You can't even take pictures at a public city beach anymore?

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


Why didn't you offer to let them look at the pictures and
judge for themselves?


Because his pictures are none of their business. He doesn't have to
prove he didn't take pictures. And even if he did take pictures ...
it's perfectly legal.


Or maybe you didn't want to do that for cause?


"If you're not with us, you're against us."


His pictures of THEM are their business, if they didn't want them taken.
More likely they thought he was spending more time taking pictures in
their direction than was reasonable (their definition), and felt
invaded. Imagine how celebrities feel about such things, and then apply
that to ordinary people, who also probably were somewhat judgement
impaired at the time.
He is lucky nothing violent happened. I would have offered to let them
see the pictures, and delete any they didn't feel were appropriate.
Most people don't realize that deleted pictures can be recovered if no
more at taken after the deletion....

That would be nice of you.
But there is no law requiring one to be "nice."
I'm all for being nice, and reasonable, but let's not confuse that with what
is legally appropriate.
When visiting public places, you have no right to force others to shoot
around you, and you definintely do not have a right to demand anything when
they take any picture which inclucdes you unless it is a public bathroom or
dressing room, etc. where privacy is assumed.
There is no legal assmption of privacy in open, public places.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Matt Ion wrote:

JohnCM wrote:

"look me in the eye, I know what you're doing, taking pictures of
girls on the beach undressing". I then said "so what, it's a public
beach and I have every right to take pictures". He continues to
verbally assault me, and threaten to call the cops.


See right there, I woulda told him to go ahead, call the cops... that's
enough to shut up most of these loudmouths. Cops showing up is the LAST
thing they really want.

I would have whipped out the cell phone and called them FOR him.

I did something similar to that, though it wasn't photography related.
It's funny how quickly people shrivel when their bluff is called.

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:Y8iYc.110734$Lj.36076@fed1read03...
There has never been a denial that Bush said, "I am a zombie from the
planet
Zig-Zag" either, but that doesn't mean, imply or prove that he said it, or
that he is a zombie.
I'd suggest you read Woodward's book, and perhaps you'll see that your
favorite little "source" is full of crap.

If George Bush had actually said that, and had Woodward actually quoted
him
as saying that, it would be on literally thousands of legitimate
web-pages,
and discussed to death on the web, as well as every single media outlet on
planet Earth.
There is ZIP.
NOTHING.
Does this tell you anything, or do I have to spell it out for you further?

Thank you, Mr. Mark, for pointing out this obvious thing that people take
things on the internet literally and with total confidence that it is true.
There is so much crap on the internet, and I wonder all the time why people
put such faith in it. Most things deserve scrutiny, and people just don't
do it.

Clyde Torres

writes:

Legally he can defend her maybe by asking politely not to take
pictures of her.

Defend her against what?

Wrong -- someone needs to think of who's at the top, setting
the tone that says anyone doing anything that some psychotic might
consider "strange and maybe even dangerous" should be labeled a
potential terrorist.

What happens if that same logic is _applied_ to the top?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ron Hunter writes:

That would depend on what he took, and how. No, he didn't HAVE to show
them anything, but it might have defused the situation. Or not.

Defusing a situation by throwing away one's rights is a bad long-term
strategy.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:16:54 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Defusing a situation by throwing away one's rights is a bad long-term
strategy.

It's not throwing away your rights, it is putting them aside for a
moment in the interest of peaceful settlement of an argument. It is a
choice, not a requirement.

Personally, that's what I would have done. I would not HAVE to show
him the pictures I was taking, but it is usually better than a fight.
Sometimes we have to try to be nice to people, and give them a chance
to see that they were wrong.

Let me tell you something I've learned over many years of being in
business. Instead of proving someone is wrong, or proving or
convincing them of a point of view, it is SO MUCH more effective to
help them see for themselves! When a person reaches a conclusion in
his/her own mind, he/she will more easily and happily welcome that
conclusion, since they realized it on their own, instead of having it
shoved down their throat.

So was he required to show him the pictures? Of course not. However,
in the interest of diplomacy, sometimes it is a good idea to take the
more peacful approach.

However, if the offender gets violent, the gloves come off.


---Atreju---

Atreju writes:

It's not throwing away your rights, it is putting them aside for a
moment in the interest of peaceful settlement of an argument.

Same thing. How many times will you "put them aside" before you lose
them? What good are they if you just put them aside as soon as someone
yells at you?

Personally, that's what I would have done. I would not HAVE to show
him the pictures I was taking, but it is usually better than a fight.

What makes you think a fight would otherwise result?

Sometimes we have to try to be nice to people, and give them a chance
to see that they were wrong.

When?

Let me tell you something I've learned over many years of being in
business. Instead of proving someone is wrong, or proving or
convincing them of a point of view, it is SO MUCH more effective to
help them see for themselves!

I agree. So let the guy call the cops. That would be a very good
educational experience for him.

So was he required to show him the pictures? Of course not. However,
in the interest of diplomacy, sometimes it is a good idea to take the
more peacful approach.

So if someone tells you to get to the back of the bus, it's best to do
so in the interest of diplomacy?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:11:50 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Atreju writes:

It's not throwing away your rights, it is putting them aside for a
moment in the interest of peaceful settlement of an argument.

Same thing. How many times will you "put them aside" before you lose
them? What good are they if you just put them aside as soon as someone
yells at you?

Personally, that's what I would have done. I would not HAVE to show
him the pictures I was taking, but it is usually better than a fight.

What makes you think a fight would otherwise result?

Sometimes we have to try to be nice to people, and give them a chance
to see that they were wrong.

When?

Let me tell you something I've learned over many years of being in
business. Instead of proving someone is wrong, or proving or
convincing them of a point of view, it is SO MUCH more effective to
help them see for themselves!

I agree. So let the guy call the cops. That would be a very good
educational experience for him.

As pointed out, he didn't have a phone himself and onlookers
offered no help.


So was he required to show him the pictures? Of course not. However,
in the interest of diplomacy, sometimes it is a good idea to take the
more peacful approach.

So if someone tells you to get to the back of the bus, it's best to do
so in the interest of diplomacy?

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 13:59:42 GMT, Atreju
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:16:54 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Defusing a situation by throwing away one's rights is a bad long-term
strategy.

It's not throwing away your rights, it is putting them aside for a
moment in the interest of peaceful settlement of an argument. It is a
choice, not a requirement.

Thrown or set -- you'll not get them back. You have granted
victory to the yhugs and affirmed their behavior.

Personally, that's what I would have done. I would not HAVE to show
him the pictures I was taking, but it is usually better than a fight.
Sometimes we have to try to be nice to people, and give them a chance
to see that they were wrong.

As I said before -- what happens when I demand to review your
wallet contents to make sure you don't belong to any organization I
don't approve of. What happens when I tell your GF to strip so I can
mahe sure she isn't packin? "Oh, sorry, ma'am -- I thought those might
have been a couiple of 38s."

Let me tell you something I've learned over many years of being in
business. Instead of proving someone is wrong, or proving or
convincing them of a point of view, it is SO MUCH more effective to
help them see for themselves! When a person reaches a conclusion in
his/her own mind, he/she will more easily and happily welcome that
conclusion, since they realized it on their own, instead of having it
shoved down their throat.

So was he required to show him the pictures? Of course not. However,
in the interest of diplomacy, sometimes it is a good idea to take the
more peacful approach.

... and the la-a-a-nd of the shee-ee-p and the home ....
However, if the offender gets violent, the gloves come off.


---Atreju---

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:


That would depend on what he took, and how. No, he didn't HAVE to show
them anything, but it might have defused the situation. Or not.


Defusing a situation by throwing away one's rights is a bad long-term
strategy.

Nonsense. We limit our rights in certain situations all the time. You
want to fly? Visit the courthouse? Visit a military base?