Man Threatened, Arrested For Taking Picture Of Open ATM In Public [Criminal Masterminds]

If there is so much concern over such a photo being taken why don't these would be ( if they could pass the exam and psych profile ) cops erect a shield around or in front of the machine to prevent this very thing?

Got myself in trouble in New York photographing I think the Federal Reserve building, fortunately security was completely unable to articulate their objections.

Just "didn't like it".

Once I put myself in the category of "tourist" any stupid thing I did was fine.

And why do they do it in broad daylight for all to see......sounds like a power trip....from the wannabes cops. and from real ones looking for a quick adrenilin fix.

phoenix911

This thread caused me to read for a good deal of time. Shane Becker may well have a case for false arrest, or something, since as it was, and apparently still is, in the US you can photograph legally pretty much whatever you can see outdoors, or on the streets.

As many cameras as there are around now, I suppose they ought to come with some legal counsel along with the operating instructions.

It is an interesting set of laws, that varies from nation to nation.

I get to a point where from my point of view, it is, if you can photograph me, I can photograph you.

In the past I have photographed Police arresting people in either the East Village of New York, or as recently as a year ago locally where I live in North Carolina.

Interestingly enough I was never threatened by any NY cop, but was threatened by this local cop, in this small town.

Now what really is more powerful, the camera, or the gun?

Is the pen mightier than the sword?

I have not traveled outside of the US except to Canada, and I have great problems with some of the unethical laws prevalent in the US over victimless crimes, but in the end I love my country for its traditions of Free Speech, not even Canadians are really comfortable with.

Of course Shane may not at all have any case for unlawful arrest, if in fact, he was inside the store, on private property.

Damn, why do I reread stuff, and then recognize I went off on a tangent, got emotional, and then discover, I was right about part of the stuff all along, but wrong about important details that set me going.

If Shane was in the store, even in the US, he has no case, unless there is an overriding public benefit!

Say the guys with guns were not maintaining it, but stealing all the money out of it!

Then the store and the courts would be happy that he was brave enough to take their picture!

Yes, there you go, Shane is a skeptical man. The uniforms do not impress him. Armed men are opening the guts of a machine that has money in it. He senses it is a good time to take a picture. They could be robbers!

Now if Shane had been wearing a Police Uniform when he took the picture, and was in fact a "Fake Cop", and also carrying a gun as he took the photograph, would it have been legal for the Loomis and Fargo guards to shoot him?

Should I carry my pistol whenever I carry my camera?

I often carry my camera, but typically leave my pistol at home.

Since I typically carry at least a few bucks in my pocket, and might be robbed, and am getting older and weaker, I guess I ought to carry my gun more than I carry my camera.

Neither my gun or my camera is particularly good.

Therefore the lesson is, get, a better camera, and a better gun.

Further I also need a good uniform.

P.S. Canadians who are wild about Free Speech are called Comedians. They move to the US, and end up as major stars in Hollywood.

Interesting enough to see that picture is published

Guess its just where you are when you take that picture. And when your vacationing in the persian gulf, don't take that picture of the boat load of pirates, they could be just fisherman.

(arrested pirates defense that they are using in france)

Oh thay meant that kind of ATM

What did you think we were talking about, ATM (HOT Anti-Tank Modular) Anti-Tank Missiles perhaps

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/hot/

Only in America (or Afghanistan) could you walk off the street and into a store displaying these.

If the picture in the article is the one he took, then it could be definitely be considered a security threat. Surprised they allowed it to be posted if it is the picture. But since the article also said that they didn't confiscate the photo I doubt if it is. Its probably a media shot not an actual un-posed shot.

I used to be a Security Guard (what did you call them FAKE COPS). I've worked both as a Armored car guard and an on-site guard. Both Armed and Unarmed. I've been shot once in the line of duty. It happened to be on a job where I was not allowed to carry my weapon. I've Made 3 felony arrest including the time I got shot. As a fully licensed Security Guard we have the same powers as a Police Officer while at our station doing our job & the same risk.

I dare you to walk into a bank and start taking Pictures. Bet you get arrested too. An ATM is considered Bank Property therefore same rules apply.And after 9-11 taking pictures of anything can be considered a security threat. Even something as simple as a photo of a bridge could get you into trouble. I don't always agree with these standards but they are there for a reason.

But if its such a security threat, why aren't the fake cops arrested, for their irresponsibility to protect the security of this ATM by at least putting a curtain around it.

Or is it that these fake cops can't be trusted. Hell you could analyse this to a pulp until theres nothing left.

phoenix911

They did protect the ATM security. Thats what started this thread in the first place. They stopped the person who took the photo. Thereby protecting the ATM.

scotchdrnkr:

just because they stopped him from taking pictures does not mean they were doing their job

Before cameras, people observed, used to be called "casing the joint"

or does one just do the minimum, like lock the front door but leave the back door open.

All for show, example where are these security agents.......on CR4. Or are their job done.

phoenix911

Casing the joint is SOP. But with pictures you can look the place over at your leisure. And maybe pin point details that you may have missed while just looking around. Or even build a mock up so you and your buddies can practice the job ahead of time.

There is a whole lot of info missing from this original article. So we will never know the whole story. Just the part that the news article wanted us to know. There are at least 2 sides to every story. Every person has their own perspective in an arrest situation. That's why the after arrest interviews are done separately & each person fills out their own report ASAP. Even a couple of days latter you'll get a different view of your own part in the scenario. I'd sure like to hear the Security Guards & the Police Officers side of the story.

Casing the joint is SOP. But with pictures you can look the place over at your leisure. And maybe pin point details that you may have missed while just looking around. Or even build a mock up so you and your buddies can practice the job ahead of time.

still can be done, without pictures, and since this article, that is how it will be done, or pictures taken covertly

There is a whole lot of info missing from this original article.

Why print it?

I'd sure like to hear the Security Guards & the Police Officers side of the story.

True, but if a mistake has been made, you made not hear about it, but procedures will I sure be written to handle this the next time

phoenix911

While your points are well taken, I don't see how what was done here constitutes a security threat of any type. National security is obviously not threatened nor is the security of the unit or the banking firm. Any terrorist who wants prints of bridge designs, ATMs, etc. can generally get them on the Internet.

The only issue I see is whether he did it while on private property, and further whether the private property was posted as a high security area OR an area where no photos can be taken.

This was strictly a power trip. Having come from a security and police background I am surprized that the officers involved weren't disciplined.

When 911 first happened every picture you took of a bridge or of certain facilities was considered a security threat. Everyone was in PANIC MODE. Our survey company happened to be doing a survey at the time on a major bridge crossing the Mississippi. The local cops pestered our crews every day for days about weather or not they had permission to be there. Now they have more sensible idea of what constitutes a threat.

If you are caught taking pictures of the super structure of a bridge and are caught you can bet you'll be answering questions. And I would hope so. After all who takes pictures of the actual superstructure other than an engineer or soeone wanting to do harm to that bridge. But if you are just taking a scenic picture of that same bridge no questions asked.

The ATM in question seems to be INSIDE the store. Most stores won't even let you take pictures in the store. Let alone take one of an ATM. Theres got to be more to this story than they are telling us. Like why didn't the person taking the picture just deleate it when the guard stopped him. Why were they so gung ho on keeping a picture of an ATM.

As a fully licensed Security Guard we have the same powers as a Police Officer while at our station doing our job & the same risk.

Except for being able to always carry a side arm.

Even something as simple as a photo of a bridge could get you into trouble. I don't always agree with these standards but they are there for a reason.

In Russian about 25 Years ago or so, An American tourist took pictures of red square.

That was a international incident.

As a fully licensed Security Guard we have the same powers as a Police Officer while at our station doing our job & the same risk.

Except for being able to always carry a side arm.

________________________-

If you mean not being able to carry a side arm on certain jobs. Yes that is true. But that is part of the contract with the particular company you are working for. Just as cops aren't supposed to carry their weapons in the court room. Or in Lock up. Its part of the rules you have to deal with. This was also before my state had a concealed carry allowance. Now I carry whenever legally possible.And even then I'm not allowed to carry in MANY locations.

I was working at a hospital at the time in a very nice part of town. You don't really expect to have a shooting incident. It was just some pissed off ex of one of the staff that decided he was going to make his point. I followed prcedure and called the REAL POLICE but they didn't get there before he decided he was going to find his ex. I got in his way and he shot me in the inner thigh. You can get shot no matter where you are these days.

I'm sorry you got shot.

Hope the wound healed completely.

I did do a right fair amount of reading looking for the laws, and it did seem that they were essentially the same as they had been prior to 9/11.

I may have to see if I can find whatever passages may have been put into the Patriot Act that may have actually altered the law.

It is often enough that I wish I had become an attorney and I came to feel that courses in law are called for in the High Schools.

I certainly don't remember anybody in High School telling us what was legal or illegal to photograph, and it is interesting really that even us fairly well educated people on this forum do not seem to have a full common understanding of our rights.

The law for long has been that you can photograph, or be photographed in "Public".

There is apparently some confusion about whether or not it has become against the law to photograph bridges, or buildings considered potential targets, and I would like to have a firm grasp of those laws, since I often carry a camera, and take photographs.

Now I really want to take a picture of an ATM.

Barney Fife: Sir.....put that camera down and step back slowly, and no one will get hurt.

Andy: Barney put that gun down...... you know you only have one bullit and its in your shirt pocket.

Barney: But Aanndy, he doesn't know that,

funny maybe.....but a GA now thats a stretch.

I realize that private security probably does not receive the respect is deserves where it is due, but over the years we have had opportunity to see private security overstep their authority - as we have seen police officers overstep their authority. The difference being the police have a large organization used to defending them, whereas the security guard is usually cast to the wolves.

>>I don't always agree with these standards but they are there for a reason.

But this I would mostly have to disagree with.

One has only to step back a bit and see we are years away from having done a professional job of analysing security vulnerabilities within our country. And many of the agencies that should be responsible are filled with political appointees and bureaucratic hacks.

Or maybe that is just my uneducated opinion.

I've read this story on a few sites and it appears this is the real picture. It has not been mentioned whether Shane was a REI member or not. If he was, he is part owner and was in "his" store. We here in the US can still take of a picture of anything in public, maybe not without harassment; there are few areas of expected privacy when you are out and about. This is what gives the "authorities" the "right" to use cctv and take pictures of YOU!

PS edigan- The Federal Reserve is where the REAL "criminal masterminds" operate.

So does this mean if I download a copy of this picture I will also be arrested, or can I use it as proof to have the OP arrested for putting it online? Since we all viewed it are we responsible to turn ourselves in or what? Wouldn't it have been easier to ask the individual to just delete the picture and let it go at that? Unless they're stupid enough to put vital information right on the opening of the ATM, what could you possibly learn from a fairly grainy picture. Around here if they rob an ATM they usually rip it out and take it with them.

I myself know that I could very well be inspired to take a picture of any part of a bridge for artistic reasons. At one point I did a series of close up pictures of the ground and patches of grass inspired by pictures by astronauts of the Moonscape under their feet.

I also liked photographing naked women, but they talk back, and don't stand still, and though often are just as beautiful as any bridge ever could be, it is not a line of work I have put a lot of money into, and have simply taken advantage of volunteers.

When I was younger I was very likely to photograph as much as I could, wherever I could, and even knowing the law, did not always respect it.

As I got older and more experienced I was more likely to simply ask permission to shoot on private property.

Sometimes in bars I have tried to get a candid photo, as Bresson, Eisenstadt, Smith, Weggee, Frank, Clark, and others have.

In my past it seemed I was more successful at the candid than I am these days, though I have compensated by simply asking people to pose against a wall.

In cities like New York, they are aware that much of the income for the city is directly related to how much it is photographed.

You really simply have to ask permission to photograph most anywhere, whether it is private property, or public property.

I found that it was not all that difficult to get a shooting permit, or a permit to give a speech, or much of anything at all in Manhattan, if you were polite.

Certainly there are common sense reasons for getting permission to set up a tripod, and put a big camera on it, and getting permission and protection for the work done in public.

You can figure that whether you are in public, or in private, once you put a tripod up, you will have trouble, and will be wise to have made prior arrangements.

This may not at all be the case for painters, since nobody thinks a painting of a bridge of any use to a terrorist, and they are expected to be poor and crazy anyway.