Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Disturbing Video - Photog Vs. Police  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5276 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

This could be you.

http://discarted.com/

Just a couple of additional thoughts.

I think that one of the officers is quite fair, the other, not so much. He contradicts himself many times, the obvious being that he has the right to detain you if you are doing something illegal, but taking pictures is not illegal, so he has no justification.

Probably not a good idea not to swear. It is can be viewed as disrespect. Trust me, I know.

To a certain degree I think the photog is baiting the police, hence the video recorder. He knows he will be detained, yet he comes back for more. I think most people would figure something else out. I also think being sympathetic, and cooperative, with the police would have resulted in a different outcome.

[Edited 2009-11-11 08:02:50 by clickhappy]

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Unfortunatly its a case of lose/lose because, say someone sees someone taking photos and dosent stop that individual and the next day something happens, then that person would be scrutinized on why he didnt act. On the other hand, he stops an innocent one just to make sure its nothing illegegal, that person gets scrutinized and put on youtube as an example of the system gone mad.

Its very tricky indeed but i would rather be stopped or told thats not advisable and try to swallow the pride of embarrassment and try to understand the reason. I have been stopped a few times at Gatwick but after that few times and each time i was polite and said what i was doing and agreed to not poke the camera through the fence, then they left me alone.

As i say, its a lose/lose situation for them, or (if iam allowed to say it) They are damned if they do, damned if they dont so its a case of they would rather be doing it this way rather than ignore a possible event taking place.

In all cases, just stop taking photos or move away and be polite, wanting to take a photo or missing the opportunity is far much better than taking a risk of getting into trouble woth the law, however so exaggerated it may seem.


User currently offlinePackman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5234 times:

It seems to me that the photographer has gone out his way to put himself in a position where he is going to get stopped and then antagonises the police officers. The fact that he is secretly recording the event as well, in my view, supports this.

Just my take on it.

P.


User currently offlineAlevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 962 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5217 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Two mistakes on the photogs part.

First, I'm pretty sure you have to identify yourself/show ID when requested. Outside of telling them name, rank and serial number, you don't need to say anything. He initially refused to show ID.

Second, he did really well until the end when he started to swear. Not respectful.



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2888 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

I must say I'm on the side of the police officer here. He simply asked what he was doing and asked for ID. If the photographer had done so, things wouldn't have escalated. I've been stopped at airports on 4 occasions while taking photos, in pretty much similar instances as those in the video. If you act in a polite way, explain what you're doing and answer questions when asked, there isn't a problem. This photographer was obviously out to make this video and show the police in a negative way. About 1/3 of the way in, the police officer asked 3 times why he was taking the photos, and the photographer didn't provide an answer. I'd be suspicious at that point, let alone the police! He's a photographer rights complainer and out to prove a point - but this isn't the way to do it. He wasn't detained for taking photos, he was detained because the photographer wouldn't provide answers to his questions.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineINNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5160 times:

I agree the photographer was being an ass, and I don't think he'll get much sympathy through his little website either.

However, upon demanding to see ID, the cop justifies that with (free quote) "because I am sure al qaeda would love to buy your pictures and use it for terrorist purposes"......

I mean....COME ON!!!!  banghead 
Dead-stupid reason to demand ID.

Better would have been something along the lines of "because I am a police officer, it is my right to see your ID no matter what you do."  Wink



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5154 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I notice all of our responders are not from the United States. Here, you do not need to provide identification to a police officer (unless you are operating something that requires said ID) nor do you have to give them a reason for what you're doing. You do need to give them your name, though. Just because an officer asks you to do something does not mean they actually have the right to ask you to do that.

Of course, telling a power tripping officer to piss off isn't in your best interest, but he didn't do anything wrong or illegal to warrant the police bothering him in the first place.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineAlevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 962 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5116 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 6):
I notice all of our responders are not from the United States. Here, you do not need to provide identification to a police officer (unless you are operating something that requires said ID) nor do you have to give them a reason for what you're doing. You do need to give them your name, though. Just because an officer asks you to do something does not mean they actually have the right to ask you to do that.

Just because we are from other countries, doesn't mean some of us don't own property in the US and spend a lot of time there and have appreciation for the laws that govern.  Wink

Not to go off track significantly, but here is a primer on police "stops". This is from an attorney's blog, but there are other similar sources. So, yes, the police officer must have "reasonable suspicion", however, determining whether he really does or not won't likely be determined until in court after the fact. In this case, one could argue the officer has articulated that he has reasonable suspicion (al Qaeda nonsense aside).

From my point of view Dvincent is technically correct - yes you can legally refuse the request for ID. However, you run the risk of the officer pursuing the situation and ending up in a much worse scenario - in which you may eventually be proven correct, but have spent a LOT of time and money. So, unless you are a photog who actively pursues fine details of these rights, or are actually a terrorist, the simplest course of action would be to show ID.

Quoted section begins:
"For the police to stop you and require that you identify yourself they are required, at a minimum, to have "reasonable suspicion" that you have (or are about to) committed a crime. To conduct a Terry search, or a stop and frisk, police need reasonable suspicion that the person is suspected of imminent illegal behavior or past criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement; it is commonly described as something more than a hunch but less than probable cause. And what does totality of circumstances mean? It refers to an assessment based on all the circumstances, which includes objective observations, information from police reports, and consideration of the modes of patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers.

The United States Supreme Court has identified three types of police-citizen encounters: (1) consensual encounters, (2) investigatory stops, and (3) arrests.

Consensual encounters do not trigger Fourth Amendment protections. Florida v. Bostick (1991), 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389. During a consensual encounter, a law enforcement officer need not articulate reasonable suspicion and may approach an individual to ask questions, engage in conversation, check identification, ask for consent to search luggage, and so on. Id. So long as a reasonable person would feel free to ignore the law enforcement officer, the encounter is consensual.

Remember, police do NOT have to tell you whether they have "reasonable suspicion," or not. They burden on you is to determine whether you are free to leave.

So, as I have been trying to drum into all of you - you must ask. In other words, if you are stopped walking down the street and the police stop you and ask for your I.D., you should say: "If you are asking permission to see my I.D. I don't give you consent to see it - am I free to leave? If you're ordering me to give you my I.D., I'll comply."

What these magic words do is force the cop to reveal whether they believe they have "reasonable suspicion" to stop you, or not. This is important because many times cops will try to trick you into showing your I.D. (and consenting to searches, etc.) by consent when they have no "reasonable suspicion" to demand it. If the cop tells you he is demanding you show I.D. (implying s/he has "reasonable suspicion"), and in fact they do not, your lawyer may be able to get any evidence against you that they collected thrown out of court as inadmissible. "

Quoted section ends



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5076 times:

What did the guy expect when he acts that way to an officer? Give the man your ID and be nice about it, being a jerk isn't going to help your situation. I've been stopped at SAN before for taking pictures and i just calmly complied with what he wanted, answered some questions, showed him my pictures, and when he said i wasn't allowed to take pictures of the planes or at/around SAN i showed him the printout of an email i got from SAN airport authority giving me permission to take pictures and he left me alone.

Just be prepared and be nice to the guys, they're just trying to do their job even if they are wrong


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Alevik (Reply 7):
From my point of view Dvincent is technically correct - yes you can legally refuse the request for ID. However, you run the risk of the officer pursuing the situation and ending up in a much worse scenario - in which you may eventually be proven correct, but have spent a LOT of time and money. So, unless you are a photog who actively pursues fine details of these rights, or are actually a terrorist, the simplest course of action would be to show ID.

"You are technically correct, the best kind of correct!"   Also you are right about assuming based on people's listed countries, so I apologize.

However, the police tend to act in ways that are in their best interest, and not in those of their citizens. Many people are understandably jumpy.

I don't mind chatting up with a police officer. What I do mind are ones with the us vs. them mentality that everyone is out to break the law. The old adage about when the only tool you have is a hammer that all problems start looking like nails rings true. Instead of treating this guy like a terrorist, they should have realized that taking pictures in the LA Subway is not a crime (nor is selling pictures a crime either) and since he was not damaging or doing other things to the subway property, they shouldn't have even approached him in the first place. If he was mucking around with the subway infrastructure or going on to areas that he didn't belong, well, that's different - but he wasn't.

Yeah, this guy was a bit of an instigator, but that's how you draw attention to these things.

[Edited 2009-11-11 10:58:55 by dvincent]


From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1511 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

The guy was acting as an idiot. To me, it seemed like he was out cruising to make trouble with law enforcement. That said, I want to know how the cops know for sure that the LA subway system is a specific target. These guy's must be like freaking geniuses, and should get a job up with the CIA/FBI on some terrorism committee. These must be some really smart cops or something.


-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4950 times:

I think it was Mick Bajcar that said the (UK) police can do everything they are allowed to; so if you are aware of the details you can politely stand your ground. However, this bloke was being a bit of a dickhead.

As a caveat, all the run ins I've had with law enforcement have been nothing like this. Treat officers like human beings and they tend to be a great deal easier going. Security can be a different matter, as they tend to lack the framework and discipline that characterises police; i.e. they get aggressive and act outside of their respective mandates. The police can actually be an aid in these situations.

James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4940 times:

Quoting Dvincent (Reply 6):
Of course, telling a power tripping officer to piss off isn't in your best interest, but he didn't do anything wrong or illegal to warrant the police bothering him in the first place.

Power trip police officers are worth reporting to their supervisors - doing things strictly by the book. I would have thought that you can demand the indentification of them, and they have to give you that.

Certainly, I have to - if I'm asked, I have to provide my ID and identify myself if I'm working in my official capacity. Technically, I'm also supposed to have my name tag visible as well. (which I hate because I'm not on the front-line, and rarely deal with the public).

My dealings with Police aren't confrontational. They are just officers doing their job, just as I am. For me, it's like - we are on the same side, serving the public. If you are nice to me, I'm going to be nice to you. If you don't follow your code of conduct, I'll report you to your supervisor and follow the usual processes. Just like you could do to me, if I didn't follow the same code. Simple.

[Edited 2009-11-11 15:11:48 by cpd]

User currently offlineSoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

This is bull...another ACLU clown just trolling for trouble to prove his line in the sand can't be crossed. The officers had every right to query the photographer. Under normal circumstanses, most photographers would provide rational answers under these conditions. Guys like him make it difficult for the rest that really have an agenda behind the lens that is authentic. Answer the officers with a civil response...offer ID and they will let you go and excercise your right to photograph. I stopped watching half way through, so I am unaware if they cuffed this guy but I hope they did.  camera 

User currently offlineJetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2764 posts, RR: 33
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4808 times:

I am siding with the officer on this one.

Respect authority, show ID. If they tell you to leave, get their badge number and leave - argue with his superiors over the phone or in person, don't make life hell while detained. They won't detain you for reporting him later on.

Makes no sense to willingly put yourself in that situation, even if you are following the law in refusing to turn over information or not present ID.

Be a smartass when you don't have cuffs on you, argue your point when you aren't pinned up against the wall.

Yes Sir, Thank You Sir, May I have another?



No info
User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4801 times:



Quoting Jetmatt777 (Reply 14):
If they tell you to leave, get their badge number and leave

This is where I disagree. I have been told many times that you cannot take shots from a public place (ie sidewalk at an airport), which is flat out wrong. I wouldn't be as disrespectful as the guy in the video, but I will challenge an officer if they are flat out wrong.

Respect law officials, but don't take any crap either.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineDlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 543 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4788 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting INNflight (Reply 5):
"because I am sure al qaeda would love to buy your pictures and use it for terrorist purposes"

Why would they bother to buy them? They can download the pictures for free on the Internet:







User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4770 times:



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 9):
Yeah, this guy was a bit of an instigator, but that's how you draw attention to these things

Under normal circumstances I don't think the guy would have been such an arsehole. In a way you have to admire the way he 'frames' the police, which was his intention. The copper doesn't help himself either by quoting the law incorrectly. If you don't know, keep it shut (not least to save embarrassment). No normal person can be expected to know all the ins and outs of their job and sometimes it's best to give the benefit of the doubt rather than spout a load of bulls*it.

In summary, yes, the guy's being a d*ck, but the officer isn't helping himself. I this instance they're both as bad as each other.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 12):
If you are nice to me, I'm going to be nice to you

Exactly! At the end of the day police are public servants and I expect respect, which in turn I will offer back. There are far too many with a condescending attitude these days. The officer in the video I think starts off pretty politely but he soon descends into this "I am this, I am that..." lark. Of course the needlessly secretive attitude of the guy doesn't help matters but I would object to being told to 'take my hands out of my pockets'. He the teacher, me the pupil or something?

Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 15):
I wouldn't be as disrespectful as the guy in the video, but I will challenge an officer if they are flat out wrong.

Indeed. If someone in authority remains unchallenged it will set a precedent - how many of us can say we are allowed to be completely wrong frequently in our jobs? I know in mine it'd be considered incompetence and I'd likely face disciplinary action. Unfortunately allowing people in authority to dictate (incorrectly) the 'law' to us just makes them more immune and more oblivious.

I've politely challenged officers at my local (MAN) and once they checked everything out and found I'm nowhere I shouldn't be they've apologised and gone on their way. If I and everyone else just moved on without questioning it it would effectively reinforce the 'law'. Why have your day's photography ruined if you're doing absolutely nothing illegal? Answer their questions and let that be all.

Respect law officials, but don't take any crap either[/quote]

Quite. We're all human and, unless you get a real arsehole, they may be pleasantly surprised by actually talking to you.

Karl


User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4670 times:



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 17):
Quoting Dvincent (Reply 9):
Yeah, this guy was a bit of an instigator, but that's how you draw attention to these things

Under normal circumstances I don't think the guy would have been such an arsehole. In a way you have to admire the way he 'frames' the police, which was his intention. The copper doesn't help himself either by quoting the law incorrectly. If you don't know, keep it shut (not least to save embarrassment). No normal person can be expected to know all the ins and outs of their job and sometimes it's best to give the benefit of the doubt rather than spout a load of bulls*it.

In summary, yes, the guy's being a d*ck, but the officer isn't helping himself. I this instance they're both as bad as each other.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 12):
If you are nice to me, I'm going to be nice to you

Exactly! At the end of the day police are public servants and I expect respect, which in turn I will offer back. There are far too many with a condescending attitude these days. The officer in the video I think starts off pretty politely but he soon descends into this "I am this, I am that..." lark. Of course the needlessly secretive attitude of the guy doesn't help matters but I would object to being told to 'take my hands out of my pockets'. He the teacher, me the pupil or something?

Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 15):
I wouldn't be as disrespectful as the guy in the video, but I will challenge an officer if they are flat out wrong.

Indeed. If someone in authority remains unchallenged it will set a precedent - how many of us can say we are allowed to be completely wrong frequently in our jobs? I know in mine it'd be considered incompetence and I'd likely face disciplinary action. Unfortunately allowing people in authority to dictate (incorrectly) the 'law' to us just makes them more immune and more oblivious.

This sums up my feelings on the matter. Well said!



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineJetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2764 posts, RR: 33
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4609 times:



Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 15):
This is where I disagree. I have been told many times that you cannot take shots from a public place (ie sidewalk at an airport), which is flat out wrong. I wouldn't be as disrespectful as the guy in the video, but I will challenge an officer if they are flat out wrong.

Regardless if they are wrong or right, it is better to argue your point when you are not in handcuffs, detained, or in a position to be. Just say "I am sorry" and walk away, go to the police station and argue your rights there.

That is like in school arguing with the teacher over some rule that doesn't exist but you are being punished for. Just say okay, and go to the administrators and argue it when you are not in a position to be punished. If you argue with the teacher, you will probably get punished in some way, but if you argue it outside of the "hot zone" to an unrelated person, you are more likely to get heard.

I am not saying don't argue your rights, I am saying to do it when you aren't be in a position to be punished for it.



No info
User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4580 times:



Quoting Jetmatt777 (Reply 19):
That is like in school arguing with the teacher over some rule that doesn't exist but you are being punished for.

No, this is real life and there are things like 1st amendment rights in our country for a reason.

If every time you did what an officer in the wrong asked you to do, your rights would slowly start to erode away. I was a criminal law major in college and I know what an officer of the law can and cannot do. If they feel I am a threat or suspicious and want to do a field inquiry, that is perfectly fine. I will comply and show my ID, explain what I am doing etc. If they go on to say I can't stand in a public space and take photos, I will respectfully disagree, ask what statue, municipal code, or otherwise supports their thinking, ask for their badge number, and also ask to be put in touch with their watch commander or superior officer at that moment to clear the dispute. During my several encounters, it seems the officer knows they are wrong and will either change their story, finish up the field inquiry, and say have a nice day. I am not about to be wrongfully pushed around when I am entitled to certain rights under the law.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4577 times:



Quoting Jetmatt777 (Reply 19):
Regardless if they are wrong or right, it is better to argue your point when you are not in handcuffs, detained, or in a position to be

If you're not on the wrong side of the law I'd say that's a good position to be in when arguing your point. It is not right for me to have to give up on something I love doing simply because someone in authority isn't clued-up on the law.

In my experience, it's best to politely put your point across, and nine times out of ten when it all checks out you'll be fine. Bullying and harassment is an all too common method these days to get rid of people and authority is used to being obeyed. Why? Because most will just take their word and move on. Power game won. They rely on folk not asking questions and this ultimately gives officialdom more power - if people believe it to be 'illegal', there's nothing stopping it from becoming 'almost illegal'.

Take for instance the last guy who questioned me at MAN. He politely asked me to move and I politely refused. He got on his radio and they told him I was actually okay to be where I was. He won't hassle anyone again but had I not challenged this he'd probably be hassling photog's left, right and centre. With no-one to point out the facts this would slowly become set in stone.

Karl


User currently offlineJetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2764 posts, RR: 33
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4546 times:



Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 20):
No, this is real life and there are things like 1st amendment rights in our country for a reason.

I am aware of the 1st amendment and am a very big supporter of preserving our freedom which the socialists in Washington DC are trying to erode away. The teacher thing is an analogy, and I have been questioned in 'real life' about what I was doing. If an officer instructs me to do something, then I will do it, within reason. I have no desire to become an enemy of the police or a high profile person.

But, it also defines what you mean by argue and how you define it. What I mean by it is what the guy in the video was doing, he was asking for it. If you are pinned up to the wall, you should probably think about letting the officer know what you are doing instead of argue.

If you mean argue as in, questioning authority and being polite about it, then all means go for it. I would not recommend the attitude that guy gave, although he was not breaking the law.

It is all in what we mean by argue: Disrespectful, arrogant arguments; Or, respectful, firm, and polite arguments. I am talking about the former, you are talking about the latter I suspect. I do agree with you on the latter, I just don't think being pinned up against a wall is the best time to argue the former.



No info
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4546 times:



Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 20):
If they feel I am a threat or suspicious and want to do a field inquiry, that is perfectly fine. I will comply and show my ID, explain what I am doing etc.

That seems to be exactly what happened in the video - it started with the officer beginning what you call a "field inquiry". This photographer did not comply, did not show his ID and did not explain what he was doing, and he got a big hassle as a result. However, I suspect the hassle is exactly what he was angling for.

Also note that there are varying degrees of "public". About the most public places you can be are on a sidewalk or in a city park, and in those areas my tolerance for inquisition is quite low. However, once you set foot onto airport property or a subway station, while it's a pubicly-accessible area, it's property that's not public in the same manner as the sidewalk. Should the LA Metro choose to forbid photography in their stations, they could do so although they'd probably soon be met with an ACLU lawsuit. The ACLU can be maddening, but they were instrumental several years ago in overturning an NJ Transit rule forbidding photography of their trains.


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4423 times:

The photographer was being deliberately provocative, as well as being a donkey's orifice.

I have no problem in showing ID to a police officer (but then, in my country, ordinary police officers are not armed). They are not called "law enforcement" but are "guardians of the peace". There is a subtle difference.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
25 Bruce : Deliberately provocative - exactly. What a jerk. He basically went into that train station looking to get approached. He said that he works with the A
26 Avrich : This guy shouldn't be upset....he got exactly what he wanted. I was quizzed at LAX recently. I simply smiled and offered a reasonable explanation of w
27 Spiderguy252 : The photog was being extremely provocative. I mean, the least you can do in such situations is talk. Answer questions. If he believes that he hasn't d
28 Post contains links Contrail25 : I'm glad to see so many level headed mature folks around this forum when it comes to this subject. This photog is just an being an a$$ and is provokin
29 Cytz_pilot : I can see both sides. I think the guy went into the station ready for a hassle, there was no hesitation in his voice when he started with his 'no it i
30 Lexy : I agree with you there, but isn't that what lawyers are there for? They are the ones that can go to bat for you against individuals or municipal auth
31 Saintex : Finally got the video to download for me; pretty much as expected. Definitely a set-up, the photographer went out to demonstrate that if you openly ta
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon EOS 450D Vs? posted Mon Sep 7 2009 08:12:17 by Pilotalltheway
Nikon D700 Vs Canon 1D Mark III posted Sat Sep 5 2009 19:53:44 by Clickhappy
Cheap Nikon Ramp Lenses - 50mm F/1.8 Vs. 18-55VR posted Sat Jul 18 2009 08:44:50 by 2H4
Sling Bag: Lowepro Vs. Kata posted Wed Jun 24 2009 17:01:35 by SNATH
Full Frame Vs Cropped Sensors posted Sun Jun 14 2009 08:47:19 by Vishaljo
Adobe Photoshop CS3 Vs. CS4 Extended posted Thu May 21 2009 05:27:27 by WILCO737
Minimizing Vibration For Aerial Video. posted Sun May 10 2009 03:14:37 by Venividibxtchy
D60 Vs D200. posted Sat May 9 2009 23:00:35 by 03SVTCobra
Smart Sharpen VS USM And Raw VS Jpeg? posted Sat May 9 2009 16:58:41 by RonS
Canon 70-200 F2.8 VS. F4 Is? posted Sun May 3 2009 16:12:07 by RonS