Replies

But... this guy’s wife is a doctor and he doesn’t know enough post 9 11 not to go around taking pix of buildings.

Wow.

That's not sarcasm is it?

If the guy didn't act suspicious on being questioned, and if he didn't act combative, then the cops are in big trouble, one hopes, and that's acknowledging that they probably often get away with too much. THe closest I get is watching cops weave in and out of traffic exceeding the speed limit for no reason other than believing they are above the law, and that's corrupt and outrageous, and probably indicative of other worse behavior. As I said many times, including in my first post, maybe the cops are very wrong. But who's being sarcastic? Here's a piece from homeland security, from a simple google search. And whether they're right or wrong, whether they should have been established or not: "Police officers are allowed to stop citizens under a standard called "reasonable suspicion." This standard was created by a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (1968). Police officers are required to be able to support a suspicion of criminal activity by articulable facts (that is, facts that can be explained/identified, not simply a "gut instinct" or a feeling), before they can stop individuals for investigation. Taking pictures or video of facilities, buildings or infrastructure in a manner that would arouse suspicion in a reasonable person. Examples include taking pictures or video of infrequently used access points, personnel performing security functions (patrols, badge/vehicle checking), securityrelated equipment (perimeter fencing, security cameras). REASONABLE SUSPICION ‐‐ YES OR NO? WHY? WHAT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC WITH THIS DEFINITION? • Demonstrating unusual interest in facilities, buildings or infrastructure beyond mere casual or professional interest (e.g., engineers) such that a reasonable person would consider the activity suspicious. Examples include observation through binoculars, taking notes, attempting to measure distances, etc. Taking pictures or video of facilities, buildings or infrastructure in a manner that would arouse suspicion in a reasonable person. Examples include taking pictures or video of infrequently used access points, personnel performing security functions (patrols, badge/vehicle checking), securityrelated equipment (perimeter fencing, security cameras). REASONABLE SUSPICION ‐‐ YES OR NO? WHY? WHAT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC WITH THIS DEFINITION? • Demonstrating unusual interest in facilities, buildings or infrastructure beyond mere casual or professional interest (e.g., engineers) such that a reasonable person would consider the activity suspicious. Examples include observation through binoculars, taking notes, attempting to measure distances, etc.

Big disconnect here where on the same forum that talks regularly about the threat of drug cartel activity and the undisclosed threats, including possible terrorist threats coming from the border close to the city in this story, and the cops being hammered without investigation.

Are they real, or not?