Dazed
@_Dazed
6 Years10,000+ Posts
Comments: 9549 · Posts: 12626 · Topics: 250
1st and 2nd Amendment Audits... (Page 2)
You are on page out of 2 | Reverse Order
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
ah, my bad, with so many amendments being throw around I got confused lmao
but heck, I didn't even know there was a big list of "Conduct on postal property" that is very specific about filming and what not.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
there's nothing to discuss in that particular case, the cop had all the right to detain him.
P.S what you mention about the names in the packages is in there too.
What reason was there to detain?
Photography is not a crime.
Posted by Endless
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in the post office as you violate their regulations.
detain =/= arrest
detain =/= crime
You get detained when you are suspected of a crime.
Detaining a citizen without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
"Unlawful Detention, occurs when a police officer or other state actor, acts under the color of state law to deprive an individual of their Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so. This “detention” does not necessarily mean an actual arrest. Unlawful detention may occur if an individual is detained for an unreasonable amount of time
A police officer doesn’t necessarily need to arrest or charge an individual for there to be an unlawful detention. Typically, if the individual reasonably believes they are not free to leave without fear of arrest then they are detained. This does not mean an officer may not confront an individual. Police officers may at all times confront an individual and ask them questions. This is known as a consensual encounter. An officer may also briefly detain an individual if they have reasonable suspicion supported by clearly articulated facts that a crime may be afoot. This kind of interaction with Police is called a Terry stop. A Terry stop which may become a full blown detention if it lasts for an unreasonable amount of time or if other factors such as handcuffing or detention make the brief detention feel more like a traditional arrest."
the quote say "In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so"
there was no "unreasonable amount of time" involved, she was investigating the call she got, she had a reason, cuz the man was clearly violating postal office regulation, also she had reasonable suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent with the office a priori.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
"Photography and Filming for Personal Use
Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be allowed at the postmaster’s discretion provided that there is no disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions; however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns."click to expand
Posted by Endless
P.S: before you post what I imagine come next
"Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns"
he didn't ask permission, the employees did go to him, he didn't stop, police were called, he got detained
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Do you meant the 1st amendment?click to expand
No I mean the 5th, which protects privacy of personal information. Includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation."
My address, face, and name are private property.
Posted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
ah, my bad, with so many amendments being throw around I got confused lmao
but heck, I didn't even know there was a big list of "Conduct on postal property" that is very specific about filming and what not.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
there's nothing to discuss in that particular case, the cop had all the right to detain him.
P.S what you mention about the names in the packages is in there too.
What reason was there to detain?
Photography is not a crime.
Posted by Endless
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in the post office as you violate their regulations.
detain =/= arrest
detain =/= crime
You get detained when you are suspected of a crime.
Detaining a citizen without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
"Unlawful Detention, occurs when a police officer or other state actor, acts under the color of state law to deprive an individual of their Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so. This “detention” does not necessarily mean an actual arrest. Unlawful detention may occur if an individual is detained for an unreasonable amount of time
A police officer doesn’t necessarily need to arrest or charge an individual for there to be an unlawful detention. Typically, if the individual reasonably believes they are not free to leave without fear of arrest then they are detained. This does not mean an officer may not confront an individual. Police officers may at all times confront an individual and ask them questions. This is known as a consensual encounter. An officer may also briefly detain an individual if they have reasonable suspicion supported by clearly articulated facts that a crime may be afoot. This kind of interaction with Police is called a Terry stop. A Terry stop which may become a full blown detention if it lasts for an unreasonable amount of time or if other factors such as handcuffing or detention make the brief detention feel more like a traditional arrest."
the quote say "In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so"
there was no "unreasonable amount of time" involved, she was investigating the call she got, she had a reason, cuz the man was clearly violating postal office regulation, also she had reasonable suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent with the office a priori.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
"Photography and Filming for Personal Use
Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be allowed at the postmaster’s discretion provided that there is no disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions; however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns."
Posted by Endless
P.S: before you post what I imagine come next
"Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns"
he didn't ask permission, the employees did go to him, he didn't stop, police were called, he got detainedclick to expand
You: "also she had reasonable suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent with the office"
Me and USPS: "In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions"
Most public parks/ government buildings you need to get a permit to film. To my knowledge.
Posted by TartarusPosted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by Tartarus
I would imagine the first video in its entirety is similar to this one.. I have a reasonable suspicion, anyway.
Tell me, how is inside the post office public property?
You clearly see the PO boxes and the inside of the office?
The first video in this thread didn't involve the inside of a Post Office.
That's your assumption. He elludes to the contrary.
There is no mention from him or the personnel that he ever entered the Post Office.
As for the video you posted..
http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the-usps-is-not-a-government-agency/
8:45 of your video.
Are you saying government property = public property?
Ahh.. I see. Fair point.
As for your question..
https://nppa.org/sites/default/files/FPS-Photography-Bulletin-8-2-2010-redacted-1% 5B2% 5D-1.pdf
Post Offices are under the jurisdiction of FPS.
If he was just photographing the exterior while standing on the sidewalk I doubt there would be an issue at all. I just dont believe that's all that happened, and I think the video was deliberately cut so that it began at the confrontation he knew he would entice.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1
From your link..
"Photography and Filming for Personal Use
Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be allowed at the postmaster’s discretion provided that there is no disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions; however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns."
Yes, he claimed to be a professional reporter. Problem as shown in the 2nd part
Since you left out this part
Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers.click to expand
"Personal use"
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Do you meant the 1st amendment?
No I mean the 5th, which protects privacy of personal information. Includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation."
My address, face, and name are private property.click to expand
While in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Posted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.
I didn't say photography.
Loitering
Loitering means to wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
The purpose is to take photos.
Inside a post office?
It may differ from state to state but I'm pretty sure photography and filming in a post office is under strict guidelines.
You can only take photos for personal use as long as they don't disrupt employees.
He clearly stated he is posting this publicly online and since police were called, obviously caused disruption.
Also pretty sure your pics/film can't depict any postal service employees, customer, security camera, and customers info (aka cover of mail).
He was never inside the post office.
He was outside and on a public easement.click to expand
He said he was in the video... did you even watch it in its entirety?
Posted by LadyNeptune
Most public parks/ government buildings you need to get a permit to film. To my knowledge.
Nope.
Posted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Do you meant the 1st amendment?
No I mean the 5th, which protects privacy of personal information. Includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation."
My address, face, and name are private property.
While in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.click to expand
So explain to me how someone who tampers with my mail, in public, is committing a federal offense.
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.
I didn't say photography.
Loitering
Loitering means to wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
The purpose is to take photos.
Inside a post office?
It may differ from state to state but I'm pretty sure photography and filming in a post office is under strict guidelines.
You can only take photos for personal use as long as they don't disrupt employees.
He clearly stated he is posting this publicly online and since police were called, obviously caused disruption.
Also pretty sure your pics/film can't depict any postal service employees, customer, security camera, and customers info (aka cover of mail).
He was never inside the post office.
He was outside and on a public easement.
He said he was in the video... did you even watch it in its entirety?click to expand
Yes and I was corrected by another user..
It doesn't matter either way.
Posted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Do you meant the 1st amendment?
No I mean the 5th, which protects privacy of personal information. Includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation."
My address, face, and name are private property.
While in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.click to expand
So explain to me how someone who tampers with my mail, in public, is committing a federal offense.
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
ah, my bad, with so many amendments being throw around I got confused lmao
but heck, I didn't even know there was a big list of "Conduct on postal property" that is very specific about filming and what not.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
there's nothing to discuss in that particular case, the cop had all the right to detain him.
P.S what you mention about the names in the packages is in there too.
What reason was there to detain?
Photography is not a crime.
Posted by Endless
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in the post office as you violate their regulations.
detain =/= arrest
detain =/= crime
You get detained when you are suspected of a crime.
Detaining a citizen without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
"Unlawful Detention, occurs when a police officer or other state actor, acts under the color of state law to deprive an individual of their Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so. This “detention” does not necessarily mean an actual arrest. Unlawful detention may occur if an individual is detained for an unreasonable amount of time
A police officer doesn’t necessarily need to arrest or charge an individual for there to be an unlawful detention. Typically, if the individual reasonably believes they are not free to leave without fear of arrest then they are detained. This does not mean an officer may not confront an individual. Police officers may at all times confront an individual and ask them questions. This is known as a consensual encounter. An officer may also briefly detain an individual if they have reasonable suspicion supported by clearly articulated facts that a crime may be afoot. This kind of interaction with Police is called a Terry stop. A Terry stop which may become a full blown detention if it lasts for an unreasonable amount of time or if other factors such as handcuffing or detention make the brief detention feel more like a traditional arrest."
the quote say "In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so"
there was no "unreasonable amount of time" involved, she was investigating the call she got, she had a reason, cuz the man was clearly violating postal office regulation, also she had reasonable suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent with the office a priori.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
"Photography and Filming for Personal Use
Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be allowed at the postmaster’s discretion provided that there is no disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions; however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns."
Posted by Endless
P.S: before you post what I imagine come next
"Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns"
he didn't ask permission, the employees did go to him, he didn't stop, police were called, he got detained
You: "also she had reasonable suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent with the office"
Me and USPS: "In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions"click to expand
but she was called by the post office employees, the office can restrict any and all photography in their premises if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns (IE at postmaster will), when he refused to stop he violated the post office regulation, which gives the suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent (or in this case, against the office regulation) with the office
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Do you meant the 1st amendment?
No I mean the 5th, which protects privacy of personal information. Includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation."
My address, face, and name are private property.
While in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
So explain to me how someone who tampers with my mail, in public, is committing a federal offense.click to expand
How is that even related to being filmed in public?
Posted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Do you meant the 1st amendment?
No I mean the 5th, which protects privacy of personal information. Includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation."
My address, face, and name are private property.
While in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
So explain to me how someone who tampers with my mail, in public, is committing a federal offense.
How is that even related to being filmed in public?click to expand
Someone filming mail with sensitive personal information... putting it out into the public audience. You don't see the relation...
Posted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
ah, my bad, with so many amendments being throw around I got confused lmao
but heck, I didn't even know there was a big list of "Conduct on postal property" that is very specific about filming and what not.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
there's nothing to discuss in that particular case, the cop had all the right to detain him.
P.S what you mention about the names in the packages is in there too.
What reason was there to detain?
Photography is not a crime.
Posted by Endless
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in the post office as you violate their regulations.
detain =/= arrest
detain =/= crime
You get detained when you are suspected of a crime.
Detaining a citizen without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
"Unlawful Detention, occurs when a police officer or other state actor, acts under the color of state law to deprive an individual of their Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so. This “detention” does not necessarily mean an actual arrest. Unlawful detention may occur if an individual is detained for an unreasonable amount of time
A police officer doesn’t necessarily need to arrest or charge an individual for there to be an unlawful detention. Typically, if the individual reasonably believes they are not free to leave without fear of arrest then they are detained. This does not mean an officer may not confront an individual. Police officers may at all times confront an individual and ask them questions. This is known as a consensual encounter. An officer may also briefly detain an individual if they have reasonable suspicion supported by clearly articulated facts that a crime may be afoot. This kind of interaction with Police is called a Terry stop. A Terry stop which may become a full blown detention if it lasts for an unreasonable amount of time or if other factors such as handcuffing or detention make the brief detention feel more like a traditional arrest."
the quote say "In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so"
there was no "unreasonable amount of time" involved, she was investigating the call she got, she had a reason, cuz the man was clearly violating postal office regulation, also she had reasonable suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent with the office a priori.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
"Photography and Filming for Personal Use
Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be allowed at the postmaster’s discretion provided that there is no disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions; however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns."
Posted by Endless
P.S: before you post what I imagine come next
"Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns"
he didn't ask permission, the employees did go to him, he didn't stop, police were called, he got detained
You: "also she had reasonable suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent with the office"
Me and USPS: "In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions"
but she was called by the post office employees, the office can restrict any and all photography in their premises if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns (IE at postmaster will), when he refused to stop he violated the post office regulation, which gives the suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent (or in this case, against the office regulation) with the officeclick to expand
INSIDE.. they can ask him to stop, although you don't need permission to begin with.
Once he is outside.. They can't ask him to stop.
Posted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.
I didn't say photography.
Loitering
Loitering means to wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
The purpose is to take photos.
Inside a post office?
It may differ from state to state but I'm pretty sure photography and filming in a post office is under strict guidelines.
You can only take photos for personal use as long as they don't disrupt employees.
He clearly stated he is posting this publicly online and since police were called, obviously caused disruption.
Also pretty sure your pics/film can't depict any postal service employees, customer, security camera, and customers info (aka cover of mail).
He was never inside the post office.
He was outside and on a public easement.
He said he was in the video... did you even watch it in its entirety?
Yes and I was corrected by another user..
It doesn't matter either way.click to expand
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Do you meant the 1st amendment?
No I mean the 5th, which protects privacy of personal information. Includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation."
My address, face, and name are private property.
While in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
So explain to me how someone who tampers with my mail, in public, is committing a federal offense.
How is that even related to being filmed in public?
Someone filming mail with sensitive personal information... putting it out into the public audience. You don't see the relation...click to expand
1. PO Boxes. Locked and secure.
2. You posted your own mail on this very site for all to see.. sooooooo....
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.
I didn't say photography.
Loitering
Loitering means to wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
The purpose is to take photos.
Inside a post office?
It may differ from state to state but I'm pretty sure photography and filming in a post office is under strict guidelines.
You can only take photos for personal use as long as they don't disrupt employees.
He clearly stated he is posting this publicly online and since police were called, obviously caused disruption.
Also pretty sure your pics/film can't depict any postal service employees, customer, security camera, and customers info (aka cover of mail).
He was never inside the post office.
He was outside and on a public easement.
He said he was in the video... did you even watch it in its entirety?
Yes and I was corrected by another user..
It doesn't matter either way.click to expand
Did you even bother to read the USPS filming permission link?
Posted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Do you meant the 1st amendment?
No I mean the 5th, which protects privacy of personal information. Includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation."
My address, face, and name are private property.
While in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
So explain to me how someone who tampers with my mail, in public, is committing a federal offense.
How is that even related to being filmed in public?
Someone filming mail with sensitive personal information... putting it out into the public audience. You don't see the relation...
1. PO Boxes. Locked and secure.
2. You posted your own mail on this very site for all to see.. sooooooo....click to expand
RIght sure thing
It checks out you think this is no big deal. Fits your mo
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Do you meant the 1st amendment?
No I mean the 5th, which protects privacy of personal information. Includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation."
My address, face, and name are private property.
While in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
So explain to me how someone who tampers with my mail, in public, is committing a federal offense.
How is that even related to being filmed in public?
Someone filming mail with sensitive personal information... putting it out into the public audience. You don't see the relation...
1. PO Boxes. Locked and secure.
2. You posted your own mail on this very site for all to see.. sooooooo....
RIght sure thing
It checks out you think this is no big deal. Fits your moclick to expand
Show me where "sensitive personal information" was filmed..
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it"
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.
Posted by Endless
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it"
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.
Posted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.
I didn't say photography.
Loitering
Loitering means to wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
The purpose is to take photos.
Inside a post office?
It may differ from state to state but I'm pretty sure photography and filming in a post office is under strict guidelines.
You can only take photos for personal use as long as they don't disrupt employees.
He clearly stated he is posting this publicly online and since police were called, obviously caused disruption.
Also pretty sure your pics/film can't depict any postal service employees, customer, security camera, and customers info (aka cover of mail).
He was never inside the post office.
He was outside and on a public easement.
He said he was in the video... did you even watch it in its entirety?
Yes and I was corrected by another user..
It doesn't matter either way.
Did you even bother to read the USPS filming permission link?click to expand
Way before you did.
Don't think I didn't notice you conveniently skipping over the part where its allowed EXCEPT if postmaster deems it a disruption.
I pointed this out on page 2.
Your response "he was never in post office"
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.
I didn't say photography.
Loitering
Loitering means to wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
The purpose is to take photos.
Inside a post office?
It may differ from state to state but I'm pretty sure photography and filming in a post office is under strict guidelines.
You can only take photos for personal use as long as they don't disrupt employees.
He clearly stated he is posting this publicly online and since police were called, obviously caused disruption.
Also pretty sure your pics/film can't depict any postal service employees, customer, security camera, and customers info (aka cover of mail).
He was never inside the post office.
He was outside and on a public easement.
He said he was in the video... did you even watch it in its entirety?
Yes and I was corrected by another user..
It doesn't matter either way.
Did you even bother to read the USPS filming permission link?
Way before you did.
Don't think I didn't notice you conveniently skipping over the part where its allowed EXCEPT if postmaster deems it a disruption.
I pointed this out on page 2.
Your response "he was never in post office"click to expand
"In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions;"
Posted by _DazedPosted by Endless
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it"
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.click to expand
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is not my fault your hero was probably lying when he say he was part of the news
Posted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it"
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is not my fault your hero was probably lying when he say he was part of the newsclick to expand
We don't know that he was actually inside.
Point remains.. it's not illegal to film in a public place.
Also.. You've yet to make any mention of the other videos I posted.
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it"
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is not my fault your hero was probably lying when he say he was part of the news
We don't know that he was actually inside.
Point remains.. it's not illegal to film in a public place.
Also.. You've yet to make any mention of the other videos I posted.click to expand
I cant find any information regarding differences in taking photos of the postal office inside the office property and a public place, but in their regulation with the only exception of two points, is interpreted that the regulations follow in "sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks" according to the "Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i)"
so is not about filming, is what you're filming.
and I havent mention the other videos because they have nothing to do with the case of the first video.
Posted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it"
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is not my fault your hero was probably lying when he say he was part of the news
We don't know that he was actually inside.
Point remains.. it's not illegal to film in a public place.
Also.. You've yet to make any mention of the other videos I posted.
I cant find any information regarding differences in taking photos of the postal office inside the office property and a public place, but in their regulation with the only exception of two points, is interpreted that the regulations follow in "sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks" according to the "Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i)"
so is not about filming, is what you're filming.
and I havent mention the other videos because they have nothing to do with the case of the first video.click to expand
They are the same as the first video..
1st and 2nd amendment audits.
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it"
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is not my fault your hero was probably lying when he say he was part of the news
We don't know that he was actually inside.
Point remains.. it's not illegal to film in a public place.
Also.. You've yet to make any mention of the other videos I posted.
I cant find any information regarding differences in taking photos of the postal office inside the office property and a public place, but in their regulation with the only exception of two points, is interpreted that the regulations follow in "sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks" according to the "Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i)"
so is not about filming, is what you're filming.
and I havent mention the other videos because they have nothing to do with the case of the first video.
They are the same as the first video..
1st and 2nd amendment audits.click to expand
the setting could easily vary, the things I have get away with by just being polite, some are pretty much criminal, yet police officer where like "yeah go ahead", if you make some excuse to the people of the postal office they will agree and you will get consent, if you go like, "I can do whatever I want BWAHAHAHAH", I'm pretty sure police will end biting your legs, Idk what people think laws are, but they aren't written by god, they are mostly there to regulate stupidity, if you behave in a stupid way, then what you expect.
saying "I don't have to talk to you" to a cop that is answering a call, is pretty much a reason to suspect the individual motives, you gonna get detain, and any bullshit you said can be used against you, if you consider that it was unfair you can take that case to court, THAT is your right.
Posted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it"
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is not my fault your hero was probably lying when he say he was part of the news
We don't know that he was actually inside.
Point remains.. it's not illegal to film in a public place.
Also.. You've yet to make any mention of the other videos I posted.
I cant find any information regarding differences in taking photos of the postal office inside the office property and a public place, but in their regulation with the only exception of two points, is interpreted that the regulations follow in "sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks" according to the "Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i)"
so is not about filming, is what you're filming.
and I havent mention the other videos because they have nothing to do with the case of the first video.
They are the same as the first video..
1st and 2nd amendment audits.
the setting could easily vary, the things I have get away with by just being polite, some are pretty much criminal, yet police officer where like "yeah go ahead", if you make some excuse to the people of the postal office they will agree and you will get consent, if you go like, "I can do whatever I want BWAHAHAHAH", I'm pretty sure police will end biting your legs, Idk what people think laws are, but they aren't written by god, they are mostly there to regulate stupidity, if you behave in a stupid way, then what you expect.
saying "I don't have to talk to you" to a cop that is answering a call, is pretty much a reason to suspect the individual motives, you gonna get detain, and any bullshit you said can be used against you, if you consider that it was unfair you can take that case to court, THAT is your right.click to expand
Giving up your rights to police that take advantage of you is how you end up in jail, unable to pay for bail, and locked up for years for crimes you didn't commit.
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it"
Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i) deal with policies for photography/filming on Postal Service "premises" (includes outside areas) therefore postal offices have their own regulations outside of other federal buildings.
secondly he stated to the employees in the beginning of the video he was filming for "independent news" so he clearly need to be referred to the local Public Affairs and Communications representative to get permission to film.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is not my fault your hero was probably lying when he say he was part of the news
We don't know that he was actually inside.
Point remains.. it's not illegal to film in a public place.
Also.. You've yet to make any mention of the other videos I posted.
I cant find any information regarding differences in taking photos of the postal office inside the office property and a public place, but in their regulation with the only exception of two points, is interpreted that the regulations follow in "sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks" according to the "Code of Federal Regulations, section 232.1(i)"
so is not about filming, is what you're filming.
and I havent mention the other videos because they have nothing to do with the case of the first video.
They are the same as the first video..
1st and 2nd amendment audits.
the setting could easily vary, the things I have get away with by just being polite, some are pretty much criminal, yet police officer where like "yeah go ahead", if you make some excuse to the people of the postal office they will agree and you will get consent, if you go like, "I can do whatever I want BWAHAHAHAH", I'm pretty sure police will end biting your legs, Idk what people think laws are, but they aren't written by god, they are mostly there to regulate stupidity, if you behave in a stupid way, then what you expect.
saying "I don't have to talk to you" to a cop that is answering a call, is pretty much a reason to suspect the individual motives, you gonna get detain, and any bullshit you said can be used against you, if you consider that it was unfair you can take that case to court, THAT is your right.
Giving up your rights to police that take advantage of you is how you end up in jail, unable to pay for bail, and locked up for years for crimes you didn't commit.click to expand
but is not the police, the officer was called, cops are called, is the people, is fucking democracy, I don't like many laws, but here I'm under the tyranny of the majority, being smart is why I have get away with doing illegal U turns with the compliance of a watching cop, you think those old greedy politician that legislate gives two fucks about you when they write those shitty laws? pffff and in common law of all places.
Terry v. Ohio set the precedent, if a cop "suspect" of you, he can detain you, if you consider it was unfair, you go to court, maybe the judge likes ya.
Posted by ItsSupes2
Come down to Texas Dazed. Let’s go film in the Post Office and see what’s up
Only if you take me to the good eaten places
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2
Come down to Texas Dazed. Let’s go film in the Post Office and see what’s up
Only if you take me to the good eaten places
Whatchu wanna eat? BBQ?click to expand
All of the above
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
What are yours?
Do you believe that Lilith was the first on woman on earth? A Pisces friend asked me to look into it. I was quite astonished with the information on the internet that keeps proclaiming this myth. However, I just want to hear from you guys what you think o
So there is this Gay Guy and I find him so attractive and interesting. I think hes a pisces.
I've been wondering about him and I think hes been wondering about me.
Sexuality is a spectrum right?
I find alot of gay men to be intrigued by me.
Im like 90
If you're anything like me, you internalize most of what you feel; leaving others in the dark, and robbing yourself of raw experiences...and/or clarity...or closure.
Even if they're not on DXP, feel free to release your ambiguous message here.
My ambi
So i got this thought. Now everyone one wants to be first pick. it feels good. But would if you are someones second choice? i mean it is better then not being a choice. or if you are a persons third choice. Do you say forget that? Your thoughts on my thou
Post your photos, gentlemen!
We've all had them.
Guys: did you cum so hard that you accidentally sharted?
Ladies: did you accidentally let him go down on you when you had yeast infection cream on your hoo-ha?
Share your stories, folks!
https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/22/r-kelly-charged-aggravated-criminal-sexual-abuse-10-counts/
LATER GATOR
Let us try again..
I'm so fucking depressed and sad. Sounds contradictive but those are the things I feel with some periods of hope inbetween.
I'm an ugly guy and I have a one year younger brother who is handsome as fuck, like a model. He hangs out with everyone I used to
Give me your best signs and indicators or fake ass friends:
Why is pof sending these hot virgos? NO Witch NO. its a trap. life so not funny. just got a lot of likes from some very hot looking virgos. i am soo being test. NOO NOO. not going there again. NO. one of you slap me if i do. please. There are 5 of them an
So a friend got me to sign up with POF thingy. A young Scorp guy wants to get with me. He is hot. I am just not sure about the age difference. He says he loves older women. He also said he think its hot that i am a gamer, grandmother and still hot looking
What should be the punishment for such a thing?
Faking a rape?
Faking a hate crime?
Should we allow street justice to do it's thing?
Should we wait to all the evidence to be presented in a Grand Jury?
Of queers
Of trans people
Of genderfluid people
Of non-monogamists
Of anyone who’s not Christian or religious
Of immigrants
Of people of color
Of performers
Of crossdressers and drag queens
Of sex workers
Of kinksters
Of other minorities and alt culture m
@nikkistar
Someone get her some milk!
Say, you’re stuck in an elevator with 5 dxp members (of your choice), and there’s no getting out for an hour or two, at least.
Who would you be stuck with?
Choose 5 group sex positions, and describe them in relation to people and their roles.
Greetings, Ladies and Gentlemen.
With cohabitations and other forms of shack-ups on the rise, do these arrangements last?
Do people stay together for long periods of time this way?
Would you do it?
Does it usually lead to divorce if the people actual
I should have been done earlier
-when I came here, I thought I would get adult discussions and give/receive relationship advice but I get more educated discussions on fucking 4chan and the rship threads here are always idiotic
-I don't care about astrol
Post them here.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
"Photography and Filming for Personal Use
Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be allowed at the postmaster’s discretion provided that there is no disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions; however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns."