Homeland Security cop arrests man for filming FBI building in NYC

Originally posted by TheAssociate

Randall Thomas ... used his video camera to pan up and down on the 42-story building at 26 Federal Plaza.

He was immediately accosted by a security guard in a brown uniform who told him he was not allowed to film the building.

What I don't understand is why he went to all the trouble of filming the building when he could have pulled up all kinds of pictures and information right on the internet.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44064d00bcaa.jpg[/atsimg]

Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building

architect - Alfred Easton Poor, Kahn & Jacobs, Eggers & Higgins
location - 26 Federal Plaza.
date - 1967
style - International Style II
construction - 179,0m / 588.8ft, 41 floors, glass concrete
This massive building has a 41-storey glass-walled slab facing east that is partly "wrapped" around a core that faces Broadway. Originally the facade facing Broadway was a windowless wall of exposed concrete, but in 1976 an extension by the same architects brought offices also to the western portion. The vertical window slits of the glass walls are misaligned so that all the adjacent windows are at a different height, forming an alternating zig-zag pattern on the facade.
On the triangular plaza in front of the building is the eight-storey Customs Courthouse as a black glass cube that is elevated on two white vertical "plates" that slice through the cube.

type - Federal Office Building Government

www.nyc-architecture.com...

reply to post by chise61


You are right.

Its obvious arguing back and forth isn't going to change our minds, so I leave you with those three words.

reply to post by nydsdan


Invasion of privacy has nothing to do with this. That's totally different issue.

reply to post by jd140


There's no such law. If there is a sign that says 'no photography' it's made up bullocks.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I refer you to my post above.

Done, gone, out, adios.

reply to post by EyesII


Hi again. As I said this is a trend and we will see alot more of these. In NYC I was hoping it would be bit easier on the photographers because they've issued internal memos to law enforcement that specify that photography is not a crime. Oh well, 'disorderly conduct' can still be used to snatch anyone from the streets

Thank goodness there are people out there who are willing to put their own well being at risk for the sake of challenging injustices perpetrated by the PTB and elite.

This is not about the need for a picture. It is about the need to raise attention not for himself but for the issue of heavy handed police state tactics used against Joe Q. Public.

whats the point in having a "law" officer if he wastes tax money and time on trivial things like this ,

the officer had no real issue/lawfull right as to go and ask what he is filming

and since it was non of the officers buissnes in the first place

the right answer is non of your buissnes since it isnt.

idiocy lies in the officers over eager life style of meddling with things that is non of his buissnes be it private or on duty.

A+ to the photografer

reply to post by wayno

Thank goodness there are people out there who are willing to put their own well being at risk for the sake of challenging injustices perpetrated by the PTB and elite.

Couldn't agree more. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: these people take silence as sanction. If they aren't stood up to, they'll just keep on keepin' on with the totalitarianism. Thank and star for the reply and insight.


TA

This is an interesting predicament and I am on the fence on this one. A few points:

-I do not blame security officers for taking these precautionary measures; however, the man should have responded courteously and appropriately. If he would have done so and still have been detained, then that most likely would have angered me. As for his previous detainment, I am not aware of the details to make a sound assessment.

Can it be conclusively determined that he was simply taking pictures of the buildings and attempting to spy into a window?

I do not believe filming/photographing bridges should be prohibited because all of the interior/exterior contents of the bridge can be accessed, primarily because the bridge can be crossed. In contrast, an ordinary citizen does not have legal permission do enter any building he/she so desires by justification of "tax-payer funding." If my previous question about spying can be definitively invalidated in this case, then he has every legal right do act how he pleases.

For those of you who believe he was simply exercising his first amendment, how do you feel about the five dancing Israeli's filming and celebrating the WTC attacks? Would you also agree that incident was a just invocation of the first amendment?

reply to post by 1 4M 7H3 1


Well, first of all, he was very polite in his response. He said what he had to say and that's it. He didn't curse at the guard or ignore him.
Second if there were 'dancing israelis' then they had every right be filming whatever they were filming. Unless of course if they were part of the attack, if not then they were within their rights. 1st amendment doesn't stop where your taste has it's limits.

reply to post by jd140

Why did people sit at lunch counters when they knew they would meet aggression during the 60's? Why did Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat on that bus? Would you have asked those questions back then?


[edit on 5-9-2009 by srandallthomas]

If he is filming his own property then he can say "none of your business"reply to post by nydsdan
Isn't "Federal Property" the property of all U.S. Citizens?

Listen, he wasn't arrested for photographing the building, he was arrested for this.....

"What are you photographing?.... None of your business"

the crime my friends, is called "contempt of cop". Ask almost any police officer what that phrase means, and he will most likely tell you "disorderly conduct".

So no, he wasn't arrested for taking pictures, he was arrested for not licking the boots of the cop that responded to the call.

Taking pictures does not = disorderly conduct
Disrespecting a cop does = disorderly conduct

And yes, they are out of control. reply to post by uaocteaou


Yes to everything you said, that too.

I can understand the concern and the taking of his camera or memory card. Hey it wasn't that long ago we had 9/11 folks, it's better to be safe than sorry and have people taking pictures of federal buildings checked out wouldn't you agree? I mean after all isn't there a lot of other things you would rather take pictures of than a federal building? I would expect nothing less if I was doing it, than to have law enforcment ask me some questions like "why are you taking pictures of a federal building!reply to post by Mr_XIM


If you are a U.S. Citizen I can support you right to give up your rights. However, I wish to keep and exercise every last one of mine. 9/11 did not rewrite or void the United States Constitution.

Additionally, if giving up my liberties is required to be more safe, I'd rather be less safe.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by newworld

 

Such a thing has happened before actually. Sometimes when the authorities get out of control photographers protest by assembling as many as they can get and then they all go out to photograph the trouble spot. That would actually be quite a good idea in this case too.

Now that would truly deserve the name .... Flash Mob

Getting your equipment confiscated or damaged must be a nightmare ,considering that you make a living from it.