Bergie just locked this topic in another thread. I don't think he'll appreciate your starting it up again.
Paul
No, no, no,no...
You're supposed to scream and rant - throw your photog's rights paper at them - call the ACLU - call Jesse Jackson - give the refinery the finger - call the cop a pig - and then post it all on trains.com!!!
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
IRONROOSTER wrote: Bergie just locked this topic in another thread. I don't think he'll appreciate your starting it up again. Paul
Ooops, I didn't realize that. I should have checked the forums.
TimChgo9 wrote: The supervisor inquired as to what I was doing, and then very patiently explained his reasons for, as he put it "detaining me for a few minutes".
Nevertheless, I'd question this individual's right to legally "detain" you at all if you were not on his company's property.
Just goes to show that if you cooperate, explain to them your situation, and do what they say, there will be no problem. Maybe one of the more sucessful Security vs Railfan stories I have heard.
Phil
Midnight Railroader wrote: TimChgo9 wrote: The supervisor inquired as to what I was doing, and then very patiently explained his reasons for, as he put it "detaining me for a few minutes". You handled it well. Nevertheless, I'd question this individual's right to legally "detain" you at all if you were not on his company's property.
I suppose one could question that aspect of it, but, I could have left I suppose, but why make escalate a situation? Anyway, this bridge is fairly close to the refinery, as well as a power plant, and I can see their concern. I look at it this way: If I were in the refinery security supervisor's shoes, I would have done what he did.
I've been visited by county sheriff's deputies a couple of times when out photographing trains. When I show them my retired military ID card, point out my military veteran license plate, give them a business card showing that I'm in a model railroad club, and explain why I'm there, they have always been courteous to me and explained that they were called by the railroad because of past vandalism incidents to railroad property, even though I have not been on railroad property.
OK, I am sure this will be to the ire of some on here.
But, although I would have handled it exactly the same way, does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained." I found the comments about Jesse Jackson and the ACLU amusing, but, well I will not go into the legal end of things.
I will, however, note that it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you.
Gabe
gabe wrote: .... does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained." ........... it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you.
.... does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained." .......
.... it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you.
I think we may have a semantics difference here. Detain can have different meanings. Here are two that popped up quickly in a web dictionary search.
In this case, I believe the guard was using the first meaning, in other words he was apologizing for detaining i.e. "delaying" the original poster.
I don't believe he was implying that he was detaining i.e. "keeping in custody" the original poster.
I don't have any problem with the event and think it was handled well by all parties. It's nice to see reports of this type that work out well when people are reasonable. Fact of life is that we're going to have to deal with this for a long time.
Best regards
Ed
gabe wrote:... does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained." I found the comments about Jesse Jackson and the ACLU amusing, but, well I will not go into the legal end of things. I will, however, note that it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you. Gabe
... does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained." I found the comments about Jesse Jackson and the ACLU amusing, but, well I will not go into the legal end of things.
I agree. In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. I find it sad that so many people find this acceptable.
One by one, little by little our freedoms slip away until one day we are all prisoners in our own country afraid to venture forth.
How depressing.
So Tim, what would have happened had you followed the advice given by people here who are totally uninvolved with this incident and therefore will suffer no consequences?
What if you would have said "No way!" and told the security guard you were not about to have your "rights" violated? You would have driven away and then what?
It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.
Those refinery security guards work closely with the Romeoville police, I'll bet, and may even have been given the authority by the village to do just what they did.
Poppa_Zit wrote: It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.
If the security guard is a sworn peace officer and friend of the court then it was all right. If he wasn't, he was out of line by going off-property and interfering with a citizen doing nothing wrong on a public roadway.
Don't mis-interperet what I said. I, too, most likely would have cooperated, but, I would have politely asked them by what authority they were operating, just to put things into perspective.
My experience with regular police and railroad police has been this take pictures leave footprints..mind your p's and q's.99 percent of the officers are level headed.An officer stopped by Deshler today and asked if we had any trouble last night.Since i wasn't there I didn't know someone was causing trouble.If people cause trouble other railfans really don't want you around.then he says well if there are any problems just call us.
stay safe
joe
Deshler Ohio-crossroads of the B&O Matt eats your fries.YUM! Clinton st viaduct undefeated against too tall trucks!!!(voted to be called the "Clinton St. can opener").
Midnight Railroader wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.That's true. It is always more difficult to stand up for your legal rights in person, which is exactly what people who want to curtail them are counting on.
I'm still not convinced Tim's rights were "violated". The refinery security people may have been doing exactly what they were empowered to do.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot.
How would you react if a stranger parked their car in the public street in front of your home and looked through the windows all day with binoculars -- or a telephoto camera? In the police biz, this is known as a "suspicious person" call.
Police departments get them all the time.
So according to what some of you say. you just ignore the guy because you don't want to trample his rights? Baloney. Even though he may be within his "rights" wouldn't you want to know what he was doing, and call the police to investigate? And perhaps have the police ask him to leave?
That's not much different than what the refinery guards did -- except he wasn't ordered to leave.
IRONROOSTER wrote: gabe wrote: ... does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained." I found the comments about Jesse Jackson and the ACLU amusing, but, well I will not go into the legal end of things. I will, however, note that it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you. GabeI agree. In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. I find it sad that so many people find this acceptable. One by one, little by little our freedoms slip away until one day we are all prisoners in our own country afraid to venture forth.How depressing.Paul
gabe wrote: ... does anyone else find it a little troubling that you could be "detained." I found the comments about Jesse Jackson and the ACLU amusing, but, well I will not go into the legal end of things. I will, however, note that it concerns me that a security gaurd that does not report to an elected official feels as though he can "detain" you. Gabe
All I'd like to add to this is that complete freedom for everyone results in anarchy.
IRONROOSTER wrote:In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation.
As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause. And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay. I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown." I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately. It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.
I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief). He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them... I hadn't. We both went on our separate ways.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Poppa_Zit wrote: So Tim, what would have happened had you followed the advice given by people here who are totally uninvolved with this incident and therefore will suffer no consequences? What if you would have said "No way!" and told the security guard you were not about to have your "rights" violated? You would have driven away and then what?It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.Those refinery security guards work closely with the Romeoville police, I'll bet, and may even have been given the authority by the village to do just what they did.
PZ...
I suppose I could have jumped up and down screamed about the 1st Amendment and that stuff, or I could have driven away, what would that have said?
It would have said "I have something to hide" or, "I was up to no good" and I would have been pulled down or visited at home by the local authorities, and asked questions in a manner that would have been less than "friendly". Or, if I put up a fuss with the cops, I would have been the recipient of those pretty silver bracelets that police officers are known to carry.....and a first class trip to the police station, "chauffeur driven" of course.
I must say, the Security Supervisors opening line went something like: "I understand you have rights as a photographer, but you have to understand my responsibilities as refinery security". When someone states their case like that, well, you can't help but be reasonable in return.
For those of you who wish to, go to Google Earth, and look this area up, Find Route 53, where intersects with Romeo Road, take Romeo Road east where it crosses the river, and look at how close the refinery is to the bridge. To find it easier, Type "Romeoville, IL" into the search box, on the west side of the bridge is a large plant, on the east side is the refinery.
I do not fault the Security Guards. If I was charged with the security of a facility like that, I would have done the same thing.
After 9/11 many things in the US changed as a former Coastie I can tell you if you are even fishing underneath a bridge it is cause to be questioned and being asked to fish elsewhere, possibly photographing potenial targets such as bridges refineries and powerplants is DEFINATELY grounds to be questioned and lately rumor has that trains themselves are possible terrorist targets as they carry many types of hazardous and flammible liquids that can easily destroy a city also make it grounds for questioning even though many of you think you have protection from the first amendment you've got to realize the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few so if you wish to continue photographing trains you need to realize that being questioned by a law enforcement officer is a small price to pay for your hobby and by not cooperating or giving law enforcement officials a hassle can ruin it for everyone and raise suspicion to you and your hobby, and remember freedom of the press applies to printed material and not photography especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press here's an example I went on a tour of a Naval base we were told we can take our cameras but could not take pictures if we were caught taking pictures we would have to hand over the film or if it was a digital camera erase the pictures in front of them if not we would have our camera confinscated and possibly be arrested the same thing applies with the Railroad it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone
vlmuke wrote: After 9/11 many things in the US changed as a former Coastie I can tell you if you are even fishing underneath a bridge it is cause to be questioned and being asked to fish elsewhere,
After 9/11 many things in the US changed as a former Coastie I can tell you if you are even fishing underneath a bridge it is cause to be questioned and being asked to fish elsewhere,
I see that a lot of people have a lot of beliefs about what is and is not authorized by law, as opposed to what may or may not be common behavior.
1) Can you legally refuse someone from taking pictures from or being on public property as long as he or she is not doing anything else illegal and the said public property has not been posted as off limit to the general population ? No.
You can refuse members of the general public take photos in (or even refuse all entry to) a place like a military base. A military base, unlike a normal street or bridge, is not a place that is generally accessible to the public.
2) Is a private company security guard authorized to police the area outside the property of that private company. No.
No matter how reasonable it is that the guard wonders what you are doing, he is not authorized to tell people to get lost, forbid them from taking pictures or any such thing when the person he is talking to is on public property.
People are not even legally required to reply to any questions he may ask - no more than you are required to reply to any random person or house owner talking to you on a public street.
On company property, he is of course legally entitled to refuse you entry, tell you to get lost or refuse you to take pictures. And he is entitled to call the police to have you forcibly ejected from company property, if necessary.
3) Is it smart to refuse to answer polite questions from a security guard near the property of a RR or a oil refinery or some such place ? No.
The security guard will then call the local police. A police officer is authorized to ask people questions to ascertain whether a crime is in progress.
4) If a bona fide police officer asks you questions about what you are doing, then answer the questions. He is entitled to ask, and although you can refuse to answer the questions (refering to the fifth amendment about not being forced to give evidence against yourself), that is not a good strategy - you will be arrested.
The police officer does not have a legal basis for telling you to get lost or for refusing you to take pictures from public property, unless you are also doing something else illegal - obstructing traffic or some such thing.
vlmuke wrote: it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone
it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone
No, it is not. Taking pictures from a publicly accessible place it is a right protected under the freedom of speech clause of the US constitution. You may not believe that taking pictures is a form of free speech, but the US courts has upheld that interpretation of free speech.
There is a significant difference between you being civic minded enough to want to make life a little easier for police officers (or security guards) - who have an important job, and you laboring under the misapprehension that your rights are only priviledges.
If a private company security guard ask you to move or stop taking pictures, then politely ask what legal basis the person has for his request, and calmly inform him that taking pictures from publicly accessible places is protected by the US constitution.
If he insists on his own wrongful interpretation of law, politely ask him to please call the police and get a police officer to the place.
If a real police officer asks you to move away from a public place or stop taking pictures from a public place, then politely ask what legal basis this person asking this has for making his request, and calmly inform him that taking pictures from publicly accessible places is protected by the US constitution.
If the police officer insists on his own wrongful interpretation of law, then get his name, and leave peacefully.
Then you chose whether you want to just let it go, or whether you want to get his name and any other relevant identification you need for a later contact with his superiors to have him set straight about how things are supposed to work.
You don't have to make a fuss there and then. And you also do not have to meekly accept anything a police officer claims. How (and if) you want to react when someone steps on your rights is your decision to make.
There is no need to be unneccesarily belligerent when being politely questioned by a police officer (or a security guard). Cooperate politely, and there usually will be no problem.
But there also is no need to actively work to undermine the rights of everyone else by making ill informed statements about constitutes "priviledges, not rights".
Edit: just realized that I forgot to say this explicitly. In the situation described, there was not any trampling of anyone's rights whatsover. A member of the public (the security guard) is perfectly entitled to approach another another member of the public (the railfan) in a public place and say something like "excuse me for interupting what you are doing for a moment, I was just wondering if you could tell me what you are doing?". As the railfan chose to answer equally politely and calmly no rights were violated for anyone.
Now, if some people can get over their urge to make snippy remarks about how other people insists that their rights are their right, not priviledges they have to earn, then this thread should be allowed to die a quiet death.
Now, that should cover pretty much all possible angles I can think of here. Can we all now please move on to something related to trains instead of amateur legal night ? Before Bergie has to close this thread too.
Thanks, Stein, who is not American, but apparently still knows quite a bit more about US laws than many Americans
tree68 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause. And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay. I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown." I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately. It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief). He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them... I hadn't. We both went on our separate ways.
Sorry, but I fail to see how engaging in common lawful activity qualifies as "suspicious". You could just as easily argue that walking by a train station or sitting on a park bench is suspicious.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Worth another say: It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.
Worth another say: It is easy to be courageous and righteous when you're sitting at a computer hundreds of miles away.
TimChgo9 wrote:I do not fault the Security Guards. If I was charged with the security of a facility like that, I would have done the same thing.
It's ironic how much free legal advice is made available on this forum by non-lawyers and where it comes from. Thing is, even a lawyer's opinion on this incident is non-binding -- which the Constitutional scholars neglect to tell you.
I do know this -- another citizen (most security guards) CANNOT violate your Constitutional rights. Only the government or its agents can do that.
The only opinion that would count is the ruling handed down by a judge, who is paid to interpret laws created by legislatures. The interpretation of Freedom and Speech and where it ends based on the circumstances of each individual case are vast -- how a person who does not have a JD could advise anyone here is ludicrous.
Time to end this one, too, Bergie. Before the hobbyist legal beagles get us all into trouble.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:The state of paranoia encouraged by the current regime has gone a long way to cause people to consider all sorts of ordinary behavior to now be "suspicious".
With all due respect, I would think a lot of the paranoia is rooted in the events of 9/11, Paul. One view is that the current administration fosters this paranoia. Another is that the security changes that have been made since 9/11 have prevented another attack on U.S. soil and mass murders for almost six years. Both have some merit.
What is indisputable is that the gang is Washington has kept us safe so far, which is hard to argue -- and makes it easy for them to ignore those who see the glass as half-empty. For evidence, look at those who are blaming the government's lack of pre-emptive action on the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities.
Ramping up national security is a lose-lose situation for the citizenry and administration, but what they're doing so far has kept people safe.
IRONROOSTER wrote: tree68 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause. And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay. I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown." I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately. It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief). He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them... I hadn't. We both went on our separate ways.Sorry, but I fail to see how engaging in common lawful activity qualifies as "suspicious". You could just as easily argue that walking by a train station or sitting on a park bench is suspicious.
OK, try this one on for size...it is 9:00 p.m. on a weeknight and some *** is standing outside of your house on the public sidewalk looking up at the second story window that happens to be where your fifteen year old daughter has her bedroom...the blinds are drawn and although this guys is not breaking the law you have two choices (1) you can let him go around looking at houses like yours from the public sidewalk or (2) you can call his activity "suspicious" and call the local police. What do you think most people would do (no, using your shotgun is not a good answer here)?
Well, I am not going to get in the comment game or Monday Morning Quarterback, like some of the others have...all though, it is nice to see so much support!
I just wanted to say Thanks for posting the story. One, it showed how a regular person should handle the scenario, just like you did. Also shows, that not every securuty guard out there is a power tripping jerk. Kuddos!
I personally look forward to the chance to interact with Law Enforcment or security gaurds, train peronal or who ever. Since I know I am always in the right, (i.e. public places or safe distances) I have nothing to worry about. Through these meetings, I have gotten to know people, learned cool facts, gotten tours and even got a cab ride with my son in a GP-40 on a local. At the least, I got to prove to these guys, who are doing their jobs, that I am not a high horse, self righeous, paranoid foamer and they wont take out their frustraions on the next guy.
Best Regards, Big John
Kiva Valley Railway- Freelanced road in central Arizona. Visit the link to see my MR forum thread on The Building of the Whitton Branch on the Kiva Valley Railway
I worked in law enforcement, so I beg to differ. I can easily see how "common lawful activity" can be qualified as "suspicious". When someone sees you behaving in what they may think is a strange manner, that automatically makes it "suspicious". That citizen cannot determine who you are or what you are doing, and since it doesn't look right to them, they want it checked out. When the officer comes around, that officer is doing his job by checking you out. It's not about being detained, violating your rights, or anything like that. This gets repeated over and over ad nauseum when the officer checks you out, he is DOING HIS JOB, either acting on his own initiative, or responding to a request from a citizen.........
I just wish some people around here would get off their high horse, stop screaming about their rights being violated, and just cooperate. It makes life easier on everyone.
When you are out in public engaging in activities that are visible by other members of the public, not everyone is going to look at you in the same way. How many times have cable guys, meter readers, real estate agents, or others had the cops called on them? Trust me, it's quite a bit.
In the case in question, the pictures apparently could have included the refinery - a potential target for those who may be looking for one. Beyond that, you're right, taking pictures is a legal activity. Simply walking by a train station, or sitting on a park bench is certainly not suspicious. On the other hand, if an accompanying behavior is questionable (say, sitting on a park bench next to a playground full of children wearing a long trenchcoat in hot weather), you might just catch a visit from the law.
vlmuke wrote: After 9/11 many things in the US changed as a former Coastie I can tell you if you are even fishing underneath a bridge it is cause to be questioned and being asked to fish elsewhere, possibly photographing potenial targets such as bridges refineries and powerplants is DEFINATELY grounds to be questioned and lately rumor has that trains themselves are possible terrorist targets as they carry many types of hazardous and flammible liquids that can easily destroy a city also make it grounds for questioning even though many of you think you have protection from the first amendment you've got to realize the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few so if you wish to continue photographing trains you need to realize that being questioned by a law enforcement officer is a small price to pay for your hobby and by not cooperating or giving law enforcement officials a hassle can ruin it for everyone and raise suspicion to you and your hobby, and remember freedom of the press applies to printed material and not photography especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press here's an example I went on a tour of a Naval base we were told we can take our cameras but could not take pictures if we were caught taking pictures we would have to hand over the film or if it was a digital camera erase the pictures in front of them if not we would have our camera confinscated and possibly be arrested the same thing applies with the Railroad it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone
Right or wrong, this probably set a Trains forums record for "Longest Sentence" -- 297 words.
steinjr wrote:Now, that should cover pretty much all possible angles I can think of here. Can we all now please move on to something related to trains instead of amateur legal night ? Before Bergie has to close this thread too.
You made a very good post with alot of sence. I congradulate you on that. Now, in my polite way, I must ask you, what is not train related about this thread? It involves taking pictures of trains, and mentioning of trains. Why threads like this are locked I'm not quite sure. Unless the other thread like this (which I havent seen) was similar to my old thread "What happened to the lost art of engineers waving" (which went way overboard on off subject posts) I see no reason to lock and/or delete these threads. IMHO, they are completely related to trains, and should only be locked in a sence that it turns into caos. There are many threads on here I think should be locked and not this one, and similar subjects, unless they go overboard. That is my polite and respectful opinion.
"Lionel trains are the standard of the world" - Jousha Lionel Cowen
zugmann wrote: No, no, no,no...You're supposed to scream and rant - throw your photog's rights paper at them - call the ACLU - call Jesse Jackson - give the refinery the finger - call the cop a pig - and then post it all on trains.com!!!
WOW!
It's almost like you have read a few of the prior threads on photographers' rights before.....
I must comment that this was handled very well. I am 100% confident that if you keep your cool, remain calm, and be honest about what you are up to, you will have no reason to worry. If you would have lost your cool, filled your pants in a fit of rage, and started lecturing everyone about your 'rights' as an American citizen things would have gone differently. If the security cop does have a fit, play along and then make him look like a fool later. Confrontation with law enforcement is never a good thing, even if you are right. That's for the court system. Of course, if you are breaking the law, then I think you should fully expect to have your rights violated.
Anyhoo, it was nice to hear a story that went well. It seem like there is a proliferation of stories about bad cops in this forum, for whatever reason.
I hope this doesn't start off a whole new bunch of controversy, but I'd like to clarify that the federal government actually can, and does, prohibit photography from public property in certain cases. I have seen on the fences surrounding a civilian company's plant a sign like this: "Defense Plant. Photography Prohibited." Then I think it lists something like "Title ****, U.S. Code ***."
You are standing on a public sidewalk looking at the buildings, and this sign is posted on the chain link fence facing you.
I can understand why they might do this for a company that makes military equipment. Depending on the exact wording of the law, I can also see how they could extend it to other installations, including oil refineries, bridges, tunnels, railroads, etc.
My whole point is that if the government can apply such additional restrictions, and if we railfans push their buttons enough, they might just do it. Then it will be official, and we will be out of luck.
I suggest being nice and not pushing people's buttons. Then we can all come back and railfan another day.
BTW, here is another refinery incident.
magicman710 wrote: steinjr wrote:Can we all now please move on to something related to trains instead of amateur legal night ? Before Bergie has to close this thread too.You made a very good post with alot of sence. I congradulate you on that. Now, in my polite way, I must ask you, what is not train related about this thread? It involves taking pictures of trains, and mentioning of trains. Why threads like this are locked I'm not quite sure.
steinjr wrote:Can we all now please move on to something related to trains instead of amateur legal night ? Before Bergie has to close this thread too.
Can we all now please move on to something related to trains instead of amateur legal night ? Before Bergie has to close this thread too.
You made a very good post with alot of sence. I congradulate you on that. Now, in my polite way, I must ask you, what is not train related about this thread? It involves taking pictures of trains, and mentioning of trains. Why threads like this are locked I'm not quite sure.
Let me take a stab at making a prediction about why threads like this sometimes end up getting locked.
1. The debate is not really about railroading as such - it is really about the tradeoff between security and freedom in the context of the "global war on terror".
The GWOT is an extremely polarizing political subject. The tradeoff between security and freedom is an extremely polarizing political subject.
2. There would seem to be no imminent extreme shortage of other forums to debate the GWOT - for the foreseeable future.
I can assure you that there is very little chance you will not get as large a daily dose of this subject as you can stand (and then some) between now and november 2008, and probably also way beyond that date.
3. These forums are run by a private company for the benefit of their current and potensial customers.
This private company presumably would like to sell their product to both strong conservatives, to strong liberals and to people who by now are so thoroughly fed up with hearing the same tired old arguments over and over and over again no matter what they do and where they are at, that they soon will start puking when they see yet another repeat of the great GWOT debate approaching.
They probably do not want any group of their customers so pissed off by political debates that they leave. In particular, they probably do not want to be left with just the ranters - of both the right and the left.
4. Maybe we should at least try to keep this forum about railroading instead of about amateur interpretations from both sides about constitutional rights and priviledges, or about whether the present US administration has done things very right or very wrong in the context of GWOT ?
My opinion, obviously. Yours might differ.
Smile, Stein
steinjr wrote: magicman710 wrote: steinjr wrote:Can we all now please move on to something related to trains instead of amateur legal night ? Before Bergie has to close this thread too.You made a very good post with alot of sence. I congradulate you on that. Now, in my polite way, I must ask you, what is not train related about this thread? It involves taking pictures of trains, and mentioning of trains. Why threads like this are locked I'm not quite sure. Let me take a stab at making a prediction about why threads like this sometimes end up getting locked.1. The debate is not really about railroading as such - it is really about the tradeoff between security and freedom in the context of the "global war on terror". The GWOT is an extremely polarizing political subject. The tradeoff between security and freedom is an extremely polarizing political subject. 2. There would seem to be no imminent extreme shortage of other forums to debate the GWOT - for the foreseeable future. I can assure you that there is very little chance you will not get as large a daily dose of this subject as you can stand (and then some) between now and november 2008, and probably also way beyond that date. 3. These forums are run by a private company for the benefit of their current and potensial customers. This private company presumably would like to sell their product to both strong conservatives, to strong liberals and to people who by now are so thoroughly fed up with hearing the same tired old arguments over and over and over again no matter what they do and where they are at, that they soon will start puking when they see yet another repeat of the great GWOT debate approaching. They probably do not want any group of their customers so pissed off by political debates that they leave. In particular, they probably do not want to be left with just the ranters - of both the right and the left. 4. Maybe we should at least try to keep this forum about railroading instead of about amateur interpretations from both sides about constitutional rights and priviledges, or about whether the present US administration has done things very right or very wrong in the context of GWOT ? My opinion, obviously. Yours might differ. Smile, Stein
Kind of off topic on that subject, but Bergie said on my old Waving thread that he didnt like threads like that because it would turn people away from the forums. However, if you ever look at the "Forum Stastics" you will se a average of 20 people joining a day. With over 42,000 users. In the last 24 hours we have had 40 new threads and 560 new posts. I havent looked at it in the long term but I'm going to start. At 9 every night I will record the forum stastics over the next month. I will see if them "turning people away statements" are really true, because I dont think they are.
Smile,
Grayson
magicman710 wrote: Kind of off topic on that subject, but Bergie said on my old Waving thread that he didnt like threads like that because it would turn people away from the forums. However, if you ever look at the "Forum Stastics" you will se a average of 20 people joining a day. With over 42,000 users. In the last 24 hours we have had 40 new threads and 560 new posts. I havent looked at it in the long term but I'm going to start. At 9 every night I will record the forum stastics over the next month. I will see if them "turning people away statements" are really true, because I dont think they are. Smile,Grayson
Grayson,
I am not going to question your logic or tell you are wrong, I think you have a point. But before you and do something like that, or question Bergie's logic, you need to step back and think about a few things.
His statement isnt far off. While I see your point, look at it from his perspective. Your right, closeing one thread wont help but irk those that had a good argument going. Well, I have been around alot of forums in my day (This is the only train related) and I have watched things spiral out of control. Once the nit-picking starts, its hard to stop. There is a fine line between haveing a spirited debate, and getting a forum that is considered hostile.
I noticed you posted the numbers... I am pretty sure, that is for ALL the forums on this site. Trains.com, Gardern Railroader, Model Rail Roader, Classic Trains, etc. So, you basis for the numbers is extremly flawed if you try to apply it the Trains Forum. Most folks tend to stick to their boards.
If folks cant have a good debate, with out it going out of control on every silly minor point that gets beatin' like a dead stubbron mule, the good folsk will get tired of it and move on. Only folks left will be the drama queens, and most new people to the forum, will want nothing to do with it.
Now, the big issue in my mind, comes down to what is a "good debate" or a "whizzing contest in the wind". Of course, that will vary among other folks who get mad that a thread got deleted, while others will be left saying thank goodness. Cant please them all... and its not our job, its Bergie's. Since its house, his rules, and I am greatful for this place to hang out and learn, he makes the call either way and I am 100% content with that and after a few years on this board, I see no logic to rock the boat.
Very well said John. I might have got myself a little missunderstood. I dont think that threads like the waving, ect shouldnt been locked. I think they should, but the "people get turned away" thing I think isnt as true as it seems. People who turn away these forums for that obviously have no humor, and needs to get some. I personaly think that humor in these forums helps us get along, make friends, and just have good time.
Thank you Cordon for clarifing the issue I guess steinie and Midnight RR owe me an apology. As far as far poppa zit goes here's all the periods I left out.............................. please keep your comments to yourself
vlmuke wrote: Thank you Cordon for clarifing the issue I guess steinie and Midnight RR owe me an apology. As far as far poppa zit goes here's all the periods I left out.............................. please keep your comments to yourself
You said: by not cooperating or giving law enforcement officials a hassle can ruin it for everyone
Not supported by law.
You said: freedom of the press applies to printed material and not photography
Not true.
You said: especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press
Courts of law have ruled that "press" does not necessarily refer to paid journalists.
You said: here's an example I went on a tour of a Naval base we were told we can take our cameras but could not take pictures if we were caught taking pictures we would have to hand over the film
This one is true. The rules for US Government installations are more restrictive.
You said: the same thing applies with the Railroad it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains
Not true. The law allows taking photographs of anything within plain sight as long as the photographer is not on private property without permission. That makes it a citizen's right to do so.
You said: and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone
Not true. A change in the law is a little tougher to accomplish than that, and a great number of advocacy groups would challenge such a change were it proposed.
vlmuke wrote:After 9/11 many things in the US changed as a former Coastie I can tell you if you are even fishing underneath a bridge it is cause to be questioned and being asked to fish elsewhere, possibly photographing potenial targets such as bridges refineries and powerplants is DEFINATELY grounds to be questioned and lately rumor has that trains themselves are possible terrorist targets as they carry many types of hazardous and flammible liquids that can easily destroy a city also make it grounds for questioning even though many of you think you have protection from the first amendment you've got to realize the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few so if you wish to continue photographing trains you need to realize that being questioned by a law enforcement officer is a small price to pay for your hobby and by not cooperating or giving law enforcement officials a hassle can ruin it for everyone and raise suspicion to you and your hobby, and remember freedom of the press applies to printed material and not photography especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press here's an example I went on a tour of a Naval base we were told we can take our cameras but could not take pictures if we were caught taking pictures we would have to hand over the film or if it was a digital camera erase the pictures in front of them if not we would have our camera confinscated and possibly be arrested the same thing applies with the Railroad it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone
One word: CONVOLUTED!
Midnight Railroader wrote: vlmuke wrote: Thank you Cordon for clarifing the issue I guess steinie and Midnight RR owe me an apology. As far as far poppa zit goes here's all the periods I left out.............................. please keep your comments to yourself No, no apology required, and here's why:You said: by not cooperating or giving law enforcement officials a hassle can ruin it for everyoneNot supported by law. You said: freedom of the press applies to printed material and not photographyNot true. You said: especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the pressCourts of law have ruled that "press" does not necessarily refer to paid journalists.You said: here's an example I went on a tour of a Naval base we were told we can take our cameras but could not take pictures if we were caught taking pictures we would have to hand over the filmThis one is true. The rules for US Government installations are more restrictive.You said: the same thing applies with the Railroad it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains Not true. The law allows taking photographs of anything within plain sight as long as the photographer is not on private property without permission. That makes it a citizen's right to do so. You said: and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyoneNot true. A change in the law is a little tougher to accomplish than that, and a great number of advocacy groups would challenge such a change were it proposed.
Does your legal malpractice insurance carrier know you are giving out free legal advice on the internet?
Thankfully, no.
However, in my profession, I deal with this particular subject daily, and am well-aquainted with the law that covers it.
More to the point, every citizen should know the laws that affect him, and his rights as guaranteed by those laws, up to and including the US Constitiution.
vlmuke wrote: As far as far poppa zit goes here's all the periods I left out.............................. please keep your comments to yourself
As far as far poppa zit goes here's all the periods I left out.............................. please keep your comments to yourself
Well, PZ can certainly speak for himself, but I was the one who made the periods comment. And it wasnt just to be a wise a--. (although I am capable of that, also)
It was a subtle (perhaps too much so) reminder that to have your opinion and comments taken seriously, they have to be communicated effectively. Without making accusations, when I see run on sentences and fragments I see it as a sign of sloppy thinking and sloppy logic. You may in fact have the most salient point that will define the argument, but if it is hidden in what appears to be gibberish, or misunderstood because of faulty puncuation, it will often be lost in the noise. (remember, NO! DONT! STOP! is not the same as NO! DONT STOP!)
Personally, I only skimmed your post and didnt spend the time it would have required to get to the point. Perhaps others did the same. Perhaps it was my loss to have done so, but I am willing to take that chance.
And, if you dont like my comments (or anyone elses), one of the beautiful things about the format of this forum is you can tell who wrote the comment immediatly...and just skip right past it if that suits you.
End soap box. I will now release this thread to its originally scheduled topic...
I've never been hassled while rain fanning are ask for ID even, but have had cops or security ask what I was doing. After telling them, I was just ask to stay out of the way and we all went on our merry way. We live and rail fan mostly in rural areas and smaller towns; 911 paranoia is still around, but not the way it is in bigger cities I guess.
I was in charge of security for uranium refinery, long before 911 [cold war], and even worked as a part cop. So I have some idea of what they have to consider in today's world.
I figure it like this as long as they don't start hassling me or get nasty, I won't them either, but that's just the way I am.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
I was coming back from Iron Mountain, MI this weekend and came across a railroad I wasn't familiar with: Escanaba & Lake Superior. I asked one of the crew who was near a public road if anyone on the crews (2 were working) would mind if I took some photos from public places. He actually got on the radio to ask both crews, neither of which objected. They actually invited me on property (but not too far) to get a pic of them on their equipment.
I asked if they had problems with other railfans relative to trespassing, etc and one engineer said that they usually called the cops if someone is near property for too long. One conductor said the local PD told them to call no matter what. He told me that some fans have 'the look' that means trouble to him. As we talked a sheriff's deputy drove up and stopped. He asked if the crews needed assistance with anything (probably me?) and they all said that everything was fine. After a bit more BS we all parted ways.
I did ask the deputy about railfans but he said the only time he checked on someone they were sitting on the tracks in a lawnchair, binocs in hand, 'waiting for the train' as the gent put it. He said that he just asked him to move off the tracks which he apparently didn't realize he was on (alcohol?), checked his ID, and moved on but 'checked back on him' by driving nearby once or twice.
Dan
Midnight Railroader wrote: However, in my profession, I deal with this particular subject daily, and am well-aquainted with the law that covers it....especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press Courts of law have ruled that "press" does not necessarily refer to paid journalists.
...
especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press
Whoa. This is interesting. You are not wrong, but neither are you correct.
"Feedom of the Press" is interpreted thusly:
"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution ... the words "the press" traditionally describe newspapers and news magazines produced on printing presses. These forms of mass media are designed to reach large audiences. In modern usage, the press frequently includes broadcast media as well."
The above descriptions do not require a "journalist" to be financially compensated. But right now, until Congress officially extends Publishing Law to cover the Internet and vastly broadens the definitions, displaying photographs on a web site does not constitute "published reporting" -- because there is no active "public distribution". Web sites are static. Therefore, photographers who are making pictures for their own web site are not considered members of the press.
Railfans taking photos do not qualify as "the press".
If you are a full-time, credentialed photographer from, say, Trains magazine and on specific assignment from an editor, OK. Same if you can prove a freelance assignment to shoot exactly what you are shooting.
But if this sort of thing went to trial, I seriously doubt any court would allow railfans snapping photos to turn it into a Constitutional issue by claiming they were members of a "news gathering organization".
Poppa_Zit wrote: another citizen (most security guards) CANNOT violate your Constitutional rights. Only the government or its agents can do that.
another citizen (most security guards) CANNOT violate your Constitutional rights. Only the government or its agents can do that.
Do you even realize how absurd (and sad) that statement is?
Poppa_Zit wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: However, in my profession, I deal with this particular subject daily, and am well-aquainted with the law that covers it....especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press Courts of law have ruled that "press" does not necessarily refer to paid journalists.Whoa. This is interesting. You are not wrong, but neither are you correct."Feedom of the Press" is interpreted thusly:"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution ... the words "the press" traditionally describe newspapers and news magazines produced on printing presses. These forms of mass media are designed to reach large audiences. In modern usage, the press frequently includes broadcast media as well."
Poppa_Zit wrote:But if this sort of thing went to trial, I seriously doubt any court would allow railfans snapping photos to turn it into a Constitutional issue by claiming they were members of a "news gathering organization".
It doesn't have to be a "Constitutional issue."
It's a matter of law. The law allows you to do this. The only time there's a question is when cops (or rent-a-cops) exceed their lawful authority while at the scene and say otherwise. They invariably lose when the issue gets to a certainly level of the police administration, because the law doesn't support their actions.
So far, throughout this thread, I have seen no mention of the time and money involved in defending your rights. Your only recourse for what you perceive as a violation is through the courts. This means you must hire an attorney and file a lawsuit in the Federal Courts. In the Eastern District of Missouri, the wait for a hearing is 2-3 years, and I am sure it is longer in the Chicago area.
Your attorney is being paid for his time and advice, which Lincoln said is his stock in trade, and his meter will be running throughout whether you win or lose. So I would say that Tim did the proper thing, although I'm sure this isn't the last word on this subject.
Incidently, what is absurd about Poppa Zit's statement?
I think that "ironic" might have been better than "absurd", but neither do I want to draw any conclusions about someone else's utterings in case I misunderstand. In any event, the irony is that it is the very thesis on which this entire thread is based; contributors have debated whether one's rights can be infringed....at all! In the case of the statement challenged, it is averred that the government has the right to infringe on one's constitutional rights. I am by no means an expert in law, but I find it hard to believe, unless the constitution contains a "not withstanding" clause or some other escape route that allows your government to use a teleological solution vice a deontological solution as it deems necessary.
Scary.
DRGW fan wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: another citizen (most security guards) CANNOT violate your Constitutional rights. Only the government or its agents can do that.Do you even realize how absurd (and sad) that statement is?
I don't see your point. The statement is true.
Poppa_Zit wrote:Whoa. This is interesting. You are not wrong, but neither are you correct."Feedom of the Press" is interpreted thusly:"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution ... the words "the press" traditionally describe newspapers and news magazines produced on printing presses. These forms of mass media are designed to reach large audiences. In modern usage, the press frequently includes broadcast media as well."
Midnight Railroader wrote:Source?
I will provide after you present your credentials to be giving the legal advice you offer. My perspective is that of a 20-year newspaper publisher.
Midnight Railroader wrote:It doesn't have to be a "Constitutional issue."It's a matter of law. The law allows you to do this. The only time there's a question is when cops (or rent-a-cops) exceed their lawful authority while at the scene and say otherwise. They invariably lose when the issue gets to a certainly level of the police administration, because the law doesn't support their actions.
How can Freedom of Speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, be anything BUT a Constitutional issue?
Poppa, I am surprised a journalist of your stated credentials would quote Wikipedia as a source in a discussion on legal rights and freedoms.
You should know better.
You also ought to know that your staff has exactly the same rights as any other person in this country when it comes to taking pictures. Constitutional protections are not required; anyone can take a photograph of any person, place, or thing in plain sight (with VERY few exceptions, perhaps US military installations being one), as long as the photographer is not trespassing...and you know it. Or you ought to, if your job is to publish a newspaper.
I am not surprised, however, to find that, as a print publisher, you don't believe online sources are legitmate journalism. That, at least, is predictable.
A question, if I may.
If another person, not affiliated with any government, say a security guard, came up to me while railfanning and takes my camera and erases the memory card or exposes the film, hasn't he VIOLATED my right to Life, Liberty, and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS?
The way I see it, another person can violate my constitutional rights. If I'm wrong, please explain it so I can understand.
rrnut282 wrote: A question, if I may.If another person, not affiliated with any government, say a security guard, came up to me while railfanning and takes my camera and erases the memory card or exposes the film, hasn't he VIOLATED my right to Life, Liberty, and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS? The way I see it, another person can violate my constitutional rights. If I'm wrong, please explain it so I can understand.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not from the Constitution, it's from the Declaration of Independence.
As a point of interest, Jefferson originally wrote Life, Liberty and Property, but since he was a slaveowner it was thought that property would be misconstrued and so it was changed.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Poppa, I am surprised a journalist of your stated credentials would quote Wikipedia as a source in a discussion on legal rights and freedoms.The issue here is accuracy. What is not accurate in the above description?You should know better.Not for you to judge. By the way, still waiting for you to state your credentials, if you have any. You also ought to know that your staff has exactly the same rights as any other person in this country when it comes to taking pictures. Constitutional protections are not required; anyone can take a photograph of any person, place, or thing in plain sight (with VERY few exceptions, perhaps US military installations being one), as long as the photographer is not trespassing...and you know it. Or you ought to, if your job is to publish a newspaper.Oops! We weren't discussing rights, so don't try to change the subject. In the event you forgot, we were talking about who qualifies as media. You keep sidetracking in an effort to confuse people and avoid responding to legitimate questions. You also don't have a clue as to what my job requires. The average photog cannot claim he has the right to take photos on the sideline at the Super Bowl -- he'd be thrown out. He cannot cross police lines at fires. You can't shoot video in a theatre. That's the difference between press and amateurs -- same rights, but much different privileges. I am not surprised, however, to find that, as a print publisher, you don't believe online sources are legitmate journalism. That, at least, is predictable.Voila! Thanks for making my point for me. This statement totally contradicts your chiding me in the first paragraph for using online Wikipedia as source.As far as the topic, Congress has yet to apply Publishing Law to the Internet. The legitimate "press" web sites are those who have connections to paper-and-ink publications. Period.And with this I end our exchange because I don't debate trolls. You can't even write 100 words without a contradiction in your reasoning.
The issue here is accuracy. What is not accurate in the above description?
Not for you to judge. By the way, still waiting for you to state your credentials, if you have any.
You also don't have a clue as to what my job requires. The average photog cannot claim he has the right to take photos on the sideline at the Super Bowl -- he'd be thrown out. He cannot cross police lines at fires. You can't shoot video in a theatre. That's the difference between press and amateurs -- same rights, but much different privileges.
Voila! Thanks for making my point for me. This statement totally contradicts your chiding me in the first paragraph for using online Wikipedia as source.
As far as the topic, Congress has yet to apply Publishing Law to the Internet. The legitimate "press" web sites are those who have connections to paper-and-ink publications. Period.
And with this I end our exchange because I don't debate trolls. You can't even write 100 words without a contradiction in your reasoning.
Wikipedia is a user-generated site which can generally be assumed to be somehwat accurate, however, it has no formal oversight.
That's not the same as a news website which does not happen to have a print companion.
The fact that you see these as the same says a lot about your point of view.
But, hey, you know when you've lost. And, in this case you have. So it makes sense for you to retire from the debate.
Here's something you apparently don't know: in most jurisdictions, news photographers cannot cross police or fire lines. Press or not, they have to stay behind the tape. New York City and California law enforcement do issue press passes that permit crossing the lines, but the overwhelming majority of agencies do not allow it.
And your guys must get permission to shoot in a theatre, which is private property. Do it without permission, and they'll be thrown out and be subject to prosecution. No special right for a news photog to take pictures in a theatre exists.
They also need permission to shoot at the Super Bowl. If they're denied permission--and every year, the NFL turns down hundreds of such requests--they don't get to barge in and yell, "I'm a news photgrapher, let me take pictures!"
By the way, I know exactly what your job requires. I have 25 years' experience as a newsman. I've dealt with cops trying to create their versions of the law for over two decades, so I have made an effort to learn the law myself and know it well.
RudyRockvilleMD wrote:I don't know how many of you are aware of it, but the Patriot Act of 2005, PL 109-177, or HR 3199 ENR, prohibits gathering information (which would include photography or videorecording) about railroads or mass transit systems with the intent to aid and abet destruction or acts of terrorism. See Title I, Section 110, Subsection a(8).
Which would seem to say, that it doesn't prohibit gathering information (which would include photography or videorecording) about railroads or mass transit systems without the intent to aid and abet destruction or acts of terrorism.
It would sure seem like the above action would have been a no-no, even without the Patriot act.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
eolafan wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: tree68 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause. And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay. I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown." I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately. It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief). He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them... I hadn't. We both went on our separate ways.Sorry, but I fail to see how engaging in common lawful activity qualifies as "suspicious". You could just as easily argue that walking by a train station or sitting on a park bench is suspicious. OK, try this one on for size...it is 9:00 p.m. on a weeknight and some *** is standing outside of your house on the public sidewalk looking up at the second story window that happens to be where your fifteen year old daughter has her bedroom...the blinds are drawn and although this guys is not breaking the law you have two choices (1) you can let him go around looking at houses like yours from the public sidewalk or (2) you can call his activity "suspicious" and call the local police. What do you think most people would do (no, using your shotgun is not a good answer here)?
My statement was about common lawful behavior - is it common for people to stand outside your house at 9 p.m. staring at your daughter's window? I see no relationship here to taking photographs.
IRONROOSTER wrote: eolafan wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: tree68 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause. And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay. I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown." I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately. It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief). He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them... I hadn't. We both went on our separate ways.Sorry, but I fail to see how engaging in common lawful activity qualifies as "suspicious". You could just as easily argue that walking by a train station or sitting on a park bench is suspicious. OK, try this one on for size...it is 9:00 p.m. on a weeknight and some *** is standing outside of your house on the public sidewalk looking up at the second story window that happens to be where your fifteen year old daughter has her bedroom...the blinds are drawn and although this guys is not breaking the law you have two choices (1) you can let him go around looking at houses like yours from the public sidewalk or (2) you can call his activity "suspicious" and call the local police. What do you think most people would do (no, using your shotgun is not a good answer here)?My statement was about common lawful behavior - is it common for people to stand outside your house at 9 p.m. staring at your daughter's window? I see no relationship here to taking photographs.
TimChgo9 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: tree68 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause. And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay. I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown." I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately. It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief). He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them... I hadn't. We both went on our separate ways.Sorry, but I fail to see how engaging in common lawful activity qualifies as "suspicious". You could just as easily argue that walking by a train station or sitting on a park bench is suspicious. I worked in law enforcement, so I beg to differ. I can easily see how "common lawful activity" can be qualified as "suspicious". When someone sees you behaving in what they may think is a strange manner, that automatically makes it "suspicious". That citizen cannot determine who you are or what you are doing, and since it doesn't look right to them, they want it checked out. When the officer comes around, that officer is doing his job by checking you out. It's not about being detained, violating your rights, or anything like that. This gets repeated over and over ad nauseum when the officer checks you out, he is DOING HIS JOB, either acting on his own initiative, or responding to a request from a citizen.........I just wish some people around here would get off their high horse, stop screaming about their rights being violated, and just cooperate. It makes life easier on everyone. When you are out in public engaging in activities that are visible by other members of the public, not everyone is going to look at you in the same way. How many times have cable guys, meter readers, real estate agents, or others had the cops called on them? Trust me, it's quite a bit.
Sorry, I disagree. When a police officer shows up and someone's just taking pictures there is no need for him to check any further or speak to anyone. Someone else's paranoia should not be my problem.
Your statment "stop screaming about your rights and just cooperate" suggests that you feel people should have no rights. Since you work in law enforcement, I hope that this not what you meant.
IronRooster,
To a point I have to disagree. I don't know how old you are, but Inspite of the Homeland Security laws today, the propensity for abuse was greater in the past. The Class 1 railroads were more railfan friendly back in the 70s, but I clearly remember reading and hearing of incidents towns (particularly in the U.S south) where industrial security forces or municipal police officers could detain you, question you without a lawyer present, "crack your car's headlights" with a nightstick, and then turn you loose. These were the "bad apples" as the majority are dedicated professionals.
The above incident was handled professionally with courtesy. Forget the terrorism potential.....Today there are many "nut jobs" that would freely sabotage a railroad line or industrial complex just for the thrill of it or to make a statement. Last year's train derailment in Tampa is one heck of an example. Had someone driving by dialed 911 when those kids placed a heavy object on that track, the injuries to the crew, the million dollar costs to CSX, the hours of traffic tie-ups on two major roads would have not happened.
No offense, but we see so many accusations of "Police State" when "Vigilance" is what is being justifiably excercised.
Peace and High Greens
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
I'm not advocating giving the police officer a hard time. Once he shows up you should do whatever seems reasonable at the time to avoid making the situation worse, as noted above, you are in a precarious situation. Afterwards you can file a complaint, contact the news, post online, etc, whatever, seems appropriate.
Nor am I advocating ignoring illegal activity such as placing a large object on the rails - I would call 911, myself, if I observed that.
Certainly, people can act suspicously, but taking pictures is not, per se, a suspicous activity. Sure, if I'm standing around a gas tank farm at 1 am with an AK47, a bundle of dynamite, wearing sunglasses, taking pictures - I would expect the police to show up and investigate. But if I am standing on a public sidewalk at noon taking pictures of a train, I should not be questioned.
If we don't champion our rights then little by little they fade away.
Ishmael wrote: rrnut282 wrote: A question, if I may.If another person, not affiliated with any government, say a security guard, came up to me while railfanning and takes my camera and erases the memory card or exposes the film, hasn't he VIOLATED my right to Life, Liberty, and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS? The way I see it, another person can violate my constitutional rights. If I'm wrong, please explain it so I can understand. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not from the Constitution, it's from the Declaration of Independence.As a point of interest, Jefferson originally wrote Life, Liberty and Property, but since he was a slaveowner it was thought that property would be misconstrued and so it was changed.
The Constitution was an attempt to spell out and add to, the rights alluded to in the Declaration of Independance. I may have mis-consrued the source, but the logic of my question remains intact.
IRONROOSTER wrote: TimChgo9 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: tree68 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause. And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay. I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown." I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately. It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief). He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them... I hadn't. We both went on our separate ways.Sorry, but I fail to see how engaging in common lawful activity qualifies as "suspicious". You could just as easily argue that walking by a train station or sitting on a park bench is suspicious. I worked in law enforcement, so I beg to differ. I can easily see how "common lawful activity" can be qualified as "suspicious". When someone sees you behaving in what they may think is a strange manner, that automatically makes it "suspicious". That citizen cannot determine who you are or what you are doing, and since it doesn't look right to them, they want it checked out. When the officer comes around, that officer is doing his job by checking you out. It's not about being detained, violating your rights, or anything like that. This gets repeated over and over ad nauseum when the officer checks you out, he is DOING HIS JOB, either acting on his own initiative, or responding to a request from a citizen.........I just wish some people around here would get off their high horse, stop screaming about their rights being violated, and just cooperate. It makes life easier on everyone. When you are out in public engaging in activities that are visible by other members of the public, not everyone is going to look at you in the same way. How many times have cable guys, meter readers, real estate agents, or others had the cops called on them? Trust me, it's quite a bit. Sorry, I disagree. When a police officer shows up and someone's just taking pictures there is no need for him to check any further or speak to anyone. Someone else's paranoia should not be my problem.Your statment "stop screaming about your rights and just cooperate" suggests that you feel people should have no rights. Since you work in law enforcement, I hope that this not what you meant.
You absolutely, and completely miss my point. "Somone else's paranoia should not be my problem"... You're right it's not...but when that "paranoid" citizen calls the police department because that person sees someone taking pictures, and acting, in what their mind, is a suspicious way, the paranoia becomes the police department's and the police department is OBLIGATED to respond and check it out.... Sometimes, the officer just drives by to get a look, if he just sees a guy with a camera, he will drive on, without stopping. BUT, alot of officers will stop and at least ask, because if that citizen sees the police taking action, then they will not be calling back. Trust me on this one......
In many ways many cops know what they are going to be dealing with in situations like this: They have a choice...they can do a drive by, take a look, and drive on, because they know they are dealing with railfan.. BUT, they also know, that if they do that, then they know that citizen will constantly call, and call, and call, and then demand to talk to the watch commander of the chief, or even, the mayor.... It happens, I have seen it, and it's not just "occasional" We would constantly get calls from the local "paranoids" (just regular people who see something that they think is out of the ordinary) about strange men with ladders on the telephone polls, (cable guys) strange men walking through people's yards (meter readers) People "in and out of the house next door that is for sale, and they are not the owners." (real estate agents showing the house to potential buyers) In the 9-1-1 Center WE KNEW what all of this was...but we had to send an officer anyway.
That remark about me "not wanting people to have rights" is completely unfair.... When an officer asks you what you are doing, he is doing his job, not violating your rights. As a sworn officer charged with upholding the law, and protecting the public, he has the right to ask you what you are doing if you happen to be hanging out with a camera;....especially if he has never seen you before. I have been doing this for most of my life, and my incident at the refinery is one of the few times (and I can count them on one hand) in my life when I have been "confronted" by law enforcement, security, or the railroad police. In many places the officers wave when they see me, and on more than one occasion, an officer in one town in particular, would stop by to BS with me if he saw me (a closet railfan, I suspect, because he would ask me questions)
My point to this has always not been about rights, because I don't see how, in my incident my rights were violated. I complied with reasonable requests. Now, if the security guard had rolled up on me, gave me a hard time, demanded my camera, or was unreasonable with me, that would have prompted another reaction out of me, and THAT would have been a violation of my rights. Many officers, and security guards are conscious of other people rights, and are reasonable, and easy to deal with...but they have duties to perform and when - especially in the case of the police officers - the citizenry requests their services, they are obligated. How well do you think it would go over with John Q Public, if he called the 9-1-1 Center about a suspicious person, and I said to him: "You know, sir, it's probably nothing to worry about, it's just a guy taking pictures, we won't send anyone around, because
IRONROOSTER wrote: But if I am standing on a public sidewalk at noon taking pictures of a train, I should not be questioned.If we don't champion our rights then little by little they fade away.
But if I am standing on a public sidewalk at noon taking pictures of a train, I should not be questioned.
You have the right to be on that sidewalk. You have the right to take pictures.
You do not have a right to not be asked questions.
I would recommend replying calmly and politely to questions, and calmly and politely insist on your right to take pictures from public property, as long as you are not violating any other laws.
But it is obviously up to you what you choose to do if asked questions from a police officer, whether you want to reply, and how you reply.
And it is up to you how you will deal with possible consequences of refusing to answer any questions from a police officer.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Wikipedia is a user-generated site which can generally be assumed to be somehwat accurate, however, it has no formal oversight.That's not the same as a news website which does not happen to have a print companion. The fact that you see these as the same says a lot about your point of view.But, hey, you know when you've lost. And, in this case you have. So it makes sense for you to retire from the debate. Here's something you apparently don't know: in most jurisdictions, news photographers cannot cross police or fire lines. Press or not, they have to stay behind the tape. New York City and California law enforcement do issue press passes that permit crossing the lines, but the overwhelming majority of agencies do not allow it. And your guys must get permission to shoot in a theatre, which is private property. Do it without permission, and they'll be thrown out and be subject to prosecution. No special right for a news photog to take pictures in a theatre exists.They also need permission to shoot at the Super Bowl. If they're denied permission--and every year, the NFL turns down hundreds of such requests--they don't get to barge in and yell, "I'm a news photgrapher, let me take pictures!"By the way, I know exactly what your job requires. I have 25 years' experience as a newsman. I've dealt with cops trying to create their versions of the law for over two decades, so I have made an effort to learn the law myself and know it well.
He lost? You never answered the questins he asked you to answer. Wjat is wrong with his definition of *the press*? I can read, too. He never said news camera men had a right to shoot inside policelines. He clearly said it was a priveledge to go inside the police lines or at the Super Bowl, not a right. And why are you so sour on police? My son is an officer and they never try toi make up their own laws as you say. Where do you live where the police are so incompetent in applying the law? The D.A. lets them get awat with this? Is it the job of a newsman to correct police or just report on what they do?
Chico
steinjr wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: But if I am standing on a public sidewalk at noon taking pictures of a train, I should not be questioned.If we don't champion our rights then little by little they fade away. You have the right to be on that sidewalk. You have the right to take pictures. You do not have a right to not be asked questions. I would recommend replying calmly and politely to questions, and calmly and politely insist on your right to take pictures from public property, as long as you are not violating any other laws. But it is obviously up to you what you choose to do if asked questions from a police officer, whether you want to reply, and how you reply. And it is up to you how you will deal with possible consequences of refusing to answer any questions from a police officer. Smile, Stein
First, if you're going to quote then you really should quote all the parts that are pertinent. In this case, I stated in my post that I was not advocating giving the police officer a hard time and suggested other ways to protest the actions. I agree that being polite with the officer is a good idea, and is good thing to do in all your dealing with other people.
Second, on the questions issue - actually, I do have that right. It is called the right of privacy and is generally agreed that such a right is constitutionally protected. I admit there is controversy over how broad that right is and the courts interpret it differently depending on who is sitting. None-the-less, I and many others feel we have the right and that it is Constitutionally protected.
Enjoy
IRONROOSTER wrote: steinjr wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: But if I am standing on a public sidewalk at noon taking pictures of a train, I should not be questioned.If we don't champion our rights then little by little they fade away. You have the right to be on that sidewalk. You have the right to take pictures. You do not have a right to not be asked questions. <snip>Second, on the questions issue - actually, I do have that right. It is called the right of privacy and is generally agreed that such a right is constitutionally protected. I admit there is controversy over how broad that right is and the courts interpret it differently depending on who is sitting. None-the-less, I and many others feel we have the right and that it is Constitutionally protected.
steinjr wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: But if I am standing on a public sidewalk at noon taking pictures of a train, I should not be questioned.If we don't champion our rights then little by little they fade away. You have the right to be on that sidewalk. You have the right to take pictures. You do not have a right to not be asked questions. <snip>
<snip>
Okay, then we will just have to agree to disagree on that particular issue. If you ever end up testing that doctrine in person, feel free to report back here what the judge decided.
This has become a discussion polarized by principles and pragmatism, Stein taking the latter position.
Principles, and the rights that from them come, are only ever negotiated agreements between people. Politics, influence, economics, and biases all have a way of eroding rights, but not the principles. So, the "sides" decide on which side of the debate they will make their stand. Will we fight on principle to the last breath, or will be capitulate and go with the flow as pragmatists before the fall? Will you refuse to move away from a public place on principle, or will you do as you are told by the peace officer?
From a legal perspective, and the judicial vehicle to which all citizens look for recourse in these debates, a peace officer is authorized, by appointment or commission, to exercise his training and judgment to effect security for the Public and for the State. If anyone refuses to do the bidding of a peace officer conducting State business and issuing a lawful order to a citizen, that person is subject to detention, search, and seizure. Period. If the person wishes to contest any of these actions, his only recourse is to the courts to prove that the peace officer unlawfully committed these acts.
It is a daunting process. Many have undertaken it, and we owe them, whether they were successful or not, thanks for their courage and principle. Whatever the outcome for them, it added rigour to the processes and value to the rights. Again, the principles are inscrutable and immutable.
Nowhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Amendments to the Constitution will you find the words "right to privacy"
From USConstitution.net:
"However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit."
However, while it may be your right to remain silent, it may not be pragmatic to refuse to answer a law enforcement officer's questions if he is conducting an investigation (as to what you are doing). It is also his right to ask those questions. But the only thing you must tell an officer is your name, address and date of birth before you have spoken to a lawyer. And my guess is if that's all you're willing to say, you will need a lawyer.
I agree with Selector's "principle vs. pragmatism" comparison. Not faced with either decision right now, I also tend to agree with Stein. I'm not sure taking railroad photos is an activity worth the trouble of getting myself arrested, hiring a lawyer and testing my "rights" in court. Others may well decide it is worth the trouble. Right now all this discussion about how we'd handle such a confrontation is hypothetical, as is the argument -- so until a forum member a can relate and document just such a legal test, I'll just sit back and wait for the verdict.
The above three posts pretty well sum up and organize this very tangled thread. As a former city Police Officer, I can say that I have booked many a person who said I couldn't. And there were never any reprecussions because I was always sure of my ground. And I was always polite.
But if any of you forum members do want to test your opinions, and report back to us, be sure to give us a thread title that will catch our attention. Use your imagination.
Steam Is King wrote:And why are you so sour on police? My son is an officer and they never try toi make up their own laws as you say. Where do you live where the police are so incompetent in applying the law? The D.A. lets them get awat with this? Is it the job of a newsman to correct police or just report on what they do?
Where? New York; North Carolina; Arizona; Montana; Colorado. I've seen it done time and time again, and not only to me, but to co-workers. It's not incompetence--it's an attitude that they'll push the issue now and deal with the consequences later.
When a police officer blocks access to a crime scene to news photographers but NOT to other citizens, that's wrong; when a police officer attempts to keep a news photographer from taking pictures of anything in plain sight, that's wrong; when one physically body-slams a 120 lb female reporter into a metal shipping container to keep her from asking LA's mayor questions, and then continues walking away as happened last week, that's wrong.
The law supports none of those actions, yet police officers do them routinely. And those are the simple, easy examples. Funny thing--if your son's been a cop for any length of time, I'll bet he's done one of the first two and thinks it was all right to do so. But it isn't, and that's what I mean about cops who make up their own laws in the field.
It is the job of a newsman to protect the rights of the press to do its job, certainly.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Steam Is King wrote:And why are you so sour on police? My son is an officer and they never try toi make up their own laws as you say. Where do you live where the police are so incompetent in applying the law? The D.A. lets them get awat with this? Is it the job of a newsman to correct police or just report on what they do? I am not "sour on police" as a whole, but only those who attempt to exceed their authority. Where? New York; North Carolina; Arizona; Montana; Colorado. I've seen it done time and time again, and not only to me, but to co-workers. It's not incompetence--it's an attitude that they'll push the issue now and deal with the consequences later. When a police officer blocks access to a crime scene to news photographers but NOT to other citizens, that's wrong; when a police officer attempts to keep a news photographer from taking pictures of anything in plain sight, that's wrong; when one physically body-slams a 120 lb female reporter into a metal shipping container to keep her from asking LA's mayor questions, and then continues walking away as happened last week, that's wrong. The law supports none of those actions, yet police officers do them routinely. And those are the simple, easy examples. Funny thing--if your son's been a cop for any length of time, I'll bet he's done one of the first two and thinks it was all right to do so. But it isn't, and that's what I mean about cops who make up their own laws in the field. It is the job of a newsman to protect the rights of the press to do its job, certainly.
How can you make such an accusation about my son when you do not even knowhim? I thought news men were supposed to be neiutral but you show a definite bias aginstpolice. How can you do your job properly with this attiude and stereotypes?You should be ashamed to call yourself a newsman. What if I said all news people will write anything to be snsational and not worry about peoples feelings? That you use things that are supposed to be off the record too, and that you've done both and justified it by saying it was part of doing your job? Have you even violated a person's pivacy? I'll bet you have and don't even care for their rights. Have you ever stuck a microphone in a victims face after a disaster and asked them how they feel after their kids die in a fire and justify it by telling yourself that that's part of your job to intrude and be pushy? I watch a loty of TV news since my stroke and if that's the kind of newsman you are then I'll take my son any day over you. The media has no conscience if it comes to either trampling someones rights or not getting a story at all. At least there's a system in place to make sure the police do their jobs right. No one supervises news people and I find that very scary. Who publicizes when you people get out of line? No one because you all stick together. The first amendment doesn;'t give you the right to do whatever you want in the name of journalism. No, you can destroy anyone you want and claim its part of your job. What recourse do people wronged by the media have? Sensational headlines to burn people first, then any retractions get buried. Same with TV news -- when was the last time they retracted a story? Our TV news is nothing more than a bunch of stories stolen out of the morning newspapers anyway.
By the way you did it again. Why can't you answer the question? What was wrong with the definition of *press* that was offered? All you did was pickout something else you could respond to every time and ignore good points being made aginst you. We'll see if you respond to this posting
I would have to agree with Steam is King on that note (Nice post by the way) But you do point out a good point Midnight, as well as King. Yes, there are rude and mean cops in the world. They think they are "King of the road" and go 20 MPH over the speed limit, with no reason, and yes, they can get way overeactive in police chases. Can you imagine yourself being attacked by 10 200 LB men? But, that doesnt mean that all cops are that way, after all, I have many friends that are cops. Cops are like people, there are good and bad, and you dont know if this guys son is good or bad, but its not your place to judge. Its like saying Im mean or rude after only seeing a few of my posts.
IRONROOSTER wrote: I'm not advocating giving the police officer a hard time. Once he shows up you should do whatever seems reasonable at the time to avoid making the situation worse, as noted above, you are in a precarious situation. Afterwards you can file a complaint, contact the news, post online, etc, whatever, seems appropriate.Nor am I advocating ignoring illegal activity such as placing a large object on the rails - I would call 911, myself, if I observed that.Certainly, people can act suspicously, but taking pictures is not, per se, a suspicous activity. Sure, if I'm standing around a gas tank farm at 1 am with an AK47, a bundle of dynamite, wearing sunglasses, taking pictures - I would expect the police to show up and investigate. But if I am standing on a public sidewalk at noon taking pictures of a train, I should not be questioned.If we don't champion our rights then little by little they fade away.
But if you are standing on a sidewalk, near a volatile industrial complex or rail yard and are questioned..........what rights are being violated? None. If you're put into a car, hauled away somewhere and interrogated, then yes that is a problem.
No disrespect to you, but your comment: "I should not be questioned" sounds arrogant. This issue is not new, just more visible today because of Sept. 11th. As I stated earlier about that train wreck: Those teens were likely dressed in jeans and t-shirts. If someone had stopped and "Questioned them", then it's likely that a locomotive would not have flipped over on its side a short while later, and two hard working men would not have had to take a trip to the hospital!!
IE: In 1978 I was questioned by an SCL railroad yardmaster while looking at switching operations at Tampa Yard away from the tracks. I told him that I was a railfan. Apparently kids had been tampering with freight car mechanisms. So me being 15 years old then certainly commanded some attention. After a 2 minute conversation.....that was it.
BTW: A person "casing" a business or home with plans to commit a crime won't likely be armed with an AK47 or dynamite. He or she is likely unarmed and dressed like everyone else.
Steam Is King wrote:How can you make such an accusation about my son when you do not even knowhim? I thought news men were supposed to be neiutral but you show a definite bias aginstpolice. How can you do your job properly with this attiude and stereotypes?You should be ashamed to call yourself a newsman.
Perhaps your son has never done what I said "I'd bet" he's done; if so, he could give lessons to other members of the law enforcement community who have.
Steam Is King wrote:What was wrong with the definition of *press* that was offered?
Who keeps the press accountable?
The people. If they don't watch or read a particular source, it will eventually go away for lack of revenue.
But, hey, thanks for your rant. I hope you feel better, having written it all down.
Loitering tends to be illegal in many places, which is what railfanning would look like to many a casual glancer, especially if there are multiple people. The police have a duty to investigate if they see illegal activity and in the case of loitering it is usually just a move-along order. In my experience, if you are nice to the police they are nice back. Tell them you are railfanning and offer up the reasons why you like that spot and they will understand. Next time they pass they may offer up a friendly wave or hello.
The last run in I had with the police (state trooper, actually), I was parked on the side of a rural road near NS tracks and it went basically: Do you need help? No thanks, I'm watching trains. Understood, have a great time.
I equate this Rights waving in an analogy to the mailman: How would you react if you saw someone yelling at the mailman for trespassing and that is Right of property has been trampled upon (literally, I suppose).
Nice. Really nice. Never met the guy but you're pretty sure he's exceeded his authority? Are you a reporter? Because if you have ANYTHING to do with reporting ANY facts to anybody, I would seriously question your ability to put biases aside and report the facts. In your ranting against he police (I'm sorry, only those who exceed their authority, right?) you reveal a bias that taints just about everything you talk about. You've even managed to assume that somebody's kid is guilty of exceeding his authority just because he is a cop.
Let me guess - news reporters are sainted souls that keep us from losing our 'rights' as Americans, right? If wasn't for them, we'd be hauling 600 lb. blocks of concrete on our backs in servitude to an over-reaching government? Hardly. The media has bad apples in it, just like every other job in the history of the world. I would hardly hold it to any kind of a sainted status. In fact, some of them love to prey on the weak, if it means a good story. In fact, I sometimes wonder if some of them aren't really just idiots that get a paycheck because they are willing to be idiots.
Case in point:
A construction crane collapsed during during the construction of Miller Park. It was devastating to the project, and resulted in the loss of three lives. The police chief (he was probably guilty of exceeding his authority here because he was a cop) had just reveiwed the accident scene and was now taking questions from one of our crack Milwaukee news reporters.
Reporter to police chief: What happened?
Police chief: We are investigating that along with OSHA.
Reporter: Did the crane fall down?
Police Chief: Yes.
Reporter: How do you feel?
Police Chief: It is a devastating loss for Milwaukee and the families involved.
Reporter: Did you see any bodies?
Police Cheif: What? Next question....
And so it continued on and on like this for the next 10 minutes. I couldn't believe how completely idiotic the questions were.
While working on a high rise in downtown Milwaukee, I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing another accident that resulted in the death of an ironworker. A large I-Beam slipped out of the sling from ten stories up and fell to the yard below, crushing a man. The call to 911 went out, and since the news agencies scan the emergency channels, a camerman BEAT THE POLICE AND EMTS to the scene. He promptly plopped his camera down about 20' away and began filming the whole affair, including the body of the deceased man. I haven't seen a more crass, deplorable idiot then that day. Even in death the man had to have a camera shoved in his face. I wish the cops would have thrown that 120 lb. idiot up INTO a metal shipping container and then shipped it to Siberia. Of course, when the police showed up and tried to establish a police line that prevented that knobshine from filming his little snuff video, he spouted a bunch of garbage about his 'right' as a reporter to bring the news to the poeple - by shooting footage that never would be allowed to air on TV. To sum it all up-some 'reporters' feel that their 'rights' to be reporters trump the rights of everyone else just because they are reporters.
Have they exceeded their authority?
solzrules wrote:(I'm sorry, only those who exceed their authority, right?)
solzrules wrote:He promptly plopped his camera down about 20' away and began filming the whole affair, including the body of the deceased man. I haven't seen a more crass, deplorable idiot then that day. Even in death the man had to have a camera shoved in his face. I wish the cops would have thrown that 120 lb. idiot up INTO a metal shipping container and then shipped it to Siberia.
And again, thank you for your rant. I'm sure, you, too, feel better now.
AntonioFP45 wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: I'm not advocating giving the police officer a hard time. Once he shows up you should do whatever seems reasonable at the time to avoid making the situation worse, as noted above, you are in a precarious situation. Afterwards you can file a complaint, contact the news, post online, etc, whatever, seems appropriate.Nor am I advocating ignoring illegal activity such as placing a large object on the rails - I would call 911, myself, if I observed that.Certainly, people can act suspicously, but taking pictures is not, per se, a suspicous activity. Sure, if I'm standing around a gas tank farm at 1 am with an AK47, a bundle of dynamite, wearing sunglasses, taking pictures - I would expect the police to show up and investigate. But if I am standing on a public sidewalk at noon taking pictures of a train, I should not be questioned.If we don't champion our rights then little by little they fade away. But if you are standing on a sidewalk, near a volatile industrial complex or rail yard and are questioned..........what rights are being violated? None. If you're put into a car, hauled away somewhere and interrogated, then yes that is a problem. No disrespect to you, but your comment: "I should not be questioned" sounds arrogant. This issue is not new, just more visible today because of Sept. 11th. As I stated earlier about that train wreck: Those teens were likely dressed in jeans and t-shirts. If someone had stopped and "Questioned them", then it's likely that a locomotive would not have flipped over on its side a short while later, and two hard working men would not have had to take a trip to the hospital!! IE: In 1978 I was questioned by an SCL railroad yardmaster while looking at switching operations at Tampa Yard away from the tracks. I told him that I was a railfan. Apparently kids had been tampering with freight car mechanisms. So me being 15 years old then certainly commanded some attention. After a 2 minute conversation.....that was it. BTW: A person "casing" a business or home with plans to commit a crime won't likely be armed with an AK47 or dynamite. He or she is likely unarmed and dressed like everyone else.
You continue to equate lawful activity - taking pictures - with unlawful activity - placing an object on the railroad capable of derailing a train. These are not equivalent actions and should not be handled in the same way.
Questioning by police without cause is an invasion of privacy - engaging in lawful activity is not just cause. Privacy is a right generally conceded to be Constitutionally protected. My desire to have my rights does not seem like arrogance to me, but then tastes differ.
BTW - I would hope that we never arrive at a point that everyone we see should be assumed to be planning a crime.
Not equating it at all. BTW: I am a shutterbug myself. I have oodles of railroad related photos taken with my trusty old Olympus OM-1.
When those teens were standing near those tracks, on the public property they weren't engaged in illegal activity either........until they fetched the object and set it upon the rails. So would it have been wrong for a police or RR security person to question them as to why they were just "hanging around" near the tracks on public property? Just that alone may have deterred them from committing the crime that occurred afterwards.
Point I was making was that illegal or not, there is NOTHING wrong with questioning a person regarding his/her activity.
If I see a man standing in the street in front of my home with a camera for an extended time period I'm going to walk up to him and ask him "calmly" what's going on, fully knowing that it's legal for him to be there. I'm going to question him anyway. If he's got nothing to hide, then he won't bark "Hey, I have the right to be here! You can't question me. The U.S Constitution states yada-yada-yada..........."
If someone's standing in front of a public school on a public sidewalk and is taking photographs of the school building, would security or the police be wrong in asking him what he was up to? I think not, even if the guy turns out to be an architecture hobbyist.
So why should it be any different for the railroad or any other transport industry? I worked for the bus industry before and can tell you that transit companies are even more worried than the Class 1 railroads since transit buses and commuter trains are incredibly easy targets for mayhem. Do you remember 4/11 Spain? London's subway and bus attacks? So many of us are still asleep and convinced it won't happen in the U.S.
Is everyone a potential criminal? Of coruse not, but it baffles me why some of us choose to be hyper-sensitive because companies, public entities and law enforcement are excercising caution in a post-911 world. Cautions that so many of us are demanding of our leadership.
It's ironic that when some criminal activity does occur, especially sabotage, what is the first thing most of us do? Criticize the police, security, company, government, etc, for not being vigilant enough. So, they're cursed at when they do, cursed at when they don't.
Midnight Railroader wrote:I am a human being. Every person on this planet has feelings and biases. My goal is to keep them out of my professional work, not to attempt to have no opinions at all, which would be impossible. Perhaps your son has never done what I said "I'd bet" he's done; if so, he could give lessons to other members of the law enforcement community who have.
But You have not kept your biases out of this discussion in which you hav identified yourself as newman and are speaking as one. You can't have both sides of the street based on what;'s convient for you at the time. And your comment about my son "giving lessons" is very smarmy and disrespectful.
Midnight Railroader wrote:What's wrong with it is that it fails to acknowledge, that, according to a survey released last week, for example, most people say they get their news from an online source now. Therefore, any definition that does not include an online component is unrealistic, because online journalism is clearly a driving force.
Who published that survey, since you are so adamant about others providing there sources? Maybe people do go online for thweir news but it is from websites done by newsopapers, etc. What legitimate news website is there not associated to a print publication or TV or radio station, whose primary function is NOT internet news? And most of these only pro=vide news from wire services like AP, which I can get anywhere even AOL. How do online news sites without any affiliation to legitimate print and broadcast outlets make enough revenue to pay large news gathering staffs? Answer -- they don;t.
Midnight Railroader wrote: Who keeps the press accountable?The people. If they don't watch or read a particular source, it will eventually go away for lack of revenue.
Also not true. you give yourself too much credit. Most TV and radio stations don't even do news at all. TV news has turnedinto a graphics-heavy MTV style joke that picks up most of it's stories from the network feed or daily newspapers. TV news ratings are down everyhwehre and there's a good reason. in most cases its not worth watching. people don't watch tv for news. its not that important
Midnight Railroader wrote: But, hey, thanks for your rant. I hope you feel better, having written it all down.
Why must you be so condescending to people? Must you always be a smarta**?
you still have probelms answering legitimate questions. when will you answwer this?:
steam is king wrote:What if I said all news people will write anything to be snsational and not worry about peoples feelings? That you use things that are supposed to be off the record too, and that you've done both and justified it by saying it was part of doing your job? Have you even violated a person's pivacy? I'll bet you have and don't even care for their rights. Have you ever stuck a microphone in a victims face after a disaster and asked them how they feel after their kids die in a fire and justify it by telling yourself that that's part of your job to intrude and be pushy? I watch a loty of TV news since my stroke and if that's the kind of newsman you are then I'll take my son any day over you. The media has no conscience if it comes to either trampling someones rights or not getting a story at all. At least there's a system in place to make sure the police do their jobs right. No one supervises news people and I find that very scary. Who publicizes when you people get out of line? No one because you all stick together. The first amendment doesn;'t give you the right to do whatever you want in the name of journalism. No, you can destroy anyone you want and claim its part of your job. What recourse do people wronged by the media have? Sensational headlines to burn people first, then any retractions get buried. Same with TV news -- when was the last time they retracted a story? Our TV news is nothing more than a bunch of stories stolen out of the morning newspapers anyway.
What if I said all news people will write anything to be snsational and not worry about peoples feelings? That you use things that are supposed to be off the record too, and that you've done both and justified it by saying it was part of doing your job? Have you even violated a person's pivacy? I'll bet you have and don't even care for their rights. Have you ever stuck a microphone in a victims face after a disaster and asked them how they feel after their kids die in a fire and justify it by telling yourself that that's part of your job to intrude and be pushy? I watch a loty of TV news since my stroke and if that's the kind of newsman you are then I'll take my son any day over you. The media has no conscience if it comes to either trampling someones rights or not getting a story at all. At least there's a system in place to make sure the police do their jobs right. No one supervises news people and I find that very scary. Who publicizes when you people get out of line? No one because you all stick together. The first amendment doesn;'t give you the right to do whatever you want in the name of journalism. No, you can destroy anyone you want and claim its part of your job. What recourse do people wronged by the media have? Sensational headlines to burn people first, then any retractions get buried. Same with TV news -- when was the last time they retracted a story? Our TV news is nothing more than a bunch of stories stolen out of the morning newspapers anyway.
I'm not going to respond to a rant full of accusatory questions and inflammatory statements.
Midnight Railroader wrote: I'm not going to respond to a rant full of accusatory questions and inflammatory statements.
then whats this?
midnight railroader wrote:When a police officer blocks access to a crime scene to news photographers but NOT to other citizens, that's wrong; when a police officer attempts to keep a news photographer from taking pictures of anything in plain sight, that's wrong; when one physically body-slams a 120 lb female reporter into a metal shipping container to keep her from asking LA's mayor questions, and then continues walking away as happened last week, that's wrong. The law supports none of those actions, yet police officers do them routinely. And those are the simple, easy examples. Funny thing--if your son's been a cop for any length of time, I'll bet he's done one of the first two and thinks it was all right to do so. But it isn't, and that's what I mean about cops who make up their own laws in the field.
Once again.... THIS is why you get questioned when you are out hanging around with your camera at the railroad tracks::: Ready??? It's Scenario Time!!!
(Setting, a 9-1-1 Center in any town with a railroad running through it, next to a residential neighborhood, office building, factory, school, busy public street, or..well, you get the point. Phone rings, and Operator picks it up)
Operator: "9-1-1 What is your emergency?"
Concerned Citizen Caller: "Hi, it's not really an emergency, but, I live along the tracks on Burlington Ave, and there is a man there, with a camera taking pictures, I don't know what he's doing there, can you guys check him out?"
Operator: "Well, ma'am, can you tell me what he looks like, and what he is doing?"
CCC: "Well he's just standing there, you know, and it makes me nervous. Why would anyone stand along the tracks with a camera, it doesn't look right to me"
Operator: "Ma'am can you describe him?"
CCC: "Well, he's tall, he has a dark shirt on and jeans...I think he has brown hair too, and glasses. Can you please come over here please? He keeps going back to his car, and then comes back to the tracks, and he has a small box with an antenna on it, and well, it looks odd, you know?"
Operator "What kind of car, ma'am?"
CCC: "A big, black, SUV, I don't know cars, so I can't tell what kind. I can't see the license plate either."
Operator: "Okay ma'am we will send an officer out"
Call is concluded, and the operator puts the call in the computer system sends it to the dispatcher. Trust me, this is how it happens. Maybe as an Operator I kind of knew that the "suspicious" person would be photographer of sorts..... The point here is: A request by a citizen was made to Law Enforcement to check out a suspicious subject... To that person, someone who is doing something they don't understand is suspicious. Once that call is made, especially to 9-1-1 we are required to send a response, regardless of how trivial, stupid, or "crazy" we think the call is. The police officer who shows up is going generally stop and get out of the car, and just ask you what you are doing. It serves a purpose: The citizen sees the officer pull up, deal with the situation, and the calls stop, the officer is satisfied, and the happy railfan gets to continue to take pictures...... no harm, no foul. Duties fulfilled. Happy Citizen. Happy Railfan? Well, it depends on his reaction, doesn't it?
Cooperating with an officer who questions you is not "giving up your rights" I don't see it that way.
Now, if the above call is ignored, because as the operator, I think I "know" what is going on, then the above Concerned Citizen Caller will call, and call, and call....eventually talking to my superiors because no action was taken. Then if that happened, I would be in the watch commander's office, explaining my telepathic/psychic abilities....... how far do you think I would get with that??
I am so glad I no longer do that line of work......
Midnight Railroader wrote: solzrules wrote:(I'm sorry, only those who exceed their authority, right?) Correct. Because society could not function without law enforcement officers, and I have great respect for the profession and those who would choose to put their lives in danger for a paycheck.
And yet you just got done claiming in a prior post to Steam is King that his son probably was guilty of creating his own laws since he was a cop. That isn't biased? And you expect me to believe that you, as a sainted member of our print media, keep such biases out of your news business? You had trouble keeping that out of a trains forum.
Midnight Railroader wrote: solzrules wrote:He promptly plopped his camera down about 20' away and began filming the whole affair, including the body of the deceased man. I haven't seen a more crass, deplorable idiot then that day. Even in death the man had to have a camera shoved in his face. I wish the cops would have thrown that 120 lb. idiot up INTO a metal shipping container and then shipped it to Siberia.The law allows him to take those pictures, whether or not you approve, and throwing him into a metal shipping container would be assault, whether or not you think that's a good way to deal with the situation.
The law allows him to take those pictures, whether or not you approve, and throwing him into a metal shipping container would be assault, whether or not you think that's a good way to deal with the situation.
Really? That would be illegal? Wow. Thanks for the info, I guess I'll stop doing that to reporters from now on. I think you missed my point a little bit. It was that some moral decency may dictate that taking pictures of a man crushed by an I-beam is not going to make the evening news, and therefore, not necessary. Suffice it to say, the guy could have just reported that a man was killed. No, we had to have live video of the scene, as if that would somehow reinforced the idea he was dead. Footage that isn't necessary, but taken just because they can. I lost what little respect I had for the news channel in question. After learning the mentality behind the camera, I have even less respect for them now.
Not yet. My beer is warm and I have to go to work again tonight. But I'll get over it. Your lack of sensible answers to some of the other folks' questions on this forum is kind of funny, so in a way, you're helping me have a better day. Thanks, dude.
da Milwaukee beerNut wrote:Very well written, Tim. Only inflammation I read was the "suspicion" of the caller!
I did 9-1-1 for 11 of the 15 years I was in Public Safety, believe me, people think that way, and they will call for any reason....Sometimes, all it takes is someone walking or driving through the neighborhood that is unfamiliar to any given resident of that neighborhood.... The last place I worked 9-1-1 at, we took at least a dozen if not more, "suspicious person" calls a shift...
solzrules wrote: And you expect me to believe that you, as a sainted member of our print media, keep such biases out of your news business? You had trouble keeping that out of a trains forum.
But I am allowed to express an opinion here, which is not part of my work, and I do that as well.
Let's lighten this up a wee bit. At least for me this was funny...
On my way back from visiting my Mother in Florida in 1992 I stopped at a Georgia Motel for the night. I always had to stop early in the afternoon to be sure I could get a non-smoking room (this was back when that was a very rare thing and most motels had a limited number of such rooms). When I got to the room, I discovered that the "FREE CABLE TV" was nothing but a bunch of "Shopping channels"! Well, that was the pits.
Then I heard a train horn! Wow, it was close. So, I grabbed my new hat... one that I got at Disney World... one of those Australian Outback one-side-of-the-brim-pinned-to-the-crown touristy thingys. It had the "one-of-a-kind" gold collector's pins on the front of the crown.
I was wearing dark blue pants and light blue shirt and hanging from my belt I had a rather large (by today's standards) old style cell phone on one side in a black woven nylon holster and a "Mag-Lite" (tm) flashlight in a black woven nylon holster on the other. Being as that I am also one of the original computer "Nerds", I had my pocket protector in my pocket with the "badge" pocket on the outside with my photo ID from work (shouldn't have been wearing it, but force of 30 or so years habit was hard to overcome!).
By the time I found the railroad track, in a trench, not far from the motel, the train was gone. I went out onto the state highway/city street in front of the Motel and down about a block to a bridge over the track, in hopes of seeing another train.
I went out on the sidewalk of the bridge and leaned on the ornate stone/concrete railing. While waiting for a train I started to watch the considerable automobile traffic on the bridge. After about 30 minutes, I began to notice a LOT of "city" Police cars going by. I started to mentally note the car numbers and there were about 8 of them that went by repeatedly... about 1 every 30 to 45 seconds! First one way, then the other. Round and round they went... 3 or 4 of them in visual range at any one time. Some of the cars had just a driver, some had two officers in them. None of the officers ever looked at me; they always looked straight forward. I even nodded to them or gave a nonchalant wave, but they did not respond.
Then I saw a carload of teenagers. The kid in the passenger seat in front smiled and gave a half-hearted wave to me. One of the kids in the back seat slid WAY down in the seat with both hands over his face, peaking out at me between two fingers! I truly did not understand what was happening at that moment, so I leaned over just slightly to see into the car a bit better and looked right at the kid. He promptly disappeared onto the floor in the backseat, as the driver sped away.
When I straightened up there were two Police officers, on foot, headed my way from the far end of the bridge; one I assumed was a Patrolman and the other was obviously NOT just a Patrolman... he carried himself in a manner that definitely identified him has someone a bit more important. They were both moving quite "briskly". About 20 feet from me the Patrolman suddenly brought himself up short and got a really odd grin on his face, covered his face with one hand and turned toward the street, rubbing his nose with the index finger.
As the other "Officer" continued toward me, I glanced behind me to see if there was some else in the area that he might be wanting to see.
The Patrolman was now facing me again, and his "smirk" was clearly visible. I do believe I have never seen someone's mouth have such an odd outline. Obviously stifling an outright burst of laughter, mixed with a look of fear for his job, or at least a severe dressing down in the Chief's office.
When the Officer was just a few feet from me he spoke...
"Listen here; I don't like it when you do this sort of thing without..."
Only then did he REALLY look "at" me.
"What are you doing here?"
"I was hoping to see a train." I said, half in fear and half in mirth as I kind'a pointed at the track below. (I was just beginning to recognize what was happening.)
"Oh." And he turned and walked away, met up with the Patrolman and they got into a car (non-police, that I could tell) parked just off the bridge, backed out into traffic and left.
I waited around another hour or so. There were no trains so I went back to the motel room. Upon closeing the door, I heard another train. I was tired so I watched all 6 of shopping channels for all of about 30 seconds total, turned off the TV, and went to sleep. When I left in the morning, there was a city Police car parked at the end of the Motel parking lot and it followed me to the Interstate as I left town.
I do believe I apparently looked like a County Sheriff or State Trooper on a stakeout or something. However, I can't help but wonder if they have so little fashion sense as to wear a dark blue and light blue uniform and then put on a tan/khaki Australian Outback hat!?!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo wrote:Let's lighten this up a wee bit. At least for me this was funny...On my way back from visiting my Mother in Florida in 1992 I stopped at a Georgia Motel for the night. I always had to stop early in the afternoon to be sure I could get a non-smoking room (this was back when that was a very rare thing and most motels had a limited number of such rooms). When I got to the room, I discovered that the "FREE CABLE TV" was nothing but a bunch of "Shopping channels"! Well, that was the pits.Then I heard a train horn! Wow, it was close. So, I grabbed my new hat... one that I got at Disney World... one of those Australian Outback one-side-of-the-brim-pinned-to-the-crown touristy thingys. It had the "one-of-a-kind" gold collector's pins on the front of the crown.I was wearing dark blue pants and light blue shirt and hanging from my belt I had a rather large (by today's standards) old style cell phone on one side in a black woven nylon holster and a "Mag-Lite" (tm) flashlight in a black woven nylon holster on the other. Being as that I am also one of the original computer "Nerds", I had my pocket protector in my pocket with the "badge" pocket on the outside with my photo ID from work (shouldn't have been wearing it, but force of 30 or so years habit was hard to overcome!).By the time I found the railroad track, in a trench, not far from the motel, the train was gone. I went out onto the state highway/city street in front of the Motel and down about a block to a bridge over the track, in hopes of seeing another train.I went out on the sidewalk of the bridge and leaned on the ornate stone/concrete railing. While waiting for a train I started to watch the considerable automobile traffic on the bridge. After about 30 minutes, I began to notice a LOT of "city" Police cars going by. I started to mentally note the car numbers and there were about 8 of them that went by repeatedly... about 1 every 30 to 45 seconds! First one way, then the other. Round and round they went... 3 or 4 of them in visual range at any one time. Some of the cars had just a driver, some had two officers in them. None of the officers ever looked at me; they always looked straight forward. I even nodded to them or gave a nonchalant wave, but they did not respond.Then I saw a carload of teenagers. The kid in the passenger seat in front smiled and gave a half-hearted wave to me. One of the kids in the back seat slid WAY down in the seat with both hands over his face, peaking out at me between two fingers! I truly did not understand what was happening at that moment, so I leaned over just slightly to see into the car a bit better and looked right at the kid. He promptly disappeared onto the floor in the backseat, as the driver sped away.When I straightened up there were two Police officers, on foot, headed my way from the far end of the bridge; one I assumed was a Patrolman and the other was obviously NOT just a Patrolman... he carried himself in a manner that definitely identified him has someone a bit more important. They were both moving quite "briskly". About 20 feet from me the Patrolman suddenly brought himself up short and got a really odd grin on his face, covered his face with one hand and turned toward the street, rubbing his nose with the index finger.As the other "Officer" continued toward me, I glanced behind me to see if there was some else in the area that he might be wanting to see.The Patrolman was now facing me again, and his "smirk" was clearly visible. I do believe I have never seen someone's mouth have such an odd outline. Obviously stifling an outright burst of laughter, mixed with a look of fear for his job, or at least a severe dressing down in the Chief's office.When the Officer was just a few feet from me he spoke..."Listen here; I don't like it when you do this sort of thing without..."Only then did he REALLY look "at" me."What are you doing here?""I was hoping to see a train." I said, half in fear and half in mirth as I kind'a pointed at the track below. (I was just beginning to recognize what was happening.)"Oh." And he turned and walked away, met up with the Patrolman and they got into a car (non-police, that I could tell) parked just off the bridge, backed out into traffic and left.I waited around another hour or so. There were no trains so I went back to the motel room. Upon closeing the door, I heard another train. I was tired so I watched all 6 of shopping channels for all of about 30 seconds total, turned off the TV, and went to sleep. When I left in the morning, there was a city Police car parked at the end of the Motel parking lot and it followed me to the Interstate as I left town.I do believe I apparently looked like a County Sheriff or State Trooper on a stakeout or something. However, I can't help but wonder if they have so little fashion sense as to wear a dark blue and light blue uniform and then put on a tan/khaki Australian Outback hat!?!
Great story and a very good way to end this thread!! PLEASE
But I got another one!
I was watching trains at Beverly Yard one evening when a County Sheriff pulled up along side me (driving on the wrong side of the road!) to get our driver's side windows adjacent.
I rolled my window down and he asked: "Have you seen anyone around here with a gun?"
Don't think my head didn't do a lot of swivelin' around in a big hurry!
"No, I haven't." I said.
"Keep a look out and let us know if you do."
He then left. I was about to decide to leave also, when I saw a train coming so I watched it come up. It stopped and pushed some cars into the yard. I figured I stick around and kind of watch over the Conductor as he did the switching.
But my head was still swivelin' around a lot! (Wonder if I worried the Engineer with my wild-eyed looking around?)
Just after they left, the Sheriff was back.
"Thought I'd let you know. We got a call of someone with a gun down at the train yards. Turns out it was a man outside the 'Union Station' bar up on 16th. Hope we didn't worry you too much."
And he drove away. (16th is about 2 miles north and the bar is then about 1 mile east.)
Just curious:
Why if one of the 42,211 forum members dislikes a thread or topic does he/she feel compelled to post in that thread an order plea request for that thread to end, for people to stop posting to it? If the topic or discussion is so painful, why do they keep reading?
Sometimes it takes a heated discussion -- within the boundaries of proper decorum -- to warm up the brain cells.
If I don't like a particular thread, I simply ignore it. Lord knows, there are plenty of those.
So what goes?
Poppa_Zit wrote:Just curious:Why if one of the 42,211 forum members dislikes a thread or topic does he/she feel compelled to post in that thread an order plea request for that thread to end, for people to stop posting to it? If the topic or discussion is so painful, why do they keep reading?Sometimes it takes a heated discussion -- within the boundaries of proper decorum -- to warm up the brain cells.If I don't like a particular thread, I simply ignore it. Lord knows, there are plenty of those.So what goes?
Key words being "within the boundaries of proper decorum". Lord knows we have not had a lot of those!!
I chatted with a Sergeant of Patrol for the Oshkosh, WI Police Department last night. I asked him if they (OPD) had any trouble or issues with trains/railfans. His reply:"We have standing instruction from the CN that any persons on the ROW for their tracks are to be cited for trespassing. Typically we give warnings, but if the person got beligerent and refused to cooperate would we possibly take further action such as a summons or citation. Our officers will ask a person alongside the ROW what they are doing if a call comes in to dispatch, that's Standard Operating Procedure. To date we've only issued summons in 2 incidents where people were observed riding the steps of railcars. I don't believe that any have been issued for taking pictures of trains from public property. We've gotten calls asking us to send an officer to 'check something out' that has turned out to be railfans pursuing their hobby in a safe and legal fashion. They've always cooperated that I've heard."
Looks like I'm in good shape!
Are you a representative of the liberal "drive-by media" we are warned about by conservative AM talk radio?
Poppa_Zit wrote: Just curious:Why if one of the 42,211 forum members dislikes a thread or topic does he/she feel compelled to post in that thread an order plea request for that thread to end, for people to stop posting to it? If the topic or discussion is so painful, why do they keep reading?Sometimes it takes a heated discussion -- within the boundaries of proper decorum -- to warm up the brain cells.If I don't like a particular thread, I simply ignore it. Lord knows, there are plenty of those.So what goes?
PZ, as usual, you hit the nail right on the head. I couldn't have said it better myself.
An "expensive model collector"
Good stories Semper. Reminds me of one I have told here a while back...
My dad and I were on the last legs of a multistate railfanning adventure and had just pulled up to the Pepper st. overpass at the end of the SP West Colton Departure yard. We were still in the car when this cop shows up. First he parked about 50 yards behind us and sat there a few minuets. Eventually he pulled right up to our car, got out and slowly approached us, looking everywhere but at us. He comes up to my window, so I roll it down to see what he wants. Still paying us little attention he casually asked if we had seen anything suspicious. For those not familiar with this location there is usually no lack of suspicious activity of some sort or another within eyesight.
Now at this point the wise thing to say would probably have been no and let it go at that. But no, I couldn't resist being a wise --- so I replied,"As the matter of fact yes I have. The last train through had 2 UP engines pulling it" (this was pre merger when UPs were rather rare in West Colton). The cop turned and looked me straight in the eye as if I were from another planet. After about 5 seconds he turned around and walked back to his car shakeing his head. It was all we could do to keep from laughing our --- off.
chad thomas wrote:Good stories Semper. Reminds me of one I have told here a while back... My dad and I were on the last legs of a multistate railfanning adventure and had just pulled up to the Pepper st. overpass at the end of the SP West Colton Departure yard. We were still in the car when this cop shows up. First he parked about 50 yards behind us and sat there a few minuets. Eventually he pulled right up to our car, got out and slowly approached us, looking everywhere but at us. He comes up to my window, so I roll it down to see what he wants. Still paying us little attention he casually asked if we had seen anything suspicious. For those not familiar with this location there is usually no lack of suspicious activity of some sort or another within eyesight. Now at this point the wise thing to say would probably have been no and let it go at that. But no, I couldn't resist being a wise --- so I replied,"As the matter of fact yes I have. The last train through had 2 UP engines pulling it" (this was pre merger when UPs were rather rare in West Colton). The cop turned and looked me straight in the eye as if I were from another planet. After about 5 seconds he turned around and walked back to his car shakeing his head. It was all we could do to keep from laughing our --- off.
Great story! I am glad we didn't end it. Happy pz?
Here's another...
This was just a month or so back. I was up on Hill 582 (Cajon Pass) one morning with my bro Joe. It was between trains and kind of quiet. We see this USFS cop come tearing it up along the #1 track. He spots us on the hill and races up to where we were at, jumps out of his rig and comes up and asked where the guy on the dune buggy went. Well I was trying to remember a dune buggy even comeing by when Joe blurts out "He went up that road" pointing tward Silverwood. The gets back in his truck and blasts out after him. When he left I asked Joe if I missed something cause I really didn't remember any dune buggys, or any other vehicles for that matter, going past us. Joe says "There wasn't any dune buggy". I asked him why he told the guy that he went that way and Joe says "Got rid of him didn't I".
chad thomas wrote: Here's another... This was just a month or so back. I was up on Hill 582 (Cajon Pass) one morning with my bro Joe. It was between trains and kind of quiet. We see this USFS cop come tearing it up along the #1 track. He spots us on the hill and races up to where we were at, jumps out of his rig and comes up and asked where the guy on the dune buggy went. Well I was trying to remember a dune buggy even comeing by when Joe blurts out "He went up that road" pointing tward Silverwood. The gets back in his truck and blasts out after him. When he left I asked Joe if I missed something cause I really didn't remember any dune buggys, or any other vehicles for that matter, going past us. Joe says "There wasn't any dune buggy". I asked him why he told the guy that he went that way and Joe says "Got rid of him didn't I".
Sorry, but thats not at all funny sending any official on a wild goose chase.
Well thats whatcha call 'ultimate political correctness'
Like all 2000 kids in a school MUST stop eating peanut butter because one unfortunate kid is allergic, or calling for everyone in a business to stop eating beef, chicken, eggs, and cheese so that the one ultra-vegan employee can feel guilt free.
Have fun with your trains
vsmith wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Just curious:Why if one of the 42,211 forum members dislikes a thread or topic does he/she feel compelled to post in that thread an order plea request for that thread to end, for people to stop posting to it? If the topic or discussion is so painful, why do they keep reading?Sometimes it takes a heated discussion -- within the boundaries of proper decorum -- to warm up the brain cells.If I don't like a particular thread, I simply ignore it. Lord knows, there are plenty of those.So what goes?Well thats whatcha call 'ultimate political correctness'
In my old neighborhood, we just called them "buttinskis".
Not that funny - but the stories here reminded me of one that really got me shaking in my boots. It was 1978, and my dad and I set out for a day of railfanning in Allentown PA. But on our way, we decided we would stop in Cedar Knoll NJ to take some pictures of the MRS1s and the Illinois Terminal ALCO switcher that had just been moved there. To get to where they were, you parked in a residential neighborhood and then "trespassed" (statute of limitations has run out on this one) by walking across a small field area and across the Morristown & Erie tracks. We took our pictures and got back in the car.
I'm driving... I'm seventeen at the time. A police car pulls up right on our tail. My dad yells at me to slow down (I was probably going 25 at the time). I slow down to 20. Cop is still there. I slow down to 15. Cop is still there.
Now another police car pulls up behind him.
I make a turn onto main road, and three police cars, lights flashing come racing at us from the other direction. The two cars behind us also put on their lights.
I pull over and five or six cops all come up. They ask what we were doing and they ask if they can search the car (which we let them of course, we had nothing to hide).
Turned out that a woman had been attacked in the field we crossed the day before and she reported it was a middle aged man and a teenager that attacked her.
The experience sucked for my dad and I, but when I heard what had happened, I understood why we were stopped (and in such a public manner).
Here's a good story of police getting a little antsy.....
In my younger years (about 17 years old at the time, I believe) I was out walking one evening on a country side road. I was by myself and it was quite dark out. As I was walking a patrol car blasted by me at a high rate of speed - so fast I didn't see the headlights until he was almost on me. He kept going. I thought to myself - man someone's gonna have a bad night. That cop was serious. So I kept walking. About 5 minutes later I approached an intersection. As I was about to turn and head for home (about a 1/4 of a mile away) another patrol car crossed the intersection heading the way I was turning. This time he slammed on the breaks, did a U-turn, and came right at me with the car. He stopped about 10 feet away and shined their large searchlight on me. I could see in the reflection of that searchlight the glint of his gun that was drawn and aimed at me over the driver side door. He ordered me to stop. Not wanting to assert my right to freely walk down the countryside lane at that particular moment, I complied. Within the space of 1 minute I counted 9 police cars from 4 different counties and the state trooper who were present in that intersection. I was patted down, placed in handcuffs, and locked inside the cop car. I was trying very hard not to laugh, because it seemed too surreal.
As I sat in the cop car, I began to have a little pain from the handcuffs that were on kinda tight. I decided maybe now was a good time to see what I had been arrested for (the cops said I was being detained - I guess with the guns and handcuffs I would call it an arrest). The cop looked at me kind of funny and said they had a report of a guy who beat his girlfriend almost to death - she was in critical condition in the hospital. They had tracked him on foot to the area I was walking in and they figured that I was him. So I continued to talk calmly with the officer. He asked me where I lived (I had no ID on me, which would have cleared this whole thing up immediately, by the way). I told him I was 17 and that I lived about a 1/4 a mile away. This immediately caught his attention and he began to ask my parents' names and so forth. I informed him that I had been out for a walk and that I was almost home. He began to talk to what I think was his supervisor over the radio. They agreed that I should be released and allowed to walk home. They talked some more and decided it would be best if the cop dropped me off at home and then talked to my parents about the situation. The cop was very apologetic and after explaining the situation to my parents and myself he was on his way. I think it wasn't too long after that they actually did catch the guy.
Just goes to show that if you aren't in the wrong, sooner or later they will figure it out. Then the good cops will be apologizing to you. And you'll feel better that they are doing their job in a very professional and thorough manner. Plus you get to brag at school that you got arrested at gunpoint!!!
solzrules wrote: Here's a good story of police getting a little antsy.....In my younger years (about 17 years old at the time, I believe) I was out walking one evening on a country side road. I was by myself and it was quite dark out. As I was walking a patrol car blasted by me at a high rate of speed - so fast I didn't see the headlights until he was almost on me. He kept going. I thought to myself - man someone's gonna have a bad night. That cop was serious. So I kept walking. About 5 minutes later I approached an intersection. As I was about to turn and head for home (about a 1/4 of a mile away) another patrol car crossed the intersection heading the way I was turning. This time he slammed on the breaks, did a U-turn, and came right at me with the car. He stopped about 10 feet away and shined their large searchlight on me. I could see in the reflection of that searchlight the glint of his gun that was drawn and aimed at me over the driver side door. He ordered me to stop. Not wanting to assert my right to freely walk down the countryside lane at that particular moment, I complied. Within the space of 1 minute I counted 9 police cars from 4 different counties and the state trooper who were present in that intersection. I was patted down, placed in handcuffs, and locked inside the cop car. I was trying very hard not to laugh, because it seemed too surreal. As I sat in the cop car, I began to have a little pain from the handcuffs that were on kinda tight. I decided maybe now was a good time to see what I had been arrested for (the cops said I was being detained - I guess with the guns and handcuffs I would call it an arrest). The cop looked at me kind of funny and said they had a report of a guy who beat his girlfriend almost to death - she was in critical condition in the hospital. They had tracked him on foot to the area I was walking in and they figured that I was him. So I continued to talk calmly with the officer. He asked me where I lived (I had no ID on me, which would have cleared this whole thing up immediately, by the way). I told him I was 17 and that I lived about a 1/4 a mile away. This immediately caught his attention and he began to ask my parents' names and so forth. I informed him that I had been out for a walk and that I was almost home. He began to talk to what I think was his supervisor over the radio. They agreed that I should be released and allowed to walk home. They talked some more and decided it would be best if the cop dropped me off at home and then talked to my parents about the situation. The cop was very apologetic and after explaining the situation to my parents and myself he was on his way. I think it wasn't too long after that they actually did catch the guy. Just goes to show that if you aren't in the wrong, sooner or later they will figure it out. Then the good cops will be apologizing to you. And you'll feel better that they are doing their job in a very professional and thorough manner. Plus you get to brag at school that you got arrested at gunpoint!!!
What a terrible experience, Solz! Based on the photo in your avatar, the stress has prematurely aged you.
Poppa_Zit wrote: solzrules wrote: Here's a good story of police getting a little antsy.....In my younger years (about 17 years old at the time, I believe) I was out walking one evening on a country side road. I was by myself and it was quite dark out. As I was walking a patrol car blasted by me at a high rate of speed - so fast I didn't see the headlights until he was almost on me. He kept going. I thought to myself - man someone's gonna have a bad night. That cop was serious. So I kept walking. About 5 minutes later I approached an intersection. As I was about to turn and head for home (about a 1/4 of a mile away) another patrol car crossed the intersection heading the way I was turning. This time he slammed on the breaks, did a U-turn, and came right at me with the car. He stopped about 10 feet away and shined their large searchlight on me. I could see in the reflection of that searchlight the glint of his gun that was drawn and aimed at me over the driver side door. He ordered me to stop. Not wanting to assert my right to freely walk down the countryside lane at that particular moment, I complied. Within the space of 1 minute I counted 9 police cars from 4 different counties and the state trooper who were present in that intersection. I was patted down, placed in handcuffs, and locked inside the cop car. I was trying very hard not to laugh, because it seemed too surreal. As I sat in the cop car, I began to have a little pain from the handcuffs that were on kinda tight. I decided maybe now was a good time to see what I had been arrested for (the cops said I was being detained - I guess with the guns and handcuffs I would call it an arrest). The cop looked at me kind of funny and said they had a report of a guy who beat his girlfriend almost to death - she was in critical condition in the hospital. They had tracked him on foot to the area I was walking in and they figured that I was him. So I continued to talk calmly with the officer. He asked me where I lived (I had no ID on me, which would have cleared this whole thing up immediately, by the way). I told him I was 17 and that I lived about a 1/4 a mile away. This immediately caught his attention and he began to ask my parents' names and so forth. I informed him that I had been out for a walk and that I was almost home. He began to talk to what I think was his supervisor over the radio. They agreed that I should be released and allowed to walk home. They talked some more and decided it would be best if the cop dropped me off at home and then talked to my parents about the situation. The cop was very apologetic and after explaining the situation to my parents and myself he was on his way. I think it wasn't too long after that they actually did catch the guy. Just goes to show that if you aren't in the wrong, sooner or later they will figure it out. Then the good cops will be apologizing to you. And you'll feel better that they are doing their job in a very professional and thorough manner. Plus you get to brag at school that you got arrested at gunpoint!!!What a terrible experience! Based on the photo in your avatar, the stress has prematurely aged you.
What a terrible experience! Based on the photo in your avatar, the stress has prematurely aged you.
solzrules wrote:What do you guys mean? I was a freshman when they took that picture!!!
How many years were you a freshman?
He just finished his sophomore year.
BTW, solz check your email.
ON FRIDAY AUGUST 3RD I WENT OUT RAILFANNING ALONG THE BNSF. I STARTED NEAR HOME AND WENT OLD ROUTE 66 FROM VICTORVILLE,OUT THRU BARSTOW AND ALL THE WAY TO AMBOY. I WAS FOLLOWING A FREIGHT ALL THE WAY FROM BARSTOW,AND I STOPPED TO TAKE SOME PICTURES ALONG THE WAY. WHEN I GOT TO AMBOY I WAVED TO THE CREW OF THE TRAIN I HAD BEEN FOLLOWING AND MADE THAT MY POINT OF RETURN. THE ENTIRE TRIP I HAD BEEN VERY VISIBLE AND WAS STAYING OFF THE RIGHT OF WAY. WHEN I WAS HEADED BACK TO BARSTOW,I STOPPED NEAR PISGAH TO TAKE SOME PICTURES OF SOME GP-30s THAT WERE IN THE SIDING WAITING FOR ANOTHER TRAIN. SO I HEADED BACK ONLY THINKING OF THE GREAT TIME I HAD WATCHING BNSF TRAINS ALL DAY. I WENT BACK INTO BARSTOW TO HAVE ONE LAST LOOK AT THE BARSTOW YARD,SO I PARKED MYSELF NEAR THE HUMP TRACKS NOT ON RAILROAD PROPERTY. I WAS ONLY THERE A FEW MINUTES WHEN THE BNSF POLICE SHOWED UP. TURNS OUT THEY HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR ME BECAUSE ONE OF THE RAILROAD CREWMAN HAD REPORTED ME FOLLOWING THERE TRAIN. THE BNSF POLICE OFFICER ALLREADY KNEW MY ADDRESS AS THEY HAD RUN THE PLATES ON MY TRUCK. THEY HAD BEEN TRYING TO FIND ME SINCE 11AM WOW!! ANY WAY MY SAVIOR WAS MY ID FROM THE BNSF PROGRAM FOR RAILFANS. AS I HAD REGISTERED AND I SHOWED THE OFFICER AND I DID SHOW HIM THE PICTURES I TOOK SO HE COULD CLEARLY SEE THAT I WAS NOT ON THERE PROPERTY. HE TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE HAVING A LOT OF BREAK INS TO RAILROAD EQUIPMENT ALONG THE TRACKS ,SO IF I SAW ANYTHING SUSPISIOUS TO REPORT IT RIGHT AWAY. SO WE BS FOR A LITTLE AND THEN HE SAID SEE YOU AGAIN, AND WITH THAT HE WENT ON HIS WAY. SO TO ME HE WAS REAL NICE AND UNDERSTANDING, A GOOD RR POLICE OFFICER.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.