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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 22, 2009, 2:06 PM   #301
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Dave - you keep ignoring what we tell you - ITS THE BEHAVIOR that's suspicious. And so far, you haven't come up with a single credible post suggesting police should not have followed up on the complaint. Just like using binnoculars to watch children is suspicious so is taking a photo from one vehicle into another of a child. You'll notice in my father's response he never suggested the person should have been arrested but he agreed:
1) as a cop and a father the actions of the photographer were suspicious
2) the police officer correctly did their job by following up on the complaint

Now, I'm well aware of your personal opinion. But do you have any credible legal source that can provide information that the police officer acted inappropriately by following up on the complaint in the manner they did? Again, I realize what your personal opinion is
I just called the Ninth Precinct, and spoke to the Captain. (I'm a member of the Community Watch) and asked him. I gave him the version of events as presented to us. He wouldn't have made the call. Of course, that's my take on the version of events.

On the other hand, I did call 9-11 and ask if they would file a report based on the above story, and the 9-11 operator said they would. Meaning they would send in the complaint to a local precinct. If they sent it to the Ninth, it would have to contain a bit more drama, then this story does.

In other words, the 9-11 operator does not make any judgement calls. But the local precinct does.

Do you have any credible legal source other than the opinion of One Police Officer?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 2:18 PM   #302
Senior Member
 
kazuya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,006
Default

i dont see how any harm was done, all the photographer got was a phonecall, he wasnt arrested or have his camera or pictures confiscated.
whats the big deal?
and the parent probly got his mind put at ease.
kazuya is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 2:48 PM   #303
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

if someone feels threatened in any way. it should be their right to call the police. then it is up to the police to do some level of investigation to see if this threat is real or perceived and take the appropriate actions. is that not a fair premise?

that seems to be the premise of this situation. a parent noted to what them was a suspicious act, so they reported it to the police. the police made a phone call, and found that there was no harm done. and it was dropped.

i really don't see the problem. no one's rights were violated. no harm was done to the child, the OP, photography in general, etc.

no harm no foul
Hards80 is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 3:09 PM   #304
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
if someone feels threatened in any way. it should be their right to call the police. then it is up to the police to do some level of investigation to see if this threat is real or perceived and take the appropriate actions. is that not a fair premise?

that seems to be the premise of this situation. a parent noted to what them was a suspicious act, so they reported it to the police. the police made a phone call, and found that there was no harm done. and it was dropped.

i really don't see the problem. no one's rights were violated. no harm was done to the child, the OP, photography in general, etc.

no harm no foul
The police should of course lean in the direction of checking any call, unless it is clearly frivoulous. In this thread we are going on the information supplied by the OP, and in this instance the call was frivolous. In this case, the police would have been going overboard simply by running the plates through a computer to see if the owner had some record of pedophilia. A waste of time, but at least there would be a minimal justification for that.

As for the damage done, the OP will never take such pictures again. Some might regard this as a good thing, I do not. Moreover the OP, and anyone who reads his post will think twice about taking any pictures of children, and I definitiely do not regard this as a good thing.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 3:16 PM   #305
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

If they investigate every single call (and I see a difference between a 9-11 call and a phone call to the station), all a criminal has to do, then, is have some accomplices make frivolous 9-1-1 calls from unregistered phones, and keep the police busy chasing down sneezers and overgrown dandelions while the criminal is free to commit a REAL crime.
(note: I'm being a little tongue in cheek here, I do appreciate what you are saying, John G and Hards!)
javacleve is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 3:17 PM   #306
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
The police should of course lean in the direction of checking any call, unless it is clearly frivoulous. In this thread we are going on the information supplied by the OP, and in this instance the call was frivolous.
And yet clearly several people here do not agree with your assessment that it was frivolous. And therein lies the the rub. Apparently Dave believes everyone should think like he does - that his opinion of frivolous is the benchmark everyone in the world should follow. In other words, his judgement is the only valid judgement.

I respect the fact you think it's frivolous Dave but I and others disagree.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 3:28 PM   #307
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

I do not believe its clear this call was frivolous.
Hards80 is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 3:56 PM   #308
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post
The police should of course lean in the direction of checking any call, unless it is clearly frivoulous.
Once again, who decides what's frivolous? The 911 operator? Only after the police have investigated can they determine that the call was frivolous.

And in this instance, it wasn't frivolous. The parent's fears were unfounded, but his call wasn't frivolous.
__________________
  • 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 22, 2009, 4:01 PM   #309
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
If they investigate every single call (and I see a difference between a 9-11 call and a phone call to the station), all a criminal has to do, then, is have some accomplices make frivolous 9-1-1 calls from unregistered phones, and keep the police busy chasing down sneezers and overgrown dandelions while the criminal is free to commit a REAL crime.
While you're asking your friends who are 911 operators about who decides if a crime has been committed, ask them how many accomplices someone would need to tie up all their phone lines.
__________________
  • 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 22, 2009, 4:11 PM   #310
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
And yet clearly several people here do not agree with your assessment that it was frivolous. And therein lies the the rub. Apparently Dave believes everyone should think like he does - that his opinion of frivolous is the benchmark everyone in the world should follow. In other words, his judgement is the only valid judgement.

I respect the fact you think it's frivolous Dave but I and others disagree.
Many believe that taking photographs in the subway is against the law. They call and they complain. Everyone of these calls is "frivolous." You are free to disagree with me - But it is perfectly legal to take such pictures. Indeed, many members of the Police think it is against the law.

Taking pictures of anyone in public is perfectly legal. People call to complain about normal photography. But every such complaint is frivolous.

I really don't care if everyone on this thread but me thinks of these calls as being legitimate. Nor does the opinion of an individual Officer, who believes it's against the law to take such pictures is illegal matter. What is and what is NOT the law is a matter of public record, Court Rullings, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

What this amounts to saying is that the law itself is not the determinent of what is legal. The opinion of people is more important than the law itself. If enough people on this thread think that such pictures are inherently a threat, that's all that counts?

As I've said, we are going on the basis of what we have been told about this case - That's MY basis of calling this frivolous.

Are you still sticking to your man in the ski mask as the criteria for the police to act? But a man in a ski mask in a closed car in front of a bank, may also be legal, but it is also inherently suspicious. Taking a picture of anyone in a normal setting is NOT inherently suspicious, because such images do not even have the potential for resulting in a crime, whereas the ski masked guy in front of a bank Does have the potential to leading to a crime.

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 8:44 AM.