Maybe it would be helpful for hikers to know what other stuff not marked out by a sign that they can not take pic's of, I mean besides ATM machines. Also, it may be helpful if we know which security guys can detain us. Is it just Loomis? Can, say a guard from the ACME security firm, or, let's say Billy's Safe and Sure Econo Security Co. handcuff us too? Lastly, we should all be informed about which outfitters might want to ban us if we take pic's inside thier store. Oh, never mind, we already covered that.
here's a newer article with more information.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/s...nt?oid=1540903
Kara Stone, general manager at REI's Eastlake store, says the incident was "super unfortunate" and claims Becker was not banned from the store at the request of REI staff, although SPD records indicate otherwise. "Shane is welcome to come into our store," she says.
An employee named Frank who answered the phone at Loomis's office would not comment on the incident or whether Loomis has any company policies about photography of staff members.
You just can't make up stuff like this. "Super unfortunate" and a Loomis guy named Frank. Oh my gosh.
Skids
Insanity: Asking about inseams over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
So let's get this straight for those of you who will not read that article the Seattle police have now filed a complaint against the officers on his behalf. Also REI says they did not request him to be banned but again the police say REI did. So for the Nay sayers who say he must have deserved this apparently the law does not agree with you.
Know what is ironic? Not only can you find pictures online, but How it's made showed how they build them lol. I think though if I were going to rob one I would do the same as everyone who has ever robbed one with the exception of the idiots in philly and just yank the thing out with a truck and a chain and then cut it open in a garage. Just so this never happens again I have an idea, why don't we ask our government to order us all to have our driver's liscense tatooed on our forheads? LMAO
I love it. The man has been vindicated.
Doug Klunder, Privacy Project director at the Seattle branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, says cases like Becker's are becoming more frequent. "These come up all the time, and the ultimate answer ends up being yes [the photographer] had the right to take the photo and should not have been arrested and detained. It would be really nice if officers would start realizing that [before making an arrest]
rather than going through this rigmarole."
We don't stop hiking because we grow old, we grow old because we stop hiking. Finis Mitchell
Ya, he has been vindicated, but he is of the wrong political party and religion, so the demonizers and name callers and haters will never admit that the guy is a freedom fighter of sorts. People with his attitude and willingness to stand up and fight for thier rights help keep all of us free. That won't make a difference to the brainwahed sheeple. They will always be willing to sit in the back of the bus and ready to lynch the ones who demand to sit in the front.
ACLU to the rescue.... again!
Winter of '87 nam vets were fighting to put a memorial on Federal Hill in Baltimore. They scheduled a press meeting on the Hill to state thier feelings. I figured it was an oppurtunity to display Mother and Brother. Me, Mother and Brother got there many hours early and clalimed our spot. Cold, windy and snow. Stood in it for five hours before the vet group showed up. When the TV crew showed up they ignored me, Mother and Brother, other than to use us as a back drop for thier news story. Everybody left and once again it was just me, Mother and Brother. I was just getting ready to pack up when a group of Europeans showed up. They had seen me from the other side of the harbor and came over to meet me. Told me they recognized Mother and Brother and wanted to meet a real American. They were from Ukraine, still under the rule of Soviets.
I don't much care about ACLU. I just know that I respect people who are willing to defend and/or fight for something.
Ahhh, the stereotypical NAMBLA cannard...
That case wasn't about NAMBLA's right to produce the material that they produce. That right was already secured long before this case ever came up.
It was about a guy who kidnapped a child and murdered him/sexually assaulted him and the guy had NAMBLA materials in his car. NAMBLA was being sued pretty much by association. The family wanted to hold NAMBLA accountable.
The legal precedent that would have been set would have far reaching effects... it could have possibly destroyed the entertainment industry for one thing.
Put it this way, if someone watched, say, Terminator 2 and then went on a shooting spree then the producers/actors of that movie could have been held liable. Say you listened to some NWA and then went and shot a cop then those rappers could be held liable. That's the precedent that was being fought, NOT the right to distribute the crap that NAMBLA distributes.