Taking pictures of children in public is illegal

[columbus]

Kicking the nutsack of a grown man who is creeping on your child up into his ribcage is actually a very rational reaction, for a parent.

No, it would not be rational if a less violent alternative were available, like complaining to the cops.

It might be understandable, instinctive, expected even. People instinctively protect the young. But it would still be wrong. That's a big part of the reason we have cops. To find out what actually happened before "justice" prevails.
A parent might think some guy is perving on their kid. (Notice I didn't say someone, a woman probably wouldn't be noticed) A cop might find twenty two photographs on their camera all showing details of the swimming pool and none showing more than the ankles of a young swimmer. If the parent has already assaulted them, the parent will remain a criminal regardless of what they thought they were doing.

Tom

 

[Alceste]

No, it would not be rational if a less violent alternative were available, like complaining to the cops.

It might be understandable, instinctive, expected even. People instinctively protect the young. But it would still be wrong. That's a big part of the reason we have cops. To find out what actually happened before "justice" prevails.
A parent might think some guy is perving on their kid. (Notice I didn't say someone, a woman probably wouldn't be noticed) A cop might find twenty two photographs on their camera all showing details of the swimming pool and none showing more than the ankles of a young swimmer. If the parent has already assaulted them, the parent will remain a criminal regardless of what they thought they were doing.

Tom

Lol. My sense of humour is a little dry for you, I see.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, I think they had reason. Probably sexual gratification later on.

"May be" being the operative word. And we can speculate until the cows come home, all which is a fruitless enterprise, which is why it's not worth doing.

You can't go around arresting people for what you think they may eventually do. Arrests are based on actually breaking laws. Not on the assumption of going-to-break-a-law.

They aren't. And, yes, majority opinions are often at the root of laws (the job of legislatures). And the best laws are those based on evidence that addresses harm.


____________________________________

"There is potential harm there, in the form of creeped out parents worrying about their children attracting the attention of perverts and child molesters, and in the form of the children's privacy being violated."
​

"If I saw some pervert taking pictures of my daughter at the pool, I'd shove his camera up his cornhole,"

"Kicking the nutsack of a grown man who is creeping on your child up into his ribcage is actually a very rational reaction, for a parent."
​

No they haven't. Many, if not most, are based on "not liking" what these photographers were doing. Even to the point of name calling---an emotional response:

"As I said, the law is irrelevant. If it permits perverts to creep on unsuspecting children, it should be changed."
​

and

"Skwim, perhaps you could explain why you believe pedophiles should be exempt from these laws,"

​

But most of the emotional nature of the responses is exhibited in replies such as.

"If someone placed a video camera in your house without you knowing it, and sexually gratified themselves while watching you, would you feel a violation was occurring?"
​

an appeal to one's emotional response rather than bothering to address the legality/illegality of the behavior. Or those that appeal to mass opinion, with a little exaggeration thrown in for flavor..

"You don't think sneaking around taking non-consensual pictures to wank to qualifies as indecent? Most other people do, thank heavens."
​

Thing is, the rationality that under-girds laws regulating behavior is too often ignored here in RF in favor of how one feels about the behavior, sometimes leading to ridiculous comments such as:

"Yes. So we have stalking, creation of child pornography, sexual harassment and violations of laws pertaining to the collection of personal information. Seems like ample reason for police to arrest and investigate the creepers in question."
​

Any evidence of "stalking, creation of child pornography, sexual harassment and violations of laws pertaining to the collection of personal information" mentioned in any of the three incidents in the OP? Nope. But that hasn't prevented the poster from making them up. Probably the best example of emotion winning out over reason.

It's not "emotional" to call someone who is taking non-consensual jerk off photos of children to a creep, a pervert and / or a pedophile though. That is genuinely creepy and perverted, pedophilic behaviour. It's the kind of creepy and perverted that makes people phone the police. I'm only calling a spade a spade. You can't possibly think the hobby of those creepy, weird dudes in the OP falls within the spectrum of normal, psychologically healthy behaviour, can you?

Of course I don't like it. Nobody likes it. That's why it's a crime. That's why they were arrested, and in all three cases they had genuinely broken the law.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah...I'm a little less okay with that than you are, I suspect. I don't want people hanging around playgrounds, taking photos of my daughter so they can go home and jack off. I don't like the message it sends to my daughter, I don't like men hanging around facilities where they don't need to be.

It's not that I probably wouldn't like it, but rather realize that unless law prohibits it there's little I could lawfully do about it.

You can argue that 'my likes' aren't legalities, and of course that is right. But I would think on this occasion what 'I like' is representative of the vast majority of the community. And pragmatically it will be enforced by police, at least to some degree, whether they use loitering laws, probable cause, or whatever else to either move on or (in more suspicious cases) detain people.

Whereas you feel that cooked up reasons, loitering for example, are okay, I don't. This isn't how I would want our society to police itself: if no law is being broken then find another that will produce the same result. And as I've already pointed out, probable cause has to be rooted in some law: Probable cause that law X was broken.

I disagree. In the examples you provided, the speculation proved accurate enough in at least two of the cases to identify criminal behaviours. These weren't bald-arsed guesses.

No, but they weren't tied to the specific actions that were being investigated. One person admitted he had child porn on his device, and the other did have child porn on his. They were there before the events in the two incidences took place.

You can arrest people on the suspicion that they already have broken a law though, and a man in a playground without apparent need to be there, with a camera, taking photos has possibly broken a law.

It can't be a possible law. It has to be a specific law.

If the guys is suspicious in his behaviour, and if the community is concerned, it's easy to justify probable cause based on what he's already potentially done.

Then you had better have darn good evidence of having broken a specific law if you don't want to lose a suit against you for false arrest.

Your contention seems to be that the law should stay out of it then.

If by "the law" you mean the police, then yes. If you mean there should never be a law against it, then absolutely not, nor have I ever intimated as much. My only position is that lacking a law prohibiting their actions they're entitled do go ahead no matter how repugnant it may be or how upset people get over it. Don't like it? Then gather your evidence of harm and present it to your legislators to fashion into law.

_____________________________

It's not "emotional" to call someone who is taking non-consensual jerk off photos of children to a creep, a pervert and / or a pedophile though.

It's an emotional response clear and simple.

That is genuinely creepy and perverted, pedophilic behaviour.

"Creepy" is an emotional response.

It's the kind of creepy and perverted that makes people phone the police.

"Creepy" is an emotional response, as is the genesis of your need to label him a pervert.

I'm only calling a spade a spade.

Based on your emotional reaction to their behavior. As is ↓

You can't possibly think the hobby of those creepy, weird dudes in the OP falls within the spectrum of normal, psychologically healthy behaviour, can you?

I don't, but then a lot of what many, many people do might be labeled psychologically unhealthy, yet I don't get my Jockies all in a knot and want them thrown in the clink because I don't like it.

 

[oldbadger]

Taking pictures of children in public is illegal
At least if you don't know them.

.....let's have a review!

Please consider these three incidents

....... yeah.... we considered them, and after stop/search/question procedures the whole lot got nicked for committing criminal offences in connection with images of child pornography. So in these instances the cops responded, investigated, discovered and acted. So the vast majority of members are going to agree with the police actions.

Now, according to law you can take a picture of anyone if they're out in public. There are no exceptions I'm aware of. However, in the three incidents above the police have arrested these men for doing just that.

No they didn't........ the Police attended, stopped, questioned, searched and THEN discovered that Crimes had been committed. Wake up!

So my questions here are:
1) Can you justifying the actions of the police? If so, go ahead and show your work.

...... that's the good thing about all this. We don't have to justify legislation. All we have to do is support it, and in this particular type of police response, the majority of members would welcome it.

2) Should children be protected from such photographers? If so, on what grounds?

Yes...... Grounds? Because the vast majority of people are intensely angry about paedophilia and have raised feelings about child protection. You don't like that? Too bad

3) Is there harm in deriving sexual gratification from pictures of children. If so, please explain ( and please no "it will lead to future child abuse" without showing your evidence).

........ This is a 'No Brainer'.
..... Do you think that a small whisky would be Ok for an alcoholic?

4) Is there harm in taking pictures of children for later sexual gratification? If so please explain.

..... you need another answer? Really?
Why have you asked this question twice? It's covered in question 3, surely?

Thanks

No probs....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's not that I probably wouldn't like it, but rather realize that unless law prohibits it there's little I could lawfully do about it.

Whereas you feel that cooked up reasons, loitering for example, are okay, I don't. This isn't how I would want our society to police itself: if no law is being broken then find another that will produce the same result. And as I've already pointed out, probable cause has to be rooted in some law: Probable cause that law X was broken.

Yep, understand, and there are valid concerns, generally, that police attention can be fixed on those that sit 'outside the norm' regardless of whether they deserve the attention of the police.
Mentioned earlier, my wife works in mental health, and she'd certainly be of the opinion that mentally ill people get undue attention and pressure from the police.

I think to some degree, our society is ALWAYS going to police itself in this fashion. Different argument that what you're raising here, obviously. I still see probable cause in these cases as valid. Guys hanging around kids taking photos for no apparent reason, and acting in a generally suspicious manner could be taking illegal photos of said kids. Taking photos of kids in a public place is not illegal per se, but taking inappropriate photos of said kids is (dependent on location as to exactly how this works). When I'm talking 'probable cause', I'm not suggesting that it's probable that he has OTHER photos/child porn on his phone. Turned out he did, but separate issue. Probable cause is around the photos he was taking of the kids at the time he was apprehended.

Understand your opinion on this. We'll have to agree to differ.

No, but they weren't tied to the specific actions that were being investigated. One person admitted he had child porn on his device, and the other did have child porn on his. They were there before the events in the two incidences took place.

Yep, understand and agree. Pretty fair strike rate, though, so I'd suggest that this falls into the 'If it quacks like a duck...' area. And yeah, I'd agree there is inherent risk in that type of policing.

It can't be a possible law. It has to be a specific law.

Agreed, it does. The specific law varies from place to place, but to my mind most places have laws around inappropriate capture of images. Photographing kids in public isn't illegal. Upskirts, or otherwise focusing on private parts of kids generally have some sort of statute, dependent on location/country, etc.

Then you had better have darn good evidence of having broken a specific law if you don't want to lose a suit against you for false arrest.

Not sure on the US laws. Police just need to follow procedure here to be safe from civil suit.
In NSW it is legal for Police to search you without even needing to arrest you in certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is being in a public place or school and likely to give rise to a serious risk to public safety.
Police are also legally entitled to tell you to move along if your presence constitutes harrassing or intimidating behaviour, or if it causes, or is likely to cause fear. Non-compliance with an order to move on is an offence. Refusal to provide name and address if asked to move-on is a crime.

Police powers - Legal Aid NSW

Laws in Victoria (where I live) are a little less police-enabling.

If by "the law" you mean the police, then yes. If you mean there should never be a law against it, then absolutely not, nor have I ever intimated as much. My only position is that lacking a law prohibiting their actions they're entitled do go ahead no matter how repugnant it may be or how upset people get over it. Don't like it? Then gather your evidence of harm and present it to your legislators to fashion into law.

Legally, they're entitled to do whatever they like, so long as it's not prohibited by law. One thing they're NOT entitled to do where I live, from a legal standpoint, is to wear pink hotpants after midday on a Sunday. This is not a ridiculous example, but a stupid law on the books.
Suffice to say the same police who cross the line a little in questioning people hanging around playgrounds also show discretion in not enforcing ridiculous laws that have no clear point.

The issue here, as you'd recognize, no doubt, is that it's a hard area to frame a law around. How to get the language of the law right...how to not expand police powers unneccessarily, etc.

So what we're left with is policing around the edges of the law. Pragmatically, this happens. IN this case, I have no issue with that, because I don't have a better alternative. Perhaps smarter people than me CAN come up with a good alternative (eg. well-drafted law).

 

[Alceste]

It's not that I probably wouldn't like it, but rather realize that unless law prohibits it there's little I could lawfully do about it.

Whereas you feel that cooked up reasons, loitering for example, are okay, I don't. This isn't how I would want our society to police itself: if no law is being broken then find another that will produce the same result. And as I've already pointed out, probable cause has to be rooted in some law: Probable cause that law X was broken.

No, but they weren't tied to the specific actions that were being investigated. One person admitted he had child porn on his device, and the other did have child porn on his. They were there before the events in the two incidences took place.

It can't be a possible law. It has to be a specific law.

Then you had better have darn good evidence of having broken a specific law if you don't want to lose a suit against you for false arrest.

If by "the law" you mean the police, then yes. If you mean there should never be a law against it, then absolutely not, nor have I ever intimated as much. My only position is that lacking a law prohibiting their actions they're entitled do go ahead no matter how repugnant it may be or how upset people get over it. Don't like it? Then gather your evidence of harm and present it to your legislators to fashion into law.

_____________________________


It's an emotional response clear and simple.

"Creepy" is an emotional response.

"Creepy" is an emotional response, as is the genesis of your need to label him a pervert.

Based on your emotional reaction to their behavior. As is ↓

I don't, but then a lot of what many, many people do might be labeled psychologically unhealthy, yet I don't get my Jockies all in a knot and want them thrown in the clink because I don't like it.

No, "creepy" is an honest acknowledgement that the behaviour in question is abnormal enough to disturb most people and make them feel justifiably concerned for their children's safety, as is very plainly evidenced by the fact ordinary people called the cops on all three men.

You might as well have posted a thread "offering to show children the non-existent puppies in your white panel van is illegal". It isn't, of course, but it is probable cause to believe you're up to something dastardly. That will greatly interest the police.

And all three of these men were found to have broken the law. I'm not sure why you keep glossing over that basic fact. Running down the street during a riot with a brand new telly in your hands isn't illegal, but it will cause nearly all reasonable people to believe you nicked it and cause the police to take an interest.

That's not so much "emotion" as it is "having a clue how people react to the abnormal, anti-social behaviour of others".

 

[Thief]

Erm...no, I don't have a firearm permit.

I'm talking about finding scientific studies proving that people who look/photograph kids in playgrounds (for example) exhibit a higher risk of escalation to predatory behaviours than those who don't.

Whilst I would believe there is an escalation model of behaviours towards children, that's just a mix of common sense, and extrapolation from other child predatory behaviours I was trained in.

I don't have a study which shows a causal link, via scientific method, of looking at children in public places escalating to touching.
It should be noted, I don't have a study which shows no link either.
In short, I have an absence of scientific evidence either way, based on 'extensive' google searching.

I might have some information at home, since I had to undergo mandatory training on this sort of stuff when teaching, but most of our training was more on identification of abused children, and how/when to report. Patterns of behaviour, injury recognition, etc. Unlikely anything in that pertains to this.

And escalation on your part is not a concern?

Search and seizure....maybe some rough stuff.....
Maybe a quick trip to the hospital.....his fault not yours....

Sure I understand the fear.
Protection at all points....

But at what point does your 'sense of protection' exceed other laws.

You might plea defending someone else.....
but that doesn't always work well in court.

I had one guy swing on me.
He was surprised later on....the judge only cared who swung first.

So....snatch the guy's camera....you have to hit him to take it.....
he belts you a good one.....and wins....(could happen)
And the judge throws the book at you.

oooops!

if there was anything inappropriate in photo....that's a different issue.

 

[Skwim]

Yep, understand, and there are valid concerns, generally, that police attention can be fixed on those that sit 'outside the norm' regardless of whether they deserve the attention of the police.
Mentioned earlier, my wife works in mental health, and she'd certainly be of the opinion that mentally ill people get undue attention and pressure from the police.

I think to some degree, our society is ALWAYS going to police itself in this fashion. Different argument that what you're raising here, obviously. I still see probable cause in these cases as valid. Guys hanging around kids taking photos for no apparent reason, and acting in a generally suspicious manner could be taking illegal photos of said kids. Taking photos of kids in a public place is not illegal per se, but taking inappropriate photos of said kids is (dependent on location as to exactly how this works). When I'm talking 'probable cause', I'm not suggesting that it's probable that he has OTHER photos/child porn on his phone. Turned out he did, but separate issue. Probable cause is around the photos he was taking of the kids at the time he was apprehended.

Understand your opinion on this. We'll have to agree to differ.



Yep, understand and agree. Pretty fair strike rate, though, so I'd suggest that this falls into the 'If it quacks like a duck...' area. And yeah, I'd agree there is inherent risk in that type of policing.



Agreed, it does. The specific law varies from place to place, but to my mind most places have laws around inappropriate capture of images. Photographing kids in public isn't illegal. Upskirts, or otherwise focusing on private parts of kids generally have some sort of statute, dependent on location/country, etc.



Not sure on the US laws. Police just need to follow procedure here to be safe from civil suit.
In NSW it is legal for Police to search you without even needing to arrest you in certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is being in a public place or school and likely to give rise to a serious risk to public safety.
Police are also legally entitled to tell you to move along if your presence constitutes harrassing or intimidating behaviour, or if it causes, or is likely to cause fear. Non-compliance with an order to move on is an offence. Refusal to provide name and address if asked to move-on is a crime.

Police powers - Legal Aid NSW

Laws in Victoria (where I live) are a little less police-enabling.



Legally, they're entitled to do whatever they like, so long as it's not prohibited by law. One thing they're NOT entitled to do where I live, from a legal standpoint, is to wear pink hotpants after midday on a Sunday. This is not a ridiculous example, but a stupid law on the books.
Suffice to say the same police who cross the line a little in questioning people hanging around playgrounds also show discretion in not enforcing ridiculous laws that have no clear point.

The issue here, as you'd recognize, no doubt, is that it's a hard area to frame a law around. How to get the language of the law right...how to not expand police powers unneccessarily, etc.

So what we're left with is policing around the edges of the law. Pragmatically, this happens. IN this case, I have no issue with that, because I don't have a better alternative. Perhaps smarter people than me CAN come up with a good alternative (eg. well-drafted law).

Thank you for your reasoned, well tempered responses. They're like a fresh breeze in a miasma of ludicrous babble.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Has anyone else jumped in this thread yet trying to rationalize and defend pedophilia? Just checking to see if there's any other bizarre or perverted views to check out.

 

[Skwim]

Has anyone else jumped in this thread yet trying to rationalize and defend pedophilia? Just checking to see if there's any other bizarre or perverted views to check out.

Take a look. I dare you. It's a depressing read.

 

[Buttercup]

Take a look. I dare you. It's a depressing read.

Depressing? How so?

 

[Skwim]

Depressing? How so?

It's filled with so much blind stupidity. And No, I'm not going to point it out to you. Well, maybe just one

 

[Alceste]

Has anyone else jumped in this thread yet trying to rationalize and defend pedophilia? Just checking to see if there's any other bizarre or perverted views to check out.

Nope. Just Skwim so far, although lewisnotmiller is gilding the lily a bit now in an attempt to get through to him.

 

[Alceste]

It's filled with so much blind stupidity. And No, I'm not going to point it out to you.

ROFL! I agree with this comment wholeheartedly. I knew if we kept at it long enough we'd find some common ground.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And escalation on your part is not a concern?

Search and seizure....maybe some rough stuff.....
Maybe a quick trip to the hospital.....his fault not yours....

Sure I understand the fear.
Protection at all points....

But at what point does your 'sense of protection' exceed other laws.

You might plea defending someone else.....
but that doesn't always work well in court.

I had one guy swing on me.
He was surprised later on....the judge only cared who swung first.

So....snatch the guy's camera....you have to hit him to take it.....
he belts you a good one.....and wins....(could happen)
And the judge throws the book at you.

oooops!

if there was anything inappropriate in photo....that's a different issue.

Judge can throw the book at me. I wouldn't/couldn't claim I was within legal bounds. Obviously hard to communicate this over the internet, but I'm a very even-tempered person, and not at all prone to fear-mongering.

If someone looked a little dodgy, I'd be watchful. If I felt uncomfortable, I'd leave. But if I were somewhere and someone was obviously target photographing my daughter, we'd be having a very calm, and very direct discussion.

My next actions would depend on what occurred during that discussion, but reference to what the law was in that case probably wouldn't be part of my thought process. It rarely is, to be honest. Who gets their morals from the law?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Nope. Just Skwim so far, although lewisnotmiller is gilding the lily a bit now in an attempt to get through to him.

Naw...I'm just focusing on the parts of the topic that are of value to me, and that I think can be discussed. Looking at the whole topic wasn't going to result in anything of value to me. I'm selfish like that.

 

[Thief]

Judge can throw the book at me. I wouldn't/couldn't claim I was within legal bounds. Obviously hard to communicate this over the internet, but I'm a very even-tempered person, and not at all prone to fear-mongering.

If someone looked a little dodgy, I'd be watchful. If I felt uncomfortable, I'd leave. But if I were somewhere and someone was obviously target photographing my daughter, we'd be having a very calm, and very direct discussion.

My next actions would depend on what occurred during that discussion, but reference to what the law was in that case probably wouldn't be part of my thought process. It rarely is, to be honest. Who gets their morals from the law?

Every body gets their morals from the law.
Ask any judge.

As for the calm confrontation......not likely.
On approach the other guy will likely turn and leave.
If you pursue...you are the aggressor.

If he stands ground....you are the aggressor.

No win scenario....lawfully.

I like my scenario better.....get in the way....flip him off.

 

[Majikthise]

In my life ive seen the cops stand back and let someone get the **** beat out of them that deserved it.
Of course, the beater got arrested after but only spent an overnight.
The guy the who deserved the beating was too scared he'd get more from everyone else to press charges.

 

[Thief]

In my life ive seen the cops stand back and let someone get the **** beat out of them that deserved it.
Of course, the beater got arrested after but only spent an overnight.
The guy the who deserved the beating was too scared he'd get more from everyone else to press charges.

Whoa.....wish I was a lawyer with details to that!
Talk about major lawsuit!