# Photographers Permit?



## DarknGorgeous (Nov 27, 2008)

A friend had asked if I could take some pictures of her and her boyfriend. She wants to have them taken at Gardens at Heather Farm and it says I would need a photographers permit in order to do this.

What is a photographers permit and how much would it cost to get one?


----------



## table1349 (Nov 27, 2008)

DarknGorgeous said:


> A friend had asked if I could take some pictures of her and her boyfriend. She wants to have them taken at Gardens at Heather Farm and it says I would need a photographers permit in order to do this.
> 
> What is a photographers permit and how much would it cost to get one?




Call Heather Farm and ask.


----------



## craig (Nov 27, 2008)

What is Heather Farms? Generally speaking permits are only required if you have a production crew. I.e lights, grip, assistants, mua, stylist. Look into the regs closely. Fines are hefty for those who do not comply.

Love & Bass


----------



## TWoods450 (Nov 27, 2008)

Wow you are close, I'm in martinez. Not sure how they do it there but I know when I went to Santa Monica two years ago for E3 the city charged for permits to shoot on the pier and on the beach, they were pretty pricey.


----------



## skieur (Nov 27, 2008)

craig said:


> What is Heather Farms? Generally speaking permits are only required if you have a production crew. I.e lights, grip, assistants, mua, stylist. Look into the regs closely. Fines are hefty for those who do not comply.
> 
> Love & Bass


 
Why would you pay a fine? Taking photos is not illegal.

skieur


----------



## craig (Nov 27, 2008)

Taking photos is not illegal. Here on CA beaches a permit is recommended when shooting with a crew. 

From Newport Beach City Council:

"Film permits are required for any film activity that occurs within the City. Film activity would be considered to be still photography, film or video production. A film permit must be obtained from the film liaison's office prior to the start of production. The film liaison can be reached at (949) 675-8888 or by cellular phone at (714) 801-5553. Those numbers again are (949) 675-8888 and (714) 801-5553. A film permit will not be issued until the applicable permit fees are paid and approved by the Revenue Manager.  Film permit fees are stated in the Master Fee Schedule .   If you are unable to reach the film liaison and need additional information, you can contact the Revenue Manager at 949-644-3141."

At some point you have to decide if you want to play ball with the law or not. I am sure this does not pertain to the average GWC, but if you are being paid $2,000 a day for a commercial shoot on CA beaches the state of CA needs to be paid and your shoot needs to be approved.

Love & Bass


----------



## mrodgers (Nov 28, 2008)

craig said:


> "Film permits are required for any film activity..."


Well, there you go!  When "busted" for not having a "film permit", ask them to show where you put the film in a digital SLR camera :mrgreen:


----------



## tirediron (Nov 28, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> Well, there you go! When "busted" for not having a "film permit", ask them to show where you put the film in a digital SLR camera :mrgreen:


----------



## patrickt (Nov 28, 2008)

There is a private school here with lovely gardens, which aren't cheap, and they have legal protection against photos taken in the school without permission. Students are the school have permission.

There was a tree with unusual blossoms and I wanted to take some photos. I went in and asked, was shuttled to another office and asked and then to another office. I told the young man what I wanted and he said, "No problem." He went on to explain that they rent the gardens to photographers for wedding photos and so forth and that type of photography is their concern. I thanked them, got my pictures, and left. I spent maybe fifteen minutes getting permission.

I'm assuming the gardens at Heather Farms are a private concern and suspect it might be something similar.

Oh, and sometimes taking photos is illegal and you will pay a fine. Most often you're told to leave.


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

craig said:


> Taking photos is not illegal. Here on CA beaches a permit is recommended when shooting with a crew.
> 
> From Newport Beach City Council:
> 
> ...


 
OK, so that makes sense, legally and otherwise, but the converse means that without a crew, you can legally do a shoot on the beach.

It is the presence of the crew and perhaps all the related equipment that necessitates the permit and that relates to movie work on the streets as well, but don't confuse that with straight photography without all the crew.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

patrickt said:


> Oh, and sometimes taking photos is illegal and you will pay a fine. Most often you're told to leave.


 
You just don't get it.  Taking photos is NEVER illegal and if you pay a fine, you are dumb.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Nov 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> You just don't get it.  Taking photos is NEVER illegal and if you pay a fine, you are dumb.
> 
> skieur




No you just don't get it.  This wasn't a question about the legality of taking photographs.  This was a question about getting a permit to shoot on private property.  A very common thing when someone or some entity has gone out of their way to create and or maintain a location that happens to be very a desirable environment for photography.  

Usually to offset the costs of repairing the damage from idiots who believe that because they have a camera they can do anything they want, where ever they want, when ever they want, to get any shot that they want, private property or not.


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> No you just don't get it. This wasn't a question about the legality of taking photographs. This was a question about getting a permit to shoot on private property. A very common thing when someone or some entity has gone out of their way to create and or maintain a location that happens to be very a desirable environment for photography.
> 
> Usually to offset the costs of repairing the damage from idiots who believe that because they have a camera they can do anything they want, where ever they want, when ever they want, to get any shot that they want, private property or not.


 
Read PatrickT's post: "Sometimes taking photos is illegal."...so YES, in response to that statement it WAS a question of the legality of taking photographs.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Nov 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> Read PatrickT's post: "Sometimes taking photos is illegal."...so YES, in response to that statement it WAS a question of the legality of taking photographs.
> 
> skieur



First the OP's question was not about legality of taking photos.  Second, yes it can be illegal to take photographs.  If you don't believe me come on down and I will take you to the local Air Force base and you just start snapping away.  

Before you do you might want to let your friends know you will be changing your name from skieur to 10945-C67.


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> First the OP's question was not about legality of taking photos. Second, yes it can be illegal to take photographs. If you don't believe me come on down and I will take you to the local Air Force base and you just start snapping away.
> 
> Before you do you might want to let your friends know you will be changing your name from skieur to 10945-C67.


 
I assumed he was talking about in parks and other areas open to the public, not anything of a military secret nature or for that matter in washrooms or change rooms either where other laws can be applied.

By the way, generally speaking only sections of air force bases can't be photographed and they would probably not let you near them anyway. I also by the way have numerous photos of a military base and various sorties from Afganistan which I used in a Remembrance Day presentation.
Obviously, no restrictions on their use.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Nov 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> You just don't get it. * Taking photos is NEVER illegal* and if you pay a fine, you are dumb.
> 
> skieur



nev·er  (n
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





v
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







r)_adv._*1. * *Not ever; on no occasion; at no time:* He had never been there before. You never can be sure.
*2.  Not at all; in no way; absolutely not:* Never fear. That will never do.

*Idiom: * *never mind**1. * Don't bother: I was hoping for some help, but never mind, I'll do it alone.
*2. * Not to mention; and certainly not: I can't tread water, never mind swim.

never _Adverb_
*1*. at no time; not ever 
*2*. certainly not; not at all 
*3*. Also: (*well I never!*) surely not! [Old English _n&#483;fre_] USAGE: In informal speech and writing, _never_ can be used instead of _not_ with the simple past tenses of certain verbs, for emphasis (_I never said that; I never realized how clever he was_), but this usage should be avoided in serious writing.

It is blanket statements from pseudo-lawyers to the uninformed that get people into trouble.  Local laws and regulations do apply and those are what matter.  

That is why I love the National Geographic Channel program *Locked Up Abroad*.  Stupid Americans whining about the way they are treated in another country with different laws, values and customs, after they get arrested for willfully breaking the law in that land.


----------



## Chiller (Nov 28, 2008)

I got busted twice before for photographing at the cemetery by a rent a cop. Even tho he threatened to have me fined, I just told him how much he looked like Udo Dirkshnieder(some of you wont have a clue he is) and got him all off track.:lmao: 
Even tho is it not "illegal" to take photos there, permission is still required. Since my new son in laws brother works there, I was able to get hold of the "rules and regulations" How amazing is it that you can ride a bike, but not photograph. I included the whole shebangs, for the read, but check oot the photography part. 
The pet part made me laugh too..."of any kind" I was going to bring a zebra one day. 

*1.2 Private Property: *
​​All cemeteries are privately owned lands. Interment Rights Holders and public visitors enjoy the use of​
the Cemetery at their own risk and shall be governed by the following:
&#8226; ​​​

​​*Damage to Property: *No one may damage, destroy, remove or deface any property in or belonging to the Cemetery;​
&#8226; ​​​

​​*Vehicles: *Vehicles within the Cemetery shall be driven at a speed less than 30 km/hr. At no time shall such vehicles​
park or drive on the grass. Owners of vehicles will be held liable for any damage caused by their drivers or vehicles;
&#8226; ​​​

​​*Improper Conduct: *In the sole opinion of the Cemetery, any person whose actions, conduct, behaviour, or attire​
disturbs the decorum of the Cemetery, or who violates these By-laws may be required to leave the Cemetery grounds;
&#8226; ​​​

​​*Dogs, Cats, Pets, etc.: *Dogs, cats, pets, etc., of any form are not permitted in the Cemetery;​
&#8226; ​​​

​​*Special Events: *Special Events are permitted with the prior approval of the Cemetery;​
&#8226; ​​​

​​*Soliciting: *Canvassing, soliciting, advertising or distributing business cards in the Cemetery is prohibited, as is the​
placing or displaying of any manufacturer&#8217;s, monument dealer&#8217;s, or quarry&#8217;s name, insignia or trademark in any form;
_&#8226; _​​​

​​*Photographing, Filming, or Video-Taping: *_Photographing, filming, or video-taping of any part of the Cemetery_​
_may only take place with the prior approval of the Cemetery;_
&#8226; ​​​

​​*Roller Blades: *The use of roller blades is strictly prohibited within the Cemetery grounds;​
&#8226; ​​​

​​*Bicycles: *To ensure the safety of our employees and visitors to the Cemetery, bicycles must be operated in a safe​
manner that respects the needs of families and only on cemetery roads at a speed less than 10 km/hour. Bicycle racing​​​
is strictly prohibited​


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

*Let me try to be crystal clear*. *Taking photos is never illegal.*

However other laws can be broken while taking pictures or through their use.

1. Trespassing
2. Loitering
3. Violating the Official Secrets Act
4. Defammation
5. Libel
6. Harassment
7. Intimidation
8. Assault
9. Violating someone's expectation of privacy
10. fraud
11. trademark infringement through use of a photo of a trademark to pass 
off copies as being the original goods of the trademark owner

and yes, there are probably some others that I may have forgotten.

skieur


----------



## Chiller (Nov 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> *Let me try to be crystal clear*. *Taking photos is never illegal.*
> 
> However other laws can be broken while taking pictures or through their use.
> 
> ...


 
I did three of those  on the weekend :lmao:  I wont go into details tho.


----------



## dylj (Nov 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> *Let me try to be crystal clear*. *Taking photos is never illegal.*
> 
> However other laws can be broken while taking pictures or through their use.
> 
> ...



I think that logic is akin to "Shooting people is never illegal. But murder or assault can be illegal."


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

dylj said:


> I think that logic is akin to "Shooting people is never illegal. But murder or assault can be illegal."


 
Oh, then you are saying that assault or trespassing and photography are the same as shooting people and murder. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

So, illogical, it is ridiculous!

skieur


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 28, 2008)

This is starting to all border on the rediculous.

I think that what is being said... is that if a county has a bylaw that DEMANDS payment (and in return offers the right to photograph in an area), in the form of a permit, and you do not feel like paying becuase "photography should be free", well, if caught, they will slap a nice bigger fine on you becuase you broke a county law.

Dancing around semantics is not going to change it either.  In this case, yeah, shooting is illegal becuase you are shooting on private or public property without permission or a permit that WOULD permit you to do so without issue.

The logic behind this is all very simple... a cash grab.  If a professional company is making thousands of dollars off a shoot while using county land, the county wants a piece of the pie, and it does this by imposing a law where shooting is permitted, but only by permit and then adding fines for those that do not wish to follow the law.

It is unfortunate, but it appears that this law applies to everyone, big companies and single individuals too, irrespective of if that one individual who has a bunch of nice equipment, is shooting his wife and kids in that designated/protected area.

You have a choice... to pay for a permit or not.  But if caught, your only choice is to pay the now higher fine or go sit in county lock-up until court later that day... and pay more for the fine and court costs.  

No one forced you to take pictures in that spot, so if caught, be responsible for your actions and do the right thing, or better yet, pay beforehand... or if you do not want to pay... find another spot to shoot.  

It's not like there is only one nice place to shoot in a whole area, is it?


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

Chiller said:


> I got busted twice before for photographing at the cemetery by a rent a cop. Even tho he threatened to have me fined, I just told him how much he looked like Udo Dirkshnieder(some of you wont have a clue he is) and got him all off track.:lmao:
> Even tho is it not "illegal" to take photos there, permission is still required. Since my new son in laws brother works there, I was able to get hold of the "rules and regulations" How amazing is it that you can ride a bike, but not photograph. I included the whole shebangs, for the read, but check oot the photography part.
> The pet part made me laugh too..."of any kind" I was going to bring a zebra one day.
> 
> ...


 
Despite all of the above, the only recourse they have is to ask you to leave and they may not even be able to do that if a member of your immediate family is buried there.

skieur


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 28, 2008)

Well, I think that we all know that if an officer is called, and you insist on staying and become even the least belligerent, you will leave in the back seat of the cruiser in cuffs.  They'll add resisting arrest, attempted assault on an officer, refusing to listen to the request of an officer,  or some other stupidity... so why be foolish about it?

It's the wise man that will say "I am sorry, I'm on my way and shall leave now..." and if they were a gentleman would add "... but before I go, I'd like to show you my pictures and you may choose if I should delete any or all of them..."

That way, if you came back and Mr Rent-a-cop was there and saw you, they may not do anything... they may do the same, but at least I showed that I had a little class, maturity and that I respected him and his position.  You will always catch more flies with honey.

I've been asked once already to leave an area, but after apologizing and asking if I could show them the pictures and offered them the choice to delete the pics... the guy actually apologized back and I was left to take more pictures.  I am not saying it will always happen, but if one acts a jerk, expect to be treated as one.


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

You have NOT read the thread, Jerry, what requires a permit is bringing in a crew and major equipment.  That is NOT what many photographers are doing.

It IS LEGAL to go in without a crew and major equipment and do a shoot and you cannot be legally fined.  How can they fine you? You are not even required to identify yourself.  Their only recourse is to ask you to leave, but even that could be construed as discrimination, because you have not violated any supposed rules.

skieur


----------



## Chiller (Nov 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> Despite all of the above, the only recourse they have is to ask you to leave and they may not even be able to do that if a member of your immediate family is buried there.
> 
> skieur


  I have no problem leaving, and respect that they are doing their job.  I was more surprised at the fact....there are no signs, that said photography was not permitted.  Now that I know the rules, if I go back, and I am asked to leave, I just say...thats cool...have a great day, and leave.   There are lots of other places to shoot


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 28, 2008)

skieur said:


> You have NOT read the thread, Jerry, what requires a permit is bringing in a crew and major equipment.  That is NOT what many photographers are doing.
> 
> It IS LEGAL to go in without a crew and major equipment and do a shoot and you cannot be legally fined.  How can they fine you?



Realistically, the county would be able to tell you definitively or not.  Discussing it here is just some pleasant discussion and nothing more definitive than an exchange of opinion.  

If they are jerks looking for $$, you would be surprised what could be construed as a "crew".  One lightstand and a wife holding it as you carry your camera and a couple lenses and your son following.  Their land, their laws and interpretations of it (blatantly obvious or not).

It's not about law, its about the money and depending on how money hungry they are, they could cause even the casual strobist some issues.


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Well, I think that we all know that if an officer is called, and you insist on staying and become even the least belligerent, you will leave in the back seat of the cruiser in cuffs. They'll add resisting arrest, attempted assault on an officer, refusing to listen to the request of an officer, or some other stupidity... so why be foolish about it?
> .


 
Well, you would be stupid to stay on private property, since it would leave you open to a charge of trespassing.  However you are free to leave with your photos and use them or sell them for any artistic or editorial purpose 
If the police arrive before you leave, they will likely tell you to leave and escort you off the property.  You would be foolish to resist.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Realistically, the county would be able to tell you definitively or not. Discussing it here is just some pleasant discussion and nothing more definitive than an exchange of opinion.
> 
> If they are jerks looking for $$, you would be surprised what could be construed as a "crew". One lightstand and a wife holding it as you carry your camera and a couple lenses and your son following. Their land, their laws and interpretations of it (blatantly obvious or not).
> 
> It's not about law, its about the money and depending on how money hungry they are, they could cause even the casual strobist some issues.


 
Laws and bilaws by municipalities, counties and cities are often beyond their rights to make them and violate the rights and freedoms of their constituents. The reason they continue to make them because so few have been tested in court by legally knowledgeable victims. This will continue until someone fights one of these laws in court and wins and then turns around and sues the city or municipality for a lot of money for violating their civil rights.

By the way, speaking from experience, instituting a law suit and doing it right is worth it. I would never hesitate in future.

skieur


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 28, 2008)

Having lived in the USA, I would say it was the American way... lol
Here, it is (gladly enough) a lot harder to sue, even when you have all the legal points on your side.  I know it is not related, but as a (bad) example, a surgeon left a needle in my grandmother... it infected and swelled her entire torso and she almost died from it.  We went to 14 lawyers... none accepted the case becuase it is "bad form" to sue a doctor here in Canada.  This was many years ago (about 20), and could have changed since.


----------



## skieur (Nov 28, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Having lived in the USA, I would say it was the American way... lol
> Here, it is (gladly enough) a lot harder to sue, even when you have all the legal points on your side. I know it is not related, but as a (bad) example, a surgeon left a needle in my grandmother... it infected and swelled her entire torso and she almost died from it. We went to 14 lawyers... none accepted the case becuase it is "bad form" to sue a doctor here in Canada. This was many years ago (about 20), and could have changed since.


 
Choosing a lawyer for a law suit requires the choice of "a major player" in the particular kind of law suit in Canada. Do that and the result is substantially in your favour after deductions. A six figure fee for example is worth it, if the settlement is 7 figures after deductions.

skieur


----------



## THORHAMMER (Nov 29, 2008)

In California tresspass is almost impossible to prove criminal unless on federal land. You will Always get a warning is your on "open to the public" land

You can get away with shooting on the beach with an asistant to hold a reflector as long as your not getting paid for the shoot.
Only Newport and corona actually care about it just don't make a huge
Production out of it.

If you've got lights and umbrellas and stuff let's be honest you should apply for the permit. otherwise just shoot away I've never been stopped for shooting with reflector or flash before on a state park or beach  but if you attract a lot of attention you might.

Why don't you go to a city park? Nothing can be done about that!
Shoot away it's totally public land.


----------



## skieur (Nov 29, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> In California tresspass is almost impossible to prove criminal unless on federal land. You will Always get a warning is your on "open to the public" land
> 
> You can get away with shooting on the beach with an asistant to hold a reflector as long as your not getting paid for the shoot.
> Only Newport and corona actually care about it just don't make a huge
> ...


 
Agreed. The reality is that trespassing is low on the priority list of the police pretty well anywhere. Besides they consider that the paperwork involved for them, is not worth the effort for what usually is a misdemenor. Unless you refuse to leave when the police ask you to, you will likely not be charged.

With violence related charges being backed up in the court system you can imagine how unlikely there is to be any follow through on a trespassing charge even if it is filed.

As a matter of fact in some jurisdictions, if you plead not guilty and ask for a court date, the charge will often be dropped.

skieur


----------



## MikeBcos (Nov 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> You just don't get it.  Taking photos is NEVER illegal and if you pay a fine, you are dumb.
> 
> skieur




Many years ago I toured Yugoslavia, in certain areas of the country there were big signs on the side of the road showing a camera with a line through it.

I assumed this meant that taking photographs there was illegal, I decided to keep my camera well hidden rather than discuss the legality of photography with the local authorities. :mrgreen: Sometimes photography is illegal and if someone says it is illegal to shoot in a certain place I will leave, photographers have a bad enough name anyway.


----------



## patrickt (Nov 29, 2008)

Skieur: I'm glad you agreed with me that sometimes it may be illegal to take a photograph.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> Agreed. The reality is that trespassing is low on the priority list of the police pretty well anywhere. Besides they consider that the paperwork involved for them, is not worth the effort for what usually is a misdemenor. Unless you refuse to leave when the police ask you to, you will likely not be charged.
> 
> With violence related charges being backed up in the court system you can imagine how unlikely there is to be any follow through on a trespassing charge even if it is filed.
> 
> ...




:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Oh God..... your killing me.:lmao::lmao::lmao:

The fact of the matter is trespassing is pursued like any other criminal matter.  Paperwork is paperwork.  If you get the call you do the paperwork. Period.  Even if no one is arrested.  It's called accountability and it is very important these days in law enforcement.  Reports get made.  

Here is the simple fact to this and most other misdemeanor crimes as well as a lot of property and some person felony crimes.  If the victim does not want to prosecute or does not want to cooperate then the case does not go forward.  Simple as that.  You don't put a victim on the stand that is going to be a hostile witness.  Any prosecutor, even the most incompetent one, knows that.  You do, you loose.  If the victim does not show up to a court hearing in municipal court the case gets dropped.  

Some businesses make it a rule not to bother with prosecution for these kinds of things and some have no problem with their employees spending the time to go to court on matters like this.  All depends on the luck of the draw so to speak.


----------



## skieur (Nov 29, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
> 
> Oh God..... your killing me.:lmao::lmao::lmao:
> 
> The fact of the matter is trespassing is pursued like any other criminal matter.


 
Well, I am impressed that Kansas does not have any city or munipality budget problems, that there are plenty of judges, prosecutors, court staff and space etc. and that the police are not understaffed. Sort of reminds me of Oz and Liza Minelli. :lmao:

Of course, you have probably not been involved in cases that did not get to trial because of the above problems either.

skieur


----------



## craig (Nov 29, 2008)

Do you love my new avatar or what? I knew I should have edited it before I posted. The darn edit your avatar cp is so frustrating. I'm lucky I ended up with this.

Love & Muppets


----------



## table1349 (Nov 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> Well, I am impressed that Kansas does not have any city or munipality budget problems, that there are plenty of judges, prosecutors, court staff and space etc. and that the police are not understaffed. Sort of reminds me of Oz and Liza Minelli. :lmao:
> 
> Of course, you have probably not been involved in cases that did not get to trial because of the above problems either.
> 
> skieur



If you read the papers or watch the news you would know that Kansas is in the top 10 places to live right now. The mid-west in general is the same way. We didn't over inflate the value of our homes, and the financial system here did not jump on the everybody should own a home no matter what they make band wagon.  They still required some common sense in when purchasing a home.  That no money down thing just never caught on with the lenders.  Like everyone else we will take a hit from the whole economic downturn, but it will come from the outside, not from inside.  

As for the whole courts/police/trial thing, well with over 26 years in law enforcement so far, I do have a bit of a handle on the reality of the situation.  The reality is simple, if a criminal incident occurs and an officer is sent out a report gets made.  They don't have the right nor the authority to not make a case.  

Where a misdemeanor case dies is from the citizen side.  Call an officer about a trespasser and the officer shows up, they make a case.  If the offender leaves you ask the property owner if they want to prosecute.  They say no, it goes into the report.  No follow up by the police from there on.  If they want to prosecute you tell them who to call and it is up to them to come down and sign a complaint.  No complaint, no court case.  

If you have to arrest a trespasser they are given a court date.  On that court date if the complainant does not show up, case dismissed.  Happens all the time.  

That is one of the neat thing about the system of justice here, equal protection under the law with out regard to the cost.  So no, cases are not dismissed because it would cost too much money.  When they get dismissed it is usually because of citizen apathy, often because it might cost them money to have to go to court or send an employee to court.  

There is one thing I would like to know.  Is there some Canadian version of the Wizard of Oz that we missed here in the US?  Here in Kansas Judy Garland played Dorthy and Liza Minelli wasn't even a twinkle in Judy's eye at the time.  But then Judy Garland was only 16 when she made the Wizard of Oz.  :lmao:


----------



## abraxas (Nov 30, 2008)

craig said:


> Do you love my new avatar or what? I knew I should have edited it before I posted. The darn edit your avatar cp is so frustrating. I'm lucky I ended up with this.
> 
> Love & Muppets



I've analyzed your new avatar and find it disturbing.  Nip it. Nip it in the bud.

I'll be watching. I have one bullet and I'm not afraid to use it.


#7 - Intimidation.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 30, 2008)

abraxas said:


> I've analyzed your new avatar and find it disturbing.  Nip it. Nip it in the bud.
> 
> I'll be watching. I have one bullet and I'm not afraid to use it.
> 
> ...



Do you have an extra bullet for my new avatar as well.  :lmao:  Walter has become one of my favorite people these days.


----------



## craig (Nov 30, 2008)

abraxas said:


> I've analyzed your new avatar and find it disturbing.  Nip it. Nip it in the bud.
> 
> I'll be watching. I have one bullet and I'm not afraid to use it.
> 
> ...



I refuse to be intimidated! There is no Law saying that you can not have a Muppet Avatar. Furthermore the shooting of Muppets is illegal in the US. I cite the "Muppet Act of 1976". See also: "The state of California v Hensen" 1975.

Love & Bass


----------



## epatsellis (Nov 30, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> As for the whole courts/police/trial thing, well with over 26 years in law enforcement so far, I do have a bit of a handle on the reality of the situation. The reality is simple, if a criminal incident occurs and an officer is sent out a report gets made. They don't have the right nor the authority to not make a case.



Unfortunately, it's not always the case, my workshop was broken into, by a creditor (and very,very much against the law), the police outright refused to allow me to file a report to document it, and the state's attorney refused to even see me about the incident at all. (apparently breaking and entering, effectively stealing some 15K worth of tools is not high on his list of priorities) The reality is small town politics and back room dealings can mean that while it SHOULD, it doesn't always. (btw, I've subsequently pursued the matter through civil process, and have won one judgement(of over $10K)against the creditor, and the city is apealling the judgement I was awarded against them, (and the attorney general has gotten involved, investigating it as a corruption case...)

So, yes they don't have the authority, per se, but in reality they often choose whether to or not, and how seriously to take the report in the first place.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 30, 2008)

epatsellis said:


> Unfortunately, it's not always the case, my workshop was broken into, by a creditor (and very,very much against the law), the police outright refused to allow me to file a report to document it, and the state's attorney refused to even see me about the incident at all. (apparently breaking and entering, effectively stealing some 15K worth of tools is not high on his list of priorities) The reality is small town politics and back room dealings can mean that while it SHOULD, it doesn't always. *(btw, I've subsequently pursued the matter through civil process, and have won one judgement(of over $10K)against the creditor, and the city is apealling the judgement I was awarded against them, (and the attorney general has gotten involved, investigating it as a corruption case...)*
> 
> So, yes they don't have the authority, per se, but in reality they often choose whether to or not, and how seriously to take the report in the first place.



Thanks for proving my point.  I was talking about the legality of the issue.  There are criminal elements in any line of work, bar none.  The fact that the attorney general is investigating it is an indication that they believe that those particular authorities violated the law by taking the law into their own hands.  

On a side note, anyone that says _"Crime Doesn't Pay_" has never been elected to congress.  :lmao:


----------



## table1349 (Nov 30, 2008)

craig said:


> I refuse to be intimidated! There is no Law saying that you can not have a Muppet Avatar. Furthermore the shooting of Muppets is illegal in the US. I cite the "Muppet Act of 1976". See also: "The state of California v Hensen" 1975.
> 
> Love & Bass




Sadly, the "Muppet Act of 1976" was repealed in 1990 with the untimely death of Jim Hensen.


----------



## craig (Nov 30, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sadly, the "Muppet Act of 1976" was repealed in 1990 with the untimely death of Jim Hensen.



Just great. Is nothing sacred anymore?

Love & Bass


----------



## table1349 (Nov 30, 2008)

craig said:


> Just great. Is nothing sacred anymore?
> 
> Love & Bass



Well as Kermit would say......

_It's not that easy being green
Having to spend each day the color of the leaves
When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow or gold
Or something much more colorful like that

It's not easy being green
It seems you blend in with so many other ordinary things
And people tend to pass you over 'cause you're
Not standing out like flashy sparkles in the water
Or stars in the sky

But green's the color of Spring
And green can be cool and friendly-like
And green can be big like an ocean, or important
Like a mountain, or tall like a tree

When green is all there is to be
It could make you wonder why, but why wonder why
Wonder, I am green and it'll do fine, it's beautiful
And I think it's what I want to be
_


----------



## craig (Nov 30, 2008)

You get extra credit for posting those immortal words!

Love & Bass


----------



## table1349 (Nov 30, 2008)

craig said:


> You get extra credit for posting those immortal words!
> 
> Love & Bass



Hey I know the words to all the Muppets songs.  Including:
_
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
 It's the most remarkable word I've ever seen.

 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
 I wish I knew exactly what I mean.
 It starts out like an A-word,
 As anyone can see
 But somewhere in the middle
 It gets awfully QR to me.

 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
 If I ever find out just what this word can mean,
 I'll be the smartest bird the world has ever seen.

 It might be kind of an elephant,
 Or a funny kind of kazoo.
 Or a strange exotic turtle
 You never see in a zoo.
 Or maybe a kind of a doggie
 A particular shade of blue.
 Or maybe a pretty flower
 Naah, not with a name like that...uh, uh!_ 

And their first gold record: 

_Two and two are four
 Four and four are eight
 Eight and eight are sixteen
 Sixteen and sixteen are thirty-two

 Inchworm, inchworm
 Measuring the marigolds
 You and your arithmetic
 You'll probably go far

 Inchworm, inchworm
 Measuring the marigolds
 Seems to me you'd stop and see
 How beautiful they are_ 

And my personal favorite:

_Mahna mahna 
 (ba dee bedebe) 
 mahna mahna 
 (ba debe dee) 
 mahna mahna 
 (ba dee bedebe badebe badebe dee dee de-de de-de-de) 

 (repeats) 

 mah mama na mahna mah namwomp mwomp 
 ma mo mo mana mo 
 mahna mahna 
 (ba dee bedebe) 
 mahna mahna 
 (ba debe dee) 
 Mahna Mahna! 
 (ba dee bedebe bedebe badebe debe de-de de-de-de) 

 (long pause) 

 ...mahna mahna? _ 

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## craig (Nov 30, 2008)

Brilliant!

Love & Bass


----------

