ForumGarden

My last job in California made a new rule. Due to a just passed privacy law, we were not allowed to discuss private matters between each other on company property. They were scared, did not know exactly what the law meant.

After hello, do now ask "how are you"? We had an obviously pregnant lady, and even her close friends were forbidden. That was over a dozen years ago.

California man sues Uber driver he punched

COSTA MESA, Calif. - A Southern California man charged with assault and battery is accusing the man he was caught on tape punching of assault and battery.

The incident was infamously captured on video, where former Taco Bell executive Benjamin Golden can be seen attacking an Uber driver. Golden has sued the driver for $5 million, claiming the video was recorded without his consent, a newspaper reported Saturday.


CBS NEWS

tude dog;1491599 wrote: My last job in California made a new rule. Due to a just passed privacy law, we were not allowed to discuss private matters between each other on company property. They were scared, did not know exactly what the law meant.

After hello, do now ask "how are you"? We had an obviously pregnant lady, and even her close friends were forbidden. That was over a dozen years ago.

California man sues Uber driver he punched



CBS NEWS




Sued for recording an attack without consent? It's like one of those lunatic scenarios from Grand Theft Auto!!

Can't wait till all those people like shoplifters get on this bandwagon if the case is successful

Land of the free?

gmc;1491612 wrote: Can't wait till all those people like shoplifters get on this bandwagon if the case is successful


Tu as raison, mon ami! What would be next? Burglars suing home-owners for preventing them thieving? The mind boggles!

Smaug;1491622 wrote: Tu as raison, mon ami! What would be next? Burglars suing home-owners for preventing them thieving? The mind boggles!
You may consider that as being sarcasm, but...

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Burglar sues jailed farmer

FourPart;1491624 wrote: You may consider that as being sarcasm, but...

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Burglar sues jailed farmer


The article is dated 2002, but I do take the point. We're steadily 'losing the plot'; on a global scale, unfortunately.

FourPart;1491624 wrote: You may consider that as being sarcasm, but...

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Burglar sues jailed farmer


Very famous case where Tony Martin was convicted and jailed after much furore for shooting fleeing burglars in the back.

That Law is based on common sense and natural justice, in that anybody could "arrange" to be disturbed on their own private property and shoot the person dead without comeback. So any husband might 'reasonably' and 'unknowingly' shoot dead his wife if she arrived home at the wrong time,because he 'feared' he was in danger.A lot cheaper and easier than divorce and maintenance payments.....It's based on the legal requirement that force equal to the threat be used when in danger from a threat.

Shooting an unarmed, escaping suspect in the back should never be OK. However, the former burglar suing his on time assailant for injuries he received during the commission of a crime is preposterous. The lawyer who has encouraged the action should be taken to the Bar

Bruv;1491651 wrote: Very famous case where Tony Martin was convicted and jailed after much furore for shooting fleeing burglars in the back.

That Law is based on common sense and natural justice, in that anybody could "arrange" to be disturbed on their own private property and shoot the person dead without comeback. So any husband might 'reasonably' and 'unknowingly' shoot dead his wife if she arrived home at the wrong time,because he 'feared' he was in danger.A lot cheaper and easier than divorce and maintenance payments.....It's based on the legal requirement that force equal to the threat be used when in danger from a threat.


The trouble here is that it's difficult to know whether those burglars were armed or not. Some of these scumbags are armed, mostly with knives, but how would Tony Martin have been able to tell? If one of those burglars had been carrying a firearm of some sort, shooting second is a poor substitute for shooting first! But I feel very torn here, TBH, as I disapprove of disproportional force being used in relation to the threat entailed (for obvious reasons; you wouldn't want to shoot a kid dead for scrumping apples from your tree at night, would you?)

As for Fearon's solicitors chasing compensation, they should indeed go before the bar!

LarsMac;1491655 wrote: Shooting an unarmed, escaping suspect in the back should never be OK. However, the former burglar suing his on time assailant for injuries he received during the commission of a crime is preposterous. The lawyer who has encouraged the action should be taken to the Bar


If the man who shot and killed a trespasser is convicted of a crime, as unpleasant as it appears at first sight, anybody else injured in the commission of that crime should have the right to pursue compensation. Whether it reaches court or not is by the by, or whether the judgment awards thousands or a token amount is down to the law.

As it happens it all worked out fine HERE

Smaug;1491657 wrote: The trouble here is that it's difficult to know whether those burglars were armed or not. Some of these scumbags are armed, mostly with knives, but how would Tony Martin have been able to tell? If one of those burglars had been carrying a firearm of some sort, shooting second is a poor substitute for shooting first! But I feel very torn here, TBH, as I disapprove of disproportional force being used in relation to the threat entailed (for obvious reasons; you wouldn't want to shoot a kid dead for scrumping apples from your tree at night, would you?)

As for Fearon's solicitors chasing compensation, they should indeed go before the bar!


When they're running away from you you're unlikely to shoot second when you have a shotgun to your shoulder even if they are armed.

Smaug;1491657 wrote: The trouble here is that it's difficult to know whether those burglars were armed or not. Some of these scumbags are armed, mostly with knives, but how would Tony Martin have been able to tell? If one of those burglars had been carrying a firearm of some sort, shooting second is a poor substitute for shooting first! But I feel very torn here, TBH, as I disapprove of disproportional force being used in relation to the threat entailed (for obvious reasons; you wouldn't want to shoot a kid dead for scrumping apples from your tree at night, would you?)

As for Fearon's solicitors chasing compensation, they should indeed go before the bar!


Well, they were fleeing. Chances are that were they armed, they were still not a threat. Were they even still on the man's property at the time?

Water under the bridge, though.

Back to privacy. It seems we (Civilized society) are going to have to define privacy in minute detail.

My thinking:

If you are in a public place, you have forfeited your right to privacy. If you are in someone else's property, your privacy is subject to their own rights.

These days there should be the assumption that your behavior in public may be recorded, and that record of your behavior can and will be used as evidence of any events that occur.

I have a camera pointed at my front door. You have to have committed yourself to be in my property to be at my front door, and therefore your right to privacy is forfeit.

If I were to point that camera at my next door neighbors' property, I would be violating their right to privacy.

LarsMac;1491667 wrote: Well, they were fleeing. Chances are that were they armed, they were still not a threat. Were they even still on the man's property at the time?

Water under the bridge, though.

Back to privacy. It seems we (Civilized society) are going to have to define privacy in minute detail.

My thinking:

If you are in a public place, you have forfeited your right to privacy. If you are in someone else's property, your privacy is subject to their own rights.

These days there should be the assumption that your behavior in public may be recorded, and that record of your behavior can and will be used as evidence of any events that occur.

I have a camera pointed at my front door. You have to have committed yourself to be in my property to be at my front door, and therefore your right to privacy is forfeit.

If I were to point that camera at my next door neighbors' property, I would be violating their right to privacy.


Anybody who is armed is a threat, or potential threat, IMO. Fleeing people may suddenly turn and fire/attack with a carried weapon. I believe the shooting took place on Tony Martin's property.

As regards privacy, I would agree with you on the various points you make. Seems logical to me.

LarsMac;1491667 wrote: Well, they were fleeing. Chances are that were they armed, they were still not a threat. Were they even still on the man's property at the time?

Water under the bridge, though.

Back to privacy. It seems we (Civilized society) are going to have to define privacy in minute detail.

My thinking:

If you are in a public place, you have forfeited your right to privacy. If you are in someone else's property, your privacy is subject to their own rights.

These days there should be the assumption that your behavior in public may be recorded, and that record of your behavior can and will be used as evidence of any events that occur.

I have a camera pointed at my front door. You have to have committed yourself to be in my property to be at my front door, and therefore your right to privacy is forfeit.

If I were to point that camera at my next door neighbors' property, I would be violating their right to privacy.


The one difference to this in British law, as I understand it, is that if you have CCTV on your property you must have a notice to warn people (general, not telling them where it's pointing) at each entrance.

Smaug;1491668 wrote: Anybody who is armed is a threat, or potential threat, IMO. Fleeing people may suddenly turn and fire/attack with a carried weapon. I believe the shooting took place on Tony Martin's property.

As regards privacy, I would agree with you on the various points you make. Seems logical to me.


If I was an armed, fleeing criminal, I would be a lot more likely to shoot at a person from whom I am fleeing if they started shooting at me.

Just sayin'

LarsMac;1491682 wrote: If I was an armed, fleeing criminal, I would be a lot more likely to shoot at a person from whom I am fleeing if they started shooting at me.

Just sayin'


We all react differently, I guess. Not sure how I would react, so I can't answer that in all honesty. Ducking/dodging would certainly be quite high on the list! :wah: