It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Media is Taking ME to Court Tomorrow!!!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

The difference between this case and the paparazzi is that they have determined before that celebrities have a lower expectation of privacy due to their professional status. The average person on the street will be treated differently by the court since they are not seeking attention or publicity. I think the prosecutor in this case will put the onus on the camera man to prove that he did nothing to provoke the so-called "assault". Let's hope he's on our side (it sounds like he is sympathetic. So far so good)

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

Putting the Celebrity/Paparazzi thing aside.. . ..

Unfortunately Prosecutors are Not sympathetic. They Do Not pursue cases they think they can't win. They see the OP coming. it is a Matter of $$$$$ and the Point for the Win.

They Do NOT waste time on cases they know they Can Not Win. They Do NOT give Wins away as you are suggesting here.

Prosecutors are Vicious and Egotistical. They will Not waste the time of day if there is Nothing in it for them.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 07:25 PM
So.....can we get an update please?!?! Court was today right?

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 07:50 PM
I'm having serious Deja vu.

I swear I have seen this very story told on ATS. A parent concerned the cameramen were recording students, talking about who gets into what cars, the parent getting in trouble after getting into it with the camera guy.

So strange. Hopefully someone will know what I am talking about. I swear I read almost this exact thread hardly 3 months ago? lol

Time slip.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
You didn't assault any person.
You turned a camera away from your child.
You didn't break it did you?
There is no injury therefore there is no crime.

That's not at all how it works. Assault is unwanted physical contact. It doesn't matter if the OP broke the camera or not. If I spit in someone's face there is no injury, but it's still assault. If I shove someone and there is no injury it's still assault. If I grab a woman's ass lightly and there is no injury it's still assault.

That being said, my personal feelings differ. I think if someone is shoving a camera in your face and being obnoxious, especially if they are filming your children, it should be fine to punch them in the mouth if they don't respect your requests to knock it off. I would have most likely taken the bullet for the OP in this situation and knocked the jackass down.

I really hope the OP isn't charged/fined. I'm sure I would have been jailed if put in the same situation, and made to pay restitution for the camera that was destroyed by me shoving it up the guys behind.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:00 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

Ashley I'm almost positive there was a video posted awhile back of an almost identical encounter. I think it was around a year ago though. I'm going to try to find it now.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:02 PM
Reply to post by AshleyD

I remember it, too. The funny thing is that the comments on the first page seem to jog my memory as well, as if it is word for word. I do not remember exactly how long ago, but not exactly recent. Perhaps this is meant to get a specific reaction, and they posted the wrong thread. It begs the question how many other threads are for the same reason? Interesting.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:08 PM
This won't help in your defense of an assault case; but, it MIGHT help in a counter-civil suit.

Here are general guidelines for journalists and photographing children of a trauma situation:


IF the photographer ever SELLS the photos he took without the signed releases - he's got some big trouble coming ... especially if the school and other parents join you in a civil suit.

Whether or not a criminal suit also applies; I do not know, but from what I read it seems to be different state by state.

If it even goes on a web page with ADS or paypal requests etc. ... there's PROOF of the pictures being sold in my books.

Yep, get yourself a decent lawyer for your assault defense ... and ask him to recommend a civil lawyer in case you decide to persue any of the above. Remember, there's a time limit, statute of limitations too.

edit on 13/6/2013 by Trexter Ziam because: situation typo of spelling

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by Szarekh

Thank you for entirely ignoring the part where the crew had no right to specifically film the OP or his child.
They broke the law.There is no IF,AND,or BUT to this.

They certainly didn't break any law. They may have acted like jackasses, but they didn't break the law. Think about what you're saying. If I'm at the park and I snap a picture of my dog and someone is standing in frame am I breaking the law? Are ALL CCTV cameras breaking the law?

There are really no laws giving you privacy rights when you're in public. If there were I would have to get consent from every person that's ended up in a photo, from every driver I've filmed while shooting car videos and all the people I watched on camera when I was doing store security.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by Domo1

reply to post by Tlove250

The good news is, we're not crazy.

The weird news is, I found the thread- by the same OP?

ETA: Or maybe this is just an update concerning court? Sorry to be so loopy. I just feel like I'm in a time warp Twilight Zone episode. lol
edit on 6/13/2013 by AshleyD because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

ETA: Or maybe this is just an update concerning court? Sorry to be so loopy. I just feel like I'm in a time warp Twilight Zone episode. lol

Shoot you and me both girl! I remember that and also a YouTube vid of an encounter that was almost exactly the same. My Googlings are not finding the video that I remember. If we get plopped in a crazy house I'll share my Jello with you.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

Not being jerked around. Yes that is the original post, and another reader has also posted the link. I think there is considerable difference from my first post a year ago until today. I am much more willing to accept criticism, even to the point of probably believing I really did do something wrong. As the court date came yesterday, I requested opinions and examples if other ATSers knew of any. I am curious about right, wrong, other's instincts, how someone else thinks they would react on instinct, etc.

My first post last year was considerably more defensive than now, but I must say without the lesson I am now learning I would probably respond the same way again. My hope for anyone else who finds themselves in a similar position is to be better prepared than I was and armed with more foreknowledge reach a more positive outcome.

As an update, I did speak to an attorney today who will "compel" the news station to provide us a complete copy of start to finish taping including anything that was and was not edited out. If it has not been tampered with, I have every confidence it will show me as an aggravated, but sincerely concerned parent who acted less aggressively than the news crew. The attorney's concern is the complete footage may no longer exist and whatever edited version is presented can be spun to appear however they choose. The attorney does not practice both civil and criminal, but his suggestion was to pursue civil (through any of multiple recommended associates of his) in agreement with me that the attitude of piety needs to be addressed. Apparently, legal and civil can also take the very same circumstance and reach extremely different conclusions. He told me in a strict sense I assaulted the camera man simply by the act of approaching him, however mitigating circumstance is well in my favor in his opinion. He will request a jury trial at which time he thinks the DA or judge will throw it all out for the same reason another reader mentioned that this is too much nonsense for too little return. He made it very clear he could not and would not guarantee the end result, but he felt very confident that if it actually does get before a jury he will turn them into my "fans" (his words) before the 30 minutes worth of trial will be over.

He spent a lot of his own time today also explaining to me that the letter of the law and the intent of the law are often at odds with one another and his experience is the intent is on my side and this is the one judges tend to favor, if f or no other reason than appearing to be caring, human beings (again, his words).

Lastly, of all things, he discounted his rate immensely and offered to let me pay IF I can or WHEN one of his friends wins a lawsuit against them. Wish I could remember all the legal terms, but there was quite a bit in my favor in civil court and it seemed to balance more closely on the legal front. In the end, it could come to how a judge subjectively interprets the situation vs. the "intent" of the law and my sincerity concerning the safety of my son.

I feel much relieved, but we will see. To conclude, yes I did take a attitude of much more finger pointing originally, but my new post is for learning and sharing purposes. Hopefully, ATS readers will understand I am not asking for blind faith nor absolution. I appreciate the input from other members so much I am perfectly willing to be judged wrong if that is the prevailing opinion, but I trusted ATS to tell me the truth as they see it and that also helps me grow.

Hope this explains some of the concerns and questions I have read, and thanks for your time.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 09:19 PM
reply to post by Domo1

Actually, there are laws that protect minors from having their pictures put into media. If a teacher or the principal authorizes it than it is legal since they are given a right to look over the kids while in school by the government. If the teacher or principal or parent/guardian denies authorization they cannot put the picture on line or in the paper or on tv. People still have personal rights in this country.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by Trexter Ziam

Doesn't apply to news.

reply to post by rickymouse

Care to quote that law?

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by samstone11

It's all good. My apologies for getting so spooked. I thought I was having a true deja vu moment. Lol

Updates are totally cool.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by PsykoOps

Here is a general article about it. There are both federal and state laws addressing this issue

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 09:32 PM

at a Photo Studio

Doesn't apply here at all.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 10:00 PM
reply to post by samstone11

It does Not makes sense that the judge would sympathize with someone who has violated another person/s Freedom of Speech Rights based on a Caring and Compassionate Demeanor.

I also believe that there are no grounds what so ever for a civil suite. I think it will become More obvious when the video documentation is presented.

In addition as I mentioned before the prosecution is Not your friend. If they pursued charges it is because they believe they can Win the case. It would be a waste of time and Tax Dollars to pursue something that would not produce either revenue in the form of fines and costs Or a Win for the prosecution.

Sure I am skeptical because I have seen allot of situations like this and they typically do no end well for the accused.

So I will sit and wait for the outcome. Hopefully later you will be able to say "See, I told you so", but I am not confident that will happen.

Good Luck.

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

Looks like I didn't get to you in time, but, I posted the link to his other post on Page 3.

posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum

No doubt I am getting what I asked for when I said it was OK to say I did something wrong. In your case, I have developed a good respect because you have held your ground and make sense. Of course, I hope at least some of your honest criticism turns out differently, but there is only one point I would like to address. You have said the court won't waste time on cases they do not expect to win. This much I agree with. What I have seen before, and hope is similar here, is that it could be possible (maybe not probable) that they just throw as much up against the wall as they can, especially if they can attach a relatively large amount to it, and see who caves in. I have a friend who retired as a policeman, and even though he swears his department never had the proverbial "quotas" or minimum number of tickets they had to write to keep their jobs and make the city money, he said it WAS common to pursue the smallest offenses until it was clear the defendant was going to make it too difficult or too expensive to continue. Of course he was discussing speeding tickets and moving violations instead of what you and I have been talking about, and we may never know if the two situations are comparable.

Again, I truly appreciate constructive criticism, and your willingness to offer your debate in such a civil manner is even more welcome. You may be right with all you have said, but I think you understand I need to be positive and basically hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

One more quick note: I have seen both here and wandering the internet for details and answers that the subjectivity and broad power of interpretation of the law by judges can be both good or bad, and make criminals saints or vice-versa. If all law was black or white with no room for differing opinions or application of the letter of the law vs. the intent of the law, would that be good or bad? That is something else I don't have an answer for.

Best regards.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in