Why did the cameraman turn over the camera?

[Pujo]

He knew he was doing something incriminating, and it's not like they could have taken the camera by force. All he had to do was leave the stadium, even with security on his ass. He's not accused of a crime so the police couldn't get involved... he just had to walk out. It would still have been suspicious for the Pats, but at least there would be no hard evidence.

 

[solman]

He knew he was doing something incriminating, and it's not like they could have taken the camera by force. All he had to do was leave the stadium, even with security on his ass. He's not accused of a crime so the police couldn't get involved... he just had to walk out. It would still have been suspicious for the Pats, but at least there would be no hard evidence.

I've heard several reports that he was VERY uncooperative with the security personnel

 

[Tunescribe]

He knew he was doing something incriminating, and it's not like they could have taken the camera by force. All he had to do was leave the stadium, even with security on his ass. He's not accused of a crime so the police couldn't get involved... he just had to walk out. It would still have been suspicious for the Pats, but at least there would be no hard evidence.

You make an excellent point. He had a credential to be there with a camera. But it's all water under the bridge at this point.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

Too bad he gave it up. He should have tried to bolt out of there.

 

[Bella*chick]

I wish he smashed the tape.

 

[BTTA]

Who owns the camera? What was said to him that caused him to turn it over? Was it taken by force, coercion, threat, or any other means that was not entirely voluntary?

I wonder what this guy's lawyer is saying to him at this point.

 

[Richter]

Despite the fact that I think the Patriots did nothing wrong or outside the spirit of the game, they did break the rules, and the cameraman did the right thing by turning the tape over, just like Rodney did the right thing when he came out and admitted to his use of a banned substance. There is no need to compound one mistake, even if it should not be viewed as cheating or banned by the league, with another. The Pats should take the punishment, move on and do what they can to get this ridiculously stupid rule changed.

 

[He Ban Me]

I would think that part of the protocol to obtain that level of clearance would include an agreement that states the Stadium security CAN confiscate cameras, tape, etc..,

 

[workhorse]

I would think that part of the protocol to obtain that level of clearance would include an agreement that states the Stadium security CAN confiscate cameras, tape, etc..,

I'm pretty sure that's the case. It's not considered a right to be able to shoot a game, the league sees it as a privilege.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/cheat/news/story?id=2957893

Tactics.....they're KEY

 

[sanvara]

The Pats should take the punishment, move on and do what they can to get this ridiculously stupid rule changed.

Why should the rule be changed? No one needs to be videotaping the signals of the other team. It's stupid not to follow the rule if videotape provides no advantage, isn't it?

 

[sanvara]

Give the cameraman a break. He was scared.

 

[Pujo]

Despite the fact that I think the Patriots did nothing wrong or outside the spirit of the game, they did break the rules, and the cameraman did the right thing by turning the tape over, just like Rodney did the right thing when he came out and admitted to his use of a banned substance. There is no need to compound one mistake, even if it should not be viewed as cheating or banned by the league, with another. The Pats should take the punishment, move on and do what they can to get this ridiculously stupid rule changed.

I agree with that, at some point you just have to be a man and accept that you've been caught, fair enough.

 

[Pujo]

I would think that part of the protocol to obtain that level of clearance would include an agreement that states the Stadium security CAN confiscate cameras, tape, etc..,

Probably, but how can NFL security really enforce that? You can't sign away your right not to be battered, which is what NFL security would have to do to get the tape if he refused to give it up. The police couldn't intervene in enforcing a civil contract, and the time it would take to get a court order would make it moot. No, I think Richter hit the nail on the head with this one, no reason to compound one mistake with another at that point.

 

[sanvara]

Probably, but how can NFL security really enforce that? You can't sign away your right not to be battered, which is what NFL security would have to do to get the tape if he refused to give it up. The police couldn't intervene in enforcing a civil contract, and the time it would take to get a court order would make it moot. No, I think Richter hit the nail on the head with this one, no reason to compound one mistake with another at that point.

They could have had him arrested for trespassing and threatened him with charges of violating NFL copyright since it was illegal to be videotaping on the field. You expect the guy face those kind of charges? The camera gets confiscated either way.