Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/06/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I suppose that has merit. But $2.5 million bond seems a bit stiff. Regards, Jeffery ______________________ Jeffery Smith New Orleans, LA www.400tx.com On Jun 29, 2012, at 9:01 AM, B. D. Colen wrote: > A cell phone camera is a camera. A mall is private property, and while on > that private property you are entirely at the mercy of the property owner > and his/her/its rules. It may not seem right, but this is not the same > thing as police or security guard harassment in a public place. Just > saying. > Typed with big fingers on tiny keys > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffery Smith <jsmith342 at gmail.com> > Sender: lug-bounces+bd=bdcolenphoto.com at leica-users.org > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:38:31 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org><lug at leica-users.org> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: [Leica] Well, this is a huge step backward! > > I guy is taking pictures with his cell phone in the mall, and ends up in > jail. > > http://tinyurl.com/6s6x7a5 > > Voyeurism?while they are shopping? > > Regards, > > Jeffery > ______________________ > Jeffery Smith > New Orleans, LA > www.400tx.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information