Misuse of photography; when the law SHOULD win

[The_Traveler]

Usayit and Rick Waldroup - good thinking

 

[THORHAMMER]

as a father of a 2 year old, I dont care what the politically correct thing to say is, this guy is sick and disturbed, and yes what he is doing is WRONG. There is a right and wrong. Even if we dont want to see it.

Get this trash off the streets please

 

[usayit]

double post.. my son was playin with the mouse.. hehehe lol

 

[usayit]

as a father of a 2 year old, I dont care what the politically correct thing to say is, this guy is sick and disturbed, and yes what he is doing is WRONG. There is a right and wrong. Even if we dont want to see it.

Get this trash off the streets please

I'd also like to get KKK, Neo-Nazi's, pedophiles, gangs of the streets too...

What if I said smoking is a violation of the sacred human body and should be completely banned in the United States? Wouldn't you want the right to voice your disagreement?

As a father of an 8 month old, I want my son to have the same civil liberties that we enjoy today.

I can protect him from pedophiles. I can't protect him from an oppressive society or government.


RIGHT and WRONG has nothing to do with it just as morality has nothing to do with legality.

 

[1JP]

So we should prosecute and jail anyone who *might* break the law?

My point was and still is, just because he was arrested once does not mean he only did it once. How many times has he gotten away with it prior to his arrest? That's the question. We all speed, we all break laws in some fashion just about everyday. How many times do we actually get caught?

For all that defend these predators, how would you like one living next door to you? Do you have a right to know? And I really find humor in the ones that state they can defend their own children. I'm sure everyone feels that way until it happens to them and then they wonder how something like this could have happened. It's easy, the predators are protected by the same laws that we are and they seem to work a lot better for them than your child. That's the injustice.

And again, this is about pedophiles, not the ban on smoking or the views that some have against other races. You mentioned the KKK, did you realize the federal government violated their civil rights in the 60's and 70's to get them off the streets? Yes they did. Was it worth it? Ask someone who was on the receiving end of their hate if it was worth it back then.

Political Correctness changes with time. At one point "A" is accepted and "B" is not. As time passes "A" is no longer accepted, but "B" now is. Political Correctness, one thing that is never politically correct is pedophilia.

 

[usayit]

My point was and still is, just because he was arrested once does not mean he only did it once. How many times has he gotten away with it prior to his arrest? That's the question. We all speed, we all break laws in some fashion just about everyday. How many times do we actually get caught?

And my point still is the same... you can't prosecute something you have no evidence. Wilson in this case is a 17 year old kid only guilty of one thing.. being a horny teenager. I repeat, a kid at 15 having sex with a 13 year old (who has not broken any Georgian laws) is no more a predator than a 17 year old sleeping with a 15 year old. Other states make leeway in their definition of "age of consent". Are we so black and white that we can't see that the punishment should fit the crime?

Don't confuse Wilson with McClellan. Two absolutely different people. Two different cases. I would absolutely pursue for legally limiting McClellan's activities and prosecuting to the fullest allowed by law. Wilson on the other hand is a 17 year old who had a future and Georgian law destroyed it because of a mistake.

Have you ever heard of the term "innocent until proven guilty?. A speeder who pleads guilty is only guilty of ONE count of speeding. Not ONE count of speeding PLUS the possibilities of previous occurance of speeding PLUS the future occurances of speeding. Thats just plain stupid no matter how you spin it....

For all that defend these predators, how would you like one living next door to you?

I DO NOT DEFEND SEXUAL PREDATORS NO MORE THAN ACLU DEFENDS THE KKK values and beliefs. Where do you get that logic? I defend citizens' rights.

That's the injustice.

You know what is injustice? Prosecuting people on the pretense that they did the crime before and will do it again without any evidence. Thats what you call Injustice. Defintion of injustice " the quality of being fair". Not a single thing you stated is fair.

And again, this is about pedophiles, not the ban on smoking or the views that some have against other races. You mentioned the KKK, did you realize the federal government violated their civil rights in the 60's and 70's to get them off the streets? Yes they did. Was it worth it? Ask someone who was on the receiving end of their hate if it was worth it back then.

BTW.. I have been on the receiving end of the KKK's aggression... and I will leave it at that (I dare not say what is on my mind at this point.. ANGRY) That group graces my campus (Texas A&M) on occasion. I'm one of those people who show up to protest. On the other token, I'd be one of the first to defend their right to free speech if necessary.

This as everything about smoking.. other groups.. races .etc.. Because each of those things involves people's right to speech. It is the right to speak against or for it. It is easy for you to say that the ends justify the means, if you have never been on the other side of the equation.

Say that to my gay friend who has no rights to be at his dying partner's side on the last days of life. A loving relationship of more than 10 years. Its all ok by many people's book, because THEIR definition of marriage (Seperation of church and State? anyone?) is protected... end justify the means eh. B.S.!!!!

Political Correctness changes with time. At one point "A" is accepted and "B" is not. As time passes "A" is no longer accepted, but "B" now is.

Political Correctness, one thing that is never politically correct is pedophilia.

WOW.. this is EXACTLY one of the points I was try to say up there (somewhere). Laws set the stage for the future and all cases afterwards. They have to be TIMELESS and FAIR. You said A is accepted B is not.. as time passes A is no longer accepted B now is. This is the exact reason why laws shouldn't be hastily written to prevent "B" in the first place.

This is just not about pedophilia... This is about the right of Freedom of Speech and the laws that set PRECEDENCE. Far greater than just pedophilia. We already have laws against pedophilia. Use them. We don't need laws preventing freedom speech.

There are a lot of things that are not politically correct. Calling a black man the N word for example... its still not breaking the law.

 

[1JP]

And my point still is the same... you can't prosecute something you have no evidence.

Don't confuse Wilson with McClellan. I would absolutely pursue for legally limiting McClellan's activities and prosecuting to the fullest allowed by law.

Have you ever heard of the term "innocent until proven guilty? Thats just plain stupid no matter how you spin it....

Where do you get that logic? I defend citizens' rights.

Defintion of injustice " the quality of being fair". Not a single thing you stated is fair.

This as everything about smoking.. other groups.. races .etc.. Because each of those things involves people's right to speech.

There are a lot of things that are not politically correct. Calling a black man the N word for example... its still not breaking the law.

* I never stated anything about prosecuting without evidence. I was simply pointing out that just because an individual is caught for the first time does not mean it was his first time committing said offense. He most likely has been committing those same offenses for some time. Some people feel that the first time a person is caught is the first time they ever committed that crime and that's just BS. I guess those that believe that would be considered naive.
*Thanks for that clarification.
*Innocent until proven guilty, I have heard that term more times than I can count. Again, my point had to do with the naive.
*You defend citizen rights. The same citizens that commit heinous crimes against our youth. I understand where you stand and why you do, I just cannot for the life of me give two $#*%! about an individual that preys on our youth. I can distinguish a predator versus a speeder, a stop sign violator, a smoker and the list goes on. Sexual predators should be eradicated from the face of this earth, there is no reason for these people to breathe. Can we teach them to think differently? Are you willing to bet your child against that? I'm not.
* This was a topic on pedophiles, that's where I'm trying to keep it. Not turning this into a moral and political debate.
* You can call a black, a "N" in New Jersey? (I think not) Not all speech is free. Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct are some laws that actually limit speech and are found throughout the USA.

 

[Seefutlung]

... People have to take responsibility for their actions. ...

The ACLU is not perfect and their zest in pursuing certain matters can border on excessive behaviour, but it is an organization that we are lucky to have.

^5 Rick ... I agree.

Our freedoms are not measured by what society accepts but rather by what is tolerated.

Gary

 

[usayit]

* I never stated anything about prosecuting without evidence. I was simply pointing out that just because an individual is caught for the first time does not mean it was his first time committing said offense. He most likely has been committing those same offenses for some time. Some people feel that the first time a person is caught is the first time they ever committed that crime and that's just BS. I guess those that believe that would be considered naive.

Fine.. understod. you simply pointing something out as naive. If the law must be naive then we are all lucky or else there would be countless of innocent civilians in jail at this time.

*You defend citizen rights. The same citizens that commit heinous crimes against our youth. I understand where you stand and why you do, I just cannot for the life of me give two $#*%! about an individual that preys on our youth. ...
Can we teach them to think differently? Are you willing to bet your child against that? I'm not.

Funny.. Prosecution of in the Salem Witch Trials had a similar notion. You remember that famous case... young children (you say "youths").. accused several adults (citizens).... of witchcraft (pedophilia)... Neither are rehabilitatable ("unteachable").. with little or no evidence (you said they "most likely did it several times").. which resulted in a stiff punishment (death or long imprisonment).

I should look up a sexual abuse case that went too far on a child's deception. Wanna bet I can find at least one?

See what I'm driving at? Trampling over the civil liberties we all have been given to chase after a particular group of people (terrorists, murders, pedophiles) threatens the very thing that makes us a civilized nation. PERIOD. No if's and or but's.

BTW.. you did say "citizens" who commit crimes. They are that.. CITIZENS until proven guilty. With that notion you are suggesting that that CITIZEN has rights until proven in a court of law to be pedophile who has broken some laws. Simply thinking about sex with a child or taking pictures (clothed) of child does not mean a law has been broken.

They say the typical male thinks about sex hundred times a day.. boy are we in trouble. Or perhaps you are one that goes and asks for ID/driver's license before allowing your thoughts to proceed.

seriously...

Look at the bigger picture.. Laws set precedence now and forever. Laws must not be driven by an emotional response to trample over civil liberties. If we allow that to happen, we all suffer.. WE ALL LOOSE.

* You can call a black, a "N" in New Jersey? (I think not) Not all speech is free. Breach of Peace or Disorderly Conduct are some laws that actually limit speech and are found throughout the USA.

As far as I know, using the N word in NJ or NY is not a crime in of itself. Used in the course of disorderly conduct or fighting is but the act of causing disorderly conduct or disruption of peace precedes the use of the N word. NYC council has attempted to bann the N-word. It has hit a road block from both sides of the fence.. all fearing that a breach in FREE SPEECH. It is now consider a "resolution" which means it is completely unenforceable.

If it did passed... I want to gather a group and push for a ban on ORIENTAL. Dman it! I'm not oriental.. items are oriental.. I'm asian.. more specifically a Pacific Islander. See how completely stupid this can degrade into?

 

[usayit]

^5 Rick ... I agree.

Our freedoms are not measured by what society accepts but rather by what is tolerated.

Gary

Exactly... I'm willing to tolerate that sick website for our freedom of speech.

Once his activities go beyond that website.. arrest him.. jail him.. for as long as the law permits.

 

[THORHAMMER]

I dont think I would want to be defending this guy, wow....
Its just common sense, this guy is sick.
nobodys perfect, but this guy is trying to rationalize it....

I guess theres no room anymore in todays PC culture to speak the truth.
this guy is wack...

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Recently, I had an interesting conversation with a gentleman at my little grandson's birthday party. It was at an amusement park that specializes in birthday parties. I was outside taking photos of all the kids on the carnival rides when he approached me and asked if I was with the birthday party. I told him I was the boy's grandad and he pointed out his daughter and asked that I please make sure not to take any photos of her. At first I wasn't quite sure what he was getting at.

I told him, that well, she might be in some of the photos alongside my grandson and that also, later on, I had planned to gather all the kids and take a group photo. He said to let him know when I was going to do that and he would make sure to pull his daughter out of the group. So finally, I just asked him what the problem was with having photos of his daughter. He told me that he just did not want any unauthorized photos of his daughter out there floating around on the net or whatever. He was very serious about this. He told me that one just never knows what people will do with the photos, etc....

This is outdoors at an amusement park with kids doing what kids do best- they were playing and having a good time. When did so many of us become this paranoid about our kids? When did the simple act of pointing a camera at a kid become a menacing threat? How does the simple act of taking a photo of a kid become a bad thing and something to be feared.

When it came time for the group photo, none of the other parents minded, but he did exactly what he told me he would do- he pulled his little girl aside.

Who in hell wants to live their life in fear like this? Not me.

Of course, every parent needs to exercise caution when it comes to their children. That, and a good, healthy dose of common sense would also seem to be in order. Not blind, irrational fear.

 

[Seefutlung]

Rick-

I think he's more of a control freak ... here is something he can control and claim he's doing so under good parenting.

I was shooting a h/s school play and a teacher who had a principal role in the play asked me not to shoot her ... I didn't respond and just kept on shooting the play. Just because she's fat she wanted me to shoot every other scene ... how rational is that? I guess as rational as the fear of having a stranger with unauthorized photos of your daughter ...

Gary

 

[usayit]

Rick-

I think he's more of a control freak ... here is something he can control and claim he's doing so under good parenting.

"He told me that he just did not want any unauthorized photos of his daughter out there floating around on the net or whatever."

I wouldn't say control freak... simply paranoid.

Control freaks don't give reasons for their actions. In their mind they control the situation and don't need to justify their actions/decisions. Usually their responses to inquiries are simply "because I don't want to".

 

[1JP]

As far as I know, using the N word in NJ or NY is not a crime in of itself. Used in the course of disorderly conduct or fighting is but the act of causing disorderly conduct or disruption of peace precedes the use of the N word.

If one person is in hearing shot of that "N" word and is offended by it, causes alarm to them, it now is not free speech, that's how simple it is. It just became a crime.