| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/01/2005 03:07:03 PM · #51 |
another reason not to like people ;}
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:09:21 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
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? |
There was absolutely NO REASON to release his name to the media.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:48:29 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Cops are not paid to make arrests in response to accusations. Cops are paid to investigate in response to accusations. |
How difficult would it have been to just look at the pictures on the camera and see that there was nothing unusual going on? I hope he sues too, if only to fix an ill-conceived law. |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:54:14 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Cops are not paid to make arrests in response to accusations. Cops are paid to investigate in response to accusations. |
How difficult would it have been to just look at the pictures on the camera and see that there was nothing unusual going on? I hope he sues too, if only to fix an ill-conceived law. |
From the original story:
"Louis Vogel, 60, of North Richland Hills, was arrested by Southlake Police after officers observed him for about an hour snapping pictures. Police said the photos were of a "sexual nature."
"He had a camera with him. It was obvious he was taking photographs," Southlake Police Lt. Ashleigh Douglas said. "But during their investigation, (investigators) determined the photographs were deemed inappropriate."
From the followup story:
"Tarrant County prosecutors threw out the case against Louis Vogel on Monday. Vogel was accused of taking photographs at Southlake's Octoberfest for sexual gratification.
Prosecutors who reviewed the photos said police got it wrong and that there was nothing improper with his photos."
So they DID look, after watching him shoot for an hour, and they made a bad call.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 03:58:56 PM · #55 |
I agree, a bad call by the officers involved.
Bad news is the Mr. Vogel now will never live down the accusations. Just look at the comments here. Imagine what they are like in Tarrant County. |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 04:36:16 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
"But during their investigation, (investigators) determined the photographs were deemed inappropriate." |
Ah, so the REAL problem was hiring police investigators with balloon and table fetishes. There should be a law... |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 04:39:03 PM · #57 |
This doesn't surprise me one bit nowadays.
This country will end up being owed by lawyers eventually... |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 04:40:27 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by BradP:
This country will end up being owed by lawyers eventually... |
That almost looks intentional. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 04:47:16 PM · #59 |
OOPS
This doesn't surprise me one bit nowadays.
This country will end up being owned by lawyers eventually...
LOL |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 04:52:01 PM · #60 |
one of the reasons this has got a lot of attention is that the NEWS MEDIA, continues to scare people with stories like this.
they will rip him (someone) a new one for a week or 2, make him out to be a big time perv and child molestor (they dont say that, but tell you to keep an eye on your childrens safety), and once they found out the case was thrown out, they run a little story about it and move on to the next "blood and guts" story.
why...cause happy news does not interest people, well in the eye of the media anyway
James |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 04:52:57 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
....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.... |
It's not their job to be stupid. Some common sense could have avoided the whole thing (in the law making process) and enforcement by just looking at the pictures but "doing my job" is too often used as an excuse for all sort of abuse.
Even though I hate these type of cases, I hope he gets a big settelment.
I agree the media was wrong and there should be a libal case against them also (fat chance). |
|
|
|
11/01/2005 05:10:44 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
"But during their investigation, (investigators) determined the photographs were deemed inappropriate." |
Ah, so the REAL problem was hiring police investigators with balloon and table fetishes. There should be a law... |
|
|
|
|
11/01/2005 05:13:03 PM · #63 |
| I bet those aren't real. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 01:26:57 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by louddog:
It's only illegal if some one masterbates to the photo??? |
I think I've single-handedly made a few thousand photos illegal...
(oh god, there's even a pun!) |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 08:25:49 AM · #65 |
oh man he's free...
see, you guys were calling him a sicko and a pervert and all kinds of stuff...the poor guy had his photo plastered on the internet, probably linked to 50 different message boards, his name is probably remembered by 200 different people...I'd be suing the state if I were him, no doubt about it.
--
You guys have to remember, MOST OF ALL OF US have our rights violated from time to time by law enforcement officers. It sucks to know that the second a police officer makes an arrest and your photo gets plastered on the internet, to the ENTIRE PHOTOGRAPHIC COMMUNITY HERE, you are considered a pervert...sad sad sad sad!!!!!!!
Think about it people, you've all fell victim to their game. You've done what ever other person in the world did when they saw the original page, you assumed that his rights weren't violated, that he wasn't being artistic, that he was, in fact, a pervert and a sicko. You worried about your kids in public or yourself or your wife in public...how can I keep them from people like this sicko, you asked yourselves...his rights were violated in a bad bad way.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:26:17 AM · #66 |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:28:57 AM · #67 |
Those darned up-skirt photographers!
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:39:34 AM · #68 |
I guess people can get their jollies from anything. UGH Look at plushies??
That photo of the girl with the short skirt, walking away could be considered by some as "sexual" (not by me, don't be mistaken) whereas, others just see some girl walking away from the camera. If the guy never left the area, how do they know it was for gratification of any kind? He hadn't even uploaded them. Plus, in a public arena, like mentioned earlier, what parts could be shown? You can't go topless or without your pants, so what gives???
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 09:46:42 AM · #69 |
A similar law was just passed here in PA yesterday. The TV news reported as a cell phone camera law, but I doubt it is really that narrowly focused.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:12:26 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
....... Plus, in a public arena, like mentioned earlier, what parts could be shown? You can't go topless or without your pants, so what gives??? |
I'd just like to point out that peoples behavior in public areas may not necessarily be what you expect, yet still be legal.
Topfree 7
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 10:16:43 AM · #71 |
Unfortunately in this day and age, common sense seems to be in short supply, both in the creation of laws and the enforcement.
Perhaps we should start calling it "uncommon sense"? |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 11:24:48 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
... If the guy never left the area, how do they know it was for gratification of any kind? He hadn't even uploaded them. |
The statute says "any person". Possibly the arresting officer gratified himself. |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 11:16:08 PM · #73 |
In all honesty, I'm still mad about this...if this guy ever intended to take portraits, chances are no one's going to go to him if their kid needs pictures -- good luck getting a job as the photog for a local school...this guy's career (if he had one planned) in photography is over.
It's a true shame...
The pass these STUPID laws without giving a second of thought to the innocent lives they'll ruin, or (of less importance) the time they'll take from innocent people who are just out shooting for fun and being artistic...
Oh well, I think I'm done with public shooting anyway, too many idiots out there in uniforms now adays...seems everywhere I go there's a cop just ready to go into attack mode because I gasp took a picture of a bridge. Cops are going to mess with the wrong guy on the wrong day and get their day messed up...I know I'm sick of it, for one...I think we should stand up for OUR OWN FREAKING RIGHTS HERE!!! We should all look into joining LOCAL photography organizations in our own communities...and if one doesn't exist, you should look into creating one...to protect our rights as photographers, as citizens, as people...this stuff has gone too far.
|
|
|
|
11/17/2005 11:30:31 PM · #74 |
| That sucks...stupid people or stupid law...or both... |
|
|
|
11/17/2005 11:36:35 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by deapee:
In all honesty, I'm still mad about this...if this guy ever intended to take portraits, chances are no one's going to go to him if their kid needs pictures -- good luck getting a job as the photog for a local school...this guy's career (if he had one planned) in photography is over. |
He wasn't a photographer probably, just a perv with a camera.
|
|
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 05:10:20 PM EDT.
