Main Menu

"Are We Better Off?"

Started by raivo, September 14, 2012, 05:39:13 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

raivo

This crossed my Facebook newsfeed today (redacted to remove the cadets' nametapes):



Politics aside... what the heck?

CAP Member, 2000-20??
USAF Officer, 2009-2018
Recipient of a Mitchell Award Of Irrelevant Number

"No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection. No inspection-ready unit has ever survived combat."

jeders

If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Майор Хаткевич

From the set up, I HOPE what happened is that these two cadets were at an airshow doing crowd-no-touchie-the-jets-control. Then these two yahoos popped in to take a picture with the cadets/plane in the back, and THEN, either they, or someone else made that poster.


Either way, [mess]ty of them doing so with minors who may have not even known what's up.

Eclipse

+1 on USAFAUX2004's comment - irrelevant to CAP, which as an organization, doesn't care.

"That Others May Zoom"

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: Eclipse on September 14, 2012, 06:03:58 PM
+1 on USAFAUX2004's comment - irrelevant to CAP, which as an organization, doesn't care.

"You mean the two baby-faced soldiers in camo really aren't soldiers who may or may not be gay, anti-DADT, and real Patriots? Gasp!".

I'm sure even if they knew the cadets are not military, they figured MOST viewers of the shot will think them to be soldiers.

Eclipse

Rarely do people with agendas let trivial things like facts or circumstance get in the way of their arguments.

"That Others May Zoom"

Flying Pig

Its an SEIU ad?   ;D  HA.... OK..  Sorry, SEIU is Service Employees International Union.   They have nothing to do with the military or DADT.  I dont even know why they would do that?

jeders

Quote from: Flying Pig on September 14, 2012, 06:33:18 PM
Its an SEIU ad?   ;D  HA.... OK..  Sorry, SEIU is Service Employees International Union.   They have nothing to do with the military or DADT.  I dont even know why they would do that?

No, but they pour millions into electing pro-union candidates. After tracing the image back a little bit, I found a number of similar "Are we better?" images on the SEIU Facebook page. On that page several posters pointed out that the two people in uniform were CAP cadets and that the picture is misleading at best.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Flying Pig

Oh yea.....very familiar with them!

The CyBorg is destroyed

Leave it out about unions, hm?  This isn't the place for it.  I come from a long line of Teamsters/UAW and I don't want to get into it over labour rights.

Whoever it is in the photo, it was devious of them to do that with two of our cadets.  Just a hypothesis...I wonder if those tee shirts' slogans were photoshopped in later...
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Extremepredjudice

Quote from: CyBorg on September 14, 2012, 11:09:03 PM
Leave it out about unions, hm?  This isn't the place for it.  I come from a long line of Teamsters/UAW and I don't want to get into it over labour rights.

Whoever it is in the photo, it was devious of them to do that with two of our cadets.  Just a hypothesis...I wonder if those tee shirts' slogans were photoshopped in later...
If you are going to call BS post a link to prove it.

Google search the image or conduct a image level error analysis
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

EMT-83

^ More than a little harsh. He said "I wonder", nothing more.

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: EMT-83 on September 15, 2012, 01:57:47 AM
^ More than a little harsh. He said "I wonder", nothing more.

Which is all it was...speculation.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Critical AOA

I really doubt that the cadets were duped.  Most likely they knew what the shirt logos were all about and chose to pose with the couple anyway.  If the cadets were duped or taken advantage of, well that doesn't speak very well of the cadets' knowledge of current events especially one that affects the military which most cadets seem to be pretty enthusiastic about. 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."   - George Bernard Shaw

Garibaldi

Average cadet doesn't pay attention to that. Average cadet hears "hey can I take my picture with you?" and says "sure". Average cadet sees shirt, thinks "hey, nice". Average cadet is used as pawn in a political/social agenda. QED.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

manfredvonrichthofen

I'm no Photoshop whiz or anything by any means, but all I can do is zoom in really close and the pixelation looks off around the lettering. Can anyone blow it up bigger and look at it?

Flying Pig

Quote from: CyBorg on September 14, 2012, 11:09:03 PM
Leave it out about unions, hm?  This isn't the place for it.  I come from a long line of Teamsters/UAW and I don't want to get into it over labour rights.

Fair enough

AngelWings

Here's a few questions...

Can you refuse to take pictures with people in a professional way (non confrontational)? Is there a regulation stating what can and cannot be on the shirt? If there isn't, should CAP members refuse to take pictures with people based on political beliefs or the fact that they are representing CAP so they cannot be in politically fueled pictures?

I think it should be common sense to deny taking pictures with people who are wearing profane or politically charged items.

Extremepredjudice

You can refuse having your photo taken. Just say "Sir/Ma'am, I don't want to be photographed."
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

Eclipse

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on September 15, 2012, 10:43:01 PM
You can refuse having your photo taken. Just say "Sir/Ma'am, I don't want to be photographed."

And if you are in a public place, the person with the camera can go right on taking your photo.

"That Others May Zoom"

Flying Pig

Thats a little different than posing with someone.

Eclipse

Quote from: Flying Pig on September 15, 2012, 11:33:38 PM
Thats a little different than posing with someone.

Agreed, but the final product is the same.

"That Others May Zoom"

Woodsy

Quote from: Eclipse on September 15, 2012, 11:28:00 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on September 15, 2012, 10:43:01 PM
You can refuse having your photo taken. Just say "Sir/Ma'am, I don't want to be photographed."

And if you are in a public place, the person with the camera can go right on taking your photo.

This is NOT true for commercial purposes.  An advertisement/corporate communication such as this (and that is exactly what it is) would require written permission.

This organization needs to get a letter from CAP legal ASAP.  Regardless of CAP's stance (or non-stance) on the issue at hand, this type of thing has the potential to create a negative public opinion of CAP to the vast majority of Americans.  It needs to be removed and retracted. 

Garibaldi

If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

abdsp51

Yup and a potential lawsuit  as well

JK657

Quote from: Garibaldi on September 16, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.

No permission from parents are required to take a photo of someone, even a juvenile in public

abdsp51

Quote from: JK657 on September 16, 2012, 01:00:18 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on September 16, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.

No permission from parents are required to take a photo of someone, even a juvenile in public

True but parental permission is required in many instances and this would definitely be one of them.

JK657

#27
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 01:07:45 AM
Quote from: JK657 on September 16, 2012, 01:00:18 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on September 16, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.

No permission from parents are required to take a photo of someone, even a juvenile in public

True but parental permission is required in many instances and this would definitely be one of them.

Please cite, such as case law or civil/criminal code, etc.

abdsp51

Let's see anything to do with likeness rights, child exploitation and even basic contract law.  An organization does not have the right to utilize a person's likeness whether adult or juvenile without extending compensation. 

manfredvonrichthofen

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 01:44:54 AM
Let's see anything to do with likeness rights, child exploitation and even basic contract law.  An organization does not have the right to utilize a person's likeness whether adult or juvenile without extending compensation.
And that would require parental consent for these guys.

abdsp51

Here in the states it's known as publicity rights a case law cite

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugosi_v._Universal_Pictures
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_citation

Ultimately the organization had the obligation especially a moral one to obtain parental consent if this a non photo shopped photo.

Indiana statute

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title32/ar36/ch1.html

At the end they had the legal and moral obligation to obtain consent.  If either one of those cadets were my child this group would be receiving a cease and desist notice about use of the photo and a lawsuit filed.

JK657

#31
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 01:44:54 AM
Let's see anything to do with likeness rights, child exploitation and even basic contract law.  An organization does not have the right to utilize a person's likeness whether adult or juvenile without extending compensation.

You keep making this assertion without showing any proof. Please cite a civil code or even a case law. My whole point is there are lots of misconceptions in the area. So please back up your comment. I'm happy to admit I am wrong if you are able to locate something.

Here's California's Civil Code (I realize this did not occur in Cali but just for giggles)
Civil Code ยง 3344(d):
(d) For purposes of this section, a use of a name, voice,
signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news,
public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political
campaign, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required
under subdivision (a).

Further more, You're citation of Indiana code goes directly against what you are trying to prove.

abdsp51

#32
Please see above or Google publicity rights.  I have provided you with information on it.

Here is even a blurb citing California Civil Code as well;

California's common law cause of action is complemented legislatively by  Civil Code section 3344.   As the Eastwood court explained, the statute is best understood as "complementing," rather than enacting, the common law cause of action, because the two are not identical.  198 Cal.Rptr. at 346. Section 3344(a) provides in pertinent part:  Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purchases of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person ... injured as a result thereof.

Now ergo since in most states a juvenile cannot legally enter into a contract without parental/guardian consent this is grounds for a lawsuit. 

JK657

Personality Rights are not a federal recognize right. As such they are up for the individual states to set. That being said, Personality rights pertain to the use of photos,etc in a commercial manner NOT in a political area.

Here is the definition of Commerical purpose based on your own cite:

"Commercial purpose" defined
     Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, "commercial purpose" means the use of an aspect of a personality's right of publicity as follows:
        (1) On or in connection with a product, merchandise, goods, services, or commercial activities.
        (2) For advertising or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods, services, or for promoting commercial activities.
        (3) For the purpose of fundraising.

JK657

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 02:06:56 AM
Please see above or Google publicity rights.  I have provided you with information on it.

Here is even a blurb citing California Civil Code as well;

California's common law cause of action is complemented legislatively by  Civil Code section 3344.   As the Eastwood court explained, the statute is best understood as "complementing," rather than enacting, the common law cause of action, because the two are not identical.  198 Cal.Rptr. at 346. Section 3344(a) provides in pertinent part:  Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purchases of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person ... injured as a result thereof.

Now ergo since in most states a juvenile cannot legally enter into a contract without parental/guardian consent this is grounds for a lawsuit.

Please see my earlier comment which cites subdivision D of that section which again says that this does not apply to a political, news or public affairs event

abdsp51

Read the whole thing.  It's recognize that a person's likeness is their property and may not be used without their consent and compensation.  The IN statute and the CA code back what I have been saying and at the end of the day this is flat out wrong the use of minors without parental consent or using deceptive practices.  You above most based off your sig block should know flat out that dealing with juveniles is always a touchy item regardless of the dynamic.

Garibaldi

Quote from: JK657 on September 16, 2012, 01:00:18 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on September 16, 2012, 12:18:45 AM
If it were photoshopped, then there's a case for being duped into someone's political agenda. the photo was posed, which means the cadets in question (one- or two-stripe airmen, from the looks of it) were asked to pose for it with the people in question. what was on the t-shirts at the time, is what I want to know. Obviously, they are not of legal age to sign any sort of release without parental permission. Kick it up the chain.

No permission from parents are required to take a photo of someone, even a juvenile in public

The cadets involved probably didn't know better. More than likely, the parents weren't around as it looks as if the picture was taken at an airshow. They probably know now, and I bet that there are phone calls being made trying to figure out the legality of using the cadets' images for their own agenda.

I'm backing off my original stance because I can't find anything to back me up and all my research has come to a dead end in favor of the photographer(s). As a college-trained journalist who has taken a few media law courses regarding the First Amendment and fair use and such, but never applied it in the real world, I can only speculate that a really sharp lawyer can argue and possibly win a case against that organization for exploitation of a minor or minors with regards to furthering a political agenda. Minors can't legally give assent to having their image used for publication, obviously, and like I said, more than likely the parents were nowhere near the event.

Sadly, all this is really just speculation because we weren't there and don't know the situation, only the result.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

JK657

#37
Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 02:22:11 AM
Read the whole thing.  It's recognize that a person's likeness is their property and may not be used without their consent and compensation.  The IN statute and the CA code back what I have been saying and at the end of the day this is flat out wrong the use of minors without parental consent or using deceptive practices.  You above most based off your sig block should know flat out that dealing with juveniles is always a touchy item regardless of the dynamic.

I see it exactly the opposite way. I believe your cite as well as mine back up my views. Its one of these things where we will have to agree to disagree. The only way to settle this is with Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock...

Eclipse

Quote from: abdsp51 on September 16, 2012, 01:44:54 AM
Let's see anything to do with likeness rights, child exploitation and even basic contract law.  An organization does not have the right to utilize a person's likeness whether adult or juvenile without extending compensation.

So CAP can't publish photos of its members?

Spin again.

The law favors the photographer in these cases.

"That Others May Zoom"

LGM30GMCC

Quote from: Woodsy on September 15, 2012, 11:59:46 PM


This organization needs to get a letter from CAP legal ASAP.  Regardless of CAP's stance (or non-stance) on the issue at hand, this type of thing has the potential to create a negative public opinion of CAP to the vast majority of Americans.  It needs to be removed and retracted.

Um. The vast majority of Americans? I think the fact it was repealed shows that there was support for these folks. And while some in the military may not like that DADT was, in fact, repealed, overall it had little impact on a large number of us.

I went through what was supposed to be about 1-2 hrs of computer based training (ok ok, it took 15 minutes. I read the highlights. 'Can't discriminate on hiring/firing whatever based on sexual orientation. Add it to the race pile. Because of DOMA, the military can't grant recognition to same-sex unions. So noted. Now, back to studying for my tests/evaluations.'

Or do you mean CAP being involved in a political issue at all. Just our existence can upset people and the fact that we had no clear stance one way or the other (which was risky). Technically, unless I missed something (and someone please correct me if I did!) we still don't really. There was a debate about this on Captalk some time ago. Best I can see is for us to follow the military example.

Woodsy

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on September 16, 2012, 03:22:10 PM
Quote from: Woodsy on September 15, 2012, 11:59:46 PM


This organization needs to get a letter from CAP legal ASAP.  Regardless of CAP's stance (or non-stance) on the issue at hand, this type of thing has the potential to create a negative public opinion of CAP to the vast majority of Americans.  It needs to be removed and retracted.

Um. The vast majority of Americans? I think the fact it was repealed shows that there was support for these folks. And while some in the military may not like that DADT was, in fact, repealed, overall it had little impact on a large number of us.

I went through what was supposed to be about 1-2 hrs of computer based training (ok ok, it took 15 minutes. I read the highlights. 'Can't discriminate on hiring/firing whatever based on sexual orientation. Add it to the race pile. Because of DOMA, the military can't grant recognition to same-sex unions. So noted. Now, back to studying for my tests/evaluations.'

Or do you mean CAP being involved in a political issue at all. Just our existence can upset people and the fact that we had no clear stance one way or the other (which was risky). Technically, unless I missed something (and someone please correct me if I did!) we still don't really. There was a debate about this on Captalk some time ago. Best I can see is for us to follow the military example.

CAP welcomes all who are ready and able to serve to our ranks.  CAP should not be involved in any way in the homosexual debate. We're out of it, period.  Which is why these guys should be getting a call from CAP legal saying "don't use our name."   This has nothing to do with DADT.  This has to do with not obtaining proper permissions and exploiting CAP's image and cadets for that organizations gain on a very touch subject which has the potential to cause damage to CAP's image. 

Майор Хаткевич

They didn't use our name. Chances are, the only way to KNOW they are CAP, is to already know about CAP.

Extremepredjudice

#42
Looks to be 'shopped.




Edit: I went and found the original.



Image information:

QuoteFile
File Type   JPEG
MIME Type   image/jpeg
Comment   *
Image Width   800
Image Height   800
Encoding Process   Progressive DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample   8
Color Components   3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling   YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)
JFIF
JFIF Version   1.02
Resolution Unit   None
X Resolution   1
Y Resolution   1
ICC_Profile
Profile CMM Type   lcms
Profile Version   2.1.0
Profile Class   Display Device Profile
Color Space Data   RGB
Profile Connection Space   XYZ
Profile Date Time   2012:01:25 03:41:57
Profile File Signature   acsp
Primary Platform   Apple Computer Inc.
CMM Flags   Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer   
Device Model   
Device Attributes   Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent   Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant   0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator   lcms
Profile ID   0
Profile Description   c2
Profile Copyright   FB
Media White Point   0.9642 1 0.82491
Media Black Point   0.01205 0.0125 0.01031
Red Matrix Column   0.43607 0.22249 0.01392
Green Matrix Column   0.38515 0.71687 0.09708
Blue Matrix Column   0.14307 0.06061 0.7141
Red Tone Reproduction Curve   (Binary data 64 bytes)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve   (Binary data 64 bytes)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve   (Binary data 64 bytes)
Composite
Image Size   800x800

Conclusion: Make/model information is missing. Indicating photoshop. The image was also sharpened using photoshop.
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

Eclipse

You didn't find the "original" unless cameras now take photos with poster text and embedded logos.

Stripped image tags don't mean it was shopped, either - people routinely remove EXIF data for privacy concerns.
Even resizing a photo can strip that information, and a lot of social services do that by default now as well.

One only needs to look at the hair on the women to see this likely wasn't shopped, at least not by someone
without pretty sophisticated skills and more time then something like this would be worth.

Two people with an agenda took a photo with two cadets.  Neither probably had a clue about the other.

It's not illegal, NHQ's not going to C&D the poster, and it wouldn't matter anyway since it's now part of the background noise.

Move on.

"That Others May Zoom"

Extremepredjudice

QuoteYou didn't find the "original" unless cameras now take photos with poster text and embedded logos.
I meant the one from facebook without the cadet's name tapes blacked out.

I can tell you with certainty that it was edited in photoshop. Someone sharpened the image with PS's sharpen tool.

I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

Eclipse

Yes, when they made the "poster"...

"That Others May Zoom"

Garibaldi

Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 16, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
They didn't use our name. Chances are, the only way to KNOW they are CAP, is to already know about CAP.

So, the Civil Air Patrol tapes over the pockets are invisible? NOT.

Someone sees this picture, sees BDUs with Civil Air Patrol on them. They wonder "Hm. I thought the military was wearing those new uniforms. Who are these kids and what is Civil Air Patrol?" They Google it. They tell some of their liberal friends that they saw a cool picture on Facebook and that this Civil Air thingy supports DADT and such. Which is not true, because despite internal politics, we are an apolitical organization and as such cannot publicly state support for political candidates, organizations or causes.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

Ned

Quote from: Eclipse on September 16, 2012, 04:48:46 PM
NHQ's not going to C&D the poster.

Actually, we are.  The letter should go out to SEIU on Monday.

Personally, I think we have an obligation to protect the cadets (as well as the corporation) from unconsented political use.

I would tend to agree that folks at SEIU who created and/or approved the poster simply did not understand that the cadets in the picture were likely middle or high school students who are not in the military.  Given that embarrassing fact, my guess is that they would have taken it down in any event.

Ned Lee

Critical AOA

I am in agreement that we need to protect both the cadets and the organization from any harm. However, I wonder how many on here are more offended by the actual message on the poster rather than the legal aspects of using a person / organizations image without permission.  Would all of you who are up in arms be as strenuous in your objecting if the t-shirts and poster bore a message more to your liking? 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."   - George Bernard Shaw

manfredvonrichthofen

Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on September 16, 2012, 10:51:09 PM
I am in agreement that we need to protect both the cadets and the organization from any harm. However, I wonder how many on here are more offended by the actual message on the poster rather than the legal aspects of using a person / organizations image without permission.  Would all of you who are up in arms be as strenuous in your objecting if the t-shirts and poster bore a message more to your liking?
It doesn't matter the message, advertising using cadets is unacceptable, without consent of CAP, and the cadets parents.

Garibaldi

They could be advertising pink and purple unicorns that poop gold and it wouldn't matter. The point is, the cadets in question may or may not have been duped into furthering a political agenda, and surely the parents and their CC had no knowledge of this beforehand. So, no. Regardless of the message, this was plain and simply wrong.

That's the issue. Not the message.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

Go_Blue

I don't understand the point of the poster being made at all.  For most of us in the Armed Forces, the repeal of DADT has been a complete non-issue.  It's had zero effect on my shop.  I suspect some sort of outside group who doesn't see the day-to-day (non) impact probably still feels they have to prove the repeal's value, and felt this was the appropriate way to do it.

Cadets and CAP staff need to be educated to keep their heads on a swivel in instances such as this.  An air show environment will naturally call for picture requests, but you don't have to honor them.  Plus, obviously political t-shirts should be noted and taken into consideration here.  Having that kind of SA is part of wearing any kind of uniform these days.

Flying Pig

People can always get their picture with if they want to in public. Whether you choose to is different. I highly doubt the average cadet is going to refuse a photo with anyone while working at an airshow. I was at a static display once with our helicopter and some dirtbag retard with a "F--K COPS" tshirt on actuay wanted to pose with me next to the helo. I just laughed but that didnt stop him from posing with the aircraft where his girlfriend took a pictiure of him flipping off the Sheriffs badge on the helicopter.  And Id imagine Im probably in a photo or two in his FB page as well.  Honestly if I was at an airshow and these people wanted to pose with me, Id do it and move on.  If it ever came back around as this photo did, i just say "I posed with 100 people that day. Im not a dress code monitor in junior high".

Garibaldi

Quote from: Flying Pig on September 17, 2012, 04:27:42 PM
People can always get their picture with if they want to in public. Whether you choose to is different. I highly doubt the average cadet is going to refuse a photo with anyone while working at an airshow. I was at a static display once with our helicopter and some dirtbag retard with a "F--K COPS" tshirt on actuay wanted to pose with me next to the helo. I just laughed but that didnt stop him from posing with the aircraft where his girlfriend took a pictiure of him flipping off the Sheriffs badge on the helicopter.  And Id imagine Im probably in a photo or two in his FB page as well.  Honestly if I was at an airshow and these people wanted to pose with me, Id do it and move on.  If it ever came back around as this photo did, i just say "I posed with 100 people that day. Im not a dress code monitor in junior high".

Yeah, but I assume you're over 18 and able to make your own decisions without parental input.
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things