Navy vet gets fired for posting pics of DHS vehicles near Ferguson

Is there any government agency not in Ferguson?

Theres your sign.

The word terrorist doesn't mean anything anymore. Its thrown around so often wrongly ...

The problem is that after the people stay in line the pwt wont be happy and will require the people to love and worship them as well . a reply to: tavi45

I gotta admire the guy for reposting the pics even after being threatened with arrest for doing so. So why would DHS back out of a contract over this? Are they so insecure they'll be attacked or something?
I don't get how they can have "federal police" on their vehicles either. There isn't supposed to be any federal police forces, only state and local.

Their heavy presence should concern us all. It makes me wonder if they don't have a prefabricated incident ready to roll out when the time is right. You know, something bad enough to require instituting martial law and probably designed to rile up the black populace all over the country. Every act by the President and Holder so far has been calculated to enrage black people and allow them to get carried away with no repercussions.

They probably have paid agents provocateur sprinkled through the crowds as well. You can tell just how much I trust our administration, lol. If there is trouble I'll be looking squarely at DHS to blame.

Shame about this man's job. I hope some patriot will step up and give him a better one.

The weird thing is all those vehicles were parked in a open and public area that anyone visiting the hotel could see. I'm surprised that numerous hotel guests didn't do the same thing as the employee, being as close to Ferguson as they were. How was there any expectation of privacy when they were parked where they were?

a reply to: AgentShillington

Only Beck or Jones could could carry water for 'right to work' then turn around and use it to claim government tyranny.

Some hotels have policies in place that forbid taking pictures of guests and their property on hotel grounds. This is in place to ensure the guests privacy and safety. That might be why he was fired.
The managers ramblings are another story. Not to sure what that's about.

originally posted by: hogstooth
a reply to: NavyDoc

Privacy? They're gov't employees on the taxpayer's dime. If anything the American taxpayers deserve to know when their gov't is dropping 150k on hotel rooms.

As other posters have pointed out though, his firing is not illegal and he probably won't win any lawsuits.

The hotel is not in the business of monitoring the comings and goings of federal agents. They are in the business of providing a comfortable and safe place for people to sleep. An employee who takes and post pictures of guests at the hotel is in violation of that ideal and therefore it is reasonable to let him go because that harm's the reputation of the hotel for future clients. And yes, there should be public accountability for how public money is spent, but even public servants deserve a little privacy, especially on their downtime, just like any other citizen.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: UnBreakable

“You’re a terrorist and you have dishonorably served your country by posting the photos and video,” Bohnert told Paffrath, adding that if Paffrath re-posted the photos and video he will, “have the federal government knocking on your door and you will be incarcerated.”



Being fired for them losing a $150,000 contract is one thing, but isn't him being branded a terrorrist bit iof an overkill?

It's hearsay. The hotel didn't publish this information, a guy that got fired from them is the one claiming this. I'm not going to suggest whether or not it was said, but I am certainly under the belief that the hotel would NEVER admit to saying something like that.

Well, then you could say losing the $150,000 contract is hearsay too. Please show me then where the hotel published that info.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: hogstooth

a reply to: NavyDoc



Privacy? They're gov't employees on the taxpayer's dime. If anything the American taxpayers deserve to know when their gov't is dropping 150k on hotel rooms.



As other posters have pointed out though, his firing is not illegal and he probably won't win any lawsuits.

The hotel is not in the business of monitoring the comings and goings of federal agents. They are in the business of providing a comfortable and safe place for people to sleep. An employee who takes and post pictures of guests at the hotel is in violation of that ideal and therefore it is reasonable to let him go because that harm's the reputation of the hotel for future clients. And yes, there should be public accountability for how public money is spent, but even public servants deserve a little privacy, especially on their downtime, just like any other citizen.

So then it is wrong to take pictures of parked vehicles? I thought a hotel parking garage is public property.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: hogstooth

a reply to: NavyDoc



Privacy? They're gov't employees on the taxpayer's dime. If anything the American taxpayers deserve to know when their gov't is dropping 150k on hotel rooms.



As other posters have pointed out though, his firing is not illegal and he probably won't win any lawsuits.

The hotel is not in the business of monitoring the comings and goings of federal agents. They are in the business of providing a comfortable and safe place for people to sleep. An employee who takes and post pictures of guests at the hotel is in violation of that ideal and therefore it is reasonable to let him go because that harm's the reputation of the hotel for future clients. And yes, there should be public accountability for how public money is spent, but even public servants deserve a little privacy, especially on their downtime, just like any other citizen.

So then it is wrong to take pictures of parked vehicles? I thought a hotel parking garage is public property.

The hotel most likely owns the parking garage.
Not always. Don't know in this case.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
If it's open to the public, it's public property. Or does that only count for bakers? I thought there was no right to privacy outside our homes? Or does that only count for us peons? Different rules for everyone gets confusing don't ya know.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Well, then you could say losing the $150,000 contract is hearsay too. Please show me then where the hotel published that info.

You aren't going to get any arguments from me. It -is- hearsay. This whole article hangs on reporting from one biased source, Mark Paffrath. For all we know, this guy got fired for being late to work, and the photos have nothing to do with it. I'm not saying he's lying, merely suggesting that the entire story lacks any evidence at all.

a reply to: AgentShillington

We'll see when the announcement comes whether or not there really are DHS trucks in Ferguson.

Such a mess.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: hogstooth

a reply to: NavyDoc



Privacy? They're gov't employees on the taxpayer's dime. If anything the American taxpayers deserve to know when their gov't is dropping 150k on hotel rooms.



As other posters have pointed out though, his firing is not illegal and he probably won't win any lawsuits.

The hotel is not in the business of monitoring the comings and goings of federal agents. They are in the business of providing a comfortable and safe place for people to sleep. An employee who takes and post pictures of guests at the hotel is in violation of that ideal and therefore it is reasonable to let him go because that harm's the reputation of the hotel for future clients. And yes, there should be public accountability for how public money is spent, but even public servants deserve a little privacy, especially on their downtime, just like any other citizen.

So then it is wrong to take pictures of parked vehicles? I thought a hotel parking garage is public property.

No, a hotel parking garage is private property--that of the hotel. AS for "right" or "wrong," I didn't say it was wrong (not moral) to take the pictures, I said it was within the purview of employment of a hotel not to post pictures of the hotel's guests nor their vehicles.

originally posted by: AgentShillington

originally posted by: UnBreakable
Well, then you could say losing the $150,000 contract is hearsay too. Please show me then where the hotel published that info.

You aren't going to get any arguments from me. It -is- hearsay. This whole article hangs on reporting from one biased source, Mark Paffrath. For all we know, this guy got fired for being late to work, and the photos have nothing to do with it. I'm not saying he's lying, merely suggesting that the entire story lacks any evidence at all.

That's a valid point as well.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
If it's open to the public, it's public property. Or does that only count for bakers? I thought there was no right to privacy outside our homes? Or does that only count for us peons? Different rules for everyone gets confusing don't ya know.

You do realize that he was an employee of the hotel don't you? He can do whatever he wants in the parking lot of hotels he does not work. Other hotel guests could take the pics to.
Employees have to respect the private of guests.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
If it's open to the public, it's public property. Or does that only count for bakers? I thought there was no right to privacy outside our homes? Or does that only count for us peons? Different rules for everyone gets confusing don't ya know.

Your home is actually public property now. No one owns anything in reality unless they have the power to hold it. The 4th amendment has been dead for a while. It's just not flaunted too often lest people notice.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71
If it's open to the public, it's public property. Or does that only count for bakers? I thought there was no right to privacy outside our homes? Or does that only count for us peons? Different rules for everyone gets confusing don't ya know.

Well, that's not correct.

"Open to the public" is not the same as "Public Property". Public Property is property owned by the government. Open to the Public is private or public property that the public has been given restricted permission to access.

I don't know what this has to do with bakers, but I have long since given up on trying to understand the nuance of logical arguments at ATS.

originally posted by: tavi45
Your home is actually public property now. No one owns anything in reality unless they have the power to hold it. The 4th amendment has been dead for a while. It's just not flaunted too often lest people notice.

Oh, I see. Nevermind. This is rhetoric. Carry on.

a reply to: tavi45
True, we are all paying rent to the governments, even here in canada.