more trouble, photo at school leads to disciplinary meeting

[daverhaas]

<p>Simon - </p>

<p>First - I couched my comment with the word "If" - and it's a big "IF" at this point. </p>

<p>Second - from Jeremy's post at the top of page 5... </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The reason for the hearing is not because of the student or the RA, it is because of me standing up to the employee. The form is done on behalf of the person I wrote the email to. Like I and some of you have said, I could have just deleted the photos and said nothing but some things are worth something to me and worth fighting for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He is admitting this is not about him taking a photo of 2 ladies - it is about an e-mail that he sent to the lady who filed the complaint against him. His words - Not mine. </p>

<p>IF (Read the word) IF - he had sent a polite, well worded email to the RHA - would we be having this debate? Probably not. Obviously - she felt threatened or felt that in some way he violated the code by the email he sent. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[vanessa_resler]

<p>Jeremy - what did you say in your email to the university representative? In your original post you said you "expressed [your] hostility" - so what did you say exactly? Do you think if you had simply apologized for any confusion, things might have been diffused?<br /> In your OP you state that you have done nothing illegal, therefore you've done nothing wrong. It's possible to do something wrong and still not have done anything technically illegal. So do you think it's right or wrong to keep photos of people who have become upset by being photographed and have asked you to delete the photos? Not is it legal, but is it right or wrong? Just a thought.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Obviously - she felt threatened or felt that in some way he violated the code by the email he sent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not obvious to me. All we know is that he sent an email. He said nothing about what was in the email. No hint about it being an unpleasant one. So I'm afraid I can't draw the 'obvious' conclusion that it was an email that the recipient felt threatened by.</p>

<p>This logic of: he's been summoned therefore he must be guilty, I don't get it. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, likes to look at facts rather than imagined smoke.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>In your original post you said you "expressed [your] hostility" - so what did you say exactly?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He seemed to mention expressing "hostility towards how she is treating me" in the context of the phone call rather than the email, though it's not 100% clear!</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<p>Maybe the OP will clarify whether or not the email he sent was threatening the recipient in any way, or abusive towards them.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

feeling insightful, a couple more 'insights' for ya mate...when americans know they are wrong, they avoid the question. When brits know they are wrong, they make sarcasms, laugh and eat more lousy food. Everybody lies, everybody dies;)

[simon_crofts]

<p>Yes, more insights, very interesting thanks.</p>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>Just as there's been nothing more than an assumption that the girls were "fearful" of Jeremy's stalkerish behavior. Once again, why would fearful, damsels in distress be knocking at the door, making demands and threats toward a perverted stalker?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You never know precisely what another person is thinking. But this is easy to infer from the facts as given. It's night, two girls are walking outside in the dark and some guy they don't know who is in a "lying in wait" type posture takes their photo. They then chase him through the dorm. It is safe to make the inference that the girls believed the photographer to be a creep, but they were not "damsels in distress" at all but rather tried to do something about the situation - by ascertaining the identity of the supposed creep so that they could report him.</p>

<p>The fact that it was a 50mm lens is completely irrelevant. A person who is not a keen-eyed camera expert won't recognize the lens, consider the field of view and distance to subject, decide she's going to be pretty small on the frame and go about her business.</p>

<p>From the OP's first post, he "expressed hostility," for which I have no interpretation except that he spoke some words in anger, and then received a complaint alleging some sort of verbal abuse violation. It is obvious that the person he spoke with on the phone felt she had been verbally abused.</p>

<p>I'm trying to advise the OP that it's important to try to see both sides here. He needs to understand <em>why</em> the people who made the complaint made it, as a first step in trying to find a way to come to a conciliation with them. They apparently all live in the same dorm.</p>

<p>Jeremy, do you really want to be in a fight with women who live in your dorm and perceive you to be a creep? That's not a good thing. We all know that you probably didn't break any laws, and you feel wronged, but how much is your pride worth to you? Apologize to the girls, tell them you see now how it must have looked bad and that you overreacted and feel terrible about it. Apologize to the RA or whoever it was you had strong words with on the phone. At least give them all a reason to think twice before they tell the disciplinary panel that you're a jerk.</p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>first of all, excse my grammar i am writing this on my phone while waiting for a burger. the mistake i made while making this thread was not telling you all who has a problem with me. between me and the girla, we have forgot about each other. now the employee on the other hand...</p>

<p>i wrote them a hostile letter, a rude response to a rude message from her. now, abusing her power, she is creating a complaint, on behalf of the girls. the girls have nothing to do with it, but people in this thread are focusing on that. the only involvement they have is being a weapon in the employees arsonel. she is using them to create a case against me in response to my email, yet i broke no rules. the problem is that she will be the most important person at the meeting, so my words will fall on deaf ears. she brought gender into it to politely call me a pervert, and literally called me creepy</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>a rude response to a rude message</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How rude were you? What kind of thing did you say? And what had she said?</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Jeremy,</p>

<p>Learn to pick your battles. Is this the hill you want to die trying to take ?</p>

<p>TECHNICALLY, you may well be within your rights to take the photos. TECHNICALLY, they were not within their rights to make you delete the shots. TECHNICALLY, the person on the phone should not have been getting on you, but TECHNICALLY, you shouldn't have expressed yourself back to them in a way they could find offensive. TECHNICALLY, you shouldn't have run away from the two girls and acted " odd ", even if you have a right to do so. You could end up being TECHNICALLY correct all the way along, and they could still boot you for some technicality you haven't considered.</p>

<p>Is it worth getting booted from the dorms or even the school, for those shots you took in the dark ? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"my words will fall on deaf ears"</em></p>

<p>Maybe then you will know how most of us in this room feel.</p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>fred, if you are going to be ignorant and unproductive why even post?</p>

<p>This is the email I sent to the employee. I agree that it was unprofessional to be rude in an email, but in the moment I felt on edge and disturbed. Before I received the email, I had a conversation with this person where they told me to just delete the photos[which I didn't have to do], I asked to see the rules that said I couldn't do this [the rule was emailed to me later, but it still did not apply to me], and I paraphrase her 'you know, just because you are a guy and they're girls...' and she also said 'you were acting kinda like a creep'. How could I reply in a practical and calm way? The way I see it, we were both being unprofessional, but in the end, she has more power so I get screwed in the end.</p>

<p>Dear ___________;<br>

I am an amateur photographer interested in the photography genre known as street photography. The goal of this genre is to capture candid images. Ideally, capturing genuine emotions portrayed by people, preferably without being noticed to ruin the realism. I could link you to numerous sources of articles telling the rights of photographers, but I believe the issue is being a nuisance.<br>

I am offended that you agree with the women that I am being creepy, and I simply see it as a nice way of calling me a pervert. Nothing I have done was wrong, and to be honest, the rule you have shown me is so vague that I could pretend someone existing is a nuisance, which is as ridiculous as this situation is. I understand the idea of preserving privacy and not disturbing someone. The reason why I was aiming outside and not indoors(living quarters) is because I respect the idea of privacy, in a private setting. If you are outside, it would seem that you are accepting that other people are able to see you, and public photography of people is acceptable. I do not understand how someones word can simply overrule my rights, and I am offended by the complete oppression in my direction. Again, I have done nothing wrong. I am simply trying to figure out what I have done wrong, I even asked the two ladies, the RA and you what I have done wrong, and no one has come up with a logical answer. When asking the two ladies, they simply made up laws which is degrading. First they tried the excuse that you need to be a certain age to take photos, which is crazy. I believe creating fake laws is a serious offense. Then they told me you need someones permission to take their photo, which is what you are telling me. I believe if you do not want to be photographed, simply walk away or don't go in public places. <br>

I do not understand the difference between 24/7 surveillance all over campus and me taking photos of people outside. One could argue that the 24/7 surveillance is simply for security and evidence in crime fighting, which is most likely true, but I cannot prove that. Perhaps, generally, people assume photographers are all perverts like you have portrayed which is simply offensive. I could show you all of my photographs to prove my positive intent, but I am simply optimistic enough that you would read this far, assuming this is as serious for you as it is for me.<br>

Now I would like to explain how the<br>

'No student shall obstruct, impede or disrupt any educational, research, administrative, social or recreational activity of the University; nor shall any student create a nuisance to members or guests of the University <br /> community.'<br>

works in my favor. I have just literally labeled as a 'creep' by two students and an employee of the school. Really though, the fact that you brought up me being male and the emotionally disturbed students women is just to stress that I am a pervert, I could see no other intent. So much for the community. How could my educational activity not be disrupted when I am surrounded by people who associate me with being a creep and possibly a pervert? Not to mention my recreational activity, photography, is being completely disrupted.<br>

I am not saying I am right, perhaps Stonybrook has its own rules, but I can simply tell my perspective to clear my name. I would like to discuss this to preserve my rights until I am able to take photos without name calling and controversy.<br>

Jeremy Dennis</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>So, assuming that you were only rude, and didn't threaten her, you can most likely turn the tables on her at the meeting. Apologise for being rude. Then point out that accusing someone of being a creep or pervert is an extremely serious allegation, and point out that it is not an accusation that should be made lightly, especially with little or flimsy evidence. Ask her how many other people she has discussed it with.</p>

<p>Better not to threaten directly to make a complaint against her for professional misconduct, that will only be confrontational and escalate things, but you can hint delicately that she might be heading in that direction. For example, you can ask whether there are guidelines in place in the college about when tutors are justified in making such allegations, and ask her whether she discussed whether you were being creepy perverted with other people. Point out the damage that it may have done you within the college. If you put it right, she will back off.</p>

<p>You also need to emphasise as part of this that what you was doing was perfectly normal and part of preparation for your course work etc. Discuss street photography with her, what you were doing and why.</p>

<p>I honestly wouldn't go around apologising to everyone for making the photos, you will only be labelled as being in the wrong/creep/pervert/etc.. Apologise for being rude, behave totally reasonably and calmly, point out why you were taking the pictures and why you objected to the false accusation.</p>

<p>From what you've described of the situation so far, that seems the best approach.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"fred, if you are going to be ignorant"</em></p>

<p>That name-calling thing seems to be a recurring problem for you, Jeremy. </p>

[simon_crofts]

Sorry, my last post cross-posted with yours, so I hadn't seen your email. At a quick first reading, that doesn't even strike me as rude, let alone not threatening and abusive against her.

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>fred, at least you agree with me that you are being unproductive</p>

<p>simon at the time I thought it was all going to be fine, but reading it recently, the problem that caused the meeting is probably:<br>

"but I am simply optimistic enough that you would read this far, assuming this is as serious for you as it is for me."</p>

<p>I did not threaten her physically, but I challenged her intelligence I believe. That would offend me the most if I were in her perspective. I said it to stress how strongly I felt about defending myself and my emotions conquered me.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Hmm, at my quick reading I missed that sentence. Still, not too bad. Maybe it's actually good - it gives you something that you can apologise for, while turning the tables back.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>the reason for the clash is because I am discussing things from a law perspective and a few of the posters here are discussing from a morality perspective.</em><br>

If you want to get very far doing street and documentary photography, you need to start thinking about things from a pragmatic perspective--you need to behave in a way that doesn't generate suspicion or, when it does, then reduces suspicion and discomfort. You'll never win an argument with people you're photographing by citing your legal rights. For that matter, you're unlikely to ever win an argument if you let it escalate to an argument. If you don't develop a better sense of how to deal with people, you're going to keep running into trouble.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For future practices, this response from Mike Dixon is excellent advice.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>And if your user name on here is your real name, I would change it PDQ (your user name, not your real name!)</p>

[don_essedi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_vampire#Energy_vampires

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Jeremy, you've stated several times in this thread that you were called a pervert. What you wrote in your email, however, is this:</p>

<p><em>"I am offended that you agree with the women that I am being creepy, and I simply see it as a nice way of calling me a pervert."</em></p>

<p>So, what actually happened is she said you were acting creepy and you turned that into her calling you a pervert. You then further turned that into gender discrimination. So, you went from being told your actions were creepy to claiming that she called you a pervert to fabricating a case of gender discrimination. </p>

[jeremy_dennis]

<p>Fred that is not true and you are using my email out of context, please review the whole thread before you misinterpret it again.</p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>You never know precisely what another person is thinking. But this is easy to infer from the facts as given. It's night, two girls are walking outside in the dark and some guy they don't know who is in a "lying in wait" type posture takes their photo. They then chase him through the dorm. It is safe to make the inference that the girls believed the photographer to be a creep, but they were not "damsels in distress" at all but rather <strong>tried to do something about the situation - by ascertaining the identity of the supposed creep so that they could report him.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong></strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Andy, Please don't misunderstand. If the girls were "creeped" by the way Jeremy went about photographing them, I wouldn't be surprised...and I could easily understand the way they felt. So I'm not taking up for the manner in which the photographs were taken or the way Jeremy has handled the situation. My point was simply that it's been assumed that this was the reason the girls objected...that is, they felt threatened in some way. It may simply be that they felt their privacy had been invaded. Lots of people don't like their picture to be taken by a total stranger, and it's not always about "fear". As to "ascertaining the identity of the supposed creep so that they could report him"...you don't have to pound someone's door and make demands to ascertain their identity. If Jeremy actually were a pererted creep...they could have placed themselves in a place of serious danger. </p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I'd say the distinction between a creep and a pervert is a fine one, and probably not core to the whole situation.</p>