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.
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
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!
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
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
They're in a public space; what's visible in public is fair game. What law would someone with a picture be breaking (hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
casing a bank. It's suspicious behavior. You can say "what's the harm", but they see it as you coming back later and using the information to crack open the ATM. If you aren't big on hot lights and cavity searches I wouldn't run towards the President waving your arms and yelling either. There's an element of common sense here.
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.
If there isn't a law against it then I do have the right. Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
If these people want their devices secret, maybe they shouldn't leave their doors wide open for the public to see. Just a suggestion.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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.
We DO have that right. It's in plain site for Christ sake. They don't like it? put up a fucking barrier.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
This was on private property, though.
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
It looks more like being arrested for mouthing off to the cops. Tact not a strong point?
Maybe, maybe not... Yet, it's still not illegal to be a jerk. You CAN commit crimes WHILE being a jerk, but being a jerk simply isn't a crime.
...that people who are stupid enough to pay Apple's inflated prices for their products really are stupid.
And that's why they're shopping at REI.
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.
In almost every jurisdiction that I've ever been in during my life, if an actual office of the law (as opposed to rentacops) demands ID, you provide it. Refusal to do so is illegal. Not having ID on you is one thing, refusing to say who you are is another.
He was in his rights (though a douche looking for trouble) up to the point where he pulled his attitude act with the cops.
They didn't abuse anything, and the actual cops were probably smart enough to realize that the rentacops and the bank security were idiots (or not, it doesn't matter at this point), which is why they didn't hassle him about the picture.
sight, not site...among other things. Also, there's quite a long list of cases where pictures of things that were not obfuscated were still determined to be protected under the twisted First Amendment. What, we'll allow the SPOTUS and its feeders say that personal photography (which didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted...) was intended - even when well outside of "press" - based on some strange "speech" redefinition...but we don't allow the same group to also say that we need to be farking reasonable about the invasion of other people's property?
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.
Nowhere in the story was he asked for his ID by the actual police officers; he was relating that he refused to present it to the security guards, which we both understand he was under no obligation to do. My perception of the officers involved as slimebags is unchanged.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
The War on Terror(TM) has become the War on Photographers. This is nothing new. Try taking picturs of any government building, any airport, any train station, etc, with professional equipment. Anywhere in the country these days you're likely to be stopped an often arrested. The same applies to bird watchers/photographers walking around in the middle of nowhere - there are hundreds of incedents of small town SWAT teams (or equivalent) being mobilized because someone was walking around with a tripod!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You didn't say what law would be broken. Because there is none. The fact that someone would be harassed and subject to abuse of police power and/or prosecutorial process for doing so is irrelevant.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
So? That doesn't mean an armored car employee(i.e. glorified delivery guy) can harass you or that taking a picture is reason to get into your face.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Did they ask him to leave? I didn't see that in the article. It seems like A) the officer lied, or B) Implied something was wrong and got REI to make this claim.
Sounds fishy to me.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's just sad. And yet, when the cameras are pointed at us, we're reminded that no one has an expectation of privacy in public. Perhaps there are some yet uncorrupted people in power who see the contradiction?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Seattle Police are out of control ...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009209116_arrest12m.html
If their policy is to defend the machine by attacking anyone they see taking pictures, then they are screwed. People who are just walking by, might be taking pictures without it being at all obvious. Ergo, they must attack everyone they see, whether they appear to be taking pictures or not.
That isn't sane.
If you have to hide stuff, don't hide it in plain sight. It just can't work.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Does your confidence in the impending douche-baggery make it any less douche-baggy?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
Dunno about the US, but where I live there are only laws that say you can't (without permission) open up an ATM machine in order to take pictures of the insides. So technically, opening an ATM machine for that purpose would be illegal. But once opened up, taking pictures of the insides should be OK.
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.
Yes, it does matter. They're didn't directly ask him to present it to them.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
.
No, they can't. A store may not legally confiscate your photos. They can ask you to leave, they can sue you to prevent you publishing the photos, but they can not prevent you from taking them nor confiscate them afterwards without a court order.
Confiscating is either theft or conversion, threatening to do so is coercion. A law officer may take custody of your possesions when effecting an arrest, but may not confiscate your film without a court order.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Exactly want I was going to say... total hypocrisy.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
I know that retail stores often have contracts with towing agencies that give the latter pretty broad control. It's possible that they might also have similar contracts with ATM companies. Heck, I'd consider it likely that towing agencies and ATM companies both have provisions in their contracts saying that they can require the retail store to ban someone if they bother the contractors' employees.
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.
He should have said he thought they were breaking into it and he was taking a picture to send to the news and police and asked to see their identification. Only idiots would break into an ATM in front of people and not be wearing security guard uniforms.
Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
Dunno about the US, but where I live there are only laws that say you can't (without permission) open up an ATM machine in order to take pictures of the insides. So technically, opening an ATM machine for that purpose would be illegal. But once opened up, taking pictures of the insides should be OK.
Go ahead then. I guarantee you're going to need a lawyer though.
Not everyone is as afraid in guys in rent-a-cop uniforms as you appear to be.
AccountKiller
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.
You're a good little fascist, aren't you.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Are you saying it is illegal, or are you saying that you'll be illegally harassed for it? I agree that a law will be broken for taking a picture of an ATM's innards, but not by the person taking the photo...
Learn to love Alaska
You would be surprised what comes up when you google image search "inside of atm" with quotes & safe search off.
This is called the "first amendment."
http://photography.about.com/od/copyrightinformation/ss/PhotoRights.htm
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
And if the store has a no photography policy,
They do, but there's nothing here about store employees mentioning it.
and the ATM company has industrial secrets or something,
They may, but should be a little more careful in that case, doncha think?
then they can have the picture confiscated,
Not without due process, they can't.
and the police would need to take the person in to custody to ensure no copies of the picture were created.
Which would ensure nothing and be a waste of time. I can post a pic to Facebook (or any other server) as quickly as I can take it.
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
The War on Terror(TM) has become the War on Photographers.
I think more people are just aware of it now and the authorities are less tolerant of it.
A couple of years before 9/11 I went out to take some night shots with a tripod and old TLR camera. It was pretty late, area was dead. In one area a cop came up to me and told me I couldn't take photos there. There was a sign but I missed it. It wasn't a big deal and I just left. I think they might have seen me taking photos in other areas earlier.
Post 9/11 things might have been a bit different such as more thorough questioning. The area was fairly close to the WTC. You could actually see it from where I was taking photos but that's not what I was taking photos of. A number of officers in the area were lost in the attacks.
If I did it again, I don't know that they'd call SWAT. I think that's just more the small town places that got a bunch of new equipment as a result of the home land security spending and needing any excuse to justify it. I wouldn't have been surprised or upset if they asked for my ID or detained me for questioning.
As for the tripod thing, there are a lot of places you can't use a tripod without a permit and that was even before the war on terror. It can be a safety issue because you're blocking the path.
You can't just take pictures where you want either. I understand the frustration of being hassled taking photos in a public place when there is no posted warning, but taking a photo of two strangers filling a cash machine with money in a private store is not exactly the same thing.
Dual Opteron < $600
I would argue that even if there is a law against certain things, you still have a right to do them.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
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.
Go ahead then. I guarantee you're going to need a lawyer though. I hope the fun is worth it.
It's not about "fun", and it's certainly not about taking the easy way out.
The fact is that if we want to HAVE rights, it's necessary to assert them. Do you really have a right to take pictures in public if you can be legally harassed, cuffed and hauled in for questioning for doing it? You do not.
Does it matter whether or not you can take a picture of an ATM? Probably not. But it definitely DOES matter that you aren't required to abide by the whims of random company employees, that they can't force you to identify themselves to you just because they don't like the way you looked at them. And it matters that the police be able to understand that citizens who did nothing wrong should not be harassed.
But if everyone is like you, if no one is willing to stand up, even though it's unpleasant, inconvenient and occasionally expensive, over time we'll lose the option of deciding whether we want to go along to get along or not.
Civil rights activists of all sorts are necessary, especially the ones who just want to take the opportunity to assert their right to remain more or less anonymous.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You're only required by (federal) law to show identification to an officer of the law when you are suspected of a crime.
You're only required to carry identification when operating a vehicle and in some territories when carrying a weapon.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
The Loomis rent-a-cops and the REI rent-a-cops do not have the right to demand that he produce photo ID.
The real cops can, but the real cops weren't there at the moment you quoted.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Agreed. A better word in this case might be the freedom to do a thing. The idea still stands: unless there is a very good reason against doing a thing, and that reason is properly codified into law, I have the freedom to do that thing.
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.
Welcome to America my friend. It is _not_ the law here.
I fly fairly regularly (about once a month), and I routinely have my camera out, taking pictures of various parts of the airport, including the aircraft. I don't point it at security lines, but that's mostly because I don't have much interest in them. Never been bothered once in any of the seven or eight airports I've been to or through so far this year.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Being private property does not necessarily mean it is not a public place. A lot of that, in the legal sense, depends on whether or not the property, while privately owned, is generally open to the public or not.
This was in Seattle. Home of M$ and retro-geek. Do that and people might just start buying you drinks.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
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.
Haven't been to Slashdot in a while? Bullshit, Anonymous Coward. You seem to post on every story!
... 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".
Getting a blow job is illegal in my state. I think there's a law in some state that makes oral sex illegal if you don't finish vaginally, specifically.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
Yeah, I suspect that there is a lot more to this story we haven't heard yet.
This comment by 'coryboehne (244614) *' leads me to think it was an actual event, but there are not enough facts/data to determine much of anything.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be some dude causing trouble and capitalizing on it to generate page hits on his blog.
I'm not defending the cops and security guards, as they may have equal culpability in this incident, but at this stage it's all suppositions and conjecture.
For all I/we know, his account could be factual, partially factual, or anything.
Where's Sgt. Joe Friday when you need him?!?!?!?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
He should have softened them up first with a base level social engineering attack something like:
Hey Buddy, I've just been learning how to service these, mind if I take a couple of snaps of this one to show my teacher, I've never seen this model before.
or
My boy is interested in the inside of these mind if I take a piccy so he can have a look?
The combinations of bullshit are endless but you get the point. Instead of being confrontational he could of said, Talk to you later? sure buddy. did his business forget it and walk out. If confronted again he could have diffused the situation, or he could have said Talk to you later? I'm not going anywhere in *this* line, what's up? if the security guard revealed he was upset about the pictures, he should of apologised profusely, said he would delete the pictures immediately, fiddle with the phone and not delete them, then look at the guard and say - all done - sorry about that.
It's obvious these guys motivation is 'wespect my horthorita' so he should have played on it and not looked like a threat, the guard might have just been interested in having a look at his iphone as much as he was interested in the inside of an atm. Instead the subject reinforced the marks insecurities by being confrontational instead of comforting them. Frankly whilst our subject probably didn't deserve the treatment he also brought it upon himself.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Being polite != helping. And when they stop being polite to me, I have no further use for being polite to them.
REI is private property. They have the right to serve a criminal trespass notice on anybody they think is being an asshole. I'm not sure, but I suspect that requires that they establish your identity. They do have the right to ask you to leave and not come back. I'm not sure why they didn't just call up the special order you just placed to ascertain your identity. I'm also not clear if they have the right to demand you give them ID just so they can file a complaint against you. I'd also expect that if REI won't let you do business with them, they should refund your membership fee. Personally, I make it a rule never to argue with anyone carrying a loaded weapon, regardless of whether or not they are "real" law enforcement. That being said, I don't believe the police have a case (unless he resisted arrest), and he will probably be handed a "no complaint" notice by the court. But he should consider himself lucky. Last time a cop decided he didn't like me and arrested me for driving the FRONT car in a rear-end collision, I got to spend the whole night in jail before going to work the next morning. And worry about it for a month before the court decided there was no valid complaint -- despite the fact that one of the arresting officers flat out lied in the report, putting words in my mouth that I had never said. (Why blame the accident on me? Because the woman who caused the accident, with 6 toddlers in the car without seatbelts, didn't have insurance.)
Anybody who actually claims to be an anarchist on their blog most likely does go around acting like an asshole with an attitude. When you cop an attitude, don't be surprised when karma bites you on the ass.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
We deny all responsibilities; it's not our fault, and we're prepared to defend ourselves against any legal actions.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You can call the cop a cocksucking piece of shit and there's jack she can do about it. Just don't scream in a public place so they can hit you with the generic "disorderly conduct" charge.
When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?
No, no, no. It's:
1) Am I free to go?
2) Am I being detained?
Rinse, wash, repeat. And, if the cop is being a cocksucking piece of shit, add
3) Call for another officer to come to the scene.
... 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
No, it was not. It was on privately owned public property. If you have an "open" sign in the front of your store and unlocked doors and people that greet you and say "Hi, come on in" then you are public (with some extra rights). You may kick people out, but they essentially have all the rights of being in public up to the point where they are asked to leave by the owners. As he was never asked to leave, he was in public (for all legal purposes, even if he was standing on privately owned property).
There is a vast difference between opening up the door to a store and walking in past a large open sign and posted hours indicating they are open and meeting representatives of the owner that welcome you, and walking up to a private home, trying the front door, and if it opens, walking in, plopping down on the couch, and watching TV. Though both are private property, one is public and one is private.
Learn to love Alaska
You mean an armored vehicle being operated by private individuals carrying firearms who are protecting bags whose contents cannot be ascertained visually? Sounds suspicious, possibly terrorist.
A security-minded citizen would indeed take pictures and report this activity to the authorities. If he's asked/told to stop by the guards/gunmen, then clearly these guys have something to hide, and he should run away, shouting "terrorist van!" at the top of his lungs.
hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.
Seriously, and this kind of stupid crap happens in even far more innocuous circumstances ("it's illegal to take photos here sir <in public place where it most certainly isn't illegal>, you'll have to delete those pictures")... these days it's kind of like some kind of bizarro security-guard meme.
[Well, presumably it's the guards' idiot managers who are actually at fault; the guards probably don't actually come up with this shit spontaneously.]
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Not in the U.S. of A., it is not. You are within your rights to tell a cop who says "papers, please" as you're walking down the street, "I would prefer not to," and the courts have gotten it correct on recognizing that right. But it still takes people with guts to stand up for it.
(It may, of course, be to your advantage to show them ID -- if they're looking for John Smith and you can show your name is Richard Roe, you can be about your business that much sooner.)
You are also within your rights to decline to tell a cop your name, though SCOTUS did a Dred Scott on this one a few years ago in the Hiibel case. I look forward to our Fourth Amendment rights
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I have a damn near photographic memory as well as extremely good drawing skills.
COME AND FUCKING GET ME.
Also, I'm fairly certain I could get the specs and info on pretty much any ATM or armored car in a matter of days without too much effort.
And I've seen the interior of an armored car on the damn news for christ's sake.
You really are a piece of work aren't you.
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.
You're only required to carry identification when operating a vehicle and in some territories when carrying a weapon.
I am a weapon!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
...people are going to see.
That's pretty much a "No duh!" situation there.
What if they guy had had a lipstick cam behind his ear? What if he just walked up to the techs while they were refilling the ATM and made smalltalk about how he used to refill ATMs as well? He could have gotten MUCH better snapshots and the techs would have been none the wiser.
If companies don't want people to see the innards of an ATM, then put up a curtain around them while you're refilling them. No, I'm serious. Walk into the place with a folded-up room divider and your boxes 'O cash, set up the divider around the ATM, and have one guy go inside and fill the machine while the other guy waits outside and watches everyone. Then you take down the divider and go back to the armored car. Simple.
That way if someone tries to take a picture of the ATM, it's really obvious that the techs are trying to keep it shielded and it's a lot easier for them to tell the person to stop and/or call the police on them.
Second, people who aren't law enforcement agents cannot generally stop or detain people. They may have a license to carry a handgun, and they may dress like a police officer, but they aren't empowered to act like an officer. If someone tries to talk to you or asks you to talk to them, politely refuse and walk away.
In this kind of situation, if a guy with a gun who is not a cop tells me that he wants to talk to me, I'd usually suggest walking away. Put down the purchases, hand them to a friend, ask the woman behind the counter to put them on hold for you, whatever. Just walk out of there.
The benefit of such a situation is that you get out of there, you clear your head, etc... and then you can go back and conduct your business later, hopefully when man-with-gun is gone. And if this armed person who is not a member of the law enforcement tries to detain you (an unarmed person walking away), then the cops, the court, the company, and the crowd around you (yes, I alliterated that for y'all) will probably be much more supportive of your actions.
Unless this guy with the camera was an active danger for them, then I don't see any reason for them to talk to him. The second the armed guys engage him they know that it will put him on the defensive, and considering the fact that there are two armed guys there, the power dynamic is going to get really bad, really quickly.
The only thing these guys should say is something like "please stand back from the ATM," "Please don't take pictures", etc... The only time they should engage with a civilian is when they are feeling actively threatened.
"The Loomis guys wanted me to give them my ID so they could write a report about me for their bosses...The REI security people that had been called in by now wanted the same thing.
Um...no?
Both Loomis and REI have lawyers. And my guess is that both teams of them are (correctly) telling every one of their employees involved in this incident to have a big slice of superglue pie. You can ask anyone for their ID, but only the police can make the request a requirement, and only in certain instances.
Would having the ID make life easier for the Loomis and REI employees? Sure. But so would having each store patron take off their clothes at the entrance to ensure that they aren't carrying-in weapons and aren't carrying-out shoplifted goods. I don't want to be subjected to either of these unreasonable privacy invasions by stores, so I won't patronize businesses that employ them.
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
The photographer didn't remove any cash or any other items. Had the Loomis guys tackled him, that would have probably been a threat of assault, followed by assault. Further, the guys are armed, which probably raises the penalty for both charges a few notches.
coding is life
Wrong, that's not a public place, that's a private place of business. Based upon the biased account on the sight, it looks a bit questionable as to whether he was being honest.
I walk by the Loomis guys at work frequently and I'd never pull a stunt like the writer did. For one thing if somebody were to later on mess with or rob the machine, guess who's going to be on the list of suspects.
You CAN commit crimes WHILE being a jerk, but being a jerk simply isn't a crime.
Though I imagine doing something to needlessly stall or waste an officer's time by being a jerk could be. It get's really subjective at that point, but still.
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.
being a smartass to a gun toting bully?
First, they are usually armed. Second, they have the ability to detain you (granted they will need to figure out somewhere to ditch the body if they want to kill you but they can interrupt your pulse), and third, their job sucks for the most part.
So where do people come off with the idea that it is OK to be anything but polite with them? Frankly if your a smartass to me I won't help you. I won't even talk to you. At least I am not armed; well not as they are. The difference is that regardless of how much an asshole someone else is there is never an excuse to anything but polite in return. This is especially true with people who are doing their job.
There, fixed that for you.
Yes, and compels them into making up something to charge you with. Brilliant idea.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Who gives a fuck? He can be a "smartass" to anyone he wants. It's not illegal.
That's why you should consider getting your state ID tattooed on your person. Make sure you keep yourself unloaded when going out in public, accidents do happen.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
This quote from TFA strikes me as both taunting and smartass-y:
I told them plainly that I'm not in the habit of giving my ID to people just because they want it, especially fake cops who put money in box and get to play at being real cops.
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.
What could help this guy is proof that this sort of picture is already available freely on the web. If it is then the guy is not exposing anything which is not already exposed.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
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"
If you trespass then you are breaking another part of the Constitution which deals with Private Property. I'm not sure which part and I'm too lazy to look it up but it's in there.
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."
That’s because you live in Russia :) (or France)
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.
"He's guilty of being an ass. Sorry to inform you that is NOT against the law. Case dismissed." - Judge Judy just a few weeks ago.
Also there's nothing illegal about recording a *public* scene, whether it's with a camera or using your photographic memory.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Of course it's not against the law. Just as her detaining him was not technically against the law, just bad procedure for which she may get fined...
But basically who wouldn't give up a little comfort to put down a smartass?
Also there's nothing illegal about recording a *public* scene, whether it's with a camera or using your photographic memory.
I am a part time photographer so I know that well. I also have enough sense to understand the implications of what I am doing. Heck, I would photograph the inside of an ATM too - but I'd expect the police might get interested and I'd explain calmly what I was doing, but I'd be OK with being detained over it even if I knew it was wrong. Sometimes they don't know after all, and it's pretty pointless to bitch much about other people's ignorance (at least if you want to live a happy life).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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!
...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 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.
In other words, you let everyone walk all over you.
Heck, I would photograph the inside of an ATM too - but I'd expect the police might get interested and I'd explain calmly what I was doing, but I'd be OK with being detained over it even if I knew it was wrong.
Sorry, but I wouldn't be OK with this. I'd be quite pissed off. Maybe it's pointless bitching, and maybe it suggests I don't want to live a happy life, but that's how it is.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
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.
The police officer can question anyone they like and handcuff them if they are being an ass.
Exactly, it's also known, in some places, as failure to cooperate with a peace officer.
In other words, if you willingly fsck with a cop, the cop automatically has the right to fsck with you back.
They where not in a public place. They where inside REI which is private property. Which is why REI banned him from returning for one year and he signed a trespass notice.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
There are several very important differences there. First is that a police officer is a public official with significant power, and thus should be held to a significantly higher standard than any random person. Second, detaining someone is much more severe than being a minor smartass.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century,free flow of information is the only safeguard against...
My wife thinks I'm crazy, but I've always been of the opinion that if a police officer tries to assert false authority over me for whatever reason, I would stand up for my rights; but for my wife's sake, I don't think I'd make a scene if she were with me...
(Un?)Fortunately, I haven't yet had an appropriate opportunity to do so.
This blogger needs to learn some tact. The best way to deal with security guards (who have no real power) is simply to ask, "Are you police?" followed by, "Then you have no authority over me. I'm now going to leave." They cannot detain you from leaving unless you've stolen their property (like Levis jeans) which is not the case here.
As for actual police, the best way to deal with them is to exercise your Miranda Rights (remain silent). Every time you open your mouth, you give them evidence that can be used against you. Better to shut your mouth and keep calm - almost bored.
BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car. More Supreme Court cases then I can list here have affirmed this multiple times. Don't cave-in to the police simply because they *believe* they have certain powers. 99% of the time they are exceeding their legal authority as circumscribed by the courts.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
See, it's a living document.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I haven't actually laughed out loud (when reading Slashdot, anyway) for quite a while, thanks :)
In all seriousness, though, not everyone can think on their toes like that...
Batshit irrelevant. Even if he signed a contract with REI beforehand agreeing not to take pictures inside their store, the best they can do is ask him to leave.
Yes, yes they were. Very first quoted sentence.
If I had taken a picture of the inside of an ATM for whatever reason, and the police later suspected me of robbing that (or any other) ATM, I'd probably just cooperate with their investigation - the faster they rule me out as a suspect, the fewer of my tax dollars they waste investigating the wrong person.
Um no they can't just question/handcuff anyone they like. That'd be unlawful detention, and they could possibly be sued for it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unlawful+detention
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
You are in no way required to be polite or even talk to a cop. He may be nicer to you, and may choose not to exert his right to detain you to question you, which would be beneficial, but that doesn't mean being an ass is illegal or even wrong. Especially when he was being fucked with for doing nothing wrong.
:(){
EDIT: Judge Judy actually was an accredited family court judge, and I am wrong, there is some realism to the actual cases being tried.
Ummm, he was on private property. Just because two or more people can see each other doesn't make a place, public.
Then the most they can do is ask him to leave. Period.
The smart ass here was the one who said he was going to "tackle" him. He could have said "detain you" or even "make a citizen's arrest" (although, the legality of that detention or arrest would still have been debatable, but at least those words would have been a lot less threatening), but "tackle" you? Come on, give me a break. That's such the wrong word to use for someone who's currently waiting in line, going about his business, and who's not about to leave anytime soon anyway.
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
An ATM technician and/or store security guard is not by any means a law officer, and only has the right to detain you until police arrive if they witness you committing a crime (citizen's arrest), or there's evidence implicating you, not merely because they suspect something.
The notion that you have to be polite to someone like a security guard, just because they carry mace, a baton, or rarely a gun, is just asking for abuse of authority. Even in this case, they didn't ask for him to stop, or delete the photo. They immediately asked for identification so they could file a report. He had every right to refuse, and leave. Frankly, he should've left when it became clear they were trying to detain him. If they tried to physically restrain him, it would've at least made for an amusing assault case. Human nature is usually that if you give someone any minor authority, their ego becomes very large about it.
"A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
However, the store can call the police and have their security detain you until the police arrive
You're half right. They certainly can call the police, but the store has no right to detain you - in any state. But even if that were the case, not only did he not steal anything, he was a paying customer.
The only two mistakes the guy made were in
1) not ignoring the rent-a-cops and walking out of the store
2) talking to the real cops when they showed up
I know that retail stores often have contracts with towing agencies that give the latter pretty broad control. It's possible that they might also have similar contracts with ATM companies. Heck, I'd consider it likely that towing agencies and ATM companies both have provisions in their contracts saying that they can require the retail store to ban someone if they bother the contractors' employees.
Yeah, and they could ask him to leave, and even to never come back. But they can't harass him, threaten him, or confiscate his property. So they were in the wrong if things happened anything like what he says.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You can't just take pictures where you want either. I understand the frustration of being hassled taking photos in a public place when there is no posted warning, but taking a photo of two strangers filling a cash machine with money in a private store is not exactly the same thing.
Mostly, you can. Taking photos of some guys filling a cash machine is just fine; if an employee kicks you out for doing it, then leave.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Though I imagine doing something to needlessly stall or waste an officer's time by being a jerk could be.
Maybe- but I won't hold my breath waiting for the Loomis guys to be arrested for it.
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.
Does it really matter at that point who is the beneficiary of information? They told him to identify himself. Period.
Hell yes it matters. Why should Loomis get his ID? Unless he's at least being charged with a crime, then the police shouldn't be allowed to give them his ID either. Loomis had no right to it. Also, you aren't required to present an ID, just to give your name and address to the police if they request it. You're not required to give it to anyone else, even if they do have nifty uniforms and guns.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
How can a jerk talking possibly be charged with wasting an officer's time. The officer does not have to wait until the guy stops talking. If he has something else to do, he is free to ignore the jerk and go do it, no?
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
"Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?"
No law, just a guy with a shotgun.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Amen.
But they banned him for a year, if the author is to be believed.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
... being a smartass to a law officer?
When said officer is dumb enough to not know the most basic rights U.S. citizens enjoy under the Constitution?
Also, in case you missed it, he wasn't asked for the ID by a police officer. He was asked for the ID by a private security guard, who proceeded to call the cops when refused; and when the cops arrived, they wanted him to hand over the ID to that same guard, not to them.
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.
That seems as it was said in a sense of humor, but in reality it is true. I can not carry a 2" penkinfe to my college classes, but am allowed to carry a 7" long metal ballpoint pen and sharp pencils, along with a heavy poly-something or another brush, a magazine, keyring full of keys, wear steel toe boots and carry soda cans. But a penknife is a dangerous weapon, lol. This fixation on weapons is an American psychosis. Weapons are not dangerous, the people who carry those weapons can be. In today's society, people are not used to or capable of dealing with physical violence for the most part, outside the lower income parts of towns and in immigrant communities. So they ban weapons, not realizing that they just make themselves prey for those who need no weapon to be dangerous.
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
I was going to reply to your comment above until I saw this one. *kill two birds with one stone time*
Even if we go with the assumption that we all RTFA, all we are seeing as 'evidence/facts' is the arrestee's blog. That is hardly enough data points to come to any unbiased conclusion.
I am not arguing that the security guards and cops were in the right. Not at all!
All I am saying is, that you are getting riled up over some dude's self-edited blog post. There is no corroborative evidence/data; not even any adversarial evidence is presented!
Get a grip!
Now, if this account turns out to be both complete and factual, then your outrage is justified, and I will jump in at your side....but it is far from complete, it's just the affected party's blog.
The 'wisest old man' that I ever knew told me that there were three sides to every story:
1. My side
2. Your side
3. What actually happened
I have never known him to be wrong about that in my 51 years on this planet....Thanks, Grandfather!
P.S.
4. ???
5. Profit???
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The point is, he went out of his way to take the picture. He even admitted to it.
And this is reason to be detained....why, exactly?
I go out of my way to take pictures all the time. If it's a cool thing to take a picture of, then I'll do what it takes, within reason, to get a picture of it.
And walking a couple of dozen feet across a store isn't exactly going a long way out of his way.
The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Sheindlin
She may look fake, but she's a judge, although retired now. However; the cases are *real*, albeit her rulings are in the form of binding arbitration that both sides agreed to.
Personally, I think she is extremely irritating and do not watch that show. I don't need to hear from a judge to know that 'being an ass' is not, by itself, illegal though.
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
>>I told them plainly that I'm not in the habit of giving my ID to people just because they want it, especially fake cops who put money in box and get to play at being real cops.
>This quote from TFA strikes me as both taunting and smartass-y:
Strange; it strikes me as being insightful. Perhaps he thought they deserved to hear it because they were being all 'uppity-like'?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
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
Ummm, he was on private property. Just because two or more people can see each other doesn't make a place, public.
Then the most they can do is ask him to leave. Period.
Exactly.
I'm only posting to add that even private property owners have some limitations if they allow the public to enter. Stores and other locations that are open to the public fall into the legal of category "public accommodation". Public accommodations are private property but there are significant limits on what they can do. For example, although they can ask you to leave for almost any reason, they can't do it because you're a member of a protected minority. There are various other ways in which the public accommodation owner's control over speech and other behaviors are limited as compared to private property where the public is not allowed.
Specific to my state, there's also a limitation on the trespassing statute. It is a valid defense to a trespassing charge that the trespasser was on property that was open to the public at the time and was not interfering with the owner's use of the property. So, basically, the owner of a public accommodation has to show that your actions in some way harmed his business, otherwise the trespassing charge won't stick.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Police do not have the "right" to detain anyone. Police are granted special powers by the people through the government in order to protect the people. These special powers are not a right, they are a tool that are required to be used in the least obstructive way. A police officer can seize the immediate legal control over a situation but there will be hell to pay later if that is abused. The more power an officer uses in the moment the more scrutiny is going to be used on him later.
For example if a cop tell you that you must not leave he is using some power and nobody will bat an eye. If the cop cuffs a person and questions them he is using further power and can possibly get in trouble if he does it wrong. If a police officer tackles a person then cuffs them he is going to be further scrutinized. If a police officer beats or shoots or sprays pepper spray on someone then detains them they will of course fall under further scrutiny. Any of those actions can be abuses or legal uses of their power under different situations.
He might have been carrying a driver's license, but we do not have identity papers in this country. You are under no obligation to use your driver's license, should you happen to have one, for anything but driving a motor vehicle; and certainly not to show it to anyone other than a police officer and only when you are driving.
In some states it's illegal to refuse to show ID to the police. Washington was at one point one of those laws until the state supreme court overturned the law declaring it unconstitutional.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
If you look at the picture, the rent a cops were armed. If you read his description, they also threatened him with violence.
IANAL, and am still going through the RCW on this, but I think this is a case of Felony False Imprisonment and intend to contact DA Hynes about this abuse of a fellow citizen.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
He can only detain you if you're reasonably suspected that you have, or will in the very near future commit of some kind of crime. He doesn't have the "right" to detain you unless there is probable cause. That's called false imprisonment--and in many jurisdictions, you can sue the department, and sometimes even the individual officer(s) depending on the severity of the harassment, and in some cases, it might even be a CRIME--especially if the officer(s) violate one or more of your civil rights.
Photographing the guts of an ATM, and being a doofus probably don't constitute probable cause, in most scenarios. He might be able to tell you to beat it, but that's about it. A simple "am I being detained, or can I go now", is all you ever need to say to a cop, and that's ALL YOU SHOULD EVER SAY TO A COP. If the answer is no, and yes, say "have a nice day", turn about face and leave. If the answer is no, CLAP THE TRAP.
and the War on Wall Street...
He was obviously a financial terrorist out to destroy our economy (or was that Bush).
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
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.
then you are public (with some extra rights)...but they essentially have all the rights of being in public ...As he was never asked to leave, he was in public (for all legal purposes, even if he was standing on privately owned property).
Incorrect. You are confusing the right of the public to purchase goods vs the right to take pictures.
You actually have fewer rights than being in a public space. SCOTUS has defined a narrow right to free speech in regards to shopping centers (not individual stores). That right must come from state constitution, such as California. Furthermore, people can be removed if they are causing a disturbance or during non-business hours.
Stores that are open to the public must sell to the public, although they can remove people for whatever reason as long as the reason is not a wholesale restriction against a protected class. They can remove you because you do not have a shirt, you are too loud, you smell, you are causing a mess, you have been bad in the past and are banned from the store. They can also disguise their reason to make it seem valid, such as when a store owner does not want to serve black folks.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
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.
I'd expect the police might get interested and I'd explain calmly what I was doing, but I'd be OK with being detained over it even if I knew it was wrong.
You'd be okay with being illegally detained?
I wouldn't. I'd file a complaint. And if I felt seriously harassed I'd file a lawsuit. Police officers are required to know and respect your rights.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Per REI, the incident occurred on their property, REI did not call the police and he was not trespassing.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
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.
It's been my experience that the cops are the ones being asses and overstepping their badges. Perhaps this was more of a case of protecting their immage and the cops just didn't want everyone to think they could be dickheads at will like they are?
Seriously, I'm serious.
Every time I've been accosted for photographing a government building I just say that I'm sorry and that I didn't know I was not allowed to photograph certain things. The Officer then tells me that I can photograph it if I have prior permission from someone. I say, "it's no bother, would you like me to delete the photos"? They say yes, and I delete them right there in front of the officer.
Then I go home and recover the deleted photos. Much easier that way.
Sorry, missed your edit post...
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)
Especially when we only have his side of the story.
All you need to say are five magic words: Am I free to go?
If the answer is yes, then you go. Now. Leave.
If the answer is no, then they have charges they plan to file/etc and that changes the ballgame immediately. Miranda rights come into play if it's the cops, or false imprisonment or kidnapping charges if it's just a rent-a-cop or Loomis worker. If it's the cops, that also means the ticker starts on how long they can detain you without charging you with something. Generally this is only a few minutes up to half an hour in some cases. That's not to say they won't outright lie or invent charges.
But any time someone tries to detain you, just say AIFTG? and watch the wheels of justice spin.
Sig for hire.
being a smartass to a law officer?
First, they are usually armed.
I'm usually armed, too. So what? You think they're going to shoot you for smarting off?
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)
No, they don't have the authority to detain you. Not without reasonable articulable suspicion that you have committed, are committing or are about to commit a specific crime. Lacking that suspicion -- and they have to be able to say exactly what it is, and why -- they have no more authority to detain you than any random person does. Whether they have a gun or not.
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?
Okay, now this we agree on. It's a good idea to be polite, to everyone. It costs you nothing and makes everyone's day a little better. And cops' job *does* suck.
Where we differ, I think, is what being polite means. When dealing with a police officer, to me politeness means keeping a calm, pleasant tone of voice, not being sarcastic or rude, saying sir (or ma'am, as appropriate), not using profanity, etc.
But politeness does not extend to answering any questions I don't legally have to. And I know what I do and do not have to answer, and I know what they are and are not allowed to do. If they cross the line, I'll politely get their name and badge number and file a complaint afterwards (I won't tell them I'm filing a complaint, though, that might be impolite -- and it's pointless besides).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Careful.
The United States was founded by several people who were widely considered to be "smartasses". There's a nice portrait of one of them on the hundred dollar bill.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A month or three ago, someone high up in a locality (NYC? DC? ???), someone with the power to do so, declared the draconian anti-photography laws over in his juristiction. Anyone remember where? Or am I crazy.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
you've stolen their property (like Levis jeans) which is not the case here.
Well this certainly helps my lawyer defend me. Those rent-a-cops (I call them radios-with-flabby-bottoms) had no right to touch me! I only lift the finest Lee Boot Cut Low-Rise Carpenter Jeans, $10.99 at Kohls if you're a slave to "property rights".
Keeping your mouth shut and remaining calm also helps defuse the tension. It also gives you an air of authority and confidence, such that the cops wonder if they are picking on the wrong person, someone with real power.
It sounds like this blogger's big mouth did the opposite, making the situation more-and-more tense, until he angered the police, and ended-up handcuffed. Foolish. If he'd kept silent he'd probably have been let go.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Private Police can make citizens arrests. This means they can arrest you if they have reasonable reason to believe that a felony was committed. In most states, you can also arrest for a misdemeanors committed directly in your presence.
Off-duty cops sometimes do side jobs as private police. In this case, they have the full authority of real police officers.
None of this seems applicable here, though. There's no law about taking pictures of an open ATM. The most they can do is ask you to leave. Personally, I would have walked away as soon as the rent-a-cop admitted to not being a real police officer. If I got tackled, I'll happily get a lawyer and sue.
Not a typewriter
Well, no they can't and yes it's illegal. The police has to have a reason to believe that some law was being broken or that the person was about to harm themselves or someone else in order to detain someone. They cannot just walk up to you and handcuff you while demanding identification. This is true whether your being an ass or not and there are numerous supreme court cases surrounding this.
And while a cop won't be arrested for the unlawful detainment, he will see disciplinary action and a right to a lawsuit most likely has opened up. The police has to have a reason to fuck with you period. You being on a public street or in a public area is not reason on it's own. Being a smart ass or a jerk is not reason either.
In almost every jurisdiction that I've ever been in during my life, if an actual office of the law (as opposed to rentacops) demands ID, you provide it. Refusal to do so is illegal.
Not so cut and dried in the USA.
I am in no way trying to dispute what you said....'illegal' my not be the best term to use, but in reality that is what it seems to 'appear as' to the unwashed masses.
See here:USA==Let me see your papers, please!
Inside of the USA, you are not required any 'ID papers' to move around or cross state borders.
*opens worm can*
To get around in the USA will eventually require some sort of ID. It may be to cash your paycheck to get a bus ticket, or provide a lot of personal info for a car loan, or credit/debit card, etc....
If you are the driver of a vehicle in the USA, then you have most likely signed a waiver to get your drivers license that allows the state to demand that ID at request.
If you are not the driver, then it gets stickier, and if you are on foot, you are toast unless you have enough cash in pocket to avoid the local 'vagrancy laws'.
Mostly it boils down to how much effort/time/resources you want to use to combat it, and where you are and the specific circumstances.
Federal law, no ID required for in country travel
State law, generally the same...but depends on if, and where you get 'pulled over'
'Local Law", generally a 'crap-shoot'
YMMV, determined by your tenacity and pocketbook
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car.
It depends on your state, but at least in Nevada, you must identify yourself or you can be arrested.
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 -
All the "real cops" can do is ask him to identify himself. He was under no obligation to show his ID to any of the cops (real or otherwise).
In America, you're not obligated to carry any ID with you.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Or use your iPhone to phone the police for the armed man issuing threats of violence.
I don't think that was his point. He wouldn't be "okay" with it, but you have to weigh your odds of winning against an armed cop, who probably called in 5 of his buddies for backup. Better to just cooperate silently, rather than yell and throw a temper tantrum. After you get released, then you can strike back (with a lawsuit).
Look at Ghandi and Martin Luther Kingr. They both spent a lot of time in jail, and I'm sure they weren't happy about it, but they did eventually win. You lose today's battle, but you win the war over the long term.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
To say nothing of putting up this story wihtout giving REI or Loomis a chance to apologize. In general, you should give companies a chance to make amends before you publicize bad behavior on a couple of employee's part and damage their reputation.
It's not uncommon to have a few idiots on payroll. Wait until you know how they'll react so you can include it in your blog.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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
Tact and politeness are generally considered useful skills, especially when dealing with the cops (even rent-a-cops).
In other words, there are plenty of nicer ways to say "I won't give you my ID" than "I don't give my ID to fake cops".
You have to identify yourself; this does not necessitate providing a drivers' license. That interpretation would make it illegal to not have a drivers' license; it's perfectly legal to never obtain any form of federal- or state-issued picture identification. (It might make some things harder - opening a bank account, for example - but it's legal.)
What you are required to do is provide your name and your address, so that the police can verify that through some other means. That fulfills the needs of "required to identify yourself".
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.
IANAL, but if you refuse to ID yourself, and your state has a Stop and Identify law, then yes, the police can arrest you.
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada it was ascertained that you do have to disclose your name to a peace officer if your state has a stop and identify law, which Nevada does.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes Washington state does not have a stop and identify law, so if that was correct, he didn't have to even ID himself verbally to the police.
Moral of the story is, if you leave in one of those states mentioned above that has a stop and identify statute, yes, you can be arrested and charged with a crime.
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)
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.)
Re-read his post. "State supreme court"
No, that's not correct. You're confusing limitations on enforcement with conferring of rights. The owner is restricted to asking somebody to leave or having the police eject them except in certain cases. That does not grant people the right to violate the rules, it just means that the owner is limited in response to violations of policy.
That's not the same thing as a person having the same rights as they do in public. There are a great deal of things that a private business owner can prohibit on his private property which wouldn't apply to public spaces.
Yet, it's still not illegal to be a jerk. You CAN commit crimes WHILE being a jerk, but being a jerk simply isn't a crime.
Yeah, but being a jerk while commiting a crime will probably get your body slammed to the dirt a lot harder than just doing a crime.
I am not a sig.
They cannot detain you from leaving unless you've stolen their property (like Levis jeans) which is not the case here.
In most cases they can't even stop you then. They can follow you while talking to the cops on the phone, but they can't physically detain you unless you are posing an immediate physical threat and it is an attempt to stop that threat.
Did anyone else think, from the title, that this article was about some sort of Open SOURCE ATM?
Some sort of Diebold opposite?
A police officer can seize the immediate legal control over a situation but there will be hell to pay later if that is abused.
Umm.. yeah, or not
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
How is that even remotely relevent? What does SCOTUS have to do with this? The post you are replying to VERY CLEARLY stated "state supreme court". They key word that you just totally disregarded being "state"
...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
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.
No, it is illegal to not identify yourself to police when asked. It is NOT illegal to not show them a physical ID as you are not required to have one.
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?
Probably because the U.S. Supreme Court overrides state courts in the matter of constitutional law.
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.
So in summary, your argument is that you must show deference to people if they are (a) armed or (b) in a position to abuse their lawful authority to detain you? Not a great basis for a civil society, if you don't mind me saying.
You have no obligation to be polite to the police. Manners suggests that it's a pleasant thing to do, but that is quite a different proposition. So long as you aren't overtly aggressive or deliberately obstructing them in the course of their duties then you can be as unfriendly as you like.
If they are fucking with you as you lawfully go about your business, then why on earth would you be polite, though? Yes, it might get you out of the situation with less fuss, but on the other hand you are tacitly accepting their right to push you around.
Read Pynchon.
Um, yeah, and they have no further use for not detaining you. Check ... mate? At least, temporarily... And, do you make enough in 48 hours that detention for that period would present a hardship? (I.e., continuing to pay your bills, or otherwise meet your commitments?) Apparently, you've just figured out (one of) Heinlein's Law(s), "An armed society is a polite society." And, although it mostly goes without saying in the US, this "detention" may completely eliminate your ability (see the "mate" after the "check") to ever donate blood to the Red Cross again.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Sorry, no. Show me a law that says being a smartass is illegal and then maybe you will have some weight behind your argument.
Yeah, the guy got arrested. No, the police officer isn't in jail. It doesn't mean it was a lawful arrest and the officer will be lucky if she doesn't lose her job over it.
Don't Talk to Cops. They may not like you for it (trust me), but it'll keep you out of trouble later on.
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.
"Am I free to go" can (often does) result in a practiced non-answer, where the answer should be "yes."
In which case "I decline the encounter" is the appropriate follow up.
So, re: your sig: "Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety." The cops are there to "protect and serve"; protection is somewhat similar to safety, so are you saying that the cops are tyrants?
Without giving too many details, this fucker lied in his report after he pulled me over. However, I did not have access to weather reports (it was dry, not damp) nor traffic reports (how the fuck could I have been swerving in and out of traffic if there was heavy traffic), so I just took the CWOF.
So, it's on my record. Later I learned that fighting it would have most likely lost me my license and made it even more on my record.
I chose not to file a complaint. I do not need some random guy with a gun finding a burglary attempt in my home and shooting the perp, who unfortunately just happened to look like the homeowner.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
anyone knows the full form of rei?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
I don't think that was his point. He wouldn't be "okay" with it, but you have to weigh your odds of winning against an armed cop, who probably called in 5 of his buddies for backup. Better to just cooperate silently, rather than yell and throw a temper tantrum. After you get released, then you can strike back (with a lawsuit).
Who said anything about temper tantrums or yelling? You should be perfectly polite, and comply with every order given you by a police officer, but you should ask if you're free to go and continue asking until you get an answer. If the answer is "yes", then leave. If the answer is "no", then shut up.
And, yes, you should file at least a complaint, and perhaps a lawsuit.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
In general, you should give companies a chance to make amends before you publicize bad behavior on a couple of employee's part and damage their reputation.
If REI takes the appropriate actions after the fact, they can earn back our respect, and perhaps even more. A company that stands up for the rights of its customers is one with which I want to do business. On the other hand, a company that supports the violation of its customers' rights, by its employees, or by the employees or representatives of companies with which they do business, is not a company that I will support. Our local REI is 3 miles further away than the local EMS - right now, I'm disinclined to go the extra distance. I'll watch for their response, though. If REI can adequately explain why they didn't ask the Loomis guards to leave after they were harassing a customer, or why they banned their own customer for being harassed by the Loomis guards, then I might. Now's their time to shine.
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.
The cop has to have a reason to ask for your ID. In other words, the cops can't just walk up and say let me see your ID. If they are, they are breaking some laws themselves as well as violating your 4th amendment rights.
In Terry V Ohio, the supreme court limited the ability to stop someone to suspicion of breaking a law or posing a danger to someone and the officer needs to be able to back that up with specific and articulable facts. While those two states may have the laws on the books, the enforcement of them will be limited to specifics as outlined by the supreme court.
Now, the first link you referenced where the supreme court allowed for identification to be required is for a "detention stop" which places the cops under the Terry rules. There has to be "under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime" in order for it to be legal. If the cop stops you and can't comply with that, then there is grounds for a complain and possible lawsuit.
The parent said "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?)." that is incorrect, the cops have to have a reason to make the stop. They can't just walk up to someone and say give me you ID of I'll arrest you, even if a state law says so. And if they do, and it leads to finding something illegal out about you, it will all be inadmissible under the poisoned fruit doctrine.
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.
We already know why.
The REI guards thought the Loomis guards had a legal right to do what they were doing... probably with less information than we have now. The REI corporation never heard about it until this blitzkrieg, so the comments are filling up with "OMG, REI iz teh evil0r" while REI "no comments" until they figure out what the hell is going on.
In a month, they'll have sent an apology and to the guy, and have lifted the ban.
Slashdot won't run that story on the front page, so 99.99% of the people pissed off at REI will never hear about it... if the original blogger even bothers to inform anyone of it.
It's pretty unfair to REI.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
So?
Good god, heron, you are accepting as given that this ATM guy has some kind of natural right or authority over the blogger.
I believe a private citizen's freedom of speech - especially directed at someone who initiated the conversation and is trying to assert nonexistent authority over a private citizen - trumps this ATM guy's... his... uh... his what exactly? His Constitutional right to be deferred to by mere mortals?
No.
If you approach talk to me, and i say "go away," and you still talk to me, and i say "really, go away, not interested," and i leave, and you follow me, and i say "fuck off already," you are not the injured party. You are, in fact, harassing me. You have not been solicited to anything. You are, in fact, being told quite plainly that i am not interested in interacting with you at this time; and, as you are simply some working schmuck same as me, you have no greater rights than I. I don't care if they make you all dress alike. That doesn't mean shit.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
This blogger needs to learn some tact.
These ATM guys need to learn their place.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
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
Actually, the phrase is: "Am I being charged with a crime, or am I free to go?"
There's an actual reason for that exact wording. If they say "Yes", what are they answering? The police are trained in using this double-speak against you all the time. Use it against them as well.
To say nothing of putting up this story wihtout giving REI or Loomis a chance to apologize.
Getting cuffed goes beyond a simple "I'm sorry", I think, and into "free kayak" territory.
I am not a crackpot.
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
Try taking a photo on a beach these days.
Remember that they can't just do this to anybody on the street - they need to have a reasonable suspicion that they have or are committing a crime and have specific facts to back up that suspicion.
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.
This was on private property, though.
"In public" does not necessarily imply "on public property".
I am not a crackpot.
Stores that are open to the public must sell to the public, although they can remove people for whatever reason as long as the reason is not a wholesale restriction against a protected class. They can remove you because you do not have a shirt, you are too loud, you smell, you are causing a mess, you have been bad in the past and are banned from the store. They can also disguise their reason to make it seem valid, such as when a store owner does not want to serve black folks.
Yes, but asking you to leave is not quite the same thing as cuffing you.
I am not a crackpot.
hey Sadler121
good post. but not complete. I'm no lawyer and this is not legal advice. The law is different in all 50 states, each one has different cases that may have made it to the state court of appeals.
In Oregon they just tried to pass a stop and ID law. These laws should really be called stop and say your name laws or get a ticket laws.
In Oregon a cop can manipulate you within the law. They can ask you your name, and you don't have to say your name. THey can't write you up with a citation for that alone, but they can hold you for a short time and make your life miserable.
And as most people here have said. THe #1 thing to say is
"am I free to go"
It works on so many levels.
Here is the oregon proposed law, it failed. Half way down the page, aka Democrat Jeff Barker woof woof
http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/in_other_news_/Content?oid=33205
Look at Ghandi and Martin Luther Kingr. They both spent a lot of time in jail, and I'm sure they weren't happy about it, but they did eventually win.
um, didn't those guys get shot without seeing the fruits of their labor?
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.
Actually detaining him is against the law. There have been several cases against stores/people/businesses in the past few years where egotistical morons have held someone against their will.
It's spelt Gandhi not "Ghandi".
Since this happened down the road from me, I had to do a little more research. Now, not a fan of jack-booted thugs myself, in this particular story apparently the kid had shot a house up earlier (as in with a firearm) and was trippin acid when the cops Tasered him. If that was indeed the case, then the cop subsequently being cleared of any wrongdoing makes a little bit more sense - especially since, allegedly, the kid was muttering "shoot the cops" over and over again. The lesson here, when you drop acid and ever have to talk to cops, don't talk about shooting them. Lets save our vitriol about cops for when they kill people's granny's, shoot pregnant women, or kill harmless pets for fun.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
What would we want their story for?
Unless he pulled a gun or threatened violence in some other way it was clearly unreasonable to call the police. If they want secrecy they can get the store and bank to provide them with a privacy screen they can deploy.
Otherwise the same rules (roughly) apply to them as to anyone else. If you take a photo of me in a public place and I call the police when you won't delete it, they should haul me away for the groundless complaint and wasting emergency resources, not you for merely exercising your right to photo what you can see.
ATM thieves take notice though, Loomis guards are so untrained you can distract them with a hippie and a cellphone.
I'm not a native English speaker; what does "I decline the encounter" mean and why is it appropriate?
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
There was such a law in Nevada, and IIRC, it went to the SCOTUS, and it was upheld.
http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
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.
Free Kayak hell... a friend/former-coworker got arrested for driving while black, sued the department and got $250K for her trouble...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
if you reread the original post you'll notice it was overturned by the state supreme court, not the SCOTUS.
Off topic, but I really have to ask this of the Parent poster.
The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)
Where did that come from ? I remember seeing it donkey's years ago on TV, and it's been a mental trigger ever since ... everytime I see "boot to the head", I subconciously fill in the "naah naah".
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.
Declining the encounter is telling the officer that you are not consenting or agreeing to participating in the contact with them voluntarily, and directly informing them of your intention to leave without further consensual interaction.
The reason to decline explicitly is to avoid implying consensual (voluntary) participation after they didn't clearly answer your question.
You may end up being detained or arrested (the second and third categories of interactions, along with consensual), but it forces an answer to the original question "Am I free to go?" And it establishes the latest moment that those events could have occurred.
The sequence of events can be very important. If you have "volunteered" something in consensual conversation, there was no need to inform you of your post-arrest Miranda rights.
You're reading too much into what I said. I'm not agreeing with the behavior of the ATM guys. In fact I support the actions of the person who was arrested (if not the attitude with which he did them), and regardless of his attitude I disapprove of the manner in which he was treated.
All I was saying is that there is, in fact, evidence that the, um, victim was not the perfect picture of politeness (which is what my parent post seemed to imply).
Being impolite will only make things worse in most cases. Better remain polite OR remain silent. That does not mean that you have to help them of course. That is another matter. Tell them to get lost can be done politely and sternly at the same time. And it will get the message across better than when you start being impolite, the latter given the other party only more reason to grill you.
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
I heard it on a Dr. Demento CD I once had. Here's a version of it (static picture) on youtube.
Frantics - Tae Kwon Leep (Boot to the Head): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Y6231uAmo
But you were arguing that this makes it OK for the recipient of rude behavior to abuse his power over the source?
You actually have fewer rights than being in a public space.
You are right and wrong. You have no rights on their private property, but you have all rights you have on public property at the same time. The issue is that they have to ask/tell you that which rights are restricted or ask you to leave. You have the "right" to take pictures. If they don't like it, they can ask you to leave. They have no other rights against you. They can't hold you. They can't arrest you. They can't take your camera. They can't touch you. They can't touch your property. They can ask you to leave. They can call the police if you don't. That is all. If you continue to take pictures and they touch you in an attempt to stop you, they committed assault. The owners give up almost all rights when they invite you in. They get to uninvite you, and they get to have the police enforce the uninviting, and that's all.
SCOTUS has defined a narrow right to free speech in regards to shopping centers (not individual stores).
You have the right to say anything that you could say in public. You don't have the right to stand on their private property after they ask you to leave, but until they ask you to leave, you have all those rights, and they can't even require that you stop talking on your way out, as long as you are being reasonable with the pace at which you are leaving. Again, they can kick you out and nothing else.
Learn to love Alaska
Under provisions of the Patriot Act all they need to do is charge you with terrorism. Then unlawful detention turns lawful.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
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 do IT for a small city, which includes a police department. I get the opportunity to chat with the police folk about any number of things they've encountered, and there are two very important things to remember.
1. There are any number of mundane and ambiguously worded laws that they can use to arrest you resulting in fines or jail time.
2. There is a lot that an officer can do that is rather harassing, but perfectly within their legal rights to do. For instance, the ATM photo guy, they could go around and ask all of his neighbors about him, and if he's been known to have been involved in any thefts or illegal activities. It can be inconvenient for all of your neighbors to suddenly suspect the worst of you.
There is no legal requirement to be nice to police officers (or anyone else around you), but you may find your life a lot better if you do.
It's all good but one thing! Cops can't invent charges!! They have to follow city criminal code, the charges have to be documented on paper. It's the prosecuter's job to decide which charge(s) are going to be enforced. If the charges were just invented the legal system would have no validity. Not that is has a lot now!!!
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...
I realise that you're talking about the US, but here in Queensland, Australia, the police do have the right to ask for your name and address and for proof of that if they catch you committing an offence, reasonably suspect that you've committed an offence or if they reasonably suspect you may be able to help in an investigation.
If you disobey, you can be charge with an offence under s 791 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. It's a defence to prove that you wouldn't have been able to help with the investigation (or committed an offence), but that would be difficult to prove and in the mean time you have gone through the court system.
I've found the Seattle Police Department to be very non-dickheady.
Go 10 miles in any direction and the story completely changes. But the Seattle police department tend to be pretty cool. And they're fast. Freakishly fast. I had to call 911 last year to report an assault in progress and they arrived in less than 40 seconds. I saw an accident last week and before I could even make a U-Turn to go a block around a patrol car had already pulled up and was checking on the drivers.
They seem more interested in keeping traffic moving than making some sort of ticket quota. In all of my interactions they've been incredibly friendly and bent over backwards to be patient.
I don't know anyone personally in the police department and I'm not in any way employed. I've just been so pleasantly suprised and impressed by the Seattle Police Department since moving here that I think they deserve some recognition for not being complete pricks like other places I've lived (I'm looking at you Lynwood PD).
and get me coppers! http://cuesskybox.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/28/enabled_atm.jpg
Not so fast cowboy. The state supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional. States have constitutions too. They also have supreme courts. Washington State Supreme Court != SCOTUS.
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.
I never said asking somebody to leave is the same as cuffing. Do you see that in my statement? I was trying to separate the distinction between free speech rights, which do not extend into a store, and the right of store, that is open to the public, to restrict people unless prohibited by law.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
One would have to have a very fragile sense of self esteem if one would consider a reasonable and/or polite request for a chat to be in any way a walking over. There's a difference between smoothing human interaction, putting some high-strung security guard at ease, and having actual rights violated or getting trampled on.
Did anybody but the cops who tasered him hear him muttering that? Didn't think so.
You are right and wrong. You have no rights on their private property, but you have all rights you have on public property at the same time.
You are not making sense in this comment. It is gibberish.
You have the "right" to take pictures.
Stop putting the word rights in quotes. You either have a right or you do not. Assuming you have rights does not make you have them. Taking a picture until you get caught is not a right. You have absolutely no right to take a picture on private property. Cite a federal court case. I have looked at Lexis and cannot find any.
They can't hold you. They can't arrest you. They can't take your camera. They can't touch you. They can't touch your property. They can ask you to leave. They can call the police if you don't. That is all. If you continue to take pictures and they touch you in an attempt to stop you, they committed assault. The owners give up almost all rights when they invite you in. They get to uninvite you, and they get to have the police enforce the uninviting, and that's all.
I am not sure what those statements have to do with a right to take a picture on private property. Also, in the United States, assault would depend on the statute.
You have the right to say anything that you could say in public.
Not on a federal level. Each state would need to allow that through their own consituttion. In California, that only applies to shopping centers, as in the center itself but not the stores; you can stand in the common area of a mall and hand out fliers protesting Prop 8, but you cannot do the same thing in Sears.
Also, if you do indeed take pictures on private property and they include people, make sure you get a model release if you decide to use those pictures commercially.
Finally, stop being an armchair lawyer. You are horrible at it. Spend the $100k and go to law school.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
"A police officer can seize the immediate legal control over a situation but there will be hell to pay later if that is abused."
Sorry to butt-in here, but can I just ask, what planet are you from? It sounds lovely.
Capturing light that is freely flying around in the air shouldn't be a crime. If it's secret, cover it.
That's the one ! Not sure how old that is, or if it's the original, as it must be 20 years since I heard that.
But a big thanks anyway :-)
I don't need to be polite. I need to obey the law. Fuck you.
[FUCK BETA]
My ex used to work with police officers a lot (this is in the UK), and built up a store of anecdotal warnings about pissing off the police.
The mostly came down to people either being annoying and so getting arrested where they might have ordinarily been let off, or people getting let off with a warning for clear breaches of the law simply because they were humble and decent about it.
She coined a phrase that sticks with me to this day - and has served me well on occasion - which is this:
There is only one crime: Contempt Of Cop.
It's a bitter sentiment and does kind-of suck, but there is a twisted rationale behind it. Yes, the police are the face of public authority and enforcement, but they are still people and fallible, and should be afforded a little common decency in the execution of their job. Their ultimate purpose in society is to maintain order and ensure that individuals don't endanger or seriously contravene the societal values we have deemed important enough to enshrine in law.
Quite often that means exercising discretion where rigid adherence to the rules would be less conducive to that ultimate goal. Conversely, if someone's attitude to law enforcement (and, by association, conforming to the necessary norms of society) is nothing but vitriol, sometimes it pays to instil a little fear and paranoia where the more preferable "respect" is not naturally forthcoming.
I'm not saying it's right, especially from the PoV of the individual who experiences the bending of these rules, and I would never suggest that courts take the side of the police where breaches of correct enforcement occur (a well-trained officer knows and accepts the consequences, and only bends the rules where it won't come back to bite him), but society often benefits from the superposition of human common sense over strict legal enforcement in the case of day-to-day, minor infractions.
Let me say it again: in most minor cases, There is no other crime than Contempt Of Cop.
Remember this and you will go far. We demand that police officers act like machines, but if you're the sort of person who expects them to do so, then you're probably also the sort of person who would be a total dick in their position, because of your unwillingness to empathise. Show a little humility and a little compassion - good traits in any member of society, I'm sure you'll agree - and you may find them easier to deal with.
Meta will eat itself
While I agree with the content of your posts, I do wonder why the hell you're dissing the E.U. in your signature. It is rather contrasting.
see a Text Widget
If he really was saying such a thing, the cop should have taken note of it and have him prosecuted for that, if it's illegal over there. Tasers are vicious and dangerous weapons, and should be used as an alternative to guns, ie when the cop is in danger or if a suspect is trying to get away, not as a mean to teach a harmless teen a lesson. The cop is clearly at fault here.
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.
Actually they can usually make a citizen's arrest if they see you physically take the property and commit the crime. They can't detain you for suspicion of doing so, but can detain you if they actually have seen you do it.
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..
Because I'm tired of people telling me, because I support a small constitutionally-limited government, that I should leave the United States. *They* are the ones who should leave, not me, because they are the ones who don't support the founding principles.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yes, to the dozen people who pointed that out, I skipped over the word "state" when I read the post. Ooops. I guess I'm only human after all. ;-)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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
>>>All you need to say are five magic words: Am I free to go?
I strongly disagree. In every video encounter I've watched the "Am I free to go?" question escalates the tension of the encounter and makes the police angry. Bad idea. Also in some cases even when the police said "yes" they stood in front of the car and blocked the driver from leaving, so the verbal response meant nothing.
I still think the best way to handle the situation is to give your name, and then be silent. Silence helps to de-escalate the situation and calm the bootjacked thug....er, policeman. Silence also stops your mouth from saying something incriminating. Watch the Youtube video "Don't Talk to Police" - ever.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think we all need to review this: Don't talk to the cops
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
IMHO all these "word plays" are about as worthless as those who claim you don't owe the IRS any money. Even if we assume that's legal true, they have the power to force compliance. If for example I tell an officer, "I decline to cooperate" he can pull out his gun and force me to answer. He can even drag me to jail.
Force always trumps words.
Better to be silent, and if the cop persists that you HAVE to answer his questiond, then calmly and politely ask him, "What are my Miranda rights?" As he recites them to you, he's also reciting them to himself, particularly the part "you have the right to remain silent".
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Uh... I don't understand the point you're making, but every citizen has the right to detain a thief who is stealing property. That includes that right of Kohls to hold you, by force, if you tried to make off with their clothing.
In this situation, since the blogger was not stealing anything, the security guards had no right to detain him.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>I would have walked away as soon as the rent-a-cop admitted to not being a real police officer. If I got tackled, I'll happily get a lawyer and sue.
>>>
Ditto. I've been looking for some free money. Half a million ought to be sufficient. ;-) But seriously that blogger was a fool to hang-around the store. When a situation becomes tense, best to leave the private property so the security can not touch you. Their authority ends at the property line. And like you said if they tackle you as you're leaving, you can sue the security company/guard for mucho deneiro.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>you should give companies a chance to make amends before you publicize bad behavior
Completely disagree. First off, they should have done it right the first time. If the employee acted like a jerk, then the manager should have stepped-in and corrected the situation, but in this case it sounds like the manager did nothing.
Second, most companies will pretend it never happened. As example when Circuit City was liquidating, they sold a large-screen television that had a smashed screen. The customer tried-and-tried-and-tried to get either a refund ore replacement, but CC just ignored her. It was only when WGAL-TV got involved, that CC finally gave her a refund. Point: Oftentimes the negative publicity is the only thing that forces them to do something, otherwise you get ignored.
Thirdly, this deserves to be publicized because it involved government officials. The People's employees. When it involves government, it should *always* be publicized because the citizens need to know how their taxpayer dollars are being spent (or ill-spent).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>It's pretty unfair to REI
That's okay. They also took a quarter-billion dollar bailout from OUR wallets. That's pretty unfair too, but I don't see REI apologizing for that theft of our labor.
IMHO when it comes to government and corporations, who routinely misappropriate or waste our tax money, they have no rights to fairplay. They play dirty, so we should play dirty too.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
When I was at a certain national store, I heard the guards bragging that they lied in court. "I never saw him take the jeans, but I told the judge that I did, so he was sentenced to a month in jail." Yay. Perjury. This is how innocent people end-up in jail.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I see it on the cops tv show every single day. Cop pulls over some young male (either a minority or a redneck) and after talking to him for one second says "Sir I'm going to need you to step out of the car." then after a quick search says "Sir, you are not under arrest, but I am placing you in these handcuffs for your protection.".
Then he searches their car, finds they have warrants and a half a ton of some illegal substance they blame it on their friend who let them use the car and go to jail.
>>>ho said anything about temper tantrums or yelling?
Quote: "I wouldn't be OK with this. I'd be quite pissed off. Maybe it's pointless bitching..." Sounds like a temper tantrum to me. At least that's how I interpreted it.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
REIs photo policies aren't law.
FGD 135
Actually it's neither of those. When we convert his name to English, we only *approximate* the spelling, in a feeble attempt to recreate the original sound. Same with other languages like Japanese, which is why the capital city is sometimes spelled Tokyo and other times Tokio.
Anyway his actual name is a script that I cannot copy here but you can find it on the first line of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Comedy group The Frantics from a quick little ditty called Boot To The Head. Believe it comes from a Canadian sketch show called Four On The Floor. Not Sure about that, only have the CD (also called Boot To The Head). Funniest comedy CD I've ever heard
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
>>>Creating a hostile work environment is another...
That may be true NOW, and only in certain states, but it wasn't true back in 2003 when I watched that particular episode. Judge Judy said, even though he was a poor boss, he had not violated the letter of the law. She also recommended the employee quit the job, and the employee said she already has moved on.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
For some reason I'm thinking that you must identify yourself, not that you must show a drivers license/ID...
Old comedy routine/song.
You may have seen a skit originally done by The Frantics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Y6231uAmo
1. There are any number of mundane and ambiguously worded laws that they can use to arrest you resulting in fines or jail time.
A fact that we as citizens should be concerned about, and try to fix.
In practice, however, there are very few that apply when you're just going about your business in a store. It's extremely easy for them to find something to cite you with while you're driving, but not so easy when you're walking.
I'm not just blowing smoke about something I don't know, here, either. I'm a bit of a firearms activist, and frequently go around town with an openly-carried sidearm -- something that is perfectly legal in most states, but something that seems to really annoy a small percentage of police (oddly, rookies and brass -- experienced street cops tend to approve of it). I personally have never been stopped by the police, but I know many people who have been stopped by cops who really, really want to find something to slap them down.
Not one has succeeded. One friend was charged with disorderly conduct, but the DA declined to prosecute.
2. There is a lot that an officer can do that is rather harassing, but perfectly within their legal rights to do. For instance, the ATM photo guy, they could go around and ask all of his neighbors about him, and if he's been known to have been involved in any thefts or illegal activities. It can be inconvenient for all of your neighbors to suddenly suspect the worst of you.
If police do that to you, then you can file a lawsuit for harassment, and you have a good shot at winning. Even if you don't win, you'll drag the department's name through the mud (the press loves to cover that kind of thing). As for the lawsuit, the police officers in question had better be able to come up with a convincing rationale for their activities, some reason that they suspect you of some sort of crime. If not, the department is almost certainly going to have to come up with some cash to make the suit go away. In any case, the career of the officer in question is going to be damaged.
Our country is not yet so far gone that a citizen who knows his or her rights and is willing to invest a little time and money has to cower before a badge. And as long as there are some who will refuse to cower, we can keep it that way.
There is no legal requirement to be nice to police officers (or anyone else around you), but you may find your life a lot better if you do.
I'm always nice to everyone around me, and exceptionally polite to police officers. Doesn't mean I'll let them detain me or answer their questions, though.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
That's why REI (or any company wishing to avoid these situations) should insist that their security firm train its staff better.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
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.
And that is the difference (in my mind anyway) between "cops" and "law enforcement officers"
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
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?!
Maybe you should stop arguing with trolls or otherwise intellectually challenged people :-) I have never seen any person use the argument of emigration in a way that was not painfully ignorant. Someone using such an argument against you isn't looking for an honest exchange of ideas or a debate.
Why pick the E.U. though, what's wrong with Canada for example?
Anyway... greetings from the E.U. :-)
see a Text Widget
So what? Tactless, impolite behavior may be anti-social, but it is emphatically not illegal. There's no obligation to be nice, particularly to those who are exerting undue authority without reason.
What we need are *more* citizens who are willing to speak up and fight for their rights, not a bunch of pansies who roll over when they see a blue shirt and a toy badge.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Which is why I dislike tasers and pepper spray. If used properly, they are a wonderful alternative to lethal force in many situations. However, because they AREN'T guns, police are more likely to use them in situations where they really shouldn't. There is never a reason to stun someone who is not a threat. There are stories about police using tasers and pepper spray to force compliance with police orders from individuals already in custody ("do what we say, or we'll hurt you", sounds like torture to me).
Police need to be able to control situations when it is needed, but they also are human and as prone to anyone to abusing power. Whenever an officer discharges a taser, there should be the same type of review as if they had fired a gun.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
This blogger needs to learn some tact. The best way to deal with security guards (who have no real power) is simply to ask, "Are you police?" followed by, "Then you have no authority over me. I'm now going to leave."
I would probably ask straight up, "Are you detaining me?" Preferably in front of witnesses. If the cop-wannabe says yes, he and his employer are in a world of hurt. He'll be fired, and I'll never have to work again after the civil suit. If he's carrying any sort of weapon, it gets even better.
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.
BTW you're not obliged to show a drivers license unless you're behind the wheel of a car. More Supreme Court cases then I can list here have affirmed this multiple times.
BAD ADVICE!
That simple action if very jurisdictionally (is that even a real word?) dependent.
Of course, he could've done that. But that's hardly expectable from a self-defined anarchist. And he wouldn't have a story for his blog. Maybe he was having fun the whole time; not everyone is that scared of THE MIGHTY COPS.
Anyway, you CAN be all polite and "respectful", but the real question is: why should everyone behave that "cowardly"? What kind of police-state has the US turned into?
I don't have a sig.
So, re: your sig: "Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety." The cops are there to "protect and serve"; protection is somewhat similar to safety, so are you saying that the cops are tyrants?
Some of them are, certainly.
However, I'd say that the "protect" part of "protect and serve" is inaccurate. Police do serve an important function in deterring crime, but as far as direct protection goes, it's very rare that they do it. Mostly they show up after the fact to draw chalk lines and collect evidence.
The real thrust of my sig, though, is that safety is a great tool for tyrants to use to convince the masses that they should give up their rights in order to be safe. c.f. War on Terror.
Without giving too many details, this fucker lied in his report after he pulled me over. However, I did not have access to weather reports (it was dry, not damp) nor traffic reports (how the fuck could I have been swerving in and out of traffic if there was heavy traffic), so I just took the CWOF.
The cruisers in your area don't have cameras?
So, it's on my record. Later I learned that fighting it would have most likely lost me my license and made it even more on my record.
Who told you that?
I chose not to file a complaint. I do not need some random guy with a gun finding a burglary attempt in my home and shooting the perp, who unfortunately just happened to look like the homeowner.
Huh? What are you talking about?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Oh disciplinary action, if I did that I would be arrested so should the cop. We have eroded our rights mostly for the "war" on drugs. Trouble is we have way to many laws and they are way to open to interpretation.
No sir I dont like it.
wtf?!? Has anyone actually witnessed this in real life? (I know you saw it on TV. I don't watch cops much.) How can you be handcuffed if you are not under arrest? If true, that is scary as hell.
"Long time listener, first time caller."
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.
That's the answer for the guy asking how does this guy qualify as being a smart-ass? I guess some people read what they want, and ignore the important details, because telling a security guard they are a fake cop that gets to play at being a real cop is especially smart-assy. My guess, though, is this dork didn't actually have the balls to say any of the stuff he said he did.
They have as much right to call the police as he has to take a picture. It might seem unreasonable, but maybe they didn't feel safe. (It's a load of crap, I know, but that doesn't diminish their right.)
The real question is what happened when the cops arrived? It's not outside the realm of possibility that the security guards filed a complaint, and he was uncooperative when questioned (read: obstructing). If he refused to identify himself (meaning wouldn't give his name - which is distinct from producing ID) that in itself might be sufficient for an legitimate obstruction charge. I think that gives the police a right to detain him. It's not clear why he was detained, or if he was arrested, so that's why we want the other side of the story.
Of course we aren't getting the entire story...stories like this NEVER show both sides.
Before tasers and pepper spray there were batons and night-sticks.
It's possible that the physical act of hitting someone provides more of a deterrent for the police to use "less than lethal" force, but let's not pretend that police didn't abuse "uncooperative" citizens before the taser.
>> Even if we assume that's legal true, they have the power to force compliance. If for example I tell an officer, "I decline to cooperate" he can pull out his gun and force me to answer. He can even drag me to jail."
But these actions change the interaction in a very specific and legal way. Right after you state that you decline to cooperate, then the legal aspect changes. The officer can force you to continue interacting, but by doing so has stepped away from voluntary interaction, which changes the rules. For example, if the officer pulls out his gun and "forces you to answer" then he's declared that you are now under arrest, which means you then have the right to remain silent. If he truly forces you under threat to answer anything, those statements will not be admissible in a court of law, and the officer would most likely face charges for doing this. Force can trump words in the moment, but in so doing the officer would be handing you a case dismissal, a huge settlement for abuse of force, and the satisfaction of watching him fired and probably arrested himself.
"Am I free to go?" is the legal phrase that forces the officer to recognize the change in level of interaction, which is why it's a good idea.
Virg
Uh, that "rent-a-cop" is clearly packing. Go ahead and pick that fight if you want. I'll take on any middle-aged, overweight mall cop packing pepper spray and a stick, but I'm not taking a dude packing a 9mm on his hip.
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
My entire point is that when highlighting police brutality people need to stick to stories that are clear and not ambiguous. Its not like its hard to find these stories, so why use bad examples? Once again, stories like Kathryn Johnston's are good examples of police brutality, why no-knock warrants shouldn't be issued as easily as they are now, and how paid police snitches are bad.
If you want this crap to stop - don't use examples that are easily picked apart after 10 minutes with google.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
I love the hypocrisy of slashdot. The ATM is in plain sight so it's fair game. BUT...your driveway and front yard (also in plain sight) filmed by Google Street View is somehow an overt violation of your privacy rights!!!
The correct wording as on one of my keychain cards (for both law enforcement officers & security personnel):
My legal rights are protected. If it is your INTENTION to question, detain or arrest me, please allow me to call an attorney immediately.
That works in most cases. Usually they go: well, that's not really necessary now is it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
And that is exactly the problem. If I were to unlawfully detain somebody, it's jail time for me or, at the least, a painful fine.
On the other hand, we have a caste that has the opportunity, means and often an inclination (not to mention guns, handcuffs, badges, uniforms) to perform illegal acts with relative impunity. "Disciplinary action" is a joke, as in every system that tries to regulate itself. I hear it on the radio all the time: officer such and such was suspended (with pay) pending an internal investigation... The internal investigation cleared officer such and such from all allegations of wrongdoing... Basically the power tripping criminal gets an extra paid vacation.
Not a good idea. There are so many laws on the books, some of them subtly conflicting, that you are bound to be breaking some of them [insert Ayn Rand quote here]. If you sue a cop, his friends will make you their personal hobby and will fuck up your life until you decide to quit and then some. There are legalized way of harassment at their disposal and even if they utilize illegal ones, it is usually your word against theirs and every judge will side up with the police version 99 times out of 100.
You know the difference between theory in practice? It's been said that there isn't any (in theory).
Theoretically, the police are there to "serve and protect". In practice, it is a state-sponsored mafia (with a strong union) that looks after its own interests, not yours.
Wrong. EVERYBODY can make a citizens arrest (that's why it's called CITIZEN'S arrest) and use certain force to detain a person UNTIL a law enforcement officer arrives if they have a strong reason (and to cover their behinds, 3rd party witnesses) to believe a felony was committed. They have the right but also the obligation to notify law enforcement (police) immediately. They do not have the right to detain you indefinitely, to hold you against your will for a long period of time without notifying law enforcement or to use excessive force (more force than necessary like tasers or guns). If you are being held against your will and nobody gets notified of your situation or some 'manager' comes talk to you, then you are being kidnapped.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You: in this particular story apparently the kid had shot a house up earlier (as in with a firearm) and was trippin acid when the cops Tasered him.
Link: "They tested his system. He was clean of drugs and alcohol. We don't know why unless just being in shock and the whole thing in itself caused him to forget everything," said Hutchinson.
So who do we believe?
When I was a teen, I took pictures of my buddy wearing a Mickey Mouse T-shirt flipping the bird (an obvious knock-off product). Security not only confiscated the shirt (and replaced it with an authentic Mickey T for free), they confiscated my film (which they replaced for free). Of course, they gave me the option of keeping my film, because legally they couldn't take it, but at the expense of waiting around for the Anaheim PD to show up to handle the case. Unlike the douche in this story, I gave them my film and went on my way.
If someone calls the police on you (which the security guards apparently did - even if it was bullshit) doesn't that give the cop a reason to ask your identity.
If you read his description...
More importantly, if his description is accurate, which, as we see every day here on slashdot, probably isn't the entire story.
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?
It sounds like you work with some very nice people. It's always refreshing to hear how only the most upstanding and honorable people are hired to be police officers. Simply refreshing. It's amazing how people don't have more respect for these honorable people just doing their jobs.
Let me google that for you
To recap, the parents claim he was clean but refused to release any blood test to the police. Hmmm, who should we believe?
Let me reiterate my point - again. No one, me included, wants dirty cops. This case may have involved a dirty cop. However, the facts of the case are ambiguous. So, for people wanting to point out the jack-booted thugs in law enforcement would do well by picking unambiguous stories, i.e. stories in which there is no doubt that the cops acted beyond their authority.
Is this really so difficult to understand?
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
BZZZZZT. Wrong!
What law allows confiscation of photographs? Trespass is the only law that is applicable here (if they asked him to leave).
saying sir (or ma'am, as appropriate)
Okay, I disagree with you there.
YOU are sir (or ma'am) to THEM. They are called "civil servants" for a reason.
Calling them "sir" switches the subconscious "balance of power" to them, and you do not want that. Call them "Officer".
I expect them to say "sir" to me, so me saying "sir" to them as well just puts us on the same level, as it should be.
Besides, as a former soldier I have much more practice at saying "sir" and making it imply "idiot", when needed ;-)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Er... that would have been true ten years ago. Not these days. The rules changed.
Apparently she hadn't heard about the "creating a hostile work environment" test that is standard now. Gawd knows I have, seeing as work requires harassment training annually.
---dragoness
No.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Then perhaps REI should be having a very serious word with Loomis for creating the whole issue. If the Loomis guards misrepresented their legal authority to REI, then REI should be mad at them, not this guy. Loomis created the situation after all.
How?
Last post!
It could also have been taken as a threat of violence. After all tackling someone isn't exactly a friendly pat, it could very well cause some significant injury. And since the guy didn't have any legal authority (and even if he did, no crime had been committed), he was opening himself up to some serious legal issues. The story would have been quite different if the guy had called the cops himself because of the threat of violence, and then insisted on pressing charges.
*sigh
Yep, you and I agree but sadly it's over something that screws us both. OTOH, I wouldn't want a cop to be second guessing every contact so I can see some leeway built into it. It just shouldn't be so much that it allows abuse like we see readily practiced with some officers.
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).
oh yes, use ti abck at them, like they haven 't been trained to deal with that. Your question means they can say yes, and if you leave they can arrest you becasue they meant they where going to charge you with a crime. At this point that crime could be trespassing. Even if they don't persue that crime, you ahve still commit another crime when you tried to 'flee'. from an officer who was about to arrest you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"n this case, they have the full authority of real police officers."
No, they do not.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Actually they can usually make a citizen's arrest if they see you physically take the property and commit the crime.
IANAL
It is, however, my understanding that no state in the US applies citizen's arrest powers to non-felonies. You can detain someone if they take something worth more than $1000 or if they cause damage or physical injury in the process. Be very careful about legality if you try to stop someone from committing what you think is a crime. My brother used to be a police officer and now works private security and I get tot hear all his amusing stories about this stuff. If someone grabs merchandise people in his company will follow them and talk to them and tell them to stay and wait for police. For legal reasons they will not try to physically detain a person, even one who is blatantly stealing.
Most places frown on their employees doing this. Once this in play, it doesn't take much of a mistake for then to get sued.
Plus if you aren't actually endangering someone that can't actual detain you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, I don't really see what was so suspicious about the guy?
Here's a photo:
Scene from the REI ATM
.
Why can't I talk in a calm manner and discuss it? why have you boiled it done to Silence or a temper tantrum?
Gandhi was a selfish ass. He caused people to die by not allowing them to ahve 'western medicine"* but when his time came around, he was all about getting treatment from 'western medicine'
*'Western medicine' is a myth created by people who push magic 'treatment' with no effectiveness to create a false dichotomy.
There is just medicine. either it's effective, or it isn't. It doesn't matter where it comes from.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
you're going to have to expand a bit.
If the police are called to the scene, they're supposed to investigate the incident, right? In the course of investigating they have a right to ask who's involved, right? If you're involved, and you don't cooperate you're obstructing official police business, right?
If the party who called the police is making frivolous claims, the appropriate response is to deal with them, not to fault the cops before they gathered the most preliminary of data.
I guess the question here is, "was the call and complain worthy of the officer's legal investigation"? If the answer is no as in the security guards called 911 because McDonald's was out of chicken nuggets, then no, the cop doesn't have reason to ask you- a second or third party for ID. According to the Terry Rules, the cop has to have has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. If the complaint has nothing to do with a crime that a reasonable person could associate with one, then it's not a valid stop.
Now keep in mind, there are operatives at work here. The cop has to be legitimately investigating a crime or a suspicion of a crime about to happen with reasonable suspicion of your involvement or potential involvement to approach you. You don't know if this is happening until your interaction with the officers so your probably better off providing ID and following up on the situation later by either seeking disciplinary action against the officer or a lawsuit (which will force the same).
Look at it this way, a cop cannot pull you over and give you a speeding ticket if he didn't observe you speeding. He can't wait in a parking lot until you come out of the Video Store and issue a citation for speeding because he knows you have at some point in time and didn't get caught. The cop has to have a legitimate reason to be in contact with you which is considerably more restrictive then what the GP said with "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?)."
Actually, yes. Terry gives a police officer 'investigatory' discretion. Since they were called to the scene, they could have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (also potential and/or prior criminal activity). But, this is implicit upon a suspicion that the suspect might be armed, and so the justification for a "Terry stop" is one of personal safety of an officer. From the OP's account, it seems that there was no threat, but that's a subjective observation. The real intent of Terry was to redefine the Exclusionary rules of evidence, which doesn't appear to matter here. It's more dependent on state laws about self-identification to a police officer then it is on Terry vs. Ohio. Once the OP was handcuffed, he was arrested and subject to laws outside the scope of Terry vs Ohio.
You're saying the same thing but missing the point. His position is its perfectly legal. Your position is, while its legal cops don't have any qualms about breaking the law.
The Succubus is enraged!
The Succubus hits you!
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
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.
You are not making sense in this comment. It is gibberish.
All rights you have apply at all times. You don't lose your right to free speech just because you enter private property. However, rights often conflict. As such, there is a hierarchy of rights. And their right to kick you off their land trumps your right to be there. They can't stop you from speaking, but they can kick you off their property. At no time is your freedom of speech suspended. But their right to private property requires that you can't exercise it there without their permission. So you never "lose" your rights. They are still there. But you never had the right to trespass in order to exercise other rights.
I am not sure what those statements have to do with a right to take a picture on private property.
You have the right to do anything that's legal in public. Until you are asked to leave, you are in public. Therefore, the right to take a picture (a particular application of freedom of speech) is intact on private property as long as it's public (as in, you are invited in and not yet asked to leave).
Also, in the United States, assault would depend on the statute.
I know the statutes where I've lived. That is the case. If you know of some place I'm incorrect, please state it. Yes, the statutes vary. That doesn't mean that speeding is legal in some states and illegal in others. Exceeding the maximum safe speed is illegal in all 50 states, even though the law on it is different in all 50 states. Assault may be the same. I don't know. Every time I've looked it up, it's been essentially identical.
Also, if you do indeed take pictures on private property and they include people, make sure you get a model release if you decide to use those pictures commercially.
Non sequitur. You have the right to take them. Period. Whining about things that may happen at some future point is irrelevant.
Not on a federal level. Each state would need to allow that through their own constitution. In California, that only applies to shopping centers, as in the center itself but not the stores; you can stand in the common area of a mall and hand out fliers protesting Prop 8, but you cannot do the same thing in Sears.
You are 100% incorrect. You can say anything you want in the mall or in Sears. However, if asked to leave Sears, you will be trespassing if you do not leave. That's not the same as saying you don't have the right to speak.
Finally, stop being an armchair lawyer. You are horrible at it.
So far, your "help" has been 100% wrong. You need to take your own advice. Or worse, you are a lawyer and you have some of the most unfortunate clients.
Learn to love Alaska
"their job sucks for the most part."
- Then get a new job if they don't like it. The fact is most of them get off on the power of the job, so I don't feel sorry for them. It's a voluntary choice, they weren't drafted.
Being polite and standing up for yourself aren't mutually exclusive. I'm one of those guys that chooses not to oblige department stores when they ask to check bags at the exit. However, I usually just answer them with a "no, thanks" and continue walking when challenged. The people at the door aren't making enough money to have to put up with any unnecessary rudeness, and there's nothing to be gained by being a jerk. I tend to put loss prevention people in the same category, and don't see any reason to be anything but civil until they choose to ratchet things up.
I think the only time I've been outwardly rude to an actual LEO was about 10 years ago when an Orlando PD officer blocked me into my space right after I'd parked my car, and attempted to tell me that I'd illegally passed an emergency vehicle and exceeded the speed limit in a private parking lot. (he had been blocking one lane of one of the access roads talking to a PYT in another car, and I'd gone around him) After about 10 minutes of back-and-forth that started out polite but began getting heated, I ended up telling him, "you need to either arrest me for something, get back in your fucking car and leave me alone, or we'll let the county sheriff/state police sort it out". Without another word he got back in his car and drove off. Probably not the wisest course of action, but I'm sure the guy knew it just wasn't going to be worth it just to have the biggest johnson.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Yes is not an answer to the question above. It is a "have you stopped beating your wife" type question. If a police officer says "yes" or "no" to a question requires a follow up question.
The correct phrase of such a question would demand an appropriate and definitive answer.
"Please tell me whether I am free to go, or if I am being charged with a crime".
But even that is not perfect, because you can be detained while an officer is investigating a crime which you are a party to, or being issued a citation (not a crime) or summons.
The problem here is that most of us Slashdotters love to be assholes and amateur lawyers. I don't recommend either.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If anyone is curious, the name of the store manager is Kara Stone.
Lets save our vitriol about cops for when they kill people's granny's, shoot pregnant women, or kill harmless pets for fun.
Or a road-raging off-duty cop who assaults a taxi driver at the airport in full view of 30 other drivers, flashes police ID and behaves like he's above the law, then gets special treatment when other officers arrive on scene.
Allegedly, of course. Allegedly.
I never said asking somebody to leave is the same as cuffing. Do you see that in my statement?
It's kind of the whole topic. I assumed we were talking about the case in the story, right? If you were referring to some other real or hypothetical case, well I'm sorry for offending your sense of order; please discontinue reading and disregard my previous comment.
Anyway, if a business doesn't like the way you're conducting yourself, their only real "remedy", so to speak, is to ask you to leave, which the law obliges you to respect. Of course they could risk a citizen's arrest if they suspect you of actual criminal action on the premises, but that's just not a very good idea. Maybe for shoplifting, perhaps, but not for the purpose of enforcing general civil and criminal statutes that don't affect the store, its employees and patrons.
To get back to my point here, it would appear that in the case at hand (again, assuming we're discussing the story above), REI's agents did the opposite of asking the patron to leave by physically restraining him.
I am not a crackpot.
It's hard being a gangsta in Lynwood.
I'm always polite. However I'm a polite kind of asshole. I will calmly inform the officers that their actions are being noted, as is their demeanor and it will be reported back to supervisors and possibly the press. But I will be polite, and comply, and yet still be an asshole by actively NOT HELPING.
I won't help, but I also won't obstruct.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The ATM repair, too, man must learn the lesson of Ed Gruberman.
Method of processing duck feet
Alright. For whatever reason, this stuff fascinates me, and I've been following up on a couple of links.
The case on point isn't Terry, it appears to be Hiibel. But it looks to me that Hiibel only establishes that a stop-and-identify law isn't unconstitutional - and it appears that Washington doesn't have a stop-and-identify law. So, depending on how Washington's obstruction law is drafted, or if there's some case law in Washington to provide guidance, it would seem that the applicability of an obstruction charge to a failure to identify case is untested.
What a wonderfully US'ian idea !
Turn the taking of a couple of photographs into the Gunfight at the OK Coral.
Hey, we take our picture taking seriously over on the this side of the pond. I would have thought my post moderate, as I could have advocated that the young man have a UAV following him around via his cell phones GPS. Then, when the rentas tried to hastle him, he could have invoked a 500lb bomb upon himself. Nobody would ever question that ATM again!
This is my sig.
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."
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
I'm guessing you don't live in a small rural town, deep inside a Red State.
I'm tired of people telling me, because I support a small constitutionally-limited government, that I should leave the United States.
That reminds me of something I saw on TV at the time that the communists were collapsing in East Germany. I saw footage of a protest in Leipzig, and I could hear that the crowd was chanting "Wir bleiben heir" ("We're staying here.") Up to that point, if an East German wanted to be free, they were looking to escape over the wall. It's when they decided to stop complying with the tyrants, that they freed themselves en masse.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I wasn't saying everyone should roll over for cops. I was saying that politeness and tact can go a long way in defusing a situation like that, whereas rudeness can make it a lot worse by eliciting a similar response from the cops.
Put another way, if a cop is asserting undue authority, being rude to him is only going to encourage that behavior, whereas being polite will do the opposite (or at least won't make it worse).
All of that is really how it "should be", not so much how it is. For instance, a "disturbing the peace" charge can be used for all sorts of things. Step out of line once, and they may charge you just because. Sure you might be able to get it dismissed, but it's a huge hassle, and quite possibly costly, while the officer can just shrug his shoulders and be on his way.
Sadly, you are unlikely to win a lawsuit for asking your neighbors questions, or for just about anything else. All the officer needs to say is "he was involved in suspicious activity, and I was following leads." And while it is possible to garner national attention, usually all you get is a 5 minute spotlight in the local news that everyone has forgotten by the next day.
Trust me, it's worth it to be nice.
This was on private property, though.
But it was a public place. Private property does not equate to "in private". A toilet stall in a government park restroom is "in private" on public property, and a parking lot of a mall is "in public" on private property.
Also read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
[...] walking up to a private home, trying the front door, and if it opens, walking in [...]
This is breaking and entering.
I would refer you to the Wikipedia article on the Stanford Prison Experiment:
The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Those selected were chosen for their lack of psychological issues, crime history, and medical disabilities, in order to obtain a representative sample. Roles were assigned based on a coin toss.
Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early. After being confronted by Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating,[2] and realizing that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to be performed under his direct supervision, Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become too grossly absorbed in their roles and terminated the experiment after six days.
Six days is all it took for a significant number of well educated and stable people to "exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies" when placed in a position of power over others. Most of the officers I've met are genuinely good guys, and some of them have always wanted to help other and uphold the peace. But a lot of them just ended up as police officers for whatever reason. They are highly trained to place themselves in stressful and dangerous situations and take charge. That some of them get big heads and/or become corrupt isn't exactly surprising.
Police officers do need our support and understanding. But it's also important to call out inappropriate behavior before it devolves into something dangerous.
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.
All of that is really how it "should be", not so much how it is.
Insofar as you're correct, it's your fault. You and those like you who are unwilling to suffer a little inconvenience for the sake of your civil rights.
Thankfully, there are a few Americans left who have spines.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
There's nothing wrong with taking a picture. Why hide?
Here is what your missing that I think will put this all together in a more understanding way.
Terry determined that there was three basic types of interaction with the police in which a person can have. All interaction will fit into one of these categories. The first is a completely voluntary where you or I walk up to the police and just talk with them or the police walk up and just talk with us. The second is a detention where the police is has a good and reasonable reason to suspect your involved in a crime or might become involved in a crime. Then finally there is an actual arrest.
Terry determined that being detained by the police was in fact a seizure (because you are not free to walk away and leave) and being patted down or required to answer questions was indeed a search and the fourth amendment as well as any other restrictions applied. The court stated that the fourth doesn't protect you from all search and seizure, just unreasonable search and seizure so it allowed specifics to how a terry stop could be performed.
Hiibel stated the law was legal insomuch as it involved a terry stop or a lawful detention and or an arrest. The facts of Hiibel made it a terry stop and because the supreme court had defined what is necessary for a detention stop in Terry, the stop and identify was constitutional in that extent. The ruling did not reverse Terry's premise but legitimized the stop and identify law based around the terry circumstances.
What we are left with because the fact Terry still stands is that despite the naming of the law or the general attitude of the police, the police has to have a reason in compliance with Terry to "detain" (seize) you in order to search you or compel you to give your name, or the forth amendment kicks in.
I hope that clears it up a little. Hiibel didn't override Terry, it actually looked at the law as applied under the Terry circumstances in which Terry made it clear that there has to be a reason to detain someone. They are both interdependent on each other. The prominent point is when the police "seize" (detain) someone and they aren't able to freely walk away.
Here is the syllabus of the Hiibel case and you can see that it validates it through the Terry ruling.
I'm not really sure how it's supposed to be my fault. I've never been in a situation where I would need to challenge some wrong being committed against me. I also support people that do have to challenge the system, and legislation that has a chance of fixing it. The point of my comment was that it is incorrect to assume that "the right way" is the way things are currently done.
Calling me spineless is uncalled for.
(Incidentally, Texas is not an open carry state. I've taken the concealed handgun course, but I'm not going to start wearing an exposed gun to protest. I'm also not going to wear one to work where it is illegal in a court of law to protest. There is a proper time, place, and way to oppose laws.)
Sure sure bring the patriot act into it, but what happens when they try to do that and you're not a terrorist? I'm sure you can bring some sort of suit against that cop and/or the department for both unlawful detention, and false criminal accusations and stuff related to that.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
It's Lynnwood, WA (two Ls). And yes, the cops there are ones you very much want to avoid. Now just to the west, the Edmonds, WA cops are decent.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
I'm not really sure how it's supposed to be my fault. I've never been in a situation where I would need to challenge some wrong being committed against me. I also support people that do have to challenge the system, and legislation that has a chance of fixing it. The point of my comment was that it is incorrect to assume that "the right way" is the way things are currently done.
I agree with all of this. It seemed to me that you were arguing that one should submit to illegal authority just because it's less painful than the alternative.
Calling me spineless is uncalled for.
Agreed. I apologize.
(Incidentally, Texas is not an open carry state. I've taken the concealed handgun course, but I'm not going to start wearing an exposed gun to protest. I'm also not going to wear one to work where it is illegal in a court of law to protest. There is a proper time, place, and way to oppose laws.)
Certainly, and I wouldn't recommend open-carrying in Texas. I would recommend signing the petition to support it, and writing your representatives, etc.
There are times and places where true civil disobedience -- deliberately and openly breaking the law -- is necessary and right, but only when the legal alternatives fail. What I'm really talking about in the context of this thread isn't civil disobedience, though, it's just exercise of existing rights in order to reaffirm their existence.
Even when you stay within the law, you can still end up pissing off an official who'd like to exercise more authority than the law allows, and that can cost you time, money and perhaps a little more -- precisely because things aren't always as they should be. But it's the only way to make them the way they should be, and worth doing.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This is breaking and entering.
Are you implying that's illegal? If so, could you quote a law that makes it so? Being there could be considered trespass, but opening up an unlocked door and walking in is not a crime that I know of. It is if your intention is to commit a crime (if you break and enter to steal, it's burglary). Oh, and I'm not sure if opening up an unlocked door is breaking. Some references indicate that breaking and entering are the same (more like breaking the plane of ownership) and others indicate that you have to take some extra action, like opening a lock or breaking a window.
And even so, you are highlighting the differences I discussed. There is an inherent difference in rights when you enter private property openly invited, like a shopping mall or store, and entering private property without invitation (but without a specific uninvite either).
Learn to love Alaska
You don't lose your right to free speech just because you enter private property.
I am done. That statement alone finished it for me. Seriously, get professioanl advice before you keep spouting this nonsense.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
Miller v DC Police are not there to protect you, only enforce the law after the fact.
Yeah well not everything on tv can hold water. In any case though, it's more than likely that they have probable cause that the person is under the influence or drugs and/or alcohol, hence they ask them out of the car. Then thats when they ask them if they can search the car, which you failed to mention, and if they don't ask and do it anyways, then anything they find wouldn't be admissible in court. So assuming they asked even though you didn't mention it, they find a knife, gun, drugs, whatever, that's usually when they get put in handcuffs, which if they aren't under arrest I don't see how that is legal for the same fact that I mentioned earlier.
I'm not getting handcuffed if I'm not under arrest, neither are you going to detain me if you're not going to charge me with something.
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
2 points:
First, Terry requires, "specific and articulable facts" to carry out a Terry stop. I think this burden is probably met, since the security guard "felt threatened" (which is BS, but besides the point).
Second, neither Hiible nor Terry rule on whether the police can compel you to give your name if the state doesn't have a stop-and-identify law, as is the case in Washington. Since the police took him to the station, handcuffed him, and provided him with his Miranda rights, it would seem, for all intents and purposes, that the PD elevated this from a terry-stop to a full fledged arrest, which requires the higher burden of probable cause. The Seattle PD is going to have a hard time making the case that they had probable cause to believe a crime took place based on the picture taking incident, so they'll probably fall back on obstruction. It doesn't seem that Hiible provides any guidance on whether failing to identify yourself constitutes obstruction.
It seems to me that the photographer in this case, if he so desires, (possibly pro-bono support from the ACLU) could file suit against the Seattle PD in an attempt win a settlement, err I mean flesh out a legal gray zone.
My statement was not abput trespass. AK Marc was talking about the rights to take pictures on private property. A person does not a RIGHT to photography in a store. He was confusing the requirement for a store that is open to the general public to accept all patrons into that store vs with the right to take pictures. You have absolutely no free speech rights on private property except where state consitutions allow them via Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). I was making that point.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
(Standard IANAL disclaimer)
Obstructing justice is NOT the same thing as declining to be interrogated. You have see WAY too much "law" TV and they stretch things to the extreme for the sake of 'good' TV. He declined to provide identification to the rent-a-cops. No where does he state that he declined to identify himself to the police officer.
You have the *RIGHT* to remain silent. This is a fundamental constitutional right in the USA. You can not be forced to explain yourself, your actions, or say anything at all other than to identify yourself and shut back up. A cop can not (legally/legitimately) arrest you for doing so.
Go look up the actual definition of obstruction of justice.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
There is detainment, then there is arrest. A cop can put you in handcuffs (afaik) when you are detained - particularly if s/he feels there is a flight risk. Detainment has a much lower threshold than arrest. I believe it's something along the lines of 'suspicion without evidence of a crime' while they investigate.
When detained a cop can pat you down for weapons but CAN NOT search you, your belongings, vehicle, or house. 'Plain sight' still applies though so keep the heroin under a blanket, eh?
Arrest is when evidence of a crime is available and is then turned over to the judiciary system. You and your immediate area can be searched without consent or a warrant at that point.
P.s. Please *PLEASE* don't use entertainment TV shows to get your legal knowledge.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Just to expand a little of my opinion on the topic, if someone is cordial and a police officer oversteps their bounds with them then something needs to be done.
If a person is purposefully an ass to an officer in a method that would reasonably be considered provoking, it is difficult to fault an officer for overstepping their bounds. This is why there are minimum and maximum punishments determined at the discretion of judges or management. In this case, I would think the legal equivalent of a slap on the wrist may be appropriate.
In the case of the "don't taze me bro" event, depending on which video, and how much of it you watched, a very different story was told. The appropriateness of using a taser to stun the student varied quite a bit on what you saw and heard.
In the same manner, the article does offer a lot of insight into what happened or how the people acted. For all we know, the writer could have been cussing up a storm and getting in the officers face, acting erratically, and making other civilians nervous. Or, the roles could have been exactly opposite with the writer saying things in the friendliest possible manner, and the officer getting in his face and acting erratically. We will probably never know for sure.
If I had to guess, the was probably a jerk and the officer probably overreacted. When they got to the station and they said what had happened, the officer's superiors probably contacted REI and Loomis to see if they were filing charges for anything. REI and Loomis lawyers probably said there wasn't anything they could file charges for, and REI probably said the guy was banned from the store. At this point, the superiors probably told the officer to let the writer go, and sent then sat the officer down to tell them that it's not illegal to take pictures in the store, and possibly an admonition to be more level headed in the future. Then a little note was probably added to their file mentioning the incident.
Would this have been enough? In my opinion, probably. But, I don't like to pass judgment because I have seen way too many situations where someone thinks they know what happened, but are missing the one tiny piece of evidence that makes them completely wrong.
Let's start with a couple of sources.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.Asp?selected=98
breaking and entering
n. 1) the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. If there is no such intent, the breaking and entering alone is probably at least illegal trespass, which is a misdemeanor crime. 2) the criminal charge for the above.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breaking-and-entering/
Breaking and entering is the crime of entering a residence or other enclosed property without authorization and some element of force. If there is intent to commit a crime, this is burglary. Without an intent to commit a crime, breaking and entering by itself usually carries a charge of the crime of trespass.
First, to note that locked versus unlocked doesn't make a difference. That is why people can not argue about whether something is a "lock" or not when defending against B&E.
Second, it appears that B&E is not per se a crime, as you say, because B&E is a wider net than the specific crime which is illegal. E.g. if there is a theft, then it is burglary, and if the person was authorized to enter, then there was no B&E.
Third, a closed door on a private residence is generally considered an implicit "uninvite" unless some other invitation has been given, implicit or otherwise.
Fourth, the better example would be to have talked about going to someone's home where there was an invitation, because then you can talk about public versus private alone. In this situation, the person is legally allowed to be in both places, but one is public and the other private, rather than in your situation, where the waters are muddied with possible trespassing. The original post discussed "expectation of privacy" and "in public", neither of which require the potential trespassing that you brought into the equation.
Last, thank you for bring to my attention that B&E is not technically a crime.
It's pretty unfair to REI.
Maybe they should hire competent rent-a-cops (how do you pluralize that?).
$ make available
Wait, did you just compare this idiot blogger who can barely spell to Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr.?
I think there's an old saying, "If you go looking for blood, you usually find it."
The guy was a complete ass to the Officer in question. He was out to get attention and he got it. The ENTIRE story is simply from his perspective, he didn't record what they said or anything just paraphrased (poorly I imagine) what was said in their conversations. Even then, he came off as an idiot trying to get in trouble for something he could've just walked away from.
You can even see, the first officer is just trying to explain that she's been in a similar situation and cleared it up quickly, it's not a big deal to just straighten it up, and he responds by mocking her.
I mean all he had to even do was exercise his Miranda rights, shut the hell up and (as someone else said) just say "Am I being charged with something, or am I free to go?" And it seems they would have let him go. Instead he was an idiot and he got what it seemed he wanted all along, a good story to put on his blog that he can spin out to say how bad the cops are and how much of a victim he is.
As for those who said he can sue... what is there to sue over? He refused to identify himself and explain why he was taking pictures of the inside of an ATM, then went on to mock the police officer. He was arrested for 30 minutes and let go without a scratch.
That statement alone finished it for me.
So you are saying that you have no rights on private property? Because that's the only thing I can think of when I say "you keep rights on private property" and you claim I'm being absurd. Their right to kick you out trumps your right to be there, but they can't keep you from speaking as you leave.
Learn to love Alaska
Ti Kwan Leep/Boot To The Head by The Frantics, and frequently heard on Dr. Demento
I've found that nurturing one's Zen nature is vital to dealing with technology. Violence is pretty damn useful too.
Update to his blog, published before your post, indicates that the manager already explained that he doesn't know who claimed the guy was banned, but he is not.
The manager isn't omnipotent. Publicizing forces the company to be defensive.
If nothing happened, then publicizing make sense, but you have to give it time to percolate up to the manager by bringing it to her attention and/or corporates'. But give the entity a chance to fix it first.
And yes, it could be publicized about the cops. But you can wait a few weeks. Why not give the department a chance to censure the cop first.
You presented no rational for publicizing it to the world before making a formal complaint.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
There is a legal definition of a right; you are using right in layman terms.
My rebutal is about your instance that a person has a right to free speech (to take photographs) on private property. You have refused to cite federal case law on this topic because there are no cases that support your argument. I mentioned SCOTUS defining a narrow standard, which is in Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
Free speech rights do not extend to private entities. In Pruneyard v. Robins, SCOTUS stated that nothing in the federal constiution gives a person a right to free speech on private property, although a state constitution can extend a right as long as it does not conflict with the federal consitution. That is why they ruled in Robins favor; the state of California grants people the right to free speech only in the common area of a shopping center. The common area is treated as a modern day town square.
A right, whether constitutional or statutory, cannot be revoked by a private entity. You cannot have a right to free speech in Sears, while at the time, Sears has a right to remove you. You do have a right to speech in the common area of a mall in Calfornia (and maybe other states). The management of the mall cannot remove you for excercising your right.
I will give you an example of a statutory right in California. Your landlord has a clause in your lease stating that the property can be entered at any time for inspection. It makes no difference that you agreed to that clause and signed the lease, that clause is invalid.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
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.
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. Allowing a police office (or anyone) to detain you when they have no legal right to do so is a very bad practice to get into. You have rights. Use them. Failure to do so makes it harder next time.
In addition, and i believe there is case law backing this up, using physical presence to detain someone nullifies a verbal statement that they are not detaining you. My solution to this is to simply turn around walk the other way. If that means leaving your car parked somewhere and walking down the street to get a slice of pizza and wait things out...so be it. If they continuously block your movement ask the question again. If you are still free to leave and they continue their actions - it is minimally harassment and possibly illegally detaining you.
I seriously don't understand why people think it's acceptable or a good idea to forfeit fundamental rights simply on the premise that it's "safer" or "easier" or less likely to "cause trouble". It's none of these things .... but then the same people cry about 'abuse of power' and 'corruption'. Ironic, eh?
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Likewise. Then again, I'm caucasian with only medium-dark hair. Call me cynical, but $10 says that if somebody with dark hair, darker skin and Middle-Eastern features did the same thing, there would be plainclothes security people casually walking by but watching that person really carefully within two minutes.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
"Force always trumps word"
Yes it does. And if someone points a gun in my face I certainly will say anything at all with zero argument. Luckily, even stupid cops are smart enough not to point a gun at you over answering a question. Why? Because, if nothing else, they then might have to explain why someone was shot in a non-life-threatening situation.
A knowledgeable person would never ask a cop what his miranda rights are. First off, you just engaged the cop in conversation. This could imply you're forfeiting your miranda rights! Second, your miranda rights do NOT need to be read to you in order to be in effect. The cop, by all means, could defer or not answer this question. Third, you asked what your miranda rights are. You did NOT say you were invoking your right to remain silent.
So..."Am i free to go" "I do not consent to any searches" "i decline this encounter" "I chose to remain silent and wish to speak with a lawyer" are your best tools.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
The tripod/SWAT team thing is mostly a problem in rural areas, not where blocking a path would be an issue. People see a tripod over a stranger's shoulder and think it's some weird sort of gun, and therefore call the police. Seriously.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Do you have a point-n-shoot or a "big" camera. People with typical consumer cameras don't seem to get hassled, which shows just how immensely stupid the whole thing is.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Just to expand a little of my opinion on the topic, if someone is cordial and a police officer oversteps their bounds with them then something needs to be done.
While I think politeness is always the better approach, police have an obligation to follow the law even when people are rude and offensive. If an officer oversteps their bounds something needs to be done regardless of whatever somebody might be saying to them.
When I went through the Air Force Security Police Academy, there was even a sort of zero-notice test of exactly that. You had to prove that you could remain calm and follow proper procedure even when faced with a really obnoxious individual.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
My statement was not abput trespass. AK Marc was talking about the rights to take pictures on private property. A person does not a RIGHT to photography in a store. He was confusing the requirement for a store that is open to the general public to accept all patrons into that store vs with the right to take pictures. You have absolutely no free speech rights on private property except where state consitutions allow them via Pruneyard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). I was making that point.
I guess I agree with you about the status of civil rights in a store/shopping center. But it still comes down to trespass in the end, since that's what a store would ultimately have to call the police for (assuming you don't stop what you're doing and don't leave when asked). So while we might not have the right to exercise some civil rights inside stores (where applicable), REI and other retailers don't have their own court to try and convict us if we do it anyway. And they certainly can't confiscate your camera, film or other media even if you took photos against their wishes.
I am not a crackpot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Espionage_Act_of_1996
To the wonderful person who modded me troll, and everyone who thinks, I'm an idiot, I suggest you read this summary, especially "The second section, 18 U.S.C. Â 1832, criminalizes the misappropriation of trade secrets related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate (including international) commerce, with the knowledge or intent that the misappropriation will injure the owner of the trade secret. Penalties for violation of section 1832 are imprisonment for up to 10 years for individuals (no fines) and fines of up to US$5 million for organizations." So as I said, the picture was evidence, thus could be confiscated with a warrant, which would be granted based on eye witness testimony of him taking the picture, then the rest follows. It is not an implausible situation. I know everyone here loves their freedom and having everything open, but wake the fuck up and don't be idiots. It's private property, the same rules *do* apply. There's simply basis to challenge some of the rules based on the fact a company owns it vs. a private person. Thus, an individual could exclude people from their homes based on race, but a company would have a damned hard time.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
I still can't believe that some people seem unable to grok what I'm saying. I am not defending some fucking stupid cop who got taser-happy. That was not and is not my purpose. My purpose was to point people in the direction of instances where NO DOUBT exists that the cops exceeded their authority. Where their statements have proven false and their actions have been extremely egregious - even leading to murder. Of course, if you want the current functioning of our system to continue the way it has been, then by all fucking goddamned means keep harping about cases where it is only arguable that police brutality occurred. Yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense. Let me spell it out for you in even simpler terms. As you mention, it is indeed often a matter of a cops word against someone else's. Unfortunately, many people - probably older and who think all cops are andy griffith - will believe the cop over someone who can be characterized as a punk. Note, you fucking idiot, this is not a value judgment, but an assessment on how things work. So, the better strategy is to talk about cases where no reasonable person would support the abuses which the cops have done.
Its no wonder that cops have lost respect. Part of it of course is their own problem, the other part comes from people like the above AC who in their "righteous rage" focus on cases that reasonable people can disagree about. Thus, when these types of public debates do occur (which only happens rarely) people use the latest alex jones/alternet/wacko idiot cause célÃbre to argue their point - instead of instances where only the most jackbooted thug would see any justice. Then, people who are reasonable as well as fence sitters on the issue think less of the point you're trying to make - which I assume is that cops lack serious oversight and that their cowboy tendencies need to be reigned in. Why, please tell me, is this simple concept so hard to understand?
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
I generally have a Fuji S5100, which has the general shape of a professional camera (extended lens, opportunity for lens mounting, for which I have a zoom lens), but I have also on occasion borrowed a friend's Nikon D70 SLR, which cannot be mistaken for a point-and-shoot. Locations where I've taken pictures with the D70 have included LAX and JFK, both reported targets or prospective launch locations for post-9/11 attacks.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Notice that I didn't say nothing should be done. I said that the severity of the action should be highly dependent on the situation (or possibly I implied?). Not every infraction should require firing someone, a public apology, and a lawsuit. I usually view lawsuits in these situations as serving one of three purposes:
1. Offering the encouragement needed for when an organization is not implementing needed changes.
2. Punishing an organization for gross negligence of not implementing a needed change that resulted in something negative (as encouragement to be more proactive in the future).
3. To recover damages from a failure in the system.
In my hypothetical from the previous post, I give actions that I think might be appropriate on the part of the organization (although, I would honestly probably want an apology myself). If it became apparent that absolutely nothing had happened, then a lawsuit would be appropriate to incite action.
(Again, this all my opinion, and how I'd like to do things when I someday rule the world with an iron fist as a benevolent dictator.)
Wrong.
While this may be a place of business and owned privately. The fact remains that if the premises are open to the public and there is a general invitation to entry (open doors without having to be screened to get in) then the place qualifies as a public location. The only difference between this and true public property is the fact that the owner of the business or their employees can request/demand that you leave and/or request/demand that you stop doing something (like taking pictures).
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
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..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_to_the_head
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
It's a fairly simple fix, an officer should have not have any more rights than any other person to point a firearm at you or handcuff you. I'm not saying they should not be able to do it but it's it's shared by the rest of the populace people will look at these powers a bit closer. The big problem to this is unions cops are setup to be above the average citizen by requiring review boards and being to close to the DA's office.
No sir I dont like it.
A store is a private property. They CAN put "no photos" notice, or generally forbid you anything and everything a private person is allowed to forbid a trespasser on a private property. (The fact you're not trespassing is just that they, as a shop, allow you to enter, but they don't waive any other their rights that way).
OTOH, if there was no "no photos" notice anywhere, you are free to do anything within law unless they tell you to stop, so if they tell you "stop making photos", you should comply but they can't tell you to _start_ doing anything (except leaving the property), like "delete the photos you have taken".
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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")
(It may, of course, be to your advantage to show them ID -- if they're looking for John Smith and you can show your name is Richard Roe, you can be about your business that much sooner.)
Of course, since cops are allowed to lie to you, you don't have a reliable way of knowing who they're actually looking for, do you?
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 think I would have walked away right as he said that.... it would have been the easiest money I could ever make. Assualt charges on the individual and civil suit to the company. ka-ching!!
For you first point, i feel threatened by you right now, can the cops come over to your house and search it, demand your identification and stop you from leaving until they are finished with whatever they are doing? Of course not. So even if a security guard is scared, there still are limits to how a Terry stop is handled and what can be "specific and articulable facts" that meet the requirements for it. The court also said that the "specific and articulable facts" must be pointing to the person breaking the law, has broken the law, or is about to break the law and those "specific and articulable facts" must be able the behavior to make the cop believe the law in question was being broken.
Now keep in mind, I was originally replying to a parent post which said "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?)." My point was that they need a valid reason to stop and question you. That's what Terry said.
For your second point.
The Hiible case was over a terry stop and the court said it didn't violate any constitutional protections to require or give your name. Most states (all that I know of, there may be a few who don't) have laws about interfering with an official police investigation. Again, this has to be a terry stop or more severe but if you don't identify yourself (at least verbally by name) you could be charged with that type of law.
I agree and think it will be somewhat subjective to whatever the officer can cook up. However, I'm concerned that someone can cause a police officer to open an investigation for taking a picture and being an ass. I mean he would have to be in an active investigation for obstruction to work. Even if it's a terry stop, the cop still has to believe that a law is going to be, has been or is being broken. I'm confused to where that comes into play over taking a picture and being an ass.
While it doesn't spell it out, I think it is somewhat implied. Hiible said that it wasn't unconstitutional under a Terry stop or better. Even without a specific law, if the officer has the ability to investigate and through that investigation ability, the officer can ask questions, and the interaction with the subject is a terry stop or better, then your pretty much required to answer anything that doesn't tread on your constitutional rights which Hiible already said giving you name wasn't. The big question here is whether or not there was some specific and articulate fact that lead the officer to believe a law has been, is being, or is about to be broken in order to make it a detention and then an arrest.
The sad thing is that the person in trouble described themselves as an anarchist which means they won't have the abi
My position is that if you call the police and tell them that I'm threatening you, the minimum burden for a terry stop has been met. That means they can detain me and perform a cursory search of my person. They can't come into my house or search it - that would require a warrant. They can ask my identity, whether I'm obligated to answer depends entirely on state law.
If I refuse to identify myself and the state has a stop-and-identify law, I can be arrested because the police would have probable cause to believe I've violated the stop-and-identify statute. If the state doesn't have a stop-and-identify law I can be arrested if the obstruction law is drafted to cover the situation. If the state obstruction law can't be construed to compel me to identify myself, I can sit there with my mouth shut.
The officer does have the right to ask me any question he wants. I'm not obligated to answer any of them, with the possible exception for biographical information. I have the right to remain silent.
Well, they can perform a terry stop, but beyond that, unless the person they stop has a weapon or drugs, confesses they intend to hurt the person, or otherwise gives the cop probable cause to believe a crime is about to be committed, the police are powerless to do anything (especially if the accused gives his name.)
I fully expect the cops to respond every single time someone calls them. They can then question and frisk the accused. I don't view the fact that the police can frisk anyone they've received a complaint about as an abuse of police powers. If someone is calling in false complaints, they're the ones abusing the process, and should be prosecuted. (One side note: if the police are found to be manufacturing complaints so they can meet the "specific and articulable facts" burden, that would be an egregious abuse of power.)
I don't think there needs to be an stop and Identify law once a Terry stop or worse is in play. I think that's just some tool cops can use in the stated in which the law exist to feel more macho. Once the criteria for a Terry stop has been established, the officer is involved with a full blown investigation, even if it turns out to have been nothing wrong happening.
As for searching the house and whatever, that's sort of the point in how this turned into nonsense so quickly. You call the cops and say I was threatened, the cop shows up and asked you how, you say well he said he took a picture and when I told him to remain there until I was done, he said no. Then when I said I would chase him down and tackle him, he said good luck with that and said he would treat it as an attack. Now, where is the hint of the law being broken by anyone other then the ATM guard? But if the guard said he threatened to take the money, the a law is in jeopardy. From my understanding, it didn't reach that far though, the guy didn't break a law and did little more then anything other then be an ass in the way he talked to the people and took a picture or two. I don't think a Terry stop could hold in this.
Well, this is the part in question I guess. You are most likely not allowed to lie by answering questions that don't stop you from using your right against self incrimination or of being secure in your person, papers, and effects with false statements. You are not required to answer questions that could violate your constitutional rights, but the courts already said that in a terry stop, giving you name doesn't violate any constitutional rights. So it would appear that your not protected from not giving your name in the least regardless of whether there is a stop and identify law or not.
Well, lets be clear on this, I know what you were attempting to get at but I just wanted to point out that possession of a weapon or drugs isn't an automatic problem without showing intent to use them illegally. There are many legal drugs and weapons people can have, some of which double as tools or toys and medications for animals (horse tranqs are speed in people) as well as prescriptions for people. I won't be arrested if you left your prescription vocodene in my car and I was taking it to you. But yea, illegal drugs or illegal weapons, they fill the bill.
I'm sure you can bring some sort of suit against that cop and/or the department
Nope. That's what Patriot Act enables. Indefinite detention without charges, no right to face your accuser, no right to speedy trial or to contact the outside world.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
I think all that depends on how the state law is drafted. SCOTUS has held that giving your name does not violate your fifth amendment rights, but unless a state has a law criminalizing your refusal, they cannot punish you. Same goes for lying to the police. To be fair though I think the obstruction laws in most states probably do make it illegal to lie to an officer performing an official investigation. It looks to me, that the safest legal ground would be to give your name, then refuse to say anything further.
If you can articulate reasonable facts that a crime has occurred or is about to occur to the police officer, in my mind, that meets the requirements in Terry, since the police officer can turn around and articulate "Sumdumass said:..." So I guess it falls to the police officer's judgment to determine whether your statement meets the terry requirements.
That is a very low bar. If you tell the cop that I threatened to hit you, that qualifies. If you tell the cop that I'm hovering, pacing near you, making you uncomfortable, and your afraid I might try something, that qualifies as well - in fact the actual case in Terry was quite similar to that.
I guess the limit is, if in the course of accusing me you say something that calls into question the reasonableness of a crime occurring. Something like, or "Venus is in line with pluto so now I'm threatened."
We don't really know what the security guard in this particular case said to the police officer, "he threatened me by taking my picture in public" probably wouldn't cut it, but "he was hovering, leering, taking pictures, and acting aggressively" probably would. I have no problem believing that the security guard inflated the incident, or, for that matter, that the guy who got arrested was acting a lot more irately than he lets on.
That's what Obstruction laws specifically do. They criminalize your lack of participation with the cops during an investigation. You don't need a specific law saying X when X is part of another law. And either, the specific law or the section of another law, require a set of circumstances to be true in order to be applicable.
Well, in Terry, the cop in question described a situation where it looked like they were casing the join for a robbery and the group of people somewhat matched a reported group of suspects. I'm not sure that hovering or pacing near someone on it's own meets the requirements. As for "sumdumass said", well this again will be subject to later examination. What would happen is that after nothing was said to indicate a law being broke, then a potential lawsuit situation opens up. Your not really going to win in a direct fight with the cops, they will force your into an actual violation of the law so give the name and follow up later.
That could be. However, what if it was just a "he took my picture and then talked back when I told him to stay put? Would the questioning then be legitimate or the subsequent arrest for refusing to cooperate with the officer? That's the question I want answered out of this. Can any complaint, regardless of if a law being broke in any way was involved or not, be enough reason to detain someone and then escalate it to an actual arrest? I don't think it is.
Did you miss the part about
Again, as many people have pointed out, no crime was committed here, nor was a crime about to be committed. A person was taking a fucking photo of something - that's all. Being an asshole is not a crime - and I oughta know!
I wonder, as I have seen no explicit verbiage, does the ID have to be accurate? "Yes, officer, Smith, Bob Smith's the name... No I left my wallet at home..."
Those are two different things. Not participating (especially if you're the suspect) is not illegal. Lying which is "what Obstruction laws specifically do" is actively foiling the investigation and is illegal. So if you want to legally compel a suspect to participate in the investigation against him, by giving his name, you do need a law saying so.
ANY complaint surely won't cut it. Any reasonable complaint that alleges a law has been, or is about to be broken (with specific articulable facts), provided the police don't have reason to believe the complaint is fabricated, probably is sufficient.
I don't think we're going to get the satisfaction of a definitive answer from SCOTUS anytime soon though.
There is a federal law in the books that says if you fail to report a feloni, you have commited a crime. It's called misprision of a felony. I was actually thinking it was any crime originally so I will concede this point to you. I guess the exception might be when you committed the crime or can incriminate yourself in the reporting of it.
I agree but the way the story unfolded (and yes, it was one sided and I never do anything wrong), it didn't seem like anything was actually against the law, just concern over someone seeing the secrete inside of an ATM.
I think your right. That brings me to another question, which would be better to interpret the situation, a strict constitutionalists court or a "living document" court. I'll refrain from going liberal or conservative seeing how both seem to be acting opposite as if trying to set the definition for oxymoron in how they act compared to what they say recently.
It's not clear why he was detained, or if he was arrested, so that's why we want the other side of the story.
If events happened as described, photo -> harassment, there's nothing relevant they could say.
They have as much right to call the police as he has to take a picture.
No, not really. Snapping a picture is pretty harmless, making useless calls to emergency services is a serious crime.
It might seem unreasonable, but maybe they didn't feel safe.
You're right, that would seem unreasonable. Not only is it a lie (if it was they'd have run for the protection of their truck) but they were both armed and by the time they reacted it was clear that he was not.
They might have felt uncomfortably between a rock (his rights) and a hard place (their boss's demand for them to collect ID from photographers) but that doesn't mean their actions became right. Using that as an excuse is craven.
Personally though, I doubt this is a job requirement - a company the size of Loomis surely has lawyers who would tell them they can't demand to see people's IDs. (Except voluntarily, as in before giving them the money.)
It seems like more of the same fear-driven excusism we always hear from security/police/the government - "since 911 terrorists have been kidnapping kids by pictures from cellphones and using them to blow up ATMs, and ponies!!"
Yeah, this is my attitude. I don't mouth off; as the old cop saying goes, you may beat the rap but you won't beat the ride. I should have been more clear - there's no benefit to being a smartass, but you can make it quite apparent that you're unhappy with their behavior and will make an issue of it.
Allow me to explain the situation I'm thinking of. A speed trap was set up on a road near my house. I worked all night. I was coming home. I certainly wasn't staring at the speedometer, and although I'm no speed demon, it is at least possible that the officer really did clock me doing 47 in a 35 - it was downhill on a 4-lane road. Fast forward two weeks. My wife is going to work down the same road. She's been informed that they're out there, so she drives cautiously. The officer cites her for... 48 in a 35. (She was going uphill.) Now, she is a speed demon normally, so it's not insane to think she'd have done it most days - but not when she knew they were there. When she was pulled over, she was one of half a dozen drivers in the same situation. This time, however, they took the "silly little lady" attitude with her - my guy had simply asked for my license and proof of insurance, asked no questions, and handed me a ticket stating he had radared me at such and such speed. Meanwhile, they're radaring their cop buddies and actually saying things like "Hey Dave, you got up to 55 that time!"
She got mad, started kind of ranting at the guys. I, of course, was furious with her when I heard this. I told her that what she should have done is said nothing, waited until he came up with the ticket, and then (politely) asked for the names and badge numbers of every officer present, as well as their supervisor's name, so that she could report their behavior.
As I told someone else, this comment was sort of fired from the hip, so it gave several people the wrong idea. You don't have to mouth off; you just stop being polite. No more "sir" or "officer". Ask for name, badge number, and supervisor's name. Ask if you are free to go, and then leave without further comment.
Check my replies to others for why I didn't mean mouthing off. I (and many others) frequently travel armed, so this in particular is not proof that an armed society is a polite one - they certainly don't seem to show much politeness toward the populace at large, even though under Mississippi law your car is considered an extension of your home, and no permit is required to have a weapon in the car. If I didn't work for a state-owned hospital, I'd always leave the gun in the car (I did for years before I took this job), but you're not allowed to have one on campus.
It did lead to one slightly humorous incident soon after Sept 11 - when they were doing inspections of cars entering airport property and I went to pick up a friend. I told the officers I had a pistol under the seat, so it wouldn't be a surprise. They asked if I was planning to take it into the airport. I told them no, it would stay in the car. They sent me on my way.
Agree with the war on terror aspect. The cruiser's camera's ability to recall what it recorded is at the cop's (and department's) discretion. My attorney told me that. I'm talking about retribution for turning in a bad apple, since the whole bunch is rotten I'd be opening myself to a world of hurt, even if it did not result in my death.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'm saying when they realize you aren't a 'terrorist' unless they just plan on holding you forever even when they know you aren't...
Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
We've raised a lot of different questions in this conversation, (a)Was a terry stop justified in this specific situation, (b)Was an arrest justified in this specific situation, (c)In general can a police officer effect a terry stop on second hand information, (d)In general, can a police officer effect an arrest based on a second hand complaint and refusal of the suspect to cooperate. Now you're adding two more (e)which would be better to interpret the situation, a strict constitutionalists court or a "living document" court, and, implicitly, (f)would a strict constructionist and a subscriber to the living document theory come to a different conclusion on any of these questions.
Starting with (e), the one you explicitly just asked, I think if you're a constructionist you always think strict constructionism should be followed, and if you think the constitution evolves with society, you always think social realities need to be taken into account. If you're asking me personally, I think the people on the court right now who call themselves constructionists/textualists/originalists have their heads up their collective asses. I think of the three philosophies, originalism is the only one with any merit, but all to often originalists ignore clearly articulated positions of the founders. This is especially obvious when we talk about things like school prayer and whether the US is a "christian nation." Many (most?) of the founders were clearly either atheists or deists, notably Jefferson, Madison, and Washington, and surely would have bristled at the notion of public institutions tacitly endorsing one religion over another. So-called-originalists, however, seem more interested in what the think the constitution should have originally been.
Now with that rant out of the way, as for the rest of the questions, I think constructionists and living-document-proponents should, in theory come to the same conclusion on questions a-d, in order Yes, No, Yes, No. In reality, I think questions b and d would result in split 5-4 decisions.
Incidentally, things like sworn eye-witness testimony that a crime has occurred, while technically second hand information, is more appropriately treated as evidence when examining question d.
I think we covered a though d pretty well and while we might not be in total or complete agreement, I think we are at the same conclusions in principle which is why I thought the last question was deserving and connected. After all, we are talking about what the courts have allowed the cops to do, how our rights have been intertwined into it, and whether or not the courts interpretations are limited to the specific scope of a specific situation or not. It would appear that if the questions were answered by the highest court, the type of the court's makeup and how strict they follow the document giving government authority as well as restricting it's actions, would be detrimental to estimating the outcome of the decision.
(* question D should read more like, In general, can a police officer effect an arrest based on a second hand complaint _that doesn't suggest the breaking of any law_ and refusal of the suspect to cooperate.)
I guess you would consider me a constructionist because I see the means to amend the constitution in all but two specific ways that could create an unconstitutional amendment in order to reflect the people of the time. If it can't be amended because there isn't enough support then it's obvious that the interpretation of society and social realities aren't really there. Well, at least they aren't there in enough force to warrant the population or it's elected officials to do anything about it. Imagine if the living document was taken to the detriment of society and it was used to justify the "war om terror" actions as constitutional and proper and society needed the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to not apply. It's not out of reach when it's a "living document".
Well, I agree with you to a point. School prayer should be outside the reach of the federal government however. It should be in the realm of the state or local communities so Jefferson and all probably shouldn't be included in their interpretations of anything outside the 1st amendment. So if a school and local community determines that prayer in school is appropriate, it should be left to them to do as long as the make no law requiring it. In other words, as long as it is voluntary and originated with the students or the student's parents, the government and constitution has no role in it.
This is sort of an issue I have. Making no law has turned into you can't do something your free to do in public. This isn't the case at all in the original intent of the constitution or the founding fathers even if they were atheist or deist.
Maybe I'm missing something. I agree that t
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/17/cops-gone-wild/
I think there are similarities to be drawn between "strict constructionists/textualists" and biblical literalists. I fundamentally take issue with the idea that it is even possible to read a text without interpreting it.
Specifically, the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause are almost comically open-ended, and it's better to couch your interpretations in something (e.g. the intent of the founders or contemporary social understanding), rather than to just wash your hands and pretend that your interpretation is reflected, right there on the face of the document.
In cases where the law or the constitution are clear, social values don't trump the constitution. But clear cases aren't taken up by SCOTUS, so I'd prefer those justices don't tell me that their interpretation is clearly in the written document.
Part of this problem is that literary styles and definitions have changed from before and after the constitution was written and adopted. However, we are not at a loss because there are tools like the federalist papers, records of debate, dictionaries, letters between architects of the nation (with Jefferson being the most common because of his station in France at this time). What this allows us to do is to find the common and proper interpretations to near enough accuracy that the intent can be established.
This again goes to the tools availible that I mentioned above. Most of the founding fathers were greatly influenced by the idea of liberty which is outlined greatly in detail in concept in several works preceding the founding of the nation. They even went to great lengths to express the idea of liberty in contrast to tyranny in the absence of it. People like John Locke spent a great deal of time creating and expanding on the concepts of liberty and sovereignty and natural rights. Things like the necessary and proper clause or the to promote the general welfare clause need to be examined in not only this lite but in the literary styles of the times. It's sort of like the second amendment, a well regulated militia meant a militia that could hit their targets not disciplined soldiers as well as the wording was reasoning to why the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed instead of how it specifically couldn't be infringed as some have attempted to claim in the past. (see the DC gun ban supreme court case for more on that).
Anyways, face value is pretty much what is needed except we need to understand the face value at the time it was written.
The problem I have is that it can almost always be clear on both the intent and the letter. What sometimes becomes unclear is when a specific circumstance is involved. Is burning a flag free speech? if the fire code that is currently used to persecute flag burners capable of hampering the unrestricted free speech? And when it's a long standing military custom to make surrendering or defeated forces strike or destroy their own flag (colors) as a sign of submission, does that influence any of the speech that is restricted from being free?
BTW, most people think a colorless white flag means surrender but it actually means no allegiance in the specific actions and infers a request for a truce. Colors are used on the flags to show allegiance in both battle and protection (think of why ships fly flags). Anyways, this isn't really connected but brings up another possibility of conflict when flying a white flag could have the same speech value as burning a flag.
Well then it seems you are an originalist, not a "strict constructionist," nor a god-forsaken textualist - so don't take my little rant personally.
Which is sort of my point, judges don't rule on abstractions, they rule on actual fuzzy circumstances. If Federalist No. 59 provides insight into the matter at hand, by all means use it to illuminate your understanding. But if previously unforeseen circumstances arise, e.g. the EPA's regulation of air pollution, I feel it is impossible to avoid applying contemporary standards.
I think we are on the same pages then. Well at least close enough to know what the other thinks about the subjects anyways.
I've been wanting to ask, the OSU in your moniker, is that a reference to the college you attend (attended) or is it something else. You don't need to explain if you don't want. Anyways, I was wondering if it was a reference to a college, if it was Oregon State or Oklahoma State or Ohio State or whichever.
Yes, I'm an Ohio State alumnus. Go Bucks!
Ha.. Me too.. well sort of, I finished my education at a community college 10 years ago but I live about 30 miles from the main campus and pop up to show the youngsters how to party a couple of times a year. Although the cops have been pricks lately (a couple of strange incidents on campus over the last few years like flashers and rapist and trashcan fires after home games which they blame on outsiders) so I haven't been around in a while.
Go Bucks!
Where did you hear that REI got 250 million dollars from the government? I haven't heard of any retailers anywhere getting bailout money for that matter.
I think you just made that up.