He made a statement that the "system" is messed up because he is scared. That is horrible logic.

I am stating that the system we have is better than pretty much anywhere in the world, so if he is scared here then he would be scared aywhere, and much more so than here.

Hell of a thing to go through life scared like that.

Maybe I am reading into your statement, but is your opinion based upon the above that all cops here are scary? And if they are scary to you that means you consider us all unethical and unscrupulous? Just wondering.

I agree. While cops are inherently scary everywhere, here in the U.S. I have some confidence in supervisors, prosecutors, courts, etc. In other words, the "system" works pretty well to protect citizens from abusive cops. In many other (mostly third-world) countries, no such system exists. You're on your own. That's scary!!!

Bruce

No, the power to arrest me is inherently scary. That power in the hands of unethical or unscrupulous individuals is scarier. I am not suggesting that nmost -- or even many -- cops are unethical or unscrupulous, but you never know until you interact with them, so you must be cautious.

I had a bit of a run-in with a screwy airport cop in Boston shortly after 9/11/01. He threatened to "make up" a justification to arrest me. I asked him to repeat that threat, and he backed down, but I could see where he was heading. But, as I said above, I do have substantial confidence in the system here to arrive at the truth.

Bruce

I understand your point, but don't really grok it totally. Does that mean that a bigger, stronger person is inherently scary as well, because they can beat you up whenever they want and there isn't much you can do about it.

There are lots of people who have "power". Power is a fluid concept - those that have the power in certain situations do not in others. To be afraid of power is to be afraid of life, because every single person in the world will be in situations where they are powerless and someone else holds the reins.

Thanks for the answer. I understand what you are saying. In my career I have run into the "bad" sort before. As a matter of fact I had one who was a supervisor try to wreck my career in the early day's. He was a wife beater, cheat, and took part in unscrupulous business practices on the side. I had my ducks in a row, and was smart enough to document my every shift. He was later fired for conduct unbecoming and some low level criminal acts. True Peace Officers dislike these types as much as anyone else.

I agree with you. I am basically unafraid nearly all the time, but at the same time, I'm cautious when interacting with cops because you never know when you are dealing with a screwball. Because I'm kinda hard-headed about TSA procedures, I do interact with airport cops a couple of times a year. Nearly every time, we part with genuine respect for each other. I never lose control, and they don't either. On several occasions, airport cops have rolled their eyes at the TSA people who summoned them, because my behavior clearly did not justify their presence. The system really does work most of the time.

Bruce

Got you. Thanks.

You are right on about the reasoning here. I firmly believe that the limitation of government power and the mistrust of government that engendered it are the true strength of the American system. The FF'ers fight against invasive TSA practices are just an extension of the same principle: mistrust the government, and limit its powers.

It's not true that on 9/11 everything changed. This is not a new era, it's the same old era all over again. The threat from our Japanese-American enemies in WWII, our communist enemies in the Cold War, et cetera, have all been used wrongly to justify repressive measures like spying on US citizens or interning them in camps without due process.

What do you think about this specific incident, law dawg? It's a difficult call because the cop there had no legal backing behind making the guy stop watching airplanes. The only way for the LEO to achieve his objective was to lie and scare the watcher, since arresting the watcher for breaking a non-existent law wouldn't be an option.

Didn't mean to imply you had answered with respect to the LAN incident--sorry if was unclear; that what I get for writing posts while sweating out a standby list at BOS. :)

I was brought up to believe that I am a guest in other countries and it's my role as a guest to observe but be nonobtrusive. So I'm not prone to "assert my rights" or be otherwise be confrontational overseas. I do get around, but I'm a good little sheeple outside of the US. Sure other justice systems worry me, but they're not "mine" to protest. If an authority at NRT/ICN/FRA/IST asks me to stop taking pictures, I'll comply even if I think it's dumb. If one in the USA tries that, I want to know what law it is they think I'm breaking, and there will be complaints to supervisors and so on.

I may have exaggerated by using the word "scared" or implying I'm scared all the time, but I am definately uncomfortable in a relationship where the other person is allowed to lie to me and I am committing a crime if I lie. I deal with people honestly and I expect the same in return; when I have evidence of dishonesty I lose all respect for the other party professionally and as a human being. If a LEO comes up and starts a fairly harmless conversation, I have to wonder what's going on, and I'm more likely to remain silent, which can escalate the situation instead of resolving it, and so on. An enviornment of trust would promote better police work.

Since 9/11 there have been too many instances nationwide of LEOs/authorities intimidating/harassing innocent people engaged in perfectly innocent and legal behavior. Or going overboard, like the LEO that arrested a woman last week for carrying a concealed "weapon" (a bookmark) at an airport. I don't feel these people are protecting me. And while I recognize that they are a small subset, they color all interactions.

Agree. The only way to level the playing field is:

1. Assume you're being lied to; and
2. Do as Bruce suggested a while back. Answer as follows: "I'd really like to answer your question, but I'm afraid I can't without my lawyer present."

I also agree 100%. It's good to remember that the US Constitution stops at the border (and at US airport checkpoints).

Follow-up article in Lansing State Journal
 

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...0328/1016/news

While it is true there is no Federal Law (as in USC) prohibiting watching, photographing or 'spotting' at civil airports in the US, it really doesn't matter.
There are plenty of other laws which can be invoked in order to run perps off, you know, the vague discretionary type contained in the Patriot Act or the TSA regs, or even that good old standby, loitering (doesn't matter that not 1 LEO in 100 knows what constitutes loitering).

The spotter/photog boards are full of instances of hassles and worse from security personnel who are misinformed, ignorant or simply obeying illegal instructions. And in the story which spawned this thread, the biggest hurdle is the incosistency. One cop will let you stay, another will move you on (with or without lies and incivilty). And that's at one airport, the inconsistencies nationwide are so bad that the overall policy is laughable, almost as laughable as the so-called rationale behind it.

It boggles the mind that LAX, DCA, DFW and Grand Rapids provide official or tolerated viewing spots, while LAN, BDL, MCO etc. freak out at spectators. Too much discretion and power in the hands of local (unelected) officials. But wattayagonnado ? Stand up for your rights and spend hours battling the 'system' and shrug, sigh and go home ? The new reality, and it sucks.

Well, in a "perfect" world, spotters and civil-libertarians could band together against a few of these overzealous airports to make an example and either personally or financially destroy the airport or the officials in charge via the courts.

If the ACLU can destroy the Boy Scouts in San Diego (which I feel is a disgrace), why can't civil libertarians apply some serious pressure to the airport authorities at LAN/MCO/BDL? Could a small airport like LAN/BDL or its police department survive a protracted legal battle, or would they just give up?

Of course, it will never happen because the sheeple like their feel-good security measures, but it's a shame because it probably could happen? :(

The LSJ reporters, while basically sympathetic, still couldn't resist using derogatory terms in describing Mr. Ball and his ilk. The General Population™ and the ACLU simply couldn't care less about this issue, they will either snicker at the 'geeks' (at best) or endorse the policy espoused by LAN (more likely) in the Name of Security.