Thanks for the clarification. I think we are saying the same thing as well.
Tom C.
From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: More Texas Photo Issues
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:07:47 -0500
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.
