He got in my face, was hitting me, and choked me

[Calliso]

The photographer asked a POLICE OFFICER if it was ok to take the pictures. The officer said it was perfectly legal. Why should the photographer have to spend time in jail when he went out of his way to make sure he was not breaking the law? If it truly was not legal to be taking the pictures than the police officer that told the photographer it was ok is the one in the wrong not the photographer.

Eh good point still I think it should have been illegal though. But that is coming from someone who has like a phobia of having her picture taken or something like that. Really though I sometimes can;t blame people even though it;s wrong and illegal for smacking paparazzi and people like this who get all up in your face with a camera over and over and over again.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Personally I think they were both in the wrong and both need to spend some time in jail. Now if someone was shooting photographs of me I would get extremely annoyed too probably not hitting annoyed but I HATE getting my picture taken and having it taken against my will would be very emotional distressing to me. However the doctor was still an idiot for not just continuing to drive off when he got in his car.

I really didn’t like it when the Insurance Company, California Casualty, sent some photographers out to my house to take pictures of me getting in my car to refute a medical claim I made from a car accident. I didn’t get out of my car and accost them, nor did I make a claim of harrassment.

These photographers insurance companies hire will even put their “suspect” in compromising positions i.e. almost hitting them or in my case called my name so that I would turn around. Yet they do this, for the most part, within the law.

The idea that Tim, the photographer, was acting outside the law is nothing more than a false claim to distract the issue and blame the victim. It’s a common tactic of the pro-aborts.

 

[Calliso]

I really didn’t like it when the Insurance Company, California Casualty, sent some photographers out to my house to take pictures of me getting in my car to refute a medical claim I made from a car accident. I didn’t get out of my car and accost them, nor did I make a claim of harrassment.

These photographers insurance companies hire will even put their “suspect” in compromising positions i.e. almost hitting them or in my case called my name so that I would turn around. Yet they do this, for the most part, within the law.

The idea that Tim, the photographer, was acting outside the law is nothing more than a false claim to distract the issue and blame the victim. It’s a common tactic of the pro-aborts./QUOTE

I made another post, but I still think what he did was wrong. Also did the insurance people that came to your house get all up in your face repeatedly? Or did they just take the pictures? Cause there is a difference. Also while I think the doctor was totally in the wrong for doing what he did…I trully donlt think the photographer was totally innocent either.

 

[allhers]

Why did the little weasel have to hide around a corner and ambush the doctor? Why not be above board about it?

Nobody has yet addressed whether or not the photographer was paid for his photographs, or for possibly staging such a scene, even at the expense of damaging his camera, just to draw media attention to the pro-life protest? And did he further research the legitimacy of the doctor’s credentials and present it anywhere as an “expose” or a piece of legitimate reporting?

marietta

Little weasel?
Ambush?
Do you really think what you said in your second paragraph even applies to the assult in question? The abortion “Doctor” was clearly in the wrong, that is why the Police sited him.

Talk about putting a spin on things.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

did the insurance people that came to your house get all up in your face repeatedly? Or did they just take the pictures? Cause there is a difference. Also while I think the doctor was totally in the wrong for doing what he did…I trully donlt think the photographer was totally innocent either.

re: Insurance Co. photograhers. They had been hanging around for days to the point where my neighbors were concerned and had alerted us that there were strangers taking pictures of our house. The last we saw of them they were in a car directly across the street from my house. As I was backing out of my driveway they called out to me and I turned back to look. They were about as close to me as the pictures I’ve seen that Tim took of the abortionist. So yeah, if you would consider Tim as harrassing then the Insurance photographers should be just as harrassing if not more.

Now I do agree that the photographer, Tim, may not be completely free from fault. But for some to claim he acted outside the law and/or that his taking photos is a form of harrassment is a false assertion.

Tim may have acted outside the requirements of charity ignoring the clear signals from the abortionist that he didn’t want his picture taken. Tim *may have *even used this situation to intimidate the abortionist knowing that it perturbed him. I don’t know, I wasn’t there and can’t presume to know Tim’s thoughts.

I don’t agree that Tim “get all up in -]your/-] the abortionists face repeatedly” from what I can tell from the photos he took he kept his distance and in the closer up shots it is the abortionist walking towards the photographer rather than the other way around.

In this photo Tim took, the abortionist is ***walking towards ***the photographer.

http://operationrescue.org/photos/m...DownloadItem&g2_itemId=4557&g2_serialNumber=2

In this photo the abortionist has just turned a corner around the building where the photographer is standing.

http://operationrescue.org/photos/m...DownloadItem&g2_itemId=4567&g2_serialNumber=2

In this photo, by the car, the photographer is on the opposite side of the driver, I would judge about four or more feet away from the passengers side of the vehicle.

http://operationrescue.org/photos/m...DownloadItem&g2_itemId=4570&g2_serialNumber=2

A picture is worth a thousand words. Here’s the site I found them if you’d like to see more.

 

[marietta]

allers:

“Little weasel?” Yes.

“Ambush?” What would you call it?

“Do you really think what you said in your second paragraph even applies to the assult in question?” ** I do. **

“The abortion “Doctor” was clearly in the wrong, that is why the Police sited him.” **The photographer was a weasel who refused to **back off when asked. Anybody know if he got paid and, if so, by whom?

marietta

 

[Calliso]

re: Insurance Co. photograhers. They had been hanging around for days to the point where my neighbors were concerned and had alerted us that there were strangers taking pictures of our house. The last we saw of them they were in a car directly across the street from my house. As I was backing out of my driveway they called out to me and I turned back to look. They were about as close to me as the pictures I’ve seen that Tim took of the abortionist. So yeah, if you would consider Tim as harrassing then the Insurance photographers should be just as harrassing if not more.

Now I do agree that the photographer, Tim, may not be completely free from fault. But for some to claim he acted outside the law and/or that his taking photos is a form of harrassment is a false assertion.

Tim may have acted outside the requirements of charity ignoring the clear signals from the abortionist that he didn’t want his picture taken. Tim *may have *even used this situation to intimidate the abortionist knowing that it perturbed him. I don’t know, I wasn’t there and can’t presume to know Tim’s thoughts.

I don’t agree that Tim “get all up in -]your/-] the abortionists face repeatedly” from what I can tell from the photos he took he kept his distance and in the closer up shots it is the abortionist walking towards the photographer rather than the other way around.

In this photo Tim took, the abortionist is ***walking towards ***the photographer.

http://operationrescue.org/photos/m...DownloadItem&g2_itemId=4557&g2_serialNumber=2

In this photo the abortionist has just turned a corner around the building where the photographer is standing.

http://operationrescue.org/photos/m...DownloadItem&g2_itemId=4567&g2_serialNumber=2

In this photo, by the car, the photographer is on the opposite side of the driver, I would judge about four or more feet away from the passengers side of the vehicle.

http://operationrescue.org/photos/m...DownloadItem&g2_itemId=4570&g2_serialNumber=2

A picture is worth a thousand words. Here’s the site I found them if you’d like to see more.

Well I may be wrong about the up in the face but yeah neither of us know I guess. And I would say sometimes how it;s reported doesn;t help either if you know what I mean! Thank you for that link btw.

 

[marietta]

From the Operation Rescue link:

“Tim went to the clinic because he had been told there was a possibility that the abortionist at the Clinica Medica Para La Mujer, located at 120 W. 5th St. in Santa Ana, was operating illegally.** He decided to go to the abortion mill to photograph the abortionist and offer help to abortion-bound women.”**

Why was this young man compelled to photograph the doctor? What were his intentions with regard to the photographs he came away from the event with? Was he reporting? Was he assembling an expose about the doctor? About the abortion clinic? About the women who were coming and going through the door of the clinic?

And how was he intending to “offer help to the abortion-bound women”? He need not have shown up at the clinic with a camera to pray, or to initiate conversation, or to hold a placard.

After much searching, I have been unable to find this young man listed online as a professional photographer in any capacity. The conclusion that I draw, therefore, is that he was attempting to capture images of the doctor to in some way denigrate him, aggravate him, or instigate some sort of dust-up. I don’t care that the doctor went to jail. I don’t really care that the “photographer” did not go to jail. I think the “photographer” was operating without any personal or professional integrity in this case. We all know what pro-life proponents think of doctors who perform abortions, so there’s no need to go there. Do you actually think that two wrongs make a right in this case? Do you find the photographer’s actions meritorious in some way? Come on, spin it for me!

marietta

 

[marietta]

RachelsAlumni writes:

“I really didn’t like it when the Insurance Company, California Casualty, sent some photographers out to my house to take pictures of me getting in my car to refute a medical claim I made from a car accident. I didn’t get out of my car and accost them, nor did I make a claim of harrassment.”

If you permit an unknown person to photograph you and you fail to ask him or her for what purpose they are doing so, you are simplistically trustful. You said it yourself: *you didn’t even get *out of your car. Why on earth not? I would have been out of my car in two seconds with a demand for credentials and documentation of their reasons for taking pictures.

There’s no such thing as a picket fence town anymore. You have a right to know who is documenting your activities, your possessions, your friends and family.

marietta

 

[RachelsAlumni]

RachelsAlumni writes:
“I really didn’t like it when the Insurance Company, California Casualty, sent some photographers out to my house to take pictures of me getting in my car to refute a medical claim I made from a car accident. I didn’t get out of my car and accost them, nor did I make a claim of harrassment.”

If this is true then it’s going to put alot of private investigation photographers out of business.

Unfortunately from what I’ve read privacy laws don’t extend to public places.

[CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE

1708.8. ](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1708-1725)
(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise committed a trespass in order to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.

(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.

The photographer was in their car on a public street outside my private residence. They were photographing me in my car, also on a public street and not inside my private residence. Because I was in public I could not claim to have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Likewise the abortionist was also in a public, not private, setting. He could not claim a reasonable expectation of privacy.

If you have a different understanding of privacy laws then please do let me know. It’s too late to do anything about it now, but would be good to know in the future.

 

[marietta]

RachelsAlumni:

Actually, the point I was making was that if we permit anyone to photograph us - *if we see them doing it *and we do not inquire as to the nature of their business - then we could be setting ourselves up for trouble. When I lived in Texas I had a carload of Cubans parked outside my home for 6 hours one day, watching my activities. I called the police and gave them the license plate number on the car. The officer told me the car was stolen by a convict who came over on a boatlift. When I asked the officer what he had been incarcerated for, he said, “Murder.”

One of my daughter’s babysitters 20 years ago was a private investigator, and neither he nor the other people who worked for the company was ever discovered in their surveillance activities, as they did a great deal of their observation at night and they were very creative in daylight so as not to be detected.

The doctor had no reasonable expectation of privacy. I do believe the argument could be made that he had a reasonable expectation that the photographer would stop snapping pictures when he repeatedly asked him to. My gut feeling is that the photographer’s mission was not altruistic. I think he was no more than a punk who was trying to get in the limelight. Just my opinion.

marietta

 

[estesbob]

From
. The conclusion that I draw, therefore, is that he was attempting to capture images of the doctor to in some way denigrate him, aggravate him, or instigate some sort of dust-up. I don’t care that the doctor went to jail. I don’t really care that the “photographer” did not go to jail. I think the “photographer” was operating without any personal or professional integrity in this case. We all know what pro-life proponents think of doctors who perform abortions, so there’s no need to go there. Do you actually think that two wrongs make a right in this case? Do you find the photographer’s actions meritorious in some way? Come on, spin it for me!

marietta

I dont know how one can denigrate someone who riips babies apart for a living. It doesnt matter whether it is meritorious or not. it was perfectly legal -what the dr did was not.

BTW-Do you support abortion?

 

[marietta]

I dont know how one can denigrate someone who riips babies apart for a living. It doesnt matter whether it is meritorious or not. it was perfectly legal -what the dr did was not.

BTW-Do you support abortion?

This doctor was, and is, following his own conscience, not yours.

I disagree on the subject of the photographer’s conduct - I believe it does matter whether he acted in a meritorious manner. His behavior was not going to effect any change that day. If he is so interested in exposing his suspicions regarding the doctor’s license and his continuing to practice, why not find a legitimate outlet to detail whatever he may find in his research? Playing hide-and-seek with the doctor was hardly professional. So, my conclusion is: he was not a professional, he was a rank amateur.

I support a woman’s legal right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to term, without hindrance or unsolicited influence from outside sources. I think you and I have clashed a number of times on the topic of abortion; perhaps you have read my googolplex posts on this subject. If not, feel free to find my them under “Members” here on the Forum.

marietta

 

[estesbob]

This doctor was, and is, following his own conscience, not yours.

So did the guards at the Nazi concentration camps. A Doctor who performs abortion is beneath contempt. Would you trust such a Doctor to treat anyone in your family?

I disagree on the subject of the photographer’s conduct - I believe it does matter whether he acted in a meritorious manner. His behavior was not going to effect any change that day. If he is so interested in exposing his suspicions regarding the doctor’s license and his continuing to practice, why not find a legitimate outlet to detail whatever he may find in his research? Playing hide-and-seek with the doctor was hardly professional. So, my conclusion is: he was not a professional, he was a rank amateur.

Thats becuase you think there is something noble about what this alleged Doctor does for a living

I support a woman’s legal right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or carry it to term, without hindrance or unsolicited influence from outside sources. I think you and I have clashed a number of times on the topic of abortion; perhaps you have read my googolplex posts on this subject. If not, feel free to find my them under “Members” here on the Forum.

marietta

in short you suport abortion on demand . Could have saved yourself a lot of verbiage by just sayin so.

 

[marietta]

estesbob:

“Would you trust such a Doctor to treat anyone in your family?”

I choose my doctors carefully.

“Thats becuase you think there is something noble about what this alleged Doctor does for a living.”

I have never claimed there is anything “noble” about abortion.

“in short you suport abortion on demand . Could have saved yourself a lot of verbiage by just sayin so.”

I support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. I support a woman’s right to choose not to have an abortion. If you consider my posts nothing but “a lot of verbiage”, just hit your “Ignore” button and be done with me.

marietta

 

[estesbob]

estesbob:

“Would you trust such a Doctor to treat anyone in your family?”

I choose my doctors carefully.

“Thats becuase you think there is something noble about what this alleged Doctor does for a living.”

I have never claimed there is anything “noble” about abortion.

“in short you suport abortion on demand . Could have saved yourself a lot of verbiage by just sayin so.”

I support a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. I support a woman’s right to choose not to have an abortion. If you consider my posts nothing but “a lot of verbiage”, just hit your “Ignore” button and be done with me.

marietta

I always wonder why people who suppot abortion give such long , drawn out euphanistic descritions of just what it is they support. Perhaps its to keep from confronting the abject evil they support.

 

[marietta]

I always wonder why people who suppot abortion give such long , drawn out euphanistic descritions of just what it is they support. Perhaps its to keep from confronting the abject evil they support.

I always wonder why some people give such little thought to the way their posts read: “suppot”? “euphanistic”? “descritions”? Are you drunk? You want to try to explain what you consider to be “euphanistic” and drawn-out about my post?

Long/Short: I do not equate choice with abortion. You do. We differ. I have confronted abortion face to face. Have you?

marietta

 

[estesbob]

I always wonder why some people give such little thought to the way their posts read: “suppot”? “euphanistic”? “descritions”? Are you drunk? You want to try to explain what you consider to be “euphanistic” and drawn-out about my post?

Long/Short: I do not equate choice with abortion. You do. We differ. I have confronted abortion face to face. Have you?

marietta

You support abortion-period. I dont know why you cant bring yourself to admit it, but then perhaps its a defense mecahnism to keep you from having to really think about exacrtly what it is you support.

I have over 5 years counseling women who had had or were contemplating having an abortion. How about you?

BTW-I am an alcholholic. . See no euphanisms there, no attempt to minimize what it i am . I am not drunk tonight, however , as I have not had a drink in 23 years.You see until you put aside all the the euphanisms and rationalizations you can’t confront the the evil you support.

 

[marietta]

estesbob:

Since you are hell-bent on refusing to see the grey area between choice and abortion, nothing I can say will make sense to you on that subject. I do have trouble, though, understanding why you think God’s judgment of men and women who participate in abortion procedures will be insufficient. Is your judgment of these men and women sort of a ramp-up to the only true judgment that counts?

And your five years “counseling” women contemplating abortion: what sort of alphabet soup do you hang after your name which designates your qualifications? Do you counsel women of all faiths? Or just Catholic women? Do you overlay Catholic dogma where it does not belong - on the Protestant or Jew or Muslim or atheist?

Oh, and the word is “euphemism”. I try not to use them. If I’m talking over your head, do let me know.

By the way, I am an alcoholic. I celebrated 24 years of continuous sobriety July 15, 2008.

marietta

 

[marietta]

I have over 5 years counseling women who had had or were contemplating having an abortion. How about you?

I don’t counsel women. I listen to them and, if they request aid in the form of something tangible, I try to accommodate them.

My views come from my own experience having an abortion 40 years ago. Do you want to critique that, too?

marietta