It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dad's actions didn't warrant arrest

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

why didnt he just pull his Kid out?
and let other parents who agreed with him follow suit.

that way the schools happy they got to make a profit from the people that didnt care

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by Brothers

(Slightly off topic, but still related to profiteering by the public school system) yearbooks are a big money maker for schools, actually. My old high school sold a ton of advertisements throughout the yearbook, some full page ads even. They called them "sponsors" like it was a gameshow or something, when in reality they were "clients" of the Public School Advertising Corporation... incidentally, the same "sponsors" also had banner advertisements at all home football, basketball, and baseball games as well as ads in the game fliers, on the weekly school bulletins given to students, and on the prom propaganda. I'm sure since it was a smallish town they weren't paying huge money for all of this but considering the quantity of them and the frequency they were displayed I'm sure the school made a respectable chunk of change off of it.

It's pretty disturbing to realize that our kids are exposed to as much advertising and garbage at our public schools as they would be if they sat at home watching network TV all day. It's also disturbing to see how our tax payer dollar supported schools are quickly drooping into the realm of commercialization and latching onto the corporate machine at the expense of students, parents, and the tax payer's rights in general.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by bodrul

They can all pull their kids out (well, actually the courts have made it very difficult to extract your own children from the propaganda machine known as public schools unless you have a stuffed bank account) it wouldn't change the fact that you've got a tax dollar supported institution crapping on the tax payer in the name of profiteering.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:53 PM
One of these times some cop is going to pull crap like this and he is going to end up hurt when no one else is looking. A little knee cap or worse and the cops will think twice about what they are doing when stuff like this goes down.

The guy may have been a loud mouth but this cop deserves a private blanket party if you ask me...

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 05:30 PM
I would like to comment on Kevin Leininger’s column of 7-15-08. Given the amount of material and limited space, the article for the most part was accurate. The US Supreme Court as well as Federal Courts has ruled numerous times that photography/videotaping is protected free speech. Anyone has the Constitutional Right to photograph/videotape ANYTHING that can be seen from public property. However, even though you have the right to do so, you may not have the right to sell it. In order to sell an image, performance, dance, choreography, etc, one must obtain the permission of the owner. In the case of Northrop, they needed the written permission of every singer, dancer, musician, the owner of the music song during the show and any copyrighted material used.

What Northrop and Huntington Media Services did was to sell without permission the performers work/property. In simple terms they pirated the property of others for personal gain. The video contract did not give the Videogropher exclusive rights.

When entering Northrop there were no visible signs. The signs were on the doors to the gym and auditorium that were either too far away, blocked by people waiting to enter or the doors were open facing another door to be seen. I walked in with a camera case and tripod clearly visible. No one at the admittance table said a word to me about no videotaping until after I had paid and walked a third of the way across the commons.

A volunteer said they were recording the performances and that I was more than welcome to buy a DVD. I replied “we will see about that.” A performance was taking place. I waited with my mom. Sgt. Glock came up behind and said “If I catch you videotaping I will arrest you.” He did not provide his name or badge number and did not know if any release forms had been signed. The doors to the gym opened, my mom went in front of me and I followed. I did not push by anyone. Mr. HARTZLER, volunteer, in his deposition stated “There was no physical contact, but his demeanor indicated to me that he was, seemed angry to me. I mean, he seemed agitated, but other than simply brushing past me, you know, he didn't make any kind of aggressive move towards me, other than to, you know, dismissively push past me.” "They don't have the right to record my daughter's image," and continued on into the gym.”

I sat down, placed the tripod and camera case on the floor under the chair. Neither my wife nor I had signed a consent and release to sell my daughter’s property rights. With about five minutes before the next show was scheduled to begin, I got up to speak with a Northrop official.

Kevin Demerell’s deposition states I asked “Where did we have permission to video tape his daughter? Where had he signed off that we had the right to use his daughter's image for this tape that was going to be sold?” Damerell first stated it was probably part of the application to compete; then it was the choir director who authorized it; then it was you can remove your daughter from the show. The fact is Damerell did not see the video contract until August 2007 and the application to compete has not been found. Why did Damerell keep trying to BS his way? Why not just say “I do not know, but I will try and find out and get back with you.” Damerell says there were never any raised voices, “Speaking for a number of minutes, he was not combative, he was just argumentative.”

No, we were merely having a question. He was, as I read this over, he was, I guess, trying to find legal loop holes as to "Where did I give permission for my daughter's image? What gives you the right?" I did write, he was making comments that he would sue us, which my reaction has always been, we kind of talked, if somebody wants to contact an attorney, feel free. We are not going to change our actions because you are threatening us. “

Best Regards William R. Larsen

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 08:46 PM
I'm waiting for the day that a security guard gets out of line with me. I hate the way they exert their authority over people in front of their families, as if they're mightier than god. No one should be demeaned in front of their family. I have walked away from a man that warranted a beat down just because he was with his family and I didn't feel he deserved to be diminished in their eyes.

Call it a deathwish but I wait with baited breath for the taser. More people need to stand up and tell these goons to bring it on. Donkey Kong style.

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Perplexed
One of these times some cop is going to pull crap like this and he is going to end up hurt when no one else is looking. A little knee cap or worse and the cops will think twice about what they are doing when stuff like this goes down.

The guy may have been a loud mouth but this cop deserves a private blanket party if you ask me...

I wouldn't recommend it. police, even off duty police, are very loyal to each other and I don't suspect the officer or his friends will respond by doing nothing. Violence is its own punishment. You strike them, they strike you back (count on it - it's human nature and a they are a cohesive lot).

This needs to be addressed with reason. Coldly applied, and on an even playing field - a public one.

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 01:17 PM
It is truly amazing how police stick together. It was very evident from the four depositions of two police, principal and the volunteer at the door that each was very different. The affidavit for probable cause did not even match the depositions. The written statements did not match the depositions.

The guy who yanked me out by my neck I never spoke to. From the principle's deposition, he just was in the back ground listening. However, after reading his deposition and statement, you would think he was the person I was speaking to.

The security guard and the one who choked me were asked to explain what the events were. Both recounted different versions. Neither said they ordered me out. Glock who was the paid security guard gave this explanation.

“I never asked him to leave until after his very rude and insolent conversation with Kevin Damerell, the assistant principal.”

The principal states we were not close to anyone, there were no loud voices, and no one even knew we were there.

But what is really amazing is that the principle said the neither the school nor the school system cares if a parent videotapes or not. The downloaded PDF files from the school and system have no prohibition or restriction on videotaping. The fact is I have videotaped at that specific school four times prior to this. I have videotaped at other Fort Wayne Community Schools at least eight times prior to this.

The school did not put the signs up. So far no one knows who put the signs up. Was it a parent or was it the video company who was selling the video tapes? Either way it is very clear the police were not enforcing any law or statute that our elected representatives passed and was subsequently signed into law by the Governor. What I think happened was they were enforcing a rule of a parent or the video company.

The school also has nearly 100 surveillance cameras. I was told the recordings are kept for 45 days. When they were subpoenaed, we found they had been destroyed after 25 days.

posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by William Larsen

Thank you for sharing your side of the story and welcome to ATS. I look forward to hearing how this story develops/unfolds. Fight the good fight.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in