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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 24, 2009, 6:56 PM   #361
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
There's nothing in the OP's account of how long he and his wife spoke with the constable.

There's nothing in the OP's account to indicate that anyone mentioned pedophilia.

The police weren't lying to anyone. They were simply investigating. When you investigate, you ask questions. The constable was asking questions about a report he had received.

As much as you'd like to turn this into something it isn't, that's all that happened. A father complained and the RCMP investigated. From the OP's account, it sounds like he and his wife were doing most of the talking, and no one used the word 'Pedophilia' in any form.
Hey, I've heard worse parsing of sentences than yours.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2009, 7:29 PM   #362
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

The OP felt taking the picture of the little girl was a okay thing to do. I'm sure that if the OP had thought taking the picture would cause any concerns for the farther, he wouldn't have taken the shot.

Question is what causes concern in people? Parents that have never had anything bad or scary happen around their kids would probably not be the less bit concern about someone taking pictures of their kids (something I don't do) without asking first. On the other hand a parent that has had a close call is going to be much more concern about strangers taking pictures of their kids. Would I have called the police on the picture taken by the OP, yes. Why, because I almost lost my daughter when she was seven years old. My daughter was in the front yard getting the mail (something she was not suppose to do) and I was at the far end of the back yard (the yard was 1 1/4 acre lot). I heard someone talking and tunned around to see who it was and what they wanted. By this time the man had gotten out of his van and was walking toward my daughter, he was telling her to get into his van. I started running toward the man but was to far as he was almost in arms reach of my daughter. He would have grab her if not for our Lab/Pit Bull mix dog who was much faster than me. The man ran back to his van with just enough time to close the van door as the dog hit the side of the van. You bet I followed up on this and found out the man had just been released from jail for the same thing. Did I use to worry about people taking pictures of my kids in public before this happen, no. Do I worry about this now, yes. Do i fly off the handle when someone takes a picture of my kids no but I do go and talk to the photographer. Do I follow up on every picture taken, no, just the ones where the photographer takes off running.
BTW, the dog got a new bed and a lots of new toys that day.

When taking pictures in public we should (IMO) think of what or how we may be making the people we are photographing feel.
Calicajun is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2009, 7:56 PM   #363
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calicajun View Post
The OP felt taking the picture of the little girl was a okay thing to do. I'm sure that if the OP had thought taking the picture would cause any concerns for the farther, he wouldn't have taken the shot.

Question is what causes concern in people? Parents that have never had anything bad or scary happen around their kids would probably not be the less bit concern about someone taking pictures of their kids (something I don't do) without asking first. On the other hand a parent that has had a close call is going to be much more concern about strangers taking pictures of their kids. Would I have called the police on the picture taken by the OP, yes. Why, because I almost lost my daughter when she was seven years old. My daughter was in the front yard getting the mail (something she was not suppose to do) and I was at the far end of the back yard (the yard was 1 1/4 acre lot). I heard someone talking and tunned around to see who it was and what they wanted. By this time the man had gotten out of his van and was walking toward my daughter, he was telling her to get into his van. I started running toward the man but was to far as he was almost in arms reach of my daughter. He would have grab her if not for our Lab/Pit Bull mix dog who was much faster than me. The man ran back to his van with just enough time to close the van door as the dog hit the side of the van. You bet I followed up on this and found out the man had just been released from jail for the same thing. Did I use to worry about people taking pictures of my kids in public before this happen, no. Do I worry about this now, yes. Do i fly off the handle when someone takes a picture of my kids no but I do go and talk to the photographer. Do I follow up on every picture taken, no, just the ones where the photographer takes off running.
BTW, the dog got a new bed and a lots of new toys that day.

When taking pictures in public we should (IMO) think of what or how we may be making the people we are photographing feel.
This is one heck of a horrible experience. But as you note, what does this have to do with photography? About a dozen children are murdered every year by child molesters. About one third the number killed by lightning, about one one hundreth of those killed by drunken drivers.

In all of these cases of murder, they were crimes of opportunity, just as the story you are giving us. To these psychos, children are objects, they are indistinguishable from one another. No doubt some of those who take pictures of children (and here I'm referring to normal street photography) are pedophiles, but they are not a threat to your child or the child of your neighbor. While no doubt it can occur, after extensive research I have been unable to find ANY link between normal photography, and child abuse.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2009, 8:34 PM   #364
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

"In all of these cases of murder, they were crimes of opportunity, just as the story you are giving us."

No, this wasn't a crime of opportunity, he had been driving the area for some time as I found out from the neighbors. You asked; "What does this have to do with photography?", a lot as the main discussion in this thread is fear. Did the father have the right to be concern? Should someone be allow to take pictures in a manner that puts the subject or subject's' parent in fear, not in my opinion. Reading through your statements, I come to the conclusion that you feel that as long as a camera is in hand everything is alright. That is like the bullet proof photographer syndrome, where combat photographers feel that as long as they are behind the lens nothing will happen to them while shooting, which is not true. As with everything else we do life we need to be aware of what our actions do to ourselves and others.
Calicajun is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2009, 8:48 PM   #365
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calicajun View Post
"In all of these cases of murder, they were crimes of opportunity, just as the story you are giving us."

No, this wasn't a crime of opportunity, he had been driving the area for some time as I found out from the neighbors.
No offense, but this is the very definition of a "crime of opportunity." He was looking for an opportunity to snatch a child. Was he using a camera?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Calicajun View Post
You asked; "What does this have to do with photography?", a lot as the main discussion in this thread is fear. Did the father have the right to be concern? Should someone be allow to take pictures in a manner that puts the subject or subject's' parent in fear, not in my opinion. Reading through your statements, I come to the conclusion that you feel that as long as a camera is in hand everything is alright. That is like the bullet proof photographer syndrome, where combat photographers feel that as long as they are behind the lens nothing will happen to them while shooting, which is not true. As with everything else we do life we need to be aware of what our actions do to ourselves and others.
My point here, is that your case, and other such cases have nothing to do with photography. what did the father have to worry about? Someone took a photograph? Hardly an opportunity to snatch a child. Nor do these people particulerly care what the child looks like. A head shot somehow becomes a hot babe, whom some killer is going to track down?

Heck no, as in ALL such cases, the kidnapping, and rape, is in all cases that can be documented, has nothing to do with photography. You can do what I did and do a search, which will only confirm what I am saying.

BTW, I surely hope you gave your dog a steak dinner.

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2009, 8:53 PM   #366
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chato View Post


My point here, is that your case, and other such cases have nothing to do with photography.
Dave
but the case in which this thread is centered about, DOES have to do with photography.
Hards80 is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2009, 8:59 PM   #367
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
but the case in which this thread is centered about, DOES have to do with photography.
LOL! Yes indeed it does. And?

Dave
Chato is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2009, 9:23 PM   #368
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
but the case in which this thread is centered about, DOES have to do with photography.
But the same events could have transpired if the OP simply stared at the little girl, or made funny faces in order to get her to smile. The OP posted his account of the incident here because he happened to be using a camera and this is a dicussion group for photography. If he had been wearing Groucho Marx glasses instead, he might have posted his account of the incident on http://forums.steves-funny-glasses.com.

In other words, photography was ancillary to the incident that made the father suspicious and report it to the police.
__________________
  • 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 24, 2009, 9:49 PM   #369
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Two side to every story and this thread is no different. There is the OP photographer and the subject's father both seeing the same action in two different ways. The OP felt that taking a picture would cause no problems for anyone, after all it is just a picture. Of course with everyone being a photographer in the world we all understand how and what the person with the camera is thinking and never worry. Not everybody is a photographer and they don't always understand what is going on when a stranger takes pictures of their kids. The father is this thread was worried and didn't understand why someone would be taking a picture of his little girl, he had fear and took action to put his mind at ease about the picture. As to what happen to my daughter, yes it does have to do with photography! As it put fear in me about what strangers might do and weather they have a camera in hand does not change my outlook. Am I suppose to say; oh they have a camera in their hand, everything is okay. That is not going to happen any time soon. A camera is not a free pass to shoot anyone or thing without regards to others.
Calicajun is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2009, 10:49 PM   #370
Senior Member
 
Calicajun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Posts: 3,455
Default

Found this and thought of this thread, some may find it of interest.
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/10/13/h...g-his-picture/
Calicajun 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 8:00 PM.