rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* grim news for photographers tourism and rights - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
* What a waste these groups are... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en
* Correct name for "pinhole lens" used in covert cameras? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a3f36ff97395b3f?hl=en
* Whatever happened to the "single pixel" camera idea? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/132ae2d328416321?hl=en
* A newbie request help selecting digital camera - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 11:15 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:03:35 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 08:54:40 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Ridiculous maybe but correct. A shop is PRIVATE property. The public is
>>>>>permitted to enter but the owner may place any (legal) restriction they
>>>>>wish on people entering. Such as no photography.
>>>>
>>>>They have to post it first, not after the fact.
>>>
>>>No they don't. Becker was not detained for taking a photograph, but
>>>your statement is incorrect.
>>
>>They don't??? They can charge someone for doing something
>>that was not prohibited until after it was done??? That is
>>so typical of your illogical responses here...
>>
>>Actually, the initial detainment *was* for taking a
>>photograph. He was arrested for not producing an ID.
>>
>>Get your facts straight.
>
>No, he was never detained for taking a photograph. Even Shane does
>not claim that in his narrative.
Straight facts:
"They saw me take the picture. After they were done
filling the machine with money, the one with the
shaved head came over to me in line and said:
Him
When you're done over here, come talk to me.
Me
No, thanks.
Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you."
At that point a Loomis guard, wearing a uniform with a
badge and in visible possession of a gun, has placed
Shane Becker under detention (arrest) and verbally
assaulted him. The only apparant reason is that Becker
took a picture.
Both the detention and the assault are criminal.
>>The Loomis guard ordered Becker to stay there, under
>>threat of violence. That is by definition detaining
>>him.
>
>No, that is a demand, but not a detention. The demand was not heeded.
>Becker walked away.
Becker did *not* walk away. He was in a line at the
Customer Service Counter, and he stayed there.. He also
did not try to leave the store, which is what it appears
he was told he could not do.
>Let's add "definition" to the list of words you don't understand.
You don't seem to understand that when a uniformed
person with a badge and a gun tells someone they cannot
leave at their own free will they are in fact under
"detention".
Black's Law Dictionary defines it as I've used it;
however, it is also interesting to note that Washington
State does *not* make the distinction between detainment
and arrest in the way that I have!
In the State of Washington, by definition, Becker was
placed under arrest by the Loomis Guard when he was told
not to leave.
Washington courts have cited this definition of "arrest":
"a show of authority sufficient to convey to any
reasonable person that voluntary departure from the
scene was not a reasonable alternative."
United States v Palmer, 603F.2d 1286, 1289 (8th Cir. 1979).
See also:
United States v. Mendenhall 446 U.S. 544 100
S.Ct. 1870, 64 Led 2d 497 (1980);
State v. Young, 135 Wn. 2d 498, 509, 957 P.2d 681
(1988);
>>It is not something that I made up.
>
>Of course it is. Read the narrative.
"They saw me take the picture. After they were done
filling the machine with money, the one with the
shaved head came over to me in line and said:
Him
When you're done over here, come talk to me.
Me
No, thanks.
Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you."
So you are lying, or what? You cite a narrative that
does not support your claims. You say that definitions
are not what the Washington State court (see Seattle
v. Sage) says they are.
What in the Heck is the matter with you Tony????
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 11:36 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:44:49 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Where is your "logical progression"? The guard told
>>Becker not to leave, and threatened him with physical
>>violence.
>>
>>That is a detetion by definition.
>
>We've covered this, haven't we? Becker walked away from the guard.
>He was not detained by the guard. He ignored the demand. It does not
>meet the definition of detention.
Becker did not walk away from the Loomis guard. The Loomis Guard
places him under detention and then the *Guard* walked away from
Becker, who was in line for the Customer Service Counter and stayed
there.
>>>You detain someone by force or by exercising the authority of law. The
>>>Loomis guard did neither. Telling someone not to leave is not
>>>detaining them.
>>
>>When the person doing so has a gun and a badge, and
>>threatens physical violence if any attempt is made to
>>leave, that *is* a detention.
>
>No, it's detention when the person is actually detained.
"a show of authority sufficient to convey to any
reasonable person that voluntary departure form the
scene was not a reasonable alternative."
United States v Palmer, 603F.2d 1286, 1289 (8th Cir. 1979).
Washington courts have cited the above definition
multiple times. It works for them, it works for me, and
it is the law of the land in Seattle.
But Tony Cooper says it isn't so??? Now, who cares what
Tony says if he can't get that straight? Do you see
what that sort of argument does to your credibility?
>>>Becker moved to the customer service line to pay for
>>>his lock (?). You can hardly say Becker was detained when he moved
>>>away from the Loomis guard and continued about his business.
>>
>>They told him not to leave the store. He didn't.
>
>No, he didn't, but not because of the guard's demand. It was because
>he stood there and argued until the police came. He could have walked
>out at any time before that. He chose not to.
He chose not to because he had clearly been, lawfully or otherwise,
placed under detention by a uniformed individual with a badge and a gun
who had threatened violence if he did. How can you say that any
reasonable person "could have walked out"???? Absurd!
>>
>>>>>>and swore
>>>>>>to a Seattle Police officer that he had broken a law.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where in the world do you get this?
>>>>
>>>>What do you suppose they told the officer? Some story
>>>>about how they were having fun picking on an innocent
>>>>guy??? Or what?
>>>
>>>I don't know. You want me to conjecture? OK, I *suppose* he told the
>>>officer what is in the police report: "He was concerned about his
>>>safety and was not sure if (Becker) was going to attempted (sic) to
>>>grab the money that was going into the ATM machine (sic)."
>>
>>You don't seem to be able to follow logical progression
>>Tony. That statement refers to what the guard claims
>>was the reason to question Becker to start with. By the
>>time the police officer arrived the money was in the
>>ATM, not available to for anyone to "grab", and the
>>officer certainly was not asking that Becker be arrested
>>for having grabbed money or at that point being a threat
>>to grab money.
>
>That's the only statement that is reported that the guard made. Your
>fabrication about swearing that he broke a law is just that: a
>fabrication.
>
>If you disagree, it's simple for you to prove that I'm wrong. Just
>point out any statement in Becker's own narrative or the police report
>where this is alleged. Go on...find a statement that supports your
>claim.
Lets explain something to you. A police officer cannot
just arrest someone as a casual matter of "questioning"
them. That violates the 4th Amendment and the courts
have been vociferous about it.
The Seattle Police officer needed "Reasonable Suspicion"
or "Probable Cause" to believe first that a crime had
been committed and second that Shane Becker could
reasonably be the perpetrator.
Failure to provide an ID and/or refused to answer
questions is not sufficient (due to the 5th Amendment).
Taking a photograph is not sufficient. And there has
been no allegation that Becker did *anything* illegal in
the presence of the Seattle Police officers. That
leaves only one single possible source for "Reasonable
Suspicion" or "Probably Cause": statements by another
uniformed police officer, such as the Loomis Guard.
Why? Well, because if the store's personnel or anyone
else said they saw Becker commit a crime it simply does
not rise to the same level that testimony of a police
officer does. If that had happened the officers need to
get a warrant from a judge.
All of which leaves only the possibility that the
Seattle Police officers took the statements of the
Loomis guards as their authority to make an arrest.
Lacking that, it is simply a case of harassment and
false arrest with no probably cause.
>Find anything in Becker's narrative or the police report that supports
>your statement. Find anything in Becker's narrative or the police
>report that states, infers, or hints at Becker being detained by
>anyone except the police officer.
"They saw me take the picture. After they were done
filling the machine with money, the one with the
shaved head came over to me in line and said:
Him
When you're done over here, come talk to me.
Me
No, thanks.
Him
Don't try to leave. I will tackle you."
Do you really need to be reminded of this again?
>Find anything that indicates that
>Becker could not have walked out of the store at any time prior to the
>arrival of the police.
"Don't try to leave. I will tackle you."
From a guy with a shaved head, a uniform, a badge, and a gun.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 11:48 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:15:23 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>"Susp Cir" is not a crime. He was told not to leave, therefore he
>>*cannot* be trespassing.
>
>I wanted to believe that, in all your posts, you've written something
>that is accurate. I figured Flim-Flam Floyd or not, he's got to be
>right about something.
>
>The closest I could come is your statement that he was told not to
>leave. I found this in Becker's narrative:
>
> Him
> When you're done over here, come talk to me.
> Me
> No, thanks.
> Him
> Don't try to leave. I will tackle you.
> Me
> No, you won't.
> Him
> I'll call the cops.
> Me
> I can't stop you.
>
>OK, the Loomis guard says "Don't try to leave". Floyd's right!
>
>Wait a minute, though. Becker says "No, thanks" to the guard's demand
>to come over and talk to him. And he doesn't return. He isn't
>intimidated by the man, the badge, or the gun. Obviously, then,
>Becker is aware that the Loomis guard's demand is meaningless
>rhetoric. Why would Becker think the demand "Don't try to leave" is
>any different?
>
>Becker says in another place "I was not told to leave. I was told in
>no uncertain terms that I could not leave", but he doesn't say who
>told him that. Spunky little guy that he is, trained anarchist and
>all, why does he accept that this demand must be obeyed? He refused
>the demand to come back and talk. He refused the demand to produce
>ID. Why does he accept the demand not to leave?
>
>Why does he not just walk out of the store? When he could, that is.
>It was too late when the police arrived.
>
>I can only come up with a couple of reasons. One, he was too thick to
>think of it. Two, he chose to stay. Not that he was detained, not
>that he was forced to stay, but that he decided to stay. On his own.
>
>Sorry, Floyd. I can't give you this one either.
But you have just totally discredited yourself, so you
*have* just given me that one.
He clearly did *not* walk out of there, and it very
clearly would have been a very unreasonable thing for
him to attempt. He did the only things he could:
1) He stayed there.
2) He refused to talk to the police (or the security guard).
Ask any lawyer you like, and that is very close to
exactly what the lawyer will tell you he *should* have
done. Indeed, the fact that he did it the way he did is
exactly the reason they were unable to bring charges
against him.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What a waste these groups are...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 11:16 pm
From: Rich
On Jun 14, 8:13 pm, "Bertram Paul" <d...@mail.me> wrote:
> You show some picture, you get none or just a few replies.
>
> You start talking about something trivial like card types and you get
> hundreds of replies. But all are fighting each other.
> It makes kinder garden look like a university!
>
> I'm out of here.
>
> --
> ---
> Bertram Paul
Kindergarten
I don't mind responding to pictures, but what I HATE is when some
ass---- says, "Look at this image" then directs you to a whole page of
images, or pages, (just to pump up their site hit rates) rather than
the specific image.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Correct name for "pinhole lens" used in covert cameras?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a3f36ff97395b3f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 11:23 pm
From: Rich
On Jun 14, 1:45 am, The Correction Police <t...@knowldegeisgood.com>
wrote:
>Anton van Leeuwenhoek would also disagree with you, when
> he was able to obtain sharp magnifications up to 500x by the use of only
> one of these miniature lenses, hand-ground. This also happening over 350
> years ago. Much has changed and improved since then.
Leeuwenhoek microscopes (on hand, few that there are) went up to about
266x. It is theorized he had them up to 500x. In addition, it is
very possible his lenses were ground aspherical, unlike small
spherical lenses you can buy today so the correction across the field
with his would have been superior. Which is how he was able to
observe small things in detail and even bacteria and detect Brownian
motion, while those using compound microscopes with spherical lenses
had no hope of seeing things in that detail, in those days.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Whatever happened to the "single pixel" camera idea?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/132ae2d328416321?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 11:23 pm
From: Rich
I remember reading about it a few years back.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 14 2009 11:56 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
Kris Krieger wrote:
[]
> My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding
> out that it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off,
> or some other flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying...
Kris,
I think you will find that any of today's DSLRs will do what you want.
They all have fine control over the colour rendering - but it may be up to
you to get the colour temperature correct for your shots or using manual
colour balance and a white card. You can usually adjust the sharpness for
the JPEGs produced by the camera.
My prime camera is a Nikon D60 - the bottom of the range - and I've been
very pleased with it. I usually carry the 16-85mm and 70-300mm VR (image
stabilised) lenses, giving me a "35mm equivalent" focal length range of
24-450mm. I also carry a compact P&S camera - the Panasonic TZ3 - for
those times when I need a "pocket-sized" camera.
Cheers,
David
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment