Hey Everyone, Let's Dial Back the Creepiness

[halcionne]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

Yes, there's nothing you can do insomuch as you can't arrest the person, but you can take a report to document the ongoing issue. This can be extremely helpful to the injured party (if there is one) should the harassment escalate. Also, the issue under discussion here involves someone essentially stalking children. I know for a fact that the police (at least in my jurisdiction) will investigate if someone is filming minors. 

What are you referring to with the bolded? I don't recall any stalking of children in the aviation thread, no matter how anyone defines "stalking," or "children." 

[Whoosh]

3 minutes ago, halcionne said:

What are you referring to with the bolded? I don't recall any stalking of children in the aviation thread, no matter how anyone defines "stalking," or "children." 

This discussion isn't about the aviation thread.  Someone brought up an example they thought was similar and that is being discussed.  

ETA it starts on page 2 @halcionne

[halcionne]

I don't follow, but okay. I've been reading the whole thread as it develops, and it has taken a few turns, so I guess I'm confused. I just don't want anyone to think I'm a child stalker, lol. (Note to self: it's not always about you, hal! )

[singsingsing]

1 hour ago, halcionne said:

I don't follow, but okay. I've been reading the whole thread as it develops, and it has taken a few turns, so I guess I'm confused. I just don't want anyone to think I'm a child stalker, lol. (Note to self: it's not always about you, hal! )

Nothing to do with you, halcionne. I think someone was trying to justify spying on the Duggars by any means and said, essentially, "If I were constantly bragging about how great my children were, it would be forgivable if my neighbours kept a spreadsheet on my children's behaviour, went through my trash, and videotaped my children." Which, uh... no.

[EmCatlyn]

9 hours ago, singsingsing said:

Nothing to do with you, halcionne. I think someone was trying to justify spying on the Duggars by any means and said, essentially, "If I were constantly bragging about how great my children were, it would be forgivable if my neighbours kept a spreadsheet on my children's behaviour, went through my trash, and videotaped my children." Which, uh... no.

This is a good example of how things get mixed up.

The passage you are thinking of said:

'Suppose I bragged to my neighbor that my kids were better behaved than anyone else's, or that I was composting, recycling and using only solar energy, and told the entire neighborhood that they should look to me and mine for an example of the right way to live. My neighbor might be forgiven for keeping a spreadsheet of my kids' misbehaviors and setting up cameras to document whether I really did recycle and compost, and maybe even check my electric meter to make sure my energy consumption was low.  It would be annoying, but I would have opened the door to such scrutiny by my bragging and claiming that my family was doing things "better" when in fact there was reason to doubt the truth.'   [I am purposely not using a box quote so that the quote won't disappear if anyone quotes this.]

Please notice that children are not being filmed.  The cameras are there to document whether I am really recycling and composting.  The spreadsheet of kid misbehaviors apparently needs no photographic proof in this hypothetical, totally fictitious and very-tongue-in-cheek scenario.  

To clear another misconception:  I most emphatically was not "trying to justify spying on the Duggars by any means."  

The point of my message was to suggest that what determines "reasonable expectation of privacy" and what constitutes "creepy" behavior and/or "stalking" become difficult to define or pin down in cases such as the Duggars'.  Their combination of self-promotion and secrecy, their tendency to misdirect and misreport, and in particular the way they have handled everything to do with Josh from the time he was 14 on, leads people to be suspicious and to want to find things out for themselves.  

I do not think it is okay to spy on the Duggars (or anyone else).  I think the line between legitimate curiosity and inappropriate snooping is hard to draw in the case of Duggar-watching, and I was musing on some of the issues involved.  . Sorry if that wasn't clear before.

[Whoosh]

@EmCatlyn I honestly don't think I agree that this is a good example of "how things get mixed up" or not.  I think at this point this is a good example of tedium.  I agree with you that SSS got a detail wrong, however she DID say "essentially".  In MY opinion, she "essentially" told the story correctly.  You are trying to justify this "creepy" behavior (spying or monitoring) by saying that it is reasonable based on the behavior of one of the people being spied upon or monitored.  I GET what you are saying about "reasonable expectations of privacy" and I KNOW that by putting yourself into the public eye you lose some of the right to expectation of privacy.  I think most people fully understand that.  That is not what is "at issue" here.  You feel this is an interesting example of how society might be willing to forgive or overlook the spying or monitoring based on the obnoxious behavior of one parent.  Others JUST DISAGREE with that and each attempt to justify it makes it creepier (in my mind at least).  

I think many people feel that stalking laws should be strengthened and that failure to do so causes harm to women and children and sometimes men on an ongoing basis.  I am not a fan of saying there are times it is ok to try to "justify" pushing the limits of laws that are already lax to the point of being harmful and dangerous to our citizens.  Trying to justify keeping a spreadsheet about the behavior of someone else's children is simply ALWAYS going to be creepy to me personally and I think a high percentage of the population would agree with that.  Eleventy "explanations" aren't going to change that.  SSS made a slight misstatement with the video part of your hypothetical - her bad.  The spreadsheet portion of the story is far creepy enough for me.  I get that stretching it to videotaping kids takes it to a whole other level.  I get that.  Nonetheless, the rest of it is still there.

In terms of checking the gas meter, I sure hope you hypothetically meant that someone would hypothetically do that (and the videotaping of your trash) using high tech equipment from a lawful distance.  Trespassing is not criminal unless the trespasser actually interferes with the use/enjoyment of the property, but it IS not only unlawful, it is one of the only (perhaps THE only) tort for which you don't need to prove actual damages in order to prevail in a lawsuit.  This is true largely because societies upon which our laws are based have found the behavior unacceptable (and I daresay creepy).  I wouldn't recommend it at all in a stand-your-ground state.  Guns and all.  "Justifiable" shooting of bullets.  All that said, sitting in your home or standing on your own land with your high tech gadgets so you can monitor another person's refuse/gas meter or whatever is sufficiently "creepy" enough for me to say it is creepy and not justified or forgivable in you hypothetical.  

I am not asking you or anyone else to agree with me here.  I am not saying "I am right on the creep factor!!!!11!!11!"  I am saying that I do NOT agree that YOU ARE RIGHT and it isn't because I am missing the point - I get your point and I don't agree.  So we agree to disagree and we abide by the decisions of the administrators.  Alternatively, this odd conversation could go on forever.  I get that your hypothetical was less extreme in the original form than after others rephrased it.  It's great to clear that up.  I get you think there is some grey area of creepiness and/or justifiability in your example and some may agree with you there - I (and others) don't agree.  As the former officer of the law said they get calls about this type of behavior all the time.  That in and of itself says - something.

[Redandbluenights]

On 1/6/2016 at 4:53 PM, singsingsing said:

22 hours ago, singsingsing said:

Yes, there's nothing you can do insomuch as you can't arrest the person, but you can take a report to document the ongoing issue. This can be extremely helpful to the injured party (if there is one) should the harassment escalate. Also, the issue under discussion here involves someone essentially stalking children. I know for a fact that the police (at least in my jurisdiction) will investigate if someone is filming minors. 

That being said... It's still not illegal to film minors in public places. 

We had a guy who neighbors CONSTANTLY complained about because he owned apiece of land in a neighborhood where he lived, adjacent to his home. Kids used the lot to do everything from riding bikes, digging in the dirt and playing sports..  To less wholesome activities ranging from experimenting with drugs and alcohol to having sex in the wooded area.  He REPEATEDLY posted no trespassing signs, he regularly called police, but he wasn't allowed to fence the property with no building or livestock on our and so it was a losing battle. 

"I don't want these kids trashing my land and wise, getting hurt on my land and then people saying me when they aren't supervising thier little brats"- parents in the area were generally unapologetic, and by the time it has come to the guy keeping logs and recording anyone he saw on the land, day or night, the neighbors relentlessly accused him of being a pedophile. 

And because of the video recording, kids (AND parents!) began a campaign of terror- spray painting his house and car, taunting his dog to bark at all hours, and flattening his tires... And  land was covered in broken glass, trash, beer bottles, tires... And neighbors would complain to code enforcement demanding the man keep his land clean! 

I don't know how many YEARS into the fued I was assigned to the area, but let me tell you, these scenarios are volitile and harshly ever as they seem. New neighbors saw him video taping kids and immediately bought into the pedophile stories. 

And then one day, one of the many MANY unattended entitled little brats crashed thier days atv -with no helmet, injuring three young kids on a golf kart- and you got it- they sued the "pedophile land owner". 

In the end, his relentless records and videos freed him as he proved that he was the VICTIM of the situation, and he won a civil suit against EIGHTEEN families who had tormented him and his family and caused him to have so much stress he had a heart attack and was forced to retire.

My point being; while police are " happy to document " things for you- the reality is, calling us when there's clearly no violation of the law (in which it is not illegal) to film any person in a public place, so long as you don't profit from that video or photograph without that person's consent, laws are even MORE relaxed when it comes to "public figures" which like it or not, includes celebrity children.

I'm not arguing its RIGHT or ETHICAL. I am, however, stating that as long as people stay within the bounds of the laws in your state of one or two party consent to record, of your rights to privacy in public places, then regardless of the "creepy" factor, there's no need to throw the term stalking around. 

People seem to think that having the police "just document" an on going list of imagined slights is incredibly important... But in reality, should you go to civil court, a civilians documentation of days and times is JUST as effective as a pile of two sentence entries into police logs. Folks seem to think we write detailed several page reports for every call we go on, but in reality, the details you would keep of this type of complaint are farv more detailed than what we do. 

When it comes to non-criminal calls- we don't write detailed accounts of everything you tell us... If we did, we would never have time to take ACTUAL criminal reports. Your call log would likely look like this;

Date. Time.Location. (all entered automatically by the generated call)- NC. (NO CRIME). Neighbor complaint about resident recording children playing on public land.

That's it. That's generally all that gets documented unless there's a possibility of escalation or that a crime occurred. I'm not saying this to make us look lazy... But a single patrol officer's burglary report and investigation generally takes 2.5 hrs, a DUI takes 4-5 hrs, 6+ if drugs were involved. There's only one of us per THOUSAND of residents, and were often taking 30+ calls every twelve hour shift. 

So if you're insistent upon calling police after you know that a person isn't violating a law- do your own documenting in case you ever want to deal with a civil case, because our 'reports' aren't going to make our break your case... ESPECIALLY if you are the type call over and over and over.... Eventually dispatchers will make your calls super low priority like the boy who cried wolf. I'm just trying to give you a realistic picture because all too often people seem to think that calling the cops will help because we have special powers.... When in reality, our job is to determine if a crime happened and if it DID, to investigate.    

If someone is in a public place, they have no expectation of privacy. And if someone is a public figure, being watched coming and going at the airport is pretty standard - there price you pay for fame. In the end, I agree with those who say the Duggars have lied and acted shady for ssi long, I don't blame ANYONE for attempting to confirm our debt thier stories about who is where and what any of them are doing.

I never got to read the part of the threads regarding burner phones, but as a person who actually has a background in surveillance professionally... I can't imagine what good a pay as you go phone would even do. For what? Calling the airport to get details?  Perhaps I'm not depraved enough to understand the shady or creepy implications, but u just wanted to give my two cents from the point of veiw of the person who took these types of calls left and right in my career... Where it is often the caller who is more culpable or in the wrong, than the respondent. Not always of course, but pretty please, try not to bother your local police in cases where no one is in danger and its clear there is no actual violations of law. I promise... We aren't "building up a case" when there's no case to begin with... We aren't "big brother" keeping endless detailed records on everyone's beef with everyone else. -Kristie (whose goal is to help explain the POV of police officers, not to upset anyone)    

 

[missegeno]

Thanks @Redandbluenights for that perspective!

 

I'm going to add my two cents to the dead horse being beaten here. Feel free to skip if you are sick of it.

 

I agree with @Whoosh that the specific details in the @EmCatlyn example were creepy, and I agree all around that mods make the final say in forum rules. I don't think what went down in the threads that spawned this thread were creepy.

 

That said, a quick spin on the @EmCatlyn story to remove the gas monitoring and spreadsheets would not seem creepy to me. My version is as follows:

- Public figure (lets call him Y) in a high political position tries to take rights away from others on the basis of morality and Jesus

- The public (lets collectively call them X) learns that Y has immoral past, forgives Y because he was saved by treatment based on the morality and Jesus that Y points to in taking rights away from others, though stories are suspiciously mixed as to the nature/location of this treatment

- The public learns that the claims about being saved by morality and Jesus were bullshit, and Y's response is to go to more treatment based on morality and Jesus, again lacking transparency

 

In this case, I wouldn't consider it creepy for X to take advantage of times that Y is in public to try to gain information about the simultaneously publicized and obfuscated treatment scenario.

[singsingsing]

Wow, this has morphed from a weird comment about spying on your neighbours' children being excusable, and a hyperbolic, sarcastic response, into something completely different, but it was interesting nonetheless!

@EmCatlyn you're mistaken... I was responding to this (can't figure out how to do a multi quote, so bear with me);

I said,

Quote

"PSA: If your neighbour is keeping a spreadsheet on your kids, pointing cameras at your house, and coming on your property to check your hydro meter, you might want to call the police."

You responded:

Quote

"Yeah, I probably would. But the other neighbors might forgive him, since I was bragging so much about things that weren't true."

First post on page 3 of this thread.

That's what I was referencing. The idea that other neighbours might forgive someone for pointing cameras at your house, AKA filming your kids. I mean hey, maybe they would, but I just want to point out that I was responding to an actual thing, not my own imagination. 

@Redandbluenights, where I live, recording someone without their knowledge or consent (unless you're recording their conversation with you) is actually illegal. It's up to you what you do about it, but 'around these parts', yeah, they're breaking the law.

Depending on the circumstances, the police (again, where I live) most definitely take fairly detailed reports re: neighbour harassment, especially if it's an ongoing issue and it seems to be escalating. I've also unfortunately seen cases where a person is applying for a peace bond and trying to prove why they're afraid of this other person, and they're basically told, "Well if you were so afraid, why didn't you call the police?"

I'm speaking in general terms here, not specifically about @EmCatlyn's comments. I found her comments puzzling but innocuous, and I'm well aware that she's not advocating spying on your neighbours.

You have to use your own judgement. If you know that your neighbours are breaking the law, and if their behaviour is causing you or your family members actual fear, you should probably get law enforcement involved. If you live in a place where you feel that to do this would be 'bothering' the police or 'wasting their time', I can only say that that is unfortunate.

Yes, most peace bonds are idiotic, and most neighbour trouble is the result of two people/families who are equally at fault. That doesn't mean that genuine neighbour trouble should just be ignored. Again, you have to be the judge of that yourself. Your neighbour dumping snow on your yard is not a reasonable cause of fear. Your neighbour threatening to slit your throat probably is. If any of you ever find yourselves in a situation where your neighbour is keeping a spreadsheet on your childrens' behaviour and sneaking into your yard to check your gas meter, all I can say is... godspeed. I have no idea what you should do about that. 

I also worked in law enforcement. I was not a police officer, but one of the main parts of my job was reading and redacting police reports. Another was vetting completed court cases. Thousands of reports and thousands of cases. I would never pretend to have the same knowledge or experience as a sworn officer, but I do know a bit. I also have a close family member who worked for years as a 911 dispatcher and still works in law enforcement. So I have a little experience in this area.

All I can say to anyone reading this is to not take anyone in this thread's word for it, but rather acquaint yourself with the law and your rights wherever you personally live. It's not the same everywhere. But I can give some definite advice:

Never let the police question you without a lawyer present. 

Don't call the police because your neighbour's garden hose is lying across your driveway.

Don't call 911 to ask what time it is.

[EmCatlyn]

9 hours ago, Whoosh said:

@EmCatlyn I honestly don't think I agree that this is a good example of "how things get mixed up" or not.  I think at this point this is a good example of tedium.  I agree with you that SSS got a detail wrong, however she DID say "essentially".  In MY opinion, she "essentially" told the story correctly.  You are trying to justify this "creepy" behavior (spying or monitoring) by saying that it is reasonable based on the behavior of one of the people being spied upon or monitored.  I GET what you are saying about "reasonable expectations of privacy" and I KNOW that by putting yourself into the public eye you lose some of the right to expectation of privacy.  I think most people fully understand that.  That is not what is "at issue" here.  You feel this is an interesting example of how society might be willing to forgive or overlook the spying or monitoring based on the obnoxious behavior of one parent.  Others JUST DISAGREE with that and each attempt to justify it makes it creepier (in my mind at least).  

I think many people feel that stalking laws should be strengthened and that failure to do so causes harm to women and children and sometimes men on an ongoing basis.  I am not a fan of saying there are times it is ok to try to "justify" pushing the limits of laws that are already lax to the point of being harmful and dangerous to our citizens.  Trying to justify keeping a spreadsheet about the behavior of someone else's children is simply ALWAYS going to be creepy to me personally and I think a high percentage of the population would agree with that.  Eleventy "explanations" aren't going to change that.  SSS made a slight misstatement with the video part of your hypothetical - her bad.  The spreadsheet portion of the story is far creepy enough for me.  I get that stretching it to videotaping kids takes it to a whole other level.  I get that.  Nonetheless, the rest of it is still there.

In terms of checking the gas meter, I sure hope you hypothetically meant that someone would hypothetically do that (and the videotaping of your trash) using high tech equipment from a lawful distance.  Trespassing is not criminal unless the trespasser actually interferes with the use/enjoyment of the property, but it IS not only unlawful, it is one of the only (perhaps THE only) tort for which you don't need to prove actual damages in order to prevail in a lawsuit.  This is true largely because societies upon which our laws are based have found the behavior unacceptable (and I daresay creepy).  I wouldn't recommend it at all in a stand-your-ground state.  Guns and all.  "Justifiable" shooting of bullets.  All that said, sitting in your home or standing on your own land with your high tech gadgets so you can monitor another person's refuse/gas meter or whatever is sufficiently "creepy" enough for me to say it is creepy and not justified or forgivable in you hypothetical.  

I am not asking you or anyone else to agree with me here.  I am not saying "I am right on the creep factor!!!!11!!11!"  I am saying that I do NOT agree that YOU ARE RIGHT and it isn't because I am missing the point - I get your point and I don't agree.  So we agree to disagree and we abide by the decisions of the administrators.  Alternatively, this odd conversation could go on forever.  I get that your hypothetical was less extreme in the original form than after others rephrased it.  It's great to clear that up.  I get you think there is some grey area of creepiness and/or justifiability in your example and some may agree with you there - I (and others) don't agree.  As the former officer of the law said they get calls about this type of behavior all the time.  That in and of itself says - something.

Some quick answers:

Singsingsing said that the original message mentioned videotaping children.  It did not.  To me that is an example of how people mis-remember things.  

The passage was not meant to be taken seriously--and I have no idea what kind of equipment my hypothetical neighbor would use to check my equally hypothetical gas or electric meter.

It is my belief that when people put themselves forward, try to present themselves as better than others, deliberately mislead others, etc. they lose some of their expectation of privacy.  But how far that entitles other people to go is not something that I have been addressing.  I really don't know the answer.  It is, as I said before an interesting question.

From the first I have said that it is up to the admins to determine what is discussed on this site.  

 

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

But how far that entitles other people to go is not something that I have been addressing.

This is interesting to me, as I thought this whole thread was about the fact that there IS some type of line beyond which is too far and it needs to be set somehow and somewhere or else random individuals will feel justified in "going too far".  For that type of conversation, details of any examples are very important.  It wasn't clear to me that your first post was not about where to draw that line.  I do agree that THE LAW shifts based on PUBLIC FIGURE status (at least in some jurisdictions).  I also agree that, in the minds of an individual or group, the line of justifiability can shift (though the law and/or community standards may not be impacted by what was in their minds).  In order for a community to function well, various communities frequently set lines that are somewhat more limiting than what is "legal vs illegal" under the law of the land, and members of that community need to pretty much abide by those standards rather than always going by their own personal opinion on where the line is based on how they are looking at things in the moment.  Sorry for my confusion as to what you were saying.  Things sure can get confusing and tangled up.

 

 

 

 

[Curious]

I had no clue this thread was still going on.  I usually leave a window open for announcement type threads, but apparently accidentally closed this one at some point so I was a few pages behind.

I'm too lazy to go find the exact post several pages back, but the discussion was about using "burner" phones because giving out your real number to people you only know from a message board could be dangerous.

What I think people might forget sometimes is that FJ is PUBLIC.  So, while I'm not too terribly worried about an FJ member going off the rails and trying to accost or harm someone we follow in great deal here, we have absolutely NO clue who is reading here, including Duggar fans or haters.  

Someone may read something here and decide to take things a step further.  It would not be the first time something like that has happened (not here, but other forums, news reports etc).

Again, if people want to sit at airports we have no desire to stop that or control what people do in their free time.   If you want to drive around the country following the Duggar plane, go for it.   You just can't post extensive detail about it here anymore.

If you follow the plane around, you can say something like "I happened to be in the area when the Duggar plane landed at xxx.   Unfortunately, I didn't see anyone getting off the plane"  or something of that nature.

You can't post how you found the flight plan on a site that is using a loophole to obtain information that is supposed to be private (you can post information from Flightaware or FOIA requests, however) and then detail how you went about using that information to go watch the Duggar plane.

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, Whoosh said:

This is interesting to me, as I thought this whole thread was about the fact that there IS some type of line beyond which is too far and it needs to be set somehow and somewhere or else random individuals will feel justified in "going too far".  For that type of conversation, details of any examples are very important.  It wasn't clear to me that your first post was not about where to draw that line.  I do agree that THE LAW shifts based on PUBLIC FIGURE status (at least in some jurisdictions).  I also agree that, in the minds of an individual or group, the line of justifiability can shift (though the law and/or community standards may not be impacted by what was in their minds).  In order for a community to function well, various communities frequently set lines that are somewhat more limiting than what is "legal vs illegal" under the law of the land, and members of that community need to pretty much abide by those standards rather than always going by their own personal opinion on where the line is based on how they are looking at things in the moment.  Sorry for my confusion as to what you were saying.  Things sure can get confusing and tangled up.

 

Sorry for my part in the confusion.  I actually haven't been participating in this thread much after my first message.  (And I confess I haven't been reading other people's messages all that carefully either.). I only jumped back in because I thought my silly example of the neighbor had been misquoted/ misunderstood. I see now that it took on a life of its own. 

As far as I am concerned, the admins said "don't do this," and I wasn't going to do it anyway, so in my original post I just wanted to point out that the question of privacy and what is/isn't appropriate can be complicated. 

It seemed to me that before passing judgment on others it might be gooda to consider why people had been following the comings and goings of the Duggar plane as somewhat different from motiveless harassment by a nut.  The Duggars ask for attention, brag and lie.  All of these invite scrutiny.

I don't know the answer to "where do you draw the line?" in a general sense.  I agree that while we should all follow the law, there are things the law permits in this area that could be problematic.  On the other hand, I am not prepared to articulate where the law should/shouldn't intervene.  

It is an interesting question.

[nelliebelle1197]

On 1/13/2016 at 2:04 PM, VelociRapture said:

The arrest was a while ago - probably a few years now and I'm pretty sure the member involved is no longer around here now.

If people here want to interact with any of the people discussed here or runs into them unexpectedly I would suggest an abundance of caution. Don't mention the site at all (you aren't representing all the members here), don't be stupid (like mentioning you're going to do something blatantly illegal ahead of time on this very public forum), and be respectful (for instance, only attend public events and use your manners if you do happen to bump into them around town). 

Most importantly, anyone who wants to interact with these Fundies needs to remember that they are still human beings despite their horrible teachings. The kids especially don't deserve to be harassed by random strangers as they go about their lives.

And I totally agree with you. Purposely tracking them with the intent to meet them in person and harass them somehow is over the line. I do understand no one in this situation was looking to harm them in anyway at all and I do think it was just curiosity to know what was happening with Josh, but I feel stating that is important - it can be very easy to have things escalate unintentionally.

She is still around.

[VelociRapture]

8 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

She is still around.

I stand corrected. 

Thanks! I thought she had left after that, but I guess I was mistaken.

[nausicaa]

On 1/17/2016 at 8:57 AM, VelociRapture said:

I stand corrected. 

Thanks! I thought she had left after that, but I guess I was mistaken.

Oh, she's definitely still around. Even offered to collect support notes for the Duggar girls and have a friend deliver them after the Josh molestation news broke...

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, nausicaa25 said:

Oh, she's definitely still around. Even offered to collect support notes for the Duggar girls and have a friend deliver them after the Josh molestation news broke...

Which was shut down immediately by posters in that thread - a great example of community self-policing.

[nausicaa]

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Which was shut down immediately by posters in that thread - a great example of community self-policing.

Yes, definitely. Didn't mean that as a jab at FJ.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, nausicaa25 said:

Yes, definitely. Didn't mean that as a jab at FJ.

Oh, I know you didn't.  Just piggy backing on your point to make another one.  

[Redandbluenights]

Can I ask what the arrest was for? (Not who it was, just what the charge was)

[halcionne]

1 hour ago, Redandbluenights said:

Can I ask what the arrest was for? (Not who it was, just what the charge was)

Harrassment. She had a spy cam on her and didn't know it was illegal. It was a perfect storm of an FJ clusterfuck. She made some mistakes, but a lot of things happened that had nothing to do with her and made the situation worse.

[AnnC]

With so many devices that can record audio and images - it is becoming more and more confusing about where/when someone has been crossing the line.   There is an AirBnB near our house and the neighbors finally posted a "No photographic release" statement facing that house to discourage the photo safaris.    Sure, walking to our car is taking place in public but they are not local wildlife.

[BunnyBee]

WOW WOW WOW 

I have taken a break from FJ and came back just to read this whole thread in shock and in awe. Like damn that public wrist slapping is real, administration using language like "creepy" and "stalkerish", wow just, I am speechless. 

I did go sit in a PUBLIC area, to catch a glimpse of PUBLIC figures, who made their flight info PUBLIC, was that (as it was so professionally put) "creepy".... No 

I had so much fun while doing it because I thought I might catch a snap shot of Joshley and I don't regret it. Thanks for the laughs fellow duggar aviation threaders 

@halcionne you're one bad ass mother fucker and don't let anyone here tell you differently. 

Damn I really liked this community , but I am offended and feel like the intentions of the thread were skewed and blown out of proportion.... Peace out FJ its been so real 

[blessalessi]

I guess none of us gets to define what other people find to be creepy.  

But the administration do get to set the rules for website content for which they are held accountable, so that's that.

 

[Tim-Tom Biblethumper]

Please stick around @BunnyBee  
You're so right.  I read the aviation thread from the get-go and kept up with your airport adventures.  100% benign it was!  NOT creepy, NOT stalkerish, and definitely NOT criminal.  I honestly don't know how this all got so crazy.  
I haven't been participating in this thread because I thought it was silly after reading the first page and gave up.  I'm only here now since I saw the topic jump to the top.