It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Armed Woman Arrested Taking Pics of National Guard Base – NY

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by KSPigpen
Gotta love a woman with guns.

So you like them dumb then?

Common what was she trying to achieve apart from a little attention?? Dumb cow, 500 rounds and 2 weapons? Hell she is lucky a 19 year old guard didn't pop her where she stood... And then giving the gene pool a much needed kick up the arse.

hehe. yeah, I reckon I do. (just kidding baby)

Sort of rushing to judgement on that one. So she was a 'dumb cow?' I didn't remember reading anything about her weight. As far as we know, she could have been one of those 'terrorists.' Oh, but the weapons were registered.

Although she probably shouldn't have been there taking pictures, she has that right, doesn't she? She should have stayed off the property and taken the pictures from farther away.

If she can proven to be a 'terrorist,' or to have had some other nefarious reasons for the pictures, then It's a good thing she was caught. They make it sound like she was pulling a Rambo... bristling with weapons...they were in her trunk?

Maybe she just has a thing for guys in uniform....or maybe she's a psychopathic dumb cow...singlehandedly plotting the overthrow of the nation...with two guns and a camera.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:08 PM
Guys,i grew up on Long Island.Within a few blocks of my house was Grumman aerospace and several military office buildings with signs posted on fenced off propeperty"PHOTOGRAPHS PROHIBITED".They must have similiar restrictions at the base.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:24 PM
reply to post by MOFreemason

She had an Assault Rifle and a Shotgun and she's taking pictures of a military base. What does she expect is going to happen? It's more a matter of common sense.

And I think they have every right to arrest her, hell, I'd call the cops if someone with an Assault Rifle and Shotgun was taking pictures of my house.

The fact remains that it's illegal to photograph any military complex without proper authorization to do so. I think they arrested her simply because she was taking pictures AND had two very powerful weapons.

To top it all off she had a converted xm and 500 rounds?

It's too fishy, and I'm sure they are letting her off with a slap on the wrist. The weapons are registered, she just needs to leave her high powered weapons at home when she's out snooping military bases

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:25 PM
If it was a question of illegally taking pictures of a military base, then why wasn't she arrested for that ? Seems as though they had the perfect charge already, so why arrest her for tresspassing, which she wasn't if she was outside the airport ?

Suffolk County Undersheriff Joseph Caracappa said Nancy Genovese, 53, of Quogue, was arrested for trespassing outside the Gabreski Airport ANG facility Thursday night.

And she conviently went balistic in the courtroom. The story just doesn't sound right.

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:34 PM
I'm sure that's what she was arrested for but if any formal charges come up, the photography thing would be one of them.

As far as why was she "trespassing" on airport property? I'm going to take a bet that since 9/11 rules have changed about how and where you can take photographs on airport property and where you're allowed to be on airport property unless you're an official or member of airport staff.

That's just my guess though, I'll have to do some more research.

Here is an interesting link to an article by USAToday about photography laws if anyone is interested: Photography Laws

This article also links to some documents written by Law Offices about the subject, in case anyone wants to debate her right to photograph military bases

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:20 AM
She should have used the guns.

The arms are to defend our constitutional rights, but it seems everyone would rather just give them to the enemy.

*Women who take pictures of army bases and gather Intel will be considered Heroines of the Revolution (because one is coming, and you all know it).

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by MOFreemason

Lady sounds suspect to me..

What the hell is she driving around with all that fire power for haha.. I'm all for personal rights, second amendment all that, and I still think she sounds like a nut job.

Maybe she should listen to the Police/MP's .. stop going onto the base property and taking pictures.

Or at least leave you're Rifle at home.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:40 AM
The reason why it's illegal to take pictures of an AFB is because of the security of the jets that are most likely there. Those jets are millions of dollars and need to be protected and not only that for protesters who want to go on a base and stupidly want to damage those jets "protesting the government/war." Unknowingly though they have no idea what they're hitting and what those jets are used for. It has been done before, and has been done overseas as well. Believe me I live on a AFB. They are very secure with their jets. Even if their jets don't do anything and just fly in circles training. Believe me, I don't blame the government in wanting to protect THEIR property. Whether an Army base, or AFB, or naval station.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:45 AM
reply to post by FantasmaTaans

You joined ATS just to say that? hmmmmm

The woman broke no laws. She did that which is her right to do.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:48 AM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Poor woman. She probably fears the base might be used as a internment camp in a Marshall Law scenario and is just trying to find photographic evidence to substantiate her fears.

What is Marshall Law?

Anyway, this woman is an idiot, and probably a conspiracy theorist wacko.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:51 AM
Actually the Commander of that base makes the rules of what goes on and around the base, and most likely the local government will abide by that. I would know, I'm in the Air Force. No I also wanted to join for a while now, but since I figured this happened with my branch of service, and a bunch of paranoid civilians worried about NWO is funny to argue with. I've done it before.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:52 AM
*Also meant to say I'm very busy with my job and wasn't able to join so I lurked for a few months.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:53 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

Also your puppy is very cute :-)

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by FantasmaTaans

Ok so what's your take as to why she was arressted for tresspassing instead of photographing a military base, from a military point of view that is ?

Edit to add; There's a difference between being paranoid and being awake.

[edit on 8/2/2009 by chise61]

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:15 AM
In this forum? Thinking you're awake probably means you're paranoid. Or, more likely, just have an over-active imagination. I doubt many people on this site- although certainly more here than others- are actually clinical paranoid. They just have over-active imaginations and aren't very knowledgeable about the tings they're talking about. And conspiracy theories are at once more exciting and more approachable.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:28 AM
reply to post by SuperViking

Heck no we're not paranoid here, we are well aware of the fact that our government never conspires against us, nor do the elite
they are all the most trustworthy people you'd want to meet. We do this strictly for entertainment purposes, ours and your's

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:31 AM
I think it makes sense that the arresting officer arrested her for trespassing.

If you think about it, I don't think you can be arrested for taking photographs of things you're not supposed to. If you don't give up the film or the camera, they have a right to arrest you because of "failure to cooperate with an officer of the law".

That's probably why she was arrested for trespassing.

Officers give citations and tickets for improper use of film equipment and photography equipment in relation to areas you can't film or shoot without a permit. This has been my experience working in electronic field productions. It's all a matter of having a permit, and without a permit for something you don't get arrested unless you fail to pay a fine.

So that's my guess.

The photography of a sensitive military base would probably be tacked on in the court room.

Plus, she had to be well on the property of Gabreski Airport, as she was photographing the Air National Guard facility. The airport property stretches pretty far out. They say she was "trespassing outside the Gabreski Airport ANG Facility." To me that means she was right outside of the facility which is located inside the airport. This would seem like trespassing.

So that's my reasoning. It seems like the person who wrote the article is missing some good information though. I'm sure more will come to light in the following weeks.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:40 AM
reply to post by chise61

Well I just answered, not only to that but the personnel that are there. Now I realize that not the jets are there but the personnel and the families. I'm not really sure bout Air Guard bases, but on AFBs there are thousands of people that live on the base. The lady had those guns. What if that lady went to go just killing military personnel trying to eliminate a NWO from happening by taking out their military? ONE BY ONE. Not only innocent airmen could've been killed, but women and children too. Do you approve of that? So Security Forces were very justified for arresting her, and if you ask me she's being treated too lightly. Billions of dollars, and thousands of people are at risk, even if it's 2 jets, or 14 people, the government doesn't want to take that risk at all. A base is like a small town, and from personal experience I feel very safe in this town. I would rather not have a lady with these weapons taking pictures and snooping around. It's peoples lives.

There's a huge difference between paranoid and awake, being paranoid you will never be open minded to the latter, or even accept or be willing to fully understand ANY arguement, and already have a predetermined position to a arguement. A lot of people here are like that, while others seem to be more logical. You can't be very broad, neither too narrow, you have to be able to have a equal amount of the both to fully understand a arguement

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by SuperViking

Heck no we're not paranoid here, we are well aware of the fact that our government never conspires against us, nor do the elite
they are all the most trustworthy people you'd want to meet. We do this strictly for entertainment purposes, ours and your's

No, there's actually been some very good books written about it. The idea that 'you' (whoever you may be) is powerless and the 'elite' (whoever that is) are conspiring against you is an ancient idea, but very rarely actually based in fact. Curiously, this website assumes that that very rare occurrence is actually the typical. It's weird. But, yes, it is entertaining.

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:59 AM
reply to post by FantasmaTaans

I'm sorry but i can't seem to find where you have already answered that particular question. I have no problem understanding why they wouldn't want somebody hanging out around there with weapons in their vehicle, that's not what i'm questioning. What i'm questioning is why was she arrested for tresspassing ? If she broke laws by taking pictures of a military base, then that's what she should have been arrested for.

All i have to go off of right now are the articles, which all state that she was outside of the airport, not on airport grounds. I would however like to know why she was so fixated with this base, since they are supposed to be only a rescue wing performing over water search and rescue.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in