Last week while walking in the downtown area, I noticed three Police Vehicles with Ambulance in check.
I quickly ran to the scene. My God? I truly have to stop smoking!!!!
Once at the scene, I began clicking away.
One officer shouted - CHARLES????
The other Police Officer shouted at me to get away from the Road.
Well? If looks could kill? I would have been dead!!!
I was standing on the sidewalk clicking away!!!
At the end, one Female Officer very nicely told me that the guy was drunk and it wouldn’t be fair to put the guy’s face on the internet.
I agreed!
Boy? The only reason I remain back and take pictures? If something happens? I got the evidence.
Just like Saint John? These protesters showed up with masks and it was a scary. If the protesters would have assaulted the Police Officers or the other way around? I would have the evidence.
But I never expected the Saint John Police Force to assault me and delete over 200 pictures from my camera.
Which reminds me? I haven’t heard nothing from the New Brunswick Police Commission? I got to contact my lawyer on this one.
This issue is not done yet!!! Not from a long shot!!!
Ok..Never mind that issue.
So? If I’m walking on the sidewalk and the Police are making an arrest?
Am I allowed to take pictures or can I end up in trouble again?
One of these days, this little blogger is going to get himself shot!!!
16 comments:
charles can I be your sidekick.. lol, your hilarious, see thier faces, they look angry.
Charles,
You have to earn the police officers trust that you won't show the faces on the internet without the person's permission. Do you ask permission to show their faces on the internet?
Y.B.
A public place so permission is not required.
So you respect a drunk's privacy but not the privacy of the woman who fell and had blood on her face? You truly are disgusting.
"A public place so permission is not required."
Where to people get this crap?
"Where to people get this crap?"
Mainly the law.. The event is happening on public property and charles legally is aloud to take as many pictures as he wants.
Me again.
You missed my point, Anon. 10:25.
You may be right that there's no legal barrier to Charles taking pictures of people in public. It may even be true that there's no legal reason he can't publish such pictures on his blog. I don't know, to be honest.
Most of the people who criticize Charles for posting pics of private citizens are not suggesting he's doing anything illegal. We're saying it's mean. Unfair. Often hurtful. In bad taste. Classless.
These are everyday people going about their daily business. It's not right to appropriate their images.
Those are two different issues. Interesting though that such a fuss is made over Charles when your picture is taking dozens of times every day, every time you walking into a store, when you walk past a bank, they were even talking about putting them outside downtown.
Charles is being far too nice posting insults, how often do you see those kinds of letters to the editor in the Irving papers. The woman who fell was a first time event and there was much discussion over whether the picture should have been posted and Charles at least acknowledged that, which is why there seems to be a new policy.
However, I do agree that Charles should have some kind of 'policy' for taking random pictures of people. In most of the pictures it clearly looks like people are posing, but then there are others. They are very few though, however, Charles would get a lot more support if he had a publicly stated policy respecting peoples privacy. Everybody is a potential reader and supporter, but I can easily imagine being really pissed off thinking that any time you are walking around downtown you may end up in a blog. More people pissed off at him is something Charles doesn't need.
Mikel,
My picture is indeed taken by stores, banks, etc. But they don't take pictures of me except on their property, and they don't post pictures of me in public, online or otherwise.
Charles takes pictures of people in public, without permission in many cases, and and publishes them here without permission. When I see his "blogger" jacket coming, I clear out. He has already got me on his blog in a picture with others and called us all "nuts" for lining up at the Market: I would prefer to avoid further ridicule.
Don't get me wrong: I applaud most of what Charles does, and support him on some (not all) issues. But he is wrong to post pics without permission. Not legally wrong, but wrong nevertheless.
I think genuine public interest (not prurient curiosity, but a 'need to know') would justify posting some pics without permission. For example, if he caught Jeannot Volpe tipping off Richard Duplain about TJ Burke's bar scrao at age 18, he should post that. But random people should be free to live their lives without unwanted publicity.
Just driving,
I pretty much agree with you on this issue. There is no law (that I know of) that outlaws taking pictures in a public place. However, publishing pictures without due permission can be very touchy. According to the charter of rights (that Charles defends very strongly) everybody has the right to privacy. The problem is, being in a public place does not necessary mean that you want the world to know about it. You have the right to be in a public place and still have a private life. The law has yet to put in place a line to follow has to what you can and cannot do with a blog. In the near future, there will have to be laws to follow (in bloging) in order to protect the right to privacy. I think the key word is respect.
p.s. Charles, please think of the person your publishing. If there's a good enough reason to go public without there permission, then at least do it with respect.
don't go near any of the citys web cams either just passing
Just passing,
I don't think the problem is taking pictures,it's more what you do with these pictures. No harm in taking pictures but what you do with them can be a lot more harmful.
Hi Anon 2:58,
I'm not "just passing". My handle is similar, but not the same, and I do believe I was using mine first. I think "just passing" really dislikes Charles: certainly i've never seen him/her say anything remotely supportive. I don't. I agree with Charles on VLTs and his ban, disagree with him on a ritalin study and on abolishing the Human Rights Commission. I think I give praise when it's due and question him (and others) when I think that's due.
A honest cop will have no problem with being filmed as he should be confident he is doing his or her job properly,good to have pics in case!
You must have ran up on them at warp speed judging by the faces on them.They look like a bunch of kids that just got caught smoking a cigarette!
2 cents,
I don't agree with you at 100%. Take for example the arrest of Charles Leblanc in St-John, the picture showing Charles on the ground with his hands behind his back looks like police violence. But what we don't know is what happened before that picture was taken. Did Charles make threats to the police? Did Charles resist arrest? Was Charles violent? These are all things that a picture taken out of content doesn't tell. That could be one of the reasons officers don't like to be taken pictures of. I don't necessary defend the police officers but do understand that a picture can be taken out of content and put somebody in big trouble.
If they are doing there job honestly they have NOTHING to worry about as if they are acting withing the law it is ok no matter who takes a picture in what position! Too many people get beat up and even murdered in police custody and all too often these tapes or pictures mysteriously go missing just like charles pictures! I am currently suing a police force for assault and these cops are nothing more than crooked government trained garbage..............they lie in court and get away with perjury even when there is undeniable proof!
Post a Comment