First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“MANBEARPIG!!”

Since: Jan 11

Leesville

#1 Feb 21, 2013
I have a question...if you are out and about at a local event and a regular citizen (not say, the newspaper) is taking pictures, do you think it is okay for that person to take pictures of you, repeatedly, without asking? Just wondering what others thought of this.
Pawpaw

United States

#2 Feb 21, 2013
I would be uncomfortable and tell them to quit. But thats just me.
mango

Leesville, LA

#3 Feb 21, 2013
Looks like you have a stalker type personality running around. This is horrible and totally rude on their part. The nerve of some people.

“MANBEARPIG!!”

Since: Jan 11

Leesville

#4 Feb 21, 2013
Personally, I wouldn't take someone's picture if I didn't ask first, especially if it was someone I didn't know very well. Also, I wonder WHY the person would want photos of people they don't know very well...makes you wonder...
mango

Leesville, LA

#5 Feb 21, 2013
SallyMarion wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't take someone's picture if I didn't ask first, especially if it was someone I didn't know very well. Also, I wonder WHY the person would want photos of people they don't know very well...makes you wonder...
Some cultures do it to trap a persons soul! Have you had a feeling of lightheadedness or euphoria since said encounter with stalkerazzi?

“Come on, really?”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#7 Feb 21, 2013
LOUISIANA Stalking law.
Here is the newest revision first - In June 2001, SB 196 was enacted into law. More specifically, the new legislation redefines the crime of stalking by eliminating the specific intent requirement and by lowering the level of fear the victim must experience as a result of the conduct. The statute imposes minimum and mandatory penalties for first-time convictions and requires any person convicted of stalking to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The new law also broadens the definition of harassing behavior to include telephone calls, e-mail, messages conveyed through third parties, pictures, and letters.
Rev. Stat. Section 14:40.2. STALKING. 1992. Amended 1997.
A. Stalking is the willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing of another person, with the intent to place that person in fear of death or serious bodily injury.
B.(1) Whoever commits the crime of stalking may be imprisoned or not more than one year or fined not more than two thousand dollars, or both.
(2) Any person who commits the offense of stalking and who is found by the trier of fact, whether the jury at a jury trial, the judge at a bench trial, or the judge at a sentencing hearing following a jury trial, beyond a reasonable doubt to have placed the victim of the stalking in fear of death or bodily injury by the actual use of or the defendant's having in his possession during the instances which make up the crime of stalking, a dangerous weapon shall be fined one thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for one year, or both. Whether or not the defendant's use of or his possession of the dangerous weapon is a crime or, if a crime, whether or not he is charged for that offense separately or in addition to the crime of stalking shall have no bearing or relevance as to the enhanced sentence under the provisions of this Paragraph.
(3) Any person who commits the offense of stalking against a person for whose benefit a protective order, a temporary restraining order or an injunction is in effect in either a civil or criminal proceeding, protecting the victims of the stalking from acts by the offender which would otherwise constitute the crime of stalking, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ninety days and not more than two years and fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
(4) Upon a second conviction occurring within seven years of a prior conviction for stalking of the same victim, the offender shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not less than one hundred eighty days and not more than three years, and may be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
(5) Upon a third or subsequent conviction occurring within seven years of of a prior conviction for stalking, the offender shall be imprisoned with or without hard labor for not less than two years and not more than 5 years, and may be fined for not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
(6)(a) Any person thirteen years of age or older who commits the crime of stalking against a child twelve years of age or younger and who is found by the trier of fact, whether the jury at a jury trial, the judge at a bench trial, or the judge at a sentencing hearing following a jury trial, beyond a reasonable doubt to have placed the child in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, or in reasonable fear of the death or bodily injury of a family member of the child shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and not more than three years and fined not less than fifteen hundred dollars and not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
(b) Lack of knowledge of the child's age shall not be a defense.
C. For the purposes of this Section, the following words shall have the following meanings:

“Come on, really?”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#8 Feb 21, 2013
And the rest of the law that would not fit in first post -

(1)'Harassing' means engaging in a knowing and willful pattern of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or distresses the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
(2)`Pattern of conduct' means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing an intent to inflict a continuity of emotional distress upon the person. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of pattern of conduct.
(D) As used in this section, when the victim of the stalking is a child twelve years old or younger:
(1) Pattern of conduct includes repeated acts of nonconsensual contact involving the victim or a family member.
(2) Family member includes:
(a) A child, parent, grandparent, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece, of the victim, whether related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
(b) A person who lives in the same household as the victim
(3)(a) Nonconsensual contact means any contact with a child twelve years old or younger that is initiated or continued without the child's consent, that is beyond the scope of the consent provided by that child, or that is in disregard of that child's expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued.
(b) Nonconsensual contact includes:
(i) Following or appearing within the sight of that child.
(ii) Approaching or confronting that child in a public place or on private property.
(iii) Appearing at the residence of that child.
(iv) Entering onto or remaining on property occupied by that child.
(v) Contacting that child by telephone.
(vi) Sending mail or electronic communications to that child.
(vii) Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property occupied by that child.
(c) Nonconsensual contact does not include any otherwise lawful act by a parent, totor, caretaker, mandatory reporter, or other person having legal custody of the child as those terms are defined in the Louisiana Children's Code.
(4) Victim means the child who is the target of the stalking.
In June 2001, SB 196 was enacted into law. More specifically, the new legislation redefines the crime of stalking by eliminating the specific intent requirement and by lowering the level of fear the victim must experience as a result of the conduct. The statute imposes minimum and mandatory penalties for first-time convictions and requires any person convicted of stalking to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The new law also broadens the definition of harassing behavior to include telephone calls, e-mail, messages conveyed through third parties, pictures, and letters.

“Come on, really?”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#9 Feb 21, 2013
I had problems breaking up this post and the first part did not post correctly. the last paragraph of my previous post clearly defines the case you described as stalking.

You will have to scroll down to Louisiana Law

Here is the link -http://www.esia.net/State_Sta lking_Laws.htm
Tracker

Leesville, LA

#10 Feb 21, 2013
Taking pictures one time in public would not be considered stalking. Now if you encountered the subject multiple times doing it in different locations then I would say stalking. this question is none of my business and Im not asking you to answer it, but do you have any type law suit or divorce, workmans comp hearing etc, if you do its possible that it could be a private investigator.

I would say if you see the subject again, I would notufy your local authority (without being obvious) so they could come to your location to identify the subject and his intentions.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#11 Feb 21, 2013
Tracker wrote:
Taking pictures one time in public would not be considered stalking. Now if you encountered the subject multiple times doing it in different locations then I would say stalking. this question is none of my business and Im not asking you to answer it, but do you have any type law suit or divorce, workmans comp hearing etc, if you do its possible that it could be a private investigator.

I would say if you see the subject again, I would notufy your local authority (without being obvious) so they could come to your location to identify the subject and his intentions.
Good idea

“MANBEARPIG!!”

Since: Jan 11

Leesville

#12 Feb 22, 2013
Well, I don't think this person is stalking. This person is an acquaintance, so I wouldn't think it would be a private investigator situation. It was just awkward because I have no idea why the person would even care to have pictures of me. I guess I need to get better at saying "Hey, what the hell, man. No!" Lol.

Since: Sep 12

Jonesboro, AR

#13 Feb 22, 2013
SallyMarion wrote:
I have a question...if you are out and about at a local event and a regular citizen (not say, the newspaper) is taking pictures, do you think it is okay for that person to take pictures of you, repeatedly, without asking? Just wondering what others thought of this.
Just wondering, since you were at a local event was this person just taking random pictures? Maybe they did not realize it was bothering you. Was they taking pictures of some else and you were standing there. If they took pictures of JUST ME then I would worry, That would make me a little uncomfortable,

“MANBEARPIG!!”

Since: Jan 11

Leesville

#14 Feb 22, 2013
Thanks to the idiot who labeled my feedback on my own post cluless and spam. Lol. Anyway, Wolfpack, I don't know about "random"...when I take pictures of an event, I generally don't take pictures of people's faces. And yes, they might have been taking pictures of someone next to me, but that person was also uncomfortable that they were getting their picture taken. Some people cannot pickup on the fact that they are making others uncomfortable...
Murph

United States

#15 Feb 23, 2013
You forgot nuts.
aqua

Leesville, LA

#16 Feb 25, 2013
It is very strange but if the weirdo is taking pictures of you in a public place; nothing that you can really do. There wouldn't be a papparazi if people could do anything.
If he follows you home, stalks your home, etc. then you could probably get a restraining order. Good luck with your situation!

“MANBEARPIG!!”

Since: Jan 11

Leesville

#17 Feb 26, 2013
Lol. The person who took the pictures is probably on here making different names to judge it this negative stuff. They have been known to make different names and lie before. ;) Anyway, I just wanted to know what others thought about it. I still think it's weird and I wouldn't do it.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#18 Feb 26, 2013
SallyMarion wrote:
Lol. The person who took the pictures is probably on here making different names to judge it this negative stuff. They have been known to make different names and lie before. ;) Anyway, I just wanted to know what others thought about it. I still think it's weird and I wouldn't do it.
Your probley right
Murph

United States

#19 Feb 26, 2013
SallyMarion wrote:
Thanks to the idiot who labeled my feedback on my own post cluless and spam. Lol. Anyway, Wolfpack, I don't know about "random"...when I take pictures of an event, I generally don't take pictures of people's faces. And yes, they might have been taking pictures of someone next to me, but that person was also uncomfortable that they were getting their picture taken. Some people cannot pickup on the fact that they are making others uncomfortable...
You forgot crazy!

“MANBEARPIG!!”

Since: Jan 11

Leesville

#20 Mar 2, 2013
mango wrote:
<quoted text>Some cultures do it to trap a persons soul! Have you had a feeling of lightheadedness or euphoria since said encounter with stalkerazzi?
This person has been known to hunt spirits. Hahaha!
wow

Jonesboro, AR

#21 Mar 2, 2013
Okay, I have talked to this person and she cut you out of the pictures because she was asked to take a picture of someone else. There was only one picture taken with you in it. SO Get the F--K OVER IT

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Leesville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
raymond dowden 3 hr hoss 6
PC Police Are Looking For Santa Clause Tue Ghostsniper389 5
WMDs v. WADs Dec 12 Peace 11
The Law Is The Law Dec 8 Driiv55 67
Fort Polk Gate Closures Dec 8 Whitey Snowe 4
Flynn Flying Fast Dec 7 MuellerIsANatziLOL 33
I want to know how many people have been a vict... (Feb '13) Dec 7 Back In Joemerica 23

Leesville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Leesville Mortgages