This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Junkies in Park Slope - Page 2 — Brooklynian

Junkies in Park Slope

2»

Comments

  • Subject: Re: Clarifying a position

    charlesbklyn wrote: So much anger ... easy off the "pissed off" burn throttle.

    People have a right to disseminate information on the web, including pictures of occurrences IN PUBLIC AREAS, which happens, bye the way, to be most places in America.

    The initial post did not accuse the men of anything. The post just conveyed a story about what he saw and did when confronted with the situation in the photo.

    I pose a question: Is it alright to disseminate video or photgraphic information about, lets say, a building collapsing next to your house? Would it be barred because the collapsed building, in someone's determination, was caused by gross negligence? No, the video or photo speaks for itself, and people make up their minds. It's only when someone, who knows that something is not true, states that it is, is it defamation. Other than that senario, the picture is kosher for public view.
    In fact, the public has a right to see it.

    Photo: Ward Building, April 26, 2007
    image
    Comment on photo above: Wow! Old buildings, I guess, eventually fall down due to age and lack of use ... Thank god no one was injuried, as if someone had been injured, the developer might have been sued for damages.

    As for the title of the initial post, well ... reasonably, it was stated that way so we would all be having this civilized discussion in the first place.

    You don't have to be a lawyer to know the bounds of our freedoms. I want to know and see things in my neighborhood. Leave the interpretation up to me, thank you very much.

    Charlesbklyn
    So, Charlesbklyn, are you saying that we should all be monitored by video surveillance cameras every time we step outside of our homes, or would you like Big Brother's eyes recording activities in our homes as well?

    How would you like it if someone posted an image of you taking a whiz behind a bush in Prospect Park?
  • Subject: response to "wizing in the park"

    I think you are missing my point. I certainly don't feel like we should be monitored with video all the time, and personal privacy is important. Having said that, this was not a government agency taking this photo, it was a private citizen outside their home taking a photo of an occurance they observed in the public space (here, the street). There is a difference.

    There is also a difference in monitoring the public space open-ended, and taking a photo or video in reaction to something seen in the public.

    In a free society, a person should be allowed to take a picture and disseminate it to his neighbors and others with interest, especially if it is in the public interest. Yes, making rash and unsubstantiated statements about people puts the person stating these statements in jeopardy of defaming. BUT, what goes on in the public is public, and whether someone puts up a photo or a video of something seen in the public is a moral and ethical decision that must be an individual determination. They role the dice, and take their chances. Having said that, the first amendment certainly protects much of what is out on the internet and in the public forum today anyway, and therefore you can’t stop people from doing it even if you believe it is not moral or ethical. That’s just he way it goes in America.

    As for whizzing in the public space, which is unlawful, if I ever was caught doing this, and someone took a photo of me, I would probably deserve the public admonishment. I would be angered at little for sure, but free societies tend to be transparent, even at the expense of dignity or embarrassment. There is also a difference between someone publishing the photo of me to defame my character and reputation, and someone publishing the photo of me to let the neighborhood know people are pissing all over the place.

    And lets be honest here, Park Slope has many roaming men who are obviously seriously high or medicated to the point of confusion. Some seem dangerous, though most are probably benign. Lets not be New Yorker's without any sense about this whatsoever. With the original encounter, the men in that car were asked to leave, and they certainly didn't clarify their situation to the homeowner, which would have been easy. And certainly, they don't have too either. Yes, we cannot make a definitive judgement whether they were shooting up drugs or a daily medication. But come on, does anyone in New York have any New York instincts anymore? Its the difference between living in reality, and living in a fantasy world. Welcome to Brookyln.

    But I digress ... the public space is not private space, and we all have to deal with technology that allows a moment in time to become a blog discussion. The more discussion, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

    I appreciate the rely.
    Charlesbklyn
  • Okay, in the interest of more discussion (and my desire to play devil's advocate), how do your views apply to a situation like this?
  • it looks like they are wearing "scrubs" or some sort of hospital garb over their clothes. Just an observation.
  • Jeez - how ignorant can you all be - this is Park Slope!!!.....

    Clearly these guys are administering fertility treatments to each other!!!
  • According to the original poster they were parked in the lot of a local McDonald's. I propose that those "syringes" were in fact happy meal toys.

    Apparently no one has heard of Pixar's upcoming film "Ratatouille" about a rat who wants to become a chef, but is crippled by a vicious liquid cheese addiction.

    So they were getting ready to shoot promotional cheese in their mouths when this picture was snapped.

    Case Closed.
Sign In or Register to comment.