Adrian and blisfield and railfans

[Ribbon Rail]

Well, I guess we're splitting hairs here for conversation's sake... there never would be a sidewalk allowed to be installed if it were too close to the track to be safe.

Is this safe? Surely the sidewalk is MUCH closer to the tracks than 50 feet...or even 20 feet for that matter.

I gather we’re in agreement, J.T., but it’s not a question of “is it safe?”. I think the better question is, as it pertains to railfanning (and this thread), “Is it legal?"

[ns8401]

There are a couple of places in Port Huron that the CNPD will escort you away, even if you're parked on the shoulder of the road waiting to get a picture of a train. With all the chemical traffic they have through there, they don't want to run the risk of anyone doing something terrorristic, I guess... Maybe it's like just hanging out on a street corner outside of a business... you might have the right to be there, but the business has the right to shoo you on so you're not loitering in front of their business. Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to know all the laws, this is just my thoughts on the subject. Like someone else mentioned, each municipalities' loitering laws would come into effect in your hypothetical situation.

Tongue in cheek, perhaps you mean Sarnia, which isn’t the United States. But I’m whole-heartedly assuming that you didn’t, so I shall rant because this is in the interest of railfan photography.

If you’re naive enough to believe that CNPD’s actions are legal, regardless what the threats or “rules" of Homeland Security you’ve had infused into your skull, you’re doing a great injustice to your countrymen & YOUR Constitution. It is 100% illegal for a (railroad) cop to threaten physical removal & remove you from any form of public property, including a sidewalk, as a means of preventing you from taking pictures. They do not make laws, they enforce them. If what you are doing is legal, an officer of the law does not have the right to evict you from doing so unless is an obvious threat to the safety of the people.

The act of taking a photo, as long as it’s done from public property (or private property where you have permission) at something/someone on private property which/who has no reasonable expectation of privacy is not against ANY law. The First Amendment is federal. Local loitering laws do not your freedom of speech to take a photo (which is indeed protected by the First Amendment).

If you’re taking photos, you have a purpose. You are not loitering. Loitering is defined by doing “nothing” while standing around. Waiting somewhere with the intent of photographing something that hasn’t yet arrived is not loitering, because you have intent or cause. There is currently a case pending in the city of Baltimore on this, look it up, it just happened last month. It has a lot to with photographer’s rights & the back-handed charge of loitering, when police ordered a civilian photographer to cease taking video of their encounter with an already detained perpetrator. The person charged was filming six police officers during the arrest (which of course, I’m sure you also believe is illegal, right?). Knowing they can’t arrest (or charge) him for anything regarding the video, they’re going after him for...you guessed it, “loitering". Fortunately, the ACLU is fighting this one.

So please know your laws before you speak of them, because your THOUGHTS are not law. One’s thoughts create more silly fear & terrorism in this country than Bin Laden EVER did. Misinformed thoughts like so which are made public are why we (photographers) have problems in this country, because they’re taken as gospel. But that’s exactly what the fine folks in the Middle East wanted. They want this country to be a police state, and with thought processes like that which you’ve presented above, we’re obviously playing right into their hand.

He's allowed to give his thoughts on the subject, that is the point of a discussion, let's try not to get this veering into a political medium. Just because he's not a lawyer or a cop or may not know the law to the letter does not exclude him from giving thoughts. Period. If you wish to correct his thoughts and enlighten us all please do so, we have had problems in the past with things getting too political. Thanks.

[AARR]

How about if I am standing 50'-6" away but when I raise my camera and extend my arms my camera and hands are 49"-11" away how long will it take for the Lansing CN officer to speed into the scene, skid to a stop, and bust my chops

[RRTTF]

In the words of the legal scholars at the United States Supreme Court: Habitual or customary use of property for a particular purpose, without objection from the owner or occupant, may give rise to an implication of consent to such use, so that the users have the status of licensees where such habitual use or custom has existed to the knowledge of the owner or occupant and has been accepted or acquiesced in by the owner or occupant. However, repeated trespasses alone, or trespasses by many, do not ripen into a license unless attended by circumstances showing knowledge and acquiescence, or of such character as to charge the owner with knowledge.

It's all about liability. Trespasser gets hurt, trespasser sues. If property owner can show that it did not close a blind eye to trespassers, property owner has a defense from the lawsuit. However, once trespasser shows that property owner "customarily' allows use of property without objection, property owner suddenly has legal obligations to the trespasser, such as creating and maintaining a "safe environment."

Compound to that new federal regulations being imposed upon railroads by TSA relative to trespassers.

[DTIDave]

There are a couple of places in Port Huron that the CNPD will escort you away, even if you're parked on the shoulder of the road waiting to get a picture of a train. With all the chemical traffic they have through there, they don't want to run the risk of anyone doing something terrorristic, I guess... Maybe it's like just hanging out on a street corner outside of a business... you might have the right to be there, but the business has the right to shoo you on so you're not loitering in front of their business. Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to know all the laws, this is just my thoughts on the subject. Like someone else mentioned, each municipalities' loitering laws would come into effect in your hypothetical situation.

Tongue in cheek, perhaps you mean Sarnia, which isn’t the United States. But I’m whole-heartedly assuming that you didn’t, so I shall rant because this is in the interest of railfan photography.

If you’re naive enough to believe that CNPD’s actions are legal, regardless what the threats or “rules" of Homeland Security you’ve had infused into your skull, you’re doing a great injustice to your countrymen & YOUR Constitution. It is 100% illegal for a (railroad) cop to threaten physical removal & remove you from any form of public property, including a sidewalk, as a means of preventing you from taking pictures. They do not make laws, they enforce them. If what you are doing is legal, an officer of the law does not have the right to evict you from doing so unless is an obvious threat to the safety of the people.

I'll let you iron out specifics with the law enforcement. Go ahead and stand at a crossing and take photos of a train hauling nuclear waste and tell me how it works for you. Can you do it? Maybe. SHOULD you do it? I wouldn't, but that's me. If something that dangerous is being hauled by the rails (not that they EVER haul anything dangerous...), I can see their concerns about hauling it safely, especially through cities where there are tons of people. See the problem is, if you pull up to a crossing because you see a headlight coming down the track, and you go stand on a sidewalk (or wherever) and set up your camera, you have no idea what it might be hauling. It could be empty gons, it could be nuclear waste, or it could be the President of the United States on some campaigning tour. Just like we usually don't know what's going to come down the track, the cops don't know what kind of people we are standing there taking photos. We just live in a different day and age and I wouldn't say there's more evil in the world- it's just more technologically advanced.

The act of taking a photo, as long as it’s done from public property (or private property where you have permission) at something/someone on private property which/who has no reasonable expectation of privacy is not against ANY law. The First Amendment is federal. Local loitering laws do not your freedom of speech to take a photo (which is indeed protected by the First Amendment).

Which is glad I'm not a celebrity... Even though they have the "right", the paparazzi think they have the right to invade every aspect of someone's life. Even when the subject WANTS privacy, they never get it because it's someone else's right to make sure they don't.

If you’re taking photos, you have a purpose. You are not loitering. Loitering is defined by doing “nothing” while standing around. Waiting somewhere with the intent of photographing something that hasn’t yet arrived is not loitering, because you have intent or cause. There is currently a case pending in the city of Baltimore on this, look it up, it just happened last month. It has a lot to with photographer’s rights & the back-handed charge of loitering, when police ordered a civilian photographer to cease taking video of their encounter with an already detained perpetrator. The person charged was filming six police officers during the arrest (which of course, I’m sure you also believe is illegal, right?). Knowing they can’t arrest (or charge) him for anything regarding the video, they’re going after him for...you guessed it, “loitering". Fortunately, the ACLU is fighting this one.

So please know your laws before you speak of them, because your THOUGHTS are not law. One’s thoughts create more silly fear & terrorism in this country than Bin Laden EVER did. Misinformed thoughts like so which are made public are why we (photographers) have problems in this country, because they’re taken as gospel. But that’s exactly what the fine folks in the Middle East wanted. They want this country to be a police state, and with thought processes like that which you’ve presented above, we’re obviously playing right into their hand.

OK, I can see that this is more than a hot button topic and I simply don't have the time to keep this up, but to clarify what I said- I said Port Huron NOT Sarnia. The chemical traffic has to leave Sarnia, somehow, right?!? There have been a number of reports, both on message boards, and from what people have told me personally of having been "kicked out" of the west end of Tunnel Yard in Port Huron. Michigan Rd is losing it's crossing at Tappan and is in the process of getting a bridge. Lots of us have gotten pictures from Tappan with the GT/CN PD watching nearby and never had any problems. After 9/11, everything changed. Many people have said that CN police have kicked them out of there, wherever they were- on the "yard side" of the crossing, on the shoulder of the road, ON the shoulder of the road, at the Griswold Rd. xing. I honestly haven't heard of this happening the last few years, probably because most railfans have heard the message, but it didn't seem to be an issue until after "Homeland Security" came into being. With all the chemical traffic going through the tunnel, it's a high-priority to keep safe. I don't know if CNPD was told to just keep people away to avoid any problems whatsoever, but the people that have been "kicked out" at the crossing will attest otherwise. I would be willing to say 99.9% or more of the people that sit at a crossing and take pictures are not terrorists (I HOPE, anyway! ), and believe me I think the Homeland Security "freedoms" have gone too far at times all due to paranoia. Would I rather be inconvenienced in order to be safer in a time of extremists we're at war with? Maybe. Depends on the situation. If I get shooed away and can't get a cool pic of some train, it's not the end of the world. I'm not going to live my life in fear all the time, but I also understand why certain things are the way they are, even if I may not agree completely with them.

As far as "silly fear and terrorism" paranoia and Bin Laden and the like, I've only seen one person getting all worked up over that. My points aren't trying to make people paranoid, but it looks like that's what it's done, so I'll stop getting you worked up and keep my mouth shut now. It's been my personal experience that when people start trying to quote the First Amendment to make their point, they just want to argue for the sake of arguing. That's not why Zack created this board. We're all entitled to our opinions (or thoughts if you will), and we can either agree or disagree with them. There's no need this needs to get nasty. As far as railfan photography goes, just use common sense, don't go where you shouldn't go, and if you're asked to leave- there may be a good reason for it. Throwing the First Amendment out there is the easiest way to tick someone off who is just trying to do their job the best they know how. Are they right 100% of the time? No. Do they know that? Well, most do, but as railfans we hope to get the best pictures/video we can and sometimes people go too far. You can't deny that doesn't happen! I know people who are both courteous and people who are reckless railfans. It's hard for law enforcement to know what kind of person you are just by looking at you. Until they know you and can trust you, their concern is THEIR safety and the safety of what they are entrusted to protect. We shouldn't forget that. After all, we're all human.

[PAT.C]

We're all entitled to our opinions (or thoughts if you will), and we can either agree or disagree with them. There's no need this needs to get nasty.
DTIDAVE - YOU ARE WRONG !!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO EXPRESS OPINIONS THAT AGREE WITH THE FACTS [ ?????? ] EXPRESSED BY THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU.

AS FOR THE TUNNEL PORTALS IN PORT HURON - LET US PLAN A MEET THERE AND HAVE SOME OF OUR RESIDENT LEGAL EXPERTS [I HAVE RIGHTS AND THE COPS CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO !!!] SHOW UP AND SCHOOL THE LOCAL POLICE IN PROPER PROCEDURE.

[atrainguy60]

Why is it that when the subject of ABDF and is it ok to railfan it comes up, tempers eventually flare up.

[DTIDave]

We're all entitled to our opinions (or thoughts if you will), and we can either agree or disagree with them. There's no need this needs to get nasty.
DTIDAVE - YOU ARE WRONG !!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO EXPRESS OPINIONS THAT AGREE WITH THE FACTS [ ?????? ] EXPRESSED BY THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU.

AS FOR THE TUNNEL PORTALS IN PORT HURON - LET US PLAN A MEET THERE AND HAVE SOME OF OUR RESIDENT LEGAL EXPERTS [I HAVE RIGHTS AND THE COPS CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO !!!] SHOW UP AND SCHOOL THE LOCAL POLICE IN PROPER PROCEDURE.

Hey Pat, how's it going? Havent' been on here in awhile. Good to see you're still pokin' the bear with the stick!

If someone can arrange the meeting, I'll bring the video camera and stand on the roof of my car 49 1/2 feet from the tracks, just 'cuz I'm a rebel!

OK, now I'M poking the bear...

[PAT.C]

ALL IS WELL. GOOD TO SEE YOU POSTING AGAIN.

WITH THE ATTITUDE DISPLAYED BY A FEW HERE, THEY MIGHT GET A TOUR OF THE PORT HURON JAIL IF THEY ACT IN PERSON LIKE THEY DO WHEN THEY HIDE BEHIND A COMPUTER SCREEN.

[AARR]

Glad to see you back here DTI Dave. Dont stop posting because someone challenges your opinions. And watch out for that Pat C he is very immature

[DTIDave]

Glad to see you back here DTI Dave. Dont stop posting because someone challenges your opinions. And watch out for that Pat C he is very immature

Oh yeah, that PAT C. guy is nothin' but trouble! My momma warned me about hanging out with guys like that!

I don't let it get personal on the message boards. I try not to make it personal, and if I ever did, I hope someone calls me out on it, because I'm not like that. I know the internet can give people a sense of anonymity, and it's easy to take someone's words the wrong way because you can't "read" the infliction of their voice or know their personality to know whether or not they've just a strange sense of humor or if they're serious. As far as the back-and-forth above, it is what it is. This is a discussion board and we were simply discussing. No harm no foul.

Take care,
DTIDave

[Ribbon Rail]

ALL IS WELL. GOOD TO SEE YOU POSTING AGAIN.

WITH THE ATTITUDE DISPLAYED BY A FEW HERE, THEY MIGHT GET A TOUR OF THE PORT HURON JAIL IF THEY ACT IN PERSON LIKE THEY DO WHEN THEY HIDE BEHIND A COMPUTER SCREEN.

Oh well, if you don’t fight for what you’ve got, YOU LOSE IT!

Tee-hee...all smiles.

[hoborich]

Because there are emotions involved. Or are you an emotionless entity like a corporation?

Property is property, and the law is the law. Emotions have nothing to do with the law.

I hope you meant that scarcasticly.

Ummm, try telling a judge that a persons property rights are different than a corporations, because "there are emotions involved". Really. I dare you. In fact, I double dog dare you.

[hoborich]

DTIDAVE - YOU ARE WRONG !!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO EXPRESS OPINIONS THAT AGREE WITH THE FACTS [ ?????? ] EXPRESSED BY THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH YOU.

AS FOR THE TUNNEL PORTALS IN PORT HURON - LET US PLAN A MEET THERE AND HAVE SOME OF OUR RESIDENT LEGAL EXPERTS [I HAVE RIGHTS AND THE COPS CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO !!!] SHOW UP AND SCHOOL THE LOCAL POLICE IN PROPER PROCEDURE.

Our resident "cops are always right", police state supporter chimes in. Pat, you forgot to include the phone number and address of the CN police Supt. You're slipping. We expect better from you.

[J T]

Ummm, try telling a judge that a persons property rights are different than a corporations, because "there are emotions involved". Really. I dare you. In fact, I double dog dare you.

Wow, you really missed the point. Your original analogy was a fail and had nothing to do with courts and judges.

[hoborich]

Personal property should never be compared to corporate property.

Ummm, why not. My property is just as important to me as some corporations property.

Wow, you really missed the point. Your original analogy was a fail and had nothing to do with courts and judges.

Perhaps you could explain why the above anology is a fail. It is not a fail simply because you say it is.

[~Z~]

Blah blah blah, way off course, ran its course.

This thread sucks, locking, thank you, drive thru.