My worth.
Isn't amazing what 19 idiots with box cutters can do for the national security of this country?
To paraphrase George Patton The idea of war is not to die for your cause but to make the other poor SOB die for his.
Rgds IGN
PS To VS nice picture of the Gomez Adams and his trains. And how appropriate to the subject! LOL
http://news.yahoo.com/mass-woman-says-tsa-confiscated-frosted-cupcake-002833828.html
Sometimes ya just can't invent anything more stupid than the truth.
Thank god she didn't have a birthday cake on her, they may have shot her on the spot.....
23 17 46 11
vsmith Interesting, but if a I wanted to play Boris Badenoff for a day why wouldn't I just choose from the huge array of legal spying technics like pinhole cameras that can have the lenses fitted onto a tie clip or any of the other dozen methods of information gathering? Dont any of these "experts" watch any of those hidden camera exposes?
Interesting, but if a I wanted to play Boris Badenoff for a day why wouldn't I just choose from the huge array of legal spying technics like pinhole cameras that can have the lenses fitted onto a tie clip or any of the other dozen methods of information gathering? Dont any of these "experts" watch any of those hidden camera exposes?
TSA visited Utica Union Station last week. At 3 PM they picked up and left...
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...
edblysard http://news.yahoo.com/mass-woman-says-tsa-confiscated-frosted-cupcake-002833828.html Sometimes ya just can't invent anything more stupid than the truth. Thank god she didn't have a birthday cake on her, they may have shot her on the spot.....
I thought the last few sentences really summed it up well: "It's about an encroachment on civil liberties. We're just building up a resistance and tolerance to all these things they're doing in the name of security, when it's really theater. It is not keeping us safe."
There has been mention, more than once, about taking photos from a public place. But what about taking photos FROM a public place, OF a public place? Indulge me a little and try to follow if you would.
Would it surprise you to know I have, without permission, and after 9/11, that I walked into a public building with tripod and camera and started taking photos? I did this in not one but 2 buildings in downtown Sioux City, Iowa. One was City Hall and the other the Woodbury County Courthouse. Both are historic buildings, the courthouse was designed by famous architect, William L. Steele. In the courthouse someone walked up and asked if I was with the local media and what the story was going to be about. I advised that person I am not, but they never asked why I was taking photos. And while I was doing this there were police officers and sheriff's deputies in and out of the buildings on city or county business and not a one of them gave me a second glance or approached me about what I was doing.
You may wonder why nad how could this be, after 9/11. Simple, it is a public place, paid for by public tax dollars and both buildings belong to the people of Sioux City and Woodbury County, Iowa. and the law enforcement in my area knows this.
Next summer I am hoping to visit the Iowa State Capitol Building and photorgraph it from the inside.
Let's talk about public train facilities. Isn't Grand Central Terminal a public building? If it is is there a law, ordinance or signs posted prohibting photography in any of the public places of the building? If there are signs posted, is there actually a law or ordinance in place to back it up? If not why the rule against photography in the building?
SUX V R40 Rider Let's talk about public train facilities. Isn't Grand Central Terminal a public building? If it is is there a law, ordinance or signs posted prohibting photography in any of the public places of the building? If there are signs posted, is there actually a law or ordinance in place to back it up? If not why the rule against photography in the building?
I don't understand your analogy. Is there a prohibition against taking photographs in GCT?
There two distinct issues about railroad phtotography. One is that you can't trespass in order to take pictures. That has always been the case and the reasoning is understandable.
The other issue is that a photographer might be a terrorist collecting visual information to plan a terrorist attack. That issue is much harder to pin down. Nobody has yet banned railroad photography because of that issue. It is just that Homeland Security believes that anyone photographing railroad facilities is a suspected terrorist and must be checked out to prove otherwise.
What they have not figured out, however, is how to check out someone photographing trains and prove that he or she is not a terrorist.
How would you accomplish that objective if you ran Homeland Security?
Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: Let's talk about public train facilities. Isn't Grand Central Terminal a public building? If it is is there a law, ordinance or signs posted prohibting photography in any of the public places of the building? If there are signs posted, is there actually a law or ordinance in place to back it up? If not why the rule against photography in the building? I don't understand your analogy. Is there a prohibition against taking photographs in GCT? There two distinct issues about railroad phtotography. One is that you can't trespass in order to take pictures. That has always been the case and the reasoning is understandable. The other issue is that a photographer might be a terrorist collecting visual information to plan a terrorist attack. That issue is much harder to pin down. Nobody has yet banned railroad photography because of that issue. It is just that Homeland Security believes that anyone photographing railroad facilities is a suspected terrorist and must be checked out to prove otherwise. What they have not figured out, however, is how to check out someone photographing trains and prove that he or she is not a terrorist. How would you accomplish that objective if you ran Homeland Security?
SUX V R40 Rider: Let's talk about public train facilities. Isn't Grand Central Terminal a public building? If it is is there a law, ordinance or signs posted prohibting photography in any of the public places of the building? If there are signs posted, is there actually a law or ordinance in place to back it up? If not why the rule against photography in the building?
Could the department of Homeland Security be guilty of violating the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, not in the letter of the law but at least in some ways be doing so in the spirit of these 3 amendments, because they believe anyone photographing railroad facilities is a terrorist? I grew up learning and learned even more so in school that ALL Americans are protected by these 3 amendments, among the others. As such I have always had a healthy respect for the law and the U.S. Constitution. Was I taught wrong? Was I foolish to believe what I was taught? I am pretty sure the basis of these 3 amendments is still being taught in schools, even today. Does this mean, because of homeland security is doing there is yet another generation of suckers being taught something that will not be true and apply to them when they finish school?
I have a solution on how to check someone out. Install cameras connected to the face recognition software on the private railroad property where anyone who is likely to stop, on public property to take photos. Face them toward the people who stop to take photos and when someone stops have the camera zoom in on them and if possible their vehicle to identify who they are. If they are indeed someone who is on the so called watch list then have the authorities alerted. As far as I know there is nothing illegal about installing cameras on private property and facing them toward the adjacent public area. The ACLU, who strongly opposes any type of camera on or in a public place, like red light and speed enforcement cameras, would not have any say the matter because they would be paid for, installed, operated by the railroad, a private entity. The person operating the cameras would simply be the one who monitors them, and if something comes up he or she makes a phone call to alert the authorities. The footage captured on video could be used as evidence in a court of law, thus preserving the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.
Regarding the use of a face recognition camera to confirm whether or not a person is on the list of terrorists, there is a high probability that an actual terrorist would not be on any list. If they would be satisfied that a person was not a threat just because they are not on the list, they would not need airport security.
They could just check your identity against the terrorist list when you buy your ticket. They check people at the airports even though there is no reason to suspect them. With train photographers, the starting assumption is that they are all terrorists. This is because being a terrorist is the only explanation they can understand for why a person would take pictures of trains.
Any real terrorist with half a brain that wants to photograph trains for tactical information is going to disguise himself as a railfan photographer.
Bucyrus Regarding the use of a face recognition camera to confirm whether or not a person is on the list of terrorists, there is a high probability that an actual terrorist would not be on any list. If they would be satisfied that a person was not a threat just because they are not on the list, they would not need airport security. They could just check your identity against the terrorist list when you buy your ticket. They check people at the airports even though there is no reason to suspect them. With train photographers, the starting assumption is that they are all terrorists. This is because being a terrorist is the only explanation they can understand for why a person would take pictures of trains. Any real terrorist with half a brain that wants to photograph trains for tactical information is going to disguise himself as a railfan photographer.
Again by assuming all rail fans are terrorists homeland security is in stark violation of at the very least the spirit of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.
BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement? Did you also know you have the right to refuse to show your I.D. to such a person? You do. The problem is most people either don't know it, or comply anyway which puts their name on a list which can have a harmful affect on you later on.
SUX V R40 RiderAgain by assuming all rail fans are terrorists homeland security is in stark violation of at the very least the spirit of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement?
BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement?
I don’t see how the authorities suspecting railroad photographers of being terrorists is a violation of the 5th, 6th, or 14th Amendments. Due process is not being denied by suspecting one is a terrorist. As far as refusing to answer questions, that is up to each individual. It is a tradeoff as to whether you want to end the hassle expeditiously, or stand on the principle that the hassle should not have occurred in the first place.
Bucyrus SUX V R40 Rider: Again by assuming all rail fans are terrorists homeland security is in stark violation of at the very least the spirit of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement? I don’t see how the authorities suspecting railroad photographers of being terrorists is a violation of the 5th, 6th, or 14th Amendments. Due process is not being denied by suspecting one is a terrorist. As far as refusing to answer questions, that is up to each individual. It is a tradeoff as to whether you want to end the hassle expeditiously, or stand on the principle that the hassle should not have occurred in the first place.
SUX V R40 Rider: Again by assuming all rail fans are terrorists homeland security is in stark violation of at the very least the spirit of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. BTW did you know it is your right to not open your mouth and say anything to anyone if approached while photographing anything from a public place, even if the person is identified as law enforcement?
Because the presumption is already there that anyone photographing railroads are terrorists. That is how the 3 amendments are being violated, at least in the spirit. When law enforcement of any type approaches you because you are photographing anything from a public place they already have the mind set you must be doing so to commit illegal acts later. As such they consider you guilty before you even have a chance to prove your innocence.
I tend to stand on the principle that the hassle should never occur in the first place.
Answer me this if anyone can. Do railroad law enforcement personal take an oath and swear to uphold and abide by the U.S. Constitution as all other law enforcement officials in this country do?
This thread turned silly about three pages ago.
First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist.
Second of all, many of the arguments made in this thread about ignoring security notices and warnings are at least acts of civil disobedience, and they carry legal consequences including arrest and prosecution. I guess that you could resist arrest, but lots of luck.
The actions of railroad security officers cited in this thread are, in no way, violations of the U.S. Constitution and certainly not the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. While this argument wouldn't hold water either, one would make a better argument by arguing violation of the 1st Amendment.
Rich
Alton Junction
I don’t know if railroad cops take such an oath. But cops are free to assume you are guilty. It is just that their assumption is not the final word in the matter. You still get due process. But cops can stop you and question you any time without it being a violation of the constitution. I am not sure what limits may or may not be placed on the reason they can question you.
The big issue I see is that Homeland Security has proclaimed that photographing trains is automatic evidence that the photographer is doing so in order to plan for unlawful activity. I think it is fair to say that they do not conclude that there can be no other explanation for railroad photography. But because the possibility of the photographer having terrorist intentions always exists, then it is incumbent on the authorities to prove otherwise in every case of such behavior if it is detected.
But this is indeed a bureaucratic absurdity. Where do you draw the line? What is suspicious behavior and what isn’t? If photographing trains is suspicious, then surely just paying attention to them is equally suspicious. Homeland Security illustrates the absurdity of this when they tell the public that anything you don’t understand qualifies as suspicious, and therefore requires an official checkout by the authorities. I would have to call the police to check out people in grocery stores talking on cell phones.
Of course we have to keep in mind that the Committee for State Security views photography of any kind of facility from anywhere to be a terrorist threat.
richhotrain This thread turned silly about three pages ago. First of all, there is no railroad security presumption that anyone and everyone photopgraphing trains is a suspected terroist. Second of all, many of the arguments made in this thread about ignoring security notices and warnings are at least acts of civil disobedience, and they carry legal consequences including arrest and prosecution. I guess that you could resist arrest, but lots of luck. The actions of railroad security officers cited in this thread are, in no way, violations of the U.S. Constitution and certainly not the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. While this argument wouldn't hold water either, one would make a better argument by arguing violation of the 1st Amendment. Rich
While railroad security officials do not o may not have this presumption, and i call that into question, it has been established that the Department of Homeland security does have that presumption.
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?
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.
richhotrainFirst 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 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?
Ok, thanks for the official definition.
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 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.
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.
I watched the video when this thread was just posted, and I just watched it again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, there you go. Finally, some sensible statements about the issue at hand.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.