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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
We deny all responsibilities; it's not our fault, and we're prepared to defend ourselves against any legal actions.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
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
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.
There are a lot of stupid self-trained legal "experts" on Slashdot, but you have to be the stupidest.
Rather than argue with you, I'm going to propose a very simple experiment. Walk up to a cop and call him a cocksucking piece of shit. Then we can determine exactly what they can do about it. I really encourage you to try this. If you're right, then you will have had the satisfaction of proving me wrong. And if you're wrong, then I will have satisfaction, period.
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.
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?).
... 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.