Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

First : << [11 12]

< Previous Page  

Page 11 of 12

Next Page >  

(745488)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 15:59:53 2009, in response to I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by rtype3995 on Thu Feb 12 20:54:45 2009.

This thread is a soap opera. Today is first day labor relations is open since the story broke. I'll bet rtype had to speak to someone today.

Post a New Response

(745491)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 16:09:21 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 15:59:53 2009.

And I bet you are hoping he gets in trouble over this and that the NYPD is able to continue its war against photography unchallenged.

Post a New Response

(745509)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 18:01:44 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Nilet on Tue Feb 17 15:56:49 2009.

They were not arrested, they were captured.

They may be released, perhaps, when this action, whatever you want to call it, is resolved. If they were not released at that time, then I suspect that they would have to be tired. But that will be Obama's problem, not Bush's.

Vietnam was not a declared war, but there were still prisoners of war on both sides. Eventually they were repatriated.

ROAR

Post a New Response

(G00GLE)

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2


(745518)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by pd11604 on Tue Feb 17 18:24:37 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by danny at 103rd street on Tue Feb 17 11:11:37 2009.

The morning news anchor is the police commissioner's son

Post a New Response

(745546)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by mtk52983 on Tue Feb 17 19:41:45 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 13:27:14 2009.

I am not suggesting that you bend over and grab your ankles. What I am suggesting is that you calmly explain your position and if necessary have a print out with the rule highlighted. My experience has been it is best to be apologetic: "I am sorry officer ____ if my photography was an issue. From my understanding based on this [show the highlighted law] I thought it was legal." Make the cop have to explain to you why the behavior is illegal because you can then use that against them later on if they still give you a ticket. Many times the officer will read it over, as long as you do not shove it in their face, and see that you are right and tell you just to be more discrete. The key is not to get defensive because that is what the cop exploits. If the cop starts getting snippy with you always remain polite and fight the ticket later on as there is a lot more "real" laws that they can hit you with when you raise your voice. Kinda hard to claim disorderly conduct if you have never raised your voice and never challenged their authority.

Post a New Response

(745651)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by JohnL on Tue Feb 17 21:31:48 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by mtk52983 on Tue Feb 17 19:41:45 2009.

"I am sorry officer ____ if my photography was an issue. From my understanding based on this [show the highlighted law] I thought it was legal."

I think this is great phraseology. It puts the cop on the defensive.

Post a New Response

(745670)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 21:50:20 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by mtk52983 on Tue Feb 17 19:41:45 2009.

If the cop starts getting snippy with you always remain polite and fight the ticket later on as there is a lot more "real" laws that they can hit you with when you raise your voice

I can agree generally with what you said - the only difference between me and you is that I would file a complaint against the officer whether or not I got a ticket. I consider the mere fact that I was stopped from photographing cause enough to spread the word on the net as well as to the NYCLU and CCRB.

Post a New Response

(745687)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by transitbuff on Tue Feb 17 23:08:18 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 13 19:36:07 2009.

Small price to pay, for people who have the power to take a life(even mistakenly).

Post a New Response

(745699)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 23:21:29 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 13 19:36:07 2009.

Fancy homes and fancy cars? LOL.

Post a New Response

(745700)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 23:22:55 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by BMTLines on Tue Feb 17 16:09:21 2009.

Did we hear from RType today?

Post a New Response

(745706)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 17 23:30:42 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 13 19:36:07 2009.

How do you know the officers were acting "arrogant"?

Post a New Response

(745710)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 23:34:29 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 17 23:30:42 2009.

Don't you know? They have fancy homes and cars!

Post a New Response

(745712)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 17 23:36:03 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 23:34:29 2009.

Oh that's right, I forgot . . . being a police officer is a meal ticket, not one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet. Where was my head? (gasp)

Post a New Response

(745715)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 23:38:31 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 17 23:36:03 2009.

Starting salary is generous. Top pay? Enough to afford a 4-bedroom home in Great Neck, with a boat slip.

Post a New Response

(745720)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 23:45:52 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 23:38:31 2009.

Don't forget all of the money they get from skimming off drug dealers!

LAPD cops get some sort of special home loan if they live within the city limits of LA. Many live way out in Chatsworth which is about as far away as you can get and still be in LA. It's almost not even in LA county.

Post a New Response

(745727)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 23:51:56 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 23:45:52 2009.

There was a cop in NY named Michael Dowd who rode shotgun with drug dealers in the 80's. Some say he's the worst cop in NYC history. Worse than anyone in the Serpico chapter.

Even he was described as "living in Brentwood, a working-class neighborhood with weedy lawns".

I'll wiki Chatsworth.

Post a New Response

(745732)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 23:58:12 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 23:51:56 2009.

Chatsworth is next to Simi Valley which is where they moved the Rodney King trial to when they wanted the cops to get the benefit of the doubt.

LA's Brentwood is a very exclusive area. I take it NY's is not the same.

Post a New Response

(745734)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Feb 18 00:01:41 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 23:58:12 2009.

I remember Brentwood, CA from the Simpson trial.

On Long Island, Brentwood is very working-class. My mom's high-school friend moved out there in like 1978, and we'd go out there to visit.

Post a New Response

(745736)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Feb 18 00:06:33 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Easy on Tue Feb 17 23:58:12 2009.

Looked up Chatsworth. Up in the valley. 16.5% Latino in the 2000 census. It'll be 35% Latino for the 2010 census, maybe more if ACORN is involved in the head count.

Post a New Response

(745739)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Easy on Wed Feb 18 00:15:36 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by LuchAAA on Wed Feb 18 00:06:33 2009.

I don't think that Chatsworth is at 35% yet. Probably still about 15-20%.

Post a New Response

(745761)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by 3-9 on Wed Feb 18 03:15:36 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by BMTLines on Fri Feb 13 08:46:55 2009.

During the late summer and fall I had few to no problems with the cops. I chalked it up to the possibility that they knew that with the retirement of the old subway cars, there would be a large influx of photographers, so cut back on the harassment for the time being. I did have problems with "well meaning" CIVILIANS though. Ugh.

Post a New Response

(745763)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Transit Jeff on Wed Feb 18 03:30:50 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 23:22:55 2009.

Actually, I'd love to know what the status of this is, since the offices were open on Tuesday. I've been reading much in this thread, but so far, nothing of what actually took place in the office Tuesday.

Also, in December, I rode the historic R-9 subway train one Sunday. I and dozens of other people had cameras and were taking hundreds of photos on the train and in the stations. Police were everywhere, but I saw nobody hassled or asked to stop. I was never even looked at by the police while photographing. Is this a case of "selective enforcement" by the police. If they really believe photography is against the law in the subway, then why did they look the other way in an event like that?

Could it be that officers in the area where the historic R-9 train ran know what they're doing and officers around Freeman Street on the # 2 are clueless? I'm serious, I'd really like an explanation.

Post a New Response

(745771)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Hoghead on Wed Feb 18 04:25:16 2009, in response to I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by rtype3995 on Thu Feb 12 20:54:45 2009.

The story has made the New York Times in a very well written Jim Dwyer column:

About New York

No Photo Ban in Subways, Yet an Arrest




By Jim Dwyer
Published: February 17, 2009


In the map of New York’s most forsaken places, it would be hard to top the Freeman Street stop on the No. 2 line in the Bronx, late on a February afternoon. Around 4:30 last Thursday, Robert Taylor stood on the station’s elevated platform, taking a picture of a train.

“A few buildings in place,” he noted. “Nice little cloud cover overhead. I usually use them as wallpaper on my computer.”


See the rest of the story here.

Post a New Response

(745773)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by JBar387 on Wed Feb 18 05:25:32 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Hoghead on Wed Feb 18 04:25:16 2009.

What gets me is how they are going to press the other two charges. Go figure!

Post a New Response

(745785)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by MATHA531 on Wed Feb 18 07:15:07 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Hoghead on Wed Feb 18 04:25:16 2009.

The three slimeballs should immediately be suspended for "misinterpreting" the rule...the rules is not subject to misinterpretation other than by a mental midget which obviously they are...

The other summonses likewise should be automatically dismissed..

Hopefully the lawsuit for false arrest will cost the city some dough and teach these pigs (and these guys are obviously pigs, I'm not referring to all police but face it many are) to do their job properly and not to harass innocent people.

Post a New Response

(745786)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by BMTLines on Wed Feb 18 07:26:34 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Hoghead on Wed Feb 18 04:25:16 2009.

Excellent!!



LAST year, the city settled a lawsuit with a medical student who was using his vacation to photograph every subway stop. He got through five before an officer handcuffed him and detained him for about 20 minutes. With legal fees, the cost to the city was $31,501 — more than $1,500 a minute.

Lets hope rt gets something similar!!!

The only thing that bothers me is that the NYCLU was supposed to be pursuing a deal to force the city to retrain its officers as part of that suit. THAT seems to have been left for another day.

The power of the blogs - gotta love it: From Subchat.com to Carlosmiller.com to the Gothamist to the NY Times!!!

Post a New Response

(745791)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 18 07:38:29 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by BMTLines on Wed Feb 18 07:26:34 2009.

The Times finally got a partial concession from NYPD. It's a start.

Post a New Response

(745802)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by BMTLines on Wed Feb 18 08:21:45 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 10:57:59 2009.

Try the NY Times

This arrest was a real clusterf* on the part of the NYPD. Although they are still pursuing 2 charges any decent lawyer could get those thrown out and a nice settlement to boot!

This is exactly what each and every photographer should do - even if they are not arrested file complaints and sue over every incident - make it so costly to the city that they finally stop the harassment.

Post a New Response

(745835)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Feb 18 10:52:35 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Tue Feb 17 13:40:28 2009.

["Any officer who enforces a fake law, should be dismissed from the force. Period!!!!!"]

Although I retired almost 7 years ago and never was a transit cop I doubt very much that any cop would enforce a "fake" law. A cop must put a code number in the summons. What is probably the case is he misinterpreted an existing law. There probably is a violation for "unauthorized photography" which is related to the restrictions to photography such as using a tripod, commercial use, etc. The problem is that the summons cards that the cops use doesn't explain the law. It would probably have the words "unauthorized photography" with the code number. For example parking summons cards have the words "expired meter". It doesn't say anything about when the meter is in effect. So if a cop gives a summons for expired meter at a time when the meter's aren't in effect such as Sundays or any times listed on the sign it would be a bad summons but not a fake law.


Post a New Response

(745840)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by BMTLines on Wed Feb 18 11:10:50 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Feb 18 10:52:35 2009.

This is the reason I feel the issue needs to be addressed from the top down rather than the bottom up. NYPD needs to issue memos that clarify the rights of photographers throughout the city, not just transit. It is happening too many times and to too many photographers.

OTOH I may not mind a little detention - the latest settlement cost the city $31,000 for detaining a photographer for 20 minutes. I might even have enough for a down payment on a Hasselblad at taxpayer expense :)



Post a New Response

(745844)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by AlM on Wed Feb 18 11:20:57 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Feb 18 10:52:35 2009.

What is probably the case is he misinterpreted an existing law.

Agreed. And the fact that a sergeant at the precinct went along with the misinterpretation suggests that that precinct has a management problem.

If anyone deserves a demotion, it's (a) the sergeant for not knowing the law and (b) his superiors for not providing sufficient legal training to the officers at the precinct.




Post a New Response

(745847)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 18 11:24:08 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by AlM on Wed Feb 18 11:20:57 2009.

That's what I've been saying. An individual officer might or might not know a given law. So when he calls a supervisor, it's the supervisor's responsibility to know or find out and advise accordingly.

It's also a citizen's right to request a supervisor. If an officer and citizen are in a dispute, the citizen can request that the officer check with a supervisor.



Post a New Response

(745849)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by AlM on Wed Feb 18 11:26:07 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Transit Jeff on Wed Feb 18 03:30:50 2009.

Could it be that officers in the area where the historic R-9 train ran know what they're doing and officers around Freeman Street on the # 2 are clueless?

I'm sure that when they run a historic train the officers are warned that lots of people will be taking pictures, and that it's OK.

On the other hand, the guys up in the Bronx either never got that briefing on the photography law, or slept through it. The fact that the sergeant was also clueless suggests they never got the briefing.



Post a New Response

(746048)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by JohnL on Wed Feb 18 16:26:42 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 18 11:24:08 2009.

Also a reasonable request that the supervisor read the regulation in dispute. Would have solved the problem instantly!

Post a New Response

(746080)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Nilet on Wed Feb 18 17:35:51 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 17 18:01:44 2009.

Fine, I'll reword my previous example.

Tomorrow, US soldiers come to North Dakota, arrest capture you, and take you to Gitmo or a similar prison. You are not given any court hearings, nor are you allowed access to a lawyer or even any member of the outside world. The soldiers explain that they are allowed to do this because you are a spy/insurgent/terrorist, and remind you that since international rules of combat permit them to shoot people like you at their convenience, you should thank them for being such fine gentlemen. They tell you that you will be released when the president unilaterally decides that he thinks there aren't any more terrorists.

You seem to be playing musical chairs with yourself here— people detained at the whim of the president are "enemy combatants" so the constitution doesn't apply, but not actually enemy combatants, so the Geneva conventions don't apply.

What happens on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan (essentially, the "war zone") is one thing. I'm talking about people being detained with no judicial oversight, who were captured in Canada and Germany; possibly, even some in the US. Unless you're saying that Canada, Germany, and the US itself are battlefields, you can leave military scenarios out of it.

So, I ask again:

Do you believe that there are any circumstances in which it is acceptable to detain someone without judicial oversight? Assuming the US is the country detaining them, is it acceptable to detain somebody without granting them the protections of the US Constitution under any circumstances?

Rules and circumstances pertaining to wars don't apply, as the US has not declared war on any other countries, nor has any other country declared was against the US. This refers solely to individuals or groups of individuals who are accused of performing or plotting to perform illegal actions (crimes).


Post a New Response

(746112)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Dave on Wed Feb 18 20:15:29 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Nilet on Wed Feb 18 17:35:51 2009.

What we believe is irrelevent. What the US Supreme Court believes is what counts and they have not (yet) defined the rights of non-citizens in these situations.

Post a New Response

(746113)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Feb 18 20:19:10 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Dave on Wed Feb 18 20:15:29 2009.

14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws to all persons in the United States.

Post a New Response

(746118)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Easy on Wed Feb 18 20:29:43 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Dave on Wed Feb 18 20:15:29 2009.

US citizens have also been declared enemy combatants. Jose Padilla was arrested in Chicago and held for over three years without a trial.

Post a New Response

(746119)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Feb 18 20:37:23 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by Easy on Wed Feb 18 20:29:43 2009.

Padilla might still be in legal limbo if a Federal judge hadn't told the government to either bring him to trial or set him free. In other words, the judge said, "knock this sh*t off. Either charge the man with something, or turn him loose."

The government eventually DID charge Padilla with attempted terrorism, NOT treason, which is ostensibly why they kept him incommunicado for 3+ years...

Post a New Response

(746206)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by 3-9 on Thu Feb 19 02:59:21 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Feb 18 10:52:35 2009.

There probably is a violation for "unauthorized photography" which is related to the restrictions to photography such as using a tripod, commercial use, etc. The problem is that the summons cards that the cops use doesn't explain the law. It would probably have the words "unauthorized photography" with the code number.

I think that's a very valid point, based on what happened to me. I got questioned at Jamaica Center for taking pictures, and toward the end, one of the cops pointed out a printed card in their ticket book which said something like "unauthorized photography", with no clarification. They then let me know they were letting me off easy and that they were within their rights to ticket me because of this. Of course they could also be using it as a form of "written proof" that they were within their rights to harass photographers, in case the photographer put up a defense.

Post a New Response

(746207)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by Transit Jeff on Thu Feb 19 03:20:32 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by AlM on Wed Feb 18 11:20:57 2009.

Yes, exactly!

Post a New Response

(746208)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by Transit Jeff on Thu Feb 19 03:27:25 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by JohnL on Wed Feb 18 16:26:42 2009.

True, except that they trumped up the charges from the original one regarding photography. The two additional charges were brought on by the police officers skin being too thin and their manhood {authority} challenged.

I have found that many times in law enforcement, there's more brawn than brain!

Post a New Response

(746217)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by Bingham C50 on Thu Feb 19 05:45:25 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by AlM on Wed Feb 18 11:20:57 2009.

Agreed.

Post a New Response

(746218)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Bingham C50 on Thu Feb 19 05:47:03 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by BMTLines on Wed Feb 18 07:26:34 2009.

THe NYCLU is still pursuing the matter.
The NYPD is being stubborn.

Post a New Response

(746219)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by Bingham C50 on Thu Feb 19 05:50:46 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by MATHA531 on Wed Feb 18 07:15:07 2009.

"Hopefully the lawsuit for false arrest will cost the city some dough and teach these pigs (and these guys are obviously pigs, I'm not referring to all police but face it many are) to do their job properly and not to harass innocent people."

Agreed...the bottom line is convincing them it's in their long-term best interest NOT to harrass innocent, law-abiding people...it may take more than one lawsuit, however.

Post a New Response

(746233)

view threaded

Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta)

Posted by BMTLines on Thu Feb 19 08:01:15 2009, in response to Re: Story Hits the Gothamist (Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Sta), posted by 3-9 on Thu Feb 19 02:59:21 2009.

I got questioned at Jamaica Center for taking pictures, and toward the end, one of the cops pointed out a printed card in their ticket book which said something like "unauthorized photography", with no clarification. They then let me know they were letting me off easy and that they were within their rights to ticket me because of this. Of course they could also be using it as a form of "written proof" that they were within their rights to harass photographers, in case the photographer put up a defense.

But by not doing or saying anything afterwords the harassment continues... I would have written to the LIRR, the MTA the NYCLU and the NPPA naming names and badge numbers, etc. The MTA issued a letter to the NYCLU specifically mentioning the fact that photography anywhere on the LIRR is perfectly legal. Apparently they have reneged on that agreement and if there are enough complaints perhaps the NYCLU can proceed on the lawsuit they originally threatened if the MTA did not comply.

Post a New Response

(746277)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 19 10:17:38 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by MATHA531 on Sat Feb 14 10:00:33 2009.

What about the other charges? Also not in Criminal Court?

Post a New Response

(746278)

view threaded

Re: A Question for Rtype ONLY (Was: I was taken in handcuffs)

Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 19 10:19:26 2009, in response to Re: A Question for Rtype ONLY (Was: I was taken in handcuffs), posted by rtype3995 on Mon Feb 16 08:38:44 2009.

I thought the time frame for suing the City was 90 days.

Post a New Response

(746280)

view threaded

Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2

Posted by rtype3995 on Thu Feb 19 10:25:28 2009, in response to Re: I was taken in handcuffs for photography at the Freeman St Station on the 2, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Feb 19 10:17:38 2009.

The discon/and impeding traffic is criminal court; the photo summons is at the TAB....I went yesterday; they told me to come back....a lot of people were requesting hearings and they could get to me at that time.....any claims against the city is 90 days as well......

Post a New Response

(746283)

view threaded

Re: Correction : A Question for Rtype ONLY (Was: I was taken in handcuffs)

Posted by Fred G on Thu Feb 19 10:34:33 2009, in response to Re: Correction : A Question for Rtype ONLY (Was: I was taken in handcuffs), posted by Easy on Sat Feb 14 22:17:25 2009.

Wouldn't that be an E-job? :D

your pal,
Fred

LOL an EJ

Post a New Response

First : << [11 12]

< Previous Page  

Page 11 of 12

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]