| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/24/2008 11:34:17 PM · #1 |
I was out taking pictures when I decided to take some of an abandoned hospital. From the street, in my car, I took a few pictures when a security guard yelled, âThis is private property. You canât take any pictures of this buildingâ.
Being that I was on a public street I acted as if I didnât hear him and continued. He got in his vehicle and pulled up next to my driverâs door. Rolled his window down and said, âI told you that you couldnât take pictures of this buildingâ. His demanding tone pissed me off. I am a nice guy but can go A1 if pushed to far. For those that donât know what âgoing A1â means just look up a past thread it will revile what âgoing A1â mean to me.
But I kept my cool and politely told the security guy unless this building has copyright restrictions I as a photographer and citizen have the right to take as many pictures of this structure as I wish, from whatever angle I wish, with what ever lens I wish, as long as I remain on public property while doing so.
Now he tells me he is going to call the police. I donât think he expected the response I was going to give him when he made that statement. Again politely I told him, âOKâ and since I was parked I put my hazards on and asked him would he kindly move his car so I can continue until the police arrive.
He picked up his cell phone and called someone or acted like he did and then told me the police would be here soon, I should leave. I told him no I prefer to wait on the police. He left while another security guard was parked in the parking lot of the building. I assumed he called that person and not the police since they did not show up; I waited 30 minutes.
While waiting the second security guard motioned for me to come over to his vehicle. I refused knowing that if stepped on the posted-private property they would have a reason to call the police.
I know this was a long post but it is so stupid how some security guards and police act when they see a person with a camera. Makes me wonder how much of a hassle they gave the people that put bullet holes through half the windows.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:37:34 PM · #2 |
Security guards are idiots.
|
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:39:33 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:39:45 PM · #4 |
I'm so glad you stood your ground! I kind of thought you were crazy though, there are so many weirdos around anymore, you never know what that security guard could have done!
If you're ever in the SE Iowa area, I'd love to go out shooting with you, there are a couple of places that I'd love to shoot, but I hate to admit, I'm afraid of the security!!! |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:39:57 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
06/24/2008 11:44:28 PM · #6 |
I'm rehearsing this routine ...
SECURITY GUARD: I'm going to call the police.
ME: Oh, please do -- that will make it so much easier for me to file a complaint. :-) |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 12:07:51 AM · #7 |
Way to stand your ground!
So, what happened next?
|
|
|
|
06/25/2008 12:11:06 AM · #8 |
Here are a few of the pictures. They haven't been edited just converted from RAW to jpg and resized.
   
   |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 12:48:28 AM · #9 |
| When I click on your pics, they are all hidden - the thumbnails really don't let me see enough. |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 01:11:54 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Mick:
Way to stand your ground!
So, what happened next? |
After seeing the police was not going to show and I taken my pictures, I just waved by and went on about my business.
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
When I click on your pics, they are all hidden - the thumbnails really don't let me see enough. |
Sorry about that. I meant to hide collection but hid each photo. You should be able to view now.
Message edited by author 2008-06-25 01:15:30. |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 01:28:23 AM · #11 |
Did you note the name of the security company so that you can inform them that they might want to train their monkeys a little better?
edit cuz I meant to quote, not edit... sighhh...
Message edited by author 2008-06-25 16:35:37. |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 01:34:23 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Did you note the name of the security company so that you can inform them that they might want to train their monkeys a little better? |
No I couldn't because he pulled up beside me in his personal car. I guess he was going home. I could see his uniform, clearly a security guard but could not see a nametag or company name. If you look close in in the third photograph on the left side near the bottom half you will see the back of a red truck. That was the second security guard. Again looked to be a personal vehicle, not a company. He is the one that motioned for me to come to him. But as I said I was not going to step on posted-private property. I think he was wanting me too. Knowing that would be the only way he [they] could of had me trespassing. |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 07:48:24 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Did you note the name of the security company so that you can inform them that they might want to train their monkeys a little better? |
There truly is no justifiable reason for you to refer to these individuals as "Monkees".
Whilst it is true that they were not familiar with the laws governing these specific activities, I would surmize that their efforts were undertaken with the best of intentions, if not necessarily with the best procedural methods.
Rockets scientists they truly aren't, but "Monkeys" is truly too harsh a comment.
Just another man's view.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 07:52:09 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Did you note the name of the security company so that you can inform them that they might want to train their monkeys a little better? |
There truly is no justifiable reason for you to refer to these individuals as "Monkees".
Whilst it is true that they were not familiar with the laws governing these specific activities, I would surmize that their efforts were undertaken with the best of intentions, if not necessarily with the best procedural methods.
Rockets scientists they truly aren't, but "Monkeys" is truly too harsh a comment.
Just another man's view.
Ray |
Just another man's view...who wasn't there at the moment. :D I'm sorry Ray, but I've met many security guards in my lifetime and I have to agree with BeeCee's terminology. That little tin badge they are given goes to their little monkey brains me thinks. |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 08:11:57 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Did you note the name of the security company so that you can inform them that they might want to train their monkeys a little better? |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
There truly is no justifiable reason for you to refer to these individuals as "Monkees".
Whilst it is true that they were not familiar with the laws governing these specific activities, I would surmize that their efforts were undertaken with the best of intentions, if not necessarily with the best procedural methods.
Rockets scientists they truly aren't, but "Monkeys" is truly too harsh a comment.
Just another man's view.
Ray |
Originally posted by Jac:
Just another man's view...who wasn't there at the moment. :D I'm sorry Ray, but I've met many security guards in my lifetime and I have to agree with BeeCee's terminology. That little tin badge they are given goes to their little monkey brains me thinks. |
Gotta tell ya, Ray......though I usually see you as a kind voice of reason, the majority of security guards I have both known and been exposed to do seem to have a tendency to be power-hungry, abusive, frustrated cop-wannabes who didn't make the cut for the academy.....usually because of their aberrant psychological profiles.
I generally refer to them in a much more derisive manner than monkeys......they can be downright dangerous if they think they're right.
That little "Going A1" comment is an indication of a threat to violence IMNSHO......that's stupid, scary, AND illegal.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:10:30 AM · #16 |
Well folks, I have re-read the initial post made by SDW and even with trying to read between the lines I fail to see any suggestion of violence.
While it may be true that some of you have experienced less than pleasing encounters with security guards, and may have a pre-conceived notion as to their mental acuity, I for one prefer to reserve my judgement for the individual and not the collective.
I have known both security guards and police officers that left a great deal to be desired, but I truly try not to ascribe a value to the collective based on my experience with those few dolts that might inhabit this realm.
It is true I was not there, but then again, other than SDW, neither was anyone in this forum, and as such it truly is difficult for anyone of use to render judgement on either the character or intelligence of the security guards in question.
I commend SDW for the manner in which he dealt with this situation and think we can all learn from his assertive, yet non confrontational interchange with the security representatives. There truly is a positive side to this interaction, in that SDW has probably more self-assuredness today than he did before this confrontation, and the security guards are now aware that in future their actions will be governed by legal precedent and not so much by what they think the law is.
Where some view solely a negative interaction, some will view this as a learning process that will prove beneficial to all involved.
I could be wrong... I have been before... and will be again, of that I am certain.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:12:49 AM · #17 |
| Hmmmm, personal cars? could it be they had no business being there, and didn't want you to see them? |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:23:20 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Hmmmm, personal cars? could it be they had no business being there, and didn't want you to see them? |
I don't know if this is the case in the USA, but where I live, particularly when dealing with construction sites, the security personnel often are required to use their own vehicle.
Can't say I have any plausible explanation as to why they wouldn't want him to see them though.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:27:32 AM · #19 |
I've only ever encountered one security guard, at a doctors office and I was on private property, he handled the situation very professionally, did not attempt to threaten me, my camera, or pictures, and just politely told me to get off their property.
I assume most security people come from security companies and like a lot of companies they probably have their weekly, monthly, and yearly meetings to educate their employees about new threats, policies, etc.
So somewhere back in 2001 after the horror which stuck the US a meeting was probably called by the managers of all the security companies in the united states and directed by information from the white house that they needed to be on the look out for anyone showing unusual interest in any public building.
This probably lead to discussions by management about what exactly is unusual interest and some jack-ass said photos, you always see the terrorists in the movies take photos of the target, hell, we take photos of a building before we nuke it.
Ok, so, anyone taking photos might be a terrorist, anything else... and it goes on and on and the managers are happy and they send their little draft papers to the CEO of the company if he or she was not present during the meeting and then they authorize making it offical company policy.
(Now note, this process takes a very long time, like a whole day, maybe two, so it is very taxing).
Now being official policy new guide line handbooks, pamphlets, or papers are printed and given out to employee security guards telling them to keep an eye out for any photographer.
Fast forward to 2008, little has happened in the US since then, the CEO got her lowest score in golf, Scott Turtleburg had his second child, and stocks are up almost 31%.
No one bothers to tell the employee security guards we are no longer at war, if we ever were, no new policies have been drafted, and most of the guards have forgotten most of what they read in the memo except something about photographers being bad for the company and their jobs.
They see a photographer and...
Edit: typo city, whoa...
Message edited by author 2008-06-25 09:30:29. |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:28:55 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by karmat:
Hmmmm, personal cars? could it be they had no business being there, and didn't want you to see them? |
I don't know if this is the case in the USA, but where I live, particularly when dealing with construction sites, the security personnel often are required to use their own vehicle.
Can't say I have any plausible explanation as to why they wouldn't want him to see them though.
Ray |
It is a sort of unusual situation here in the US for a security guard to be required to use his/her own vehicle to make rounds in. It could be that the property is on the market and the owners are providing some temporary security to prevent further damage before the sale. Of course I'm sure there are a thousand "could be's" speculated here.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:29:12 AM · #21 |
I like the monkey terminology also. I could come up lots worse things to call most of the simple- minded dipsh**s mainly because I'm an a**hole by nature. I also agree that most rent-a-cops have a real attidude problem. I think mostly because they couldn't become real cops.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:39:28 AM · #22 |
I have been hassled by a security guard or two. The last time the guy was of the "tin badge" type, but he was also in the right. I was photographing in a hotel atrium with lots of shops, etc. It's open to the public, but technically private property. Mainly he was annoyed that I pointed the camera at him!
This weekend I got hassled while shooting the Con Ed (power company) digging going on in front of my building. One of the crew came over and started asking me what I was doing. I explained, and he had lots of questions about the legality, which we discussed. He wasn't too bad, except for some macho crap. The third time he said "Trust me, if I didn't want my photo taken, you wouldn't have a camera anymore" I said "You know, you really don't have to threaten." He said "I'm not threatening, I'm just saying..." There was a lot I could have said in response to that, but I didn't want the conversation to escalate into an argument. |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:42:18 AM · #23 |
| I believe that one local security guard said that they're allowed to tell you whatever they want so if you don't know your rights, you'll get scared and leave and that they're even told by their company to pressure people to leave, even if they're not doing anything illegal. |
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:49:38 AM · #24 |
That awesome way to stand up to them!!
Security Guards SUCK!! they think they have power when they put that uniform on I have had many dealings with them here in NYC.
|
|
|
|
06/25/2008 09:54:20 AM · #25 |
What happens if the security guard informs you that the building has copyright restrictions? I mean, do you have to believe him blindly? Could you request him (ahem) to prove it?
Message edited by author 2008-06-25 09:55:06. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/15/2025 02:00:22 PM EDT.
