Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, May 12, 2009
City Police Arrest Man for Taking Photo in REI
Posted by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee on Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:52 PM
The Seattle Police Department’s internal investigations unit is reviewing an incident on Friday, May 8, in which officers arrested and banned a Seattle man from the downtown REI after he used his phone to photograph two security guards inside the store.
Shane Becker, a 29-year-old web designer, says he was standing in line at REI, getting ready to purchase a bike rack lock, when he saw two Loomis Fargo security guards refilling an ATM inside the store.
Becker says he walked over and took a picture of the security guards and the open ATM with his phone because he is "fascinated by the insides of things that we don't normally get to see."
The verboten photo, via IamShane.com
According to Becker, the armed security guards confronted him about the photo and threatened to tackle him if he tried to leave the store. "Loomis wanted my ID so that they could write a report internally because I took a picture of them with the machine open," Becker says. "They said they didn't know who I was or what I intended to do with the photograph or why I would want to take it." Becker refused to show the Loomis employees his ID, REI security got involved, and the police were called.
According to a police report, when officers arrived, one of the armed Loomis guards told them he was concerned about his safety and was not sure if Becker was going to attempt to grab the money that was going into the ATM machine.
Police claim Becker was uncooperative and refused to give them his ID. Becker acknowledges that he refused to provide officers with ID, but did so because he was afraid they would hand it over to Loomis. Ironically, Becker says another REI customer photographed his arrest, and he's hoping to get a copy of the photo.
Police took Becker to the West Precinct and held him for about half an hour before requiring him to sign a Trespass Admonishment card, barring him from returning to REI for a year, and released him.
Kara Stone, general manager at REI's downtown store, says the incident was "super unfortunate" and claims Becker was not trespassed at the request of REI staff, although SPD records indicate otherwise. "Shane is welcome to come into our store," she says.
Frank, the guy who answered the phone at Loomis's office—he would not provide his last name or position with the company—would not comment on the incident or whether Loomis has any company policies about photography of staff members.
Not only was REI, SPD, and Loomis's overreaction to the incident totally ridiculous, it may have also been illegal.
Doug Klunder, Privacy Project director at the Seattle branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, says cases like Becker's are becoming more frequent. "These come up all the time and the ultimate answer ends up being, yes [the photographer] had the right to take the photo and should not have been arrested and detained," Klunder says. "It would be really nice if officers would start realizing that rather than going through this rigmarole."
Becker, who says he's been an REI customer for several years, says he'll be contacting the ACLU about the incident, but he also wants to find a way to spend the $200 REI dividend he wasn't able to use last week. For now, he says, "I won't be shopping there."
3
a whiney straightedge vegan with a car, shopping at REI and to top things off an 'anarchist' with a fucking blog.
what a walking paradox.
what a walking paradox.
4
Sounds like a whole bunch of badges need to be given an orientation on the rights of citizens to take photographs of activities occurring in publicly accessible locations.
5
I was under the impression that the cops could only arrest or detain someone if they had cause to suspect that a crime had occurred. Did the Stranger ask the Seattle PD what Shane was suspected of when he was arrested? Your writeup only says that he was "uncoopoerative", so they arrested him. Is being uncooperative a crime?
6
All I had to do was view this self-obsessed douchebag's website to know this is a crock of shit. I'm so surprised that a Straight-edge vegan anarchist would be complaining about this (sarcasm).
11
Hmm, I don't know if I would necessarily creep up behind a security guard refilling an ATM and snap a photo without asking first. Sounds like that's what he did, and I'm sure there's a certain proximity zone that would trigger a guard's internal alarms that the dude probably set off. The ensuing mess sounds unreasonable on everyone's part however. Whatevs.
13
Anybody know what exactly the RCW says "obstruction" is and how people can prevent the po-po from abusing it?
14
If he's getting a $200 dividend check, isn't he a customer who buys a lot of stuff? Super unfortunate indeed.
15
I'm not sure they overreacted. I think it was really naive and stupid of this guy to take a photograph of security guards refilling an ATM, just because--what, he thought it was neat? What a dork! Of course they're going to get suspicious! They're in a vulnerable situation with all that cash right there for the taking; of course they're going to be hyper-aware and a little edgy about some idiot snapping photos of them at work. If someone snapped a picture of me at an ATM, I'd want to fling their camera into the nearest intersection. People need to use their common sense.
17
RCW 9A.76.020: Obstructing a law enforcement officer:
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
Seems pretty vague. Regardless, I notice Shane wasn't actually *charged* with anything. I wonder if that means anything about the validity of the arrest in the first place...
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
Seems pretty vague. Regardless, I notice Shane wasn't actually *charged* with anything. I wonder if that means anything about the validity of the arrest in the first place...
18
wow, this really pisses me off. I used to have a friend in high school that turned out to become one of those fake-cop-money-transporting-tough-guys.
Talk about an uber douche upgrade.
He is such a prick now.
Even if you don't like this kid you gotta agree this is pretty absurd and obvious over reaction on the side of the security. The public is expected to act irrational but "professionals" shouldn't let their passionate hate for people like this kid to factor into the way they react.
This is the basically why the concept of police will never work flawlessly. They are human (and we can derive "emotionally retarded" based upon that).
Talk about an uber douche upgrade.
He is such a prick now.
Even if you don't like this kid you gotta agree this is pretty absurd and obvious over reaction on the side of the security. The public is expected to act irrational but "professionals" shouldn't let their passionate hate for people like this kid to factor into the way they react.
This is the basically why the concept of police will never work flawlessly. They are human (and we can derive "emotionally retarded" based upon that).
20
Ah, arresting people for taking innocuous photographs...it sends me back to the good old days in Karl-Marx-Stadt in the 1970s...
21
This guy and the screaming douchebag outside the Seattle Times w/ his video camera both personify everything I hate about Seattle. And the T-ball generation. "I'm special! I'm a winner!"
23
I would have agreed with the guy about how shitty the situation was but then I saw his blog. What a loon. And from the looks of it he's also a total media whore who will make this non-event his claim to fame.
24
Oh my god. Just look at his website. He's a vegan straightedge anarchist. And, he acted like an asshole when they were being perfectly reasonable. What an aphid.
My sympathy is with the security guards. Let them do their bloody jobs unhindered next time! He hasn't been "victimized" by the "system", as much as he'd like to think he has. What a whiner.
My sympathy is with the security guards. Let them do their bloody jobs unhindered next time! He hasn't been "victimized" by the "system", as much as he'd like to think he has. What a whiner.
25
you know, i think the guy is a bit of a jackass, and it was likely that his comments escalated the situation, instead of making it go away. but you know, he has a point, regardless of how much of a megalomaniac he is. for a country who prides itself on being so 'free', there's way too much fake cop nonsense happening.
26
I wonder how juch the tax payers will have to shell out to settle this? Our cops aren't just ineffective, arrogant, and reactionary. They are expensive to clean up after too. How about cutting some of them and funding things that actually help rather than hurt people?
27
@23 yeah EVERYONE who has a blog is totally trying to be famous......totally...you are so right. Writing about yourself and stories of your life is so fucking narcissistic.
Good thing nobody does it these days....phew
Good thing nobody does it these days....phew
28
#20 innocuous? Come on. At the very least, provocative. The first thing I would assume is that someone taking a picture would want to know something about the inner workings of an ATM. Believe it or not, there are reasons for wanting to know such things besides just thinking the inside of these machines are neat. If you were getting cash out of an ATM and someone came up and took a picture of you, would you smile and say cheese? This dude's a dumbass and was purposely trying to provoke.
29
@15:
COMMON SENSE dictates that one guy TAKING A PHOTO isn't exactly gearing up to bum-rush two ARMED security guards. They overreacted no question.
And seriously, take an anger-management class, stat, before your deck some poor sap for the heinous crime of invading your personal space.
COMMON SENSE dictates that one guy TAKING A PHOTO isn't exactly gearing up to bum-rush two ARMED security guards. They overreacted no question.
And seriously, take an anger-management class, stat, before your deck some poor sap for the heinous crime of invading your personal space.
30
I really don't see what the big deal is about his blog. He doesn't register on my douche meter, I think he just seems pissed off, and in my opinion, rightly so.
31
I really don't see what the big deal is about his blog. He doesn't register on my douche meter, I think he just seems pissed off, and in my opinion, rightly so.
32
I really don't see what the big deal is about his blog. He doesn't register on my douche meter, I think he just seems pissed off, and in my opinion, rightly so.
37
How the hell are people this divided on this issue. The guy did something totally within reason, not to mention within his rights, and then told the security guards (who I think lack any real authority to begin with) that no, they could not have his ID for taking a photograph.
Legitimate, I don't think they have the right to demand ID from anyone.
Then he was arrested? He could have been the biggest prick in the planet, but he was also standing up for his (and your) rights.
That being said, Jonah, did you type this on a mobile phone? I've never seen so many typos.
Love you.
Legitimate, I don't think they have the right to demand ID from anyone.
Then he was arrested? He could have been the biggest prick in the planet, but he was also standing up for his (and your) rights.
That being said, Jonah, did you type this on a mobile phone? I've never seen so many typos.
Love you.
38
I hope he sues that pants off Loomis, REI and SPD. Rent-a-cops are assholes and are usually the guys that are not mentally fit to become actual cops. They have a huge chip on their shoulders because of this and this guy smart for not sharing his ID with them. They have no right to request it, plus the guard who threatened to tackle him should be reprimanded by Loomis for making the threat. Sorry, don't care if the guy is a douche on his blog or not, this whole incident is just plain wrong.
40
Everyone in this story acted a fucking fool at some point, but this kid's arrogance is truly astounding (my views on veganism, straightedge, and anarchy aside). Why he felt the need to take a picture of the ATM is beyond me. I know that I'm personally not a fan of strangers taking pictures of me, and I'm not a security guard handling large sums of cash on a daily basis.
Whatever. This kid was clearly trying to show "the man" just how punk rock he is. What he's doing hanging out at REI and Fall Out Boy shows is anybody's guess.
Whatever. This kid was clearly trying to show "the man" just how punk rock he is. What he's doing hanging out at REI and Fall Out Boy shows is anybody's guess.
41
I agree that whether he's a douche or not is not the issue. But can we start another thread to assassinate his character
42
I have to side with Becker here.
Yeah, he was being obtuse, and passive-aggressive. Maybe even a bit of a douchebag.
But he's right.
People take all sorts of pictures of all kinds of silly stuff every day with their cell phones. Welcome to the 21st century. He didn't do anything illegal. He didn't break any state secrets. His shitty little cellphone pic posed no real security risk. In short, he caused no harm, even if you think he was stupid and/or a bit of an asshole.
The rent-a-cops were on a power trip. They escalated the situation till it got completely out of hand. Becker was under no obligation whatsoever to show ID to rent-a-cops. If they had a lick of sense or the slightest bit of training, they'd know that. Since he was standing there in line, they could have simply turned tables on him; they could have shot a pic of him with their own cell phones (surely one of them must have had one), and written their company report, with or without his cooperation or ID. There was no need to escalate the situation other than their own desire to make him do what they wanted.
The cops weren't much better. Although at least real cops CAN require you to present ID. Still, they detained him for no real reason, as evidenced by the fact that they never charged him with anything.
Yeah, he was being obtuse, and passive-aggressive. Maybe even a bit of a douchebag.
But he's right.
People take all sorts of pictures of all kinds of silly stuff every day with their cell phones. Welcome to the 21st century. He didn't do anything illegal. He didn't break any state secrets. His shitty little cellphone pic posed no real security risk. In short, he caused no harm, even if you think he was stupid and/or a bit of an asshole.
The rent-a-cops were on a power trip. They escalated the situation till it got completely out of hand. Becker was under no obligation whatsoever to show ID to rent-a-cops. If they had a lick of sense or the slightest bit of training, they'd know that. Since he was standing there in line, they could have simply turned tables on him; they could have shot a pic of him with their own cell phones (surely one of them must have had one), and written their company report, with or without his cooperation or ID. There was no need to escalate the situation other than their own desire to make him do what they wanted.
The cops weren't much better. Although at least real cops CAN require you to present ID. Still, they detained him for no real reason, as evidenced by the fact that they never charged him with anything.
44
Is this guy really an anarchist or is he just quoting Against Me! in his tweet-sized bio? I want to support the cause but I find Larry Flynt easier to sympathize with.
45
This guy got names, pictures, badge numbers, and a detailed narrative of the incident. Basically everything a lawyer needs to sue the fuck out of Loomis, REI, and SPD.
47
42: "they detained him for no real reason, as evidenced by the fact that they never charged him with anything."
The fact that the douchebag wasn't charged with anything does not show that the cops had no reason to arrest him. First of all, the cops don't charge people, the prosecutor's office does. The prosecutor's office declines to charge all kinds of crimes every day, because there are only so many prosecutors and they have better things to do. Second, according to the post, "when officers arrived, one of the armed Loomis guards told them he was concerned about his safety and was not sure if Becker was going to attempt to grab the money that was going into the ATM machine." Last time I checked, grabbing money would be a crime, and the Loomis guardn's statement (even if it did turn out to be a lie) is enough for the officer to have probable cause to arrest.
The fact that the douchebag wasn't charged with anything does not show that the cops had no reason to arrest him. First of all, the cops don't charge people, the prosecutor's office does. The prosecutor's office declines to charge all kinds of crimes every day, because there are only so many prosecutors and they have better things to do. Second, according to the post, "when officers arrived, one of the armed Loomis guards told them he was concerned about his safety and was not sure if Becker was going to attempt to grab the money that was going into the ATM machine." Last time I checked, grabbing money would be a crime, and the Loomis guardn's statement (even if it did turn out to be a lie) is enough for the officer to have probable cause to arrest.
49
@42
the real cops can't actually require him to present ID.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/crime…
also:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
the real cops can't actually require him to present ID.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/crime…
also:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
50
@49: Pretty sure refusing to present state ID to a legitimate representative of the state counts as obstruction.
51
How does this make REI sue-worthy? Two parties got into a fight in their store, the cops were called, so of course their own security is going to get involved. But it's hardly their fault that it happened or that the kid got taken away in cuffs.
52
The "straight-edge vegan anarchist douche" wins. No matter how much of a dick he was about it he wasn't doing anything illegal.
PS, I used to deal with Loomis on a weekly basis and yeah, 4 out of 5 of them are assholes. Think Mall Cop with a milk truck full of money.
PS, I used to deal with Loomis on a weekly basis and yeah, 4 out of 5 of them are assholes. Think Mall Cop with a milk truck full of money.
53
Also, if REI wanted some ID for this guy, don't they have his name and address from his membership info?
54
what a dumb shit...does he tell bomb jokes in the airport, too?
Frankly, when it comes to ATM security, I want the guards to be vigilant so I don't get fuckin' robbed by someone who's figured out a way to co-opt the ATM and steal my PIN and my meager amount of money.
Frankly, when it comes to ATM security, I want the guards to be vigilant so I don't get fuckin' robbed by someone who's figured out a way to co-opt the ATM and steal my PIN and my meager amount of money.
55
@40 You should look to the sky once in awhile, there are probably about a million pictures of you in databases all over the city, not to mention how many possible other photos you have been accidentally in the background.
in fact, i am jacking off to a picture of you right now.....
your eyes are to die for.....
<3
in fact, i am jacking off to a picture of you right now.....
your eyes are to die for.....
<3
58
Just because your mobile phone comes with a camera, does not mean that you should always use it. There is nothing more depressing than seeing a bunch of idiots standing around taking pictures of every stupid little happening that catches their attention, not to mention the rudeness of photographing people who don't know you without asking, and it is really asking for trouble to do so at an ATM.
Not that the rent-a-cops and the SPD were in the right, either. All parties involved are total douches.
Not that the rent-a-cops and the SPD were in the right, either. All parties involved are total douches.
60
mattw @49, you're right. I was thinking of the Hiibel case in 2004, which ruled that police can require that you give them your name. But it doesn't actually require that you provide ID.
61
Fireword @47, Becker may be a douchebag, but simply taking someone's picture with a shitty cell phone while standing at the checkout line hardly represents any real threat, nor an indication of intent to commit a crime. The rent-a-cop's claim that they feared for their safety is laughable at best.
62
Don't ATMs video tape everything around them all the time? So, the machines can take a video of you but you can't take a picture of them?
And what if an ATM video tapes another ATM getting serviced? Do you have to call the Blade Runner unit?
And what if an ATM video tapes another ATM getting serviced? Do you have to call the Blade Runner unit?
63
The concept that any of us have privacy in our current Russian state is, on the face of it, laughable.
Americans are such wusses.
Give me Liberty or Death ... yeah, right ...
Americans are such wusses.
Give me Liberty or Death ... yeah, right ...
65
I'm really astounded that anyone thinks that the mechanical specifications of an ATM should be a security risk. Anyone who has any experience with security systems -- whether encryption, locks, cameras or whatever -- understands that if knowledge of how the system works allows someone to break in, the system isn't secure at all.
66
Before you all start refusing to ever produce your photo i.d. to a cop ever again based on some slog comment that you read, the Washington Supreme Court's decision striking down the "stop and identify" statute does not excuse you from ever having to produce your identification to a cop. The Court's decision simply states that your refusal cannot, by itself, be the basis for an arrest for obstruction. If the cops have probable cause to stop you for something else - i.e., they were informed by a Loomis guard that you were attempting to take money that they were putting into an ATM - they do have the right to demand your identification. In addition, the only law that's been overturned is the state "stop and identify" statute. It was overturned, because it was ruled to be unconstitutionally vague. Many cities and counties have their own ordinances that are not vague, and the cops are still free to enforce those. Refuse to produce i.d. at your own peril.
67
OK so @9 says perhaps the basis for the arrest was the crime of obstruction. @49 points out that WA courts say, refusal to present ID can't in itself be the basis for an arrest for obstruction. So, what was the basis of the arrest?
68
I suspect a lot of naysayers here are lashing out because he is an "uppity" vegan, not because what he did was all that bad.
It's rather disgusting, considering these are personal rights we are talking about here (both to not have your papers demanded to be seen for taking a picture and the right of personal choice to control one's diet)
It's rather disgusting, considering these are personal rights we are talking about here (both to not have your papers demanded to be seen for taking a picture and the right of personal choice to control one's diet)
70
Whether or not it is legal, photographing armed guards servicing an ATM machine is a risky move. So is photographing someone entering their PIN into an ATM. There are a lot of things that are not illegal, but are pretty risky moves. I think this guy took a risk, and dealt with the ensuing consequences appropriately.
That being said, the biggest douches were the armed Loomis guards. Afraid he's going to steal the money? I doubt a dude with a fleece and a camping tent in his shopping bag is stealing anything from two armed security professionals.
That being said, the biggest douches were the armed Loomis guards. Afraid he's going to steal the money? I doubt a dude with a fleece and a camping tent in his shopping bag is stealing anything from two armed security professionals.
71
@66,
Your legal analysis is all wrong. Check out State v. Hoffman, in which a Washington Appellate Court found that Hoffman, who had been observed participating in a fight by an off-duty cop, was improperly arrested when he refused to show ID.
Or check out Tacoma v. Jones, in which a Tacoma trial court recently reaffirmed that refusing to show ID, even during a valid Terry stop, is not criminally punishable in the state of Washington.
Your legal analysis is all wrong. Check out State v. Hoffman, in which a Washington Appellate Court found that Hoffman, who had been observed participating in a fight by an off-duty cop, was improperly arrested when he refused to show ID.
Or check out Tacoma v. Jones, in which a Tacoma trial court recently reaffirmed that refusing to show ID, even during a valid Terry stop, is not criminally punishable in the state of Washington.
72
69 - actually it does.
as a former locksmith, I could see exactly what type of box it is and find the drilling point to knock out the fence. you can't see if it's a diebold etc lock from the outside, spindle wheels are generic, but one glance from the open position can identify it.
bottom line, he's a piece of shit self-proclaimed 'anarchist' and needs to be slingshotted into the sun.
as a former locksmith, I could see exactly what type of box it is and find the drilling point to knock out the fence. you can't see if it's a diebold etc lock from the outside, spindle wheels are generic, but one glance from the open position can identify it.
bottom line, he's a piece of shit self-proclaimed 'anarchist' and needs to be slingshotted into the sun.
73
From: Misinformation about your photography rights continues to spread
The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:
• Certain military installations or operations.
• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.
That's it.
You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don't change because of their age or where they are, as long as they're visible from a place that's open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or climbing fences.)
Video taping has some more gray areas because of copyright issues, but in general the same rules apply. If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.
And yes, you can shoot on private property if it's open to the public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and office-building lobbies. If you're asked to stop and refuse, you run the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card without a court order.
You can also shoot in subways and at airports. Check your local laws about the subway, but in New York, Washington, and San Francisco it's perfectly legal. Airport security is regulated by the Transportation Security Administration, and it's quite clear: Photography is A-OK at any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you're in an area open to the public.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Restrictions
There are a few more restrictions on publishing photos or video, though, as mentioned back in December.
You can't show private facts — things a reasonable person wouldn't want made public — unless those facts were revealed publicly. So no long-lens shots of your neighbors' odd habits.
You also can't show someone in a negative false light by, for example, using Photoshop tricks or a nasty, untrue caption.
And you can't put someone else's likeness to commercial use without their permission. This is usually mentioned in terms of celebrities, but it applies to making money from anyone's likeness.
For example, if you shoot individual kids playing in a school football game, you can't try to sell those shots to the parents; the kids have a right to the use of their likeness. You can sell photos of the game in general, though, and any shots where what's happening ("A player celebrates a goal") is more important than who's doing it ("Star running back John Doe takes a momentary rest").
Sound like a gray area? It is if you're planning to sell the pictures, but not if you're simply displaying them. And if you're using them for news purposes, all bets are off — you can pretty much publish whatever you want if it happens in public view.
The other gray area is copyrighted material. Even if it's in public, you can't sell pictures of copyrighted work — a piece of art, for example. But if the art is part of a scene you can probably get away with it.
All this in mind, it's almost always a good idea to get permission where you can and to be polite and friendly with anyone you deal with. Like good urban legends, people are absolutely sure they know the law about photography, and they're absolutely wrong.
If you want to know more, I've got a PDF on my site with all this spelled out, and you shouldn't miss Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right." Print 'em and carry 'em.
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Right…
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/a…
More...
The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:
• Certain military installations or operations.
• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.
That's it.
You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don't change because of their age or where they are, as long as they're visible from a place that's open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or climbing fences.)
Video taping has some more gray areas because of copyright issues, but in general the same rules apply. If anyone can see it, you can shoot it.
And yes, you can shoot on private property if it's open to the public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and office-building lobbies. If you're asked to stop and refuse, you run the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card without a court order.
You can also shoot in subways and at airports. Check your local laws about the subway, but in New York, Washington, and San Francisco it's perfectly legal. Airport security is regulated by the Transportation Security Administration, and it's quite clear: Photography is A-OK at any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you're in an area open to the public.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Restrictions
There are a few more restrictions on publishing photos or video, though, as mentioned back in December.
You can't show private facts — things a reasonable person wouldn't want made public — unless those facts were revealed publicly. So no long-lens shots of your neighbors' odd habits.
You also can't show someone in a negative false light by, for example, using Photoshop tricks or a nasty, untrue caption.
And you can't put someone else's likeness to commercial use without their permission. This is usually mentioned in terms of celebrities, but it applies to making money from anyone's likeness.
For example, if you shoot individual kids playing in a school football game, you can't try to sell those shots to the parents; the kids have a right to the use of their likeness. You can sell photos of the game in general, though, and any shots where what's happening ("A player celebrates a goal") is more important than who's doing it ("Star running back John Doe takes a momentary rest").
Sound like a gray area? It is if you're planning to sell the pictures, but not if you're simply displaying them. And if you're using them for news purposes, all bets are off — you can pretty much publish whatever you want if it happens in public view.
The other gray area is copyrighted material. Even if it's in public, you can't sell pictures of copyrighted work — a piece of art, for example. But if the art is part of a scene you can probably get away with it.
All this in mind, it's almost always a good idea to get permission where you can and to be polite and friendly with anyone you deal with. Like good urban legends, people are absolutely sure they know the law about photography, and they're absolutely wrong.
If you want to know more, I've got a PDF on my site with all this spelled out, and you shouldn't miss Bert Krages's "The Photographer's Right." Print 'em and carry 'em.
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Right…
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/a…
74
Regarding my comment (#73): Don't forget that WA recently passed a law that basically says a woman has reasonable expectation of privacy up her skirt.
75
why don't you tail an armored car around for an hour and explain to the police that you have a right to do that?
76
Kantor's rights of photographers should be in every photographer's pocket.
Note that REI is absolutely within their rights to forbid photography in the store; they can set ANY conditions they want (other than discrimination against a protected class, or illegal acts) on their private property.
But the penalty for photographing anyways is not arrest, because the photography itself is not illegal. All they can do is ask Becker to leave, and if he refuses, he's committing trespassing. Period. Photography is not illegal.
Note that REI is absolutely within their rights to forbid photography in the store; they can set ANY conditions they want (other than discrimination against a protected class, or illegal acts) on their private property.
But the penalty for photographing anyways is not arrest, because the photography itself is not illegal. All they can do is ask Becker to leave, and if he refuses, he's committing trespassing. Period. Photography is not illegal.
77
@all
I was there, saw everything after the cops showed and have seen those particular cops work before. (don't ask...)
Taking him out of there in cuffs was clearly the last resort; at 6pm on a Friday the last thing they have time for is doing paperwork for some minor non-emergency. He had to have been a major jackass and said all the wrong things to get anything other than his name written down. Based on a bit of eavesdropping and body language, it looked like he just wanted to go out of there in cuffs to make the story better.
What kind of self respecting anarchist sets himself up to be detained by the law, with the comfort of eventual release, while shopping in a store?
I mean, I am all for the right not to present ID, and if you really don't want to give out your name, fine. In particular at a protest or just walking down the street, that would be the time for asserting your rights.
But this guy went onto private property, got some consumer goods from asia, got in LINE to buy them, then with an IPHONE got into it with armed guards, in a quite vulnerable moment for them... and then chose to get cuffed rather than walk out free? At a retail store where he spent ~$2k last year?
Look at me, I am special on the internet! I have a circle-a t-shirt and nothing real to contribute to the community, anarchist or otherwise!
I was there, saw everything after the cops showed and have seen those particular cops work before. (don't ask...)
Taking him out of there in cuffs was clearly the last resort; at 6pm on a Friday the last thing they have time for is doing paperwork for some minor non-emergency. He had to have been a major jackass and said all the wrong things to get anything other than his name written down. Based on a bit of eavesdropping and body language, it looked like he just wanted to go out of there in cuffs to make the story better.
What kind of self respecting anarchist sets himself up to be detained by the law, with the comfort of eventual release, while shopping in a store?
I mean, I am all for the right not to present ID, and if you really don't want to give out your name, fine. In particular at a protest or just walking down the street, that would be the time for asserting your rights.
But this guy went onto private property, got some consumer goods from asia, got in LINE to buy them, then with an IPHONE got into it with armed guards, in a quite vulnerable moment for them... and then chose to get cuffed rather than walk out free? At a retail store where he spent ~$2k last year?
Look at me, I am special on the internet! I have a circle-a t-shirt and nothing real to contribute to the community, anarchist or otherwise!
78
@73: That might be the most succinct, delightful description of photography rights I've seen yet. Thank you!
79
I think he's definitely an anarchist. Not passing judgment:
http://theresistancearmy.com/
http://www.flickr.com/people/veganstraig…
I believe strongly in people's right to take photographs -- I've gotten into altercations about this myself. Having said that, he probably wasn't using the best judgment in this situation.
http://theresistancearmy.com/
http://www.flickr.com/people/veganstraig…
I believe strongly in people's right to take photographs -- I've gotten into altercations about this myself. Having said that, he probably wasn't using the best judgment in this situation.
80
I do not see how REI is at fault. The incident occured in their store, but was clearly between Becker and Loomis. It seems Loomis called SPD. Yes, REI security will be called when an incident takes place on their property, but it sounds like only SPD and Loomis did any blaming, arresting etc.
81
Sure, people can take photos anytime, but it is alwyas polite to ask permission. These Loomis guys were doing their job and handling a lot of cash, and presumably would be walking out to an armored car full of cash. Do they want some stranger to know who they are? What if the stranger is hatching a plan to rob Loomis? Sure, it seems unlikely, but the Loomis guys do not know this. They have a right to feel safe at their job. What does REI have to do with this? I guess it took place in their store, but no matter where this incident took place store security or management would likely be called. AS witnesses! From what I have read, it appears that the problem is with Loomis calling SPD(within their right if they feel threatened), and with SPD taking this guy in(within their right to inviestigate a case). If he was in custody for such a short time, I guess he was not charged. This is not a good incident no matter how one looks at it, but I think people should calm down. If anyone wants to direct their anger at someone it could be at Becker for not asking permission to take a photo of people doing a dangerous job, or they could be angry at the police for taking Becker out of the store. Do not blame the retailer, REI is a victim, too. REI only had the ATM in their store.
82
Sooo, the general consensus is that only people who are popular and non-weird or non-mainstream have civil rights and all those other freaks should be rounded up and arrested even though they didn't actually break the law? Good to know.
Here is story of the general douchey and thuggish behavior of persons who service ATMs and drive armored cars from The Stranger's sister publication. Enjoy.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-10-0…
Here is story of the general douchey and thuggish behavior of persons who service ATMs and drive armored cars from The Stranger's sister publication. Enjoy.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-10-0…
84
Also, why the title of the article " Police arrest Man for Taking Photo in REI."? Why not: Police arrest man for taking photo of ATM?"
86
@82: I think the point that people are making is not that he doesn't have civil rights, but that his blog and other biographical details suggest he may have escalated the situation or even consciously or subconsciously provoked it.
I AGREE that his rights were probably violated but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that he may have been outspoken or confrontational and made it worse for everyone. This is all supposition, obviously.
I AGREE that his rights were probably violated but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that he may have been outspoken or confrontational and made it worse for everyone. This is all supposition, obviously.
87
REI needs to end their contract with Loomis unless they intensely retrain their staff. Armed workers can't go around intimidating people. I would be interested in an update in 1 month to see if REI is a good or bad citizen of Seattle.
88
If the inner workings of an ATM are so super-secret that photographing them is grounds for arrest, then keep them fricking private! Put the customer-facing portion of the machine in public and wall off the money-loading portion. I really don't care if the guy's political leanings put him in proximity of the douches of this world -- he took a photograph in a public place. No harm, no foul. No arrest.
89
I read that guy's blog. Complete fucking douchenozzle. He deserves to be sent up the river for 20 years at least.
90
I love how this guy is all "I took a picture with my iPhone". A REAL anarchist wouldn't blab all over his blog that he has an iPhone. iPhones are a symbol of consumer culture gone awry. This douchebag fucktwat crybaby has zero credibility. Typical Seattle pussy - gets in someone's face with an iPhone and then criiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiies when they call him on his bullshit.
91
And now on his blog he's crying "the comments have gotten all crazy so I've started comment registration".
HEY DOUCHEWAD - COMMENT REGISTRATION IS A TOOL OF OPPRESSION. You're no anarchist - you're a fucking trustfund crybaby. Nothing more, nothing less. Any collective would eat you for breakfast with locally-sourced organic whole milk.
HEY DOUCHEWAD - COMMENT REGISTRATION IS A TOOL OF OPPRESSION. You're no anarchist - you're a fucking trustfund crybaby. Nothing more, nothing less. Any collective would eat you for breakfast with locally-sourced organic whole milk.
92
The concern trolls here are disgusting. They're willing to throw all their security away for some imagined gains. It's funny how all the idiots here have an obsessive need for authority ("the guards told him to do something, and he didn't!?!?!"), a fear of people different from them ("omg, a vegan, kill it!"), a total inability to rationally consider consequences ("omg, there were a bazillion pics of ATMs, now there's one more - DOOM!"), and a lust for vengeance totally out of proportion to the act ("He wasted a few cop hours while they harassed him, toss him into the sun and bill his family!").
As lyric and the other logical people said, if this was secret - hide it. But as others pointed out, the guts of ATMs aren't secret and many cameras (Call the Blade Runner unit, lol!) were likely recording this procedure and similar at thousands of stores at the same moment. But this goes deeper than facts, to stupid people's instinctive fear of cameras. People have observed the weaknesses in things for thousands of years before having photos, and the photos still don't show anything that the observer there didn't see. Yet the guards were calmly working as he walked by - concerned only after he took the picture.
They clearly weren't worried about the money or their safety or one of them would have been facing out from the machine, keeping an eye out for trouble. None of the ATM drawers are visibly open and they aren't obeying even basic safety protocols. I'd bet they're changing the receipt paper or something else innocuous. Clearly they're afraid he stole its soul.
As lyric and the other logical people said, if this was secret - hide it. But as others pointed out, the guts of ATMs aren't secret and many cameras (Call the Blade Runner unit, lol!) were likely recording this procedure and similar at thousands of stores at the same moment. But this goes deeper than facts, to stupid people's instinctive fear of cameras. People have observed the weaknesses in things for thousands of years before having photos, and the photos still don't show anything that the observer there didn't see. Yet the guards were calmly working as he walked by - concerned only after he took the picture.
They clearly weren't worried about the money or their safety or one of them would have been facing out from the machine, keeping an eye out for trouble. None of the ATM drawers are visibly open and they aren't obeying even basic safety protocols. I'd bet they're changing the receipt paper or something else innocuous. Clearly they're afraid he stole its soul.
94
So he didn't have any bad intention in taking the photos, but wouldn't apparently communicate that to anyone. Think for a second:
- if he were taking a picture of your kid's preschool
- if he were taking a picture of you getting out your hide-a-key from under the planter
- if he were taking a picture while you were keying your PIN into an ATM
You'd probably be suspicious and want to make sure he wasn't a criminal, right? And then if he acted all combative you might call the cops. I sure as frack would.
Maybe just being a kinder person would have made this all a non-issue.......
- if he were taking a picture of your kid's preschool
- if he were taking a picture of you getting out your hide-a-key from under the planter
- if he were taking a picture while you were keying your PIN into an ATM
You'd probably be suspicious and want to make sure he wasn't a criminal, right? And then if he acted all combative you might call the cops. I sure as frack would.
Maybe just being a kinder person would have made this all a non-issue.......
95
It's a Bank of America machine, probably run for them under contract by Loomis. REI maybe lets the machine in the store gratis for the convienence of customers who of course also end up buying more stuff with the cash. Trade off is that REI likely has to allow the Loomis people access on their own terms, not obstruct their operations, etc. If so, it sounds like Loomis' going to need to define whether photographing or watching the machine being serviced is obstructive, and if so within REI's responsibility to monitor. Meanwhile, Bank of America, whose brand name is on the machine, could lose because it slected Loomis to run its eponymous ATM's and is nominally on the line if it turns out the Loomis people overstepped. Personally, I belive they did.
That'd be my straight, uninformed guess. And people---don't be sheeple. Show some guts. A gun and a badge doesn't make person infalliable.
That'd be my straight, uninformed guess. And people---don't be sheeple. Show some guts. A gun and a badge doesn't make person infalliable.
96
@94 - my issue isn't that they called the cops. It's that they threatened him with physical violence if he tried to leave, and he didn't do anything illegal.
How is that different than kidnapping, again?
How is that different than kidnapping, again?
97
@92: Having been in this situation lots of times, I've learned you get a lot farther with the police with honey than with vinegar. Authority figures have been irrationally afraid of photographers since 9/11 -- the best thing to do is calmly explain to them what the rules actually are and then do some triage: How much do I care about this photo? How much of a dickhead does this security guard seem to be? Is this an opportunity for education? I've had a chance to explain to cops what the rules are, and when you're not confrontational, some of them will actually listen.
Point being: It's not about bending over for authority, it's about thinking about whether your goal is resolving a conflict or creating a spectacle to publicize the offense. Arguably there's a time and a place for both, but if you choose to make things worse, part of the blame lies with you.
@94 may have said all of this better, I've just been ruminating about this all night and wanted to get it off my chest.
Point being: It's not about bending over for authority, it's about thinking about whether your goal is resolving a conflict or creating a spectacle to publicize the offense. Arguably there's a time and a place for both, but if you choose to make things worse, part of the blame lies with you.
@94 may have said all of this better, I've just been ruminating about this all night and wanted to get it off my chest.
99
I love all the asshats here whining that taking a picture is some supremely subversive and suspicious act.
Run along now and go help Dick Cheney yammer about how waterboarding isn't torture, you bunch of wound up bed wetting conservative pussies.
Run along now and go help Dick Cheney yammer about how waterboarding isn't torture, you bunch of wound up bed wetting conservative pussies.
101
I understand why Loomis and the police are so dumb, but you'd think REI would know better. This is only going to piss off a whole scad of their customers. I just spent several hundred dollars there last week and I can tell you this infuriates me. People can purchase everything at REI online elsewhere without sales tax or shipping costs. REI needs to do better at PR management and handle these things before they get out of control, particularly when dealing with Loomis security guards or their own, who everyone knows are just looking for reasons to abuse their "so-called" authority.
103
#99 Yes, We think that walking up and taking a picture of armed guards cashing out an open ATM, because he thinks the inside of it is neato, is probably not the smartest thing to do. Therefore, we also think that Dick Cheney is awesome and torture is pretty cool.
105
I think Jigae @97 put it best:
It's not about bending over for authority, it's about thinking about whether your goal is resolving a conflict or creating a spectacle to publicize the offense.
I am amazed at what a big deal everyone is making out of this. This is not a human-rights issue. The guy acted suspiciously, then got confrontational. No, he didn't commit a crime. He also didn't go to jail and has no criminal record -- so what's the big deal? That he was barred from shopping in a store for awhile? Give me a break.
In light of the actual human-rights violations that go on in this world, I am baffled that this silly, silly episode is being treated with such seriousness. Common sense rule #1: don't tease cops, security guards, or border officials and expect not to be hassled. And find a better cause to rally around than this attention-seeking "anarchist".
It's not about bending over for authority, it's about thinking about whether your goal is resolving a conflict or creating a spectacle to publicize the offense.
I am amazed at what a big deal everyone is making out of this. This is not a human-rights issue. The guy acted suspiciously, then got confrontational. No, he didn't commit a crime. He also didn't go to jail and has no criminal record -- so what's the big deal? That he was barred from shopping in a store for awhile? Give me a break.
In light of the actual human-rights violations that go on in this world, I am baffled that this silly, silly episode is being treated with such seriousness. Common sense rule #1: don't tease cops, security guards, or border officials and expect not to be hassled. And find a better cause to rally around than this attention-seeking "anarchist".
106
If the inside of an ATM is so secret, why did Loomis have it open in full view of every REI shopper on a Friday afternoon?
107
Irena the only silly person is you. You don't seem to understand the 4th amendment. The supreme court has already certified that probable cause is needed for detainment, and that "suspicious behavior" doesn't meet that requirement. In other words they need to see him actually commit a crime, or in the process of committing a crime to have probable cause to detain him. Which they didn't, and thus is a civil rights violation. The ACLU is now involved according to his blog.
108
@107: There's something to be said for choosing your battles -- I don't see this going very far in the end.
Also, calling Irena silly is a little unfair. He wasn't detained -- he caused trouble and he was asked to stay around to explain himself. He wasn't thrown in prison. This isn't some sort of Brokedown Palace scenario.
I know we can say this is a slippery slope, but really, I think this is a huge waste of the ACLU's resources which could be spent on any of thousands of more pressing matters.
Also, calling Irena silly is a little unfair. He wasn't detained -- he caused trouble and he was asked to stay around to explain himself. He wasn't thrown in prison. This isn't some sort of Brokedown Palace scenario.
I know we can say this is a slippery slope, but really, I think this is a huge waste of the ACLU's resources which could be spent on any of thousands of more pressing matters.
109
@107, He was at the police station for half an hour, and only because he refused to cooperate and defuse the situation -- which would have cost him nothing. I really don't understand how this guy has suddenly become Seattle's poster child for civil rights. As far as civil rights violations go, this is peanuts.
He is using the story to push t-shirts on his website, by the way. Gawd.
He is using the story to push t-shirts on his website, by the way. Gawd.
110
#107- I guess I'll have to count myself among the "silly" people then. At least I should be heartened to hear that the ACLU has enough time to waste on a case like this. There must not be too many other pressing, and crucial civil rights cases currently being defended in the Northwest.
111
Granted, this "photographer" did nothing illegal and just gets off trying to "stick it to the man". His lack of reasonable thinking is stunning for him not to consider the obvious "initial" reactions of the Loomis workers, however, for them to threaten him with a physical restraint if he tried to leave was way out of line. But their reason for concern was totally justified. They should have put one of themselves in between the picture-taker and the money, secured the money and the ATM, and left the scene to return later when it was "safer". Perhaps, to have even called the police if they were truly threatened by him... but why would they continue to leave themselves exposed if they felt concerned for their safety.
All that being said, I went to the vegan-anarchists website and was floored to realize that I recognize this good citizen of the Seattle area. My wife and I witnessed him smashing the storefront window at Niketown and stealing merchandise from the window disply back when W.T.O. was here. I will tackle him if I ever get to see him in public again... someone please photograph that!!
Granted, this "photographer" did nothing illegal and just gets off trying to "stick it to the man". His lack of reasonable thinking is stunning for him not to consider the obvious "initial" reactions of the Loomis workers, however, for them to threaten him with a physical restraint if he tried to leave was way out of line. But their reason for concern was totally justified. They should have put one of themselves in between the picture-taker and the money, secured the money and the ATM, and left the scene to return later when it was "safer". Perhaps, to have even called the police if they were truly threatened by him... but why would they continue to leave themselves exposed if they felt concerned for their safety.
All that being said, I went to the vegan-anarchists website and was floored to realize that I recognize this good citizen of the Seattle area. My wife and I witnessed him smashing the storefront window at Niketown and stealing merchandise from the window disply back when W.T.O. was here. I will tackle him if I ever get to see him in public again... someone please photograph that!!
112
Becker wasn't arrested for taking a picture. He wasn't even arrested. He was detained. However, an obstruction charge could have been filed, and if so Becker would have been found guilty. SPD decided that a 30-minute detention was sufficient punishment for a minor infraction of stupidity.
If a trespassing complaint is being filed against you, then the police have the authority to require you to show ID so they can ensure that the complaint is filed correctly. Becker didn't have to give ID to either Loomis or REI (although they certainly already had his ID if he was an REI member). He did have to give it to the police once they responded. They should have done a better job of explaining this, though, and saved themselves the hassle of bringing Becker down, although I'm sure that was done because Becker failed the 'stupid' rule. You see, there are only two real crimes, misdemeanor stupid and felony stupid. Becker was guilty of 3rd degree misdemeanor stupid.
I would think that BoA and Loomis would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in terms of not having photos of the insides of their ATMs, the number of guards that service an ATM, or the weaponry and body armor those guards are equipped with, broadcast widely. Taking a picture in this situation would be deemed suspicious by most people (reasonable person test), and thus I don't blame the Loomis guards for their actions... although they did not have the authority to use force to detain Becker (and they didn't, and I believe they are within their rights to threaten/suggest as long as they don't actually carry the threat out).
And, finally, Becker is an idiot or an agent provocateur. Wouldn't it have been easier to just give the police his driver's license/ID? I'm sure that, in a similar situation, he will do so in the future, having (hopefully) learned his lesson. Or maybe not... if he's more interested in being a jerk.
More...
If a trespassing complaint is being filed against you, then the police have the authority to require you to show ID so they can ensure that the complaint is filed correctly. Becker didn't have to give ID to either Loomis or REI (although they certainly already had his ID if he was an REI member). He did have to give it to the police once they responded. They should have done a better job of explaining this, though, and saved themselves the hassle of bringing Becker down, although I'm sure that was done because Becker failed the 'stupid' rule. You see, there are only two real crimes, misdemeanor stupid and felony stupid. Becker was guilty of 3rd degree misdemeanor stupid.
I would think that BoA and Loomis would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in terms of not having photos of the insides of their ATMs, the number of guards that service an ATM, or the weaponry and body armor those guards are equipped with, broadcast widely. Taking a picture in this situation would be deemed suspicious by most people (reasonable person test), and thus I don't blame the Loomis guards for their actions... although they did not have the authority to use force to detain Becker (and they didn't, and I believe they are within their rights to threaten/suggest as long as they don't actually carry the threat out).
And, finally, Becker is an idiot or an agent provocateur. Wouldn't it have been easier to just give the police his driver's license/ID? I'm sure that, in a similar situation, he will do so in the future, having (hopefully) learned his lesson. Or maybe not... if he's more interested in being a jerk.
113
"fascinated by the insides of things that we don't normally get to see."
This guy is a fucking goon. Vegan Straightedge REI shoppers are half the reason this city is one of the most laughable ones on the map.
and his website is a joke but he certainly is keeping track of how many people visit it. Now if only one of those visitors would go on a date with him........
This guy is a fucking goon. Vegan Straightedge REI shoppers are half the reason this city is one of the most laughable ones on the map.
and his website is a joke but he certainly is keeping track of how many people visit it. Now if only one of those visitors would go on a date with him........
114
You only have to give your personal information to law enforcement. Not rent a cops. If that is the case then these rent a cops could request personal information for young men and ladies for dubious reasons and start stalking them and peaking into their bathroom windows if they wished to do so.
This guy is a douche and deserves a swift kick in the gonads for being a "vegan straight edge anarchist" which makes no sense. A straight edge anarchist. The lack of meat and protein to his brain has caused it to start eating itself.
That being said. Art is art. I am a photographer and take pictures of stuff. Stuff you may not see whilst you walk around with your head up your butt all day because you hate your job or whatever reason. Aside from some lighitng issues and perhaps some framing it is a nice picture.
The Gestapo is dead. Seattle police hassle photographers all the time. You can take pictures if you want to. No tresspassing, and not further than reasonable privacy from public places. If you go there in public you can take a picture, or have your picture taken. You nor I own the world (at least the US). And yes, I do think the guy is a dumb douche nozzle anyway. He could have complied better with the police if he wished to not stand up for his rights. Civil rights are civil rights.
This guy is a douche and deserves a swift kick in the gonads for being a "vegan straight edge anarchist" which makes no sense. A straight edge anarchist. The lack of meat and protein to his brain has caused it to start eating itself.
That being said. Art is art. I am a photographer and take pictures of stuff. Stuff you may not see whilst you walk around with your head up your butt all day because you hate your job or whatever reason. Aside from some lighitng issues and perhaps some framing it is a nice picture.
The Gestapo is dead. Seattle police hassle photographers all the time. You can take pictures if you want to. No tresspassing, and not further than reasonable privacy from public places. If you go there in public you can take a picture, or have your picture taken. You nor I own the world (at least the US). And yes, I do think the guy is a dumb douche nozzle anyway. He could have complied better with the police if he wished to not stand up for his rights. Civil rights are civil rights.
115
It would be really nice if REI would step up and respond to this in some way. They're as much a victim as anyone, but their silence after all this noise only makes them look complicit.
116
Some intrepid journalist (do those exist anymore?) should ask Shane if he has ever been arrested at that store before, and whether or not he blogged about it. the answer might be surprising, or at least good for a laugh.
117
these guys do preform a dangerous job. In Lynwood a driver was killed by a very well planned robbery.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…
118
After reading a few more comments it appears that a civics lesson needs to occur.
1. If a police officer asks you to identify yourself, it is law in EVERY STATE, that you must. In most states you are even REQUIRED top carry identification. I don't make the rules they are are just the rules and as part of a civilization, as a citizens, we are all agree to play by the rules. Don't like it, move to a country where you like the rules and live there. Or work to legally change them.
2. Since when is private commercial property the same as public space. Just because the public is allowed to venture on to it, do not confuse it with public property. You might want to google this one but it is there property and they have every right to set the rules. It is not like being on a public street where you can tell their security guards to FO and walk away. On their property, the guards can as you to leave or detain you. Again, I don't make the rules, I just choose to live here so I play by them. Don't like them, again, move or work on changing them.
Personally I have been asked to leave private property while I am taking pictures, I am usually not a douche bag about it, I talk with the person about what I am doing, why I am doing it and let them know who I am. The guy is just doing his job and we all do things we do not necessarily like when we do our job, doesn't make any sense to hassle the poor guy about it.
I think that I would rather have the police doing potentially important stuff rather the messing with some ignorant jack ass. Taxes are a drag to pay and I would rather that those who receive them be doing the job they are paid to do and when it comes to police, there are better things, in my mind, for them to do.
1. If a police officer asks you to identify yourself, it is law in EVERY STATE, that you must. In most states you are even REQUIRED top carry identification. I don't make the rules they are are just the rules and as part of a civilization, as a citizens, we are all agree to play by the rules. Don't like it, move to a country where you like the rules and live there. Or work to legally change them.
2. Since when is private commercial property the same as public space. Just because the public is allowed to venture on to it, do not confuse it with public property. You might want to google this one but it is there property and they have every right to set the rules. It is not like being on a public street where you can tell their security guards to FO and walk away. On their property, the guards can as you to leave or detain you. Again, I don't make the rules, I just choose to live here so I play by them. Don't like them, again, move or work on changing them.
Personally I have been asked to leave private property while I am taking pictures, I am usually not a douche bag about it, I talk with the person about what I am doing, why I am doing it and let them know who I am. The guy is just doing his job and we all do things we do not necessarily like when we do our job, doesn't make any sense to hassle the poor guy about it.
I think that I would rather have the police doing potentially important stuff rather the messing with some ignorant jack ass. Taxes are a drag to pay and I would rather that those who receive them be doing the job they are paid to do and when it comes to police, there are better things, in my mind, for them to do.
119
How much did Becker get paid by the Stranger for the shot on the cover? And so it begins. Welcome to America. Ca-ching.
120
@118, what laws are you referring to? Seriously, I want to know. What is the RCW cite to the law that makes it a crime to refuse to identify yourself? and to the law that says that one is required to carry ID when not driving? My hunch is that they don't exist, and that you're a blowhard. But maybe you'll prove my hunch wrong.
121
A clear violation of the photographer's civil liberties. REI, Loomis, and City of Seattle are all willing accomplices and should be held accountable.
122
Hopefully Shane will never need the services of security or police forces. Karma can be a bitch.
123
Really?
This made the cover?
Douchebag takes inappropriate photo and douchebag security overreacts...STOP THE MOTHERFUCKING PRESSES!!!
I guess a non-story is better than a cover with Miss California or some reality show hobags breaking up (Jon/Kate: WHO THE FUCK are they exactly?) or pig flu paranoia...
This made the cover?
Douchebag takes inappropriate photo and douchebag security overreacts...STOP THE MOTHERFUCKING PRESSES!!!
I guess a non-story is better than a cover with Miss California or some reality show hobags breaking up (Jon/Kate: WHO THE FUCK are they exactly?) or pig flu paranoia...
124
Well 120, Since I am not a lawyer and not overly skilled with the states crappy RCW page, I did find the definition of Obstructing. IT would probably foot the bill if they wanted to haul you into court. All they would need is anything that you might do that would make them want to talk to you and that would be about all it would require. "Please sir, can you give me a name and an address so I know your not a wanted felon..." I can see a million ways a cop could spin it if they really wanted to. My guess is that the law is written this broadly exactly for this reason. Self identification is one of those basic fundamental things that a reasonable person should be able and willing to do.
Granted in a post 911 world, we have some tension between authority and civil liberties. Having said that We are also all trying to play by the same rules. If you do not like the laws, 2 choices, move the fuck out or fix them. We do live in a republic which has democratic representation. So in my eyes,it is real simple if you don't like it, fix it or get the fuck out.
OH, 121, your photographic rights only apply to you on public property. If you are on another's property, those right, as defined by supreme court cases, are not so black and white. If you doubt this, I would like you to put yourself in a situation and run it through the court system.It would be wonderful to actually change this fact. However, consider the potential ramifications of personal property becoming public property in the eyes of a camera. It is a carful balance we have as citizens of this republic.
RCW 9A.76.020
Obstructing a law enforcement officer.
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
(2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.
(3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor.
[2001 c 308 § 3. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 33; 1994 c 196 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.76.020.]
More...
Granted in a post 911 world, we have some tension between authority and civil liberties. Having said that We are also all trying to play by the same rules. If you do not like the laws, 2 choices, move the fuck out or fix them. We do live in a republic which has democratic representation. So in my eyes,it is real simple if you don't like it, fix it or get the fuck out.
OH, 121, your photographic rights only apply to you on public property. If you are on another's property, those right, as defined by supreme court cases, are not so black and white. If you doubt this, I would like you to put yourself in a situation and run it through the court system.It would be wonderful to actually change this fact. However, consider the potential ramifications of personal property becoming public property in the eyes of a camera. It is a carful balance we have as citizens of this republic.
RCW 9A.76.020
Obstructing a law enforcement officer.
(1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties.
(2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes.
(3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor.
[2001 c 308 § 3. Prior: 1995 c 285 § 33; 1994 c 196 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.76.020.]
125
Two things to think about:
Shane, in his own account of the situation, called the Loomis guards "fake cops". LESSON ONE TO EVERYBODY: Don't call people with guns "fake cops". "Cops" don't even like to be called "cops"! So, if you use escalating language and then cry like a little bitch when you get thrown in a squad car, you are an IDIOT. I think Shane needs to meditate on the phrase "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD."
Secondly, argueing that you have the right to do something because "somebody has probably already done it" is not good logic. This was Shane's main defense of why it was OK for him to take the picture that he did.
And, bonus third point: lets put the issue of if he has the right to take the picture in the first place aside. What he DID NOT have the right to do was to publish it. Which he did.
PS. What kind of self respecting anarchist shops at REI, anyways? And then asks people to support his plight by buying his friends t-shirts? The only plight I see is that Shane is a grade a Idiot, and no amount of t-shirts purchased is going to change that fact.
Shane, in his own account of the situation, called the Loomis guards "fake cops". LESSON ONE TO EVERYBODY: Don't call people with guns "fake cops". "Cops" don't even like to be called "cops"! So, if you use escalating language and then cry like a little bitch when you get thrown in a squad car, you are an IDIOT. I think Shane needs to meditate on the phrase "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD."
Secondly, argueing that you have the right to do something because "somebody has probably already done it" is not good logic. This was Shane's main defense of why it was OK for him to take the picture that he did.
And, bonus third point: lets put the issue of if he has the right to take the picture in the first place aside. What he DID NOT have the right to do was to publish it. Which he did.
PS. What kind of self respecting anarchist shops at REI, anyways? And then asks people to support his plight by buying his friends t-shirts? The only plight I see is that Shane is a grade a Idiot, and no amount of t-shirts purchased is going to change that fact.
126
Two things to think about:
Shane, in his own account of the situation, called the Loomis guards "fake cops". LESSON ONE TO EVERYBODY: Don't call people with guns "fake cops". "Cops" don't even like to be called "cops"! So, if you use escalating language and then cry like a little bitch when you get thrown in a squad car, you are an IDIOT. I think Shane needs to meditate on the phrase "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD."
Secondly, argueing that you have the right to do something because "somebody has probably already done it" is not good logic. This was Shane's main defense of why it was OK for him to take the picture that he did.
And, bonus third point: lets put the issue of if he has the right to take the picture in the first place aside. What he DID NOT have the right to do was to publish it. Which he did.
PS. What kind of self respecting anarchist shops at REI, anyways? And then asks people to support his plight by buying his friends t-shirts? The only plight I see is that Shane is a grade a Idiot, and no amount of t-shirts purchased is going to change that fact.
Shane, in his own account of the situation, called the Loomis guards "fake cops". LESSON ONE TO EVERYBODY: Don't call people with guns "fake cops". "Cops" don't even like to be called "cops"! So, if you use escalating language and then cry like a little bitch when you get thrown in a squad car, you are an IDIOT. I think Shane needs to meditate on the phrase "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD."
Secondly, argueing that you have the right to do something because "somebody has probably already done it" is not good logic. This was Shane's main defense of why it was OK for him to take the picture that he did.
And, bonus third point: lets put the issue of if he has the right to take the picture in the first place aside. What he DID NOT have the right to do was to publish it. Which he did.
PS. What kind of self respecting anarchist shops at REI, anyways? And then asks people to support his plight by buying his friends t-shirts? The only plight I see is that Shane is a grade a Idiot, and no amount of t-shirts purchased is going to change that fact.
128
127, you go search the RCWs and get back to me. Simple fact is if a cop ask you your name and you refuse to answer him, there is a very very good chance you will end up in jail. It really is called Obstructing a law enforcement officer. it is simple.
Better yet, go play the clown in front of a cop and when he yanks your dumb ass over and starts to write up info, play the fool and then get back to me.
Better yet, go play the clown in front of a cop and when he yanks your dumb ass over and starts to write up info, play the fool and then get back to me.
131
My friends who work in armored transport tell me that obstructing or threatening any AT guard while they are on duty is a violation of the law and falls under the responsibility of the FBI. Its exactly like blatantly taking pictures of a bank's security system.
My friends were involved in an incident at Woodland Park years ago when a handicapped man was infuriated because the AT truck was in the handicapped parking space. He blocked the truck in and took pictures, and was swiftly arrested by the FBI. Just saying.
My friends were involved in an incident at Woodland Park years ago when a handicapped man was infuriated because the AT truck was in the handicapped parking space. He blocked the truck in and took pictures, and was swiftly arrested by the FBI. Just saying.
132
@118:
"2. Since when is private commercial property the same as public space. Just because the public is allowed to venture on to it, do not confuse it with public property. You might want to google this one but it is there property and they have every right to set the rules. It is not like being on a public street where you can tell their security guards to FO and walk away. On their property, the guards can as you to leave or detain you."
Not only do you not make the rules, you don't know them very well. Private personnel can ask you to leave and call the cops if you don't, but they can't detain you if you have done nothing illegal. In this case, it would seem that the individual even threatened the guy with violence if he tried to leave. You know what it is when you are somewhere doing nothing illegal and I threaten you with violence if you try to leave? Unlawful Imprisonment under RCW 9A.40.040.
"2. Since when is private commercial property the same as public space. Just because the public is allowed to venture on to it, do not confuse it with public property. You might want to google this one but it is there property and they have every right to set the rules. It is not like being on a public street where you can tell their security guards to FO and walk away. On their property, the guards can as you to leave or detain you."
Not only do you not make the rules, you don't know them very well. Private personnel can ask you to leave and call the cops if you don't, but they can't detain you if you have done nothing illegal. In this case, it would seem that the individual even threatened the guy with violence if he tried to leave. You know what it is when you are somewhere doing nothing illegal and I threaten you with violence if you try to leave? Unlawful Imprisonment under RCW 9A.40.040.
133
He should not have been arrested for taking the photo before he knew it was not okay. After that, then sure they have the right to tell him it's not okay. Although tresspassing him seems more reasonable then arrest. I took a photo (without flash) of a painting in a museum recently and was asked not to do it again. When I'm in an art gallery (for some reason I have better manners there) I do ask if I want to take a photo of something before I do it. Maybe people are anal retentive, but sometimes they have legit reasons for not wanting it done. Even if there reasons are kind of lame, it still is their property, and they have the right to tell you to get off it if you don't follow their (sometimes lame) rules.
134
Would it be possible for the Stranger to add a high school civics quiz to the registration process for anybody to post opinions about the constitution?
And maybe add the same quiz to the requirements for employment at SPD.
And maybe add the same quiz to the requirements for employment at SPD.
135
i see that he was sooooo interested in wanting to know what an atm looks like inside that after the fact,the "incident" he looked all over the net for atm info and found it(WHATS AN ANARCHIST DOING ON THE INTERNET ??? ISNT THE GOVERNMENT WATCHING???)theyre coming for you,boooo. if you were really interested you would have done so at home with your hands in pants doing what you normally do to yourself looking at atm information,yes ive often wondered if fall out boys crew would set up a stage like any other stage,hmmm. but instead duh duh duh duh.....im gonna just go out of my way at these guys and take a picture,dumbshit!!! he claims it was a public area,no its a private area(REI)and property. remember terrorists? they too were very in the public types.in schools,working being "members of our society"... the armored industry has been hit all over the country more than ever,do you recall the 2 RETIRED cops that were gunned down in Philadelphia,they did nothing,they were run up on and simply shot to death.whos to say you may have been doing something similar.weapons can look like almost anything these days.they want a report so that if another crew sees you they will be alerted you fool.if you had nothing to hide.....? oh thats right the self proclaimed anarchist on the internet is exempt from law and apparently COMMON F'n SENSE. i would have felt threatened too. understand cause and effect and accept YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS. instead of whoa is me grow the f-up are you kidding. i got your next mission,go run up on a federal reserve armed guard and report back to us how that goes.i want to see the insides of the federal reserve.you cant even see the money,what kind of reaction might you expect there??? good luck.
More...
136
i'd be more willing to give shane becker the benefit of the doubt if he had the integrity to come out and say that he simply took the pictures to provoke exactly the kind of confrontation that occurred. frankly, i think it's GOOD that people are out there testing these limits and forcing law enforcement to examine closely how to handle photography situations.
but at least have the balls to say it straight and don't make up some corny lie about why you took the picture. after the lie i lost respect for him and couldn't really fully take this side in the ensuing fiasco. turns out everyone acted stupidly in this situation.
but at least have the balls to say it straight and don't make up some corny lie about why you took the picture. after the lie i lost respect for him and couldn't really fully take this side in the ensuing fiasco. turns out everyone acted stupidly in this situation.
137
132,
~~RCW 9.01.055 Citizen immunity if aiding officer, scope — When~~
clearly gives citizens the right to help in the legal system. Now considering the position that a person who transports federal currency around commercially is given more latitude to execute his job, not just by state, but by federal protection, I think they fit into what would be covered by this RCW. I would guess, and as I stated before I am not a lawyer but simply a citizen, but I would guess that the state, federal and even the municipal court system would give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to protecting large sums of money. If they are concerned about a "suspicious" situation, my non-legal guess would be they would be given legal latitude to actually tackle your dumb ass if they thought you might be casing out a box to break into.
If a mall guard has all the legal protection in the world to "apprehend" a person suspected of steeling a tee shirt, and hold them in an office until a police officer arrives, not even being positive you actually have the shirt on you, these guys may even be able to get away with tazzing you.
Please remember, these people are in an odd way putting their ass on the line so you can have access to your precious back account where ever you might be. They are in a very dangerous job, even if you fail to recognize it. Do a quick google search and you will find many cases were they have been killed in their job.
As someone earlier stated, I suspect you would even find the FBI happy to jump in with the Justice department to defend these peoples actions. This does boarder on the edges of interstate commerce after all.
If someone walks onto your property and snaps a shot of you eating lunch on your deck, well that is a whole lot different then taking a picture of armed guards filling several thousand dollars into a bank machine. To act like the two are the same type of action is a logical fallacy in that you fail to recognize the severity of the potential acts. You really should think this through a little more. You will see clearly that RCW 9A.40.040 in no way could or even would be used in such a situation to prosecute. This is simply a red herring. Look over here!! I found a law that counters your supposition!!!
136, I agree, we do need to legitimately test the law and when we find it is lacking proper restraint, challenge it and change it. It is our civic duty to protect ourselves from the government. And if you choose to do it, be smart about how you do it. Find others who believe as you do and fix the system. It is in no way anywhere close to perfect but there are legitimate mechanisms to change it. This is a dumb stunt that has gotten this nozzle more hits on his blog then he has ever had before. ;0)
More...
~~RCW 9.01.055 Citizen immunity if aiding officer, scope — When~~
clearly gives citizens the right to help in the legal system. Now considering the position that a person who transports federal currency around commercially is given more latitude to execute his job, not just by state, but by federal protection, I think they fit into what would be covered by this RCW. I would guess, and as I stated before I am not a lawyer but simply a citizen, but I would guess that the state, federal and even the municipal court system would give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to protecting large sums of money. If they are concerned about a "suspicious" situation, my non-legal guess would be they would be given legal latitude to actually tackle your dumb ass if they thought you might be casing out a box to break into.
If a mall guard has all the legal protection in the world to "apprehend" a person suspected of steeling a tee shirt, and hold them in an office until a police officer arrives, not even being positive you actually have the shirt on you, these guys may even be able to get away with tazzing you.
Please remember, these people are in an odd way putting their ass on the line so you can have access to your precious back account where ever you might be. They are in a very dangerous job, even if you fail to recognize it. Do a quick google search and you will find many cases were they have been killed in their job.
As someone earlier stated, I suspect you would even find the FBI happy to jump in with the Justice department to defend these peoples actions. This does boarder on the edges of interstate commerce after all.
If someone walks onto your property and snaps a shot of you eating lunch on your deck, well that is a whole lot different then taking a picture of armed guards filling several thousand dollars into a bank machine. To act like the two are the same type of action is a logical fallacy in that you fail to recognize the severity of the potential acts. You really should think this through a little more. You will see clearly that RCW 9A.40.040 in no way could or even would be used in such a situation to prosecute. This is simply a red herring. Look over here!! I found a law that counters your supposition!!!
136, I agree, we do need to legitimately test the law and when we find it is lacking proper restraint, challenge it and change it. It is our civic duty to protect ourselves from the government. And if you choose to do it, be smart about how you do it. Find others who believe as you do and fix the system. It is in no way anywhere close to perfect but there are legitimate mechanisms to change it. This is a dumb stunt that has gotten this nozzle more hits on his blog then he has ever had before. ;0)
138
so i'm wondering if the stranger got the same amount of money for the REI ad that runs on the page ACROSS FROM THIS STORY as they paid for the cover photo?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/arc…
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/arc…
139
@137:
The law you cited:
"Private citizens aiding a police officer, or other officers of the law in the performance of their duties as police officers or officers of the law, shall have the same civil and criminal immunity as such officer, as a result of any act or commission for aiding or attempting to aid a police officer or other officer of the law, when such officer is in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury or when such officer requests such assistance and when such action was taken under emergency conditions and in good faith."
Notice the part that specifically outlines when the law applies: "when such officer is in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury or when such officer requests such assistance and when such action was taken under emergency conditions and in good faith."
Fail.
They detained him illegally, and it was clearly not an emergency situation.
The law you cited:
"Private citizens aiding a police officer, or other officers of the law in the performance of their duties as police officers or officers of the law, shall have the same civil and criminal immunity as such officer, as a result of any act or commission for aiding or attempting to aid a police officer or other officer of the law, when such officer is in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury or when such officer requests such assistance and when such action was taken under emergency conditions and in good faith."
Notice the part that specifically outlines when the law applies: "when such officer is in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury or when such officer requests such assistance and when such action was taken under emergency conditions and in good faith."
Fail.
They detained him illegally, and it was clearly not an emergency situation.
140
To clarify my position, I think that what the guy should have done was simply walk away from the situation. Had the security guards actually assaulted him for taking a picture and then trying to leave, it would have been a very different situation, and much more clear-cut, IMO.
141
No Therapist (94), I wouldn't go freak out if someone was taking a picture of me accessing my hidden key, I'd be glad I saw them take the photo because otherwise I wouldn't know they knew. I'd move the key right away.
Do you see how this works?
If they took a picture of me keying my pass into the ATM it'd remind me that the bank and the store both have cameras watching the ATM, as well as any clever crooks with a hidden camera. I need to remember to cover the keypad.
Blaming the messenger doesn't change anything.
And last, because I think the least of you for it, your 'Think of the children'.
No, someone taking pictures of me, my children, the place I live, or anything else isn't an invasion of privacy. Me, my family, and all my things exist in the world, when we move through public areas of it we are visible to those around us and to deny them an ability to look or photo us (or the area on the other side of us) is dictatorial, unwarranted, and ultimately useless.
Realistically, my child would be far safer because of photos - mine for helping identify them, those of their classmates which would help identify their clothing and exact time of disappearance, and hopefully those of anyone in the neighborhood who might actually have captured the hypothetical attacker's image, ideally in the act.
No, none of your fearmongering is a reason why I or any other reasonable person would be even alarmed, let alone panicked enough to call in emergency services simply because someone didn't want to answer my snoopy questions.
Furthermore, if I did feel scared I'd take actions to make myself feel safer, getting all of us first-aid training because we're far more likely to just hurt ourselves than be hurt by others, buying pepper spray for the kids and teaching them how and when to use it, getting rape-alarms and hidden GPS trackers if I feared abduction, etc. For everything there is a reasonable, measured response that actually serves to alleviate some of the problem.
You seem absolutely unaware of these options and instead want the government to abuse others to alleviate your fears. You misrepresent his behavior as combative, as if he threatened anyone, when in fact he was threatened by them. The thought of you, and more like you, is really the scary one.
And you're undoubtedly old enough to vote and call yourself an adult... It's sad.
More...
Do you see how this works?
If they took a picture of me keying my pass into the ATM it'd remind me that the bank and the store both have cameras watching the ATM, as well as any clever crooks with a hidden camera. I need to remember to cover the keypad.
Blaming the messenger doesn't change anything.
And last, because I think the least of you for it, your 'Think of the children'.
No, someone taking pictures of me, my children, the place I live, or anything else isn't an invasion of privacy. Me, my family, and all my things exist in the world, when we move through public areas of it we are visible to those around us and to deny them an ability to look or photo us (or the area on the other side of us) is dictatorial, unwarranted, and ultimately useless.
Realistically, my child would be far safer because of photos - mine for helping identify them, those of their classmates which would help identify their clothing and exact time of disappearance, and hopefully those of anyone in the neighborhood who might actually have captured the hypothetical attacker's image, ideally in the act.
No, none of your fearmongering is a reason why I or any other reasonable person would be even alarmed, let alone panicked enough to call in emergency services simply because someone didn't want to answer my snoopy questions.
Furthermore, if I did feel scared I'd take actions to make myself feel safer, getting all of us first-aid training because we're far more likely to just hurt ourselves than be hurt by others, buying pepper spray for the kids and teaching them how and when to use it, getting rape-alarms and hidden GPS trackers if I feared abduction, etc. For everything there is a reasonable, measured response that actually serves to alleviate some of the problem.
You seem absolutely unaware of these options and instead want the government to abuse others to alleviate your fears. You misrepresent his behavior as combative, as if he threatened anyone, when in fact he was threatened by them. The thought of you, and more like you, is really the scary one.
And you're undoubtedly old enough to vote and call yourself an adult... It's sad.
142
@47: "[...] Second, according to the post, 'when officers arrived, one of the armed Loomis guards told them he was concerned about his safety and was not sure if Becker was going to attempt to grab the money that was going into the ATM machine.' Last time I checked, grabbing money would be a crime, and the Loomis guardn's statement (even if it did turn out to be a lie) is enough for the officer to have probable cause to arrest."
The original post states the Loomis guys didn't act right away. They finished filling up the machine, then walked over to Becker as he was standing in line at the checkout counter, waiting to pay. If they had honestly been concerned about anything even remotely like what you suggest, why didn't they act right away? And clearly, if the burly guy with the shaved head threatened to tackle Becker (who, from the looks of it, isn't exactly an impressive physical specimen), then his (subsequent) statement that he was legitimately afraid for his safety seems laughable to me. Your argument doesn't hold water.
The original post states the Loomis guys didn't act right away. They finished filling up the machine, then walked over to Becker as he was standing in line at the checkout counter, waiting to pay. If they had honestly been concerned about anything even remotely like what you suggest, why didn't they act right away? And clearly, if the burly guy with the shaved head threatened to tackle Becker (who, from the looks of it, isn't exactly an impressive physical specimen), then his (subsequent) statement that he was legitimately afraid for his safety seems laughable to me. Your argument doesn't hold water.
144
Maybe the Loomis guards had a good reason to worry.
I wonder if one of them was Kurt Husted:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/46744…
I wonder if one of them was Kurt Husted:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/46744…
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (145) RSS