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.


Police Chief Confirms Detaining Photographers Within Departmental Policy

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 05:56 PM
This *chief*
Needs to be detained behind
the back of a pick up truck

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:19 PM
It might be their policy, but it doesn't make it legal. A policy to question and /or harass people taking photographs needs to be reviewed and revised or dropped completely.
edit on 17-8-2011 by N3k9Ni because: typo

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:33 PM
whatever police department made that policy, needs to be beaten with their own night sticks. there's nothing illegal about taking pictures of a building, or other structure, object, or anything else. if i want to take a picture of an oil refinery, or a power airport...government building...i'm going to. a cop has no right to harass anyone for it

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 10:50 PM
People need to quit being paranoid and reading into things.

There is a HUGE difference between making contact and arresting someone. There is no law that prevents law enforcement from making voluntary contact. There is also no law that prevents people who are the subject of a voluntary contact from just walking away.

Be smart about it of course (IE dont give the cops any other reason to detain you).

If confronted, be level headed and kindly explain your taking photos in a public place (make sure your on public and not private property). If the cops want to push it, dont resist, let them do their thing, get a lawyer, and sue for your new retirement.

As much as I support law enforcement and being proactive, somtimes it goes to far.

Checking on people taking pictures of buildings with no asthetic value is one thing... Forcing that confrontation to the point of making an arrest is a bit to far.

As a free society we must balance security with freedom, which means we must recognize that in order to secure those freedoms, we are going to be required to sacrifice some of the security.

The more our society clamps down out of fear, the less terror attacks needed to make an impact on that society.

At this poiint, I owuld say that in terms of physche warfare, the terrorist have essentially won. We have cracked down on ourselves to the extent we punish ourselves for security.

Time to draw a line in the sand....

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:33 PM
reply to post by RisenAngel77

In my view it doesn't really affect me, while it does add to the pile of unjust laws, you can't take away the fact that people do bad things

As long as it doesn't affect you, I guess we're all safe and sound.

However, when one of those "unjust laws" does affect you, please keep your mouth shut and accept the penalty, because bad people do bad things.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:59 PM
Get some expensive airline tickets and just before your flight start taking pictures in the city of that Police Chief and make sure there's some cops really close to "apply Departmental Policy".

After they make you miss your flight/vacation. Hand the bill to the city for your losses.

If enough people did it....the "Departmental Policy" would soon change.

Lawyers need jobs too...they LOVE to help you get your money back for your losses due to "Departmental Policy".....UnConstitutional Departmental Policy.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:08 AM

Originally posted by RisenAngel77
Sigh I realize and know all this, I am just saying I think we need to focus on bigger fish instead of focusing on the small things and this one counts as a small thing. In my view it doesn't really affect me, while it does add to the pile of unjust laws, you can't take away the fact that people do bad things and eventually will take photographs to do harm.

There is two sides to every coin and this one might even prevent future false flag attacks. Think for a moment, while false flag attacks will happen and has been happening, some unjust laws can be used against the elite.

I apologize if I made you upset, was not my intent, I just like to analyze both sides of the argument.

What else that does not personally bother you would you be ok with banning? How about tasty food? Banning tasty food will not harm anyone, right?

I would actually like to see a list of successful terrorist plots that were carried out by taking pictures of the outsides of buildings. Is it a long list? I want to see the magnitude of the threat this BS "policy" is going to help prevent in the future.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:20 AM
reply to post by Pervius

Do these lawyers work for free or will you have to pay them to get you your money back? Just curious because I have a hard time understanding the benefit of spending money on a plane ticket and then spending more money getting a refund.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:47 AM
What's the difference between "detaining" and "arresting"? I mean, the guy said "detaining", so the "officer" who is witnessing the "photographic" event must be detaining the "photographer" based on what? Probable cause? I'm pretty sure we pay police to do "policing". If they see someone taking pictures, of what may or may not be, considered a "sensitive" target, for instance, the photo of the atomic power plant that was posted here, they may want to take a look at the photographers credentials. Common sense. Hey, what the hell, what am I talking about, you don't suppose someone might take pictures of something just to do a target study would they? Naw, it could never happen, not in America, not these days, no sir. I'm SURE it never, ever happens!

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in