New Years snaps ‘disorderly behaviour’

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by xhanatos, Apr 11, 2013.

  1. xhanatos

    xhanatos Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    6,040
  2. BRGMCS

    BRGMCS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,665
    disgraceful decision by the court.
     
  3. Dropbear

    Dropbear Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,720
    Location:
    Brisbane
    sounds to me a) the guy had no lawyer and b) the magistrate had no real clue ...

    should be an easy win on appeal.
     
  4. Pinkeh

    Pinkeh Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,146
    Location:
    Sydney
    The blog is poorly written and there is confusion as to what the disorderly conduct charge is for.

    I doubt it has anything to do with photographs being taken on NYE, rather some scuffle between the photographer and the intoxicated men on the street.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2013
  5. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,114
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    If he wasn't with a gang of people, he should have decked him and took his phone back, and claimed self defence (self defence extends to your property).
     
  6. Dropbear

    Dropbear Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,720
    Location:
    Brisbane
    No, just no.
     
  7. cbb1935

    cbb1935 Guest

    Always two (and sometimes three) sides to a story.

    We've only heard one.

    It's the other 2 that will firm up the reality from the BS.
     
  8. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,114
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    Why the hell not? You have every right to stop someone from taking your property.

    It's unreasonable to believe saying 'no' will stop a drunkard who's trying to steal something of yours. It's unreasonable to believe that making it difficult to steal (such as holding it tightly, or putting it in your bag or pocket) would stop them, as opposed to agitating them and causing them to use force to take it.
     
  9. mmBax

    mmBax Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,266
    Am I the only one that reads it as though the guy is just a pervert that was taking photos of the chicks that were dressed in skimpy clothing?

    Taking photos with an iphone ocassionally.
    They had no problems leaving the house wearing those clothes etc

    So although this guy was technically doing nothing wrong, it just sounds as though he was taking advantage of drunk chicks wearing skimpy clothing and snapping away with an iphone.

    2 sides of the story, and I'm only guessing the second side, but thats how it reads for me.

    Guy that stole the phone off him was probably one drunk chicks bf that took offence to some guy taking photos of his drunk gf.
     
  10. Dropbear

    Dropbear Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,720
    Location:
    Brisbane

    Because your right to self defence does NOT extend to property. You have no right to assault anyone in an attempt to defend property. That is the law (I am 100% certain of this in SA, and fairly sure it applies equally in every other state in Australia).

    Your rights to self defence extend to yourself and other people. In SA, there is additional legal protection against "pre-emptive" defence, ie, you can argue that you acted as a result of a legitimately perceived thread, but again, that is only to protect people, not property.
     
  11. NanoBear

    NanoBear Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    124
    Location:
    Fremantle, WA
    Hopefully it gets appealed.
    Last I checked, you could photograph anyone or anything that is in or can be reasonably seen from a public place without permission. Same goes for video, but not sound recordings.

    Perhaps if there was a problem, harassment could have been a more appropriate charge.

    For NSW:

    Section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 outlines when self defence is available.

    (1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

    (2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:

    to defend himself or herself or another person, or
    to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or
    to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or
    to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,

    Looking for the others now.

    In broad terms, Qld, WA and Tas have statutory provisions for the defense of property, but it must be reasonable and necessary. Having trouble finding the specifics.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2013
  12. A_C

    A_C Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,747
    Location:
    5000
    I am 100% certain you are wrong.

    Source: Section 15 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 SA
     
  13. spawnske

    spawnske (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    72
    Came here for getting information on a new camera, and got sucked into this thread. Pretty much what you said, thr guy comes across as a creepy sicko voyerist who was filling his spank bank. His statement of "well leave the house like that...." really should scream he supports rape culture.

    Sorry but law or not, take photos of girls in skimpy clothing especially of my wife or close friend like a creep and expect to have your camera and phone taken. This is just absolutely pathetic and I am glad the law won in this case.

    Complaining that no one is making a fuss about CCTV is irrelevent. CCTV is there for our protection and public safety, don't even try to justify your creepy voyerist acts through that argument.
     
  14. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,905
    Location:
    melbourne
    Please, come on, really.
     
  15. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,114
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    Better leave the house blind folded guys, or you're supporting "rape culture"!!!111oneone.


    Actually, you better get on board the clue train. Because feminist psychobabble and reality are at the opposite ends of the spectrum (ie: it's fantasy).
     
  16. J.J.

    J.J. Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    679
    Location:
    Western Australia
    Agreed.

    The law is the law.

    You cannot interfere with another person. What you should do is approach the police, who were obviously around at the time, and have them handle the situation.
     
  17. PRiME2007

    PRiME2007 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    359
    Location:
    Adelaide Gawler
    Sounds like to me this guy met ALLOT of douche bags all at once. However one would need to see the images to determine if he was simply going out to take pictures of drunk half-naked chicks, which would kinda be a bit silly.

    Lucky he isn't in France, I heard people simply assault you over there.,
     
  18. GoldilokZ

    GoldilokZ Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    114
    Location:
    Gold Coast, QLD
    Really ??...from the information available, the ony douche in the whole story is the photographer.

    If the camera phone "stealer" was a douche, the camera phone would have been destroyed along with the photographers face.
    He obviously felt that the photos being taken were not of the "random celebration" type, and the police officer thought the same.
     
  19. Fortigurn

    Fortigurn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    13,229
    Location:
    taipei.tw
    Take photos of scantily clad women with cell phone camera = expect trouble. I read the article expecting it to be about a professional street photographer whose kit was unjustly stolen while they were involved in their daily career activities. It wasn't.
     
  20. O-B-E-L-I-X

    O-B-E-L-I-X Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    967
    Location:
    SYD, 2036
    In my opinion, strangers should not be photographed/filmed deliberately in public without their consent. It is another situation when you taking a fair distance landscape shot or of someone that you know and a stranger walks into the frame.

    There are too many morons these days with very easy access to some sort of image taking device whom will just post anything online without thinking at all. Such images have potential to ruin peoples lives and can stay in cyber space for ever.

    It is good to know :rolleyes: that we can defend ourselves and property as after that earlier post it would seem that the criminals had all the rights. :shock: and we just roll over...:upset:
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: