Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Guys, Here goes what amount to a minority opinion. I am a child of the sixties. I can tell you, based on my own experience, that the cops, rented or true blue, can and will lay any kind of hassle on you they want, the law not withstanding. If you argue a cop into a corner you'll get told, "Tell it to a judge". Sure, you'll get a chance to do this. They'll even give you a free lawyer. The judge may well decide you're right. In five or ten years the Supreme Court may even agree with you on appeal. Certainly there are times when one has to stand up for one's rights. But, Ted made a good point the other day. There's something to be said for moving on. You have to learn to pick your fights, and for me taking a photo in a mall ain't it. Martyrdom and sainthood are VERY expensive. There are parts of the USA where you can now get striped searched for not wearing a seat belt. We have not done Tilby hats in a long time. Wanna talk about that? Barney Andrew Schroter wrote: > Perhaps, before venturing out on such photo expeditions it is best to be > armed with copies of the appropriate legal opinions that buttress your > position. If the rent-a-cops don't heed, the Blue badges will certainly > have to heed, lest they be hit with false arrest charges. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:29 AM > Subject: Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest > > > S Dimitrov writes: > > > > > Well, I made it up. > > > > How does this conduct differ from that of a rent-a-cop harassing a > photographer? > > > > > The contractors, on the other hand, clearly > > > had "other intents," and therefore is not > > > protected under the 1st amend as such. > > > > Clear or not, it is not your business to police them. > > > > > The contractors, on the other hand, clearly had > > > "other intents," and therefore is not protected > > > under the 1st amend as such. > > > > Were you acting as their legal counsel? > > > > > Now, what those intents where, only a formal > > > investigation with a proscribed mechanism > > > under the law could of deduced it. > > > > This statement conflicts with your previous statement, in which you said > that > > the contracts "clearly had 'other intents.'" How can you know that they > had > > other intents if only a formal investigation would be capable of > uncovering > > them? > > > > > In other words, either a police investigation > > > or a civil lawsuit. > > > > Then perhaps it is best left up to the police and the lawyers, no? > > > > > Considering how volatile the environment is, > > > with regard to lawsuits, what where the odds > > > in that up-scale neighborhood that some member > > > of the public would of seen the videotaping as > > > intrusive, and worthy of their time to address it? > > > > I'd guess at least ten thousand to one. No member of the public would > really > > care. > > > > It sounds like you have quite a double standard. This does not seem > conducive > > to maintaining First-Amendment freedoms or the freedom to photograph > generally.