Media is Taking ME to Court Tomorrow!!!

Originally posted by samstone11
A local news station was asked by the principal not to film the students, but as the final bell rang and all the kids began heading home the reporter and his camera man quickly set up, started taking footage

I would have thought that whether this is legal or not doesnt really have a lot to do with whether your actions are assault or not.
Somebody else breaking the law doesnt really give other people the right to commit assault.

However if you're lucky, the judge will take the circumstances into account when deciding how hard he's going to punish you.

Originally posted by samstone11
Meanwhile, many other parents were appalled and concerned about the intrusion. Could this unwanted attention somehow create more danger? The camera was recording children’s faces, the cars they got into, if they began walking home, who walked together, who walked alone, and more. Thank God I don’t think like a predator, but wouldn’t this be almost a Christmas present for someone who does?

An absurd suggestion. I find it hard to believe that predators watch the TV news and do video analysis and stopping still frames of news reports when deciding who they will target.

Any predator who wanted this information could more easily just walk past the school yard at the right time.

Originally posted by samstone11
Short story is this. I personally asked the camera crew and reporter to not film, ... I pointed the camera away.

Yup. You've just admitted guilt.

Just a thought

Any CCTV footage you could use to help your case?

Surely all the other parents could corroborate your story, and the head as well.

Let me think, well respected headmaster, concerned parents after kidnap case, sleezy reporter looking for a story.

No brainer to me. Good luck and do let us know how you got on.

Cody

Something is wrong. I am in 100% agreement with Muzzleflash! Oo

Here's the rub.

Film the cops arresting someone? It's our right.. How dare they come along and take the 'evidence' and prove to us all what sort of police state we live in.

Film joe public, how dare they film me. I did not consent to it, and it's a violation of my rights. I demand they stop filming me in public, and I will take this to court to fight this ludicrous assault charge where I put my hands physically on anothers property and forced it into a position away from me.

Which one do we want to argue? Can't have both.

Having said that, OP, I do agree with you. I'd have likely copped an assault charge also. But I'd have taken it as a given, because I know I can't have it both ways. And I would not plead innocence to it, I'd demand it. Film me, you just might get a punch in the nose, especially if my kids are involved. As long as we all know the rules, there is little room for complaint.

I am anything but ambiguous out there in the real physical world, which probably is why I get a lot of negative attitude.. but people.. what can you do..

Originally posted by cody599
Just a thought

Any CCTV footage you could use to help your case?

It would be funny if there were video footage of OP demanding someone stop recording video footage of them.

There is video. The cameraman was rolling when OP assaulted him. That and the fact that OP was the one who approached the cameraman will make the case. Curious that the previous thread, which I cannot find for some reason had more detail. Like the fact that OP stepped into the cameramans face which has changed in this thread.
Can mods say why the old thread has gone?

You have no right to touch someone nor interfere with their CONSTITUTIONAL right to investigate and record scenes in public, "plain sight" is a good standard. Don't confuse video and audio recording, as few 2-party states prohibit audio as part of their Wiretap Act.

In court, I say wrap it up, apologize and explain that you didn't understand "your" rights, and you regret it.

The law = filming children for a DEMONSTRABLE sexual purpose is illegal. That may even be debatable.

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by cody599
Just a thought

Any CCTV footage you could use to help your case?

It would be funny if there were video footage of OP demanding someone stop recording video footage of them.

Oh the irony
Good catch

Cody

reply to post by samstone11


You should have kicked some arse and made it worth your while.
I hate the #ing media.

should have fed the media pukes their camera ... you were kind compared to what Ive done to the buggers in past ... good luck in your court case ... and good show on stopping the media pukes ..

If the camera crew was on a public street, the kids on a public street also, the only way to get them to now show YOUR kid on TV is to get a court order requesting them to blur the kid's face OR...sometimes this works....Ask nicely.

Here in Québec, it is illegal for any child under the age of 16 to be publicly shown on TV without concent, no matter where, why or who.

reply to post by Nuke2013


I think there's something similar here in NB. I do know that a child can not be identified if they are under a certain age and are in some way connected to a crime.

That said.....

This is how the OP should have conducted the situation. Approach the camera crew, ask to speak to who is in charge, what station are you from, for what purpose are you filming and what are you filming. Then you kindly inform them that you'd prefer your child's face be blurred out. You don't march over to them, get in their face while they are doing their job, and violently push the camera away. You don't. That's what people like Alex Jones do.

From my understanding, the crew was filming from a public street, scenes of the kids leaving school. Nothing any more identifying that you'd get driving by at that time. In fact, from a perverts perspective, it's useless. you don't have the expectation of privacy once you leave your property. You are on countless CCTV cameras more than likely, by the time you get to work.

The only time, to my understanding, that a crew would require your permission, would be to use the images captured to make money. Arguably, the news is a money making scheme, but that falls more in line with movies and tv shows than it does with news footage.

How many times have you turned on the news to see a stock footage shot of people say, walking down a busy street, or going across an intersection while the narrator narrates? Do you honestly think they had all those people sign off? No, because they don't have to.

In my opinion, the OP should have acted calmly, and asked them not to film the child, or to blur the child's face AND the crew should have (probably would have) obliged. Instead, i already know how this played out.....

Camera man/woman filming filler and establishing shots for the reporter to talk over. Angry disgruntled parent accosts camera man and assaults him.

I'd pay the 700$ if I was the OP. The camera man has it all on tape, right? Do you really want to try to fight it, knowing you were in the wrong morally and legally? They could really lay it on you, battery, assault, vandalism, and depending on what you actually said, probably uttering threats.

Going off that you are a private person and when you asked to not be filmed they do need to abide by that it is only different when the person being filmed is a public servant. You should have evidence there in the video footage and you could also get a statement from the principle or have them show up on your behalf. It sounds like they will lose if you set it out right and hope you don't forget to ask for costs when it is found in your favour.

Now in also saying all this you might be on the run from an abusive partner and be found from the news footage that could be showed as well as someone could see how many kids walk home from school. It might be out there thought but it could still happen.

If you win, don't slap anyone in the butt after the win while still in the courtroom!!

newsfixnow.com...

Either way, good luck!

There is one other angle that could be used as a defense for the contact, you could argue that he was coming directly at your face with the camera and you felt he was going to hit you with it, especially if it was aggressively shoved within inches of your face.

Thing is with the law, you can get as much justice as you can afford. There are ways to manipulate any situation to your benefit, think it through. Often, judges are hopeful for things to be introduced to allow them to do the right thing. It's not always the letter of the law, sometimes it's the spirit of the law that wins out.

reply to post by samstone11


Don't shove people who are within their rights to film.

Its called assault.

reply to post by Paschar0


Unfortunately the OP is cooked. The camera was Not inches away, it was more than a foot away. No cameraman gets that close unless he filming bugs on a leaf.

He really has No Defense.

His best bet is to plead No Contest and pay his fines and cost.

reply to post by muzzleflash

This would have reduced the legal drama from assault to merely suing for damages. 700 $ either way you go about it.

Not if the OP'er claimed that the camera being pushed into his/her face brought on a nervous reaction that caused him/her to sneeze, fall over and spill the coffee all over the camera....chances are the claim could have gone the other way

reply to post by PsykoOps



Is this the post you are refering to?


Other Post About Assault

EDIT:

To anyone else interested. This link might shed some more light on this post.

reply to post by samstone11


I'm with the first poster. And I would be in the same boat as you if this occured with my child. Tell them exactly how you told them here and FIGHT THE POWER! This could turn around on them and hold them liable. It's a shot in the dark but hey!~ DO IT!