It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Homeland Security cop arrests man for filming FBI building in NYC

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by jd140
 


If his name is Jihad Jim, then yeah I would say he was looking for trouble. If his name was John Brown, I let it go.




Seriously one of the most hilarious and politically incorrect things I have ever read. Outstanding work!! I wish I could put that into my signature.





posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by jd140
 


If his name is Jihad Jim, then yeah I would say he was looking for trouble. If his name was John Brown, I let it go.


John Brown and Jihad Jim cannot be determined without the questioning part of this scenario. Islamic terrorists do not always look like what you think they look like. Some are even......American.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
I work directly across the street from this building in question. It is not "the FBI building" it is 26 Federal Plaza. In addition to the FBI, there are dozens of federal agencies that have offices in this building.

I have observed Federal Protective Services (the federal cops that protect federal buildings) harass tourists and others with cameras that are just taking a picture or a video of the building while in manhattan.

I don't get the fascination, it is one of the ugliest buildings in manhattan; however, this person should sue.

If you know the person involved, or have ever been arrested here in NY for this type of non-sense, U2U me as I am an attorney and would love to sue the feds for civil rights violations.

BTW: this is exactly the same conduct under Bush and Obama. Where is that Change I was promised?


You want to sue the feds for protecting you? His rights as a citizen of the US were not violated so sue them on what grounds? I am pretty sure soliciting here on ATS is against the TOC?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by habfan1968
You want to sue the feds for protecting you?

What?????


Dude what have you been sniffing?


Please explain how they were protecting you?

Pictures to be used as a potential target?
Please!

As someone mentioned you could get MORE info on google earth
Or you could go to the roof of another building have take pictures even more freely.
Or you could drive-by photograph while taking pictures from a taxi
the options are boundless.

So please explain how exercising his rights is protecting you?

What ever happened to the old "this is a free country"?????
Where are the people protecting that old saying?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Seriously, if the photographer had been known to be involved in suspicious activities like trying to make home made bombs or something; then there might be some reason to suspect his taking pictures.

In this case however, his only past "crime" was taking pictures once before -- an act that was in fact not a crime. He is obviously not posing a challenge to rightful conduct of the PTB, but the wrongful conduct of the PTB.

His non cooperation in such a scenario has to be admired. I don't understand the thinking of people who suggest it is a good thing to cow-tow to authority figures just because doing so will be more comforting than challenging it.

I say shame. Those of you who believe that deserve what that will get you down the road.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
However, Jim Brown is becoming Jihad Jim because of his dissatisfaction with America.
I mean, the enemy will not always walk through time square with a camel and an RPG....


This could have all been avoided if he said he was taking a picture and moved on. He was not filming something sensitive as far as a cover up prospective. He was being a schmuck. I do not understand why people think it is ok to harass a cop but when the law hammer is dropped it is "don't taz me bro!!!" and the liberal cry for justice is awakened. You cannot have it both ways. ( I got my nose broken by a cop for no reason so I know they can be turds...)

This is one of the reasons why we should not let anyone video tape specific sites.

Link

Also, as a side note, you can get a permit to photograph these buildings. That is the illegal part. Also, if he was using a tripod that is also illegal due to filming permit needs.


[edit on 21-8-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 21-8-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Carry an assault weapon to a presidential event = no crime

Take a picture of a city building that you own a part of = Crime

That's stupid, just stupid.

Better safe than sorry = warantless wiretapping
= No More Habeus corpus
= no fly list
= take off your shoes before boarding
= FEMA Camps
= Patriot Act
= No pictures of public buildings
= Forced Vaccinations
= Everyone gets Tazered
= Et Cetera, Et Cetera, Et Cetera

Is nobody else getting sick to death of that tired old excuse to strip citizens of the rights we USE to possess?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
BTW: this is exactly the same conduct under Bush and Obama. Where is that Change I was promised?




Seriously you didn't really believe the ole Chicago car salesman's pitch did you? He is just a wanna be power player who cut his political teeth with the worst criminals and anti-American believers while going to church at an anti-American church. Really think he is going to keep his word to you?? Sh##, I hope you kept your receipt....



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by uaocteaou
 


The difference is the man with the gun was licensed to do so and was not causing an issue. I would think that this man is mentally handicapped if he goes back to the SAME place he was before. Over every bridge on the way into the city and on signs all over it says to please not photograph specific areas. He was not a tourist but he could have said he was, apologized and moved on. Why not. You do not tell a DHS agent a few blocks from ground zero it is none of his business. He wanted an issue. He wanted to a problem.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

He should be taking a picture of something that means something, likes this one I took....



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by habfan1968

Originally posted by finemanm
I work directly across the street from this building in question. It is not "the FBI building" it is 26 Federal Plaza. In addition to the FBI, there are dozens of federal agencies that have offices in this building.

I have observed Federal Protective Services (the federal cops that protect federal buildings) harass tourists and others with cameras that are just taking a picture or a video of the building while in manhattan.

I don't get the fascination, it is one of the ugliest buildings in manhattan; however, this person should sue.

If you know the person involved, or have ever been arrested here in NY for this type of non-sense, U2U me as I am an attorney and would love to sue the feds for civil rights violations.

BTW: this is exactly the same conduct under Bush and Obama. Where is that Change I was promised?


You want to sue the feds for protecting you? His rights as a citizen of the US were not violated so sue them on what grounds? I am pretty sure soliciting here on ATS is against the TOC?


OMG.... Are you serious?? Let's play TOC police. It was the White House that wanted you to rat everyone out to der Leader, not SO. Man.... Cut people a break comrad.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by uaocteaou
 


The difference is the man with the gun was licensed to do so and was not causing an issue. I would think that this man is mentally handicapped if he goes back to the SAME place he was before. Over every bridge on the way into the city and on signs all over it says to please not photograph specific areas. He was not a tourist but he could have said he was, apologized and moved on. Why not. You do not tell a DHS agent a few blocks from ground zero it is none of his business. He wanted an issue. He wanted to a problem.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

He should be taking a picture of something that means something, likes this one I took....


You make too good of a point. Where is the TOC police on that one?


Seriously, you make a great point and that is responsibility for your actions. Rather then him saying, my bad, I was just taking some pictures as a tourist and walking away, he wants to make a scene and grab some attention. Then when he gets punished, he wants to blame someone else. This is probably the same guy that threw a f#cking tantrum in the store when his parents didn't buy him a candy bar so they bought him three to make him happy. Instead of getting spanked, he probably got time out.

If you don't want to get punished or wind up in trouble, don't put yourself in that position. Why include the Patriot Act, taking your shoes off, etc., in this discussion? Really, that much of a connection? This guy threw a tantrum and got punished. Don't compare it to a terroristic act.




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 




........Doesn't take away from the fact that he knew what would happen. He went there knowing that he would be detained.



I'm sure he probably did suspect that he may be detained again. However that still doesn't take away from the fact that he has every right to exercise his rights.

Some people choose to exercise their rights regardless of the fallout of doing so, so that they may keep their rights.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 



As someone said already, there are signs on numerous buildings saying taking pics are prohibited.

If one is on this building then he broke the law.

If he needs a pic of this building all he has to do is call and ask permission. Simple as that.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


If there really is a law on the books that makes it illegal to photograph the building and there were signs posted then he did indeed break the law and he would have been charged with that crime. However he wasn't charged with breaking any such law, so it seems as though he did not in fact break any laws.

If he wants a picture of the building and there is no law on the books prohibiting it then he need not ask permission.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Hey PsykoOps:

Remember me from another thread about photographing things.

I stated that it is illegal to photograph bridges, tunnels and govt buildings.

Well, here it is in our faces. Simply dispicable!!!!

Where are our rights? Why did the Judge NOT side with the Amendments to our Constitution?

I will continue to keep my camera in my pocket. I don't need static from any cops. They obviously DO NOT have the public's interest's at heart.

As I have asked before on ther other thread, what about all the tourists that don't read or speak english who come here with camera in hand taking millions of shots? They don't get arrested? Why not? Because they are not using a video camera?

This pisses me off as I live in NY and I feel like my rights have been trashed because some peopel (or agencies) are paranoid about terrorism!

-EyesII



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


He was charged the first time, what makes you think he wasn't charged this time?

Because the article doesnt' mention it?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
So if it was so easy to find it on Google Maps why go take a picture? That is like taking your new girlfriend to the place you and your ex hung out. You are asking for drama



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Because then he wouldn't be able to make the news complaining his rights have been violated.

He wants the drama.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 



What makes you think he was charged with it the first time. The article doesn't say what he was charged with the first time. It says he was arrested for it, not charged with it. All it says about charges two years ago is that he pled not guilty to two misdemeanors, but it doesn't say what the charges were.

The article lists the charges from the current arrest....


His charges: Disorderly conduct; failure to comply and impeding duties of a federal officer.


There's a link in the article that shows the search warrant and the citations that were issued to him.




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join