Illyabo said:

Well he's a pussy for talking to the cops about that at least.

---

Did you read the fucking article " at least"?

Obviously not, or you would know once the police arrived she FALSELY claimed he assaulted her.

He was going to be arrested for assault before he showed them the video evidence.



That chick was a fucking cunt.

When in public, you dont have the same expectations of privacy as on private property.

Public property can be used for the public for any legal purpose. Photography and RC copters are a legal purpose.

Attacking some nerdy kid and then falsely claiming assaults is not a legal purpose.

Crystal G said:

While I don't condone the way the lady acted, at all, I still would have called the police on that guy (without confronting him).

Only because I saw a Nightline episode where apparently people make money by taking videos/pictures of little children on the beach with hidden cameras, and then sell that footage to pedo's.

If the police came and looked at his video camera footage, and saw that it was mostly landscapes, he would have been let go. If he was taking pictures of people for pornographic purposes, he could have been arrested. Selling pornographic footage of anybody without a release and consent form signed by them is actually illegal. And definitely illegal of minors.

---

EdibleStereos said:

Dude had a copter with a gopro. How many people have gopros stuck to things?

he wasnt using a hidden camera. there is no evidence he was taking pictures of children, or for pornography.

---

I'm not saying HE was taking child pornography per se, as far as I know he probably wasn't even taking pictures of people.

But there are plenty of other people who have, so I still would have called the cops on somebody who seemed suspicious taking photos of random people on the beach. He would have had to be acting pretty suspicious for me to call the cops, since I know artists like to take photos of the beach too.

That way, the police can assess the evidence first-hand. If he was simply taking pictures of landscapes, he could have let them go. If he was taking pictures of children, he could have been arrested.

How would I be "just as dumb" for calling the cops, when YOU DON'T KNOW what footage this person has, and the only way it could be reviewed is by the police?

LordSenate said:

How would photos on the beach be used for pornographic reasons? People are fully clothed are they not?

---

Crystal G said:

While I don't condone the way the lady acted, at all, I still would have called the police on that guy (without confronting him).

Only because I saw a Nightline episode where apparently people make money by taking videos/pictures of little children on the beach with hidden cameras, and then sell that footage to pedo's.

If the police came and looked at his video camera footage, and saw that it was mostly landscapes, he would have been let go. If he was taking pictures of people for pornographic purposes, he could have been arrested. Selling pornographic footage of anybody without a release and consent form signed by them is actually illegal. And definitely illegal of minors.

---

Crystal G said:

While I don't condone the way the lady acted, at all, I still would have called the police on that guy (without confronting him).

Only because I saw a Nightline episode where apparently people make money by taking videos/pictures of little children on the beach with hidden cameras, and then sell that footage to pedo's.

If the police came and looked at his video camera footage, and saw that it was mostly landscapes, he would have been let go. If he was taking pictures of people for pornographic purposes, he could have been arrested. Selling pornographic footage of anybody without a release and consent form signed by them is actually illegal. And definitely illegal of minors.

---

OF COURSE crstyal G would have called the police. what a joke

BlackWidow said:

Crystal G said:

While I don't condone the way the lady acted, at all, I still would have called the police on that guy (without confronting him).

Only because I saw a Nightline episode where apparently people make money by taking videos/pictures of little children on the beach with hidden cameras, and then sell that footage to pedo's.

If the police came and looked at his video camera footage, and saw that it was mostly landscapes, he would have been let go. If he was taking pictures of people for pornographic purposes, he could have been arrested. Selling pornographic footage of anybody without a release and consent form signed by them is actually illegal. And definitely illegal of minors.

---

You shouldn't believe everything you see on TV. Also, why would kids be having sex on the beach in broad daylight?

Regardless, I don't see pictures from 50+ feet above the ground would have done much for anyone. He wasn't flying this thing next to people. I mean, what's next, we call the cops because someone looked at someone else for too long?

---

Bodhi of Ankou said:

Filled with smegma, cheap supplements and fast cars.

---

LordSenate said:

That's still a far cry from being pornographic.. damn. Obviously taking photos of kids in swimsuits is wrong and should not be done AND have consequences for doing so. But it is NOT pornography.

---

Quote:

Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age).  Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor.  Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

          Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity.  A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive.  Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

---

BlackWidow said:

You shouldn't believe everything you see on TV. Also, why would kids be having sex on the beach in broad daylight?

---

It's documentary-style TV. Because people have never ever taken hidden camera photos of anybody in a pornographic way, ever, right?

BlackWidow said:

Based on her posts, she seems like the type of person to act on emotion rather than using logic.

---

LordSenate said:

Do you even read what you copy and paste?

"any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct"

???  How would taking photos of kids swimming be in ANYWAY sexual explicit..

---

Quote:

That's if he even was doing that to begin with, which from the looks of all the evidence... from what the cops said, the people around said.. He wasnt

---