Hey, there! Log in / Register
Don't try taking pictures at Frog Pond
By adamg on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 8:33am
Cat posts a cool photo of kids under the spray at Frog Pond, then adds this account:
as we were taking some pictures, a member of the staff, guarding the pond came up to tim saying it is "not cool" to take pictures of kids. they told him he was not allowed to take pictures, "especially of the children". he then asked to see the regulations for that, and the guy answered "do you really want that?" "well, yes" so then he was brought to another guy, who simply stated the same. they then even said that he "could get into serious trouble". well, thats just sad.... do they also prohibit parents taking pictures? another kid might end up on their picture! and what about people without cameras, but also without kids, watching all those kids play, because it is such a lovely sight? can they get into serious trouble as well?
Tim himself reports the intimidation worked - he stopped taking pictures.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Before all of you start
Before all of you start organizing a pillow fight protest against "The Man", how would you feel if it wasn't some hippy hipster taking "cool" photos of these half naked kids? What if it was some dirty old man in a trench coat? Would the policy against taking pictures sound reasonable?
Dont bother.....
.......this crew loves this kind of stuff.
Yeah, shocker
A citizen journalism site standing up for people's right to document things that happen in public? I can't imagine why they'd do that!
Still not reasonable, actually.
Doesn't matter who's taking pictures, it's in public. I don't want anyone's rights stripped any more than they already have been. Taking pictures of the public and in public should be legal.
Or is America not a free country any more?
the law is happily not based
the law is happily not based on what you judge are wrong, but on what is demonstrably wrong. in the eyes of the law we are all equal - trenchcoat or not. you may be judging a person to be a disgusting pervert while in fact you don't know this at all. if you act upon that judgement, for instance, trying to protect the children by taking away his camera, or restricting his freedom in other ways, you are committing a crime.
your definition of dirty may be another's definition of clean. you are confusing things you don't like to see with things that should be outlawed.
It doesn't matter who is
It doesn't matter who is taking the pics or how "creepy" it may seem. The Frog Pond is in the very public Boston Common, and the operators have no authority to ban photobesity any more than they could ban it on any random street. It would have been interesting if he had not been intimidated and stood his ground. Would the staff member have called the police? With what crime would he have been charged?
It's another matter if a parent asks that someone not take pictures of their kid. The photographer has no legal requirement to stop -- photography in a public space is not a crime -- but respect for the parent's wishes may be enough for the photographer to stop. But that's not what happened here.
My two cents
What Saul said is completely reasonable.
Most sexual abuse of children is not committed by strangers. It makes a lot more sense for parents to have open lines of communication with their children and with adolescents and adults who are alone with the child rather than freaking out that there might be a perv at a park.
Sex offenders are cowards and are somewhat paranoid. This is pretty well known by everyone who has worked in offender treatment or studied offending behavior. If the person is taking pictures for icky purposes, just walking up and making small talk is going to scare the person away from that location, probably forever. It isn't necessary to ask the person to stop, especially since most of the people you're going to ask are going to be not doing anything inappropriate and you're just going to make artists and tourists and lonely (not in that way!) elderly people feel like there's something wrong with them for taking some pictures of kids.
Oh, and it actually isn't illegal to have pictures of clothed kids in public and to do icky things with them. We shrink-type people consider it to be under the umbrella of offending behaviors, but it isn't illegal and it isn't committable. It's extremely unlikely that the parent or child would ever know this had happened with the kid's picture.
So, either you don't ever let your kid out of the house so that your child can never be photographed (and then your kid gets molested by your relatives anyway), or you teach your kid to be assertive and have good boundaries and you let your kid live a normal life where there's a small chance that someone will photograph the kid for yucky purposes.
"photobesity" -->
"photobesity" --> "photography"
Stupid phone auto-correct! I'm not sure, however, that "photobesity" should be allowed of kids in the Frog Pond :)
What in the world
... IS "photobesity"? Is it those pictures of overweight people with their faces blurred out that the news shows whenever there's a bit about diabetes?
HAHAHAHAHA! i think
HAHAHAHAHA!
i think photobesity is very funny!
and i think what you wrote is entirely reasonable. common sense, thats what its called. why doesnt everyone seem to possess that?
Firstly, there is no policy
Firstly, there is no policy against taking pictures at the pond. So there's nothing to sound reasonable. Secondly, the sense that the laws on photography somehow foster perverts is laughable. Your assumptions of dirty and old are discriminatory. Old people should have the same rights as young people and luckily they do. Your association with a trenchcoat is subjective and nearsighted. I could just as easily claim that motorcycling policemen wearing tight leather jackets and boots and reflecting sunglasses are "sexually provocative" or that school teachers wearing pencil skirts and nerd glasses appeal to the fantasy of teenagers. These are all subjective judgments that should be disregarded. If they are not then these are the kinds of laws that would ensue:
1. you are not allowed to look at children if you are over 65 or if you can reasonably judged as dirty or old.
2. you are not allowed to smile at a child, ever.
3. you are not allowed to talk to a child
4. you are not allowed to be in the vicinity of a child wearing a trenchcoat or other perverted clothing.
and so on. this kind of thinking will instill in our children a profound sense of mistrust.
I can report that the boston common facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/BostonFrogPond) has now blocked me from their wall, because i wrote my experience on it and they removed that.
social contruct is based on trust.
peace.
Kind of funny, isn't it, that
Kind of funny, isn't it, that the Boston Common Facebook page has an album of the Frog Pond opening for the summer. And that album is full of photos of -- I am shocked! -- kids! Even kids in bathing suits!
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.21593883...
I can't believe they let this one guy sit there
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2159394884...
i can't believe they told me
i can't believe they told me i could be in "serious trouble", while they publish this on their facebook album. such hypocrisy goes beyond the realm of nearsightedness into outright stupidity.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2159398517...
Vans
"You may not photograph, talk to, look at, or think about a child while in, on, or around a van."
But you may live in said van...
...as long as it is down by the river - and no kids are swimming in the river?
It's rude, have some manners
It may be legal to take pictures of kids in bathing suits, but its creepy to photograph strangers and rude to do so without asking.
Just because someone has a legal "right" to do something doesn't mean that it's the "right" thing to do. Photographers, have some manners and ask, rather than hiding behind the "I have a legal right to do this."
Not everyone is affluent enough to have a private pool and able to avoid becoming a subject in someone else's art project. If you're too timid to ask a subject whether they are okay with being photographed, stick to non-human subjects.
I agree
asking, where it make sense, is appropriate.
Parents or other also have an obligation to, you know, go talk to the photographers too.
Lots of times photographers will stay off to the side, trying to catch people in their natural environment, as it makes a much more compelling photograph. Go up and have a friendly chat with them, and you'll see they're pretty normal (and might even learn a thing or two).
As said, shady individual will sulk away and never return, because they are cowards and creeps in the first place. 99.5% of people have nothing to hid, and are not there for dubious reasons, so let's not let .5% become how we gauge city photographers.
photography is not a crime
There's no gray zone. Either you outlaw photography in public or you don't. You cannot have it both ways. Yes some practices make some folks queasy but that's the nature of free speech which this activity comes under. I don't like the Westboro Baptist Church folks but there's nothing I can do about their free speech.
I'm wondering why you're not concerned about the security cameras around the place. Have you ever wondered who has access to those?
I don't like the Westboro
I don't like the Westboro people either. But if I knew they were going to show up locally, I would participate in a counter protest. Similarly, if I see people focusing their cameras in on other people's kids, I'm going to ask them what they are doing, and ask them to stop if its making people uncomfortable (I'm not the government, I have a *right* to ask and to state my mind).
Everyone is responsible for their own conduct, if a photographer is making people uncomfortable by photographing strangers, I'm wondering why he or she would refuse to stop. When did the fact that someone may have a right to do something trump common courtesies in social interactions?
who (specifically) was being made uncomfortable?
I didn't see anything in the original post about a specific person asking the photographer to stop. If I missed it, my apologies; please point it out to me.
There is a difference between an individual someone saying "I'm uncomfortable with you taking pictures of me/my kid, please stop" which as decent people we should respect, and a guard threatening someone with "big trouble" when they haven't done anything wrong or disturbed anyone.
It's a public space
And being creepy isn't a crime (yet). Not that I don't worry about creepers, which is why I have a kiddie pool and a high fence. If you want privacy, it's best to stay in a private place.
Reasonable, YES
Conforming to some parents fascist idea on protection? No.
Before we are finished with you
Remember that many of us here at UHub are parents.
Remember that Adam was harassed by police for taking pictures OF HIS OWN DAUGHTER at a playground.
Remember that any gymboree catalog, Sears/Lands End catalog, internet site with parents posting kid pics, the frog pond website, any ad for Water Country contain "half-naked" kids swimming, sliding, etc.
Remember that most of the world wouldn't consider a kid in a swimsuit "half naked". Some of Europe wouldn't even bother with the swimsuits for kids.
Remember that most molestation occurs with family and friends in private places, not from people taking pictures in a very public place.
Maybe, brave anon, the problem is YOU and your excitement over the "half naked children" strangling your good sense and ability for higher reasoning skills. That's your problem. Meanwhile, the sensible grown up world should be run according to sense, reason, and the rule of law - not fictitious fear of non-existent bogeymen or a tingling desire to push people around as security theater.
I wasn't going to bring it up
But, yeah, this reminded me of the time a state trooper made sure I wasn't a child molester after somebody reported me for taking pictures of my own daughter.
Today, men of the best of
Today, men of the best of reputations are advised to never be alone with a child not theirs, lest they be falsely accused of something and have their lives ruined in an instant. Sadly, it's very good advice. And a man can't even take his own child to the park without getting suspicious glances or glares, or even the police called on them. I think we need the worst of the dimwitted bigots to start facing civil rights lawsuits before we'll see a return to sanity.
Unfortunately, I couldn't
Unfortunately, I couldn't agree more with this. And its harming our society and our kids far more than the perverts are. This, folks, is what a society of fear looks like.
I long ago made the decision not be a teacher, or a Scoutmaster, or a Merit Badge Councillor, or a Citizen's Air Patrol member, etc. because I simply didn't want the hassle of being treated like a criminal. And that's sad.
I had a childhood where I rode my bike down the street at age 12, swam in creeks, explored wood and fields all by myself. Now, in that very same town my sister won't let her kids, now in their mid teens, play in the front yard. I'm not sure my nephew even has a bike. Why? Because we've allowed to develop a culture and a society of fear because very few people have even a basic knowledge of statistics or any sense of proportion.
We have met the boogeyman, and he is us!
the kids photo issue is not trivial
We've had a bit of frustration over simply posting photos of kids on our school website because some people are afraid parents might object. The whole project is on hold until we verify we have consent from the parents, etc.
Part of this issue is the sex predator bogeyman--yes, it is irrational, illogical, etc., but I think that most parents think if you are taking candid photos of their kids, you are weird. Not necessarily a sex predator, but rude and inconsiderate.
But another issue has to do with identification. I have heard from some people that parents are concerned that an abusive, non-custodial parent might see the photo or something...and what? I don't know, but I just know that for those who care, it is a big deal. So I would recommend if you are shooting photos of kids, you do so with permission and/or be prepared to explain yourself. You may have the right, but you should be considerate of other people and not think they are just objects in the public domain for your amusement.
Different issue from the school one though...
I do think it's reasonable to require photo consents to post a picture of a kid on the website of a school or other program -- the kid's photo there gives the information that the kid attends that school or program, which I can see being a privacy issue for families who are trying to avoid a non-custodial parent or someone who has victimized their family, because it reveals that the child is regularly at said school and could be found there. Or people who don't want random people to know that their kid is in special ed, or goes to camp for rowdy kids, or whatever.
In a totally public place though, all someone could find out from a photo is that the kid had been in Boston on a particular day. If someone is truly in a situation where it's dangerous for someone to come across a picture showing what city the kid was in on a particular day, they should really be making use of the Witness Protection Program. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.
So in order to stop one
So in order to stop one person who may or may not take pictures, we should all give up our right to take a photograph in a public place - a place where no one has any expectation of privacy. That's bullshit.
Some people get very upset
I do not believe there is any legal prohibition against photographing children in a public place (although many people think there is). There is a legal principle about appropriating likeness without permission for profit...you cannot sell photos of other people or their kids without a model release.
However...there are at least two reasons some parents go nuts. One is they think you are a perv because they have seen too many Dateline NBC episodes. Two is they fear the photo being published and an estranged parent finding them and the kid.
Finally, I think it just bugs a lot of people to have someone "spying" on them. What are you going to do with those photos of my kid? See #1.
Taking photos of kids is something you need to be sensitive about. Ask the parents if it is ok.
dtx
would this have any parallels to the photogs in DTX that people accuse of being sketchy? is anyone on one side for this and the other for them? not judging, just looking to see where people fall on this and why.
Apparently some photographers are more equal than others
Guy must have had an ID badge around his neck.
I just posted a question on
I just posted a question on that album. Let's see if it gets deleted too.
Ick
The security guards over there dreamt up some weird scenario where people who are taking pictures of kids playing in the water are turning it into something sexual? I think maybe the security guards are the perverts--who the hell would even imagine such a thing?
Don't see any question, looks
Don't see any question, looks like it was deleted.
Oh the sweet irony
The official BCFP Facebook page has, you guessed it, candid photos of children playing in the frog pond.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=21593985178...
Why bother being a public creeper, when all you need is for the officials to provide it to you.
And with that, don't you see problem with that type of thinking?
Some people are too trained
Some people are too trained by the media to think that anyone snapping photos with people in them is some kind of pervert.
It may be legal, but it's
It may be legal, but it's creep to be hanging around photographing kids in bathing suits. Common courtesy, something sorely lacking these days, requires photographers to ask before photographing strangers.
The photographer may be within his/her legal rights to take pics of kids, but it's rude, and it's wimpy to crow about how it's legal while failing to ask the subject if he or she is okay with being photographed.
One could keep one's kids out of public swimming places, etc. to avoid being photographed; wealthy people will enjoy private pools while those less affluent who venture out in public are required to be the subjects of someone's art project.
I'm going to Frog Pond some
I'm going to Frog Pond some time this week and taking pictures alllll dayyyy longgggg! If anything happens, I'll film it.
I would have kept pushing the
I would have kept pushing the envelope and said "Show me the law please". I mean, its just silly.. and I agree, a very public place, it would be silly to even think that someone out there isnt take pictures.
Once again the "feel good" police have struck again. Yeah maybe I wouldn't want my child's picture being taken (heck, I don't even like my own picture taken) but let the parents decide.
I'm seriously starting to wonder where this country is going... and it looks like the wrong direction..
Here's the Law
Courtesy of the Supreme Judicial Court, reversing a conviction in Commonwealth v. Oakes (1988). Everyone who shoots photos in public should carry it.
"We start with a proposition that we would have thought not seriously debatable. Photography is a form of expression which is entitled to First Amendment protection just as the written or spoken word is protected. Photography as a means of communication and expression can be strikingly informative, as in the works of Mathew Brady and Margaret Bourke-White. It can be inspirationally expressive, as Ansel Adams demonstrated. Although not every picture may be worth a thousand words, in a First Amendment sense a picture is worth at least one."
I like Whit's suggestion
One should say "If you are imagining that what I am doing is in any way sexual, then you have a serious problem you should really seek treatment for."
I am a woman, 30 yrs old.
I am a woman, 30 yrs old. Have a boyfriend, no kids yet. I am well educated and I think I am a "normal" person. I sometimes go to public places just for people watch. It is amazing to see children play with fountains, and the pure joy it gives them, makes me feel so good about this world. That we created all those parks and fountains and so on, and that other people are going there to have fun. It is good to see people having fun.
Is there something wrong with me?
I have three young kids and I
I have three young kids and I am really sick of this mindset. I sometimes go on field trips or to parties with my kids and I usually take photographs, does that make me a pervert too? I'm a more or less a normal looking middle aged guy but if you don't see me with my kid maybe I look pervy somehow. I've gotten glares before, Dads are always suspect and it sucks. There's nothing dirty about kids playing in a fountain, if you something sexual in it that's you and your messed up mind, the rest of us can handle people photographing fun in public.
Better not try to photograph
Better not try to photograph bath time and get them developed.
Could be 5-10...
This isn't a joke actually.
This isn't a joke actually. There have been cases of family members taking photos of their kids at bathtime and then having photomats report them when they send them in to get devloped. Of course with the decline of film this is less of a problem now.
My memory is fuzzy on this,
My memory is fuzzy on this, but wasn't there a case about 20 or so years ago where a Cambridge mother took photos of her child in a bath and took them down to the local photofinisher to be developed.
The clerk there ended up dropping a dime on her. I believed she ended up be arrested not for charges related to the photographs but when the police tried to question her she became combative and was arrested for something related to that.
Are you thinking of the Zona incident?
If so you can google Zona photo labs (now closed) and Toni Marie Angeli .
That's it. Thanks.
That's it. Thanks.
I've seen a man, up the hill
I've seen a man, up the hill from Frog Pond, shooting it with long lens on a tripod. Probably parents at pond's edge didn't know he was back there, getting shots with that lens in which he could count the kids' pores if he wanted.
Actually, it was a woman, not a man. Did you just breathe a sigh of relief?
Would parents be ok with
Would parents be ok with knowing photos of their nearly nude kids being passed around on the internet by pedophiles?
I agree that we can't supervise every place people go - it's absurd to think that "banning" something like photographing kids in a public place will eradicate pedophiles, or stop people from doing creepy things. It's absolutely impossible. Yet at the same time, the Frog Pond in the summertime is absolutely a favorite hangout for pedos.
My sister, he son (4 years old), and elderly dad were visiting me last summer, and we decided to plop ourselves down on one of the benches by the pond to rest our feet on a gorgeous day. We ended up sitting and sharing a bench with a guy who we realized, was taking photos of kids with his cellphone. He was trying to be discreet, but myself being seated a few inches from him, it was plainly obvious. Pedo Dude was clearly watching one particular young child, and trying to take photos of her. We were around long enough to realize that Pedo Dude was there alone - he was not taking photos of his daughter, and wasn't with anyone at the pond. I kept trying to inch myself towards him, and angle myself towards him to deter him - which it seemed like it did somewhat, as he stopped using his phone. But he didn't dare move to another bench - that would mean giving up his prime spot watching a carefree young girl splash in the water. I felt sick to my stomach, but what could I or anyone do?
Pedophiles obviously frequent the frog pond in the summer - it's a convenient place to sit and watch a bunch of nearly nude children. Obviously most people seeing kids splash around don't see anything sexual about their playing, but unfortunately, there are people that do. And while it would be impossible to impart some kind of judgment on what adults are "ok" and which ones are sick creeps, I completely understand attempts to curb child photography at the pond.
So you saw
something sketchy/disturbing and did nothing.
BRAVO!
Is being sketchy/disturbing
Is being sketchy/disturbing illegal? No.
I didn't think authorities would do anything, as while obviously creepy, leering at kids and taking photos of them in a public place isn't illegal. Yet, judging from the comments, no one is willing to sacrifice their "right" to take picture of people in public. Honestly, I didn't think there was anything else I could do but try and infringe on his space and make *him* feel uncomfortable.
its pretty ironic: you take a
its pretty ironic: you take a picture of a child, and suddenly people come up to you and disturb you, accusing you of sexual abuse which can be severely affecting, they break your peace of mind and want to know what you are thinking about. How is that for invasion of privacy? And what are those people trying to protect? Yep. someone else's privacy. And they think the best way to do that is invade yours.
What could you, or anyone
What could you, or anyone else, do?
Well, for starters, you could have confronted him. As eeka posted above, if he did have nefarious intentions, it likely would have made him leave altogether, never to return. Or, if he didn't, maybe he would have explained himself to you.
Also, if you thought he was that suspicious, you could contact the police. They'll dispatch an officer to speak with the person, make sure he isn't a wanted/unregistered sex offender, etc, just like what happened to Adam.
Everyone is entitled to take pictures in public places. This isn't about an attempt to "curb child pornography", because child pornography isn't being filmed at the Frog Pond. If you are uncomfortable with people seeing your child in a bathing suit, then the Boston Common is a poor choice of places to take them. And your determination that the Frog Pond is a "favorite hangout for pedos" based on one weird experience you had is a little unfair, doncha think? I mean, it wasn't even hinky enough for you to stand up and say something, or call the police.
I thought about confronting
I thought about confronting him or alerting authorities, but then again, what's illegal about what he was doing? Absolutely nothing, and I knew that. I sincerely didn't think anything could be done, as being creepy does not necessarily make one nefarious.
Looking back on it, of course I wish I had said and done something other than try and infringe on his space, but "things you can do" is hindsight - because it doesn't seem like there is protocol, or anything that can officially be done from deterring creepers and pedophiles. And from the comments here, it doesn't seem like there's support for creating some kind of protocol on taking pictures of kids at the park. No one wants sex offenders and pedophiles to be interacting or coming into close contact with kids, yet, no one wants to give up their right to take pictures wherever. Cake & eat it too, etc.
I bet if a car you didn't
I bet if a car you didn't recognize, occupied by a stranger, was parked in the street watching your house for a few hours, you wouldn't hesitate to call the police and report it. That person isn't doing anything illegal, either.
In both situations
making small talk is going to deter most people with bad intentions, and is going to have a more-or-less positive effect on someone who doesn't.
You go up to the person in the car, say "hi, I'm [eeka], I live over there, I noticed you parked here looking around...can I help you find an address or something?" If the person is casing houses/cars to break into, they're going to realize that someone got a good look at their face and a good listen to their voice, so they'll move on. If they're actually looking for an address or waiting for someone or whatever, it'll be no big deal and they'll tell you.
Likewise, you can say to the person snapping pics in the park "hey, great day out...they sure are cute...which one's yours?" and the person will either get paranoid and not come back, or they'll tell you they're a tourist or art student or whatever and be completely open about what they're doing.
With you 100%, although I
With you 100%, although I will say that people my age (early 30's) and younger seem to be conditioned to do everything possible to avoid even the smallest confrontation.
isn't this exactly what
isn't this exactly what you're critical of: "They'll dispatch an officer to speak with the person, make sure he isn't a wanted/unregistered sex offender, etc, just like what happened to Adam."
How are authorities going to find out if the photographer is a sex offender without asking for a name? From the tenor on this board, you'd find it illegal and a violation of your rights for an officer to ask someone who wasn't clearly breaking the law to actually identify him/herself so a records check could be run.
I don't know anything about the guy who took the pic that started all this, I checked out his blog and his photos look nice, I doubt he's creepy or had any nefarious intent. That being said, the real creepos and weirdos would love for someone to take the issue to court, in the hopes of getting a ruling that police can't do a thing when a real weirdo starts acting out at frog pond, thus ruining it for people who just want to enjoy the park.
Nope. While you fully have
Nope. While you fully have the right to take pictures in public, the police fully have the right to approach you and ask to speak with you no matter what activity you are engaged in, or how legal it may be, wherever you are. In turn, you then have the right to refuse to speak to the officer. The police speak to countless individuals every day who aren't breaking the law, and if they do provide their information, it has been held by the courts to be perfectly legal to check their warrants & criminal history.
Just to go a little further, there is no violation of rights in what happened here. No police officer told the photographer he couldn't take pictures, and there is no unconstitutional ordinance or law that forbids him from doing so. The frog pond employees, despite being payed by the city, are not acting as a government entity when telling you that you can't, and in addition, they have no means of stopping you from doing so. Just like if you ask someone at the playground to stop taking pictures of your children...you aren't violating their rights, you're expressing your preference.
All around
what happened was fine, and the resolution was ok.
The biggest issue we all seem to have was the park employee trying to scare the photographer into thinking he was violating the law, and citing something that doesn't exist, when he was not. That's not cool. We also have to wonder about the parents/employees logic.
A simple: some of the parents were concerned and we'd appreciate it if you didn't snap any more photo's today, even though we know you have the right to, would have been sufficient.
Anyone photographer that would refuse a request like that would be moved into douchebag status, but not creep or illegal by any means.
Don't want your kid photographed?
DON'T TAKE THEM OUT IN PUBLIC!!!
THAT is the only REAL resolution.
As for all the ZOMG NEARLY NUDE KIDS!!! comments:
You all are pervs. Get help. Kids in swimsuits are NOT NEARLY NUDE. Please go to Scandanavia or some place where kids run nekkid through the sprinklers and at public pools and recalibrate your stooopidity.
to bad those kids often are
to bad those kids often are not wearing shirts, and sometimes the parents change them in public completely nude... Go there any day of the week you will see
An officer can ask someone
An officer can ask someone for ID, and you do need to provide it if he has a reasonable suspicion. A worried parent saying someone was acting erratically/suspicious would probably fall under that category (even if they really weren't and the parent was just jilted), but maybe Pete can chime in. He doesn't even need to after all, since a creep would most likely be spooked by a conversation with an officer, which would lead to reasonable suspicion in the way he's acting.
There's nothing wrong there, especially if something is suspicious.
A pat down, or telling someone not to photograph / videotape "just because" is unlawful or just plain not against the law. The first amendment is the first amendment, kids or no kids.
If you're neurotic about something that has as small a chance as that, and see it as a major creep out / problem in the city; time to stay inside and lock the doors. A farm house in the wood might be a better choice.
General suspicious-ness, and
General suspicious-ness, and "reasonable suspicion" are two totally different things. Sitting in public taking photographs would not trigger reasonable suspicion (since there is nothing illegal about it), and neither would a photographer's desire to not speak with the police (for the same reason). If the photographer in the above situation refused to speak to me or provide ID, I certainly wouldn't feel justified in using force to detain him, absent any additional information. I would, however, investigate further, like trying to see where he went next - hopefully he gets into his car!
On the other hand, if the police ever approach you and ask for ID, I urge you to cooperate fully. :-)
Well you only need an ID for certain things
Like driving or carrying a gun. Other times you would need to identify yoursef by name or address (like if you were littering, drinking in public, etc). Asking for an ID is just easier for the officer because you can copy the information right off the license and reduces the chance of error and basically saves time.
These calls are always tough and the photography doesn't really have anything to do with it. Sometimes people call the police because they think something "just doesn't feel right" about an adult with children. Most of the time in my experience it is just a misunderstanding. The police officer in this case is basically acting as a private citizen when they talk to them. The person legally free to go and doesn't have to talk to the police, and wouldn't have to give their name, ID or anything.
I mean legally, if a person can't articulate to the dispatcher what is criminally suspicious about a person, there isn't much the police can do except maybe get the registration off of a car or maybe run the person through warrants, criminal record, etc if the person agrees. At this point the officer is acting at the request of the citizen. Not an easy call either way.
In that case
Is it OK if I call 911 every time I see a black person in the park, because "something just doesn't feel right", and will they dispatch an officer to approach the black person and ask for ID and check warrants and criminal record?
That would be OK, since it's OK if I see a man in the park with a child, and I am an equal-opportunity prejudiced idiot, right?
Oh those calls are much more common.
The "suspucious" black person in the white neighborhood. Or anyone sitting in a car for a long period of time. They all fall into the same category.
Or even worse, a black
Or even worse, a black person, particularly a young black person, driving a high end car. The cops often assume that they stole it. God forbid you're the teenage son a black stock broker and take the family Lexus out for a ride.
You do what you gotta do.
You do what you gotta do. Just because something's legal, doesn't mean it's OK (as you clearly know).
And, as history has proven,
And, as history has proven, just because something is illegal doesn't mean its not right.
People would be amazed at how much they're routinely photographed and filmed here in Amerika. I really have no sympathy for parents who don't want their child photographed, or anyone who doesn't want to be photographed because they simply are completely ignorant of the reality of the world they're currently living in.
And don't give me the "security" argument. We've killed Osama bin Laden. We're winning against Al-Qaeda! Yes, there was actually an article about this in the papers last week, saints be praised!
What really needs to be done is to tweak (well, really revamp) the educational system in this country so that it includes a series of citizenship courses so that our people learn about the rights and responsibilities they have as citizens. And more importantly, we need to develop and teach courses on critical thinking and its applications so that people realize there is a difference between reality and fantasy shows like CSI: Whatever.
Benjamin Franklin is turning in his grave folks. At about 1000rpm.
Are they in Brookline?
Are they in Brookline?
But...
Don't you think that many people taking photographs of all that is happening around the pond might actually scare the pervs from acting on their impulses? Or even perhaps give authorities photographic evidence should one of the pervs make a move?
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Yep.
Bang on, Suldog. Bang on.
In NYC, you can be ticketed
In NYC, you can be ticketed for sitting on a bench in a playground if you don't have children with you.
[citation needed]
Link to reference for this statement, please?
Not Exactly True, But Partly True, Ron
I saw this in the park near my friend's house in East Village just last week, as well as the park at W103rd and Amsterdam and in Central Park as well. There is a fenced-in area with the play structure for the small kids with a sign that says "Adults allowed when accompanied by children". The reason: to make it clear that it is a place for kids to play, not people to loiter, sit, hang out, tag, etc. It also keeps the little ones from wandering off into traffic.
BUT, this does not go for the whole park! Lots of people were sitting around and otherwise using the rest of the park - skaters with their ramps took one of the basketball courts, b-ballers were using the other court, every bench was covered with people of all walks and ages.
This is NYC's way of delineating space for youngsters and benches for their attendants in a busy park used for alot of different things.
Boston Children's Museum
Requires that adults who don't have children with them sign in, show ID, and wear a special perv badge while inside.
NYC no adults in parks without kids rule: another cite
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/18/chess-playe...
thanks adam for posting my
thanks adam for posting my page :)
i think this discussion was very interesting... funny thing is that we were both there with a camera, so either it was rather random, and a random guard wanted to show off his "power", and he just happened to see me and not tim. or.... was it perhaps because tim is a guy? i wouldnt say he looks creepy, but maybe i am not objective... ;)
i dont think it was a parent who complained, we were there at most 5 minutes, just walking by the pond, snapping some pics as we were going by, me a little ahead of my bf...
hmppf, of course i meant who
hmppf, of course i meant who happened to see tim, and not me...