How do you react to your picture being taken without permission?

[asphotographymk]

I'll presume from the way that was written, that you're actually serious?

I think you might just regret it Andy, if you end up facing an assault charge. Not great for business, nor does it set a particularly good example to your family - or to the public at large should they then think it's OK to dish out the same even when faced with the most innocent photographer.

The mature response might be to tell them to stop, and if they persisted in an intrusive way, threaten to report them based on harassment, and act on that if necessary. I think that would normally do the trick.

Yes 100% serious. in a situation when i have already discussed the issue with the photographer and they have continued i would take this on has harassment to myself and to my family and that would be the point that i would be past threats of any kind. My family's safety and privacy is worth any charge. My privacy and the privacy of my family i take very serious. If a photographer wants to invade peoples privacy then expect to get a reaction if you dont like the reaction dont do it.

And yet again i am not saying that this is the answer for every photographer that shoots street photography i am saying harassment and invasion of privacy from me will get one response and one response only.

The is a difference between innocent street photographer and harassment. If the photographer does not respect people privacy then there are poeple out there that will do much more than just trow a punch.

 

[joescrivens]

My family's safety and privacy is worth any charge.

clearly you are going the oposite of my comments about using "a figure of speech" by clarifying you would resort to violence

any charge?

what about if you punched him and he fell and died and you were put away for 15 years for manslaughter.

Would leaving your family without a dad and husband be worth that action just to protect their privacy? Who would be around to protect their privacy then?

 

[Lindsay D]

Yes 100% serious. in a situation when i have already discussed the issue with the photographer and they have continued i would take this on has harassment to myself and to my family and that would be the point that i would be past threats of any kind. My family's safety and privacy is worth any charge. My privacy and the privacy of my family i take very serious. If a photographer wants to invade peoples privacy then expect to get a reaction if you dont like the reaction dont do it.

And no i would not regret it. It wouldnt be the first and it wont be the last time i have used force to protect my family.

I can appreciate you getting very fed up if a photographer takes pictures of you and doesn't want to stop, but I have to ask in what way do you feel that poses a threat to your family's safety? If somebody were to physically harm or attempt to cause injury to you or your family I could well understand the desire or the need to protect yourself with force (I'm sure I would feel the same way) - but that's not the case here and I think you're sounding scary.

 

[PsiFox]

Oh dear why do people have to have this sort of attitude. so symptomatic of the way people are brought up.

My privacy and the privacy of my family i take very serious

There is no right of privacy in a public place. If you feel you are being harassed then call the Police, but if you hit him it's you that will be arrested and lose out.

Note however the legal definition of harassment.

Photography can indeed constitute harassment, but for an act to constitute harassment requires deliberate acts of harassment on at least 2 separate occasions.

 

[big soft moose]

Thing is if he's actually harrasing you - as in following you arround taking pictures of you and your kids then chances are that you can just tell him to go forth and multiply and back that up with a minor threat of implied violence pretty much with impunity because he's well in the wrong and not likely to involve the authorities

Its not usually necessary to actually use violence - but if you do you need to be able to justify it , like he lays hands on you, he makes an overt threat (or you can reasonably claim he did)

 

[joescrivens]

There is no right of privacy in a public place.

Thats a blanket statement to which you cannot back up.

Public toilets are a public place but if someone leans over the door and takes a photo of me whilst I have a poo they are invading my privacy

 

[MWHCVT]

I don't have any problem with people taking photo's or video of me, I regularly get people as to get there photo taken with me as well

I don't see why people have an issue with people taking a photo of them what's the big issue :shrug:

 

[PsiFox]

Of course it is a blanket statement, so are lots of others, but the only blanket we are talking about here is one on a beach with people sitting on it, nothing to do with toilets at all

There is a right to privacy in private places and in public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg public toilets), but how extensive this is depends on circumstances.

Happy?

 

[Spug]

I have never minded having had my photo taken - except once. I was pulled over for a minor speeding infringement in the US and while I was being spoken to by one police officer, another stopped his black and white on the other side of the road and started photographing the scene. I did ask why I was being photographed, but got no satisfactory response, and as I was only being cautioned for my traffic offence, I didn't feel that I wanted to complain too loudly. However I felt that I was put into a position where I couldn't complain even if I wanted to, and that was wrong.

 

[asphotographymk]

in what way do you feel that poses a threat to your family's safety?

In the fact that i have worked the past 10 years as a doorman and made a few enemys on the way. For this reason i do not wish for photography of my family to be made public in anyway. If certain people found out what my son looked like there could be some serious danger. Sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture and realize that there is often more to life than meets the eye. Also my wifes x has a restraining order against him after serious violence towards her and if he found out where she was that could also casue a serious safety issue... See what i mean to you it may be a simple photo to others it is a serious breech of personal security.

 

[joescrivens]

Of course it is a blanket statement, so are lots of others, but the only blanket we are talking about here is one on a beach with people sitting on it, nothing to do with toilets at all



Happy?

if you had that quote already why did you choose to omit it from your original point, it seems as though you were just taking a section of the law to help your argument

 

[joescrivens]

In the fact that i have worked the past 10 years as a doorman and made a few enemys on the way. For this reason i do not wish for photography of my family to be made public in anyway. If certain people found out what my son looked like there could be some serious danger. Sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture and realize that there is often more to life than meets the eye. Also my wifes x has a restraining order against him after serious violence towards her and if he found out where she was that could also casue a serious safety issue... See what i mean to you it may be a simple photo to others it is a serious breech of personal security.

you didn't answer my question. You said any charge - would going down for 15 years for manslaughter be worth it?

 

[PsiFox]

In the fact that i have worked the past 10 years as a doorman and made a few enemys on the way. For this reason i do not wish for photography of my family to be made public in anyway. If certain people found out what my son looked like there could be some serious danger. Sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture and realize that there is often more to life than meets the eye. Also my wifes x has a restraining order against him after serious violence towards her and if he found out where she was that could also casue a serious safety issue... See what i mean to you it may be a simple photo to others it is a serious breech of personal security.

Still no excuse for an attack. You should use reason or call the Police. And I speak a stepfather to 2 kids from my other half that left a violent, mentally deranged (sectioned quite frequently) partner, who thinks she is now dead.

 

[asphotographymk]

I am simply going to step out of this conversation because at this point disagreements on TP go to far and i would like to back off before it does that. I have given my true and honest opinion on how i would react and if you dont like it i cant say i care much about that.

 

[PsiFox]

I am not going to justify myself or go into it anymore but maybe you should think before you invade peoples privacy. Because i can promise you there are many people who would react just the same as me and many that would do much more. When it comes to my family i have no fear of charge or backlash, i also have full control over my actions and ability's so no worry that any damage would be caused bound what i desired.. We will have to agree to disagree here. That is how i would react honest answer on how i would react to what i feel is an invasion of my family's privacy.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree, but, I can promise you more would not react the way you suggest than would.

If it ever reversed then the sickness now talked about in the morals of our society, will have killed that society.

That will truly be a sad day for reasonable people that believe in a democracy and the rule of law.

 

[GrittyShaker]

if you had that quote already why did you choose to omit it from your original point, it seems as though you were just taking a section of the law to help your argument

Annoying, isn't it? People making up their own interpretations in order to back up their argument?

Aren't you aware that "taking things at face value just leads to petty arguments"? "Use a little discretion when literally reading peoples posts".

 

[Toggerman]

People here are not on the side of "the tog". They are on the side of the law.

Of course they are on the side of the tog, it's a tog forum. Just stroll through the "jobsworth" and "uncle bob" type threads to see occasional threats of violence made by the togs that generally get met with "me too" replies, yet someone makes a similar threat to a tog and all hell breaks loose.

Much like some of the threads I've seen on here recently about a complete lack of respect from today's younger generations being a big problem with society. Yet it's fine for loads of posts with people saying "I can photography whomever I like and I don't care what they think or how they feel about it."

Back on topic and I don't mind my photo being taken or my kids, but if I politely ask the tog to stop and they didn't then I would start getting annoyed.

 

[andya700]

I was out on a general photo walk (just along a quayside), when a bloke came up out of the blue and told me "point that at my kids and I'll break your legs".

How is that ever acceptable?

More amusing considering the camera slung over my shoulder and the he was actaully walking behind me (he had to run to catch up).

Why should I be subject to threats when I'm not doing anyone any harm?

(incidently I don't as a rule photograph strangers, just don't find them interesting enough)

You were on Sheppey - nuff said

 

[asphotographymk]

Back on topic and I don't mind my photo being taken or my kids, but if I politely ask the tog to stop and they didn't then I would start getting annoyed.

This is my point. We have as always moved right onto the extreme. As i said at the beginning somone simply taking photos of me or my kids would get a polite request to stop. If they carried on after i had asked them or followed them around then things would be taken further.

Just because the law says in public you can photographer anyone at anytime you like doesnt mean you should do.

In the city of York, it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow... Its legal lets go do it

I think photogrpahers should just use there brain a little and some discretion if they want to avoid conflict and a further bad name to photogrpahers

 

[PsiFox]

Of course they are on the side of the tog, it's a tog forum. Just stroll through the "jobsworth" and "uncle bob" type threads to see occasional threats of violence made by the togs that generally get met with "me too" replies, yet someone makes a similar threat to a tog and all hell breaks loose.

Much like some of the threads I've seen on here recently about a complete lack of respect from today's generation being a big problem with society. Yet it's fine for loads of posts with people saying "I can photography whomever I like and I don't care what they think or how they feel about it."

Back on topic and I don't mind my photo being taken or my kids, but if I politely ask the tog to stop and they didn't then I would start getting annoyed.

People haven't been saying "I can photography whomever I like and I don't care what they think or how they feel about it."

In fact most people have suggested talking to the photographer (who is protected by his rights in a public place) and using reason.

Photographers are entitled to the same rights under the law as anyone else.

It's people that attempt to excuse violent acts as being justified over a photograph that I have a problem with. I attend events with mothers and children some of which are under protection orders. I discuss this with the mothers first and ensure that those who do not want their photo taken appear nowhere in any image. Nobody threatens me and everyone is happy.

Life is much simpler if people communicate.

 

[big soft moose]

I am not going to justify myself or go into it anymore but maybe you should think before you invade peoples privacy. Because i can promise you there are many people who would react just the same as me and many that would do much more. When it comes to my family i have no fear of charge or backlash, i also have full control over my actions and ability's so no worry that any damage would be caused bound what i desired.. We will have to agree to disagree here. That is how i would react honest answer on how i would react to what i feel is an invasion of my family's privacy.

I have to agree with andy here - if someone is actually harrasing you or a family member then there may well come a time when robust measures may be ethically justified. For example I once had a situation with a guy who was stalking my then girlfreind - he was hiding in the bushes outside her place of work taking photos of her and then emailing them to her basically saying 'i'm watching you' (he (we knew but couldnt prove) also photoshoped her face onto some graphicly explicit shots and posted them arround the place, and displayed her phone number in telephone boxes arround the city and various other dirty tricks) The police were pretty much unable to do much if anything effective to stop him - so eventually I had to 'remonstrate' with him ( I didnt cause him any serious harm but I did make it explicily clear that bad things would happen if he didnt pack it in and go forth an multiply)

The "ohh but he might fall and hurt himself" argument is fatuous - the key is to use the degree of force necessary and no more, and in Andy's case as a trained martial artist he would be well able to ensure that he doesnt cause any more harm than he intended to, and the chances of stalkers and other criminals etc going to the authories is basically nil

The other key is to be able to differentiate between someone like this and a tog who's a little over enthusiastic, in the latter case violence isnt going to be on the cards, but it might occasion a freindly chat allong the lines of "scuse me mate, I dont want to be rude but i'd appreciate it if you didnt take any more pictures of my girlfreind/my kids etc" to which most people will react positively and move on.

 

[andya700]

I have taken photographs here and abroad - Europe and Asia, and never been questioned, or looked at strangely, until I took some piccies for our niece in one of these kiddies parties. There was a guy (who resembled a Neanderthal) who kept looking at me everytime I used the camera, and glared at me.
It would seem that we in the UK have been conditioned to see "evil" in everything, to look for something bad in every single action.
I do not know if this is the result of the "Nanny state" or the media, or whether people are just more agressive than they used to be, and want to pick a fight with someone just for the hell of it?

 

[Toggerman]

People haven't been saying "I can photography whomever I like and I don't care what they think or how they feel about it."

Not literally no, but there has been enough threads on these subject in the past and plenty of people have said things then to a similar effect.

And my quote is taken out of context, I'm not arguing about their rights, my point is their lack of respect.

 

[PsiFox]

This is my point. We have as always moved right onto the extreme. As i said at the beginning somone simply taking photos of me or my kids would get a polite request to stop. If they carried on after i had asked them or followed them around then things would be taken further.

Just because the law says in public you can photographer anyone at anytime you like doesnt mean you should do.

In the city of York, it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow... Its legal lets go do it

I think photogrpahers should just use there brain a little and some discretion if they want to avoid conflict and a further bad name to photogrpahers

You see your point is quite fair and valid except with me, you lost my support with the comment

things would be taken further

, which you have defined as using violence.

That is not how our society should work. If you call the police and they move the photographer on then fine, but they could also say "he is doing no wrong" which you obviouly disagree with. You could leave, but would apparently like to "take it further in this position".

 

[PsiFox]

Anyway off to walk the dogs and take some photos, who might be in the background I don't know

 

[asphotographymk]

Nobody threatens me and everyone is happy.

Life is much simpler if people communicate.

Dont pi**s people of and they wont threaten you .

While everyone here agrees that polite conversation is the best thing life is not always that simple.

Many photographers do have the attitude that they can photograph who they want when they want and no matter wht you say to them they wont stop. They are the people that would get an angry reaction from me.

 

[Iris]

I have taken photographs here and abroad - Europe and Asia, and never been questioned, or looked at strangely, until I took some piccies for our niece in one of these kiddies parties. There was a guy (who resembled a Neanderthal) who kept looking at me everytime I used the camera, and glared at me.
It would seem that we in the UK have been conditioned to see "evil" in everything, to look for something bad in every single action.
I do not know if this is the result of the "Nanny state" or the media, or whether people are just more agressive than they used to be, and want to pick a fight with someone just for the hell of it?

I'd have taken his picture just because I could

I think the media has played such a huge part in people thinking that a hobby or profession such as photography is harmful because bad people use cameras.

 

[asphotographymk]

The other key is to be able to differentiate between someone like this and a tog who's a little over enthusiastic, in the latter case violence isnt going to be on the cards, but it might occasion a freindly chat allong the lines of "scuse me mate, I dont want to be rude but i'd appreciate it if you didnt take any more pictures of my girlfreind/my kids etc" to which most people will react positively and move on.

Exactly, discretion is needed and a good judgment. If the photographer is doing no harm then they will respect your wishes.

I am sorry to the people who cant see this but in the real world sometimes force is the only thing that will work.

I just asked my mother inlaw how she would react in this extreme of this situation and she said she would break the camera over there head. And thats from a 5ft pensioner. HAHA

 

[Toggerman]

Life is much simpler if people communicate.

Oh, and on this point as it's come up a couple of times. Communication doesn't have to be spoken, a picture says a thousand words after all. In the OPs case they gave a look and the tog understood and left, that is brilliant communication with no speech at all. I appreciate that not everyone understands this, my eldest has higher functioning autism and has a hard time understanding body language or facial expressions and as such quite often ends up in trouble. But for most of use a simple action is more than enough to get a message across, be it a smile or a frown and it is a far more efficient form of communication.

 

[big soft moose]

You see your point is quite fair and valid except with me, you lost my support with the comment , which you have defined as using violence.

That is not how our society should work. If you call the police and they move the photographer on then fine, but they could also say "he is doing no wrong" which you obviouly disagree with. You could leave, but would apparently like to "take it further in this position".

you are also misinterpreting what andy's saying

I'd see it as

step 1 someones taking a picture of his kid so he gives him a disaproving look and hopes the tog will take the hint

step 2 the tog ignores him and continues to take pictures so "scuse me mate would you mind not taking any more pics of my kids"

Step 3 99% of people would be "sure mate no problem" but unfortunately today we are dealing with one of the 1% who thinks that his legal rights are more important than good manners so now we move on to the less pleasant "look mush i've told you already , stop taking pictures of my kids"

Step 4 still ignored we move to "look ive given you fair warning , now **** off "

Step 5 as the tog still ignores all the warning signs of a p'd off martial artist- " okay **** it we're moving down there you better not follow us or there'll be consequences"

Step 6 tog follow them still taking pictures and has now moved from innocent tog to someone whos clearly up to no good " look ****wit last chance, I dont know what your game is but if you dont **** off i'm going to take that zoom lens and stick it right up sideway, capeesh"

Step 7 - fist meets face - or more likely some incapcitating but unmarking body blow or nerve point grip

Now I know some people will say violence is never justified and that step 7 should be to call the police but get serious the police arent going to roll to a report of a bloke with a camera following you arround - especially a call from a bloke, and to my mind step 7 is justified so long as it stops there and doesn become knocks him down and kicks him senseless which no one is suggesting is justified.

 

[asphotographymk]

you are also misinterpreting what andy's saying

I'd see it as

step 1 someones taking a picture of his kid so he gives him a disaproving look and hopes the tog will take the hint

step 2 the tog ignores him and continues to take pictures so "scuse me mate would you mind not taking any more pics of my kids"

Step 3 99% of people would be "sure mate no problem" but unfortunately today we are dealing with one of the 1% who thinks that his legal rights are more important than good manners so now we move on to the less pleasant "look mush i've told you already , stop taking pictures of my kids"

Step 4 still ignored we move to "look ive given you fair warning , now **** off "

Step 5 as the tog still ignores all the warning signs of a p'd off martial artist- " okay **** it we're moving down there you better not follow us or there'll be consequences"

Step 6 tog follow them still taking pictures and has now moved from innocent tog to someone whos clearly up to no good " look ****wit last chance, I dont know what your game is but if you dont **** off i'm going to take that zoom lens and stick it right up sideway, capeesh"

Step 7 - fist meets face - or more likely some incapcitating but unmarking body blow or nerve point grip

Now I know some people will say violence is never justified and that step 7 should be to call the police but get serious the police arent going to roll to a report of a bloke with a camera following you arround - especially a call from a bloke, and to my mind step 7 is justified so long as it stops there and doesn become knocks him down and kicks him senseless which no one is suggesting is justified.

Thats it mate At least someone gets it. The reality is this is the real world. Not once did i say you should just walk up to a photographer and beat them to death i am saying that there comes a point that be it right or wrong in the yes of the law things (with me at least) would end up with force being used.

This is of course in the extreme worst case situation. I get to fight everyday on the mats so have no need for pointless fights but if its needed then its needed.

 

[joescrivens]

Thats it mate At least someone gets it. The reality is this is the real world. Not once did i say you should just walk up to a photographer and beat them to death i am saying that there comes a point that be it right or wrong in the yes of the law things (with me at least) would end up with force being used.

This is of course in the extreme worst case situation. I get to fight everyday on the mats so have no need for pointless fights but if its needed then its needed.

is it needed though?

If someone doesn't start a physical fight with you then when is it needed for you to start it with them? If someone won't stop doing something then there are other avenues to follow.

I personally would only use physical violence to someone once they had done the same to me or my family. Until that point I'd use other paths like calling the police or simply walking away

 

[Lindsay D]

you are also misinterpreting what andy's saying

Step 7 - fist meets face - or more likely some incapcitating but unmarking body blow or nerve point grip

Now I know some people will say violence is never justified and that step 7 should be to call the police but get serious the police arent going to roll to a report of a bloke with a camera following you arround - especially a call from a bloke, and to my mind step 7 is justified so long as it stops there and doesn become knocks him down and kicks him senseless which no one is suggesting is justified.

I have to disagree. There are far too many cases of the police keenly doing just that - responding quickly and in the process siding with the complainant even where the photographer is totally innocent of anything whatsoever! In a case like this I think the police would probably deal with the offender quite swiftly.

You're saying assault/violence is OK providing it's meted out carefully and I would guess that involves a level of expertise and precision, which few people have in that field. It's more likely to get out of hand with the potential for serious injury, be it deliberate or accidental. And I do think the photographer, whether provoking the individual or not, would most probably file a serious complaint with obvious repercussions for the person committing the assault. Where does it stop? With people thinking it might be OK to throw a 'careful' punch at Stage 3?

 

[neil_g]

if someone is hurrassing that badly then call the police. why risk being locked up for assualting the photographer, if they were being that anal about their rights im sure they'd press charges.

edit - also for those martial arts trained, is it still not the case that anyone using that art against someone outside of class would get you kicked out (self defence aside)? its been a loooooong time since i did any but thats what we were always told.

 

[CanonEOS]

Not to spin this around but i thought this was a camera forum when i joined? But all i see in this topic is the talk of violence and murder where is the common sense in that of a photographer?

To the OP never had this problem

 

[big soft moose]

is it needed though?

If someone doesn't start a physical fight with you then when is it needed for you to start it with them? If someone won't stop doing something then there are other avenues to follow.

I personally would only use physical violence to someone once they had done the same to me or my family. Until that point I'd use other paths like calling the police or simply walking away

and if they follow you when you walk away, and the police dont/cant respond because they dont have a car in the area, then what do you do ?

Sooner or later there comes a point where you have to tell them to **** off and the trouble with not being willing to use force is when they say - "what if I dont"

The other point is that I'm not going to wait until someone's harmed my loved ones , I'm going to act to prevent that from happening.

Of course its fairly rare to get to that sort of point - most togs would either turn out not to be photographing your family anyway, or if they were to have innocent motives and cease when asked.

But just because its rare doesnt mean it doesnt happen - for example a girl i used to work with was on the beach and this guy was taking photos of her - she found it a bit off putting so she asked him to stop - he walked away then came back ten minuites later and started again, and so forth - so she doesnt want a confrontation so she goes home

2 nights later he's arrested outside her house (having been seen loitering by the neighbours) while masturbating in a doorway and turns out to have a switchblade on his person, and to be someone who's known to the police for sex offences. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to realise that there could have been a far worse ending, or to see that had I (for example) been with her on the beach the whole thing could have been avoided by me telling him to **** off or else.

 

[joescrivens]

and if they follow you when you walk away, and the police dont/cant respond because they dont have a car in the area, then what do you do ?

Sooner or later there comes a point where you have to tell them to **** off and the trouble with not being willing to use force is when they say - "what if I dont"

telling them to **** off and hitting them are two very different things.

The police would eventually respond and there are many many other options before hitting said person. Stand in front of them so they can't take photos of you kids - call a friend to come pick you up - go into a restaurant - the list of things is endless.

But what if you were in the middle of the desert 300 miles away from civilisation and the person just kept circling you, and you had no mobile phone coverage, and and and and ...........

 

[asphotographymk]

But what if you were in the middle of the desert 300 miles away from civilisation and the person just kept circling you, and you had no mobile phone coverage, and and and and ...........

This is my point we are again looking at it from an extreme point of view.

As for calling the police we are all in agreement that no law has been broken so what would you be calling the police for? As said just because you can do something by law doesn't mean you should and doesnt mean it wont P a few people off.

I think in some situations force is needed, some people just need putting in there place a little. In this case we aare talking about a Pr*ck that no matter how much you have tried to resolve the situation they just dont get it. People like that need a slap and i would be happy to give them one if in that situation. One of the situations when i would be happy to use force would be to protect my family's privacy and safety. I am not asamed of that and if in the act of protecting my family safety i got arrested then so be it.

My point all along is that the photographer is not always in the right. OK just becasue the law says you can photograph anyone does that mean you should go around a beach following peoples kids or harassing family's. By all means do it but i hope for your sake its not my family

edit - also for those martial arts trained, is it still not the case that anyone using that art against someone outside of class would get you kicked out (self defence aside)? its been a loooooong time since i did any but thats what we were always told.

Its not a movie lol. In 20 years of martial arts i have never known anyone to be thrown out of any decent club for having a scrap.... Maybe in some karate clubs but we are talking real martial artists here. Infact i rember my old Krav Maga INstructer used to always say "hit first, Hit hard and if you need to Hit again" ... haha he was crazy and x isralian army mind you.

 

[Neil B]

Thats it mate At least someone gets it. The reality is this is the real world. Not once did i say you should just walk up to a photographer and beat them to death i am saying that there comes a point that be it right or wrong in the yes of the law things (with me at least) would end up with force being used.

This is of course in the extreme worst case situation. I get to fight everyday on the mats so have no need for pointless fights but if its needed then its needed.

Bet your a nice chap in real life but you are making yourself out to be a complete ahole

 

[joescrivens]

This is my point we are again looking at it from an extreme point of view.

As for calling the police we are all in agreement that no law has been broken so what would you be calling the police for? As said just because you can do something by law doesn't mean you should and doesnt mean it wont P a few people off.

I think in some situations force is needed, some people just need putting in there place a little. In this case we aare talking about a Pr*ck that no matter how much you have tried to resolve the situation they just dont get it. People like that need a slap and i would be happy to give them one if in that situation. One of the situations when i would be happy to use force would be to protect my family's privacy and safety. I am not asamed of that and if in the act of protecting my familys safty i got arrested then so be it.

if the person isn't doing anything wrong enough for the police to do anything then why do you feel you are protecting your families safety?

If they were jeopordising your safety then it would be a situation where the police could do something. And if they are repeatedly taking photos of you when you have asked them not to then they are starting to harrass you in which case the police can be involved

Why would you ever risk the chance that you could either do time or they may have a weapon and retaliate leaving your family with nobody to protect them anyway - I'd never get into a fight unless necessary anymore now that I have a family. Your best protection is making sure you are actually around in case you actually do have to protect them from some violence