Pixiq

I don’t mind the police questioning him. Put yourself in the place of the parents and some 50 year old dude is photographing your children. It’s a sticky situation and the photographer is certainly within his rights, but you have to admit it’s a delicate balance here.

Yes i agree with you there Xdam and take into acount that he did turn himself in and turned over the photo’s Not sure if he did the right thing But he did the moral thing. Now on the other hand. He ran from the place of the incounter he should have waited talked with the parents exsplain he was a student of photog and asked them again if he could take there photo’s.
all that said yes its a very sticky situation

I will defend his right to take the pictures as well as his right not to be harassed by police for engaging in LEGAL activity.

Having said this I personally avoid taking pictures of kids like the plague.

Hint:: first two posters are what we in the science crowd call “Concern Trolls”

He shouldn’t have had to turn himself in, and i can’t believe the police took pictures of him, he did NOTHING WRONG under the law. Now he has his face on record for photo lineups and everything. Should they have taken his DNA too, JUST IN CASE?

Hell throw him in jail for 10 years, JUST IN CASE.

those parents should be ashamed of themselves, instilling that much fear in their children.

Gene do you know how to read? The article said he allowed the police to take his photos, as in the photos he took of the children, they didn’t take a picture of him.

At least the first two posters can read.

Your right about those irresponsible parents though, they should teach their kids to talk to strangers and pose for pictures and take candy from people they don’t know. But most importantly they should also teach them it’s ok to get into a car with a stranger.

Just take the picture and don’t bother asking them. There was no need for him to ask the kids, he could have stepped back (across the road) and taken the picture.

If they run inside and someone comes running out after me when I’m on public property, then good luck to them and I hope I don’t feel threatened…

I’m going to have to agree with the “concern trolls” on this one… While he may not have broken the law, it is rather understandable for kids & their parents to go nuts over some creepy lookin’ older guy wanting to photograph the children. And as NYCPhotorights said, it’s just not worth it to take pictures of kids!
(unless you’re on assignment or have permission n’ such . .)

And for the record, some guy asking my kids (I don’t have any yet, but even so) to take their photographs is something I would understand… A guy hiding behind a bush across the swings & trying to take the same picture, I’m going to have a problem with.

Oye.

Well it’s nice to see jones back.

The photo of the kids selling lemon aide; the classic environmental portrait of spring. I see stranger danger and the rest of the paranoid line is making its way to Canada. This is a hot button topic for me.

Let’s look at the official party line.
- Teach your children never to talk to strangers.
Right on, good advice. NOT. Your kid gets lost in a store or other place. Gets hurt on the street out of sight of home. Who the heck do you think is going to assist your kids them and keep them safe. A STRANGER. The chances of these things happening with a bad outcome are far greater than abduction. Another reason for kids to talk to strangers is they are more likely to be abused by parents. Who are they going to tell? “Daddy, I want you to know you’re hurting me when you have sex with me.” That’ll make a difference all right.

I have some friends that emigrated from Eastern Europe, yes they are legal. They were shopping as a family; father, mother, 2 daughters 20 and 11. A young lost female child came to them. The father picked up the child and they looked for the parents for a couple of minutes at which time they took the child to the customer service counter. An announcement was made and guess what? The parents that couldn’t watch their kid are pissed at my friends because they cared for and protected their child. My friends don’t understand this because they wisely don’t have ‘stranger danger’ in Eastern Europe. The community protects all kids like they are their own.

- Teach your children never to approach a vehicle they don’t know.
This one could have some merit at times. But mostly falls under ‘stranger danger’. In this case the kids are selling lemon aide. Ah, they are going to be approaching vehicles they don’t know.

- Make sure your children use the buddy system when they are out in the community.
The buddy system is always a good idea. But what do they do if they get separated? They are going to need the assistance of a stranger.

- Make sure your children know their home address and phone number.
This one is common sense. Who are the children going to tell that home address to if they need directions home? A stranger.

- Make sure you know your child’s daily routine and friends.
Finally some good advice.

The world is full of strangers until you talk to them. Our paranoia about strangers is totally stupid. It has been fueled by people like John Walsh and Oprah Winfrey to make lots money and to assuage the personal guilt they feel. They don’t do this to make us safer; they do it because it sells TV commercials and enriches them. In Walsh’s case when his son Adam was taken his wife wasn’t watching Adam, she was busy shopping and doing her own thing. This is one of the few cases of a true predator however. In Winfrey’s case she was sexually abused by an Uncle. So she knows the pain and guilt associated with that experience. She wants to protect other kids from those feelings. But in the 80’s and 90’s before she had taken care of her own demons she was doing the ‘stranger danger’ thing. If she had been honest with herself and the public at that time and talked about abuse inside the family she would have been far more effective and protected many more kids.

Hint:: first two posters are what we in the science crowd call “Concern Trolls”

Thanks for the science lesson, jerk-off. I would have a problem with cops coming in and pushing the guy around and, in this case, demanding his photos. I don’t have a problem with a cop just asking what the guy is up to. That’s a right every citizen has.

That said, you make some good points, Duane. Parent/child paranoia shouldn’t be held sacred just because it’s understandable.

The only problem I have with this is that we will never know how much pressure was applied to the photographer for him to issue that apology and to surrender his pictures. Of course the cops say it was “voluntary” but experience has shown otherwise.

Look at what happened in the infamous Coney Island incident of a year ago. So whenever cops say something was “voluntary” I look at it with extreme skepticism.

What is even more upsetting about the Coney Island incident is that the destruction of the photographs constituted the destruction of a historical record. The amusement park that was quite possibly the subject of those pictures (Astroland) has since been closed and demolished. The images can never be re-created. I consider that inexcusable!!!

The only problem I have with this is that we will never know how much pressure was applied to the photographer for him to issue that apology and to surrender his pictures. Of course the cops say it was “voluntary” but experience has shown otherwise.

Exactly, that would be my concern as well.

There are plenty of times when shooting street photography when you come across kids and want to take a photo.

Not for any sexual perverse reasons but because it could be a good photo, as I’m sure these kids selling lemonade were.

That is not something you see everyday. In fact, I’ve never seen kids selling lemonade in real life. But I’ve seen that in the old Dennis the Menace comic strips, so I know it was common at one point in history.

If it were me, I would have snapped away without asking. We are in public after all.

I wouldn’t be sneaky about it and if the parents are around, I would even offer to send them a copy of the photo.

But it’s true what Duane says. If the parents were so concerned about them talking to strangers, why even let them sell lemonade in the first place?

The whole issue I have about all this is how police overreacted to the situation. This wasn’t an attempted abduction. This was just a guy with a camera.

I would be pissed if I found out that police were searching for me because I happened to take photos of a couple of kids selling lemonade.

xdamousex,

I think the point is that often times when we are presented with something we should be concerned about because it sounds like a problem most of the time it’s not. Like people that are concerned about flying. Like most of the terrorist stuff we are doing. An example that happens all the time is a company that has something go wrong once a month and cost them $100 to fix it. They do the procedure 1,000 times a month. So to prevent this from happening they install a new control that costs $5 per procedure. Instead of losing $100 a month they are now losing $4,900 or 49 times as much; but they don’t have to be concerned about having that problem again.

I think we need to teach kids HOW to talk to strangers. This is a far better solution as far as I’m concerned. It makes kids safer; it makes society as a whole safer. It makes the world a friendlier place. People are less isolated as they grow older.

This isn’t really what the police want us to do. It reduces their roll in the community because they are no longer called as often. So we need less police, not more. This isn’t what John Walsh wants; we don’t need him anymore to identify the bad guys and scare us. We can figure out who they are without him and people are going to be more alert about all kids, not just their own. No one that’s got a gig like John Walsh wants to endanger it in any way. He’s going to continue to sell us his message of paranoia as long as we are willing to buy it.

I see Carlos posted while I was writing this. I agree this is an overreaction by the parents and the police. I too take photos of kids in public, http://photos.duanek.name/gallery/1969837_2uaVa/1/100247155_6mvnK. Heck it’s the NORMAL thing to do. Kids are cute, they have wonderful expressions, and they make good photos. Kids need to be taught what a good photo is and what a bad photo is. Can I take a photo of you selling lemonade? Why certainly. Can I take a photo of your private parts? What are you some kind of creep, call the police. It’s not hard to figure out the difference between the two.

Photorightts – The only problem I have with this is that we will never know how much pressure was applied to the photographer for him to issue that apology and to surrender his pictures. Of course the cops say it was “voluntary” but experience has shown otherwise.

The police didn’t find the guy. The guy went to the police after learning his actions caused the parents some concern. If the guy didn’t go to the police they never would have found him. It doesn’t get anymore voluntary then that. Did you actually read the article or are you just trying to make something out of nothing?

Maybe you guys haven’t heard the statistics, but “strangers” aren’t the ones that generally diddle kids and abduct them. It’s generally family members or close friends of the family (Uncle Rick). Stranger Danger is just paranoia :-/

Instilling this sort of paranoia is just silly.

And jones, i didn’t read the linked article, i assumed “Take his photos” meant, you know, took his photos. Not “Deleted the images off the memory card”

How can you take electronic data?

The kids were offering a service to the public. How can it be suspicious if someone walks up and speaks to them? That is exactly what they wanted to happen when they posted a big-ass “lemOnabe” sign.

Gene, I was able to understand it and I also didn’t read the linked article, sorry if you couldn’t understand it, I thought it was pretty clear.

Nerd, maybe your reading ability is the same as Gene’s, they didn’t get scared because he “walks up and speaks to them”. They got scared because he took their photo. Did anybody actually read and understand this article?

I thought Carlos wrote a pretty clear and easy to understand article, I can’t believe there is this much confusion.

It is not Carlos, it is the RCMP. Nothing has been independently corroborated, and the two poorly written accounts provided by the RCMP (before and after) do not jibe 100%. It is said that he approached them to ask permission to take their photos. It also says he did indeed take their photos, resulting in them becoming “uncomfortable”. It is never said that they declined to give permission, which would be a pretty important detail.

PS: why so condescending?

The first two comments had it right.

Also, as a non-photographer I find it rude when people take my photograph without asking, and find it highly offensive and down right creepy when folks take pictures of children without first seeking the permission of the parents.

Remember, just because something is not illegal does not necessarily make it right.

Ps…if you have never seen children selling lemonade, just go to any South Miami neighborhood during any summer weekend. You are bound to run into at least one lemonade stand.

This isn’t really what the police want us to do. It reduces their roll in the community because they are no longer called as often. So we need less police, not more. This isn’t what John Walsh wants; we don’t need him anymore to identify the bad guys and scare us. We can figure out who they are without him and people are going to be more alert about all kids, not just their own. No one that’s got a gig like John Walsh wants to endanger it in any way. He’s going to continue to sell us his message of paranoia as long as we are willing to buy it.

I don’t know if the answer is less police as opposed to better police. We already have too few police and it shows in how poorly the law is enforced. Only 13% of thefts are solved and 50% of homicides are solved — and that’s probably because half of those cases are when some guy shoots someone he knows in a fit of anger in front of numerous witnesses and waits for police to arrive. As a former police reporter, that seemed to be the only time cops could solve a case.

Having less cops isn’t going to change the fact that the ones we have are flat out bullies. Either better training is needed or a radically different system in which there are incentives in place to not bully the people you’re supposed to serve. Sadly, doesn’t seem to be much hope of either of those things happening. It’s the inherent problem of government organizations: bad incentives.

Ok to genewitch i Have three young children and i dont mind People taking pics of them as long as i am asked But to take pics and run off the kids did the right thing and as for being a troll No i am not been reading this blog for a couple monthes now and i agree the man did the moral thing and went to the police volentarily
as for the kids running in to there parents “mine would have smiled and said OK for our pics you buy our lemonaid too ” and yes they do sell lemon aid lime aid and other frozen treats on hot summer days If you want you can get an Ice cream sandwitch for $.50 so come visit.

I can understand “street photography” although it is not the type of photography that I do. In fact I get annoyed when I am taking a picture of beautiful architecture or a train and people get in my way Some people think too highly of themselves and think they are the subject of the photograph when they are not. Unfortunately I cannot stop all pedestrian traffic to take a picture of a building yet there will always be the one idiot who thinks I am taking a picture of him and objects to it. As far as I am concerned if you don’t want your picture taken then don’t stand in front of landmarks.

As for the photographer who does want pictures of people – the problem with asking permission is that the photographer has lost the element of surprise and potentially lost the natural expression he was looking to capture. The photographers who take pictures without asking permission do not want their subjects to look posed.

I guess its a matter of opinion if you “should” or “should not” take photos of people without their permission. The problem I have with the “should not” view is that we just don’t like in that kind of world anymore. Your photo is taken every time you enter a business, use an ATM, stand in front of a police car, etc etc etc. To say that corporations and law enforcement can do this, but citizens cannot puts is in a pretty precarious position. I use my camera to document and record things for my personal security and reference. If I cannot record the people I interact with due to prevailing moral attitudes, I am at a disadvantage every time those people can record me due to the selectivity of what kind of photography we will and won’t accept. IMHO, If we’re going to say it’s wrong to record children, then it’s wrong to record the general public, even if you are a bank or a cop.

Doing business with children in the absence of any other adults is exactly the sort of situation I might want to record for my own personal safety.

In a security sence i have no issues with that But notice the parents of the children wernt even there And thats my issue Never would i let my child or children Out of my sight if they are out side I am out side with them. Notice the artical said the children ran INSIDE to tell their parents The ? shouldnt be if the Photog was right or wrong but WHERE ARE THOSE KIDS PARENTS ….. I know its easy to say go outside and play let me have some peace…. TO BAD YOU HAVE KIDS get with the program and act the adult and watch them if they are going to be interacting with the public i am not saying taking pics is a bad thing but with the way the adults react to it can be If you dont see adults with the kids then do the smart and moral thing and DONT TAKE THE PIC now if there parents are with them ask the parent if you can dont tell the kid.. you still get your natural shot… as far as being in a public place Take the pic the law says you can i cant ubject but i can ask you not to do it again. and befor the nay sayers respond please read this again and notice I said i am with my children when they are in public or having interactions with strangers I have no problems i live in a small town now you bigger city folks should ALWAYS be with your children outside. as for the photog i have no problems with my kids having there pics taken as long as i know about it…..

Lots here today; another winning post by Carlos.

Just me, you actually don’t have a right to stop someone from taking your photo in public even if you want to. If someone asks your permission to take your photograph and you refuse your refusal doesn’t mean a thing, the polite thing to do is say yes. If you don’t want your photo taken stay out of public places. It’s not creepy to take a photograph. The only time permission is needed to USE someone’s photo taken in a public place is if the image is to be used for commercial purposes. Even then you have to be recognizable and your likeness has to play a role in selling the product or idea, you can’t just be a random person in the photo. I’d suggest some professional counseling on why you find it offensive and downright creepy when folks take pictures of children. Perhaps something happened to you at some point in your life that makes you feel this way.

Xdamousex, I don’t exactly mean less police. If the police stopped responding to stupid calls of people taking photos they would have more time to work on things like solving real crimes and clear a few cases.

All Be Damned, good point on requiring the purchase of some lemonade in exchange. Nothing like teaching your kids to be capitalists when they are young.

NYCPhoto, you hit it right on. It’s funny when you are taking a photo of a building and someone starts with the, “you take’n a photo of me?” like in the mob movies, “you talk’n to me?”. The really funny thing is while you’re getting a hard time there are 15 other cameras the person isn’t aware of that are taking a photo of them. There are two ways to get a natural look from someone. Either take the photo before they know you are taking it or spend 2 hours with them. Even then if you ask people that do portraits for a living they will tell you most of the time you have to create the opportunity for a natural look. There is an ebb and flow to people posing. You create a break when they don’t think you are going to take a photo and that’s when you take it if you want a natural look.

I have to agree with All Be Damned on where were the parents to a certain extent. I don’t know how old ABD’s kids are and I don’t know how old the lemonade kids are. Kids do need to be able to do things without total supervision at some point. They need to stretch their boundaries to learn. What the flow points are isn’t always clear.

Duane

The best one was when I was on a subway charter using the vintage museum cars. We were dropped off and given the opportunity to ride ahead on a regular train to photograph the museum train as it posed on the express track. As we boarded the regular train someone yells at me – “don’t take a picture of me”. I yelled back – “That would be a miracle considering my lens cap is on”!

Then there are those who want to be in the shot even though you don’t want them – happens every time I am working with models – invariably someone will want to pose with the girl. It can be annoying although I did get one good shot when a whole family posed behind her and signaled for me to take the picture. I did and when I showed it to the model she had no idea that they had done that. We both got a good laugh out of it!

Justme and ALLBEDAMNED:

There’s a name for the type of pictures you both are talking about.
It’s called a “candid shot”
Where are you getting this idea of morality from? I want the book(s) that state that candid shots are immoral.

seriously, i have to read this. Or a law where candid shots are illegal for citizens to take.

I love taking candid pictures. Sometimes people catch on to what i am doing and want to pose for a shot.

Taking a picture of a kid is a NON MORAL ISSUE. taking a picture of anyone in the public sphere is a non-moral issue.

But to reiterate… i want to know what book(s) have the “moral guidelines” that state candid shots are immoral.

NYCPhoto,

When I don’t want people I just do what’s needed to get a really long shutter speed. 30 second exposures will remove just about everyone and 60 seconds will remove all but the most stationary.

That is a funny story.

I like it when cops don’t tell me to take a photo. That’s like the key to start taking photos.

I don’t get why people feel intimidated by a camera. I thought only in aboriginal societies there was a fear of having your soul stolen. Of course there is always the chance that they are doing something they aren’t supposed to be doing and don’t want to be caught in the act.

duane: is there a way to take 30-60 second exposures during the day without them being completely washed out?

Filters or something?

I know night shots with at least a modicum of light only take about 15 seconds around the los angeles area to give a really awesome picture, but up in the mountains you need really long exposures to get stars or terrain features without any artificial light.

If there’s a filter i can buy for long exposures during the day i want to grab it, just in case

PS: i have an AE-1 if that helps narrow down the search

genewitch,

ok.. you have a film camera. Get ISO 25 film to start with if you can. You can also pull process, expose at a lower speed and develop for that speed, if you’re using a lab they may offer pull processing as a special service. This can be tricky because as the developing times get shorter the timing is much more critical. Use a smaller aperture, most of the time a landscape photog wants a huge dof anyway. Get some neutral density filters. The darkest ones povide 3 stops reduction of light. If that’s not enough use more of them.

I use a pinhole sometimes, f/177.

oh, awesome. neutral density. i’ll look on B&H to see what i can find for my camera. my film camera is the only one i have that supports changing lenses, that’s why i mentioned it.

Thanks!

/thread derailment.

genewitch,

lots p&s cameras also allow you to use a filter. even some of the ones where the lens retracts behind a door in the body.

I forgot to mention you can also use a circular polarizing filter as a nd filter but you also get the anti glare effects as well.

with p&s cameras if you take them out of automatic mode you can do some very amazing stuff with them.

you can send me an email if you want. email is on my website.

Xdamousex, I don’t exactly mean less police. If the police stopped responding to stupid calls of people taking photos they would have more time to work on things like solving real crimes and clear a few cases.

The only way to truly beat crime is to deter it in the first place. That is the problem I see with police departments and government in general: it’s all reactionary. It’s running around putting out fires instead of creating an environment in a community that is not conducive to these fires springing up in the first place. Police these days are nothing more than crime historians.

The best way to do that is to have enough officers out there to walk a small portion of the community and get to know the people they’re trying to protect rather than bullying them. Instead, many of them are people attracted by the thrill of being mini-dictators and spend all their time running around and harassing both innocent and guilty alike, creating distrust and dislike of police, and thus crime thrives.

Bit of a tangent, but that’s how I feel about police these days.

Genewitch
First off i was always taught that you should get permistion be it for photo’s or hunting or that sort of thing be it on public or priv. land
second i never read it in a book i just happen to be a person who is very polite ( most of the time)

DK
to answer your semi inquary of my kids ages they are all under the age of 8 years so i belive supervision is required on most outdoor activities in this day in age they will be aloud to do things on thier own soon enough and i let them do things on their own i just like being outside with them, yes i let them fall down or climb trees and the like , just like my dady did but i am also there if someone walks up to my kids i dont know or they dont know thats what i mean by supervistion
as far as the MORAL issue i find it alot easier to ask and get permistion then to FIGHT with people about photos thats what i mean by moral I hate fighting period but a good debate like here thats fine and Genewitch ( love the name ) i guess its the way i was raised that sends my sence of morality aray on a subject of “my kids”
ABD

ALL BE DAMNED:
Politeness does not equal morality. That’s why i call that sort of posting “concern trolls”.

“well it may be legal but is it the polite / moral thing to do?”
and
“think of the children”

Also, being taught something makes it a personal experience, which is anecdotal. which is fine for stating that it is your opinion that he should have asked permission. That’s a fine and logical argument based on what you are saying.

However, to claim that there is a moral issue with taking pictures of children with or without permission of the kids or their parents is just plain … well, wrong.

If your ethics obligate you to act a certain way that’s cool. But my ethics don’t necessarily have to coincide with yours, and that is also cool – as long as neither of us get on the wrong side of the law.

It sure would make it easier for the police if they just made it against the law to be creepy. That way in cases like this they could just arrest the person for being a creep.

I do believe this guy was acting innocently, even though his actions were creepy, he didn’t have bad intentions. I would probably let him off with a warning but next time I caught him being a creep I would arrest him.

I would probably let him off with a warning but next time I caught him being a creep I would arrest him.

Now that would be ripe for abuse of power. Cops don’t need anymore subjective charges that they can slap on anyone they don’t like.

I would probably let him off with a warning but next time I caught him being a creep I would arrest him.

A warning for what? Arrest him on what charge?

One of the things that makes my blood boil is when cops enforce laws that do not exist and why I have the ACLU and an attorney on speed dial on my cellphone. Cops should enforce only those laws that were passed by the legislature – nothing more – nothing less.

NYC – A warning for what? Arrest him on what charge?

Either you didn’t read my entire post or your reading comprehension is on the same level as a few others who have been posting here.

I suggested making a law that makes it illegal to be a creep or do creepy things.

If there was such a law then I would give him a warning for being a creep and I would arrest him on the charge of being a creep if he did it again.

Xdamousex – Now that would be ripe for abuse of power. Cops don’t need anymore subjective charges that they can slap on anyone they don’t like.

If somebody was arrested for being a creep because they were going around taking pictures of children they don’t know I bet a jury would find them guilty.

Jones: it’s a good thing you don’t make or have anything to do with making laws.

“it’s illegal to act like a creep” is so freaking subjective i hope i don’t have to explain why it would never pass muster.

the sad thing, jones, i bet you’re really nice in person.

I don’t think it would pass either but it should. I think it would be a good tool for the police. A lot of times people are doing things they shouldn’t be doing even though technically they are not breaking any laws.

I think a “creep” law would be like a “stalking” law only you wouldn’t need numerous encounters to be a creep like you do stalking.

With the stalking laws you need multiple contacts before you are considered stalking. If an ex-boyfriend is sitting down the street from his ex-girlfriend’s house spying on her he isn’t really breaking any laws. If he does it all the time he could be considered stalking. With a creep law the police could arrest him the first time they caught him if they felt it was creepy.

jones:
Here’s some research material for you, so you can get right to convincing legislators that this is a huge, rampant problem.
http://images.google.com/images?imgsz=small|medium|large|xlarge&imgtype=photo&as_st=y&gbv=2&hl=en&safe=active&q=candid+portrait+child+street+photography&sa=N&start=72&ndsp=18

On par with “make all digital cameras (or cellphone cameras) make a noise when they take a picture” – I’m sure i could find a google image search phrase that will return a ton of hits for those sorts of pictures too.

Perhaps you’ve never heard of jury nullification, either. Just because a law is on the books doesn’t mean a jury has to find a defendant guilty of breaking it – if they find the law unreasonable.

I wouldn’t worry about jury nullification because jury’s would want to convict these creeps.

Are you telling me that as long as somebody isn’t breaking any laws their actions can’t be considered creepy?

Note to ALL BE DAMNED: You said, “Genewitch ( love the name )”.

If you didn’t see the relevant post, he’s confirmed that it means exactly what you’d expect: DNA engineering.

BTW ALL BE DAMNED: Have I gotten around to asking you yet if you’re aware of an ambiguity in your own handle? If not, I wanted to say that I like the fact that ALL BE DAMNED can be read two ways: All Be Damned or I’ll Be Damned. It’s an all-occasion handle.  

I’ve also been meaning to ask Pinandpuller if his handle refers to grenades, but I don’t remember if I’ve done so yet.

I suggested making a law that makes it illegal to be a creep or do creepy things.

He’s being facetious … I hope.

Can you even imagine the abuse that would arise from such a law? How would you even define “doing creepy things”?

A creep law? Give me a break. Who is going to make the call on who is a creep and who isn’t? An unbalanced person that’s somewhat paranoid? Just what is the definition of creep? Salem Witch trials all over again.

It is not creepy to take photos of kids with their clothes on while doing something such as selling lemonade. That is why there isn’t a law against it on the books anywhere. That is why you don’t need permission to take a photo in a public place.

It is creepy to abduct kids, it is creepy to get kids, that aren’t yours and without parents around, to take off their clothing and take photos for the purpose of sexual gratification of adults (this one is creepy even if the parents are there), it is creepy to take upskirt photos without permission, and it is creepy to take photos through some ones windows without permission when you have to leave the sidewalk to do it. Guess what? There are laws against doing all of these things. I could add a bunch more items to the list of creepy behaviors.

I find some body art creepy and some I don’t. So if I think a persons head with a tattoo of a snake or spider on it is creepy do we get to lock the person with that tattoo up for the rest of their lives?

Duane – Who is going to make the call on who is a creep and who isn’t?

The citizens would make the call to the police of creepy behavior. The police would investigate and determine whether of not a person’s behavior is legitimate. A judge/jury would ultimately decide. Just the same as all other laws.

The law could read like this. A person who’s acts in a way that he/she knows or should know would cause a reasonable person to be concerned for their safety or others safety or if such behavior would make a reasonable person believe that the person is taking part in immoral activity or has committed or are about to commit a crime.

If this was a law then in the lemonade stand scenario we could have this. A man takes pictures of kids selling lemonade. He knows or should know that that behavior would cause a reasonable person to believe he is a threat to their children’s safety. He is located and has a legitimate reason for taking photos. Although his behavior was creepy it turns out it was innocent behavior. He did break the law because he acted like a creep but hopefully the cop in this case would use some discretion and give him a warning.

Same scenario but when man is located he is unable to explain what he is doing. Changes his story, is very nervous etc etc. Police determine he is up to no good but hands are tied because he hasn’t broken any other law. They could arrest him under the creep statute.

In the body art scenerio a reasonable person wouldn’t fear for their safety because of a snake tattoo therefore no violation, also a tattoo isn’t really actions so even if the tattoo was super creepy there would be no violation.

Duane – and it is creepy to take photos through some ones windows without permission when you have to leave the sidewalk to do it.

So you think it isn’t creepy to stand on the sidewalk and secretly take somebody’s photo through a window but to take one step onto their property and take a photo is creepy?

I think a reasonable person would disagree with you and say both are creepy, therefore, if this is what you like to do, you would be violating the creep law, even if you never leave the sidewalk.

jones,

Did you ever watch Gangland? Well maybe you don’t have to because maybe you dealt with gangs in RL but for the rest of the people Gangland will give them an idea of what I’m talking about.

Is there any wonder that all these gang members have similar body art? They put (action) this art on their bodies as a warning to others, like a sign. Don’t F’ with me because you see this tattoo here means I’m a murderer and I’ll kill you without a thought if you piss me off for any reason. But that is not creepy according to jones and you don’t have a reason to fear someone with a tattoo like that.

There have been a lot of studies by psychologists and forensic psychiatrists about the diagnostic value of body art. Guess what? There are strong correlations between the type of body art chosen and such things as antisocial personality disorder. There are even some tattoos that are only seen on people that have APD and some tattoos that are never seen on them. I know APD doesn’t make someone creepy in the least. There is no reason to fear someone with APD. They always think about others first and never commit any crimes. Of course not all with APD wear tattoos and just having a tattoo doesn’t mean you have APD but certain tattoos can and do mean that you are APD.

I know everyone with a tattoo was born with the tattoo, no action necessary to get one. Getting a tattoo is an action. You go to a tattoo place, you pick it out, you pay money, and you sit there and allow the guy to work on you. But that’s not an action according to jones. You can give yourself the tattoo with a needle and ball point pen ink which is how many tattoos are made in jail again not an action.

jones I’m sorry to say when I see certain tattoos which I’ve learned the significance of I know I have reason to fear and so does every other person that’s around the person with those tattoos. I find it comical how you try to find taking photographs creepy when compared to other things that are creepy. Of course we’ve never seen what you look like. Maybe you look creepy in photos, which could explain lots of things. Heck maybe you even have a tattoo of a pit viper on your forhead for all I know.

So you think it isn’t creepy to stand on the sidewalk and secretly take somebody’s photo through a window but to take one step onto their property and take a photo is creepy?

How can one stand on a sidewalk with a normal camera in their hands and point it at something and do it secretly?

As long as no special equipment (i don’t mean telephoto lenses or infrared filters either) is being used, no hidden cameras, or the like it’s not secret and it’s not creepy.

Now if someone puts a hidden camera on their shoe tip so they can take upskirt photos without others knowing that’s something different. Please arrest that person for being creepy, but you won’t have to because they are breaking other laws. If someone has a 32′ ladder so they can see over a fence and take a photo through a window, please arrest that person for being creepy, but you won’t have to because they are breaking other laws.