Why GA is Dying

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
Let me advise you right here and now that when it
comes to a duly appointed security officer acting in that capacity
anywhere on airport property, asking you why you are taking pictures
on the airport, it doesn't matter where you are on that airport. That
security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
manner and ask you to explain what you are doing. At the point you are
approached in this reasonable manner, it is incumbent on you to supply
a reasonable answer to that security officer.

I'm not sure what your meaning of "incumbent" is - but there are so many
variables involved (private or public airport? rent-a-cop or real cop?
etc.) that I'd have to argue that your advise covers too broad an area to
be correct. In fact in some cases it is clearly incorrect.

If a statute exists that prohibits photography or cameras in certain areas,
and you clearly are using a camera there, a cop isn't going to ask you what
you are doing with it - he or she is going to arrest you. The cops question
was silly and if it had been anyone else, an impolite don't-suffer-fools-
gladly reply would be "What the hell does it look like I'm doing!?"

Furthermore, even with regard to private property, if something is clearly
in public view, the public has a right to take photos of it. Barbra
Streisand lost a suit over this very issue:

http://www.californiacoastline.org/s...d/lawsuit.html

Ignorance of the law is a great excuse - for cops it seems. But the law
doesn't seem to back up what Emily's cop did or you think they can do; see
for example:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...era-laws_x.htm
http://www.photopermit.org/

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Actually Emily, you being anti-authority or not is your business really, and
the fact that your parents, military or not, "agree with your anti-authority
streak" actually would have no effect on my opinion one way or the other, as
that opinion and/or any meaning that opinion might have are totally
unrelated to your parents.

I wasn't writing that for your benefit, I was writing it for anyone else
that might be reading along. I don't want other people getting the
mistaken idea that I'm a complete anarchist with no sense of when to
back down. You, on the other hand, have already made up your mind (with
an incorrect conclusion)

No problem at all.
All the best to you as before,
DH

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Actually Emily, you being anti-authority or not is your business really,
and the fact that your parents, military or not, "agree with your
anti-authority streak" actually would have no effect on my opinion one
way or the other, as that opinion and/or any meaning that opinion might
have are totally unrelated to your parents.

I wasn't writing that for your benefit, I was writing it for anyone else
that might be reading along. I don't want other people getting the
mistaken idea that I'm a complete anarchist with no sense of when to back
down. You, on the other hand, have already made up your mind (with an
incorrect conclusion)

No problem at all.
All the best to you
DH

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
Let me advise you right here and now that when it
comes to a duly appointed security officer acting in that capacity
anywhere on airport property, asking you why you are taking pictures
on the airport, it doesn't matter where you are on that airport. That
security officer has every right to approach you in a reasonable
manner and ask you to explain what you are doing. At the point you are
approached in this reasonable manner, it is incumbent on you to supply
a reasonable answer to that security officer.

I'm not sure what your meaning of "incumbent" is - but there are so many
variables involved (private or public airport? rent-a-cop or real cop?
etc.) that I'd have to argue that your advise covers too broad an area to
be correct. In fact in some cases it is clearly incorrect.

If a statute exists that prohibits photography or cameras in certain
areas,
and you clearly are using a camera there, a cop isn't going to ask you
what
you are doing with it - he or she is going to arrest you. The cops
question
was silly and if it had been anyone else, an impolite don't-suffer-fools-
gladly reply would be "What the hell does it look like I'm doing!?"

Furthermore, even with regard to private property, if something is clearly
in public view, the public has a right to take photos of it. Barbra
Streisand lost a suit over this very issue:

http://www.californiacoastline.org/s...d/lawsuit.html

Ignorance of the law is a great excuse - for cops it seems. But the law
doesn't seem to back up what Emily's cop did or you think they can do; see
for example:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...era-laws_x.htm
http://www.photopermit.org/

Morgans wrote:
"Emily" wrote

There you go, with your adversarial tactics. Mellow out. Keep your views,
but be pleasant about the whole thing. Honey attracts more bears than dog
sh*t.
When you're told over and over by lovers of the current regime that
you're a libertarian anarchist freak, you tend to get defensive after a
while. And besides that, I'm not here to impress anyone.

Or when the cop said something in the airport., instead of attacking, you
could have said, "I love airplanes, and am a pilot, and think that airplanes
are the most beautiful things in the world, so I just need to capture the
beauty." I'll bet he would have said, "Oh, OK."and walked onward.
This was outside at the airport, actually. My point is, I'm not going
to explain myself when I'm not required to. I want the government out
of my life, and yes, that includes a random cop at the airport. I live
my life on the right side of the law, and I get rather annoyed when
someone suggests that I'm not.

People react to attack by asserting their own authority. He had to make a
stand against you. You gave him absolutely no way out of the corner.
I don't know about that, since he just drove off without saying anything
else. And since no one's come knocking at my door, I'm going to say
that's the end of the story.

"Emily" wrote

You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my retired military
officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so your opinions
about it really mean nothing.

There you go, with your adversarial tactics. Mellow out. Keep your views,
but be pleasant about the whole thing. Honey attracts more bears than dog
sh*t.

Instead, you could have said something like, "my military parents think I'm
right in my views, and I'll just keep on expressing them like I have.
Instead, you had to make an attacking, last shot, put down.

Or when the cop said something in the airport., instead of attacking, you
could have said, "I love airplanes, and am a pilot, and think that airplanes
are the most beautiful things in the world, so I just need to capture the
beauty." I'll bet he would have said, "Oh, OK."and walked onward.

People react to attack by asserting their own authority. He had to make a
stand against you. You gave him absolutely no way out of the corner.
--
Jim in NC

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
No problem at all.
All the best to you

And to you.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
[ Elided for brevity. ]

When post 9/11 checks started, a friend of mine, an airline
pilot, was on the road. They took his nail clippers too and
then he went to the cockpit and checked to see that the
crash axe was stowed. It would make Buffy a good vampire
killer.

There was also the case of a federal marshal who had
paperwork to carry his gun on the flight and TSA cleared him
to board with his loaded pistol, but they took his nail
clippers since they were not on the paperwork.

TSA---Too Stupid for Arby's




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| "Emily" wrote in message
| . ..
| Dudley Henriques wrote:
|
| You can parse the "my rights are being violated" thing
to death, and you
| can complain about the inconvenience till you're blue
in the face, but
| the bottom line is simply that you can't have it both
ways.
|
| But taking pictures isn't illegal. I live right near a
large Class B
| airport with a great observation area. I also like
taking pictures. I
| once had a cop come up to me at the observation area and
ask why I was
| taking pictures. I told him that it wasn't illegal and
I wasn't under any
| obligation to explain myself to him. Yeah, he could
have made me leave,
| but knowing I was right, he walked off.
|
| My point is, when I get harassed by a cop (and harassed
I was, since I
| wasn't doing anything wrong), I'll keep on complaining.
A 20-something
| white girl with a camera and commercial certificate in
her purse is as
| much a security hazard as a rabbit. And you CAN have it
both ways.
|
| No, you can't have it both ways.
|
| People who are taking pictures at airports unfortunately
are now a security
| issue. This doesn't mean the security people have a right
to "hassle" you or
| push you around, but it does mean that if you are
questioned politely in a
| non threatening manner you either will respond to this
"intrusion" by
| recognizing its a security issue until you demonstrate
that its not, or you
| will stand there and shout like hell that your personal
space and rights are
| being violated and that taking pictures isn't illegal.
| No one says the system is perfect. Actually, it stinks.
But complaining
| about your right to take pictures in an atmosphere where
security is an
| issue is not necessarily the best approach.
| Hell...you think your case was bad? I have a friend who
Captain's a 747. He
| and his entire crew were stopped and body searched at a
major US hub while
| an entire line of civilians went through the gates
unhampered. After 20
| minutes or so of this, they took his nail clippers. The
flight was late
| getting off, but those civilians went through just fine.
| It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach is
one of quiet
| cooperation unless there is an actual incident involving
your innocent
| activity and security people hassling you, and I mean
REALLY hassling you!.
| Just my opinion mind you :-)))
|
| Dudley Henriques
|
|
|

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Dudley Henriques wrote:
| snip
| It "ain't" perfect, that's for sure. The best approach
is one of quiet
| cooperation
|
| The best approach to unfair legislation and scare tactics
is NEVER quiet
| cooperation.

The proper answer is always simple, "I like airplanes, I fly
them for a living, I teach people to fly and I'm trying to
promote aviation."

Cops always respond better to a polite answer. If you are
asked for ID, the law in most places requires that you
identify yourself in a secure area and often in any public
setting. If you are with your car or have bags, and are
asked if they can look inside, the proper answer is, 'My
lawyer has advised me to always decline, on principle."
That goes over better than , "Do you have a warrant
[challenge to authority]." If I had a rental car, I would
NEVER volunteer for a search because you don't know what is
hidden in the wheels, fenders and under the seats.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Emily" wrote in message
. ..
| Dudley Henriques wrote:
| "Emily" wrote in message
| . ..
|
| That security officer has every right to
| approach you in a reasonable manner and ask you to
explain what you are
| doing.
|
| Of course he does. And I have every right to refuse to
explain myself.
|
| You can think I'm anti-authority if you like, but my
retired military
| officer parents agree with my anti-authority streak, so
your opinions
| about it really mean nothing.