I'm fairly confident that Becker can sue the security guards for false imprisonment. That kind of thing is tricky with cops, but with private security guards, the law's pretty clear.

Becker is a douche beyond all terms of douching and needs to be slingshotted into the sun. Anarchists dont have blogs, stupid. Nor do whiney straightedge vegans own cars or shop at 'the man' like REI. A real one would have made a bike rack out of found art.

What #2 said. Becker is a total tool.

#2 & #3: So douchebags can be detained without cause?

@4 makes a great point. Are we supposed to overlook what happened here because you read his blog and found he was a douche? Isn't that like blaming a victim? He was asking for it by being himself? That is a pretty fucked up way to look at things don't you think?

My wife has gotten into trouble for taking photos at Costco. Apparently it's against Costco policy to take pictures of the price of bananas. I'm still not really sure what exactly they're afraid of?

Douche or no douche this is troubling. Maybe what needs to happen is more public education on law, civil rights and basic freedoms. Should be taught, in schools, starting from a young age. There should be field trips to take pictures in public and assignments to do access to information requests. And stuff like that. Yeppo yep yep.

Some statements need to be made. Sometimes douche bags are the only ones acting while others sit behind their keyboards "talking" about what should be done.

The thing that I find most disappointing is that he was obviously trying to make a political statement. Just own up to it. Don't make up some sissy excuse about wanting to see the insides of things that you don't normally get to see the insides of.

I have a few points to make... 1) only one side of the story is out there. More often than not the truth will be somewhere in the middle of Shane's story, Loomis, REI, and SPD...
2) reading the story did the Loomis employee physycally detain Shane??? Not sure but it seems Loomis did not unlawfully detain Shane...
and my last rant... where it isn't illegal to take pics of people in public, is it legal to publish them on the net without permission?

@#2/Gay Pitbull: Since when do anarchists inherently not have blogs? What is anti-anarchist about the Internet? Isn't a blog a pretty standard way of stating your opinions in the "digital age" or whatever we're in? And isn't the Internet the ultimate free forum? So wouldn't it be censorship-happy, control-freakish conservative types that would be against using the Internet to voice your anarchic ideals rather than vice versa? And whether you agree with his blogging-anarchist or straightedge-at-REI existence or not, civil liberties are civil liberties and belong to everybody, not just the ones you think qualify as "non-douches."

@Take it all in: you make a lot of good points, but one thing about Shane is that he is crazy into "the way things work" or whatever, and he probably never stopped to think that there might be consequences of taking that picture. To him, it would be ridiculous to get in trouble for something like that, so he wouldn't stop to think of it as a possibility in the first place. So I don't think he's making "sissy excuses."

The Seattle PI just posted a preliminary incident report from SPD. The officers viewpoint generally matches Shane's. There is just one discrepancy with REI. The SPD report states that REI security requested Shane be criminally trespassed. Yet general manager Kara Stone claims Becker was not banned from the store at the request of REI staff. Whats the truth?

@4 & 5

Are you trying to tell me you're not disappointed with the lack of tasering in this story?

The Seattle PI just posted a preliminary incident report from SPD. The officers viewpoint generally matches Shane's. There is just one discrepancy with REI. The SPD report states that REI security requested Shane be criminally trespassed. Yet general manager Kara Stone claims Becker was not banned from the store at the request of REI staff. Whats the truth?

The Seattle PI just posted a preliminary incident report from SPD. The officers viewpoint generally matches Shane's. There is just one discrepancy with REI. The SPD report states that REI security requested Shane be criminally trespassed. Yet general manager Kara Stone claims Becker was not banned from the store at the request of REI staff. Whats the truth?

Maybe the police are confused about the trespassing thing because Shane may or may not have been arrested for shoplifting at the same store two years ago, and that incident may or may not have resulted in a 1-year no trespass order. Maybe someone should ask Shane about that.

REI is too expensive anyway. Whenever you buy something there, they have to jack up the price you pay to subsidize jokers who bought high-end mountaineering gear there 20 years ago and brought it back for a full refund. And got it because rules is rules, baby.

If I'm going to pay crazy high retail prices, I want something for it I can use now, not bequeath to my progeny. And if it takes you more than 30 days to figure out if you really wanted that gale-proof tent, you're retarded and a grizzly bear is going to eat you, so you don't need a tent.

Perhaps in the future Becker will resist the urge to do something stupid involving armed guards.

He obviously has no concern for how his actions make others feel. If you are an armed guard, having to deal with large amounts of cash(that people have a record for trying to steal) how would you feel about having your picture taken while trying to perform your job? Obviously he didn't CARE about the guards feeling comfortable and safe. In my book that makes him a total jackass, regardless of what is 'legal'. Legal vs Illegal, doesn't equal Right vs Wrong. The right thing to do would have been to be a considerate human being, which it sounds like he was not.

Welcome to the club, Shane.

Welcome to the club, Shane.

Lainy, No. 24, how'd you get so dumb? People have guns because they can't control their feelings. So we don't need to worry about their feelings, you pseudo hippy moron, we need to worry about them going off and shooting folks. They wear guns openly and dark sunglasses to make us scared. Do you think they sit around drinking organic juice and tofu asking if their oppressive and fear inducing demeanor is right or wrong? Seriously, did you ask for extra helpings when the hit on the head stupid stick came around? Security guards and cops don't have feelings, they have guns.

Lainy, No. 24, how'd you get so dumb? People have guns because they can't control their feelings. So we don't need to worry about their feelings, you pseudo hippy moron, we need to worry about them going off and shooting folks. They wear guns openly and dark sunglasses to make us scared. Do you think they sit around drinking organic juice and tofu asking if their oppressive and fear inducing demeanor is right or wrong? Seriously, did you ask for extra helpings when the hit on the head stupid stick came around? Security guards and cops don't have feelings, they have guns.

Actually, the fact that he took photos of Loomis personnel and an open ATM is a FEDERAL issue. SPD get involved because they are the first agency of response designated by Federal code. The issue of what this guy did is now out of the hands of REI but in the hands of authorities because irregardless of the intent of the photography, the photo itself can be used to threaten the lives of the people who are doing their jobs so common people can use the ATM, or bank. This guy can now be held responsible for any robbery committed against armored transportation.

Loomis is not a security service. It is an armored transportation service. There is a reason those people carry guns. Think about it.

There is point that alot people seem to be missing here. This guy Shane was not taken to SPD for not showing is ID to the Loomis people, it was for showing it the Police themselves when asked to see it. Loomis, by the way that Shane's blog and everythign else reads did not have him arrested or detainded. That was a sole decision by SPD....

Instead of playing dressup with his friends and printing out weak shirts, he really has a chance to convince people he's a real anarchist now. He is self fellating like never before, and from the looks of it he was pretty good at it to begin with.

He's reaping exactly what he has sown.

And for those screaming "but what if we all get arrested for taking pictures now?", don't get bunched panties over this. He was arrested because he was a self righteous prick to everyone else involved. A little more cooperation, with the cops specifically, would have defused the whole situation.

Also: if he really wanted to look at upskirt pics of ATM machines, he could have found them online as he expertly demonstrated to us. Whining about getting caught taking those upskirts? No sympathy.

The piece of the story that we should all (unjokingly) be concerned with, is the unnecessary detainment of someone who was (most likely unknowingly) exercising his rights as an American citizen. How quickly we're willing to give up our freedom when it's happening to the "other" guy. Do you not realize that we're all in this together. If we don't speak up when we see an injustice happening then we might as well agree with it. What's next, waterboarding for US criminals? Accepting that wire tapping is just a way of life? I am so sad and discouraged to see how complacent, lazy and cowardly American citizens have become. It seems to me like a slap in the face to all of the soldiers past and present who have fought for our freedoms.

Am I the only one who noticed that the article was directly across from a full-page REI ad in the print version?

Shane is a douche but because he chose to exacerbate the situation by refusing to show his ID and be polite. Really, where is the harm in saying "Hey, sorry man, I didn't mean to worry you. I just thought it was cool and so I took a picture."

I just want my total freedom to take a picture. I have taken pictures of police hand cuffing people and they just ask me to stop did not ask any other questions or take my camera. These fake cops should not have the power that they think they have, lets not let them become more powerful. We should all breakout the Zeitgeist video's and relearn our rights as people and take the power back..........

So far this guy has been accused of being a rioter, a vandal and a common thief (breaking a window in Niketown and stealing tennis shoes) and a shop lifter, (shoplifting from REI a year ago.)

Maybe that is the reason he didn't want anyone to know who he was.

I doubt that Guards who handle large amounts of cash like their pictures taken for some pretty obvious reasons.

It's their store. If they don't want to you to take pictures, you don't take pictures. If you don't like that, you find another store. This guy (and clearly a lot of posters here) sounds like the prototypical punk-ass child of a boomer. He was "afraid the police would give his ID to Loomis"??? That's about the most retarded reasoning I have heard in The Stranger in a while (and that's saying something). You really should check out his blog -- this guy is a piece of work. I am especially fond of his tagine: "Designer. Typophile. Rails/Rubyist. Still Vegan. Still Straightedge. And, Baby, I’m An Anarchist." Ooooh, Shane, you edgy dude, you. What a fucking idiot. Based on his Flikr Pool it would seme that he doesn't know anyone who showers more than once a week.

man this makes the cops in china, egypt, and turkey look like mr. rogers.

someone needs a holiday in cambodia

*** IT'S NOT ABOUT PHOTO RIGHTS! ***

good grief, read the article for content: "Loomis wanted my ID so that they could write a report internally," 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."

i find it wholly reasonable and even prudent for loomis to want to know (1) who this guy is, and (2) what he's doing.

@44 Loomis may "want to know" but they don't get to demand to know. Too bad so sad for them.

So my friends and I were reading this story in The Stranger, (the actual paper) and the first thing I noticed was that there was a full page REI add right next to this article. From what I gathered, he was buying a bike lock and the add was for summer biking. Add placement on someones part, was it The Strangers staff or a request by REI. I'll be talking with my new media class filled with graphic designers, photographers and print publishers about this. Anyone have any thoughts?

And to top it off, Shane's a hobo!!! Check out Shane's illegal boxcar trainhopping.

http://www.vimeo.com/veganstraightedg

Seriously, if you have an actionable case against the police, you go to a lawyer, you don't muddy the waters by going to the press and local news. FIRST the lawyer. Unless, of course, you realize you don't have a case.

Wow, you posters amaze me. I saw this story as one of rights. Maybe I'm jaded. Saturday, I had a King County Animal Control "Officer" detain me and call the police because I would not show her my ID. (I never carry one when I walk my dogs in a park I've been going to for 11 years.) All over a dog license--high crime, mind you. On his arrival, the deputy told me if I didn't answer EVERY question Animal Control asked, he would put me in handcuffs and take me to jail. After he ran my name and address through his computer, he gave AC that information plus my Social Security Number. When AC asked for my phone number, I asked why. Same with asking my dog's names and if they were microchipped. (She scanned them without my permission.) Later, I spoke with a friend who is a Code Enforcement Officer and was a Community Police Officer. Guess what? My rights were violated! Animal Control has no power to detain and question, which is why AC had to call the police. The problem with the police is their preception that everyone is guilty if they have to be called. They bully and demand and heaven help you if you don't cowtow.

And why do we go to the press? If a lawyer doesn't think a case is big enough, he/she is reluctant to take it. Also, the pervasive attitude is "Don't Rock the Boat". At least the Stranger has the guts to put the story on the front page. I, for one, am tired of my provacy rights being eroded.

You posters amaze me. This is a story about privacy rights. Just because someone demands your ID does not mean you have to show it. Period. No reasons necessary. I had this happen on May 9 when Animal Control stopped me on a dog walk. She demanded my ID, which I never carry when I walk in the neighborhood park I've going to for 11 years. She detained me and called the police. The King County Deputy told me if I did not answer EVERY question AC asked, he would put me in hand cuffs and take me to jail. I, too, was described as "difficult" and "irate". After deputy ran my name and address through his computer, he gave the information, plus my Social Security to AC. She demanded my phone number, my dogs' names and to know if they were microchipped. (She scanned them without my permission.) All this over a dog license. (Our tax dollars at work!)

Later, I spoke to a friend (current Code Enforcement and past Community Police Officer in my fair city) and a lawyer about the incident. Guess what? Animal Control and the cop were wrong in how they handled it. AC has no authority to detain; hence, why she had to call the cops. The cop lied in what I had to answer, but he had to show his solidarity with AC. And why go to the press? Because most lawyers will just say it's not big enough to rock the boat.

Before any of you say nasty things about me, I am in my 50's, have contributed large amounts of time and product to my neighborhood park, am C.E.R.T. trained and have taken part in the Citizens Police Academy. I have been involved in numerous volunteer activities. (Ever notice those planters and benches at the Kent Animal Shelter? They were from my store.) All that aside, I will fight tooth and nail for my right to privacy.

@41 I agree that he made a bad move by not handing over his ID, but two wrongs don't make a right, and both SPD and Loomis were in the wrong. Did you not finish the article? REI didn't care care if he took a picture or not. So it's not a matter of anarchism, or not following the rules of a building you entered willingly... It's a matter of what we are and aren't allowed to do. I personally refrain from opinion, but think it's more or less something you should pay attention to; the little rights that are taken away.

@ 39, I love you.

who cares what he wears, how often he showers, etc. etc. I'd still defend him in court - as well as all you judgemental jack-offs. Read #32 again, she's got her finger on the essential pulse of the matter.

Most of the supposed anarchists here just sound like fascists, telling everybody how they should or shouldn't behave. That's anarchy? Sounds like "the man"

If Becker's intention was to get arrested for something that isn't actually a crime, he did everything exactly right. The asshole behavior, the refusal to identify himself (which is not a crime unless you are suspected of a felony, misdemeanor, or vehicular infraction) - all of it pitch-perfect.

I say give this douchebag some credit. Plus, he exposed those Loomis guards as the biggest pussies on earth. Armed to the teeth, they're afraid for their safety because some scrawny hippie took their photo.

Its an embarassing moment when REI's Wanna be Security has to call the Police , Cause Loomis rent an Idiot, feels there going to get robed. But hey look where there working the could not make it as a Cop. And as for SPD Get a Clue you useless piece of Authority. Lets Arrest a guy for taking a picture of the inside of a Damn ATM , Machine and let the Crack dealer continue to sell his drug on Capitol Hill.

Why did they Just not ask him to delete the darn picture and move on , and when asking for his ID I think He should have given the SPD it But as for the loomis Idiots I would have told them to go screw themselves. What is becoming of Seattle, Lets Get real here < I hope Becker Not only sues Loomis for being arrested, But he shoudl also go after the Morons at REI and have those Security properly Repremended and legal action taken against them and the city of Seattle as well

Becker Give These Jerks what they deserve, Its time for a reality check for REI Security and SPD, TO realize there way over stepping the boundaries treating every one like a criminal

post 57 enoughcrapbereal,wow does yo huve iny educationz???dududududu. reality check yourself pal.dah. maybe he can sue the mariners for causing him to miss a ride on a train because of all the traffic.IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN THE U.S.A. YOU FOLLOW THE RULES,ITS WHAT MAKES THE U.S.A. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT GET THE F OUT. ACCEPT RESPONSIBILTY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

There is no state or federal mandated ID, so you can not be prosecuted for failure to show that ID.

There are laws to identify yourself to an officer (usually name, address, and date of birth) under certain circumstances, if you fail to do so you can be arrested.

@58 peewee By following the "rules" of the USA what would you be referring to? Something in the Constitution about not taking pictures where it may be dangerous? You sound like an utter dipshit.

I've met Shane a couple of times before in social context. He made some tasty cookies and he's super cute to me. He's also a bit of a stick-it-to-the-man rabblerouser and douchey or not, I suspect he REALLY did accomplish his true goal that day with the coverage it's getting.

Just have money machine changers, i mean guards?, put up those portable blinds so they cant be photographed. Might require one more guard to 'watch' on the outside of the blind.. so bank will just charge us another buck or two to pay for the blind and the extra guard. If you have the dough, you can photograph in huge detail with a telephoto lens from down the street. Good lord! "Your papers please!" We are not required to show id unless under circumstances mentioned above.

I'm with 32 & 50. It really floors how people have completely internalized the idea that the cops have the right to do anything they want to us. If a police officer demands anything of you, you do it. Period. Doesn't matter how unreasonable/intrusive/power-trippy/whatever it is, if a cop says "jump", you ask "how high". I guess all those taserings have had the desired effect. Pretty fucking lame, people.

Papers, please!

@11: "As for refusing to present your ID when you encounter the police, well, that will indeed get you arrested."

@34: "Shane is a douche but because he chose to exacerbate the situation by refusing to show his ID and be polite."

@35: "The bottom line is that Shane was arrested for not showing his ID to SPD, right?"

@53: "I agree that he made a bad move by not handing over his ID."

Man, did you people grow up in communist Russia? In this country, we're not even required to have identification documents, much less to carry them around and to present them upon request.

@65: "If a police officer demands anything of you, you do it."

That's probably a good idea, but be very aware of the difference between a request and a demand. Police will often ask for something that they do not have the authority to demand, specifically because they cannot demand it and they know that you will mistake their request for a demand.

Please see the Flex Your Rights Foundation's FAQ, particularly #7: "When do I have to show ID?".

@69: "I don't take blatant photos of people who are visibly armed and handling large sums of cash in public."

Why not? Are you afraid of those people? If you think those guys are likely to shoot someone over an image of their public behavior being captured, you should do something about it, not leave them to bully others around until someone gets hurt. Let them threaten a few people, rack up a couple assault convictions, and then when one of them blows his hot-headed top someday, he'll have a documented history of bad behavior and maybe he'll end up in jail where such dangerous people belong.

Can we get a Loomis schedule? Let's photograph these guys every time we lay eyes on them in uniform. Why they're more concerned about digital memory than biological memory is a mystery to me.

@72: So dude, what is significant: a) the fact that they're armed or b) the fact that they're doing a job which leads you to believe that they don't want to be photographed? In your first comment @69, you implied that someone puts himself at risk by photographing people who are armed in public. After I asked if you were afraid of these armed delivery drivers, you changed gears and implied that someone puts himself at risk by photographing anyone who doesn't want to be photographed in public.

If you're simply suggesting that people should, in order to avoid being threatened by people like these Loomis guys and hassled by our police, refrain from photographing those who are likely to prefer not to be photographed, I think you're putting the blame in the wrong place. This guy did nothing wrong, and he did nothing to deserve the treatment he received either from the Loomis goons or from the police. They were all in the wrong. He did nothing but photograph that which scores of people saw in person, and as a result, these guys threatened to assault him.

Since you asked: I suspect these guys are so on-edge because they're power-tripping pricks, and because people like you are happy to tippy-toe around such pricks, when someone shows them some backbone, it gets their hackles up.

Do you really think they're in much danger at the REI check-out counter, or that a guy with a phone-cam puts them at any greater risk? Do you really think they're in much danger anywhere else they're paid to do their jobs? I strongly suspect that their employer instructs them to immediately hand over any money if a conflict arises. It's not like their job is to fight off muggers.

Their job is to go around carrying wads of cash in public, and presumably they are paid extra to compensate for any additional risk posed by their job compared to other delivery people's jobs.

Stressful jobs or not, if the story is as it seems, they were completely out of line.

@74 FTW!

@74: Dude, Colin suggested @67 that people know their rights and stand up for them rather than whipping out their IDs like a bunch of sheep any time they're asked to do so.

You implied @69 that this was bad advice; that people aren't sheep just because they avoid the bad decision of pissing off pricks like the Loomis guys by not photographing them doing their armed delivery macho-man jobs in public. When pressed for details, you changed your tune, and when I asked for clarification of your views, you stormed off in a huff.

So it seems you feel strongly enough about this to cut down someone who reminds people to stand up for their rights so we don't all lose those rights, but not strongly enough to face the fact that your attitude is one involving cowering in the face of bullying.

You go ahead and help these powder kegs inflate their egos to the point that someone gets assaulted for simply watching them and then refusing to identify himself. Go ahead and snap to it whenever someone says, "Papers, please!" People a couple generations later can tell us how it worked out.

Coward.

A photojournalist or artist could put together a whole series of photos of people that wear guns in America in 2009. It would be interesting commentary.
A Cornish student could be given the assignment to photograph people doing secretive jobs (I know a former Cornish student who was giving the assignment to capture kisses in photos, as an example - something that could rile the subjects for sure).
Dorothea Lange took pictures of the grim/harsh effects of the depression in the US, as well as effects of anti-japanese racism during WWII. [See: JapaneseAmericanGrocer1942.jpg]

She captured families that were starving, she captured the inner workings of a failing USA, and she captured important moments in time (the link above is a grocer's storefront the day before he was dragged to internment).
Was she a douche?

Shane may not have had as lofty artistic ambitions as Dorothea. But, in Washington state, he does indeed have the right, on foot in a business, to take pictures of what ever he wants AND to refuse to provide ID or details beyond his name, even to police. There ARE states where this isn't the case. What you do WITH the photos can get you into trouble (example: taking pictures of a professional model in a modelling context and then making money off the images without compensation to the model; the model can sue your ass).
If you think taking photos should be criminal in certain situations - then fine; either move to a different state or lobby for changes in WA state law.
Keep in mind the bus driver in the news yesterday: captured reading a book, having a meal, taking calls while driving his bus in Boston/NY. If taking photos were illegal, that douche driver might not have been caught being unsafe.

Worrying for the security guards' safety is noble, but living in fear in america is not: if they truly are so scared for their safety, they should change how they operate (come afterhours, perhaps?) or figure out a way to do their job without being threaten by the likes of photos. Especially in the cam phone age where half the people in line could've taken that picture. The truth is, there's no law to stop you from staring at them, nor video recording them, nor giving them a speech, nor photographing them.
I believe in constitutional rights, which include the right to be a lame ass douche, to be an atheist, to be a slacker and to be a self-righteous authoritarian prick (so long as it doesn't impede someone else's rights). Ex: The Loomis boys could also have exercised their free speech rights, and shamed the 29yo publicly: "hey kid, what do you think you're doing taking pictures of the inside of our cash machine? You want people to think you're cool, that you might be a bank robber, a master thief? You're not cool - you're a wimpy punk, you wish you had half my balls, and should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself. If you're going to photodocumentary, at least get a real camera.".


edit: fixed link -webmaster

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JapaneseAmeri…

hmm message was cut. bummin. What is this? Twitter?

or at least, they could have said "hey buddy, come on; if you take that picture, then we're going to have to File reports and shit to our boss - how bout you delete that so our boss doesn't find it online and fire our asses"?

Instead they succumbed to standard Seattle passive-agressiveness - they tattled, like little playground girls, to the SPD. And THAT's weaker than Shane trying to be cool taking the picture.

@77: On Some Dude's Core, I'll quote the passage to which you refer:

7. When do I have to show ID?

This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.

[...]

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop-and-identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity.

Note that Washington State does not have a stop-and-identify law. Following that "reasonable suspicion" link, we find:

Reasonable suspicion: Facts or circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to suspect that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed.

At this stage, police may detain the suspect for a brief period and perform a frisk. In some cases, drug-sniffing dogs may be called to the scene, although officers must cite a reason for suspecting the presence of drug evidence in particular. Refusing a search does not create reasonable suspicion, although acting nervous and answering questions inconsistently can. For this reason, it is best not to answer questions if you have to lie in order to do so. Police authority increases if they catch you in a lie, but not if you refuse to answer questions. As a general rule, reasonable suspicion applies to situation in which police have reason to believe you’re up to something, but they don’t know what it is.

What facts or circumstances in the REI checkout line do you think would have lead a reasonable person to suspect that a crime had been, was, or would be committed?

However,
Robbery/theft occurs everywhere: ATM Machines. School lockers. Alleys in Belltown. Starbucks tip jars. City Hall parks/ARC budgeting.
Armed guards do not have a history of being robbed nor killed at REI.
You have the right to snap a photo of whatever you like, and in fact several groups encourage the photographing/videographing of armed officers (public and private) to encourage accountability. You even have the right to follow Loomis, or SPD, anywhere around the city as long as you remain on public property and follow the law. Even if it's a little crazy to some people, even if it's a little suspicious to others. You can even carry around a concealed weapon (if you have the permit). And wear a shirt saying just about anything (say, LOOMIS=COWARDS, for example). And shout words that will make some people red in the face. And burn a flag. And refuse a warrantless search request.

It's weird and surprising what actual freedom/liberty enables, huh? And the best part; liberty for liberty's sake is what the nation was founded on! Fancy that.

However,
Robbery/theft occurs everywhere: ATM Machines. School lockers. Alleys in Belltown. Starbucks tip jars. City Hall parks/ARC budgeting.
Armed guards do not have a history of being robbed nor killed at REI.
You have the right to snap a photo of whatever you like, and in fact several groups encourage the photographing/videographing of armed officers (public and private) to encourage accountability. You even have the right to follow Loomis, or SPD, anywhere around the city as long as you remain on public property and follow the law. Even if it's a little crazy to some people, even if it's a little suspicious to others. You can even carry around a concealed weapon (if you have the permit). And wear a shirt saying just about anything (say, LOOMIS=COWARDS, for example). And shout words that will make some people red in the face. And burn a flag. And refuse a warrantless search request.

It's weird and surprising what actual freedom/liberty enables, huh? And the best part; liberty for liberty's sake is what the nation was founded on! Fancy that.

Several posters seem unaware that it is within the right of anyone owning private property to legally prohibit photography on those premises. Gray areas arise when something on private property occurs that involves public concern or safety. Crimes, fires, natural disasters, etc. are some obvious examples; hence the right of photojournalists or even citizens to take those kind of pictures.

Photographs taken in public are usually legal unless the image moves towards libel or slander. In recent years the courts have gone back and forth on this. The American Society of Media Photographers has lawyers monitoring and addressing these cases constantly to protect the rights of photographers. Having said that, they don't always win.

Photographers who think they can take pictures anywhere without consequence (like our ATM photographer) are at best misinformed, at worst naive.

Consider this: can a photographer standing in the street (public) point a camera into the bedroom of a home (private)? As we all know, paparazzi (translation: little flea/pest) do this all the time; hence society's disgust with them. Is such disgust warranted? I believe it is.

Finally--how depressing to read the juvenile posts, name calling, and insults that appear regularly throughout this thread. As newspapers and bona fide journalism disappear or move to more interactive media (like the web), get ready for this kind of dialogue to be the norm. Many, including our president (read the transcript of his Notre Dame commencement speech) are trying to reverse this trend; we can all do more to support and encourage thoughtful and respectful civic dialogue.

@84: "it is within the right of anyone owning private property to legally prohibit photography on those premises."

It's within the property owner's right to tell his guests not to do it, and to tell people they're no longer welcome if they do it.

"Photographers who think they can take pictures anywhere without consequence (like our ATM photographer) are at best misinformed, at worst naive."

The extent of that consequence is being informed that they are no longer welcome. Being assaulted by a couple of thugs is not. Being forced to identify themselves is not. Being punished for committing a crime is not.

People who think they have to show their papers upon the request of a police officer, much less some delivery guys, are sadly mistaken. People who threaten someone else with bodily harm for photographing them in public are guilty of assault.

A few years ago my sister and were getting ready to give my mother's house a makeover so I went to lots of furniture stores and took pictures of lots of stuff for my mom and sister to look at. The people in many of the stores thought it was very strange and some gave me flack.

What is wrong with people?

ps,
I was not using a flash.

Why didn't Loomis guys just call the cops themselves? They report "hey this guy is taking pictures of the inside of any ATM we are concerned that he will try to rob it or break into it and steal money." SPD has grounds to ask for ID, they take all info and then deal with whatever reasoning he had for doing what he did. They write a report, Loomis asks for a copy (which they can do...) and then they have the info for their internal reports? All REI had to do was sit back and let them fuss at eachother and it would have been fine.

I think it's good this has sparked some dialogue. Especially if the responses to this article are any indication of people's (lack of) understanding of police authority. Loomis guys either threatened Becker, or implicitly put him on citizens' arrest. If they did so wrongfully, they could easily be sued.

I will say that Shane might have been more diplomatic without giving his ID (which he didn't need to), but I wasn't there, so who knows.

OPA filed something, which hopefully leads to some kind of action to make cops think about overstepping their shit and arresting someone for no good reason. Otherwise, I don't see any real harm here. (Rent-a) cops were a bit dickish and demanding shit with no real grounds and they got the dickish response that more people should give them. Then they let him go when they had nothin'.

They overstepped their authority and overreacted, but in their defense the Loomis guys are probably under orders to report even the slightest suspicious activity and assume the worst - so they probably weren't thinking, "gee, are we violating this guys rights for nothing?"

Also the cop's reference to 9/11 Becker mentions in his blog is hilarious/ridiculous. To paraphrase:
Cop: "Remember 9/11? One time I was in a completely different situation taking pictures."
Becker: "Did you just play the 9/11 card?"
Cop: "Book 'im!"

OK, Where was the Seattle SWAT TEAMS. Why did they not call out the same 60 officers used to bust a massage parlor and swarm the building, block off Eastlake, and surround the building???? Oh, wait, it was a guy. -- never mind.

I fully agree!!! We all can't hug a tree and sing campfire songs in a circle... so the "Rent-a-cops" that wear body armor and carry guns to make them big and bad REALLY DO HAVE A REASON TO BE ON EDGE!!! thoughts and prayers go out to the family and co-workers of the guard...R.I.P.

Yes, It's a shame, though hardly a surprise, that someone working in an inherently dangerous job got shot. But... This justifies taking away someone's rights?

In that same logic, we should ban all roads and cars in the US because soldiers in Iraq are killed by roadside bombs.