dazedgonebye
Veteran
RdEoSg said:
For bravo zulu see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_Zulu
I didn't know the queen shot with a Leica!
I recovered a stolen camera today!
- Thread starter RdEoSg
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 98
- Views 5K
- Status
For bravo zulu see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_Zulu
I didn't know the queen shot with a Leica!
BrianShaw
Well-known
Not that it really matters to the issue being discussed, but thank you for clarifying. It is very difficult to determine the gender of an optical design. 😉Plasmat said:
BrianShaw
Well-known
It's true, I heard. But her Majesty always shoots with her pinky-finger extended!dazedgonebye said:
popstar
Well-known
What a thread Chris! Well done on helping a school recover some of their property. I'm sure they appreciate your help. 'Nuff said....
dll927
Well-known
I wish to register my disagreement with "Magus" above.
A police officer stating that "your luck doesn't look good" DOES NOT constitute "anticipate a final verdict". Under the circumstances, it was probably a valid observation.
If it didn't say you are from France (also suspect), I might guess you were from Los Angeles. The LAPD has long been a favorite whipping boy of the news media. As in any bunch, there may be some crookedness, but that doesn't make the whole force guilty.
A police officer stating that "your luck doesn't look good" DOES NOT constitute "anticipate a final verdict". Under the circumstances, it was probably a valid observation.
If it didn't say you are from France (also suspect), I might guess you were from Los Angeles. The LAPD has long been a favorite whipping boy of the news media. As in any bunch, there may be some crookedness, but that doesn't make the whole force guilty.
dostacos
Dan
Plasmat said:
P
Plasmat
Guest
Having only been posting on rangefinderforum a short time, I'm pleased to find such intelligent posters here as telenous, and it was startling, educational and elevating to stumble on his extremely perceptive opinion in mid-thread.
I'm humbled at his acutely perceptive analysis of the factors in play here.
PS: one thing should be mentioned, in Southern California [where this happened] the owner/employees could EASILY been armed as well. It may be a matter of every day occurance that the bad guys return to businesses and shoot the shopkeepers in New York but that does not happen that often in California.
I would also not want to be in the position to have to shoot someone over a camera dispute, or for that matter shoot anyone else more or less deserving of such an ignominious dispatch.
I'm humbled at his acutely perceptive analysis of the factors in play here.
PS: one thing should be mentioned, in Southern California [where this happened] the owner/employees could EASILY been armed as well. It may be a matter of every day occurance that the bad guys return to businesses and shoot the shopkeepers in New York but that does not happen that often in California.
I would also not want to be in the position to have to shoot someone over a camera dispute, or for that matter shoot anyone else more or less deserving of such an ignominious dispatch.
Last edited by a moderator:
raid
Dad Photographer
FrankS said:
Frank: I agree with you.
A good citizen and a successful leader in life has to stand up for what is right and do this consistently even when there is a possible negative response. Let's not get panicking ... there still are good people left and there still is the law. If we start letting things slip because of fear, we may end up like many US citizens who were scared into a terrible war of destruction.
Raid
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
The idea of the thieves being "less fortunate than we are" is very beautiful. The fact is, in the western society most of the thieves are not less fortunate - they are healthy strong people who are lazy to do a proper dayjob. Just as most of the beggars through the Netherlands are big strong guys, though with a very fuzzy look.
All in all, i think a bit of common sense is what people should base their decisions on.
Our "hero" met the thief in person. He can judge his character the most from all of us. He can decide for himself if it was morally right, if it was a brave act, or if it was a risky thing to do.
I just hope the thief was not severely suffering from GAS.
All in all, i think a bit of common sense is what people should base their decisions on.
Our "hero" met the thief in person. He can judge his character the most from all of us. He can decide for himself if it was morally right, if it was a brave act, or if it was a risky thing to do.
I just hope the thief was not severely suffering from GAS.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I think it is easy to do that.BrianShaw said:
Most optical designs are male. There are a very few with a concave front element, those are female.
FrankS
Registered User
I think that I reacted as much to how Plasmat said it as to what he said. If he had worded it, "You acted like a good citizen, but do be careful in such circumstances," it would not have prompted me to respond. I'm sure that Plasmat is not advocating a purely selfish response in all cases. Certainly he must see the need/benefit of altruistic behaviour.
P
Plasmat
Guest
Of course, I do see the need for "altruistic" behavior depending on circumstance.
But then let's look at what "altruism" is.
Let's assume that the meaning of the "common good" is the behavior of the host organisms that tends to maximize the potential for the survival and future transmission of the DNA within those organisms.
In that case, altruism of say, a parent who dies saving his/her child is justified in a biological sense, and easy to comprehend.
It's harder to figure out the biological motive for something like the Battle of the Somme, where lives were lost in the tens of thousands per hour, but similar forces were at work. Nature seeks an equilibrium, the ultimate force at work is DNA preservation through the sacricifice of the hosts to some ultimate end. The meme for the battle was not for immediate survival, but for a grander goal of defense of a State, which presumably existed for the common good. A group survival mechanism, the death of a few for the life of the whole. But the battle was not for immediate survival, it was for an abstract concept.
So the group sentiment is very strong to preserve the order of society through "selflessness" in the recovery of a stolen camera, regardless of personal risk. The laudable goal of this adventure is now linked to the "preservation of the moral order of society", which can be extrapolated to be linked to the ideal that a well-ordered social structure of law is advantageous to the group aggregate, which is also the basis of "morality". Order creates higher potential for DNA survival. Sending the "bad man" to jail preserves order. It's pre-wired into us all. It's written in the Ten Commandments as the word of "God".
We can then reduce my shameful immorality to a simple cost/benefit judgement. I'm looking for a bargain.
I want to preserve the social order, but how much do I want to pay?
Do I sell myself cheap? Do I risk my DNA and my ability to pass it on to my heirs for for a low or high price?
Is a camera the right price for such risk? Or perhaps the abstract risk of enlisting to fight an "enemy" or to fight "terror" to preserve the structure of my home society?
Do I risk personal danger to return a ten million dollar item or a two hundred dollar camera? To kill an enemy for the common good?
Here's a question I ask myself, how much risk do I want every day to buy survival into the future?
I live 4 blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. On 9/11, hearing a terrible commotion, I turned on the radio and heard that a plane had hit one Tower. I assumed it was a Piper Cub. I took a Nikon Coolpix 990 and a Nikon F100 with tele zoom, and walked outside to pandemonium.
In my mind, I was capturing images of a historical event, living history that I felt obligated to document, even though I knew it was probably being shot by 5000 others. I stayed as close as I could and kept taking pictures, even when I realized that people were jumping out. I saw people falling in the viewfinder and stopped shooting, feeling too ghoulish, then started shooting again thinking "I should take pictures of this for posterity".
I barely escaped with my life, luckily for me, I realized the rumbling noise I heard was the beginning of the building collapse and started to run away.
My bargain was images at the risk of personal life. Creation of the images was a "benefit" in my mind. The risk was disaster, oblivion.
Would I want such to repeat such an adventure? In hindsight, no. The hijackers in the planes thought they were making a grand bargain, the best possible. They also made a judgement. They saw themselves as noble men who were as justified as any of you who would apprehend a thief or even shoot one.
Each day, you buy and sell.
But then let's look at what "altruism" is.
Let's assume that the meaning of the "common good" is the behavior of the host organisms that tends to maximize the potential for the survival and future transmission of the DNA within those organisms.
In that case, altruism of say, a parent who dies saving his/her child is justified in a biological sense, and easy to comprehend.
It's harder to figure out the biological motive for something like the Battle of the Somme, where lives were lost in the tens of thousands per hour, but similar forces were at work. Nature seeks an equilibrium, the ultimate force at work is DNA preservation through the sacricifice of the hosts to some ultimate end. The meme for the battle was not for immediate survival, but for a grander goal of defense of a State, which presumably existed for the common good. A group survival mechanism, the death of a few for the life of the whole. But the battle was not for immediate survival, it was for an abstract concept.
So the group sentiment is very strong to preserve the order of society through "selflessness" in the recovery of a stolen camera, regardless of personal risk. The laudable goal of this adventure is now linked to the "preservation of the moral order of society", which can be extrapolated to be linked to the ideal that a well-ordered social structure of law is advantageous to the group aggregate, which is also the basis of "morality". Order creates higher potential for DNA survival. Sending the "bad man" to jail preserves order. It's pre-wired into us all. It's written in the Ten Commandments as the word of "God".
We can then reduce my shameful immorality to a simple cost/benefit judgement. I'm looking for a bargain.
I want to preserve the social order, but how much do I want to pay?
Do I sell myself cheap? Do I risk my DNA and my ability to pass it on to my heirs for for a low or high price?
Is a camera the right price for such risk? Or perhaps the abstract risk of enlisting to fight an "enemy" or to fight "terror" to preserve the structure of my home society?
Do I risk personal danger to return a ten million dollar item or a two hundred dollar camera? To kill an enemy for the common good?
Here's a question I ask myself, how much risk do I want every day to buy survival into the future?
I live 4 blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. On 9/11, hearing a terrible commotion, I turned on the radio and heard that a plane had hit one Tower. I assumed it was a Piper Cub. I took a Nikon Coolpix 990 and a Nikon F100 with tele zoom, and walked outside to pandemonium.
In my mind, I was capturing images of a historical event, living history that I felt obligated to document, even though I knew it was probably being shot by 5000 others. I stayed as close as I could and kept taking pictures, even when I realized that people were jumping out. I saw people falling in the viewfinder and stopped shooting, feeling too ghoulish, then started shooting again thinking "I should take pictures of this for posterity".
I barely escaped with my life, luckily for me, I realized the rumbling noise I heard was the beginning of the building collapse and started to run away.
My bargain was images at the risk of personal life. Creation of the images was a "benefit" in my mind. The risk was disaster, oblivion.
Would I want such to repeat such an adventure? In hindsight, no. The hijackers in the planes thought they were making a grand bargain, the best possible. They also made a judgement. They saw themselves as noble men who were as justified as any of you who would apprehend a thief or even shoot one.
Each day, you buy and sell.
Alan
Newbie
I read up to page 8 and couldn't go on, but here's my 2 cents.
We all hate theifts and we'd love to see them prosecuted, but I would hate to see anything bad happening to Chris. Afterall, camera equipments are just camera equipments. It doesn't matter how much it cost it still can't replace any lives or personal injuries to anybody on this planet. Of course we might all have done the same thing if we only had a split of a second to think of the consequences, but I would rather see a criminal get away once than a good citizen harmed in any way.
We all hate theifts and we'd love to see them prosecuted, but I would hate to see anything bad happening to Chris. Afterall, camera equipments are just camera equipments. It doesn't matter how much it cost it still can't replace any lives or personal injuries to anybody on this planet. Of course we might all have done the same thing if we only had a split of a second to think of the consequences, but I would rather see a criminal get away once than a good citizen harmed in any way.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
There is one thing that you did not consider in your analysis Plasmat, and that is the magnitude of the risk, even driving carries in itself the risk of death in an accident (or walking around carries the risk of being run over), so what are all those idiots thinking of when they drive their cars?
Simple: the risk is low enough that it is worth taking compared to the benefit.
Similarly the risk that Chris took is small enough to justify behaving like a model citizen for the good of the community.
Unless of course if you live in a country where a high percentage of the people that try to oppose crime gets killed, but if that is the case (which I believe is not for the USA) then it's probably time to change country.
Simple: the risk is low enough that it is worth taking compared to the benefit.
Similarly the risk that Chris took is small enough to justify behaving like a model citizen for the good of the community.
Unless of course if you live in a country where a high percentage of the people that try to oppose crime gets killed, but if that is the case (which I believe is not for the USA) then it's probably time to change country.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
FrankS
Registered User
I would also like to believe that mankind has raised itself up above the mere drive to maximize the potential for the survival and future transmission of the DNA. I may be naive and unrealistically optimistic, but as a teacher of young children, I endeavour to pass on a more moralistic viewpoint, and also conduct my life accordingly.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
ywenz
Veteran
Living in honor is not being the person who returned a stolen camera. Being honorable is to be alive to be there for your family. This guy could have all kinds of shady connections. You have no idea how this on event can snowball..
I would get a new job, or different location.
I would get a new job, or different location.
Last edited:
Kim Coxon
Moderator
I think it is time that this thread was laid to rest.
Kim
Kim
- Status
