The article states: "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 statements of Wells actually back up your understanding that "in all liberal states...that detention can be applied only according to the law." Wells agrees with that. The officers acted on their own, not according to any policy.
In the US, the supreme law of the land is the US Constitution. No agency can legally have a policy that violates it.
Nah. Nazis were way more competent. The lunacy currently afoot in the US really doesn't have any basis in law or fact. Hopefully the days of terrorist hysteria generated random-harassment-citing-made-up on-the-spot-laws will be remembered with the same amount of incredulity and disdain that the McCarthy era is. I do think many of the general public is finally figuring out that legions terrorists aren't coming to blow up their Ford Focus in particular, but there are still plenty of hysteria swilling idiots who wouldn't recognize a power grab if someone grabbed them in the tenders with a hydraulic vise-grip. They feel free just as long as they can go down to the mall, throw down a credit card, and buy frikkin sneakers with lights in them.
On the part of the cops, and rent-a-cops, it's obviously just one more power trip, generally rooted in behavior formed around high school. Policing in the US has gone from a respected profession to being filled with people most would generally like to avoid, both professionally and socially.
Last edited by JBrunner; 06-03-2011 at 02:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.
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.
Please. The cop said the guy needed "the governing party's approval, and that would be us" (bulls**t). He even said there was a "vetting process" that had to be applied (bulls**t). He also said that no one could take pictures on state property, especially MTA property, without authorization (bulls**t). He also stated that the guy HAD to give them his ID (bulls**t).
Adherence to laws that actually exist is the issue here. The cop was a complete d**k, and might end up losing his job because of his incompetence.