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."
FML
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.
...that people who are stupid enough to pay Apple's inflated prices for their products really are stupid.
Probably just for show, with no past history and no way to show intent they have to let you go. Of course there are those of us who would say 'if it's a secret then don't do it in the open'
as the song goes
I'm curious for what? Cops still have to enforce a LAW, not just a suspicion.
The on duty desk officer assured me that it did not happen today, it was a few days ago. The officer is employed there. And he also assured me that the facts as they were being presented were inaccurate.. However, you can call their media unit at (206) 684-5520 for more information.
By the way, they're getting slashdotted!
Really now. You think you have the right to take pictures of an ATM's innards? Try taking a picture of an armored car interior when they're delivering money to the bank. See how that turns out.
I would suspect they might arrest you however it is if they press charges that really counts. The First Amendment protects photography. There is a stupid doctrine of check for "newsworthiness" but that's just a bunch of stupid activist judges overstepping their bounds. The real truth is that per the Constitution of the United States you can take any photo you want so long as you are on public property at the time and there is no expectation of privacy ( an example would be taking a photo of a nude sunbather in their backyard from a helicopter).
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
The courts have ruled many, MANY times that when you are in public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, I'd sue the snot out of everyone and anyone who was responsible for my arrest
Since it sounds like there were a bunch of witnesses around, why not get statements attesting to the fact that none of the REI employees asked him to leave, and then sue the pants off the police dept.?
The only wrong thing you could be doing that would require an arrest is refusing to leave the store when asked.
Also, I would have started talking about how it's legal to keep records of anything in public view, not to exclude putting a GPS unit on a car without a warrant, etc.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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.
I can see one of them might have been of "Native American" heritage and it might be possible that he thought you were taking his soul... or not.
It looks more like being arrested for mouthing off to the cops. Tact not a strong point?
Another dangerous idiot in "law enforcement",plus the idiot that hired him.
It seems that he could have saved himself a lot of grief by just going home and looking up pictures of the insides of ATMs on the internet.
As his own article shows, it's not like they're hard to find. But hey, fight the power and all that.
Exactly which law do you think he was breaking ?
Or, for that matter, would be breaking by taking a photo of the interior of an arnoured car ?
I'm not suggesting that in either case the owners/operators would be happy about it, but the job of the police is to enforce the law, not to make one group happy at the expense of another (unless the two groups are law-abiding-citizens and criminals, of course :) ....
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
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.
I was in the supermarket and the ATM was right next to the produce section. I had a cart, a bag in my hands and was getting ready to pick out some plums which were right next to me when the Brinks rent-a-cop decided he was Dirty Harry and told me to back away. I sent them an angry letter and got no response.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
...have him walk walk around his local town for 7 days wearing an "I love Steve Ballmer" T-shirt and insist he has to make at least 5 mobile phone calls every hour on one of those really old mobile phones where you carry the phone in one hand and the "portable" battery pack in the other, with a black curly plastic-covered cable connecting one to the other.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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
Article says that REI is having him charged with trespassing and he can't go back for a year.
Which makes sense since he was on private property, and we don't know what the photo policies are.
For those who might want to make their feelings known, here is the contact page" for the Seattle PD and for REI (who banned the photographer (their customer) for a year from the premises.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Ya know, there had better be more to this story that it appears, otherwise somebody needs to get their ass sued.
Now I'm normally a 'first we kill all the lawyers' type and would normally support the cops on the grounds they are too hamstrung by stupid lawsuits and even dumber (or should I say evil? Yes I should.) judges who take the side of criminals over upholding the law. But there IS a line, and this case just has 'abuse of power' stamped all over it and somebody needs to get punished for it. The arresting officer and his superior obviously, and whoever was the officer in charge back at the station who allowed the situation to continue there, all need a demotion.
Democrat delenda est
....Unless the US is in a state of declared war. Then you cannot photograph any military or government facilities or installations.
Since when has the United States been in a state of declared war? Every "war" since Korea has been fought as a police action.
Don't talk to the police! When are people going to get this through their thick heads? There is one question you need to ask the police: "Am I free to go?" and maybe a followup of "Am I being detained?" which is the same question, really. If they say yes to the first, you walk away. If they so no to the second, you walk away! Don't try to justify your actions, you're not required to. Don't try to be smart, or demand your "rights". And don't, under any circumstances, answer any questions.
Personally, I blame all these cop shows on tv. The "interrogation" scenes make for good drama, but only stupid people talk to the police.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Where your money was more highly regarded than were your rights.
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
Dear Bill
Since you have left day to day operations at Microsoft you have probably dropped off a few email lists, specifically in this case "Talking Points vis a vis Apple Computers". Please refer to this as the "Apple Tax" in all future communications.
Sincerely,
The Marketing Department
Seattle Police are out of control ...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009209116_arrest12m.html
Fucking terrorists!
I wrote REI yesterday to express my disapproval and this is the form letter I got back last night:
(what I wrote)
I'm very disappointed with how you treat your customers and I will make
a point not to shop at your store when I need outdoor equipment. You
should respect your customers and not treat them like criminals for
taking pictures.
(what they wrote)
We are aware of the incident at our Seattle store in which an individual
was removed by Seattle Police. While it's unfortunate this occurred on
store property, the ATM machine is owned and maintained by an
independent bank vendor. We did not call the police and did not detain
the individual. We regret this situation happened, but feel our team
acted appropriately under the circumstances and are committed to
providing a welcoming and safe environment for all of our customers.
Thank you for taking time to provide us your feedback. We appreciate the
opportunity to respond. For additional information, I'd encourage you to
contact the Seattle Police Department.
Best,
Bethany
Bethany Nielson
Public Affairs | Recreational Equipment, Inc.
They didn't charge him with trespassing, they indicated he'd been "Trespassed" which means if he returns he'd be charged with tresspassing since they've now told him he isn't welcome there. The form he signed is the formal 'yes, I know you've told me not to come back' that they'd use as proof that he knew he wasn't allowed back if they ever did need to charge him.
I encourage all of the slashdotters to take 2 minutes and call the REI store to express your feeling about this whole deal.
I just talked to the manager, and I let her know that I will personally never set foot on any of their stores ever again.
You would be surprised what comes up when you google image search "inside of atm" with quotes & safe search off.
Which part of the constitution says the stuff about having to be on public property and without a reasonable expectation of privacy? I don't see it anywhere. On the other hand, I don't see any explicit protections for photographers at all beyond the normal first amendment stuff. It doesn't look as clear as you make it sound.
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
Sounds like an open and shut false arrest case.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
Would it have hurt to ask the ATM mechs if he could take a picture of the machine? Maybe if he had explained himself a bit, instead of being a wanker, none of this would've happened. I mean, I might give him some credit... but not to stereotype, let's look at the evidence...
In Seattle
Shopping at REI
Has an iPhone
His photo hosting account name is VeganStraightedge
Watches Fall Out Boy stage setups
This just screams of someone who would love to take a shot at the justice system, and I really am not inclined to think any of it is kosher.
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.
if he was illegally cuffed and detained by the armored car company, he should file a lawsuit based on the unlawful detainment. stores have lost similar suits when they detained suspected shoplifters without any reasonable evidence. as long as he wasnt an asshole to the real cops when they showed up, a jury should have no problem sticking it to the high school dropouts with guns and a chip on their shoulder (rent a cops) and the armored car company.
being a smartass to a law officer?
First, they are usually armed. Second, they have the authority to detain you (granted they will need to figure out something if they want to keep you but they can interrupt your day), 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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Haven't been to Slashdot in awhile. When did the posts (and posters) get to be so dull and tedious?
He should not have hung around. He should have left. And then if they tried to stop him, he could have sued them for false imprisonment.
Sometimes you have to use the courts to beat sense into people.
You should sue the city of Seattle and the Seattle PD for violating your civil rights. The cops aren't allowed to arrest people for no reason. There has to be probable cause that a crime has taken place for a public arrest. There is no probable cause and there is no crime. Again, sometimes you have to use the courts to beat sense into people. And you may even be able to get the idiot cop's badge. He certainly doesn't deserve to be carrying one.
... is how many /.'ers 'apparently' shop at REI. I bet, no one who is claiming that they're calling REI about boycotting is actually doing it, and those that are probably don't even go there to begin with.
Would it have hurt to ask the ATM mechs if he could take a picture of the machine? Maybe if he had explained himself a bit, instead of being a wanker, none of this would've happened. I mean, I might give him some credit... but not to stereotype, let's look at the evidence.
You'll have a great point here just as soon as you can point out what law he violated, how he was threatening the service employees, that this store was a secure area, or the contract he signed with REI stating he wouldn't take any pictures inside their establishment. Until then, you're an ankle grabbing tool apologizing for authoritarian assholes that have no idea what the law is.
The only thing he did wrong not telling the rent-a-cops to go fuck themselves, as they had zero rights to detain or question him. The only right the store had was to ask him to leave. I hope knows a good attorney who can find grounds for a lawsuit against Loomis, REI, and the PD.
... what can on expect?
If you take photos of secured/secret things or locations, you can be sure someone will be alarmed and probably contact the "authorities".
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.
It still sounds like assault / police harassment to me.
Regardless of whether or not he was being a smart ass, I'm pretty sure that not only is being a smart ass not illegal, but also protected by the first amendment. Further, what grounds is picture taking for taking someone into custody?
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.
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.
"You have been trespassed by REI and can't go back for a year"
i'm not sure what it is like to be trespassed but i'm sure it's not pleasant.
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.
... that 9/11 didn't change EVERYTHING?
Send your spendthrift head of state this
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
Him
I'll call the cops.
Me
I can't stop you.
He has no reasonable obligation to talk to an ATM repair man.
If he has no reasonable obligation or desire to talk to an ATM repair man, then WHY WAS HE.
And of course you have no idea what his tone of voice was when he was giving these supposedly neutral responses.
Taunting (even subtle taunting) is the very definition of smartass.
"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
I would have just left after making my purchase, if one of those rent-a-cops would have tackled and detained me I would file charges of false arrest and kidnapping along with a civil suit. After all, they have no legal right to detain you.
Yes, and compels them into making up something to charge you with. Brilliant idea.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
This guy is a blooming idiot. They clearly had a direct link to real authority. It's not about their perception, but rather about his disrespectfulness of the situation. He went out of his way to make it happen. And he justifies it how? There is no justification here - you simply don't step on the toes of authority and expect to get away with it. He's lucky, and he shouldn't be allowed to try and take them to court for doing their job.
"It's kind of like robbing a bank and then trying to justify it by saying 'I paid all of these bills!'" -Wanda Sykes
We'd have had to put up with police like that for years!!!
:D
If this was in the UK then the OP would still be locked up and his camera confiscated (lost).
Anyone with a camera is a suspected terrorist on recon..
Also in the UK If a police officer asks your name for any reason (even if you are walking down a road and done NOTHING illegal) and you refuse, you get arrested / finger printed / DNA taken (which is held on a Database for upto 10 years even if no charges are made!!) and stuck in the cells till they can prove your identity... they might through in a Section 5 offense for pissing them off...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
© 2006 Bert P. Krages II
The Photographer's Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website. It may be downloaded and printed out using Adobe Acrobat Reader. You may make copies and carry them your wallet, pocket, or camera bag to give you quick access to your rights and obligations concerning confrontations over photography. You may distribute the guide to others, provided that such distribution is not done for commercial gain and credit is given to the author.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused by being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative, or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don't allow an event to escalate into violence.
In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:
1. What is the person's name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
...and tell me that guy doesn't wish one of the officers had shot him. Then he'd be an anarchist martyr, as he's trying to portray himself here. (Yes, he describes himself as an anarchist.)
We should just let /. Justice take its course. According to half the people here, REI is going to lose all sorts of business, and the iPhone Jockey is having his moment in the spotlight. Justice served.
Secret police - people who you don't know are police, or aren't allowed to tell other people are police.
I used to work for a major home improvement warehouse chain as the vault supervisor. We had NCR self-checkout machines at my store that I was responsible for maintaining. The inside of this ATM looks nearly identical to the self-checkout machines (I can sort of make out the NCR logo at the top of the monitor). Unsurprisingly, there's nothing special about this machine. The gray boxes with the green handles have bills in them, possibly different denominations in each box. The top rack of the lower cabinet just below the keypad is a rack with coins. Behind the boxes are belts that grab the bills and pull them to the dispenser. The boxes and the rack are both locked in place with a keyed lock, that's not of the highest quality. The outer cabinet is locked with another keyed lock that uses a different key from the rack and the boxes. When bills are dispensed, IR sensors are tripped as the bills pass through the slot to ensure that they actually made it out and didn't get stuck along the way. Although these machines break down more often than I would've preferred, I've never seen them fail to dispense money without the software throwing an error. The couple times that a customer claimed a dispense failure, but no error was thrown, we checked the video surveillance and it turned out they either didn't realize they already grabbed the money or they were trying to pull a fast one.
i was going to post something meaningful but after looking a bit closer at this bitch's page? he should have been beaten with a nightstick for being a douche bag.
And he also assured me that the facts as they were being presented were inaccurate
This from the Seattle police department. They have a somewhat checkered history of abuse scandals and have been going back an forth with the city council for probably a decade over the issue of officer accountability.
However, like many things in life, there is rarely black and white. 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.
Without hearing the SPD's version of the story and knowing the history of the Seattle police department though, I'll play the odds and say they were probably out of line.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Who gives a fuck? He can be a "smartass" to anyone he wants. It's not illegal.
Who gives a fuck? The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass. It's not illegal (she's not in jail, right?).
See how well that tactic works? In case you didn't, the answer is: not very.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...instead of being disruptive and smarmy with the guys you could have had a simple friendly conversation and not had any of this 'issue' arise.
Please hold on the 'Its his right to abstain from common decency' comments, its not like I don't know the sentiment of a few slashdotters that think the world is all about pushing the limits of written law.
"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. "
Ummm, he was on private property. Just because two or more people can see each other doesn't make a place, public.
Taking a photo of an open ATM in a public area is not a crime. As the cops had no probable suspicion much less probable cause, he was not properly detained.
I give it 1.5 stars. You really could have made it more believable.
Around here security guards are referred to as Sphincter Cops ... they think they are cops but they are really just assholes.
D
You know, REI answered your letter (and it was a specific response; just because it's short doesn't make it a "form letter") and took your phone calls, but sounds to me like you won't be happy until they get involved in your legal case, which no business owner in their right mind would do. Give REI a break, and quit acting pissy that their employees didn't jump in the middle of you getting arrested by a uniformed officer when they didn't know what was going on.
The real problem with situations like this is that it stems directly from the ubiquitous self-righteous attitude of law enforcement types that whatever they do is right, even when it's obviously wrong. When you don't cooperate with them they actually get angry because they are so used to getting what they want. (Just like on TV, which is why I hate most cop shows because they actually seem to celebrate this rampant and pointless emotionalism in law enforcement as if getting angry proves that a cop is dedicated and honorable and helps him do his job.)
That's unfortunately how they are trained from the beginning of their careers and it only gets worse as they associate with other law enforcement personnel. There is no humility, there is no emotional detachment. They perceive themselves as being in charge rather than just being tools to enforce the impartial laws of a society. You dare to assert your rights and suddenly you're a suspicious "DB" and a physical threat and you must be "taught a lesson". Can't let the peasants get out of hand, after all.
This attitude is of course quite common throughout history and throughout the world among law enforcement communities. They do have some legitimate reasons for being so cautious, but they all too often simply go too far in their reactions, and it serves no constructive purpose either for them or for the citizens they are protecting. They react the way they do because it's just part of human nature, but such reactions should always be tempered with restraint based on constant training to counteract that aspect of human nature. Any overreactions should be responded to in kind by higher authorities in order to help law enforcement personnel maintain balance and perspective. It's not healthy, either for the individual or for society as a whole, to allow this kind of behavior to go unquestioned. Law enforcement can't do their jobs effectively if they constantly look down on society and society constantly looks back at them with fear and hatred.
Law enforcement personnel have no restraint, no concept of emotional detachment, no perspective, no insight into what they are doing to a human being... and they get away with it constantly. That is what makes me sick to my stomach. They always get away with it, just like all the schoolyard bullies that never get stopped by the teachers standing just 20 feet away. They never learn a damn thing about their behavior being despicable and unacceptable, until someone forces them to stop.
Rather than simply doing their jobs, they constantly mess with people for no reason, and many people have come to expect it and plan for it by not doing anything to irritate any law enforcement personnel. People think they're being smart by putting themselves and their rights in a box to protect themselves from the overzealous police. That's not smart, that's just cowardice. The whole "u desrv it d00d ur a DB" attitude that so many people always show in these situations is nothing but cowardice. It's the inability to realize that basic human decency and logic are important enough to fight for. It's hiding from the fact that the law enforcement personnel are the ones doing something wrong, and they are the ones who need to be reprimanded and corrected.
In my school years I had constant trouble with bullies. But do you know what really fills me with hatred today? Thinking about all the people who always let them get away with it. All the teachers and administrators who never did a damn thing about the bullying no matter how many times I complained or asked for help. All the people who never took me seriously, who thought it was no big deal getting pounded at recess every day. It isn't the bullies that bother me now, they're just idiots that went on with their lives. Some of them learned to be good people, some didn't. I don't have to deal with them anymore. No, it's the people who should have known better and had the power to do something, to say something, and didn't. Those are the betrayers of trust, the destroyers of justice, and
Enough said, really.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
Wow, you're quite the arrogant prick. No way, do you talk that way in person to people, coward.
But they banned him for a year, if the author is to be believed.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Have you ever tried the "I don't think I have to talk to you" route with an actual cop? Because I did, a few weeks ago. It's not easy. (And I was the one who called them in the first place - street altercation.)
See, unless you're going into full-on "I have the right to remain silent; I want my lawyer" mode, they have the right to keep questioning you. Which they do, because it's in their interest to find out as much information as possible as quickly as possible - and to get you to incriminate yourself if you have in fact committed a crime. They're on a call; they're not about to sit back, offer you a beer, and say "Hey, that's cool, man. I'll skip the incident report."
Look at the conversation with Officer Abed again: She was engaging HIM in a political argument. To keep him talking. I had the same thing happen to me; all three responders did it at some point. (And with the other guy too, I'm sure.) I like to think I'm pretty sharp in a conversation, but after the tenth go-round, I walked down the garden path a few steps before I'd realized it. I was calm, since I was the one who'd called them; if they showed up bsaed on the word of some guy with a gun who'd just threatened to kick my ass, I think the adrenaline might have won over the Don't Talk principle.
On the other hand, if you DO start self-Mirandizing the minute the cops show up to your local upscale shopping center - well, that takes a lot more balls than I'd have. "I understand, you're just here buying a bike lock, right?" "I have the right to remain silent." "OK, I'm not saying you did anything wrong - but you're here, right? I'm just writing a report; you agree that you're standing here talking to us?" "I have the right to remain silent. I want my lawyer now."
Either way: STFU doesn't work well if they're trying to cajole you to not STFU.
I would have given them the big "piss off!". My one Loomis experience...... I pulled out my pistol (FN FiveseveN) in front of a 2 Loomis guards. I did not know they were behind me at the time. I pulled it out as it was in a holster in the small of my back and that is not comfortable when driving. These two morons didn't even notice. I was 30 feet away. I am not a cop, in fact I was dressed in black and getting into a black truck with a black winch bumper. Don't believe me? I called Loomis and complained that these "guards" are blind and dumb. Anchorage Loomis, fall 2007.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Seriously why do you want to shop there anymore. Maybe I'll boycott too.
So, what happens if this was on a street corner and the googleMobile managed to snap a peek?
arrested for taking a photo of an ATM being serviced
But why would he get arrested for just taking a photo? Was the ATM underage?
coding is life
Unless he is accused of a crime, he has no obligation to provide his information to a police officer.
From The Christian Science Monitor:
US citizens do not enjoy a constitutional right to refuse to reveal their identity when requested by police.
In what may become a major boost to US law enforcement and antiterrorism efforts, the US Supreme Court Monday upheld a Nevada law that makes it a criminal offense for anyone suspected of wrongdoing to refuse to identify himself to police.
Civil libertarians see the decision as a significant setback. And it remains unclear to what extent it may open the door to the issuing of national identification cards...
"It's a green light to explore the bounds of how much personal information can be demanded on pain of arrest," says Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute in Washington.
The ruling marks the first time the nation's highest court has endorsed a provision compelling citizens to reveal information in a citizen-police encounter that may become a police investigation.
The 5-to-4 decision says that neither the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy nor the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination bars states from passing laws requiring citizens to identify themselves.
In effect, the majority justices say that in most cases it is no significant intrusion for police to request - and a suspect to provide - his name.
"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic," writes Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances."
Justice Kennedy adds that if a case arises in which the furnished identity provides a key link leading to the conviction of the individual for a different crime, the court will revisit the issue.
Joining Justice Kennedy's majority opinion were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.
In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens says the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination must always shield a criminal suspect who is being questioned by police. Since police may only request the name of someone they find suspicious (under the upheld Nevada statute), that person is by definition a criminal suspect who may not be compelled to make statements that might incriminate him, Justice Stevens says.
"The court reasons that we should not assume the disclosure of petitioner's name would be used to incriminate him," Justice Stevens writes. "But why else would an officer ask for it?"
Stevens adds, "A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about a person particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases."
The decision stems from the case of Larry Hiibel, who was arrested in May 2000 after he refused a deputy sheriff's repeated demand that he produce some form of identification.
The encounter took place at the side of a road in Humboldt County, Nev. The deputy had received a report of a man striking a woman in a pickup truck. When the deputy arrived at the scene, Mr. Hiibel was standing outside a pickup truck that was parked on the shoulder of the road. His daughter was sitting inside the truck.
The deputy asked Hiibel 11 times to produce identification. Hiibel repeatedly refused, saying he'd done nothing wrong. The deputy placed him under arrest in accord with a Nevada law that permits police to detain criminal suspects for up to 60 minutes to compel them to identify themselves.
Hiibel refused to comply. He was charged and convicted of violating the mandatory identity law, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. His conviction was affirmed by a state appeals court and the Nevada Supreme Court.
In upholding his conviction and the mandatory identity-disclosure law, the majority justices als
Can you say, "False arrest lawsuit?" I knew you could...
Says the AC.
I regularly start sentences with "that's because you're an idiot". If the person I'm talking to lashes out at me, it's just further proof that they are an idiot.
Sorry, it's the way I was brought up. I call em as I see em.
How we know is more important than what we know.
A number of "folks" have commented here that the guy was being a dick or jerk or assclown or douchebag. SO THE FUCK WHAT! It is not illegal to be a dick. It's not even illegal to be a dick to the cops. Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Like, if they don't LIKE you, then they are allowed to arrest you? Well, tell you what Charlie, fuck that shit. He's allowed to be an anarchist (it doesn't mean what you think it does). He's allowed to take a photo of whatever they hell he wants if it's in a public place. If the store doesn't like it they can ask him to leave, and that's all they can do. He's allowed to be a dick to rent-a-cop ATM repair men. He's allowed to not be fucking detained by the police for no fucking reason.
Being a dick. Hey, fuck the lot of you.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
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.
It sounds like adults and police bullying an innocent kid. We've all been there, so of course we empathize. But, honestly, we don't have any verification that his story is accurate, and we know it is not impartial. I hope the kid finds a lawyer to press his issue pro bono, and I hope slashdot follows up. But I really don't think it is appropriate to immediately pass judgment about the issue.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Call the ACLU, sue the Police department, and then sue the ATM company. This is what the ACLU exists for, they will be happy to help you. They even helped another photographer in your town recently.
Posting the phone number for the ATM company on your blog is a waste of time. Call the ACLU and they will help unleash a can of whoop-ass.
I'm a 2000 man.
If this guy is such an anarchist, then he shouldn't care if the rights he doesn't believe in weren't granted. Meanwhile, back in the real world, everyone should know by now that if you make trouble for the cops, they will make trouble for you.
Coercion, assault, conversion, false imprisonment, and violation of your constitutional rights. The security guard messed up when he threatened to tackle him if he tried to leave. Photographers Rights
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Yes, it's a matter of principle and law.
Because of you, and those like you, is the only reason we are even having this discussion. Period. Double Period.
Corporations and their rent-a-cops are not part of our law enforcement...whether you ascribe to it or not.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
It seems like the author of the piece who went through the rough time has a big chip on his shoulder when dealing with figures in position of authority. As a self described anarchist, he obviously has a bone to pick with the system and will probably go out of his way to push the boundries of what he can get away with. People in those situations shouldn't be surprised when they get hassled and harassed for their behavior.
It is pretty weak that he got hassled for taking a picture. It wasn't a criminal offense and the Loomis staff didn't have any jurisdiction or authority to detain or question him.
On the other side of the equation, those Loomis guys have one of the most dangerous jobs in the nation. Anything involving the responsibility for large amounts of cash in exposed, uncontrolled areas comes with a high degree of risk. It would not at all surprise me if because of the picture being taken, Loomis decides to change the time of their ATM delivery, puts more guards on the drop for a period of time, or even authorizes their guards to unholster their weapons when servicing that ATM.
The actions of the poster have just made that small part of the world a lot more tense and slightly more dangerous for everyone in it for a while. A little bit of empathy with the guards and their situation would have gone a long way. It could have been as simple as saying, "I understand that you're stressed and that you are concerned by my actions. I'm not doing recon for a robbery. If you need to call the police to feel more secure, by all means, please do."
When you are in the right, you can treat others with respect and act nicely. To act any other way shows a real lack of self-esteem and a fragile ego.
according to his account of what the officer told him, he was arrested for "trespassing" which is bull but they really didn't have anything else to arrest him for....it's not a crime for being a smart ass to a rent-a-cop or to store employees.
(it didn't progress to that level with real cops at the time of his arrest)
please, in the future, RTFA or I will call the Seattle PD to arrest you for "trespassing"
I hope he sues REI (especially since I'm a REI member)
...I'm laughing my ass off at the guy who wrote it. He's an anarchist who conforms to the vegan lifestyle and is a rubyist amongst other things. Wow...way to be an anarchist bad ass. I love how self proclaimed anarchists are often the biggest conformists who take advantage of things that clearly violate the very notion of anarchism.
It's like the UFC fighter Jeff Monson who has the anarchy symbol tattooed on his chest. Seems to have no problem working within a corporation and cashing his paycheck. I guess the definition has changed over the years.
Rent-a-cops have no authority to do anything but take notes.
I would refuse to do squat for rent-a-cops.
And IF the this happened as the blog claimed it happened (big if) then the two cops could be disciplined for arresting this guy before they formally asked him him for his ID.
The only person who is authorized to ask for ID is those real police officers. Nothing the rent-a-cops do beforehand is of concern.
hence I don't full trust everything they say (naturally, they will put a spin on it).
I'd prefer to hear what that witness who took the photo of the arrest as well as other witnesses in the store.
There was a saying by someone....don't remember who nor the exact quote....with a lot of witnesses, there will be a lot of stories....and the truth lies somewhere in between.
Plus, they deal with douchebags all day long (and no one at /. is a douchebag, remember!) and aren't in a great mood to begin with.
Now for the tinfoil summary: there are police departments in some cities (I'm not suggesting this is one of them) which receive financial inducements dependent on the number of perps they send to jail - which in many cases are now private prisons. It is interesting to note who owns the most private prisons in the USA? Very interesting to trace the actual ownership of Prison Realty Corporation, etc. (Hint: same guys who brokered the deal for the WTC just prior to 9/11/01, and then received that Captive Insurance Fund from FEMA ($1 billion), which they structured as a hedge fund --- but I'm sure it's all just a COINICDENCE.)
Did anyone else think, from the title, that this article was about some sort of Open SOURCE ATM?
Some sort of Diebold opposite?
I also have to admit the reality of trying to fight with low-IQ idiots with guns. In a situation like this, no matter how right you are, you're wrong. I've had many disappointing experiences with cops and hold them in contempt. But I also realize that letting my feelings slip will do nothing more than give them an opportunity to act like pigs.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
...piece...
Protect a 'piece' of 'what'?
Yes, you sound like an idiot...Anyone can proclaim 'Bullshit!', but can you back it up? [citation needed]
'fm6' has a practical point.
You can be firm with protecting your rights, but always be 'professional' and 'respectful' in dealing with cops. I've had this work in my favor many times, and have seen your approach 'backfire' too many times to dispute his advice.
I won't bore everyone with anecdotes, but a good attorney and the courtroom is the best place to use your energy, not 'onsite' with the cop.
Be firm with your rights, but respectful and professional, in dealing with the cops will get you further than most any other tactic.
Using your intellect, and not your emotions will gain you much here.
You are falsely setting up a binary 'either/or' problem, when in reality it is far from that.
Or, you feel you are heavily enough armed and supported to stage a revolution? Good luck with that. ;-)
Okay, I'm a Zen practitioner, so naturally I would prescribe a 'water' approach here. (think: rivulets, erosion, etc....) :-)
Yes! Grasp it tighter!
See who 'wins' in the end.
"Peace", dude.(HahHahHahHoooHeeeHoooHeeehaaa!)
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Designer. Typophile. Rails/Rubyist. Still Vegan. Still Straightedge. And, Baby, I'm An Asshole.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
You should sue everyone involved immediately.
Sue REI for not having any "no photography" signs posted but still allowing you to be arrested.
Sue the ATM people for assault and threatening behavior.
Sue the police for wrongful arrest and for forcing you to sign a trespassing admission in order to leave jail.
There are way to many law enforcement officials and security officers who think they are always in the right because they have guns and people died in 9/11. If they wanted some privacy, they should have put a fucking curtain up.
Sue them, get them demoted, and profit while doing so.
And finally, Walmart, err, I mean REI sucks on so many different levels you shouldn't be shopping there anyway.
I called the REI and talked to the store manager. They say that they did NOT ask him to be arrested. They are NOT pressing any charges. They say he is welcome back in the store anytime. I also called Loomis (couldn't reach anyone who could tell me anything) and Seattle PD. Seattle PD said that there "is a lot more to the story" so I sent a written request for the police report. I'll post a link to it here if/when I get it.
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
Cops were just helping you see inside of the prison.
Helping you was their fascination.
You got arrested for owning a iPhone and being a rabid Apple fanboi.
I wonder how much of this is singling out someone who looks like they won't fight back (eg. a nerd).
Would the ATM serviceman threaten to tackle someone who would be likely to threaten something similar back?
The ruling in Hiibel vs Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada was even discussed here on Slashdot as well as the original story about his arrest for not showing ID on demand.
What many people appear totally ignorant of is that the conditions of entry into private premises such as shops are purely contractual (if that... they may be nothing at all in some cases).
If you breach one of their conditions, but otherwise do not break the law, then they have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to interfere with you.
They are completely at liberty to sue you for breach of contract, but what is their loss? In this scenario, nothing. They are also at liberty to tell you to leave, and to sue you for trespass if you do not (or if you are banned and return). Again, this gives them no right to detain you or otherwise physically interfere with you.
Thus, if a security guard asks to search your bags on the way out of a shop, you are quite entitled to say "no, sorry" and leave. At worst you have breached a trivial contract between you and the person/entity in possession of the premises. You are also under no obligation to identify yourself.
Damn it, why don't people learn and use their rights?
Read Pynchon.
REI is supposed to be a COOP. That means for the owners. That means me since 1989. If I were ever in one of their stores again and was harassed by one of their vendors I would expect the store to stick up for and at least put pressure on the ATM operator about the situation. Instead Miss PR WONK sends out corporate drivel.... So much for the cool COOP. Off to Cabella's...
In several situations it is not right to just take someones picture. I mean generally you shouldn't take a picture of someone without their permission. So I ask is it unreasonable to say that this guy violated the rights of this guard by not only publishing his image, the image of a private citizen, but publishing it without this private citizen doing anything wrong? The guard was after all just doing his job and shouldn't have to worry about someone recording HIS actions without reasonable justification. I mean how many people walk into a bank and just start snapping pictures of everyone in there.
Just as the government must have a reason to search and collect information on an individual, shouldn't individuals now have some protections from each other? After all it's not just the government now with the ability to gather large amounts of potentially damaging information on individual citizens but now individual citizens can gather potentially damaging information on each other.
I hope this guy gets his butt sued off.
I would like to request that ALL REI members please contact REI and ask them to explain their involvement in this story. Regardless of anything else REI should not force any of their patron's to reveal personal information to a non government entity. So again I urge all REI members to simply ask REI to explain their involvement.
If the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional in Washington State then it's unconstitutional across all 50 state
Actually, no. The problem is in the wording of the law in Washington versus the wording of the law in other states. Bottom line is, SCOTUS is perfectly entitled to make a ruling that says that one state's law is unconstitutional but another state's law is not.
This is my sig.
What he could have done was to have a carry permit and a loaded pistol. If the rent-a-cop says he is going to tackle the dude, then he would just tell the rent-a-cop that he was just taking pictures, is leaving, and, if the rent-a-cop tries to tackle him, he will be shot. That would leave the rent-a-cop with the option of trying to shoot you first, or tackling someone with a gun, neither of which is a good option. Of course, the renta might actually try either, in which case, you have to shoot first.
Bottom line is, if that confrontation isn't worth it to you, or to anyone, then renta-cops are just going to get more and more out of control. The only way to reason with a bully is with your fist.
This is my sig.
But goddammit, this round is on me
Nobody learns no nothing from no history.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
In the fine article, the photographer says "He took me out of the cell and took off the cuffs, had me sign a You have been trespassed by REI and can't go back for a year form".
Does this mean that REI has banned him for a year, or is this something the police came up with? Ideally, the REI security personnel should have defended their customer, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If they had, the karma flow would definitely be in the other direction.
-ec
never mind, reread TFA and i missed the line about the LPO trying to get the guy to give his ID to a private corporation with no oversight on what they do with it. Bleah. Screw that.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
Arguing with rent-a-cops, and making a major scene out of something that needed no scene.
Talking to cops. This is the worst thing the OP guy did. He should have instead followed this very good lesson.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
In no instance should he have spoken to the police officer, in no instance should he have made cyclic arguments with the officer.
From what I understood the OP wanted to make this a big deal possibly for blogging purposes (I've seen this happen with other fellow bloggers). This is what I got from reading the blog entry.
REI may have a posted no-pictures-in-store policy. Or they may not. In any case, the only thing they can do when you take a picture violating their policy is ask you to leave (permanently if they choose). You aren't trespassing unless you refuse to leave. They can't take the camera or force you to erase the picture.
I suspect this person has a case against the Seattle PD, if he wants to go through the trouble of going through with it.
Seriously, the only good thing to come out of it is music and Bruce Lee. I don't think I missed anything.
Expecting a country of law? There is only one real law - people will do as much as they like that they think they can get away with.
If you are a cop, you can get away with a whole lot, and you are a pretty good judge of what you can get away with and what you can't. Pepole will give a cop the benefit of the doubt in many cases. They don't want to piss off a cop, and cops do put their lives on the line and are given slack for that reason.
Dude... you just cited Wikipedia for a matter of criminal procedure.
IANAL and this is NOT legal advice but it was my understanding that officers can request ID if they have enough facts to reach the reasonable suspicion standard in Terry v. Ohio. i.e. if they can Terry stop you, they can demand ID. Of course, your states can provide you with more rights than the Constitution.
I'd be VERY careful about refusing to ID yourself; you could be in a state where you do have to ID yourself.
I'd also be VERY careful about basing your legal knowledge off of either 1)wikipedia or 2)slashdot posts.
Just because you're more intelligent than Boobus americanus doesn't mean you're a lawyer.
http://www.rei.com/help/feedback/memberhelpfb.html
I once took a photo of a guy opening up a BSODed ATM in france. Bad photo and angle, but he still looked pissed off, so I left swiftly. Nothing particularly interesting other than seeing an ATM with the windows boot screen.
I was with you until you blew it here:
Personally, I blame all these cop shows on tv.
Yeah, take the responsibility of personal choice out of the picture.
We are entitled, enabled, and should not be responsible for our own actions and choices.
We are victims of marketing and advertising, and should not be responsible for our choices and actions...it is society's fault, not our own.
Cry me a river!!!
When you want to point blame at someone, look in a mirror first. Period....Period again.!!!
Anything else/less is just fooling yourself.
Complacency is an excuse, not a cause....GET OVER IT!!!
Take some personal responsibility for your choices, or STFU and deal with it!
Tuck your ankles behind your ears, lube your asshole, and deal with it if you think otherwise...I've no sympathy for you and your mindset...I actually hope you enjoy your violation if that's what you want/need/desire.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
You have been charged with the crime and the mental illness of curiosity. You will be beaten, and your property taken, until you choose ignorance about the world and all things in it.
At least that's how it worked in the thatcher-era English school system.
I urge people who do a lot of photography to print this out and keep it with them. It is a page that details the rights of photographers.
It can be found at http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Have you seen his flickr portrait:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/veganstraightedge/3507675011/
No wonder the ATM guys were a bit wary...
and get me coppers! http://cuesskybox.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/28/enabled_atm.jpg
It's a lot easier to make trouble for a normal citizen rather than a hardened criminal because a hardened criminal may well figure the violent option is the best one straight off the bat where a normal citizen would be thinking "I've done nothing wrong" and try remonstrating verbally.
So they pick a fight with a citizen because they can more easily bully them.
Remind them that just saying "Please" or "Sir" doesn't make it a request. If you can say "no" and be allowed to refuse THEN it is a request.
And even more amazing that a large part of the posters here seem to somehow blame the event on the 'douchebag' guy because he didn't bend over and say sir yes sir to the security people.
Sad.
If I were a guy with a wife and kids and a fake uniform and no real power and a lot of money on and around my person on a regular basis, I would definitely not want my picture plastered all over the internet. You just never know when some lowlife might recognize you from real life, figure out who you are, kidnap you wife or your child, and demand some kind of crazed ransom. It doesn't matter whether the crazed ransom plan could actually work, it only matters whether some drugged-up lowlife might briefly think that it could, until the hostage drama takes on a life of its own.
Here is where things get a bit tricky for the family man with the fake uniform. In a reasonable business environment, you wouldn't be opening micro-vaults in quasi-public spaces in full view of the general public, which as everyone knows who has ever worked with the general public, is 10% batshit.
Bottom line: it's a stupid place to put a cash machine if you aren't willing to arrange service during off-hours. (Bonus offered for a picture of a cash machine in a gun shop with a liquor license, with a legitimate bank on either side.) But the guy with the fake uniform has no control over this.
Family man with fake uniform could go up to asshole with camera and say "I'd really prefer you not take pictures which potentially expose my identity to the general public". Asshole with camera might infer from this that it is OK to take a picture of the inner workings of the machine, as long as family man with fake uniform is not personally identifiable. This would be bad. Family man with fake uniform find soon be unemployed family man with no uniform, since the employer might take a dim view of the implied consent to photograph the machine.
So what is family man with fake uniform supposed to do? He can't go up and say "I understand that it is within your rights to photograph this machine, but I'd prefer that you didn't" without risking his own job. Family man with fake uniform has no protection under America's "at will employment" regime. The fact that he made an effort to respect the rule of law won't get him his job back.
He can probably be fired just as quickly for not getting the ID from the asshole camera guy, even if the camera guy refuses to buckle under intimidation that crosses the law. His main protection is the cost of his replacement (permits and training, however minimal) and pissing off everyone else who works for you (do they really have any power to disrupt the business?) In America, the potential loss of health benefits keeps a lot of people biting their lips on ethical niceties and thinking "better him than me".
Aside from the "tackle" threat, which was not recorded, fake uniform did a good job of letting the cop show up and cross the legal line, which the cops are generally quite happy to do. From the cops' perspective: let's suppose this guy sues and wins. Do they really care? Odds are low it ever gets that far. In the long run, losing those cases is just more ammunition to get the laws changed to something a lot more repressive, which they would prefer.
While we still have these freedoms, is this the kind of thing we want it squander it on? Isn't the purpose of becoming an anarchist to provoke fascist behaviour from the rest of society? It's great fun for the anarchist, because it proves the anarchist was right in the first place. The anarchist doesn't actually want the system to work, so being proved right is about as good as it gets.
It would be cool if America was a society where guy with fake uniform could stand up and openly state "this whole thing sucks three ways from Sunday" and not lose his job. But no, let's write another 500 finely reasoned posts on Douche Bag vs Brush Cut.
"It is simply amazing how many companies don't understand the true power of the internet."
Yeah! Just look at how Microsoft's going out of business due to all the negative Slashdot comments over the years.
"From what I understood the OP wanted to make this a big deal possibly for blogging purposes (I've seen this happen with other fellow bloggers). This is what I got from reading the blog entry."
So in a world were bloggers are the new "newspapers", this would be akin to a journalist creating the news, not reporting it.
What a wonderfully US'ian idea !
Turn the taking of a couple of photographs into the Gunfight at the OK Coral.
Capturing light that is freely flying around in the air shouldn't be a crime. If it's secret, cover it.
1 - Maybe a promise to blank out the people involved would have helped. I wouldn't like my picture on the Net either if I'm somehow associated with lugging cash around. However, that's something they could have reasonably asked instead of trying to play fake cop (the 9/11 story is crap - quite a lot of those pictures were actually helpful afterwards in ebvent reconstruction, so who knows what is right?). Anyway, in short, the people thing *may* have helped defuse this - I would not consider that unreasonable from either party.
2 - On the tech side, yup - plenty of public data available. Heck, if you happen to go to Zurich and wander down the main shopping street you'll find at the lake end the big Zurich Kantonal Bank - and inside public area they have a fully transparent ATM - and this is Switzerland..
As an aside, as technology goes this thing is actually close to art, it's beautifully put together - I can imagine whoever built that thing to be damn proud of it. AFAIK there are no signs prohibiting you taking a picture, despite the fact that it is 100% functional (I used it to see what actually happens when you take out money :-))
I can see that there is sometimes reasons to argue with someone taking a picture, but it has to stay reasonable. I too would tell you where to stick it if you just tried to bully me, especially wrongful arrest. However, such things never happen to me, probably because they sense that I don't get excited - that appears to frighten people :-).
The guys were just doing their job, loading an ATM with money. Obviously some thieves might like to know how the thing works and in any case, I don't suppose those guys enjoyed having their photograph taken. Maybe they over reacted; maybe they didn't. In any case, it was you who had the 'attitude', unable to discuss the subject in a level headed way, but more inclined respond with comments, answers and questions primarily intended to piss them off.
They didn't beat you. They didn't lie to entrap you. They didn't wrestle the iphone from your grasp and delete the image - yet you manage to twist that fact to support your own twisted view of the event.
If, as suggested in your article, they were merely exerting their power, then it is also true that you were merely giving them the finger by doing something you knew might upset them.
They have a boring job and I doubt they are paid much. Get off your high horse and learn to have some sympathy and understanding for others.
You, obviously, aren't indulging in a fit of self importance, by plastering the story all over the internet... yeah, right.
In a jurisdictional sense, there are 7 elements to Subject Matter Jurisdiction, where one of them (just like a car mechanic needs a broken part to reason his hire to fix said non-op) there needs to be an injured party or "damages" as well as the actual accuser making the accusation. Of course, 1 element is to require the true name (not legal name, so know your definitions). To ask for "identification" would be the only right of an "accuser" to solicit private administrative remedy pro-per, while otherwise the two in conflict would attend into a county court to fight it out in common-law rather than by the pretendered prior-arraingment of Statutes (incorporating encrypted copyright private law for aliens to the common law). In this case, an alleged "officer" asks for ID because he is not an officer trusted and sent proxy by the accuser but is an accuser itself and deceptively using his wardrobe to gain confidence. In otherwords, "I send myself to solicit ID on behalf of myself the accuser." Identification being an article of association would cause the manner to elevate to that of a federal offence because federal Statutes over-riding State statutes would reveal that a crime be committed with use of a street address. Looking at this pervision, you would find that to be such a dunghill because none associate to a street address but by said prior arraingment with a company granting licenture to a private carrier in complete disregard to the right of "public vehicular travel."
Choose your battles, just knowing that handing someone Identification would waive your ex-parte to exercise private administrative remedy, even-so to call for a hearing to a cause of "actual damages." I know a photograph of Mickey Mantle was worth quite a bit when he was "in his person." A photograph of a mall-cop or ATM technician would be worth only perhaps U$ 120 /hr of "it's" employer's time to distract him proper to another subject matter unless that photograph detained him in such a way, yet we see here that there seems to be a conflict of interest to avoid doing one's job to send someone through the courts; processing, housing, orange-colored clothes, food, medical, etc adds up to an average prisoner prosecution and containment fund from a foreign trust accounted CUSSIP averages USD 30K per year low to an average at USD 50K and as high as USD 200K for the ones that are silenced by clever psychiatrists for political reasons.
was attached to an Embasy :)
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
My name is Shane Becker and I'm the one that took the picture. I wrote an update to the story to clarify some things. ( http://iamshane.com/2009/05/13/what-happened-at-rei-an-update/ ) Feel free to feel me any more questions that linger ( veganstraightedge@gmail.com )
maybe their members will have convinced them to get ATMs from a company other than Loomis and Fargo.
slashdot running this story on the front page is important becuase it should send an explicit message to every company who hires private security. Dealing with the public means you don't threaten to TACKLE someone.
If Loomis and Fargo is operating on REI property, they should abide by REI rules and stipulations. if REI doesn't want customers assaulted in the store, then get new contractors. i'm sure there's more than one company interested in making $2/transaction.
This guy is a self-proclaimed Anarchist, obviously militant vegan, and Che Guevara wannabe... I doubt it went down quite like he described it did..
Look, all we need to do to clear it up is get hold of the store's security camera footage ...
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
I wonder how they would react if 50 people suddenly showed up, took pictures of their ATM, and left.
REIs photo policies aren't law.
FGD 135
The guy needs to get a lawyer involved. Or take it to the press. I was once detained on the suspicion of shoplifting based solely on surveilance. The thing is they never saw me take anything (because I didn't). I was pretty scruffy that day, though, and hadn't shaved and was in an old t-shirt. They took me in back, made me empty my pockets, and let me go. I never got an apology or anything. I sent them a letter explaining (nicely, I might add) that I tend to spend a lot in that type of shop and that they might want to consider their practices. I also explained that this incident wouldn't keep me away but I thought they should know. Their response was curt, to say the least, which DID effect my patronage of their store. They didn't stay in business long either. This guy should find a lawyer.
Ok, this is really simple:
(1) did this guy commit a crime or otherwise break an existing law?
(1a) No.
(2) was the Loomis guy a dick?
(2a) Yes.
(3) is there possible grounds for a lawsuit?
(3a) Fuck yes. I'd get the ACLU on the horn, a lawyer, and go to fucking town. If for no other reason to see all the people involved lose their jobs. Ahh, the satisfaction of civil-rights slamdunks.
Of what possible relevance to this story are the details of what he was buying (right down to make and type), the fact that they were out of stock, the fact that he queued to order one, or the fact that the queue was long?!
Hey Moron,
With the economy in bad shape. There has been so many incidents of robbery, theft, scams, etc.
Nobody is taking any chances any more.
I looked up my state's statute and interestingly, it states refusal to identify one's self as suspicious and therefore adequate reason to detain. Wow, talk about a self-protecting clause. (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, *******refuses to identify himself******, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
Well, if you look around his website, he does seem a little dangerous, if not likely to knowingly violate any criminal statutes. Also, stupid. It sounds like he was trolling the Loomis personnel, and then he was actually idiot enough to attempt to troll police. After that, he continued his total and utter display of lack of common sense by spending a good deal of time shooting his mouth off at the police, instead of keeping his mouth absolutely shut the moment he was arrested, until conferring with his lawyer. Obviously the Loomis people in this situation were jerks, and the police, not uncommonly, were behaving in an abusive fashion, but I don't think the ACLU or anyone else is going to want to expend much effort on defending this guy. Let's face it, he mostly got into trouble because he was being an asshole at the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong people. Which doesn't make them right, but it doesn't make him an innocent victim either.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Allow me to rephrase and extend. If this person doesn't fight back, they are ruining it for the rest of us. You have to fight back, or you effectively make it legal for people to do this.
I know people who have gotten arrested and jailed for things that the US supreme court has ruled would be unconstitutional to enforce. But if your lawyer doesn't point this out and that first judge isn't aware of the ruling, you're going to jail. By not enforcing your rights, you're letting the executive branch of government have power they should not have.
Blog posts are one thing, and the number of e-mail inquiries and phone calls seems to be impressive for such a story, but my point is we have to make sure we make enough noise that this won't happen again. Maybe this has been enough, maybe it hasn't. Let it be a reminder either way: Know your rights and exercise them, or you're ruining it for everyone.
If you RTFA'd you'd see it was a rent-a-cop, not a police officer (and the victim was a man), and the Slashdot story title is also misleading as he wasn't *arrested*, the rent-a-cop put handcuffs on him (I guess because he gets his jollies that way), but the dude wasn't thrown in jail...too bad a large part of the discussion is already off the rails.
It looks like what happened is, the guy was a smartass vegan anarchist fashion designer (and a RoR fan at that, not kidding, RTFA) and the rent-a-cops were power tripping authoritarians, and the personalities collided violently. If the rent-a-cops were *responsible* they would have left this itching-powder-keg of a personality alone since he did nothing wrong, instead of taking full advantage of the situation like schoolyard bullies who just found a weak hemophiliac kid who thinks he's a jujitsu master.
Question for lawyers BTW: Tell me about the legality of security guards detaining people (ideally give examples in some different countries).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's OK for Google street view to take pictures of all our houses and throw them up on the internet for anyone to use as they please. But this guy innocently takes a picture of an ATM and they arrest him. Just another example of how the people with the most money win.
After reading more carefully I see that it was the cops who slapped the cuffs on him and took him to the police station in the end. In my defense, it's still morning and the guy's writing style reminds me of the dog from the Beggin' Strips commercial :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CErapf79rqM
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
While we're on the subject, can someone please direct me to a free country? Thanks!
Maybe he was arrested for wearing his, "No Gods, no fucking masters" T-shirt. Certainly there are laws that forbid obscenity in public places, no?
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).
After looking at the photo online. If I saw this filling an ATM I would have gotten my camera out too, but...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Photographer_at_2007_AEE.jpg
Yeah, I don't really see what was so suspicious about the guy?
Here's a photo:
Scene from the REI ATM
.
But they 0wn3d the Mayor and probably also some members of city councils, who DO 0wn3d the police. So in a manner of speaking, they do 0wn3d the police.
Its a public facility (open to the public) which is privately owned. That means he can be asked to leave and be arrested if he does not comply. At the same time, since it is a public facility there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. He was well within his rights to take a picture.
If anyone is curious, the name of the store manager is Kara Stone.
For chrissakes and you are using an iPhone, then you should pretend you are listening to music on it and covertly take the damn pic, otherwise you are a not so subtle idiot.
It is like standing there with a bull horn announcing you are taking a pic if you are moving the phone around like you are taking a pic, guy should take some lessons in being subtle.
SCOTUS rulings trump ALL lower court rulings and ALL government laws where the exact circumstances have been ruled on. I haven't checked their "Stop and ID" rulings, but assuming the GP is correct, SCOTUS rulings are germane to the conversation.
Now states may have "Stop and ID" laws that have not been tested, and they may believe given different wording that they are still lawful, but until they are tested up to SCOTUS, they may be determined to be unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable.
From the blog post, "had me sign a âoeYou have been trespassed by REI and canâ(TM)t go back for a yearâ"
Kinda goes against their response..
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
If you are questioned by the police and you don't want to cooperate, you can ask them if you are being arrested. If they say no, tell them you are late for an appointment and then leave. To arrest someone requires probable cause (a fairly strong doctrine) or a belief that you are a danger to yourself or others. If you are calm and polite and walk away (don't run) and aren't carrying a weapon, they can only detain you for cause. And since you are innocent, they aren't likely to have then, now are they?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/veganstraightedge/3513998015/
I know I'm posting this kind of late, but there it is.
Hosting and Domain name coupons
There is a guy named Trevor Paglen who takes photos of secure military installations like Area 51 (seriously!) with telephoto lenses. He is legally justified and never been charged because he stands on public property to take the photos. If it is secure enough for Area 51 it should be secure enough for ATMs. The ATM photographer was on public property, acting within his rights.
On the one hand, the rent-a-cops behaved like baboons. Not only did they make demands they had no right to make, they threatened bodily harm if Becker attempted to leave.
On the other, Becker himself is admitted anarchist. Do you really think he was simply being a smart ass? Or did he make a big scene? I suspect the later. In most jurisdictions, that's disorderly conduct. So I think Becker got off easy. If he didn't have such a problem with authority to begin with, he should have simply declined the request to see his ID, and then walked out after telling the baboon that if he's harmed he'll file charges for assault. Let the idiot tackle him. Then he'd have a truly good story for his web page.
That doesn't excuse how the baboons behaved. These guys have serious self esteem issues. If they truly felt Becker was doing something wrong, they would have called the police prior to taking any action.
Ok boys and girls, there's the scoop from the other side. I am an armoured car guard, and my principle job is refilling ATMs...some of them in public access areas. People doing my job have been attacked, robbed and murdered for the contents of ATM safes...that's the reason for the guns, body armour and all our other equipment. For this reason we take a VERY SERIOUS ATTITUDE toward people who show too much interest in what we do, or give us a hard time about it.
If Shane Becker had had the simple courtesy and decency to co-operate with the Loomis guards it would have taken a minute out of his day. Instead he was an asshole and acted suspiciously. Believe it or not, some robbery attempts start with people pretending to be harmless assholes, getting in arguments with truck guards or otherwise distracting them from their jobs. That ATM was being loaded with tens , if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, right out in the open. Why would any sensible person crowd up to an armed guard going about dangerous business? Sure, maybe he was simply curious...but why should any guard take a chance?
I'm a Canadian, so I can't comment on the specifics of Seattle police procedure or American laws that come into play. However I will say that if somebody's day gets upset because he acted in a suspicious and unreasonable manner around armed guards handling money, that's real tough shit. Maybe it didn't get handled 'right'..and that's real tough shit too. He was lucky he didn't get worse.
People who stand on their right to be unreasonable assholes are the ones who make reasonable people's rights fragile. Having a little sense and discretion would make things better for everybody concerned.
But the point here is that the stores do not legally accuse you of any such thing. They demand to search everybody who buys something from them without any evidence of wrongdoing beyond having already given them money (they don't demand to search people who didn't buy something). They also are careful to never actually accuse you of theft, as doing so can potentially open them to lawsuits if they are wrong.
If they are actually accusing you of theft, they have the right to detain you until police arrive... but it comes right back down to the fact that if their only "evidence" against you is that you wouldn't let them rifle through your personal property, they (should be) toast in the upcoming civil case for illegal detainment you bring against them.
This is why they have video cameras and undercover security staff; if they don't get it on video or have a direct eyewitness they're just asking for trouble.
My favorite tactic? When the guy at the door demands to look in your bag you demand to look in his wallet, since some of your money might be in there. After all, the door guy could have pickpocketed you on your way in, and if he's innocent, why would he have a problem with it? If he refuses, obviously that's proof that he did steal from you, right?
So (from the photo) these ATM repairmen in the USA carry weapons.
I ask thee; is this a good or a bad thing?
Hivemind harvest in progress..
Question: what happens if he doesn't sign the form? (Just thinking the signature could be used as proof of "he knew he did something bad")
Then the duty officer notes in his log "Mr X was informed that he has been told he is not allowed to be on the Premisises of REI etc., etc., etc." and when it comes to court, instead of using the form as evidence, the officer involved has to actually testify.
Or something to that effect, in traffic court I noticed that another officer is allowed to testify in the partipating one's place if they have the log/notes. It's part of the "LEO's are officers of the court and asssumed not to have lied" deal.
I worked for a financial institution for a long time. Here is what is inside the ATM.
-A place to put receipt paper
-Locked safe area with cartridges of cash
-Some sort of PC (even winxp)
-Maybe a crappy modem if there is no NIC
Its really lame in there...not worth getting arrested. No special hardware unseen by normal people.
pretty boring huh?
Call me a fool, but... this kind of things is one more reason for me to ever step foot in your country. Speak about freedom, free speech, constitutionnal rights, democracy ... bah, just let me laugh.
It's not brighter in here (France) but, at least i'm not afraid to walk in a mall and take photos... yet.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/17/cops-gone-wild/