Pixiq

NJ Transits Policy on Photography is very clear. It’s allowed in all publicly accesable areas.

Might be time for a Freedom of Information Request on what happened at that station.

Here is an answer I have from NJT regarding photography:
We are replying to your feedback of 12/16/2008 regarding subject: Photography of Equipment, Penn Station NY.

NJ TRANSIT allows photographs to be taken of facilities and equipment as long as all safety and security procedures are followed. However, effective January 1, 2006, the requirement for a Photo Pass, temporary or Photo ID, has been eliminated. As such, photo permits are no longer a requirement to take photographs in publicly accessible areas on NJ TRANSIT property. Please note that this pertains to non-commercial photography only. Commercial photographers must still have a contract with NJ TRANSIT if they wish to film or conduct photo shoots. Scout photos taken by location scouts do not require a pass if the photos will not be sold.

Thank you for contacting NJ TRANSIT.

Sincerely,
Carmine Melillo
NJ TRANSIT Customer Service Team

CLICK HERE to reply. E-mail responses cannot be processed.

Have a great day.
Duane Kerzic´s last blog ..2010-03-09 Yahoo Hard At Work

It must be nice to be in a position where you KNOW that you can deny civil rights under color of law, and will never, ever face any legal consequences for it.

Have we reached a “tipping point” where it is no longer possible for the the police to be held to any standard of law-abiding professionalism? I seriously think so; the most striking evidence of that was when even the freaking PRESIDENT couldn’t levy a criticism of an obvious “contempt of cop” arrest without being forced to back down and eat crow.

one of the most painful moment for every mother/parents is to lost their child. Chandra Levy's killer gets sixty years in prison as probably the most famous cold case in the last ten years is now closed. Ingmar Guandique was convicted in November for the murder of Levy, who was found to be romantically linked to Congressman Gary Condit after she disappeared. The Salvadoran illegal immigrant was already convicted of attacking women in the very same area at the exact same time of Levy's disappearance.

Nazis!

Yes, everyone has rights except for police officers. Officers that put their lives on the line everyday protecting the flock. Risking their lives to protect a flock of sheep that refuses to even acknowledge the presence of wolves among themselves, at least until one of their numbers is gruesomely slaughtered.
Police are becoming increasingly targeted by the lowest, most vicious criminals in our society. They have recently been targeted, attacked and killed while on duty, off duty, in public places and even at their homes, all because they choose to serve and protect.
There are numerous websites dedicated to publishing the personal information of police officers, this includes addresses, phone numbers, family information and PHOTGRAPHS. These websites are frequented by criminals and gang members, many motivated by the hope of retaliation for arrests and perceived wrongs (generally preventing them from committing a crime). So please try to understand that an officer may become concerned when they notice they are being filmed or their photograph taken, they understand the threat that that image of them represents, to themselves their coworkers and their families.
Many of you will say that the reaction of officers being filmed is because they desire to hide their criminal actions or the abuse of power. While there may be a very few that will fall to temptation or that crack under the strain, the vast majority are held to and uphold standards far exceeding those of the general population, and rightly so.
Contempt of cop? Ah yes, such an open blatant abuse of police power. How dare an officer responding to a burglary call not accept an irate, abusive person’s verbal assurance that they are breaking into their own home! Why everyone knows that no criminal would ever lie to a police officer.
If this general trend of contempt (let alone that of undisguised hatred, see comment by Jody) towards the police continues there may be a day when none choose to place their lives on the line for such an unthankful public. If that day ever happens I will feel truly sad for the sheep, because the wolves don’t follow any rules and without mercy or remorse they will get fat feeding on the sheep.

The NJ Transit policy on photography has not changed since its former president George D Warrington issued this letter

Click here for image

Note the sentence “There will also continue to be no restrictions on journalists in all public areas of the system”.

Please explain what part of that did this cop not understand?

This was a newsworthy event which the public has a right to know. Ironically, the story up to that point was how the cops saved the train from the unruly kids. However, that one cop by making up his own law to satisfy his overbloated ego managed to turn the focus on harassment of journalists and photographers instead.

Cops are NOT above the law – period!
NYCPhotorights´s last blog ..Employer Sued for Spying on Employee

If I point out the irony of law enforcement officers “defending” themselves from photographs by … breaking the law, does that make me one of the ungrateful sheep?

@Reid W.

Oh christ, not that sheepdog/sheep/wolves paramilitary garbage AGAIN. About the original author of that:

“A former army Ranger, paratrooper, West Point Professor of Military Science and author of the classic book, ON KILLING, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is currently the Director of the Killology Research Group and one of the world’s foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the psychology of combat.”

Yeah, there’s a REASON soldiers were specifically excluded from performing general civilian police work since the beginning of this country. Citizens in a free society aren’t non-combatants in a war zone.

Want to treat citizens like non-combatants and insurgents? Might want to keep in mind the the guys in uniform do most poorly in an insurgency. Sticking to civilian peace officer mode is probably the better idea.

Yes, there’s an epidemic of criminals looking up pictures of the cops that wronged them online, since without the internet they’d never remember what they looked like. Also, they can only hurt officers if they know their name and image, much like the weaknesses of wizards and magicians. What the hell movie/bad TV show do you live in?

Nice dig & misrepresentation on the prof getting arrested. You forgot where he’d provided ID and was already cleared as the homeowner BEFORE the arrest by a thin-skinned cop.

Again.

“In fact, fewer police died in the line of duty this year (117) than last (125). Tucked away near the end of the article, the Times observes: “In 1973, during a heyday of corruption and crime, there were about 600,000 officers and about 156 gunfire deaths. Now there are about 900,000 law enforcement officers nationwide and only 47 gunfire deaths this year — a per-capita decrease of nearly 21 percent.”

“The chances of being killed in the line of duty are lower than they have been in modern times,” noted Kevin Morrison of the Officers Memorial Fund.

“This is the reality behind the all-pervasive rhetoric describing law enforcement as a uniquely hazardous occupation. Pundits of an authoritarian bent, playing to the punitive populist sub-population, refer to a non-existent “war on police”; police officials insist that exceptional episodes of genuinely tragic violence represent the “new normal” for police officers.”

…

Police generate their own contempt by misconduct, supporting those that commit it and this nonsense whining that you’ve displayed. Here’s your piping-hot cup of Shut The Fuck Up, Thin Blue Whiner.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

The officer’s information that has been posted on the Internet, is publicly available information. If you don’t like that.. do something about it.
As for officers not liking their pictures taken because it might be someone trying to get revenge on them, that’s silly. If you don’t like the stage of being a public official, find another line of work. You don’t get to make up rules/laws on the spot just because they go against something YOU personally believe.

The one comment on this guy’s web site is spot on. He has videotape of the cop, put it up on YouTube and forward it to the head of the transit police and the media.

Lots of LOL should ensue. Every bad cop should be a YouTube star.

“Nazis!”

Here we go again.

I am curious about where the photographer was standing when he was taking his pictures. Was he right up on the officers? Was he told to back up several times? Was there a hostile crowd and were his actions causing the police to have to take attention away from other areas?

These are all important factors that could explain why he was threatened with arrest. I’ve learned that people often leave out some important facts when they are crying about their experience with the police. If the guy has video, let’s see it before all the cries of “Nazi!” break out.

I’ve actually listened to Col Grossman speak in person and he is a great man. He has done a great deal of research on what happens when officers get into deadly force situations and why people experience audio exclusion, tunnel vision, and other effects.

His work also covers how to train someone so that they do not hesitate when it is time to pull the trigger. Folks may not believe this put police often fail to use deadly force when it is justified even when their own lives are at risk. I’ve seen too many videos of officers yelling for someone to drop the gun or knife when they should be shooting.

Grossman does not go around trying to get police to act like Detroit is Baghdad. He simply researches the application of deadly force and its aftereffects. I recommend that anyone seeking more insight into this read his books “On Killing” and “On Combat”.

Michael, you should read another book titled “Into the Kill Zone”. Maybe it would open your eyes about some of the situations officers face and make you a little different opinion about how safe police work is.

As for this story with the photographer, I have to agree that we are public servants and our identities are public record. I probably had my picture taken 10 times over the course of this week by tourists. Not much I can do about it. If the photographer is not getting in the way, then officers need to ignore them.

“I’ve actually listened to Col Grossman speak in person and he is a great man”

Suddenly, much is explained.

“I’ve seen too many videos of officers yelling for someone to drop the gun or knife when I think they should be shooting.”

FTFY. This would have a lot more bearing if that sentence ended with “and the officer actually gets hurt.” Waiting to fire past your idea of when to shoot and still resolving without anyone getting killed isn’t a fail condition.

“Grossman does not go around trying to get police to act like Detroit is Baghdad.”

Since his actual experience is finding the best way to train soldiers to kill in a combat theater, this is correct. Too bad too many police think they’re still soldiers.

“His work on violence and killing has been very well received. Col. Grossman uses blunt language that draws the ire of gamers – during the heights of video game controversy, he was interviewed on the content of his books, and repeatedly used the term “murder simulator” to describe first-person shooter games.”

Oh wait, this is the “murder simulator” guy. Sorry, he should stick to the military stuff and stay out of peacetime social issues.

Hrmm. Into the Kill Zone, eh? Let’s have a look at the Amazon review first.

“Klinger’s sympathy with the police is evident. He disparages “antipolice activists and other windbags” and doesn’t seem to have interviewed anyone whose shooting was found to be unjustified. The experiences and responses are too diverse—some cops fall into depression after a shooting, while others take it in stride or even find it “exhilarating”—to allow for much generalization, so the interviews add up to little more than a collection of fascinating war stories. Still, readers will come away with a renewed appreciation for the difficulties police face every day on the streets.”

Ah. The plural of anecdotes isn’t data, and he’s only covered “justified” shootings so even if it was data it would still be one-sided. Sorry, I’ll stick with what I know from family/friends/acquaintances in and out of law enforcement and journalism, etc. You may want to dismiss that, but who are you to judge my anecdotal knowledge (of which you are unaware) over that anecdotal knowledge?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

@michael42

“FTFY. This would have a lot more bearing if that sentence ended with “and the officer actually gets hurt.” Waiting to fire past your idea of when to shoot and still resolving without anyone getting killed isn’t a fail condition.”

There are situations that are clearly classified as lethal force encounters. These are situations where a person poses an immediately threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another party. Failure to use your weapon when there is that risk is irresponsible and a failure in tactics. Just because someone didn’t get hurt by the bad guy due to pure luck doesn’t mean the officer did it right.

Some officers have not put their minds at peace that they may have to shoot someone. This causes them to freeze at the moment of truth. I have seen many videos in Use of Force classes where the instructors point out how the officer failed to use the force needed and put themselves and/or the public at substantial risk.
Grossman’s studies help officers realize this and help trainers figure out ways to keep officers from hesitating at the moment of truth.

“Since his actual experience is finding the best way to train soldiers to kill in a combat theater, this is correct. Too bad too many police think they’re still soldiers.”

A gunfight is still a gunfight no matter what uniform you are wearing.

“Ah. The plural of anecdotes isn’t data, and he’s only covered “justified” shootings so even if it was data it would still be one-sided. Sorry, I’ll stick with what I know from family/friends/acquaintances in and out of law enforcement and journalism, etc. You may want to dismiss that, but who are you to judge my anecdotal knowledge (of which you are unaware) over that anecdotal knowledge?”

Mike, I’m not trying to throw numbers at you. I think that maybe, just maybe, if you read some of the situations officers get into, you would not be so quick to dismiss some of their concerns. True stories are still true stories.

TBH, I do completely dismiss your anecdotal knowledge and opinions on police use of force. You have zero training and probably have never been involved in such situations where a quick decision to fire or not fire has to be made.

I remember a local story where the media came to the academy and took a use of force class. This included using the firearms simulation (FATS) machine to go through shoot/no-shoot scenarios. The reporters came out of there with a new perspective on things because they had no idea how quick things can go down.

Might be a good learning experience for you. Hell, go play paintball and see how it affects you. Do something other than post uninformed opinions on the internet.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Burnout

When armed citizens start fighting back to protect their rights you will see government and those who cheer lead for it cowering in basements or totally wiped off the face of this planet. Don’t ever think that you as a police officer have power over the average person, you don’t, they freely give you authority and the day they decide to take that authority back is the day you will shit yourself. Hopefully things never get to that point but when asshats like Grossman get involved then I fear that day will come, and soon. If police keep acting like they are in a war soon then citizens will start acting like insurgents.
Jody´s last blog ..Cops have visited elderly Brooklyn couple’s home at least 50 TIMES

Brownshirts!
Jody´s last blog ..Cops have visited elderly Brooklyn couple’s home at least 50 TIMES

@Jody

“Don’t ever think that you as a police officer have power over the average person, you don’t, they freely give you authority and the day they decide to take that authority back is the day you will shit yourself. ”

So do I have authority or not? You say I don’t then say “they” give me that authority. That would imply that I do have some authority since it has been given to me. Then you say that one day “they” will take it back. That also implies that I have some authority since it hasn’t been taken back yet.

You confuse me.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Burnout

“A gunfight is still a gunfight no matter what uniform you are wearing.”

Thing is, if you’re wearing a cop uniform, you shouldn’t be out to get into them.

Look, I HAVE produced numbers up there. It’s not as especially dangerous as some would have us believe. Emotional and anecdotal arguments otherwise don’t change that. It doesn’t matter if the stories in that book are true or not, and I’m not saying they aren’t true. The issue is they’re all one-sided.

“TBH, I do completely dismiss your anecdotal knowledge and opinions on police use of force. You have zero training and probably have never been involved in such situations where a quick decision to fire or not fire has to be made.”

OK, you don’t care what I think, knowing zero about my actual experiences, what situations I’ve been in, or the family/friends/acquaintances I have whose experience and knowledge I have to draw from. That’s your mistake to make.

Notice I don’t question your alleged experience/training – I honestly can’t independently verify it either way – but I don’t have to to completely disagree with your conclusions.

I could mention that I’ve been along on LEO training exercises as a photographer, etc. Since apparently you think that’s going to change my mind somehow, but then we wouldn’t get such classics as:

“Do something other than post uninformed opinions on the internet.”

Because I think it’s funny when you post uninformed opinions about me on the internet in the process of telling me not to do the same.

As for the Lt. Col. and the issue of the militarization of the police force, take that over to the The Agitator where it more rightfully belongs. In fact, I defy you to try and sling this stuff there. That’s the place to discuss police militarization if you really care about it that much.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

@Jody

You make me giggle.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Burnout

@Michael42

““A gunfight is still a gunfight no matter what uniform you are wearing.”

Thing is, if you’re wearing a cop uniform, you shouldn’t be out to get into them.”

You see, it is just because of statements like this that make me dismiss your POV. We are not out to get into them. It is a fact of police work that they happen no matter what we do. It’s clear that you just don’t understand the dynamics of a lethal force encounter.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Burnout

Given that I was talking about the militarization/sheepdog thing that was introduced by Reid, it stands. The only thing that’s pretty clear is you don’t understand that militarization of peace officers leads to getting into more lethal force encounters, and increased propensity for peace officers to escalate.

But like I said, take it over to The Agitator and see how many seconds you last. Here, I’ll make it easy:

Police Militarization (717)

He does have a whole category set up for it.

Or read

Ex-Cop Chides Calvo for Questioning the Cops Who Nearly Killed Him

And try and tell me there aren’t

a. cops fully into essentially starting gunfights because they can and know they won’t be held responsible for it

and

b. cops who will step up to defend that (without revealing they are cops)

Not all cops do that, but not all are pro-militarization as you seem to be and you can’t deny this exists.

You can dismiss my viewpoint if you want, but if you are dismissing it why do you keep replying?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

I notice you have bupkiss to say about Jody’s blog entry…

I agree with Johnny on this one.

Shawn, the Gestapo would have loved you, informant.
Jody´s last blog ..Cops have visited elderly Brooklyn couple’s home at least 50 TIMES

“Was he right up on the officers? Was he told to back up several times?”

Apparently where he was wasn’t the problem.

“He ordered me to turn the camera off or he’d arrest me for “obstruction.””

How does where he is have any bearing on the cop telling him to turn the camera off?

“Was there a hostile crowd and were his actions causing the police to have to take attention away from other areas?”

Care to explain how having a lens pointed at you is somehow distracting enough to draw your attention away from dealing with someone right in front of you?

What are you worried about?

I would suggest that if you’ve not capable of doing your job as a cop if someone records it, you shouldn’t be a cop.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

@michael42

So basically you don’t know what the exact situation was or how close he was to the officers. It’s just a simple black and white matter of photographers good, cops bad.

Gotcha.

And you don’t know either… but still… Actually, it’s you not explaining how any of the things you brought up have any bearing on why a cop would be allowed to tell a photographer to turn his camera off.

Tell him to move, fine. But no justification for telling him to not operate a camera.

You can try to cloud the issue with placement, but it’s not relevant to an order to stop recording.

So yes, cop telling someone to stop recording? Cop bad.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

@Michael42

If that in fact is what he said (and meant) and it was simply said because the officer did not want to be filmed, then yes the officer was in the wrong.

However I have my doubts. Is that a correct quote? During all the confusion could the officer have been actually meant to stop filming so close (ie: back up)?

“Care to explain how having a lens pointed at you is somehow distracting enough to draw your attention away from dealing with someone right in front of you?”

This depends on how close the photographer is and if he was being a passive observer or trying to get involved in things.

Either way, hard for us normal humans to know unless we were there.

Let me say it again though. If the officer was trying to get the guy to stop filming just because he didn’t want to get filmed, then the officer was in the wrong. I am just not sure that is the case here.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Burnout

“During all the confusion could the officer have been actually meant to stop filming so close (ie: back up)?”

So we now have to be telepathic to know what our gestapo overlords mean just to avoid being arrested? Fine, you go off in the middle of the desert or somewhere to work on YOUR telepathy to send US lowers clear message about what you really mean despite what you may say.

Or perhaps the photographer misunderstood him or is misquoting him?

Crazy I know.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Burnout

I don’t think that attitude benefits anyone. Johnny made a reasonable statement, and I feel that there’s always more than one side to a story, and that it’s inappropriate to pass judgment without a more complete picture than what’s been presented to us here.

So basically you’re taking a very long time to call the journalist a liar or at best an unreliable witness. Based on nothing more than… “Photographer bad cop good?”

“This depends on how close the photographer is and if he was being a passive observer or trying to get involved in things.”

Johnny, that still doesn’t make “Turn off the camera” a lawful order. “Move” if he’s too close or physically obstructing. “Stop talking to me” if he’s talking and “trying to get involved in things,” whatever you mean by that.

So at least we’ve established that “turn off the camera” isn’t a lawful order since

a. pressing the off button doesn’t change your physical location (mine has yet to fold space and move me from place to place) and

b. your explanation for how having a lens pointed at you actually speaks to location (again) or some other action that you don’t actually specify, I suppose talking or yelling or something.

So if it’s hard for us normal humans to know unless we where there, what special knowledge do you have that gives you a reliable means of calling the journalist a liar? Because basically that’s all you’ve got aside from trying to say the officer meant “stop filming so close” which we’re even less sure he said, and no one can follow an order they aren’t given.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

“Johnny Law”.

Sgt. Lee ordered Gary Baumgarten to turn the camera off or he’d arrest him for “obstruction.”

So you’re right. Here we go again.. with you and your attitude of the cops can do NO wrong and backing the police 100%. I didn’t expect anything else from you though.

Rail Car Fan

@Michael42

You previously asked,”Care to explain how having a lens pointed at you is somehow distracting enough to draw your attention away from dealing with someone right in front of you?”

I answered, “This depends on how close the photographer is and if he was being a passive observer or trying to get involved in things.”

That is a different issue than the whole legality of telling someone to turn off a camera. I answered your question but you deflect it by bringing up a a separate issue. I am trying to explain to you how a photographer’s presence can be a problem.

I find it entertaining that you are deliberately (I hope) misunderstanding my point that we don’t have enough info on this situation and don’t know what was exactly said.

I also find it funny you accuse me of calling the photographer a liar but have accused cops of lying in their reports multiple times.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..Burnout

Do you all just love it when “Johnny Law” uses these types of excuses as his standard comeback as to why the cops say and do what they do?

I wouldn’t be surprised one of these days to see a video of three cops beating up a handcuffed man who’s laying on the ground.. and the comment we would hear from “Johnny Law” would be something to the effect of.. “Well we don’t know what the guy said to the cops 10 minutes ago!”

Way to go “Johnny Law”. Just continue to make excuses for all your brothers in blue. I wouldn’t expect anything else from you anyways.

Rail Car Fan

Johnny, you’re either calling the photographer a liar at worst or a completely unreliable witness at best.

Top of the linked page:

“As a journalist since 1969 (including a decade as CNN Radio’s New York-based correspondent) I’ve reported, the good, the bad, the beautiful and the ugly.”

Yeah, I think it’s safe to say he’s reasonably reliable, it’s not like he’s never covered news before.

Whether or not I have accused cops of (or pointed out cops are) lying in a report is of no relevance to that.

“Was there a hostile crowd and were his actions causing the police to have to take attention away from other areas?

“These are all important factors that could explain why he was threatened with arrest”

Oh, so you still weren’t trying to say it was a justification for telling him to turn the camera off. You’re just trying to say he was doing something else that would cause the officer to give such an illegal order.

In other words, casting more aspersions about the witness and speculating about things that could have happened that you have no real knowledge of and no reason to infer from the actual story.

“my point that we don’t have enough info on this situation and don’t know what was exactly said.”

We don’t have enough info to say the reporter is a liar or unreliable witness, either.

I’m not accusing you of calling him a liar or unreliable witness – you are doing so, by your own admission. Either he’s being truthful and accurate in relaying what happened or he’s not.

Either “He ordered me to turn the camera off or he’d arrest me for “obstruction’” is what he was told or it wasn’t.

It’s not that complex a series of words, it’s not like there’s a lot of wiggle room there. I should also think someone of his experience could recall it pretty plainly.

Anyway…

Inigo Montoya: I hate waiting. I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
Man in Black: No good. I’ve known too many Spaniards.

Sorry Johnny. We’ve known too many Spaniards around here. We have no good reason to assume regular people are lying more often than cops, or that cops are somehow more trustworthy than regular people.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

@Michael42

“Whether or not I have accused cops of (or pointed out cops are) lying in a report is of no relevance to that.”

I think it is relevant in that it shows your obvious bias and hypocrisy. You don’t believe offense reports but you completely accept the details of this photographer’s account.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..It’s been a long weekend

Or the cops actually lying, crazy I know.
Jody´s last blog ..Lying COP.

whoops, I forgot the link, a video of a cop lying, perhaps this is why cops don’t like cameras.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/carrollton/stories...
Jody´s last blog ..Lying COP.

1. Let’s see this exhaustive list of evidence of “my obvious bias”

2. Let’s see the number of times where I’ve stated a police report was wrong and I was actually wrong.

3. Tell us how that’s relevant to this particular case – and how any bias you allege (but have yet to prove) actually affects the facts of this case.

But it’s not about me and your attacking me and instead of the position.

Either

a. Someone who’s been a professional journalist for 41-odd years has suddenly decided to go on a vendetta against NJ transit cops for some unknown reason

or

b. A NJ Transit cop was something of a prick.

You can pick the more likely, plausible scenario or you can continue to attempt to make this somehow about me and dodge the issues.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Police are thugs in uniform. Think the Police are here to protect you? Think again.

http://www.unknownnews.org/cops.html