Other photographer watching/shooting you?

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by MD2595

You have no right to intentionally disrupt the photog and subject(s) in this scenario.

Would everyone consider the shoot a "proceeding" or "gathering"???

I sure consider it at least a "gathering" so this could apply:


Sec. 42.05. DISRUPTING MEETING OR PROCESSION. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

It would at least give the OP something to reference in the future. An officer could use this statute to begin investigating her call. The officer could make the outsider aware of this statute thereby giving him the opportunity to leave. If he chose not too, then it could give the officer grounds to give the offender a ride to the gray bar motel.

MD2595 added 20 Minutes and 42 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below



If they are commiting conduct prohibited by statute or ordinance, then you have every right to ask them to leave.

There is no right for someone to interfere with another's liberties.


There are those that would burn a flag and call it "freedom of speech".

Try that in front of me and you'll suffer consequences:

Sec. 42.11. DESTRUCTION OF FLAG. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces, mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of Texas.

(b) In this section, "flag" means an emblem, banner, or other standard or a copy of an emblem, standard, or banner that is an official or commonly recognized depiction of the flag of the United States or of this state and is capable of being flown from a staff of any character or size. The term does not include a representation of a flag on a written or printed document, a periodical, stationery, a painting or photograph, or an article of clothing or jewelry.

(c) It is an exception to the application of this section that the act that would otherwise constitute an offense is done in conformity with statutes of the United States or of this state relating to the proper disposal of damaged flags.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 27, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Renumbered from Penal Code Sec. 42.14 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

I served my country as a United States Marine when I was young. I did a tour in Desert Storm. You don't disgrace my flag.

See you in court, to keep the 1st Amendment alive.

[Whumbahcumba]

Originally Posted by MD2595

You have no right to intentionally disrupt the photog and subject(s) in this scenario.

Would everyone consider the shoot a "proceeding" or "gathering"???

I sure consider it at least a "gathering" so this could apply:


Sec. 42.05. DISRUPTING MEETING OR PROCESSION. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

It would at least give the OP something to reference in the future. An officer could use this statute to begin investigating her call. The officer could make the outsider aware of this statute thereby giving him the opportunity to leave. If he chose not too, then it could give the officer grounds to give the offender a ride to the gray bar motel.

The kicker there is "with intent." Also, as far as I have heard from the OP, there was no "physical action or verbal utterance" to disrupt the shoot. Sure, you might say that the action of photographing the OP and her client was "physical action" you have to keep it in context of "with intent to prevent or disrupt." I'm pretty sure that in this scenario, the other photog had no intention of disrupting the OP.

[ElanR]

Originally Posted by MD2595

You have no right to intentionally disrupt the photog and subject(s) in this scenario.

Would everyone consider the shoot a "proceeding" or "gathering"???

I sure consider it at least a "gathering" so this could apply:


Sec. 42.05. DISRUPTING MEETING OR PROCESSION. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

It would at least give the OP something to reference in the future. An officer could use this statute to begin investigating her call. The officer could make the outsider aware of this statute thereby giving him the opportunity to leave. If he chose not too, then it could give the officer grounds to give the offender a ride to the gray bar motel.

Sorry, Matt. I'm not impressed.

In a proper police state, your assertion will be correct because your badge would make you judge and jury. In this country, you have to prove the intent cited, and sitting next to someone would never pass muster as such. As john already pointed out, you'll also have to overcome freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. No chance of this obscure code offering a challenge to either of those.

Very frankly, Matt, I hope you're not one of those authoritarian type of cops that uses any vague anchor in the law to intimidate people out of their rights. I can tell you that those types get a free ride only for so long. They eventually run into someone that calls their bluff and either have to back down, or have that person become an intimate part of their career for the next few years. Enough said.

[MD2595]

Originally Posted by ElanR

Sorry, Matt. I'm not impressed.

In a proper police state, your assertion will be correct because your badge would make you judge and jury. In this country, you have to prove the intent cited, and sitting next to someone would never pass muster as such. As john already pointed out, you'll also have to overcome freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. No chance of this obscure code offering a challenge to either of those.

Very frankly, Matt, I hope you're not one of those authoritarian type of cops that uses any vague anchor in the law to intimidate people out of their rights. I can tell you that those types get a free ride only for so long. They eventually run into someone that calls their bluff and either have to back down, or have that person become an intimate part of their career for the next few years. Enough said.

I'm not here to impress you (or anyone else).


Cases are not tried on the street. All an officer has to do is have the elements of the offense present to take action. That action does not mean a case filed to proceed to the Grand Jury, or a conviciton.

Using the law to intimidate is not the goal. If you have a valid complaint, it is one's job to use the tools available to carry out your task.

There is no job second guessed like law enforcement.

If you are aggresive, you are a "jack booted thug".

If you don't do something a person wants, you are a "typical lazy cop".

I'm quickly approaching 20 years. I have enough experience to handle most situations.

All this discussion and "what ifs" has turned the OP's original post into a Tiananmen Square.

MD2595 added 4 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

---------------------

Originally Posted by Whumbahcumba

The kicker there is "with intent." Also, as far as I have heard from the OP, there was no "physical action or verbal utterance" to disrupt the shoot. Sure, you might say that the action of photographing the OP and her client was "physical action" you have to keep it in context of "with intent to prevent or disrupt." I'm pretty sure that in this scenario, the other photog had no intention of disrupting the OP.

I was referencing this:

Originally Posted by ElanR

Actually, the guy has a right to sit right next to them, look at them and sing out loud if he wants to. The bottom line is that if you choose a public park for your commercial photo shoot, you might just have to put up with the public for whom that park was put there to begin with. If you want privacy, you need to take your shoots to private property.

[ElanR]

Originally Posted by MD2595

I'm not here to impress you (or anyone else).

You're doing well..

In the example I gave, if a cop was to intervene, all the person has to say is that they're doing nothing illegal and that if the other folks don't like them in proximity, they can simply move away. At that point, there's nothing the cop can do short of abusing their power. It really is that simple.

And before you get the wrong idea, I'm a strong supporter of law enforcement -- as long as they follow the law.

[CaptainTom]

Maybe this could turn into a poll ?

What would you do given the circumstances outlined in the OP post ( not the many what ifs)

" Oh hey is that guy with you, he is taking picures of us?..." I turned around becasue I shoot alone and a very friendly looking, older gentleman was sure enough there camera in hand...now I didnt see him take our picture but he looked at me and I looked at him gave a friendly nod and went on trying to wrangle the toddler I was attemping to photograph. I tried to reassure the mom, my assumption, he was probably just watching to see how I shot...I went on my business and this gentleman continued to watch us and I mean watch us, everytime I looked up he was there...now he stayed a far distance away but he was ever present. At this point mom was becoming uncomfortable..

1- Ignore the situation
2- ask him what he was doing
3- tell him to go away
4- leave the area yourself
5- call the police
6- beat him to the ground
7- use a Taser
8- shoot him
9- arrest him
10- threaten him with a club
11- beat him with a club
12- have I forgotten anything others have suggested ?

[ElanR]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Maybe this could turn into a poll ?

What would you do given the circumstances outlined in the OP post ( not the many what ifs)

1- Ignore the situation
Bingo! Should have stopped there.

2- ask him what he was doing
By what right?

3- tell him to go away
See #2.

4- leave the area yourself
Why?

5- call the police
For what??

6- beat him to the ground
This sweet old man??

7- use a Taser
I don't own a taser.

8- shoot him
That would be a close second, but I'm sticking with #1.

9- arrest him
Again, for what??

10- threaten him with a club
I'm not a member of any club.

11- beat him with a club
"So easy, a caveman can do it."

12- have I forgotten anything others have suggested?
The obvious: Smile and wave. This is Texas after all!

[MD2595]

Originally Posted by ElanR

You're doing well..

In the example I gave, if a cop was to intervene, all the person has to say is that they're doing nothing illegal and that if the other folks don't like them in proximity, they can simply move away. At that point, there's nothing the cop can do short of abusing their power. It really is that simple.

And before you get the wrong idea, I'm a strong supporter of law enforcement -- as long as they follow the law.

And you would have an example of someone trying to skirt the law to do something they really shouldn't be doing in the first place. I mean, really, if you have to call the police, shouldn't there be a situation that could have been avoided in the first place. If the guy doesn't leave, isn't that inviting conflict. Morally, he has no right to interfere with the legal proceedings of the photographer and her clients. If he is making them feel uncomfortable, then he should leave if they were there first.

MD2595 added 2 Minutes and 42 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by ElanR

1- Ignore the situation
Bingo! Should have stopped there.

2- ask him what he was doing
By what right?

3- tell him to go away
See #2.

4- leave the area yourself
Why?

5- call the police
For what??

6- beat him to the ground
This sweet old man??

7- use a Taser
I don't own a taser.

8- shoot him
That would be a close second, but I'm sticking with #1.

9- arrest him
Again, for what??

10- threaten him with a club
I'm not a member of any club.

11- beat him with a club
"So easy, a caveman can do it."

12- have I forgotten anything others have suggested?
The obvious: Smile and wave. This is Texas after all!

Really? If you were in the same situation and had a client complaining that he was making them feel uncomfortable/creepy you would tell your client "Oh, grow up and put on your big girl panties" at the risk of offending your client(s)?

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by MD2595

And you would have an example of someone trying to skirt the law to do something they really shouldn't be doing in the first place. I mean, really, if you have to call the police, shouldn't there be a situation that could have been avoided in the first place. If the guy doesn't leave, isn't that inviting conflict. Morally, he has no right to interfere with the legal proceedings of the photographer and her clients. If he is making them feel uncomfortable, then he should leave if they were there first.

MD2595 added 2 Minutes and 42 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below



Really? If you were in the same situation and had a client complaining that he was making them feel uncomfortable/creepy you would tell your client "Oh, grow up and put on your big girl panties" at the risk of offending your client(s)?

Again I'll say. My neighbors are smokers. I don't like it. It stinks. But, should I call the police on them ? There is no indication of anyone interfering with the legal proceedings of anyone, including those of the so called "man watching".
The rest of the so called scenario is made up and complete fiction.
I can't believe anybody is reading the original post and after seeing "he was making the client uncomfortable" would offer such advice as we have heard here. I have to think you are all just baiting the bear.

[ElanR]

Originally Posted by MD2595

Really? If you were in the same situation and had a client complaining that he was making them feel uncomfortable/creepy you would tell your client "Oh, grow up and put on your big girl panties" at the risk of offending your client(s)?

I don't make my living from photography, so I'm taking this same scenario and applying it to my line of work -- and the answer is yes. I wouldn't use this kind of language, but I would tell them to just ignore him and then proceed to lead that by example. This man's constitutional rights are more important to me than the equivalent of a session fee. If you think about it, these are really my constitutional rights I'm guarding. Yours, too.

I have to also say that I'm really surprised at this topic and the kind of responses it received. Photographers all over, including many in this forum, are complaining about being picked on and intimidated for what they consider the perfectly legal activity of taking photos of people and places in public. But when the shoe is on the other foot, other people's rights seem to be of no concern all of a sudden. There's a word for this...

[jeffro20]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

Maybe this could turn into a poll ?

What would you do given the circumstances outlined in the OP post ( not the many what ifs)



1- Ignore the situation
2- ask him what he was doing
3- tell him to go away
4- leave the area yourself
5- call the police
6- beat him to the ground
7- use a Taser
8- shoot him
9- arrest him
10- threaten him with a club
11- beat him with a club
12- have I forgotten anything others have suggested ?

I'm gonna go with......

-giving him the "why are you shadowing us" look frequently.

[sldi]

ya forgots the good ole tradition of throwing a rope around the scoundrels neck and dragging him away from the shoot and tossing the other end over a tree limb.

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by sldi

ya forgots the good ole tradition of throwing a rope around the scoundrels neck and dragging him away from the shoot and tossing the other end over a tree limb.

I would have included that in the poll but no one told me the guy in question was............an Okie !

[ka5txl]

Originally Posted by MD2595

There is no job second guessed like law enforcement.

Tony Romo might disagree but He is definantly paid more.

ka5txl added 1 Minutes and 51 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

I would vote for 1)