Photographer tests Camp Pendleton MPs by filming gate entry point

    126
    106
    SHARE

    A man standing outside of the Camp Pendleton main gate taking photos and video of the installation was approached by a military policeman. The MP asked for his identification and the man refused several times.

    “You are on my property,” said the Marine Corps MP, who walked more than 100 feet to meet the man standing near the Camp Pendleton sign.

    The man continued refusing to identify himself, only adding that he was an independent journalist and insisted that he was doing nothing wrong. The Marine Police officer called backup to the scene. They too agreed that the photographer was breaking federal law.

    After several minutes of evading questions from the officers, he responds by asking the MP a question of his own: “Do you believe in the Constitution of the United States of America… did you take an oath to the Constitution to uphold and defend it?”

    “I fought four-and-a-half years defending the Constitution,” answered the Marine. “I don’t need a lecture about the Constitution.”

    Marines referred the photographer to the Federal U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 37 › § 795, which states the following:

    Photographing and sketching defense installations:

    (a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.

    Eventually, officers from the Oceanside Police Department appeared on the scene. Approximately 15 minutes spent going back and forth with various officers, the man walked away without being detained.

    © 2016 Bright Mountain Media, Inc.
    All rights reserved. The content of this webpage may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written consent of Bright Mountain Media, Inc. which may be contacted at info@brightmountainmedia.com

     

    106 COMMENTS

    1. This guy with the camra needs to be hauled off to jail if you have nothing to hide then just give the mp your ID plane and simple that goes for any officer now his stupidity is showing and it gives the officers the right to hold and question him people wake up get off the backs of the people who defend your way of life military or police officers

      • Man, there are some real morons commenting. What don’t you get about he was doing nothing illegal and was NOT required to produce ID. You people are sheeple.

        • Actually when asked by a military police officer on the grounds of the installation you are required by federal law to produce identification. Also if he was photographing any building on post it is illegal. Learn the military law before you comment

            • The property line for all military installations is 300 yards from the fence line/ gate. The reasoning for the fences and gate to be so far back on the property is so those who are manning those checkpoints have standoff room in case of a vehicle or persons with hostile intent. Once you are on the installation property whether or not your inside the fence ; civilian or military; you are subject to both military and federal law.

            • Case law is irrelevant when standing against US Code, commonly referred to as Federal Law. The law of the land supercedes your shithouse lawyering. Also, most military installations have exchanges with local law enforcement to be able to enforce the law outside of the property line. Filming, photographing, sketching is absolutely not allowed of certain designated areas and is a violation of federal law. As cited in the original post. It is also sign posted outside and on approach to every military installation.

          • Actually, according to the piece, he was 100yds from the gate and thus, not ON military property. MP’s have no jurisdiction until you’re actually AT the gate.

            • Feet there bigshoots, he was 100 ft out….and regardless the distance it’s still illegal to record military installations without prior authorization, you can try to justify it any way you want but in black and white it’s stated as illegal

          • Actually the President would have to state that that the post falls under that code. Also they said he was being detained and they let him walk away. That’s would get him hit with obstruction. (Probably falls under evading arrest part, but not certain)

        • Apparently you didn’t read the story, dipstick. That SOB could have been hauled to the on base PRISON (I know where that is, and what it looks like, and you don’t ever want to wind up there), and kept there for investigation of possible terrorist activity.
          I’d have been the first Marine to do it. And there’s not a damn thing he or you could do about it.

          • Last I heard, the military doesn’t put civilians outside the base in military prisons. You sound like you don’t know much about the UCMJ or anything else.

        • He wasn’t even on the military reservation. You can see it in the video. He was on the public easement next to the highway.

        • It is against the law to take photos of any military base/enclosure without specific written permission from the base commander. This has been the law years before 911 and any other terrorist type of activity.

        • You’re an idiot.. it’s even stated in the article that it’s ILLEGAL to record military installations and you’re so retarded as to say he did nothing wrong and then try to call people sheep? Clearly Libra8 is someone that’s all for disestablishment and illegal activity

        • In case you didnt read the violation, it is illegal to photograph into a military installation. Why? Because they may be looking into weaknesses in the defense at that gate. Not allowing it helps protect our sons and daughters from harm…

      • They’ve been trolling jails, prisons, police stations and military bases all over Southern California the last year or so. Seems to me they’re trying to get a beating and a big payoff.

    2. Back when Marimar was a navel air station there was a green line in the road about 200-300 yards before you got to the front gate. Once you crossed that line you were on federal property and subject to navy authorities

    3. Some people just can’t get the message. When I served, you could enter the grounds without much of a problem. Since 9/11, security is the name of the game and rightly so. They should have confiscated his camera and booted his butt on down the road. Some people just don’t get it.

      • looks to me from reading the article that it is more about the other photos that were deleted being the cause of the fine. photos of a government installation, especially when it shows things involving military and security capabilities, is not allowed and it is absolutely legal for the government to detain you and delete those photos. you keep posting this one incident, but i dont think you are understanding that there are some major differences in these two instances. im not going to argue UCMJ, DoD regulations, and US civil and criminal code with you, but if you think that you are 100% correct in that the government cant stop you from taking pictures of their gates, please do us all a favor and try to get some pictures of groom lake in rachel, NV.

    4. As much as I am for pushing the boundaries to show that the Constitution needs to be taught. This was way out of line. I don’t blame any Marine for coming up to you and see what you are doing. Showing your ass is your right providing you are not on Federal property. At which time the rules of the game change. That being said with all the security issues going on I would have done the self same thing. NO you do not have to show ID. My question is this what are you testing this outside a Military base? There is no reason to do this. It does not gain anything with the exception of media/ internet attention. If its civilian rules your are testing I have no problem with that and support it, pushing that issue outside a military base you should be glad they didn’t invoke the Patriot Act, arrest you as a suspected terrorist and do what they will. Consider yourself fortunate that did not happen because of the fact that it was outside a military base that very well could of happened. I am glad they were professional.

      • It teaches police to start paying attention to the rights of citizens, and stop behaving as if law enforcement is above the law and at war with everybody else. The military had no jurisdiction here, and should never have talked to the man, at all. He was off base, standing on the easement next to the public highway, and they have no business with civilians off base in this country. If they weren’t properly trained to understand that, then it’s the responsibility of the base commander. The target of these audits is law enforcement, which in too many cases would like to see the US as a police state in which they have no accountability and no need to observe that silly old Constitution. Personally, I favor the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. I would think that anybody who had sworn a solemn oath to defend the Constitution as I once did would agree, but I”m ashamed to see here that the totalitarian point of view is far more common.

        • It said he was standing next to the sign… That is military property. The property doesn’t stop right at the edge of the gate… Before you say the military doesn’t have jurisdiction maybe you should look into it.

        • False, you cannot take pictures of the installation. Period. Doesn’t matter if your on the property or not. Capturing images of the property is illegal and the mps have the job of stopping that. Learn your stuff or shut up.

          • actually, if you are off federal property, you can take pictures of federal property. what most folks are not understanding about this particular incident is that military bases quite often have a standoff distance that is federal property that is not being occupied by the base. in some bases, the land outside the gate is leased to local businesses so long as a standoff distance on the road is maintained. if you are inside that standoff distance, you are on federal property, even if you are not inside the gate. it is highly illegal at all installations to take pictures that demonstrate the security capabilities of the installation, and the gates are the first part of that security, so no, you cant take pictures of that. and if you are on federal property when you take the picture, you can legally be detained and have your photographs deleted.

          • If I am on a public sidewalk where the public can legally be, I CAN PHOTO anything I see. That is protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution that ALL service men and women have taken an Oath to defend.

    5. This guy needs to have his ass slammed in jail. He is not just taking pictures and there is a war going on right know. Does he not realize that there have been targets in the us and this is a US Marine corp base and potential target. This is the “Home” to these marines that should not have to deal with this jack ass.

    6. This guy is lucky the MP showed such restraint. He has no “right” to stand there and film an access control point to a defense installation.

    7. This is the new “personal protest” BS that America’s youth feel they have the OBLIGATION to push the limits on. There are numerous videos now on YouTube of these idiots pushing the boundaries and being jerks on purpose, just because they have a Constitutional right to not answer questions.
      Seriously, it’s taking up valuable time and resources to “play” with these deuch-bags. This generation is taking this country down. Lack of respect, lack of integrity, lack of values.

    8. at the end of the day what is the point of the jerkwad with the camera other than to make arectum of himself sad thing is some people don’t realize they’re two points billow maggot excretion

    9. just another media/journalist trying to provoke a fight and then report that he has been assaulted…..must be a slow news day for this idiot…

      • It happened on the day it was written, declaring our God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

      • Absolutely right. All these big government totalitarians commenting about what they would do to a person legally filming a publicly-visible gate from a public place don’t seem to know about Google Street View. Also too dumb to know that a terrorist wouldn’t stand there in public in broad daylight with a camera. I’m a former Army officer from back in the days when it was unpopular, and the lack of regard for the Constitution among these people is pretty embarrassing. If you’re not in the military to serve the people and uphold your oath, get out!

        • It doesn’t matter what a terrorist would or would not do. It was illegal for him to be taking pictures of the gate. It constitutes a risk to base security. If the man was just a tourist taking pics for personal use, he would have politely and completely complied with the mps questions. Basically what I’m saying is, you were army, the is the Corps. Nuff said

          • It is NOT ILLEGAL to video the entry gate from a public vantage point.. Are you really that stupid?? just research it and you will find that the courts have all ready ruled that the document you took an Oath to defend, as well as peoples Right to film, states that filming any military base from public is legal and covered under the First Amendment. So anyone that swore an Oath to the Constitution, has also swore an Oath to defend my Right to film it. And if you do not defend my Right to film it, you are not only an Oath breaker, but a traitor to the Constitution and the armed services, or the Corps.

    10. Technically due to recent situations including the shooting at a local recruiting station there are multiple clauses that protect us military officials, the fact that he did not identify himself and he states that he is a tourist can actually mean that he is not from the United states and that he is actually possibly a terrorist agent working against the us government, and under those terms alone he can be detained be either the mp officials or Oceanside officials, they can confiscated his camera but cannot delete any evidence until the proceeded court sessions has been finalized, but I will say good on the gentleman at the front gate for controlling their frustration because I would of just confiscated and arrested the man under those terms from.the conversation alone.

      • Wow, a tourist could mean ANYTHING just like living in the next county or city. Or a resident of SDC that has never seen the base. You thinking it means someone who does not live in the USA automatically is absurd. Also what would you charge this guy with? The US Code in question does not apply to the Camp, and also case law says it does not apply from public property or a public easement.

    11. This guy is a joke. it is unlawful to film military operations; and yes, the process of which they check ideas, or conduct random vehicle searches is considered military operations i was military police. the only time pictures of access points are allowed to be taken are by public affairs and if allowed by the installation commander. Any unauthorized filming of a federal installation can be taken as possible terrorist activity and could most definitely be detained for suspicious activity. i.e. could be using the video to record operations to share intel with ISIS or whoever. Could potentially bring harm to the installation

      • YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyone can record ANY MILITARY installation (including area 51, as long as they are in an area open to the public.

    12. In the United States, the filming of many high-profile locations that are feared to be targets of possible terrorist attacks is restricted[citation needed]. For example, signs posted around many bridges, including the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, state that filming the structure is prohibited. The legality of such restrictions is problematic; in view of the First Amendment, restrictions on taking pictures of a public structure in public may be unconstitutional, (in view of the fact that prohibiting taking pictures will probably neither prevent nor reduce the potential for such attacks, nor do such prohibitions necessarily mean it will in any way hinder someone from committing an attack in the first place.) The courts have held, however, that in some cases, restrictions on taking pictures on military reservations such as military bases, can be constitutionally valid, so a restriction on taking a picture of a structure that is operated by the military or is on a military reservation might be constitutional, but even then, such restrictions must be reasonable and have some relevant purpose. Forbidding pictures of a weapons system on a military base would have relevance to preventing enemy acquisition of technology and would be such a legitimate purpose, but the mere forbidding of taking pictures of a latrine, a post exchange (PX) or a mess hall probably would not (especially if the purpose was to publicize military ineptitude or incompetence, such as the lax state of the restroom’s cleanliness, bad or overpriced merchandise, or the food were horrible.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_recording_by_civilians

    13. Former MP Watch Commander , we had signs posted your entering a Military Instalation Your Vehicle or person subject to search SecNav Instructions 5510 if I recall correctly . Since he passed onto the property the MP s were in there duties to acertain what he was doing on there property. Laws have changed due to the US Section Codes , I would have to research them and determine if the subject was in any violation of photographing or videotaping the Gate area of the base.

      • He wasn’t on the military reservation, but on the public easement next to the public highway. He was taking the same photos you can see on Google Street View. He proved his point, and the people in these comments are also proving that, despite taking an oath to defend the Constitution, they care nothing about it.

        • Wrong he was on federal property. The property line does not stop at the gate but it is extended outward. Stop being a sheep and learn something

        • Yeah, except Google Street View is a static image, whereas video footage can be used to track changing of the guard, patterns, or weaknesses in the gate’s operation. But you’re a “former army officer” so I’m sure you figured all that out already. No “tourist” is just going to film a military gate for a long period of time. It’s suspicious and the MP acted on that suspicion. Plain and simple. He was never “detained” and was always free to leave.

    14. The idiot with the camera is clearly an entitled child with a very tiny penis. I’m glad the Marine challenged him. He could have been standing out there with a suicide vest on. They should have charged him.

      • Charged him with WHAT??? NOT committing a crime? You people are just dying to have your rights stripped away from you. It makes me sick.

      • For what crime? And did you take an Oath? Do you understand what an Oath is? An Oath is something you give your life and or livelihood up for if needed to not compromise that Oath. It is note just something you do because you have to in order to get a job, or enter military or public service. And one should give up everything to honor that oath no matter what the consequences.

    15. The with the camera is an annoying dumb fuck…him seemed to shit himself a bit once the officer said he was on federal property. They should have cited him and trespassed him.

    16. No there is no problem with tourists… UNTIL they start taking photos of entry and exit points of Federal installations. They don’t know if this guy is a terrorist doing reconnaissance so they can plan an attack. That is why the law exists.

      This is not ‘just a guy’ he’s an asshole trying to mock those police and military service men doing their jobs to protect that installation.

      They should have arrested and charged him with a felony.

      • NO felony was in progress, so what would the charge be? Case law and the Constitution give everyone the right to film anything from public access. Even DHS put out memos to this effect?

    17. I just want to know what the point of this video is… why would you go and waste the time of people who are supposed to be doing their job and protecting people of bad guys…not douchebags… all this guy did was show his butt… that’s it. He’s a loser. LOL

    18. What a POS.. So much disrespect for our military and our law enforcement. I don’t care what rights he has, when a LEO asks anything, simply comply.

      Got bless our military and LEOs, stay safe, and of course.. Thank you!

        • “I don’t care what rights he has,…” Spoken like a true totalitarian! “…simply comply.” These people would fit into the North Korean or Cuban military better than that of a Constitutional Republic. What a disgrace.

    19. Who the fuck is this ass hole behind the camera… He needs his ass kicked!! Do not Disrespect our SD military!! Learn the laws before you post this!

    20. 18 U.S. Code § 795 – Photographing and sketching defense installations

      (a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.
      (b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
      (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 737; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

    21. Here we go again…USC 795…

      Just read the code. The only things under the protection of 795 are those which are so vital that distributing pictures (or ;information relative thereto’) would put national security at risk. For obvious reasons, the President has not declared the gate to Camp Pendleton as needing such protection. Nothing that can be seen from publicly accessible areas in broad daylight by anybody has been declared to be under the protection of 795.

      The only things that fall under 795 are things which have been CLASSIFIED…like the blueprints to a nuclear weapon. But the government does not leave such things out in the open for anybody to see. You need special security clearance to even catch a glimpse of these things. That is the point of 795.

      Seriously, what part of North Korea do people think we are in that it would be desirable, or even possible, to arrest or even detain a person merely because they were openly taking pictures in broad daylight from public property (or even publicly accessible federal property). It is sad…if not downright frightening…to see service members advocate for this. Aren’t you all supposed to be fighting for my freedoms?

    22. what a fucking douche! These waste of sperm need to be swolled instead of reproduced! All these self righteous punks will be begging to be saved by us Marines if the shit really hit the fan in our shores! I feel so sorry for most of today’s youth, the so called crybaby millennials!!!

    23. I spent 23 years in the Marine Corps, (1966 – 1989) so you can see where MY sentiments lie. It irks the piss out of me when I see idiots like this push the limits with such a minimal knowledge base of just what kind of deep crap he could find himself in. Both the MP and the civilian police were very restrained in dealing with this individual. He should thank his lucky stars.

      The officers here and the MP’s lives are stressful enough without having to deal with total fools like this guy.

    24. You cite the US code, but did you read it? “Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations”. That doesn’t mean ALL bases everywhere around the country all the time in perpetuity. I think it would be a good idea for the MPs to have clear info on that little caveat so they don’t go around violating citizens rights.

    25. When he stepped back behind that San Diego County Line Sign, he was okay. As long as he stayed behind that sign, he was good to go. However, that Marine has every right to approach any citizen at the edge of the base property line to find out what his intentions were. Always remember that there may come a time when you push that 1st Amendment Rights issue too far and find yourself imprisoned if you taunt the wrong people. All of the codes in the world will NOT HELP YOU if the powers that be don’t want them to help you. That is precisely why there are many TRULY INNOCENT men and women locked up today.

      Taunting military personnel at the edge of the property is not ALWAYS a good idea even when you are perfectly within the rules. After looking at this video twice, this could have gone wrong for the photographer in so many ways. When he was approached initially he was within the confines of the base property line. I served 25 years and 15 of them was on Camp Pendelton. I actually lived in those homes right there in the background when they were brand spanking new. However as he backed up to the sign, he was on what we would call the FEBA. There is where I would have left him and went back to the gate.

      It is my sincere hope that this person recording these incidents do not fool around and taunt a Marine, Sailor, or Soldier who could be having a bad day and he ends up in the brig of one of the installations with his cameras destroyed or erased and he is put into the position of his word versus their word. He has no idea what kind of neat little gadgets we have on the federal level that can con-screw any evidence and just make his life miserable all because he wants to prove a point. Most importantly I hope that he doesn’t ever go to a property line and engage one of our personnel who is having a rough day and he gets himself tore up, camera taken, and then detained.

      Just because you know your rights, doesn’t mean you have to go out one day and just taunt authorities. However, if you choose to do so, make sure that you utilize a high end lens that can pull your target to you while you remain outside of the boundary lines.It will save you a lot of trouble. Just be prepared to MAYBE be visited by some people because you were likewise, under surveillance while doing what you were doing. Stay cleat of the property lines and you don’t have to answer questions, but as long as you are within those boundaries, you are subject to being questioned and if you don’t want to answer back up until you are clear. Otherwise if they grab you, then what? It is a different game on the federal level than with local law officers. Just my humble observation. By the way, I do know the rules, codes, and ordinances that would apply to both sides of this coin.

      A. J. Watkins (CWO-3 Ret)
      8514 in my day. Now 0317.

      ..

    26. If they are ON the installation he could have been detained and his equipment could have been confiscated. BUT – If he is standing on a public sidewalk outside of the installation, beside, in front of, or where ever outside doesn’t matter, he has the right. Just like people taking pictures of the military aircraft taking off from Miramar (Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego, California) The MP has no jurisdiction with what any photographer or person is doing outside of the installation. I’ve also seen foreign nationals taking photos of the military aircraft taking off and landing at the U.S. military installations overseas — off base is off base and the MP has no jurisdiction outside the gate in a foreign country either.

    27. People who comment that you don’t have to legally give law enforcement Identification are wrong you are required to that and he’s lucky he didn’t get detained for violating federal law

      • I retired m the Army last year with 30 years of service…for those of you saying what he was doing was illegal, you are mistaken. I fought for and defended the Constitution in DS/DS, OIF and OEF, I served so that the Constitution would be protected and upheld. The Supreme Court has upheld, on numerous occasions, a citizens 1st amendment right to film in public. Anything that can be seen from a public area can be photographed without restriction. US Code Title 18, 795 does not apply in this circumstance off the installation. It applies to Restricted or Classified Areas. Delta Force compound is one of those places “Designated by the President”. So is the Intel unit SCIF with no windows, etc. You can not see these places from public access areas. Get your facts straight before spouting off at the mouth. It is unprofessional and disrespects the Oath we all took to support and defend the Constitution. Take pride in the fact that you are defending that Constitution and that these individuals are exercising the Constitutionally protected rights of Freedom of the Press and Free Speech. It is not a service members job to agree with what is being said, it’s your Duty to protect that Freedom. Read the Constitution, look at Case law (unlike what someone said above, it does apply}, do some research if for some reason you don’t agree. You will see what I’m saying is correct.

    28. Those commenting here about the Constitution and kicking people’s asses are both wrong. First, the MP is not obligated to inform the filmmaker of the boundaries. Second, the Camp Pendleton regularly puts out orders in compliance with the President’s directives under 18 U.S. Code § 795 on what is and is not considered “interest of national defense” to assume that means “classified” is misplaced. At various other bases, the filming of the gate is not allowed. Third, the MP was professional and there is no reason to assert that any harm should have come to this film-maker. Finally, this filmmaker hurt his own cause by not being compliant with the MP because he’s an ass. But being an ass isn’t illegal.

    29. so…nothing to do today, I’m gonnna grab my camera and go troll the Marines at Camp Pendleton? Pathetic….Heres an idea…come to detroit and head on down to 6 and Livernois and start excercising your constitutional rights there…you wont be asked for your ID, I can guarantee that.

    30. It’s one thing to do that with a state trooper or civilian officer, but to give someone I’m the service that kind of shit just pisses me off, this guy has way too much free time on his hand and needs to go do something productive rather then Harrassing US Marines just trying to do their job.

    31. Ok people lets put all our petty differences aside and stop trying to turn this into a court room. The military base is there to protect our country and citizens from other countries and people who wish to do us harm. Now were heavily involved in the Middle East and radical Islam which combatants do not ware uniforms so they can blend in with the public. In order for them to launch a successful attack they need to do recon of the target to identify weak points and and formulate there plan of attack. With all this being said if you still think the MP shouldn’t have a right to Question the man openly takings pictures of the entry point to the military base then I have to wonder who’s side your on and if you may have eaten paint chips as a child

    32. About the Federal U.S. Code cited. “vital military and naval installations” Camp Pendleton is a training base, is it vital to America’s defense and has it been designated as such? And is photographing the front gate, which the general public goes by every day, really ” unlawful to make any photograph….. vital military and naval installations or equipment?” The key word is vital.

    33. I doubt if an actual terrorist would stand there photographing a sign. More like a concealed camera and either drive by or walk by. If you read the story the MP had to walk 100 feet from the main gate, so he wasn’t even filming that. Besides a terrorist could just download a picture of the front gate and drive by to see if the picture is up to date or not. Looking at an online picture of the main gate, shows no security barriers. The only thing to prevent a speeding truck or car from driving though is the MP on duty. There can’t be anything there that is vital to US defense interest with that type of security.

    34. I once was going to Legoland and made a wrong turn into this camp. Long story short I thought it would be a brilliant idea to try to reverse, thought there was a two way road. Anyways all the marines ran to us and my family and toddler got questioned and had to park somewhere they asked for our identification etc. It was scary lol, but anyways my point was just to do as they say, they pretty much just called us stupid for doing that and let us go lol

    35. I am a retired DOD Police and retired Army SFC. I had to deal with these situations almost everyday at the main gate to NAS ? You have to check these people out. Inform them that there is no photographs taken at the entry points, But even standing outside the reservation is no excuse. One morning about 6am while people are coming in for work, we got a report from a Gunny and he said that there was a guy on the corner who appears to be counting cars and writing in a wheelbook. Myself and my partner an MA1 went outside the gate and there he was .We questioned him about what he was doing and he told us three different stories about who he was and what he was doing. His ID didn’t look right so we called ICE and they responded and it turns out this guy was here illegally and they took him under control. We would always question anyone taking pictures of the entry points it was standard procedure.

      • I retired m the Army last year with 30 years of service…for those of you saying what he was doing was illegal, you are mistaken. I fought for and defended the Constitution in DS/DS, OIF and OEF, I served so that the Constitution would be protected and upheld. The Supreme Court has upheld, on numerous occasions, a citizens 1st amendment right to film in public. Anything that can be seen from a public area can be photographed without restriction. US Code Title 18, 795 does not apply in this circumstance off the installation. It applies to Restricted or Classified Areas. Delta Force compound is one of those places “Designated by the President”. So is the Intel unit SCIF with no windows, etc. You can not see these places from public access areas. Get your facts straight before spouting off at the mouth. It is unprofessional and disrespects the Oath we all took to support and defend the Constitution. Take pride in the fact that you are defending that Constitution and that these individuals are exercising the Constitutionally protected rights of Freedom of the Press and Free Speech. It is not a service members job to agree with what is being said, it’s your Duty to protect that Freedom. Read the Constitution, look at Case law (unlike what someone said above, it does apply}, do some research if for some reason you don’t agree. You will see what I’m saying is correct.

    36. Wow, real COWARDS here.

      Unless your BASE is on the official LIST of places you cannot photograph, which does exist — A CIVILIAN CAN NEVER BE IN A SECURE AREA + NOT ON BASE. In other words, if the person was accessing or photographing a secure area, they would have to be IN the base.. because anything VISIBLE is NOT SECURE by definition.

      If the PUBLIC can ACCESS the AREA, it is PUBLICALLY ACCESSIBLE. … so not PRIVATE.

      So be lucky you didn’t get shot by someone who believes in the 2nd amendment and doesn’t need a costume to handle business.

      This is besides the point — there is no jurisdiction over civilians if the base isn’t on the list. You all should know this. You are the problem but you can’t kill stupid, just let it join the military and die for nothing, right? What rights are you dying for that you tried to take away from this person? Hypocrits.

      Do you jarheads understand English or the Constitution you die for? This is NOT Nazi Germany and you are protecting NO ONE but corporations who steal your families future and pollute your childrens earth. Shame on you all for being so ignorant.

    37. I just read this whole string and compliment those who actually spoke out with some education and facts. Especially the comments which the writer expressed his frustration with the incident and forewarned others to be very careful if they so choose to conduct in such activities. If you feel this is not the sort of conduct one should be engaged in then that is your opinion. To say and threaten violence towards someone is in itself unlawful when you have no jurisdiction to do so. I see points being made that something is illegal, show me the law that pertains to it. To say it and to prove it are two different things.

      One point I will make is this. When many military personnel leave the service they tend to gravitate into law enforcement. I see in many of these comments bravado. He cant do that its illegal, stomp him, throw him in the brig, kill him and loose the body, this is the Corps. Check your bravado at the door if you go into civilian service. Remember people you serve the public not the other way around. No matter how stupid someone is in your opinions it does not constitute law. That is my suggestion to you if you don’t want to wind up in prison for making that bad call and shooting some idiot for any other reason than you thought something was illegal.

    38. All of you here that say that this person should been arrested have no idea what you are talking about. US Supreme court have ruled that section 18 is unconstitutional outside base. Basically the eyes can’t trespass anything they can see. Which means if you can see it, you can record it. Also Homeland security in 2010 as part of court settlement release a memo that says filming federal building, military bases and anything that is open to the public is legal. That memo was supposed to have been sent to all government entity which i am sure many didn’t read it and/or understand it. Basically MP and police both were in the right in this video when they let this person go.

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here