Man arrested for improper photography at Sea World

[Westx]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc..._arrested.html

[groovyone]

A 68-year-old man is free on bond Thursday after being arrested on a charge of taking improper pictures of women at SeaWorld San Antonio, authorities said.

Which one of you was it?

[hotshot38]

I saw this on two diff channels...one of them reported that were unsure of what the charges would be.

I despise pervs...but legally, the guy didn't HAVE to show his pictures. But, he WAS shooting from private property to private property and I think they most they could do was remove him from the property under 'we reserve the right to refuse', and minimally, 'hey, stop taking pictures!'.

I'm no lawyer, BUT, does one swimming in a 'public' pool, be it dolphin or otherwise, EXPECT some sort of privacy? It'll be one for the defense lawyers for sure.

On a personal level: glad they 'caught' the guy. I don't claim to understand the criminal mind, but I could think of less risky places of indiscretely photographing women in swimsuits. 400mm Image stabilized on a 12mb file. Anyways....I think there is more to this story than is so far reported.

[CaptainTom]

I shot a little tail while I was there.... but hey, I'm not 68 yrs old,,,,,yet.

[hotshot38]

chuckles...I have similar pictures when I let my ex borrow my cam....I've never been there myself

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by hotshot38

I saw this on two diff channels...one of them reported that were unsure of what the charges would be.

I despise pervs...but legally, the guy didn't HAVE to show his pictures. But, he WAS shooting from private property to private property and I think they most they could do was remove him from the property under 'we reserve the right to refuse', and minimally, 'hey, stop taking pictures!'.

I'm no lawyer, BUT, does one swimming in a 'public' pool, be it dolphin or otherwise, EXPECT some sort of privacy? It'll be one for the defense lawyers for sure.

On a personal level: glad they 'caught' the guy. I don't claim to understand the criminal mind, but I could think of less risky places of indiscretely photographing women in swimsuits. 400mm Image stabilized on a 12mb file. Anyways....I think there is more to this story than is so far reported.

I'm totally confused by your reply. Where were the women in bathing suits being photographed? Did you read the story or make one up from somewhere else ? " a woman in a yellow dress on the other side of the dolphin pool"...
I guess you've never been to Seaworld ?

This is how misinformation gets spread around like it was fact.

[hotshot38]

Sorry....I think it was the new story...forget which channel mentioned 'bathing suits' and 'swimming with dolphins' .

Considering the difference in reporting I've seen on the SA channels (including events I've been to) I don't give much water to any of them.

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by hotshot38

Sorry....I think it was the new story...forget which channel mentioned 'bathing suits' and 'swimming with dolphins' .

Considering the difference in reporting I've seen on the SA channels (including events I've been to) I don't give much water to any of them.

Maybe the written report is inaccurate. My first year journalism teacher would have a field day with this sentence :

The same guard also had seen Jackson taking pictures of other women while hiding behind some bushes.

What was the guard doing hiding behind bushes ???

[hotshot38]

See? A good perv would have been in plain site using Live-view and shooting from the hip....no need to hide behind the bushes with the guard.

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by hotshot38

See? A good perv would have been in plain site using Live-view and shooting from the hip....no need to hide behind the bushes with the guard.

There's no call to involve the ex-president in this arrest.

If it were me, and I'm not saying I would ever take photos of cleavages, I'd have started to show the photos to the guard and hit the Menu button, then Format/Yes by mistake. Preview button "no images"... oops, sorry.

[toverman]

A new meaning to "something fishy going on at SeaWorld."

[texkam]

See World

[Imagebuffet]

Texas has tried to prosecute photographers several times under this and predecessor laws, and usually ends up with egg on its face. The Texas Supreme Court ruled several years ago that the law as it was then written was unconstitutional. It is likely that the current law is, too. But, Texas wants a law like this badly enough to continue making attempts.

As if bad law weren't enough of a problem, the law isn't well-enforced, that is, legitimate photographers have been arrested and had to be released with an apology from the police.

Eventually, Texans might figure out that when in public, photographers have full right to photograph any part of other people that is showing. Meanwhile, we are going to see these kind of cases continue to appear.

[Rson]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

I shot a little tail while I was there.... but hey, I'm not 68 yrs old,,,,,yet.

I have the same pic.

[Hogleg 44]

I suspect that eventually some reasonably competent lawyer is going to enjoy defending this guy, and then suing the Guard and Seaworld!
While what he is accused of doing is not morally proper, I suspect it is stretching some law to call it illegal. These were not up-skirt photos.
Personally, I feel like the security guy was pushing his authority a bit to have the photog arrested because he was taking photos of women, and anatomy, that they were apparently openly and publicly displaying.