|
|
| Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) (743327) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 10 of 12 |
||
|
| (745125) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Feb 16 21:52:53 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by randyo on Mon Feb 16 21:37:09 2009. I imagine that they can interpret the rules differently. Like maybe they could say that any photography without permission qualifies as impeding traffic if there are any other passengers around which would be disorderly conduct. |
|
|
| (745140) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Feb 16 22:20:35 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Allan on Mon Feb 16 21:50:56 2009. They are trying to enforce through fear and intimidation what they could not pass through legislation. Unfortunately it has cost them the respect of myself and many other photographers. We now fear cops - we do not like or respect them. |
|
|
| (745215) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by G1RavagesDad on Mon Feb 16 23:47:44 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by BMTLines on Sat Feb 14 21:06:19 2009. Well.....sort of.....but not quite. States and municipalities can enact any law they please, and then it would be up to someone to challenge the law. If the law is challenged, then the court would rule on its constitutionality. Therefore, it's not really accurate to say that a state or local government can only limit free speech in ways which have already been approved by the court. It's actually the reverse. A state or local government can enact a law limiting free speech in any way that has not been specifically declared unconstitutional, and then if the law is challenged it would be up to the court to decide whether or not the law can stand. Anyway....my original point, which I probably could have done a better job of explaining before I went off on the semantic tangent, was that freedom of speech is not absolute. One doesn't have the right, for example, to walk down the street at three in the morning screaming at the top of one's lungs. States and municipalities have the right to enact laws against that. That's an overly obvious example, but the point is that states and municipalities have the right to legislate with regard to what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior within their boundaries, and any such law would be enforceable until such time as it might be struck down as unconstitutional. I don't know the text of the "disorderly conduct" law that the original poster was charged with violating, but I doubt that the law would be found to contradict the first (or fourteenth) amendment. I'm not saying that the officers were right or wrong.....just that the first (or fourteenth) amendment very probably would not be involved in this matter. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (745225) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 00:16:14 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by G1RavagesDad on Mon Feb 16 23:47:44 2009. We are splitting hairs on the constitutionality issue - besides I was responding to your general assertion that states can limit free speech - not the specific merits of this case.If we look at the specifics of this case: As for "disorderly conduct": We do not live in a police state therefore disagreeing with a police officer does not rise to the level of "disorderly conduct". As for the unlawful photography - it is invalid on its face because 1050.9c specifically permits photography. NYPD is completely out of control on this issue and needs a major class-action lawsuit to force it to finally recognize photographer's rights. Some photographers are now seriously starting to discuss a section 1983 action against NYPD. Since photography is a privilege granted by law then depriving a person of that privilege violates USC Title 42 Section 1983. Creative and I like it!!! |
|
|
| (745227) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Feb 17 00:29:45 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 00:16:14 2009. Go for it. |
|
|
| (745235) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 17 00:55:52 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by G1RavagesDad on Mon Feb 16 23:47:44 2009. Very thoughtful explanation. Thanks!Another angle which should be pursued with vigor here under New York STATE law is a little ditty known as "CPLR Article 78" proceedings. In a simplistic nutshell, an article 78 proceeding is used against an agency which exceeds its authority. For any "jailhouse lawyers" who wish to learn more, clicky: http://www.garygauthier.com/nycplrarticle78.htm Starts at a Supreme Court, ends at the NYS Court of Appeals which is more than likely to uphold for the defendants ... Article 78 is known in civil service as the "perfect enema." :) |
|
|
| (745239) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 17 01:06:44 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 17 00:55:52 2009. Whoops ... got that last sentence wrong ... said "defendants" meaning the photographers, but in an article 78, they'd be the plaintiffs. Bottom line is that all you have to do is demonstrate that the rules are one thing, they did the opposite, and in doing so exceeded their authority. An article 78 proceeding is not the same as a civil suit - an article 78 action COMPELS them to follow the rules ... article 78's usually work because "damages" are not part of the case ... |
|
|
| (745241) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 01:18:39 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 17 01:06:44 2009. We've got to do something before these signs go up all over town:
|
|
|
| (745245) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 17 01:23:35 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 01:18:39 2009. Da ... pravda. :(FWIW though if some photogs talk to an attorney who ISN'T looking for a personal piece of the action, Article 78 proceedings are a wonderful way of getting an agency's bowels moving promptly. They're SUMMARY reviews, no pesky jury sittings, only evidence required is simple (and the irony, you guys will like) ... "in camera" before a judge. :) |
|
|
| (745323) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 09:47:09 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 14 18:05:40 2009. Actually, I think you will find that you will have fewer "rights" under Obama, but we shall wait and see.Well, given that under Bush, we had no rights at all, this is simply a logical impossibility. |
|
|
| (745324) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 09:48:21 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 15 07:37:46 2009. RINO = Republican In Name Only... i.e. a DemocratAnd a highly endangered (if not extinct) species! DINO = Democrat In Name Only... i.e. a Socialist You mean like Jesus? :D I can think of plenty of Democrats who might as well be Republicans. |
|
|
| (745342) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 10:54:41 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 09:47:09 2009. Wrong.If you lost rights in those eight years, then you really need to know who took them away from you, and who did not. It was not President Bush who told NYPD what to do. It was not Bush who told the MTA to restrict photography. I remember exactly what the president said: That Americans should continue to do what they have always done. Republicans are not into restricting freedoms. They are into protecting them and protecting individual rights. For all. Rich and poor alike. But listen, do not pay attention to me. Just wait and see, then you will know. ROAR |
|
|
| (745343) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 10:56:28 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 09:48:21 2009. Not one of them broke ranks on the Porkulus bill.And not ONE of them read the whole thing. Obama did not read the whole thing (it *is* over 1000 pages) but he will sign it none the less. LIONS are not pleased with this. ROAR |
|
|
| (745344) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 10:57:59 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Mon Feb 16 21:26:28 2009. "Where it spreads from here is anyone's guess. "Right down to NYCT Labor Relations, of course. |
|
|
| (745345) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by R PansePCC on Tue Feb 17 11:03:16 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Mon Feb 16 22:20:35 2009. I couldn't agree more!!!!! |
|
|
| (745348) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 11:08:33 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Mon Feb 16 22:20:35 2009. I really believe some of the cops just don't know better. NYPD is a shitty job. You deal with all kinds of criminals and terrible supervision. Cops are under constant pressure to produce revenue. Photographers seem like easy marks, and most cops probably remember back to the post-9/11 rules, forgetting what's now legal.Heck, I know for a FACT that some TA workers still think photography in the subways is illegal, and still call control center to let them know when they see someone taking photos. If TA workers can be misinformed, I'm sure some cops are as well. |
|
|
| (745349) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 11:09:48 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 10:54:41 2009. I remember exactly what the president said: That Americans should continue to do what they have always done.Actions speak louder than words, lion. How about what he did? You may recall that Bush was responsible for suspending habeas corpus— which automatically invalidates and undermines *all* rights. Republicans are not into restricting freedoms. Have you taken a look at the Republican party at any point since, oh, the 1860s? The party of Lincoln is now the party of George "the constitution is just a piece of paper" Bush. Thankfully, I know my winguts. |
|
|
| (745350) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by danny at 103rd street on Tue Feb 17 11:11:37 2009, in response to Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Mon Feb 16 21:00:56 2009. We need fox 5 to get in this case. |
|
|
| (745351) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 11:13:21 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 11:08:33 2009. Photographers seem like easy marks, and most cops probably remember back to the post-9/11 rules, forgetting what's now legal.Pre and post 9/11 photography REMAINED LEGAL - it was legal, then it is legal now. The rules never changed. If TA workers can be misinformed, I'm sure some cops are as well. The difference is that TA workers are not enforcers of the LAW. Cops as law enforcers should only enforce those laws passed by the legislature. They have NO excuse. Besides the NYPD is fully aware that there is a problem in the streets and they are allowing it to continue by refusing to issue a memo. This goes way above the cop on the beat! |
|
|
| (745355) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 11:16:24 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 11:09:48 2009. He did not suspend habeas corpus... where ever did you figure that? |
|
|
| (745356) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 11:18:47 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 10:56:28 2009. I know you're a monk who has guaranteed access to room, board, medical care, internet, model trains, and other such "essentials," so I guess I can't blame you for being a *little* out of touch. See, there is a major recession going on. The economy is falling apart. That's why there's a stimulus bill— because some people don't have any of those things.I'd explain how the Democrats included worthless tax cuts for the rich and removed funding for programs the Republicans didn't like, only to have no republicans break ranks and vote against it, how the republicans favoured an "alternative" which consisted only of tax cuts, and that tax cuts for the rich do nothing to stimulate the economy, and how this fact has been well-known since (and possibly before) Reagan, but your, shall we say, unusual views on economics are already well-known on this board, so I doubt it would do much good. |
|
|
| (745357) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 11:22:51 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 11:08:33 2009. MTA workers may know that photography is legal, but they are still required to report suspicious behavior, and photography, according to their instructions might be suspicious. They call it in.This is what happened to me last summer. I was shooting through the wide cab and RFW using a time exposure to make artsy photos. My battery ran out, and so I got off the train at 96th Street to buy new batteries. There I was met by police officers who asked for identification. I gave them my ND driver's license. And he asked "Are you from North Dakota?" Well duh... it *is* a ND license, and it *is* my picture on it, but all I said was, "Yes" One officer called it in while I spoke with the other one. We spoke of North Dakota, of Pennsylvania, model subway trains and of photography. They gave me my ID back and told me that photography was permitted, but that they were required to check it out anyway. Professionals. ROAR |
|
|
| (745358) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 11:24:36 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 11:16:24 2009. He did not suspend habeas corpus... where ever did you figure that?Where were you these last eight years? |
|
|
| (745360) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 11:34:43 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 11:24:36 2009. Military Captures do not come under US law.If you are captured on a battlefield and are a uniformed member of a combatant force then you are a POW, and are detained as such. No civil rules apply. When the war is over your status will be part of the treaty. If you are a non-uniformed combatant then you are NOT a POW, but are classified as a spy, insurgent, terrorist, or whatever. International rules of combat permit such persons to be shot at the convenience of the captors. That we have NOT done so is a hallmark of our humanity. Apparently these too will be released at the conclusion of the military situation. I suspect in the future the military will simply capture fewer people, and continue the fight until their situation is moot. ROAR |
|
|
| (745384) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 12:13:41 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 11:34:43 2009. Sigh. I'll try to explain this to you with an example.Suppose: Tomorrow, US soldiers come to North Dakota, arrest you, and take you to Gitmo or a similar prison. You are not given any court hearings, nor are you allowed access to a lawyer or even any member of the outside world. The soldiers explain that they are allowed to do this because you are a spy/insurgent/terrorist, and remind you that since international rules of combat permit them to shoot people like you at their convenience, you should thank them for being such fine gentlemen. They tell you that you will be released when the president unilaterally decides that he thinks there aren't any more terrorists. According to what you just stated, you would have absolutely no objection to that happening. |
|
|
| (745386) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 12:13:51 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 11:18:47 2009. Ahem...As part of my duties as a (volunteer) EMT, I have been in the home of an addicted screwed up welfare woman who can in no way earn a dime. She lives in a subsidized apartment, receives welfare (more cash than I'll ever see), she has color TV, a computer, an automobile (she cannot drive it...no license), and several telephones. There is food in her fridge and if she could just keep off the booze and drugs she would be a wonderful woman. She is a very nice woman as it is. So there is no need to tell me that I am so well off. But you are welcome to come and visit us and see for yourself. The economy in North Dakota is NOT falling apart, but then we are still skating on the high energy prices, new wells are being drilled, and new wind farms being erected. We have ethanol plants, (struggling a bit at the moment with low fuel prices--but that will change of course), but the ethanol plants have driven up farm prices which were far too low. Now farmers are falling all over themselves trying to get their land out of the conservation programs and back into production again. But if this recession thing continues it will affect us. Some manufacturing plants were on furlough during the winter, Bobcat is just starting up again after a two month "vacation". But you are way off base when you paint me with the "Republican" brush. Very few of those critters are doing things that I think should be done. I am a conservative, and this means that I *am* for people, their rights, their dignity, and for the succor of those who have not. I am not particular in favor what the Democrats offer. All they are doing is giving people money (buying votes) with out providing any real help. People need dignity, the need a hand up not a hand out. I do not believe in "Trickle Down" economics. Money does not trickle down. It FLOWS and it happens to flow UPWARD. Thus money given to the poor in the form of welfare flows UP to the grocer and his employees, the supplier and his employees, the producer and his employees, the grower and his employees. If you build a new subway line, it employs workers, contractors, engineers, construction equipment makers, and all of these are Americans. Their money goes back to the grocer, the baker and the candlestick maker. Tax rebates do not move the economy all that well: the $600 that Bush gave us went to buy a digital camera made in China and that was that. The $13. / week gift that Obama is doing has a better chance of staying in this country (back to the grocery store) but it hardly stimulates the ekonomy. LION has always thought that infrastructure was the way to go. And it is appropriate for the cost of infrastructure to be spread out over 20 or 30 years. Daily expenses of people, companies or governments must NEVER be mortgaged to the future. Taxes MUST be simple, fair and uniform. They must raise the money that is to be spent, but not more. Taxes must NEVER be used to instigate social or environmental programs. You need a social or environmental fix, you pass a law and enforce it. Just that and nothing more. Methinks we are actually closer than you think on such things, but I am not much of an explainer. I think the Democrats are bad, but then I never thought the Republicans were much good either. ROAR |
|
|
| (745390) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 12:17:15 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 12:13:41 2009. Tomorrow, US soldiers come to North Dakota, arrest you, and take you to Gitmo or a similar prison.They didn't do that, they cannot do that (regardless of what the brainwashed left thinks), and in any event, I am not a combatant. Besides, the cops and I have an understanding: I don't violate their laws and they do not bother me. ROAR |
|
|
| (745396) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 12:27:31 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 12:17:15 2009. They didn't do thatI know. It's called a "hypothetical example." they cannot do that (regardless of what the brainwashed left thinks) They did. To American citizens. I guess you just weren't paying attention during these last eight years. and in any event, I am not a combatant. I see the point has cruised over your head, so I'll break it down. You said that these were "military captures," which were exempt from US and international laws. If someone is a "terrorist" (or one of those other terms you used), they are not entitled to court hearings. (I believe your exact words were "such persons to be shot at the convenience of the captors." So, if you're arrested by soldiers who say you're a combatant, how, exactly, do you expect to prove that you're not? It doesn't matter whether you're innocent or guilty— you oppose the very safeguards that protect innocent people. |
|
|
| (745408) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 12:58:51 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 12:27:31 2009. Soldiers are not policemen. They do not even have the power to make an arrest. They HAVE no civil (police) function in this country.They cannot say that I am a combatant unless I am in a uniform, answerable to superiors and carrying a weapon. (There are even non-combatants in the military, you know). If I were in a war zone, and attacking soldiers, and was not myself a soldier, then yes I could (and should) be shot on sight. And actually, I *was* a combatant, in the Navy, and served on a warship in combat operations in an active war zone. So this LION knows which end is up. ROAR |
|
|
| (745417) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Tue Feb 17 13:24:48 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 11:22:51 2009. All of the cops I have dealt with will let you off with no more than a warning not to be so obvious as long as everything checks out fine and you do not give them any lip. It is definitely a pain when you have to go through it, but it is not like I have anything to hide and the more railfans who are nicer to the police offers the less likely they are to bother other railfans - is it really worth their time when they won't be able to get anything out of it |
|
|
| (745420) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 13:27:14 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by mtk52983 on Tue Feb 17 13:24:48 2009. the more railfans who are nicer to the police offers the less likely they are to bother other railfansIn other words accept the LIES they are spewing forth from their mouths that photography is illegal without even politely attempting to state the facts? |
|
|
| (745424) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 13:39:23 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 13:27:14 2009. What's your goal here, winning a pissing contest with the police or easing the harassment? If it's the latter, then polite cooperation, even with a cop enforcing a non-existant law is probably the best way of doing so. The legality of photography is really only useful when you go to court. It's gonna prevent you from being held criminally liable for doing so. |
|
|
| (745426) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Feb 17 13:40:28 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 13:39:23 2009. Any officer who enforces a fake law, should be dismissed from the force. Period!!!!! |
|
|
| (745429) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 13:43:41 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 13:39:23 2009. The goal is to end it once an for all by reporting each and every incident on the web - getting maximum publicity - and forwarding the reports to the NYCLU. This needs to be stopped from the top down not the bottom up. |
|
|
| (745430) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by R PansePCC on Tue Feb 17 13:44:13 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 11:22:51 2009. I am so jealous of your encounter. I never get the professional cops. |
|
|
| (745431) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Tue Feb 17 13:44:58 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Feb 17 13:40:28 2009. What if he is 'enforcing a fake law' as a result of an order from a superior officer(s)? I didn't think there was much room for manoeuvre in the Police when it comes to disobeying orders! |
|
|
| (745434) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 13:47:31 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Deaks on Tue Feb 17 13:44:58 2009. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - Isn't that what cops tell us if we break an obscure law? |
|
|
| (745452) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 14:23:08 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Feb 17 13:40:28 2009. I agree, but you can't do that on the spot by yourself. Comply, then file a complaint. |
|
|
| (745453) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 14:23:56 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 13:43:41 2009. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is telling the cop that he can't stop you from taking pictures. |
|
|
| (745455) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 14:24:32 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 13:47:31 2009. Cops cannot tell a superior that he won't do as told. |
|
|
| (745458) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 14:33:32 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 14:23:56 2009. What I don't agree with is telling the cop that he can't stop you from taking pictures.You can certainly try to show him the rules politely then leave if he insists. I would not simply say ok and leave since he can turn around and say that I voluntarily complied with a request. I want to go on record that he deliberately violated the law even after an attempt was made to show it to him. |
|
|
| (745467) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 14:56:40 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Feb 17 13:40:28 2009. They aren't enforcing "fake" laws. The tickets that they give are for real violations. Obviously they shouldn't be giving the tickets, but let's not overstate what's happening. |
|
|
| (745468) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 14:59:09 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 14:56:40 2009. The tickets that they give are for real violationsUnlawful photography is NOT a real violation. |
|
|
| (745469) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 15:05:29 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 14:59:09 2009. No one has gotten a ticket for that have they? |
|
|
| (745473) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 15:15:44 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 15:05:29 2009. Yes - the original poster that started this thread received a ticket for "unlawful photography" in addition to the other two citations that were piled on for good measure.Also - several people who post here have received tickets for that all of which were dismissed by the Transit Adjudication Bureau. Still they should not have had to go through the hassle in the first place. |
|
|
| (745474) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Tue Feb 17 15:19:42 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 14:24:32 2009. That is what I suspected. |
|
|
| (745475) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Tue Feb 17 15:20:48 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 13:47:31 2009. Of course not, but I should imagine that, in the Police, where no doubt career prospects and pensions are valid, there is little option if you are the underling and are ordered to do something. |
|
|
| (745477) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Tue Feb 17 15:21:41 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Deaks on Tue Feb 17 15:20:48 2009. oops. Should be '....and pensions are important'. Don't know where 'valid' come from.... |
|
|
| (745485) | |
Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 15:56:49 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 12:58:51 2009. Soldiers are not policemen. They do not even have the power to make an arrest. They HAVE no civil (police) function in this country.You just said that they *were* entitled to not only capture people, but detain them without oversight. In any case, they have arrested people, held them without oversight, and ultimately determined most of them had done nothing wrong. This is all painfully obvious by now; I'm surprised that there are still people who don't get it. They cannot say that I am a combatant unless I am in a uniform, answerable to superiors and carrying a weapon. Oh, come on. Bush has stated that he can designate anybody an "enemy combatant" and imprison them without cause. This is obvious by now. I'm having trouble figuring out your position here. You object to my example on what seems to be a mere technicality; you oppose the idea of soldiers doing the capturing, or that they're doing it in North Dakota, or maybe you just object when it's you, but you seem to have no objections to the practice of capturing and detaining people with no judicial oversight and no regard for whether they've actually done anything illegal. Yet you deny that Bush did these things, which suggests that you're merely grossly misinformed or terminally thick. So I need to know your position: Do you believe that there are any circumstances in which it is acceptable to detain someone without judicial oversight? Assuming the US is the country detaining them, is it acceptable to detain somebody without granting them the protections of the US Constitution under any circumstances? Rules and circumstances pertaining to wars don't apply, as the US has not declared war on any other countries, nor has any other country declared was against the US. This refers solely to individuals or groups of individuals who are accused of performing or plotting to perform illegal actions (crimes). |
|
|
| (745487) | |
Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 15:58:47 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 15:15:44 2009. My mistake. I didn't remember that. Nevermind... |
|
|
|
Page 10 of 12 |
||
