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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 20, 2009, 11:01 AM   #211
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
I don't know, I just think it's a little odd that the father's first thought was that this photographer was a pedophile. ...
We don't know what the father's first thought was. He may have been concerned about someone kidnapping her. He may have received kidnapping threats in the past, and was just asking the RCMP to follow up. It's possible that the driver wasn't the girl's father after all, and when whoever it was, told the father about the incident, the father wanted an explanation. The driver had the foresight to record the license plate, so the father was able to involve law enforcement.

The pedophilia thing came from someone here.

Children are vulnerable, ignorant and often foolish. Parents are supposed to protect their children (anybody's children!) This father thought he was protecting his child. Good for him!
__________________
  • 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 20, 2009, 12:09 PM   #212
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i really don't see why everyone gets so upset that a concerned father called the police to follow up on something he perceived as suspicious. which is the father's right, as the police's job is to protect and serve. the police then followed up appropriately and no arrest or charges were made when it was clear that it was not a threat.

i fail to see anything wrong with this scenario.
Hards80 is offline  
Old Oct 20, 2009, 12:22 PM   #213
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
i really don't see why everyone gets so upset that a concerned father called the police to follow up on something he perceived as suspicious. which is the father's right, as the police's job is to protect and serve. the police then followed up appropriately and no arrest or charges were made when it was clear that it was not a threat.

i fail to see anything wrong with this scenario.
BINGO. Look, some people feel the father over-reacted. Others here don't. We're never going to get everyone to agree on this point.

But so far no one has shown the call was illegal or libelous

Now, the police received a complaint and called the OP to get "the other side of the story". After getting that other side they dropped the matter

There is absolutely NO evidence the OP was put on any watch-list - either by name or license plate. I've seen in posts here fears that happened but no one stated for sure. When I spoke with my father (former police chief and director of County Narcotics agency) it was his opinion neither would have happened.

Now, no one has suggested the police did anything illegal, did not violate anyone's rights nor were they operating outside the bounds of their duties. The disagreement here is some people felt it was a complaint not worthy of the officer's time to follow-up on and others felt it was. Again, we're debating a judgement call by someone else. It's unlikely either side here is going to convince the other the officer should have / should not have made the phone call.

Now, the OP took a photo he was legally allowed to take. No one here is debating the legal issue. We have dozens upon dozens of posts on both sides as to whether or not it was a good decision on the OPs part to take the photo and not try to communicate with the other driver. Again, after dozens of posts no one is going to convince the other side that the decision was a good one or a bad one.

So, 3 decisions were made. No one was hurt, injured, defamed or had their rights violated according to the information provided by the OP (i.e. read his statement about what the officer told him - based solely on that piece of info - the only insight we have regarding the conversation of the father and cop - it is factually correct and not libelous).

So is there really anything new here? While some people don't like the decision 1 or more of the 3 people in this scenario made and after dozens of arguments no one is changing their mind, is there a point to continuing this?
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 20, 2009, 3:07 PM   #214
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

Nope...but it was a worthy exercise all said. I think many differing views did broaden everyone's scope even if it didn't completely change peoples minds.

We had the spectrum of folks who stand up for freedoms, folks who stand for morality and folks who stood for social values. In short all political stripes were heard....including the 'silent majority'

But in the end we still come together due to a common bond.....pictures and the love of pictures
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 20, 2009, 6:36 PM   #215
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
I have been reading this thread with interest, and I think there have been some good points made. I lean toward the libertarian in outlook, but I also agree that being civil is important. I might have been concerned had I been the father in the car of the OP, but I doubt I would have called the police just because someone took my daughter's picture (that seems a little extreme to me, and a waste of taxpayer money). But that's just me. I agree that we have sexualized young girls and then wonder why there is a danger. There is far more danger than taking a fully clothed photo out there! The one thing I do want to say, though, Chato, is that I have to disagree with you that the pedophile "getting off" on a picture isn't harming anyone. While the photograph is not the picture, I believe that all of our actions affect others at some point and at some level. It may not be immediately obvious, but it's there. Not necessarily the individual whose photograph is being viewed, but SOMEONE will be affected.
Well, before I go any further, let me clarify a point.

Those who acquire honest to God Kiddie porn, are in fact abusing children. This "industry," abuses children in Third World countries and then sells video's and stills of the abuse. There is only a quantitative difference between those who commit abuse, and those who pay to buy pictures of abuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
Also, it seems clear to me that acting out in "privacy" DOES lead eventually to acting out on others. It's a progression. In fact, just viewing porn eventually leads to actions that the person would not have otherwise engaged in, and leads to the need for harder and harder images/actions. I don't mean a random, single instance, of course--but it's like a drug; the more you indulge in it, the more likely you are to get hooked and then to go further. For some people it's a very short, slippery slope.
Saying all the above, after being concerned with this issue for many years, I have never seen a legitimate study that shows a link between those who use pornography, (or the Sear catalogue) and the actual abuse of children. No doubt there are individuals who are affected by such images, but they are extremely disturbed persons, who may not even be diagnostically pedophile. The manifestation of their insanity can go in any direction.

As to normal porn, there have been many studies showing no link between erotic pornography and an increase in rape or such crimes. There IS rape pornography, and obviously anyone who buys such images is predisposed to abuse woman.

To say that you can protect your children by protecting them from photography, is at best a lose/lose proposition. The creation of an atmosphere where No Adult is prepared to help a child because of a fear of being labeled a pedophile is far more dangerous than the actual chance of a child being molested. Parents can best protect their children from the real dangers by simply telling their children not to go with a stranger, do not accept gifts from a stranger. Obviously those parents who let their kids hang out at 2AM in the morning are creating an anything goes situation.

This entire question needs a society wide response, and the least of our dangers are the photographs of properly dress kids in public. To criminalise that is to also criminalise those people who like children, and enjoy the activities of children - And those people are the first defense against real pedophiles. In other words, when your neighbors are afraid to look at children, you have just obliterated your main defense when the parent is not around.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 20, 2009, 6:37 PM   #216
Senior Member
 
SharpShotGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kitsap Penninsula, Washington State
Posts: 1,217
Default

Its as if : Man don"t pick up that hankie that the lady dropped she mite end up suing you cause you may have looked up her skirt.Issues of the future of where they are taking this all.. is how I see it..... and of course you will have to prove that she did it on a dare to try to set you up in the first place so go on with life... Don't worry, Be Happy!! Make the World a better place to live for the Future Generations to come!....In Court just say," Beyond a reason of doubt, we believe this court is in contempt of its own reason to be!" Enough said done with that issue....
SharpShotGal is offline  
Old Oct 20, 2009, 6:46 PM   #217
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VTphotog View Post
I can't say I'm entirely happy with the results of these events, either. My point was more that laws get passed due to fear of incidents like these, whether some of us think they are rational or not. The fact is that most people respond emotionally rather than logically, and it would only take one really egregious incident to have our Congress making laws which could severely restrict what we, as photographers can do. Not necessarily by restricting us directly, but (for example) requiring online services to have releases from persons whose pictures appear on their sites. Bye, bye, online photo galleries.
There is beginning to be quite a lot of sentiment against unrestricted posting of photos online, and to ignore this is just going to get restrictions in place sooner.
A bit of consideration for the feelings of the person you are photographing is in order.

brian
Since there is no evidence that normal public photography plays a role in the abuse of children, what then?

If you search those incidents involving kidnapping and murder, photography was simply not the question.

Yet the idea that normal photography is a tool of the active child abuser is accepted by just about everyone, and done so without any evidence whatsoever!

Now no doubt there has been such an incident, (altough I can't find them) and no doubt there will be such an incident, but these incidents don't even reach the level of statistical blips, and are in fact mere coincidences - i.e. where the psychotic concerned was ready and willing to commit this horrible crime, and happened to have a camera.

If we choose to let every one of these events, which are no measurable, rule our lives, does anyone actually believe this will help children?

Now I happened to oppose the Patriot Act, but supported the law causing drugs and foods to be sealed. I oppose the former, because ultimately creating a one way road to a police State makes the entire question of fighting terrorists academic. Whereas the law protecting food, can do no harm, and might very well do some good - Especially since the incident recieved such wide play, as to create an atmosphere where every nut would try this method.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 20, 2009, 6:46 PM   #218
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

But again, someone taking a photo of a child may have some purpose other than pornography in mind, and it could be evil too.

So limiting the list of possible motivations to pedophilia is unreasonable too.
__________________
  • 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 20, 2009, 7:01 PM   #219
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
We don't know what the father's first thought was. He may have been concerned about someone kidnapping her. He may have received kidnapping threats in the past, and was just asking the RCMP to follow up. It's possible that the driver wasn't the girl's father after all, and when whoever it was, told the father about the incident, the father wanted an explanation. The driver had the foresight to record the license plate, so the father was able to involve law enforcement.

The pedophilia thing came from someone here.

Children are vulnerable, ignorant and often foolish. Parents are supposed to protect their children (anybody's children!) This father thought he was protecting his child. Good for him!
Since we are going on the basis of what the OP stated, then it was the girls father...

Quote:
He said that he had received a call from the Father of the little girl who was very concerned about someone taking pictures of his Daughter.
Now tossing in possible previous kidnap threats is a bit of a stretch. Might as well postulate that he's a CIA agent working on busting Al Qaeda. But the scenario of photographers being confronted for taking normal pictures of children OR adults is a part of the growing wave of hysteria, in which a camera is considered almost as deadly as a gun. Personally, I think the only way to confront this hysteria is to confront it - Take pictures of people, openly when possibly, but to ignore the entire idea that a camera, used in public, is in some strange manner actually a weapon.

I will add, that some in authority welcome this hysteria as a means of preventing pictures being taken of the authorities themselves commiting crimes. Such a ban on photography was innitiated in New York City, and only the protests of thousands, and the threat of legal action prevented these proposed rules from going into effect.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 20, 2009, 7:03 PM   #220
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlejohn View Post
Nope...but it was a worthy exercise all said. I think many differing views did broaden everyone's scope even if it didn't completely change peoples minds.

We had the spectrum of folks who stand up for freedoms, folks who stand for morality and folks who stood for social values. In short all political stripes were heard....including the 'silent majority'

But in the end we still come together due to a common bond.....pictures and the love of pictures
Can't argue with the above...

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 12:02 PM.