2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: oldfart on December 08, 2013, 08:09:30 AM
-
Dear Mr. Knudsen,
I know you are monitoring this forum so this message is directed at you.
I saw a Twitter message that you sent showing some rifle shooters pointing rifles upwards.
I can only surmise that you think that this is a dangerous action and should be prohibited.
You should educate yourself before spouting fear-mongering messages. In fact you should apologize to the gentlemen that you photographed.
Herewith is a link to see a clip of the 2011 ISSF Rifle finals in Sydney, Australia. (There are many other videos like this)
This is like a warm up competition for the Olympics. These are some of the finest rifle shooters in the world, bar none.
Finals 50m Rifle 3 Position Men - ISSF World Cup Series 2011, Combined Stage 2, Sydney (AUS) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxQDXyQppxE#ws)
If you do not want to watch the entire video clip, there are some screenshots from that match attached showing the normal acceptable method
of preparing to fire a shot. ..
Please observe that the finest rifle shooters in the world DO point their rifles upwards too.
Yours Truly,
The "Oldfart"
Former 4-position rifle and USPSA competitor
NRA Endowment, HRA, Hawaii Historic Arms Association
-
Dear Mr. Knudsen,
I know you are monitoring this forum so this message is directed at you.
I saw a Twitter message that you sent showing some rifle shooters pointing rifles upwards.
I can only surmise that you think that this is a dangerous action and should be prohibited.
You should educate yourself before spouting fear-mongering messages. In fact you should apologize to the gentlemen that you photographed.
Herewith is a link to see a clip of the 2011 ISSF Rifle finals in Sydney, Australia. (There are many other videos like this)
This is like a warm up competition for the Olympics. These are some of the finest rifle shooters in the world, bar none.
Finals 50m Rifle 3 Position Men - ISSF World Cup Series 2011, Combined Stage 2, Sydney (AUS) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxQDXyQppxE#ws)
If you do not want to watch the entire video clip, there are some screenshots from that match attached showing the normal acceptable method
of preparing to fire a shot. ..
Please observe that the finest rifle shooters in the world DO point their rifles upwards too.
Yours Truly,
The "Oldfart"
Former 4-position rifle and USPSA competitor
NRA Endowment, HRA, Hawaii Historic Arms Association
bravo!
i am sure his email is public
or you could tweet it to him
-
@gerGnesdunK: Some deny negligent discharges at Koko Head can send bullets over crater to hit homes. (High Aim 2 of 2). http://t.co/ZnRaYIDGCj (http://t.co/ZnRaYIDGCj) - from his Twitter feed.
It's pretty clear to me everyone what his intentions were. So if it were up to me I'd sue him for slander.
slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications. (See: defamation, fair comment)
It may or may or may not stick in the end.
-
@gerGnesdunK: Some deny negligent discharges at Koko Head can send bullets over crater to hit homes. (High Aim 2 of 2). http://t.co/ZnRaYIDGCj (http://t.co/ZnRaYIDGCj) - from his Twitter feed.
It's pretty clear to me everyone what his intentions were. So if it were up to me I'd sue him for slander.
slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease, or being unable to perform one's occupation are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious, and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much if not more than printed publications. (See: defamation, fair comment)
It may or may or may not stick in the end.
Definitely slander and taking and posting a pic of the person that may not even given him the permission to.
-
taking and posting a pic of the person that may not even given him the permission to.
i think that's why he digitized out the faces
anyone have video of a service rifle match showing that grip on an M4/AR?
-
i think that's why he digitized out the faces
anyone have video of a service rifle match showing that grip on an M4/AR?
youtube is our friend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8Ph2cl4oc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8Ph2cl4oc#)
-
youtube is our friend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8Ph2cl4oc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8Ph2cl4oc#)
wow, nice find
i may go to the mayor's town hall and show our friend
-
He was taking pictures in public, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space therefore he can take whatever pictures he wants with or without permission of the subject.
I live on the BI and KHSC closure does not affect me whatsoever but this guy seems like a real twat. If you are reading this, You can quote me... You ARE A NITWIT!!! Put that in your pipe and smoke it greggy boy. His high aim photos are about the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Were they shooting at that point of aim. Unlikely. Why don't you get a video you moron if that is your argument. You may not like guns and you may think anyone who owns a gun is a crazed murderer. This is not the case. You may not want the shooting range in your relative back yard. Do something about it. MOVE. You know what? I hate living in hawaii for many reasons. Guess what I am leaving!!! And I will NEVER come back/. You would probably get alot more enjoyment out of life if you focus on your own enjoyment and stop trying to stomp on the enjoyment of others!
-
He could sell his house and move to another part of Hawaii Kai.
-
He was taking pictures in public, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space therefore he can take whatever pictures he wants with or without permission of the subject.
Correct. Unless done for monetary gain.
-
I don't understand why this jackass doesn't just move if he doesn't like where he lives. It's not like anyone is forcing him to live some place which has something he doesn't like. Its like someone moving next to a railroad track and suddenly starts to alert the media that he doesn't like the sound of the horns or the sound of the train.
-
I don't understand why this jackass doesn't just move if he doesn't like where he lives. It's not like anyone is forcing him to live some place which has something he doesn't like. Its like someone moving next to a railroad track and suddenly starts to alert the media that he doesn't like the sound of the horns or the sound of the train.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
He was taking pictures in public, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space therefore he can take whatever pictures he wants with or without permission of the subject.
True, but it's what he implies in his tweet that'll make him the potential subject of a lawsuit.
-
He was taking pictures in public, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space therefore he can take whatever pictures he wants with or without permission of the subject.
That is true. But he can't post them or publish them on any type of public media without permission.
Like I said, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. He can post them anywhere he wants. Just like people in tabloids or youtube etc...
Not defending the guy, he's still a moron. But the 1st amendment is just as important to me as the 2nd :thumbsup:
-
Like I said, there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. He can post them anywhere he wants. Just like people in tabloids or youtube etc...
Not defending the guy, he's still a moron. But the 1st amendment is just as important to me as the 2nd :thumbsup:
He can post pics he takes in public anywhere without the subjects' permission IF it is newsworthy and covered under the 1stA.
If that doesn't apply, he can NOT post wherever he wants. If the subject objects to the MESSAGE their image is associated with (unsafe shooting, anti-gun sentiment, etc.), then the poster can be sued.
-
He could sell his house and move to another part of Hawaii Kai.
'Less I'm missin' something, the range was there waaaay before Queens Gate was built. Kinda like buying a place near the Airport and then grousing about the noise.
By the way there's probably bullets all over the area from WWII training. Probably 30 cal 150 grain as that was the caliber of the day
Got to wonder if he paid some kid to fly one through the window with a slingshot. Crude, but effective. ::)
-
Are the shooters in the pictures identifiable? If not, there is no need for a release form.
-
Are the shooters in the pictures identifiable? If not, there is no need for a release form.
Only need a release form if they are used for commercial purposes. Anyone may take whatever photos they want in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for editorial purposes. Since the person is not readily identifiable it's moot anyway. That doesn't change the fact that his actions are misrepresentative.
That said, he seems pretty unethical and is abusing his position of public trust to pursue a private agenda.
-
Only need a release form if they are used for commercial purposes. Anyone may take whatever photos they want in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for editorial purposes. Since the person is not readily identifiable it's moot anyway. That doesn't change the fact that his actions are misrepresentative.
That said, he seems pretty unethical and is abusing his position of public trust to pursue a private agenda.
Doesn't have to be commercial. For example, if someone uses a pic they took of you in public as part of a political ad, and you didn't sign a release, they are liable and have to remove your image from the ad or stop running it.
-
I know the two shooters practicing for service rifle matches. One is a retired Marine distinguished rifleman and the other is still serving. The actions exhibited by Greg show more concern to shutter the range than to improve it. His narration on the pics he shows is evident that he is reading this thread. I think the neighborhood board has more to worry about such as dumping their unwanted sludge in Waianae. Any shooters from Waianae? I'm sure all those local Hawaii Kai businesses would love to hear how less I will frequent them for food and other items when I visit the range. I always make a habit to visit some local eateries around the HK area. Other shooters do the same?
I love Hawaii Kai not only for the range but its a nice neighborhood. I respect it. Did I mention I was looking for a place there?
-
youtube is our friend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8Ph2cl4oc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN8Ph2cl4oc#)
Oh, damn, Sgt Esparza! Good guy, knows his stuff! :thumbsup:
-
Ok... I've found the culprit! We can now get everything back to normal....
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sfBIiTQT6jA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DsfBIiTQT6jA (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sfBIiTQT6jA&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DsfBIiTQT6jA)
-
Doesn't have to be commercial. For example, if someone uses a pic they took of you in public as part of a political ad, and you didn't sign a release, they are liable and have to remove your image from the ad or stop running it.
I assume most would understand I mean commercial purposes to be inclusive of advertising.
The main exemptions to requiring a release are public figures (Huskey v. NBC, 1956) and newsworthy events (Time v. Hill, 1976)
When we talk about lacking a "reasonable expectation to privacy", people are referring to Forster v Manchester (1963) where the court basically stated that if you can be observed from a public thoroughfare you cannot object to surveillance. So if you're at a public range you cannot object to being photographed, even if you are not a public figure (which has no clear legal definition) and are not newsworthy (ditto).
Politicians are public figures and most of what they do is probably considered newsworthy (for better or worse), so that's why they don't need model releases to run opponent photos in attack ads.
Yes if someone took a photo of me and prominently used it as an ad "Big Blue wants to take your guns away, that's why he supports proposition 3738, so should you! Think of the children!", then I could sue. I'd have to consult a suitably experienced privacy lawyer but my suit would likely be based under either False Light and/or Misappropriation of Likeness (privacy torts).
However if I attended a rally, and happened to be in a photo (say behind Obama in some GOP ad) that was used - I likely would not have much of a case. Per Faloona v. Hustler the publisher would be liable for any damages I sustained; but given the use of the photo was not really focused on appropriating my likeness for their message, it would be very challenging for me to demonstrate any damages.
So as to whether or not a model release would be required for a political ad.. It would depend. 99% of advertising and stock it's irrelevant since no agency will buy photos without the releases anyway, including most pro-political ads which I'm sure they gather the releases from the smiling supporters.
This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I do take photos.
-
I assume most would understand I mean commercial purposes to be inclusive of advertising.
The main exemptions to requiring a release are public figures (Huskey v. NBC, 1956) and newsworthy events (Time v. Hill, 1976)
When we talk about lacking a "reasonable expectation to privacy", people are referring to Forster v Manchester (1963) where the court basically stated that if you can be observed from a public thoroughfare you cannot object to surveillance. So if you're at a public range you cannot object to being photographed, even if you are not a public figure (which has no clear legal definition) and are not newsworthy (ditto).
Politicians are public figures and most of what they do is probably considered newsworthy (for better or worse), so that's why they don't need model releases to run opponent photos in attack ads.
Yes if someone took a photo of me and prominently used it as an ad "Big Blue wants to take your guns away, that's why he supports proposition 3738, so should you! Think of the children!", then I could sue. I'd have to consult a suitably experienced privacy lawyer but my suit would likely be based under either False Light and/or Misappropriation of Likeness (privacy torts).
However if I attended a rally, and happened to be in a photo (say behind Obama in some GOP ad) that was used - I likely would not have much of a case. Per Faloona v. Hustler the publisher would be liable for any damages I sustained; but given the use of the photo was not really focused on appropriating my likeness for their message, it would be very challenging for me to demonstrate any damages.
So as to whether or not a model release would be required for a political ad.. It would depend. 99% of advertising and stock it's irrelevant since no agency will buy photos without the releases anyway, including most pro-political ads which I'm sure they gather the releases from the smiling supporters.
This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I do take photos.
There are a hundred hypotheticals, but this is my main point: If the photo in question is going to be used to promote a product, service, idea, or thing, a photo release is necessary.
This doesn’t simply apply to celebrities either. All of us have a right to protect our likeness from being used against our will.
If Knudsen wants to use anyone's likeness to promote his political agenda, he should have a release. And just blurring faces may not be sufficient, since some people wear name tags, hats, and other distinctive clothing that might contain names and company logos. These items all have the ability to identify an individual or group just as readily as their faces.
I've taken pictures and video in an official capacity in the Air Force, so I'm a little familiar with the hoops to jump through for photo releases.
:shaka:
-
Unfortunately he is allowed to take picture and use them if he is taking it in a public area. The only way we can stop him is if the park/area he is taking pictures in requires a permit to do so such as some of the other parks. We should ask the range master about this or email the parks and rec. office about safety concerns with photographers in the area taking picture of guns and the serial # which put us in the risk of identity theft and fraud. ;)
-
There are a hundred hypotheticals, but this is my main point: If the photo in question is going to be used to promote a product, service, idea, or thing, a photo release is necessary.
This doesn’t simply apply to celebrities either. All of us have a right to protect our likeness from being used against our will.
If Knudsen wants to use anyone's likeness to promote his political agenda, he should have a release. And just blurring faces may not be sufficient, since some people wear name tags, hats, and other distinctive clothing that might contain names and company logos. These items all have the ability to identify an individual or group just as readily as their faces.
I've taken pictures and video in an official capacity in the Air Force, so I'm a little familiar with the hoops to jump through for photo releases.
:shaka:
If your likeness is appeaing in the pictures Knudsen has posted, then get a lawyer if you think you can win. If not, identify the individuas in the phitis and help them with finding an attorney. I'm with BigBlue, you won't get anywhere with this.
-
Unfortunately he is allowed to take picture and use them if he is taking it in a public area. The only way we can stop him is if the park/area he is taking pictures in requires a permit to do so such as some of the other parks. We should ask the range master about this or email the parks and rec. office about safety concerns with photographers in the area taking picture of guns and the serial # which put us in the risk of identity theft and fraud. ;)
There is no reason to stop people from taking pictures. I'm not sure how the serial number of your firearm puts you at risk for identity theft. Also not sure how a camera in the area all of a sudden would make for an unsafe shooting environment.?
-
There is no reason to stop people from taking pictures. I'm not sure how the serial number of your firearm puts you at risk for identity theft. Also not sure how a camera in the area all of a sudden would make for an unsafe shooting environment.?
Well let me put it this way. If you have a person S/N and the use of the Internet you can get a person Name, SS, DOB, Address all in one crack. As this info is on record both with the State and the Feds.
It can lead to unsafe conditions as you put the shooters under more pressure
-
.
-
With just a name (first and last) and the internet, you can pretty much find anyone's age and address, here in Hawaii.
I don't mean some special search engine that you need to subscribe to, either.
Sadly, criminals do it all the time.
Yup that's how crazy/sad things are now days.
-
.
-
Anybody even think that perhaps these may have been associates of Knudson ?
Can get any pic scenario I want !
-
Anybody even think that perhaps these may have been associates of Knudson ?
Can get any pic scenario I want !
The people he captured are avid shooters, they are not accomplices. I doubt he had permission to use their images for his anti gun agenda.
-
Just got a question...
1. Does old Greg here wants to close the range down ?
2. Or he wants there safety provisions to prevent stray bullets flying all over?
-
.
-
His story changes on a week to week basis.
My guess: he is a liberal communist/fascist who thinks guns are evil just because it's one of king barry's talking points. If the dems supported gun rights, he probably would not have any problem with the range, regardless of the 'bullet flying past his head', which he knows, not assumes, was a bullet because his brother/friend/whatever REMF was in Vietnam and knows what bullets sound like.