Know your rights

[Rick Waldroup]

I removed my previous posts after having described a situation with a stranger shoving a camera in my granddaughter's face as I was tired of hearing about his alleged right. My sons, the father and the uncle, explained very strongly to the perp that he does not have that right. You were one of the ones that roundly criticized me for supporting my sons statements.

You gave up your "right" to travel without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Hell, you gave up your right to visit the Liberty Bell without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Yet, some pervert shoves a camera in my granddaughter's face and you shout that "It's his right!" That's the bullsh1t!

You are cherry picking what you want to hear. If you go back and read my posts, I am not advocating some jackass to act like a nut and run around a playground snapping away and pretty much acting like a creep. Of course any of us would tell the guy to get lost. But that is not what this is about, is it?

We have now progressed into some parks not allowing adults in without having a child with them, of having sane, rational people act totally irrational about ANYONE with a camera around children, and on and on it goes.

I tell you what, why don't we just all shoot flowers, sunsets, birds, bugs, etc.......but wait, someone, somewhere, might take offense to that. And guess what, the precedent will have been set starting with shooting children.

Sounds far fetched, doesn't it? Not in the world that Los Angeles envisions, because, according to him, the government would only be doing that to protect us from the latest and greatest fear.

Are you guys that afraid?

 

[THORHAMMER]

I removed my previous posts after having described a situation with a stranger shoving a camera in my granddaughter's face as I was tired of hearing about his alleged right. My sons, the father and the uncle, explained very strongly to the perp that he does not have that right. You were one of the ones that roundly criticized me for supporting my sons statements.

You gave up your "right" to travel without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Hell, you gave up your right to visit the Liberty Bell without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Yet, some pervert shoves a camera in my granddaughter's face and you shout that "It's his right!" That's the bullsh1t!

How do you know hes a pervert ? and was he actually shoving it in her face ? I mean how far away was this guy standing.

 

[Sarah23]

Ohhhh goodness....what a thread.

As always I have to add my 2 cents here. I dont know about the legality of a lot of this...but I do know as a mommy of 2 young kids, if someone was taking picture of my kids, I would ask questions and if anything was "off" about them I would ask them to stop (espeically if it was a man)...if they didnt, i would be leaving with my kids very quickly, and telling the other parents there with kids about the person as I left. There are too many pervs out there for me not to be over-cautious. My kids are much more important then some stupid photo. Its not worth the chance.

There is no physical damage from taking a picture, you and I both know that, but if you had a child and saw some mysterious man taking pictures of your child... and it was potentially a pedophile scoping out your kid, I am sure that this would make you mildly uncomfortable to say the least.


No one is living in fear, at least they should not be. However, the facts are that there ARE a lot of bad people out there that DO use a camera with severly bad intentions. Photographers are NOT the target of these issues... but the "bad" people with the cameras are. Unfortunately, upon first sight, it is impossible to distinguish which one they are... so you play better safe than sorry... and tell them to move on.

If I had kids, I would confront ALL the good photographers on this planet and tell them to move on just on the one in a billion chance that there was someone scoping out my child. I do not know anyone (unless they are a negligent or uncaring parent), that would not do exactly the same either.

This is not called living in fear, it is called a fact of life in the world today and accepting the fact that there are bad people out there which we do need to protect our kids from... and on a daily basis. It may be sad, but it is true none the less.

As far as any rights of photographers are concerned, I say that simple common sense and courtesy will get you out of ANY situation more than waving around some stupid piece of paper that defines your rights. Start yelling and screaming about your rights as a photographer because someone reported you to the police as taking pics of kids in a park... then be prepared to be handcuffed and hauled off to the local precinct for the old anal probe verification. Talk to the parent as a concerned human being for a few seconds and then moving on without further ado is the SMART thing to do.

I don't need someone to protect MY rights for me. I respect their wishes and can take my pictures without needing to offend anyone. For any one parent that screams stalker, I can easily find 10 that will let me take pictures openly and without restraint... if not candidly, then simply by walking up to them and ASKING.

Oh...I wasn't targeting your post specifically, Rick, I was talking more generally, but I did want to answer your question and use it as a spring board to air my opinion.

:thumbup:

 

[Sarah23]

oh, and on the thing about parks not letting adults without kids in. It seems kinda silly to me...but if its a privately owned park I think they have the right, dont they?? (im not talking about THAT specific park...just parks in general.)

 

[Rick Waldroup]

oh, and on the thing about parks not letting adults without kids in. It seems kinda silly to me...but if its a privately owned park I think they have the right, dont they?? (im not talking about THAT specific park...just parks in general.)

Yes, I would imagine that if it is a privately owned park, such as one that might belong to a certain housing development, that it might be possible to set rules like that.

But what if you live in that community and do not have children? You are not able to enjoy the park because of that? What the hell is wrong with people.

I am sure that you know, as most people do, that a child who is molested is most likely to know that person- a friend, a close family friend, or a relative.

Stop living in fear.

 

[Socrates]

How do you know hes a pervert?

I am always suspicious of an adult that wishes to take photos of strange children, especially without having the courtesy of introducing himself, explaining his intentions and politely asking permission. What do you suppose the reason was?

and was he actually shoving it in her face?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the nuances of the English language. That is an expression that means he was moving the camera very close to her face.

I mean how far away was this guy standing.

I wasn't there and my sons were not interested in measuring. Since you've been shouting about his alleged "right," perhaps you can explain why distance makes a difference. Either the perp has the right or he doesn't. According to your rants, distance shouldn't matter.

 

[MarcusM]

Becuase you value a right that I dont, im foolish? Ok Ill go with that. Help me to understand why its important if the goverment listens in to my conversations or knows what library books I check out.

Seriously.

Because, if the government can just snoop into every aspect of our lives at will, then where does it end?

So, say maybe last year you were taking a religion course and the assignment was to read the Qu-ran.

Then, this year one weekend you decide to have a "Die Hard" marathon. So you check out Die Hard I, II, and III...(is there a IV??) all from the video store at the same time.

Now, since Die Hard is about terrorists, and you are reading about the Qu-ran, you must be thinking about committing terroristic acts, right? Just put 2 and 2 together. The government now has the right to haul you in for intense questioning.

Now, of course this is a totally hypothetical and ridiculous scenario that I just pulled out of thin air. But crazy things do happen, and these are the kinds of things that the government is trying to monitor. My point is that if we give the government free reign to do whatever they want, all under the facade of "fighting terrorism", then we as a free society lose out big time. This is not what America was built upon and I am amazed that I hear this type of attitude.

 

[THORHAMMER]

I removed my previous posts after having described a situation with a stranger shoving a camera in my granddaughter's face as I was tired of hearing about his alleged right. My sons, the father and the uncle, explained very strongly to the perp that he does not have that right. You were one of the ones that roundly criticized me for supporting my sons statements.

You gave up your "right" to travel without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Hell, you gave up your right to visit the Liberty Bell without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Yet, some pervert shoves a camera in my granddaughter's face and you shout that "It's his right!" That's the bullsh1t!

hahaha.,


Thats not at all what happened. you said that you and your son coerced the guy by threats of life threatening violence that he could not take pictures of your daughter from a public park. Why is your story changing ? what you did was illegal do you know that? He DID definitely have that right and you took it away from him. You could have nicely talked to the guy, you never answered my question how did you "know" he was a pervert ? Did he have the shirt on that says "pervert"

are you sure you didn't remove your post because I mentioned notifying the authorities you were planning to attempt to kill anyone who took pictures of your granddaughter. ? Seems to me if you didn't want to hear more about our constitutional rights you wouldn't keep posting your opinion. Why would you remove a post unless you were uncomfortable with it. ?

Seems when I called your card on the threats to photographers in general who photograph your granddaughter you shut up about that completely and removed the post.

don't worry, if you go nuts and assault someone Im sure the administrator can find the ip address. im just not sure why you would remove it unless you didn't agree with what you had written.

 

[Socrates]

You are cherry picking what you want to hear. If you go back and read my posts, I am not advocating some jackass to act like a nut and run around a playground snapping away and pretty much acting like a creep. Of course any of us would tell the guy to get lost. But that is not what this is about, is it?

Let's see...
You can define circumstances where the perp with the camera does not have the right to take pictures but others can not. Why is that?

 

[Socrates]

How do you know hes a pervert?

I am always suspicious of an adult that wishes to take photos of strange children, especially without having the courtesy of introducing himself, explaining his intentions and politely asking permission. What do you suppose the reason was?

and was he actually shoving it in her face?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the nuances of the English language. That is an expression that means he was moving the camera very close to her face.

I mean how far away was this guy standing.

I wasn't there and my sons were not interested in measuring. Since you've been shouting about his alleged "right," perhaps you can explain why distance makes a difference. Either the perp has the right or he doesn't. According to your rants, distance shouldn't matter.

 

[Socrates]

hahaha.,


Thats not at all what happened. you said that you and your son coerced the guy by threats of life threatening violence that he could not take pictures of your daughter from a public park. Why is your story changing ? what you did was illegal do you know that? He DID definitely have that right and you took it away from him. You could have nicely talked to the guy, you never answered my question how did you "know" he was a pervert ? Did he have the shirt on that says "pervert"

are you sure you didn't remove your post because I mentioned notifying the authorities you were planning to attempt to kill anyone who took pictures of your granddaughter. ? Seems to me if you didn't want to hear more about our constitutional rights you wouldn't keep posting your opinion. Why would you remove a post unless you were uncomfortable with it. ?

Seems when I called your card on the threats to photographers in general who photograph your granddaughter you shut up about that completely and removed the post.

don't worry, if you go nuts and assault someone Im sure the administrator can find the ip address. im just not sure why you would remove it unless you didn't agree with what you had written.

You're right about one thing. They should have called the police and let them take care of the perp.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Let's see...
You can define circumstances where the perp with the camera does not have the right to take pictures but others can not. Why is that?

Good lord!!! You do not get it. Me asking somebody not to take photos of my kids is completely different than a law being passed outlawing such activity.

Once again, you cherry pick what you want to argue about. If some weirdo is acting like a nut on a playground with a camera with kids around and some parents ask him to quit- fine- but it is NOT the law. And asking him to quit taking photos should not involve threatening the guy's life. Go back and read what I wrote.

Thank goodness we have the ACLU in this country. They may be the most unpopular legal organiztion in this country, but they stand up for the one thing most precious to all of us, our rights according to the Constitution. And that means the rights for ALL of us, not just a few.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Okay, I am sure most of you have heard of Jock Sturges and Sally Mann.

What do you guys think about their photos of nude children?

From what I understand, Sturges actually left the country because of his controversial photos. What do you guys and gals think about his and Mann's photos?

 

[THORHAMMER]

So,you would threaten someones life because they were taking a few pictures of your granddaughter from a reasonable distance? And your rationale is "they were a pervert"

I ask because literally shoving something in someones face is of course not right nor legal. (still not deserving of murder) And I have to make sure since your stories seem to change details and posts disappear often. Also its possible they were mistaken and he wasnt even taking pics of her but of a flower or bird that was near her. if he was more then 30 feet away then you never know.

Sounds to me like you need to ask more questions first and think twice before you say things to strangers. what if he was a ranger on vacation and he was doing a art project on society's dwindling green areas. Those guys pack guns and yes you would be in jail for threatening his life.

my point is you shouldn't automatically assume someone is a pedophile cause they are taking pictures of kids playing. and you explicitly stated a pervert was shoving a camera in your granddaughters face.

fact is you weren't even there and your talking about threating someones life, does anybody else see this as a potential problem. should this guy even be allowed on the road ?

 

[RMThompson]

Okay, I am sure most of you have heard of Jock Sturges and Sally Mann.

What do you guys think about their photos of nude children?

From what I understand, Sturges actually left the country because of his controversial photos. What do you guys and gals think about his and Mann's photos?

Rick as much as I am for the artistic rights of all people, posed shots of nude children is crossing a line. The true test of a society is how well it protects those that cannot protect themselves, and in this case the children are not able to defend themselves, or make a decision if they want photographs of them naked out there for the world to see.

Going back to the argument of rights vs security however, I maintain that taking pictures of an airplane, or kids at a park, should be allowed - just as my right to pick my child up and move them is allowed.

The argument is silly, and people are getting too personal. Everyone needs to back up a bit and take a breath!