Pixiq

Verizon already has questionable privacy policies, and I'm sure they have no problem violating this man's rights, thus, no big surprise with the corporate security. But the police? Just handing over his personal information? Sometimes it's mind boggling how blatantly law enforcement can infringe on the rights of those they take an oath to protect.

I had this exact same thing happen repeatedly in 2009 with the Los Angeles Police Dept and a private security firm called "Nastec Security Group". This security firm guards a Jewish School/Community and they took exception to my family and I spending the day at the local park in our neighborhood which was located directly across the street from this school. We had brought along our brand new RV and we were accused by Nastec Security Group several times of being terroists. We had several run ins with this security group and each time the police were called and each time they handed over our info to the security firm.

Verizon is the same incompetent company that turned me over to a collection agency for a Telephone number and account that I never had. I had to waste my time and money to get the harassment to cease. As a result I closed the three REAL Verizon accounts that I did have and will NEVER do business with that pathetic excuse for a company ever again. I am not surprised by anything that company does!

Similar actions have happened to me in the past. I have been able to threaten the rent-a-cops with felony chargess or just push my way out of things. LA cops really do not want to deal with such things.

The one time a cop did show up (not in LA) I explicitly warned him not to share my information and gave him an ID other than my drivers license. He balked at first until I pointed out how long taking a false imprisonment complaints against the three buffoons would take. Finally he told them to shut up and asked me to leave. I complied rather than push it further.

For those confusing the arena with the phone company, the Verizon Center isn't the same as Verizon. Verizon doesn't own the arena, they just paid to have their name put on it. The arena is owned by Monumental Sports & Entertainment. The majority owner of Monumental is Ted Leonsis.

I hope jramos files complaints with both the PD and the Verizon Center. What the police and security guards did were inexcusable.

Just curious: I've gotten a hold of a story here in Michigan about an assistant attorney general who is apparently some sort of anti-gay nut, and has set his sights on a gay University of Michigan college student recently elected president of the student government - the Michigan Students Association or MSA. The assistant AG is a fellow named Andrew Shirvell and the student is a fellow named Chris Armstrong. Among other things, Shirvell has started a blog (chris-armstrong-watch.blogspot.com) where he posts numerous photos, usually defaced with anti-gay bigotry, and videos. In addition to "stalking" Armstrong, Shirvell likes to shoot lots video of him, including a recent incident where he called the police to break up a gay party hosted at Armstrong's house.

So, taking the title of your blog into account, my question is: is there a point at which photography/videography when deployed obsessively, mischaracterized, etc. may cross the line into illegal? Forgetting for a moment that Shirvell is an obsessed, anti-gay bigot, and that he appears to be violating his trust as a public official, can his overzealous photography of this one subject be considered over the line? To me, the lne is a little murky here.

Some links:
Encyclopedia Dramatica: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Andrew_Shirvell_Loves_Chris_Armstrong
Pharyngula: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/obsessed_with_a_gay_young_man...
(BTW I looked for contact info on the main page first. I went this route due to its suggestion on the host site: "We also encourage you to give direct feedback to our contributors in the Comment sections of their articles...")

Google still has the blog front-page in cache, with quite a few posts:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iTi4ZnU5Hx8J:chris-...

Off-topic, but I can't resist... that blog is disturbing.

"It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks."

"I was viciously attacked by Armstrong's thugs for simply holding a sign with a message that they did not like"

With that last comment, you'd think he'd press charges, especially being that he's an assistant state attorney general. But no, it's all over-the-top, angry, gay-baiting rhetoric, and it doesn't read as being very fact-based.

It all leaves me wondering if he's exposing himself to a libel suit. It may be a blog, but he often writes as though he's stating facts.

Some of his favorite words are "vicious" and "militant" - "...Chris Armstrong, a viciously militant homosexual activist..." "...Armstrong and his fellow radical homosexual activists..." etc. etc.

I can't figure out what would make somebody, who has a lot to lose, go frothing at the mouth like this.

Dennis,

Chances are that guy is untouchable since he is a prosecutor...getting a prosecutor is almost impossible since they enjoy absolute immunity when doing their job. I know you'll say, "How can this be his job?!?!" I agree with you and most others probably would too, but you see it is his fellow lawyers who sit in judgment of him. If the let him roast why they could be next. Of course if it becomes truly outrageous (e.g. approaching Nifong levels) then they'll throw him under the bus, so to speak.

I'd say that Armstrong has quite a bit to be afraid of, IMO. Police will not touch Shirvell until he has done something really bad like attack or kill Armstrong. This story says that Armstrong is getting a restraining order,

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/asst_michigan_attorney_gener...

But my guess is that the police wont enforce it unless they absolutely must. Here is what his boss has to say,

But Cox did tell the paper: "I'm at fault here. I've been saying for weeks that (Shirvell's) been acting like a bully, that his behavior is immature, but it's after-hours and protected by the First Amendment."

Really? Many people have a clause in their employment contracts that they don't embarrass their employer and doing so repeatedly (and on national television) would almost surely get you fired. So pretty typical response, IMO, protect their own even if he is a raging and dangerous lunatic.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm, whose previous job was attorney general, posted on Twitter that if it were up to her, Shirvell would be fired.

The State protects its agents even when its rather embarrassing. Now Shirvell is taking a leave of absence, but if I were Armstrong, I'd think very, very seriously about buying a gun and learning how to use it really, really soon.

They [not Chris Armstrong, just about everyone else in this sordid story] really are despicable people when you get right down to it.

Shrivell has the right to say what he wants under 1st amendment. People also have the right to scrutinize his blog and come to the conclusion that he's a bigot.

UoM has the right to ban anyone they want from their campus.

Was Armstrong really this brazenly gay person though? What was Shrivell's problem with Armstrong exactly?

One thing for everyone to keep in mind: know the stop and identity law in your state. Most of them DO NOT require you to provide PHYSICAL identification, only verbal.

A note about Verizon Center. This arena is located in DC's Chinatown, which is a huge tourist draw, popular with teens, and adult locals. There are "old" buildings (1920s-1930s) with interesting architecture, the Metro station (in which photography is most definitely permitted!), and shops and restaurants.

I can't imagine what the hell these rent-a-cops and MPD were thinking. Tourists take pictures document their travels. Teens take pictures to document their lives. People interested in architecture take pictures of buildings. Families, couples, and friends all document their trips to games, concerts, and restaurants.

I guess the problem is, they don't think.