Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Man Arrested For Taking Photo of Open ATM

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the i-will-tackle-you dept.

Security 1232

net_shaman writes in with word of a Seattle man who was arrested for taking a photo of an ATM being serviced. "Today I was shopping at the downtown Seattle REI. I was about to buy a Thule hitch mount bike rack. They were out of the piece that locks the bike rack into the hitch. So I was in the customer service line to special order one. It was a long line and while I was waiting, I saw two of guys (employees of Loomis, as I later learned) refilling the ATM. I walked over and took a picture with my iPhone of them and more interestingly of the open ATM. I took the picture because I'm fascinated by the insides of things that we don't normally get to see. ... That was when Officer GE Abed (#6270) spun me around and put handcuffs on me."

cancel ×

1232 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Today... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930397)

FML

Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930403)

It seems that he was arrested for being a smart ass. Not that it is a good reason to be arrested, but still an important distinction.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (5, Insightful)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930475)

Normally when I see stuff like this, I would indeed call it a case of being a smart ass, like the guy who puts Goatse on his laptop wallpaper when he goes through airport security. But how is this being a smart ass?
Him
When you're done over here, come talk to me.
Me
No, thanks.
Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
Me
No, you wonâ(TM)t.
Him
I'll call the cops.
Me
I can't stop you.

He has no reasonable obligation to talk to an ATM repair man.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (4, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930515)

Actually it looks like he wasn't arrested. He was simply detained for refusal to provide ID to the 'real' cops when they showed up, who probably had no interest in being there or dealing with a smart ass.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (5, Informative)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930583)

Unless he is accused of a crime, he has no obligation to provide his information to a police officer. If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't say a damn word as soon as the police cuffed me except to demand a lawyer. I would definitely be looking to consult a lawyer about pressing charges.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (3, Informative)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930633)

In some states, an adult is legally required to provide ID to any cop who asks - it's actually illegal to walk down the street without a driver's license (or non-driver's ID). We seem to have little regard for the Constitution.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930671)

Fuck that. I don't care what state I'm in, if someone tries to ID me for no reason they can go fuck themselves.
If I'm on foot and they're in a car good luck catching me anyway.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (1)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930691)

Please provide references. I am genuinely curious about this. Also, PAPERS!

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930801)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

From the article:
"Nevada has a âoestop-and-identifyâ law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters âoeunder circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crimeâ; the person may be detained only to âoeascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.â In turn, the law requires the person detained to âoeidentify himselfâ, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. As of April 2008, 23 other states[1] have similar laws."

I'm not sure how to react to Hiibel. On the surface it sounds really awful. BUT, the key phrase of "reasonable suspicion about a crime" sounds, well, rather kind of reasonable to me.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930751)

[Little civics101 lamb] "But I thought that not having to hear "Papers please!" as I went about my lawful business was what made us different from the evil empire."[/Little civics101 lamb]

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (1)

Dr Tall (685787) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930771)

I believe there are states which require you to divulge your legal name and permanent residence, but I don't know about any where you actually have to show ID. That would mean you must be in possession of an ID at all times, which is certainly not true.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (5, Informative)

Wonko (15033) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930793)

In some states, an adult is legally required to provide ID to any cop who asks - it's actually illegal to walk down the street without a driver's license (or non-driver's ID). We seem to have little regard for the Constitution.

You would be incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930683)

If you don't identify yourself to the (real) cops they can hold you for as long as it takes them to figure out who you are. You might think you have the right to refuse, but the (US) law differs in opinion.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (3, Informative)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930731)

Really [aclu.org] ?

You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (4, Informative)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930779)

TFA does not mention refusing to tell the police who he was. He was refusing to give his photo ID to the repair men, despite the police trying to convince him to do so.

Re:Not Exactly for Taking a Photo (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930581)

I headed in to reading this article very skeptically when I saw he described himself as an anarchist at the top of the page. That said, it sounds like he wasn't that much of a jerk or the cops would have slapped on resisting arrest or other charges that can similarly be pulled out of their ass.

Ultimately, what I take from this is that it is true that cameras in today's America are still considered dangerous weapons, and that Seattle police have learned nothing since the stink about harassing a photo student for taking pictures of the Ballard Locks. [google.com] Score another point in the win column for the terrorists.

Thus proving that well-known proverb.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930411)

...that people who are stupid enough to pay Apple's inflated prices for their products really are stupid.

Re:Thus proving that well-known proverb.... (5, Funny)

squidfood (149212) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930567)

...that people who are stupid enough to pay Apple's inflated prices for their products really are stupid.

And that's why they're shopping at REI.

Re: Apple's inflated prices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930727)

Dear Bill

Since you have left day to day operations at Microsoft you have probably dropped off a few email lists, specifically in this case "Talking Points vis a vis Apple Computers". Please refer to this as the "Apple Tax" in all future communications.

Sincerely,
The Marketing Department

precautionary... (5, Interesting)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930415)

Probably just for show, with no past history and no way to show intent they have to let you go. Of course there are those of us who would say 'if it's a secret then don't do it in the open'

Get yourself a lawyer, a bloody good one (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930419)

as the song goes

Re:Get yourself a lawyer, a bloody good one (2, Funny)

pnevin (168332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930599)

I fought the law, and the law won ... as the song goes.

Hrmm (1)

Tenant129 (1362913) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930427)

I'm curious for what? Cops still have to enforce a LAW, not just a suspicion.

Spoke with Police Dept. (4, Interesting)

coryboehne (244614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930435)

The on duty desk officer assured me that it did not happen today, it was a few days ago. The officer is employed there. And he also assured me that the facts as they were being presented were inaccurate.. However, you can call their media unit at (206) 684-5520 for more information.

By the way, they're getting slashdotted!

Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930509)

So tell us what did happen.

Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (3, Informative)

coryboehne (244614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930653)

They wouldn't comment... Give their media department a call, see what they have to say. I'm pretty sure that law of slashdotting phones states that "The delay of their response will be inversely equal to the intensity of incoming phone calls"

Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (3, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930541)

Did they present you with any alternative version of the story?

While I admittedly don't put much faith in a story on a blog by some guy I've never heard of, I am (for the moment) more inclined to believe the person who went public with something that they would otherwise have had no reason to comment on over the officer who stands to come out looking like an ass.

Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930711)

I am (for the moment) more inclined to believe the person who went public with something that they would otherwise have had no reason to comment on over the officer who stands to come out looking like an ass.

On his blog, the guy calls himself an anarchist Sounds like he was looking for a way to be a douche when he felt his freedoms were being violated.

He started off the blog about what he was buying. If you were unfairly arrested would you start out by giving such detail on what you were buying and what part you had to go to the customer service desk for? A normal person would say "I went to REI and had to go to Customer Service because what I needed wasn't there..." A douchebag would go into the detail he did.

He has an iphone and calls himself a "rail/rubyist" cause RoR isn't gay enough. He might have been looking to get manhandled.

He has a picture elsewhere on his blog and he looks like a douchebag.

Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930765)

he looks like a douchebag.

That settles it then, doesn't it? Case closed.

Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (1)

coryboehne (244614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930761)

Nope.. Just ref'd me to their media department.

Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (2, Insightful)

Speare (84249) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930557)

So tell us what did happen.

Wait, are you saying that the police department's account is the only one you'll trust as accurate? The two sides of this confrontation will each have their own view of reality, and without other corroborative information, I'm not going to trust either account as being "what did happen."

Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930591)

you are one simple son of a bitch. you just fucking read the other side of the story!

what has happened to the reading comprehension level of slashdot? it seems to have gone to shit lately.

Re:Spoke with Police Dept. (2, Insightful)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930623)

I don't see where he's saying that the Police Department's version is accurate. He's simply providing the information that they are claiming to have a different account of how things played out, and he's relaying that their media department can be contacted for a statement.

What did you think would happen? (-1, Troll)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930439)

Really now. You think you have the right to take pictures of an ATM's innards? Try taking a picture of an armored car interior when they're delivering money to the bank. See how that turns out.

Re:What did you think would happen? (4, Insightful)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930473)

They're in a public space; what's visible in public is fair game. What law would someone with a picture be breaking (hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.

Re:What did you think would happen? (0, Troll)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930527)

Go ahead then. I guarantee you're going to need a lawyer though. I hope the fun is worth it.

Re:What did you think would happen? (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930685)

You didn't say what law would be broken. Because there is none. The fact that someone would be harassed and subject to abuse of police power and/or prosecutorial process for doing so is irrelevant.

Re:What did you think would happen? (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930763)

Does your confidence in the impending douche-baggery make it any less douche-baggy?

Re:What did you think would happen? (4, Informative)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930681)

The War on Terror(TM) has become the War on Photographers. This is nothing new. Try taking picturs of any government building, any airport, any train station, etc, with professional equipment. Anywhere in the country these days you're likely to be stopped an often arrested. The same applies to bird watchers/photographers walking around in the middle of nowhere - there are hundreds of incedents of small town SWAT teams (or equivalent) being mobilized because someone was walking around with a tripod!

Re:What did you think would happen? (5, Insightful)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930723)

That's just sad. And yet, when the cameras are pointed at us, we're reminded that no one has an expectation of privacy in public. Perhaps there are some yet uncorrupted people in power who see the contradiction?

Re:What did you think would happen? (4, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930495)

If there isn't a law against it then I do have the right. Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?

Re:What did you think would happen? (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930767)

Is there a law prohibiting me from taking pictures of the insides of ATMs or armored cars?

Dunno about the US, but where I live there are only laws that say you can't (without permission) open up an ATM machine in order to take pictures of the insides. So technically, opening an ATM machine for that purpose would be illegal. But once opened up, taking pictures of the insides should be OK.

Re:What did you think would happen? (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930507)

If these people want their devices secret, maybe they shouldn't leave their doors wide open for the public to see. Just a suggestion.

Re:What did you think would happen? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930517)

We DO have that right. It's in plain site for Christ sake. They don't like it? put up a fucking barrier.

Re:What did you think would happen? (1)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930619)

sight, not site...among other things. Also, there's quite a long list of cases where pictures of things that were not obfuscated were still determined to be protected under the twisted First Amendment. What, we'll allow the SPOTUS and its feeders say that personal photography (which didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted...) was intended - even when well outside of "press" - based on some strange "speech" redefinition...but we don't allow the same group to also say that we need to be farking reasonable about the invasion of other people's property?

I'm curious (1)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930519)

Exactly which law do you think he was breaking ?

Or, for that matter, would be breaking by taking a photo of the interior of an arnoured car ?

I'm not suggesting that in either case the owners/operators would be happy about it, but the job of the police is to enforce the law, not to make one group happy at the expense of another (unless the two groups are law-abiding-citizens and criminals, of course :) ....

Simon.

Re:I'm curious (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930607)

I imagine there's a law about casing bank property for a robbery. They might not be able to make it stick but they can make you miserable. You'd be surprised how many laws there are that people aren't even aware of....but the police and DA know how to twist them to suit there purposes. They're going to assume if you're taking pictures of an ATM's insides that you're doing it to find out how it works so you can figure out how to rob one. Like I said, they may not be able to convict but they can still put you through hell. Since they will be able to show that their intent was to protect the bank's money you'll get nowhere with a law suit. If you want to try it though...luck.

Re:I'm curious (5, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930663)

oh, you imagine a law...how nice.

Re:What did you think would happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930587)

Oughtta turn out just fine long as you don't go into the vehicle or get in the way of the personnel...

IANAL and all...but...

1) They aren't LEO's or even off duty LEO's
2) it's visible from a public location
3) Even if it's a private location, it's likely a private location in which you have access until an authorized party asks you to leave/trespasses you.

Even in states where a private citizen can arrest you for a felony--they usually have to directly witness you committing a violent felony. The places that have "stand your ground" laws--only really applies if someone threatens harm to you or someone else--it'd probably protect the guy taking the picture, not someone in the truck... It seems doubtful any laws were broken save possibly harassment.

I'm pretty confident you could probably lawfully ...kill them for kidnapping you if the guys in the armored car tried to handcuff you for taking a picture. I mean...not outright just shoot them for coming near you -- but give them reasonable warning that they're about to attempt a kidnapping. Retreat and indicate you're prepared to use force if they close ground... and go from there if they continue to do so.

The moment you've got good reason to fear they might use force--pretty much all bets are off in my state.

Re:What did you think would happen? (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930745)

If their policy is to defend the machine by attacking anyone they see taking pictures, then they are screwed. People who are just walking by, might be taking pictures without it being at all obvious. Ergo, they must attack everyone they see, whether they appear to be taking pictures or not.

That isn't sane.

If you have to hide stuff, don't hide it in plain sight. It just can't work.

Re:What did you think would happen? (1)

claysdna (1519881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930757)

I would really love some rent a cop and/or a real cop to arrest me for taking a picture in a public place. I don't care what it is. I would own that town.

I also doubt that this story occurred. If it did, then I can assure you the fellow has an actionable case.

There

But did they press charges? (4, Interesting)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930441)

I would suspect they might arrest you however it is if they press charges that really counts. The First Amendment protects photography. There is a stupid doctrine of check for "newsworthiness" but that's just a bunch of stupid activist judges overstepping their bounds. The real truth is that per the Constitution of the United States you can take any photo you want so long as you are on public property at the time and there is no expectation of privacy ( an example would be taking a photo of a nude sunbather in their backyard from a helicopter).

Re:But did they press charges? (2, Informative)

coryboehne (244614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930525)

....Unless the US is in a state of declared war. Then you cannot photograph any military or government facilities or installations.

Re:But did they press charges? (4, Interesting)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930613)

An ATM is not a military or government facility.

Korean Police Action (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930635)

....Unless the US is in a state of declared war. Then you cannot photograph any military or government facilities or installations.

Since when has the United States been in a state of declared war? Every "war" since Korea has been fought as a police action [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Korean Police Action (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930737)

War on drugs.
War on poverty.

Re:But did they press charges? (1, Interesting)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930637)

Hence "The War on Drugs," "The War on Terror," and "The War on "...

They (the government) don't call it a war against these things for fun. They call it a war so that they can ALWAYS FOREVER be graned special "war-time" provisions that NONE of us should be content to live under.

If we weren't at war (drugs, terror, etc.) supposedly agencies like the CIA, FBI, etc. wouldn't even be allowed to exist.

Re:But did they press charges? (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930667)

Wow, I can't type tonight. Also, Slashdot "helps" a lot.

Should read, "The War on <insert unbeatable idea here>"

Also, granted, not graned. Sheesh.

Re:But did they press charges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930705)

Your tin foil hat is on WAY too tight.

Re:But did they press charges? (1)

vikstar (615372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930687)

....Unless the US is in a state of declared war. Then you cannot photograph any military or government facilities or installations.

It is in a state of war. A war declared on the "terrorists" that were invented to justify it.

Re:But did they press charges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930699)

Arresting someone when the officer has no reason to believe any laws have been broken is false arrest, and is illegal.

NIce (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930447)

Your only defense is an attorney. Get one, sue for expenses and a letter of apology.
You you let people like this get away with it, it becomes the norm.

I know for some reason /. hates the fact that someone can defend themselves with an attorney is somehow wrong.

Expectation Of Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930453)

The courts have ruled many, MANY times that when you are in public, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Therefore, I'd sue the snot out of everyone and anyone who was responsible for my arrest

Re:Expectation Of Privacy (3, Insightful)

pnevin (168332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930543)

This was on private property, though.

Re:Expectation Of Privacy, trespassing (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930605)

Article says that REI is having him charged with trespassing and he can't go back for a year.
Which makes sense since he was on private property, and we don't know what the photo policies are.

Re:Expectation Of Privacy, trespassing (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930719)

Did they ask him to leave? I didn't see that in the article. It seems like A) the officer lied, or B) Implied something was wrong and got REI to make this claim.

Sounds fishy to me.

Re:Expectation Of Privacy (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930689)

So? That doesn't mean an armored car employee(i.e. glorified delivery guy) can harass you or that taking a picture is reason to get into your face.

Re:Expectation Of Privacy (1)

HundyCougar (732944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930551)

Except he was not in public, he was inside a story, which is private property, and rules are different.

Re:Expectation Of Privacy (0, Troll)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930573)

Except a store is private property. And if the store has a no photography policy, and the ATM company has industrial secrets or something, then they can have the picture confiscated, and the police would need to take the person in to custody to ensure no copies of the picture were created.

Whoops (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930457)

Since it sounds like there were a bunch of witnesses around, why not get statements attesting to the fact that none of the REI employees asked him to leave, and then sue the pants off the police dept.?

The only wrong thing you could be doing that would require an arrest is refusing to leave the store when asked.

Also, I would have started talking about how it's legal to keep records of anything in public view, not to exclude putting a GPS unit on a car without a warrant, etc.

Re:Whoops (0)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930579)

I'm not sure that the inside of an REI store is considered a public space in this context.

Re:Whoops (3, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930797)

They didn't just not ask him to leave:

"Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you."

They told him he cannot leave, and they threatened him with bodily harm if he attempted.

In other words, they actually placed him under (possibly illegal) de-facto arrest.

Also illegal..... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930479)

casing a bank. It's suspicious behavior. You can say "what's the harm", but they see it as you coming back later and using the information to crack open the ATM. If you aren't big on hot lights and cavity searches I wouldn't run towards the President waving your arms and yelling either. There's an element of common sense here.

Racially insensitive clod!!! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930481)

I can see one of them might have been of "Native American" heritage and it might be possible that he thought you were taking his soul... or not.

For taking a picture? (0, Flamebait)

courtjester801 (1415457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930483)

It looks more like being arrested for mouthing off to the cops. Tact not a strong point?

Re:For taking a picture? (0, Redundant)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930499)

That's not a valid reason to have arrested him; it was an abuse of power. That cop should be stripped of her badge.

Re:For taking a picture? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930617)

In almost every jurisdiction that I've ever been in during my life, if an actual office of the law (as opposed to rentacops) demands ID, you provide it. Refusal to do so is illegal. Not having ID on you is one thing, refusing to say who you are is another.

He was in his rights (though a douche looking for trouble) up to the point where he pulled his attitude act with the cops.

They didn't abuse anything, and the actual cops were probably smart enough to realize that the rentacops and the bank security were idiots (or not, it doesn't matter at this point), which is why they didn't hassle him about the picture.

Re:For taking a picture? (2, Insightful)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930661)

Nowhere in the story was he asked for his ID by the actual police officers; he was relating that he refused to present it to the security guards, which we both understand he was under no obligation to do. My perception of the officers involved as slimebags is unchanged.

Re:For taking a picture? (0, Flamebait)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930781)

So... back to the Loomis guys, REI loss prevention officers and cops.

We go back and forth about why I took it and don't see it as a problem versus why they think it's somehow threatening their personal safety and their property's safety. They're trying to convince me to give my ID to the Loomis guys to write their report. I'm trying to convince them to go fuck themselves that I didn't do anything illegal or otherwise wrong and that Loomis doesn't have any jurisdiction to compel me to give them my ID. Round and round, over and over.

Does it really matter at that point who is the beneficiary of information? They told him to identify himself. Period.

Re:For taking a picture? (4, Insightful)

coryboehne (244614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930553)

It looks more like being arrested for mouthing off to the cops. Tact not a strong point?

Maybe, maybe not... Yet, it's still not illegal to be a jerk. You CAN commit crimes WHILE being a jerk, but being a jerk simply isn't a crime.

Re:For taking a picture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930571)

More like for mouthing off to rent-a-cops..which is laudable

another American blazing idiot pig at work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930487)

Another dangerous idiot in "law enforcement",plus the idiot that hired him.

Okay (1)

pnevin (168332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930513)

It seems that he could have saved himself a lot of grief by just going home and looking up pictures of the insides of ATMs on the internet.

As his own article shows, it's not like they're hard to find. But hey, fight the power and all that.

The Internet Age (5, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930529)

It is simply amazing how many companies don't understand the true power of the internet. As a result of one single incident like this, REI is going to lose many customers and many sales (I for one won't shop there any more until this gets resolved favorably). Bad news travels extremely quickly these days.

REI spends a huge amount of money on marketing - and this year's entire budget just got flushed down the toilet. Evidently they should spend a bit more on employee training. (Yes, the guilty parties in this case were from a subcontractor - but REI's own security personnel should have stepped in and done the right thing).

REI also promises a 24-hour response time to email - my (politely worded) email about this issue hasn't been replied to, 25+ hours and counting later.

Re:The Internet Age (2, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930625)

I hate to piss on your firework but I have better things to do with my life than boycott a specific company just because some iPhone-using doofus got busted outside...

Re:The Internet Age (0)

stinerman (812158) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930791)

Not to mention that if I boycotted every company who did something disagreeable, I'd have to quit my job and return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Re:The Internet Age (4, Informative)

Rycross (836649) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930725)

Apparently REI's loss-prevention personal stepped in to help harass the man, and he had to sign a form saying that he was banned from REI for a year, so REI absolutely is responsible.

I once had one of those guys pull a gun on me. (4, Interesting)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930545)

I was in the supermarket and the ATM was right next to the produce section. I had a cart, a bag in my hands and was getting ready to pick out some plums which were right next to me when the Brinks rent-a-cop decided he was Dirty Harry and told me to back away. I sent them an angry letter and got no response.

Give the guy community service.... (-1, Troll)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930577)

...have him walk walk around his local town for 7 days wearing an "I love Steve Ballmer" T-shirt and insist he has to make at least 5 mobile phone calls every hour on one of those really old mobile phones where you carry the phone in one hand and the "portable" battery pack in the other, with a black curly plastic-covered cable connecting one to the other.

OK, this is lame, but... (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930597)

Not to defend Officer Abed's overreaction (nor her probably violation of your civil rights) but when interacting a heavily armed lady who's authorized to use deadly force and deprive you of your freedom, it's absolutely the wrong time to cop an attitude. Save the "playing the 9/11 card" rhetoric for your blog.

When dealing with a police officer who you believe is abusing their authority, there is only one sensible strategy: you say, "Officer, would you please explain to me what law I've broken?" If they can't give you a proper answer, you say, "I'm sorry, but if I'm not accused of anything, I don't think I have to talk to you."

Say these things in a respectful tone of voice. And then Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Getting into lame political arguments with a cop is not ever going to accomplish anything useful. On the contrary, arguments and self-justification can give them the legal hook they need to act against you. If you don't believe me, ask Randal Schwartz.

Re:OK, this is lame, but... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930755)

Bullshit. They are there to protect the piece, not have their ass kissed.

different point of view (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930603)

The guy takes the point of view that he was doing nothing wrong, and the rent-a-cops should have realized that, because it's not logical.

On the other side, you have two guys with guns and tons of money. Why do they have guns? Because people with tons of money tend to get robbed a lot. This isn't theoretical, do a search for 'armored car robbery' and you will see a bunch of them. So these two guys have more than a little concern. And in his mind, when someone takes a picture, he thinks, "this is not normal. Something could be bad." Is there a better way to rob an ATM? Probably. But thieves aren't always the smartest guys, and it is possible to think of a robbery scenario that would start with someone taking a camera. These guys are basically going to try to be as defensive as possible, because frankly, it is a scary job, and they could die.

The biggest mistake this guy did was to talk back to the police. Bad idea. Chris Rock did a public information announcement about how not to get your ass kicked by the police. [youtube.com] Sure, sometimes police are overbearing and arrogant, and that is annoying, but the proper time to fight back against that is NOT when you are about to be arrested, and the proper way to do it isn't to be arrogant back.

Unless you have a serious reason not to, the best thing to do is cooperate with the police. Unless you want to spend the night in jail like this guy.

Relevant contact information (1)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930615)

For those who might want to make their feelings known, here is the contact page" [cityofseattle.net] for the Seattle PD and for REI [rei.com] (who banned the photographer (their customer) for a year from the premises.

Re:Relevant contact information (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930713)

Do they have a Paypal link on their page? I think they deserve a few quid as a donation for giving me a hearty pre-bedtime chuckle!

Lawsuit time (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930627)

Ya know, there had better be more to this story that it appears, otherwise somebody needs to get their ass sued.

Now I'm normally a 'first we kill all the lawyers' type and would normally support the cops on the grounds they are too hamstrung by stupid lawsuits and even dumber (or should I say evil? Yes I should.) judges who take the side of criminals over upholding the law. But there IS a line, and this case just has 'abuse of power' stamped all over it and somebody needs to get punished for it. The arresting officer and his superior obviously, and whoever was the officer in charge back at the station who allowed the situation to continue there, all need a demotion.

His mistake (5, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930639)

Don't talk to the police! [google.com.au] When are people going to get this through their thick heads? There is one question you need to ask the police: "Am I free to go?" and maybe a followup of "Am I being detained?" which is the same question, really. If they say yes to the first, you walk away. If they so no to the second, you walk away! Don't try to justify your actions, you're not required to. Don't try to be smart, or demand your "rights". And don't, under any circumstances, answer any questions.

Personally, I blame all these cop shows on tv. The "interrogation" scenes make for good drama, but only stupid people talk to the police.

Detritus of the BushCo Years (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930665)

Where your money was more highly regarded than were your rights.

Serves him right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27930743)

Fucking terrorists!

REI's response (5, Informative)

kfort (1132) | more than 5 years ago | (#27930805)

I wrote REI yesterday to express my disapproval and this is the form letter I got back last night:

(what I wrote)

I'm very disappointed with how you treat your customers and I will make
a point not to shop at your store when I need outdoor equipment. You
should respect your customers and not treat them like criminals for
taking pictures.

(what they wrote)
We are aware of the incident at our Seattle store in which an individual
was removed by Seattle Police. While it's unfortunate this occurred on
store property, the ATM machine is owned and maintained by an
independent bank vendor. We did not call the police and did not detain
the individual. We regret this situation happened, but feel our team
acted appropriately under the circumstances and are committed to
providing a welcoming and safe environment for all of our customers.

Thank you for taking time to provide us your feedback. We appreciate the
opportunity to respond. For additional information, I'd encourage you to
contact the Seattle Police Department.

Best,
Bethany

Bethany Nielson
Public Affairs | Recreational Equipment, Inc.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>