Tom C wrote:
Gonz wrote:
Perhaps you dont have a(ny) daughter(s)? :-O
I suspect that no one on this list has access to the photographs in
question, yet the discussion has proceeded in a deliberately
inflammatory way assuming the photographer's rights have been violated
and not his subjects. Having daughters makes you realize that there is
potentially more than one side to this story.
It goes both ways. I dont believe that we can draw a conclusion either
way. You may be right, but since I have a reasonable expectation of the
police in my area to interpret this statute correctly, I'm more inclined
to believe my interpretation. And given the typical psychological
profile of serial rapists and killers, I would rather err on that side
rather than risk an individual like this finally acting out his
fantasies on innocent lives.
-----------------
I agree up to the last two sentences. I have a 14 year old son that
I've attemped to protect, safeguard, and raise in a responsible manner.
However, I would rather see 100 guilty people go free than see one
innocent person, accused, convicted and sentenced unjustly. Crime is a
sad thing, and it does and will happen, but let's not believe that
criminal acts can or should be prevented by further criminal acts. The
fact that crime exists does not justify the authorities committing
additional crimes against potentially innocent persons, in the hopes
that some of the guilty will be caught in the dragnet.
I agree with this pretty much 100%. Its not a dragnet that I'm
advocating in my position, nor do I advocate unjust accusation,
conviction, or sentencing. I do however, agree with the statute that
certain types of photography are "inappropriate", including the
"up-skirt" shoe based cameras, cameras in areas where people expect some
degree of privacy, such as dressing rooms, while in a vulnerable
position, etc. There should be no expectation of privacy when we are in
public for someone to see or hear something we thought should be
private. Its not a crime if someone happens to see or hear something,
but its the capturing and disseminating, etc., that I think the law is
trying to prevent. If some individual is caught doing this, and his
camera has pretty much nothing but this, then I tend to err on the side
of investigation rather than just a warning and letting him go, for the
reasons I mentioned before. If his camera shows nothing but simple
snaps, I have reasonable expectations that the police are not going to
now search his car, house, etc. If they do, then that is certainly
abuse of power. I think we are probably both saying the same thing,
from different perspectives.
That being siad, I have no idea what was in the pictures.
Some of us may remember sometime in the last five years when a mother in
the midwest U.S., took her two children to a State Fair and forgot to
put sunscreen on them. Her children were taken and put in protective
custody by a jackass deputy (or such) and she was charged with
dependency and neglect. All over a case of sunburn when she took her
kids to have fun.
Thats ridiculous abuse of power.
Tom C.
