Photographers vs. Police: We meet again...

A non NJT unnecessary step example I still like to trot out once in a while is the post 9-11 traffic arrangement around 30th St station. Automobiles may no longer go through the west and east side porticoes, they must loop around, and so passengers get out of their cars without a portico roof above them, and must walk further to get into the station.
However after having made that detour on the west side, and before making that detour on the east side, automobiles go back to the prior route under the upper level tracks right up against the station wall. I'm no bomb expert, and I hope I never need to be, but I think a car bomb would do more damage if set off in that confined area where the authorities still allow automobiles than it would in the relatively open area where they've banned automobiles.

My solution of course is to encourage more folks to use the subway and regional rail to get to 30th St

By the way, I don't see any reason why this thread's in the NJT forum. Is there anyone who think this potential problem's unique to New Jersey?

Thanks Mr. Mitchell, but all I posted was COMMON SENSE. Something that seems to be lacking in today's world.

I speak from experience, also from both sides of the fence. Ive been trackside and had the PD roll up.

"hey how you doing officer"
"what are you guys doing here?"
"waiting and watching the trains go by and taking some pics"
"oh okay, be careful" OR "oh, well you can't be here, pack it up and move along" -

okay fine. Why argue? I know I was on private property (in the few instances Ive been bothered), yes parking lots are often private property, btw. I might throw in that I work for the railroad, but it doesn't really matter, either he is gonna let us stay or shoo us along. On public property, well your agrument is right, and the cop is wrong, but there is one thing that REALLY PO's PD. Its the "perp" telling them they are wrong. thats the absolute WORST thing you could do. Right or wrong, they can make your life miserable. Wanna be a "railfan martyr"? Fine go ahead. Id much rather write a letter to the chief of PD of that dept and have something down on paper, to their supervisor than arguing 1 on 1 out trackside, but hey thats just me.

anyway, starting with the "I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE PICTURES, MY CIVIL RIGHTS, ETC ETC ETC" nonsense is only gonna piss him off more, because now, this simple "go check out these guys and shoo them along" call has turned into a big production and thats the last thing he (or she) wants to deal with. As a point of information, my Dad was a Police Officer for 30 plus years, and I have several close friends that are PO's in various towns.

Im also working out on the railroad, and yes, ill say it, ive reported people, who looked to be buffs, only a few times, simply because they were doing something totally assinine. Once when stopped I leaned out of the engine to tell the guy that he shouldn't be standing IN the guage taking pictures and he started with the "I have the right to take pictures," etc and started being a real asshat. So guess what, he got called in. I tried. I always try, but if you are going to be ignorant and moronic, and give everyone else a bad image, you are going to get reported. However, most times, those are the ones with the biggest mouths and go on to places like this, or write letters to magazines making it sound like an all out war and the whole world is out to get them. They neglect to mention the fact that they were being idiots themselves and thats what brought it on....

But you guys don't realize what you might look like to a train crew coming down the track. repeatedly walking out to the track and standing and looking to see if a train is coming or where it is looks to the train crew like you are putting something on the rails and keep going back for more and putting more and more down. of course running across the tracks back and forth is obvious, but it gets hairy when a person keeps going back and forth looking for a good shot, but there is another train coming. tehy are so focused on the train they see, they don't see the other one.

"OMG! What a great horn show!!!!11!!1!" No you IDIOT, im trying to tell you about the train comign around the bend behind you.....

Just stand waaay back, stand relatively still and give a wave to the crew. Anything close to the tracks or near signals or switches or bridges is going to probably aggrivate the crew and greatly increase your chance of being called in.

But what do I know?

RussNelson wrote:I didn't feel unsafe before, and I don't feel unsafe now. The whole point of terrorism is to create feelings which are not justified by the evidence. It's to get you to over-react to the actual threat and expend resources and take steps which aren't necessary. People who can't actually hurt you, use terrorism. So whenever somebody tries to say that something is necessary "because of the terrorist threat", laugh in their faces, laugh in your beer, and laugh again.

I was going to comment on your silly statement, Russ, however there is no need to. It speaks for itself.

3rdrail wrote:

RussNelson wrote:I didn't feel unsafe before, and I don't feel unsafe now. The whole point of terrorism is to create feelings which are not justified by the evidence. It's to get you to over-react to the actual threat and expend resources and take steps which aren't necessary. People who can't actually hurt you, use terrorism. So whenever somebody tries to say that something is necessary "because of the terrorist threat", laugh in their faces, laugh in your beer, and laugh again.

I was going to comment on your silly statement, Russ, however there is no need to. It speaks for itself.

yea that gets a

........................................

RussNelson wrote:People who can't actually hurt you, use terrorism.

This is my favorite part. I guess the several thousand people who died on 9/11 weren't actually hurt?

Obviously the about 3500 people killed were hurt by them, in addition to the others who were harmed but survived that day. The point, however, is that they cant harm all 310 million (roughly) people in the US, but by harming 0.002% of that population they were able to terrorize not only all of those 310 million people, but the populations of many other nations as well. The fear of another attack, and our desire to prevent that, is what changed attitudes and behavior in the US and other countries.

Roadgeek Adam wrote:

sullivan1985 wrote:So... with the news of terrorists coming after railroad targets in the USA a steaming hot topic in the news, how long before a photographer gets detained or has his card deleted/film destroyed/camera confiscated or any of that other fun stuff we all remember happening in the last 10 years?

I don't give it long.

By the middle of next week maybe?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/ ... VS20110506

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05 ... da-trains/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/ ... ?tag=stack

And so on...

All I can say honestly, is anyone taking photography needs to watch themselves. Personally I'm sticking away from photographing major stations. Stuff that doesn't get weekend service is easier, or my favorite is abandoned stuff that no one really cares about.

I'll put bets on 1.5 weeks, as long as it ain't me, or any RR.net member for that matter. (Of course there might be exceptions).

With respect to everyone, I would say DO NOT STOP taking photos. As someone who lost someone in 9/11, an employee in the industry, and someone with family in law enforcement, I cannot tell you how many times crimes have been solved or stopped before they even happened by someone taking a photo of their friend or someone taking a picture of a train when some type of event happened where they got lucky enough to take a photo when the suspect in question was in the background committing that crime.

Police and law enforcement officers have no grounds or authority to say "stop taking photos" from PUBLIC property. If you are on railroad property at a station, they do have the right to question you and at times "harass you." If you are standing in a parking lot of a privately owned store or something of that nature, the police only have authority to tell you to "get lost" if the property owner requests the police, or other respective law enforcement officer, to ask you to do so.

If you are at a crossing, sidewalk, park, etc, it is completely legal to photograph and video record trains. But should anyone get harassed standing on public property, DO NOT GIVE THE POLICE A HARD TIME! They are police, they do have a badge, they do have cuffs, and they do have a weapon. If you are asked to leave a specific spot like over looking from a road bridge, do so out of respect for the officer. If they give you a hard time and harass you, file a complaint with the county prosecutor's office.

Easiest way to not get in this situation like this? In the word's of Chris Rock, "Follow the law!" These officers are out there looking out for OUR safety both as civilians and railroad employees, and we should respect their judgements and requests in the moment that they are there and take appropriate measures afterward should it be necessary.

RussNelson wrote:I would sacrifice some of my civil rights in return for safety, too. I demand a greater level of safety than the loss of this right would grant me.

RussNelson wrote:I didn't feel unsafe before, and I don't feel unsafe now. The whole point of terrorism is to create feelings which are not justified by the evidence. It's to get you to over-react to the actual threat and expend resources and take steps which aren't necessary. People who can't actually hurt you, use terrorism. So whenever somebody tries to say that something is necessary "because of the terrorist threat", laugh in their faces, laugh in your beer, and laugh again.

Wait... what? What is your stance on this. You say you don't feel unsafe yet you're willing to trade liberty for safety?

We need to talk this lady into being a railfan:
http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2011/03/28/ ... e-footage/

wpdj61 wrote:

RussNelson wrote:People who can't actually hurt you, use terrorism.

This is my favorite part. I guess the several thousand people who died on 9/11 weren't actually hurt?

I thought we were talking about public policy. Yes, *they* were hurt, obviously. So were all the soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. *They* were hurt also. More people have been killed by our choosing to go to war than were killed in the USA. And now Chuck "Asshat" Schumer is saying that we need a "Do Not Ride" list for Amtrak. Oh, THAT will REALLY help train travel in the US.

I'm not stupid, I'm not blind, I can see that terrorist activities are a risk. So is flying. So is riding a train. So is working on trains. So is farming (more dangerous than any other profession). So is driving (BIG risk). So is widespread gun ownership (since 9/11, 230,000 people have been killed by guns -- if terrorists scare you, then widespread gun ownership should REALLY scare you.) I don't think it makes sense to ban guns -- in fact any attempt to do so in the US would be fruitless. Nor does it make sense to ban cars even though they kill 43,000 people per year in the USA. And I REALLY don't think it makes sense to ban terrorism.

The problem is that humans do not have the ability to compare a very unlikely risk of bad consequences against a likely risk of little consequences. We just can't do it. Not by the seat of our pants, not by our feelings. And ... you guys are running by your feelings, not your brains. No shame in that -- I *feel* the same way as you. But I'm trained to evaluate risks by the numbers, not by feelings.

And terrorists just aren't that scary. Their actions don't justify our response. Not in terms of the money we've spent. Not in terms of the lives we've spent. Not in terms of the freedoms we've given up.

RussNelson wrote:... you guys are running by your feelings, not your brains. No shame in that -- I *feel* the same way as you. But I'm trained to evaluate risks by the numbers, not by feelings.

Thank you for that Russ. I had been feeling so "untrained" in believing that even the slightest possibility of being held captive in a jet liner flying at 500 MPH knowing that I was about to plunge head first into a steel skyscraper was so horrific and a living nightmare, that we should do anything to attempt to stop even one other person from experiencing it. Silly me.

If you will recall Russ, you proudly proclaimed previously that;

RussNelson wrote:I didn't feel unsafe before, and I don't feel unsafe now. The whole point of terrorism is to create feelings which are not justified by the evidence. It's to get you to over-react to the actual threat and expend resources and take steps which aren't necessary. People who can't actually hurt you, use terrorism. So whenever somebody tries to say that something is necessary "because of the terrorist threat", laugh in their faces, laugh in your beer, and laugh again.

Quite frankly, that's a repugnant statement, exacerbated by the smugness of it's delivery along with the suggestion of extended laughing regarding a topic which is horrific. I am not a selfish sloth who thinks only of myself and the "odds" of something catastrophic happening to me alone. I believe in the Bible verse instructing to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." By the way, this conversation began not with your expanded world events list, but with your notion of reduced civil liberties, ie. not being able to photograph as fully as previously, and your revulsion to that concept. I will gladly confine my railway photography as well as hang naked, upside-down at Logan Airport while TSA rolls me in cookie-dough if it meant that there was even one-millionth of a percentage less that another plane would be hijacked.

Passaic River Rat: wouldn't the police be destroying evidence if they deleted pictures? I thought destroying evidence was obstruction and a felony?

kevikens wrote:Passaic River Rat: wouldn't the police be destroying evidence if they deleted pictures? I thought destroying evidence was obstruction and a felony?

No idea. My intention in posting the link about the young lady was to point out that there are high school girls willing to stand up to police whom appear to be unlawfully interfering with apparently legal photographic activity.

And it appears that the ACLU-NJ is going to hand the police department in question their ass. Again.

Patrick Boylan wrote:A non NJT unnecessary step example I still like to trot out once in a while is the post 9-11 traffic arrangement around 30th St station. Automobiles may no longer go through the west and east side porticoes, they must loop around, and so passengers get out of their cars without a portico roof above them, and must walk further to get into the station.

Good news for you (and the rest of us who use the station).
1--private autos are allowed under the west portico (I drove through myself Saturday).
2--FTA is reviewing traffic patterns around the station with an eye towards making changes that will make it safer for pedestrians and more convenient for drivers. Part of this will likely include bringing some SEPTA bus routes (particularly the LUCY shuttle) into the station. If you have any comments or suggestions, e-mail us at [email protected] and we'll submit them to the study liaison.

3rdrail wrote:

RussNelson wrote:... you guys are running by your feelings, not your brains. No shame in that -- I *feel* the same way as you. But I'm trained to evaluate risks by the numbers, not by feelings.

I will gladly confine my railway photography as well as hang naked, upside-down at Logan Airport while TSA rolls me in cookie-dough if it meant that there was even one-millionth of a percentage less that another plane would be hijacked.

Why we do call them "terrorists"? Because their goal is not to harm us -- if it was they could not achieve their goal any more than a mosquito could bring down a person. Their goal is to provoke us into overreaction. The problem is very simple: that people prefer a one in ten chance of a harm rather than a one in a million chance of a thousand times as much harm. It's well documented that people over-estimate rare risks of larger harm this way -- but we, the sheepdogs, need to protect the sheep from over-reacting to fear of the wolves. You're derelicting your duty to protect the sheep not just from the wolves, but also from their own panic. The goal of these wolves is to panic the sheep.

It's not just about photography. It's an attack on the very nature of railroading -- long lonely stretches of track which SOME TERRORIST MIGHT SABOTAGE.

Oh, and the threat, since 8:46 on 9/11/2001, has been bombs, not weapons. Even the hijackers realized that; why do you think all four planes were hijacked (or supposed to be) within a few minutes of each other? That tactic didn't work an hour (9:47) later, and it will never work again.