Washington Bus Driver Attacks Armed Photographer for Recording Him in Public

[rightwinglibertarian]

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Not wanting to be recorded in public, a Washington city bus driver attacked a man with a camera Saturday, telling him, “If you take my picture, I’ll ****ing lay you out, ***********.”

The driver then stormed up to Scott Shimek with a hand over his face to conceal his identity, invading the photographer’s personal space while telling him, “get the hell away from me, punk.”

He then tried to snatch Shimek’s camera.

Shimek, who was open carrying with a Glock .40 caliber on his belt, told him, “you better get the **** out of my face.

1) why oh WHY are people stupid enough to get aggressive with an armed person? Police, Security, Bus drivers, as soon as a gun in involved they lose all sense, forgetting they could easily get killed.

When asked if he was ever tempted to pull out his gun during the attack:

Once he tried gouging my eye out, he took it to another level

Thats easily grounds to draw and fire right there. Immediate threat of serious injury. Not to mention the possibility of an aggressive man like the driver trying to take the gun. I certainly hope it wasnt a member of OCDO

2) He was banned from the busses and even the bus stops. Correct me if i'm wrong but this OCer showed huge restraint in not firing his weapon in an assault. I know smoking pot is legal here but you've got to be smoking a lot more than that to get things this wrong :banghead:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

He is a member.

Can't believe the innocent guy was banned.

Take that anti's gun guy didn't shoot someone aggressing them.

 

[skidmark]

Pretty sure a 2nd-year law student could win at least a few hundred thousand dollars in personal injury, and somewhere between a boatload and a metric [expletive]it-ton in punitive damages.

Thank goodness bus drivers do not seem to be covered by qualified immunity.

stay safe.

 

[BB62]

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

1) why oh WHY are people stupid enough to get aggressive with an armed person? Police, Security, Bus drivers, as soon as a gun in involved they lose all sense, forgetting they could easily get killed.

Thats easily grounds to draw and fire right there. Immediate threat of serious injury. Not to mention the possibility of an aggressive man like the driver trying to take the gun. I certainly hope it wasnt a member of OCDO

2) He was banned from the busses and even the bus stops. Correct me if i'm wrong but this OCer showed huge restraint in not firing his weapon in an assault. I know smoking pot is legal here but you've got to be smoking a lot more than that to get things this wrong :banghead:

I watched the whole sickening tape from beginning to end.

Though they're not all like it, this one is yet another example of an a$$ with a camera - and a OCed gun?

The a$$ behind the camera 1) reinforces the negative stereotype of PINAC, and 2) reinforces the negative stereotype of a belligerent OCer. :banghead:

Just plain stupid all around.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I watched the whole sickening tape from beginning to end.

Though they're not all like it, this one is yet another example of an a$$ with a camera - and a OCed gun?

The a$$ behind the camera 1) reinforces the negative stereotype of PINAC, and 2) reinforces the negative stereotype of a belligerent OCer. :banghead:

Just plain stupid all around.

So, blame the victim.

That is always the answer. The guy holding the camera was not the aggressor, the bus driver was.

The bus driver started the attack, something that was left out of the article was that upon reviewing the government's video, the photographer was cleared as it shows he was attacked by the driver. The photographer is/was in the process of obtaining a copy of said videos.

So, ixna the name calling and stop blaming the victim. Unless you believe that a person should be accosted based on what they are wearing.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[BB62]

So, blame the victim.

That is always the answer. The guy holding the camera was not the aggressor, the bus driver was.

The bus driver started the attack, something that was left out of the article was that upon reviewing the government's video, the photographer was cleared as it shows he was attacked by the driver. The photographer is/was in the process of obtaining a copy of said videos.

So, ixna the name calling and stop blaming the victim. Unless you believe that a person should be accosted based on what they are wearing.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

"Blame the victim" - oh puhleeese!

Anyone with a modest amount of sense recognizes the accuracy of my previous statement, completely unrelated to whom "the victim" was: The a$$ behind the camera 1) reinforces the negative stereotype of PINAC, and 2) reinforces the negative stereotype of a belligerent OCer.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t_rnLe2bo4

 

[Whitney]

Confused ?

"Blame the victim" - oh puhleeese!

Anyone with a modest amount of sense recognizes the accuracy of my previous statement, completely unrelated to whom "the victim" was: The a$$ behind the camera 1) reinforces the negative stereotype of PINAC, and 2) reinforces the negative stereotype of a belligerent OCer.

How is this different than OC in the Zoo?
Not looking for an argument here, just don't see much difference in taking the government to task in both situations.

~Whitney

 

[solus]

How is this different than OC in the Zoo?
Not looking for an argument here, just don't see much difference in taking the government to task in both situations.

~Whitney

if you read the zoo thread...you will discern all the earthbound zoo deities were duly apprised beforehand what was about to transpire at the zoo and took appropriate action ~ got a restraining order.

tell the transit company date/time that this idiot is about to make an appearance...my money is he would be similarly barred.

i'm sorry whitney, but if you truly expect ppl to answer your rudely asked and irrelevant questions, e.g., you have to tell me his/your name, etc., NOW and YET all the while pushing a camera into ppl's faces out of the blue and then refuse to answer their legitimate (from my humble perspective) questions, e.g., why are you video'g me, etc., directly but with some smart arse statement ~ i don't answer question is an asinine perspective on your part.

my sympathy is not going to the savant who got his 15 minutes of fame...yet AGAIN! sorry, some bloke shows up and starts video'g w/o responding civilly to my legitimate questions as to why...nawllll this situation won't happen on my watch.

tho i am sorry he only lost one piece to his pride and joy...

ipse

 

[BB62]

How is this different than OC in the Zoo?
Not looking for an argument here, just don't see much difference in taking the government to task in both situations.

~Whitney

Tell me that you're not serious, Whitney!! :question:

Please point out where I, on camera or not, conducted myself in a manner like the individual behind the camera.

The issue is not "taking the government" (or any other entity) to task, but HOW one does it. Various PINAC people I've seen have no concept of such a distinction.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Please somebody explain exactly what the photographer did that was offensive? I saw nothing offensive in his video, but maybe someone can point me to the frame where he broke the law, or invaded another person's space.

If you don't want to be photographed, video, keep your behind at home. Do not go out in public.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

He is a member.

Can't believe the innocent guy was banned.

Take that anti's gun guy didn't shoot someone aggressing them.

I tagged the offending organisations on my news page but of course they're too cowardly to respond. I've a good mind to go down to to Tacoma and start asking questions - while videoing. Course I might get assaulted and kidnapped just exercising my right to freedom of speech

Pretty sure a 2nd-year law student could win at least a few hundred thousand dollars in personal injury, and somewhere between a boatload and a metric [expletive]it-ton in punitive damages.

Thank goodness bus drivers do not seem to be covered by qualified immunity.

stay safe.

Good. They should win a bucket load. But Pu-LEASE don't get me started on qualified immunity. I nearly blew all my fuses at once reading about that sham. It should be severely curtailed so that if a judge violates the Constitution with an order, they immediately lose their immunity from prosecution

 

[Whitney]

Tell me that you're not serious, Whitney!! :question:

Please point out where I, on camera or not, conducted myself in a manner like the individual behind the camera.

The issue is not "taking the government" (or any other entity) to task, but HOW one does it. Various PINAC people I've seen have no concept of such a distinction.

Just trying to understand your perspective. We clearly have different views as I did not believe it to be offensive.

~Whitney

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Pretty sure a 2nd-year law student could win at least a few hundred thousand dollars in personal injury, and somewhere between a boatload and a metric [expletive]it-ton in punitive damages.

Thank goodness bus drivers do not seem to be covered by qualified immunity.

stay safe.

+1

Please somebody explain exactly what the photographer did that was offensive? I saw nothing offensive in his video, but maybe someone can point me to the frame where he broke the law, or invaded another person's space.

If you don't want to be photographed, video, keep your behind at home. Do not go out in public.

+1

Especially if you work for the public. It is well established by the courts here a public official while on the clock has no expectation of privacy.

I for one wish more people would just start recording folks who work on other peoples dimes. They should feel watched and as if someone is looking at their every move.

 

[Difdi]

Though they're not all like it, this one is yet another example of an a$$ with a camera - and a OCed gun?

I'm curious. Where in the Constitution does it state that you can only legitimately exercise one right at a time?

 

[Grim_Night]

Some say that the photographer was an ass and deserved what he got. I say that regardless of what the photographer said or did, his actions were still legal, period. The Pierce Transit employee however, was completely in the wrong and in violation of the law. Personally, I don't see a single thing wrong with what the photographer said or did. The Pierce Transit employee instigated the issue from the very first moment when he threatened the photographer with assault. At the point when he charged the photographer, he started the assault on the photographer.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Some say that the photographer was an ass and deserved what he got. I say that regardless of what the photographer said or did, his actions were still legal, period. The Pierce Transit employee however, was completely in the wrong and in violation of the law. Personally, I don't see a single thing wrong with what the photographer said or did. The Pierce Transit employee instigated the issue from the very first moment when he threatened the photographer with assault. At the point when he charged the photographer, he started the assault on the photographer.

+1 (something Utah never gets!)

 

[BB62]

I'm curious. Where in the Constitution does it state that you can only legitimately exercise one right at a time?

I'm curious. Where in my posts did I say anything about the illegitimacy of concurrently exercising rights?

 

[BB62]

Some say that the photographer was an ass and deserved what he got. ...

(my bold)

Maybe you can point out who said that?

We'll be waiting.

 

[5918mike]

"Blame the victim" - oh puhleeese!

Anyone with a modest amount of sense recognizes the accuracy of my previous statement, completely unrelated to whom "the victim" was: The a$$ behind the camera 1) reinforces the negative stereotype of PINAC, and 2) reinforces the negative stereotype of a belligerent OCer.

How do you blame the camera person, he was approached aggressively and defended himself against an attack.