Last edited by a moderator:
About our Rights: Photographing transit systems in the US
-
- Thread starter Shawn Dougherty
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Very nice 300mm f/6.3 Komura Commercial in Copal 3S
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
For Sale Very clean 90mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon in Copal 0
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
Want to Buy Folding Pocket Kodak Plate Holders, Cut Film Sheaths, and Ground Glass
- Started by trichrome
Forum statistics
We are returning to the mentality of the sheriff of Nottingham, where the rules are whatever the sheriff says they are.
Not as long as the judge makes the Sheriff pay thousands of $ for making up his own rules.
One of he issues that strikes me is the article states nothing has changed since similar incidents 5 years ago.
One positive aspect of the digital age,
chit like this can be exposed in a heartbeat or the time it takes to upload to uTube.
One positive aspect of the digital age,
chit like this can be exposed in a heartbeat or the time it takes to upload to uTube.
I was mugged in G'town many years ago and the cop not only made me wait with blood running down my face while he wrote two jaywalking tickets, but then he said all he could do was file a report. Didn't even ask for a description of the muggers, who when I got to him couldn't have been more than a few blocks away.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
- Messages
- 143
- Format
- Multi Format
Man. I didn't watch the video but have seen it all before. The only way to prevent this in the future is to go after the cops that have no business being cops if they can't understand the law. If a cop acts outside his scope of office he can be held personally liable. That means his house, car, bank accounts etc can be yours. This is not an if, and or but. It is real. He takes an oath, an article VI (of the constitution) public oath. He is contractually obligated to keep that oath. Take a look at TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1983 of the US code and look closely at the phrase COLOR OF LAW. If this was me I would bitch slap these guys into tomorrow. For some reason though cops don't mess with me after I call their bluff (in many situations). Wonder why.
For the people that have had a bad experience with the police because of inaction in a time of crisis, it has been well litigated that they are under no obligation to help you in any way shape or form. Protect and serve is a bunch of BS. I have been looking into this for years and I haven't found any obligation they have at all in regards to the average citizen. They have an obligation to the corporate interest that pays them. It seems as though it is up to the individual for the rest. Sad but true.
Remember I am not a lawyer. Just someone sick enough of the BS to look into the reasons behind it. Remember too that no state law can trump a federal law. It is that way by design and it is your option to use either. They have no say in it since you are a private citizen and they are a public servant. They agreed to it when they agreed to the benefits of being one.
For the people that have had a bad experience with the police because of inaction in a time of crisis, it has been well litigated that they are under no obligation to help you in any way shape or form. Protect and serve is a bunch of BS. I have been looking into this for years and I haven't found any obligation they have at all in regards to the average citizen. They have an obligation to the corporate interest that pays them. It seems as though it is up to the individual for the rest. Sad but true.
Remember I am not a lawyer. Just someone sick enough of the BS to look into the reasons behind it. Remember too that no state law can trump a federal law. It is that way by design and it is your option to use either. They have no say in it since you are a private citizen and they are a public servant. They agreed to it when they agreed to the benefits of being one.
(my underlining)
Allen, from what I read and understood yesterday I gathered that according to Wells the agency stance might have justified, if properly interpreted, the actions of the officers. The officers were supposed to be wrong as they did not behave according to the agency "stance", but a different "stance" could have allowed that conduct.
I did not see the video yesterday, I only read the article (the video was linked in another thread which was merged with this one). I saw a part of the video today. It seems that the officers, basically, claim the Patriot Act and so they were in fact thinking, however mistakenly, that they were acting in observance of a law. That means that the article referring the fact was in fact fairly badly written as it did not mention the Patriot Act or the fact that the policemen thought they were acting according to a law and presented the facts as if the policemen were enforcing some agency policy.
I'm not going to comment on the Patriot Act here as, again, I'm Italian and this is basically "not my business" in a photographic forum. But I repeat that if I were an US citizen I would have had enough of the hysteria following 9/11 since 9/12.
A "policy" is not a law if I get the word right. An agency policy is in my understanding an administrative regulation. If officers were ever be allowed to detain people on the basis of some "policy" I insist that would be middle-ages plain and simple.
It might be well possible that I misunderstand the meaning of the word "policy" in this context, though.
The normal answer by Wells would have been that the policemen did not act according to the law. It is possible that Wells used a different wording ("agency stance", "policy") to somehow protect the policemen or to avoid criticism for criticising policemen. Most people don't immediately get the difference between "agency stance", "policy" and "law" and are somehow "fooled" by this kind of wording. That also fooled the journalist who did not understand how enormous would have been detaining somebody according to an "agency stance".
Last edited by a moderator:
The civilian must be pretty tired of getting shot
Agencies can have "policies"; however, those policies cannot be contrary to the Constitution. For example, MTA does not allow commercial photography on their property without a permit. That policy is acceptable.
I do not understand why cops so angry on citizens . Baltimore is a murder city /250 dead every year/ - every day shooting and killing - lot of drugs , streets are not safe - even at daytime .
Go ahead - fight a crime .
Go ahead - fight a crime .
Last edited by a moderator:
No wonder that police can develop an attitude after years on the job, dealing with people under stress and sometimes encountering danger. To add insult to injury, in my part of the country some law enforcement officers start with an annual pay of well under $20,000. Almost all of our military personnel serving far from combat zones are paid more than that, and with a fine benefits program, too. My enlisted man's retirement pay exceeds the salary of some local cops. In law enforcement we sometimes get less than we pay for, but often much more.
Both money and the degradation of society are important. Without money we'd have to rely on a barter economy. Ouch! Inadequate income is a source of much stress in both citizens and law enforcement agents. As for the degradation of society, yes, it does seem to be happening. In my youth (many decades ago) the cop on the beat was usually respected. We laughed at the Keystone cops, but appreciated the working policeman. It seems to be more acceptable now to antagonize them, and a few of them do respond inappropriatley.
I work in the New York City Transit System. I am on trains everyday into and out of NYC. I am a target for those who wish to make a statement. And sorry if you don't understand, but I like being able to go home from work everyday.
Soon after 9/11 rules went into effect prohibiting photos of certain areas, Rail Yards,Terminals, Passenger Platforms,Switching Stations and Bridges Etc. After a time most of these restrictions have been lifted but not all. Certain sensitive areas will have the Police investigating your presence. So when an MTA Police officer asks for ID don't provoke him into a confrontation as he is trying to protect the traveling public. Just show him the ID unless you are hiding something or your like that guy, a consummate A**
Soon after 9/11 rules went into effect prohibiting photos of certain areas, Rail Yards,Terminals, Passenger Platforms,Switching Stations and Bridges Etc. After a time most of these restrictions have been lifted but not all. Certain sensitive areas will have the Police investigating your presence. So when an MTA Police officer asks for ID don't provoke him into a confrontation as he is trying to protect the traveling public. Just show him the ID unless you are hiding something or your like that guy, a consummate A**
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
- Messages
- 143
- Format
- Multi Format
You are under no obligation to show anyone ID unless you are driving a car. You only have an obligation to state your name. Those are your rights. This guy did nothing wrong.
In these situations, the cops are the ones causing the confrontation because they don't understand the very laws that they are supposed to be enforcing. We are living increasingly under a police state. It is getting pitiful when the police act more and more like the military. If you refuse to show ID that is your right, so why argue about it? If they have probably cause that you have done something they can take you in. Ask any lawyer in the world and they will tell you to never talk to a cop. This doesn't mean I have anything against cops. I have a problem with them doing things outside what they are supposed to be doing. Most cops are fine but we don't hear those stories. Remember that it is your government. The government is you. Public officials are beholden to you, not the other way around.
In these situations, the cops are the ones causing the confrontation because they don't understand the very laws that they are supposed to be enforcing. We are living increasingly under a police state. It is getting pitiful when the police act more and more like the military. If you refuse to show ID that is your right, so why argue about it? If they have probably cause that you have done something they can take you in. Ask any lawyer in the world and they will tell you to never talk to a cop. This doesn't mean I have anything against cops. I have a problem with them doing things outside what they are supposed to be doing. Most cops are fine but we don't hear those stories. Remember that it is your government. The government is you. Public officials are beholden to you, not the other way around.
A fine technical point, but when driving you are really required to show a "license to operate" the vehicle on the public streets. It is coincidental that this is used as ID everywhere.
The oligarchy is getting completely out of hand in the past few decades.
The oligarchy is getting completely out of hand in the past few decades.
Greg,
Based on everything I can find on the web, no such rules EVER went into effect. There was a PROPOSAL to ban photography, which NY MTA decided not to implement. If you have proof that such a ban actually occurred, please post the link.
As for your advice to avoid provoking a police officer into a confrontation, I would for the most part agree. However, when said officer is mouthing off (and I do not use that term lightly) about laws that don't even exist in an attempt to curtail a citizen's rights, it's the officer who's being confrontational, not the citizen, and I would have to think twice about showing my ID to the guy who's the real "consummate a**" in this story. As an alternative, I might call 911 and report the incident, so it would at least be in the public record, and some police officers who know the law might get involved.
We've got an answer from that jerk
*********
Transit agency chief agrees with ACLU on public's right to take pictures[/B]
June 01, 2011|By Michael Dresser, The Baltimore Sun(Page 2 of 4)Wells pointed to a posted policy on the MTA website that states: "A permit is not required for noncommercial, personal-use filming or photography by the general public that does not interfere with transit operations or safety."
However, the day before, an MTA spokesman seemed unaware of the policy and pointed a reporter to language on its website emphasizing a need to seek a permit before taking pictures at or of MTA property.
The ACLU told MTA Transit Police Chief John E. Gavrilis in Tuesday's letter that it would file a lawsuit over his officers' actions in the two incidents if the agency did not make amends to the two men and issue a new policy upholding the rights of photographers. The group gave the MTA until Sept. 1 to make those changes or face legal action.
Wells said his agency would settle its issues with the ACLU without any need for litigation. He said the agency has no policy preventing individuals from taking pictures of MTA equipment or shooting photos or video while on publicly accessible MTA property.
"We're going to work with the ACLU on any of their concerns," he said. "In no way are we battling the ACLU on this. We are in complete agreement with them on this."
The ACLU welcomed the MTA administrator's statement.
"I'm gratified and pleased by Mr. Wells' concern and appreciate his clear statements that what happened shouldn't have happened and that they would take effective steps" to prevent a recurrence, said ACLU staff attorney David Rocah.
Rocah said the ACLU looks forward to the opportunity to sit down with the MTA and work out details of a policy statement that would pass constitutional muster.
"The goal is not filing a lawsuit," he said. "The goal has always been to ensure that the MTA police, like all public officials, act within the limits of their authority and respect citizens' constitutional rights."
Rocah said the ACLU will have to see how the MTA follows up before it can consider the matter resolved. "Statements of policy don't mean anything unless officers and employees know what the policy is and follow it," he said.
Wells said the policy allowing photography had been restated to officers in February and March. He said the ACLU letter and a Baltimore Sun article Wednesday about the controversy would be brought up at roll calls throughout the week.
*********
Transit agency chief agrees with ACLU on public's right to take pictures[/B]
June 01, 2011|By Michael Dresser, The Baltimore Sun(Page 2 of 4)Wells pointed to a posted policy on the MTA website that states: "A permit is not required for noncommercial, personal-use filming or photography by the general public that does not interfere with transit operations or safety."
However, the day before, an MTA spokesman seemed unaware of the policy and pointed a reporter to language on its website emphasizing a need to seek a permit before taking pictures at or of MTA property.
The ACLU told MTA Transit Police Chief John E. Gavrilis in Tuesday's letter that it would file a lawsuit over his officers' actions in the two incidents if the agency did not make amends to the two men and issue a new policy upholding the rights of photographers. The group gave the MTA until Sept. 1 to make those changes or face legal action.
Wells said his agency would settle its issues with the ACLU without any need for litigation. He said the agency has no policy preventing individuals from taking pictures of MTA equipment or shooting photos or video while on publicly accessible MTA property.
"We're going to work with the ACLU on any of their concerns," he said. "In no way are we battling the ACLU on this. We are in complete agreement with them on this."
The ACLU welcomed the MTA administrator's statement.
"I'm gratified and pleased by Mr. Wells' concern and appreciate his clear statements that what happened shouldn't have happened and that they would take effective steps" to prevent a recurrence, said ACLU staff attorney David Rocah.
Rocah said the ACLU looks forward to the opportunity to sit down with the MTA and work out details of a policy statement that would pass constitutional muster.
"The goal is not filing a lawsuit," he said. "The goal has always been to ensure that the MTA police, like all public officials, act within the limits of their authority and respect citizens' constitutional rights."
Rocah said the ACLU will have to see how the MTA follows up before it can consider the matter resolved. "Statements of policy don't mean anything unless officers and employees know what the policy is and follow it," he said.
Wells said the policy allowing photography had been restated to officers in February and March. He said the ACLU letter and a Baltimore Sun article Wednesday about the controversy would be brought up at roll calls throughout the week.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,215
- Format
- Large Format
Everything you say is true, but my point was that if the guy was even a little bit more cooperative in attitude these Deputy Dawgs would not have searched the dark recesses of their flaccid little minds in order to make shit up with which to challenge him. I looks to me like the guy was trying to get arrested. Another lovely day in the Empire.
Deputy Dawg didn't seem to have to search very hard to come up with multiple reasons why photography was outlawed. I think we'll just have to disagree
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 882
- Format
- ULarge Format
I am an attorney and I disagree.
The one time I was approached by the police regarding photography, I ended up in a nice discussion with the officer about shooting large format cameras and creating wet plates. He was concerned that if I moved forward, I might block the sidewalk with my tripod. I told him I would be careful not to. We then went on to discuss our mutual interest in photography. You definitely overstate the "never" talk to police part.
Re: Allen Friday
if you're attorney - can you explain to us
why Photography driving nuts all these guys ?
http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=494
http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/24-2/pah-anderson.html
http://markhancock.blogspot.com/2004/11/photographer-punched-and-arrested-at.html
http://weirdnews.aol.com/tag/lantern-photographer-arrested/1
Dead Link Removed
there are more ....
...
.they scared of what ? what is still unknown in 2011 with Google Earth and Google street view ?
if you're attorney - can you explain to us
why Photography driving nuts all these guys ?http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=494
http://www.rcfp.org/news/mag/24-2/pah-anderson.html
http://markhancock.blogspot.com/2004/11/photographer-punched-and-arrested-at.html
http://weirdnews.aol.com/tag/lantern-photographer-arrested/1
Dead Link Removed
there are more ....
...
.they scared of what ? what is still unknown in 2011 with Google Earth and Google street view ?
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |