Pixiq

A perfectly reasonable and civil way to handle the thugs. Bravo!
Difster´s last blog ..The Best of Difster

Such bullshit. Well handled Kai. Good day sir! Is it that they /really/ don’t know it’s legal or they simply want to intimidate people into giving up their rights?

intimidation.

Absolutely beautiful Kai!
Workingindust´s last blog ..After Ride Party

Yes, Federal, purchased and maintained with my money through taxes, therefore public.

Congrats on the way you handled this, you did much better than I would have. I’m a bit of a smart-ass and, in a way, think it would have been fun to click my heels, give a nice snappy NAZI salute, and hand over all of my identification at once (drivers license, my PPA card, SS card, passport, etc), capped off with a nice “Jawohl, mein commandant! Mis papeles!” But they might not have gotten the joke.

One minor nitpick… It was one of the security guards with the crayola crayons, not a cop.

outstanding!

That sounds like a good way to handle it, but I get the feeling that your responses, while reasonable and correct are lost on these guys. It’s a pearls before swine situation.

Does anyone have any examples of the results of simple refusal to provide answers to the questions of the guards/LEOs? e.g. “Do I have the right to refuse to answer your questions?”

So does this same theory apply to taking photos inside a courthouse?

Some of them just can’t get that there are people who won’t just give up their rights consensually the instant someone with a badge starts yapping.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Better a Bike Pirate

Way to go. Such a great way to handle it. Hope I would keep my cool in a situation like that.
mepsipax´s last blog ..Manic Monday

How about another minor nitpick, that box appears to be a marker box, not a crayon box.
Guy Freeman´s last blog ..Greenfield Savings Bank Clock

Not at all. In fact, you probably wouldn’t want to even try it. The metal detectors and x-ray machines could kill your equipment.

If you want to take pictures inside a courthouse, call the courthouse and ask what the requirements are. Its always safer to go in prepared.
Guy Freeman´s last blog ..Greenfield Savings Bank Clock

At some point, we need to start telling these guys that we DO have permission. It’s called the Constitution. It’s in writing. I have a copy on my iPhone.

It probably wouldn’t help much, but at least it would be a different response than the typical, and inaccurate, “I don’t need permission.”
William Beem´s last blog ..Blue Scooter

The following was stated as the conversation between “Kai” and the cops.

——————————————–

“He then got in my face (you know, the usual “bully tactic” these guys try to use).

“What are you doing?”

Me: “Exercising my 1st Amendment rights.”

Him: “Do you have PERMISSION?” (BOLDING is mine.)

——————————————–

I would like to ask “Johnny Law” a non-confrontational question.. but yet get his thoughts on the above.

Today, as I write this, my wife and I just happen to have 3 of our grandkids over for breakfast (Spring Break). I just asked all 3 (12, 13 1nd 18 years old) if one needed permission to exercise their Constitutional rights. All three answered “NO”!!

So my question to you, Johnny Law, is this..

Q: Are these guys (your fellow brothers in blue), really that stupid (or ignorant of the law) to really believe one must have “PERMISSION” to exercise their Constitutional “RIGHTS”?

Rail Car Fan

Don’t hold your breath, he may have quit. He might still show up to spread FUD here though.

Or maybe he’s seen the “Us vs. Them” mentality and increased police militarization having the predictable effect.

“WASHINGTON (AP) – Nine suspects tied to a Christian militia in the Midwest are charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then attack a funeral in the hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors said Monday.”

…

“According to investigators, the Hutaree view local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel as a “brotherhood” and an enemy, and planned to attack them as part of an armed struggle against the U.S. government.”

…

Looks like these guys got caught. Maybe we should start being more sane about these things before the next group doesn’t get caught.

But we’re not the ones making things worse, I think.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Better a Bike Pirate

“You can’t photograph the cameras.”

I LOVE that. We can photograph you,
but you can’t photograph us photographing you.”
Hilarious.

My money is on the crayola markers being confiscated from a kid drawing a picture of the building,

“Now son, you can’t be drawing a picture of dem gubermant buildings, be a good peon and obey me.”

Watch for the militia crackdown to give rise to a crackdown on guns, militia, taking pictures of government buildings, perhaps they will make it illegal to photograph a member of the filth like they did in the UK.
Jody´s last blog ..Buzzkill at the Tea Party

I think every photographer in America should read and understand this story. All of us that carry a camera as a weapon of choice must make it known that we are not criminals and that photography of just about anything from a public vantage point (including potential terrorist targets) is legal.

These ignorant peace & non-peace officers are creating a mythical stigma against photographers. Kai Eiselein, and what he did here should be used as an example of how to politely and effectively handle a challenge of photography from a public place.
Rob´s last blog ..SDKA Go-Kart Race At Qualcomm Stadium

I had a really hilarious instance of this once when I was railfanning in Joliet, Illinois. A cop passed by and after he saw me walk across the PUBLIC grade crossing, he somehow decided he needed to make a U-turn and investigate me and my friends.

First, he asked what we were doing and we told him we were taking pictures of trains (or waiting for one to take pictures of, anyway). He tried to say he stopped because he saw us trespassing. I told him I had crossed at a public grade crossing. Then he switched tacts and tried to say “since 9/11, you can’t take pictures of trains” but we called bullshit on this and he basically pretended he hadn’t just said that, and instead turned into Officer Friendly giving a lecture on railroad safety. At this point we humored him, and said if we say kids playing on the tracks or anything suspicious we would report it. At that point, he told us to have a good day and left, with out even having asked for our names.

All and all, it turned out okay for us so no big deal, but it really was remarkable how the cop had tried to throw his weight around and as soon as we called his bluff he backed down.

The militia types weren’t a major problem when the militarization of law enforcement was happening under a Republican. In fact, a lot of them applauded it. Now that a Democrat, and dare I say it, a black man, is running the show, well, now it’s a threat.

I don’t mean to go off on a political rant here, but saying the recent resurgence of the militia movement is just a reaction to the militarization and militarization of law enforcement is incorrect.

As for me, I find the trend in law enforcement towards a militarization to be disturbing whether it’s George Bush or Barack Obama in charge of things (and yes, the president deserves direct blame for this, since federal anti-terrorism policy and the Department of Homeland Security are at the heart of the problem).

He handled that perfectly, bravo. I’ll never understand why, in the age of Google Street View, law enforcement is so afraid of photography.
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..Secret Service Threatens to Confiscate Camaras

Oh, I’m not saying it’s the sole cause of the resurgence of militias. Or even that militias are the only ones against the militarization. They’re just the crazy end of the spectrum, more likely to be violent.

But you’ll notice the militia picked a target they thought “the people” would get behind fighting back against.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Better a Bike Pirate

@capn_amurka

No, you do not have to answer any questions asked; there is such a thing as the right to remain silent. You can simply walk away too, if you’re not being detained. However, you must identity yourself if you are LAWFULLY detained. Other than that, you do not have to engage any cop in conversation.

I agree and appreciate your thoughtful answer, but it doesn’t really address my question. I’m looking for examples of that refusal and (ideally) examples of the response from LEOs to a person’s counter-query regarding the right to refuse to answer questions.

Don’t even delve into the ‘ask the cop what I can/can’t do’ questions. It suggests you are poorly informed or unsure – and gives them the upper hand to provide ‘orders’ to you which we all know is usually wrong anyway. If you are asking for answers, you leave them wide open to use that to assert you are ill-informed about the law and initiate an argument with you that you will never win. The more your responses contain weaknesses, the more their responses will be designed to bluff you. That’s basic assertiveness training coming right at you and you will have fallen into the trap they try to set.

Know your facts. Assert the facts. Ask no questions – other than to collect facts (names, badge numbers, etc). If they refuse, then note that as the ‘answer’ rather than engaging in begging to get the real answer.

And when you get the ‘why are you taking pictures’ routine, be a little more creative than ‘because I can.’

‘I enjoy taking pictures,’ ‘It’s my hobby, ‘ ‘I like the architecture,’ etc. is a bit less in-the-face and is not conceding any ground to them.

Above all else, be pleasant. Let them become as nasty as they want. Still be pleasant anyway. Let them be the unreasonable ones who flips out in front of potential witnesses, not you.

Thanks, Carlos, for posting this, and thanks everyone for your responses.
I’m glad to see my story is getting out and people are talking about it, as I hoped it would. The more this type of heavy handed behavior is documented and talked about, the harder it will be to sweep it under the carpet.
One minor detail, though, my paper appears both in print and online. Which is why I was in Spokane in the first place, to pick up 1,700 copies from the printer (it’s a small award-winning weekly).
There was a problem with their press, which gave me a couple of hours to kill, so I went downtown to wander around and maybe shoot some phots, even though the light was really crummy, which led up to this whole thing.
Had I not been on deadline, I might have been able to answer capn_amurka’s question. Any other time, and I would have been willing to stand my ground and force the FPS officer to either make good on his threat to detain me for refusing to show ID, or to let me go. The state of washington doesn’t not have a “Terry Stop” law, so I believe I didn’t have to show him anything.
That answer will have to wait for another time and place, I guess.

Thanks, Carlos, for posting this, and thanks everyone for your responses.
I’m glad to see my story is getting out and people are talking about it, as I hoped it would. The more this type of heavy handed behavior is documented and talked about, the harder it will be to sweep it under the carpet.
One minor detail, though, my paper appears both in print and online. Which is why I was in Spokane in the first place, to pick up 1,700 copies from the printer (it’s a small award-winning weekly).
There was a problem with their press, which gave me a couple of hours to kill, so I went downtown to wander around and maybe shoot some photos, even though the light was really crummy, which led up to this whole thing.
Had I not been on deadline, I might have been able to answer capn_amurka’s question. Any other time, and I would have been willing to stand my ground and force the FPS officer to either make good on his threat to detain me for refusing to show ID, or to let me go. The state of washington doesn’t not have a “Terry Stop” law, so I believe I didn’t have to show him anything.
That answer will have to wait for another time and place, I guess.

Oh, and by the way, never lose sight of the fact it is not a wresting match about the law. You and the cop/guard knows what the law actually is, they are almost always going to be telling you a lie to support their case.

You will be in a psychological wrestling match and they expect you to be unprepared and vulnerable to a battle of wits. Be sure you can outwit them. That’s easier than trying to’ out lawyer’ them.

The Hutaree look a bit scary, like Aryan Brotherhood types … scarier still are their training grounds (firing ranges.) And then there’s this-

http://www.usofearth.com/

It’s a web-based online game (MMORPG), the central theme being the armed overthrow of the federal government … by militias not unlike the Hutaree.

Just a minor quibble, but a “Terry Stop” (or “Stop and Frisk”, supposedly contingent upon reasonable suspicion of weapons possession, called “Terry Stop” after the Supreme Court case) is not the same as “Stop and Identify” which is permitted under some state and local laws.

Anyway, good for ya.

Obviously the latter. Otherwise, they would have detained him.

Well, at least they would be attacking the right people, instead of innocent civilians. People who could fight back.

But I don’t think that it would have any affect on current government growth, so the fight would be in vain.

sounds like everyone was a little bit rude…

but hey, we’re all just exercising our first amendment rights!

good job!

They aren’t a major problem now, but the current regime finds it worthwhile to have a group to demonize. The Hutaree were being led by the nose by a couple of Federal informants. The last regime targeted Muslims, this one is targeting white Christians. Both groups are the boogieman to scare the sheep.

It’s obvious that a lot of people posting here just don’t like, or perhaps even hate, the police and security, but I’ll give it a try…the Federal Protective Service (FPS) directs its Protective Security Officers (PSO’s-private security) to notify FPS when they see someone taking photos of federal property from city, county or state property (if you are IN or ON federal property you must stop taking photos, unless you have permission from the GSA property manager or other official, or else you can be detained by PSO’s or police and/or arrested by police if you don’t)…but if you are off the federal property the PSO’s call the Fed Police and then the police show up and (politely) field interview you to make sure you are not photographically casing the place. If it was me as photographer I would cooperate and demonstrate good will and solid evidence that I’m a normal Joe on the city, county, or state property, just taking architectural photos, or whatever. If you refuse to cooperate then reasonable suspicion could arise that you might be planning a crime, and you could be detained by the police…isn’t it easier to just communicate in a civil manner, realizing that the officers are working to ensure public safety? If a PSO or police officer is not civil themselves, then you can always file a complaint.

“…Fed Police and then the police show up and (politely) field interview you to make sure you are not photographically casing the place.”

Pffffffft… because someone who was (if that was even a legitimate threat) would NEVER be able to lie about it to the cops that show up.

“…I would cooperate and demonstrate good will and solid evidence…”

HAHAHahahahaha. What the hell would “solid evidence” even be?

What’s really easier is for police/feds to stop wasting people’s time on pointless security theater. Don’t come crying to us that people aren’t cheerfully going along with your pointless shenanigans.

I mean, think for a damn second.

If you have a device small enough to carry around yourself, you’re going to have to get inside the building to do any damage. Pictures of the outside won’t help.

If you’ve got something you need a truck to get there, you just need the street address and to maybe walk by once. No need for pictures.

A decent-sized building nearby to purchase and fill with natural gas to turn into a giant fuel air explosive would be even better if you’re lucky, though. (Thanks John Ringo, author of Gust Front!) No need for photos again.

Why you guys think anyone practically needs photography or would even bother to use it in blowing up a building is just mystifying.

Unless, and I think this is really the case, you want something easy and visible to do so you can claim you’re being proactive and actually doing something. It doesn’t matter that what you’re doing is pointless.

Security Theater, whether you want to admit it or not.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Better a Bike Pirate

Have you even bothered trying to learn /why/ police and security guards get a bad rap here, CA Sec? From your comment, I’d say you haven’t bothered.

Your comment boils down to “We (cops and rent-a-cops) have the right to harass and interrogate you because we are suspicious of you for exercising your legal right to take pictures! Cooperate politely, or we will assume you’re a criminal!” Can’t you see how offensive this attitude is?

“But-but-but they might be /casing/ the building” is just a lame excuse. The simple act of taking a picture from public property is legal, and you are casting innocent people who just like taking pictures as “suspicious characters” for not submitting to non-existent (especially in YOUR case, good sir) authority.

If I’m on public property, I can legally take as many pictures I like of the building you’re paid to hang out in, and if you don’t like it, you can take your tin start and stuff it. Renties have NO authority over me on public prperty, and if cops harass me in the same way, they are abusing their authority, which is even worse.

Hello Carlos Miller and friends

The one thing I’ve learned from working in my line of work is always respect people – even if they don’t respect me.

I have also learned that there is a difference between authoritarianism, and authoritativeness. Americans and others of all political persuasions don’t want authoritarians – overblown tyrannical personalities who unnecessarily push others around for ego gratification, but they do want authoritative, professional police and security, especially when they themselves are victims of crime. For example, you would want a professional, authoritative response if somebody beat you up and took your camera, right?

Please bear in mind that Security is proactive in nature, whereas Law Enforcement is more reactive (Security Guards seemingly just standing or roving at a post are a visible deterrant, vs. the police getting a remote call and reacting by going to the trouble). The general prohibition against photography in or on federal property without proper authorization is in part a proactive measure against those individuals who would destroy federal property and the people inside – and this has happened: remember Timothy McVeigh and OKC? This the law, we have to enforce it, no matter what we think about it personally. If you think this law should be repealed, organize, write to your congressman/Senator, and go for it. If you want to photograph federal property from the street, the police have the right to politiely field interview you to make sure you’re not there for criminal purposes, but if it’s reasonably certain that you’re just there taking some shots of the the birds of paradise…if I was that officer I would apologize for interrupting you and then let you proceed to shoot from the city property.

Re the incidents with bad guards and cops. I have worked with bad guards, and even gone against them when they went overboard. On the other side of the coin, I and other officers also encounter a lot of uncooperative, even enraged people, who refuse to cooperate with any inquiries or directions, no matter how polite or amicable they are presented – a routine part of the job.

As indicated previously, the solution lies somewhere in the middle, where a good encounter between photographers and officers is characterized by respect for all involved.