Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2013 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover

  
 
gberger
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


I have to agree with RustyBug re the trespassing issue (I will not comment on the 'regardless' vs. 'irregardless' issue although I do have an opinion). The whole trespassing question boils down to one statement:

"The property owner called because two guys were parked on the property — they drove onto Brookover Ranch land, where it's clearly posted, 'No Trespassing,'" Bascue said.

This is trespassing, plain and simple. The landowner was fully within his rights to call the sheriff and the sheriff was doing his job in acting on the complaint.
You can argue the other issues until the cows come home, but these two guys were trespassing and unfortunately for them a complaint was made and acted on.



Jul 13, 2013 at 04:54 PM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


I suspect Nat Geo and the photographer don't really care that much. And depending on where the SUV was parked, how close to the road, where the signs were posted-- they may well win the argument in court. A measly $270? Any idea what those photos are worth to the shooter and publication... and if for some reason they are barred from being published they'll just re-shoot using a slightly more inconvenient launch zone. Budgets for these stories are measured, at the very floor, in 5 digits. They can go up by an order of magnitude.

The best reason to avoid using irregardless is that-- it makes the user sound ignorant and uneducated. That may change over time, and by all means go ahead and risk sounding ignorant and uneducated (no matter that you are not these things) in order to be in the vanguard of pushing the word's use. But from a pragmatic standpoint it is at least worth knowing that using irregardless makes one sound ignorant and uneducated. Among friends and on Internet forums it is one thing to be able to explain the origins of the word (confusion/muddling of irrespective and regardless). It is another thing to use a word that without explanation makes one sound stupid to colleagues, bosses, potential mates, and clients.

Another issue is that WITH explanation-- clearing one's name of ignorance or lack of education-- the defense of irregardless makes one come off as just being difficult. After all, we already have a word with the exact same meaning. And that word actually follows a logical combination of its components ('without regard' vs. 'not without regard'-- the latter a total reverse of the meaning). And that word is shorter.

So lets say one uses and has time to defend the word irregardless. OK, we're not dealing with someone ignorant or uneducated. We might be dealing with someone who is just generally difficult and argumentative. And perhaps we are dealing with someone who is trying to sound smart in that sophomoric way of using 'utilize' when 'use' is more precise, or 'excogitate' when 'devise' or 'plan' will do.

Rusty, I know that you're not ignorant, uneducated, or sophomoric. I've seen you on this forum long enough to figure that out. But I do think it's worth considering how using a word like irregardless changes the way one is perceived by peers.



Jul 16, 2013 at 01:59 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


Russ,

Well stated and I agree on essentially all counts. I never intended to be argumentative or difficult and really didn't expect anyone (or so many) to throw down a gauntlet that the word wasn't a real word (nuance @ etymology). Had I been writing for critical use, I certainly would have changed it as I had originally given consideration to ... but for some reason didn't think it would be that big of a deal, given the significance of the real topic in this post on an internet photography forum. But, one thing's for sure ... it kinda shows that you can't put much past uber-observant FM'ers.

Anyway, I appreciate your consideration that I was merely providing information on the subject. I'm not really attempting to champion or vanguard its usage in the face of it being presented as not a real word (nor intending to be argumentative, uneducated nor sophomoric, nor illiterate). Rather, I was simply offering some insight regarding the gauntlet assertions of "not a real word". That, and the suggestion toward illiteracy impugned by its usage might be somewhat errant by revealing some of its etymology. Hopefully, we can put this one to rest for a very, very long time.

+1 @ the trespass is trivial in context of $$$, NatGeo and re-shoot potential.




Jul 16, 2013 at 11:36 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


I figured we were pretty much on the same page!


Jul 16, 2013 at 03:08 PM
Micky Bill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


At last the irregardless debate has ended (thanks Russ! )I'm more concerned bout the words flammable and inflammable....




Jul 16, 2013 at 03:25 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


Micky Bill wrote:
I'm more concerned bout the words flammable and inflammable....


That's a good one, but do I dare? I think I'll pass for now.

Google is your friend ... but be prepared for more Latin etymology vs. common (mis)perception.



Jul 16, 2013 at 03:40 PM
DanBrown
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


"Anyone who uses the terms 'irregardless,' 'a whole 'nother' or 'all of the sudden' shall be sent to a work camp"

- Stewie (Family Guy)



Jul 16, 2013 at 06:06 PM
halie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


Back on topic, I think that the feedlot attorney was overexaggerating everything.


Jul 16, 2013 at 06:50 PM
Trey Neal
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


I hesitate to enter the fray, but as a landowner, feedlot owner and photographer - if someone had driven onto my well marked (No Trespassing) property, launched an aircraft and flown over my feedlot, I too would have had that person arrested for trespassing. The entire thing would have been very suspicious to me.


Aug 02, 2013 at 12:05 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


Trey Neal wrote:
I hesitate to enter the fray, but as a landowner, feedlot owner and photographer - if someone had driven onto my well marked (No Trespassing) property, launched an aircraft and flown over my feedlot, I too would have had that person arrested for trespassing. The entire thing would have been very suspicious to me.


+1 @ trespassing is trespassing ... regardless of why. The landowner isn't the one that's outa line ... it is the trespasser who is violating the law and the rights of the landowner. The trespasser is violating the law, and the landowner is applying the law. Feed lot, aircraft, photography ... all moot points. Simply put, you intentionally came onto my property as a trespasser.

I just don't see how it can get any more straightforward than that.



Aug 02, 2013 at 08:57 AM
halie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


I don't think anybody here is debating you on that Rusty. It was the feedlot attorney that opened the other can of worms, which is what I take issue with. I wonder if the NatGeo team is contesting the simple trespassing with the truck, and if so, if they know something that isn't being mentioned in these news reports.


Aug 03, 2013 at 01:56 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


For all the verbiage, I have seen absolutely nothing from those charged with the crimes. Yes we have newspaper quotes, but no comments from the photographer or flight instructor. Before I make my mind up, I want to hear what those charged with the crimes have to say, without editorial license taken. There are 2 sides to every story. All we have is what those prosecuting have to say.


Aug 03, 2013 at 02:57 PM
jcw1982
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


Maybe the photogs are taking the 5th.............


Aug 13, 2013 at 05:33 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


jcw1982 wrote:
Maybe the photogs are taking the 5th.............


The Kansas Newspaper search utility registered nothing on this story. However, the Huffington Post did.

The plot thickens:

"The sheriff didn't mention Kansas' ag gag law, the Farm Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protection Act, which became the nation's first when it was signed into law in 1990. The law bars individuals from entering and photographing an animal facility not open to the public."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/george-steinmetz-arrested-feedlot_n_3575593.html

But now the County Attorney is singing a different tune:

"UPDATE: Finney County's Office of the County Attorney has released a press release further explaining the charges leveled against George Steinmetz and Wei Zhang. It denies that the trespassing charge was in any way related to Steinmetz's photography:"

"Much discussion has ensued surrounding the arrest of Mr. Steinmetz and his employee regarding the right to air space and to take photographs. The charges in no way are related to those two issues and focus on the landowners right to privacy and control over their property."

For some reason they didn't want their feedlot photographed.



Aug 13, 2013 at 06:32 PM
VinWeathermon
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


halie wrote:
It appears that the feedlot people don't want the public to see what many would find unappetizing, and resorted to the SUV trespassing charge, and far out terrorism fear, while they try to conjure up some nonexistent airspace rules.



That's exactly what I thought when I read their reasoning. It's one thing to nail them and then realize they weren't bio terrorists, and call off the dogs...it's another thing to "make an example" to make sure the precedence of seeing reality is squashed. Perhaps they are not as compliant as they ought to be.

So...what if you sent in one of those little remote helicopter deals from a public place....



Aug 26, 2013 at 10:51 PM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


VinWeathermon wrote:
That's exactly what I thought when I read their reasoning. It's one thing to nail them and then realize they weren't bio terrorists, and call off the dogs...it's another thing to "make an example" to make sure the precedence of seeing reality is squashed. Perhaps they are not as compliant as they ought to be.

So...what if you sent in one of those little remote helicopter deals from a public place....


They'd probably shoot it down with a Kansas National Guard surface to air missile



Aug 26, 2013 at 11:12 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


VinWeathermon wrote:
That's exactly what I thought when I read their reasoning. It's one thing to nail them and then realize they weren't bio terrorists, and call off the dogs...it's another thing to "make an example" to make sure the precedence of seeing reality is squashed. Perhaps they are not as compliant as they ought to be.



Or maybe they just don't like people trespassing on their property.

Why does everyone seem to want to suggest/make the feedlot out to be the ones in the wrong here? They weren't the ones breaking the law, by enforcing the law. The suspicion/theory that the feedlot is up to no good (while it may or may not be true) is (presently) unfounded and conjured up in people mind's as to a reason for trying to explain why they would enforce the law.

There are a ton of industries/businesses that have "no trespassing" as part of protecting their interests. That doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong, just because they don't want people wandering, snooping, photographing or otherwise physically on their property. Their enforcement of "no trespassing" may be with regard to liability/insurance concerns if someone gets hurt while on their property or any other number of reasons why they don't want people on their property. This alone is sufficient reason to enforce trespassing violators. If they take a lax standpoint and something comes of it, it could have liability/insurance implications for them. Whether their reasoning is to safeguard privacy, security, safety, proprietary information or unpopular/distasteful reasons however is not the crux of the issue. Imo, the issue is very simply that they have chosen to have the law enforce the trespassing violation. Too simple, and no explanation of why they have chosen to do so is required.

Why have they chosen to take a "hardline" stance at having the law enforced ... they really don't need to explain why anymore than you or I need to explain why we don't want someone going around on our property, looking in our windows, going through our trash, taking pictures of our activities or even if some cranky coot wants to keep kids from taking shortcuts through his yard. It is his, our, their RIGHT (according to the law) and the law supports that right from having people trespassing on our property.

The mere fact that they chose to enforce the law is no indication of them having something to hide or having any wrong doing that "should" be exposed by the photographer. Just because the public (or we) doesn't understand WHY they may not want any trespassers ... or fabricates their own notion of why they would enforce the law ... doesn't make the feedlot the bad guy here.

As photographers, the image is fair game if taken from public property, vantage, access etc. As CITIZENS, it is NOT fair game for us to go wherever we want just because we have a camera in our hand. Having a camera does not somehow magically propel us above the law. The First Amendment grants us much ... it does not grant us carte blanche license to violate the rights of our fellow citizens or the law.

This is the part that concerns me about how NatGeo said they don't see where the photographer broke any laws. Sure, the trespass was "trivial" as far as laws/fines/business decisions go ... but the perspective that no law was broken, is not. If NatGeo doesn't have the integrity to say that a "trivial" law was violated and that they don't endorse such violations (but still endorse their guy), the least they could have done was go with something more along the lines of "no comment" or "we don't have enough information yet". No, instead they tried to get behind their money-maker and make like he had committed no violation, when it was rather clear that he had. Even an uneducated redneck, hillbilly from Dirt Poor, USA knows the difference between trespassing and not trespassing ... why doesn't NatGeo?

We can conjure up all kinds of reasons as to why the feedlot might be wanting to hide something (from wrong doing to distasteful) ... but that still doesn't make them the bad guy here. The only one that broke the law (according to the information/article presented) were the trespassers. The waters got muddied by the whole (imo, unnecessary) "airspace" thing, but the trespassers were still trespassing.

I'd like to think that most law enforcement, business owners and landowners would agree ... imo, too simple @ trespassers got fined for trespassing.



Aug 27, 2013 at 08:19 AM
timpdx
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


Hmm, just this summer in fact, I took a number of feedlot photos from the highway right in between Garden City and Dodge City. Wonder if it was the same one in question. Wonder if the local law could have dragged me downtown on some interpetation of some vague law about photographing ag operations. Chilling to think about, even though I was on a major hwy on a public right of way. Had no idea about these sort of state and local laws about no pictures of farms and feedlots.


Aug 29, 2013 at 01:06 AM
lukeb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


timpdx wrote:
Hmm, just this summer in fact, I took a number of feedlot photos from the highway right in between Garden City and Dodge City. Wonder if it was the same one in question. Wonder if the local law could have dragged me downtown on some interpetation of some vague law about photographing ag operations. Chilling to think about, even though I was on a major hwy on a public right of way. Had no idea about these sort of state and local laws about no pictures of farms and feedlots.


Did you happen to catch a whiff of the lovely bouquet when its 90+ degrees?



Aug 29, 2013 at 02:04 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Nat Geo Photographer Arrested for Kansas Feedlot Flyover


lukeb wrote:
For all the verbiage, I have seen absolutely nothing from those charged with the crimes. Yes we have newspaper quotes, but no comments from the photographer or flight instructor. Before I make my mind up, I want to hear what those charged with the crimes have to say, without editorial license taken. There are 2 sides to every story. All we have is what those prosecuting have to say.


Exactly!

Why people get their knickers in such a twist over something reported in a news paper, I'll never know.

It's like they believe what the media reports is the absolute truth without bias, sensationalism or omission of facts that don't make for a good story. They then want to go on a crusade over what they read like they have been presented every fact an investigation by every leading police organisation in the world spent a year compiling. It amazes me.
80% of the time the media will manufacture something out of a set of facts to make a story that just didn't happen.

I saw this exact thing a few months back with my fathers Neighbour. I know the facts of what happened, I was directly involved in a number of them but what the Newspaper reported was complete and utter fiction and just a twisting of one fact to go with reported reasons that just didn't ever exist.
And this was a feel good story, not the normal bad news gloom and doom crap they excell at.
Why people believe a thing they read these days amazes me.


The whole thing is a big nothing anyway. What is the significance to anything? The US has endless cases of overzealous and idiot law enforcement stepping beyond its jurisdiction or making up laws as they go so if this is another one, so what? Nobody died except the cattle presumably by now.

I also don't understand the indignation by some that trespassing laws were broken and the offenders should therefore be strung up then shot. As far as is apparent so far, no one here has been violated or suffered any loss so why the preoccupation with this big nothing of an incident?

I would suggest there are other things in the world happening more worthy of concern than a guy that launched a paraglider from a field and took pics of some cows.
IF the worst thing anyone ever did to me was fly a motorised parachute from my paddock that had a no trespassing sign ( ohh ahhh!) on the fence, then my life would have been a lot happier.

Perhaps some here unsatisfied with the outcome of this case could lobby there political leaders to set up a defence network against such Violations in the future.

I can see whole fleets of ultralight aircraft stationed across the US all armed to the teeth with .22 machineguns and Bottle rockets ready to defend against paraglider photographic strikes.

The baldy head whispering wannabe on the show "Worlds Deadliest weapons" could do a feature on them.... "With wings made of the same High tech material you find in a bathroom shower Curtain, these droning annoyances with their 25 Hp snowmobile engines can reach speeds of mach .000098 in just 5 minutes and patrol the skies for up to an hour at a time on hi octane unleaded searching the skies for Nat geo photographers on motorised parachutes who threaten the freedom of civilisation by taking off from fields and photographing without permission.

Breathe easy America, Your now safe from this terror of the skies. "



Sep 02, 2013 at 12:42 AM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.