Rusty Shackleford

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about “you’re not allowed to put your hands on someone unless they put their hands on you first”, but go off, I guess.

I’m not defending this guy, and yes, as I stated laws can be changed to account for new technologies and new definitions of public spaces and privacy rights.

The point I’m making is that people shouldn’t start altercations that may have permanent consequences over their anger control problems, including the woman in question.

You can’t put your hands on people unless they put their hands on you first, tough guy.

Are we talking about the hypothetical being posed or a different one?

TLDR: The law and it’s philosophical/moral foundation and practical application doesn’t run on what you think, and society is better for it.

Once again, the law says you aren’t protected from being recorded in a public space, attractive or not. There’s a plethora of ways to legally record people overtly and covertly in public. The law also says you can’t grab other people’s stuff and destroy it to prevent being recorded.

If the guy was assaulting her or disturbing the peace, she’d be justified in using violence to defend herself. She also had the option to talk to a cop and accuse this guy of harassment, which he was doing and others may have recorded evidence of that. But one is not morally or legally justified in starting fights, only finishing them as self-defense. The amount of force legally acceptable falls under the umbrella of the concept of “reasonable application of force” within what’s commonly known as a “force escalation continuum”.

So, no “creeps” shouldn’t be allowed to record women as that would constitute harassment, but it’s better to go through proper legal channels than pretend to be a tough-guy/girl and start an altercation that may have permanent consequences.

The Corporatist Oligarchy wants him in the presidency (for now).

I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.

Whatever “angle” you see is your mind trying to justify forcefully grabbing someone’s property to destroy it.

I don’t like surveillance either.

But you can’t go around forcefully breaking other people’s stuff unless it threatens your well being at that moment.

Her “ass-kicking” would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested.

The guy with smart glasses could also be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace depending on what his exact actions were and if there’s recordings of him.

Forcefully grabbing someone’s property to break it is assault.

Fuck internet points.

When in public, you can be recorded. Your permission isn’t required. Public spaces belong to all. People have the right to film, take photos, and record audio. If you don’t want that, campaign for legislation to change it. “Rudeness” isn’t a legal term. If you can’t tolerate being recorded in a public space, even “rudely”, leave. Go somewhere else. If you assault someone recording you in public, you will potentially get the shit kicked out of you by that person, bystanders, and/or cops.

The state, in a legalistic framework, has a near-monopoly on justified escalation to physical violence. The person recording you has to be assaulting you first or disturbing the peace to a degree that it endangers you or other people’s safety in order for your violence to be justified as defense.

You can’t start a fight legally, but you can finish one. “Rudeness” isn’t a good enough reason to start swinging.

So again, control yourself.

If you’re in a public space, people may be filming you.

It’s a PUBLIC space, not yours. Your lack of self-control will rightly get you fucked up if you assault the wrong person, and there’ll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched while trying to take someone’s phone.

TLDR: Control yourself, tough guy.