Was I out of line?

[Holding Pattern]

Preface: I'm a civilian. The extent of my medical care involves what training I have received through CAP (CPR and AED, Basic first aid.)

On my way to a celebration yesterday. Friend offers to cook dinner. Well, any day I don't have to cook and/or buy dinner is automatically a good one, so I agree and I'm on my merry way. On my way, I see an individual on the ground on a sidewalk with a man standing over her on a phone.

I pull over, confirm the man is on the phone with 911, do an assessment of the situation, then based on that I talked to the individual to keep the individual conscious.

Then the lookey loos show up. Thankfully the EMS show up at the same time (so I could take my attention away from the injured person), but one lookey loo in particular decided to start snapping pictures of the individual on the ground.

I put on my best angry face and told the lookey loo to turn that camera off. Camera was turned off.

-------------------

Now, I would have had far less of an issue of the focus of said camera was on the responders. Or if it was of the scene in general. But taking pictures of someone on the ground... it felt like someone taking advantage of someone that had no ability to stand up for themselves.

Was telling them to turn their cameras off inappropriate? Is there a better way to handle that situation?

[Eclipse]

As a private person just looking to help, you have every right to be indignant about some goober taking pictures on the
street which will almost certainly be posted in near real-time on some "social" media service.

However as a nosy private citizen seeing something interesting on a (presumably) public way, he has the right to
take photos and video.  Common sense and decorum left this society a long time ago, and now TMZ and Zuckerberg's hoodie
rule the media.

https://www.aclupa.org/issues/policepractices/your-right-record-and-observe-police/taking-photos-video-and-audio/

Good on ye' for trying to help, and a lesson why some people won't any more.

[Mitchell 1969]

As a private citizen, you were probably the BEST person to make that request out of a sense of propriety and humanity. Police or EMS doing so would likely have resulted in a challenge of "You can't make me, I have every right..." which is generally true, absent interference with duties.

So, yes, a basic "Hey! Show some class! This isn't entertainment, this is a person in pain!" Or "Would you mind not taking photos? What if this was your sister, or yourself?" is definitely appropriate, in my opinion.

But that's it. Your words can only be requests or reminders. If the amateur paparazzi chooses to ignore them, you're pretty much done.

[NIN]

What Bernie said.

But I think you did the right thing.

[RRLE]

For a contrarian view, would you have done the same thing if the person snapping the photos showed a very prominent press credential?

[Holding Pattern]

For a contrarian view, would you have done the same thing if the person snapping the photos showed a very prominent press credential?

Honestly, until that situation occurs, I won't be able to answer that question.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I do not know why changing the situation to someone with a press credential.

1. That is their job.
2. They take plenty of photos, but usually they publish only appropriate ones unless they are from a tabloid.

[Flying Pig]

I do not know why changing the situation to someone with a press credential.

1. That is their job.
2. They take plenty of photos, but usually they publish only appropriate ones unless they are from a tabloid.

That used to be the case... but it is somehow easier to choke down when its a legit press person vs someone just  doing it to post on FB.  Ive been to pretty gory accidents where people were standing around with their cameras filming people in complete misery. Even as a cop, I had no issues with making my perimeter decently large.   People viewing casualty scenes through the screen of an iphone seem to take on a personality like they are watching a sporting event complete with the loud "OOOOOO's and Ahhhhhhh's" and "Ooooooh!!! OUCH!!!!"  Makes me want to break things.  But as a private citizen-private citizen, unless its a safety issue, Im all for pointing out when people are acting like rubber necking idiots. 

[LSThiker]

I do not know why changing the situation to someone with a press credential.

1. That is their job.
2. They take plenty of photos, but usually they publish only appropriate ones unless they are from a tabloid.

That is not necessarily true.  It is dependent on the country really.  I have seen some fairly gory photos published in non-tabloid newspapers. 

Then again, what is considered appropriate is really dependent.  In the OP scenario, there was not anything particular gory from the reading.  Therefore, the publication of a photojournalist's photo from the incident may be "appropriate" if that were the original scenario.  For example, remember these pictures (links provided without direct images on purpose):

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/11/article-2501471-19594E8400000578-211_964x676.jpg
Father carrying his dead daughter after typhoon

http://www.gettyimages.com/pictures/graphic-content-an-iraqi-man-carries-the-body-of-his-news-photo-517617864
Iraqi man carrying dead daughter after a conflict

http://www.gettyimages.com/pictures/palestinian-man-reacts-as-he-carries-the-body-of-his-news-photo-452412732
Palestinian man carrying dead child with journalists in the background taking pictures

http://www.wetindeyonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/dskw.jpeg
Rescuer carrying dead infant after Libyan boat sinks


The difference between a journalist and a bystander is one has a purpose that is related to communicating something.  The other is just snapping a photo. 

Taking a picture of an unconscious person is quite variable.  It really does depend on the "artistic"/"journalistic" quality of the image.  That is, I could be snapping a photo of the unconscious person just to get an image of that unconscious person.  Or I could be snapping a photo that portrays the determination or the moment of a bystander jumping into action to help save a person's life. 

True media, not the crap we see a lot of today, was able to change the world through rather powerful photos.   

[RRLE]

The reason I asked is that several news outlets will publish photos taken by amateurs, usually without reimbursement, but some will pay. In either case, the press has no more nor no less rights than anyone else.

My take is that if the person taking the photo is not violating any law, then it is none of my business to step in their business. At best, they might stop taking pictures. Next best, they give you the Flying Finger of Fate with a hearty Up Yours (or worse), worst case scenario - it gets violent. I am not the custodian of anyone else's manners, nor do I think it is a good idea (living in a state with several 100K plus CCW holders and a Stand Your Ground Law) to provoke a confrontation, which is what the OP did.

[Holding Pattern]

The reason I asked is that several news outlets will publish photos taken by amateurs, usually without reimbursement, but some will pay. In either case, the press has no more nor no less rights than anyone else.

My take is that if the person taking the photo is not violating any law, then it is none of my business to step in their business. At best, they might stop taking pictures. Next best, they give you the Flying Finger of Fate with a hearty Up Yours (or worse), worst case scenario - it gets violent. I am not the custodian of anyone else's manners, nor do I think it is a good idea (living in a state with several 100K plus CCW holders and a Stand Your Ground Law) to provoke a confrontation, which is what the OP did.

If a CCW holder wants to shoot me in plain sight of EMS and police for telling them to turn a camera off, they deserve all the incoming fire they are going to get. I'll hit the deck. Fast.

[RRLE]

If a CCW holder wants to shoot me in plain sight of EMS and police for telling them to turn a camera off, they deserve all the incoming fire they are going to get. I'll hit the deck. Fast.

You're assuming they shoot without further provocation. Keep in mind, the OP started the provocation, putting the CCW holder (or anyone with any weapon for that matter) in the right. A harsh verbal response from them and stuff escalates - assume that the original provocateur then throws the first punch or even just crosses the "reasonable man" assumption of bodily harm and the weapons come into play - legitimately. There was absolutely no need for the OP to provoke the confrontation. The photographer was within his legal rights to do what they were doing and it is no one else's business to step into that - whether the second party likes what they doing or not.

[Jaison009]

Every person with a smart phone or device is a reporter now.

For a contrarian view, would you have done the same thing if the person snapping the photos showed a very prominent press credential?

[stillamarine]

Even as a cop, I had no issues with making my perimeter decently large.   

We had a deputy shot the other night and suspects barricaded in house. Of course there is a million cops there. Of course we pushed the perimeter back like 4 blocks. Then 6. My wife said on the news they were complaining about the fact they couldn't see the scene. Oh well.

[EMT-83]

I think your response was spot on. Score one for the guys.

[Holding Pattern]

If a CCW holder wants to shoot me in plain sight of EMS and police for telling them to turn a camera off, they deserve all the incoming fire they are going to get. I'll hit the deck. Fast.

You're assuming they shoot without further provocation. Keep in mind, the OP started the provocation, putting the CCW holder (or anyone with any weapon for that matter) in the right. A harsh verbal response from them and stuff escalates - assume that the original provocateur then throws the first punch or even just crosses the "reasonable man" assumption of bodily harm and the weapons come into play - legitimately. There was absolutely no need for the OP to provoke the confrontation. The photographer was within his legal rights to do what they were doing and it is no one else's business to step into that - whether the second party likes what they doing or not.

I am the OP. I know my AOJs. And I'll reiterate. If after asking someone to stop recording they immediately escalated to opening fire, I'd just hit the deck and let the on site police light up the camera/gun holder. At no time did I present a threat of life or grevious injury that was immediate and unavoidable to the camera holder. At no time was the camera holder unable to retreat. If the response was in any way aggravated towards me I would simply disengage and, should they continue to harrass or attack me the on site police would be able to do as they are trained to deal with such people.

In no way does verbal confrontation justify an armed response. Especially in the case of telling someone to have a little respect and dignity for the injured.

[RRLE]

At no time did I present a threat of life or grevious injury that was immediate and unavoidable to the camera holder. At no time was the camera holder unable to retreat.

In your original post, you stated that you did more than ask, in fact, a reasonable person could interpret what you did as a threat. You wrote:

I put on my best angry face and told the lookey loo to turn that camera off.

Your "best angry face" and you don't see how someone else could see that as a threat. Further, you had no legal authority to tell them to do anything. I also wouldn't put it past someone in the situation that you placed yourself in, to maybe reinforce your illegal order with a little "muscle" or elbowing to get them out of the way or mess up their view of the scene. That would constitute an assault. States may vary, but in Florida and most Stand Your Ground states, there is no legal duty to retreat from a threat. You created the situation and you provoked it. I don't see any reason for any applause due you. You are lucky it didn't escalate further, since you were the provocateur. You know what they say -

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[stillamarine]

At no time did I present a threat of life or grevious injury that was immediate and unavoidable to the camera holder. At no time was the camera holder unable to retreat.

In your original post, you stated that you did more than ask, in fact, a reasonable person could interpret what you did as a threat. You wrote:

I put on my best angry face and told the lookey loo to turn that camera off.

Your "best angry face" and you don't see how someone else could see that as a threat. Further, you had no legal authority to tell them to do anything. I also wouldn't put it past someone in the situation that you placed yourself in, to maybe reinforce your illegal order with a little "muscle" or elbowing to get them out of the way or mess up their view of the scene. That would constitute an assault. States may vary, but in Florida and most Stand Your Ground states, there is no legal duty to retreat from a threat. You created the situation and you provoked it. I don't see any reason for any applause due you. You are lucky it didn't escalate further, since you were the provocateur. You know what they say -

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Even with stand your ground the threat must be of death or great bodily harm. Someone telling you to turn the #$#% camera off is neither so stand your ground all you want, you'll have a prison boyfriend in no time.

[Holding Pattern]

At no time did I present a threat of life or grevious injury that was immediate and unavoidable to the camera holder. At no time was the camera holder unable to retreat.

In your original post, you stated that you did more than ask, in fact, a reasonable person could interpret what you did as a threat. You wrote:

I put on my best angry face and told the lookey loo to turn that camera off.

Your "best angry face" and you don't see how someone else could see that as a threat. Further, you had no legal authority to tell them to do anything. I also wouldn't put it past someone in the situation that you placed yourself in, to maybe reinforce your illegal order with a little "muscle" or elbowing to get them out of the way or mess up their view of the scene. That would constitute an assault. States may vary, but in Florida and most Stand Your Ground states, there is no legal duty to retreat from a threat. You created the situation and you provoked it. I don't see any reason for any applause due you. You are lucky it didn't escalate further, since you were the provocateur. You know what they say -

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I had no legal authority sure. And they could have told me to go take a hike. But they would have had no legal authority to draw a gun. And again, the moment a gun was drawn I would have just fallen to the ground and let the cops and EMS decide what to do next. If the CCW holder wants to explain away dash cam footage of him shooting someone on the ground... good luck with that jury. If that person got that far.

There is a world of difference between an angry face and a justification for lethal force.

[RRLE]

Even with stand your ground the threat must be of death or great bodily harm. Someone telling you to turn the #$#% camera off is neither so stand your ground all you want, you'll have a prison boyfriend in no time.

I never said the victim's first response would be to draw a gun. I did say that you provoked the confrontation, you even admit to putting on a threatening "face". You have already given the victim reason to have concern if not fear. Your tone, as you describe it, was threatening. Should he respond in kind and you escalate again, then all bets are off. And don't forget - dead men tell no tales. You may be hitting the ground because of a gunshot wound you never saw coming. And he might betting on "better to be tried by twelve, then carried by six." It really isn't a good idea, and certainly nothing to be commended for, going around threatening and bossing people around, who have every legal right to do what they are doing.

Go back to the beginning. You deliberately put on a threatening grimace, you ordered someone to stop doing something they had every right to do and you had no right to order them to do otherwise. You own any and all escalation that might have resulted from this. Consider yourself lucky - this time. The next time you might not be so lucky.

[Holding Pattern]

Even with stand your ground the threat must be of death or great bodily harm. Someone telling you to turn the #$#% camera off is neither so stand your ground all you want, you'll have a prison boyfriend in no time.

I never said the victim's first response would be to draw a gun. I did say that you provoked the confrontation, you even admit to putting on a threatening "face". You have already given the victim reason to have concern if not fear. Your tone, as you describe it, was threatening. Should he respond in kind and you escalate again, then all bets are off. And don't forget - dead men tell no tales. You may be hitting the ground because of a gunshot wound you never saw coming. And he might betting on "better to be tried by twelve, then carried by six." It really isn't a good idea, and certainly nothing to be commended for, going around threatening and bossing people around, who have every legal right to do what they are doing.

Go back to the beginning. You deliberately put on a threatening grimace, you ordered someone to stop doing something they had every right to do and you had no right to order them to do otherwise. You own any and all escalation that might have resulted from this. Consider yourself lucky - this time. The next time you might not be so lucky.

I had just as much right to tell someone to stop doing something as they do to do something. Free speech works both ways.

And to be abundantly clear: Had the individual in question escalated, I would have disengaged and walked away. Had the individual in question escalated despite me moving away, I'd have backed away towards the cops with my hands sky high... and again, where I was, everything was being recorded by several dashcams and several angles.

I have no problem telling someone off for doing something untoward. I also have no problem walking away from a fight.

[RRLE]

I had just as much right to tell someone to stop doing something as they do to do something. Free speech works both ways.

Your alleged "free speech" was done in a threatening manner. Both tone and grimace. You raised it to the level of a threat, which isn't free speech.

I also wouldn't count on your "drop to the ground" strategy to save your life. Almost any self-defense instructor will tell you to not let anyone with a knife (carried in a threatening manner), to get within 14' of yourself. That puts them within the average person's reaction time/distance. You couldn't draw and fire in time. So what chance do you think you would stand against the person you threatened, who was probably within 4'. More than likely you wouldn't even know they already had their hand on their gun. It would be drawn and fired before you knew what was happening.

Don't believe me? Check out this guy.

As I wrote before, it isn't a good idea and could be downright dangerous, telling people off in a threatening manner, when they are doing something they are within their legal rights to do.

[Holding Pattern]

We'll agree to disagree. You've made plenty of assumptions without being there and I've left out a lot of details for obvious reasons. You lead your life your way; I'll lead my life my way.

[RRLE]

The only facts I needed were that your victim was within in his full legal rights to do what he was doing and and you reacted to that in a threatening manner. I also suspect you know, deep down inside, that you did something wrong. Otherwise, why post here for positive reinforcement of a bad action? Would you like a cadet to emulate your behavior?

It wasn't that far back that someone posted here about confronting a Stolen Valor perp. I think everyone here advised them to avoid the situation and not raise it to a point of confrontation. Yet that is exactly what you did and I was a bit surprised you got some level of support.

[stillamarine]

I had just as much right to tell someone to stop doing something as they do to do something. Free speech works both ways.

Your alleged "free speech" was done in a threatening manner. Both tone and grimace. You raised it to the level of a threat, which isn't free speech.

I also wouldn't count on your "drop to the ground" strategy to save your life. Almost any self-defense instructor will tell you to not let anyone with a knife (carried in a threatening manner), to get within 14' of yourself. That puts them within the average person's reaction time/distance. You couldn't draw and fire in time. So what chance do you think you would stand against the person you threatened, who was probably within 4'. More than likely you wouldn't even know they already had their hand on their gun. It would be drawn and fired before you knew what was happening.

Don't believe me? Check out this guy.

As I wrote before, it isn't a good idea and could be downright dangerous, telling people off in a threatening manner, when they are doing something they are within their legal rights to do.

How is "Turn the #$#% camera off" a threat? No matter what the facial expression was. Movie stars do it all the time. Hell cops say it all the time, even if it has no weight of law. And no it doesn't make him responsible for any escalations. Don't work like that. I can tell you to go take a flying #$#%# at a rolling breakfast pastry, doesn't make me an aggressor. But if you come back at me with I'm gonna beat your #% then you have become the aggressor.

And no self defense instructor should be telling you to keep 14 feet from an aggressor. We used to teach 21 feet, but with the average reaction time slowing down we teach even further out.

[RRLE]

How is "Turn the #$#% camera off" a threat? No matter what the facial expression was.

Actually you're wrong. The facial expression matters a great deal, especially when the OP admitted to putting on his best "angry face". He also said that there were cameras around. A jury and probably a prosecutor first is going to look the portrait of the OP's enraged self and come to the only logical conclusion. I think you know what that is. Then depending on tone and words, both your quote above and his could be construed as fighting words.

BTW- although I think the OP should have just minded his own business, why do both you and he think that expletives and angry faces are needed. How about a nice face and a soft tone  "There are injured people here, do you mind not photographing them?" The victim of the OP could still tell him to F-word off and mind his own business but the original aggression is fairly minor.

I can tell you to go take a flying #$#%# at a rolling breakfast pastry, doesn't make me an aggressor.

Your quote could be construed as fighting words, especially if the tone matches the words. And more than likely I would tell you to go "take a Flying F-word at yourself" as my right hand eased the pocket gun out of its holster put kept it in the pocket. My father taught me at a young age to never back down from a bully.

Go back to the beginning. The OP/Perp harassed, threatened and bullied a citizen into stopping an activity they were legally allowed to perform in an area they were legally allowed to perform it in. That is great behavior for a CAP member, in or out of uniform, isn't it? If the victim was doing something they shouldn't have been, according to the OP, there were LEOs around who could have handled it. One of my first reactions to the initial post, was "who died and left you boss".

And no self defense instructor should be telling you to keep 14 feet from an aggressor. We used to teach 21 feet, but with the average reaction time slowing down we teach even further out.

Which just goes to show the OP that his "drop to the ground" strategy is pretty worthless.

[THRAWN]

This thread wins the "Idiotic Measuring Contest of the Year Award 2016"...

[stillamarine]

How is "Turn the #$#% camera off" a threat? No matter what the facial expression was.

Actually you're wrong. The facial expression matters a great deal, especially when the OP admitted to putting on his best "angry face". He also said that there were cameras around. A jury and probably a prosecutor first is going to look the portrait of the OP's enraged self and come to the only logical conclusion. I think you know what that is. Then depending on tone and words, both your quote above and his could be construed as fighting words.

BTW- although I think the OP should have just minded his own business, why do both you and he think that expletives and angry faces are needed. How about a nice face and a soft tone  "There are injured people here, do you mind not photographing them?" The victim of the OP could still tell him to F-word off and mind his own business but the original aggression is fairly minor.

I can tell you to go take a flying #$#%# at a rolling breakfast pastry, doesn't make me an aggressor.

Your quote could be construed as fighting words, especially if the tone matches the words. And more than likely I would tell you to go "take a Flying F-word at yourself" as my right hand eased the pocket gun out of its holster put kept it in the pocket. My father taught me at a young age to never back down from a bully.

Go back to the beginning. The OP/Perp harassed, threatened and bullied a citizen into stopping an activity they were legally allowed to perform in an area they were legally allowed to perform it in. That is great behavior for a CAP member, in or out of uniform, isn't it? If the victim was doing something they shouldn't have been, according to the OP, there were LEOs around who could have handled it. One of my first reactions to the initial post, was "who died and left you boss".

And no self defense instructor should be telling you to keep 14 feet from an aggressor. We used to teach 21 feet, but with the average reaction time slowing down we teach even further out.

Which just goes to show the OP that his "drop to the ground" strategy is pretty worthless.

Nope. Still no threat.

[Chappie]

As a former Law Enforcement/Fire Department Chaplain....and a civilian who has been on hand when an incident/accident has occurred (part of me always wants to respond to assist the family members/friends while medical attention is being rendered) has been to protect the victim and those with them from the "lookie-loos"...and media.   The comment made by RRLE:  "There are injured people here, do you mind not photographing them?" was/is always part of my repertoire as well as "Please give those affected by this a little privacy or space".  Another useful phrase (if situation started to escalate) was, "Put yourself in their shoes.  Would you want someone -- especially a total stranger -- taking pictures of you in a moment like this?"   There were also a couple of occasions where some good hearted folks were recruited to serve as a barrier to shield the scene.   

[stillamarine]

This thread wins the "Idiotic Measuring Contest of the Year Award 2016"...

Nah. Not even close.

[Luis R. Ramos]

RRLE-

You said "Never back from a bully..."

You are behaving like a bully on this thread!

[SarDragon]

And yelling in large bold type is not an attempt at the same thing? Just sayin'.

[Luis R. Ramos]

It may be construed so... If the perpetrator continues so.

But doing it once, it is akin to what was stated at the beginning to tell the photographer.

I paraphrase "ask the photographer to stop in a loud voice."

[RRLE]

I paraphrase "ask the photographer to stop in a loud voice."

Why loud? He is within his rights to do what he is doing. You (figuratively speaking) don't like it. Ask him politely and he is still within his rights to agree or not.  If he doesn't agree and you don't like it then leave. Speaking in a loud voice does nothing but possibly antagonize him and further escalate the situation.

BTW - I fail to see how I am bullying anyone in this thread, I just disagree with the OP and his allies who seem to think that bullying and threatening people acting within their rights is good behavior - CAP member or not.

[Luis R. Ramos]

You (figuratively speaking) don't like it. Ask him politely and he is still within his rights to agree or not.  If he doesn't agree and you don't like it then leave.

Several times the OP told you this was to be his behavior. Specifically that if he (photographer) doesn't agree and you don't like (OP) he would continue treating the patient but do no further! Yet you chose to ignore this part, and have kept a running argument on how doing something the OP did not plan to do would escalate the argument.

RRLE, you are the one escalating this situation, not the OP.

[PHall]

Luis, who made you the "Dad"?  We don't need you coming in and and yelling at us.
And with the large bolded text and the tone you used, yes you were yelling at us.
You got a problem with someone on a thread, report it to the Mods and let them do their job!

[Luis R. Ramos]

No one made me a "dad" nor was I trying to be such.

You read more than you should have.

[RRLE]

Several times the OP told you this was to be his behavior. Yet you chose to ignore this part, and have kept a running argument on how doing something the OP did not plan to do would escalate the argument.

Having dealt with my share of bullies in my life, (haven't we all) I really doubt the OP's claims to his future behavior. Bullies don't back down unless confronted. By his initial "angry face" and tone, I have no reason the OP would not have continued in his bullying behavior, if the victim hadn't stopped. The rest of the proposed scenario is how I have seen this things escalate in the past. The OP started a chain of behavior that fortunately for him, ended. The OP and others appear to fail to see how this could have gotten much worse, very fast. And the OP by starting the chain, would have owned the whole thing.

And I will repeat something I wrote earlier, the OP must have been questioning his own behavior since he started the thread and even asked "Was I out of line?". Either he had a twinge of guilt, or the question was rhetorical and he was really thumping his chest over his threatening behavior. I still see nothing admirable in what he did, nor do I see it fitting in with any CAP values that are at least sometimes discussed on this board.

[Luis R. Ramos]

You are implying there will be some further behavior based on your own past.

This is an assumption that is not based in the scenario.

If you remember recent encounters between police and community, there have been several incidents where police have killed African Americans that films showed were not intimidating and had no behavior that justified the police action.

Just because police behaved using your rationale. "I have dealt with Blacks before, he will behave like all Blacks I have dealt with."

If those policemen had not escalated the situation, they would not have killed their suspect.

It also leads to false arrests. "Men hit women several times, therefore a woman claiming a man hit her is saying the truth. Always." No matter if the woman involved was a young Marine and the man was elderly, with asthma, herniated discs. When she was the aggressor.

[Holding Pattern]

Several times the OP told you this was to be his behavior. Yet you chose to ignore this part, and have kept a running argument on how doing something the OP did not plan to do would escalate the argument.

Having dealt with my share of bullies in my life, (haven't we all) I really doubt the OP's claims to his future behavior. Bullies don't back down unless confronted. By his initial "angry face" and tone, I have no reason the OP would not have continued in his bullying behavior, if the victim hadn't stopped. The rest of the proposed scenario is how I have seen this things escalate in the past. The OP started a chain of behavior that fortunately for him, ended. The OP and others appear to fail to see how this could have gotten much worse, very fast. And the OP by starting the chain, would have owned the whole thing.

And I will repeat something I wrote earlier, the OP must have been questioning his own behavior since he started the thread and even asked "Was I out of line?". Either he had a twinge of guilt, or the question was rhetorical and he was really thumping his chest over his threatening behavior. I still see nothing admirable in what he did, nor do I see it fitting in with any CAP values that are at least sometimes discussed on this board.

What is the CAP value you are engaging in when you refuse to take my words at face value except for the ones that you want to read into?

You refuse to believe that I would disengage from an escalating situation, despite my repeated claims I would do so. You made my motives into either guilt or false pride for starting this thread. You choose to disrespect me by calling my integrity into question, and then you have the gall to bring up the CAP values while doing so.

As I mentioned before, we'll agree to disagree. I'll further mention that the reason I started this thread is to learn how to be better. You'll find that under Core Values - Excellence. It isn't chest thumping or guilt that motivates me, but a desire to do better. And it is in that spirit I'll take your posts, and I'll continue to discard your assessment of the situation and how it could have become much worse because well, you not only weren't there, but you don't have enough data based on this thread for your worst case scenario because I worked rather hard to keep the event non-identifiable. Plenty of other people have provided useful information in this thread, and to all that participated, thank you. But I think this horse is officially dead.

[RRLE]

This is an assumption that is not based in the scenario.

It certainly is, because otherwise I am supposed to believe that someone who started a threatening encounter, with no legal authority and no business starting it to begin with, is all of a sudden going to just back off. As I wrote earlier, one of my initial reactions to the original post was "who died and left you boss". Our OP is all full of himself and thinks he has some right to boss and intimidate other people just because they are engaged in lawful activity, in a lawful place and he just doesn't like what they are doing.

[RRLE]

As I mentioned before, we'll agree to disagree. I'll further mention that the reason I started this thread is to learn how to be better.

Well you haven't learned much. From all your replies, you still think you have some God-given right to intimidate people in a public place who are engaged in a lawful activity. I don't see any recognition on your part of where you screwed up or could have done it differently and better, if you were going to do anything at all.

[Luis R. Ramos]

You have shown you are more of a bully than he is.

Your reaction of "Who left you the boss" is as bad as his putting on a face.

You RRLE have used more intimidating words than he has.

I would distrust you more than the OP. Just because of your "I met bullies before so I am not backing down."

It is your behavior that has gotten people killed. Not his.

Who is using the phrase "God-given right?"

You. Not him.

Who chastises who?

RRLE. Not the OP.

Who is the bully?

RRLE. Not the OP.

[DakRadz]

I have often called someone out on immoral or rude behavior and then removed myself from the situation. If they stop, great. If it is illegal, then the authorities can handle it. If I'm the medic and on duty, I will attempt to give off a command presence to indicate you should listen so the police aren't necessary.

I certainly would never pull my firearm because a person kneeling on the ground looked at me with a "scary" or "angry" face. That's a prison sentence.

It's about being NOT a useless bystander; it isn't about being the PC police.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
ETA: clarified last sentence.

[RRLE]

Luis, you really have to try better than that. According to some other poster, my words aren't even close to threatening or fighting words. The OP still hasn't even begun to recognize where he went wrong from the get-go. He is still seeking affirmation of his threatening attitude.

And neither you, him or anyone else has shown where his original threatening behavior is in any way in conformance with CAP values, Character Development standards or anything else to do with CAP. Yet you and others keep defending him and his behavior. I'm sure the cadets are paying attention - I just don't know what lesson they are learning.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ohh yeah?

Just before you posted your response to me, DakRadz posted a message. On this message, he is supporting the OP's behavior. It is like he says "the OP is capable of behaving like the OP is saying."

And he has stated the conduct you support, that of pulling a gun out if you do not like the looks of anyone, or the way he talked to you, is not acceptable.

And by your words, and I quote no one has shown his "threatening behavior is in any way in conformance with CAP values, Character Development standards or anything else to do with CAP."

Neither is your response. Or are you trying to get people to believe that "two wrongs, one by the OP the second by RRLE, do make a right?"

[LSThiker]

Two wrongs do not make a right, it takes 3 to make a right.

But two wrights do make an airplane.

[Luis R. Ramos]

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Good one.

[RRLE]

And he has stated the conduct you support, that of pulling a gun out if you do not like the looks of anyone, or the way he talked to you, is not acceptable.

That is a misstatement of what I said. I did say that situations that the OP instigated can lead to that. All it takes is for the victim to perceive that the perp/OP has threatened them with bodily harm. At least by Florida law, the OP's intent, whether he lives or not is not material. All that is material is the perception of the victim measured against a reasonable man standard, as determined by a prosecutor and maybe a jury.

Neither is your response. Or are you trying to get people to believe that "two wrongs, one by the OP the second by RRLE, do make a right?"

First of all, I deny your assumption that my posts were threatening, see above where you misstate my position.

Second, since the OP started this thread and asked the question - it is incumbent on him and his defenders to show how his deliberate intimidating behavior in any way conforms to CAP values, Character Development standards etc. I notice both you and him are dodging this bullet, so to speak. It doesn't matter what any other non-CAP party would do in a similar situation. The OP asked the question on a CAP board, so the reference point to any response to him should be in line with CAP values etc. I haven't seen that reply yet from anyone - other than Chappie, who agreed with my suggestion on how this could have been better handled.

[SarDragon]

OK, guys, it looks like we're degenerating into school yard behaviour. Are we ready to shut this off?

[RRLE]

l would really like to see my point two immediately above answered. It hasn't been. There has been a lot of weaving and dodging about but no one other than two or three (I just re-read Eclipse's early post) none have addressed the original question in a CAP context and CAP values. I think it would be very informative if the next several posters addressed that original issue directly.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I can't believe it's still going!

[Luis R. Ramos]

If we misconstrued your posts, you have yourself to blame. Several here showed you you were wrong in stating your impression of the OP, and yet you kept accusing him of being a bully. And you defended your behavior glorifying what you do to bullies.

Is not one of the CAP core values Respect?

The OP stated he was doing his initial behavior out of Respect to the victim. Did you show Respect to the OP?

No.

The OP stated he was performing a Volunteer Service. Helping someone in distress.

Related to at least two of CAP Core Values. Which you did not accept.

And how are your responses in line with CAP values?

[RRLE]

Luis, FWIW I am not a member of CAP. I joined this board years ago when I was invited to because members here were misstating facts about another organization I belonged to. I have hung around ever since. So in that context I am not bound by CAP values.

Second, nice dodge again. The issue is the intimidating interaction between the OP/Prep and his victim, the photographer. Are you trying to claim that the OP was showing him respect? What respect was shown the victim's rights as a person doing a lawful activity in a lawful place. That is the original question posed by the OP. I think even the mods would like us to focus on that.

[NCRblues]

Tick tock time for the lock clock!

[Luis R. Ramos]

What you are saying is that only the victim should defend itself and his/her rights. When you cannot attack someone, you call it a dodge.

We live in a democracy. Everyone can express their views, be them pro or con.

With a consistency of 99.8% we appear to believe the OP was right. A consistency of .2% appear to believe the OP was wrong. So who was right?

A consistency of 99.8% believe this thread should end. But it appears that .1% believes it should not. Another .1% believes it should end, that the OP demonstrated his point but is like a dog with his bone.

[RRLE]

I'll make this simple since it appears they are about to lock the thread.

Neither the OP, Luis or anyone else has shown, despite several requests, that the OP's original intimidating behavior toward the photographer was in any way in comportment with CAP values etc. It hasn't been done, because it can't be done. If it could be done, someone would have done it by now.

Further, I suspect Luis' posting behavior is a deliberate attempt to get the thread locked. He will probably succeed.

However, cadets, please take note. None of the OP's defenders were able to defend his actions within a CAP context or within CAP values.

Last note, take a look at what happened today in New Orleans when someone decided it was a good idea to intimidate someone else. Things escalate, brown stuff happens, people die.

[DakRadz]

Luis, FWIW I am not a member of CAP.

/thread

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

Neither the OP, Luis or anyone else has shown, despite several requests, that the OP's original intimidating behavior toward the photographer was in any way in comportment with CAP values etc. It hasn't been done, because it can't be done. If it could be done, someone would have done it by now.

Your assertion that "making a meanie face and telling someone to put a camera away" is a "threat" doesn't make it one,
especially legally, which negates the entirely of your argument in that regard.

Further, playing the "core values" card when you aren't in CAP just to "win the internet" simply exposes your argument as specious.

Lastly, if you believe brandishing a firearm is an appropriate and legally justifiable response to a "meanie face", you are in for
some exciting interactions with law enforcement and the court system.

Good luck with that.

[abdsp51]

Folks.  Many of you forgetting to remember it doesn't matter how you or the OP perceived their actions.  If this person the OP showed the alleged aggression towards felt threatened and if in fact WA is a stand your ground law.  The OP would have been legally within his/her right to present a weapon and take action. 

Under stand your ground there is no requirement to retreat and no legal requirement to utilize a lower level of force.  What is not told here is how far away was the OP and other attributes. 

Had this been in AZ and the person the OP did this too and that person felt threatened or perceived the angry face, tone and being pointed at a threat the OP could have been shot and there wouldn't be much recourse for the shooter.  And once the criminal stuff was done is free and clear of any civil liability.  In AZ all one has to have is the perception of a threat and fear for their well being. 

Either way OP performed an action some agree with it others don't. 

[Holding Pattern]

I'll make this simple since it appears they are about to lock the thread.

Neither the OP, Luis or anyone else has shown, despite several requests, that the OP's original intimidating behavior toward the photographer was in any way in comportment with CAP values etc. It hasn't been done, because it can't be done. If it could be done, someone would have done it by now.

I must have missed that request... but just throwing this out there... there are few "reasonable persons" that are going to draw a gun when there are cops... right there. Not to mention that "angry face" has a rather wide range and I suppose I could have put something that wouldn't be misconstrued as "threatening" such as "extreme paternal disapproval" but I wasn't terrifically loquacious at the time I made the original post.

RRLE, I would like to think that my original action was within the core value of respect, specifically, for the person on the ground who couldn't defend themselves from being treated as an object to tweet about. I didn't think I needed to state that, as I guessed that was obvious. However, in addition to you not being there and not being a member of CAP, I'm going to take your concern over me via your selective reading in that context as well.

Have a nice day.

[Mitchell 1969]

Luis, FWIW I am not a member of CAP. I joined this board years ago when I was invited to because members here were misstating facts about another organization I belonged to. I have hung around ever since. So in that context I am not bound by CAP values.

Second, nice dodge again. The issue is the intimidating interaction between the OP/Prep and his victim, the photographer. Are you trying to claim that the OP was showing him respect? What respect was shown the victim's rights as a person doing a lawful activity in a lawful place. That is the original question posed by the OP. I think even the mods would like us to focus on that.

Holy cpar! You have 444 posts on a CAP discussion board and have NEVER belonged to CAP? That's...uh...dedication?...of a most unusual sort. And I say unusual because I didn't want to say "borderline creepy."

[Pace]

If I were the victim, I would have appreciated what you did.

*lock*