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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
Smile, Stein
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
Paul
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.
"Lionel trains are the standard of the world" - Jousha Lionel Cowen
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.