Arrested for taking "dirty" pictures?

[Baron Max]

Saw this on one of the local news station websites, thought it might be interesting to discuss ....or more likely to figure out?

Police Arrest Man For Improper Photography At Octoberfest

POSTED: 5:17 pm CDT October 11, 2005
UPDATED: 5:28 pm CDT October 11, 2005

SOUTHLAKE, Texas -- Thousands of people milled through the Southlake Town Square Sunday night during the community's Octoberfest celebration. One man, however, was arrested during festivities after police said he used a digital camera to take inappropriate photographs of women and children.

Louis Vogel, 60, of North Richland Hills, was arrested by Southlake Police after officers observed him for about an hour snapping pictures. Police said the photos were of a "sexual nature."

"He had a camera with him. It was obvious he was taking photographs," Southlake Police Lt. Ashleigh Douglas said. "But during their investigation, (investigators) determined the photographs were deemed inappropriate."

Photography in a public place is not illegal. Southlake police, however, said the nature of the pictures Vogel took violated state law.

"You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person," Douglas said.

Investigators said they found more than 12 photographs that depicted specific parts of women's and children's bodies on Vogel's camera.

Vogel could face up to two years in jail if convicted of violating state law. He has bonded out of jail, but has not responded to repeated attempts to contact him.


Copyright 2005 by nbc5i.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This was an outdoor, public festival! How could one take "inappropriate" photos? And of what?

I'm also curious about a law that says you must have the person's consent to take their photo ....but what about the surviellance cameras all over town and in stores and subways, etc? Has everyone given their consent?

Baron Max

 

[dr. cello]

the law says 'and', not 'or'. you don't need consent to take photographs, though it's considered polite.

 

[Neildo]

Watch out for those with foot fetishes taking pictures of people's feet for sexual gratification.

- N

 

[Mystech]

Aww come on now, people can get off on a lot of strange things, I'd wager that one would be hard pressed to take a picture of people that someone wouldn't get off on.

 

[James R]

Generally, if you want to publish photos of individuals you need their consent. Taking photos for your own private use is not generally illegal, but combined with the sexual element it obviously was in this case.

 

[Pete]

This was an outdoor, public festival! How could one take "inappropriate" photos? And of what?

Upskirt/downblouse would be my guess.
Close-ups of clothed body parts could also be considered inappropriate.

 

[sony]

How do magazines get away with the nude pictures they take of celebrities? I think the "kid" part screwed him up.

Pete: Is that you in your avatar? That kid has a bloated forehead.

 

[dr. cello]

celebrities authorize the nude pictures, is how. note again the phrasing:

you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, AND b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person

emphasis mine.

 

[Pete]

Pete: Is that you in your avatar? That kid has a bloated forehead.

It's not me... It's a photo I took on the sly (I have this forehead fetish... )

 

[Baron Max]

Taking photos for your own private use is not generally illegal, but combined with the sexual element it obviously was in this case.

But my concern is WHAT could he have taken pictures of that would have been "sexual" that people are permitted to do in an open, public place like a festival? I.e., if a young woman was wearing a tight, skimpy haltertop (that's permitted in public!), how could taking a close-up photo of her COVERED breasts be considered "sexual" ....yet NOT "sexual" in real life???

That's the part that I don't get ....what was he taking pictures of that would be considered "sexual" and against the law?

And by the way, I think someone's insistence and concern on that issue of "AND" in the original statement is probably false ....that was from an interview of a local policewoman and is NOT to be taken as an authoritative, knowledgeable legal opinion!

Baron Max

 

[john smith]

But my concern is WHAT....

YOU are concerned about something other than complete neo-Baron, neo-nazi world take over????, Baron you suprise me!

(that's permitted in public!)

You sound suprised!! You know, your really showing your age now, when you make comments such as this. Pull yourself together Max, otherwise you leave a chink in your armour, something which, I, and many other 'anti baron ideology' users, will exploit, take care

 

[Ophiolite]

Baron, you must stop these increasing number of posts in which you express views that coincide with those of left wing, bleeding heart liberal, tree hugging, commie rabble rousers such as myself. It is very disconcerting.

 

[(Q)]

But my concern is WHAT could he have taken pictures of that would have been "sexual" that people are permitted to do in an open, public place like a festival?

I had read in the paper that one guy walked around with a small camera on his shoe in an airport taking pictures up dresses.

 

[sharplee]

i don't think this was upskirt photography. they would have mentioned that in the article. since they did not explicitly tell us what type of pics were taken, i would assume they are close-ups of some part of the female anatomy.

the popo have clearly overstepped their boundaries. once again.

s

 

[Pete]

But my concern is WHAT could he have taken pictures of that would have been "sexual" that people are permitted to do in an open, public place like a festival? I.e., if a young woman was wearing a tight, skimpy haltertop (that's permitted in public!), how could taking a close-up photo of her COVERED breasts be considered "sexual" ....yet NOT "sexual" in real life???

Context and focus. If you walked up to a woman and stared at her covered breasts, do you think she'd consider that to be an unwelcome sexual advance?

 

[dr. cello]

And by the way, I think someone's insistence and concern on that issue of "AND" in the original statement is probably false ....that was from an interview of a local policewoman and is NOT to be taken as an authoritative, knowledgeable legal opinion!

we aim to please.

quirk of mine, i suppose. people don't understand boolean operators very well, and i correct them on their lack of knowledge. police officers generally have an understanding of the law, however, as the profession requires legal training. i don't think she accidentally threw in the operator 'and' rather than 'or'--believe me, there would be a lot of photographers in jail if it was an 'or'; not only would porn be entirely illegal (sexual), any sort of street photography, concert photography, newspaper photography--all illegal.

 

[Baron Max]

Context and focus. If you walked up to a woman and stared at her covered breasts, do you think she'd consider that to be an unwelcome sexual advance?

But could you be arrrested for just looking at a woman's COVERED breasts? I don't think so ....what would be the charge? (Unless you just blatantly followed her around staring like an idiot ....then perhaps a charge of, say, being a public nuisance or even "stalking"?)

But I just can't see how taking pictures of fully clothed people in a public festival can be considered anything sexually perverted?

Baron Max

 

[dr. cello]

the idea is taking pictures which are zoomed in on or close-ups of, for instance, a woman's breasts, etc. or as someone suggested, downshirt or upskirt images. the charge could probably be sexual harrassment for walking up to a woman and just staring at her breasts. i'm sure the case could be made.

 

[Roman]

Do any of you believe what you are going on about, or have you so solidly decided that anything that the Baron wishes to defend, you must attack?

 

[kenworth]

Do any of you believe what you are going on about, or have you so solidly decided that anything that the Baron wishes to defend, you must attack?

zip.patang.bang.got it,imagine if someone else would have started the thread.as long as i dont have to see the person wanking and they dont talk to me people can snap snap away.