Where are you seeing any egging going on? Is it in pt 2?
This is subjective at best but I' didn't see any but closed the vid a little into the second part?
I was pointing out that in Maryland, exactly the opposite is the case. Citizens could not, under the law, make a video+audio recording of the police, until last year when a judge ruled that the law did not apply to the police. The underlying movement here is toward more freedom, not less.
Originally Posted by BrianL
I must have missed that, too; where was the "egging"? And showing restraint should have started with not trying to enforce a nonexistent law.
Originally Posted by BrianL
Last edited by moose10101; 06-03-2011 at 11:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Now these guys are Nazis
Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera
When he refused to answer a simple, direct, yes or no question, namely: "Are you refusing to show me your ID, sir?" among others. His demeanor was completely confrontational from beginning to end.
Originally Posted by moose10101
The cop even said in the beginning: "We have no problem with people taking pix of trains because they're fascinated with them." I'll wager that if I had been the one taking pictures they would have let me continue, because they would have sensed my cooperative attitude. Adherence or not to the letter of the law is not the issue here.
This guy reminded me of my 15 year old daughter in one of her more petulant moods arguing with my wife. I have to place him squarely in the 'asshole' column.
about our Rights
June 01, 2011|By Michael Dresser, The Baltimore Sun
Two photographers who were detained by Maryland Transit Administration police this year and told they were forbidden to take pictures of MTA facilities expressed relief Wednesday after the head of the agency flatly repudiated the officers' actions.
Administrator Ralign T. Wells disavowed police efforts to restrict photography on or around MTA property and said he would take action to head off a threatened lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland before it can be filed.
Wells said MTA officers were not properly representing agency policy when they ordered two amateur photographers to stop taking pictures and video of light rail trains earlier this year. Wells said he would apologize to the photographers and make sure that officers respect the First Amendment rights of photographers.
"We don't have a policy restricting photography," Wells said in an interview Wednesday. "The actions of some of these officers are not reflective of the agency stance."
The two amateur photographers involved in the incidents that prompted the ACLU threat welcomed Wells' statement.
"This is actually a good first step. What the MTA needs to do is follow up on what they indicated," said Olev Taremae of Bethlehem, Pa. Taremae was confronted by MTA police in a February incident at Mount Royal Station in Baltimore, during which he was detained and told that it is illegal under Maryland law and MTA policy to photograph transportation equipment, he said.
Taremae said he still wants the MTA to expunge any record of that incident from its computer files.
Chris Fussell of Portland, Ore., who was detained in a similar incident in March at the Cultural Center light rail station, said he was happy that the MTA responded quickly and admitted error after it received a letter Tuesday from the ACLU outlining its intention to sue if the issue was not resolved.
"Because this is not a new issue, I will reserve final judgment until seeing what steps the MTA will take to ensure that its employees respect photographers' rights," Fussell said.
Wells offered an explanation, but not an excuse, for why transit police ordered Taremae and Fussell to stop taking pictures and video.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
sad but true
Originally Posted by c6h6o3
That damned ACLU, standing up for the rights of individuals, standing up for our constitution. What a bunch of commies.
It's not my country and I don't know if I feel authorized to comment. I hope nobody takes offence.
What strikes me is that two persons were detained not according to the policemen's interpretation of a law, but according to policemen's interpretation of the policy of an agency. That means, in simple terms, that in the US one can be detained not in force of the Law (which as you know is passed by a Parliament, where people sovereignty resides and lives), but in force of some norms emitted by some state public officer.
It's a basic principle in all liberal states (and communist states probably as well) that detention can be applied only according to the Law, in circumstances foreseen by the Law.
What happens reminds Sherwood's Sheriff, supposing he could do that! The point here is not that some policemen made a mistake in their sincere effort to correctly apply a law. That might happen. The problem here is much broader: people can be detained in force of a bureaucrat's act, if I get it right.
If that's true, and if I were an US citizen, I would begin being VERY worried about the degree of fascism this terrorist-driven hysteria sunk my country in, Absit iniuria verbis.
* Actually this is a bit too derogative of fascism. I don't think that during fascism anybody could be detained if not in force of the Law. Laws were obviously "fascist" ones, but at least laws they were. Detaining somebody in force of a bureaucrat's decision really stinks like middle ages.
Take a look at this. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...g-photos-VIDEO
The article above only quotes a manager talking about "policy". It turns out the chumps thought they were enforcing parts of the Patriot act that may or may not exist.
It looks like there are a lot of important details that aren't in either of these articles.
At least they haven't had cameras or film confiscated...