|
|
| Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O (530025) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 14 |
||
|
| (531457) | |
Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Tue Dec 11 11:36:15 2007, in response to Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 06:00:15 2007. didn't think he washe didn't work for WMCA..... |
|
|
| (531469) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Dec 11 12:06:03 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 11:10:01 2007. Another mature response from Ron in Bayside! |
|
|
| (531470) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:06:50 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 06:02:35 2007. Thats just bad judgement and would have been used against her if she was assulted. I don't agree with her actions and some things may be questionable but overall no violation that would cause disaplinary action exept at worst reinstruction.All she had to do lock her cab door and call control. This will always be a touchy issue because while they understand this is a hobby for railfans they want to may sure the wrong person isn't also taken the pictures. The Terrorism class really brings that point home but just throws more fuel to the debate on picture taken issue. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (531472) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Dec 11 12:09:17 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:06:50 2007. The Terrorism class really brings that point home but just throws more fuel to the debate on picture taken issue.Did they even bother to mention that photography is legal? |
|
|
| (531476) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 12:18:49 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:06:50 2007. Just bad judgment? The whole point is to avoid spooking the suspect into fleeing or setting off teh bomb! The T/O's actions made the "suspect" perfectly aware of what she was doing and how she felt, and if he was a real terrorist, he likely would have been quite spooked and would have fled or set of teh bomb.It's so stupid. If she really thinks he's a terrorist, why would she allow him to catch wind of that fact?? Terrorists DON'T WANT TO BE FOUND OUT AND/OR CAUGHT. I think it's pretty clear she handled this completely wrong from an anti-terrorism standpoint, not to mention also from the standpoints of logic, respect, and job duty. It seems she really doesn't understand how a terrorist would operate, she doesn't understand what constitutes "suspicious", and she doesn't understand 1050.9. |
|
|
| (531479) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:25:32 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by BMTLines on Tue Dec 11 12:09:17 2007. Yeah but they still want a P/O to investigate if its something or nothing pending on what kind of pictures your taken.This is one of the reasons I stopped taken pictures I don't need the BS. The last time I took pictures was the day of the Low V Trip. When I was on my own at Kingsbridge Rd and took a picture of a R 62 on the Middle track. The T/O called me in and that was then end of that. |
|
|
| (531482) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:27:54 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 12:18:49 2007. She let her own fears get in the way but still nothing offical that would get her in trouble maybe a talking too but that it. |
|
|
| (531483) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Dec 11 12:29:37 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:27:54 2007. Addressing a passenger as a "Terrorist" and saying she wouldnt move the train until he went away follows rules?I really dont think so. |
|
|
| (531485) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 12:34:10 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:25:32 2007. You've rolled over and given up a 100% legal, and in fact SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED activity. Many of us haven't. That's why this matters. |
|
|
| (531486) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:34:36 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by R30A on Tue Dec 11 12:29:37 2007. However she moved the train. |
|
|
| (531487) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 12:35:38 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:34:36 2007. She delayed it, right? She also instilled fear in the passengers it seems. |
|
|
| (531489) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 12:38:08 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:27:54 2007. I'm not talking about official. There right and there's wrong. She did the wrong thing on so many levels. Whether or not union and NYCT rules allow her to be punished for what she did is irrelevant. |
|
|
| (531493) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:43:37 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 12:35:38 2007. Maybe but we don't know what control told her to do. Her comments about him will just get her a reinstruction on how to handle that better next time. |
|
|
| (531496) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:48:16 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 12:34:10 2007. Yeah but I am not going risk my job making a point. When I do pictures I make sure its a special trip where I have you guys all around me doing the same thing. |
|
|
| (531498) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:53:08 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 12:38:08 2007. On that note you won't get an arguement from me it could have been handled a lot better but we don't know the whole situation we have one side of the story. |
|
|
| (531520) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Dec 11 13:28:37 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Nilet on Mon Dec 10 17:16:20 2007. Now if it had been a train of R-32s.... |
|
|
| (531524) | |
Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Dec 11 13:55:55 2007, in response to Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O, posted by Dave on Mon Dec 10 13:37:31 2007. He must have a magnetic personality.:) |
|
|
| (531527) | |
Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O |
|
|
Posted by Kevin from Midwood on Tue Dec 11 14:07:24 2007, in response to Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O, posted by Dave on Mon Dec 10 13:37:31 2007. Once a shlimazl, always a shlimazl. |
|
|
| (531543) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue Dec 11 14:58:17 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Tue Dec 11 12:53:08 2007. On that note you won't get an arguement from me it could have been handled a lot better but we don't know the whole situation we have one side of the story.Exactly .. Only being Fair all stories have two sides.. Only heard One here.. |
|
|
| (531551) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Tue Dec 11 15:21:15 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 11:10:01 2007. LOL! |
|
|
| (531563) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Tue Dec 11 15:55:31 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 11:10:01 2007. 'be 18 going on 15... 'yay! I'm not alone! |
|
|
| (531566) | |
Re: Learning how to respect other SubChatters |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Dec 11 15:58:49 2007, in response to Re: Learning how to respect other SubChatters, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Dec 11 05:58:11 2007.  Oh. OK. It's still (kinda) fun sometimes, though. Actually, although I can't find it now, I do recall one other time I tried to debate him, which was when he argued that my age (over 18) combined with the fact that I disagreed with him was evidence that I could handle being an officer in the army in Iraq and commanding soldiers during operations under fire, but couldn't handle one drink at home. Yeah, I've seen Ron's immaturity before. |
|
|
| (531569) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 11 16:13:21 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Tue Dec 11 15:21:15 2007. Ironic. |
|
|
| (531572) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 11 16:21:55 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 10:31:21 2007. I'm not saying she was right. In fact she was wrong.I'm saying you phucked up the encounter, which is a different thing entirely. A life coach or behavioral coach would be vey helpful for you. 1) Nilet is not paid not to be an asshat. 2) That T/O *is* paid not to be an asshat. Assuming that Nilet were an asshat, the T/O should have had the professionalism not to be one back to him. It's fairly basic stuff. If you can't do it, you should not be in a customer-facing rôle. So "blame Nilet" just doesn't work. |
|
|
| (531573) | |
Re: Learning how to respect other SubChatters |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 11 16:24:16 2007, in response to Re: Learning how to respect other SubChatters, posted by Nilet on Tue Dec 11 15:58:49 2007. Actually, although I can't find it now, I do recall one other time I tried to debate him, which was when he argued that my age (over 18) combined with the fact that I disagreed with him was evidence that I could handle being an officer in the army in Iraq and commanding soldiers during operations under fire, but couldn't handle one drink at home.Go to college in Yurp. ;-) |
|
|
| (531576) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 16:35:25 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 11 16:21:55 2007. "Assuming that Nilet were an asshat"Nilet was not an asshat. Nilet wanted to do the right thing, but lacked the social graces to do so. "That T/O *is* paid not to be an asshat." True, and she was in the wrong. It may or may not have been malicious. But you missed the point completely. This isn't only about who's right or wrong. This is about learning to read social cues and figuring out the subteties of public interaction. Like it or not, when you ride the subway, you are the train crew's guest. If you get into a dispute with the crew, especially if it becomes heated, you are likely to lose even if you are "right." Nilet's inept read let things get out of control. He had options: Sometimes it's better to withdraw gracefully and try again next time. If you are going to stand your ground, then you have to do it all the way. That means getting a lawyer and suing, or, if you really want to go all the way, then being arrested over and over and using a lawyer to get a final resolution is another way. There is a musician who plays an instrument at one of SEPTA's downtown stations. He was arrested multiple times and continued to play and be arrested until his lawyer forced SEPTA into concluding an agreement with him. It is my understanding that he can now play his music to his heart's content and SEPTA officers leave him alone. It is important to note that no train crew was involved here. No blocking the cab, no distraction of T/O, none of that. Nilet's situation is a bit different, but if he wants to, he can try the "all the way" strategy and see if he can get sympathetic media coverage. But just geting into fights with the train crew won't accomplish anything. He's "right," but the way he handles it it doesn't matter. That's what Nilet needs to change. |
|
|
| (531578) | |
Re: Learning how to respect other SubChatters |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 16:40:51 2007, in response to Re: Learning how to respect other SubChatters, posted by Nilet on Tue Dec 11 15:58:49 2007. "I tried to debate him, which was when he argued that my age (over 18) combined with the fact that I disagreed with him was evidence that I could handle being an officer in the army in Iraq and commanding soldiers during operations under fire, but couldn't handle one drink at home"Because those are two separate things, and are not automatically linked. Respect for an underage soldier does not mean you give the soldier anything he wants. You give him that which he can handle. There is good evidence to show that an 18-year old's brain, on average, is affected much more by alcohol than a 21 year old's brain. It takes maturity to understand that. You do not possess this maturity. |
|
|
| (531580) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Dec 11 16:44:08 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 11 16:13:21 2007. Exceedingly so. |
|
|
| (531584) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 16:45:59 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by R30A on Tue Dec 11 16:44:08 2007. Only to idiots. |
|
|
| (531585) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Dec 11 16:48:49 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 16:45:59 2007. All people who can conduct themselves in a proper manner are idiots?You must be a genius! |
|
|
| (531612) | |
Re: Learning how to respect other SubChatters |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Dec 11 17:24:06 2007, in response to Re: Learning how to respect other SubChatters, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 16:40:51 2007. "I tried to debate him, which was when he argued that my age (over 18) combined with the fact that I disagreed with him was evidence that I could handle being an officer in the army in Iraq and commanding soldiers during operations under fire, but couldn't handle one drink at home" Because those are two separate things, and are not automatically linked. Not "automatically" linked, maybe, but they are, in fact, linked. Both require judgement, the ability to think clearly, and the ability to recognize and take actions to avoid risks, but to different degrees. They're linked in much the same way that picking up a stray paper and lifting a car off a little kid are linked. You are, by this analogy, saying that I am strong enough to lift the car but not strong enough to pick up the paper. Respect for an underage soldier does not mean you give the soldier anything he wants. You give him that which he can handle. And he can handle roadside bombs, enemy snipers, ambushes, enemies hidden amongst civilians, rescue missions under fire, and ordering other soldiers under any of those conditions, but not a can of beer? There is good evidence to show that an 18-year old's brain, on average, is affected much more by alcohol than a 21 year old's brain. You haven't provided this evidence. However, even if an 18-year-old's brain is more heavily affected by any given amount of alcohol, this is not reason to suggest that any amount of alcohol is dangerous and deadly. It takes maturity to understand that. You do not possess this maturity.   
|
|
|
| (531615) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Dec 11 17:29:10 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 16:35:25 2007. Nilet wanted to do the right thing, but lacked the social graces to do so.OK, Mr. Social Graces, explain what you would do. Start from the top. |
|
|
| (531624) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 11 17:39:56 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 16:35:25 2007. "Assuming that Nilet were an asshat"Nilet was not an asshat. Exactly. Hence the subjunctive. This isn't only about who's right or wrong. This is about learning to read social cues and figuring out the subteties of public interaction. That's very nice in theory, but completely breaks down in practice. If you are going to stand your ground, then you have to do it all the way. That means getting a lawyer and suing, or, if you really want to go all the way, then being arrested over and over and using a lawyer to get a final resolution is another way. I would support Nilet if he chose to do that. Of course, one doesn't have to be so logically consistent (in the legal sense) in the real world -- one can often get a way with standing one's ground up to a point. You can call that being a nuisance, even antisocial, even immature, but I can see the appeal in such behavior. There is a musician who plays an instrument at one of SEPTA's downtown stations. He was arrested multiple times and continued to play and be arrested until his lawyer forced SEPTA into concluding an agreement with him. It is my understanding that he can now play his music to his heart's content and SEPTA officers leave him alone. He sounds quite a character. I'd probably give him a dollar just for that. Nilet's situation is a bit different, but if he wants to, he can try the "all the way" strategy and see if he can get sympathetic media coverage. But just geting into fights with the train crew won't accomplish anything. He's "right," but the way he handles it it doesn't matter. That's what Nilet needs to change. He doesn't necessarily need to go to court. The TA should discipline this T/O. Nilet just needs to stop caring so much about people who really don't deserve his care, and press a complaint. |
|
|
| (531627) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 17:45:17 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Dec 11 17:39:56 2007. "That's very nice in theory, but completely breaks down in practice."No, it doesn't. I've personally been in several situations where it works well. It's not perfect, but a lot of guys who post here haven't a clue as to how to do it. It requires the ability to read cues, which people with a disability like Aspergers or very limited social skills do not have. It's learnable. "The TA should discipline this T/O. Nilet just needs to stop caring so much about people who really don't deserve his care, and press a complaint." Yes, and I'd suppor Nilet if he did press a complaint. I still think a lawyer would help. And he should bring his details to the NYCLU. |
|
|
| (531632) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Dec 11 17:48:22 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 17:45:17 2007. I still think a lawyer would helpSo only the rich deserve justice??? Not everyone is filthy rich to afford a lawyer - what do they charge these days? $500 per hour??? Unless a lawyer sees the potential for a large damage settlement they usually do not take cases like this on contingency. |
|
|
| (531653) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 11 18:09:11 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by BMTLines on Tue Dec 11 17:48:22 2007. No money down! Wait, that's supposed to say: No, money down! 
|
|
|
| (531656) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 11 18:11:08 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by BMTLines on Tue Dec 11 17:48:22 2007. That's where the NYCLU comes in. |
|
|
| (531675) | |
Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 11 18:45:57 2007, in response to Called A "Terrorist" By A T/O, posted by Nilet on Sun Dec 9 00:42:46 2007. Wait, I don't get it.When did Terrell Owens call you a terrorist? |
|
|
| (531686) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue Dec 11 18:59:47 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by BMTLines on Tue Dec 11 12:09:17 2007. Did they even bother to mention that photography is legal?YES she did.. It what they may define as "suspicious" that railfans dont.. Like pictures of Yards,Gates of Yards, Certain Trackage thats off limits, pictures showing layouts of Stations,Of Terminals.. Pictures of Car Equipment,Cabs, Undercar Pictures,things such as that.. Also "Fliming" on a Subway Train with a Video Camera or any kind of recording device if its Up Front or on the train itself.. This is what she talked about,the lady from Homeland Security. BTW she was a NYC Transit Cop for almost 15 years, so this isnt some person who hasnt been down here and dont know whats going on Im sure some may have a problem with what i just said but this is your goverment talking here not me.. Which is kinda sad, but i have rules and regulations I(and im sure every RTO person who posts here)have to follow.. |
|
|
| (531804) | |
Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Tue Dec 11 22:01:55 2007, in response to Re: Reviewing The Footage (Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Dec 10 00:23:41 2007. And yet...something analogous to this incident happened to me...I swear...two weeks before the 9/11 attacks. It had been a while since I had walked on Staten Island so that day i had decided to make my way over to the Bayonne Bridge and cross over into Bayonne to ride the HBLRT. (How I got to the bridge is another story in itself: hitched in from Islip, got a ride to Newkirk Avenue station, caught a B8 bus to Fort Hamilton, transferred to a B53 to Port Richmond, and walked to the bridge. I really wanted to get there!)Well, crossing the bridge I had sort of climbed on top of the walkway fence once or twice, on the highway side, to take some pics of Bayonne and east. No less than three times while on the bridge I got questioned by P.A. cops, stopping their cars on the highway to talk to me. Twice on the upward slope, once on the down slope. None of `em did anything, they all went on their way after I "explained" what and why I was doing on the bridge. Let me note that I didn't climb onto that sidewalk wall after the first questioning. Then, when I was actually in Bayonne city limits, at the stairway leading to the street, two Bayonne cops were awaiting, to question me. Again, I was left to get on with my hike after giving my explainations and showing them my i.d. They seemed surprised that I had come there from L.I. without a car, but even they noted that no laws were broken. I mean, two weeks before the attacks. Afterwards, I wondered if that incident, occuring so close to 9/11 might draw some kind of investigation my way. In retrospect, the actual circumstances of my adventure that day could very well have been construed to be, i don't know, connected. Some dufus with a camera on a bridge from Staten Island to Bayonne (that name always makes me think of Ralph and Norton...), putting himself into oddball locations, taking pictures like that towards New York City... |
|
|
| (531815) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Tue Dec 11 22:18:24 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by Nilet on Tue Dec 11 03:01:12 2007. Dude...I've seen guys get punched down for taking snaps in a subway car. A couple times at least. Some dude'll be sitting there and notice the guy taking pics. He'd object, the photographer would continue taking pics, and the sitter would jump in his face and do something, like grab the camera or just punch the guy. I'm talking like, twenty years back, at least.My thoughts on this are, stop taking pictures the moment it's obvious that people are getting pissed at you for doing so. Official or civilian. It's a public arena, and, intrinsically fair or not, you gotta take that into consideration. The train personel tell you to stop, you stop. Some rider thinks you're taking pictures of him, you stop. You wanna call that "rolling over" or some such, so be it. Think about it `cause you never know who is packing... |
|
|
| (531820) | |
Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Tue Dec 11 22:35:44 2007, in response to Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Dec 11 10:44:02 2007. Here's how you climb that rope: loop it around you and make sort of a temporary perch for yourself as you pull yourself up. Gives you that little bit of confidence in that you can rest for a few moments on the way up. Hint: try not to look down.I'm 53 and I can still climb a rope. |
|
|
| (531894) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 12 00:50:11 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by ntrainride on Tue Dec 11 22:18:24 2007. Good advice. There is a time and place for everything, and youmust always be prepared to select an appropriate response for a particular situation.Well said by you. |
|
|
| (531898) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Dec 12 00:55:03 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by ntrainride on Tue Dec 11 22:18:24 2007. oh not this again. stop bringing up irrelevant points. you're so paranoid. go on living in fear, many of the rest of us will enjoy photography to our heart's content. |
|
|
| (531910) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Wed Dec 12 01:17:21 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by ntrainride on Tue Dec 11 22:18:24 2007. Maybe you are so willing to give up your legal rights - and yes I say RIGHTS since 1050.9(c) expressly permits photography in the subway. TA employees have NO RIGHT to stop anyone from engaging in perfectly legal activity.My guess is that you are probably sitting on a collection of 50,000 pictures so you don't need any more. Give the rest of us a chance to catch up. |
|
|
| (531915) | |
Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 12 01:48:01 2007, in response to Re: Respect the T/O's request not to film her, posted by BMTLines on Wed Dec 12 01:17:21 2007. How will 1050.9(c) help you if there is a riot in the car? This is something you hand over to a lawyer. If you can't pay for one yourself, you get together with otherlike-minded people and share the cost.There is dedication, and then there is stupidity, and you don't seem to know the difference. After you get the shit kicked out of you by people in the car (I'm not condoning it, though) then you might understand. By the way, since there are a zillion pictures of subway cars running around, why do you want to catch up? How about taking pictures of things related to subways that haven'ty been photographed, like the entrances. Some of the are fancy, some are near other interesting buildings. Better social skills and more open-mindedness about what you photograph will help you a lot. |
|
|
| (531920) | |
MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Dec 12 02:17:52 2007, in response to Called A "Terrorist" By A T/O, posted by Nilet on Sun Dec 9 00:42:46 2007. Been following this for a while, and while 1059(c) is there and for real and all, I didn't notice anyone pointing out the T/O's situation (and if it was, sorry - thread is just WAY too big to find anything)Both NYPD and NYCT personnel have received instructions as to what constitutes "suspicious activities" and they have a problem. Since they've been specifically instructed to report, and follow up on these "suspicious activities" they can get in SERIOUS trouble for not doing so, even if the memos and training they've received runs counter to 1059(c). There's a reality known as "dereliction of duty" for failure to follow written and oral instructions from their supervisors. And to make matters worse for the "foot soldiers" supervision is out there doing what is known as "efficiency tests" to ensure that they follow the letter of these bulletins. Failure to do so gets THEM in big trouble even if the orders they've received are incorrect. Some may be in fear of actual terrorism, however most are FAR more fearful of their supervisors and getting tripped up in an "efficiency test." Many cops and transit employees have no idea of "buffs" and their desire to shoot pictures of things other than friends on a platform. Cops and transit employees have been told specifically that people taking pictures of the INSIDE of trains, tracks, signals, interlockings and other "infrastructure" are *specifically* "suspicious activity." And waving paperwork at them of unknown origin not on an official bulletin isn't considered valid. They've been told one thing, y'all are trying to tell them what they were told is wrong. Guess whose word WINS? Since I'm expecting argument, I'll spell it out - the BULLETIN and their "antiterrorism class." So even if you're right about photography, one needs to consider the situation the employee is in. They've been instructed QUITE specifically to report ANY "suspicious activity" and like it or not, they've been instructed that what you're doing IS. Yes, they've been instructed incorrectly, but they still have to follow the rules they've been given. They really don't have much choice unless their own personal BS meter is well calibrated. And like I said, most don't understand what y'all are doing. Try to understand THEIR situation. If you are polite, calm, explain calmly to them that you're not a threat, you're a "buff" and you're doing this only for your own enjoyment and don't mean to harm anyone. If they still want to call it in, and you don't wish to honor their "don't do this" then be prepared to deal with the authorities in a calm manner. If the authorities who appear don't get it either, ask for them to call in supervision and remain calm. Once it's over and they can determine that you're really NOT a threat, you'll have wasted some of your own time, might have even missed a "to die for photo" but in the end, you'll have one MORE person who has an understanding of it all. I've taken MANY photos in the past year, even a couple on PATH on a simple basis of being polite, ASKING if I can take a picture of X and I've never had a problem by letting them know what I want, showing them the shot and everyone walking away happily. Even got a photo of that PATH PA-4 car that burned up earlier this year as a result at JSQ. But then, I do it differently than folks who seem to keep having problems. Terrorists don't sneak about, and they most definitely don't walk up to employees and ask "is it OK if I?" Clearly though there's miscommunication here ... the train operator, in my eyes, is NOT at fault here. Seems a little bit more "re-education" is required, and perhaps that's where the effort should go ... I've said this before. And it's worked for me every time. |
|
|
| (531922) | |
Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 12 02:29:49 2007, in response to MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Dec 12 02:17:52 2007. I like that post a lot.As I have noted before, unhappily, the foamers get stuck in one way of thinking and can't get out of it. Sometimes it's plain stubbornness, sometimes it's a disability like Aspergers. What is needed is a court order requiring the TA and NYPD to issue bulletins which comply with official photography policy. |
|
|
| (531925) | |
Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Dec 12 02:50:09 2007, in response to Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by RonInBayside on Wed Dec 12 02:29:49 2007. Given that there is a real threat of a terrorist attack of some sort, by SOME group (not necessarily Muslim suiciders - after all, subway's been bombed LOTS of times before, not once by Muslims so far) there *is* a valid reason for the bulletin.Now to GENUINELY piss off the pope here, what *I* would suggest to satisfy all comers is a provision for the MTA to issue an official indentification card (same for PATH and other transit) where the inquiring photog can provide proof of identity, submit to a cursory background check and MTA issue a photo ID at a reasonable cost since they have the facilities to do so already for their employees. WHat a LOVELY simple answer - a card you can hang on your person with photo ID saying "I'm already on file, leave me the fark alone!" Like an employee pass, flashing same should solve any such problems without further interruption to anyone's sanity. But I'll bet that's a no-go among the group. But that'd certainly settle it if they're unable to talk reasonably to anyone they encounter who says no ... I've had many adversary encounters over the years that I was able to quickly defuse and get permission to go places and do things no one else has ever been able to. Conrail allowed me to operate locomotives in revenue. CSX has allowed me to take photos inside their locomotives AFTER 9/11 and even walk the property for more interesting shots. All a matter of letting the authorities involved know when I would be there, provide ID ahead of time, let them have a "government sniff" and be vouched for by trusted employees. What *really* gets one in trouble though is acting sneaky and behaving strangely ... guaranteed to get you a personal "government sniff" up close. And pop off once you're stopped and make a scene? Heh. Well ... offered my advice, and as usual, it'll be dissed. Did my bit by posting what I did ... I have no problem showing paperwork and proving that I'm not a problem. And go out of my way to increase the peace so I can do what I really want to do with everybody calm about it. :) |
|
|
| (531926) | |
Re: MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Dec 12 03:05:03 2007, in response to MTA training (Re: Called A ''Terrorist'' By A T/O), posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Dec 12 02:17:52 2007. Minor correction:Said originally: Terrorists don't sneak about, and they most definitely don't walk up to employees and ask "is it OK if I?" meant to say: Terrorist WILL sneak about, and they most definitely don't walk up to employees and ask "is it OK if I?" |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 14 |
||
