Racially profiled while shooting...

[gmonkeh]

I had the weirdest and most uncomfortable thing happen to me just a few hours ago. I just recently moved to Bremerton, WA and so far it's been pretty nice, I like the quiet.

I had some free time today so I decided to go to the Bremerton Marina to do some street shooting. I was walking around for an hour or so when I noticed a couple of bicycle cops eyeing me. I was shooting random subjects mind you and I didn't even take any pictures of them. It started raining and I was getting hungry so I decided to walk back to my car.

I get in and I notice the 2 cops riding towards me, they knocked on my window and the interrogation began. He asked me what I was doing (umm being I had a pretty good size camera with an 80-200 lens and pointing it at things I had to refrain from saying yoga, and the camera just helps me relax.)

He took my license and registration, and ran a check on the spot. I asked him if photography wasn't allowed in the marina and I tried to give him my business card but he got a little "hissy" at me. I calmly explained that I was a photographer (hence the fancy camera) and that I was just out and about taking a few shots.

I'm thinking they saw me taking shots of the ferry coming in to dock, but the thing is I wasnt the only one taking pictures there. It just happened I was the only non-caucasian taking pictures.

I've lived here for 10+ years and never have I experienced anything like that until now. First I had to laugh at the situation but then realized I just got singled out because my skin color wasn't what it was supposed to be.

:scratch :huh :scratch :huh

[colourbox]

You should talk to this guy (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/181978_robert14.html). Circumstances and location eerily similar.

[Skippy]

I had the weirdest and most uncomfortable thing happen to me just a few hours ago. I just recently moved to Bremerton, WA and so far it's been pretty nice, I like the quiet.

I had some free time today so I decided to go to the Bremerton Marina to do some street shooting. I was walking around for an hour or so when I noticed a couple of bicycle cops eyeing me. I was shooting random subjects mind you and I didn't even take any pictures of them. It started raining and I was getting hungry so I decided to walk back to my car.

I get in and I notice the 2 cops riding towards me, they knocked on my window and the interrogation began. He asked me what I was doing (umm being I had a pretty good size camera with an 80-200 lens and pointing it at things I had to refrain from saying yoga, and the camera just helps me relax.)

He took my license and registration, and ran a check on the spot. I asked him if photography wasn't allowed in the marina and I tried to give him my business card but he got a little "hissy" at me. I calmly explained that I was a photographer (hence the fancy camera) and that I was just out and about taking a few shots.

I'm thinking they saw me taking shots of the ferry coming in to dock, but the thing is I wasnt the only one taking pictures there. It just happened I was the only non-caucasian taking pictures.

I've lived here for 10+ years and never have I experienced anything like that until now. First I had to laugh at the situation but then realized I just got singled out because my skin color wasn't what it was supposed to be.

:scratch :huh :scratch :huh

Unfortunaetly Racism is alive and well in many countries not just USA.
I'm sorry this has happened to you, and I hope it doesn't happen again.

I think its just so stupid when we have Google Earth to clearly show any Terrorist whatever part of the world they want a closer look at,
all compliments of which country ??? :rolleyes ....go figure .... Skippy :D
.

[Nir]

i too am sorry you had to go through that experience although you needn't take it so harshly.
the police are doing their job and since 9-11 they've become much more aware and sensitive to public behavior. the u.s. public has suddenly learned that violence can come from within and they're trying to cope.

i don't think it has to do with racism. you were probably the most prominent photographer in the area (with the big lens) - take it as a compliment.

here in israel i've encountered 'sensitivity' from security personnel often (blogged (http://niralon.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/public-transportation-security/)). i understand their actions. i thank them for doing their job which often puts them in the front lines battling suicide bombers and other terrorists. many have lost their lives, the first to obstruct the shock wave and shrapnel, while protecting others.

http://niralon.smugmug.com/photos/134356341-M.jpg

[bsvirginian]

:D Good points NIR. We in the USA would rather take afront and complain about our rights being infringed upon than stop to realize that maybe the authorities are just reacting and doing their jobs. We haven't arrived to the point that Isreal has. And pray that we don't. bsvirginian:cry

[Angelo]

<DT>Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. </DT><DD class=author>Benjamin Franklin (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Benjamin_Franklin/), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0515-22.htm
</DD>

[wxwax]

G, I obviously can't speculate on the specifics of your experience.

But I've found that I get hassled almost all the time when I shoot on public streets these days. If it's not cops, it's security guards. There's a level of paranoia that's amazing.

And transportation facilities that aren't obvious tourist destinations are where I'm least welcome. Just try shooting the outside of a local MARTA (subway) station here. Fuggedaboutit.

Not saying it wasn't profiling. Just saying that this white boy has no trouble at all getting the attention of the man.

[photodoug]

It's a good thing that our security interests do their job better than before, so let's stop being so darned sensitive about being asked about our intentions when we're so obviously taking lots of seemingly random shots in prominent public places. We stick out and draw attention to ourselves. Deal with it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sensed a bit of smart-alekness in your post. Your bike-friends probably noticed it too. Surely not the best way to deal with real cops. Lots of yessir and nosir are the only recommended replies.

I would have worked hard to develop a relationship with those beat-cops so that future endeavors in that part of town would go without indident in the future.

[kdog]

It's a good thing that our security interests do their job better than before, so let's stop being so darned sensitive about being asked about our intentions when we're so obviously taking lots of seemingly random shots in prominent public places. We stick out and draw attention to ourselves. Deal with it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sensed a bit of smart-alekness in your post. Your bike-friends probably noticed it too. Surely not the best way to deal with real cops. Lots of yessir and nosir are the only recommended replies.

I would have worked hard to develop a relationship with those beat-cops so that future endeavors in that part of town would go without indident in the future.
:thumb

[gmonkeh]

It's a good thing that our security interests do their job better than before, so let's stop being so darned sensitive about being asked about our intentions when we're so obviously taking lots of seemingly random shots in prominent public places. We stick out and draw attention to ourselves. Deal with it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sensed a bit of smart-alekness in your post. Your bike-friends probably noticed it too. Surely not the best way to deal with real cops. Lots of yessir and nosir are the only recommended replies.

I would have worked hard to develop a relationship with those beat-cops so that future endeavors in that part of town would go without indident in the future.

You know it's really starting to rub me that people keep saying stop being sensitive and get over it. I'm not complaining that the cops we're doing their jobs. It's the manner they chose to do it.

If you read my post I was fully cooperative, I wasn't being a smart ass with the cops. You think I'm that much of a d-d-d-dumbass to tell a cop with an already hostile attitude towards me "heeere's your sign!". :barb

Like I said it's easy to say let it go when you're the spectator.

[kdog]

First it was racial profiling. Now it's the cop's attitude. And yet, going by your original post, the trouble began when you started asking the questions. Read what Doug said again. When stopped, your only responses are yessir, nosssir, and answering direct questions. That doesn't include trying to put the cop on the spot by asking leading questions like, "Isn't photography allowed at the marina?" It is clear that question was intended to put the cop on the spot. If the cop had answered "yes", you would have challenged that assertion by asking for the legal basis, or possibly try to cause trouble by challenging that assertion later if you thought it was incorrect. If he had answered "no", you would have said "why me?", which is essentially throwing down the race card.

A beat cop's job is pattern matching. They're looking for anything that's a bit out of the ordinary, and in this case it turned out to be you. I'll bet everyone in this forum has a story like this. Here's one of mine.

One day I purchased a new set of binoculars at a camera store, then stopped at the supermarket on my way home. I bought groceries, loaded them into my car, then noticed I had a nice view of a mountain top from the parking lot. Sitting in my car, I rolled down the window and tried out my new binocs. A cop came over, knocked on the window, and did the same bit as your cops to the letter. License, registration, "what are you doing?". I answered it, even though I was probably just as annoyed for getting hassled at the time as you were.

So it happens to all of us. Get over it. And get over people telling you to get over it. :D

Regards,
-joel

[mmroden]

You know it's really starting to rub me that people keep saying stop being sensitive and get over it. I'm not complaining that the cops we're doing their jobs. It's the manner they chose to do it.

If you read my post I was fully cooperative, I wasn't being a smart ass with the cops. You think I'm that much of a d-d-d-dumbass to tell a cop with an already hostile attitude towards me "heeere's your sign!". :barb

Like I said it's easy to say let it go when you're the spectator.

I completely agree.

It's these little ideas called 'probable cause' that get stuck in people's craw. If having a camera makes someone have 'probable cause', then there's a host of other activities that might fall under that category.

What about drinking water? Do you know how easy it would be to make a chemical bomb with the ingredients in two different water bottles? Should anyone with two water bottles be stopped, because one might contain bleach and the other ammonia? Chemical engineers call this the 'green genie'-- put it near some air intake vents without the proper filtering, and all of a sudden you have a building full of very sick people.

Or what about jars of honey? Honey has an x-ray attenuation factor very similar to plastique, and so can be used to smuggle explosives on to a plane, if you know what you're doing. Should stores that carry honey be required to track all honey sales?

What about ceramics? These things completely bypass all security measures short of a pat down, and even then, a cleverly concealed ceramic or glass knife can be brought on board a plane.

People who have every intention of doing harm can come up with the means to do so, regardless of the security measures in place. We live in such a culture of fear nowadays, the real threats are often ignored for the ones that are easy to spot but may not, in fact, be real. Case in point, photographers near a metro stop. It's not like you can't just go down to city hall and get the plans for that or any other building, but harassing photographers is easy to do, and makes the cops feel like they're accomplishing something. Real policework is hard to do, and I don't pretend to know how to do it; but pissing off the very people who might be willing to give you photographic evidence later seems counterproductive to me.

[RustingInPeace]

First it was racial profiling. Now it's the cop's attitude. And yet, going by your original post, the trouble began when you started asking the questions. Read what Doug said again. When stopped, your only responses are yessir, nosssir, and answering direct questions. That doesn't include trying to put the cop on the spot by asking leading questions like, "Isn't photography allowed at the marina?" It is clear that question was intended to put the cop on the spot. If the cop had answered "yes", you would have challenged that assertion by asking for the legal basis, or possibly try to cause trouble by challenging that assertion later if you thought it was incorrect. If he had answered "no", you would have said "why me?", which is essentially throwing down the race card.

A beat cop's job is pattern matching. They're looking for anything that's a bit out of the ordinary, and in this case it turned out to be you. I'll bet everyone in this forum has a story like this. Here's one of mine.

One day I purchased a new set of binoculars at a camera store, then stopped at the supermarket on my way home. I bought groceries, loaded them into my car, then noticed I had a nice view of a mountain top from the parking lot. Sitting in my car, I rolled down the window and tried out my new binocs. A cop came over, knocked on the window, and did the same bit as your cops to the letter. License, registration, "what are you doing?". I answered it, even though I was probably just as annoyed for getting hassled at the time as you were.

So it happens to all of us. Get over it. And get over people telling you to get over it. :D

Regards,
-joel

That fact is, it should not happen to all of us! The police are so used to violating people's rights because we let them. The general public is just numb to this type of behavior. I simply won't cooperate with the police when they behave inappropriately. Especially when the Gestapo tactics get played (I love it when bring in 6 armed guys and try to stand right on top of you. A common intimidation tactic). I live in America not France, Brittan, or Germany. I will not be tread upon by my government. A law abiding citizen should not be made to fear his government.

Why should a person not put the cop on the spot by asking some questions? The officer should be able to defend his actions (if he is acting within the law and department policy). It is when agents of the government are acting outside the law & policy that a citizen's question becomes threatening.

God forbid a person asserts his rights! It is often more "painful" not to cooperate but asserting your rights is essential to maintaining them. 9/11 is not an excuse for the government to wipe their feet on our constitution:deal . When you tolerate invasive government you encourage it.

When the heavy hand of government pushes, PUSH BACK!

[davev]

I can't believe that anyone feels that what happened is OK.

gmonkeh wasn't the only one taking pictures, but he was the only one followed and questioned. This isn't right, and you know it.

[gus]

I have a friend whom uses the opening line if he is approached,

"..good morning gentlemen my name is **** & this conversation is currently being recorded on my mobile (cell) phone "

He says it helps keep the peace.

[Seamus]

I have a friend whom uses the opening line if he is approached,

"..good morning gentlemen my name is **** & this conversation is currently being recorded on my mobile (cell) phone "

He says it helps keep the peace.

but I bet he has never talked his way out of a speeding ticket:wink

[gus]

but I bet he has never talked his way out of a speeding ticket:wink
Nup...he takes it on the chin as i do also. More chance of getting a footy ref to change his mind i recon & we all know that just does not happen.

I dont get this problem mentioned as the coppers here all know the 'big bald bastard' walking about the city with all the cameras singing to himself.

[kdog]

I can't believe that anyone feels that what happened is OK.

gmonkeh wasn't the only one taking pictures, but he was the only one followed and questioned. This isn't right, and you know it.
Wrong. We have no idea why the cops picked him out as being suspicious and questioned him. I'm not naive enough to think that not one, but two cops, in this age of racial sensitivity, decided to single out one person soley because of race.

I find it interesting how many people here are willing to try and convict the cops involved without hearing their side of the story. There are countless reasons why gmonkeh may have gotten their attention. It could have been his equipment, something I personally doubt. It may have been his focus of attention, which is more likely. Even more likely is the possibility that they received a complaint. Maybe an overly protective mom thought she saw him taking pictures of her kid.

Or perhaps one of these people (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=57745) didn't appreciate their picture being taken by a stranger and complained to the cops. You folks would be the same people to convict the cops if a black woman complained here that a stranger was stalking their child and the cops wouldn't even go talk to the alleged stalker. You can't have it both ways.

There are two sides to every story, my friend.

Regards,
-joel

[gus]

**************************

Guys as much as this matter is important to discuss i will ask that you all keep your posts amicable or i will hit a button or 2.

Thankyou

**************************

[Seamus]

Nup...he takes it on the chin as i do also. More chance of getting a footy ref to change his mind i recon & we all know that just does not happen.

I dont get this problem mentioned as the coppers here all know the 'big bald bastard' walking about the city with all the cameras singing to himself.
'big bald bastard' :rofl a friend of mine is joining the police in Perth. He told me that discretion is non-existent there. It is disappearing rapidly here also, which is a pity. There is a real problem with road deaths here and speeding is one of the causes. We even have penalty points now :soapbox .

[davev]

Wrong. We have no idea why the cops picked him out as being suspicious and questioned him. I'm not naive enough to think that not one, but two cops, in this age of racial sensitivity, decided to single out one person soley because of race.

I find it interesting how many people here are willing to try and convict the cops involved without hearing their side of the story. There are countless reasons why gmonkeh may have gotten their attention. It could have been his equipment, something I personally doubt. It may have been his focus of attention, which is more likely. Even more likely is the possibility that they received a complaint. Maybe an overly protective mom thought she saw him taking pictures of her kid.

Or perhaps one of these people (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=57745) didn't appreciate their picture being taken by a stranger and complained to the cops. You folks would be the same people to convict the cops if a black woman complained here that a stranger was stalking their child and the cops wouldn't even go talk to the alleged stalker. You can't have it both ways.

There are two sides to every story, my friend.

Regards,
-joel


Or perhaps it happened exactly the way gmonkeh said. Ever think of that?

In the 50's it was communism, in the 2000's it's terrorism, in 50 more years it will be an Alien attack.
With the government (and media) we have right now, (in the US) they like to keep us scared about some kind of impending doom.
I drive by the airport and there's a sign to call 911 if you see something out of the ordinary.
Our warning scale is at the second highest level. WHY? Nothing has happened in 5 years. Maybe we need to add a few more colors to scale.
I'm guessing all out war would be at the top. I don't really feel that we're one step away from it.
Now I'll get some news reports of a threat that was broken up. Unless they found the group by following a photographer to the hideout, it doesn't apply.

Paranoia strikes deep. Into your mind it will creep ........

And don't call me your friend. That's reserved for people that I speak to face to face.

[Angelo]

If a cop stops me and asks for identification I will always ask for a reason. That is my right!!!

[thebigsky]

It's a good thing that our security interests do their job better than before, so let's stop being so darned sensitive about being asked about our intentions when we're so obviously taking lots of seemingly random shots in prominent public places. We stick out and draw attention to ourselves. Deal with it.

What a thoroughly sad and depressing attitude.

Charlie

[kdog]

Or perhaps it happened exactly the way gmonkeh said. Ever think of that?
Yes, I did. But you are completely missing the point. The point is that gmonkeh can't possibly know the motives of the cop, and whether they received a complaint from a suspicious person, or whether they themselves became suspicious. And here he is, screaming "racism" in a crowded internet forum.

It is a fact that gmonkeh was hanging around a public area and shooting random peoples pictures with a telephoto lens. He's shown us the pictures. Think about it. He's in a crowded area with a telephoto lens shooting people and trying to be as discreet as possible. It's almost impossible not to look suspicious doing this! Some mother complains, possibly the one holding the kid in gmonkeh's other post, and the cops tell her they'll check it out. Now, they know it's not against the law to shoot a random kid on the street unless that person is a registered pedophile. So they follow gmonkeh to his car, ask for his pedigree and check the pedophile database. He's not there, so they let him go. They go back to the woman who complained and tell her "he's not a known pedophile and wasn't doing anything wrong". The woman leaves in a huff.

But again, the point is that gmonkeh can't possibly know whether or not this scenario occured. And yet he has the nerve to rant in a public forum that he's been "Racially Profiled" by the PD! That's about as nasty an accusation as you can hurl at somebody, especially with no proof.


In the 50's it was communism, in the 2000's it's terrorism, in 50 more years it will be an Alien attack.
With the government (and media) we have right now, (in the US) they like to keep us scared about some kind of impending doom.
I drive by the airport and there's a sign to call 911 if you see something out of the ordinary.
Our warning scale is at the second highest level. WHY? Nothing has happened in 5 years. Maybe we need to add a few more colors to scale.
I'm guessing all out war would be at the top. I don't really feel that we're one step away from it.
Now I'll get some news reports of a threat that was broken up. Unless they found the group by following a photographer to the hideout, it doesn't apply.

Paranoia strikes deep. Into your mind it will creep ........

:huh You've lost me here. He said "2 cops". Where are you getting terrorism? gmonkeh's photographic subjects were obviously people, as his recent posts attest. Most likely one of them complained. Either way, he got nabbed and questioned. He should take it like a man instead of crying racism.


And don't call me your friend. That's reserved for people that I speak to face to face.
Sorry. May I call you Dave?

Regards,
-joel

[kdog]

If a cop stops me and asks for identification I will always ask for a reason. That is my right!!!
Agreed, and that's certainly the first thing I would do. Although, the OP didn't say anything about that. What he said was "I asked him if photography wasn't allowed in the marina and I tried to give him my business card but he got a little "hissy" at me."

Cheers,
-joel

[Jeffro]

Debating things like this on the internet is almost useless.

Cops have the right to talk to you or I on the street, just like you or I have the right to talk to each other. Now the cops can't detain you or search you for no reason. If a cop asks you for your ID, you would be doing nothing wrong asking why they need it, or what you have done.

If anyone feels they have been racially profiled here is not the place to deal with it. The police department where the cops worked would be the place for that. It would also allow one to find out why the cops talked to them in the first place, if they didn't give a reason, or you didn't ask.

This could very well have been profiling, or it could have been the actions of the OP, or like stated before, a complaint from a citizen. One thing is for sure, we weren't there, so we will never know both sides of the story.

[wxwax]

kdog, I'll definitely give you creative points for scenarios. :lol3

I think Jester said (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=518906&postcount=5)all that needs to be said, in the photo thread.

[gmonkeh]

Wrong. We have no idea why the cops picked him out as being suspicious and questioned him. I'm not naive enough to think that not one, but two cops, in this age of racial sensitivity, decided to single out one person soley because of race.

I find it interesting how many people here are willing to try and convict the cops involved without hearing their side of the story. There are countless reasons why gmonkeh may have gotten their attention. It could have been his equipment, something I personally doubt. It may have been his focus of attention, which is more likely. Even more likely is the possibility that they received a complaint. Maybe an overly protective mom thought she saw him taking pictures of her kid.

Or perhaps one of these people (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=57745) didn't appreciate their picture being taken by a stranger and complained to the cops. You folks would be the same people to convict the cops if a black woman complained here that a stranger was stalking their child and the cops wouldn't even go talk to the alleged stalker. You can't have it both ways.

There are two sides to every story, my friend.

Regards,
-joel

Just to let everyone know I had permission from every single one of my people subjects. I asked them ahead of time if they mind if I could take a picture of them then I gave them a card afterwards only after they granted me permission. I showed them the shots and explained to them what I was doing.

Believe me, I didn't think things like this really happened. But especially not to me. But it did , and I find it amazing how the people on this board and the other board I frequent find it so hard to believe that I was in the right.

I'm calling the BPD first thing on Monday and asking what the situation was.

[Jeffro]

I'm calling the BPD first thing on Monday and asking what the situation was.

There you go!

[Angelo]

I'm calling the BPD first thing on Monday and asking what the situation was.

atta boy :thumb

I hope you got a picture of the two cops for identification purposes. :lol3

[kdog]

I'm calling the BPD first thing on Monday and asking what the situation was.
Any update? :ear

[controld]

This is slightly off the main topic but relevant to other posts in the thread. I am not sure where the belief that you are automatically within your rights to refuse to identify yourself to a police officer comes from, but in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) the US Supreme Court ruled that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. 20 states have these statutes. Interestingly, in the case of this thread, Washington is not one of them (neither is California - Angelo), so from a strictly legal perspective the OP may be on solid ground in WA in demanding to know why they wanted to ID him. However, if you live in states including New York you are required by law to ID yourself in just about any situation when asked. All that stops this from being law in your state is state legislation enacting it.

As a Canadian used to sacrificing some civil liberties in the name of larger societal concerns I don't see the big deal in providing ID when asked, but can appreciate the slippery slope argument and the sense of indignation the OP expressed. It's a tough issue - idealogical vs practical debates always are. At least it's been mainly polite in here.

- Mike

[Seefutlung]

... but in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) the US Supreme Court ruled that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments...

- Mike
The key word here is "suspects" ... what crme was committed which would give the police reason to think that gmonkeh is a suspect? I guess photographing while being non-white is reasonable cause for the police, because all the light colored skin people that were shooting the same thing at the same place at the same time were not questioned.

Gary

[kdog]

I guess photographing while being non-white is reasonable cause for the police, because all the light colored skin people that were shooting the same thing at the same place at the same time were not questioned.
Aside from race, there are likely to be other differences as well. For example, the other folks in the area were probably typical tourists taking snapshots. By his own accord, gmonkeh spent a lot of time walking around practicing "street photography". That would have a completely different appearance to an observer and could look suspicious. Futhermore, we have no idea how many "white" shutter bugs are questioned each day by these officers. I don't know why folks are so eager to call this a racial incident without having the facts.

Regards
-joel

[padu]

Wrong. We have no idea why the cops picked him out as being suspicious and questioned him. I'm not naive enough to think that not one, but two cops, in this age of racial sensitivity, decided to single out one person soley because of race.

I find it interesting how many people here are willing to try and convict the cops involved without hearing their side of the story. There are countless reasons why gmonkeh may have gotten their attention. It could have been his equipment, something I personally doubt. It may have been his focus of attention, which is more likely. Even more likely is the possibility that they received a complaint. Maybe an overly protective mom thought she saw him taking pictures of her kid.

Or perhaps one of these people (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=57745) didn't appreciate their picture being taken by a stranger and complained to the cops. You folks would be the same people to convict the cops if a black woman complained here that a stranger was stalking their child and the cops wouldn't even go talk to the alleged stalker. You can't have it both ways.

There are two sides to every story, my friend.

Regards,
-joel


And since when taking photos of children or *anybody* in public places is a crime?

[Seefutlung]

... Futhermore, we have no idea how many "white" shutter bugs are questioned each day by these officers. I don't know why folks are so eager to call this a racial incident without having the facts.

Regards
-joel
In that respect you are correct ... we haven't heard from the police and all conclusions are being generated by facts from only one side ... so why doesn't somebody email the police regarding this thread and see if they are willing to respond?

If they do, which I seriously doubt, I hope it's with more insight than "... just doing our job..." or "... the Patriot Act gives us the right ... " or even better "... providing any information would compromise national security..."

Just because a person has the legal authority and ability to perform an act on another person ... doesn't make that action appropriate or just.

Gary

[kdog]

In that respect you are correct ... we haven't heard from the police and all conclusions are being generated by facts from only one side ... so why doesn't somebody email the police regarding this thread and see if they are willing to respond? Gary

Thank you. I'm glad somebody finally gets what I've been trying to say. I doubt we'd get much of anything useful from the cops because they'd probably want to protect gmonkeh's privacy. Really, he's the only person who's in a position to get the straight scoop from the cops. IMHO, he should have done this before publically accusing them of racial bias.

Regards,
-joel

[Jeffro]

I guess photographing while being non-white is reasonable cause for the police.....

Statements like that are profiling too. You lump all Police Officers into a stereo type, just like the OP said those TWO officers did to him.

There are good and bad people in every profession, like it or not. Maybe these two were bad, maybe they weren't.

[gmonkeh]

I was pretty much given the runaround by the lady I spoke to at the BPD. It's confirmed that there we're no complaints. The officers just happened to pass me by and deemed me of suspicious behavior because I was taking pictures by the ferry terminal.

I asked her if there we're restrictions or signs in the area that says no photography. She said no. Then I asked If any other photographers in the area we're questioned, she said no. I think at this point she sensed what I was trying to allude to and she just gave me that it's routine for cops to check out possible suspicious behavior.

So say or think what you will.

Some have said my rights weren't violated? Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot.

[kdog]

Thanks for the update.

... Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot.
Why? :dunno Keep right on shooting. Nobody's out to stop you from taking pictures. If you do it enough the cops will just say "oh, it's him again" and ignore you which is what you want in the first place. Right?

Regards,
-joel

[photodoug]

You know it's really starting to rub me that people keep saying stop being sensitive and get over it. I'm not complaining that the cops we're doing their jobs. It's the manner they chose to do it.

If you read my post I was fully cooperative, I wasn't being a smart ass with the cops. You think I'm that much of a d-d-d-dumbass to tell a cop with an already hostile attitude towards me "heeere's your sign!". :barb

Like I said it's easy to say let it go when you're the spectator.

I agree. I've been there...done that. But, it's a fight I know I'll lose, so I eat my pie and comply. It's sure frustrating that we have to deal with that attitude, but consider the crapola those boys have to deal with. I see it from their standpoint more nowadays.

[Seefutlung]

...
Some have said my rights weren't violated? Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot.


You know gmonkeh, if it was racially motivated ... then by restricting/altering your actions ... well they win. The "honorable man" tries to live a principled life ... and in this case I think it would be honorable to continue what you enjoy and require for your class, rather than sucumb to the action(s) of others which is motivated from a not-so-enlightened school of behavior.

Additionally, if you feel as strongly as you appear, then I would seek out a city elected official (councilperson) and lodge a complaint/concern with them. The councilperson/staff is your represenative who's job is to look into these matters. Remember that if the councilmember looks into this matter three things may happen:
1) You won't get "harrassed" again;
or
2) You'll get a ticket for every "i" that's not dotted or "t" that's not crossed (so another trip back to the councilmember's office via the ACLU - *sigh*.); or
3) The officers may be reminded that the color of one's skin does not equate to a lack of patriotism or disrespect for the law. And hopefully, this type of abuse, (if it was racially motivated), would be lessened by your actions.

Anyway good luck to you and keep posting your photos.

Gary

[Jeffro]

Some have said my rights weren't violated? Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot.


If you or anyone is approached my an officer and you think they are harrassing you, you should take the time to get their names. They usually have them on their uniforms.

I wouldn't stop shooting, and as long as you aren't trespassing, you shouldn't have to.

I don't know who this lady was, but if she wasn't someone in charge, you talked to the wrong person. You need to talk to someone like the beat/shift Sgt. I know I'd get you your answer......:D

[Seefutlung]

... I don't know who this lady was, but if she wasn't someone in charge, you talked to the wrong person. You need to talk to someone like the beat/shift Sgt. I know I'd get you your answer......:D

Ahhh ... good advice .. the Watch Commander we call 'em out here.

Gary

[DRabbit]

I was pretty much given the runaround by the lady I spoke to at the BPD. It's confirmed that there we're no complaints. The officers just happened to pass me by and deemed me of suspicious behavior because I was taking pictures by the ferry terminal.

I asked her if there we're restrictions or signs in the area that says no photography. She said no. Then I asked If any other photographers in the area we're questioned, she said no. I think at this point she sensed what I was trying to allude to and she just gave me that it's routine for cops to check out possible suspicious behavior.

So say or think what you will.

Some have said my rights weren't violated? Now I have to think twice whether I should bring my camera out or not. I have to watch my ass and be limited to what or where I can shoot.
FYI: I live in New York. I'm white. My husband is hispanic.

I don't understand how your rights were violated. No one stopped you from taking photos. No one abused or assaulted you. No one told you to delete the pictures you had taken. You were asked what you were doing, asked for ID and then told you were free to go.

You were at a ferry terminal with a big camera and telephoto lens. Had the place been bombed two days later I bet there'd be a lot of huff that the police didn't do enough.

I AM one of "those people" who do believe in protecting our liberties. I am not the type to think that the authorities can do anything they want in the name of public safety. At the same time, I can also look at a situation reasonably, and honestly, I'm thinking you are making a much bigger deal about this than is warranted.

My husband and I have been at places photographing and video-taping (film is another of our hobbies) and have never been questioned (we were down by Shea Stadium one day filming for no reason other than to test our equipment). We have also been in places where we were asked to stop immediately (we were filming footage of Walmart once and were told to stop and leave the premises). I've been questioned alone, when I'm not with my husband. We've been looked at suspiciously individually and together. Has my husband sometimes been "racially profiled" - probably. Has it sometimes been much more a matter of having a big camera or big video camera? Absolutely.

The cops have the right to question you if they think your activities strike them as suspicious. YOU may not think you're being suspicious at all, and you may be doing nothing wrong, that doesn't mean the cops agree. Whether it was a result of your big camera or the color of your skin, there's no way to know for sure. I'm inclined to believe if you had just been down there enjoying the weather like everyone else, you wouldn't have been questioned at all... and that leads me to believe it had a lot more to do with your big camera.

And in the end, the result of your story was that none of your rights were violated in even the slightest of ways. Big deal, you were questioned for five minutes. :dunno

I'm sure my reply will be unpopular and you certainly have the right to disagree with me... I just fail to see where you were violated in such an obscene way.

Racial Profiling may be one of those police tactics considered SO incredibly wrong in our society today... but to ignore the race of people is just as offensive (and insensible).

[gmonkeh]

Big deal, you were questioned for five minutes. :dunno
I'm sure my reply will be unpopular and you certainly have the right to disagree with me... I just fail to see where you were violated in such an obscene way.


Where exactly in this thread did I say I felt I was "violated in such an obscene way"? I was venting cause two cops (notice I said 2 and not "all" cops.) decided they would single me out of a handful of other hobbyist/tourists taking pictures at the time. I never cried injustice or blah blah blah. I was frustrated at the situtation and I have the right to be, and I definitely have the right to come to a public forum and vent. And of course I expect people to disagree with my POV but I didn't expect people to react to me the way some have.

And I don't know about you but I'm not too comfortable in the fact that people saw me getting questioned with the implication that I was casing out the ferries.

From what I've gathered talking to the Bremerton PD, I was deemed suspicious and from my standpoint it wasn't solely because I had an "expensive camera" or I was shooting near the ferry terminal..........

Bah who cares, can someone go ahead and lock this thread. I'm getting tired of trying to defend myself when obviously I was in the wrong to shoot in a completely public space and apparently looking suspicious.

Cheers

Lex

[gus]

Please keep it all cool guys. Im not about to close the thread if we can all just chill a bit & share a similar experience.

I assure you that this is not posted towards anyone at all but my job is to keep things mellow here.

[dogwood]

If I recall correctly, Bremerton is home to a U.S. Navy base that houses nuclear armed submarines. Seems like I also remember "No photos" signs getting off the state ferry in Bremerton since the naval base was right there. If you were shooting on the waterfront, perhaps this is the issue?

Don't get me wrong-- I'm not justifying any of this-- just raising a point I didn't see raised in other threads. We all know aspiring terrorists could use google earth or a camera phone without raising suspicions... but you have to choose your battles.

Incidentally, didn't the city of Seattle just get ordered to pay $10 million to protestors illegally arrested during the 1999 WTO protests? Cops screw up-- and sometimes it takes years for anything to come of it even when tens of thousands of people witness first-hand (much less millions on t.v.) their illegal activities.

EDIT: actually it was a million dollars. Here's the story in the Seattle Times:

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=wto03m&date=20070403&query=WTO

[mr peas]

Liek some of you have said, there are good and honest people, however bad and dishonest people also exists.

I have been pulled over several times when in most cases it was not due to me speeding, but the way my vehicle looked and in those cases I was charged for speeding even though I know I was not speeding. I fought these tickets in court and won. So dont think they can win you over just because they have the power to ticket you, you have the power to fight it back.

The simple fact is that, it doesnt matter where you are, police officers have certain things to 'target' if it be your looks and demeanor. Also some cops are not as honest as others. I have had officers who were truly nice to me as well as officers who were truly discourteous. They are not all made the same.

The best thing to do is just be courteous yourself and of course, know your rights as a civilian.

Here is a good website with FAQs about what you can do and not do when a police officer approaches/questions you:

http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions

Also, I wouldnt stop going there just because you felt harassed, officers are just people, they are bound by laws & rules . They are there to work for you.

[Seefutlung]

Liek some of you have said, there are good and honest people, however bad and dishonest people also exists.

I have been pulled over several times when in most cases it was not due to me speeding, but the way my vehicle looked and in those cases I was charged for speeding even though I know I was not speeding. I fought these tickets in court and won. So dont think they can win you over just because they have the power to ticket you, you have the power to fight it back.

The simple fact is that, it doesnt matter where you are, police officers have certain things to 'target' if it be your looks and demeanor. Also some cops are not as honest as others. I have had officers who were truly nice to me as well as officers who were truly discourteous. They are not all made the same.

The best thing to do is just be courteous yourself and of course, know your rights as a civilian.

Here is a good website with FAQs about what you can do and not do when a police officer approaches/questions you:

http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions

Also, I wouldnt stop going there just because you felt harassed, officers are just people, they are bound by laws & rules . They are there to work for you.

It's not about being asked to show ID. It is all about being singled out from a host of people all performing the same act.

Gmonkeh feels he was singled out because the color of his skin was different than the other photographers. Not being there and seeing what the cops were seeing ... I dunno if that was the only or primary reason he was singled out ... but if it was racially motivated ... then gmonkeh should exercise every God given unalienable right that our founding fathers have granted to an individual citizen in making a giant stink.

If it wasn't racially motivated, then the police should sit down with gmonkeh and explain their reasoning for questioning his photography/actions and not the others.

Gary

[kdog]

It's not about being asked to show ID. It is all about being singled out from a host of people all performing the same act.
Only they weren't performing the same act. How many of them are posting the pictures they took that day here? None of course. How about on another internet forum? Doubtful any. There's a big difference between a typical tourist snapping a few pictures and a serious photographer with professional grade equipment spending a lot of time to carefully frame shots. Nothing wrong with that mind, you. But to the uninitiated it stands out as being different. The key word is "uninitiated". One shouldn't attribute malice to a situation where ignorance as an explanation might suffice.

Regards,
-joel

[Harryb]

Interesting thread.

What we have is a shooter being questioned unnecessarily by two cops, wasting both their time and the shooter's time.

The fact that their were other folks shooting who were Caucasian and not similarly treated would lend credence to him being racially profiled. To say it was because he had a DSLR is silly because someone who was up to no good would use gear that would not draw attention to themselves. Even for the "uninitiated" this is pretty much common sense especially for two allegedly "street-wise" cops.

I don't object to the police questioning someone who is acting suspiciously but I do object to them acting stupidly and harassing someone w/o cause.

[Seefutlung]

Only they weren't performing the same act. How many of them are posting the pictures they took that day here? None of course. How about on another internet forum? Doubtful any. There's a big difference between a typical tourist snapping a few pictures and a serious photographer with professional grade equipment spending a lot of time to carefully frame shots. Nothing wrong with that mind, you. But to the uninitiated it stands out as being different. The key word is "uninitiated". One shouldn't attribute malice to a situation where ignorance as an explanation might suffice.

Regards,
-joel
Huh???? What does posting on the internet have to do with police possibly motivated by race rather than cause? This thread is really going out on a tanget ... it seems you failed to read the entire post ... so I'll repeat my earlier post -

... Gmonkeh feels he was singled out because the color of his skin was different than the other photographers. Not being there and seeing what the cops were seeing ... I dunno if that was the only or primary reason he was singled out ... but if it was racially motivated ... then gmonkeh should exercise every God given unalienable right that our founding fathers have granted to an individual citizen in making a giant stink.

If it wasn't racially motivated, then the police should sit down with gmonkeh and explain their reasoning for questioning his photography/actions and not the others.

I think this is a rational response to the five pages of postings. In the police favor ... maybe that day they stopped and questioned 20 other people all behaving in a similar manner as gmonkeh ... and the other 20 were white ... in that case I think gmonkeh's perception of racism is wrong ... but if he was the only person singled out for questioning that day, or if all the others (if there were any others) were also non-white ... then I think that based on circumstancial evidence the police are wrong.

The bottom line is that we don't know anything about what motivated the police. But I applaud gmonkeh for taking the time to visit the station and question their action(s). If we all stood up and responsibly questioned those in/with authority when we felt that a wrong has occurred, this country would be a better place ... and we better citizens.

Gary

[DRabbit]

Don't agree Harry - and that's because unless the white people had the same professional grade equipment, approaching strangers and asking to take their photos, and were shooting the same things with that equipment, you cannot say that all things were equal except for skin color.

You say it was a waste of time. Well that's only a conclusion you can draw NOW. The cops had a judgement call to make and they chose to question the photographer. They have no way to defininitely know that he's not up to no good... and their job is to make that determination. I suspect it had a lot more to do with his activities and equipment than the color of his skin... but my suspicion is no more founded than the suspicion that he was stopped soley for the color of his skin.

And that's the whole point.

gmonkeh... you didn't specifically state you were obscenely violated, but titling the thread "racially profiled...", your tone in some of your replies, and you indicating that you called the police department a few days later certainly could lead one to believe you felt you had suffered some great injustice. Reading your story, I simply do not share that conclusion. I don't even see it as more than a mild inconvenience. You suggested that people at the pier were then judging you because the cops were questioning you... well that can happen anywhere, anytime, and I can only reply by saying that I wouldn't worry so much about what other people think. If your story appeared in the newspaper police beat the following weekend with your photo and your name and actually publicly accused you of an unfounded crime I might agree with you, but in this case, well, not so much.

[Harryb]

[QUOTE]
Don't agree Harry - and that's because unless the white people had the same professional grade equipment, approaching strangers and asking to take their photos, and were shooting the same things with that equipment, you cannot say that all things were equal except for skin color.

You say it was a waste of time. Well that's only a conclusion you can draw NOW. The cops had a judgement call to make and they chose to question the photographer. They have no way to defininitely know that he's not up to no good... and their job is to make that determination. I suspect it had a lot more to do with his activities and equipment than the color of his skin... but my suspicion is no more founded than the suspicion that he was stopped soley for the color of his skin.

And that's the whole point.


What makes DSLR gear suspicious? If the OP was a terrorist he would be using gear that didn't stand out from the crowd. He would attempt to blend in. The simple fact that he stood out by using "pro" gear and was non-white does not make him suspicious.

The cops did make a judgement call and they used bad judgement. They wasted their time and the OP's time. I can't say for sure that their actions were racist but I sure can say they were stupid.

Police have an important role to play and it helps no one when they perform poorly or use poor judgement. In this case did a lousy job. If their actions in this scenario are an indication of the judgement they normally use then I hope they soon find new employment that does not require them to carry weapons.

[Jeffro]

I was walking around for an hour or so when I noticed a couple of bicycle cops eyeing me. I was shooting random subjects mind you and I didn't even take any pictures of them. It started raining and I was getting hungry so I decided to walk back to my car.

Here's the point in the original post that I could see where those two cops thought it was worth checking out gmonkeh. They noticed him, he noticed them. Soon after he decided to walk back to his car. If the cops had seen him first, and if gmonkeh saw them and turned and left....abruptly, it would raise some suspicion. They really can't win for losing here. If they didn't do a meet and greet, and something bad happened soon after, they'd be kicking themselves, thinking...remember that guy we saw... They did the meet and greet, found nothing wrong, but did get a name, just in case.

I don't know how much time actually transpired between the time gmonkeh saw them and turned and left, or how quickly he returned to his car, but it just may have been the thing that raised that suspicion.

Monday morning quarterbacks always think they are better than the game day quarterback, but that usually isn't the case. Anyone that wasn't there and comes to a diffinative conclusion as to the cops thoughts....is just plain arrogant.

[kdog]

The simple fact that he stood out by using "pro" gear and was non-white does not make him suspicious.
So you know for a fact that that's the only difference? My guess is that 99% of the folks on the Bremberton Pier are typically tourists shooting the odd snapshot. A person hanging out on the pier practicing "street photography" is going to stick out like a sore thumb, regardless of race. And there could be any number of other factors that caused the cops to be concerned about gmonkeh, which may or may not concern terrorism. Nobody knows. So to be questioned by cops and then posting on the internet that you've been racially profiled is irresponsible. That's my only point.

Regards,
-joel

[Kenny]

I wasn't going to weigh in here at all, but here goes... :D

No one really knows what was in the mind of the two beat cops, except the two beat cops. I have to put my hand up here and say that I am a cop here in Australia, so I might have a different perspective to other people :D

Anyway, the main question seems to be "was gmonkeh racially profiled?" ... and the answer to that is "no one knows" except of course the two cops involved. But ask yourself this question... what else had happened that day in that vicinity that the beat cops might have been privy to? Anything... oh, yeah, the only ones that know that are the two cops. :D

I'm not trying to say that what they did was right or wrong, just asking that people don't jump to conclusions. Sometimes our (police) job is quite hard... damned if you do and damned if you don't! Without knowing all of the facts that occurred on this particular occasion... and that includes what was in the minds of the two cops involved... then we just simply won't be able to come to a difinitive answer. :dunno :deadhorse

Like someone else said during the thread... if you haven't broken any laws, then keep on doing what you were doing. Gus hit the nail on the head when he said the local boys and girls in blue just think "oh it's that big bald guy again"... he's now know to them... they know he's not a threat and that he isn't up to anything illegal, so they let him go about his business.

Just a couple of random thoughts from Oz :D

Cheers,
Kenny

[Harryb]

So you know for a fact that that's the only difference? My guess is that 99% of the folks on the Bremberton Pier are typically tourists shooting the odd snapshot. A person hanging out on the pier practicing "street photography" is going to stick out like a sore thumb, regardless of race. And there could be any number of other factors that caused the cops to be concerned about gmonkeh, which may or may not concern terrorism. Nobody knows. So to be questioned by cops and then posting on the internet that you've been racially profiled is irresponsible. That's my only point.

Regards,
-joel

There is nothing irresponsible from looking at a set of facts and drawing a reasonable conclusion from those facts. The questions could have been answered if the two cops had simply explained their actions after running their check and finding nothing amiss. They choose not to do so. That leads me to conclude that they didn't want their motivations known.

Gmonkeh did nothing illegal and nothing suspcious. He only took some pictures.

In my old job I had to conduct a number of potential fraud investigations into individuals' incorrect receipt of benefits. When my investigation was completed I always informed the individual of the outcome and the reasons for the investigation. Its not hard to do when your reasons are valid.

[thebigsky]

The one depressing thing that I find reading this thread is that it's clear that the fear and paranoia spread by our leaders has clawed its way into the consciences of many people.

I had imagined that almost every contributor would rather like to feel that they can go about their hobby or business without being interfered with by over zealous law enforcement.

It is frankly laughable to suggest that terrorists would target the location in question and even if they were of a mind to do so that they would wander around in the conspicuous manner of gmonkeh taking photographs.

Ah dear, another disgruntled law abiding citizen who feels uncomfortable going about his daily business and another victory for fear, paranoia and those who would seek to alter our way of life.

Sad times indeed.

Charlie

[Angelo]

In the late 18th century scores of people banded together and stood unified against what they saw as abuse of power.

They challenged authority, fought against tyranny and a great nation, a democracy of liberty and justice for all, was founded as a result.

Those people were who we refer to as patriots!

[DRabbit]

The one depressing thing that I find reading this thread is that it's clear that the fear and paranoia spread by our leaders has clawed its way into the consciences of many people.

I had imagined that almost every contributor would rather like to feel that they can go about their hobby or business without being interfered with by over zealous law enforcement.

It is frankly laughable to suggest that terrorists would target the location in question and even if they were of a mind to do so that they would wander around in the conspicuous manner of gmonkeh taking photographs.

Ah dear, another disgruntled law abiding citizen who feels uncomfortable going about his daily business and another victory for fear, paranoia and those who would seek to alter our way of life.

Sad times indeed.

Charlie

And the reverse can easily be said.

It's sad that everyone is SO afraid of offending people that they would prefer the cops don't do their job for risk of being accused of racially profiling.

And Angelo... there was no great tyranny here. There were two cops and a guy taking pictures. They saw him and made a judgement call as to whether they should question him or not, and they chose to play it safe and question him. Nothing else happened. No one told him to delete his photos, no one abused him, no great debacle ensued. It was pretty simple.

[Angelo]

And the reverse can easily be said.

It's sad that everyone is SO afraid of offending people that they would prefer the cops don't do their job for risk of being accused of racially profiling.

And Angelo... there was no great tyranny here. There were two cops and a guy taking pictures. They saw him and made a judgement call as to whether they should question him or not, and they chose to play it safe and question him. Nothing else happened. No one told him to delete his photos, no one abused him, no great debacle ensued. It was pretty simple.

...and in my opinion it was poor judgement. However, if asking him questions was not offensive, requiring him to produce identification was, IMO.

We have a right to privacy and that includes safeguards against unreasonable search, which this constitutes.

For anyone not informed about legal policing policy in the USA, patrolmen, for whom I have great admiration and respect and number several in my family, are charged with keeping the peace and enforcing laws. That means they are to act accordingly if they witness someone violating a legal statute. Since taking photographs does not violate any such statute there was no reason to take action.

If someone in the crowd raised suspicion they should have been advised there was nothing illegal going on and directed to make a formal complaint beyond that. We have a right to know why we're being questioned and by what accusation if any. I said before and I repeat now, I would NEVER answer any questions or produce identification, to anyone, without being told why.

Remember FDR's words: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

What's fitting about those words in today's US is that we've been led around by the nose by irrational fears of terrorism and therein lies tyranny in the 21st century.

End of rant.

[thebigsky]

And the reverse can easily be said.

It's sad that everyone is SO afraid of offending people that they would prefer the cops don't do their job for risk of being accused of racially profiling.

And Angelo... there was no great tyranny here. There were two cops and a guy taking pictures. They saw him and made a judgement call as to whether they should question him or not, and they chose to play it safe and question him. Nothing else happened. No one told him to delete his photos, no one abused him, no great debacle ensued. It was pretty simple.

You say the reverse could equally be said, wow, I for one will never be able to get my head around your point of view.

Charlie

[kdog]

The one depressing thing that I find reading this thread is that it's clear that the fear and paranoia spread by our leaders has clawed its way into the consciences of many people.
...
It is frankly laughable to suggest that terrorists would target the location in question and even if they were of a mind to do so that they would wander around in the conspicuous manner of gmonkeh taking photographs.

Terrorism? Where in any of gmonkeh's post is there any indication that gmonkeh was stopped because of concerns about terrorism? The terrorism connection is all in the minds of the folks who are claiming this is a racial incident. Maybe they thought he was planning a robbery, child molestation, or who knows what. But you folks talk like it's a given that he was questioned because of race and terrorism concerns. That's the only part that's laughable here.

Here's a newsflash. People got questioned for suspicious behavior long before 9/11 or Osama Bin Laden. I previously posted an anecdote where I myself was questioned in almost identical fashion to gmonkeh -- for looking through binoculars for pete's sake! And that was 20 years ago! Was I annoyed at the time? You bet. And I still remember it after all these years. Since I'm white, I can't call it a racial incident. But if I was black, I can? No way. Just because a person isn't white doesn't automatically give them a pass by what appears to be stupid behavior by the cops.

You can argue all day long whether a cop has a right to question you for something that appears to be suspicious. That is a different question and frankly, I don't have an opinion on that. What I object to is calling it a racial incident just because the person who got questioned is of color. THAT is racism folks.

Regards,
-joel

[gmonkeh]

Amy,

I seriously woudn't give a rat's arsehole if they questioned me or not. It was their attitude and the manner that they did the questioning. If you read the OP I was being cooperative and tried to explain to them that I was a photographer, I ran my own studio and I tried to give him a business card. He refused and got a bit defensive. I then asked him if photography wasn't allowed by the ferry terminal. He answered in a matter befitting a jackass that "You can take all the pictures you want but you will have to deal with me". And he asked me all types of questions like why did I move to Bremerton, where do I live, where did I used to live. What's my wife's name. Where does my wife work. You know, just questions you would normally expect while out taking pictures. Again I may have bite in my tone now but i'm getting tired of people alluding to this as my fault.

If they had been civil about the questioning then we wouldn't have this 8 page thread that I've come to know and love. :dunno

Lex

[Jeffro]

He answered in a matter befitting a jackass that "You can take all the pictures you want but you will have to deal with me".

All other things aside, racism, terrorism, whatever...If you were treated like crap, and given attitude, I'm sure their supervisor would be interested in knowing. If a waiter/waitress gave you attitude you probably wouldn't hesitate to tell the manager, so why should this be any different? :dunno

[DRabbit]

Charlie - what point of view do you think that is that you can't get your head around? I'm curious to know what you're suggesting.


Kdog, you make interesting points...
I'd also add that cops have had been known for their attitude problem long before 9/11... whether it has anything to do with racial profiling or not. I've been questioned by the goods one and the bad ones, and the same applies to my husband. My husband has been approached for merely sitting in his car waiting for our daughter by cops with attitude.

So Lex, really, I still don't see this as that big a deal. I honestly don't see any great injustice whether the cops had a bad attitude with you or not. That still doesn't indicate to me that you were definitivey singled out purely because of the color of your skin.

If you feel filing a complaint with the police department will solve a greater problem, that's your right, so go for it.

[gus]

In the late 18th century scores of people banded together and stood unified against what they saw as abuse of power.

They challenged authority, fought against tyranny and a great nation, a democracy of liberty and justice for all, was founded as a result.

Those people were who we refer to as patriots!
Happened in a few places. I still march every few months under this flag (http://users.netconnect.com.au/~ianmac/eureka.html).

[Angelo]

Happened in a few places. I still march every few months under this flag (http://users.netconnect.com.au/~ianmac/eureka.html).

Absolutely!!! :clap

[DRabbit]

Angelo...

Regarding your "rant" (your word) above...

There is also nothing illegal about strolling through a mall parking lot looking at cars. Yet if two young people were doing so it would not be at ALL unreasonable for two police officers to approach them and inquire what they're doing, especially since it's quite a common area for cars to get broken into and stolen.

You make it all sound so black and white, and unfortunately, life just isn't that simple.

[Seefutlung]

Happened in a few places. I still march every few months under this flag (http://users.netconnect.com.au/%7Eianmac/eureka.html).

You know Gus, Eureka, is the the official State Motto of California and is found on our state seal.

http://www.library.ca.gov/history/cahinsig.cfm

This is such a small world.

Gary

[Angelo]

Angelo...

Regarding your "rant" (your word) above...

There is also nothing illegal about strolling through a mall parking lot looking at cars. Yet if two young people were doing so it would not be at ALL unreasonable for two police officers to approach them and inquire what they're doing, especially since it's quite a common area for cars to get broken into and stolen.

You make it all sound so black and white, and unfortunately, life just isn't that simple.

Yes it would be unreasonable since a mall parking lot is private property and there would be no reason for police officers to be patrolling there unless called in.

You're going to have to come at me with more than that mate. :D

[Jeffro]

Yes it would be unreasonable since a mall parking lot is private property and there would be no reason for police officers to be patrolling there unless called in.

You're kidding right? Cops have "no reason" to patrol private property? What world do you live in? Do you realize a very large part of a cops job is to patrol private property? Oh, and protect it. Lets see parking lots at Banks, Malls, Hotels, Parks, Restaurants, Schools, Car Dealerships and many other businesses, that expecct the police to be patrolling their property. I have also yet to meet a store owner that wouldn't welcome a police officer into his store, even though it's private property.

A mall may be privately owned, but it is open to the public. A mall near where I live was almost a victim of an act of terrorism. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/national/main2241229.shtml) Luckily the guy was caught before he could carry out his plan. And it's also a good thing the local police patrol that mall, even though the mall has it's own security guards, and is private property.

Your house is private property....do you expect the cops to patrol it? Or should they drive by looking the other way, unless you call them first? :dunno

[Shay Stephens]

I get hassled all the time shooting around NYC. I try to prevent a good deal of it by approaching any security or cops I see, but they are generally told that people with cameras are bad, that is just the climate we find ourselves in as photographers right now. So I try to keep myself visible and cooperative, and I am as white as a marshmallow :wink

And at the same time I do probe where the limits are. I will ask them, if they say I shouldn't shoot, will you stop me, if they say no, I will continue. If they say no, but the cops will and have, then I will likely stop. Places that involve public transportation are especially sensitive, and I try to avoid shooting them, it generally is just not worth it right now.

If the shoot is important, I will try to secure prior permission where appropriate. Sometimes that can take weeks of advanced preperation. But at least it gives you the authority to tell the person trying to stop you that you have permission to shoot there.

[DRabbit]

Yes it would be unreasonable since a mall parking lot is private property and there would be no reason for police officers to be patrolling there unless called in.

You're going to have to come at me with more than that mate. :D
First response: Read Jeffro's reply :D

Second response: I'm sure you're a smart guy and can come up with your own examples. I stick by the mall comparison as completely realistic, but hey since you don't like it replace "mall parking lot" with "the streets of Jackson Heights". If a couple of young men were walking up and down looking at cars and the cops felt they looked suspicious, while they aren't technically breaking the law, the cops certainly wouldn't be acting inappropriately to approach and question them. If you don't agree, you must live in happy-land where crime never occurs. :D

Hola Shay, my fellow-NYer :)
My experience around Long Island, Queens and NYC has been a mixed bag... there are times me alone or me and hubby have been questioned when we least expected it, and times where we probably should have been questioned (because of location) and weren't... It really can just be the luck of the draw on any given day.

[Angelo]

You're kidding right? Cops have "no reason" to patrol private property? What world do you live in? Do you realize a very large part of a cops job is to patrol private property? Oh, and protect it. Lets see parking lots at Banks, Malls, Hotels, Parks, Restaurants, Schools, Car Dealerships and many other businesses, that expecct the police to be patrolling their property. I have also yet to meet a store owner that wouldn't welcome a police officer into his store, even though it's private property.

A mall may be privately owned, but it is open to the public. A mall near where I live was almost a victim of an act of terrorism. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/national/main2241229.shtml) Luckily the guy was caught before he could carry out his plan. And it's also a good thing the local police patrol that mall, even though the mall has it's own security guards, and is private property.

Your house is private property....do you expect the cops to patrol it? Or should they drive by looking the other way, unless you call them first? :dunno


No I'm not kidding, are you? Try reading the article you posted. The man involved was "under investigation" and arrested in a sting operation.

I think you need a refresher course in Civics 101. How about paying a little visit to your local police station and asking them about their patrolling practices.

In every example you cite you're dead wrong. Cops patrol neighborhoods, yes, and they look for suspicious behavior and will chase suspects whether on public or private property.

And where do you live that your local police patrol your home? I've never had a cop on my property or in my house unless they were called to come or they entered my property in pursuit of a crime suspect in the area.

Driving or walking a beat in a neighborhood of private homes is NOT patroling your home.

[Angelo]

First response: Read Jeffro's reply :D

Second response: I'm sure you're a smart guy and can come up with your own examples. I stick by the mall comparison as completely realistic, but hey since you don't like it replace "mall parking lot" with "the streets of Jackson Heights". If a couple of young men were walking up and down looking at cars and the cops felt they looked suspicious, while they aren't technically breaking the law, the cops certainly wouldn't be acting inappropriately to approach and question them. If you don't agree, you must live in happy-land where crime never occurs. :D

Hola Shay, my fellow-NYer :)
My experience around Long Island, Queens and NYC has been a mixed bag... there are times me alone or me and hubby have been questioned when we least expected it, and times where we probably should have been questioned (because of location) and weren't... It really can just be the luck of the draw on any given day.

First response: Jeffro is wrong and I've cited why I believe that.

Second response: Cops are paid to patrol the streets of Jackson Heights so they are supposed to be looking for suspicious activity and I'm very happy you used the example you did because it brings us right back to the original point of this thread.

So these cops are patroling the streets of Jackson Heights and see this couple of ypung men looking at cars who they think look suspicious and question them. Why? Is it becasue there have been a recent series of car thefts? Were they tipped off about a probable car-jacking by two men fitting a certain description? These would be very valid points and I guarantee you those cops would, when doing their jobs correctly, tell the two men, after questioning, exactly why they singled them out.

Let's say that absent any specific reason for concern about the myriad cars parked in Jackson Heights, the cops just decide to question these two men?
One would certainly wonder if the color of their skin or their manner of dress might have something to do with it.

It's also interesting you've chosen Jackson Heights as the setting of this little drama. Is that based on the known racial make-up of that particular section of Queens? Is it based on a known ratio of crime activity in the area? Or is it based on assumptions that young men, most probably of dark skin tones in that area, would be engaged in illegal activity?

And as much as I live in La La Land, I wouldn't necessarily call it Happy Land. :lol3 As much as crime in Los Angeles has dropped significantly in recent years we still have our share. I also grew up in NYC so I have those experiences to call from too.

Now back to Jefro and response one: I invite you to visit your local police station or better yet, why not just stop a cop on the streets of Jackson Heights, and ask them about "patroling private property" such as mall parking lots. When you've done that come back here and tell us what you learned.

[kdog]

Yes it would be unreasonable since a mall parking lot is private property and there would be no reason for police officers to be patrolling there unless called in.
Angelo, cops patrol malls all the time. And it's not a regional thing either. My "binoculars" incident occured in a small strip mall one mile from my home in San Jose, CA. That's another thing that torqued me off about the incident. I'd paid property taxes in that town for many years when I was treated like a criminal for using binoculars one mile from my home!

When I was living in NY, I parked my motorcycle against the curb in front of a drugstore in a stripmall one day because the rest of the parking lot was sloped and I was only going to be 5 minutes. When I came out, a cop was writing me a ticket. (That particular ticket miraculously disappeared when the cop found out I lived across the street from and was friends with the judge. Ah, small towns...)

Try parking in a handicapped spot in a mall parking lot and see who writes you the ticket. :deal

Malls are actually a funny case, and I have looked into this. There are stop signs in malls, and you might think you wouldn't get a real ticket if you ran one because they're on private property. Well, you'd be wrong. There are laws in place that treat malls as public property even though they are privately owned. If pressed, I could dig up the civil code on this, but we'd have to have at least a beer riding on the outcome.

Cheers,
-joel

[Harryb]

Angelo...

Regarding your "rant" (your word) above...

There is also nothing illegal about strolling through a mall parking lot looking at cars. Yet if two young people were doing so it would not be at ALL unreasonable for two police officers to approach them and inquire what they're doing, especially since it's quite a common area for cars to get broken into and stolen.

You make it all sound so black and white, and unfortunately, life just isn't that simple.

The problem here is if the two youths are white they probably won't be stopped and questioned but if they were black or Hispanic they probably would be stopped.

Very often, much too often, it is a case of black or white.

[Angelo]

Angelo, cops patrol malls all the time. And it's not a regional thing either. My "binoculars" incident occured in a small strip mall one mile from my home in San Jose, CA. That's another thing that torqued me off about the incident. I'd paid property taxes in that town for many years when I was treated like a criminal for using binoculars one mile from my home!

When I was living in NY, I parked my motorcycle against the curb in front of a drugstore in a stripmall one day because the rest of the parking lot was sloped and I was only going to be 5 minutes. When I came out, a cop was writing me a ticket. (That particular ticket miraculously disappeared when the cop found out I lived across the street from and was friends with the judge. Ah, small towns...)

Try parking in a handicapped spot in a mall parking lot and see who writes you the ticket. :deal

Malls are actually a funny case, and I have looked into this. There are stop signs in malls, and you might think you wouldn't get a real ticket if you ran one because they're on private property. Well, you'd be wrong. There are laws in place that treat malls as public property even though they are privately owned. If pressed, I could dig up the civil code on this, but we'd have to have at least a beer riding on the outcome.

Cheers,
-joel

Joel:

I never said cops do not / can not enforce laws on private property. I said cops do not patrol private property. Each instance you cite above you and or your vehicle were no doubt visible from the street.

I'm not certain of the "stop sign" ordinances in mall parking lots and have often wondered about that myself and as no wager is necessary because I'll gladly put a cold six-pack on the table... but let me tell you about an experiience of mine... and this happened in the Bronx:

I was driving along, minding my own business, when suddenly what did appear in my rear-view mirror but the glaring, whirling red and blue lights of a police car. I dutifully pulled over to the curb, turned my interior lights on, lowered my window, placed my hands on the wheel and waitied for the officer to approach.

"Good evening"

"Good evening officer"

"May I see your license and registration"

"Certainly Officer, but may I ask why; did I do something wrong?"

"Yes, Sir, you rolled through the stop sign as you turned onto Bruckner Blvd. You failed to come to a complete stop."

"By George, I think you got me. Fair is fair!" handing the officer my documents. I waited patiently as he returned to his patrol vehicle to process a ticket. This allowed me time to think and wonder how he spotted me as I never saw his vehicle.

When the officer returned to do the ticket exchange dance I casually asked how he saw me as it appeared to me he had emerged from nowhere. When he explained his position, I kindly asked him to write that information in the comments section of the citation.

I beat that ticket.

You see, the officer had been sitting in his car, in a dark parking lot of a small shopping center. He was on break and apparently enjoying a cup of coffee (and a donut? :D ) and at the time, that was considered (I forget the legal term) to be covert or "he was lying in wait" and that is not legal (in most places).

Yes, the humorous characterization of the motorcycle trooper hiding behind billboards waiting for speeders only happens in the movies

I understand this example is not a proper corrolation to our earlier posts but I'm trying to illustrate that there are laws of proper policing that exist specifically to protect the individual rights of the citizenry. Without such rules we would in fact live in a police state.

Now, about those beers? :wink

[mwgrice]

I get hassled all the time shooting around NYC. I try to prevent a good deal of it by approaching any security or cops I see, but they are generally told that people with cameras are bad, that is just the climate we find ourselves in as photographers right now. So I try to keep myself visible and cooperative, and I am as white as a marshmallow :wink


What kills me is that any terrorist with a lick of sense is not going to take surveillance photos with a DSLR and a big piece of glass. They're going to use something unobtrusive, like a P&S you can hold in the palm of your hand or a cel phone camera. Or a camera hidden in a hat (http://www.chinavasion.com/product_info.php/pName/wireless-spy-hat-camera-with-portable-recorder/) or a pair of sunglasses (http://www.pimall.com/nais/e.vsunglass.html).

[Jeffro]

No I'm not kidding, are you? Try reading the article you posted. The man involved was "under investigation" and arrested in a sting operation.
I never said he was found while patroling the mall, but suggested it's a good thing that the local pd does.

I think you need a refresher course in Civics 101. How about paying a little visit to your local police station and asking them about their patrolling practices.
Don't really need to do that.

In every example you cite you're dead wrong. Cops patrol neighborhoods, yes, and they look for suspicious behavior and will chase suspects whether on public or private property.
The department I work for does patrol private property. Like all the ones I listed.

And where do you live that your local police patrol your home? I've never had a cop on my property or in my house unless they were called to come or they entered my property in pursuit of a crime suspect in the area.
I never said they patrol your home..as "in my house" as you stated....but have you ever heard of a vacation check? That's where a citizen leaves home for a week or even months and fills out a partol request, which could either be drive by checks or door checks. The door checks require the officer to go on the private property.

Driving or walking a beat in a neighborhood of private homes is NOT patroling your home.
Yes it is, just like driving through a mall lot is patrolling mall property...private property.

As I stated long ago, racially motivated or not, if the OP was treated badly he should have taken it up with the officer's Sgt.

[kdog]

Angelo, I like ticket beating stories, and yours is a good one. :nod

I hope you realize I'm in full agreement about understanding and exercising your rights. Cops often seem to exceed the limit of their authority and it is only us little people who will keep them in check.

I'm still certain about cops having beats in shopping malls. The mall in San Jose was fairly big. Perhaps "strip mall" wasn't the way to describe it. It was an L shaped mall with it's own parking lot that was almost completely obscurred from any main road. There was a cop hanging around that mall almost all the time. And this was in a relatively affluent area of San Jose, definitely not a tough neighborhood. I see cops at malls all the time. Perhaps some malls pay the police departments to assign a beat cop to them. I dunno.

You may also be interested to learn that the job description for beat cops in many CA municipalities includes checking the physical security of shopping malls. Here's an example.

City of Albany Job Announcement
Recruitment Title: Police Officer (Job Announcement)
...
Example of Duties
...
Check schools, public and commercial buildings, and shopping centers for physical security.That same text appears in job postings for a lot of different cities in CA. And of course those are only sample duties.

Beers it is. :slurpWe just need to arrange another photo shoot some place that's convenient to LA and Kingman. Barstow is about midway if we want to shoot cheap motels. :rofl

-joel

[DRabbit]

Angelo,

I still disagree with you. I picked Jackson Heights because it was the first to come to mind and I'm often there. If a couple of cops saw a couple of young men looking at cars and acting, what they deemed, as suspicious, they'd have every right to approach. I said NOTHING about the color of their skin.

Jackson Heights is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the country. I'd imagine any cop that works there would have a hard time "racially profiling" anyone, since there are so many races represented and skin of non-white color is of the vast majority.

You seem to want to make this a real cut-and-dry thing, and life just doesn't work that way. If cops were patrolling your neighborhood and saw suspicious activity on YOUR PROPERTY I'd imagine you'd want them to investigate, even if you weren't home. AND, they wouldn't be out of line to do so. Mall parking lots and neighborhood streets that are a mixture of public and private property are in their jurisdiction. Will they walk through your back yard? No. But your back yard is still part of what they patrol.

If a couple of cops are IN A STORE getting themselves coffee, I certainly think you'd expect them to ACT if they saw something suspicious, not just turn the other way because they are in and on private property.

Do you really thing that NYC cops on horseback or bike or foot patrol are only there to guard the sidewalks? They are patrolling everything they see, which is a mixture of public and private property.

The problem here is if the two youths are white they probably won't be stopped and questioned but if they were black or Hispanic they probably would be stopped.

Very often, much too often, it is a case of black or white.
YOU brought up race, not I. Apparently you've never been to Jackson Heights. Just finding two white youths could prove challenging depending on what area you're in.

The attitude you convey is exactly the problem with this thread. Everyone wants to ASSUME that the only reason Lex was stopped was because of the color of his skin... not because he was the only guy down at a ferry terminal with a big camera and big telephoto lens, the only guy approaching strangers and asking to take their photos (which can also be considered soliciting, especially since he admitted he was handing out business cards), and maybe the only guy who made eye contact with the cops and then decided to leave soon after. Maybe he was the only man of color down at the docks that day, but I could nearly guarantee it that they wouldn't have questioned him at all had you removed all the other factors. PROVE TO ME they stopped him SOLEY because of the color of his skin. You can't, and that's the point.

The whole point of this thread was that Lex felt he was singled out for being non-white. I cannot come to that conclusion based on the story told, nor can anyone else. There seems to be two extreme school of thought going on in these kinds of debates... the people who say "you are all paranoid and fearful and willing to give up your freedoms in the name of safety" -- and the people who say "cops can only question you if you are already breaking the law, and if they question anyone of color for any reason they are racist pigs". I tend to beleive that things aren't always so simple.

If Lex feels he was treated badly by the cops he should report it if he thinks it will make a difference. In no way though can he prove he was treated the way he was or even questioned just because he was non-white.

[kdog]

What kills me is that any terrorist with a lick of sense is not going to take surveillance photos with a DSLR and a big piece of glass.
What kills me is why you think this thread has anything to do with terrorism.

Regards,
-joel

[Seefutlung]

What kills me is why you think this thread has anything to do with terrorism.

Regards,
-joel
I think that most of us shooting in major metro centers feel/encounter a higher security/police presence since 9/11. The main variable being 9/11 (and the Patriot Act).

I also believe after a while on patrol ... cops will get bored and pick on someone that stands out ... a dSLR stands out.

Finally, having to deal directly with police on a weekly basis, (I used to be a news guy), I came to a "general" conclusion that starting out, there are two types of people that desire to be "cops". One is a person that truly wants to make society better ... and one type that got beat up way too much as a kid.

In any case, being a cop in a large city and the daily consumption of distastful events/abuse, that, after a while the cop that wants to change society and the cop that relishes the power of the shield ... all end up in the same mental place.

So, that being said, I can see situations where a bored cop just goes out and "over" excercises his/her power ... just because he/she can (especially knowing that 999 time out of a 1000, nuthin' will become of it.

Of course there are exceptions to the above ... and perhaps the above is the exception ... dunno ... but I feel that the above is very common place. Although the above is over simplistic and generalizations ...I belive that there still is much truth in my statements.

Gary

PS- I also feel that cops and teachers should be one of the highest paid of society (but that money must be earned and performance based).
G

[mwgrice]

What kills me is why you think this thread has anything to do with terrorism.

Regards,
-joel

I wrote that in response to what Shay said about the police thinking photography is bad. Terrorism (or our response to it) has quite a bit to do with police harassment of photographers. In this thread, for instance, Shay and wxwax have said how they're particularly likely to get hassled around subway stops.

A lot of people (including many people in law enforcement) think that racial profiling is a reasonable method of dealing with potential terrorist threats. I don't know what ethnicity gmonkeh is ("non-caucasian" can cover a lot of ground), but it's not outside the realm of possiblity that the police officers questioned him because he looked "Middle Eastern."

So yes, I think that it is relevant. In any event, I don't think this episode reflects well on the police officers who questioned gmonkeh.

[wxwax]

What kills me is why you think this thread has anything to do with terrorism.

Regards,
-joel
:scratch

[kdog]

:scratch

:scratch

[Shay Stephens]

This may help all that head scratching:
http://www.headandshoulders.com/

[Harryb]

YOU brought up race, not I. Apparently you've never been to Jackson Heights. Just finding two white youths could prove challenging depending on what area you're in.

The attitude you convey is exactly the problem with this thread. Everyone wants to ASSUME that the only reason Lex was stopped was because of the color of his skin... not because he was the only guy down at a ferry terminal with a big camera and big telephoto lens, the only guy approaching strangers and asking to take their photos (which can also be considered soliciting, especially since he admitted he was handing out business cards), and maybe the only guy who made eye contact with the cops and then decided to leave soon after. Maybe he was the only man of color down at the docks that day, but I could nearly guarantee it that they wouldn't have questioned him at all had you removed all the other factors. PROVE TO ME they stopped him SOLEY because of the color of his skin. You can't, and that's the point.

The whole point of this thread was that Lex felt he was singled out for being non-white. I cannot come to that conclusion based on the story told, nor can anyone else. There seems to be two extreme school of thought going on in these kinds of debates... the people who say "you are all paranoid and fearful and willing to give up your freedoms in the name of safety" -- and the people who say "cops can only question you if you are already breaking the law, and if they question anyone of color for any reason they are racist pigs". I tend to beleive that things aren't always so simple.

If Lex feels he was treated badly by the cops he should report it if he thinks it will make a difference. In no way though can he prove he was treated the way he was or even questioned just because he was non-white.

I lived in NYC for 57 years and spent most of my working life in Jamaica, the South Bronx and Harlem. I'm very aware of Jackson Heights and most of the communities in Queens having lived in Queens for many years.

I am very familiar with the police in NYC and from my personal observation and experiences its clear that they do racially profile folks. Its a fact that past administrations in NYC have admitted to and one that has been rather dramatically illustrated in numerous incidents over the years that do not need to be rehashed here. Its a rather simple fact.

The simple fact of Lex's experience is that he was the only non-white photographer present and he was the one that was questioned by the officers. Lex was doing nothing that was illegal or even suspicious. The police copped an attitude with Lex. The police never explained their actions. My own experience with bureaucrats (I have worked in the Queens Borough President's office when Manes was the Beep, in the Office of the Mayor or NYC during Lindsay's and Beame's administrations, and for the federal government) usually has shown that when an explanation would be embarassing don't give one.

From those simple facts it is not unreasonable to draw a conclusion that the cops actions were in part racially montivated. Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no. However from my own experiences and Lex's descriptions of the events it is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw.

[kdog]

The simple fact of Lex's experience is that he was the only non-white photographer present I did some googling on Bremerton and it turns out it's pretty racially diversfied. You honestly believe that race was the only difference between Lex and the other people present on the pier that day? Here are two bicycle cops -- in the rain -- with nothing better to do than single out a guy taking pictures purely because of his skin color with NO other reasons? I'm sorry, but that's a stretch for me.

Also, do you figure these cops interrogate every person of color taking pictures around the ferry? Probably not. So why Lex? Common sense says there are other factors.

and he was the one that was questioned by the officers. Lex was doing nothing that was illegal or even suspicious. How do you answer DRabbit's interesting observation that Lex, by his own account, was approaching strangers and asking if he could take their pictures? How many times you do you reckon the cops might watch him do that before they start wondering what the heck he's doing? He posted a lot of pictures of people from the pier. I've never done it, but I doubt most folks would give permission to have their pictures taken. I wouldn't. So is it reasonable to assume he had to talk to a LOT of people? Can you honestly rule out the possibility that the cops wanted to know what was up with that? Or any of the countless other reasons why these cops would abandon their donuts long enough to chase a guy in the rain?

The police copped an attitude with Lex. Actually, if read Lex's original post, the conversation started amicably enough, then suddenly went downhill. Believe me, I know how that goes. Last time I talked back to a cop, they threw my white ass in jail, and my date (our first date no less) had to bail me out.

BTW, I'm still confused. Is thread about racial profiling or two cop's attitudes? Lex said above he didn't give a rat's-hiney that he was questioned. So by extension, he wasn't concerned about racial profiling. He says what really bugged him was the cop's attitudes. But the attitude didn't start until after they'd chatted for a while. It's pretty clear he said something that pissed off the cops. He's lucky he didn't get put in the slammer like I did.


The police never explained their actions. He never asked. If you read the original post, Lex asked if it wasn't ok to shoot pictures on the pier. What he should have asked was "why am I being stopped?" He evidently blew his follow-up phone call as well. It sounded to me like he got a dispatcher on the phone who read him standard party-line. If I thought I'd been racially discriminated in any way, I'd make an appointment with the chief of police and ask for a sit-down with the officers in question. That's what I did when I got arrested (see above) and we got the matter resolved to my satisfaction.

My own experience with bureaucrats (I have worked in the Queens Borough President's office when Manes was the Beep, in the Office of the Mayor or NYC during Lindsay's and Beame's administrations, and for the federal government) usually has shown that when an explanation would be embarassing don't give one.

From those simple facts it is not unreasonable to draw a conclusion that the cops actions were in part racially montivated. Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no. However from my own experiences and Lex's descriptions of the events it is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. Interesting choice of words "in part racially motivated". Not so black and white any more, is it?

Publicly accusing the Bremerton PD of racial bias is a pretty harsh card to play. I still don't think Lex has done his due diligence on the matter to play it yet.

Regards,
-joel

[DRabbit]

Harry,

I never suggested that NYC cops never use racial profiling as one of their tactics... and we could get into a whole different discussion about that really. I think I've already previously stated that I think ignoring race completely is just as ignorant as using it as a sole motivation. Again, to me, it's not so black and white.

I was merely defending my example about two suspicious youths doing something completely legal but ending up being questioned by police --when I gave the example I purposely left race out of the equation. You were the one to suggest that if they had been white they wouldn't be questioned at all. When Jackson Heights was the example location, I think your statement is a bit of a stretch.

Regardless, this whole discussion is about the experience Lex had, and I still don't see where you can definitively draw the conclusion it was race motivated. Even by your own words you think race may have only played a PART of it, and wasn't the sole factor. I happen to think it had way more to do with the big camera, the location and the actions of Lex. Do I think he did something wrong? Based on his own account, absolutely not. Do I think the cops were out of line to approach him and question him? Based on his own account, absolutely not. The only thing I see POSSIBLY wrong is that they gave him some attitude, but that wouldn't make them all that different than any other cop on any given day. Sometimes they have attitude, and sometimes they don't.