As someone who so frequently photographs trains and seeks and conveys information about them – and as someone who has made a name for himself by doing this – I not only have little reason to criticize the actions of railroaders, I even furthermore am incentivized to omit publicizing less-than-flattering information about them.
While some may think that I am lacking journalistic integrity by the fact that I try to omit things like safety rule violations from railroad photos, I’m also following the journalistic credo that a good reporter does not betray his sources, for if he does, those sources of information will, unsurprisingly, quickly dry up. Furthermore, especially when some of these rules can be enforced in such a draconian manner (even if their existence is justified), while you may not think that it’s my place to cover up for rule violations, it really is not my place to expose them and get the crews in potential trouble either.
Just in the last two months, there have been at least two cases in which I’ve gotten some otherwise great pictures that showed some obvious (to me and to railroaders, even if not to the general public) rule violations, and, despite the quality of these photos, I’ve chosen to either not publish the photos at all, or to deliberately publish them in a manner that hides the rule violation, a way that makes them look different than they would if the violation had not been in the picture.
And Yet . . . .
It is therefore with great seriousness and reservation that I am choosing to publicly admonish the actions of a specific railroader (whose name I do not know and do not want to know) for an incident that took place on Madison Street in Gretna, Louisiana, on Friday 14 October 2011, but this post really isn’t about him at all, and it isn’t so much about what he said, but it is, rather, about the dangerously pervasive mindset behind what he said. Let me be clear: what happened is not remotely related to the aforementioned operating rule violations that I take steps to hide when I am witness to them. This is a case of ignorance and fear. It is also, unfortunately, something of a global issue, and I’ve written in the past about how I try to not do what most people do by turning specific issues into global issues. Had this incident been the only one of its kind I have ever experienced or ever heard of happening to anyone, it would not warrant such a long post as this, but this has happened too many times to too many people.
There’s Something Not Right Here
The first thing that caught my eye about this railroad move – we can hardly call it a “train” – is that it is light power, which I had never seen running down Madison Street before, and I was wondering why a locomotive was leaving Gouldsboro Yard with no cars, no train.
The second thing that caught my eye was the presence of a trainman in the conductor’s side of the cab. That’s unusual too, since, due the presence of sections of street-running and a couple of movable-span bridges, the conductors of trains on the NOGC actually ride ahead of the trains in a truck to make sure that there are no obstructions in the street-running sections and to open (or close) the bridges for railroad movement.
The third thing – what came out of the conductor’s mouth as he passed me – was the most noteworthy.
The trainman sitting on the conductor’s side (in the below picture, that’s the left side, for you railroad neophytes) was about to reveal to Jimbaux that he (the conductor) was a terrorist, a charge that may seem extreme to many reading this, and I know that this post is likely to cause controversy, but I will explain more in this post.
This is not only a typical scene along this railroad and this street, but photographing scenes such as these are a typical activity for Jimbaux, as I’ve been photographing this railroad since the spring-summer of 2005. I had not the remotest of problems with any of the crewmen until this day.
I saw this “train” – it’s not even a train, just being a mere locomotive moving down the track down the middle of the street by itself – and quickly got set up on the river side of Madison Street to photograph it, parking my vehicle no differently than any of the other vehicles that you see parked along the street here. Here’s one more shot just before the kid in the conductor’s seat revealed his terrorist identity to me.
As the train neared my position, the conductor turned around, stuck his head out the window. At this point, I was only imagining that he was about to say to me something very similar to what I often hear from railroaders at work: an inquiry about how they can see the pictures I’m taking of their trains, a simple “hey” or some such, or some good-natured joke. Sometimes, railroaders throw water bottles at me with notes with their e-mail addresses taped to it, wanting to see the pictures that I’m taking. Others are frequent subjects of my work, like the increasingly famous Chip Local, with the veteran railroader smiling for so many of my pictures.
No such thing happened here.
I was shocked at what I was told.
“Hey, Buddy, You Know That’s Illegal?”
What? Is this a joke? I looked back at him with an “are-you-serious?” look on my face and slowly nodded my head from side to side, as if to say, “Uuuuhm, no.” He responded quickly, as he faded from view, by nodding his head quickly up-and-down, as if to say, “oh, yes it is!”
I was shocked.
Really?
Are you serious?
Are you seriously that dumb?
Or, equally dangerous, do you seriously think that I’m that dumb?
Furthermore, in the era of the internet and everyone being a journalist, do you really think that you’re going to get away with telling that to someone pointing a telephoto lens at you?
After I regained my senses and got over the shock of what had just happened, I decided that I needed to show this terrorist that I was not going to be terrorized by him into not doing something that is safe, legal, harmless, and something I love to do; so, I popped off this going-away shot of him.
Now, surely, there’s some ambiguity to the trainman’s statement. “Hey, buddy, you know that’s illegal?” Just what exactly is “that” in this case? What is illegal? Was it the photographing of the train? Or was it how and where I was parked? That can’t be. Look at how the other cars in the street are parked; that’s how mine was parked. So, if I’m in violation of the law, so are they, but if it’s the photography that’s his problem, that also means that any of these people who take pictures off of their front porches are also breaking the law.
Right after the locomotive passed me and this terrorist tried to scare me by what he told me, two men walked outside of the elementary school next to which I was parked and asked me what this trainman had told me. I told them what happened, handed them my business card, and left. They seemed to have no problem with how my vehicle was parked!
What To Do Now?
Especially since this was merely light power, I had no inclination of chasing this “train” any further than this, but even if it would have been a normal train, chasing it to an area where the light is good this time of day requires driving farther away from my destination (after shooting the picture) by driving into a heavily-trafficked suburban area full of stop-lights, something I just don’t normally feel like doing. (Keep in mind that many of the pictures that you see here on Jimbaux’s Journal are taken while I’m making a very slight detour in my daily rounds that have nothing to do with trains or photography; I usually don’t get out just to go take pictures with no other purpose for the outing.)
However, this clown asked for it, there are much greater things at stake now that getting a decent picture, and after being told what I was just told, I really had a point to prove, didn’t I? Afterall, although, as I’ve written plenty before on this site, I’m not one to make things into global issues, this incident is not an isolated incident, and, as the 9/11 Project has shown, this has become something of a cause célèbre for yours truly.
So, I got to Stumpf Boulevard, but they tied the locomotive down right there, which explained both the light power move as well as why it had two trainmen aboard.
The tying down of the locomotive was very backlit, and I normally wouldn’t be inclined to take photos; I didn’t here. Not until right after it was too late did it dawn on me that I should have gotten out of the truck with the big lens and camera and at least pretended to take pictures of them if, for no other reason, to affirm the right to do, as I urged people to do when I asked for others to get trackside on 9/11.
I was quite upset by this disrespect displayed to me. I was supposed to meet some colleagues for Friday afternoon libations shortly after this incident, but I was too enraged after what had just happened. Actually, the pictures I took above were some of the first of nearly 1,000 pictures I took that day, as I ended up photographing two football games that night. (If you’re interested in what I shot that night, here’s a link, another link, yet another link, and a fourth link still!)
Terrorism?
I know that this post will cause controversy, if not for me calling out a railroader, definitely for me referring to him as a terrorist (at the time. I will not say that he is one today, as forgiveness has been a big theme in my life in the last year. For all that anyone knows, he may have realized the stupidity of what he did, but the fact that what he said reflects a broad, pervasive mindset is what necessitates this post.)
Some will rather shallowly say, “how can you put this guy on the same level as a mass-murderer like Osama bin Laden?”
Those who would say such things apparently still don’t understand what I wrote in September about how we really don’t seem to understand what we are saying – and what we mean – when we talk about terrorism or label people as terrorists. Please read the paragraphs under the “Terrorism Does Not Kill Anyone” subheadline in my 9/11 request.
Got that? The goal of terrorism is not to kill people. The goal of terrorism is to sentence its victims to a fate worse than death: life in fear. This conductor was trying to scare me into not doing something that I love doing, something that is safe, legal, and harmless, and something that, apparently, results in images that many of you enjoy seeing.
I know that it will cause controversy that I referred to the crewman as a “terrorist,” but he did try to scare me into not taking pictures, and that kind of thinking is downright dangerous, which, if left unchecked, and as common as it already is, does indeed scare me. Remember that Agent Bell said that had he not come onto that bridge in 2008 to “rescue” me from the NOPD, I might have been taken to jail or had my equipment confiscated.
Stupid Irony
What’s even more ridiculous about this incident is that as a railroad enthusiast, an educator, and a journalist, I am one who often glorifies or at least finds the beauty in railroads, an industry whose place in the minds of most in the general public is only negative, with things like blocked crossings, noise, wrecks, and such, and who often fail to realize that trains move because of demand that they create.
The New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway has been cited in local media reports several times in the last few years, and none of it is positive. I frequently find myself being an apologist for this railroad (like how I’m an apologist for all railroads, but especially this one) that often pisses off the general public in this area, but especially in the incorporated and politically powerful city of Gretna, which recently passed some ordinances about citing trains for blocking streets.
Go ahead and read this July article from The Times-Picayune about the issues with the NOGC and motorists in Gretna, and then read the craziness in the comments section.
Department of Homeland Stupidity
If both the Tea Party Movement as well as the Occupy Wall Street movement didn’t convince you that this country is full of dangerously crazy people who fail to soberly see the bigger picture, read the comments section of that article. It’s not only full of comments critical of the railroad, but it’s also full of stupidity.
Perhaps the two silliest examples are the commenter who wants Gretna to sue the CSX, and the commenter who complains not only about Zatarain’s getting railroad shipments but also the train waiting for Zatarain’s to unload the cars while it blocks the street!
First, what does CSX have to do with this?
Second, not only does Zatarain’s not get railroad shipments, but only in very rare and specific circumstances does a train wait while one of its cars is unloaded; the only place on the NOGC that that might happen is at the end of the line at the grain elevator in very rural Plaquemines Parish (in other words, where it won’t block any public crossings.)
So, so long as I’m not doing something that endangers train movements or its property, that railroad really should not try to piss me off. I’m about its only non-shipper, non-employee ally, and I’m ‘armed’ with a camera and two blogs. After firefighters couldn’t get to a small fire around 2nd Street a few years ago because a parked grain train was blocking their way, a small fire turned into a big one, and took an entire house down.
There’s also this article in The Times-Picayune a few months before in which the writer talks about how Gretna’s historic district is “constantly besieged by trains.” Constantly? How about three or four per day, not counting the sporadic grain trains, which, actually, are the longest trains, but, again, they are sporadic, meaning that weeks can pass without one being in the area.
Larger Issues
This is actually the same dynamic found in the modern, developed, industrialized world of incredible comfort and convenience of the phenomenon of people being out of touch with where their food – and, by a not-so-big extension, their other energy – originates and how it gets to them.
These people in Gretna sitting in their gasoline-burning cars with plastic interiors coming back from the store with their plastic-wrapped goods in plastic bags are upset because their my-way-right-now routines are temporarily interrupted by trains carrying petrochemicals, and yet they fail to realize that their ways of consumption are the very reasons for the existence of these trains in the first place! As that very appropriate Rolling Stones song says, “And I shouted out, ‘Who killed the Kennedys?’ when, afterall, it was you and me!” Indeed, and the same is true for an oil spill in this area last year that got a little bit of media attention.
I could write so much more about that, but that’s a topic deserving of other posts, and it’s not the point of this post. The reason why I write it here at all, though, is that I, of all people, am a person who understands this dynamic, and I have the ability and the space to write about it, the platform to educate about it, and yet someone who works for the railroad chooses to harass me when I’m not on its property and am not interfering with its operations. Irony? I think so.
It Gets Better (Or Worse), And What If Local Media Knew About This Runaway Tank Car?
A few years ago, a railroad photographer friend in the area took a picture of an NOGC movement on Madison Street, and he mentioned in the caption of the picture that he posted to one of the railroad picture websites that takes submissions from subcribers that the locomotive went out into the street to pick up a tank car that had accidentally rolled out of the yard onto the street! That’s no joking matter, and to protect any crewmen from getting into trouble – and you can imagine that they themselves might have felt guilty enough for it considering the seriousness of what could have happened – I quickly e-mailed the friend and pleaded with him to remove that information from the caption. He understood, and he removed it right away.
That’s yet another reason why it so ridiculous that a crewman would try to intimidate me the way that the guy this guy in the above pictures did, and it’s the reason why, with some reservation, that I’m publicizing for the first time about that tank-car-rolling-into-the-street incident, which is probably at least five years old. Can you imagine in established local media outlets knew about this? Given what already gets published in The Times-Picayune about the NOGC, I don’t think that the reporting on a runaway tank car would have been flattering at all.
A Feeling Of Betrayal
When you’re one of the few – if the only – apologists (outside of an organization) for an organization that receives only negative press and only negativity from the public, it adds insult to injury when you get treated as I did by someone within that organization, especially when I was doing something that would glorify the organization.
To be sure, I don’t for a moment think that the actions of this conductor reflect the policy of New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway nor its parent company Rio Grande Pacific Corporation; I’ll give NOGC and RGPC the benefit of the doubt, not having any reason to not do that. Still, it’s kind of like defending a friend who not only won’t do the same for you but then also spits on you: that’s kind of how this feels to me.
What’s really stupidly ironic about this incident is that this railroad movement is also even more public and in a public place than most railroad movements, and it also isn’t even a train! It’s just a lone locomotive, not even pulling one car, not even a train. It’s also in the middle of the street! How much more of a public area can this be? Do any of the people living along this street break the law anytime they take a picture off the front porch?
A friend who is a trainmaster for another railroad not around here said, “And yes, it’s even more hilarious since the location you were shooting from could not possibly be more of a public place.”
What if I had been some docile teenager (the kind of teenager that I once was) shooting pictures of trains for the first time? This guy might have scared me – terrorized me – into not doing something that it safe, legal, and harmless, and that is my right. I used that word “terrorized” for a reason; when this kind of behavior comes from overzealous law enforcement, or in this case, a railroader, who has just disgraced the neat little railroad for which he works, it’s really the same thing as the more common form of terrorism. Either way, you’re cowed into not doing what you want to do, not doing what is legal and harmless. The result is almost the same.
Support From Other Railroaders
Since this incident took place, I’ve been discussing it with some friends and one foamer I’ve never met in person bit with whom I correspond before I publicized this story, and the weight of this story is one of the big reasons why it has been delayed so much. An engineer (the railroad crewman kind) in the New Orleans area said, “oh, no, you’ve got to publish this,” when I told him how this was far different than a simple matter of rule violation in a photo.
A trainmaster friend wrote to me, “It just shows that that guy (conductor) has some need for power or authority, and he thinks he is able to get it by telling you that you are doing something illegal.”
Yeah, it’s not going to stop me from taking pictures – in fact, it’s just going to get me to take more pictures of that railroad and its employees – but there are larger issues here, and telling that to anyone is just inexcusable. I’m not personally offended that it was said to me. I’m just outraged that it was said to anyone at all, though being the recipient of it made it worse. Again, I often hesitate to turn things into global issues, but this is one, as we have seen; as Martin Luther King Jr. said, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” So it is true here. Who said it and to whom it was said really are not important; what’s important is what was said.
It’s interesting to note that the comment above came from a trainmaster friend. Like the NOPD officers who nearly took me to jail and illegally seized my camera gear, trying to show off to management may be part of the motivation here.
This Is Not An Isolated Incident
The 9/11 Project should have proven that, but read what TAB wrote to me:
There was an instance of something like this in the Port of Albany(NY) a while back. One of the guys on the D&H list was down there taking photos of an ethanol train when he was challenged, loudly and obnoxiously, by one the crew-I believe it was a CSX crew, who said, among other things, “this is an ethanol train, it’s hazmat, taking photos is illegal…..” etc. The guy was totally stupid – the first rule of moving sensitive products is never tell anyone what you have. Loose lips sink ships!!
The amount and pervasiveness of bad information is stunning, especially from those who should know better.
In some ways it’s comforting to know that you’re not alone, but disturbing that it happens at all, and that so many have bought into it.
Right, and I didn’t always care either, but the reason why the Jimbaux of today just can’t blow this guy off – like one of this trainman’s coworkers at the NOGC told me I should do (probably because he doesn’t want his own boat rocked) – is because this is that same ignorance that led the NOPD to abuse me, and, apparently, that department hires idiots of the likes of this guy on the NOGC, and don’t forget what Agent Bell said to me on 9/11, that had he not intervened on that fateful day in April 2008, some even worse abuse could have happened to me than the stupidity that did happen.
We get the government we deserve, and if we have trainmen who are of this persuasion, then it means that not only are there people in the general populace that are this way, but also that influential people like lawmen and even legislators, people we’re supposed to be able to trust, are like this as well, and I think that it’s really dangerous. Remember that someone with Exxon tried to take my film from me in October 2001. Putting these things together, and as an article in the recent issue of Trains suggests, these are not isolated incidents, and not limited to railroad photography.
Again, what if I was more docile (like, again, I was as a teenager, and like many other good people are) and would have really been scared away from taking pictures? What if that was the reaction he would have gotten from 10 consecutive foamers before me? meaning that since I’m breaking that trend, I’m somehow an troublemaker for daring to not bow down as others did before, daring to continue to take pictures on a railroad (in the middle of a city street) where I’ve taken pictures since 2005?
“Railfan Platforms” Get No Support From Jimbaux
That’s also why I’m a very queasy about these so-called “railfan platforms” or “railfan pavilions” found in certain cities. The general story is that it is a sign of communities being friendly to railroad enthusiasts, but it doesn’t take much for me to see a dark side to it. Given what I have already written on this site, and the comments that many of you have left in the comments section, what really scares me about the idea of and the existence of designated railfan platforms is how it could lead to the idea that that’s the only legitimate place to watch and-or photograph trains, that anyone who does it elsewhere is suspicious, a troublemaker, or irreverent.
I can just see now some police officer, railroader, property owner, Joe Q. Public, confronting me when I’m parked on public property alongside some highway, me telling him that I’m merely photographing trains, and him telling me that there’s already a designated area where I can do that and that I ‘should’ go there. Nope! That scares me, though. Even without the existence of such things, I’ve already been told in some cases something to the effect of, “you can go watch trains at X location if you want to watch trains.” Bring railfan pavillions into that, and it almost becomes state-sponsored, because if the state is designating an area from which to watch trains, one could imply that it is therefore making all other places off-limits. No!
Here’s what a railroader-foamer friend wrote to me about that:
Yes, I feel EXACTLY the same about railfan areas/platforms/pavilions. It gives the inaccurate notion that these are the only legal and acceptable places to partake in such activity, which is wrong! Even at [location removed], where I used to wander all over that place taking pictures, people now say (I’m speaking of foamers and train people) that “you need to stay on the pavilion”. So yes, I totally agree with you, that while some in the foam community think they are a good idea, I think they are a terrible idea! You’re killing yourself by supporting them!
Indeed. This will never be a problem out in sparsely-populated areas, but if you happen to be in a town that happens to have a “railfan pavilion” – the existence of which has nothing to do with your liking trains – and you chose to partake in the activity on public property, say, a half-mile from the pavilion, you might be viewed as a potential troublemaker.
If some cop has to come and question me out by the tracks somewhere, he might add into it some indignation that he had to take the time to respond to this call when his community has already spent money investing in a railfan platform somewhere else. It’s a guilt-trip thing, like as if I have some obligation as a rail enthusiast to patronize that park. Nope!
Don’t Take This Lying Down
The Mid-City Marine told me, “You really should contact NOGC and let them know about what happened. Maybe they will tell their employees.”
I indeed plan on doing that!
“Hey, buddy”? I actually don’t want to know this trainman’s name, though his transgressions do need to be addressed to him personally. At this point, the only people who need to know his identity are also the only people who can figure it out, given the date, time, location, and locomotive number in these pictures. This issue and this post are really not about this conductor at all, nor are they about Jimbaux. They are about the mindset behind his actions, and had this been the first time something like this had happened to me or the first I’d have ever heard of such a thing, it would have been a peculiarity as opposed to something that is a broad, pervasive issue.
Some of you might think that I’ve made too big of a deal out of this, but, as I’ve reported several times, this is not an isolated incident, and it’s not really about this trainman either but the pervasive mindset he, like too many, has.
I’m sorry that publishing this piece took so long, but it needed to be published. I really not only wanted to get it published before Thanksgiving, but I also wanted to get published what will soon follow before Thanksgiving, as gratitude is such a big theme in upcoming posts. If you aren’t already on it, keep up with Jimbaux’s Journal by joining the Facebook fan page so that site updates will appear in your news feed.
The weight of the subject of this post is one of the major reasons why publishing this has taken so long; this was not an easy piece to write.
Forgiveness Is Virtue
Regardless, it is my hope that in a future episode of Jimbaux’s Journal, I’ll be able to report that I shook the hand of an apologetic former terrorist working for the New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway!
Your thoughts, positive, critical, and neutral, are welcome in the comments section.
Thanks.
Jimbaux
{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }
You know, after reading this I now have a much more different look at these “Railfan Pavilions”. I was recently talking about the one in Folkston, GA to my girlfriend about potential travel destinations in the future. I was actually shocked at first when the subject was mentioned but now that I sit here and really think about it, they really can be used against us.
I never really had any encounters with with bad crewmen and police men throughout the time i have been out and about. Except for an incident with a conductor on the local that used to run to here.
I’m only halfway through this, but I felt compelled to say that perhaps now you know how I feel when I get harassed, as was the case of my post to LRMRG on my 9/10/11 travels. You may not agree with how I handled it, but truthfully, you didn’t handle it much differently, much less civilly.
You got equally offended over some dumbass making remarks that he wasn’t qualified (or intelligible) enough to make, and you reacted by “showing him”. I do wish you had made that stand & ‘acted’ as though you were taking additional photos of his train just to provoke him into a follow-up. Matter of fact, I’d go to New Gretna, sign a release if possible & photography their locomotives legally, only to see if he approaches you as a means of telling you “Hey…you…you’re not allowed to do that…AND you’re trespassing!! That’s a federal crime.” The look on his mug might be priceless when you whip out a Xerox of the release you signed to take said photographs as though to imply, “Yo kid, stuff a sock in it.”
A friend of mine was recently taken to task by a shortline crew in Michigan, and he was mistakenly cited for trespassing. The railroad’s cop actually followed him as he chased the train, at one point even pointing a radar gun to see if he was speeding through the village. Sadly, he plead guilty to the charge, b/c he didn’t want to take another day off from work to attend the actual trial & possibly worse consequences than a citation. $180 lost and NOTHING gained, that’s an unfortunate certainty.
Anywho, happy holidays.
Give it a break. If your car or truck was parked like the others in the picture you are clearly parked illegally. Note the stop sign meaning this is a two way street. So if you were parked on the left side of the street like the other cars and facing the “wrong” direction you are in violation of the law. Now about his approach in communicating to you. He did say “Hey Buddy” right? So to me it did not sound like he was not bullieing you using that language. Definately not a terrorists either in my opinion. Maybe you should have gone and talked with the crew when they tied up their engine as you mentioned and then you could have had him clarify what he was talking about or enlighten him on our rights to photograph just about whatever we want. This is America right? Opportunity lost on this occassion. Maybe next time. He won and you lost.
Actually, my comments on how one’s car is parked did not take the direction in relation to traffic in the nearest lane; I had not even thought of that, nor did I notice that some of the cars are therefore illegally parked. In my case, my truck was then parked legally, with the driver’s side toward the center of the street.
The “Hey, buddy” part was not the problem, especially as many railroaders who tell lighthearted jokes from the cab greet me that way. The problem is what followed the “hey, buddy,” which made the “hey, buddy” part seem quite condescending, chaning its meaning than if something else had followed it or if had been said by itself.
Given the fact that I was almost hauled off to jail and had my gear confiscated by people with the same mindset, I cannot look at this incident in a vacuum.
More later when I have time . . . . .
Thanks for the feedback.
What’s this “he won” and “you lost” stuff anyway? Why do you think that it has to be a zero-sum-game where one of us wins and the other loses? My purpose in writing this – and, again, it’s not about him (if it just was, I wouldn’t have written this) – is to bring awareness to this issue for ALL of us.
As for going to talk to the crew, I didn’t think about it until it was too late. I was just following my normal paradigm of keeping my distance from crews and not bothering them while they do their work. Afterall, they just had light power and didn’t bother to stop and talk to me further (which, with no train behind them, would have been easy) on the spot. How receptive would I then expect them to be if I approached them in an area that is less publicly-accessable than where I took the picture, especially since I was just following my good habit of not trying to engage crew members while they’re doing their work?
Jimbaux,
This is just ANOTHER case of an ineperienced (wanna be) “railroader” that does not have enough experience to come out of the shit-house unescourted. That Conductor, on my little slice of heaven we call them diode’s, should be informed about the “Laws” governing public photography and that of railroading. He should have been more concerned with taking care of his own business than that of trying to intimidate you by saying what you were doing was unlawful. What you were doing was/is perfectly legal, on the other hand what he/they were doing is both a violation of Federal Law and that of the Rules governing the operations of the N.O.G.C. namely the General Code of Operating Rules (Sixth Edition, Effective April 7 , 2010). GCOR 5.9.4 Displaying Headlights Front and Rear, states, “When engines are moving, crew members must turn on the headlight to the front and rear, but may dim or extinguish it on the end coupled to cars” . Plus another few I can think of right quick : 1.1.2 , 1.9 , 1.47 , 5.9.5 . Anyways, not to get too deep into all this rules compliance crap, we all have lapses in our compliance and observance with the R & R’s . The bottom line is this needs to be brought to their (NOGC’s) attention, if they are involved in a grade-crossing collision some shyster lawyer is gonna have a field day with the no headlight thing. And the kid had better watch what he says out the window of the locomotive cab, ’cause the next “buddy” might just be packin’ and cap him with a 9. Jimbaux, you are doing a fine job documenting for the cause, keep up the good work, and catch me if ya can,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Later DPH
Thanks, Travler, and I know that you have familiarity with both the situation and the area.
I agree with everything you said except for one thing that I need to address. I will confess that I’m bothered by the statement that “the next “buddy” might just be packin’ and cap him.” That’s actually a true statement, but it not only misses the point, but it’s not a reason to not talk to someone, since, just as he shouldn’t “intimidate” me, he should also not feel intimidated by anyone else, and that’s the point of this whole “terrorism” thing. I was informed that the conductor was a bit spooked by the comment, and I can totally see why.
I don’t think that you meant that I might do that to him. I think that your point was that you really don’t know who is out there and what that person might do to him. That’s true, but it misses the point.
Actually, beyond that, even though what he said to me was downright wrong, and, as you correctly said, intimidating, to suggest that he might get capped for saying what he said and that that’s why he shouldn’t say it is itself a form of “terrorism” (and I hope everyone else can see the point that we often don’t realize what we are saying when we use that misused word.) It’s not something I would ever say. To suggest to you that he shouldn’t stay stuff like that out the window of the cab because you might get capped isn’t much different than me being told that I shouldn’t take pictures because it’s illegal and that I might go to jail. Both are incorrect reasons to not do something, if that makes sense.
BUT, yes, you’re totally right in all the other parts of your post, and I hope people can see, with the help of your use of the word “intimidate” that rolling back our rights as Americans is basically bowing down to bin Laden.
For one i was the engineer on that train that day two the guy riding with me was a new hire and was riding with me to observe third we were bringing just a locomotive from behind casey jones to gouldsboro to pick up some cars and finally we were always told to run off anyone taking pictures
I will caution this by stating the I dont know Louisiana Penal Code.
That said, if someone is on public property, it is not your job to run them off. I am not being critical of you, nor am I being an ass, but whomever is telling you to run people off of public property is exceeding their responsibilities, and is taking you with doing the same. This can put you and your fellow railroaders in serious legal jeopardy.
Good to hear from “the other side of the story”.
Short version is that you were told wrong. Photography is not a crime, full stop.
First, thanks Mr. Engineer for your comment on this issue. I’m surprised that it’s gotten to you guys at NOGC this quickly.
Brian and Ryan have already beat me to saying most of what I wanted to say. However, one big thing that I have to add is that what you said about being “told to run off anyone taking pictures” is very revealing. I have written that this issue has really almost nothing to do with your conductor and almost nothing to do with me, more to do with what he said to me, but everything to do with the mindset behind what was said. Perhaps I was incorrect in giving your employer the benefit of the doubt by saying that I was nearly certain that your conductor’s statements did not reflect NOGC policy.
Having said that, now that I think of it, with the exception of one of your veteran coworkers, I’ve noticed over the years that NOGC crews don’t do things like wave and smile from the cab like I so often get from crews of KCS, CN, UP, BNSF, L&D, Amtrak, CSX, NS, and NOPB! If what you’re saying is true – and I ask you to check to make sure you’re not misinterpreting what you are told by management regarding photographers – the fact that NOGC crews hardly ever seem to even acknowledge photographers is a sign that they don’t want to have “to run off anyone taking pictures.” Again, though, I still have difficulty that competent managers would give such instructions.
If so, this actually further proves the necessity in my posting about this incident. I’ve already said that this issue is not about the conductor but about the destructive and wrong mindset behind what he said, a mindset that is pervasive all over and too common nationwide, a reason that this post needs to be made.
At this point, I’ll publicize to the world that your conductor has just e-mailed me, which surprised the heck out of me this quickly. Maybe this issue will be addressed, and maybe this was the only way to do it. Again, it’s not really about your conductor at all.
You cant contact me on my cell after 5pm if you would like to discuss this matter and i can try to explain a little more about the situation if you like
I meant to say you can contact me
1. He didn’t call the police.
2. You weren’t accosted or interrogated.
Did it occur to you he was just “pulling your chain”?
Barney Fife had a saying that is still famous to this day. “Nip it in the bud”. If this gets corrected now, it wont escalate into calling of the police or being accosted or interrogated.
Should we only worry about our right being trampled when its actually happening, or should we be proactive?
Calling the police would have actually been the appropriate response here, in stark contrast to what actually happened. If he had called the police, there would not be any reason for me to automatically think that he thought that what I was doing was wrong. It would just mean that he thought that my activities were suspicious and needed to be checked out, and he wouldn’t have been responsible if the police officer sent to investigate me just so happened to be the dangerous criminal-with-a-badge type. Assuming that the police officer that would have found me would not have harassed me, this might have warranted about 10 sentences worth of blogging (which would probably have been published a month earlier), a small fraction of the length of this post. Even if I would have been harassed by the officer who would have responded in this hypothetical situation, had I written a long piece about the incident, the trainman and the fact that he called the police would have gotten basically no criticism from me; the actions of the officer would have. Again, though, we must assume that even if he had called the police – again, what he should have done since he felt compelled to do something about my actions – that the officer who responded to me would have done so in a professional manner.
I’ve actually had crews call the police on me before, two or three times. In one case, I heard the conversation over the radio. The trainman said, among other things, “you never know these days.” I take that to mean that he definitely didn’t automatically think that what I was doing was wrong and needed to be punished; he just thought that my actions were a tad suspicious and were worth further investigation by someone whose job it is to do that. In that case, I was approached by the police, questioned, and then turned loose, since there was obviously no evidence of wrongdoing. PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME!
I do not at all have any contempt for that particular railroader who called me in to the cops several years ago, as the mindset behind his actions wasn’t one of taking away one’s rights or acting as if those rights don’t exist — as is the subject of this post. This guy who called the police was just doing his job, but, more importantly, he didn’t automatically decide that I was doing something wrong, and he therefore didn’t try to get me to stop doing what I was legally doing as has happened to so many others that it is a large, global issue regarding our rights — i.e., I was not terrorized.
As for whether I considered that the NOGC conductor might be jerking my chain, I did think of it even back then, but since he left me no evidence about that back then, I dismissed it. An e-mail I got from the conductor himself, detailing the conversation in the cab that preceded what he told me as the crew approached my position, removed whatever remained of any possibility that he was jerking my chain. As implied by his engineer on this very page, the mindset that photography is illegal may actually be pervasive within that organization, showing even more why publicizing this issue and this event and the mindset behind it is necessary. As another commenter said, “nip it in the bud.”
The travler has spoken the truth !!!!!!!!
Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Threatening would have been, “Hey buddy, get the hell out of here or I am going to kick your ass.” He told you one simple thing, and you resort to slander? It is quite obvious throughout this painfully long and redundant article that you simply got your feelings hurt. Also, you call yourself a journalist. I admit, this is the only work of yours I have read, and based solely off of this article I just have to tell you that a real journalist writes about facts, not his own personal grudges like an angry teenager.
One more thing, there is a fine line between free speech and slander. This quite clearly falls in the latter category.
No, it does not, and I’ll give you two reasons why. I’ll start with the less important reason first, only because it takes less space to explain.
1.) I didn’t mention his name, and the only people who could learn it are his employers (and, as a comment from the “Engineer” above implied, maybe what he said has more to do with his employers than it does with him.) I’ve stated that I do not even want to know his name, but now I do, because he e-mailed me! As I’ll explain in reason #2, even if I do print his name (and I will never do that unless he specifically tells me to do so), it does not constitute slander, but I still won’t print his name because this article has apparently already served its purpose, he surely doesn’t need or want any more attention, and, as I’ve said a bazillion times, this issue really isn’t about him anyway: it’s about an all-too-pervasive mindset.
2.) For it to be slander, I would have had to have made a false claim about him. Reporting that he told me, “Hey, buddy, you know that’s illegal” and saying that he did the rapid vertical head-nodding thing after I gave him a look of questioning were the only things that I claimed that he did!
But, wait, you say! Did I refer to him – at the time, and not anymore – as a terrorist? Sure, but, seriously, what does that mean? Think about it. Does that really tell us anything that he’s done? If I refer to a person about whom you know nothing as a terrorist, does that really tell you anything about him? It’s actually a relatively meaningless word. Yes, I used a relatively meaningless word to make a point. Ironic?
In our language and our culture, we have these convenient little labels like “liberal,” and “conservative,” and “terrorist,” and “racist,” that we use to shut down debates with people, words that are so loaded that they are, paradoxically, actually empty. Does that make sense? How many articles aside from this one have you read that referred to someone as a former terrorist? Conventional media and conventional discourse can’t even entertain the possibility of such a thing existing!
The truth is that if you sit down and think about it, there’s probably a little bit of “terrorist” inside all of us, and I’m certain that all of us are “racist,” showing how overused that word is.
Another thing that you have to understand is that as a photographer (and this is true, unfortunately, for many other photographers), being suspected of being a terrorist is a far-too-common occurrence, so much so that I feel scared – terrorized – into being accused of being a terrorist. So, to be in so many situations where you’re treated like a terrorist is itself a form of terrorism.
So, in your posted comment, you give the definition of terrorism and include in it a threat of physical violence. When one considers that some electrical blackouts (like the 2003 New York blackout) in some cities are occasionally suspected as being a form of terrorism (and I don’t think that there has yet been a case in which this has been proven, but it definitely could happen one day), some definitions of terrorism don’t include the threat of eminent violence.
But let’s use your definition that includes the threat of violence. The conductor on this train told me unequivocally that what I was doing was “illegal.” “Illegal” means that it’s a violation of the law, meaning that if I continue to engage in this activity, I’m committing a crime. Laws are backed by the “force” of law, or by law enforcement. So, when you tell me that what I’m doing is illegal, that means that if I choose to resist by standing up for my rights by merely continuing what I am already doing, that I risk being physically hauled off to jail – that’s where the “violence” part comes in, not to mention that incarceration itself is to be feared.
So, if I follow what the conductor says and I decide to stop what I am doing, I do it because I fear – yes, fear – being hauled off to jail against my will. Doesn’t that constitute a threat of violence? Sure seems that way to me. Terrorism? It’s an overused word, but think about what it means in this case.
So, you say that I got my feelings hurt? Well, think about what he seems to be saying could and should happen to me, and think about how that almost happened to me in April 2008. Again, it’s about the overall mindset. PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME!
Also, you say that a real journalist writes about facts. All these incidents of threats to freedom – including what happened to me at the hands of the NOPD in April 2008 – are all facts. The identity of the particular character in this latest incident isn’t really important – even though he has since chosen to reveal his identity to me, which I respect greatly – as this latest incident constitutes the latest in a series of “facts” about threats to freedom. Read the 9/11 Project to learn more.
Oh, one last thing: you refer to my article as “painfully long.” Yeah, buddy, I’ve got little with which to defend against that charge!
Thank you.
An Observer (and any others who must either never get harrassed or who are ‘arm-chair’ rail fans): There is a “DELETE” key that y’all can use if/when you see something that you either do not like or think is too long. Please just use it. I, for one who has been harrassed, can and do understand just where Jimbaux is coming from. While I may not have taken what was said as terrorism (would most definately depend on the tone and such) it most certainly would have been taken as a threat or at the utmost least being told that I cannot do something then and there that is perfectly LEGAL…and being told by someone who really has not the authority to be doing so. Also, slander is claiming that someone has told a lie about you (telling/spreading false accusations). Unless you were there and heard exactly what Jimbaux said the conductor said then slander is totally out! Thank you.
Cobbie,
Although she seems very willing to relinquish the rights that all of us as Americans cherish, “An Observer” (Jessica) is neither a railroad enthusiast nor a photographer; so, she can be forgiven for her difficulty in empathizing with the threats that guys like you and I face. Her emotional reaction stems from her knowing personally the conductor in question, and I can understand that too. My own emotional reaction comes from, as you understand, how I see it as a small component of a much larger threat that needs to be addressed, and particularly how this shortline serves a community where I work and do plenty to support and defend the railroad through my work, including telling teenagers and young adults that it is a form of trespassing (and therefore illegal, as it should be) for them to jump onto moving trains.
As for the slander issue, neither the conductor himself (in the e-mail that he sent me), the Engineer who has posted here, nor Jessica has disputed that what was said to me was said to me. She is taking issue with the “terrorist” label – which, I said, was limited to that moment – because she like so many others does not think about what that word really means, and that’s the point of this post, that nearly all of us have become our own terrorists, willing to alter our lives and curtail our lives because of some perceived threat, and how organizations and governments use that threat to conceal their activities (we say “terrorism” is the reason why you can’t photograph something, but it’s really because we don’t want you knowing what we’re doing.)
While I seemed to accuse the conductor of terrorism in that moment, what this all should show is that he’s actually far more a victim of terrorism than he is a perpetrator. Jessica keeps saying that he “was just doing his job.” Others have pointed out that that’s not his job, but we can’t fault him too much for thinking it’s his job when we have a culture – augmented by government and business but allowed by the populace – that essentially tells every person that he is a self-appointed homeland security officer. We’re all told to watch out for suspicious activity, but we’ve taken “suspicious” to automatically mean “illegal,” and it’s just not right. Oh, yes, bin Laden may be dead, but he’s succeeded by the fact that we’ve allowed ourselves to turn against each other.
We need to stop it now before it gets worse, hence my making this post, and hence why some people don’t seem to understand why I did what they think is making a big deal out of nothing. It’s not “nothing,” but it’s hard for people to notice that when they’ve been slowly, incrementally duped and terrorized themselves, all while being told that it’s their duty to support the process. We’re slowly defeating ourselves, and one need not look further than some of the comments here for proof of that.
in this world of over anal retentive persons such as yourself, you (above all on earth) would realize that photographing planes,trains and automobiles would in fact describe YOU as a terrorist with intent. if i were to travel to the airport and photograph planes (just because i love them) “hey buddy” would be replaced by arrest with terrorist intent.
Really? So that’s the way that it should be? even if I’m on public property? I don’t know what country in which you live, but this is America, and we have rights!
Are you that quick to judge people that you think that taking pictures of planes, trains, and automobiles can have no purpose other than the nefarious and terrorism? Seriously? Really? Photography serves no other purpose other than scaring people? Really? Seriously?
This is part of the problem right here. The mindset that you’re expressing is very dangerous.
PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME!!!!
“if i were to travel to the airport and photograph planes (just because i love them) “hey buddy” would be replaced by arrest with terrorist intent.”
Actually, it wouldn’t. But if it were to happen, it would end in a suit for false arrest, since (as some smart dude once said) “PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME”.
you just put your foot in your own mothh.. asshole
How’s that, george? Here’s a novel concept for you, and will serve you well in life, think before you speak. At the very least it will get you to spell correctly, but it might make your words sound more intelligent.
Life is hard when you’re stupid.
There are a lot of web sites devoted to railroad photography, but they actually pale in comparison to those dedicated to aviation photography. In fact, many airports set aside a spot just so folks can go plane watching. The railroad, Union Pacific, has a public overlook at their railroad yard in Nebraska (Correct me if I’m wrong on the location, Jimbaux) and many towns have public parks beside railroad tracks so people can come out and watch trains.
I don’t agree with this train guy being called a “terrorist” — and I said so on an e-mail list this blog was sent to — but I felt the need to jump in on this one. As it has been said before, photography is not a crime.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Due to 'explicit content' here, this comment is being approved a few days after it was initially posted. This is the comment mentioned below by a 'Jessica' who wanted to know why her earlier comment (this one, the second that she has posted, with two more below) wasn't approved. At first, I wanted to only approve this explicit posting only once I had a reply ready, but I no longer feel the need to wait until my reply is ready, even though I still intend to do it at some point.]
Wow, I could only think of one thing while reading this entire article: Humor.
All this piece of shit did was make me laugh. You must be some sort of free-lance “journalist”, without any sort of English class past the fifth grade, because your grammar and word choices are actually quite horrid. As an English major (one who knows how to use third person correctly, unlike yourself), I pointed out many flaws in this article of yours.
You’re a fucking pansy. ‘Nuff said, muchacho. Are you as scared of everything as you are of this “terrorist”? Are you afraid of cookies, rainbows or puppies?
I know this “terrorist” personally. He was just doing his job. Referring back to George’s comment, it IS illegal to take pictures of vehicles such as trains, planes and boats such as cruise ships. I can remember a time, about six or seven years ago, where my family took a cruise and while we were still in port in New Orleans, I lifted my camera took take a photo of the ship to keep as a keepsake. One of the officers there the told me, “Ma’am, I’m sorry, you can’t do that.” I didn’t flip a shit, I didn’t go home and cry. I simply asked my mom why. She then proceeded to tell me that it is indeed illegal to take such photos because of the actual terrorist attacks on our country. I didn’t go onto my blog and rant and rave about how this officer who was doing his job of protecting the local citizens.
Have you ever considered how taking your photo could possibly make YOU look like the terrorist?
Photography may not be a crime, but terrorism, my friend is.
Moving on, you’re making a huge deal out of nothing. Why couldn’t you have just printed out your photos (which aren’t that great to begin with), placed them in some frames around your home or whatever the fuck you do with them and move on with your life?
What if the local news media found out about this?
HA HA HA HA!
They’d just laugh and go on to report about things that actually matter in this world.
In conclusion, I just think you’re a stupid little bitch. This “terrorist” has done nothing wrong to make you rant and rave about him doing his job. If he worked at the airport and you went to take one of your photos, and he said, “You can’t do that, it’s illegal.”, would you have shook your head no then? No. It’s the same concept.
Bet you wouldn’t have said the word “terrorist” out loud in an airport, now would ya?
HAVE A GREAT SUNSHINE-FILLED DAY!
‘What? Is this a joke? I looked back at him with an “are-you-serious?” look on my face and slowly nodded my head from side to side,’ If you would have “nodded” your head, that would imply that you knew what he was talking about, that the photographing of the trains is illegal, which would make this whole post irrelevant.
Just referring back to my point about poor word choices.
-
Obviously, you are far too myopic, gullible, and immature (because you are so young, which is, itself, not a bad thing at all, and I’ll comment more on that later) to realize that calling me a “pansy” is actually the height of hypocrisy given what else you have written here.
You seem to be okay with the idea that it is wrong – and therefore should be prohibited and prosecuted – to take pictures of transportation vehicles and infrastructure components in today’s world “because of the actual terrorist attacks on our country.” You seem to be fine with giving up some of your own rights as an American all in the name of security. The saying of “give me liberty, or give me death” from Patrick Henry is a totally foreign concept to you. You seem to be totally fine with your own rights being taken away – and mine too – all because of some practically entirely false notion of security. You have allowed Osama bin Laden and his thugs to defeat us in ways that even he probably could not have imagined. Yet you call me a pansy. Stop and think of how foolishly hypocritical your accusation is!
You write, “Have you ever considered how taking your photo could possibly make YOU look like the terrorist?
Photography may not be a crime, but terrorism, my friend is.”
Wait! Photography may not be a crime? I thought that you just said twice that it was! You don’t seem to know, and yet you still hurl insults at me?
As for how my taking my photo could possibly make me look like a terrorist, sure, I’ve thought of it, especially as I’ve had numerous encounters such as these because of it, but sensible people (who are in short supply) know that it isn’t automatic evidence of wrongdoing, and, in most cases, when a police officer has to check me out for taking pictures, they quickly and peacefully depart the scene once they determine that there’s no evidence of wrongdoing. That’s why I wrote that if the crew thought I was up to no good, calling the police would have been the better choice for all involved, and Joe Hinson said the same thing below.
On that note, you’d do well to go over to some place like Barnes & Nobles (which shouldn’t be difficult for you at all) and pick up a copy of the October issue of Trains magazine. Read the article about photography rights.
Yes, you know this “terrorist” personally, and that explains the abundance of emotion and lack of logic in your comments. Or, at least, I hope that’s the reason. As for the emotion put into my writing, understand that I’ve nearly been hauled off to jail and had my gear confiscated for partaking in this safe, legal, harmless activity that is also protected by the First Amendment.
Regardless, the fact that you’re taking it so personally and devoting so much viciousness in your commenting is both a cause and an effect of the fact that you don’t seem to understand that this is not about the conductor at all. You fail to see the larger picture – the global issue – here, and you provide ample evidence in the form of explaining how you have been duped by people whom we should be able to trust, like your mother (and you might be too immature, shortsighted, and gullible to not take that personally) and the security officer at the port.
On that note, let’s discuss that incident you had at the Port of New Orleans, and we can also say the same thing for the hypothetical airport scenario that you describe. We can break this down into three different themes.
1.) Whether the port (or other government entities) has the right to ban or limit photography on their property
2.) Whether the port (or other government entities) should have the right to ban or limit photography on their property
3.) Whether, assuming that they do have the right to do so, that it makes any sense to ban or limit photography.
Comparing that incident and my incident on the NOGC and much more serious incidents like how I was nearly hauled off to jail for taking pictures on a public street in New Orleans in 2008 is not fair. The Port of New Orleans – like any public school, any public hospital, the airports that you mention – may indeed be publicly-owned, but being publicly-owned isn’t the same thing as being public property. Military bases are publicly-owned, but I’d never question the authority of the base commander. That gets us to #1 above. The port authority does have the right to limit photography on its property, but only because it is on its property. (I have the right to shoot pictures of the port from the other side of the river all day if I’d like.) The “because it is on its property” part of that statement addresses issue #2 above.
So, you were indeed right to not challenge the officer’s right to tell you that you couldn’t take the picture, but, and this gets to #3 above, you probably should have asked why since all you wanted was an innocent picture to take as a keepsake.
Are you in favor of banning handgun ownership? Would that not make us safer? I’m not at all a huge fan of the gun culture, but I’m totally against banning gun ownership for the simple fact that banning guns won’t stop the people with the very worst intentions of getting them, and it will leave the peaceful people who are too scared to break any law without any guns to defend themselves. If someone is willing to commit a murder, I don’t think that you’ll make his life very difficult by adding a weapon possession charge to it!
Similarly, ban photography of things that are “security” issues, and the harmless folks like myself and you will stop photographing them, since we’re scared of being thrown in jail, while the people with the worst intentions will find a way to get any pictures that they need.
As it relates back to your case, and rereading #3 above about whether it even makes sense to limit such a thing, from where you boarded the ship at the port, there are about 100 miles of navigable river until you get to the Gulf of Mexico. Most of the land on either bank of the river is public land, and at any one of those places, I could point my telephoto lens at the ship and get detailed pictures of various external parts of it. I could also easily photograph the port from which you debarked from the other side of the river in Gretna and Algiers, and I have done that before!
So, while I’ll stand by the officer’s right to limit your activities on port property, I just think that it’s foolish, and it’s another example of the stupid paranoia for which you and so many others have fallen.
The bigger issue is that so many entities like the example that you cite use the “terrorism” reason to limit your activities, and because it seems legitimate to you, you comply, but, as is too often the case, it’s often some reason less malignant than terrorism that they want you to not photograph them. They may be covering up for sloppiness, or maybe some safety violation, maybe some environmental degradation or pollution that is taking place, maybe even some trade secret, but they just use “terrorism” as the reason, which is a much easier way to get you to comply, since anyone who refuses to comply can be easily branded as unpatriotic or, worse, a terrorist.
And, yet, you and so many others have bought into it! And, yet, you call me a pansy!
Photography is about so much more than taking a picture. It’s about information, and the freedom to engage in photography is part of the freedom of the press. The press reports on such things as safety violations, environmental degradation, pollution, etc., in addition to more benign things like ship movements, train movements, how the trains look, how they are built.
Since most people don’t care about trains, there would not be much of a way for the bigger, established media outlets to sell penis pills by doing what I do here on Jimbaux’s Journal. This is largely a labor of love, and I was interested in trains and photography long before I was interested in maintaining the rights that are now under threat.
We’re supposed to be able to trust law enforcement, as well as laws. When laws don’t make sense, when laws take away our freedoms, and, especially, when police and corporations create their own laws, it erodes faith in law enforcement and authority. I wrote in the piece that I’m glad that the conductor didn’t say “hey, buddy, you know that’s illegal” to some docile teenager who might have therefore curtailed his activities. I also wrote that I was once, myself, that docile teenager. I guess that means that I was once like you, and I wouldn’t raise one question when told to not photograph a ship at the port. Recent experiences have changed my perceptions greatly, and now I see terrorism far too often in my fellow Americans.
The greater issue than whether or not it is illegal is whether or not it should be illegal. You and so many others seem to think, though, that because someone says it is illegal, it should be illegal. That seems to indicate that if it actually was illegal, you’d therefore believe that it therefore should be illegal. That’s terrible!
So many insults, accusations, and labels . . . . . I guess you’re going to withdraw that slander accusation, right?
Oh, and you wrote:
“What if the local news media found out about this?
HA HA HA HA!
They’d just laugh and go on to report about things that actually matter in this world. “
You misinterpreted my “what if the local media statement” from the piece, and it’s partly my fault for not making it specific about the incident of the tank car rolling out into the street; so, I’ve gone back and made that subheadline more specific, and I’ve added a sentence at the end of that paragraph to make it more clear. (Check it out.) My point is that, given the other nasty things that local media write about the NOGC, local media would have had a field day if they knew of the tank car rolling out into the street. My point in saying that is that I take steps to not publish this kind of information, which is why I felt insulted at what I was told out the cab window that day in October.
I hope that I’ve cleared that up. As for as the idea of what you’ve raised about the local media covering the incident with me, part of my point in all of this is that this these threats to our freedom from within are happening all around us, and few seem to care, because they’ve bought into it, which is the purpose of me writing about it, since few others will do so. So, no, the local media won’t report about this incident, and I don’t expect them to do so since this, too, is no way to sell penis pills, but a tank car rolling out into the street would be!
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” ~James Madison
Madison was a brilliant man. He’s the father of our great Constitution, but you, Jessica, and the likes of you seem determined to spit on our Constitution, all while deluding yourselves into the cancerous mindset that what some of us can clearly see as cowardice and submission is actually some noble form of patriotism. I’m sorry, but you’ve shown yourself to be very unpatriotic.
In writing what you have written here, you’ve shown that you are actually far more of terrorist than your conductor friend ever was, and in your submission of rights to fear, hypocritically calling me a “pansy” would, if it would not be a sign of such a dangerous mindset, be laughable.
You’re willing to give up some of your birthrights – as well as mine and those of all other Americans – all in the name of security. A true patriot you are not.
“Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.”
— Benjamin Franklin
You accuse me of making a huge deal out of nothing, but you’ve shown in your comments that this is actually even a bigger deal than that which I made it to be. Not everyone out there thinks like you do, and getting told things like “hey, buddy, you know that’s illegal” by railroad crewmen and being harassed by the police is the exception and not the norm, but we must nip this issue in the bud before it escalates into such things.
In the first few years after 9/11, I’d hear people say stuff like “the war on terror is really just a war against Americans,” and when I’d hear stuff like that, I’d just dismiss these people as complainers, people who are impossible to please, people who make big deals out of nothing (which should sound familiar), people who couldn’t get over their hatred of George W. Bush, and, yes, even people who were not patriotic.
Now that these things have happened to me several times – and now that I’m connected with people who have had similar issues or who show evidence of corporations and government overstepping their legal bounds – the idea that the so-called “war on terror” is just a never-ending war against Americans by other Americans is starting to make sense, and you and George and others have only given far more proof of that!
Putting a bullet into Osama bin Laden’s face, which, on its own, was a very good thing, may have killed him, but even in his death, he’s succeeded in causing us to choose to turn against each other! Yet you call me a “pansy”?
Jessica wrote: “Bet you wouldn’t have said the word “terrorist” out loud in an airport, now would ya?”
Nope. I surely would not. This is a completely different matter, though, since something terrible can happen in a matter of seconds at an airport. At an airport, you’re right there, and there is no time for debate or discussion, such as there is here on this blog. It’s tantamount to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, which the US Supreme Court already decided about a century ago does not constitute free speech.
In case you still don’t believe me, I can tell you that four times, I’ve taken groups of high school students to Washington, DC, on civic education trips (the first in 2004 and the most recent in 2009.) Each time, I’ve had briefings with the students and their parents before we left, and each time, I’ve stressed to not say anything like “terror” or “bomb” or some such thing in an airport. It’s a very specific, sensitive area, much different than the side of a public street in Gretna or, moreso, a blog, where I’m trying to get you to think and see how overused – and how wrongly-used – the terrorism word is, since we’ve become our own terrorists by willingly relinquishing our own rights.
That fact that I’ve taken those trips – and have personally introduced students to Senators and brought them into the same rooms as Cabinet members – should hint to you that I not only know a thing or two about civic education, but I also am a bit more aware of our rights and how the government works than you might seem to think.
So, when you wrote this . . . . .
“‘What? Is this a joke? I looked back at him with an “are-you-serious?” look on my face and slowly nodded my head from side to side,’ If you would have “nodded” your head, that would imply that you knew what he was talking about, that the photographing of the trains is illegal,”
Once again, you don’t seem to know what you’re discussing, and it’s scary, because people like you vote. My nodding of my head from side-to-side was my way of telling him, “No, buddy, it’s not illegal.” I’m not sure how you ascertain that I should have therefore known it was illegal, but you seem to be implying that because he said that it’s illegal, it’s therefore illegal.
I’ve got news for you. He’s a railroader, not a legislature. He cannot create such a rule, and neither can the railroad. Furthermore, you do not understand civics and government if you think that the police at the port – or the police anywhere – create the law. I have been nearly hauled off to jail for taking pictures by police who invented a law on their own that said that my photography of the train was illegal.
By the way, I’ve been photographing the NOGC regularly since 2005. If it’s illegal, then why is it only in October 2011 that someone addresses this with me?
Your friend whom you so quickly rush to defend – and, again, I’m criticizing the all-too-pervasive mindset behind his actions far more than I’m criticizing him – is just a cog, a player, actually, a victim himself of this massive machine of homeland terror in which corporations, including one of the major railroads who wrote to a photographer to say that photography of its train movements was “prohibited,” and government agencies think that they have the authority to dictate photography that is not on their property and, worse, a populace that has bought into this due to its own fears and gullibility, the threat of breaches of security.
Don’t you see that both of you are victims of terrorism? And that you’ve essentially become terrorists yourselves in the process? And that you’re willing to give up some of the rights that we cherish so dearly in this country all for a false notion of security? Who is the “pansy” now?
By your own admission, you yourself have sadly bought into the idea that this is acceptable. This has huge freedom of the press – the First Amendment, look it up – implications, but it goes far beyond that, as this security state is a threat to all of our rights, a threat from within.
I guess you still haven’t read – or have read but still do not understand – how my constitutional rights including-but-not-limited-to the First Amendment were violated and nearly violated further in the April 2008 incident with the New Orleans Police Department. Remember, too, that my constitutional rights are also your constitutional rights, and, therefore, a threat to my rights is a threat to your rights as well.
Please, for the sake of freedom for all of us, take some time to think about this, especially before you comment here again.
Thank you.
Jessica, I am sorry that you are so badly mistaken about photography. What happened to you in New Orleans was wrong. Photographing a cruise ship is ot illegal and why should it be? I’m sure that very ship you were trying to shoot has been photographed thousands of times. I bet a really nice shot of it is on the web site of the company who owns and runs it.
The airport reference also makes no sense. Photographing planes is actually more common place than shooting trains. Look at this shot here –
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joethephotog/6149503086/in/photostream
taken at the overlook at the Charlotte Airport overlook on airport property. The same day I took that shot, I took this one –
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joethephotog/6150854974/in/photostream/
It’s not my best and it’s not my favorite, but the railroad who operates this line liked it well enough that they wanted to buy it to use for themselves. Probably not illegal, eh?
Part of me thinks you are trying to goad Jimbaux. Part of me thinks no one could really be this stupid. And your mom gave you bad advice, too. As Americans, we need to fight the urge to bend over and take it when confronted with stupid people whether they are LEOs or conductor trainees for a railroad.
Jessica, you ignorant slut. There I feel a little bit better. You are not an English Major. If you are, and I were in your shoes, I’d demand a refund from what-the-fuck-ever educational institution granted you that title. If you don’t, I will just be left to mark said institution (WTF University) off my list of credible schools offering degrees. You speak of grammatical errors, and composition, yet you utterly failed in it yourself. In the big boy/girl world of journalism, we call that grammatical hypocrisy.
Let me first start out by saying it is every person’s responsibility to know where they are, in regards to the standing of property. If that dock was private property, then yes photography can be forbidden. However if it was public property, there are no restrictions to what can be photographed. If it can be viewed from public, it is fair game. If that dock was public property, there three mental rejects there, you, your mom, and the “officer”.
The 1st Amendment guarantees citizens of the Republic, the right to free speech. However it isn’t limited to just spoken word. Photography is seen as a form of speech, not just here in the Republic, but worldwide. In other countries, photography is limited to what others feel is appropriate. However here in the Republic, it is covered under the 1st Amendment, as a freedom of speech. The adage, “A picture is worth a thousand words”, while merely being about advertising, has sealed photography as a form of speech.
You claim it is already banned. Then you whine, like a bitch, that it should be. So which is it? I was just fine thinking you are full of shit, and an idiot, but your literary lunacy removed all god damned doubt. However I’ll focus on your claim that it is illegal. Could you please point me, we, us to the appropriate penal code? I know full well you wont because I know you were, and probably right this very minute, are talking out of your ass. But I’ll wait…
All the shit I’ve said, and god damn it, it needed saying, the thing that is most disturbing about you is your apparent desire to neuter the very amendment that allows you to come online, here, and prove to us what a fucking dumbass you are. Do you not see that allowing infringement and subversion upon one amendment, create more infringements and subversions to on other amendments? Do you not see the damage that could be to our fair Republic? If you take away one, you can take away all. That would be what is known as a slippery slope. I mean as as absolute inane, inept, and dysfunctional I see you as a human being, I still support your right to be a dumbass.
I will now back off Jessica for a bit. Let me address you, “Brakeboy”. Thats right, you are not even a fucking brakeman. Your job responsibility is NOT to tell people what they can, or cant, do on public property. Its to sit there, shut up, listen, and learn. If you think there is more to your job as a Brakeboy, you have given yourself entirely too much credit and self worth. Neither of which you have earned.
Right now, you don’t matter. You don’t mean shit. Take this as a lesson in life. Perhaps learn a lesson from that dumb bitch Jessica. Shut the fuck up, know your role, slow your roll.
Sorry, Jim. If you want to edit the curse words out, thats cool. I am in a bad mood, and stupidity displayed by Jessica and Brakeboy dont sit well right now.
Geez, Brian, I know that that’s how you Texas guys can be sometimes, but that was excessively harsh. Although I do not want profanity on Jimbaux’s Journal, I’m also loathe to tell people how to present themselves, even here on my personal blog, and that’s why I left the curse words in your comment.
Let Jessica be. She hasn’t participated here in awhile, and hurling curse words and insults at her won’t help. It only brings you down to her level. Also, let’s give her some credit and speculate that the reason she’s no longer posting here (which could be because she no longer cares) is that she understands the wrongness of what she said and thought. Isn’t that the purporse of having this to debate? This should not be a zero-sum-game of “‘I’m-right” and “you’re-wrong” statements. Throwing curses and insults at each other does not allow for much in the way of understanding and forgiveneness. Yes, she put both of her feet deep into her mouth, but a world in which people aren’t allowed to take their feet out of their mouths is not what I want.
Having said all of that, you’ve said some great things in your fifth paragraph in ways better than I could have said them. Jessica is a kid and didn’t yet understand that by just listening to the officer unquestioningly, she’s bowing to his abuse and that of bin Laden. Have faith that she, like many others, is beginning to understand this now and can do something about it before more damage is done. I’ve caused plenty of controversy with this post, but it was apparently necessary for people to think of this issue the way that I’m trying to get them to think of it.
There are plenty of good gems of truth in your third paragraph too.
You’ve written some harsh comments to the conductor here too, and I really wish that you’d let that go. At this point, it’s beating a dead horse, and, as I wrote to his girlfriend Christine below, he’s most surely learned his lesson and will not be likely to ever make that mistake again, and, more importantly, his mindset may be changing. Remember, it’s not about him.
If we never admit that we may have been wrong in not only our actions but also our mindsets, we’ll never get anywhere, but if we continue to hurl childish insults at each other, then we’ll never even so much as admit a fault. That’s the zero-sum-game we should avoid.
Forgive, forgive, forgive . . . .
ps… get a job..
I would do that, but the problem is that I already have at least one of them and lack the time for another one. That’s a major reason why it’s taken me nearly two months to report this incident, but it’s out there, it needs to be discussed, we need to come to an understand for the rights of all of us, and we need to move on.
Hey George , leave the man alone , he has a passion which most people today lack if you don’t like some thing he has to say don’t read it , I’m not forcing you to nor is the editor. If it wasn’t for people like them we wouldn’t know what some odd ball or older locomotives ,and short lines look like , respectful , Mike
Get off your high horse and do something with your life. Oh, wait, you haven’t already, so I highly doubt you will this late in life. Maybe you should try taking pictures in front of a moving train. That would be much more interesting than this bull.
Interesting article there James, here’s what I’m gathering. In the article, it’s plain to see the locomotive was en route, light power, no harm done there. Judging from the rails, it looks like this route is over public streets, which tells me these guys had to be going pretty slow, but obviously still moving. Looking at the pictures, it looks like as the locomotive passed you, you would’ve been within 4′-8′ of the rail putting you dangerously close to the fouling point of the track (4′.) Now, if memory serves me right, private railroad property is technically within 25 feet of the equipment moving or not, regardless of track placement (in this case over and down a busy street.) Now, this put’s you in the category of taking pictures on railroad property (technically) and nearly fouling the track of moving equipment. Dangerous and perhaps illegal. Now let’s switch sides here, put yourself in this scenario:
You and your friends are shopping in Walmart. One of your friends decides to get goofy, and wants some pictures taken of him. You pull out your camera phone and start taking pictures. What do you think happens next? An employee of Walmart would then approach you, harmlessly, and ask you to put your camera away. They are simply doing their job of confronting anyone doing suspicious activity on company property i.e. taking pictures/video. Why did they tell you to put your camera away? Taking pictures of your friend was harmless wasn’t it? Perhaps, but still raises an eyebrow. Now, is the employee of Walmart a te**orist? A bully? A threat? I don’t think so.
It seems to me you have no problem, and might even enjoy calling this trainman a “te**orist” Which…in all honesty, is not a word you throw around on a whim anymore especially after 9/11. Here’s a snippet of cool information James, did you know the FBI has scanners for communication devices such as phones, computers, fax machines etc etc that scan information on constant 24/7 basis for key words such as the ones you used to call this trainman? Why, the FBI might have tabs on this blogpost right this second. Funny isn’t it? I think it’s kind of neat myself. The notion “big brother is always watching” is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Now, back on subject.
“Photography is not a crime.” …neat saying, and mostly true -unless you’re on private property that is. I think I’ve seen bumper stickers with something similar. The saying is also pretty reminicent of skateboarders, graffiti artists and base jumpers who get harassed on a constant basis from skydiving, painting, and skateboarding on private property. Risking their lives (and walls) but also hanging the thought of law suites, and un-needed attention to the places of business at which they’re skating, painting or jumping off of. Now if you were say…50′ or so from the locomotive, on the street, in a SAFE location, taking pictures. I doubt anyone would have said anything to you. I doubt this trainman “terrorized” you with opening his mere seven word comment with “Hey buddy.”
I’ve heard that stuff about the distance from the right-of-way, or the distance from the track, and it seems to vary from place to place. I just read about how one policeman told a foamer that he couldn’t be within 50’ from the track. I guess, according to you, all of these people who park their cars in front of their own houses every day and night are trespassers. I think this is silly!
What the heck would be the problem in taking a picture in the Wal-Mart parking lot? And, as I wrote about in a long reply to Jessica, is it even enforceable? However, see what I wrote to Jessica about it being private property. Therefore, Wal-Mart, in your hypothetical scenario, would indeed – and should indeed – have the right to limit or prohibit photography.
The skateboard situation has no freedom of the press issues. Skateboarding is a safety issue, as is the skydiving thing that you mention. Plus, it’s against park policy, and that’s just that. If you’re in a National Park, you’re on publicly-owned land, but that, again, doesn’t mean that it’s public property.
Photography can be done in just a couple of seconds, unlike skateboarding, and that becomes a loitering issue, with noise, and skateboarding is often done on private property, often done in groups, often makes noise, often has the potential for serious injury
You wrote: “It seems to me you have no problem, and might even enjoy calling this trainman a “te**orist” Which…in all honesty, is not a word you throw around on a whim anymore especially after 9/11.”
As I’ve explained numerous times, part of my point is to try to get all of you to think about how overused – how loaded and, therefore, paradoxically, empty – that word is, what it really means, that we have become the very thing we seek to destroy, and that we’ve become terrorists ourselves.
No, I absolutely do not enjoy calling this trainman a terrorist! I did so with great reservation, as I wrote, because of how I make great efforts to maintain positive relationships and channels of communication (especially for access to information) with railroaders across the continent. I consulted a few friends – including some professional railroaders – before going forward with this story. I did not make this post lightly. Despite my support from some railroader friends, including some people who have posted here, I’ve probably alienated a few railroaders in the process, which is definitely not what I want, but there’s a greater global issue here that needs to be addressed, which is why I addressed it.
You wrote: “Here’s a snippet of cool information James, did you know the FBI has scanners for communication devices such as phones, computers, fax machines etc etc that scan information on constant 24/7 basis for key words such as the ones you used to call this trainman?”
Really? Would someone who is actually going to do harm use the words terrorist or terrorism to refer to his activities? Don’t regular people use that word enough anyway that it has become meaningless? which is my point?
As for graffiti art, it itself is not a crime, but defacing any property that’s not yours – railroad cars included – is a crime.
You wrote: “Now if you were say…50′ or so from the locomotive, on the street, in a SAFE location, taking pictures. I doubt anyone would have said anything to you.”
Well, then, I guess I should be scared to stand as close to the track than plenty of cars are already parked, right? Had I gotten 50’ from the track in this case, I’d have been on the property of an elementary school.
You wrote: “I doubt this trainman “terrorized” you with opening his mere seven word comment with “Hey buddy.””
You’re not reading what I’m writing here. I already wrote in the piece, and now I am repeating myself here to you in this comment, as I say that I cannot look at this incident in a vacuum. Had it been the first and only time that something like that happened to me, or to anyone else, I definitely would not have reacted this way, but this is an all too pervasive mindset, and I truly am terrorized that my own countrymen seem to want to erode our birthrights all in the name of security. Some of these same people call themselves patriots, but they’re the ones who hate freedom the most.
“Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.” – Benjamin Franklin
I have nothing personally against this trainman. He’s gotten caught up in the same hysteria that so many others have, meaning that what he did shows that he’s actually a victim of terrorism. He didn’t know any better, but I think that he does now, and that, and many others knowing, is the purpose of this essay. I hope that you understand that now.
Thanks for not approving my comment. Afraid of the truth? Thought so.
Despite my intention and hope to keep the language on Jimbaux’s Journal family friendly, I’ve intended all along to approve your long, profanity-laced, angry comment. I just wanted to wait to do it until I could write and post an appropriate reply to it since there is so much in there to address. I really want to do it, but I’ve been very busy replying to other comments that either came before yours are have easier replies, but also with busy with normal life tasks that have nothing to do with this site.
It’s kind of funny that you say that I’m afraid of the truth, since A.) you’ve used a fictitious e-mail address to post this comment, and B.) your comments reveal far more about you than they reveal about me – or that you think that they reveal about me. Stay tuned. Thanks.
Here you go. Just for you, I left a real email. Thanks for posting about me on my Facebook, by the way! My name’s Jessica. What does me using a fake e-mail address have anything to do with me being scared? Absolutely nothing. What exactly do my comments reveal abounds me? I’d love to know!
I’m just here on behalf on one of my very good friends, the conductor. Your idiotic ramblings make me chuckle. Idiots who don’t know the law. Hahaha.
You just wanted to wait? Ha, couldn’t think of anything to reply cause you know I’m right?
You and the rest of your moronic followers who still don’t believe that it’s the law deserve to be arrested for your stupidity.
Jessica what he is doing is not wrong lmao the conductor is a good friend of mine if your gonna stick up for him please know what your taking about before posting something stupid.He can take pictures of trains all day if he would like as long as its on public property which he was ….my issue with this was he was fairly close to the tracks and he wgas on top of his Suv which could of been a safety hazard.. what should of been said instead of “hey buddy thats illegal” is hey buddy that might not be the best place to take pictures..
Wow, this is interesting! Thanks so much for the additional information. First, this is interesting in light of what you yourself posted above about being told to “run off” anyone taking pictures (regardless, apparently, of where the picture is being taken.)
First, I think that you are mixing this incident with other times that you’ve seen me taking pictures, and now that I know what you look like due to Facebook, I’ve seen you on other trains before, meaning you’ve seen me on top of my truck before. However, not only does my memory of the incident contradict what you say about me being atop the truck (not that it really matters), but I just went and looked at the pictures again, and with an intuitive knowledge of geometry, looking at the pictures, you can tell that the camera is no high than six feet off of the surface of the street, meaning that I was standing on the ground (the edge of the street) straight up with the camera at my face.
Also, I was parked no closer to the track than those other cars that you see, and I was standing behind the rear bumper of my truck. Look at the sedan parked in the distance on the left. Notice that not only is it parked closer to the track than I am, but I’m almost even with its license plate. So, if it’s “not the best place” to take pictures, it’s also not the best place for the rest of these people to park their cars! Regardless, I appreciate any concern for safety. NOGC is far from the only railroad I’ve photographed, and I very frequently hoist myself atop the truck. I’ve done it in North Dakota a few miles from the Canadian border, and I’ve done it a few times south of the border inside of Mexico too!
That Jessica seems to think I deserve to be thrown in jail – along with my “followers” – is actually evidence of why I was justified in making the “big deal” out of this issue like I’ve done. It’s too common, and it’s been discussed on the Facebook fan page in the last 24 hours as you may have seen.
I appreciate your feedback. Also, I’ve sent you an e-mail at the address that you’ve used to post these comments, and it hasn’t bounced, but I don’t know if you’ve gotten it. Let me know (via e-mail, preferably) please.
Oh, and now that I’m forced to think about it, had “hey, buddy, that might not be the best place to take pictures” came out of his mouth instead, how would I have reacted? What would I have posted on the blog? What I do know is that even if I did post something about it, it might have gotten 5% of the words posted here, and probably without any hints of indignation. Actually, since I actually think that the pictures in this post are pretty lame (partly because it’s just a light power movement) compared to my other work, I may not have even posted these pictures at all, meaning that I wouldn’t have told any story with them either. However, given what was said, and given how Jessica’s and others’ comments show how this really is a global issue that needs to be addressed, I guess I had to do what I had to do by posting this, using pictures I otherwise don’t deem worthy of publication to illustrate the story and the bigger issues.
By the way i dont know why we keep calling him a conductor he is not even a brakemen yet he is still a trainee
I could of swore the incident where he said hey buddy was when you were on top the suv i could be wrong tho
Yeah, and if you still don’t believe me, like I said, take a look at the photos again, and you can tell that I’m on the ground. Do you see how I’m at the same height as the walking platform on the locomotive? Do you see how can’t even see the horizontal walking surface of the platform? That’s because I’m too low, I’m on the ground. Had I been on top of the truck, you’d be able to see the platform, and you’d see that I’d be at about the same height as the cab of the locomotive. Dig through the archives since the beginning of August until now. For any of those shots in which I’m at cab height, that means I am on top of my truck.
You have indeed seen me on top of the truck in the Subway parking lot along 4th Street and other places along 4th Street. You’ll notice that most of my Madison Street shots – actually, all of them except for these – are wide-angle broadside shots that I took halfway down one of the cross streets, and you probably didn’t even know I was there! That’s actually why I think the idea of banning photography is not only a violation of rights, but also stupidly ineffective, because, ban photography, and the harmless people will begrudgingly comply while those who really do have terrible intentions will find a way to get whatever photos that they need. It’s the same as the argument that banning guns will just mean that good people will be too scared to break the law by owning a gun but those who are willing to murder won’t mind some minor weapons charge.
And now that I’m rereading your comment, I see that you say “when you were on top the suv” as if it was the only time I’ve done it! It’s actually the norm for me, and the pictures in this post are actually the exception. I think that the reason why I didn’t do it here was that I didn’t have time since I had just parked right before I took the first picture, and the fact that it was light power, as I’ve already implied, didn’t inspire me to try to get a better shot.
And either way if you were or were not on top the suv when you park on madison there is one a few feet between the locomotive and a vehicle thats why i say standing there or being on top a vehicle there to take a picture could be a safety hazard and one of our previous managers did tell us to run off people taking pictures but like i said if thats what you like to do go for it as long as its on public property
This is why I said to clarify this with your managers. As others have already posted, you (i.e., anyone working for the railroad) don’t have the authority to “run off” anyone from public property for any purpose. If I’m standing on public property near the track taking pictures, and there are 20 people just picking their noses and not even minding the train but who happen to be just as close to the track as I am, why only “run off” anyone taking pictures? Why not run those other people too? PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME!
I completely understand what your saying im just saying what i was once told and like i said i have no problem with it i just dont want to see someone accidently get injured just to take a few pictures
I appreciate that. I really do. I can tell you that I’ve climbed atop my truck (current one and previous one) hundreds (if not a few thousand) of times, have sprinted to the tops of overpasses, have climbed hills, mountains, and even trees for pictures, and I’ve never been seriously injured. Since breaking my arm badly when falling out of a tree when I was 10 years old, I am a very safety-conscious individual, having worked in construction with all of its safety procedures, and I can tell you with things like climbing trees that the “three points of contact” is not just for railroaders!
And, of course, like with everything in life, if we totally insulate ourserlves from risk, then we’ll never do anything meaningful. I remember taking driver’s education in the late 1990s. I was driving, and I wanted to pass a car on a two-lane highway. I asked my driving teacher about this, and he said, “are you willing to risk your life on that?” I decided that the answer was “no,” but then I got stuck in this philosophical quagmire that made me think that I should therefore never try to pass anyone on the highway. It took me awhile to realize that if I really followed that logic, then I should actually never even get on the highway in the first place!
Same is true for our rights in this post-9/11 world. If we start limiting things like photography, as some in the comments section seem to think should happen, then we lose who we are, we stop living, and bin Laden has won. That’s not the America in which I want to live!
I’ve done all of this climbing and photographing all across this continent, and not only have I not ever been seriously injured, but my biggest threats have come from human beings, usually overzealous law enforcement, but also from others with the “hey, buddy, you know that’s illegal” mindset. Even the Mexican army soldiers treated me far more professionally than I’ve been treated around here when I was photographing a Mexican military base nearly five years ago, and there’s a drug war going on there!
Thanks, again, for your service, for doing a difficult and important job while you get criticized by the same people who indirectly want you to move the components of the products that they use. I think that I’ve seen you go into emergency braking on 4th Street in order to avoid ramming an illegally parked car.
Yeah ive seen you almost everyday for the last month or so all thru gretna taking pictures until recently
Well, not almost every day, but almost every other day! I spent much of Thanksgiving week in bayouland (see the pic I just posted on the Facebook fan page) and have been working a little later than usual in the last two weeks, and it’s getting dark early now anyway (and I always have a zillion other things to do, like catching up on the blog backlog, anyway.)
To Person, George and all of you other incredibly rude people replying here. I can’t believe the level of insults that some of you have resorted to in coming to someones personal blog and insulting him for his writing and perceptions. Unfair judgments on someone who definitely has a passion for photography and human rights. And as far as people worried about what terrorists are photographing, try google earth, flickr and I bet the terrorists are the ones walking around using their iPhones. Certainly not people taking photos to edit on a professional type website or a personal blog.
And the fact that corporations- such as railroads are concerned about one guy with a camera snapping photographs shows the level of absurd paranoia in this country… while we can ignore true societal ills and violent offenders can walk free….
Photography is NOT nor should it ever be a crime especially in an outdoor area – the Government is by the people and for the people..not the corporations. The Government does not own the “air” the government does not own the images I capture with my camera- as long as this is America. And yes this is an issue that deserves attention.
As far as terrorism. Terrorism is fear… it just depends upon who is imparting the fear. Fear by the government in the guise of “protecting” the people is just as much fear… it is a nanny state government. So by not photographing what you like or love, the terrorists – whether Government created or those on the outside do, indeed win.
Good post.
Most photogs know who Bert Krage is or at least why he is relevant to those of us who shoot trains and planes and the such. His .pdf is real handy and easy to follow. I’d suggest Jessica and a few others on here to go and read it today. It’s one page and doesn’t use a lot of “lawyer speak.” Here is the web site –
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Honestly, the train crew would have done better to call LEO than to try to engage the photographer out of the window of a moving locomotive. Not that photographers want to have the police called on them, but you’re at least talking to someone who is entrusted to do the right thing. (Yeah, I know, Jimbaux.) I have had railroad crews tell me I can’t take train photographs from public property and I always tell them as politely as I can that, “Yes, I can.” Of course, these folks weren’t on a moving train at the time.
Ok people, this is actually a little scarily absurd. Do some of you truly, honestly believe that photographing trains is illegal (or that it should be illegal)? Why do you believe this? Can anyone produce or reference any municipal, state or federal law or statute stating that photography (of almost any subject*) taken from public property, or private property with the expressed permission of the property owner, and not interfering with (in this case) railroad operations, is against the law? If you do, and can cite a law or statute to back up your argument, please post it here, on Facebook, on Twitter, send it to the TV and print media companies, and settle this issue once and for all.
*Excluding sensitive military and Dept. of Energy installations
Yet no one can do this, because IT IS NOT ILLEGAL. Not in Gretna, nor Jefferson Parish (county for those not familiar with LA), nor the State of Louisiana, not here in GA, nor in the rest of the United States. _____ (insert your favorite hobby subject matter) PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT ILLEGAL.
So please, lets all take a long swallow from the cool, refreshing glass of common sense and lay this issue to rest. Our nation has much more important (not to mention real) issues to be concerned about, as far as security issues go.
Now that I’ve just posted a very long reply to the expletive-laden comment left by Jessica a few days ago, a comment that I only approved a few days after she first submitted it, I want to add a few things here. The long reply that I just posted to her is posted several days after the “Engineer” on the train himself told Jessica to “please know what your taking about before posting something stupid.” Both the Engineer and Jessica know the conductor very well, but we haven’t heard from Jessica since then.
It’s funny, because, at first, the “Engineer” simply posted that they’re always told to run off anyone taking pictures. You can see throughout his comments an evolution of thinking. He didn’t come out and say that what he had initially posted was wrong, but he does not need to say that. The fact that his thinking could evolve and that he could show evidence of it here is actually, I think, a true sign of courage. Jessica, however, seems to be so stuck in her position and so determined to be right. The Engineer is the most courageous person commenting here, as what he posts is sensitive given his job.
The conductor (whom I will not name) did e-mail me Tuesday, and he did take issue with me using both the “terrorist” and the “bully” word. Given what I wrote in the very long reply that I just made to Jessica, I essentially stand by the “terrorism” part of it because I’m trying to get everyone to see how backwards our thinking about terrorism really is. However, I totally agreed with the conductor about my use of forms of the word “bully” since it was not only fair to him but also to real victims of real bullying. So, I went ahead and removed all references of it from the article, just like I removed the part about how he’d better watch his rule violations. Neither were appropriate, and I was wrong to include those things.
I was wrong about those things, and I admit it. The engineer’s mindset has seemingly changed, and that’s courageous. However, people like Jessica seem to be so stuck in their positions, I fear that they will never get it. Given that I was told here in the comments section that I really should be hauled off to jail along with my “followers” (whatever that means), maybe the use of some form of the word “bully” wasn’t so inappropriate afterall. She, who so hypocritically called me a “pansy,” seems with her anger to be of the mindset that admitting she might not have been right is a sign of weakness. This is the same mindset that makes her think it’s okay to erode our own rights. It’s my hope that she will not only arrive at the realizations that I have explained above, but that she’ll understand that it’s not a sign of weakness – but, rather, of strength – to change her views on this.
I appreciate everyone’s participation in this site and this article. This issue truly needs to be addressed.
Wow, the comments have certainly progressed since I last chimed in…
I’m not a journalist, but I am a career railroader for most of the past 11 years. I’ll say this (to Jessica), that if the conductor’s job entails telling people that they’re not allowed to photograph trains, your problem is more with his employer than it is Jimbaux. As a railroader, I’ve been told to look out for suspicious persons along the tracks. That could be anyone, yes even a photographer, but profiling any such person or being is beyond my qualifications.
Now, if that person were photographing my train near a chemical refinery, I might have to say something. If he were closer to the tracks than necessary, or even fouling the track, I more than likely WOULD say something. If he’s just taking photos from a public location, as both a railroader AND a photographer, I leave him alone, b/c I know it’s illegal to harass people. And I’m not going to risk my job over something so stupid.
Lastly, since you wish to throw expletives around (I’m pretty good at that, too), I’ll say this. If you truly, HONESTLY believe that taking photographs of said modes of transport is illegal (as you did in Comment #24), you might want to stick with bragging about your English degree as a profession, b/c it shows you are a complete dumbass.
I gotta get back to reading the rest of this lunacy. But I felt compelled in the meantime to vent the moment I read:
“it IS illegal to take pictures of vehicles such as trains, planes and boats such as cruise ships”
…and now that I think about it, George is obviously just as much a dumbass, too. Phew!!! With mindsets like yours, folks, it’s amazing we have ANY rights at all!!!
Eric writes: “Phew!!! With mindsets like yours, folks, it’s amazing we have ANY rights at all!!!”
Actually, that brings up a very good point, Eric. Democracy is completely unsustainable unless we have an educated populace. Alexander Hamilton knew this, which is why he wasn’t in favor of nearly as many rights as we now have, and essentially wanted to name George Washington as king!
I hate it when people make Hamilton look like a real prophet!
Jimbaux,
I’ve been posting some of my train photos to my Flickr page, and I discovered a couple groups on there that you might find interesting:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/970002@N21/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/photography_is_not_a_crime/
While the railfan stuff is edgy, it’s the general topics that I find to be of interest the most.
Wow. That’s amazing. And it just reinforces what I said in my long comment to Jessica far above that I definitely am not making a big deal out of nothing. That so many people like you, Eric, understand this is a sad testament to the fact that you’ve had to deal with harassment like this.
Jessica, if you’re still reading, I have a journalistic assignment for you. Go up to three random police officers, record their surname & badge numbers if necessary, and ask them the following question:
“Is taking photographs of trains, ships or ____ against the law?”
Report back to us with your findings. If you have no badge number or name, it’s hard to corroborate what you’ve been told.
Do us all at least that much, only b/c your foot is so deep in your mouth now, that’s it’s hard to stomach (or really hear) anything else you’re trying to say (or in this case, write). Educate yourself before continuing to spread falsehoods & perpetuating the cancer that is your misinformation about one’s photographic rights.
Maybe you should also Google the following words: Krages, Photographer, Rights …since you’re so hell bent on believing your own drivel. Your errant belief that photographing these modes of transportation being illegal is dumbfounding.
Actually, Eric, be careful, since there’s actually a possibility, given what happened to me at the hands of undercover NOPD officers, that she’d actually get at least two out of three telling her that it is indeed illegal, and since Jessica seems to be of the persuasion that the police make the law, she’d see no reason to not believe them.
PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME, and POLICE DO NOT MAKE THE LAW!
Instead of saying “Hey buddy, you know that’s illegal?”, the conductor should have said something along the lines of “Hey buddy, please don’t take pictures of the train.”
From the looks of the pictures, you were in the street, not on the sidewalk, which could have put you not only at risk from getting injured by the train, but getting hit by a passing car (I live in New Orleans and know more than well how people can drive crazy around here, especially in the Gretna area where the streets are not all that great) while being preoccupied with taking pictures.
I’m sure that the conductor didn’t mean it as “Keep taking pictures and you’re going to get hauled off to jail”. However, I can understand how you would automatically think that since you had an incident happen to you were this nearly happened, which in and of itself is not fair or justified. That being said, I believe what the conductor said immediately conjured up the bitter feelings of that incident and that is what provoked you to write this.
Someone commented saying that once they tied down you should have talked to them, to clear up what he had said. I agree with that person a hundred percent. Because it seems like this incident, along with this post and the comments, are full of misunderstanding.
I don’t really believe that anyone can think that photography is a crime. It’s just matters of safety, whether it be the safety of yourself or others. I believe that that was what some people who commented here were implying. Also, I feel I should add, I enjoy photography more than the average person, being an amateur photographer (having taken classes on photography and learning how to develop my own film in a dark room) and an amateur model. So, I can completely understand your strong standing on your rights of being able to photograph what you like, where you like, especially if it is on public property.
An example, when I was younger, some friends and I were in a store in the mall and were taking pictures. A sales associate came up to us and told us we couldn’t take pictures in the store. So, what did we do? We complied. Why? Because, it is understandable that that could be seen as suspicious activity. We could be scoping out best ways to shoplift (far fetched, I know) or could be creating a distraction for others to shoplift. Another, reason (again, far fetched, but I try to think of every possible scenario) someone in the store could be epileptic. Bright flashing lights, that of which a camera makes, could trigger an epileptic seizure.
Getting to another main point, it is obvious the main reason why you have gotten a lot of negativity on this was your use of the word terrorist. You’ve written that it is a word so overused and so loaded that it essentially becomes meaningless, empty. But, that is the way you see it. Others, however, do not. I know when I hear the word terrorist, I think of the fear of my nation’s, and it’s people’s, safety. I think of the fear I felt when I heard that our nation was under attack and many people had lost their lives. I think of the fear I felt when I heard the Pentagon was attacked, and worrying about my grandparents safety, since both my grandmother and grandfather worked there (who both were thankfully on the other side, out of harm’s way, I later found out). I can completely understand how you compare terrorism to the feeling you felt when you thought that someone was trying to wrongfully take away your constitutional rights. However, think of fear like I described and then think of that fear, they don’t compare. Then, also think that this man was not trying to take away that right, but again, I understand how you feel that way after what you have experienced before, like I previously said.
Perhaps I should get to the main point of this, he should have thought about what he said and reworded it before he said it. You shouldn’t have called him a terrorist. Because, what both of you meant was clearly misinterpreted by not only the other, but by others who read this. Just like how some of the comments may have been misinterpreted.
I also understand that your main point in this was to address the main, bigger, issue of how most Americans are willing to turn their heads away, or simply deny the existence of our American rights, given to us centuries ago by the founding fathers of this country. However, you could have done this without using the aforementioned conductor as a scapegoat for all of these people who prefer to be blinded by (blissful?) ignorance.
Also, maybe I should mention that I am the girlfriend of the conductor in this post, but I’m looking at this from an outsider’s point of view and giving my complete and honest opinion.
Hi, Christine,
Thanks for taking the time to write the comment that you shared, and I’m sorry to take so long to reply. I do appreciate not only that you’ve written but also that you’ve been very sober about it.
I’m going to start my reply with something you wrote toward the very end: “However, you could have done this without using the aforementioned conductor as a scapegoat for all of these people who prefer to be blinded by (blissful?) ignorance.”
I definitely did not make him a scapegoat, and I’ve written repeatedly that I have nothing personal against him (and he has written the same to me privately.) I don’t know him well enough, nor does he know me well enough. Actually, from what I’ve learned about him since then, he seems like an all-around good guy, but I’ll write more about that later.
My goal in writing this is definitely not to scapegoat him but to show us how we are all dangerously capable of that way of thinking. If anything, your boyfriend is, like too many others, actually a victim of terrorism. We often too shallowly think that one must be physically injured or die to be victims of terrorism. By being a victim of terrorism, he’s perpetuated it, because a focus on security clouds one’s idea of rights. The problem is that he’s far from alone, and that fact necessitated this post, since even though he’s the one who uttered the infamous six words to me, truthfully, especially given what we’ve seen just here in the comments section, many people could have uttered such. That’s why I keep saying that I have nothing against him personally and do not consider him a scapegoat, but, as I wrote before, I was surprised as heck that this happened on the NOGC of all places, a railroad I’ve photographed regularly since 2005 in a community where I work with plenty of teenagers and young adults, often reminding them of why these trains exists, why it is both illegal and wrong to hop onto moving trains, why they shouldn’t be mad when they have to wait at crossings, etc. Had the same exact thing happened to me in some place far away where I was just visiting, I wouldn’t have been as bothered by it, but I would have still written about it.
Yes, I used a strong word. It’s such a black-and-white word that conjures up so many emotional images like those that you describe (that’s a neat personal story, by the way) that we forget what it really means and fail to see the problem in our own selves. Like I said in some above comment, it took me awhile – a few years – to see it myself. It’s an emotional word, one that does not often promote much logical thinking. Sometimes, the monsters that we seek to slay are staring us right back from the mirror, and I’ve probably perpetuated a bit of terrorism myself, and, no, I’m not talking about the numerous ‘accusations’ from police, etc., who automatically think I’m up to no good, but, given that, you can see why I don’t have a problem throwing the “terrorist” word back at others since I’m sick of having it applied to myself and people who do what I do, including some friends to whom stuff like this has happened. Look at the comment that my DC-friend (well, Maryland, actually) Alex left below on this issue and my reply to him.
You, Christine, and the conductor are both young. From what I’ve been able to learn about the conductor himself, he wasn’t even a teenager when the 9/11 Attacks happened. I remember thinking several years ago that we’d eventually have a generation of adults who don’t know life pre-9/11 and who just sadly accept the “security” and “terrorist” state as it is and, therefore, the way that it should be, and just how terrible that would be. And here we have it. And it’s not the fault of your generation either! Look at what has been discussed on the Facebook fan page recently. The older generation, in its own fears, have sadly done this to you, and now your generation’s concept of rights is very – and, I’m afraid, permanently – skewed, and I’m just trying to fight that, because this world is still mine as much as it is yours, and I cherish our freedoms. Speaking of which, you wrote:
“I also understand that your main point in this was to address the main, bigger, issue of how most Americans are willing to turn their heads away, or simply deny the existence of our American rights, given to us centuries ago by the founding fathers of this country.”
Whoah! Let’s be careful here. We need to give the Founding Fathers more credit and simultaneously less credit. Let’s NOT give them credit for that our rights were “given” to us by them. They were not! Let’s surely give them credit for realizing that our rights were not for them to give to us, but already existed, and therefore should not be taken away by them, as is slowly-but-perniciously happening now. Nobody can give us rights that we already naturally have.
I’m definitely not scapegoating your boyfriend. He’ll almost surely never tell anyone anything like that again, and hopefully beyond that, he won’t think that it even should be illegal again, but he may one day find himself on the other side of a very similar conversation, and he’ll need to stand up for himself there.
Furthermore, again, it’s not about him, none of us should ever tolerate anything like that, and the purpose of this piece is to raise awareness, so that he and everyone else will neither say nor tolerate anything like that said – and, more importantly, thought – again. This is about the rights that all of us have.
You wrote:
“Instead of saying “Hey buddy, you know that’s illegal?”, the conductor should have said something along the lines of “Hey buddy, please don’t take pictures of the train.””
But, why? Why would he ask that? Regardless of your answer to that question, one thing that both statements have in common is that neither one of them will prevent the people with the worst intentions from photographing the train, and the same is true for any law that would ban or limit photography. When the good, harmless folks are cowed and have their rights taken away and are discouraged or prohibited from doing the harmless things that they love to do, then we do indeed have terrorism.
You wrote:
“From the looks of the pictures, you were in the street, not on the sidewalk, which could have put you not only at risk from getting injured by the train, but getting hit by a passing car (I live in New Orleans and know more than well how people can drive crazy around here, especially in the Gretna area where the streets are not all that great) while being preoccupied with taking pictures.”
You need to take a closer look at the pictures (and remember that the last one is of the train going away.) Have you not read the rest of what I’ve written on this issue in the comments section? (Yeah, I know it’s plenty of stuff, but it would be good for you to read it before commenting!
) As I already wrote, you can tell from the pictures that I’m actually standing farther away from the track than most of the cars are parked – just like they are every day on that street. In other words, I’m standing in the shoulder in the parking area.
So, if you’re telling me that I’m standing too close to the track, then you’re also saying that all of those cars are parked too close to the track, meaning that people can’t pop their hoods and work on the engine while the train is passing.
Hit by a car? On Madison Street? Really? I’m on the right side of the road, and I’m looking against the direction of traffic, meaning that if a car was coming, I’d be able to see it!
As far as being injured by the train, it will stay on the track, unlike the rare car, and if we’re going to follow your logic, I guess we should never cross the street, walk across the street, etc. I’m sorry that you never leave the house without using an automobile, Christine!
Again (I’ve said this already in another comment), I was standing behind the rear bumper of my truck, which was parked no differently – no closer to the track – than any of the cars on the street. If you’re telling me that that’s unsafe, you’re trying to insulate me from injury so much that you’re making my life meaningless. I’ve taken probably 100,000 pictures of trains, cars, ships, planes, people, mountains, rivers, hills, parades, protests, demonstrations, football games, dust storms, and lightning storms in half of the US states, half of the Canadian provinces, three Mexican states, southern England, and northern France in the last decade and change, and I’ve never been seriously injured. I’ve only been harassed. The scene for the above pictures is quite tame compared to some scenes where, judging by what you’ve written, you’d have been terrified!
You wrote: “I’m sure that the conductor didn’t mean it as “Keep taking pictures and you’re going to get hauled off to jail”.”
Probably not, I agree, but that he and so many others seemed to think that it is both illegal and therefore should be illegal is, as the Mid-City Marine wrote above in his comment, a “little scarily absurd.” It’s the idea that corporations or law enforcement agencies can create these laws violating our rights that is most disturbing. Right, I never seriously thought that he himself wanted to see me in jail, but victims of terrorism themselves become terrorists. It’s a cancer, and we have too many terrorists right here in this country. It’s exactly what bin Laden wanted. He succeeded in turning us against each other, making us all suspicious of each other; ergo, he won.
You continued: “However, I can understand how you would automatically think that since you had an incident happen to you were this nearly happened, which in and of itself is not fair or justified. That being said, I believe what the conductor said immediately conjured up the bitter feelings of that incident and that is what provoked you to write this.”
Yes, absolutely, and I’m glad that you can at least sympathize with the global nature of this issue, but I also thought, especially with the bit of awareness that I raised with those writings, that this issue would finally fade away. Hearing what I heard on Madison Street that October day served as an unpleasant reminder that this mindset is still, even more than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, pervasive. That must change, and that’s the point. If I raise a big stink about it now, it will become less likely to happen to me or to anyone else in the future.
“Someone commented saying that once they tied down you should have talked to them, to clear up what he had said. I agree with that person a hundred percent. Because it seems like this incident, along with this post and the comments, are full of misunderstanding.”
It was light power. There wasn’t even a train behind them. So, it wouldn’t have taken much for the locomotive to come to a quick stop where I was on Madison Street so that we could have had a conversation about it, but they just kept going, all with the conductor hurriedly nodding his head up and down as he faded from view after I had just, with my own side-to-side noddings, told him that no, it was not illegal.
For me to have approached them afterward – which, on its own, considering the circumstances as you said, is a good idea – I’d have basically had to go interfere with their work. I photograph plenty of trains and railroad subjects, and for the guys working there, it’s a job, and they often don’t want to be bothered. So, I just photograph from a distance from public property and do not interfere with their work. So, nearly 100% of my interactions and conversations with crews are initiated by the crews themselves, and some people I call friends I’ve actually met this way!
I’m there because the train is there, and not vice-versa. So, if there is to be conversation, I almost always let the crews start it, and for those times that I don’t, I’m a pretty good reader of body language and can tell from a distance if a crew is receptive to me initiating a conversation.
I have a built-in habit, and I think that it’s a good one, of not trying to strike up conversations with crews other than waving and smiling at them. They have a job to do (which is not to tell me that what I’m doing is illegal.) The conductor decided to engage me from a moving locomotive that didn’t even have a train behind it, but these guys didn’t even take the time to stop their train-less locomotive (which would not have been difficult at all, as occasionally crews who just want to gab with me do the same thing) and clarify or allow me to clarify, so how receptive would they have been – especially after I was just told that what I was doing was illegal – had I approached them afterward in an area whose public nature is less obvious?
Again, I was just following the general pattern of not trying to interfere with their work.
You wrote:
“Getting to another main point, it is obvious the main reason why you have gotten a lot of negativity on this was your use of the word terrorist. You’ve written that it is a word so overused and so loaded that it essentially becomes meaningless, empty. But, that is the way you see it. Others, however, do not.”
Well, I’m working on that, aren’t I?
Terrorism is contagious, a cancer, and many of us have become terrorists ourselves. Just look here in the comments section for proof. ‘You’d better not photograph airplanes because someone will think you’re a terrorist.’ Really? Those who say that seem to be so willing to not only bend over for Al-Qaeda but to perpetuate that fear too! Terrorsits!
You wrote:
“I know when I hear the word terrorist, I think of the fear of my nation’s, and it’s people’s, safety.”
EXACTLY!!!!!!! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! That’s why I said the conductor showed in that moment that he’s actually a victim of terrorism. He’s far from alone, unfortunately. The labels that we throw around, like “terrorist,” show more about us than about the people to whom we’re applying those words. (The same is true for “liberal,” “conservative,” “racist,” etc.) When we call people terrorists, as both you and I have done here, we’re telling the entire world that we are scared of them. As for me, I’m just as scared of bin Laden and his ilk as I am of people in this country who will willingly give away or take away our rights, like the cops who nearly took me to jail or people who really think that what I’m doing is illegal and should be illegal. So, I’m just as scared as those who threaten life as I am of those who threaten quality of life and rights.
You wrote: “I can completely understand how you compare terrorism to the feeling you felt when you thought that someone was trying to wrongfully take away your constitutional rights. However, think of fear like I described and then think of that fear, they don’t compare.”
Again, nobody gets killed because of terrorism. “Terrorism” is not a cause of death. Those who lost their lives on 9/11 were victims of mass murder, plain and simple, and I’d have been totally out of line had I called the conductor a murderer. As I said, from what I’ve learned about him, he seems like a generally good guy. Al-Qaeda’s members are murderers, and our countrymen who were killed by them are murder victims.
It’s the rest of us who are victims of terrorism, but only so much as we choose to be. That I have what you seem to think to be a skewed perception of terrorism (and it took me a long time and some nasty incidents to arrive at this understanding) is a function of the fact that I can so clearly see now (like I couldn’t before) that that fear is only being perpetuated by people whose job it is to protect us. It is indeed the conductor’s responsibility, beyond his specific railroading duties, to keep an eye out for suspicious activities, but that’s very different than automatically deciding that someone taking pictures from public property is doing something wrong, and he’s not the only railroader guilty of this. Check out those links that Eric posted above. This is the terror state in which we live.
You wrote:
“An example, when I was younger, some friends and I were in a store in the mall and were taking pictures. A sales associate came up to us and told us we couldn’t take pictures in the store. So, what did we do? We complied. Why? Because, it is understandable that that could be seen as suspicious activity.”
Nope. You were right to comply, but as I wrote in my reply to Eric, the only reason that you should have complied is that you were on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and because it’s someone else’s property, whoever told you that need not give you a reason. End of story.
You wrote:
“Another, reason (again, far fetched, but I try to think of every possible scenario) someone in the store could be epileptic. Bright flashing lights, that of which a camera makes, could trigger an epileptic seizure.”
A camera makes bright flashing lights? Not mine! Mine only takes pictures, only records light, does not create it. About the only time that I take indoor pictures is when I’m in more intimate settings (where’d I be aware of such an issue), and it’s usually by request, since I generally don’t like indoor photography and usually just do it at the request of others.
Anyway, seriously, Christine, I very much appreciate that you have written, what you have written, and that you have been understanding about it. Your comment and the Engineer’s understanding are the most reassuring thing from the Conductor’s camp. Please tell your boyfriend that the next time he sees me taking pictures, if he’s not too busy, to stop by and say hello!
Thanks.
It was honestly a mistake to reply to this article, judging from your condescending manner. Know what is another all too pervasive mindset that acts like a cancer, slowly killing America from the inside out? Stupidity and narrow mindedness. People who cannot and simply refuse to see things from another point of view and who will shoot down anybody who does not agree with them one hundred percent. I’m sure you know what that defines, a bigot. I tried to sympathize with you, but I get insulted instead? I’m sorry if that came out cruel, since it was never my intention. However, this whole thing is dying out. You can reply (which I am more than sure you will, as well as your friends who have also commented on this), but it falls upon deaf ears now.
Have a good day.
Gosh, Christine, I’m not sure what you mean; I thought that your reply was great, and I said so in a reply to Eric’s comment below. Your comment was not “cruel” at all, and I’m not sure why you interpret my reply as being insulting. It was just an explanation, the point of this discussion. You raised plenty of good points in your comment. All that I did was respond by raising points of my own. We can agree to disagree, but I don’t think that I insulted you at all. I thought that your first comment was one of the best comments here, and I still think that now.
Yes, “this whole thing is dying out.” It should, but not without new understandings.
For one. Let me point out a thing or two about “terrorism” as the American perspective of what terrorism is is skewed badly. I have a close friend in Belfast – so let me say a thing or two about Terrorism. Terrorism is growing up in Belfast, Northern Ireland in the 80s and 90s. Terrorism is having rockets get launched through your favorite pub and being able to joke and return when the damage is repaired. Terrorism is going into a store that your cousin owns and walking out as two men dressed in black enter and hearing the shots of your closest friend’s Uncle being shot and going back in to hold the wound. Terrorism is the kid down the street throwing a petrol bomb through your neighbors window because of what Church he goes to. Terrorism is a continual paranoid fear about random acts of violence. Why do you think terrorists use car bombs? Terrorism is paranoia. But People are resilient and continue to live under any circumstances.
But it seems our society is so caught up in SENSATIONALISM in regards to this matter. Terrorism happened before there was photography. “Terrorism” happened before there were police. In fact, our country spends a hell of a lot of time worrying about what innocent civilians are doing and ignoring the true terrorism at our border, like 20,000 people killed in a drug war at our border is not terrorism?. While Americans sit around and debate if someone should photograph something????
Terrorism is fear. Our use of the word terrorism is liberal, but in my opinion any organization who would bully and intimidate someone who is not doing anything wrong needs to rethink their own agenda or the agenda of the company they work for. Especially as they can come to the website and see it is a hobby. It is like getting upset that someone is building a copy of a model stealth plane. Its just stupid.
Also anyone who is coming here and insulting the author of these posts personally is what initially angered me, because you don’t really have the right to judge someone based on a blog, after all you don’t know a person based on a blog, or any form of social media you just see a small part of who that person is and what they write. So I guess coming here and placing flaming comments shows their level of intelligence, or lack of.
Here is a quote that is very relevant in the topic- and if you haven’t read about how Totalitarian states come about you should…. just because we have a “Constitution” does not make us immune- in fact it makes us even more susceptible for allowing ourselves to slowly get sucked into a nanny-police- state….
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Jimbaux, all the more reason why I said to get their badge numbers, so that you can contact their superiors & ask them why “so-and-so officer” is telling people it’s against the law to photograph such modes of transportation. It will leave the legwork up to the superior to ensure that his men aren’t spreading this disease that is misinformation & misinterpretation of the current laws.
Christine, there’s a reason other than why you were asked to stop taking photos in the mall. While I can’t speak to the specific instance, malls to a small extent are public property. So much so that you can take photos (unless otherwise posted), but if you’re asked to stop, you MUST do so. That order could come from a mall cop or a even a store lessee, but if you fail to do, you’re then in violation of the law.
Actually, I have not gotten to Christine’s great comment yet, but I was going to say that even though it’s a public area, it’s actually private property (the opposite of the airports and the Port of New Orleans, a school, a hospital, etc, as I told Jessica), and, regardless of the reason, the store has the right to allow and disallow certain activities by its clientele, and – more importantly – it should have that right. It’s private property, and that’s part of why I never really seriously have tried to do photography in such places (with a few exceptions.) As much as I support, as a red-white-blue-blooded American, our rights to photograph and of Freedom of the Press, I also support private property rights, which is why I support the rights of the railroads to disallow anyone on its property.
You said it right, Jimbaux, my apologies. Public “area”, not property, bad choice of words on my part. The mall itself, including leased “property” by retail tenants, is indeed PRIVATE. That is, we have the right to OCCUPY that property without permission for the basis of shopping (etc.), but we don’t have the right to loiter or really do anything else without the express permission of the (area’s) owner.
Jessica is a troll, Let my response to her (this comment) be the last one. If she’s still reading she’ll eventually move on if we ignore her.
Terrorists are people who use fear as a means of achieving their goals
The conductor was attempting to scare off Jimbaux (for whatever reason)
By this logic the conductor would indeed be labeled as a terrorist, and I would greatly enjoy if the world would pull the stick out of it’s ass concerning the social stigma attached to the word.
Alex wrote “The conductor was attempting to scare off Jimbaux (for whatever reason)
By this logic the conductor would indeed be labeled as a terrorist”
Actually, that alone didn’t warrant the “terrorist” label. Had he been trying to scare me off from doing something that is both illegal and, more importantly, should be illegal, that would be a very a different matter, and the terrorist label would have been highly inappropriate, but what I was doing was neither illegal nor, just as important, should be illegal.
Also, the fact that it was part of what seems like a nationwide trend of erosion of such rights (meaning that it really has nothing to do with the conductor) is also what drew the label, and it’s also what warranted publishing this issue, since it wasn’t some issue between just him and me. What he told to me he could have told to anyone, and what I heard come from his mouth could have, unfortunately, come from the mouths of plenty of like-minded people, and it, unfortunately, HAS come from the mouths of many. This must stop.
What else can we really expect when we are so often told (often implicitly) that all of us are homeland security officers and that we should all always be on the lookout? It’s not surprising that people and, worse yet, corporations and law enforcement agencies and other agencies, seem to make up their own laws. That’s why I cannot, despite the disrespect I first perceived at his foolish actions, hold the conductor in personal contempt for those actions.
It’s nice to have someone from my DC delegation commenting here!
I miss you guys.
Interesting enough Jimbaux, I was just briefing my sister (whose house I’m staying at), and she translated that very “fear” and pseudo “law” that so many people seem to believe in our country. In her exact words, “Yeah, they passed ‘that’ law,…after 9/11….where you can’t photograph trains, ships airplances, powerplants….”.
Rather than get into a pissing match with her, especially since we’re family & she’s giving me a place to live for the time being, I just said I’m not going to argue this with her & there is no such law. As I just mentioned her blog to you, she commented that, “the terrorists created a panic”, to which I agreed whole-heartedly, and I’m sure you do as well. The problem people in this country don’t see to comprehend is that THERE ARE NO LAWS THE PREVENT US FROM PHOTOGRAPHING (ALMOST) ANYTHING!!!!
Photography is not a crime.
Furthermore, I agree 100% that the conductor is about as much of an “enforcer” as the police themselves are “lawmakers”. It is the conductor’s job to REPORT suspicious activity, not to act upon it or even make assumptions, much less try to play hero of the day by prohibiting photography of his train in ANY way, shape or form. It is the job of the enforcers to tell you when you’re doing something wrong, and any cop in his right mind will know that it’s not illegal to take photographs or trains (or in my specific interests, chemical plants, where obscure locomotives can be found).
I believe the reason that my interest is deemed illegal is just another way for Corporate America to justify not taking photographs of their property or any activity within their borders. However, that’s just lazy. If you don’t want people to photograph your facility (or in my case, the trains that are switching on property), put up a 10-foot high fence or concrete wall, or even a 1/2-mile buffer around the plant that is surrounded by barb wire fence & trees. But don’t sit around & legislate away my rights to do so in the name of Homeland Security. That’s just stupid, b/c the real reason is a controlled expectation of privacy to which these companies are otherwise not entitled.
The problem is that everyone wants to be a damn hero, in the name of “homeland security”, and they’re only doing a much greater injustice to our country as a whole when they assume that everyone is out to perform misdeeds & illegal activity. It wouldn’t be nearly as harmful if they even knew what the laws were, as I pointed out in the post above based on the comment made by my 47y/o sister this evening.
I am really late to this party. Had a death in the family, which took up most of last week, and put us behind on Christmas preparation, thus have not had time to read and think.
The level of ignorance of basic rights and law on the part of Americans is appalling. I suspect it has a lot to do with a lack of education-do they still teach civics classes in school??-and a resulting lack of basic knowledge of the Constitution. The rise of radio and TV shouters has surely not helped that situation. Things said on some of those programs are not always useful, and often not correct. It’s also a sad statement on our populace that people like the Kardashians and shows like Survivor get better ratings than C SPAN, though that’s probably an unfair comparison. Further, for a nation that was born of an attitude that raised a middle finger high to established authority, we have become awfully compliant when someone tells us we can’t do something inocuous-like taking a photo of a cruise ship. As evidence, I refer to posts from Jessica and Fotaugraphee above.
How can I put this so it’s simple and easy to understand??
PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT A CRIME!!!!
The link to Bert Krage’s page is an excellent resource. I have a print out in my camera bag. What people need to keep in mind is that photography of subjects in public view from public property is always permitted. Obviously you want to use some common sense, and not do anything dangerous to yourself or others-don’t stand in the middle of a busy street to get your shot-and be mindful of people who don’t want their picture taken for some reason. As relates to our particular hobby, as long as you’re on public property, you can shoot all the train pictures you want. The problem arises when you encounter some do gooder with a cell phone, who sees anyone doing something he does not understand as a potential threat, or you have an encounter with ignorant law enforcement-a situation already well documented in this forum-who does not know the law, or is making it up to suit their particular whim of the moment. I find this second situation especially galling, as they are the people who are professionally involved with the law at the street level. For them to not know it, or to willfully ignore it for their own reasons, is unacceptable. That’s like me being a truck driver and not knowing how to steer it, or running it into things intentionally. Ignorance of the law is no excuse just as much for cops as for anyone else, if not more so. That said, the smarter cops I’m sure find a lot of this dime dropping a nuisance. I’d bet most of the calls that come in for people engaged in “suspicious activity” turn out to be wild goose chases-the alleged perp is long gone before the cops show up-or even if there is a contact, it turns out to be something harmless. Unfortunately, there is pressure on law enforcement to Do Something to show they are protecting us from the terrorists who are hiding behind every tree, so this is what we get. If you’re lucky, you have an encounter with a professional officer who knows the law and the limits of his authority. If you’re not, you get a band of uniformed thugs loaded up on steriods who are going to use you to show that they are the next Great American Heroes for keeping a dangerous terrorist off the streets.
The do gooders, I’m not sure what can be done about them. As James and others have noted, it’s the mindset. People have bought into the idea that they are going to stop the next 9/11 by calling in on anyone who looks even slightly unusual. Most of them don’t have the common sense to realize that anyone who really wants to take pictures of anything sensitive is going to do it surreptitously, and not out in the open with a digital SLR. Besides, with Bing, Yahoo, and Google, you almost don’t need to get out of your pajamas to see pretty much anything on the face of the earth. I’m sure a lot of them mean well, and are legitimately concerned for public safety, but I am also sure there are many who think anyone with a camera not taking pictures of national parks or Disney world is a threat, and must be reported. They are either paranoid, or convinced THEY are going to be the next Great American Hero, or both. some of them are just busybodies, and really need to mind their own business. Either way, most of them are not qualified to determine what constitutes a security threat. But they all have itchy dialing fingers, and 911 on a hair trigger.
That’s all for this installment. I’m out of time for the moment, so I’m going to post this(since the last time I left one unfinished, the computer burped and I had to retype the post), and continue tomorrow with some comments on Jessica and the mindset.
Jessica and the mindset:
“Referring back to George’s comment, it IS illegal to take pictures of vehicles such as trains, planes and boats such as cruise ships.”
Is this comment based on the word of some security type at the port?? Did she do any reseach to find out if that person’s statement was indeed true?? Here’s a new item for those who are not fully aware of the worle they live in: People lie. Sometimes they are just making stuff up as they go, sometimes they know better but are spreading wrong information for their own purposes. Some of them are in positions that one would expect to hear the truth from. If I had been in Jessica’s position, my first reaction to the guy telling me I could not take pictures there would be “why, and what is your authority to make that statement??” Authority needs to be questioned. Ask what is the statutory or regulatory basis for the prohibition. I bet the guy who made that statement can’t come up with one, most likely because there is no prohibition. But that does raise another issue:
As has been noted elsewhere, there is a distinction between public owned and public access. Places such as a train station-since many of them are now owned by government agencies-or ports may be public owned, but they have rules regarding many things, including photography. That said, why someone getting on a cruise ship would be prohibited from taking a picture of the boat is baffling. Did it never occur to the people who run the port that tourists on a cruise might want to take a picture of the boat as they were boarding? Dumb. This is one reason why anyone making such a statement about photography needs to be questioned.
On a broader note, she makes the comment that the trainee “was doing his job”. Since when does accusing people in public spaces fall into the scope of a train crew’s employment?? His superiors may have indeed told him to do exactly that, admittedly in very general, ambiguous terms, but they are also wrong. It’s one thing to run people off their own property, but off a public street?? Get real. In his defense, he is not the only crew member so instructed, nor does he work for the only railroad who engages in that practice. CSX in New York was also doing this. I had an encounter with the E Syracuse PD regarding this in 2002. Apparently one of the crews called in a bunch of us who were taking photos from a side street at the west end of Dewitt yard. One of the cop’s comments was “CSX does non want people hanging around near the area.” That’s nice, but if it’s not their property, they have no say. Too bad if they don’t like it. I was not going to get into a pissing match with him, especially since the street we were on abutted active tracks and the property lines at that location were not well defined(and not posted), but had I been in a better position, I would definitely have pushed it a little harder. So we now have the issue of some corporation that has its facilities and equipment in public view, and is trying to extend their property rights illegally, not only by instructing their employees to engage in harassment, but also by using cops as enforcers. NOGC is probably not big enough to have that kind of pull, but the principle is the same. This is why any time anyone tells you something is illegal, you have to question it. There are a lot of people out there who are telling your wrong, even if they have the authority to make the statement. The fact that many accept being told information that is incorrect, or deliberately misleading is a big part of the problem. If it does not sound right, it probably is not, and needs to be challenged and verified. Don’t let the fact that some guy with a gun and a badge tells you something fool you into thinking he is automatically right. This is how our freedoms get whittled away, one little thing at a time.
The paranoia in this country regarding many security issues is rampant, much of it is not warranted. A lot of it comes from the period right after the 9/11 attacks and the tone that was set then by the congress and the Bush administration. I’m not going to get into the politics of it-Obama has not done much to change things, and I don’t want this to devolve into a partisan fight over who gets the blame. It doesn’t matter-to some degree, it’s all of us. First, to those who think they know what they are talking about and spread misinformation however unwittingly, second to those who do know what they are talking about, but deliberately spread misinformation, third, to the rest of us who allow it to go on unchallenged. That’s what this whole episode of the Journal is about. We need to stop the misinformation. It’s a monumental task, and may in the end be impossible, but there are bright spots. Railpace Magazine had a column called BOBERWATCH, dedicated to the follies of, among others, the NJ Transit police chief, whose name is Bober. He and members of his department were actively going after anyone taking photos of NJ Transit operations, regardless of venue. The exposure eventually led to a change in policy, but it was a hard fought battle. The efforts of Walter Zullig, a VP in the NRHS, have also resulted in policy changes. Mr Zullig is uniquely positioned to assist in this venture. He recently retired as General Counsel for Metro North, and has an intimate working knowledge of the world of New York’s many public authorities. He does his work quietly behind the scenes, but he is effective in getting things done. As he puts it, “I have been taking railroad photos since 1953. I’m not about to stop now.” We can’t all publish magazines or work the legal system to effect change. We can do what we can, where we are, to educate, and if necessary, stand our ground, to make sure those who would erode our freedoms are prevented from doing it. If we don’t, we all lose. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. If we do nothing, it will NEVER stop and will only get worse.
{ 4 trackbacks }