Handclapsfingasnapz said:

knowin judge judy, if the kid was 6 in stead of 18, she'd make P give the kid $$ for the camera and a lil sumthin sumthin for his college fund. i can hear her now: "imagine, P, if you were his size, er.....well imagine that you were his age, and you took a picture of your purple hero, Barney, and B snatched the camera out of your hand and stomped it to smithereens...you'd be traumatized,too...." Pick on somebody your own size....er....well, you know what i mean.....give him some $$$ and get outta my courtroom! I have other things to do today!"

Just give the poor bastard $ 5,000 and tell him to hit the road.

Prince should be used to people taking pictures by now.The lawsuit is bullshit but P knows better.

psychodelicide said:

Prince was in a public place: inside the airport concourse, sitting on one of those little carts waiting to be taken to his car or whatever. The guy saw him, took the picture from a distance (did not run up to Prince like a whcako or paparazzi) and when he turned around, the bodyguard was in his face, verbally threatened him, and physically removed the camera from his hands.

Now, last time I checked, a public figure in a public place is fair game for photo ops. Probably not the best decision this young man has made, and probably not the worse, but the bottom line is that the bodyguard had no basis for being verbally threatening (it's not like he was trying to hit Prince over the head with the camera or even chasing him through the airport) which makes his action assault by definition, and physically taking the camera is theft, pure and simple. Had he removed the film and returned the camera, it might - I repeat - might be questionable, but the way the incident went down, Prince or more directly, the bodyguard, is legally in the wrong.

HotThang said:

I LOVE your quote HotThang! Nice to know there are fellow MaxFams on this board

i think its sad that prince feels he has all powers like that he is famous --- being famous comes with a heavy price....its the fans out there that make ya rich, but, those fans, given the chance, will go the extra mile to get things. it is crazy to me that we would consider it ok for prince and his freakishly huge bodyguards to treat a person the way it seems this man was treated.... personally i a sick and fucking tired of stars being treated like they are above the law. EVERYONE is under the same rules of life, prince is no different, so, someone took your freakin picture, get over it, and move on you are not so high above the rest of us darlin, as it is OUR money that makes you who you are.

i would be seriously irritated if someone took my camera and an entire roll of my film.

if they were to develop my film and excise the negatives they didn't want me to have, then return the camera to me... i wouldn't mind so much. but if i had pictures of my vacation or kids on that film and it were all confiscated by some thug????

grrrrr i would at least ask for a camera in compensation.

a leica M6 would do.

Prince must be doing well if he's getting mentioned for things like this again

see BBC link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/h...611667.stm

he's even making it into our entertainment news!

So the kid's suing Prince? Good.. It's about time someone strikes back at this bully behaviour of his.

missfee said:

...

Good one. I enjoyed that.

AsylumUtopia said:

well,if i could have a second 2 respond, first of all i've had some1 stick a camera in my face and take my picture. i felt i had been raped,something taken without a release or permission is theift or rap pointblank,no doubt!,its a crime. emotional murder,without redemption because the law supports the uncivilized actions of people that r gulity of treating people like this. how about"excuse me my lord,or my lady but i would really like 2 have a picture of u, may i?" 9xs9 the answer will b"sure". DONT TAKE NOTHING FROM ME!do unto others as u would have them do unto u,coz u reap what u sow,4sho. seems this dude owes him 4 the press the picture may make and theft of person,theift of images without release or consent,,it could b rape because rape is a crime of power not sex. and i'm sure a new power attorney could think of some more new power problems a camera rapist and burgular causes innocent..people...hmm,like me think.....PRINCE4PRESIDENT laws need changin,my lord..
[This message was edited Sun Apr 11 7:54:15 2004 by VenusDeMilo9999]
[This message was edited Sun Apr 11 8:03:03 2004 by VenusDeMilo9999]
[This message was edited Sun Apr 11 8:08:01 2004 by VenusDeMilo9999]

My opinion is that Bodyguards DO NOT HAVe TO EXHIBIT EXCESSIVE Force against Fans in ANY MANNER! I Think that a Bodyguard Canhandle things Much MORE CIVIALIZED. As Fans of Prince's we Do Know he Doesn't Like Photos or Autographs. One MUSt RESPECT PRINCE'S Wishes. Try as we Might to Want this or That From Him It Is He "PRINCE" who makes the Final Decision. Take it From One who Knows.

Also,I Thought MR FITZGERALD got his Camera Back! Listen ,I dealt with some EDINA PEOPLE and They WERE STINKY PEOPLE and CHEAP and FIGHTERS. They THOUGHT LIKE THEY WERE ABOVE THE LAW!

whodknee said:

YOU SHOULD BE THE JUDGE!!! (**I think I'd pay money for a picture of Prince at the airport...and now after all the hoop-la, I'm sure the STAR would make good money off of it too )

I remember whem I TOOK A PICTURE OF PRINCE back in 2002 in manchester when he was just arriving for the show, his big a$$ body guard just looked @ me & gave me the evils! needless to say i only got his hat in my pic! lmao!

bananacologne said:

shame D'angelo didnt have the first clue what to do with it really isnt it

prince, give the boy a hug and his camera back , and lets be done with this

SuiteLady said:

Thanks, but that reminds me...I need to sue Maxwell for taking so long to release a new album...that's extremely emotionally distressful

moonshine said:

WELL PUT, MOONSHINE!!

They didn't have to take the young man's camera. That was too agressive. The bodygaurd could simply have approached the young man and requested the chip. And as for the kid maybe trying to make a buck off the photo, trust me, he wouldn't have been able to sell it for much to any of the tabloids. I know Prince is hot right now, but he's not high enough on the paparazzi food chain to warrant excessive sums of money for an airport photo. I asked a friend (a celebrity reporter) about this and she told me that folks are too busy right now trying to get photos of Debra Messing or Gwenyth Paltrow to be worried bout our Prince in a Minneapolis airport.

I don't know, but I'd actually bet that the young man was just a star struck kid who just wanted to have momento for himself during a magic moment in the airport; but once all that camera snatching went down he probably did feel dissed and is engaging in the lawsuit activity to sort of get back at P for being humiliated (and yes being out of a camera that may have cost up to $500, which is no small change for alot of kids in college).


Hummmm. This is a hard one for me, but I think I'm okay with them both being in the wrong...

The student has to know that even though it's legal to photograph people in public places, he should learn to be considerate and leave them their privacy, and Princey Poo has to find an alternative to the lunging bodyguards that like to rip things out of people's hands and scare the bejeeezus out of them in the process.

Usually the Bodyguards will say He Doesn't like Photos or what have you. They usually just tell you and ya just Listen . Prince just wants his Privacy is all. I don't think it's a Money thing at all. He just doesn't like that sort of thing. True that we Love Him and all,but well he Doesn't like it so let's leave him be. Also, he is cool about having people dance onstage but well when the people get to close they are Pushed back. Prince will allow enough but ya gotta Understand stuff.Generally speaking I think the Bodyguards are Cool and I Trust them. Remember Prince has come a long way with Interviews and such on Tv and stuff. Allowing fans onstage and meet and greet and sometimes Autographs. I realize that celebs don't wanna be ONSTAGE all the Time. I appologize for Generalizing about Edina People. Sorry. A few bad Apples doesn't Corrupt!I just don't Understand why there was a NegativeVibe by Many People in Minnesota concerning Prince . See I suppose I just Wanted EVERYONE to Be BIG FANS and LOVE Him STILL! It OFFENDED me when Theydidn't and made it IMPOSSIBLE for Me To LIVE there. If you don't love Prince well I just Can't Fathom even being your Friend since I ADORE him... Just the Way it is. I realize now That I cannot Even Date a Naysayer.

AsylumUtopia said:

He should not have kept the camera or at least he should have returned it after deleting the photo. Who knows how he would have used that photo though? Especially since he had such easy access to C.J.'s number.

AsylumUtopia said:

Well I know who I am, and if somebody rolls up on me and takes my picture without asking, I'll take more than his camera. And in court, Prince may not win this case because he has money, but if that happened to a non-public figure, there would be no contest. U don't just take pictures of people u don't know. And I don't wanna hear it comes with the territory. The hall of justice never issued Prince any legal notification that since now he has money and is in the public eye, the rights he had as a non-public figure have been revoked.

Ok, so u say there's no law against someone taking a picture of u. Then why did a photographer taking pictures of people coming out of a store that had a grand opening ask me to sign a release form saying I would allow him to use my photo. And why when I went to Club Shelter to dance was I asked to either hand over my digital camera or the batteries. I brought the camera to take pictures with the people who invited me to the party. When I asked why, I was told that I could take pictures of my friends outside, but any photographs taken inside the club would violate the rights of the other club patrons to not be photographed. The club would not take responsibility for this personal violation of its patron’s rights and therefore must eliminate the possibility. Some people managed to sneak their cameras in anyway and take pictures, but if any of the people complained about being photographed, they could sue the club for violating their rights. My daughter who is a model is made to sign releases when her photo is taken. Partygoers have the right to not be photographed, but celebrities don't? Where is this written? When you see filmed footage of non-actors and one or some of the people's faces are blurred, it's because they didn't want to, or refused to sign a release. They have the right to not be filmed.

This guy's a greedy liar anyway. U guys know this isn't the first printing of this story. C.J. was all too happy to write the first one. But u also know she would have been happy to report a physical altercation if there was one. She would not have missed the chance to report that.

http://www.startribune.co...93703.html

Why was there no mention of this aggressive altercation when he spoke to C.J. on his cell phone the day of or after the incident? He must have spent half his $7.00 an hour budget on that call. The story was posted 12/30/03. The day after the incident. Suddenly now 4/8/04 he remembers new things now that Prince has stepped back into the limelight. He can call C.J. but he can't find Londell's address on the Internet? Or ask C.J. for it before he hung up. What a crock.

Instead of begging for money for emotional damages, he should be embarrassed that everyone now knows what a mama's boy wining, can't sleep, emotionally distressed over a camera bitch he is.

LISTEN, I For ONE WANNa TELL MR FITZGERALD something. PRINCE DOES NOT LIKE PHOTOGRAPHS. If YOU ARE A FAN You KNOw THIS! As Far as a CELEBRITY HAVING TO ALLOW PICTURES? WHY? I DON" THINK ANYONE HAS TO ALLOW PICTURES! EMOTIONAL DISTRESS? A MINNESOTA LAWYER DOESN"T WANNa HELP a NON-MINNESOTAN OVER SERIOUS MEDICAL PROBLEMS BUT FOR A CAMERA they Will SUE? NO, this is SMALL CLAIMS and NOTHINg is LIKE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE or BIAS. A CAMERA well that Can BE REPLACED a BODY PART CANNOT! THAT Is EMOTIONAL even SUICIDAL. The Camera should Be Replaced and that should be it. Prince is a GREAT GUY and He is Getting Attacked for Being JEHOVAH as is Larry. This is Unfair and He Has to PROVe NOTHINg to NO-One and He just has to Live as he Deems fit and he DESERVES PRIVACY!As a Major Fan well I Do Know the SCORE. Prince Just Wants to Be LEFT ALONE. HE's not all That GLITZ and he's Really a more LOW-KEy sort who Doesn't go in for ALL THAT Fan Fare but wellnow he Realizes that He Should Have that kind of Celebrity Once More. He is an AWESOMe TALENt let's Not kinda Trash him or DOWNTRODDEN any and all Achievements. The Bodyguards are Usually VERY NICE!

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

I agree. There were other ways to handle this.

That Willy Wonka thing may be about the funniest damn thing I've seen on the internet.

it's rude 2 take a photo

of someone without

their permission

it's an invasion of privacy

when u invade someone's

personal space, u suffer consequences

prince may be a public figure,

but he's a private man

when he's not performing

he has the right not 2 be photographed

largeroomnolight said:[quote]

AsylumUtopia said:

A club is a private business. An airport is a public facility. You can't prevent anyone from taking your picture when you're in a public place. Newspapers run pics of people in the park, at a baseball game, walking their dog, etc. all the time. As long as the photographer is not on private property taking pictures, I think it's legal.

sumtymes said:

"it's rude 2 take a photo

of someone without

their permission"

Rude does not = Illegal


"it's an invasion of privacy"

Wrong


"when u invade someone's

personal space, u suffer consequences"

Taking a picture does not = invading Personal Space


"prince may be a public figure,

but he's a private man"

In a Public Place, allowing himself Public Access


"when he's not performing

he has the right not 2 be photographed"

Wrong. When anybody is in a Public Place, you are allowed to be photographed by anybody.

You are somewhat right. If the Private Owners of the Airport were to institute a no photo policy, then the boy would have problems. There is no Anti-photo policy there, however, so Prince's bodyguard is fuxored.

Sueme said:

by Bill Clements 6/18/03

In Minneapolis, Big Brother is walking around with a bull's-eye on his chest.

On June 6, the City Council approved a gift from Target Corp. to the Minneapolis Police Department for as many security surveillance cameras (and related technology) deemed necessary to keep watch over what the retail giant calls the "Safe Zone." This 10-block area runs north and south along First Avenue, Hennepin Avenue, and Nicollet Mall, between 12th Street and Washington Avenue; it includes Target Center, Target's corporate headquarters, and the company's Marshall Field's department store.

The financially stretched MPD accepted the gift, which will include at least 30 cameras and is worth approximately $250,000. Inspector Rob Allen, who is serving as the MPD's point person on the project, says the goal is to curb nuisance crimes in the area, such as pickpocketing, drug peddling, public drunkenness, and panhandling. The all-weather security cameras will be posted on strategically chosen street corners (most likely atop streetlights) and the images will be broadcast at downtown's First Precinct. It's unclear whether all cameras will be recording around the clock or how station-house monitors will be staffed (although the MPD is hoping to utilize law enforcement volunteers). Whatever the case, Allen says the arrangement will result in a more efficient use of police resources. "It takes an officer 30 minutes to patrol the length of Nicollet Mall. With these cameras, we can do it in three minutes." Both sides will review the effectiveness of the arrangement in three years.

If that review were done today--and if anecdotal evidence from other communities where similar schemes have been implemented is any indication--it would not be clear whether cameras reduce crime; what's more, this sort of technology has already led to a level of privacy invasion that would have George Orwell spinning in his grave.

As George Radwanski, privacy commissioner of Canada, wrote in late 2001, when ordering police in a small British Columbia town to stop using video surveillance on public streets: "The level and quality of privacy in our country risks being struck a crippling, irrevocable blow if we allow ourselves to become subjected to constant, unrelenting surveillance and observation through the lens of proliferating video cameras controlled by the police or any other agents of the state."

In Minneapolis, there are already hundreds of surveillance systems snapping pictures of us all the time. There are cameras in every downtown skyway, ATM cameras, cameras above entrances to businesses and office buildings, and electronic traffic spies scattered across the metro. There is no available data to gauge how many times Twin Cities citizens are marked by an electronic eye as they go about their daily business. Last October, though, ABC News estimated that the average urban American is photographed up to 200 times a day.

Law enforcement makes use of this technology worldwide, as do police in at least 20 U.S. cities, including New York, Washington, D.C., Seattle, and Los Angeles. The theory is that the mere presence of such technology can cause a decrease in nuisance crimes. The best available evidence, however, suggests this supposition is as fanciful as it is flawed.

Last August, the Home Office in England (that country's Justice Department) released a study examining the results of 22 smaller studies that evaluated how effective police cameras were in preventing crime in the UK and the U.S. The data show that cameras incrementally reduce transgressions in target areas (especially in parking lots), but that overall crime rates remain static. Dealers, thieves, and loiterers simply find new spots to ply their trade.

Over the past decade, as a response to IRA bombings in and around London, more than 300,000 police surveillance cameras have been installed in public spaces all over England, at an annual cost of $18 million. So far, not a single terrorist has been arrested.

Over the past few months, Inspector Allen has made several presentations to downtown business owners and residents to gain support for the MPD-Target initiative. During those talks he often refers to Wilmington, Delaware, where a city council member collected enough money to buy a dozen surveillance cameras and install them on the worst drug corners in the city, which happened to be in his ward.

Wilmington Police Sgt. William Wells claims the cameras have been a great help, because they not only record drug sales but also pinpoint where a dealer is stashing his product. He acknowledges, however, that when the cameras reduce drug sales in one area, the supply chain simply moves. "When they figure out a camera is around, they'll move up a block or two. We've even had a camera shot out."

Downtown Minneapolis community activist Terrell Brown says that when he heard Inspector Allen's pitch, he couldn't help but worry about who's going to watch the tapes and how they're going to be handled. "I wonder what else (the cameras) might be used for," he says. "Maybe they're going to count customers for Target. Maybe they want to make a list of people going into the gay bars or strip clubs."

Precedent suggests Brown has reason to be concerned. In 1997, a Washington, D.C. police lieutenant was charged with a number of crimes, including blackmailing married men he observed patronizing gay bars on his beat. Privacy activists shudder at how a camera could be used in similarly abusive situations.

On March 29, grainy video was aired on America's Most Wanted featuring three women from Arizona using a Washington, D.C.-area ATM near the scene of a vicious murder. The times recorded by the surveillance camera and the ATM indicated the women (a 46-year-old mother, her 16-year-old daughter, and a teenage friend) could have been the ones who used the victim's cash card. A few weeks later, authorities arrested the women and threw them in a Maryland jail for three weeks. Turns out the time recorded by the camera was three minutes off and the women had nothing to do with the murder.

A D.C.-based watchdog group founded in 1994, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), has called for strict guidelines for installing police cameras and handling surveillance videotape. Cédric Laurant, policy counsel at EPIC, says that in Minneapolis, if the police and public and store owners agree nuisance crimes are a real problem, then installing cameras is okay and could help deter crime. But that's just the first step.

Other important questions, according to Laurant, are: "How will these images be used? How will they be retained? Will they be transferred to other law enforcement agencies? Will they be shared with the media? Will people have access to these images if they want to contest what's on a specific tape?"

Inspector Allen is quick to argue that surveillance footage will not be abused in Minneapolis. "We've put a policy into effect that the tapes can be used only for detection and prevention of crime, and the legitimate investigations of a crime," he says. "Any tape used in an investigation will be handled like any other evidence--there's a record for everything." At most, he says, useless videotape will be kept around for a month before being destroyed or taped over. A full set of police security camera guidelines, however, "are still a work in progress," the inspector says.

Unlike Allen, officials from Target aren't talking. In a press statement released by spokeswoman Lena Klofstad, the company says the gift to the police is "to help enhance the safety and vibrancy of downtown Minneapolis for those who live, work, and visit here" and is part of the company's "longstanding commitment to giving back to the communities in which we do business." When approached for more information, Klofstad had no further comment.

Cut through the "public service" spin, and what you get is this simple reality: Target has enlisted the MPD to act as corporate security guards, who can ensure that their slice of downtown is an attractive place to work and shop--a continuation of the large-scale redevelopment and gentrification of Block E. The problem is, security cameras (like gentrification) are a classic shell game--moving nuisance crimes (or bothersome poor people) from here to there. In three years Target and the MPD will no doubt be able to claim that nuisance crimes around Nicollet Mall have been reduced. The more important question, however, will be whether overall crime has been reduced--and at what cost. And at that point, one can only hope that those interested in safety and privacy rights, including members of the City Council, will take a cue from Washington, D.C. council member Adrian Fenty.

In November, the D.C. council approved the use of police-controlled public surveillance cameras. In a Washington Post story published the next day, Fenty explained why he voted against the proposal, which has much stricter and more specific guidelines than the arrangement between Target and the MPD:

"At first, I thought Washington, because it's prone to more terrorist attacks, would be a place where visitors would want cameras. But I agree now with my colleagues who say Washington should be a beacon of freedom."


from: http://www.citypages.com/...e11318.asp
[This message was edited Sat Apr 10 13:11:15 2004 by XxAxX]

A. Video Surveillance Of Public Streets.
1. The Prevailing View: Video Surveillance Does Not Violate The Fourth Amendment.
Individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy on public streets and thus their activities are not protected under the Katz test.18 "Generally, one walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police."19 As recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Knotts:


A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [an individual] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, the fact of what ever stops he made, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.20


Furthermore "[n]othing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with such enhancement as science and technology afforded to them."21 Courts, for the most part, have allowed police to employ videotaping to view individuals on public roads.22 Transactions in plain view in a public forum simply do not implicate the Fourth Amendment.23In United States v. Sherman, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished decision held that individuals videotaped in public view have no reasonable expectations of privacy, and could not challenge the government's use of the videotape at trial as violating the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that:

The transaction took place in plain view in a public place along a highway. Everything that was captured by the camera could just as easily have been seen by a person hiding in the trees where the camera was located. Videotaping of suspects in public places . . . does not violate the fourth amendment; the police may record what they normally may view with the naked eye.24

http://www.uchastings.edu...deo.htm#A1

LoveRobot said: