Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
lord_casek

L.A. Photographer Faces Criminal Charges for Documenting Graffiti

Recommended Posts

Documentary photographer Jonas Lara appears in L.A. County court tomorrow where he faces misdemeanor graffiti charges stemming from an arrest this past February. Prosecutors claim that Lara was acting as a lookout for two graffiti artists when all three men were arrested in South Central back on February 4, 2010. If convicted on the charges of aiding and abetting, he could serve up to a year in prison.

 

http://trueslant.com/matthewnewton/2010/05/10/l-a-photographer-faces-criminal-charges-for-documenting-graffiti/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, I thought you could get away with being a researcher/documentarian. They don't play in L.A. though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is almost as bad as Prop 21...shit.

 

If I was a History Channel cameraman following a group of gangbangers who do a drive by, am I guilty too? They do that shit all the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fuck the spam, worthy thread.

 

been waiting for a story like this to surface. been curious for a long while about the actuall legalities of possesing video/photo's of wia.

 

pictures and filming yourself is as ghey and stupid as it gets. but its a double edged catch 22. cause most people would show interest in being a part of a worthwhile film.

 

obviously this case is slightly different cause fanboy up there(caseks link) got popped as it was going down.

 

but when are they going to start implimenting videographers with evidence. it will start happening. im just unsure why it hasnt already.

 

Interesting, I thought you could get away with being a researcher/documentarian. They don't play in L.A. though.

 

graffiti is illegal, you cant film a guy murdering someone and say "im just a researcher/documentarian"

 

Funny_hat.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a documentary about East Oakland, Discovery Channel crew follows a group of bangers and I think they knew they were boutta cap some guys...they knowingly filmed the whole thing.

 

But the photographer being arrested is just ludacrous, or it may just be the strict LA laws..hm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, its not ludacris. he was an accomplance to a fucking crime. not only did he knowingly capture it on video he watched out for police to alert them.

 

i cant fucking stand all this new age "graffiti is not a crime" bullshit like its 1993 with skateboarding. graffiti is a crime, and if its not. your doing it wrong.

 

all these fucking bitches that dress the part walk the walk talk the talk but they start tearing up when they get nailed on some "why are you wasting your time with me go catch a murderer"bullshit. he pal, GUESS WHAT your ruining public and private property that the city of los angeles spends millions on a year to remove.

 

its so fucking corny. if i get caught doing a spot, i aint gonna be sour at everyone else around me on some feel sorry for me bullshit imma be sour at myself for getting caught.

 

fuck this guy, rack em. fuckin poser assed bitch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a photographer, been following this pretty closely cuz I've witnessed crimes in my work. Not a lawyer (and this is not lawyerly advice), but there are a lot of ambiguities in this case:

 

A. Photography has taken a huge hit cuz of Flickr/recession, and most photographers now do work on 'speculation', meaning that they don't sell their story until it is done. 'Freedom of the press' then, is outdated, because he wasn't working for a newspaper at the time, but it is certainly plausible that it would be sold after the fact; therefore giving him a first amendment right to document graffiti.

 

B. The question of aiding and abetting - they argue that because he didn't report the crime, he was a lookout. But that would set a crazy precedent - that any photographer could be in danger of prosecution because they were documenting rather than being a cop's lackey. Let's not forget that citizens are NOT required to report crimes, and there is no requirement that photographers abstain from being near crime.

 

C. RealityCheque is certainly right: filming a murder is probably bordering on being an accomplice. HOWEVER - we do not have a responsibility to intervene on crimes in progress. That is why when someone is dying on the sidewalk and you see the people walking by in the candid camera, they are horrible people, but not criminals. Imagine if all of a sudden, we started prosecuting every eyewitness to every murder as an accomplice, just because you saw it?

 

I read a cajillion other reasons why this guy will probably get off on another forum I frequent, but I can't find the link in my mozilla history right now. Basically, for him to be a part of this crime, they'd have to find evidence of him painting. Now, the other dudes will probably be fucked, cuz his film/memory chip can be subpoenaed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GRRR IM MAD

 

DAMN NIGGA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UMAD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm, no. im interested.

 

good points Mayer, also. they have the convictions on the areested writers which will ease the court aswell. perhaps if they got away and he did not they would be more keen to press the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
graffiti is illegal, you cant film a guy murdering someone and say "im just a researcher/documentarian"

 

That's a bad example, murder is on a whole other level and minimally would involve negligence on the photographer's part if they knew about it beforehand. Tons of TV shows film/document shit like prostitutes, but they aren't pimping or prostituting. If dude was actually warning them and playing lookout then he is part of the crime, but otherwise observing/documenting shouldn't be an issue in my eyes.

 

big_vaginal_douche_spray.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^yeah, i hear you on that whole 'graff is art' bullshit line that every 17 year old angsty ass kid pulls.

 

But this is much more of a constitutional issue than that: I take pictures of drug dealers from time to time, I know that they are drug dealers, I have even taken pictures of them doing/selling drugs. Does that mean that I am a drug dealer??

 

If this guy is found guilty of doing graffiti cuz he took pictures of others doing graffiti, then MayorMeanBeans is looking at Mandatory Minimums.

 

edit: @realitycheque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ John Gacy

 

actually wrong, its a great example of two things both in the same class but at opposite ends of the spectrum. graffiti being one of the pettiest crimes one could do, murder being one of the worst.

 

if a woman goes into get a haircut, rather she cuts 6 inches off or 6millimeters its still a haircut.

 

clearly you wear tight pants use 10 dollar cans of paint and chill at legal walls.

 

if three dudes rob a bank, and one guy stays outside to warn of police arriving. he still goes to jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C. RealityCheque is certainly right: filming a murder is probably bordering on being an accomplice. HOWEVER - we do not have a responsibility to intervene on crimes in progress. That is why when someone is dying on the sidewalk and you see the people walking by in the candid camera, they are horrible people, but not criminals. Imagine if all of a sudden, we started prosecuting every eyewitness to every murder as an accomplice, just because you saw it?

 

 

sein18a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='RealityCheque';7366945

i cant fucking stand all this new age "graffiti is not a crime" bullshit like its 1993 with skateboarding. graffiti is a crime, and if its not. your doing it wrong.

 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a bad example, murder is on a whole other level and minimally would involve negligence on the photographer's part if they knew about it beforehand. Tons of TV shows film/document shit like prostitutes, but they aren't pimping or prostituting. If dude was actually warning them and playing lookout then he is part of the crime, but otherwise observing/documenting shouldn't be an issue in my eyes.

 

 

 

now weather or not you can get yourself a good enough lawyer to argue your points, thats another thing. and certainly the route id be embarking on.

 

but from a legal standpoint, its a crime. undoubtably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ John Gacy

if three dudes rob a bank, and one guy stays outside to warn of police arriving. he still goes to jail.

 

Yeah, I pretty much said that above. Love to argue much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But this is much more of a constitutional issue than that: I take pictures of drug dealers from time to time, I know that they are drug dealers, I have even taken pictures of them doing/selling drugs. Does that mean that I am a drug dealer??

 

If this guy is found guilty of doing graffiti cuz he took pictures of others doing graffiti, then MayorMeanBeans is looking at Mandatory Minimums.

 

ya man i feel you, and am completely agreeing and again, that would certainly be the angle my lawyer would be attacking if this were me.

 

but this case may start to set a precidence. because you and me both know(knowingly filming), tho never admit to it, its a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^my point is that im not sure that it is a crime to photograph a crime.

 

The cops have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a lookout. That's up to them, and him being there with a camera, does not prove in any way that he was a lookout. And as far as being there with a camera, he can holler all day at the first amendment.

 

Graffiti, however, is a crime. Is that what me and you are agreeing on?

 

If he was acting as a lookout, then why did they get caught? Free lawyer 101.

 

edit: @ reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×