Unbelieveable

Infringing on the rights of others just to "avoid situations" is not a good path to go down. It would be stupid if I sat in a park with a trench coat and snap photos of little kids on the playground all day. But then again stupid is not against the law. Camera in a park does not make one guilty of a crime.

Well, I completely agree with you, but modern society unfortunately doesn't. At my father's university, professors aren't allowed to be alone in a room with a student unless the door is open, for fear of false accusations. Even at my school here in France, where (aside from strict rules against religious representation) political correctness is about 40 years behind American levels, I'm not allowed to be in a room with less than 3 students.

I remember years back when I was working in retail, one of my coworkers got a public thrashing from a customer for the following incident: she (my coworker) saw a little girl of about 8 wandering around the store without an adult. This coworker is in her early twenties, works at a school for special-needs kids, and has a very motherly nature. She went up to the little girl and asked her where her parents were. The girl said her mother went to "a grown-up store" and would be back soon, so my coworker stood with her for a while and showed her a few computer games. Five minutes in, the girl's mother comes in with a Victoria's Secret bag screams "KATIE!" (don't remember the actual name) at the little girl when she sees her with my coworker, runs up, and yanks her away from the computer. She proceeds to yell at the little girl for talking to a stranger, and then rips into my coworker with things like "You should ****ing know better than to talk to a child who's alone! I should call the police right now!" Luckily, the manager came in and diffused the situation, but my poor coworker was mortified for an hour or two after that.

As long as things like that occur, I think I'll keep my camera to myself anywhere near kids, thank you very much.

I had my sister ask me to go to the sports day at my nieces school to take photos. I told her are you crazy lol. I told her the parents don't know me as well and to get good photos of sports I would need my 70-200 lens and that would make me look like a creep. Now if a mother was doing the same thing people would not have as much as a issue with it. It is a shame but a reality.

The more I read the comments posted the more I'm glad I live in Northern Ireland. We are probably the most security sensitive country in Western Europe yet I can park up near the threshold of the local International airport and snap away to my hearts content. The council have even put out rubbish bins for spotters. Yes there are areas near the military side of the airport where you aren't allowed to stop or take photos from. The airport or military police will stop and ask you what you're doing and move you on, but I have yet to hear of any heavy handed treatment.

And to be honest I'm probably seeing more from the Google Maps Streetview in the first post than the woman got with her camera.

casp3r wrote in post #11913242
The more I read the comments posted the more I'm glad I live in Northern Ireland. We are probably the most security sensitive country in Western Europe yet I can park up near the threshold of the local International airport and snap away to my hearts content. The council have even put out rubbish bins for spotters. Yes there are areas near the military side of the airport where you aren't allowed to stop or take photos from. The airport or military police will stop and ask you what you're doing and move you on, but I have yet to hear of any heavy handed treatment.

And to be honest I'm probably seeing more from the Google Maps Streetview in the first post than the woman got with her camera.

It's important to keep this in perspective. Of the 19,793 airports in the United states, this happened at one and happened 3 years ago. Plane spotting is very common in the states and the vast majority of plane spotters never see a security guard or are hassled. This person was for whatever reason and it was such a rare event that it became newsworthy. If this was happening at the other 19,792 airports or happening on a daily basis, it wouldn't be a newsworthy story.

The no photos or equipment was for beyond that sign not in front of it. The weapons were locked in a case and unloaded. Perfectly normal activities. As a CCW I carry my gun onto airport property and then lock it in my car safe under the seat to go inside. Which is also perfectly legal.

I think we should organize a picture taking expedition to the airport and everyone who can have unloaded weapons locked in the trunk of their car in hard cases which are also locked. If about 100 people showed up the Sheriff would be helpless to do anything. Sounds like it is time for anew Sheriff as this one has visions of grandeur and is obviously a legend in his own mind.

A side bar article mentions that the county attorney has been replaced. I assume this was because he dropped the ball in not responding to the lawsuit in a timely manner.

This was the second such position from which he's been removed due to gross negligence.

If the background information is accurate, this woman did absolutely nothing wrong and it's a damn shame that the taxpayers in that area will have to eat this bill on behalf of such ugly, arrogant, ignorant and overzealous cops.

...as has been discovered by others, there appears to be a heck of a lot of back story to this that we don't know about. I don't think anyone here should take the blog of the lawyer defending Nancy Genovese seriously and I would say that this story has very little to do with photography.

Having looked at an archived version of her myspace page, and reading her rants about FEMA, Obama, the census guy (who was carrying a GPS!!!) who turned up on her doorstep, and of course, the DOD PANDEMIC INFLUENZA, I have no problem in believing that there is much much more to this story than what her lawyer has laid out in his blog.

None of that has any bearing at all if the facts are accurate as laid out on the blog.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11913459
None of that has any bearing at all if the facts are accurate as laid out on the blog.

...it was posted by Nancy's lawyer. As I said: " have no problem in believing that there is much much more to this story than what her lawyer has laid out in his blog."

Do you think that the lawyer has posted all of the facts of the case on his blog? If OJ's Simpson's lawyers had a blog, do you really think they would put up evidence their client was guilty?

Alright, now that I've read a bit more...I think that the police were absolutely right to be suspicious of this woman, but arresting her crossed the line. Taking pictures at the airport around "no pictures" signs merits a talking-to and a "please leave the premises." Taking pictures at the airport with an assault rifle, unloaded or otherwise, in your car merits a second glance. All of this in conjunction with anti-government rants merits a "let's keep an eye on this one" (I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between "having conservative views" and thinking Obama is going to stick you in a FEMA camp after giving you smallpox. If that's "conservative," then I'm a communist). But she didn't do anything to deserve getting arrested, and was justified in suing the department.

But jeez guys, don't we know better than to trust the outlook provided by a lawyer's statement about their own client? The title alone should be a hint... as though the fact that she's a mother of three is in any way relevant to the story. I could also write these headlines and be telling the truth:

Mother of 6 accused of starring in "The Tourist"
Father of 25 accused of being Al Qaeda leader
Father of 5 accused of being Charlie Sheen

In the United states, detaining someone for stopping in a safe manner alongside a public thoroughfare to photograph something that's in plain sight is not illegal...

Period
End of Story
Fini
No Mas
C'est Tout

The rest of the nonsense started after the cops decided to get in her grill.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11913752
In the United states, detaining someone for stopping in a safe manner alongside a public thoroughfare to photograph something that's in plain sight is not illegal...

Period
End of Story
Fini
No Mas
C'est Tout

The rest of the nonsense started after the cops decided to get in her grill.

...can you provide a cite from the police (not from the lawyer) about why she was detained? What was she arrested for?

Apparently, she was never "arrested" nor charged in any way...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11913805
Apparently, she was never "arrested" nor charged in any way...

...so where is the evidence that she was detained for taking photographs? We have one side of the story, posted here, by the lawyer. Where is the evidence that she was detained for the act of taking photos? I honestly can't see what the story has to do with photography.