TV News cameraman attacked by mall security guards at ValleyPlaza in Bakersfield,CA

Journalist-North wrote:

[....]

Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist


Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their lens
in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.

At brunch this morning, my attorney and I giggled about this situation,
and where the mall's liability is concerned, she says this situation has
hurt written all over it.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:56:43 -0500, Jer wrote:

Journalist-North wrote:

[....]

Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist


Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their lens
in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.

If your in "public" you dont have the right to privacy. I can say
that I had an expericance with someone at a local private college, she
didn't want me taking photos of her children. The police were called,
and I asked them if it was against the law to photograph someone in a
public (if you can call a private college a public place), and they
said that while they think its a bad idea and I shouldn't be doing it,
there was nothing in the law that lets them do anything about it.

GT40 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:56:43 -0500, Jer wrote:


Journalist-North wrote:

[....]


Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist


Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their lens
in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.


If your in "public" you dont have the right to privacy. I can say
that I had an expericance with someone at a local private college, she
didn't want me taking photos of her children. The police were called,
and I asked them if it was against the law to photograph someone in a
public (if you can call a private college a public place), and they
said that while they think its a bad idea and I shouldn't be doing it,
there was nothing in the law that lets them do anything about it.

Hi...

Which begs the question why anyone other than the
whacko jacko types would want to take pictures of
strange children.

Particularly when the kids Mother makes it clear that
she doesn't want you doing so.

I just don't understand.

Ken

GT40 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:56:43 -0500, Jer wrote:


Journalist-North wrote:

[....]


Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist


Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their lens
in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.


If your in "public" you dont have the right to privacy. I can say
that I had an expericance with someone at a local private college, she
didn't want me taking photos of her children. The police were called,
and I asked them if it was against the law to photograph someone in a
public (if you can call a private college a public place), and they
said that while they think its a bad idea and I shouldn't be doing it,
there was nothing in the law that lets them do anything about it.

Hi...

Which begs the question why anyone other than the
whacko jacko types would want to take pictures of
strange children.

Particularly when the kids Mother makes it clear that
she doesn't want you doing so.

I just don't understand.

Ken

"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:53Tgd.65919$nl.10557@pd7tw3no...


GT40 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:56:43 -0500, Jer wrote:


Journalist-North wrote:

[....]


Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist


Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their lens
in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.


If your in "public" you dont have the right to privacy. I can say
that I had an expericance with someone at a local private college, she
didn't want me taking photos of her children. The police were called,
and I asked them if it was against the law to photograph someone in a
public (if you can call a private college a public place), and they
said that while they think its a bad idea and I shouldn't be doing it,
there was nothing in the law that lets them do anything about it.

Hi...

Which begs the question why anyone other than the
whacko jacko types would want to take pictures of
strange children.

Particularly when the kids Mother makes it clear that
she doesn't want you doing so.

I just don't understand.

Perhaps because they recognize the presence of an innocent joy in children
at play.
Before you pounce and assume the worst, try to remember that there really
are decent people in the world who can look at children in perfectly good
and decent ways--who appreciate the better aspects of child-like nature
before it is spoiled by years of living in a sadly twisted world, where
anyone who enjoys watching the joy of childhood is suspected of being a
sicko.

Your post makes me sad.

Ken Weitzel wrote:



GT40 wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:56:43 -0500, Jer wrote:


Journalist-North wrote:

[....]


Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the
mall itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I
mean it literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist



Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their
lens in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.



If your in "public" you dont have the right to privacy. I can say
that I had an expericance with someone at a local private college, she
didn't want me taking photos of her children. The police were called,
and I asked them if it was against the law to photograph someone in a
public (if you can call a private college a public place), and they
said that while they think its a bad idea and I shouldn't be doing it,
there was nothing in the law that lets them do anything about it.


Hi...

Which begs the question why anyone other than the
whacko jacko types would want to take pictures of
strange children.

Particularly when the kids Mother makes it clear that
she doesn't want you doing so.

I just don't understand.

Ken



Well, let me help you... we're not taking pictures of her kids, we
*were* taking pictures of the ducks before her kids started chasing them
all over the damn park. But, of course, she won't accept this because
she's already found *her* truth. The poor street cop that she summoned
to deal with this menagerie was incapable of dealing with either issue,
so I took his picture and left them to go find the kids, who had used
the opportunity to chase the ducks even further into the lake.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"GT40" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:30:35 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:53Tgd.65919$nl.10557@pd7tw3no...


GT40 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:56:43 -0500, Jer wrote:


Journalist-North wrote:

[....]


Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the
mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist


Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their
lens
in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.


If your in "public" you dont have the right to privacy. I can say
that I had an expericance with someone at a local private college,
she
didn't want me taking photos of her children. The police were
called,
and I asked them if it was against the law to photograph someone in a
public (if you can call a private college a public place), and they
said that while they think its a bad idea and I shouldn't be doing
it,
there was nothing in the law that lets them do anything about it.

Hi...

Which begs the question why anyone other than the
whacko jacko types would want to take pictures of
strange children.

Particularly when the kids Mother makes it clear that
she doesn't want you doing so.

I just don't understand.

Perhaps because they recognize the presence of an innocent joy in
children
at play.
Before you pounce and assume the worst, try to remember that there really
are decent people in the world who can look at children in perfectly good
and decent ways--who appreciate the better aspects of child-like nature
before it is spoiled by years of living in a sadly twisted world, where
anyone who enjoys watching the joy of childhood is suspected of being a
sicko.

Becasue a child having thier face painted make a great photo for the
newspaper.

My comments were directed to the wider tendency these days to suspect
eneryone of something sinister when it comes to ANY interaction with
children.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:25:31 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"GT40" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:30:35 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:53Tgd.65919$nl.10557@pd7tw3no...


GT40 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:56:43 -0500, Jer wrote:


Journalist-North wrote:

[....]


Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the
mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist


Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their
lens
in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.


If your in "public" you dont have the right to privacy. I can say
that I had an expericance with someone at a local private college,
she
didn't want me taking photos of her children. The police were
called,
and I asked them if it was against the law to photograph someone in a
public (if you can call a private college a public place), and they
said that while they think its a bad idea and I shouldn't be doing
it,
there was nothing in the law that lets them do anything about it.

Hi...

Which begs the question why anyone other than the
whacko jacko types would want to take pictures of
strange children.

Particularly when the kids Mother makes it clear that
she doesn't want you doing so.

I just don't understand.

Perhaps because they recognize the presence of an innocent joy in
children
at play.
Before you pounce and assume the worst, try to remember that there really
are decent people in the world who can look at children in perfectly good
and decent ways--who appreciate the better aspects of child-like nature
before it is spoiled by years of living in a sadly twisted world, where
anyone who enjoys watching the joy of childhood is suspected of being a
sicko.

Becasue a child having thier face painted make a great photo for the
newspaper.

My comments were directed to the wider tendency these days to suspect
eneryone of something sinister when it comes to ANY interaction with
children.


I realozed that, but I missed my chance at the reply before yours

Mark M wrote:

"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:53Tgd.65919$nl.10557@pd7tw3no...


GT40 wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:56:43 -0500, Jer wrote:



Journalist-North wrote:

[....]



Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist


Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their lens
in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.


If your in "public" you dont have the right to privacy. I can say
that I had an expericance with someone at a local private college, she
didn't want me taking photos of her children. The police were called,
and I asked them if it was against the law to photograph someone in a
public (if you can call a private college a public place), and they
said that while they think its a bad idea and I shouldn't be doing it,
there was nothing in the law that lets them do anything about it.

Hi...

Which begs the question why anyone other than the
whacko jacko types would want to take pictures of
strange children.

Particularly when the kids Mother makes it clear that
she doesn't want you doing so.

I just don't understand.


Perhaps because they recognize the presence of an innocent joy in children
at play.
Before you pounce and assume the worst, try to remember that there really
are decent people in the world who can look at children in perfectly good
and decent ways--who appreciate the better aspects of child-like nature
before it is spoiled by years of living in a sadly twisted world, where
anyone who enjoys watching the joy of childhood is suspected of being a
sicko.

I'll second that... I have a great shot of a kid of about 5 or 6,
watching and being watched by a mother goose sitting on her nest
(http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1239988) - it's a
spur-of-the-moment shot nabbed seconds before the kid got up and left.
His mother was nearby and didn't seem to mind.

If the child's parent or guardian doesn't want you taking pictures, it's
probably better not to just out of courtesy, but it's sadder that
parents these days are, or have to be, paranoid of someone just taking
pictures of kids playing...

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:25:31 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"GT40" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 14:30:35 -0700, "Mark M"
wrote:


"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:53Tgd.65919$nl.10557@pd7tw3no...


GT40 wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:56:43 -0500, Jer wrote:


Journalist-North wrote:

[....]


Methinks those mall security guys and their employer, indeed the
mall
itself, are in deep, DEEP, s**t! This could cost them, and I mean it
literally, MILLIONS in damages.

Journalist


Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, photogs can aim their
lens
in any direction they want without fear of legal restraint.


If your in "public" you dont have the right to privacy. I can say
that I had an expericance with someone at a local private college,
she
didn't want me taking photos of her children. The police were
called,
and I asked them if it was against the law to photograph someone in a
public (if you can call a private college a public place), and they
said that while they think its a bad idea and I shouldn't be doing
it,
there was nothing in the law that lets them do anything about it.

Hi...

Which begs the question why anyone other than the
whacko jacko types would want to take pictures of
strange children.

Particularly when the kids Mother makes it clear that
she doesn't want you doing so.

I just don't understand.

Perhaps because they recognize the presence of an innocent joy in
children
at play.
Before you pounce and assume the worst, try to remember that there really
are decent people in the world who can look at children in perfectly good
and decent ways--who appreciate the better aspects of child-like nature
before it is spoiled by years of living in a sadly twisted world, where
anyone who enjoys watching the joy of childhood is suspected of being a
sicko.

Becasue a child having thier face painted make a great photo for the
newspaper.

My comments were directed to the wider tendency these days to suspect
eneryone of something sinister when it comes to ANY interaction with
children.



Yep. There was recently on TV a news report including a woman
who said she left teaching after many successful years when she was
informed she could no longer comfort injured children by hugging them.
She said if she had to keep her distance and tell the child everything
was alright that she simply would no longer live in the school
environment.