2 years in Jail for taking pictures?

[dilloduck]

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:

"right wing control freaks" ? Where do you dig this stuff up anyway? Are you referring to people who support law and order ?

 

[Mr. P]

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.

Speculation on our part, but I’d speculate that was probably it.

 

[no1tovote4]

Speculation on our part, but I’d speculate that was probably it.

Yeah, but people are just assuming that the pictures were not obviously sexual, even though the story said that they were. The only way that one could say that they were, and the mention in the story of "specific parts" in the pictures pretty much tells me that the cop was simply enforcing the law. No woman or girl should be on an internet porn site without their knowlege, and if the girl is below 18 this guy could be in a lot of trouble.... Two years? Some may say that it is rather short considering the amount of victimization you often see from these clandestine photos.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Do you guys really think that taking pictures of scantily-clad girls at a public event where everybody is drunk is a crime? Ever heard of the "Girls Gone Wild" series? Granted, the guy was taking pictures without consent, but was he going to publish them? Unless he was, I don't think he committed a crime here.

Furthermore, do we really want cops to be able to confiscate cameras from people without a warrant and judge what is appropriate and what is inappropriate? Sounds like Judge Dredd to me.

And even furthermore, I'll bet that the broadly vague law the cops cited to arrest the guy was mis-quoted by the cop. And if it wasn't, that law needs to be reviewed and made to be less broad and vague.

And even moreso furthermore and henceforth, I can't take a picture of a girl flashing her boobies in public at a concert without being arrested and dragged through the mud by nazi cops?! What country are we living in here?

 

[Mr. P]

Do you guys really think that taking pictures of scantily-clad girls at a public event where everybody is drunk is a crime? Ever heard of the "Girls Gone Wild" series? Granted, the guy was taking pictures without consent, but was he going to publish them? Unless he was, I don't think he committed a crime here.

Furthermore, do we really want cops to be able to confiscate cameras from people without a warrant and judge what is appropriate and what is inappropriate? Sounds like Judge Dredd to me.

And even furthermore, I'll bet that the broadly vague law the cops cited to arrest the guy was mis-quoted by the cop. And if it wasn't, that law needs to be reviewed and made to be less broad and vague.

And even moreso furthermore and henceforth, I can't take a picture of a girl flashing her boobies in public at a concert without being arrested and dragged through the mud by nazi cops?! What country are we living in here?

Did you say you were going to law school next year? Which one? Have you taken the LSAT yet? What was your score?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Did you say you were going to law school next year? Which one? Have you taken the LSAT yet? What was your score?

I'll go to lawschool when I finish my undergrad. I'll try for next year. Haven't taken the LSAT yet. I'll take it in December.

 

[insein]

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.

No offense, but WTF are you protecting your children from here? They wouldnt even know if a person was taking pictures of them and secondly they dont have the mental capacity to understand what a pedophile is unti la certain age. An old man with a camera at a party does not a pedophile make.

This is all local laws that are creating this mayhem. Think about it. If this law were in place in New Orleans, everyone with a camera walking the streets during Mardi Gras could be arrested. Or people with cameras at a nude beach. This guy was taking pictures of fully clothed individuals at a family gathering. What could possibly be sexual about that? And even if its sexual to him, WTF are you bothering this guy for? Has he hurt anyone? Has he abducted anyone and forced them to pose sexual for his jollies? Has he even asked any of these people to pose sexually? No!

So whats next? Everyone with a camera is going to be arrested the next time they are around kids? They arrest people for sitting on a park bench near children if you dont have kids. This whole "protecting the kids" bullshit has got to stop. Parents protect their kids, not the government.

 

[Mr. P]

No offense, but WTF are you protecting your children from here? They wouldnt even know if a person was taking pictures of them and secondly they dont have the mental capacity to understand what a pedophile is unti la certain age. An old man with a camera at a party does not a pedophile make.

This is all local laws that are creating this mayhem. Think about it. If this law were in place in New Orleans, everyone with a camera walking the streets during Mardi Gras could be arrested. Or people with cameras at a nude beach. This guy was taking pictures of fully clothed individuals at a family gathering. What could possibly be sexual about that? And even if its sexual to him, WTF are you bothering this guy for? Has he hurt anyone? Has he abducted anyone and forced them to pose sexual for his jollies? Has he even asked any of these people to pose sexually? No!

So whats next? Everyone with a camera is going to be arrested the next time they are around kids? They arrest people for sitting on a park bench near children if you dont have kids. This whole "protecting the kids" bullshit has got to stop. Parents protect their kids, not the government.

Come on insein this was a major public event. Lots of cameras, and lots of people. Do you really think the cops are going to focus on one guy “Just taking pictures”?
He did something more than once, no doubt, in the hour they watched him to prompt an arrest.

 

[insein]

Come on insein this was a major public event. Lots of cameras, and lots of people. Do you really think the cops are going to focus on one guy “Just taking pictures”?
He did something more than once, no doubt, in the hour they watched him to prompt an arrest.

Yes he obviously did something. Just like this woman obviously did something.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/5024493/detail.html

Is she a pedophile too or is she not because the story doesnt mention anything like that? Notice how the tone of a story can change it completely.

This is where it goes to. A cop with a lack of common sense can interpret the law to mean whatever he wants. If a woman can be fined $2000 and sent to jail for 90 days for sitting on a park bench and an old man can be sent to jail for 2 years for taking pictures of random people, then we have a problem in this country.

 

[Nuc]

"right wing control freaks" ? Where do you dig this stuff up anyway? Are you referring to people who support law and order ?

Don't bait me if you don't like straight talk.

 

[Mr. P]

Yes he obviously did something. Just like this woman obviously did something.


http://www.wnbc.com/news/5024493/detail.html

Is she a pedophile too or is she not because the story doesnt mention anything like that? Notice how the tone of a story can change it completely.

This is where it goes to. A cop with a lack of common sense can interpret the law to mean whatever he wants. If a woman can be fined $2000 and sent to jail for 90 days for sitting on a park bench and an old man can be sent to jail for 2 years for taking pictures of random people, then we have a problem in this country.

Apples an oranges. We know about this women already. There was a sign. Good judgment on the cops part, nahhh.. Did she break a local law..Yeaaaahhhh

We don’t have the info. On the Texas case yet.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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



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"

Since when is illegal to take pictures of people in public without their consent? If this were true the tabloid magazines would be put out of business!

Don't see how the pictures could be of a "sexual nature" unless the women he was photgraphing were showing nudity. I think this has gone a bit to far - yeah, sure, this guy probably is a perv - but it its not illegal to be a pervert as long as you don't act in an illegal manner. If you can arrest people for taking pictures of women and children - why not men to? Perhaps we should round up anyone who takes a picture of any person - since someone might be able to use those pictures top :wank: to.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

What qualifies as innocent or not? Suppose one is taking pictures of good looking women because he likes to look at good looking women? Obviously, zoom shots of a young girls breats, etc. - pretty indisputable that is perverted. But where does one draw the line?

 

[Mr. P]

What qualifies as innocent or not? Suppose one is taking pictures of good looking women because he likes to look at good looking women? Obviously, zoom shots of a young girls breats, etc. - pretty indisputable that is perverted. But where does one draw the line?

Court comes to mind.

 

[Nuc]

What qualifies as innocent or not? Suppose one is taking pictures of good looking women because he likes to look at good looking women? Obviously, zoom shots of a young girls breats, etc. - pretty indisputable that is perverted. But where does one draw the line?

Then they should just make taking any pictures of a private citizen illegal unless they grant permission. I really don't trust the government or police to intelligently decide which photos are acceptable and which aren't. Does anybody? Then you also need a crystal ball to determine that this guy or anybody is going to use the photos for his sexual gratification, rather than just aesthetic appreciation, or a souvenir of a happy day in the park.

 

[acludem]

If their were children behaving in a "sexual nature" at this Oktoberfest, then why aren't their parents being prosecuted?

This is run-of-mill B.S. from out of control police and public hysteria.

I have one other question...does this standard apply to government funded and/or privately funded/owned security cameras?

acludem

 

[Mr. P]

If their were children behaving in a "sexual nature" at this Oktoberfest, then why aren't their parents being prosecuted?

This is run-of-mill B.S. from out of control police and public hysteria.

I have one other question...does this standard apply to government funded and/or privately funded/owned security cameras?

acludem

Only if there up a kids skirt!!!

Fact aren't in...lets all wait and see what these pics really were..
Personally, I suspect porn shit..we'll see.

 

[acludem]

The article didn't say the pictures were "up a kid's skirt" it said 12 of them were of specific parts of people's bodies. Unless these people were naked, they weren't nude photos. The law they quote is overly broad and I doubt this case will stand. Any photo or image can be used for sexual gratification, it's all in the eye of the beholder. It is ridiculous to use that as a standard to go after someone for taking pictures of fully clothed individuals at a public event.

acludem

 

[Mr. P]

The article didn't say the pictures were "up a kid's skirt" it said 12 of them were of specific parts of people's bodies. ,,,

acludem

Like I said Facts are not in yet...

 

[insein]

If their were children behaving in a "sexual nature" at this Oktoberfest, then why aren't their parents being prosecuted?

This is run-of-mill B.S. from out of control police and public hysteria.

I have one other question...does this standard apply to government funded and/or privately funded/owned security cameras?

acludem

was going to say the same thing. Cant believe i agree with acludem.