By Carlos Miller
Jim Winters, friend, fellow photographer and operator of Nikon Miami, was almost arrested after taking photos inside a Miami Dunkin’ Donuts late Wednesday night.
He said he took a photo of a store employee who did not mind being photographed, but another employee who was in the background became upset and tossed a bucket of water on him, soaking him and his friend and damaging his $8,000 camera.
“I told her that if she was a guy, I would have slapped her,” he said.
After both parties called the cops, ten squad cars pulled up within seconds. He said the cops were going to arrest him for disorderly conduct and a felony charge for threatening the employee but after reviewing a surveillance video tape, they released him with no charges.
But he ended up detained for almost two hours while police sorted the situation out.
Coincidentally, the daughter of the store manager is a friend of mine as well as a reader of Photography is Not a Crime.
Suzy, who posts here under Magic City Mama, said the video camera will prove that Jim was taunting the employees mercilessly with his camera.
She said she will post the video on her blog once she gets it.
The incident started a little after 10 p.m. when Jim, his girlfriend and his friend Mark walked into the Dunkin Donuts at Biscayne Blvd and 52nd St., which is right down the street from where I was arrested two years ago.
He sent me a text message as the cops were sorting through the facts. We talked briefly, which enabled me to post something online, but we talked more extensively after he had gotten home.
This is how he explains it.
His girlfriend, Lorna, was carrying a small puppy they had recently adopted. The employees ordered the puppy out, which was surprising because they did not say anything about the puppy the previous evening. Nevertheless, his girlfriend walked outside with the dog.
Meanwhile, one of the employees kept telling him not to take her photo. He said he was respecting her wishes not to take her photo.
But a second employee did not have a problem with him taking her photo, but the first employee was in the background and became irate and tossed the bucket of water on him.
According to Suzy (who has not seen the video but spoke to her father), the video shows that they refused to walk out with the dog when ordered to do so. She also says the video shows him continually taking photos of the employee who did not want to be photographed (but who apparently doesn’t have a problem being filmed while on the clock).
Jim said that Dunkin Donuts were insisting that cops confiscate Jim’s cameras, but Jim said he deleted the photos he took to keep them from confiscating it. He ended up retrieving the photos using recovery software. The photo is posted above.
He said the cops told him he was not allowed back in the Dunkin’ Donuts, which is fine with him.
-30-
I am a multimedia journalist who has been fighting a lengthy legal battle after having photographed Miami police against their wishes in Feb. 2007. Please help the fight by donating to my Legal Defense Fund in the top left sidebar, which helps pay for the thousands of dollars I’ve acrued in debt since my arrest. To keep updated on the latest articles, join my networks at Facebook, Twitter and Friendfeed.
Popularity: 1% [?]
117 responses so far ↓
1 Ricky Rodriguez // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM
1. They want to play dirty ok…
In Civil Court-
a. sue the employee for Battery
b. sue Dunkin Donuts as well
…although he was in private property not public property where there are no constitutional rights for free speech … his conduct does not justify the battery upon him so i would strongly suggest if these Dunkin Gang Members wanna play rough he should play rough too and take them to court… pics vs battery – he has the upper hand…
Criminal
-State vs. him…
they will probably have to drop those nazi charges of Felony against him…
-he will probably have to fight that disorderly conduct one…
2 Pinandpuller // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:39 PM
I don’t mean to impugn your friend, Carlos, but who brings a non service animal inside a food service establishment? Isn’t that a health code violation? It’s not exactly Petco.
3 Bobby // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM
This is how Dunkin’ Donuts treats their customers?
4 Carlos Miller // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Pinandpuller,
I think Dunkin Donuts is a health code violation with or without a puppy being cradled in someone’s arms inside the lobby.
5 Magic City Mama // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Your friend failed to tell you the whole truth which was recorded on camera.
Restaurants only allow service animals. When he walked in, the employees told him he couldn’t have the animal in there and asked him to leave. He ignored, taunting them (again, all recorded on the store’s security cameras) and began taking pictures of the employees.
NO employees authorized him to take pictures. On the contrary, both employees asked him repeatedly to stop, telling him they did not give him permission. The manager even explained that it was a private establishment and did not authorize any picture taking and advised that if he continued, the police would be called because he was harassing the business and it’s workers.
He continued taking pictures and taunting them. In the video, which is why he is being charged with disorderly conduct, it appears he was instigating them and even looks as though he threw something at her first.
And the manager, is my father; hence the info about the video.
They say there are three sides to every story and in this one, the video feed captured the truth.
Your friend was not in a public place but rather a private establishment and was repeatedly asked to leave and stop photographing. He refused and egged them on.
The employees and the establishment have rights as well.
6 Ricky Rodriguez // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Accepting all of that as true,
The employee still attacked a customer and may be liable in a civil court for battery.
7 Carlos Miller // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Wow. Small world.
If you provide the video, I’ll be happy to post it.
But regardless if he was taunting them. Regardless if he did take their photo without their permission. Regardless if he did walk in with the dog.
That doesn’t give the employee the right to toss water on him.
8 Ripster40 // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:08 AM
With all said and done, she is still liable for an assault on a customer.
As representative for Dunkin Donuts she knew better than to do that.
9 Magic City Mama // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Ricky:
I don’t necessarily disagree but at what point is a person responsible for the repercussions of their own actions?
Maybe the person lost there cool but if you antagonize someone repeatedly and they warn you that if you continue they’re going to retaliate, don’t you foot the blame too?
If you call someone names and laugh at them and they smack you, didn’t you get what you deserve?
While it may apply both ways here, I believe the saying is ‘if you can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime.’
I’ll tell you this, DD will fight it every step of the way using that video as proof.
10 Carlos Miller // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:13 AM
If the video shows them tossing water on the customer, then it’s not going to help them much.
All they had to do was call the cops and let them deal with it.
11 Carlos Miller // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:15 AM
And it’s going to be pretty ironic when the employee is going to depend on a video to prove that she had the right to defend herself from being photographed unwillingly.
If they have the right to film the customer, how can they deny the customer the right to photograph them?
12 the bulldog // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:15 AM
post the tape!
13 Carlos Miller // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:16 AM
For the record, Bulldog is the man in question.
14 the bulldog // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:17 AM
your employees are liars! we’ll see what a judge thinks about assault! we’ll see what a judge thinks about an $8000 camera that doesnt work due to water damage…
15 Magic City Mama // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Shoot Carlos, no offense but if I can get that video, I’m posting it on my own blog and attaching the definition of Karma to it.
And Ripster, if he threw something at her first, then it’s self-defense…in addition to loitering, trespassing, harassment and anything else DD corporate will probably throw at him.
My dad is a no-nonsense type of guy and fires people who are 5 minutes late on their first incident. He wouldn’t put up with someone being disrespectful to a customer- because his job is on the line too if shit like that happens. Who do you think has to hear it from the suits? Not her.
16 Michaelk42 // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:20 AM
I have to tell people to keep their non-service animals out of the place I work, and we don’t even sell food. Bringing a puppy into a place that sells food is actually pretty dumb.
OTOH, someone could be strolling out with thousands of dollars worth of stuff without paying, and I’m not to lay a finger on them. I suspect Dunkin Donuts has a similar policy re: tossing fluids on customers.
But seriously: TEN cop cars in minutes? HOW IS THE DONUT PROTECTION JOKE NOT ALREADY MADE?
I’m disappointed in all of you.
17 Magic City Mama // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Bark bark bulldog… the cops saw the video which is why you are being charged + they checked your camera there and there was nothing wrong with it then.
Who’s the liar now?
18 the bulldog // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:23 AM
and btw, the dog has nothing to do with anything…the dog was in the store last night and no one said a thing…once asked to leave with the dog, the dog left…
19 the bulldog // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:28 AM
the sgt saw the video and squashed the charge! i didnt know it was DD’s policy to throw water at customers that have cameras?
20 the bulldog // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:31 AM
AND nothing was ever thrown at the girl behind the counter…AND no one ever checked the camera before we left…your employees are merely lying to save their jobs…AND we didnt even get an apology from mr manager!
21 the bulldog // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:33 AM
AND the manager wouldnt replace the melted ice cream we just spent nine bucks on…
22 Magic City Mama // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:51 AM
He’s not going to apologize, nor are they. I called to ask him what REALLY happened when I read this because it sounded sensational and NOTHING like the way they treat people at his location. He’s fought corporate on a bunch of community issues because he says the customers are their life-line and not the company’s rules.
I don’t know you but I do know my father and he doesn’t lie- especially not for something recorded on camera. He also did not ask anyone to confiscate your camera which makes me lean towards you being the liar or Carlos misinterpreting the facts based on your acquaintance and what I’m sure was a bit of embellishing thanks to emotion.
Like I said before, you have to responsible for your actions. If she did throw a cup of water at you, then she needs to be accountable. He wouldn’t tell me because I told him I was going to respond to the post with their side so people could figure it out on their own instead of just believing a sensationalized story. He did say the video makes it look like you threw something at her but I haven’t seen it. Rest assured that after this post and the insulting comments aimed at the staff, if I had a video that refuted your side, I would LOOOOOOOOOVE to post it.
What’s true is that she repeatedly asked you to stop and you retorted something nasty to her- something you (or Carlos) failed to mention. You tried to make it seem as though you took her picture and she threw water at you for no reason when you know that’s not how it happened.
It sure takes a big man to antagonize a young girl just trying to do her job, doesn’t it? You left her in tears. Some man. It should take an even bigger man to look at his own actions and say ‘shit, I asked for it and got what I deserved.’ This is Miami afterall, bulldog- in some neighborhoods, you would’ve been shot for ‘trying’ someone and no one would be the wiser as to how it happened.
If I started insulting you on here based on your appearance from Carlos’ pictures, then I’d be opening Pandora’s box for the same treatment. In essence, that’s what you did. Sometimes, you get EXACTLY what you deserve whether it’s right, legal or not. Like I said, karma.
23 the bulldog // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:00 AM
post the tape!!!
24 Jeff // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:02 AM
Show the video, I don’t believe a word anyone says until the video gets posted and if Magic City Mama is not willing to provide a link to the video then she is full of crap, perhaps nothing more than a troll. She more than likely voted for that socialist idiot Obama as well, even more reason not to trust her word.
25 Carlos Miller // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:05 AM
What the fuck does Obama have to do with any of this?
As far as I know, neither Jim nor Magic City Mama voted for Obama.
But I sure as hell did, so what of it?
26 Ricky Rodriguez // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:08 AM
I think we should all let emotions cool off because in the end we are all allies in the fight for liberties…
however, time will tell who is right…
we are not disputing the right to film in a private domain because there is no right. however, what is troubling is the initial fear and threats of the police of imposing a bogus felony (which they knew had no weight) and their over reaction… this is a horrible deep reflection… by the state.
Civilly, the civil war between private individuals is another matter we can all fight on and be emotional on but in the end, even if the bulldog was barking too loudly he has a legitimate and valid claim that has to be addressed. Yes, employees have rights but it is not a crime to make someone cry, it might be improper morally but it is not a crime, what is a crime is battery. Just my opinions which are basically meaningless but interesting since this blog reaches thousands of people…perhaps my voice may be a voice from one of the many in the vox populi…however, i hope this all ends well because remember we are all fighting the bigger enemy and they want us divided.
27 Magic City Mama // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:25 AM
I’m hardly a troll and Carlos can tell you that.
Like I said, I haven’t seen the video and do you really think that I would be allowed to post the security feed from a corporate entity involved in a legal issue just because the boss is my daddy?
Get real folks. You ask me to post it because you know there is no way I can.
I already said that if she threw a party sized cup of WATER at you a la Dorothy and the wicked Witch, then she should be held accountable.
Calling someone names is not illegal- unless you happened to call her something associated with race or nationality which could then be deemed a hate crime. I don’t know- I wasn’t there and i certainly hope that’s not what put her over the edge. But I still say, if you ‘tried’ her and she lost her cool and ‘tried’ you back; you got what you deserved.
You may have just lucked out, Bulldog, that she was working for DD at the time which might entitle you to some sort of compensation although if I were DD legal, I would fight it with trespassing, harassment and loitering counterclaims given how many times you were asked AND told to leave.
Incidentally, Jeff- I did not vote for Obama and I’m sure Carlos remembers the heated arguments regarding that topic at my former job. I’m actually keeping my son home from school next Tuesday so the Obamaessiah can’t corrupt his young mind with his propaganda.
As for Carlos, or anyone else who voted for him, like Bulldog proved tonight- you get what you deserve…but yeah, not related to the topic AT ALL.
28 genewitch // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:25 AM
So repeated alleged antagonizing by taking someone’s picture… is punishable by an $8,000 fine, to be carried out by a donut pusher?
If he allegedly threw something at her, why would she return fire with WATER, for heaven’s sake? What sort of sense does that make?
How does one throw something at someone while taking pictures anyhow? did he stop taking pictures and then grab something that happened to be nearby and throw it?
I know for a fact if i ever did anything that involved me damaging $8,000 worth of anything, that i’d be held civilly liable, if not criminally.
Especially if the reason i damaged the property was because someone was taking my picture.
@MMM: “Calling someone names is not illegal- unless you happened to call her something associated with race or nationality which could then be deemed a hate crime.”
er… no. what are you basing this on? Hate crime involves doing something to someone that is illegal BECAUSE of their race religion creed sexual orientation. And if it were illegal (under hate crime statutes no less – those get you the death penalty, or Life In Prison) – i think he would have been charged with that crime first and foremost.
29 Ricky Rodriguez // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:31 AM
I think this is all Fidel Castro’s Fault.
30 genewitch // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:37 AM
Yates v. United States, Brandenburg v. Ohio
Supreme Court roundly rejects the notion that hate speech can be a crime unless there is imminent threat of “clear and present danger” or “imminent lawless action”
So saying “someone should do something about these damn dutch people, drown them or something” isn’t hate speech. But getting a crowd riled up and inciting them to cause harm from a position of hatred towards a group of people IS hate speech.
Hate speech is not a “hate crime” – it’s more on par with “Inciting a riot” or “conspiracy” charges.
31 Janie // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:24 AM
MCM keeps mentioning loitering, trespassing, and harassment — are DD’s customers considered loiterers and trespassers when they walk into the store? Funny. Her assertion that the water-thrower acted in “self-defense” is hilarious.
Ten cop cars — odd that there were that many “crime” fighters and drug warriors available for such a thing. Shouldn’t they at least be harassing people with their little click-it or ticket games?
32 genewitch // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:57 AM
Janie: They heard “Photographer is causing a problem” and they thought “Carlos Miller! let’s GIT ‘M!”
:-p
33 Tom Joad // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:54 AM
The employees had the right to demand the photographer to leave the property, that’s it. If he didn’t then they should have called the police to have him removed or arrested for trespassing. The employees can ask him to leave because they don’t like their picture taken. They don’t have the right to damage property, have property seized, or commit assault and/or battery. As for the self-defense defense, that seems ridiculous since she wasn’t in danger of bodily harm. Unless… she believes that having your picture taken takes away your soul.
I don’t think the video will be made public. The lawyers don’t want it to go viral on the internet and they certainly don’t want the photographer to see it before any civil suit is filed. They want this thing to go away without any bad publicity for DD.
34 leek // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:10 AM
We’re f**ked up as a country, my man.
This story, and the responses, only proves it.
The tension on this forum is palpable.
Are you going to be the one who shoots his neighbor first?
I’d start finding friends fast. Because in six months you ain’t going to afford them.
Donuts be damned.
35 leek // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:11 AM
(with a camera I mean)
In Peace
36 Janie // Sep 3, 2009 at 4:18 AM
“CARLOS MILLER, THIS IS SERGEANT HOOFNSNOUT. YOU ARE LIKE TOTALLY SURROUNDED. PUT DOWN THE LOADED CAMERA AND NO ONE WILL GET HURT. MAYBE.”
37 Alorria // Sep 3, 2009 at 5:37 AM
I have alot of sympathy for most of the ppl u write about on this web site, who ‘appear’ to be unfairly treated, but it does sound like this guy deserved what he got – so his camera got broken, maybe next time he’ll put it down before he picks a fight.
Sounds like he was trying to piss ppl off in order to get on this web site
38 Isaac // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:28 AM
In a nut shell…Jim is Jim…will always be Jim. The employee has no legal right to toss the water on him based on his actions, and DD will be liable for camera damage and possible civil compensation if a jury aggrees to award him damages, which seems likely by everyones posts. A jury is likely to side for Jim and not Big Corperate DD. DD beware… better settle out of court. If I were DD manager, I would fire the employee today and distance myself from here and not support her actions.
39 Michaelk42 // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:37 AM
The more I read about this the more I actually feel sorry for the cops who had to deal with this asshattery.
40 John // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:44 AM
Question:
If the camera was broken by the water thrown on it, how was Bulldog able to delete the pictures (that he later recovered)?
41 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:00 AM
Aggressive, rude photographers need more than water thrown on them.
Ricky boy, no judge is going to convict for assault under these aggravating circumstances. Pretty boys like you think they can get in peoples faces and get away with it, then go crying to their MOMMY when people punch back.
Guess what, Buzz Aldrin punched one of you pushy cretins in the face. Bart Sibrel is the name of the Cretin. He went to court. Cretin photographer/interviewer was sure he’d win.
He didn’t.
Buzz, who punched him in the face, did.
Watch this video –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUFO8AGMwic
Not shown in this particular video, the cretin even says: “Did you get that on camera?”
He was so sure a punch in the face was a ticket to a lawsuit.
Just like you pushy assholes.
42 Isaac // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:07 AM
As a 27 year Nikon repair technician, water damage can cause an electrical short cicuit as it seeps into the camera an onto the electronics. The time frame is a unknown variable, based on the volume of water intering the camera. As time passes, rust and corrosion to metal parts and electronics grows like cancer and repairs should begin as soon as possible before it damages the camera beyond affordable repair costs.
43 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:11 AM
Isaac, you pussy. Defending your store from pushy aggressive dumbos is legal.
See this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUFO8AGMwic
Same situation as Dunkin. Photographer/interviewer provokes with the intent of lawsuit fortunes.
He gets punched in the face.
He’s sure he’ll win, he called the cops.
He’s a LOSER.
Throwing water is a diaphanous defense compared to a punch in the face, so just hand all your employees a pail of water. Soak that camera!
44 Isaac // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Darwin?? Why are you attacking me with name calling?? This is a discussion of opinions. You seem to understand “pushy aggressive dumbos” with experience. Visit my web site, get my address and I can prove I am no “pussy”.
45 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Tom Joad,
When photographers harass with their in-your-face tactics, a punch in the face is considered self-defense.
Ask your buddy Bart Sibrel if he won millions after Buzz Aldrin punched him right in the nose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUFO8AGMwic
Go Buzz Aldrin!
Go Dunkin employees!
Maybe these asshat photographers can learn to act like gentlemen instead of jerks.
46 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Alorria, do you wear a judges robe?
Smartest, and best legal analysis in this thread.
What these photographers are doing is provoking people. They think it is their way to legal lotto millions.
But Bart Sibrel found out different after Buzz Aldrin punched him in the face.
47 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:32 AM
Issac: Visit my web site, get my address and I can prove I am no “pussy”.
See? Photography is so many times merely social aggression.
“I’ve got my camera in your face! I’ll sue you if you touch me! First Amendment!”
You’re probably about as tough as Bart Sibrel.
48 Isaac // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Darwin, you began aggression against me by calling me a “pussy” for reasons unknown..maybe you did not aggree with my posting.
And the Darwin award goes to…….wait for it………………………Darwin!! My intent was to “show you” my manhood Darwin , since you called me a “pussy” and you do not know me. Your aggression at photographers and myself makes me want to sit on your chest and slap you with it…..in which I will refuse to do since I now believe you may enjoy it ,and may have been your end-game when you began your attack on me . This is my last post.. I have no more time for Darwin! You have my address and my name.
49 cam // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:18 AM
It’s ironic that someone with the mental and emotional capacity of an ape posts under the name Darwin. Hey big guy, why don’t you tell us about Buzzy again?
50 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:26 AM
genewitch: “So repeated alleged antagonizing by taking someone’s picture… is punishable by an $8,000 fine, to be carried out by a donut pusher?”
Yes, ask Bart Sibrel.
He got, not a gentle bucket wash, but punched in the nose by Buzz Aldrin.
A sure lottery ticket in court, right?
Wrong.
I think you photographers are going to have to realize that aggressive, pushy behavior isn’t merely socially rude, it’s legally indefensible.
Antagonizing (your word, by the way) behavior will be dealt with. Don’t be surprised. Don’t be surprised when you lose in court, Bart Sibrels of the world.
51 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:31 AM
Issac: “Your aggression at photographers”
No, I’m pointing out aggression. I’m miles away from you. That’s not so with a rude lensman in somebody’s face.
Issac: “makes me want to sit on your chest and slap you with it”
Let your inner camera man out! That is what photography is, often, in-your-face rudeness. Most, or all the time, you don’t actually get to fulfill your dreams to batter people, you merely click the shutter. But now we know what psychology is behind the viewfinder.
52 CLJ // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:33 AM
The bottom line is that the employee assaulted the photographer. The photographer might have been annoying at a misdemeanor level, but the employee committed a felony. I went through this a few years ago when a co-worker dumped a cup of water on another co-worker (I was neither dumper nor dumpee). It is assault.
And Darwin, taking one incident with completely different circumstances doesn’t apply here. The photographer in the Aldrin case conspired to provoke a reaction in order to catch it on tape. There is no evidence of such a conspiracy in this case.
In the situation outlined above, as Tom Joad noted, no one had the right to confiscate the camera, nor to demand that images be deleted from it. If Duncan Donuts was upset about the photos, their recourse is a civil suit, not the cops. The only thing they could have done in the above dust-up is to accuse their customers of trespassing, which is not a particularly wise approach to the problem.
Looking forward to seeing the tape. And Suzy? Until we see the tape, you get no credit for describing details of it. Especially since you’ve not actually seen the tape yourself.
53 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Are all photographers PASSIVE/AGGRESSIVE? Or just some? The camera is a perfect tool for passive/aggressive psychos.
54 CLJ // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM
John -
The memory is a card that inserts into the camera. It is common for the camera to be damaged by water, while images captured before the damage are safe on the solid-state memory card. BTW, I’ve learned SD memory cards can go through the laundry and not be damaged. (Not recommended).
55 CLJ // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM
No, Darwin: comment sections on blogs are the perfect tool for passive/aggressive psychos like you.
56 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Traits of Passive Aggressive photographers:
1. Fostering Chaos.
2. Feeling Victimized.
3. Making excuses.
And from WIKI…. “they fail to see how they might have provoked a negative response, so they feel misunderstood, held to unreasonable standards, and/or put-upon.”
I think I’m onto something here.
57 CLJ // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Darwin:
I think I’m onto something here.
Hopefully, it’s your meds.
58 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Passive aggressive behavior was first clinically used in the context of “defying” authoritative figures.
Now we know the reason behind all the cop hating here.
59 pod // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Until the tape is posted no one here, including Magic City Mama, should post their opinion.
Now, if it’s her father’s business, there should be no barrier from “corporate” to posting it. Your tapes, your store. It’s tricky, but at the end of the day, you guys own the joint, and it just happens to have the DD name on it. You could tell DD to piss off, take all the branding down, call it Magic City Donuts if you wanted to.
Now, if they just operate it, and DD is the actual owner, well, then I can understand the delay in releasing the footage.
Based on peoples’ opinions thus far though…
- Foul ball on bringing the dog it. It’s technically against health code.
- Most Miami businesses wouldn’t know what a health code is if it slapped them in the face. Nikon Miami just happened to enter the one store where people had a modicum of knowledge of the subject. I see dogs, cats, ferrets, rats, and so forth in Miami businesses every day, and that’s just in the customers’ hands. God knows what is out of sight.
- If the female employee doused him with water if he did not touch her? Bad monkey. I’d fire her ass.
These are just my opinions. Nothing truly judgmental can be said until the tape gets released. If it’s a newer system, it’s easy. “File->Export”.
60 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM
How’s this for a working title?
Passive Aggressive Photography is a Form of Covert Abuse: Why Some Photographers Foster Social Chaos Yet Still Claim Victimization
61 Jon Quimbly // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:23 AM
“After both parties called the cops, ten squad cars pulled up within seconds”
Ten squad cars. Ten!! You’d think it was a bank robbery… protect the source of free cop nutrition.
62 JohnnyLaw // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Sounds like your friend is an asshole. Why harass the poor employees? Aren’t there police that your friend can follow around and harass instead?
63 Ricky Rodriguez // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:41 AM
This is the never ending blog lol.
even if carlos friend is a a bit out there, and i cannot make that judgement because i do not know him…
WHAT DOES IT SAY about
our society (and the manager)…that all of this happened
for something SO STUPID and SILLY of having a Little Puppy in
a shop…i mean really…
Taking pics oooh my goddd it’s the end of the world…
Ridiculous mentality we have developed in this nation of “laws”
p.s. i have 2 buzz aldrin autographs …does the passive agressive commenter want to buy them lol.
64 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM
@ Johnny Law:
Passive Aggressive photographers excel at two things: 1. Create Social Chaos then 2. Claim Victimization.
It’s pretty easy these days to claim victimization from cops, but I guess they’ve found that harassing corporate employees is also fruitful to their ends. That is probably because both cops and corporate employees are held to a higher standard of behavior than these losers could ever hope to achieve.
65 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Ricky says: “Taking pics oooh my goddd it’s the end of the world…”
This is why the camera is a perfect tool for passive aggressive pubic behavior. It gives the perpetrator “plausible deniability.” Oh, the camera is so harmless.
The fact that passive aggressive photographers don’t want you to know is that photography is used to publicly humiliate.
That is why people do not want their photographs taken without their consent. They know photographers like to gain control over people by publicly humiliating them by publishing embarrassing photographs.
66 Srcohiba // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:19 AM
So much disinformation here. Amusing though.
1. Isaac is right about water damage on a camera. It could take days to damage it if it is not treated immediately after immersion.
2. The throwing of water was not in self defense and constitutes a simple battery. A 2nd degree misdemeanor. Not a felony.
3. If the camera is damaged and cannot be fixed, a total loss, his claim would be against the person who threw the water, not the store, unless it can be proven that she was acting in furtherance of the company by throwing water at Jim. Typically, an employer is not liable for the intentional torts of its employees. Unless this employee had a history of committing similar intentional torts or a criminal background involving battery or violent act, whereupon a suit could then be brought against the store for negligent hiring or negligent retention and supervision, the store is not liable.
4. The only damages in this case is possibly to the camera. It is a small claims action. There are no personal injuries so I don’t see any cause of action here.
5. In order to have a claim for damages, the plaintiff will have to have an expert to testify as to the cause of the damages and as to the repair cost/replacement cost. Not enough to just bring in receipts.
6. And it is not a hate crime to call someone a slur. Hate crime statutes simply add an enhancement penalty to a crime if it is found to have been motivated by some animus based on race, color, religion, etc. Further, no evidence of anything of the sort based on what has been posted here.
67 Some Dude // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Sounds to me like the photographer had it coming. It’s private property, he was asked to stop, they had a dog, he got was he deserved, and I’m not so sure an assault charge would stick on the employee nor do I think a prosecutor will even bother. And BTW, I’m absolutely convinced it’s shit like this that’s going to result in legally (via new laws) dimished rights to photograph — with the increasing number of self-righteous jerks with cameras and attitudes, it’s only a matter of time. And one more thing, the fact the store has a security camera is completely irrelevant, it’s their store, they can do whatever the fuck they want, and furthermore it’s one thing to be on a security cam of your own establishment, it’s an entirely different matter to have someone else posting your face on the internet.
68 300baud // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:02 PM
I can’t be the only person who, upon reaching the end of the comments, wanted to see everyone involved jailed.
69 Matt // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I am a photojournalist but in a former life ( AKA college) I was a manager of a movie theatre.
In my experiences with cooperate lawyers, and human resources is any inclination of how DD will handle the situation employee is TOAST and possibly the manager.
She is a liability to the company even if provoked and the manager should have intervened .
I hate to say it but anyone in customer service could have defused the situation. I am sure DD has the same policy we had if the customer is wrong for having an animal in the store or taking pictures or whatever you still must be polite and explain, apologize and escort them out of the building.
The guy had apparently already been served his ice cream so the STORE could have been called up on heath code violations not the individual with the dog because the did not refuse service .
70 John // Sep 3, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Let’s see the video….
71 John // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Gracias to Srcohiba for an enlightening post.
72 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:09 PM
@ Srcohiba:
You are bursting their bubble revealing that the photographer, at best, suffered only a 2nd degree misdemeanor assault against him. (I’d still call it Buzz Aldrin style self- defense)
Because PAMPs (Passive Aggressive Malicious Photographers) thrive on victimization.
Note how they pump up how many cop cars showed up too.
That reminds me of Eddie Murphy great comedy acting in Trading Places, when he was in jail, right before the Duke brothers bailed him out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-NPzpVrmAw
“It wasn’t no cop man. Copssss, plural. 9 or 10.”
LOL
@ Some Dude “self-righteous jerks with cameras and attitudes”
I call it Passive Aggressive Malicious Photography. No intent of art or helping people or improving the world. They only want to:
1. Foster Social Chaos
2. Claim Victimization (and thus monetary rewards from lawsuits, etc.)
3. Exerting their control over others by publicly humiliating the true victims (eg., the girl in the photo above)
73 Janie // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Darwin, comment #56, would have us think that wikipedia has a definition of passive-aggressive photographers; of course, they don’t, but we finally get Darwin and his poster posse’s REAL concern: “all the cop hating here.”
The names are familiar; they prowl the internet for any word spoken against their man-heroes, the cops.
74 Magic City Mama // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Good morning!
She had a solo cup of water in her hand, not a bucket. His camera was not damaged at the scene- the cops checked and his pictures posted on here post the event prove it; nor did he file a police report for the supposed damage.
My dad won’t let me see the video because I have nothing to do with DD and won’t tell me anything other than how can I associate with such assholes but even if she threw that cup of water at him, it seems he had it coming.
Seems like they asked Jim to leave because of the dog and he asked for a refund of the ice cream he had already started eating. When they refused, he started acting like a jerk and got in their faces taking their pictures and barking at them that he was a journalist and going to post their information in the media to damage their reputation- even as other customers were trying to be helped. The manager came out and told him to leave or else he would call the cops on him. When the manager went in the back room to call the cops because Jim kept it up, the incident supposedly happened.
Jim broke laws too and more importantly, he made journalists and photographers look like tools while pushing the envelope! I don’t have sympathy for people like that.
And where are the pictures of her holding a cup or bucket since Jim is saying that she did this while he was photographing her?
Incidentally, if she has that great aim to be able hold ice cream in one hand, like the pictures show, and toss a solo cup of water across a 3 ft counter that lands on a camera and destroys it, someone please sign her to the Marlins! She’s got an arm!
Lastly, Jim- as a matter of principle, you know I have to deny your friend request on Facebook. Are you kidding me?
75 Long_time_reader // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I have to agree most with Srcohiba and can feel 300baud’s frustration.
I’m big on 1st amendment and pet bans in restaurants. Hey, they’re both laws, sure Numero Uno is getting a lot of flack lately, but why should anyone be entitled to pick and choose here?
Bottom Line: I’m disappointed to see a blog entry like this, and the sheer number of comments goes to show this is far from clear cut. We don’t need a story like this, where it sounds to me the photographer was clearly pushing boundaries, especially just days after the man was arrested for photographing in Manhatten. Stuff like this hurts our cause.
I get so frustrated when I see a photog post about 1st amendment in one thread, only to see them do something boneheaded like setting up an unauthorized photo shoot in a parking garage – complete with lighting and crew, snapping away inside a department store, or harassing somone with their shooting.
We need responsibility, and stories like this can chip away at our cause in no time if general public support is against us. We need to educate the public and police that photography is good for them: for art, history, and revealing truth and news. We don’t need this.
I will wait to pass full judgement, but what I’ve gathered, the photog was mostly in the wrong.
76 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:41 PM
@ Janie I’m not a cop. I don’t have any cop friends. I don’t particularly support them.
But the anti-authority attitude is associated with passive aggressive personality. In fact, I just quoted WIKI when I said: “Passive aggressive behavior was first clinically used in the context of “defying” authoritative figures.”
But, to address your theory, why am I here?
I just don’t like passive aggressive personalities who are rude and then claim victimization. Thus, I’ve posted on 3 threads (if my memory serves correctly) about:
1. The girl who cussed out, provoked, threatened, and then went to physically harass the 911 dispatcher – and then claimed victimization.
2. The loud and drunk party animals who ruined their neighbors’ quiet enjoyment of private property and were politely asked repeatedly to turn down the noise – and then claimed victimization.
3. And now, PAMPS (Passive Aggressive Malicious Photographers) who love to provoke, foster social chaos, publicly humiliate people with their cameras – and then claim victimization.
So, no, I’m no boot-licker.
77 Long_time_reader // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Magic City Mama: “…he made journalists and photographers look like tools while pushing the envelope! I don’t have sympathy for people like that. ”
Yea, that sums up my thinking a bit. Far from a clear-cut case – one that hurts our 1st amendment cause and doesn’t prove anything.
78 Long_time_reader // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:48 PM
@ Darwin,
I kind of get what you’re getting at, but I can’t agree with #1 on your list. I’m not one to cuss much, but when emotions are high (your father is dying), dropping an f-bomb seems quite possible. On the audio provided, I heard a 911 opertor acting passive-agressive, not the young woman. He tried to be “holier than thou” when a man’s life was at stake and got rightfully disciplined for it.
79 CLJ // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:53 PM
His camera was not damaged at the scene- the cops checked and his pictures posted on here post the event prove it; nor did he file a police report for the supposed damage.
Nothing in the above statement proves the camera was not damaged. 1: The ability to retrieve the photos from a damaged camera has already been explained. 2: Cops are not camera technicians. 3: not filing a police report does not prove anything beyond the fact that he hasn’t filed one. Yet.
It’s essentially dishonest of you to bring up a videotape that “clears everything up,” and yet not only can no one else view it, you’ve been denied access to it as well.
Jim could have been behaving like the biggest asshole on the planet, but that still does not give anyone the right to dump even a cup of liquid on him, nor does it give the cops the right to make him delete photos off of his camera without a court order.
Finally, since you don’t have footage of the incident, claiming that the she threw a cup of water any distance while holding other things is pure speculation on your part. In other words, you’re making stuff up to bolster a viewpoint you’ve arrived at without a single fact to support it.
If Jim was taking pictures in a restaurant after management asked him to stop, then he violated an ethical protocol. If the worker dumped any amount of water on him, then she is guilty of a crime, however minor. And if the camera was damaged as a result of the act of battery, then she is liable for damages.
If, if, if.
Everyone behaved poorly in this matter, but two wrongs do not make a right.
80 Janie // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:55 PM
We are responding to trolls; this is what they do for a living. May I make a suggestion to all the normal people here? Quit responding and let them talk amongst themselves.
81 300baud // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM
“Jim could have been behaving like the biggest asshole on the planet, but that still does not give anyone the right to dump even a cup of liquid on him…”
From a strictly social point of view, I might argue that it does. She’s set herself up for professional and legal trouble, no arguments there, but she’s not just an employee and a citizen, she’s also a person. If you set your PVP flag like our photog is accused of, you can’t complain when someone takes you up on it.
(The “PVP flag” indicates on multiplayer games that you are available to participate in inter-player conflict, with all the risks and rewards that implies.)
82 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM
@ CLJ “If the worker dumped any amount of water on him, then she is guilty of a crime, however minor.”
Why did Buzz Aldrin not get charged when he punched Bart Sibrel? Bart Sibrel probably thought the same way you do.
The judge thought as I do.
83 no patient for idiots // Sep 3, 2009 at 2:53 PM
throwing water at him was wrong!!!
should have hit him with a chair!!! what a moron!!!
84 genewitch // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Darwin: who would have guessed that judges could be fallible?
Go back under your bridge.
@ no patient[sic] for idiots:
I believe the word you were looking for is “patience.”
Unless you were talking about someone who is seeing a doctor. In which case, carry on god dammit.
85 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:16 PM
genewitch – Of course, judges can be fallible, they’re human. But can you tell us WHY the judge in the Bart Sibrel case against Buzz Aldrin was wrong?
PAMPers (Passive Aggressive Malicious Photographers) probably don’t want anybody to have a defense against your rude behavior.
86 genewitch // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Oh carlos i finally figured out what the smiley face at the bottom of your page is! It’s a tracking GIF that wordpress puts there and reports back to stats.wordpress.com
Here’s the URL of the smiley at the bottom of this page:
http://stats.wordpress.com/g.gif?host=carlosmiller.com&rand=0.17385464471674084&blog=2429123&v=ext&post=7846&ref=http%3A//carlosmiller.com/2009/09/02/miami-photographer-arrested-for-taking-photos/
Darwin: i don’t know anything about the case. i was being snarky because this is an internet flamewar and we all know that means srs bsns.
87 John // Sep 3, 2009 at 3:35 PM
I agree with Magic City Mama & Long Time Reader.
This is NOT a first amendment issue. In truth it only seems to be a water throwing dispute. Bulldog’s intention when pulling out the camera seems to be intimidation as there is no need for a camera when asking for a refund on ice cream.
MCM’s account of things sounds accurate except for the fact that the worker that asked Bulldog to leave was probably pretty rude when doing so. People act rationally.
Low wage workers are not paid to handle situations like this. If there WAS a manager on site when this happened, then he/she should have handled this instead of delegating it to someone else.
That being said, I would think Bulldog would probably win the full $8,000 from the minimum wage worker in small claims court and then have one hell of a time ever collecting it.
88 the bulldog // Sep 3, 2009 at 5:02 PM
john,
-i took the camera with me to take pics of our new puppy, no other reason…
-i was NEVER asked to leave…
-i NEVER asked for a refund/exchange of the melted ice cream until the event was over two hours later
-there was NO manager there at the time
unfortunately Magic City Mama’s father is a pathological liar and has distorted the truth even though he has seen the video, therefore, he will be going down with the ship also…
89 CLJ // Sep 3, 2009 at 5:50 PM
300baud:
If you set your PVP flag like our photog is accused of, you can’t complain when someone takes you up on it.
(The “PVP flag” indicates on multiplayer games that you are available to participate in inter-player conflict, with all the risks and rewards that implies.)
Dude, you need to stop playing games and deal with reality. In real life, there are no”PVP flags” to be set. In RL, we have laws, and there are consequences for breaking them.
John- MCM’s account is entirely hearsay. She was not there, and has no more idea what actually happened there than I do. We got Bulldog’s side, she got her father’s side. That’s all, until someone gets to view the tape, or a third party witness steps up.
90 Michaelk42 // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:19 PM
@CLJ
I think he just meant “Go Looking For Trouble.”
91 enhager // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:27 PM
90 comments on this story? Talks of lawsuits and first amendments rights? Well it is better than the other Miami-based reality show.
92 NYCPhotorights // Sep 3, 2009 at 6:57 PM
The way I see it is this:
1. DD should have explained its animal policy and not sold the ice cream in the first place
2. Having sold the ice cream it should have refunded the full purchase price when asking the customer to leave since DD deprived the customer of the full enjoyment of what he paid for. DD gave implicit approval for the customer to remain on premises by doing #1 in the first place.
Camera or no camera I would not have left without a full refund OR charging the store with theft for stealing my money by not letting me finish the product I purchased.
Bottom line is if either 1 or 2 had happened the rest of this incident would not have occurred.
93 Marty Kohn // Sep 3, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Bulldog, have your attorney send a subpoena to DD ASAP and get the video.
94 Anon // Sep 3, 2009 at 8:48 PM
@Darwin:
Do some research. Copypasta from Wikipedia:
“…Aldrin punched Sibrel in the face. Beverly Hills police and the city’s prosecutor declined to file charges after witnesses confirmed that Sibrel had initiated physical contact.”
Hence, self-defense. QED.
95 Marty Kohn // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Forget all this senseless banter and address the real issue at hand, who the FCUK buys ice cream at DD?
96 Darwin // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:45 PM
@ Anon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Sibrel
It’s kind of funny, but your phrase isn’t there.
“Seventy-two year old Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw and the incident was captured on video. Sibrel later attempted to use the tape to convince police and prosecutors that he was the victim of an assault. However, it was decided that Aldrin had been provoked, and did not actually injure Sibrel, and so no charges were filed but the incident was covered in the media.”
97 the bulldog // Sep 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM
@Marty- done!
@MartyAgain- the dog used to…
98 Anon // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:02 PM
@Darwin
Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_Aldrin#Hoax_allegations
99 Ricky Rodriguez // Sep 3, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Darwin i got 2 Buzz Alderin autographs i will sell you … you can frame them and admire your hero all day long. lol. you can even throw glasses of water on them and then pretend to get beat up by him. but if you do that can you photograph yourself and blog about it? that way we can all comment on that… it would be nice…we would all win.
100 Carlos Miller // Sep 4, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Enhager,
This is the real Miami Social. Or should I say, the real Miami Antisocial.
We are a tense city. Everybody has their finger on the trigger, whether it is a shutter button or a bucket of water.
This is why I leave my guns at home.
101 Nemo // Sep 4, 2009 at 4:15 AM
Jim’s comments: Direct testimony (albeit not under oath)
MCM’s comments: Hearsay, with the same oath qualifier.
In the TV courtroom, testimony is admissable, and hearsay is not, save in extreme circumstances.
Unless and until the mysterious tape comes to light, the balance favors Jim, IMO. I’ve got nothing against MCM, I just know what she’s laying out is hearsay.
Just as a general comment, I wouldn’t call someone who’d summarily fire an employee the first time they arrived 5 minutes late “no-nonsense”, because a policy like that is nonsensical. It essentially states that your employment will only last until something beyond your control makes you late for work, and has nothing to do with those who are habitually tardy.
I’d /never/ work for someone that rigid, uncaring, and unreasonable. I did that once, and saw a co-worker fired for obeying a manager’s orders to do something that policy stated was a firing offense (nothing illegal, just a policy). It still seemed the better way to go to they guy, because disobeying a manager was also a firable offense. That owner prided himself as being a “no-nonsense” guy, too.
Jim wins, unless and until the tape becomes public, and proves him wrong.
102 John // Sep 4, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Where’s the tape?!?!?!
103 Engineer // Sep 5, 2009 at 9:55 AM
this pictures is HARASSMENT PERSONAL… not is freedom of the press..
104 Citizen A. // Sep 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM
I’m surprised Johnny Law has time to come here and make smart remarks. I thought he was too busy on his own site moderating out comments that make him look too bad.
105 Pinandpuller // Sep 8, 2009 at 12:55 AM
I think that the girl should be reprimanded for not setting out the wet floor sign after throwing the cup.
106 JM // Sep 8, 2009 at 3:41 PM
This Jim is an asshole. Jesus Christ even though I support YOU, and have sent a few bucks your way sometimes we (us photographers) are a*holes!! Stop being a jerk with the freakin’ cameras!! Regardless of your “rights” sometimes it doesn’t pay to cause a problem as many of us that will come after you are screwed. Jesus Christ! I hope his 8k camera was screwed. What dumbass.
107 JM // Sep 8, 2009 at 3:43 PM
And on another note he was shooting on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Just an FYI. This is in no way what you were arrested for doing. If he had been asked to stop taking photos, he should have stopped. If he had been asked to leave the establishment, he should have left. Again, what an asshole!
108 the bulldog // Sep 8, 2009 at 4:56 PM
fuckstick,
jim was never asked/told to stop taking pics, jim was told by one of the employees to stop taking pics of her! which jim did…
secondly,
jim was never asked/told to leave the property!
now what?
(btw, jim IS an asshole!)
109 Marty Kohn // Sep 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM
“fuckstick,
jim was never asked/told to stop taking pics, jim was told by one of the employees to stop taking pics of her! which jim did…
secondly,
jim was never asked/told to leave the property!
now what?
(btw, jim IS an asshole!)”
Why is Jim referring to himself in the third person? Is this Bob Dole talking about Jim?
110 the bulldog // Sep 12, 2009 at 10:16 AM
so i think i figured it out…the girl was from thailand, and was merely celebrating the New Year with her own little “Songkran” festival
111 The Ace // Oct 1, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Um, he DID take a photo of her even though she asked not to be – and POSTED IT ON THE NET! Foreground or background is irrelevant.
112 the bulldog // Oct 1, 2009 at 1:34 PM
after much thought, i can understand why this disgusting heinous illegal immigrant wouldnt want her picture taken…my bad
113 why am i reading this // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM
and the bull dog reveals his dumb card. …o wait..he’s been showing it for awhile now.
Why would anyone snap pictures in a private place/establishment of employees without asking permission is beyond me…i see two DD employees in the picture (now which is the one that didn’t want to be photographed? lol)
and btw stop eating donuts…it shows…
114 natalie marie erwin // May 8, 2010 at 9:15 PM
bc they were on a memory card…nice try
115 robert // May 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM
the puppy is cute but its not a service animal and shouldnt have been in the store.
116 just stoppped by // Jun 6, 2010 at 6:48 PM
Regardless of the legal issues, after reading this I conclude that Jim is a self absorbed ass. Unfortunately, that is not a crime.
117 Stuart // Jun 7, 2010 at 1:17 AM
They can deny the customer anything they want, it’s private property. As long as all whites, blacks, asians, native north americans and hispanics are told no dogs equally, they can ask anyone to leave for non service animals.
No one force this guy, his girl and their dog into Dunkin Donuts,and anyone who lives in North America knows to expect cameras.
Leave a Comment