Photography is Not a Crime

235 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bridget // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:18 PM

  I actually jumped when the guy hit you. So you are going to sue them right? This is ridiculous. Public property paid for by taxpayers and they hire these bafoons to patrol.

  Keep up the good work Carlos. You are doing a great public service.

• 2 William Beem // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:22 PM

  Unbelievable. I’m disgusted by their behavior.
  William Beem recently posted..The Flickr Response

• 3 ClintJCL // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:22 PM

  Glad to see you taking it to the next level. Can we say lawsuit?
  ClintJCL recently posted..links for 2010-07-29

• 4 John Tammaro // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:27 PM

  Glad you came out of it relatively unscathed. Can’t wait to see the interview

• 5 Peter Greene // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:35 PM

  Thats just amazing. And they behaved that way in front of a news crew on top of it. Obviously those security buffoons have little to no training.

  I hope you rip the County a new one and get a huge settlement out of this.

  I, for one, am glad you are out there and being vocal, fighting for our rights. If I was there, I’d proudly stand by your side!
  Peter Greene recently posted..Lake Oswego Chefs Grow and Gather Dinnerjpg by Peter Greene

• 6 Rob // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:37 PM

  I’m glad I live on the west coast because I was awake and following your tweets this morning as this all unfolded.

  This is the day that American history students will be learning about in the future. I’m 36, right now in 2010, and when I was in school, in the mid 1980′s we learned how patriots put their asses on the line for what was right and for what would become every freedom we enjoy today.

  This story will break to the mainstream media, and bring to light what photographers are facing on a daily basis in our own country, which does indeed grant freedom of the press.
  Rob recently posted..Custom Camera Strap For Sale On eBay

• 7 Hazza // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:38 PM

  They didn’t learn the first time, keep at the police until they press charges against the individuals for the jail time and then sue the company and the County.

  The County has a policy but they have failed in their responsibility to ensure that policy is the one enforced.

  A company can have an anti-harassment policy but they have to have a procedure in place to see that it is enforced. The County has failed that part and they have to held accountable.

• 8 Lawrence J. Smith // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:42 PM

  Glad to see you continuing to, literally, push back against the State.
  Lawrence J. Smith recently posted..Tom Woods takes questions about new book Nullification

• 9 Peter Greene // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:44 PM

  Looking at the photo of the female security idiot, it looks like she is wearing a gun on her hip.

  I have only one thing to say: OMG, they let them have guns?!?!?!
  Peter Greene recently posted..Lake Oswego Chefs Grow and Gather Dinnerjpg by Peter Greene

• 10 Jeremy Jojola // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM

  Nice work with the iPhone. Can’t wait to see the news footage.

• 11 DD_838 // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM

  I don’t think the employees of 50 State Security are actually capable of anything other than harassing people with cameras. If a real problem occurred I don’t think they would even know what to do.

  They are all so….. unprofessional (for lack of something more…. offensive)

• 12 Freddy Hill // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:50 PM

  Man, Carlos, you lost your cool. That’s not cool either.

• 13 Scott Chamness // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:53 PM

  I always figured you’d have one hell of a punch. Shame on them.

• 14 Sydney Carton // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:58 PM

  I hope you nailed him good and that he’s bleeding a lot. Force is the only thing that thugs understand. He won’t put his hands on someone else if he thinks he’s going to get slugged again.

• 15 Michaelk42 // Jul 29, 2010 at 8:58 PM

  How does the clown with the richly-deserved fat lip have any authority to confiscate anything, much less a perfectly-legal camera?

  Never mind being fired (which he should be for the assault alone) he should be charged with armed robbery… not that the police will bother to do so.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 16 Sydney Carton // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:01 PM

  Carlos, seriously, you need to bring your own damn security in these situations. If you can’t carry a gun yourself then you need your own personal security guard.

• 17 Bradley Jardis // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM

  It is unfortunate that an individual cannot defend themselves with force against the agents of the state who are authorized to use violence against peaceful people.

  Morally speaking, a person has the right to defend themselves against any initiation of force.

  Practically speaking, using force against the government is a bad idea.

  I would assume these security guards lack the power of arrest? I imagine if you did the same to a police officer it would be a WHOLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE different story.

  I’m glad you’re okay, man. You are heroic… and I thank you.
  Bradley Jardis recently posted..Keene Police Called “Draconian” in Union Leader Update Piece on Heika

• 18 Chris // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:18 PM

  Do you know when it will be airing on hdnet?

• 19 Gary Denness // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:25 PM

  Did the police get your camera back for you? In which case, if it weren’t voluntarily returned by the guard, surely he should be prosecuted for theft?

  And right on. Someone throws one at me, I throw one back. Unless they’re way bigger…
  Gary Denness recently posted..Bicentenario – Morelos

• 20 Roger // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:27 PM

  Let’s see them BS there way out of this one. You set this up perfectly. Great right, that puts the finish on it. This should get full coverage, and will be impossible to cover up ( I hope), may be some thing will be accomplished.

• 21 Nikolaus Karwal // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:33 PM

  I want to see the news teams footage of this. As far as I am concerned they were invading your space, harrasing, (constantly touching you/pushing you and had no legitimate reason to do what they did. So they need to have some severe consequences for that.

• 22 Benjamin Bartholomew // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:47 PM

  Disgusting, these officers should lose there jobs and you should be compensated as a penalty to the metro line so that they will be encouraged to properly educated those who work for them.

• 23 bj // Jul 29, 2010 at 9:59 PM

  Does this mean in the future this website will change and just have “no comment” on it?

  

• 24 Frank Palmer // Jul 29, 2010 at 10:33 PM

  Hey Carlos nice job. Didn’t you get one of those cameras that you can wear around your neck? If not then you definitely need one. If I lived near Miami I would definitely join up for a group photo video against those thugs. What would they do with 20 or so photogs standing around them. She wouldn’t be able to move her hand fast enough to cover all the cameras.

  What ever happened with the lawyers and your ban from a month ago?

• 25 Roger Baumgarten // Jul 29, 2010 at 10:46 PM

  Carlos….please let us know when the HDNet segment is going to air (or become available online).

  Thanks!

• 26 Rance // Jul 29, 2010 at 10:56 PM

  @Freddy Hill – Carlos didn’t lose his cool until he was assaulted. It is difficult not to lose your cool when a hired thug hits you. I think Carlos handled himself rather well considering the situation.

• 27 enhager // Jul 29, 2010 at 11:31 PM

  Bad boys, bad boys whatcha gonna do?

  Be like Carlos.
  enhager recently posted..Rodeo Ralphs to be Redeveloped!

• 28 Pinandpuller // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM

  What ever happened to the Guardian Angels?

• 29 Joel Chandler // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM

  Well played! Now that my blood pressure has returned to normal after watching this disturbing video I am left a deep sense of envy…I wish I had been there.

  Although I live about five hours away from Miami, I would happily drop whatever I’m doing if I could tag along on one of your outings. I believe that directly confronting the abuse of power is a critical element in preserving our liberties.

  Keep up the good work. And seriously, I’d love to join you on you next outing.

  Best regards

• 30 Roger // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:20 AM

  I think Carlos showed great restraint, better than I.

• 31 Clark // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:23 AM

  Keep up the good work Carlos! It’ll be interesting to try and see them weasel out of this one with the news cameras rolling. I look forward to seeing the footage!

• 32 Johnny Law // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:00 AM

  So you knew they didn’t allow video in this facility AND you had previously been banned from Metrorail facilities? You also refused to leave when told to by the guards in this incident and you punched a security guard?

  No offense but what the hell is the matter with you? You should prepare yourself for an arrest warrant soon. I am pretty sure that some charges are going to be filed against you for either trespassing or assault.

• 33 All Be Damned // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:04 AM

  i highly doubt that Johny Because of three factors
  1. THEY DO ALOW PHOTO”S THERE read the policy for yourself its easy to find on their website
  2. i am sure that Carlos had all that earlier stuff cleard up befor going back
  3. THE GAURD HIT HIM WITH OUT PROVOKATION

• 34 Carlos Miller // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:04 AM

  JL,

  Now you’re being very naive. Video and photography is not banned on the metrorail.

  The “banning” was just some jackass from the security company talking out of his ass. I was never served with any official documents.

  There was no due process.

  And I punched the security guard after he hit me twice and pushed me against my will.

  And if anybody is going to prepare, it is them for the fucking lawsuit they’re going to get slammed with.

• 35 All Be Damned // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:06 AM

  oh and one more thing the gaurd CANNOT use physical force enless indangered as per 50 states policies and the LAW. he is just a privet Idiot like every one else.

• 36 akagoldfish // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:44 AM

  Heh, figures a fascist like Johnny Law would take the side of some hired goon wannabe cops who robbed and assaulted Carlos, instead of taking the side of the law that he’s sworn to uphold.

  Johnny Law is a disgrace to his badge and I can only imagine the kind of ways he abuses it. Based on his comments here, it’s probably only a matter of time before he finds himself on the end of a federal indictment for brutality.

• 37 Adum // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:18 AM

  > Man, Carlos, you lost your cool. That’s not cool either.

  I agree. You should always strive to keep your cool and not physically hit anyone. You are my hero *because* you maintain the moral high ground. But when you hit someone, that goes down the crapper.

• 38 Carlos Miller // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:21 AM

  Adum,

  I respect your opinion but when you’re on the receiving end of somebody striking you and pushing you, it’s not that easy to just turn the other cheek.

• 39 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:34 AM

  Did you actually hit him or was the rent a cop being a baby about getting touched?

• 40 Carlos Miller // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:36 AM

  No, I struck him.

• 41 KBCraig // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:40 AM

  All of the above comments aside (and I agree with most of them), I gotta say…

  Black beret? One latex glove? WTF? Could this short fat guy possibly fit the stereotype of a creepy sex offender any better?

• 42 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:41 AM

  You shoulda done this to him.

  http://www.break.com/index/perth-police-tases-guy-then-gets-flattened.html

• 43 TheDoc // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:53 AM

  Absolutely commendable, Carlos. When thugs initiate physical force, the only acceptable option to fight back. You stop the threat however you can. Just like bullies on the schoolyard, once you push back hard enough, they think twice.

  Those others in authority who compensate for their lack of knowledge and critical thinking with aggressiveness and violence deserve the worst. I could only hope that these thugs, along with Johnny Law and his ilk, end up in prison. If not, it is just for them to lose all they have and live on the streets, shivering in cardboard boxes.

• 44 brummie // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:59 AM

  camera flash mob, camera flash mob, camera flash mob, camera flash mob, camera flash mob, camera flash mob, camera flash mob, camera flash mob, camera flash mob, camera flash mob, camera flash mob, , make it national get 1000′s down there what they gunna do then shoot you all. I suggest you get a few heavies to mill around in the back ground and make sure there not seen with you, if that happens they can jump in and make a citizens arrest for assault which is a criminal offence. see what they do then. why not go with some legal begals in the background and get jimmy justice on the case as well.

  brummie

• 45 Johnny Law // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:31 AM

  @ Carlos,

  “The “banning” was just some jackass from the security company talking out of his ass. I was never served with any official documents.”

  I’ m not sure of the law in FL but in my state, if a security guard gives verbal notice of a trespass warning, that is sufficient for you to be charged if you come back on property. We (the police) typically write a report so there is a record of you getting the warning. However if there is no report, a complainant can just provide a sworn statement that they had given you notice in the past.

  BTW, security guards can use force if they need to in order to remove you from their property. It’s the same as when a bouncer kicks you out of a club.

• 46 Harry Pinsker // Jul 30, 2010 at 6:28 AM

  Carlos,

  After my run-in with Eric Muntan, MDT Chief of Safety and Security, on May 13, 2009, I was assured by Harpal S. Kapoor, Director of MDT , that non-commercial photography was permitted. He also assured me that Mr. Muntan had been directed to “ensure that MDT policy related to patrons taking photographs is properly followed, and that related inquiries by MDT staff and security personnel are handled in a courteous and professional manner.”

  Please refer to the Subchat.com message board for a discussion of your incident of July 29 and a more detailed reply to my complaint to Mr. Kapoor, explaining their official policy on photography on MDT facilities.

  It appears to me that your confrontation with MDT security is a result of a total breakdown in communication between Mr. Muntan and his security staff. This definitely needs to be addressed.

  I wholly support your endeavors. The more media attention this gets, the sooner this problem will be resolved.

• 47 Jim Poulos // Jul 30, 2010 at 6:46 AM

  @ Johnny Law

  The rules you cite with respect to trespass warnings may apply to truly private property like shopping malls. However, Miami Metrorail is both a government agency and a “common carrier”. I am sure that they cannot ban a person without cause like a private mall can. Since photography is legal, no rules were being violated therefore no conduct deserving a ban existed in the first place.

  It appears that one of two things is at play here. Either there is a total breakdown of communication like Harry P says.

  Or worse – Mr Muntan and Metrorail security have taken the approach that we have seen so many other agencies take – harass photographers first and apologize later if one or two happen to complain.

• 48 RandomCitizen // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:15 AM

  @JL: I know in my state being banned from a private business requires the business to fill out paperwork and give it to the individual, with officers present. So no paperwork = no enforceable ban. I believe the whole reason officers have to be present is to witness that the individual did in fact receive the papers.

  But as Jim Poulos said, this isn’t private property, it’s _public_ property. I don’t believe you can be banned from something like the metro without actually being arrested and jailed. If the government can just tell anyone they want that they’re not allowed to use public transit any longer, we have a very serious problem. We pay for it, so we have the right to use it.

  Yes security guards can use force to remove people. But punching someone is not attempting to remove them, it’s assault. And since Carlos didn’t hit the guy first it wasn’t self defense either. The guard simply assaulted Carlos because… well who knows why. It was certainly very stupid of him as HE can be charged with a crime now. How you as a cop can think punching someone constitutes trying to remove them from the building is beyond me. I sure hope you’re not a cop anywhere near me.

  The truly sad thing about all this is, even if the guard’s fired, and sued, he’ll just end up working security somewhere else most likely. Hell, they’ll probably consider him getting sued for assault makes him extra qualified.

• 49 JohnnyX // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:30 AM

  Carlos,

  thanks for all you in the name of freedom for all of us. i wish i were half the man you are.

  may the deity of your choice bless you…

• 50 Tom Schaefer // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:44 AM

  The ignorance of the security people is astonishing. They appear to have no real training about how to deal with people and appear to be using their own discretion and not even checking in with superiors to verify their own position or the law before they act.

  I think this is the scariest part of this because the security people appear to be behaving completely on their own!

  Whatever happened to police and security guards who know how to behave no matter what the situation is – how to keep their cool and hold their own behavior in check according to law and not their own on-site opinions.

• 51 John Howard // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:48 AM

  Why is it police/security will harass me, detain me, demand ID, threaten me with arrest and jail, or EVEN TO PUT MY NAME ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST…

  OR ASSAULT ME…

  All because I happen to have a camera and may be taking pictures of something in full public view…

  But anyone who *might* look like, talk like or dress like they are from a foreign country and perhaps are here illegally is a protected class that we have to tiptoe around?

  Shouldn’t a legal citizen who just happens to be in public with a camera have AT LEAST equal rights to an illegal alien?

• 52 A Norwegian Chap // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:27 AM

  First of all, I’m appaled by the behavior of the two security guards. They acted like brutes, and in a manner that’s wholy unacceptable.

  A few points I’d like to make, folks. I wholly disagree with Johnny Law, however, I feel it stains this debate to see people use harsh, unjust and unpolite language towards him. Let’s respect even vial opinions, right?

  I’m a moderator for a very large Norwegian board. It’s a leading forum, to put it that way. We tend to moderate debate with force, in other words, we delete posts that break rules (and Norwegian law, for that matter).

  However, every time there’s a question of wether or not the post in question is in a grey area of the rules (and in rare situations, the law), we debate it internally, read the actual texts, analyse the problem and try to make sure we are being fair, that we interprit the rules text correctly.

  What’s my point? I would use more care to make sure I was in the right before I removed a digital sequence of numbers from a discussion board than these security idiots spent making sure they were in the right before they used physical violence towards a member of the public. That’s just unbelivable, it’s completely bonkers.

  I’ll end this with a story. Few days ago, I was traveling via Trondheim in Norway to Copenhagen in Denmark, and I was traveling by airplane. While waiting at Værnes airport outside Trondheim, I got bored, and thought I might do some combined street/airplane photography, so I did the decent thing and actually asked the airport police. Was photography alloved in the airport? I got the best answer I’ve ever gotten from an official to a question like that.

  “You’re alloved to have your camera here. Why wouldn’t you be alloved to take photos?”

  Has it ever been said better? I applaud this police officer, and I’ll buy I’m a glass of expensive whisky if I ever meet him again.

  Just my .2

• 53 Dodge Ball // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:30 AM

  “Their property” Whose property? There is a difference between a club and a publicly owned transportation center, isn’t there? As usual, a squirelly ANALogy made by JL.

• 54 James L // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:32 AM

  Carlos, wow.
  Haven’t seen the videos because I’m at work, but will as soon as I can; this is just…mind-blowing. I know that there are good cops and even good security guards out there (the Wackenhut guys at my last job were utterly cool, and didn’t even blink when photos were taken outside the facility…they said, and I quote, “It’s not against the law.”), but the majority are really giving those fine examples a really, truly bad name.

  Kudos to you for standing up for your civil rights; in my mind, this is no different than Mrs. Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat for her legally given rights.

• 55 Rich // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:33 AM

  “But anyone who *might* look like, talk like or dress like they are from a foreign country and perhaps are here illegally is a protected class that we have to tiptoe around?

  Shouldn’t a legal citizen who just happens to be in public with a camera have AT LEAST equal rights to an illegal alien?”

  SO state thugs in your opinion can ask anyone without cause for there papers.

  Papers Please! PAPERS! TASER arrest resisting arrest, Jail.
  Why not disregard the rest of the constitution too so that we can kick the Mexicans out. SO that you can be safe and Secure in your Home OH well you wont be safe there either.
  Wake UP Peasant. Thats what you are,Mexican or American your just a Peasant to them. Divide and Conquer. YOUR already defeated because you cant unite with your fellow peasants.
  Turn on your fellows, report them to the Gestapo. Demand that they have papers or wear Yellow Stars.

• 56 adjinx // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:39 AM

  Hey Carlos,

  Got anything public planned for DC? Been reading some blogs, new stories and the DC Photographers’ Flicker incidents of encounters with misinformed police and security. (“Uh, I can’t take a picture of the Capitol dome?” How many tourists have violated that “law”?). I live in just outside and am willing to show up with camera in support.

• 57 Tom Schaefer // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:42 AM

  Invite some of the Miami meetup groups to come out next time you’re shooting. There are several photography groups – we should all show up and shoot at once and see how well they handle it. They’d be overwhelmed and it would be documented.

• 58 skuts // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:48 AM

  Look who they hire for security. What do you expect? Intelligence and thoughtfulness?

• 59 James L // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:52 AM

  @Tom Schaefer: Hey, Tom…if a bunch of photographers suddenly show up and start taking pictures, they’d REALLY be a “flash mob”! ^_^

• 60 capn_amurka // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:57 AM

  Since you broke no law or legitimate rules, JL is advocating that the security guards have some kind of legal authority to arbitrarily ban individuals from the metro rail property.

  While arbitrary use of authority would be a strongly disfavored interpretation, let’s assume JL is right for purposes of discussion. Wouldn’t that breadth of authority as applied here be unconstitutional as it would clearly tend to chill freedom of the press? (That is, member of the press would *not* report on activities at the metro because they would expect to be punished). If it is unconstitutional, how can it this interpretation of the breadth of their authority be correct?

• 61 Yizmo Gizmo // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:18 AM

  Just three words:

  Law suit

• 62 Eric // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:19 AM

  I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but what exactly do you think you will get out of the lawsuit? Were you hospitalized with the injuries? While it’s terrible how they behaved, the amount you would get from a lawsuit would barely cover the cost of the attorney. Yes, their behavior was reprehensible, but the actual damages were pretty minimal. And you can forget punitive damages. This blog and the news crew are proof that you knew ahead of time what could happen. The BEST you could hope for is not a monetary judgment, but a performance judgment. Basically, forcing the city to stop using 50 State.

• 63 Tom Schaefer // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM

  It is a sad commentary on our society when police and security people begin to enforce their own sense of law.

  This points up the huge amount of ignorance at work in our society.

  Even scarier is that recent polls show people getting more comfortable with a “go with the flow” mentality even when it means giving up their personal freedoms.

  It’s time for people to stop being sheep. Sheep get sheared and turned into lamb chops, if not eaten by wolves or kept in a pen.

  Time to stand up for your rights!

• 64 Yizmo Gizmo // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM

  “This blog and the news crew are proof that you knew ahead of time what could happen. ”

  I call BowShit. If you know some weirdo might kill you if you walk down the street and still do so,
  and you get killed, it’s still murder.
  Same principle with Gov’t goons attacking you.

• 65 Robert // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:37 AM

  Oh wow, what an idiot. I hope you do sue them. Honestly if this is whats going to take to tell officials to back off then so be it.

  When are they going to learn just leave the photographers alone, they aint hurting anybody.

• 66 Andrew // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM

  @ Harry Pinsker

  I saw your very helpful post on subchat regarding your communications with various MDT people – which is what makes it more surprising that when I spoke with Eric Muntan on the phone, he refused to admit that personal, non-commercial photography on MDT was allowed and said I would be stopped by security if I took pictures. I spoke with him *after* your communication with MDT, meaning that even though there is an official policy allowing photography on the metrorail/metromover, they seem to not care and will continue making it difficult/prohibit photography.

• 67 Roger // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:12 AM

  Well, well. Muntan shows his true colors. I wondered when he would stop lying.

• 68 Brodie // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM

  Solution? Stop paying taxes.

• 69 Brodie // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:50 AM

  The only way this crap will stop is if people stop paying taxes.

• 70 Ari W. // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:50 AM

  You should get the security chief that initially told you it was okay to go through with you. He should go with you to see first-hand what happens. Give him a camera so he can go undercover, see if they attack him. That would be hilarious. Also, we should start harassing 50 State Security. Here is there contact information: http://www.50state.com/contact-main.html I don’t mean horrible harassing. Just sending letters to all the top people at 50 State Security.

• 71 Stephen Murray // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:38 AM

  See above website for letter regarding incident.
  Stephen Murray recently posted..Miami-Dade Transit and 50 State Security

• 72 capn_amurka // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM

  @Eric:

  If only there were some kind of damages that were not based on compensation but were used to discourage this behavior. ..

  Maybe we could call them punitive damages?

• 73 Jim Poulos // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:55 AM

  Eric:

  You really have no idea how much people have been getting from these lawsuits. In NY A person who was questioned for 20 minutes by NYPD for taking pictures of subway stations settled for $30,000. Another person who was arrested for taking pics on the subway received a similar settlement. A photographer who was detained by Amtrak police also received a “five figure” settlement. I’ve heard of similar cases where cameras are taken and images destroyed settling anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000. Apparently it is worthwhile because attorneys are willing and able to take these cases

• 74 lefty // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM

  Obviously the actions of the security guards are reprehensible, but I have to say that Carlos should have known better than to hit that guy in the face, even after he assaulted you. If you’re going to be a spokesperson (and in many ways, you are) for photographers rights, then you need to always maintain your cool, even when you yourself become the victim of assault. Now, I don’t blame you for getting enraged with the guy, especially after he assaulted and stole your camera, but you knew perfectly well that the altercation was being videotaped and that these quacks would not get away with it. And if you become violent in the process, you can’t expect people to take your quest to change America’s attitude towards photographers seriously, because the impression many others will get is that you are, indeed, prone to violence and cannot control your anger. Sorry to all say this…especially since I think you’re doing a great job in nearly every other post you make on this site.

• 75 SteelToad // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM

  Brodie is right – “The only way this crap will stop is if people stop paying taxes”. Because then there wouldn’t be a public transportation system to worry about, or police to worry about, just these same thugs, but now out on the street without a job.

  … And now back to the discussion about photographers rights

• 76 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM

  After thinking about what happened in this video CM, I gotta say that you might be in some trouble if the security company decides to sue you for striking their employee.

  You may have a good defense, but Johnny Law’s example of a bouncer tossing out an unruly patron does apply here. The problem is, it’s a quasi-public area, meaning it is at the security company’s discretion to see who is a threat or not.

  Could the guard have handled the situation better? Absolutely and that’s where your defense will come in. The video shows you continued to back away(towards the exit it seems) and then he tried to snatch your phone away and you struck him.

  If I were him I would have let you continue filming and slowly maneuver you towards the exit. When asked whether I would give your camcorder back or not, I would respond that you would have to fill out paperwork and it would eventually be returned.

  The problem is this guard did not try to diffuse the situation by talking first. I have a friend who works as security in a casino here in Vegas. He’s a small guy so he avoids getting into scrapes with people. He says the best thing to do is to just talk to someone to let them “go away on their own”.

  But Carlos, what did you think was going to happen exactly? Had you spoken to someone at the Metrorail who told you that filming was OK and that you should come back? Why did the security guard single you out and not the other fellow holding the much bigger camcorder?

  If you’re going to go back in the future perhaps organizing a group of people all outfitted with cameras might be the way to go. It will spread the amount of responsibility and it will protect everyone.

• 77 Carlos Miller // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM

  Hazy,

  The guy with the big camera was outside the turnstile.

• 78 enhager // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:09 PM

  Why didn’t the security guards hassle/arrest the HD.net crew?
  enhager recently posted..Rodeo Ralphs to be Redeveloped!

• 79 Carlos Miller // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:14 PM

  The guy with the camera was outside.

• 80 SteelToad // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM

  Carlos

  Please update the beginning of this post with a link to the original incident. It seems there are a lot of people posting without the context of what happened before (ie you had permission, letter from admin, public station, etc)

• 81 @antjphotog // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM

  I’m bothered that people think Carlos is looking for monetary compensation from the lawsuit. It’s about addressing the problem and seeking an appropriate solution. In this case, being that photography IS LEGAL, and that security and other personal are not adhering to the LAW/RULES, or are ignorant of the statures, these behaviors need to be changed. The judicial ruling should support the changing of behaviors.

  However, Carlos, if you get some cash out of it, lunch is on you at the Douglas Road Metrorail Station .

  Keep up the great work and let me know about the flash mob.

• 82 Dennis N // Jul 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM

  I think the security company, having committed two crimes, can be sued and prosecuted under RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They are certainly operating as a RICO entity, conducting a pattern of criminal activities.

  Dade County Transit should be sued for negligent hiring of a criminal organization.

  The guards should also be sued, personally.

  Make it hurt.

• 83 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:01 PM

  Here is the question I have. Forget about the Metro’s policy on photography for a second. What does the law say about photography in a place like Metrorail?

• 84 jeff // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:15 PM

  The last time around, a lot was made out of security mischaracterizing your personal photography as commercial, which would have required a permit. Their stance was clearly ridiculous. This time around, considering your intent, commercial videography seems more accurate. How did you justify this as non-permit required video?

• 85 Tom McElvy // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM

  Carlos:

  Perhaps the time is ripe to put together a national photo day – and I am NOT talking about a photowalk, but a day in which we all go to those places known to hassle photographers, en mass and take photo after photo. What are they gonna do, arrest everyone?

  I have been sick and tired of this crap from the cop-wanna-be idiots, but after my hassle with Wack-Your-Nuts Security last weekend, and now the assault on you, my favorite blogger, I am FUCKING PISSED!

  Drop me an email with your number, let’s talk!!
  Tom McElvy recently posted..Winning &amp Published Photos

• 86 Tom McElvy // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:26 PM

  Carlos:

  Perhaps the time is ripe to put together a national photo day – and I am NOT talking about a photowalk, but a day in which we all go to those places known to hassle photographers, en mass and take photo after photo. What are they gonna do, arrest everyone?

  I have been sick and tired of this crap from the cop-wanna-be idiots, but after my hassle with Wack-Your-Nuts Security last weekend, and now the assault on you, my favorite blogger, I am FUCKING PISSED!

  Imagine, Trafalgar Square times 30 or 40. Gathering ALL the ‘togs together in major cities. I can see the headlines now…
  (I am SUCH an anarchist!)

  Drop me an email with your number, let’s talk!!

• 87 Chris Bray // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM

  The people shaking their finger at Carlos Miller for hitting that Eric Cartman self-parody of a minor official are sitting quietly at their desks in peaceful settings.

  Ohhhh, Carlos, you should have calmly let that guy keep hitting you. You should have stoically submitted to your beating and the loss of your property! Why did you lose your cool as you were being shoved, screamed at, and punched in a sustained assault by two enraged people who charged up into your face?

  The disconnect is pretty absurd.

  Carlos Miller, WELL DONE.

• 88 Stephen Murray // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM

  “Thank you for contacting the Office of the County Manager, your concerns have been forwarded to Ysela Llort, Assistant County Manager to respond on behalf of the County Manager.

  The Transit Agency is under Ms. Llort’s purview, she will coordinate with Harpal Kapoor, Director, Miami-Dade Transit and respond accordingly; if needed she can be reached at (305) 375-1451.

  Regards,

  Christine Thomas
  Miami-Dade County Executive Office”
  Stephen Murray recently posted..Miami-Dade Transit and 50 State Security

• 89 Beniamino // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:35 PM

  @Hazy

  Which is it? Get your story straight. Upthread you were cavalierly dispensing legal advice and now you’re asking people “what the law says.” What are your legal credentials exactly? Are you a lawyer? Which law school? Are you licensed? How long have you been licensed, and in what state(s)? What kind of law do you practice? If your answer to all of the above is no or N/A, then you have no business professing any kind of legal expertise.

  By the way, is Johnny Law ever going to come back and explain how someone can be banned from public property without a hearing and a court order?

• 90 Rail Car Fan // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM

  akagoldfish // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:44 AM

  Heh, figures a fascist like Johnny Law would take the side of some hired goon wannabe cops who robbed and assaulted Carlos, instead of taking the side of the law that he’s sworn to uphold.

  Johnny Law is a disgrace to his badge.. and I can only imagine the kind of ways he abuses it.

  Based on his comments here, it’s probably only a matter of time before he finds himself on the end of a federal indictment for brutality.

  ——————————————————–

  Thank You “akagoldfish”.

  I’m glad to see that I’m not the only one who posts on this web site that sees “Johnny Law’s” comments for what they are with his near constant “Cops Can Do NO Wrong” attitude.

  Even after he saw what was on the video he refused to admit to what happened to Carlos.. but rather defended the brotherhood of the “Thin Blue Line”!

  His continual one sided comments on situations like this only leads us to come up with and believe the conclusions that we have, which is really sad.. considering we would have expected so much more from one who wears a shield.

  Rail Car Fan

• 91 Jon Quimbly // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:45 PM

  @jeff – how are you defining ‘commercial videography’ in this context?

  They were filming a news segment. News videographers do not need the government’s permission to shoot on public property! If they did, then the revolution against the British was in vain.

• 92 lefty // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:50 PM

  Chris,

  There’s no disconnect here. I’m not excusing the deplorable actions by the security guards. Not at all. If Carlos files a lawsuit, then good for him…I support it and hope he wins. But we all know that he is on a mission here, and part of his mission (as far as I can tell) is to dispel the myth that street photographers, by taking pictures, are dangerous in any way to the public. I have a lot of respect for the restraint he exercises whenever these people harass him, and they clearly do so on an ongoing basis. But if we can acknowledge that his primary goal is to expose the manner in which figures of authority trample our rights to photograph in public spaces, then we should also acknowledge that he can make that point more abundantly clear if he doesn’t allow his temper to flare up violently. This is the exact experience which Carlos has been hoping to get on tape, is it not? Don’t get me wrong, I’d probably do the same thing if I was in his shoes because the security guard was actually assaulting him and unlawfully confiscating his equipment, but the point is dulled if they can claim the victim was violent as well.

• 93 Johnny Law // Jul 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

  Carlos, you went looking for trouble and you found it. Congratulations.

  The guards had the right to ask you to leave. You refused to do so. The guards had the right to use physical force to make you leave. They put their hands on you (lawfully) and you struck one.

  You broke several laws here and I think you realize you took it too far. Hopefully the security guards won’t file charges but I expect they will since you seem fixated on the Metrorail.

  Good luck with it.

• 94 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:00 PM

  @Beniamino

  You’re absolutely right. Carlos should consult a lawyer for legal advice, not some anonymous fellows on the internet.

  However, this is his blog, and he invites comments. I didn’t know I had to have a law degree to express my opinion on the law. So many other people here have been doing it, why aren’t you demanding their credentials?

  My story is straight, just playing devil’s advocate to show where the weakness in Carlos’s defense may be.

  The reason I asked about what the law says about photography within a place like Metrorail is because it may not be afforded the same protection under the 1st amendment that filming on a public sidewalk has. That is my feeling at least.

  Further, the Metrorail’s policy may be that amateur photography is allowed without permission, but(and this is a hypothetical) they could also point to a policy they have that says that, “Metrorail and it’s employees may ask any patron at any time to leave the premise if they are deemed a nuisance”.

  Where is CM’s defense then? The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to film in the location since it’s not a fully public area, and the policy will be twisted to fit their prosecution of you.

  I am on Carlos’s side, but this needs to be considered before diving further into legal troubles.

• 95 JR // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:02 PM

  Unbelievable. When are they gonna learn? What does it take? Someone who conceal carries could’ve taken one of the guards out and would they then realize that they can’t assault anyone at their whim? Idiots.

• 96 Carlos Miller // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:05 PM

  JL,

  It’s funny you say that because even the responding officers said the guards were out of line.

• 97 Beniamino // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM

  @ jeff

  If what these hired geeks objected to was that Carlos was arguably doing “commercial” filming, why didn’t they state that at any point during the video? Why didn’t they invoke the (alleged) Metrorail policy? Why didn’t they even ask him if he had a permit? And if they were so concerned about commercial photography, why were they going after Carlos and his iphone rather than the guys with the actual commercial gear? And by virtue of what law would the Metrorail policy against commercial photography permit security guards to confiscate cameras? If someone was violating the policy, why wouldn’t they ask the person to stop filming &/or leave, and call the police if the person failed to comply, rather than trying to rough them up and confiscate their property?

  I don’t know what these morons were thinking, but the two most likely scenarios are: (1) that Metrorail does in fact have a policy barring commercial photography, but that the guards didn’t know that and were just doing whatever the hell they felt like, or (2) that the Metrorail professes, for legal reasons, to permit non-commercial photography but that the guards are instructed or permitted to harass photographers as a matter of course – in other words, that the professed policy against non-commercial photography is complete B.S.

  Either way, for you to suggest that Carlos is the one at fault here is blatant horseshit.

• 98 nevernot // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM

  @Johnny Law

  Are you serious? No security guard is allowed to touch any member of the public for any reason. They are not law enforcement, they are hired meat sacks there to OBSERVE and ONLY OBSERVE. If one of those high school drop outs touches me for any reason I will respond with force to their unwelcome advances. Show me where they are granted the legal right to touch me against my will. Please, I beg you, show me where they are granted the right to assault me at will. For crying out loud, the entire purpose of security guards is to observe, and if a law is being broken, to notify law enforcement. Get a life and start paying attention to what the law books actually say, not what you want them to say. And yes, Ive read your sorry ass blog. Not impressed.

• 99 Maria // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:17 PM

  Yup. The same way that the Greensboro diner sit in participants went looking for trouble and found it. They knew they could cause trouble. They knew the business owners had the right to ask them to leave. They knew they could be made to leave or worse, have physical force put to them to make them leave. Yet they where too fixated on sitting at those diners.

  Look, I’m not comparing what Carlos is doing with Metrorail to the epic struggles of the civil rights movement. Hell no. But if the argument is that he knew there could be trouble, that he provoked the outcome by knowing there could be trouble and that he shouldn’t have done it because there could be trouble, if those are your arguments, they are ridiculous.

  This argument obscures what’s going on when it comes to public spaces, public officials (example: no filming on duty cops) and photography.

• 100 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:18 PM

  @nevernot

  Some security guards have guns. What should a security guard at a bank do if the bank is being robbed? Just sit there because he can “only observe”? Sorry but you’re wrong about this one friend.

• 101 Chris Bray // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:29 PM

  JohnnyLaw:

  “The guards had the right to ask you to leave. You refused to do so. The guards had the right to use physical force to make you leave.”

  You’ve surrendered public property to the whim of private guards.

• 102 nevernot // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:32 PM

  @Hazy

  You are incorrect. Unless his life is threatened he should not draw his weapon. Same as any other citizen, because thats all they are, citizens. They only are allowed to carry once they take courses and must follow the same rules as any other citizen. The easiest way for a guard to get killed in the line of duty is to draw his weapon, demanding a response from the robber who is much more willing to use deadly force. After all the banks have insurance to get back the losses, being a hero isnt going to serve anyones best interest.

• 103 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:40 PM

  @nevernot

  While you are right in that a bank instructs it’s tellers/managers to just “let the robber take the money”, security guards are afforded some extra responsibility.It really depends on the state and the policy of the bank. A security guard could blast a robber if he sees an opportunity to take him out, and that may prove to be fine once the investigation is concluded.

  If I were a guard at a bank and a robber came in brandishing a gun and I saw a good opportunity to shoot him, I’d do it.

  You guys are letting your emotions cloud your judgment. I’m all for photography and individual rights, but if the Metrorail prosecutes CM, it may be an uphill battle for him. This is just getting started.

• 104 nevernot // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:43 PM

  Excuse me, I misspoke. A security guard does have the EXACT same rights as a citizen, no more, no less. In that light, they can touch you, but only after placing you under citizens arrest, and then only to detain you, not assault. So slaps, punches, pushing and his baton are all out. The only thing they are legally allowed to do is detain you until law enforcement arrives. But at the same time, Carlos could have placed that guard under citizens arrest for theft, and later assault and battery.

• 105 nevernot // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:46 PM

  @Hazy

  Youre missing the point. They are just citizens doing a job. They have no more rights than any one else. The banks and other private venues hire them for the appearance of security. Its no different from them hanging art work for the appearance of wealth. The real security is in the buildings security doors, vaults, and bulletproof glass. Oh, and the insurance they buy to cover their asses when they get robbed.

• 106 Johnny Law // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:52 PM

  Nevernot,

  You’ve got some funny ideas about the law. Let’s say you own a store and I come in and start causing some kind of disturbance. You tell me to leave and I tell you to go get bent. Can you physically remove me?

• 107 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:01 PM

  @nevernot

  The difference is that their actions are financially backed by a company. Meaning it is not 1 individual guard, but the company that you will have to face litigation from.

  “People who dream of justice are so apt to be disappointed.”

  -Dr. Kelden Amadiro, in The Robots Of Dawn, by Isaac Asimov

• 108 nevernot // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:04 PM

  Can a hired security gaurd touch you, no. The only thing they are allowed to do is detain you once they have cause for a citizens arrest. Otherwise they must inform you you are trespassing and wait for law enforcement to show up to do what they are paid to do, ENFORCE. That’s becoming more and more obviously something you know little about. The one caveat to my argument is if I witness you pocket something and walk out the door. Then it would fall under shopkeepers privilege. Either way it would be a moot point, I could just as easily place you under citizens arrest at that point. Nice try Johnny “Law”… Might want to brush up on the law a bit before you open your mouth.

• 109 Chris Bray // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:11 PM

  Johnny Law:

  Florida State Code Section 493.6118, “Grounds for disciplinary action” against a state-licensed security guard, subsection (j): ” Commission of an act of violence or the use of force on any person except in the lawful protection of one’s self or another from physical harm.”

  This guard struck Carlos Miller *before* Miller struck him or anyone else, or threatened to do so.

  You keep making arguments about the law that don’t have any laws in them.

• 110 Jim Poulos // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM

  Johnny Law:

  One thing that you fail ro recognize is that Metrorail is not a store.

  First it is a government agency, not a private company.

  Secondly it is a railroad and as such it is considered a “common carrier”. A common carrier cannot refuse service arbitrarily like a store can. Metrorail’s stated policy is that photography is permitted. Therefore since no rule was violated, there is no justification to ban anyone.

• 111 jeff // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM

  @ beniamino

  I wasn’t insinuating Carlos was in the wrong at all. It was a genuine question. From the previous encounter, I thought I recalled the subject of news video specifically requiring a permit from the audio of Ledford’s interview with the authority figure at the Metro Transit Police. Whether or not Carlos was violating a policy I think could very much change how this plays out.

• 112 Chris Bray // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM

  So, Johnny Law, you can either 1.) show the *statute* that allows a security guard to use force to effect someone’s detention or removal absent an attack by the person the guard is attempting to detain or remove, or 2.) give it up.

  My sense is that your entire argument is that people without metal stars on their costumes have to respect Eric Cartman’s authori-tah, and that you don’t have any sort of actual argument about the law. I also suspect that you’re a wanna-be. What department employs you? At what rank, with what duty assignment?

  Again, show the statute that supports your argument, or stop jabbering.

• 113 All Be Damned // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:25 PM

  Thanks for proving my point there chris

• 114 akagoldfish // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:30 PM

  Heh, Johnny Law shows he doesn’t know the law. Again.

• 115 ParatrooperJJ // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:31 PM

  As a side note, mentioning that HDnet hired Dan Rather has the exact opposite effect that you think it does. He knowingly presented a fake story and the fact that HDNet hired him damages their credibility.

• 116 Chris Bray // Jul 30, 2010 at 3:56 PM

  BTW, the MTA in Los Angeles County (where I live) fired security guards last year after they were caught hitting and pushing people.

  http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/18/local/me-mtasecurity18

  From that story:

  “They are not meant to be acting as police officers,” said Sheriff’s Cmdr. Dan Finkelstein, who oversees the department’s transit bureau, which has a contract with the MTA to police local rails and buses. ” ‘Observe and report’ here has become ‘observe and take action.’ “

• 117 Roger // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:32 PM

  I have, in the past, worked as a cop, security ( hated it) and a PI, I can say this. As a guard YOU DO TOUCH, the only time you can is in defense of your self or others. Any one who thinks other wise is asking for trouble. What the guard did is assault and battery. The taking of the camera is theft. They are very lucky that the cops did not arrest them for this.

• 118 Carlos Miller // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:33 PM

  Fuck you, Bill Cooke, you’re no longer welcome here. Your comment is being deleted.

• 119 Johnny Law // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:36 PM

  Wow so many personal attacks and so much righteous indignation! It’s so funny that you folks have such a hard time when someone dares to disagree with you.

  Anyways, Chris you may want to do a little bit more research into the law before you get all snotty.

  Let us take a look at Florida State Code 776.031:
  “776.031 Use of force in defense of others-

  A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect.”

  Hmmm now lets look at a section from the Security Officer Handbook which is put out by the Division of Licensing under the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. It says in Chapter VII Section c . – Use of Force:

  “Non-deadly force may be used by a security officer to the extent necessary for self-defense or defense of another against the use of unlawful force or to prevent or terminate trespass or “interference’’ with property the security officer has a legal duty to protect.”

  So yes security guards can put their hands on people legally. Yes they were acting lawfully in getting physical with Carlos. No you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

  Anything else from those legal eagles Chris and Nevernot? I thought not. Class dismissed.

• 120 Roger // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:36 PM

  To the above please add NOT to touch.

  As an interesting story: I once knew a camera man who grew tired of people grabbing his camera. He ground his lens shade sharp, cut one or two.

• 121 Johnny Law // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:38 PM

  Oh but I do need to say that I don’t think the guards had any legal right to take Carlos’ camera. I’m not sure what that was about but I think they were in the wrong and could be disciplined for it.

• 122 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:41 PM

  Do I think JL is right in his interpretation? Not sure, but I’m beginning to be swayed and I don’t even like JL. Do I think CM has a defense and possibly a case to sue the metro rail also? Possibly.

  What did this Bill Cooke say that made you ban him?

• 123 Chris Bray // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:49 PM

  Johnny Law,

  I appreciate the quality and substance of your response, which I didn’t expect. Given that Miller was never served with any kind of notice that he was barred from Metro stations, given that train station photography is explicitly permitted by Metrorail (as Miller has shown in a prior post), and given the absence of posted signs forbidding photographers from entering the train station, I think you’d have to prove that the guards were responding to a real instance of trespassing.

  Still, I appreciate the quality of your response. Where are you a cop?

• 124 Carlos Miller // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:54 PM

  Bill Cooke is a guy who has had it in for me since the day I started this blog. He’s a local photographer that has posted on this blog under “Hank”.

  He never adds anything to the discussion. All he does is insult me. He has a real obsession over me.

  He’s the guy that got me fired from NBC last year.

  http://carlosmiller.com/2009/11/02/i-no-longer-work-at-nbc-miami/

  He thinks that if he posts his comments from his local Panera or local library, that I won’t figure out it’s him.

  But I’ve been dealing with him for three years, so I know his writing style.

  And although I have many people who disagree with what I write, nobody has demonstrated such a personal animosity against me as he has.

  So considering he adds nothing to the discussion, I no longer will allow him to post here.
  Carlos Miller recently posted..I was attacked by a Metrorail security guard for shooting video

• 125 Michaelk42 // Jul 30, 2010 at 4:54 PM

  Feh. Johnny Law has been made aware of the differences between private/public property in the original post by myself and others, and continues to ignore it.

  Not to mention the guards’ lack of authority to even trespass someone against the policies of the management in the first place.

  But as usual, he focuses on what they can get away with and not on what’s right, or even sensible. But that’s what he always does.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 126 Dennis N // Jul 30, 2010 at 5:07 PM

  @nevernot // Jul 30, 2010 at 2:14 PM

  >> Are you serious? No security guard is allowed to touch any member of the public for any reason. They are not law enforcement, they are hired meat sacks there to OBSERVE and ONLY OBSERVE.

  A security guard can make a citizen’s arrest, just like you or I or your grandmother. No more. But we are all allowed to use force to effect a citizen’s arrest. I believe we are also allowed to defend ourselves against a false citizen’s arrest, but not an arrest by a cop (with a few exceptions).

  The security guard did not attempt to make a citizen’s arrest. He simply committed an assault.

  An armed guard has the same rights to use his weapon as you or I do. He can defend himself or others, and in a limited way, protect property.

• 127 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM

  Wow that guy sounds like a fuckin asshole. People like that are the ones I’d like to do a flying clothesline on.

  Goodluck Carlos, but hope you don’t need it.

• 128 Stuart // Jul 30, 2010 at 5:19 PM

  Carlos, you are a wonderful strong patriot I support you!
  Did you say the F word? You lose points. Did you use violence? Your losing my support.

• 129 Roger // Jul 30, 2010 at 5:22 PM

  For a time I was a PI and the firm ran a few guards for clients, they were the smallest income source and the largest headache we had. They were generally in one of three categories, to dumb to pour it out of a boot, retired and wanting a extender for their income, and cop wanna be thugs. The first two were generally no problem, as all they wanted was to get the shift over and go home. The other was trouble, we fired them as fast as possible. Far too many guards fall in the later category

• 130 rsm // Jul 30, 2010 at 6:19 PM

  JL ‘s interpretation is correct insofar as it applies to private property. What I don’t know is whether or not it applies to public property and/or a ‘common carrier’. Additionally if the confrontation is started on false premises without a conversation then the security guards are at fault. They still have no powers beyond what a citizen has protecting their own private property, or an owner has in protecting their property. Which is where the whole ‘common carrier’ issue comes in.

  Btw. An aside at ‘Norwegian Chap’ at 52: Moderating a forum is vastly different from moderating a blog, and a lot of blogs let everything slide, which leads to a lot of interesting debate and confirmation of the Internet Dickwad Theory, but also a lot of open and excellent debate that more controlled forms wouldn’t allow. In general I think it’s sound advice to say that if you can’t handle a personal attack staying off the internet is probably in your best interest.
  W.r.t. to your photo experience: The criteria Norway used to use for banning photography at airports was the presence or lack thereof of military air traffic. The military sections of the Norwegian airports, and the ones co-located with military squadrons used to be ‘no photography,’ which may have changed since I last was home. An example of this (relevant to my last trip) is that Chitose is partly photography off limits (co-located with JSDAF), while Haneda has a photo/observation deck overlooking one of the runways and people will hang out there for a whole day taking pictures.

• 131 A Norwegian Chap // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:43 PM

  Hi, RSM. I think you’ve misunderstood my post.

  First of all, my reference to my work moderating boards wasn’t related to the moderation of the comments, it was an analogy to the guards behavior, ie. that I seem to put more thought into actually deleting a post than the said security guys did before they actually physicly assaulted a member of the public.

  While deleting a posters reply to a thread is intrusive to his posting, it isn’t something that can cause actual bodily harm. Hitting someone on the other hand, can. That’s my point.

  My references to the personal attacks against Johnny Law, that was meerly a personal reflection. I don’t steer away from swearing, I can be an absolute arse if it’s warranted, and I can become properly unpleasant if I’m provoked, but I still find it relatively distasteful to see someone being bullied for holding a stupid opinion.

  As for military airports, that is a valid point. However, from friends and collegues who have spent time on different Norwegian Air Force stations, the ban on photography is only effectuated rarely, when it’s extremely warranted. In principle, it’s illegal to photograph vessels in the Royal Norwegian Navy, a ban that isn’t enforced either. As a curiosity, the actual legal text of the law regulating behavior close to the Russian (/Soviet) border barred the use of lenses longer than 200mm. It actually said “200mm”. Heh.

  And while they were still enforcing the photo ban outside Bodø Hovedflystasjon (Bodø Military Airport is the largest fighter base in Norway, for those who don’t know about it), they begun selling post cards in the gift shop with air photos of the base, and a couple of different post cards showing the base from different angles.

  In the time of really good satelite intelligence, though, photographic surveilance of this sort is less relevant anyway.

  But I think we’ve digressed.

• 132 The Straw Buyer // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:46 PM

  I just had a MDPD cop tell me that when someone gets punched in the face the county ordinance states that unless there is death or disfigurement it’s classified as a misdemeanor battery that’s not really even an arrestable offense.

  I actually had to sit back and listen to a douchebag cop tell me this today after my friend had been beaten to a bloody pulp at his place of his business while the cops let the attacker walk away. To add insult to injury, rather than arrest the attacker or even call an ambulance to help the poor guy that was attacked, the cops arrested my friend because he DIDN’T PRODUCE HIS OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE WHEN THEY ASKED HIM TO!
  The Straw Buyer recently posted..Researching a new case and some technical difficulties

• 133 Frank // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:09 PM

  Lawsuit? Try pressing charges of aggravated assault. Lawsuit is item two on the list.

• 134 Aaron // Jul 30, 2010 at 8:37 PM

  @JL: Exactly which law did Carlos break?

  You cite security guard rules and regulations, but not a single Florida statute that Carlos could have broken.

• 135 Chris Bray // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:30 PM

  Johnny Law,

  With time to think about your answer, two things:

  1.) I accept that state law probably allows a private security guard to use force to repel a trespasser, but…

  2.) I can’t imagine how you would prove that Carlos Miller trespassed when he had previously written to the Metrorail director of security to ask if he could take photos in Metrorail stations — and the director of security had told him that he could. Miller cleared his entry, and his activity, in writing, with the person finally responsible for securing the train station he was entering.

  The security guards in the station act as agents for the public operators of the Metrorail system, who had already said explicitly and in writing that Miller could go to a station and take pictures.

  It’s like I walk to the foot of your driveway and say, “Hey, do you mind if I walk to the top of your driveway and pick some of those flowers by your front door?” And you say, “Sure, go ahead.” Then I start to walk up your driveway, and you punch me in the face for trespassing.

  Carlos Miller has written assurance, from a level of authority well above the dude with the one rubber glove, that he may lawfully do the thing that he did. So how could he have possibly been trespassing?

  And if there was no trespassing, how could the guards legitimately use force to repel a trespasser?

• 136 Michaelk42 // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:59 PM

  @Chris

  We tried to explain that in the first thread. It has yet to sink in/doesn’t fit Johnny’s view.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 137 Chris Bray // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:01 PM

  Oy.

• 138 Hazy // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:18 PM

  What was the security guard’s response when CM told him he had already asked permission from the higher up? Something along the lines of, “I don’t care”?

• 139 pingu // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:43 PM

  all of you people that think that carlos did nothing wrong are a bunch of ass kising faggets.this mother fucker went to someones job to look for a fight.to provoke someone thats working to provide for there family and kids to hit him so he can sue someone.real men work for a living asshole. that makes him a fuck face and a loser.no wounder he was fired from nbc..real journalist report the news,not make it for personal publicity.

• 140 Roger // Jul 30, 2010 at 10:59 PM

  Pingu;

  Your juvenile foul language only makes you look bad and people will discount what ever you have to say because of it.

• 141 Douglas // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:10 PM

  I’m currently working on a documentary about Dr. Martin Luther King. Several of the people that we have interviewed discussed how difficult it was to adopt and believe in the practice of nonviolence.
  The security guard was no better than the police dogs set on innocent people… and the difficult choice is to be nonviolent in response. I support you 100% Carlos, your cause (which is my cause as well) can be better served with a civil, nonviolent response, not a tit for tat split lip…

  and as I tweeted to you.. sign me up for a photo mob…
  Douglas recently posted..Photo

• 142 Duggle // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:28 PM

  Unlawful Restraint:

  A person commits the offense of unlawful restraint if the person knowingly or purposely and without lawful authority restrains another so as to interfere substantially with the other person’s liberty.

• 143 Duggle // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:31 PM

  Johnny Law needs to seriously consider the difference between public property and private property.

• 144 Donald // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:32 PM

  Don’t you understand people? They had magic costumes on so they are right no matter what.

• 145 RandomCitizen // Jul 31, 2010 at 1:04 AM

  @Duggle: That’s been pointed out to him several times in the comments, yet he ignored it. This is common for him, he ignores everything that disagrees with his stance (which can be summed up mostly as “cops can do no wrong”) and focuses on whatever small straws are left to say Carlos (or other photographers/videographers) are in the wrong and should be ashamed of themselves and/or go to jail (even if they were just exercising their constitutional rights). Even video proof isn’t enough to convince him, so arguing with him certainly won’t.

  Basically, trying to convince him of the reality of the situation is useless. He lives in his own little world where cops do no wrong and people confronted by cops always had it coming, no matter what the cops did to them.

• 146 EH // Jul 31, 2010 at 1:11 AM

  You should sue them for the copyright violations in deleting your files.

• 147 Patrick // Jul 31, 2010 at 1:17 AM

  @pingu: So, What’s your badge number? You obviously work in some type of LE or security position. Your inability to spell or even form a coherent sentence is a dead giveaway.

• 148 Roger // Jul 31, 2010 at 1:41 AM

  Non violence only works against those who are reasonable and have certain moral code. An SS General, after WW2, was asked how the Germans would have handled Gonday and his non violence. His replay was in two words, shot him.

• 149 Matthew H. // Jul 31, 2010 at 3:27 AM

  Carlos, I’m an Armed Security Officer in VA. and you did everything correctly. I am appauled by the Officer’s behavior and hope you do sue him for unjust harrassment, assault, and theft. Good luck!

• 150 Matthew H. // Jul 31, 2010 at 3:30 AM

  @Pingu: Was that you in the video wearing the beret and the fat lip?

• 151 SteelToad // Jul 31, 2010 at 6:11 AM

  Pingu, The first letter of a sentence is capialized, as are propper nouns, the correct spelling is ‘faggots’ and ass-kissers should be hyphenated. I understand, it’s summertime, and skills atrophy, but make mistakes like this during the school year, and your grades will suffer. If on the otherhand you are just woefully uninformed and not a school child, please see the account of the previous visit to the station for context

• 152 nevernot // Jul 31, 2010 at 8:32 AM

  @Johnny “Law”

  Congratulastions, it looks like you do know how to read and form semi coherent thoughts. But you’re still missing the point. State criminal law trumps some guide written by the Department of Agriculture. After all the case will be taken to criminal court, not a hearing under the dept of agriculture. And once again, you seem to ignore that this is a common carrier, a form of public property, not private property. You have a right to defend your personal property to the end, but once you’re in public space your rights end where mine begin. Those guards are nothing more than private citizens with funny outfits. Not that I really expect such a sub par LEO as your self to recognize private citizens rights….

• 153 Dodge Ball // Jul 31, 2010 at 9:03 AM

  Duggle and Random, JL can’t be a cop. No one could be that ignorant and wear a uniform as he claims. The inability to distinguish or acknowledge the difference between private and public property is a dead giveaway.

  Pingu, you are a troll.

• 154 nevernot // Jul 31, 2010 at 9:11 AM

  @Dodge Ball

  Have you ever met a law enforcement officer? Being that ignorant is a prerequisite for the job. The more ignorant the better, unless they’re genuinely dumb and ignorant, then they become security guards

• 155 sailshonan // Jul 31, 2010 at 9:24 AM

  Johnny Law,

  My husband is a cop in the state of Florida. Although I have no statute to quote, I asked him about this incident and he said that on public property, unless someone is thought to be an immediate threat or danger to others or property, a person cannot be trespassed. However, in Florida, after being verbally trespassed, it is an arrestable offense if he/she returns onto the property. During the first incident, Miller had specific assurance from Metrorail authority that public non-commercial photography was allowed, and he didn’t endanger anyone, but was undeservedly harassed by Metrorail security. During the first Metrorail incident, he was acting within his rights and was unlawfully trespassed by Metrorail security, so there is quite a bit of contention whether the first tresspass warning was valid and that he broke the law the second time he entered public Metrorail property. If the first trespass warning was not lawfully valid, and Metrorail still allows public photography in its facilities, then neither the security guards nor the police have any rights to use physical force on Miller.

• 156 Johnny Law // Jul 31, 2010 at 11:15 AM

  There is a big difference between a public place such as a public sidewalk and a place run as an independent entity. I have seen people banned from public libraries, city bus stations, and city run homeless shelters. Just because a place is paid for by public funds doesn’t mean the management gives up the right to set rules of conduct.

  You guys are clinging to the “public” part of this but your definition of it is flawed. The guards can maintain order and refuse entry to people who are disruptive or refusing to follow their rules.

• 157 Chris Bray // Jul 31, 2010 at 11:27 AM

  “The guards can maintain order and refuse entry to people who are disruptive or refusing to follow their rules.”

  Yes, “their rules.” The director of Metrorail security assured Miller in writing that he was permitted to photograph the train station. You’re being aggressively obtuse.

• 158 Johnny Law // Jul 31, 2010 at 11:31 AM

  Oh and nevernot, reread my post. I quoted Florida state law and even provided the statute number. Also, the guide is put out by the government agency responsible for licensing security officers in the state of Florida. Seems pretty official to me.

  Just admit you are wrong buddy. Continuing to argue that point just makes you look like a bigger idiot.

• 159 Chris Bray // Jul 31, 2010 at 11:34 AM

  “Just because a place is paid for by public funds doesn’t mean the management gives up the right to set rules of conduct.”

  I mean, my god: Management set rules of conduct. The security guards enforced *different rules*, which they pulled out of their asses. That’s the whole point. You cannot say or do anything that vanishes the written communication from the director of Metrorail security that says Miller may photograph train stations. It exists.

• 160 Johnny Law // Jul 31, 2010 at 11:36 AM

  @ Chris,

  Well now we are on different points. Did the guards go against Metrorail policy? Dunno. I think they have their sets of instructions that may be different from what Carlos was told. I think that some policy clarification needs to be sent out within the Metrorail system. However until that happens, the guards are going to follow their interpretation of the rules.

  Now what I am saying is that legally, people can be banned from places paid for with public funds (such as libraries, bus stations, and other city facilities). Folks here seem to be under the impression that you can just come and go whenever you want and do whatever you want since, hey it’s a “public” place.

  That is ridiculous and entities such as the Metrorail have always had the right to enforce certain rules and have the right to refuse entry to folks that are disruptive. I think you folks need to do some thinking about the difference between a bus station and a sidewalk.

• 161 nevernot // Jul 31, 2010 at 11:43 AM

  Maybe you’re still missing the point. He was not breaking the rules or being disruptive. He was assaulted for lawfully filming, and defended himself. The guards can’t refuse entry or “keep order” as you put it for failure to enforce THEIR rules as you put it, they can only do so to enforce their BOSSES rules. The ones that are passed down to them from above. They are not judge and jury either. And I’m very aware of the differences between private, public and common carrier. What precinct do you work in again?

• 162 Chris Bray // Jul 31, 2010 at 11:45 AM

  “I think they have their sets of instructions that may be different from what Carlos was told.”

  Quite possible, and a serious training failure if it is. That would put the fault somewhere other than the individual guards, but there would still be fault somewhere in the Metrorail system. In any event, I think Miller is on solid ground: he has written proof that he was engaged in permissible activity, and can prove his good faith effort to ensure that he was acting within the rules.

  Someone somewhere screwed up; Miller didn’t. I concede that your defense of the individual guards may be valid (and I see that you acknowledged it was inappropriate for one-glove to take Miller’s camera), but I think Miller behaved appropriately throughout. He made sure he was acting within the rules, was subjected to physical aggression while doing so, and reacted angrily. He’s right. But I can agree that you’ve raised doubt about who exactly got it wrong on the other side.

• 163 Chris Bray // Jul 31, 2010 at 12:09 PM

  Adding that I think it actually gets more interesting if the fault lies somewhere else. Government agencies that contract for services have to define those services and establish standards for them. It would be useful for someone to use Florida’s version of FOIA to get 50 State’s contract with Metrorail, and to get the documents that lay out the policies that Metrorail has communicated to their security contractor.

  If they’re telling the public that, yeah, sure, go take photographs in our train stations — but also not setting clear standards for their security contractor, or even telling their guards that they should confront photographers….

• 164 Rick // Jul 31, 2010 at 12:12 PM

  As much as I agree with Carlos’ mission I think he screwed up here. In Florida a verbal trespass notice is legal and enforceable so, since he had been warned before he was trespassing when he went through the gate. Railroads are not public places like a park but are considered semi-public places and have special restrictions including security. Private security officers have every right to enforce the owners rules even when the owner is a public agency.

  Here are some sections of the Florida statutes dealing with these issues. They may not be the specific laws but will make the point.

  “812.015 (3)(a) A law enforcement officer, a merchant, a farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent, who has probable cause to believe that a retail theft, farm theft, a transit fare evasion, or trespass, or unlawful use or attempted use of any antishoplifting or inventory control device countermeasure, has been committed by a person and, in the case of retail or farm theft, that the property can be recovered by taking the offender into custody may, for the purpose of attempting to effect such recovery or for prosecution, take the offender into custody and detain the offender in a reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time. In the case of a farmer, taking into custody shall be effectuated only on property owned or leased by the farmer. In the event the merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent takes the person into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called to the scene immediately after the person has been taken into custody. ”

  Also, “810.08 Trespass in structure or conveyance.-(1) Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
  (3) As used in this section, the term “person authorized” means any owner or lessee, or his or her agent, or any law enforcement officer whose department has received written authorization from the owner or lessee, or his or her agent, to communicate an order to depart the property in the case of a threat to public safety or welfare. ”

  Obviously in both these cases the owners agent were the private security officers.

  “776.031 Use of force in defense of others.–A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be. ”

  But ultimately we’re all just flapping our lips and making assumptions. The only thing that will matter is what a court decides if Carlos decides to sue.

• 165 Johnny Law // Jul 31, 2010 at 12:29 PM

  Or if Carlos is charged with trespassing or assault.

• 166 John Howard // Jul 31, 2010 at 12:38 PM

  I wish people wouldn’t always edit out the portion of these videos at the beginning, where the security guard walks up calmly and civilly asks you to please not operate your cameras and to please leave if you won’t comply.

  It always starts with the guard rushing up, being a complete dick and threatening/demanding this, that, and such like a little caeser.

  (OK, OK, I know these videos AREN’T edited)

• 167 Major // Jul 31, 2010 at 12:42 PM

  It would seem that a public transportation facility since 9/11 probably has either a “No photo/video ordinance” or any action like what you did would be considered “suspicious” and further investigation would be warranted!!

  I don’t know what powers armed security officers have in that jurisdiction, but where I live, armed security officers have “full” arrest authority!!

  If a police officer tells you to leave, right or wrong, you better leave…it’s the law in all 50 states….you can sue them of course and may win, but if you disobey the officer at the time, you will get arrested!!

  There have been ongoing threats made by rag headed dipsticks against U.S. Transportation facilities in case you don’t watch or read the news so what do you think there reaction would be when a non-news entity like you waltzes around shooting video of the facility and the officers themselves!!

  I would have considered you a public nuisance, sort of like a scruffy loose dog wandering around, and called animal control to noose you and throw you in the truck…lol!!

• 168 Asscore // Jul 31, 2010 at 12:44 PM

  Hey Johnny Law,

  Go kill yourself you worthless piece of shit. You are a shining example of why people hate you fucking pigs.

  Hopefully someday somebody shoots you in the face. I wish it could be me.

• 169 Johnny Law // Jul 31, 2010 at 12:54 PM

  You stay classy San Diego.

• 170 EH // Jul 31, 2010 at 1:06 PM

  It’s interesting to read how Johnny Law (fake name) has disintegrated through the course of this thread. At first he asserts some kind of knowledge and authority before descending into brickbats and willful wrongheadedness. Kind of like the officers in this post (and many others), s/he has a predictable arc.

  Those of you who read Volokh or Balkin and are aware of the commenter named “Bart dePalma” will have a reference point here.

  …and what’s this “Comment Luv” crap?! I’m getting sick of unchecking it.

• 171 Chris Bray // Jul 31, 2010 at 1:08 PM

  Johnny Law:

  “Or if Carlos is charged with trespassing or assault.”

  With a written message in hand from the director of Metrorail security telling him that he may go to Metrorail stations and photograph them? Your fantasy will not come true.

• 172 Chris Bray // Jul 31, 2010 at 1:09 PM

  Major:

  “If a police officer tells you to leave, right or wrong, you better leave.”

  Naked authoritarianism. You’re not fit to live in a constitutional republic.

• 173 bgwillia // Jul 31, 2010 at 1:51 PM

  adjinx #56 “Uh, I can’t take a picture of the Capitol dome?” How many tourists have violated that “law”?

  Don’t know about tourists, but I attended a few TEA parties on the West grounds photographing the heck out of the Capitol building and the guys in blue standing on the balconies. They even took pictures of us.

• 174 Jim Poulos // Jul 31, 2010 at 2:30 PM

  @Major:
  “It would seem that a public transportation facility since 9/11 probably has either a “No photo/video ordinance”

  INCORRECT. Some have a no photo policy like the PATH system in the NY area but that policy existed BEFORE 9/11. It has more to do with how the “corporate image” is presented than security.

  In NYC photography of the subway system is specifically PERMITTED by NY State Law. While the government tried to pass a law prohibiting photography a coalition of photographers, artists, railfans and civil rights groups got them to WITHDRAW the proposal. Boston and Philadelphia used to require permits but in both cities permits are NO LONGER REQUIRED thanks to pressure from local chapters of the ACLU. Chicago and Washington DC’s transit system both specifically permit photography according to their websites.

  So which transit systems prohibit photography? Cite the specific statutes if you can!

  “There have been ongoing threats made by rag headed dipsticks against U.S. Transportation facilities”

  What does that have to do with photography?

  ” If a police officer tells you to leave, right or wrong, you better leave…”

  Should we also click our heels and salute.

  I am sick and tired of 9/11 being used as the catch-all excuse to restrict freedom in this country. The government told us to return to our normal lives after 9/11. They did not say that this applied to everyone except railfans and photographers!

• 175 Freddy Hill // Jul 31, 2010 at 5:21 PM

  I said in #12 that Carlos lost his cool, and some misinterpreted my comment. I’m pretty hot-headed myself, and would probably have lost my cool much earlier than Carlos did. However, violence in this case undermines the moral standing of Carlos’ struggle. Carlos went into that train station, from which he had been (illegally) banned for life, with a clear confrontational motive in support of a very worthy cause. He had to know that physical violence was a real possibility, and yet he apparently did not steel himself to it. He lost his temper, screamed and then hit back. It was understandable but unprofessional behavior for somebody that is becoming one of our pre-eminent advocates of First Amendment photography rights.

  This video is less hard-hitting (if you’ll pardon the pun) than it could have been. And that is a pity.

• 176 Peter // Jul 31, 2010 at 5:40 PM

  Freddy @175:

  Carlos “had to had know”?!? Welcome to Earth, Freddy. Humans don’t have the power of predicting the future. After you’ve been planetside for awhile, you’ll realize that.

  Johnny Law: Keep moving the goalposts there, guy. Nobody has noticed that. Nobody.

• 177 Gavin // Jul 31, 2010 at 5:41 PM

  Maybe you had a right to take video, but you were being kind of a douche. Inside a metro station isn’t exactly a public place, and there was no reason to be so persistent. Way to pick your battles.

• 178 Fascist Nation // Jul 31, 2010 at 6:10 PM

  Maybe after your conviction you will get a fair and impartial appeals hearing in front of your good buddy Fernandez. They aren’t camera shy. They are camera stupid. I would wonder why the security guards were not arrested for assault and battery.

• 179 Vance // Jul 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM

  Were you giggling?

• 180 The Dude Dean // Jul 31, 2010 at 8:14 PM

  Carlos this is wild. I’ve met you a few times and I know you are very cool mellow cat. I can’t believe you are being harassed and attacked for doing your job while having your 1st amendment rights being violated. Freedom of Speech and the Press are the two most important things in our Constitution.
  The Dude Dean recently posted..Social Media Sites that have Twitter Integration While Digg is still thinking about it

• 181 figMiNT // Jul 31, 2010 at 8:16 PM

  I am going to reserve my opinion until after all the evidence is presented. I would like to see what transpired before you started recording with your iPhone.

  I do recall your earlier run in with the Metrorail–which is why I am not surprised that you going here once again resulted in another incident–but I don’t remember you ever getting written permission. All you and Stretch had (unless I am mistaken) was a quote about not needing permission as you weren’t filming for commercial purposes.

  Every state has their own statutes and codes. I do know that there are spoken as well as written contracts. But they had no reason to snatch your camera or cause damage to your property.

  I think the important thing to find out is whether or not you were actually banned from the Metrorail.

  I think what happens in the near-future hinges on this.

  I can’t wait to see the segment a few weeks from now on that new’s site.

  You are within your right’s that if anyone unlawfully assaults or attacks you, you have the right to protect yourself and others around you.

  So, we shall see.
  figMiNT recently posted..Response cached until Sun 1 @ 23:42 GMT (Refreshes in 21.43 Hours)

• 182 ken // Jul 31, 2010 at 8:54 PM

  Wow, cant believe they are like that about it. Thankfully, other than the courthouse. I have never had a problem videotaping anywhere in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Although, I do believe we should have access there as well.
  Dont sue. That just costs us more money. Essentially, you are sueing yourself. Demand a public face to face apology. From them or whoever he worked for. Someone had to tell them to act like that. Demand constitutional training, for anyone in security, police, or military.
  I know its a tough one to swallow, but your only hurting all of us. You really do deserve something for it happening period. Its on you, either way. We have to make sure they are held accountable.

• 183 TravisT // Jul 31, 2010 at 9:56 PM

  Carlos,
  If you haven’t already done so, you really ought to take some precautions to mitigate the damage that an executed search warrant could inflict upon your life. I’m talking about things like keeping a copy of important papers, files, videos, photos and anything else that you don’t want to do without OFF premises. Even if you have the items in a “Fort Knox Safe” the cops will just blow the door off it.

  As you know, police raids can be part and parcel of “contempt of cop”. One can be 100% in-the-right and still have their door kicked in at 2am.

  Some good examples:
  Anthony Graber Raided for placing a video on YouTube even when the State Attn. Gen. said it was OK.
  Blogger Jeff @ badphoenixcops.com: Raided for “contempt of cop” (completely exonerated), cop-roaches still won’t return his belongings. BTW, cop-roaches blew his safe.

• 184 Michaelk42 // Jul 31, 2010 at 10:57 PM

  @ken

  Most people won’t pay attention if this sort of thing doesn’t cost them money. Yeah, it sucks, but it’s the only motivation that works with some people.

  As for the ban in Allen County courthouses:

  The ban was put in place to eradicate annoying distractions in courtrooms, but principally it is a safety measure adopted to protect jurors. “I had people in the building taking pictures of jurors, and that concerned me,” Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull said. “I was doing a gang-related trial at the time, and a photograph of a juror was posted online.”

  …

  Yes, that stream of idiocy issued forth from Judge Fran Gull. For as we all know jurors become invisible outside of the building, and having your picture on the internets means bad people can instantly find you, no matter where you are.

  But of course cell phones and other electronic devices are allowed in the court houses if you’re a member of the legal/police class of society.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 185 Johnny Law // Aug 1, 2010 at 4:18 AM

  Right Mike. Because gang member never ever attempt to intimidate witnesses. I know that the people on this site really really want to be able to take photos whenever and wherever they want. For the most part I agree. Heck I think the Miami Metrorail is being stupid by restricting photos, even if they have the right to restrict it.

  However you have to admit there is a real danger if jurors in a gang trial are posted online. Right? Cmon, admit that there are some rare cases where photos should be prohibited.

• 186 A Norwegian Chap // Aug 1, 2010 at 8:05 AM

  Yes, Johnny, gang members didn’t try to intimidate vitnesses without photographic intelligence. The Cosa Nostra did it very well in the 1880s, and back then, taking a photo of someone who didn’t want to be photographed was sort of.. hard.

  Anyway. They can still sit in the court room, and they can still identify the jurors to someone with a camera outside. It is, in any realistic situation, a completely useless precaution to avoid intimidation of jurors.

  As for the annoying bit, I agree there shouldn’t be photography while the court is in session, but before and after, the judge really shouldn’t care.

• 187 Michaelk42 // Aug 1, 2010 at 8:11 AM

  “I know that the people on this site really really want to be able to take photos whenever and wherever they want.”

  Which is generally our right as citizens. You say this as if it were a bad thing. And as if you were in some sort of position to tell us when it’s OK or not.

  I don’t have to admit anything about there being “some rare cases where photos should be prohibited,” since I never said that wasn’t the case. This isn’t one of those cases, however.

  And no Johnny, I don’t have to admit that there is a real danger if people’s photos are posted online. Especially when you’ve failed to show one. What exactly is that danger? Is it somehow less of a threat if their picture is taken outside where the ban doesn’t and cannot exist?

  No, you have to show that there is somehow an actual, legitimate threat.

  Gull can prohibit cameras and cell phones from her actual courtroom if she needs to for a trial. My contention is that banning them from the entire building is overbroad and pointless. And in her case, even a bit classist.

  But being a beneficiary of that class system, I can see how you’d reflexively defend it.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 188 Tom Jankowski // Aug 1, 2010 at 10:36 AM

  At the Smithonian is what looks like a combination camera/machine gun. A modern version of that would have helped you that day Carlos.

  Has anything come from this?

• 189 Johnny Law // Aug 1, 2010 at 11:07 AM

  Mike,

  You are incredibly one sided on this issue. Even though it may be possible to get a picture of a juror from some other location, why make it easy by allowing photos in the courthouse? Jurors can take precautions by leaving from other exits but they are sitting ducks in the jury box.

  I am amazed that you can’t even recognize the potential threat in a gang trial.

• 190 Brian Schneider // Aug 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM

  OMG I agree with Johnny Law?
  It’s the end of the world.
  Here in Canada you can’t take pictures in a courthouse. That’s just the way it is. No big deal.
  As soon as someone steps out the door they’re fair game.

• 191 pingu // Aug 1, 2010 at 12:55 PM

  @ Roger

  Your right foul language doesn’t get you far when trying to prove a point.

  @Patric

  I’m not a leo or s/o…I was walking by to catch the train when the incidient was happening.

  @Mathew

  Sorry buddy that wasn’t me with the fat lip..I carry a gun with me everywhere i go.Think about what would of happened to carlos if he would’ve hit me….

  @steeltoad

  Sorry buddy i really don’t give a shit how i write or spell..As long as i get my point across,that’s all that matters.

  Now back to the incidient. I was there walking by.If i have a couple of strangers pointing camares at me (without my consent) and after warning them not to film me, I as anyone else would get nervous and offened as to why someone is invading my privacy and would push that camera of his hand for being stupid and follow up with a good ass kicking for being a prick….I’m not against people taking pictures or filming as long as there is consent from the people that are being filmed or photographed.

• 192 Dr. Q // Aug 1, 2010 at 1:04 PM

  “… someone is invading my privacy…”

  Wrong. You have no guarantee of privacy in public.
  Dr. Q recently posted..Cop Lies- Man Spends Five Years in Prison

• 193 loldongs // Aug 1, 2010 at 1:04 PM

  Sue that piece of shit spic for everything he’s worth.

• 194 SteelToad // Aug 1, 2010 at 1:33 PM

  Pingu, please check the laws on this issue, in public anybody can film you without your consent.

• 195 Chris Bray // Aug 1, 2010 at 1:47 PM

  Johnny Law,

  “Heck I think the Miami Metrorail is being stupid by restricting photos, even if they have the right to restrict it.”

  Metrorail doesn’t restrict photos. Carlos Miller has Metrorail’s written policy, which says that photography is permitted in train stations, and he has an email message from Metrorail’s director of security telling him that he may take photographs in Metrorail train stations. You have been told this and told this and told this, and you simply find it inconvenient to notice it.

• 196 Harry Callihan // Aug 1, 2010 at 2:06 PM

  99% of all cops, the unionized ones and the rent-a-cop ones are wimps, pussy faggots who need their guns.

  They come from weak DNA, crappy genetic stock. Thus, suffering from mediocre IQ, getting work as a cop is all that they can get.

  Cops are anti-American. They hate America.

• 197 A Norwegian Chap // Aug 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM

  re:Pingu

  “Now back to the incidient. I was there walking by.If i have a couple of strangers pointing camares at me (without my consent) and after warning them not to film me, I as anyone else would get nervous and offened as to why someone is invading my privacy and would push that camera of his hand for being stupid and follow up with a good ass kicking for being a prick….I’m not against people taking pictures or filming as long as there is consent from the people that are being filmed or photographed.”

  First of all, as already pointed out, you do not have any expectation of privacy in public. Photographing someone without their consent in public is completely legal (yes, it is in Norway, but I’m not referencing Norwegian law, I am referencing US law), and like other legal activity, it’s quite illegal to assault someone to prevent them from carrying on with their activities.

  It’s bascily the same as assaulting someone for eating a hot dog, because the smell makes you sick. Sure, there’s a very strong psychological difference, but legally, the difference is non-existant. Let’s also remember that the other camera team captured the incident on video, that this video was shown to the police, and the police didn’t proceed to place mr. Carlos under arrest, in other words, in the eyes of the local police, mr. Carlos broke no laws.

  As a photographer and photojournalist, I understand that people may not like being photographed in a public space.

  Legally, they can’t demand that I stop (or, they can, but they can’t force the photographer to stop), but they can request not to be photographed. I will respect that in most circumstances, with a few exceptions.

  If the photography is of public interest, I will continue no matter who tells me to stop. There is plenty legal practice both in my home country and in the US that make it absolutely clear that no one can force me stop taking photos in public, at least not in relevant cirumstances and outside military bases.

  If a security guard and/or police request it, I will stop photographing if they are polite and give me a good reason. But I am under no legal obligation to do so. And if the private guard/police officer in question is rude, give me no reason and starts making up non-existant laws, I will not respect their request, I will, in fact, continue photographing to document the incident.

  Let’s be clear about something. If you want a photgrapher to stop photographing you in public, it’s silly to ask him/her to stop You can’t force the photographer, and if you behave in a moronic manner like the one you describe, human psychology does the rest of the job, you will make it the life’s work of the photographer to stand on his/hers rights.

  It’s maybe not rational, but it’s completely legal.

  What you describe, however, is assault, and is surtainly not legal.

• 198 Johnny Law // Aug 1, 2010 at 2:33 PM

  Chris,

  Metrorailn does restrict commercial photography doesn’t it? This has been mentioned multiple times and yet you choose to ignore it. So they do indeed restrict photography. And they have the right to do so.

• 199 figMiNT // Aug 1, 2010 at 2:39 PM

  Okay, some of you are getting to the point of photography-nazis and some of you are becoming photography-extremists. I don’t know how anyone except for those who within your circle actually take you seriously.

  There are some instances where recording someone and posting it on something like Youtube or a blog is NOT okay. Instance, what if someone was getting raped in an alleyway close to the sidewalk? That’s public. And there have been instances where the identity of jurors have been leaked, and some of them end up shot the same day. How about the case where the guy got away clean for taking video and photos up a girls skirt, because it was in public? http://www.seattlepi.com/local/87863_voyeur20.shtml. Because of that case the law was revised:

  (2) A person commits the crime of voyeurism if, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, he or she knowingly views, photographs, or films:

  (b) The intimate areas of another person without that person’s knowledge and consent and under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place.

  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115

  I acknowledge and support you if there is no law prohibiting you from taking pictures that you do so. But if you want to start walking over to the crime scene past the CRIME SCENE tape and snap some great shots, you are violating other laws and rights of citizens.

  I also have a problem with so many of the double-standards we have going on. Just because it’s the way it is, it doesn’t mean that’s how it should be. This reluctance of LEOs for being filmed by citizens (criminals or not) is appalling. What’s that on the patrol car’s dashboard? Why would you have a problem with me recording you if you haven’t and are not going to do anything wrong?

  If I had a choice of seeing on the news or Youtube a video of a crime, or reading about it in the paper that a crime (in progress) was stopped, I would happily choose the latter. Example: I’d rather have read about a group of people intervening and stopping this brutality and performing a citizen’s arrest than watching this video (that they sat back and filmed) of Police Brutality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-aCVrG-M_0

  As for this case, it’s going to come down to whether or not the ban actually exists or not. At least that’s my prediction.
  figMiNT recently posted..Response cached until Sun 1 @ 23:42 GMT (Refreshes in 3.05 Hours)

• 200 A Norwegian Chap // Aug 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM

  re: figMiNT.

  Hi.

  Regarding walking past a crime scene tape, that’s a cordon police may put up, and crossing it is illegal. Crossing it as a photojournalist to photograph something is also illegal, but let’s keep in mind that it is the crossing of tape that’s illegal, not the photography itself.

  In much the same way, photographing someone who’s punched out on the street is not illegal, while punching someone out to photograph someone who is punched out on the street is. Again, it’s not the photography that’s illegal, it’s the assault.

  As for the example regarding upskirt photography, I think that’s less clear. As the law now stands, it is illegal to take the photos and publish them. However, I think we can fairly agree that there is a distinction, and that photography of that type is an intrution of someones privacy. If someone walks into the street naked, they must expect that someone photographs them. But when you put on clothes, it’s your intention to somehow cover up and/or hide your body, and then it would seem like an intrusion. Some might disagree, but I think that’s a fair point.

  If someone is being raped, I wouldn’t use my camera to take photos, I would use it as a weapon and make sure the rapist was stopped, and pinned down on the street until the police can arrive. Depending on where you are, it might be illegal not to help someone who is being raped, but I don’t think it’s a legal requirement in any state or nation I know. The photographing or videotaping of it does seem legal, though. If it’s moral is an entirely different matter, of course.

  As for that particular case of police brutality, it’s a question I think is quite interesting.

  If a police officer commits assault, in other words, uses violence with no apparant reason against someone who is defenseless, shouldn’t any citizen be in his right to perform a citizens arrest? Legally, I think it’s a relatively possible argument to make, in an ideal world, I guess that is something that should be possible. If a cop punches someone in the face in street, and that person has done nothing to provoke such an attack, that seems like assault in the full meaning of the law.

  However, do you really think it would work? Let’s say the camera man in question walked over to these police officers and attempted a citizens arrest? What would probably happen is that said persons would be arrested for assualting a police officer, and without any particular evidence to point the other way, the court would find them guilty of that. They would be sent to prison.

  It would be an interesting experiment, and it’s an interesting legal argument to say the least, but it’s not really realistic. As it is, the incident was caught on “tape”, and someone was forced to react. If the guy taping it had attempted a citizens arrest, he/she would end up in a cell.

  

• 201 Chris Bray // Aug 1, 2010 at 3:43 PM

  JL,

  “Metrorail does restrict commercial photography doesn’t it?”

  Show where “commercial photography” is defined in Florida law or Metrorail policy, and prove that Carlos Miller was engaged in commercial photography under that definition. This has also been addressed many times.

  He. Had. A. Written. Message. From. The. Director. Of. Metrorail. Security. Saying. That. He. Was. Engaged. In. Permissable. Activity.

  Alas, the cops on the scene seem to have been much less obtuse than “Johnny Law.”

• 202 BuzzKill // Aug 1, 2010 at 3:45 PM

  Johnny, you are letting this get too personal; they have lost respect for you because you have become angry at them, instead of making your case and supporting it in such a way that cannot be contested.

  For my part, I am still a bit lost as to your applications of the law and their applicability in the light of the evidence shown. I, for my part, shall seek to make myself understood, and then wait for your response. I ask only that, should your rebuttal fail to make sense to me and this be reflected in my reply, you do not explode again in anger – heaping contempt upon me for my unfortunate incapacity to read minds and perceive all things perfectly. So…

  Florida State Code 776.031: Use of force in defense of others-
  My understanding of this set of events holds that the female security guard was the first to initiate personal contact – engaging in the application of force more in keeping with the Security Guard’s Handbook (“to prevent or terminate trespass or ‘interference’ with property the security officer has a legal duty to protect”) than with FSC.

  Thus, I do not understand how a reasonable, rational person could perceive photography (under these circumstances) as ” unlawful force”, making necessary “self-defense or defense of another”, and thus see the need to apply FSC.

  Further, proving “trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with” could be difficult under the provided circumstances. As a publicly-funded, common carrier property, trespass is going to be hard to prove without complete evidence of due process of law depriving the photographer of his right to access and freely make use of this facility in any way that he sees fit, provided that use does not deprive others of their rights to do likewise. He pays his taxes; he has the privilege until deprived of it through due process. Agreed?

  The second guard – the one quite likely guilty of assault and battery (please forgive my definitions of these two; they are medical definitions, and may not fit with your understanding) – was out-of-line in his approach. The female guard appeared to have matters in hand, and as long as nobody reached for the camera there would be no problems. The male guard evidently thought that she needed help, or he would not have intervened – but why did she need help, if the man was only photographing?

  The male guard became needlessly belligerent, striking and slapping at the camera and the photographer. Imaging it was you, and a security guard treated you thus for taking pictures; would you be less confrontational?

  I do not think that the law was ever meant to empower one party to interfere with the rights and privileges of another party unless the latter was clearly guilty of wrongdoing – thus, there is no law stating that private photography may not be engaged in freely in this place. Absent a law criminalizing his actions, the guards had no authority to do what they did to him. In view of what they did, they are guilty of interfering with his free progress and rights to liberty and property.

• 203 Hazy // Aug 1, 2010 at 3:54 PM

  Norwegian Chap eloquently demonstrates some excellent logic.

• 204 CLJ // Aug 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM

  Here’s the rules for passengers:
  http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/library/Passenger-Safety-Rules-WEB.pdf

  Here’s the exact statement about photography:
  Under County Ordinance #30B, the following acts are considered unlawful on any transit vehicle or any part of the transit system:
  “Taking still, sound or motion picture recordings for commercial, training or educational purposes (exception of news coverage), without prior written authorization by MDT or the County Manager.”

  This was a shoot for a news report, which under the posted rules for MetroRail is specifically exempted from needing permission. End of arguments, JL.

  Bottom line; the security guards were wrong, and all they had to do to confirm the rules was to look in the Passenger Safety Rules pamphlet, which is supposed to be available in every MetroRail station. They failed to acquaint themselves with the rules they are tasked with enforcing, or they willfully chose to violate the law and make up their own rules. Either way, they remain in the wrong.

  Carlos’ behavior also falls well short of trespass; he bought a ticket, and he did not violate any of the posted rules.

  While 50 State has limited authority to evict trespassers, they are not in charge of MetroRail. They are contracted labor, and have no authority to ban anyone from using a public utility at anytime. They can evict an unruly person, with cause, at the time of the incident, or they can detain said individual until the proper authorities arrive to take the person into custody. They cannot evict that person arbitrarily on any other occasion, unless they can prove cause at the time of the eviction.

  They certainly have no right to seize property. Even a police officer can’t do that without a court order. If an item was used in the commission of a felony, or believed to be stolen, that is a difference issue entirely. But that is not the case with Mr. Miller’s camera.

  Johnny Law, I conclude that you are one spectacularly misinformed cop, if indeed you’re a cop at all.
  CLJ recently posted..50 State Security Guard Steals Camera

• 205 Johnny Law // Aug 1, 2010 at 5:36 PM

  Chris,

  I think you are the one being obtuse. You said the Meteorail doesn’t regulate photography. They obviously do so you are incorrect on that count despite how many periods you use in your response.. I am not talking about Carlos specifically. I am talking about the fact the Metrorail does regulate photography.

• 206 Johnny Law // Aug 1, 2010 at 5:41 PM

  Buzzkill what are you going on about in reference to me taking this personal? I guess you skipped all the other posts including the one where someone wants to shoot me in the face. I think I’ve been pretty calm.

  I know it bothers you folks but FL law allows the guards to use force to remove people. It’s pretty darn clear on that issue. All the gnashing of teeth won’t change that.

• 207 Bridget // Aug 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM

  For those who post comments that do not support CM or half heartedly support him….

  The issue isn’t CM. The issue is these Security Guards who do not even understand or care about the policy of the company they work for.

  CM or any other photographer doesn’t need to get some rent a cop’s permission to exercise their first ammendment rights.

  If we don’t stand our ground with “big brother” or wanna be “big brother” we will lose them forever.

  The founding fathers laid it out for us.
  I, for one, am not going to roll over and play dead cause some stupid rent a cop wants to deny me my civil rights nor am I willing to roll over for the police.

• 208 A Norwegian Chap // Aug 1, 2010 at 7:00 PM

  Johnny,

  “I know it bothers you folks but FL law allows the guards to use force to remove people. It’s pretty darn clear on that issue. All the gnashing of teeth won’t change that.”

  First and foremost, the guards in question didn’t use force to “remove people”, they were repeatedly assaulting a person who were backing away.

  They were not

  1) acting in self defense
  2) trying to evict someone who had broken the rules or
  3) trying to evict someone who was acting unruly or violent

  They were slapping away at the camera, they assaulted him physicly and acted like threats. Their actions equate assault, even if they have the right to grab you by the arm and walk you out if you break the rules. Starting hitting people who haven’t behaved in a way that justifies the use of heavier force makes said activity assault.

  I’m dead tired of the notion from some Law&Order fanatics that no matter what someone in uniform does, it’s okay. You see it over and over again, wether it be several police officers roughing up someone on the ground with batons or police accidently strangling someone trying to control them. Seriously, these guards were in wrong, they assaulted a member of the public, the right to evict someone with force does not equate a right to punch someone, let alone take their property away.

  Since they were visibly armed, I guess one could make a case they committed armed robbery as well, but that’s up to the courts to decide.

  Stop being silly.

• 209 DJ ToddSmith // Aug 1, 2010 at 7:19 PM

  So JL is now arguing …..well, he is arguing nothing because he has nothing. Everything is regulated, try to think of one thing that is not. Duh. Dilweed.

  Oh btw nobody wants you shot in the face personally, they wish somebody else would do it. In your world of debate that is a huge night and day difference.

  You are wrong and cannot admit it. That’s why you are looking for these tiny wins (metorail DOES regulate “comercial” photography). You are the only one arguing about that.

  Why don’t you just become a preacher. Wouldn’t be a lot easier to say because “God Said So” than looking up a bunch of laws you don’t understand?

• 210 A Norwegian Chap // Aug 1, 2010 at 7:27 PM

  It is a very questionable practice to debate by picking off minor faults in an argument, condemn the entire argument and attempt to get away with not adressing the entire argument. I think JL would get a lot more people to agree with him if he avoided this practice.

• 211 Michaelk42 // Aug 1, 2010 at 7:39 PM

  @Johnny Law

  I am amazed you can’t come up with what the actual threat is in the gang trial, unless you believe a picture on the internet alone (without even searchable metadata, even) is some kind of threat in and of itself.

  Then again, for an anonymous troll/internet bully I imagine hiding your real identity is an issue. For you.

  How banning all electronic devices from the entire courthouse building is a reasonable time/place/manner restriction is something of a mystery, too.

  But then, you’re too busy engaging in your specialty of setting up strawman arguments. Not to mention what even A Norwegian Chap is catching on to already, your constant habit of ignoring anything not conducive to your preconceptions and view.

  Weirdly, I noted that Bikeportland.org noted that the Multnomah County courthouse not only allows electronic devices in the building, but even has open wifi for the citizens to use. The jurors there must be in terrible danger!

  Or maybe it’s people not giving up freedom for the illusion of security, in the face of the illusion of a threat.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 212 DJ ToddSmith // Aug 1, 2010 at 7:44 PM

  Oh, “A Norwegian Chap”, JL’s argument is they can use force. Not, they can use force in certain situations, but use force. period.

  Sidewalks are for walking. So in JL’s world if one is blinking, sneezing, combing hair, talking on cell phone, heart beating, …. you get the idea, on a sidewalk; well then he is obligated by law to use force against you. Because he would be all “Show me the law that says rubbing your eyes are allowed”: therefore I can use force against you. You see it’s against the law – Johnny’s Law.
  You know “Because the Bible/God said so”. No arguing with that now is there. And “Because there’s no law saying I can’t…..”

• 213 A Norwegian Chap // Aug 1, 2010 at 8:00 PM

  “There’s no law saying I can’t” isn’t accurate in this situation. There is a law saying you can’t punch someone unless they punch you, or are obviously about to do so. At least that’s how self defence works legally round here. But I fail to see how even the most liberal self defence laws allow you to punch someone who is backing away from you.

  So, if they were using force to “remove said person”, how the bloody hell does the fact that said person was backing away fit into that picture even if they were just grabbing him, let alone PUNCHING him?

  Absurd.

• 214 Hillbillyfunk // Aug 1, 2010 at 8:06 PM

  http://www.hd.net/worldreport.html

  Nice right hook Carlos, I applaud your restraint in not decking the female when she repeatedly slapped your hand/phone.

  When I was in defensive training they taught us how to disarm and individual carrying an asp (the black expandable baton) but it is not fun, you have to get inside of the swing radius.

  I recommend carrying some mace with the florescence dye in it, if anyone assault you or you camera gear inform them “you are going to be maced” only once then hose them.

  it is scary that those guards carry guns.

• 215 A Norwegian Chap // Aug 1, 2010 at 8:16 PM

  Well, as they do carry guns, I really do hope they get proper training in tactical deployment of firearms in a stressing situation. I’m not talking about placing 7 of 9 rounds around the center of a human sized target in calm conditions.

  My point? Just giving guns to people who can’t use them properly makes people very dangerous in a dangerous situation. Like if there is actual terrorists coming in, I would like to think that security people were trained well enough to open secure, accurate fire on them, and not just randomly fireing rounds into civilians because of shaking and fear.

  Meh, we’re digressing again. Anyhow, that’s really my biggest concern giving guns to security guards, are they actually well trained to use them tacticly?

• 216 Johnny Law // Aug 1, 2010 at 9:16 PM

  Norwegian Chap,

  Maybe you didn’t notice but there are usually about 10 people commenting towards me. Some just want to throw insults but some are raising points that are incorrect. Others have not bothered to read the previous comments and end up bringing up the same arguments that have already been addressed. I’m not going to repeat myself for every person on this site.

  The only things the guards were obviously in the wrong for was taking Carlos camera. I love who everyone here thinks he is a great hero for punching a guard in the face.

• 217 Dan the A-K Man // Aug 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM

  Tell Greg Dobbs, his old nemesis ‘A-K Dan’ who hails from Coral Gables – was just down there from July 28th to July 31 on business for my evil A-K business – before heading back to his old haunt Denver & I so wish I could’ve seen Dobbs use his Dobbs-style skills (?) on those security guards !!!

• 218 Joshua // Aug 1, 2010 at 10:37 PM

  Thank you Carlos for bringing this restriction of American freedom to light.

  Unfortunately, I think you were wrong to fight back. I don’t mean to go all philosophical on you, but I believe that the best way to overcome this kind of evil is by non-violent means as demonstrated by MLK, among others.

• 219 Pinandpuller // Aug 1, 2010 at 11:51 PM

  @Johhnylaw

  That wasn’t a punch Carlos threw, it was a distraction blow. He’s a cop wanna-be.

• 220 Pinandpuller // Aug 1, 2010 at 11:55 PM

  @Joshua

  I think Carlos should rig a dummy camera with a condenser to shock unsuspecting security guards.

• 221 A Norwegian Chap // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:31 AM

  Right, Johnny.

  “Maybe you didn’t notice but there are usually about 10 people commenting towards me. Some just want to throw insults but some are raising points that are incorrect. Others have not bothered to read the previous comments and end up bringing up the same arguments that have already been addressed. I’m not going to repeat myself for every person on this site.”
  Sure thing. I’ve read the entire exchange, more or less. The ten people commenting against you are for the most part the same ten people.

  Not that ten people is a lot anyway.

  And while some people are obviously wrong, that includes you.

  “The only things the guards were obviously in the wrong for was taking Carlos camera. I love who everyone here thinks he is a great hero for punching a guard in the face.”
  They were in the wrong for assaulting him, Johnny. They assaulted him between seven and eleven times for no reason what-so-ever. They weren’t removing him, their use of force was not intended to remove him, it was intended to stop him legally using a camera to film them.

  And yes, I know, they regulate photography. Commercial photography. So if he was shooting an ad for Burger King, he would have needed permission.

  But this is journalism. Journalism is exempt.

  I don’t know if there’s so many that think Carlos is a hero for punching a rent-a-cop. I think a lot of people like what Carlos is doing, as it’s very important to make sure this type of illegal harassment of photographers stop, but apart from childish humor about punching people in the face, I’ve actually seen very few people call him a hero for punching the guard.

  And Johnny, as you’re a cop. If someone who carries a firearm openly steals a camera from someone in the street.. let’s just think of it that way.. isn’t that armed robbery? I’d appreciate your response to this.

• 222 Dodge Ball // Aug 2, 2010 at 9:51 AM

  Technically, it’s not armed robbery as the weapons weren’t used to force the surrender of property. It’s still taking another person’s property without that person’s permission. Thievery.

  Since they are not law enforcement officers and not empowered to do the things they did, there are no official misconduct charges to face. The male moron should be hit with criminal charges, just as any Joe Schmoe would. It was unlawful physical contact as there was no threat or danger presented to anyone by taking photos.

  Contrary to what Johnny Flaw puts out, the bottom feeders stepped way over the line in nearly everything they did.

• 223 Chris Bray // Aug 2, 2010 at 10:51 AM

  I do love that “Johnny Law” again posts his insistence that photography is banned right below a post from another commenter who provides the actual county ordinance proving JL wrong.

  Anyway, earthly reality trumps blog arguments. Carlos Miller: been arrested yet?

  Funny how the actual police aren’t acting on what “Johnny Law” thinks the law is.

• 224 Hazy // Aug 2, 2010 at 12:22 PM

  I saw the hdnet video. Was there more footage than that? I’d like to see whatever film was taken. It’s sort of hard to see the context since neither you or hdnet wrote how the situation built up from the time the camera footage begins.

  But it’s obvious that Carlos was not presenting any danger to anyone. It was the guard’s best interest to just let you continue filming while waiting for the cops to see what they said. The moment they started pushing you to get you out of the metro lobby is when they lost a lot of credibility.

  Did they even try to listen to you guys at all? That guy from hdnet starts trying to talk to the black lady guard and all she does is keep repeating, “leave leave leave”. Was it like that the entire time?

• 225 A Norwegian Chap // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:47 PM

  What’s funny is, that when the local sports teams arrange public parties round here, they provide better guards (parents and grandparents) than those two silly buggers.

  And then we’re talking about accountants, teachers, ditch diggers, sailors, farmers and nurses, a cross section of normal people, controlling drunk bastards between 15 and 85.

  And they do a MUCH better job. It’s silly, it’s mad.

• 226 Michaelk42 // Aug 2, 2010 at 4:53 PM

  Oh yeah:

  @Brian Schneider

  Well, since Canada isn’t governed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and Fort Wayne, Indiana isn’t in Canada but the US, I’m not really sure what your point is.

  Bear in mind we’re talking about entire courthouses and not just the courtroom here, as well.

  @Joshua

  “Unfortunately, I think you were wrong to fight back. I don’t mean to go all philosophical on you, but I believe that the best way to overcome this kind of evil is by non-violent means as demonstrated by MLK, among others.”

  Everyone has a natural right to use force to defend themselves from an unwarranted physical attack. It in no way weakens Carlos’s position for him to defend himself. I’m glad you’re willing to believe that Carlos should let someone beat the crap out of him to make you feel better, but that’s not your decision to make.

  -or-

  That’s easy for you to say, from the safety of your keyboard, where you’re not being beat up fighting for your (and everyone else’s) rights.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 227 nevernot // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:09 PM

  @Johnny Flawed

  You’re picking nits… They regulate ANY commercial behavior, not just photography. Way to concentrate on a leaf in a forest. Maybe its time for the troll to go away. Everyone please stop feeding the troll in a cop suit

• 228 Brian Schneider // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:26 PM

  @Brian Schneider

  Well, since Canada isn’t governed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and Fort Wayne, Indiana isn’t in Canada but the US, I’m not really sure what your point is.

  Mike we have our own version of the 1st amendment called “the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms” This kind of bull goes on here too and we are closely watching what happens with Carlos.
  Carlos’s blog may have started as a local Miami thing but it’s international now. We are all affected. The world is watching.

• 229 Spokker // Aug 2, 2010 at 8:17 PM

  Carlos is fighting with security so we don’t have to. I applaud his efforts here.

• 230 Ryan Teixeira // Aug 2, 2010 at 8:47 PM

  What is obvious to me in all these cases is that these guards and police are poorly trained. In all these cases, it is clear that they do not understand the laws and rules at all.

  Either someone told them not to allow photography or they made it up in their own minds. I wonder which it is.

• 231 Michaelk42 // Aug 2, 2010 at 8:58 PM

  @Brian Schneider

  I was talking about your comment #190:

  “Here in Canada you can’t take pictures in a courthouse. That’s just the way it is. No big deal.
  As soon as someone steps out the door they’re fair game.”

  Which still fails to have anything to do with the Fort Wayne courthouse we were talking about in the sub-thread.
  Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

• 232 Todd Maisel // Aug 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM

  It’s time NPPA took action with these people. Private security thugs need to be stopped now. They do not belong in a public system if they don’t know the rules and the laws.
  Todd Maisel
  R2 Chair, NPPA

• 233 Mark Wallheiser // Aug 4, 2010 at 2:59 PM

  Carlos,
  Having had several run in’s with the law as a newspaper photojournalist over the years for sticking up for the public’s rights, I will say that your striking back, no matter how instinctive, will hurt you should you decide to sue and hurt your defense should they decide to press charges.
  While it is EXTREMELY difficult to not defend oneself, that is exactly what makes a case. Martin Luther King never struck back.

  As far as one poster’s comment as to why law enforcement or security guards hate photographers, can we say Rodney King?

  Many states have passed laws, no matter how unconstitutional, prohibiting taking pictures or video of police officers for that very reason.

  Good luck and stay cool in the process.

• 234 Carlos Naya // Aug 4, 2010 at 3:48 PM

  Carlos, great job I’m here in Miami let me know when you want to go and shoot at the Metro Stations.
  I has harassed recently for attempting to photograph a “possible traffic arrest in progress”. When they noticed the camera, they let go of the driver, and turn their attention tome. They asked for ID and ran mi license, and then let me go.

• 235 kpryan // Aug 6, 2010 at 5:27 PM

  I do hope you sue.

  The only chance citizens have of pushing back this police state is to sue at every opportunity. Make their budget suffer for their misdeeds. Unfortunate, but there is no other way to get your rights.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website