TexasCHLforum.com

wharvey wrote:This has been a most interesting thread. One of the few I've bothered reading past page 2.

Police checking out possibly suspicious activity is nothing new and in no way improper. Way back in the very early 1980's I was living in Corpus Christi, TX. One night I drove over to Indian Point, across the Nueces Bay Causeway, and was taking some night shots of the Corpus skyline and the lights along the ship channel. Almost before I got started a police car drove up and one of the officers asked what I was doing. I told them I was taking pictures of the lights. One of them looked that way and basically said, they do look cool and left telling me that there were quit a few crimes in the area and to be careful.

That is reasonable and proper. That cop was doing his job and I have no problem with that. The present training that LEO and security now get may be better than ever before but is also the problem. Now every activity, other than completely main stream is considered suspect. After all, why would an honest person be out taking pictures instead of sitting in front of the boob tube! Look at how many look down there noses at those who bowl, or participate in the shooting sports. No one however thinks anything wrong with vegetating watching a football game.

The "advanced training" has reduced many LEOs to a them vs. us mentality. If you are not a member of the establishment then you must be up to something and given us the attitude that if the government says its OK then it is. Don't forget, the SS were just following the rules and acting properly according to the government.

What I really find interesting is the deer in the head light look I get when I'm question and respond,
"If you loose your rights does it really matter who took them, the terrorist or our own government?" It seems that it just goes over 99% of the peoples heads.

It is really too bad that history generally isn't taught in public schools. Oh, they teach that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and Megellan did.... . No cause and effect. No why did this happen and what were the results. They are taught how the governments like the socialist use propaganda but never seem to allow an understanding of just what propaganda is and how our own government uses it everyday.

BTW, I often wonder what would now happen if I responded to the normal question, "Are you a U.S. citizen?", at our "border" check points as I did back in the late 70's. My response was, "No, I'm a Texan." Back then the officer chuckled and said to get out of here. Now???

Indeed. And I think the Texan answer would not be a good idea...it might still get a chuckle, there still are reasonable officials out there, but it might also result in a lot of pain. I know an older man who made a joking comment about his wife's citizenship after walking back across the bridge from Matamoros: he got strip searched and detained for four hours. There are quite a few "authorities" who like to demonstrate their authority. Last summer I think it was, some British tourists who got off a cruise ship in California for an afternoon excursion complained about their treatment and they got a demonstration of official power when every single passenger was put through extra "screening" in a process that lasted over seven hours and resulted in the ship leaving without an excursion.

Medic624 wrote:Huh, Do you even READ what people write when they respond? I had already said it was "loosely based in reality and HIGHLY edited".

Yes, I got it. My response was both a general remark about the nature of so called "reality" shows, and a specific comment on the agenda driven nature of COPs. You were contrasting a show like COPs with a show like Law and Order --I"m contending that they are both fictional and agenda driven. I don't think that because COPs purports to depict direct experience and Law and Order is at least one step removed from it, that COPs is necessarily any more "realistic" than Law and Order. All we're talking about are different methods of distorting reality. In fact, given the selective focus of COPs versus the broader focus of a show like Law and Order, one might well make the case that COPs is actually more fictional.

Medic624 wrote:And, we're saying the same thing as far as the Left (or the extreme left wing faction)...If given the choice and nailed down most believe in the tenets of the Constitution BUT still want all the handouts to go along with it. Its not as simple as that but, that just shows they dont fully understand what it means when they read;We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Most who assign themselves and align with a specific way of thinking when pressed realize theyre not as not as ALL this way or THAT. Im a (mostly) Libertarian with some Republican leanings. Its just not all black and white or radical as I believe you to portend it to be.

I don't think we are saying the same thing. You're saying that collectivist thought reflects radical left thought; I'm saying collectivism is the defining feature of left thought, and the defining feature of libertarianism is the concept of individual rights and responsibilities. I'm also saying it isn't just a matter of ignorance: that if those you assume are confused understood the meaning of the Constitution, a good number of them would reject it. Of course there are also collectivists on the Right, but the fundamental defining principle of libertarianism is that ONLY individuals have rights, not groups. There is no middle ground between these two positions, just like a woman can't be half pregnant --you either believe rights are individual rights or you don't. Yes, there are probably varying degrees of collectivism, from mild socialism to full out communism, and the milder collectivism allows some room for individual rights --with the condition that when there is conflict they are subordinate to the collective. That's not the principle embodied in the Constitution. In fact, without subordinating individual rights to group rights --collectivism-- politicians couldn't rob Peter to pay Paul, and nearly the entire edifice of modern US government would be defunct.

Like Schumpeter in my signature quote below, I think most people like lofty phrases about freedom, maybe even like the idea of it in theory, but aren't up to living it as their reality. Most people prefer safety to liberty.

Medic624 wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

WHAT!?!?...

Did you seriously think I meant something as ridiculous as say Law and Order?

No, I meant the loosely based in reality and highly edited shows like "COPs" etc... and also the first hand experience I have had doing ride alongs and talking to my numerous LEO friends and acquaintances when I was still working as a Paramedic...

As far as the rest about the Left... We all know the extreme Lefties abhor the Constitution and the Republic it has created.

Back at ya.....are you kidding about COPs? --it's one of the most agenda driven leftist TV shows out there, and that's without even considering the impact of the TV camera on how police conduct themselves. There is no such thing as a "reality" show, if by "reality" you mean a show that to some high degree reflects reality (versus the absurd nomenclature of TV land). It's all in the editing.....but as far as COPs goes (from an article describing how TV execs push the liberal agenda):

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/t ... ews-193116

"Shapiro released two videos Tuesday, one featuring COPS creator John Langley saying he’s partial to segments where white people are the criminals...."

A quote like that one is just scratching the surface. And I disagree that "extreme" lefties abhor the Constitution --whatever you mean by "extreme." You either believe in individual rights, or you're a collectivist, and assign rights to groups. The MAJORITY of leftists are collectivists, and since the Constitution assigns rights to individuals, the majority Left is anti-Constitution --though they have no problem exploiting it for the destruction of Constitutional government in anticipation of the great Socialist Utopia.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

Heartland Patriot wrote:In regards to the final paragraph of your reply, I believe that this is a serious problem. The PUBLIC AT LARGE perceives that what they see in PORTRAYALS of LEOs on TV must be the way LEOs do and can act. Like you said, those creating and making these programs for TV have an agenda. They WANT the public to be trained to a standard of activity and conduct that THEY like. On one hand, they will often vilify police who are doing the hard jobs out there against sometimes vicious criminal thugs...while also showing the public in other programs that the police can pretty much do whatever they want and the average citizens better comply or else. Depends on the program and the intent...BTW, I really do enjoy learning things by reading discussions like this, especially with smart folks like y'all, and those who have LEO knowledge and experience.

Yes, it's a huge problem and no doubt partly responsible for where we find ourselves today as a nation. I've observed a good three decades of the media trying to undermine the Constitution, especially when it comes to concepts of individual rights and self-defense. The right to self-defense has been under unrelenting media attack for as long as I can remember --in movies, on television, and in mainstream newspapers and magazines.

gigag04 wrote:Actually there a few subject matters that are against the law. Think children...

Yes, I'm generalizing for simplicity. For instance, even from a public location it could be illegal to use a telephoto lens and take a photo through the window of someone's home. Still, it's not illegal to take a photo of a child in a public place when there is no invasion of privacy anymore than it is illegal to take a photo of an adult in public. A photo of an adult could be illegal even in public if it violates a reasonable expectation of privacy --such as someone taking a photo under a woman's skirt, and the same is true for children. However, these days, unless you've obtained permission from the parents first, taking photos of other people's children is not a good idea, no matter how innocent the photo. There is no law that prohibits photographing children in public, and if there was, then every business with surveillance cameras would be violating the law, and Google would have violated the law numerous times with their street view images.

Medic624 wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I disagree with your interpretation. Note, in every single case you cite here "suspicion" goes together with "crime." The suspicion is to related to possible criminal activity. Taking photos is not a crime, and there is no reasonable way to draw a conclusion, solely based on the fact that someone is taking photographs in a public place, that such a person is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Looking through binoculars is not a crime either, nor is drawing pictures or taking notes, so by the standard you relate here, there is no basis for detaining people for any of these activities.

Look bottom line is the SCOTUS says a LEO can approach any of us at any time for whatever reason under Reasonable Suspicion... It doesn't need to resultant from or be based on overt/covert criminal activity. Their words not mine. I was just as surprised as the next guy. Do I agree with it? No... is it case law? Yes.

They basically did an end run around the 4th Amendment with the Reasonable Suspicion law because Probable Cause needs some reason to perform a stop, search, and result in possibly seizure. Reasonable Suspicion only needs the suspicion of the Prudent Officer to have a "HUNCH" and in the process of acting on their assumption of nefarious activity can thus act on it and stop you and ask to search you (superficially).... Be it photography or whatever you can come up with.

How many times have you seen cops on TV simply stop someone on the street and initiate contact because of a suspicion of possible criminal activity and ask for an I.D. and where they're going, what they're doing? Hence, Reasonable Suspicion.

Don't like it... Then figure out a way to change the case law.

Sorry if you don't agree with it but that is how is is written.

I think we're talking about different things. Let me repeat: taking photographs in public is not a criminal act --there is no law that prohibits taking photographs in public. No matter how many times I press the shutter release or zoom my lens in and out, it isn't transformed into a criminal act. Pointing my camera at one subject or another doesn't transform it into a criminal act --so what is the basis for suspicion of criminal activity? As giga says, an officer can approach anyone at anytime and ask questions. The issue here is whether or not you can disregard the question or the contact and walk away, or whether the police have a legal basis to detain you. Your citation refers to a suspicion of criminal activity. I don't believe the court ruling authorizes the police to simply walk up and detain anyone they want to without suspicion of criminal behavior. If your interpretation is correct then the police can detain anyone anytime for anything, and we're already living in a police state.

I don't care what the police do on TV --TV is not the law, nor is it reality. TV shows reflect the political agendas of the people who create them and they are seen by their creators as tools for shaping society to serve their agendas. Back in the old days, you might hear Sheriff Andy say he couldn't do this or that because it was Unconstitutional. These days the Constitution is usually portrayed as an impediment to the imposition of the "collective" will. The left hates the concept of individual rights embodied in the Constitution and attempts to undermine it at every opportunity. This is perhaps most obvious in their claim that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, but their animus to individual rights applies across the board --except in particular instances where the assertion of individual rights can be temporarily exploited to further the collectivist agenda and ultimately abolish individual rights.

mamabearCali wrote:You know I don't mind a police officer coming up and saying hello and commenting on the view. They are people too, and I will likely respond very kindly and talk with you about the weather and perhaps even how much I love the way the birds reflection glints up off the water. However if I have to go get my husband for a baseball game and they have nothing more than I am taking pictures of wildlife then they need to let me leave and not be legally entitled give me the 3rd degree on my pictures of sea gulls, as it seems this police chief thought they were.

I agree. Aside from the issue of policy, a good part of this is the manner in which the contact is made. I've been asked by an officer about what I'm taking photos of in a casual way that expressed some curiosity about photography in general, and my camera --I didn't mind at all and he probably found out whatever he wanted to know; and I've been challenged as if by taking a photo I was performing a criminal act and was a potential terrorist. In the first case my right to take a photograph was not being challenged; in the second case, the officer clearly communicated the notion that I had better stop taking photos if I didn't want something bad to happen. It was really just an exercise of arbitrary authority since my offer to show the photos I'd taken was rejected and when asked, the officer admitted my conduct was not illegal --indicating she already knew I wasn't up to anything suspicious or criminal.

gigag04 wrote:Re:VMI. Police can talk to whomever they want. The only difference is the ability of the individual to reject the contact.

I agree with that.

gigag04 wrote:Photographs have been used to recon targets. They've been found in apartments in suburbia, and in the caves of A-Stan.

Some Muslim guys that got caught in an FBI sting may have photos in their apartment --that's not the issue. The first relevant question is this: how were these photos obtained? Were they downloaded off the internet, taken surreptitiously, or did they openly stand out in public taking photos with DSLR's? The next question is, how many times, out of all the times American citizens have been stopped and questioned about openly taking photographs, has a "terrorist" been arrested as a result of public photography? I can't find any mention of such arrests in internet searches. I'd be happy to see some evidence for them.

gigag04 wrote:There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're out shooting photos in a public place.

I don't understand the relevance of this statement, except for the fact that it is the major reason why taking photographs in public places is legal. However, you seem to be suggesting that "no reasonable expectation of privacy" translates into police power to question or detail people for any reason whatsoever, without regard to whether or not they are engaged in "suspicious" activity.

Medic624 wrote:Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts".

Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop.

If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a peace officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.

Good, bad or indifferent SCOTUS says we can be stopped, BRIEFLY detained and SUPERFICIALLY searched based solely on suspicion that we MAY be committing a crime by simply standing around taking pics.

I disagree with your interpretation. Note, in every single case you cite here "suspicion" goes together with "crime." The suspicion is to related to possible criminal activity. Taking photos is not a crime, and there is no reasonable way to draw a conclusion, solely based on the fact that someone is taking photographs in a public place, that such a person is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Looking through binoculars is not a crime either, nor is drawing pictures or taking notes, so by the standard you relate here, there is no basis for detaining people for any of these activities.

VMI77 wrote:

gigag04 wrote:The photography of critical infrastructure will always set off some (even low level) alarms with LEOs as this type of surveillance is conducted by terrorists. So, we are tasked with the job of checking it out. Thats literally all that occurred.

This is the claim frequently made to justify questioning photographers. I've never seen any evidence to substantiate this claim, and if defies logic. None of the terrorist attacks in the US needed photos to occur. Maybe there is some terrorist attack somewhere that relied on photos --if so, can you please provide a reference? If a terrorist does need photos and can't get them on the internet, he can take them surreptitiously, and the police will be none the wiser. Americans openly taking photos of refineries aren't "terrorists." Furthermore, the same rationale has been used to question people taking photos of things like hog farms. If hog farms are "critical infrastructure" then everything is. Critical infrastructure is another vague and largely meaningless term.

Terrorists don't generally attack things like refineries --they attack soft targets rich in potential victims. But you don't need a photo to drive a truck bomb into a refinery even if they did. What kind of attack suits a terrorist's purpose better, and is much easier to stage: damaging a refinery and maybe killing a few refinery workers, or walking into a school or shopping mall with AK-47's and shooting everyone they see? Refineries blow themselves up with some regularity --does it have any effect on the country has a whole? Terrorists don't have the logistical capability or the inclination to target infrastructure, and it makes no sense to do so when it's easier to hit a soft target and will produce a greater effect on the targeted population. If they blow up a refinery the only people who will notice the increased security are the people who work at refineries, if they shoot up a school or a mall, something like x-ray machines at the mall will be noticed by just about everyone.

The objective of terrorism is to create terror because terrorists don't have the resources to destroy enough infrastructure to achieve their objectives.

There's more to the Gestapo than actually arresting people --what people are alluding to here is an environment where you're not free to go about your business without having to answer questions from the authorities --IOW, we don't want a "your papers please" society. Philosophically, if I'm legally taking photos it's none of your business, and I shouldn't have to answer your questions or show you my photos so you won't arrest me. As a practical matter, if the police ask me such questions I will answer, and I will show them my photos, because I don't want to be arrested or have a confrontation when I've done nothing wrong. That's not freedom.

BTW, you no doubt have arrested burglars because you saw something suspicious --but where are all the terrorist photographer arrests? How many "terrorists" have been arrested by police questioning Americans taking photos? When I do an internet search I find incident after incident of stopping and questioning photographers both here and in the UK, but don't see any terrorists being arrested as a result.

Then there's this:

According to security expert Bruce Schneier, head of security technology for British Telecom, terrorists don't typically photograph targets in advance. "Look at the 9/11 attacks, the Moscow and London subway bombings, the Fort Hood shooting--no photos," he says. "I'm not seeing a whole lot of plots that hinge on photography." On his blog, Schneier advises: "If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ck=main_sr

gigag04 wrote:The photography of critical infrastructure will always set off some (even low level) alarms with LEOs as this type of surveillance is conducted by terrorists. So, we are tasked with the job of checking it out. Thats literally all that occurred.

This is the claim frequently made to justify questioning photographers. I've never seen any evidence to substantiate this claim, and if defies logic. None of the terrorist attacks in the US needed photos to occur. Maybe there is some terrorist attack somewhere that relied on photos --if so, can you please provide a reference? If a terrorist does need photos and can't get them on the internet, he can take them surreptitiously, and the police will be none the wiser. Americans openly taking photos of refineries aren't "terrorists." Furthermore, the same rationale has been used to question people taking photos of things like hog farms. If hog farms are "critical infrastructure" then everything is. Critical infrastructure is another vague and largely meaningless term.

Terrorists don't generally attack things like refineries --they attack soft targets rich in potential victims. But you don't need a photo to drive a truck bomb into a refinery even if they did. What kind of attack suits a terrorist's purpose better, and is much easier to stage: damaging a refinery and maybe killing a few refinery workers, or walking into a school or shopping mall with AK-47's and shooting everyone they see? Refineries blow themselves up with some regularity --does it have any effect on the country has a whole? Terrorists don't have the logistical capability or the inclination to target infrastructure, and it makes no sense to do so when it's easier to hit a soft target and will produce a greater effect on the targeted population. If they blow up a refinery the only people who will notice the increased security are the people who work at refineries, if they shoot up a school or a mall, something like x-ray machines at the mall will be noticed by just about everyone.

The objective of terrorism is to create terror because terrorists don't have the resources to destroy enough infrastructure to achieve their objectives.

G26ster wrote:

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.

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote:There are narrowly accepted constraints encoded in the law on the practice of photography, such as the photographing of nuclear facilities without written authorization. But even then, there are limits to how that law can be enforced. It would be illegal for me to walk around the perimeter fence of a nuclear facility and photograph all the security preparations, the entrances and exits, stuff like that. But there is some point at which it is not illegal, otherwise everybody who ever did a follow up story on Three Mile Island would be behind bars for taking pictures of it at a distance. You can buy pictures on virtually any stock photography website of nuclear power plants. There is nothing wrong with the taking of these images, simply because they do no harm. They are simply pictures of a skyline that happens to have nuclear plant in it.

I don't believe there are any such laws prohibiting photography from a public location --on private property, yes. Outside the South Texas Project there are signs on the fence that say you're not supposed to stop your vehicle, however, there is also a dedicated location for bird watching with a parking lot --and no signs I've seen anywhere that say you can't take photographs. If there was such a restriction it would be totally meaningless since anyone could simply drive by in a car and take all the pictures they wanted without anyone being the wiser. I've read numerous articles about photography law that all say there are no such limits to photo taking from a public location ---do you have any sources you can refer me to? People make such claims but I've never heard of any court substantiating them. Certainly, as you say, there are photos of nuclear plants readily available on the internet.

The Annoyed Man wrote:... it is only a matter of time before they start putting up roadblocks just to check on us as we drive around every day. They've already tried it near the Texas/Mexico border.

I'm not sure what kind of roadblock you're referring to --there are permanent road blocks on every highway that leads away from the border in every part of the state I've been to, from West Texas to the Rio Grande Valley. The one on Hwy 77 is something like 60-80 miles north of the border. Not only is there a roadblock that stops all northbound traffic, there are about 20 cameras taking photos of the traffic passing southbound. I get stopped there every time I go visit family in the Valley.

G26ster wrote: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.

Here are some differences: approaching your car in the middle of the street while you're waiting for a traffic light at an intersection is not legal --I don't believe panhandling is legal either, though that may vary from place to place, pedestrians don't normally approach cars waiting for traffic lights unless they want something, the scenario you're referring to happened in a not great part of town as I understand it, the guy was dressed like a bum, and assaults and car-jackings and robberies do happen from time to time in real life. Also, the guy approaching your car can't Google want he wants. Taking photographs from a public location is not illegal, terrorists don't really need photos to commit terrorist acts, and the notion they do is fiction --but if they did, they could get them without anyone knowing, or simply get on the internet and download all the photos they want from Google. And just like it's pure fiction that American Grandmas are hiding bombs in their Depends, and American parents are sneaking aboard explosives in their children's underpants, it's fiction that Americans are taking photos for the purposes of terrorism.

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.

Think about this in terms of open carry. If open carry is legal you want to be stopped by the police and interrogated every time some yahoo or anti-gun nut reports you as "suspicious?" There's a "suspicious" guy walking around with a gun. Then the police, to respond to someone's unreasonable fear tell you to unload your weapon, or they confiscate it and tell you to come by the station and get it back?