| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Photos in Public Places
Nicholas Von Staden, Photographer
 |
Pompano Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 04.07.10 |
->> Here we go.....BRIEF: Police searching for man who photographed girl
VENTURA COUNTY STAR, CALIF. | Wed, Apr 7, 6:24 AM
Share
Apr. 7--Camarillo police are looking for a person whom they said took a photograph of a school-aged girl without her permission as she rode past him on her scooter on Friday.
Police said the man, described as being about 18 years of age with a thin build, asked the girl to smile and then took her photograph.
Police said the girl immediately went home and told her parents of the incident. The photographer, meanwhile, left the area.
Police said they would like to talk with the man because he took the photo without permission.
The child was photographed around the intersection of Ascot Place and Palmer Avenue about 1:30 p.m.
Anyone with information on this incident is asked to contact Camarillo police at 388-5100.
Read more: http://dailyme.com/story/2010040700001394/brief-police-searching-man-photog... |
|
Luke Johnson, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
St.Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 2:48 PM on 04.07.10 |
| ->> Is this a late April Fools? |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 3:57 PM on 04.07.10 |
| ->> No, its the face of the new totalitarian America. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 4:02 PM on 04.07.10 |
| ->> Bored cops + doughnut shop closed= witchhunt and a probable violation of someones basic rights to take photos in public of the public. |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 4:29 PM on 04.07.10 |
->> This is Louisiana's Law...half the Facebook pages at LSU could qualify for the felony. Take a picture of any stranger's child, and a PD interrogation is certain.
Video voyeurism is:
(1) The use of any camera, videotape, photo-optical, photo-electric, or any other image recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping a person where that person has not consented to the observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping and it is for a lewd or lascivious purpose; |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 10:51 AM on 04.08.10 |
| ->> Scott, can you define "legitimate photo" for us? Sorry, short of the guy engaging in stalking behavior, the police have no grounds in hauling the dude in for questioning as to the "legitimacy" of the photo. |
|
Eric Isaacs, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 11:00 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> Scott S., Seriously?
"Exactly how many serial killers and pedophiles are out there who take photos, conduct surveillance and the like on potential targets?"
Probably very few.
This is not just about our rights as photographers but as citizens.
btw, statistically most abductions and molestations are perpetrated by someone who knew the victim such as a non-custodial parent, family member or close friend.
EMI |
|
Eileen Blass, Photographer
|
xxxxx | xx | USA | Posted: 11:04 AM on 04.08.10 |
| ->> Things sure have changed. An editor would say, "hey, we need some 'wild art' and out I'd go...perhaps to the park on a nice day, maybe to the local pool to get a picture of some kids cooling off, somebody out shooting hoops and makin' shadows, whatever. I always identified myself after taking a picture and I needed names anyway. Back then, nobody said a word, they were thrilled to be photographed enjoying daily life. It's unfortunate that we've become so paranoid that a photographer in a public place raises eyebrows. There is good reason, of course, there are some pretty bad people out there. There have always been bad people out there. I'm a parent, I'm familiar with the registered sex offenders location in my home town and I get why people are wary. It's just sad that a person with a camera is a threat these days. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:06 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> "Police said they would like to talk with the man because he took the photo without permission."
Lets start with the basics. Was taking the photograph 'without permission' illegal in that state, county, town? |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 11:16 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> Well, if you folks want to look at the world through rose-colored glasses, go right ahead. If someone can tell me under what circumstances you want want this guy taking you daughter's photo, please tell me.
Can anyone come up with a legitimate use for this photo? Newspaper? Magazine? No name. No age. No model release.
Yes, seriously.
Eric - 93150 - 41 registered sex offenders
Geoff - 49024 - 240 registered sex offenders
Have fun mapping all the predators who live near you...
http://www.familywatchdog.us/
I am all for taking happy photos of happy kids. But, I was always taught to identify myself and get names. It may have been totally "legal" to take the photo. I think the real issue, especially in California, is to make sure the photo was taken for a legit purpose. You all are taking a very odd stance on this photo. As a cop and as a parent, there are some serious red flags here.
That being said, if the guy is a photo student who didn't know any better, let him step forward and say, "Sorry, I am a photo student. I was taking kid photos for my class. I had no idea."
No harm, no foul. I think the police are just making sure...and in this instance, I have to agree. |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 11:23 AM on 04.08.10 |
| ->> Scott, again, please define what "legitimate" or "legit" use of a photo means? |
|
Mike Burley, Photographer
|
Chicago | IL | USA | Posted: 11:24 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> "Anyone with information on this incident is asked to contact Camarillo police at 388-5100"
Does anyone else feel like calling CPD in an attempt to educate them? Im contemplating... Area code is (805) btw. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 11:28 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> So Scott, even a hobbyist who happens to see a composition forming right before them and reacts by snapping the shutter should be legitimately incarcerated if he doesn't get proper ID, which he couldn't have done anyway since the parent wasn't around?
When you become president, remind me so I can move somewhere else. |
|
Eric Isaacs, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 11:29 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> Scott:
As a cop and as a parent I would hope you would respect the law and act accordingly. Taking a photo of a passing scooter is legal and does not justify expensive public resources to investigate. A few days ago here in SB there was a stranger that, however cliche, offered candy to a young child and then ran off when the parent approached. That would be good justification to investigate.
I don't find oddness in anyone's stance here except yours. I think you are interjecting unjustified fear and suspicion.
I am all for protecting kids but one can go too far even in that endeavor. Terrorizing kids into thinking that anyone that smiles at them has plans to rape, kill and eat them is every bit as harmful and unrealistic as telling them there are no dangers in the world.
EMI |
|
Mike Morelock, Photographer
|
Greenwood | AR | USA | Posted: 11:46 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> I recently took this little girls picture in Peru.
http://morelock.smugmug.com/photos/818269454_i8kmq-M.jpg
I didn't get the girls name, no model release or anything. Should I turn myself in at the local police station or fly back to Peru.
"Think!" You first. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 11:47 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> "I don't find oddness in anyone's stance here except yours. I think you are interjecting unjustified fear and suspicion."
First of all, I doubt the police department is expending expensive piublic resources. I think that is an overstatement. They let the news know. They gave a real photog a chance to come forward. They are doing a public service by letting people in the neighborhood know of the incident.
This may be nothing at all. But, as police, a people who are supposed to protect. It is absolutely the right thing to do. If this was a legitimate person taking a legitimate photo, great. If it wasn't, and he comes back, parents will be on alert.
I think my views are very rational. Too many people wander through life blindly thinking the world they live in is incredibly safe. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but life sometimes stinks. No one wants to face the reality that kids are abducted and abused every day. They don't want to think about the ugly reality.
I don't think that kids should be terrorized. I think the "Stranger Danger" crap they teach my kid is a disservice and, as pointed out above, sometimes makes them less "aware" of people they know as possible abusers. My daughter hates the class and she is a wreck after the class when she takes it. Kids shouldn't have to live in a world of fear.
All that being said, the reality is, that is the world today. Kids need to be aware. Parents need to be aware. Police need to be aware.
At no point in the article does it say taking the photo was illegal, does it? It says he took the photo without permission. Which, techincally, doesn't really apply, but they are trying to put a nice spin on it instead of saying, "The police are trying to determine if there is a stalking pedophe in the area or just a photographer who doesn't have the common courtesy to let a kid know who they are after taking a photo..."
Illegal - No. Red flags - Yes. |
|
Blaine McCartney, Photographer
|
Sheridan | WY | USA | Posted: 11:50 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> Nothing criminal about photographing a kid riding his/her bike on a nice day. Any inappropriate interaction with said kid is another matter, but taking a photo of a kid out playing on a playground is hardly inappropriate.
If parents don't want their child photographed in public, then don't send them out. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 11:56 AM on 04.08.10 |
->> Again.....
They are not looking to arrest the guy...
That press release was put out
1. To inform the public just in case.
2. To talk to the guy, to make sure.
"Police said they would like to talk with the man..."
TALK WITH. NOT ARREST. |
|
Eric Isaacs, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 12:01 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> Scott,
Thanks for clarifying your views. In any situation there has to be some reasonable judgment used. As Blaine just posted it isn't inherently inappropriate to take a picture of a child at a playground (at least not in the USA) but if some strange guy or gal was obsessively snapping photos of one of my nephews I would certainly confront them and ask why.
I would, however, NOT be okay with the police detaining me every time I took a photo of a stranger in public just to be sure it was "legit".
EMI |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:06 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> "Police said they would like to talk with the man..."
And if he were to choose NOT to talk to them or offer ANY explanation? Ya I took the photo.... now piss off. Then what? |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:11 PM on 04.08.10 |
| ->> Scott, keep hammering away, your paranoia is getting worse. So you're saying that if I was on a feature hunt, shot a photo of a kid, chimped the photo and decided it wasn't good enough for me to bother with getting a name and I drive off, an APB (all points bulletin) should be put out and I should be automatically questioned by the police? Holy Crap! I don't know where you live but it must be a VERY scary place for you to be that paranoid. And let's not even think about our First Amendment rights..... |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:15 PM on 04.08.10 |
| ->> I'm guessing next time I place an order for 10,000 zip lock baggies I should worry that the DEA may kick in my door. |
|
Eric Isaacs, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 12:17 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> Eric Canha:
You are probably fine with the Ziplocs, just don't try to buy two bottles of NyQuil at the same time :-)
EMI |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 12:18 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> I just know how I view this. For the police to make an annoucement like this, there is something else going on. They are covering their bases. I am fairly experienced at looking at the reasoning behind this stuff. Maybe this is in an area where they have a problem? Maybe they have had similar complaints? There is much more context to this than just police on a witch hunt, that is clear.
Police just don't willy-nilly throw things like this out there. When they do, there is a purpose to it. And, honestly, they aren't trying to talk to this photographer. They are hoping there is nothing to this, but it is their duty to make citizens aware if there is something to it.
Believe me, I don't want legitimate photographers out there being harassed. That could be me freelancing on a day off. But I would rather them make me, as a parent, aware, then let me wander along unknowingly if something was happening. |
|
Max Gersh, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
New Castle | IN | USA | Posted: 12:34 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> "But, as police, a people who are supposed to protect. It is absolutely the right thing to do. If this was a legitimate person taking a legitimate photo, great. If it wasn't, and he comes back, parents will be on alert."
So you're encouraging stirring the pot of fear when, as you say, "This may be nothing at all."
There are plenty of hobbyist and art photographers that don't need names nor do they have to ID themselves. Heck, even editorial photogs aren't required to ID themselves.
Just by putting this out as a warning to the community, it is promoting the thought that people with cameras are dangerous and should be reported to the police immediately.
Would you also like to publish a public warning when a Middle-eastern person moves into town? After all, it could be a potential terrorist, right?
And just like Chuck, I've taken photos that didn't meet my standards and just didn't get names or info on the people involved.
Bottom line is that none of what I said above matters because by law, this photographer did nothing wrong. And by doing nothing wrong, the police should have no involvement. Not to arrest. Not to question. Nothing.
I love The First Amendment.
And I'm still curious what a legitimate photographer is. |
|
Peter Huoppi, Photographer
|
New London | CT | USA | Posted: 12:34 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> So far, writers in this thread have talked about the following:
"violation of someones basic rights"
"interrogation "
"hauling the dude in"
"legitimately incarcerated"
"police detaining"
The police were not seeking to arrest, interrogate or detain anyone. They're simply looking to investigate a complaint made by a citizen. You rights are not being violated when the police ask you a question.
As a photojournalist, I've been on the other side of this twice. When a police officer approached me after someone called them, I didn't say "Ya I took the photo.... now piss off." I calmly explained who I was and what I was doing and was allowed to go on my way.
The police have a duty to serve the public. As a parent, I hope they would look into a complaint if I thought something suspicious had happened around my child. They might find nothing, or it might lead them to uncover a more serious crime. Routine traffic stops occasionally turn up thieves, drug dealers and murderers.
There was an annual "naked bike ride" in the city where I used to work. We asked the PD about it and they told us that it's not illegal to be naked in public, but if they saw someone standing naked on the sidewalk, they were going to go talk to him because he might be doing something lewd and lascivious or publicly intoxicated. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 12:37 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> @Chuck...
When you investigate the murder of a dead kid, it is no longer paranoia. Even when you have to help a friend make it through his own investigation of the death of a kid because he is so overcome by the tragedy, it is no longer paranoia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/26/AR200912260...
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jul/29/facts-about-child-abduction/
So bash me all you want and live in your happy little "I want to protect my First Amendment Rights" world. Maybe, just maybe, give the people trying to protect your kids a little credit for taking the task seriously. Or, would you rather they just ignore it. Move on. Go to the donut shop. And let your kid become a victim...
"Suspect known to victim" doesn't have to be a family member, it can be the mail man, a teacher, a maintenance worker, the lawn guy or...
http://nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2009/04/schumacher01.html
or
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80529306.html
or
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=12274109
or
http://www.care2.com/news/member/407433860/1353173
or
http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/04/06/article/man_pleads_guilty_to_...
Oh wait, that is one of the above guys taking a guilty plea. Yeah, I'm paranoid. |
|
Max Gersh, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
New Castle | IN | USA | Posted: 12:37 PM on 04.08.10 |
| ->> So what makes taking a picture suspicious? |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 12:50 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> This is exactly why i don't photograph kids anymore, or at least not without approaching the parents first.
Its not worth the aggravation. |
|
Eileen Blass, Photographer
|
xxxxx | xx | USA | Posted: 12:57 PM on 04.08.10 |
| ->> I think everyone needs to step away from their computer and go outside right now and find a feature. |
|
Chad Ryan, Photographer
|
Fort Wayne | IN | USA | Posted: 1:06 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> Scott ,by agreeing that this is an acceptable reaction to this incident, you perpetuate the misconception that people in public with slr cameras are automatically up to no good. Really? You honestly believe that every time a photo made in a public place involves someone under 18 years old they should OK with being "asked" to go to the police to explain heir intentions? Ridiculous!
I know there are bad people out there, and as a parent I am mindful of people when they are in the same environment as my children. I certainly agree about being cautious and taking necessary steps to ensure safety, but your line of thinking attaches extreme negative stigma to everyone with a camera. Isn't there enough of that already?
As a journalist, I am always singled out at crime and fire scenes because I have bigger cameras than the 200+ citizens shooting dozens of photos up close to the incident with their point-n-shoot cams and cell phones. I am usually escorted to the "approved" media coverage area. It just seems the general feeling in public is that if I have a camera bigger than what most people carry around, I must be doing something wrong. What you're saying makes that worse.
You never defined what your opinion of a legitimate purpose as asked previously. So I'm guessing as a photo editor your definition of legitimate is something to be published. But what about a person who just wants to have a record of their day. Is that not legitimate? Can I not have a pictures of my daily life and the environment around me?
Sometimes a moment strikes me as interesting and I'd just like to have a photo of it. It happened at a hockey game last night when I sat next to a new mother who had her tiny, seven-week old baby with her right next to the glass. I took a couple of shots of the baby's facial expressions as it reacted to the noise of the action. For Pete's sake, now I have to be interrogated? I made those photos not for publication but because I am expecting a new child in roughly three weeks and the moment struck me. I made pictures of a lot of kids as well as adults the last time I was in Japan because I wanted to remember everything I saw. I guess the Toyama Prefecture police should have hauled me in to make sure everything was "legitimate."
I've read your posts in the past and always thought they used good logic and were sensible, but I have to say, respectfully, that this one is way off the mark. |
|
Butch Miller, Photographer
|
Lock Haven | PA | USA | Posted: 1:08 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> I wasn't aware that the Constitution stated any photographer needed to "ask permission" to take a photo in the public purview ...
Scott, as a parent and grandparent, I understand your concern. As a photojournalist or even a hobbyist photographer, I don't think any authority has a right to question the legitimacy or question the motives of anyone who takes a picture in public simply because there is a chance that there is the potential for wrong doing.
Not every teenager that purchases a few cans of spray paint is out to apply graffiti on the local court house ...
In a turbulent society like we live in where we are not allowed to profile individuals based upon religious beliefs or ethnicity, anyone who photographs a child must be "legitimized" by the authorities for our own good? This sounds a little absurd.
Granted, it is of little inconvenience to be questioned by the police if the photography was "legitimate" ... but is that the direction we want to go as a society? Where there is the assumption of guilt or wrong doing from the beginning?
I hope not. |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 1:28 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> "Illegal - No. Red flags - Yes."
In a nut shell, I think this is where you part company with the rest of the folks on this thread. The mere act of taking a picture of a unrelated child in a public park without prior consent is NOT a red flag in and of itself... nor should it be... and that doesn't make me naive or unaware of the dangers that can face children in our society. If the guy had been hanging around the park doing things like only taking pictures of teen-aged girls and fleeing when a parent approached, or tried to follow the girl, or taken her picture while she was in a compromising position, or trying to talk the girl into coming back to his "studio", etc., then THOSE things would be a "red flag".
It's also pure speculation on your part that there was "something else" going on that concerned the police. I'm not sure why this police department would be uniquely shy about providing those details when other police departments aren't shy about publicizing such speculated behavior in others they're also trying to locate. In the attempted Easter Day abduction of the little girl in Alabama the police didn't just say they were looking for a guy that stopped to talk to a girl without a parent around.
We know from lots of other examples that police have often questioned photographer for the mere pointing of a camera towards a public building without "something else going on". In the news release, the Camarillo PD also makes it pretty clear that they the mere lack of parental consent alone makes it a questionable act. Unless they think the photo was possibly taken as part of the commission of a crime, then what's the purpose of wanting the haul the dude into the station house for a talking to, or asking the public to turn him in??? |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 1:33 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> Your call folks, in the end thats what I always say when a jury looks at some youth and says they think he looks innocent enough and they just don't believe he could do something so horrible. He has to live in your community, not mine.
If, as citizens, not photographers, you don't want police to be vigilant and aware of the predators who you just don't want to think about. That is your call. That is what it comes down to.
I am not saying it is illegal to take the photos. I am saying a parent called the police with a complaint. The police looked at it and felt it warranted at least a call to the media.
You forget, to have this story out there, THE MEDIA has to relay it. But, seriously, you guys decide. Do you want police to ignore this? Just say that, hey, the First Amendement protects this so we just will not pay any attention to it. Not one bit. We, as police should just ignore it. Ignore the complaint by a parent. Seriously? And then a kid goes missing, as they do all the time. And then we have a police department, armed with information AND a complaint, and what did they do? They sat on it. They didn't let anyone know.
Your call though. There is no part of what I am writing that is outlandish or terroristic or over the top. It is an everyday reality in the U.S. I have provided ample links as to the reality.
And still, it is the view of these board members that their right to take a photo is more important than the safety of a kid? That is it that much of an affront for a parent or a cop to say, "Hey, if you don't mind, who are you taking those photos for?" Is that a violation of your rights?
And in the end, if this photographer is a predator in training, do you want a photo of your daughter on his wall of fame at his house? Please apply some common sense here. I am not advocating locking up photogrpahers for taking photos of kids. I am advocating being aware of the dangers that are out there and letting the people who are trying to protect kids do their job.
Which is more objectionable? A photographer being asked why they are taking a photo or an abducted kid? Your call though. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 1:35 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> "->> I'm guessing next time I place an order for 10,000 zip lock baggies I should worry that the DEA may kick in my door."
No, just tell them you pass through TSA check points a lot |
|
Mike Morelock, Photographer
|
Greenwood | AR | USA | Posted: 1:46 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> " Do you want police to ignore this?"
YEP!!! They have enough trouble enforcing the laws that are on the books, much less laws that only exists in the heads of the paranoid.
It should go something like this.
Parent calls and says someone took a picture of my kid. Police should find out where. Peephole cam in a changing room. Then they can do something. In broad daylight? Sorry ma'am/sir no law broken there.
Well the guy looked creepy.
Sorry ma'am/sir that's not against the law either.
End of story. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 2:00 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> I'm sorry, and I usually don't even participate in this stuff during my day, but there is a police element to this and maybe I can give some insight...
I talked to the detective involved. He is very well aware of the fact this may be totally innocent. He even said that many other times when he gets these things, they are very innocent. He has even had a photo student come forward thinking it was him. It wasn't.
That being said, the guy in this case was sitting in a car, the little girl (under 12, but I am not giving the real age) was riding by when he opened the door and said "Smile." he took the photo, reviewed the image, shut the door on the car and drove off. That's it. The little girl was totally freaked out by it.
So, yes, could be innocent. But, anyone else here a little concerned. The detective even said, hey, if you are in a large crowd at Disney at happen to take a photo, well, that is one thing, but this is very different.
I figured a few facts would help in this debate... |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 2:40 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> "Do you want police to ignore this?"
Steve, it's a false premise that the only two options are for the police to "ignore it" or issue public media alerts on the matter. I'm not in law enforcement, but I think what I'd want them to do would be to take the report from the girl with what details she can recall, pass that information to officers that patrol that area (and even perhaps increase the frequency of the patrols in that area), and ask them to be on the look out for persons matching the description and give them some closer attention if spotted doing similar things or engaging in actual "red flag" activities.
I would prefer that they do that instead of issuing statements that falsely reinforce the all too commonly held notion that you can't take a photo of someone (particularly a child) in a public space without proper consent, and those that do should be treated as possible child abductors/molesters. |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 2:43 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> No offense, but I am really glad I don't see the world through the same eyes as you Scott. Jump immediately to the bad in people, he took a photo so must be, or will be, a sex-offender. There's good and bad out there, but the day my mind goes directly to the bad on every little thing is the day I just become a shut in and hide from the world.
With that said...The police got a complaint and are following through to the satisfaction of the person who made it, nothing wrong there. The media ran the complaint, nothing wrong there. Problem is the reasoning of "without permission", and it says nothing about what the photographer did as being totally within his legal rights.
If you're the kid reading this release you're probably a bit scared to come forward, even if you were just walking around trying to shoot some PJ type shots for practice as a future photographer (sorry but what do we tell students on message boards, or in person all the time, get out and practice!). The way it reads is a scare tactic, to strike fear in people that there's some big bad guy with a camera taking photos without permission. That's not exactly right for them to do it ignoring laws and putting a negative twist immediately on the situation instead of neutral.
Lastly, if you haven't noticed lately the whole uphold the constitutional rights thing has been pretty big, even though most screaming about it seem to have never read it in the first place, but besides the point. So yes the police and media reporting it should make sure they are protecting it! |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 2:43 PM on 04.08.10 |
| ->> Scott, I wasn't bashing you. I was trying to help you with your obvious paranoia. Having to deal with the general public's disdain for us almost daily in the last 10-15 years makes this job hard enough. But to have someone who is supposedly a member of the "community" agree that these kind of police tactics are acceptable is nothing short of frightening. Now, I might be making the mistake I've made before on this message board by assuming you are a working photojournalist if that isn't so I would hope you could have at least a grasp of how impeding it would be for photojournalist's to explain to the police what they are doing whenever they take a photo with a "pro" camera in public. That said, perhaps if you had posted your "insight" earlier you wouldn't have been hammered by other working photographers who were as concerned about your views as I was. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 3:02 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> So the police saying that they would like the photographer who took the photo to call in if this was just some innocent act, that is too much? Because where the press release says that police want to "talk to" the photographer, that is exactly what the detective wants. If it is innocent, call in, he can close the thing. One photog already did.
That actually seems pretty reasonable to me. And, this isn't just a photograph in a public place. She wasn't just riding by. He opened his door, impeded her progress, freaked the girl out, took the photo and drove off. That is a little odd to me and warrants attention.
Geoff, I get your point, but to me, the way that went down, it totally feels awkward. I have to respect the perceptions of the little girl too. If it set off her radar, I have to respect it. Maybe I am jaded. But I hear about activity like that and I see a preferential sex offender working on his game so that one day, a girl will stop and pose and all you have left is a scooter laying in the street.
Just apply what I call the 99% rule. Do you know 100 people? What are the chances that only one of them has done something illegal in their life? It is probably more than that. So, tossing a high restrictive number like that on the whole population, if 99% of the people are honest. If you have 1000 cops, 10 are still crooks. If you have 1000 photographers, 10 are still doing something illegal.
Maybe the way the newspaper worded how they printed the press release leaves something to be desired, but talking to the detective, he seems to be clear-headed and open-minded and just wants to make sure. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 3:13 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> "I was trying to help you with your obvious paranoia."
par·a·noi·a (pār'ə-noi'ə)
n.
Extreme, irrational distrust of others.
I trust lots of people, but when you look at this situation, it deserves attention. Please, you all want to defend this.
How many of you would sit in a car, open the door, impede the progress of a girl under the age of 12, ask her to smile, take her photo and then drive off without explanation?
How many?
Chuck, I submit you have police paranoia. You automatically jumped to "police tactics". They asked to talk to the guy. One even came forward. The detective even says he thinks it is most likely completely a misunderstanding. Either way, he still needs to investigate it. And no, I don't automatically think everyone is a criminal. The unfortunate part of being a cop is that you get to see the worst people can do and therefore have a full understanding for the capacity human beings have to do evil. Which is why, when I am not being a cop, I spend as much time as I can doing the thing that, for me, is most removed from police work, and that is taking photos. Lots of them, and none of them news. Especially not spot news.
But, noooo, I come on here and, dammit, I am in a police debate. Thanks. |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 3:38 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> Scott,
I understand your point too, but no one is saying that the girl and her parents were "wrong" to be concerned about what happened, nor were they "wrong" to call the police and report what happened. I think everyone here would agree that the guy _might_ have been up to no good. I mean, _sometimes_ a guy taking a picture of a bank really _is_ a potential bank robber. I've said that I think the police have reason to keep an eye out for the dude. What people are reacting to is the police's reaction to the report and the way that the newspaper positioned the people department's concern about what happened. That's it.
Would I or others here suddenly take a photo of a pre-teen and then drive off? I doubt it, but what I or others here might do doesn't automatically constituent what's "acceptable" or "legitimate".
And I think I'll leave it at that... |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 3:49 PM on 04.08.10 |
| ->> Oh, you're a police officer? that actually explains a lot. I don't have "police paranoia". I as many other working photojournalists have spent untold countless hours trying to explain to police officers my basic first amendment right to take photos in public places over the years. yeah, you guys have an important job but harassing me at spot news events shouldn't be part of it but seems to be a common problem everywhere. so yeah, I'm going to get a little frisky when you come on here ( a website for working sports and news photojournalists) and condone police questioning of photographers going about their normal day. it wasn't until the end of your post that you let us in on the details about the weird facts involved with this incident. that however doesn't change the fact that you condone the questioning of photographers going about their business. this is my last post since arguing with you about this is like, well arguing with a cop. |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
|
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 3:51 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> paranoia, period.
what, by the way, are the police supposed to do if/when they find this fella? ask why he took a photo? let's just say that he IS in fact a weirdo who really likes kids. we can imagine what he'd say to protect himself from further suspicion. but, what would this guy have to say in order for the police to then remove this 'threat' from the public?
i'm guessing that he would have to say, "i like photographing kids because i use the photos to satisfy myself when i'm spending time alone." great. now what do the police do?
as disturbing as that scenario might be, i'm still not sure the law prohibits snapping a photo of a kid in public. what you do after might be more suspicious. yes, the law is significant in this "questioning". it's significant because unless some sort of law has been broken, and it can be proven that a law has been broken, there is no real reason to question someone in this case. the answers to their questions would have to provide them with probable suspicion that a crime has been committed, or is about to be committed. if not, then it's just a bullshit conversation that wouldn't lead to anything but the appearance of a civil rights infringement.
we hire police to restore order in the case of civil unrest. they enforce laws. i'm not sure how it's their job to investigate the intentions of people who's behavior was considered suspicious by people who are afraid of cameras. |
|
Blaine McCartney, Photographer
|
Sheridan | WY | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> As Chuck pointed out, we 'legitimate' photographers have a hard enough time dealing with the general public's disdain on a regular basis.
I, and I'm sure a many more 'legitimate' photographers, don't want to talk to a police officer every time we take a photo of Sally or Billy out and about in a public place. |
|
Mike Janes, Photographer
|
Attica | NY | USA | Posted: 4:14 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> I missed the two posts before my previous one as I stepped away in the middle of my response, so did not see all info involved as it's not in the original link. First thing you have to realize is most were responding before you posted the extra info - crazy thing is some people need to know all the facts involved before jumping to a conclusion. I know it's rare in today's society but would like to think that those of us that work in media, full or part time, process info that way getting the whole picture.
This is especially for those who work in law enforcement because that's your job - to find all details and see if it warrants further investigation. However, it seems you went right to the pervert thought before getting ALL the facts yourself (that or just didn't post them earlier). That's what gets under peoples skin, the whole mentality of camera = pervert! You can't jump the gun in either direction, automatically thinking bad or thinking it's nothing. It's the same in every profession, seen it first hand when teaching and a coach as well - it's getting insane the assumptions people jump to just because of stupid little things. |
|
Alan Look, Photographer
|
Bloomington/Normal | IL | United States | Posted: 4:25 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> Scott seems to have a lot more information than the OP's article link. There is nothing in there about impeding anyone. Maybe it would be good if we all knew all the facts. Until then this country is still an innocent until proven guilty place to be.
Who is protecting the photographer's rights here. I'm sure it should be the same police. That should mean that unless they have a real reason to question, they don't. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 4:30 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> "Oh, you're a police officer? that actually explains a lot. I don't have "police paranoia". I as many other working photojournalists have spent untold countless hours trying to explain to police officers my basic first amendment right to take photos in public places over the years. yeah, you guys have an important job but harassing me at spot news events shouldn't be part of it but seems to be a common problem everywhere. so yeah, I'm going to get a little frisky when you come on here ( a website for working sports and news photojournalists) and condone police questioning of photographers going about their normal day. it wasn't until the end of your post that you let us in on the details about the weird facts involved with this incident. that however doesn't change the fact that you condone the questioning of photographers going about their business. this is my last post since arguing with you about this is like, well arguing with a cop."
I didn't know I needed to submit a resume to get approval from Chuck. I think my posts on this forum support that, up until this thread, I support photographers and I hate it when police indiscriminately flex against media trying to cover events just because. I don't condone it and my previous posts support that.
In this case, I think it is reasonable to ask this guy what he was doing. Seriously, Mr. Working Photojournalist, would you just snap a photo, freak out a kid and ride off?
On the working photojournalist front, I respect your work Chuck, but YES, YOU ARE BASHING ME. And, as a photojournalist (no news, just sports) with a degree from Missouri, I would expect the same level of respect from you.
What is telling is that you just to such an extreme on this when, by all accounts this isn't about a news guy taking a photo. This is waayyyyy different. I submit a working photjournalist would never do this.
Read my posts? I have never said arrest. In fact, the guy who is investigating this just wants a real photographer to call in and let him know this was nothing.
Chuck, you are blinded by YOUR OWN biases here. Sure, there are cops who abuse power. If this was about a crime scene, totally different arena. We are talking about some very suspect activity that any "professional" or even "hobbyist" wouldn't do.
Look at the reality of this. It doesn't weird you out a bit? If this was your kid, you wouldn't ask who this guy was and why he did what he did? Wouldn't you want to know? Well, if you wouldn't want to know, you are a bad parent. If you would want to know, well, who do you expect to ask the questions? The parents or the police.
It is really that simple, without all of the cries that the police are looking to infringe on your rights. If you can't see the simplicity of that, I don't know what to say. |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|