Stopped by a cop while night shooting...

So Jack, tell me about the civil liberties that you had 2 years ago that you don't have now.
Be specific.
Otherwise this is just Bin Laden-supported-propaganda all over again.

And if you don't think the Bin Laden's friends are spreading this type of propanda, you are really Naive.
He has created a secret police, just like a short little guy with a
funny mustache did back in the 30's.

Has been able to rid us of many of those silly civil liberties that
our forefathers and veterans worked and fought so hard for.

Is picking on a country 1/2 way around the world that is no threat
to us except or petroleum supply.

Does not need the permission of the UN to wage war on whoever does
not see things his way.

Wants to control the world and force his ideals down every other
countries throat.

Has nearly every other nation in the world hating america.
He is your basic evil doer bully.

--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
--
The more things change, the more things change
 
I learned something valuable from your posts.

The twisting of history by people like Jack and the ACLU is interesting. That last part of the 1802 letter was something that I was not aware of.
Appreciate the info.
Jack O'Neill wrote:
people who are taking it out of context for their own purposes.
For example, In the letter you quoted written by Thomas Jefferson
in 1802 to a Baptist pastor in Dayton, Connecticut the last part
was left out. Atheists, too almost always omit the last part of the
letter that shows Jefferson's intent. Here is the context of that
letter: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation
between church and state." That wall is a one dimensional wall. It
keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that
Christian principles will always stay in government. Jeffersons
intention for the concept is in stark contrast to the ACLU's
position ("It keeps government from running the church, but it
makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in
government").

Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
D60
Sigma 15-30
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
Canon 24-85
--
The more things change, the more things change
 
okay, so you don't believe the police report - which if fabricated can result in losing a job, fines and even imprisonment (perjury). Their incentive is to be as conservative as possible.

But you do want to believe a story you read in the local paper - which if doesn't have the full facts results in what? nothing! and they have an incentive to be controversial (guy kicked out for an anti-war t-shirt sells more paper than guy kicked out for bothering people at a mall).

You've been watching too many episodes of the x-files.
Well, a police report does not mean it is true. It is just an
annotation of what the parties version of the incident is. It does
not mean that the mall did not lie to partially cover their a* s.
Would you say that they were only walking around wearing a T shirt
and you got irritated because you didn't like it and sent in your
gorillas? If they are so sure of their versions I'm sure thay
would have no problem in getting the harassed parties to testify.
Wouldn't you testity if you were attacked in the mall by crazy
folks wearing treatening uniforms?


Chunin Martinez
--
The more things change, the more things change
 
This is unbelieveable.
Can't believe you would torment people like that.

Can't believe that some jerk would torch a car - he should be hauled off to jail.
They were probably asking you if your were a TOURIST, not a terrorist.

One night in Honolulu (in 1994) , my best friend and I were amusing
ourselves with a laser pointer by chasing people down the street
with it and videotaping the look of fear on their faces from our
hotel balcony. It was all innocent fun back then and we were only
recently watching the tapes. Two hours later, we'd scared all the
johns away from the hookers that stand on every corner after 7pm
and they decided to call their pimp, who arrives in a stretch
cadillac. He then uses his mobile phone to call the cops. Two
minutes later, the street is cleared and filled with flashing
police lights as a group of heavilly armed officers entered the
lobby. My "so called best friend" got scared, wiped his
fingerprints of the pointer, threw it at me and locked himself in
the bathroom as the cops began to pound on our door along with
hotel security. I let em in and they secured the room...I managed
to convince them that the flashing red light on my video camera was
probably what had caused the confusion earlier (thank God they
didn't check the tapes!). I got them to pose for a great group
photo before they left.

Two months ago, I had a customer drop in a lens to get it cleaned
and he explained to me that the police had recently returned his
camera to him, having confiscated it the week prior. He was
shooting the flowerbeds here next to a set of tennis courts with a
75-300mm lens. There were schoolkids playing on the court and a
woman abused him, called him a "pedophile" and promptly called the
police. They in turn confiscated his camera in order to learn what
he had been photographing. They warned him that he was "Done for"
if they found a single picture with a child in it. As a result, he
got his camera back with a nice set of 6 x 8s for his trouble. All
flowers... with some lovely depth of field in the afternoon sun.

Word on the street says he caught up with the woman that called the
police a week later (she worked a block from the school) and took a
lovely set of Photographs of her freshly torched motor vehicle. I
keep asking the lab-girls if he's been in yet with his new pictures.
--
Marco N.
--
The more things change, the more things change
 
Jack O'Neill wrote:
people who are taking it out of context for their own purposes.
For example, In the letter you quoted written by Thomas Jefferson
in 1802 to a Baptist pastor in Dayton, Connecticut the last part
was left out. Atheists, too almost always omit the last part of the
letter that shows Jefferson's intent. Here is the context of that
letter: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation
between church and state." That wall is a one dimensional wall. It
keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that
Christian principles will always stay in government. Jeffersons
intention for the concept is in stark contrast to the ACLU's
position ("It keeps government from running the church, but it
makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in
government").

Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
D60
Sigma 15-30
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
Canon 24-85
--
The more things change, the more things change
--
Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
D60
Sigma 15-30
Canon 24-85
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
 
Strike:

Don't worry! I had EXACTLY the same thing happen to me several months ago. With exactly the same results and policeman's comments!

I was doing my looong exposure photos at about 3-4am. My Officer said that they check EVERYONE at that time of day. He also asked me if I was shooting digital. (I had my [new at the time] Dimage 7).

Personally, I'm very positive about the experience! I'm glad the police are asking, inquiring, probing! We don't need another 9/11!

Sorry if this is repetitive, but I don't have time to read all 125 responses you had to your post! Happy shooting!

Thom
I work 3rd shift and have Friday/Saturday nights off, so naturally
I am interested in messing around with "night photography".

Well EARLY this morning I was out shooting around my city
(Rochester, MN...a city of about 100,000...home to the Mayo
Clinic), there was literally NO ONE on the streets, no cars and no
people.

A policeman (who was handing out tickets to cars parked in no
parking zones) rolls up to me and says "what are you doing?", I
said "taking pictures"...he said "for who?" I said "for myself".

He then got out of his car and said "yeah but at 3 o'clock in the
morning?" I told him I worked 3rd shift at the Mayo Clinic (which
I do) and on the weekends I'm up all night anyway so why not?

He wanted to see my ID, and of course he had to run my name and all
that jazz. It was like he couldn't believe I was just out taking
pictures at 3 o'clock in 14 degree weather. Heck I was standing
there with my tripod (camera attached to it) why would I lug that
around in the cold if I were up to no good?

Anyway, he came back and said "Here you go Gregg, I had to check it
out, you know with the terrorists and everything." I don't blame
him, I guess ya can't take chances these days.

Does anyone else have any stories like this?
 
Most people I know carry a dozen of their favorite shots in 4x6
format, but one woman I know carries a portfolio of 8x12's (she's
always near her car).
I have brown skin and am a veteran of the US Army. Needless to say,
my camera is now gathering dust and am relegated to shooting
pictures of my daughter at home as I live in the DC area. People
see me taking pictures and they get freaked out, never mind the
cops.
I have mixed feelings about my personal experiences with security
but one thing I do know is that, having used a point and shoot
digital for some time, I will get to watch the DSLRs wars from the
sidelines. I have to live by all of you guys experience with them.
Seeing the D10 plastered all over Dpreview hurts but now as much as
having my hobby crushed.
I do not look forward to having to carry lenses, portfolio, DD214,
and US Veteran card. I rather watch TV. I do not blame the cops.
Frank, I really do feel bad that you're getting caught up in the panic, but I have to wonder if giving up is the right way to go.

Realistically, the police and other authorities DO have to be vigilant and on the lookout for genuine threats. But at the same time, that doesn't mean it's OK for them to run roughshod over everybody. There has to be a middle ground.

The bottom line is, it may be a hassle to deal with the problems, but it's going to be a much bigger problem in the long run when the problems get that much worse because nobody stood up before things got out of hand.

Mike
 
Why? No one ever invades the Swiss. I mean Hitler can conquer all
of Europe, but he leaves Switzerland alone.
Well, you answered you question -- no one ever invades the Swiss. It's worked so far, right?

Be well, take pictures, enjoy life!

F.J.
Yup, it's Switzerland, though I can see how someone could confuse
the two...

They have compulsory military service for all men for period then
up to a certain age (35 IIRC but could be wrong) every man has to
report for military service once a year for two weeks. After that
age, I think it's every other or every third year.

Also, all new houses in Switzerland have to have bomb shelters
built into the basement (don't laugh, I have seen them). The Swiss
military also has planes and other supplies stockpiled in huge
warehouses built into the mountains.
 
Mike,

I think the problem with your link is that you spelled "agenda" as "agende"...
also try:
http://www.foxnews.com
http://www.anncoulter.com
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.msnbc.com
and on and on and on...

P
This is a digital photography forum, not a forum for whining
liberals with a political agenda.
--
JCDoss
Do you know where we can find the forum for whining conservatives
with a political agenda? Because I tried typing in:

http://www.forumforwhiningconservativeswithapoliticalagende.com

but it didn't work.
 
Jack O'Neill wrote:
people who are taking it out of context for their own purposes.
For example, In the letter you quoted written by Thomas Jefferson
in 1802 to a Baptist pastor in Dayton, Connecticut the last part
was left out. Atheists, too almost always omit the last part of the
letter that shows Jefferson's intent. Here is the context of that
letter: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation
between church and state." That wall is a one dimensional wall. It
keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that
Christian principles will always stay in government. Jeffersons
intention for the concept is in stark contrast to the ACLU's
position ("It keeps government from running the church, but it
makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in
government").

Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
D60
Sigma 15-30
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
Canon 24-85
--
The more things change, the more things change
--
Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
D60
Sigma 15-30
Canon 24-85
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
--
http://www.pbase.com/stefanm
 
Dave, Thank you for you level headed insights. I highly recommend David Barton's book Original Intent for anyone interested in learning what our founding fathers really believed. It includes over 1400 references and provides their own words (in context) and dispels any notion that the ACLU speaks for them.

Jack is quick to point out the govt can't 1) establish religion and 2) can't impede the free exercise thereof... But it is pretty obvious that having voluntary prayer in schools DOES NOT establish a government endorsed religion while removing prayer DOES impede the free exercise thereof.

To state the ACLU is the protector of Christian rights is completely dishonest... oh, yeah, so is EVERYTHING else they say!

My question is WHY IS THIS THREAD ON THIS SITE?????? I want to learn about photography. Instead I have to hear vitriolic swill from liberals who still want a 17th recount in Florida. Give is a rest or at least go somewhere where this is slightly appropriate! And to still back Algore. What a joke!
Jack O'Neill wrote:
people who are taking it out of context for their own purposes.
For example, In the letter you quoted written by Thomas Jefferson
in 1802 to a Baptist pastor in Dayton, Connecticut the last part
was left out. Atheists, too almost always omit the last part of the
letter that shows Jefferson's intent. Here is the context of that
letter: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation
between church and state." That wall is a one dimensional wall. It
keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that
Christian principles will always stay in government. Jeffersons
intention for the concept is in stark contrast to the ACLU's
position ("It keeps government from running the church, but it
makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in
government").

Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
D60
Sigma 15-30
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
Canon 24-85
--
The more things change, the more things change
--
Dave

http://www.pbase.com/dgsmithmd
D60
Sigma 15-30
Canon 24-85
Sigma 28, 1.8
Canon 50, 1.8
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8L
 
Oops missed the facts again...

Abington v Schempp '63 - a verbal prayer offered in school is unconstitutional even if it is both voluntary and denominationaly neutral

Stein v Oshinsky '65 - freedoms of speech and press are not extended to teachers or students when the topic is religious

Stone v Graham '80 - It is unconstitutional for students to see the 10 commandments since they might read, meditate, or obey them

Reed v Van Hoven '65 - If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to do so out loud.

Lowe v City of Eugene '69 - It is unconstitutional for a war memorial to bein the shape of a cross

Harvey v Cobb County '93 - 10 commandments may not be displayed in a court house.

Roberts v Madigan ' 90 - It is unconstitutional for a teacher to be seen with a Bible in a public school.

Jane Doe v Santa Fe ISD - It is unconstitutional for school officials to be recognized in a meeting that is sposored by a religious group

Florey v Sioux Falls ISD '79 - It is unconstitutional for a kindergarten class to ask whose birthday is celebrated on Christmas

Illegal: Nativity scenes, license plates that say PRAY or THANK GOD, Christmas cards, and ohmygod don't say the name JESUS!!!

THANK YOU ACLU FOR PROTECTING ME! YOU MADE ALL THESE FREEDOMS POSSIBLE.
Now that explains it... a member of the ACLU. You guys make me
sick. Trying to take a way my rights of religous freedom. I'm not
going to waste any more of my time on this subject, but suffice it
to say you guys are wolves in sheeps clothing.
Dave
The ONLY thing that the ALCU fights for is when some someone's
rights have been threatened by someone else. They don't fight to
take away ANYBODY's rights.

You say that before the ACLU, your kids could pray in school. Who
exactly is stopping them now? There isn't a single law to be found
that actually disallows an individual to pray in school if they
want to. If little Johnny wants to say a prayer before his math
test, he can still do that.

The only thing that's changed is that now, the teacher doesn't lead
the whole class in that prayer.

The fact that this used to happen once upon a time doesn't mean it
was right. Even slavery was perfectly legal at one point, but that
didn't mean it was right.

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution starts off: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This is very clearly intended to prevent the government from
favoring ANY particular form of religion over any other. You're
right that it doesn't actually say "separation of church and
state". But you're ignoring the fact that such separation is the
only way to actually accomplish what it does say.

There was a time when we DID have teachers leading the kids in
prayer in public school. And it wasn't as simple as "Prayer Time,
kids!" either. The teachers actually read the prayer out loud for
the kids to repeat.

Insofar as these prayer's were always essentially Christian in
nature, tell me how that doesn't amount to the government endorsing
the Christian faith?

Tell me how it doesn't violate the religious freedom of the Jewish
& Muslim kids in the class to be led in a Christian prayer by their
teacher? Or the Hindu kids. Or the Buddists?

You can bet your sweet bippy that if a teacher had tried to lead
the kids in a Muslim prayer back in those days, the parents of the
rest of those kids would have raised bloody h*ll.

Instead, the reverse actually happened. Someone who didn't like
that daily Christian prayer in their kid's school decided it
interfered with THEIR Constitutionally-granted freedom of religion.

But you see, this person wasn't rich. They couldn't afford to wage
a big legal battle on their own. FORTUNATELY, the ACLU was around
to help. Their mission is simply to make sure that such people
don't have to simply accept having their rights trampled.

Clearly, the only way that the government can avoid endorsing any
particular religion, regardless of how informal or how non-absolute
such endorsement might be, is if the goverment avoids sponsoring
ANY religous activity at all. There is no other logical conclusion.

Mike
 
So Jack, tell me about the civil liberties that you had 2 years ago
that you don't have now.
Be specific.
Otherwise this is just Bin Laden-supported-propaganda all over again.
And if you don't think the Bin Laden's friends are spreading this
type of propanda, you are really Naive.
 
Doh!

Instead you are trying to force a losing hand. Just admit it when you are wrong... That police report sank your battleship.

Cephas - ROTFLMAO
Well, a police report does not mean it is true. It is just an
annotation of what the parties version of the incident is. It does
not mean that the mall did not lie to partially cover their a* s.
Would you say that they were only walking around wearing a T shirt
and you got irritated because you didn't like it and sent in your
gorillas? If they are so sure of their versions I'm sure thay
would have no problem in getting the harassed parties to testify.
Wouldn't you testity if you were attacked in the mall by crazy
folks wearing treatening uniforms?


Chunin Martinez
 
He has created a secret police, just like a short little guy with a
funny mustache did back in the 30's.
This is not a political forum; it is a photography forum. As a New Yorker I feel we are at some risk - but this is not the place to discuss it. respectfully, bill w.
 
Yup that's what I want to know as well. So maybe you could stop posting inflammatory statements like below and take your own advice. You manage to shove in quite a bit of idealogy into your pleas for forum sanctity!

So lets keep it down unless you want more "vitriolic swill" in rebuttal to your own dissembling. Nothing more annoying than spouting hateful propaganda recycled from Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Rush, et al.
My question is WHY IS THIS THREAD ON THIS SITE?????? I want to
learn about photography. Instead I have to hear vitriolic swill
from liberals who still want a 17th recount in Florida. Give is a
rest or at least go somewhere where this is slightly appropriate!
And to still back Algore. What a joke!
anm
 
Jack is quick to point out the govt can't 1) establish religion and
2) can't impede the free exercise thereof... But it is pretty
obvious that having voluntary prayer in schools DOES NOT establish
a government endorsed religion while removing prayer DOES impede
the free exercise thereof.
We ALREADY have voluntary prayer in schools. If any individual student wants to pray, then provided they're not disrupting other students in the process, they're entitled to do that.

Unless you're claiming that only ORGANIZED GROUP prayer is acceptible, there's obviously no impediment to the free exercise of anybody's religion.

And if you ARE claiming that only organized group prayer is acceptible, then you're obviously arguing for a very specific religious practice that clearly has no place in a public school.

When there is time specifically set aside in the day's activities for prayer by a school or teacher, that clearly amounts an endorsement. It might not be very specific to any one flavor of religion, but at the very least, it's an endorsement of religion in general.

Why this is such a issue? Can't students pray at home before they go to school, or when they get home afterwards? Can't they pray on their own at recess or in between classes? Why does this have to be some organized activity that takes up classroom time?

The answer is simple. You don't really want something as simple as prayer in schools. What you really want is an explicit endorsement of Christian beliefs.

If you really wanted prayer in schools just for the sake of religious freedom, then you'd be wanting prayer in the workplace too. You'd be wanting prayer time during the work day at City Hall, at the Post Office, or the Public Library.
To state the ACLU is the protector of Christian rights is
completely dishonest... oh, yeah, so is EVERYTHING else they say!
You're correct. The ACLU is NOT the protector of Christian rights.

They are the protector of the Constitutional rights of individuals. Sometimes that individual may be a Christian, and sometimes they're not.

But just because that individual may not be Christian doesn't mean their rights should be trampled, although that certainly seems to be the situation you would prefer.

Mike

PS: And before you trot out the term "liberal" and whip it around, you might be interested to know that I usually vote Republican.
 
Mike,

I think the problem with your link is that you spelled "agenda" as
"agende"...
Yeah, I saw that too. Oops. But you know, I suspect it doesn't matter.
Uh, you did get that I was being ironic and sarcastic, right?
P
This is a digital photography forum, not a forum for whining
liberals with a political agenda.
--
JCDoss
Do you know where we can find the forum for whining conservatives
with a political agenda? Because I tried typing in:

http://www.forumforwhiningconservativeswithapoliticalagende.com

but it didn't work.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top