Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Strings on April 26, 2010, 02:42:23 AM
-
I'm actually late posting this.
Most here know I'm heavily involved in the fight against all forms of child abuse. One of my fellow travellers has a blog, chok-full of good info to help keep kids safe. And she just put up her annual post about "Alice Day": http://tuecaa.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/alice-day-2010-a-day-for-those-who-rape-little-girls/
A quick excerpt:
Alice Day is a celebration by pedophiles and child rapists, who have distorted the relationship between Alice Liddell and Charles Dodgson – author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (though you know him by his pen name of Lewis Carroll). They claim there was a sexual relationship between he and the child just because he would take her and other children on rowing trips telling them stories he would create through his own imagination. This has become known as “the Alice myth” and has absolutely no foundation in truth.
This was accompanied by the naming of the pedophile site used to lure young girls in a way to introduce them to sex with older men, the site named Annabelliegh, or Girl Chat. This is their twisted distortion of Edgar Alan Poe’s poem, Annabel Lee.
The pedophiles and child rapists have adopted what they call “Alice Day” in celebration of who they revere as a pedophile’s hero and their own sick ideas of little Alice and children like her, of enticing children with stories and any other means to gain a victim.
There are many ways pedophiles and sexual predators will celebrate this day and this month :
1. Find activities in their area involving children – such as parties, park outings, sporting events
– They will watch the children, photograph the children, and attempt to have a BM or GM, which stands for “Boy Moment” and “Girl Moment”. This includes a conversation with the child, in which they could gain information to get to the child at a later date. However, this could also include just sitting back watching a particular child at play.
They appraise a child’s form as if it were that of a stripper in a club, and they write the moment down later for their friends – online and in real life – with added feelings of desire they had while exploring the child’s body with their eyes and filthy mind.
Please keep in mind that a child does not have to be nude or in a bathing suit to be visualized that way by these people.
Please read the whole thing. Pass it on to people you know, who might attract the attention of a pedophile.
Let's keep our kids safe!
-
Parent: “Excuse me, why are you here?”
Suspect: “Just enjoying the day. Why do you ask?”
Parent: “Are you taking photos of my child?”
Suspect: “Oh, of course not! I was taking photos of that tree there. I’m sorry if your child was in the shot, but it wasn’t my intention.”
Parent: “Please leave or I will call the police.”
Suspect: “This is a public park. I can be where I want to.”
Parent: Stand in between his view and your child while you dial 911 and report to them that there is a person taking photos of your child and he/she refuses to stop.
That seems... extremely paranoid. So, if someone is taking photos you don't like, you call 911? ???
Isn't that sort of filed under "false report"? I can understand caution, but dang. Nothing else on that article seems out of place, that section was simply extreme.
EDIT: Just in case anyone thinks about taking my comments as defending pedophiles in any way/shape/form, don't. I'm simply puzzled about what I see as being overly paranoid.
-
Yeah, I'm confused exactly what that parent will be telling the dispatcher as the reason he should divert a patrol car to deal with the "situation".
-
Wow. After reading that, I'm making several changes to my profile, as I want absolutely no association with such filth. [barf]
-
Actually, that's one of the things that pedophiles rely on.
Take a cruise through some of the rest of her site: some very interesting things.
When I first got to know Jade, I thought the same thing. Especially since several of the things she talks about as grooming behaviors are things *I* do. And so do many of my friends. The difference being, neither myself nor my friends are trying to "set up" a child for abuse...
Yes, it sounds paranoid. But I've seen a few too many times where a bit of paranoia would have protected a child...
-
So, your stance is that being overly paranoid on this one issue is a case of "better safe than sorry"? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I'm really just trying to understand the viewpoint that causes the main proponents of this sort child safety (at least, that's how I view folks like you, in all seriousness) to advocate 911 calls without what would pass for RS or PC for a LEO.
-
I can only take in-depth discussions of... this subject in very small, well-spaced-out doses before either feeling physically ill or losing my temper, so I doubt I'll do much more reading for now. =(
As it is, though, I'd rather take paranoia over complacency any day. =(
-
I can only take in-depth discussions of... this subject in very small, well-spaced-out doses before either feeling physically ill or losing my temper, so I doubt I'll do much more reading for now. =(
This is, for all practical purposes, the only issue that really makes my blood boil as well. The only thing that is keeping me from such at the moment is that it's 3:13AM here and I've been awake far too long. Insomnia of this order is beneficial when one wishes to remain emotionally detached from such a horrid issue.
-
Take the given example...
You're at the park with your child. Adult is there, no kids seem to be "with" them, and they're taking pictures with a camera that (from appearances) is aimed at your children.
When you ask what they're doing, they claim to be taking shots of the background, and never realized your child was in the shot. However, they also refuse to stop aiming that camera in the direction of your children. They also have no form of press credentials.
What would you suggest as a next step (for the concerned parent)?
-
When you ask what they're doing, they claim to be taking shots of the background, and never realized your child was in the shot. However, they also refuse to stop aiming that camera in the direction of your children. They also have no form of press credentials.
What would you suggest as a next step (for the concerned parent)?
Remove your child from the public place if you want them to have privacy.
-
Remove your child from the public place if you want them to have privacy.
Pretty much.
-
Might as well just lock your child up in the house, that way no pedophile (or anyone else) could ever take pictures of them.
Let me ask a serious question.
So a pedophile takes a picture of your kid? So what?
-
I think the fear is they would later come back and abuse them.
Further, while I agree the behavior itself is not illegal, it could be a component of a stalking behavior (which IS often illegal). Also, such a creep may attack other children in the future, or at least that's the concern.
Also: I've heard several times that Alice Day has been invented by pedophiles. Is there an independent/mainstream confirmation of this?
-
Then if they come back to abuse your kid, fire til slide lock, reload/reassess.
But if you are just being paranoid about your kid being in someone's photo in a public place, I'm sorry to say that this is still America and we do and should value freedom over safety, and all that that entails. Nitrogen asks a legit question. So what if someone, who knows if they are even a pedophile, takes a photo that has your kid in it?
We're letting ourselves get carried away by (justifiable) rage over the idea of pedophiles. But strip that away and look at the scenario of the park one more time. The author would seriously have you call the police(otherwise known as "government") over someone engaging in lawful activity in a public place just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Is that something we support?
And as an aside, though the law varies state by state, taking photos of someone in a public place does not fit Michigan's stalking statute.
-
Remove your child from the public place if you want them to have privacy.
This. You have no right to privacy in a public place.
Another option, of course, is to begin mercilessily hounding the picture taker.
That said, there's a reason I carry when I take my kids to the park.
-
Take the given example...
You're at the park with your child. Adult is there, no kids seem to be "with" them, and they're taking pictures with a camera that (from appearances) is aimed at your children.
When you ask what they're doing, they claim to be taking shots of the background, and never realized your child was in the shot. However, they also refuse to stop aiming that camera in the direction of your children. They also have no form of press credentials.
What would you suggest as a next step (for the concerned parent)?
If I asked him to stop and he continues taking pictures of my child, I'd start getting pictures of him for purposes of identification. If I get a creepy feeling from him, I may then remove my child from the situation. First order of business is documenting the person taking pictures, though.
-
As someone who dabbles in landscape and wilderness photography, if someone comes up and starts hassling me about taking pictures on public land, I will be sure to take a few face shots of them. For identification purposes, should it be necessary.
If they aren't engaged in illegal activity, they should not be concerned about this.
-
Dodgson/Carrol was a very prolific early photographer, from back in the days when the process was difficult and expensive. His subject matter was largely young girls. The girls were often dressed and posed in ways which could be taken the wrong way I suppose, by those with the inclination. Dodgeson himself was aware of how his photos could be perceived and destroyed some of them. So, was he a sicko, or just some guy who liked to take pictures of young girls? Is it bad to like to take pictures of, or even look at young girls? They are adorable.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotohistory.jeffcurto.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F01%2Falice_liddell_2.jpg&hash=3c5857eed9dda41e9cb7fcfd2228a64f56010c69)
-
Well, it's not making my life any easier.
One of the gigs is to get some decent shots to hack together a couple of websites for an indoor training facility. Also promoting stuff like the wall graphics, etc...
-
There are a lot of things done years ago or even on some of our child hoods that would not be acceptable these days.
-
. So, was he a sicko, or just some guy who liked to take pictures of young girls?
He also made some pictures of very... scantily-clad, or erotically-posed girls in ages that were far beyond 'oh people did it younger back then'.
He was a creep. But he never once actually harmed Alice Liddell, and somehow, in his mind, the creepiness served instead to inspire wonderful children's books.
-
Another option, of course, is to begin mercilessily hounding the picture taker.
That one could be a problem; when I'm carrying $1500+ worth of photo gear, there's pepper spray and a gun available to either hand, and discreet audio recording equipment to document anything that might be construed as a threat of violence or robbery.
Besides, the photographer you can see is highly unlikely to be the one you should worry about. Even a cheapskate mostly-hobbyist like me can afford a 300mm lens, and extenders are cheap too. For closer work, someone being subtle would just use their 2+ megapixel phone; texting and taking photos can look pretty similar these days. I use that tactic a lot on safety/security violations at work; nobody even seems to notice the uniformed security guard that has to stop in clear view of them to send a text message with the back of the phone pointed directly at them. Then they can't understand how the boss got 8x10s of them screwing up.
-
Another person with personal, professional expeiences with pedos and their victims. While I have not exchanged conversation with Jade, I am more than passing familiar with her history and baggage.
There are times when you can do damn-all little to keep pedos from getting their jollies, such as observing/photographing children in public places. Some semi-public places such as malls have rules against picture-taking that are probably more the result of paranoid parents' fears than actual merchandising/marketing concerns but if you read the policies they are based on the former.
There are significant constraints that bind the hands of the judiciary, but within those limits there are restrictions on the geographical bounds that can be placed on pedos who are under court order (probation and/or parole). While few of those involve GPS-based monitoring units (expensive and worthless except for documenting the violation), documentation of violations based on photographic evidence can be turned over to the Community Corrections officers. Since most of these pedos are on a sex offender database that has a picture, you can compare your mug shot against the one in the database to be sure you have a perv and not an innocent nature photographer.
And if the specific P&P Officer is not too concerned with pictures of someone on their caseload violating a condition of release, there is always the next step of a meeting with the supervisor. Should that not work one might look to see if the local birdcage liner has any interest in a human interst story.
But getting back to "dealing with them" -- unless you know the rules and the law there is not much you can do to restrict their less overt behavior no matter how ewww-y it seems to you. These people are sick in a way that pretty much cannot be "cured". The best you can do is keep your eyes and mind open to the fact that this can happen to your kid.
And by the way - the majority of the worst pervs are NOT strangers cruising in vans trying to hand out candy or get your kid to help look for a lost puppy. They are folks you know and may even have coming into your home on a regular basis, if not living there already. Forget teaching "Stranger Danger" - although not a bad concept in and of itself. Instead, teach that NOBODY but Mommy or Daddy gets to touch any part of you that your bathing suit would cover, unless Mommy or Daddy says it's OK. (That way medical folks get to care for your kid, but not without permission.) The same goes for touching anybody else - NEVER any part of the body their bathing suit would cover.
Now - for you folks out there with kids under 12 or so. Want a real nightmare? Hire me, or Strings, or Grandpa Shooter to go get your kids to break every single rule you ever taught your kid about strangers with candy and puppydogs. We should be able to get them across the playground and into the van in under 5 minutes!
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Forget teaching "Stranger Danger" - although not a bad concept in and of itself.
Does anybody even bother to teach it anymore? I occasionally fish in the park, and I have to find places that are hard to get to just to cut down on the number of unattended small children wandering over to talk to me. I may not look as socially unacceptable as some of you guys, but I can generally scare off the beggars in a parking lot.
-
i take pictures back and i've memorized the faces of the local pervs on the "list" the ones i didn't already know. got 4 working at dominoes. i trust my spidey sense and if someone really gave me the creeps i'd be in a bad spot and so would they.
-
I'm rather ok with the call the police idea. If the person is legit, there is some hassle and silliness, but shouldn't be any real concern about a LEO knowing. As for pervs and predators, adding to the public knowledge is a fairly important thing to do. It won't stop them, but it may shift them to the next playground over and make catching them far more likely.
-
So if I'm at a park with you and I notice you have a pistol on your person, you'd be OK with a "man with a gun" call? Just some hassle and silliness after all.
-
if i take a pic use the words police list and check picture and they get hinkey it might be time for a medical assistance 911 call. i think some parks i go to the perv would be wise to call the cops himself and tell em to hurry
-
Does anybody even bother to teach it anymore? I occasionally fish in the park, and I have to find places that are hard to get to just to cut down on the number of unattended small children wandering over to talk to me. I may not look as socially unacceptable as some of you guys, but I can generally scare off the beggars in a parking lot.
We actively teach against it. It is not good for a child to be generally afraid of other people. Stranger Danger simply contributes to the modern trend of people spending more and more and more time alone or in tight family groups, never meeting new people, never being friendly to neighbors or strangers. Fortunately, so far, my kid has been pretty comfortable saying no when she doesn't feel comfortable.
I'd just as soon some creep didn't get off from thinking about or looking at my three year old, but there's not much I can do about someone else's thoughts. This is one of the many things I refuse to worry about.
-
i agree with bw here my kid has gotten too antsy since they taught the stranger danger stuff in school
-
I dake pictures at my dog park, that has a childrens playground behind it, and let me tell you, if someone came up to me apropos of nothing, took a pic and said they were going to check the police list I might very well get what they would consider "Hinkey". I'd be annoyed, and a little worried about what their real motivation was. And if you then attacked me, we'd have problems.
I get that pedophiles are bad folks, and it boils my blood as well when people abuse kids, but some of you guys have to realize that simply having children around doesn't give you carte blanche to act the fool.
Seriously, it's a picture. Even if they are actually pedo's it's not stealing your kids soul or anything, it's a picture. Save the outrage, veiled threats, and vigilantism for when they try to take the child.
-
Apparently you didn't get the memo that everything is permissible if it's "for the children".
-
So if I'm at a park with you and I notice you have a pistol on your person, you'd be OK with a "man with a gun" call? Just some hassle and silliness after all.
That goes into LEO quality and local laws. I'd really hope the LEO taking the call gives and 'And?' Would you throw a hissy fit about being asked if you have a permit? Police going in open draw for someone strolling along practicing their rights is certainly grounds for disciplinary action.
I've had officers engage me in conversation without any escalation of confrontation and like to think thats the norm...
--------
Someone taking pictures of your children,,, seems reasonable to ask them about it. If there remains suspicion afterwards the police have procedures for suspicious persons reports. Having an officer walk up and say 'Whats up' doesn't seem to be a societal breakdown to me. Can't each step be civil? Why threats and secret gov lists? But I suppose its largely just paranoia on each side, stranger danger rearing parents and police state paranoiacs.
-
Apparently you didn't get the memo that everything is permissible if it's "for the children".
I plan on using the rights to take photos in public just as you would be doing.
If you have a problem with that, perhaps you ought not to be exercising that right? As I said, I'd ask you to stop and if you did not, document your taking pictures. If you don't want somone taking pictures of you in public, maybe you should rethink your high horse about being free to take whatever pictures you want even if it makes someone else concerned about their child's safety?
-
i agree with bw here my kid has gotten too antsy since they taught the stranger danger stuff in school
...I... agree with C&SD and Bridgewalker.
-
Ned,
So just to be clear, you are in favor of initiating law enforcement action against someone who is acting lawfully in a public place just if it makes you feel uncomfortable?
Let me be clear, maybe it's just because I happen to be a particularly cold and callous person, but there is not a single human being in the world whose feelings I am concerned about. I honestly don't care what some helicopter mom feels about me or what I do in public as long as I am within the law. Makattak, just for clarity, would you be so kind as to point out where I said I don't want someone taking pictures of me in public? I'm gonna lawfully do what I feel like. Everyone else is free to do the same. I am not going to feel bad about what they are doing, and right along with that, I am not going to give a damn how they feel about what I am doing.
-
the predators don't like it when approached. there was a guy hanging out at the kids museum in richmond. i noticed he didn't seem to be with any kids just watching them i eased up an asked him nicely "which one is yours and he hauled outa there like a shot. i hate shorteyed mfer's my phone was in a locker or i'd have gotten a pic. look at it this way putting a lil fear in em keeping em away from the kids does them a favor too.
-
Mak, take all the pictures you want. It might annoy me, but goose, gander and all that.
It was:
i take a pic use the words police list and check picture and they get hinkey it might be time for a medical assistance 911 call.
That threat of violence if someone was "hinkey" I objected to.
-
...I... agree with C&SD and Bridgewalker.
<quickly searches through Revelations to determine if this is a sign of impending apocalypse>
Ned,
So just to be clear, you are in favor of initiating law enforcement action against someone who is acting lawfully in a public place just if it makes you feel uncomfortable?
Yep, if my spidey sense were triggered hard enough, I would do so. Most times, though, I can look intimidating enough that such is not necessary. I mostly keep my Ranger Face under wraps these days and am quite amiable. But, it is there to be used when necessary.
And, in fact, I have not felt the need to give LEOs a call in this circumstance, though a few folks saw the harder side of jfruser when circumstances, the other's actions, & spidey sense indicated that it was best for them to move on.
I have several such incidents at Saturday AM soccer games with the kiddos. I know the kids, parents, & soccer assoc volunteers. Who TF is this guy? Maybe I'll strike up a conversation...
Besides, calling John Q. Law and making a truthful report is also "acting lawfully in a public place."
Let me be clear, maybe it's just because I happen to be a particularly cold and callous person, but there is not a single human being in the world whose feelings I am concerned about. I honestly don't care what some helicopter mom feels about me or what I do in public as long as I am within the law.
That's fine & dandy. And you won't mind if the rest of the folks around you regard you with suspicion commensurate with a sociopath? Glad we got that cleared up.
Makattak, just for clarity, would you be so kind as to point out where I said I don't want someone taking pictures of me in public? I'm gonna lawfully do what I feel like. Everyone else is free to do the same. I am not going to feel bad about what they are doing, and right along with that, I am not going to give a damn how they feel about what I am doing, "for the children" be damned.
Act in a callous and anti-social manner, get treated like a callous and anti-social person. No great mysteries, here. If you'd take a moment to be considerate, you might find most folks to be decent enough...and much less likely to look upon you as a threat.
Of course, acting considerate is not required bylaw. It just makes interpersonal relations easier and one less likely to be viewed with suspicion.
-
i have the experience, as opposed to pleasure. to counsel several pervs. its a challenge for me. one that i am not always up to. i gave one of them detailed instructions on how to and my blessing to get started on killing himself as my wife listened in horror to 1/2 the phone conversation. i have learned to trust my gut initially and only require confirmation before taking physical action. calling the cops to check someone out? no prob. seen it done and lo and behold the cops ran the guy found out his parole specified him never being near kids. if i call on someone and it hurts their feeling and i was wrong i can apologize to them. i'd rather apologize than wish i had done something and not have
-
RE: "stranger danger".
Keep in mind: anyone not family or a close friend of yours when your child is born, starts out as a stranger. And there have been enough cases where a pedophile grooms the parents to maybe give some thought to watching for such behavior...
Now... would *I* drop the dime on someone I felt was acting suspiciously? In a bloody heartbeat. It's Johnny Law's job to help sort out such things.
Would I be upset if someone dropped the dime on me? Nope: been there, done that, gave the t-shirt back 'cause it was too small. Didn't bother me a bit.
The idea is to confront (calmly) someone who appears to be engaging in suspicious behavior. It may very well be Bogie, just getting some snaps for a legitimate website: when asked, I'm sure he would explain such. We're not talking about making a scene out of Dodge City here.
Folks who are engaged in a legitimate pursuit shouldn't have a problem saying as much. Pedophiles though, when "caught out", will get nervous... and likely leave the area. Which is the desired result.
-
Does anyone have access to current statistics on who the abusers are? Strangers or people the kids know or parent know? I thought I have heard it was the people they know more often, but I can't remember.
-
So if I'm at a park with you and I notice you have a pistol on your person, you'd be OK with a "man with a gun" call? Just some hassle and silliness after all.
The comparison only makes sense if the "man with a gun" is shooting in the direction of the child. Which is to say it doesn't.
But I have no dog in this fight.
-
The comparison only makes sense if the "man with a gun" is shooting in the direction of the child.
Analogy fail. Shooting the direction of the child would be obviously illegal and endanger the child. Photographing people in a public place, like peacefully carrying a sidearm, is neither illegal (we assume), nor harmful.
-
So guns are not a good comparison at all? I agree.
-
Does anyone have access to current statistics on who the abusers are? Strangers or people the kids know or parent know? I thought I have heard it was the people they know more often, but I can't remember.
Doesn't really matter, as either one can do permanent damage =(
Child is probably more likely to end up dead with a stranger, though =|
if i call on someone and it hurts their feeling and i was wrong i can apologize to them. i'd rather apologize than wish i had done something and not have
Agreed. See above - it only takes once to hurt a child forever.
As far as photography in public, a little consideration could go a long way. If you are legit, you might want to carry some business cards and maybe even a small portfolio of your work. You might even sell something ;)
-
If having to talk to a cop because you are acting suspicious is a major civil rights violation, you need new cops.
-
Take the given example...
You're at the park with your child. Adult is there, no kids seem to be "with" them, and they're taking pictures with a camera that (from appearances) is aimed at your children.
When you ask what they're doing, they claim to be taking shots of the background, and never realized your child was in the shot. However, they also refuse to stop aiming that camera in the direction of your children. They also have no form of press credentials.
What would you suggest as a next step (for the concerned parent)?
More to the point -- what would YOU recommend?
I am an amateur photographer. (In fact, since I was once paid for some photos I took, I guess I could even claim to be a "professional" photographer). Ya know what photographers do for, like, relaxation? They go out and take pictures. Of anything. Everything. What the subject is may not matter at all, depending on the photographer's particular, ah, "focus" (pardon the pun). What's important for many isn't the subject but the photo -- the lighting, the composition, the focus/depth of field. The best way to get good at manipulating those things is to take photos ... LOTS of photos. I once worked at a place that sub-let a darkroom to a professional photographer. On his vacations, he took photographs. This was pre-digital. He shot slides. He would come back from a 2-week vacation with perhaps 3,000 to 5,000 slides. That's probably more than many people have taken in a lifetime. Then he'd camp out in the conference room with a light box and start going through them, performing triage. On the initial run-through, he would throw away at least two-thirds of them. Then he'd sit down with the rest and REALLY look at them.
Taking photographs is just what photographers do. Deal with it. Taking photos in a public place isn't against the law. I detest pedophiles, but trampling constitutional and civil rights is not the way to protect children. Educating children to protect themselves is the only acceptablle way (IMHO).
-
How is having to talk to a cop "trampling constitutional and civil rights"? I have a right to test my home security by breaking in to my house in the middle of the night. If I did I wouldn't feel all that trampled if the cops showed up and asked me what's up. I'm tempted to look up some of ya'lls comments about Prof Gates little hissy fit and see if you felt the same about that little fiasco.
-
Does anyone have access to current statistics on who the abusers are?
Obviously, they're the guys wandering around public places with expensive DSLRs. Couldn't be the ones camped out in the "pedophile paradise" RV park 30 yards from the city park's main playground.
i take pictures back and i've memorized the faces of the local pervs on the "list" the ones i didn't already know. got 4 working at dominoes.
The ones here who don't work at the cafe down the street seem to be largely employed by lawn services. Gives them access to people's yards, and a job that pretty well lets them know mommy and daddy's schedules. Needless to say, I cut my own grass, and watch the services that handle neighbors' yards.
-
That goes into LEO quality and local laws. I'd really hope the LEO taking the call gives and 'And?' Would you throw a hissy fit about being asked if you have a permit?
I'd probably reserve the hissy fit for later, but if a police officer approaches me for no reason and asks me for identification, my first response is likely to be, "Why? Have I done something wrong?" What transpires after that would determine the need for a hissy fit.
You are an attorney, Ned, or almost. Remember Terry vs. Ohio? What did the Supreme Court decide were the minimum criteria for a police officer to conduct an investigatory interview? There must be a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.
So you have a person in a public park on a sunny day with scores of people around, and he has a camera. How can any reasonable person contort that into a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed? What are the "clearly articulable facts"? He has a camera? Whoops -- cameras aren't illegal. Now what? Ohmigawd, he's ... he's ... he's TAKING PICTURES! Hmmm ... taking pictures isn't a crime, either.
Now what? If an officer approaches Mr. Photographer and Mr. Photographer isn't in a talkative mood, he can legally just get up and walk away. Of course, police officers don't take kindly to being ignored, so Officer Friendly would probably then escalate things, probably leading to a violation of Mr. Photographer's civil rights.
And things would continue downhill from there.
But, yeah ... go ahead and call the cops when you see someone with a camera. It's for the children.
-
But, yeah ... go ahead and call the cops when you see someone with a camera. It's for the children.
bit of a stretch from what was posted isn't it? from seeing someone taking pics of my kids who won't stop when i asked him to "see someone with a camera call the cops?
-
Actually, when I am out taking pictures of the mountains, etc., I would really appreciate it if you could stay out of the shot. I am not that good enough with Photoshop to be able to remove people, although I am told it can be done.
-
There seems to be a bit of scenario drift.
The discussed situation was a photographer taking pictures of children who refused to stop or to explain themselves in a satisfactory manner. A concerned parent informing a LEO of that suspicious person.
A Terry stop [as taught to me] is a 'freezing' of the situation. There isn't enough reasonable suspicion for an arrest, but by golly, frisking the guy is just a good idea. While they are out there, I don't know any LEOs that jump right ahead to frisking folks before saying 'hi.'
If the suspicious person readily identifies themselves and basically laughs it off, whats the worry? If they spot the LEO and try to evade him and are otherwise super furtive and suspicious, well, I see nothing wrong with a Terry Stop. If you act suspicious, its just plain reasonable for people to be suspicious of you.
LEO are folks too. There is nothing wrong with them observing what is going around. I know I want my LEO to stroll round the park and be engaged with the community. Its an unhealthy environment when all engagements with LEOs are seen as hostile confrontations. I don't think I'd want to take my children to that park. =D
-
Crap! I was gonna go and start a diatribe about escalating from generalized suspicion/concern to reasonable suspicion/circle the wagons to violate their civil rights and cut off their heads.
But then I thought about it and realized that most of you are responding like a bunch of liberal weenies - it's all about how you FEEL. And, strange as it seems to me, most of you are feeling that this subject is ickky enough to warrant some over-reaction.
Caution is never inappropriate, and many times the only way caution can be allayed is by "checking things out". But it does not need to be a hostile confrontation with the involvement of the cops, or unslinging your discreetly-carried AR-47/AK-15 revolver of semi-automatic destruction or the calling of the cops as the initial response. And if you do want/feel the need for the cops to show up on the scene how about hiving them something to go on besides "I feel all Spidey-tingly"? Articulate that hunch based on training and experience that falls just short of RAS/PC but makes you want someone to do a Terry stop in spite of the fact that SCOTUS has said Chester the Molester can walk away from the approaching cop (at any speed chosen) without that action being sufficient cause to escalate a Terry stop into a full-blown detention.
Either that or just be such an obvious witness that you would drive away even the most determined lurker.
OK, I just realized I've finished the diatribe I was not going to start. Thank you for your time and attention.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Does anybody even bother to teach it anymore? I occasionally fish in the park, and I have to find places that are hard to get to just to cut down on the number of unattended small children wandering over to talk to me. I may not look as socially unacceptable as some of you guys, but I can generally scare off the beggars in a parking lot.
Some of us do. A friend of mine asked me to show his younger sister and parents just how dangerous the internet can be. Thats a story for another time.
-
*sigh*
Does anyone have access to current statistics on who the abusers are? Strangers or people the kids know or parent know? I thought I have heard it was the people they know more often, but I can't remember.
Let me say it again: unless a you've known a person since your child was an infant (at least), that person will start out as a stranger to your child. "Grooming" is something pedophiles do to gain access: by the time they're actually transgressing, they're often considered a friend of the family...
I'd probably reserve the hissy fit for later, but if a police officer approaches me for no reason and asks me for identification, my first response is likely to be, "Why? Have I done something wrong?" What transpires after that would determine the need for a hissy fit.
You are an attorney, Ned, or almost. Remember Terry vs. Ohio? What did the Supreme Court decide were the minimum criteria for a police officer to conduct an investigatory interview? There must be a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed.
So you have a person in a public park on a sunny day with scores of people around, and he has a camera. How can any reasonable person contort that into a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed? What are the "clearly articulable facts"? He has a camera? Whoops -- cameras aren't illegal. Now what? Ohmigawd, he's ... he's ... he's TAKING PICTURES! Hmmm ... taking pictures isn't a crime, either.
Now what? If an officer approaches Mr. Photographer and Mr. Photographer isn't in a talkative mood, he can legally just get up and walk away. Of course, police officers don't take kindly to being ignored, so Officer Friendly would probably then escalate things, probably leading to a violation of Mr. Photographer's civil rights.
And things would continue downhill from there.
But, yeah ... go ahead and call the cops when you see someone with a camera. It's for the children.
Ok... you're saying that confronting said photographer is an over-reaction. Then lay out how the scenario WOULD continue, and going much further out to left field than I am by suggesting that someone taking pictures of kids MIGHT be a pedophile. Wow.
I REALLY want Monkeyleg or Oleg to weigh in on this one. I'm willing to bet that either of them, out taking pictures on a nice sunny day, would react fairly calmly if confronted by a concerned parent. I know *I* would, if confronted in such a manner. This being the digital age, I would also do my best to lay the parent's concerns to rest, by showing them the pictures I had taken, and deleting any that showed their child if they so desired.
You're demanding "civility" from everyone else, yet categorically stating that you will not act in a civil manner (And things would continue downhill from there.). Consistent much?
Caution is never inappropriate, and many times the only way caution can be allayed is by "checking things out". But it does not need to be a hostile confrontation with the involvement of the cops, or unslinging your discreetly-carried AR-47/AK-15 revolver of semi-automatic destruction or the calling of the cops as the initial response.
Maybe the original scenario wasn't worded well. If *I* were the parent, I would approach the photographer, and ask what they were doing, as it seemed they were taking pictures of my child. I would explain that this makes me uncomfortable, and why.
I can see Oleg being so approached, getting a bit of a deer in the headlights look, then setting the parent's fears to rest. Most pedophiles would try, but would likely use many of the statements that have been made here ("there's nothing against the law about taking pictures!" "Are you saying I'm a pedophile?" etc). Such a person would also likely back off and move away from the confrontation if they made no headway.
Would I right away call the police? Would depend on a LOT of factors. But I DO know that, were *I* the one approached, there wouldn't be any escalation on my part...
-
Let me say it again: unless a you've known a person since your child was an infant (at least), that person will start out as a stranger to your child. "Grooming" is something pedophiles do to gain access: by the time they're actually transgressing, they're often considered a friend of the family...
Can you translate that into English, for those who don't speak BACA?
-
Can you translate that into English, for those who don't speak BACA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming
-
http://tuecaa.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/pedophile-grooming-parents-and-guardians/
That should explain what I mean by "grooming"...
The rest is fairly straight-forward, but let me break it down a bit...
"Stranger Danger" is something that has been kinda debunked by the statistics: there usually aren't guys in trenchcoats, lurking around arcades to lure kids with promises of candy/beer/porn/whatever. Unfortunately, that "debunking" has caused many parents to let their guard down...
A common technique is to befriend not just the child they wish to victimize, but the entire family. Pedophiles will spend a LOT of time, showing themselves as "great friends", always willing to lend a hand with whatever... especially when it comes to watching the kids. By the time actual abuse starts happening (and usually LONG before it's discovered by the parents), this person is now considered a "close friend", or even "adopted family".
So... if such a case was reported to the authorities, it would be a "family friend" as perp, NOT a "stranger".
No, I don't have any hard stats to back up this: I'm surmising from my experience. But I can see how this could VERY easily skew the statistics...
I think we've all had a "friend" who turned out to be bad news, one way or another. This is just an extreme case of "bad news"...
-
OK, thanks.
-
Heck, we have an example in our own usual ouvre.
Most homicides aren't committed by "strangers", they are committed by someone the victim knows in one fashion or another. Strangers just aren't likely in the normal course of business to get close enough to be able to (or want to) target any one individual. It's statistically like being hit by lightning.
But once you start forming relationships you start creating vulnerabilities. Predators, sexual or otherwise, look for those and/or deliberately create them.
-
A couple quotes from Strings article I found especially striking.
Little girls do not need to be dressed up like teenage rock stars, with make up and mini skirts and a come-hither look they don’t even understand (pedophiles later tell little girls like this it was their fault and use the defense that the child “wanted it” and was “sexually ready” because of the clothes and behavior mommy and daddy allowed).
A-freaking-men. The little kid "talent shows" make me want to throw the so-called parents who parade their kids around like a pedo-buffet into a wood chipper.
Little boys do not need to be raised to believe sex is a joke (it instills embarrassment when they are sexually abused, resulting in fewer boys coming forward than there actually are, leading to further abuse as an adult).
When a 13 y/o girl is raped by a male teacher it's made into a crappy tv movie about how horrible it is. When a 13 y/o boy is raped by a female teacher late night talk shows make jokes about it.
-
"Stranger Danger" is something that has been kinda debunked by the statistics: there usually aren't guys in trenchcoats, lurking around arcades to lure kids with promises of candy/beer/porn/whatever. Unfortunately, that "debunking" has caused many parents to let their guard down...
No, it can be your neighbor and his "boyfriends" lurking behind the haystack at 5.30am when your teenage daughters are out feeding their ponies :mad:
-
No, it can be your neighbor and his "boyfriends" lurking behind the haystack at 5.30am when your teenage daughters are out feeding their ponies :mad:
yotes gotta eat.... >:D
-
yotes gotta eat.... >:D
Don't think I didn't think about that ;)
I spent the next four months trying to catch them at it again. :police:
Sucks to have to clear your yard every morning before your womenfolk can go outside :mad:
-
Or just provide overwatch and let your (heavily armed) womenfolk clear the yard. >:D
-
Balog wins one internetz
-
Or just provide overwatch and let your (heavily armed) womenfolk clear the yard. >:D
I like the way you think, Balog.
-
"Daddy, do I have to?"
"For the last time, YES."
"But I hate that thing!"
"Honey, you know the new rule--armed at all times."
"But why that puky green P32? Why can't I use the pink one?"
*sigh* "Because your sister's already got it, and she's out on a date. Besides, hopefully nobody will even have to see it."
"FINE." =( "But I get the pink one next time, right?"
"I promise, cupcake."
/dad goes up to the second-floor office window and picks up his daughter's Hello Kitty CAV-15 with an ACOG that she "grew out of," glances out the window occasionally to check if she's okay, and logs back onto APS
=D
-
I'm probably a little weird, but on the very short list of things that were absolute deal breakers for me when looking for a spouse was "unwilling to get a carry permit and go armed at all times." And (a part) of the reason we're so dedicated to home schooling is that self defense, situational awareness, and firearms handling are all acceptable "classes." =)
-
The discussed situation was a photographer taking pictures of children who refused to stop or to explain themselves in a satisfactory manner. A concerned parent informing a LEO of that suspicious person.
Satisfactory explanation to whom? A stranger in a public parks owes you an explanation about his activities? And what if, such as in the scenario, he says he's taking pictures of wildlife and such? What do you do then?
If you are going to escalate a situation beyond just asking and accepting the answer, you need something other than "I didn't like his answer" or "he made me feel uncomfortable". The answer to all of this was said on the first page. If other people acting lawfully in public is enough to make you feel uncomfortable, it would be best to remove yourself and your children from that public place. But the onus is on you to make yourself feel better, not the stranger. No one is obligated to alter their lawful public behavior to fit your emotions.
-
Taking pics of someone's child in public is legal. Reporting that suspicious behaviour to the cops is also legal. But one of these legal activities is apparently sacrosanct, and the other a trampling of the Constitution and civil rights.
If you came home late at night and saw a stranger forcing his way into your neighbor's house, would it be a trampling of civil rights to call the cops? After all, it could easily just be one of the teens in the house sneaking a boyfriend in, right? How dare you report people acting suspiciously to the cops, you Quisling!!! :rolleyes:
But I guess if one is so maladjusted that a polite question concerning your suspicious behaviour must be answered with a rude insistence that you're breaking no laws I could see why you'd view normal human interaction unfavourably.
-
If you came home late at night and saw a stranger forcing his way into your neighbor's house, would it be a trampling of civil rights to call the cops? After all, it could easily just be one of the teens in the house sneaking a boyfriend in, right? How dare you report people acting suspiciously to the cops, you Quisling!!!
Strawman argument - the first example, that of calling the police because someone is making you uncomfortable, is far different than the second example, where you are viewing a crime in progress.
-
But I guess if one is so maladjusted that a polite question concerning your suspicious behaviour must be answered with a rude insistence that you're breaking no laws I could see why you'd view normal human interaction unfavourably.
How polite is it when you and every other busybody in the park take turns demanding an explanation of perfectly legal activity?
-
IMO, it is all in the situation. If my kid wanders into the frame while someone is photographing landmarks, no big deal. If someone is sitting there taking pictures of my children without asking, I think I would have a problem with that and I would ask what the hell they were doing and I might get a picture of them if I could. I don't know if I would call the cops or not. I likely would leave at the least.
-
Mech has the right idea. Some of the rest of you, maybe need to switch to decaf?
Or maybe it's the term "confront" that has everyone flipping. You're seeing it play like this:
Concerned Parent: "Hey... why are you taking pictures of my kids?!?!"
Photographer: "I'm not, actually. I'm taking pictures of that stand of trees over there: your kids just happen to be in the way"
CP: "I DON'T LIKE YOUR ANSWER! I'M CALLING THE COPS!"
If that's how your conversations go IRL, you have my sympathies. The way I'm seeing this play:
CP: "Hey... why are you taking pictures of my kids?"
P: "I'm not, actually... "
CP: "Ok, just had to check things out. You can't be too careful: too many perverts in the world, you know?"
About this time, most pedophiles would either get belligerent, or fade away. Escalation beyond this point is purely situational.
However, I'm getting the impression that getting asked that question would cause an escalation on some folks' parts. Or am I reading this wrong?
-
How polite is it when you and every other busybody in the park take turns demanding an explanation of perfectly legal activity?
So your legal activity (taking pictures of my child) is ok, but my legal activity (asking you what's up) is not. Glad we cleared that up.
Strawman argument - the first example, that of calling the police because someone is making you uncomfortable, is far different than the second example, where you are viewing a crime in progress.
Either could be a crime, either could be innocent. People in this thread have repeatedly said that asking someone why they are photographing your child is someone rude and innappropriate, and that reporting suspicious activity to the cops is a trampling of the Constitution and civil liberties.
Look, unless you view the mere existance of the police as unConstitutional and a trampling of civil liberties, I really fail to see how requesting that they investigate suspicious activity is in any way wrong. Last I checked investigating suspicious activity is kinda high on the list of things cops are supposed to do.
-
This thread proves to me yet again that humans are absolutely dirt stupid at managing risk.
-
This thread proves to me yet again that humans are absolutely dirt stupid at managing risk.
Yup; go ahead and let the kids chat up any random person they encounter, but harass anyone taking pictures in public.
So your legal activity (taking pictures of my child) is ok, but my legal activity (asking you what's up) is not. Glad we cleared that up.
Okay, plain and simple so you can understand it; you are not special, you're just the next of the 300 idiots in the park who think it's any of their business what I'm doing, so when I hear the same question for the 301st time, you're damned right I'm going to be rude. If you don't like it, pack your brats back into your car and go home. Using the police to harass me because I dared to not politely answer to your demands is not responsible citizenship.
Hint for you, and everyone else; the safety of your children is your responsibility. "Your" means it rests solely on YOU. Not on me, not on the guy sitting on the park bench watching the squirrels the kids are chasing, not on anybody but you. If you feel they are threatened by other people in a public place, take them somewhere else. Do not expect everyone else to tolerate your arrogant demands.
-
Asking a polite question is an arrogant demand? In the same way reporting suspicious activity to the cops is trampling civil liberties I guess.
Also, if you are doing something so suspicious that every single person in a public place feels the need to question you, that's what we like to call a clue that perhaps your behaviour is an issue.
I like the strawman that parents who are concerned about people photographing their children are therefore negligent in other ways and let their kids talk to random people unsupervised. :rolleyes:
-
Strawman argument - the first example, that of calling the police because someone is making you uncomfortable, is far different than the second example, where you are viewing a crime in progress.
Either could be a crime, either could be innocent.
Don't twist my words, please.
Breaking and entering is a crime, viewing such is viewing a crime in progress. Taking photographs in public is not a crime in any way/shape/form. The main difference is that for the B&E, the owners can choose not to press charges; no charges can be pressed against someone taking pictures in public.
-
Have you ever noticed how eager some (some, not all) libertarian types are to proclaim their right to be an ass, but how when you suggest their behaviour might result in them being treated with hostility they claim your being an ass back is a civil rights violation?
Ok, last point I'll make about the concept. Wearing a ski mask is legal. Sitting outside a business taking pictures of security measures is legal. Taking detailed notes about security measures, when cash is transported to the bank etc is legal. All three together are legal. Just because you aren't breaking any laws doesn't mean you aren't acting suspiciously. Just because the cops investigate your suspicious activity that doesn't mean your civil rights have been violated. Acting like a jerk results in being treated like a jerk; either stop acting that way or stop whining about the natural consequences of your actions.
-
Ok, last point I'll make about the concept. Wearing a ski mask is legal. Sitting outside a business taking pictures of security measures is legal. Taking detailed notes about security measures, when cash is transported to the bank etc is legal. All three together are legal. Just because you aren't breaking any laws doesn't mean you aren't acting suspiciously. Just because the cops investigate your suspicious activity that doesn't mean your civil rights have been violated. Acting like a jerk results in being treated like a jerk; either stop acting that way or stop whining about the natural consequences of your actions.
Taking photographs in a park is not RS or PC for a stop - what you described sure as hell is. Again, strawman argument.
Have you ever noticed how eager some (some, not all) libertarian types are to proclaim their right to be an ass, but how when you suggest their behaviour might result in them being treated with hostility they claim your being an ass back is a civil rights violation?
Yes. Unfortunately, I have certainly noticed that, in this thread at times in fact.
-
PTK: sorry, cross posted with you. My point was that the supposed B&E could have legitimate reasons. Plenty of times my friends and I have been locked out and had to break into our own place of residence.
In the OP's scenario, the cops are called only after the photog acts suspicious when questioned about his activity. Like I said, you can take pictures of little kids in public. You can be a belligerent ass when parents are (kinda naturally imho) concerned. Don't be surprised if your behaviour draws increased levels of scrutiny, however.
Do cops need PC or RS merely to walk up to someone and speak with them? What about to be in the area and observe if someone is acting suspiciously?
-
Do cops need PC or RS merely to walk up to someone and speak with them? What about to be in the area and observe if someone is acting suspiciously?
No and no, of course not. However, in scenario #1, I can and have ignored pushy police questioning completely after a simple question of "Am I under arrest?"
At that point, other people get all hinky, which is rather amusing. "What, how DARE he not bow down to police power when he's making me uncomfy!"
-
Asking a polite question is an arrogant demand?
Asking something that is none of your business, when you've already stated your intent to use police to harass your target if he doesn't satisfy your demand is not "asking a polite question."
In the same way reporting suspicious activity to the cops is trampling civil liberties I guess.
Making up suspicious activity in order to have a person detained and questioned by police is a childish misuse of resources.
Also, if you are doing something so suspicious that every single person in a public place feels the need to question you, that's what we like to call a clue that perhaps your behaviour is an issue.
Mass arrogance doesn't make it any less arrogant.
I like the strawman that parents who are concerned about people photographing their children are therefore negligent in other ways and let their kids talk to random people unsupervised.
It's not a strawman, it's an observation of fact.
-
PTK: sorry, cross posted with you. My point was that the supposed B&E could have legitimate reasons. Plenty of times my friends and I have been locked out and had to break into our own place of residence.
See, my view is this:
Everybody around me has some form of behavior that can be perceived by others as anti-social. My downstairs neighbor scream each other at ungodly hours and keep a goat (which I'm sure is not legal under the town's bylaws). My next-door neighbor is in MLM - does she have a business license? Do you need one to be in MLM? I don't know!
The problem with a culture of... dime-dropping is that everybody is suspicious to somebody. I can understand calling the police if you see someone breaking open a guy's door, but it can easily go completely insane.
-
The problem with a culture of... dime-dropping is that everybody is suspicious to somebody. I can understand calling the police if you see someone breaking open a guy's door, but it can easily go completely insane.
Did you just Godwin the thread? :lol:
-
KD: thanks for making my point for me. Nice assumptions and broad brush statements as well. Ever consider the problem with the way people treat you might lie in your own behaviour and attitude?
Micro: dime-dropping, really? And you equate someone possibly stalking children with zoning violations? I kinda liked it when people looked out for their neighbor instead of turning a blind eye.
-
The key word is POSSIBLY.
Terrorism, for instance, is very bad. Yet as we've seen time and time again, over-suspicious people who accidentally suspect you of being a terrorist because you act strange or even asocial can easily cause a person serious harm.
-
This thread proves to me yet again that humans are absolutely dirt stupid at managing risk.
Perhaps you could provide an example of something better then?
-
The key word is POSSIBLY.
Terrorism, for instance, is very bad. Yet as we've seen time and time again, over-suspicious people who accidentally suspect you of being a terrorist because you act strange or even asocial can easily cause a person serious harm.
I'm so glad those flight school instructors didn't trample anyone's civil liberties by racially profiling those Muslims who wanted to learn to fly but not land planes...
-
Acting like a jerk results in being treated like a jerk
Yep ;)
-
I'm seeing a lot of assumption, presumption, hypothetical, opinion and not a little invective being tossed about, but could someone please answer one simple question...
If a person is photographing on public property, with such an activity having already been ruled an absolutely legal activity by much case law without regard to what they are photographing so long as it remains on public property, and proceeds to ignore your attempts to question them, or even responds rudely to such attempts, to which you have no legal authority to compel an answer to, what is the actual, legal, Reasonable Suspicion here?
Please no sidebar examples or other actions that might construe reasonable suspicion. The conversation is about this action. Where is the Reasonable Suspicion in this action. Keep in mind without RS you don't have a terry stop. Without reasonable suspicion what is the basis for calling the police? Without RS what will be their basis for making a Terry stop? Even if you called in the police, and the police went over to talk to said photographer, without RS that person has no obligation to talk to the police and may simply keep on with their actions while completely ignoring them.
Remember, hurt, hinky or uncomfortable feelings don't count, only specific and articulable facts and inferences as to criminal activity. So, what is the legal reasonable suspicion?
-
Private citizens do not need to articulate RS or PC.
Cops can talk to the public without it being a Terry Stop.
The activity in question is taking pictures of a specific child or group of children, then acting in a manner the parent feels is suspect when asked about it.
Edit: if the person in question is in fact a bad guy who runs away from the presence of a cop, well that's a good result too. And I'm still waiting for someone to articulate how reporting a situation that seems suspicious to the (not legally trained, not bound to articulate cause in court) parent is a violation of any civil rights.
-
Private citizens do not need to articulate RS or PC.
Cops can talk to the public without it being a Terry Stop.
The activity in question is taking pictures of a specific child or group of children, then acting in a manner the parent feels is suspect when asked about it.
That didn't answer the question.
The cop can attempt to talk to the public, again the photographer doesn't have to acknowledge them
The activity, regardless of the focus of the photography has been ruled a legal action.
The parent's "feelings" don't factor into the legality of the matter.
Again, what is the legal reasonable suspicion?
-
:facepalm:
That didn't answer the question.
The question is irrelevant.
The cop can attempt to talk to the public, again the photographer doesn't have to acknowledge them
True. And your point?
The activity, regardless of the focus of the photography has been ruled a legal action.
Again true. Still waiting for your point.
The parent's "feelings" don't factor into the legality of the matter.
The legality of the matter? How is filing a factual report with the police illegal?
Again, what is the legal reasonable suspicion?
This. Is. Not. A. Terry. Stop. I really don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm under no obligation to articulate RS before calling cops to alert them to behaviour I find suspect. I'm really not. And if the cops come and have no RS, again, so what? Unless they try to detain the person w/o cause I fail to see what the problem is.
-
See, my view is this:
Everybody around me has some form of behavior that can be perceived by others as anti-social.
Ayup.
My downstairs neighbor scream each other at ungodly hours and keep a goat (which I'm sure is not legal under the town's bylaws).
When I lived in an apartment, I had no problem knocking on their door and asking those who were obnoxiously loud at night to be quiet. If they told me to piss off or resumed, I had no problem calling the apt manager or the cops.
My next-door neighbor is in MLM - does she have a business license? Do you need one to be in MLM? I don't know!
Well, Amway is a hanging offense in any case.
The problem with a culture of... dime-dropping is that everybody is suspicious to somebody. I can understand calling the police if you see someone breaking open a guy's door, but it can easily go completely insane.
This is not dime-dropping. Reading the OP, someone would only call the cops after:
1. Observing possibly hinkey behavior
2. Talking to the dude and not having the hinkey dispelled by dude
I'm one of those wild folk who believe in actually speaking with others if there might be a problem or something otherwise amiss(0). Some on this thread think that's terribly arrogant. Well, I'd suggest they buy themselves a compound WAY out in BFE if they don't want to interact with people. They might be happier for it.
kgbs:
The question, for a non-LEO citizen, is irrelevant and lies in the realm of social norms and practices.
The photog dude doesn't have to drop trou and play with himself in front of the young 'uns for folks to use their common sense and draw on experience.
From a common-sense perspective, if photog does not respond to communication or is an obnoxious prick, that is fine & dandy. I had approached to hopefully allay any suspicion. It'll make me more suspicious and I most certainly would call the cops,given the OP's circumstances.
(0) I also speak with folks in the line at the grocery store and have been known to strike up conversations in the elevator. Nobody has yet responded with, "What I am doing is perfectly legal!"
-
:facepalm:
The question is irrelevant.
True. And your point?
Again true. Still waiting for your point.
The legality of the matter? How is filing a factual report with the police illegal?
This. Is. Not. A. Terry. Stop. I really don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm under no obligation to articulate RS before calling cops to alert them to behaviour I find suspect. I'm really not. And if the cops come and have no RS, again, so what? Unless they try to detain the person w/o cause I fail to see what the problem is.
If determining the criminality of an act is irrelevant, and police may be called to investigate anyone doing something determined by the courts to be legal, simply because someone thought it was suspicious, then how do you delineate between a legitimate concerned citizen call and harassment through the (ab)use of our legal institutions?
-
If determining the criminality of an act is irrelevant, and police may be called to investigate anyone doing something determined by the courts to be legal, simply because someone thought it was suspicious, then how do you delineate between a legitimate concerned citizen call and harassment through the (ab)use of our legal institutions?
Isn't that always the case though?
I can report anyone to the police as a suspected drunk driver at any time. I'm under no obligation to have training or know what to look for from a drunk driver.
This does not mean that the police may stop the person I reported, on my testimony alone. But, they certainly may observe that person for themselves to determine if a crime is actually taking place. Just as they could observe any person or public setting for any or no reason at all.
-
If determining the criminality of an act is irrelevant, and police may be called to investigate anyone doing something determined by the courts to be legal, simply because someone thought it was suspicious, then how do you delineate between a legitimate concerned citizen call and harassment through the (ab)use of our legal institutions?
The bar is far lower for non-LEO. "I felt he was suspicious because of his demeanour doing Legal Activity."
If you'll notice, this entire idea was based on the premise that one observed potentially concerning albeit legal activity, approached the person in question, and judged from their response that concern was warranted.
All that being said, I personally find a single adult male taking pictures of small children to be a cause for concern in and of itself.
Also, I apparently find the bar for "harassment via abuse of legal system" a lot higher than some.
Also, what Nick said.
-
Also, I apparently find the bar for "harassment via abuse of legal system" a lot higher than some.
Also, what Nick said.
But running with the idea that actual criminality is now no longer relevant, how do you make that determination of harassment? How do you make the determination of abuse under the color of law? Reasonable suspicion, probable cause and presumed innocence are deeply entrenched facets of our legal system for very good reasons.
Also yes, Nick was spot on.
Sidebar: I'd also like to note that all this legal jousting aside, the real world functions much differently. If you had a (non-perv) amateur or professional photographer (let alone a possible talent scout for an advertising agency) out practicing their art you're going to get a significantly different response from a polite inquiry from them than from some kiddy-chaser. Mind you rude inquiries are likely to get a belligerent response no matter what.
-
Harassment and abuse under color of law are issues with how the cops react, not on the part of the reporting citizen.
-
Harassment and abuse under color of law are issues with how the cops react, not on the part of the reporting citizen.
So it's not possible for a citizen to harass someone by continually calling the police about their "suspicious" behavior that is continually determined to be legal?
-
If there is a continued pattern of blatantly unreasonable reports filed by the same person then sure. That relates to our discussion just as much as saying "Well, if the photog was waiting outside my house and followed my kid to school that'd be bad."
In other words, your hypothetical has no bearing or relation to the discussion at hand.
-
If there is a continued pattern of blatantly unreasonable reports filed by the same person then sure. That relates to our discussion just as much as saying "Well, if the photog was waiting outside my house and followed my kid to school that'd be bad."
In other words, your hypothetical has no bearing or relation to the discussion at hand.
This does come back to my original question however. If you call the police, and there is no actual reasonable suspicion, what do you expect to occur?
-
First, according to the situation described by the OP (guy takes pics of my kid, I try to talk to him, he acts in such a way as to arouse suspicion) there is RS.
Second, I would personally hope the cops would show up and try to talk to the guy. Either he's legit and nothing happens, he's bad and runs away, or he's bad and gets arrested/detained etc. No civil rights violations, no harassment or abuse... I really think all the fuss in this thread is rather ridiculous.
-
First, according to the situation described by the OP (guy takes pics of my kid, I try to talk to him, he acts in such a way as to arouse suspicion) there is RS.
I'd argue that there's isn't RS. Not from the officers perspective, anyway. It's a general welfare check. Nothing more, nothing less.
Officer goes and talks to guy. If he's legit, all is fine. If he turns and walks away - fine. If he turns and RUNS away upon seeing a cop, I believe that's probable cause, GAME ON!
-
First, according to the situation described by the OP (guy takes pics of my kid, I try to talk to him, he acts in such a way as to arouse suspicion) there is RS.
Second, I would personally hope the cops would show up and try to talk to the guy. Either he's legit and nothing happens, he's bad and runs away, or he's bad and gets arrested/detained etc. No civil rights violations, no harassment or abuse... I really think all the fuss in this thread is rather ridiculous.
What are these articulable facts that meet RS?
Didn't you state that the caller had no need to determine RS? This leads into another point, how would the cops know he was bad if there is no RS and thus they have no grounds for demanding his identification?
-
What are these articulable facts that meet RS?
Actions + demeanour. "He was taking pics of little kids, when I tried to talk to him he was belligerent (defensive, hostile etc)." Pretty much KD5's posts in other words. Now, I'm no lawyer, maybe those things aren't RS. I'm not a cop, I don't need to be able to articulate to a certain legal standard to make a report. The cop does if he wants to Terry Stop the guy, but that is a separate issue.
Again, if I'm following KD5 around and calling the cops on him twice a day, that's one thing. But that has no relation to the issue at hand.
Didn't you state that the caller had no need to determine RS?
The caller doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't there.
This leads into another point, how would the cops know he was bad if there is no RS and thus they have no grounds for demanding his identification?
If he is in fact a predator hunting children, a cop showing up will deter him. Deterring the suspicious person is kind of the point of the exercise.
-
"He was taking pics of little kids.....
Was it on public property? Yes.
Was he enticing them to pose in a lewd or obscene manner? No.
Sorry, still legal.
when I tried to talk to him he was belligerent (defensive, hostile etc)."
Did he threaten you or others with physical harm? No.
Again, still legal.
No reasonable suspicion for you.
If he is in fact a predator hunting children, a cop showing up will deter him. Deterring the suspicious person is kind of the point of the exercise.
Good, good! Now we're getting to the meat of it. It only took us how many pages? :laugh:
So long as the expectation is nothing more that a badge showing up to deter away a potential Bad Guy(tm) and not to violate a lawfully acting citizens rights with regards to RS/PC/PI there isn't really a problem. However it is when people insinuated that those things mattered not a whit compared to their hinky or suspicious feelings and that such justified assuming a physically threatening position or potentially making a false report to instigate police action (which I personally have been subject to) that would violate such rights, that I take strong exception to, hence my request to know what he legal justification of all this bru-ha-ha was in this particular situation.
-
Nobody has yet responded with, "What I am doing is perfectly legal!"
you've never asked the guy in the wookie suit or his buddies
-
Good, good! Now we're getting to the meat of it. It only took us how many pages? :laugh:
So long as the expectation is nothing more that a badge showing up to deter away a potential Bad Guy(tm) and not to violate a lawfully acting citizens rights with regards to RS/PC/PI there isn't really a problem. However it is when people insinuated that those things mattered not a whit compared to their hinky or suspicious feelings and that such justified assuming a physically threatening position or potentially making a false report to instigate police action (which I personally have been subject to) that would violate such rights, that I take strong exception to, hence my request to know what he legal justification of all this bru-ha-ha was in this particular situation.
kgbs:
You spent a lot of words on irrelevancies that do not apply to non-LEOS and then getting a "Eureka" moment regarding a course of action that has not been advocated by the folks with whom you have discussed this topic:
"...their hinky or suspicious feelings...justified assuming a physically threatening position or potentially making a false report to instigate police action..."
Maybe there is another thread somewhere else discussing this topic and you cross-posted?
-
I'd argue that there's isn't RS. Not from the officers perspective, anyway. It's a general welfare check. Nothing more, nothing less.
Officer goes and talks to guy. If he's legit, all is fine. If he turns and walks away - fine. If he turns and RUNS away upon seeing a cop, I believe that's probable cause, GAME ON!
Actually, NOT! The progeny of Terry are very clear that refusing to interact with the cops when there is not sufficient reason to detain includes the right to run away from the cops. The cop is also free to follow and request a consensual contact, but that's about it.
And so far we've gotten a pretty good agreement that the cop does not yet have RS/PC - just a call that there is someone doing something that at least on the surface is not a crime that bothers someone else. So stiull no Terry stop allowed.
Run, KGBS & Nick, run!
stay safe.
skidmark
-
i am reminded yet again why we only have 2 political parties.
i am amused/amazed at the folks who imagine life in a vacuum. see some guy taking pics or eyeballing your kids in a way you don't like? go up to say hey and get a worse vibe? start to wonder and when you snap his pic, as noted a completely legal activity he gets all fresked out? call cops. tell em what you observed while you look on the chimo website for his pic. cops show up say hey guy might be just fine just politically oppressed and moody. or he might start running. running is bad . even though running is perfectly legal the totality of circumstances would probably get a court to support stopping him. heck even if he is gone when cops get there if you find his pic on the website you have evidence to send him away for a probation/parole violation.
-
kgbs:
You spent a lot of words on irrelevancies that do not apply to non-LEOS and then getting a "Eureka" moment regarding a course of action that has not been advocated by the folks with whom you have discussed this topic:
"...their hinky or suspicious feelings...justified assuming a physically threatening position or potentially making a false report to instigate police action..."
Maybe there is another thread somewhere else discussing this topic and you cross-posted?
Or perhaps you simply forgot about posts in the first two pages of the thread?
Another option, of course, is to begin mercilessily hounding the picture taker.
Harassment.
if someone really gave me the creeps i'd be in a bad spot and so would they.
Veiled threat.
If the person is legit, there is some hassle and silliness, but shouldn't be any real concern about a LEO knowing.
Forfeiture of rights.
if i take a pic use the words police list and check picture and they get hinkey it might be time for a medical assistance 911 call. i think some parks i go to the perv would be wise to call the cops himself and tell em to hurry
Veiled threat.
Most times, though, I can look intimidating enough that such is not necessary.
Intimidation. If combined with open carrying, then Brandishing.
Even Dogmush got the jist of what was being tossed about by the second page.
Save the outrage, veiled threats, and vigilantism for when they try to take the child.
-
A Terry stop [as taught to me] is a 'freezing' of the situation. There isn't enough reasonable suspicion for an arrest, but by golly, frisking the guy is just a good idea. While they are out there, I don't know any LEOs that jump right ahead to frisking folks before saying 'hi.'
Ned, with all due respect ... either you weren't paying attention in class that day, or your instructor did not know doodley about Terry vs. Ohio. The first hurdle is that the stop itself has to qualify. That means the situation has to mass the smell test: Is there a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed?
IF the situation meets these criteria, then an officer may stop a person and initiate inquiries pertaining to the purported crime. In the interest of officer safety, the officer may conduct a cursory external pat-down to check for weapons. The officer may NOT conduct a search of the person's pockets, belongings, or vehicle. Further, while the officer may ask who you are, the officer cannot require you to produce identification (see Hiibel).
So if I'm in a conversational mood, I might go ahead and pass the time of day with Officer Friendly. On the other hand, if I am in my usual curmudgeonly mood, I can ask the officer what crime it is he is investigating and why he has a reasonable suspicion that it involves me. If all he can come up with is, "I'm asking the questions here," I am (legally) free to leave and if he elects to detain me by force he risks a lawsuit for false arrest. Or I can sit/stand there and say nothing. He cannot force me to say anything and, again, if he elects to interpret my desire not to converse as evidence of criminal activity, he'd better have some "clearly articulable facts" to back it up when we get to court.
-
Taking pics of someone's child in public is legal. Reporting that suspicious behaviour to the cops is also legal. But one of these legal activities is apparently sacrosanct, and the other a trampling of the Constitution and civil rights.
If you came home late at night and saw a stranger forcing his way into your neighbor's house, would it be a trampling of civil rights to call the cops? After all, it could easily just be one of the teens in the house sneaking a boyfriend in, right? How dare you report people acting suspiciously to the cops, you Quisling!!! :rolleyes:
But I guess if one is so maladjusted that a polite question concerning your suspicious behaviour must be answered with a rude insistence that you're breaking no laws I could see why you'd view normal human interaction unfavourably.
Cognitive disconnect.
Scenario (a) above involves calling a cop upon observing someone engaged in legal behavior. It then attempts to suggest that calling a cop is unconstitutional. Calling a cop is NOT unconstitutional. However, if the cop reacts by accosting the person who is NOT engaged in any illegal activity in anything other than a very circumspect manner, then we have some trampling of rights.
Scenario (b) involves calling the cops upon observing illegal activity. Different animal entirely.
-
kgbs:
You spent a lot of words on irrelevancies that do not apply to non-LEOS and then getting a "Eureka" moment regarding a course of action that has not been advocated by the folks with whom you have discussed this topic:
"...their hinky or suspicious feelings...justified assuming a physically threatening position or potentially making a false report to instigate police action..."
Or perhaps you simply forgot about posts in the first two pages of the thread?
No, I was pretty precise in my wording, some of which I placed in bold face above.
You came into the fray on page 4, post #94, and debated primarily with Balog. I replied a bit, but your responses/inquiries were almost exclusively to Balog.
And your "Eureka" post is in response to Balog, whose posts do not make the case for making false reports & such. Kinda like debating fiscal policy with Ron Paul and then going, "Aha! You finally understand, the heart of the problem is the Federal Reserve!" ???
-
No, I was pretty precise in my wording, some of which I placed in bold face above.
You came into the fray on page 4, post #94, and debated primarily with Balog. I replied a bit, but your responses/inquiries were almost exclusively to Balog.
And your "Eureka" post is in response to Balog, whose posts do not make the case for making false reports & such. Kinda like debating fiscal policy with Ron Paul and then going, "Aha! You finally understand, the heart of the problem is the Federal Reserve!" ???
So, by your assertion, if I'm in a debate with someone, a debate that preceded both of our entry into it, I am not allowed to mention any of the arguments that occurred before and that they haven't parroted yet? Um, no. The content of the first three pages of the thread are as germane to the debate I was engaged in as the pages in which I was actively involved. My "eureka" moment as you put it was in maneuvering the debate so that my opposite would admit a particular fact that I wished for them to state, in this case that they expected no actual legal repercussions, but simply a deterring presence rather than for someone's rights to be violated under the color of law. Much the same as when the debate moved in such a manner as to lead them to mention that actual criminality or achieving the proper legal definition of reasonable suspicion was not a primary concern of theirs, or more accurately, in their words, "irrelevant."
Since you seem rather irritated that I didn't respond to your post on the fourth page then here: Of those many people you spoke with in the shopping line or on the elevator, how many did you approach wanting to know why they were in that line or on that elevator and stating that their presence was making you uncomfortable? You are speaking of striking up a conversation without any prior motivating factors. In this debate we are speaking of a situation with precursors that could lead to a hostile confrontation.
-
Cognitive disconnect.
Scenario (a) above involves calling a cop upon observing someone engaged in legal behavior. It then attempts to suggest that calling a cop is unconstitutional. Calling a cop is NOT unconstitutional. However, if the cop reacts by accosting the person who is NOT engaged in any illegal activity in anything other than a very circumspect manner, then we have some trampling of rights.
Scenario (b) involves calling the cops upon observing illegal activity. Different animal entirely.
I was not the one who said calling the cops was a trampling of the Constitution and civil rights, I merely responded to another poster who said that.
And either A or B could be legal or illegal, depending on the circumstances. As I said I and a number of people I know have broken into our dwellings after locking ourselves out.
Also, if your cops can't talk to someone reported to be acting suspiciously without trampling their rights you need new cops.
My "eureka" moment as you put it was in maneuvering the debate so that my opposite would admit a particular fact that I wished for them to state
;/
You could have tried, you know, asking me. Given that no one outside of your mind stated the desire to file false reports or use LEO's as a tool to illegally detain/arrest someone with no ill intent...
I kinda wondered why you were being so obtuse and combative about all this, then I had my own lil Eureka moment.
However it is when people insinuated that those things mattered not a whit compared to their hinky or suspicious feelings and that such justified assuming a physically threatening position or potentially making a false report to instigate police action (which I personally have been subject to) that would violate such rights, that I take strong exception to, hence my request to know what he legal justification of all this bru-ha-ha was in this particular situation.
Similar to when I used to argue with another poster here about drug laws, then found out he'd lost a loved one to drug use. I don't bother fussing with him about that subject anymore.
-
SO after 5 pages, we've finally determined that we as citizens can't actually do anything. And more importantly, the responding police can't actually do anything either. In the end, we are just hoping someone with a badge will show up, and just by their mere presence, bad guys will go away.
So the real question is, do we think that is a misappropriation of police resources? My answer is: Probably. Unless there is a car sitting at a speed trap 2 blocks away goofing around on their MDT, chances are most officers are out actually doing real jobs. And if that's the case, I would hope any dispatcher worth his or her salt would inquire further as to what crime is allegedly taking place. And of course hearing nothing but claims of "hinky feelings", I would hope the dispatcher would tell the helicopter parent to have a nice day and that be the end of it.
If that cop is doing anything else, arresting a drug dealer, filling out a collision report, writing a speeding ticket, responding to a break in, responding to a domestic violence call, administering a PBT to a drunk, anything; that would all be more important than responding to a "there's a guy at the park with a camera..and he...uh...makes me feel uncomfortable" call.
-
Not that it matters at this point but...
To the original question: I wouldn't call the cops in the listed situation.
Most of the debate seems to have branched when qualifiers were added though. The photographer acts suspicious, is rude, is directly taking pictures of a specific child, etc.
If you add enough qualifiers, sure, I'd call the cops, but not for the original scenario. Calling the cops based purely on the situation in the OP would be paranoid to a pretty serious degree, imo.
-
I noticed that too mellestad. If one looks at most of the posts in this thread, one can see many people assuming that the person is definitely taking pictures of their child. "He was taking pictures of little kids" "I'm not gonna let someone take pictures of my child" "Is taking pictures of a child legal" "I would call the police if I saw someone taking pictures of children"
That's not actually the scenario. The actual situation is someone taking pictures in the park, and you thinking they might be taking pictures of you child. Meaning, you. might. be. wrong. And I personally see a big difference between someone doing something wrong, and someone possibly doing something wrong, especially when it involves me pulling police officers away from whatever else they were doing, and sending them to hassle a stranger in public.
-
Most of the debate seems to have branched when qualifiers were added though. The photographer acts suspicious, is rude, is directly taking pictures of a specific child, etc.
Yep. It reminds of many gunboard debates about a self defense shooting when the only information about the incident is a three paragraph wire story. Both sides can be right with the additional bolstering of facts not in evidence.
That said, I don't think "belligerence" to being questioned or being followed around with a camera phone is necessarily a red flag that the guy is a bad guy.
Not too long ago, I was throwing some trash away at my condo complex. I had some big heavy trash bags, so I tossed them in the back of my SUV and drove them over to one of the dumpsters in the condo parking lot rather than carry them over. As I was putting things in the dumpster, there was a busybody making a production of how they were taking my picture with their cellphone while also taking a picture of the sign that said "for residents only." I (in my mind rightfully) gave her a sneer and a sigh. Her attitude ticked me off, and would tick off a lot of people, because they were essentially making an accusation through their actions. I can only imagine the kind of demeanor that a person would have if they were coming after you with their camera if they have already decided that you are a pedophile rather than just a lowlife filling up their dumpster.
As a society, we have become way to apt to jump to the conclusion that people around children in public places are perverts, especially if it is a man. "Erring on the side of caution" seems to be just an excuse in many cases to not exercise a little more judgement.
I have had two different occasions where I have gotten the "stink eye" from moms at the nearby park because their grade school age children came up to talk to my toddler son and start talking to me. If either of those situations had escalated to snapping my pictures and/or calling the cops, you can bet that I would feel belligerent towards those citizens who essentially just accused me of being a pedophile. (Which in our society is probably the worst thing you can accuse someone of being.)
-
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get ya ;)
At that point, other people get all hinky, which is rather amusing. "What, how DARE he not bow down to police power when he's making me uncomfy!"
Nah... even assuming the photographer in question IS a pedophile, I'd be fine with him remaining within his Constitutional Rights and walking away or clamming up. The fun only starts because most will try and fast talk their way out of the "trouble", or get VERY belligerent ("protest their innocence too loudly")... or leave the area, and be scared that folks are "on to them" (which I consider the best result).
SO after 5 pages, we've finally determined that we as citizens can't actually do anything. And more importantly, the responding police can't actually do anything either. In the end, we are just hoping someone with a badge will show up, and just by their mere presence, bad guys will go away.
To some extent. However, please keep in mind that most pedophiles WILL back away when confronted, which is the idea...
So the real question is, do we think that is a misappropriation of police resources? My answer is: Probably. Unless there is a car sitting at a speed trap 2 blocks away goofing around on their MDT, chances are most officers are out actually doing real jobs. And if that's the case, I would hope any dispatcher worth his or her salt would inquire further as to what crime is allegedly taking place. And of course hearing nothing but claims of "hinky feelings", I would hope the dispatcher would tell the helicopter parent to have a nice day and that be the end of it.
If that cop is doing anything else, arresting a drug dealer, filling out a collision report, writing a speeding ticket, responding to a break in, responding to a domestic violence call, administering a PBT to a drunk, anything; that would all be more important than responding to a "there's a guy at the park with a camera..and he...uh...makes me feel uncomfortable" call.
If an officer is already involved in something (other than merely cruising the city), then yes, he should finish what he's doing. That SHOULD go without saying.
And I'd like to address the continual "helicopter parent" thing. You seem to think that the problem is entirely with the "paranoid parents", and that the only solution which is acceptable is for the parents to "pack up the apes and leave". You seem to feel that a parent (or even other concerned adult) approaching and asking a civil question is somehow infringing on you. Has it not occured to you that such a parent, who approaches a stran ger in this manner, is simply doing their job as the guardian of that child? Given the propensity of parents nowadays to be almost uninvolved in their child's lilfe, this is an activity we should be applauding.
Also, tell me... in light of the above outlined "duty of parents to retreat", did you lobby against the "Stand your ground" laws? You know... the laws that basically extend Castle Doctrine to anywhere you have a legal right to be? After all, you have no right to threaten force (either on your own or through the police) just because a group of youths is walking up to you: that's a completely legal action. So, by your own argument, the only proper response is to leave the area if you get a hinkey feeling. Or are you one of those paranoid types*, that starts to mentally prepare for a violent encounter in such circumstances, and might even call the police to report the suspicious behavior?
Would such a retreat be advisable? Maybe... again, it depends on the further circumstances. As I've explained a couple times, *I* am stopping the theoretical scenario at "approach person and ask questions", with the next step being decided by whatever further circumstances arise. But I don't really recall laying out any such circumstances or reactions.
However, you seem to be reading into this a preset set of reactions, which to some extent are completely divorced from further information (ie: that a parent should immediately call police or "throw down" if the photographer doesn't make their "hinkey feelings" go away).
I don't know where you're getting that from. If it's from personal experience, I'm sorry: mine has never been the same...
*for the record, I AM one of those "paranoid types"
-
Also, tell me... in light of the above outlined "duty of parents to retreat", did you lobby against the "Stand your ground" laws? You know... the laws that basically extend Castle Doctrine to anywhere you have a legal right to be? After all, you have no right to threaten force (either on your own or through the police) just because a group of youths is walking up to you: that's a completely legal action. So, by your own argument, the only proper response is to leave the area if you get a hinkey feeling. Or are you one of those paranoid types*, that starts to mentally prepare for a violent encounter in such circumstances, and might even call the police to report the suspicious behavior?
Once again, a bogus comparison.
The "castle doctrine" / "no duty to retreat" laws pertain to your right to defend yourself against an illegal assault. There is nothing ... repeat NOTHING ... illegal about taking photographs in a public park. Comparing your right to "stand your ground" in the face of someone engaging in completely LEGAL activity is, quite simply, ridiculous.
The bottom line is, taking photographs is legal. In fact, it is entirely legal for me to take telephoto close-ups of YOUR child, as long as the child is in a public place and has no expectation of privacy. And I can legally use those photos for any purpose I choose, as long as I don't sell them or use them for commercial purposes.
What you (some of you) are trying to do is not control the taking of photographs. You are entering into the arena of thought control. You are assuming that anyone who might take photos of children must either be thinking dirty thoughts or planning nefarious deeds. News alert: Thought has not yet been ruled illegal in the United States of America. You think you can stop some (assumed) pedophile from thinking dirty thoughts about YOUR kid by chasing him away when you see him taking photos.
Sorry, I just can't go along with that. Either we live in a nation of laws, or we don't. What's astonishing to me is that many of you who see no problem with calling a cop over someone just taking pictures are the same people who object to police hassling people who carry handguns for self defense.
Legal is legal. If the person isn't breaking a law, you have no excuse for calling a cop. You also have no excuse for getting in his face yourself. If his presence makes you feel "hinkey" ... leave.
-
Nah... even assuming the photographer in question IS a pedophile, I'd be fine with him remaining within his Constitutional Rights and walking away or clamming up. The fun only starts because most will try and fast talk their way out of the "trouble", or get VERY belligerent ("protest their innocence too loudly")... or leave the area, and be scared that folks are "on to them" (which I consider the best result).
And what if he remains within his constitutional rights and stays where he is, and continues taking photos? What then?
-
Strings, a man is taking some pictures of a group of trees at a public park, and your child is in several of the frames. You walk up to him and say whatever it is you say to figure out what he's doing/accuse him of taking photos of your child. He does not even look at you and simply says "sir/ma'am, that's none of your business" while continuing to take pictures.
What is your next step?
-
Ever consider the problem with the way people treat you might lie in your own behaviour and attitude?
Ever consider that the reason for my behavior and attitude might lie with pompous asses who think my legal activities are any of their business?
-
and you thinking they might be taking pictures of you child.
Even if they are, so what? That's not illegal either.
What's astonishing to me is that many of you who see no problem with calling a cop over someone just taking pictures are the same people who object to police hassling people who carry handguns for self defense.
No surprise. Most pro-gunners aren't actually pro-freedom, they are just pro-freedoms-that-they-like. This thread perfect proof of that.
-
And I'd like to address the continual "helicopter parent" thing.
And I'd like to address the "Captain America" thing.
You seem to think that the problem is entirely with the "paranoid parents", and that the only solution which is acceptable is for the parents to "pack up the apes and leave".
And you think that the only acceptable solution is to harass people you deem "suspicious" for their lawful behavior in a place you wish to sterilize.
You seem to feel that a parent (or even other concerned adult) approaching and asking a civil question is somehow infringing on you.
One wouldn't be, but here's a news flash for ya; you ain't the only one that secretly wishes for a cape and tights. Every five minutes, there's another superhero wanna-be busybody asking the same questions, or putting on a tough-guy show in the middle of my shot.
Has it not occured to you that such a parent, who approaches a stran ger in this manner, is simply doing their job as the guardian of that child?
By leaving it unattended or at least less attended in what "superparent" apparently feels is an unsafe environment? Again, if you feel they're threatened, your responsibility is to get them away from the threat, Not to play Billy Badass. If you don't feel they're threatened, leave the other users of the park the hell alone. Besides, while you're pestering me, the real bad guy has a much easier chance as neither of us will be watching as carefully for him.
I notice that none of the busybodies confronted the guy who stabbed a mother in the park a few weeks ago. Not even after the stabbing; literally dozens of people watched him as he casually walked away, and they didn't want to get involved beyond that. Never mind that he was still armed and within 30 feet of a group of kids until he left. Once they saw he was a real bad guy, and they were all too scared of him to do anything.
Also, tell me... in light of the above outlined "duty of parents to retreat", did you lobby against the "Stand your ground" laws? You know... the laws that basically extend Castle Doctrine to anywhere you have a legal right to be? After all, you have no right to threaten force (either on your own or through the police) just because a group of youths is walking up to you: that's a completely legal action.
Groups of youths walk up to me all the time. Most of the time, they even speak to me. I haven't killed one for such arrogance yet. Heck, I took Libby to the park this afternoon and at least three different youths passed within arm's reach of both of us, and I didn't even draw either gun or the pepper spray. I even left the kubotan and the knife put away. As long as they stay off my - and my employer's - private property, or state a sensible reason for entering it, and keep their hands off me and mine, I stay ready to deal with any actual problem that arises to the best of my ability, and otherwise leave them alone. With the exception of a few who have much higher-than-normal situational awareness, they're not likely to notice any difference between that encounter and any other they might have that day.
So, by your own argument, the only proper response is to leave the area if you get a hinkey feeling.
They call it "stand your ground" for a reason. What you're proposing is called "escalate the situation and hope you can shoot faster." Much like anyone with half a brain doesn't pull out in front of a speeding 18-wheeler just because they know the truck has a yield sign.
However, you seem to be reading into this a preset set of reactions, which to some extent are completely divorced from further information (ie: that a parent should immediately call police or "throw down" if the photographer doesn't make their "hinkey feelings" go away).
I am not your psychiatrist. I am not responsible for your insecurities. If I don't 'make your "hinkey feelings" go away,' that's your problem. Go home and deal with it yourself.
-
*sigh*
Once again, a bogus comparison.
The "castle doctrine" / "no duty to retreat" laws pertain to your right to defend yourself against an illegal assault. There is nothing ... repeat NOTHING ... illegal about taking photographs in a public park. Comparing your right to "stand your ground" in the face of someone engaging in completely LEGAL activity is, quite simply, ridiculous.
The bottom line is, taking photographs is legal. In fact, it is entirely legal for me to take telephoto close-ups of YOUR child, as long as the child is in a public place and has no expectation of privacy. And I can legally use those photos for any purpose I choose, as long as I don't sell them or use them for commercial purposes.
What you (some of you) are trying to do is not control the taking of photographs. You are entering into the arena of thought control. You are assuming that anyone who might take photos of children must either be thinking dirty thoughts or planning nefarious deeds. News alert: Thought has not yet been ruled illegal in the United States of America. You think you can stop some (assumed) pedophile from thinking dirty thoughts about YOUR kid by chasing him away when you see him taking photos.
Sorry, I just can't go along with that. Either we live in a nation of laws, or we don't. What's astonishing to me is that many of you who see no problem with calling a cop over someone just taking pictures are the same people who object to police hassling people who carry handguns for self defense.
Legal is legal. If the person isn't breaking a law, you have no excuse for calling a cop. You also have no excuse for getting in his face yourself. If his presence makes you feel "hinkey" ... leave.
Something I've heard from many self defense experts is, if approached and you get that uneasy feeling, address the person, making eye contact and "letting them know that you're aware of them".
So... you're walking down the street in Anytown, and a group of youths starts approaching you. You "confront" them, possibly taking a somewhat defensive stance as you ask them some variant of "What's up?"...
How is that different from what I've suggested?
And what if he remains within his constitutional rights and stays where he is, and continues taking photos? What then?
I may or may not call the police (non emergency), and report someone that seems to be acting in a somewhat suspicious way. Really depends on the vibe I get...
Strings, a man is taking some pictures of a group of trees at a public park, and your child is in several of the frames. You walk up to him and say whatever it is you say to figure out what he's doing/accuse him of taking photos of your child. He does not even look at you and simply says "sir/ma'am, that's none of your business" while continuing to take pictures.
What is your next step?
Hard to say, as I've never encountered that particular situation. Usually, people either respond in a polite way, or get nervous and start protesting.
A simple "That's not really your business" doesn't seem to come up, outside of internet discussion. Maybe those here with that mindset have never "set off" a parent's alarms?
Ever consider that the reason for my behavior and attitude might lie with pompous asses who think my legal activities are any of their business?
While taking pictures of others' children, I'd suggest that it might be something to consider as "impolite". Anytime I've taken a picture of a child, I've gotten permission (even in foreign countries).
If expecting that kind of civility makes me a "pompous ass", ok. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
And I'd like to address the "Captain America" thing.
... the hell?
And you think that the only acceptable solution is to harass people you deem "suspicious" for their lawful behavior in a place you wish to sterilize.
So... walking up to someone engaged in an activity involving someone (however remotely) in your care, and asking them a couple questions in a reasonable tone and manner, constitutes harassment? Wow... that's news to me
One wouldn't be, but here's a news flash for ya; you ain't the only one that secretly wishes for a cape and tights. Every five minutes, there's another superhero wanna-be busybody asking the same questions, or putting on a tough-guy show in the middle of my shot.
Again... the Hell? Can you knock off the ad hominem?
Although I CAN see where having multiple people ask them same question, over and over, would get irritating. I can also see where, after a few people, you might just snap at the next one. So... everyone should just ignore potential problems?
By leaving it unattended or at least less attended in what "superparent" apparently feels is an unsafe environment? Again, if you feel they're threatened, your responsibility is to get them away from the threat, Not to play Billy Badass. If you don't feel they're threatened, leave the other users of the park the hell alone. Besides, while you're pestering me, the real bad guy has a much easier chance as neither of us will be watching as carefully for him.
No... I can do a pretty good job of keeping an eye on a child while talking to someone. Nor is it playing "Billy Badass": you're making a BUNCH of assumptions here, and getting to the point of being abusive...
I notice that none of the busybodies confronted the guy who stabbed a mother in the park a few weeks ago. Not even after the stabbing; literally dozens of people watched him as he casually walked away, and they didn't want to get involved beyond that. Never mind that he was still armed and within 30 feet of a group of kids until he left. Once they saw he was a real bad guy, and they were all too scared of him to do anything.
Wasn't there, first I've heard of it. And yes, I would have "gotten involved" in some manner (manner depending on circumstances, but a discussion for another thread)...
Groups of youths walk up to me all the time. Most of the time, they even speak to me. I haven't killed one for such arrogance yet. Heck, I took Libby to the park this afternoon and at least three different youths passed within arm's reach of both of us, and I didn't even draw either gun or the pepper spray. I even left the kubotan and the knife put away. As long as they stay off my - and my employer's - private property, or state a sensible reason for entering it, and keep their hands off me and mine, I stay ready to deal with any actual problem that arises to the best of my ability, and otherwise leave them alone. With the exception of a few who have much higher-than-normal situational awareness, they're not likely to notice any difference between that encounter and any other they might have that day.
Kinda dealt with this above: happy to get more detailed, if you want...
They call it "stand your ground" for a reason. What you're proposing is called "escalate the situation and hope you can shoot faster." Much like anyone with half a brain doesn't pull out in front of a speeding 18-wheeler just because they know the truck has a yield sign.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't see how approaching someone and asking a couple questions is "escalating the situation"
I am not your psychiatrist. I am not responsible for your insecurities. If I don't 'make your "hinkey feelings" go away,' that's your problem. Go home and deal with it yourself.
Thanks... the point I was trying to make is WAY over there (points towards New Mexico).
I am NOT saying that this should be an automatic escalation after talking to the person. That MAY be an option to use, depending on the totality of the circumstances. Which would require a whole other post to cover a few of them (and most of the APS bandwidth to try and cover "all")...
-
No surprise. Most pro-gunners aren't actually pro-freedom, they are just pro-freedoms-that-they-like. This thread perfect proof of that.
I take exception to that. My personal experience I alluded to earlier was having some doofy call the cops to hassle me because I was carrying in accordance with the laws of my state and city. Several others arguing against calling the police on someone who is acting lawfully are also supporters of the second amendment.
-
So you're not going to answer my question?
I asked "Strings, a man is taking some pictures of a group of trees at a public park, and your child is in several of the frames. You walk up to him and say whatever it is you say to figure out what he's doing/accuse him of taking photos of your child. He does not even look at you and simply says "sir/ma'am, that's none of your business" while continuing to take pictures.
What is your next step?"
And your answer is just "well most people don't do that"?
-
KGBS... his point was over there, right next to the one KD5NRH missed... ;)
So you both understand: you COMPLETELY missed the points you quoted, taking them the opposite of what was intended.
I'm pretty sure the "pro-freedoms-they-like" thing was aimed at my side of the discussion...
So you're not going to answer my question?
Gimmie a sec... checking...
I did address that. Since I've NEVER had someone reply in such a fashion, I can't really say what my next step is.
If he sounds incredibly frustrated, I might assume it's a guy like KD5NRH talks about (who's been pestered all day). I'd probably appologize, explain why I was bothering him, and go from there.
If he was calm and polite (basically the way you worded the response), I might pay more attention to his actions as the day progressed, but probably no more than that.
If he popped off with something like "It's none of your f$^&*&^ business, m%^&&*(&^&*^&* f&^#$#^! I'm perfectly f*%$#@* legal to take all the pictures I want of your f*%$#@#%^& brats, all f&^%$%&&* day long! Now PISS OFF!!!", I'd probably call the police (non-emergency) and talk to them about the guy in the park who seems to be having a problem.
Yes, I'm a bastard that way. It's mom's fault, that.
-
Something I've heard from many self defense experts is, if approached and you get that uneasy feeling, address the person, making eye contact and "letting them know that you're aware of them".
A guy standing in full view in a public place holding an SLR is well aware that everyone around is aware of him. "Eye contact" from a distance is also a far cry from directly confronting.
So... you're walking down the street in Anytown, and a group of youths starts approaching you. You "confront" them, possibly taking a somewhat defensive stance as you ask them some variant of "What's up?"...
How is that different from what I've suggested?
They approach you. The first step in escalating any situation is the approach. If you're stationary and making eye contact from 20+ yards away, no reasonable person is going to feel threatened unless you have a firearm in hand and in view. A reasonable person carrying visible and expensive equipment is likely to feel threatened, however, when singled out and approached, particularly by a large unknown male not obviously in a police or other appropriate uniform. I guarantee that if I'm carrying a month's pay worth of electronics and a person looks me and my gear over, then goes out of their way to approach me, I will be preparing for a robbery. If that person approaches to within unarmed combat range without very clearly demonstrating a harmless intent, I will have to assume that they are preparing to do me harm or risk being way behind the curve if they do. Multiply that by some borderline ridiculous factor if my daughter is with me. When you put an armed person into condition orange or near-red intentionally and unnecessarily like that, you're playing with fire.
Even when I'm being paid to deal with suspicious activity, I either observe from a distance, and preferably full concealment, until some actual crime or act with a definite appearance of a crime can be confirmed, or clearly identify myself and my intentions from a safe distance before approaching.
Yes, the latter may involve some godawful bright lights and "command voice" orders to show hands, (or a simple "can I help you find someone?") but it only happens to people who are on client property, and thus are either trespassing or have signed the policy agreeing that they may be challenged at any time while on the property. If they're on the public street, I keep my nose out of their business unless I see a crime in progress.
So... walking up to someone engaged in an activity involving someone (however remotely) in your care, and asking them a couple questions in a reasonable tone and manner, constitutes harassment? Wow... that's news to me
Asking a stranger something that is none of your business is not polite conversation. Going out of your way to confront someone with a demand for information that is none of your business is harrassing. Especially when you intend, as you have stated here, to use the police to further disrupt their lawful activities if they don't go out of their way to make you feel comfortable.
Although I CAN see where having multiple people ask them same question, over and over, would get irritating. I can also see where, after a few people, you might just snap at the next one. So... everyone should just ignore potential problems?
Removing yourself and those in your care from the situation that makes you uncomfortable is not "ignoring the problem."
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't see how approaching someone and asking a couple questions is "escalating the situation"
As stated above, and in security and LE training, approaching is a form of escalation. Approaching unnecessarily is, therefore, choosing to escalate.
-
This thread is really weird. Just imagine if Manedwolf were here.
-
Whatever happened to him anyways? I was out of the loop for a while.
-
Am I the only one who wants to follow Hawk, Ragnar, and KD5 around videotaping them and their kids then getting pissy if anyone objects? The irony would be hilarious.
-
Am I the only one who wants to follow Hawk, Ragnar, and KD5 around videotaping them and their kids then getting pissy if anyone objects? The irony would be hilarious.
Do it in a fursuit. That'd make it REALLY hilarious.
-
Libertarianschadenfreude =D
-
After following this thread for some time, I have decided to pick a side in the debate. For the record:
If I were in a public place, enjoying my constitutional right to take pictures of my ugly kids, and some other creep besides me starting taking pictures of my ugly kids, I would very calmly flip out and punch them in the face. And if some creep got all in my face because their ugly kids got in the way of my camera and they thought I was some pedo, I would flip out and punch their kids in the face.
-
After following this thread for some time, I have decided to pick a side in the debate. For the record:
If I were in a public place, enjoying my constitutional right to take pictures of my ugly kids, and some other creep besides me starting taking pictures of my ugly kids, I would very calmly flip out and punch them in the face. And if some creep got all in my face because their ugly kids got in the way of my camera and they thought I was some pedo, I would flip out and punch their kids in the face.
Ah, the Solomon solution. I like it.
-
Something I've heard from many self defense experts is, if approached and you get that uneasy feeling, address the person, making eye contact and "letting them know that you're aware of them".
So... you're walking down the street in Anytown, and a group of youths starts approaching you. You "confront" them, possibly taking a somewhat defensive stance as you ask them some variant of "What's up?"...
How is that different from what I've suggested?
It is different because in the scenario of the photographer in the park, he is not approaching you, he is sitting or standing somewhere doing the take pictures thing with his camera. You are not approached. Any confronting is done by you, at your initiation.
You honestly can't comprehend the difference between a GROUP of youths approaching you in a threatening manner and one person taking photographs and not approaching you or interacting with you in any way?
-
Am I the only one who wants to follow Hawk, Ragnar, and KD5 around videotaping them and their kids then getting pissy if anyone objects? The irony would be hilarious.
There is a legal term that applies to following someone around and videotaping them. It's called "stalking," and it's against the law. If you do that to me, I will call the police ... but you will not be engaged in lawful behavior, so it's not an analagous situation.
Stalking is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed here is a person in a public place, taking photographs that you think might include your kid.
Let's stay on topic, shall we?
-
There is a legal term that applies to following someone around and videotaping them. It's called "stalking," and it's against the law. If you do that to me, I will call the police ... but you will not be engaged in lawful behavior, so it's not an analagous situation.
Stalking is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed here is a person in a public place, taking photographs that you think might include your kid.
Let's stay on topic, shall we?
Ooohhhh, ok. I'm glad it's only bad when it's stalking. I'm also glad stalkers are SO OBVIOUS you can automatically tell them from someone just trying to look like he's randomly snapping pictures of trees while surreptitiously taking pictures of your children for nefarious purposes.
Stalkers are required to wear a sign notifying people of their intentions, right? Or the parks are "stalking-free zones"?
-
Pictures =/= video.
-
Stalking is not what is being discussed here.
Let's stay on topic, shall we?
Well I don't know about that.... I rather thought the point of the scenario was the ignorance of the parent. The purpose of the photographer is unknown. Enough evidence exists to think he could be taking pictures of your kid, all sneaky like with the cropping and enlarging, and using them as wallpaper back at his pedo pad. Its all about suspicion. Mostly about dispelling it. If something strikes you as odd, be a reasonable person, mosey on over and give the person a 'good morning' like a normal human being rather than flee. If the encounter continues to set off alarm bells, see something, say something, is an appropriate action. Comforting the citizenry by investigation is a reasonable police action. We'll look into that ma'am is fine. We've discussed how looking at things in public places is ok, so why alarm for someone doing it while wearing a blue shirt?
:posts his doubts, for the record:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W5tpbTJ7V8
-
Ooohhhh, ok. I'm glad it's only bad when it's stalking. I'm also glad stalkers are SO OBVIOUS you can automatically tell them from someone just trying to look like he's randomly snapping pictures of trees while surreptitiously taking pictures of your children for nefarious purposes.
Stalkers are required to wear a sign notifying people of their intentions, right? Or the parks are "stalking-free zones"?
You don't seem to be aware that stalking is actually a crime with clearly defined elements in statute, by state law.
Taking pictures in a public place that may or may not contain children is not one of those elements. Prolonged willful contact with the subject of said stalking is. So yes, following someone, camera or not, CAN be considered a crime. Taking pictures in a park cannot.
-
I am intrigued that many participants in this thread came to APS from "gun" boards and probably have no use for soccer moms who feeeeeeel "hinkey" when they see a man with a gun, yet these same people want us to believe it's not the same thing if they feeeeeel "hinkey" about a man with a camera.
Can we spell "double standard," kids?
-
I am intrigued that many participants in this thread came to APS from "gun" boards and probably have no use for soccer moms who feeeeeeel "hinkey" when they see a man with a gun, yet these same people want us to believe it's not the same thing if they feeeeeel "hinkey" about a man with a camera.
Can we spell "double standard," kids?
That was my impression throughout this thread, as well. It seems to run rampant across all walks of life; whenever an issue comes up that they don't like, logic leaves them and feelings take hold.
When it's pointed out, strawman arguments are then flung around repeatedly, hyperbole to "prove a point" is used, and the debate quickly spirals downward toward being just another back and forth argument instead of a proper intellectual debate.
In any case, Strings, we are all this much more away of this "holiday", feelings and such aside. Having more people know what to look out for is a good thing, as always.
-
That was my impression throughout this thread, as well. It seems to run rampant across all walks of life; whenever an issue comes up that they don't like, logic leaves them and feelings take hold.
When it's pointed out, strawman arguments are then flung around repeatedly, hyperbole to "prove a point" is used, and the debate quickly spirals downward toward being just another back and forth argument instead of a proper intellectual debate.
In any case, Strings, we are all this much more away of this "holiday", feelings and such aside. Having more people know what to look out for is a good thing, as always.
And I get the impression we've got a bunch of hyperbole thrown around about how your rights are being trampled if anyone DARE approach you and ask you what you're up to. Apparently casual conversation is a horrible breach of your rights to be free from interacting with anyone else in this world.
-
And I get the impression we've got a bunch of hyperbole thrown around about how your rights are being trampled if anyone DARE approach you and ask you what you're up to. Apparently casual conversation is a horrible breach of your rights to be free from interacting with anyone else in this world.
I don't recall stating that. Also, this is a prime example of the hyperbole to "prove a point" I'm speaking of, actually.
-
I don't recall stating that. Also, this is a prime example of the hyperbole to "prove a point" I'm speaking of, actually.
No, you're just defending those who have said that:
Ever consider that the reason for my behavior and attitude might lie with pompous asses who think my legal activities are any of their business?
-
No, you're just defending those who have said that:
Thanks for ignoring the blatant hyperbole you've used. ;)
Also, I don't consider what KD5NRH said to be anywhere NEAR what you said about trampling rights, etc. If someone comes up to me in public and starts accusing me of being a pedophile or breaking the law or threatens me, you're damn right I'd be mad too. That's sure as hell not casual conversation, as you were stating here:
And I get the impression we've got a bunch of hyperbole thrown around about how your rights are being trampled if anyone DARE approach you and ask you what you're up to. Apparently casual conversation is a horrible breach of your rights to be free from interacting with anyone else in this world.
And, as shown by kgbsquirrel's digging through the thread, repeated veiled threats have been made by various people - again, not casual conversation by a long shot.
So, all that aside, why are you stating I'm defending an extreme position, and could you please point out said extreme position?
-
Thanks for ignoring the blatant hyperbole you've used. ;)
Also, I don't consider what KD5NRH said to be anywhere NEAR what you said about trampling rights, etc. If someone comes up to me in public and starts accusing me of being a pedophile or breaking the law or threatens me, you're damn right I'd be mad too. That's sure as hell not casual conversation, as you were stating here:
And, as shown by kgbsquirrel's digging through the thread, repeated veiled threats have been made by various people - again, not casual conversation by a long shot.
So, all that aside, why are you stating I'm defending an extreme position, and could you please point out said extreme position?
And, as you've made a similar request- please point out where I've suggested threatening, veiled or otherwise, and anything other than observation and documentation.
Just as you can claim you haven't been dogmatic and emotional, I can make the same claim.
You don't have a right to be free from interference while you are out doing anything just as I don't have a right to expect my children won't be photographed by random strangers. However, as I accept that risk and attempt to mitigate that risk by observing possible threats, you might wish to take certain actions to mitigate threats to interference with your legal activities. You know, like respond to someone politely and explain you're just shooting trees for a project.
-
And, as you've made a similar request- please point out where I've suggested threatening, veiled or otherwise, and anything other than observation and documentation.
No, you're just defending those who have said that. ;)
You don't have a right to be free from interference while you are out doing anything...
I don't recall saying I did. What I do expect to be free of is people not thinking, but feeling that they need to call the police.
Second issue; you might wish to take certain actions to mitigate threats to interference with your legal activities.
Indeed, like discussing the issue of whether to call the police on a hinkey feeling or not? ;)
-
No, you're just defending those who have said that. ;)
I don't recall saying I did. What I do expect to be free of is people not thinking, but feeling that they need to call the police.
If someone pings my "something's hinkey" meter, that's a feeling. If interaction with that person doesn't allay those feelings, that's suspicion. I will contact the police because such a person is acting suspiciously.
Simply taking photos is not enough to ping my "something's hinkey" meter. In fact, given how likely the human mind is to dismiss such feelings as paranoia, if something has pinged my "something's hinkey" meter enough that I think I need to call the police, there is something seriously wrong that I cannot yet articulate. That's what your "something's hinkey" meter is. It's your subconcious telling you something's wrong and you need to figure out what it is.
Your "feelings" augment your logic as your logic augments your "feelings". Dismissing suspicion is as foolish as walking down a dark alley at night. Yeah it IS probably nothing, but ignoring it isn't the best choice.
-
In fact, most people here are trying to AVOID escalation to the point of contacting police.
That's why nearly everyone on my side has been saying they'd go talk with the person first.
The other side seems to want to think that's escalation. Would you prefer you just get the cops called on you or simply have people ask what's going on?
You know, like if someone gets frightened by your gun, you'd much prefer someone call the police rather than come talk to you, right?
-
i think the plaint about hyperbole is amusing since in the thread i read the threats of violence veiled or otherwise were all after several steps were taken in a more reasonable vein and things had escalated. i e you walk up (a legal activity)and in the interaction the guys gives yo a bad vibe so you take out your cam phone (legal activity to be referred to as la from here on) , take his picture la , respond to his inquiry as to why la , tell him you intend to turn it over to the cops la,its only at that point that his interaction with you might engender some kinda physical response and depending on what that is it might well fall under la as well. for example if when i say i'm gonna turn the photo over to the cops after i check the online list his eyes get big and he runs i might react. depends if he can outrun me or not. either way i turn the pics over and the cops can checkla and if hes a short eyes they can violate him laand send him back. these guys are stupidly brazen sometimes just had one locked up here for hanging out at the local high school.
if i take a pic la of someone suspicious and let the cops have it la they can then keep an eye out la if they cqtch someone who only seems to take landscape shots near places with children thay can keep a close eye on them la
if i were to stomp some guy who was a child molester i'd be pretty comfy going before a jury here . heck the ca here is so rabid about hanging pervs. i might not get charged.
if i assault some innocent i deserve to get a cell and three hots and a cot. my instincts are pretty well honed about sorting the good guys from the bad hence i'm still breathing.
as someone pointed out the parents have the right to pack up their kids. also folks who don't like being walked up to by parents have the right to pack up. or file a claim or charge about their constitutional right not to be annoyed being violated.
-
the hinkey feeling is often counter to my feelings. as an example we had a cop down here who gave rad classes to women. i knew him did work for him felt he was a nice guy. one day i sat in on a class. something set off that feeling . was hard to put my finger on it. i put it aside said i was imagining things. then he got busted for rape in another jurisdiction. in retrospect i see that what set me off was that he wasn't doing those classes he was practicing. he got convicted once but the investigation showed a series of assaults at several places where he had lived. i've lerned to trust my gut but seek confirmation
-
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/SFPD-deem-alleged-playground-lurker-not-a-threat-92229949.html
Which one of you was this? Fistful, were you in California and didn't tell us??
-
If someone is open carrying, more power to them. If someone is open carrying and acting erratically, I might call the cops. Guess I'm one of those evil freedom haters eager to oppress the people who I don't like. I seem to recall the same charges in the "Should people be allowed to have sex in public" discussion. I'm strangely comfortable with it. You wacky libertarians, wanting all the benefits of society and pissing and moaning about the obligations.
-
I don't recall stating that. Also, this is a prime example of the hyperbole to "prove a point" I'm speaking of, actually.
So, all that aside, why are you stating I'm defending an extreme position, and could you please point out said extreme position?
He was probably referring to this statement.
I detest pedophiles, but trampling constitutional and civil rights is not the way to protect children.
So here's a question. What would someone have to do before you all would be ok with calling the cops? Is an actual crime (currently in progress) the only reason one should contact the cops? Apparently suspicious activity isn't enough. I was asked to justify my report in terms of Terry, then when I articulated that I was told that since the activity in question was not illegal it didn't count. I found that funny, since it seems to imply that the only justification for a Terry stop is witnessing a crime in progress. And again I reiterate, non-LEOs are not bound by Terry no matter how much some people on here apparently want them to be.
-
To some extent. However, please keep in mind that most pedophiles WILL back away when confronted, which is the idea...
Pretty much.
You are entering into the arena of thought control.
Hysteric much? I thought that was reserved for paranoid soccer moms. Guess not.
FTR, approaching & talking =! thought control. This is not the "arena of thought control." Heck, this isn't even the "zip code of thought control."
Sorry, I just can't go along with that. Either we live in a nation of laws, or we don't.
Legal is legal. If the person isn't breaking a law, you have no excuse for calling a cop. You also have no excuse for getting in his face yourself. If his presence makes you feel "hinkey" ... leave.
99/100 interactions with other people touch on no laws and are governed by social convention, tradition, norms, mores, etc(0). It is morally crippled folk like the Clintons who make the faulty assumption that legal = good.
The bold-face bit is false and I would bet dollars to donuts you don't live that way(1).
No surprise. Most pro-gunners aren't actually pro-freedom, they are just pro-freedoms-that-they-like. This thread perfect proof of that.
Care to show any evidence supporting your (so far) baseless assertion? Where is it written that approaching and speaking with folk is anti-freedom? Where is it written that calling the cops when observing suspicious activity is anti-freedom?
If you have such a difficult time dealing with other people that you feel your liberty is being trampled when they approach and speak with you, I would submit the problem is yours.
(0) Unless one is a complete social basket case full of rage and the only thing keeping one from violence is the threat of legal consequences.
(1) If you have lived in a neighborhood for much time, you get to know who lives there, what they drive, who their kids are, the neighborhood routines (Elementary school lets out at this time, HS at that time, etc.). People/autos not of the neighborhood acting oddly will stand out and catch one's attention. Sometimes they will arouse suspicion enough to act on it. For instance it is legal for an unfamiliar auto to slowly drive down the alley and stop to take a gander at the garages that are open. It is also behavior associated with burglars. Flagging them down with a big grin and saying "Hi" to get a good look at them and demonstrate they have been noticed or, if one is more cautious, calling the PD, is what helps nabs thieves or convinces them to seek prey elsewhere.
-
So here's a question. What would someone have to do before you all would be ok with calling the cops? Is an actual crime (currently in progress) the only reason one should contact the cops? Apparently suspicious activity isn't enough. I was asked to justify my report in terms of Terry, then when I articulated that I was told that since the activity in question was not illegal it didn't count. I found that funny, since it seems to imply that the only justification for a Terry stop is witnessing a crime in progress. And again I reiterate, non-LEOs are not bound by Terry no matter how much some people on here apparently want them to be.
You are correct -- the guidelines for a Terry stop, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, apply to the police, not to the public. But as the public you don't have any right to interrogate or to detain a person anyway, so it's a moot point. (Yes, you may ask a person who he is and what he's doing, but you have no authority under any circumstances to compel him to respond, or even to acknowledge your presence.)
So you have a right to call the police if you feel hinkey. Just like Suzie Soccermom has a right to call the cops if she sees someone carrying a holstered handgun in a place where doing so is completely legal. The question is what the cops do with the call. Properly, the dispatcher should ask, in the case of either a photographer or a man with a gun, "What is this person doing that you think is illegal?" If Suzie Soccermom says,"But ... but ... but he's got a GUN!" the dispatcher should terminate the incident right there by saying, "M'am, that's legal in this state. Have a nice day."
In the case of the photographer, the caller would say something like,"Well, he's ... he's ... he's taking PICTURES! Of CHILDREN!!!" Again, the dispatcher's question should be, "But what law is he breaking?" Absent a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, a police officer has NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to initiate a Terry stop. Given that there is no indication of a law being broken, you have to wonder about the professionalism of a dispatcher (or the policies of the department) if a dispatcher sends out an officer on a call where the caller cannot provide any indication that any crime is being committed.
Taking photographs is not illegal.
Taking photographs of YOUR children in a public park is not illegal -- even if you didn't grant permission.
Taking photographs of fully-clothed children playing in a park home and enlarging said photographs to seventeen times full life size is not illegal.
Deal with it.
-
Hysteric much? I thought that was reserved for paranoid soccer moms. Guess not.
FTR, approaching & talking =! thought control. This is not the "arena of thought control." Heck, this isn't even the "zip code of thought control."
No, the thought control issue is that some people in this thread are getting all upset because they think some alleged pedophile may take a picture of their child (a legal activity) and may then take said photo home and ... think dirty thoughts about the child (also a legal activity). So they wish to prevent the person from possibly using their child as the object of dirty thoughts by infringing on the photographer's legal right to be in a public place and to take photographs.
There's no law against thinking dirty thoughts. Some of you are talking like there is.
-
Where is it written that calling the cops when observing suspicious activity is anti-freedom?
People who call the cops on open carriers are accurately considered anti-freedom by gun owners. However this thread proves that many gun owners would not hesitate to call the cops on someone doing something that is legal, but that they personally dislike and are unlikely to do themselves. Calling the cops on people who are doing things that you personally dislike is anti-freedom.
It's not surprising that gun owners are in general not really pro-freedom, but simply pro-gun. And often they aren't really pro-gun either, but "pro-guns that I am likely to want"--there are many Fudds even within gun culture that don't care about EBRs being legal, etc.
Groups of people in general tend to organize by attitude and not care about those outside their own group. When I go to camera shows, they put up "no guns allowed" signs. When I go to gun shows, they put up "no cameras allowed" signs.
-
People who call the cops on open carriers are accurately considered anti-freedom by gun owners. However this thread proves that many gun owners would not hesitate to call the cops on someone doing something that is legal, but that they personally dislike and are unlikely to do themselves. Calling the cops on people who are doing things that you personally dislike is anti-freedom.
If anyone in this thread was doing that you might have a point. Suspicious != mere dislike.
It's not surprising that gun owners are in general not really pro-freedom, but simply pro-gun. And often they aren't really pro-gun either, but "pro-guns that I am likely to want"--there are many Fudds even within gun culture that don't care about EBRs being legal, etc.
Wow, broad brush and false allegation much?
-
In the case of the photographer, the caller would say something like,"Well, he's ... he's ... he's taking PICTURES! Of CHILDREN!!!" Again, the dispatcher's question should be, "But what law is he breaking?" Absent a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, a police officer has NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to initiate a Terry stop. Given that there is no indication of a law being broken, you have to wonder about the professionalism of a dispatcher (or the policies of the department) if a dispatcher sends out an officer on a call where the caller cannot provide any indication that any crime is being committed.
Taking photographs is not illegal.
Taking photographs of YOUR children in a public park is not illegal -- even if you didn't grant permission.
Taking photographs of fully-clothed children playing in a park home and enlarging said photographs to seventeen times full life size is not illegal.
Deal with it.
Wearing a ski mask is not illegal.
Taking video of security measures is not illegal.
Keeping detailed logs of when cash is taken to the bank is not illegal.
Deal with it.
;/
-
Or since people keep relating this to guns...
Open carry is legal.
Walking down the street yelling incoherently is legal.
If I saw someone combine those two, I'd call the cops. Guess I just like trampling freedom.
-
I've read most of this thread and it feels like the main disagreement is in the level of risk associated with someone taking pics in a park. Some people seem to think a person doing this is likely to be a predator, others seem to think this is unlikely. No one seems to be concerned with expressing that portion of their opinion.
-
I've read most of this thread and it feels like the main disagreement is in the level of risk associated with someone taking pics in a park. Some people seem to think a person doing this is likely to be a predator, others seem to think this is unlikely. No one seems to be concerned with expressing that portion of their opinion.
The disagreement is not with taking pics. It is a series of circumstances that start with taking pics.
-
What other circumstances?
-
What other circumstances?
The photog's demeanour when spoken to, chiefly. Much like a guy open carrying while ranting incoherently; not illegal per se, but plenty damn suspicious.
-
I've read most of this thread and it feels like the main disagreement is in the level of risk associated with someone taking pics in a park. Some people seem to think a person doing this is likely to be possibly a predator, others seem to think this is unlikely. No one seems to be concerned with expressing that portion of their opinion.
As I've said many times, someone who appears to be taking pictures of children will get a friendly, "hey, what's going on?"
I understand that most likely he isn't a predator which is why you approach him to make certain.
Just like with open carrying, I'd prefer people just come up and ask what's going on. If I respond calmly and tell them I want to be able to protect myself and my family and they call they cops, they're nuts. If I respond with screams of "None of your business!" and "It's my right; don't like it? SHOVE OFF!" I will likely get a discussion with the police and although I may be within my rights, I'm the one that's nuts.
Of course, some people think the second example is a perfectly reasonable way to deal with others in a public setting.
-
The photog's demeanour when spoken to, chiefly. Much like a guy open carrying while ranting incoherently; not illegal per se, but plenty damn suspicious.
A demeanor caused by you pestering him in the first place.
-
A demeanor caused by you pestering him in the first place.
Yep, how dare someone approach a person in a public place and ask a question. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT!111!
-
Just like with open carrying, I'd prefer people just come up and ask what's going on.
And when I open carry, I prefer people to mind their own damn business and not run their mouths at me when I'm out doing what I need to do.
-
Yep, how dare someone approach a person in a public place and ask a question. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT!111!
You can do whatever you want. But if you actions piss me off, that is on you not me. You cannot provoke an ill response and then say that response is a reason for you to be more suspicious.
Do you really not see that you, the annoying parent, are the catalyst for every single negative escalation in this entire scenario?
-
A demeanor caused by you pestering him in the first place.
I think this is the crux of the problem. Most people do not view a person speaking to them in a public place as an affront. If you are unable to cope with simple human interaction expect people to find your mundane actions suspicious.
You can do whatever you want. But if you actions piss me off, that is on you not me. You cannot provoke an ill response and then say that response is a reason for you to be more suspicious.
Do you really not see that you, the annoying parent, are the catalyst for every single negative escalation in this entire scenario?
You don't have a right to not be offended. I suggest you either deal with it, or leave the public area. Or does that logic only apply to parents? And again, if you can't cope with basic human interactions without freaking out and over reacting, that's your problem and you need to accept the consequences.
-
I would completely and utterly ignore you. And if you think that is reason enough for you to think I am extra suspicious, you have issues.
-
Just to clarify (again), people are suggesting storming up to every photographer screaming, "WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING PHOTOGRAPHING MY KIDS, PERVERT!?!?!"
We're suggesting approaching in a calm and polite manner and explain our concerns.
If you can't prevent yourself from escalating a situation over a polite question, maybe you shouldn't go out?
-
The questioning itself is the initiation/escalation. I don't owe you an account of my thoughts or actions. And you thinking I do because in your emotional mind everything is subservient to your kids is an affront.
-
I would completely and utterly ignore you. And if you think that is reason enough for you to think I am extra suspicious, you have issues.
That is suspicious. Someone ignoring a simple question that would take half a breath to answer and not even require that they look up from their camera indicates something is wrong with them.
Heck even a, "Sorry, I'm really trying to concentrate for these photos for __________ (my class, my job, my client, my hobby), could you please let me continue" would be fine. That's yet another normal response.
-
The questioning itself is the initiation/escalation. I don't owe you an account of my thoughts or actions. And you thinking I do because in your emotional mind everything is subservient to your kids is an affront.
Wow.
-
I think this is the crux of the problem. Most people do not view a person speaking to them in a public place as an affront. If you are unable to cope with simple human interaction expect people to find your mundane actions suspicious.
But most of the anti-photographer posts in this discussion begin with the assumption that anyone who is taking pictures that might include children MUST be a pervert/pedophile and that the photographer MUST be accosted and asked to explain himself. As an amateur photographer, I think that's annoying. I'm "into" cameras and photography much as I am "into" guns and cars. I love cameras and taking pictures. If I'm out shooting and someone wants to come over and chat about which model of Canon I have, why I prefer Canon to Nikon, what lens I'm using, how do I handle depth of field, etc., I'm happy to spend some time (within reason) discussing photography.
If someone who doesn't know jack about cameras walks up, though, and wants to know,"What are you doing?" my answer is probably going to be a curt "Taking pictures, what does it look like I'm doing?" And if the other person doesn't take the hint that I'm not interested in chatting up a total stranger about whatever HE wants to talk about, that's his problem. Having him try to make it MY problem by calling a cop because I am engaged in a lawful activity in a public place is harassment, nothing more, nothing less.
Let's remember -- this thread is not about someone who hides a camera in the girls locker room at the gymnasium or in the daughter's bedroom of their neighbor's house. This discussion is about a person with a camera in a PUBLIC park, where any children who might (or might not) be in some or all of the photos are presumably clothed at least to normal degrees. Thus, all presumptions that the photographer's action are "suspicious" are on the part of and in the mind of the parental unit. The photographer is doing NOTHING illegal.
-
If you can't prevent yourself from escalating a situation over a polite question, maybe you shouldn't go out?
If you can't convince yourself that asking complete strangers questions that are none of your business is not polite, maybe you shouldn't go out.
-
But most of the anti-photographer posts in this discussion begin with the assumption that anyone who is taking pictures that might include children MUST be a pervert/pedophile and that the photographer MUST be accosted and asked to explain himself.
Actually, they don't as far as I can see. Certainly not anywhere near "most".
-
But most of the anti-photographer posts in this discussion begin with the assumption that anyone who is taking pictures that might include children MUST be a pervert/pedophile and that the photographer MUST be accosted and asked to explain himself.
No one has said anything remotely resembling that and I challenge you to quote anyone who has. But keep on beating that strawman.
The photographer is doing NOTHING illegal.
You do understand the difference between reporting a crime in progress and reporting suspicious activity, right? Cause it kinda seems like you don't.
-
If you can't convince yourself that asking complete strangers questions that are none of your business is not polite, maybe you shouldn't go out.
I really wonder how some of you people function in normal life.
-
Yep, how dare someone approach a person in a public place and ask a question. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT!111!
If you see a guy surrounded by guys in suits, carrying briefcases and wearing earpieces, do you go over and chat him up? Why would you then assume that someone carrying a significant amount of valuable equipment would be less likely to see your unwarranted inquisitiveness as a setup to a robbery?
Plain and simple; if you were actually trying to keep the kids safe, your only reasonable action would be to remove them from the situation.
-
So the logical assumption when someone asks you a question is that they are setting you up for robbery, but the logical assumption for someone taking pictures of your kid is that they're totally innocent. Gotcha.
-
I really wonder how some of you people function in normal life.
Normal life doesn't involve approaching and harassing people, then trying to pass it off as "protecting the children."
-
So the logical assumption when someone asks you a question is that they are setting you up for robbery, but the logical assumption for someone taking pictures of your kid is that they're totally innocent. Gotcha.
Taking pictures in a public place is not approaching a stranger out of the blue in a threatening manner.
Yes, it is threatening when you've already stated your intent is to intimidate the person you have already decided is suspicious.
-
Normal life doesn't involve approaching and harassing people, then trying to pass it off as "protecting the children."
It'd be the assumption that a stranger talking to you is harassing and some type of escalation that would be what I'm referring to here.
Taking pictures in a public place is not approaching a stranger out of the blue in a threatening manner.
Yes, it is threatening when you've already stated your intent is to intimidate the person you have already decided is suspicious.
Again, no one is advocating that. I need to buy stock in the company that makes strawmen, this thread must be putting their profit margin through the roof.
-
I think the horse is dead guys.
-
one of the things i loathe about our society is things like this. as an example i few years back we were driving down 234 in mannassas saw a kid 8 maybe 10 crying walking down the road carrying a beagle that had been hit. we wanted to stop help him out give him a ride. see if the dog was dead or needed to see a vet. in todays world we called the cops to help him for fear folks might freak if we offered him a ride.
-
I think the horse is dead guys.
Agreed - I'm done posting in here, good debate all around, we have different stances that are, indeed, compatible in daily life (as I've met some people with the pro-LEO ideas, while I have the opposing thoughts)
In any case, we can all agree that yes, pedophiles are very bad people, and yes, we love our children....
:D
...but not in THAT way. ;)
So, let's just stop going back and forth and get back to the heart of the matter;
Strings, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I, for one, feel more prepared to understand pedophiles and identify them if something is going all hinkey (new word I enjoy) in public, especially if it's blatantly obvious. I never would have thought to take a picture for later ID if something arises, for example.
one of the things i loathe about our society is things like this... ...in todays world we called the cops to help him for fear folks might freak if we offered him a ride.
Indeed. I'm happy to live in a neighborhood here in Montana where people are friendly, kids are polite and outgoing, and neighbors help neighbors. A good example is that since I'm missing my kids (whom I never get to see again thanks to the ex) my neighbor has me come over and chat over tea when her granddaughter is staying for the day. It cheers me up, but according to some folks I might be "grooming" her. Today's world is just... depressing. =|
-
Again, no one is advocating that. I need to buy stock in the company that makes strawmen, this thread must be putting their profit margin through the roof.
About this time, most pedophiles would either get belligerent, or fade away. Escalation beyond this point is purely situational.
Because anyone who doesn't want to hang around and chat with a nosy biker must be a pedophile. It couldn't just be someone who doesn't want to be robbed.
-
Was thinking about this thread while at work this morning. I noticed one thing...
But most of the anti-photographer posts in this discussion begin with the assumption that anyone who is taking pictures that might include children MUST be a pervert/pedophile and that the photographer MUST be accosted and asked to explain himself. As an amateur photographer, I think that's annoying. I'm "into" cameras and photography much as I am "into" guns and cars. I love cameras and taking pictures. If I'm out shooting and someone wants to come over and chat about which model of Canon I have, why I prefer Canon to Nikon, what lens I'm using, how do I handle depth of field, etc., I'm happy to spend some time (within reason) discussing photography.
Honestly. most folks seeing someone taking pictures with a nice rig would probably shrug and write that person off as a simple shutterbug: I know I would. I might approach that person to ask them questions about their set-up (used to do photography for a local biker rag), but they would be less likely to set off any kind of creep-o-meter.
Kinda like a local cop, who told me he really doesn't worry too much when he sees someone carrying a nice pistol in a holster, but WILL stop someone with a cheap/beat up pistol tucked into their pants...
Indeed. I'm happy to live in a neighborhood here in Montana where people are friendly, kids are polite and outgoing, and neighbors help neighbors. A good example is that since I'm missing my kids (whom I never get to see again thanks to the ex) my neighbor has me come over and chat over tea when her granddaughter is staying for the day. It cheers me up, but according to some folks I might be "grooming" her. Today's world is just... depressing.
Oh, believe me... I know THAT feeling quite well.
I'm the guy that would start a game of pool tag at the local Y with all the kids, pops a quarter into the gumball machine for the kid whose mother says she can't afford it, etc. When I first learned about common grooming behaviors, I felt kinda dirty, to tell the truth.
But look at it this way: this whole situation IS very similar to carrying a gun. Many assaults are carried out using a handgun, as are robberies and other crimes. Doesn't make you a criminal by association though...
Regardless, I think this thread has run it's course. My intention was to raise awareness of a problem. Those who wish to use the info, have it available.
Those who seem to have a personal axe to grind with me... don't really care.
-
I have noticed a number of folks putting out the idea that just going up and asking questions is an innocuous activity, and should not be be met with suspicion or resentment. To me, that just doesn't jibe with real life people reactions.
If your "hinky meter" is going off, the likelihood of your "whatcha doin'" question coming off as accusatory or suspicious is pretty high. I think most people would realize that they are getting interviewed in a manner very similar to a police stop. Most people DO NOT take kindly to having to justify their presence and behavior in a public place to a total stranger.
Moreover, I don't think it is particularly paranoid to have one's own hinky meter go off if they are approached by a complete stranger who starts off with probing questions no matter how polite a face they try to put on it. I might wonder if I am getting "interviewed" by a mugger looking for a victim. I might start wondering if they have a partner waiting in the wings.
If I am ever at the park with my son, and my "hinky meter" goes off, I will likely leave the area and perhaps take a cell phone pic of the individual I have deemed suspicious for future reference. I'm not going to do an approach on a suspicious character when I have my son with me, as you never know how someone might snap.
If your worst suspicions are correct, you might be dealing with a person that doesn't have much to lose or has serious mental issues. I'm not going to get my kids caught up in such a potentially volatile situation.
-
My mind still boggles that speaking to someone is a suspicious and hostile act, while photographing someone's child is the height of unicorns and rainbows innocence. /walks off shaking head
-
My mind still boggles that speaking to someone is a suspicious and hostile act, while photographing someone's child is the height of unicorns and rainbows innocence. /walks off shaking head
If you're so worried about someone stealing your child's soul with the devil box, stay out of public places. It's that simple.
-
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/SFPD-deem-alleged-playground-lurker-not-a-threat-92229949.html
Which one of you was this? Fistful, were you in California and didn't tell us??
Did anybody get punched in the face? No? Then not me. IBTL
-
Did anybody get punched in the face? No? Then not me. IBTL
IBFPSPITF
(In Before Fistful Punches Some Photographer In The Face)
Also,
IBSAPGGAASOGAHAQ
(In Before Some Antisocial Photographer Guy Goes Apeshiite After Some Other Guy Asks Him A Question)