Mama Carol

BIG, huge difference between Area 51 and Cartersville Airport. One is private, off limits to civilians and guarded and one is public. Apples and oranges. And again, it is legal to take pictures at an airport, even at the security screening area of Atlanta Airport. Don't believe me? Google it. And what Bright Tiger posted pretty well sums it up. Neither has anyone stated what crime he allegedly committed only that he was "taken into custody". Was he charged with a crime? Not disputing the Patriot Act as being fully legal and in compliance with the Constitution, merely stating that

THANK YOU for posting this!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!! That's all I've been saying the whole time. The man committed NO CRIME in taking the photos. And suspicious activity does not equal criminal activity.

not really.

still ALL we know for certain is that a man of Middle Eastern decent was "taken into custody" outside the Cartersville airport because he was taking photos and had a tag/vehicle discrepancy. Perhaps he was taken into custody, the photos looked at and he was sent on his way with a court date for the tag. Do we know for a FACT that he was a terrorist wannabe? He IS considered innocent until proven guilty. That isn't me defending HIM, that is me defending his RIGHTS.

It IS a free country.

You are absolutely right!!

I agree!!

this from The American Spectator: In nearly a decade there is not a single report of a terrorist having been caught during the TSA screening process. No bombs have been discovered. No hijackings have been thwarted. For the TSA to claim it has made the nation's skies safer is as absurd as the rooster taking credit for the sun rising each morning. Observant passengers have caught more terrorist-wannabes than the 67,000 TSA employees. And the number of terrorist-wannabes is minuscule.

Of course, I do. It's called the Constitution of the United States. Granted, we don't use it much anymore, but it does grant certain rights and there is a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. That does not mean, we presume you're guilty because you were acting in a suspicious manner. Suspicious actions do not mean actual criminal activity has taken place. I did not defend him. I merely asked what law he broke. That has never been answered. What law DID he break other than not having the correct tag on a vehicle? It is not illegal to take photos of public places. It is not

You've done what you should do. Obviously, this person has issues that don't involve you except when she needs something. I'd write her off and never look back. There was apparently a WHOLE LOT more than "office politics" going on and you don't need to be subjected to her drama. If it were me, I would no longer answer the phone if she called. If you did answer and it was her, I would explain that I was right in the middle of something but would be happy to call her back later. And never call her. Toxic people should be avoided. It isn't easy always to do so and you might f

My experience, recent experience at that, with the DOL is that they don't want any more work than they already have. I tipped them off to a labor issue and they said they would NOT investigate. Good for the company, huh? Now they can continue to take advantage of their "employees".

I, for one, believe this country has the theory of innocent until proven guilty. So, yes, I would ASSUME there was no illegal activity until it was proven otherwise. And until we see an arrest report, yes, I'm going to ASSUME law enforcement found nothing to suggest illegal activity. I think "intent" would come into play, too.

See, now there's a lot more information. Taking off when spotted and having license plates that don't match the vehicle they are supposed to be on IS suspicious. Merely taking pictures is NOT. If you filmed my grandkids playing in my yard, I'd wonder how they got here. And if you were not doing anything suspicious, it might bother me that you were filming but there wouldn't be anything I could do about it. There are questions pretty often on here about people going around taking pictures of houses. Unless there is a reason they shouldn't be, and they aren't doing anything ill

this from the National Terror Alert Response Center: Maybe you are at a high profile location or, perhaps a National Monument and you notice a person nearby taking several photos. That’s not unusual. But then you notice that the person is only taking photos of the locations surveillance cameras, entrance crash barriers and access control procedures. Is that normal for a tourist? Not. Again, just because this man was taking pictures does NOT mean it was suspicious. If he were taking pictures of certain things, perhaps. But JUST taking pictures of an airport or even a power plant (afte

Looks like the airport at Cartersville is public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartersville_Airport Suspicious activity is not taking pictures legally! I really believe the "suspicious" part was he was middle eastern. In Bartow County.

True. It might not have happened at all.

Probable cause. Search and seizure. And honestly, who knows what other rights might have been trampled. If the man was not doing anything illegal, there was no reason to "take him into custody". Everything hinges on whether or not he was doing anything illegal. It is NOT illegal to take photos of an airport! Airports are public places. Sorry if you don't agree. Doesn't change the facts. Like someone said, the wrong plates probably caused the problem. But that's something that has only been mentioned on here and nothing concrete has been said about that.

I think you missed the point of my question about what if it were YOUR son. I wasn't asking what if your son were Middle Eastern. I asked how you would feel if it were your son and he was not doing anything illegal but yet he was still questioned and/or detained. Would you feel it was OK for his rights to be trampled on in order to keep us believing we were safe?

You can bet your bottom dollar that if the guy was a young "urban" guy he would have the ACLU filing a lawsuit against the county on his behalf. I agree--racism is racism regardless of which race it is directed at.

My thoughts exactly.

If I'm not mistaken, it is a FREE country and he would be allowed the same freedom we have. Would a WHITE redneck in a pick up truck be questioned if they were taking pictures of the airport or a power plant? I agree with being cautious in this day and time but would you still not care whose rights were stepped on if it were your son who was detained and what he was doing was NOT against the law? so very, very true. Really sad thing is that the terrorists don't have to commit one more act of terrorism to strike back at us.

Should the hobby photographers who sit and take pictures of passing trains be reported as "suspicious"? What if they are Middle Eastern? Being a non-white person is not enough "probable cause" IMO.

I'm still confused about what law he broke. It's not illegal to take photos of public places unless strictly prohibited and posted as such or in places where privacy is expected. A power plant and an airport would fall into "public" places. If he was on the tarmac and taking a picture, that might have been different as he was likely trespassing. Same with being on the property of the power plant. Otherwise, what law did he break???? Being Middle Eastern?