Harassed by Police for photography on playground. (Memory card confiscated and harassed by police)

[Brad_]

>>> But it IS perfectly legal to stand outside the playground area with a 70-200 and take

pictures of the kids

 

And you do understand that you may even be more likely to be *questioned* by the police

shooting under such circumstances, right?

[carbon_dragon]

I deeply admire the people with the character (and the money) to exercise their rights in the face of inappropriate behavior by police or other authorities. I had my own much less traumatic experience with the railroad police recently.

 

While I can understand how parents can be afraid and paranoid, that doesn't give them the right to assault anyone -- and it doesn't give the police the right to make up the laws. But making them see that will probably involve a lawsuit with a big enough payout to get the authority's attention. Sad but often true.

 

I am an amateur landscape photographer mostly and work hard to exclude people from my pictures. Even so I've had at least one guy running at me and screaming because I was taking a picture of the side of his apartment building (it was my complex and I was just walking around for exercise). Whether you have the right to take a picture or not, most people will respect someone's desire not to have a picture taken if it's just presented calmly and reasonably (at least for non-news photographers).

 

If the department has a public affairs department, maybe they would be something to try. If not, I hope your lawyer rakes them over the coals. It's probably the only way that the policy of the precinct involved will change.

[i.larner]

Strange why people should worry so much about people photgraphing their kids in a public place when the figures show that the majority of child abuse cases involve people known to the child.

A study in three states found 96 percent of reported rape survivors under age 12 knew the attacker. Four percent of the offenders were strangers, 20 percent were fathers 16 percent were relatives and 50 percent were acquaintances or friends. Among women 18 or older, 12 percent were raped by a family member, 33 percent by a stranger and 55 percent by an acquaintance. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsabuse1.htm

Perhaps on this evidence we should lock up fathers as a matter of course, just in case.

[johnw436]

If someone wants to photograph my children they can come up to me and ask. If they don't ask I will approach them politely and ask them not to do it.

 

Where your camera ends up is totally dependant on your response and whether you think your rights are more valuable to you than the safety of my children is to me. I am not the police. It is not my obligation to protect your rights. It is my obligation to protect my children. You can say that children aren't kidnapped and killed by photographers- that isn't the point. They are kidnapped and killed by people with an inappropriate preoccupation with children...

maybe like some adult male spending his afternoon on a playground. The fact that a child molester has a camera or not is irrelevent. If you were carrying a pipe wrench should I feel better because plumbers don't kidnap children as a rule? Here's what we DO KNOW. Child Molesters like pictures of kids. It is their porn. Here's a sinle guy with a camera at a playground. What part of that doesn't raise red flags?

 

Take pictures of your own children. Your free speech does not include my children who made no conscious decision to be photographed.

 

You have all kinds of rights. You also have responsibilities with those rights and the onus is on you to use good judgement in certain instances. Sometimes you just have to be smarter than that. You have all the rights in the world to go inside of a crackhouse and take pictures. Just don't be surprised when you get shot, stabbed, or beaten to death by the crack dealers running the place.

 

Tell the ACLU? They are the protectors of child molesters everywhere.

 

For the record, I have no reason to believe you are a child molester. I also have no reason to believe you aren't. Whether or not the cops treated you fairly has nothing to do with the fact you made people at the park worried enough to call the cops.

[cenelsonfoto]

"Tell the ACLU? They are the protectors of child molesters everywhere."

 

Oh, brother.... here's another one.

 

"Where your camera ends up is totally dependant on your response and whether you think your rights are more valuable to you than the safety of my children is to me. I am not the police. It is not my obligation to protect your rights. It is my obligation to protect my children."

 

More of the same old yaddayaddayadda. Another lardass weightlifter come to tell me he's 6'5 and 20-stone, eats coal for breakfast lunch and dinner. What makes you think yer just gonna shove anything up my anywhere? And...Protect your children from what? Cameras? If you don't understand how the law works, then you deserve what you get for exercising your "obligation to protect" your brats.

 

"You also have responsibilities with those rights and the onus is on you to use good judgement in certain instances."

 

No, John. The "onus" is next to your anus, and on you it apparently quivers like a schoolgirl at the sight of camera. Essentially, you are stating that any who dares exercise their rights in the public space - provided that right conflicts with your desires - is subject to immediate punishment at your hands. Yer a fool.

 

The smart move would be to hustle your paranoid asses out of the park so that sane people might feel comfortable using it. We don't like you there.

 

The law will remind you of that in both criminal and civil court, btw. You can't just launch into an attack because you feel skeered. Dubya, is thatchoo?

 

You ruin our days everywhere we go with your paranoia and shrieking like some mutant from Invasion of the Body-Snatchers. Calling for the cops because some stranger took a photo of kids at play, because it reminded him of happier times in his life, or because it simply made for a nice photo - meanwhile, yer brother's fingering your five yr old when yer not looking. But hey, all pedophiles hang out in the park and shoot Leicas and are responsible for 99.9% of whatever child abductions occur. And you should know, because you read it... where... freerepublic? Some other neo-dirtbag fright-mag?

 

Yeh, you better hide, come to think of it. Too dangerous out there in the world. All the...vermin... the filth of humanity.

 

Just knowing that loose cannons like yourself and others hang out in parks - big brave badasses who spook at the sight of a stranger with a camera and commence to beating shit out of said stranger - well, that scares me to death. Gee, Wally, what happened to America? Where'd all the hair-triggered chickenshits come from?

 

C.

[cenelsonfoto]

And since turnabout is fair play, you should assume that us dirtbag shutterbugs are armed with pepper-spray... .357s... RPGs... whatever... have fun with it.... and we are aware that guys like you think it's cool to attack guys like us, you know, just 'cuz yer vagina spasmed when I came near... so assume that we too feel that same "right" to defense absent cause and will simply whip out the pepper spray and start tagging yer big ass the moment you do so much as fart while we're nearby. After all, everybody knows that big guys with bad nerves and hair-triggers intent on protecting their cubs tend to fart before charging. I know, I read it somewhere.

[cenelsonfoto]

I also wager these "complaints" don't come about half as often if the photographer is a female.

[wigwam jones]

<blockquote><i>

If someone wants to photograph my children they can come up to me and ask. If they don't ask I will approach them politely and ask them not to do it.</i></blockquote>

<p>That's a perfectly reasonable response.</p>

<blockquote><i>

Where your camera ends up is totally dependant on your response and whether you think your rights are more valuable to you than the safety of my children is to me.</i></blockquote>

<p>That, in my opinion, is not reasonable. Nor is it terribly smart. Frankly, if you ask me not to take photos of your children, I will probably honor your request. I understand your fear, and I've no desire to provoke confrontations with parents. Of course, if you decide to take it up a notch, you might want to be sure that you won't be doing yourself a disservice.</p>

<blockquote><i>I am not the police. It is not my obligation to protect your rights. It is my obligation to protect my children.</i></blockquote>

<p>You won't be able to do that well if you're in jail for assaulting photographers.</p>

<blockquote><i>Take pictures of your own children.</i></blockquote>

<p>We do. And other things. Amazingly, I don't generally consider it important to check in with you before I decide what or whom to photograph.</p>

<blockquote><i>Your free speech does not include my children who made no conscious decision to be photographed.</i></blockquote>

<p>Actually, it does. You might want to read up on that 'free speech' thing. A bunch of guys wearing black robes have pretty much said you're wrong. You can ask them.</p>

<blockquote><i>You have all the rights in the world to go inside of a crackhouse and take pictures.</i></blockquote>

<p>Actually, *that* would most likely be illegal, unless you invited us in.</p>

<blockquote><i>Tell the ACLU? They are the protectors of child molesters everywhere.</i></blockquote>

<p>Only in their spare time. Most of the time, they are very busy protecting neo-nazis and white supremacists. Or so I've heard.</p>

<p>Honestly, John, you're either flaming for no particular reason other than to see what kind of reaction you get, or you really have no idea how the law works. I understand your desire to protect your children, all parents should have that kind of concern. But you as much as admit that you don't care what the facts are, you don't care what the law says, you're going to do what you want to do - and that's ok, because you're protecting your kids. May I just say - it was this attitude that otherwise decent people used to keep 'certain people' out of their neighborhoods twenty years ago. Think about it.</p>

[cenelsonfoto]

Bill's right... I mean, yer not the only guy, John, who has kids and loves them with all his heart. I love my daughter, and my step-son, though no longer with his mother... not for the now, at least. If any moved to harm either of those three people, I would give my life to protect them. But will I flip a lid at every little thing I perceive to be a threat? No, and it would be foolish to do so.

 

I find it odd that so many in this country continue to seek out bogeymen to destroy among the general population, while ignoring the larger threat manifested in corrupt politicians, administrators, corporate heads, and so on. Not just odd, but willfully blind.

 

The truth of course, to my mind, seems to be that it's far easier to focus one's anger and fear on one's fellow man than it is to accept the task of contending with rancid elements of the aforementioned - politicians, administrators, corporate heads.

 

C.

[ray .]

I've got the baseball game on and they're showing little kids in the crowd. Close

up no less. Must be either a left wing conspiracy or the network is just plain perverted.

[david_m]

Everyone should be blinded at birth, so no-one can look at anything objectionable.

[gaius1]

<blockquote>Where your camera ends up is totally dependant on your response and whether you think your rights are more valuable to you than the safety of my children is to me.<blockquote>What makes you think anyone wants to take photos of your kids? Here's a clue, your children might be special to you, but to everyone else on the planet (that's 6 billion people) they just look like any other kids. The photographer is probably pissed off that your precious kids keep running into the shot he's trying to make. But you won't see a photographer come up to you and say keep your kids under control because photographers have basic manners, whereas you're just looking for a fight. Here's another free clue: you don't want to take a beating in front of your kids. Especially you don't want your kids to know their father got beaten and humiliated because they were bad.

[Allen Herbert]

Ha, a kid is dying in the world every minute from hunger, disease, war....

 

Hey, as long as someone is not taking photos of your little Jimmy eating a doughnut.....that what matters.<div></div>

[jp berger]

Vincent, I'm just answering your original post, too tired to read the entire debate....<p>

I live in France (Paris), and a few years back, I had new lenses I wanted to test, so I went to the nearest park. I had a Canon 70-200 f/4 (a white one, clearly visible), and shot some birds and anything of interest. But I was not far from a playground.<br>

Within minutes, the park guards (not affiliated to police, they are just civil servants with no law enforcement rights), approached me and asked politely what I was shooting. I understood their concerned, and in the same time felt a little shocked that I could be assimilated to a pervert !<br>

I just replied I was testing my new lenses, shooting nothing special. We all stayed very polite, chat for 5 min, they were sastified with the answer and went away.... <p>

Everyone is innoncent till proven guilty (at least, in democratic countries), but in many cases, it seems to be the contrary. It's also said at the beginning of the book of law that "no one shall be ignorent of the law".. easier said than done, most of the cops don't know anything about photography and image rights... If you <i>know</i> (or at least <i>believe strongly</i>) that you did nothing illegal, stay polite, but ferm....<p>

Good luck next time !

[david.wagle]

<i>I'd still like to know whether any of the "I have a constitutional right to do as I please" crowd is prepared to say that he or she disagrees with the New York by-law, as stated in prominent signs at every children's play area, that an adult cannot enter the area unaccompanied by a child and, if so, whether anyone has violated that law or intends to do so. </i>

<br>

Where I a citizen of the state of NY and my tax dollars had been used to create the public accomodation that is a public playground, I would be very irrate, and I would likely enter a park if the mood struck me fully prepared to take my case to court.

<br>

However, since I am not a citizen of the state of NY, I don't plan on living there anytime soon, then I really don't care.

<br>

Moreover, your assertion here seems to be that since it would be the civil thing to do to not take pictures without asking first, that it is therefore excusable for the police to violate one's rights.

<br>

I'm sorry, but that is where we part company. I agree with you that it is in fact the civil thing to do to ask before taking a shot of kids. I'm a parent myself.

<br>

However, I also happen to know that if I take my kids to a public park that the park is in fact public.

<br>

If the account is correct and the police did act in the way they did, then it is a big deal. A civil society remains so only so long as the rule of law is in fact respected. That includes limits of authority being respected by those in authority.

<br>

Is it as important as some other issues? No. But it is a violation rights -- and it was the police, not the poster, who made this a legal issue (again presuming the account is correct).

[erikdenhouter]

There's indeed a positive side of your ordeal:

 

"Count yourself lucky that the parents called the cops instead of taking the law in their own hands."

Below, that photo, that shows a woman accusing me publicly of abusing and sexually harassing her and other children. The way i was accused gave me no room to proof her wrong, and many people (under which a lot of young children) could now have their doubts.

For you, you were arrested, and the person(s) that called the cops will look rather foolish when your memory card shows them wrong.

 

"Whether or not the cops treated you fairly has nothing to do with the fact you made people at the park worried enough to call the cops"

 

I was NOT taking pictures, my camera was in my bag, i just walked by.

"Worried people" can hurt you just as much as their own fears dwell.<div></div>

[wigwam jones]

It took me awhile to find the NY law referred to in this thread.

 

*** QUOTE ***

 

?1-05 Regulated Uses:

(s) Exclusive Areas

 

Areas within the parks designated by the Commissioner for exclusive use shall include:

 

(1) Exclusive Childrens Playgrounds: Adults allowed in playground areas only when accompanied by a child under the age of twelve (12).

 

*** END QUOTE ***

 

First I had heard of it - and I've never seen such a sign. But I don't live in NY, don't visit all that often.

 

I think it is a tad absurd, but I've come to expect such nonsense on both ends of the US. Like some potential kidnapper is going to read the sign, go "Oh, no, I guess I'll have to go somewhere else to kidnap a child!" and go find an unprotected park. Puh-leeze. Does anybody really think that works?

 

Would I break such a law? No. I respect the law, and would only engage in civil disobedience if I had the time, money, desire, and energy to be arrested, prosecuted, and attempt to have the law ruled unconstitutional. I don't care what NY does. So I'd obey such a law, sigh at the silliness of those of a certain belief system that thinks such laws prevent crimes, and walk away to wherever freedom can still be found.

[matt_flannery]

Come on, let's all be realistic here. You have no press credentials. You don't have a kid in the park. We here know you mean no harm, just a photography enthusiast. And yes, kids are some of the most fun subjects to photograph because they haven't become self conscious yet.

 

But to everyone else, there's just no way to tell if you are a threat or not. Legal, illegal... I'm not so sure I'd be completely fine with a guy in a park taking pictures of my kids.

[wigwam jones]

<blockquote><i>

Come on, let's all be realistic here.

</i></blockquote>

<p>I try to be.</p>

<blockquote><i>

You have no press credentials.

</i></blockquote>

<p>a) How do you know what I have? I've certainly had press credentials for various events I've covered. b) People tend to think that there is some 'permission slip' that 'news' photographers get, which 'ordinary' photographers don't. While news agencies may issue credentials to their employees to identify them to others, they have no legal standing and no legal meaning. They're not 'required' by anyone, for anything. I have 'credentials' from my employer. No one outside my employer is obligated to recognize them for anything.</p>

<blockquote><i>

You don't have a kid in the park.

</i></blockquote>

<p>So what? I don't own any statues in the park, but I can take photographs of 'em.</p>

<blockquote><i>

We here know you mean no harm, just a photography enthusiast. And yes, kids are some of the most fun subjects to photograph because they haven't become self conscious yet.

</i></blockquote>

<p>Glad to hear you ascribe no evil motives to me. If you read the thread, others here feel that's not true.</p>

<blockquote><i>

But to everyone else, there's just no way to tell if you are a threat or not. Legal, illegal... I'm not so sure I'd be completely fine with a guy in a park taking pictures of my kids.

</i></blockquote>

<p>And my point is - and sorry, this is harsh - I don't care if you're ok with my taking photos of your kid or not. You don't get a say. You have no rights when it comes to stopping a photographer from taking a photo of your child in a public setting. Your only recourse is to remove your child from public view.</p>

<p>There are only two responses in this thread.</p>

<p>The first is that photographers don't or shouldn't have the right to take photos of people who object to it.</p>

<p>The second is that photographers may have the right, but should not do it as a matter of courtesy or public safety.</p>

<p>I summarily reject the first - it isn't true, it hasn't been true, and to the best of my knowledge, it won't be true. Lots of folks are getting wrapped around the axle on that, but no one can point to a law that forbids photography of children in public - the NY law on adults not entering exclusive children's areas in public parsk notwithstanding.</p>

<p>The second response (courtesy), I am willing to accede to in most circumstances, if requested. But *I* will choose when and if I will agree not to take a photograph. No one will demand it of me and get a positive response.</p>

<p>So in the end - of those who don't want photos taken of children without permission, I am either a criminal or just plain rude. I'm ok with either definition - because they're both wrong from my point of view.</p>

[matt_m__toronto_]

i take great interest in this subject and just wanted to voice that i back wigwam up 100%

[ray .]

<i>But *I* will choose when and if I will agree not to take a photograph. No one will demand

it of me and get a positive response.</i><p>Unfortunately, in the real world, if the guy

making the demands is bigger than you or aggressive enough, most of us are going to go

along with what the demand is whether we really want to or not. The law isn't very useful at

the moment when your physical safety is in jeopardy.

[wigwam jones]

Of course one must make decisions based upon the level of threat one perceives.

 

Two thoughts - first, I've always operated under the scientific theory that I can run faster scared than you can mad. Second, I am always amazed at people who demand that I obey the law and stop taking photos without permission.

 

When informed that there is no such law, they choose to break the law themselves to threaten me with assault. I guess what they're really saying is "I want you to do what I want you to do, the law be damned." Amazing, but if they want to be arrested that much, I have no trouble assisting them.

[cenelsonfoto]

Have to be careful with the "law" arguments, because bad laws are put in place quite often. This really isn't a matter of law at all, but one of inalienable rights as manifest in the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

The key here is justice. Is it just for a law or person to restrict my right to freedom of expression, speech, and pursuit of happiness in the public space?

 

I say no.

 

C.

[cenelsonfoto]

Add to that protection from unlawful arrest/search/seizure, etc.

[wigwam jones]

I use 'law' as opposed to 'rights' in this sense because I will generally obey even a law that I believe to be unconstitutional. The exception would be if I were willing to be arrested, prosecuted, and attempt to prove the law unconstitutional in court. I do not have that luxury in my present circumstances, but I do not rule it out as a response; I applaud those who have the time, ability, and desire to 'take it all the way' to prove the law wrong when they believe it to be so. I have finally, in my middle age, learned that I cannot fight every battle, but must pick and choose my moments.