|
illegal dumping
|
08-11-2009, 03:59 AM
I don't know who that guy is in the photo, but he looks familiar. How about enlarging the photo and posting it at C&C and every other bulletin board in Puna with a description of his crime? Maybe he actually has some shame and will stop doing it. Maybe others will see it and think twice.
08-11-2009, 04:13 AM
"But the report found that some were granted to council officials investigating trivial offences like dog fouling, fuelling concern that the act is being misused."
From the report. Think our political system would handle this any better? The threat to limiting personal liberties becomes greater every day. I remember a time when carrying personal ID was an option. I though Hawaii and the general population here had a much different take on personal freedom than the mainland. That is why this post struck a nerve. Invade privacy, post photos on the web for a 50$ fine? There needs to be balance and perspective ... not knee jerk "order above all, no matter what the cost in civil liberties approach." Fascism is doing well in the US, lets not feed it or bring it to our aloha state. Under current law the web page owner (if he doesn't remove content after being notified by the party being accused by the poster) can face action. The poster could be pursued for slander by the way, posting photos making allegations without proof is still actionable in this state and country. We seem to have missed that fact in the zealous reporting of this "crime" Lets hope the trucks owners or attorney doesn't see this post. If it were me in the photo both Rob and the poster would have been served by now - grin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice's_Restaurant a light hearted look at dumping ... the topic well covered in the 60's Aloha
08-11-2009, 04:32 AM
.. but it's not just a picture, there were eyewitnesses. This loser won't call anybody about violating his civil rights. He'a a bozo. We don't live in North Korea yet. Methinks perhaps ye doth protest too much.
08-11-2009, 04:35 AM
Innocent until proven guilty is the concept Im trying to highlight.
Meanwhile the guy in the truck can sue. Our system holds that courts establish guilt. Not the posting incriminating photos on the web. I would leave the finding of guilt to the courts. Meanwhile a gentle nudge to Rob to investigate his potential liability due to the photo and potential slander being posted, Id hate to see him nailed over this Any legal eagles care to jump in?
08-11-2009, 04:53 AM
I don't know how much legal difference it makes, but the actual photo is posted on another, fully independent forum with a link from Punaweb. (I might add that the other forum has been known to go days without a visit and weeks without a post. They did pick up over two hundred hits since these pictures were posted, so this could be helping them, presuming they don't get sued, which I seriously doubt will happen.)
In any case, people need to report all criminal behavior, even the petty stuff. We at the HPP Neighborhood Watch send out email crime alerts with descriptions of suspects and their vehicles, and the police support us in this. I will ask them about a policy on using photos should they be available.
08-11-2009, 04:57 AM
quote: Persistence could lead to you being cited for harassment too. The two people in the picture could say they actually stopped to clean that stuff up. The two eyewitnesses are equaled by the eyewitness accounts of the 2 guys with the truck.They could say they hastily left because they were being verbally assaulted and were fearful for their lives. I just wanted to point out that it may not be the slam dunk you think it is and nothing may ever come of it.
08-11-2009, 05:05 AM
"I just wanted to point out that it may not be the slam dunk you think it is and nothing may ever come of it."
except a defamation suit. - grin Note how this post fits a pattern, a low post newbie posting a controversial subject and then leaving the scene. The discourse fun however - thank you all
08-11-2009, 05:21 AM
addendum:
"In any case, people need to report all criminal behavior, even the petty stuff. We at the HPP Neighborhood Watch send out email crime alerts with descriptions of suspects and their vehicles, and the police support us in this. I will ask them about a policy on using photos should they be available." I think as long as you report "facts" as " the white truck was seen near the scene of the burglary" you are OK If one were to report: "the white truck committed the burglary" without a court decision as to that fact. Is asking for a lawsuit in my lay opinion.
08-11-2009, 10:36 AM
I would urge everyone to carry a cheap digital camera in their car to catch this kind of behavior.
Make sure you get the registration tag. It doesn't have to lead to a conviction, it just has to lead to people thinking twice before doing this, and also to the police calling them up or visiting them (possible, thanks to the tag) and giving them a friendly word to cut it out or there will be trouble. I'm all in favor of camera surveillance, the government can film me going down the street as much as they want. The theoretical abuse that could stem from that pales in comparison to the crime that could be prevented or solved or punished right now.
08-11-2009, 11:02 AM
Bullwinkle:In regards to your concerns about libel or defamation...reread my original post. My original post stated my opinion about what I saw along with another eyewitness. I even used the word "alleged" to emphasized this. No libel or defamation case would hold up here. The photo is only proof of what we saw and again I state that it confirms the details of our account but does not confirm the "alleged" action as fact. The photo is also part of journalistic reporting and thus invades no rights.
So stop being a contrarian. It's hurting the cause and does nothing for anyone. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
