Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11723934)

Sounds great in theory. In practice, certain individuals get unduly hassled. And it also goes way beyond simple "hassle;" there have been numerous cases of brown-skinned people being stopped because they were videotaping public buildings ending up being detained for months without charges or justification. In an incident that sounds exactly like the modus operandi you describe, the cops justified the arrest of man seen videotaping a bank building in Charlotte because "he was evasive" when questioned.

My first career was as a photographer, and as a specialist in architectural photography I spend 20 years frequently out in public photographing thousands of buildings. Thankfully, I changed careers long before the 9/11 generated hysteria, because I can tell you that setting up a large format camera on a public right of way in preparation for a photo shoot was like a big cop magnet, who all thought they had the right to know what it was you were doing and why you were doing it. No doubt they thought my blunt, honest answers ("none of your ****ing business") were "evasive" as well. As a white person, I can only imagine how much more difficult it would have been to do such a job as a dark-skinned person after 9/11.

So while in theory, your assertion that there is nothing wrong with a police officer approaching someone doing something they find "unusual" and just verifying that there is nothing illegal going on sounds reasonable enough, until you realise that if society accepts this, then it means that certain people doing certain jobs are expected to tolerate nearly constant harassment. In my experience, creative, intelligent people do not become cops. Almost without exception, all the cops I have known live very mainstream, conventional, suburban lifestyles. As such, they find just about anything photographers, artists, writers, musicians and other creative people might do to be somehow suspicious, and they think anything suspicious gives them the right to hassle them. If we were to accept that as OK, then the result would be that anyone who is even slightly creative would have to endure regularly being hassled by police officers whose views on what is not "suspicious" are very narrow indeed.

In fact, this one of key social facets that the artist Christo has explored and revealed through his works, which typically involve wrapping buildings, structures, trees, monuments, etc., in hectares of fabric for a 2 or 3 week period. A lot of people think his art is about final product -- a wrapped building, for example. It's not. It's about the years-long process he has to go through to get the building wrapped, and about revealing the invariably negative response that anyone in a position of authority has to a request for permission to wrap a building. "Why?" "Why do you want to do this?" "What is it going to be used for?" And the unasked questions "What's the real reason he wants to do this?" Even after he has gone through the long process of getting permission (often including several dozen authorities) and finally has a green light to begin installing, his workers are invariably approached and questioned by police: "what are you doing here?" "why are you doing this?" The numerous letters, documents, affidavits, statements, reports, analysis, etc. that are exchanged between Christo and various authorities in the course of securing permission for an installation are, to Christo, as much a part of the art work as the wrapped object itself is.

As Christo's works reveal, people in positions of authority don't respond to things that look like potential criminal activity, but rather to things that are outside their narrow experience. Seeing two workers hoisting a giant piece of pink fabric to cover a tree can hardly be mistaken for criminal activity of any kind, but I guarantee you it attracts police attention, because it is an activity outside the conventional existence those police officers experience in their conformist suburban world.

Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 11724384)

And as far as your experience goes with who becomes cops and who doesn't, what's your sample? How many people do you know well who became cops? All about their lives and how they think? I'm betting not many.

Also, you really need to parse your stuff for the subtle ad hominems that you so love to sneak in there ("narrow experience" - yours is so broad?, "intelligent people don't become cops" - you're so incredibly intelligent?). It's rude. Stick to the topic.

Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11724857)

I have no problem with cops or anyone else living their lives as they see fit, but I do have a problem with them bringing their personal prejudices into the equation when deciding who does and who does not get stopped and questioned. When you are actively trying to avoid conventional behaviours and to embrace the unusual, it's natural to be resentful of people who declare that unusual=suspicious=PC=justifiable harassment.

Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11724857)

I can only speak about my direct, personal experience.

Like most, my high school class had a handful of people who decided to pursue careers in law enforcement. I DO NOT mean to suggest that these were the least intelligent people in the class, but they were certainly the most unremarkable, and the most conventional and conformist.

My other experience was having a room-mate for a while who was a criminologist. She was the most uptight, conventional person imaginable, who recoiled visibly at the thought of anything she thought was vaguely weird. I went to a party with her once -- unsurprisingly, in the suburbs. Everyone there were cops and other law enforcement types and I didn't meet anyone who didn't express an intolerant view about something that evening.

Every time a senior cop, or an FBI agent, or some other law enforcement person makes the news -- sometimes because they were involved in crime themselves, sometimes because they were a crime victim, or sometimes because they solved a crime of some sort -- and some details of their lives come out as a result, they almost invariably have the most conventional personal lives imaginable. I'd be willing to bet that if you were able to slip into the parking garage at the J. Edgar Hoover building in Washington and attach a tracking device to each and every vehicle, come 17:00 you'd see every one of those vehicles heading out to some house on a cul-de-sac in a lily-white suburb in Maryland or Virginia. I know that no one has been curious enough about this to go and commission a proper, scientifically-based study on the phenomenon, but I would be very surprised if it didn't turn out that the law enforcement field attracts people who are naturally conformist, who not only resent people breaking the law and want to do something about it, but also don't like harmless eccentricities, either, and are probably more likely to perceive something suspicious about individuals with day-glo green hair or other overt signs of non-conformism.

That's all I meant by "narrow experience" -- the cops I have known have not had the experience with alternative lifestyles, alternative politics, or alternative thinking as is found in creative community. On the other hand, most artists I know have had a go at the wife/kids/house in the suburbs thing at one time or another.

I have no problem with cops or anyone else living their lives as they see fit, but I do have a problem with them bringing their personal prejudices into the equation when deciding who does and who does not get stopped and questioned. When you are actively trying to avoid conventional behaviours and to embrace the unusual, it's natural to be resentful of people who declare that unusual=suspicious=PC=justifiable harassment.

Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11724857)

Every time a senior cop, or an FBI agent, or some other law enforcement person makes the news -- sometimes because they were involved in crime themselves, sometimes because they were a crime victim, or sometimes because they solved a crime of some sort -- and some details of their lives come out as a result, they almost invariably have the most conventional personal lives imaginable. I'd be willing to bet that if you were able to slip into the parking garage at the J. Edgar Hoover building in Washington and attach a tracking device to each and every vehicle, come 17:00 you'd see every one of those vehicles heading out to some house on a cul-de-sac in a lily-white suburb in Maryland or Virginia. I know that no one has been curious enough about this to go and commission a proper, scientifically-based study on the phenomenon, but I would be very surprised if it didn't turn out that the law enforcement field attracts people who are naturally conformist, who not only resent people breaking the law and want to do something about it, but also don't like harmless eccentricities, either, and are probably more likely to perceive something suspicious about individuals with day-glo green hair or other overt signs of non-conformism.

Originally Posted by Trollkiller (Post 11723582)

TSORon is playing anti-TSA poster in this thread like I am playing TSA apologist.

Originally Posted by law dawg (Post 11725958)

I find it interesting that you're being narrow-minded by claiming cops are narrow-minded.

Originally Posted by polonius (Post 11727792)

I have no problem with narrow-mindedness, as long as I don't have to have it forced on me. I don't even have a problem with Christian bigots (as one example) who might not approve of gays. If they don't like these people, they shouldn't have to permit them into their homes. But if they want to start denying people fundamental rights on the basis of sexual orientation, that's something entirely different.

Same with cops. I have no problem with them living their boring, conventional suburban lifestyles with their bake sales and their little league games and their sunday barbeques. But if they put on that uniform, they need to leave their personal prejudices behind when they walk out the door, and stop coming up with ridiculous theories like such-and-such person was probably the serial killer "because he was a loner."