Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Justin, Sep 26, 2004.
Is that you?
Yes, we all know what you think of gun-owners, sarah!
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.
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.
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.
The courts disagree with you.
"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.
Hey Justin, let's see that video!
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
"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.
The "Mullet" wearer is lucky the cameraman wasnt CCW!
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.
Of course I'm talking about the low powered hand thrown simulators.
Are we talking about the ones that make sort of a whistling noise as a smoke ring goes up in the air ?
If you're in plain view of the public, you aren't in private! It is therefore impossible to have your privacy violated.
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.
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...
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
For a moment I couldn't tell where I was.
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.
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 canâ€™t pick and choose, you gotta take â€˜em all or nothing.â€
Separate names with a comma.