Brian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The cops can demand ID if they can articulate that
> they have probable cause that the person committed
> a crime or violation that the officers need to
> make an arrest on or summons. In the case of the
> reporter, it’s sketchy at best, but at least the
> Officer is in the process of investigating a
> report from the Congressman’s entire office staff
> that a person basically committed the crime of
> trespassing.
>
> Chris committed no crime, nor any violation of any
> kind whatsoever. Probable cause does not have a
> high bar, like "innocent until proven guilty", so
> the cops only needed a reasonable suspicion that
> Chris committed a crime or violation, but they
> didn't have even that. The cops had no right to
> stop him, detain him, or demand any ID. They can
> chat him up or ask anything they want and many
> cases people will comply, but they had no legal
> right and they were either lying about the law or
> were ignorant of it. Either case is pretty
> egregious.
>
> Also, what if Chris didn't have any ID on him?
> Are we required to carry ID when out in public if
> we aren't driving a car or engaging in another
> unlicensed activity? No we aren't. (Does the
> term “paper’s please” mean anything to you?).
> America is not a 3rd world communist
> nation...yet..., where citizens have to ID
> themselves to the government everywhere they go
> with no probable cause. So, was the cop just
> going to haul Chris in to jail for failure to
> carry ID? Even that wasn’t a violation and so
> Chris had no legal obligation to comply with the
> cop’s demands or threats.
>
> And let’s face it, the only reason the cops gave
> Chris such a hard time, was because a citizen had
> the audacity to not comply with his demands. I
> highly doubt the cop truly thought Chris was a
> threat. But their opinion of the people that they
> work for is so low that when a citizen dares to
> comply with their every demand, they got incensed
> and decided to harass him as much as they possibly
> could, through intimidation and numbers. Meanwhile
> as they were wasting tax payer dollars taking out
> a personal vendetta against Chris, obvious and
> blatant safety violations were taking place within
> view of Chris's camera. And they didn't care.
>
> Someone needs some serious time off at the very
> least. If not fired.
>
> Brian

THANK YOU Brian. You're the first person to actually discuss this incident and not go off the deep end with insults, accusations, and other kooky things. One thing I have learned in this thread is that some railfans truly are over the top and have their priorities placed incorrectly in my opinion. Now, to discuss your points:

From your description of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, that is my impression of the definitions as well. So we agree on these points. However, there are a few things that I disagree with. Let me get the easy one out of the way first. I honestly don't believe that the officers had a personal vendetta against Chris. Up until this encounter, they had no idea who he was. If he was a chronic drunk, chronic fare jumper, or something like that, then they might have something personal against him. But just in this relatively short period of time I really don't think that this was the case.

Regarding all of the MTA employees who were there, I got the impression from watching the first video that one of the people was the person who called the police on him. The black man with the stripes on his sleeves I think is a fare inspector because I do not see him wearing a gun or any other toys on his belt. The two guys on the right (one black, one white) I think are police officers. For an employee reporting a suspicious person at a train station, I would imagine that these days that's a normal response. Were two officers in one vehicle, and then the fare inspector showed up because that was his "territory"? It could just be a coincidence, so the number of employees there does not rise to the level of anything nefarious to me.

The problems that stand out to me in this incident are: 1) One of the officers randomly throwing out there the Patriot Act. That makes no sense, and I don't know why he would say something like that. 2) The officer (officers?) saying that it's illegal to record them. I did some Googling, and as far as I can tell it looks like this is not the case. Not just there, but in all 50 states. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for certain how this works, but from what I pulled up in searches, it appears that the police have no expectation of privacy if they are on a call. It would be different if someone planted a "bug" on them and walked away, but just out in public like this it looks like the recording was fine and that the officer was wrong to tell him to turn it off and then cover up the lens. And 3) I think this is the biggest of the three, and that was the police and fare inspector not knowing what MTA policy is on taking photos. We now know that they were wrong, as explained in the article from the local paper that was linked here.

But even with the above mistakes that they made, I have to go back to the original intent of the person who called the police. That employee called in what he or she believed was a suspicious person on the platform. The police department can not ignore that phone call. They can not say to the caller, "Sorry, but we are not coming because it's probably a light rail fan who is taking pictures of our trains". Common sense tells us that this is not what would happen. On the contrary, they will send someone to investigate. Now, when the police get there, they see Chris but they do not know who he is. Unless I'm mistaken, Chris did not know anybody there, and none of the people there knew him. Do we know if the officers know what a railfan is? Do we know if they have ever encountered railfans on the property before? My point here is that the intention of those people in uniform (the police and the fare inspector, if that's what he is called) is not to harass people. I don't think they get out of bed in the morning, say to themselves, "I think I'll go harass someone today", and then go do it. They're just people going to work and doing their job. And in this case, it was to check out a report by a fellow employee of someone who appeared suspicious to them. With the benefit that we have of hindsight, we know that there is no such policy of contacting the MTA to photograph before filming. The officers should have known that, and they did not. However, did Chris know that? My guess is that the answer is no, because at no point in Part 1 of the video did he say, "You are wrong and that is not your policy". That wasn't discovered until after the fact. Why not show them ID (if he had it with him), explain what he's doing, and have the whole encounter over in a few minutes? Why drag it out so long? In the mind of the police, they were probably thinking "What is this guy hiding?". Remember that they don't know who he is. I think it was a few minutes into the incident when Chris said his name. He does have a speech impediment, and the fare inspector asked him to repeat it because he could not understand him due to the impediment. He refused to repeat it and would not cooperate. Why? This makes no sense to me. If you're going to ID yourself, why say it and then stop?

If anyone has the time and wants to check this out, see this news article:

[www.prisonplanet.com]

There are two videos contained within the above link. Read the article, then watch the older video first near the bottom, then the newer one near the top. The kid doing the recording clearly wants to start something. He went there with the mindset of stirring up trouble. He even comes out and says that on his own video. Again, I have to ask why? What is the purpose? Could it be for fame and fortune? And an adult woman (his mother) screaming like that at TSA checkpoint? Give me a break, that is a complete crock. The kid in this video is making the same historical references that people here have made to things such as Nazi Germany and third world nations. This really fries me because it diminishes and minimizes those events in history as well as current events that are extremely serious. Taking pictures of trains is NOT on par with being walked into "the showers" and being put to death with gas, which is one of the things happened in the Holocaust. How can anyone be so arrogant to make such a comparison? It is mind boggling. Perhaps those who think this should take a tour of the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. Talk with one of the volunteers there who can tell you first hand what Nazi Germany was like. Ask him or her, "When I take a train picture and the police question me about it, is that the same thing that you experienced in the death camps?". I have a feeling that you will get an answer that will blow your socks off. Yes, we do have a government and a president who, in my opinion, is destroying the freedoms that we enjoy and have earned through years of wars, death, and hard work by others. The things that are happening at the federal level are very disturbing, but taking a picture of a train is the least of our worries. And to have the American Criminal Liberties Union getting involved in this is crazy. These are the same people who represent militant Muslims who want to board the same airplanes that we all fly, yet we're not supposed to "profile" them for fear of hurting someone's feelings. Let the Muslims go through security unchecked, but make sure grandma and the baby are searched! You never know when a grandma might be packing a suicide bomb. (That is sarcastic for those who can't follow).

So while some people want to make a big deal out of this, I don't think that is right. The police are only doing their job, and a little bit of cooperation is all that needs to be done in this situation, so that they know you are out doing your hobby and that you are not there to cause harm.