Comments on: Man sentenced to three years in prison for photographing boy

By: Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:53:22 +0000

It’s simple. I believe in due process and I believe in actual evidence being used to convict somebody.

I try not to rely on emotion and intuition before I convict somebody.

I don’t understand why that is hard to understand.

By: sdavis

sdavis — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:50:11 +0000

That I, and apparently others who’ve read this on your site, just fail to understand the reason for posting it.
I’ve actually been impressed with alot of your reporting on this site, but in this instance, I’m at a loss.
What does it have to do with journalism? Or how does it affect a true photographers professional/personal rights as to the first ammendment?
I’m not attacking, just simply trying to understand.
A guy using intimidation, as the boy seemed to feel, to take a photograph, doesn’t belong in the category of ‘photographer’, and in my personal opinion, shouldn’t have a place on a site that you seem to have worked hard on to make a point.

By: Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:42:37 +0000

sdavis,

What the hell are you talking about?

By: sdavis

sdavis — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:37:47 +0000

I find it odd that in all your other articles you defend yourself/actions, Carlos, and yet in this one, you don’t comment on the purpose of advertising this conviction.
A shame, actually.
You only comment on this guy’s isp problems, when people ask you questions that you normally don’t have any trouble answering.
This guy with the kid is no photographer. Coercion to satisfy a sick thrill doesn’t equal a violation of first ammendment rights.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:31:01 +0000

While i’m all for photographers rights, a child cannot give permission or consent.
To the kid the guy is a very intimidating GIANT.
He should have never approached the kid.

By: ZarathustrA

ZarathustrA — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:18:35 +0000

It’s sickening to see pure ignorance is still rampant in our society.

Thanks for making me want to throw up, jones.

By: Kylie

Kylie — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:55:22 +0000

jones – nice dodge.

By: jones

jones — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:50:17 +0000

Yes, if I was a judge I would take into consideration the totality of the circumstances when sentencing him. If the totality of the circumstances told me this guy was a danger I would give him more time.

By: Kylie

Kylie — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:47:45 +0000

jones – are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you really have trouble understanding the english language? Where did I ever say I believe the man didn’t receive a fair trial? I have said all along that I don’t know if he did or not, and that the article merely raises the question.

You also say “I think Kylie thinks they only charged him because they are afraid of what he might do.” On the contrary, I think that it is POSSIBLE that he was charged because “they” are afraid of what he might do. I can’t help it if you can’t see the difference in those two statements. I am, however, almost certain that the length of his sentence was influenced by what the judge thought he might do.

I also think that *you*, jones, would have locked him up for what you *think* he *might* do, if it had been up to you. In an earlier comment, you said “before you go defending suspected child molesters maybe you should do a little more research”; well, who is he suspected of molesting, and who has suspected him of it? He wasn’t charged or convicted of child molestation, he was convicted of unlawful restraint.

And further, I would suggest you read the article that Carlos sourced (have you read it at all?), for you’ve obviously missed at least one pertinent piece of data from it. You seem to not know whether it was a judge or jury that convicted him, yet the article clearly states that it was a bench trial and that the public defender asked the judge to reconsider her verdict. Which, since you seem to need things spelled out very carefully for you, means that he was convicted by a judge, there was no jury involved.