July 12, 2004

• I'd say that ridiculous cop-car-placement photo made it worth it.
• I just hope the feds start going after tourists who wear socks and sandals. They're the real menace to society.
• I liked the essay, and the photos of the tourists. Spiers does a good job of expressing the frustration, shaking anger and helplessness that a confrontation with an authority needlessly throwing their weight around can leave you with. I not only hope he gets an A, but that he does continue with photography and doesn't let this disuade him (cuz then, you know, the terrorists will have won). also: SCC is a good school! My brother went there! Yay, tiny Seattle-area community college!
• It is really crappy what happened to that guy. However, what is in some ways more crappy is that over in the metafilter thread some people are saying, "Well, why didn't he just show them his id?" What is this a police state? It saddens me greatly to think that Americans think it is ok to be stopped and harrassed by the police in a public space. I may be naive but I think my privacy is more important than such moronic attempts at "security." Does anyone REALLY think that the second time it happened, when the security guy left and came back with the police and federal marshall that a real terrorist would have hung around in the time it took for the federal marshall to show up? I know racism still exists but at least a few years ago it would have only been the local police harrasing someone, but now we have the federal government doing it. Day by day I get more outraged at the way America is changing into a place I no longer recognize.
• What is this a police state? Cooperate, Or Else!
• I write badly, therefore I am a would-be terrorist
• It saddens me greatly to think that Americans think it is ok to be stopped and harrassed by the police in a public space. Well, I can understand the guy's dismay - he *was* only taking pictures, for chrissakes - and the "driving while black" feeling I imagine is hard to shake. But I *think* (correct me if I'm wrong) that any law enforcement is allowed to ask for indentification and expect compliance at any time. That said, I think that this guy has the same problem I do - when he gets nervous, his mouth does things that make his brain go "Dude! What the fuck was that about???" it isn't justification, but I get the feeling that this guy got a little (understandably) nervous and, when confronted by the cops, did a bit of a squirrell imitation, which only made the cops more hardass. This has nothing to do with photographs, or Homeland Security, or terrorism - it has to do with the idea of knowing how to handle yourself in front of cops. This guy, I'm kind of glad to say, doesn't have the amount of experience dealing with cops that would provide him with the requisite knowledge of how to act - and NOT to act - around them. I did an ethnography on it once, and I (ahem) have had less formal dealings with several police and other law enforcement representatives. Without boring you with the detailery, let me just say that cops face confrontation constantly throughout the day - from little old ladies pulled over for speeding to punkass kids smoking pot in the park to actual criminals who may or may not try to kill them, cops live is a series of confrontation - the exact opposite of what you and I live in. In addition, they are trained to believe and act in a manner that is designed so that they have to WIN every confrontation they engage in. Cops *cannot* allow you to beat them. Thus: kid gets asked for ID, initially responds well but at some point squirrel's out; the cops get increasingly hostile and commanding, because they have to WIN, see? I understand the constitutional issues - but you are not a constitutional lawyer. Let the Supreme Court hassle that out. Your job, when confronted by cops, is to (a) end the encounter as swiftly and efficiently as you can, and (b) not do anything stupid or provocative. EVEN if you are getting a ticket, getting jacked around, whatever - it may ruin your day, sure, but hassling with cops is what lawyers are for. Be nice; smile; be polite; show them your id; in fact, up to around the level of a bj, go ahead and give them whatever they ask for. Not only with the cop (who, again, fights with people all day long) typically respond in kind, he'll likely eventually let you go. Keep in mind that your average eat cop knows a hell of a lot more about the law than you do, especially those parts that allow them to screw with you. Quoting the law to a cop is a quick way to the back of a squadcar. Anyway, I have no doubt that this guy was just taking a few pictures; but there's sensible ways to deal with cops. Not coughing up id, taking their picture, and (unnoted, but suspected) dishing up a little sass are not the best method.
• Oh crap. I searched and searched Mefi to see if this had been posted yet, but I missed it. Sorry folks.
• your average eat cop Food police?
• up to around the level of a bj, go ahead and give them whatever they ask for eat cop, lawbreaker!
• Correct me if I'm wrong though, I thought the recent Supreme Court case just said that you had to tell the police your name not provide id? Certainly, this is his telling of it, so we don't know exactly how it went down, and my best friend is a city cop, so I know what they go through. However, I still maintain that it is asinine to think that anyone doing wrong would still be there by the time the cops came back.
• *smacks forehead*
• jccalhoun- in _theory_, the SCOTUS decision says that you don't have to give id, provided certain criteria are met. In practice, it's up to the courts to decide, after the fact, whether you met the appropriate criteria. Here's how it goes; you get arrested for not providing id, you wait for however long it takes for you to get to court, where the judge then decides whether or not you should have been arrested for failing to provide id. Fun, no? The court has a lot of leeway too; basically, the act of being sufficiently confrontational not to provide id when asked is probably provocative enough for the police to have a legitimate reason for asking for id (you defying them and all).
• what I should have added is that this is a precis of homunculus's first link.
• I live just to the left of the 1st picture he has up on the page. (Looking at the bridge through the seagulls) That picture could not have been taken without climbing over a fence and down into an area that is clearly marked as off limits. Does that make him a terrorist? No. Does it cut down his credibility? Yes. I am going to walk over there now and take a picture from as close as I can get to that spot. Maybe I am wrong. I don't think so though...
• It's actually fairly common for photographers to get hassled these days. For what it's worth here is a copy of the photographer's rights. Print and keep. here are some more examples.
• i'd sayd that the problem was not the cops (doing their job, blah blah) so much as the security guard power-trippin' and calling the cops. the guard admits that he doesn't need to be shown ID but won't accept no for an answer and goes and gets some heavies. sheesh.
• War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength Big Brother is Watching You
• Well. For better or for worse, I was wrong. I apologize to Ian. To be fair, there are steps that lead down and the way the photo is taken, you can't tell that there is a 20 foot dropoff right after the seagulls. This strengthens the point however, as I was able to walk over to the same spot, shoot the same picture and then walk home. combined image here.
• He did stay for a while, though, taking notes & such. What gave him so much visibility was that he took pics, took notes, went home, and then came back again. It's interesting to see the police report from the first incident. The person who called it in did so via 911. Side note: Every day, 3 times a day, I go out to the side of our building here at work and have a cigarette. Before now I've thought fleetingly of whether I'm making people nervous (it's not an office complex or anything, just a building on a street). After reading about Ian's experience, I'm a little embarrassed to admit I was nervous during this afternoon's cig.
• Don't trust any judge that doesn't have an advanced degree in math. Such people likely can't follow axioms (keep their law straight).
• Don't trust anyone who doesn't know the difference between "that" and "who".
• Fes: While on one level I agree with your advice as bein pragmatic, progress often requires the original. Blacks in the segregated South all understood what was required to stay out of trouble with the powers that were. It wasn't until they stopped co-operating with those monstrous regimes that change was effected.
• Woe, that too late repents. I wonder if anyone ever uses language in a subtle way to dehumanize people?
• We've seen the enemy, and he is us
• That's not a PC title. Should be "he or she is us." That guy needs to see if he can get a friend to go down and try sketching the place.
• Who dat?
• Ian Spiers
• Freedom to Photograph