Alice Day: when did pedophiles get a holiday?

[taurusowner]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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?

[PTK]

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.

[makattak]

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.

[PTK]

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.

[makattak]

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?

[PTK]

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?

[makattak]

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.

[PTK]

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? 

[makattak]

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.

[makattak]

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?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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.
 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[Nitrogen]

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??

[Balog]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[zahc]

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. 

[Balog]

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?

[Balog]

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.

 

[Balog]

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.

[CNYCacher]

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.

[Balog]

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.