Have you all read the thread concerning the man who was taking photographs at Nay Aug Pool of children on the slide?
I cannot believe that they are defending the rights of the Photographer over the rights of the children to a safe environment. They are criticizing the SPD for detaing the photographer and questioning him as to why he was taking the photographs.
In this day and age with pedophiles all around us I have to wonder why they would question the city for being concerned for the safety and well being of the children.
I know that if I were there I would want to know why someone was photographing my child in a bathing suit. And if I were not concerned what kind of parent would I be?
The kids across the hall are slamming on the SPD for detaining this man ... I just don't get it ... they even go so far as to question why the Scranton Times would be allowed to take pictures but not the everyday citizen ... now I'm not 100% positive on this ... maybe Stacy can help me out with this one ... wouldn't the reporter/photographer for the TT approach the subject of the Photo ... explain what the photo is to be used for ... and then maybe have a waiver signed giving permission to use that photo that was taken .... I might be wrong but I'm thinking that might be how it would work ... and wouldn't they show proof that they were taking photos for the paper?
This guy wouldn't tell them why he was taking the photos ... which is the reason why he was detained.
I would copy and paste but it would take up so much room so here is a link to that particular thread.
I want everyone to stop and think about one thing ... Joe Pilchesky is not a lawyer ... he's just a guy playing a lawyer on the internet. Please don't trust your legal needs to this man.
Just more "my rights trump your rights" bull$hit from Pilchesky and his merry band of toadies. Yes, I agree that the public should have the right to take pictures in a public park (I've often taken pictures at Nay Aug), but if there are children around, then I fully expect the Police and city employees at the park to exercise judgement in taking action if someone is acting suspicious.
Hardcore wrote...
Askyourself this. If you were a parent of a child swimming at Nay Aug park, and observed astranger taking photos of your child, would you be concerned? If you were an employee of Nay Aug, and saw a person taking lots of photos of kids, would it be logical to approach the person toask why?
...and I absolutely agree with him.
Funny how the DD motley crew is all gung-ho for city employees only to the extent they oppose and bash the Mayor...in other words, only to the extent that they are doing what the disgruntled minority wants them to do. As for me, I have the utmost respect for Scranton's Police. If they detained this person, then I trust their judgement as to the reason.
-- Edited by Agamemnon at 07:08, 2008-08-06
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
If I am remembering correctly that dirtball Pilchesky was confronted doing the same thing at Nay Aug. He was taking pictures in the pool area. I tried to look it up on the Scranton Times Archives Search but the page isn't working (at least it isn't for me). It happened a couple of years back. Maybe Art remembers?
-- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters at 07:30, 2008-08-06
It was the post that lead to my first of many bannings for dd.com.
Joe's complaint was that the lifeguard captain and police harassed him for taking photos. My claim was that had he taken one minute to introduce himself to the lifeguard and let him know what he was doing none of this would have happened. Instead of being smart, Joe was being a smart-ass. Joe went nuts and I was banned.
Joe's case was even dumber than the letter writer's. Joe wasn't even in the pool area. He was taking pictures of leaky pipes or something. What a retard. No one would have cared one bit if he told (not asked) them what he was going to be doing. Transparency. It helps.
The letter to the editor mentions newspaper photographers taking pictures at the pool and not getting harassed. He says the proof is in the pictures that are routinely published. He's right; newspaper photographer (and other media and artists, hobbyists. etc.) often take photos of kids playing. They simply take the creepiness factor out of the equation by introducing themselves, explaining what they are doing and perhaps even showing some ID or credentials.
Does the law say you have to do any of that? Nope. Try it though and you'll end up with no photos and a nice talk with freaked out cops and parents.
Yet another example of "my rights have been violated..." Shut up and use the brains God gave you. You never seem to exercise the right to be smart, just the right to be loud and annoying.
Anyone know how this lawsuit ended?? I would love to know....Stacy?? do you know?? :))
He creeps me out big time and Edith seems pretty attached to her camera as well. If I had my kids at a public place swimming (well doing anything really) and some weirdo was lurking around taking pictures......in this day and age with what you read everyday in the papers and hear on the news.....you can bet your butt I would be raising a loudddddd protest!!!
-- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters at 20:29, 2008-08-06
I agree with all statements made on this subject ...
Hardcore seems to make a lot of sense over across the hall ... I don't know how his/her membership is still hanging on ...
I just couldn't believe that they would take the side of this photographer over the safety of children ... all the photographer had to do was to explain what he was photographing and why ... and he would not have been detained ... however he had to be a smartass and tell them to call the police ... it's a simple case of be careful of what you ask for because you just might get it!
Shame on them all for taking the side of the photographer over children!
__________________
I want everyone to stop and think about one thing ... Joe Pilchesky is not a lawyer ... he's just a guy playing a lawyer on the internet. Please don't trust your legal needs to this man.
"Crony children of middle class white Irish who are the product of inbreeding within several sub-nodoes of the ICN and who are loved far less than the property values of their parents."
So I am sure that when it comes to reasonable protections from perverts, many at DD really don't care.
__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
I took my son to Nay Aug to swim last year. It was a blistering hot day and he needed to cool off on the slides and I GLADLY paid the five dollar fee for him to ride the slides. He swam and I sat directly across from the slides.
NOT FIVE FEET FROM WHERE I SAT there were three generations of scumbags taking pictures of three bikini-clad teenage girls with a camera phone and making comments about each of them in their native tongue. The old guy just smiled and commented, the middle guy had the camera phone and the younger of the three was just enjoying the show. I could see the pictures on the screen of this one camera phone. These girls did not know they were being photographed or judged by these three Farsi-speaking deviates.
I spoke to one of the lifeguards at the pool house and told him what I had seen. They thanked me and immediately went into action without being obvious. One nonchalantly watched them do it from a few feet from where I sat. One sat on one of the lifeguard chairs across the pool and watched them do it. A third watched from the exit at the pool house.
The three lifeguards saw what was happening and that the middle guy was the one with the camera. These scumbags must make a habit of this, because they knew they were being approached by the lifeguards and proceeded to begin to pack their stuff. I couldn't hear what was being said when they approached the three guys, but the middle guy handed over the phone in his hand. The lifeguard(s) took a look at the phone (apparently scrolled through the pictures) and let them walk away.
As these guys walked away to plant themselves at another area of the pool area, they grinned from ear to ear and the old guy and the middle guy exchanged phones.
I told my son it was time to leave. He was none too happy, but didn't kick up a fuss. I approached the lifeguard I had originally spoken to and he told me there were only general pictures of the pool house and the slides and since they had only seen the middle guy acting inappropriately, they could only ask to see his phone.
These sneaky bastards have this down to a science and got away with it. Thinking about it again is really pissing me off.
But this is the kicker of the whole thing. When we were leaving, we walked past these three girls. I stood far enough away from them (so they didn't think I was being inappropriate) and descreetly pointed out the three degenerates who were taking their pictures. You know what these girls did? They sat up straight, said "Really?" and primped at their hair, like they were at a photo shoot.
I WAS FLOORED. But I commend the lifeguards for taking action in an efficient manner.
This is why camera phones are no longer allowed in certain public areas like locker rooms and gyms. All for the better, if you ask me, but I realize it's hard to get that horse back into the barn.
As for the preening girls, maybe it's time to outlaw tight shorts and jogging pants with words like "honey" and "juicy" written on the ass. My sister and her husband have already established that rule.
Good for them. Glenn, you're absolutely right -- What mother in her right mind would allow a 'kid' to walk out the front door with that emblazoned on her daughter's arse. It really irks me when I see teenage girls in their skin tight belly shirts and their gotta-shave-before-I-can-wear-'em jeans. What mother in her right mind would allow a 'kid' to walk out the front door dressed like that.