Mother arrested, held for days for photography...

[Orogeny]

Originally Posted by JohnT

One is 18, and that isn't exactly grown up. Sure, by law 18 is considered adult in some respects, but practically speaking, an 18 y.o. isn't an adult in the true sense of the word in most cases.

So, how does the fact that she is a mother of 3 have anything to do with the story?

[brewercm]

There was enough there to reasonably question her to see what she was up to. I just think both sides here handled this extremely bad. The lawsuit amount was just a little on the ridiculous side as far as I'm concerned.

[ka5txl]

Originally Posted by ChrisTX

First, it wasn't 'just an airport'; it was a National Guard air base. The rifles weren't in the back of the car, they were in the front seat with her.

Now, I'm not the smartest guy on the planet, but I don't know many "photographers" who go taking pictures of army bases with firearms in the front seat. That's like trying to get on an airplane with a box that ticks. It may not say word for word that you can't, but seriously, what are you expecting to happen when you try to board?

Chris where did you get this? It is a Public Airport that happens to have an Air National Guard unit located there. That does not make it "a National Guard air base" The area that the ANG occupies would be restricted but that does apply not to the entire Public Airport, especially the main entrance to said airport. Trust me you could stand outside the main gate of the old Hensley Field ("note ANG instalations are called "Fields" or "Stations" not "Air Bases") and take pictures of the F86 without any problem.

Everything I have read said it was 1 rifle locked in a locked case in a locked car trunk, not
"The rifles weren't in the back of the car, they were in the front seat with her."
although the officer stated she had "scary weapons" that doesn't make it multiple rifles in the front seat

EDIT : Ok I found a link where to police claim that a shotgun and xm-15 were carried legally in the front seat (along with ammo)

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by hue-e

suing for that amount sends a message that treating fellow americans the way these cops treated a completely harmless lady is totally unacceptable.

no it doesn't. It sends the message that you can sue for an enormous amount of money, make far more people suffer than actually had anything to do with your case, and still be considered a victim after raping the system.

She is an opportunist just waiting. She knew what she was doing.

[KD5NRH]

Originally Posted by ChrisTX

Now, I'm not the smartest guy on the planet, but I don't know many "photographers" who go taking pictures of army bases with firearms in the front seat.

Nearly every picture I take is done with a .357 in my pocket.

[ChrisTX]

Originally Posted by ka5txl

EDIT : Ok I found a link where to police claim that a shotgun and xm-15 were carried legally in the front seat (along with ammo)

The ammo was in the trunk.

She had to have done more than what she's admitting. You can't tell me that many agencies were involved, and she was a completely innocent party. Of course the police agencies aren't going to blab about it.

They charged her with criminal trespass though, so they must have had something they thought would make it stick. In Texas, you can't charge someone with criminal trespass unless they've been given notice (many forms though). I don't know how it is up there, but they're also a lot more liberal. Everyone has assault rifles on the front seat in Texas.

[TxTowman]

WOW! I ALWAYS have a camera and at least 1 firearm on the front seat when I exit My private property.

Evidently they couldn't even pull some obscure gray area charges out of their hat, or she would have been charged with something.

And in this day and time, anyone who doesn't (carry) might as well be playing russian roulette with an automatic weapon!

Most people never admit how much abuse of power goes on until it happens to them.



JMHO! YMMV!

Sid

[Howard Barlow]

I bet she was wearing ugly shoes and it just made them really, really mad.

[Kalrog]

Originally Posted by ChrisTX

She had to have done more than what she's admitting.

You would hope so - but I don't see any evidence of that.

Originally Posted by ChrisTX

They charged her with criminal trespass though, so they must have had something they thought would make it stick.

But it was dropped. So there is nothing illegal being done by her that we know of. There just isn't. If you want to stick with the evidence, then everything I see puts it all on the town/cop being wrong - not on the lady in this story.

If you see something else, I would be interested in reading it.

[hue-e]

Originally Posted by Jeff_Green

no it doesn't. It sends the message that you can sue for an enormous amount of money, make far more people suffer than actually had anything to do with your case, and still be considered a victim after raping the system.

She is an opportunist just waiting. She knew what she was doing.

what about the cops... did they act appropriately? terrorist or not, our "officers of the law/peace" have a level of professionalism to uphold, plain and simple.

last I looked, this isn't cold-war era russia, we don't have KGB agents policing our streets... or maybe we do and this proves it.

[brewercm]

Still not worth $70 million. Hell I'm heading up there with a couple of my guns and a camera to that money pit of a town. Hey, they have it, we are talking about the Hamptons.

We really need a sarcasm emoticon.

[markfh]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Get the point? Just replace the key words with the groups someone (in power) doesn't agree with in todays society.

They not only violated her rights they put her life in jeopardy.

Saying she somehow brought some of this on herself because of the guns or the cash or because she watches Glenn Beck is like saying a girl that wears a mini skirt and halter top deserves it when she gets raped.

Both are equally absurd and disturbing.

They had NOTHING to charge her with and therefore had NO reason to hold her. It's plain as the nose on your face that these officers were acting on their own biases. They have the power over life and death and therefore should pay.

The officers involved should be charged, prosecuted and imprisoned. The town deserves to loose the money because they allowed these people to hold power and don't think for a minute that a lot of them don't hold the same comtempt for people like her (right wing, tea partier, gun owner etc.). I know because I grew up in New York and still have family there. It's one of the reasons I'm not there and will never go back.

You can say what you want about the judgement of 70mil, it wouldn't bother me if it were 700mil, but I'd like to know just what YOU think the days of illegal imprisonment, abusive treatment, potential loss of her life is worth. And don't forget how it affected her children.

This isn't about photography at all. It's all about politics.