OT - Hedo doesnt like his picture taken

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Class act Mr. Turkoglu!

http://news.therecord.com/Sports/article/656716

Clubber’s photos of Raptors player deleted

January 14, 2010
BY NOOR JAVED
The truth was out there, but it’s all been deleted.

It took less than a minute to delete all photos that would have told the story of what actually took place when clubgoer Jazmine Singh’s photo-taking collided with the ego of Toronto Raptors forward Hedo Turkoglu at a popular night club in Yorkville early Thursday morning.

Singh, who said she was taking pictures of her friend Meghan Kesivic at the bar in Lobby Night Club around 1 a.m., was stunned when a “giant 7-foot man” turned out and grabbed the phone from her hand and deleted all her photos.

It wasn’t until they asked the club’s security to help, that they were told the big guy was a basketball player with the Raptors — and — in not so many words — that he could get away with it.

“He just ripped the phone out of my hand — I thought he was trying to steal it,” said Singh, still incredulous a day later. “I had no idea who he was. I didn’t care who he was. No one has the right to do that,” she said.

Turkoglu was on the defensive that night.

The Turkish import told the Star Thursday he was at the bar “trying to chill” with friends, when he saw a flash go off. He said that’s when he asked a security guard to grab the phone and delete the pictures.

“I don’t like people taking my picture, especially in the club, before asking. She did. I said ‘Did you ask me?’ She said no. I said, ‘I want you to delete it’,” Turkoglu told the Star’s Dave Feschuk following Thursday’s practice at the Air Canada Centre.

“There was a guy with me, a security guy, he deleted it,” said Turkoglu.

Singh says he never even tried to speak with her. She says she would have willingly deleted any photos he was mistakenly in, if Turkoglu had simply asked instead of “reaching out his long arm and simply grabbing the phone right out of my hands.

“I think he just saw a flash and freaked out,’ she said.

Kesivic said Turkoglu’s story doesn’t add up, since she’s not a basketball fan and didn’t even know who he was. “He could have knocked on my door and tried to sell me something, I would have had no idea who he was.”

It was only when they went home, and searched online, that they confirmed it was Turkoglu.

Last summer the Raptors signed Turkoglu to a five-year, $52 million contract to lure him away from the Orlando Magic. Despite the initial excitement when he joined, he has struggled to perform on court.

Canadian privacy laws allow anyone to take photos of anyone in a public place, regardless of what they’re doing, and publish them.

But taking photos in a private venue, such as a club, requires advance permission from those in charge, but neither is it illegal to just go ahead and shoot.

But the case of private photos being deleted from a camera phone, it is a little more vague; Toronto police say it is unlikely any charges would be laid for such an incident, since no one was hurt and nothing tangible was stolen.

But Singh and Kesivic say don’t plan to take any further action against Turkoglu, other than taking their experience with him public.

“It was very demeaning to us,” said Kesivic, as she recalled how Turkoglu’s friends laughed at them after he eventually returned the phone.

“I know how these things work: he is a regular, he comes in there and can drop so much more money than we can,” she said. “They think they can do whatever, and get away with it.”

Management at Lobby nightclub said they had no comment on the incident.

The incident comes at a time, when more and more professional athletes are dealing with the ups and downs with real-time stardom: Blogs like drunkathlete.com and deadspin.com that are willing to post the most scandalous of photos; passionate fans crashing locker rooms to snatch cellphone pictures; and bitter ex-girlfriends willing to sell personal and often compromising photographs to the highest bidder.

The perils of the cellphone paparazzi has made many athletes overly cautious of even the most innocuous of photo requests.

But if the women were hoping for at least an apology from the athlete, they might have to give up waiting. He likely won’t be saying sorry anytime soon.

“I don’t hide this kind of stuff. If somebody else (takes a picture without asking) I’m going to do the same thing again,” Turkoglu said.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I hope Mike Tyson is the next person who goes in there and takes a photo of him...

 

[hasoos]

That is going to cost him a lot of money. I wouldn't be surprised if the bodyguard doesn't serve some time in the Pokey when it is all said and done too.

 

[maxiep]

I wonder if the picture showed him with a woman other than his wife? What a gosh darn shame Hedo didn't sign with us.

 

[THE HCP]

Just for that, I'm gonna take a pic of him every time i see him when they come here!

 

[hasoos]

Just for that, I'm gonna take a pic of him every time i see him when they come here!

Yea me too. I need the cash.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Looks like this was already posted in the OT forum. Sorry.

http://sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152959

 

[Boob-No-More]

That is going to cost him a lot of money. I wouldn't be surprised if the bodyguard doesn't serve some time in the Pokey when it is all said and done too.

Why? No law was broken. It was a private club. They can make their own rules. If you don't like their rules, get off their property.

I'm not saying what Hedo and his paid goon did was right, but it wasn't illegal. So, it's not going to cost him any money or get his bodyguard arrested.

BNM

 

[hasoos]

Why? No law was broken. It was a private club. They can make their own rules. If you don't like their rules, get off their property.

I'm not saying what Hedo and his paid goon did was right, but it wasn't illegal. So, it's not going to cost him any money or get his bodyguard arrested.

BNM

You can't destroy somebody else's property without their permission. That includes data, which is the pictures on the phone.

 

[maxiep]

Why? No law was broken. It was a private club. They can make their own rules. If you don't like their rules, get off their property.

I'm not saying what Hedo and his paid goon did was right, but it wasn't illegal. So, it's not going to cost him any money or get his bodyguard arrested.

BNM

Don't you think he could have asked to delete the photos first? That would be my issue.

 

[Ed O]

You can't destroy somebody else's property without their permission. That includes data, which is the pictures on the phone.

It's not necessarily illegal, though. It might be a civil violation, but it's so minor there's no way to show damages.

There's no way in hell anyone's going to jail for this.

Ed O.

 

[hasoos]

It's not necessarily illegal, though. It might be a civil violation, but it's so minor there's no way to show damages.

There's no way in hell anyone's going to jail for this.

Ed O.

Your just not thinking clearly Ed O. There are clear laws about maliciously destroying data. Just because it is a phone, doesn't mean it isn't a computer. Just because he grabbed it physically, does not make him any different than a hacker who destroys data. Just because he took the phone for only a few moments without their permission, does not mean he didnt' steal it. That would be just like somebody stealing a wallet from somebody, and coming back later and giving it back, and then asking for them not to press charges. The time period has nothing to do with the act. All of those things are illegal. Destruction of sombody else's data is illegal.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what he did wrong here? Sure it might have been a little bit rude, but I wouldn't my pic being taken in a night club either.

 

[Ed O]

Your just not thinking clearly Ed O. There are clear laws about maliciously destroying data. Just because it is a phone, doesn't mean it isn't a computer. Just because he grabbed it physically, does not make him any different than a hacker who destroys data. Just because he took the phone for only a few moments without their permission, does not mean he didnt' steal it. That would be just like somebody stealing a wallet from somebody, and coming back later and giving it back, and then asking for them not to press charges. The time period has nothing to do with the act. All of those things are illegal. Destruction of sombody else's data is illegal.

What law are you citing? I ask sincerely. I don't know what "data destruction" criminal law is on the books.

And why on earth would any city or government ever waste one moment of its time or one dollar of its budget on a few photos that were seconds old and of no value?

I'm thinking 100% clearly. I don't know what world you're living in if you think someone's going to jail over this.

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

You can't destroy somebody else's property without their permission. That includes data, which is the pictures on the phone.

You also can't take someone's picture on private property without their permission. The club was private property. If she would have taken his photo in a public setting, she would have a legitimate complaint. The club where the photo was taken has a no photos policy. By taking the photo she violated that policy. She has no case here - legal or civil.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Don't you think he could have asked to delete the photos first? That would be my issue.

That would have been common courtesy, but there is no law that says you have to be courteous. Being a jerkwad it perfectly legal. Not nice, but legal.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Your just not thinking clearly Ed O. There are clear laws about maliciously destroying data. Just because it is a phone, doesn't mean it isn't a computer. Just because he grabbed it physically, does not make him any different than a hacker who destroys data. Just because he took the phone for only a few moments without their permission, does not mean he didnt' steal it. That would be just like somebody stealing a wallet from somebody, and coming back later and giving it back, and then asking for them not to press charges. The time period has nothing to do with the act. All of those things are illegal. Destruction of sombody else's data is illegal.

Well, the photographer stole his likeness without his permission on private property - clearly violating his right to privacy. She obtained the photos illegally. She has no right to complain that he "took them back".

Seriously, there are privacy laws that prevent people from trespassing on your property and photographing you without your permission (or knowledge) through your blinds. Both parties in this dispute were clearly on private property. She had no right to photograph him in the first place.

BNM

 

[Paxil]

Even *if* they were taking a picture of him (which it didn't even sound like from what I read) regardless of whether that act was wrong... that doesn give you the right to confiscate someones private property. Remember the guy in Hillsboro who accosted the KATU cameraman?

http://www.katu.com/news/local/64320707.html

If someone jay walks you don't have the right to hit them. I am sure he wound up in court. Anyway... nothing will happen to anyone I am sure... but it sounds like Hedo is doodoo.

 

[Shooter]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see what he did wrong here? Sure it might have been a little bit rude, but I wouldn't my pic being taken in a night club either.

Nobody is saying he didn't have a right to be upset about his photo being taken. The point is, he took someone else's personal property (their camera) and destroyed information in it. That's a crime.

 

[Shooter]

By taking the photo she violated that policy. She has no case here - legal or civil.

Two wrongs do not make a right. She may have broken a law by taking the picture, but he broke a law by taking her camera and destroying data in it.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Two wrongs do not make a right. She may have broken a law by taking the picture, but he broke a law by taking her camera and destroying data in it.

Which law is that? Seriously, how is this different from the property owner confiscating someone's film at a concert, or other performance occurring on private property where they are photographing without permission. In the old days, they would simply pull the film out of the camera and expose it to light to "erase" the illegally obtained images.

BNM

 

[the ob]

the bottom line is that he just sounds like a dick..... who does not like his picture taken.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Even *if* they were taking a picture of him (which it didn't even sound like from what I read) regardless of whether that act was wrong... that doesn give you the right to confiscate someones private property. Remember the guy in Hillsboro who accosted the KATU cameraman?

http://www.katu.com/news/local/64320707.html

Wow, not even close. For starters the cameraman was on public property and perfectly within his legal rights:

"The video was to be used in promotional videos for the Storm Tracker Weather Team and was shot legally from a public sidewalk."

Second, the case involved a physical assault.

"Fournier was arrested for assault, malicious mischief and impersonating an officer. Our photographer ended up with bruised ribs and a cut up hand."

Third, there was destruction of physical property worth several thousand dollars.

"I held onto it, he wrestled me to the ground and he's ripping off the viewfinder. He rips it off, and these used to be connected, and he turns around and spikes it as if it's a football. On cement."

Fourth, the attacker was impersonating a police officer.

see above...

Fifth, he has a prior history of such actions.

"Police records show Fournier was excluded from Laurelhurst Park in February after using a stun gun on a juvenile in the park. The records also show he was wearing his security uniform at the time and admitted to police "there was a question as to whether I had exceeded my authority by approaching the suspects in a public park, which they indicated was not in my jurisdiction."

No shit, Paul Blart.

Other than those few minor differences, I agree the two incidents are eerily similar.

BNM

 

[Nikolokolus]

Nobody is saying he didn't have a right to be upset about his photo being taken. The point is, he took someone else's personal property (their camera) and destroyed information in it. That's a crime.

Eh? Crime? He didn't destroy her phone, he didn't "steal" information from her, he didn't even steal her phone (he handled it and gave it back), he removed pictures of himself that were taken without his permission on private property that had a policy against pictures being taken of people without their consent.

Like I said, what he did was a little rude maybe, but a crime? Get out of here.

 

[MARIS61]

That is going to cost him a lot of money. I wouldn't be surprised if the bodyguard doesn't serve some time in the Pokey when it is all said and done too.

"Forget it, hasoos, it's Canada."

 

[MARIS61]

Eh? Crime? He didn't destroy her phone, he didn't "steal" information from her, he didn't even steal her phone (he handled it and gave it back), he removed pictures of himself that were taken without his permission on private property that had a policy against pictures being taken of people without their consent.

Like I said, what he did was a little rude maybe, but a crime? Get out of here.

It's Canada, so maybe he gets away with what in America would be considered by most police agencies assault, theft by force, and intimidation of a witness.

Told you last summer he was an overpaid has-been on the court, didn't know what he was a completely worthless piece of shit off the court.

Sad that KP and Nate actually fawned all over him.

 

[jlprk]

I just read the first 3-4 posts, but you guys are arguing American law, and this is Canada. The article clearly says that nothing will happen unless there is a lawsuit.

Somewhere on this board in the last week, someone said he saw a Blazer in a restaurant, asked whether he could take his picture, was told no, and so he didn't.

Trying to sign Hedo, and being stopped only by random luck, is a giant black mark on Pritchard's record.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Eh? Crime? He didn't destroy her phone, he didn't "steal" information from her, he didn't even steal her phone (he handled it and gave it back), he removed pictures of himself that were taken without his permission on private property that had a policy against pictures being taken of people without their consent.

Like I said, what he did was a little rude maybe, but a crime? Get out of here.

I'm not familiar with Canadian law, but in Oregon, he is correct.

If you walk up to someone and grab their phone/camera/whatever out of their hand, you can be charged with harrasment or misdemeanor assault. Even if they took your picture illegally, you can't make physical contact.

Furthermore, even if you give it back a minute later, you are still guilty of theft.

Now, whether the prosecutor *will* pursue charges is a different matter....but under the letter of the law, they *could*.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I just read the first 3-4 posts, but you guys are arguing American law, and this is Canada. The article clearly says that nothing will happen unless there is a lawsuit.

Somewhere on this board in the last week, someone said he saw a Blazer in a restaurant, asked whether he could take his picture, was told no, and so he didn't.

Trying to sign Hedo, and being stopped only by random luck, is a giant black mark on Pritchard's record.

But...but...but...he would have been a better FIT than Miller!

 

[BasX]