Police harassment on New Jersey Transit

I think we should allow all sides the opportunity to demonstrate goodwill
without prejudging the issue.

I do hope the US learns to adapt to strictness with respect if what you are
saying is true.

A first good pointer is that we can discuss this openly and contraversially.
Always a good indicator IMHO

Artie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Arte Phacting writes:

Wouldn't it be nice if after going through all the procedures, paying
the
dues and obtaining all permits, one or two of the regulatory authorities
turned round and said something like:

It would be nice, but then again, it's no more likely than winning the
lottery.

well thanks JohnCM. We've received your pics and we are so impressed
with
image XYZ123 that we want to use it in next year's PR releases. We'd
like
to offer you a couple hundred bucks for use of the image and you retain
copyright ownership OR a couple hundred bucks more and you sign over
original image and copyright ownership to us.

It would be more like: We've decided to use your photos. Remember that
you gave us blanket permission to do anything we want with the photos
when you signed your request for a permit. And remember that you also
agreed to supply us with copies of every photo at your expense. Thanks.

Doing the right thing should not be a pain ...

If that were true, the United States would never have been founded.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"JohnCM" wrote in message
om...
Many cops these days seem to get their back up about people taking
photos of trains. Many of the MTA police stop people from taking
photographs from commuter rail stations, citing security reasons. This
is bad enough.
But the tactics of New Jersey Transit's police, really scare me. Many
people have spoke to NJT Police and they say if you're caught taking
pictures they will arrest you and seize your camera, even if you're
NOT on NJT property. They cite their right to "steal" using security
concerns.
(snip)

----------------

What every photographer in America needs today
http://www.sendpix.com/albums/04072118/knw4qnmqto/

Journalist

Being an old guy, I may know a little history. I do believe that NYC
Subway system was the first transit system to outlaw photo taking ...
and that was almost a century ago. It had nothing to do with security
as we use the term in this thread. It had to do with the flash powder
necessary to take the photographs underground and the safety of that.
Also, the engineers had to actually stop and start the trains ... not
automatic in any way. The flash could temporarily blind them.

In about 1982 I was in NYC and saw signs indicating that no pictures
could be taken. I was there to shoot pictures (with no flash ... but
with fast Leitz lenses and Tri-X film ... of the Guardian Angles. The
Angles told me to shoot the damn pictures and I even shot some cops
while in the protection of several Angles. No problem. I bet they use
the old law now.

BTW, I have been a homicide detective for decades, in another big
city. I have been told I could not take photos at crime scenes when
the property owners did not know I was investigating a murder. This
often happens when taking pictures from a public alley or street of a
yard. My practice is to not tell them who I am or what I was doing,
but to tell them to call the police. I feel more free to tell them off
becasue I know I will not really be arrested. Also, when they are sort
of violent towards me, I know I carry a gun (or two). I too believe in
freedom in public places for all citizens. If someone wants their
yards private, they could put up a wall or solid fence (that is if the
zoning guys let them) :-)

Marty

On 19 Jul 2004 23:01:04 -0700, (JohnCM)
wrote:

Many cops these days seem to get their back up about people taking
photos of trains. Many of the MTA police stop people from taking
photographs from commuter rail stations, citing security reasons. This
is bad enough.
But the tactics of New Jersey Transit's police, really scare me. Many
people have spoke to NJT Police and they say if you're caught taking
pictures they will arrest you and seize your camera, even if you're
NOT on NJT property. They cite their right to "steal" using security
concerns.
I do some railroad photography. Alot less than I used to. I've only
done photography on MTA railraods, usually just a few quick snapshots.
One time I was taking photos at a Long Island Railroad station and an
MTA police officer stopped and questioned me. First he said that
photos werent allowed, but after questioning, let me take them. I'm
not so much afraid of being questioned, as of being arrested or having
my camera seized.
I plan on taking a trip on NJT rail this fall to Short Hills. But when
I go I plan on getting a few pictures as I get off the train. But I'm
really worried about getting arrested or "robbed" by the police. I
know, if I feel that uncomfortable I shouldn't take the pictures. But
don't I have the right to take pictures? It is a public transit system
supposedly run BY US. Also, do cops really have the right to seize a
camera and arrest you for taking a photo? Its one thing if someone
just refused to obey the cop, but quite another if its someone taking
photos, and is just told they're under arrest without even given a
chance to say they didnt know about a ban. I always obey what a police
offer says, since I dont want to cause trouble.
It sure seems like the USSR is being re-incarnated, right here in the
USA.

Being an old guy, I may know a little history. I do believe that NYC
Subway system was the first transit system to outlaw photo taking ...
and that was almost a century ago. It had nothing to do with security
as we use the term in this thread. It had to do with the flash powder
necessary to take the photographs underground and the safety of that.
Also, the engineers had to actually stop and start the trains ... not
automatic in any way. The flash could temporarily blind them.

In about 1982 I was in NYC and saw signs indicating that no pictures
could be taken. I was there to shoot pictures (with no flash ... but
with fast Leitz lenses and Tri-X film ... of the Guardian Angles. The
Angles told me to shoot the damn pictures and I even shot some cops
while in the protection of several Angles. No problem. I bet they use
the old law now.

BTW, I have been a homicide detective for decades, in another big
city. I have been told I could not take photos at crime scenes when
the property owners did not know I was investigating a murder. This
often happens when taking pictures from a public alley or street of a
yard. My practice is to not tell them who I am or what I was doing,
but to tell them to call the police. I feel more free to tell them off
becasue I know I will not really be arrested. Also, when they are sort
of violent towards me, I know I carry a gun (or two). I too believe in
freedom in public places for all citizens. If someone wants their
yards private, they could put up a wall or solid fence (that is if the
zoning guys let them) :-)

Marty

On 19 Jul 2004 23:01:04 -0700, (JohnCM)
wrote:

Many cops these days seem to get their back up about people taking
photos of trains. Many of the MTA police stop people from taking
photographs from commuter rail stations, citing security reasons. This
is bad enough.
But the tactics of New Jersey Transit's police, really scare me. Many
people have spoke to NJT Police and they say if you're caught taking
pictures they will arrest you and seize your camera, even if you're
NOT on NJT property. They cite their right to "steal" using security
concerns.
I do some railroad photography. Alot less than I used to. I've only
done photography on MTA railraods, usually just a few quick snapshots.
One time I was taking photos at a Long Island Railroad station and an
MTA police officer stopped and questioned me. First he said that
photos werent allowed, but after questioning, let me take them. I'm
not so much afraid of being questioned, as of being arrested or having
my camera seized.
I plan on taking a trip on NJT rail this fall to Short Hills. But when
I go I plan on getting a few pictures as I get off the train. But I'm
really worried about getting arrested or "robbed" by the police. I
know, if I feel that uncomfortable I shouldn't take the pictures. But
don't I have the right to take pictures? It is a public transit system
supposedly run BY US. Also, do cops really have the right to seize a
camera and arrest you for taking a photo? Its one thing if someone
just refused to obey the cop, but quite another if its someone taking
photos, and is just told they're under arrest without even given a
chance to say they didnt know about a ban. I always obey what a police
offer says, since I dont want to cause trouble.
It sure seems like the USSR is being re-incarnated, right here in the
USA.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:25:23 +0100, "Zebedee" wrote:


Cameras have been banned from schools and swimming baths on the excuse that
paedophiles might be taking the pictures. I'm sorry. I just don't buy that!
Paedophiles are turned on by erotic and sexual photos of children. I cannot
imagine any schoolchild would look remotely erotic or sexual in a swimming
bath or in school uniform.

Someone was arrested last week here in southeastern Wisconsin for
taking video of children at a local swimming pool. He admitted using
the video for personal gratification purposes. And apparently you
haven't seen the erotic pictures of japanese girls in their school
uniforms. I suppose just about any activity a person can engage in
arouses someone else.

Lazarus Long writes:

I suppose just about any activity a person can engage in
arouses someone else.

That's certainly true for police work.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Giftzwerg writes:

Well, there was that little incident back in September a few years ago;
perhaps your local newspapers mentioned something about it?

You mean the burning of the Reichstag?

I mean, I know all the professional alarmists are going to be too busy
wetting themselves over The Antlike Mandibles of John Ashcroft(TM) to
actually think about this, but globally, there does seem to be a real,
non-imaginary issue with exploding trains, cars, and suicide belts.

Does there? Do you watch a lot of TV?

The world is a big place, and exploding trains, cars, and suicide belts
are so rare that they are statistically insignificant.

Speaking for myself, I've been questioned three dozen times since 9/11
when photographing insert thing we would like to not be blown up here,
and I've always taken the attitude that if the price I pay for not
having to watch the Empire State Building collapsing in flames - and
having to attend five dozen ****ing funerals in the following weeks, as
I did in October and November 2001 - is being restricted in my ability
to photograph it, it's entirely worth it.

There's no correlation between the two, and you'll find that a world
without freedoms is a lot worse than world with real and imaginary
terrorists lurking about now and then. I personally don't care if you
sign away your own freedoms, but I do have a problem with you signing
away mine.

I always just *ask for permission* ...

You don't need to ask for permission, therefore you should not.

... explain what I'm about, endure some
obvious questions (from someone whose ass is going to be on the line if
he lets Mohammed "Death To America" Al-Asshole through...), and I've
never been treated with anything but courtesy and allowed to do whatever
I wanted.

What will you do when the courtesy stops and you are no longer allowed
to do anything? Try to reclaim the rights you threw away?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Giftzwerg" wrote in message
...
I've always taken the attitude that if the price I pay for not
having to watch the Empire State Building collapsing in flames - and
having to attend five dozen ****ing funerals in the following weeks, as
I did in October and November 2001 - is being restricted in my ability
to photograph it, it's entirely worth it.

This is backward thinking. The United States was founded on the principles
of personal freedom. For this freedom, we are willing to let some guilty
people go free, to protect the innocent (better to acquit a guilty person
than to convict an innocent one). Our sacrifice for freedom is the
understanding that the bad guys may take advantage of our belief in freedom.
And that may mean death to us. But that is the price we pay for freedom, and
anyone who believes in freedom must be willing to accept the risk.
Otherwise, we are not free.

Ryan Robbins writes:

But that is the price we pay for freedom, and
anyone who believes in freedom must be willing to accept the risk.
Otherwise, we are not free.

Some people don't care about freedom; they care only about "safety"
(real or imagined). Typically these people are people who have enjoyed
freedom and have never had to live without it.

A lot of famous people, both bad guys and good guys, have had something
to say about this. Consider Göring's thoughts at Nuremberg:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of
the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to
drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship,
or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the
people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country
to greater danger."

Or consider James Madison's comments:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be
dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War
is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies,
and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many
under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of
the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors,
and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds,
are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. ... [There is
also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing
out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals. ...
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
...."

Remember, freedom is very hard to obtain, and very easy to lose, and
overall it's worth far more than "security."

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.