California Photojournalist Detained for Photographing Naval School From Public Street

A photojournalist was illegally detained after he photographed the entrance to a naval school from a public street in California this week.

Nic Coury, who shoots for the Monterey County Weekly, said he was on assignment to photograph the Naval Postgraduate School when he was ordered inside the guardhouse and told it was a “national security issue” to photograph the school.

He wrote about the incident on Sports Shooter, which consists of mostly professional photojournalists who work for the mainstream media.

I was detained today while taking photos of a military school in town for a story we’re putting together on the school.

I was on public property the entire time—the city sidewalk—and the places I was photographing could be seen by any passer-by, etc. I was shooting photos of the main gate where cars and military personnel enter and exit the campus after they check in with a gate guard, who I think it an MP.

I was asked by the gate guard to follow him and was told to sit in the guard house while the guard called his supervisor and I asked why I was being held, to which his answer was, It’s “very illegal” to shoot photos of the school. It’s a national security issue.”

I explained my position of shooting from a very public place and asked if everyone who shot a photo of the school was detained and he said yes.

I was eventually let go after they determined I wasn’t a threat and my editor called they school’s PR folks whom we have been working with for a few weeks on the story and they confirmed who I said I was and what my press ID and driver’s license said I was.

All in all, it was like 30 minutes of my time.

I’m curious on the legality of their claims that it’s “very illegal” to photo a military base/school, even from a totally public place.

Some of the responding commenters gave him some good advice but one commenter advised him to call the school’s public affairs department days in advance next time he plans to shoot to avoid any such hassle.

It sounds like you need to work closer with the Public Affairs Office and let them know several days in advance, what day and time you will be there and where you will be. Then they can let the appropriate people know so when they ask you about what you’re doing they will know about it. Even better would be to meet with someone from the Public Affairs Office and have them as a guide even for areas you think are public property.

While that might seem like the polite thing to do, one should not have to go through such measures to take pictures from a public street.

And this is exactly the problem I see with so many mainstream journalists; this insistence on avoiding confrontation even when confronted.

In fact, one of the commenters advised against notifying me of the incident because I tend to be confrontational.

Personally I would leave Carlos Miller out of this. Mickey would be a good call, but Carlos, despite never really being wrong, tends to be more confrontational and sensational for the sake of being confrontational and sensational sometimes, and I don’t think thats needed.

I’m not bothered by that comment because he acknowledged that I do get it right, but how confrontational can I get over this story when I’m all the way in Miami?

The unfortunate fact is that the Monterey County Weekly will never report on this incident in order to not be confrontational.

And that’s exactly why these authority figures believe they can keep getting away with this unlawful behavior.

About Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller is founder and publisher of Photography is Not a Crime, which began as a one-man blog in 2007 to document his trial after he was arrested for photographing police during a journalistic assignment. He is also the author of The Citizen Journalist's Photography Handbook, which can be purchased through Amazon.

Check Also

Over the years, Springfield police detective would happily pose with money seized from drug suspects. Now he stands accused of pocketing that money. (Photos via Mass Live)

Retired Massachusetts Cop Charged with Stealing $400,000 from Evidence Room

In 2014, Massachusetts Police Detective Kevin Burnham retired after 43 years on the job with …

  • rick

    Those that impinge or deny your rights need to be “confronted”. Period.

    Does the navy swear an oath to the Constitution? Do they even know what it means?

    For any of you deciding to test your freedoms in front of a military installation, make sure to have some Google Street View pictures in your pocket.

    • rick

      One overhead and two entrances from Google Earth Street View shrunk way down…

      • Joseph Murray

        Hey! Did you get official permission to look at that Google Earth image? That’s vital national defense secret stuff! Way to help the terrorists win, Comrade…

        • Fotaugrafee

          The real “terrorists” are the asswipes who infringe upon our rights on a daily basis. 😀

    • Difdi

      The Navy swears true faith and allegiance to the constitution and pledges to defend it from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Apparently either that Naval school is utterly failing in its duty to educate the students there, or there are an unusual number of oathbreakers running around that campus.

  • Jimbaux

    “While that might seem like the polite thing to do, one should not
    have to go through such measures to take pictures from a public street.
    And this is exactly the problem I see with so many mainstream
    journalists; this insistence on avoiding confrontation even when

    THANK YOU!!!!!! I have had this problem too. I don’t plan on setting foot on the property; so, why do I need to call? Aren’t they supposed to come ask me if they’re curious? And, do I call every place I ever photograph before I photograph it? I’d be on the phone more often than I was taking pictures! And how are we supposed to know in advance who will have a problem with it??

    That “you should let him know first” mentality was the same thing some of the critical readers of my story about my being confronted and bullied and lied to ON PUBLIC PROPERTY by a sugarcane farmer whose burning field I was photographing told me. Here’s the long piece on it, and the idiocy in the comments section is downright appalling:

    Apparently, according to some of the commenters, it was MY FAULT that the farmer got all uptight and irate.

    Oh, and what does “very illegal” mean? That reminds me of the joke from Louis CK about how a friend told him that someone was “really gay” instead just “gay.”

    “And that’s exactly why these authority figures believe they can keep getting away with this unlawful behavior.”

    EXACTLY! Read in my story about how the sugarcane farmer tells me that the newspapers and TV stations here in southern Louisiana get his “permission” to photograph his field. In their defense, though, he may have been confusing photographing the property with accessing the property, which I wasn’t doing or trying to do.

    Thanks, Carlos, for standing up for these things and pointing this out.

    • Captain

      Black background is killer on the eyes to read

      • Jimbaux

        It is, I know, but it’s foremost a photography site, and the picture-to-text ratio of most posts isn’t nearly that low.

        In the meantime, for that article, if you use Firefox, from the menu choose: View -> Page Style
        -> No Page Style and text becomes black on white. Select View ->
        Page Style -> Basic Page Style to return to background to black.


  • Jimbaux

    “I explained my position of shooting from a very public place and asked
    if everyone who shot a photo of the school was detained and he said yes.”

    Another thing, how do they – the guards – know everyone who has ever photographed the school? The people who are really up to harm are going to do it secretly through some hole in some van parked by the school, or something secretive like that, but it’s just easier to go after people who appear that they have nothing to hide, because maybe we can “show” the rest of the country that we’re “doing something” about terrorism????

  • rich

    Posse comitus act forbids the milatary from enforcing the law on american soil , however my bet is the guy was asked “I need you to sit on that bench and allow me to abuse you FOR A HOUR. ” the guy probably willingly went without one single lawfull order ever having to be issued and entirely consensual.

    • ExCop-Lawyer

      Posse comitatus (18 U.S.C. § 1385) doesn’t apply to military personnel detaining people at a military base.

      • Erin Winking

        He wasn’t at a military base. He was off base on a public street.

        • Michael Libby

          it was a consensual encounter. they asked him to walk into their office on their base. At that point they could detain him as ECLS pointed out.

          • Erin Winking

            That seems like semantics to me. I am not sure in the grand scheme of things it matters because IIRC the Navy (and Marines) are not subject to Posse comitatus directly.

            Technical matters aside, I’d hope we can all agree that he shouldn’t have been detained at all.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Correct, it only applies to Army and Air Force personnel.

            Sailors and Marines are not covered.

          • Rich

            Incorrect it does applyThe courts have generally held that the Posse Comitatus Act by itself does not apply to the Navy or the Marine Corps. They maintain, however, that those forces are covered by similarly confining administrative and legislative supplements, which appear in the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            There’s a difference between statute and regulations.

            In addition, there is plenty of case law that held that the Navy was not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, see United States v. Walden, 490 F.2d 372 (4th Cir. 1974) (use of Marines to investigate federal firearms violations did not violate Posse Comitatus Act, although it may have violated a Navy regulation, the evidence will not be excluded); United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1986) (“By its express terms, [the Posse Comitatus] act prohibits only the use of the Army and the Air Force in civilian law enforcement. We decline to defy its plain language by extending it to prohibit use of the Navy.”); United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Navy “not legally bound” by Posse Comitatus Act); United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia, 963 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1992) (“The Act by its own terms places no restrictions on Navy involvement with law enforcement agencies”).

            Unless you have a case cite, it would be better not to make claims that are merely from the internet, instead of case law.

          • Shovel Driver

            Wrong. If he voluntarily walked into their office, they still have no lawful authority to detain. Unless, that is, they then want to face entrapment charges. After all, they “asked” him . . .

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Shovel Driver, that is so far from being correct that it is not even funny. Military police (Army & Marines), master at arms (Navy), and security police (Air Force) have authority to detain civilians on a military base under 10 U.S.C. § 809, see United States v. Banks, 539 F.2d 14 (9th Cir.), pet. cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1024 (1976).

            There was also no “entrapment” and “entrapment” is not a crime one can be charged with, instead, it is a defense to prosecution. In any event, the MA or guard did not entrap the photographer into committing an offense.

            Asking him to come to the guardhouse is not the (mistaken) underlying offense, and if the photojournalist agreed to do so, then that part was consensual. It is no different than an officer asking someone to step outside to talk. Nothing says that you have to do it.

          • Shovel Driver

            Tell me about it. Once upon a time, BTDT (been there done that). But take note; he was NOT on the base when he allegedly committed the alleged offense and until they asked him to enter. As to charging the offenders with a crime, if they knowingly and willfully performed the act of enticing him to enter their boundaries with the intent to arrest, then they did indeed violate various parts of the federal code. Not to mention State, County and so on. Entrapment at the very least, which makes the subsequent arrest a false arrest. Q.E.D., a crime.

            Since he could not be arrested by the military police or contract gate guards for what is lawful conduct outside the base, his entering the base to discuss it did not constitute an offense. He did nothing they could lawfully detain or apprehend him for.

            So, take your choice: Entrapment or Kidnapping. Unlawful Arrest. Under color of law, using threat of force and threat of deadly force due to the proximity of firearms.

            Logic 101 . . . although it’s apparent the court system is not all that logical.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            What parts of the “federal code”, by which I assume you mean U.S.C.

            Next, neither entrapment nor false arrest are crimes in either the Federal or California justice systems. As I already noted, entrapment is a defense to prosecution, not a crime. False arrest is a tort, a civil wrong, not a crime.

            Your analogy of “arrest” is also incorrect. If the activity was off-base but directed towards something on-base, the military has the authority to detain the individual for federal or state law enforcement authorities.

            If 18 USC § 795 is applicable, then the military would have the authority to go off-base and detain the violator for civilian authorities. It would be no different than someone standing off-base and shooting a firearm towards the base. It is not clear if 18 USC § 795 is applicable–I don’t think it would apply, but there is non-binding case law that suggests it could be. See generally Genovese v. Town of Southhampton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14204 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (18 U.S.C. § 795 provided valid grounds for arrest).

            Kidnapping, threat of force, and threat of deadly force is just BS. Kidnapping has already been explained, ad nauseum, and merely being armed does not constitute a “threat of deadly force” under the law.

          • Shovel Driver

            So . . . in your universe, willful knowing false arrest is not a crime? If I acting in a non-LEO capacity “arrest” and hold you against your will, that is not a criminal act?

            If the law actually says that, in California, anyway, then that amply demonstrates what is wrong with the legal system. But I do believe you are wrong.

            Of course, you could prove your thesis. Go out on the street and “arrest” someone then transport them to your place of confinement. After a reasonable period of time for “processing”, contact your local police and tell them to come get the “malefactor”. Then call us up and let us know what happens.

            BTW, I said nothing about 275. Try Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 – Conspiracy Against Rights and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
            Remember, the circumstances of this case are different. And reports are that he was treated in the same fashion a second time.

          • ExCop-Lawyer

            Nope, false arrest is not a crime in the legal universe generally. It is a tort, a civil wrong.

            If you, in a non-LEO capacity, make an “arrest” it depends on the facts and circumstances of the matter as to whether it is a criminal act. If it is within the bounds of that state’s citizen’s arrest, then no, there is generally not a problem. Outside the those bounds, there could be a criminal act.

            As to proving the thesis? I’ve been present when that has been done, numerous times. Normally when store security has arrested a shoplifter. We took the guy to jail.

            What is “275” that you mentioned? I cited the federal statute prohibiting photography of military facilities. That gives the MA a legal basis to investigate and if necessary to detain, especially as the law is not clear in this area.

            I am aware of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242, neither of which are applicable in this case, due to the case I cited above.

          • Shovel Driver

            Added – “merely being armed does not constitute a threat of deadly force”?
            Tell that to the many non-LEO individuals who have been charged and jailed for exactly that.
            Also, if the “arrestee” did not commit a crime while standing outside the base, the military authorities have absolutely nothing to justify their actions. And as has already been admitted, there was no crime. That, remember, is the crux of the entire issue.

          • Fotaugrafee

            Nope, never volunteer for anything in this kind of situation. If that were the case, you might as well volunteer for an otherwise illegal search of your vehicle (which is a complete waste of my time).

            Also, there is a major difference between a SUGGESTION and a direct order, something very poignant in my profession. If a manager ORDERS you to do something, and you’re found to be breaking the rules (or in federal violation of them by an FRA inspector), that manager is in deep shit. If a manager SUGGESTS that you break the rules in order to get the job done, he can fall back on “I didn’t tell him he HAD to, I just suggested…”, at which point the onus is on the laborer to comply & grieve later; or challenge with issue with the (usually) very ignorant manager.

            In this case, the MP doesn’t appear to have ORDERED him to do anything, even if he had such powers. The photog volunteered his presence, which is a naive, amateur mistake, unfortunately.

          • Ron

            So he was an idiot for walking into their office?

          • Difdi

            Pretty much.

  • Jeffrey Marcus Gray

    Please oh please may I exercise my rights? Please tell me what when and where. Make sure and tell me what my boundaries,restrictions,and parameters are. Please oh please I beg of you.

    Screw that!

    • Ron

      “Yeah alright, but we are still going to give you dirty looks”

      • Fotaugrafee

        Reminds me of the time (sigh)…

        June 2006, an old locomotive was being used as the railcar mover inside of the BP Amoco oil refinery on the east side of Toledo (OH). I pulled into the main gate, up to the guard shack and explicitly told the guard that I would be parked along the shoulder of the adjacent (public) highway taking photos of the locomotive, over their fence.

        He asked me to stay put while he spoke to his manager. I complied, knowing that even if he said “no”, I was going to do it anyway. I was pleasantly surprised when he returned & said, “My supervisor doesn’t like it, but he realizes he can’t do anything about it”.

        To which I gleefully responded, “Glad we’re on the same page, thanks”…and drove away. :)

  • Difdi

    Apparently that true faith and allegiance thing isn’t working out so good for them.

  • Matt Nichols

    The solution of asking their PR department to send a representative out sounds very similar to the process for Westerners visiting North Korea: an official stooge follows you around telling you what is or isn’t okay to photograph. Honestly, what “national security” materials could be at a freaking military SCHOOL? We aren’t talking Area 51 or a Delta Force base here….

  • rick

    The story reads like Coury voluntarily complied with a request to sit in the guardhouse. Was he forcibly taken to the guardhouse? At any point did he request to leave and was denied?

    Even though the MP was lying or ignorant in saying photography of the school is “very illegal,” it appears the MP made a request and Coury acquiesced. I may not like the fact that the interaction happened in the first place, but nothing illegal occurred.
    The real question is what happens when you say NO to the MP?

    • Ron

      If you say no, I imagine they would stare at you open mouthed. MP’s aren’t used to people saying no to them

      • n4zhg

        My response would have been a single finger. MP’s have zero authority over non-military off post.

  • Warren H.

    Without saying anything for or against, I provide the following information.

    18 USC § 795 – Photographing and sketching defense installations

  • Will

    We haven’t had anyone arrested, but our reporters and photogs have been “warned” not to shoot the main gate at our local military bases.

    • Will

      *one of our reporters…

      • Will

        NVM…I had it right…I need sleep.

  • steveo

    The sequester didn’t go far enough. Should have closed this place too.
    Here’s a good map of all the buildings on the campus and then go to Google earth and you can get 3D of everything. But after doing that delete the history on your browser, so you don’t get raided by HLS.

    And is the commenter implying that Mickey isn’t confrontational? I’ll send him some letters Mickey wrote for me.

  • Tijuana Joe

    This is the type of paranoia one would expect during wartime.
    In this post-911 milieu we get all the negative effects of war without any of the benefits.

  • Cville

    I visited Annapolis a few weeks ago and they didn’t care a bit about my camera. I had it around my neck when we passed through security at the main gate. Apparently there are only “national security issues” at postgraduate facilities. And oh yeah, once again a Google image search brings up dozens of photos — including aerial shots — of the Naval Postgraduate School. Including photos from the school’s own website. LOL.

  • in4mation

    Right on thier web site.

    Someone better detain the webmaster!

  • Carlos_Miller

    He was detained a second time, he reports on Sports Shooter. But remember, let’s remain non-confrontational.

    Here his comments:

    “Ok, I was detained a second time today with threats of arrest and confiscating my camera.

    Sorry for the cliffhanger, I have to run to another assignment right now. I’ll update everyone later tonight. it’s good stuff.”

    • Ron

      “But remember, let’s remain non-confrontational.”.

      Ignore the trolls Carlos.All right thinking people are with you.

  • Guest

    Nic’s editor here. I’ve never seen such a case of a writer (and I use that term loosely here) been so wrong in so few words. Quote “The unfortunate fact is that the Monterey County Weekly will never report on this incident in order to not be confrontational.” Would you like me to copy you on the attorney’s bill that we ran up as we prepared to bail Nic out of jail and then go to court? Or maybe you can just read my column next week. Your choice.

    • eddy

      Wow, could you be more of a bitch?

      • Difdi

        Probably. That’s why it’s best not to feed the trolls.

      • Guest

        Yes, Ogie, I most certainly can be more of a bitch. I could point out that while photography isn’t a crime, neither is stupidity, and yet here you and your friends are, talking about two incidents about which you no precisely nothing. I can also ask if “bitch” is a word you commonly use to refer to women, but really, why bother.

        • eddy

          Would you prefer I call you a cunt?

          • Priosner416

            The infamous comment.

    • Graham Shevlin

      If you are the editor, I question why you are posting under a guest pseudonym instead of identifying yourself.

  • Mary Duan

    Nic’s editor here. Would you like me to copy you on the attorney’s bill we ran up as we prepared to bail Nic out of jail? Your words—The unfortunate fact is that the Monterey County Weekly will never report on this incident in order to not be confrontational—are as wrongheaded as the actions of NPS security. Get your facts straight before you write.

    • Carlos_Miller

      I’m glad to hear that, Mary. I base my statements on six years of following these stories and watching mostly inaction from the corporate media, not to mention almost a decade prior to that working for the corporate media.

      • Mark Kauzlarich

        For what its worth, this is what I was referencing when I mentioned you being sensational…

        • Carlos_Miller

          Having an opinion based on experience is sensationalism?

          • Mark Kauzlarich

            No, having an opinion that you believe precludes you from contacting the necessary parties before doing your duty as a journalist to find the truth. That as well as voicing your opinion as fact instead of an opinion.

            Such action only exacerbates the situation while the truly involved parties do their due-diligence to get to the bottom of the issue.

            I understand that you believe your job is to act as a crusader for the rights of photographers, I just believe that job would be better performed while being informed rather than drawing conclusions.

            That is why Mickey Osterreicher is a better call. Because he’s a lawyer who approaches things with a level head, pursuing the facts with a declared and understandable end-goal of legal justice and informed police force and public, rather than a sensationalist shaming that foregoes facts for drama.

          • Carlos_Miller

            This is a blog that has always been based on fact and opinion that is open to anyone to leave a comment. Perhaps I should have inserted the words “most likely” in that sentence but would that have made it less sensational in your mind?

            Mickey and I are not competing with each other over these issues. We have different roles and functions and many times, we work together.

            My job is to get the story out there and many times, I include my opinions with the stories. My readers are usually able to tell the difference.

            The facts in this story are exactly how Nic presented them on Sport Shooter, which I cut and pasted in their entirety.

            My opinion that the paper would not report on this issue was based on Nic’s statements at how hard they have worked to build a rapport with the school.

            I’ve seen it happen way too many times. I’ve personally dealt with it myself as a newspaper reporter.

            Most newspapers would rather deal with these issues on the down-low.

            But that does nothing to educate the average citizen with a camera who does not have a press credentials but has just as much rights as the working journalist.

          • Fotaugrafee

            This is where you show your colors as a friggin’ idiot. When you give ANYONE advance notice of your perfectly legal visit, it gives them time to prepare & make the place pretty.

            News pieces shouldn’t be there to PUBLICIZE (like a PR clown) or highlight how “in order” facilities / companies / operations are. There are some who exist, and rightfully so, to show the ugly side of the business. That is why I detest reality shows.

            I work in the railroad industry, and I LOATHE when I hear 2 weeks in advance that “The FRA is coming for a visit”. I’d rather them just show up, record their findings & hand out a few citations if necessary. The sheer surprise of it is the only thing that keeps the place in TRUE order. Every place needs some discipline & forced order. The dog & pony show put on for expected visitors is absolute bullshit, and usually goes away hours after the “media circus” has left the building.

      • rick

        Thank you Carlos for bringing this story to our attention! Thank you Monterey County Weekly for defending photographer’s rights! I look forward to your column and hopefully a positive NPS response.
        Take care

    • John Neis

      I am struggling to find anything on your website about this arrest. Can you please post a story you have done on this Mary.

    • Rachel Unleashed

      Mary, you can sure dish it. Hope you enjoyed my blog post.

  • Phred

    Why would a civilian obey an “order” from an MP? They have no legal authority to tell you to do anything if you aren’t on military property.

    • rick

      I wonder at the hoops I would have jumped through a year ago if I had had a negative police encounter. At that time I was blissfully ignorant. Then I came across the picture below. I followed it and found PINAC, CopBlock, CATO Institute, etcetera. I now have greater understanding of the rights we enjoy and of the need to protect them.

      • Shawn

        Rick, it’s obvious that the cop/soldier was posing, so I think that people shouldn’t use this photo.

  • dissentingd


    Thanks for covering this.

    And, though I have commented in the past about your tone, since our last exchange it my opinion that it has been much improved.

    Contrary to Mark K, I don’t see any sensationalism here.

    Keep up the good work!

    Also, let’s keep those donations coming folks so Carlos can keep doing this!

  • n4zhg

    Were these Military Police or some other sort of thug? If they were MP’s, they had zero authority to lay hands on someone not under UCMJ. MP’s don’t even have the power of citizen’s arrest any other LEO would have if they witnessed a felony.

  • KevinM

    Some Pictures Say a Thousand Words ; )

  • KevinM
  • Tom Joad

    How about this…lets get to the heart if the matter and see if it makes any sense.
    What is the fear? Unspecified fear of “terror”. Does this make any sense? No.
    Why? Because it stops exactly ZERO terrorists. Look, it’s easy as hell to buy a hidden camera. W have helmet cams, buttonhole cams, car cams, cameras coming t the wazoo that can take photos or video and zoom and anything else that you want, and that guard would never know. A terrorist would use those.
    Even without a camera, anyone walking by can SEE the exact same thing and go back home and draw what they saw.
    If they need secrecy they ought to make sure they put their building in a remote area on private property. You don’t need to be a journalist to take pictures while you are out walking.
    And doing it obviously, standing there taking a picture would not be a terrorists mo.
    It just doesn’t get any dumber than this, “we saw you taking pictures of something you could see from the public domain, therefore we will detain you”.

  • Cody

    Ah, how I don’t miss the Navy. Bunch of GED wielding thugs. Apparently we need a second military to defend our constitutional rights from the first military that is supposed to be defending our constitutional rights.

  • Weismonger

    Was his name Mohammad?

  • Matt Seward

    You seem like just the kind of idiot who 1. Was never in the military 2. Causes security breaches by your own ignorance and 3. Uses sensasional journalism to draw attention to yourself/make money for yourself. Although this particular situation is somewhat benign; it really is the big picture that matters here. You are so “CIVILIAN” it hurts. Literally. I hope you aren’t ever near a warzone.. who knows how much risk you will help put our troops… in.

    • Carlos_Miller

      You just come across like a nazi

  • Nick

    wow … i should make a trip down there specially and take an instagram pic

  • JoeLivernois

    Charming that you would get all high and mighty about our responsibility to truth, justice and the American way, then jump to the baseless conclusion that the Weekly won’t report the incident. If we are not responsible purveyors of facts, we are simply blathering fools.

    • John Neis

      Please provide a link to a story they have done on this

  • AnonPerson

  • Fotaugrafee

    I find it very concerning that a photographer for a newspaper isn’t knowledgeable of his rights BEFORE going into this situation, or that his employer never bothered to educate him.

    It’s almost right up there with the rent-a-cop supervisor’s telling their underpaid, elderly subordinates that “photography of this facility is against the law, make sure you hassle any such parties”.

    Ignorance is bliss, I s’pose.

  • steveo

    This videographer should still be in jail. I’m not sure why the State gave him bail. That’s BS. You keep a criminal like this in the lock up for as long as possible and sent to the gulag in Sibera after that.

  • steveo

    Personally, I think we should sequester West Point and Annapolis, shut them down, because all they produce is highly educated killers. The 3 most popular degrees at these two institutions are Seals, pilots, and wartime command officers. Basically, what we want here is high IQ, professional assassins. Certainly sequester this place which is an offshoot of the military industrial complex.

  • Jack Mahoghof

    This photog was a punk! If they told him to come with them, his answer should’ve been “No.”