ginzo Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 You guys all have to remember one thing: an amusement park is private property. Outside of discrimination, anyone is liable to be kicked out for any reason. I'd say having 8 witnesses to something creepy qualifies as enough proof to kick the kid out. Although I'm unsure of the precise legal mumbo jumbo, a lot of shysters would challenge the notion of anyone kicked out for any arbitrary reason. Amusement parks aren't entirely private property because they're open to the public like a mall. Of course, they have the right to set rules and enforce them consistently. I'd charge back my admission quicker than you can say "refund" if I was booted for a bogus reason. But. I don't go around making a jackass out of myself in public either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjaco Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 ^ Your an invitee to a mall. An amusement park is entirely different. You have to obey their rules and regs, and it is private property. I'd say eight witnesses is more than enough evidence to kick someone out. Too bad, soo sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvoLee Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekoma Fan Boy Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 You might be getting carried away with the word exposed. It could have been as simple as her bending over and the kid taking a photo down her shirt. Either way I doubt that it's the type of activity that any parks wants happening inside of their gates. Well then the way I see it, if you don't want people looking down there DON'T WEAR SHIRTS THAT ADVERTISE YOUR BOOBS!!!!!!!!! OR SKIRTS THAT ADVERTISE YOUR VAGINA!!!!!!! But seriously, if taking those types of picture isn't illegal, then why would they suspend the kid from the park? I understand that people found it "offensive" but you probably aren't going to see the person ever ever ever ever again. And also, if they want to kick him out, they should at least hae reasonable proof that he actually did what they claim he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jive Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Would an on the spot jury trial meet the burden of proof that you're looking for? Something can be legal and still be against park rules. Should women have to wear burkas when it' 90 degrees outside. She might have been wearing a tank top, which doesn't always translate to boob advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoasterLover Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 It doesn't matter that the last picture on the camera turned out to be a blury picture of the sky... the issue is that this kid was knowingly TRYING to take a picture down this woman's shirt and there are whitnesses. He obviously was trying to "covertly" take a picture of something he knew he shouldn't be taking a picture of because he did it with the camera behind his back, and people saw him do it. The fact that the picture didn't turn out like he expected it to is irrelevent, the intent was still there. In my opinion, this is no different than if someone had pointed a camera under a toilet stall door and snapped a picture of who ever was in there. Even if the picture was of the ceiling, the intent was still there. The subject was not knowingly exposing themselves, but the photographer took advantage of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgwfreak Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 This is the kind of overblown crap that happens when your country was founded by puritans! And is run by Idiots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingScooter Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 And to think that about ten years ago at Geauga Lake it was an accepted practice to park yourself by the end of the Stingray Slides and take pics of the chicks that had their bikini tops blasted off in the breaking water. No one got thrown out then. Puritans is right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jive Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I can't believe that people are defending this type of behavior. The kid is lucky a husband didn't break his face open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceace12 Posted July 11, 2007 Author Share Posted July 11, 2007 My thing is, the way I read it was, the camera was pointed backwards, not any direction in general. Could he see what was behind him, if not, he just clicked to use the last frame of film. I sometimes will take a pic, when I was not digital, just to waste off the rest of the film. If he was doign it on purpose, he deserved it, if it was just wasting film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Serpent Mascara Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 It doesn't matter that the last picture on the camera turned out to be a blury picture of the sky... the issue is that this kid was knowingly TRYING to take a picture down this woman's shirt and there are whitnesses. He obviously was trying to "covertly" take a picture of something he knew he shouldn't be taking a picture of because he did it with the camera behind his back, and people saw him do it. Unless I've misread something, it never said that the lady's shirt was an issue. If she was leaning over it could have been her skirt or her pants that were exposing her. Secondly, did it say he took the picture with the camera behind his back. I don't think so, unless once again I've misread the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoasterLover Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 Unless I've misread something, it never said that the lady's shirt was an issue. If she was leaning over it could have been her skirt or her pants that were exposing her. Secondly, did it say he took the picture with the camera behind his back. I don't think so, unless once again I've misread the article. As per the original article... "This person as it was described by the eight other guests took a camera out of the pocket, faced it backwards, clicked, took the picture and rewound it and put it back in his pocket," says Worlds of Fun spokesperson Brandon Stanley. This could be interpreted several ways, so I guess it's all up to debate. It also says that the lady "leaned" over, which (to me at least) implies that the action was in jeopardy of exposing her chest, not her backside... again, I guess a lot of this article is interpretation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Serpent Mascara Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I guess it is open to interpretation, it inferred to me that he physically turned around, not just putting the camera behind his back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goliath513 Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 That woman who exposed herself needs to suck it up. If she is so upset, she shouldn't have been wearing such revealing clothing in the first place. They have dress codes for a reason to prevent this kind of stuff. She left herself totally wide open for this and if she can't handle it, then she needs to handle situations better instead of placing all the blame on the other person. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XII Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 ^Agreed But yeah, did this kid even get a chance to defend himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
de ja vu Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Sounds pretty stupid it could've been a total accident, but it is private property and in the fine print for the park it says they have a right to eject anyone for any reason. But it still is dumb over a minor issue like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looty Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 This does sound really dumb, But it's WOF...not exactly the greatest park out there. I think I could have more fun at church! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neogreeneyez Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 He should invest in a digital camera... He might have been able to catch the moments in life that are most important to him instead of a blurred pic of the sky.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spokker Posted July 12, 2007 Share Posted July 12, 2007 Maybe Cedar Fair should kick out all the people I see cutting in line at Knott's on an average day. Jesus, a kid took a picture. They sure have their priorities in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now