Reading mode: Light Dark

Encounter with a security guard.

Go to last post
James Riley said:
philippe carly said:
all this debate proves that somehow the terrorist attacks of 9/11
and others have achieved a bigger goal than "just" (please forgive)
the immediate destruction and deaths. They have actually managed to
undermine our free countries and take a little freedom away from
ALL of us.
Click to expand...
They did not undermine our freedom, they simply gave the thugs and
criminals in our own country excuses to "take over" and say "you
need us to protect you". Of course, having idiots like W and
Asfcroft help tremendously in pulling off this con.
Click to expand...
While you're absolutely correct as to who took away those bits of freedom, the end result is the same. It was my point, just poorly phrased.
James Riley said:
This is why had our forefathers given those EASILY-SCARED low-IQ
soccer moms and wimpy nerd boys the right to vote, we would have
been a monarchy within a few years after Independence.
James Riley said:
It's a paradox, but the more we react to ensure our safety, the
more we give up individual liberties and rights in favor of
security, the more successful the terrorists and their motivations
become.
Click to expand...
We all know that, what are you going about it? Just sit there and
let these thugs and their Commie Democrat/**** Republican bosses
raise our tax rate to 90%? In the name of security? Take away our
guns and the rights to defend ourselves, in the name of "safety"?
Is everybody going to have a cop stationed at their homes to get
24x7 security?

I have read many of our states' constitutions. Many have or had
the statement that warns us that "a standing army" is a threat to
our freedom. Looks like it is gonna be either we take security in
our own hands, or we are SLAVES! (of course the PC term today is
"taxpayers" and "law-abiding citizens")
Click to expand...
Again you just better phrased my intent which wasn't completely outlined: anyone promising more safety at the expense of freedom should be regarded as highly suspicious. Lots of people in the past have fought and died for freedom, safety was obviously not their first concern.
--
p.carly
---
'capturing today tomorrow's memories'

http://www.newwavephotos.com
 
philippe carly said:
James Riley said:
philippe carly said:
all this debate proves that somehow the terrorist attacks of 9/11
and others have achieved a bigger goal than "just" (please forgive)
the immediate destruction and deaths. They have actually managed to
undermine our free countries and take a little freedom away from
ALL of us.
Click to expand...
They did not undermine our freedom, they simply gave the thugs and
criminals in our own country excuses to "take over" and say "you
need us to protect you". Of course, having idiots like W and
Asfcroft help tremendously in pulling off this con.
Click to expand...
While you're absolutely correct as to who took away those bits of
freedom, the end result is the same. It was my point, just poorly
phrased.
philippe carly said:
This is why had our forefathers given those EASILY-SCARED low-IQ
soccer moms and wimpy nerd boys the right to vote, we would have
been a monarchy within a few years after Independence.
philippe carly said:
It's a paradox, but the more we react to ensure our safety, the
more we give up individual liberties and rights in favor of
security, the more successful the terrorists and their motivations
become.
Click to expand...
We all know that, what are you going about it? Just sit there and
let these thugs and their Commie Democrat/**** Republican bosses
raise our tax rate to 90%? In the name of security? Take away our
guns and the rights to defend ourselves, in the name of "safety"?
Is everybody going to have a cop stationed at their homes to get
24x7 security?

I have read many of our states' constitutions. Many have or had
the statement that warns us that "a standing army" is a threat to
our freedom. Looks like it is gonna be either we take security in
our own hands, or we are SLAVES! (of course the PC term today is
"taxpayers" and "law-abiding citizens")
Click to expand...
Again you just better phrased my intent which wasn't completely
outlined: anyone promising more safety at the expense of freedom
should be regarded as highly suspicious. Lots of people in the past
have fought and died for freedom, safety was obviously not their
first concern.
--
p.carly
---
'capturing today tomorrow's memories'

http://www.newwavephotos.com
Click to expand...
--
JR
 
Michael Worley said:
is also a notorious threat, however. Wouldn't it be ironic if the
statue you were photographing was the Statue of Liberty? It wasn't
was it? You were doubtlessly photographing some subversive symbol.
You weren't doing nothing, were you?

Old joke: Two guys in the Gulag, one asks the other how many years
he's in for. "Thirty," is the answer. "What did you do?" the
first guy asks. "Nothing," comes the answer. "No," the first guy
says, "for nothing you get twenty years, not thirty."
Click to expand...
you might get 20 years for doing "nothing", that is, not paying the extortion fee these ****'s demanded. They called it income tax, but that does not make it morally right, since 90% of the payment are used to benefit somebody else (like doing uselss construction work in Boston or some bridge leading to nowhere in West Virginia), even paying for more legalized thugs to take away more of your constitutional rights.

--
JR
 
James Riley said:
you might get 20 years for doing "nothing", that is, not paying the
extortion fee these ****'s demanded. They called it income tax,
but that does not make it morally right, since 90% of the payment
are used to benefit somebody else (like doing uselss construction
work in Boston or some bridge leading to nowhere in West Virginia),
even paying for more legalized thugs to take away more of your
constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Sorry, forgot to say "invading a country we don't give a damn about..."

--
JR
 
No. Not at all. I'm haven't accussed anyone of anything. My point was that one person's reactions can sometimes help determine how they are handled.
James Riley said:
Israel Isassi said:
No one is talking about sacrificing rights. Freedom of speech is a
wonderful thing but there are times it is better to exercise it
quietly.

A police officer friend of mine once pulled over someone for
running a stop sign. He was just going to give her a polite verbal
warning until she started yelling at him and cussing him out for
making her late to wherever she was going. She got the ticket that
she deserved anyway.

Thanks,
Israel
Click to expand...
Are you accusing the original poster of "yelling and cussing"?

--
JR
Click to expand...
 
You made my point for me.. Thank you.. Goodbye..
James Riley said:
Bill Dewey said:
James, I don't read Israel as accusing anyone of anything. I think
Click to expand...
Then he should not bring up the incident, it is in the wrong contexts.

We are mostly intelligent and/or well-educated people here, not
idiots or criminals, not some drunken low-IQ construction worker
who acts racklessly on a paycheck night.

--
JR
Click to expand...
 
I don't believe that none of this has much to do with the 9/11 terrorism. It's just an issue that has been around since the beginning of time and has been brought back to the surface once again.

Thanks,
Israel
James Riley said:
philippe carly said:
James Riley said:
philippe carly said:
all this debate proves that somehow the terrorist attacks of 9/11
and others have achieved a bigger goal than "just" (please forgive)
the immediate destruction and deaths. They have actually managed to
undermine our free countries and take a little freedom away from
ALL of us.
Click to expand...
They did not undermine our freedom, they simply gave the thugs and
criminals in our own country excuses to "take over" and say "you
need us to protect you". Of course, having idiots like W and
Asfcroft help tremendously in pulling off this con.
Click to expand...
While you're absolutely correct as to who took away those bits of
freedom, the end result is the same. It was my point, just poorly
phrased.
James Riley said:
This is why had our forefathers given those EASILY-SCARED low-IQ
soccer moms and wimpy nerd boys the right to vote, we would have
been a monarchy within a few years after Independence.
James Riley said:
It's a paradox, but the more we react to ensure our safety, the
more we give up individual liberties and rights in favor of
security, the more successful the terrorists and their motivations
become.
Click to expand...
We all know that, what are you going about it? Just sit there and
let these thugs and their Commie Democrat/**** Republican bosses
raise our tax rate to 90%? In the name of security? Take away our
guns and the rights to defend ourselves, in the name of "safety"?
Is everybody going to have a cop stationed at their homes to get
24x7 security?

I have read many of our states' constitutions. Many have or had
the statement that warns us that "a standing army" is a threat to
our freedom. Looks like it is gonna be either we take security in
our own hands, or we are SLAVES! (of course the PC term today is
"taxpayers" and "law-abiding citizens")
Click to expand...
Again you just better phrased my intent which wasn't completely
outlined: anyone promising more safety at the expense of freedom
should be regarded as highly suspicious. Lots of people in the past
have fought and died for freedom, safety was obviously not their
first concern.
--
p.carly
---
'capturing today tomorrow's memories'

http://www.newwavephotos.com
Click to expand...
--
JR
Click to expand...
 
AstroPax said:
I wasn't "attacking" him, I was just pointing out that he is wrong.

Why don't you ask Ken to back up his claim, a blanket statement
that is totally false. Ken said, "Photographing any military
installation in the U.S. is restricted, even if you're standing on
public property."
Click to expand...
[snip]

I stand corrected. I shouldn't have made that broad a statement. Your description where to expect restrictions is very good. I'm accustomed to being places where explicit permission is needed, including places where there are signs outside the fence, and did not think of all the non-sensitive areas. It comes down to what is sensitive, and what restrictions the base commander specifies.
AstroPax said:
BTW, just because a local police officer, a military police officer, or a
security guard does a field interview on someone for taking pics of an
installation doesn't mean it's illegal. Usually, they just want to see who is
taking the pics, and document the activity.
Click to expand...
That's a good point.

Thanks.

Ken Plotkin
 
based on my experience. The two experiences of mine detailed here were before and after September 11, and all that had really changed was the vocabulary. Yesterday the concern was allegedly middle east connections, a couple of years ago in Dallas they thought I would sue them if I fell down. In both cases, the guards just wanted me to keep moving.

And I've had other experiences (like most of us, probably) when I wasn't carrying a camera but a security guard thought I posed some sort of threat.

By the way, no security guard today when I went back with a different lens.

--
Mike
----------
coupla cameras
some lenses
three bicycles
used Jeep
yellow tabby cat
the love of a good woman
 
Thomas said:
Well, I've been there and took a lot of pictures, while the 'cammo
dudes' where watching me with their binoculars. They didn't do
anything. After that we made our way to Tikaboo Peak and back, and
only briefly a black helicopter checked us out. I heard that the
security guards will never approach you, as thay may not be
recognised (if it's true), unless you really cross the border.
Click to expand...
Must happen so often there that they have a good feel for when they need to do something, and when to just stand back and watch.

Or take the opportunity for a spin in the helicpoter. :-)

Ken Plotkin
 
Jim Coffey said:
Jason Pachman said:
I was in midtown New York City a few weeks ago. I heard some one
call "Sir, could I speak with you a second" and when I turned
around a security guy with a disposable camera snapped my photo. He
told me not to photograph the Morgan Stanley building and a few
others. I found him friendly enough but it made me a little more
reserved about what I photograph.
Click to expand...
I wonder what he would have done had you snapped his photo after he
took yours? Or asked why he took your photograph (assuming you are
on public, not private property).

I'm all for being friendly and reasonable, but if you are on public
property, his taking your picture is no different from you taking
his. For all he knows, you could be an undercover cop.

I agree with those who say the bottom line is to remain reasonable
and try to resolve things without confrontation, which is why
getting a supervisor involved is a good way to get a a good outcome.
Click to expand...
 
I went on a night photo shooting last winter in DC after a snowstorm. I particularly wanted some shots around the White House of subway vents steaming into the cold night.

I was expecting to get accosted by DC police and that's what happened. I politely explained what I was doing and why, offered to show them ID, I showed them my pics on the screen and offered them a unique chance to pose for me :). They declined the offers to ID me or to pose, but were very respectful and polite and never gave me grief afterwards.

I got stopped by police at the Washington monument as well, but they were just trying to figure out if I was OK, mistaking me for a (lost?) tourist.

Sometimes it helps being nice (and I realize your situation was different).

ad in md
 
What happens if you are just taking photos for yourself?

Dave
ad in md said:
I went on a night photo shooting last winter in DC after a
snowstorm. I particularly wanted some shots around the White House
of subway vents steaming into the cold night.

I was expecting to get accosted by DC police and that's what
happened. I politely explained what I was doing and why, offered to
show them ID, I showed them my pics on the screen and offered them
a unique chance to pose for me :). They declined the offers to ID
me or to pose, but were very respectful and polite and never gave
me grief afterwards.

I got stopped by police at the Washington monument as well, but
they were just trying to figure out if I was OK, mistaking me for a
(lost?) tourist.

Sometimes it helps being nice (and I realize your situation was
different).

ad in md
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/iluminatae
 
. . . sounds like you handled things just right. Except, maybe, from the reaction of the police at the Washington Monument, wandering around in the cold. (I went to graduate school there, and being a dumb California boy, could have easily frozen my silly self to death but for the kindness of strangers.)

--
Mike
----------
coupla cameras
some lenses
three bicycles
used Jeep
yellow tabby cat
the love of a good woman
 
Those that are willing to trade freedom for security
Deserve neither
 
Mike H said:
Those that are willing to trade freedom for security
Deserve neither
Click to expand...
Right on.

But Franklin does not run this country no more, the NYT does, and gad knows what puppet masters they have behind them. I hope at least they are not "foreigners", or at least not communists! (the Fascists already run one major party, that much we know)

--
JR
 
Gee, you got stopped at these touristy locations? What is this world coming to?

They got to be stopping and questioning every tourist, then. What kind of nutty tourist goes to our nation's capital with all its "great" buildings and monuments, and not bring camera?

BTW, did you guys hear about the 5 Texas Homeland Security police officers who got busted for fishing while on duty... FOR ONE WHOLE YEAR? Reportedly they were told to quit, but kept on doing it any way. In fact, they used their police power to order guards at the power plant they were guarding, to let their friend in (to the pond). A 6th cop, a supervisor got busted for no reporting them.

Hmm.. maybe that is the reason they get so "concerned" about our cameras? :-)

Just kidding.

With due respect to the two ex-cops (or whatever) in this thread, most cops are good people, and I have some as friends, and they would not do anything like that.

I just wish they quit covering up for their friends! :-))))

(running for my life, incoming...)

Sorry, sorry, just watched too much Comedy Central.

--
JR
 
Same thing happened to me in front of New York's FIT building. I was taking a picture of my girlfriend in front of the building when a security guy approached me and asked what I was doing. "Can I take a picture of my girlfriend?" - I replied. "Uh, okay." That was when I had my E-10; now that I have both Nikon digital and film bodies and some nice lenses, he might call the cops before asking me what I was doing ;-)
 
Alberto Tanikawa said:
Same thing happened to me in front of New York's FIT building. I
was taking a picture of my girlfriend in front of the building when
a security guy approached me and asked what I was doing. "Can I
take a picture of my girlfriend?" - I replied. "Uh, okay." That was
when I had my E-10; now that I have both Nikon digital and film
bodies and some nice lenses, he might call the cops before asking
me what I was doing ;-)
Click to expand...
I would for example, ban photography on the ferries around NYC. Why? We don't want any drunken captain photos spreading around, do you? Or one who forgot to take his medication, and looked and acted like he was drunk?

Why, the incident last month only killed 10 persons (my sincere regards). The image of the ferry service and NYC is more important than that. Actually I am sure whichever union the captain belongs to, they probably think their image is more important too.

Why, we should respect that. After all FDR told us that unions have special rights that supercede everyone else's civil rights, right?

Of course, W tell us now that NYC and all its buildings (and ferries?) has the same rights that supercede everyone else's civil rights too, right?

--
JR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

zackiedawg
Birds, Chicks, Predators, & Pretty Bugs. More Wetlands (12/4)
Replies
7
Views
88
NorCal Jim
NorCal Jim
mreynolds767
Restricted access frustrations
2
Replies
32
Views
67
mreynolds767
mreynolds767
Bill Ferris
Our Years on DP Review
Replies
10
Views
323
Vandyu
V
Phocal
The Baby Gator Project: Part 1 - Getting Close Using The Lay Down Method
2
Replies
21
Views
22
Phocal
Phocal
Phocal
The Baby Gator Project: Part 1
Replies
1
Views
2
Mikel10
Mikel10

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top