| 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
Public Places Part II
Chad Ryan, Photographer
 |
Fort Wayne | IN | USA | Posted: 6:16 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> I think most on here would agree, Scott, that after learning the facts you presented later in the thread this situation warrants some extra attention. But the furor that has come up was because it seemed your original opinion was that anytime a person with a camera takes a picture of a kid, he or she should have no problems being questioned to determine the intention of the action.
If I'm shooting pictures in a public area, I'm not usually sitting in a car, hiding behind a tree, crouching under a bush or anything else that might be considered suspicious. But your first comments did not at all suggest that anything like that occurred. So, yes, at the very least law enforcement should keep an eye on the area.
Just don't further the process of turning people against us just because we carry a camera. That's the argument I think most everybody is trying to make here. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:31 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> Scott posted (in part) "...you don't want police to be vigilant and aware of the predators who you just don't want to think about."
Scott,
Speaking for myself, that simply is not true. I want them to be vigilant and aware....and responsible and lawful in the manner in which they are going about doing that.
I'm simply baffled where the media release was warranted and does anything more than simply feeding the public "distrust" of photographers, which is why I don't view it as responsible way of investigating the complaint. Now every hobbyist in the region is susceptible to being labeled a perv and having the cops called to investigate just for the offense of happening to be taking photographs in the same park as a kid.
Do they honestly believe that a pedophile would step forward and admit doing this? |
|
Phil Hawkins, Photographer
|
Fresno | ca | usa | Posted: 9:58 PM on 04.08.10 |
->> I'm sure most of us have taken a shot of someone or a child in a perfectly innocent context and have them or a parent become indignant. When this happens to me I always ask "Is there something that concerns you?" and they mumble something about taking a picture without permission, and I then ask "Is there something you're afraid of? Do you perceive a threat of some kind?" and you can always see their faces go blank. They cannot think of a specific threat, but they stammer and again mention taking a picture without permission. I repeat the question by asking "But how does it harm you?" and again, they go blank.
The point I am driving at, is that people have come to believe that they SHOULD NOT allow someone to take their picture without permission, and that somehow it's harmful, but they cannot give you a specific reason why they think that way. All they know is they should not allow someone to snap a picture without permission; and they have no idea why.
Somehow the public fears things about photography that have no basis in common sense. And it's the media that got them that way.
Reality shows that blur faces, license plates, etc. have always baffled me; cars drive around all day every day displaying their license plates in public, but for them to appear on TV is somehow harmful. ???? Explain that one to me. |
|
Nik Habicht, Photographer
|
Levittown | PA | USA | Posted: 4:51 AM on 04.09.10 |
->> I see both sides of this situation: As a former newspaper photographer, I believe in not demonizing photographers simply for making images.
On the other hand, I've lived in my current house for almost four years and have never seen a photographer in this neighborhood.
If I saw someone who looked and acted off, taking pictures of children, I'd probably ask a few questions.
If I wasn't happy with the answers, or if the person was evasive, I might well pass a description/plate number/photo on to the local cops -- after all, it's a public street, right?
Photographers have a right to do their jobs. They are not however exempt from being questioned. Professionals will gladly identify themselves and their employer.... |
|
John Korduner, Photographer
 |
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 2:01 PM on 04.09.10 |
->> Simply stated, if someone is believed to be engaging in a prohibited activity, the societal expectation is to investigate the infraction....However, if someone is accused of making another person uncomfortable by engaging in a lawful activity, it's harassment to require a good explanation that justifies why he should be allowed to continue engaging in the activity.
Consequently, bringing your camera to a local park doesn't create a presumption of unlawfulness any more than tattoos and bandanas prohibit you from strolling through a nice neighborhood admiring the shiny cars and expensive homes... |
|
Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
|
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 3:43 PM on 04.09.10 |
->> whatcha talking about tatoos and bandanas? Used to be tattoos on the neck meant: ex -con, now they mean: pre-med. Things have changed so much the Boy Scouts are now offering a merit badge for piercing. I was shooting in court last week and one of the attorneys had YALE LAW tatooed on his knuckles...
rimshot please |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 5:45 PM on 04.12.10 |
->> If you're going to France just practice saying these phrases in a thoroughly indignant tone if anyone dares to question you taking their picture:
Comment le défi vous m'interrogent! (How dare you question me!)
Je photographie pour l'art! (I photograph for the sake of art!)
Je photographie en l'honneur de Henri Cartier-Bresson! (I photograph in honor of Henri Cartier-Bresson!) |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|