Don't be a creep!

Status
Not open for further replies.
goamules said:
Certain exceptions apply. Certain states have outlawed taking pictures of celebrity children, photographing autistic children in Arizona breaks confidentiality/special needs rules, for example. The constitution doesn't give you the right to be a rude, arrogant person. Though you may be. Lots of people use "the constitution" to justify their wrongheaded, bullying, and "in your face" behavior. Doesn't make it right in my mind. Which was my point, American sensibilities have long left the country, replaced by the "occupy anything" movement of our Complaintocracy.

Where does the constitution say you can bother your fellow man?

I'm out....
Click to expand...

I don't get the dig at the occupy movement, so I'll skip that part, but as for the Constitution protecting our right to be rude and arrogant, yes it does. Bullying? No it doesn't.

Your exceptions relate to areas that deal with what one DOES with photographs. In California it is illegal to harass or cause fear in a child by means of photography. This law is in response to paparazzi who cause children to fear when they crowd them at or after school in order to photograph their parents. The law has not been tested in court. In Texas it is against the law to photograph someone's genitals or bodily elimination activity without their knowledge, in order to curb certain types of exploitive pornography. This law has not been tested in a Federal court. And in Arizona ... did you make that up? I know of no law, nor can I find any information on one that prohibits photographing autistic minors. If this were true, I would be guilty, as I have photographed my son who may have asperger's syndrome often (see below.)

You state that I may be rude and arrogant. I disagree, I am neither. But neither am I an authoritarian who wishes to dictate to others in which constitutionally protected activities they may engage. Does the Constitution say I can bother my fellow man? No it does not. It doesn't say I have a right to be bothered by your behavior either.


attachment.php
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • _DSC5729.jpg
    _DSC5729.jpg
    149.4 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_1572.JPG
    IMG_1572.JPG
    84 KB · Views: 0
ruby.monkey said:
No, you could be beaten senseless with a now-broken lens, or punched in the teeth and then kicked in the head as you lie there bleeding, or stabbed, or shot, or...

Given how easily stupid situations like this can escalate due to ill-considered reactions, being arrested, charged with assault and criminal damage, going through the courts, potentially being sued on top of everything else, and so on, would be the easy option. Beating one's chest and playing the caveman is great over the internet, but absolutely frigging retarded in real life.
Click to expand...

Chances that stubborn zoomer is a violent type are minimal, only hope is he responds angrily if I wake up his instincts. I realize all possible consequences. Except being stabbed I can stand bleeding nose or smashed face if I have had a chance to tell him a simple truth - stop when you are asked and this doesn't cost you.

From todays perspective I admit that breaking lens would be stupid from just every perspective but if gone so far I would approach him and explain verbally that I gave him signs to not take my picture. So what? He did, I can't force him to change that. So better reaction would be shade face or make funny face when he took the shot. He would feel happy and run to post it on internet, no biggie, who is looking at this shots more than once.

I were responding on the emotional stir. There are too much laws and too much correctness today. One has a right to take pictures even if someone else disagrees just like one can fart despite what others think, and law covers him. That's a bad situation when people loose human face under coverage of law. And I firmly believe, still, there are situations - rare and unusual ones - when people deserve a lesson in rather straight manner, not because it's my usual way to deal with people but some types just are too detached, too rude for human interaction. Again, is a creepy shooter worth this? Avoiding being snapped would be just better.

P.S. Just thought that be OP not who he is but criminal authority or someone working for secret agency, zoom shooter could end up being searched and memory card confiscated, in best case. Left beaten or gear less in less good case. We never know for sure who appears in viewfinder. Once I took on the street photo of GF of local mighty one, and got insight they are very private about their images.
 
peterm1 said:
I agree - my point exactly. Those in this forum who keep going on about the "creeps" right to photograph someone who does not wish to be photographed are with respect missing the point entirely. Of course he has the legal right to do so. But only a putz (excuse the language) pushes his rights for no good reason especially when it clearly upsets someone else. As a matter of principle and good sense I try never to do that. (Besides which it makes for sh#tty images - who wants photos of someone giving you the finger?)
Click to expand...

Thanks for understanding my point :)
 
Rogier said:
Thanks for understanding my point
Click to expand...
What's your point about all the now-so-called "street photography" photos which were taken between 1930 and, say, 1980, and which are now considered to be masterpieces of some kind of photographic art (published in books, as fine art postcards and posters, widely exhibited during heavily promoted retrospectives, being the topic of many essays, etc), and on which practically none of the persons photographed had either been aware of being photographed, or given their permission to be ?

Are you going to do anything you can to help those people (or their heirs, because a large part of them have now passed away, probably) having their photos of them and their family members removed from where they are now ?

Don't forget to investigate to know why the large amount of dogs photographed by that creepy Elliott Erwitt guy had been shocked to be photographed so much. :D
 
Dan Daniel said:
Get over yourself. You're in public. Go ahead, make any hand gesture you want, block your face, put your hand in front of the lens, whatever. In the same way, people can wear clothes I find offensive, people can use cameras in ways that I find offensive, on and on.

But touch the guy and it's assault. Be ready to face the consequences.

Now there is a true creep element to this kind of photography. I had a camera and took a couple of shots across the street into Union Square while waiting for a light. A guy sidled up to me and mumbled something about,' you bobbie joe?' or some such thing. He finally realized that I had no idea what he was talking about, and then he mentioned a web site and went off. I looked at the web site later- up-skirt shots, women leaning over on the street, pure voyeuristic creep land.
Click to expand...

Touch is assault. YES SIMPLE TOUCH. Bad language is battery. Scaring him is disturbing the peace.

Police have a charge for everything under the sun. Forget it and walk on.
 
If it is explicitly legal in California to take pictures of people in public, what are you debating about?

If you dont like the law, change the law.
 
Bille said:
If it is explicitly legal in California to take pictures of people in public, what are you debating about?

If you dont like the law, change the law.
Click to expand...

Man, did you follow? It's not about right or law. Say, you and and your lady are standing on street and someone is offering a quickie to your wife, but you can't define it sex explicitly so forget court. Do you feel OK because it's legal? Don't like law because it doesn't protect your wife? Change the law!
 
Its the law which keeps you and I safe in our beds at night and not subject to the whims and fancies of how somebody "feels" about something or an issue.

There are plenty of countries however where this doesn`t apply ...you can see how they`re doing when you switch on the nightly news,
 
Folks, it doesn't all boil down to "the law". We shouldn't NEED laws for all the crap that goes down. The first thing that the ACLU, or an individual does when they don't like something is crowd the courts and try to enforce or enact "laws."

What about common sense and decency. Do we need to defer to some nameless, faceless government? To "law?" In the past, for thousands of years before the US constitution that is being interpreted every day different ways, the community determined what was wrong behavior. Someone asked above "...who gets to decide [when my photography is bullying, harrassment, etc]...you?" Well, yes, I do. As does all reasonable persons. That's the definition of a jury too, a group of reasonable persons.

Is it polite, mannerly, and non-aggressive to say "I'll take any picture I damn well please...you don't like it, go make it against the law"? In years past the village idiot, bully, or liar would be run out of town on a rail. Today, they rant and rave online, on street corners, and in front of public buildings about "their rights." Sorry, in my world you would NOT have a right to intrude on others. With music, photography, or anything. Yes, you have a right to "free speech" and "happiness" but not when it impacts mine. You take a picture of me or my kids when I tell you not to, and let's see what happens. 10,000 years of human decency, doesn't need to wait for the past couple 100 years of "the law"? It becomes one man having a little talk to another.

The law is an attempt to standardize what "the people" want. That means the average person. If most people don't want to be chased down by popparazi, or have cameras shoved in their faces on city streets, it should not be done. Would you do it in a little Mexican village where it's against their culture? On an Indian reservation who's people don't want to be photographed? Or are you just an "ugly Westerner", brandishing your technology and belief that you are better than everyone else, because, after all, this is your hobby and you want to do it?
 
Ronald M said:
Touch is assault. YES SIMPLE TOUCH. Bad language is battery. Scaring him is disturbing the peace.

Police have a charge for everything under the sun. Forget it and walk on.
Click to expand...
Wrong way around. Putting someone in reasonable fear of battery is an assault, and "the least touching of another in anger is a battery" (Cole v. Turner 1704).

Cheers,

R.
 
goamules said:
Folks, it doesn't all boil down to "the law". We shouldn't NEED laws for all the crap that goes down. The first thing that the ACLU, or an individual does when they don't like something is crowd the courts and try to enforce or enact "laws."

What about common sense and decency. Do we need to defer to some nameless, faceless government? To "law?" In the past, for thousands of years before the US constitution that is being interpreted every day different ways, the community determined what was wrong behavior. Someone asked above "...who gets to decide [when my photography is bullying, harrassment, etc]...you?" Well, yes, I do. As does all reasonable persons. That's the definition of a jury too, a group of reasonable persons.

Is it polite, mannerly, and non-aggressive to say "I'll take any picture I damn well please...you don't like it, go make it against the law"? In years past the village idiot, bully, or liar would be run out of town on a rail. Today, they rant and rave online, on street corners, and in front of public buildings about "their rights." Sorry, in my world you would NOT have a right to intrude on others. With music, photography, or anything. Yes, you have a right to "free speech" and "happiness" but not when it impacts mine. You take a picture of me or my kids when I tell you not to, and let's see what happens. 10,000 years of human decency, doesn't need to wait for the past couple 100 years of "the law"? It becomes one man having a little talk to another.

The law is an attempt to standardize what "the people" want. That means the average person. If most people don't want to be chased down by popparazi, or have cameras shoved in their faces on city streets, it should not be done. Would you do it in a little Mexican village where it's against their culture? On an Indian reservation who's people don't want to be photographed? Or are you just an "ugly Westerner", brandishing your technology and belief that you are better than everyone else, because, after all, this is your hobby and you want to do it?
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, that would be "the community" that suggested gang rape as a punishment for something that wasn't illegal: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-25897119 with special reference to the side-bar "Village 'Justice'"

The purpose of the law is to protect people from bigots and vigilantes. It's a backstop for when politeness and consideration have failed.

Also, what's all this nonsense about 'the past couple 100 years of "the law"'? Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi, about 3700 years ago? The (often vicious) laws promulgated in the Bible? As for "10,000 years of human decency", sure, right. Stoning, branding, torture, human sacrifice (including child sacrifice), ... everything was great until um... laws were brought in and enforced to restrain murderous bigots.

Fortunately, very few people care what you want in your own little private world. Most of us agree on (a) what's decent and (b) what the law ordains. If you can't see the difference, and why there's a difference, there's not really much hope.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Wrong way around. Putting someone in reasonable fear of battery is an assault, and "the least touching of another in anger is a battery" (Cole v. Turner 1704).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

... however, self-defence is available when reasonable force is used to prevent harm to self or another (CJA 1988) and he could reasonably fear for his family, I would suggest :)
 
10,000 years of human decency also involved cracking your neighbor's skull with a stone. Which is precisely what you are advocating.

Your decency is my violence. Which is why, thank God, we have the law. So that when a big bully punches someone's lights out for engaging in a lawful activity, even if said activity might appear to someone to be in poor taste, we can use the law to hit the bully where it hurts most: their wallet.

Speaking of communal justice and human decency, here's a lovely article about a nice group of village elders, enforcing their thousand year understanding of human decency: http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/a...a21944-83f9-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html.




goamules said:
Folks, it doesn't all boil down to "the law". We shouldn't NEED laws for all the crap that goes down. The first thing that the ACLU, or an individual does when they don't like something is crowd the courts and try to enforce or enact "laws."

What about common sense and decency. Do we need to defer to some nameless, faceless government? To "law?" In the past, for thousands of years before the US constitution that is being interpreted every day different ways, the community determined what was wrong behavior. Someone asked above "...who gets to decide [when my photography is bullying, harrassment, etc]...you?" Well, yes, I do. As does all reasonable persons. That's the definition of a jury too, a group of reasonable persons.

Is it polite, mannerly, and non-aggressive to say "I'll take any picture I damn well please...you don't like it, go make it against the law"? In years past the village idiot, bully, or liar would be run out of town on a rail. Today, they rant and rave online, on street corners, and in front of public buildings about "their rights." Sorry, in my world you would NOT have a right to intrude on others. With music, photography, or anything. Yes, you have a right to "free speech" and "happiness" but not when it impacts mine. You take a picture of me or my kids when I tell you not to, and let's see what happens. 10,000 years of human decency, doesn't need to wait for the past couple 100 years of "the law"? It becomes one man having a little talk to another.

The law is an attempt to standardize what "the people" want. That means the average person. If most people don't want to be chased down by popparazi, or have cameras shoved in their faces on city streets, it should not be done. Would you do it in a little Mexican village where it's against their culture? On an Indian reservation who's people don't want to be photographed? Or are you just an "ugly Westerner", brandishing your technology and belief that you are better than everyone else, because, after all, this is your hobby and you want to do it?
Click to expand...
 
Sparrow said:
... however, self-defence is available when reasonable force is used to prevent harm to self or another (CJA 1988) and he could reasonably fear for his family, I would suggest :)
Click to expand...
Dear Stewart,

Highlight: True, in common law as well as by statute, but irrelevant.

Sorry: who is the "he" in the second part?

Cheers,

R.
 
jsrockit said:
How do you know he was taking a picture of you and yours? Did you hear the shutter? I'm not being a wise ass, I'm just curious. I have had people think I'm making a photo of them a lot when I'm not... and I'm not using any telephotos. Many people assume I'm photographing them when I'm really interested in a store front or something. You also photograph so maybe you were more aware of what was happening, but people always seem to think they are a photographers focus when they may not be. It sounds like it went beyond this, but I was curious how you knew.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened to me just before taking a picture of some street art I metered the subject with my Minolta spotmeter, a very aggressive guy who was passing (I didn't notice him) threatened to shove my camera up my •*• if I'd taken his picture.

It's a lightmeter, I replied; he looked confused and stormed off-could have been the OP?
I'm not from California, but folks do get angry.
 
Sparrow said:
he could reasonably fear for his family, I would suggest :)
Click to expand...

By that you mean the OP? That him hitting the photographer could be seen as reasonable force-because of his 'fears for his family' –somehow I don't think so.
Someone looks at you strangely in a bar, you punch his lights out. Your defence is he 'looked at you funny' and you 'feared him'.
?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom