Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 06 Aug 2016 (Saturday) 04:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Photography in public park+cops called.

 
Beekeeper
Goldmember
2,996 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2074
Joined May 2010
Location: Dayton, Ohio, United States
Post edited over 3 years ago by Beekeeper.
     
Aug 06, 2016 04:25 |  #1

I found this interesting since in happened in my neck of the woods. I'm wondering if someone just wanted to stir up some drama in this case as it appears there was no evidence he was even taking pictures of kids.

http://www.whio.com …_social_faceboo​k_2014_sfp (external link)


Zach--C&C is welcome on my photos
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/46367607@N06/ (external link)
7DI Body Gripped|7DII Gripped|EF 85mm1.8|EF 50mm1.4|EF 100mm2.8L IS Macro|EF-S 10-22mm|EF 400mm5.6L|430EXII|580E​XII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 462
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Aug 06, 2016 05:31 |  #2

Been there...Done that.


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,713 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 387
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Kansas, USA
     
Aug 06, 2016 05:56 |  #3

Wow, it just keeps getting worse. There's a few things that are questionable with this.

  • Man in park that did not know any of the kids playing, or for that matter the parents.

    I can understand parents being very concerned, IF they are afraid of unknown people being around. This is a public park. Does it require an invitation by those parents to be in the park? NO, so anyone can be at the park. They just need to be aware of their surroundings, which they obviously were.

  • Man appears to be photographing the kids.

    The news article states the man appeared to be holding a camera. But it was shown that he had no "camera", just a cellphone. He was confronted and his phone was "inspected". Wrong wording, it was "searched". I wonder how this happened. Was he swarmed by these parents, and did they take his phone away, did he volunteer it? Why? Because he appeared to be pointing it in the direction of the kids? Really? I wonder if it was a bright sunny day. That seems to make viewing the screen difficult, so you must get the screen shaded away from the sun to view it. Hummm.
    There were no photos of the kids on his phone. Well I wonder what they thought after that discovery.

  • They called the police on him. Now this guy is being investigated.

    This could be a good thing if this guy is up to no good. He could be a "bad guy", a pedophile or worse. However he could also be an upstanding citizen, that just happened to be in the park at the time. Perhaps legitimately interested in athletics. Now he may be wrongfully labeled by the media and the parents. What a way to get to know people, to show people they are welcome in a community.
    If he was going to photograph the kids, he could have approached the parents and introduced himself, and started up a conversation with them. I'm sure it would have included such things as where he lives, works, has kids, grandkids, ect. Someone staying away from the "parents" would appear a little suspicious.

  • He as asked to leave (why) and done so.

    Why was he asked to leave a public park? Just because the parents didn't know him. They confronted him, seen that he was not photographing the kids. I guess he left because he didn't want any part of that elitist crowd. I doubt not a one of them approached him on a friendly basis. They could strike up a conversation with him and probably leaned a great deal, more than they did.


I'm not sure if I'm getting my view of this across, so here it is; You see what's happened to our society? FEAR, we're to be afraid of everything. Some things I agree on, thanks to our media and government, that caused it (emboldening criminals). It's a very different world. When I was young, this would not have been an issue for the police, let alone a news story. It's really sad that people don't want to talk to each other. It's easier to jump to conclusions.

Ron
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,713 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 387
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Kansas, USA
     
Aug 06, 2016 06:02 |  #4

chauncey wrote in post #18087858 (external link)
Been there...Done that.

Done what? Photographed kids in a park without the parents knowing? Had parents search your phone? Been kicked out of a public park? Sorry Chauncey you left the door open for a little clarity (in Lightroom the first slider in the Presence Section). ;-)a


Ron
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PineBomb
I have many notable flaws
Avatar
2,470 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Likes: 1192
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Austin, Texas
     
Aug 06, 2016 06:17 |  #5

frozenframe wrote in post #18087873 (external link)
Done what?

I thought he just meant threads like this.


-Matt
Website (external link) | flickr (external link) | instagram (external link) | street portrait project on instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drmaxx
Goldmember
1,239 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 508
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 06, 2016 06:51 |  #6

frozenframe wrote in post #18087867 (external link)
I'm not sure if I'm getting my view of this across, ....

You are getting your point across and I agree. It is sad to see how somebody is investigated by the police just by behaving in a way that other didn't like. Plus: This shouldn't be the way how scarce public resources are used.


Donate if you love POTN

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,559 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 306
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Aug 06, 2016 07:06 |  #7

No charges in this case.
It is wierd these days sometimes. Knowing what in Canada pedophiles are often protected by judges, I'm not surprised what public is so agresive towards to strangers in situations like this.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,713 posts
Gallery: 189 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 387
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Kansas, USA
     
Aug 06, 2016 07:10 |  #8

kf095 wrote in post #18087918 (external link)
No charges in this case.
It is wierd these days sometimes. Knowing what in Canada pedophiles are often protected by judges, I'm not surprised what public is so agresive towards to strangers in situations like this.

Really? Send those judges down here. Some of ours will tutor them on how to deal with those.

Yep it's the Fear Factor. We've been indoctrinated to be afraid of everything, and everything is offensive. If it offends you it should be quashed.


Ron
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
379 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Jan 2009
     
Aug 06, 2016 09:45 |  #9

The entire incident sounds like hooey, but that's partly because the reporting is whopping bad.

>>>photographing young children

>>>there were no photos of the children

>>>the man is not facing any charges

>>>The case has been forwarded to detectives to conduct a further investigation


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
you get what you get
Avatar
19,488 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7356
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Aug 06, 2016 10:33 |  #10

Careless, irresponsible journalism. From the linked article, emphasis added:

A man photographing young children during a youth football practice Thursday night alarmed parents at Indian Riffle Park.

Kettering police reponded [responded] to the park [no: they responded at the park; they arrived] around 8:30 p.m. Parents said the man appeared to be photographing or holding a camera phone in the direction of some girls, but when parents confronted him and inspected his phone there were no photos of the children

This is bad reporting. How can a writer put a false and accusatory statement in the very first sentence, knowing that many readers take their cue from a glance at the opening paragraph and start making up their minds? The way this article is written feeds the exaggerated fears of parents like the ones at the park.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eddieb1
Senior Member
Avatar
867 posts
Likes: 175
Joined Apr 2013
Location: Oregon
     
Aug 06, 2016 11:01 |  #11

OhLook wrote in post #18088032 (external link)
Careless, irresponsible journalism. From the linked article, emphasis added:This is bad reporting. How can a writer put a false and accusatory statement in the very first sentence, knowing that many readers take their cue from a glance at the opening paragraph and start making up their minds? The way this article is written feeds the exaggerated fears of parents like the ones at the park.

You answered your own question. The writer wants to stir the pot so the reader continues to read. That's the biggest problem with freedom of speech. You can spew almost any kind of crap you want, and all that will usually happen will be an "Oops, sorry" from the writer. You see it on television all the time. A person is named, photo shown, and any info the news media can find, before the person is convicted of anything. You rarely hear of a retraction. If there is one, it's a blurb at the end of the 11:00 news after most people are in bed, and the accused has had their lives ruined.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
teekay
Goldmember
Avatar
3,037 posts
Likes: 799
Joined Apr 2001
Location: British Columbia, Canada
     
Aug 06, 2016 11:07 |  #12

OhLook wrote in post #18088032 (external link)
Careless, irresponsible journalism.....

I agree, really bad reporting. Sadly, it also shows the risk any male photographer these days faces when there are children or even young women in any part of the scene he is photographing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
you get what you get
Avatar
19,488 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7356
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Aug 06, 2016 11:25 |  #13

eddieb1 wrote in post #18088060 (external link)
You answered your own question. The writer wants to stir the pot so the reader continues to read.

I'm not so quick to conclude that the fault was deliberate. It could easily be due to incompetence. Standards in the publishing industry have slipped in recent decades as the rise of IT has drawn people away who are intelligent and good with detail.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1054
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Aug 06, 2016 11:53 as a reply to  @ teekay's post |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

Heh, even old ladies will bark at you if they spot you with a camera pointed in their direction.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Beekeeper
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,996 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2074
Joined May 2010
Location: Dayton, Ohio, United States
     
Aug 06, 2016 12:09 |  #15

eddieb1 wrote in post #18088060 (external link)
You can spew almost any kind of crap you want, and all that will usually happen will be an "Oops, sorry" from the writer. You see it on television all the time. A person is named, photo shown, and any info the news media can find, before the person is convicted of anything. You rarely hear of a retraction. If there is one, it's a blurb at the end of the 11:00 news after most people are in bed, and the accused has had their lives ruined.

Yep, seen this many times. My cousin was involved in a fatal crash years ago where a passenger was killed, and the local paper basically fabricated what happened, and wouldn't retract it even with a copy of the crash investigation from the Ohio Highway Patrol. It took threatening legal action to get them to write a short apology. Ask anyone in Law Enforcement how many of their 911 callers either exaggerate what is going on, or flat out lie about the situation.

This story is one of just a few over the past few years I can remember where a male photographer has had the cops called on them or even been assaulted by someone. One case sticks out where a guy was doing landscape photos with a drone and was assaulted by a woman at the beach. It became obvious later she wasn't the subject of his shots.


Zach--C&C is welcome on my photos
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/46367607@N06/ (external link)
7DI Body Gripped|7DII Gripped|EF 85mm1.8|EF 50mm1.4|EF 100mm2.8L IS Macro|EF-S 10-22mm|EF 400mm5.6L|430EXII|580E​XII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,979 views & 32 likes for this thread
Photography in public park+cops called.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is clippingxpertindia
839 guests, 222 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.