I think it is rather rude to take a picture of someone who is telling you not to. You have not gotten anyone's permission to take their photo, I wouldn't like someone just taking photos of me, & I am a photographer. Also, it IS ILLEGAL that you posted this man's immage online when he expressly has denied you the right to even take the picture, let alone to use his image. Check it out. You are all huffed up over the RTD & in all your moral indignation you are acting pretty immature & rude. You act like this is some big instance where people should spend a lot of time harassing RTD on your behalf. People should look into real causes like Leonard Peltier before they waste any time on this drivel.

Sorry you were not treated like a little princess. There are worse wrongs in this world. Get over it.

I must agree that i would not like for my picture to be taken without my permission. If you were so worried about the homeless mans rights being violated. Why did you not instead of taking pictures, did you not take the homeless man home with you? Why becouse we are to busy letting other people take care of things that are not right becouse it is not our problem, but someone elses. But the moment that you see something being done, even if we dont agree on how it is being done (taken care off) we become so proper on how it should be handled. Do you realize that if something is not being done to clear some of the homeless from certain locations and not only RTD how it would look. Now you are making a big deal out of nothing, why is it you dont remember the so called Legal Attorney at RTD but you remember Mr. Gil's and the rest of the people. You are only seeing it at your convenience. Does that mean that I can take pictures of someones home but since I am on Public Property I can take the pictures? It is about time that the so called photographers are stopped from taking pictures without concent.

The rebuttal above seems odd to me. The RTD officer is a public servant. He works for that photographer as well as that homeless man. The RTD officer openly lied to the photographer when he said it is illegal to photograph people in public. This of course is not troubling to the above commentator. Neither is the thought that photographing the homeless may in fact help them by increasing public awareness of there plight.

The person above states that he feels it is rather rude to take pictures of someone else but then would this not lead to some serious impediments to any photographic journalism? Think about it. Would it be ok for the cops who beat Rodney King to say that the photographer did not have permission? How about the famous picture of the napalm burned naked child running during Viet Nam?

As to the charge that the photographer should do something about the homeless himself well I have to say isn't he? What is the commentator doing? Perhaps this is a case of protesting to much to aswage their own guilt.

Hanging up on tax payers is very rude and condescending
If he is proven to be wrong he will just hang up on you or avoid you all together.
responsibility
Is this the same Mike Gil who's grandmother came from Mexico?
Comments from family and others would be very much appreciated.

I praise your thought pattern JUST A THOUGHT.

And as for the 2 who would condemn deny the person their rights to photograph in a public place, I would more than assume that you are employees of RTD or Denver.
Tom Martino will love this one as well as the blogs and the media where all will be made public.

what does it matter where her grandmother came from? in mentioning this the author certainly makes his comments and argument seem less then reasoned and more racist.

I am flabbergasted that someone would use an expletive referring to the writers mother.
For all you know this could be a woman, which make you a sexist.
As a lady I was more than offended greatly by your poor choice of words and your verbal bashing without merit..

This individual it would seem was asking a question as to as to determine if this was the same Mike Gil.
If this person had asked if his Grandmother was from Ireland or Russia, I am very sure that the vulgar word Racist would not have shown its ugly head.
I am sure other that know you would never say pinto bean or salsa in you r presence for fear that you would call them RACIST!

Your a real piece of work yourself condemning this other person for being anonymous, when you yourself are as well anonymous. That is the pot calling the kettle black. OMG

I am not sure if your and adult or not, if you are an adult grow up and stop looking for ways to justify your inferiority complex. If you don't like who you are please don't dump your vileness on others just make them your scapegoat to justify your shortcomings.

As for Mr Gil he should be held accountable for his actions and poor leadership skills to say the very least.

Well first of all RTD is not public property it is considered by law private property, second of all  People need to understand  the issues with the tranisent populations  that constantly tresspass RTD and other properties on the mall.  The public need to mind their own business unless there is an obvious situation  that needs attention and then you need to call the proper authorities. As far as Im concerned copwatch is a hoax .. a bunch of over zealous, conservative idiots that need mind thier own business!!!! You dont know what happened before you got on scene, notice the person originally didnt say that he had observed a beating or anyting illegal...but yet it was his right to interfere? I dont think so!  its all hear say, and believe me I have had to deal with some of these ignorant idiots from cop watch that havent a clue about  the law and what is and isnt allowed esepcially on private property.

In fact, what the legal department representative said was correct.  Photographing a publicly paid security officer who is performing their job function on public property is legal.  That is the case whether the officer is part of a public police force or a private contractor working for a public agency.  It is also true whether the officer is correctly performing their duties or not.  This kind of photography is documentation, not art or personal memento.  It can be used for journalistic purposes or as legal evidence for either party to the dispute.

In cases where the officer is performing properly and is falsely accused, the photo could be obtained by subpoena to serve as evidence in the officer's favor.  There are cases where this has happened.

The officer should have known this, though some who are contracted through private companies might not.  The supervisor almost certainly knew it, though it is not uncommon for supervisory personnel to lie about such things.  I worked in a corporate bureaucracy for 20 years and have seen many such instances of supervisors and managers lying.  They do it for the sake of expediency--most citizens either don't know their rights or lack the time, money, specialized knowledge, and connections to properly assert them.  In fact, knowing when one can get away with lying is considered a valuable management skill.