What do you mean I can't take pictures?

[Cap'n Jack]

To put things in a different perspective, this is being discussed on the Purple Board:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/6/prweb8528184.htm

Police Officer Jefferson “Jeff” Taylor, who was struck by lightning on Monday, May 23 while on tornado disaster response duty in Joplin, Mo., passed away in Springfield, Mo., today. He was 31 years old.
“Jeff Taylor volunteered to assist with the Joplin disaster recovery,” said Greg Mills, Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety for the City of Riverside, Mo. “He was a highly dedicated officer and a devoted public servant, and we will always remember his sacrifice."

As was pointed out above, there are (and probably always were) both good and bad cops. It's usually the bad kind that make the news (an exception cited above). There's no story in someone being professional.

 

[silver-eagle]

To put things in a different perspective, this is being discussed on the Purple Board:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/6/prweb8528184.htm



As was pointed out above, there are (and probably always were) both good and bad cops. It's usually the bad kind that make the news (an exception cited above). There's no story in someone being professional.

Good news only ever makes the news when there isn't any bad news. Good guys only make the news when the bad guys are on vacation.
Good news rarely sells news.

 

[wsuffa]

There's a rumor out that TSA is about to change their policy and ban any photography at/in/or anywhere near a checkpoint. It's based on a recent TSA blog posting that they are "revisiting" their photography policy.

Just what we need....

 

[alaskaflyer]

LO

You pretty much confirmed what DDayle was saying: You have taken an "Us vs. them" attitude.

And you've confirmed that on the subject of law enforcement you don't know what you are talking about. Once again.

Police officers don't need all that extra protective gear, they use it for intimidation factors.

Says the expert

The second photo you posted was also prior to Tennessee vs Garner. Halcyon days

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

LOL!!!!!

Wait...are you serious? You're honestly saying they're more professional this way:

Than they were this way:

You pretty much confirmed what DDayle was saying: You have taken an "Us vs. them" attitude. There have always been troublemakers, but all of a sudden now, we're all presumed to be bad until we show that we're not. Police officers don't need all that extra protective gear, they use it for intimidation factors.

Which one of those guys is more likely to take you into the interrogation and beat the living **** out of you for a confession? Keep you awake for days so you were so confused you didn't know what you were saying? Not feed you until you told them what they wanted to hear?

Check out the history of police work in this country. It's not something that should be viewed through sepia-colored lenses.

Where's the us-v-them attitude coming from, anyway?

 

[jhausch]

Does it go both ways? Do you lie when stopped for speeding?

One of the things wrong with law enforcement today is a lack of respect for the law and the badge. I am talking a bout a lack of respect by the very people who wear the badge. When a LEO lies to me, or carelessly ignores the law( because he is a cop ) it show me that officer has NO respect for the law & the badge they wear. How can I be expected to trust an officer who openly flaunts the law? sorry if trained LEO cannot obey the laws they are paid to enforce, then those officers need to quit and find a new career field. Worse that that , because i have had the audacity to complain about law breaking police, I am now denied police services. they have refused to investigate , property crimes,and a home break-in and assualt/robbery . Yet I remain a staunch supporter of HONEST LEO. Dave

What worries me most about law enforcement isn't LEO's flouting the law.

What worries me is the way many LEOs have taken an "us versus them" attitude that goes beyond the inner cities where that attitude originated. It has gotten to the point in some aviation forums that any criticism of any LEO is considered to be an "attack" on ALL LEOs, worthy of shout-downs.

This (IMHO) signals a dangerous sea change. It used to be "all of us against the bad guys". Now, it seems to be heading toward "just us against...everyone -- cuz everyone is a potential bad guy".

As we have seen in Mexico, and (to a lesser degree, so far) along the Southern U.S. border, it's a very fine line between being a law enforcement officer, and being a corrupted agent of the bad guys. Once corruption takes over a police force, they BECOME the very thing they have sworn to protect us against.

If we lose the ability to control LEOs -- something WE, the People must retain -- the republic itself is lost. In other words, constructive criticism of LEOs is not a "problem" -- it is our right. Those who lose sight of that are, IMHO, on a slippery slope.

 

[gismo]

Does it go both ways? Do you lie when stopped for speeding?

What's the point in lying to the police if you're stopped for speeding. If they clocked you on radar at 70 mph in a 50 zone, telling them you were only doing 55 isn't going to get you out of a ticket. Neither will inventing an excuse (with the possible exception of a driver or passenger faking labor symptoms). If they ask how fast you think you were going you can just claim you don't know as that's the truth unless you've just had your speedometer calibrated.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Does it go both ways? Do you lie when stopped for speeding?

Nope.

But then, I haven't been stopped for speeding since 1979.

 

[sba55]

What's the point in lying to the police if you're stopped for speeding. If they clocked you on radar at 70 mph in a 50 zone, telling them you were only doing 55 isn't going to get you out of a ticket. Neither will inventing an excuse (with the possible exception of a driver or passenger faking labor symptoms). If they ask how fast you think you were going you can just claim you don't know as that's the truth unless you've just had your speedometer calibrated.

Yes. As you aren't required to answer their questions at all, you really shouldn't answer them. ALL it can do is make things worse for you. Don't fall for their trick questions, either, like "do you know why I pulled you over" or "how fast do you think you were going". The answer is "I'm sure you will tell me". This has gotten me out of a few tickets because they can tell that you know their game and that they might have trouble making the ticket stick.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Which one of those guys is more likely to take you into the interrogation and beat the living **** out of you for a confession? Keep you awake for days so you were so confused you didn't know what you were saying? Not feed you until you told them what they wanted to hear?

Check out the history of police work in this country. It's not something that should be viewed through sepia-colored lenses.

Where's the us-v-them attitude coming from, anyway?

Or in the spirit of this thread, I wonder how they'd like someone pulling out their Brownie super 8 and filming someone's arrest. They'd get more than questioning I'd wager.

I'd go beyond that. Maybe the guy in the middle achieved his rank by throwing the mayor a few thousand bucks before the last election and makes sure his officers know for whom to vote. The sergeant on the left may make a bit on the side selling off property from the evidence room. The officer at far left takes fifty a week from the madam on his beat and his wife gets used jewelry every Christmas. The other guys? Mostly straight except for the liquor from Vito on major holidays.

That still happens of course. Nowadays it can be statistically represented by some guy off lens, representing one out of every twenty or thirty. Of course some others still take free coffee from Seven Eleven and half price at McDonalds on duty.

I am long enough in my career to know that when I started there were still officers working with me who were young officers during the civil rights era yYah, the good ole days were better. Bleah.

 

[denverpilot]

You mean, "Apparently fast enough for you to pull me over, let me see the RADAR gun, please.", isn't smart-ass enough?

I religiously drive the speed limit or lower and laugh my butt off at people trying to go around, just hoping for cop to nail one or more of them. It's entertainment. I get a couple of good guffaws a year -- wish it were more.

I did get nailed for the first time in a very long time last year or the year before, I forget... about three blocks from my house in a known speed-trap on a back-street... it was when the in-laws were in town and I let my emotions of being late to get home get the better of me when people were waiting, instead of just doing my usual thing.

75 MPH all the way across this city I live in (let's say 30 miles) gets you there in 24 minutes. Same distance at 55 MPH is 32 minutes. 8 minutes for one of the longest commutes in this city.

1. You can't do 75 the whole way because you'll be dodging and weaving and braking and generally being an ass.

2. Most days you can do 55 the whole way in whatever lane you like, preferably a right hand lane of course, but if there's slower traffic in those you can always block all the sports-car idiots who think they need to do 75 in the left lane. See #1. Ha.

3. Very few people have commutes that are more than 75% highway, so you're stop-and-go with stop lights at both ends anyway.

4. My vehicle actually calculates average MPH (not just MPG)... in over 9000 miles this year my average MPH was, 22 MPH. You spend far more of any commute stopped at a stop light, time-wise, than you can ever make up at any speed.

The way to cut your commute time is to move closer to work. That's all that really works. People are retards when it comes to time-speed-distance math problems.

My old commute took 37 minutes consistently every day there wasn't an accident or really bad weather/road conditions. I set the cruise control for 55 and hardly had to think about driving.

I saw a lot of the dodgers, weavers, and "I gotta go faster" types sitting at the stop-light at the exit ramp where I got off at, going either direction, and usually got a chance to give them a friendly wave and a smile. It probably infuriated them, and they -- being lacking in basic math skills -- probably never had any idea why.

They looked stressed. Almost felt sorry for them. My 27 miles was tunes, podcasts, and/or local radio, or a phone call on the bluetooth speakerphone, and I rarely was stressed out by the driving, ever.

Bonus round: I rarely replace brakes, shocks, tires, etc.

 

[Mason]

I religiously drive the speed limit or lower and laugh my butt off at people trying to go around, just hoping for cop to nail one or more of them. It's entertainment. I get a couple of good guffaws a year -- wish it were more.

I drive the speed I drive, and if someone wants to pass I get over. I am not going to block traffic even if I am going the speed limit.

Now I had to laugh once, a long time ago, I was driving home from O"Hare on I-294 in a blinding snowstorm and the snow was pretty deep and the best safe speed, in my opinion, was around 35. Which I was going when a big Caddy passed me going maybe 75.

I got a chuckle a few miles down the road when I saw him ass-backwards in the median burried up to the window sills.

 

[denverpilot]

I drive the speed I drive, and if someone wants to pass I get over. I am not going to block traffic even if I am going the speed limit.

I stay as far to the right as possible and don't intentionally block anyone. But I'm not going to slow down to 45 and move further right to get out of the way of a 'tard who wants to go 75, 80, 95... unless he has red and blue flashing lights and a siren.

Whatever lane allows for a consistent 55 MPH in a 55 MPH zone... I'm there.

 

[silver-eagle]

Yes. As you aren't required to answer their questions at all, you really shouldn't answer them. ALL it can do is make things worse for you. Don't fall for their trick questions, either, like "do you know why I pulled you over" or "how fast do you think you were going". The answer is "I'm sure you will tell me". This has gotten me out of a few tickets because they can tell that you know their game and that they might have trouble making the ticket stick.

I always thought the answer to the question was "To sell me tickets to the policemans ball?"

 

[silver-eagle]

The only reasons I can understand for restricting photography in any area is security, safety, and proprietary information. If TSA is worried about being called out for something they are doing, then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it.

 

[JeffDG]

They looked stressed. Almost felt sorry for them. My 27 miles was tunes, podcasts, and/or local radio, or a phone call on the bluetooth speakerphone, and I rarely was stressed out by the driving, ever.

That phone call puts you at more risk than the bump from 55-75 does.

 

[Bob Noel]

That phone call puts you at more risk than the bump from 55-75 does.

Statistics don't seem to support that.

A few years ago I looked at the NHTSA (or NHSTA or whatever the accronym is) stats for accident rates. During the 20+ years when car cell phone usage exploded from the nothing to almost everyone doing it, the accident rate remained flat or decreased slightly.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Or in the spirit of this thread, I wonder how they'd like someone pulling out their Brownie super 8 and filming someone's arrest. They'd get more than questioning I'd wager.

I'd go beyond that. Maybe the guy in the middle achieved his rank by throwing the mayor a few thousand bucks before the last election and makes sure his officers know for whom to vote. The sergeant on the left may make a bit on the side selling off property from the evidence room. The officer at far left takes fifty a week from the madam on his beat and his wife gets used jewelry every Christmas. The other guys? Mostly straight except for the liquor from Vito on major holidays.

That still happens of course. Nowadays it can be statistically represented by some guy off lens, representing one out of every twenty or thirty. Of course some others still take free coffee from Seven Eleven and half price at McDonalds on duty.

I am long enough in my career to know that when I started there were still officers working with me who were young officers during the civil rights era yYah, the good ole days were better. Bleah.

So, to sum up, your defense of LEO/TSA/government corruption is "It used to be worse."?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

So, to sum up, your defense of LEO/TSA/government corruption is "It used to be worse."?

Nobody has said anything of the sort, nor anything that could be interpreted as even suggesting it.

 

[PilotAlan]

LOL!!!!!

Wait...are you serious? You're honestly saying they're more professional this way:

Than they were this way:

Yes, I am saying that. The police have never been more professional and corrupt more rare than today.
We may want to look back at the "old days" and think everything was better them, but it was not. Police had very little education in law and rights, courts did not penalize the police for violating those rights.
'Alley rides' and beatings were common replacements for summonses or arrests.

Police were very poorly paid, and payments to 'look the other way' were common and largely accepted. Politically connected individuals had free reign. (you can argue that the rich get away with things because they have better lawyers, but in the 'old days', they never even saw the inside of a courtroom)

Like it or not, the police today are the best we have ever had.

 

[gcd89]

When my class (a&p school) gradutated we took pictures next to some biz jet (cannot remember type) and we were told that if we took any personal photos, to not include the N#. And I've seen videos where they show planes with the numbers blurred out/

 

[alaskaflyer]

So, to sum up, your defense of LEO/TSA/government corruption is "It used to be worse."?

No, it is a reply to others who think it is getting worse.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Like it or not, the police today are the best we have ever had.

Sadly, you are probably right.

It's funny the fairy tales we all grow up believing. In my case, I grew up believing that the police were there to help, that they always caught the bad guys, and that they gave everyone a fair shake.

Some fairy tales just take longer to disprove than others, I guess. Call me a hopeless romantic, but I believed all that stuff until relatively recently.

Let's just hope that the bloody corruption that exists just a few miles South of me doesn't spread to our side of the border any more than it already has.

 

[Everskyward]

When my class (a&p school) gradutated we took pictures next to some biz jet (cannot remember type) and we were told that if we took any personal photos, to not include the N#. And I've seen videos where they show planes with the numbers blurred out/

That's why many FBOs won't let random people out on the ramp taking pictures. This ties in with the BARR thread and people's wish for privacy. My view is that airplanes are big and hard to hide, and so are the numbers, so sneaking around in them is not really possible. If someone really wants to find out what you are doing they will. Besides, with cellphone cameras nowadays it's easy to take a surreptitious picture.

 

[denverpilot]

That phone call puts you at more risk than the bump from 55-75 does.

Well, since most folks are zooming around me going 20 MPH faster, I doubt that... since there's nothing in front of me to hit.

But I do attempt to mitigate it - as mentioned, it's a speakerphone, so hands-free, and dialing is done via a single-button press on the overhead (hanging from the visor) and voice command, if I'm dialing out... inbound is the same single-button press to answer.

Just like in aviation, one must accept the risk or not do it. I have no problem at all ignoring a phone call if traffic conditions or road conditions suddenly change, and in heavy traffic, I exit and find a nice place to park and talk if the conversation is "deep".

This whole "pattern" for me has changed drastically anyway with the change in commute from 27 miles to 3.8 miles. I feel little need to call anyone in the shorter commute. If they happen to call I might chit-chat with 'em, or just tell 'em I'll be home in 5 minutes.

Pretty sure my typical "usage pattern" for this tech is no more distracting than a call from ATC on the headset while taxiing. I've been known to say "stand-by" to the speakerphone before. Pilots may have a slight edge here in that we're trained to say "stand-by" and "unable" in aircraft on a regular basis and we're not afraid to use it.

A soccer mom who doesn't have that training and thinks the whole world revolves around the phone call from someone rescheduling the soccer pickup time, might not do as well on the "level of distraction" stuff or judging whether they're impaired.

Plus, they're usually doing 20 MPH over the speed limit with their kids on board, and NOT using hands-free device. And if you asked them how to use their voice-dialing on their particular setup, they'd probably stare at you and you'd have to wipe a little drool from the corner of their mouth as they went into brain lock-up.

(Being silly there, but seriously -- there are people who can handle it, and people who really shouldn't even be driving, let alone have a cell phone anywhere near their car. I'd love to see some people flunk a "driving BFR" if there even were such a thing, and have to re-take a checkride for their driver's licenses.)

 

[Palmpilot]

That's why many FBOs won't let random people out on the ramp taking pictures. This ties in with the BARR thread and people's wish for privacy. My view is that airplanes are big and hard to hide, and so are the numbers, so sneaking around in them is not really possible. If someone really wants to find out what you are doing they will. Besides, with cellphone cameras nowadays it's easy to take a surreptitious picture.

Maybe we should all donate to keep this Web site going:

http://www.photographyisntacrime.com/

 

[JeffDG]

But I do attempt to mitigate it - as mentioned, it's a speakerphone, so hands-free, and dialing is done via a single-button press on the overhead (hanging from the visor) and voice command, if I'm dialing out... inbound is the same single-button press to answer.

There have actually been a number of studies that hands-free does very little to mitigate the risk. This issue is attention to the conversation, with the other end of the conversation being wholly unaware of the environment around you (as opposed to talking to a passenger), not the physical act of holding the phone.

 

[gprellwitz]

There have actually been a number of studies that hands-free does very little to mitigate the risk. This issue is attention to the conversation, with the other end of the conversation being wholly unaware of the environment around you (as opposed to talking to a passenger), not the physical act of holding the phone.

Or as opposed to having a kid in the car (or worse, two or more bickering kids)? Or listening to a radio show, especially a talk show that strives to get the audience worked up?

 

[Bob Noel]

Or as opposed to having a kid in the car (or worse, two or more bickering kids)? Or listening to a radio show, especially a talk show that strives to get the audience worked up?

or listening to music

or changing the radio station

or changing CDs

or fussing with the mp3 player

or applying make-up

or checking that HOT chick you just passed

or ...

The reason why cell phone usage hasn't resulted in actual changes to accident rates is probably because the same number of dufuses that get in accidents while on the phone would have been in accidents for other reasons.

 

[RJM62]

Yes. As you aren't required to answer their questions at all, you really shouldn't answer them. ALL it can do is make things worse for you. Don't fall for their trick questions, either, like "do you know why I pulled you over" or "how fast do you think you were going". The answer is "I'm sure you will tell me". This has gotten me out of a few tickets because they can tell that you know their game and that they might have trouble making the ticket stick.

I once had an officer ask me, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"No," I answered. "Why? Have you forgotten?"

He looked at me, laughed, and sent me on my way.

This was, however, in Brooklyn -- the land of sarcasm. I don't know how well it would go over in Podunk.

-Rich