| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2007 09:39:49 PM · #1 |
I saw this and wanted to get your opinions on what is happening to this man.
//abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=5035198 |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:45:22 PM · #2 |
If what the article says is true, and he was never officially hired, paid, or a firefighter, then I'd say it's total BS. Although something about the whole situation seems fishy. Why would the cops be out to get him like that? Because if he is innocent, then it looks like a real witch hunt against him.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:47:58 PM · #3 |
It's pure assholery is what it is! Charges should have never been charged and better damn well be dropped, although just reading that brief article doesn't give us a full account of the events.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 21:48:40. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:48:53 PM · #4 |
Witch hunt is exactly the term that comes to mind. I'm lefr wondering if there's something we don't know... which of course there is. If the facts are as presented, they should know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of conviction; heck, I can't believe he'll ever even be tried.
Even if he were a volunteer firefighter, unless he were shooting while on duty, why should his situation be different? He's allowed to have a job outside volunteering, and that job just happens to be freelance photog. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:51:34 PM · #5 |
he's in trouble because he photographed a dead police chief ...
had it been any joe smith lying dead in the street, nobody would care, but it was a cop, so he's in deep crap!
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:00:29 PM · #6 |
To a Canadian and a cosmopolitan, like myself, it reads like a very foreign event, indeed - inconceivable, really. From my perspective, it appears that civil liberties and individual rights have been eroding at a steady pace in the US, not only after 9/11 under Bush but since the Reagan administration.
On the other hand, I know there is considerable opposition to this trend. This is why I doubt, it'll come to an indictment in this case. The arrest and charge alone are frightening signs, I, as a neighbour and frequent visitor, am very uncomfortable with. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:02:17 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Even if he were a volunteer firefighter, unless he were shooting while on duty, why should his situation be different? He's allowed to have a job outside volunteering, and that job just happens to be freelance photog. |
Unless he misused his FD credentials to claim that he was working for the FD in order to gain special access (i.e. cross police tape), when in fact he was working for himself as a freelancer.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:06:52 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
To a Canadian and a cosmopolitan, like myself, it reads like a very foreign event, indeed - inconceivable, really. From my perspective, it appears that civil liberties and individual rights have been eroding at a steady pace in the US, not only after 9/11 under Bush but since the Reagan administration.
On the other hand, I know there is considerable opposition to this trend. This is why I doubt, it'll come to an indictment in this case. The arrest and charge alone are frightening signs, I, as a neighbour and frequent visitor, am very uncomfortable with. |
I echo your sentiment with the exception of "...I doubt, it'll come to an indictment..." Don't forget that it was done in Texas. I'm surprised he isn't charged with a capital offense! |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:07:37 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Even if he were a volunteer firefighter, unless he were shooting while on duty, why should his situation be different? He's allowed to have a job outside volunteering, and that job just happens to be freelance photog. |
Unless he misused his FD credentials to claim that he was working for the FD in order to gain special access (i.e. cross police tape), when in fact he was working for himself as a freelancer. |
Originally posted by abcnews:
indictment accuses him of being a volunteer firefighter who represented he was taking pictures for the department while later selling them. |
Appears they're not accusing him of that, just accusing him of selling photos shot while in the employ of the FD.
So my logic was that even if he was actively employed by the FD, unless he was on-duty, the DA does not have a leg to stand on. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:23:05 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Even if he were a volunteer firefighter, unless he were shooting while on duty, why should his situation be different? He's allowed to have a job outside volunteering, and that job just happens to be freelance photog. |
Unless he misused his FD credentials to claim that he was working for the FD in order to gain special access (i.e. cross police tape), when in fact he was working for himself as a freelancer. |
Originally posted by abcnews:
indictment accuses him of being a volunteer firefighter who represented he was taking pictures for the department while later selling them. |
Appears they're not accusing him of that, just accusing him of selling photos shot while in the employ of the FD.
So my logic was that even if he was actively employed by the FD, unless he was on-duty, the DA does not have a leg to stand on. |
That's the nature of volunteer fire departments. There are usually a couple of full-time firefighters and lots of volunteers. It's not like the volunteers sit around the firehouse waiting for a call. They are often nowhere near the firehouse when a call comes and will, instead, arrive on scene in their personal vehicles and rendezvous with the truck and their gear, at which point, they would be considered on-duty. It's not at all far-fetched to see how he could have crossed the tape using his role as a FD volunteer to gain access.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:26:35 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
To a Canadian and a cosmopolitan, like myself, it reads like a very foreign event, indeed - inconceivable, really. From my perspective, it appears that civil liberties and individual rights have been eroding at a steady pace in the US, not only after 9/11 under Bush but since the Reagan administration.
On the other hand, I know there is considerable opposition to this trend. This is why I doubt, it'll come to an indictment in this case. The arrest and charge alone are frightening signs, I, as a neighbour and frequent visitor, am very uncomfortable with. |
Wow, you're getting a lot more out of this article than me. I thought it was about a grand jury deciding that the prosecution's case had merit and should move forward. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:32:32 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Even if he were a volunteer firefighter, unless he were shooting while on duty, why should his situation be different? He's allowed to have a job outside volunteering, and that job just happens to be freelance photog. |
Unless he misused his FD credentials to claim that he was working for the FD in order to gain special access (i.e. cross police tape), when in fact he was working for himself as a freelancer. |
Somehow I feel this is what he did. Although I'm not sure thats what the charges are about. I think the police and fire Dept. may feel he overstepped boundaries by using his credentials to get access that he normally as a freelancer wouldnt have gotten. I'm quite afraid while he may not get convicted that he likely cut out any chances of being walked past the yellow tape on any crime scene again.
MattO
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:34:29 PM · #13 |
| He worked as a PHOTOG for the FD, not as a firefighter. So unless the FD has exclusive rights to his work, he was doing his job. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:35:19 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm lefr wondering if there's something we don't know... which of course there is. |
Exactly... It's a 291 word article. There is no way that that is the full story.
Originally posted by yanko:
I thought it was about a grand jury deciding that the prosecution's case had merit and should move forward. |
That's exactly what it is. The grand jury's job is to determine if there is enough evidence to move forward to trial. No more, no less. It does NOT mean that there is enough evidence to convict. That is the prosecuters offices' job.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
From my perspective, it appears that civil liberties and individual rights have been eroding at a steady pace in the US, not only after 9/11 under Bush but since the Reagan administration. |
I do not see any erosion in civil liberties. I see a lot of stories here (at DPC) involving photographers doing things that may be construed by those at the scene as inappropriate. Not being at the scene, I don't understand why we (as members of the DPC community) are always ready to assume that the photog is right and the authorities in charge of protecting the public are violating anybodies liberties...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:42:21 PM · #15 |
From the article:
"Cavender says he wears a press ID whenever he's working."
"The city of Wharton says Cavender was never paid by or a member of the fire department." |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:45:29 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
...I do not see any erosion in civil liberties. I see a lot of stories here (at DPC) involving photographers doing things that may be construed by those at the scene as inappropriate. Not being at the scene, I don't understand why we (as members of the DPC community) are always ready to assume that the photog is right and the authorities in charge of protecting the public are violating anybodies liberties... |
I wasn't even thinking of DPC. I was comparing my personal experiences in the US over a period of four decades or so. Of course, I do read and watch the News, too. My perspective, however, is likely more removed than yours.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:46:24 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
I do not see any erosion in civil liberties. |
Little old ladies -- who happen to be peace activists -- on the government's secret "no-fly list" and intercepting citizens' phone calls/emails/letters without a warrant are a good start in that direction ... |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:51:29 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by yanko:
...Wow, you're getting a lot more out of this article than me. I thought it was about a grand jury deciding that the prosecution's case had merit and should move forward. |
Apparently, your interest is of a purely legal nature. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:53:53 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Little old ladies -- who happen to be peace activists -- on the government's secret "no-fly list" and intercepting citizens' phone calls/emails/letters without a warrant are a good start in that direction ... |
We are talking about photographers who sometimes push the boundaries such as at accident scenes. Not old people at airports...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:55:53 PM · #20 |
I was just send a joke in my e-mail about what you would do if you were a photographer in a city that was experiencing a flood on the order of Katrina, and Hillary Clinton Went floating by and you had the choice of trying to save her life or getting an amazing photograph...... would you use black and white or color film?
This is kind of like that, probably. You get in the "zone", and you don't necessarily think lucidly about the extents of right and wrong (or maybe just procedures) anymore. If this guy did pose as an FD official, he may or may not have done it while thinking about what he was really doing.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 22:56:48. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:03:04 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
If this guy did pose as an FD official, he may or may not have done it while thinking about what he was really doing. |
This is the point that I'm trying to get across. There's really no way that we can determine that after reading a 291 word article! I'm tired of seeing these threads where the photographer must be right because he is a photographer. Why can't we assume that the establishment is right once in a while?
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:06:29 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Little old ladies -- who happen to be peace activists -- on the government's secret "no-fly list" and intercepting citizens' phone calls/emails/letters without a warrant are a good start in that direction ... |
We are talking about photographers who sometimes push the boundaries such as at accident scenes. Not old people at airports... |
Please re-read the original statement to which you responded, and to which I then responded. It doesn't have to do (solely) with photography.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
To a Canadian and a cosmopolitan, like myself, it reads like a very foreign event, indeed - inconceivable, really. From my perspective, it appears that civil liberties and individual rights have been eroding at a steady pace in the US, not only after 9/11 under Bush but since the Reagan administration.
On the other hand, I know there is considerable opposition to this trend. This is why I doubt, it'll come to an indictment in this case. The arrest and charge alone are frightening signs, I, as a neighbour and frequent visitor, am very uncomfortable with. |
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:10:10 PM · #23 |
even though as someone who enjoys photography, i also felt that on rare occasions, there are photographers who think they could get away with anything, disregarding other's privacy and dignity. from time to time, it is healthy for the system to teach these thin-line walkers a lesson.
crayon |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:11:46 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
... I'm tired of seeing these threads where the photographer must be right because he is a photographer. Why can't we assume that the establishment is right once in a while? |
I don't worry much about the rights of the 'establishment'. I worry about individual people. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:25:46 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by yanko:
...Wow, you're getting a lot more out of this article than me. I thought it was about a grand jury deciding that the prosecution's case had merit and should move forward. |
Apparently, your interest is of a purely legal nature. |
And you know this how? |
|
