well, I did get a chuckle out of the playing with taser part. you're probably lucky you didn't wind up getting a close-up view of the ground at that point.
hahhahaa. Here I am, an active duty Marine for over 4 1/2 years...humble opinion my ass, I'm 22 years old and I'm telling you to grow up. Maybe that should turn on a bulb or two.
Twenty two years old (I have a daughter the same age) and you are telling *me* to grow up. Check back with me after you get a few years under your belt, grasshopper.
Twenty two years old (I have a daughter the same age) and you are telling *me* to grow up. Check back with me after you get a few years under your belt, grasshopper.
Apparently, he's done a lot more learning in his 22 years than you've done in your 40-something.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Twenty two years old (I have a daughter the same age) and you are telling *me* to grow up. Check back with me after you get a few years under your belt, grasshopper.
"Maturity has more to do with what types of experiences you've had and what you've learned from them and less to do with how many birthdays you've celebrated"
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Not directed at anyone in particular, but since this thread has become rather contentious I would remind everyone that Dgrin rules that personal insults are a violation of Dgrin rules and may result in disciplinary measures. Disagreements are fine, but please keep it civil.
That's what I heard today for a dog-leash store owner that was mad because I took a picture in his store.
The long and short of it? And this has nothing to do with being liberal, libertarian, conservative, or in need of a conservator:
In a public place - which is to say a place "owned" by the public, of which you are a part, you have an absolute right to photograph - unless there is a specific regulation barring photography for a particular reason. However...
A mall is private property.
A store is private property.
You are, in effect, a guest on those premises at the whim and with the limited permission of the owner or owners.
You have NO right to photograph in either store or mall without the permission of the owner or his/her agent. Yes, the camera is your property and no one has the right to take it - whether or not they "sell dog leashes." You, however, have NO right to photograph in the store of the person who "sells dog leashes."
So...You're actually quite lucky that you didn't get either arrested for trespassing, tassered, or both.
End of story.
P.S. When you or anyone else behaves as you say you behaved you really make things tougher for every other photographer out there - if you care.
Not directed at anyone in particular, but since this thread has become rather contentious I would remind everyone that Dgrin rules that personal insults are a violation of Dgrin rules and may result in disciplinary measures. Disagreements are fine, but please keep it civil.
Hey Richard- do us all a favor an put a lock on this thread... put it out of it's misery, because it's usefulness has passed.
Quoth Mister B: "I suspect that I'm not getting "public" support here because most camera owners here are of the hand-wringing, milquetoasty, non-assertive, meek and liberal persuasion who would have wet themselves in a similar situation. They would have obediently handed over thier Leica's to have thier film stripped out of thier camera"
Okay - that's it. I was willing to read everything (all the while cringing in total embarrassment for you, sir), right up to this statement.
The solution, I'm quite sure, is not to insult the people on this board (I assure you, I may be a grandmother, but there is nothing milque-toasty about me - one look at my high black Chuck Taylors will tell you that), who, according to what I've been reading over the past few months, have befriended you.
None of this is serving you, sorry to say. It's quite the hole you are digging for yourself.
So...You're actually quite lucky that you didn't get either arrested for trespassing, tassered, or both
OK, here's a finer point of the law that is unclear to me. Can you be arrested for trespass in a public accommodation like a mall if you haven't been ordered to leave first? I guess the question in the back of my mind is, even if you know photography is not allowed by the owners, are there grounds for arrest and conviction if you simply get caught?
OK, here's a finer point of the law that is unclear to me. Can you be arrested for trespass in a public accommodation like a mall if you haven't been ordered to leave first? I guess the question in the back of my mind is, even if you know photography is not allowed by the owners, are there grounds for arrest and conviction if you simply get caught?
I don't think trespass is the issue here. The legal issue is one of property rights. The property owner has the right to determine what activites occur on his/her property.
The fact that the owner operated a store gave Mr B the right to enter but right was lost once he behaved in manner contrary to the store owner's wishes. At that point Mr B lost the right to be on the owners property because the implied consent of the store owner had been withdrawn. At that point trespass becomes an issue but Mr B had left the premises at that point.
The mall security officers could have directed Mr B to leave the mall because he had violated their rules and if he had refused then he could have been arrested for trespass.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
What rank are you? Are you an NCO or on-the-way to becoming an officer?
My life experience makes me far more wise and worldly than you two-fold.
I was shooting my first SLR while you were an itch in your old mans shorts.
I have raised 2 children who are both honor students and great kids.
My service to this county goes well over 20 years, and included a college degree earned at night while working full time.
I have survived growing up a dirty little white boy in a totally black and hispanic housing project in the Bronx.
In addition, I dealt with an alcoholic father and perpetual poverty.
I've never been bitter and alway have been upbeat, despite many setbacks in my life.
What have you accomplished thus-far?
Level 5 on Guitar Hero doesn't count.
I have learned that listing a big series of facts in an attempt to humble another human being doesn't make me any less wrong. Thank you for your time, King of the Modern World.
The mall security officers could have directed Mr B to leave the mall because he had violated their rules and if he had refused then he could have been arrested for trespass.
I think we're saying the same thing here, namely, that there's no grounds for arrest unless you disregard an order to leave. Right?
I have learned that listing a big series of facts in an attempt to humble another human being doesn't make me any less wrong. Thank you for your time, King of the Modern World.
I think we're saying the same thing here, namely, that there's no grounds for arrest unless you disregard an order to leave. Right?
That's about it. Its more a question of common courtesy than common law.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I think we're saying the same thing here, namely, that there's no grounds for arrest unless you disregard an order to leave. Right?
The answer is it depends. Under normal circumstances, you're correct. However, you can also be asked not to return to the property. If you do return, you maybe subject to immediate arrest.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I think we're saying the same thing here, namely, that there's no grounds for arrest unless you disregard an order to leave. Right?
Correct. And I agreed to leave the shop owners establishment at which time he overstepped his bounds. I will no longer be civil when treated like a terrorist, scourge or a criminal.
From a legal standpoint, I believe we're dealing with trespass. I don't know exactly how New York works, but I'm sure it's similar to other states in that no crime has been committed unless either 1) the actor was prohibited from entering the premise (sign, prior notification, etc.), or 2) if after notice to leave was given by the owner/representative/agent failed to do so.
If in fact a sign was posted indicating no photography was allowed, to my knowledge there still is no crime which has been committed by taking a photograph. Yet as a private property location the mall is entitled to make it's own rules of which no photography was one. Therefore, their only recourse would be to ask him to leave as he was in fact in violation of their house rule. And Mister B did in fact leave on his own accord, or left when asked to do so therefore eliminating the potential for a Criminal Trespass charge.
IMO, Mister B is lucky in that the local Police didn't issue a Criminal Trespass Warning (or whatever NY calls it) barring him from entry to the entire mall for some specified future time period.
I poked around the NY criminal trespass statutes and I couldn't find a specific cite for Criminal Trespass 1st/2nd/3rd degree that specified public places such as a mall so I can't show that code.
At least that's my take based on what was presented.
From a legal standpoint, I believe we're dealing with trespass. I don't know exactly how New York works.
§ 140.05. Trespass.
A person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains
unlawfully in or upon premises.
Trespass is a violation.
This statute does not apply to my situation- there was no trespass involved. If I would have remained in the store after the kind gentleman asked me to leave- that's different. Same goes for the Mall. I made that clear with the Mall Security Manager, and responding units.
Spoke with 3 other cops (combined 30 years on the job) and they ALL didn't know photography was forbidden.. in fact- all have taken pictures of various things themselves. I also didn't know it was forbidden. That's the "knowingly" part of the statute.
I have booked in prisoners by the thousands on this charge.. along with disorderly conduct and obstruction charges. So I know the law.
Three levels of offenses.. Violation, Misdemeanor, and then Felony in NY.
Violation- up to 10 days in jail
Misdemeanor- up to 1 year in jail
Felony- over 1 year in a State Prison.
I became nasty ONLY when a complete stranger starts shouting and demanding my property while following me after I leave his establishment like I'm some kind of criminal or terrorist.
I suspect that I'm not getting "public" support here because most camera owners here are of the hand-wringing, milquetoasty, non-assertive, meek and liberal persuasion who would have wet themselves in a similar situation. They would have obediently handed over thier Leica's to have thier film stripped out of thier camera to satisfy a man who sells dog leashes. Of course- the proceeding is my humble opinion.. and maybe it would be a Canon and not a Leica- but you get my drift.
Boy am I glad I just stumbled onto this thread. Everything worth saying (or not) has already been said, so I don't have to piss-off any of my DGrin friends!
:lurk
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I suppose I should be thankful that of all the times I've shot at my local mall, nobody has ever said a thing to me about it.
I spoke to several friend who are still on the job.. and have 30 years of experience combined, NONE of them knew it was prohibited to take photos at the Mall. Even one cop I worked with that PATROLS the area the Mall is in didn't know you couldn't photograph in the mall.
Best comment:
"You shoot photo's to relax since semi-retiring, huh Bob!"
I know the laws may be a bit different here (Canadian) but I do have a little experience with trespass to private property laws here. Having had to enforce them in a couple different capacities.
Stores are private property, which means you need an invitation to enter there property.
Stores have an implied invitation to the general public for the purpose of shopping. Other possibilities are allowed as well, such as picking up shoppers/employees, deliveries, etc..
Which means if you enter their property with any other intent you are technically trespassing. Does this mean you will be charged with trespassing? Certainly not, even if you are technically trespassing. In my experience the only way to get a trespassing charge, and the only way I was allowed to arrest for it, was to have previously given the trespasser a written notice, which the police generally received a copy of as well.
My point here is that the OP was most likely trespassing in the very strictest letter of the law since I assume he was only in the store to take pictures and was unlikely buying a dog leash.
Comments
Twenty two years old (I have a daughter the same age) and you are telling *me* to grow up. Check back with me after you get a few years under your belt, grasshopper.
Apparently, he's done a lot more learning in his 22 years than you've done in your 40-something.
"Maturity has more to do with what types of experiences you've had and what you've learned from them and less to do with how many birthdays you've celebrated"
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
The long and short of it? And this has nothing to do with being liberal, libertarian, conservative, or in need of a conservator:
In a public place - which is to say a place "owned" by the public, of which you are a part, you have an absolute right to photograph - unless there is a specific regulation barring photography for a particular reason. However...
A mall is private property.
A store is private property.
You are, in effect, a guest on those premises at the whim and with the limited permission of the owner or owners.
You have NO right to photograph in either store or mall without the permission of the owner or his/her agent. Yes, the camera is your property and no one has the right to take it - whether or not they "sell dog leashes." You, however, have NO right to photograph in the store of the person who "sells dog leashes."
So...You're actually quite lucky that you didn't get either arrested for trespassing, tassered, or both.
End of story.
P.S. When you or anyone else behaves as you say you behaved you really make things tougher for every other photographer out there - if you care.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
So, you must have re-enlisted or extended.
What rank are you? Are you an NCO or on-the-way to becoming an officer?
My life experience makes me far more wise and worldly than you two-fold.
I was shooting my first SLR while you were an itch in your old mans shorts.
I have raised 2 children who are both honor students and great kids.
My service to this county goes well over 20 years, and included a college degree earned at night while working full time.
I have survived growing up a dirty little white boy in a totally black and hispanic housing project in the Bronx.
In addition, I dealt with an alcoholic father and perpetual poverty.
I've never been bitter and alway have been upbeat, despite many setbacks in my life.
What have you accomplished thus-far?
Level 5 on Guitar Hero doesn't count.
Damn right.
Hey Richard- do us all a favor an put a lock on this thread... put it out of it's misery, because it's usefulness has passed.
:argue
Personal attack.. name calling.. whaaaa whaaaa
Okay - that's it. I was willing to read everything (all the while cringing in total embarrassment for you, sir), right up to this statement.
The solution, I'm quite sure, is not to insult the people on this board (I assure you, I may be a grandmother, but there is nothing milque-toasty about me - one look at my high black Chuck Taylors will tell you that), who, according to what I've been reading over the past few months, have befriended you.
None of this is serving you, sorry to say. It's quite the hole you are digging for yourself.
Yikes.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
OK, here's a finer point of the law that is unclear to me. Can you be arrested for trespass in a public accommodation like a mall if you haven't been ordered to leave first? I guess the question in the back of my mind is, even if you know photography is not allowed by the owners, are there grounds for arrest and conviction if you simply get caught?
I don't think trespass is the issue here. The legal issue is one of property rights. The property owner has the right to determine what activites occur on his/her property.
The fact that the owner operated a store gave Mr B the right to enter but right was lost once he behaved in manner contrary to the store owner's wishes. At that point Mr B lost the right to be on the owners property because the implied consent of the store owner had been withdrawn. At that point trespass becomes an issue but Mr B had left the premises at that point.
The mall security officers could have directed Mr B to leave the mall because he had violated their rules and if he had refused then he could have been arrested for trespass.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I have learned that listing a big series of facts in an attempt to humble another human being doesn't make me any less wrong. Thank you for your time, King of the Modern World.
I think we're saying the same thing here, namely, that there's no grounds for arrest unless you disregard an order to leave. Right?
That's about it. Its more a question of common courtesy than common law.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
The answer is it depends. Under normal circumstances, you're correct. However, you can also be asked not to return to the property. If you do return, you maybe subject to immediate arrest.
Correct. And I agreed to leave the shop owners establishment at which time he overstepped his bounds. I will no longer be civil when treated like a terrorist, scourge or a criminal.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
In summary:
"Don't touch my Junk!"
If in fact a sign was posted indicating no photography was allowed, to my knowledge there still is no crime which has been committed by taking a photograph. Yet as a private property location the mall is entitled to make it's own rules of which no photography was one. Therefore, their only recourse would be to ask him to leave as he was in fact in violation of their house rule. And Mister B did in fact leave on his own accord, or left when asked to do so therefore eliminating the potential for a Criminal Trespass charge.
IMO, Mister B is lucky in that the local Police didn't issue a Criminal Trespass Warning (or whatever NY calls it) barring him from entry to the entire mall for some specified future time period.
I poked around the NY criminal trespass statutes and I couldn't find a specific cite for Criminal Trespass 1st/2nd/3rd degree that specified public places such as a mall so I can't show that code.
At least that's my take based on what was presented.
§ 140.05. Trespass.
A person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains
unlawfully in or upon premises.
Trespass is a violation.
This statute does not apply to my situation- there was no trespass involved. If I would have remained in the store after the kind gentleman asked me to leave- that's different. Same goes for the Mall. I made that clear with the Mall Security Manager, and responding units.
Spoke with 3 other cops (combined 30 years on the job) and they ALL didn't know photography was forbidden.. in fact- all have taken pictures of various things themselves. I also didn't know it was forbidden. That's the "knowingly" part of the statute.
I have booked in prisoners by the thousands on this charge.. along with disorderly conduct and obstruction charges. So I know the law.
Three levels of offenses.. Violation, Misdemeanor, and then Felony in NY.
Violation- up to 10 days in jail
Misdemeanor- up to 1 year in jail
Felony- over 1 year in a State Prison.
lol
Did you cut and paste this from flickr?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157625312921349/
Not much support there either.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
:lurk
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Actually- there was a lot of support and I also go private e-mails stating thier support.
I guess you would have handed over you F100, but he wasn't gettin' mine.
But then again.. you have different cards to play. I have to be direct and no BS.
I spoke to several friend who are still on the job.. and have 30 years of experience combined, NONE of them knew it was prohibited to take photos at the Mall. Even one cop I worked with that PATROLS the area the Mall is in didn't know you couldn't photograph in the mall.
Best comment:
"You shoot photo's to relax since semi-retiring, huh Bob!"
Stores are private property, which means you need an invitation to enter there property.
Stores have an implied invitation to the general public for the purpose of shopping. Other possibilities are allowed as well, such as picking up shoppers/employees, deliveries, etc..
Which means if you enter their property with any other intent you are technically trespassing. Does this mean you will be charged with trespassing? Certainly not, even if you are technically trespassing. In my experience the only way to get a trespassing charge, and the only way I was allowed to arrest for it, was to have previously given the trespasser a written notice, which the police generally received a copy of as well.
My point here is that the OP was most likely trespassing in the very strictest letter of the law since I assume he was only in the store to take pictures and was unlikely buying a dog leash.