August 29
...serving up your daily dish.
We're not sure what's weirder -- getting flashed by a perv in a subway car, or being able to snap said perv with your cell phone. Kudos to Thao Nguyen, who had the chutzpah to snap the pic and post it online, which has resulted in other women coming forward to say they were exposed by the same sicko and a possible identification.
The power of the photo has us wondering what would happen if Baristaville citizens started snapping criminal behavior, such as the dopes who marked up preschool picnic tables and playground equipment at the St. James Church on Bellevue Ave in Montclair. If you snap something criminal or just plain weird, send it here.
August 29, 2005 in Really Freaking Weird | Permalink
It might also be nice, not to mention useful, to have a cell phone picture of those self-important nitwits who think posting those anti-Grabowsky stickers somehow constitutes a blow for the "revolution" being caught in the act.
Posted by: cathar | Aug 29, 2005 11:13:51 AM
What's equally creepy is that this man has not yet been charged with any crime but his name is all over the Daily News. He's just been brought in for questioning. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If it IS him, more power to the woman who took his photo and I hope he gets the book thrown at him in court. But, on the slim chance that it's not him, the Daily News made a big boo-boo.
Posted by: Miss Martta | Aug 29, 2005 11:44:35 AM
When is a digital photo real when you can use Photoshop to create your own picture of reality? Who is going to decide what is real and what is fake?
Posted by: Jim | Aug 29, 2005 11:48:39 AM
Okay, there is a picture of an alleged flasher flashing someone on the subway, which according to those who've seen is doesn't at all appear to be "alleged." People are still innocent until proven guilty, yes, but if you catch them photographically, it sure makes it harder to term their criminal actions "alleged." I saw that footage of those thugs in Seattle beating and gloating over 2 servicement recently returned from Iraq, and I really do think that only the most eel-like of lawyers or an ACLU board member would term those head stomps "alleged."
And I believe that photographic and computer experts can still tell the difference between a digitally tweaked shot and one that wasn't tampered with.
Posted by: cathar | Aug 29, 2005 11:58:19 AM
Yes, but how are the digital photo "experts" certified? There is no legal licensing/certification for that profession (unlike laywers and doctors). How is the ability of said photo artists (as they are called now) controlled in a criminal investigation and legal environment?
Posted by: Jim | Aug 29, 2005 12:13:31 PM
And how many angels dance on the head of a pin, Jim? According to a digital picture on my computer, only about 4-5.
If a lad pulls a piece on you and demands your wallet, saying "I've got a 9mm here, clown," you're not going to ask for certification of the calibre, are you? And if someone sends the cops a picture of a creep displaying his genitalia to subway riders, are you really going to ask how she knew that was a penis the guy was manipulating to sorry effect?
Cut out the lame attempt at comedic "critical inquiry," in other words, whoever you really are.
Posted by: cathar | Aug 29, 2005 2:02:26 PM
If I send the police a picture of you and I claim it represents a real photo of you in a criminal act, there better be some system of certifying the credibility of my claim, wouldn't you think?
My point is: the technology of manipulating photos at the digital level opens the possibility for fraudulent claims and abuse of the current legal system. Whereas photo prints could only be retouched (airbrushed, painted over, and then re-exposed as new negatives), the digital "original" can now be altered and it will take a very experienced and specialized person to reveal evidence of alteration. New York City may have access to these professionals, but smaller towns with smaller budgets and "small town" cultures may become vulnerable. For evidence of this, look at the number of incidents of teenagers trying to pass-off inkjet printed paper money from their home computers at their local 7-11 stores...
Posted by: Jim | Aug 29, 2005 2:19:33 PM
I honestly think that 7-11 clerks accepting inkjet-printed funny money says much more about felonious teens, the hiring practices at 7-11 and the interest level of those hired than about the quality of digital imaging. Remember the clerk who accepted a large bill with some celeb's photo?
So don't go overboard. That is my point.
Posted by: cathar | Aug 29, 2005 4:17:50 PM
there is more to a criminal investigation then a photograph--there is more to a criminal prosecution as well...
Posted by: cstarling | Aug 29, 2005 5:00:20 PM
Well, wet my feet and call me ducky. Looks like this guy does have a rap sheet, going back to 1994. Hope they put this vegan creep away for awhile.
Posted by: Miss Martta | Aug 30, 2005 7:02:57 AM
"Wet my feet and call me ducky," which I've never heard before, is simply brilliant usage, Miss Martta.
Posted by: cathar | Aug 30, 2005 11:36:17 AM
Easy, Miss Marta. "Innocent until proven guilty" refers to legal innocence and guilt.
There's never been a law or principle that you can't call someone guilty or believe that they are, before the court says they are (or, indeed, even if the court says it can't prove them guilty). Heck, the prosecutor in a legal proceeding does just that!
OJ, anyone?
(And remember, a rap sheet doesn't prove him guilty either!)
Posted by: Sigivald | Aug 30, 2005 12:40:48 PM
"Wet my feet and call me ducky," which I've never heard before, is simply brilliant usage, Miss Martta.
Thanks, Cathar.
Posted by: Miss Martta | Aug 30, 2005 12:55:57 PM
Sig: I was just shocked that the Daily News mentioned the suspect by name before they had anything conclusive. Now it appears that several women have made a positive ID. But usually I see things like "a suspect has been brought in for questioning" or "a suspect is in custody" before they actually start naming names.
Posted by: Miss Martta | Aug 30, 2005 1:02:32 PM
