Take pic of ATM being reloaded, go to jail

[cherrytwist]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
i got read the riot act when i took pictures of the st.louis subway.

As a former downtown resident, this surprises me.

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: RedRooster
Shoulda tased him. Frickin douche. Shoulda given him a baton in the gut just to be sure.

This amazes me.

Care to explain what he did wrong, from a legal standpoint?

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: James Bond

Originally posted by: RedRooster
Shoulda tased him. Frickin douche. Shoulda given him a baton in the gut just to be sure.

This amazes me.

Care to explain what he did wrong, from a legal standpoint?

I'm guessing RedRooster just successfully trolled you.

On the other hand, his Flickr account name is "veganstraightedge." Sounds like a troublemaker up to no good!

 

[Red Squirrel]

Wow that's retarded. American paranoia FTL. He did something slightly abnormal such as take a picture of a "highly secured device". He must be a terrorist!

Wonder what happened after all of that though. Guessing they confiscated the phone for good and everything, but it does not say.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
Wow that's retarded. American paranoia FTL. He did something slightly abnormal such as take a picture of a "highly secured device". He must be a terrorist!

Wonder what happened after all of that though. Guessing they confiscated the phone for good and everything, but it does not say.

Um, no. Read the guy's blog. He goes into detail about it. He specifically mentions that his cell phone wasn't taken. Furthermore, no one even asked to look at it and they didn't ask him to delete the image he took. He even posted the image on his Flickr account for good measure!

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
He even posted the image on his Flickr account for good measure!

Careful they might be monitoring who views
Those green handles in the picture of the ATM are a trade secret, pulling them opens a drawer !

 

[KeithTalent]

The guy's an idiot and a douchebag. Any decent human being would have asked them before snapping a picture.

KT

 

[James Bond]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: James Bond

Originally posted by: RedRooster
Shoulda tased him. Frickin douche. Shoulda given him a baton in the gut just to be sure.

This amazes me.

Care to explain what he did wrong, from a legal standpoint?

I'm guessing RedRooster just successfully trolled you.

On the other hand, his Flickr account name is "veganstraightedge." Sounds like a troublemaker up to no good!

Ouch, owned.

 

[slayer202]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
The guy's an idiot and a douchebag. Any decent human being would have asked them before snapping a picture.

KT

if I lived closer to you, I'd go to your house and start snapping away

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
The guy's an idiot and a douchebag. Any decent human being would have asked them before snapping a picture.

KT

I'm pretty sure any decent person wouldn't have even though to take a picture.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
The guy's an idiot and a douchebag. Any decent human being would have asked them before snapping a picture.

KT

if I lived closer to you, I'd go to your house and start snapping away

Better have a good zoom on that thing.

KT

 

[LordMorpheus]

In defense of the cops, this is a guy that sells wacko militant vegan/ecomentalist t-shirts, and shops at REI.

I think his problem is that he didn't realize that commies don't have rights in this country.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
I think his problem is that he didn't realize that commies don't have rights in this country.

Fuck you, everybody has rights in this country. That's the whole point, everybody has them.

But anyway, I agree that mr iPhone Vegan is probably a moron. There's no law against taking pictures of the inside of a ATM, but there doesn't seem to be much legitimate need to take that picture either. So you look into it. You've seen it. Wtf do you need the picture for, some kind of keepsake? Its an ATM, not a tourist attraction.

On the other hand, I hate security guards who assume they have greater powers than the average citizen. They asked for ID and the guy said no. That should've been the end of it like when Target security guards ask to see my receipt as I'm walking out the door. The answer is "No." Now fuck off, rent-a-cop. You have no authority to compel me to show you anything.

edited for correct capitalization of "iPhone"

 

[destrekor]

This is why when an officer or security guard asks to talk to you, you play nice. Blowing any situation out of proportion results in more hassles than the initial issue would have been.

Be nice to cops, these ones didn't break any laws or refuse any rights. They were simply escalating the situation with a complete asshole.

And all you people making an issue about the cops making an issue of a guy basically refusing to cooperate? Jesus, bunch of assholes here too. Don't stand out and try and prove some kind of bullshit point just because you can. These kinds of cases, the situation warrants them to press the issue. Intentions don't change the situation one bit.

edit:
to shed some more light on what I was stating...
Yes, some cops and security guards will go a little too far, but goddamn, just cooperate unless its completely fishy to begin with. The situation started very routine, and a relaxed individual would have at least taken the first step to meet the officers mid way. Try to reason from there. Requesting to talk, and requesting ID, are not illegal requests. Shoving off cops, well that pisses them off. But in no way is a right being refused by those actions, and at the same time, no damn right is being exercised by basically telling the cops to fuck off.

It's about being relaxed, making educated decisions, and most importantly, being polite and cooperative until real issues come into play.

And jesus, exercise some common sense. A bank isn't going to take too kindly to someone taking a photo of the vault door, or hell... any photos in a bank.
The guards handling ATM refills are going to be just as touchy with photos. Realize that no matter what your damn intentions may be, a little common sense bubble should pop in your head that says "oooo, that probably isn't a good idea. makes sense these guards want to talk to me."

 

[ddjkdg]

Then there is the story of Shane Becker of Seattle, who got rousted out of some outdoor outfitter shop after taking a picture of a couple of rent-a-cops servicing an ATM. It ended with him sitting in a jail cell for a few hours.

First, we have a rent-a-cop from Loomis Armored, not even affiliated with the store where this all happened, threatening to attack and abduct a guy standing in line at this store.

Threatening to commit assault is just as illegal as actually committing assault and someone there in Seattle really ought to report that person to the police. Like, perhaps Shane?

I am confused by the rest of the story. A cop spins him around, cuffs him and drives him to the police station. He doesn?t say whether or not he was formally arrested, which would involve Miranda Rights and so on.

It sounds like they did not arrest him, since they let him go and he does not mention being booked. If that wasn?t an arrest, then the police may have broken a few laws.

Without arresting you, the police cannot take you against your will to the police station. They can ASK you to ?come downtown?, but they CANNOT take you there if you don?t want to go. They sure as hell can?t cuff you and set you down in a cell. They have the authority to detain you at the scene long enough to sort out what?s going on or for safety reasons, but that?s it.

He says the police refused to let him leave without signing a trespass form. That is a legal form that states basically that you understand you are prohibited from being in a certain location. The police can require you to sign one, if the owner of the property requests it. If you go there anyway, you can be immediately arrested for trespassing without the owner saying a word to you.

The store?s manager denies that they asked for that form to be signed. The police department?s trespass form says otherwise. So one or the other of them is lying.

But that?s not the problem. The police wouldn?t let him leave until he signed it. If he was not under arrest, then they can?t do that. Holding someone against their will and forcing them to do something before letting them go is kidnapping and extortion. The form certainly would not be valid in any case.

He also says to a local newspaper that he wouldn?t give the police his I.D. because he didn?t want the cop handing it to the Loomis rent-a-cops (which seems like it would be illegal if they did).

Well, two things about that. You do have to identify yourself to the police and you get arrested if you don?t. On the other hand, you do not have to hand over identification papers unless you?re driving a vehicle (which Shane clearly was not doing inside of a store). I?m not sure which of these he did not do.

If he refused to identify himself, then the cops were perfectly fine in arresting him. If he identified himself but just didn?t hand over any I.D. papers, then he was falsely imprisoned.

I don?t know. Shane needs to spend a couple hours with a lawyer. Several laws might have been broken by the people around him that day. At the very least, he needs to have that trespass form voided, since he could be arrested in the future for being too close to that store.

Now I think I?m going to go looking around for stories of good cops. It?s a damn shame that the bad cops and the stupid cops get all the press these days.

Updates:
Nope, I?m wrong. As of six months ago, you definitely are NOT required even to identify yourself to a cop in Washington. So now I?m wondering exactly what legal justification the cop has for taking him to the police station.

from http://drunkenachura.wordpress...13/some-more-bad-cops/

The guy acted like a dick, no doubt about that, but it's not illegal to hurt the feelings of some rent-a-cops. The Loomis and REI security guys weren't any better. Demanding to see his ID, telling him he can't leave and threatening to tackle him... all point to the fact that they're probably used to people doing whatever they say, and when someone came along that told them to fuck off (as is completely within his rights), they didn't know what to do except escalate the situation.

Note that the cops could easily have told the Loomis guys to forget about it and let the guy go. Instead they got involved in the verbal pissing match and end up cuffing him and taking him to the station, for no apparent reason. And now Loomis, REI, and the Seattle PD all look like idiots and get to enjoy some bad PR.

The guy who took the pic posted an update on his blog @ http://iamshane.com/2009/05/13...ened-at-rei-an-update/

Here are a few quick updates on things that have happened related to that blog post that I wrote about what happened at REI.

About The Spectacle of This Incident

* As of this writing about 90,000 people have viewed that first post. That blows my mind.
* The photo has been viewed about 4,000 times on Flickr.
* My Twitter account (veganstraightedge) has about 100 more followers.
* It was first on reddit.
* It was first on Slashdot
* The Stranger wrote an article on their blog (Slog) about it.
* The Consumerist wrote a story about it.
* My photo?s Flickr page is the first result when you google ?rei atm?
* I was invited to appear on The Dori Monson Show. After initially considering it, my friends and I discussed it and decided that it wasn?t worth it.
* I got called a douche bag about a godzillion times.
* My photo was used on a bunch of sites. About half the time I was attributed as the photographer.
* A handful of sites either wrote a little story based on what was written on my blog, Boing Boing or The Consumerist.
* Even more just copied Boing Boing?s or Crunch Gear?s story verbatim.

About The Actual Incident

* I was not arrested for trespassing. That much is clear. I was not told to leave. I was told in no uncertain terms that I could not leave. The cops had me sign a card as I was being released that acknowledged that (someone at) REI requested that I be trespassed. That means if I go back to REI within a year I can be arrested for trespassing. Although?
* The downtown Seattle REI general manager, Kara Stone, was quoted on Slog saying that I am ?welcome to come into our store? and that REI did not request I be trespassed. According to the Slog story, the Seattle Police records show otherwise. I?m guessing that the REI security people told the cops to do it and that the general manager was unawares of it. Either way, I?m not racing back there anytime soon.
* It?s not clear (to me and others) if I was ?arrested? or just ?detained? or if the difference is just semantics. I never said in my post that I was arrested. I said that I was cuffed, taken out of the store by the cops, put in a police car and put into a holding cell for some time. Whether that was ?arrested? or not, I?m not sure.
* When I was released from the police station, it didn?t seem like any charges were being pressed against me. But when I tried to get the police report, I was reminded that charges can be pressed after the fact. So as of now, nothing more has happened with the police. We?ll see if that changes.
* I was read my Miranda Rights when I was in the holding cell.
* I was in cuffs the whole time I was in the cell.
* We never completed the transaction for the thing I was trying to special order. So there?s not going to be any awkward ?can you bring it out to the sidewalk? moment.
* If there are more questions that you have or clarifications that you want, email me (veganstraightedge@gmail.com).

About What?s Happening Now/Next

* I went downtown to request a copy of the police report. Because I?m listed as a suspect on the report, I can?t get it for a week while it?s in a process called ?Public Disclosure?. This is in case there is any possible pending investigation. People listed as victims can get the report right away (as I understand it).
* Someone (who wasn?t me) filed a complaint to the Seattle Police Department Office of Professional Accountability on my behalf. The OPA emailed me telling me, they?d contact me more later about it.
* I contacted the The ACLU Washington State. They had already heard about what happened. We?re talking more.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: destrekor
edit:
to shed some more light on what I was stating...
Yes, some cops and security guards will go a little too far, but goddamn, just cooperate unless its completely fishy to begin with. The situation started very routine, and a relaxed individual would have at least taken the first step to meet the officers mid way. Try to reason from there. Requesting to talk, and requesting ID, are not illegal requests. Shoving off cops, well that pisses them off. But in no way is a right being refused by those actions, and at the same time, no damn right is being exercised by basically telling the cops to fuck off.

It's about being relaxed, making educated decisions, and most importantly, being polite and cooperative until real issues come into play.

And jesus, exercise some common sense. A bank isn't going to take too kindly to someone taking a photo of the vault door, or hell... any photos in a bank.
The guards handling ATM refills are going to be just as touchy with photos. Realize that no matter what your damn intentions may be, a little common sense bubble should pop in your head that says "oooo, that probably isn't a good idea. makes sense these guards want to talk to me."

I understand what you're saying, but if he was being as calm and reasonable as he says he was, I don't see the problem. You should be under no obligation to show your ID or answer any questions unless there's a good reason, and even then, only from a real cop.

I'm not defending people who freak out and go on long tirades, but if a security guard came up to me and asked to see my ID and to ask me some questions, I would most certainly ask him why he needed that stuff, and I would reserve the right to not show him that if I didn't want to. If it was a real cop, I'd be more willing to, but it's still not automatic unless I at least get a semi-reasonable explanation for it. Again, we're talking about reasonable compromises. I think it's reasonable to want to be given a precise and sensible reason for questions and ID checking before you just do it.

 

[marvdmartian]

Doesn't really matter if the guy was a jerk or not. The armored car guards were jerks first, way overstepped the boundaries of their authority, and actually could have been arrested themselves if they had tackled him ("Don?t try to leave. I will tackle you."). Simple assault case, they wouldn't have had any legal reason to detain him.

So far as the store security goes, just another know-nothing rent-a-cop taking the word of other know-nothing rent-a-cops, without having any real idea of whether the guy did anything wrong or not. Unless that ATM contains some sort of state secret covered by federal security laws, he had every right to take a picture of it. I know that the Loomis guards have a thankless job, but to overstep their authority, and act as though they're real policemen, makes them dead wrong.

Finally, the cop could've handled it simply, by telling the guy that it's the law that you have to show a police office some form of ID when asked for it. When faced with that, any reasonable person would hand over their license. The cop could have then written his report, stated the guy's name, and told the Loomis clowns to go f*ck themselves.

Bottom line, the only thing the guy did wrong was to not show the police officer his ID, and then only if he was asked. He had no compulsion to show his ID to the Loomis guys or the store security person, and they were dead wrong in threatening him. IMHO, he could easily find a lawyer and get a bunch of people very uncomfortable with this situation.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Doesn't really matter if the guy was a jerk or not. The armored car guards were jerks first

I stopped reading there, because you are wrong. The emo, vegan retard created the situation, the guards only reacted to it, though admittedly they reacted poorly.

KT

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Doesn't really matter if the guy was a jerk or not. The armored car guards were jerks first, way overstepped the boundaries of their authority, and actually could have been arrested themselves if they had tackled him ("Don?t try to leave. I will tackle you."). Simple assault case, they wouldn't have had any legal reason to detain him.

So far as the store security goes, just another know-nothing rent-a-cop taking the word of other know-nothing rent-a-cops, without having any real idea of whether the guy did anything wrong or not. Unless that ATM contains some sort of state secret covered by federal security laws, he had every right to take a picture of it. I know that the Loomis guards have a thankless job, but to overstep their authority, and act as though they're real policemen, makes them dead wrong.

Finally, the cop could've handled it simply, by telling the guy that it's the law that you have to show a police office some form of ID when asked for it. When faced with that, any reasonable person would hand over their license. The cop could have then written his report, stated the guy's name, and told the Loomis clowns to go f*ck themselves.

Bottom line, the only thing the guy did wrong was to not show the police officer his ID, and then only if he was asked. He had no compulsion to show his ID to the Loomis guys or the store security person, and they were dead wrong in threatening him. IMHO, he could easily find a lawyer and get a bunch of people very uncomfortable with this situation.

Sure the pig could have lied and made up a law, but that doesn't mean anyone with half a brain will believe him.

 

[ddjkdg]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Finally, the cop could've handled it simply, by telling the guy that it's the law that you have to show a police office some form of ID when asked for it.

Not in Washington state

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Doesn't really matter if the guy was a jerk or not. The armored car guards were jerks first

I stopped reading there, because you are wrong. The emo, vegan retard created the situation, the guards only reacted to it, though admittedly they reacted poorly.

KT

No he didn't. Just because he's a vegan straight edger (a lifestyle I find to be extremely silly) you seem to be judging him. From reading the story it sounds like all he did was take a picture and the security guys were the ones giving him shit the whole time.

 

[Regs]

Ban? I'd nuke all your asses.

 

[RapidSnail]

Amateur photographer?s civil liberties??? I couldn?t disagree more. Yes, there is ?freedom of speech and of the press? issues here, perhaps, but that doesn?t mean common sense should be abandoned does it? There may not be a law against it, but it is still pretty stupid to point a toy gun at an armed cop. I would advise against it. By the same token, sticking your iphone in a Loomis employee?s face while there refilling an ATM falls in the same general category. You may get a slight giggle out of calling them ?fake cops? but they are guys who regularly carry around very large amounts of cash and have loaded weapons that they are trained to use. I?d be a little irritated too, if I?ve got a gun on my hip and stacks of $20 bills in my hands and some long-haired, tree-hugging, birkenstock-wearing, maggot-infested, pot-smoking, liberal little geek with a ?Atheist. No Gods, No Fucking Masters? T-Shirt started snapping photos of me with his freaking iphone. It seems to me, the gentleman started out very polite. If you had shown the proper respect, I?m sure the matter would have been cleared up right there and then. But you had to pull your little smart-ass, ?anarchist? attitude out of your lint-filled faded jeans pocket and make a public scene. A little advice, you mind-numbed little stalinist robot: Don?t poke a hornet?s nest and expect not to get stung. If that?s too cryptic for your closed up little mind to wrap itself around here?s a translation: ?Don?t fuck with a guy who has a gun!?

:laugh:

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: marvdmartian
Doesn't really matter if the guy was a jerk or not. The armored car guards were jerks first

I stopped reading there, because you are wrong. The emo, vegan retard created the situation, the guards only reacted to it, though admittedly they reacted poorly.

KT

No he didn't. Just because he's a vegan straight edger (a lifestyle I find to be extremely silly) you seem to be judging him. From reading the story it sounds like all he did was take a picture and the security guys were the ones giving him shit the whole time.

I don't give a shit what he believes in. Walking up and taking a picture, without asking, of 2 people doing their job, where they handle a fair amount of money and are probably trained to watch out for people approaching/encroaching upon them, is a dick move.

He's a douche and started the incident.

KT

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
The guy's an idiot and a douchebag. Any decent human being would have asked them before snapping a picture.

KT

He doesn't need permission. No need to ask. Your personal judgment of his character is irrelevant and has no affect on law.