I called the cops on a guy (possibly) taking pics of me today

[Petar]

No, photography is not disorderly conduct, even without your consent. You're in a public place and are photographed hundreds of times a day by surveillance cameras that you never consented to. He can't use your likeness in commercial advertising without your consent, but he's still free to take your picture.

What would I have done? Gone about my business. Who cares if some nerd has a photo of me sitting in my car in public?

Yeah, because disorderly conduct is the charge cops like to slap on whoever they please. But it's not illegal, and the charge won't stick. There are laws criminalizing sex offenders being near parks or schools, but everyone else is free to take pictures in public parks, yes even of children.

Did all the parents of these children consent to this picture being taken? Doesn't matter. There's nothing criminal about taking it.

Photography Is Not A Crime

Not according to the law. The law affords us all the right to freedom of speech and expression, and does not draw a distinction between reporter and civilian.

Because you are wrong. Reporters do not have more rights than bloggers or non-reporters. About the only difference is that reporters sometimes have shield laws protecting them from revealing their sources.

There's only one camera-based crime in common use in public places: Upskirt type photos. Those are illegal.

Following someone constantly is an offense of stalking, regardless of camera. You were not stalked, however.

Again, not a legal expert here, but my personal guess is that harassing someone with a camera can and should result in disorderly conduct charges, particularly if the person does not stop after the police advise them to leave the scene.

Also, I think it's important that police have a record of these types of pervy incidences, in order to keep track of potential pervs, who may be perving in the future, pervertedly.

 

[kylejack]

Again, not a legal expert here, but my personal guess is that harassing someone with a camera can and should result in disorderly conduct charges, particularly if the person does not stop after the police advise them to leave the scene.

Only if you're the owner of the scene. You have no right to order someone to leave a library that doesn't belong to you. Taking someone's picture is not harassment on its face, not unless its mixed with lewd comments or trying to photograph under their skirt or something.

 

[TheTexan]

Again, not a legal expert here, but my personal guess is that harassing someone with a camera can and should result in disorderly conduct charges, particularly if the person does not stop after the police advise them to leave the scene.

Let's just make everything illegal, except for the things that aren't

 

[Petar]

Only if you're the owner of the scene. You have no right to order someone to leave a library that doesn't belong to you. Taking someone's picture is not harassment on its face, not unless its mixed with lewd comments or trying to photograph under their skirt or something.

I didn't order the guy to leave, I simply gave him the choice between leaving and having to explain himself to the police, after he failed to explain why his phone kept making a camera noise while pointed at me.

I'm not sure what your definition of "harassement" is, but I definitely did feel like I might have been the subject of some of it at the time.

Again, my personal guess is that a police officer may in fact lawfully order someone to leave a public area in that type of a circumstance or else face disorderly conduct charges or similar.

My personal opinion is that power along those lines is necessary for police to be able to keep the peace in a civilized society.

Let's just make everything illegal, except for the things that aren't

No.

I think that we should legalize everything, except for the the things that are.

 

[Kluge]

Maybe you want a stalker, so you're looking for one?

 

[Petar]

Maybe you want a stalker, so you're looking for one?

Nope, mostly just looking for ways to get accused of random, bizarre, and completely unfounded things.

 

[kylejack]

I didn't order the guy to leave, I simply gave him the choice between leaving and having to explain himself to the police, after he failed to explain why his phone kept making a camera noise while pointed at me.

I'm not sure what your definition of "harassement" is, but I definitely did feel like I might have been the subject of some of it at the time.

Not in any legal sense. How do you think paparazzi make their money? They only get in trouble when they impede someone's travel or trespass on private property. Celebrities certainly might feel that they're being harassed by being photographed in public places constantly, but it's not illegal.

Again, my personal guess is that a police officer may in fact lawfully order someone to leave a public area in that type of a circumstance or else face disorderly conduct charges or similar.

More guesses, eh? The person has no obligation to leave, so long as they weren't engaging in criminal activity, which this does not seem to be. People have a right to be in public places so long as they're still open (a public park may be rented for private events, or be closed during certain hours, e.g.) A police officer can secure an area if he is conducting an investigation, but only to a reasonable distance. He can't make you stop photographing a scene if you can stand a reasonable distance away and still see it.

 

[Petar]

Not in any legal sense. How do you think paparazzi make their money? They only get in trouble when they impede someone's travel or trespass on private property. Celebrities certainly might feel that they're being harassed by being photographed in public places constantly, but it's not illegal.


More guesses, eh? The person has no obligation to leave, so long as they weren't engaging in criminal activity, which this does not seem to be. People have a right to be in public places so long as they're still open (a public park may be rented for private events, or be closed during certain hours, e.g.) A police officer can secure an area if he is conducting an investigation, but only to a reasonable distance. He can't make you stop photographing a scene if you can stand a reasonable distance away and still see it.

Well, my understanding is that celebrities are "public figures", so the bar is not typically set quite so low for them.

And yes, it is my guess that an officer of the peace is likely well within his or her power to require a person to leave the area if they are in fact found to be behaving pervy to someone in a situation such as this.

The fact that you believe that I am completely wrong and idiotic is understood and duly noted, so you can stop repeating yourself unless you really really want to I suppose.

Thank you.

 

[kylejack]

I never called you idiotic, and this is the first time I've told you that you were wrong about police ordering people to leave an area which is open to the public.

 

[osan]

cats are anarchists.

Points winner for this thread, hands down.

+rep for that, everyone.

 

[Kluge]

Nope, mostly just looking for ways to get accused of random, bizarre, and completely unfounded things.

Oh. You should have said so.

I heard you like to torture kittens by rubbing them with a porcupine.

 

[TheTexan]

I heard you like to torture kittens by rubbing them with a porcupine.

What a perv. He's totally reported

 

[osan]

And yes, it is my guess that an officer of the peace is likely well within his or her power to require a person to leave the area if they are in fact found to be behaving pervy to someone in a situation such as this.

Officer of the PEACE??! Are you kidding? Those no longer exist in any meaningful way, and remaining official moniker to that effect notwithstanding. We now have enFORCEment officers - those who apply force and the threats thereof to gain the compliance of the general population through fear and battery to law that is most often arbitrary, erosive of human rights and dignity, and destructive of prosperity.

Define "pervy" and demonstrate how a cop is empowered to require a person leave an area of the commons. To what area of the commons shall he repair, or is he to be banned from all commons? For how long? An hour? Day? For life? The credibility of such statements crumbles after asking a small handful of pointed questions, as we can see. My deeper point here is that we might all be well served to take a step back and start getting into the habit of taking it a bit more carefully where our thoughts and their outward expressions are concerned. I am tempted to confidence in the belief that 99++% of all the utterances made by human beings are so bereft of good meaning as to lead anyone considering this to wonder in wide-eyed and slack-jawed awe at the fact that the world manages to go on for so much as another second without collapsing in upon itself as a black hole.

 

[Petar]

I never called you idiotic, and this is the first time I've told you that you were wrong about police ordering people to leave an area which is open to the public.

Ok, I guess I just meant that I felt like that was your tone.

You do make a valid point though.

Sorry if I mischaracterized your statements.

Oh. You should have said so.

I heard you like to torture kittens by rubbing them with a porcupine.

Thank you, that really hit the spot.

Officer of the PEACE??! Are you kidding? Those no longer exist in any meaningful way, and remaining official moniker to that effect notwithstanding. We now have enFORCEment officers - those who apply force and the threats thereof to gain the compliance of the general population through fear and battery to law that is most often arbitrary, erosive of human rights and dignity, and destructive of prosperity.

Define "pervy" and demonstrate how a cop is empowered to require a person leave an area of the commons. To what area of the commons shall he repair, or is he to be banned from all commons? For how long? An hour? Day? For life? The credibility of such statements crumbles after asking a small handful of pointed questions, as we can see. My deeper point here is that we might all be well served to take a step back and start getting into the habit of taking it a bit more carefully where our thoughts and their outward expressions are concerned. I am tempted to confidence in the belief that 99++% of all the utterances made by human beings are so bereft of good meaning as to lead anyone considering this to wonder in wide-eyed and slack-jawed awe at the fact that the world manages to go on for so much as another second without collapsing in upon itself as a black hole.

No, I'm not kidding.

I think that despite all of the atrocious things that continue to happen with police, they still serve a legitimate purpose as peace officers.

I guess that it just depends on the situation.

Do I consider police to be behaving as "peace officers" when they abduct individuals who fail to pay the exorbitant protection fee imposed by the state?

No.

Do I consider police to be behaving as "peace officers" when they investigate reports of individuals behaving pervy in public?

Yes.

What is the definition of "pervy"?

Lots of things are pervy Osan; Thin mustaches. Molestor shades. One arm being slightly longer than the other arm. Facial burns. And oh yes, PARKING YOUR CAR NEXT TO A STRANGER WHILE YOU SIT THERE AND COVERTLY SNAP A BUNCH OF PHOTOS OF THEM.

Do I really need to explain why someone who would do that is acting pervy?

Do you want that motherfucker babysitting your kids?

All that I really expect a peace officer to do in a situation like that is to take note, and use their discretion to determine if someone is in fact behaving pervy, if they need to be ordered to leave the area, and for how long.

How else are they supposed to keep the peace in a situation like that?

 

[TheTexan]

What kind of perv sees some other perv taking pictures of them and then turns around and pervs them back into some kind of perv fest?

Reported, hopefully the police will get your pervyness on record so if you perv again they can put you in jail for perving

 

[Petar]

What kind of perv sees some other perv taking pictures of them and then turns around and pervs them back into some kind of perv fest?

Reported, hopefully the police will get your pervyness on record so if you perv again they can put you in jail for perving

I didn't perv him, I recorded his actions as a response to him possibly perving me.

It wasn't my fault that he was sitting there with his outer iphone camera pointed right at me while the camera sound kept going off.

The police were smart enough to understand the difference, I'm sorry that you apparently aren't.

 

[TheTexan]

I didn't perv him, I recorded his actions as a response to him possibly perving me.

It wasn't my fault that he was sitting there with his outer iphone camera pointed right at me while the camera sound kept going off.

The police were smart enough to understand the difference, I'm sorry that you apparently aren't.

Perving, taking pictures of strangers, same thing, right

 

[Danke]

I think Petar is just making this shit up.

 

[Petar]

Perving, taking pictures of strangers, same thing, right

I DO NOT HAVE A THIN MUSTACHE AND BOTH OF MY ARMS ARE THE EXACT SAME LENGTH.

I think Petar is just making this shit up.

Not the first genius to accuse me of lying about this...

Well, there is not really any way that I can prove to anyone that I am telling the truth, so unless someone has some kind of way to prove that I am lying, then I suppose that everyone is going to just have to go with their gut on this one.

I am however tempted to post the video that I have recorded.

 

[Danke]

I am however tempted to post the video that I have recorded.

Double dare.