Abusive comments when taking a shot

[Katie]

Ooops.
Best hope Mama didn't just get her boy's butt kicked.

Typo.

Longhorns.

We are smothered here by Aggies. Their spelling must be rubbing off on me...

 

[eddie]

I was on the street, which placed me outside the embassy's jurisdiction. I knew that but, having guns aimed at me seemed an inappropriate time to mention it...

 

[BrianShaw]

I was on the street, which placed me outside the embassy's jurisdiction. I knew that but, having guns aimed at me seemed an inappropriate time to mention it...

Wouldn't much matter to me either .. I think I would have dropped a load in my shorts if a bunch of guys with guns screaming in Arabic came at me!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Yes, IF. He said he was shooting from the street. That does leave ambiguity as to whether that street is on embassy grounds, or is a public street as I figured he meant.

Too bad some of our own embassies don't seem to be as self-protective.

Does "street" mean traffic lane or sidewalk in this instance? While the guards' reaction may have been a bit extreme, given the current climate I cannot blame them.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Also bear in mind that it's the Saudis - they've always been hyper-protective of their embassy. Show up outside say the Finnish embassy or the French, and there's a good chance they'd invite you in for tea. Well, the French would demand an explanation of what you're doing, and then sneer at you a bit, and maybe order you to wander off when you're done. The brits would probably be a bit more hospitable, given how their embassy looks like an English country house, but they're also next door to the US Naval Observatory and the Vice President's house, so they get spill-over protection.

 

[lxdude]

Does "street" mean traffic lane or sidewalk in this instance? While the guards' reaction may have been a bit extreme, given the current climate I cannot blame them.

I sure as hell can.
They should train their people on where they are and how to act. They have no right to have their people acting like thugs under any circumstances. They have no right to threaten and intimidate an American citizen (or anyone else) on American soil, forcing him to lie on the ground and confiscating his property. Their despotic regime in their own country survives because we protect their asses for our own political reasons. I get it, but I'd be damned if I'd be put through that shit in my country without raising a hell of a noise afterward.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I sure as hell can.
They should train their people on where they are and how to act. They have no right to have their people acting like thugs under any circumstances. They have no right to threaten and intimidate an American citizen (or anyone else) on American soil, forcing him to lie on the ground and confiscating his property. Their despotic regime in their own country survives because we protect their asses for our own political reasons. I get it, but I'd be damned if I'd be put through that shit in my country without raising a hell of a noise afterward.

+1!!

 

[Roger Cole]

+2

And we protect them for economic reasons (oil) not other political ones.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I sure as @#!*% can.
They should train their people on where they are and how to act. They have no right to have their people acting like thugs under any circumstances. They have no right to threaten and intimidate an American citizen (or anyone else) on American soil, forcing him to lie on the ground and confiscating his property. Their despotic regime in their own country survives because we protect their @#!*% for our own political reasons. I get it, but I'd be damned if I'd be put through that @#!*% in my country without raising a @#!*% of a noise afterward.

Unfortunately the guards are just guards, no more than hired hands, the responsibility lies above. If this happened on the sidewalk they may well have been within their 'rights", too - that is it may not have been on American soil.

What property was confiscated?

 

[BrianShaw]

"They grabbed my camera ( an SLR)"

 

[E. von Hoegh]

"They grabbed my camera ( an SLR)"

And they gave it back, he finished the shoot.

I remember going to the US embassy in Jeddah KSA in 1983. The car was searched, and I mean searched, I was searched - by fully armed US Marines, while a second squad stood by. This before I, a US citizen, was allowed on US soil. Sh!t happens.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ya, sh!t happens. About 20 years ago I received a frantic phone call from my brother who was being detained by US Border Patrol because he, a US citizen, crossed the border into the US without proof of citizenship. His wallet was stolen by a thug, or hooker, or a drug dealer, or a liquor store owner, or a bartender while he was drunk in Tijuana. I don't know why "they" would think that a crazy white boy leaving Tijuana would not be a US citizen. He still thinks it is becuase he couldn't answer a single question they asked... in Spanish.

 

[lxdude]

And they gave it back, he finished the shoot.

They had no right to take it to begin with, drawing from the account given.

I remember going to the US embassy in Jeddah KSA in 1983. The car was searched, and I mean searched, I was searched - by fully armed US Marines, while a second squad stood by. This before I, a US citizen, was allowed on US soil. Sh!t happens.

Different situation, different country, different shit.

 

[eddie]

It was over 25 years ago, but there has always been a certain degree of paranoia among some "allies" .
I was on the sidewalk, which was/is US territory. My camera was handed back to me by the DC police, after they took it from the Saudi guards. The decision to lay on the ground was my own. I didn't understand a word the guards were saying, and I wanted to appear as compliant as possible (remember, they had guns...). After it was over one of the State Dept guys said it was a smart move. If the guards had forced me beyond the gates, I would have no longer been on US property, which may have complicated my release. Still, the whole incident began due to a Secretary failing to inform his people I was supposed to be there, and I'm sure it also would have been cleared up quickly. The Secretary was very apologetic.

As an aside, I was treated really well by other embassies. At some, I was invited in, offered food/beverages, and even met a few ambassadors.

 

[lxdude]

+2

And we protect them for economic reasons (oil) not other political ones.

Economic reasons are part of the political reasons. Political reasons include giving us an Arab "ally" in the region, and military bases from which to project power. These are intertwined with oil, but not solely about oil.

 

[lxdude]

It was over 25 years ago, but there has always been a certain degree of paranoia among some "allies" .
I was on the sidewalk, which was/is US territory. My camera was handed back to me by the DC police, after they took it from the Saudi guards. The decision to lay on the ground was my own. I didn't understand a word the guards were saying, and I wanted to appear as compliant as possible (remember, they had guns...). After it was over one of the State Dept guys said it was a smart move. If the guards had forced me beyond the gates, I would have no longer been on US property, which may have complicated my release. Still, the whole incident began due to a Secretary failing to inform his people I was supposed to be there, and I'm sure it also would have been cleared up quickly. The Secretary was very apologetic.

As an aside, I was treated really well by other embassies. At some, I was invited in, offered food/beverages, and even met a few ambassadors.

Thanks for the clarifications. Still, the State Department guys should have been more protective of the boundary and of a citizen, and State should have made it very clear to the Saudi Ambassador and to all embassies that that type of behavior is not tolerated. It should not have depended on a slip-up in communication.

I mean, what if you had not acted fast enough, or made a move they didn't like, and they'd popped you? It hits the news: six armed Saudi hotheads from the embassy shoot an American citizen on American territory in the nation's capital- film at eleven. I would expect our State Dept. to think about these things...oh well.

 

[GRHazelton]

Thanks for the clarifications. Still, the State Department guys should have been more protective of the boundary and of a citizen, and State should have made it very clear to the Saudi Ambassador and to all embassies that that type of behavior is not tolerated. It should not have depended on a slip-up in communication.

I mean, what if you had not acted fast enough, or made a move they didn't like, and they'd popped you? It hits the news: six armed Saudi hotheads from the embassy shoot an American citizen on American soil in the nation's capital- film at eleven. I would expect our State Dept. to think about these things...oh well.

Certainly at times TR's admonition to "Speak softly, but carry a big stick" is attractive, as is gunboat diplomacy. Sadly in the scenario you posit, an American shot on US soil by "diplomatic" personnel, our laws might not have any clout. There have been many incidents of those with diplomatic immunity involved in hideous auto accidents and we couldn't prosecute. I don't know whether any deaths were involved.

 

[eddie]

Thanks for the clarifications. Still, the State Department guys should have been more protective of the boundary and of a citizen, and State should have made it very clear to the Saudi Ambassador and to all embassies that that type of behavior is not tolerated. It should not have depended on a slip-up in communication.

As soon as they arrived, it was clear that the DC cops, and State Dept guys, were there to protect me. I was immediately surrounded by them, as I laid on the ground. They didn't draw guns, but they circled me (wagon train style) facing towards the guards. The whole incident, from the arrival of the guards, to the arrival/apology from the Secretary, to getting back to taking photos was only about 12-15 minutes. I think the US/DC authorities were very professional, and I felt completely safe once they arrived. I don't know how they could have been "more protective".

 

[Roger Cole]

Economic reasons are part of the political reasons. Political reasons include giving us an Arab "ally" in the region, and military bases from which to project power. These are intertwined with oil, but not solely about oil.

Don't kid yourself. They are solely about oil. Without oil we wouldn't give a damn about "projecting power in the region."

 

[Katie]

Don't kid yourself. They are solely about oil. Without oil we wouldn't give a damn about "projecting power in the region."

Amen.

Now I've come full circle with this post.

 

[BrianShaw]

Amen.

Now I've come full circle with this post.

Oh... so we are back to public prayer. Yippee!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Don't kid yourself. They are solely about oil. Without oil we wouldn't give a @#!*% about "projecting power in the region."

Absolutely correct.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Try walking round Marrakesh with a Leica during Ramadan. I was given a bollocking by some local Herbert whilst taking photos of a door (no-one remotely in danger of being in the shot). Not being the smallest of people or a shy, retiring type, I taught him some Anglo-Saxon phrases he probably hadn't come across before.

Later in the week, I had a couple of guys demanding money for being in a "general" shot of the street we were walking down. They got short shrift as well.

The world is full of miserable sods who will chance their arm in the hope that we will shell out cash easily. If you're just shooting a general scene in a public place, then tough it out. If you want to photograph someone specific and you want to get in close, then it's only polite to ask their permission and to accede to their wishes, especially if they say "no". Candid shots can be fun but they can also be very hit and miss.

 

[benjiboy]

Don't kid yourself. They are solely about oil. Without oil we wouldn't give a damn about "projecting power in the region."

The director of The Institute For Strategic Studys in the U.K says Roger it's mainly about surrounding China which is seen as the major war threat in the next fifty years with a military presence, although oil is also a consideration.

 

[Steve Smith]

it's mainly about surrounding China which is seen as the major war threat in the next fifty years.

China will not want to be at war with us or the rest of Europe or the US in fifty years as by then they will be outsourcing work to us because of our cheaper labour rates (I think it will actually be sooner than fifty years).


Steve.