Slashdot Mirror
Man Arrested For Taking Photo of Open ATM
net_shaman writes in with word of a Seattle man who was arrested for taking a photo of an ATM being serviced. "Today I was shopping at the downtown Seattle REI. I was about to buy a Thule hitch mount bike rack. They were out of the piece that locks the bike rack into the hitch. So I was in the customer service line to special order one. It was a long line and while I was waiting, I saw two of guys (employees of Loomis, as I later learned) refilling the ATM. I walked over and took a picture with my iPhone of them and more interestingly of the open ATM. I took the picture because I'm fascinated by the insides of things that we don't normally get to see. ... That was when Officer GE Abed (#6270) spun me around and put handcuffs on me."
It seems that he was arrested for being a smart ass. Not that it is a good reason to be arrested, but still an important distinction.
Your only defense is an attorney. Get one, sue for expenses and a letter of apology.
You you let people like this get away with it, it becomes the norm.
I know for some reason /. hates the fact that someone can defend themselves with an attorney is somehow wrong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They're in a public space; what's visible in public is fair game. What law would someone with a picture be breaking (hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
casing a bank. It's suspicious behavior. You can say "what's the harm", but they see it as you coming back later and using the information to crack open the ATM. If you aren't big on hot lights and cavity searches I wouldn't run towards the President waving your arms and yelling either. There's an element of common sense here.
If there isn't a law against it then I do have the right. Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
It is simply amazing how many companies don't understand the true power of the internet. As a result of one single incident like this, REI is going to lose many customers and many sales (I for one won't shop there any more until this gets resolved favorably). Bad news travels extremely quickly these days.
REI spends a huge amount of money on marketing - and this year's entire budget just got flushed down the toilet. Evidently they should spend a bit more on employee training. (Yes, the guilty parties in this case were from a subcontractor - but REI's own security personnel should have stepped in and done the right thing).
REI also promises a 24-hour response time to email - my (politely worded) email about this issue hasn't been replied to, 25+ hours and counting later.
Did they present you with any alternative version of the story?
While I admittedly don't put much faith in a story on a blog by some guy I've never heard of, I am (for the moment) more inclined to believe the person who went public with something that they would otherwise have had no reason to comment on over the officer who stands to come out looking like an ass.
This was on private property, though.
It looks more like being arrested for mouthing off to the cops. Tact not a strong point?
Maybe, maybe not... Yet, it's still not illegal to be a jerk. You CAN commit crimes WHILE being a jerk, but being a jerk simply isn't a crime.
Wait, are you saying that the police department's account is the only one you'll trust as accurate? The two sides of this confrontation will each have their own view of reality, and without other corroborative information, I'm not going to trust either account as being "what did happen."
[
Not to defend Officer Abed's overreaction (nor her probably violation of your civil rights) but when interacting a heavily armed lady who's authorized to use deadly force and deprive you of your freedom, it's absolutely the wrong time to cop an attitude. Save the "playing the 9/11 card" rhetoric for your blog.
When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?" If they can't give you a proper answer, you say, "I'm sorry, but if I'm not accused of anything, I don't think I have to talk to you."
Say these things in a respectful tone of voice. And then Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Getting into lame political arguments with a cop is not ever going to accomplish anything useful. On the contrary, arguments and self-justification can give them the legal hook they need to act against you. If you don't believe me, ask Randal Schwartz.
The guy takes the point of view that he was doing nothing wrong, and the rent-a-cops should have realized that, because it's not logical.
On the other side, you have two guys with guns and tons of money. Why do they have guns? Because people with tons of money tend to get robbed a lot. This isn't theoretical, do a search for 'armored car robbery' and you will see a bunch of them. So these two guys have more than a little concern. And in his mind, when someone takes a picture, he thinks, "this is not normal. Something could be bad." Is there a better way to rob an ATM? Probably. But thieves aren't always the smartest guys, and it is possible to think of a robbery scenario that would start with someone taking a camera. These guys are basically going to try to be as defensive as possible, because frankly, it is a scary job, and they could die.
The biggest mistake this guy did was to talk back to the police. Bad idea. Chris Rock did a public information announcement about how not to get your ass kicked by the police. Sure, sometimes police are overbearing and arrogant, and that is annoying, but the proper time to fight back against that is NOT when you are about to be arrested, and the proper way to do it isn't to be arrogant back.
Unless you have a serious reason not to, the best thing to do is cooperate with the police. Unless you want to spend the night in jail like this guy.
Qxe4
I don't see where he's saying that the Police Department's version is accurate. He's simply providing the information that they are claiming to have a different account of how things played out, and he's relaying that their media department can be contacted for a statement.
Nowhere in the story was he asked for his ID by the actual police officers; he was relating that he refused to present it to the security guards, which we both understand he was under no obligation to do. My perception of the officers involved as slimebags is unchanged.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Did they ask him to leave? I didn't see that in the article. It seems like A) the officer lied, or B) Implied something was wrong and got REI to make this claim.
Sounds fishy to me.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's just sad. And yet, when the cameras are pointed at us, we're reminded that no one has an expectation of privacy in public. Perhaps there are some yet uncorrupted people in power who see the contradiction?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
He should have said he thought they were breaking into it and he was taking a picture to send to the news and police and asked to see their identification. Only idiots would break into an ATM in front of people and not be wearing security guard uniforms.
Nope.. Just ref'd me to their media department.
Uhh.. so you called the police department, and the DESK guy essentially said "didn't happen like that, call our media people"?
Do you think that 3rd hand information (rent-a-cop-> cop on scene-> desk cop) who didn't really tell you anything is more accurate than 1st hand information?
AccountKiller
Are you saying it is illegal, or are you saying that you'll be illegally harassed for it? I agree that a law will be broken for taking a picture of an ATM's innards, but not by the person taking the photo...
Learn to love Alaska
Sadly, the police officers involved will go without punishment, the rent-a-cops will go without punishment, and the individual has an arrest on his record( even without a conviction it will still show up in a background check ).
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
He has an iphone and calls himself a "rail/rubyist" cause RoR isn't gay enough. He might have been looking to get manhandled.
And any of that excuses them in detaining him when he broke no law, how exactly?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The better reaction would have been to piss your pants and faint at having had a gun pulled on you. THAT, by the time it got documented by the supermarket and possibly even in ambulance and police records, would provide indisputable proof that something happened. Odds are Harry didn't file any kind of incident report and denied it even happened, so it would have been your word against his and he would have made you out to be a crank.
Unfortunately, in the heat of the moment and facing a gun held by someone who may or may not shoot, most people aren't up to creatively finding ways to escalate the situation in their favour. That's what Harry was counting on, and why *some* rent-a-cops will continue to get their jollies giving people a hard time.
That said, those guys have a hard job. They never know whether the person with the bag and trolley is planning to pull out a machine gun and rob them or buy some plums. Odds are it'll be the latter, but if I did that for a living I wouldn't want someone to have to explain the exception to *my* wife and kids. Whenever I see an open ATM, I try to keep a reasonable distance away just to give them some space and avoid making their job any harder.
I would argue that even if there is a law against certain things, you still have a right to do them.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Go ahead then. I guarantee you're going to need a lawyer though. I hope the fun is worth it.
It's not about "fun", and it's certainly not about taking the easy way out.
The fact is that if we want to HAVE rights, it's necessary to assert them. Do you really have a right to take pictures in public if you can be legally harassed, cuffed and hauled in for questioning for doing it? You do not.
Does it matter whether or not you can take a picture of an ATM? Probably not. But it definitely DOES matter that you aren't required to abide by the whims of random company employees, that they can't force you to identify themselves to you just because they don't like the way you looked at them. And it matters that the police be able to understand that citizens who did nothing wrong should not be harassed.
But if everyone is like you, if no one is willing to stand up, even though it's unpleasant, inconvenient and occasionally expensive, over time we'll lose the option of deciding whether we want to go along to get along or not.
Civil rights activists of all sorts are necessary, especially the ones who just want to take the opportunity to assert their right to remain more or less anonymous.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Only REI can be pressured by a public outcry. They tell loomis and the police to chill out. REI actually cares what people say and think while Seattle PD and Loomis could give a rats ass.
From the article:
The downtown Seattle REI is located at 222 Yale Ave N, Seattle, WA which looks like this. Their phone number is (206) 223-1944.
I called and asked them if REI was going to be posting their side of the story. When they said no they were not I let them know that neither me nor my family would be shopping there again since apparently it was possible to be arrested and harassed for doing legal things while shopping there.
They guy was very polite and said he would "pass that along" which is probably BS but if a lot of people called it would cease to be BS and they would likely apologize, change their policies and reprimand Loomis and the Seattle PD. In other words, for once, there is a chance that the good guy might win but it does require some people to pressure REI.
Being private property does not necessarily mean it is not a public place. A lot of that, in the legal sense, depends on whether or not the property, while privately owned, is generally open to the public or not.
of stupidity. Loomis, REI and police saw they didn't have anything good charges against him so they let him out with only a civil restraining order. This prove how stupid something like Homeland Security could be twisted way out of it original meaning to tag anyone that is taking photo to be "terrorist". How many "terrorist" are out the in New York taking a photo of the Statue of Library and the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. today.
The interesting quote from Shane's website from Officer Debra Pelic:
"Officer Debra Pelich (#5976)
Remember 9/11? I saw pictures of those buildings. One time when I was in Florida I was wandering around taking pictures. A security team came up and told me it was a high security restricted area. I wasn't supposed to be taking pictures there. I explained that I didn't know that, was a police officer, showed them my ID and complied with them. We cleared it up and I left.
Me (totally baffled)
Since you managed to pull the 9/11 card somehow, does that mean that everyone that took a picture of those buildings--"
When does standing at an checkout line at an retail store constitute a "High Security Restricted Area" and have relevancy to this situation?
Shane should get the ACLU and other freedom rights group and sue all three because they shouldn't not get away with this kind of stupidity.
He should have softened them up first with a base level social engineering attack something like:
Hey Buddy, I've just been learning how to service these, mind if I take a couple of snaps of this one to show my teacher, I've never seen this model before.
or
My boy is interested in the inside of these mind if I take a piccy so he can have a look?
The combinations of bullshit are endless but you get the point. Instead of being confrontational he could of said, Talk to you later? sure buddy. did his business forget it and walk out. If confronted again he could have diffused the situation, or he could have said Talk to you later? I'm not going anywhere in *this* line, what's up? if the security guard revealed he was upset about the pictures, he should of apologised profusely, said he would delete the pictures immediately, fiddle with the phone and not delete them, then look at the guard and say - all done - sorry about that.
It's obvious these guys motivation is 'wespect my horthorita' so he should have played on it and not looked like a threat, the guard might have just been interested in having a look at his iphone as much as he was interested in the inside of an atm. Instead the subject reinforced the marks insecurities by being confrontational instead of comforting them. Frankly whilst our subject probably didn't deserve the treatment he also brought it upon himself.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Being polite != helping. And when they stop being polite to me, I have no further use for being polite to them.
REI is private property. They have the right to serve a criminal trespass notice on anybody they think is being an asshole. I'm not sure, but I suspect that requires that they establish your identity. They do have the right to ask you to leave and not come back. I'm not sure why they didn't just call up the special order you just placed to ascertain your identity. I'm also not clear if they have the right to demand you give them ID just so they can file a complaint against you. I'd also expect that if REI won't let you do business with them, they should refund your membership fee. Personally, I make it a rule never to argue with anyone carrying a loaded weapon, regardless of whether or not they are "real" law enforcement. That being said, I don't believe the police have a case (unless he resisted arrest), and he will probably be handed a "no complaint" notice by the court. But he should consider himself lucky. Last time a cop decided he didn't like me and arrested me for driving the FRONT car in a rear-end collision, I got to spend the whole night in jail before going to work the next morning. And worry about it for a month before the court decided there was no valid complaint -- despite the fact that one of the arresting officers flat out lied in the report, putting words in my mouth that I had never said. (Why blame the accident on me? Because the woman who caused the accident, with 6 toddlers in the car without seatbelts, didn't have insurance.)
Anybody who actually claims to be an anarchist on their blog most likely does go around acting like an asshole with an attitude. When you cop an attitude, don't be surprised when karma bites you on the ass.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
We deny all responsibilities; it's not our fault, and we're prepared to defend ourselves against any legal actions.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You can call the cop a cocksucking piece of shit and there's jack she can do about it. Just don't scream in a public place so they can hit you with the generic "disorderly conduct" charge.
When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?
No, no, no. It's:
1) Am I free to go?
2) Am I being detained?
Rinse, wash, repeat. And, if the cop is being a cocksucking piece of shit, add
3) Call for another officer to come to the scene.
It's funny how people looking for trouble find it. Arguing with total strangers over political issues, never mind police officers, is one of those ways. What happened to simple respect? Political speech these days is all about bluster and not listening to what anyone else has to say. That works great in blogland but not so well with real people.
Showing a little respect for the person you are talking to gets you a long way. Police have to deal with lots of difficult people all the time, why on earth would you want to try to put yourself in the "difficult person" mental bucket the police officer has?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.
Seriously, and this kind of stupid crap happens in even far more innocuous circumstances ("it's illegal to take photos here sir <in public place where it most certainly isn't illegal>, you'll have to delete those pictures")... these days it's kind of like some kind of bizarro security-guard meme.
[Well, presumably it's the guards' idiot managers who are actually at fault; the guards probably don't actually come up with this shit spontaneously.]
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Folks,
Posting angry comments here on SlashDot can be recreational--but all the ranting and raving anyone does here won't make a bit of difference in the real world.
What WILL make a difference in the real world, of course, is taking advantage of all of the links so helpfully provided in TFA. All you have to do is send a polite email to some of the people involved, pointing out that the two Loomis employees acted really foolishly; that the REI "loss prevention officer" made REI look...well, like losers; and that the Seattle Police Department really, really needs to send a couple of officers off to Constitution Camp.
Here's the email I just sent to the U.S. headquarters of Loomis (employer of the guards who started this nonsense):
Civil rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, they waste away.
...people are going to see.
That's pretty much a "No duh!" situation there.
What if they guy had had a lipstick cam behind his ear? What if he just walked up to the techs while they were refilling the ATM and made smalltalk about how he used to refill ATMs as well? He could have gotten MUCH better snapshots and the techs would have been none the wiser.
If companies don't want people to see the innards of an ATM, then put up a curtain around them while you're refilling them. No, I'm serious. Walk into the place with a folded-up room divider and your boxes 'O cash, set up the divider around the ATM, and have one guy go inside and fill the machine while the other guy waits outside and watches everyone. Then you take down the divider and go back to the armored car. Simple.
That way if someone tries to take a picture of the ATM, it's really obvious that the techs are trying to keep it shielded and it's a lot easier for them to tell the person to stop and/or call the police on them.
Second, people who aren't law enforcement agents cannot generally stop or detain people. They may have a license to carry a handgun, and they may dress like a police officer, but they aren't empowered to act like an officer. If someone tries to talk to you or asks you to talk to them, politely refuse and walk away.
In this kind of situation, if a guy with a gun who is not a cop tells me that he wants to talk to me, I'd usually suggest walking away. Put down the purchases, hand them to a friend, ask the woman behind the counter to put them on hold for you, whatever. Just walk out of there.
The benefit of such a situation is that you get out of there, you clear your head, etc... and then you can go back and conduct your business later, hopefully when man-with-gun is gone. And if this armed person who is not a member of the law enforcement tries to detain you (an unarmed person walking away), then the cops, the court, the company, and the crowd around you (yes, I alliterated that for y'all) will probably be much more supportive of your actions.
Unless this guy with the camera was an active danger for them, then I don't see any reason for them to talk to him. The second the armed guys engage him they know that it will put him on the defensive, and considering the fact that there are two armed guys there, the power dynamic is going to get really bad, really quickly.
The only thing these guys should say is something like "please stand back from the ATM," "Please don't take pictures", etc... The only time they should engage with a civilian is when they are feeling actively threatened.
"The Loomis guys wanted me to give them my ID so they could write a report about me for their bosses...The REI security people that had been called in by now wanted the same thing.
Um...no?
Both Loomis and REI have lawyers. And my guess is that both teams of them are (correctly) telling every one of their employees involved in this incident to have a big slice of superglue pie. You can ask anyone for their ID, but only the police can make the request a requirement, and only in certain instances.
Would having the ID make life easier for the Loomis and REI employees? Sure. But so would having each store patron take off their clothes at the entrance to ensure that they aren't carrying-in weapons and aren't carrying-out shoplifted goods. I don't want to be subjected to either of these unreasonable privacy invasions by stores, so I won't patronize businesses that employ them.
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
The photographer didn't remove any cash or any other items. Had the Loomis guys tackled him, that would have probably been a threat of assault, followed by assault. Further, the guys are armed, which probably raises the penalty for both charges a few notches.
coding is life
Wrong, that's not a public place, that's a private place of business. Based upon the biased account on the sight, it looks a bit questionable as to whether he was being honest.
I walk by the Loomis guys at work frequently and I'd never pull a stunt like the writer did. For one thing if somebody were to later on mess with or rob the machine, guess who's going to be on the list of suspects.
being a smartass to a gun toting bully?
First, they are usually armed. Second, they have the ability to detain you (granted they will need to figure out somewhere to ditch the body if they want to kill you but they can interrupt your pulse), and third, their job sucks for the most part.
So where do people come off with the idea that it is OK to be anything but polite with them? Frankly if your a smartass to me I won't help you. I won't even talk to you. At least I am not armed; well not as they are. The difference is that regardless of how much an asshole someone else is there is never an excuse to anything but polite in return. This is especially true with people who are doing their job.
There, fixed that for you.
Who gives a fuck? He can be a "smartass" to anyone he wants. It's not illegal.
This quote from TFA strikes me as both taunting and smartass-y:
I told them plainly that I'm not in the habit of giving my ID to people just because they want it, especially fake cops who put money in box and get to play at being real cops.
Of course it's not against the law. Just as her detaining him was not technically against the law, just bad procedure for which she may get fined...
But basically who wouldn't give up a little comfort to put down a smartass?
Also there's nothing illegal about recording a *public* scene, whether it's with a camera or using your photographic memory.
I am a part time photographer so I know that well. I also have enough sense to understand the implications of what I am doing. Heck, I would photograph the inside of an ATM too - but I'd expect the police might get interested and I'd explain calmly what I was doing, but I'd be OK with being detained over it even if I knew it was wrong. Sometimes they don't know after all, and it's pretty pointless to bitch much about other people's ignorance (at least if you want to live a happy life).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He looks like a douchebag? Thankfully, no one on slashdot looks like a douchebag or behaves like a douchebag.
There are several very important differences there. First is that a police officer is a public official with significant power, and thus should be held to a significantly higher standard than any random person. Second, detaining someone is much more severe than being a minor smartass.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century,free flow of information is the only safeguard against...
You are in no way required to be polite or even talk to a cop. He may be nicer to you, and may choose not to exert his right to detain you to question you, which would be beneficial, but that doesn't mean being an ass is illegal or even wrong. Especially when he was being fucked with for doing nothing wrong.
:(){
The smart ass here was the one who said he was going to "tackle" him. He could have said "detain you" or even "make a citizen's arrest" (although, the legality of that detention or arrest would still have been debatable, but at least those words would have been a lot less threatening), but "tackle" you? Come on, give me a break. That's such the wrong word to use for someone who's currently waiting in line, going about his business, and who's not about to leave anytime soon anyway.
Actually, according to The Stranger (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/05/12/police-arrest-man-for-taking-photo-in-rei), either REI that's lying or the cop is guilty of several crimes. The former is decidedly more likely (what cop fills out paperwork they don't have to?).
About 10 years ago, at a local Target, they were refilling the ATM machine. I was also fascinated with the inside of the ATM, but the security guard didn't allow me to go anywhere near to the machine to see the inside. In fact, the security guard politely, but firmly asked me to leave, otherwise, he told me that he would take me away.
So, based upon what I have experienced, it's no surprise that they arrested somebody for taking the photo.
... being a smartass to a law officer?
When said officer is dumb enough to not know the most basic rights U.S. citizens enjoy under the Constitution?
Also, in case you missed it, he wasn't asked for the ID by a police officer. He was asked for the ID by a private security guard, who proceeded to call the cops when refused; and when the cops arrived, they wanted him to hand over the ID to that same guard, not to them.
The point is, he went out of his way to take the picture. He even admitted to it.
And this is reason to be detained....why, exactly?
I go out of my way to take pictures all the time. If it's a cool thing to take a picture of, then I'll do what it takes, within reason, to get a picture of it.
And walking a couple of dozen feet across a store isn't exactly going a long way out of his way.
The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Police do not have the "right" to detain anyone. Police are granted special powers by the people through the government in order to protect the people. These special powers are not a right, they are a tool that are required to be used in the least obstructive way. A police officer can seize the immediate legal control over a situation but there will be hell to pay later if that is abused. The more power an officer uses in the moment the more scrutiny is going to be used on him later.
For example if a cop tell you that you must not leave he is using some power and nobody will bat an eye. If the cop cuffs a person and questions them he is using further power and can possibly get in trouble if he does it wrong. If a police officer tackles a person then cuffs them he is going to be further scrutinized. If a police officer beats or shoots or sprays pepper spray on someone then detains them they will of course fall under further scrutiny. Any of those actions can be abuses or legal uses of their power under different situations.
He might have been carrying a driver's license, but we do not have identity papers in this country. You are under no obligation to use your driver's license, should you happen to have one, for anything but driving a motor vehicle; and certainly not to show it to anyone other than a police officer and only when you are driving.
If you look at the picture, the rent a cops were armed. If you read his description, they also threatened him with violence.
IANAL, and am still going through the RCW on this, but I think this is a case of Felony False Imprisonment and intend to contact DA Hynes about this abuse of a fellow citizen.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
It is quite likely that this guy was being more of a dick than he was letting on, and the police and the rent-a-cops were more out of line than they were letting on.
I don't know... From this guys blog, at least how I read it, he was being quite the dick, and wasn't exactly hiding that fact.
I happen to think he should not have been put in the position to have to choose to be a dick or not however, if the rest is accurate at all.
I can fully believe that the rent-a-cops overreacted and came to some silly conclusions about the situation.
But when the police officer arrived, it should have been obvious it wasn't a crime, wasn't threatening, and wasn't an issue.
These are the people whos job it is to enforce laws. Isn't Knowing the law a prerequisite?
Was acting as if the security guards and the cops were on the same team or something. It's pretty clear that the security guards were being paranoid fucks, but I suspect a bit of conversation took place before the cop brought up 9/11 and you spazzed out on her.
Consider things from the perspective of the police. They probably think the security guards are as much of a pain in the ass as you do, but a call has been made, and they HAVE to resolve things one way or another. Rent-a-cops bickering with a customer at REI? Please. If you had sounded like it was all a big misunderstanding and that you just wanted to finish your purchase and leave, I very much doubt the cops would have gone through the trouble of hauling your ass in.
I think any of the following actions would have been advantageous:
1) Inconspicuously email the photo somewhere and then delete it off your phone. Claim that the security guards were mistaken. Of course, releasing the photo would prove that you lied, but you still "won."
2) Walking out of the store on your own. If you ever manage to provoke a rent-a-cop to batter you for doing nothing, on security camera, in front of an entire store, then that's a lawyer's dream.
3) Calling the cops yourself. You have no idea how much being the first one to call will tip the situation in your favor.
4) Sucking up to the cops. You could have portrayed yourself as the victim of aggression, apologized profusely and just stated your desire to make your purchase and leave (or even just leave).
At the end of the day, you can't forget that no matter what you think of "peace officers", they weren't your enemy here - they were a neutral third party that YOU alienated and the rent-a-cops successfully used against you.
That being said, it's pretty clear at this point that your objective should be to get REI to use a different security company. Nobody wants to shop at a store that hires jackbooted thugs that harass the customers, and I think you make some inroads there.
I dunno, reaching into my bag, pulling out something and throwing it at some guy holding a gun at me doesn't seem like a good idea.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
Careful.
The United States was founded by several people who were widely considered to be "smartasses". There's a nice portrait of one of them on the hundred dollar bill.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Private Police can make citizens arrests. This means they can arrest you if they have reasonable reason to believe that a felony was committed. In most states, you can also arrest for a misdemeanors committed directly in your presence.
Off-duty cops sometimes do side jobs as private police. In this case, they have the full authority of real police officers.
None of this seems applicable here, though. There's no law about taking pictures of an open ATM. The most they can do is ask you to leave. Personally, I would have walked away as soon as the rent-a-cop admitted to not being a real police officer. If I got tackled, I'll happily get a lawyer and sue.
Not a typewriter
Well, no they can't and yes it's illegal. The police has to have a reason to believe that some law was being broken or that the person was about to harm themselves or someone else in order to detain someone. They cannot just walk up to you and handcuff you while demanding identification. This is true whether your being an ass or not and there are numerous supreme court cases surrounding this.
And while a cop won't be arrested for the unlawful detainment, he will see disciplinary action and a right to a lawsuit most likely has opened up. The police has to have a reason to fuck with you period. You being on a public street or in a public area is not reason on it's own. Being a smart ass or a jerk is not reason either.
Agreed.
Here is how you interact with police:
1. "Am I under arrest?"
2. "Am I free to go?"
3. "I require a lawyer before I have anything else to say"
In my completely non-expert, yet relevant experience with police, there really isnt much to say beyond this.
What if you have information that will help them? I live in a relatively high-crime neighborhood, and I've had quite a few interactions with the local police regarding crimes committed in my neighborhood or by my neighbors, everything from simple assaults, hit and runs, and drug dealing all the way up to homicides. Granted, I was never treated as a suspect, but I was happy to relay all the information I had to the cops, since I have a vested interest in decreasing crime in this neighborhood.
I agree that if you are a suspect or could possibly become a suspect, it is usually best to remain silent. Otherwise, though, help the cops if you can. In my experience, most cops are decent people who are trying to make the community better.
Or use your iPhone to phone the police for the armed man issuing threats of violence.
I don't think that was his point. He wouldn't be "okay" with it, but you have to weigh your odds of winning against an armed cop, who probably called in 5 of his buddies for backup. Better to just cooperate silently, rather than yell and throw a temper tantrum. After you get released, then you can strike back (with a lawsuit).
Look at Ghandi and Martin Luther Kingr. They both spent a lot of time in jail, and I'm sure they weren't happy about it, but they did eventually win. You lose today's battle, but you win the war over the long term.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
they're little more than a private citizen, they need clear cause to draw their weapon on you
Just to be clear, police officers also need a clear cause to draw their weapon on you. And, actually, the valid causes are no different for police, security guards or Joe Blow. In practice, police get a little more latitude for merely drawing, but if they point a gun at you without good reason, it's aggravated assault, just as if they were a private citizen.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
To say nothing of putting up this story wihtout giving REI or Loomis a chance to apologize. In general, you should give companies a chance to make amends before you publicize bad behavior on a couple of employee's part and damage their reputation.
It's not uncommon to have a few idiots on payroll. Wait until you know how they'll react so you can include it in your blog.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
They cannot detain you from leaving unless you've stolen their property (like Levis jeans) which is not the case here.
In most cases they can't even stop you then. They can follow you while talking to the cops on the phone, but they can't physically detain you unless you are posing an immediate physical threat and it is an attempt to stop that threat.
We already know why.
The REI guards thought the Loomis guards had a legal right to do what they were doing... probably with less information than we have now. The REI corporation never heard about it until this blitzkrieg, so the comments are filling up with "OMG, REI iz teh evil0r" while REI "no comments" until they figure out what the hell is going on.
In a month, they'll have sent an apology and to the guy, and have lifted the ban.
Slashdot won't run that story on the front page, so 99.99% of the people pissed off at REI will never hear about it... if the original blogger even bothers to inform anyone of it.
It's pretty unfair to REI.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
So?
Good god, heron, you are accepting as given that this ATM guy has some kind of natural right or authority over the blogger.
I believe a private citizen's freedom of speech - especially directed at someone who initiated the conversation and is trying to assert nonexistent authority over a private citizen - trumps this ATM guy's... his... uh... his what exactly? His Constitutional right to be deferred to by mere mortals?
No.
If you approach talk to me, and i say "go away," and you still talk to me, and i say "really, go away, not interested," and i leave, and you follow me, and i say "fuck off already," you are not the injured party. You are, in fact, harassing me. You have not been solicited to anything. You are, in fact, being told quite plainly that i am not interested in interacting with you at this time; and, as you are simply some working schmuck same as me, you have no greater rights than I. I don't care if they make you all dress alike. That doesn't mean shit.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
hey Sadler121
good post. but not complete. I'm no lawyer and this is not legal advice. The law is different in all 50 states, each one has different cases that may have made it to the state court of appeals.
In Oregon they just tried to pass a stop and ID law. These laws should really be called stop and say your name laws or get a ticket laws.
In Oregon a cop can manipulate you within the law. They can ask you your name, and you don't have to say your name. THey can't write you up with a citation for that alone, but they can hold you for a short time and make your life miserable.
And as most people here have said. THe #1 thing to say is
"am I free to go"
It works on so many levels.
Here is the oregon proposed law, it failed. Half way down the page, aka Democrat Jeff Barker woof woof
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/in_other_news_/Content?oid=33205
Look at Ghandi and Martin Luther Kingr. They both spent a lot of time in jail, and I'm sure they weren't happy about it, but they did eventually win.
um, didn't those guys get shot without seeing the fruits of their labor?
"Should have" in what sense? Yes, what he did provoked further complications. Nevertheless, what he did was legal and correct. What REI and the police did probably was not.
The freedom to photograph things and not get arrested for it is very important in our society, and it's getting more important as everybody now carries cameras.
What if you have information that will help them? I live in a relatively high-crime neighborhood, and I've had quite a few interactions with the local police regarding crimes committed in my neighborhood or by my neighbors, everything from simple assaults, hit and runs, and drug dealing all the way up to homicides. Granted, I was never treated as a suspect, but I was happy to relay all the information I had to the cops, since I have a vested interest in decreasing crime in this neighborhood.
In that case, it's too bad that they got themselves a reputation that you can't talk to them without risking your own liberty and property. And as far as "if you are a suspect or could possibly become a suspect", well, that's everyone, isn't it?
I am not a crackpot.
I do IT for a small city, which includes a police department. I get the opportunity to chat with the police folk about any number of things they've encountered, and there are two very important things to remember.
1. There are any number of mundane and ambiguously worded laws that they can use to arrest you resulting in fines or jail time.
2. There is a lot that an officer can do that is rather harassing, but perfectly within their legal rights to do. For instance, the ATM photo guy, they could go around and ask all of his neighbors about him, and if he's been known to have been involved in any thefts or illegal activities. It can be inconvenient for all of your neighbors to suddenly suspect the worst of you.
There is no legal requirement to be nice to police officers (or anyone else around you), but you may find your life a lot better if you do.
I've found the Seattle Police Department to be very non-dickheady.
Go 10 miles in any direction and the story completely changes. But the Seattle police department tend to be pretty cool. And they're fast. Freakishly fast. I had to call 911 last year to report an assault in progress and they arrived in less than 40 seconds. I saw an accident last week and before I could even make a U-Turn to go a block around a patrol car had already pulled up and was checking on the drivers.
They seem more interested in keeping traffic moving than making some sort of ticket quota. In all of my interactions they've been incredibly friendly and bent over backwards to be patient.
I don't know anyone personally in the police department and I'm not in any way employed. I've just been so pleasantly suprised and impressed by the Seattle Police Department since moving here that I think they deserve some recognition for not being complete pricks like other places I've lived (I'm looking at you Lynwood PD).
Because I'm tired of people telling me, because I support a small constitutionally-limited government, that I should leave the United States. *They* are the ones who should leave, not me, because they are the ones who don't support the founding principles.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>It's pretty unfair to REI
That's okay. They also took a quarter-billion dollar bailout from OUR wallets. That's pretty unfair too, but I don't see REI apologizing for that theft of our labor.
IMHO when it comes to government and corporations, who routinely misappropriate or waste our tax money, they have no rights to fairplay. They play dirty, so we should play dirty too.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Which is why I dislike tasers and pepper spray. If used properly, they are a wonderful alternative to lethal force in many situations. However, because they AREN'T guns, police are more likely to use them in situations where they really shouldn't. There is never a reason to stun someone who is not a threat. There are stories about police using tasers and pepper spray to force compliance with police orders from individuals already in custody ("do what we say, or we'll hurt you", sounds like torture to me).
Police need to be able to control situations when it is needed, but they also are human and as prone to anyone to abusing power. Whenever an officer discharges a taser, there should be the same type of review as if they had fired a gun.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
This email was the first thing that came to my mind. I don't really see anybody looking from the ATM refiller's perspective; I am sure they have been told to record events like these; and for this exact reason they had the incident report.
Oh? Recording the incident involves cuffing the guy?
A simple "I took a photo of your ATM because I like to learn how the insides of things work; Would you like me to delete the photo from my iPhone and Google it when i get home instead?" should have sufficed.
A simple "If you didn't want people seeing the inside of your ATM you shouldn't have opened it up in front of a crowd of people. Oh, and if you think I'm going to delete the photo you're in for some disappointment" should have sufficed. The security guard should then proceeded to tuck his dick between his legs and hobble back to tell his boss how he should be fired for being clinically stupid.
Your post doesn't compute. Thinking about this from the refiller's perspective, I can't imagine how the guy was actually following any sort of well thought out procedure. If you don't want somebody seeing how your ATM works, make sure they're not standing there before you start mucking about with it. And of course people get upset about this kind of thing. You're reading a site where a fair percentage of the readership could find themselves in the same situation. This isn't about some random guy getting arrested for being a "smart-arse"... This is about seeing ourselves in the same situation, and not wanting to be arrested for it. Last I checked, being a "smart-arse" isn't illegal, but cops abusing their power to intimidate somebody is.
Think about how many people this happens to. Then think about how many have money enough to hire a lawyer to sue them and even then their overall success in winning would still be slim.
Around here a person can usually be detained for no reason at all for about 3 days. Maybe just to scare you into talking or something like that but they don't have to tell you their reasons unless you are charged. They can hold you under suspicion for a while. The FBI can do this for a very long time when they wish (K. Mitnik or some other person that scares them).
Actually, if they want to keep people from taking pictures and seeing the inside of a ATM machine, then they should service the thing behind a protective screen barrier that prevents casual observance and photographing.
The relatively new phenomenon of cameras everywhere is going to take a whole new approach to how we do things.
Both sides of this can be assholes, but a little polite behavior would solve all sorts of problems, even if it takes a tad more effort to accomplish. However, the assholes of the world (on both sides) are already screwing it for everyone else.
While you have a right to be an asshole, you should expect people to be assholes back to you if you are one.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Not if you've opened your property up to be accessed freely by the general public. In those instances, you should have to have valid cause.
Why? It's still private property. I should be able to give a blanket invite to anyone, and specific revocations of that invite.
Should malls be allowed to exclude people due to the color of their skin?
In my mind it should depend. A sole propriatership should be able to do what it wants. It's the owner's private property, and they assume all risks and liabilities. A corporation or LLC though should have abide by whatever we want them to; thats the price they pay for greatly reduced liabilities. I realize that's not how things are, but I'm talking about how I think things should be.
In any case, your specific objection isn't quite the same either; in one case you're ruling out a class of people, in the article though a specific person was told to not trespass, and in any case anyone should be able to forbid any other individual from entering their private property for any reason.
While you have a right to be an asshole, you should expect people to be assholes back to you if you are one.
Yes, but these weren't people, they were police officers. Just like normal assholes, when they break the law, they should be held accountable. This isn't The Law cuffing a guy--he had not broken any law--but just some bloke with a gun and handcuffs randomly assaulting someone. And as such he should probably be locked up.
Furthermore, "a little politeness" in this case would perhaps not reveal an abuse of power. It's important for people to be assholes to those in power when the former are clearly in the right, to make sure that the latter are sufficiently grown up and wise to do what society trusts them to do.
Of course, my own little opinion is that those with more power ought to be held to a higher standard. Police officers in uniform breaking the law with police equipment ought to be fired, fined, and jailed. Politicians should be squeaky clean. The rich ought to be held to a higher standard than the poor... *wistful sigh*
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
> I don't know what is up with America.
Unlike Australians, we vigorously defend our rights and demand that our elected and appointed officials be held to the highest standards of conduct.
> A simple "I took a photo of your ATM because ..." should have sufficed.
The rent-a-cops (and yes, it is not a well-respected position here in America, probably because of incidents like this one) escalated the situation when the photographer refused to provide identification. They had no right to demand his identification and the photographer was under no obligation to give it to them. That was he led away in handcuffs after this incident is an abuse of power and those responsible for it should be punished.
If they are abusing power, then the best way to deal with it is to LET THEM, and report it.
Sure, cause bullies always learn not to abuse their power by being allowed to do so, right?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
First off, forget the barriers. If it was safe for an individual to look at, then it should be safe for a picture. Privacy or security through obscurity is the worst kind because you have the impression you're protected when the exact opposite is true. If the layout of an ATM is secret, it should never *ever* be opened outside of a controlled environment. Cameras haven't change anything other than removing the false sense of security a bit.
Second - you're right that a little bit of kiss-ass probably would have avoided this situation.
Third (and WAY more important than #2) - there's no legal justification, no constitutional requirement, no valid reason why being an asshole should result in the laws being enforced any differently. If the law states XYZ, then XYZ is the law. It's not supposed to matter if you're mother theresa, an unwashed douchebag with a missing leg, black, white, rich, poor, smart, or stupid. Any time consideration like that comes into play, it's discrimination and a corruption of our constitution. "All men are created equal"
Finally - Cops receive 'asshole' training. They're taught NOT to react to silly taunting, to keep their personal feelings in check and to act in the responsible manner their position requires. Granted most seem to consider that training a joke. Still, a cop is SUPPOSED to be an impartial 3rd party acting on behalf of our judiciary system.
Allowing the dick swinging that leads to things like this...is one of several steps to outright oppression. Once you have to treat the cops as "better" people and go out of your way to obey them regardless of the law you're on a very dangerous path to oblivion. Which civil liberty should we kill off first? Privacy? Speech? Protection from unreasonable Search and Seizure?
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Update to his blog, published before your post, indicates that the manager already explained that he doesn't know who claimed the guy was banned, but he is not.
The manager isn't omnipotent. Publicizing forces the company to be defensive.
If nothing happened, then publicizing make sense, but you have to give it time to percolate up to the manager by bringing it to her attention and/or corporates'. But give the entity a chance to fix it first.
And yes, it could be publicized about the cops. But you can wait a few weeks. Why not give the department a chance to censure the cop first.
You presented no rational for publicizing it to the world before making a formal complaint.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Interesting, may be so... I have been robbed once, but I only had one dollar on me, so I didn't call police and the robbers got away (I had to comfort my date too). So, no, I don't have much first-hand experience. I still think, an account of an off-duty copy moonlighting as the store guard might be considered heavier evidence and police can give you really "hard time" even without doing anything illegal. If their buddy asks them to rough you up, they will. Sadly, without such powers, they can't be as good against real criminals as the public wants them to be...
Lastly, I don't think a search warrant is required to search a car...
Besides, what if you are still on the mall? Even if you run to your car, it may take you a few minutes to get out of eyesight. All I am saying is, while refusal to cooperate with the policeman is not in itself a probable cause, a store's complaint of theft is... The complaint will eventually prove bogus, but the police will be justified in investigating it — and stopping/detaining you in the process...
If you want to harass the store guards, you can, although I — being a libertarian — would rather you just don't go into a store, whose policies you disagree with. But you should cooperate with the official police. If the cop is wrong, you can complain about him later. You may also want to return the merchandise to the store right away in protest.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.