http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/05/12/police-arrest-man-for-taking-photo-in-rei Comments On: Police Arrest Man for Taking Photo in REI by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:30:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by derrickito]]> Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:00:31 -0700 The Stranger I wonder if one of them was Kurt Husted:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/46744…
Posted by R90S]]> Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:38:51 -0700 The Stranger ">Flickr stream, I kind of can maybe believe he thought that was somehow an interesting photo. Oh look... it's ... shelves?
Posted by Jigae]]> Sat, 16 May 2009 08:59:32 -0700 The Stranger
The original post states the Loomis guys didn't act right away. They finished filling up the machine, then walked over to Becker as he was standing in line at the checkout counter, waiting to pay. If they had honestly been concerned about anything even remotely like what you suggest, why didn't they act right away? And clearly, if the burly guy with the shaved head threatened to tackle Becker (who, from the looks of it, isn't exactly an impressive physical specimen), then his (subsequent) statement that he was legitimately afraid for his safety seems laughable to me. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Posted by JJ8459]]> Sat, 16 May 2009 01:44:03 -0700 The Stranger
Do you see how this works?

If they took a picture of me keying my pass into the ATM it'd remind me that the bank and the store both have cameras watching the ATM, as well as any clever crooks with a hidden camera. I need to remember to cover the keypad.

Blaming the messenger doesn't change anything.

And last, because I think the least of you for it, your 'Think of the children'.

No, someone taking pictures of me, my children, the place I live, or anything else isn't an invasion of privacy. Me, my family, and all my things exist in the world, when we move through public areas of it we are visible to those around us and to deny them an ability to look or photo us (or the area on the other side of us) is dictatorial, unwarranted, and ultimately useless.

Realistically, my child would be far safer because of photos - mine for helping identify them, those of their classmates which would help identify their clothing and exact time of disappearance, and hopefully those of anyone in the neighborhood who might actually have captured the hypothetical attacker's image, ideally in the act.

No, none of your fearmongering is a reason why I or any other reasonable person would be even alarmed, let alone panicked enough to call in emergency services simply because someone didn't want to answer my snoopy questions.

Furthermore, if I did feel scared I'd take actions to make myself feel safer, getting all of us first-aid training because we're far more likely to just hurt ourselves than be hurt by others, buying pepper spray for the kids and teaching them how and when to use it, getting rape-alarms and hidden GPS trackers if I feared abduction, etc. For everything there is a reasonable, measured response that actually serves to alleviate some of the problem.

You seem absolutely unaware of these options and instead want the government to abuse others to alleviate your fears. You misrepresent his behavior as combative, as if he threatened anyone, when in fact he was threatened by them. The thought of you, and more like you, is really the scary one.

And you're undoubtedly old enough to vote and call yourself an adult... It's sad.
Posted by WNight]]> Fri, 15 May 2009 23:38:24 -0700 The Stranger Posted by doceb]]> Fri, 15 May 2009 22:15:23 -0700 The Stranger The law you cited:
"Private citizens aiding a police officer, or other officers of the law in the performance of their duties as police officers or officers of the law, shall have the same civil and criminal immunity as such officer, as a result of any act or commission for aiding or attempting to aid a police officer or other officer of the law, when such officer is in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury or when such officer requests such assistance and when such action was taken under emergency conditions and in good faith."

Notice the part that specifically outlines when the law applies: "when such officer is in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury or when such officer requests such assistance and when such action was taken under emergency conditions and in good faith."

Fail.

They detained him illegally, and it was clearly not an emergency situation.
Posted by doceb]]> Fri, 15 May 2009 22:12:10 -0700 The Stranger
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/arc…


Posted by taint]]> Fri, 15 May 2009 07:58:03 -0700 The Stranger ~~RCW 9.01.055 Citizen immunity if aiding officer, scope — When~~
clearly gives citizens the right to help in the legal system. Now considering the position that a person who transports federal currency around commercially is given more latitude to execute his job, not just by state, but by federal protection, I think they fit into what would be covered by this RCW. I would guess, and as I stated before I am not a lawyer but simply a citizen, but I would guess that the state, federal and even the municipal court system would give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to protecting large sums of money. If they are concerned about a "suspicious" situation, my non-legal guess would be they would be given legal latitude to actually tackle your dumb ass if they thought you might be casing out a box to break into.

If a mall guard has all the legal protection in the world to "apprehend" a person suspected of steeling a tee shirt, and hold them in an office until a police officer arrives, not even being positive you actually have the shirt on you, these guys may even be able to get away with tazzing you.

Please remember, these people are in an odd way putting their ass on the line so you can have access to your precious back account where ever you might be. They are in a very dangerous job, even if you fail to recognize it. Do a quick google search and you will find many cases were they have been killed in their job.

As someone earlier stated, I suspect you would even find the FBI happy to jump in with the Justice department to defend these peoples actions. This does boarder on the edges of interstate commerce after all.

If someone walks onto your property and snaps a shot of you eating lunch on your deck, well that is a whole lot different then taking a picture of armed guards filling several thousand dollars into a bank machine. To act like the two are the same type of action is a logical fallacy in that you fail to recognize the severity of the potential acts. You really should think this through a little more. You will see clearly that RCW 9A.40.040 in no way could or even would be used in such a situation to prosecute. This is simply a red herring. Look over here!! I found a law that counters your supposition!!!

136, I agree, we do need to legitimately test the law and when we find it is lacking proper restraint, challenge it and change it. It is our civic duty to protect ourselves from the government. And if you choose to do it, be smart about how you do it. Find others who believe as you do and fix the system. It is in no way anywhere close to perfect but there are legitimate mechanisms to change it. This is a dumb stunt that has gotten this nozzle more hits on his blog then he has ever had before. ;0)

Posted by db not cooper]]> Fri, 15 May 2009 07:17:58 -0700 The Stranger
but at least have the balls to say it straight and don't make up some corny lie about why you took the picture. after the lie i lost respect for him and couldn't really fully take this side in the ensuing fiasco. turns out everyone acted stupidly in this situation.


Posted by pffft]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 23:35:59 -0700 The Stranger types.in schools,working being "members of our society"... the armored industry has been hit all over the country more than ever,do you recall the 2 RETIRED cops that were gunned down in Philadelphia,they did nothing,they were run up on and simply shot to death.whos to say you may have been doing something similar.weapons can look like almost anything these days.they want a report so that if another crew sees you they will be alerted you fool.if you had nothing to hide.....? oh thats right the self proclaimed anarchist on the internet is exempt from law and apparently COMMON F'n SENSE. i would have felt threatened too. understand cause and effect and accept YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS. instead of whoa is me grow the f-up are you kidding. i got your next mission,go run up on a federal reserve armed guard and report back to us how that goes.i want to see the insides of the federal reserve.you cant even see the money,what kind of reaction might you expect there??? good luck.
Posted by peewee]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 22:54:57 -0700 The Stranger
And maybe add the same quiz to the requirements for employment at SPD.
Posted by Rain Monkey]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 21:26:11 -0700 The Stranger Posted by jane doe]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 20:49:54 -0700 The Stranger "2. Since when is private commercial property the same as public space. Just because the public is allowed to venture on to it, do not confuse it with public property. You might want to google this one but it is there property and they have every right to set the rules. It is not like being on a public street where you can tell their security guards to FO and walk away. On their property, the guards can as you to leave or detain you."

Not only do you not make the rules, you don't know them very well. Private personnel can ask you to leave and call the cops if you don't, but they can't detain you if you have done nothing illegal. In this case, it would seem that the individual even threatened the guy with violence if he tried to leave. You know what it is when you are somewhere doing nothing illegal and I threaten you with violence if you try to leave? Unlawful Imprisonment under RCW 9A.40.040.
Posted by doceb]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 17:37:55 -0700 The Stranger
My friends were involved in an incident at Woodland Park years ago when a handicapped man was infuriated because the AT truck was in the handicapped parking space. He blocked the truck in and took pictures, and was swiftly arrested by the FBI. Just saying.
Posted by mmalicious]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 14:57:43 -0700 The Stranger Posted by NumberOne]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 14:44:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Billy in 4C]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 14:38:18 -0700 The Stranger
Better yet, go play the clown in front of a cop and when he yanks your dumb ass over and starts to write up info, play the fool and then get back to me.
Posted by db not cooper]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 14:33:11 -0700 The Stranger
Yep, just a blowhard. Hunch answered!
Posted by Uh huh]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 14:25:33 -0700 The Stranger Shane, in his own account of the situation, called the Loomis guards "fake cops". LESSON ONE TO EVERYBODY: Don't call people with guns "fake cops". "Cops" don't even like to be called "cops"! So, if you use escalating language and then cry like a little bitch when you get thrown in a squad car, you are an IDIOT. I think Shane needs to meditate on the phrase "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD."

Secondly, argueing that you have the right to do something because "somebody has probably already done it" is not good logic. This was Shane's main defense of why it was OK for him to take the picture that he did.

And, bonus third point: lets put the issue of if he has the right to take the picture in the first place aside. What he DID NOT have the right to do was to publish it. Which he did.

PS. What kind of self respecting anarchist shops at REI, anyways? And then asks people to support his plight by buying his friends t-shirts? The only plight I see is that Shane is a grade a Idiot, and no amount of t-shirts purchased is going to change that fact.
Posted by TheloniousPunk]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 13:44:49 -0700 The Stranger Shane, in his own account of the situation, called the Loomis guards "fake cops". LESSON ONE TO EVERYBODY: Don't call people with guns "fake cops". "Cops" don't even like to be called "cops"! So, if you use escalating language and then cry like a little bitch when you get thrown in a squad car, you are an IDIOT. I think Shane needs to meditate on the phrase "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD."

Secondly, argueing that you have the right to do something because "somebody has probably already done it" is not good logic. This was Shane's main defense of why it was OK for him to take the picture that he did.

And, bonus third point: lets put the issue of if he has the right to take the picture in the first place aside. What he DID NOT have the right to do was to publish it. Which he did.

PS. What kind of self respecting anarchist shops at REI, anyways? And then asks people to support his plight by buying his friends t-shirts? The only plight I see is that Shane is a grade a Idiot, and no amount of t-shirts purchased is going to change that fact.
Posted by TheloniousPunk]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 13:44:45 -0700 The Stranger Granted in a post 911 world, we have some tension between authority and civil liberties. Having said that We are also all trying to play by the same rules. If you do not like the laws, 2 choices, move the fuck out or fix them. We do live in a republic which has democratic representation. So in my eyes,it is real simple if you don't like it, fix it or get the fuck out.

OH, 121, your photographic rights only apply to you on public property. If you are on another's property, those right, as defined by supreme court cases, are not so black and white. If you doubt this, I would like you to put yourself in a situation and run it through the court system.It would be wonderful to actually change this fact. However, consider the potential ramifications of personal property becoming public property in the eyes of a camera. It is a carful balance we have as citizens of this republic.

RCW 9A.76.020
Obstructing a law enforcement officer.

(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.

(2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.

(3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor.

[2001 c 308 § 3. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 33; 1994 c 196 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.76.020.]
Posted by db not cooper]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 12:45:43 -0700 The Stranger
This made the cover?

Douchebag takes inappropriate photo and douchebag security overreacts...STOP THE MOTHERFUCKING PRESSES!!!

I guess a non-story is better than a cover with Miss California or some reality show hobags breaking up (Jon/Kate: WHO THE FUCK are they exactly?) or pig flu paranoia...
Posted by michael strangeways]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 11:57:32 -0700 The Stranger Posted by svent5cent]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 11:55:10 -0700 The Stranger Posted by local_talent]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 11:22:22 -0700 The Stranger