1

How about option 4, (the option that most libs think is the default Republican/Conservative Position anyway): "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later!"?

 

2

Nothing to see here, move along. (Really, there was nothing to see. My company blocks videos).

3

The problem I have with it is that the cops lied and told the guy he wasn't allowed to take videos when he actually was allowed.

Antagonizing a big guy with a gun just to prove a point that you don't have to show your id is a waste of the time it's surely going to cost you though.

4 Taking pictures of rail road tracks?  For what, the calender he sells to support his website?

5 Option 4: Delete Option 4 and pretend the choice never existed.

6 >>>The problem I have with it is that the cops lied and told the guy he wasn't allowed to take videos when he actually was allowed. Oh, I didn't catch that, though I did notice later they were citing the illegality, supposedly, of videotaping people without their permission. yeah, cops often have a misunderstanding of the law, don't they? Usually to the aggrandizement of their power.

7 I live by the credo that Good enough, is good enough.  One of the things that keeps me separate from the Liberatians, despite my own classical liberal leanings, is their insistence on consistency of principles.  Even when it objectively hurts.

8
The guy kind of sounds like Milton from Office Space

9 Option 4 was actually "Shut down if attempting to detain OCP corporate officers."

10

Makes me very uncomfortable. The government's job should be to take reasonable steps to keep us resonably safe. When do they cross the line? Hard to tell, the damn thing keeps moving. ( H/T to Network News )

11 dan-O, yes, he sounds exactly like milton from Office Space, which is sort of why I could understand having some questions. "I'll burn this place down, you know."

12 Option 4 was actually "Shut down if attempting to detain OCP corporate officers."

Nice. 

13 OCP?

14

How about Cops actually know the laws they're paid to enforce, then we can discuss options 1-3?

I'm tired of seeing videos like this where cops are citing nothing for their actions.

 

15 This is why I photograph my junk at home. Trust me. I learned that the hard way.

16 I'm not watching all 15 minutes, but after the info released about what @obamabinladen  was planning, who in their right mind goes out and starts randomly taking a ton of pix of subway trains?

17 Eh. I'm uncomfortable with the "no photographing transportation nodes/cops at work/whatever" position. Unless you can make a pretty good case that photographing something is a threat to national security then just leave it alone. Some jihadi might photograph the MTA tracks but it's not that hard to do anyway. Now, as for ID, if a cop asks for it, give it to him. Arguing with cops is pointless and potentially unpleasant. Comply with all reasonable law enforcement requests and go about your business.

18

This has always been one of the blurred lines. Personally, I think the cops don't have any business bothering people doing things that are legal. I am comfortable with the risks, or at least willing to take my chances.

But it's also one of those arguments I don't mind losing very much, like being against the death penalty and soft on illegals. "Back off, authoritarian police! Or don't. Whatever. Check his pockets."

19 Well the courts have consistently ruled that when asked for an ID you must provide one if you have it and that you are required to provide your name when asked and may not lie.

If you refuse to provide ID you can be arrested.

20 Omni Consumer Products

21 Posted by: toby928™ at June 02, 2011 02:15 PM (GTbGH)

Gotcha!

22

If what this man was doing is in fact illegal(its not) and we had a law on the books then the debate should be over that law.

My biggest issue is giving the cops Judge Dredd powers, or making them thing they have those powers, to simply detain anyone who looks suspicious to them or doing something they don't like.

Also, to any lawyers, can a cop simply come up to you and ask you for ID? That doesn't seem legal.

23 Oh, and the first 3 minutes of the video show the "photographer" was being a smart ass.  All he had to say was what he wrote in the first minute of his little youtube pitty party.

He was a dick to the cops and they were acting on a suspicious character.

24

The cops were doing what they thought were their jobs, as inept as they appear to be.  The guy should have presented an ID when it got that contentious.

 

25 If you refuse to provide ID you can be arrested.

Posted by: Vic at June 02, 2011 02:15 PM (M9Ie6)

I didn't know that, if fact I thought just last year that if you asked someone for their ID it was racist and worse than Hitler? 

26 The problem I have with it is that the cops lied and told the guy he wasn't allowed to take videos when he actually was allowed.

Antagonizing a big guy with a gun just to prove a point that you don't have to show your id is a waste of the time it's surely going to cost you though.

Posted by: robtr at June 02, 2011 02:09 PM (MtwBb)

Yeah that bothers me as well. Look if the law says you can't take pictures of train tracks, then they should at least question the guy and maybe detain him.

But if it's not the law, the police aren't allowed to just make up some BS and detain you anyway. And the last time I read the Patriot Act (granted this was circa 2006), I don't recall anything about not being able to photograph public places.

27

@ 20.

Didn't know that. It seems to me that you can give them your name, but I'm not to fond of having to give them ID if you're not breaking any laws.

But if that is the law on the books then so be it.

28 He was a dick to the cops and they were acting on a suspicious character.

It was just a prank.

29 He might sound weird because he's deaf - at least that's his claim.

The deaf people I know do act a bit odd, but it's an odd handicap isn't it?

So when you have more than one person talking to you it gets a bit complex trying to figure out just what they're telling you.

And I think it's not exactly like he was taking shots of something to do with the infrastructure or locations of power supplies etc.

30 The Spanish metro bombing still has people edgy.

31 I was at Queensboro  plaza in Long Island City taking pictures from
the platform waiting for the 7 train and was told point blank by a cop
to put my camera away or he would take it.

Now I could have engaged the cop in the finer points of civil liberties
in an ostensibly free society but I just put the camera away.

It would have been lost upon him and I probably would have been
arrested. You've got to choose  carefully the hill to plant your flag
on and fight to the last.

32

This is just another situation to me, that everyone is doing poor job.  The cops were assholes.  The guy was being overly difficult.

33 If you refuse to provide ID you can be arrested.

Posted by: Vic at June 02, 2011 02:15 PM (M9Ie6)

IIRC, there is an Ohio law that requires everyone to carry their ID while in public. I hate having things in my pockets so I usually leave my wallet in the glove box if I'm in a park or where ever else I might be if I don't need money.

I guess I could be arrested too.

34 Vic in @20 is mistaken in his assertion about the law.

35

framed the arguement nicely.

i come down on the libertarian end of this one, the cop is allowed to ask why i'm recording this or that as long as i have the right to tell the cop to go fuck himself.

some people are willing to accept the danger and risk that freedom presents, some people won't and still others stick their fingers in their ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you"

36 But if it's not the law, the police aren't allowed to just make up some BS and detain you anyway. And the last time I read the Patriot Act (granted this was circa 2006), I don't recall anything about not being able to photograph public places.

Posted by: Mætenloch at June 02, 2011 02:18 PM (pAlYe)

If you read the article the cops later said that what the guy was doing was legal and the cops needed more training.

As for the ID thing I would have said sure, here it is and if you don't mind giving me one of your cards I would appreciate it because I beleive you are wrong here.

37 If he looks middle-eastern, paki, iranian, etc. I detail him.  If it's grandma from KY, I don't say a word.  Don't like my racial profiling?  Tough shit.

38
Now, as for ID, if a cop asks for it, give it to him. Arguing with cops is pointless and potentially unpleasant. Comply with all reasonable law enforcement requests and go about your business.

Posted by: joncelli

 

What ID? If I'm an illegal, I may not have one, and cops aren't supposed to be making an issue of that. So that means the only persons upon whom they could impose this would be people acting legally or well equipped terrorists.

 

And note the 'potential unpleasant' bit. The Philly police recently officially bragged that they would harrass any one who legally carried a gun in Philly while 'they checked things out'. This is after they invented charges against one gunowner who harrassed, cursed at and threatened repeatedly, and had the gall to record what they did and post it.

That 'unpleasantness' is by design. But it's selectively applied, as are many things now a days.

39

I didn't know that, if fact I thought just last year that if you asked someone for their ID it was racist and worse than Hitler? 

Posted by: robtr at June 02, 2011 02:17 PM (MtwBb)

That's only if you're trying to vote in an election in the United States or enforce international borders around the United States.

silly.......

40 *detail = detain

41 If the feds did their fucking job at the borders and started restricting visas, this wouldn't be an issue. Fuck these Jackboots.

42 >>>This has always been one of the blurred lines. Personally, I think the cops don't have any business bothering people doing things that are legal. I am comfortable with the risks, or at least willing to take my chances. Can I explain this isn't true? We do not pay cops just to stand on the corners looking pretty. We pay them to take an interest in the physical surroundings, and ask questions of people who are giving off a vibe they don't like. That doesn't mean they can arrest you for nothing. But it does mean -- and has ALWAYS meant -- cops are allowed to ask you who you are, and what you are doing. The best example? Cop notices someone who keeps taking pictures of a jewelry store. Technically, this is legal. There is no crime of "casing." In reality, it looks like casing. And it looks like it is in furtherance of something that IS a crime, burglary. Now, can he ASK that man questions? The answer in the law books is "Yes." Further, the answer is also that if he has reasonable suspicion the man he is questioning may have weapon, he is permitted to do a quick pat-down for weapns in order to guarantee a safe questioning. That's not considered an arrest, but a Terry Stop, I think. You may not like this, and may think cops are often pricks, but I would say the problem is with training and psychological profiling of cop candidates, not the law. Unless you think a cop should not be permitted to so much as ask a man who seems to be casing a jewelry store what exactly he's doing.

43 How dare they report this and undermine Romney's announcement! Its also biting into Stanley Cup and NBA coverage. I can't believe it.

44
It's tough because while I support cops, and think that people should be supportive and thankful to cops, they are sometimes given such great powers that they are tempted with laziness. 

What law am I enforcing?  Why does that matter, just do what I fuckin say because I am a cop! 

It is getting easier and easier for cops to fall into this attitude, and it is a very bad thing.  More and more it seems, people feel an irrational feeling of nervousness when they see a cop.  For no reason.  For example: the other day, I was driving and my wife was in the passenger seat putting on makeup.  A pulled up next to a cop car.  She laughed about how she got nervous when she saw the cop as though she was the one driving while putting on her makeup.... I laughed, but understood the feeling.

This is not a good thing for people to have irrational fears of the arbitrary nature of one of the government's enforcement arms. 

So this is a tough issue.

45 Ugggh On the cops being videoed, in that state it is illegal for the taping of AUDIO without permission of all parties, the cops say over and over they weren't granting permission As far as the ID goes, they have a the right to demand identification if they are acting in a legal manner, in this case in that state, you need permission to film infrastructure and the sgt said that's why he was talking to him I would have cuffed him a hell of a lot sooner

46 34 Vic in @20 is mistaken in his assertion about the law.

Posted by: Jim at June 02, 2011 02:20 PM (/Mtjv)

I believe so as well. I know there was a California case where the courts ruled that you do not have carry ID on you. However they may stop you and ask for information if they have reasonable cause for suspicion.

47 Now, as for ID, if a cop asks for it, give it to him. Arguing with cops is pointless and potentially unpleasant. Comply with all reasonable law enforcement requests and go about your business.

Posted by: joncelli at June 02, 2011 02:15 PM (RD7QR)

Sooo... you mean resonalbe like when after the Katrina Hurricane, they were confiscating Law Abiding citizens guns? Even on Private Property?

Law enforcement has a difficult job, but THEY also have to play by the rules...

Its like the Legal standard that Cops can lie to you, but its a crime if you lie to the cops...

Or that their Dash Cameras are OK, but in some States you cannot video them?

I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment basicly limiting the idea of Sovereign Immunity, and forcing our own Government to play by the same rules they force onto us citizens.

48 I forget, but I think vic is wrong too, however, I think it's also the case that a cop can list things like that in his claims as to why he felt he had probable cause for arrest. The law on this crap is very vague and detail-specific and make-it-up as you go, but that's because it is, in fact, very difficult to codify this. How do you codify "he gave me a bad vibe?" In reality, there are actually psychological papers on the idea that "bad vibes" are kind of accurate. I've read recently some papers on the idea of "trust your gut, you've got that vibe-sense for a reason." But how do you say that in a law? That if someone seems "weird" or is giving you a "bad vibe" you can detain him?

49

hmm.  I guess I'm more of a civil libertarian than I thought.

I don't care for the police i guess. i don't hate them or have animosity towards them, but I feel like whenever you deal with them you're increasing the chance of getting arrested or in trouble even if you're not doing something wrong.

Police are human and prone to the same issues we all our. The only difference is they have a lot more power than you or I do. And what they say is taken with more weight in court than what a civie say.

I don't know if it was Maet or Ghengis, but there was a video on the ONT about why you should never talk to police. It's about 27 minutes and its a presentation by a law professor and a cop. I would suggest everyone check it out.

50 As far as the ID goes, they have a the right to demand identification if they are acting in a legal manner, in this case in that state, you need permission to film infrastructure and the sgt said that's why he was talking to him

I would have cuffed him a hell of a lot sooner

Posted by: Navy COP joe aka supercabbie!!! at June 02, 2011 02:23 PM (HdV6e)

That isn't true, if you read the article the cheif of police said the cops made a mistake and needed more training. He said it's perfectly legal to video their trains.

51

IIRC, there is an Ohio law that requires everyone to carry their ID while in public. I hate having things in my pockets so I usually leave my wallet in the glove box if I'm in a park or where ever else I might be if I don't need money.

I guess I could be arrested too.

Posted by: ErikW at June 02, 2011 02:20 PM (VIf5F)

I'm guessing, if you don't get all cocky and act like a dick and explain that, they'll allow you to go to your car and obtain the ID.

This guy was intentionally being a dick because he didn't 'appreciate' being approached by the officer and asked what he was doing.

The officer plainly said that in this heightened state of terror alerts, what are you doing taking pics of trains?

If he would've stated his disability up front, then explained that he was a student and was taking pictures of his major or interests, like he wrote out in his youtube woe is me video, all would've been fine, most likely.

52 I work at one of the world's largest airports, in police dispatch.
We get calls ALL THE TIME reporting "photography of aircraft."
We send the cops out and they run the people off. We've never had to detain or arrest anyone because they all comply because, let's face it, these aren't hardened Taliban, they're airplane buffs. Cop says move, they move.

I would like to slap the shit out of whoever made this illegal.
WTF, like I can't get better information for nefarious purposes from the gotdang internet in five seconds?

53

I don't know if it was Maet or Ghengis, but there was a video on the ONT about why you should never talk to police. It's about 27 minutes and its a presentation by a law professor and a cop. I would suggest everyone check it out.

That was an excellent video.  Here's the link for everyone interested.

54 Reuters is reporting on twitter breaking news an explosion and fire at a Chevron oil refinery in Wales.

55

I have not looked at the video and probably wont but...

I paid for college fueling trains.  It was years ago but I believe train tracks are private property and the train companies that own them would prefer you not take pictures standing on or by the tracks.  One of the main reasons people get killed by trains is they are taking pictures of Train A that is moving towards them going north and making a lot of noise as Train B hits them moving south.  It is much, much more common than you would think.

If the cops are being respectable then I, even as a social libertarian, don't really have a problem with them questioning the guy.  But then my father was a cop.

56

IIRC, there is an Ohio law that requires everyone to carry their ID while in public. I hate having things in my pockets so I usually leave my wallet in the glove box if I'm in a park or where ever else I might be if I don't need money.

I guess I could be arrested too.

Posted by: ErikW at June 02, 2011 02:20 PM (VIf5F)

Just learn a bit of spanish, and they'll probably leave you alone   This might be the law you're thinking of.

57 What Vic said. I don't have the time to watch more than a few minutes of this, but I'm sympathetic to both sides in this situation. I'm big on civil liberties, but the police do have a job to do, and you have to allow them a certain amount of liberty to follow their instincts.

But the bottom line is, it seems like this guy was being coy with the cops. I did not hear him being forthright with the kind of explanation he gave us in the introduction. I heard him merely asserting his right to take pictures. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect that if he'd just said, "Look, I'm a train buff, and this is something I do everywhere I go just to learn,", etc., the police would have been easier on him.

Police are human, and they have a job to do. It behooves one to help them do their job as far as he can without unduly compromising his civil liberties.

58 There is, and always has been a place in the continuum of behavior where someone is doing something suspicious, and ought to be stopped and questioned, while they do not actually require arrest.

And videotaping modes of transportation is certainly one of them. So is sitting outside a school yard in a windowless panel van, and all kinds of other behaviors which are not actually terror related, but certainly raise the question of "what the hell is going on here?"

Didn't this used to be called.... policing?

It seems to me the guy WANTED to provoke some kind of "look at the evil Statists" behavior. If you did genuinely want to take pictures of a railroad for... well I can't really think of a good reason, but let's say you had one? Wouldn't it make sense to be as compliant as possible, "Look officer, I know this is a little weird. But I can explain. My name is Herb Swanson, and I make calenders for train enthusiasts. Here's by business card and driver's license." 

59 54 Reuters is reporting on twitter breaking news an explosion and fire at a Chevron oil refinery in Wales.

I wonder if anyone was spotted taking pictures before the explosion?

60

We have had recent information that the railways are the next target. I take pictures of such non-important to me things as train tracks and electric poles. Just do.  We give up some liberties to ensure the rails are safe.....OR we simply do NOT care who is hanging around the rail ways and take our chances.  I prefer to give up the liberty of shooting track to get a perspective shot for a contest over just letting everyone hang out at the tracks and do what they want. It is not a big intrusion into my liberties at all. I would rather have that than to end up knowing those who come after me answer to Sharia courts after the Moooslims take our way of life from us foreably.

61 Vic in @20 is mistaken in his assertion about the law.

Many States do have stop and ID statutes but that wasn't what I was referencing above since I don't know what MD has. I was referring to the court rulings which the most recent is below.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District

62

I could be wrong here, but my gyess is tha there was something peculiar in his manner prior to the police arriving. Folks who are obsessed with trains number in the thousands and, at the railroads, they are lovably referred to as "foamers". Certain railroads even build platforms in strategic locations for them to sit and photograph the trains as they pass.

The idea of someone taking a photo of a transit train is also not out of the ordinary. I'm sure that tourists do it all the time but, as a student, evaluating transit systems, he may have been taking shots for perspective; close up, far away, with different items in the shot for scale. AND, he was probably lingering.

Even if none of that was true, arguing with the police is not the brightest of ideas. The "but I'm not breaking any laws" thing doesn't wash with me. The guys who hijacked those planes had also not broken any laws..until that day, as far as I know.

Yes, tough call on the incident but when all else fails, air on the side of aution.

63 are not our

64

I paid for college fueling trains.  It was years ago but I believe train tracks are private property and the train companies that own them would prefer you not take pictures standing on or by the tracks

This was the cities light rail system, it's owned by the taxpayers.

65 And you do have to give your proper identity to peace officers here in CA.

66 I'm guessing, if you don't get all cocky and act like a dick and explain that, they'll allow you to go to your car and obtain the ID.

Posted by: © Sponge at June 02, 2011 02:27 PM (UK9cE)

I'm sure you're right but I think it's a dumb law and what happens if I run across a peace officer who's having a bad day?

67 42. Ooooh, look at the big brain on ace! I totally forgot that term, absolutely correct Your knowledge is strong today

68 I guess I see protections against terror attacks as like protections against car accidents.  There is a balance to be struck and risks with Freedom to learn to accept.

What if all speed limits were banished, would those risks be worthwhile for "freedom?"
What if all speed limits even on highways were set to 20 miles an hour or less would that be worth it for "Safety?"  Undoubtedly it would save a large amount of lives each year.

Our current system of different speed limits in different places set by the people locally as a balance between safety, risk, and freedom works as well as anything is going to.  We need to get our security mindset adapted similarly.

69 Andrewsdad - I understand what you're saying, but you can't legislate common sense. Saying "People might get hurt" isn't a valid enough reason to make a law when the action is not inherently dangerous. People get mowed down crossing tracks ALL THE TIME here, but we haven't made trains illegal. We just say, "Damn, take off the iPod and look, listen, and live, y'all."
If someone wants to photo a train but is too gotdang dumb to know they have to stay off the tracks to do it, well, natural selection.

70 I have updated to take note of robtr's annoying "facts" and also discuss more.

71

Just learn a bit of spanish, and they'll probably leave you alone   This might be the law you're thinking of.

Posted by: buzzion at June 02, 2011 02:28 PM (oVQFe)

Ah, okay. I was unsure of how the law went, thanks for the clarity.

And yeah, I thought about the Mexican angle too but I don't think they'd buy a spanish speaking white guy with red hair!

72 We have had recent information that the railways are the next target. I take pictures of such non-important to me things as train tracks and electric poles. Just do.  We give up some liberties to ensure the rails are safe.....OR we simply do NOT care who is hanging around the rail ways and take our chances.  I prefer to give up the liberty of shooting track to get a perspective shot for a contest over just letting everyone hang out at the tracks and do what they want. It is not a big intrusion into my liberties at all. I would rather have that than to end up knowing those who come after me answer to Sharia courts after the Moooslims take our way of life from us foreably.

Posted by: giftogab formerly known as rightzilla at June 02, 2011 02:29 PM (SPVfc)

Well okay *you* can carry a special affidavit giving up your railroad-pic liberties.

But the rest of us still have the liberties not disallowed by laws. Or did I miss some massive legal change in the country?

73

But how do you say that in a law? That if someone seems "weird" or is giving you a "bad vibe" you can detain him?

Posted by: ace at June 02, 2011 02:25 PM (nj1bB)

"The man in question was acting suspiciously"

74

Unless you think a cop should not be permitted to so much as ask a man who seems to be casing a jewelry store what exactly he's doing.

I not only believe cops should be able to ask, but you or I, provided we were sober enough to speak, should be able to ask also. Hell, anybody can say any damn thing.

Question is, do I have to answer? Must my answer meet some kind of "reasonable-ness" standard before they will let me proceed about my business?

Somewhat related: And of course I think DUI checks are so contrary to the Founders' vision that I nearly puke thinking about it.

75 As I was leaving for work this morning I heard this story on the local news; a police spokesperson has already said the police officers were mistaken in their interpretation of the law, apologized to the man in question and will make sure that officers trained to avoid a repeat of the situation. So at least they're not going to dig their heels in and make fools of themselves as other police departments have done.

76

Reason has been covering the issue of videotaping police a lot lately. It's becoming more and more of an issue considering hand held cameras are so cheap and even most phones have decent camera tech.

77

This is just all kinds of fuzzy, a disturbing legal trend I'm seeing more and more of these days.

Why is there no clarity when it comes to the law anymore? It seems that the cops in the vid weren't quite sure what law was being broken by the guy doing the vidding. I don't remember hearing them state a specific statute that prohibits it, even though they did say that it wasn't illegal in the first few minutes. If the guy was acting in a legal manner, he should've been left alone. If he was violating the law, the cops should have been able to at least cite which one.

I mean, come on, if the cops don't know what they're doing and why they're doing it, we're in a world of hurt. This should never be happening.

We used to be smarter about these things.

 

78 Cops don't get paid shit. 

This is bottom fishing. 

Any dickhead with a flip camera can walk around till he finds a dumb ass cop, employee, etc.

So, WTF was this guy doing taking pictures, EXCEPT baiting dumb cops, nothing.

He got his 5 minutes.  He needs to get a fucking life. 

79 I wonder if anyone was spotted taking pictures before the explosion?

Who knows?

With miniature cameras, video-recorders, and even cell phones for Gaia's sake, it's pretty hard to catch a professional casing a target.

80

Taking pictures of rail road tracks?  For what, the calender he sells to support his website?

Railfans are an odd bunch.

81 I have updated to take note of robtr's annoying "facts" and also discuss more.

Posted by: ace at June 02, 2011 02:32 PM (nj1bB)

Sorry ace, I should have just stuck to reading the comments.

82 i think a term like "observable behavior" may have a place here. if a cop sees a person taking pictures of a jewelry store once, no problem, sees the same person doing the same thing the next day, time to ask some questions.

83

Posted by: AndrewsDad at June 02, 2011 02:28 PM (C2//T)

Uh.... if its Private Property, than without a complaint from the Owner, why harrass the guy...

If its Public Property, then he has every right to be there taking pictures of Public Property...

Whats interesting is that there have been NO US Train Terrorist incidents (some in Europe.. some in Russia)... yet we are paranoid about a guy taking pictures...

Kinda like the TSA... the Gov and Media have us so spun up about Terrorists, that we are allowing the TSA to fondle our Children, even when the TSA has NEVER found any terrorists doing it...

Crichton... State of Fear... it was NOT just about the environment.

 

84

I'm sure you're right but I think it's a dumb law and what happens if I run across a peace officer who's having a bad day?

Posted by: ErikW at June 02, 2011 02:30 PM (VIf5F)

I see your point, for sure.  But, that's a risk you run not having an ID.

Say you're in the park and you get assaulted or even killed.  They have no way of identifying you and you're family won't know you're missing for a while, and all that........It's a sticky slope.  We can hypothetical it all day long.

I just carry an ID.

85 I pick option 1 because allowing incremental authoritarianism always leads to a horrible end.  Any cursory review of world history tells us that.  I will take the chance my train or plane will be blown up.  A small risk of dying is far more preferable than allowing big brother to constantly restrict our rights year after year. 

If someone wants to blow the train they will do it and preventing (and hassling) people from snapping pictures will not stop it.  I also don't like cops telling us we can't film THEM, no good comes from that either.  Sadly some of them need to be monitored.

If the guy was a terrorist and they checked his ID and let him go what does that accomplish?  Nothing.  We can't go around treating ordinary citizens as terror suspects when they are engaging in normal activities Americans have done since our founding.

86

 

Ah, okay. I was unsure of how the law went, thanks for the clarity.

And yeah, I thought about the Mexican angle too but I don't think they'd buy a spanish speaking white guy with red hair!

Posted by: ErikW at June 02, 2011 02:32 PM (VIf5F)

Comedian Louis C.K.  is Mexican. 

And really searching for that the two articles I found made it sound like cops could ask you for ID for no reason at all.  Because it was only in the opening line, the article doesn't address shit.

87 The fool has said in his heart, there is no God

88 >>>Sorry ace, I should have just stuck to reading the comments. I assumed everyone already was doing that.

89

 Cops can't arrest you for the Disrespecting the Authority of a Cop in the First Degree

 

Technically, the charge would be "Flunking the attitude test".

90

Whats interesting is that there have been NO US Train Terrorist incidents (some in Europe.. some in Russia)... yet we are paranoid about a guy taking pictures...

 

Go ahead, Romeo. You keep fighting the last war instead of the next one.

91

Go on any photography blog. People get hassled for taking photos of all kinds of things now.

I can't take a photo of a train, but the cops can feel up my kids at the Airport. America 2011.

Me, I think carrying a camera, or at least a camera-phone, should be SOP for cons, TPers and other Americans.

92 I don't even see how this comes near the line of police harassment. We live in a world where terrorists are targeting trains and other forms of mass transportation and have been repeatedly caught taking pics of them. The cops were very respectful in my opinion and asked the guy repeatedly for ID. He decided he wanted to test their authority. They lost. I'd have been more pissed if the cops had not asked him for ID and let him do as he pleased.

93

I'd have been more pissed if the cops had not asked him for ID and let him do as he pleased.

 

This.

94 Eh, people don't seem to be getting why I said what I said. My assumption is that by the time a cop has decided to ask for your ID he's got some suspicions about you. My task is to allay those suspicions. I don't do this because I worship the cop's power or something, I do this because (1) I want to be left alone and (2) I want to calm the cop down.

95 What's the fucking police unions take on this? That's really all that matters right?

96 80

Taking pictures of rail road tracks?  For what, the calender he sells to support his website?

Railfans are an odd bunch.

Yes they are.  My sister's husband is a big railfan and for part of his bachelor's party some years ago, his best friend took him alongside some train-tracks in his native town.  We spent about an hour and half there just watching the trains go by.  That is, until the police came.  Apparently, somebody had called the local cops, thinking that we were a bunch of teenagers doing typical teenager mischief.  First thing out of the cop's mouths when they appeared on the scene - "Hey, you're not kids".

But my sister's husband's friend just explained to the cops that we were big train-fans, which seemed to placate them very quickly.  Nonetheless, we got out of there as soon as possible. 

97 They lost - He lost.

98 A poke in the ribs and a move along is sometimes called for.

99

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 02, 2011 02:33 PM (rplL3)

Good point... inherent in every Right, must be its opposite...

The Right to keep and bear arms must give you the Right NOT to do so...

The Right to worship as you please must encompass the Right NOT to worship...

The Right to Free Association has to give you the Right NOT to Associate...

And Finally... the Right to Freedom of Speach has to give you the RIGHT not to speak.

Somehow, we've lost this basic premise.

100 Taking pictures of rail road tracks?  For what, the calender he sells to support his website?

You can learn stuff from the rails. For example, here in LA you can tell if a train route was once used for the Pacific Electric trolley cars by looking to see whether there are grounding wires connecting each length of rail.

So I expect he was taking pix of the trax to see such details.

101  The problem I have here is that the police don't appear to have any reason to suspect him. They admit what he's doing is not illegal. I agree with Ace that cops can question someone who looks suspicious, but this appears to be just dickish police harassment.

Oh, and "wiretap" laws being applied to goings-on in public is plain stupid overreach. MD law is all kinds of messed up.

102

Question is, do I have to answer? Must my answer meet some kind of "reasonable-ness" standard before they will let me proceed about my business?

Somewhat related: And of course I think DUI checks are so contrary to the Founders' vision that I nearly puke thinking about it.

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 02, 2011 02:33 PM (rplL3)

Whether you have to answer or not is that the fight you want to have and the place you want to have it, when you're at an obvious disadvantage and the guy wanting to see your id has a gun?

Not for me, I have never been a big fan of people not wanting to show a cop an ID, in fact with the illegal problem we have I wish they would do more of it. I think Americans not only have the right but the duty to make sure people in this country should be here.

103 >>>Question is, do I have to answer? Must my answer meet some kind of "reasonable-ness" standard before they will let me proceed about my business? yes, indeed, the standard for arrest remains "probable cause for suspicion." However, your answers may in fact provide just that, if you are transparently false and inconsistent enough to justify probable cause. So the cops, by asking you questions, and listening to answers, may end up with probable cause. And cops also like to bluff "Maybe you'd be more comfortable answering these questions at the station," but that I'm pretty sure is legal to say, even if it is a bluff and they don't actually have probable cause to do that.

104

When it comes down to it, I'm willing to take the risks of being a free person

105 "... I don't recall anything about not being able to photograph public places." I worked on a film several years ago and we had a skeleton crew shooting a scene across the street from the rear entrance of a strip club. We had permission from the owners of the store we were actually filming. A strip club bouncer walked over and asked us to leave. We told him we were on public property & had permission, so what we were doing was perfectly legal. Within 5 minutes 3-4 cop cars showed up and told us we had to leave the area. I've never seen cops respond so fast. They're very protective of their strippers in Philly. Imagine trying to photograph a train full of strippers...

106 The cops were very respectful in my opinion and asked the guy repeatedly for ID. He decided he wanted to test their authority. They lost.

I'd have been more pissed if the cops had not asked him for ID and let him do as he pleased.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 02, 2011 02:37 PM (TMB3S)

Yep. He should have coughed up his ID when asked since he was acting 'odd'. And the police should have made a note of his identity. But they shouldn't have stopped him from taking pictures if there's no law backing this up.

107 photographer sounded like a Ron Paul supporter

108

You know what's weird. This:

Me: This has always been one of the blurred lines

Ace, a few minutes later: Can I explain this isn't true?

Ace, a few minutes after that: The law on this crap is very vague and detail-specific and make-it-up as you go, but that's because it is, in fact, very difficult to codify this.

Anyway, I meant that it's a blurred line for me. But I drink some.

109

The problem I have here is that the police don't appear to have any reason to suspect him. They admit what he's doing is not illegal. I agree with Ace that cops can question someone who looks suspicious, but this appears to be just dickish police harassment

 

From where, exactly, does that assertion arise: From the video of what he was doing BEFORE the police arrived on the scene?

 

I haven't seen that one.

110 I don't have a problem with this. This is just Presadent Obama trying to safe guard us. If only Bush would have done this like Presadent Clinton did, well then 911 would have not occurred. Once again Presadent Obama rises above the crowd. That's why I will be voting for him in November ....

111

This happens thousands of times a day, it's not a big deal.

http://tinyurl.com/5vake2s

112 it doesn't matter how respectful the cops were, the point is that there is no law against filming trains and therefor the cops have no authority to say jack squat to the guy, if on the other hand the individual had exhibitated some form of suspicious behavior pattern it would be different, but there is no evidence of that here.

113 >>Imagine trying to photograph a train full of strippers... I am. Thank you for that.

114

Go ahead, Romeo. You keep fighting the last war instead of the next one.

Posted by: Clueless at June 02, 2011 02:37 PM (LyOUH)

Hmmm.... so your willing to give up your RIGHTS to fight the "NEXT" War?

But you are correct... I'm fighting a Past War... the one the started with "When in the Case of Human Events"...

115 On the railroad private property point. 

I think this was a public owned rail link, read light rail socialism.  If it had been on a private track, read, Norfolk Southern, CSX, etc, the fucker would have been cuffed and marched off.

Railroads have special police authorized in every state, and basically you can not fuck with them, PERIOD. They are private police with state powers given to them 100 years ago. 

116

I can't watch the video at present, so this is completely off the top of my head.  Forgive me if any of my analysis is completely off the mark.

That said, I can't think of a law that would apply to taking photographs of train tracks if you're on public property.  If he was trespassing on private property, okay.  Then I could understand the cops stepping in.  I could even understand the cops coming up to the man and just saying, "Excuse me, sir, could you explain your reason for being here?" and request ID.  Both requests should be accompanied with the explanation that transportation hubs are watched closely to ensure that they aren't being used for illegal activity (such as train jumping) and to ensure their safety from malicious forces.  Anyone who has nothing to hide might be a little taken aback at being confronted by a police officer in this fashion, but I think any of us would understand the logic behind the requests.  I know that I'd say, "Oh, yes, officer, I understand.  I'm here to photograph the train tracks for some artistic photos.  Here's my ID." 

Does that make me a pushover?  Maybe.  But I have a legitimate reason to be there, and I have an ID.  I would expect the police to accept my reason and leave. 

If the police persisted and told me that I couldn't photograph the tracks, I'd be incredulous and want to know why.  If the police told me it was illegal, I'd ask which law they're referring to.  If they couldn't answer, or if they simply insisted that it was illegal, then I'd ask for their badge numbers and say that I'd find out for myself.  I'd be polite about it, and respectful, but I'd let them know that if I couldn't find the law then I'd be reporting them to their supervisor. 

I'd also let them know that if I did find the law, I'd report to their supervisor that they'd done a good job of upholding the law, provide a reference to the legislation in question, and recommend that those same officers carry the legislation WITH them so that if they're ever asked to clarify the point again, they'd have it at hand.

I don't like that I'd be the one doing the heavy lifting in this scenario, but I agree that there's not much to be gained from arguing with the cops.  I've known great guys who are cops, but I've known some real boneheads, too.  Better to remain respectful, keep your temper, and state your case in no-nonsense terms. 

117 Within 5 minutes 3-4 cop cars showed up and told us we had to leave the area. I've never seen cops respond so fast. They're very protective of their strippers in Philly.

Was Wyatt among them?   

118 Carry this in your camera bag. I know I do! http://bit.ly/mTVblS

119 and no, i'm not a Ron Paul supporter.

120

And Finally... the Right to Freedom of Speach has to give you the RIGHT not to speak.

Somehow, we've lost this basic premise.

No... the 5th amendment gives us the right to not speak.  And that is only if it is self-incriminating.

121 God forbid I would like to take a snapshot of the Statue Of Liberty. I'll probably end up looking like Swiss cheese.

122

I think this was a public owned rail link, read light rail socialism.  If it had been on a private track, read, Norfolk Southern, CSX, etc, the fucker would have been cuffed and marched off.

Railroads have special police authorized in every state, and basically you can not fuck with them, PERIOD. They are private police with state powers given to them 100 years ago. 

Absolutely not true if you are referring to the photography. Possibly true if you are speaking to the asshole refusing to leave or cough up I.D.

123 I am a big supporter of law enforcement as a concept but I must say I have met quite a few individual cops who were fucking assholes.  Just as many are ignorant of the laws and the constitution they are sworn to uphold. 

Remember they are government union employees, just like all of the other overpaid incompetent bastards we deal with.  There is absolutely no reason to place them on a pedestal.  Yes some of them have dangerous jobs but far more of them spend most of their time harassing basically law abiding citizens and annoying people.

The day comes when the government wants us to turn in our guns it will be the police who will be doing that task for them.  I hold our military men in far higher esteem than some local yocal cop.  And yes, I understand there is some crossover that goes on between those groups.

124 The situation doesn't have a lot of middle ground left. You either support the cops, who can break into your house at any time and shoot you dead without any consequences, or you support the criminals, who can break into your house at any time and you can shoot dead without any consequences.

125 Railroads have special police authorized in every state, and basically you can not fuck with them, PERIOD. They are private police with state powers given to them 100 years ago. 

Posted by: Kemp at June 02, 2011 02:43 PM (JpFM9)

Heh, yeah you didn't want to fuck with the Pinkertons.

126 Papiere gefallen

127 In Russia, they would have pushed him in front of the train for pissing them off.

Just sayin...

I really don't see the big deal.

AQ attacks on trains have been an LE focus for some time now. UBL's goat-porn/document stash confirmed this potential method of attack.

I would rather they ask anyone, especially a white guy for ID. Part of their MO is to change appearances to decrease suspicion.

Or they could just tasered the guy. Now THAT I would watch.

128 My little town has a reputation for family-friendly Mardi Gras parades.  To keep it that way, the cops here practice a form of preemptive detention.  When they sweep through the crowd, if you look like trouble, maybe a bit too drunk, or wearing gang colors, or similar, they will scope you out and if they feel it's warranted, it's off to the hoosegow with ye.  After the parade they usually decide not to press charges and boot you out the door.

I'm really astonished that we have gotten away with this for so many years, but pretty much everyone in town looks the other way.

129

Option 4. The liberal position. Only give white Christian-looking men a hard time.  "Islamic looking" guys get a pass.

130 Yep. He should have coughed up his ID when asked since he was acting 'odd'. And the police should have made a note of his identity. But they shouldn't have stopped him from taking pictures if there's no law backing this up.

Posted by: Mætenloch at June 02, 2011 02:42 PM (pAlYe)

I agree, but they questioned him and he didn't answer.  He posts this video looking for sympathy and all that when the fact is, if he would've stated everything he types out in the first minute of the video, there IS NO ISSUE here.  The cop would've likely let him take a few more photos then asked him to move along.

131 when you're at an obvious disadvantage and the guy wanting to see your id has a gun?

 

Posted by: robtr at June 02, 2011 02:41 PM (MtwBb)

Isn't this the very definition of Tyranny?  He gets to do somthing because he has a gun and a badge.

132 Railroad cops!

http://tinyurl.com/3qyjoqb

133 Who shit!?!

Oh, hi Mary.....

134 20 Well the courts have consistently ruled that when asked for an ID you must provide one if you have it and that you are required to provide your name when asked and may not lie.

If you refuse to provide ID you can be arrested.

Posted by: Vic at June 02, 2011 02:15 PM (M9Ie6)

Unless you're committing voter fraud.   

135

Posted by: buzzion at June 02, 2011 02:36 PM (oVQFe)

No, it certainly doesn't.

Not long ago I was pulled over for a rolling stop and had forgotten my wallet at home. I was polite, the cop was polite, I gave him my name and SS#, he ran it and let me go without a warning (clean driving record).

I guess it depends on the situation.

136

But you are correct... I'm fighting a Past War... the one the started with "When in the Case of Human Events"...

I didn't realize I was communicating with an honest-to-God real-life in-the-flesh GREAT AMERICAN! Will Hannity ever forgive me for questioning your logic?

Your own asertion that there hasn't been a terrorist incident on a train was brought into question when you immediately contradicted your self with, except for this...and this. If you will remember, no plane had ever been flown ito the Pentagon before 9/11 either. I wish to hell somebody had asked those fuckers what they were up to!

137 From where, exactly, does that assertion arise: From the video of what he was doing BEFORE the police arrived on the scene?

I haven't seen that one.
Posted by: Clueless at June 02, 2011 02:42 PM (LyOUH)

I don't have to see that one. The police are only talking to him about taking pictures, so I'm pretty comfortable assuming that's all he did.

138 I would have yelled, "THIS IS SPARTA" and kicked the cops onto the tracks.

139 hypothetically, suppose you work at a nuclear reactor on a university campus.  One morning you get to work early & notice a newish, large, black SUV parked just outside the fence (not near the gate). 

Do you (1) ignore it, or (2) call the police & ask them to check it out.

Should the police (1) park near him & wait until he leaves by intimidation, or (2) ask him who he is or what he's doing & go back to "protect & serve"?

140

Isn't this the very definition of Tyranny?  He gets to do somthing because he has a gun and a badge.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 02, 2011 02:47 PM (NtXW4)

No, you have recourse if he was wrong. My point is that yeah, if someone working for the state who has a badge and a gun confronts you on the street  it's best to do what he says and sue them later if he was wrong.

Not many people win arguments with cops.

141 I agree, but they questioned him and he didn't answer.  He posts this video looking for sympathy and all that when the fact is, if he would've stated everything he types out in the first minute of the video, there IS NO ISSUE here.  The cop would've likely let him take a few more photos then asked him to move along.

Posted by: © Sponge at June 02, 2011 02:47 PM (UK9cE)

True. This is one of those cases where both sides were idiots. Of course I also expect more from policemen than I do of weirdo rail buffs.

142

No... the 5th amendment gives us the right to not speak. And that is only if it is self-incriminating.

Posted by: dan-O at June 02, 2011 02:45 PM (bRLuD)

I see you miss the entire point... How can I have Freedom of Speech, if I do not have the Right NOT to speak? 

Yes, I understand the Courts ruled on this years ago, and I know you can now be impelled to speak... but I think the Courts are wrong.

143

A few things:

Practically every person who "respectfully declines" to oblige a reasonable request like producing identification or who references the Constitution to a cop is just being a dick. Anyone who isn't a dick knows better. The dick knows better, too, but he pulls this crap anyway because he's a dick.

Cops know things that average people don't. Was the threat level raised that day? Were police looking for anything possibly amiss because they know something that the guy didn't? Maybe, maybe not; probably not. Whatever the case, I have my rights and the cop has a job to do, and sometimes I have to decide that the latter is more important and maybe I should wait until I get to work before I start acting like a dick.

Then there's what the cop said. "Since 9/11 ... " Indeed: Since 9/11, trains have been bombed in England and in Spain. Videotaping commuter trains could be interpreted as reconnaisance, and any cop who dismisses that possibility isn't doing his job.

(It's too bad this guy isn't equally passionate about water reservoirs, where security is taken even more seriously. I'd love to see the YouTube video of such an enounter.)

144 124The situation doesn't have a lot of middle ground left. You either support the cops, who can break into your house at any time and shoot you dead without any consequences, or you support the criminals, who can break into your house at any time and you can shoot dead without any consequences.

Posted by: I do loves me my rifles at June 02, 2011 02:46 PM (lT0LC)

 

live free or die, it's never really been any other way, only the illusion of it.

145 True. This is one of those cases where both sides were idiots. Of course I also expect more from policemen than I do of weirdo rail buffs.

Posted by: Mætenloch at June 02, 2011 02:51 PM (pAlYe)

Good point.

146 #143
Well put.

147

Heh, yeah you didn't want to fuck with the Pinkertons.

 

Are you kidding with that shit? As he said, they are a police force... a federally authorized police force. Their ranks are made up of former beat cops, swat, ICE agents, military police, and just about any other type of officer you can think of.

148 Not completely on point but, one of the things I learned in my youth was to not suggest, loudly, that the cop who just cuffed your hands behind your back was overly fond of his mother, even when you are totally innocent.

149

No, you have recourse if he was wrong. My point is that yeah, if someone working for the state who has a badge and a gun confronts you on the street it's best to do what he says and sue them later if he was wrong.

Not many people win arguments with cops.

Posted by: robtr at June 02, 2011 02:50 PM (MtwBb)

Really? In states where you cannot video the cop? 

Geeeee.... which side do you think the Government, and Police Union, will side with without definitive proof?

May want to ask a Certain Ex Marine in Arizona about that.... oh wait... guess you'd need to call a Psychic who specialized in speaking to the dead to do so.

150

Unless you're committing voter fraud.   

 

touche'

151 Used to a lot of law enforcement work with cops and one impression I took from that work is that the line between which side of the law way some of these guys ended up on is way thinner and way scarier than it should be. 

That said, who else you gonna call?

152

Are you kidding with that shit? As he said, they are a police force... a federally authorized police force. Their ranks are made up of former beat cops, swat, ICE agents, military police, and just about any other type of officer you can think of.

Posted by: Clueless at June 02, 2011 02:53 PM (LyOUH)

Chill the fuck out and learn some history. The Pinkertons not only supplied security for the railroads they were the enforcement agency for the railroads. If the railroads had problems with a land owner they sent the Pinkertons, if they had problems with a politician they sent the Pinkertons.

153 For cripes sake, you gladly hand you ID to the guy wearing a turban at your local liquor store but when the cops want it because you are videotaping trains (BTW who the fuck v-tapes a train, fucking retard) call the fucking ACLU, Channel 2 news and Al-Jazeera.

154 The reason we have these stupid fucking no-photography laws for public infrastructure is because, in the days after 9/11, muslims were detained for taking photographs and videos of bridges and other transportation infrastructure. These weren't sightseeing tours. These were trespass into posted areas and shooting pictures and footage of the underside of rail bridges and the like. When news about this became public, more muslims started taking photography tours of infrastructure (without trespassing) just daring police and Coast Guard to arrest them. I have no idea whether this was lawfare, an expression of solidarity, or a smokescreen for their fellow terrorists. The bottom line is we can accommodate members of a medieval totalitarian death cult in our society, or we can have civil liberties. We cannot have both. We chose the wrong fucking one.

155

No, it certainly doesn't.

Not long ago I was pulled over for a rolling stop and had forgotten my wallet at home. I was polite, the cop was polite, I gave him my name and SS#, he ran it and let me go without a warning (clean driving record).

I guess it depends on the situation.

Posted by: ErikW at June 02, 2011 02:48 PM (VIf5F)

Must have been a local cop, and not state patrol.

156 Funny little story. I used to be (and still am, but not nearly as much) afraid of flying in airplanes. Just freaked me out, would get all claustrophobic and feel faint. Embarrassing as hell. Now, generally speaking the classic treatment for most phobias is exposure therapy. And it really works well. If you are afraid of spiders you start off across the room from them, then ease in a foot, and you just keep at it until you acclimatize.

But it's hard to do exposure therapy with airplanes. It's an all or nothing deal. You can't get off after 10 minutes. They can't stop and let you retreat to a safe place to calm down.

So my brilliant idea was to practice with subways. The whole enclosed, confined space that you can't get out of. Similar to airplanes, but with stops every 5-10 minutes to exit if you start to panic. Perfect.

And it actually helped. But I'm glad I did it pre 9/11. Cause what I did was to get on the DC Metro, with my back-pack filled with snacks and reading material, and just ride it for hours at a time. I'd ride until I got panicky, then I'd get off at a stop, wonder around a bit, have a bite to eat, calm down, then get back on. And to document my little self-improvement plan I took pictures of the stops.

Anybody watching the surveillance video would have seen a young, nervous looking guy with a back-pack going from stop to stop taking pictures, for hours, and then just going back to his original stop. Odd, unusual behavior.

Can't imagine I wouldn't have been stopped by the transit cops today for doing that. And, of course, I was on edge and nervous already since I was purposefully trying to trigger a mild panic response (in me, not in the cops).

I can just imagine starting to panic, getting off at an unfamiliar stop, only to be accosted by the transit cops demanding my ID, to check my back-pack, etc. That would've really sucked.

But that's exactly what the cops should do. I would have fit the profile of a dude casing the public transit system. Sucks for nervous, neurotic people, but that's life.

157

Really? In states where you cannot video the cop? 

Geeeee.... which side do you think the Government, and Police Union, will side with without definitive proof?

May want to ask a Certain Ex Marine in Arizona about that.... oh wait... guess you'd need to call a Psychic who specialized in speaking to the dead to do so.

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 02, 2011 02:54 PM (NtXW4)

So you are saying we should just shoot it out with the cops if we don't like them asking for our ID?

I will pass on that, thanks for the idea though.

158

@62 - Even if none of that was true, arguing with the police is not the brightest of ideas. The "but I'm not breaking any laws" thing doesn't wash with me. The guys who hijacked those planes had also not broken any laws..until that day, as far as I know.

 

Aside from conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism/mass murder that is.

Unrelated to that, if you can't photograph the trains is it also illegal to sketch them? (I have a fairly detailed sketch of the Murrah Federal Building I did for a graphics class back in the school daze so it's not as much of a smartass question as you may think)

What if you have an eidetic (photographic) memory?

159 Ugggggh again In the very beginning of the video it says that the cops were called by a mta worker who though he was acting suspicious Hence they came They asked for an id and he just gave his name, as the cops kept saying and they're right...I don't know you And one again, it wasn't the video, it was the AUDIO that got him in trouble

160 Really, you sound like a bunch of eunuchs fairy stepping around a friggin cotton-candy orgy.

I can't believe there is anyone actually defending this creep. I bet he has a criminal or mental health record.

161 153For cripes sake, you gladly hand you ID to the guy wearing a turban at your local liquor store...

Posted by: Marcus at June 02, 2011 02:57 PM (CHrmZ)

 

good point, but i'm really starting to question the wisdom of such things, sometimes freedom is more important than convience perhaps?

 

162 "He was a dick to the cops..."

Posted by: © Sponge at June 02, 2011 02:16 PM (UK9cE)

Then fuck 'em. They are in the wrong business if they can't take a little bit of shit. Who the fuck made them God?

Sorry, but I am sick of the statist, all-powerful government thugs who are doing more and more to take our freedoms.

163 I guess I'm half-in/half-out about this.

164
On the street, the cop is totally in charge.  In the lock up, the sergeant or lieutenant is in charge.  During cross examination, your lawyer and the judge are in charge. 
It is always best to get yourself out of the environment the cop alone controls as fast as possible with as little angst as you can and into the the one he does not, I say.  That holds true no matter the encounter.

It sucks because in a free society a free citizen should not have to kowtow to a cop but it is what it is. 

165 As your update suggests, it's really a matter of whether someone is violating the law. Showing an ID would have changed nothing. Sorry to borrow from mushy reason #3, but isn't this about security theater?

166 160Really, you sound like a bunch of eunuchs fairy stepping around a friggin cotton-candy orgy.

I can't believe there is anyone actually defending this creep. I bet he has a criminal or mental health record.

Posted by: Marcus at June 02, 2011 03:03 PM (CHrmZ)

 

i don't give a flying fuck about that geek, this is about my rights not his.

167

So you are saying we should just shoot it out with the cops if we don't like them asking for our ID?

I will pass on that, thanks for the idea though.

Posted by: robtr at June 02, 2011 03:00 PM (MtwBb)

Nice straw man... what I am saying is that the current State of Fear in this country is allowing Police to get away with things our Forefathers tried to ensure would not happen (although the US history on this is spotty at best).

No knock Warrants?  Warrants being delived by fully armed SWAT teams on citizens?  The New ruling where if Police believe evidence 'might' be destroyed they can enter WITHOUT a Warrant?

Now... put those three things together, and we have a situation where a SWAT Team, can No Knock, and enter a place WITHOUT a Warrant, because they 'think' evidence may get destroyed...

Its like the 'implied consent' crap when entering an Airport... where suddenly your Civil Rights are gone, because you entered an Air Port (or soon a Train Station)....

168 Maybe use some common sense. [Probably not safe for work.]

169 Posted by: Sgt. Batguano at June 02, 2011 03:03 PM (jdOk/)

Yeah, I am a little confused how a law which requires you be a certain age to buy/consume alcohol and a proprietor making sure you are not breaking that law by being under age by checking an acceptable form of proof infringes on your freedom.

Make bathtub wine if yo don't like it.

170

In reality, there are actually psychological papers on the idea that "bad vibes" are kind of accurate. I've read recently some papers on the idea of "trust your gut, you've got that vibe-sense for a reason."

There's a very good book called Protecting the Gift. It's about how to keep your kids safe, and yeh, the author talks a lot about instincts and how to use them.

From a review at Amazon:

De Becker addresses this question by first focusing on the fact that violent behavior can be predicted. The book teaches that children can be taught skills to avoid dangerous situations and people. He emphasizes the development and use of intuition as a parent's key resource in recognizing threats. He cites numerous stories of people avoiding harm by listening to intuition and others who ignored intuition and became victims.

171 153 For cripes sake, you gladly hand you ID to the guy wearing a turban at your local liquor store but when the cops want it because you are videotaping trains (BTW who the fuck v-tapes a train, fucking retard) call the fucking ACLU, Channel 2 news and Al-Jazeera.

Posted by: Marcus at June 02, 2011 02:57 PM (CHrmZ)

I hand my ID to Ahmed at the liquor store because I choose to do so. (Ahmed won't sell me tequila if I don't, PBUH)  If  I don't want to hand my ID over I don't buy liquor. :-(     My ID. My choice

But the cop gives me no choice. 

The obvious difference between the two is the difference between a free citizen and a serf or slave.    "Ver are der paperz?  Ve vant to zee your paperz..."

172 >>Then fuck 'em. They are in the wrong business if they can't take a little bit of shit. Who the fuck made them God? >>Sorry, but I am sick of the statist, all-powerful government thugs who are doing more and more to take our freedoms. What would be your position if the cops had decided to just drop it and go eat donuts and the next day a bomb took out a commuter train at that very spot? Nobody like over aggressive cops but we are in a war with terrorists who are constantly probing us for weaknesses and they have a stated goal of attacking trains as they have done in other countries. Is asking a guy for ID while having a smile on their face really all that oppressive?

173 Here's an idea. Since driving is a privilege provided by the fascist state and having a license is a  display of your cooperation with that fascism- burn your drivers license. That way you don't have to show any ID. In fact, don't have any state or federal ID because that let's big-brother know who you are and where you live.

As a matter of fact, don't show any ID. That way you can cool your heels in the clink until they figure out who you are.  

174

There's a very good book called Protecting the Gift. It's about how to keep your kids safe, and yeh, the author talks a lot about instincts and how to use them.

The same author wrote another book called The Gift of Fear. It's one of the few books I deem a must-read for everyone.

 

175

I am not sure what all of you are up in arms about. You don't have that much Freedom, you haven't had that much Freedom for quite some time, and your going to lose most of your Freedom before it is all said and done.

At this point....if you get the sense you are more Free than you have ever been you should worry, because that is a signal that things are going to get very, very bad....refer to late 1920's Germany.

The damage has already been done, and we are just starting to feel the effects of Political Correctness, Big Government and Statist Idiology. It is not like anything can be done about it....It's a race to the bottom, and the quicker we get there the better! 

176 Wait. Is the guy taping the train Weiner or does he just have a Weiner.

I'm confused.

177 I'd have been more pissed if the cops had not asked him for ID and let him do as he pleased.

Yeah, it would be an outrage if someone were permitted to do as they pleased without being hassled by cops. This reflexive need for the boot heel of authority on your neck is fucking pathetic.

178 This is ridiculous.  I was rear ended in Baltimore by a guy with a Guatemalan drivers license and the cop said that he couldn't ask him about his immigration status.  When I asked him if he was going to give the guy a ticket for driving without a license, Officer Hernandez said "NO"

179

Posted by: JackStraw at June 02, 2011 03:13 PM (TMB3S)

Hmmm.... One of the major reasons Islamists hate us, and call us the Great Satan, is because we give each citizen the Freedom to choose.  Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association and equal Rights are ALL Anti Sharia...

They have decided to use Terror (ie the term Terrorist, and War on Terror) to change our behaviours...

You would have our society change to a LESS Free Society... one with the Government MORE intrusive in our lives, to give us the Illusion of saftey (sorry, but I was in Lebanon in 83, where an armed guard at a gate did not stop a Garbage Truck... you are NOT being kept safe by Police harrasing citizens when they are doing nothing illegal).

Ergo, the Terrorists are winning, as we ARE changing to a less free society, due to their Terror tactics.

180

The same author wrote another book called The Gift of Fear. It's one of the few books I deem a must-read for everyone.

Cool, thanks. A bit from that page at Amazon:

Gavin de Becker: Like every creature on earth, we have an extraordinary defense resource: We donÂ’t have the sharpest claws and strongest jaws--but we do have the biggest brains, and intuition is the most impressive process of these brains. It might be hard to accept its importance because intuition is often described as emotional, unreasonable, or inexplicable. Husbands chide their wives about "feminine intuition" and donÂ’t take it seriously. If intuition is used by a woman to explain some choice she made or a concern she canÂ’t let go of, men roll their eyes and write it off. We much prefer logic, the grounded, explainable, unemotional thought process that ends in a supportable conclusion. And emailing weiner pics.

 

181 169Posted by: Sgt. Batguano at June 02, 2011 03:03 PM (jdOk/)

Yeah, I am a little confused how a law which requires you be a certain age to buy/consume alcohol and a proprietor making sure you are not breaking that law by being under age by checking an acceptable form of proof infringes on your freedom.

Make bathtub wine if yo don't like it.

Posted by: Marcus at June 02, 2011 03:09 PM (CHrmZ)

 

maybe the government doesn't have any business saying who can consume alcohol and who can't, maybe people should handle that on their own.

182

@179,

"the Terrorists are winning, as we are changing to a less free society, due to their Terror tactics."

Wait.....

"the Terrorists are have won winning, as we have are changeding to a less free society, due to their Terror tactics."

There...FIFY!

183

"That's not considered an arrest, but a Terry Stop, I think."

Yup, the facts of Terry v. Ohio were pretty much that.

While "casing" isn't a crime, it *might* be enough of a "substantial step" to get you an attempt charge.  It's generally not supposed to -- the classic example of the substantial step is getting in the car and driving towards the bank you're imminently about to rob -- but it might.  It should definitely be enough of an "overt act" to substantiate a conspiracy charge.

Well-done on this Weiner thing, by the way.  I won a bet based mostly on the knowledge you put me to.

184 @JackStraw, 172 "Is asking a guy for ID while having a smile on their face really all that oppressive?" No. But that really isn't the question. We do need more Weiner, Ace.

185 1) The Police screwed up.
2) The photographer screwed up.
3) Guaranteed vitriolic internet argument.

People should stop screwing up, and then we could waste less time arguing.

186 maybe when people relinquish their responsiblity to behave over to the government they also hand over their freedom, maybe the Founders understood that and so wrote a document designed to keep you responsible for yourself and not others.

187 "Is asking a guy for ID while having a smile on their face really all that oppressive?"

Posted by: JackStraw at June 02, 2011 03:13 PM (TMB3S)

Smiling jack-booted thugs are still jack-booted thugs.

We live in a free society, and the police need to have a good, legally justifiable reason to infringe upon our rights. Ignorant bullies who make up law so that they can harrass weird looking people, or people they just don't like, are anathema to a free society.

That being said; I understand your point and realize that there is no simple answer. But I would prefer that those who have the power of life and death over us err on the side of caution when exercising that power.

188 >>This reflexive need for the boot heel of authority on your neck is fucking pathetic. Not nearly as pathetic and childish as believing that we live in a world where we aren't being attacked constantly by terrorists who target our mass transportation systems and having a smiling cop ask you to provide some ID because one of the train authority employees had reported you as acting suspiciously is some sort of moral outrage. This stupid belief that back in the good ol' days you could do whatever you wanted and Officer Friendly would never ask you for ID because he was so super insightful he just knew you were one of the good guys is a fantasy. Guess what sparky, you can't do whatever you want now or ever. There are rules and always have been and they tend to change and become more restrictive during a time of war which in case you missed it we happen to be in.

189

"And cops also like to bluff "Maybe you'd be more comfortable answering these questions at the station," but that I'm pretty sure is legal to say, even if it is a bluff and they don't actually have probable cause to do that."

Also yup.

190 Posted by: Ted Kennedy's Gristle Encased Head at June 02, 2011 03:18 PM (+lsX1)

It is sad that you even have to make that point. It used to be axiomatic.

191

Since driving is a privilege provided by the fascist state and having a license is a  display of your cooperation with that fascism- burn your drivers license.

Oh, hellz. There was a guy in upstate New York about 15 years ago who had this notion. He was in one of those militias and had some interesting ideas about government authority. One idea was that only governments at the county level or smaller were legitimate.

His rub came one night while driving. The speed limit sign (which said 40 or 45, I forget which) was put there by the state government, so he ignored it as an illegal dictate by an illegitimate entity. He applied the same principle to the two yellow stripes in the middle of the road. He was arrested for driving 80 mph on the wrong side of the road, charges which he protested, of course, claiming he had rights.

So, what was this guy -- a freedom-loving patriot or a potentially deadly five-star fucking asshole?

192

"One idea was that only governments at the county level or smaller were legitimate."

Oh hell yeah, the "sovereign citizen" type.  Those guys are NUTS.  Did he talk about the fringed border on the flag?

193

"Not nearly as pathetic and childish as believing that we live in a world where we aren't being attacked constantly by terrorists who target our mass transportation systems..."

 

childish is relying that the government can save you from them.

194

So, what was this guy -- a freedom-loving patriot or a potentially deadly five-star fucking asshole?

Posted by: FireHorse at June 02, 2011 03:28 PM (Rq1/g)

Why can't he be both? I know I am the former, and my wife says I am the latter all the time.

195

I can understand the fear that breeds this kind of police excess.  Unfortunately we live in a time when it is justifiable fear.  Thus, situations like this are created, and the debate rages.

But this would all be moot if we took steps to solve the root problem.  Get rid of the terror loving portions of our population (muz, of course) and don't let any more in.  If someone converts to the death cult, get rid of them.  We don't need their kind here.  Once that's done, we can all take a deep breath and relax a bit.  Elminating the muslim presence, and closing up the borders, would drop the risk of a domestic terrorist attack to near-zero.  Then we could get on with the more profitable task of harrassing suspicious foreigners.

 

 

196

that=on

 

197 I don't have any problem with cops asking questions, even requesting ID (not requiring one, of course, since there's no law requiring anyone to carry an ID in the first place). Carrying a camera (and I do carry one pretty much everywhere) doesn't equip you with a cloaking device. When you're doing something interesting in public, even something perfectly legal, you can expect people to notice you and perhaps ask you questions. And some of those people may be cops, who have as much right to ask those questions as anyone else. What they can't do is threaten you, lie to you, make up laws on the spot, or arrest/assault people just because they feel like it. There is no law prohibiting photos or videos because such a law would be stupid, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and attempts to claim such things are "wiretapping" are even more idiotic, as the courts have ruled over and over again. So if the cops have a gut instinct that someone is a potential threat then it's up to them to justify the resources required to hang around and observe, in case they see something that's actually illegal. Until then it's exactly none of their business, and we are free to tell them exactly that. Any cop who doesn't respect that boundary should be required to find another job.

198 This seems to fit right in on this thread.

Also, heard on the local news that people in Brooklyn are having their iron gates stolen by thieves who sell the gates for money.  Odd that weiner is so invested in weinergate while the gates in his district are being purloined.

In NY there are signs telling you that you cannot video or take pictures.  they are prominently displayed as you enter all of the tunnels.

199

If this is a "time of war" why haven't all the muzzies been rounded up into camps?

Why are our borders swiss cheese?

Why isn't Mecca a sea of radioactive glass?

Why does Pokeistan have nukes?

Why aren't the Gitmo jihadis swinging from a rope?

Until the above is addressed....

 

Fuck your police state.

200

@188

Jack,

This is the problem! You seem to beleive that it is possible to protect against Terrorism....I Do Not!

Sure we have foiled some Terror attacks here, and we also did everything we could stop the ones that did happend, but we will not be able to stop them when they really want to get us. The only way for people like you to feel comfort for the future, and believe you are truley defeating terrorism, is to live without Freedom and Liberty, and ensure everybody around you does the same. But in the big picture doesn't that defeat the purpose? In the end doesn't terrorism win anyway?

 

201 >>But I would prefer that those who have the power of life and death over us err on the side of caution when exercising that power. Exactly. And that power is enshrined in the motto "Serve and Protect". Their job is not just to arrest the obviously guilty but to investigate the suspicious and evaluate risk to protect the public. If a cop asks you for your ID because you have been reported as suspicious by a one of the employees of the train authority and you decide that you don't want to cooperate are you making yourself look like more of a risk or less? Jesus, we talk about terrorism on this site on a daily basis. Everyone knows that terrorists were seen casing their targets and taking pictures of them before 9/11. We know they are targeting trains. They have blown up trains around the world. And now we expect cops to just say, "Oh, so you don't want to give me your ID. Well have a nice day then and continue."?

202

Posted by: torabora at June 02, 2011 03:34 PM (XL2DT)

Well said.  All of those prescriptions are excellent.  If we had leaders with both balls and brains, each would already have been implemented.  Alas...

203 Guess what sparky, you can't do whatever you want now or ever. There are rules and always have been and they tend to change and become more restrictive during a time of war which in case you missed it we happen to be in.

I'm pretty sure that my awareness of our war status is not eclipsed by yours. I'm also pretty sure that past abuses by government don't make me any happier about those of the present or future. This may be an outrage to you, but not all of us feel the need to be coddled by the nurturing womb of government.

204

Back when I was a kid I took the train through East Germany to Berlin.

The Commie bastards only let it roll after dark, the curtains had to be closed, you were forbidden to peek out (I did anyway), and you couldn't take pictures on pain of arrest.

Fuck police states.

205

Did he talk about the fringed border on the flag?

Those gold braids that say that he not only has a right to an attorney but also to a visit from the International Red Cross as per the Geneva Convention because by law he must be treated as a prisoner of war?

206

"Everyone knows that terrorists were seen casing their targets and taking pictures of them"

C'mon Man....you think when they are ready to get us, they are going to be walking around making it obvious what they are doing?

207 OT but I have to say that things were better in this country when everything wasn't a matter of law.  When you could just whip on assholes, and get community support for it. 

I live in the South, and we still have traces of that, where when someone gets bloodied in a fight, the police let it go and the papers report the incident as A challenge was issued.  I hate this run your mouth and then call the police when you come out the worst crap.  But even here, its law and lawyers effing everything up.

Busted lips make good neighbors.

208 Regarding instincts,

The human brain is fundamentally a pattern recognition machine.  The reason that we survived was not that we could outrun the lion, or outfight it, but that our brains developed to quickly and subconsciously assess when the lion was out in the grass, and got us the hell out of there.

PTSD, in my opinion, is fundamentally a rewiring of the brain to be incredibly sensitive to potential danger.  This causes it to trigger the survival responses when faced with any stimuli.

209 Lot of shootings in Arizona today.

link

KYMA11 KYMA Yuma Police confirm 5 people dead across Yuma County after a string of shootings. Please stay tuned to News 11 for the very latest.

210 When I moved to Baltimore for work I needed to get a landline for DSL. I called directory assistance on my cell and asked for the number for Verizon (the State provider). Directory assistance told me that due to security issues they could not give out that number. Incredulous, I asked for the address for a service center and again, I was told they could not give out that info due to 9/11 etc. I asked her how I was supposed to get phone service without contacting Verizon and she had no answer. I observed that hiding all contact information for phone service really didn't make sense---she did not agree. I finally got a number from a friend at work. This is a true story. The moral: Many of the people in charge of our security are mentally defective drooling idiots.

211 Posted by: JackStraw at June 02, 2011 03:35 PM (TMB3S)

We have made a choice to live in a free country. With those freedoms come the unfortunate risk of bad things happening precisely because our police do not have unfettered power.

If that rancid bitch Napolitano had her way we would be strip searched and have rectals every time we wanted to take a plane or a train. But she can't do that (although she certainly is trying) because of those pesky little freedoms that we have fought for.

I don't have the answer, but it sure is an interesting and important question.

212 191

So, what was this guy -- a freedom-loving patriot or a potentially deadly five-star fucking asshole?

Posted by: FireHorse at June 02, 2011 03:28 PM (Rq1/g)

I vote for "potentially deadly five-star fucking asshole?" but would modify it to read "bat shite crazy".

213

Oh yeah while we're at it...they gave Phillip Garrido the 18 year kidnapper child molester life in prison today. If there was any justice the life would expire at midnight today.sheesh

...what has the great nation come to?

214 1

215 "And Finally... the Right to Freedom of Speach has to give you the RIGHT not to speak.

Somehow, we've lost this basic premise.

No... the 5th amendment gives us the right to not speak.  And that is only if it is self-incriminating."

Not entirely true.  SCOTUS has in fact found a right against "compelled speech."  This is why, e.g., unions sometimes have to give an opt-out option so that an individual union member can prevent their dues going to fund political speech they don't approve of (when the speech is not germane to the union's core purpose).

216

C'mon Man....you think when they are ready to get us, they are going to be walking around making it obvious what they are doing?

Posted by: Jimi at June 02, 2011 03:39 PM (JMsOK)

In fairness, a major % of the terrorists are pretty stupid, and do stupid things to get themselves caught.  I think back to the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber.  Both were typical muz inbred idiots.  That some of these mouth breathers have enough functioning brain cells to case their target before attacking is probably proof that they have "higher level" functioning relative to most of their kind. 

It's unfortunate that their gene pool, shallow as it is, doesn't pick up some more seriously debilitating mutations.  It could wipe out the muz threat in, what, three generations?

217

Jesus fuck. Just hand over your fucking ID, you goddamned cretin.

Shit, I don't even much like cops, but are you really going to stand and argue with them when they're just trying to check out what looks like suspicious behavior?

Give 'em a brief 20 second explanation, give them your fucking ID and be on your way.

It  ain't like they're running you through a naked scanner or grabbing the crotch of your 5yr old daughter.

Now that's something to be upset about.

This? This used to be called "being a good citizen." Reasonable people cooperate with reasonable requests. This is a reasonable request, given the circumstances.

218 And, seriously, what possible anti-terrorism purpose is served by stopping someone from taking these sorts of pictures? Or any similar pictures of airports, stations, subways, etc? In any public transportation hub there are going to be thousands of constantly used and easily concealed cell phone cameras capable of instantly sending pictures or realtime streaming video around the world. It seems very likely that the only photographers police would even notice are like this guy, the ones who are not even trying being stealthy about it. And they're the ones least likely to be doing anything nefarious. But hey, maybe some of ya'll consider "not acting at all suspicious in any way" probable cause for arrest now, in these terrifyingly terror-plagued times.

219

...what has the great nation come to?

Posted by: torabora at June 02, 2011 03:45 PM (XL2DT)

Sadly it's become a nation of weak, simpering do-gooders.  Hopefully if the DOOM really does come in strong, their kind will be wiped out in the chaos.

220
Cops have declared war on videotaping in public for the simple reason that a lot of cops have gotten in a lot of trouble because of videotaping in public. Less videotaping means fewer cops in trouble. QED. 

Pretty easy, really.  

221 >>I don't have the answer, but it sure is an interesting and important question. I'm not sure anyone does, I'm not sure there is any one right answer. The Brits arrested a bunch of guys in 2009 because they were taking pictures of the London Underground. Not for not producing ID or arguing with the cops, just taking pictures. There's always a balance between public safety and tyranny. I just can't get all that worked up about asking a guy to produce his ID because a train employee has reported that he is acting suspiciously. I don't see that as oppressive given the world we live in today.

222 Power-tripping public employee thugs. He's doing absolutely nothing illegal. There is no probable cause or even a reasonably articulable suspicion. They have no right to ask him anything, and he has every right to refuse to play along with their illegal snooping. So they just start lying to him in an attempt to bully and intimidate. They then illegally arrest him on a charge of contempt of cop. And don't you love it how ignorance of the law is never a valid excuse for we peasants, but always is for agents of the state ("We like totally didn't know what you were doing was legal. So sorry. Please move along. It won't happen again.") .

223 In fairness, a major % of the terrorists are pretty stupid, and do stupid things to get themselves caught.  I think back to the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber.  Both were typical muz inbred idiots.  That some of these mouth breathers have enough functioning brain cells to case their target before attacking is probably proof that they have "higher level" functioning relative to most of their kind.

You may have noticed that in both cases you cite, the bombers were aboard aircraft with their bombs. In the meantime, you, the smart guy, were in line at the airport with a TSA agent's thumb in your ass.

224 Very late to this thread. 

We use "suspicious activity".  This allows us to make contact, question and ask for ID.  This all has to happen rather quick or we start moving into definitions of arrest.  "Suspicious activity" is a rather broad reason to stop and you must be able to articulate to the "reasonable person" standard what was suspicious.  Refusing to show ID, becoming combative or fleeing now elevates the stop.  Cops did not no the law, video guy acts evasive.  Perfect storm for youtube video fame.

225 FYI, Carlos Miller has done tremendous work documenting case after case of thug cops illegally intimidating and arresting photographers and videographers who were doing nothing illegal. This is NOT an isolated incident. http://www.photographyisntacrime.com/

226 Posted by: JackStraw at June 02, 2011 03:52 PM (TMB3S)

I don't behave like an asshole in the real world (just here), so I rarely have any interactions with authority. But I was pulled over recently and the cop asked me where I was going. Give me a fucking ticket or arrest me or let me go. But where I am going is absolutely none of his business. Why did he ask? Well, that's called creeping authoritarianism.

Sounds silly, but we have to fight for our rights every day, or we will lose them.

As another example: I own lots of guns, as do many of the people who visit this blog. I no longer hunt, and live in an extremely safe town, so I have essentially no need for them. But I own them simply to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. I won't tell a cop what he wants to know not because I am a dick, but because I am protecting those rights.

227

the act of filming a train is not suspicious behavior, it just isn't and the only knowledge we have of this incident is that that's all he was doing, just because someone called and asked the cops to check it out doesn't mean that anyone they come across at that location is automatically suspect, anyone, for any reason can call the cops and accuse someone of "suspicious" behavior.

228

The bottom line is that it will keep getting more oppressive. When decisions are made based on the lowest common denominator, eventually the lowest common denominator is the one making the decisions.

It's the Normalcy Bias and the theory of Cooking A Frog.......right now it's Normal and doable, tomorrow it's not Noraml but doable, Next week it's it's not normal and not doable, and Next Year....Your Cooked!    

229 If it was me with a badge, I'd say: Yes, sir, you don't have to show us an ID. But if you don't we'd have to follow you around to see if you did anything else suspicious, and see which car you got into when you left, take down the license plate and run it and the owner's name through our database, then maybe follow you home while we waited for the full report and, oh, yeah, probably pull you over for any vehicle code violations we became aware of along the way. But if you don't want to show us your ID, it's your right.

230
Even if it's not illegal to videotape trains, it is also not illegal -- at all -- for cops to ask you why you're videotaping trains,

No, it isn't.

But I can also decline to speak to them. Nor am I required to provide ID, even if they demand it. Que no hablo inglés, senor policia! That 4th amendment, so pesky. And 5th is even worse.

And, if they persist, I can always invoke my right to counsel.

231 Well okay *you* can carry a special affidavit giving up your railroad-pic liberties.

But the rest of us still have the liberties not disallowed by laws. Or did I miss some massive legal change in the country?

Posted by: Mætenloch at June 02, 2011 02:33 PM (pAlYe)

I don't disagree completley....but the answer to that is if there is an act of terror on the train we have to accept that the reason it succeded was because we were willing to not give up the track pic liberty.

232

the cop asked me where I was going. Give me a fucking ticket or arrest me or let me go. But where I am going is absolutely none of his business

They don't ask because they want the information. They ask to gauge your reaction.

If you're casing a neighborhood looking for homes to burglarize, chances are pretty good that you're going to stumble on the answer.

Look, I've got an anti-authority streak a mile wide. But sometimes you just have to go with the flow. I've had cops ask me this question myself. I just answer while being friendly and cooperative. You know what? They always let me out of the ticket they could have written.

 

233 I'm late to the party on this post, but for the benefit of all morons and moronettes here who are cops:

Fuck you when you abuse your power, harass and detain to please your own ego, and don't even know what the hell you're talking about as regards the city/county/state statutes, federal law, and the Constitution.

Whew!  I feel better.

Why this matters is it is yet one more example in a long string of "arrests for photography" that have occurred recently and for that matter since 9/11.

234 But if you don't want to show us your ID, it's your right.

Posted by: Socratease at June 02, 2011 04:03 PM (vaIln)

or... to paraphrase.... if you stick to your Rights, we will harrass you? Until you comply and give up your Right?

If you are harrassed until compliant, how is it a Right?

235

@231.

"if there is an act of terror on the train we have to accept that the reason it succeded was because we were willing to not give up the track pic liberty."

You just broke the Cardinal Rule:

You blamed the victim......you are a direct decend of America's problems....Shame on you!

236

You blamed the victim......you are a direct decend of America's problems.

 

Oh, bullshit.

He said we would have to accept this as a reason it SUCCEEDED. That's not the same as saying we either caused it or deserved it.

Don't do that "shame on you!" crap. That's what leftists do.

 

 

237

"if there is an act of terror on the train we have to accept that the reason it succeded was because we were willing to not give up the track pic liberty."

You just broke the Cardinal Rule:

You blamed the victim......you are a direct decend of America's problems....Shame on you!

Posted by: Jimi at June 02, 2011 04:07 PM (JMsOK)

Poppycock. I am not blaming the vitem. I am saying that choosing between incrimental loss of liberty and open ended freedom means being willing to live with the perils of either choice.

238

@236

Wrong! The reason it succeeded has nothing to do with whether or not we stop people from taking pictures of trains.

I'll say what I please you Facist!

239 i have never been disrespectful to a law officer in my entire life, and I never plan on it, but if a cop steps outside his/her legal boundries a citizen has the right, the duty to speak up. and when cops go around making up fake laws to harass people they have stepped outside their legal boundries.

240

@237

B.S. That may have been what you were trying to say, but not even close to what you said!

 

241

I'll say what I please you Facist!

Hahahaha!

You're a fucking charicature of yourself.  

242

Poppycock. I am not blaming the vitem. I am saying that choosing between incrimental loss of liberty and open ended freedom means being willing to live with the perils of either choice.

Posted by: giftogab formerly known as rightzilla at June 02, 2011 04:10 PM (SPVfc)

IMO this is a false choice however. Has there ever been a case, either here or in Europe, where a terrorist incident was stopped, by stopping people from taking Pictures?

Its like the Gun Debate... Stats show that Gun violence is lower in places with LESS gun control... yet the State seems intent on MORE gun control...

I'm willing to compromise on Liberty for things which will actuly make me safer (like... oh... Seat belt laws?).... but not for things where there is no prooven Link to making us safer...

243

"That's what leftists do."

Hahahaha

You're a fucking charicature of yourself.  

244

"It's interactive" - can Ace be a thread winner in his own post ?

I go for option #3 to the "hassle" level - detention, no.  Twenty years ago I would've said option #1 (being more of a libertarian than conservative at the time). 

The "show your ID" cases were always presented to us in classes as the slipperly slope leading inevitably to the Gestapo's "Show us ze papuhz, oldt man."

The reason people were afraid of the Gestapo was what could happen after you identified yourself.  Unlike the Reich, we have habeus corpus, right to counsel, and a host of other detainee rights (some running into the ridiculous, in fact) that keep or cops from merely "vanishing" or kicking the shit out of people just because they feel like it (and yes, I know this still happens, but they are outlier instances).

If you're just minding your own business, show your damned ID.  If you start shrieking "Attica !!!" and quoting code sections after a mere request for identification, its kinda hard to expect cops to not react poorly, if only from a "methinks you doth protest too much" standpoint.

245 238

@236

Wrong! The reason it succeeded has nothing to do with whether or not we stop people from taking pictures of trains.

I'll say what I please you Facist!

Posted by: Jimi at June 02, 2011 04:12 PM (JMsOK)

Perhaps you should calm down and get ahold of something besides the stupid juice. It is clear you are not hitting on all cylinders by the disjointed response. I never told you you could not say what you pleased. That came from some other cave in your vacant and vapid head.

246

Jimi Godwined himself in just 4 moves.

 

SHAME ON YOU JIMI! YOU ARE THE DEATH OF CIVIL DISCOURSE IN THIS COUNTRY!

 

SHAME!

247

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at June 02, 2011 04:17 PM (vAxm6)

Uhhh... Supremes just said that a guy who was held for Months after 9/11 as a 'material witness'... was never charged... and was never a witness to anything... did NOT have his Rights violated.

248
Last month the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that "police can enter private homes without exception."  essentially negating a common law right of several centuries that a free citizen has a right to resist an unlawful entry into his home even when it is committed by the cops. 

249

@245

Hey Moron,

Maybe if understand what the number sin the top left of the page meant, you might have noticed that, that particular comment wasn't directed at you....NeverMind!

250

Posted by: Romeo13 at June 02, 2011 04:16 PM (NtXW4)

 

I am not sure Romeo. I do think that there were some people taking pictures of water, tanks if I recall, or nuclear plants.....that was pretty close to being a terrorist prevention. I just cannot recall teh facts enough to say it with 100%. And maybe it is overkill. I do know that i was stopped taking pictures of the pentagon from the vantage point of teh 9/11 memorial.

251

Theater worker: Sir, may I see your ticket please?

Jimi: My personal movie watching preferences are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, SIR!

Theater worker: Uhmmm. Yeah, I just need to make sure you paid.

Jimi: You SAW me go through the line. You SAW me pay! What is the meaning of this, you bullying, totalitarian thug?

Theater worker: Hey, look. I'm just working this job to save up for my first car. Can I just see your ticket? If I don't, I'll get in trouble.

Jimi: Aha! Just following "orders" are we? Just like a good little Eichman, yes? Just as the concentration camp guards were "only following orders!"

Theater worker: I don't know what you mean, sir. The rules say I have to see your ticket.

Jimi: Yes, first my ticket and then, what? A pink triangle tatooed to my forehead? Perhaps later, you'll want to inspect my teeth for GOLD FILLINGS!

Theater worker: Sir, I'm going to have to notify my manager.

Jimi: Fascist! Fascist Nazi Fascist! Shame on you, pimple faced ticket boy! SHAME!

252

@251

You feel Better? Good.......Now go get your Shine Box!

253

Hey, Jimi, you know what I heard?

I heard that the 16th amendment was never officially ratified! You know what that means? The federal income tax is illegal.

You don't have to pay it.

254 You feel Better? Good.......Now go get your Shine Box!

You have to admit that was pretty funny.

255 248
Last month the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that "police can enter private homes without exception." essentially negating a common law right of several centuries that a free citizen has a right to resist an unlawful entry into his home even when it is committed by the cops.

Posted by: Occam's floss at June 02, 2011 04:24 PM (Xv7f/)

 

it's that kind of crap that has me swing towards the libertarian side of things.

 

256

Posted by: Warden at June 02, 2011 04:25 PM (YtOmu)

Theatre Worker: Then Sir, as this is Private Property, and Private Property is protected under the Constitution, I will have to ask you to leave...

 

Apples... and Orangatangs... Government workers (Police) vs. Private property.

257 Posted by: Warden at June 02, 2011 04:25 PM (YtOmu)

That straw man might catch fire from all of the hot air around here.

258

@251

You feel Better? Good.......Now go get your Shine Box!

Posted by: Jimi at June 02, 2011 04:27 PM (JMsOK)

RACIST!

259 Posted by: Romeo13 at June 02, 2011 04:31 PM (NtXW4)

I owe you an apology or an explanation from a thread last week(?). I did not mean to suggest that you read Stormfront. That was meant for reactionary.

260

Pssst! Jimi!

Do you know why Andrew Carnegie gave all that money to help build libraries in America?

You know ... places where you share books. Where no one owns the resources. Where everything belongs to the community? 

That's right. It was to condition us against the idea of private property.

So we'd get used to not having personal belongings.

So we'd comply with their bullshit rules like their arbitrary checkout periods.

And slowly, surely...become their serfs.

It's true, Jimi. I read it on the internet.

261 I owe you an apology or an explanation from a thread last week(?). I did not mean to suggest that you read Stormfront. That was meant for reactionary.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 02, 2011 04:33 PM (LH6ir)

No problem.... wondered if that was a mis-paste or somthing.... I read it and went "huh?" LOL...

262 That straw man might catch fire from all of the hot air around here.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo

You guys are so literal.

You don't believe it says something about an individual's personality when they call someone a fascist just for having a different opionion?

On a right-wing blog, for crying out loud?

Really?

You know, just because you agree on the basics doesn't mean you have to throw in your lot with the shrieking hysteric.

263

In other words, I'm poking fun at what this ninny's outburst suggests about his likely real-world interactions.

264

You blamed the victim ... Shame on you!

Balderdash. I remember a time when people did what they could to avoid being victims. Nowadays, we've elevated victimhood to such a high level that people aspire to it.

Victims (true victims, in the old-fashioned sense) received our pity and our help, maybe, sometimes. Mainly, they had to get through whatever it was they were a victim of. This guy, however, is a modern victim -- that is, one of his own creation, the kind of victimhood that has more benefits than misery.

What actually happened to this guy, anyway? What horrors did this guy endure? How, exactly, is he a victim?

Or is he just a psychologically ailing attention slut, putting him in good company with other "victims" represented by the the ACLU?

265 Hi Wardan! How are you today?

266

"what this ninny's outburst"

I'm not the one Whinning...that happends to be you! 

267 Posted by: Warden at June 02, 2011 04:36 PM (YtOmu)

No. The straw man was you conflating a private transaction in a movie theater with a police stop.

268

Jimi,

Have you ever wondered why credit cards have 16 numbers on them?

I'll give you a hint: Tracking codes.

269

@268

How old are you?

270 Ace: "...But anything non-Weiner? Will be wrong. My theory of blogging is that if I tell you correct information, that's just feeding you. I want you to earn it, by realizing all the errors I've made.

See? It's interactive."

Not that everything previous to this didn't make me want to Tweet you a hockey pic due to the funnitude - because it did - but that ending made me want to do it naked.

Now that's funny.

271

You know what I'm getting sick and goddamned tired of?

The fascists at Burger King putting pickles on my Whopper when I EXPLICITLY TELL THEM NO PICKLES!

272

Why does ace need an email address for me to comment anyway?

Seems pretty goddamned fascist if you ask me,.

273

You know what else is fascist?

Crosswalks.

 

274

You know what felt great? The time I told the supermarket manager what a fucking fascist he was for not stocking Cheeseburger Lean Pockets.

 

275

Needing a little card just to rent a video, that's pretty fascist.

What's with all the numbers anyway?

 

I AM NOT A NUMBER!

I AM A FREE MAN!

276

You know what else is fascist?

Crosswalks.

But it doesn't stop in telling you where to cross the street. Now the walk signals have timers on them.

"He made the pedestrians run on time." In the future, that's what they'll say about the leaders of our time.

277 LOL, I'll repeat my stuff from earlier since it appears a lot of people don't read the comments:

1. There is no "right" to not providing an ID when requested by police.
2. You must give your name when requested.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District

I will also add that the recent Supreme Court ruling on entering a house when suspects were destroying evidence is not a new ruling. It used very old precedence in the "hot pursuit" cased history. Any time you have an 8-1 ruling with the commie scrunt being the sole dissenting justice you know it has to be open and shut.

278

Now the walk signals have timers on them.

Yes, and they're not long enough to walk across. They're trying to FORCE us to run in order to get us in shape and bring down health care costs.

Fascists!

279

@274

If you want to attempt to make fun....at least use the proper defintion of the word. All this childish crap you keep posting is making you look like an idiot!

You were properly classified as pertains to your original response. It is not my problem that your feelings are hurt. Although, I might add, that because your feelings are hurt so badly, maybe you should question whether or not you should be involved political banter at all. I might suggest HotAir, LGF, or even HuffPost might be a good fit for you.

Have A Nice Day! 

280

Have A Nice Day!

Who says I have to Have a nice day?!!!!

You?

Fascist!

281 I might suggest HotAir

That's over the line.

282

You know what felt great? The time I told the supermarket manager what a fucking fascist he was for not stocking Cheeseburger Lean Pockets.

This comment is truly indicative of deeply hurt feelings.

Brave, brave Warden, the victim of hurt feelings, commenting on, in spite of the forces that would deny him his rights. ...

283

in spite of the forces that would deny him his rights. ...

FASCIST forces.

 

284 Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District

I will also add that the recent Supreme Court ruling on entering a house when suspects were destroying evidence is not a new ruling. It used very old precedence in the "hot pursuit" cased history. Any time you have an 8-1 ruling with the commie scrunt being the sole dissenting justice you know it has to be open and shut.

Posted by: Vic at June 02, 2011 04:55 PM (M9Ie6)

Vic, my Boss, Conrad Hafen argued and won that case in front of the Supreme Court. He just left our office and is now a Justice of the Peace in vegas. Love this case!

285 Ever notice that when a cat licks its butt, one of its legs goes up like a Heil Hitler salute?

286 Vic, my Boss, Conrad Hafen argued and won that case in front of the Supreme Court.

Good deal. I thought her writeup in the dissent was absolutely classic. She essentially said the search and evidence was bad because they had time to get a warrant while the perps were destroying the evidence.

She obviously slept through the oral arguments.

287 JNap-If you see something say something. Or does that only pertain to Wal-Mart.

288 BGXZ BLOG

289 Kratos @117 - Wyatt is much too busy trying to get the latest Christina Hendricks restraining orders overturned.