Your second, very broad statement, is absolutely incorrect, or, at least, it is not founded in any law recognized by our country or society. Private persons (ones not acting as agents of the state) may take any lawful action they want for almost any reason. You don't like a store or a bank because they act harmfully to the environment, you are absolutely privileged to stop doing business with them. You don't like an employee because he/she screams profanities at you, you are absolutely privileged to terminate them.

All of this aside, I think you're missing my point. I'm not talking about legal/civil rights or privileges. I'm talking about civil behavior in our society. Aside from whether it's legal, it is clear from all of explaining that Shane did about what he did or didn't do that he knew was stepping outside of the bounds of polite and well recognized behavior, even if he was acting well within his legal rights. I don't like it when businesses engage in unethical behavior, and I don't like it when people engage in unethical behavior as well. A person in a public place is legally privileged to take a photograph of anyone also in a public place. That doesn't mean it's polite to take photographs of people without their consent. I am really trying to make a point about what we, as a society, expect businesses and people to do. Do you expect that retailers, manufacturers, and banks treat you with respect? If so, then you should act respectfully.

Thank you for your email and the opportunity to explain the incident that occurred between one of our customers and a security company servicing an ATM in our Seattle store. It is unfortunate that the situation escalated to the point that the police were called by the ATM security officers and the customer was detained by the police. At no time did REI detain the individual and we did not request a trespass to be invoked. We do not intend to enforce the trespass issued by police, and the customer is free to visit our store in the future.

We appreciate people sharing their varied points of view about what should or should not have happened at the store. We regret that the matter couldn't be defused before the police became involved. One step we are taking is to discuss with the ATM security company ways to prevent the circumstances that led to this problem.

We value your membership and hope to serve your outdoor needs in the future.

The photographer feels like he's the injured party (and he is) but he also feels entitled to take pictures of whatever he wants, regardless of what sort of stress it causes in another human being. If I was the guard I would have erred on the side of my personal security/survival. The photographer's feelings and rights would be secondary, to my great desire to not get a bullet in the head, from some asshole who's casing me on my route.

It's legal to take pictures of people's kids too -- but how would you react if you saw this guy photographing your kid at the supermarket? Any parent would go ballistic, and most Dads would run right over the photographers rights on the way to kicking his ass.

Consider the cops perspective: Yes, there are certainly asshole power-tripping cops, but there are also ones who serve with honor and an even hand. But you deal with scum all day, then see how patient you are when you get a smart ass, a whiner, or somebody who thinks they deserve to be on a pedestal. I'm not saying that was the case here, maybe the cop was abusive and maybe the photographer was polite and compliant. Either way, there are two sides to every story and it'

I was looking for his motivation. An act like this should not require justification. Allow me to reword my question, "what thought or feeling motivated Shane to take a photograph of this particular activity?" Everyone has a reason or motivation for any act, I was just curious what his was in this case. Ironically enough it was the same curiosity that led me to ask the question in the first place, and here I am justifying it.

@Jared LeClaire: You may agree with me, but you're the one that asked, "why the hell did he feel the need to take a picture of them anyway?"

That sounds like asking for justiciation to me.

People definitely ought to lose their jobs over this, and the OP clearly has a case to sue the city for damages from false arrest.

I'm going to go buy me another camera. A really, really small one. ;)

@RandomZero:

How would I feel if you came to the park and took pictures of me?

Do you go to the park regularly with an armored car containing cash? These guys are not just your average joe sixpack seen in a public place. Their level of paranoia is justifiable.

@Dooley: They don't know this. Try to think from the perspective of the ATM guys. They have no idea if they have been surreptitiously snapped at any other ATMs they have refilled. Yes, for all they know he or his accomplices may have been monitoring them all day and they were fortunate enough to spot him.

To my other point, (quoting again from "The Photographer's Right") "persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance" - I'm suggesting that the supposed Loomis policy of calling the police and saying someone is acting suspiciously any time any person takes a picture of a Loomis employees going about their business may rise to the level harassment.

Again, consider if it was company policy to call the police any time you noticed a black person watching you. Clearly that would not pass muster as legitimate conduct. It would be an obvious civil rights violation. People are not inherently suspicious persons because they are black and/or are watching you, and a policy of consistently treating them otherwise would clearly be a civil rights violation. Yet you claim Loomis wants you to call the police and report it any time someone takes a picture of you working in a public place, an act (public-place photography) which is neither illegal nor inherently suspicious.

I can't tell you the nuances of it other than some of the sites I've read specifically siting using a camera to photograph someone using an ATM (presumably to capture their pin) is a case where you might be violating privacy law.

Keep in mind a citizen's arrest means you are automatically guilty of every possible crime you commit against your captive unless you manage to prove them guilty. It's strict liability, that's why I'm saying automatically guilty. You know that feeling of the government being wholly against you when you fight a parking ticket? That's strict liability. They don't need to prove intent. Just that it happened, which is obvious.

Don't use citizen's arrest if you value your freedom. You are putting it on the line unless it's DAMN obvious the other person truly committed a crime. That's why the only time *I've* ever heard of it being used is when a store has either tracked someone on video getting a 5-finger discount, or they do a "receipt check" and find the stolen goods.

Yes, where I am citizen's arrest is also allowed. Obviously, in this case, there's no possible legal reason to use citizen's arrest, and I've never actually heard of if being used (although I don't hang out with the type that would know of it).

Read more about the law surrounding citizen's arrest here. Especially about the case of a person who, despite STEALING a bottle of wine, managed to win a case of false imprisonment against the establishment doing the arrest to the tune of $20,000 in today's money (Bahner v Marwest Hotel) due to how the arrest was handled ("rudely").

If you follow what I've said you'll never, ever have trouble:

- Verify you are being arrested/detained. If not, or if the answer is not clear, explain you'll be leaving. This also applies to the police, although you might want to be nicer--they may actually be co-operative if you stay.
- If they want you to stay, but won't arrest/detain you, offer to wait outside for the police and do just that. It defuses the situation and it's a winning attitude. ;)
- If they are the police and you are being arrested/detained, be helpful, but say absolutely nothing without your lawyer's advice, ever.
- If someone who isn't a member of the police is arresting you, yell for the police, yell that you're being held against your will. Feel free to stop once you know they're on their way.
- Do not fight anyone arresting you. Don't be difficult with the police (ie: Do as you are directed, remembering to stay mute apart from telling them your name/address/birthdate). Don't be helpful for rent-a-cops, but DO NOT be aggressive: Go limp/lie down. You will never, ever be convicted of anything for this (anyone who feels different, I'd like to hear your opinion). It'll also prove you aren't aggressive, which can only be helpful to you.
- Lying down for the rent-a-cops also means you might be able to press excessive force charges when they drag you to the security room. They *only* have the right to prevent you from escaping the police/leaving the scene of the crime. NOBODY will believe that you were trying to escape the police/leave when you are lying on the floor.
- Press all charges you can against everyone involved--if the cop won't help, ask the crown directly.
- While you are under arrest by someone that isn't the police, they are responsible for ANYTHING that happens to you in their custody. Did you bump your head on something? Trip and bruise your knee? Get dehydrated? SUE! Even if you are guilty, that doesn't allow them to treat you like this.
- Even though you've done the above, find out about small claims in your area. If it's like small claims here, file a case immediately against every individual involved. Make this incident an absolute nightmare for everyone involved. It's your duty as a citizen to prevent abuse of citizen's arrest and making people scared of using such exceptional power is the way to do it.

I might not be popular, but goshdarnit if I've never had a criminal record for anything, ever, despite this attitude.

To quote from the "The Photographer's Right" pamphlet:

"Although anyone has the right to approach a person in a public place and ask questions, persistent and unwanted conduct done without a legitimate purpose is a crime in many states if it causes serious annoyance. You are under no obligation to explain the purpose of your photography nor do you have to disclose your identity except in states that require it open request by a law enforcement officer."

"If the conduct goes beyond mere questioning, all states have laws that make coercion and harassment criminal offenses. The specific elements vary among the states but in general it is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear that they may injure you, damage your property, or falsely accuse you of a crime just because you are taking photographs." [emphasis added]

I think Loomis might just be open to a lawsuit on this in at least some jurisdictions, if TShK is telling the truth.

As for "acting like a mean douchebag" not being grounds for a suit, it depends on what form that takes. If it takes the form of, say, unlawfully detaining a person, then it may well be grounds for a suit.

I've never worked for them, but I'd like to. Seems like a great place to work. This is an oddly discordant incident.

Here's the deal: the OP did nothing wrong. And unless he was arrested, he didn't even have to go downtown with the stupid fascistic cops. End of story, except possibly for the civil litigation part.

Working for security I used to transfer very large sums of money, if we felt we were being followed, we could contact the police and have the suspicious person/vehicle detained for questioning, where they would either be charged or released without charges. But based on our ordinary, prudent and cautious judgment the police had reasonable and probable grounds to detain an individual and in which case both us and the police would be covered in terms of liability over the issue.

Not saying thats the case here, this seems a little confused, could use some more information.

A traffic stop will usually end with you being asked to sign a ticket which has a court date already set. By signing it, you are effectively posting bond--promising to appear in court (or pay the fine uncontested.) Refuse to sign the ticket and you're off to the gray bar hotel.

haha it really is! I usually don't entertain internet arguments this long but this is priceless.

For crying out loud, people need to grow up and realize there is a time and a place for everything. Yeah, perhaps the guards were out of line; hell, say the cops were also. But don't think for a second that if he tried taking "just a photo" of the federal reserve (because it's a unique photo op as well), they guards there would just wave!

"Curiosity is an emotion related to natural inquisitive behaviour such as exploration, investigation, and learning, evident by observation in human and many animal species. The term can also be used to denote the behavior itself being caused by the emotion of curiosity. As this emotion represents a drive to know new things, curiosity is the fuel of science and all other disciplines of human study."

For that last time, I am not seeking justification.

comment meant for "jwilson64", my bad.

I already told you I don't want justification. In retrospect I should have just not even asked why he did it before reading further and discovering he simply wanted a picture of the inside of an atm. Perhaps next time I will refrain from saying anything, or use more precise language, just for you.

How many times do I have to say I agree with you?

This guy? Good grief. He was asking for trouble! He's on private property shooting an opened ATM and immediately gives the Loomis security guards attitude instead of friendly cooperation (who have every right to protect their property from unwanted intruders, namely the camera and its owner in this instance) . He refuses to comply with the security guard's request to come over when he is finished in the customer service line. He refuses to identify himself. He was belligerent with the Seattle police officer after she provided a reasonable explanation about why he was being asked for his ID, using her own personal experience as the example. And now what is he doing? Broadcasting his identity all over the internet by posting his story screaming about how "rent-a-cops" violated his rights. Roll Eyes Why didn't he just provide his ID to the Loomis security guards and Seattle police officers in the first place? Dumb a$$ wannabe. Makes it harder for those of us who are legitimate photojournalists.

We as photographers may have rights, but we also have a responsibility to not escalate a situation when asked to stop photographing something, like this guy did.

Now before you go out and arrest your neighbor for whatever crime (real or perceived) they may have committed. Bear in mind that as the person making the arrest, it is ultimately your responsibility to file charges, and if necessary prove said charges beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Failing to do that can expose you to civil and criminal charges of false arrest and imprisonment.

That said, from just the information presented in the story, it appears the Loomis guard (who probably has no training in retail loss prevention) responded inappropriately with not only the threat of tackling Shane, but upon telling him "Don't try to leave," that's an implicit statement of arrest.

Shane didn't help matters by mouthing off back to the guy. Instead of "No you won't" a better response would have been to ask, "are you arresting me or am I free to go?" This should have put the guards on notice that they were treading some pretty shaky legal ground,

That is, again, unless there were details left out of the story. If Shane had been asked to leave, and refused, then he could be cited for trespassing.

This guy made the mistake of pissing off two companies. He got taken to jail because of it. While there were no laws on the books that he could be charged with the police abused their ability to arrest and hold him pending an investigation.

I think the police involved and the guards should both be fired and both companies should provide written apologies and compensation. Anything less and the original poster should hire a nasty Civil attorney and haul everyone into court for some nasty litigation. I would not be surprised if the paperwork the guy signed also contained a binding arbitration agreement which would be null and void because it was signed under duress.

SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Veganstraightedge? Why not Fashionablypretentious?

Gonna get my first disemvoweling, methinks. Whoops!

At airports it's gotten past the point of ludicrousness, all people that own plastic bottles and shoes belts are terrorists now.

As long as you are not stealing stuff, causing harm to or physically threatening someone with bodily harm or trespassing on private property, and leave when you are asked nicely to by owners or their security people, you are NOT violating the law.

GAWD I wish people or should I say sheeple would get brains and spines.

@shadowkahn: 95% of the time I agree with the cops, but this is one case where an officer let their emotions negate their common sense. ShadowKahn is righ on....a lawful order does not include ordering somebody to stop doing something that is perfectly legal.

@xtc46: "taking apart an ATM can, and would, be considered suspicious by those in the security industry as there are few valid reasons for doing so."

Actually, those in the security industry would say that security through obscurity is doomed to failure, and your security measures should be just as tough for an insider with complete and total access to all the information to break as an outsider. Insider attacks are a significant factor in security breaches.

They would also point out that absolutely nothing in this photograph is privileged information, and far more detailed information is made freely available by the manufacturers.

That statement is about as thorough a fail as possible.

How would I feel if you came to the park and took pictures of me? Perfectly fine. Happens all the time. Does it make me feel suspicious? No. Hell, tour guides used to point me out to their customers. To this day, I have yet to be mugged or attacked by anybody I didn't know beforehand. Why? Because my security measures don't depend on "Don't let anybody see you, ever!".

It is, but it must be a detention on suspicion of illegal activity. They can't just toss you in jail for a day because they feel like it.

You're a cop, aren't you. ;)

The key word in the phrase "lawful order" is "lawful." As in, cops are not allowed to order people to stop doing something that's perfectly legal. That's an unlawful order, and we don't have to obey them.

The police have a tendancy to view anyone who doesnt automatically comply as a "troublemaker" and will do to you what they did to this guy in order to punish you.

The police have a saying... "you can beat the rap, but you cant beat the ride".

@ViperBorg - SpaceBat hates Facebook: Same here. When I worked security, lesson 1 (before the background check, even!) was "You're not a cop. If you see someone on the property, keep clear of them, observe if it's safe, and call the real cops."

- Lawsuits against and imprisonment for the Loomis rent-a-dopes for physical assault, kidnapping, etc.

- Lawsuits against REI for as much money as possible

- Civil rights suit against the Seattle police for as much money as possible.

Rent a cops need to be MADE to understand they ARE NOT real cops, they DO NOT have arrest or bully powers. Period. Ever.

@windycity: This doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and wuoldn't even if we were talking about consummate professionals. Bruce Schneier's been saying it for years: The security mindset (or "cop intuition" or whatever you want to call it) is basically all about picking the system apart looking for flaws and loopholes that can be exploited. The difference is in what one does with it.

a few friends i use to go to school with but not talk to much now were sitting on a display case of like summer chairs an patio chairs and one of them was taking a picture. my store manager came out and told them that they cant be doing that because of all of the other brand names that would be in the photo and that he doesnt know where the photo could end up - which in turn would result in trouble for the company and him.

This link is a little more succinct: [tinyurl.com]

Have fun with it!

Cops often arrest folks to simply to harass, knowing that they can hold someone for a couple of days, only to be released when a DA rejects filing a criminal complaint.

xtc46 obviously wants to live in a facist state where you must always must answer to real or fake authorities.

He didn't "follow them around and take pictures of them" -- That would be harassment or at the least stalking, and that is illegal.

He saw them, decided to take a picture, well within his rights granted under the constitution of the United States.

It isn't childish lessons on the constitution. It's vital lessons on the constitution. The question "why was he taking the photos" should never be applicable. It doesn't matter why. We do not have to justify our constitutional rights by answering that question.

As a professional photographer I see this crap all the time. Cops think that if they don't like something, it's automatically illegal. That's BS, and there should be a lawsuit filed every single time they trample on your rights. This guy was falsely arrested and harassed. They owe him money.

@bigmil87: Rent-A-Cops : Law Enforcement :: Arbitration : Justice

(sorry for the attempted threadjack!)

Taking a picture in public is not illegal. If REI has a no-photography policy, the store management should've asked the guy to leave; if he failed to comply, that is trespass. If they didn't bring trespass charges against him, then I guess it wasn't trespass.

REI has a large part in this, because whether or not they requested it, the police coerced this poor guy into signing what is essentially now a restraining order, preventing him from entering REI

1) This hurts him, if he uses their store and needs to make a purchase from them (How is he going to pick up that part he ordered when this happened)

2) This hurts REI. They essentially lose a regular customer (member, most likely) as well as bad publicity.

If REI did not request that he be banned from the store, then I would say they should do something to have that self-served restraining order (Why did he sign this?) lifted.

@Jared LeClaire: Jared makes a fair point here that has nothing to do with the inappropriate and probably illegal activities of the security guards and police. His point is that we are living in a society, and our society has norms and customs beyond what is defined in the law. Merely because something is not illegal or one has a right to do it does not mean that one should do it. I may have the First amendment right to scream profanities to people as I walk down the street, but that doesn't mean I should do it, and, in fact, any reasonable person might expect that I'll get my butt kicked.

How many posts on this blog are devoted to the completely horrible, yet not illegal, activities of retailers, manufacturers, banks, and others? Just because they're legal, does that mean they are justified. Of course, not. Maybe if EVERYONE started using a little common sense and courtesy there would not be many stories to report like this.

Don't Taze me, bro!

@SynMonger: I know what ShariC is talking about. I *think* it comes from John Douglas' book Mind Hunter. He makes note of similar aptitude scores in the very best cops and very best criminals - and follows that observation with the suggestion that those who would be a great cop also have the potential to be a great criminal, and vice versa.

Powers to Arrest!

Well, two sides to every story. I would love to read the incident reports! lol

I'm actually studying California Penal codes right now, in order to take the California Private Patrol Officer License Test. (own a Private Security Company)

The laws are pretty specific here in California on what a Security Guard can, and cannot do. THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF A PRIVATE CITIZEN. A little more room as far as laws for Armored Car Security Guards go though, and I'm not real sure of what they are.. (two different licenses)

Prevent, Observe and Report.

From what I read in the article, regardless of the Guards SOP; he did threaten someone. Or said he was goig to "tackle" them. That would be detaining, or holding someone against their will; or kidnapping which a private citizen cannot do to another private citizen.

The victim could file a civil suit against the Security Guard, The Private Security Guard Company, and the Owner of the Store that contracted the Private Security Company. (all three) But I think negligence would have to be proved, and I don't really see it.

The Police officer has the power to place someone in handcuffs during the investigation process for his and his suspects own safety. (Private Security Guards do not, unless they are making a citizens arrest for a felony) Private Security Guards are not allowed to conduct investigations. So, I don't think anything is tere against the Police.

I'm not a cop, I'm not a lawyer; I'm just trying to pass a test that anyone could pass as long as you study. Like I said above, the laws are very specific for Private Security Guards. (google powers to arrest manual) This isn't everthing, but a general overview of what a security Guard can and cannot do.

Please keep in mind that a real threat does exist for ATM machines and The Private Security Guard. Then again, the Private Security Guard knew what he signed up for. You have to take into consideration that the guard does not know what the person was taking the photo for, could it be to schedule a robbery the next day or money delivery? Why would someone honestly take a photo, is it cool to show people? (get a hobby) lol, maybe the hobby is photoghraphy!

I really don't think anyone did anything wrong here, but you have to look at both sides.

Curious citizen (just that) curious, not trying to hurt or do anything wrong; not using the best of judgement creeping up behind two armed security guards with 10,000 bucks in cash.
or?
Stupid idiot Heroin Junky Loser with no regard for human life needing money for his fix that will try to take out two armed security guards and do whatever it takes to try and make it happen. (sneeking up behind two security guards with 10K.

They don't know what people are thinking, or are up to?

Put yourself in both peoples shoes.

Maybe poor judgement was used on both sides and both sides need to recognize it before all administrative resources are extinguished, and wasted.

Then again, The Privaate Security or Armored Car Company has atleast 1 Million in Insurance, and I'm sure the Store has a nice policy also.

Curious to see where this one goes.

When someone violates my rights, I'll make whatever scene is necessary to protect them. Because that's also my right. If that makes me a loser, so be it. In the end, I'm the one who will win in court when I can prove my case that I was most certainly being detained against my will.

You're welcome to vote to repeal that right, if you'd like. I doubt you'll win. Which indicates you're in the minority.

Furthermore, resisting arrest implies you are being arrested. Where I am, the only people who can arrest you are the police. Maybe where this guy is Rent-A-Cops can do that. Not where I am. We call someone who isn't a police offer detaining/arresting someone against their will "assault" here. I am not certain if leaving the scene of a so-called "crime" is legal (likely not) so that's why I said you wait outside the store, under their supervision if they want, should the rent-a-cops intend to press charges.

Would I resist the rent-a-cops if they attempted to handcuff me? No. If I did that I could also be charged with assault, although the charges would be dropped. I'd simply "go limp" and let them figure it out. Being completely passive means you can press real assault charges rather than aggravated assault, which is much more serious.

I specifically said you must comply with a police officer's request. If he came and arrested me (because he felt it necessary), I would, of course, comply, and I'd inform him that I won't be speaking with him or anyone else about anything without a lawyer present, after I requested he press charges against the rent-a-cops (which he would refuse, but would also need to document).

I'd then get a lawyer, have him get the crown to press charges against the police and rent-a-cops, and let those fools sort it out. I'd also be pursuing them individually in small claims court for compensation. When the charges are dropped (which they would be) I'd still have my day in small claims court, since they can't make that disappear.

For those thinking I'd be on the hook for their legal bills, in my province the maximum legal legal fees are $300 in small claims court, period. Choosing to spend more on a lawyer is your option and wholly your risk. And the cost of small claims court works out to $110 here. Overall, $820 is not too much to ensure those rent-a-cops are fired and the police officer reprimanded.

Regarding:

http://consumerist.com/5249853/loomis-rent+a+cops-have-shopper-cuffed-hauled-away-over-atm-photo

which references an original post at:

http://iamshane.com/2009/05/09/of-atms-iphones-and-911/

Apparently an REI customer took a picture of an ATM being serviced inside an REI store, was hassled by private security guards and REI employees, and was detained by Seattle police who forced him to agree to not return to REI for a year.

Even if this REI store has a "no photography" rule, it was not illegal to take the picture, just against store policy. Obviously the machine was being serviced in public, since this customer and many others could see it happening. There is no law against taking a picture in a place generally accessible to the public. At worst, this REI member was in violation of a store policy against photography (if such a policy exists), which does not justify the kind of harassment he received.

I have never taken a picture inside an REI store, nor do I intend to. Nor am I, unlike this customer, a "vegan straightedge anarchist." Nevertheless, as an REI member I am troubled by what happened to this customer in an REI store.

Since this happened inside an REI store, and may adversely affect the business of REI (both because this individual has been told not to come back, as well as because of negative publicity about the incident), I encourage you to make a public statement about this matter. Please make it clear that REI condemns harassment of and threats made against law-abiding customers inside REI stores.

Your should tell your co-workers down here that of the three entrances to the Del Taco that I frequent, they shouldn't be using the one that is 1) Out of sight of the truck, 2) out of sight of the rest of the patrons in the restaurant, and 3) right next to the men's restroom.

I know this isn't the most mentally stimulating job in the world, but don't they teach you guys the most basic fundamentals of security?

1. Immediately start recording the event with the video camera on your phone.
2. Goad them into commiting any violence toward you, such as by walking away.
3. Sue for six figures.
4. Enjoy!

@Twitch: Sorry, maybe I missed your point. Or maybe you missed mine. I'm not exactly sure what you got out of my post that made you feel you needed to respond with what you did. I never spoke about defying authority.

remember to always RTFA

It's not the taking of a photograph, it's pushing the buttons of a cop and overzealous security guard that's "sticking your hand into a cage of a pitbull" (BTW, that phrase is perpetuating a stereotype that pitbulls will damage you).

Sure, they shouldn't have been pricks about the situation, but he had a few more options he could have pursued before getting snarky with an obviously manic cop and power hungry security guard. I guarantee most people, if they approached the situation reasonably, rather than like an asshole could have gotten out of there without an issue and with the photograph.

@mariospants:

LOL! Will you listen to yourself?

"Somewhere through the ARTICLK" "I got the FEELING"

LOL! Are you a cop? You should be! Your paranoid delusions are perfect for the job nowadays!

TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH IN TODAY'S SOCIETY EQUATES STICKING YOUR HAND INTO A CAGED PITBULL'S REACH

Well sir, perhaps you are correct. So tell me please, wherein lies the problem?

What interests me the most was that the Loomis employee said "When you are DONE come over here." Not, "Come over here NOW..." or something like that. He allowed Shane to complete his purchase. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me. Because he could have completed his purchase and they could have talked to him privately. The sarcastic response that Shane gave made the situation worse.

I think in this case, Loomis and REI don't own Shane an apology. Maybe the Police officers that cuffed him do, but since Shane didn't readily answer their questions and was deemed suspicious, I don't see a way around it? If you were in their position (Loomis, REI OR the Police) would you just let Shane go without at least ONE question as to his intent?

If i see someone looking over my shoulders or taking a photograph of me while I'm doing something that involves some type of secure procedure, I would ask why.

@CheritaChen:

..or doesn't give up his i.d. whenever demanded by anyone..

..or who sticks up for himself or his rights in public..

..or takes photographs of interesting things..

(someone who is observant, alert, congnitive)

@oneswellfoop:

That's the problem with this country..people like you, and their ability to become "cops". Thank God you aren't one, yet.
*sigh*

Hey so.. is THIS too far, yet?

LOLOLOL!

She forced my boyfriend to remove his glasses and follow her finger while shining a light into his eyes, and, being blind as a bat without his glasses on, failed the test. So then I had to go to the special "this is where the passengers sit and freak out waiting to hear if they're going to go home tonight" spot, and they asked me if I had been drinking that night, to which I said I had a wine cooler about 5 hours previously, to which they told me that I was too drunk to drive home and is there anybody I could call to pick me up.

Meanwhile, my boyfriend was subjected to all the hand-eye-coordination tests that, since they let him put his glasses back on, he passed with flying colors. The cops kept asking him if he was high, and asking if he was being "straight up with them" about it.

Finally they had to let us go since my fiancé was 100% NOT drunk and passed all their tests. However they "forgot" to give him back his driver's license, which took him another two weeks to retrieve because it got lost in the system for awhile.

And that is the story of why I am scared of police even though I've never committed any sort of crime in my entire life. Yay cops! Making citizens feel safe!

I love the whole 2-year-old-hands-up-in-the-air-out-of-our-control attitude present in commercial establishments these days.

Help out a customer once in a while.

Are you this guy?

Cuz I hate this guy. Inform them that you are aware of your rights, and inform them that you will press charges, but don't start making a huge scene. When you lose your civility, there is no chance you will get what you want. You only end up looking like a loser.

Sounds to me like the guy in the story did everything he was supposed to, but he was screwed from the moment he was faced with a cop that somehow thought his actions were illegal. Making a scene and making himself look like a major fool in the process only would have aggravated the situation.

I'd love to help. I have a couple of friends from law school who practice in Seattle. They don't do crim work but I'm sure they could...oh, he's on twitter. Nevermind.

I'm wondering if the Loomis guys are even following policy? I mean, it's seems like it would be logical that they'd have 2 guards- one to actually do the work and one to watch the other's back. They both seem pretty wrapt up in the ATM dismantling. I would think that not paying attention to your surroundings would be more dangerous than some guy snapping a picture. Maybe it's just me...

What is sad is that I used to like the Police. They gave me baseball cards. Sounded the siren to make us all cheer.

Then two things happened:

(1)I got older.
Apparently Police dislike older people? Well... maybe not elderly. Hmmmm....
Q: WHAT IS THE AGE RANGE THAT POLICE TREAT YOU LIKE SHIT?
A: 13-64

(2)I moved to Boston. 95% if Boston Police suck. Corrupt meatheads. I once got arrested for public intoxication... when sober because I was waiting in line for the bathroom. I was kneed in the back and told to "move along asshole", I responded "whoa, calm down" and then got the shit kicked out of me. The Cop eventually was dressed down by the Cpt when I blew a 0.00% at 11AM at the station.

But seriously Boston Police. You suck.

@SynMonger: Well now it's on the internet so it's true.

@xtc46: I have to agree for the most part. Yes it sounds like the cops were off-the-scale with incompetence for taking this beyond telling him "Don't take pics of guys refilling ATM machines" and letting it go it at that.

Which brings me to my agreement: Don't take pics of guys refilling ATM machines. It's a risky, dangerous business standing in exposed areas with large amounts of money, sometimes in neighborhoods that aren't exactly friendly. Not that REI is frequented by un-friendly people, but an ATM service tech sees someone *anyone* taking pics of them they are going to assume that this person is probably casing the machine (or worse - them) to hold them up later on.

So yeah...you have a "right" to take a picture of them. But remember that at the other end of the lens was two human beings who spend their days crawling behind ATMs with large amounts of cash hoping that today won't be the day some nutcase tries to shoot them dead and take the money, and perhaps you're that guy. You're following around taking pictures of them documenting their movements and activities so that you can plan out your attack.

The cops sure did go overboard, but I would ask anyone thinking about their right to photograph this kind of thing think about not exercising that right.

Also, if you are an REI member and you sign a statement that you won't return for a year, can't you just write up your own statement indicating that as a part owner of REI, you are forgiving yourself and lifting the ban? Suckers!

I'm pretty sure its illegal to take photos ON NYC bridges; there are huge signs to that effect on each side of the roadway.

REI -- I'll add them to the list of big box stores I'll NEVER patronize.

This company appears to have a few loose cannons on deck.

I just received a sale circular in the mail from them offering in-store deals -- despite the fact that we have NO REI stores in our entire state (NY)!!!

If you took pictures of my wife/children/home I would say more power to you, since taking photos from publicly accessible areas such as the street is 100% legal.

"Who is to say this person taking the photo wanted this pic to study the inner workings of this atm or what have you and then break it open later and steal the contents."

If it's that sensitive, then they need to put up an opaque screen or otherwise prevent public view of the guts of the machine when it is open. If it is that sensitive and they are NOT protecting it, then the rent-a-cops are negligent and open to suit by the bank for exposing their secrets without taking due care.
(Not a lawyer, just common sense.)

I say that if you have the money and time, sue the snot out of them.

@Ichiro51: For some reason - somewhere around mid-way thru the article - I had the feeling that this guy loves to push buttons. There's no law against sticking your hand in a pit bull's cage, but I don't recommend doing it. Taking a picture of rent-a-cops with guns is highly provocative.

Cops like this ought to be fired... While knowing every nuance of the law is unrealistic... I EXPECT that the police have some common sense and even a basic understanding of the law. The two cops were bullies plain and simple and they deserve to be directing traffic at 12am on some desolate road...

I don't know why Shane took the photo (maybe he's writing a paper on the history of Loomis or something?) but he was well within his right to do so.

Also: let me just say that the 9/11 reference by the Loomis idiot makes my blood boil.

(I'm kidding, I donated, don't take my star!)

Rent-A-Cop or not, they have the right to perform a citizen's arrest. They just better have their ducks in a row because any half-assed lawyer should be able to turn it around and make a kidnapping case out of it.

Also try avfarrell@rei.com (the CEO)

Cheers.

Loomis osa2 : Tätä autoa ei saa kuvata which translates to Loomis part2 : This car may not be filmed

Loomis and a couple other guarding companys are commonly known in finland to bypass theyre rights, so for "evidence" and "free-of-speach" people used to film them and theyre vehicles here.

It's really cute. Shane is curious about something and takes a picture of it and everyone defends his action. Jared is curious about something and asks a questions about it and everyone rips him a new asshole. Yeah, like I said, cute.

The point is, it doesn't matter if he was being an ass or not. Your argument is moot.

Point of the story: guy got detained, against the law, because some ignorant/power-tripping guards/officers thought that taking a photo of an (admittedly cool) ATM was illegal
Point of your post: guy shouldn't have been an ass, so he deserved it? WTF?

totally agree. there are times when taking an innocent picture can seem suspicious, and being an ass about it when you're called out doesn't help. you're not supposed to take pictures or use a cell phone when you're in customs at the airport either, no matter how innocent -- a co-worker of mine did that when we were on a business trip to canada, and the customs officer actually turned his back to her and wouldn't turn back around until she was off the phone... and then they pulled her aside and interrogated her once she hung up. there are security risks, and people don't want to take chances.

Probable cause is the belief that the law might be broken. You can be detained without being charged.

Getting all excited about some kid with a camera in his cellphone taking a pic while taking no precautions to prevent viewing (or photography) by others is, well, "stupid."

Do you have the balls to do that? Do you have the backbone to to not run when you hear and see someone firing at you with that kind of weapon? The answer is clear: No, you do not.

For those of you Couch Warriors, who do not understand their reaction, then you must be completely ignorant as to who actually targets those machines. If you said "organized crime", you win a cookie. It's standard operating procedure, that when a high value load is robbed, the driver and anyone with them is murdered on the spot.

Instead of running your worthless mouths, you should go out and earn a firearm permit and work in that field. I'm sure the lesson(s) that you learn will leave a lasting impression about the real world.

Lastly, many of these "toy cops/rent-a-cops" are actually working their way through college in order to become an actual cop, Federal Agent, or Customs Agent.

Yes, I am an REI member, and have been since long before I retired.

As an REI co-op member, I would greatly appreciate a statement clarifying REI's part in the incident described in the linked stories, and REI's official stand on your security folks demanding ID from Mr. Becker, and their involvement in having Mr. Becker handcuffed and removed from your premises.

For details on which incident I am referring to, please see

[iamshane.com]

and

[consumerist.com]

As this was YOUR premises, you were in control of these actions, and you are also the only party to this who could have Mr. Becker "trespassed" by the SPD.

I look forward to your rapid and detailed response.

Thank You.
________________

I'll let y'all know if they respond...

@TShK: The guy wasn't "over his shoulder" though. He took the picture while standing in line at the register. As such, and as pointed out in earlier comments, there are at least two other video cameras involved here. The security camera of the store and the ATM camera. That then means that the "toy cops" were WAY in the wrong to take it as far as they did. They can ask all day for ID and/or the picture to be deleted, but they can in no way compel an individual to do either. The OP has every right in the world to tell them to go fly a meat kite with each other if he so pleases. And, to whit, they couldn't do anything about that either!

@chris_d: And to add to that, it is an absolute REQUIREMENT that the person be arrested be informed that they are being arrested and for what possible crime they could have committed. Since no crime was committed here, the cops violated his constitutional rights. Call the ACLU, I'm sure they would have a field day with this one.

I worked REI for 4 years in college and we were told that NOT returning an item was more likely to get us reprimanded that returning a questionable one. You make more money with people treating them like family instead of crooks. I see a big show of this to Shane in the future week.

It is obvious to me (provided we are not missing any major details) that there was no crime, which means, legally speaking, the cops don't have a pot to pee in.

IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since no laws were broken, there was no probable cause. The police officers did not have the right to detain anyone.

Even though they may have a spiffy uniform, a fake badge, or a real gun, they have no more right to detain anyone than I have to detain you. They are private citizens, just like you and I, with no greater rights or law enforcement powers than the rest of us.

Being an asshole to a cop only means that they don't need to be lenient with you. If you're stopped for a busted taillight, it's in their discretion to give you a ticket or let you off. If you're an asshole, then it's fully within their job to write you up for every minor thing they can see that is technically illegal. If you are not breaking the law, then you should NEVER have to think "am I being respectful enough".

Background: Having been a rent-a-cop in a much former life, I understand much of what happened there.

1/ That was NOT public property (unless the Gov't owns REI, in which case please enlighten me on that point). Any store/mall not owned by the Gov't is deemed to have an 'open invitation to the public' but is still private property.

2/ I do not endorse their reactions. They over reacted and of course a belligerent reply to their over-reaction would only escalates issues.

3/ You'll be hard pressed to find any 'law-enforcement' type to really understand the law. It's only their job, most don't go home to read up on the latest by-law update or whatnot. It's a shame but I think instituting some sort of 'continuing education' for such people would do all of us a world of wonders!

That all being said, if it was so top secret, then why do such things out in plain view any ways? Like the garage code being easy to see, open an ATM for any kind of work in the public eye means there is nothing to hide.

Hope ou find a good lawyer to take a shot at them for harassment at least.

President Reagan's Press Secretary Lyn Nofsiger once said:

"One of the things that bothers me most
is the growing belief in the country
that security is more important than freedom.
It ain't."

Instead, say as little as possible and politely follow directions. You can sue later. Let the police officer dig their own hole with their lack of knowledge over your right to photograph or what have you.

For example: dumb police officer tells you can't photograph in [fill in the blank] place. You politely comply while making a note of the officer's name and badge number. Then you file a complaint with your precinct, your newspaper, the local ACLU, et cetera.

And then, you can go back to do what you're doing and you will generally be left alone...

@pulsar0510: Being an ass is not a crime (and thank go, becasue I am an asshole) but it does make you look like an ass, and if you are breaking a rule or law, people are less likely to let you slide, and are more likely to use their rights against you. in this case, it was the police officers right to detain someone without charge.

Never mind the fact that the ATM definitely has a camera.

Whether or not the OP has a right to take photos, to retain them once they've been taken while in that place (a business is private property and subject to all sorts of rules), and the subsequent behavior is all rather immaterial at this point.

The OP was detained, first by private security guards and then by actual law enforcement personnel, apparently unlawfully. If so, those same cameras in the store and on the ATM could very easily be used as evidence to support such a case. It would be deliciously ironic if that were the outcome.

@Saisu Mimen: there is a difference between protecting your rights and being an ass. When the guy asked to talk to him, he didnt have to, but he could have walked over and explained why he wanted to take it, he didnt have to say "no thanks". He also didnt have to say "Since you managed to pull the 9/11 card somehow..." thats being a wiseass. The cop is doing his job and responding to a complaint. Being so put offish makes you look suspicious. He could have protected his rights to take the photo, and avoided all this by being coopertive. Did he need to? no, and this is what he got for it. He got detained for being a suspicious individual.

@chris_d: He doesnt say what he was taken in for, thats the point. It goes from "being a smart ass" to "im in jail for 30 minutes handcuffed" durring that time SOMETHING else had to be said, by somone. If nothing else was said, a guy, who clearly was clearly being a smartass, would have been bitching up a storm that they were violating his rights, he would have demanded an attourney, etc etc. I just dont believe that they handcuffed him and nothing else was said.

And suspicious activity IS enough for the police to question a person and enough for security to call the police (security could not detain him however), and taking photos of 2 security personnel (even if just security guards for a bank) taking apart an ATM can, and would, be considered suspicious by those in the security industry as there are few valid reasons for doing so. His reaction to the guards who asked him to come talk to him furthers that suspicion, which is why it became a problem. Had he just went over and said "I thought it was cool so I took a picture" Its unlikely it would have been a problem. People forget that others have rights too, and your rights end where others begin. They had the right to a safe work enviroment, and when dealing with large amounts of money, somone taking your picture can put you at risk (maybe the guy wanted to kidnapp the driver, wanted to steal the atm, etc) this puts the driver at risk, and becasue of that he was in his rights to call the cops.

How would you feel if I came to a park and started taking pictures of your wife/husband/kids, the outside of your house, your cars, etc. you would be suspicious, especially if I ONLY took them of your family and your stuff.

Something to do with a pesky 'resisting arrest' law most western countries have...hm...

Especially on a website where card skimmers are becoming a prevalent story?

While on public property I took pictures of some of the employees and the corporate offices. As I was leaving, I had a security guard approach me and ask what I was doing. I explained my assignment. He asked me to come in to the office, which I obliged. What happened next stunned me. He demanded the film from my camera (ha! its digital!). I told him no, that what I did was perfectly legal. The rent a cop said he would call the real cops, and I dared him to while I made a call to my editor...who ironically was one block away in OUR corporate offices. I had a copy of my 'photographers rights' and the cop said that the rules had changed since 9/11 and I disagreed.

The end of the story was that my boss showed up, told me to leave and handled the rest. I got my photo, which made the company look not so great...with a caption about the photographer being detained.

AFAICT, it was simply because Shane felt like taking a picture!

@WraithSama: I believe they have 24 hours to charge you.

Some of us just like to take pictures of anything and everything.

Do you mean yell and resist in any situation ever or just when you haven't done anything wrong?

And check out the difference between assault and battery, because if this was anything, it was probably battery . . .

"No, they do step over the line, but in this case, I dont think they did. "
It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what the law is. I don't know of any laws where you can arrest someone for taking a picture or refusing to give ID to a security guard. In some states, there is a stop and identify law where police can arrest you for failing to identify yourself based on suspicion alone. A quick google search reveals that Washington is NOT one of those states.

In addition, if a store has a no photography rule, they can ask you to leave, and if you don't, you can be arrested for trespassing. But that didn't happen.

So what was he arrested for?

If you are concerned about his incident, you might want to reach out to the senior leadership at REI and give them your feedback. I did a bit of checking and it appears that their email format is first initial followed by the first six letters of their last name followed by @rei.com Here are some examples that are publicly avaiable on the web:

SVP of Marketing Matt Hyde is mhyde@rei.com
Head of PR Michael Collins is mcollin@rei.com
Public Affairs manager Megan Behrbaum is mbehrba@rei.com

According to published information, here are the senior leaders at REI:

President/CEO, Sally Jewell
VP E-Commerce/Web Strategy, Brad Brown
VP General Counsel, Catherine Walker
VP, Lee Fromson
Regional VP Retail Stores, Tim Spangler
VP IT, Bill Baumann
VP Merchandising, Angela Owen
SVP Sales, Brian Unmacht
SVP Merchandising/Marketing, Matt Hyde
VP Marketing, Tom Vogl
VP HR, Michelle Clements
Regional VP Midwest/East Region, Janet Hopkins
VP Logistics/Distribution, David Presley
VP Public Affairs, Michael Collins

My question was not seeking justification for his action, I was just wondering why he did it in the first place. What you fail to realize is that I agree with you and I think you misunderstand what I meant when I asked why he felt the need to take a picture of this. It just seemed odd to me, but by no means outside of his personal liberties.

Why must every action be justifiable? If someone wants to take a picture in a public place, why must they have to provide YOU a reason? You asked a childish question, and you got a childish answer. Deal.

I believe it's legal to detain somebody for a set period of time without charging them.

Being drunk isn't a crime, but if you're laying semi-conscious on the sidewalk and trying to bite peoples ankles while singing a rude song about wheelbarrows the police may still take you to the station and chuck you in the drunk tank.

This is probably not what that clause was meant to be used for, however.

Wake up, it happens all the time. Personally I've been detained without cause and did not have my rights read to me.

"This is one of those times where I believe the police and security guards were within their rights, but would have let the op slide if he wasnt being an ass, but becasue he was being an ass they found a reason to give him trouble."

Yea cause blaming the victim is really popular here.

Fact is the security guard is on the job which requires him to be professional. It doesn't matter if someone not even his customer is being a jackass to him. He must still maintain his professionality.

I simply could not help but wonder why he would feel the need to take a low quality and obscured photo of the interior of an ATM. I went on to read his explanation stating he enjoys seeing the inner workings of things, which is understandable. I can also understand why the officers may feel uncomfortable with someone taking their photo like that, even if they obviously blew things out of proportion. Furthermore, sarcasm and childish lessons on the constitution are not necessary, I simply asked a question.

"Why should I care, I didn't do anything wrong."

America asked for this and now we get it. I am not in the least surprised.

You could be right, but the title does specififcally say the rent-a-cops cuffed and hauled away the shopper. If that's true, that's assault (well, unless he willingly let the cuffs go on).

Depends on how you go about it. The "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" approach tends to invite scorn from some who would otherwise not care about your plight.

The Supreme Court enacts new law by way of "precedent", and Corporate America enacts new law by way of "policy." Until one of the three real branches of government stops the abuse, Corporate America will remain our fourth branch of government.

@sanjsrik:
That's exactly what I was thinking. How could they arrest him and throw him in a holding cell without any kind of charge? That sounds like a potential lawsuit against the police right there.

Huh? Going 10 miles (hell, even ONE) mile over the limit is breaking the law. Taking a picture in a public place like in this situation is NOT breaking the law. Your analogy fails.

What has happened in this country when trying to protect your rights is "acting like an ass"?

@xtc46:
Oddly enough "being an ass" is not a crime.
For that you should be very, very thankful because you certainly met the quota with that post.

that lawyer guy should make little laminated 3x5 cards with the basics on them to present to power tripping cops, insecurity guards, etc.

There's this thing called a Constitution, that says (and I paraphrase) that things that aren't specifically prohibited, are allowed.

Or, to quote Cleo McDowell, "This [is] America, Jack!" /Coming to America

The cops don't like to write reports, so if they can get you to voluntarily do , it makes life simple for them. Hassle or mouth off, and the cuffs go on...it's that easy for them. They only need make the detention or arrest on "grounds" or mere "suspicion"; it's up to the DA or whoever to file the charges and make them stick.

In many jurisdictions, rent-a-cops go through an abbreviated version of real police training (in California, it's called POST for Peace Officer Standardized Training). Many do this in order to get a badge, some do it in order to be able to carry a gun. In all such cases, they _do_ have actual police power, but its limited to the course of their duties; unlike police, for example, a security guard CANNOT carry his service weapon 24/7 unless they have a valid CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permit.

The one mistake it appears Shane made was not to ask for what charges he was being DETAINED (not arrested) on...while in some circles, being cuffed means that you are under arrest, in other interpretations, it means that you are merely being "detained" for investigation preliminary to the filing of charges ("suspicion").

When I was in college, the disabled students were denied rights and protested, and the campus police chief came up with a novel concept of "momentary detention", where he would come up and cuff people long enough to stall the march, then uncuff them. A $7million lawsuit later determined that was illegal, as there was no investigation or arrest recorded, and he was holding the students without legal justification.

IANAL, but I'm familiar with enough of the material to say that Shane likely can own his REI and then have two police officers work off their damages as part-time security for him.

But aside from whether or not the OP was being an asshat or not, the fact is if he was doing something against store policy, that should have been explained to him by the Loomis guys or by the cops who arrived.

What's offensive about this situation is this assumption (as an earlier poster said) that being a dick to a cop is an offence. It's not. The cops these days assume that if you're a member of the public you are a) an asshole just waiting to do something wrong if you're not already doing it, and b) supposed to follow their orders no matter how stupid or insane.

When our own police forces begin to view us as the enemy, we're in serious shit. When the government views the cops as a tool, not of enforcing the law, but of keeping people in their place, we're fucked. Look at agents provocateurs in the recent G20 in England and last year in Quebec. Cops caught going undercover in a crowd of otherwise peaceful protesters (noising, annoying, smelly, hippy, anarchist protesters) trying to start shit so that the uniformed cops would have an excuse to bust heads! Exactly what part of Serve & Protect is that?

@sicknick: No, they do step over the line, but in this case, I dont think they did. Its like when a cop pulls you over for going 10 over the speed limit. Are they within their rights to do so? very much so, can they let you slide with a warning, yes they can. But if you are being an ass, and start giving them crap for pulling you over, can then then tell you to wait where you are, right you your speeding ticket, verify all your car's info is current, and make sure you have nothing else outstanding, Absolutely.

@Chris Walters:

Suspicious behavior IS enough to question someone, and IS enough for a police officer to question you. If you can be reasonable conceived as a threat to another person or person property, then they are within their rights to stop and question you. There is a huge differance between somone standingona sidewalk takeing a picture of a building, especially landmarks, or things in public, its entireley differnt to take pictures of security personelle taking apart an expensive bank asset like an atm.

IN ADDITION. Just about every major chain store has a no photography within the store rule on the books. It is in place to prevent competitors from taking snap shots of exclusive products or logging prices in mass, and like many rules, it is ignored becasue people can break it without causing headaches for anyone, but is kept for that 1 in 1000 time that they need it.

On one hand everyone but the OP was an assclown. On the other hand veganstraightedge. Damn I really want to side with the OP but still...

Just kidding, had to make a joke. But really those security officers do need to be fired. I would have walked right on out of there. Possible with a middle finger pointed at them with a couple of f off bombs at them when they tried to stop me, then a nice heafty lawsuit when they touched me.

@Chongo: To be fair, i have had quite a few run-ins with the police (no, I am not a hardened criminal, just got pulled over a lot) and found that the only time i ever had issues with the police was when i was acting the fool. Even with the polizei in germany, handling my drunk ass, i found that they were fairly level and escalated as i did. I never once got put in cuffs and dragged downtown.

These are the same assumptions that trip up so many people on both sides of encounters like these. I urge you to download the Photographer's Rights document I linked to above and read it. It's a really fast read--just one page--and clears away a lot of "common sense" assumptions that are just completely false.

Never.

Only two types of people become cops. Ones that want to help the public and bullies. Unfortunately, bullies end up the majority since smart, sincere types can move ahead pretty quickly 'off the beat'.

Apparently her brother was the latter.

@Jared LeClaire:It doesn't matter, and furthermore the reason it doesn't matter is that SCOTUS has ruled that as long as a person taking a photograph is in public, not breaking the law themselves, and not impeding law enforcement from doing their work, then no one can legaly say or do fuck-all, not even the police.

At the most, REI can ask him to leave their premises, and thats all that can happen, legally.

It sounds like the security guard asked him to come over when he was done with his business, possibly to ask him to delete the image, as it would be a security concern, and then the OP decided to be an ass about it, so the security guard in turn, started to be a bigger ass, and then called the cops, as taking pictures of security guards working on an ATM seems like suspicious behavior, just like taking pictures of a bank or a jewlery store would be to many people. I also believe the OP left out several things in his time with the police as no cop is going to just grab a guy, in a public place, cuff him and throw them in the back of a car without putting them under arresst and reading them their rights.

This is one of those times where I believe the police and security guards were within their rights, but would have let the op slide if he wasnt being an ass, but becasue he was being an ass they found a reason to give him trouble.

If the security guard did threaten to tackle him (which probabaly happened, although I dont belive it was in the exact way noted above) then he was in the wrong, but made the right move in calling the cops.

Well, you know....you give some guys a gun, and they instantly think they are Robocop...

Its sad that whenever I see an officer, I get freaked out.

In all seriousness though this seems like a situation of private security's assuming they have all the power and are real cops when they aren't. It gets worse when the Police actually reinforce that idea by these actions. I used to work with a former security guard and he used to always tell me how he is just a cop in a different uniform. Same situation here maybe?

I doubt that Shane or anyone else who decides to photograph this process would be any better than them. This is why people back their cars into ATMs - it's too hard to crack!

The guard was an asshole but we have assholes in every profession and I doubt he will get fired. He might have been following standard operating procedures for all we know when he saw the guy snap the photo. I'm not defending the asshole guard but knowing what his SOP states when this sort of thing happens might explain a lot about his actions.

If you EVER have a security guard even TOUCH you, ask them "Do you intend to hold me here against my will?"

If they say yes, start yelling for the police, or call them on your phone. Don't stop until you attract enough attention. Yell that you are being kidnapped. Tell people the rent-a-cops aren't real.

When the police arrive, remember to offer to press charges against the guards unless they decide to end the situation the way *you* feel it should be. Remind them that they'll never work as a security guard again for the rest of their life with a conviction.

Of course, if they say no, tell them you'll be leaving and, if they want to call the police because they feel they need to press charges, that you'll be waiting outside for them, but you'd like to know now so you can let your appointments know that you'll be late. Be true to your word.