TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:
Please explain the hypocrisy, because like TAM, I don't call the police on people because they asked me for a ride or told me a story trying to get money. I'm creeping up there in years now and have never called the police to report "suspicious" activity. Like TAM, the consequences of someone not passing my personal smell test may be for me to say no to giving them a ride, or to drive away as a precaution --I don't call the police. If I see someone committing, or about to commit a crime, like entering a stop-and-rob wearing a mask and pointing an AK-47, I'll call the police. I don't call the police because someone is not doing anything illegal but I don't like their looks and think they might. And if everyone calls the police whenever they think something is suspicious, usually out of their own ignorance (including mine, which is why I don't do it), the police will spend most of their time chasing phantoms.

I used the term "you" in the sense of "us vs. them." Not trying to be person specific. You and I are in complete agreement, as I pointed to threads on this forum when I said, "It was most members opinion that the posters was/would be correct in calling 911, and to let the law sort it out." The posters suggested this as the correct action because "they" were suspicious, and not because someone broke the law. My point is that, if their actions were correct, but they took offense to others questioning their activities (photographing a refinery, etc.), that would be hypocrisy.

VMI77 wrote:
You want to live in a country where some yahoo who doesn't know spit about photography calls the police when his limited intellect doesn't comprehend a reason for someone to be taking a photo? I don't want to be subject to the personal "smell tests" of idiots, and there are plenty of them out there. I've been questioned many times by people who are completely oblivious to any reason why I would be taking a photograph. But they can ask, it's their right as much as it's mine to take a photo, and I normally try to explain. However, I don't want to have to explain myself to the authorities every time someone doesn't get it --and not having to justify my perfectly legal activities to the police is an aspect of what it means to live in a free country. Furthermore, the police don't generally know the law on photography, or some make it up as they go along, as numerous documented incidents illustrate. People have been told by the police to delete their photos (which is illegal btw, as I understand it, only a court can do that) for no reason except ignorance, and people have had very expensive equipment confiscated and damaged by the police. They have to go to court to get it back. Again, all for no legitimate reason. We've got a government that is saying virtually anything anyone does is "suspicious." That may be your version of living in a free country but it isn't mine.

My analogy was to point out that the guy in the gas station asking for a ride is no different than you taking photographs. Neither is illegal and neither of you know the others motives. In his mind, you may be the "yahoo" or "idiot" when you call the law because of his action, just as you don't want to be hassled taking photographs becuase some "idiot called the law on you. I'm in no way condoning the gov'ts actions when you don't pass their smell test, or another citizen's smell test or gut feeling, nor am I condoning your actions when others who broke no law don't pass your "personal" smell test. You can't have it both ways. I see the hypocrisy in this, but that's just MHO. BTW, I've been a professional photographer for 30 years, so I'm not putting down photographers.

Once again I find my self a bit befuddled. With all the talk on several threads running about "Spidey Sense," Gut Feelings," Smell Tests," etc. I'm surprised that anyone would be upset if the DHS, the local LEOs, or a concerned citizen would want someone questioned for taking pictures of a refinery or other building that seemed out of place. What's the difference between someone taking pictures with "no apparent esthetic value" and the guy asking for a ride at the gas station because his truck was broke down? Or, the guy that got within 50' of a members car in Houston late one night. It was most members opinion that the posters was/would be correct in calling 911, and to let the law sort it out. So what's the difference between letting the law question the photographer taking pictures with "no apparent esthetic value" if they (the law), or a concerned citizen, feel that photography doesn't meet their personal smell test, or they have a spidey sense about it, or they don't like their gut feeling? Personally, I see no difference, because in none of the cases mentioned did anyone break the law . If you want the law to investigate your suspicions, I guess they have the right to investigate theirs, or the suspicions of others. After all, if you calling the law might save someone else a "bad day," the law investigating the refinery photographer might save hundreds a bad day. I don't think we can have it both ways in our society.