Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

photojournalist nabbed for santa picture
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 12:50 PM on 12.11.09
->> this dude was arrested by an off-duty cop playing the part of shopping mall security man.

http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/12/arrest.html

on the lighter side, you might want to check this link out for a quality laugh:

http://www.sketchysantas.com/
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Ip, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 1:04 PM on 12.11.09
->> Wow this is amazing. I obviously don't know the whole story, but sounds like the off-duty police officer got a little overzealous. Rensberger had the common decency to delete the "offending" pictures and yet the fathers of the kids still went and tattled. Amazing.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Richard Wolowicz, Photographer
Brossard | QC | Canada | Posted: 1:57 PM on 12.11.09
->> Forgive my ignorance of Americain law.

Is it illegal for a private citizen to photograph a minor in a public place without their consent?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Ip, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 2:11 PM on 12.11.09
->> Nope it's not illegal. If you're in a public place, you can be photographed regardless of age. There are some caveats to that, but mostly circumstantial.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

G.M. Andrews, Photographer
Mobile | AL | USA | Posted: 2:20 PM on 12.11.09
->> Most malls aren't public property. They are private property.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 2:27 PM on 12.11.09
->> Michael and Richard - Most malls technically aren't a public places, like a city park or a public sidewalk. Rather, malls are private establishments with public access, and my understanding is that most laws still allow photography in places like this unless the owner/manager requests that you stop.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Germ, Photographer
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 2:34 PM on 12.11.09
->> Let's keep the facts strait - the photographer was NOT arrested for taking photos. The police did NOT force him to delete photos.
For whatever reason, a father was worried the photographer was taking photos of children. After confronting the photographer he approached security.

Now, from reading the story you DO NOT know what the father told the security officer. All you know is the security guy came over and asked "why are you taking photos of children"

So far, nothing illegal nor constitutionally infringing has happened. It's a sad statement about the world we live in today where a parent feels the need to make a complaint like that.

What he was arrested for was the ALLEGED battery and ALLEGED resisting arrest. NOT for taking photos in a mall.

Again though, you have ONE SIDEs story about what happened between the photographer and the officer. I look forward to the NPPA or anyone else publishing the findings of the internal affairs review or any other witness statements in order to determine if the arrest was warrented or not. On the surface it seems like overkill but then we only have one side to the story.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Richard Wolowicz, Photographer
Brossard | QC | Canada | Posted: 2:43 PM on 12.11.09
->> I understand the mall part ... but, is it illegal to photograph someone in the mall ? I understand it's private property, I should have phrased my original question differently, Can I be arrested for taking a photo at the Charleston Town Center Mall if I'm not on assignment ?


"He stopped at his hotel room, then went to the Charleston Town Center Mall to eat dinner and do some Christmas shopping at about 5 p.m."

This makes him a customer ...

"Mall customers can bring cameras into the mall and take pictures, she said."

Argument over.


John:
"Let's keep the facts strait - the photographer was NOT arrested for taking photos."

He was told:
"It's not against the law to take a picture of a police officer unless they don't want you to."

So what is it ? Is it illegal to photograph a police officer/security guard unless they want you to ?




Sorry for all the questions ... just curious.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

George Bridges, Photographer, Photo Editor
Washington | DC | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 12.11.09
->> Richard,

A mall is a private business establishment and many malls do not like photos to be taken. Now, they usually do not go after citizens taking pictures -- they may be asked to not take them by security -- but if they see a "professional" looking photographer they will usually quickly stop them to see what is up.

Many malls and stores don't like photos taken for some reason. I would think it's free publicity for it to be printed in the paper but they look at it for security concerns or maybe someone is taking photos to run an article saying so-and-so store is ripping off customers and they don't want a picture taken.

Much of it is over-sensitivity but it is private property and they do have a right to ask you not to take photos. It's like your house. Someone can take photos of your home from a public street, but they can't walk around to your back yard, on your private property, and take photos without your permission.

Now, usually you won't (or even can't) be arrested but can be escorted off the property by security, unless the mall wants to get really pushy and call the police. You probably have a good argument if there are no signs posted saying photos are not allowed. You can make a defense of you didn't know, you're sorry and move on. Again, this doesn't apply to a professional on assignment as mall/store management usually likes to be standing alongside you to make sure you don't take any photos that make them look bad and can scare off customers.

Yes, in this case he was a customer and, presumably, innocent in taking pictures of the holiday scenes. If he did ask the security/police if he could take their photo and put the camera up then he was kind of egging them on and that is never a good thing to do.

If the quote of the officer is accurate then the officer is wrong. In a public place you can take a photo of a police officer any time you like. They may not like it and will probably try to assert some authority over you and you may get hauled in, but a halfway decent lawyer will get the charges dismissed and an apology in short order. But, again, a mall is not a public place. (note this has been even upheld for those outdoor malls that mimic a "main street" atmosphere and it doesn't feel like you are obviously on private property but seems public")

In these days of heightened paranoia even though many times you may be within your rights and the officer may be way beyond their authority you are best off not pushing the situation and trying to avoid any confrontation.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Scott Strazzante, Photographer
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 3:06 PM on 12.11.09
->> If I were a mall cop/off-duty police officer who was approached by a parent concerned about a grown man photographing a child and then I approached said photographer and he acted like he did, I would probably arrest him, too.

There has definitely been many many incidents lately of police overstepping their bounds but now it seems that the photographers being questioned are being so aggressive in their interactions with the police that a confrontation is inevitable.
 This post is:  Informative (4) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Germ, Photographer
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 3:27 PM on 12.11.09
->> Richard,

I presume from reading the article that it wasn't the suggestion of taking the photo that led to the arrest it was the alleged slapping of the officer's hand. One side of the story says the officer grabbed the camera. The complaint quoted in the article says:
"According to the complaint, Rensberger slapped the hand of Charleston police Cpl. R.C. Basford as the officer attempted to block Rensberger from taking a picture of him."

As usual, the devil is in the details. Did the officer grab the camera as the photographer claims? Or did the officer just put his hand in front of the camera (blocking it but not touching it)? We don't know. But there's a very big difference between the two actions IMO. Remember, you have a right to take my picture, I have a right to put my hand in front of your lens. I don't have a right to touch your camera and you don't have a right to slap my hand out of the way if I'm not touching it. See how the fine details can make a difference?

In the end, George' take is about right to me: it's never good to be confrontational with people. You can always expect them to react poorly. Whether they are right or wrong, you're much more likely to get a negative reaction when you're confrontational with anyone. Most people, when they have their buttons pushed will do their best to make life miserable for the person doing it. Tick off your waitress or a cashier they'll do what they can to get back at you. Same with police or security. Is it right? Nope. But ignoring the human nature component is asking for someone to spit in your food, make you wait longer or get detained/arrested.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:45 PM on 12.11.09
->> G.M., If the mall wishes to enforce the private property rights that it MAY have, then an authorized representative must do so.

The general public shopping in the mall has no part of the mall's rights. Beyond that, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a shopping mall outside of the bathrooms and the dressing rooms.

There is no law against photographing ANYBODY (child or adult) in a place open to the general public.

That said, common sense is in order. I totally understand that a parent would be concerned about a stranger photographing their child.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:47 PM on 12.11.09
->> Richard, In the U.S., there is a legal principle called "implied consent." People who subject themselves to view in a place open to the general public are assumed -- by their mere presence -- to have given consent not only to be seen, but also to be photographed. If they do not wish to be photographed, their sole option is to leave the area.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Tychnowicz, Photographer
Edmonton | Alberta | Canada | Posted: 4:40 PM on 12.11.09
->> So, to Summerize...
1. Don't take pictures of kids in malls or else Mommy and Daddy will try and get you arrested
2. Don't shoot photos of Mall Cops and Cops, unless its a positive PR event for them.
3. don't take pictures at all anywhere or someone will have you arrested for invading their privacy.
4. Don't defend yourself to the police as they have already found you guilty .
Maybe I am missing something here.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Germ, Photographer
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 5:05 PM on 12.11.09
->> "Maybe I am missing something here."

Yep, you're missing the notion that using common sense in a situation while still asserting your rights will have a higher likelihood of success. For instance, if I'm in the same situation as the photographer I would have done exactly what they did with regards to the parent - delete the photo and show them I didn't have other photos. Sure, it's my right to have them but it's common decency to respect other's objections to photographs involving their children. It's not worth a confrontation over.

Now, when approached by the officer, my common sense tells me to, regardless of the officer's tone, relay my actions in a calm,non threatening manner. Even show the officer I deleted the image. Most likely, problem solved. The problem comes in when you let your ego get in the way - and you allow things to escalate. That doesn't mean that if the officer makes an unlawful request like deleting all your photos you must comply. BUT, you can be nice about the non-compliance. It's amazing how being friendly and non confrontational can diffuse a situation and get you a positive result.

You have to remember, you're not dealing with a court of law you're dealing with people. It's about picking your battles and when you decide something is worth fighting for, doing so in a way that provides you a better chance at success. Which do you think is more likely to have a good outcome - a calm discussion with an officer questioning you or pulling out your camera to start taking photos of him? We'll leave out the notion of whether the hand slap was justified.

In the same way, what is more likely to have a good outcome when a parent approaches you? Showing him the photos and deleting the photo containing his child or telling him to piss off, you can photograph whoever you want? If and when it's important enough to stand your ground (i.e. if police or someone demands your memory card) do so politely. Don't give them an excuse to allow them to escalate. Common sense and people skills go a long way in making potentially confrontational situations go away. Personally, I'd rather check my ego and have a pleasant 5 minute conversation with the security guy than get arrested, have my day ruined and be proven right when charges are dropped. My day is worth more than that.
 This post is:  Informative (5) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:44 PM on 12.11.09
->> Nicely put, John.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 11:49 PM on 12.11.09
->> the photog in question seems like a pretty reasonable guy- based solely on the story. he deleted the photos without confrontation and showed the concerned parent the rest of the take. he has never been arrested as a shooter, and doesn't really sound like an aggressive person. i can very easily see how this exchange agitated the photographer and escalated into an issue.

i think this has been discussed before, but it is worth noting again that it is not acceptable to question or detain someone just because. the courts won't back it- which means security shouldn't be doing it. SECURITY, by the way- not even the municipal police. security has to call the police to make an arrest. the fact that the security guy was an off-duty cop is far worse. if this becomes something, watch how the police distance themselves from this guy.

the security guy/cop even had background (from the paranoid parent) before confronting the photographer. he wasn't going in blind. he knew this was an issue about pictures. not good enough to approach the photog on that. after all, it's a santa booth. the only thing happening at the santa booth are bad santas scaring kids and parents snapping terrible PICTURES!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 1:37 AM on 12.12.09
->> John G. wrote "So far, nothing illegal nor constitutionally infringing has happened."

John, if the allegations are true, I'll have to disagree. Not only was unwarranted force use, but there appears to be a search of the digital files stored on the device without a search warrant - "Basford, who had taken his camera, interviewed Rensberger once he was in custody. The officer asked him why he'd taken a photograph of a girl still on his camera." How would this be known without reviewing the files?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Geoff Miller, Photographer
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 7:52 AM on 12.12.09
->> "...if I'm in the same situation as the photographer I would have done exactly what they did with regards to the parent - delete the photo and show them I didn't have other photos."

I'm not sure I'd take that approach, particularly if the photos are purely innocent in their content. By agreeing to erase them, you give legitimacy to the parents' notion that you in fact did something improper. In this case I'd show the dads that their kids were merely part of a larger Christmas scene and I isn't running around stalking kids. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the dads contacted security after he apologized (why???) and deleted the photos.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Germ, Photographer
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 7:55 AM on 12.12.09
->> Mark - if you re-read my statement, at the point in the story where I said "so far, nothing illegal...." was at the point when the security guy was questioning why the photographer was taking photos of children.

The force used is another matter. And that's where more details and witness statements are needed as well as the internal review on the use of force. As to looking at the camera after the arrest, I'll let an officer or lawyer comment on the legality of that as I'm not qualified to say whether it's legal. But there's a big difference in what an officer can look at AFTER a person is arrested - after an arrest, I don't know what the case law states as to whether a warrant is needed to view photos on a camera.

My point is: use common sense and avoid all this. If I walk into a crime ridden area at dark and get robbed the robber is still at fault, but my poor judgement put me in the situation to let it happen. In this instance, it appears the photographer exercised poor judgement by provoking the officer/security guard. So, best case for the photographer at this point is charges are dropped and officer is reprimanded. How much trouble did the photographer have to go through? For what gain? By exercising better judgement he likely could have avoided all the hassle. So, even in the best case scenario, the photographer still loses because of the pain, humiliation and lost time. So, in that scenario, it's still Lose-Lose (i.e both officer and photographer lose). With proper judgement it's higher likelihood of a win-win (officer satisfies the complaining parent, phogotrapher goes about his business after a 5-10 minute conversation).
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:38 AM on 12.12.09
->> This wasn't your ordinary rent-a-cop security guard. This was a trained, sworn police officer.

Using similar logic to yours - how much trouble did the officer/security guard have to go through? For what gain? By exercising better judgment he likely could have avoided all the hassle. As a public servant he should be expected to exercise extreme restraint and to only resort to physical violence when absolutely necessary - not out looking for any excuse to do so. We do not live in a police state. The photographer did not initiate the confrontation, and had already done more than required (allowing the parents to view his files and voluntarily deleting the one they objected to).

If half of what's in the article is true, then I would imagine the "loss" for the officer will be multiples higher than any "loss" from pain, humiliation and lost time for the citizen. The citizen's pain, humiliation and lost time may well end up being monetized in his favor, the officer's may well be monetized against him, in the form of lost wages, etc.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Peters, Photographer
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:54 AM on 12.12.09
->> The article now has a copy of the photo the officer asked about - described as a photograph of a girl.
http://wvgazette.com/News/200912090795 (you have to scroll over to the second image.

If there was any doubt of irrationality on his part, this will go a long way in removing it. How any reasonable individual could possibly twist this into anything other than a simple photo of a choir - of adults, is beyond me.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Frings, Photographer
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 9:03 AM on 12.12.09
->> A quick reading of the WV statutes leads me to believe that if anyone committed a battery, the cop is the one who probably committed a "battery" on the photographer.

(c) Battery. -- If any person unlawfully and intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another or unlawfully and intentionally causes physical harm to another person, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be confined in jail for not more than twelve months, or fined not more than five hundred dollars, or both such fine and imprisonment.

The photographer was doing nothing illegal so an officer can't legally stop him from attempting to take a photo. The officer seems to the be the one who interfered with the photographers actions, initiating the unlawful contact which was of a provoking nature. Even if the photographer did slap the officers hand, which I tend to doubt he did, it would seem to have been in response to the unlawful contact initiated by the cop.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Sean Connelley, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 11:29 AM on 12.12.09
->> "I was not under arrest and it was not illegal. ... I've taken photos all over the world and this is the only time I've ever been arrested like this," Rensberger said.
.
Welcome to West Virginia!
.

Put away the reasoning and analysis on this one.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Richard Uhlhorn, Photographer
Chelan Falls | WA | USA | Posted: 12:04 PM on 12.12.09
->> Sounds to me like over-reaction on everyones side.

Rensberger was within his rights, but when confronted by security, he let his emotions get to him and tried to take a photo of the officer. I think that was his big mistake.

The parents over reacted also. Once Rensberger deleted the offending photo, which to me was not offending at all, but that alone should have satisfied the parent that Rensberger was not trying to take photos to be used inappropriately.

Could Rensberger done anything more than delete the photo? I would like to know the other side of the story. What is the concerned parent's story? Why was he so concerned, especially when he saw the photo wasn't specifically of his child? Why did he complain to security? What did Rensberger do to make him go to security? Or was he just a jerk?

Unfortunately, the police officer probably over reacted also by the use of more force than necessary when he decided that Rensberger needed to be arrested. These kinds of abusive confrontations happen all the time.

It is a sad statement of the times we live in.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 12:27 PM on 12.12.09
->> The parents over reacted and perhaps Rensberger over reacted.

However it is the cop's job and professional responsibility not to over react. The cop failed; and as a person who has the capability of applying deadly force he does not have the option of over reacting.

The cop has the responsibility of getting it right each and every time. Failing that, perhaps he would be better suited to be a house painter where you get to do things over if necessary.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Al Goldis, Photographer
East Lansing | MI | USA | Posted: 12:52 PM on 12.12.09
->> Although he probably did nothing illegal, Rensberger might have overreacted a little in dealing with the officer. But in case you didn't notice it in the story, this might explain why:

"Rensberger, who was hired to take photos of government buildings as a subcontractor for the IRS, had just gotten back from taking photos of the Sidney L. Christie Federal Building in Huntington."

That means his job entails being hassled all day long by security guards and cops who don't know the law and think anyone photographing government buildings must be a terrorist. Or if they're really ignorant of the law think photographing government buildings is illegal.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Plassenthal, Photographer
Vandalia | OH | USA | Posted: 4:17 PM on 12.12.09
->> was photographer Chris Dorst arrested for taking a picture of the alleged assailant (humor intended) near the Santa villiage? After all I can see a child in the background.

My fundamental issue is that the officer approached the man because he took a picture. Since when is photography a suspicious act that invokes any probable cause to question someone?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Eric Canha, Photographer
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:20 PM on 12.12.09
->> Ian you took the words right off my fingertips.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 11:15 PM on 12.12.09
->> John-

that's kind of what i'm saying. jerks, a-holes, nutjobs and the socially inept are a dime a dozen. they are everywhere, and the government protects them too. the suggestion that this guy could have avoided all this if he just did it differently is, well, obvious. if everyone just handled things the right way, there would never be confrontation, or war for that matter.

perhaps a better suggestion is that street photographers or photojournalists need to constantly be shadowed by a spokesperson that specializes in conflict resolution. these threads always bring out the folks that highlight the errors made and how the shooter should have responded. while that is certainly useful, consider that some of us deal with a different flavor of wacko everyday. todays cop is a different kind of crazy than yesterdays cop, and nothing compared to tomorrows cop. now we need to know how to defuse 50 types of luny?
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brad Barr, Photographer
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 8:16 PM on 12.13.09
->> [quote]Since when is photography a suspicious act that invokes any probable cause to question someone?[/quote]
September 11th.....
try taking photographs of important buildings from public places and you'll soon be acosted and told to leave. Happened to me in Chicago....
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 6:07 AM on 12.14.09
->> if this were a mere rent-a-cop instead of an off duty police officer moonlighting, I bet nobody would have been arrested.
If someone is sticking an hand in front of my lens, I'm sure as heck going to brush it away, because I have no way of knowing if the intent is to block my photo or mash the camera into may face, and I'm not going to wait to find out.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: photojournalist nabbed for santa picture
Thread Started By: Mike Anzaldi
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Care to go on safari? Visit some African images ::..