Racist dog owner Sage Meadows Calgary

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by jhunt223

What a dork. If you don't want mean things said to you then maybe don't follow people around with a camera demanding things of them.

I kind of agree, but my guess is that this is an on-going problem. The guy had apparently taken the time to get informed on bylaws and apparently only turned the camera on once she got testy.

I don't normally like the "Shame people into good behavior" tactic but the woman's response doesn't exactly solicit sympathy.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

You said:


Now I take that literally, just like in the Toronto Police Officer shooting thread where I stated that I knew the evidence when I clearly meant the evidence the public had or the evidence from the video, not all the evidence in the world and when you did your little when I posted officers are instructed to eliminate the threat. Then another poster posted a video where it tells the difference between Hollywood and reality and how officers are trained to stop the threat. I have heard both terms used and yet you had to jump all over me. Anyhow, I missed the defense posting and I apologize.

You don't get to hit people just because they hit you, so feel free to take that literally. The justification for a response involving force isn't 'they hit me first', it's the reasonable belief of a need to use force to defend yourself.

I don't know what you "clearly meant" in that other thread. You seemed to have quite clearly made up your mind on the topic, and while others were discussing what might come out at trial and what other information may be presented, and it's role in the trial, you made the declaratory statement that you had seen the evidence. You didn't seem all that interested in actually seeing all of the evidence, just that which you had seen and felt supported your entrenched position, hence the response.

[DuffMan]

If Sage Meadows were in Florida, I'd have just shot her, while fearing for my life, when she shoved me. problem solved. case closed.

[Inglewood Jack]

in the end, just another example that two wongs don't make a white

[crazy_eoj]

This has to be one of the strangest threads in awhile.

Was the pathway en route to a lake? If not it doesn't really matter what happened everyone in that community is basically scum anyways.

[sec304]

good thing he didn't ask her if she'd been to Stampede already!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So if someone is filming me, do I have the right to grab their phone or camera and punt it into the woods?

If someone posts a video clip of me on youtube without my permission, what are my rights there?

Because when I'm out murdering hobo's I want to make sure it doesn't get on no youtube.

No because that's theft, basically you have none (it would likely fall under "editorial use"), and have a look-out when you're out murding hobos.

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont think people have the right to just video other people in public, especially without consent. If they're committing a crime its one thing, for having their dogs off-leash? No way.

You'd be wrong. You can shoot almost anything in public (sticking your camera under a woman's skirt is an obvious exception). The restrictions are on the publishing side, where the general rule is if it's editorial use you're okay (this is what allows the papperazzi to operate) or if the person is not identifiable you're okay. If the person is identifiable and it's non-editorial use, you need a model release to publish.

Note that editorial use, in this context, is a bit of legal jargon that might have a slightly different meaning than what you might expect.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by SebC

You'd be wrong. You can shoot almost anything in public (sticking your camera under a woman's skirt is an obvious exception). The restrictions are on the publishing side, where the general rule is if it's editorial use you're okay (this is what allows the papperazzi to operate) or if the person is not identifiable you're okay. If the person is identifiable and it's non-editorial use, you need a model release to publish.

Note that editorial use, in this context, is a bit of legal jargon that might have a slightly different meaning than what you might expect.

Is the the same for filming of minors in public?

[18flames]

Wow, the discussion went from racist to sexist pretty quick, and I mean that from the people who are saying you can't hit her if she's a woman, who cares if she doesn't have man parts, anyone acting hostile towards me will get hostility back, anyone using the, you can't hit her cause she's a girl is definitely what is holding back women rights.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is the the same for filming of minors in public?

Pretty much. The difference is that if you want a model release you need the parent/guardian to sign.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by 18flames

Wow, the discussion went from racist to sexist pretty quick, and I mean that from the people who are saying you can't hit her if she's a woman, who cares if she doesn't have man parts, anyone acting hostile towards me will get hostility back, anyone using the, you can't hit her cause she's a girl is definitely what is holding back women rights.

Exactly, nothing will advance women's rights quicker than a good ole beating.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by valo403

You don't get to hit people just because they hit you, so feel free to take that literally.

The Criminal Code of Canada would disagree with you.

Defence — use or threat of force

• 34. (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
  
  • (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I don't have much of an issue with the person behind the camera. I live in a community that has 2 off-leash dog parks so within 5 minute walking distance from any house in the community you can get to one. And yet a fair chunk of dog owners decide to walk their dogs off-leash on a bike path behind the community. For the majority of them they're probably good enough dogs but I have seen a biker crash into a bush trying to avoid a dog that came running at/beside him, I've seen terrified children running away crying from (friendly) dogs and one nearly causing an accident as it chased after a rabbit close to a major street forcing a driver to slam on his/her brakes. All of these pretty recently.

I have my own dog, when I walk it and come close to someone I rein in on the leash to stop him from running up to the person. If the person wants to pet him I'll slacken the leash. But I think it's just common courtesy and responsible ownership to have control of your dogs in public. When I want him off-leash I'll go to an off-leash park. I know the excuses, my dog is friendly and wouldn't hurt anyone, my dog always comes when he's called etc. etc. and while probably true, how do others know this?

Leash up, there's a reason it's a law and there are off-leash parks. If you're going to ignore the law even after your neighbour has expressed his concerns with it, don't cry about being publicly shamed.

[sun]

Filming someone who isn't complying with your request is ####ty and annoying. Being a racist is totally unnecessary and uncalled for. Filming with your phone vertically oriented calls for medieval torture of some sort.

[Smartcar]

What's wrong with filming vertically? Doesn't it depend on the subject, sort of like shooting in portrait mode? I do it all the time for buildings and people. Not so much for landscapes.

[Red Slinger]

It's August on a hockey message board, which means it's the dog days of summer for interesting topics.

I'm pretty sure puckluck is only doing this to stir things up and getting an hilarious internet mob beat down going. Thanks for taking one for the team!

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

What's wrong with filming vertically? Doesn't it depend on the subject, sort of like shooting in portrait mode? I do it all the time for buildings and people. Not so much for landscapes.

Kidding.

[Smartcar]

I meant shooting photos. I rarely shoot video, the times I have it hasn't been on a smartphone and I use a tripod with my DSLR, never tried to shoot vertically.

[Clarkey]

I don't care what race you are this falls under the First World Problems category.

[V]

He's happy to put her face on the internet for all to see, but he refuses to identify himself in the paper? What a pansy.