Imagine, a guy arrested for taking pictures at girl's soccer match! Is he guilty?

WEBSTER, Texas — Police arrested a League City man at a Webster park on allegations he sought to gratify his sexual desires by photographing teen and preteen girls playing soccer, authorities said Thursday.

Paul Guy Clark Jr., 65, posted a $2,000 bond Thursday on a felony charge of improper photography. More here

Comment: As a parent who coached soccer and often took pictures from the sidelines, I saw many cameras. Who knows what the motivations of even parents might be. What do we do, demand each and every one of them prove he/she does not get a thrill from the body as opposed to the sport?

This guy has no lawyer. It's frightening that the cops can decide what a photographer's motivations. The shots were from the knees to the neck with no faces. This is a slippery slope. This man may indeed be enjoying the pictures. how can anyone say this is something erotic. Even if it is, is that illegal? It's not as if he's taking inappropriate photographs by lying on the ground!

As much as I might not like this guy, the police should look for another reason to stop him being near the school. If they cannot, should he be allowed to photograph?

Asher

Hi Asher,

It is the sad state of the world we are living in right now. Photograph any children on street and you are a pedophile, photograph any buildings and you are a terrorist and so on. The problem is, photographers are assumed to be guilty until proven innocent and not vice versa. Knowing that, I personally do not photograph any children without a valid reason and definitely not without the consent of their parents. Prevention is better than healing, as we say in Holland.

This whole tangled web around photography is becoming way too constrictive, also regarding the rights and releases. Take for example the photo contest for a cancer fund you have posted today. Their rules state, among others, these:

....you have the permission of those pictured in the image (or, where the image shows any persons under 18, the consent of their parent/guardian) for the usage rights required in the section on licensing below and will indemnify the Renaissance committee against any claims made by any third parties in respect of such infringement;
....
you have received any necessary permissions from the owner(s) of buildings included in submitted images for the usage rights required by the licensing section below and will indemnify the Committee against any claims made by any third parties in respect of such infringement.

Click to expand...

While I fully understand the legal need to do this, it practically causes that the majority of urban pictures containing buildings and/or people will automatically be ineligible. Who shoots a scene on the street and then rings all the bells of the buildings in the picture to collect releases from the owners? Or the people passing by who happen to be in the picture? This is just undoable for the street shooters among us.

I know we have discussed these topics to death in the past, apologies for resurrecting them.

Cheers,

Asher Kelman said:

... posted a $2,000 bond Thursday on a felony charge of improper photography.

Click to expand...

Were the images poorly exposed, or cropped/composed too tight?

No, apparently it is a legal term in Texas:
http://www.texassexcrimedefense.com/PracticeAreas/Texas-Sex-Crimes-Law.asp#photography

It is hard to understand that this vagueness is called law. Taxpayers get your money back, unless you are a lawyer (there's money to be made from such text).

Cheers,
Bart

C'mon Asher, the guy's a creep and a pervert.

...and you left out what was discovered in his car:
Police seized computer equipment from Clark’s car, including a digital camera, 16 memory cards, an iPod, six USB flash drives, a computer and a collection of pornographic pictures, DVDs and magazines

John Angulat said:

C'mon Asher, the guy's a creep and a pervert.

...and you left out what was discovered in his car:
Police seized computer equipment from Clark’s car, including a digital camera, 16 memory cards, an iPod, six USB flash drives, a computer and a collection of pornographic pictures, DVDs and magazines

Click to expand...

John,

Yes, we're suspicious. But without prior evidence or owning child porn, there's no real case. Just he has no lawyer!

Owning a digital camera and memory cards etc is no crime or evidence of a crime per se. Adult porn is not known to be related to pedophilia although, of course, child porn is a total proof. Their detectives are lazy and need to investigate the man's background, internet use and so forth. Chances are that if indeed he's a real pedophile and they can nail him for that, but not for his photography as reported.

A pedophile has to have some definite evidence to convict him, not a vague assessment by the father of a girl and that guy happens to be a police officer! Owning Hustler or other such trash is not evidence of being a pedophile. Likely as not, some 5% of the fathers or brothers attending a sports match own or did own such material or looked at it on the internet. None of that has anything to do with offenses against children.

If they make a case against him as a pedophile, then he can be legally and rightly barred from coming within 100 to 200 yards from the school or sports field, nothing to do with photography! That's the correct way of applying the law.

If owning a camera and lots of CF cards and looking "out of place" is grounds for arrest, then it's a sad day for civil rights.

Suspicion by police should give rise to vigilance and investigation, collecting evidence, building a case and then arrest when there's enough to hold him. Look, if the man was ever convicted of an offense against a child or downloaded or possesses child porn that's all the evidence the police need.

However offensive people seem to be, one cannot just gather them off the street and plonk them in jail, as convenient as it may be. Such expediency erodes the rights we all cherish!

Asher

Before we (I) debate this any further - what was the final outcome in the case?
The news article you originally referenced is just shy of one year old.

Hi, John,

John Angulat said:

Before we (I) debate this any further - what was the final outcome in the case?

Click to expand...

http://www.ultimateclearlake.com/st...eads-guilty-to-charge-of-improper-photography
Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

http://www.ultimateclearlake.com/st...eads-guilty-to-charge-of-improper-photography

Click to expand...

I'm no expert on US law, but isn't plea-bargaining just a method of reducing the risk of getting a higher sentence? If so, what does this plea mean then? That there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty, so to be on the safe side he was offered a deal? That everybody who takes pictures of children is a child molester?

Food for thought:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2009/09/22/pn.bathtime.photos.cnn.html

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

I'm no expert on US law, but isn't plea-bargaining just a method of reducing the risk of getting a higher sentence? If so, what does this plea mean then? That there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty, so to be on the safe side he was offered a deal? That everybody who takes pictures of children is a child molester?

Food for thought:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2009/09/22/pn.bathtime.photos.cnn.html

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

Exactly my point, Bart!

Here the entire family was abused by the State and the children were traumatized by being pulled away from their parents and subjected to invasive exams in the private areas! The mother lost her job!

This reminds me of another egregious case, some 10 years ago, perhaps, where a grandmother was reported, (by Walmart, I believe, as here), for photos of her grandkids in the bath. In the end she had to plea bargain having spent all her savings, and I think her house too in legal defense. If not for hte plea bargain, she'd have been jailed!

Now Walmart has lots of items made in China, where child labor is still to be found. Shoes in Pakistan where women get beaten for going on strike.

I'm very disappointed that these events occur. Without a great lawyer and brilliant logic, these folk are guilty as they have no sophisticated tools to sway the scales that are weighted against them. Once the accused is turned into "enemy of the people", only the best lawyers have a chance at getting justice done.

Asher

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

No, apparently it is a legal term in Texas:
http://www.texassexcrimedefense.com/PracticeAreas/Texas-Sex-Crimes-Law.asp#photography

Click to expand...

Readers should note that this site gives a careless paraphrase of the statutory language.

An accurate transcript, from the State of Texas, is:


Here is the link:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.21.htm#21.15

Best regards,

Doug

No more kids. No more photography. No more people.

No more problems of this nature. And so it goes.

I have a photo of a child of mine. Think 5 minutes after birth.

I must tear it, burn it. Tell Ayesha to deny she had any child.

If this guy is guilty, fry him. I mean to the extent of the law! No half baked measures in such cases.

Do the kids have any rights? Why should their fun be spoiled by some old perv with a camera making their skin crawl?

So he gets slapped and maybe has to pay a few bucks. Sheesh, you're going at this like he's going to get the death penalty. Slap him hard enough that he'll stick to leering at his computer screen and leave the kids alone.

We're far too hyper about our entitlements! Read Weston's account of making his pictures during the second Gugenheim grant, (or was it the 'leaves of grass' illustrations?) right when WWII was cranking up. He was told he could not photograph a petroleum installation..........and that was that. He didn't whine about his rights. He just didn't take the pictures. What has changed between 1941 and now, that we are entitled to do anything we please and sue everyone who says we can't.

Jim Galli said:

...What has changed between 1941 and now, that we are entitled to do anything we please and sue everyone who says we can't.

Click to expand...

Jim, Fahim - we speak the same language.
IMHO what's changed? Now we have a far too liberal society. We lack respect. We lack the basic values of good judgement and manners. Sadly, intolerance is not tolerated.
I guess I'm just old fashioned, but that's what you get being raised by a police officer and by spending some quality time in the military. You learn the difference between right and wrong, you learn about honor and respect.
And I'll never need the ACLU defending me.
Sorry for the rant.

Jim Galli said:

Do the kids have any rights? Why should their fun be spoiled by some old perv with a camera making their skin crawl?

So he gets slapped and maybe has to pay a few bucks. Sheesh, you're going at this like he's going to get the death penalty. Slap him hard enough that he'll stick to leering at his computer screen and leave the kids alone.

Click to expand...

Hi Jim,

For arguments sake, let's assume he is a sicko. How then would he be cured by a fine or destruction of his reputation? Someone with a mental aberration is sick, and needs some kind of treatement (although I'm not sure if it is curable).

We're far too hyper about our entitlements!

Click to expand...

Most coutries calling themselves civilized have constitutions. What many people seem to overlook is that the constitutions are to protect the people from an almighty government. When governments start to instill FUD into the population with the preconceived plan to make it easier and reduce the civil rights that protect from that government (e.g. patriot act), I hope that history has tought us lessons where that will lead. We even have to look no further back than at current regimes (and I'm not only talking about China, or Russia, or Iran, or ...). Did we already forget the (between 100.000 and 1.000.000) casualties of the Irak war (most as a direct result of the so-called hunt for WMDs, which was no more that FUD)?

I take my entitlements very seriously.

Perverts should be dealt with professionally, but I'd hope we're past the tar and feathers, or burning at the stake, or worse, methods used by the inquisition/gestapo/stazi/Guantanamo/...

Apparently we're not past it.

Cheers,
Bart

Respectfully Bart, your argument is far too simplistic.

Ohhh the poor fellows ill. Don't be mean to him.

Societies made up of humans are too complex for those easy answers. 2 groups of people here have an expectation of rights that would be supported by a governing power. The children have a right to have fun playing volleyball. And according to you the sick fellow has the right to leer and take photographs for his collection that he uses for his own sexual gratification. The state of Texas is wise enough in this complexity to make a law that says you can't go take pictures of our citizens in public and use them for sexual gratification. The kids are creeped out and the authorities discover, with I think reasonable cause, that Mr. ill guy is doing that, and he's removed. Good law, good call.

Somebodies "rights" had to get stepped on. Somebody has to make a call which party doesn't get to have a "right" over the other party. Where do we draw that line. Do we protect Mr. ill guy until he's on scene with his pants down?

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Hi Jim,

For arguments sake, let's assume he is a sicko. How then would he be cured by a fine or destruction of his reputation? Someone with a mental aberration is sick, and needs some kind of treatement (although I'm not sure if it is curable).



Most coutries calling themselves civilized have constitutions. What many people seem to overlook is that the constitutions are to protect the people from an almighty government. When governments start to instill FUD into the population with the preconceived plan to make it easier and reduce the civil rights that protect from that government (e.g. patriot act), I hope that history has tought us lessons where that will lead. We even have to look no further back than at current regimes (and I'm not only talking about China, or Russia, or Iran, or ...). Did we already forget the (between 100.000 and 1.000.000) casualties of the Irak war (most as a direct result of the so-called hunt for WMDs, which was no more that FUD)?

I take my entitlements very seriously.

Perverts should be dealt with professionally, but I'd hope we're past the tar and feathers, or burning at the stake, or worse, methods used by the inquisition/gestapo/stazi/Guantanamo/...

Apparently we're not past it.

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

Jim Galli said:

The state of Texas is wise enough in this complexity to make a law that says you can't go take pictures of our citizens in public and use them for sexual gratification.

Click to expand...

In fact, they are saying you cannot shoot pictures with the intent of sexual arousal. So it's okay to get aroused later? I wouldn't be too confident that such a law is applied correctly, especially to innocent photographers or even parents shooting their own kids.

The kids are creeped out and the authorities discover, with I think reasonable cause, that Mr. ill guy is doing that, and he's removed. Good law, good call.

Click to expand...

Kids are usually oblivious, untill they get creeped out by the reaction of their parents. Protection is good. FUD is bad.

I'll repeat, FUD is bad.

Cheers,
Bart

Jim,

The chances are that among the football Dads, there are those who routinely collect pictures for the own gratification. I've never been to a girls soccer game but I do know that at my sons' football matches, there were score of guys with cameras. Who knows if any are perverted?

What kind of place to we live in, here in the USA? We came to the USA to have a new chance at living together. The US Constitution is a noble idea and document. It tries to frame the rights of the individual as inalienable. Even the worse amongst us has to be treated with deference under the law. We need and have fought and thousands have died to have a free country based on that constitution. These systems of laws amazingly allow freedom of religion and freedom of speech, rights hardly ever granted previously. (Only under Napoleon in Europe did folk get such protection).

One of those related rights of expression is the freedom to take photographs. There's no technology for any police officer to conclude that pictures are taken for lewd purposes without having other corroborating hard evidence. Yes, Jim, you and I might attack such a guy, but then we will pay the price in risking arrest and buying the guy a new camera. The police, however, represented the state. "Gut feelings" of fear and revulsion, while sufficient to have me leap over a fence and whop the guy, stealing his CF card, the police cannot behave in that primitive way and arrest him for imagined feelings the guy might have or might very well have. If they do, then none of us would be safe from their, "feelings".

I am no softie. I have no problem personally with long prison terms since I don't think they can be rehabilitated, just as a gay man cannot be "cured" of his sexual preference", moths cannot be trained to avoid the light and women cannot be cured of shopping! These traits likely are all genetic. It's not like punishing a guy for speeding or stealing! He/she might perhaps be rehabilitated. Sexual perverts, by contrast, are there for life, just as happily married couples are. That's the way we're made.

The best service the police can do is to provide a solid case for a real child pedophile to be put away for the long term. If a man is identified as such, he can be banned from being within 200 yards of the school. By just grabbing him off the street, claiming "owning a camera and CF cards and porn" is evidence is nonsense! Giving him a slap on the wrist fine and or several years behind bars does not do him any good and just prepares him for the next episode. Instead, we need the real incontrovertible evidence to put him away long term.

We have great tools as our disposal. Why not do this with acumen and with the full force of our capability. Today, we are able to reconstruct what these guys delete from their hard drives and track where they have been on the internet. So why not actually do the detective work and build a case that is much more solid and convincing and not rely on laws which are poorly written and can be appealed. After all, if this one man had the money for a defense, he's free from any punishment or control! The laws and police action would not stand up to scrutiny under the light of the American Constitution and case law. All he had against him were his apparent distasteful behavior and a law that the locals in Texas designed to give the police and local courts more power than wise.

So this case disappoints me. Shortcuts seem great for immediate feelings of control over "evil forces", but in the long term are erosive to our values ..................even if the man is a sick pest!

Asher

My God, what is the world coming to.
Pretty soon we won't be able to photos of people in any situation.

Jim Galli said:

Do the kids have any rights? Why should their fun be spoiled by some old perv with a camera making their skin crawl?

So he gets slapped and maybe has to pay a few bucks. Sheesh, you're going at this like he's going to get the death penalty. Slap him hard enough that he'll stick to leering at his computer screen and leave the kids alone.

Click to expand...

Jim,

If you witnessed the leering pervert getting some lewd angle and were furious enough to whack him, that's one matter. As a parent, you might go temporarily bonkers and lash out. Fair enough, you exploded. I might do the same. However, the police have to have proof or intent and the content must be such that he's proven guilty in court. That's why we have a system of checks and balances clued laws and rights of appeal.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Jim,

If you witnessed the leering pervert getting some lewd angle and were furious enough to whack him, that's one matter. As a parent, you might go temporarily bonkers and lash out. Fair enough, you exploded. I might do the same. However, the police have to have proof or intent and the content must be such that he's proven guilty in court. That's why we have a system of checks and balances clued laws and rights of appeal.

Asher

Click to expand...

Jan 6th 2011??

Things a little slow at OPF? You already commented on my nearly 2 year old comment once. And I did not mean parents or people present physically slap him. I meant our legal system should do that.

I think what I wrote 2 years ago was brilliant. I still do. The pendulum has swung way too far towards the pervs rights.

Asher, read Romans chapter 1. Then read the democratic party platform. See any similarities??

Here's a free download for you, from a church that you could drive to . . . if you wanted to.

Jim Galli said:

Jan 6th 2011??

Things a little slow at OPF? You already commented on my nearly 2 year old comment once. And I did not mean parents or people present physically slap him. I meant our legal system should do that.

I think what I wrote 2 years ago was brilliant. I still do. The pendulum has swung way too far towards the pervs rights.

Asher, read Romans chapter 1. Then read the democratic party platform. See any similarities??

Here's a free download for you, from a church that you could drive to . . . if you wanted to.

Click to expand...

Jim,

This thread popped up as being accessed and currently active, so I looked to see what was the latest interest! For those who are unaware, by "Romans", you refer to the epistle, (religious advocating letter), to the Roman converts written by an important preacher of Christianity in about 50 A.C.C. It's considered the peak of Paul's writings and the original appears to have been in Greek.

I find the subject of the modern fiery sermon you refer to, consistent with sets of interpretations of this ancient venerated text, so valued by Christians. Doubtless, there are other translations that can be inferred by conceptualizing in some frame of reference what exactly Paul's expressions referred to. It only has to be internally consistent with a doctrine that one follows. It's not a subject for dispassionate rational dissection. Rather it's a missive for those already walking in the same path of Jesus as envisioned by the preacher in his particular address. I'd not have to drive to visit a church. There are several within minutes! Also, I do not need to argue the correctness of the interpretation as it only has to fit the belief of the worshippers.

Now the subject you directed me to is one of homosexuality and not particularly vigilantism. There's no light between us on pedophilia. In OPF, we've removed work considered to be obscene in that way with little to zero debate or hesitation. However, in a soccer match, while I'd personally stop such photography, for a court to find someone guilt, proof is needed. If not, you could be arrested for being caught in the act of photographing another man walking by, on suspicion of doing so for homosexual lust!

There's one matter of one's personal impulsive or quick tempered reaction to observed attempts at stealing a child's innocence. That shows common sense. No epistle is needed for that. That is as should be!

Asher

Thanks for the smoke screen about possible interpretations blah blah blah

Face value will do fine. The words are simple. A third grader knows what's being said. You have to have degrees in order to hide behind smoke screens. Lucky me. I barely got out of high school.

Unlucky you. Someone effectively taught me to type in Junior High School.

Oops. The talk I diected you to was 2nd in a series of 2. I meant for you to go look at this one.

Jim Galli said:

Face value will do fine.

Click to expand...

Well, I have no issue with, on the face of it, uproar at exploiting children. We have a natural right to object and block the behavior to protect our kids. That's the part that requires no interpretation.

As to abortion or homosexuality, these behaviors are not related to child predation, but are, of course major topics for our attention. I do not advocate the former not understand the latter. My interest here is the protection of children.

Asher

Asher, something for you to consider:

Why, all the saints and sages who discuss'd
Of the two worlds so learnedly, are thrust
Like foolish prophets forth; their words to scorn
Are scatter'd, and their mouths are stopt with dust.

As for me...

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door as in I went.

It is not only photographers and it is not only children. In the so-called "western" culture, men are considered guilty of lust unless they prove themselves innocent. And because photographers are inherently voyeurs, this concerns photographers more often than the rest of men.

Allow me to be preachy, for a moment.

A good practice is to ask parents of the child permission and give a card before taking the picture, if it's up close. Incidental inclusion of a child, in good taste, in a wide shot doesn't bother me, except if someone might misconstrue intent and then I'd likely as not skip the picture. In any case, if a parent has objections to any picture, I'd delete it without hesitation.

It's important for photographers to exercise the rights to take pictures where its legal in that jurisdiction, so that these rights are not winnowed away. The great benefit of widespread public picture taking is that we end up seeing our society as it really is, looking into alleys and understanding better what happens to all strata of our civilization, fortunate and unfortunate.

Whenever we as serious photographers abuse this freedom, we threaten it. So while I abhor over zealous policing of photographers, we have an ethical duty to set examples above reproach. Only then, (parent fury accepted), can we, as a society, protest the over-zealous targeting of photographing kids by police.

Asher

Of course you are right, we should ask parents of the child permission and give a card before taking the picture, if it's up close. In some countries, there is even a legal obligation to do so (not in the US, though). But this is not the subject that we are discussing here, is it?

Jerome Marot said:

Of course you are right, we should ask parents of the child permission and give a card before taking the picture, if it's up close. In some countries, there is even a legal obligation to do so (not in the US, though). But this is not the subject that we are discussing here, is it?

Click to expand...

Jerome,

I just wanted to have OPF clearly on the right moral and ethical side of the equation. Still, the overreaction by red-states in the USA is troublesome. A photographer with a long lens should not be assumed to me nefarious and an enemy on sight!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

A photographer with a long lens should not be assumed to me nefarious and an enemy on sight!

Click to expand...

I'll have to write it again, it is not only photographers and it is not only children. In the so-called "western" culture, men are considered guilty of lust unless they prove themselves innocent.

For example, here a discussion on a similar subject (site probably NSFW).

Jerome Marot said:

I'll have to write it again, it is not only photographers and it is not only children. In the so-called "western" culture, men are considered guilty of lust unless they prove themselves innocent.

Click to expand...

Jerome,

You say "western culture"? Is it truly the "western culture" or possibly just the Englsih speaking part of that culture......specifically when photography is involved. When I lived in the UK, photographing children without prior consent was something that I avoided having read all the stories of abuse and accusations levelled at photographers. I've spent 3+ years in a non-Englsih speaking culture and have not had one single problem or question.
I'm not saying that your perception is wrong but wonder if other members in western non-English speaking nations feel the need to be cautious or a viewed with suspicion?

Bob