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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 22, 2009, 4:18 PM   #311
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post

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
shooting someone from your car into their car is not a normal setting. especially when said subject is a small child.
Hards80 is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 4:25 PM   #312
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

No one is talking about what's legal and what's not. (... except, maybe, you. I can't always tell.)

What we're talking about is what is suspicious. And just because someone reports their suspicions to the police doesn't mean they're making a frivolous report. And just because the police investigate doesn't mean they're wasting their time or the taxpayer's money, or violating anyone's rights.
__________________
  • 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, 4:39 PM   #313
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
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.
I didn't say anything about tying up all the phone lines, just for the record
javacleve is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 4:50 PM   #314
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park

By David Wilkes


When Gary Crutchley started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out.

But the innocent snaps of seven-year-old Cory, and Miles, five, led to him being called a ‘pervert’.

The woman running the slide at Wolverhampton Show asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in the queue demanded that he stop.
Gary Crutchley pic of sons Cory and Miles

Picture of innocence: The photograph Gary Crutchley took of his sons Cory and Miles

One even accused him of photographing youngsters to put the pictures on the internet.

Mr Crutchley, 39, who had taken pictures only of his own children, was so enraged that he found two policemen who confirmed he had done nothing wrong.

Yesterday he said: ‘What is the world coming to when anybody seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...blic-park.html

When Daddy is a pervert for taking pictures of his own kids, is the above also worthy of investigation?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 4:55 PM   #315
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

that story does not add anything to the discussion of shooting someone else's child through the window of their car from your car. i am sorry.

that is truly an unfortunate situation, but not the same.
Hards80 is offline  
Old Oct 22, 2009, 7:13 PM   #316
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
that story does not add anything to the discussion of shooting someone else's child through the window of their car from your car. i am sorry.

that is truly an unfortunate situation, but not the same.
This is an obvious situation in which few people on THIS board will support these outraged parents and their exhibition of of hysteria. But hysteria it is, and it was hysteria which caused the parent in question to call the police over what was at worst, a little stupidity.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2009, 1:05 AM   #317
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Yes, the responses of the crowd are irrational, and I'm certain that each and every member, in retrospect, recognizes that fact, especially since the man was taking photos of his own children.

But in the OP's situation, the parent was concerned, and the RCMP investigated, and the OP's account doesn't describe anyone as hysterical. Indeed, the OP didn't have any direct contact with the parent that you describe as being afflicted with hysteria. I'm impressed that you can diagnose these things fourth hand, from postings on an internet website, and at a distance of 2,400 miles. Do you do parties?
__________________
  • 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 23, 2009, 8:45 AM   #318
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

By the way - just to follow up:
I checked with the local sheriff's department and was told that if they received this call from a parent they would have to follow up - that was policy, when asked for opinion it was the deputies opinion it SHOULD be followed-up on because it involved a child and it's always best to err on the side of caution.

So, there are TWO sources which have confirmed the officer in question was NOT out of line for making the phone call.

And while I respect Craig's, Dave's and javacleve's opinion that they would not have called the police or if they were the police would not have followed up, I'm still siding Dustin, TCAV, Kazua that it was suspicious activity and again siding with them as well as the two law enforcement officers that the police officer was not out of line for making the call. No one was hurt and no one's rights were violated.

Again - let's repeat the mantra - EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT and CONTEXT MATTERS. Dave's posted situation is completely different in the DETAILS of THE ACTIVITY. Remember, it's the BEHAVIOR and ACTIVITY which are suspicious, not the photo itself in this case.
JohnG is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2009, 9:57 AM   #319
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Again - let's repeat the mantra - EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT and CONTEXT MATTERS.

Remember, it's the BEHAVIOR and ACTIVITY which are suspicious, not the photo itself in this case.
It hard to argue with that.

And two people could take the same photo...one would appear suspicious and the other not...(even if they were dressed the same)

I suspect that body language is 80%. For example, leaning forward is a more aggressive stance then lean back ...
littlejohn is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2009, 4:05 PM   #320
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
By the way - just to follow up:
I checked with the local sheriff's department and was told that if they received this call from a parent they would have to follow up - that was policy, when asked for opinion it was the deputies opinion it SHOULD be followed-up on because it involved a child and it's always best to err on the side of caution.

So, there are TWO sources which have confirmed the officer in question was NOT out of line for making the phone call.

And while I respect Craig's, Dave's and javacleve's opinion that they would not have called the police or if they were the police would not have followed up, I'm still siding Dustin, TCAV, Kazua that it was suspicious activity and again siding with them as well as the two law enforcement officers that the police officer was not out of line for making the call. No one was hurt and no one's rights were violated.

Again - let's repeat the mantra - EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT and CONTEXT MATTERS. Dave's posted situation is completely different in the DETAILS of THE ACTIVITY. Remember, it's the BEHAVIOR and ACTIVITY which are suspicious, not the photo itself in this case.
They recieved a report of a pedophile taking pictures. What does "follow it up" mean? I've already said, that while, I wouldn't have done anything, running the guys plates through a computer to see if he's got a record would be legitimate. Making a phone call isn't. It's inhernently scary to be informed that the police are checking to see if you are a pedophile.

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 8:43 AM.