Couple attacks Autistic teen photographing them

Post Reply New Topic

There is no expectation of privacy while "walking" on "Balboa Boulevard" or any other street in the United States. Whole armies of citizen videographers have proved this constitutional point again and again and again at web sites like CopBlock.org and PhotographyIsNotACrime.com. So, any assault from the so-called victims was really their criminal act, not that of the teen-aged autist.

Ohhh, don't try to understand U.K. jurisprudence. It just "is." Let's leave it at that.

That would be a commission of vandalism, and probably assault and battery. The autist's act of recording an image of the perpetrators is constitutionally protected because the act occured on public property.

If the teen-ager's family isn't already being contacted by lawyers, I would be surprised.

This was a violent crime caused solely by the attackers, with no crime being committed the 16 year old - the fact that he has autism has nothing to do with anything (other than this is why it made the headline news). Think about it - if the couple attacked a security guard or a news report taking pictures of them would anyone be talking autism? Would anyone be questioning that the security guard or news reporter had the right to take pictures of the couple in a public space?

You have the right to "defend" yourself from being physically attacked or a perceived/imminent threat of someone about to attack you or someone your with. This obviously wasn't the situation as the 16 year old boy was inside his mothers car.

I hope the police catch these two people and prosecute them to the fullest extent the law allows for.

That it's legal is not in dispute, it's also legal to follow someone around pointing at them chanting "I'm not touching you", but like photographing strangers in public, the legality doesn't mean it's not going to provoke a reaction. No one has said physically attacking someone for photographing you is a reasonable reaction, what has been said is that it's somewhat understandable.

Uh, not it's not. Anyone in public has no right to not be photographed. At least in the USA where we have rights. There are two issues here, the rights of artists to photograph, and the fact that an autistic person might violate social norms unintentionally.

The couple didn't attack him because he has autism, but because he was taking their picture as they walked down the street. To say that it is a hate crime is to suggest that violating people's privacy is something inherent to autism, which it certainly isn't.


Not everyone who takes a picture an artist. If you are suggesting that this kid was working on an art project, I'd like to see the evidence. And for that matter, it would be helpful to know why he was taking strangers' pictures. What does he do with them?
For sure an autistic person might violate social norms unintentionally; and when they do so, they need to be corrected, so things like this don't happen.

I remember I once took a picture of two people walking to their car when I was 11. I didn't get beaten up for it and they didn't know about it. I was pretty far from them and it was just a thought that came to my head when I saw them so snap. I saw the photo years later and wondered "Who are these people?" and then I remembered I took that random photo of two people going to their car. I thought the photo was a waste and pointless. There is nothing interesting about parked cars and a parking lot and two people walking in it. Now if it had me in it or my family, different story.

Kids with cameras are a staple of Americana. Wouldn't it be fun to think that the teen-aged autist in question might someday become a famous photographer like Annie Leibovitz or Ansel Adams?!?

It doesn't matter why, and it's none of our business. Of course the laws in the UK are different. Even many Americans aren't aware that it's our right to photograph things and people that are in public.

I practice street photography myself, inspired by Vivian Meyers, although I'm usually about to do it without anyone noticing.

The Privacy Commissioner here has ruled on similar complaints here, it is legal behaviour. Assault (especially on children) is not.

Is he a street photography artist or is he a deviant - who knows? It doesn't matter. And obviously he was assaulted. That's not the issue either. His behaviour was inappropriate and invasive. He may be coddled and told he did nothing wrong, but hopefully the incident will stick with him and he'll think better next time.

Why is the assault "not an issue"? It is an issue in this scenario, how can it not be?

Because he was clearly assaulted. There's nothing to argue there. But because he was wronged in this way, does not take away from his initial wrong which started the incident. Two wrongs make for an unpleasant experience.

His behavior was legal and appropriate for a person in public where people take pictures of other people. Those attackers will go to jail.

the couple were ordinary thugs IMHO whose behavior warrants jail time. if I was the parent of the autistic child i'd also sue them in civil court as well.