Texas Photographer Not Charged with Crime

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

In the Dallas Morning News today, it was reported that the Tarrant County DA's office has cleared Louis Vogel of any charges pertaining to his arrest last month for "improper photography".
Kurt Stallings, chief of the pre-trial division of the DA's office stated that the photos were "indistinguishable from vacation photos." He went on to say that the photos he examined were typical crowd shots that didn't raise any concerns. He said some of the photos might have looked suspicious on the camera's "tiny LCD screen", but printed out it was apparently clear the photos were not objectionable.
Mr. Vogel's attorney points out, rightly, "Mr. Vogel's reputation in our community has suffered irreparable damage."
There's the real harm in this case.

Texas has a lot of good people, but it is also filled with self-righteous paranoid types.
I know, I have lived here all my 50 years. How I grew up to be a godless screaming liberal in this environment is quite beyond me.

 

[CleverName]

I'm glad no charged were filed, a small victory for photographers. The bad thing is that this guy, although innocent, has been labeled: at best a wierdo, at worst a pedophile. Those labels are hard to get rid of even if you have done nothing wrong.

Texas has a lot of good people, but it is also filled with self-righteous paranoid types.
I know, I have lived here all my 50 years. How I grew up to be a godless screaming liberal in this environment is quite beyond me.

Just north of the Rio Rojo it isn't much better. I grew up a good Catholic boy in the hometown of Oral Roberts. I'm a godless liberal, but I don't scream 🙂

 

[bmattock]

I'm glad no charged were filed, a small victory for photographers. The bad thing is that this guy, although innocent, has been labeled: at best a wierdo, at worst a pedophile. Those labels are hard to get rid of even if you have done nothing wrong.

I agree that it is hard to get rid of the 'stink' that will follow this poor guy around now, and that it is good that the DA was upfront about saying the guy is innocent and didn't just 'beat the charge on a technicality' that sort of thing.

However, I can't call it a victory for photographers while this law still exists.

There is another guy being held right now on the same law in Texas - if you look up his story via Google News, you can see he is probably a scumdog. However, the same law - which is a bad law, IMHO - is being used in both cases.

I got no problem with getting scumdogs off the street - I do have a problem with this particular law, which (as we see) casts a wide net and pulls in innocent people. That old "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" canard is shown to be just that; pure fantasy BS.

Just north of the Rio Rojo it isn't much better. I grew up a good Catholic boy in the hometown of Oral Roberts. I'm a godless liberal, but I don't scream 🙂

I'm a screaming Godful (opposite of godless?) conservative Libertarian Catholic boy. I like to scream. Pax vobiscum, baby.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Hektor]

Surely, if Vogel can show his reputation has been damaged, he can sue,....same as libel ?

 

[Benjamin Marks]

However, I can't call it a victory for photographers while this law still exists.

I'm fully with Bill on this one. Now that a public example has been made of this fellow, think of the effect on other photographers. Brr. It's chilly in here.

 

[Tuna]

Speaking of screaming,...I do so all the time much to the horror of the people around me. It helps clean out my system.

Tuna

 

[wlewisiii]

Hektor,

Absence of malice. No case as a result.

William

 

[vladhed]

How I grew up to be a godless screaming liberal in this environment is quite beyond me.

Perhaps because you have a brain?

 

[bmattock]

Surely, if Vogel can show his reputation has been damaged, he can sue,....same as libel ?

I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but as I understand it, most local, state, and the federal government in the USA have 'sovereign immunity' to lawsuits unless negligence or intentional damage can be proved. Sue? Sure, anyone can bring suit. Win? Maybe not - it is up to the prosecution to prove that there was malicious intent to destroy a man's reputation.

Similar cases I recall from when I was in law enforcement many many years ago - the police got the wrong address on a search warrant. Kicked in the door, wrecked the joint, etc, then found out that the address was wrong. They did not have even pay for the damage - they did not act in 'bad faith' and therefore what they did was regrettable, but legal and no liability existed. The homeowner was just hosed.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Perhaps because you have a brain?

Now, now, let's not go there. We're all getting along very well here.

:angel:

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[jan normandale]

there is a technical term in Canadian legalese 'stigmatized' that is exactly what has happened here and it has happened because of private and public drivers.

In practial terms he cannot pursue any recourse or remedy, or else he will be exposed to further vilification. Classic.

 

[kiev4a]

Perhaps because you have a brain?

Only liberals have brains?

I believe that remark is totally innappropriate on a photography forum.

 

[FrankS]

Yeah, we should stay away from political (and religious) views, not appropriate here. We need to set those aside to get along.

 

[Hektor]

Well stated Frank

 

[franceluxemburg]

Well i a french lawyer, so not use to the kind of apologys you get from a district attorney,
but i feel the tarrant county D.A. did the proper statement to restore our photographic collegue reputation.
Now to get more than an apology from the county might be pretty tough....

By the way, i think the story is a big proof that you must not juge your shots
by looking in those tiny and unfaifhfull backscreens....

 

[Goodyear]

Yeah, we should stay away from political (and religious) views, not appropriate here.

Yes.

We need to set those aside to get along.

However, that I disagree strongly with.

 

[ch1]

I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but as I understand it, most local, state, and the federal government in the USA have 'sovereign immunity' to lawsuits unless negligence or intentional damage can be proved. Sue? Sure, anyone can bring suit. Win? Maybe not - it is up to the prosecution to prove that there was malicious intent to destroy a man's reputation.

Similar cases I recall from when I was in law enforcement many many years ago - the police got the wrong address on a search warrant. Kicked in the door, wrecked the joint, etc, then found out that the address was wrong. They did not have even pay for the damage - they did not act in 'bad faith' and therefore what they did was regrettable, but legal and no liability existed. The homeowner was just hosed.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Goodness gracious, I finally find myself in complete agreement with Bill M. on something! Will wonders never cease.

BTW, IAAL (I am a lawyer) although not a practiitioner of libel law. But I believe Bill's legal analysis is "spot on" as our friends "across the pond" are wont to say.

George

 

[bmattock]

Goodness gracious, I finally find myself in complete agreement with Bill M. on something! Will wonders never cease.

BTW, IAAL (I am a lawyer) although not a practiitioner of libel law. But I believe Bill's legal analysis is "spot on" as our friends "across the pond" are wont to say.

George

George, we'll find common ground yet! My experience was strictly in a couple of undergrad "Con Law" courses and 10 years of military and civilian law enforcement experience - MP in the Marines and civilian dispatcher with a large metropolitan police department. A kind of 'vocational' law study, if you will. I used to practice the art of Habeas Grabbus.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RML]

I used to practice the art of Habeas Grabbus.

You took bribes?! Didn't expect that from you, Bill! 😛

 

[fgianni]

Surely, if Vogel can show his reputation has been damaged, he can sue,....same as libel ?

John in the good old USA it does not work like that, a friend of mine went in holiday, on his way back the airport security opened his checked-in luggage (god know wht since the X-rays for checked in baggage are powerful enough to see clearly what is inside virtually everything), damaged quite a few things including his suitcase, and left a note saying that they opened his bag due to new anti-terrorism security measures and BTW forget about asking for compensation since they are not responsible for any damage they do.

Essentially looks that across the pond law enforcement officials have such protection agains their own actions that they can get away with almost anything.