Posted on 05/29/2007 7:51:31 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000
Let's not get ahead of the facts here. Even if this is what one witness genuinely perceived to be the case that witness may simply be mistaken.
Nah. To get charged with assaulting an officer, he’d have to have known that the perv was an officer. And based on the article the perv acted guilty by allowing himself to be arrested by a citizen. You may not like how officers often protect each other and bend over backwards to give fellow officers the benefit of the doubt(what profession doesn’t) but I am pretty sure that the NJ police involved saw the LA cop as the perv that he was and would have busted him if they could. Hell I am pretty sure if the perv was a NJ cop they would have busted him. We aren’t talking breaking the rules here. We are talking child porn.
weegee, I was following that case but didn't know the outcome. That's kind of surprising, and I kind of felt bad for the old gent, and the photog did make a profit from the photo. So the same rules don't apply always and everywhere. I don't know how many lawyers I called trying to get a written legal opinion to protect myself, finally got a lead on one, and he never returned my call. I took a nice night photo of a public building at Christmas and wondered if I could sell it. I called the city, and they told me it would depend on what was in it! (a nice building all lit up with Christmas lights!, no people at all) and I'd have to bring it down for approval. When I got down there, the guy took the photo to the supervisor, and came back and said no problem with it.
He he, the oddest things happen. Two young boys decided to turn my back yard by the alley into a bike ramp. They were riding up in my yard, tearing around, I'm always afraid a kid will get hurt in our litigous climate. They weren't really hurting my grass or anything. What to do? Yell at them? No, there has to be a better way. I got my camera out and went out and started taking pictures, seeing if I could catch one airborne and finally did. They were little daredevils. I let them have their fun for awhile longer, then said 2 more minutes. They were cool about it and then went on their way.
I've won some money with my photos, but don't go out of my way trying to sell them because it's just a hobby and I like to keep it that way. Some rich people wanted to pay me to photograph their flowers, and I was too scared to do it for pay, afraid I would screw up. Bush had his photo taken in their mfg plant. I guess they are nice, but I am kind of intimidated by rich people.
What one would expect of Dornan’s kid.
Don't be. Remember "Your 'superiors', aren't!"
then he won't get treated like the rest of us
I'm sorry, but I guess I'm dense and don't get it. I don't know why I am that way. I think it goes back to my high school days when I wasn't good enough for a certain crowd. Or when I got rejected by all the sororities during rush week when I went to the university, never knew why, had good grades, maybe not pretty or classy enough, wasn't interested in football games, never figured it out. But there's more to it than that. I wish I could overcome it. Actually, I'm rich, too (on paper), but nobody knows unless I tell them which I don't except now anonymously. You would never know from the way I live my life.
Can it be used otherwise in commerce? In other words, can you go outside, take a photo of someone on the street, and incorporate it into marketing materials, say, brochures or graphics for a web site?
I don’t know for sure actually. An amorphous crowd of people, perhaps, but individuals whose faces could be recognized, I think you’d need a model release in most states (state law governs). My son has a photo of a retired couple on his website for his business. I think it is a stock photo; i.e., a pro took it and got the release and then sold it. I’ll ask him.
Have they found her? Did they find the man they were looking for? I haven’t heard anything for a couple weeks.
It’s not the govt’s job - it’s the parents job .. and I’m happy to see one parent taking that responsibility seriously.
99.999% of parents don’t even think that dressing their little daughter in a dress could be interpreted as an act of enticement, nor should they.
Off-Duty Cop Accused Of Taking Photos Of Kids
From the link...
"Right now, this whole thing is getting blown way out of proportion," Garden Grove police Sgt. Jim Fischer said. Police said the images themselves did not constitute a crime.
Everyone feel better now?
There's the key to this "investigation"
Nothing will happen and there will be no further questioning of anyone. Nothing to see here and once again another LEO is protected by his own
this guy should have his home computer seized.....
Photographing is one thing, but going for up skirt shots is another! Plus, it sounds like the guy is using a run of the mill digital camera...doesn’t sound very legit to me either way!
I notice you have a granddtr.....how would you like some strange man coming up, getting pics of her up her dress?.....especially if he starts running away after taking the pics....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.