Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Taking Random Photos in Long Beach Can Put You in Handcuffs (Really)

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Taking Random Photos in Long Beach Can Put You in Handcuffs (Really)

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-25-2011
On 8/25/2011 10:43 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>
> To answer you question directly, in that list, I see
> no basis to presume any particular level of artistic
> sensibility or knowledge in people of those
> professions. There are a few professions that
> actually require some artistic sensibilities --
> gallery manager, art museum curator, illustrator,
> artist, art director, and others. Most professions
> have no requirements, and generally I see no reason
> to expect artistic interest and knowledge to
> correlate with profession for people where it
> isn't a professional requirement.


Most dentists I know have more artistic ability than the average bear.



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On 8/25/2011 10:53 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>
> And in an actual event, you and I (or one of your officers and I)
> might very well manage to bring it through without excitement.
>
> Do they say "Hey you, you can't photograph that!" in a case
> where that's clearly not true? Or do they say some variant of
> "Excuse me, sir, may I ask what you're doing here?" I'll say
> "I'm waiting for the light angle to be lower to take some photos
> of that bridge there." And I'll identify myself if asked. I get
> protective of right to photograph, and annoyed at officer
> ignorance, but would prefer to avoid becoming a test case
> without really egregious provocation.
>
> (The first one would get a polite request that they cite the
> law that forbids it, so I can go research that. And ID
> information so I can get back to them if I think they're
> wrong. That could, possibly, end up going okay also, and if
> it doesn't the officer is being an asshole.)
>
> > I take exception to your remark regarding police and Law

> enforcement
>> being "*extremely* poor judges of artistic merit". That is a biased and
>> prejudiced point of view, and might lead you confrontation rather than
>> an amicable agreement.

>
> Well, it's certainly not a job requirement for them. Some
> individuals may of course have first-rate knowledge / abilities
> in those areas (I'm a software engineer, a job which also
> has no requirements on artistic abilities). Any random
> policeman has some random chance as knowing as much
> as I do, just like any random software engineer does.
>
> However, I'll apologize for writing something that sounds
> like I think no policeman could possibly have that knowledge.
> I don't mean that; I mean only that their required skill set
> and training doesn't include the cutting edge of artistic
> sensibilities, so they shouldn't be put in situations that require
> that to make right decisions.


I don't mean to insult you, but the very characteristics that make you a
good software engineer may militate against your being a good artist.
Yes I well know there are are exceptions. But I understand it to be a
left brain, right brain thing.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On Aug 25, 10:17*am, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:43:51 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Aug 24, 3:56*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet

>
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
> >> >violation of my constitutional rights. *Police are *extremely*
> >> >poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
> >> >the only reason to take photos.

>
> >> The issue, though, is "Does the officer have probable cause?".

>
> >> "Probable cause" is the standard by which an officer has grounds to
> >> detain you, arrest you, or search you. *You don't set the standard. *

>
> >> The Fourth Amendment is where you find "probable cause".

>
> >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
> >> not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> >> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
> >> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

>
> >> You may be doing something perfectly legal and permissible, but the
> >> officer doesn't know that. *If you are lurking around a scene and
> >> waiting for the sun to cast a shadow to make the timing right to take
> >> a photograph, how is the policeman supposed to know what your
> >> intentions are?

>
> >By the camera set up on the tripod pointing at the scene?

>
> That's one way to defend an argument: *make up facts that don't exist
> in the premise. *How about if the guy is wearing a tee shirt that says
> "Al-Aqib School of Terrorism"?


How about it?

> >In any case, the policeman doesn't, clearly, have a warrant
> >at that point.

>
> A warrant is not required for an officer to question you. *A warrant,
> in this context, is an instrument authorizing arrest, search, or
> seizure. *
>
> You think a policeman needs a warrant to question a person? *


You're the one who brought in the fourth amendment.
The actions the policeman is taking clearly don't
meet the requirements set forth there (no warrant). If
you don't think a warrant is needed, why did you bring
up the fourth amendment?

> >> If there happens to be a store nearby that has been robbed frequently
> >> that you might be casing, and you are not even aware of that store's
> >> presence or recent history, how is the policeman supposed to know
> >> what's in your mind?

>
> >How does he expect to find out by hassling me? *If I were in fact
> >lurking to rob the store, I'd have a cover story handy.

>
> Asking you about what you are doing is not "hassling" you.


Matter of opinion, and you're dodging the question.

How does asking what I'm doing help him?
If I were in fact up to no good, I'd have a cover
story ready.

> >> The Fourth Amendment does not automatically place you above suspicion
> >> no matter how innocent your intentions are.

>
> >> Why, by the way, are policemen extremely poor judges of artistic
> >> merit? *Savageduck seems to be embodied with some artistic
> >> sensibilities. *You think a person's occupation determines his sense
> >> of artistic merit?

>
> >First of all, artistic merit at the level a gallery manager or
> >museum curator has to deal with it is an extremely arcane,
> >large, and specialized body of knowledge. *It's a full-time
> >job. *Policemen aren't spending their full time keeping up
> >with the art world, so they won't have that level of knowledge.
> >(I'm a software engineer and amateur photographer, I don't
> >have that level of knowledge either. *A policeman might
> >well know as much about it as I do, it could be associated
> >with a secondary activity for both of us. *I wasn't denigrating
> >policemen, I was arguing that it's a specialized field.)

>
> Nowhere does is say that the photograph is to be judged for artistic
> merit. *The police will not be issued Blue Ribbons to hand out.


The original claim involved photos being of no artistic
merit as part of what made taking them suspicious.
That's not a judgment the police generally are
equipped to make, so they shouldn't be put in the
position of having to.

> Aesthetic value is not synonymous with artistic merit. *Aesthetic
> value means only that the value is more than the physical properties.
> A child's handprint in clay has aesthetic value but no artistic merit.
>
> The judgement can be based solely on perceived intent of the
> photographer. *That intent is partially based on the image and
> partially based on the person's attitude and reaction when questioned.
>
> You may not give policemen credit for their artistic perception, but
> they are experienced and qualified to judge the personal reactions of
> people they question.


They think they are, but the statistics strongly suggest
otherwise.

> And, yes, you did denigrate policemen.


I made a statement about the class of
policeman that also applies to the class
of doctors and the class of software
engineers (which I belong to). It seems
to me that you're being hyper-sensitive on
behalf of policemen.

> >Second of all, artistic vision is very individual, and it's much
> >more likely that somebody is an artist with tastes outside
> >the norm than that he's a terrorist doing scouting.

>
> >> Who has more artistic sensibility...bus drivers, policemen, CPAs, bank
> >> clerks? *Can you rank them by occupation?

>
> >Okay, you're clearly feeling defensive of the artistic
> >sensibilities of policemen. *I was not criticizing
> >policemen; I hope I cleared that up above.

>
> No, you didn't, and I'm not defensive about the artistic sensibilities
> of policemen. *I am defensive about judging the artistic sensibilities
> of *anyone* based on their occupation.


Same thing. You're dodging the point again.

If saying clearly and plainly what I meant doesn't
clear it up, then don't worry about it, it's probably
not important.

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On Aug 25, 11:13*am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
> On 2011-08-25 07:53:20 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 24, 5:01*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> On 2011-08-24 13:02:00 -0700, David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> s

> > aid:

>
> >>> On Aug 24, 10:08 am, "Jeff Strickland" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> <<< Le Snip >>>

>
> >>>> Until there is an actual instance of somebody's Constitutional rights

> > being
> >>>> abridged, the cops should be looking at this sort of stuff. They wonde

> > r
> >>>> about the intrinsic value of photos of bridge pilings enough to ask
> >>>> questions of those who would take such a picture, and we (as a society

> > )
> >>>> don't mind. We, as a society, tolerate Grandma being groped at the air

> > port.
> >>>> I'm not a big fan of Granny Gropers, but if this is allowable behavior

> > *for
> >>>> government, surely the cops should take an active interest of individu

> > als
> >>>> that take photos of oil storage facilities that have little, if any,
> >>>> aesthetic value.

>
> >>> Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
> >>> violation of my constitutional rights. *Police are *extremely*
> >>> poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
> >>> the only reason to take photos.

>
> >> "Hassling" is your perception of any interruption of your activity. If
> >> you were out there taking photographs you would have already been
> >> stopped. Probable cause is very interpretive and subjective. If I as an
> >> officer saw you with your camera, behaving in what I believed was a
> >> suspicious manner, probable cause would have been established in my
> >> mind. You might disagree, but it would be my duty to at the very least
> >> to inquire as to what you were doing.

>
> > And in an actual event, you and I (or one of *your officers and I)
> > might very well manage to bring it through without excitement.

>
> > Do they say "Hey you, you can't photograph that!" in a case
> > where that's clearly not true? *Or do they say some variant of
> > "Excuse me, sir, may I ask what you're doing here?" *I'll say
> > "I'm waiting for the light angle to be lower to take some photos
> > of that bridge there." * And I'll identify myself if asked. *I get
> > protective of right to photograph, and annoyed at officer
> > ignorance, but would prefer to avoid becoming a test case
> > without really egregious provocation.

>
> My expectation would be a civil exchange of information from both
> parties to the latter scenario. I would only expect the former where
> restrictions are posted.
>
>
>
> > (The first one would get a polite request that they cite the
> > law that forbids it, so I can go research that. *And ID
> > information so I can get back to them if I think they're
> > wrong. *That could, possibly, end up going okay also, and if
> > it doesn't the officer is being an asshole.)

>
> I would suggest that you should adjust your plan of action according to
> the circumstances, which should include your first impressions of the
> officer and the tone of the interaction between the two of you. If you
> present your polite request for a citation of law or local code related
> to the officer, you had better have an idea of how that officer might
> react to the request. Some might view the request as a challenge to
> their authority, and so begins the downward spiral. Compliance, and a
> follow up call to the department Public Information Officer (PIO), or
> Community Resources Officer (CRO) is a more prudent course of action.
>
> Bruised egos can exist on both sides of the badge.


Yeah.

I use the same "try to stay in control of the situation"
tactics. Police tend to get brutal about it, and tend to
have highly inflated views of their own authority.

> > *> I take exception to your remark regarding police and Law
> > enforcement *
> >> being "*extremely* poor judges of artistic merit". That is a biased and
> >> prejudiced point of view, and might lead you confrontation rather than
> >> an amicable agreement.

>
> > Well, it's certainly not a job requirement for them. *Some
> > individuals may of course have first-rate knowledge / abilities
> > in those areas (I'm a software engineer, a job which also
> > has no requirements on artistic abilities). *Any random
> > policeman has some random chance as knowing as much
> > as I do, just like any random software engineer does.

>
> Stereotyping is never a good thing. There are amateurs in many fields
> unrelated to their profession with a subject knowledge that can be
> quite comprehensive. Taste and opinion are something else.
> I know photographers, cops and artists with terrible taste.


And amateurs nearly always have far inferior
expertise than professionals, which was my point
there. I, or a police officer, can't possibly find the
time in their life to keep up with art at the level
that a gallery manager or art museum curator
has to.

It's "about" police officers only because the original
post that started this thread was suggesting that
the low artistic merit of the photos was part of the
reason for considering them suspicious. That's not
a judgment police officers are qualified to make in
general, so the laws shouldn't be written so they
have to do so.

> > However, I'll apologize for writing something that sounds
> > like I think no policeman could possibly have that knowledge.
> > I don't mean that; I mean only that their required skill set
> > and training doesn't include the cutting edge of artistic
> > sensibilities, so they shouldn't be put in situations that require
> > that to make right decisions.

>
> Fair enough.


Good, thanks.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On Aug 25, 2:29*pm, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 8/25/2011 10:43 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>
>
> > To answer you question directly, in that list, I see
> > no basis to presume any particular level of artistic
> > sensibility or knowledge in people of those
> > professions. *There are a few professions that
> > actually require some artistic sensibilities --
> > gallery manager, art museum curator, illustrator,
> > artist, art director, and others. *Most professions
> > have no requirements, and generally I see no reason
> > to expect artistic interest and knowledge to
> > correlate with profession for people where it
> > isn't a professional requirement.

>
> Most dentists I know have more artistic ability than the average bear.


That seems believable.

I remember one case of a dentist buying
some art I liked at SF convention art shows, so
at least that dentist didn't have tastes drastically
different from mine .

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On Aug 25, 7:02*pm, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 8/25/2011 10:53 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > And in an actual event, you and I (or one of *your officers and I)
> > might very well manage to bring it through without excitement.

>
> > Do they say "Hey you, you can't photograph that!" in a case
> > where that's clearly not true? *Or do they say some variant of
> > "Excuse me, sir, may I ask what you're doing here?" *I'll say
> > "I'm waiting for the light angle to be lower to take some photos
> > of that bridge there." * And I'll identify myself if asked. *I get
> > protective of right to photograph, and annoyed at officer
> > ignorance, but would prefer to avoid becoming a test case
> > without really egregious provocation.

>
> > (The first one would get a polite request that they cite the
> > law that forbids it, so I can go research that. *And ID
> > information so I can get back to them if I think they're
> > wrong. *That could, possibly, end up going okay also, and if
> > it doesn't the officer is being an asshole.)

>
> > * > *I take exception to your remark regarding police and Law
> > enforcement
> >> being "*extremely* poor judges of artistic merit". That is a biased and
> >> prejudiced point of view, and might lead you confrontation rather than
> >> an amicable agreement.

>
> > Well, it's certainly not a job requirement for them. *Some
> > individuals may of course have first-rate knowledge / abilities
> > in those areas (I'm a software engineer, a job which also
> > has no requirements on artistic abilities). *Any random
> > policeman has some random chance as knowing as much
> > as I do, just like any random software engineer does.

>
> > However, I'll apologize for writing something that sounds
> > like I think no policeman could possibly have that knowledge.
> > I don't mean that; I mean only that their required skill set
> > and training doesn't include the cutting edge of artistic
> > sensibilities, so they shouldn't be put in situations that require
> > that to make right decisions.

>
> I don't mean to insult you, but the very characteristics that make you a
> good software engineer may militate against your being a good artist.
> Yes I well know there are are exceptions. But I understand it to be a
> left brain, right brain thing.


Certainly possible. I'm more interested in documentary
photography than making serious fine art, and I'm not
that invested in any beliefs about my exquisite artistic
skills.

And it's certainly possible that people who seem
to be in a position of disadvantage can somehow
manage to excel. We don't always know how, but
it does happen.


 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Aug 25, 10:17*am, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:43:51 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >On Aug 24, 3:56*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet

>>
>> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> >Stopping and hassling me without probable cause is a
>> >> >violation of my constitutional rights. *Police are *extremely*
>> >> >poor judges of artistic merit, AND artistic merit isn't
>> >> >the only reason to take photos.

>>
>> >> The issue, though, is "Does the officer have probable cause?".

>>
>> >> "Probable cause" is the standard by which an officer has grounds to
>> >> detain you, arrest you, or search you. *You don't set the standard. *

>>
>> >> The Fourth Amendment is where you find "probable cause".

>>
>> >> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
>> >> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
>> >> not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
>> >> supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
>> >> place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

>>
>> >> You may be doing something perfectly legal and permissible, but the
>> >> officer doesn't know that. *If you are lurking around a scene and
>> >> waiting for the sun to cast a shadow to make the timing right to take
>> >> a photograph, how is the policeman supposed to know what your
>> >> intentions are?

>>
>> >By the camera set up on the tripod pointing at the scene?

>>
>> That's one way to defend an argument: *make up facts that don't exist
>> in the premise. *How about if the guy is wearing a tee shirt that says
>> "Al-Aqib School of Terrorism"?

>
>How about it?
>
>> >In any case, the policeman doesn't, clearly, have a warrant
>> >at that point.

>>
>> A warrant is not required for an officer to question you. *A warrant,
>> in this context, is an instrument authorizing arrest, search, or
>> seizure. *
>>
>> You think a policeman needs a warrant to question a person? *

>
>You're the one who brought in the fourth amendment.
>The actions the policeman is taking clearly don't
>meet the requirements set forth there (no warrant). If
>you don't think a warrant is needed, why did you bring
>up the fourth amendment?


I brought it up because you brought up "probable cause". It's right
up there above in this post.

I don't *think* there's no need for a warrant to question you, I
*know* there's no need for a warrant. The warrant follows the
questioning if there's cause; it isn't required for the questioning.

Asking you what you are doing is not arresting you or searching you or
anything else prohibited unless the officer has a warrant.

>> >> If there happens to be a store nearby that has been robbed frequently
>> >> that you might be casing, and you are not even aware of that store's
>> >> presence or recent history, how is the policeman supposed to know
>> >> what's in your mind?

>>
>> >How does he expect to find out by hassling me? *If I were in fact
>> >lurking to rob the store, I'd have a cover story handy.

>>
>> Asking you about what you are doing is not "hassling" you.

>
>Matter of opinion, and you're dodging the question.


No, I'm not. Asking you what you are doing is not hassling you by any
definition of the word. He's as much interested in your behavior and
reactions as he is in what you say. It's how your "cover story" is
presented that he's watching for.

>How does asking what I'm doing help him?
>If I were in fact up to no good, I'd have a cover
>story ready.
>
>The original claim involved photos being of no artistic
>merit as part of what made taking them suspicious.
>That's not a judgment the police generally are
>equipped to make, so they shouldn't be put in the
>position of having to.


No it didn't. Don't make things up. It said "with no apparent
esthetic [sic] value". Artistic merit and aesthetic value are two
different things.

We have a poster here who frequently links to his photographs of
religious icons and scenes. His photos, in my opinion, have no
artistic merit. They do have aesthetic value if only to him.

Even the police spokesman recognizes the difference between the two.
A software engineer should be able to. Read the next paragraph.

>> Aesthetic value is not synonymous with artistic merit. *Aesthetic
>> value means only that the value is more than the physical properties.
>> A child's handprint in clay has aesthetic value but no artistic merit.
>>
>> The judgement can be based solely on perceived intent of the
>> photographer. *That intent is partially based on the image and
>> partially based on the person's attitude and reaction when questioned.
>>
>> You may not give policemen credit for their artistic perception, but
>> they are experienced and qualified to judge the personal reactions of
>> people they question.

>
>They think they are, but the statistics strongly suggest
>otherwise.


What statistics?

>> And, yes, you did denigrate policemen.

>
>I made a statement about the class of
>policeman that also applies to the class
>of doctors and the class of software
>engineers (which I belong to). It seems
>to me that you're being hyper-sensitive on
>behalf of policemen.


What "class" of policemen? You're digging a deeper hole, here, about
the subjective abilities of someone in a particular occupation.
>
>> >Second of all, artistic vision is very individual, and it's much
>> >more likely that somebody is an artist with tastes outside
>> >the norm than that he's a terrorist doing scouting.

>>
>> >> Who has more artistic sensibility...bus drivers, policemen, CPAs, bank
>> >> clerks? *Can you rank them by occupation?

>>
>> >Okay, you're clearly feeling defensive of the artistic
>> >sensibilities of policemen. *I was not criticizing
>> >policemen; I hope I cleared that up above.

>>
>> No, you didn't, and I'm not defensive about the artistic sensibilities
>> of policemen. *I am defensive about judging the artistic sensibilities
>> of *anyone* based on their occupation.

>
>Same thing. You're dodging the point again.


What if I were to say that software engineers are basically incapable
of appreciating fine art, music, or literature? Is that a fair
statement about the members of the occupation? It's certainly true
about some, but is it a fair blanket statement? That's what you are
doing.

Your "point" seems to be that you feel you are above being questioned
in any way because you feel that you would not be doing anything
wrong. You don't seem to recognize that a policeman's point might be
that he doesn't know what is on your mind and that his job is to
determine that if he feels it necessary to do so.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:34:17 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Aug 25, 2:29*pm, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 8/25/2011 10:43 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > To answer you question directly, in that list, I see
>> > no basis to presume any particular level of artistic
>> > sensibility or knowledge in people of those
>> > professions. *There are a few professions that
>> > actually require some artistic sensibilities --
>> > gallery manager, art museum curator, illustrator,
>> > artist, art director, and others. *Most professions
>> > have no requirements, and generally I see no reason
>> > to expect artistic interest and knowledge to
>> > correlate with profession for people where it
>> > isn't a professional requirement.

>>
>> Most dentists I know have more artistic ability than the average bear.

>
>That seems believable.
>
>I remember one case of a dentist buying
>some art I liked at SF convention art shows, so
>at least that dentist didn't have tastes drastically
>different from mine .


Yeah, and some dentists buy Thomas Kinkade pieces.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:33:19 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>It's "about" police officers only because the original
>post that started this thread was suggesting that
>the low artistic merit of the photos was part of the
>reason for considering them suspicious.


It did not. "Artistic merit" was never mentioned.

Not only did the article not mention "artistic merit", it said
"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a
refinery, it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with
the individual."

That says that the image doesn't even have to be seen by the officer,
let alone judged for merit. What prompts the officer to make contact
is seeing the person apparently taking photographs of something like a
refinery.

The contact is walking over and asking questions. The contact can be
ended before the officer even views the images. If the photographer
explains that he's trying to capture the scene as the sun sets behind
the complex structures for his entry in the Shoot-In, the officer may
walk away (laughing?) without ever looking at the image. Contact has
been made.

If the photographer is shooting film, the image is not seen at all.

It's the same thing as an officer pulling over a driver who is driving
erratically. The contact is stopping the driver and asking questions.
The contact can be ended at that point if it's obvious to the officer
that the erratic driving was a result of a bee or wasp in the car.

You can argue that it is inappropriate for an officer to determine
that taking a photograph is a suspicious act that requires contact,
and I'll probably agree with you in most cases.

However, you've made this an issue of occupation determining a
person's artistic sensibilities.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-26-2011
On 8/26/2011 2:51 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:34:17 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 25, 2:29 pm, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2011 10:43 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> To answer you question directly, in that list, I see
>>>> no basis to presume any particular level of artistic
>>>> sensibility or knowledge in people of those
>>>> professions. There are a few professions that
>>>> actually require some artistic sensibilities --
>>>> gallery manager, art museum curator, illustrator,
>>>> artist, art director, and others. Most professions
>>>> have no requirements, and generally I see no reason
>>>> to expect artistic interest and knowledge to
>>>> correlate with profession for people where it
>>>> isn't a professional requirement.
>>>
>>> Most dentists I know have more artistic ability than the average bear.

>>
>> That seems believable.
>>
>> I remember one case of a dentist buying
>> some art I liked at SF convention art shows, so
>> at least that dentist didn't have tastes drastically
>> different from mine .

>
> Yeah, and some dentists buy Thomas Kinkade pieces.
>

Sorry Tony.
there is a parallel between the skills needed to do certain types of
dentistry and artistic ability, including but not limited to sculpture.
think about it. Is there not a certain amount of sculpturing involved in
filling your tooth, although on a different scale?

>



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Math.random() and Math.round(Math.random()) and Math.floor(Math.random()*2) VK Javascript 15 05-02-2010 03:43 PM
Having compilation error: no match for call to (const __gnu_cxx::hash<long long int>) (const long long int&) veryhotsausage C++ 1 07-04-2008 05:41 PM
random.random(), random not defined!? globalrev Python 4 04-20-2008 08:12 AM
Windows defense handcuffs good guys Au79 Computer Support 0 08-15-2006 02:19 AM
Misc mountain photos and beach sunrise photos beachpirate2 Digital Photography 1 11-12-2003 04:41 PM



Advertisments