Not the excitement I was talking about…
…but an exciting event occurred today.
Shula was napping just before lunch and we heard some shouts and running right outside the house heading into the front yard. When I got to the front door to look, I saw a firefighter pinning a skinny guy in a track suit to the ground. There was another firefighter exchanging words with him and a civilian who took part in the chase. A few minutes later there were two police officers, then 4, then 6, and finally 8.
A fire truck and an ambulance also made an appearance before it was all over.
Apparently, the guy on the ground had broken into a house near the firehall. There was a 12 year old girl home alone and she ran to the firehall and the two firefighters chased the thief 2 blocks to our house. We think the thief was trying to get through our yard but was foiled since we have no back lane and there’s only a fence back there.
The thief (I won’t call him a suspect since he had a stolen camcorder on him) was a drug addict. The police pulled a needle and crack out of his pockets. He was recently paroled so I hope he finds himself back in prison. I think they were outside for about an hour. It’s a little surprising it takes so long to arrest someone.
No pictures as it was Shabbat.
June 27th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Please write 1000 words to describe the event in lieu of a picture. Thank you.
June 27th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Aw geee. Nothing cool like that happens over here! (I like it that way.)
July 4th, 2005 at 8:45 am
Your ‘no pictures on Shabbat’ comment triggered a story I read on [BoingBoing.net](http://boingboing.net) about [an Orthodox Jewish man who is suing a professional photographer for taking a picture of him on the street](http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/01/photographer_sued_by.html). I would like to think that this is one of those tricky situations where common sense and understanding should be the guide. If I were a photographer selling what amounts to photographic portaits of strangers for $20,000, I would make a reasonable effort to get their consent. That said, attaining such consent isn’t always possible, and if the suit is successful could send a dangerous precedent for amateur web photographers and the pros alike. Do we need the consent of every passerby who gets in the way of our snapshot of the Eiffel Tower before we can stick it on [Flickr](http://www.flickr.com)?
Edited by Jay to fix links.
July 4th, 2005 at 8:46 am
Doh, guess I should have used standard html for the tags. I thought all blog software used such tags. Need a preview function!
Anyway, interested in your thoughts on the subject!
July 4th, 2005 at 11:57 am
Whoops. This blog supports Markdown as described in [this post](http://jay-photo.com/blog/?p=151) if that helps!
I read that article and I’m surprised it’s not an open and shut case. You can take a person’s photo in public and use it for editorial use without a “model release”, but once you’re using the image for commercial use you need permission. The comments at the [site boingboing links to](http://claytoncubitt.com/blogs/usedfuture/2005/07/philip-lorca-dicorcia-sued.html) imply that “art” might fall into a different category. I don’t know for sure — I guess this case will tell us.
So, if you’re not selling someone’s mug for money, you’re ok. Post it on the web, hang it in your house, or whatever you like. Sell it and you need permission.