Photographer arrested at Texas Octoberfest gathering

[kiev4a]

You cannot prove Vogel's intent, therefore the arrest and charges are bogus. With a good attorney he should be fine.

By the way, that TV report is one of the worst pieces of slanted journalism I have ever seen.

We haven't seen the photos--at least I haven't. Maybe they do show intent.

I find it interesting that everyone is condemning the police and the media for flying off the handle. But I don’t think anyone here knows anything more about the incident than what was shown in the media. With that amount of information how can we judge the man guiltless just because it sounds like he is a street photographer.? Maybe the photos the cops found on his camera were inappropriate. The fact that he was shooting digital means there were examples of his photos immediately available—at the scene.

Of course there’s always the matter of defining the term “inappropriate.” I suppose there are some who believe someone’s bottom or breast or whatever is fair game for the camera because it is in public view. This takes us back to the right of privacy that has been debated many times here and on other forums.

 

[Kevin]

I supposed The Law is either friend or foe over there.

Here in Germany they are neutral and go by the books.

 

[RJBender]

Things are definitley different in Texas. I visit down there a couple of times per year and have had some lively encounters with local authorities. I have learned that it really helps to talk to the local police first, preferably over a glass of iced tea before you get going. Here is what can happen:

Beautiful downtown Junction, Texas (pop. 2500) has a unique old theater, oddly called "The Texan." It is painted white and I had been thinking about photographing it at night while using colored light to liven up the old white building. I discussed this with the local Chief of Police over breakfast and he seemed quite interested. He told me he didn't see any problem with it and he would brief his force on the night shift so there would be no misunderstanding. Things were looking good. I set up my cameras on tripods (Yashica 124G and Minolta Hi-Matic 7S) and got started. Then a police car drove up. The cop didn't get the word. I asked him to call the Chief. He wouldn't. I offered to call him. He got nervous and told me just pack it in and move on. As much as I wanted to confront this idiot cop, I just put things up and went away. At breakfast the next morning the Chief came over to see me and apologized for the events of the night before. No problem, I said. He was grateful for my avoiding a confrontation with his officer. In return for this, he got me hooked up for the next night as well as getting me into some incredible places that regular folks do not have access to. I'll post the "painted" theatre in a few days. So if you're shooting a camera in Texas, practice patience and good manners.

Don't forget you're in the South where some people think they have a right to shoot you (with a gun) if you don't respect them. ( I lived in Alabama for 7 years.) "Yes, sir" and "no sir" work well with cops. Remember that if you ever get pulled over in Dixie.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

I just thought of something. I think I told this story before.

My brother had what he called his "beach lens" which was one of those super-cheap Spiratone (400mm I think) telephotos. Yes, he would take it to the beach and shoot semi discreet pics of girls on the beach. I just thought of it as normal behavior for a late teenager with more hormones than he needed, hey, boys will be boys.

Now that I think of it, I'm sure many of his subjects were under 18, and yes, somebody could read sexuality into these photos.

I never thought of my brother as a pervert or a peeping tom, but by some definitions ...

Introspective moment here, I used to laugh this off as typical adolescent behavior, but when I hear of some pervert doing things like upskirt shots, I go ballistic, even though the beach photos show far more. I think of the upskirt photos as a gross invasion of privacy, bordering on assault. 🙁 Yep, some fine lines here ...

Spiratone used to sell a lens adapter with a mirror in it and a hole in the side similar to this one: http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-PAPARAZZI-S...552383820QQcategoryZ30059QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
If I remember correctly, it was advertised as a device to photograph people on the beach without their knowledge.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

Beautiful downtown Junction, Texas.

I just noticed that pick up truck in front of the theater is illegally parked.

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

We haven't seen the photos--at least I haven't. Maybe they do show intent.

I find it interesting that everyone is condemning the police and the media for flying off the handle. But I don’t think anyone here knows anything more about the incident than what was shown in the media. With that amount of information how can we judge the man guiltless just because it sounds like he is a street photographer.? Maybe the photos the cops found on his camera were inappropriate. The fact that he was shooting digital means there were examples of his photos immediately available—at the scene.

Of course there’s always the matter of defining the term “inappropriate.” I suppose there are some who believe someone’s bottom or breast or whatever is fair game for the camera because it is in public view. This takes us back to the right of privacy that has been debated many times here and on other forums.

Maybe Vogel was shooting with a digital camera and an infrared filter to get "x ray" type pictures. That would explain why the police are calling the images "inappropriate." Check out Kaya Optics' website:
http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/overview.shtml
Maybe the police don't want others to know exactly what he did or how he did it.

R.J.

 

[Toby]

It may not be apparent to the americans reading this but in the UK it would be totally illegal for a newspaper to issue the name and photograph of someone who was arrested in this way. Normally in the UK suspects have the right to anonimity at least until the case comes to court -ie if you're prosecuted. What really chills me is if this guy has all the charges dropped or even had nothing to answer to, some idiot can decide to take the law into his own hands and all he has to do is look in the phone book

 

[RJBender]

I saw that on some documentary where some brilliant guy developed a 3D extrusion program where he could take a grainy photograph from 40 years ago and extrapolate a 3 dimensional image.. he used the Zapruder film to construct the head wounds of JFK and thus concluded that one of the shots came from the aforementioned storm sewers

next, he took a photo out of an old bible and determined the exact location of Noah's Ark

(ok, I made that last part up, but it's just as plausible)

Brett, you just have to be there, standing next to that storm sewer, looking up at that library window. Better yet, remove the manhole cover and get inside with a rifle like they did in one of the documentaries. 😱

R.J.

P.S. "Storm sewers" are the clean ones. "Sanitary sewers" are the nasty ones.
Makes no sense.

 

[RJBender]

It may not be apparent to the americans reading this but in the UK it would be totally illegal for a newspaper to issue the name and photograph of someone who was arrested in this way. Normally in the UK suspects have the right to anonimity at least until the case comes to court -ie if you're prosecuted. What really chills me is if this guy has all the charges dropped or even had nothing to answer to, some idiot can decide to take the law into his own hands and all he has to do is look in the phone book

During the recent Michael Jackson trial, the news media in the US did not release the name of the victim. The Guardian in the UK published the names of the victim and his siblings. http://www.guardian.co.uk/jackson/story/0,15819,1506768,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/jackson/0,15819,1428022,00.html

R.J.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Well, they have it in their shirts and their bumperstickers: don't mess with Texas. Sometimes Winter in Minnesota doesn't seem that harsh...

 

[hoot]

http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/overview.shtml

Oh, right... can anyone say "scam artist"?

 

[RJBender]

Ronnie, I was speculating that Vogel may have been using a digicam with an IR filter. More links:
http://www.maxmax.com/aX-RayExamples.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/ir.htm
http://www.parascope.com/articles/slips/fs32_1.htm

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

According to this report, the police seized Vogel's digital camera.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/d...ories/wfaa051011_mo_photoarrest.e4e86b32.html

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

I did. He's unlisted.🙂

Try this one.
If you can get your caller id to show "sony," maybe he'll answer the phone. 😱

 

[RJBender]

Mine shows Charles Manson.🙂

😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱

R.J.

 

[RJBender]

In addition to being peeved about this Texas law, I'm troubled by the sensationalistic tone of the report in general. If you can view the video, do so. It's terribly enlightening to see TV news faces look down their noses at someone who apparently takes pictures of other people w/o their consent. You'll also notice the ominous slant that really kicks off after the police officer's comments. The reporter goes from the issue of photographic consent to pedophilia and sexual assault. Cue an interview with a nanny who, shockingly, is scared by the thought of someone taking pictures of children's body parts for sexual gratification, as such practices create sexual predators. The reporter then closes by using police comments to cement the link b/w nonconsensual photography and physical assault, taking the implications of street photography to an even more threatening level....

What's really asinine about the TV report is at the end, when they shoot the crowds at the Oktoberfest, they have the video blurred so you can't recognize anyone. The reporter refers to "the crime of improper photography." Are the television station owners concerned that they might also get busted?

And of course, the police officer's comment "the photographs were deemed inappropriate".

R.J.

 

[kiev4a]

Well, they have it in their shirts and their bumperstickers: don't mess with Texas. Sometimes Winter in Minnesota doesn't seem that harsh...

You can put any spin you want on Minnesota winters. But they still are harsh compared to just about anywhere south of Kiev🙂

 

[Kevin]

Vogel should claim that he is press. All he needs is a webblog to pull it off.

I am interested to see if the case makes it to the US Supreme Court.

 

[hoot]

Ronnie, I was speculating that Vogel may have been using a digicam with an IR filter. More links:
http://www.maxmax.com/aX-RayExamples.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/ir.htm
http://www.parascope.com/articles/slips/fs32_1.htm
R.J.

Thanks, RJ, I wasn't aware that this was actually possible, but those sources are believable. Not that I'm planning to try it... 😀

 

[RJBender]

Vogel should claim that he is press. All he needs is a webblog to pull it off.

I am interested to see if the case makes it to the US Supreme Court.

Kevin, check this out:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001263585

R.J.