Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 04:49 PM 9/19/1999 +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > >Taking photographs of someone in a public place is generally unrestricted, >albeit of questionable etiquette in some situations. If a person persistently >objects and you take his picture anyway, he _might_ have a claim against you, >and it _might_ be considered assault or battery, in extreme cases. But I don't >know of any justification for attacking a person and/or using deadly force or >destroying property just because you object to being photographed in a public >place. I know that, here in France, this is never defensible in court. > Well, in this part of the US, in any event, a simple punch-in-the-nose by an irate father of a photographer who refused to cease and desist would probably win a judge's praise. I defend folks on charges like this, Anthony, and I doubt if a charge would even result. The photographer would be told to be a bit more considerate in the future. The use of fists is not "deadly force" under either the common or civil law under almost all circumstances. No, you cannot use force to protect property -- I got fussed at when I blocked my ex-wife from tossing some Zeiss binoculars on the floor in a fit of anger. But the taking of pictures of a child when asked not to would probably be judged as provocative under a theory similar to the "fighting words" doctrine. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!