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

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> So, I got run off public property without cause
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 54, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/10/2011 11:53:26 PM · #1
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Well, I found out there was cause for my interruption.

//www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/mobile_county/body-found-in-ditch-near-the-rest-inn
ugggh
08/10/2011 11:40:54 PM · #2
I hate to get several grand in equipment stolen or worse, a model injured.
08/10/2011 11:18:09 PM · #3
Yah, you'd hate to get harassed by a bunch of homeless people. Or, they might agree to model, lol!
08/10/2011 11:15:10 PM · #4
I'm abandoning the location, I believe.
08/10/2011 11:13:24 PM · #5
well, that would do it!
08/10/2011 11:13:06 PM · #6
eeeks.
08/10/2011 11:01:14 PM · #7
Well, I found out there was cause for my interruption.

//www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/mobile_county/body-found-in-ditch-near-the-rest-inn
08/09/2011 09:22:53 PM · #8
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:


Hehe. You're stuck between a rock and a hard place. As soon as you claim you are on public land, then you become guilty of public indecency. I'd figure out which is the lesser crime...


Not really an issue considering the first part Alabama's Public Lewdness Laws depend on intent to be seen. BUT, cops showing up on a nude shoot isn't an ideal situation.

Section 13A-12-130
Public lewdness.
(a) A person commits the crime of public lewdness if:
(1) He exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or
(2) He does any lewd act in a public place which he knows is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or alarmed.
(b) Public lewdness is a Class C misdemeanor.


That doesn't say a damn thing about she... Only he... apparently only males are capable of committing this particular crime...
08/09/2011 09:18:37 PM · #9
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


Hehe. You're stuck between a rock and a hard place. As soon as you claim you are on public land, then you become guilty of public indecency. I'd figure out which is the lesser crime...


Not really an issue considering the first part Alabama's Public Lewdness Laws depend on intent to be seen. BUT, cops showing up on a nude shoot isn't an ideal situation.

Section 13A-12-130
Public lewdness.
(a) A person commits the crime of public lewdness if:
(1) He exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or
(2) He does any lewd act in a public place which he knows is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or alarmed.
(b) Public lewdness is a Class C misdemeanor.
08/09/2011 08:17:55 PM · #10
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by crowis:

As I said before, I would call the police and notify them of what you are doing. . considering the beauty of your work, you should offer them some prints. LOL.


Considering the clothing state of many of my shoots though, I'm not sure I want them aware of where I am.


Hehe. You're stuck between a rock and a hard place. As soon as you claim you are on public land, then you become guilty of public indecency. I'd figure out which is the lesser crime...
08/09/2011 08:14:13 PM · #11
Originally posted by crowis:

As I said before, I would call the police and notify them of what you are doing. . considering the beauty of your work, you should offer them some prints. LOL.


Considering the clothing state of many of my shoots though, I'm not sure I want them aware of where I am.
08/09/2011 06:49:16 PM · #12
As I said before, I would call the police and notify them of what you are doing. . considering the beauty of your work, you should offer them some prints. LOL.
08/09/2011 06:45:51 PM · #13
Man, we got us a bunch of lawyers on this site... :)

I think the advice that Leroy call the police and say I'd like to go back, let's talk is the best given.
08/09/2011 06:21:31 PM · #14
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spork99:



I should have been more succinct.

There is nothing in the original post that suggests that the creek in question is not located on privately owned land. It may be on public land, but that has NOT been demonstrated for a fact.

Ray


Reading the law, which is remarkably similar to the statute regarding water rights here in Michigan, the stream, from source to terminus would have to be entirely within the bounds of one person's property in order to be "private" property.


I am not in the least familiar with the laws in the USA, but surely there must exist situations where a waterway could be located entirely withing the boundaries of private property. Similarly, are properties controlled by the state deemed to be "Public"?

I truly do not have enough information to make a determination as to whether or not the location in question is for a fact falls under the private or public domain.

Ray [/quote]

The easement for the road under which the creek flows is public, therefore, even if the remainder of the land surrounding the stream from source to terminus is held by one owner, the entirety is not, therefore the stream, in its entirety is public property
08/09/2011 06:17:47 PM · #15
Originally posted by Spork99:



I should have been more succinct.

There is nothing in the original post that suggests that the creek in question is not located on privately owned land. It may be on public land, but that has NOT been demonstrated for a fact.

Ray


Reading the law, which is remarkably similar to the statute regarding water rights here in Michigan, the stream, from source to terminus would have to be entirely within the bounds of one person's property in order to be "private" property. [/quote]

I am not in the least familiar with the laws in the USA, but surely there must exist situations where a waterway could be located entirely withing the boundaries of private property. Similarly, are properties controlled by the state deemed to be "Public"?

I truly do not have enough information to make a determination as to whether or not the location in question is for a fact falls under the private or public domain.

Ray
08/09/2011 06:09:02 PM · #16
Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

State of Alabama state laws deems all “natural bodies of water such as rivers, creeks, brooks, lakes, bayous, bays, channels, canals or lagoons or [waters that] are dug, dredged or blasted canals and if these waters traverse, bound, flow upon or through or touch lands title to which is held by more than one person, firm, or corporation. Ala. Code § 9-11-80 (1996) to be public land.


Just a quick read here Leroy, but the bolded portion could have a serious impact on your argument.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, Ray. Let me offer a rough paraphrase the above-posted statute:

"All natural bodies of water (many examples given) AND all man-made canals are considered to be "public" if they are bordered by the property of more than one individual or entity."

I think that's pretty much what the law means: that a body of water can't be private unless it is entirely contained by within a single property.

So what's the serious impact you're referring to? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious...

R.


I should have been more succinct.

There is nothing in the original post that suggests that the creek in question is not located on privately owned land. It may be on public land, but that has NOT been demonstrated for a fact.

Ray


Reading the law, which is remarkably similar to the statute regarding water rights here in Michigan, the stream, from source to terminus would have to be entirely within the bounds of one person's property in order to be "private" property.
08/09/2011 05:33:01 PM · #17
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

State of Alabama state laws deems all “natural bodies of water such as rivers, creeks, brooks, lakes, bayous, bays, channels, canals or lagoons or [waters that] are dug, dredged or blasted canals and if these waters traverse, bound, flow upon or through or touch lands title to which is held by more than one person, firm, or corporation. Ala. Code § 9-11-80 (1996) to be public land.


Just a quick read here Leroy, but the bolded portion could have a serious impact on your argument.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, Ray. Let me offer a rough paraphrase the above-posted statute:

"All natural bodies of water (many examples given) AND all man-made canals are considered to be "public" if they are bordered by the property of more than one individual or entity."

I think that's pretty much what the law means: that a body of water can't be private unless it is entirely contained by within a single property.

So what's the serious impact you're referring to? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious...

R.


I should have been more succinct.

There is nothing in the original post that suggests that the creek in question is not located on privately owned land. It may be on public land, but that has NOT been demonstrated for a fact.

Ray

Message edited by author 2011-08-09 17:34:56.
08/09/2011 04:05:13 PM · #18
Originally posted by MattO:

Would just like to state the obvious. The waterway may be public, but did you have to trespass on private property to reach it?


Nope, not at all. Access is under a 4-lane bridge on US Hwy 90.
08/09/2011 10:18:18 AM · #19
The more I think about it...

To put this into context; visualise Leroy standing in a creek with a model in a (soon-to-be-removed) swimsuit.

So is the cop more worried about trespass laws or public decency laws? Did he know it was a photo shoot, or did he think it was a couple up to mischief? (Or both?)
08/09/2011 09:59:42 AM · #20
Leave it to Leroy to start one of the most inetersting and entertaining conversations I have read on here in a while......
08/09/2011 08:41:12 AM · #21
No wait, she eats great mouthfuls of sand topped with little ponies. Or maybe they meant uhm ice cream sundaes? And desserts? ;-)
08/09/2011 12:04:27 AM · #22
Originally posted by skewsme:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Who tattoos their arm with an ice cream sunday and My Little Ponies?

She loves deserts :) Her vice of choice.

aaiieeee... she eats little ponies!?!


::Squeak of Horror::
08/08/2011 11:58:45 PM · #23
I spit out my cola on my keyboard when I read what skewsme commented as it just hit my funny bone so hard (still laughing) ... I am glad there wasn't any sugar in it.

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Who tattoos their arm with an ice cream sunday and My Little Ponies?

She loves deserts :) Her vice of choice.

skewsme wrote
- aaiieeee... she eats little ponies!?!


I don't know how to make ppl's names a link - sorry

Message edited by author 2011-08-09 00:00:05.
08/08/2011 11:55:18 PM · #24
So... if land belongs to a husband and wife... then that land belongs to more than one person and anyone can boat/access on the water in that property?
08/08/2011 11:42:57 PM · #25
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Who tattoos their arm with an ice cream sunday and My Little Ponies?


I read the whole thread from the beginning and didn't open the photo so when I got to your post here I was completely thrown for a loop until hihosilvers post then it dawned on me and I opened the photo which explained your post but still didn't answer the question. Yeah I'd say it's a very interesting choice of tattoos.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 09:01:25 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 09:01:25 PM EDT.