One of our photogs threatened with a pistol


PDA






Justin
September 26, 2004, 01:28 AM
For those of you who don't know, I work for an ABC affiliate. Yesterday some local yokel was arrested for setting off an artillery simulator in his backyard. Neighbors reported it as a big explosion, etc. The guy was arrested by the police.

Earlier this afternoon, one of our photographers was sent to the street where it happened to get some wallpaper footage of the location. He was on public property (the street) with a video camera, shooting some footage that would be used in the newscast this evening.

Then a guy comes out of the house, says a few choice words, points a pistol at the camera (and presumably our photog.) Then he brings the pistol down, racks the slide on it, and yells a few more choice words.

All of this was caught on camera. Only a small section of it was used for the actual broadcast. We didn't air the part where he actually pointed the gun or racked the slide. Now, I've hung out with this photog and he's a good guy, and it really hacks me off that some no-shirt-wearing, mullet-encrusted white-trash tool would do something like this.



:fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "One of our photogs threatened with a pistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PinnedAndRecessed
September 26, 2004, 01:36 AM
I know you called the police. Please tell me you called the police and the maggot was arrested for malicious threatening and brandishing a firearm.

Hypnogator
September 26, 2004, 01:40 AM
This only serves to illustrate that there are some people who just shouldn't be trusted with firearms. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: The major issue is, of course, separating them from their weapons without treading on the rights of the 99.9999+% of gun owners who use their weapons responsibly.

I don't have an answer to the larger issue, but in this particular instance, something can be done. Your cameraman should file a complaint with the local constabulary. Aggravated assault, which, from your description, this clearly is, is a felony. The case would be a slam-dunk, what with the boob doing it in front of a broadcast-quality video camera! :what:

Let this dweeb try to convince a judge in, say, 5-7 years, that he is now responsible enough to own a firearm again! :scrutiny:

Justin
September 26, 2004, 01:47 AM
I don't know if any actions have been taken. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to talk to him since it happened. I've just seen the video. I consider it highly unlikely that the management of the station will actually do anything.

The photog, on the other hand, hopefully will. I'll talk to him tomorrow to get the rest of the story. But agreed, the idiot who threatened him needs to have a very unpleasant stay at the crossbar motel.

I would hope that he'd be able to find a lawyer who'd be willing to sue this jerk into indentured servitude in civil court as well.

Mad Man
September 26, 2004, 03:18 AM
This only serves to illustrate that there are some people who just shouldn't be trusted with firearms. The major issue is, of course, separating them from their weapons without treading on the rights of the 99.9999+% of gun owners who use their weapons responsibly.


Using the oft-cited figure of "80 million gun owners in America (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102853)," 99.9999% of 80,000,000 is 79,999,920.

There are a lot more than 80 irresponsible gun owners in the United States.

reagansquad
September 26, 2004, 03:31 AM
80 million legal gun owners... ;) How many gun crimes are committed every year by legal gun owners?

c_yeager
September 26, 2004, 03:48 AM
80 million legal gun owners... How many gun crimes are committed every year by legal gun owners?

A lot more than 80. And besides the 80million gun owners number doesnt necessarily mean 80million LEGAL gun owners anyways.

forquidder
September 26, 2004, 04:00 AM
Does your cameraman resemble Dan Rather by any chance? :D

joab
September 26, 2004, 04:08 AM
Look on the bright side Justin. Now he gets to show Big Bubba and his Band of Randy Rump Rangers how tough he is

Mad Man
September 26, 2004, 08:09 AM
Yesterday some local yokel was arrested for setting off an artillery simulator in his backyard.

Artillery simulator?

I hope it wasn't any of these guys (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=100809).

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=1231309

Or these guys (http://dmsc.org/)

http://www.dmsc.org/albums/album08/Mvc_012f.jpg (http://dmsc.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album03&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php)




:neener: Just kidding, of course. I've known billll (http://thehighroad.org/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=883)for years. (Yes, that's him in both pictures).

Rembrandt
September 26, 2004, 08:43 AM
Justin, please don't take this wrong....but I've been around news folks and camera crews (national and local) enough to have a dislike for their intrusive behavior....perhaps a better analogy would be sharks in bloody water. I've seen them knock people down and push through crowds while flashing "press credentials" to get a story before the competitor does. Tasteless behavior second only to ambulance chasing attorneys.

Simply asking would the guy have come out if you hadn't been there? News media today has the unfortunate distinction of being hated, just like lawyers, used car salesmen, and telemarketers. Granted this "Bubba's" behavior was inexcuseable and he should be taken to task.

Tory
September 26, 2004, 09:15 AM
"...it really hacks me off that some no-shirt-wearing, mullet-encrusted
white-trash tool would do something like this."

Seems EXACTLY what I would expect from some irresponsible piece of "mullet-encrusted white-trash"..............

The station is irrelevant. The CAMERAMAN was threatened; not some corporation. HE has the cause of action; HE was the victim; HE should have filed the complaint with the police. The only involvement for the station would have been to allow use of the video as evidence.

MrMurphy
September 26, 2004, 09:52 AM
I used to be a photog for an NBC affiliate.


What's he complaining about? Nothing new dude... I've been shot at in a marked media car just for being white in a black neighborhood after dark cause they think anybody white is either bad or a narc. Even with TV gear in my hands and a car with NBC splashed all over it. And i was usually there running tape on a fire or something non-criminal.

Having been one of two unarmed guys in a group full of body-armor-wearing and M4-packing people chasing a federal armed and dangerous fugitive an night, that was not a good feeling. No vest, no gun and I owned the gun just couldn't carry it at work (even with a CHL!) which ticked me off. And the marshals and cops weren't exactly worried about OUR safety even if we were the only LEO friendly reporter and photog in the city.

Tell the photog to get a new job if it bothers him.

Edmond
September 26, 2004, 11:12 AM
I consider it highly unlikely that the management of the station will actually do anything.

Seems like a lot of employers won't stand up for their employees. It's really unfortunate of what happened to him, he was just trying to do his job.:(

Justin
September 26, 2004, 02:00 PM
Rembrandt-

You're way off base. One photog setting up on a public street corner to pan across a scene for footage is hardly "sharks in bloody water."

I have no idea how the photog is going to react, or feels about the situation, as I haven't actually had a chance to ask him about it.

Pocomoke
September 26, 2004, 03:21 PM
Perhaps you could restate concisely exactly what happened.

As I understand it:

Your video guy went back to the neighborhood to film "wallpaper". So this was for a voice over of yesterday's news.

A local was caught on film brandishing a weapon, racking a slide, an using bad language while threatening the video guy who I assume was solo judging from your account.

A portion of the video was later broadcast but without the brandishment and threat.

You weren't present went this happened, but relay this as heresay.

Why does it seem so unlikely that an ABC affiliate would not have loudly an repeatedly pressed charges against the armed local? After all the video guy and the station have taped proof to substantiate the charges?

I suspect that your friend/co-worker isn't being quite honest with you as to all that transpired, but I may be mistaken.

I assume that you've seen all the raw footage before you posted this.

Don't take offense at my questions please. I think we've all seen and heard various pols and interest groups alleging that they've received death threats and yet there never seems to be any substantiate of these nor news of investigative follow-ups much less arrests

Justin
September 26, 2004, 04:14 PM
Your video guy went back to the neighborhood to film "wallpaper". So this was for a voice over of yesterday's news. Yes. Basically just video that would play while the anchor would read about the events that transpired regarding the previous night's detonation of an artillery simulator and the consequent appearing of the police followed by an arrest. I have no idea if the person in the house was actually the one who set the simulator off or not, and we said so on air.

A local was caught on film brandishing a weapon, racking a slide, an using bad language while threatening the video guy who I assume was solo judging from your account. Yes, that's what I saw in the video. Mr. Mulletude opens the door, points the pistol, racks the slide, and swears a lot.

A portion of the video was later broadcast but without the brandishment and threat. We only broadcast the bit with the swearing and threatening.

You weren't present went this happened, but relay this as heresay. No, I work in the production control dept. They don't let me out of the dark room with all of the tv screens, lest I scare the public. All I'm relating at this point is the video that I've seen. As mentioned before, I haven't actually talked to the photog in questions.

Why does it seem so unlikely that an ABC affiliate would not have loudly an repeatedly pressed charges against the armed local? In the interest of civility, I won't talk smack about my employer on a public bulletin board. :)
After all the video guy and the station have taped proof to substantiate the charges? I'm not a lawyer, but yeah, I would tend to think that this would be a slam-dunk conviction on assault at the very least.

I suspect that your friend/co-worker isn't being quite honest with you as to all that transpired, but I may be mistaken. Like I said, I haven't talked to him, but he's a trustworthy fellow.

I assume that you've seen all the raw footage before you posted this. I assume so. I've definately seen more than what was broadcast. Judging by the angle the video was shot at and the framing of the shot he's quite obviously across the street from the house. To take a guess, I'd assume he's twenty yards or more. (But that's a total guess on my part.)

Don't take offense at my questions please. I think we've all seen and heard various pols and interest groups alleging that they've received death threats and yet there never seems to be any substantiate of these nor news of investigative follow-ups much less arrests None taken, there's a lot of that sort of thing floating around the web. In the photog's defense, however, I'll say that I've posted this thread without his knowledge or consent. So I'm not acting as a mouthpiece for him or anything like that. For all I know his reaction to the whole thing is just as blasé as MrMurphy's. I simply witnessed some video yesterday that torqued me off as a gun owner.

Old Dog
September 26, 2004, 04:53 PM
I'm somewhat disheartened that anyone would try to rationalize this jerk's behavior simply because some elements of the media "are intrusive" and "demonstrate tasteless behavior." Does this means that it's open season on anyone connected with the media? If so, our cause is irretrievably lost because unless we figure out a way to deal with the media in a consistently calm, logical and mature manner, no one will ever see gun-owners as anything but knuckledragging, unkempt, uneducated losers.

Rembrandt
September 26, 2004, 05:26 PM
Old Dog, afraid you're reading more into my post than was put there....I'm not condoning the behavior of "Bubba the Redneck" because the media had it coming.

Having worked with electronic and print media people my overall impression of their profession is not flattering. That is a seperate point from what the mans motivation was.

I question why the guy felt compelled to pull a gun? Does he do this to everyone who stands accross the street with a camera? Maybe the camera didn't have a thing to do with it. Something stirred him up to cross the street and do what he did. Could be the guy is a genuine nut case....I can't help but wonder if there's more to the story.

Andrew Rothman
September 26, 2004, 05:33 PM
Unless you are highly suspicious of a workin' guy -- a cameraman, fer Pete's sake, not a network talking head -- you have to go with Occam's Razor here: The guy's a nutball.

Pocomoke
September 26, 2004, 05:49 PM
Justin
Thanks for the additional details.

Is/has the video guy going to file a complaint?

I agree that any idiot who brandishes a weapon Gun or otherwise and threatens in that manner needs to take his lumps.

dinosaur
September 26, 2004, 05:54 PM
You know how we get stories and posts here about SWAT Teams overreacting against some poor innnocent gun owner? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if this "nutball" is stoopid enough to stand in the middle of the street and point a gun at someone pointing a running video camera in his direction,:uhoh: better call the Marines.:what:

Justin
September 26, 2004, 08:23 PM
Ok, here's the latest update. The video tape was submitted to the police who then went to the house to arrest Mulletjerk.

Upon arriving at the house, apparently he was nowhere to be found.

This could get interesting.

Standing Wolf
September 26, 2004, 09:07 PM
We didn't air the part where he actually pointed the gun or racked the slide.

I'd have given him the publicity.

Hypnogator
September 26, 2004, 09:24 PM
Using the oft-cited figure of "80 million gun owners in America," 99.9999% of 80,000,000 is 79,999,920.

There are a lot more than 80 irresponsible gun owners in the United States.

OK, OK, so I probably got carried away with the "9" key. :rolleyes:

Betcha that figure's accurate for the number of irresponsible gun owners stupid enough to do that in front of a TV camera! :evil:

Drjones
September 27, 2004, 07:55 PM
Now he gets to show Big Bubba and his Band of Randy Rump Rangers how tough he is


some no-shirt-wearing, mullet-encrusted white-trash tool


Sarah?

Sarah Brady?

Is that you?

Yes, we all know what you think of gun-owners, sarah!



:rolleyes:

CGofMP
September 27, 2004, 10:09 PM
I am appauled that some fellow THR members would in any way rationalize away or suggest that there was ANYHTING but illegal activity happening here.

Some people need killin. Others need to be arrested.

If it was YOU who was working and some Adam Henry decided to line the sights up on you.... what would your response be?

Had the cameraman been a member of the CCW crowd I'd have never convicted him if he had dropped the camera, dropped the hammer, and dropped the suspect all in that order.

The suspect needs to be introduced to the graybar hotel or to the inside of a satin lined box should he do it again.

Just because someone is holding a camera does not mean he loses his rights as a person. Do I detest much of the media and their actions? YES. But I detest even more the guys in a wife-beater shirts who give my sport a bad name.

Charles

dav
September 27, 2004, 10:57 PM
Sorry guys, I side with Rembrandt on this one.

I've had people take pictures of my house from the street. I DO NOT like it. Why should they be allowed to film MY house? I confronted them and made them leave, but it is true I did not use a firearm to do it.

Was it just a Real Estate appraiser getting comps? Or was it police who had the wrong house, or a burglar casing it, or an Identity Thief... the problem is, you can't know.

Personally, I think my privacy extends to my likeness and the likeness of my home.

I'm sorry none of you mind invasion of privacy by the media. I really am.

Justin
September 27, 2004, 11:18 PM
Was it just a Real Estate appraiser getting comps? Or was it police who had the wrong house, or a burglar casing it, or an Identity Thief... the problem is, you can't know.

I'm going to take a wild guess, and say that the large SUV with the massive, multi-colored NEWS 13 logo emblazoned on the side, along with the antennas and whatnot sticking out of the top would be a pretty good clue as to just who, exactly said photographer is affiliated with. Especially if you had just been visited by the police for setting off a large flash-bang type of device that you stole from the Army off in your back yard.

Personally, I think my privacy extends to my likeness and the likeness of my home. The courts disagree with you.

Tory
September 27, 2004, 11:45 PM
"I've had people take pictures of my house from the street. I DO NOT like it. Why should they be allowed to film MY house? I confronted them and made them leave, but it is true I did not use a firearm to do it."

My sincerest congratulations upon your laudable self-restraint under what must have been truly trying circumstances, but the operative phrase in your soliloquy is "...from the street."

Translation: From a PUBLIC AREA. While engaged in a wholly lawful activity. Your paranoia notwithstanding, you have NO legal basis for your intervention. Some might consider it uttering threats or assault.

"Personally, I think my privacy extends to my likeness and the likeness of my home."

What you "personally think" is irrelevant in a court of law. Neither your likeness nor the image of your home is violated by someone taking a picture of either if they are in a public area, or you are. Period.

Don't like it? Wear a bag over your head and live in a cave, because that is about the ONLY way you won't be photographed. :eek:

Sven
September 27, 2004, 11:56 PM
Hey Justin, let's see that video!

Just kiddin.

c_yeager
September 28, 2004, 03:47 AM
I'll fedex that cameraman some Johnson & Johnson "No Tears" and a box of tampons right now, mmmmk?

Muzzleflash, I see from your profile that your interest include airsoft and that your a student. I would recomend checking the tough guy act untill you can learn some idea of what your talking about. Just for the record having ACTUAL firearms pointed at you is just a TAD different that toys that shoot plastic pellets.

Justin
September 28, 2004, 05:23 AM
Sven, I'd be happy to digitize and upload it if the gear at our station wasn't the functional equivalent of a museum display of the technological wonders of 1985.

MrMurphy
September 28, 2004, 08:02 AM
Heh....... doubt you're still shooting on U-matic, but it's possible. Beta SP probably.


Yeah, by law, if you're in the street, you can roll tape all you want. Set foot on someone's property and they can tell you to leave. I've shot many, many crimescenes etc from one foot off someone's property.


While there have been instances where I didn't particularly want to cover an event, it's the job. And you're normally not allowed to carry on the job, CHL or not. Having a CHL and HAVING been shot at many times on the job, that ticked me off. Thankfully, they're crappy shots.


I used to use a AJD400 Panasonic on DVCPro with QuikStix.
Justin tell your photogs if they ever want one heck of a photog bag, check out www.chromebags.com or maybe it was www.chrome.com and get one of their messenger bags. Waterproof quick on/off, holds a phone, raingear, spare brick battery, about two dozen DVCPro tapes and a ton of other stuff comfortably and stays put when you're running with camera in hand and tripod on shoulder. They run about $75-100 but are WELL worth it.. I used mine for a year still looks brand new.

SunBear
September 28, 2004, 08:31 AM
It's amazing to me that doofus would set off an artillery simulator and then expect anonymity. KA-BOOM !!! Hey nothing happened here. This moron is setting off illegal explosives and assaulting people with a handgun. How fast can we get this timebomb off the street!!!

dav
September 28, 2004, 04:07 PM
Justin wrote:The courts disagree with you
This is not a valid response, coming from someone on this list.

Aren't we all fighting because the courts took away our rights?

The Supreme Court of the United States has taken away Freedom of Speech (ask the NRA about McCain/Feingold). They have consistently ruled against the 2nd Amendment (look at NFA '34 and '86).

And you think that makes them right?

I'm not paranoid, sorry. I don't think the courts decisions concerning privacy have been correct based on the US Constitution, that's all.

Andrew Rothman
September 28, 2004, 04:38 PM
dav,

Common sense disagrees with you too.

Why ever would it be legal to stand on a street and LOOK at your property, but not legal to stand on the street and take a picture?

They key is a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

If someone scales your fence to take pictures of you sunbathing in your back yard, they are invading your privacy.

But if a reasonable person would assume that he could be seen (like, you know, standing in your front yard), then he legally, morally, and, franky, sensibly, has NO expectation of privacy.

I'm really sorry if you wish the world were otherwise. It isn't, and it shouldn't be.

Lord Grey Boots
September 28, 2004, 05:29 PM
So Mr Mullethead thought he was protecting his privacy by running outside, yelling, cursing and pointing a gun at someone with a video camera? I.e. by making a spectacle of himself?

Good way to remain anonymous, NOT!

Redlg155
September 28, 2004, 05:54 PM
What the guy did was wrong..plain and simple. You just can't brandish a firearm under those circumstances. You can pull a firearm as a response to a threat, but not as a threat. So enough of my lecturing about that. :D

However, had I been in that situation I would have walked over and asked the reporter for his press credentials and why he was filming my house, with a possible check with the station if I wasn't satisfied with the validity of his response. Some folks do have to maintain a level of privacy for their personal security. Perhaps they are in a witness protection program. A restraining order against an abusive spouse or individual and you don't want them to find out where you live. There could be any number of reasons why you don't want them filming your house.

Just because someone rides around in a news van doesn't mean that they are bonafide press. I work in a state prison and I've seen a lot of scams. Police officers here can also attest to what measures crooks will go through. How about the Roto Rooter, Air Conditioning Repair, Sears or other business vans? Not that I am paranoid, but you can sure that some are not what they profess to be.

So..in short, I don't approve of his methods of gaining privacy. I do however understand that even though it is legal for reporters to conduct their business, some folks, including myself just don't apprreciate my privacy violated.


Good Shooting
Red

444
September 28, 2004, 06:00 PM
"Yesterday some local yokel was arrested for setting off an artillery simulator in his backyard."

This interests me a lot more than the rest of it. What happened ? What kind of damage was done ?
I never got to personally set one off, but I saw quite a few of them going off from a distance. It would seem to me that in a city, it would blow windows out.

confinedbythecurtain
September 28, 2004, 06:04 PM
The "Mullet" wearer is lucky the cameraman wasnt CCW!

Redlg155
September 28, 2004, 06:06 PM
444,

Not really. They aren't more than a flash bang in power. In my Army days some idiot would always sneak one back and set it off in the barracks. :D

Of course I'm talking about the low powered hand thrown simulators.

Good Shooting
Red

444
September 28, 2004, 06:08 PM
Are we talking about the ones that make sort of a whistling noise as a smoke ring goes up in the air ?

Andrew Rothman
September 28, 2004, 08:10 PM
I do however understand that even though it is legal for reporters to conduct their business, some folks, including myself just don't apprreciate my privacy violated.

If you're in plain view of the public, you aren't in private! It is therefore impossible to have your privacy violated.



However, had I been in that situation I would have walked over and asked the reporter for his press credentials and why he was filming my house, with a possible check with the station if I wasn't satisfied with the validity of his response.

You could if you wanted. He might even, in the name of good public relations, show them to you. But understand that he is under no more obligation to show you his ID than I am, if I were walking past. That is, none.

Also, "press credentials" are just IDs issued by the station. As a potential video stringer, I made up a set of "credentials" for myself -- laminated photo ID and everything. The fact that I've never actually, you know, sold any footage doesn't make them less valid. `Cause they're not good for much.

Some folks do have to maintain a level of privacy for their personal security. Perhaps they are in a witness protection program. A restraining order against an abusive spouse or individual and you don't want them to find out where you live. There could be any number of reasons why you don't want them filming your house.

Yeah, but unfortunately, tough luck. You can plant a hedge, get in and out of your car in the garage, and keep the blinds closed, but your appearance in public is, well, public.

Of course, if you're an abused spouse or in the WPP, it's probably best not to set off artillery in your yard... :rolleyes:

444
September 28, 2004, 08:15 PM
Maybe I am thinking of a boobytrap simmulator.
I remember one of them was very loud and after the explosion, a smoke ring would rise up accompnied by a high pitched whistling sound.

Roon
September 28, 2004, 09:16 PM
This mullethaired guy is a thug. There's nothing here about one's rights being violated. He left his house to threaten another person who was not threatening him. This is way too "politically correct".

The guy was a paranoid thug. I ran into someone just like this while driving across country. I stopped along the road, a very *rural* road, to make a sandwich. Some guy came driving out of a house about 300 yards away, pulled a shotgun on me, and told me to get off his property. I was on the side of the road, for gawd's sake.

I told him I'd leave after I finished my sandwich. He pointed the shotgun at my head, held it for a moment, then dropped it, got in his truck, and splayed me with gravel as he spun a donut at me, then drove home.

Life's too short for this kinda crap!

(Edit: Brain fart - Rural, not Urban!)

Redlg155
September 28, 2004, 11:33 PM
If you're in plain view of the public, you aren't in private! It is therefore impossible to have your privacy violated.

We could argue what we consider an invasion of privacy and what is considered freedom for the press until we were blue in the face with neither party being satisfied. The pain in the backside that the press sometimes becomes is the price for freedom.

At the same time I would venture to say one would be ill advised to start filming into peoples windows or even the houses without a extremely good reason in my part of the country.

444...the ones we always had made a shrill whisting sound followed by a the blast. I don't remember much smoke because we were all hauling butt before the CQ started trying to track down who did the evil deed. :D

Good Shooting
Red

morganm01
September 28, 2004, 11:51 PM
Even though it wouldn't be her fault for getting raped....girls shouldn't walk down dark alleys wearing skimpy clothing anymore than people should be prying into the private lives of other people under the badge of "journalism".

Was the story really worth it?

Was it even a "story"?



How about you just leave the guy alone in the future.:confused:

Andrew Rothman
September 28, 2004, 11:59 PM
At the same time I would venture to say one would be ill advised to start filming into peoples windows or even the houses without a extremely good reason in my part of the country.

Well, photographing into windows is another matter, legally -- it's generally not allowed, and rightly so.

How can I help you understand this? Photographing what may be seen with the naked eye from public property is not considered an invasion.

Using high tech, long lenses, helicopters, etc, to view people and property that would otherwise be out of public sight is generally considered an invasion.

That's a pretty reasonable standard, I think.

As to "even the houses" being ill-advised, anyone who tried to stop that perfectly legal activity, like Mr. Mullet did, would be in for a world of hurt if he got caught.

BluesBear
September 29, 2004, 10:37 AM
While some things im my world are a little fuzzy now, the top of this screen definately says "The High Road".

I am somewhat shocked but really not suprised that some would try to rationalize the actions of the gun-waving mullethead. Just as he was stupid enough to tun out into the street and curse and threaten a person onviously engaging in a lawful action it is to be expected that several of our "steamed" members would brazenly disparage the cameraman just because he works for "The Media".

The simple fact is that the law (several laws actually) was broken! And each and every one of them were broken by Mr Mullet. Did this fool think this was a rocket launcher or something? Has he never seen a television camera before? We're not talking about an 8mm Sony Handy-Cam here. We're talking about a big, on the shoulder, station/network logo emplazoned honest to gosh TEE VEE Camera! (Shazam!)
Which we all know is an evil tool devised by the radical left that when pointed directly into the face causes a completely normal person to lose 1.3 teeth and 97 IQ points.

:rolleyes:

GET REAL PEOPLE.

For those of you, who are sitting safe, sound and anonymous in front of your keyboard beating your chest about how the Cameraman needs to grow some stones, here's a little creamer for your campfire...

(I'll type it slowly in case you can't read fast.)

How can you sit there, whine and moan about those who would interfere with your 2nd Amendment Rights when the Television Station was merely excersizing it's 1st Amendment RIGHT to persue and report the news?

Y'all should pay attention to the words of a fellow High Road member, who at the ripe old age of SIXTEEN was smart enough to realize that "The Bill of Rights is like the Ten Commandments, you can’t pick and choose, you gotta take ‘em all or nothing.”

Daniel T
September 29, 2004, 11:06 AM
How about you just leave the guy alone in the future.

Someone who wants to be left alone probably should not be setting off explosives in their back yard, especially in the middle of a city.

Bluesbear, you're absolutely right.

Tory
September 29, 2004, 02:34 PM
"...girls shouldn't walk down dark alleys wearing skimpy clothing anymore than people should be prying into the private lives of other people under the badge of "journalism".

The first assertion is specious as to the subject at hand; photographing what is in the open from public areas.

The second lacks even the premise of reason, as detonating explosive devices in residential neighborhoods is NOT protected as being "the private lives of other people." It CEASED to be "private" the nanosecond the concussion went beyond the actor's property.

The event is probably criminal, almost certainly irresponsible, and definitely NEWS. Sending a crew to film the site from a public area to determine what damage may have been caused, talk to any witnesses, or otherwise gather information IS journalism, not an "invasion of privacy" - grasp the concept.

Cretins who commit illegal acts in public have no basis for claiming their "private lives" have been invaded, their privacy "taken", or otherwise posing as victims of those acting "under the badge of 'journalism.'" They discarded that defense the moment they entered the public zone. :fire:

MrMurphy
September 29, 2004, 10:26 PM
As to the "growing some stones" comment..... I am a former news photographer for an NBC affiliate. Having survived the tail end of an F2, having shots fired at/past/over/next to me on multiple occasions, nearly having a burning house go down on me, and various other dangerous situations...... I think it's fair to say I can tell the guy to grow a pair.


Shooting car wrecks with all the idiots on the road was actually the most dangerous thing I did... people see you and start drifting over (you've seen cop cars get taken out while ticketing... same phenomenon). I missed getting hit by a foot or two over a dozen times, and a reporter of mine nearly got sucked in front of a semi till I body tackled her out of the way (the truck missed me first as I crossed the road, he came around the corner WAY too fast.... couldn't even hear him coming).

DorGunR
September 29, 2004, 11:11 PM
Was it just a Real Estate appraiser getting comps? Or was it police who had the wrong house, or a burglar casing it, or an Identity Thief... the problem is, you can't know.

I'm a property appraiser and I have to shoot comps almost every day. I've had homeowners yell at me, I've always stopped my car and explain what I'm doing........never a problem so far. There have been times when the homeowner was in the yard and I've gone up to them and explained that I'm using their house as a comp but I can't have people in the picture and each time the homeowner has complied by stepping into his garage or otherwise getting out of the way while I take a picture.........ya just gotta ask nice.:)

Silver Bullet
September 30, 2004, 10:11 AM
no-shirt-wearing, mullet-encrusted white-trash
We can do without the racial slurs, please.

Thank you.

Tory
September 30, 2004, 10:50 AM
"no-shirt-wearing, mullet-encrusted white-trash
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We can do without the racial slurs, please."


OK - how about:

Socio-economically deprived, fashion-challenged, melanin-missing
individual suffering from inadaquate apparel

Are we all copacetic with the New Terms of Inclusion?


:rolleyes:

Silver Bullet
September 30, 2004, 11:11 AM
Maybe you need to rethink your signature line.

:rolleyes:

Silver Bullet
September 30, 2004, 12:02 PM
Somebody would have protested if the phrase “Indian trash” or “black trash” or “jap trash” had been used; it’s no different to say “white trash”.

What I resent is the so-called PC folks telling us that any comment that could in any way be considered derogatory to an ethnic group is racist, yet they feel no compunction at all about making comments or jokes about “rednecks”, “hillbillies”, “trailer trash”, “gun nuts”, or “white trash”. These terms are used to imply that “white trash” are substandard, subclass, and don’t have the same rights as the people who perpetuate these images in the media.

Don’t think you’re better than somebody else just because he is “shirtless” and parks his Firebird on his front lawn.

BluesBear
September 30, 2004, 12:22 PM
I am a Hillbilly and I don't resent the term.

I am a redneck. I don't mean the silly uneducated type as humorized by Jeff Foxworthy but a real honest-to-gosh-God-fearing-don't-mess-with-my-daughter redneck. And I am proud of it.

I however am NOT white trash. But I know it when I see it!
I will contunie to use the term, politically correct of not.

Everyone has a word or two in their everyday vocabulary that could be consdered offensive to someone or some group. (Unless they're some panty-waste milktoast who is incapable of thinking for themselves.) :neener:



But even if I had hair I would rather be dead than be seen wearing a mullet! :barf:

Roon
September 30, 2004, 12:28 PM
I used the term "paranoid thug" to describe our mullethaired brother. I'm sure that bothered a few folks, but today everything one says bothers a few folks. Simply using the term mullethaired would upset some folks.

Look, I'm an old fat guy. I would like to be that dashing young guy of my youth, but now I'm an old fat guy. The last time I looked, it was still alright to call somebody "white", and trash probably fits the guy, as well, given his thuggy actions.

Folks who want to back the guy, and feel his civil rights were violated, have that right. In my book, the guy was dead wrong, and making an issue of an epithet like "white trash" just glosses over that wrong.

YMMV

Drjones
September 30, 2004, 01:07 PM
Somebody would have protested if the phrase “Indian trash” or “black trash” or “jap trash” had been used; it’s no different to say “white trash”.

What I resent is the so-called PC folks telling us that any comment that could in any way be considered derogatory to an ethnic group is racist, yet they feel no compunction at all about making comments or jokes about “rednecks”, “hillbillies”, “trailer trash”, “gun nuts”, or “white trash”. These terms are used to imply that “white trash” are substandard, subclass, and don’t have the same rights as the people who perpetuate these images in the media.

Don’t think you’re better than somebody else just because he is “shirtless” and parks his Firebird on his front lawn.


Exactly.

My issue was with the double-standard that exists even on this board; say anything bad about muslims, and you'll just about get crucified.

But go ahead and perpetuate stereotypes about gun owners, and you're A-OK, so long as its coming from one of us.....:scrutiny:

:rolleyes:

Whatever.....

BluesBear
September 30, 2004, 01:40 PM
Those no-shirt-wearing, mullet-encrusted white-trash people has just as much right to own a gun as a old, fat, disabled, red-neck, guitar playing hillbilly like me does. He has as much right as anyone.
For now.
What he doesn't have is the right to harass or threaten someone engaging in a lawfull activity.

Of course that cameraman had his rights too.

I don't cionstrue anything that has been said regarding his demeanor and appearance as anything that would "perpetuate stereotypes about gun owners".

What America and the rest of the word has to realize (again) is that there is NO stereotype gun owner
It wasn't all that long ago that it was taken for granted that any American was probabily a gun owner.

This guy appears to be a stereotype on several levels but none of them is as a gun owner.

Justin
October 14, 2004, 03:56 PM
So I finally had a chance to catch up with the photog in question. Not surprisingly he was really rather nonplussed about the whole affair.

He told me that at the point that mullet-man came out of the house, his first thought was "I'll bet Justin knows what kind of gun that is." Always nice to know when someone is thinking of you.

The tape, as I mentioned earlier, has been turned over to the cops, and the perp has (as of now) been arrested.

It turns out that our gun-wielding nutcase was the room mate of the fellow who thought it was such a swell idea to set off an artillery simulator in his back yard. Two peas in a pod, apparently.

As Paul Harvey is so well known for saying "And now you know the rest of the story...Good Day."

Warbow
October 14, 2004, 04:10 PM
Justin wrote:

The tape, as I mentioned earlier, has been turned over to the cops, and the perp has (as of now) been arrested.

I love a happy ending. :)

Roon
October 14, 2004, 04:17 PM
The tape, as I mentioned earlier, has been turned over to the cops, and the perp has (as of now) been arrested.

It turns out that our gun-wielding nutcase was the room mate of the fellow who thought it was such a swell idea to set off an artillery simulator in his back yard. Two peas in a pod, apparently.

Good news. Darwin and God will work out the details.

Edmond
October 14, 2004, 07:46 PM
I wonder what his defense will be. I was watching some show Cheaters where they follow a cheating significant other around and video tape them cheating. This one young lady was confronted with the video tape and claimed, "That's not me" even though it obviously was.

I wonder if that's the defense that he'll use.

BluesBear
October 14, 2004, 10:32 PM
I was watching some show Cheaters ... Wow! Are you trapped in a crappy nursing home with no cable TV too?

Er, um, excuse me, I meant to say "Assisted Living Facility" :barf:

Coronach
October 14, 2004, 10:57 PM
heh.

Pointing a gun at a person with a rolling video camera is really not a very bright idea (unless you fully intend to pull the trigger...and even then it is still not a very bright idea)!

I mean, hello? You just slipped the noose around your neck and tightened it down nicely.

Mike :rolleyes:

Drjones
October 15, 2004, 08:11 PM
heh.

Pointing a gun at a person with a rolling video camera is really not a very bright idea (unless you fully intend to pull the trigger...and even then it is still not a very bright idea)!

I mean, hello? You just slipped the noose around your neck and tightened it down nicely.



What....cameras are bulletproof nowadays???




:D :D :D

If you enjoyed reading about "One of our photogs threatened with a pistol" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!