DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> One bad apple is gonna spoil it for the bunch :(
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 75, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/12/2005 03:08:34 PM · #26
WOW I thought Utah was uptight!
 10/12/2005 03:15:47 PM · #27
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Point is, we don't know enough specifics to either defend or pillory this guy -- however, we can be concerned that there is an ever-increasing tendency for the authorities to interfere with legitimate photographers exercising their legal prerogatives to take photos in public.

I agree, we don't know enough of the details necessary to form an accurate opinion in this case. And of course some old-fashioned people would say it is only right to consider the guy innocent until he is found guilty. But that didn't hold back the Dallas NBC affiliate from posting his picture on the internet.
10/12/2005 03:16:45 PM · #28
I know there are some specific body parts in here somewhere. They wore it, I took it, I did not do anything sexual with it. Now if the police stopped me and found a few of these on my camera that I took at the local motorcylce event whould I be arrested?



Now with that said if this guy has pictures on his camera looking up little girls skirts then they should fry him.

edit: sp

Message edited by author 2005-10-12 15:20:21.
 10/12/2005 04:16:26 PM · #29
Originally posted by Delfeye:
Texas Penal COde

§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING.
(a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning
assigned by Section 43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(2) knowing the character and content of the
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording
described by Subdivision (1).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 458, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 500, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
2003.


Basically, if you take a photo of someone without them knowing and the police/prosecutors say the photos could be considered arousing or sexualy gratifying, they can throw you in jail. Yikes! texas doesn't mess around!


10/12/2005 04:27:49 PM · #30
I think the law is really poorly written because someone with a foot fetish can "get off" on a child's foot but the way the law is written it's the photographer that's liable if they do.

I think there should be laws against shooting pictures up people's skirts, because they are not intending their underwear (or body parts) to be publically visible -- that's as clear a violation as just looking up a woman's skirt. It should be illegal whether you use a camera or not.

I mean if this guy really wanted to get away with it, he'd just take shots with a high megapixel camera and "zoom in" on the body parts in photoshop. The way the law is written doesn't make any sense....
 11/01/2005 12:46:38 PM · #31
Update on this case... thought you might be interested.
11/01/2005 12:49:58 PM · #32
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Update on this case... thought you might be interested.


Hooray!

R.
 11/01/2005 12:52:05 PM · #33
Originally posted by article:
Vogel was arrested under a new state law that makes it a crime to take unauthorized pictures for sexual gratification.
...
"A lot of the photographs frankly are crowd scenes, some of them are artistic photographs. There's a little series of photographs of a table and a balloon," said Kurt Stallings, Tarrant County Prosecutor.


So how do they know the man wasn't a balloonophile?

11/01/2005 12:59:11 PM · #34
"The prosecutor said the system ultimately worked because Vogel was never formally charged"

and they think the system worked when an innocent man spent 24 hours behind bars??
 11/01/2005 01:00:26 PM · #35
Originally posted by keegbow:
"The prosecutor said the system ultimately worked because Vogel was never formally charged"

and they think the system worked when an innocent man spent 24 hours behind bars??


Texas justice at its best... LMAOOO...sad...
 11/01/2005 01:00:54 PM · #36
What I find disturbing here is how they blatantly publish the guy's name - complete with an enlargable picture. Why not just give us his full address and telephone number while they're at it?
 11/01/2005 01:01:26 PM · #37
Originally posted by keegbow:
"The prosecutor said the system ultimately worked because Vogel was never formally charged"

and they think the system worked when an innocent man spent 24 hours behind bars??


AND had his mug pasted all over the news as a pervert? I'm with you there. I smell a lawsuit and a quick settlement in the offing.

Robt.
 11/01/2005 01:13:57 PM · #38
There absolutely was a victim in this incident - Vogel. That guy's reputation is trashed in that community. I smell a significant out-of-court settlement in this guy's future.

Shame on the law enforcement types for completely %$#@ing this situation up.
 11/01/2005 01:16:34 PM · #39
Did ya'll see the follow up story:
//www.nbc5i.com/news/5221710/detail.html
Defintely sounds like he has a case.
But laws are getting tough and a lot of it is silly. My daughter took her camera to a halloween party at school yesterday and she was told that photos were strictly prohibited!
 11/01/2005 01:16:39 PM · #40
Originally posted by strangeghost:
There absolutely was a victim in this incident - Vogel.


Ditto. The one bad apple in this instance wore a badge. :-(
 11/01/2005 01:18:10 PM · #41
Originally posted by susi:
Did ya'll see the follow up story:
//www.nbc5i.com/news/5221710/detail.html
Defintely sounds like he has a case.
But laws are getting tough and a lot of it is silly. My daughter took her camera to a halloween party at school yesterday and she was told that photos were strictly prohibited!


The followup is what I posted on here about 5 posts ago. ;)
 11/01/2005 01:21:05 PM · #42
Originally posted by susi:
But laws are getting tough and a lot of it is silly.


I've seen a lot of that. I've been told I can't take pictures in my daughter's classroom, yet the same people will call me to take a class photo. I was chased out of a D.C. subway station for setting up a tripod, yet I could sit down with a sketch pad and draw the same scene all day long. What we NEED are laws against stupidity. ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 13:21:36.
 11/01/2005 01:43:09 PM · #43
Originally posted by scalvert:
What we NEED are laws against stupidity. ;-)


Punishable by death!!! Sounds like Darwin to me...
 11/01/2005 02:25:00 PM · #44
It would balance things out a bit if that Dallas NBC affiliate would post a picture of the dumbass cop(s) that made the arrest. Let the taxpayers see who is wasteing their money going after innocent photogs.
 11/01/2005 02:44:44 PM · #45
Originally posted by coolhar:
It would balance things out a bit if that Dallas NBC affiliate would post a picture of the dumbass cop(s) that made the arrest. Let the taxpayers see who is wasteing their money going after innocent photogs.


You have to remember that someone made the accusation that he was photographing women and children inappropriately. The "dumbass cop(s)" who arrested him were doing what they are paid to do, however ill-warranted (hindsight is always 20/20). If he had turned out to be taking inappropriate pictures, you would be lauding the "dumbass cop(s)" for protecting the public good.

Looking at the case now from the beginning to now, I'm glad the man was not doing anything wrong, and I'm glad that the "dumbass cop(s)" in the community were not afraid to make sure of it. There were no winners in this case, and I feel badly for the man for being dragged through the court of public opinion. It's sad that people can't photograph others anymore without seeming seedy or perverted, but that's the way it is. It sucks that people are wrongly accused and arrested when accusations are made, but that's the way it is. If I had seen someone photographing my child in what I believed was an inappropriate way, I'd be sure to notify authorities, which is what happened in this case. Vogel was cleared, however, and that is a good thing...he didn't do anything inappropriate, and the system thankfully worked, at least to some extent.

11/01/2005 02:55:36 PM · #46
Point well taken Laurie. But let's also not forget, assuming that the excerpt of the "texas penal code" quoted earlier in this thread is correct, that it's a bad, unenforcable law, and that the cops were placed in a bad situation if they were asked to enforce it. There weren't any winners in this case, but some of the participants lost a heckuva lot more than others.
 11/01/2005 03:00:20 PM · #47
I actually live about 3 miles from where this happened.

This is a relatively new law in Texas. The SPIRIT of the law was to keep people from taking "upskirt" or "boob" pictures, etc of women and posting them on newsgroups and websites without the woman's permission. The LETTER of the law however, has allowed it to be stretched far beyond that.

As usually, this is the case of lawyers who do notunderstand technology or the problem so they just make something up.

11/01/2005 03:01:09 PM · #48
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by coolhar:
It would balance things out a bit if that Dallas NBC affiliate would post a picture of the dumbass cop(s) that made the arrest. Let the taxpayers see who is wasteing their money going after innocent photogs.


You have to remember that someone made the accusation that he was photographing women and children inappropriately. The "dumbass cop(s)" who arrested him were doing what they are paid to do, however ill-warranted (hindsight is always 20/20). If he had turned out to be taking inappropriate pictures, you would be lauding the "dumbass cop(s)" for protecting the public good.

Looking at the case now from the beginning to now, I'm glad the man was not doing anything wrong, and I'm glad that the "dumbass cop(s)" in the community were not afraid to make sure of it. There were no winners in this case, and I feel badly for the man for being dragged through the court of public opinion. It's sad that people can't photograph others anymore without seeming seedy or perverted, but that's the way it is. It sucks that people are wrongly accused and arrested when accusations are made, but that's the way it is. If I had seen someone photographing my child in what I believed was an inappropriate way, I'd be sure to notify authorities, which is what happened in this case. Vogel was cleared, however, and that is a good thing...he didn't do anything inappropriate, and the system thankfully worked, at least to some extent.


Well, the guy now has an arrest record, even though he was never actually charged with anything. This can, in and of itself, disqualify him for employment. Many employers will not even consider someone with an arrest record. He will forever be known as "The pervert photographer". His name, likeness and address have been paraded publically, released by overeager police to a ratings hungry media which promptly ruined any chance this guy had to innocence in the public eye.

So, even though this poor guy won't spend the next 10-15yrs being his cellmate's girlfriend, I would hardly say the system worked for Mr. Vogel. More like it screwed him over good and ruined his life. I bet the media won't be as eager to exploit him, when out of despair, Mr. Vogel swallows a shotgun.

I hope he sues and wins a fortune.


11/01/2005 03:01:19 PM · #49
Yes, it's a bad, vague law, almost certainly unenforceable because of its vagueness. And yes, the cops were doing what they saw to be "their job" when they made the call, no matter how lame the call turned out to be. The people that really deserve the "blame", IMO, are the media who spread this poor guy's mug all over the airwaves before he'd been convicted of a thing, possibly before he'd been charged even (not sure about that part).

Robt.
 11/01/2005 03:05:22 PM · #50
Originally posted by laurielblack:
You have to remember that someone made the accusation that he was photographing women and children inappropriately. The "dumbass cop(s)" who arrested him were doing what they are paid to do, however ill-warranted (hindsight is always 20/20). If he had turned out to be taking inappropriate pictures, you would be lauding the "dumbass cop(s)" for protecting the public good.

Looking at the case now from the beginning to now, I'm glad the man was not doing anything wrong, and I'm glad that the "dumbass cop(s)" in the community were not afraid to make sure of it. There were no winners in this case, and I feel badly for the man for being dragged through the court of public opinion. It's sad that people can't photograph others anymore without seeming seedy or perverted, but that's the way it is. It sucks that people are wrongly accused and arrested when accusations are made, but that's the way it is. If I had seen someone photographing my child in what I believed was an inappropriate way, I'd be sure to notify authorities, which is what happened in this case. Vogel was cleared, however, and that is a good thing...he didn't do anything inappropriate, and the system thankfully worked, at least to some extent.


Cops are not paid to make arrests in response to accusations. Cops are paid to investigate in response to accusations. In this case the investigation was either absent, or faulty. Why should the photog have his reputation smeared while the cops who failed their mission to investigate, and to use a measure of common sense in applying the law, not be penalized in some fashion?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 04:56:44 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 04:56:44 PM EDT.