Update: Read my article on this subject in the Miami New Times.
By Carlos Miller
Momoko Sudo, the Japanese artist who watched helplessly as a Coral Gables police officer deleted the photo she took of him as well as the other photos she had taken that day, was able to retrieve the photo using recovery software.
Here is Officer Friendly in all his glory.
The officer, whose last name is Rodriguez, not only deleted every image in her camera, he also removed the memory card and slammed it on the ground, according to Sudo, who has been keeping tabs of the incident on her own Website. He then ordered her to leave the area.
After lodging a complaint with the Coral Gables Police Department, Sudo learned that Officer Rodriguez will receive only a written reprimand which will remain in his file for a year.
This “slap on the wrist” prompted Coral Gables resident Douglas Clark to fire off a complaint to Coral Gables Mayor Don Slesnick, Police Chief Michael Hammerschmidt as well as city commissioners William Kerdyk Jr., Rafael Cabrera Jr., Maria Anderson and Wayne “Chip” Withers.
Clark, who had been following the story on Sudo’s Website, is a photographer who has a very interesting series of photos titled “Street Life”. He stated the following in an email:
I am an amateur photographer and I quite often take photos in and around the Coral Gables area.
I am fully aware of my rights as a photographer, and that include the right to refuse to turn over media or
cameras without a court order. To have the digital, intellectual property of this complainant destroyed,
and possibly the physical asset damaged by the actions of a representative of our police department
is unlawful, and completely outside the bounds of appropriate behavior.The punishment meted out to the officer is inadequate. To have a complaint lodged in a personnel file
for 1 year is a minor slap on the wrist, at best. Mandatory re-training in the rights of civilians, including
laws regarding unlawful search and seizure, and personal interactions with the public should be required
of this officer.Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.
Douglas Clark
The mayor was unaware of the incident because he replied to the Clark, Hammerschmidt as well as some of his staffers with the following message:
Can someone brief me on this matter? Thank you. Don
This morning, I contacted the Coral Gables public information officer who said he had not heard of the incident. However, he took the information down and assured me he would get back to me as soon as possible. He has not yet called.
Stay tuned because this is going to get interesting.
Popularity: 57% [?]
Related posts:
- Coral Gables police officer deletes images on civilian’s memory card
- A Coral Gables police officer asks me for a permit after I photograph him
- Miami police officer who crashed vehicle has resigned
- UK man arrested for “assaulting” police officer with camera
- D.C. official arrested for “assault on a police officer” for photographing cops
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
What, no comments yet? I am surprised your usual group of “fans” hasn’t shown up yet to call you a Communist or the like.
Keep fighting the good fight Carlos.
No comments yet, but this is getting a huge amount of page views so far.
740 views since I posted it just over two hours ago.
As for my “fans”, I suspect they’ve run out of arguments.
keep fighting, if you hear nothing in a few days, take it to your local paper – politicians don’t like bad press about them on the front page
This cop was probably embarrased to be chit-chatting with his girlfriend on his personal cell phone in a beautiful Coral Gables park instead of his doing his job. Easy, just delete the picture, huh?! Priceless!
Everyone’s entitled to a break here and there.
Hey Jorge, if he was entitled to a break, then why did he delete the pic? Of course people are entitled to breaks, but if someone takes a pic of me while I’m on one, I wouldn’t freak out.
Ms C,
He was parked off to the side of Coral Way in a speed trap sort of way.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he was having an argument with his girlfriend which caused him to snap like that.
Jorge,
The picture itself doesn’t prove any wrongdoing. I doubt that cops are forbidden from using their cell phones.
His reaction is the issue here.
Go to her website. That’s not the only picture she took. She took a picture from the front, gawking at the officer. Why? What for? Why instigate? That’s my point. We don’t know if the officer asked her after the first photo to please not take anymore. She may have made a remark to the officer. So the photo’s were recovered, so what? I say we write a comendation for the officer’s file for showing restraint and not destroying the camera.
Also Carlos, I have been busy the last couple of days and could not post…but I have to call your bluff….I am not Larry. I am Jorge Luis Rodriguez, no relation to CGPD officer Rodriguez, who I comend and thank for keeping me safe.
Jorge,
Keeping you safe from Asian female photographers? Yes, we need more officers like Rodriguez.
How is taking a picture of a cop in public instigating? If cops don’t like it, they should just ignore it. Don’t they have enough issues to deal with than to waste their time on photographers?
And if you’re not Larry, who is this guy named Larry posting comments from your computer?
what i love is that what didn’t have to be a big deal is now a call to action for believers in the First Amendment — and an embarrassment for the bullying cop.
i mean that a cop chatting on a phone is not a big deal — but he just made it worse for himself
Interesting story Carlos….keep us updated and thanks for posting this. Stuff like this needs to be highlighted as much as possible.
JJ
Albuquerque, NM
Listen, I actually have a job to do. So I can’t sit around all day “posting” on a blog. But I do find it cathartic, from time to time.
Anyway, every story has three sides, just like the angles of the pictures that Sudoku took. She didn’t just take one “in fraganti” shot, she seemed to be deliberately taking pictures of the police officer.
As you noted, Carlos, it appeared to be a “speed trap”, meaning that the officer was observing traffic to cite drivers who broke traffic laws. In one of the photos Sudoku appears to be directly in the officer’s line of sight, which may explain why he directed her to get out of the way. By continuing to photograph him she was deliberately antagonizing him.
Furthermore, based on what I’ve read from Sudoku, I think she’s Cuban, not Japanese; she sure has a talent for exagerrating. She’s like Burger King, “home of the Whopper!”
One hour to restore a few photos from a 1GB (it’s gotta be a GB, not a “MB” card as she writes) memory card? Please! I’ve done that restore process several times in the past and it rarely takes more than 20 minutes.
I also have a hard time believing that the officer singled her out because of her head gear and that he threw the memory card to the ground. Those convenient details were probably added to give the tale an emotional side and play up the “victim” angle.
I hope officer “Rodriguez” is reading this stuff because the next time he runs into an obnoxious citizen, he needs to delete the photos, then take random photos that exceed the number of pics that he deleted in order to overwrite the deleted images. Officer “Rodriguez” deserves the letter in his file for one year for exhibiting a complete lack of technological awareness. He should also be made to take a class on the topic of digital media so that he covers his tracks better the next time.
That being said, Sudoku is not some little, innocent angel who was acosted by some out of control, rogue cop; she shares in the blame for this incident and it’s a shame she’s getting off scott free.
I forgot about a couple of other comments made by Sudoku in previous posts on her blog.
She went so far as to allege that her friends told her that she could’ve been killed by the police and and that she doesn’t feel like walking the streets anymore and she feels “creepy in general”.
Cry me a river.
Sudoku and her buddies have been watching a few too many episodes of The Shield.
The officer is in a public space (in a park, on the sidewalk), and therefore may be photographed without limitation, even if the photographer is being a complete ass. Paparazzi are a pretty clear demonstration of the legal boundaries for photographers (public spaces, no physical contact, that’s pretty much it).
Of course, police officers also have reasonable boundaries for exercising their authority, including the ability to physically move, restrain, or arrest a person who interferes with their course of duty, or poses a threat to the officer or greater public.
Perhaps the situation escalated to the point where the officer was within his rights to exclude, restrain, or arrest Momoko. There obviously isn’t enough evidence here to say whether or not that is the case.
However, even in that circumstance, I don’t think there is justification for the specific response of deleting the photos, regardless of whether or not it’s during police action (say, a speed trap, or a local drug bust).
Everyone’s entitled to a break (Momoko and Officer Rodriguez alike), but we’re all subject to the law.
Wow! Someone who’s actually reasonable posting on this blog? I’m going to go out and play the Lotto.
I encourage every visit Peat’s blog, there’s a great jonnycake receipie.
mad hatter: epic troll
Despicable!
Maz,
What is a troll in your language?
Trancemist,
Please don’t express your thoughts in so many words, this blog is not your term paper to write.
Carlos,
I have you pegged, tomorrow your story will be about the officer who claimed he was with Homeland Security after a man was seen taking photos and he took the camera. I skimmed through that story and it’s got your blog written all over it.
Jorge,
Actually I was saving that one for Monday. Readership takes a dip on weekends.
Jorge,
Trancemist has saved his words for the Coral Gables police chief, mayor and commissioners.
Read the email he sent them:
The actions of Coral Gables officer Rodriguez with regard to Momoko Sudo are despicable and clearly violated her rights.
The seizure and destruction of her property (photos) without a court order should be punished more severely than merely a letter that goes into the officer’s file for only a year.
What would you have done to Momoko Sudo if she had done that to the officer. arrest and formal charges I am sure.
Your officer should be reprimanded more severely. He should apologize to Momoko Sudo.
He should be suspended and trained in the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution (photography is a freedom of speech, including photography of police officers) as well as proper search and seizure protocol.
He should understand what he can and cannot do without a court order.
I love how everyone assumes that Sudoku’s story is true.
She claims that the officer was harrassing her from a the minute that he saw her with the straw hat, yet Sudoku got within a few feet of the officer to take that profile shot and the officer is simply sitting back on his motorcycle; he’s not getting up, he’s not glaring at her. He obviously had seen Sudoku because she took pictures of him from several angles. Where’s the picture of the officer coming towards Sudoku????
Then, he deletes the entire contents of the 1GB card (over 100 pics) in no time flat and he throws the card to the ground, but hands her the camera.
Oh, and let’s not forget that he makes ethically insensitive remarks toward her.
Now, Sudoku is afraid to walk on the sidewalk and she feels that the officer would have even killed her. Yeeeaaaahhhh, right!
Here’s the letter that I wrote to Chief Hammerschmidt and cc’d to Mayor Slesnick:
Dear Chief Hammerschmidt:
I write to call your attention to the unjust persecution of a member of the CGPD’s Traffic Enforcement Unit who allegedly deleted images from the digital camera of a pedestrian.
I have witnessed firsthand the rush to judgment that the alleged victim in the case has engaged in. Her allegations cannot even be corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
While the pedestrian alleges that she was harrassed by an Officer “Rodriguez”, with whom she had an extended interaction, she is not even able to state the officer’s name with certainty. While it may be difficult to discern an officer’s badge number, it is quite easy to read their name tag. The pedestrian couldn’t do this.
The pedestrian claims that the officer was harrassing her for an extended period of time, yet the only evidence that she can produce are several photos, from varying angles, showing an officer sitting calmly on his motorcycle, apparently during a break from his regular duties. If the officer engaged in harrassment of the pedestrian, it stands to reason that there would at least be one photo showing the officer doing something more menacing than talking on the telephone.
It is unfortunate that unsubstantiated allegations may have a detrimental effect on an officer’s personnel record. I trust that you will direct your department’s Internal Affairs Division to investigate this matter fully and to withhold judgment until all of the facts, including the officer’s testimony, have been properly evaluated.
mad hatter,
The only issue here that really matters is whether or not the officer deleted the images on her card.
He is not legally entitled to do this unless he has a court order.
If it is true that he received a written reprimand, then that tells me he probably admitted to it.
Because if he would have denied the allegation, then there would have been further investigation into the matter.
I only met Sodu for the first time yesterday and it was at the Investigative Review Panel regarding another photographer who was harassed by a Miami-Dade cop (yes, there is a clear pattern here).
She doesn’t strike me as a compulsive liar. She strikes me as a pissed off citizen. And trust me, I can relate on that level.
We shouldn’t judge books by their covers, but just one look at Officer Rodriguez tells me he is a ticking time bomb.
As far as her not being able to read his name tag, she was probably scared that if she even glanced at his name tag, she would get arrested.
“We shouldn’t judge books by their covers, but just one look at Officer Rodriguez tells me he is a ticking time bomb”.
You just did wow, can you say hypocrite?
I think Sudoko is a liar just trying to get publicity ala Carlos Miller style.
Drop dead….both of you.
Drop dead….both of you.
Speaking of ticking time bombs.
Carlos, this is the second time in the last few days that I’ve seen your hypocrisy first hand.
Come on, man.
I won’t make you admit it here and ruin your street cred, but you seem like a halfway reasonable person. Deep down you know that Sudoku’s quite the Whopper flopper.
mad hatter,
Trust me, if I thought she was lying, I would call her on it. I have no problems doing that.
I believe she is telling the truth.
The picture that drove a Coral Gables police officer over the edge - MAeX Artblog // Jun 28, 2008 at 12:09 AM
[...] The picture that drove a Coral Gables police officer over the edge: By Carlos Miller “Momoko Sudo, the Japanese artist who watched helplessly as a Coral Gables police officer deleted the photo she took of him as well as the other photos she had taken that day, was able to retrieve the photo using recovery software. [...]
Jorge:
I’m not a photog, a cop or trying to write a term paper, but I do know how to spell ‘commend.’
I commend you on proving, yet again, through your baseless rants, that you have no idea WTF you are talking about.
A shiny badge doesn’t give anyone the right to take my property (illegal items not withstanding)- be it forever or for two seconds. What’s mine is mine; a basic principle I learned in preschool.
Had that been me, you’d see a blog about how I fought back claiming I was attacked by the officer. I’m sure officer Rodriguez can tell you that battery is when someone else TOUCHES you without your permission. I bet you if Sudo would have tried to grab his phone, she’d be in jail. Why the double standard?
I don’t know Sudo but I do know enough about shady cops in SoFla to know that the truth NEVER matters. Only testimony from a uniform has weight whether it’s a lie or not. For that simple reason, I never open my mouth. I know I’m never going to be in ‘the right.’
As proof, I only need to use Officer non-friendly, AKA Rodriguez- he got away with usurping his authority for his own personal gain while stripping a citizen of her rights.
Who is supposed to protect us from the cops?
Magic City Man,
I have to give it to you as being a smart person for adding the extra “m” to commendation. You da man, I guis i don now how to spell.
As for you’re little tirade, you are acting as if Sudoko’s story is the ultimate factual explanation. Like Mad Hatter says, how do know Sudoko isn’t making it all up for publicity?
At least you know to keep your mouth shut when approached by a policeman.
You were one of those kids who never shared, What’s mine is mine! Lose
r
Larry aka Jorge,
You not only not know how to spell, you also don’t know how to read.
It’s Magic City Mama, not Magic City Man.
It’s a chick, not a dude.
Carlos,
I have a split personality and sometimes I am Larry frm Overtown. I can’t help it, I am getting help from a santeria priest in Hialeah. I just don’t understand why I have to take naked sponge baths, but Oh well.
BTW, This only confirms my thoery, If it wasn’t for me, Larry, and the Mad Hatter, this site would be officially flatlined. Spell that papa. _______________________.
Carlos, You must admit without Jorge this site would be dead. All you would have is a bunch of losers agreeing with each other. Just look what happened a couple days ago when Jorge was not on. You had 2 comments the whole day. And another thing tell Sudo if she doesn’t like it here and does not feel safe to move back to China and take pics of police men there.
101,
What is it with you guys and accuracy? It’s Japan, not China.
Truth 101 did it on purpose to prove a point. You guys have no argument so you make references to grammer, accuracy, etc. It’s the easy way out when you lose a debate.
Carlos,
What would you do if you were a policeman,…..disregard you have to have cojones to do that job. I was about to present an analogy but I realize you would probably come back at me with the same stupid argument about your 1st amendment rights.
Drop dead.
If the story is true, the cop is wrong. Period. Even if the story is basically true, but slanted to the photographer, that is, she was being an ass, confrontational.
I’m not sure what she could do to warrant having her camera seized and pictures erased. The reprimand makes me believe that the police similarly agree.
Jorge and Mad think if a cop says jump, you should do so. I agree, generally, but not in the specifics. When you are in the right, and you know you are, never be afraid to stand up for that.
Jorge,
The argument has been stated very clear in both of my posts as well as in many of my comments.
If I were a cop and someone came up to me and photographed me, I would do either one or the other, depending on the mood I’m in.
I would smile and give a thumbs up, if I were in a good mood.
Or I would scowl and ignore the photographer, if I were in a shitty mood.
But never would I demand her camera and delete her photos. Never.
jorge,
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
First and second definitions pretty much cover the bases in this case…
Dunno how many people are gamers, but I’ve been on the World of Warcraft forums, so I’m pretty familiar with the behavior. Antagonistic posting, mangling of names to show disrespect, ad hominem attacks, etc. Really just disagreeing for the sake of it.
I might concede that Sudo may have drawn the wrong conclusions as to why the officer picked on her, such as her race. However, I have little doubt that the events occurred as she described them.
Carlos,
While I appreciate your attempts to maintain civil debate with the naysayers, the only one who seemed to maintain any modicum of civility with Peat. I know you would prefer to not censor them, but why continue to provide them the attention they apparently desperately crave.
Carlos,
Maztoball just proved my point, you’re site is full of loser kids. I mean this guy plays warlord games on the internet. You don’t have the right readers on this site that represent the hard working majority of America. I may fall under the definition of “troll” but only because I feel the need to disrupt people who should otherwise be more usefull in society. If everyone was a hard working republican, we would not have things like welfare, poverty, warlord players, etc. These are the things that I want to instill in my kids so they don’t become the Carlos Millers or Maztoballs of society.
Also Maztoball, Carlos may wish to censor me, this is correct, but I think he doesn’t for two reasons:
1. It would only affirm that he is a hypocrite
2. The site would be BORING!
Larry and Jorge-
You call me names and say that the arguments presented (by Carlos, me or anyone else offering an intellectual point which you can’t seem to argue) have no base other than brownie points for grammar yet I love how neither one of you actually answered or debated my commentary.
BTW Larry- you’re right, I didn’t share…just like Rodriguez!
The sad truth is that it’s more probable/believable that Sudo is being truthful, albeit somewhat or completely, vs Rodriguez.
Say she was acting shitty- can you just walk up to an obnoxious person taking pictures of you without your permission and snatch their camera? If you think that’s legal, do you mind if I call you next week to come bail me out after I’m arrested for assault at a nightclub for grabbing the camera of one of those club website photog guys?
You see celebs chastised/PROSECUTED all the time for similar behavior and they’re scoffed at and forced to accept ‘oh well, you’re in the public eye,’ why should the police be any different?
Magic City Man,
We don’t even know that he took the camera! Lets just take Sudoko’s word for it. Just because the officer doesn’t post his side of the story on a blog doesn’t mean his side is untrue!
Your argument is pointless, that’s why no one responded.
As for the clubs and celebrities, they chose the lifestyle. Cops are the “chosen ones”, they have to worry about protecting and serving. We should COMMEND them more, they may one be your knight in shining armor.
Magic City Man,
drop dead.
Sorry,
before you liberals chastize my grammer, I forgot to insert “day” in the sentence, “they may one be your knight in shining armor.”
OUT
Larry,
Indulge me…who will you be voting for in the next presidential election?…Or better said, who U be going vote 4 prez?
Carlos,
You said, “If I were a cop….” carlos only in your wildest dreams could you ever be a cop. It takes a courageous, astute, and valiant person to wear the badge. You are a spineless, gutless, poor excuse of a man.
Carlos,
I think Matzoball is right regading all of the antagonistic posts here. Are you sure that you’re not the one creating all of these characters. I mean, you use all the stereotypcial ethnic names: Jorge for the Hispanic and Larry for the African American. The language and grammatical errors are priceless! You really pay attention to detail.
Matzo,
Come on, World of Warcraft? I’m proud to say that I haven’t the foggiest when it comes to that. Get out of the house and enjoy all that South Florida has to offer unless, of course, like Sudoku, you think that a police officer is going to kidnap you and kill you.
Carlos, you deserve a lot more credit than I give you. You’re running quite a production here. Your use of Larry and Jorge, and whatever other characters you may interject from time to time, is masterful. That line regarding the ip addresses was fantastic! Too bad the rest of us arent’ privy to the ip addresses from which these posts are coming.
Sorry, I committed a couple of typos in my previous post:
regading=regarding
arent’=aren’t
Mad Hatter,
Carlos is not that smart to assume characters like that.
Also I think Larry is a troll.
Jorgito,
Rag on me all you want, but if you’re going to make racist derogatory comments, they will be deleted, as they just were.
Jorge and Larry have been banned. As I mentioned before, you can rag on me all you want but I draw the line on racist comments.
He continued to leave those comments even after I warned him. Those comments have been deleted, the first time I’ve deleted any comment on this blog.
I’ve banned the four IP addresses that Jorge used, but knowing him, he will take his laptop to another location to continue posting.
When he does, I will ban those IP addresses as well.
Wow, banning people!! For what?? HE never made a racist comment. I read what he wrote before u deleted his post there were no racist comments. All he did was mention who he was going to vote for and why!! I guess freedom of speech only applies to what you agree with. As i said before you are a spineless leftist piece of crap. This WILL BE THE LAST TIME I POST ON THIS LIBERAL SITE.
This WILL BE THE LAST TIME I POST ON THIS LIBERAL SITE.
Is that a promise?
Larry, please give your reasons for voting Obama.
Truth,
Rome wasn’t built in a day and you’re not going to undo a lifetime’s worth of leftist propaganda in a couple of posts.
We just have to keep chipping away, one post at a time, to point these wayward souls toward the path of righteousness.
We are the way, the truth, and the light. No one will get to the promised land but through us.
Truth, we have been entrusted with a great responsibility, we cannot abandon these heathons. We must persevere in the face of insurmountable odds and unending personal attacks in order to save these souls.
Don’t abandon your mission and keep posting on this liberal wasteland.
I have to say I am honored to have motivated such passion in you guys.
And Jorgito, I’m impressed by your tenacity.
It’s not my tenacity,
it’s your lack of computer knowledge…or knowledge alltogether.
Actually, I haven’t banned your last IP address because you kind of entertain me.
That doesn’t work, do you actually think that I have moved to another location? You need to do some research.
I DONT HAVE A STATIC IP ADDRESS MAMALON
This is getting to be fun! Now I am entertained!
Just for all our bloggers, Carlos has attempted to censor me now appoximately 6 times. My first amendment rights are being trampled. Maybe I will use this site to cry and whine about it. What a Hypocrite.
Jorge,
Why should you care if I censor you? You’ve already given up your First Amendment rights a long time ago when you started drinking the Kool-Aid.
I would eventually get bored of restarting my computer just to leave a comment on a blog I don’t agree with, only for that blogger to delete my comment, but you’re a Kool-Aid drinking Neocon, so you think differently than I do.
Let me guess, from George Bush? So that’s what this is about. Someone has posted a few things contrary to what you believe in and now I am a Kool-Aid drinker. Because my views do not conform to yours? Far from a Kool-Aid drinker my friend.
I hope all you readers (all three of them) can see this little censorship tirade that you have displayed and see you for what you are, a manipultive SOB. Your readers (all three of them) are Kool-Aid drinkers to believe your BS.
Also, as I said before, do some research… don’t have to restart my computer. Do you know anything about computers?
Also, the only thing you are doing by banning all the IP addresses, is eventually banning one of your idiot followers that uses the same web provider….mamalon!
jorge,
Not even my republican readers agree with your gibberish. And trust me, they disagree with me on many things.
And who is really the mamalon?
The guy running the site that is averaging 3,500 views a day or the guy leaving racist and ignorant remarks that nobody agrees with?
Hey Jorge –
Surely you know that your First Amendment rights can not be violated in a privately held environment? Don’t you?
See, this blog is owned and operated by Carlos. You do NOT have First Amendment rights here.
It’s the same as if you were to go into someones home and begin yelling gibberish and racial slurs at them, if they kick you out of their house, they haven’t violated your rights, they’ve protected their own.
I hoep she sues the pants off him! If he does that to a small petite women he WILL do it to others! If he is not stopped and or sued it wil show the cops that they can get away with this radical behavior!
Jorge et al. is obviously a disgruntled cop, probably got suspended for violating someone’s rights.
While the subject of the story is relatively minor, and maybe not worth the big deal made of it, and all these words about it, its necessary that it doesn’t get swept under the rug. If cops can get away with small violations of your rights like this, they’ll gladly take more next time.
Jorge, Mad Hatter, whatever other pseudonyms you use, do you know Carlos offline? Is that why you decide to come to this relatively obscure and harmless blog to harass him and his fans and vandalize his site with your worthless comments?
There is no reason to assume that Sudoku’s story is false. The fact that the officer was given a slap on the wrist is tacit acknowledgment that something was done wrong – the issue isn’t that he’s at fault, because that was admitted. The issue is the severity of the punishment. Somehow, you’re turning an obvious vendetta against Carlos into an excuse to twist this story into something it clearly isn’t, and making an ass of yourself, too.
Go ahead and flame away if you want, for all the good it will do you. I’m just some random passerby that likes blogs like Carlos’s, and hates the trolls that invariably show up just to piss on everyone else’s parade.
If this stuff is so important to you, go make your own damned blog… and then learn to deal with trolls of your own.
I’m glad THAT’s over with
In my opinion, the officer should be terminated and not allowed any position in law enforcement for the duration of his life.
So can I assume the photog won’t be doing anymore freelance pix of cops? I take pix too, and I ALWAYS ASK someone if I can take their picture. What about the cop’s RIGHT TO PRIVACY? Even though he was in a public place, what right does a photog have to just do it?
Randy: “what right does a photog have to just do it?”
Every right!
My god some of the comments in here are insane. What kind of fool would take issue with someone *LEGALLY* taking photographs and try to blame the person rather than the idiot cop who was clearly operating outside what the law permits? Oh, that’s right, we live in a police state now. Or at least its a matter of time with attitudes like that.
Hey, I would have booked her in the slammer…
I would not like some idiot running around
and takeing pictures of me, if they ask first
ok, but to just out and out take a picture of someone, especially a cop, what is she get off
on that??? Lock her up..I would have dumped
her in the bay..dump broad.
No problem, at least he is not talking on the cell phone while he is driving the motorcycle. How many have us seen Police cars with the officer talking on a cell phone, I have and in the state of Texas you are supposed to be using hands free devices. I am curious as to what was said to this officer to really get him upset. Remember ya’ll, there are two sides to every story, or did you forget that?
Its not the fact that he was doing anything wrong while chatting on his cell phone, its that he over stepped his authority in taking the camera away and destroying what wasn’t his. What would have happened if someone came up to him and snatched the cell phone and threw it on the floor? Many of these police officer’s believe they can do whatever they want, just because they have a badge and a gun. Abusing the rights of others is wrong, no matter the circumstance. God only knows what else he does on or off duty just because he is a police officer.
Your an idiot taking pictures of people you dont know, who do you think you are? I would of done the same and probly even worse. He had every reason to get upset. And people saying hes destroying what isnt his this woman shouldnt have been taking pictures without his consent in the first place people have fu**** nerves!!
Dana you have the fuckn nerve!!! Go eat a fat cock. People have the right to take pictures of whatever they like including the filth that you are and surrounds you…………..
Dumbass!
Wow, that was kind of harsh…
Not to get into the name calling and the lovely banter back and forth that belies the true nature of this type of story. The simple fact of the matter is that this shows just another example of the corruption of duty that has infected every level of public service in America today. Was the young lady within her rights to take pictures of the officer? Yes, regardless of him being on break or working a speed trap or any other situation the officer could have been involved in whilst perched atop his shiny bike chatting on his tele. Was the officers actions appropriate or even legal? No, even if all the other information in the story just filler and fluff the simple fact of the matter is that with the current laws we have in this country regarding intellectual property rights pertaining to digital media at the very least the officer should have received a misdemeanor destruction of private property for deleting the images. As for the people that want to side with the officer in as much as the photog should have asked before snapping his mug in a public place, be serious please. Do you ask everyone in the foreground and background for their permission before snapping your vacation photos? No? I thought not. Back to the original issue. After working with several police agencies in several different states over the past 15 years it has come to my attention that most police departments have standing orders to their officers to not allow themselves to be photograph in anything that can be construed as a compromising position, and that if this does take place that they are to retrieve or destroy the media in question. Years ago an officer would rip the film from your camera. Now it would seem that they think they can merely delete the images from the drive. Don’t believe me? Then I challenge you this, get yourself a disposable camera and start snapping photos of police where ever you find them. Make sure that they see you doing it and see how quickly you are detained and questioned and your camera confiscated. It will make your head spin I assure you. Although I would suggest you make sure not to do it when you have anywhere else to be in a hurry as it is going to take a while. Thank you to Carlos for posting this and to everyone else that reads my comment for putting up with my wordy long winded rant to say the same thing as 15 other people before me on this blog. And remember Aristotle said “Criticism is something we can avoid easily by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing.” Do not remain silent.
This post is great, but the trolls populating the comments section really drag it down.
Seriously, guys? You have nothing better to do than sit there hitting refresh all day so that you can rant more about how police have every right to ignore the constitutional rights of someone who is annoying them?
Get a job.
No LEO has the authority to take your legal personal property without warrant, period end of story!
As for taking pictures of LEO’s being legal check out:
Robinson V Fetterman
As for having a right to publicly or anonymously criticize police or public servants check out:
City of Houston V Hill
The second issue I see here which no one has mentioned, is how the MC Cop is parked blocking a public sidewalk. A cite able offense to anyone without a badge!
http://momoko.us/news/images/CoralGablesPolice02.jpg
As the very proud wife of an officer myself, I hope that the next time someone tries to take a picture or follow around a Police Officer on duty gets the same treatment. These officers risk their lives everyday and if they find a moment of peace in their day so be it. Shame on that “photographer” or whatever she calls herself and shame on all of you for NOT standing behind these Officers who brave the front lines to protect you. That picture shows shes just a busy body- NO BODY who needs to take up another hobby that does not consist of harrassing Police officers!!
Dana you are my hero Thank you!
QRU Wife,
As a wife of a police officer, you should know that officers are required to enforce the law.
And the law actually permits police officers to be photographed in public.
Simple as that.
Sounds to me you are just a little cry baby who didnt get thier way and now your gonna piss and moan until the cows come home, grow up.
I was arrested on private property by three motorcycle Louisiana State Troopers for interfering. The only problem was it was my business located on a busy corner. They wanted to use it as a staging area to write traffic tickets.
The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Shortly after opening my business and while I was waiting on a customer a trooper pulled a auto over to issue a traffic ticket. I asked the driver of the auto to pull to the side so my customers could pull into my business. He did. The trooper had no objections. Shortly thereafter another motorcycle trooper pulled another auto over to write a traffic ticket. Again the auto was parallel to the road and across my entire entrance driveway. I asked the driver to move on the side so my customer could turn in. I had a customer trying to pull onto my property. The trooper who was behind the auto and parallel to the road in my other driveway, yelled at me to get inside my building or he would arrest me. (He just did I thought house arrest.) I moved away from the auto and again asked her to move on the side. At that time the trooper called for back up. One motor cycle trooper arrived and then another. The first was the one there moments earlier, the second was a Sergeant. He told me that I could either shut up or go to jail for interfering. I asked what was the phone number to Troop I and is supervisors name. At that time I was handcuffed punched in the faced and arrested. I then asked which officer I interfered with. Since the ticket officer wasn’t involved in the arrest, and they didn’t consult him prior to arresting me. Remember they were called to talk to me the business owner.
Is there any attorney that wants this case on 33 per cent basis? If you read the transcripts of the trial you will know you can win in civil court. The police testified against themselves, the judge found me guilty of interfering and not guilty on all other counts. Of course the law and all the appeals courts in Louisiana say otherwise in other on point cases. In a similar case the 4th circuit court held merely asking police to move to the side so the business owners customers can access the business isn’t grounds for arrest. To interfere the defendant would have to ask the police about why he was writing the ticket, etc.
I would use the money I won from the suit to feed children in South America. My pastor has feeding stations there. You the attorney can keep your share
Any time police over use their powers they should be held to a higher standard. You can’t break the law in the name of enforcing it. Then they become the criminal. So if you husband is a police officer you should pray he up holds the law, starting with himself first.
Carlos,
Would you like to bring my story to the attention of America.
I didn’t take a picture of them. All I did was open up my business like I do everyday. They wanted to use my business as a collection area to stop cars to issue tickets, totally blocking access into my business. I asked them to move was arrested, handcuffed, beaten, and taken to jail. Then to top it off, a judge found me guilty and then tells me I can get a restraining order to keep them from doing it again. A restraining order is an enforcement tool used to enforce the law. Thus, why do I need one? They shouldn’t be doing it and they know it.
When did all this happen, Arthur?
If you don’t file the restraining order, does that mean these cops are going to continue doing this?
If so, will you take pictures then?
Do you have any documentation you can scan and email me?
My email address can be viewed by clicking on “contact” at the top of the page.
Living in Miami, I have noticed that the people who seem to be the most permissive of police abuse of power are first generation immigrants. My guess is that it’s because their standards for normal L.E.O. behavior are formed in some of the dysfunctional places they were raised in. They have zero understanding of the Bill of Rights and what they represent.
If the cop had any sense of humor he would have flashed the peace sign when having his picture taken and that would have been the end of it.
QRU Wife,
As a citizen where you husband may patrol I hope that you get your wish and that someone peaceably taking pictures of an on duty officer, perhaps your husband, “gets the same treatment” -your words. I also hope the person getting harassed takes the matter to court by suing the municipality responsible for this breach of rights and that a formal complaint about the officer’s behavior is filed with his police department.
I know from personal experience by working at the City of Miami that these kind of payouts happen with regularity and that police complaints actually DO impact their promotions.
John,
Good point. The Sergant that illegally arrested me now has no rank at all.
It’s the easiest way to see if an individual is unstable and or completely psycho. Give them a gun and membership in the most powerful gang in the country. Then observe their behavior.
Watch them glare at everyone like they’d rather use them as target practice. Watch them destroy private property on public property while citing non-existent laws while doing their best to completely violate every right you have.
All in the name of freedom.
Jake you forgot one point all in the name of the law. When they violate the law they become the very thing they are suppose to protect us from. I can honestly say I never had a good experience with police. Never ever had one treat me with respect. NEVER!
This article is old but I cannot resist making a comment anyway.
First of all, being a Policeman in todays world is very stressful. My husband used to be a Riot Patrolman back in the old days in Miami.
A Citizen, should not antagonize anyone else much less a Policeman trying to do his job. What fricking nerve! Like little kids trying to bully them until they get mad and then they can snap a picture of the Policeman’s angry face. They have to be ready for anything and everything and their lives are on the line. Then some spoiled brats come along and decide they want to intimidate them just because “we have the right”. Grow up! Please dont mess up their day and cause them to be angry….its a tense world out there and they don’t know your motives are childish.
But Barbara,
Who is really being childish when the officers ends up throwing a tantrum and ripping the memory card out of the camera because his picture was taken?
I don’t believe this photographer was trying to be antagonizing, and even if she was, a police officer must maintain their professionalism.
Once you become a cop, you have to accept the fact that people are going to antagonize you. But if you blow your top every time this happens, then you have proven that you are not worthy of the badge.
Officers should always be professional and calm. But they are human beings too. They have enough to deal with on a daily basis that unless you have walked a mile in their shoes, you should show some respect. “you should accept the fact that people are going to antagonize you”??? Why? Would you go in a Police station taking pictures? How about harrassing other public servants…go to the Fire Dept and try to get a picture ? You choose the police for the reason someone else wrote “you have a chip on your shoulder” and its like this bully who pushes and pushes until he can happily make you mad. In most countries, you would be jailed or worse. Just respect people in general please.
Barbara,
Nobody walked into a police station to take pictures.
If I do have a “chip on my shoulder”, it’s because I was arrested for doing my job as a journalist.
So there is no possible way for you to say that the reason I photographed the cops in the first place was because I had a chip on my shoulder.
When I say they should accept the fact that people are going to antagonize them is because I’ve seen this happen many times.
I’ve done many ride-alongs when I worked as a reporter in Phoenix, and I’ve seen how people antagonize the cops for no reason at all.
And I’ve seen how the cops remained professional in these times.
In this case, the photographer was just walking by the officer and snapped his photo. You call that antagonizing?
He was in uniform on duty on the side of a busy street. He didn’t exactly have an expectation of privacy.
And you mention that in most countries we would be jailed for photographing cops.
You’re right, so does that mean we have to give up our rights in this country?
Your attitude infuriates me. It’s so ironic because it basically says we have to give up our freedoms because we are free or something to that effect. I don’t even know what it means. It doesn’t make sense.
You’re basically saying we should avoid filming or photographing cops because it annoys them.
Well of course it annoys them because look how many times they get caught doing something they shouldn’t have been doing.
If a cop has nothing to hide, then he shouldn’t care less if somebody is filming or photographing him.
There are good people/bad people; good teachers/bad teachers; good firemen/bad fireman…Point is good cop or bad cop…why are you so obsessed with this little story. It has already taken up too much of my time so I cannot imagine how much you have wasted on it. Move on. Like a pitt bull, you just hang on and keep shaking this topic. As evidenced by your statement: “Your attitude infuriates me”. Bingo! You don’t like people who disagree with you. I never said we need give up our liberties and this incident will not cause that to happen. Much ado about nothing and we have bigger fish to fry on this planet so pick another Cause, like hunger, global warming, the murder rates, drugs…hang on to one of those like a pitt bull and you may make some meaningful change in the world.
Carlos. I hope one day you need the police to help or protect you and they don’t come in time. Karma is a bitch
Mike,
I hope one day they throw you in jail for exercising your First Amendment rights.
As you say, karma is a bitch.
Barbara,
That’s the problem. To you, issues regarding the First Amendment are not worth your time.
To you, issues regarding the First Amendment is “much ado about nothing”.
On the other hand, to me, it’s an obsession. I happily admit that.
Copied from Current.com regarding a similar story:
btw-The First Amendment is worth my time. You like to project things.
There is this belief that Public Servants do not have the same rights we do as citizens. That people can do what they want to them and they will not react. To the converse, if they are charged with something, they can either sweep it under the carpet – like a drunk driving cop that got pulled over, or they are given the same punishments as us – again leniency is most likely served UNLESS it becomes a media circus for which most of the world seems to enjoy. At any rate, taking someone’s picture is not your right. matter of fact, you need to let that person know you will publish it, or present it to them prior to posting it. If any really wants to know the legality you will have to check with local or state laws regarding imaging another person with out consent, and to who it applies, and the penel codes in place to really have a say so here. personally I do not have that much time to bother with another persons personal life.
Also, each state has laws about the taking and posting of pictures. More are being made regarding the internet. I am afraid our forefathers, did not know about digital cameras and the internet when they drafted the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is not inclusive of Photography:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Barbara,
So let me get this straight. You expect me to believe some anonymous comment from a website over the numerous court rulings in the United States regarding photography?
Barbara,
What a clueless boob you are.
You quote the First Amendment and then say that “Freedom of Speech is not inclusive of photography”??
If photography is not covered by the First Amendment why are movie stars swamped in L.A. (and Miami) with paparazzi. Why aren’t they all arrested for committing ‘photography crimes’?
Answer – They aren’t arrested because what your saying is rediculous hokum and you haven’t the slightest clue of what your talking about.
…and by the way…
I’m sick and tired of these cop wives justifying their husbands illegal behavior (definition – contrary to law) by saying that their little pot bellied pooh bears have a tough job.
BOO HOO. Sell it somewhere else sister, we aren’t buying.
They signed on for it. All of it. The fact that they now may not like their jobs or that they may not like some of my freedoms does not give them the right to take them away. They don’t have a choice on what freedoms or laws they choose to uphold.
John, the dude boob
duh, I guess back in the day of writing the Amendments, they included imagery that did not exist? Maybe YOU can learn some things.
http://www.pdimages.com/law/lawbookpage.htm
Barbara,
The link you posted doesn’t say it is illegal to photograph people in public, including cops.
It says it is illegal to defame or libel them.
It is no different than writing about people. I am protected by the First Amendment to write my opinions about public officials, including cops.
I’m just not allowed to maliciously libel them.
There is a difference.
You missed the point of the link. A person can sue you under circumstances. No, it is not illegal to take a photo, but as have many in the past, you can elect to sue and make a claim, i.e., due to this women’s disruption, maybe the cop missed something he should have been on top of. That is a weak example. But, Many stars have sued and won cases against the Enquirer and other so called violations of personal privacy. You are supposed to ask if it is ok to take a photo of someone when its not done in the realm of documentation of an accident, a public figure for the press, etc. If some stranger came up to me and started taking photos, it would make me feel very uneasy. Again the point to John is that many of the paparrazi have been sued and won.
Barbara,
Your stupidity is stunning.
They didn’t have computers back when the wrote the Constitution either. Does that mean that the freedoms outlined in the Constitution don’t apply to computers because they weren’t around?
You’re out of your intellectual depth. Go back to the kiddie side of the pool.
************************************
“Many stars have sued and won cases against the Enquirer and other so called violations of personal privacy.”
Baloney. The only cases they have won are for slander – intentional defamation. Name a single case where someone was sued and won for taking a picture in a public area. Name one.
***********************************
***********************************
“You are supposed to ask if it is ok to take a photo of someone when its not done in the realm of documentation”
Barbara, you are confusing what YOU believe to be polite with what is legal. My freedoms are not limited by your definition of good manners.
**********************************
Barbara,
If anybody can sue anybody in this case, it is the photographer suing the police department for destroying her property and violating her First Amendment rights.
What’s wrong with this picture? A cop isn’t allowed to talk on a cell phone?
Jones,
You answered your own question. There is nothing wrong with this picture. Unless there is a departmental policy forbidding officers to talk on the phone, I don’t see a problem with it.
The problem is how he forced the photographer to delete her images.
Carlos, why even take this picture in the first place, you can’t say this is journalism, this is somebody going out of their way to start a confrontation with a police officer and she got what she asked for. Was the officer wrong for deleting her picture, yes, was she wrong for taking the picture in the first place, yes. Just because you are not breaking the law by doing something doesn’t mean you should do it.
It’s not illegal for me to stand on a public sidewalk and film little girls on the playground while wearing a shirt that reads I’m a child molester but if I did that people would call the police and if the police didn’t do anything I would expect a group of dads to beat my ass.
If some guy was filming little girls and you had a little girl and she was one of the girls being filmed would you be one of the parents calling the police or would you be one of the parents fighting for his right to keep filming.
I really don’t know how you can compare this to the act of photographing children while wearing a shirt that proclaims you are a child molester.
The fact is, cops make interesting pictures. People are always curious to see what cops are up to not necessarily because they want to catch them doing wrong things but because cops offer a glimpse of life most civilians are not used to.
This is why people slow down at traffic accidents. Or why if you drive by a home that is surrounded by cops, you’re going to slow down and see what the hell is going on.
So cops should understand there is a natural human curiosity about their job.
I really doubt her intention was to “start a confrontation” with the officer.
For all the cop knew, she might have had the hots for him, which is why she took his picture.
I compare it because both acts are legal and I’m curious if you would defend this man’ rights the way you defend other photographers. Are you going to pick and choose who’s rights should be protected. Would you be OK with the police harassing the child molester taking pictures of kids or would you prefer they say there is nothing we can do.
I know people are curious about cops and find it interesting but come on, this guy was sitting on a bike talking on the phone. What if she did have the hots for him, does that make it OK just to walk up and take his picture. Would you want some man walking up to your wife and taking her picture because he had the hots for her, what about your daughter?
When people are in public it’s ok to just walk up to them and take their picture. That’s the point. It’s only after the likes of Oprah Winfrey, John Walsh, Bill O’Reilly, Dr. Phil, Murry have fed the stranger danger and pedophile behind every tree fears of the population that we have this problem. They take entertainment and pass it off as good information.
So what if a guy is in a park taking photos of kids. There is nothing wrong with that. It’s a normal and customary activity in parks, look back at photographs from 50-100 years and you’ll see lots of photos of kids in parks. Taking a photo of a child does no harm to the child or anyone else. I’m not ok with police harassing people for taking photos of children in public.
So what if someone thinks your wife is hot and wants to take her photo. You should be happy someone else finds your wife attractive, it’s a compliment, not something to get pissed about. Jones it sounds like you consider your wife your property so this is something you probably wouldn’t understand.
I’m not ok with child pornography where kids are forced into preforming acts that aren’t natural for a child for the purpose of sexual gratifacation of self or others. That’s a very different matter from taking a photo in a park. That is something that needs to be delt with seriously and prevented if at all possible.
First of all John Walsh’s son was kidnapped and murdered. He has devoted his life to helping others and trying to prevent that from happening to other people. I don’t understand why you would rip John Walsh but that shows what kind of person you are.
Are you really going to compare the world today to the world of 100 years ago. 100 years ago woman couldn’t vote and blacks didn’t have the same rights as whites. Are you saying that that’s OK because it was accepted 100 years ago?
I didn’t say anything about somebody taking pictures in a park. Since you brought it up I think as a parent, if I saw an adult male in the park taking pictures of kids and he wasn’t there with kids it would make me suspicious. I wouldn’t call the police just based on that but I would definitely pay a little extra attention to him, probably jot down his license plate if I could.
Personally I think it’s rude to just walk up to people and take their picture, whether it’s legal or not I think people should respect other peoples privacy, I don’t care if they are out in public.
How is somebody thinking my wife is hot a compliment to me unless I think she is my property. Somebody thinking my wife is hot is a compliment to her not me.
First of all John Walsh’s son was kidnapped and murdered. He has devoted his life to helping others and trying to prevent that from happening to other people. I don’t understand why you would rip John Walsh but that shows what kind of person you are.
I’m well aware of what happened to Adam Walsh. His mother left him alone and unattended in the store for over 10 minutes to play a video game, this is the part of the story that’s most often not told. Mr. Walsh has done nothing to help others, while it looks as if he has the only thing he’s done is make people paranoid and suspicious of strangers for no reason. He’s made people think there is a child predator around every corner. There are so few predators in the USA. I’m not saying there are none; just that there are so few those to spend much time worrying about it is a waste. Mr. Walsh’s behavior and actions are because of deep personal guilt that’s been misdirected.
Are you really going to compare the world today to the world of 100 years ago. 100 years ago woman couldn’t vote and blacks didn’t have the same rights as whites. Are you saying that that’s OK because it was accepted 100 years ago?
Yes in some ways I’m going to. Believe it or not morals haven’t really changed that much. There is much better forensics now so more of the actual perpetrators of crimes against kids are caught and in prison. Kids are probably safer today than they were 100 years ago. The guy that took Adam Walsh was known. None of the sex offender notification laws would have prevented Otis Toole from taking Adam Walsh from the Sears store where he was left alone.
I didn’t say anything about somebody taking pictures in a park. Since you brought it up I think as a parent, if I saw an adult male in the park taking pictures of kids and he wasn’t there with kids it would make me suspicious. I wouldn’t call the police just based on that but I would definitely pay a little extra attention to him, probably jot down his license plate if I could.
You’re suspicious of someone that’s not doing anything wrong. Where was your guy in the ‘I’m a child molestor’ tee-shirt taking the photos. In the kids bedroom? Well that’s obviously wrong.
Personally I think it’s rude to just walk up to people and take their picture, whether it’s legal or not I think people should respect other peoples privacy, I don’t care if they are out in public.
Yes, it’s very important that people’s privacy be respected. That is exactly what this is about. When people are in public they don’t have a reason to expect much privacy. We aren’t talking about taking up-skirt photos where the camera is held close to the ground. We aren’t discussing taking photos in a public rest room where there is an expectation of privacy. That is wrong. This is about a photo of a police officer sitting on his motorcycle in public view having his photo taken. A place where he doesn’t and can’t have any expectation of privacy. You want privacy stay home, you can have all the privacy you want. This is about how he behaved towards the person that took his photo. As if taking a photo somehow gives him permission to steal and destroy someone else’s property. That is RUDE and its against the law.
How is somebody thinking my wife is hot a compliment to me unless I think she is my property. Somebody thinking my wife is hot is a compliment to her not me.
Whatever.
If you read what I wrote I said the cop was in the wrong for what he did, the photographer was also in the wrong.
Where was your guy in the ‘I’m a child molestor’ tee-shirt taking the photos. In the kids bedroom? Well that’s obviously wrong.
No. I said he was on a public sidewalk, can’t you read? I never said anything about being in a bedroom, where did you get that from?
You’re suspicious of someone that’s not doing anything wrong.
Yes I am, somebody doesn’t have to be committing a crime to be suspicious. I don’t know if you have kids but if you do don’t you pay attention to their surroundings?
Yes, it’s very important that people’s privacy be respected. That is exactly what this is about. When people are in public they don’t have a reason to expect much privacy.
I am not asking for much privacy I’m asking for some though. Apparently most people feel that way because I don’t think I’ve ever seen somebody just start taking pictures of people they don’t know. I’m not talking about taking a picture of something and people just happen to be in the background I’m talking about sticking a camera in somebody’s face you don’t know and taking pictures, can’t you at least give people that much privacy. Your telling me you would be ok if you and your wife were out for a walk or having dinner and somebody started following you around and taking pictures of you. I’ve seen guns disguised as camera’s, flashlights, cellphones so if anybody stuck anything in my face my gun would be in theirs.
Why don’t you try an experiment, go out on the town and walk up to woman and just start taking their pictures, if they ask you what your doing just tell them you think they are hot, let me know how long it takes before you get your ass kicked.
How do you feel about police installing cameras on street corners to try to identify suspects? A lot of people feel it’s an invasion of privacy, what about you?
If you read what I wrote I said the cop was in the wrong for what he did, the photographer was also in the wrong.
The photographer did nothing wrong. If I would have seen that cop sitting on his motorcycle like that I would have taken his photo. If he approached me my voice or video recorded would be on and I’d be taking a photo every second to memorialize the event. She wasn’t even in the cops space when she took the photo, had to be at least 7’ away by my estimation.
No. I said he was on a public sidewalk, can’t you read? I never said anything about being in a bedroom, where did you get that from?
Park or sidewalk. Same thing, same rules. My point was about where you can expect privacy and where you can’t.
Yes I am, somebody doesn’t have to be committing a crime to be suspicious. I don’t know if you have kids but if you do don’t you pay attention to their surroundings?
I didn’t say you shouldn’t pay attention to the kids surroundings or be protective of them, of course you should. When I was 5 I used to travel up to 2 miles away from where I lived by myself, it wasn’t that long ago. I learned all kinds of skills at that age because of this that have helped me a lot in my life. If Reve Walsh didn’t let Adam out of her sight his abduction would have never happened. No matter how much John Walsh tries to make that someone else’s fault that’s what it comes back to. I’m not saying I don’t feel bad for what happened to Adam Walsh and the family. But John Walsh has built his fame on making his son’s abduction famous and placing blame elsewhere. He’s also produced a bunch of paranoid people that are suspicious of everyone and aren’t suspicious of those they need to be.
There are so few child abductions by strangers in the USA that all the attention we pay to this is way out of proportion. I’m not saying they aren’t serious when they happen. This is going to get me on one of my soap boxes. It’s kind of like school violence. Since Columbine there have been less than 300 injuries and deaths due to guns in schools. Yet we have spent 100 billion on this. Thousands of kids commit suicide every year. Yet in the same time we haven’t spent 1 billion on this problem. Same thing with Sex Offender Registries. We spend tons of money on them and it doesn’t help. Same thing with the Amber Alert System. Send tons of money yet almost all child abductions are from non-custodial parents or other relatives. Until recently the Amber Alert System couldn’t be used for these, so it was almost never used.
I am not asking for much privacy I’m asking for some though. Apparently most people feel that way because I don’t think I’ve ever seen somebody just start taking pictures of people they don’t know. I’m not talking about taking a picture of something and people just happen to be in the background I’m talking about sticking a camera in somebody’s face you don’t know and taking pictures, can’t you at least give people that much privacy. Your telling me you would be ok if you and your wife were out for a walk or having dinner and somebody started following you around and taking pictures of you. I’ve seen guns disguised as camera’s, flashlights, cellphones so if anybody stuck anything in my face my gun would be in theirs.
I don’t want a photo where I stick a camera in someone’s face. Sometimes I want the person I’m taking a photo of to know I’m taking it and sometimes I want them doing what they do naturally. So that determines what I do. I don’t follow people around; they get guarded if you do that, that’s not the look I want. That is different behavior then what was done in this case. I’ve had people taking photos of me and girlfriend. Most of the time I just play it up for them.
Why don’t you try an experiment, go out on the town and walk up to woman and just start taking their pictures, if they ask you what your doing just tell them you think they are hot, let me know how long it takes before you get your ass kicked.
I do this all the time. It’s very rare for me to go out anyplace without a camera of some kind. I take photos of woman, men, homeless, elderly, kids, you name it. I almost never have problems. I normally adopt one of two styles depending on my current mood. Either I totally blend in, this means I have my camera in a natural place, not hidden and take my photos with a natural motion. The other thing I do is look like there is no doubt I know I can take the photos I’m taking. I’ll engage people in conversation to get a laugh and smile out of them if that’s the look I want. I’ve even told woman they are hot to get them to show off. I’ve had woman I don’t know stick their butts out for a photo, I’ve had them bend over so you could see their breasts down their tops, I’ve had them show off more of their legs even. I’m sure Carlos can tell the same stories.
The problems I’ve had have always been with overbearing cops or others in some kind of authority that are making up the rules as they go along that aren’t the rules that are in place. Every now and again you’ll get someone that’s saying something about not taking their photo. Why bother taking it, there are plenty of fish in the sea and the next person will probably be flattered if you take their photo.
How do you feel about police installing cameras on street corners to try to identify suspects? A lot of people feel it’s an invasion of privacy, what about you?
If it means that people are going to leave me alone I’m all for them. I don’t really personally care one way or another. I’m out in public I don’t have an expectation of privacy; anyone can see me, why care if you have a photo taken of you. When I’m in public I behave like I’m in public, I behave like others can see what I’m doing. I don’t do stuff that I’d be ashamed of.
Your parents let you walk 2 miles by yourself at 5 years old and your bragging about it, sounds like irresponsible parenting to me.
Why is a cop sitting on his bike a picture worthy occasion?
ME – No. I said he was on a public sidewalk, can’t you read? I never said anything about being in a bedroom, where did you get that from?
YOU – Park or sidewalk. Same thing, same rules. My point was about where you can expect privacy and where you can’t.
I think you misread it for a 2nd time now
Since Columbine there have been less than 300 injuries and deaths due to guns in schools. Yet we have spent 100 billion on this.
Maybe that’s why there have only been 300, looks like money well spent.
Your anti sex offender registry? How much does this cost anyways, can’t be that much, we don’t pay these people to come in and register. Besides the money what could you possibly have against a sex offender registry. I like being able to check people out. If I was a female I would check out every guy I ever thought about dating. If I had young children I would check out everyone of their friend’s parents. What makes you think it doesn’t help. Why are you against this?
Your parents let you walk 2 miles by yourself at 5 years old and your bragging about it, sounds like irresponsible parenting to me.
The point was there isn’t that much danger in the world. There isn’t someone behind every bush trying to lure a child away no matter what all the entertainers would like you to believe. Never has been never will be. Almost all offenses committed against children are done by people known to them and most of the time it is the parents that are committing the offenses. Yet we persist on this paranoia against strangers when almost all strangers are safe. There are only a very small number of actual child predators and your chance of meeting one is very small. So small that most of the time it’s not worth worrying about. When these guys do something they all make Nancy Grace so we know who they all are. Look at how much time she spends on any one case, that alone should tell you how rare these people are.
Why is a cop sitting on his bike a picture worthy occasion?
Because he looks interesting. It’s actually a good photo for many reasons. I wish it was one of mine.
Maybe that’s why there have only been 300, looks like money well spent.
I don’t think all that money has made a difference one way or another. That was the point. This is also a very rare occurrence. The actors give plenty of warning most of the time. When I was in High School I used to take a shotgun to school almost every day during hunting season. Left it in the trunk of the car. Some days there were 4 shotguns in the trunk. No one got shot up in my school. The money for the most part is wasted on over reaction to this problem. If they spent 1 billion during that time on suicide prevention they would have saved a bunch of lives. If you paid attention you’d see that most of the people that did shootings in schools also suicided at the same time. Perhaps knowing more about how to prevent suicide would have prevented the school shootings as well.
Your anti sex offender registry? How much does this cost anyways, can’t be that much, we don’t pay these people to come in and register. Besides the money what could you possibly have against a sex offender registry. I like being able to check people out. If I was a female I would check out every guy I ever thought about dating. If I had young children I would check out everyone of their friend’s parents. What makes you think it doesn’t help. Why are you against this?
Because it’s the new witch hunt for the most part. A good idea has been turned into something it wasn’t supposed to be. Did you ever take a leak behind the squad car door? Well add yourself to the registry because in most places that’s an offense that will end you up on it. If you’re a 19 year old immature boy it’s really easy for you to end up on the list. All you have to do is have sex with a 16 year old mature girl and get caught, even though she willingly had sex with you. Besides most of these people never reoffend.
I’m not saying that people that actually commit violent sex crimes shouldn’t be on a list. People that commit violent rapes, people that have abducting children that aren’t biologically theirs, people that have sexually injured children. In some states it’s a crime to just touch the genitals and anus of a child. Well if you’re the care giving parent how on earth can you change a diaper on a child without cleaning up and to do that requires you to touch. There are people in prison for this and on the registry.
Just about any law that is named after someone is a really bad idea in practice but a good law for a politician to get passed.
The point was there isn’t that much danger in the world. There isn’t someone behind every bush trying to lure a child away no matter what all the entertainers would like you to believe.
I agree but I don’t think that justifies not supervising your children.
If they spent 1 billion during that time on suicide prevention they would have saved a bunch of lives. If you paid attention you’d see that most of the people that did shootings in schools also suicided at the same time. Perhaps knowing more about how to prevent suicide would have prevented the school shootings as well.
People choose to commit suicide, people don’t choose to get killed while sitting in a classroom
Because he looks interesting. It’s actually a good photo for many reasons. I wish it was one of mine.
Still don’t so what is so interesting about a cop sitting on a motorcycle but if you do how about just asking him first. Like I said, I’ve seen cameras and cellphones that are capable of firing a shot so I wouldn’t feel comfortable with somebody pointing anything at me.
Because it’s the new witch hunt for the most part. A good idea has been turned into something it wasn’t supposed to be. Did you ever take a leak behind the squad car door? Well add yourself to the registry because in most places that’s an offense that will end you up on it. If you’re a 19 year old immature boy it’s really easy for you to end up on the list. All you have to do is have sex with a 16 year old mature girl and get caught, even though she willingly had sex with you. Besides most of these people never reoffend.
Are you on the list for one of these reasons? In my state the age of consent is 16 so your scenario of a 19 and 16 year old couldn’t happen here. A 19 year old and a 15 year old, that person should go on the list, your talking about a college aged boy having sex with a girl in 9th grade, I don’t have much sympathy for that guy. Taking a leak in public, that is usually charged as some type of disorderly person or something and that won’t put you on the list, I’m sure there are some on the list for taking a leak in public but I think it is pretty uncommon unless it was some sort of plea deal. I caught plenty of people taking a leak in bar alleys and none of them ended up on the list, if they were decent I’d usually give them a warning, if they were an ass they got a ticket and if they were a real ass they went to jail. The guy that takes a leak and does nothing to prevent anybody else from seeing him deserves to go on the list. At least go somewhere that you won’t be seen.
Your right, most crimes committed against a child are done by somebody the child knows, family, babysitters, parents of friends, teachers, coaches etc. Being able to check those people out is great. I don’t think a registered sex offender is likely to go try to get a job coaching young kids knowing that his dirty little secret is likely to get out.
I highly doubt that any parent is in prison today for simply changing a diaper.
I agree but I don’t think that justifies not supervising your children.
I didn’t say don’t supervise them. Just that it’s gotten to such a point that kids are supervised out of learning.
People choose to commit suicide, people don’t choose to get killed while sitting in a classroom
First I have to apologize to Carlos for the hijack because this isn’t a blog about suicide prevention. Most people that commit suicide don’t choose to commit suicide, that is a myth. 90% of the people that commit (33,000 a year) or attempt (550,000 a year) suicide are suffering from a treatable mental illness and are not being properly treated for that illness. The suicide attempt or suicide is a direct result of that illness. Depression can be a terminal illness. People don’t choose to have a mental illness just like they don’t choose to have cancer. It’s not about willpower and you can’t just snap out of mental illness, if you could there wouldn’t be any mentally ill because they’d all choose to not be ill.
Still don’t so what is so interesting about a cop sitting on a motorcycle but if you do how about just asking him first. Like I said, I’ve seen cameras and cellphones that are capable of firing a shot so I wouldn’t feel comfortable with somebody pointing anything at me.
I don’t think that guns disguised as cameras are that common; I’d hazard a guess that there might be 100 in the whole world (including those in police custody, museums and the like) and there are millions and millions of cameras. So it’s just another irrational fear. Just as there are way more laser pointers then laser sights. The reason you don’t ask him first is because it’ll spoil the shot. His body posture will be all wrong, he won’t look natural. Add that to the fact that he’s in public so there is no need to ask.
Are you on the list for one of these reasons? In my state the age of consent is 16 so your scenario of a 19 and 16 year old couldn’t happen here. A 19 year old and a 15 year old, that person should go on the list, your talking about a college aged boy having sex with a girl in 9th grade, I don’t have much sympathy for that guy. Taking a leak in public, that is usually charged as some type of disorderly person or something and that won’t put you on the list, I’m sure there are some on the list for taking a leak in public but I think it is pretty uncommon unless it was some sort of plea deal. I caught plenty of people taking a leak in bar alleys and none of them ended up on the list, if they were decent I’d usually give them a warning, if they were an ass they got a ticket and if they were a real ass they went to jail. The guy that takes a leak and does nothing to prevent anybody else from seeing him deserves to go on the list. At least go somewhere that you won’t be seen.
Nope I’m not on a list anywhere. You’ve got my name you can check. 15 yo girls get fake id’s and sneak into bars all the time but this is getting more difficult now. Tracy Lords was making porn movies when she was like 16. I’d think most 15yo’s would be sophomores. I’m not saying where the line should be drawn, just that where it is now doesn’t seem to make much sense to me. It’s different in every state. Well taking a leak where you purposely expose yourself is different from someone that’s going someplace where they won’t be seen. I’m not advocating that people be allowed to walk around in public flashing. Have you ever given a woman a ticket for urinating in public? Woman do it all the time.
Read some tales from sex offenders, http://reformsexoffenderlaws.org/tales.php
Your right, most crimes committed against a child are done by somebody the child knows, family, babysitters, parents of friends, teachers, coaches etc. Being able to check those people out is great. I don’t think a registered sex offender is likely to go try to get a job coaching young kids knowing that his dirty little secret is likely to get out.
Most of those people are already excluded in some ways except the parents. Or their behavior is covered up by the organizations they work for. Again taking a photo of a kid in public isn’t a sex crime unless you are doing something really strange. It’s a normal thing to do. Kids are wonderful photographic subjects. Their faces are so interesting. The thing that bothers me is that just because a guy has a camera and takes a photo of a kid, he’s suspected of being some kind of pervert.
I highly doubt that any parent is in prison today for simply changing a diaper.
I saw it the other day now I can’t find it to post it. But this is all somewhat off topic.
First I have to apologize to Carlos for the hijack because this isn’t a blog about suicide prevention. Most people that commit suicide don’t choose to commit suicide, that is a myth. 90% of the people that commit (33,000 a year) or attempt (550,000 a year) suicide are suffering from a treatable mental illness and are not being properly treated for that illness. The suicide attempt or suicide is a direct result of that illness. Depression can be a terminal illness. People don’t choose to have a mental illness just like they don’t choose to have cancer. It’s not about willpower and you can’t just snap out of mental illness, if you could there wouldn’t be any mentally ill because they’d all choose to not be ill.
I guess next your going to tell me drug addiction is a disease. Your right people don’t choose to have a mental illness but many choose not to take their meds so in a way they are choosing to have a mental illness. I don’t know where you get your stats but if 550,000 people attempted suicide last your your telling me only 33,000 suceeded. That’s about a 1-17 ratio. People who really try to commit suicide have a much higher success rate than that, I’m talking about those who really try to killthemselves not the ones who say they are and then swallow 10 aspirin. How do you know they suffer from mental illness unless they were diagnosed before they killed themselves. I don’t think medical examiners are diagnosing people with mental illness after they are dead. To say they don’t want to kill themselves is like saying anybody with a mental illness can’t make a decision. So if a person with mental illness orders a pizza your saying he might not really be hungry. I know that is an absurd comparison but it is in response to an absurd statement.
I don’t think that guns disguised as cameras are that common; I’d hazard a guess that there might be 100 in the whole world (including those in police custody, museums and the like) and there are millions and millions of cameras. So it’s just another irrational fear. Just as there are way more laser pointers then laser sights.
It only takes one to kill you. As a citizen I wouldn’t be concerned about this but as a police officer in full uniform anytime somebody approaches you your on the defensive.
15 yo girls get fake id’s and sneak into bars all the time
I think 15 is pretty uncommon to be sneaking into bars. I know a lot of girls under the legal drinking age sneak into bars, they don’t even have to sneak at a lot of bars, but a 15 year old is highly unlikely. Besides why stop at 15, if a 12 year old sneaks into the bar she should be ok to nail because she is there she must be 21. How about having a little accountability for yourself. If your screwing some girl you just met at the bar and she turns out to be 14 I guess that’s the chance you take, ignorance is not a defense.
The thing that bothers me is that just because a guy has a camera and takes a photo of a kid, he’s suspected of being some kind of pervert.
Again it’s just common curtisy to ask first, espiecally when your taking pictures of somebody’s kids. I would be uncomfortable with a stranger coming up to my daughter in the park and taking pictures of her. He may have good intentions but as a parent am I supposed to just say, oh well, he’s probably just a reporter or some innocent guy that takes pictures as a hobby. My first thought, and I’m sure most people’s first thought would be what the fuck is this guy doing and would confront them. He wouldn’t be taking anymore without my permission. Sorry but if your walking around taking pictures of kids most people are going to view you as a pervert, you may not like it, just like they don’t like you taking their picture but it’s not against the law to think somebody is a pervert espeically when they give you a reason to think that.
I saw it the other day now I can’t find it to post it. But this is all somewhat off topic.
I would like to hear the prosecution’s side of that story.
I guess next your going to tell me drug addiction is a disease. Your right people don’t choose to have a mental illness but many choose not to take their meds so in a way they are choosing to have a mental illness. I don’t know where you get your stats but if 550,000 people attempted suicide last your your telling me only 33,000 suceeded. That’s about a 1-17 ratio. People who really try to commit suicide have a much higher success rate than that, I’m talking about those who really try to killthemselves not the ones who say they are and then swallow 10 aspirin. How do you know they suffer from mental illness unless they were diagnosed before they killed themselves. I don’t think medical examiners are diagnosing people with mental illness after they are dead. To say they don’t want to kill themselves is like saying anybody with a mental illness can’t make a decision. So if a person with mental illness orders a pizza your saying he might not really be hungry. I know that is an absurd comparison but it is in response to an absurd statement.
Ok, I will tell you that addiction is a disease. I wouldn’t say the choose not to take their meds. Compliance with medication is a very difficult problem. There has been lots of work done on this, it’s not only the mentally ill that don’t take meds, people with high blood pressure don’t, people with cancer don’t, people with all kinds of things have trouble taking meds. You can learn about suicide here, http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=74295647-AAD5-B47F-340249697DAC238A it’s much more complicated than most people think. It’s obvious you aren’t up to date on current information on suicide.
It only takes one to kill you. As a citizen I wouldn’t be concerned about this but as a police officer in full uniform anytime somebody approaches you your on the defensive.
Did it ever occur to you that police taking a defensive posture with everyone that approaches them is a problem? If someone is being defensive people sense this. They don’t trust people that are defensive. It leads to escalations of every interaction the police have with the people. You know the Pagan Motorcycle Club talked just like you do. There are members and citizens in Pagan speak, in cop speak its officers and citizens.
I think 15 is pretty uncommon to be sneaking into bars. I know a lot of girls under the legal drinking age sneak into bars, they don’t even have to sneak at a lot of bars, but a 15 year old is highly unlikely. Besides why stop at 15, if a 12 year old sneaks into the bar she should be ok to nail because she is there she must be 21. How about having a little accountability for yourself. If your screwing some girl you just met at the bar and she turns out to be 14 I guess that’s the chance you take, ignorance is not a defense.
The point was 19 year old immature boys aren’t going to ask for ID. They aren’t thinking about that at the time. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be accountable. Just that in a case like this it’s nonsense to put the 19 year old on a sex offender list. It’s not like he went out and hunted down someone, stalked them like prey, he made a mistake. The girl was a willing participant. There wasn’t any violence. That’s the point. Now a guy that’s doing home invasions and raping woman, I have no sympathy for. A guy that’s following woman on the street and abducing them, no sympathy. Those people are true predators and need to be on a list.
Again it’s just common curtisy to ask first, espiecally when your taking pictures of somebody’s kids. I would be uncomfortable with a stranger coming up to my daughter in the park and taking pictures of her. He may have good intentions but as a parent am I supposed to just say, oh well, he’s probably just a reporter or some innocent guy that takes pictures as a hobby. My first thought, and I’m sure most people’s first thought would be what the fuck is this guy doing and would confront them. He wouldn’t be taking anymore without my permission. Sorry but if your walking around taking pictures of kids most people are going to view you as a pervert, you may not like it, just like they don’t like you taking their picture but it’s not against the law to think somebody is a pervert espeically when they give you a reason to think that.
The point is they are almost never perverts. Taking a photo of someone never hurt them. We laugh when we hear of aboriginal peoples being afraid of having their souls stolen by a camera yet we behave almost the same way. A guy with a camera doesn’t equal a pervert. What are you going to do to someone in public to stop them from taking your kids photo? How are you going to confront the person taking the photo. It sounds like you need some anger management courses and some lessons on how to behave in public. When people aren’t doing anything wrong you leave them alone. People with cameras taking photos aren’t hurting anyone.
I would like to hear the prosecution’s side of that story.
The story was the guy was suspected of selling drugs. They have a search warrant; they break in without an announcement. They do the search and don’t find any drugs but he was changing the kids diaper when they broke in. They can’t get him on the drugs so they charge him with child rape because they saw him touch the kid’s genitals in the course of changing the diaper.
I visited your link and read a few but I’ll just talk about the first one who starts his poor me story like this.
. In 1995 I agreed to a plea bargain of 10 years deferred adjudication probation in exchange for a guilty plea.
He then goes on and on about how nobody wants him to live in their neighborhood and nobody wants to be his friend and how his wife left him well no shit I wonder why. He doesn’t even have the balls to say what he did.
You want me to feel sorry for this guy, you think this is an example why the sex offender registry doesn’t work. I think this is a perfect example as to why it works. He doesn’t admit he was guilty but says he is determined never to break the law again so I take that as he is not claiming he’s innocent. He also says he was turned down from a job because he is a sex offender even though he wouldn’t have any contact with minors on the job so his crime has something to do with kids. I don’t really feel to bad for the guy, I’m more curious about how the victim got on with their life. Is the victim suffering any emotional problems because of this, how has it changed the victim’s life is more of my concern.
If you feel so bad for this guy have him move next door to you. Maybe he would make a good babysitter, after all he says he won’t do it again.
Jones, do you live in Texas? If so let me know by email. You can get my email from Carlos.
The point this guy is making, and not very well, is that he agreed to a plea when there wasn’t a sex offender registry. Many times people who did not commit any crimes agree to pleas because a known outcome is better then risking everything in front of a jury. In this case I don’t konw what he did and it doesn’t really matter. If you tell me that no one is ever falsely accused and convicted of a sex offense I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
This guy has done his time and paid his debt to society. How many people do a 10 year probation sentence and don’t reoffend? He deserves to get a job. He deserves to have the nightmare he’s been living end.
Like I said before mostly these lists do little to protect the public. Certainly guys like Otis Toole should have been on a list. But people like him account for less then 5% of the people on these lists. People that get arrested for taking a leak in an ally behind a bar because the mouth off to you don’t belong on these lists and they are ending up on them.
Just so you know when the lists first came out in NJ I ended up living down the street from someone on it. It was a nice neighborhood. The guy totally kept to himself, you never saw him. Yet people wrote stuff on his house and harassed him in other ways. So exactly who were the criminals at that point?
This is way off topic. Unless Carlos tells me it’s ok to continue I’m not going to post anymore about this off topic stuff.
Please come back to the photo where the person taking the photo didn’t do anything wrong. But the officer certainly broke many laws.
Duane,
It is off topic but I don’t have a problem with you guys having a legitimate discussion.
I just don’t want to annoy you or anyone else.
To me many of the things that happen to photographers at the hands of police are wrapped into other ways that police and society behave about other subjects, like the sex offender registry.
The police seem to always be looking for suspicious intent by people where there is none. They justify this by you just never know. So they tend to have responses that are out of proportion to what is happening. Now I’m not saying that if someone is doing something that looked out of context you shouldn’t ask some simple questions. That’s part of policing. What I’m saying is when police start doing things that escalate perfectly legitimate behaviour to a crime they are wrong.
The simple facts are there is nothing suspicious about taking a photograph in public with very few exceptions, like up skirting. It doesn’t matter what the person is taking a photograph of or what kind of equipment the person has. It’s a normal and customary activity.
Duane, I am sure there are a lot of falsely accused people, especially in sex crime cases . I have taken reports from “victims” where I didn’t believe a word they are saying but do you want the police to start telling alleged victims I think your lieing I’m not going to take your complaint. I went after every person that I could prove was lieing and charged them with filing false police reports. Just because there are false convictions doesn’t mean we should get rid of the sex registry. There are innocnet people in prison, should we get rid of prisons. Besides, this guy admits, in a round about way, his guilt and that it had to do with a child. If he wasn’t on the sex registry list he might be coaching little league. Can you blame people for not giving him a second chance, would you want your kids around him. There may be some good cases out there against the sex registry but this isn’t one of them.
As for how many people can complete probation and not reoffend I’m sure it’s not that hard. Let’s assume he hasn’t reoffended, could that be because of the sex registry, with everything this guy is claiming has happened to him it sounds like he can’t even get an opportunity to reoffend. Maybe he just hasn’t got caught. Maybe the victim in this case wasn’t his first vicim, getting caught the first time, how common is that. Many people go years and years assaulting kids before they get caught, if they get caught at all.
The common charge for taking a leak behind a bar is disorderly conduct which won’t put you on the list. I seriously doubt anybody is on the list for simply taking a drunken leak outside a bar, they may tell you that’s what it’s for but I seriously doubt it.
I’m not advocating harassing your neighbors if they are a sex offender. I have some in my neighborhood and don’t pay any attention to them, right now I couldn’t even tell you who they are because I haven’t checked in years. My children are grown so it’s not something I concern myself with but if they were young I would definitely keep an eye on those things.
I don’t think the sex registry is perfect and your right it’s too inclusive I think there should be a lot more discretion as to who has to register. I also have a problem with the amount of info given. These websites that show them only give you the charge which isn’t always useful. I think the details of their crimes, or for your sake “alleged crimes” should be printed on the websites. This would help people determine who is a threat. If I see my neighbor is on the list because his girlfriend gave him a blowjob in the car or got caught taking a leak outside a bar then I’m not going to concern myself with him.
Jones,
Do you know you’re agreeing with me? That’s been my point all along. Violent sex offenders belong on the list. Who gets on the list and who doesn’t is different in all states. In NJ if you urinate in public you can get charged with Lewdness as a disorderly persons offense. I’ve been told that can get you on the list and that it can’t. I can’t find proof one way or the other. I did spend some time looking today.
I think my point is that people that got caught getting a bj, or taking a leak don’t belong on the list. Sometimes I wonder if it was really worth charging them at all. I guess they were breaking some law. But did they hurt anyone?
WOW
I am amazed, ABSOLUTELY AMAZED and the lack of understanding of THE LAW in so many people. Or perhaps it’s not that many but just that they post a lot.
Jones….
You said “Personally I think it’s rude to just walk up to people and take their picture, whether it’s legal or not I think people should respect other peoples privacy, I don’t care if they are out in public.”
EXCUSE ME but if they are OUT IN PUBLIC there is no PRIVACY…..it’s a pretty basic concept when it’s outside and in view from public property.
You also said “Your parents let you walk 2 miles by yourself at 5 years old and your bragging about it, sounds like irresponsible parenting to me.”
Doesn’t sound like it to me. When I was 5 I was traveling almost that far from home just to walk to and from school. When I was 9 I was riding my bicycle 5 miles with my 7 year old brother (and occasionally my 5 year old sister) to go to the creek and go swimming. When I was 12 I was carrying a rifle and hunting with my 10 year old brother. When I was 14 I was carrying my own 12 guage shotgun and my brother was right there with me.
Of course we also rode in the back of a pickup truck for hours at a time, didn’t wear helmets on our bicycles, and a whole bunch of other “dangerous” things that people like you have legislated into crimes.
You also said “Why is a cop sitting on his bike a picture worthy occasion?”
It’s not but that’s absolutely not the issue. The issue is plain and simple. The officer overstepped his authority. He harassed, intimidated, and violated the rights of the citizen, under color of authority. The law is CLEAR. Without a warrant, he can’t destroy those images.
She either committed a crime (which she didn’t) and he couldn’t destroy them because that would be destruction of evidence OR she didn’t commit a crime and he had not authority to delete them. Either way, crime committed or not, those images could not LEGALLY be destroyed and therefore the officer broke the law.
When an officer of the law, or the courts, for that matter anyone in a position of authority, abuses that authority, they must be held accountable.
Photographing someone without there permission, in a public place, may be rude by some peoples standards. However, even if it is rude by everyones standards and the law remains as it is, it’s just being rude. It is not justification for an officer of the law to violate any law including the 1st, and 4th amendments.
For the person that said that “freedom of speech” doesn’t include photography, the 1st is about a lot more than just speech. It includes, religion, speech, the press, assembly. I suggest that you take a course in the Constitution.
OMG Jones…
“If your screwing some girl you just met at the bar and she turns out to be 14 I guess that’s the chance you take, ignorance is not a defense.”
In the state of California….. Some young college men went out drinking. They were of legal age and showed ID. Some underage, MINOR, girls were in the same bar, they showed ID too.
The boys ended up arrested for statutory rape and the girls fake ID’s ended up in evidence. Even the California DMV couldn’t identify the fake ID’s as fake except by running the numbers through their computers.
Those boys were tried in court and thankfully the JURY had a brain and returned a not guilty verdict via jury nullification. If they had used your thought process those young men woud have gone to prison and then been on the registry.
I’m adding this as an edit: I know this story because those young men were friends of my step son. I could very well have been HIM that was in that courtroom.
this is a joke. this is not assault of any kind. go back to japan! you should not be taking pictures of police offiers randomly either way. if you are going this far to make complaint about a cop that deleted your pictures that you took of him, let me tell you something, get a life!! im sure he only deleted his pictures.. so move on with your life please and dont take random pics of cops