Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[lewisnotmiller]

If you're old enough to appreciate our freedoms you're old enough to recognize that they often come at a price. And I don't believe that mere dislike of anything is grounds to forbid it.

Forbidding such things might actually help in the safety on the photographer. If I have legal recourse to deal with someone taking photos of my daughters which are targetted, etc, then I'm less likely to take matters into my own hands.

If I don't have legal recourse, then I'm more likely to take matters into my own hands.

Please note, I'm not arguing that this makes 'taking matters into my own hands' legal. But my most important role in life is protecting and teaching those girls. I'd be balancing what I'd be teaching them in my actions against what I'd be protecting them from. I'm not an over-protective parent, but any stalker-ish behaviour towards my girls that I'm aware of is not going to be easily tolerated regardless of law.

 

[Straw Dog]

Note Moral Foundation One, please. This specific topic falls under that moral standard with a slam dunk.

Moral Foundations Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm... Moral Foundations? Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Straw Dog]

Please note, I'm not arguing that this makes 'taking matters into my own hands' legal. But my most important role in life is protecting and teaching those girls. I'd be balancing what I'd be teaching them in my actions against what I'd be protecting them from. I'm not an over-protective parent, but any stalker-ish behaviour towards my girls that I'm aware of is not going to be easily tolerated regardless of law.

Which is probably part of the reason why we attempt to have a rule of law in society... I mean, so guys like us don't become vigilantes.

 

[Buttercup]

Which is probably part of the reason why we attempt to have a rule of law in society... I mean, so guys like us don't become vigilantes.

Exactly. :yes:

 

[dust1n]

But there has to be an applicable law to justify the arrest.

First, they're not felonies or even misdemeanors. Secondly, there has to be a statute to break.

Under what law?

What is this harm? (I'm not about to read your link. If you have evidence to present then do it here.)

Gotta show the harm, dustin.

???? Are you serious here?????

Then what are you waiting for? What have your found?

I guess you want to be speaking to a lawyer, cause I'm certainly not going to delve into the books to find the specific laws that dictate when and what constitutes a reasonable search or seizure. Honestly, all other issues aren't really that interesting enough for me to debate.

Have fun.

 

[Alceste]

If you're old enough to appreciate our freedoms you're old enough to recognize that they often come at a price. And I don't believe that mere dislike of anything is grounds to forbid it.

The "freedom" to crouch behind a group of swimsuit clad children at a public pool, stroking your junk and snapping close-ups of their crotches is one nearly nobody on earth desires, and one that no parent on earth is likely to tolerate, regardless of the law. Furthermore, it's also illegal. I don't quite understand why you're struggling to understand this.

 

[Buttercup]

The "freedom" to crouch behind a group of swimsuit clad children at a public pool, stroking your junk and snapping close-ups of their crotches is one nearly nobody on earth desires, and one that no parent on earth is likely to tolerate, regardless of the law. Regardless, it's also illegal. I don't quite understand why you're struggling to understand this.

My guess is he'll say juggling the junk in public is illegal and harmful but taking pictures of little girls to take home and spank the monkey is ok. He doesn't deem that harmful.

 

[Alceste]

My guess is he'll say juggling the junk in public is illegal and harmful but taking pictures of little girls to take home and spank the monkey is ok. He doesn't deem that harmful.

Ok, but that was not the case in any of the situations cited in the OP. All three possessed child pornography, which is a felony, all three were reported by ordinary civilians for their disturbing and aberrant, pervy, pedo behaviour, one was wanking during the "photography" session and one was a stalker.

I don't agree with Skwim that the moment we walk out the door we surrender our right not to have perverts, pedos, peepers and stalkers intrude on our personal boundaries and shove cameras up our skirts for later wanking material. I think that is a completely absurd proposition. Anyone who endorses it more than deserves the swift kick to the balls they will surely receive if they ever attempt such a thing in my line of vision, on me or anyone else.

 

[Buttercup]

I don't agree with Skwim that the moment we walk out the door we surrender our right not to have perverts, pedos, peepers and stalkers intrude on our personal boundaries and shove cameras up our skirts for later wanking material. I think that is a completely absurd proposition. Anyone who endorses it more than deserves the swift kick to the balls they will surely receive if they ever attempt such a thing in my line of vision, on me or anyone else.

I agree, obviously. However, he's been backing opposing morality since page one and hasn't backed down one millimeter.

 

[Alceste]

I agree, obviously. However, he's been backing that morality since page one and hasn't backed down one millimeter.

Yup. Makes you wonder, doesn't it. :cover:

 

[Skwim]

but the odds are he's going to sell photos of my child to a gazillion other sleaze balls around the world just like himself. That is harming my child and perpetuates harm to other children.

Not that a supposed harm is relevant to the discussion, but Exactly what form does it take?

 

[Majikthise]

If you're old enough to appreciate our freedoms you're old enough to recognize that they often come at a price. And I don't believe that mere dislike of anything is grounds to forbid it.

So you're saying, "freedom isn't free" ?
Wow. Just the kind of thing some stupid gun toting right wing wacko would have as a bumper sticker on his pick em' up truck.
I'll have to remember that.

 

[Skwim]

one was wanking during the "photography" session and one was a stalker.

See my reply to you in post 140.

 

[Buttercup]

Not that a supposed harm is relevant to the discussion, but Exactly what form does it take?

Supposed harm? Are you seriously serious?

What electrical synapse in your brain doesn't understand that IF it's lawful for a man to take pictures of little girls in dresses at the park without parental permission and sell these images to others, it's not an action deemed harmful to the public, specifically perpetuating indecent proclivities with minors? That's a mouthful of a sentence to understand, but I'm sure you're capable.

 

[Skwim]

An interesting quote about freedom and its price.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
source
​

 

[Skwim]

Supposed harm? Are you seriously serious?

What electrical synapse in your brain doesn't understand that IF it's lawful for a man to take pictures of little girls in dresses at the park without parental permission and sell these images to others, it's not an action deemed harmful to the public, specifically perpetuating indecent proclivities with minors? That's a mouthful of a sentence to understand, but I'm sure you're capable.

Good bye. We're done here.

 

[Buttercup]

An interesting quote about freedom and its price.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
source
​

How is freedom of speech relevant with causing no harm and morality? I'm not trying to squelch your freedom of speech.

 

[Buttercup]

Good bye. We're done here.

Does that mean I win?

 

[Majikthise]

An interesting quote about freedom and its price.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."
source
​

I really like...
"Those who long for peace must prepare for war."

 

[dawny0826]

Yes, but so far no one here has been able to cite any law for which the police would have probable cause to arrest.

From here: probable cause legal definition of probable cause

Police may briefly detain and conduct a limited search of a person in a public place if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.

And also from the same source:

The precise amount of evidence that constitutes probable cause depends on the circumstances in the case. To illustrate, assume that a police officer has stopped a motor vehicle driver for a traffic violation. In the absence of any other facts indicating criminal activity by the driver, it would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the officer conducted a full-blown search of the driver and the vehicle. The mere commission of a traffic violation is not, in and of itself, a fact that supports probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a crime. However, if the officer notices that the driver's eyes are bloodshot or that the driver smells of alcohol, the officer may detain and question the defendant, search him, and place him under arrest. Most courts hold that a driver's commission of a traffic violation combined with the appearance that the driver has used drugs or alcohol constitute sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that the person is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt. Courts take care to review the actions of police in the context of everyday life, Balancing the interests of law enforcement against the interests of personal liberty in determining whether probable cause existed for a search or arrest.
Legislatures may maintain statutes relating to probable cause. Many such statutes declare that a certain thing constitutes probable cause to believe that a person has committed a particular offense. For example, under federal law, a Forfeiture judgment of a foreign court automatically constitutes probable cause to believe that the forfeited property also is subject to forfeiture under the federal Racketeering law (18 U.S.C.A. § 981 (i)(3) [1986]).

What are your specific concerns with their arrest?