SEPTEMBER 2, 2008

       I’m not usually critical of police officers because I think the job they do is hard enough and it’s certainly something I’m not capable of doing.

       With that job comes the endangerment of personal safety. Lately officers around the country have had to use more aggressive means to subdue those they are apprehending.

       We hear about it in news stories but I’m not sure enough emphasis is put on the fact police officers are strong-arming and trying to have power over the media.

       In today’s world we’re filmed by dozens of security cameras every day whether we want to – or are even aware of it – or not. It’s a different story when a television camera comes out and records something happening on a public street and police don’t want us to see what’s really happening.

       This is a valid argument if cameras are recording a shootout or something gruesome happening. But when reporters are at the scene on a public street, what gives police the right to cover cameras and in the case of two Manitoba men – one being with the national public broadcaster – apprehend them and confiscate their equipment when they were simply a bystander?

       I was at the scene of a pedestrian-vehicle crash and snapped a picture for the news outlets and right away a man walked toward me saying, “You gotta put away that camera now.” Do I really? What crime am I committing?

       At press conferences the police use the reasoning that the photographers were in the way and could be compromising a perimeter of a crime scene. Is that really the reason? Or is it that today’s officers are so Taser-happy that we don’t need the proof they’re being overly aggressive with people they take into custody?