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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 21, 2009, 4:43 PM   #231
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The police in vestigate every complaint. They may not do it immediately, but they do it. If you are making a nuisance of yourself by filing frequent complaints that, in the past, have been unfounded, the police are less likely to take your most recent complaint seriously, but they still investigate.

They will only investigate if there is a possibility that there is some violation of the law. For instance, they will respond to a complain of excess noise at 2 AM, but they won't respond to a complaint of excess dandelions in someone's lawn.

When investigating a complaint that could be about abused children, the police are sometimes accompanied by an investigator from the local Department of Family Services (or whatever it's called where you live.)
__________________
  • 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 21, 2009, 5:02 PM   #232
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
The police in vestigate every complaint. They may not do it immediately, but they do it. If you are making a nuisance of yourself by filing frequent complaints that, in the past, have been unfounded, the police are less likely to take your most recent complaint seriously, but they still investigate.

They will only investigate if there is a possibility that there is some violation of the law. For instance, they will respond to a complain of excess noise at 2 AM, but they won't respond to a complaint of excess dandelions in someone's lawn.

When investigating a complaint that could be about abused children, the police are sometimes accompanied by an investigator from the local Department of Family Services (or whatever it's called where you live.)
Quote:
They will only investigate if there is a possibility that there is some violation of the law.
Well if they only investigate "if there is a possibility that there is some violation of the law," Then obviously they don't investigate every complaint.
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 5:06 PM   #233
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Let me make some analogies.

Some on this thread believe that taking a normal photo of their child in a public place is something they wont stant still for. Yet there have been thousands of instances of pedophiles talking to children on chat boards. Do they believe they can control this?

Sheesh - Do they monitor their childrens use of a computer? Can they really monitor their use? Yet a photo, with no contact between the photographer and the child is inherently a danger. A danger that no one is even able to supply examples of harm.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 5:37 PM   #234
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Let me make some analogies.

Some on this thread believe that taking a normal photo of their child in a public place is something they wont stant still for.
Dave

Actually - speaking only for myself - I DO NOT consider it normal to stop at a stoplight, pull out a camera and take a photo of a small child in the backseat of the car next to me. That is not NORMAL in my book. And that's not normal in anyone's book who I've spoken to. You keep trying to make it sound like any photo taken in public is perceived by others in the same way. And you keep ignoring when I point out that others don't think of it the way YOU do. It's not a matter of "not standing for it". It's a matter of it being abnormal behavior and the subject being a small child. So therefore it warrants some investigation.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 5:48 PM   #235
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
John G, you make some good points, and since you have connections in law enforcement, I have one question for you: are you saying that ALL complaints must be/are investigated by the police, regardless of merit? Regardless of whether the complaint actually involves a criminal action?
It's a question of whether or not it MIGHT BE PART OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. In the example I gave Chato earlier - wearing a ski mask in a car outside a bank is not, in and of itself, criminal behavior. But police would investigate it. Why? Because it might be PART OF criminal behavior.

In many states, buying certain cold and alergy medicine is now monitored. Why? It's legal isn't it? Yes, BUT those medicines are widley used in the manufacture of narcotics. So authorities monitor looking for people who are buying large quantities of the medicine. I just bought Claritin-D and they scan my drivers license and it goes into a database. Buying Claritin D isn't illegal. Using it in the manufacturing of narcotics IS illegal. So, authorities are looking for, wait for it, here it comes SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF THIS MEDICINE - i.e. buying 40 boxes of the stuff spread out over 40 different stores.

I'm sorry, but to non photographers, the situation in quesiton is incredibly suspicious behavior. And the subject is a minor child. In most people's experience, "normal" behavior does not include taking out a camera at a stop light and taking photos of a small child in the backseat of the car next to you. Because it is not "normal" and because the subject is a small child there is suspicion. And because such action can be linked to criminal behavior - the police investigate. wearing a ski mask isn't criminal, buying cold medecine isn't criminal but depending on the circumstances (this is a recurring motif in my answers - circumstances matter) the activity could be believed to be related to criminal activity. So police investigate. When it's determined NOT to be then the matter is dropped.

Again, describe this exact scenario to 10 parents of small girls and make sure those 10 parents aren't avid picture-takers and I'll bet 9 of 10 find the behavior highly suspicious.

Again, as best as we can tell the father looked over at a traffic light and saw a guy in the car next to him take photos of his little girl in the backseat. You do NOT know if the father was aware his daughter was sad. You do NOT know that the photographer appeared to be a nice guy that would have spoken if asked. All you know is no communication was exchanged before the photographer drove away. Given those set of circumstances I'd be amazed if there were parents who DIDNt find the behavior suspicious.

And as someone else pointed out - when it's child safety, why shouldn't police err on the side of caution. A 15 minute phone call (OP correct me if I'm wrong) was all the OP had to suffer.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 5:49 PM   #236
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Actually - speaking only for myself - I DO NOT consider it normal to stop at a stoplight, pull out a camera and take a photo of a small child in the backseat of the car next to me. That is not NORMAL in my book. And that's not normal in anyone's book who I've spoken to. You keep trying to make it sound like any photo taken in public is perceived by others in the same way. And you keep ignoring when I point out that others don't think of it the way YOU do. It's not a matter of "not standing for it". It's a matter of it being abnormal behavior and the subject being a small child. So therefore it warrants some investigation.
Since that's NOT what happened, then what are you talking about?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 5:51 PM   #237
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
Since that's NOT what happened, then what are you talking about?

Dave
Dave - here is the OPs statement:
Quote:
I was driving from one site to another and was stopped at a traffic light and in the car beside me there was a little girl with a forlorn look on her face. My Camera was on the passenger seat beside me, so I picked it up and took the shot. I must say that it was probably the nicest shot I had taken all day.
Which part of it did I get wrong?
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 5:52 PM   #238
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Who cares if you think it's NORMAL?

If we don't behave according to your norms we are fair game for police harassment?

It's legal and harmless. The police should have told the compainant to stop wasting their time and should not have "investigated" the photographer. They have in fact warned him off and frightened him away doing that sort of thing again. Yes it's perfectly legal but law enforcement will harass you for doing it. Never mind your rights, never mind the law, it's not what me and my friends think is normal. We will complain and the police who are supposed to be the guardians of ALL will "investigate" you for being unusual.

The correct approach for the police to take is to enforce the LAW, not what someone thinks is NORMAL. Why is that so difficult to understand?
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 5:54 PM   #239
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
It's a question of whether or not it MIGHT BE PART OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. In the example I gave Chato earlier - wearing a ski mask in a car outside a bank is not, in and of itself, criminal behavior. But police would investigate it. Why? Because it might be PART OF criminal behavior.

In many states, buying certain cold and alergy medicine is now monitored. Why? It's legal isn't it? Yes, BUT those medicines are widley used in the manufacture of narcotics. So authorities monitor looking for people who are buying large quantities of the medicine. I just bought Claritin-D and they scan my drivers license and it goes into a database. Buying Claritin D isn't illegal. Using it in the manufacturing of narcotics IS illegal. So, authorities are looking for, wait for it, here it comes SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF THIS MEDICINE - i.e. buying 40 boxes of the stuff spread out over 40 different stores.

I'm sorry, but to non photographers, the situation in quesiton is incredibly suspicious behavior. And the subject is a minor child. In most people's experience, "normal" behavior does not include taking out a camera at a stop light and taking photos of a small child in the backseat of the car next to you. Because it is not "normal" and because the subject is a small child there is suspicion. And because such action can be linked to criminal behavior - the police investigate. wearing a ski mask isn't criminal, buying cold medecine isn't criminal but depending on the circumstances (this is a recurring motif in my answers - circumstances matter) the activity could be believed to be related to criminal activity. So police investigate. When it's determined NOT to be then the matter is dropped.

Again, describe this exact scenario to 10 parents of small girls and make sure those 10 parents aren't avid picture-takers and I'll bet 9 of 10 find the behavior highly suspicious.

Again, as best as we can tell the father looked over at a traffic light and saw a guy in the car next to him take photos of his little girl in the backseat. You do NOT know if the father was aware his daughter was sad. You do NOT know that the photographer appeared to be a nice guy that would have spoken if asked. All you know is no communication was exchanged before the photographer drove away. Given those set of circumstances I'd be amazed if there were parents who DIDNt find the behavior suspicious.

And as someone else pointed out - when it's child safety, why shouldn't police err on the side of caution. A 15 minute phone call (OP correct me if I'm wrong) was all the OP had to suffer.
You keep repeating that he took a picture of a child in a back seat.

After you FIRST made this statement I experimented, and taking such a picture is almost impossible, unless the photographer leans out of his car, and more or less goes INTO the back seat. If you don't believe me, try it yourself (only a "virtual" camera is required).

The picture under discussion is not in the same catagory. As, I've alreasy stated, for a photographer to do the above, would be the equivalent of sticking a camera into someone's face to take a picture - This is NOT the case, so I wish you would stop repeating this version of events.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 21, 2009, 5:59 PM   #240
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
You keep repeating that he took a picture of a child in a back seat.

After you FIRST made this statement
So, Dave, your whole argument rests on your assumption the child was in the front seat and not the back?

It was at a stop light - just like I said
It was one car to another, just like I said.

So your only issue is you believe the child is in the FRONT seat and not the back?

You base this on your own test - without any knowlege of the RELATIONAL DISTANCE involved. I'm guessing you ASSUMED the cars were perfectly parallel. Take a look at the window structure Dave. There's another glass pane just behind the window. Looks like a rare window to me. But the OP could certainly clear that part up.

But to me - whether the child was in the front seat or back seat they were in a car and that behavior just isn't normal to anyone I've talked to.
JohnG 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 8:44 AM.