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 10 Dec 2008 (Wednesday) 14:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Accused of being a paedophile!!!

 
this thread is locked
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,251 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3461
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 12, 2008 18:18 |  #331

Deckham wrote in post #6866921 (external link)
An analogy with a similarity, but not appropriate.
People are not bears. Neither should they act like bears - or any other wild animal.
Which is more the reason to remain calm and know your rights. We need to teach and demonstrate that photographers are not criminals.

but unfortunately people often enough behave as irrationally as wild creatures , they cannot be reasoned with...they are simply enraged, and beyond reasoning or control! 99.5% of the time, my own wife is very rational, but there are incidents in which my (unstated) thought was "what planet did this Fury come from"? and her anger was not necessarily directed at me, but at someone else!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
photoguy6405
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,363 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 26
Joined Feb 2008
Location: US Midwest
     
Dec 12, 2008 18:23 |  #332

This thread has become too hard to follow. Doesn't mean I won't keep trying, though.


Website: Iowa Landscape Photography (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear List & Feedback
Equipment For Sale: Canon PowerShot A95

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Dec 12, 2008 18:29 |  #333

tiziano wrote in post #6867019 (external link)
I assume you have stepped into a discussion without reading it all. Otherwise you would have known where the police baton and other weapons were introduced in the discussion.
Funny thing is that you are arguing with me, while we both say the same thing: that we would try to restrain the histerical mom.
I guess this a problem of today's society, we don't communicate, we don't listen to each other. Just like the crazy woman attacking without first asking anything.
Anyway, yes, I have been attacked by a drunk, violent girl. She was phisically fit too. I was able to restrain her. I got a lot of scratches on my arms. Scratches were not a problem. The problem was explaing them to my wife... :rolleyes:

I did read the discussion (I was also in it from just about the begining of this thread). The post the other fellow made referenced the baton and pepperspray in response to a claim that he advocated pulling out a gun. Note that a gun was NOT mentioned originally (as far as I recall reading).

Drunk people, male OR female, are easier to "handle" physically as they are normally less coordinated and are having balance issues to begin with. I've dealt with quite a few drunk people, male and female, and have found this to be the case. Every once in awhile there will be an exception to the rule.

Dealing with a sober, though, hysterical or focused individuals bent on a particular objective is quite something else altogether (we won't even get into drugs users one pcp or other types which endow the user with sometimes superhuman strenght).

While we are both talking "restraint" I believe we mean different things.

I "choose" to use restraint merely because it is my preference.

I would have no problems with someone choosing to just punch the atacker in the face. Restraint is just my chosen method to employ first.

That doesn't mean that if it looks like I might be on the losing end of the situation I won't resort to a more aggressive action but I'm not going to criticize someone who feels they needed to take a more aggressive defensive position from the onset of the attack.

In fact a person attempting to "restrain" an atacker is automatically in a more precarious position than a person who merely takes the quicker albeit less humanitarian route.

Keep in mind, if your attacker is not holding back, and you are (as in the case when attempting to restrain), then you are at a tremendous disadvantage. That is why it usually takes a great deal more people to "restrain" one person. Now if you are willing to assume that risk than more power to you, but it is not right to place that standard upon another.

Now does this all apply in the OP's situation? Probably not as we are discusing an elevated situation that did not occur in the OP's original post (based on his description neither he nor his equipment received damage).

Now if she had started trying to kick him in the jewels, scratch his eyes out, deliver a roundhouse to his head, pulled knife, gun, baton, or any number of trained or untrained attacks that would be more in line with our dicussion regarding uses of force.


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Dec 12, 2008 18:33 |  #334

photoguy6405 wrote in post #6867117 (external link)
This thread has become too hard to follow. Doesn't mean I won't keep trying, though.

I think it is because we are taking some "side roads" on our way to what if ville :-) .

A natural occurance in conversations... one minute we are talking about the right to take photos of star trek memorabilia, namely those cool communiators without a property release, which leads to cell phones and how simliar they are to them, which then leads to cancer in the head from radiation which leads to how microwave ovens were created by the devil which leads to how holloween may or may not be an appropriate holiday to celebrate which leads to how our kids eat too much candy which leads to obesity in the world which leads to some person being filmed in a documentary about obesity who is suing because, although they are overweight, they don't like the idea of their image being used without their permission, which leads back to the right of videographers or photographers to take pictures of people or things without explicit consent :-)


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 12, 2008 18:39 |  #335

It really hurts when fat people sit on you.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 162
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Dec 12, 2008 18:39 |  #336

thebishopp wrote in post #6867184 (external link)
I think it is because we are taking some "side roads" on our way to what if ville :-) .

A natural occurance in conversations... one minute we are talking about the right to take photos of star trek memorabilia, namely those cool communiators without a property release, which leads to cell phones and how simliar they are to them, which then leads to cancer in the head from radiation which leads to how microwave ovens were created by the devil which leads to how holloween may or may not be an appropriate holiday to celebrate which leads to how our kids eat too much candy which leads to obesity in the world which leads to some person being filmed in a documentary about obesity who is suing because, although they are overweight, they don't like the idea of their image being used without their permission, which leads back to the right of videographers or photographers to take pictures of people or things without explicit consent :-)

It all leads to beer...


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tiziano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,445 posts
Likes: 15
Joined May 2005
Location: Italy, Rome
     
Dec 12, 2008 18:50 |  #337

thebishopp wrote in post #6867158 (external link)
Keep in mind, if your attacker is not holding back, and you are (as in the case when attempting to restrain), then you are at a tremendous disadvantage. That is why it usually takes a great deal more people to "restrain" one person. Now if you are willing to assume that risk than more power to you, but it is not right to place that standard upon another.
Now does this all apply in the OP's situation? Probably not as we are discusing an elevated situation that did not occur in the OP's original post (based on his description neither he nor his equipment received damage).

Exactly. There was no need to hit her with a punch, or with a weapon, because she was just a mom with children.

Now, what exactly is your point? That you have no objections at someone punching or batoning (does this word exist?) or spraying the lady with children, if someone prefers to so, so not to get scratches and for defending the camera? This because the law is on your side?
Are you ok with hitting the 12 years old daughter too, as she would probably try to defend her mom from the photographer monster?
Maybe yes, otherwise this would be discrimination toward women and minors?

Geee; I guess I have to start looking for another planet...

Edit:
Out of curiosity, could you please explain the meaning of that sentence in your signature? I don't get it.


Tiziano
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thebishopp
Goldmember
1,903 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Indiana
     
Dec 12, 2008 19:01 |  #338

tiziano wrote in post #6867263 (external link)
Exactly. There was no need to hit her with a punch, or with a weapon, because she was just a mom with children.

Now, what exactly is your point? That you have no objections at someone punching or batoning (does this word exist?) or spraying the lady with children, if someone prefers to so, so not to get scratches and for defending the camera? This because the law is on your side?
Are you ok with hitting the 12 years old daughter too, as she would probably try to defend her mom from the photographer monster?
Maybe yes, otherwise this would be discrimination toward women and minors?

Geee; I guess I have to start looking for another planet...

The point I am making is it shouldn't matter if the person is male or female, with kids, a dog, bozo the clown, whoever.

They should be treated as their actions (edit: and abilities/situations) dictate. Period.

When we start bringing in things OTHER than the assailants actions then we get: "oh, I tried to defend myself against the person punching me in the face but since he/she had a kid with him I just let him/her beat me up and put me in the hospital... I did try to hold his/her arms but it didn't work, did I mention they seemed to have kids with them?"

Edit: Your question regarding my signature line:

It is a slightly edited version of the warning given in the copperhills cleaning method instructions. I like it because that last line really illustrates the rights and consequences of personal freedoms.

An excellent product I might add.


"Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous." My Zen (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tiziano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,445 posts
Likes: 15
Joined May 2005
Location: Italy, Rome
     
Dec 12, 2008 19:29 |  #339

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6862913 (external link)
What frosts me is the unwillingness of any level of law enforcement to admit that they could have allies with valuable skills right in their own back yards.

One final comment about the post above: I believe that most people reading this thread, will understand (if they don't already know) why law enforcement forces don't want any help from other people.


Tiziano
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GSH
"wetter than an otter's pocket"
Avatar
3,939 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Nov 2004
Location: NE England.
     
Dec 12, 2008 19:39 |  #340

Medic85 wrote in post #6863506 (external link)
There are several non-lethal types of personal protection available. Pepper spray, a police baton (which is small enough to carry in your back pocket)...that's two options that immediately come to mind.

That's also 2 options that would be illegal in the UK.

It is illegal to possess and / or bring pepper spray into the UK. As for the baton, a charge of carrying a concealed weapon would no doubt be forthcoming.

The OP was in a no-win situation with this woman. Firstly, she used the magic P word and any Police involvement (even at his own request) would have almost certainly seen him becoming acquainted with one of Mr Plod's lovely free hotel rooms. He has also suggested she may not have been "native" to the UK....i won't go too far down that road other than to say it would have been another nail in his coffin.

A few years ago i was in the unfortunate position of working on a contract in one of Her Majesty's Guest Houses. I had some very interesting (and very sickening) insight into how genuine paedophiles operate from the staff there and none of them carried expensive camera gear. Strangely enough, many of them were related to their victims.

As for shooting kids, fortunately they rarely enter my viewfinder other than for a few football games where i've been asked to shoot by my Nephew's football team. Last time out the opposing team manager insisted i asked every one of his team's parents for permission, so i simply put the camera back in the car and enjoyed the game instead.

He got endless abuse from most of the parents, mainly because on a couple of previous occasions i've sold prints & CD's to them and donated all proceeds back to the team to pay for kit, goalposts etc.


Geoff www.bhppix.co.uk (external link)
_______________
I enjoy taking photos. I don't claim to be any good at it :D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Medic85
I just quoted Forrest Gump!
Avatar
2,018 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
     
Dec 12, 2008 19:45 |  #341

I wasn't aware of that Geoff. Thanks for posting that.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lens ­ pirate
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Likes: 32
Joined Aug 2008
     
Dec 12, 2008 19:47 as a reply to  @ Medic85's post |  #342

To bad he was not using a 5D Mark2 The black spots would have obscured the childs image and no harm would be done. bw!


INSANE GEAR LIST
Sun flare.... the new selective color. JUST SAY NO

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 12, 2008 19:50 |  #343

lens pirate wrote in post #6867648 (external link)
To bad he was not using a 5D Mark2 The black spots would have obscured the childs image and no harm would be done. bw!

Only if they were wearing Christmas Lights.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
Avatar
7,958 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 774
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina and Toronto
     
Dec 12, 2008 20:05 |  #344

cdifoto wrote in post #6867215 (external link)
It really hurts when fat people sit on you.

That is why bad people stay away from me...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GSH
"wetter than an otter's pocket"
Avatar
3,939 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Nov 2004
Location: NE England.
     
Dec 12, 2008 20:20 |  #345

Medic85 wrote in post #6867629 (external link)
I wasn't aware of that Geoff. Thanks for posting that.

The term "offensive weapon" can apply to almost anything.

The Police National Legal Database wrote:
The definition of an offensive weapon is any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him, or by some other person. (N.B. this definition includes a disguised knife).

It is an offence to have in your possession an offensive weapon in a public place.

Any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person...A pretty broad definition that. Could it include say...a camera with a long lens that just happens to hit a screaming woman during an incident like that described by the OP?...I dare say i could do some damage with a stale loaf of bread if i hit someone hard enough with it ;)

Some links from the site i quoted above re photogrpahy. It shows exactly the mentality we're up against in this once great country...

https://www.askthe.pol​ice.uk/Content/Q290.ht​m (external link)

https://www.askthe.pol​ice.uk/Content/Q717.ht​m (external link)

For some strange reason, during the IRA campaigns of the 70's and 80's photography was never an issue. Yet now, when attacks are actually a lot less frequent, anyone with a camera is a potential terrorist. Now, i'm no Al Qaeda strategist, but if i were up to those sort of games, i'd be using Google Earth, a Map and my own eyes, not wandering round with a DSLR and huge lens....

The irony is, that in the country with the most extensive CCTV network on the face of the earth, you get strange looks for taking photos in the street.

You couldn't make it up.


Geoff www.bhppix.co.uk (external link)
_______________
I enjoy taking photos. I don't claim to be any good at it :D

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

27,836 views & 0 likes for this thread
Accused of being a paedophile!!!
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 Jesterj75
879 guests, 267 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.