Greetings from your friendly, neighborhood, TERRORIST!

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, FullName said:
free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And you don't think 8 policemen with their hands on their guns was
infringing on this guy's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness? He sounded pretty unhappy to me.

Now who is blowing up what Paul. In the link that you provided, he
only spoke of 2 officers at his door, not 8. And with out any more
information, you dont know if it was a single 2 man unit or two 1 man
units that were dispatched.

But because I wasnt there, its hard to see who was over reacting, him
or the Seattle police. I dont know, a few questions may have been in
order. Just like what we saw posted here a few weeks ago about a news
crew acting suspicous at an FBO who got carted away.

And its hard to say what the officers intentions were as to why they
had thier hands "casually" resting on thier weapons. It could have
been an intimidation thing, or it could have been they were ready for
anything in an "unknown" situation, or they could have unconsciously
been doing it. Let me justify that last one by saying that I was an
officer for 13 years, and I have at time placed my hand on my
weapon... not for any real reason, but to rest it there, then there
were times, because of signals that my unconsious mind was picking up
from the person I was making contact with made the hairs on the back
of my neck stand up, I made myself in a more ready stance for anything
to happen. So, with just taking one side of the story and believing
in it full heartedly, you are doing yourself a disfavor. In every
story, there are atleast two versions. Once you hear all versions,
somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Scott D.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, FullName said:
free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And you don't think 8 policemen with their hands on their guns was
infringing on this guy's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness? He sounded pretty unhappy to me.

Now who is blowing up what Paul. In the link that you provided, he
only spoke of 2 officers at his door, not 8. And with out any more
information, you dont know if it was a single 2 man unit or two 1 man
units that were dispatched.

But because I wasnt there, its hard to see who was over reacting, him
or the Seattle police. I dont know, a few questions may have been in
order. Just like what we saw posted here a few weeks ago about a news
crew acting suspicious at an FBO who got carted away.

And its hard to say what the officers intentions were as to why they
had their hands "casually" resting on their weapons. It could have
been an intimidation thing, or it could have been they were ready for
anything in an "unknown" situation, or they could have unconsciously
been doing it. Let me justify that last one by saying that I was an
officer for 13 years, and I have at time placed my hand on my
weapon... not for any real reason, but to rest it there, then there
were times, because of signals that my unconscious mind was picking up
from the person I was making contact with made the hairs on the back
of my neck stand up, I made myself in a more ready stance for anything
to happen. So, with just taking one side of the story and believing
in it full heartedly, you are doing yourself a disfavor. In every
story, there are at least two versions. Once you hear all versions,
somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Scott D.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, FullName said:
free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And you don't think 8 policemen with their hands on their guns was
infringing on this guy's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness? He sounded pretty unhappy to me.

Ok Paul, I owe you an apology about the 8 policemen. I didn't realize
that there was more than one page to his rant. After I got to the
third page is where I found his insertion about the second incident.

But my assertion about there is always more than one side to every
story still stands.

Scott D.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:kNh6d.274288$Fg5.152282@attbi_s53...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
What authority is needed to take pictures?

There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
of
you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
taken
as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
privacy laws are very strict indeed.

The law in New York (or anywhere else in the US) prohibits photographing
an
unwilling subject in public? That doesn't sound credible. Could you cite
the
statute please, or some other source of information concerning it?

In 1998 California passed the first anti-Paparazzi legislation, prohibiting
any "attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other
physical impression of the person engaging in a personal or familial
activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable
expectation of privacy," "even without physical trespass," "where the
physical invasion occurs in a manner offensive to a reasonable person."
"Personal and familial activity is defined to include intimate details of
the plaintiff's personal life, interaction with the plaintiff's family or
significant others, and other aspects of the plaintiff's private
affairs..." -- Leonard D. Duboff, "The Law for Photographers," p. 52. I
submit that a National Guardsman attempting to intimidate people by taking
their picture would be "offensive to a reasonable person."

Warren and Brandeis had previously written that unless the facts were
newsworthy, individuals have a right to expect protection of "private
facts," including their images taken in public. Since then the Supreme Court
has ruled that the burden of proof falls on the individual to prove that the
facts were not newsworthy, but I doubt that a National Guardsmen is
moonlighting as a press photographer.

In Galella v. Onassis, the Court ruled that intrusion of a person's privacy
even in a public place can be so egregious as to warrant control.

New York itself has a right of privacy law which prohibits intrusion of a
"reasonable expectation of privacy." A National Guardsman attempting to
intimidate law abiding citizens clearly falls into this category.

California and some other states also have what is called the Jackie Coogan
law, which prohibits photographing minors for commercial purposes unless the
photographer meets several rather stringent and expensive requirements.

Quite honestly, the prosecutors who would not prosecute individuals who were
taking pictures up ladies' dresses and the judges who would not put a stop
to it showed a distinctive lack of imagination and abominable legal research
skills.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your right
to
freedom of speech,


We do, but we got McCain-Feingold anyway.

Yeah. The right to dance naked in someone's lap is protected, but heaven
help you if you have something political to say. The founding fathers must
be spinning.

We have a government that will not trust its own citizens to own
semi-automatic rifles that look mean, but which will sell the latest
weaponry to any third world thug that wants it. No wonder they are edgy.

I am getting rather edgy myself. If the National Guardsman had made any
threatening moves, I think Mr. Nescio would have been justified in shooting
him in self defense.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
[...] I
submit that a National Guardsman attempting to intimidate people by taking
their picture would be "offensive to a reasonable person."

Whether it would or not is irrelevant, as the pictures were not taken "under
circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of
privacy".

[...]
New York itself has a right of privacy law which prohibits intrusion of a
"reasonable expectation of privacy." A National Guardsman attempting to
intimidate law abiding citizens clearly falls into this category.

How does intimidation create a violation of privacy? It doesn't.

Pete

C,

In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand loonies
out there who want to kill us in large numbers.


Oh yes? Says who? Bush? Yeah, right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Nomen Nescio" ] wrote in
message

Not having studied to Patriot Act
as closely
as I probably should have, I wasn't (and still am not) sure that he
didn't have the authority to make us leave. So I thought it might
kinda ruin the day if we wound up sitting in a small room explaining
why we were "spying" on the ANG and
other airport operations.

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with it. He didn't have the authority.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message


Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your
right to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and
seizure. I guess I was wrong.

No, you're not wrong. You just forgot that the same protection applies to
those who want to call a web site "the far left frindge(sic) of radical
socialists".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________