patterson
03-28-2008, 14:25
No, I don't accept the premise that both parties are using fear. If you want to criticize Democrats, make a better (different) argument.
Btw, this line of discussion is straying off-topic.
The Democrats are constantly fear-mongering NAFTA and Big Oil just as much as the Republicans fear monger "The War on Terror".
But, as a Democrat partisian, you can't see it. Or won't.
And I repleid to another post, I didn't start the thread drift. Look, it's going to be a long year, so we either stick to photography, or we'll end up with more closed threads and fewer users...
sweathog
03-28-2008, 15:19
Btw, this line of discussion is straying off-topic.
Too late!
Run for cover!
crawdiddy
03-28-2008, 15:37
The Democrats are constantly fear-mongering NAFTA and Big Oil just as much as the Republicans fear monger "The War on Terror".
But, as a Democrat partisian, you can't see it. Or won't.
And I repleid to another post, I didn't start the thread drift. Look, it's going to be a long year, so we either stick to photography, or we'll end up with more closed threads and fewer users...
Let's be more precise here. The Democrats are blaming NAFTA for the loud sucking sound of jobs leaving the US (just as Ross Perot warned) and Big Oil for obscene profits and record prices. You could even say scapegoating, if you prefer. But not fear mongering.
Al Patterson
03-28-2008, 15:39
You have a very good point there, I did read somewhere recently that there are now 5000 casualties from NAFTA, and over 50,000 wounded from working in NAFTA factories.
Again, you missed the point. Typical. Go eat some more burgers and fries....
ZZZzzzzzzzzzzz...
Regards,
Bill
nikonhswebmaster
03-28-2008, 15:50
Let's be more precise here. The Democrats are blaming NAFTA for the loud sucking sound of jobs leaving the US (just as Ross Perot warned) and Big Oil for obscene profits and record prices. You could even say scapegoating, if you prefer. But not fear mongering.
I appreciate your effort, but as history has proven, once a nation gets a taste for the blood of others, only bankruptcy and defeat will cure the lust. Sadly, I believe the nice, but befuddled, old pilot is right, this war will last one hundred years and the US will squander all its wealth.
xayraa33
03-28-2008, 15:54
a clone mix of Andrew Jackson and LBJ is needed.
..............someone to kill the Bank and create a Great Society.:)
Al Patterson
03-28-2008, 15:54
Let's be more precise here. The Democrats are blaming NAFTA for the loud sucking sound of jobs leaving the US (just as Ross Perot warned) and Big Oil for obscene profits and record prices. You could even say scapegoating, if you prefer. But not fear mongering.
And since the jobs are going to India and China, while NAFTA deals with trade between the US, Canada and Mexico, how exactly does changing NAFTA fix that? And how are profits of 10 cents on the dollar obscene when Pfizer and Microsoft make MUCH more profit? Check the financials on Yahoo and you can see what I mean.
I'm worried about jobs and the economy, but so far I don"t see any of the three remaining candidates offering any real solutions to the problem. Call it scapegoating, call it fear mongering, they are all just pandering to their bases.
I'm wondering about the background of the photographer ... where did 'sitemistic' go when he left here? :angel:
Seriously ... I think this is a storm in a teacup and although the cop did the wrong thing, obviously the photog walked straight into the situation and managed to aggravate a volatile individual.
If the PJ had been using a Leica and Noctilux he wouldn't have needed the flash and the situation would have been avoided ... when are these fools going to learn? :p
nikonhswebmaster
03-28-2008, 16:04
I'm wondering about the background of the photographer ... where did 'sitemistic' go when he left here? :angel:
Seriously ... I think this is a storm in a teacup and although the cop did the wrong thing, obviously the photog walked straight into the situation and managed to aggravate a volatile individual.
If the PJ had been using a Leica and Noctilux he wouldn't have needed the flash and the situation would have been avoided ... when are these fools going to learn? :p
It is totally obvious what happened, the policeman was rude, so the photographer retaliated by deliberately firing a strobe in his eyes, the only weapon he had. Basically you have a case of 'sitemistic' vs. 'sitemistic'.
Some people could get arrested while in a coma at the hospital.
Al Patterson
03-28-2008, 16:49
I appreciate your effort, but as history has proven, once a nation gets a taste for the blood of others, only bankruptcy and defeat will cure the lust. Sadly, I believe the nice, but befuddled, old pilot is right, this war will last one hundred years and the US will squander all its wealth.
Believe me, I worry as well. However, I still think the 100 years in Iraq statement was meant to reflect back on our 60 years in Europe and 50 in Korea, not a 100 year shooting war.
Back on topic, I am glad to see that the officer who screwed up paid some price for it. This is good news on that front for once.
oftheherd
03-28-2008, 16:52
For the record, only a week or so ago I was arrested and then dearrested within about tenty minutes. What was I arrested for? Obstruction of the course of justice. What had I done? Politely asked the officer why he wanted me to get into his van when he could perfectly well perform his enquiries in the street. Given that there were 8 officers and four of us there it wasn't like we'd have got far if we'd made a run for it.
A bit offtopic, but it happens more than you'd think.
Unless your laws and police protocols are different, it should not be. Normally once an arrest occurs, that is it. Trip to the police station, paper made with the DA, and lawyer time. Now mind you, I have been retired almost 20 years. That is the way it used to be. Once force was used, and an arrest made, there was no backing out. That was also for the protection of the officer and the jurisdiction served. It may be different now, or in some places.
oftheherd
03-28-2008, 16:56
...
Seriously ... I think this is a storm in a teacup and although the cop did the wrong thing, obviously the photog walked straight into the situation and managed to aggravate a volatile individual.
...
Good point. It isn't uncommon when an altercaion occurs, that there is blame on both sides.
back alley
03-28-2008, 17:40
too much politics!
p h o t o site
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.