Taken into custody.

a521 wrote in post #9336351
These types of threads always blow up, people love to spout off about things they know nothing about.

Someone must have taken a picture of it in the planning stages then

a521 wrote in post #9336351
These types of threads always blow up, people love to spout off about things they know nothing about.

A) The latter isn't necessarily true, and B) as long as people act like adults, I don't see the problem with these types of threads. Although they are political, you then cannot talk about our eroding rights as photographers.

I do have to chuckle a little though everytime someone posts "But that info is all over the Internet..."

Um, for the record, right, wrong or indifferent, we photographers help put it there.

Just sayin'

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9334087
See, now I think CNN is by far the worst. Keerist, they invented an entire segment (The Situation Room) just for Wolf Blitzer so he can pander to everyone's darkest fears.

CNN is probably my least watched - but they don't use old footage to make things seem bigger than they are like Fox has done at least 4-5 times last year and got caught. CNN wasn't reporting that the plane crash into the river and lives saved by Sully as a possible act of terrorism after the press conference of what actually happened. Over an hour after it was released what happened (birds) Fox still was reporting it as possible terrorism. Fox is the only network I've seen that uses the Kevin Bacon six degrees as a way of reporting news trying to connect anyone together for purpose of a political party. They go WAY out of the way to do this. CNN hasn't been caught with a producer trying to rile up the crowd and create the news rather than report it. NO network is innocent completely of not having a slant but no network is as bad as Fox as the blatant hypocritical contradiction bunch of liars they are.

The truth is this is nothing new and I think you're right, Americans are sheltered. Look up an list of terrorist attacks and it didn't start on 9/11 like some people think. It was the largest, it was a failure in our government. We get checked more at a football game than at an airport at times which is outright stupid. People have no problem getting patted down to see an NFL game but don't like it at the airport. I hope they put these new scanners in at every airport, I went through one and it's fine. We're not the only target but most don't want to pay attention when it happens elsewhere which is a closed minded elitest though process.

There's a difference between painting with a broad brush and outright lies. There's some that want everyone living in fear and only fear, like those at Fox. Know what's going on around you, be alert for what is happening, but living in fear is pointless and exactly what the enemy wants.

Unfortunately it's true - but these people are not the general public that are harassing photographers. Sure the public is turning them in as "suspicious" but it's the trained employees causing the problems. It's been mentioned in this thread already about how a security guard approached someone taking photos at a refinery, asked nicely what they were doing, and left them alone after finding out. That's the way to go about it and someone that knows the persons right - not detaining them, harassing them, making up things based on terrorism like so many of the videos of photographers being targeted show.

YES! It's there job to know how to identify who is harmless or not and if they can't do that they're in the wrong job! The employer screwed up and hired the wrong person or the person lied to get the job and should be fired if they can't ID who's a threat and who isn't, or the employer did a horrible job of educating how they want the job done. It could land on the employer to and they might pump out that persons chest as well. None of how it happens makes it right for them to do that and it should be corrected. When something isn't right you don't sit there and take it automatically - you judge the situation and use common sense to think of a solution.

There's just being educated and knowing your rights. Hobbyist or pro there's a middle ground in there and I never said as a photographer if confronted you puff out your chest, just handle the situation. If the guys a pinhead then you say "if you must, please call the police, I can wait". Let someone else with authority that should know the law handle it (though yes, there's some puffed out chests there to).

See, I watched a segment last night about our grandparents or parents and how great the times were as Beck tried to sell on his show. Problem is where were these great times with no worries? They don't exist! Nuclear war was a threat during the cold war for how long, gas shortages in the 70's, Vietnam, WWII, WWI. There's always been threats, even against US soil, they used to teach kids to get under their desk in case of a nuclear attack - anyone remember that? I'm not that old but remember being taught that when first entering school. There's always been a threat, with the exception of a few years here and there (late 90's sure was nice).

EDIT: Wow, just realized how long that is

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9336592
A) The latter isn't necessarily true, and B) as long as people act like adults, I don't see the problem with these types of threads. Although they are political, you then cannot talk about our eroding rights as photographers.

I agree, this is a key strength with an internet forum. Understanding the difference between subjectivity and objectivity is imperative for intelligible conversation. We have opinion and facts of which can be true, false, or a little of both. The reader must take and process information with a grain of salt, but a key variable is mutual respect.

nphsbuckeye wrote in post #9336469
No doubt. However, the government loves bragging about doing something - anything - no matter how trivial, to one up the other bureaucracies. And if it's taking down photographers that have fewer terrorist connections than the actual police force, than so be it.

In the UK there's a photography law - in the U.S. there is not. You're right though, they'd rather have a win, any win, doesn't matter if it's significant.

Now only if they would do something - we always seem to have the intelligence and then not use it, strange.

Well, that law was not a US law that was referenced, it was the UK which is different. Unfortunately politicians are more worried about winning elections than actually speaking for the people...one side more than the other. The brainless wanker in Ohio is the prime example of that

This thread is getting altogether too far away from the original (over-hyped) issue. If you don't drop the political discussions, it will get a lot shorter and you'll lose any ability to add to it. The actions of the OP and of the security staff who stopped him (not took him into custody, as he chose to present it) are all that are appropriate topics for discussion here.

Jon wrote in post #9337727
This thread is getting altogether too far away from the original (over-hyped) issue. If you don't drop the political discussions, it will get a lot shorter and you'll lose any ability to add to it. The actions of the OP and of the security staff who stopped him (not took him into custody, as he chose to present it) are all that are appropriate topics for discussion here.

Hey "slayer of trolls", What's your definition of taken into custody. When three security vehicles surround your vehicle is that not some form of custody. My vehicle could not be moved as it was blocked by the security vehicles and guards on foot on a public frontage road. The MAIN POINT was to express my displeasure with being (held, taken into custody, temporarily not allowed to move my person, etc... call it what you want I couldn't leave) when taking photographs that are not illegal! I've called the refinery as of today and it's not illegal to take photos of the refinery from public land according to the law.

Here is another story of one of many where the exact same thing happened. This is one of the largest refineries in the country.
http://www.flickr.com …s/blogumentary/​343781733/

lankforddl wrote in post #9339605
Hey "slayer of trolls", What's your definition of taken into custody. When three security vehicles surround your vehicle is that not some form of custody. My vehicle could not be moved as it was blocked by the security vehicles and guards on foot on a public frontage road. The MAIN POINT was to express my displeasure with being (held, taken into custody, temporarily not allowed to move my person, etc... call it what you want I couldn't leave) when taking photographs that are not illegal! I've called the refinery as of today and it's not illegal to take photos of the refinery from public land according to the law.

Here is another story of one of many where the exact same thing happened. This is one of the largest refineries in the country.
http://www.flickr.com …s/blogumentary/​343781733/

Can you show us (Google) exactly where you were when shooting and stopped? You sure you weren't on private land or a street?

Otherwise what your describing sounds like an illegal act(s) on the gaurds part.

Yep, Super duper secret site..............

http://www.google.com …Zww&cbp=12,278.​92,,0,4.05

In fact, so secret - they publish their own photos of the joint...........

http://www.fhr.com/upl​oad/PB_7741_large.jpg

blackhawk wrote in post #9339832
Can you show us (Google) exactly where you were when shooting and stopped? You sure you weren't on private land or a street?

Otherwise what your describing sounds like an illegal act(s) on the gaurds part.

Not sure if this google link will work but try this.

http://maps.google.com …121.00047c88c46​19c51b01c4

Don't be afraid to stand for your rights and be sure they know that you will sue their asses, too.

Naturalist wrote in post #9340056
Don't be afraid to stand for your rights and be sure they know that you will sue their asses, too.

The best way to win money is a settlement. This isn't that big of a deal considering this is the oil industry which has extremely deep pockets to pay lawyers.

I'm outta here, with a last thought that if this thread in its entirety is used as evidence (in the absence of an impartial witness), OP will have a hard time proving restraint. As Paul Harvey and the refinery lawyers might say, "...now for the rest of the story." I'll check back in a month to see what happens.
Cheers all -
John

lankforddl wrote in post #9339605
Hey "slayer of trolls", What's your definition of taken into custody. When three security vehicles surround your vehicle is that not some form of custody.

Now I don't know what Jon's definition is, but let's just stop the goalposts from shifting for a bit. Getting away from both legal gobbledygook and made-up interpretations, let's look at definitions from good old honest-to-goodness general dictionaries instead.

The Oxford Dictionary says it's "imprisonment" (http://www.askoxford.c​om/concise_oed/custody​?view=uk).

Macmillan says it's "a situation in which someone is kept in prison until they go to court for trial" (http://www.macmillandi​ctionary.com/dictionar​y/british/custody).

Dictionary.com says it's " imprisonment; legal restraint".

The Cambridge dictionary defines custody as "the state of being kept in prison, especially while waiting to go to court for trial" (http://dictionary.camb​ridge.org …earchword=custo​dy&x=0&y=0).

Any way you cut it, these general dictionaries, being the reference point for ordinary everyday language, all state that being taken into custody involves imprisonment. As many times as I've read your story I don't recall any mention of you seeing the inside of a jail cell, so you were never taken into custody by any stretch of the imagination.

It looks like you're trying to defend the indefensible here. Why not stop at admitting that you were stirring the pot and cut your losses?