# $250 ticket for shooting on a tripod in NYC?



## Paul Ron (Jun 28, 2011)

While at Orchard Beach, a NYC public beach, I saw an amature photographer get a ticket for shooting a model (also an amature) on the sand without a permit because he was using a tripod. The park ranger said as soon as you shoot on a tripod you are considered a professional and that requires a permit in NYC... it's the law. Is this true? 

Anyone know exactly what the law is on this?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 28, 2011)

I dont know.. but it is amateur, not amature  .  My first reaction is, why would he need a tripod shooting a model?  I dont get it.  I am glad I dont live in NY!



Paul Ron said:


> While at Orchard Beach, a NYC public beach, I saw an amature photographer get a ticket for shooting a model (also an amature) on the sand without a permit because he was using a tripod. The park ranger said as soon as you shoot on a tripod you are considered a professional and that requires a permit in NYC... it's the law. Is this true?
> 
> Anyone know exactly what the law is on this?


----------



## ghache (Jun 28, 2011)

I cant beleive how many stupid laws and **** you guys get into for taking pictures....., thanks god i live in canada.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 28, 2011)

Obviously the officer isn't clear on the law and issued a ticket. An intelligent person would take it to court and get it dropped. I can see if you are using a tripod on Manhatten streets where people are trying to walk/drive, it is crowded and would make a mess of traffic but on the beach, no.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 28, 2011)

According to the Mayor's Office of Film Theatre and broadcasting there is no requirement for a permit if you are shooting on a hand-held camera either in-hand or on a tripod _if_ you don't expect to bar the public from the space. 

Thus you can't rope off an area, etc.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 28, 2011)

I'd be fighting this one in court, how stupid is that. If it is a law, I would be surprised, but then we have some pretty stupid laws in my home town as well. I find it difficut to believe that some flunky park ranger is in a position to decide who is an amateur and how a tripod makes them a professional.

Just read the post before, it makes sense. This park ranger needs to learn the rules, that's what minimum wage buys you these days.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 28, 2011)

My guess is a single call and fax to the Mayor's office will solve this.
Shooters in NYC would be advised to carry a printout of that page.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 28, 2011)

ghache said:


> I cant beleive how many stupid laws and **** you guys get into for taking pictures....., thanks god i live in canada.



Yes, thanks to God. French fries and gravy forever!!! Major hockey riots every time Vancouver loses the Stanley cup (1994, 2011). Tim Horton's stale coffee! Oh, Canada! Bleeding from a gash.


----------



## K8-90 (Jun 28, 2011)

Derrel said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > I cant beleive how many stupid laws and **** you guys get into for taking pictures....., thanks god i live in canada.
> ...



And to think I considered you one of the more intelligent members on this forum... My bad.


----------



## ngaerlan (Jun 28, 2011)

note to self, when shooting in NYC wear a shirt that says " I am a photographer not a terrorist"

Eternal Eights Photography


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 28, 2011)

K8-90 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > ghache said:
> ...



That's interesting I never thought he was one of the more intelligent ones on this forum, every chance he can get to bash Canada, he does.  At least we can say Canada is not the world's school yard bully, we may not have the strongest military, but we show up, disasters around the world, we show up.  Canada feeds the National Hockey League with the best players in the world, and Tim Hortons coffee is brewed fresh every 20minutes, although I'm not sure if it's real coffee.  As for french fries and gravy, you forgot the cheese curds, Poutine, best in the world.  I'm surprised that the US hasn't adopted potuine as a food they invented, it would be  a great addition for the most obese country in the world.


----------



## Sammie_Lou (Jun 28, 2011)

Sweet! I have a tripod...guess I'm a pro! Now I can start charging big bux to take pictures!


----------



## Paul Ron (Jun 28, 2011)

OK here is the link to the actual law issued by NYC...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_QA_final.pdf

.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 28, 2011)

Oh snap.. We had Canon vs Nikon war, Mac vs PC, full frame vs crop, and now ladies and gentlemen!!!  USA vs. CA!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 28, 2011)

Nah,  each country has too many goods and bads to get into an argument over it.  I added my thoughts and that was it.  Just the facts.


----------



## usayit (Jun 28, 2011)

It is not a stupid law.... If you lived or spent any time in NYC or any of the surrounding areas, you would understand.



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..


Even idiots who bring a jumbo size golf umbrellas are a danger on those sidewalks.  I literally got f'in poked in the eye once.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 28, 2011)

In 2006 276 independent and studio films were shot in NYC, not counting commercial and fashion shoots plus bog-time events that get filmed.

Permits and rules are a requirement.


----------



## ghache (Jun 29, 2011)

Derrel said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > I cant beleive how many stupid laws and **** you guys get into for taking pictures....., thanks god i live in canada.
> ...



LOL! you should stop eating fries and gravy. btw, i puked in my mouth when i saw that mirror shot.


----------



## ghache (Jun 29, 2011)

K8-90 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > ghache said:
> ...



Noobs think he is because he has 10 gazillion post. welcome to the interwebz.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 29, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> In 2006 276 independent and studio films were shot in NYC, not counting commercial and fashion shoots plus bog-time events that get filmed.
> 
> Permits and rules are a requirement.



Permits and rules are a requirement everywhere, but so is common sense, if the guy with the tripod was in the way and blocking people then the park ranger asks him to move, if he argues or refuses then the ticket is justified. If the guy with the tripod is not bothering anyone, then common sense should have dictated that the park ranger advice him of the rules and regulations for future visits to the beach, and everyone goes home happy.  But common sense is something that far too many people lack.


----------



## analog.universe (Jun 29, 2011)

In New York, the ego flex is much more important to most people than sensibility, or good nature.  I used to live there, and left specifically because of the attitude that most people have there.  I think the speed of everyday life, and cost of living in new york put people into a headspace that they can't shake out of when it comes time to actually interact with someone.  It's great for getting stuff done and being creative and networking and all that, but, IMO not great for everyone's mood in the long run.


----------



## KenC (Jun 29, 2011)

A photographer I know had the same problem in Valley Forge park.  The presence of a tripod always seems to trigger a response.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 29, 2011)

Tripods aren't allowed for use at the Olympics either.  I think people see them an obstical, at the multisport games it just comes down to the space alloted for photoghraphers.  I don't understand why they are of such concern in large open spaces.


----------



## Heck (Jul 3, 2011)

A warning or a suggestion to move along does not generate 250 dollars for the city. The good people of New York just keep voting for the same tax and spend politicians over and over so they get what they deserve.


----------



## Paul Ron (Jul 3, 2011)

I got thrown off the beach Wed the 29th for taking pictures. A very cocky sargent ranger Lopez told me I have to leave the beach because I was taking pictures of the half naked ladies in section 1 to the right of the jetty. He says the girls called him, I was "hanging around for hours harrasing em and taking their pictures." I always hang around the beach after my 25 mile bike ride n cool off n have some water. I always carry my camera as well, I was actually taking pictures of an egret to the left of the jettty in the same gerneral area.

I didn't refuse to leave, I was insisting he arrest me for taking pictures, and asking him if it's illegal to take pics at the beach, regardless of the subject matter. They gave me a ticket for refusing to obey an order to leave... "Failure to follow POs direction." I was also called a pervert by sargent ranger Lopez n the cop that wrote the ticket. I did offer my camera n film if they provide a search warrant but stood my ground and kept insisting they arrest me for teh crime I was being charged with, taking pics... that just escalated their tempers, more radio chatter and more sargents n cops n rangers showed up to explain why I had to leave... "because you are told to." By the time we finished there were 10 sargent cops n 5 seargent rangers. 

It's an abuse of power. This gives them the right to throw you out becasue you're Jewish, Irish, don't like your hairdo?... refused to leave by order of the gashtopo? I'm going to show up in court, pictures in hand n make my case heard.... all are invited.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 3, 2011)

Hand small minded people any kind of power and it gives them the "right" to act like jerks.  Good for standing your ground.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 3, 2011)

usayit said:


> It is not a stupid law.... If you lived or spent any time in NYC or any of the surrounding areas, you would understand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is a stupid law... I used to be in NYC daily and I live 20 minutes away. If you think a tripod is a danger, than you think someone standing still is a danger.


----------



## Formatted (Jul 3, 2011)

I don't actually believe this can be true. 

And so, I call troll!


----------



## usayit (Jul 3, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> It is a stupid law... I used to be in NYC daily and I live 20 minutes away. If you think a tripod is a danger, than you think someone standing still is a danger.



Tripod's legs are a whole lot wider and less visible than a person standing there..... what an idiotic response...    I guess the light post or parking meter is also a bigger danger.  Heck, my full height tripod can take up 1/2 the width of a sidewalk.   

Its not an issue about photography, its an issue about maintaining safe flow of traffic in one of the most densely populated cities in the world.   Its just something you have to learn to live with if you are to be in the city.  

and yes....  Lots of New Yorkers get pissed off when you stop in the middle of a crowded flowing sidewalk picking your nose.   At least people usually have the right mind to stand aside.


ps> I've never had a problem with monopods... perhaps I'm just lucky.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 3, 2011)

Tripods set up that people have to move around are a hazzard, if you are in a park in the open not bothering anyone and you get hassled then it is stupid, if you are blocking people then I agree that the photographer should move.  On any beach you'll find all kinds of people with cameras, it all depends on the beach and where the camera is percieved to be pointing. I shot photos on Bondi beach in Australia, there were lots of topless woman, I did a wide shot, a tourist happy snap type shot, I had no problems, I had a longer lens with me that I never used, I just wanted the overall shot.  I could guarentee if I picked up the 300 2.8 and pointed it anywhere I would have had someone talking to me.

There are a lot of people that just see the camera and assume what you're shooting is wrong, when in reality they don't have a clue what you may be shooting, could be a rock in the sand but 100 yards away there is a woman or child and they assume that is what you are shooting, and this is where you run into problems.  People just assume, because they are parinoid.  On the other side if someone is sitting on the beach with a long lens all day and shooting people, letting the beach authorities know is not out of the question.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 4, 2011)

usayit said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > It is a stupid law... I used to be in NYC daily and I live 20 minutes away. If you think a tripod is a danger, than you think someone standing still is a danger.
> ...



How about you take your arrogant attitude and shove it up your ass pal. Plus you are proving my point. There are literally thousands of reasons to stop on a sidewalk ie food stand, news stand, bus, waiting on a cross walk, the list goes on. The tripod isn't a danger, and neither is stopping. A tripod that covers 6 square feet of sidewalk is beyond visible however I doubt you travel with a tripod that large to begin with. What is your point anyway... why are you saying its not a stupid law?


----------



## usayit (Jul 4, 2011)

Its a hazard.  No matter how you try to argue.  Just like imagemaker said.  Apparently the city agrees too... so you can shove it.  I happen to like the law.  Just like the law that requires a permit to sell on the sidewalk.... forms a crowd that gets in peoples way.  The problem with your listing as that all those items are controlled.... they either require PERMITS or approval of their location by the city (just like a tripod)  If everyone was free to setup a new stand it would be the same problem.. a hazard.  (oh "waiting at a cross walk".. my god is that a idiotic logic).  By your logic the Empire State Building is a hazard.

You don't like it, stay out.    Its a matter of controlling the flow of traffic....  If you want to setup a tripod, ask permission and pay for a permit.  No different from a food stand, news stand, bus, taxi, etc...  all controlled and limited.  

80% of the people I work with live there and I worked there for many years.  Each and everyone have stated the same thing.   Sorry.. you don't agree but this isn't about what you think... you sound like a tourist hell bent on doing whatever you feel like.  


btw...  the best place to stop to take a photo while on a busy sidewalk at NYC. Is right next to the trash can (they are bolted down).  seriously.   Take a monopod, hold it tightly against the can and shoot.  As good as a tripod.




btw.. 



Ballistics said:


> I would love to go to a local camera shop but there isn't one for miles. I'm not willing to drive 30 minutes away for a lens. Gas here is crazy and sales tax here is just as crazy (8.7%).



Sheesh..   So you live 20 minutes from the city and can't make it to the numerous camera shops?  Sounds like you should just let things be... after all you just visit there and have no clue.   Oh while you are at it... stop whining.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 4, 2011)

8.7% sales tax, that's nice, we are paying 13% on everything, gas, food, everything required to live. Our provincial government says it's good for us, will make it better for us, funny how having to spend more money to live is good for us.

The law is in place for when anyone is blocking the movement of people, as it should be.  It is the job ot the badge guys to hand out tickets, what they should do is just say "can you please move so I don't have to write  you a ticket"  if the person doesn't move, write the ticket.  If I was visiting from out of town and handed a ticket right away, I guarantee I wouldn't visit again.  It is all about using some common sense, it's really that simple, unfortunately too many people fail to use these days.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 4, 2011)

Typically in DC, the police will just tell you to move it.

At the Lincoln Memorial, at daybreak one morning, I was told that by a guard and I asked how many times a day he had to say it, he shook his head and said hundreds.

I guess eventually a cop thinks, 'The next guy who sets up a tripod is getting either bludgeoned to death or shot' then settles for a ticket.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 4, 2011)

usayit said:


> Its a hazard.  No matter how you try to argue.  Just like imagemaker said.  Apparently the city agrees too... so you can shove it.  I happen to like the law.  Just like the law that requires a permit to sell on the sidewalk.... forms a crowd that gets in peoples way.  The problem with your listing as that all those items are controlled.... they either require PERMITS or approval of their location by the city (just like a tripod)  If everyone was free to setup a new stand it would be the same problem.. a hazard.  (oh "waiting at a cross walk".. my god is that a idiotic logic).  By your logic the Empire State Building is a hazard.
> 
> You don't like it, stay out.    Its a matter of controlling the flow of traffic....  If you want to setup a tripod, ask permission and pay for a permit.  No different from a food stand, news stand, bus, taxi, etc...  all controlled and limited.
> 
> ...



Maybe while you do your little detective work about where I live, you can also figure out that it costs almost 20 dollars to get in and out of the city from where I live not including gas which is at 4 dollars a gallon. Then the 30 dollars to park. If I take the train its 20 dollars then the numerous subway fees or bus fees.  Not worth it for me. 

I didnt know waiting at a crosswalk or for a bus required a permit genius. 

You're reasoning doesn't make sense anyway, you like the law because it is a hazard? As if having a permit makes it less hazardous? Or will not stop the flow of traffic? You're telling me the people of NYC won't be upset with the person stopping if he shows his permit? You're friends agree with the permit? Why? Makes no sense. 

Oh and by the way, you're researching skills didn't happen to find this


> *When a Permit Is Not Required
> *
> A permit is not required for filming that uses hand-held cameras or tripods and does not assert exclusive use of City property. Standing on a street, walkway of a bridge, sidewalk, or other pedestrian passageway while using a hand-held device and not otherwise asserting exclusive use of City property is not an activity that requires a permit.
> 
> In addition, activity that involves the filming of a parade, rally, protest or demonstration does not require a permit except when equipment or vehicles are used. The rules also provide that press photographers, who are credentialed by the New York Police Department (NYPD) do not need to obtain a MOFTB permit.



So therefore, the city of New York is with me, so YOU can shove it. It has nothing to do with a tripod.

Edit:


> *When a Permit Is Required*
> 
> A permit is required for filming if equipment or vehicles, as defined in the rule, are used or if the person filming asserts exclusive use of City property. Equipment *does not include* hand-held devices (such as hand-held film, still, or television cameras or videocameras) or *tripods* used to support such cameras, but a permit would be required in certain situations when the person filming asserts exclusive use of City property while using a hand-held device.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 4, 2011)

Oh and taking it a step further, the "optional" permit for still photography for "Sidewalks and City Property only"... is FREE. So I'm not understanding why it is so important.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 4, 2011)

As soon as anyone starts to change the tone of their language they lose.


----------



## usayit (Jul 4, 2011)

.. (not required) does not assert exclusive use city property...

Next part...

.... (not required) a hand-held device and not otherwise asserting exclusive use of city property

Last part..

... (required) or if the person filming asserts exclusive use of City property.... 


Read.  it is inline....   and the info is linked earlier in this thread.

Your logic is faulty in that I did not state that hazards are eleminated but they are controlled...  Obviously you are not a new yorker (and no... you started the whole idiotic crosswalk line of logic.  I didn't state or imply a permit).  As a guest, you should show some respect as you would if you were a visitor.


done...   waste of time to a person that just complains; sales tax, tripods, cost of gas, cost of train, cost of parking... Sheesh..  you complain more than my kids.



PS>  A good thread from the large format folks. Two replying members actually live in NYC.   Their experience is inline with what has been said... actually more.. I didn't realize that you can be liable if anyone hurts themselves due to a tripod.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=20926


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 4, 2011)

usayit said:


> .. (not required) does not assert exclusive use city property...
> 
> Next part...
> 
> ...



There is nothing worse than people who speak in absolutes. Because "obviously I'm not a new yorker" lmao. Right. Well up until I left for the Military 6.5 years ago, I lived on Long Island my whole life which is now once again where I reside. Also, I worked in NYC for 2 years installing and maintaining Sukkahs when I was a teenager. I know NYC very well, so let's stop jumping to wild conclusions.   

I highlighted the parts for you...because reading comprehension seems to not be your strong suit.



> *When a Permit Is Not Required
> *
> A permit is not required for filming that uses hand-held cameras or *tripods *and does not assert exclusive use of City property. *Standing on a* street, walkway of a bridge, *sidewalk*, or other pedestrian passageway while using a hand-held device and not otherwise asserting exclusive use of City property *is not an activity that requires a permit*.



There's also nothing worse than someone who complains about someone who complains. I state why I won't do something, you call it a complaint, and then complain about it. Sheesh, you're a hypocritical pretentious know-it-all who deems his opinions superior to all. No wonder why your kids complain. Trust me buddy, your **** stinks too... I promise.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 4, 2011)

> b)  A permit would be required if filming activity would either (1) assert by any means
> the exclusive use of one or more lanes of a street or walkway of a bridge; or (2) result in
> either less than eight feet, or one-half the width of the sidewalk or pedestrian
> passageway (whichever is greater) being otherwise available for pedestrian use.
> ...



Here's the criteria in a bit more depth. Cut and dry, black and white. The use of a tripod on a sidewalk DOES NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT.


----------



## cooksnj (Jul 4, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> According to the Mayor's Office of Film Theatre and broadcasting there is no requirement for a permit if you are shooting on a hand-held camera either in-hand or on a tripod _if_ you don't expect to bar the public from the space.
> 
> Thus you can't rope off an area, etc.


   everybody seemed to miss that the permit cost $300.00 and the ticket was only $250.00   i would take my chances. you gotta love the government


----------



## usayit (Jul 4, 2011)

...and does not assert exclusive use of city property...

its mentioned in each clause... lol

Go to times square, right in front of the police station during a high traffic time, and give it a shot.  Tell us how it works out.    

At least I was knowledgable enough to know a simple thing called use tax and hold an argument without resorting to immature high school responses


----------



## digital flower (Jul 5, 2011)

There are two sides to every ticket and unless you were directly privy to everything that went on then you don't know what really happened. I am glad they have some rules about this. This guy may or may not have been blocking people but the city has to worry about someone tripping on the tripod and getting a seven figure settlement from the city/insurance company. Just like anything else in NYC if you allow it someone will abuse it. It is too big and crowded to simply let everyone do what they want. 
When I met up with some people from this forum in NYC they were using a tripod in Grand Central. The officer nicely asked them to stop and then moved on (No Sgt. Lopez :er. If you get a ticket like this there is the chance to state your case to a judge and get it nullified.

Its not the cop's fault he is simply enforcing the laws on the books. The lawmakers are the ones responsible for this (City Council in this case. I think).


----------



## Paul Ron (Jul 5, 2011)

AS everyone is saying basically the same thing, you can't block the flow of traffic and that boils down to common sense and perhaps how the law was put into place anyway. There are alwas a few jerks that hog the sidewalks in NYC and thus a good reason to have such a law so they can clcear the paths to avoid law suits. 

But then the tripod guy was in a beach section that had only 3 people sunning at the time and was so remote, in order to trip over his tripod you would have to be in his head shots. The ticket was for using a "tripod without a permit.... he'll beat it if he goes to court.

I wasn't using a tripod but was mearly standing at the end of the boardwalk handrail minding my own business trying to blow off 8 exposures on a roll I had started the week before. I was taking pics of an egret in the grass 50+ feet away to the left of a jetty when Sgt Lopez accused me of being a pervert saying I was shooting his naked girlfriends 100 yards away to the right of the jetty.

If they are allowed to do this under " not obeying an officer's direction" (asked to leave) then what is to stop them from throwing anyone off for beiing the wrong race or just plain old hate your hairdo? 

I'd love to see a bunch of photogs show up on the same day in the same area of beach see if they throw everyone out? 

.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 5, 2011)

Perhaps Sgt Lopez thought you were moving in on his favourite peak spot.......


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 5, 2011)

usayit said:


> ...and does not assert exclusive use of city property...
> 
> its mentioned in each clause... lol



It's spelled out for you. There really is no way around it. The definition of asserting exclusive use of city property is right in your face. Using a regular sized tripod on the sidewalk to take pictures does not require a permit. 



> Go to times square, right in front of the police station during a high traffic time, and give it a shot.  Tell us how it works out.


 
You know what, I will do that. 



> At least I was knowledgable enough to know a simple thing called use tax and hold an argument without resorting to immature high school responses


 Well at least you know about something that doesn't pertain to this argument. Because otherwise you wouldn't have anything at all. Your hypocrisy doesn't end. You started with the immature response of:


> what an idiotic response...


and then tried to make an off-topic stab about me not knowing what use tax is. Yeah, totally mature guy. 

Just for fun, I'm going to apply for an optional permit just because it's free.


----------



## usayit (Jul 5, 2011)

idiotic ...  ie foolish .. ie comparing a tripod to a person standing, news stands, etc.  

Its not an personal insult, it simply means foolish.   In this case, because all of the items listed are controlled by permit thus does not back your case and the comparison to a person standing i the middle of the city is just being foolish.

A whole lot better than your obsession with my ass and howmmy **** smells.  I assure you, my **** stinks to high heaven just like everyone elses.


Is there anything else you need cleared up?  Any other complaints you must air out?  


Oh and when a cop does approach you, feel free to argue right there for what you think is your rights.  Regardless if you are right or not, youll waste you time dealimg with a disorderly conduct, catch all charge.... been there done that.


oh and that optional permit.. please do.. just proves my point... get a permit.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 5, 2011)

usayit said:


> idiotic ...  ie foolish .. ie comparing a tripod to a person standing, news stands, etc.



You really are dense huh? A newstand, food stand, etc... CAUSES PEOPLE TO STAND STILL. That's the comparison I made. You aren't the brightest and you definitely aren't the most mature. You have the pair to call me immature when you say things like 





> A whole lot better than your obsession with my ass and howmmy **** smells





> Oh and when a cop does approach you, feel free to argue right there for what you think is your rights. Regardless if you are right or not, youll waste you time dealimg with a disorderly conduct, catch all charge.... been there done that.



Been there done that, and have come out on top. You know why? Because for 2 years while serving i was apart of the ASF program and I dealt with local law enforcement every day. A simple printout of local statutes saves everyone a lot of time and hassle. My license expired while I was serving. I got pulled over and the cop never heard of the automatic extension for a license for an out of state driver for military members. I had the document from NYSDMV stating this, and he let me go. Easy peasy. Cops like it when civilians have their ducks in a row. 



> oh and that optional permit.. please do.. just proves my point... get a permit.


 Proves what point? That there is an OPTIONAL(opposite of mandatory) permit that is not necessary to have? Fair enough. 



> Its not an personal insult, it simply means foolish. In this case, because all of the items listed are controlled by permit thus does not back your case and the comparison to a person standing i the middle of the city is just being foolish.



When one starts flailing about using semantics to soften the vibe of their initial comments, that is where I start to lose interest. You said my statement was idiotic, I therefore take that as being called an idiot. You set the tone of this argument, and I matched it.


----------



## Paul Ron (Jul 5, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> Perhaps Sgt Lopez thought you were moving in on his favourite peak spot.......


 
I think you got it right.... or he is involved with them somehow?


----------



## usayit (Jul 5, 2011)

Havent figured out the difference between controlling and elemination.... have we?  I guess you missed the third time I mentioned tha newstands and food stands require a permit to limit and control.... I never said eleminate the hazards they may introduce.  Are you going to continue down that and insist it backs you statements?  


Came out of it as well... after a complete waste of my time... its a catch all police use to diffuse the situation easily.    I expected you to know that such a person with experience.  


Didnt argue semantics....  just saying how it is and how you too hot headed to figure it out.   Should I have used "silly response" instead?  How would you have worded... when someone just replied with something as silly as bring in a standing person at a crosswalk as a case that tripods are not a hazard?  thats just idio... er silly.

This is so much fun.....   All this from a simple stance that I agree with efforts made by the city to make walking on crowded sidewalks safe and easy.


PS> I was in the city today.... cops dont mind setup of a tripod in central park for solo shoots.  Just make an effort not to block busy walkways.... which they wil interfere if you do.   see common sense.   

Areas like Rockefeller Center and such do not apply as they are private property... their security didnt allow it.  YMMV


As for pictures of so called half naked women on the beach... thats still crap..   hope OP fights it.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 5, 2011)

usayit said:


> Havent figured out the difference between controlling and elemination.... have we?  I guess you missed the third time I mentioned tha newstands and food stands require a permit to limit and control.... I never said eleminate the hazards they may introduce.  Are you going to continue down that and insist it backs you statements?


 
What does the difference of controlling and elimination have to do with... well... any of this? You keep changing the object of the argument. Those things require a permit, but the people stopping DO NOT. These things cause people to stop, they may need permits... but people can stop on their own for say, I don't know, maybe to take a picture? 




> Came out of it as well... after a complete waste of my time... its a catch all police use to diffuse the situation easily.    I expected you to know that such a person with experience.


  Again with the waste of time comments. 3rd time you've said this. If your time is so valuable, why are you on a forum to begin with? No one is forcing reply. A "catch all" can pertain to literally ANYTHING so to use this as leverage would make no sense. If a cop wanted to ruin your day, he could. So I don't know why you keep bringing this up. We all know this, and it's a cop out (no pun intended).   




> Didnt argue semantics....  just saying how it is and how you too hot headed to figure it out.   Should I have used "silly response" instead?  How would you have worded... when someone just replied with something as silly as bring in a standing person at a crosswalk as a case that tripods are not a hazard?  thats just idio... er silly.



Being that silly is generally a non-combative term, I wouldn't have taken it offensively. Saying something is "very stupid" however, to me comes off as a bit snide and condescending especially the sarcasm that ensued. I know you are an absolute thinker, but there is nothing formulaic about this entire situation. Can a tripod be a hazard? Sure, semantically anything could be. But realistically, the person not paying attention to there surroundings is more of a hazard. But it doesn't matter, because a permit is not required. Does that mean people should be inconsiderate about it? No, and let's not try to assume that's my point. You can take a step to the side, and do what you have to do.     





> This is so much fun.....   All this from a simple stance that I agree with efforts made by the city to make walking on crowded sidewalks safe and easy.


 But you are agreeing with the city, that happens to disagree with you. There is no permit needed for a tripod. Commercial photography is what requires a permit.  




> PS> I was in the city today.... cops dont mind setup of a tripod in central park...


So you went to NYC with a tripod without a permit...fascinating... I digress.

Maybe (just maybe) the cops didn't mind because you didn't need a permit? 




> As for pictures of so called half naked women on the beach... thats still crap..   hope OP fights it.



Something I don't disagree with.


----------



## usayit (Jul 5, 2011)

Ah you finally read... it has everthing to do with the discussion.  If every Tom Dick and Henry setup shop on the busiest streets of NyC it would be a hazard.  They are allowed to operate under limits and their numbers within a single area strictly controlled..    It simply limits and controlls the hazard.  You brought up the analogy...  You cannot ignore responses to it and claim its not related.   You keep calling me absolute but you too are stuck in the notion that if a hazard it must be eliminated OR it must be completely allowed.  That stance is simple not sustaining... there are thousands of reasons and examples of calculated and acceptable risk.  


Often that assessment of risk is performed by an officer....   this officer chose not to interfere as it was a quiet weekday on a non busy area.   There are some bird photogs in that area too.   In other areas,  Many do..very strictly... and I simple shoot handheld.  It doesnt imply anything.  The worst place to shoot and the police will come down quickly, stairs.   I wonder why?  Could it be because people could fall?Highway generally travels between 5-10 miles per hour over the speed limit even past cops.  Does that imply that the speed limit no longer applies?


You are being too hot headed looking to find little tid bits to argue....  I always travel with a tripod.... it doesnt mean that each area I enter allows the use of it.   I travel with two cameras and six lenses and either a tripod or monopod.... into many restricted areas even for photography.  Heck, I have taken pictures in the subway with officer stating that it is resticted.... warning me.   It doesnt imply that its allowed  simply because they let me off.  Now who is being absolute?


also.. about the wasting of time comment.  I meant that getting into an argument with the officer even when I know I am in the right was a waste of time.   NiNe times of ten, a disorderly conduct charge will be dropped... it is a catch all used by police officers to diffuse the situation.... hence to waste time.   again... with the looking to fight and argue... attitude.

sheesh.. you need to relax.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 5, 2011)

usayit said:


> Ah you finally read... it has everthing to do with the discussion.  If every Tom Dick and Henry setup shop on the busiest streets of NyC it would be a hazard.  They are allowed to operate under limits and their numbers within a single area strictly controlled..    It simply limits and controlls the hazard.  You brought up the analogy...  You cannot ignore responses to it and claim its not related.   You keep calling me absolute but you too are stuck in the notion *that if a hazard it must be eliminated OR it must be completely allowed.*  That stance is simple not sustaining... there are thousands of reasons and examples of calculated and acceptable risk.



What? When did I say any of this and why is this being argued? 




> Often that assessment of risk is performed by an officer....   this officer chose not to interfere as it was a quiet weekday on a non busy area.   There are some bird photogs in that area too.   In other areas,  Many do..very strictly... and I simple shoot handheld.  It doesnt imply anything.  The worst place to shoot and the police will come down quickly, stairs.   I wonder why?  Could it be because people could fall?Highway generally travels between 5-10 miles per hour over the speed limit even past cops.  Does that imply that the speed limit no longer applies?



Apples and Oranges man. Seriously. You cannot compare traffic law with this. Unless you really want to open up another can of worms. 




> You are being too hot headed looking to find little tid bits to argue....  I always travel with a tripod.... it doesnt mean that each area I enter allows the use of it.   I travel with two cameras and six lenses and either a tripod or monopod.... into many restricted areas even for photography.  Heck, I have taken pictures in the subway with officer stating that it is resticted.... warning me.   It doesnt imply that its allowed  simply because they let me off.  Now who is being absolute?



Hot headed? Hardly. Meticulous? Absolutely. He let you off, because there is no permit required in central park unless it is commercial or professional photography as defined in the MOFTB letter. By the way, absolute thinking and making an observation that something is absolute are 2 totally different things. You jump to conclusions based off of little to no information ie "You obviously aren't from New York". That's absolute thinking. Telling you that you are allowed to do something because it is documented that you are allowed is not absolute thinking. Its reading comprehension.


----------



## usayit (Jul 5, 2011)

> If you think a tripod is a danger, than you think someone standing still is a danger.



Started here and went on and on and on.....



You implied that because I had a tripod in the nyc without a permit, that a permit is not required.   False... justmas false as implying the speed limits do not apply when not enforced.


yes.. because I still think you are not.  nit picking for a fight yes... meticulous... I wouldnt agree


do notice... i am not the only one who interpretes what you reference differently... you simply have to read the links posted.  i read just fine....


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 5, 2011)

usayit said:


> > If you think a tripod is a danger, than you think someone standing still is a danger.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No I didn't. My implication was that you are arguing that you need a permit, but went with one anyway. Hypocrisy is the theme here.




> yes.. because I still think you are not.  *nit picking* for a fight yes... *meticulous*... I wouldnt agree


 You think I'm nitpicking but don't think I am meticulous lol. Roger that.
Meticulous Synonyms, Meticulous Antonyms | Thesaurus.com 




> do notice... i am not the only one who interpretes what you reference differently... you simply have to read the links posted.  i read just fine....



It's defined to prevent an incorrect interpretation. As I provided the excerpt.


----------



## usayit (Jul 5, 2011)

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_QA_final.pdf


section under examples... subsection "use of a tripod?"

In general, permits are not required..  thats the portion you are fixated on.  But the next sentences is what makes the difference.  It clearly states that permit is required if the result is less than eight feet of unobstructed sidewalk due to the asserted exclusive control over the portion of the sidewalk they occupy.

This means two things by my interpretation

-no distinction between commercial and individuals (individuals just use optional free permit req no liability insurance)
-the focus and intention is concern for the safety of the pededtrian traffic... identifying the use of tripods as a possible HAZARD.

It pretty much leaves it up to the cop's interpretation....  but dont expect much success stating that a permit is not required when approached.


i highly advise to read the legal jargon as a whole.


hypocracy.. thats funny... as I asked before use thus acknowledging such permits do exist.   still erking for a fight?   btw... i said "nit picking for a fight" as in (verb) quibble, criticize, complain with the intention of fight or argue.. which is different from miticulous (adj) as in detailed oriented  since you seem to keep missing the portion about asserting exclusive use bit (not to mention diff use of nitpick)


oh ... forgot to point to this just as you like to
http://thesaurus.com/browse/nitpick


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 6, 2011)

usayit said:


> http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_QA_final.pdf
> 
> 
> section under examples... subsection "use of a tripod?"
> ...



You are purposely manipulating the point. And it's getting redundant. A tripod isn't what requires a permit. It's the use of property that does. 



> It pretty much leaves it up to the cop's interpretation....  but dont expect much success stating that a permit is not required when approached.


 Why? I don't understand, this isn't Russia. Don't get me wrong, you live in Jersey and State Troopers there seem to be bred in Moscow but don't expect that to be the case everywhere. Especially in NYC. 




> i highly advise to read the legal jargon as a whole.


Not only did I read that, I POSTED IT IN THIS THREAD. Read post #40... I quoted the excerpt.  




> hypocracy.. thats funny... as I asked before use thus acknowledging such permits do exist.   still erking for a fight?   btw... i said "nit picking for a fight" as in (verb) quibble, criticize, complain with the intention of fight or argue.. which is different from miticulous (adj) as in detailed oriented  since you seem to keep missing the portion about asserting exclusive use bit (not to mention diff use of nitpick)


 Yes hypocrisy. You seem to be hung up on using the same terms over and over again as if they will become true with repetition. I am responding to your posts, just like you are to me. If I am "erking for a fight" than so are you.

I know what you said. Meticulous and nitpicking are synonymous and this is another black and white that you choose to use interpretation as a defense.

Meticulous -1. Extremely careful and precise. 2. Extremely or excessively concerned with details.



> oh ... forgot to point to this just as you like to
> Nitpick Synonyms, Nitpick Antonyms | Thesaurus.com



You found a link that doesn't have meticulous as a synonym?! I guess case closed than right? That makes my reference unusable I guess right? There's no way that my link could be right. Right?...

C'mon guy...  Do you not know the meaning of hypocrisy either?


----------



## usayit (Jul 6, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> You are purposely manipulating the point. And it's getting redundant. A tripod isn't what requires a permit. It's the use of property that does.



Quoted from the PDF's example

"However, a permit will be needed by someone using a tripod if (1) the person 
filming asserts exclusive use of one or more lanes of a street or walkway of a bridge, or 
(2) the filming activity results in less than eight feet of unobstructed sidewalk use as a 
result of the tripod user's assertion of exclusive control over the portion of the sidewalk 
they occupy. "

Tripod is specifically mentioned....

Have a good day.. its been fun.. but now I've lost interest.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 6, 2011)

usayit said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > You are purposely manipulating the point. And it's getting redundant. A tripod isn't what requires a permit. It's the use of property that does.
> ...



You literally left out the sentence immediately prior to what you just quoted. 

*Use of tripods?**
In general, because tripods are defined as "hand-held devices", permits would not be 
needed. 


*And that is all there is to it. It's the use of property, not the use of a tripod. It is specifically mentioned because of the requirement of a definition. No where in that excerpt that you posted says the use of a tripod. It says if what you are doing leaves less than 8 ft of side walk, or if you claim a lane of traffic, you need a permit. If you are doing these things without a tripod you still need a permit.


----------



## usayit (Jul 6, 2011)

usayit said:


> section under examples... subsection "use of a tripod?"
> 
> [size=+2]*In general, permits are not required..  thats the portion you are fixated on.  But the next sentences is what makes the difference.  *[/size]It clearly states that permit is required if the result is less than eight feet of unobstructed sidewalk due to the asserted exclusive control over the portion of the sidewalk they occupy.
> 
> ...



Yawn


----------



## usayit (Jul 6, 2011)

usayit said:


> .. (not required) [size=+2]*does not assert exclusive use city property...*[/size]
> 
> Next part...
> 
> ...



Yawn ...


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 6, 2011)

usayit said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > .. (not required) [SIZE=+2]*does not assert exclusive use city property...*[/SIZE]
> ...



Do you know what this means? You are proving my point you know that right? The second one is your own personal ship sinker. A tripod is a hand held device.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 6, 2011)

usayit said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > section under examples... subsection "use of a tripod?"
> ...



Your interpretation isn't a valuable defense. It's law, not philosophy. It is cut and dry. Whether you are using a tripod or not, you cannot legally leave less than 8 ft of sidewalk without a permit while filming. Case closed. The tripod isn't the determination, the use of space is. 

There is no difference.


----------



## usayit (Jul 6, 2011)

So its not a stupid law.. lol


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 6, 2011)

usayit said:


> So its not a stupid law.. lol



No, because it's not a law at all. It's clear that it's not illegal to use a tripod without a permit. If it were, than that would be an _idiotic_ law.


----------



## usayit (Jul 7, 2011)

Unless asserting exclusive use of city property... lol


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 7, 2011)

the horror, all these electrons being wasted.


----------



## usayit (Jul 7, 2011)

More wasted.....


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> Unless asserting exclusive use of city property... lol



YES!!! FINALLY lmao. Exactly this. I think I might make this my sig.


----------



## usayit (Jul 7, 2011)

See page 3 post #38.... :er:

Hazard to pedestrian traffic = yes
Asserts Exclusive use of city property = yes

Sheesh... I've been saying that from the first responses....  nice circle you've made... and you said I had trouble with comprehension.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 7, 2011)

I can't answer because I'm on my way to erect a large tripod on a public sidewalk thereby asserting exclusive use of city property and I don't have a permit.


I am an _Outlaw_


----------



## usayit (Jul 7, 2011)

So if I had one of these:

Novoflex Quadropod&#8230; no it&#8217;s not a tripod. 4 legs are good! « Camera Obscura


Do I still need a permit?




If I were to be "meticulous", the law doesn't state anything about those.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> So if I had one of these:
> 
> Novoflex Quadropod&#8230; no it&#8217;s not a tripod. 4 legs are good! « Camera Obscura
> Do I still need a permit?



If you plan to sleep under it, yes.
If you merely plan to assert exclusive use of city property, no, because it doesn't have the requisite three legs.
Get serious, man, this is the law.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> See page 3 post #38.... :er:
> 
> Hazard to pedestrian traffic = yes
> Asserts Exclusive use of city property = yes
> ...



Again with the hypocrisy. You talk about circles and then you come back to *Asserting exclusive use of property*. If you understood the definition of the bolded term, then you wouldn't argue about it. But since you don't, you continue to use it as your argument, therefore you are only providing ammunition for mine. This is where the argument should have stopped many posts ago. If you are asserting exclusive use of property then you need a permit. If you are doing it with out a tripod, you need a permit. If you are not doing it WITH a tripod, you do not need a permit. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> So if I had one of these:
> 
> Novoflex Quadropod&#8230; no it&#8217;s not a tripod. 4 legs are good! « Camera Obscura
> 
> ...



Actually, the law describes hand held devices. A quadripod,monopod, and tripod are all hand held devices.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > So if I had one of these:
> ...



fixed


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> I can't answer because I'm on my way to erect a large tripod on a public sidewalk thereby asserting exclusive use of city property and I don't have a permit.
> 
> 
> I am an _Outlaw_



That's not what asserting exclusive use of city property means. So you're legit.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 7, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I can't answer because I'm on my way to erect a large tripod on a public sidewalk thereby asserting exclusive use of city property and I don't have a permit.
> ...



Well, I'm also holding a large sword and intend to defend my space which I have named 'Schizophibia.'
And if people try to enter, they need a visa.

Now do I need a permit?


----------



## analog.universe (Jul 7, 2011)

The permit is optional, and may or may not cost $300 or be free, and really is up to the discretion of the officer at the other end of your sword... obv


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 7, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> The permit is optional, and may or may not cost $300 or be free, and really is up to the discretion of the officer at the other end of your sword... obv



Well, that's a bit tricky.
I've got him on the ground with my sword at his throat and he is threatening me with some terrible things if I take my foot off of his gun hand.
He doesn't seem to recognize my national sovereignty.

Worst of all, I have to pee and my country doesn't have a bathroom.
I'm at the north-east corner of 45th and Lex in Manhattan if anyone cares to help.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...



I think you need a lawyer.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> analog.universe said:
> 
> 
> > The permit is optional, and may or may not cost $300 or be free, and really is up to the discretion of the officer at the other end of your sword... obv
> ...



If you are still there, directly south of you is a sbarro and a mcdonalds on lexington on the east side of the street.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 7, 2011)

No, MY penis is bigger!

Wait, what's the topic at hand again?


----------



## usayit (Jul 7, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> You talk about circles and then you come back to *Asserting exclusive use of property*.




The original snafu was when you replied to my statement that it was NOT a stupid law.  You claim it IS a stupid law... 3+ pages later you now agree with it?  You continuously argue that tripods are not a hazard but now you accepting it is because it suites your argument of "exclusive use"?  WTF?

Of course there are other regulations on the books regarding asserting exclusive use of city property but this one specifically addressed tripods.  You are basically rehashing everything I already said (in agreement with the law linked)....  




usayit said:


> .. (not required) [SIZE=+2]*does not assert exclusive use city property...*[/SIZE]
> 
> Next part...
> 
> ...




is the same as




Ballistics said:


> . If you are asserting exclusive use of property then you need a permit. If you are doing it with out a tripod, you need a permit. If you are not doing it WITH a tripod, you do not need a permit. That's all there is to it.




Take note:  "(not required)" and "(required)" are in agreement with you.... pages ago.


----------



## Cheesy_DSLR_Man (Jul 7, 2011)

Sammie_Lou said:
			
		

> Sweet! I have a tripod...guess I'm a pro! Now I can start charging big bux to take pictures!



Hahaha I like your thinking

Police are ridiculous, you cant take pictures of buildings in London, UK without attracting some sort of attention from the authorities, we are photographers not terrorists!


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > You talk about circles and then you come back to *Asserting exclusive use of property*.
> ...



What? Where do you get this from lmfao. I think you need a nap. 

If a permit was required to use a tripod that would be a stupid law. But this isn't the case. End of argument.


----------



## usayit (Jul 7, 2011)

End of argument... hahahaha...

You should inform this person (among many):

Hilary's Hideaway: Still Photography Permits in NYC

Apparently they applied for a non-existent permit.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> End of argument... hahahaha...
> 
> You should inform this person (among many):
> 
> ...




This is dated in April 2008. Who knows what permit she applied for. She states she paid nothing for her permit. The only permit that is free is the OPTIONAL permit which has been covered. And I guess some chick's 3 year old blog post outweighs updated permit information from NYC's film permit website.    



> In July 2008, the Mayor&#8217;s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting adopted rules governing the issuance of permits in connection with filming activity in New York City. The adopted rules outline the practices of the MOFTB, codifying the procedures that have existed since the office was established in 1966. In June 2010, MOFTB adopted an amendment to those rules regarding the implementation of a $300 fee for the processing of the initial application of any new project.
> 
> Effective since August 2008, the rules require a permit if filmmakers use vehicles or equipment, or, in certain situations, assert exclusive use of City property. Permits are not be required for casual photographers, tourists, credentialed members of the media, or other members of the public who do not use vehicles or equipment or assert exclusive use of City property.



There a many alleged "laws" that people think are true due to word of mouth when they are clearly mythical.

Perfect example, a common misconception is that if someone breaks into your home, you cannot use deadly force or force for that matter, if there is a way out. Meanwhile, the Self Defense Act (actually just happened in your neck of the woods last summer in Jersey) clearly states that if someone enters an occupied domicile by force/without permission (this includes your vehicle as well) you can safely assume that they are there to cause harm and therefore are protected under the self defense act if you happen to kill this person. Not to derail the topic, but I am sure you know how people can run wild with an idea and think its true.


----------



## usayit (Jul 7, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> There a many alleged "laws" that people think are true due to word of mouth when they are clearly mythical.



Yeh.. and you are the all knowing person to straighten everything out....

Never mind the fact that T R I P O D is actually mentioned specifically in the documents.




PS> I have yet to meet a single person that believed that "deadly force cannot be used if there is a way out".    


But HEY...


I'm a Texan and I get asked if I wear cowboy boots, hat, and ride a horse to work...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 7, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> End of argument.



Speaking for the entire membership of TPF (I took a poll), we are all happy for that.


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > There a many alleged "laws" that people think are true due to word of mouth when they are clearly mythical.
> ...



Well here's some entertainment for you then.

Here's an example of this myth in action

Taken from If someone breaks into your home are you allowed to kill them or badly injure them? - Yahoo! Answers



> You're not "allowed" to kill them but if you're in a situation where there isn't escape or the like, and you kill or injure somebody, the authorities will usually look at it as being justified as self defense.





> Years ago I was told by my friends that worked in different areas of the legal system that if that scenario came up, you shoot to kill. apparently if you only maim them, they can turn around and sue you.





> Only in california or texas. In some states though you can't even throw something at them because they can sue you for assault.





> Depends on the State. Some will allow the use of deadly force on an intruder, others require you to run.





> If they pose a serious threat to you or your loved ones then yes but, if they are trying to get out or leave in any way (say you told them you called the cops) then no you can't without having some sort of legal thing backfiring on you. Sounds crazy but they have to hurt you in order for you to hurt them. I know a lady that was sued by a thief that broke into her house. She hit him with an equalizer and broke his arm. He said he was intoxicated and thought it was his own home. He was wearing a bandanna over his face, gloves and had a screw driver. He lived about twelve miles away as well but, he won the case and got like twenty grand from her.


----------



## usayit (Jul 8, 2011)

Self-Defense Law Limits Tested in Texas - Total Criminal Defense

I recall a long time ago, Texas had a law still on the books that allowed, under circumstances based on threat, the use of deadly force if there was an intruder in their own property or their neighbors.  It was originally intended to protect against horse theives....  it is an extremely wide open state and authorities werespread thin.  I believe it has been superceeded by newer laws since.

I joined the group in support of the concealed weapon law back in the early 90's following the Luby incedent...  it was appropriate for that state...  a state that has a culture in which respect and use of arms is taught at a very young age.


----------



## PJL (Jul 8, 2011)

Ballistics said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...


Those are hilarious.  The lawyer in me is cringing.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 8, 2011)

Does anyone have a sharp stake and a mallet?


----------



## Ballistics (Jul 8, 2011)

PJL said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > usayit said:
> ...



It's called the Castle Doctrine/Law. Now, to be fair, there are 3 states that do not have a Castle Law but do have self defense clauses which vaguely describes home intrusion.


----------



## usayit (Jul 8, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> Does anyone have a sharp stake and a mallet?



Will a jackhammer work?


----------



## vtf (Jul 8, 2011)

In the time this thread took to get to 4 pages, you could've moved to Missouri and only had to fight the cows for space.


----------

