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

[wigwam jones]

Ray, I posted it with blanked faces because I *am* willing accede to requests not to reveal identities. As I've said all along, I understand and sympathize with parents who fear strangers with cameras and what nefarious uses a photograph of their progeny could be put to, yadda, yadda. I'm not a bad guy or a meanie.

 

Now, if a cop told me that I'd be arrested if I posted this, then you bet it would be revealed - I'd beg to be arrested. I am free to censor myself. People are free to ask me to censor myself, and I'll generally go along with the gag. My government(s) are not free to censor me or to prohibit my freedom of expression. There is a difference. I'm sorry you don't seem to be getting that.

 

Sorry you find the shots uninteresting. My intent was to inform, not necessarily entertain. Besides, I like them.

[gary_watson]

I don't recall irritating the $hit out of people being a constitutional matter.A childish sense of entitlement coupled with a personal conceit about photographic talent seem the problems.I saw a persistent kiddie shooter's D100 pitched into Lake Ontario last summer when he wouldn't stop snapping kids at a splash pad after repeated admonitions.Think he bought his own misery.

[wigwam jones]

<blockquote><i>

I don't recall irritating the $hit out of people being a constitutional matter.

</i></blockquote>

<p>I don't suspect that it is.</p>

<blockquote><i>

A childish sense of entitlement coupled with a personal conceit about photographic talent seem the problems.

</i></blockquote>

<p>I just want to make sure I'm clear on this. If I were a *good* photographer, then it would be OK, is that it? I mean, you brought it up, it must mean something. Or are you just being insulting for fun?</p>

<blockquote><i>

I saw a persistent kiddie shooter's D100 pitched into Lake Ontario last summer when he wouldn't stop snapping kids at a splash pad after repeated admonitions.Think he bought his own misery.

</i></blockquote>

<p>I think you witnessed a lawless act of theft and destruction of private property that should have gotten the actor arrested, as well as sued for damages. A real pity if it did not.</p>

<p>Continual giving away of our rights will buy us all the misery we can handle. But good luck to you.</p>

[ray .]

<i>I saw a persistent kiddie shooter's D100 pitched into Lake Ontario last summer when he

wouldn't stop snapping kids at a splash pad after repeated admonitions.Think he bought his

own misery.</i><p>Cool. A pnet hero condones childish entitlement to lawlessness and

violence.

[gary_watson]

Pot shots at the messenger sorta fits the tone of this thread. For context's sake, Toronto's been the scene of some gruesome child abductions and murders over the past decade that sensitized parents to aggressive and persistent strangers' interest in their kids.The shooter was waved off, warned, and then finally confronted.Wigwam might wonder what anyone with so intense an interest in shooting kids was up to that afternoon. I did. Pros generally know the legal landscape and none I know would waste the time or risk an avoidable confrontation just to make a point over something this inconsequential. Their priorities--and mine--just seem different than yours.

[matt_m__toronto_]

gary, not sure what you thread you're reading as you say the 'shooter was waved off, warned, and then finally confronted.'

 

it doesn't take much effort to read vincent's 2nd line:

 

'My parter and I were enjoying the day, talking to parents, shooting pictures of kids at play. No one seemed to have a problem. We decided to move on and about 30 seconds after we drive off the police pull us over and start grilling us.'

[kelly_flanigan1]

Most kids that vanish in the USA are due to marriages, relatives, not total strangers grabbing them. Its almost always some inbreeding, pseudo marriages, breakdown squabbles about where the kids should live, who raises them. It maybe is the folks who dont want to be photographed are wanted, are mafia, their kids wanted, folks are illegal; couples cheating on each other, parents seeing their kids when there is a restraining order on them.<BR><BR> The total stanger gambit is a smoke screen by many who have an interest in paranoia; usually in a money way. When a kid dissappear the folks searched are relatives, folks claiming the kid is theirs. <BR><BR>In shooting school sports images once we had a parent that didnt want his kid's photos taken . So the kid was photoshopped out of the teams photos, a the game shots too. Since I do retouching and have a yellow page advert for retouching; I went the extra mile and created the Jackassery the retarded parents wanted; their kid didnt exist on the team. Parents love their selfish ways; insuring that their kids are not in high school annuals.<BR><BR> With pride they are creating paranoid kids who will fear a total stranger with a camera more than a freight train crossing, driving drunk. Part of the USA is rotten, folks worry about the wrong things and have little if any sense of scale.

[ray .]

Kelly, I've always enjoyed reading your posts- you've always something interesting and

insightful to

say.

[tony bell]

Late to the conversation here but obviously the police handled this very poorly. But if I were a police officer observing people, particularly men, taking photographs of children who are obviously not in thier personal care I'd at least investigate what they were doing. As a photographer I think civil rights protections are extremely important. As a parent, if I saw a stranger taking pictures of my kids I'd sure as hell find out what it was all about. In this world we live in to NOT be acutely aware and concerned about a threat, any threat, to your children you are absolutely a negligent parent.

[gary_watson]

Matt, I was discussing the TO incident I witnessed, not Vincent's. The TO camera-tossing affair wasn't amusing, trust me.Plainly, though, someone present among the group Vincent chatted up wasn't as kindly disposed or simply didn't trust them. Sorry, Kelly, but I don't buy your simplistic rejection of the "bogey man" thesis, simply because it's been proven otherwise with disturbing frequency in Toronto where kids have been killed by strangers--not whacko estranged common law spouses or relatives.

[cenelsonfoto]

Yer right, Hero Gary. None will be safe until every last one is safe from every imaginable threat. To that end, ANY caught photographing people unrelated to them should be arrested, strip-searched, their computers seized and analyzed, complete background checks initiated, their mugshots taken along with a DNA sample, and entered into a database for future scrutiny should anything bad happen. Eureka! I can see the beauty in paranoia now! Let me be the first to do my part in securing absolute safety for absolutely none.

[cenelsonfoto]

BTW, where can I buy one of those dandy hero signs? That's pimp as hell.

[gary_lagnese1]

I totally agree with wigwam. After reading about the guy taking pics in the target parking lot

in south windsor, CT, I wanted to go to that target store lot and take pics with my 560mm

and film camera. I would take only pics of the building, but the cops wouldnt know that until

the film was developed. BTW, there are no signs on that lot prohibiting photography. My

lawer advised otherwise, because an arrest, although false, would still violate my probation.

So I will wait a few more months. When talking to an expectant mother about photographing

kids in public, she said no way to take pics of her kids. I then asker her if it was ok for her to

take pics of her kid and someone elses, she said that was different. All our rights are going

down the tubes, and most are cheering it on. Very Sad

[robert_m_johnson]

KF - "the retarded parents wanted"

 

Poor choice of words...

[robert_m_johnson]

We are talking about people rights here, people with "developmental disabilities" have

the right to be treated with respect.

[robert_m_johnson]

"peoples rights",

 

it just surprises me that people can be so unintentionally insensitive sometimes...

[robert_m_johnson]

KF, sorry for singling you out. It was just like back in the 70's when Ida Casey taught

me that women were not "chicks!" :-)

[gary_watson]

Two issues very much in play in Canada are prior consent and privacy--both ignored or unknown among most of the posters on this predictable thread. Check out the Jan. 2007 issue of PhotoLife for a concise discussion of Canadian legal decisions on these issues.

[cenelsonfoto]

Who cares about Canadian law? The OP had his encounter in Detroit. Last time I checked, on the US side of the Lake. What happen(s)(ed) in Canada is no more germane to this thread than Edge's comments about what is acceptable in the ME.

[gary_watson]

Blinkered are we, CE? You might be interested to know that Canada's federal and provincial privacy laws protect citizens from corporate and governmental intrusions to an arguably greater degree than your's do.But then I wouldn't want to tear you away from the view through your knot hole.

[cenelsonfoto]

Gary, don't take the piss.<p>My point is that Canadian laws have no bearing on our USA situations. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Yours is at least the third pointer to law/custom/norms outside the USA, none of which have anything to do with the questions/issues presented herein.<p>If you have a specific point to make regarding US-vs-Canadian protections or lack thereof, please cite language and reason for making the point. Otherwise, why bother? <p>

My concern remains that of how to handle increasing paranoia in the USA, or, how to help assuage concerns on our soil while retaining our right to free expression/speech/etc. I'm not ignorant of the law, nor do I seek to harrass concerned parents or others in the public space, and by that same token will not stand for being denied my rights based solely on paranoia and "concerns" that bad things happen, sometimes at the hands of folks who appreciate photography.

<p>

Still wanna know how you got that hero-worship tag.<p>

C.

[gaius1]

If you take a photo in Canadia a Mountie will come over and ask you "what's it all aboot, eh?"

 

Unless you have a mullet, in which case he'll know you're a true Canadian, eh.

[michael s.]

Actually, I am interested in hearing about other countries' laws (and also their customs, norms, and practices). Pointing out the differences among places is a worthwhile aspect of the discussion.

 

But like Ray, I don't warm up at all to the "serves him right" notion when it endorses violent thuggery. Seems to me that's a recipe for more crimes, not fewer crimes.

[cenelsonfoto]

How it goes in other countries is of interest to me as well, though it has nothing to do with the OP's post. Another thread, perhaps, would be a good idea, one discussing and weighing the various conditions for public photography. But this thread? Off-topic.

 

I'm not ignorant of conditions elsewhere. I argue my position, believe me, from the standpoint of one who knows how things are in other cultures and does not wish to see my rights as a citizen of the USA further eroded to the point of those living under far worse entities.

 

Example: I cannot imagine what it must be like to live in the UK where the EYE can follow you hither and thither. Nor can I contend with what it must be like to live in a super-stratified nation such as India with it's caste-system, or under the bootheel of Islamic fundamentlism allowing for stoning, hanging, imprisonment for "offending" the government, or crimes against chastity, etc.

 

That said, it is the responsibility of US citizens to protect their rights/freedoms/liberties just as it is the duty of citizens of the UK and elsewhere to win/protect their own. I will oppose it here, where I can make a difference in my own life.

 

Any interested in how they do it elsewhere can freely mine that information, at least, here they can. But to prop up how other nations handle the issue presented herein as an argument pro/con US liberties is pointless. My opinion, of course.

 

C.

[alec_myers]

I have a question for those who are keen to "protect" their children in a public place by preventing (with or without violence) a photograph of them being taken: could someone please explain how that photo actually harms the child in question?

 

Just as an aside, I've taken lots of pictures of people - men, women, very few children though - and I don't think that act has actually hurt any of them.

 

I really can't see any way in which an absence of photography prevents harm to children, and I'd love to be enlightened.