Comments on: Man charged with disorderly conduct for photographing women in public

By: ILmom

ILmom — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:49:54 +0000

Cops stole my camera!!
I live in a quiet private neighborhood. One of my neighbors is a Cop. He and my hubby had verbal disagreement and to make a LONG story short, we are being watched like felons. We can’t walk the dog without a stop and frisk, they park outside our house for hours at a time. So, we began video taping what we considered a breach of privacy. AND took the cam on walks as a way to prove we weren’t doing anything wrong.
I got a little gutsy and would walk up to the car to record the license plate number. Next thing you know I was arrested and booked for “disorderly conduct”. They kept my camera and say they won’t give it back until the case closes!!! I can’t access evidence to prove my position!!

By: Mike H

Mike H — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:40:58 +0000

I got 2 disorderly conducts in my over 55 years of life. The first because women were alarmed that I was wearing a towell out in the woods along a river and chased me on horseback, threatening my life, but only I was prosecuted. The second was a woman who saw me remove my swimsuit in the woods to relieve the runs. I have only contempt left for this country.

By: Mike H

Mike H — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:30:21 +0000

The only ways to beat disorderly conduct, is either conviction on a higher charge or the mercy of the court. No jury allowed, totally up to some judge, good luck. And talk about a low threshold – someone only has to be offended or alarmed. Hell, women are alarmed if a man simply walks by them in an area with no other people. And if you try to fight it, they threaten to give you a trial penalty, maybe put you in jail for 3 months.

@akagoldfish
Fortunately, some states like Ohio don’t even consider a crime, in the sense that people do not have to declare it as having a criminal record.

By: Mike H

Mike H — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:40:40 +0000

I meant they don’t have to offer a JURY trial.

By: Mike H

Mike H — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:49:49 +0000

@akagoldfish
In the US, the pigs do not have to offer a trial if the offense is punishable for less than a maximum of 6 months in jail. Disorderly conduct is 3 months. It is the perfect charge for a police state trying to control people’s behavior. Also used for America’s bitches that are clearly favored in the courts. They bitch and the pigs make the men pay.

By: akagoldfish

akagoldfish — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:03:33 +0000

If I recall Illinois’ anti-stalking law, you have to focus on one person for it to apply. Short-term stalking of a lot of different people wouldn’t count.

By: mjk

mjk — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:26:59 +0000

While it sounds like this guy was clearly in the wrong, it seems like if disorderly conduct (aka contempt of cop) is really the worst they can charge him with, then he’s not really a danger to anybody, just an annoyance. They should either charge him with a REAL crime (if they can) or let him go. Illinois must have some kind of anti-stalking law: if he was really has bad as the woman who reported him says, then shouldn’t he be charged under that?

By: EdinMiami

EdinMiami — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:09:14 +0000

It could have been a question in response to being stopped by a police officer; since they tend not to stop people just to say hello, but the stopping doesn’t mean a crime has been committed nor does it create a crime.

Doing things that are “creepy” or in bad taste are still not against the law. yet.

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:55:39 +0000

“Something I should not have been doing,” he allegedly told the officer.

If he felt he was doing something wrong, this entire thing is creepy.

By: Pinandpuller

Pinandpuller — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:51:50 +0000

Sounds like a case of 9mm beats 35mm.

By: EdinMiami

EdinMiami — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:33:42 +0000

wow Rachel be careful grinding that ax. you need to make sure it lasts a lifetime.

By: Carlos Miller

Carlos Miller — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:27:15 +0000

Rachael,

I agree with you about the need to protect women. But I also believe we need to stick to the law.

This guy has a history of photographing women in parking lots. Nothing else.

I think the guy is a shady creep. And I understand how women would feel threatened.

But where do we legally draw the line between someone who is stalking and someone who is expressing their First Amendment rights.

That will probably be up to the judge and jury.

By: AKAGoldfish

AKAGoldfish — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:08:09 +0000

@Rob Molecule: it’s a criminal charge, not a traffic ticket, he gets a jury trail if he wants one (although, if I were in his shoes I’m not sure I’d want one).

@MacK: “Now if I’m in public taking multiple photos of a woman walking through a parking lot, down the street, and on, I’m not exercising my rights , I’m violating her rights.”

That makes no sense, but it’s also not what the defendant in this case was doing. He wasn’t just talking multiple pictures of the same woman from the same spot (which is legal, and in no way violates her rights), but he was actively following several women as well as shooting them. That takes things to a different level than mare photography.

@NYCPhotorights: Most street photographers don’t stalk their subjects.

@mepsipax: the post says he was stopped because he was following the women who complained, not simply photographing her. That’s a pretty big difference.