|
Originally Posted by PhoenixRev
(Post 14640328)
Why have you put the onus upon the average law-abiding citizen to clear up the situation? If I am doing something completely legal - such as taking photos inside an airport - it should not be my burden to ease the mind of the police. They are free to ask me questions and I am free to ignore them.
If they truly believe they have probable cause to arrest me, then they should arrest me. Otherwise, if they ask me why I am taking photos inside the airport and I say nothing, they need to either continue their observation of me (without interfering with what I am doing legally) or they need to return to their post and start looking for the bad guys and gals. You said you are more than happy to clear up any suspicion. But who defined that suspicion and why? We have nothing to suggest that taking photos of a TSO or the security area in the airport is the harbinger of terrorism. Nothing at all. But, we have cops detaining people for doing something perfectly legal and, in many cases, telling people they need to delete the photos they have taken as if destroying possible evidence is legal. You may think it convenient to simply answer the cops questions and move along. But where does that stop? If he asks for ID will you give it to him? If he asks for your Social Security number or National Health Care ID number, will you give it to him? If he asks what you do for a living and how much money you make, will you tell him? If he asks you how many children you have and which schools they attend, will you tell him? I wouldn't make that assumption at all. If the cops knew what laws existed on their own patch, the courts would have far fewer cases. How many cops have been slapped down by the courts for exceeding their authority? How many times have we heard on this forum cops saying that taking photos inside an airport is illegal (it's not)? I suggested that the OP did not behave in a responsible way as to me he set out to precipitate and provoke a particular reaction, that's my opinion. If yours is different OK. Having 'the right to do it?' Maybe. If you have 'the right to do it', is it automatically the case it must always 'be right to do it?' Suggest not. Delete photographs. Well that's not on, if they are content no actual criminality is afoot. That's sort of like 'criminal damage'. Not required to carry ID here. Would I produce it if I had it? If stopped in a vehicle I would provide driving licence (otherwise they would issue me a form to produce it later). They don't usually need anything else in that category as it's photographic and checkable. As for the other stuff, I would not expect to be asked for that and don't carry it anyway. If I am stopped in relation to being suspected of something then I have to give a name and address (but that's here). They can check that too, fairly easily. In short, co-operate? yes, but if I think I've done my bit to alleviate their suspicion and they are still questioning me to no end, I might be a little contentious about it, as you would. That's fishing, agreed. Don't mistake me for the total submissive type but I'm just not at the other end of the spectrum either Anyway, I'm having a 'Time out'. My original opinion of the OP and his precipitation of the encounter stands. I've given responses stating I don't condone TSA judgement and that being detained by HPD for 90mins seems a long time and I don't agree with the bag being taken. The caveat to it is that none of us were there and only one POV of events is reported. That's it. 'This call sign out!' |
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14640207)
So in this case you do not support my entitlement to silence (in not co-operating with an answer) and draw your own inference from it! Interesting experiment!
Bit of a U turn, is it not! |
Originally Posted by Custardthecat
(Post 14638642)
I think I am going to refer you back to this entire series of posts in this thread and ask you to read them in conjunction. Try looking at for example some of Firebug4 in the early thread and weigh up both sides of the coin. I think your question sits in isolation to all of the discussion, so, I think I'll..........'take the 5th'.....lol
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 14638927)
Most never even draw their guns.
Originally Posted by tom911
(Post 14639583)
Hard for me to agree with either of those statements. I worked in a very violent city (had 32 murders one year when I was there, though now they average 12-16 a year), and officers drew their guns every night, particularly when stopping cars with armed suspects inside after gunfire reports or crimes involving weapons, let alone actual shootings and stabbings.
I live in Chicago. |
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 14642499)
I live in Chicago.
|
Originally Posted by tom911
(Post 14642610)
Sounds pretty quiet there.
|
Originally Posted by tom911
(Post 14642610)
Maybe we should both move to where bdschobel lives. Sounds pretty quiet there.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by essxjay
(Post 14640253)
The verbatim is the same, but perhaps not the chain of discovery and standards of evidence.
Of course it does. Throughout this discussion there appears on your part to be: 1) a conflation of unparticularized suspicion or hunch with the (U.S.) legal standard of probable cause; 2) ignorance of the legal distinction between reasonable suspicion and probable cause; and 3) confusion about or indifference to whether the threshold of proof for either standard of warrant or arrest was met in the OP's case. The standard of reasonable suspicion is based on specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts. The stricter standard of probable cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true. If we're to have a fruitful discussion of the OP's case we all should be honest about whether we're posting mere opinion of the incident or commentary informed by the law. . . . . . The $64,000 question remains: What specific, articulable facts did the Houston police officers have to suspect the OP of illegal behavior? (Remember to keep in mind that the TSOs' hunches and unparticularized beliefs about c/p photography are all LEO were presented with.) |
Originally Posted by wildcatlh
(Post 14643525)
Just wanted to add one thing to a great response: An individual's silence in response to police questioning can never be used as part of the equation to form probable cause.
|
|
Originally Posted by tom911
(Post 14642610)
Maybe we should both move to where bdschobel lives. Sounds pretty quiet there.
|
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
(Post 14644803)
And the Montgomery County, Maryland police think you're suspicious if you want to buy panoramic camera equipment:
Link What should I consider suspicious? * Photos which contain various landmarks or sensitive infrastructure locations, which don't appear to have any aesthetic appeal which makes the photo attractive (i.e. the support cables of a bridge, the fence surrounding the electrical power plant, etc). *Camera purchases of expensive photography equipment with panoramic shooting capability. *Photos of film that repeatedly shows landmarks and sensitive infrastructure that is filmed from a variety of angles which serve to produce panoramic coverage of the sites. And now for the solution from that page: Require valid ID from all new customers. Good grief. |
Originally Posted by PhoenixRev
(Post 14645168)
Any business that would require an ID from me to purchase a legal product that has no age restrictions (like tobacco or alcohol or etc.) is a business that will never, ever see my money.
Good grief. |
I just love the demand for requiring ID of all customers in the various aspects of that "operation". |
|
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:42 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.