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'
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).
They're in a public space; what's visible in public is fair game. What law would someone with a picture be breaking (hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
If there isn't a law against it then I do have the right. Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?
It is simply amazing how many companies don't understand the true power of the internet. As a result of one single incident like this, REI is going to lose many customers and many sales (I for one won't shop there any more until this gets resolved favorably). Bad news travels extremely quickly these days.
REI spends a huge amount of money on marketing - and this year's entire budget just got flushed down the toilet. Evidently they should spend a bit more on employee training. (Yes, the guilty parties in this case were from a subcontractor - but REI's own security personnel should have stepped in and done the right thing).
REI also promises a 24-hour response time to email - my (politely worded) email about this issue hasn't been replied to, 25+ hours and counting later.
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.
I fought the law, and the law won ... as the song goes.
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.
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.
oh, you imagine a law...how nice.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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.
Does your confidence in the impending douche-baggery make it any less douche-baggy?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
"Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you."
They told him he cannot leave, and they threatened him with bodily harm if he attempted.
In other words, they actually placed him under (possibly illegal) de-facto arrest.
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.
I know for some reason /. hates the fact that someone can defend themselves with an attorney is somehow wrong.
What? You might want to read up on NewYorkCountryLawyer's contributions.
.
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
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.
I know for some reason /. hates the fact that someone can defend themselves with an attorney is somehow wrong.
I think you need to work on your sentence construction skills. You just said that a fact was wrong, and slashdot hates it. You know what's wrong besides your sentence? The idea that J. Random Citizen can get an attorney capable of getting them any satisfaction.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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".
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.
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.
He should have softened them up first with a base level social engineering attack something like:
Hey Buddy, I've just been learning how to service these, mind if I take a couple of snaps of this one to show my teacher, I've never seen this model before.
or
My boy is interested in the inside of these mind if I take a piccy so he can have a look?
The combinations of bullshit are endless but you get the point. Instead of being confrontational he could of said, Talk to you later? sure buddy. did his business forget it and walk out. If confronted again he could have diffused the situation, or he could have said Talk to you later? I'm not going anywhere in *this* line, what's up? if the security guard revealed he was upset about the pictures, he should of apologised profusely, said he would delete the pictures immediately, fiddle with the phone and not delete them, then look at the guard and say - all done - sorry about that.
It's obvious these guys motivation is 'wespect my horthorita' so he should have played on it and not looked like a threat, the guard might have just been interested in having a look at his iphone as much as he was interested in the inside of an atm. Instead the subject reinforced the marks insecurities by being confrontational instead of comforting them. Frankly whilst our subject probably didn't deserve the treatment he also brought it upon himself.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Being polite != helping. And when they stop being polite to me, I have no further use for being polite to them.
We deny all responsibilities; it's not our fault, and we're prepared to defend ourselves against any legal actions.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You can call the cop a cocksucking piece of shit and there's jack she can do about it. Just don't scream in a public place so they can hit you with the generic "disorderly conduct" charge.
When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?
No, no, no. It's:
1) Am I free to go?
2) Am I being detained?
Rinse, wash, repeat. And, if the cop is being a cocksucking piece of shit, add
3) Call for another officer to come to the scene.
It's funny how people looking for trouble find it. Arguing with total strangers over political issues, never mind police officers, is one of those ways. What happened to simple respect? Political speech these days is all about bluster and not listening to what anyone else has to say. That works great in blogland but not so well with real people.
Showing a little respect for the person you are talking to gets you a long way. Police have to deal with lots of difficult people all the time, why on earth would you want to try to put yourself in the "difficult person" mental bucket the police officer has?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
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
Folks,
Posting angry comments here on SlashDot can be recreational--but all the ranting and raving anyone does here won't make a bit of difference in the real world.
What WILL make a difference in the real world, of course, is taking advantage of all of the links so helpfully provided in TFA. All you have to do is send a polite email to some of the people involved, pointing out that the two Loomis employees acted really foolishly; that the REI "loss prevention officer" made REI look...well, like losers; and that the Seattle Police Department really, really needs to send a couple of officers off to Constitution Camp.
Here's the email I just sent to the U.S. headquarters of Loomis (employer of the guards who started this nonsense):
Civil rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them, they waste away.
...people are going to see.
That's pretty much a "No duh!" situation there.
What if they guy had had a lipstick cam behind his ear? What if he just walked up to the techs while they were refilling the ATM and made smalltalk about how he used to refill ATMs as well? He could have gotten MUCH better snapshots and the techs would have been none the wiser.
If companies don't want people to see the innards of an ATM, then put up a curtain around them while you're refilling them. No, I'm serious. Walk into the place with a folded-up room divider and your boxes 'O cash, set up the divider around the ATM, and have one guy go inside and fill the machine while the other guy waits outside and watches everyone. Then you take down the divider and go back to the armored car. Simple.
That way if someone tries to take a picture of the ATM, it's really obvious that the techs are trying to keep it shielded and it's a lot easier for them to tell the person to stop and/or call the police on them.
Second, people who aren't law enforcement agents cannot generally stop or detain people. They may have a license to carry a handgun, and they may dress like a police officer, but they aren't empowered to act like an officer. If someone tries to talk to you or asks you to talk to them, politely refuse and walk away.
In this kind of situation, if a guy with a gun who is not a cop tells me that he wants to talk to me, I'd usually suggest walking away. Put down the purchases, hand them to a friend, ask the woman behind the counter to put them on hold for you, whatever. Just walk out of there.
The benefit of such a situation is that you get out of there, you clear your head, etc... and then you can go back and conduct your business later, hopefully when man-with-gun is gone. And if this armed person who is not a member of the law enforcement tries to detain you (an unarmed person walking away), then the cops, the court, the company, and the crowd around you (yes, I alliterated that for y'all) will probably be much more supportive of your actions.
Unless this guy with the camera was an active danger for them, then I don't see any reason for them to talk to him. The second the armed guys engage him they know that it will put him on the defensive, and considering the fact that there are two armed guys there, the power dynamic is going to get really bad, really quickly.
The only thing these guys should say is something like "please stand back from the ATM," "Please don't take pictures", etc... The only time they should engage with a civilian is when they are feeling actively threatened.
"The Loomis guys wanted me to give them my ID so they could write a report about me for their bosses...The REI security people that had been called in by now wanted the same thing.
Um...no?
Both Loomis and REI have lawyers. And my guess is that both teams of them are (correctly) telling every one of their employees involved in this incident to have a big slice of superglue pie. You can ask anyone for their ID, but only the police can make the request a requirement, and only in certain instances.
Would having the ID make life easier for the Loomis and REI employees? Sure. But so would having each store patron take off their clothes at the entrance to ensure that they aren't carrying-in weapons and aren't carrying-out shoplifted goods. I don't want to be subjected to either of these unreasonable privacy invasions by stores, so I won't patronize businesses that employ them.
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
The photographer didn't remove any cash or any other items. Had the Loomis guys tackled him, that would have probably been a threat of assault, followed by assault. Further, the guys are armed, which probably raises the penalty for both charges a few notches.
coding is life
Wrong, that's not a public place, that's a private place of business. Based upon the biased account on the sight, it looks a bit questionable as to whether he was being honest.
I walk by the Loomis guys at work frequently and I'd never pull a stunt like the writer did. For one thing if somebody were to later on mess with or rob the machine, guess who's going to be on the list of suspects.
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.
Who gives a fuck? He can be a "smartass" to anyone he wants. It's not illegal.
This quote from TFA strikes me as both taunting and smartass-y:
I told them plainly that I'm not in the habit of giving my ID to people just because they want it, especially fake cops who put money in box and get to play at being real cops.
We'd have had to put up with police like that for years!!!
:D
If this was in the UK then the OP would still be locked up and his camera confiscated (lost).
Anyone with a camera is a suspected terrorist on recon..
Also in the UK If a police officer asks your name for any reason (even if you are walking down a road and done NOTHING illegal) and you refuse, you get arrested / finger printed / DNA taken (which is held on a Database for upto 10 years even if no charges are made!!) and stuck in the cells till they can prove your identity... they might through in a Section 5 offense for pissing them off...
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
© 2006 Bert P. Krages II
The Photographer's Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website. It may be downloaded and printed out using Adobe Acrobat Reader. You may make copies and carry them your wallet, pocket, or camera bag to give you quick access to your rights and obligations concerning confrontations over photography. You may distribute the guide to others, provided that such distribution is not done for commercial gain and credit is given to the author.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused by being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative, or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don't allow an event to escalate into violence.
In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:
1. What is the person's name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
one of the arresting officers flat out lied in the report, putting words in my mouth that I had never said.
That's why you don't say ANYTHING to the police. You call your insurance company, and they send someone out to talk to the police for/with you. Remember, you have the right to remain silent. I would be very surprised if the cop didn't know the woman in question, at least second-hand.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
About 10 years ago, at a local Target, they were refilling the ATM machine. I was also fascinated with the inside of the ATM, but the security guard didn't allow me to go anywhere near to the machine to see the inside. In fact, the security guard politely, but firmly asked me to leave, otherwise, he told me that he would take me away.
So, based upon what I have experienced, it's no surprise that they arrested somebody for taking the photo.
... being a smartass to a law officer?
When said officer is dumb enough to not know the most basic rights U.S. citizens enjoy under the Constitution?
Also, in case you missed it, he wasn't asked for the ID by a police officer. He was asked for the ID by a private security guard, who proceeded to call the cops when refused; and when the cops arrived, they wanted him to hand over the ID to that same guard, not to them.
The point is, he went out of his way to take the picture. He even admitted to it.
And this is reason to be detained....why, exactly?
I go out of my way to take pictures all the time. If it's a cool thing to take a picture of, then I'll do what it takes, within reason, to get a picture of it.
And walking a couple of dozen feet across a store isn't exactly going a long way out of his way.
The whole lot of everybody involved need a good boot to the head. (naah naah!)
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
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
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
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.
It is quite likely that this guy was being more of a dick than he was letting on, and the police and the rent-a-cops were more out of line than they were letting on.
I don't know... From this guys blog, at least how I read it, he was being quite the dick, and wasn't exactly hiding that fact.
I happen to think he should not have been put in the position to have to choose to be a dick or not however, if the rest is accurate at all.
I can fully believe that the rent-a-cops overreacted and came to some silly conclusions about the situation.
But when the police officer arrived, it should have been obvious it wasn't a crime, wasn't threatening, and wasn't an issue.
These are the people whos job it is to enforce laws. Isn't Knowing the law a prerequisite?
Was acting as if the security guards and the cops were on the same team or something. It's pretty clear that the security guards were being paranoid fucks, but I suspect a bit of conversation took place before the cop brought up 9/11 and you spazzed out on her.
Consider things from the perspective of the police. They probably think the security guards are as much of a pain in the ass as you do, but a call has been made, and they HAVE to resolve things one way or another. Rent-a-cops bickering with a customer at REI? Please. If you had sounded like it was all a big misunderstanding and that you just wanted to finish your purchase and leave, I very much doubt the cops would have gone through the trouble of hauling your ass in.
I think any of the following actions would have been advantageous:
1) Inconspicuously email the photo somewhere and then delete it off your phone. Claim that the security guards were mistaken. Of course, releasing the photo would prove that you lied, but you still "won."
2) Walking out of the store on your own. If you ever manage to provoke a rent-a-cop to batter you for doing nothing, on security camera, in front of an entire store, then that's a lawyer's dream.
3) Calling the cops yourself. You have no idea how much being the first one to call will tip the situation in your favor.
4) Sucking up to the cops. You could have portrayed yourself as the victim of aggression, apologized profusely and just stated your desire to make your purchase and leave (or even just leave).
At the end of the day, you can't forget that no matter what you think of "peace officers", they weren't your enemy here - they were a neutral third party that YOU alienated and the rent-a-cops successfully used against you.
That being said, it's pretty clear at this point that your objective should be to get REI to use a different security company. Nobody wants to shop at a store that hires jackbooted thugs that harass the customers, and I think you make some inroads there.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
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".
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.
Re-read his post. "State supreme court"
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.
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"
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
I do IT for a small city, which includes a police department. I get the opportunity to chat with the police folk about any number of things they've encountered, and there are two very important things to remember.
1. There are any number of mundane and ambiguously worded laws that they can use to arrest you resulting in fines or jail time.
2. There is a lot that an officer can do that is rather harassing, but perfectly within their legal rights to do. For instance, the ATM photo guy, they could go around and ask all of his neighbors about him, and if he's been known to have been involved in any thefts or illegal activities. It can be inconvenient for all of your neighbors to suddenly suspect the worst of you.
There is no legal requirement to be nice to police officers (or anyone else around you), but you may find your life a lot better if you do.
I 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.
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).
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.
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.
Because I'm tired of people telling me, because I support a small constitutionally-limited government, that I should leave the United States. *They* are the ones who should leave, not me, because they are the ones who don't support the founding principles.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>It's pretty unfair to REI
That's okay. They also took a quarter-billion dollar bailout from OUR wallets. That's pretty unfair too, but I don't see REI apologizing for that theft of our labor.
IMHO when it comes to government and corporations, who routinely misappropriate or waste our tax money, they have no rights to fairplay. They play dirty, so we should play dirty too.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Which is why I dislike tasers and pepper spray. If used properly, they are a wonderful alternative to lethal force in many situations. However, because they AREN'T guns, police are more likely to use them in situations where they really shouldn't. There is never a reason to stun someone who is not a threat. There are stories about police using tasers and pepper spray to force compliance with police orders from individuals already in custody ("do what we say, or we'll hurt you", sounds like torture to me).
Police need to be able to control situations when it is needed, but they also are human and as prone to anyone to abusing power. Whenever an officer discharges a taser, there should be the same type of review as if they had fired a gun.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
Think about how many people this happens to. Then think about how many have money enough to hire a lawyer to sue them and even then their overall success in winning would still be slim.
Around here a person can usually be detained for no reason at all for about 3 days. Maybe just to scare you into talking or something like that but they don't have to tell you their reasons unless you are charged. They can hold you under suspicion for a while. The FBI can do this for a very long time when they wish (K. Mitnik or some other person that scares them).
Actually 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.
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!
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?