5 ms·

Christ, that's some quick victim-blaming. There's no justification for trying to take away someone's property, even if it's a camera in your business. Physical

Christ, that's some quick victim-blaming. There's no justification for trying to take away someone's property, even if it's a camera in your business. Physically assaulting someone over a camera is even worse. All attempts to excuse this sort of behavior immediately fall flat given that "possible witness 1" was given documentation of the device and apparently accepted it, and the perpetrator was also given the documentation. At the point where you willfully destroy someone else's documents, you can't really hide behind cultural differences. I'm speaking as a European if not a French citizen, but I cannnot read your post as anything but flamebait, given the prejudice and total lack of empathy.

robomartin 14y ago
I am not prejudiced at all. It's common sense. Also, why would I automatically have empathy for him when I don't know the whole story. What if he was a complete jerk? You don't know this and I certainly don't either so let's not take sides unless and until the facts are known. If he was, in fact, assaulted without any provocation whatsoever it was a criminal act that the law should deal with in the strongest possible manner. I am not disputing that and don't think anyone would. Why didn't he go to the police? I would physically go to the nearest police station and file an assault report. Do you really think French police would ignore him, particularly with evidence and witnesses? I think not. My post was about common sense and manners. "When in Rome", if you will. I did not place blame nor justify the destruction of property. It is purely your choice to read that into my post. PleAse don't put words in my mouth. If any of the post wasn't clear: I, nor anyone on HN unless you were there, know exactly what went on. Therefore it is impossible to take sides an feel empathy for him or justify the other party's actions. We just don't know enough, so let's not get overly polarized in one direction or another. My comments were more about how rude and unreasonable it might be to force yourself onto others or invade their privacy. If you want to walk around with a bunch of tech scanning everything around, you have to be respectful enough to ask permission. Prejudice? Where? There's a huge difference between prejudice and reality. The Dutch don't have protection from the mechanisms inside windmills. I've done windmill tours with my kids and you simply have to adjust to their reality (when in Rome). Some Americans think this is insane. We might want to have floor to ceiling barriers to prevent anyone from getting their hands into the gears. The Dutch probably think that we are an over-controlling sue-happy society. None of this is prejudiced. It's just the way it is. When in the Netherlands I behave with respect and consideration for their ways. The same is the case in the UK, France, Italy or Germany. I've spent a good deal of time in various places in Europe. I can say that we, Americans, can be total jerks and so can everyone else (except the Dutch, they are always nice).
- tensor 14y ago
  He said he did go to the police and they did in fact ignore him. I feel empathy for him because I find it very hard to believe that he said or did anything that would warrant physical assault. Indeed, there is nothing that justifies physical assault outside of self defence or temporary insanity. Do you really think that a quirky famous academic out for a meal with his daughter attacked these employees? Seriously? Because that's the only way you can reasonably side with the McDonalds employees here. Speaking about common sense, I think it's pretty clear that you don't go ripping up formal documentation and hiding your identity badge if you really think you are acting in the right. That's some common sense that transcends most cultural boundaries.
  - robomartin 14y ago
    > He said he did go to the police and they did in fact ignore him He said: "I also contacted the Embassy, Consulate, Police, etc., without much luck. " It very much sounds like he either did this after he got back or over the phone from the hotel. He did not GO TO THE POLICE. I would have gone to the nearest police station and planted myself in there. If this was as serious as it seems, that would be the only way to handle it. Also, it would be the best way to explain and show his rig to the police. By his account this was a serious incident and he had all the evidence and witnesses he needed. I would tell the family to go sight-seeing on their own and get my ass over to the nearest police station to deal with it. I am still waiting for someone to provide an account from a different perspective. Nobody has the full story. It's silly to defend him (or McD) without more data. I am certainly not doing so. I am pointing out that he, in isolation of this event, seems to be quite inconsiderate about forcing his rig onto people's spaces and invading their privacy.
- sesqu 14y ago
  I agree that you can't go videotaping people in semi-public areas without someone getting annoyed, and that you can't take up pitchforks after hearing only one side of a story. But beyond that, I think you're being a jerk. You criticize his 13-year-old contraption for not being as good looking as Google's last iteration of a product not yet launched. That sounds incredibly discriminatory. You claim you'd treat his rig differently if he looked blind himself. Provided the device actually works well, how exactly do you determine that it's a necessary physical aid without intruding on his privacy? You say you can't judge the employee for assaulting him without knowing if he, a long-time public user of this technology and a university professor, were just acting like an asshole. Yet you have no trouble speculating he were intrusively "scanning" everyone, which by the account is not something one would do with this device, especially in the given scenario. You fault him for not contacting the police, which he explicitly said he had done. All in all, it seems like you're projecting something onto him that is in no way deserved. This is not some video artist or smelly person we're talking about here, it's a father on vacation while wearing a prosthetic, getting into an altercation with staff that left his prosthetic damaged.
kamaal 14y ago
I don't think its victim blaming. For example, I would be seriously offended if someone takes my picture without my permission. Because I don't why they are taking it. Are they spying? Or is that guy a terrorist surveying the place? Or he might just be a guy who would morph my pic and upload that to a wrong a site. Regardless, if you are wearing a computing device which will assist you do some things its OK. But plainly shooting pictures of unknown people, their premises and property is not something everybody will be comfortable with.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Or, far more likely than all of the above combined, times ten thousand, that person is documenting. You know, the style of work made famous by artists like Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Garry Winogrand... or if you want some that are still alive, Bruce Gilden, Daido Moriyama, Trent Parke, Martin Parr, Helen Levitt, Bill Cunningham... If you haven't had the pleasure of seeing any of this type of work before, I encourage you to look it up and understand that there are entirely non-nefarious reasons for taking a stranger's photo, and in fact this practice is astronomically more likely than terrorists and spies. ... I really wish we didn't live in a society so utterly drenched in constant fear.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

robomartin 14y ago

I am not prejudiced at all. It's common sense. Also, why would I automatically have empathy for him when I don't know the whole story. What if he was a complete jerk? You don't know this and I certainly don't either so let's not take sides unless and until the facts are known. If he was, in fact, assaulted without any provocation whatsoever it was a criminal act that the law should deal with in the strongest possible manner. I am not disputing that and don't think anyone would. Why didn't he go to the police? I would physically go to the nearest police station and file an assault report. Do you really think French police would ignore him, particularly with evidence and witnesses? I think not. My post was about common sense and manners. "When in Rome", if you will. I did not place blame nor justify the destruction of property. It is purely your choice to read that into my post. PleAse don't put words in my mouth. If any of the post wasn't clear: I, nor anyone on HN unless you were there, know exactly what went on. Therefore it is impossible to take sides an feel empathy for him or justify the other party's actions. We just don't know enough, so let's not get overly polarized in one direction or another. My comments were more about how rude and unreasonable it might be to force yourself onto others or invade their privacy. If you want to walk around with a bunch of tech scanning everything around, you have to be respectful enough to ask permission. Prejudice? Where? There's a huge difference between prejudice and reality. The Dutch don't have protection from the mechanisms inside windmills. I've done windmill tours with my kids and you simply have to adjust to their reality (when in Rome). Some Americans think this is insane. We might want to have floor to ceiling barriers to prevent anyone from getting their hands into the gears. The Dutch probably think that we are an over-controlling sue-happy society. None of this is prejudiced. It's just the way it is. When in the Netherlands I behave with respect and consideration for their ways. The same is the case in the UK, France, Italy or Germany. I've spent a good deal of time in various places in Europe. I can say that we, Americans, can be total jerks and so can everyone else (except the Dutch, they are always nice).

tensor 14y ago
He said he did go to the police and they did in fact ignore him. I feel empathy for him because I find it very hard to believe that he said or did anything that would warrant physical assault. Indeed, there is nothing that justifies physical assault outside of self defence or temporary insanity. Do you really think that a quirky famous academic out for a meal with his daughter attacked these employees? Seriously? Because that's the only way you can reasonably side with the McDonalds employees here. Speaking about common sense, I think it's pretty clear that you don't go ripping up formal documentation and hiding your identity badge if you really think you are acting in the right. That's some common sense that transcends most cultural boundaries.
- robomartin 14y ago
  > He said he did go to the police and they did in fact ignore him He said: "I also contacted the Embassy, Consulate, Police, etc., without much luck. " It very much sounds like he either did this after he got back or over the phone from the hotel. He did not GO TO THE POLICE. I would have gone to the nearest police station and planted myself in there. If this was as serious as it seems, that would be the only way to handle it. Also, it would be the best way to explain and show his rig to the police. By his account this was a serious incident and he had all the evidence and witnesses he needed. I would tell the family to go sight-seeing on their own and get my ass over to the nearest police station to deal with it. I am still waiting for someone to provide an account from a different perspective. Nobody has the full story. It's silly to defend him (or McD) without more data. I am certainly not doing so. I am pointing out that he, in isolation of this event, seems to be quite inconsiderate about forcing his rig onto people's spaces and invading their privacy.
sesqu 14y ago
I agree that you can't go videotaping people in semi-public areas without someone getting annoyed, and that you can't take up pitchforks after hearing only one side of a story. But beyond that, I think you're being a jerk. You criticize his 13-year-old contraption for not being as good looking as Google's last iteration of a product not yet launched. That sounds incredibly discriminatory. You claim you'd treat his rig differently if he looked blind himself. Provided the device actually works well, how exactly do you determine that it's a necessary physical aid without intruding on his privacy? You say you can't judge the employee for assaulting him without knowing if he, a long-time public user of this technology and a university professor, were just acting like an asshole. Yet you have no trouble speculating he were intrusively "scanning" everyone, which by the account is not something one would do with this device, especially in the given scenario. You fault him for not contacting the police, which he explicitly said he had done. All in all, it seems like you're projecting something onto him that is in no way deserved. This is not some video artist or smelly person we're talking about here, it's a father on vacation while wearing a prosthetic, getting into an altercation with staff that left his prosthetic damaged.

kamaal 14y ago

I don't think its victim blaming. For example, I would be seriously offended if someone takes my picture without my permission. Because I don't why they are taking it. Are they spying? Or is that guy a terrorist surveying the place? Or he might just be a guy who would morph my pic and upload that to a wrong a site. Regardless, if you are wearing a computing device which will assist you do some things its OK. But plainly shooting pictures of unknown people, their premises and property is not something everybody will be comfortable with.

potatolicious 14y ago
Or, far more likely than all of the above combined, times ten thousand, that person is documenting. You know, the style of work made famous by artists like Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Garry Winogrand... or if you want some that are still alive, Bruce Gilden, Daido Moriyama, Trent Parke, Martin Parr, Helen Levitt, Bill Cunningham... If you haven't had the pleasure of seeing any of this type of work before, I encourage you to look it up and understand that there are entirely non-nefarious reasons for taking a stranger's photo, and in fact this practice is astronomically more likely than terrorists and spies. ... I really wish we didn't live in a society so utterly drenched in constant fear.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]