man arrested for photographing santa and child

Because it's not like he was taking pictures of the scene and accidentally got a kid in it.


And why can't they just ask, "why are you taking pictures?" Adding the "of kids" immediately accuses him of something that is going to make him not respond well, especially as it is a cop asking.

Seriously? That excuses him from saying, "Oh was I taking pictures of kids. It's a wide shot and I wasn't really paying attention. I'm sorry. I can delete them all if I need to."

What made it okay to say, "Hey can I take your picture too!?"

Don't be stupid. The guy was taking pictures that had people's kids in them. People called the cops. So the cops asked why he was taking those kinds of pictures.
 
Lousy insult. :oldrazz:
You suck :o

They never accused him of being a perv! They asked why he was taking pictures. To which he DID NOT ANSWER.
They asked 'Why he was taking pictures of kids'. Implying he was a perv.

I don't think that the camera ever hit the ground. The photographer said that he raised his hand to prevent it from falling. He never said if it was successful or not.
:whatever:

He tried to stop it. He probably didn't it b/c the cop said "Don't touch me." I doubt the cops were going to stop it from falling.
 
Don't be stupid. The guy was taking pictures that had people's kids in them. People called the cops. So the cops asked why he was taking those kinds of pictures.
Don't be stupider. The cops could have handled the guy a lot better without immediately going to the worst case scenario.

They really should have asked a general question about pictures, if the guy said nothing about the kids or the incident with the parents.... maybe that's when you bring out the accusing question of taking pictures of kids. And you definitely don't grab the guy when he goes to take a picture... that was just ******ed. Even worse? The threat when the guy raised his hand to protect the camera.

What is this photographer guy? Black?
 
But whether he meant to or not he was taking pictures of the children. He should have just explained himself.
 

Touche Sir. :whatever:

They asked 'Why he was taking pictures of kids'. Implying he was a perv.

Just because you drew some conclusions based on something insignificant does not mean that it was there. I highly doubt the cop intended to call the guy a perv. If he really thought he was a perv... He would've said so.

:whatever:

He tried to stop it. He probably didn't it b/c the cop said "Don't touch me." I doubt the cops were going to stop it from falling.

So where did it actually fall? He reached up to prevent its fall but never mentioned anything else about it. You just assume that it fell?

Did you also assume that this guy wasn't a perv, that he totally had a good reason to do this, and that's it was okay for him to brush off the cop?
 
But whether he meant to or not he was taking pictures of the children. He should have just explained himself.

The cops didn't even give him a chance. They saw the camera, grabbed him, then the one cop had a ****-fit when he tried to keep the camera from falling.
 
They did give him a chance when they asked him why he was taking pictures of kids. And instead of explaining himself he pulled out his camera to take a picture of the cop like a jackass. Of course that isn't going to end well.
 
Touche Sir. :whatever:
Don't touch me :o


Just because you drew some conclusions based on something insignificant does not mean that it was there. I highly doubt the cop intended to call the guy a perv. If he really thought he was a perv... He would've said so.
Yeah, because when someone tells a cop that a guy is taking pictures of kids, no one assumes he's a perv :whatever:

So where did it actually fall? He reached up to prevent its fall but never mentioned anything else about it. You just assume that it fell?
The cop manhandled him and nearly dislocated his shoulder. I doubt he was giving a crap about the camera and let it fall.

Did you also assume that this guy wasn't a perv, that he totally had a good reason to do this, and that's it was okay for him to brush off the cop?
Yes, I did. I don't automatically assume people are perverts.

They did give him a chance when they asked him why he was taking pictures of kids. And instead of explaining himself he pulled out his camera to take a picture of the cop like a jackass. Of course that isn't going to end well.

And, as I said, the cop had a **** fit when he took the camera out and grabbed him. They could have told him to put the camera away and show them the pictures to see if the accusations were true.
 
Original post:

"I snapped off a picture (of the officers questioning him) and at the same time he grabbed my camera, and I reached up with my left hand to catch the camera from hitting the floor and he said don't you touch me," he continued."

Sounds to me like they tried confiscating the camera after he was non-compliant and made an ass-move on his part. "Uh yea I tried catching it so it didn't fall to the ground" sounds like a victimized excuse to try and take it back from the police which resulted in his arrest. I see this all the time.

I don't understand why your only paying attention to one side of the story here, be a little bit open minded and view both point of views. I agree the officer shouldn't have said "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" (for all we know that could also be the way the photographer took the question, perhaps it was asked in a different manner and he over-reacted). But the guy is in the wrong here, keep a cool head and comply with the questions.
 
And, as I said, the cop had a **** fit when he took the camera out and grabbed him. They could have told him to put the camera away and show them the pictures to see if the accusations were true.
He's lucky the cop didn't do worse to him when he reached into his pocket. He could have had a gun or a weapon. In some places that could actually get you shot or get a gun pointed in your face. I'm sure the cop was pretty scared.

Maybe the cop could have done better by not grabbing the camera, but this is ultimately the guy's fault.
 
Sounds to me like they tried confiscating the camera after he was non-compliant and made an ass-move on his part. "Uh yea I tried catching it so it didn't fall to the ground" sounds like a victimized excuse to try and take it back from the police which resulted in his arrest. I see this all the time.
I don't think that was the case.

I don't understand why your only paying attention to one side of the story here, be a little bit open minded and view both point of views. I agree the officer shouldn't have said "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" (for all we know that could also be the way the photographer took the question, perhaps it was asked in a different manner and he over-reacted). But the guy is in the wrong here, keep a cool head and comply with the questions.

Too bad the cops didn't and escalated the situation further than it needed to.

He's lucky the cop didn't do worse to him when he reached into his pocket. He could have had a gun or a weapon. In some places that could actually get you shot or get a gun pointed in your face. I'm sure the cop was pretty scared.

:facepalm:

Maybe the cop could have done better by not grabbing the camera, but this is ultimately the guy's fault.
There is no "maybe." The cop definitely could have handled the situation better.
 
Don't be stupider. The cops could have handled the guy a lot better without immediately going to the worst case scenario.

They really should have asked a general question about pictures, if the guy said nothing about the kids or the incident with the parents.... maybe that's when you bring out the accusing question of taking pictures of kids. And you definitely don't grab the guy when he goes to take a picture... that was just ******ed. Even worse? The threat when the guy raised his hand to protect the camera.

What is this photographer guy? Black?

He did ask a question, one that was totally ignored. The cop is trying to figure out why he's taking pictures so he asked. There's nothing accusatory or abusive about that. Then the guy refusing to answer the question decides to just start taking pictures of the cop.

**** this ****. I'm in a public place with a suspect who refuses to answer my questions and instead tries to take pictures of me? I'm going to have to detain him and take him some place where we can ask him questions that he will answer.

No, he was taking pictures of the malls' holiday set up. Kids just happened to be in the shot.

Wow... That's a reasonable explanation. Too bad he didn't try to tell the cop that when he was asked.

The cops didn't even give him a chance. They saw the camera, grabbed him, then the one cop had a ****-fit when he tried to keep the camera from falling.

Did you even read the article?

It's not like the cop went storm trooping in. They just walked up an asked a question. There was his chance to explain the situation by answering the cop's question.

Don't touch me :o

Yeah, because when someone tells a cop that a guy is taking pictures of kids, no one assumes he's a perv :whatever:

You know what would make them not assume he's a perv. If he could've answered the cop's questioned and explained the situation. It was obvious that he freaked someone out.... Why not explain himself?

The cop manhandled him and nearly dislocated his shoulder. I doubt he was giving a crap about the camera and let it fall.

No. This isn't true. What was said was the the photographer thought his shoulder was going to be dislocated. It's not actually easy to dislocate someone's shoulder especially if they're cooperating with you.

Yes, I did. I don't automatically assume people are perverts.

No one at all (with the possible exception of the offended parents) assumed this guy was a pervert. There was no indication that he was even being questioned for being a pervert. And even if the guy was a cardholding member of the pedophile club taking pictures of kids in public places isn't illegal so it wouldn't matter if he was a pervert.

The only people that brought up pervert are the people trying to defend him!

And, as I said, the cop had a **** fit when he took the camera out and grabbed him. They could have told him to put the camera away and show them the pictures to see if the accusations were true.

They asked the question to determine if the accusations were true. He didn't cooperate. Cooperation time over.
 
:facepalm:


There is no "maybe." The cop definitely could have handled the situation better.
Are you gonna pretend that there haven't been tragedies revolving around someone reaching into their pocket or any other hidden place at the wrong time? There's a reason why they want you to put your hands where they can see them. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be overreacting, but he is lucky that didn't happen when he was being so stupid.

Oh okay. So the cop could have handled it better but the idiot camera guy wasn't at fault at all, right? That totally makes sense, dude! :whatever:
 
He did ask a question, one that was totally ignored. The cop is trying to figure out why he's taking pictures so he asked. There's nothing accusatory or abusive about that. Then the guy refusing to answer the question decides to just start taking pictures of the cop.
He asked a question that is completely accusatory. "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" And apparently you can't understand that. Just like the parents immediately thinking the guy near their kids with a camera is a pedo... that question will make anyone automatically react as if someone just called them a pedo.

:doh:

**** this ****. I'm in a public place with a suspect who refuses to answer my questions and instead tries to take pictures of me? I'm going to have to detain him and take him some place where we can ask him questions that he will answer.
And there's my point. :whatever:

Maybe if the cops weren't so suspect happy.... they could have avoided letting a *****e have his moment by being mistreated by cops.
 
Too bad the cops didn't and escalated the situation further than it needed to.

No they didn't escalate the situation further than it needed to. They detained an uncooperative suspect to further investigate allegations made by several people.

That's exactly what they should've done.

The person who made an issue out of this was the suspect who straight up didn't answer the cop's question. Why didn't he answer?
 
He asked a question that is completely accusatory. "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" And apparently you can't understand that. Just like the parents immediately thinking the guy near their kids with a camera is a pedo... that question will make anyone automatically react as if someone just called them a pedo.

:doh:

So if the police accused you of being a pedophile you would respond by trying to take his picture?

You wouldn't say, "Hey I'm totally innocent!"

Really?

And there's my point. :whatever:

Maybe if the cops weren't so suspect happy.... they could have avoided letting a *****e have his moment by being mistreated by cops.

Suspect happy? Someone called in a suspicious person. He's immediately a suspect.

You do realize that people who are totally innocent are often times suspects. It's part of a cop's job to investigate suspects.
 
He did ask a question, one that was totally ignored. The cop is trying to figure out why he's taking pictures so he asked. There's nothing accusatory or abusive about that. Then the guy refusing to answer the question decides to just start taking pictures of the cop.
Asking "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" IS accusatory.

**** this ****. I'm in a public place with a suspect who refuses to answer my questions and instead tries to take pictures of me? I'm going to have to detain him and take him some place where we can ask him questions that he will answer.
They should have just said to put the camera away and answer the question or see the pictures. They didn't have to escalate it and make it physical.


Did you even read the article?

It's not like the cop went storm trooping in. They just walked up an asked a question. There was his chance to explain the situation by answering the cop's question.

Yeah, he shouldn't answered the question but there was no need for the cops to get physical with him.


You know what would make them not assume he's a perv. If he could've answered the cop's questioned and explained the situation. It was obvious that he freaked someone out.... Why not explain himself?
They could have said "People have reported you taking pictures. Can we see them?" or "What are you taking pictures of?" They didn't need to ask "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" and make him out to be a perv.


No one at all (with the possible exception of the offended parents) assumed this guy was a pervert. There was no indication that he was even being questioned for being a pervert. And even if the guy was a cardholding member of the pedophile club taking pictures of kids in public places isn't illegal so it wouldn't matter if he was a pervert.
The cops did.

The only people that brought up pervert are the people trying to defend him!
The cops were trying to defend him?


They asked the question to determine if the accusations were true. He didn't cooperate. Cooperation time over.
As I said, they could have just said to put the camera away, show them the pictures, and ask what he was doing.

Are you gonna pretend that there haven't been tragedies revolving around someone reaching into their pocket or any other hidden place at the wrong time? There's a reason why they want you to put your hands where they can see them. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be overreacting, but he is lucky that didn't happen when he was being so stupid.

Oh okay. So the cop could have handled it better but the idiot camera guy wasn't at fault at all, right? That totally makes sense, dude! :whatever:

No, I won't pretend that won't happen. But how paranoid do you have to be to think he's a perv with a gun? Stop watching Law & Order: SVU and CSI.
 
So if the police accused you of being a pedophile you would respond by trying to take his picture?

You wouldn't say, "Hey I'm totally innocent!"

Really?
And if someone was taking your picture, you'd respond by almost dislocating his shoulder?

You wouldn't raise your hand to block the camera and say, "Stop."

Really?

:whatever:


You do realize that people who are totally innocent are often times suspects.
You should be telling the prick cops that. :whatever:
 
No, I won't pretend that won't happen. But how paranoid do you have to be to think he's a perv with a gun? Stop watching Law & Order: SVU and CSI.
I think it would be pretty stupid for a police officer not to prepare for the worst. Even if it would seem implausible to an average person. It isn't exactly an average job.
 
Asking "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" IS accusatory.

No it's not.

They should have just said to put the camera away and answer the question or see the pictures. They didn't have to escalate it and make it physical.

Yeah, he shouldn't answered the question but there was no need for the cops to get physical with him.

Yeah it would've been way better for this photog and a cop to have a pissing match in the middle of the mall about the value of the question. The cop asked the question and gave the man a chance to cooperate. He refused.

They could have said "People have reported you taking pictures. Can we see them?" or "What are you taking pictures of?" They didn't need to ask "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" and make him out to be a perv.

The cops did.

The cops were trying to defend him?

Show me where anyone mentioned him being a pervertt or a pedophile.

As I said, they could have just said to put the camera away, show them the pictures, and ask what he was doing.

But they didn't. It's not a cops job to be polite and nice to you so that no one hurts you wittle feelings. It's to find out what the **** is going on.

Hey there's somone taking pictures of kids and parents are getting freaked.

"What the **** is going on?" is the best question not "Hey buddy... Hey I'm not trying to make you out to be a dick or anything... I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explaination but could you tell me why you're taking pictures. Not that you're taking pictures of kids specifically but..."

No, I won't pretend that won't happen. But how paranoid do you have to be to think he's a perv with a gun? Stop watching Law & Order: SVU and CSI.

How paranoid do you have to be? Do you think that cops have a lot of interactions with nice guys just taking pictures? No. He has to be safe. I've pulled bloody needles out of people's pockets and taken more guns and knives from seemingly innocent people than I care to comment on.

This guy is no different.
 
I can't believe this conversation is still going on....

Original post:

"I snapped off a picture (of the officers questioning him) and at the same time he grabbed my camera, and I reached up with my left hand to catch the camera from hitting the floor and he said don't you touch me," he continued."

Nowhere in this does it say the camera fell to the ground and/or broke. Nowhere in the article does he discuss damage to the camera and compensation for that damage. With all the stuff he was complaining about suing the department/mall for he NEVER mentions damage to his camera. Until that is proven otherwise you are assuming incorrectly. PROVE to me otherwise.

Don't be stupider. The cops could have handled the guy a lot better without immediately going to the worst case scenario.

They really should have asked a general question about pictures, if the guy said nothing about the kids or the incident with the parents.... maybe that's when you bring out the accusing question of taking pictures of kids. And you definitely don't grab the guy when he goes to take a picture... that was just ******ed. Even worse? The threat when the guy raised his hand to protect the camera.

Please make sure you get your facts straight. The Police raised his hand to block the camera and push it down out of his face. The suspect then brought his other hand up (assume it was in a fast motion) to "try to catch the camera." The officer told him not to touch him and the suspect continued to argue. At which point, they took him into custody....the entire time he was resisting. Boo Hoo. The guy made all the wrong moves.

The cops didn't even give him a chance. They saw the camera, grabbed him, then the one cop had a ****-fit when he tried to keep the camera from falling.

Bull****. The Police gave him a chance. His response was to shove a camera in their face and be an ass. They gave him a second chance when they told him not to put his hands on them. He continued to push.

Yeah, because when someone tells a cop that a guy is taking pictures of kids, no one assumes he's a perv :whatever:

The parents were concerned. It's the police officer's job to investigate. He didn't beat around the bush and asked the man a direct question. Regardless of how accusatory it was the man should have responded at least with words first. Instead he chose action and shoved a camera in the officer's face.

And, as I said, the cop had a **** fit when he took the camera out and grabbed him. They could have told him to put the camera away and show them the pictures to see if the accusations were true.

You do realize that Police Officers are regularly shot at, swung at, knifed, ran from, etc. from regular normal looking people? That's fact, not TV. That is why they often don't take chances and just get the person in a controlled situation when they are combative.

You are also assuming that the man slowly pulled the camera out and just held it up. How do you know he didn't bring it out of his pocket and shove it directly in the officer's face? Maybe he snapped off a few pictures with the flash, temporarily blinding the officers (as a flash at close range does to anyone). Would you still say that this guy was justified in such actions? Keep in mind you are hearing only this guys side of the story.

Asking "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" IS accusatory.

Boo Hoo. He's a grown man, not a child. Mistakes are made. Explaining himself is a far better option then throwing a tantrum.

They should have just said to put the camera away and answer the question or see the pictures. They didn't have to escalate it and make it physical.

OR....before it even got to that point he could have simply answered the question. Why is he excused for his behavior but the police are not?

Yeah, he shouldn't answered the question but there was no need for the cops to get physical with him.

So how long should the police have stood there and asked him over and over while this asshat snapped pictures in their face? At what point does it go over the top? How long should they wait for him to calm down? 5 minutes? 10 Minutes? 30 minutes? Since this guy apparently had his widdle feeling hurt what if he tried to just walk away from the cops? Do they have the authority to detain him at that point?

They could have said "People have reported you taking pictures. Can we see them?" or "What are you taking pictures of?" They didn't need to ask "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" and make him out to be a perv.

Again, stop for a minute and think. You are only getting what this guy said happened. Obviously you have a predetermined bias towards cops. I'm asking you to put that aside for a second and entertain the fact that perhaps this guy isn't giving all the facts. He feels wronged, knows he made a bad situation worse, and is now trying to twist it around for his benefit? How do you know that the police didn't actually ask what you suggest above and he was only paraphrasing what the cops asked him? It would be interesting to see what other witnesses might say about the situation.

It is common sense, if the police approach you and ask you a question the best course of action is to cooperate calmly. REGARDLESS of their tone or attitude. Nothing good will ever come from being a d**k back, ever. This is especially true if you are innocent.
 
You know, I've changed my mind, I think Gilpesh and Spidey-Bat are right, these cops were totally out of line. They should've just posed for this guys photo shot, then when he is satisfied with the pictures he's taken politely asked him what was going on. Or even better yet they should've arrested the parents for accusing the man of raping their children.
 
Ok, if you don't want press to take pictures of your kids on Santa's lap, don't take them to the effing mall! Plain and simple. If he was photographing the entire Xmas scene, then wtf is the problem?

"Asking "Why are you taking pictures of kids?" IS accusatory.
No it's not."

Bull****! If I went out, and took Xmas pics of some Santa + kids, that = me a pedophile/assaulter? What the hell is wrong with people nowadays? Really?

YOU took them to the mall, YOU sat them on Santa's lap, and YOU are perching them up there to have pictures taken of them. STOP COMPLAINING! Take a family pic, not on Santa's lap...because more than likely, it's the Santa that is going to be the pedo instead of the person taking pics of a wonderful Xmas.

YOU are the parents that took them to the mall or whatever to take the Santa pics, therefore, YOU are resposnible for the taking of the public pics of YOUR child in the first place.

Really? I mean.....really?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"