Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights... Do you know of any laws that prohibit photographing things on private property from public property?
SUX V R40 Rider: If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights...
If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights...
Do you know of any laws that prohibit photographing things on private property from public property?
I've never heard of any. Have you?
richhotrain Diggwadd: Being young(28) and a railfan has resulted in me being stopped, searched, and questioned. I have been in the back of a cop car and had guns pointed at my head. Special thanks to my parents generation for taking this great nation and turning it into a police state with communists and religious fanatics dueling for power with no regard to how future generations are left to deal with it. Umm, let me break this to you as gently as possible. The 19 morons who hijacked planes on 9/11 were all under 28 years of age. Also, the Israeli Intelligence Agency has completed a study in which it has determined that the average age of an urban terrorist is between the ages of 22 and 25. Rich
Diggwadd: Being young(28) and a railfan has resulted in me being stopped, searched, and questioned. I have been in the back of a cop car and had guns pointed at my head. Special thanks to my parents generation for taking this great nation and turning it into a police state with communists and religious fanatics dueling for power with no regard to how future generations are left to deal with it.
Being young(28) and a railfan has resulted in me being stopped, searched, and questioned. I have been in the back of a cop car and had guns pointed at my head.
Special thanks to my parents generation for taking this great nation and turning it into a police state with communists and religious fanatics dueling for power with no regard to how future generations are left to deal with it.
Umm, let me break this to you as gently as possible. The 19 morons who hijacked planes on 9/11 were all under 28 years of age.
Also, the Israeli Intelligence Agency has completed a study in which it has determined that the average age of an urban terrorist is between the ages of 22 and 25.
Rich
And the morons who passed the Patriot act were all at least 30 year old. Don`t worry, I am sure your glorious Social Security and Medicaid entitlement programs will disappear to pay for DHS.
SUX V R40 Rider If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights...
Motley I agree with Rich. There absolutely no way the officers/security guards can know what our intentions are until they approach us and start asking questions, and ask us to leave. Back in July I went to the SunCor Oil Refinery here in Denver. I hopped out of my car and starting taking photos, within maybe 5 minutes a security guard in a vehicle drove up and yelled to me NO. I jumped back in my car, and drove to the other side of the facility. I stayed in my car, but rolled down the window and shot some more photos. Within about 10 minutes they drove by again and saw me. This time they were mad, pulled right next to my car, and told me if I don't leave the facility immediately then they will call the police and I will be arrested. Needless to say I left in a hurry. Before 9-11 no big deal. After 9-11 a very big deal.
I agree with Rich. There absolutely no way the officers/security guards can know what our intentions are until they approach us and start asking questions, and ask us to leave.
Back in July I went to the SunCor Oil Refinery here in Denver. I hopped out of my car and starting taking photos, within maybe 5 minutes a security guard in a vehicle drove up and yelled to me NO. I jumped back in my car, and drove to the other side of the facility. I stayed in my car, but rolled down the window and shot some more photos. Within about 10 minutes they drove by again and saw me. This time they were mad, pulled right next to my car, and told me if I don't leave the facility immediately then they will call the police and I will be arrested. Needless to say I left in a hurry.
Before 9-11 no big deal. After 9-11 a very big deal.
Were you on public property? If you were, is there a law prohibiting you from taking the photos? If not and if you were on public property the security officers had no authority or right to tell you no or threaten you in that manner. They violated your rights and you let them do it. This makes it harder for the rest of us to defend our rights from wanna-b-rent-a-cops who think they can throw their weight around on public property when no law exists prohibiting photography.
People have become way to passive and are way to willing to comply after 9/11 when someone like a security guard tells them no and threatens them. when they are on public property.
Why?
If you were on their property they were within their rights to tell you no. Or if there is a law prhohibiting photography of the facility then they may have been in their rights depending on their jurisdictional boundaries and their law enforcement capacity if you are on public property.
SUX V R40 Rider Bucyrus: SUX V R40 Rider: Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room. You can be detained, questioned, and released without any denial of due process because you have not been charged with a crime. If, however, based on their questioning, they believe you have committed a crime, they might arrest you. If they do arrest you, you will receive full due process including a court apperance. That may be, but if I am merely being detained for questioning and have not been arrested I have the right to leave at any time without answering any questions. A right I would certainly exercise with polite assertiveness. If arrested I have the right to an attorney and have the right to not say anything to law enforcement. Again 2 rights I would certainly exercise with absolute assertiveness and it may not be very polite if I know I have done nothing wrong. In fact the only words that would come out of my mouth, in a rude manner, is either attorney or I want my lawyer! I would say nothing more and nothing less. If I am not mistaken once a lawyer is requested law enforcement HAS TO STOP all questioning. And it is not illegal to be rude to law enforcement.
Bucyrus: SUX V R40 Rider: Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room. You can be detained, questioned, and released without any denial of due process because you have not been charged with a crime. If, however, based on their questioning, they believe you have committed a crime, they might arrest you. If they do arrest you, you will receive full due process including a court apperance.
SUX V R40 Rider: Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room.
Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room.
You can be detained, questioned, and released without any denial of due process because you have not been charged with a crime. If, however, based on their questioning, they believe you have committed a crime, they might arrest you. If they do arrest you, you will receive full due process including a court apperance.
That may be, but if I am merely being detained for questioning and have not been arrested I have the right to leave at any time without answering any questions. A right I would certainly exercise with polite assertiveness.
If arrested I have the right to an attorney and have the right to not say anything to law enforcement. Again 2 rights I would certainly exercise with absolute assertiveness and it may not be very polite if I know I have done nothing wrong. In fact the only words that would come out of my mouth, in a rude manner, is either attorney or I want my lawyer! I would say nothing more and nothing less. If I am not mistaken once a lawyer is requested law enforcement HAS TO STOP all questioning. And it is not illegal to be rude to law enforcement.
You have the right to an attorney and the right to not say anything, but you don’t have the right to leave at any time. I believe that some types of behavior during a police-questioning phase can amount to a crime, so they can arrest you just for that. Being rude or impolite might cross over into that area, but I am not sure. I am quite sure that walking away from them, or ignoring them would be a crime.
SUX V R40 RiderAnd it is not illegal to be rude to law enforcement.
True, but the old adage "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar" tends to apply here.
It is possible to be direct, and even assertive, without being rude or disrespectful. Most folks will respond negatively to such an approach - not just the police.
Engaging in pleasant conversation (if possible), displaying fan-type knowledge, and possibly even finding a common interest, will do wonders in defusing a potentially bad outcome.
After all, there are worse outcomes than being asked to move along.
We've discussed such interactions here many times. Invariably the answer ends up being to do as the officer asks and if need be take it up with the appropriate authorities at a less stressful time.
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...
Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room. You can be detained, questioned, and released without any denial of due process because you have not been charged with a crime. If, however, based on their questioning, they believe you have committed a crime, they might arrest you. If they do arrest you, you will receive full due process including a court apperance.
Bucyrus richhotrain: Most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities. Rich, It is very difficult to discuss this with you because you are debating against your idea of what I am saying rather than actually understanding my point. In the first place, I am not objecting to anything the cops will do. I am not saying that they are violating the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. That is what SUX V R40 Rider is saying. I don’t care about security at the Super Bowl. I am not against security. And yes I agree that most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day-to-day activities. All of the above have nothing to do with the point I have made here.
richhotrain: Most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities.
All of the above have nothing to do with the point I have made here.
OK, you are right in the sense that I am lumping you together with SUX. I will try to undo that.
If you will, restate your point.
Alton Junction
richhotrainMost of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities.
Rich,
It is very difficult to discuss this with you because you are debating against your idea of what I am saying rather than actually understanding my point.
In the first place, I am not objecting to anything the cops will do. I am not saying that they are violating the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. That is what SUX V R40 Rider is saying. I don’t care about security at the Super Bowl. I am not against security. And yes I agree that most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day-to-day activities.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
Bucyrus You are right that Homeland Security does not say that photography of trains is one of the signs of terrorism. But they do list, “Surveillance and Monitoring” as one of the seven signs of terrorism. Do you think that photography would not be included in surveillance and monitoring?
You are right that Homeland Security does not say that photography of trains is one of the signs of terrorism. But they do list, “Surveillance and Monitoring” as one of the seven signs of terrorism. Do you think that photography would not be included in surveillance and monitoring?
Most of the "signs of terrorism" can also be legitimate day to day activities.
I can ask a uniformed station agent at a downtown passenger station how long it takes to reach my suburban train station. That "inquiry" technically falls under the second sign of terrorism.
I can buy a bag of fertilizer at the local nursery. That, technically, falls under the fourth sign, "acquiring supplies".
When an excursion train pulled by a steam engine runs through the countryside, railfans photographing and videotaping along the way are, arguably, conducting "surveillance" except, of course, they are not.
In the video, the senior citizen is standing on a sidewalk on an overpass with binoculars. From a "profiling" point of view, is a white male senior citizen a potential terrorist? Most reasonable people would agree that he is probably not. But, your objection is to the police officer approaching him to ask his intentions. I see nothing wrong with it. How is this an infringement of our personal liberties or a violation of the 5th, 6th, andor 14th amendments.
Incidentally, what is your view on subjecting to a metal detector search of the fans attending the upcoming Super Bowl?
Diggwadd Being young(28) and a railfan has resulted in me being stopped, searched, and questioned. I have been in the back of a cop car and had guns pointed at my head. Special thanks to my parents generation for taking this great nation and turning it into a police state with communists and religious fanatics dueling for power with no regard to how future generations are left to deal with it.
If a police officer questions you or simply demands you stop photographing trains I think it is best you understand your situation completely. A simple "why" or "am I doing something wrong" can yield important information that can diffuse a situation before it gets out of hand.
A cop may tell you
-You are on private property
-This public area(parking lots, parks, anything that could be owned by the city) is closed after a certain time
-Blocking traffic, sidewalk
Personally I do not care for the direction the country has taken but there is not much I can do about it.
If you become combative in even the slightest way you can be arrested for disturbing the peace. Be courteous and provide ID if demanded. Cops are a lot more likely to leave you alone if you can show that you are not a threat. If they make unreasonable and or illegal demands follow the orders immediately and move to a different location. The next day complain to the PD, write a letter to the editor, tell us all at trains mag forums, and maybe consult a lawyer if you feel it is necessary.
richhotrain Bucyrus: Rich, Well, yes, they have not said that they suspect everyone photographing trains to be a terrorist. In fact, as you point out, they have said they realize that everyone photographing trains is not a terrorist. But we are getting somewhat into semantics. Homeland Security does know that, of all the people photographing trains, not all of them will be terrorists. However, Homeland Security regards each and every individual who is photographing trains to be engaging in a behavior that they say is a sign of that person being a terrorist. And therefore, any incident of this activity that comes to their attention requires them to investigate that person to determine whether he or she is or is not a terrorist. That much is true, right? So if they feel they have to prove that someone is not a terrorist, then it follows that they have to suspect that that person is a terrorist. They don’t know that the person is a terrorist. But they suspect they are. Suspect does not mean that they have reached a conclusion. They know that some of the people they suspect will prove to not be what they suspect them of being. So in the final analysis, Homeland Security knows that not everyone photographing trains is a terrorist. But every one of them must be investigated to find out whether they are or are not a terrorist. And until they determine each one is not a terrorist, they suspect each one of being a terrorist. It boils down to this: Is it possible to check the oil in your car without suspecting it to be low? It's more than a matter of semantics. Some of you guys are simply making unfounded statements. The Department of Homeland Security has not said that photographing trains is a suspected terrorist activity. The video lists seven signs of terrorism: surveillanceinquiriestests of securityacquiring suppliessuspicious or out of place behaviordry runs/trial runsdeploying assets/getting into position Nowhere is photography or photographing trains mentioned in the video.
Bucyrus: Rich, Well, yes, they have not said that they suspect everyone photographing trains to be a terrorist. In fact, as you point out, they have said they realize that everyone photographing trains is not a terrorist. But we are getting somewhat into semantics. Homeland Security does know that, of all the people photographing trains, not all of them will be terrorists. However, Homeland Security regards each and every individual who is photographing trains to be engaging in a behavior that they say is a sign of that person being a terrorist. And therefore, any incident of this activity that comes to their attention requires them to investigate that person to determine whether he or she is or is not a terrorist. That much is true, right? So if they feel they have to prove that someone is not a terrorist, then it follows that they have to suspect that that person is a terrorist. They don’t know that the person is a terrorist. But they suspect they are. Suspect does not mean that they have reached a conclusion. They know that some of the people they suspect will prove to not be what they suspect them of being. So in the final analysis, Homeland Security knows that not everyone photographing trains is a terrorist. But every one of them must be investigated to find out whether they are or are not a terrorist. And until they determine each one is not a terrorist, they suspect each one of being a terrorist. It boils down to this: Is it possible to check the oil in your car without suspecting it to be low?
However, Homeland Security regards each and every individual who is photographing trains to be engaging in a behavior that they say is a sign of that person being a terrorist. And therefore, any incident of this activity that comes to their attention requires them to investigate that person to determine whether he or she is or is not a terrorist. That much is true, right?
It's more than a matter of semantics. Some of you guys are simply making unfounded statements. The Department of Homeland Security has not said that photographing trains is a suspected terrorist activity.
The video lists seven signs of terrorism:
surveillanceinquiriestests of securityacquiring suppliessuspicious or out of place behaviordry runs/trial runsdeploying assets/getting into position
Nowhere is photography or photographing trains mentioned in the video.
But aside from these issues as they stand, I think a next stage is surely coming soon. That will be a law that does forbid photographing key transportation facilities. What could possibly be posed as an argument against it? And you have to assume that Homeland Security wants as little suspicious behavior as possible because they have limited resources.
SUX V R40 Rider Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room.
Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: Bucyrus: I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity. While most will not be arrested they should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, (enter your own description), in the to begin with when photographing takes place from a public place. But this is not the case a lot of the time. And this is the problem and this kind of activity from law enforcement should be stopped. If law enforcement and railroad officials want check me out with out my knowledge they are welcome to do so. I won't now about it so therefore do not care until and unless I am arrested if found to be doing something wrong at which point I have the right to face my accuser. Until then do not approach me and question what I am doing, ask for my I.D., etc. You say you should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, etc., but on what basis to you make that claim? They have always had the right to question you if they suspect you, even if you are on public property. You do have certain rights regarding answering their questions, but they have every right to detain you for questioning. What has changed in this whole topic is that train watching behavior has been classified as a sign of terrorism by Homeland Security. If there is any complaint, it ought to be with that. They are the first ones who tell us that they can't profile, but here they are profiling away when it comes to train watchers.
SUX V R40 Rider: Bucyrus: I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity. While most will not be arrested they should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, (enter your own description), in the to begin with when photographing takes place from a public place. But this is not the case a lot of the time. And this is the problem and this kind of activity from law enforcement should be stopped. If law enforcement and railroad officials want check me out with out my knowledge they are welcome to do so. I won't now about it so therefore do not care until and unless I am arrested if found to be doing something wrong at which point I have the right to face my accuser. Until then do not approach me and question what I am doing, ask for my I.D., etc.
Bucyrus: I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity.
I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested.
Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity.
While most will not be arrested they should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, (enter your own description), in the to begin with when photographing takes place from a public place. But this is not the case a lot of the time. And this is the problem and this kind of activity from law enforcement should be stopped.
If law enforcement and railroad officials want check me out with out my knowledge they are welcome to do so. I won't now about it so therefore do not care until and unless I am arrested if found to be doing something wrong at which point I have the right to face my accuser. Until then do not approach me and question what I am doing, ask for my I.D., etc.
You say you should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, etc., but on what basis to you make that claim? They have always had the right to question you if they suspect you, even if you are on public property. You do have certain rights regarding answering their questions, but they have every right to detain you for questioning.
What has changed in this whole topic is that train watching behavior has been classified as a sign of terrorism by Homeland Security. If there is any complaint, it ought to be with that. They are the first ones who tell us that they can't profile, but here they are profiling away when it comes to train watchers.
Exactly correct. It is their act of profiling that is or could be a violation of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.
Please don't say due process is not being denied because you can be questioned, arrested and detained and then released and due process would not apply because it would never make it to a court room. At that point I say you're splitting hairs and I'll simply say you can't have it both ways. A person is either completely left alone, until they are seen committing a crime or their civil rights are violated simply by being questioned as to what they are doing because they are photographing trains from a public place. It is all in, or all out, there is no half way here.
SUX V R40 Rider Bucyrus: I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity. While most will not be arrested they should NEVER even be stopped, approached, questioned, accosted, (enter your own description), in the to begin with when photographing takes place from a public place. But this is not the case a lot of the time. And this is the problem and this kind of activity from law enforcement should be stopped. If law enforcement and railroad officials want check me out with out my knowledge they are welcome to do so. I won't now about it so therefore do not care until and unless I am arrested if found to be doing something wrong at which point I have the right to face my accuser. Until then do not approach me and question what I am doing, ask for my I.D., etc.
Bucyrus I think this discussion is getting bogged down over the idea of being arrested and resisting arrest. The point of this discussion and the implication of the video is that people who are photographing trains are engaging in an activity that requires they be checked to see if they are a terrorist or not. Most will not be terrorists, and therefore will not be arrested. Moreover, nobody has said that the act of photographing trains is illegal. So there should be no reason for a person doing so to be arrested or even forced to stop the activity.
Bucyrus Rich, Well, yes, they have not said that they suspect everyone photographing trains to be a terrorist. In fact, as you point out, they have said they realize that everyone photographing trains is not a terrorist. But we are getting somewhat into semantics. Homeland Security does know that, of all the people photographing trains, not all of them will be terrorists. However, Homeland Security regards each and every individual who is photographing trains to be engaging in a behavior that they say is a sign of that person being a terrorist. And therefore, any incident of this activity that comes to their attention requires them to investigate that person to determine whether he or she is or is not a terrorist. That much is true, right? So if they feel they have to prove that someone is not a terrorist, then it follows that they have to suspect that that person is a terrorist. They don’t know that the person is a terrorist. But they suspect they are. Suspect does not mean that they have reached a conclusion. They know that some of the people they suspect will prove to not be what they suspect them of being. So in the final analysis, Homeland Security knows that not everyone photographing trains is a terrorist. But every one of them must be investigated to find out whether they are or are not a terrorist. And until they determine each one is not a terrorist, they suspect each one of being a terrorist. It boils down to this: Is it possible to check the oil in your car without suspecting it to be low?
Is it possible to check the oil in your car without suspecting it to be low?
Nowhere is photography or photographing trains mentioned in the video. These seven signs are detailed in the video because they are typical terrorist activities such as surveillance, tests of security, dry runs, etc.
If an activity by an innocent, well meaning individual draws attention because it seems to be within the realm of these signs of terrorism, that individual may be approached by a law enforcement officer.
I told the story in another thread of my going to the airport to pick up my daughter and grand daughter who were coming in for a visit. I pulled my car up in front of the arrival gates. After some time passed by, I stepped out of the car, with the engine running and emergency flashers on, and went into the airport terminal to check the arrival board for the status of the flight. I was only gone a few seconds, but when I returned to my car, there were two uniformed policemen looking over my car. I was highly embarrassed as i explained what I was doing. That was it. No need to show ID, no frisk, no name on the suspected terrorist list. It was stupid of me as I thought about it, and I certainly understood and appreciated the security concerns.
What some of you seem to want is the absence of any security in the interest of personal liberty.
That is simply naive.
Well, yes, they have not said that they suspect everyone photographing trains to be a terrorist. In fact, as you point out, they have said they realize that everyone photographing trains is not a terrorist. But we are getting somewhat into semantics.
Homeland Security does know that, of all the people photographing trains, not all of them will be terrorists.
So if they feel they have to prove that someone is not a terrorist, then it follows that they have to suspect that that person is a terrorist. They don’t know that the person is a terrorist. But they suspect they are. Suspect does not mean that they have reached a conclusion. They know that some of the people they suspect will prove to not be what they suspect them of being.
So in the final analysis, Homeland Security knows that not everyone photographing trains is a terrorist. But every one of them must be investigated to find out whether they are or are not a terrorist. And until they determine each one is not a terrorist, they suspect each one of being a terrorist.
It boils down to this:
Bucyrus richhotrain: At about the 9:00 mark, the Aurora Police Chief emphatically states that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that not everyone who takes photos is necessarily a terrorist. You have to think about what the words mean. It is perfectly feasible for everybody photographing trains to be suspected of being terrorists without all of those people actually being terrorists.
richhotrain: At about the 9:00 mark, the Aurora Police Chief emphatically states that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that not everyone who takes photos is necessarily a terrorist.
At about the 9:00 mark, the Aurora Police Chief emphatically states that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that not everyone who takes photos is necessarily a terrorist.
You have to think about what the words mean. It is perfectly feasible for everybody photographing trains to be suspected of being terrorists without all of those people actually being terrorists.
Well, "what the words mean" is far different than the statement that the Department of Homeland Security presumes than anyone taking photographs of trains is a suspected terrorist.
Well, there you go. Finally, some sensible statements about the issue at hand.
SUX V R40 Rider While ignorance is not a defense, and if asked for proof law enforcement does not have to provide it on the spot, it does have to be proven later that such a law exists. If a law does not exist and a person is arrested and held without proof of doing anything illegal that person has grounds for a law suit. Law enforcement knows this and usually do a good job at being able to back themselves up on such a situation. You're half wrong about having to provide written proof to make an arrest. Ever hear of an arrest warrant? What do you think that is? It is written documented proof that someone broke a certain law or laws and is subject to being arrested. Ever hear the term "WANTS and WARRANTS"? It is what is searched for when a cop pulls you over based on your plate number and liscense information. Again, written documented proof you did something illegal and a warrant or want is put out for your arest as a result. So try again on that one. A cop cannot just arrest a person for no reason at all.
While ignorance is not a defense, and if asked for proof law enforcement does not have to provide it on the spot, it does have to be proven later that such a law exists. If a law does not exist and a person is arrested and held without proof of doing anything illegal that person has grounds for a law suit. Law enforcement knows this and usually do a good job at being able to back themselves up on such a situation.
You're half wrong about having to provide written proof to make an arrest. Ever hear of an arrest warrant? What do you think that is? It is written documented proof that someone broke a certain law or laws and is subject to being arrested. Ever hear the term "WANTS and WARRANTS"? It is what is searched for when a cop pulls you over based on your plate number and liscense information. Again, written documented proof you did something illegal and a warrant or want is put out for your arest as a result.
So try again on that one. A cop cannot just arrest a person for no reason at all.
SUX, I am going to respond this time and then I am going to stop responding to your posts because they are contradictory and inconsistent.
A law suit filed for false arrest is one thing. But, arrest for probable cause is quite another. If a law enforcement officer has probable cause to arrest someone, that person may or may not be prosecuted, but the person arrested has no grounds to file a legitimate law suit.
An arrest warrant is quite different from what you previously asserted when you claimed you could walk away from an arresting law officer if he is unable to produce in writing the law under which you are being arrested.
richhotrain SUX V R40 Rider: If I am ever stopped by law enforcement and told to stop photographing trains, while doing so from public property, by any type of law enforcement my first question is going to be is there a law on the books prohibiting it. If they say yes, I will then ask for proof. If there is proof then so be it. If they cannot show proof right then and there or say no, they do not have a legal leg to stand on. LOL Did you ever hear the expression, "ignorance of the law is no defense"? A law enforcement officer does not have to present written proof of a law to make an arrest. If fact, if you resist, the officer has the legal right to use force to get you to submit to arrest. Rich
SUX V R40 Rider: If I am ever stopped by law enforcement and told to stop photographing trains, while doing so from public property, by any type of law enforcement my first question is going to be is there a law on the books prohibiting it. If they say yes, I will then ask for proof. If there is proof then so be it. If they cannot show proof right then and there or say no, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.
If I am ever stopped by law enforcement and told to stop photographing trains, while doing so from public property, by any type of law enforcement my first question is going to be is there a law on the books prohibiting it. If they say yes, I will then ask for proof. If there is proof then so be it. If they cannot show proof right then and there or say no, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.
LOL
Did you ever hear the expression, "ignorance of the law is no defense"?
A law enforcement officer does not have to present written proof of a law to make an arrest.
If fact, if you resist, the officer has the legal right to use force to get you to submit to arrest.
richhotrain Bucyrus: richhotrain: First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist. There most certainly is a railroad security presumption that everyone photographing trains is a suspected terrorist. Watch the video linked by the original poster. To be specific, they believe that anyone recording or monitoring activities of a key transportation facility is a sign of terrorism. If it is required that authorities be notified to investigate a person doing something that is a sign of terrorism, then certainly it follows that the authorities would suspect that person of being a terrorist prior to checking him or her out. At about the 9:00 mark, the Aurora Police Chief emphatically states that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledges that not everyone who takes photos is necessarily a terrorist.
Bucyrus: richhotrain: First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist. There most certainly is a railroad security presumption that everyone photographing trains is a suspected terrorist. Watch the video linked by the original poster. To be specific, they believe that anyone recording or monitoring activities of a key transportation facility is a sign of terrorism. If it is required that authorities be notified to investigate a person doing something that is a sign of terrorism, then certainly it follows that the authorities would suspect that person of being a terrorist prior to checking him or her out.
richhotrain: First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist.
There most certainly is a railroad security presumption that everyone photographing trains is a suspected terrorist. Watch the video linked by the original poster.
To be specific, they believe that anyone recording or monitoring activities of a key transportation facility is a sign of terrorism. If it is required that authorities be notified to investigate a person doing something that is a sign of terrorism, then certainly it follows that the authorities would suspect that person of being a terrorist prior to checking him or her out.
SUX V R40 Rider If I am ever stopped by law enforcement and told to stop photographing trains, while doing so from public property, by any type of law enforcement my first question is going to be is there a law on the books prohibiting it. If they say yes, I will then ask for proof. If there is proof then so be it. If they cannot show proof right then and there or say no, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.
Bucyrus richhotrain: First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist. There most certainly is a railroad security presumption that everyone photographing trains is a suspected terrorist. Watch the video linked by the original poster. To be specific, they believe that anyone recording or monitoring activities of a key transportation facility is a sign of terrorism. If it is required that authorities be notified to investigate a person doing something that is a sign of terrorism, then certainly it follows that the authorities would suspect that person of being a terrorist prior to checking him or her out.
I watched the video when this thread was just posted, and I just watched it again.
In fact, the entire video is about "signs of terrorism".
You guys are way overreacting and making things up in your own minds.
Bucyrus, you should watch the video.
richhotrain SUX V R40 Rider: When you refer to ignoring of notices and warnings and committing acts of civil disobedience are you talking about when someone trespasses onto railroad property or taking photos from a public place, not on railroad property? Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a governmental unit, federal, state or local.
SUX V R40 Rider: When you refer to ignoring of notices and warnings and committing acts of civil disobedience are you talking about when someone trespasses onto railroad property or taking photos from a public place, not on railroad property?
When you refer to ignoring of notices and warnings and committing acts of civil disobedience are you talking about when someone trespasses onto railroad property or taking photos from a public place, not on railroad property?
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a governmental unit, federal, state or local.
Ok, thanks for the official definition.
If law enforcement demands something that is not backed up by a written law on the books and the person does not comply it is not civil disobeience, it is standing up for your rights. Law enforcement takes and oath and swears to uphold the U.S. Constiution, the very thing that guaranteees our civil rights and liberties.
richhotrainFirst of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.