...because you need to take things to the absurd if you want to be a laughing stock:
http://mugshotstulsa.com/charge/no-mandatory-seatbelt-in-use-1
Interesting that 45% of the last 60 booked on that charge were black. Also interesting that the author can't count.
Quote from: patric on July 26, 2011, 11:58:02 PM
...because you need to take things to the absurd if you want to be a laughing stock:
http://mugshotstulsa.com/charge/no-mandatory-seatbelt-in-use-1
You're the laughing stock...You should do a little reasearch.....You have been duped.....Lets see if you can figure it out on yhour own......
Since when does a person get booked into jail for not wearing a seat belt? ::)
Quote from: AngieBrumley on July 27, 2011, 09:46:19 AM
Since when does a person get booked into jail for not wearing a seat belt? ::)
If they've got a 9 year old in the trunk screaming "stranger danger".
Quote from: AngieBrumley on July 27, 2011, 09:46:19 AM
Since when does a person get booked into jail for not wearing a seat belt? ::)
They dont...Dingus up there just went with something.......That might have been what they were pulled over for to begin with or ticketed for along with speeding or expired tags or a plethera of moving violations but they went to jail for Drugs...DUI...Warrants and other jailable offenses.......
i.e..The fine looking lady in the top row far right.......Was booked into jail for the following offenses......http://www.lookwhogotbusted.com/tulsa-ok/brown-karen-elaine
"These are the 75 most recent people booked for No Mandatory Seatbelt In Use"
It's pretty clear that the site is dedicated to showing mugshots of seatbelt violatiors, and even though its likely there were subsequent violations, none seemed to be of interest to the website.
Quote from: patric on July 27, 2011, 02:37:27 PM
"These are the 75 most recent people booked for No Mandatory Seatbelt In Use"
It's pretty clear that the site is dedicated to showing mugshots of seatbelt violatiors, and even though its likely there were subsequent violations, none seemed to be of interest to the website.
More like concurrent violations like DUI, lack of seatbelt use would have been one of the "piling on" charges they do to bolster the penalties.
Quote from: patric on July 27, 2011, 02:37:27 PM
"These are the 75 most recent people booked for No Mandatory Seatbelt In Use"
It's pretty clear that the site is dedicated to showing mugshots of seatbelt violatiors, and even though its likely there were subsequent violations, none seemed to be of interest to the website.
Actually http://mugshotstulsa.com/ shows all mugshots taken in the county. It's part of a series of sites run by a marketing firm out of California. It uses an automated database that pulls the images and cover-sheets from the open records database in each county. Whatever is at the top of that cover-sheet under charges is what ends up being displayed. So, whatever charge the arresting officer lists first, is what you see.
KA Marketing hosts hundreds of these sites targeted at each city. They make their money by selling the ability to have your mugshot removed for $35. The site also makes money through litigation by placing a small clear tracking pixel on each image that can be traced, so if you use an image from their site for publication or aggregation without permission they will sue you.
They also publish printed weekly tabloids in gas stations and convenience stores under names such as XXX's Craziest Mug Shots (with XXX being the city).
Quote from: Gaspar on July 27, 2011, 04:00:37 PM
Actually http://mugshotstulsa.com/ shows all mugshots taken in the county. It's part of a series of sites run by a marketing firm out of California. It uses an automated database that pulls the images and cover-sheets from the open records database in each county. Whatever is at the top of that cover-sheet under charges is what ends up being displayed. So, whatever charge the arresting officer lists first, is what you see.
KA Marketing hosts hundreds of these sites targeted at each city. They make their money by selling the ability to have your mugshot removed for $35. The site also makes money through litigation by placing a small clear tracking pixel on each image that can be traced, so if you use an image from their site for publication or aggregation without permission they will sue you.
They also publish printed weekly tabloids in gas stations and convenience stores under names such as XXX's Craziest Mug Shots (with XXX being the city).
so wait, they sue for using a copy of a mugshot that they do not own the copyright to?
Once an issue is published they copyright the entire contents of the publication. Then they actually can defend the rights to that particular image. At least that is what the World used to assert. That is why The World was so hesitant to enter the digital world of publishing where their work could be easily used by others. I'm not sure if you couldn't download the image from the county and do the same thing.
Seems to me like they are using the same method as mobsters do with protection rackets or extortion. Remember, even printed on the mugshot is the admonition that they are all innocent till proven otherwise by a court of law. However, the court of public opinion is a different matter and they wager that you'll pay to keep your hungover morning face mug off the newstands. Very cynical.
Quote from: AquaMan on July 28, 2011, 07:50:57 AM
Once an issue is published they copyright the entire contents of the publication. Then they actually can defend the rights to that particular image. At least that is what the World used to assert. That is why The World was so hesitant to enter the digital world of publishing where their work could be easily used by others. I'm not sure if you couldn't download the image from the county and do the same thing.
Seems to me like they are using the same method as mobsters do with protection rackets or extortion. Remember, even printed on the mugshot is the admonition that they are all innocent till proven otherwise by a court of law. However, the court of public opinion is a different matter and they wager that you'll pay to keep your hungover morning face mug off the newstands. Very cynical.
I dont think any of us could get away with changing one pixel on someone elses' photography and then claim the rights to it. I see a class-action suit on the horizon.
Sorry folks its a matter of public record.....
Quote from: patric on July 28, 2011, 10:19:44 AM
I dont think any of us could get away with changing one pixel on someone elses' photography and then claim the rights to it. I see a class-action suit on the horizon.
I don't understand your pixel comment. They claim rights to the photos by publishing them in a tabloid and then copyrighting the entire contents of that tabloid. Technically that particular image belongs to them. One pixel or all of them, if it came from their site or tabloid its covered. Newspapers have been defending those copyrights for a long time.
If you went to the county site and downloaded one of the images, you too could publish it in a newspaper, (apparently without permission of the county or the accused) place a copyright on it and defend your right to its use FROM that publication. They simply found a way to digitally mark the photo to make it easier to sue.
Wouldn't you sue if your neighbor peeked into your garage and observed your patented process for low consumption lighting, then changed its color and made it his own?
Anyway, I wouldn't want to be a part of any class action where the law seems to already be established.
They definitely selectively choose which charge goes on the page since they only list one charge. I found a mug on one person for operating a vehicle with defective brakes. I would assume there was a collision involved and some other drug or alcohol charges, just like driving without insurance verification. They won't arrest someone on a charge like that alone. There's others who were arrested for "no tax stamp". You can be assured that was a drug bust. Lots of public intox as well.
Quote from: Breadburner on July 28, 2011, 10:31:36 AM
Sorry folks its a matter of public record.....
It is. But the use of the photo in this manner leaves the impression they were busted solely for seat belt violations. It really is misleading. In my opinion, using these photos in this manner is inconsistent with the purpose of taking mug shots. Seriously, if I knew that having my mug shot taken would result in me getting shaken down, I would do all I could do to resist.
Quote from: guido911 on July 28, 2011, 05:04:50 PM
It is. But the use of the photo in this manner leaves the impression they were busted solely for seat belt violations. It really is misleading. In my opinion, using these photos in this manner is inconsistent with the purpose of taking mug shots. Seriously, if I knew that having my mug shot taken would result in me getting shaken down, I would do all I could do to resist.
I know...Read my original post..... I was just stating that they can re-post the photos......
Quote from: Breadburner on July 28, 2011, 05:28:31 PM
I know...Read my original post..... I was just stating that they can re-post the photos......
I got your point. My problem is, and I agree with waterboy's point, that it's just sh!tty that there are dooshy profiteers out there.
Quote from: guido911 on July 28, 2011, 08:48:25 PM
I got your point. My problem is, and I agree with waterboy's point, that it's just sh!tty that there are dooshy profiteers out there.
I agree with that as well..But the Op's orignal title was a feeble attempt to knock TPD again....Until he was peter slapped with the facts....
Quote from: Breadburner on July 28, 2011, 10:25:32 PM
I agree with that as well..But the Op's orignal title was a feeble attempt to knock TPD again....Until he was peter slapped with the facts....
That's just juvenile. You're upset because you are reading more into it than is there, and not liking what your imagination came up with.
Quote from: patric on July 28, 2011, 11:20:59 PM
That's just juvenile. You're upset because you are reading more into it than is there, and not liking what your imagination came up with.
Why did you change the title...?
Quote from: Breadburner on July 29, 2011, 12:39:22 AM
Why did you change the title...?
What was the original title?
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2011, 12:51:52 PM
What was the original title?
People Jailed for seatbelt offenses ...Or something to that effect.....
No one actually pulls these records and decides what charge to file them under. It's automated. The system just sees the first charge in a list of charges entered into the police/sheriff/HP database. The charges are usually sorted by what is called a "key field". This key field is a hidden field generated when the charges are entered and it is sequential, not related to the severity of the charge.
Basically the way charges are entered nowadays, is by looking up the numbers, or checking boxes (on some newer systems). So the charges show up in the order that the officer, clerk, or clerical person enters them into the computer, not by the most severe offence.
This company simply uses aggregation software that pulls the first charge, mugshot, and a few other fields to build the display on the website. It's automated.
Basically, honey badger don't give a smile!