How do u react if someone's wants to whack u even though u nvr take his photo?

[Fallenphoenix]

?? police dont handle assualt happened in private property??:bigeyes::bigeyes:

trespassing~ lol

In certain countries, owners can shoot u~

 

[Fallenphoenix]

i wouldnt wanna use my cam as a defensive tool..i'll prob get a heart attack seeing the body being smashed up or what..

i dont know about you guys, but i put the safety of my cam above myself..

if such a situation do happens and things cant be resolved in a civilized manner and it starts to turn violent, only thing i can think of........RUNNNNNNNNNNNN...

lets say if he does hit, depending on my mood, may not retaliate, just call the cops and in the meantime try to snap a pic of his face with the phone or something just in case he scoots last minute.

if im not wrong if one gets hits 1st without any provocation or retaliation, the person who assulted you can be hualed to court right ?

Just an interesting encounter that my friend had - he was doing night street photography (landscape I guess) in sydney. A passerby attempted to mug him with a pen knife. He lifted up his cam+tripod (the legs closed up) and he stabbed the mugger's foot. He ran away after that with Gold SOC timing....lol I guess his cam was ok after that, as he didn't complain about any damages. Oh ya, the mugger was screaming in pain...at least that was what he said. Of course...I won't risk my equipments too..wahaha

 

[denniskee]

What he meant is that if you are shooting in private property. Cause you are wrong in the first place, shooting without permission.

but still, in singapore, unless one transpassers sensitive govt / military facility, which they have the right to shoot on sight, no private owners of any private property can assualt people for transpassing.

where did u get this info, may i know? does it has any form of legal backing?

say i am shooting people at a shopping mall, its private property, the security can only ask me to leave the mall, by law, he has the right. but to forcefully retain me, touch me belongings or physically assualt me? do u know ur rights as a citizen?

 

[Dream Merchant]

Basically, unless a life is threathened, or say the trespasser lifts a can of petrol and starts to light it with the threat of burning the house down, dun think any landlord or property owner has a right to assult without provocation.

There are some non-sensitive govt/non-military facilities where armed guards patrol, but even then, I believe they must have certain guidelines that must be fufilled before they can open fire right?

 

[denniskee]

Basically, unless a life is threathened, or say the trespasser lifts a can of petrol and starts to light it with the threat of burning the house down, dun think any landlord or property owner has a right to assult without provocation.

alamak, we talking about shooting people with camera lar, not guns.:bsmilie::bsmilie:

thats why dont understand how come some think the private property owner have the tright to assult transpasser.

 

[Dream Merchant]

Could be assult with hands, assult with broom-sticks or assult with rubbish bin. Still assult, just different degrees. Of course in the US and other countries where guns are allowed, different storey.

 

[kkenji]

Just an interesting encounter that my friend had - he was doing night street photography (landscape I guess) in sydney. A passerby attempted to mug him with a pen knife. He lifted up his cam+tripod (the legs closed up) and he stabbed the mugger's foot. He ran away after that with Gold SOC timing....lol I guess his cam was ok after that, as he didn't complain about any damages. Oh ya, the mugger was screaming in pain...at least that was what he said. Of course...I won't risk my equipments too..wahaha

hahas yes i forgot to add..unless i have my tripod with me..
could make one hell of a weapon..hahas !

but nope i wont leave the cam on..somehow find time to store it safely away 1st..

maybe the flash could be used like the flashbang =) just short of the bang only =)

could buy some time to run =)

 

[Yoricko]

I don't think this would ever happen to me. I move away from the area quickly (not running) after someone notices that I'm taking their photos to ease their sense of privacy and security.

If I had no choice, I would block and try to get hold of him and reason. Fighting back is as good as starting the fight.

 

[shiruikage]

I don't think this would ever happen to me. I move away from the area quickly (not running) after someone notices that I'm taking their photos to ease their sense of privacy and security.

If I had no choice, I would block and try to get hold of him and reason. Fighting back is as good as starting the fight.

in singapore at least, afaik, from info from my police friend, the person with the least injury on him is the culprit, and the person with the most injury is the victim. wat my fren meant is that even if somebody whack u with a broom stick and intends to stab u with it, and out of defensive reflex, u deflect his blows and breaks his arms in the process, you are the one charged with assault, not him.

 

[night86mare]

say i am shooting people at a shopping mall, its private property, the security can only ask me to leave the mall, by law, he has the right. but to forcefully retain me, touch me belongings or physically assualt me? do u know ur rights as a citizen?

in america, you have the right to use "reasonable force" to remove someone from your property.

 

[ahbian]

I am not law savvy, and most of the stuff I hear about the legal rights of photographers and people being photographed are hearsay.

Anyone can point out the relevant statutes from here? And maybe interprete it for us the layman.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/

Perhaps can be sticky. I might even print it out any carry with me as I'm not certain all policemen are know where the law stands on this.

 

[attap seed]

i dunno how many of u here are seasoned street fighters (i am not. and i ve never been in a street fight b4).

cus, when someone approached us in a threatening manner, chances tat we will freeze, either from fear of adrenaline (or both!!!).

all the logical reasoning that we are capable when relaxed in front of a keyboard/monitor are out. our heart beat increases. shortage of breath. lost of minor motor movements.

i ve been questioned for shooting, but never in a manner threatening enough tat a fight is immediate.

if you are free, can ask a kaki to role play. u'd be holdin a camera. so one of your hands will be occupied. discover wats the best body posture to adopt when talkin a stranger who is agitated. ideally, u should be able to push him away or at least make it difficult for him to launch a attack (head-butt, sucker punch, push u ... ...). can search youtube for "bas rutten" and "paul vunak" very interesting.

another point is, from recent newspaper of ppl kanna assaulted (lady kanna beaten in mrt station tat she lost some memories, boy kanna beaten in mrt over seatin issue, engineer kanna beaten in yishun prawning pond... ...), all the attackers are somewat "mad" and ve problem controllin their temper.

most things in the street happened so fast and unpredictable tat most "correct" reactions are meaningless.

our best bet is to drill the SOP into your mind. we dun ve time to think and see, jus barely enough time to react (much like wingchun chisao).

 

[sequitur]

most of the time people won't approach you and harass you la.. but you never know.


then again.. i've only had one experience and all i did was show the photos that i didn't really take photos of him and he was just "okay sorry about that" so that was all..



and also then again.. some of the best local street shooters (that i kinda saw their faces before) are all damn fierce looking... hahaha i wouldn't dare to approach them even if they took my photo man.. become i zao instead

 

[Fallenphoenix]

but still, in singapore, unless one transpassers sensitive govt / military facility, which they have the right to shoot on sight, no private owners of any private property can assualt people for transpassing.

where did u get this info, may i know? does it has any form of legal backing?

say i am shooting people at a shopping mall, its private property, the security can only ask me to leave the mall, by law, he has the right. but to forcefully retain me, touch me belongings or physically assualt me? do u know ur rights as a citizen?

Erm...is the question directed to me? In Sg, security can ask u to leave the mall, like the example that u stated. He too can take down ur identification details if u refused to stay till the police authorities arrived in the event that he believed that u've took pictures with malicious intentions, be it a mall, office or private home property. Of course, he can't forcefully physically retain u...but it's a grey area... can the security forcefully retain a shoplifter? What I was referring to in the previous post is trespassing... U can trespass a mall if it's closed. If u're in there when the mall is closed, I think the security guard ve a good reason to retain u with suspicion of burglary till the authorities arrive.

I believed Night86mare has highlighted the fact that people are allowed to use guns against trespassers in some countries. If u've watched enough american movies, it is a norm over there. One such place in America is Virginia. I have a friend who was lost over there and tried to ask a farmer for directions at night. At about 50m away, he clocked his shotgun (he was smoking with a shotgun in his hand and his dog by his side). Worrying that he's a redneck, he and his american friends turned back(in their car) and continued their lost journey~ His american friend(driver) told him that he could shoot them as they were in his property on the basis of trespassing (and thus why some folks over there want to ban guns)... of course, this is what that dude was saying. Whether it is true or not, u can check out with the authorities over there.

 

[+evenstar]

from what i know, we have the right of private defence and can hit back if someone assaults you. (but not hit back until you kill that person)

extracted from the penal code

Nothing done in private defence is an offence
96. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 96]

Right of private defence of the body and of property
97. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend —

(a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body;

(b) the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 97]

Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.
98. When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind, or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.

Illustrations

(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A. Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.

(b) A enters, by night, a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a housebreaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 98]

Acts against which there is no right of private defence
99. —(1) There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.

(2) There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.

(3) There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Extent to which the right may be exercised
(4) The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

Explanation 1.—A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.

Explanation 2.—A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction; or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or, if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 99]

When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death
100. The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right is of any of the following descriptions:

(a) such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

(b) such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

(c) an assault with the intention of committing rape;

(d) an assault with the intention of committing non-consensual penile penetration of the anus;

(e) an assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

(f) an assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
[51/2007]

[Indian PC 1860, s. 100]

When such right extends to causing any harm other than death
101. If the offence is not of any of the descriptions enumerated in section 100, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 101]

Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body
102. The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or a threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 102]

When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death
103. The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrongdoer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, is an offence of any of the following descriptions:

(a) robbery;

(b) house-breaking by night;

(c) mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;

(d) theft, mischief or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 103]

When such right extends to causing any harm other than death
104. If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, is theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in section 103, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrongdoer of any harm other than death.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 104]

Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property
105. —(1) The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences.

(2) The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property, or till the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or till the property has been recovered.

(3) The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues.

(4) The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief, continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief.

(5) The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by night continues as long as house-trespass which has been begun by such house-breaking continues.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 105]

Right of private defence against a deadly assault when there is risk of harm to an innocent person
106. If, in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender is so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.

Illustration

A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.

[Indian PC 1860, s. 106]

 

[shiruikage]

wow...cool...

 

[Fallenphoenix]

from what i know, we have the right of private defence and can hit back if someone assaults you. (but not hit back until you kill that person)

extracted from the penal code

I think that'll be manslaughter if the person is dead, like in the typical sg drama.

I guess the redneck probably could shoot my friend on the account of hsebreaking/trespassing his property if those rules were also applied to virginia.

somehow I'm glad that I'm not in law....wahaha...but the job pays better than mine~ sigh~

 

[fongi]

as long as dat person can cause me harm, i defintely will hit b4 he does... better him den me see who more kuai lan...

 

[kkenji]

could consider using the flash as a diversion =)
stun him or blind him for that few seconds is enough to get a headstart while he is still rubbing his eyes n seeing orbs all around =)

jsut short of the bang only

 

[kkenji]

in singapore at least, afaik, from info from my police friend, the person with the least injury on him is the culprit, and the person with the most injury is the victim. wat my fren meant is that even if somebody whack u with a broom stick and intends to stab u with it, and out of defensive reflex, u deflect his blows and breaks his arms in the process, you are the one charged with assault, not him.

hmm, that doesnt sound very fair !!!