Taken into custody.

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.

I won't comment on this for the fear of sounding too political

Gedanken wrote in post #9340579
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?

What losses?

So when are you going to arrange a group of about 20 photographers wearing "I'm a photographer not a Terrorist" tee shirts to line up on the roadway and take photos of the refinery? (Maybe five different groups of four togs - just to make life more interesting for the security guards).

Then if/when the security kick up a stink ask them to call the cops. Refuse to delete anything and keep taking photos of the security guards.

EDIT

And make sure you address them as Mr Rent a Cop.

lankforddl wrote in post #9340894
What losses?

You know, being called a liar which seems to offend you but which you're just begging people to do with this "surrounded by cars = taken into custody" line?

Never mind - it's pretty obvious I'm wasting my time talking to someone whose only objective is to argue, or in your own words, stir the pot.

Later.

blackshadow wrote in post #9340935
So when are you going to arrange a group of about 20 photographers wearing "I'm a photographer not a Terrorist" tee shirts to line up on the roadway and take photos of the refinery? (Maybe five different groups of four togs - just to make life more interesting for the security guards).

Then if/when the security kick up a stink ask them to call the cops. Refuse to delete anything and keep taking photos of the security guards.

EDIT

And make sure you address them as Mr Rent a Cop.

Sounds like a plan. In the event we twenty people are taken into custody, that'll definitely create a media storm. Thus, giving the power-hungry rent-a-cops bad PR.

I wish I were a little closer to Rosemont, I'd be in.

I travel a lot - I'll bring a tripod and all.

lankforddl wrote in post #9340054
Not sure if this google link will work but try this.

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

Works great.
Don't know the laws in your state, but it looks let they were way out of line. They should have turned it over to the DHS or the police.
The can't say they were making a citizen's arrest if not crime was committed. Interesting.

kgoings wrote in post #9325730
So which is it? On foot or in vehicles? Were you "Taken into custody" as you claimed?

Security guards are normally big and strong. They where on foot but carrying vehicles on their broad shoulders

LoL Every thread that broaches the subject of either real or imagined attacks on either real or imagined civil liberties generates a huge number of replies. I think these topics should have their own forum, then if the POTN marketing gurus could develop a demand for righteous indignation we would have gallons of it to sell.

blackhawk wrote in post #9339832
Otherwise what your describing sounds like an illegal act(s) on the gaurds part.

If they'd actually taken him into custody then, yes, that would be illegal. But I'm pretty sure there is no law against walking up to somebody in a public place, asking them what they're doing, then asking them to delete the images they've just taken. And I'm sure that's exactly how the security guards would describe the situation.

Of course, you're totally within your right to say 'Good day Mr Security Guard. I'm afraid it's my business what I'm doing and I don't think I'll be deleting anything. And I'll be going on my way now. If you would like to call the police, please tell them I'll be taking more photos about 1/4 of a mile up the road.'

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/

You were not removed (voluntarily or involuntarily) by the guards from the location where they stopped you. At no time did you indicate that they forcibly stopped you from moving, leaving or anything else, and you did not indicate that you asked them to get out of your way so you could leave the scene, nor did they take you to their office or any other location for further questioning. "Taken into custody" has a specific legal meaning; what you experienced falls far short of meeting it.

Gedanken wrote in post #9340579
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?

That's exactly the point that's been raised a few times here. OP chose loaded, and inaccurate, words (opening sentence "I just got busted taking photos . . . " - not by any definition of "busted" I've ever heard, since he wasn't arrested, or even given a civil citation.) to in his own words, "stir the pot" (emphasis added):

lankforddl wrote in post #9326255
Hey John. I must admit I did use a risky title for this post on purpose. The point was to stir the pot about a photography experience that some photographers will experience at some point in their lives.

"Pot stirring" may have its place; POTN isn't it.

I have been watching this thread with some interest as I have seen people get themselves arrested for doing these kinds of things. I decided to research the issue a bit and came up with this:
http://www.krages.com/​phoright.htm

Upon further reflection, the arrests were made more from beligerence than on subject matter.

I still stand by my original statement that we should all be aware of the sensitivities of the subject and our international situation and be a bit smarter, and not invoke the "steal This Book' attitudes that many have. It will get you nowhere except in trouble. And as right or wrong as you may be, it will be a PITFA and costly.

NeutronBoy wrote in post #9347133
I have been watching this thread with some interest as I have seen people get themselves arrested for doing these kinds of things. I decided to research the issue a bit and came up with this:
http://www.krages.com/​phoright.htm

Upon further reflection, the arrests were made more from beligerence than on subject matter.

I still stand by my original statement that we should all be aware of the sensitivities of the subject and our international situation and be a bit smarter, and not invoke the "steal This Book' attitudes that many have. It will get you nowhere except in trouble. And as right or wrong as you may be, it will be a PITFA and costly.

Thank you so much. This information is something I think all photographers should know and keep with them in their bag. I'm new to photography and after reading this I better understand my rights. I handed over my ID and deleted my photos for them. Ugh.