Some issues *you* failed to consider! Editorial Use: you're assuming you have press credentials... you don't (see Josh Wolf). The woman could sue you for defamation, and win. Public place: sure, you can *photograph* all you want... and show them to people in you own living room perhaps... but once you post in public in any way you have to have releases for all recognizable people or you are open to a suit... please go take a basic photography class, kthanx
Actually posting this video of this woman without her consent (via signed release forms) is illegal and she could sue you for defamation. ...Just so you know.
@rodneyj42 Thanks for the concern, Rodney. Issues you failed to consider: First, this was recorded in public; therefore, no expectation of privacy. Second, editorial use; no permission needed. (I am US based)
@rodneyj42 LMAO, in public there is presumption of privacy, so explain HOW a person can be defamed by being video taped in PUBLIC? You either live in the UK or Australia or have no clue of how the First Amendment to the United States Constitution works.
I have been what you call a "Rent a cop" (Bad name 2 completely different jobs) for years. Here is the problem. A Security officer can be fired for not doing what they are told. At the same time "I was ordered too" is not a defense if they do something illegal. And you can not sue the business without fucking over the guard. I have been both fired and threatened with termination for refusing to break the law. And there is no "Right to work" so the guard has no recourse. So you feed your baby's
All she has to do is have you trespassed from the property and you will not be able to return at all. Who do you really think the Police will side with? A professional security officer doing her job or some guy with a camera with video proof that he is in fact guilty of harassment.
The reason they do not like photos being taken of any bank, not just Bank of America, is the possibility of being cased out for a robbery. It is concidered a security breach. FYI
@fmycsmith Any bank that has it's security threatened by what you see from accross the street (taking pictures or just looking at it) is not where I want to keep my life savings. Banks are cased from inside. Would be bank robbers aren't going to get too much security info from something some tourist could accomplish with a brownie camera.
@ohannahdad Really? What about armored cars, bank employees, and targeted customers of the bank making cash deposits? I am pretty sure that any person recording the bank building for any given period of time could tell you when they arrive at the bank. That is why its a security risk.
@fmycsmith They can like or dislike all they want, it does not change the fact that I have the absolute right to take photos of anything in public view, as long as I am not trespassing. I wasn't, I did, and that is that!
@fmycsmith You are OH so wrong. I was never ON their property, and that was the whole point! I was across the street, on the public sidewalk. BTW, the police have admonished the rent-a-cops there, they now TOTALLY understand that they cannot stop people from photographing the building. Norfolk Police are great guys!
@tommcelvy They must have cried wolf a few times too many in order for the Police to be against them. My understanding was that you were photographing the bank and just the bank, not the building as a whole, that also included other shops as well.
@fmycsmith There is actually another company, XSIG, and they have also been read the riot act by the Norfolk Police. The building is 20 stories tall. While it IS their main ops center here, it is also home to many other businesses. The building is in view of the public. I was standing on public property (ACROSS THE STREET!). I have every legal right to photograph the building!
@tommcelvy The security officer wasn't harassing you, she was just doing her job. The company is a really cut throat company. She was kinda caught between a rock and a hard place. G4S (f.k.a. Wackenhut, G4S Wackenhut) has been known to fire people on the spot for doing what they were supposed to do vs. what they were told to do. I know it is not right but according to that company, "The client gets what the client wants!" She was calling her Lt. to cover her own butt.
@fmycsmith exactly i know how it is because i work for g4s and i get people all the time wanting to video record Reliant Stadium and i am ordered to tell them they cant tape the buildingand then they catch an attitude with me
@fmycsmith Agreed about the girl just doing her job (it seemed she didn't even know why she was supposed to be doing it), but he was being harassed by Wackenhut whenever he went by there.
Y ait is obvious what this girl posting this video is trying to do. I bet she is at the Block Wall-Street as well. Trying to pick an argument for no reason at all. She is an idiot. She is harrassing the security officer and not vice versa.
@deutsch2k5 Wow, you are way off! First of all I am a guy. That is why it is a male voice! And I am very much AGAINST the OWS protests - nothing but a bunch of little kids. The security guard approached me and asked me to stop a lawful activity, which she cannot do. I was on a PUBLIC sidewalk taking a pic of something in public view. Case closed!
The same thing happened to me at the NBC Building in San Diego except they did'nt look like Wackenhut security btw my father used to work for wackenhut many years ago.
As a follow up, I have no issues with someone photographing my home (it happens often) IF THEY DO IT FROM THE PUBLIC SPACE. They can NOT come onto my property to take photos, unless I grant permission. Otherwise, I have no problem with it. In fact, I am flattered!
@tommcelvy Understandable, while I agree with you on acting within your rights as a citizen, I kind of disagree with the way you handled it. She was given an order by her supervisor and she was acting on what she had been told. Yes I do understand my rights, being both a deputy sheriff as well as an untalented amateur photographer I completely understand where you're coming from, but whats so interesting about a bank that keeps you coming back anyway?
@eclipsetuner99 (part 2) Who are these guards (not cops/sheriffs, but GUARDS) to tell me what I can do from PUBLIC PROPERTY? (We were across the strrt from the buildings, on the public sidewalk. I was fortunate to find a Norfolk PD officer who knew the law, and straightened out these cop-wannabes.
@eclipsetuner99 Obviously, you do not understand your rights. I understand mine. In fact, in an incident last weekend, the new security team there threatened to arrest me; I told them they could not so so, and I contacted Norfolk Police. The NPD informed them that they can NOT stop ANYONE from taking pics from a public vantage point. Period. They also explained to the rent-a-cops htat I could have them charged with harassment should I choose to do so. Case closed.
@tommcelvy You sir are just another guy that is provoking a reaction from the bank just so you can cry "violation". The security officer you're giving a hard time to is just doing her job as told by her superiors. She is also a "PRIVATE" citizen and not a public servant,so doesn't she have the right to not be uploaded by you to You Tube? How would you feel if someone took random pictures of you at an intersection and posted them on a billboard marked "PUBLIC NUISANCE"? That's legal right?
@titan8or She does have a right not to be photographed or video recorded. This right does not extend to public spaces.
It is perfectly legal for someone to take pictures of the original poster and make billboards out of them. I'm not certain of the legality of a 'public nuisance' label, so I decline to comment on that.
@AmmariNoel Would you care to tell me, legally, why I cannot? There is NO federal or state statute that prohibits it! Obviously your IQ is very low, I base that statement on two factors: 1, your obvious lack of knowledge of American laws and rights, and 2) you need to use the phrase "dumb ass."
@tommcelvy APARENTLY YOUR THE DUMB ASS WALK TO ANY BANK AND START TAKING PICTURES AND WAIT 5 MIN ANDI BET THE COPS APPROCH U DUMB ASS.. ITS CALLED A BREACH OF SECURITY IDIOT, U COULD BE TAKING PICTURES TO ROB THE PLACE.. APARENTLY U DONT READ TOO MUCH INTO THE LAW DO U
@AmmariNoel As a firm believer in freedom of speech, I will leave your juvenile comment here, AND will respond it it! Taking photos of the exterior of an office building is not a security breach, NOR is it illegal. I read the law often. There is no such law as "breach of security, as such. If I was INSIDE the building, and was taking photos in violation of their "policies" then they could ask me to leave, no more.
She is just a lackey. She does not make the rules nor does she think about the logic behind the rules passed down to her. If her boss asked her to lick his ass she'd do it.
@cindyterminator: I don't know what kind of an IDIOT you are, but you obviously did not read or listen to the video. I WAS NEVER ON THE BoA PROPERTY. I was ACROSS THE STREET, on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK. I know all about the issues of private/public property, hence my not shooting on their property, or even on the sidewalk bordering theirs.
it not illegal to take photos of a outside on a public street. but you was trying to take them from the inside and no a bank is not public it not like a city street or park you are in a private and that is why the sexy guard kicked you out to the curb and you started filming if i was on duty i call the local police and hit you on trespassing and then i put that on you tube
@Sonic3000 If she had detained me illegally, I could have filed charges of kidnapping, unlawful arrest, unlawful detainment, and a few other criminal charges, plus federal civil rights charges.
What security concerns? It is a friggin' office building! Seriously. The building is out in public. In the middle of our financial district. If they are worried about security, it sould be behind a fence!
@Sonic3000 She really did nothing to warrant suit. If she had cuffed me, called the REAL police, and they they told her she was outta line, I would have had their collective butts in court FAST! But, that was not what I was going for. I made my point - and I will continue to do so!
@Sonic3000 Thanks, Sonic! I feel I could have done more, but this was my first "video" confrontation. Hope to get better at it, like Carlos Miller and others out there fighting the good fight!
Although that it is a violation of civil rights for someone to deny you the right to film, but in this day in age, there are people who are not law abiding citizens that can see places like banks, hospitals, etc. Yes, terrrorists have hidden cameras that they take with them. But they have computers just like us and can access our videos. YouTube needs to step up to the plate and come up with ideas to where we law abiding citizens can hide our videos.
instead of having common courtesy, you just felt you we entitled to do what ever you want. How would you like it if some dude was taking pictures of your house.
@Stupiddailynews Actually, longbow122, you are TOTALLY wrong. Here in the USA, I can take a picture of every home in the country if I want to. It is NOT illegal. If you think that it is, then please, give me a code cite for any state. You can't because it does not exist.
@jwstanley Obviously, you have a limited understanding as to what happened. I was not there harassing rent-a-cops; I was there doing some archetecherial photogrphy when *I* was harased by the rent-a-cops. I am tried of being told by these cop wanna bes taht I cannot take a picture of something in plain sight, from a public place. It is the same as blacks being told they cannot come to a restaurant tha is for "whites only"... a violation of my constitutional rights.
I did, Mike. Had you read other comments, including my update, it was the idiots at Wackenhut that could not read the BoA policies! Photography is not allowed ON the property. They misconstrued that to read OF the property, and those are two very different things! I actually spoke with a BoA Security Manager shortly after this incident. He was as appalled as I was! I have not been back since, mainly because I have been busy with other projects, but I may as the weather gets warmer!
Nofxmike: Yes, I am aware of the things you say. I found the various angles of view, coupled with the hard angular designs in the building, to be very interesting. Freedom is defined as the ability to do things within the limits of the law; and photography is NOT a crime. If you are unable to see the beauty in the images, then you have no concept of what I am talking about. Which is pretty obvious. Please, don't tell me that what I did was wrong, because it was not!
@tommcelvy "obvious" We're not debating my taste in art. We're debating yours since you posted a video. If you'd like to change the subject Pm me and I'd be glad to talk about something else. Depending on the amount of time you spent photographing the building, which I have not heard discussed, I would be able to tell you if you're violating anything. Keep in mind, a Bank is private property--in this case--a very large corporation. Yes, banks are federally insured(FDIC).
@tommcelvy LQQK, what is the initial issue here? I remember the original issue being your photography of a BoA. You're right about being on/off private property. I highly doubt a security manager of a bank is foolish enough to say he/she would not mind if you sit for hours photographing a BoA. Having said that, they probably have cameras which could easily capture your face and description during those several hours. So, with that in mind--have at it.
@nofxmike06 I meant to add that it does not matter how much time I spend photographing the building...if I am on PUBLIC property (street/sidewalk) and I am not impeding traffic, I could be there for several hours - its my right. I am a good enough photographer to not need hours, but I would defend another person's right to do it. Thanks for the notes and comments, though! Take care!
What you know is right--i.e within the limits of the law. You know its right because its codified. I suggest you focus your activism on the large corporation and not their poorly-trained, contracted security. What am I getting at? Activists in general right now have much larger fish to fry than say a global private security company. Lets not fight the symptoms but rather attack the solution. Metaphorically, of course.
Why were you photographing a Bank? Are you aware that would-be robbers "case" a location they're planning on robbing using such devices as digital cameras to record schedules and work habits of bank employees and various other suspicious acts? Freedom is not the license to do whatever you like, its the responsibility to do what you know is right. Photographing or filming a bank serves no purpose other than to gain information on a bank. Don' t tell you me like the architecture.
@nofxmike06 Maybe he liked the architectural style of the Building. No law against him Photographing any building while on public land. Bank, Refinery or otherwise.
You should call the local g4s office and complain to A. Brown. He's the local office manager. I still say get a life. But it's your "rite" I guess. Lol
Look man. Do what ya want. But I'm telling ya, taking photos of a bank in this day and age is suspicious activity. Besides, you said in the video they were interfering with your hobby. That's why I asked. Like I said, do what ya want. I just think it's not productive stirring shit up for no reason. Hope it works out for ya
I don't make it a "hobby". I was doing some building shooting for my stock portfolio. Building shots sell well. Anyway, I know I have the "right" (not rite) to shoot. Yes, she could have called the police, but absent any suspisious activity as witnessed by the police, I don't even have to give them my name - nor would I unless they confirmed I was either being detained or that it was a Terry Stop. I have a life - and a damn good one, thank you! Merry Christmas!
Why do you have a hobby of taking pictures of BOA? You do have a rite to take pics but don't you realize all the guard has to do is call the police and report a suspicious guy photographing the bank? Then the police have a reasonable suspicion to detain you and question you. Of course you aren't planning on robbing a bank so you won't be arrested. The point is you'll have to take time out of your life to explain this to the police. All this trouble because you like to stir shit up?? Get a life
@jwstanley That is the price of freedom, a few minutes or a few hours of inconvenience when you have to delegate your rights, if that is what it takes then so be it, no American citizen should be backing down any time the opportunity arises to fight for our constitutional rights, your mindset allows those rights to be constantly challenged and abused by TPTB, wake up!
Saw your link as part of "you can't take photos here" but I envy the American Constitution in this case, as a Canadian. You have a clear historical right to the freedom of the press and expression. Our laws have the right, but they have not been tested in the courts , as yours have, and they are now being tested in the climate of 9/11, which as we know even torture is now being justified as "legal" -way to go!
I applaud your efforts to stand up to these security people. However, the First Amendment does not apply here. It was not the government attempting to stop you here but a private entity. The first amendment restricts the government.
Like I tell the kids on my school bus when they've done the right thing, GOOD JOB!!
@plogankelly Thanks for the kind words. Actually, the 1st Amendment DOES apply; here is how. I was on a PUBLIC throughfare, attempting to engage in an act specifically protected by the 1st Amendment. It is against the law for ANYONE to take or attempt to take away your rights as citizens. That is why people who commit hate crimes are dealt with in the federal system - they are attempting to take away the rights of another. But, I understand your line of thinking! Thanks again for the note
I'm sorry but you're wrong. It was a scurity guard for a Federal Building therefore making her an agent on behalf of the Government. Even tht withstanding he still has the 1st amendment behind him.
A wackenhut security guard ordering people around out on the street. What a bunch of nonsense. The lieutenant nonsense is funny too. I wonder if they also have bird colonels and rear admirals.
Incidentally, Wackenhut is in the middle of a multi-million dollar corruption charge with Miami Metrorail.
I'd like to bone her and cum all over that cute face of hers...
BubbaJoMamaIsBack 6 days ago
She is cute ,most G4S females I have seen are fat.
MAGBLAST4570 3 weeks ago
Some issues *you* failed to consider! Editorial Use: you're assuming you have press credentials... you don't (see Josh Wolf). The woman could sue you for defamation, and win. Public place: sure, you can *photograph* all you want... and show them to people in you own living room perhaps... but once you post in public in any way you have to have releases for all recognizable people or you are open to a suit... please go take a basic photography class, kthanx
rodneyj42 1 month ago
Comment removed
rodneyj42 1 month ago
damn shes hot and cute too... i wouldnt mind if she arrested me ^_*
obamasucksdick99 1 month ago
Actually posting this video of this woman without her consent (via signed release forms) is illegal and she could sue you for defamation. ...Just so you know.
rodneyj42 1 month ago
@rodneyj42 Thanks for the concern, Rodney. Issues you failed to consider: First, this was recorded in public; therefore, no expectation of privacy. Second, editorial use; no permission needed. (I am US based)
tommcelvy 1 month ago 4
@rodneyj42 In what way was she defamed? I don't see how what she said was misrepresented here to cause harm to her character.
surfdigby 1 month ago
@rodneyj42 LMAO, in public there is presumption of privacy, so explain HOW a person can be defamed by being video taped in PUBLIC? You either live in the UK or Australia or have no clue of how the First Amendment to the United States Constitution works.
ARealFrankSerpico 2 weeks ago
I think you handled this well. They need to be told and photographers shouldn't be backing down. Stand up for your rights
LtBitter 3 months ago
I have been what you call a "Rent a cop" (Bad name 2 completely different jobs) for years. Here is the problem. A Security officer can be fired for not doing what they are told. At the same time "I was ordered too" is not a defense if they do something illegal. And you can not sue the business without fucking over the guard. I have been both fired and threatened with termination for refusing to break the law. And there is no "Right to work" so the guard has no recourse. So you feed your baby's
tjsnaps 4 months ago
@tjsnaps wrote, "Here is the problem. A Security officer can be fired for not doing what they are told."
SO WHAT!
Fucking latter day Pinkertons and "company men" deserve ZERO sympathy.
The history of "private security" in the United States is one of abuse of citizens by corporate goons.
If I'm not going to let some steroid-pumped pig push me around I sure as hell won't be letting any fucking rent-a-cop do so.
ForTheDefence80 3 months ago
Comment removed
fmycsmith 4 months ago
All she has to do is have you trespassed from the property and you will not be able to return at all. Who do you really think the Police will side with? A professional security officer doing her job or some guy with a camera with video proof that he is in fact guilty of harassment.
fmycsmith 4 months ago
The reason they do not like photos being taken of any bank, not just Bank of America, is the possibility of being cased out for a robbery. It is concidered a security breach. FYI
fmycsmith 4 months ago
@fmycsmith Any bank that has it's security threatened by what you see from accross the street (taking pictures or just looking at it) is not where I want to keep my life savings. Banks are cased from inside. Would be bank robbers aren't going to get too much security info from something some tourist could accomplish with a brownie camera.
ohannahdad 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ohannahdad Really? What about armored cars, bank employees, and targeted customers of the bank making cash deposits? I am pretty sure that any person recording the bank building for any given period of time could tell you when they arrive at the bank. That is why its a security risk.
fmycsmith 4 months ago
@fmycsmith They can like or dislike all they want, it does not change the fact that I have the absolute right to take photos of anything in public view, as long as I am not trespassing. I wasn't, I did, and that is that!
tommcelvy 4 months ago
@fmycsmith You are OH so wrong. I was never ON their property, and that was the whole point! I was across the street, on the public sidewalk. BTW, the police have admonished the rent-a-cops there, they now TOTALLY understand that they cannot stop people from photographing the building. Norfolk Police are great guys!
tommcelvy 4 months ago
@tommcelvy They must have cried wolf a few times too many in order for the Police to be against them. My understanding was that you were photographing the bank and just the bank, not the building as a whole, that also included other shops as well.
fmycsmith 4 months ago
@fmycsmith There is actually another company, XSIG, and they have also been read the riot act by the Norfolk Police. The building is 20 stories tall. While it IS their main ops center here, it is also home to many other businesses. The building is in view of the public. I was standing on public property (ACROSS THE STREET!). I have every legal right to photograph the building!
tommcelvy 4 months ago
@tommcelvy The security officer wasn't harassing you, she was just doing her job. The company is a really cut throat company. She was kinda caught between a rock and a hard place. G4S (f.k.a. Wackenhut, G4S Wackenhut) has been known to fire people on the spot for doing what they were supposed to do vs. what they were told to do. I know it is not right but according to that company, "The client gets what the client wants!" She was calling her Lt. to cover her own butt.
fmycsmith 4 months ago 6
@fmycsmith exactly i know how it is because i work for g4s and i get people all the time wanting to video record Reliant Stadium and i am ordered to tell them they cant tape the buildingand then they catch an attitude with me
Jokersmoke52 3 months ago
@fmycsmith Agreed about the girl just doing her job (it seemed she didn't even know why she was supposed to be doing it), but he was being harassed by Wackenhut whenever he went by there.
LorgSkyegon 1 month ago
Y ait is obvious what this girl posting this video is trying to do. I bet she is at the Block Wall-Street as well. Trying to pick an argument for no reason at all. She is an idiot. She is harrassing the security officer and not vice versa.
deutsch2k5 4 months ago
@deutsch2k5 Wow, you are way off! First of all I am a guy. That is why it is a male voice! And I am very much AGAINST the OWS protests - nothing but a bunch of little kids. The security guard approached me and asked me to stop a lawful activity, which she cannot do. I was on a PUBLIC sidewalk taking a pic of something in public view. Case closed!
tommcelvy 4 months ago 5
The same thing happened to me at the NBC Building in San Diego except they did'nt look like Wackenhut security btw my father used to work for wackenhut many years ago.
Doug62Y 4 months ago
As a follow up, I have no issues with someone photographing my home (it happens often) IF THEY DO IT FROM THE PUBLIC SPACE. They can NOT come onto my property to take photos, unless I grant permission. Otherwise, I have no problem with it. In fact, I am flattered!
tommcelvy 6 months ago
@tommcelvy Understandable, while I agree with you on acting within your rights as a citizen, I kind of disagree with the way you handled it. She was given an order by her supervisor and she was acting on what she had been told. Yes I do understand my rights, being both a deputy sheriff as well as an untalented amateur photographer I completely understand where you're coming from, but whats so interesting about a bank that keeps you coming back anyway?
eclipsetuner99 6 months ago
@eclipsetuner99 (part 2) Who are these guards (not cops/sheriffs, but GUARDS) to tell me what I can do from PUBLIC PROPERTY? (We were across the strrt from the buildings, on the public sidewalk. I was fortunate to find a Norfolk PD officer who knew the law, and straightened out these cop-wannabes.
tommcelvy 6 months ago
@eclipsetuner99 Obviously, you do not understand your rights. I understand mine. In fact, in an incident last weekend, the new security team there threatened to arrest me; I told them they could not so so, and I contacted Norfolk Police. The NPD informed them that they can NOT stop ANYONE from taking pics from a public vantage point. Period. They also explained to the rent-a-cops htat I could have them charged with harassment should I choose to do so. Case closed.
tommcelvy 6 months ago
@tommcelvy You sir are just another guy that is provoking a reaction from the bank just so you can cry "violation". The security officer you're giving a hard time to is just doing her job as told by her superiors. She is also a "PRIVATE" citizen and not a public servant,so doesn't she have the right to not be uploaded by you to You Tube? How would you feel if someone took random pictures of you at an intersection and posted them on a billboard marked "PUBLIC NUISANCE"? That's legal right?
titan8or 5 months ago
@titan8or She does have a right not to be photographed or video recorded. This right does not extend to public spaces.
It is perfectly legal for someone to take pictures of the original poster and make billboards out of them. I'm not certain of the legality of a 'public nuisance' label, so I decline to comment on that.
ncasler 4 months ago
Great work, keep it up! You handled it well.
tampabaynews 6 months ago
U can't take pictures of a bank dumb ass
AmmariNoel 7 months ago
@AmmariNoel Would you care to tell me, legally, why I cannot? There is NO federal or state statute that prohibits it! Obviously your IQ is very low, I base that statement on two factors: 1, your obvious lack of knowledge of American laws and rights, and 2) you need to use the phrase "dumb ass."
tommcelvy 7 months ago
@tommcelvy APARENTLY YOUR THE DUMB ASS WALK TO ANY BANK AND START TAKING PICTURES AND WAIT 5 MIN ANDI BET THE COPS APPROCH U DUMB ASS.. ITS CALLED A BREACH OF SECURITY IDIOT, U COULD BE TAKING PICTURES TO ROB THE PLACE.. APARENTLY U DONT READ TOO MUCH INTO THE LAW DO U
AmmariNoel 6 months ago
@AmmariNoel As a firm believer in freedom of speech, I will leave your juvenile comment here, AND will respond it it! Taking photos of the exterior of an office building is not a security breach, NOR is it illegal. I read the law often. There is no such law as "breach of security, as such. If I was INSIDE the building, and was taking photos in violation of their "policies" then they could ask me to leave, no more.
tommcelvy 6 months ago
@AmmariNoel troll harder
fyadcorp 6 months ago
She is just a lackey. She does not make the rules nor does she think about the logic behind the rules passed down to her. If her boss asked her to lick his ass she'd do it.
Haseeb2 7 months ago
@cindyterminator: I don't know what kind of an IDIOT you are, but you obviously did not read or listen to the video. I WAS NEVER ON THE BoA PROPERTY. I was ACROSS THE STREET, on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK. I know all about the issues of private/public property, hence my not shooting on their property, or even on the sidewalk bordering theirs.
tommcelvy 7 months ago
it not illegal to take photos of a outside on a public street. but you was trying to take them from the inside and no a bank is not public it not like a city street or park you are in a private and that is why the sexy guard kicked you out to the curb and you started filming if i was on duty i call the local police and hit you on trespassing and then i put that on you tube
cincyterminator 7 months ago
could you really actually have her arrested, just curious?
Sonic3000 7 months ago
@Sonic3000 If she had detained me illegally, I could have filed charges of kidnapping, unlawful arrest, unlawful detainment, and a few other criminal charges, plus federal civil rights charges.
tommcelvy 7 months ago
What security concerns? It is a friggin' office building! Seriously. The building is out in public. In the middle of our financial district. If they are worried about security, it sould be behind a fence!
tommcelvy 7 months ago
What about taking potential security concerns into consideration given the nature of the building that you were taking pictures of?
klink1983 7 months ago
Can you take them court, Tom?
Sonic3000 7 months ago
@Sonic3000 She really did nothing to warrant suit. If she had cuffed me, called the REAL police, and they they told her she was outta line, I would have had their collective butts in court FAST! But, that was not what I was going for. I made my point - and I will continue to do so!
tommcelvy 7 months ago
@tommcelvy Tom you did a GREAT job, dude.
Sonic3000 7 months ago
@Sonic3000 Thanks, Sonic! I feel I could have done more, but this was my first "video" confrontation. Hope to get better at it, like Carlos Miller and others out there fighting the good fight!
Cheers!
tommcelvy 7 months ago
Although that it is a violation of civil rights for someone to deny you the right to film, but in this day in age, there are people who are not law abiding citizens that can see places like banks, hospitals, etc. Yes, terrrorists have hidden cameras that they take with them. But they have computers just like us and can access our videos. YouTube needs to step up to the plate and come up with ideas to where we law abiding citizens can hide our videos.
Streetcar1743 8 months ago
instead of having common courtesy, you just felt you we entitled to do what ever you want. How would you like it if some dude was taking pictures of your house.
longbow122 9 months ago
@longbow122 It's illegal to take pictures of actual homes. A bank is on public property, a home is private property.
Stupiddailynews 8 months ago
@Stupiddailynews Actually, longbow122, you are TOTALLY wrong. Here in the USA, I can take a picture of every home in the country if I want to. It is NOT illegal. If you think that it is, then please, give me a code cite for any state. You can't because it does not exist.
tommcelvy 7 months ago
@longbow122 Doesn't bother me at all. I understand the law, and I am VERY comfortable with it.
tommcelvy 7 months ago
@tommcelvy good on you for standing up for your civil rights. Bravo.
Tubetheweb 9 months ago
GOOD ON YA!!! STANDING UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.
globemaster68 9 months ago
Don't you have anything better to do than harass renta cops? Jesus Christ
jwstanley 10 months ago
@jwstanley Obviously, you have a limited understanding as to what happened. I was not there harassing rent-a-cops; I was there doing some archetecherial photogrphy when *I* was harased by the rent-a-cops. I am tried of being told by these cop wanna bes taht I cannot take a picture of something in plain sight, from a public place. It is the same as blacks being told they cannot come to a restaurant tha is for "whites only"... a violation of my constitutional rights.
tommcelvy 10 months ago
whats the address to that area id love to play with the guards and waste there time just for S&G's
crapper1 10 months ago
@crapper1 One Commercial Place, Norfolk VA 23510
tommcelvy 10 months ago
I admire how calm and cool you remain. You set a good example of how to react.
jvangurp 11 months ago
@jvangurp Thank you for the kind words.
tommcelvy 11 months ago
I did, Mike. Had you read other comments, including my update, it was the idiots at Wackenhut that could not read the BoA policies! Photography is not allowed ON the property. They misconstrued that to read OF the property, and those are two very different things! I actually spoke with a BoA Security Manager shortly after this incident. He was as appalled as I was! I have not been back since, mainly because I have been busy with other projects, but I may as the weather gets warmer!
tommcelvy 1 year ago
Nofxmike: Yes, I am aware of the things you say. I found the various angles of view, coupled with the hard angular designs in the building, to be very interesting. Freedom is defined as the ability to do things within the limits of the law; and photography is NOT a crime. If you are unable to see the beauty in the images, then you have no concept of what I am talking about. Which is pretty obvious. Please, don't tell me that what I did was wrong, because it was not!
tommcelvy 1 year ago
@tommcelvy "obvious" We're not debating my taste in art. We're debating yours since you posted a video. If you'd like to change the subject Pm me and I'd be glad to talk about something else. Depending on the amount of time you spent photographing the building, which I have not heard discussed, I would be able to tell you if you're violating anything. Keep in mind, a Bank is private property--in this case--a very large corporation. Yes, banks are federally insured(FDIC).
nofxmike06 1 year ago
@nofxmike06 Yes, banks are private property - however, ALL of my shooting was done ACROSS THE STREET, on a public sidewalk. No property issues there.
tommcelvy 11 months ago
@tommcelvy LQQK, what is the initial issue here? I remember the original issue being your photography of a BoA. You're right about being on/off private property. I highly doubt a security manager of a bank is foolish enough to say he/she would not mind if you sit for hours photographing a BoA. Having said that, they probably have cameras which could easily capture your face and description during those several hours. So, with that in mind--have at it.
nofxmike06 11 months ago
@nofxmike06 I meant to add that it does not matter how much time I spend photographing the building...if I am on PUBLIC property (street/sidewalk) and I am not impeding traffic, I could be there for several hours - its my right. I am a good enough photographer to not need hours, but I would defend another person's right to do it. Thanks for the notes and comments, though! Take care!
tommcelvy 11 months ago
What you know is right--i.e within the limits of the law. You know its right because its codified. I suggest you focus your activism on the large corporation and not their poorly-trained, contracted security. What am I getting at? Activists in general right now have much larger fish to fry than say a global private security company. Lets not fight the symptoms but rather attack the solution. Metaphorically, of course.
nofxmike06 1 year ago
Why were you photographing a Bank? Are you aware that would-be robbers "case" a location they're planning on robbing using such devices as digital cameras to record schedules and work habits of bank employees and various other suspicious acts? Freedom is not the license to do whatever you like, its the responsibility to do what you know is right. Photographing or filming a bank serves no purpose other than to gain information on a bank. Don' t tell you me like the architecture.
nofxmike06 1 year ago
@nofxmike06 Maybe he liked the architectural style of the Building. No law against him Photographing any building while on public land. Bank, Refinery or otherwise.
mi6QBranch 1 year ago
You should call the local g4s office and complain to A. Brown. He's the local office manager. I still say get a life. But it's your "rite" I guess. Lol
jwstanley 1 year ago
Look man. Do what ya want. But I'm telling ya, taking photos of a bank in this day and age is suspicious activity. Besides, you said in the video they were interfering with your hobby. That's why I asked. Like I said, do what ya want. I just think it's not productive stirring shit up for no reason. Hope it works out for ya
jwstanley 1 year ago
Mr. Stanley:
I don't make it a "hobby". I was doing some building shooting for my stock portfolio. Building shots sell well. Anyway, I know I have the "right" (not rite) to shoot. Yes, she could have called the police, but absent any suspisious activity as witnessed by the police, I don't even have to give them my name - nor would I unless they confirmed I was either being detained or that it was a Terry Stop. I have a life - and a damn good one, thank you! Merry Christmas!
tommcelvy 1 year ago
Why do you have a hobby of taking pictures of BOA? You do have a rite to take pics but don't you realize all the guard has to do is call the police and report a suspicious guy photographing the bank? Then the police have a reasonable suspicion to detain you and question you. Of course you aren't planning on robbing a bank so you won't be arrested. The point is you'll have to take time out of your life to explain this to the police. All this trouble because you like to stir shit up?? Get a life
jwstanley 1 year ago
@jwstanley That is the price of freedom, a few minutes or a few hours of inconvenience when you have to delegate your rights, if that is what it takes then so be it, no American citizen should be backing down any time the opportunity arises to fight for our constitutional rights, your mindset allows those rights to be constantly challenged and abused by TPTB, wake up!
tiburon74 1 year ago
Saw your link as part of "you can't take photos here" but I envy the American Constitution in this case, as a Canadian. You have a clear historical right to the freedom of the press and expression. Our laws have the right, but they have not been tested in the courts , as yours have, and they are now being tested in the climate of 9/11, which as we know even torture is now being justified as "legal" -way to go!
greatguyaaa 1 year ago
I applaud your efforts to stand up to these security people. However, the First Amendment does not apply here. It was not the government attempting to stop you here but a private entity. The first amendment restricts the government.
Like I tell the kids on my school bus when they've done the right thing, GOOD JOB!!
plogankelly 1 year ago
@plogankelly Thanks for the kind words. Actually, the 1st Amendment DOES apply; here is how. I was on a PUBLIC throughfare, attempting to engage in an act specifically protected by the 1st Amendment. It is against the law for ANYONE to take or attempt to take away your rights as citizens. That is why people who commit hate crimes are dealt with in the federal system - they are attempting to take away the rights of another. But, I understand your line of thinking! Thanks again for the note
tommcelvy 1 year ago
@plogankelly
I'm sorry but you're wrong. It was a scurity guard for a Federal Building therefore making her an agent on behalf of the Government. Even tht withstanding he still has the 1st amendment behind him.
mi6QBranch 1 year ago
Comment removed
plogankelly 1 year ago
Good for you, Chris! Evidently these security officers need training.
walterb220 1 year ago 2
A wackenhut security guard ordering people around out on the street. What a bunch of nonsense. The lieutenant nonsense is funny too. I wonder if they also have bird colonels and rear admirals.
Incidentally, Wackenhut is in the middle of a multi-million dollar corruption charge with Miami Metrorail.
charlie52707 1 year ago
i love it hun
firedragons31 1 year ago