Jump to content

L.A. Photographer Faces Criminal Charges for Documenting Graffiti


lord_casek

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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya all good points, and if we are disagreeing its on opinion only.

 

you eluded to the fact that you may or may not in the past been around writers being filmed/photographed. now, these are set up instances. either by the videographer for his video, or the writers themselves because there stoked on a spot there mapping out.

 

therefor, it was a plan. therefore said person is a criminal Accessory:

 

An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:

The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea, are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").

If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers, that is a good point about the plan, i guess I'm thinking of my situations (i have never filmed graffiti in progress, I think that's stupid). I'm just ocncerned cuz im a photographer. If this case is set as precedence, would the following be a crime: "I know where dudes serve on a daily basis, so I go there, knowing full well what I am going to document, planning to photograph a crime" Am I an accessory if they give me their consent?

 

on another note, dude's photo game has left me wanting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would say no. but i would leave out the fact you knew that they frequented the spot. you simply went to an area typical to have graffiti and graffiti being done without having any prior knowledge that anyone would be there or anything was going to be done at said specific time and date.

 

your a photographer, you take pictures of alot of things. sometimes your in a park flicking trees for a few hours, sometimes your atop office buildings taking cityscapes, and other times you are taking pictures of public art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...