5 ms·
Well legally they'd be perfectly within their rights to tape you telling them off. And if you got violent they'd have all the evidence they'd need to press char
by coopdog 13y ago
Well legally they'd be perfectly within their rights to tape you telling them off. And if you got violent they'd have all the evidence they'd need to press charges, conveniently backed up into the cloud.
- Nrsolis 13y agoSee, there is where you are wrong. There are NUMEROUS statutes that prohibit the surreptitious filming of people where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. I think a bathroom qualifies. And I think you'd have a hard time getting a jury to convict someone of punching another guy in the nose for filming them in the bathroom. Honestly, do you think the VERY FACT that he has a camera running at the time he gets punched by the guy he was filming wouldn't be prima facie evidence that he was in-fact filming in a private place? Cloud or not? I'm willing the guy who is looking at a sex-offender charge and life-long pervert registration is willing to avoid pressing charges just to make the whole thing go away.
- potatolicious 13y ago> "And I think you'd have a hard time getting a jury to convict someone of punching another guy in the nose for filming them in the bathroom." No, that conviction will be a slam dunk, because there's video evidence of it. You'll also score a simultaneous conviction for running afoul of peeping tom laws, because filming in a bathroom is as you mentioned illegal in many jurisdictions. The only winner here is the prosecutor. The fact that party A was violating the law before party B assaulted him does not nullify party B's crime. The law doesn't really work that way. The bar for justifiable use of violence is legally high.
- Nrsolis 13y agoHeh. Wanna bet? You seem to have a quaint notion of how the justice system works. Video evidence? Probably wont be surpressed by defense. Probably wont be contested because it's obtained as the result of an illegal act. The jury will probably not agree with the defense that the video represented the first stage of an attack by people who film attacks to gain notariety in the Internet. Probably. If you agree to post your bar number from any US state and the range of cases you've defended, I'd be willing to hear your counterargument.
- potatolicious 13y agoWould you like my penis length while we're at this? I was interested in a discussion, not credentialing, posturing, and condescension. Why are you after all of the above?
- Nrsolis 13y agoHey, you're the one offering a legal opinion. I'm willing to bet my experience with the justice system beats yours. For one thing, I've lived in the USA for my entire life. For another, I've lived in several states. For yet another, I've been involved in an altercation that came to the notice of the police. Several in fact. I'm still walking around a free man with nary a scratch on my record. So my experience would seem to be directly on point and in direct contradiction to your opinion of how these things go in my country and state. But hey, if you think your penis is so wonderful, feel free to provide a picture link. I promise not to share it.
- deathcakes 13y agoI think you have comprehensively proved that yours is bigger.
- hnriot 13y agoSo defensive!
- pg 13y agoStop this please.
- Nrsolis 13y agoPaul, I'm happy to. But when someone directly contradicts me, I think it's only fair that I indicate where I'm coming from. Otherwise, it's just an echo-chamber.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- freehunter 13y agoIf someone is standing 20 feet from me recording, that's a different story. If someone is standing less than a foot from me and I discover him violating me, he's close enough to do physical harm. Perfectly justified in doing everything in my power to put some range between him and I. It's called self defense. The mere threat of physical violence coupled with the ongoing act of sexual harassment is enough justification for self defense. A beatdown? No. A fist to the face or an elbow to the chest to get him away? You'd better believe it. There's not much room to run to safety when you're cornered at a urinal.
- Cushman 13y agoWithout judgment or implication-- I'm curious if you feel the same standard applies to a woman who notices a man is staring at her chest.
- freehunter 13y agoNaked? In the bathroom? With an expectation of privacy? Yes. Yes I do. Crimes don't exist in a vacuum, there are factors that make the actions cross lines. A man glancing at a women's chest or a woman glancing at a man's rear end is not becoming of a professional, but it's not a crime. Repeated offense and an escalating situation? Then it becomes a crime. Likewise, nudity and expectation of privacy are factors that go into determining the appropriate response. If I walked up behind a woman and started breathing heavily on her neck while she was cornered in a room with only one exit, she would be completely within her rights to use violence as a means to get away from me even though I never touched her.
- Cushman 13y agoNo, to clarify, I mean just in public on the train or at a concert or a bar or whatever. The sorts of places where "mild" sexual assault of women by unfamiliar men is rather routine-- I'd posit much more common than assault of men by unfamiliar men in public restrooms, though I'm open to correction on that. My underlying question being, at what point does looking put one in enough fear of touching that preemptive escalation to violence is warranted? Because from what I'm told by female friends, that fear is fairly commonplace in their lives, while violence is rather more rare.
- Dylan16807 13y agoYes, any kind of initial filming would be illegal. But once there's an argument going, everyone decent, I wouldn't see it as a privacy violation to overtly film the proceedings. I suppose it depends on the exact wording of the law.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]