You can't even take pictures at a public city beach anymore?

JohnCM wrote:

Jeff Cochran wrote in message . ..

Jeez. Some guy thinks the original poster is taking pics of his girl
in a bikini (which he may have been) and defends her. The
photographer gets upset and combative as well. And it's all because
George Bush is President?

Somebody needs to take his Valium. Several somebodys it looks like.

Jeff




Only reason I brought up Bush is because of the Homeland Security
tactics. These days, taking photos of public transit
(buses,trains,subways)is treated as "illegal" by the police.
I used to love doing railroad photography, and still do sometimes, but
it seems to be risky these days. Now even on the beach, people freak
out when they see a camera. You just have to wonder where one can do
photography these days without being harassed, threatened, or
bothered. The Pine Barrens, where no one's around (except some deer
and they dont mind).

I took my 6 month old daughter to the local swim school [1] recently, and
automatically took my camera and video camera to record her progress. We got
some strange looks from some people but no-one voiced protest. No-one else had a
camera.

After that, every week there are several people with cameras. Either we misread
people's looks that first week or we've liberated them.

[1]
The swim school is a 25 metre pool that is not a public pool. You can only go in
if you are having a lesson. They mainly teach children, from 6months old to 12
or 13 years of age.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

JohnCM wrote:

Jeff Cochran wrote in message . ..

Jeez. Some guy thinks the original poster is taking pics of his girl
in a bikini (which he may have been) and defends her. The
photographer gets upset and combative as well. And it's all because
George Bush is President?

Somebody needs to take his Valium. Several somebodys it looks like.

Jeff




Only reason I brought up Bush is because of the Homeland Security
tactics. These days, taking photos of public transit
(buses,trains,subways)is treated as "illegal" by the police.
I used to love doing railroad photography, and still do sometimes, but
it seems to be risky these days. Now even on the beach, people freak
out when they see a camera. You just have to wonder where one can do
photography these days without being harassed, threatened, or
bothered. The Pine Barrens, where no one's around (except some deer
and they dont mind).

I took my 6 month old daughter to the local swim school [1] recently, and
automatically took my camera and video camera to record her progress. We got
some strange looks from some people but no-one voiced protest. No-one else had a
camera.

After that, every week there are several people with cameras. Either we misread
people's looks that first week or we've liberated them.

[1]
The swim school is a 25 metre pool that is not a public pool. You can only go in
if you are having a lesson. They mainly teach children, from 6months old to 12
or 13 years of age.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

From: (JohnCM)

I said "listen pal, this is America and
as long as I am on public property neither you or anyone else will
stop me from taking pictures".

So, did ya get any hotties?

I just saw a trailer for the new film, "Paparazzi." That's all we need,
another reason to despise photographers. As it is now, you can't take pics of
bridges or any government installation or you're a terrorist. If you take pics
of children in the park, you're a pervert. Go to the beach to take sunset pics
and you're a sex fiend.
Before you know it, these Nazi's will be trying to kick me out of the girls
locker room.

From: (JohnCM)

I said "listen pal, this is America and
as long as I am on public property neither you or anyone else will
stop me from taking pictures".

So, did ya get any hotties?

I just saw a trailer for the new film, "Paparazzi." That's all we need,
another reason to despise photographers. As it is now, you can't take pics of
bridges or any government installation or you're a terrorist. If you take pics
of children in the park, you're a pervert. Go to the beach to take sunset pics
and you're a sex fiend.
Before you know it, these Nazi's will be trying to kick me out of the girls
locker room.

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:

I'm not sure that a reasonable case could be made for america to
claim
that the loss of life due to general chaos after removal of all
government, or due to collatoral damage and general incompetence was
/unforseen/.
If one can forsee the consequences to an action and still take that
action, one cannot hold oneself not responsible based on
non-intention.
B
Sorry, but in court, and in religion, intent is all-important.

Partially important at best. An example elsewhere in this thread being
an arsonist can be charged with murder-2 (or manslaughter in other
countries). Premeditation isn't a requirement, it just makes it worse.

So we shouldn't have invaded because some people might resist by
blowing up their own people? I guess we could have just let Saddam
kill them. It seems from news prior to the war that he was doing about
that many every month, just to secure his position of power.

Yes, things were pretty nasty just before /this/ war, mostly fallout
from /last/ war of course, starving children and so forth.

B

Ron Hunter writes:

Bruce Murphy wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:

I'm not sure that a reasonable case could be made for america to
claim
that the loss of life due to general chaos after removal of all
government, or due to collatoral damage and general incompetence was
/unforseen/.
If one can forsee the consequences to an action and still take that
action, one cannot hold oneself not responsible based on
non-intention.
B
Sorry, but in court, and in religion, intent is all-important.

Partially important at best. An example elsewhere in this thread being
an arsonist can be charged with murder-2 (or manslaughter in other
countries). Premeditation isn't a requirement, it just makes it worse.

So we shouldn't have invaded because some people might resist by
blowing up their own people? I guess we could have just let Saddam
kill them. It seems from news prior to the war that he was doing about
that many every month, just to secure his position of power.

Yes, things were pretty nasty just before /this/ war, mostly fallout
from /last/ war of course, starving children and so forth.

B

"Archibald" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:22:47 -0400, "The Black Sheep"
wrote:

Move to Canada. I've been on Parliament Hill taking photos after
midnight, walking right up to the front door of Parliament, and the
only police attention I ever got was an RCMP officer nodding "good
evening" and another moving his car for me so it was out of my
shot.

And then walk over to the U.S. embassy -- which hunkers behind a
concrete barrier and barbed wire. Land of the free!

And armed Marines, and blocked streets..... damned ugly building
anyway, I wish they would just move out of downtown if they need that
many security precautions.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:eufYc.110558$Lj.26762@fed1read03...

Why would Canada need to fear terrorists? Terrorists LOVE Canada,
now that
they've agreed to adopt Al-Jezeera news as a legitimate news
channel--which
allows terrorists to deliver large scale pro-terrorist propaganda.

Oh please! rolls eyes

The CRTC has granted a broadcast license, nothing more. This is not
an endorsement of Al-Jezeera beyond stating that (a) they exist and
(b) they have agreed to meet CRTC guidelines.

Canada is a free country, why would we censor free speech from foreign
TV stations?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:22:47 -0400, "The Black Sheep"
wrote:

Next time something like this happens, advise the person that if
they
touch you or threaten you again you will consider at assault. Ask
them to leave you alone, and if they don't tell them you will
consider
it harrassment. Then dial 91 on your cell phone and ask them if
you
should dial the last digit. Works like a charm.

Basically, in the US, the jerk yelling at a legal activity is
already committing assault. If he lays hands on you, it's battery.
If
he tries to get your camera, you could likely throw in robbery --
after all, if a guy demands your property, what likelihood is there
that you'll get it back unharmed.

Its more-or-less the same in Canada. I doubt you would ever convince
the Crown to lay assault charges based on yelling alone, however.

The Black Sheep wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:22:47 -0400, "The Black Sheep"
wrote:

Next time something like this happens, advise the person that if
they touch you or threaten you again you will consider at assault.
Ask them to leave you alone, and if they don't tell them you will
consider it harrassment. Then dial 91 on your cell phone and ask
them if you should dial the last digit. Works like a charm.

Basically, in the US, the jerk yelling at a legal activity is
already committing assault. If he lays hands on you, it's battery. If
he tries to get your camera, you could likely throw in robbery --
after all, if a guy demands your property, what likelihood is there
that you'll get it back unharmed.

Its more-or-less the same in Canada. I doubt you would ever convince
the Crown to lay assault charges based on yelling alone, however.

In California USA I have understood a principal element of assault is a
reasonable fear of physical harm. If such an eventuality appears to be
imminent, and the person threatened does not withdraw, the logic says
s/he did not fear sufficiently to justify a charge of assault. If the
person withdraws, and the aggressor can be shown to have had the
capability and intent, an assault may have been committed.

There is also a Code section that deals with threats to inflict certain
kinds of injury, and I have seen that treated very seriously by Courts.

--
Frank ess