Washington Bus Driver Attacks Armed Photographer for Recording Him in Public

Jeff Hayes · Nov 15, 2015

NavyLCDR said:
There is a huge difference between being required or forced to pose for a photo and having one's photograph taken in public.

+100

color of law · Nov 15, 2015

Jeff Hayes said:
As far as your first paragraph goes I agree if it is the government taking pictures of the general public. But since we are talking about me taking a picture of you the constitution does not protect you from me or me from you etc. You are correct the government was/is watering down our 4A rights we fully agree there as well.

Second paragraph the 4A does not apply to your interactions with me only our interactions with the government.

I did say in public, but I also said in a public place in an earlier post. Public place was a bad choice of words as you point out a public bathroom is a public place. I still maintain that if one is in public such as walking down the sidewalk, at a park, attending a sporting event etc anyone can take a photo/video. How could it work any other way?

Now in a restaurant would be an entirely different matter assuming the restaurant is not owned by the government that would depend on the owners policy.

If a restaurant gave notice of no pictures/videos/recordings a private action could result, but you would have to show damages. A restaurant open to the public even though private, an expectation of privacy does not exist.

Between you and the government, you have to show some expectation of privacy was expected. Phone call in a telephone booth.

color of law · Nov 15, 2015

Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
Solus the constitution does not require a reason to exercise a right. Recording does not steal souls as some savages once believed, we are not savages, and should rejoice at freedom. The attacker was a public employee in a public place, he has no more expectation of privacy than the common citizen WHO IS recorded by government. I have no fear of being recorded by citizens, I do object to government eaves dropping. This incident is nothing more than a man exercising his rights not harming, or even coming close to threatening anyone.

There are times we agree, and times such as this not. But I am strongly in favor of rights being exercised. And I have no right to demand why.

Originally Posted by color of law View Post
Furthest from the truth. There are two cases in the federal courts right now over being forced to have their picture taken, one civil and one criminal. Both are Amish cases. Many Old Order Amish believe being ordered by law to have their pictures taken violates their religious rights under the first amendment. Also see 42 USC 2000bb.

The one civil case is an Amish man having to have a photo ID to purchase a firearm. The other is a criminal case over a mug shot prior to being convicted of anything.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

So, your belief is misplaced.

Originally Posted by NavyLCDR
There is a huge difference between being required or forced to pose for a photo and having one's photograph taken in public.

Jeff Hayes said:
+100

Your point????

Before answering please pay attention to the subject matter I addressed.

Jeff Hayes · Nov 15, 2015

color of law said:
Your point????

Before answering please pay attention to the subject matter I addressed.

Your entire post is off topic and possibly an attempt to create a false equivalency, being Amish and objecting to being forced to have your photo taken has absolutely nothing to do with video taping in a public setting.

color of law · Nov 15, 2015

Jeff Hayes said:
Your entire post is off topic and possibly an attempt to create a false equivalency, being Amish and objecting to being forced to have your photo taken has absolutely nothing to do with video taping in a public setting.

So, you are saying that your reading comprehension is not your strong suit?

WalkingWolf: Recording does not steal souls as some savages once believed, we are not savages....

I responded specifically to walkingWolf's above statement. He was calling Amish savages. I don't think he thought through his statement.

Got it??????

Grim_Night · Nov 15, 2015

Citizen said:
I am not so sure you, me have no expectation of privacy in a public place. Right off the top of my head I can think of the urinal, the phone booth/stall, the quiet corner of a restaurant, the far corner of the parking lot, etc.

There is this thing called Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. What this means is...

There are two types of expectations of privacy:

Subjective expectation of privacy – a certain individual's opinion that a certain location or situation is private; varies greatly from person to person

Objective, legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy – An expectation of privacy generally recognized by society

Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are a person's residence or hotel room and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector in order to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses, or a phone booth.

In the case of this specific thread, out on a public street, one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Additionally, courts have repeatedly ruled that government employees do not have reasonable expectation of privacy while conducting official business related to their position as a government employee.

What this ultimately means is this...

A government employee is not protected from "prying eyes" in the form of audio/visual recording while doing their job. This includes police, fire department, city council members, and yes, municipal bus/transit employees.

A private citizen is only protected in such places as defined by "reasonable expectation of privacy" from government intrusion and additionally, by laws that are intended to protect privacy such as "wiretapping" laws which relate to private citizens audio/visual recording other private citizens. But again, on a public street, a private citizen does not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in places such as in the lobby of a private business, while driving down the street, or yes, walking down a public sidewalk. It is also true that a private citizen does have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public restroom or in a phone booth, but not as you say, "the quiet corner of a restaurant, the far corner of the parking lot", because while you may have a subjective view that you expect privacy in such places, society as a whole has an objective view that such places are not "private".

Jeff Hayes · Nov 15, 2015

color of law said:
If a restaurant gave notice of no pictures/videos/recordings a private action could result, but you would have to show damages. A restaurant open to the public even though private, an expectation of privacy does not exist.

Between you and the government, you have to show some expectation of privacy was expected. Phone call in a telephone booth.

So I read/know/have been told that the restaurants policy is no pictures/videos/recordings yet I have no expectation of privacy, did I get that right?

So between me and the government I have to show I have an expectation of the right to remain silent before I can be silent, I have to show an expectation of religious freedom to be religious, I have to show the government I have an expectation of not being required to house troops before I can refuse to house troops. did I also get that right?

Jeff Hayes · Nov 15, 2015

color of law said:
So, you are saying that your reading comprehension is not your strong suit?

I responded specifically to walkingWolf's above statement. He was calling Amish savages. I don't think he thought through his statement.

Got it??????

Then why did you address me and Navy???

Jeff Hayes · Nov 15, 2015

color of law said:
So, you are saying that your reading comprehension is not your strong suit?

So do you want to have a discussion or do you want to do personal attacks? I can do either one just let me know.

Dave_pro2a · Nov 15, 2015

color of law said:
He was calling Amish savages.

Technically, yes they probably are.

Crazy, irrational, illogical, belief in mythology? Check.

OCD level of adherence to irrational, self-harming behavior patterns? Check.

Xenophobic isolationism (or is that religious inspired bigotry)? Check.

Inbreeding? Check.

http://listverse.com/2012/10/29/10-things-you-probably-dont-know-about-the-amish/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_syrup_urine_disease

Citizen · Nov 15, 2015

Jeff Hayes said:
As far as your first paragraph goes I agree if it is the government taking pictures of the general public. But since we are talking about me taking a picture of you the constitution does not protect you from me or me from you etc. You are correct the government was/is watering down our 4A rights we fully agree there as well.

Second paragraph the 4A does not apply to your interactions with me only our interactions with the government.

I did say in public, but I also said in a public place in an earlier post. Public place was a bad choice of words as you point out a public bathroom is a public place. I still maintain that if one is in public such as walking down the sidewalk, at a park, attending a sporting event etc anyone can take a photo/video. How could it work any other way?

Now in a restaurant would be an entirely different matter assuming the restaurant is not owned by the government that would depend on the owners policy.

I'll just address a certain point. This is not to contradict or argue--just expand.

I'll address that the constitution protects only from government, not individuals from individuals.

I am less sure; I cannot make such a definite statement.

Dr. Roger Roots, in his white paper Are Police Constitutional?, presents interesting data. A pair of relevant data are that after the founding, if I swore out a warrant against you, and the magistrate issued a warrant on my oath or affidavit, but lacking probable cause, then I was liable to you for double damages. And, the magistrate was liable for triple damages.

Also, many of the rights in the Bill of Rights are natural rights or derive directly from a natural right--meaning they would apply whether government is involved or not.

I suspect--only suspect--the dichotomy between the Bill of Rights and government or private action is simply another government rationalization.

I do agree in principle with your question, "How could it work any other way?" That is to say, I am at a loss, too. (But, give me time. I might figure out something.

)

color of law · Nov 15, 2015

Jeff Hayes said:
So I read/know/have been told that the restaurants policy is no pictures/videos/recordings yet I have no expectation of privacy, did I get that right?

That's correct.

Jeff Hayes said:
So between me and the government I have to show I have an expectation of the right to remain silent before I can be silent, I have to show an expectation of religious freedom to be religious, I have to show the government I have an expectation of not being required to house troops before I can refuse to house troops. did I also get that right?

Specious and mutually exclusive.

Jeff Hayes · Nov 15, 2015

Citizen said:
I'll just address a certain point. This is not to contradict or argue--just expand.

This is a discussion after all.

Also, many of the rights in the Bill of Rights are natural rights or derive directly from a natural right--meaning they would apply whether government is involved or not.

The difference of course is the Constitution supposedly protects us from the government.

I suspect--only suspect--the dichotomy between the Bill of Rights and government or private action is simply another government rationalization.

Agreed

I do agree in principle with your question, "How could it work any other way?" That is to say, I am at a loss, too. (But, give me time. I might figure out something. )

Me too.

KBCraig · Nov 15, 2015

color of law said:
I responded specifically to walkingWolf's above statement. He was calling Amish savages.

Walking Wolf never mentioned the Amish; you inserted them into the discussion where it doesn't apply, because the Amish don't believe that recording "steals their souls". They have entirely different reasons for objecting to being photographed ("graven images", and pridefulness) that have nothing at all to do with souls being stolen by cameras.

Someone said something relevant here, now what was it? Oh, yeah, it was this:

color of law said:
So, you are saying that your reading comprehension is not your strong suit?

color of law · Nov 15, 2015

KBCraig said:
Walking Wolf never mentioned the Amish; you inserted them into the discussion where it doesn't apply, because the Amish don't believe that recording "steals their souls". They have entirely different reasons for objecting to being photographed ("graven images", and pridefulness) that have nothing at all to do with souls being stolen by cameras.

Someone said something relevant here, now what was it? Oh, yeah, it was this:

If you read the entire thread as to what I was addressing you would not have said what you said.

Geerolla · Nov 16, 2015

solus said:
There was no purpose to this video except to generate chaos...proven by the video immediately ceasing when the initial encounter didn't generate the reaction the videographer was seeking ~ severe reaction since the supervisour, in both encounters, failed to react and in the first segue way the video immediately ceased.

It's called video editing.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

OC for ME · Nov 16, 2015

Do bus drivers wear badges?

solus · Nov 16, 2015

Geerolla said:
It's called video editing.

Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

ya or another way of stating it is:

darn, i didn't get the reaction i wanted so i will edit it to show the shock and awe'...kinda like the overseas newscasters in Tehran in the 70's who paid the young kids to grab rocks and throw them at the bad embassy while they filmed them...otherwise there wasn't anything news worthy to record and heaven knows we have to keep the discourse going on how bad the situation was ~ even when it wasn't!!

ya video editing...

ipse

WalkingWolf · Nov 16, 2015

OC for ME said:
Do bus drivers wear badges?

I believe they did many decades past. At one time USPS workers wore badges, though I think only on their hat.

badkarma · Nov 19, 2015

Anyone know the name of the Intercity Transit employee yet? Anyone know if he is still employed?

Washington Bus Driver Attacks Armed Photographer for Recording Him in Public

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member