A man with a camera and a smartphone was questioned for twenty minutes in his own neighborhood after a woman called the cops, fearing he was taking photographs of children in the park across the street. It turned out he was just a guy who lives nearby and has been photographing his neighborhood for three decades. Was this a little embarrassing for the woman? She might feel that way, but there are two sides to this story.
Essentially, the Internet (of photographers, perhaps) seems annoyed that another human being was concerned with someone taking photographs. Neither the fact that six policemen arrived to question the man for 20 minutes while looking through photographs on his phone to confirm he had not taken photos with that device either, as had been suggested, nor the fact that the man hadn't even actually taken any photographs yet help the situation seem any better. But was it really that bad?
So, she was wrong in her suspicions; I get it. But can you really blame her? The article quoted in this story suggests we should simply talk to people that we're worried might be photographing children in a not-so-innocent way. And that's true. That's one way to go.
On the other hand, I think it's hard for men (and I'm a dude, for the record) to understand the fear women go through every day. I've imagined it and I think it would be even presumptuous of the relatively socially forward-thinking me that I am to say that I fully understand. I had an experience walking in Detroit several years ago with a Hasselblad H4D-40 around my neck that scared me for the first time in my life. Until that point, I hadn't been scared — not once — walking down any street in the world (and I'd been around quite a bit, not to mention the better part of a year spent in Ghana back in high school).
Society — okay, so maybe not you or me, but maybe — has its effect on women regardless and in a much more profound, everyday, non-location-specific manner. There’s not much anyone can do about it without decades of slow progress.
Was this woman’s life or well-being threatened in that specific moment? Perhaps not. But it’s this same fear that is increased by the same media that posts and shouts of every child molester’s wrong-doings, taking advantage of the situation and constantly building fear surrounding the idea of men photographing children (don't get me wrong: child molesters are terrible, for lack of a better term at the moment, but it's the media's constant extension of every scenario that makes it seem like every man who smiles at a kid with ice cream on his or her face is a potential pervert).
But we have to live both sides of this with grace and a good attitude. We (as men) need to be understanding of the fact that, yes, it’s a bit creepy to photograph near, around, or in the general direction of children. As much as I want to photograph beautiful and interesting children, men, women, and everything in-between, the older I get, the weirder it gets for me to photograph at least the children. That part is just not quite the same for female photographers. And no, it may not be fair, even though we have the best intentions. However, I think a man with a camera near a park can go through a few minutes of questioning to satisfy everyone’s worry and make them feel comfortable for once.
The man in this story complained that his wife saw him with the officers when she came home and immediately thought the worst might have happened to their teenage son, causing her to shake with grief from her stirred worries. While it’s unfortunate that she was worried, that is simply a mother’s reaction and the very normal act of “jumping to the worst conclusion” that every mother does when the phone rings late at night or when receiving a text that plainly states, “call me.” At some point, worrying is just a part of life that we need to deal with and police shouldn't have to worry about someone else who might start to worry that someone they love might be hurt after simply seeing the police near their home.
So, why couldn’t the woman who called the cops just have asked this man what he was up to in the safety of broad daylight? First of all, the “safety of broad daylight” could easily be considered a myth for many women. And second, I’m sure she legitimately thought the man was a creep. What woman wants to walk up to a man like that and question him or perhaps tip him off and have him disappear into the wind? At some point, police are there for a reason: to be that safe barrier.
With all the stories about police brutality lately, calling the cops might be viewed as extreme. But by the sound of it, these policemen seem to have handled themselves the same way that the far majority of officers still seem to do so: with adequate restraint and good intention. Were six officers a bit much? Perhaps. But having backup simply keeps the officers as safe as possible and who isn’t for that, really?
No one was tackled. No one was arrested without cause. The man was simply questioned and 20 minutes of his day were “wasted” to satisfy the worry of another woman (and he didn’t have to give up access to his phone if he didn’t want to, but he obviously felt it was okay and in his best interest to cooperate and help prove his lack of ill will). It wasn’t the best day for anyone. But it wasn’t the crime of the century, either. Can we all just get over it?
What do you think? Was it an overreaction? Was the man “wrongly” questioned? Ready, set, comment.
UPDATE: It should be noted that taking pictures of anyone on public property is not a crime (at least not in the U.S.). There was obviously a huge assumption made that this man was taking photos of children and that he was planning on using them in some negative fashion. However, legally, there is nothing that is "wrong" or that can be done until this man uses those photos in that negative fashion, whatever it may be (not sure what you can do with photos of children in a park, but it is a "thing" at least in the mainstream news media and throughout Hollywood movies that somehow, pedophiles like to take photos of kids in parks).
Perhaps, given these facts and added considerations, the woman should have simply not reacted. At the same time, however, perhaps it should be the policemen's jobs to know the law and inform the woman there is nothing they can or should do at that moment. Thoughts?
[Via SomeNews]
I like your article Adam since you highlighted an important point that many male photographers don't get, which is the fear a lot of women live with everyday of men. Adding, there a lot of male chauvinists and objectification of women within photography the community. As a parent and feminist, I can see why someone would have called the cops.
Refer to my prior comment about my upbringing and the fear I use to live in everyday of Maori people. I understand people have fears, and often times can not do anything about them. Especially when the cause of that fear repeats itself. If I held onto my childhood fears, and more importantly if I acted upon them and treated Maori people as inherently solely on their race, I would be racist. Treating a man as a threat purely based on his gender and calling the police on him for doing something completely legal is nothing but sexist.
It seems you also don't think the objectification of males in photography doesn't exist.
It is a way to rule this country. Always in fear of something.
BTW even if the pedophile will take a picture of a child from the distance, how does he harm anyone?
Aren't you contradicting your other comments?
(I guess commentator removed his account and some replies won't have sense ;) )
I had a similar situation - cops called, questioned, etc. - because I was eating my bag lunch at a park across from a preschool. The idea of "can you blame her?" is the caustic self-loathing that all men are trained to just live with. It's incredibly destructive. Let's face it: the real pervert in this story is the woman who called the cops. Lord knows what kind of sick fantasy she played out in her head before picking up the phone. If THAT'S what goes through her mind when she sees a man with a camera, I certainly wouldn't want her around my kids.
I personally have no issue being interrupted by police and politely complying with them. Over time, if more and more of us simply smile, cooperate, and show that we are doing nothing wrong, people will become less and less suspicious of us. And if not, wouldn't you rather innocent photographers get inconvenienced once in awhile and "bad guys" get caught, than to leave us all alone and let the "bad things" happen?
A man in my neighborhood who was concerned about two young girls, alone and wandering around a gas station's mini-mart, asked them if they were okay. On the strength of that alone, the police were called and the man was taken into custody. He was later released. Duh.
So, yes, by all means, let us continue to create a climate of fear because eventually that climate will breed more fear, then more fear, until we can finally return to our caves and cower in the back, in the dark, while the world ranges on without.
I hope he sued them.
I am a photographer, and a man, and if i believed someone was taking photos of, or watching children in a park or other setting and it looked suspicious, i would call the police in a second. Yes, it is unfortunate that as men we are assumed to be potential pedophiles in that instance, but most pedophiles are men, and some have made habits of taking photos of children to stalk them and abduct them, or for other perverse reasons. Kudos to the lady that is on the lookout for suspicious activity and doing what it takes to protect children, even if she was mistaken about this photographer...
He wasn't arrested, he wasn't assaulted, his camera wasn't taken, and he only lost 20 minutes of his day because of some paranoid stranger. I don't see the issue.
He was detained and illegally searched and don;t feed me the "He gave them his phone willingly" ... you would do if you were surrounded by 6 heavily armed individuals.
He didn't only lose 20 minutes of his day ... he had his civil right violated.
Perhaps it would upset you, and I understand. I'm simply giving my perspective.
Personally I try not to take pictures of children without a parent or guardian's permission. Or when I do, I immediately find the parent let them know what I did, why, and give them the option to let me keep it or trash it. If they ask I trash it. I do so in front of them. One example, was my muffin girl picture. I was in the park testing a new lens, turned around and saw her looking at me. Had one of those faces and expressions you just had to shoot. I did , found the parents and was given the ok to keep. They also received a copy. But like I said, that's just me and how I feel on shooting children.
Society has changes, but not to the better. With constant news outlets feeding the hysteria for better ratings, we as a society have become paranoid that around every corner there is a man lurking to prey on children. It simply is ludicrous but yet here we are. People love to jump to conclusions without any facts, because society has taught us to do so without any consequences. She will do it again, because she can't rationalize what was wrong with calling the cops. Just like most people can't rationalize it either. Because this is the society we live in now. Where people are more apt to jump to conclusions based on a few bad apples than just be kind and considerate of each other. But will things change. Nope because we as a society love to have something to talk about and when something comes up that we jump to conclusions about, now we have drama to talk to our friends, co-workers, or whoever in order to feel like we are a part of society.
I can not help feeling, that fstoppers with this article is bending over backwards to an accellerating paranoia. No photographer should take this kind of BS. Full stop. End of story.
First, great article! Second, there are a couple of things that are troubling me from this article and from all the comments, of which I have read 53 of the 78.
While I do understand the concern when it comes to the welfare of children and even the overreaction of the officers, which is not what greatly concerns me. Firstly, when things like this happen I believe it is yet another attack on a noble and necessary profession. The next salvo in a war of delusion that has been bolstered by Instagram "photographers" and cellphone "pros". No need to get a decent camera and lens. No need to spend endless hours learning about equipment and shoot environments. No need to spend even more hours learning good post processing techniques. Just use your phone and upload it to Instagram....that will fix it up just right.
My second area of concern is the future of the legacy of this era of photography. As we often revere photographers and image of times long past, what will they say about this era in thirty or forty years. I'm very cognoscente of how we will be perceived as another chapter in a storied history of documenting life and living through our eyes. Will we all collectively be dismissed? Will we all be lumped into a category of just abusers of technology, pedophiles hiding behind a lens, and not true artist?
Photography is an art form and I believe that is should be preserved as such, even in these times of war.
Thanks....Craig
See Gladys Kravits
The question is - What are your community values?
If you value a civil society versus a police state, then you have to advocate for talking with people in your community before calling the police.
It is legal to take photographs in public. Period.
It's completely easy to take surreptitious photos. And It's very obvious when someone is openly taking photos. There were no photographs. So what did she see?
Our communities have never been safer, and we have teeming social paranoia and a militarization of local police.
Read a book by Havel or Kundera. Beware of neighbors spying and reporting on neighbors. Beware the slippery slope of self censorship.
Short of seeing things we know to be crime, most of us would simply do well to mind our own business.
This article and comments make me mad. Here is how the whole thing should have gone.
Woman: hello police there is a man taking photos of kids in the park.
Police: is he touching the kids or physically harrasing them ?
Woman: no he is just creepy taking photos of kids
Police: umm you do know taking photos in public is legal right ?
Woman: yea but it's creepy and you need to come stop him.
Police ma'am. Please only call us with emergencies and not things that creep you out.
Woman: so you are not comming down to investigate ?
Police: no ma'am we are not going to investigate someone not breaking laws, would you like us to come investigate you cooking tonight ? No? I didn't thought so. Have a nice day maam
What a load of hogwash. You are trying to rationalize blind hysteria. This photographer did nothing wrong, and calling the cops on him is the result of a ridiculous amount of paranoia and stupidity.
1 "We (as men) need to be understanding of the fact that, yes, it’s a bit creepy to photograph near, around, or in the general direction of children." Apart from the fact that this is sexist bullshit implying there simply can be no female child molesters, no, photographing "near" or "around" children is absolutely normal. In fact, it can't be avoided unless all parents agree to keep their children away from any spot that has even the slightest photographic appeal. Your claim is as idiotic as saying it's creepy for men to just *be* in the vicinity of children (which, again, can not be avoided).
2. It's also funny how you actually counter your own rationalizing of this ridiculous incident: "At some point, worrying is just a part of life that we need to deal with". Great. Absolutely correct. So why, according to you, does this not apply to the helicopter mom who blindly sics the cops on harmless people instead of just, you know, DEALING WITH HER WORRYING like a sane person?
Were the officers at fault? Well, yes and no really. They did their jobs - although I agree that "perhaps it should be the policemen's jobs to know the law and inform the woman there is nothing they can or should do at that moment". Actually, they should have informed her that she has no business wasting their time satisfying her ridiculous paranoia.
Incidents like this are wrong and they need to stop. And it's people like you - people who try to rationalize and defend this hysteria - that are enabling the idiots who keep causing these incidents to happen.
Amerikuh, fuck, yeah!
20 minutes & 6 policemen does seem excessive but we don't know the details of the conversation between the policemen & the photographer. If the photographer started sprouting his 1st amendment rights and jumping up and down and telling the Policemen they have not right etc etc The Police may have deemed the conversation a bit threatening or suspicious and interviewed him longer because they thought it necessary. Maybe they were just having a good old chat about photography and his project which seems really interesting.
all true. i have had long chat's with the police a few times not related to reason why they stopped.
So, why couldn’t the woman who called the cops just have asked this man what he was up to in the safety of broad daylight?
Yeah this one hit home. I live in Brooklyn and the other week 2 guys confronted 2 other guys who were suspect of breaking into cars and ended up getting shot while confronting the suspects. Broad daylight as well.. people were commuting to work.
I had this issue 30 years ago. Walking by a school carrying a couple of nikons, a crossing guard got all upset that I might photograph some school children.
Well, part of my job was to photograph school children doing school events.
Just an overly concerned crossing guard.
Guilty until proven innocent...oh wait, is that meant to be the other way around...who knows these days.
Yes, the guy was legally entitled to do what he was (accused of) doing, taking photos (which he apparently didn't even do). But there are also ethical / societal issues at play here that, sadly, need to be taken into account these days.
6 police men is a bit extreme and 20 min of questioning is also a bit extreme. Sure the lady can call the cops but lets get it straight that she was stereotyping him because he was a man. Stereotypes are not reliable and she had no other motive to call the police other than her own fears and biases. If the author of this article wants to say that men should start being sensitive to stereotypes and unjustified assumptions that others will have we should start telling black people that they cant blame white people for calling the cops when they come into an "upper class" neighborhood.
If you aren't breaking the law, or doing anything socially deviant you shouldn't be subject to 20 minutes of questioning by 6 officers. That woman can call the cops on anyone but lets hope the police department (in the future) realizes that when you send that many officers is makes the situation look WAY more dramatic than it really is and it makes witnesses to the situation view a man with a camera as something that needs to be called in. Its a nasty snowball effect. Lets remember that today we live in the safest time in history regardless of the sensational media and fears based on stereotypes and prejudice.
The woman 'suspected' he could be a pedophile photographing kids. I would BET when she called the police she said she was POSITIVE he was taking those very photos. So when the police arrived they had a mental picture of a sick man taking said photos and they did NOT take time to ASK the man "WTF" is up?
Society today virtually guarantees the 'suspect' is in fact a 'SUSPECT' and needs to be stopped; even if he/she is doing NOTHING wrong. That is a sad situation! All the man needed to do was make one slight move the police considered threatening and they would have been all over him like flies on a cheeseburger! He could easily have been injured for doing NOTHING against the 'law'.
No wonder some folks deem the police to be TOO TOUGH; sadly it was the WOMAN who could have been responsible. Sadly SHE would walk away as being a "good samaritan" with NO worry on her mind. Why is OBSERVATION a lost art? It sickens me to see the INNOCENT labeled as 'bad guys' and people like "THE WOMAN" allowed to walk without ANY issue!
So this woman made an accusation about the man. The police came to check it out and they executed a search on his person and effects. He wasn't doing anything illegal. Even if he had been photographing the children in a public space.
The man (obviously) felt he had to submit to the search because to deny them would have brought even more trouble for him.
This isn't a small thing it is a travesty. Forever there will be a record that this man was questioned and searched in connection to his taking photographs near children. Heaven forbid, but if some other woman accuses him of something the police will find this record and the man will have an even harder time. If you don't believe me go ask the police yourself. They record every interaction they have with anyone and they will use that information with prejudice if at any time that will help them gain a conviction.
Frankly the police should have told the woman that the man was not breaking any laws and they should have left him alone. I think a case could be made that they abused their power and that the woman's false accusation has caused the man harm and he should be compensated.
So I go from reading the article to reading comments regarding civil rights violation regarding illegal search and seizure (and just so you know for the future its 4th amendment) and 1st amendment violations. What did I miss? Where did the article say the police stopped him from taking pictures and where did it state the police seized his phone and searched it without a warrant? Maybe just maybe the police asked for consent to search the phone to alleviate and dispel any suspicion of wrongdoing even though photographing children in a park even though this is perfectly legal. Maybe they did so they can go and educate the woman after investigating the incident about what is legal. It is a delicate line but if the police did not investigate this call and something happened to someone, guess what? The police would get sued for failing to act on a suspicious call. Even if they asked for and was denied consent and could not identify him because he would not need to identify himself they could at least prove they went there and checked it out.
Since some women may find some men threatening it doesn't follow that all men are threatening to women.
It also doesn't follow that given that some perverts take photos of children for sordid reasons, that all photographers who photograph children do so for sordid reasons.
The assumptions and conclusions in this article are curious, highly personal, and bear no resemblance whatsoever to fact or US Law.
This article is a complete whitewashing of an overreaction to and harassment of someone legally taking pictures in public. I get that the author feels there is a common sense way to defuse such situations and that he thinks the photographer managed that here. But at some point people have to stand up for their rights.
In this day and age "standing up for ones rights" can result in an ass-whuppin' by police. I am IN NO WAY "ANTI POLICE", yet their job is so difficult if they ignore any complaint and weeks or months later ANOTHER completely unrelated incident results in "Lil Billy or Betty" crying taht "TAHT AMN" took my picture the poor photographer can be abused to no end and it CAN result in ten of THOUSANDS of dollars to have an attorney defend the poor guy even though he was NOT A PERVERT.
IT IS SAD that our society is tuned in on ALL MEN WITH CAMERAS being "sickos" that even the most innocent situation results in unfounded "charges". In many ways the 60's were far better than the 2015 era. PARENTS are SO protective of their kids that it darn near takes a SIGNED RELEASE to be 50% certain one will not be brought before a JUDGE (80% are idiots) to explain why they took ANY given photo. It is AMERICA in 2105 that needs changing; but alas, with lawsuits being so POPULAR nowadays perhaps the best defense is to NEVER take a photo where little Billy Bob or Sally Sue can be considered the center of attention.
"YOU AIN'T IN KANSAS ANY MORE"..... could NOT be more "TRUE" in 2015 America! The land of ENDLESS LAWSUITS and SICK MINDED PARENTS out to make a easy BUCK or MILLIONS!
I can understand the woman’s concern. I can understand the police showing up, even 6 of them. I can understand them “asking” to view his camera and/or smartphone. I can even understand since he didn’t have anything to “hide” allowing them to access his technology even if he could have “legally” refused. But do you really think that if the police “ask” you, that you actually have the ability to refuse? You might "legally" be allowed to refuse but they will most likely see that as justified cause to “suspect” you of committing a crime and that is all they need to seize and search you and your belongings and hold you for up to 48 hours while they confirm that you haven’t done anything even remotely wrong. Go ahead try to refuse, let me know how that works out for you.
I am also concerned that the woman believed and feared the ‘man’ was up to something wrong and illegal pretty much because he was born with a penis. Yes, he had a camera but as the article stipulated if a woman had been in the same situation as the ‘man’ no one would have even looked sideways at her. What is the difference here? Yes, the penis.
I am a Professional Photographer and I have been a professional photographer since Minolta came out with the X370 way back when. Go ahead let’s see if you can do that math. Yes, more than a few years. I love to shoot photos of pretty much everything except I don’t do Weddings, Bar mitzvahs, Bat mitzvahs and of course Funerals just to be clear. I love taking photos of Sunrises and Sunsets, the color of the sky when it goes from blue to orange to black or vice versa. I shoot Scenery, Landscape, Architecture, Sporting Events, Concerts, etc.; as well as Animals and People.
Now I have a question, when I shoot people, I shoot Children’s Photos only when commissioned by their parents. I shoot both male and female adults, Individual Portraiture, Family Portraiture, and Group Portraiture. I shoot Beauty, Sports Fitness, Swimwear, Boudoir and Artistic Nudes. I have never; I repeat never ever even thought about shooting Playboy or Penthouse nudes or any other sleazy Nudes, ever. So why when I approach a potential woman to ask her to pose for me or to consider allowing me to do a shoot with her, why is the first thing in her mind that I want to go to bed with her? Why Because I have a penis. No it’s not funny and yes. I find it offensive to me as a person, a male and a man! And yes, I’ve had to have this conversation on more than one occasion. I can appreciate the beauty of a Sunrise and/or Sunset without wanting to bang its brains out so why is the woman any different?!
I am not approaching you to date you, court you, to ask to have sex with you, to date rape you, to rape you or anything else shady, Why is that where people go, first instinct? What is wrong with you people that this is how you think?
I can appreciate the beauty of the human form. I can appreciate the beauty of the female form. As an Artist I started attending Nude Life Drawing Classes when I was in my teens in my last year in Junior High school because my mother saw that even at 12 years old I was mature beyond my years. Yes there was some convincing I had to do (it was back before 1980) before I could convince the Night Class Art Teacher to allow me in their class. There were my drawing books (Plural) filled with my drawings, my mother’s permission and written recommendation from both my art teachers in elementary school and middle school. Even once in night class I notice some of the ‘adults’ acted less than mature when the model(s) disrobed. I continued my Art education by attending and graduating on the Dean’s list in Art College.
My Elementary Art Teacher still tells his students about this talented beyond belief student he had back in the 70s, my nieces and nephews have had him and were shocked when he mentioned my name and they discovered that it was me he was talking about.
I am a photographer. I am a Professional Photographer, I’m a male, I’m a man; I should not need to apologize or justify myself for that or because of that. Get over yourselves! OMG! Just because I was born with a penis I’m a threat to you and all of society, really? Please.