Photographer Banned

<blockquote>

<p>Let me restate a large percentage of street people are sex offenders, that is a fact, why not go and ask them some of them are easy to find. Images please. What you do have to hide? I speak to many of them and also to law enforcement officers. Some of those street people I have known for over 10 years, before I started to do street photography. Some of them have asked me not to photograph them or at least not their face and you will not see any of their faces on the images. I know many of their stories, two used to be models, see if you can identify those two. And, Hugh, if you really want to find out more about why they are on the street do a google search on sex offenders.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to the <a href="U.S. Department of Health and Human Services">U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</a> , the causes of homelessness are poverty, lack of affordable housing, disability, untreated mental illness, and substance abuse. And before you come back with a predictable "da gub'mint is feedin' us lies man" conspiracy theory rebuttal, that information is corroborated by the <a href="http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/why.html">National Coalition for the Homeless</a> which is an NGO. In fact, they go on to add other specific causes such as foreclosure, eroding work opportunities, decline in public assistance, lack of affordable health care, and domestic violence.</p>

<p>Let's have a look at the numbers. In my state (California) about 500 sex offenders are registered as "transient." That's out of over 400,000 homeless in the state, or in other words, 1/10 of 1 percent of the homeless population. According a December 2009 estimate by the <a href="http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/sex-offender-map.pdf">National Center for Missing and Exploited Children</a> , there are 228 registered sex offenders for every 100,000 population in the U.S., or a little over 2/10 of 1 percent of the general population.</p>

<p>You read that right - the percentage of sexual offenders in the homeless population, in California as an example, is less than half of that in the general population. As with everything else you've said in this circus of a thread, your assertion that <em>"a large percentage of street people are sex offenders"</em> is at odds with established fact - an assertion, might I add, that is not only offensive and disrespectful to the people in your photographs, but also defamatory. You should use that Google search engine of yours and look up defamation, libel, and slander.</p>

<p>A wise person once said, "When in hole, stop digging."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Manual,<br /> What is with you--reminds me of a cartoon where it had the saying something like this "I see your lips flapping boy but nothing is coming out." ?????????Sex preditors, Afgan issues has little if anything to do with the original message in my opion--What am I or others simply because we like to take trips on a Harley<br /> It would have been so easy to do a follow up on this providing one knows how to do a search on a computer. You will also see why the person can't go on taking pictures there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess I don't like racist or bigots or bullies, does the shoe fit, Gary?</p>

<p>Hugh, California parole officials issued new rules this week that increase monitoring of thousands of sex offenders already required to wear global positioning system tracking devices, a move that comes after sharp criticism of high-profile lapses by the department. <br>

They don't wear tracking devices here and many are not where they are registered. A large percentage of homeless are people who do not want to be found.</p>

<p>Garry do you own a Harley? Do you post any images? I know you think the guy is a jerk and you compared me to a Negro with my lips flapping. Do you have a vested interest in the Cafe and Tea place? Now why don't you buy that camera and equipment so you can do the rich guy's party and post the photos so that we can see what you can do. Maybe you just don't like people who use Canon;-) If you have never done street photography you have no idea as to what it is. Now go practice so that rich guy won't sue if you screw up the photography. Now why is it that a rich guy would be asking some one that has to ask others for help to do the photography? Oh I am sorry it was not for help with the photography it was what equipment do you need, don't even know what equipment to use or buy. Now please stick to the question rather then resorting to insults. The question is it proper to bar the person from the 67 businesses. I say no and have added that if the ACLU takes the case and gets nothing I will admit that I was wrong, if they get the ban lifted will you admit that you are wrong?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A large percentage of homeless are people who do not want to be found.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> They are? If you say this, you must have some statistics that back it up. Since Hugh showed that your statement about them being sex offenders was ridiculous, I suggest you present your proof to us.</p>

<p>Gary a simple google search,</p>

<h5>Hartford has the biggest concentration of registered sex offenders, many of them living in homeless shelters, in all of Connecticut</h5>

<p> http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/featured-news/sex-offender-hq-4<br>

I know of what I speak because I have been photographing street people going on 5 years now, I have numerous friends that are police officers some of which work the shelters where the homeless stay when the weather gets bad. Now have a good evening.</p>

<p>Jeff is that google search above good enough or do you want more? Hugh showed what he wanted to prove. Do you remember about the homeless man that froze to death (sex offender) because the shelter did not want to let him in? Probably not, do a google search it is easy enough to find.</p>

<p>In some places there is controversy about whether to prohibit sex offender to use homeless shelters, the controversy is that now they at least know where they are if they kick them out they will go further underground.</p>

<p>Jeff you are a good photographer, why take Hugh's side? If you had bothered to read what Hugh wrote you would have noticed that it was written a manner to prove a particular point, his, not to prove the point in question. Again, Jeff, you are a good photographer, my opinion. Now remember what I said about opinions, they are like ass holes and every one is entitled to one. My opinion on the photographer that was barred has not been changed, if business are allowed to do by group which is to ban people for exercising their rights then we are losing freedoms.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff Spirer wrote: They are? If you say this, you must have some statistics that back it up. Since Hugh showed that your statement about them being sex offenders was ridiculous, I suggest you present your proof to us.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=7245220 this a link to sex offenders in the area you live in, I think that maybe you should get out of the clubs and out in the streets a little bit more, there are stories out there, Jeff. Remember many states don't place those bracelets on them.</p>

<p>Jeff who is ridiculous?</p>

<p>OK, I am commenting on he original post here. A group of business owners have grouped together in accordance with local law to ban an individual who happens to be a photographer from entering their business's on a given street. Weather I agree with the law that allows them to do this or not is not an issue. I do feel it is bad business for them to take this action but it is there rite as business owners to harm or promote there business as they see fit. Nobody has told the photographer he cannot walk the street nor have they said he cannot take pictures. He just cannot enter the business's on either side of that street. Nobody has violated any body's rites. Some of the patrons of those business's complained to the management / owners about the photographer and he was approached about he complaints. At this point I am sure things could have been handled better on both sides of this story. But sense it was handled poorly the result is the ban and bad publicity for both sides. Yes the ban affects all parties not just the photographer. Those business's will no longer get his business and the publicity has likely caused them to lose other business. The photographer has a ban on him that could cause him some inconvenience because he can no longer enter those business's nor attend any events that may happen there. Thats the extent of it. Maybe all parties should step back a bit and cool off.<br>

As for the rest of the posts I don't not see how this has evolved into a debate on sex offenders and the homeless</p>

<p>Bill</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for the rest of the posts I don't not see how this has evolved into a debate on sex offenders and the homeless</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a result of one guy putting up an army of straw man arguments and the rest of us trying to show that we're not all retarded.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Hugh showed what he wanted to prove.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Prove what? I'm not proving anything. The facts are already there - facts most of us already knew, except for you, apparently. All I did was point you to them. But you know what they say about leading a horse to water...</p>

<blockquote>My opinion on the photographer that was barred has not been changed, if business are allowed to do by group which is to ban people for exercising their rights then we are losing freedoms.</blockquote>

 

<p>When I walk into a privately owned business, I am a guest. If the shop owner decides I am not welcome there, I can no longer enter that place of business. It's been that way in the United States ever since the birth of the nation. The only difference is that the Civil Rights Act has made it illegal for shop owners to bar certain protected classes - so if anything, the rights and freedoms pendulum has swung in favor of the public, not the shop owner.</p>

<p>In this specific case, the photographer in question can still take his pictures on any public street of his choosing. The business owners have exercised their right to self-determination on their own private property. If that's not democracy, I don't know what is.</p>

<p>Here is where I volunteer: <a href="http://www.gwhfc.org/">http://www.gwhfc.org/</a> . We drive around markets, restaurants, and bakeries to pick up close-dated food and put it together nightly in the soup kitchen to produce a buffet-style meal for the homeless. We also host medical clinics staffed by medical and nursing students and residents from a local university to take care of psychological and medical needs. Unlike you (yet another so-called "photographer" who thinks taking pictures of the homeless is significant and original - it's not), I work closely with them in an organization that tries to make a dire situation a little more tolerable. And I find your attitude toward the homeless, and your assertion that photographers' rights should diminish the rights of others, to be both despicable and deplorable. If there was any question as to why the general public hates photographers, you'd be the answer.</p>

<p>The most frightening thing I've read in this entire thread is that you have a daughter, and are presumably teaching her the same messed up thinking and ideology. I can only hope that she is intelligent enough to know better.</p>

<p>Anyway, I'm done. The guy above who compared you to a "teflon-coated brick wall" was dead-on.</p>

<p>What I think is hysterical is that anyone actually thinks there is going to be "bad" publicity negatively impacting the businesses. They've banned a disruptive individual from their stores (etc.) who has been bothering customers and employees and who has caused a number of public disturbances. There isn't anything approaching overwhelming public support for street photography or anything like that. People already call the cops when they think photographers are bothering them or their kids.</p>

<p>What's not to like from a publicity standpoint? More photographers will stay away? You don't think the store owners considered what might happen when they weighed in on the trespass order?</p>

<p>As to this being some heinous violation of rights? That's silly. Watch the news, TMZ, stuff like that. The paps don't push their way into a restaurant where some celeb is dining? Nor into most other private establishments. One can't just waltz into someone's business and disrupt it's operations. It's a camera, not a magic wand.</p>

<p>Manual,<br>

There you go once again being totally incorrect with the racial bit--The lip flapping bit was a cartoon about a rooster who thought the world owed it a living. Are you that insecure to blame racial issues--just think if all the stores that support the banning suddenly closed in the world---there would be a drastic drop in the taxes these businesses had paid in taxes so in return the goverment would be forced to make drastic cuts as to what they pay out for social services which in turn HURTS some of the most vunerable people--is that what you want. Mexico, the northern part was an area that we went yearly for ten years before numerous murders of tourists four years ago and still continuing. Nobody is safe in my opinion. <a href="http://www.centredaily.com/2010/03/26/1878792/police-chief-decapitated-in-northern.html">http://www.centredaily.com/2010/03/26/1878792/police-chief-decapitated-in-northern.html</a> as they even kill the chief of police</p>

<p>Garry there you ago defending racial comments, hey you don't want them interpreted the way people grew up hearing the jokes, then don't make them. Rooster don't have lips. Why bring up Mexico, you see a Spanish last name and assume that one must be Mexican? One more time Garry because you seem to have problems understanding, if the ACLU takes the case and they don't get anything, I will admit that I was wrong, are you man enough to admit that you can be wrong?</p>

<p>Why would the stores close if there was no universal ban, you do not make any sense.</p>

<p>Now Garry, why did you bring up Mexico? It has not been part of the discussion, are Mexicans not as smart as Americans or maybe just more violent, in your opinion? We all know that in America us Mexicans have to be hyphenated we can't be real Americans, that is why they (real Americans) create terms for us, that includes most people of color. I don't buy that bull about discrimination if that were so we would have female-Americans, handicap-Americans, and so on. One can move to this country (let us say from England) and become a citizen and immediately he or she becomes an American, except if you are from certain countries, then you become a hyphenated American. My family has been here before the Pilgrims arrived in this country but I am still not a real American. Walk a mile in my shoes. One more history lesson for you guess which group of people were the last ones to be given the right to vote? Not the eighteen years old, I am referring to ethnicity or race? Give up? Native Americans, what most of you call Indians because Columbus was so stupid he thought he was in India.</p>

<p>Manuel, you have <em>got</em> to get a grip. <br /><br />He's not "defending racial comments," because it wasn't a racial comment in the first place.<br /><br />As for the stores: He talked about stores closing in response to your wandering, rambling disdain for the stores that, collectively, have agreed to respect each others' barring of disruptive people. He's trying to get you to imagine the consquences of those stores closing up, as they would if they were denied the rights to their own property. And to help you visualize the damage that a bunch of stores closing can do, he mentions a town where he personally used to go for ten years - and which has now economically imploded because the stores have all closed out of fear and the loss of their liberty. That town happens to be in Mexico ... and once again, your racial obsessions prevent you from simply reading his few sentences and following that basic train of thought. He's talking about store owners denied liberty - and the consequences - and you're scrambling around looking for a way to make it about race.<br /><br />You know all of this, and you know that it makes all of your arguments and posturing completely juvenile and meaningless ... and in a vain attempt to distract people, you are the one constantly race baiting your way through the thread. You are the one to toss out the insults, the stereotypes, and the nonsense at every turn. Why bring up the fact that certain groups of people insist on hyphenating their identities? Are you so mixed up that you don't see that it's those groups <em>themselves</em> who do that? Because they aren't satisifed to simply refer to themselves as Americans?<br /><br />That's <em>their</em> choice, not some imaginary entity that you think has the power to make them refer to themselves that way. The only people who insist on being <em>something-</em>Americans are the <em>somethings</em> who cannot operate without defining themselves in terms of their color, or tribal/geographic background. Who is it, do you think, that trots that phrase out, exactly? It's the professional grievance/advocacy types who won't have a job unless they keep people boxed up in tidy little racial grievance groups. Why give them a moment's thought? They don't matter, even thought they are often members of those groups. <br /><br />I am amused, though, that you keep trotting out the "if the ACLU takes the case" bit. As has been explained in comments above, many times, you don't even understand what you're talking about, and can't even articulate what you think such a "case" would be about. Guess what: it's April. There is no "case," and you're still lacking the integrity to admit that you've completely mischaracterized everything about this entire situation. It's cowardly, and you're embarassing yourself.<br /><br />Here's the reality: you realize there's no "case," and say you'll admit that you've been wrong all along. But that would be a lie, wouldn't it? Because you have all of the information you need, right now. All of the legal issues have been explained to you, and every one of your absurd redirections has been shown to be the transparent stunts that they are. You can arrive, right now, at the conclusion you need to see. If you have a shred of intellectual integrity, you've already concluded that you're wrong. The lack of court action won't change your mind - you're just hoping that people will forget you said that... and you were willing to lie in order to buy yourself some time, hoping everyone would forget your BS. I'm just here to hold your feet to the fire.<br /><br />You're either lying about being willing to accept the lack of court action as your measurement of truth in this case, or you're admitting that you don't know what you're talking about, in which case all of your misdirections and insults have - by your own admission - been based on pure ignorance. Which is it? I'll bet you don't have the stones to directly answer that question. This will be clear in the way that you head off into new and exciting revisionist history, race-baiting, and insults instead of simply identifying which of those two things is true. Which is it? I'll even make it easier, by reminding you - it's one of these:<br /><br />1) It turns out you admit you can't form a valid opinion on this, and you're waiting some indefinite period of time for the lack of something happening in a court you can't identify to say what you think. And that means that you don't know what you think now. Which means that everything you've said has been random BS.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />2) You already know what you think, which means that your proposal to admit you're wrong when something fails to happen in the indefinite future was a lie from the beginning.<br /><br />Pick one. (1) or (2).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You're either lying about being willing to accept the lack of court action as your measurement of truth in this case, or you're admitting that you don't know what you're talking about, in which case all of your misdirections and insults have - by your own admission - been based on pure ignorance. Which is it?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Mark you may not be the dumbest person in the world, but you are close. That is not one question, that is a statement written as a question.<br>

Let me phrase this way, Matt you are either too dumb to understand what I wrote or you are a racist, which one is it?<br>

1) Matt is dumb, or<br>

2) Matt is a racist.<br>

Pick one</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />You're either lying about being willing to accept the lack of court action as your measurement of truth in this case, or you're admitting that you don't know what you're talking about, in which case all of your misdirections and insults have - by your own admission - been based on pure ignorance. Which is it? I'll bet you don't have the stones to directly answer that question. This will be clear in the way that you head off into new and exciting revisionist history, race-baiting, and insults instead of simply identifying which of those two things is true. Which is it? I'll even make it easier, by reminding you - it's one of these:<br /><br />1) It turns out you admit you can't form a valid opinion on this, and you're waiting some indefinite period of time for the lack of something happening in a court you can't identify to say what you think. And that means that you don't know what you think now. Which means that everything you've said has been random BS.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />2) You already know what you think, which means that your proposal to admit you're wrong when something fails to happen in the indefinite future was a lie from the beginning.<br /><br />Pick one. (1) or (2).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do you understand why it is not a question, Matt? Matt, I am quite intelligent based on Mensa tests. So quit with the insults and let us wait to see what happens with the case, if and when ACLU takes it up. You never did answer the question as to whether you had any interest in that place, like knowing some one there? I frankly don't understand why any one would support universal bans of people who have committed no wrongs. There is no requirements that some one do something wrong to be banned. The universal ban can be used against groups of people who have committed no wrong as a class, as long as they are not a protected class. But that does not make it right. So why are you so strongly in favor of universal bans? Can you wait to see what happens? You don't even have to keep up with it, I will. I will either come back to gloat or to admit I was wrong. I do respond to insults with insults.</p>

<p>Manuel,<br>

SIMPLY do a search is mensa tests a scam<br>

and watch the pages come up. What I find interesting is a person only has to be 14 to take the test.<br>

Does this mean that you have the education of a 14 year old or were they smarter than you on the so called test-- Is this the reason you have such a hard time trying to get others to feel sorry for you?<br>

You will definately never hear me say I am sorry to you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Garry Mansfield...Does this mean that you have the education of a 14 year old...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cambridge University in England, as you well might know, is one of the most prestigious universities in the world. In the history of Cambridge University, the youngest student ever to attend was the former Prime Minister William Pitt. He, who was a brilliant strategist in the battles of the American Revolution, was only 14 years old when he first attended Cambridge in 1773. However, in October 2010, this record will be broken by another 14-year-old genius! His name is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jan/07/cambridge-university-14-arran-fernandez" target="_blank">Arran Fernandez</a>, and he has been home-schooled with strong passions in mathematics. He has displayed amazing knowledge of mathematics since he was a very young child. He says that he wants to grow up to be a research mathematician and find a solution to the Riemann Hypothesis—one of the 7 wonders of mathematics that has remained a mystery for the last 150 years. This is an amazing accomplishment!</p>

<p>Don't you wish you were as smart as some fourteen year olds, Garry. I don't want you to feel sorry for anyone but yourself. I don't know you and really don't care if I ever do. Now go study and become as smart as the fourteen year old above. Love</p>

<p>Manuel,<br>

<strong>REMEMBER</strong> one thing--It was YOU who stated you were smart according to that group (Mensa?) that has so much spam. There you go again grabbing at straws that you assume may sway others. The first person you listed, do you really think he/she only was a graduate of Mensa if there was such a thing back then.<br>

The last one--is he/she a member that graduated from Mensa. Buy the way; what university did you receive your Masters and Doctor degrees from since you are so smart. Why not answer Mark's question since it is multiple choice, it should be a very easy question to answer--2 choices only should be easy for those not as smart as a rock so what is it 1 or 2?. I NEVER claimed to be smart but did graduate from university and college so the bit about Mensa and intelligence does apply to me as I never attended a single meeting (1) or (2) which is it?</p>

 

<p>I have a Doctor's degree from the University of Houston, If you read the article it was a He. What Mark did was not a question Garry, I am sorry that you can not understand the logic as to why it is not question but let me try. <br>

Garry you either did not understand my logic because 1) you are dumb?<br>

or is it that 2) you don't want to admit that I am correct?<br>

Which one is it Garry, are you dumb or am I correct? Do you see why it is not a question, Garry? One more time Garry, be patient and let us see what happens, okay.</p>

<p>Aye, Gawd, Woodrow. Are you boys <strong><em>still </em></strong>at it?!</p>

<p>Actually, Manuel, it <em>is</em> a question. I'm asking which of those two things is the case. You cannot bring yourself to actually say why neither of those is true, so I'm happy accepting that as an indication that one of them is. Doesn't really matter which, obviously. You have shown a constant refusal to ever address - in the particulars - <em>anything</em> put in front of you, and instead attempt to redirect to another topic by calling people racists, etc. This is so you can avoid admitting that you've spouted nonsense. And this is you doing it again. How could it be simpler? You've got two things you can choose between, specifically refuting or accepting.<br /><br />1) You're waiting a period of time you won't define for the ACLU to "take a case" that you can't define, so that you'll know what <em>you</em> think about this. This means that you don't already know what you think. Is this true, or not? I'll bet you won't answer that question directly.<br /><br />OR<br /><br />2) You already know what you think, which means your proposal to avoid saying it while we all wait for the ACLU to "take the case" is a BS stalling technique. Is this true, or not? I'll bet that, as above and as you've done over and over, you won't answer that question.<br /><br />As for your question: Of course I have an interest in the matter at hand, as we all do. It's because I have an interest in my personal property rights. It's odd that you don't want to maintain your <em>own</em> property rights, and normally I wouldn't care. But if enough people like you try to throw away their own rights, it might actually impact the rest of us, who actually like having them.<br /><br />It's amazing to me that, despite all of the information you've been provided in this thread, you still can't actually get the basic facts straight. I really don't fell like repeating myself, but it's absurd to let you say (again) factually incorrect things. So just to clarify:<br /><br />a) The photographer has not been "banned" from any public space. Period. Any insinuation by you to the contrary can no longer be considered ignorance, but instead simple, deliberate deceit on your part.<br /><br />b) Business owners <em>can</em> tell people they're not welcome in their business, and they can do it without any explanation, for their own reasons. The exceptions include people in protected classes - and this photographer is not one of them. Any claim to the contrary by you, at this point, is a purposeful misrepresentation by you.<br /><br />As for your pleas for patience, in the hopes that everyone will forget your nonsensical claims, pick a date, how about? The ACLU routinely files suit in cases within <em>days</em> of rulings or actions with which they disagree. More than two months has passed. Not a peep. No surprise, of course. Why? Because the ACLU knows that their interest in protecting liberty includes protecting the liberty of the <em>store owners</em>, and that not only do they have no interest in reducing other people's rights, none of Dan Scott's rights have been in any way limited in the first place.<br /><br />At what date on the calendar, Manuel, will you acknowledge that?</p>

<p>I just re-read what I wrote above. Except for the brief retraction above where I hadn't taken account of something that Matt Laur wrote, I am very, very proud of what I wrote - and time has borne out and verified the wisdom of what I wrote about behaviors I advocated so ardently, both with members of the public on two continents as well as with 'officials' and 'officialdom' on two continents.</p>

<p>Experience in the intervening four years, including interaction with police officials and 'crazies' on two continents (outliers in fact) has verified the wisdom of behaving exactly as I advocated above.</p>

<p>I stand by what I wrote. </p>

<p>I also have heard no argument that says the photographer was not within his rights or that the 'blanket order' was constitutionally sound'.</p>

<p>A merchant is within his or her rights to eject a person from his or her premises if not for discrimination against a member of a US Constitutionally protected group, such as blacks, religious members, etc., and photographers are not such members, but to ask police to issue blanket orders in the face of LEGAL behavior then enforce them criminally is beyond the pale. <br>

It is a red herring whether or not the order was ever enforced or the ACLU ever got involved in a suit; it should have been, or the ACLU might have been ready to, but also might have found reason not to, such as the photographer wishing to leave matters where they were, or his own employment being jeopardized if he became a martyr for 'photographers rights' in some court battle that would have had to work its way through the appellate calendars.</p>

<p>Perhaps also there was a non-publicized 'deal' that for obvious reason we will never hear about? </p>

<p>Such things happen all the time.</p>

<p>In short, we know no more now, then when the above was written, and the failure of certain actions to be taken or not taken tells us nothing at all.</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p>2014</p>