DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Legality question...
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 123, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/21/2007 05:53:24 PM · #76
Thanks, the example was murder.
 08/21/2007 05:54:58 PM · #77
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Thanks, the example was murder.


The initial question was vandalism.

~Terry
 08/21/2007 05:55:25 PM · #78
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by someoneelse:

Misprision of a felony for starters.


That crime does not exist in Canada, but it does seem to appear in US federal criminal law.


Wow. those wacky Americans. even the British threw that law out in the 60s

So from my 2 seconds of wikipedia legal knowledge, that's why the various cases of drug use, prostitution, vandalism etc above are legally okay, as they aren't felonies, so don't need to be reported.


Even if convicted, the fine is at most $500.

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony
cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as
soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in
civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII,
Sec. 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C. 1940 ed., Sec. 251 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321,
Sec. 146, 35 Stat. 1114).
Changes in phraseology only.

Amendments

1994--Pub. L. 103-322 substituted ``fined under this title'' for
``fined not more than $500''.

Message edited by author 2007-08-21 17:55:58.
 08/21/2007 06:02:09 PM · #79
...or 3 years of jail, or both.
 08/21/2007 06:37:03 PM · #80
Originally posted by frisca:
What would the crime be? Perhaps trespass, but that's it. Rather, I would say the Crown would try to make him a witness against the vandals!

Josh Wolf was imprisoned for refusing to turn over his video (under either obstruction of justice or contempt of court), not for anything to do with the purported criminal activity being investigated.
 08/21/2007 07:06:48 PM · #81
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by frisca:
What would the crime be? Perhaps trespass, but that's it. Rather, I would say the Crown would try to make him a witness against the vandals!

Josh Wolf was imprisoned for refusing to turn over his video (under either obstruction of justice or contempt of court), not for anything to do with the purported criminal activity being investigated.


Along with a hefty dose of blogger claiming to be a 'citizen' journalist
 08/21/2007 07:30:40 PM · #82
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Someone mocked me for posting this thread this morning, and I think it turned out to be a pretty good discussion about photographers rights. Man im awesome when Im not being a total dick.

As an aside, it is not a felony to be a dick, but there was a thread advising against it here on DPC for some time.

The only thing I would add to this thread is that I have never taken any photos during the commission of any of my felonies, so my ethics are sound.
 08/21/2007 07:50:53 PM · #83
Do you have conspiracy in the US? In the UK, the OP might be accused of conspiracy to commit a crime.

At the end of the day, it is a bad idea. If caught, the OP would very likely be arrested and could be charged with something - there are a multitude of minor crimes that may at one time or another be applicable (eg - holding a wirecutter could be "going equipped", or struggling with a policeman would be resisting arrest). You would have to be very well advised to avoid committing any crime when so closely connected to the illegality.

I would also say that individual experiences in previous court cases can be misleading: demonstrating that the crime has been committed, culpability and the absence of a defence are all reasons why one or other crime was prosecuted successfully or unsuccessfully in one fashion or another.
 08/21/2007 08:18:55 PM · #84
A few members of my family are in law enforcement and I'm about to graduate this May with a major in criminal law. I would ignore what everyone has said and document the hell out of crimes! Big deal if you get arrested, just do it. Only way you can get better with anything in life is through experience. You need to document your butt off and let us know if you make it out alright. Good thing is some prisons let you order food from costco or sams club. Come on, whats better then sitting in prison with a box full of muffins and bullcrapping with each other. Go out and make the DPC community proud!
 08/21/2007 08:19:45 PM · #85
I forget what it is called, but there for a while didn't people (teens, young 20s) organize street fights and videotape them? Weren't the videographers held as guilty as the participants?

(Going from memory, so it could be a bit off . . .)
 08/21/2007 08:23:19 PM · #86
I dont know if they were ever convicted for that, much as I dont know if the people who organized "BUM FIGHTS" were ever convicted, and even more along those lines,

Flashing your goods in public is a crime, yet I dont see anyone STATE going after Girls Gone Wild for encouraging girls to do it (plenty of civil cases though)
 08/21/2007 08:27:50 PM · #87
Originally posted by karmat:
I forget what it is called, but there for a while didn't people (teens, young 20s) organize street fights and videotape them? Weren't the videographers held as guilty as the participants?


It was called "happy slapping" (although not very happy for the person being attacked). It was also an example of how the perpetrators carried out the attack for the main purpose of being filmed while doing it.
 08/21/2007 08:29:30 PM · #88
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by karmat:
I forget what it is called, but there for a while didn't people (teens, young 20s) organize street fights and videotape them? Weren't the videographers held as guilty as the participants?


It was called "happy slapping" (although not very happy for the person being attacked). It was also an example of how the perpetrators carried out the attack for the main purpose of being filmed while doing it.


Not what Karmat is talking about. Karmat is referring to (as far I understand) a series of dvds that were similar to the BUMFIGHTS where kids were paid to beat the shit out of each other on DVD.

But also though - none of those are considered DOCUMENTARY style, they were paid participants.
 08/21/2007 08:30:25 PM · #89
well if it was me i would just take the piccy anyway...the only thing i would make sure is that you dont get there faces in the shot.
besides i would be more worried about them coshing me on the head and stealing my camera!
 08/21/2007 08:38:25 PM · #90
What I found interesting in an article I just read (from Hustler of all places) - the guys who did Bumfights, the Mayor of Las Vegas wanted to prosecute them because he thought what they were doing was wrong, and the only charge that applied was "FILIMING WIHTOUT A PERMIT"
 08/21/2007 08:58:04 PM · #91
My personal take on all this is that I would just avoid anything that is likely to draw attention from the police.

The trouble is, if you're caught by a bored security guard and questioned by the police, you'll all be dealt with the same way. It's not like you're going to say "I wasn't involved, I was only taking photos" and they're going to let you go.

Even if you're caught and they end up letting you go because there's nothing 'official' to charge you with, you can be guaranteed that these police will make your life a misery from then on.
 08/21/2007 09:10:09 PM · #92
actually, i think it was happy slapping. that term sounds more familiar than bumfighting.

wish i knew what i was talking about. :)
 08/21/2007 09:50:36 PM · #93
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RayEthier:

For those of us that are curious... would you feel the same way if someone was planning to make you the victim of a crime.

While it remains true that there may be no legal obligation in similar instances, surely there are ethical issues that need to be addressed.


Yes, there's a significant difference between a moral obligation and a legal requirement.


I do believe I made that point quite evident... my question I was particularly interested in was whether you would feel the same way if someone was planning to make you the victim of a crime.

Ray
 08/21/2007 09:52:10 PM · #94
Originally posted by jhonan:
My personal take on all this is that I would just avoid anything that is likely to draw attention from the police.

The trouble is, if you're caught by a bored security guard...


If thats the case, im walking right away from him, they have no legal right to hold you or force you to stay. In fact, there have been cases where security guards have been found guilty of wrongful imprisonment or kidnapping, or something wild like that, for not allowing someone to leave.
 08/21/2007 10:05:55 PM · #95
After reading this whole thread I cant believe you think that if caught you wouldnt be punished everybit as much as the vandels.

1. They are mates, & the police will find this out
2. You organised to go vandalise for the photos
3. A Blog does not make a journalist same as shoes dont make an athlete.

Any reasonable person looking at this situation would punish you as well, & yes use your photos to back up their claim

Btw your vandal buddys could put it on you that you asked them to do it for the photos
 08/21/2007 10:07:16 PM · #96
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
So in Canada you can listen to people plan a murder, tag along to photograph them doing it, and then go home and edit your pictures without fear of anything happening? I find that highly, highly unlikely.


What law requires you to report any such matters, in Canada or the US ?

Same thing as earlier, you may well have a moral obligation, but not a legal one.


Actually, unless things have chance dramatically over the years, persons involved in law enforcement would be guilty of nonfeasance if they failed to report such a finding and could be held accountable.

I would defer to frisca relative to what procedures would be prescribed by the statues in such an instance.

Ray
 08/21/2007 11:03:04 PM · #97
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Originally posted by jhonan:
My personal take on all this is that I would just avoid anything that is likely to draw attention from the police.

The trouble is, if you're caught by a bored security guard...


If thats the case, im walking right away from him, they have no legal right to hold you or force you to stay. In fact, there have been cases where security guards have been found guilty of wrongful imprisonment or kidnapping, or something wild like that, for not allowing someone to leave.

Railroad company security guards have a long and dishonorable history of brutality against trespassers, and they are likely to be armed. If you are on their property (a crime) they will probably attempt an arrest.

This doesn't even take into account that there may be TSA personnel around as well, since railroad yards are likely covered under the Patriot Act, which could void most of your other constitutional rights. Vandalism may be a misdemeanor, but if they can "suspect you of possible terrorism" they can take you away indefinitely.
 08/21/2007 11:05:09 PM · #98
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... but if they can "suspect you of possible terrorism" they can take you away indefinitely.


Particualy as your taking photos, a known habbit of terriorists :)
 08/22/2007 12:24:30 AM · #99
"in a time where everyone has a blog, websites are relied on as news as much as news papers and tv, independent media (zines) are at the top of their game (both online and print), how does the law determine who is a proper pj and who is not? "

Locally here in San Diego you must apply and register with the Police Department to receive a legite Press Card. To do even that you must submit published work and have the editor you work for vouch that you are in fact a journalist. I started off with a press pass I "Aquired" from the net. It enabled me to cross a couple of police lines but eventually I was turned away because it wasn't recognized by the LE
 08/22/2007 03:38:08 AM · #100
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Originally posted by jhonan:
My personal take on all this is that I would just avoid anything that is likely to draw attention from the police.

The trouble is, if you're caught by a bored security guard...


If thats the case, im walking right away from him, they have no legal right to hold you or force you to stay. In fact, there have been cases where security guards have been found guilty of wrongful imprisonment or kidnapping, or something wild like that, for not allowing someone to leave.

You have so much faith in the legal system. But anyway, it's up to you. Personally the thoughts of scrambling over fences, running away from security guards, sleepovers in police cells, and trying to find a good lawyer don't really appeal to me.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 01:03:40 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 01:03:40 PM EDT.