Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:26 PM   #151
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
So if you're wearing a ski mask while parked legally outside a bank, the police have no reason to be concerned, but if you're parked at a fire hydrant, they can arrest you?

Nobody here has ever said that photographing a child should warrant an arrest, but apparently wearing a ski mask can land you in jail if your tail light is out. As a photographer, what do you have to complain about?
I think this is a rediculous diversion from the subject. A photograph of a normally dressed person in a public place, can only in extraordinary circumstances be part of some possible crime, since it's rare for eight year old girls to be part of some secret Swat Team.

Wearing a ski mask in front of a bank, is certainly not an arrestable crime in most States, but it is certainly suspicious, and the police can swing bye to see what is going on. If you don't see the difference, no amount of me explaining is going to matter.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:30 PM   #152
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
I think this is a rediculous diversion from the subject. A photograph of a normally dressed person in a public place, can only in extraordinary circumstances be part of some possible crime,
Again Dave, that's where I believe your opinion differs from the vast majority. Stopping at a traffic light, wipping out a camera and taking photos of a small girl in the backseat of the car next to you, in most people's minds is more likely to be associated with some abnormal (possibly criminal with regards to pedophylia) behavior than something perfectly harmless behavior. I would argue that for most reasonable people, there's no good legitimate reason for that specific behavior. The fact that there was a legit reason is the reason why it was only a phone call.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:32 PM   #153
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Wearing a ski mask in front of a bank, is certainly not an arrestable crime in most States, but it is certainly suspicious, and the police can swing bye to see what is going on.
And a stranger taking a photo of a young girl couldn't possibly be considered suspicious?

And the police shouldn't even be permitted to swing by to see what's going on?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:34 PM   #154
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Dave - time to check your legal contacts. The odor of marijuana IS enough for probable cause. They don't have to see it. Precisely why a K-9 unit is allowed to sniff around your vehicle without your permission. If they smell it, the police can search. Now, there are other issues - they are not allowed to keep you there longer than what is required for the reason for the actual stop in order for a police dog to arrive on scene. But yes, even if a police officer SMELLS marijuana, that's probable cause.
My bad, you are almost correct. I mispoke.

Smelling marijana is probable cause to search the passenger part of the car, AND grounds to get a warrant to search the trunk. But the simple smelling of marijuana does not give the police free reign to the entire vehicle. In practice however, you're up the creek.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:34 PM   #155
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
And a stranger taking a photo of a young girl couldn't possibly be considered suspicious?

And the police shouldn't even be permitted to swing by to see what's going on?
Not just a little girl but a little girl in the backseat of a car at the stoplight next to you.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:38 PM   #156
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
And a stranger taking a photo of a young girl couldn't possibly be considered suspicious?

And the police shouldn't even be permitted to swing by to see what's going on?
Pardon me? You mean that if I take a picture of a little girl in public, this can lead to a crime? If such is the case, most people on earth who own cameras should be checked by the police on a daily or weekly basis. In fact, most of the police force should turn themselves in as well.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:41 PM   #157
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Pardon me? You mean that if I take a picture of a little girl in public, this can lead to a crime? If such is the case, most people on earth who own cameras should be checked by the police on a daily or weekly basis. In fact, most of the police force should turn themselves in as well.
So a stranger taking a photo of a young girl couldn't possibly be considered suspicious, and the police shouldn't even be permitted to swing by to see what's going on?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:51 PM   #158
Senior Member
 
kazuya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,007
Default

i think this thread is being blown out of proportion somewhat, as has been said many times allready, its ok to contact the police if your concered about something and its ok for the police to investigate. thats what they are for.
the guy saw someone taking a picture of his daughter from a car, he thought it was suspicious, to put his mind at rest he contacted the police, theres nothing wrong with him doing that, another person might not have found it suspicious and done nothing, theres nothing wrong with that either.
you have to respect the persons right to be concerned, even if in your own mind he has no reason for concern
kazuya is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:54 PM   #159
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Not just a little girl but a little girl in the backseat of a car at the stoplight next to you.
And? So?

As I've said in previous replys to you, under certain circumstances this could be suspicious. But based on what we know of this incident, none of those circumstances are involved. The little girl had her face out the window. Both parties stopped at a light, and he took a quick head shot of someone partially out the window.

We've gone over this before. As far as we know, there were no gestures, no learing, no nothing. Therefore no possible crime. If there are other factors besides the simple taking of the shot, then I will alter my remarks.

For example, with or without a camera, making lewd gestures, exposing yourself, etc, to anyone, let alone a minor is legally "harrassment."

In other words, "suspicious activity" has nothing to do with a camera.

And as I've said, we have heard only one side of the story - Nor do we know what the complainent told the Police. But based on THAT story, the police have no business following up an incident in which there was no possible crime.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 18, 2009, 5:57 PM   #160
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
So a stranger taking a photo of a young girl couldn't possibly be considered suspicious, and the police shouldn't even be permitted to swing by to see what's going on?
If taking a picture of a young girl in public is suspicious, then the Police should stop bothering investigating any other activity. They will be very, very busy.

No, someone taking a picture of a young girl, a grandma, my brother, or me, In Public, is never suspicious anymore that me SEEING a young girl is suspicious.

Dave
Chato is offline  
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:38 PM.