2aHawaii
General Topics => Off Topic => Topic started by: PeaShooter on June 30, 2015, 02:50:05 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/30/tom-brower-beaten-hawaii_n_7698086.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/30/tom-brower-beaten-hawaii_n_7698086.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
He wasn't beaten up for smashing carts. He stopped doing that in 2013.
He was beat up and robbed for his camera, which he used to take pics and video of the homeless camps at Kakaako.
The way the headline is written, it confuses Brower's cart-smashing as the reason for being beaten.
-
You go into an area where people are destitute to photograph them.
+10 for lack of intelligence. :crazy:
Wasn't right but he put himself in the situation.
-
You go into an area where people are destitute to photograph them.
+10 for lack of intelligence. :crazy:
Wasn't right but he put himself in the situation.
Guess he should have brought his Automatic Sledge-o-matic this trip! Nobody bothered him when he carried that!
(http://i.imgur.com/pwJuiot.jpg)
-
You go into an area where people are destitute to photograph them.
+10 for lack of intelligence. :crazy:
Wasn't right but he put himself in the situation.
I don't agree with this ideal. In an ideal world, people should be able to go to any public place with anything without fear, and that's something society should strive for through better policing, prisons, reforms, CCW, etc. If the public keeps making the excuse there were criminals in the area and he shouldn't have been there, then it's a step backward for the ideal goal.
Basically this means there are problems out there that need pressure to get fixed.
-
I don't agree with this ideal. In an ideal world, people should be able to go to any public place with anything without fear, and that's something society should strive for through better policing, prisons, reforms, CCW, etc. If the public keeps making the excuse there were criminals in the area and he shouldn't have been there, then it's a step backward for the ideal goal.
Basically this means there are problems out there that need pressure to get fixed.
Yes, in an "IDEAL WORLD" that would be true, but were not there (yet?).
Was no excuse for the perps behaviour, just a bad decision on his part. :wacko:
If they say don't go surfing in the brown water after a heavy rain and you still go and get wacked by a shark, is that a step backward for the ideal goal of surfing when and where you wish ?
Any self protection protocol worth it's weight tells you the first part of self defense is to not put yourself in a dangerous situation. :closed:
NOTE:
Perps admit to the assault ON TV and have not been arrested ? :crazy:
But then again, I did not see the "victim" prosecuted for criminal property damage when he smashed some stores grocery cart with a sledge hammer.
-
I hear what all you guys are saying. I just look at this in a different way -- I don't think it was nice to be filming them against their will. In some other countries, that is a crime. So what we have here is sort of like two crimes cancelling each other out.
If some stranger came into my house filming me, and I punched him out, clearly I would be within my rights. The only unfortunate thing here is that one party is homeless, so it kind of sucks for them that american law may not adequately protect their privacy.
-
Wasn't right but he put himself in the situation.
Don't blame the victim.
If they say don't go surfing in the brown water after a heavy rain and you still go and get wacked by a shark, is that a step backward for the ideal goal of surfing when and where you wish ?
Because sharks are animals without the ability to reason. So are you saying homeless people have no more self-control than animals?
I hear what all you guys are saying. I just look at this in a different way -- I don't think it was nice to be filming them against their will. In some other countries, that is a crime. So what we have here is sort of like two crimes cancelling each other out.
If some stranger came into my house filming me, and I punched him out, clearly I would be within my rights. The only unfortunate thing here is that one party is homeless, so it kind of sucks for them that american law may not adequately protect their privacy.
Nope and nope. Photographing a person in a public place is not a crime; if you're in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if I'm standing somewhere I have a legal right to be, I can legally photograph anything I can see. Also, I don't think you have any legal standing to punch someone for photographing you, wherever they are. You can order them to leave your property, and if they refuse, I believe you can use reasonable and proportional force to eject them.
As long as we're willing to accept behavior that should be unacceptable (assaulting someone for doing something they have a legal right to do), we legitimatize that behavior.
-
As long as we're willing to accept behavior that should be unacceptable (assaulting someone for doing something they have a legal right to do), we legitimatize that behavior.
I agree with every one of your points. The problem, however, is multifaceted.
The comment I quoted is true. But, think about homeless people who are treated quite often as criminals by the city, in particular law enforcement. They may actually be breaking laws by camping in certain spots, using public facilities reserved for park visitors, doing drugs, and so on. They would want to stay off the Cops' radar as much as possible.
Brower said on the News tonight he did not take any video or pictures of any persons, nor did he take pictures inside any of the tent dwellings. The kids who stole his camera erased any pictures he took, so we really have to take him at his word without any proof to the contrary.
My question to you would be, if someone is invading their privacy, do you think the homeless have any intention of calling the Cops? I think the kids did what they have been taught. You don't like what you see someone doing, you get one or more friends to back you up, and you teach them a lesson.
While I don't agree Brower is to blame, I do think he should have not tried it alone while "taking a walk." I hope he at least learned that lesson!
-
In my previous post I said that filming people against their will (even in public places) is a crime in some foreign countries and that american law, unfortunately, does not adequately protect the rights of homeless people due to the fact that they live on public land. While I don't necessarily disagree with his statements, I am unimpressed by Sodie's attitude. It should not be taken for granted that what the politician did was legal and beyond reproach. Sure, it is currently legal in america, but remember that laws change. We all should know that, considering that most of us are pushing for CCW reform.
If the politician never took any pictures of actual persons though, then I would be much more inclined to fully side with him.
-
In my previous post I said that filming people against their will (even in public places) is a crime in some foreign countries and that american law, unfortunately, does not adequately protect the rights of homeless people due to the fact that they live on public land. While I don't necessarily disagree with his statements, I am unimpressed by Sodie's attitude. It should not be taken for granted that what the politician did was legal and beyond reproach. Sure, it is currently legal in america, but remember that laws change. We all should know that, considering that most of us are pushing for CCW reform.
If the politician never took any pictures of actual persons though, then I would be much more inclined to fully side with him.
That's his story. Nobody has come forward to say otherwise, and the evidence was destroyed that could have backed-up or disproven his story.
It's more likely the video and pictures did not show he was invading anyone's privacy, since they deleted everything. They would have kept the evidence if it could be used to justify their attack, assuming they took the time to think before hitting delete!
-
That's his story. Nobody has come forward to say otherwise, and the evidence was destroyed that could have backed-up or disproven his story.
It's more likely the video and pictures did not show he was invading anyone's privacy, since they deleted everything. They would have kept the evidence if it could be used to justify their attack, assuming they took the time to think before hitting delete!
the pictures are retrievable if they were only deleted via the camera controls
-
the pictures are retrievable if they were only deleted via the camera controls
Good point. It would be funny to have him announce that the pictures were recovered! Next time, the punks won't give the camera back! :rofl:
-
I am unimpressed by Sodie's attitude. It should not be taken for granted that what the politician did was legal and beyond reproach. Sure, it is currently legal in america, but remember that laws change. We all should know that, considering that most of us are pushing for CCW reform.
"It should not be taken for granted that what the politician did was legal and beyond reproach" = "We shouldn't consider him innocent just because there's no evidence that he committed a crime."
"Legal" and "beyond reproach" are two very different things. Yes, I think he certainly put himself at higher risk of having a potentially violent confrontation by going there with his camera. He accepted that risk for himself, and as far as we know, did nothing illegal, and got assaulted for it. It's pretty clear to me who's at fault, and I hope he presses charges.
Bottom line: if you're in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and you generally can't legally stop someone from photographing you.
Saw one of the kids on the news... "He shoulda told us he was a State Representative." :wtf:
-
Don't blame the victim.
Didn't blame, just said bad decision, :crazy: same as surfing brown water (Or trying to steal a firearm by gunpoint at a 2a shoot) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Because sharks are animals without the ability to reason.
That's just stupid.
Sharks have been shown to prove reasoning. :geekdanc:
So are you saying homeless people have no more self-control than animals?
By which thought process do you come up with this kind of response ? ???
-
Because sharks are animals without the ability to reason.
That's just stupid.
Sharks have been shown to prove reasoning. :geekdanc:
So are you saying homeless people have no more self-control than animals?
By which thought process do you come up with this kind of response ? ???
You're right. I should have said "So you are saying that homeless people, like animals, lack a moral foundation that would indicate to them that harming people for no better reason than that they are hungry/annoyed is wrong?
Bottom line is that if I choose not to go surfing in murky water, it's because I know I can't count on a shark to not attack me because it feels restrained by any kind of a moral code. I SHOULD be able to count on other people in my city to not attack me because they feel restrained by a moral code.
-
You're right. I should have said "So you are saying that homeless people, like animals, lack a moral foundation that would indicate to them that harming people for no better reason than that they are hungry/annoyed is wrong?
Bottom line is that if I choose not to go surfing in murky water, it's because I know I can't count on a shark to not attack me because it feels restrained by any kind of a moral code. I SHOULD be able to count on other people in my city to not attack me because they feel restrained by a moral code.
That makes more sense.
Unfortunately, we do not live in the "Perfect World" previously mentioned and there are those out there >:D who actually lack the morals which most of us have.
That being said, most of us on this board realize that those type of individuals exist in our imperfect world (even places in our city :shake:) and try to avoid placing ourselves in those types of situations. :geekdanc:
If such situations are "thrust upon us" we have hopefully practiced and trainedenough for our selves and loved ones and to be able walk away. :worship:
-
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
-
That being said, most of us on this board realize that those type of individuals exist in our imperfect world (even places in our city :shake:) and try to avoid placing ourselves in those types of situations. :geekdanc:
Absolutely true. There are places I choose not to "hang out." And I'm sure Rep Brower knows this, too. And I bet he knew where he was going, and the risks that were involved... None of which excuses the unacceptable behavior on the part of the kids that assaulted him; that's all I'm saying. I think he believes he was trying to do something to help correct the situation, and I commend him for that... instead of condemning him for making a "stupid" decision.
I think a large percentage of the homeless population suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems, or both... Let's say for a moment that these kids aren't part of that population, but instead they're part of a normal family that just can't get it together enough to find permanent housing. Maybe part of the reason they can't get it together is because they're the kind of people who think it's OK to physically attack someone just for taking pictures?
-
OK DOG. THIS ONES FOR YOU YOU GROUPIE.
Don't blame the victim.
yet
There are places I choose not to "hang out." And I'm sure Rep Brower knows this, too. And I bet he knew where he was going, and the risks that were involved...
and
Yes, I think he certainly put himself at higher risk of having a potentially violent confrontation by going there.
homeless people have no more self-control than animals?
yet
I should have said "So you are saying that homeless people, like animals, lack a moral foundation
Photographing a person in a public place is not a crime; if you're in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
It should not be taken for granted that what the politician did was legal and beyond reproach
yet
ACTUALLY, FILMING MINORS IS A CRIME
I SHOULD be able to count on other people in my city to not attack me because they feel restrained by a moral code.
yet
they're the kind of people who think it's OK to physically attack someone just for taking pictures?
and
I think a large percentage of the homeless population suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems, or both.
If you put yourself in a place you'd choose not to hang out, knew the risks involved including having a potentially violent confrontation by going there by people that have [b]no more self-control than animals[/b] who suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems, or both and think it's OK to physically attack someone just for taking pictures because they do not feel restrained by a moral code ,
WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU GO THERE WITH A CAMERA ? :wacko: :crazy: ??? ::) :P :-\ :wtf:
-
OK DOG. THIS ONES FOR YOU YOU GROUPIE.
Don't blame the victim.
yet
There are places I choose not to "hang out." And I'm sure Rep Brower knows this, too. And I bet he knew where he was going, and the risks that were involved...
and
Yes, I think he certainly put himself at higher risk of having a potentially violent confrontation by going there.
homeless people have no more self-control than animals?
yet
I should have said "So you are saying that homeless people, like animals, lack a moral foundation
Photographing a person in a public place is not a crime; if you're in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
It should not be taken for granted that what the politician did was legal and beyond reproach
yet
ACTUALLY, FILMING MINORS IS A CRIME
I SHOULD be able to count on other people in my city to not attack me because they feel restrained by a moral code.
yet
they're the kind of people who think it's OK to physically attack someone just for taking pictures?
and
I think a large percentage of the homeless population suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems, or both.
If you put yourself in a place you'd choose not to hang out, knew the risks involved including having a potentially violent confrontation by going there by people that have [b]no more self-control than animals[/b] who suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems, or both and think it's OK to physically attack someone just for taking pictures because they do not feel restrained by a moral code ,
WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU GO THERE WITH A CAMERA ? :wacko: :crazy: ??? ::) :P :-\ :wtf:
To answer the question at the end of your post first... Because knowing the risks involved, he felt it was worth that risk to bring attention to the problem by documenting it photographically. I 100% agree that there is an amount of increased risk involved in what he did. I'm also saying that fact doesn't in any way excuse the behavior of thugs who would attack a man for taking their picture.
Now:
I didn't say that homeless people have no more self-control or moral foundation than animals. You implied that by saying you wouldn't go there with a camera (for fear of getting attacked by a homeless person) just like you wouldn't go surfing in murky water (for fear of getting attacked by a shark). Can we agree that a person with a moral foundation and self-control wouldn't physically attack a person for taking pictures? If so, then saying you'd avoid going there with a camera because you think you'd be assaulted means you think either 1) they lack a moral foundation, or B) they lack self-control. I choose to believe they have both. So why are there places I "choose not to hang out?" Because I know that there are people who will do a similar risk/benefit analysis and conclude that the risk (of me fighting back, or of them getting caught and prosecuted) is outweighed by the potential monetary benefit of stealing what I have (cash, cards, camera, phone, etc.). Brower got his camera back, so that isn't this situation.
Do you have a reference for "FILMING MINORS IS A CRIME"? Because I don't think it is (as long as they're clothed).
Anyway, you seem to think it's ok that he got beaten up because he should've known better. I think it's not ok, and that there should be consequences for the punks who did it, because that's what we do in a civilized society. And I'm happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that. :shaka:
-
Filming minors in a public place isn't a crime unless there's another illegal act.
Problem I see with blaming the victim is it becomes an excuse not to take care of the real problem.
-
Filming minors in a public place isn't a crime unless there's another illegal act.
Problem I see with blaming the victim is it becomes an excuse not to take care of the real problem.
It also assumes the victim did something they should not have done. Using bad judgement is one thing, but he did nothing illegal, inappropriate, or aggressive. What did the State Rep do wrong?
We're starting to sound like those people who argue you should not walk down your street after dark because it's not safe. Staying inside after dark is not the answer. Making the streets safe for people who are doing nothing wrong IS the answer.
This is the same back and forth you get when someone leaves a door unlocked and gets robbed. An unlocked door is not an invitation for a person to commit multiple crimes (trespassing, breaking and entering, theft...).
Ever watch the show where the Cops have a decoy car with keys in the ignition? The car is rigged so the Cops can kill the power and lock the doors remotely. The hoods that heist the car get all mad and yell entrapment.
Sorry, but you can't blame someone else for your actions. Nobody made you commit that crime but you.
Should you exercise good judgement and try to use an ounce of prevention? Yes. But that doesn't mean if you don't you are wholly or partially to blame when a criminal takes advantage of your carelessness.
The kids ought to be punished with community service and some sort of pubic apology. Maybe then the word gets out that it's not right to use your fists on someone doing something they have a legal right to do that you don't like.
-
I'm not sure about this, but if you film someone too aggressively (follow them around) I suppose that could be taken as harassment.
-
I'm not sure about this, but if you film someone too aggressively (follow them around) I suppose that could be taken as harassment.
Nope. If that were the case, we'd have no paparazzi in the US!
-
What he did does not meet the definition of harassment.
§711-1106 Harassment. (1) A person commits the offense of harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm any other person, that person:
(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches another person in an offensive manner or subjects the other person to offensive physical contact;
(b) Insults, taunts, or challenges another person in a manner likely to provoke an immediate violent response or that would cause the other person to reasonably believe that the actor intends to cause bodily injury to the recipient or another or damage to the property of the recipient or another;
(c) Repeatedly makes telephone calls, facsimile transmissions, or any form of electronic communication as defined in section 711-1111(2), including electronic mail transmissions, without purpose of legitimate communication;
(d) Repeatedly makes a communication anonymously or at an extremely inconvenient hour;
(e) Repeatedly makes communications, after being advised by the person to whom the communication is directed that further communication is unwelcome; or
(f) Makes a communication using offensively coarse language that would cause the recipient to reasonably believe that the actor intends to cause bodily injury to the recipient or another or damage to the property of the recipient or another.
-
To answer the question at the end of your post first... Because knowing the risks involved, he felt it was worth that risk to bring attention to the problem by documenting it photographically. I 100% agree that there is an amount of increased risk involved in what he did. I'm also saying that fact doesn't in any way excuse the behavior of thugs who would attack a man for taking their picture.
Now:
I didn't say that homeless people have no more self-control or moral foundation than animals. You implied that by saying you wouldn't go there with a camera (for fear of getting attacked by a homeless person) just like you wouldn't go surfing in murky water (for fear of getting attacked by a shark). Can we agree that a person with a moral foundation and self-control wouldn't physically attack a person for taking pictures? If so, then saying you'd avoid going there with a camera because you think you'd be assaulted means you think either 1) they lack a moral foundation, or B) they lack self-control. I choose to believe they have both. So why are there places I "choose not to hang out?" Because I know that there are people who will do a similar risk/benefit analysis and conclude that the risk (of me fighting back, or of them getting caught and prosecuted) is outweighed by the potential monetary benefit of stealing what I have (cash, cards, camera, phone, etc.). Brower got his camera back, so that isn't this situation.
Do you have a reference for "FILMING MINORS IS A CRIME"? Because I don't think it is (as long as they're clothed).
Anyway, you seem to think it's ok that he got beaten up because he shouldv'e known better. I think it's not ok, and that there should be consequences for the punks who did it, because that's what we do in a civilized society. And I'm happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that. :shaka:
S=I didn't say that homeless people have no more self-control or moral foundation than animals.
R=Right, you implied that I was saying IT ("So are you saying homeless people have no more self-control than animals?") when I said it was not wise to surf in brown water because of the increase chance of shark attack.
This statement had nothing to do with homeless people in particular, much less their self control but more on placing yourself in what may be a dangerous situation.
That is why I asked you "By which thought process do you come up with this kind of response ?
I did not say I wouldn't go there with a camera nor did I Imply I had "fear of getting attacked by a homeless person".
(S="You implied that by saying you wouldn't go there with a camera (for fear of getting attacked by a homeless person") .
I asked YOU
R=WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU GO THERE WITH A CAMERA
because of all of the things YOU said...
S= put yourself in a place you'd choose not to hang out, knew the risks involved i
S=having a potentially violent confrontation
S=people that have no more self-control than animals who suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems, or both
S=think it's OK to physically attack someone
S=they do not feel restrained by a moral code.
What I did say starting from the 1st post is
R="Wasn't right (what the perps >:D did) but he put himself in the situation." :crazy:
S=Can we agree that a person with a moral foundation and self-control wouldn't physically attack a person for taking pictures?
R=Sure. i think that a person with a moral foundation and self-control wouldn't physically attack a person for any reason ! :thumbsup:
S= "If so, then saying you'd avoid going there with a camera because you think you'd be assaulted means you think either 1) they lack a moral foundation, or B) they lack self-control.
I choose to believe they have both"'
No, what you think is
S="a large percentage of the homeless population suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems, or both..." ' :shake:
I would avoid putting myself in that situation if it were true.
S= So why are there places I "choose not to hang out?"
Because I know that there are people who will do a similar risk/benefit analysis and conclude that the risk (of me fighting back, or of them getting caught and prosecuted) is outweighed by the potential monetary benefit of stealing what I have (cash, cards, camera, phone, etc.)'
Ohhhh, I get it .
You wouldn't put yourself in the situation either. :geekdanc:
S=Brower got his camera back, so that isn't this situation.
Brower got his camera back because he was a politician and it hit the news.
If it was you who got beat and his camera stolen, do you think your call to 911 would have gotten you and your assailants on the news and your camera back ? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
S=Do you have a reference for "FILMING MINORS IS A CRIME"?
Nope, ya got me there. :worship:
I was under the impression that a minors photograph could not be taken without parents/guardians permission but I guess that would only be when used for news, crime, advertisements, documentaries, court, polItics etc...
Must have gotten that idea from how they always have the minors face blurred in the above examples.
S=Anyway, you seem to think it's ok that he got beaten up because he should've known better.
Again, "By which thought process do you come up with this kind of response ? :wacko:
Here is my original post and explanations in your own words below each of the 3 sentences so you may better grasp my 3 sentence post .
R=You go into an area where people are destitute to photograph them.
S="There are places I choose not to "hang out.""
R=+10 for lack of intelligence. :crazy:
S="And I'm sure Rep Brower knows this, too."
R=Wasn't right
(S=None of which excuses the unacceptable behavior on the part of the kids that assaulted him)
R= but he put himself in the situation.
S="And I bet he knew where he was going, and the risks that were involved"
Better ?
-
Should you exercise good judgement and try to use an ounce of prevention?
Yes.
But that doesn't mean if you don't you are wholly or partially to blame when a criminal takes advantage of your carelessness.
Sorry Dog,
Gotta Disagree.
Do not support criminal activity by allowing yourself to become a "victim". :thumbsup:
-
Sorry Dog,
Gotta Disagree.
Do not support criminal activity by allowing yourself to become a "victim". :thumbsup:
Then by definition you are blaming the victim for something that is not his fault. There is a difference between being careless and doing something wrong.
Unless you can point to something he did wrong or illegal, then he's not to blame.
If your kid gets beat up in school for his/her lunch money, I suppose it's your kid's fault for not giving the bully the money, or for even having cash in the first place? Your kid exercised poor judgement by carrying cash instead of asking you for a check.
-
The lunch money is a different issue because you have to have money if you want to buy lunch. I don't think the lunch lady will accept a check. Most kids don't have bank accounts, either. The politician didn't need to do what he did.
About the §711-1106 definition of harassment, I wonder then if it is legal to crawl around the ground filming up women's skirts? :love:
-
Then by definition you are blaming the victim for something that is not his fault. There is a difference between being careless and doing something wrong.
Unless you can point to something he did wrong or illegal, then he's not to blame.
If your kid gets beat up in school for his/her lunch money, I suppose it's your kid's fault for not giving the bully the money, or for even having cash in the first place? Your kid exercised poor judgement by carrying cash instead of asking you for a check.
Then by definition you are blaming the victim for something that is not his fault
No, I said
Do not support criminal activity by allowing yourself to become a "victim".
(Why are people always saying "you said", "you mean" "you implied", "you think when you didn't say,you didn't mean,you did not imply , and that's not what you thought ? :crazy:)
By "definition", I'm trying to express that I try my best not to become involved in any way, shape or form with "criminal activity" by not supporting such "criminal activity" by "allowing" myself to "become a victim" of "criminal activity". :geekdanc:
i.e.:
I do not walk alone into a crowded titty bar at 2 am Saturday night with C-notes hanging out of my shirt top pocket. 8)
I have every right to walk into the bar at that time and to display my money. :wave:
I am doing nothing wrong or illegal. :D
If I get beat up and robbed, was I merely "careless" and there fore not to blame for what happened to me ? :'(
As for the topic of Brower, he openly ALLOWED himself "to become a "victim" by PUTTING himself in a situation where he KNEW he would be pissing off people.
He may have even PLACED himself in jeopardy on purpose to get beat up and say "See, these homeless people are dangerous".
I mean isn't it his agenda. . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/tom-brower-hawaii_n_4299256.html
"Brower, according to the Star-Advertiser, is "disgusted" by the city's chronic homelessness problem and has decided to take a self-proclaimed "tough-guy" approach to solving it." :grrr:
"He also seems unconcerned by the prospect of initiating or escalating an altercation with a homeless person."
As for "If your kid gets beat up in school for his/her lunch money, I suppose it's your kid's fault for not giving the bully the money, or for even having cash in the first place? Your kid exercised poor judgement by carrying cash instead of asking you for a check."
AGAIN, by which thought process do you come up with this kind of response ? :crazy:
In your example, my child was a true victim in that he did not place himself in the situation with the bully.
He was attending school, but did not go to school to specifically confront or interact (or take a picture's of) the bully.
This is a crime of strong arm robbery aka robbery in the 2nd degree,and the bully should be prosecuted
As my "kids" are of college age, they should be able to defend themselves from bodily harm by any means possible.
The reason for the "right to bear arms" would come in pretty handy if you were to be assaulted (or "beat up") for the purpose of robbery or any other reason..
I support (reasonable) possession of firearms in school environments.
-
The lunch money is a different issue because you have to have money if you want to buy lunch. I don't think the lunch lady will accept a check. Most kids don't have bank accounts, either. The politician didn't need to do what he did.
About the §711-1106 definition of harassment, I wonder then if it is legal to crawl around the ground filming up women's skirts? :love:
And you don't "need" a gun, either.
He had a right to be there taking pictures, just like you have a right to own a gun.
No one can tell me one thing he did that was WRONG or ILLEGAL. Until you can, then he has a right to be there doing what he did.
-
And you don't "need" a gun, either.
He had a right to be there taking pictures, just like you have a right to own a gun.
No one can tell me one thing he did that was WRONG or ILLEGAL. Until you can, then he has a right to be there doing what he did.
I don't think anybody is arguing that anything he did was WRONG or ILLEGAL or that he did not have a right to be there doing what he did.
We're just saying he was an idiot for being there doing what he did. :crazy:
-
No one can tell me one thing he did that was WRONG or ILLEGAL.
Until you can, then he has a right to be there doing what he did.
As with all rights, you are free to exercise them (including free speech).
You are also free to experience the consequences and repercussions such exercising of your rights might precipitate!
Sorry Dog, but it was too easy. :rofl:
-
As with all rights, you are free to exercise them (including free speech).
You are also free to experience the consequences and repercussions such exercising of your rights might precipitate!
Sorry Dog, but it was too easy. :rofl:
Unless anybody has any other rebuttal, I think I'm done here but for this.
Just for the record, I was once homeless living in my 68 Chevy Belaire that threw a rod during a Wisconsin Winter while working and finishing school.
I had more self-control than animals, did not suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems.
I was not careless when someone broke the window and popped the trunk of the car while I was at school (or work) stealing whatever I had of value and strewing the rest of what little personal possessions I had in the dirty snow.
I was just not there.
:closed:
-
As with all rights, you are free to exercise them (including free speech).
You are also free to experience the consequences and repercussions such exercising of your rights might precipitate!
Sorry Dog, but it was too easy. :rofl:
Too easy to misconstrue what I meant?
Right!
If the consequences are predictable, that's one thing. The man being beaten for taking pictures in public is not something a normal person would necessarily predict. I know I wouldn't!
-
I would definitely predict that if I went alone into a homeless camp and started taking pictures, even pictures without any actual persons in them, that I would be beat up, at the very minimum. I think any reasonable person would predict that.
I would still side with the politician so long as he did not take any pictures of any actual homeless persons, or do anything else to aggravate them. In that scenario I'd expect him to be beat up, but the law should make some feeble attempt to protect him. (I say feeble, because it's not like the law can do much here. What can it do? Sue the homeless people for money? Put them in jail?)
If the politician deliberately aggravated the homeless, then I would be inclined to side with the homeless, though I can't say which side the law would take in that case.
(Not sure why Rocky put more fuel into the fire, though. I think for the most part this thread has run its course).
-
I would definitely predict that if I went alone into a homeless camp and started taking pictures, even pictures without any actual persons in them, that I would be beat up, at the very minimum. I think any reasonable person would predict that.
I would still side with the politician so long as he did not take any pictures of any actual homeless persons, or do anything else to aggravate them. In that scenario I'd expect him to be beat up, but the law should make some feeble attempt to protect him. (I say feeble, because it's not like the law can do much here. What can it do? Sue the homeless people for money? Put them in jail?)
If the politician deliberately aggravated the homeless, then I would be inclined to side with the homeless, though I can't say which side the law would take in that case.
(Not sure why Rocky put more fuel into the fire, though. I think for the most part this thread has run its course).
Where did it say he "went into a homeless camp?"
Brower said at a press conference Tuesday that two males assaulted him after he took photos of the street.
Brower said there were no people in his photos and that he never acted aggressively toward the men who
attacked him
There have been no accounts from any that were interviewed saying he went into the encampment.
-
The original linked article has now been updated to add the politician's side of the story, which can also be found here:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20150630_Brower_gives_his_account_of_assault_in_Kakaako.html
I'm don't know what defines the bounds of the encampment, but according to the following article the kids did say:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/29438018/state-rep-tom-brower-injured-in-altercation-at-kakaako-homeless-camp
"How would you feel if I walked in your house and just started recording you, right? We live here, this our house, respect it," Totoa said.
"He was video recording me and walked up to him and asked him if he could please delete that picture and that video, and he was telling me no, you should back off,” Iose said.
“He caught his whole face on camera. So we asked him nicely if he could put down his camera. And the guy said no, " Totoa added.
The politician's story does not seem to be fully compatible with the kids' version of events. No surprise there. That's why we have juries, and why I'm personally not willing to jump to conclusions about whose version of events is more accurate.
-
The original linked article has now been updated to add the politician's side of the story, which can also be found here:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20150630_Brower_gives_his_account_of_assault_in_Kakaako.html
I'm don't know what defines the bounds of the encampment, but according to the following article the kids did say:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/29438018/state-rep-tom-brower-injured-in-altercation-at-kakaako-homeless-camp
"How would you feel if I walked in your house and just started recording you, right? We live here, this our house, respect it," Totoa said.
"He was video recording me and walked up to him and asked him if he could please delete that picture and that video, and he was telling me no, you should back off,” Iose said.
“He caught his whole face on camera. So we asked him nicely if he could put down his camera. And the guy said no, " Totoa added.
The politician's story does not seem to be fully compatible with the kids' version of events. No surprise there. That's why we have juries, and why I'm personally not willing to jump to conclusions about whose version of events is more accurate.
You're going to believe the ambiguous assumptions and accusations of the minors
who beat up a man using a camera AND STOLE IT FROM HIM
over the word of a State Representative ???
I can see that ... :wave:
-
Of course, you have to weigh the credibility of both sides evenly, as a default position. This is true whenever it comes down to a he-said, she-said situation. One party being homeless and one party being rich, or being a politician should have nothing to do with it. If one's occupation or social status weighs into your consideration of someone's word, you are biased and should never be serving on any jury.
You are also using circular logic, when you use the "fact" that the kids "beat up a man using a camera" as a factor of credibility, when that "fact" is the very thing that is under dispute in the first place. Until the dispute is resolved by a jury, it could equally be said that the "man harassed some kids with his camera and the kids defended themselves by taking it from him."
-
By your thinking, a police officer can shoot and kill anyone he likes for no reason, and it has to be assumed that they are doing their job correctly. Because they are a police officer, after all.
-
Of course, you have to weigh the credibility of both sides evenly, as a default position. This is true whenever it comes down to a he-said, she-said situation. One party being homeless and one party being rich, or being a politician should have nothing to do with it. If one's occupation or social status weighs into your consideration of someone's word, you are biased and should never be serving on any jury.
You are also using circular logic, when you use the "fact" that the kids "beat up a man using a camera" as a factor of credibility, when that "fact" is the very thing that is under dispute in the first place. Until the dispute is resolved by a jury, it could equally be said that the "man harassed some kids with his camera and the kids defended themselves by taking it from him."
A jury? Did you even see the kids on TV and the comments they made? They admitted to beating him up, he went to the hospital, they stole his camera, and they returned his camera when they learned who he was.
There is no dispute when the little thugs admitted publicly to assault, battery and theft of personal property.
-
By your thinking, a police officer can shoot and kill anyone he likes for no reason, and it has to be assumed that they are doing their job correctly. Because they are a police officer, after all.
What thinking are you referring to?
I'll give you time to find some more straw for your argument...
-
...I'm referring to your thinking that someone in a position of power or higher perceived social status (such as a police officer or politician) automatically is more credible and justified in their actions than others (a homeless kid, or perhaps a random black person who futilely insists he has committed no crime).
At this point though I'm not sure you are trying to debate the topic in good faith. You appear to have taken a strong side on this issue, to the point where you now demand everyone else acknowledge your take on the situation as factually correct. It's not going to happen. Your side has a good argument, but it was better before you went down this recent line of thinking.
-
By your thinking, a police officer can shoot and kill anyone he likes for no reason, and it has to be assumed that they are doing their job correctly. Because they are a police officer, after all.
Police officers are screened and trained; more so then a refuse collector or a fast food worker.
or a person living on the street...defecating in front of a medical school & children's center, illegally tapping into water supplies...
There is no absolute trust.
-
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
...I'm referring to your thinking that someone in a position of power or higher perceived social status (such as a police officer or politician) automatically is more credible and justified in their actions than others (a homeless kid, or perhaps a random black person who futilely insists he has committed no crime).
At this point though I'm not sure you are trying to debate the topic in good faith. You appear to have taken a strong side on this issue, to the point where you now demand everyone else acknowledge your take on the situation as factually correct. It's not going to happen. Your side has a good argument, but it was better before you went down this recent line of thinking.
You ever fight a traffic ticket? The judge starts out with the assumption the Cop has no motive to lie about you speeding. Unless he knew you prior to the stop, there was no reason for him to single you out inappropriately, and he (she) therefore has no motive to lie.
On top of that, the Cop probably testifies in court many more times than you will. His credibility is at stake in all future court appearances. More motivation for him to tell the truth.
The judge doesn't have this predisposition because one's a Cop and one is not. There is much more to it than that. People try to make situations much simpler than they are in reality and argue individual points in a vacuum.
In contrast, you, being the accused, have EVERY motive to lie. You are trying to beat or reduce the cost of a traffic ticket.
So, before either of you says one word, the judge already knows which of you has the higher likelihood of telling the truth, and which has the higher likelihood of lying to the judge.
Long story short, the judge dismissed the speeding ticket with nothing more than "he said, she said". The judge even prefaced his ruling with, "While I don't believe the officer knowingly lied, it is possible he confused this traffic stop with another on the same night during his testimony."
:D
-
http://www.pressreader.com/usa/honolulu-star-advertiser/20150724/281479275111712/TextView
There have been numerous updates to this story, here's the most recent I've seen. Based on his history and the things he was saying earlier, I already knew the guy was going to press charges. He gets my support for pressing charges, even though I don't know if he can or should win this particular case. The facts have changed as well, he was now beaten by a mob and some individuals involved may have been misidentified. Hopefully they can recover the images that were deleted from the camera.
He wasn't beaten as badly as initial reports suggested, just minor cuts and bruises. And I don't buy the BS he keeps spouting about wanting to help to the homeless (what do you expect from a politician). I think he hates their guts. But some of them do cause a lot of problems (crime, theft, etc) so I appreciate his efforts as a whole.