Innocent

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Just out of curiosity, how did/do your compatriots view Tito?

Benevolently during his era, and with nostalgia these days.

[BobDavid]

A couple of years ago, I was out taking photos of my house. Around 10 PM, a Polk County sheriff's dept. cruiser stopped by. The deputy asked what I was doing. I told him I was taking pictures of my house. He said there's no law against taking pictures at night on the street. He said he was responding to a call, probably from one of the neighbors. Then another cruiser pulled up. The other deputy asked if I could recommend a digital camera for his daughter in high school. We chatted for a few minutes. Before they left, I asked if they'd park side by side for a picture. They were happy to oblige. I didn't get ID'd.

As for yesterday's photo outing, I didn't capture anything particularly interesting. I will return to the site. However, I will be sure to telephone the authorities and give them a heads-up.

[BobDavid]

Benevolently during his era, and with nostalgia these days.

Well, I am happy you've been able to make a life for yourself in the US. I am sure you've experienced much loss and sadness. How could any of us have known by viewing the wonderful and imaginative photos you post.

[N80]

The electrical grid is a strategic target. In times of war it is an important target. The grid would be very low yield for terrorists. Easy to destroy. Easy to repair. Minor inconvenience. No comparison between a wartime strategic objective and a terrorist attack. Yes, a large well planned multi-site terrorist attack on the grid might help achieve other objectives, but no real value in itself. Not really the point here though. I appreciate the law keeping an eye on infrastructure for whatever reasons there might be.

I also don't think the letter of the law is of much significance here either. I think the important issue is that law enforcement personnel need to be part of the community. It should not be us vs them. I would have appreciated the officer asking me what I was doing. I would not appreciate the request for ID. She should have been able, in a very cordial way, to have determined the nature of the incident and then moved on. Both parties would have felt good about it. In this case there were issues of trust and intrusions on freedom. Though slight, there was never need for it at all. That is the point.

[RSL]

You're on a roll, Bob. Keep rolling.

[BobDavid]

You're on a roll, Bob. Keep rolling.

Thank you, Russ. That is good advice.

[bassman51]

I continue to be amazed that police and rent-a-cops think that the people setting up equipment to take careful pictures of something are potential terrorists.  Wouldn't a real terrorist simply stroll by with their phone camera so as to not attract attention?  I've been stopped taking pictures of public courthouses from the street in Boston (legal), buildings in NYC from the street (legal), light trails on cars at night from an overpass (legal - the same cop came back twice and told me not to be there if he came back again).  It just seems like security theater or ignorance of the law to me. 

That being said, there's little upside to forcing a confrontation with a real police officer (as opposed to a rentacop) and a pretty big downside.  Having been in a situation where cops pulled their guns on me (unrelated to photography and they were misinformed), I can tell you that you never want to get to that situation.  Even if the ultimate outcome is okay. 

[Otto Phocus]

I continue to be amazed that police and rent-a-cops think that the people setting up equipment to take careful pictures of something are potential terrorists.  Wouldn't a real terrorist simply stroll by with their phone camera so as to not attract attention?

Maybe the police read photography forums where a lot of the posts are about how lousy cell phones are and how "real" photography needs a "real" camera.   

But yeah, when, in my case, there is an old fat guy setting up a camera on a tripod and taking 20 minutes to take one shot is hardly fitting into the signature of someone trying to sneak a tactical picture.   

[BobDavid]

I am going to print this and keep it in my glove compartment. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/photographers-what-do-if-you-are-stopped-or-detained-taking-photographs

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the deputies from Polk County were polite, respectful, and immediately acknowledged I was exercising my right to take photographs at night from the street. They did not ask for my ID. We shook hands and introduced ourselves. We all had a good laugh.

[RSL]

Bob, the first response of a law officer to a publication by the ACLU might be to slap you into irons. Here's an alternative I've used for a lot of years. http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf. Bert Krages is an attorney who's also an avid and active photographer. His little summary of the law in .PDF format sometimes can get you to a point where you can move on and do what you came to do.

[BobDavid]

Bob, the first response of a law officer to a publication by the ACLU might be to slap you into irons. Here's an alternative I've used for a lot of years. http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf. Bert Krages is an attorney who's also an avid and active photographer. His little summary of the law in .PDF format sometimes can get you to a point where you can move on and do what you came to do.

Thanks for covering my back. I see what you mean about waving an ACLU pamphlet in front of a peace officer. I owe you...

[Jeremy Roussak]

Here in the US, it would have been completely within my right to not have cooperated with the deputy.

Of course you would; but that doesn't mean it would have been sensible. I like to quote this epitaph when people stand on their dignity:

Here lies the body of Jonathan Day
Who died defending his right of way.
His way was clear; his right was strong
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

Not collateral damage, but purposefully targeted. Given my personal interest in the situation, I remember a NATO commander publicly stating the purpose of targeting substations as I described above, to "persuade" the population to react in a certain way (a textbook definition of terrorism, including state terrorism).

I can't remember who it was (Roosevelt?) who commented that when you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. History doesn't suggest it works.

Jeremy

[stamper]

The biggest problem with all of this is emotion. If a person is easily upset when challenged then he/she will lack common sense and do something silly. Quite often they will know that they are right but being right doesn't always bring the correct solution. Sometimes you have to walk away even though you know the other person is in the wrong, especially when they have a big gun. Recent events in the US means that trigger happy police will act hastily.

[petermfiore]

My attorney chastised me for being intimidated and handing over my ID. The ACLU confirmed that under the Bill of Rights, "my civil liberties were violated".

My father once said to me, when I expressed my outradge when such an issue arose in my youth, "That will look good on your Tombstone".

Civil Liberties are wonderful...you need to be alive to enjoy them.

Peter

[N80]

Recent events in the US means that trigger happy police will act hastily.

That is an offensive, unsupportable, derogatory and uncalled for remark.

[N80]

I can't remember who it was (Roosevelt?) who commented that when you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. History doesn't suggest it works.

Jeremy

I think history shows that it works quite well and is entirely dependent on how good a grip you have and how hard you squeeze. And, off course, eliminating the hearts and minds that will not follow. But as in all things, thank goodness, despotism doesn't last forever. But it can last a long, long time. Rome comes to mind.

[stamper]

That is an offensive, unsupportable, derogatory and uncalled for remark.

https://thinkprogress.org/this-is-how-many-people-police-have-killed-so-far-in-2016-7f1aec6b7098#.rrl6vxbjj

A Google search brought up dozens of links. Try searching yourself.

[Otto Phocus]

In the military we had Regulation 4-16.

The E-4 with the M-16 pointing at you is, at least temporarily, in command of the situation. 

Now is not the time to protest.  Now is the time to comply and live long enough to complain later...when you don't have a young kid pointing a rifle at you. 

I think that can apply to the police.  There is a right time and a right way to challenge a decision by a Police Officer.

[RSL]

https://thinkprogress.org/this-is-how-many-people-police-have-killed-so-far-in-2016-7f1aec6b7098#.rrl6vxbjj

A Google search brought up dozens of links. Try searching yourself.

What crap like this doesn't tell you is how many of these people needed killing. There are plenty of criminals who fit that description.

[Otto Phocus]

What crap like this doesn't tell you is how many of these people needed killing. There are plenty of criminals who fit that description.

Unless the suspect is a direct and immediate threat that can not be mitigated by other methods, it should be up to the court to decide if they need killing.