• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Filming/photographing in public space relevant to open carry

Status
Not open for further replies.

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I agree.



That's my goal - open a thread for discussion of the specific aspects of the other thread which are relevant to OC (which is many, IMO) while avoiding discussion of the specific case that got the other thread closed.

What other case? LOL

We can only discuss cases that don't have any moral offensiveness to them (I guess:(~but I think that those are the perfect cases to examine things~take it to the extremes to clarify the question).

Like photography is way more offensive than shooting deaths. huh?
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
A similar case came up in Washington. The judges rulings are to what is public or not. Our state ended up making this type of recording illegal. The dicta in the ruling of the original arrest was very helpful for those of us that may record everything throughout our day.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
A similar case came up in Washington. The judges rulings are to what is public or not. Our state ended up making this type of recording illegal. The dicta in the ruling of the original arrest was very helpful for those of us that may record everything throughout our day.

I actually thought about this point after posting - that another option, and maybe the best one, is to very simply redefine what's public and private... Sort of defining another boundary line for the expectation of privacy. It's not a place you're in where you can expect privacy, but you go to a reasonable effort to provide a certain degree of privacy even in a public place. What would be interesting is to see law or court ruling made to protect this privacy and then see someone use it to challenge something like TSA body scanners. But that might be getting a little off topic.

davidmcbeth, I agree with you completely on that... I'm just trying to have the conversation without the mods closing the thread. I don't agree with their "ruling" but I want(ed) to (try) to have the conversation anyway without breaking their "ruling"
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Is this the upskirt thread version 2.0? If it is its not remotely relevant to OC or any firearms. A sick dude got caught doing something f that should clearly be illegal.

Problem is the exact wording of the statute was close enough for an arrest but not close enough for conviction so the dude gets away with it.

Same thing happens in MA. Guy got caught bring a pervert. Law at the time didn't cover his behavior so they passed a new law.

Everybody complains about "victimless crimes" well this case there's a victim without a piece of paper that makes it a crime.

Love for one of you boys to say if it was your daughter you'd be ok with it.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Is this the upskirt thread version 2.0? If it is its not remotely relevant to OC or any firearms. A sick dude got caught doing something f that should clearly be illegal.

Problem is the exact wording of the statute was close enough for an arrest but not close enough for conviction so the dude gets away with it.

Same thing happens in MA. Guy got caught bring a pervert. Law at the time didn't cover his behavior so they passed a new law.

Everybody complains about "victimless crimes" well this case there's a victim without a piece of paper that makes it a crime.

Love for one of you boys to say if it was your daughter you'd be ok with it.

Is that what this is all about? fubar
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Is that what this is all about? fubar
I think so brother. I've been following and paying attention but they are just talking around eachother and literally mention this other cannot be name thread just about every post its the only thing i can think of.

Fubaf is correct. Straight soup sandwich.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Is this the upskirt thread version 2.0?...

Good question. I don't know the context of this OP, but I would clearly agree with you that a camera mounted in a place where eyes usually couldn't be could constitute an invasion of expected privacy.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Are you guys really that disrespectful and ignorant? Are you purposely trying to get my thread closed? Primus do you really not see how ignorant it is to say, "if it's this, it's not relevant to OC" it is what it is! read the topic and judge it for what it is! Not for how you think the topic came about or not! That is do ignorant!

Nightmare, please get that out of my thread!
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
The last thin I want is for a politician to think that a perv with a camera is analogous to me OCing with a camera.

Nor does anyone else that uses cameras in public! Professional photographers, tourists, freaking Google, the list could go on and on. It all falls back to the same right.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Good question. I don't know the context of this OP, but I would clearly agree with you that a camera mounted in a place where eyes usually couldn't be could constitute an invasion of expected privacy.
Very dangerous way to define the difference. Security cameras, hobbyists, satalite imagery, aerial imagery could all be in danger.

Better, IMO, would be to say that some clothing provides reasonable expectation of privacy within the boundaries of the clothing, with certain exceptions. Exact details of an example statute probably not need to be hashed out in this thread.


It sounds to me like general consensus is that to defend right in face of it "being abused" is to find and define A difference which actually causes bad behavior to not be protected. I think, maybe, one of the KEYS here is that there is a victim.. Or, what else would prevent this same reasoning being applied to other rights like 2a, or even same right in other context like saying filming police isn't covered just because it's considered immoral by some (or so they may claim).

"Police is victim when being filmed because it distracts them from their difficult/dangerous job" - why not? Well it is claiming a different reason for the officer being a victim. Not an expectation of privacy, but an expectation that someone not do anything distracting. I don't think a person has a per se 'right' to not be 'distracted', but probably to not be interfered with. So would the solution here be to find what level of 'distraction' constitutes 'interference'?

Sounds like there is disagreement on whether or not police should arrest for something that is not unlawful if the office finds the conduct immoral or in bad taste. Interesting.

I think my point has been made... You can accept the fact that with any right there are going to be difficult things to discuss and figure out, or you can just snub your nose at any topic that makes you uncomfortable and say "not me! doesn't effect me! doesn't have anything to do with MY rights!" and let others that are more bold figure out the solutions.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Nor does anyone else that uses cameras in public! Professional photographers, tourists, freaking Google, the list could go on and on. It all falls back to the same right.
You are at liberty, obviously, to claim the sky is falling. I, on the other hand, will focus narrowly on cops who take exception to me filming them in the public square.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
You are at liberty, obviously, to claim the sky is falling. I, on the other hand, will focus narrowly on cops who take exception to me filming them in the public square.
That is exactly the point....as it relates to OC and/or RKBA.

All else including, but not limited to, photographing children is decidedly off topic for this forum.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
You are at liberty, obviously, to claim the sky is falling. I, on the other hand, will focus narrowly on cops who take exception to me filming them in the public square.

By refusing to examine your rights in the abstract you are crippling your own understanding, and impairing your ability to defend your rights logically. But that's fine, feel free to click out of this thread and never return. It certainly won't hurt my feelings any :)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
By refusing to examine your rights in the abstract you are crippling your own understanding, and impairing your ability to defend your rights logically. But that's fine, feel free to click out of this thread and never return. It certainly won't hurt my feelings any :)
Me understanding my rights, which are painfully simple to understand, will not be clouded by equating me OCing to what that perv did to get out of a perv charge, via a legal loophole. You presume too much and consider, critically, too little.

Deal.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
That is exactly the point....as it relates to OC and/or RKBA.

All else including, but not limited to, photographing children is decidedly off topic for this forum.

Agree to the thousand percent! There is no right to film anybody under their clothing, such as looking up kilts or skirts. And even worse that a minor was involved. Personally I see it as child endangerment and abuse and the judge was wrong.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Darn! Also Sugar! Probablt also Fudge!

Here I was hoping that we really could get away from folks being pervs or legislatures being too stupid to realize that they are leaving ginormous loopholes in their efforts to make perviness illegal. I though we were going to discuss how to get magistrates and prosecutors and judges and CLEOs figure out how to put a stop to the Each-And-Every-Effing-Time lawsuits that are Settled-Out-Of-Court-So-No- Actual-Precedent-Is-Established way of dealing with cops ignoring what in fact is settled law, or how to eliminate qualified immunity for cops who trample settled law.

I threw what I thought were a few sparkly notions out there to see if they would get anybody's attention. I got one taker, who shot them down but offered nothing as an alternative except to say that Texas had a law, but stopped short of saying that magistrates and prosecutors and judges are not using it to put a stop to this sort of behavior by the police.

I'm left wondering: apathy, ignorance (as in "haven't a clue what to do"), or ADHD?

Somebody please PM me when this thing gets back on track, please.

stay safe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top