quote:

It would seem as if a verbal warning would be sufficient for that type of infraction

Just a few thoughts..

Keep in mind that LEO's these days are de-facto revenue collection agents. It's becoming less a matter of sensible law enforcement and more a matter of "bringing home the bacon" in the form of fines and penalties. There are more stories coming out about people who carry large amounts of cash (usually to purchase a car or other big-ticket item) getting robbed by police during a traffic stop. The official excuse is that "only drug trafficers carry lots of cash." The citizen is assumed guily and there is little recourse except to get a lawyer (which may cost more than what the cop stole I mean, "siezed.")

Many of the posters refer to the increasing militarization of police. It's not surprising when you consider that most LEO's have a military background. The problem is that the military trains people to deal with an enemy, that is kill them and break their stuff. It's "us vs. them" and "kill or be killed." Things aren't so cut and dried in the civillian world. The guy who rolls through a stop sign is not an enemy to be destroyed. It's as if some LEO's were over-programmed during their military service and are unable to see / make a distinction between warfare and civillian law enforcement.

In other words, maybe it's not so good when cops act like soldiers. The flip side is that it's not good when soldiers are expected to act like cops.

I can't really go along with either of those explanations since most G&F Departments don't rely on tickets for revenue. I would also have to see and read the actual statistics showing that most LEOs are ex military personnel and that training causes what you stated.

I suppose since I started this thread I should jump back in.

I have been checked in the field by one of the worst Game Wardens that Texas Parks and Wildlife ever let wear a badge. He was a Bully, pure and simple and got his rocks off on scaring people. He was complained about numerous times but never done anything about. Not to toot my own horn but I did back him down over the ammount of doves I had in my ice chest. At the time I was working in the roughest prison in Texas and quite frankly, he didn't scare me.

I have also been checked by curteous and professional Game Wardens as recently as last year. The guy was a gentleman and did his job without being overbearing. I called his supervisor the following monday and told him how well the Warden had done his job and how professional he had been. It turns out that the supervisor had been a co-worker of the "bully with a badge" and sincerely appreciated my phone call.

The TV show makes it seem like Wardens are the "saviors of all wildlife", that isn't true. They have a necessary job but wildlife will go on with or without them. Some wildlife laws are necessary, some are not. Some game wardens do a wonderful job, some do not.

quote:

It's not surprising when you consider that most LEO's have a military background.

I am sure it is that way many places, but I see lots of them that are military wannabees.

Had lots of desire to be in ther military, but for whatever reason were not able to make the cut. Shows like this one don't really help the situation either. JMO.

Ya' know what, I don't want to be on camera during an interaction with a game warden. And it's not the CA DFG's right to impose that that upon me.

I see it as a form of harassment and a violation of the Fish & Game Code and the National Geographic camera crew should be cited if they persist.

Fish and Game Code Section 2009. (a) A person shall not willfully interfere with the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, fishing, falconry, or trapping at the location where that activity is taking place.

(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500).

(c) If any person is convicted of a violation of this section and the offense occurred within two years of another separate violation of this section which resulted in a conviction, the violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(d) This section does not apply to the actions of any peace officer or personnel of the department in the performance of their official duties. This section does not obstruct the rights and normal activities of landowners or tenants, including, but not limited to, farming, ranching, and limiting unlawful trespass.

(e) In order to be liable for a violation of this section, the person is required to have had the specific intent to interfere with the participation of an individual who was engaged in shooting, hunting, fishing, falconry, or trapping.

(f) For purposes of this section, “interfere with” means any action which physically impedes, hinders, or obstructs the lawful pursuit of any of the above-mentioned activities, including, but not limited to, actions taken for the purpose of frightening away animals from the location where the lawful activity is taking place.


The official duties of a game warden do not include shepherding a reality TV camera crew around.

Excerpts from 'Wild Justice' were recently used by the antis in testimony on SB 1221, the bear/hound hunting bill here in CA, BTW.

quote:

The official duties of a game warden do not include shepherding a reality TV camera crew around.

I've not seen the show and don't even own a TV set so this is only my opinion:

"Reality TV" is entertainment, not news. Consequently, all parties involved must sign a release form before any footage is broadcast. In other words, the violators approved, in writing, of the use of their images and story and no doubt received compensation by National Geographic. The officers (or at least the department) were also most likely compensated for their appearence on the program. It's also good PR in the same vein as "COPS," showing would-be violators what can happen if/when he tangles with John Law. The producers can throw a lot of money at everybody involved and still come up with a show that draws an audience for peanuts (compared to building sets, buying props, paying stuntmen and destroying cars.)

Call me skeptical, but I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was scripted like Pawn Stars, Ice Road Truckers etc.

Bigasanelk---You best go back to the drawing board because those shows are not classified as reality shows like the ones where you're watching Ozzie Osborne & the wife at home and they darn sure aren't paying all those drunks, robbers, and potheads money to appear on the show, LOL! If you don't own a TV, I can't imagine why you would even try to offer up a post on this subject!

quote:

It's also good PR in the same vein as "COPS," showing would-be violators what can happen if/when he tangles with John Law.

It is not good PR for game wardens, it tends to further alienate the licensed, law abiding resource users from the DFG.

COPS is a bad analogy, since that has had the same negative affect on the attitude of the average citizen. And there sure as Hell hasn't been a drop in crime in the cities where COPS is filmed that can be attributed to the show.

quote:

Originally posted by Topgun 30-06:
Bigasanelk---You best go back to the drawing board because those shows are not classified as reality shows like the ones where you're watching Ozzie Osborne & the wife at home and they darn sure aren't paying all those drunks, robbers, and potheads money to appear on the show, LOL! If you don't own a TV, I can't imagine why you would even try to offer up a post on this subject!

Call it what you like, but the general term is, in fact, "reality tv" and the drunks, potheads and robbers ARE compensated in some manner or at least give written consent to the production company prior to broadcast. (It's amazing what some people will do for the attention or a few bucks.) If you really believe that a commercial TV production company can photograph your image, make it part of a story (crime story or otherwise) and broadcast it without your consent, I have a bridge in New York to sell you cheap. Every now and then you might notice that somebody's face is pixelated or soft-focused out. That's because they wouldn't or couldn't give consent.

The exception is a news article. The line between what's entertainment and what's news can get blurred but timing and the format of the show play a big part. News is generally about something happening here and now and the public's "right to know." (There's lots of "wiggle room" in the definition of all that.) A local news crew wouldn't have to get consent (or pay) to photograph and a local poacher on his "perp walk" to court. Showing an Alaskan poacher, nationally, a year after the fact would not be considered "news."

Just because I don't own a TV set doesn't mean I don't ever watch it. I've taken broadcast media classes and have better things to do than watch all that contrived nonsense day in and day out. But it is fun to look in every now and then to see what they've cooked up.

quote:

Originally posted by Skinner.:

quote:

It's also good PR in the same vein as "COPS," showing would-be violators what can happen if/when he tangles with John Law.

It is not good PR for game wardens, it tends to further alienate the licensed, law abiding resource users from the DFG.

COPS is a bad analogy, since that has had the same negative affect on the attitude of the average citizen. And there sure as Hell hasn't been a drop in crime in the cities where COPS is filmed that can be attributed to the show.

You're right. "PR" was a bad choice of words on my part. PR denotes something positive or effective. I was way off the mark on that!

Maybe "publicity," "demonstrating," "advertising" or even "boasting" would be a better choice. In other words "We're out there and this is what we do." Who knows if it really works; as you said "COPS" hasn't been proven to reduce crime. But it does draw an audience and sells advertising time. And that's all that counts.

quote:

Originally posted by Skinner.:


It is not good PR for game wardens, it tends to further alienate the licensed, law abiding resource users from the DFG.

This is so true, and something that I have said many times. By treating law-abiding hunters rudely or overly harsh for a minor offense, they are creating adversaries rather than advocates at a time when the former are sorely needed.

"I can't really go along with either of those explanations since most G&F Departments don't rely on tickets for revenue."

They don't rely on tickets as a source of revenue? Maybe not rely but the extra $$ sure helps, especially these days. In theory, law enforcement using a dirtbag's money to help buy equiment is a great idea. But shaking everybody down (sometimes for hundreds of dollars) for simple infractions is taking it too far and is counterproductive to good LEO / public relations.

"I would also have to see and read the actual statistics showing that most LEOs are ex military personnel and that training causes what you stated."

Just do a Google search of "police recruit military veteran" and you'll see that departments all across the country agressively recruit ex-military personnel. And it's understandable why. There are a lot of similarities in the way police and the military operate. It's the basic mission and purpose of the two that are very different. Does military training cause militaristic treatment of citizens? Who knows for sure? I was just postulating on that. We've all had good and bad experiences with law enforcement. Some cops are professional and polite while others treat citizens like an enemy.

You are doing a lot of postulating with out facts to back you up! Several posts ago I see you claiming that LEOs are seizing (stealing) citizen's money during arrests just by claiming that normal people don't and only drug dealers do have large amounts of cash on them. That is pure bull cookies! In the case of the show Cops, all they have to do is show and read the statement at the start of the show that the people are not considered guilty until found so in a court of law and it pretty well gives them Carte Blance permission under the Constitution to film anywhere on or from public property that they want to. I've not seen the other show to comment on it. As far as your statement that all those people are signing waivers or getting paid because they're on those shows is pure BS!

COPS - Show FAQ

How long has the show COPS been on television?

COPS has been on television since March 11, 1989.

Who produces the show COPS?

COPS is produced by Langley Productions, located in Santa Monica, California, USA.

Are any of the stories on COPS staged or recreated? I can't believe people are actually that crazy!

No part of the show COPS is staged, pre-planned or recreated. What you see each week is exactly what happened in front of the camera, only edited down to seven minute stories.

How many crew members ride along with the officers while on patrol?

COPS uses two person crews in each police car. A camera person rides in the front passenger seat, while a sound mixer rides in the back seat. If it's a two person police unit, then both camera operator and sound mixer will ride in the back seat of the cruiser.

Do the COPS camera crew members wear bullet proof vests?

Ballistic resistant vests are provided for crew members by Langley Productions, the producers of COPS.

Do the police officers who appear on COPS get paid to be on the show?

The officers and deputies who appear on COPS are not compensated for their appearance on the show. They do receive their regular pay from the agency they work for while the COPS crew is riding with them.

Have any crew members been shot or seriously injured during the production of the show?

The job of being a police officer is inherently dangerous. The job of a reality show camera crew member also has it's dangers. Put the two together and there is risk of getting hurt, even if you are careful. Over the years, there have been numerous minor injuries just from running through unknown backyards, being in police cars that have gotten in accidents, slipping, falling, being clotheslined, etc. On several occasions, crews have found themselves in the middle of angry crowds and have been hit by flying objects. The only shooting occurred when an officer mishandled a firearm taken from the trunk of a suspect's car and it discharged, hitting the cameraman in his legs. Though the injury was serious, the cameraman recovered and continued working for the show for awhile. And a sound mixer passed away in his sleep while working for the show from a non-work related cause. All in all, the show and all it's crew have been very fortunate.

Why does it seem that the show goes to the same cities over and over again? Why don't they just go to all cities?

The show COPS must be invited by the city or county, police chief, sheriff, or city manager before they consider riding in an area. If an invitation is received, producers for the show then go to meet with the officials and ride on patrol in those areas to see if the area meets the production needs of the show. If it does, then a contract is signed between the show and the area and the production team works on scheduling a time to go to that area for taping. The show can't just show up and demand to ride along with agencies who don't want them to. The cities and counties you see on the show have all invited the show to come and work with their officers and continue to have them back every several years. Those cities and areas that have never been on the show, either don't have what the show requires as far as activity, or they don't want the show to ride with their agencies.

I am taking television production in school. Can I get a job with the show COPS?

COPS is a highly specialized reality series that requires extreme skills and physical abilities from it's crew members. Typically, each crew member is picked from the best in the business, usually with a background in news gathering and documentary production and years of experience.

Do the people who get arrested or appear on COPS get paid to be on the show?

The policy for the show COPS is to not compensate those who appear on camera.

In the early years, we used to see lots of people with blurry dots on their faces. Now we rarely see that. Why were their faces blurred but others were not? And why do we not see blurred faces anymore?

Those who appear on the show must sign a photo release, allowing Langley Productions to use their face on their shows. In the first years of production, many people weren't familiar with the show and some refused to sign the release. The show just blurred out their face and included them in the story. But the process of blurring is expensive and time consuming. Also, over the years, more and more people saw being on COPS as their chance at their "15 minutes of fame" so were more inclined to sign. Today, the show tries to not blur faces if at all possible which seems to be the preference of the viewers.

quote:

Those who appear on the show must sign a photo release, allowing Langley Productions to use their face on their shows. In the first years of production, many people weren't familiar with the show and some refused to sign the release. The show just blurred out their face and included them in the story. But the process of blurring is expensive and time consuming. Also, over the years, more and more people saw being on COPS as their chance at their "15 minutes of fame" so were more inclined to sign. Today, the show tries to not blur faces if at all possible which seems to be the preference of the viewers.

***That shows you how long it's been since I've watched that show if they are showing faces now because when I did watch it they were always blotted out and, thus, why I made that statement. Thank God for cable and being able to watch sports and meaningful documentary shows, etc. I probably don't watch three hours of "regular" TV, if you can call it that, a month.

"You are doing a lot of postulating with out facts to back you up! Several posts ago I see you claiming that LEOs are seizing (stealing) citizen's money during arrests just by claiming that normal people don't and only drug dealers do have large amounts of cash on them. That is pure bull cookies!"

Here are 2 links, one of them from this very forum that should help to prove that police siezure of cash from innocent citizens is not "pure bull cookies." A quick Google or YouTube search will turn up dozens, if not hundreds, more documented cases of this happening. It seems to be an up and coming trend that started with the "war on drugs."

http://www.newschannel5.com/st...00-in-new-policing-f

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp


"In the case of the show Cops, all they have to do is show and read the statement at the start of the show that the people are not considered guilty until found so in a court of law and it pretty well gives them Carte Blance permission under the Constitution to film anywhere on or from public property that they want to. I've not seen the other show to comment on it. As far as your statement that all those people are signing waivers or getting paid because they're on those shows is pure BS!"

Compensation is optional and can mean things other than a direct cash payment. Signing a release is mandatory, unless you think that the post by Outdoor Writer is "pure BS" too. The simple truth is that, outside of a news story, a media production company cannot stick a camera in your face and broadcast your image without your written permission. Even if you're guilt of wrongdoing. If you really think I'm full of BS on this, why not ask National Geographic directly?

"Thank God for cable and being able to watch sports and meaningful documentary shows, etc. I probably don't watch three hours of "regular" TV, if you can call it that, a month."

It looks like we pretty much have the same opinion of network TV. I'm just too cheap to pop for cable or satellite.

quote:

Compensation is optional and mean things other than a direct cash payment. Signing a release is mandatory, unless you think that the post by Outdoor Writer is "pure BS" too. The simple truth is that, outside of a news story, they cannot stick a camera in your face and broadcast your story without your written permission. If you really think I'm full of BS on this, why not ask National Geographic directly?

The policy for the show COPS is to not compensate those who appear on camera and was right in his post. Now also please read the last paragraph in the Outdoorwriter post SLOWLY as it states exactly what I stated. If they do not show the faces of the individuals they are pursuing and/or arrest, they do not have to have anything signed by that person. Again, that's why I made the statement I did that when I watched it the faces were blotted out and the facts stated above are that those persons were included in the show without their permission because it wasn't required due to their identity not being revealed.

quote:

Originally posted by Topgun 30-06:

quote:

Compensation is optional and mean things other than a direct cash payment. Signing a release is mandatory, unless you think that the post by Outdoor Writer is "pure BS" too. The simple truth is that, outside of a news story, they cannot stick a camera in your face and broadcast your story without your written permission. If you really think I'm full of BS on this, why not ask National Geographic directly?

The policy for the show COPS is to not compensate those who appear on camera and was right in his post. Now also please read the last paragraph in the Outdoorwriter post SLOWLY as it states exactly what I stated. If they do not show the faces of the individuals they are pursuing and/or arrest, they do not have to have anything signed by that person. Again, that's why I made the statement I did that when I watched it the faces were blotted out and the facts stated above are that those persons were included in the show without their permission because it wasn't required due to their identity not being revealed.

I'm not going to argue over definitions but I'll bet that the perps on COPS at least got a coffee mug, tee-shirt or some such trinket. Anything given in exchange is "compensation." COPS is an old show, a pioneer in the genre. With the growing popularity of this sort of entertainment, the subjects are likely to ask for more than just their "15 minutes of fame" and a tee-shirt in return for the use of thier face. Notice that I used (and have always used) the specific terms "face" or "image." They can show your feet, your backside or anything else that doesn't reveal your identity. I stand by my claim that producers of anything other than a news story MUST obtain a signed release before broadcasting anybody's FACE or IMAGE.

Read it again, I'll type slowly this time, "Producers of anything other than a news story MUST obtain a signed release before broadcasting anybody's FACE or IMAGE." Prove me wrong on that one. And, these days, with the popularity of this type of programming, the subjects are more likely to ask for compensation, possibly substantial compensation in exchange for signing the release.

What do you have to say now about the issue of police siezure of cash or assets from innocent citizens? Still think it's "pure bull cookies?"

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over what you say is required when you haven't come up with anything to back yourself up. All you need to do is show the statute that backs up your claim. Pure and simple huh? Otherwise, it's just your opinion as mine is mine. As far as the seizure of cash or any other objects, any time a person is taken into custody anything and everything on their person or in their vehicle is taken as evidence until the case is adjudicated. That doesn't mean the LEOS are stealing anything and if any of those goods that are inventoried and not found to be illegally obtained aren't returned, the person whom they belong to would be within their rights to file whatever they need to get them back. If they don't, then that's their problem! I imagine what you're saying has happened, but doubt that it's on any large scale conspiracy type percentage like you seem to be intimating. Hells bells, I seized devices from time to time that were deemed as being used illegaly under the laws I was enforcing and not once in 30+ years was I accused of "stealing" anything!

"I'm not going to get into a pissing match.."
You sure fooled me on that!

"With you over what you say is required when you haven't come up with anything to back yourself up. All you need to do is show the statute that backs up your claim. Pure and simple huh? Otherwise, it's just your opinion as mine is mine."

I don't know the statute off hand; the media and photography classes were decades ago. But the law is well-known and understood in the media business, and if I remember correctly, it's related to patents and copyrights. In the media your face and/or image has a value. (If it didn't, no commerical entity would be interested in photographing and broadcasting it.) Taking that image and using it for commerical gain is no different than if you were a musician and I recorded and sold your material without your consent. The key word is "commercial" and shows like COPS and the NatGeo warden show that the subject of this thread are commerical, entertainment broadcasts, not news. (Even the news, protected by the First Amendment, has to walk a fine line under certain circumstances.) Have you ever booked a hunt with an outfitter? The contract for the hunt often has a release and waiver for the use of any photographs taken and used for advertising. If you're that interested in the law look it up yourself. Maybe somebody in the business (like Outdoor Writer) can shed some light on the issues of fair use and copyright law.

And yes, you have your opinion and I have mine. We can agree on that, at least. It's just an internet forum board. Funny thing is, at this point I don't even know for sure what we're arguing about. My message was simple and consistant: If someone's face or image is to be used on a commercial broadcast the producers must have a signed release and they probably offered some sort of compensation in return. Entertainment programs like COPS and the NatGeo show are "reality TV," not news broadcasts. Are you saying this isn't the case?

"As far as the seizure of cash or any other objects, any time a person is taken into custody anything and everything on their person or in their vehicle is taken as evidence until the case is adjudicated." That doesn't mean the LEOS are stealing anything and if any of those goods that are inventoried and not found to be illegally obtained aren't returned, the person whom they belong to would be within their rights to file whatever they need to get them back. If they don't, then that's their problem! I imagine what you're saying has happened, but doubt that it's on any large scale conspiracy type percentage like you seem to be intimating."

I never said it was a conspiracy or even a widespread practice (at least not yet), only that siezure of cash appears to be an up-and-coming trend that started with the "war on drugs." It's a disturbing trend that can (and will) drive a wedge between law enforcement and the law-abiding public.

"Hells bells, I seized devices from time to time that were deemed as being used illegaly under the laws I was enforcing and not once in 30+ years was I accused of "stealing" anything!"

I'm sure you were a good officer and did everything by the book. I mean that sincerely. If the devices you speak of were illegal (radar detectors?) it was your job to sieze them and no reasonable person would seriously question it. But things seem to be different now. Forfiture laws intended to be used against drug runners are appearently being used to "shake down" people who have not been convicted of any crime. The officers and/or departments doing so knowing that the innocent person will have to spend a lot of money (maybe more than what was seized stolen) in lawyer fees to get their cash returned. It happens. Do you deny that? This concerns me personally because I often buy vehicles out West (rust free) and pay cash for them. I've never touched illicit drugs, not even as a teenager in the 1970's. Wouldn't you agree that the last person I should be afraid of losing my money to is a cop? But it's starting to look like I stand a bigger chance of getting ripped off by the law than by a some thug in a rest stop, at least in some parts of the country.

I appreciate your good officer comment and thank you for that! I was actually an Investigator with the Mchigan Department of Agriculture in what years ago was in the Consumer Protection Bureau of the Department. I was enforcing over 200 different laws & regulations dealing with food sanitation, food standards, and commercial weights & measuring equipment the first half of my career. As prices continued to rise and there became more and more complaints of consumer fraud at the gas pump in both w&m cheating, as well as motor fuel quality fraud, I was promoted in the late 80s and covered 9 counties mostly involving retail gas stations and bulk terminals. My job had more authority and powers than a State Trooper, but I did not abuse that power. Unfortunately, I have to agree 100% with you that law enforcement probably isn't like it was even ten years ago when I retired. The problem though is that like everything else in our society, the one or two bad apples in anything make it appear that the whole bushel is spoiled due to the media and it's sensationalism of all the negative things. In retrospect, I dont think we were that far apart on the other part of our discussion and I'll give you the nod on the waiver signing, etc. because I think our differing opinion was more on what you and I call reality shows. Have a good one Bro!

A good bud of mine is a petroleum inspector for the state of WI so I've heard some of the same stories from him.

I don't think we've got an big differences in opinion at all.

What's your friend's name, as if he's been around for a while he may be a person I've run into at various meetings I used to go to involving the Central States W&M Association?

P.M. Sent