Photography is Not a Crime

63 responses so far ↓

• 1 discarted // Aug 20, 2009 at 7:17 AM

  should be a nice settlement

• 2 ClintJCL // Aug 20, 2009 at 12:58 PM

  What a crock!

• 3 JY // Aug 20, 2009 at 1:17 PM

  There’s obviously more to this story than what the biased perpetrator is telling.

• 4 Vidiot // Aug 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM

  Is there a criminal complaint filed, or something with a narrative from the arresting officer? This seems very flimsy on the face of it.

• 5 Carlos Miller // Aug 20, 2009 at 1:43 PM

  Vidiot,

  Check out the PDF at the bottom of the article

• 6 Vidiot // Aug 20, 2009 at 2:11 PM

  I did, and it seems light on information.

  In the criminal complaints I’ve seen (admittedly, not many, and I’m not a lawyer) there’s usually a narrative from the arresting officer describing what happened and why the person is being charged with these specific violations. Does Thomas say that the officer handcuffed him and sat him on the curb immediately after he answered the officer’s question with “none of your business?” Or was there more that we haven’t heard about?

  I’d also like to see what evidence the arresting officer took to the magistrate in order to get the search warrant for the camera — they were looking for evidence to support the charge under 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1), which as the PDF points out seems to cover not just interference, but “forcibly” impeding an officer. Did Thomas touch him?

  Given the information provided, the government’s case seems flimsy and unwarranted. And, while I believe that may well be the case, I wonder if there’s more going on.

• 7 NYCPhotorights // Aug 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM

  In downtown New York nothing more needs to be going on – the feds are engaged in open war against photographers – unfortunately most cave in and comply with illegal orders not to take pictures

• 8 Stephen Haynes // Aug 20, 2009 at 5:56 PM

  In this case, I must agree with Vidiot. Thomas has redacted portions of the citations that might provide more information as to exactly led to the alleged 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1) violation. Too many unanswered questions here, including exactly what the fed ordered — all Thomas tells us is his response to a single question. Did the fed actually order him to cease photographing? What ensued after that?

  I think you owe it to us to follow up here and dig a bit deeper.

  Showing the redacted portions of the citations (or providing a good excuse for the redaction) would be a start.

• 9 Vidiot // Aug 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM

  Hmmmm. I took a picture of the other side of the same building a few years ago. (And this picture was taken right beside it.)

  Wonder if they’ll knock on my door?

• 10 CityTrader // Aug 20, 2009 at 7:10 PM

  He should have brought a gun and claimed he was simply “protesting” Obama’s health care plan. Then the FBI would have left him alone…

• 11 keith // Aug 20, 2009 at 8:11 PM

  J. Edgar Hoover has been dead for 37 years and the FBI still acts like a bunch of a-holes.

• 12 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 20, 2009 at 11:42 PM

  Stephen Haynes “Thomas has redacted portions of the citations”. Wrong. I didn’t edit a single thing in that PDF. Scanned as is for attorneys. It may be hard to believe but it’s true that those officer where 100% acting “under color of law” in violation of the law. I can’t wait to get into court on this and will be giving complete updates to Carlos Miller. If I were the bad guy here I would not have bothered Mr. Miller with the story.

• 13 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM

  To answer other questions. For those familiar with the area. It was one of the guys in the brown uniforms who told me not to photograph. I told him I’ll photograph what I want. He radioed to DHS who showed up in under a minute. His first question was what are you photographing. My response was none of your business. He asked again and my response was more like: None of your f—ing business, leave me the f–k alone. At which point I moved away from him. He said don’t go anywhere. I asked if I was being arrested he indicated that I was not. So again I responded that if I’m not being arrested, leave me the f–k alone. When I get the video back you’ll see that this is fairly accurate. And NO, I DID NOT TOUCH ANY OFFICER. I had the cam in one hand and a soda in the other, and I held on to both until they where taken and I was in handcuffs. Hope that answers some of you.

• 14 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 21, 2009 at 12:02 AM

  Vidiot you read the statute very well. I want more info myself. I’m not clear on who the officer is that is referred to in the title 18 violation, DHS or the brown shirt. I don’t know. And I am not overstating this: I really can’t wait to see what was presented to that Magistrate. If we could put 12 people in a box and have a trial tomorrow I’d pay good money for the privileged. Don’t mean to sound to happy about all of this, but I like a good game of “gotcha”. Especially when I’m the cat and police are the mice.

• 15 Steve // Aug 21, 2009 at 12:15 AM

  Stick to ‘em Randall. I photographed that very buolding last thursday afternoon. I’d have told them to go fuck themselves as well and then promptly called the Canadian Embassy for assistance. Enjoy that big fat settlement cheque they’re going to have to write.

• 16 Thomas Paine // Aug 21, 2009 at 1:42 AM

  Couple of notes: First, the redacted parts on the citation are just Defendent Demographic info. If you don’t believe me, check the fifth page of the PDF here: http://bit.ly/ytXD1 and you’ll see the sections behind the black.

  Second, WTF? How do any of the violations apply when a.) Thomas was not on Federal property; he was on the sidewalk across the street. b.) He was just filming a building that is plainly visible from the street?

  How can failure to answer questions from a federal officer be considered impeding that officer when there are no specific, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person, let alone police officer, to believe that a crime had or is about to take place? There is no reason to assume Mr. Thomas knew what building he was filming, and even if he did, that is irrelevant. It’s visible from the street, you can’t pretend that it is not. Someone needs to train their people better.

  Mr. Thomas, thank you for not being a sheep.

• 17 NYCPhotorights // Aug 21, 2009 at 2:25 AM

  If this were not happening to photographers at all so-called “federal buildings” I might think that there is “more to the story”. This story is one more in a long history of abuse of photographers’ rights by the FBI and the DHS

• 18 discarted // Aug 21, 2009 at 3:13 AM

  Failure to answer questions?

  Whatever happened to the right to remain silent

• 19 NYCPhotorights // Aug 21, 2009 at 3:45 AM

  Whatever happened to the right to remain silent

  The constitution has been repealed. Welcome to the Soviet States of Amerika

• 20 JohnnyLaw // Aug 21, 2009 at 3:54 PM

  I have to say that I think this is a pretty stupid arrest. If the building is on google, who cares if someone takes a photo? I would like to see the official report but I don’t see any reason to detain the guy based on what he is saying.

  I don’t know the federal regulations but it sounds like the officer got into a pissing match and over reacted.

• 21 mjkerpan // Aug 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM

  Well, I fired off an e-mail to the FBI office protesting their siccing of Homeland Security goons on the man. It will be interesting to see if they respond. Maybe if we ALL e-mail a protest to ny1@ic.fbi.gov they might take notice.

• 22 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 21, 2009 at 6:52 PM

  I’d like to see Photographers surround 26 Federal Plaza and shoot till the light from the flashes penetrate every single window of the building. Because I believe that one day some cop somewhere is going to kill a photographer unless it’s made clear to law enforcement that Photography is not a crime.

• 23 Jon Quimbly // Aug 21, 2009 at 7:08 PM

  A photography protest is a great idea, Randall.

  There was a similar protest against NYC MTA photography polices back in ’04.

  http://gothamist.com/2004/06/06/photographers_to_mta_suck_it.php

• 24 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM

  I love it. I was given tickets from the police for photography in the subway, and was found not guilty because the statute cited actually makes that photography permissible. How professional law officers could be so ignorant to the law is beyond me.

• 25 Carlos Miller // Aug 21, 2009 at 7:55 PM

  Story got picked up by Gothamist.

  http://gothamist.com/2009/08/21/homeland_security_arrests_shutterbu.php

• 26 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 21, 2009 at 7:59 PM

  Mr. Miller. Had no idea that you were so popular. I was contacted by the press today and gave two interviews. I’ll have some info for you soon plus video of Times Square incident. Kind of busy right now. Wedding to cover tomorrow and an event in a few hours. But I’ll be in contact. Thanks.

• 27 Carlos Miller // Aug 21, 2009 at 8:06 PM

  That’s great. Who interviewed you?

• 28 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 21, 2009 at 9:08 PM

  Jared T. Miller
  Downtown Express
  &
  Bricio Segovia
  International Correspondent
  EFE NEWS Services / Agencia EFE

• 29 R.F. BACHARAC // Aug 22, 2009 at 12:35 AM

  When you do the photo-shoot enmasse – make sure to invite all the foreign press coverage you can get …….. and work the CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS, AND FREEDOMS OF THE PRESS angles. When they write their stories for their homelands – they should make it clear that the so-called liberty, freedom, and democracy the Soviet States of Amerika is claiming to be exporting to other countries (at then end of bayonets, bullets and bombs) ……. no longer exists in reality here. GOOD LUCK.

• 30 Checkpoint USA // Aug 22, 2009 at 5:13 AM

  I’ve been threatened on several occasions with alleged violations of 18 USC 111 for not cooperating with federal agents at suspicionless checkpoints. One individual attempted to intimidate my internet service provider into shutting down my website for alleged violations of this federal statute. In response, an attorney for my service provider set the record straight with a letter that can be found at the following link:

  https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog/index.php/2008/02/19/p86

  You shouldn’t have any problem defeating these bogus charges Mr. Thomas and it looks like you have yourself the makings for a good lawsuit to boot.

• 31 Fascist Nation // Aug 22, 2009 at 8:27 AM

  This sort of harassment is happening at all federal buildings. In Phoenix, AZ, the new federal courthouse is a rather interesting all window building (also on Google) that attracts cameras. And cameras attract brown shirts who demand the cesation of videotaping — from across the street on public sidewalks adjacent non-federal property. Demands to erase footage are also usually made under threat of arrest and/ or confiscation of equipment. Future “bring it on” project methinks.

  Do they have a case? Sure they can nail you on anything. Costs them nothing. They get paid to accost you with your own purloined tax dollars.

  Will they want to pursue this? Unlikely. Be interesting to see if there is anything remaining on the memory card when (if) you get it back. Why a judge authorized the warrant on the camera itself is a question I would like to know…maybe to see if it had a built-in internal memory storage as well.

  Refusing to answer questions really irritates any law enforcement officer. They hate you exercising your Right to be left alone, to be non-responsive, to travel and do as you please, without seeking their leave.

  I am under the opinion that filing a 42USC1983 civil rights suit is best done sooner rather than later. Though CheckpointUSA’s first time around charges were refiled a few days after he fled his suit and he was able to chide the arresting officer for ‘obviously retaliatory’ behavior.

• 32 Bones // Aug 22, 2009 at 8:29 AM

  It’s interesting they cited you for disorderly conduct and impeding federal agents, etc, but it does not appear you were actually charged with filming a federal building, so why the hell would it be disorderly conduct or impeding federal agents if all they asked you to stop doing was not a chargeable offense. Stupid aholes.

• 33 Fascist Nation // Aug 22, 2009 at 8:35 AM

  S. Randall Thomas says, “I’d like to see Photographers surround 26 Federal Plaza and shoot …. Because I believe that one day some cop somewhere is going to kill a photographer unless it’s made clear to law enforcement that Photography is not a crime.”

  Hence the reason a dozen of us strapped our guns on and visited the president’s town hall. The Phoenix PD, Secret Service and White House all are quoted as acknowledging our Right to openly carry in Arizona. And as Chris with the AR-15 said, ‘if more people would open carry all the time the police would know it is not against the law.’ Sounds like a good protest to me. Do what we did…get a few buddies with cameras who agree on a time to be there, call the NYCPD and tell them what you plan on doing and ask them are they going to show up to protect your Rights or to serve the FBI? BillyJacking at its finest!

• 34 Fascist Nation // Aug 22, 2009 at 9:04 AM

  It would also behoove you to demand any and all security camera recordings from the buildings and street (NYC) in that area. You want footage showing you filming, being accosted by the security guard, then DHS thug AND MOVING AWAY from him before your arrest. After all they should be eager to secure this footage to use as evidence against you.

• 35 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 22, 2009 at 10:29 AM

  Great ideas on here. I expect the Government to begin cowering relatively quickly on this one. However, I haven’t secured legal counsel as of yet, criminal or civil. I’m very eager to consult with both. I want people who really understand Title 18 USC 242 and it’s subsections. I believe the Attorney General lacks integrity. That’s just my opinion. The Justice department has a terrible records when it comes to going after cases involving officials who use their authority wrongly, or Act Under Color Of Law. I want an attorney who can put these onions so close to Eric Holder’s eyes that we see tears. All of these officers are under his Authority, and he is charged with handling all cases of officials who act under color of law in violation of Title 18 USC 242. I can’t see how he can give a speech on “race” in America with the track record he has when it comes the Color Of Law Statutes. To me that goes directly to his integrity.

• 36 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 22, 2009 at 10:45 AM

  The only cases the Government has been as soft on as officials who act under color of law in violation of citizens civil rights has been those cases involving situations like the Bernard Madof case. I’d like to hold a press conference soon and tell the American people that they “the taxpayers” have just paid me enough money to complete some public works project in their home town, and that they’ve paid me because the Justice Department has a policy of very selective prosecutions; If you’re incredibly wealthy or connected to power (like a law official), you are above the law. Fortunately…or unfortunately, my interest in photography is only matched by my interest in issues of our society.

• 37 R.F. BACHARAC // Aug 22, 2009 at 2:52 PM

  RE: ENMASSE PHOTO SHOOT …….. Just make sure the vast majority of the cameras are “empty” (without a recording medium/film/memory card/hard drive, etc). If dozens of these en-masse faux foto shoots could be orchestrated ……… repeatedly ……. THE POINT would eventually be driven home that their harassment of CITIZENS AND TOURISTS has to end … or else it will become all that they are able to do because of the manpower required. FINALLY: Make sure that there are plenty of people with hidden camcorder / spycams who can record the pandimonium (sp?) for posterity, and foreign news network coverage (since the FASCISTS will not allow such coverage on Corpo-Government Controlled Network News in the (now) Soviet States of Amerika). These EVENTS should be repeated as often as necessary – until the FASCISTS stop the harassment, illegal detentions, and false-arrests.

• 38 Carl // Aug 23, 2009 at 5:02 AM

  It is illegal to photograph federal property by anyone without permission from an authorized authority. That is “unless you have permission do not photograph federal property.” It is a matter of national security not a common right. An officer does not know whether the photographer is a professional or a terrorist. In that he treats all individuals the same. You ask r the photos first, then if you get what this officer got “its none of your business” then you arrest the offender, take the photos, and charge the offender with Disorderly or Disturbance. The Officer did nothing wrong but doing his job. His job is not to be policially correct, nor polite. His job is the protection of the people in the federal building. Being this was in New York where nearly 3000 people were killed 8years ago I see that any security measures that protect the people is justfied. You don’t know if what this officer did deterred another terrorist from making this building a target. To me he is saving lives.

• 39 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 23, 2009 at 5:18 AM

  “It is illegal to photograph federal property by anyone without permission from an authorized authority.” That statement is factually and legally incorrect. I have no idea where you got that information. Additionally, ‘Federal Property’ isn’t private property it is PUBLIC PROPERTY. It belongs to the people (all the people) of the United States. Stop spreading that foolishness, until you can provided a Federal Statute that supports such nonsense.

• 40 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 23, 2009 at 5:25 AM

  Carl I’d love to read your response. Because I can’t believe that an intelligent adult would state what you’ve stated and say it in good faith. I’ve read nothing that would support your statement. However, I’ve read much that would say that it take very, very much to trump the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. And the cop’s “intuition” doesn’t carry that kind of weight.

• 41 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 23, 2009 at 6:10 AM

  By-The-Way, when law enforcement sees me they may see many things. They may see the personification of crime, I will concede to that. But the one thing that I know they don’t see is Al-Qaeda. I don’t buy that “Possible Terrorist” B.S.

• 42 NYCPhotorights // Aug 23, 2009 at 10:01 AM

  Carl LIED:

  It is illegal to photograph federal property by anyone without permission from an authorized authority. That is “unless you have permission do not photograph federal property.”

  Where are you manufacturing these lies from? What is the statute? When did Congress pass it? There is NO SUCH LAW on the books – please stop passing along these outright lies!

  Photography is NOT a crime and that includes photography OF so-called federal buildings from a public sidewalk!

  What the feds are doing is making up their own laws and enforcing them by threat and intimidation. They are getting away with it only because so far no-one has the resources to challenge them. I DON’T CARE what their reasoning is (which I think is ridiculous to begin with) but I find it absolutely disgusting that they are able to get away with depriving me of the full legal use of a perfectly LEGAL piece of equipment (i.e. a camera).

  By the way the photography issue has caused me to lose virtually all respect for authority. I used to trust police on both the local and federal level – I now consider them liars that say or do anything that suits their convenience.

• 43 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 23, 2009 at 3:22 PM

  NYCPhotorights If I have anything to do with it, their not getting away with anything. As I see it, they are trying to take away my speech and right to move freely. I am offend and outraged. Although I haven’t said it, I feel as if I’m being told that I am less than a first class citizen of the U.S. and less than any other human being in this country. I can’t find words to express how pissed I am. Having said that; if it’s up to me the police, at least those working around 26 Federal Plaza, will have much to consider before approaching someone simply because they believe they can.

• 44 Lese Majeste // Aug 24, 2009 at 8:37 AM

  “May VE see your papers, please?”

  This whole thing sounds like some WWII movie about James Cagney fighting the Nazis.

  Only in this case, the police are the Nazis.

• 45 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM

  “There are certain things that the press cannot do when it comes to national security, and filming federal buildings is one of them,” said Luis Martinez, a spokesperson for the Dept. of Homeland Security in an interview with a local Manhattan newspaper.

• 46 ROBERT BACHARACH // Aug 30, 2009 at 12:31 AM

  So – Mr Thomas …. I suppose all those millions taking fotos of THE WHITE HOUSE, THE JEFFERSON MEMORIAL, THE SUPREME COURT, THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT (ETC) are all breaking the law ….. well why haven’t they been arrested ????? You are full of sh – - !!!!! Where are you located – in one of the Nazi Cyber Command Gestapo bunkers ? Shame on you for trying to turn America into a Nazi Germany, or a Soviet Union, or a Communist China where the people only had the rights which goose-stepping government thugs said they had in any particular moment. Unless the government goes to some effort to conceal something (ie, a building) from public view ………. in a FREE AND OPEN SOCIETY (which America still is contrary to your low brow wishes) … then the government can not say “no one can photograph it”. How monumentally absurd. This ranks up there with the other GOP-Nazi cheney-bush REGIME rules which they wrote saying such things as ” we (the government / ss) can arrest and imprison you in a secret GULAG cum Concentration Camp indefinitely … and we don’t have to tell you why because that is secret …. and we don’t have to show evidence against you – because that is secret too. Maybe when not so secret war criminal bush high-tales it off to his “secret” hideaway (from the War Crimes Tribunal) … you can join him down in Paraguay and play storm troopers while cowering in hiding.

• 47 Thomas Paine // Aug 30, 2009 at 1:41 AM

  Mr. Bacharach, perhaps you should read the article again, as the Mr. Thomas you address is the photographer in the article. He is quoting Luis Martinez of DHS to show the stupidity of Mr. Martinez’s statement on national security.

• 48 ROBERT BACHARACH // Aug 30, 2009 at 2:38 AM

  My sincere and profound apologies. I had just gotten a “comments update” via email (days after the original article, and my original comments) … and not recalling the photographer’s name off-hand, I took the comment out of context and thought it quite serious. I’m afraid this whole thing has got me hot under the collar. It is so sad that Americans in general are so poorly educated on World History … otherwise they might better comprehend how the seeds of a totalitarian state are sewn … and the fertilizer (fear) which is used to speed its growth. The corporate robber barons are on a roll … especially those in the petro-chemical-pharma, military-industrial, insurance-banking; and they’re not easily going to allow the “rabble rousing citizenry” to wrestle control of the government away from them – so every step of the way, the citizenry will have to fight them ……….. and this (essentially) criminalization of photography of public places will be just one of many battles against the FASCIST DOMINATRIX NAZIS who are intent on using our own tax dollars to CRUSH, CONTROL, AND DOMINATE US (just as they’re “practicing” in the Middle East).

  Sorry, again, for the misunderstanding.

• 49 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 30, 2009 at 7:09 AM

  Mr. BACHARACH no need to apologize, no offense taken.

  The error was foreseeable. I was in a rush and just wanted to get that quote from the DHS spokesperson out there, I probably could have made it more clear that it was his quote and not mine.

  However, I think your outrage at such a statement was appropriate.

• 50 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 30, 2009 at 7:15 AM

  By the way, the newspaper that quote the DHS person, interviewed me first as a result of this site. After reading the full article I sent a response to the writer that reads in pertinent part:

  I’d like to give a reply to the statement: “There are certain things that the press cannot do when it comes to national security, and filming federal buildings is one of them,” by Luis Martinez.

  That statement is factually and legally incorrect. I’d ask Luis Martinez to provide a law, citation, statute, or even point to a single sign posted anywhere near 26 Federal Plaza that would support his stated position.

  It’s perplexing that Professional Law Enforcement Officials would assume that rules exist that in fact do not. That is not Professional, it is Amateurish and Incompetence at the very least.

  It is clear to me that only a substantial civil penalty against the U.S. Attorney General, the Secretary of DHS, and the Officials directly involved will get the message to the guys on the ground that they must uphold the United States Constitution as it is written and stop playing it by ear.

  S. Randall Thomas

• 51 Thomas Paine // Aug 30, 2009 at 4:01 PM

  Mr. Thomas, it appears that whether due to ignorance, fear, or a combination of both, DHS is not interested in showing what is behind the curtains of security theater.

  Photography of federal buildings would not be prevented even if it were made illegal, yet I’m guessing DHS grunts and policy makers fear the repercussions if something did happen and there were no assumed policy or law enforced. I’m guessing these people are not taught the difference between real and imagined risk management.

  Or, perhaps it is the idea that these same DHS officers or their superiors feel like they are “doing something” to fight terrorism, either on a personal level or as an organization, by questioning photographers on the street. Apparently some officials aren’t bothered by infringing the rights of law-abiding citizens, the same ones whose Constitution they have sworn to protect, as long the officials’ intentions are good.

  Any chance the NYPD could forward a copy of their “Don’t harrass the photographers” memo to DHS ?

• 52 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 31, 2009 at 5:43 AM

  In terms of security, stopping photographers is a about as effective as it would be to stop people entering subways that lead to Manhattan.

  My guess would be that anyone with the intelligence and resources to take down a building would not stand out in front of a target in broad daylight with a camera. Especially when there are much easier ways to get those same photos.

  Bin Laden is reported to be a very wealthy man. I think he can afford a Blackberry and can navigate to Google Maps, or hire some All-American looking guy to do a very slow drive-by in the back of cab in heavy downtown traffic, he could get his required photos.

  In fact if Bin Laden himself drove the cab he would likely go undetected by anyone from DHS.

  These “security measures” are laughable. They don’t seem to be targeting these “very determined terrorist” but instead are perfect for going after the bad guys from the old Batman Television Series.

  This Governments Bull S–t doesn’t even match its own rhetoric.

• 53 Jon Quimbly // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:18 AM

  The question that keeps coming up for me about these efforts to stop photography of federal property, post-9/11, is, what did cameras have to do with it?

  When a terrorist uses weapon of mass destruction (truck bomb or airliner), the accuracy you’d assume a photo would provide just isn’t needed. Four planes hijacked on 9/11, three hit their targets by dead reckoning. The Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing, the perps just drove up to the target and parked.

  I read the 9/11 Commission report – never noticed any discussion of photos or cameras used for planning by the perpetrators.

  It’s like the NYPD’s “random” subway searches – there’s an infinitesimal chance they’ll catch a potential terrorist that way… so all a photo-seeking terrorist has to do is dress up as a tourist and they’re set.

• 54 S. Randall Thomas // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:58 AM

  Terrorizing the public is the goal.

  I’m convinced of it. The “boots on the ground” may not understand this but their bosses do.

  They are not going to prevent a damn thing from happening. It’s retarded. Packages of any size can enter the subway system at any time on any day without detection.

  Their efforts do absolutely nothing but terrorize the public.

  A “terrorist” doesn’t need to kill a bunch of people just two will do. So if I were a terrorist or an organizer of terrorist. I’d send them to look for those checkpoints to commit the act in front of the police.

  The public wouldn’t give a shit if a subway car went up at 3 in the morning with 2 homeless and one Arab Terrorist……..not like they would if 3 cops were going down every other week at one of those checkpoints.

  My point is that the so-called terrorist aren’t stupid but these so-called security measure are.

• 55 phatso // Sep 11, 2009 at 8:46 AM

  i think using profanity directed at a federal officer in itself is something worth being arrested for

  could fall in the realms of either “indimidating an officer” or “offending an officer”

  seems pretty stupid to me to be cussing at a fed then bitch and moan that nothing was done wrong

• 56 NYCPhotorights // Sep 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM

  “offending an officer”

  Are they our lords, masters or gods? Have they unilaterally repealed the first amendment?

• 57 Thomas Paine // Sep 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM

  Federal officers have no more right to not be offended than any other citizen. This is especially true when they initiate the contact and interrupt the photographer without cause. There was no threat made against the officer; he was merely told to mind his business, which in this case is protecting the inside of the building.

  Does any security guard or law enforcement officer think the following exchange would ever really happen?

  Officer: My I see some identification?

  Photographer: Sure. Though I’m under no legal obligation to provide you with ID, here you go. You should check it against the Terrorist Watch List. I’m probably on there.

  Officer: Why are you taking pictures of this building?
  Photographer: It will help in planning the jihad. Doh! I probably should have made up some other excuse. You’re going to arrest me on conspiracy charges now, aren’t you? I knew I should have taken a couple snaps with a point-and-shoot and then moved on.

  The point is, stopping someone taking pictures of a building accomplishes nothing, and only wastes both the security officer’s time and the photographer’s time.

  What’s next, stopping everyone on the street who has a cell phone to get their ID and ask them if they are describing the building to someone over the phone?

• 58 Carlos Miller // Sep 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM

  “offending an officer”.

  That’s just another of way of saying “contempt of cop.”

• 59 eneptodoCoexy // Nov 2, 2009 at 4:15 AM

  http://pornhub.webgarden.com pornhub , viai,

• 60 eneptodoCoexy // Nov 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM

  pornhub redtube , vmlb, animal sex , vmlsp, redtube porn , kwoufy,

• 61 vadim // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:50 AM

  Not to mention that (1) trained agent would have no problem filming all aspects of the federal building, including the inside, with hidden camera; (2) trained agent would have no need to do even that, because agents’ training includes memorizing all their observations in tiniest details without any camera at all.

  I wonder, does Thomas plan to sue the city?

• 62 Bergman // Mar 12, 2010 at 4:23 AM

  If what Thomas did was itself illegal, that surely would have been part of the charges. Let us not forget 18 USC 241 and 242, both of which were apparently violated by federal agents, assuming Thomas’s account is accurate.

• 63 basspig // Jun 27, 2010 at 1:43 AM

  On June 30, 2007, I was nearly arrested by the MTA cops for recording video through the window of the Metro North train I was riding, leaving Grand Central Station. I had videotaped all day downtown, and in the Museum of Natural History, without a single problem. Then I sat in my seat and rolled tape as I pointed my camera toward the window, to record the scenery of NYC leaving the train station.
  The conductor who came to punch my ticket, told me I am not allowed to ‘video on the train’, to which I asked whether this train was privately owned (in which case I would respect the request), or was public taxpayer-funded. He was polite about it, but the matter ended up with me writing to the president of the MTA, Fox News, Mayor Bloomberg, the ACLU and the local media. The head of the MTA wrote me an apology letter a month later.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website