2 years in Jail for taking pictures?

[insein]

Jesus Christ they are going so far overboard with these guys. Sure they are scum but we violate so many constitutional rights everytime we make a law against them and set normal law abiding citizens up for a world of hurt in the future.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5086442/detail.html

Police Arrest Man For Improper Photography At Octoberfest
Police Say Photos Were Of Sexual Nature

POSTED: 5:17 pm CDT October 11, 2005
UPDATED: 9:42 am CDT October 12, 2005

SOUTHLAKE, Texas -- Thousands of people milled through the Southlake Town Square Sunday night during the community's Octoberfest celebration. One man, however, was arrested during festivities after police said he used a digital camera to take inappropriate photographs of women and children.

Louis Vogel, 60, of North Richland Hills, was arrested by Southlake Police after officers observed him for about an hour snapping pictures. Police said the photos were of a "sexual nature."

"He had a camera with him. It was obvious he was taking photographs," Southlake Police Lt. Ashleigh Douglas said. "But during their investigation, (investigators) determined the photographs were deemed inappropriate."

Photography in a public place is not illegal. Southlake police, however, said the nature of the pictures Vogel took violated state law.

"You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person," Douglas said.

Investigators said they found more than 12 photographs that depicted specific parts of women's and children's bodies on Vogel's camera.

Vogel could face up to two years in jail if convicted of violating state law. He has bonded out of jail, but has not responded to repeated attempts to contact him.

Now i assume we just take the word of the police that these were of a "sexual nature." However, if a cop really had something against someone, they could use anyone of these dumb laws to send you to jail. Taking a picture of people? You could say any picture really is of a sexual nature to someone if stretched it enough. Same thing with the DUI laws. DUI is pretty much the equivalent of drinking 1 cup of cough syrup anymore in most states and you lose your license and goto jail for up to 5 years.

We're losing our grip on reality here people. We're witnessing the minority report. We're charging people with crimes before crimes have been committed. If that man posts these pictures on the internet without the consent of the individuals involved then he has committed a crime. But taking their picture in public? Nearly ALL public pictures involve someone getting their picture taken that doesnt want it to be taken or is unaware that they are taken.

The cops merely used this "taking pictures of children" to paint this guy as a scumbag (which he very well might be) in order to avoid anyone saying, "Why are they arresting someone for taking a picture?" ITs how 90% of the laws in this country get passed. "Think of the children"

 

[Shattered]

Did they show any of the pics? If so, common sense would dictate whether or not they're of a sexual nature. If they are, fry the bastard.

 

[dilloduck]

Did they show any of the pics? If so, common sense would dictate whether or not they're of a sexual nature. If they are, fry the bastard.

Common sense is extinct.

 

[Nuc]

This is idiotic. With micro-cameras and phone cameras it is possible to take photos without anybody even knowing. After the unwinnable "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror" what's next, "War on Photos"? Is Bush going to start a Dept. of Camera Security? Camera Security Agency? What the fuck? Don't we have something more important to focus on, pun intended.

 

[dilloduck]

This is idiotic. With micro-cameras and phone cameras it is possible to take photos without anybody even knowing. After the unwinnable "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror" what's next, "War on Photos"? Is Bush going to start a Dept. of Camera Security? Camera Security Agency? What the fuck? Don't we have something more important to focus on, pun intended.

How did Bush get involved in this pitiful attempt to curtail sex predators?

 

[Shattered]

Common sense is extinct.

Not in my little corner of the world.

 

[Nuc]

How did Bush get involved in this pitiful attempt to curtail sex predators?

OK, let's just say "the President", any president. My point is of course, let's use our resources for something better. I actually don't think anybody can pose for sexual photos without their knowledge. Have you posed for sexual photos inadvertently?

 

[dilloduck]

OK, let's just say "the President", any president. My point is of course, let's use our resources for something better. I actually don't think anybody can pose for sexual photos without their knowledge. Have you posed for sexual photos inadvertently?

A president had absolutley nothing to do with this news story.

 

[Nuc]

A president had absolutley nothing to do with this news story.

Stop being obtuse. I didn't say he did. I asked whether that's next.

 

[Mr. P]

Heres some interesting general info. on public photography.
short pdf download at bottom of first text give more detail.
It does not address Texas, but does mention local laws.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

[dilloduck]

Stop being obtuse. I didn't say he did. I asked whether that's next.

Obtuse? I think I focused on your hatred for Bush quite precisely. Again--if someone would be in charge of creating a "camera" police force in Texas it would not be a president.
This is an isolated incident that no one here has any details about. You might want to wait until things are a bit more defined before you panic about a "big brother" taking away your camera.

 

[Nuc]

Obtuse? I think I focused on your hatred for Bush quite precisely. Again--if someone would be in charge of creating a "camera" police force in Texas it would not be a president.
This is an isolated incident that no one here has any details about. You might want to wait until things are a bit more defined before you panic about a "big brother" taking away your camera.

We are living in an era of Big Government. We have a new Administration and a new Department as evidence. I was being somewhat facetious.

And I don't "hate" Bush. To criticize him sometimes does not qualify as "hate" unless you are looking from the point of view of a toadie.

 

[dilloduck]

We are living in an era of Big Government. We have a new Administration and a new Department as evidence. I was being somewhat facetious.

And I don't "hate" Bush. To criticize him sometimes does not qualify as "hate" unless you are looking from the point of view of a toadie.

Somewhat facetious?---is that like sorta pregnant? Your criticizing him for something he had absolutely nothing to do with.
So you think the Department of Homeland Security is a threat to you?---I wouldn't worry about it. They can't even catch the bad guys. A big brother environment takes a whole lot of law enforcement, who all have a lot of supervision and authority. Right now we cannot even convict a common murderer or child molester.

 

[Nuc]

Somewhat facetious?---is that like sorta pregnant? Your criticizing him for something he had absolutely nothing to do with.
So you think the Department of Homeland Security is a threat to you?---I wouldn't worry about it. They can't even catch the bad guys. A big brother environment takes a whole lot of law enforcement, who all have a lot of supervision and authority. Right now we cannot even convict a common murderer or child molester.

OK Dill Pickle,

Since you won't give up I'll rephrase my criticism. Maybe "the right wing control freaks who want huge government in either state or federal government, particularly those from the Execution State, but not excluding the morons who created the TSA " may also want to control shutterbugs. Are you happy now?
:wank: :wank: :wank: :wank: :wank: :wank: :wank:

 

[GotZoom]

OK, let's just say "the President", any president. My point is of course, let's use our resources for something better. I actually don't think anybody can pose for sexual photos without their knowledge. Have you posed for sexual photos inadvertently?

If someone was taking pictures of my daughter - and these pictures were specifically of her breasts, legs, rear, crotch, etc..

He only hopes the police get to him before I do.

If the pictures are innocent, then let him go. If not, lock him up.

It has nothing to do with Big Brother, a "president" or anything of the sort.

It is about protecting our children.

 

[Nuc]

If someone was taking pictures of my daughter - and these pictures were specifically of her breasts, legs, rear, crotch, etc..

He only hopes the police get to him before I do.

If the pictures are innocent, then let him go. If not, lock him up.

It has nothing to do with Big Brother, a "president" or anything of the sort.

It is about protecting our children.

We really have to protect our own children in a case like this. Everybody has a camera, and we don't know what they do with the pictures.

 

[GotZoom]

We really have to protect our own children in a case like this. Everybody has a camera, and we don't know what they do with the pictures.

Which is exactly what the police officer did. He observed a possible problem, looked at the pictures, made a judgement, and arrested him.

 

[Mr. P]

Which is exactly what the police officer did. He observed a possible problem, looked at the pictures, made a judgement, and arrested him.

There ya go..cop did his job..now the court decides..Guilty or Innocent.
Works for me.

 

[Trigg]

Which is exactly what the police officer did. He observed a possible problem, looked at the pictures, made a judgement, and arrested him.

 

[no1tovote4]

When you are not at work, get on the internet and google up-skirt or down-shirt and see what kind of pictures the guy was likely taking and then decide whether there was a victim.