So.. can anyone recommend any elevated locations in/near downtown to do some photography? I scanned the thread and didn't find any conclusion about some random joe wanting to do some personal photography on top of the city owned garages, but it's probably best to just not do it for now.

So.. can anyone recommend any elevated locations in/near downtown to do some photography? I scanned the thread and didn't find any conclusion about some random joe wanting to do some personal photography on top of the city owned garages, but it's probably best to just not do it for now.

Personally, I'm of the mind to just go to any of them. Drive in and pay to park if it makes you feel more secure. Just snap your pics and go. The only time you're really going to have a problem is if you're actually taking clients or models to a location where you're going to attract attention and loiter a bit longer.

Personally, I'm of the mind to just go to any of them. Drive in and pay to park if it makes you feel more secure. Just snap your pics and go. The only time you're really going to have a problem is if you're actually taking clients or models to a location where you're going to attract attention and loiter a bit longer.

Civil disobedience? Say it ain't so. Rules and laws are for others, not me.

Civil disobedience? Say it ain't so. Rules and laws are for others, not me.

Nice try. Let me guess, you're the model hall monitor? Is it so difficult for you to post within a thread's context without attacking people?

I'm extremely open about the fact that I don't agree with many laws and (within reason - which you apparently lack) don't have a problem with someone (or myself) breaking them as long as they are willing to accept the consequences.

I choose to speed - I may get a ticket. I choose to cross the street at a place other than the corner, and even (heaven forbid) do it at an angle - I may get a ticket. I choose to walk facing the wrong direction on the side of the roadway - I may get a ticket. I choose to take a picture on a parking garage - I may get a ticket. I accept all that for myself and anyone else..... What's your point?

Show me where exactly I've professed some sort of 'law and order' stance. I stand up against one type of horrific abuse and criminal activity and your warped bias turns it into "laws are for some, but not for me."

Still got your panties in a wad there I see Mr. Tamage.

Nice try. Let me guess, you're the model hall monitor? Is it so difficult for you to post within a thread's context without attacking people?

I'm extremely open about the fact that I don't agree with many laws and (within reason - which you apparently lack) don't have a problem with someone (or myself) breaking them as long as they are willing to accept the consequences.

I choose to speed - I may get a ticket. I choose to cross the street at a place other than the corner, and even (heaven forbid) do it at an angle - I may get a ticket. I choose to walk facing the wrong direction on the side of the roadway - I may get a ticket. I choose to take a picture on a parking garage - I may get a ticket. I accept all that for myself and anyone else..... What's your point?

Show me where exactly I've professed some sort of 'law and order' stance. I stand up against one type of horrific abuse and criminal activity and your warped bias turns it into "laws are for some, but not for me."

Still got your panties in a wad there I see Mr. Tamage.

You and I have had a discussion about this before. While I disagree with some things you do, I agree that it's up to you as long as you are willing to accept any consequences. There is one caveat to that. If you do things that are not legal that put anyone else in any kind of jeopardy, you are totally in the wrong and shouldn't do it. I'm not saying you are doing that, just mentioning that's it's not always OK.

... I agree that it's up to you as long as you are willing to accept any consequences. There is one caveat to that. If you do things that are not legal that put anyone else in any kind of jeopardy, you are totally in the wrong and shouldn't do it. I'm not saying you are doing that, just mentioning that's it's not always OK.

That was implied in my "within reason" statement. Sort of my stance on my other activism - keep it private, keep it consensual, keep it unorganized and I have little interest in it.

I can kind of understand the pro photography thing at the Myriad Gardens, where you get dozens of people making money by shooting long photo shoots in the park.

But is this really such a problem? Has anyone been inconvenienced or had their visit to the park diminished by this activity?

Perhaps it's an attempt by the City to collect revenue?

Go to Woodward Park in Tulsa around sunset on a Saturday. Forget about using any of the key parts of the park unless you are a commercial photographer. I think the Myriad Gardens would be even worse, since there are less scenic places in OKC for photos.

I don't believe commercial photography fails under the same rights as personal photography since cities do have the right to regulate commercial activities on public lands.


Civil disobedience? Say it ain't so. Rules and laws are for others, not me.

In this whole thread no one has been able to point to a law that prohibits photography from public spaces.

Municipalities routinely require a permit for any photography that utilizes a monopod, tripod, light stands, and any other associated obstruction of the public space. They do this on the basis of the right of the public to enjoy unrestricted use of the space. I can't, however, figure out how the payment of a fee to the government restores or compensates the general public's loss of that use as the fees usually simply sustain the regulating department.

Luckily they have no way of actually enforcing this. Even SandRidge's campus, which is completely locked down, is easy to scale their parking garage to snap a pic of the view (totally worth it).

I honestly think it's really cool that the top of some garages (mainly the Santa Fe) always have so many humans outside admiring the view. I guess we can't have that anywhere near these albatrosses.

Thought I would share this here as it pertains to the recording of buildings in our downtown area.

This person was performing a first amendment audit last week on the Federal Building and was likely illegally searched and detained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpdHi6Q8Rt4

A bit more video that is missing from the video linked above...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqmoT8DTm-s


FWIW: I don't condone nor support this group. I think they cross the line often and then are not transparent about their interactions with the police and general public.

oops - repost.

. . there's always one (and I'm not talking about the security/police). . . sometimes, like the old song. . "it's not what you do, it's the way how you do it". . .

Thank you for the bolded part about not supporting this group and/or their activites. I think there is a huge difference between people who are just simply taking pictures and people who are seeking a confrontation. It was clear the way he almost shouted "public sidewalk" and said "got these police officers over here" dripping with disdain which camp he was in. The extended video shows even more completely dickish and unnecessarily confrontational behavior.

I don't know what a "first amendment audit" is, but based on this video I believe it might mean "strap on a camera and be a complete dickhead until it provokes someone, then cry "first amendment! first amendment!".

Or, in the words of the first comment on that video: "This guy needs to find another hobby. He is not good at this at all. He seems to be a kid that saw some youtube videos and decided he could go out playing badass while not having the brains or temperament to do it right."

Thank you for the bolded part about not supporting this group and/or their activites. I think there is a huge difference between people who are just simply taking pictures and people who are seeking a confrontation. ...

Not to derail the thread - and this is loosely still related - here is the same guy in front of the Edmond Police HQ around the same time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOZfVXNi3FA

Again, totally inappropriate and making every attempt he can to agitate a situation. I have to give a big thumbs up though to the Edmond police officer. He met every expectation I have for an officer in that situation.

*What duffus, tells a cop he's filming their building in an attempt to 'gather intelligence.'

Attention seekers

Not to derail the thread - and this is loosely still related - here is the same guy in front of the Edmond Police HQ around the same time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOZfVXNi3FA

Again, totally inappropriate and making every attempt he can to agitate a situation. I have to give a big thumbs up though to the Edmond police officer. He met every expectation I have for an officer in that situation.

*What duffus, tells a cop he's filming their building in an attempt to 'gather intelligence.'

Edmond police officer should have left. He explained why he was there, what he was doing and that's that.

Edmond police officer should have left. He explained why he was there, what he was doing and that's that.

Why? This guy with a video camera can 'exercise his legal rights' but the cop can't? The cop did nothing wrong and he was very professional. The dip with the camera on the other hand was acting vey odd and made statements that should give any law enforcement officer pause.

Had this nitwit actually done anything violent or illegal and it was revealed police saw him acting odd and noted he said he was 'gathering intelligence' and simply ignored him - people would be clamoring to have the cop fired for not doing anything to 'protect the community.'

Should have figured the entire purpose of these videos would be mocked by people on this board.

It isn't about what the guy with the camera is doing. It is about the officers and security guards not knowing the law. These people are paid for by you and I to not only be knowledgeable of the law, but to realize the constitution that they swore to uphold protects exactly what these people are doing.

I don't want my tax dollars paying for overstaffed departments that just harass someone who is literally obeying the law. Sure they can make contact, but to have officers standing around and watching someone just hold a videocamera is extremely unprofessional. There is probably dozens of cameras in these areas that are recording constantly, but as soon as someone holding a videocamera comes around - we have a national security threat? You can see everything this guy can see (and more) by looking at google maps.

Search around youtube for 'First Amendment Audit" and you will see this practice all over the USA. Holding a videocamera makes a lot of these "heros" scared.

EDIT: I also want to note, that the OKCPD is receiving public backlash over this video and has been deleting comments on the facebook page. The city could be digging itself in a hole with these. Sounds like it is time for MEMO to go out to all public officials.

Should have figured the entire purpose of these videos would be mocked by people on this board.

It isn't about what the guy with the camera is doing. It is about the officers and security guards not knowing the law. These people are paid for by you and I to not only be knowledgeable of the law, but to realize the constitution that they swore to uphold protects exactly what these people are doing.

I don't want my tax dollars paying for overstaffed departments that just harass someone who is literally obeying the law. Sure they can make contact, but to have officers standing around and watching someone just hold a videocamera is extremely unprofessional. There is probably dozens of cameras in these areas that are recording constantly, but as soon as someone holding a videocamera comes around - we have a national security threat? You can see everything this guy can see (and more) by looking at google maps.

Oh please. I've made an entire career out of being in public with a video camera and I've had literally hundreds of interactions with police. In a few situations the police crossed the line. There is absolutely nothing in the video above that shows the Edmond cop crossing the line.

As for the video at the federal building.... To me, that's a bit more in the grey area. I'd have to see more of their interaction to know for certain. I can see where the officer 'may' have crossed the line in that instance. However, based on other videos this nitwit posts, I have my doubts that he did nothing to agitate the situation. But, I wouldn't hold it out of the realm of possibility the officer simply overly (and possibly illegally) reacted. The Edmond incident though is very clear to me and I'd shake that officers hand any day.

Oh please. I've made an entire career out of being in public with a video camera and I've had literally hundreds of interactions with police. In a few situations the police crossed the line. There is absolutely nothing in the video above that shows the Edmond cop crossing the line.

As for the video at the federal building.... To me, that's a bit more in the grey area. I'd have to see more of their interaction to know for certain. I can see where the officer 'may' have crossed the line in that instance. However, based on other videos this nitwit posts, I have my doubts that he did nothing to agitate the situation. But, I wouldn't hold it out of the realm of possibility the officer simply overly (and possibly illegally) reacted. The Edmond incident though is very clear to me and I'd shake that officers hand any day.

REALLY need that like button back...

Not really... They shouted it louder than you. So they win! ;)

OKBBQEA,
I just noticed this, sorry for the shouting (caps), I cut and pasted it from the Oklahoma County Assessor's site and it was in caps.
C. T.

OKBBQEA,
I just noticed this, sorry for the shouting (caps), I cut and pasted it from the Oklahoma County Assessor's site and it was in caps.
C. T.

I was referring to the post right before yours from Kemotblue.... The one where the first sentence ended with multiple exclamation points.

I was referring to the post right before yours from Kemotblue.... The one where the first sentence ended with multiple exclamation points.

I wasn't bothered, just wanted to be sure you understood that I wasn't being my usual loudmouth (this time anyway!). Sorry, just had to slip in an exclamation point.
C. T.

Should have figured the entire purpose of these videos would be mocked by people on this board.

It isn't about what the guy with the camera is doing. It is about the officers and security guards not knowing the law. These people are paid for by you and I to not only be knowledgeable of the law, but to realize the constitution that they swore to uphold protects exactly what these people are doing.

I don't want my tax dollars paying for overstaffed departments that just harass someone who is literally obeying the law. Sure they can make contact, but to have officers standing around and watching someone just hold a videocamera is extremely unprofessional. There is probably dozens of cameras in these areas that are recording constantly, but as soon as someone holding a videocamera comes around - we have a national security threat? You can see everything this guy can see (and more) by looking at google maps.

Search around youtube for 'First Amendment Audit" and you will see this practice all over the USA. Holding a videocamera makes a lot of these "heros" scared.

EDIT: I also want to note, that the OKCPD is receiving public backlash over this video and has been deleting comments on the facebook page. The city could be digging itself in a hole with these. Sounds like it is time for MEMO to go out to all public officials.i agree. I commented on one of the videos. I'm partly divided because I do see some people out there just trying to start sh.t with the police but I didn't see it as much in this video of him trying to drag it out.

I know different folks see this differently, but to me, the person filming did not know how to handle the scenarios he would encounter on his "audits". He was on a public sidewalk commiting no crimes or illegal activity. He was also under no obligation to talk to anyone, give his name or answer any questions. Since he had done nothing illegal, the OKC cop had no grounds search and detain him. I agree that the Edmond cop handled himself well.

I know different folks see this differently, but to me, the person filming did not know how to handle the scenarios he would encounter on his "audits". He was on a public sidewalk commiting no crimes or illegal activity. He was also under no obligation to talk to anyone, give his name or answer any questions. Since he had done nothing illegal, the OKC cop had no grounds search and detain him. I agree that the Edmond cop handled himself well.

I'd agree with that 100%. I think that may be part of the different opinions - two scenarios by the same person that resulted in different responses from law enforcement. My only hesitation is condemning police in the OKC video is the voice in then back my head that says the videographer easily could have been doing something that he didn't bother to publish. Edmond situation I'm clear on and support LE. OKC is a bit muddier and could go either way.

BBatesokc, The guy filming is purposely conducting an 'audit'. He is walking around recording the general area from public sidewalks. It isn't like he is running around brandishing a weapon to random pedestrians and is surprised he is being detained.

It's like when you are driving and there is a patrol car behind you, so you do everything by the book. Only in this instance, he is purposely going in with the expectation of police interaction. There are thousands of these same videos where the police never make a$$es of themselves, and guess what? Those videos don't see the light of day, because everything went as it was supposed to.

Like I mentioned many posts ago, search around YT for these 1st Amendment audits. You obviously have not done any type of research into this practice and are giving the police the benefit of the doubt because why?

BBatesokc, The guy filming is purposely conducting an 'audit'. He is walking around recording the general area from public sidewalks. It isn't like he is running around brandishing a weapon to random pedestrians and is surprised he is being detained.

It's like when you are driving and there is a patrol car behind you, so you do everything by the book. Only in this instance, he is purposely going in with the expectation of police interaction. There are thousands of these same videos where the police never make a$$es of themselves, and guess what? Those videos don't see the light of day, because everything went as it was supposed to.

Like I mentioned many posts ago, search around YT for these 1st Amendment audits. You obviously have not done any type of research into this practice and are giving the police the benefit of the doubt because why?

I'd argue you are as off base as you could ever be. I'm extremely aware of these audits and i'm also aware that while some expose police abuse, many also expose idiots operating cameras and causing situations that would have never have occurred otherwise. I've been a long time follower of sites like Photography Is Not A Crime and was even featured in a book written by that website's author.

How bias do you have to be that simply because someone doesn't agree with you then that apparently is proof the person with the opposing opinion hasn't done any research. Did it ever occur to you that I have done my research and have an opinion I'm very confident in.

I am confronted regularly by police while I am video taping, so to claim I'm not aware of this situations is asinine.

Like I said before, I can see where people can have a problem with the OKC situation. That said, the Edmond officer acted 100% professionally and there is zero credible argument otherwise IMO.

So the Edmond officer accosting a law abiding citizen for their residency, name, and purpose is according to you, 100% professional. That's all I need to know about your opinion on these situations.

BBatesokc, (snippity snip) You obviously have not done any type of research into this practice

You have two choices here, friend. Learn to whom you are saying that or keep making a bald-faced fool of yourself. While you decide, I'm going to go pop some corn, this has taken a VERY entertaining turn.

To BBatesokc: Again, I want to acknowledge what you *actually* do and again thank you for distancing yourself from these types. The idea that you could be lumped in with such ilk bothers me.

You have two choices here, friend. Learn to whom you are saying that or keep making a bald-faced fool of yourself. While you decide, I'm going to go pop some corn, this has taken a VERY entertaining turn.

To BBatesokc: Again, I want to acknowledge what you *actually* do and again thank you for distancing yourself from these types. The idea that you could be lumped in with such ilk bothers me.

He could have his law degree and be a major civil rights activist or ACLU employed, that is fine. But it still doesn't answer the question of why he gives the police the benefit of the doubt when the video only shows the police not doing what they are supposed to do. He even goes on to assume the filmer did something off camera to warrant the reaction from the officers.

Nothing about this is personal, it is about the videos posted in this thread. You can finish your popcorn at the movies, because this isn't one.

He could have his law degree and be a major civil rights activist or ACLU employed, that is fine. But it still doesn't answer the question of why he gives the police the benefit of the doubt when the video only shows the police not doing what they are supposed to do. He even goes on to assume the filmer did something off camera to warrant the reaction from the officers.

Nothing about this is personal, it is about the videos posted in this thread. You can finish your popcorn at the movies, because this isn't one.

You need to realize/acknowledge police are public servants. As such their actions should reflect the will of the people - which goes beyond one nitwit poking the bear or a group of blow hard's with blinders on that call themselves CopBlock. You most certainly consider yourself a part of 'the people' - problem is, you're not going to find a lot of reasonable people who will take any issue with what the Edmond officer did. In case I'm not being clear, no, I do not consider you reasonable. Which is cool. Lots of people consider me far worse.

The OKC officer? Yeah, I can see where reasonable people might take issue with his actions.

Reasonable people see that the Edmond officer acted in the public's best interest and caused no harm to, nor did he even detain or give any orders/demands to, the camera welding nitwit in the process.