http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/30/tom-brower-beaten-hawaii_n_7698086.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

You go into an area where people are destitute to photograph them.

+10 for lack of intelligence.   

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.   

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.

Wasn't right but he put himself in the situation.

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 ?

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.

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.

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!

the pictures are retrievable if they were only deleted via the camera controls

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.

Don't blame the victim.
Didn't blame, just said bad decision,  same as surfing brown water (Or trying to steal a firearm by gunpoint at a 2a shoot)   

Because sharks are animals without the ability to reason. 
That's just stupid.
Sharks have been shown to prove reasoning.

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 ? 

Quote from: Sodie on June 30, 2015, 09:30:57 PM

Because sharks are animals without the ability to reason. 
That's just stupid.
Sharks have been shown to prove reasoning.

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 being said, most of us on this board realize that those type of individuals exist in our imperfect world (even places in our city  ) and try to avoid placing ourselves in those types of situations.