youngengineer wrote: Within five minutes of me taking my first picture I was escorted out of the area by Denver Police and told that under no circumstances was I to return and take more photos. Most people who heard about this were upset and thought I should ream them in an article. I thought about what happened for a long time and decided to do nothing.
The problem is, the law did not and does not support his actions. When we let cops make up their own rules, we're headed down a dangerous road.
youngengineer wrote: As far as an agency such as a commuter railroad saying dont take pics, after seeing the pics of Madrid and London, your damn right I want them asking everyone that is taking pics, what are you doing. If you dont like the rules, than you have the right to break them, and you also have the right to pay the consequences.
Whose rules? Their actions are also unsupported by the law--railroads have absolutely NO legal right to keep you from taking photos--and when they attempt to make up their own laws, they are the ones who need to face consequences.
Obviously your are right, take your pics, don't tell the cops why your doing it, and while your at it you might as well sue them for not letting you railfan. Do what you want its obvious that someone elses safety is not your concern only that you are not inconvienced!
Midnight Railroader wrote:A society gets to a police state by losing one right at a time, and with "justification," until citizens of that society are able to look back and comprehend what they've lost and realize they've given up their rights. By then, of course, it is too late.
A society gets to a police state by losing one right at a time, and with "justification," until citizens of that society are able to look back and comprehend what they've lost and realize they've given up their rights. By then, of course, it is too late.
Well, you are arguing about a hypothetical future, which at this point is futile.
But let's talk in real terms. Specifically, exactly what rights have you guys lost?
And to those who keep mentioning their right to "the pursuit of happiness" ... the legal interpretation of that phrase isn't as broad as you seem to think. Just because John Wayne Gacy's "pursuit of happiness" included molesting and murdering 32 young men...
By the way, the Declaration of Independence was a document declaring the 13 American colonies were "united" in declaring their independence from Great Britain, but were not yet declaring themselves to be a single nation. That union would evolve and take shape during the next few years after the Declaration was issued.
The laws of the United States of America have their roots in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Amendments to the Constitution. Those documents were carefully written so that the laws could be interpreted by the court system as need arose. Their flexibility (allowing amendments) is what makes our legal system so much stronger than others.
Poppa_Zit wrote:By the way, the Declaration of Independence was a document declaring the 13 American colonies were "united" in declaring their independence from Great Britain, but were not yet declaring themselves to be a single nation. That union would evolve and take shape during the next few years after the Declaration was issued.The laws of the United States of America have their roots in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Amendments to the Constitution. Those documents were carefully written so that the laws could be interpreted by the court system as need arose. Their flexibility (allowing amendments) is what makes our legal system so much stronger than others.
For what it is worth, the first steps in forming a nation was the 'Articles of Confederation' written in 1777. The ratification of the constitution did not invalidate laws enacted under the authority of the Articles of Confederation, the ordninances enacted in 1785 and 1787 were the basis for the sections and townships used in most states west of the Appalachians.
It wasn't until the national telegraph and railroad networks were established that the 'interstate commerce' clause had real meaning beyond the border between two states.
youngengineer wrote: Obviously your are right, take your pics, don't tell the cops why your doing it, and while your at it you might as well sue them for not letting you railfan. Do what you want its obvious that someone elses safety is not your concern only that you are not inconvienced!
I'll be happy to tell any cop why I'm taking photos. If, however, he tries to stop me from doing that, he's going to end up with a legal headache down the road.
Does that Policeman KNOW that you are not a Terrorist but a Railfan? He might guess, but should he check and find out? I say yes.
Now if you really want to get upset, do you own a FORD? They have a "black box" recording your speed, airbag deployment, and braking, read the warning in the "Owner's Manual" about data being available to courts in case after an accident.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
And one by one our rights slowly slip away until one day we don't have any. The "land of the free and the home of the brave" becomes the "land of the downtrodden and the home of the fearful".
The Declaration of Independence is deep in our heritage - it is the only document with it's own holiday. How sad if we should lose that spirit.
Paul
DMUinCT wrote: Does that Policeman KNOW that you are not a Terrorist but a Railfan? He might guess, but should he check and find out? I say yes. Now if you really want to get upset, do you own a FORD? They have a "black box" recording your speed, airbag deployment, and braking, read the warning in the "Owner's Manual" about data being available to courts in case after an accident.
I don't want to stray too far off topic, but I just purchased a '07 Toyota FJ Cruiser, and I read in the owner's manual that they too have a "black box". That surprised the heck out of as it was the first time that I came across such a thing in an automobile. I did think to myself a while back that it would only be a matter of time before they would be installed in automobiles. It said that they basically record everything except for audio (converstions), but who knows how far off that is.
Sadly, this thread, which started out with an alert of a proposed law change in New York City, has turned into another case of people on both sides not bothering to read the other people's comments, and then just flinging out muck.
I've now read that the press didn't cover 9/11 and we've all forgotten about it. (I'm sorry, but what?)
I've now read that there are people who are taking away our right to freedom by questioning the President for taking away our right to freedom. (This one got me into a real pretzel shape.)
I've now read the the pursuit of happiness allows one to railfan. (I liked this one, but it's simply not true.)
Let's all take a deep breath and look at the facts.
The courts have found that the First Ammendment of the Consitution, through "freedom of expression," makes photography from a public place a protected right. (Doesn't matter what your opinion of this is, it's the law of the land.)
Police, when properly doing their job and seeing someone they feel is suspicious, have both the right and the duty to ask that person what he is doing, and to get identification. (Taking pictures of trains can look suspicious, let's be honest. I was questioned once for driving on a street where a criminal had been in a similar car the day before... I'd done nothing wrong, but that cop did the right thing stopping me and questioning me.)
As long as the officer doesn't erronously tell you that photography is illegal, in my opion (okay, moving back to opinion), you should very politely explain what you are doing and cooperate with him. If he does tell you that photography is illegal, you may either ask him to check with his field commander, or let him know, politely, that you will be checking so on your own with his field commander. If you are taking pictures of a rail line that has photographic restrictions in place (MARTA, PATH, MBTA come to mind) and you are stopped, you will have a court case ahead of you if you insist. I believe that you will win that court case because the law of the land is that you may take photographs from a public place. If you were trespassing, forget it. And either way you have to ask yourself if it is worth it.
Erie Lackawanna wrote: and to get identification.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Erie Lackawanna wrote: and to get identification. What if you aren't carrying any?"Papers! Papers, please!"
Well - I was so proud of trying just to stay away from opinion as much as possible, but your question is one I can only give opinion on... I have no facts. I would recommend you cary ID.
The problem is that you do not clear up the officer's suspicion, and make him more suspicious, you will cause yourself to be detained.
Sort of spoils your afternoon.
When confronted in such a situation, you need to establish what your goals are. Mine are to have fun taking some train pictures. Escalating a confrontation with the police by refusing to show my driver's license does not get me my goal. Being polite and cooperating generally does.
If your goal is to get arrested so you can take the case to court, you should pursue that desire.
It's really up to you how you want to spend your afternoon.
And again - this is all just opinion.
Wow--this is the busiest thread that I ever originated!
Just saw in today's Newswire that New York City will be re-drafting this proposal, due to the opinions expressed. Guess we'll have to see what the second draft looks like.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Why wouldn't a normal person carry ID? There's having the right to do something - and then there's just making life difficult for yourself.
"Are you wearing a paper bag?"
"I have misplaced my pants..."
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
I don't know.
But the law does not require it.
That is my point (I edited my above statement). Lots of things you really don't need to do... but man, it makes life easier.
A male railfan could go railfanning in a wedding dress as well. Perfectly legal - but it would raise eyebrows.
zugmann wrote: That is my point (I edited my above statement). Lots of things you really don't need to do... but man, it makes life easier. A male railfan could go railfanning in a wedding dress as well. Perfectly legal - but it would raise eyebrows.
Okay, Zugmann, now you're getting personal and infringing on my rights! Man... (in order to read this response properly, please refer to the irony and humor part of my post on your terrific rail v fan thread). Charles
For all I know you would look very flattering in a wedding dress. Sure beats the guy trackside who only wears a mask!
zugmann wrote: For all I know you would look very flattering in a wedding dress. Sure beats the guy trackside who only wears a mask!
Yuck
Consider this: thankfully, there have been no reported acts of terrorist sabotage to our nation's mostly-unsecure rail infrastructure.
If our enemies were ever to succeed (God forbid!) in creating a massive derailment of hazmat freight or anything that would paralyze the system -- especially in a populated area -- I think you can forget about railside photography for a long, long time.
PS -- Still waiting for someone to list the specific rights they have lost -- as claimed in several posts above and many in other threads.
Poppa_Zit wrote: PS -- Still waiting for someone to list the specific rights they have lost -- as claimed in several posts above and many in other threads.
I suspect that no one can really claim they have 'lost' any rights. This is just one more slogan used by some to equate fighting terrorism with the harassment of railfans taking pictures. It has become kind of a fad to claim that people have lost rights, when in fact they haven't really lost anything. Not only that, I am not sure where the right to take a picture of a train at all times at all locations is specifcally mentioned.
Some behavior is suspicious, but not necessarily wrong. Is it wrong for the police to go the extra mile and check, given that they are only concerned about safety? If you aren't doing anything wrong, what is wrong with being courteous to the officer and producing an ID? If he asks you to move on, what is wrong with complying with his request? Is the Metra platform the only location to photograph Metra? I don't think so.
The question about this alleged lost of rights should be asked of the 9-11 families. If they had known that all it would have taken to stop 9-11 was one nosy officer do you think they would have cared about the offense one of the terrorists may have taken at being asked for an ID card? What if the ID card revealed an expired Visa? What if the fact that the man was here on an expired Visa resulted in his arrest?
This mentality that my rights trump the rights of all others (commonly referred to as selfishness) can only result in the loss of everyones' rights.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
That's for starters.
solzrules wrote: This mentality that my rights trump the rights of all others (commonly referred to as selfishness) can only result in the loss of everyones' rights.
solzrules wrote:If you aren't doing anything wrong, what is wrong with being courteous to the officer and producing an ID? If he asks you to move on, what is wrong with complying with his request? Is the Metra platform the only location to photograph Metra? I don't think so.
I am happy to comply with a cop's "request" if it's within the bounds of the law. However, I have personally witnessed dozens of incidents in which police officers told people to do something when they did not have the legal authority to do so. Again, I refer you to the cop who told a railfan that there was a law against taking photos of trains in Illinois (there is not) and that said law supercedes the US Constitution (legally impossible).
When police make up their own laws, that's dangerous. It's every citizen's duty to hold public servants accountable when they do such things.
That's not selfish. It's upholding the law.
Sam Adams would have understood that.
Midnight Railroader wrote: solzrules wrote: This mentality that my rights trump the rights of all others (commonly referred to as selfishness) can only result in the loss of everyones' rights. Spend some time living in countries whose citizens do not have the individual rights we do, and I'll bet you'd change your tune very quickly.
Ah, but in other countries no one person's rights trump everyone else's. That is, unless you are a dictator or a duly elected 'representative of the proletariat' (in other words - a dictator). At that point your rights are the ONLY rights that matter. Everyone else can sit in prison.
solzrules wrote:If you aren't doing anything wrong, what is wrong with being courteous to the officer and producing an ID? If he asks you to move on, what is wrong with complying with his request? Is the Metra platform the only location to photograph Metra? I don't think so.I am happy to comply with a cop's "request" if it's within the bounds of the law. However, I have personally witnessed dozens of incidents in which police officers told people to do something when they did not have the legal authority to do so. Again, I refer you to the cop who told a railfan that there was a law against taking photos of trains in Illinois (there is not) and that said law supercedes the US Constitution (legally impossible). When police make up their own laws, that's dangerous. It's every citizen's duty to hold public servants accountable when they do such things.That's not selfish. It's upholding the law.Sam Adams would have understood that.
Good points. However, in order to avoid a potentially confrontational incident with the officer, I would comply with his request and then pursue recourse after the incident was over. I have been falsely arrested before, and believe me, the cop looked that much more idiotic when he figured out I was exactly who I said I was and he was the fool. His superior agreed wholeheartedly with my parents as well. Safe. Legal. Funny.
I could have gone the other route and acted completely beligerant. No doubt I would have lost that battle and I could have been charged with resisting arrest - even though I hadn't done anything. It is always best to play along and question later.
Now off to enjoy one of those fine malted beverages before bed.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: PS -- Still waiting for someone to list the specific rights they have lost -- as claimed in several posts above and many in other threads. I didn't want to head away from the photography issue, but okay, here's what we've seen change since 9/11 thanks to Bush & Co.:FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions. FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.That's for starters.
Uh-huh. Why did you stop with "Right to Liberty?"
I'll tell everyone. Because the liberal organization (is that you, ACLU?) that first published that nebulous list stopped there, too. (Please note each point begins with "government MAY" and not "government SHALL".)
I was asking for something substantially more creative than cutting and pasting someone else's list, a list anyone can find on over 400 Far Left websites. BTW, that list is over two years old. I doubt you have been personally and directly affected by anything on that list.
Frankly, when you parrot others' material to make a point, you are letting someone else do your thinking for you -- a worse abuse of personal freedom than anything on that list. And here I thought you were against limiting personal freedoms.
So, instead of answering with someone else's thoughts -- how about being SPECIFIC -- what rights have you lost personally that have directly changed your life?
Solz -- I think you nailed it.
I would have preferred it, personally, if people stuck with the facts instead of diving into political polemics, where there is no winning, because you're just trying to get the other guy to adimit he's a fool.
No need to offend folks on this list who didn't attack you by using a sweeping brush to attack a single poster. Isn't this supposed to be about railfanning?
I'm done.
Not necessarily.
Only if such laws proscribing railside photography were enacted and withstood judicial scrutiny.
Dave
Poppa_Zit wrote: Consider this: thankfully, there have been no reported acts of terrorist sabotage to our nation's mostly-unsecure rail infrastructure.If our enemies were ever to succeed (God forbid!) in creating a massive derailment of hazmat freight or anything that would paralyze the system -- especially in a populated area -- I think you can forget about railside photography for a long, long time.
Poppa_Zit wrote:Frankly, when you parrot others' material to make a point, you are letting someone else do your thinking for you -- a worse abuse of personal freedom than anything on that list. And here I thought you were against limiting personal freedoms.
Must I wait until my own house burns to be concerned about fire safety and willing to take steps to avoid that situation? Isn't it a little too late at that point?
No one's thinking for me. I don't like what I see happening and I like even less the rationalizations we're given, because, when people accept those, that is an example of letting someone--the government, in this case--think for you.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: PS -- Still waiting for someone to list the specific rights they have lost -- as claimed in several posts above and many in other threads. I didn't want to head away from the photography issue, but okay, here's what we've seen change since 9/11 thanks to Bush & Co.:FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions. FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.That's for starters.Uh-huh. Why did you stop with "Right to Liberty?"I'll tell everyone. Because the liberal organization (is that you, ACLU?) that first published that nebulous list stopped there, too. (Please note each point begins with "government MAY" and not "government SHALL".) I was asking for something substantially more creative than cutting and pasting someone else's list, a list anyone can find on over 400 Far Left websites. BTW, that list is over two years old. I doubt you have been personally and directly affected by anything on that list.Frankly, when you parrot others' material to make a point, you are letting someone else do your thinking for you -- a worse abuse of personal freedom than anything on that list. And here I thought you were against limiting personal freedoms.So, instead of answering with someone else's thoughts -- how about being SPECIFIC -- what rights have you lost personally that have directly changed your life?Solz -- I think you nailed it.
Whenever anyone loses a right, it is lost to us all. Our rights are only secure to us individually as they are to each and every other individual. "The government may" means that we are no longer secure in that right. The ACLU is an important organization aimed at protecting our rights - if we are only allowed to do what you think is right, then we are not free.
Police intimidation is a particular nefarious means depriving us of our rights since it is difficult to prove and fight - that's why allowing the police to ask for id whenever they want to needs to be stopped.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.