| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/24/2005 12:13:57 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Yes you are. The parking lot or the walkway outside where the carts are stored is not a public street.
~Terry |
Umm, I said OFF THE PROPERTY, meaning not on their property, or possibly a place other than the property in question, possibly a public street. |
My bad... I thought you were referring to this specific case.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:17:00 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I'd advise you to contact your local police department and request Press Credentials, as a freelance photographer. I have Press Credentials I carry with me, not in view, but I do have them on me. They come in really handy at times, trust me. Mine got me out of a $500 ticket I would have gotten for being on the wrong side of the baracades at a Mardi Gras parade. ;-) |
Thanks for the advice, I'll look into that next week. Here's another of the photos I took at the same time:
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:29:43 AM · #78 |
Will you post the results of your trial from jail dsmeth? :)
No, as there would be no trial. Just some company trying to settle out court with me. Without them producing any proof of who they were, I have the right to assume they just wanted to steal my camera. In which case I have the right to defend myself and my property.
You gonna take the same approach when your cellmate decides you are gonna be his new girlfriend?
First of all refer to the above response. Secondly, I'm no punk bitch. Besides having photography as a hobby, I've studied martial arts since I was 8. So as far as being some ones girlfriend, doubt it.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:30:02 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
Will you post the results of your trial from jail dsmeth? :)
No, as there would be no trial. Just some company trying to settle out court with me. Without them producing any proof of who they were, I have the right to assume they just wanted to steal my camera. In which case I have the right to defend myself and my property.
You gonna take the same approach when your cellmate decides you are gonna be his new girlfriend?
First of all refer to the above response. Secondly, I'm no punk bitch. Besides having photography as a hobby, I've studied martial arts since I was 8. So as far as being some ones girlfriend, doubt it. |
To begin with, your argument is flawed in that in your initial you made no specific reference to this case but rather commented:
As far as somebody grabbing me and yelling in my face, I pitty the poor bastard because his day will go bad for him real quick like, weather I'm in the wrong or not. I'll ask ya one time to get your hands off then the s..t is gonna hit the fan.
You never expanded as to whom specifically you were referring to, whether they were persons in authority or not, and then added to the mix by stating that it would not seem to matter if you were in the wrong or not.
That being said, it could well transpire that you might find yourself confined to a jail cell. With regards to your studies of the martial arts since you were eight years of age, I can assure you that some individuals have met their match in some of the finer penal institutions.
I personally much prefer a process where cooler heads prevail, and we can sit and analyse what transpired here and provide some guidance to this young person in order to ensure that such an unpleasant situation does not occur again.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:37:45 AM · #80 |
Now I'm no legal expert either, but it seems pretty obvious that if I want to take pictures on property, when there are people there, ASK FIRST.
Even if you walk inside and ask one of the cashiers. Offer to bring the camera back in and let them go over any pictures if they see any that are inappropriate.
I took some pictures of wood textures on the ceiling of a warehouse here in TaiZhong and asked a guy first. He said it was ok, but then the boss came over and said no. I said that was no problem because it was digital and my intent was just for my own use. I let him look at the pictures after I was done and he said they were fine. It took less than 2 minutes more than just walking in and snapping pictures. They got a little nervous after I took pictures for 5 minutes, and asked me to stop.
I'm not making money from it, just shooting for the experience, so it was no big deal for me and no big deal for him.
If you ask permission first, you avoid all kinds of problems. Don't push the issue either. There is usually a way around it. Can't think of too many pictures that I would want to take that are more important than getting punched in the face (or worse, lens) that fall strictly into the amateur category.
Now on another note, I did manage a department in a health grocery store and I can verify that margins are pretty slim in grocery stores. This doesn't mean that they don't make mean cash though. They make up for low margins by selling high volume. Still, it's frightening the amount of money they lose from "shrinkage".
We were asked to keep a lookout for shoplifters. We were instructed specifically that if we saw someone take something, we had to keep an eye on that person right to the door. We then had to make a phone call calling for "Customer service call 51", at which point any on-site supervisor and/or store detective (who usually didn't need to be alerted at that point) as well as any "heavies" who happened to be on-shift at the time would head up to the door. This was important because the person had to both take something by concealing it on their person, AND make an attempt to leave without paying for it. At this point, we were allowed to block exit and detain. Physical attempts to restrain the person were discouraged. No-hands methods of physically blocking the exit were preferred.
I've only helped an in-store take-down twice, and once, just after I finished a shift, I helped follow, observe, and assisted the arrest of one loser who ditched his stuff before exiting (preventing subsequent arrest at that store) and hurt a 6 yr old kid on the way out. We cuffed him in a nearby mall after he picked something off a display and asked for a return with no receipt... hah.
Having said that, this policy was only for actual thieves. Price checkers were reported to the manager who would politely ask them to leave.
I know that several stores in the neighborhood had policies where price-checkers were asked to check in at the service counter and they were actually assisted or given an identification device for use in-store.
As a manager, I didn't care who knew my prices. I tried to maintain a very respectful relationship with my biggest competition and he spoke highly of me in his store and I spoke highly of him in my store. I knew precisely what items he was selling and what they were selling for, as well as where he was buying them. I could therefore deduce his cost and his profit margins, as well as - to a certain extent - how much of said product he was moving. Once that was ascertained, we were fine.
I can't see how any of that would be affected by someone with a camera, but we still didn't allow much of that. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:47:21 AM · #81 |
TELL THE PRESS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED SHOW THEM THE GOOD ONE TWO!!!!
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:58:31 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And about the fiftieth time someone has offered the same legal opinion without anything aside from "that just don't seem right" to back it up. |
The first thing I pulled off the net was a statement by the Nebraska AG, sounds similar to California law, though of course all his citations are Neb. law.
Despite the wording of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-401, Wilen, Bishop, and Nebraska statutes indicate that security guards do not have the same powers as peace officers or law enforcement officers, namely, the power of arrest. There are only two instances in which security guards currently have the power to arrest under Nebraska law. Security guards, like all other private citizens, have the power to arrest as given by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-402, where a felony or a petit larceny has been committed in their presence. Security guards who are employees of merchants also have the power to arrest and detain an individual suspected of shoplifting under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-402.01.
There is oodles of case law regarding the limits and lack of limits of citizen̢۪s arrests. Agents acting on behalf of the owners of a property, or the owners themselves are simply citizens unless they are deputized, their rights of detention are very limited. This is not some imponderable mystery that only the members of the inner temple have the right to understand, they are your rights, get to know them! You are right in saying that there are unsettled areas in the law in this area, but the broad strokes are pretty well laid down. A person can not detain another person against their will unless they invoke a citizen's arrest, and call the police ASAP. (Which they did in this case) But the reason they held him was a violation of a store policy, which is reason to ban him from the store if they like, because it is private property and they have the right to decide what conduct they will allow on their property. However they can not arrest a person unless that person has broken a law. As a private person you can̢۪t decide to tie someone up in the basement for a month, nor can you hold them for a single minute, unless it is under the cover of an arrest.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm just sick of people pontificating about stuff they have no idea about . |
I know this has become a bit heated, and I do love a good argument, but the intent was to give the kid some advice about what he ought to have done. That is what we were all trying to do, I think. It is a logical leap to rule out any argument that doesn̢۪t come from a licensed professional; do you look for the same degree of certainty in photographic advice as legal advice. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the bar, nor a professional photographer. I am sorry that you are sick of people disagreeing with your legal conclusions (of course now that I think of it I̢۪m not sure you made any, aside from implying that no one knew what they were talking about here) I do agree that there isn't a law suit here, but the guys from the store overstepped the limits of what one person is allowed to do to another under the law. (IMHO).There, done pontificating.
Message edited by author 2005-12-24 02:00:56.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 05:23:26 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
A person can not detain another person against their will unless they invoke a citizen's arrest, and call the police ASAP. (Which they did in this case) But the reason they held him was a violation of a store policy, which is reason to ban him from the store if they like, because it is private property and they have the right to decide what conduct they will allow on their property. However they can not arrest a person unless that person has broken a law. |
Is violating someone's property rights not a violation of law?
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 07:54:56 AM · #84 |
I'm not looking to hijack here but I found something that struck me as a parallel thought in how the govt chooses to evaluate public vs private land in this CNN article.
//www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/23/nuke.monitoring/index.html
The govt's position (and I don't care to agree or disagree but just to note that they take a stance based on . . .) is that they are performing any activities they are performing from a public street so they do not need to request a search warrant. I'm sure there are about 300 million views (roughly the number of Americans) of how this is either morally correct or repugnant but at least the government acknowledges that an argument can be made based on the location of the person doing the recording.
Of course, I don't know if anyone in the government has a 1-series body nor do I know with what they load it if they are in the mood to swing it at someone (hehe - M.A., I'm still laughing about that one)
Here's a flaky question:
If the law upholds for whatever reason that the property owner can require that a photographer leave (whether the request is civil or not) and the law upholds the copyright of any image created by the photographer, wonder if the law would fall on the side of the photographer being required to erase any photos taken before he/she was asked to leave or not.
Oh well, I don't really care but I'm just doing something 'til the little darling wakes up and watching this thread has been a somewhat humorous if not vaguely profitable option last night & this morning. Its off to family's homes to eat too much, open a few presents, read the Christmas story and build some poignant and life warping memories for all involved.
Madman, I'm all for ya, dude. You keep takin those freaky, weird shots of shopping carts & whatnot and before you know it they'll be freaky, weird shots that people stop to look at and say "Wow, I never noticed that before. How cool" and then they'll pay you big bucks for a 20x30" mountable print of some mundane but overlooked thing that you open their eyes to. I like "found item" artists.
Message edited by author 2005-12-24 07:55:41.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 08:51:16 AM · #85 |
I guess I'm lucky. I live in a small town (around 3,000) and everyone knows I carry my camera with me everywhere. It also helps that I'm the default photogapher for the Fire Department and Health Officer).
It's actually kind of funny when I DON'T have my camera with me, and everyone asks where it is. I also don't have a dSLR either (even though if anyone wants to give me one I won't complain).
I don't really have any words of wisdom for this specific insance though. Sorry. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 09:12:43 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I agree they have the right to tell him to leave, but to chase him, grab him and hold him in custody??? I believe a good lawyer would sue for unlawful detention. |
He can sue for anything, but I doubt that detaining him long enough to determine his intent was illegal. Taking photographs in violation of the store's posted policy certainly was. Would store security be liable for detaining someone for shoplifting, even if it was later determined that they were not, in fact, shoplifting?
Yes, yes, yes. I am a cashier and if we see someone shoplifting we best be sure they did it. Nor are we allowed to "detain" them. We ask them to stay while we call the cops and if they don't we get their license plate number, but we have to be sure because they could sue us for false arrest, embarresement, slander, etc...
Ever wonder why you can't get help in those big box stores. That's cause everyone is tag teaming in following around shoplifters to make sure they don't put down whatever they pocketed before they leave the stores.
The store has to protect its interests and if outlawing photography on store premises is a tool they choose to implement, they have the right to enforce it. |
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 11:13:26 AM · #87 |
This is unfortunately becoming more and more about shoplifting and I'm sorry to contribute to this.
I will say that it is a well-known tactic of shoplifters to pick up, conceal, then replace items here and there, hoping that the detective will have his identity revealed and also to confuse in the event of being caught. And let's not forget that if they ditch everything and still get detained, they can sue for wrongful detention.
Hah. Good thing most shoplifters stupid. These methods can be used very easily to tag-team shoplift with virtual impunity and cash in on lawsuits bigtime with the help of scum lawyers.
I guess what it boils down to is with so many people trying to take advantage of these big stores, it's little wonder that the manager is a little edgy. I would say that it is quite possible that if MadMan here had merely talked with those guys instead of acting all guilty and trying to walk away, they wouldn't have laid a finger on him and he could have explained his peice and they wouldn't have cared. When you are young, you ride this roller coaster where you think you are the top of the world, and everyone is for you, then you sink to a place where everyone is against you. It really isn't like that most of the time. Talking is a simple tool that works great.
Hindsight is 20-20, but we can use that to look to next time with greater clarity. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 11:39:55 AM · #88 |
For all the people that think they have no right to detain him or use force...
There was a case here in Arizona a few years back where a 68 year old guy was busted for shoplifting. They took him to the back room and found all sorts of stuff in his coat. He tried to escape and put up a fight. THey put him in handcuffs. He continued to put up a fight, in the fight he banged his head on the door jam and died. No charges filed against the store or the guards.
Found a news link:
//www.azcentral.com/specials/special21/articles/0306frys06.html
Message edited by author 2005-12-24 11:44:59. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 11:45:47 AM · #89 |
Let me get this straight?
1. They have a sign that says not to do something?
2. You read the sign.
3. You got hassled for doing what the sign said not to do.
Hmmm. I can see where that might be confusing.
NOT!!!
Irregardless if what they did was legal or not.
Its just not right to go against the rules set by the
property owners. If you cant respect simple rules in life
your in for a rude awakening when you grow up. This of course
is just my opinion.
MattO
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:09:07 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Let me get this straight?
1. They have a sign that says not to do something?
2. You read the sign.
3. You got hassled for doing what the sign said not to do.
Hmmm. I can see where that might be confusing.
NOT!!!
Irregardless if what they did was legal or not.
Its just not right to go against the rules set by the
property owners. If you cant respect simple rules in life
your in for a rude awakening when you grow up. This of course
is just my opinion.
MattO |
According to Madman: "I didn't see the sign on the door until they showed me afterward" — so he was just doing what he'd always done before. NOW he knows better, THEN he didn't.
R. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:27:15 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
scum lawyers.
|
One of these days you might need one of these "scum" lawyers to protect your own rights. Be sure to appoligize to him first. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:34:23 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by MattO:
Let me get this straight?
1. They have a sign that says not to do something?
2. You read the sign.
3. You got hassled for doing what the sign said not to do.
Hmmm. I can see where that might be confusing.
NOT!!!
Irregardless if what they did was legal or not.
Its just not right to go against the rules set by the
property owners. If you cant respect simple rules in life
your in for a rude awakening when you grow up. This of course
is just my opinion.
MattO |
According to Madman: "I didn't see the sign on the door until they showed me afterward" — so he was just doing what he'd always done before. NOW he knows better, THEN he didn't.
R. |
I reread his post again, I didnt see anything to that effect. So I read through the entire thread, later in the thread he does say that, so maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt. However had that been the case that he didnt see the sign until it was shown to him, perhaps the story would read different. IMHO you dont run unless you know you are doing something wrong. He had to have at least thought he was doing something wrong to be running. Irregardless I think its a lesson learned.
MattO
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:42:34 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by MattO:
If you cant respect simple rules in life
your in for a rude awakening when you grow up. |
Yes. Good advice for an artist. Always follow the rules. That is what's wrong with the world today. To many artists rebelling against the rules. Damn non-conformist.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:44:17 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by MattO:
IMHO you dont run unless you know you are doing something wrong. He had to have at least thought he was doing something wrong to be running. Irregardless I think its a lesson learned.
MattO |
An unmarked pickup pulls up to you and the driver approaches you. Personally, I'm going to try to make a quick exit myself, especially when I have several hundreds of dollars worth of equipment on my person.
From what I read, he ran because he was scared not because he was doing something wrong, but because he had no idea what the guy's intentions were. I personally don't blame him for having an instinct to flee. It's human nature (fight or flight).
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 12:59:25 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by MattO:
If you cant respect simple rules in life
your in for a rude awakening when you grow up. |
Yes. Good advice for an artist. Always follow the rules. That is what's wrong with the world today. To many artists rebelling against the rules. Damn non-conformist. |
So your saying that your only an artist if your rebel against the rules?
Geeze I guess I dont understand that since I am not one.
MattO
Edit to add sarcasm
Message edited by author 2005-12-24 13:06:35.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 01:05:54 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by MattO:
IMHO you dont run unless you know you are doing something wrong. He had to have at least thought he was doing something wrong to be running. Irregardless I think its a lesson learned.
MattO |
An unmarked pickup pulls up to you and the driver approaches you. Personally, I'm going to try to make a quick exit myself, especially when I have several hundreds of dollars worth of equipment on my person.
From what I read, he ran because he was scared not because he was doing something wrong, but because he had no idea what the guy's intentions were. I personally don't blame him for having an instinct to flee. It's human nature (fight or flight). |
The guys came out of the truck with the store manager as he stated. I'm not sure what I would do in his position. However if they were with the manager, and he had no reason to believe they werent since they were in the same truck with him. Then I would assume they were there to "assist" me off the premises, since I broke the rules.
MattO
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 02:10:07 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Is violating someone's property rights not a violation of law?
~Terry |
Depends on the nature of the violation. As a home owner you can determine what happens in your home, and have the right to be secure in your property. If you wake up and find and armed intruder in your home, you can shoot him dead, because he is violating the law and is a threat to you and your property.
If you hang a sign on your door that reads "no solicitors" and the fuller brush salesman rings anyway, though he has infringed in your rights as a property owner, you cant blow him away. You can not detain him and call the cops. All you can do is make him get off your property.
Both cases are violations of your property rights, but your reaction to that violation is determined by the degree of threat and by what, if any laws were broken.
If some kid wanders into a restraunt shoeless and shirtless, past the sign that says "no shoe, no shirt, no service" the wait staff can make him leave, they can not detain him for arrest, because he has violated policy, (and probably the health code) but not the law. |
|
|
|
12/24/2005 02:33:55 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by MattO:
If you cant respect simple rules in life
your in for a rude awakening when you grow up. |
Yes. Good advice for an artist. Always follow the rules. That is what's wrong with the world today. To many artists rebelling against the rules. Damn non-conformist. |
So your saying that your only an artist if your rebel against the rules?
|
That is exactly what I am saying. Conformist art is just copying.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 02:36:43 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
That is exactly what I am saying. Conformist art is just copying. |
There is nothing new under the sun. Guess we're all posers and hacks at heart then.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2005 02:41:12 PM · #100 |
One thing that I noticed that nobody else has seemed to pick up on yet...
He was in the parking lot of the store, taking pictures of the carts, no?
The sign stating no photography was on the door of the store, no?
The merchant's right to prohibit photography extends to the parking lot? And what if it's a common parking lot, say in a strip mall? Wouldn't the property owner/management company be the only ones who could prohibit photography in the parking lot?
Sorry, you can resume quibbling over who is a lawyer and who isn't now. I'm only a former Law Enforcement Officer who also worked store security before being sworn.
|
|
