Man attacked for taking pics in public in Toronto.

Meh...I've seen lots of skinny white actresses do the same thing.

David's going to have a short career as a paparazzi if he can't take a punch or two from a chick....

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Or talked to the cops. They were already there.You know like normal folks do.

It is beyond stupid to think that it is OK to assault someone because you think he's creepy. Unbelievable. Walk downtown and see how many creepy people there are.

You're picture is taken several times a day.

So the cops were there and did nothing? So the guy was horribly assaulted and/or actually injured yet he did not demand the cops do something? So Cops are evil and probably conspiring with the Muslims...OMG...Yellowstone Volcano be damned...the end is obviously coming before 2012. RUNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

How about another hypothetical version....

First the woman sees some creepy guy snapping photos of them for no reason, without asking and without permission. She asks him to stop...he ignores her and now he keeps snapping...she is obviously upset...so of course being like he is non confrontational and innocent...he keeps snapping pictures. She gets closer...he keeps snapping because...it is his God given right to do anything he wants in public.

He was in her face first...then she got in his face second...then some pushing and shoving got a bit out of control...and now a new islamic terrorist cell is discovered having a family meal. The tell tale sign...intrusive behavior with a camera. Racial profiles be damned. Homeland security now just has to station a creepy guy in the security line...anyone getting upset is obviously a terrorist.

Now they scuffle. He did not encourage this with his behavior and being a celebrity columnist and and "journalist" and a right wing conservative...he obviously had nothing to do from provoking...some horrible muslims dangerously having a suspicious snack with their kids.

Enough of the circle posts...we all know...some assume all Muslims are evil...some actually know they actually are not.

IMHO...something is fishy for sure...but great to see some people buy into this sort of tabloid journalism. Yup...great to see.

I defy anyone posting contrary to my obvious stand that if my version was presented...and the photographer was Muslim that all of you would have said you would of slugged him also.

Give me a break...a kit kat break cause some of you won't change and I know it.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Meh...I've seen lots of skinny white actresses do the same thing.

so what are you saying? You have a few court orders / retraining orders preventing you from coming close to actresses due to your past career as a paparazzi?

[New Hunter Okotoks]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Meh...I've seen lots of skinny white actresses do the same thing.

David's going to have a short career as a paparazzi if he can't take a punch or two from a chick....

LOL!! And very true.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

so what are you saying? You have a few court orders / retraining orders preventing you from coming close to actresses due to your past career as a paparazzi?

All as I know is you need to learn to take a girl punch....lol

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You don't have to believe the reporters interpretation, believe only what evidence you can see for yourself.

As I so plainly posted in my previous thread, look at the men in the pictures.If you felt that your family was in some way being threatened, would you have remained in your seat through the entire incident like they did?Or would you have been the one protecting your family?

You are clearly taking one persons side without hearing the other. The reporter is the same person making the allegations.

Your spidey sense should be high that something seems to odd about his version of events. You are fine to jump of the deep end without all the facts...but the biggest fact you yourself is ignoring is that this so called vicious assault was witnessed and the police were there and there was an investigation on scene and nothing happened...no charges. So the fact is his version is not supported by the facts but only by his maliciously targeted and directed attack on muslims...that inflames people that don't think through the facts...like yourself...IMHO.

Common sense would say that IMHO he is a whiner...she bumped and and he cried...boo hoo hooo.

[elkhunter11]

I defy anyone posting contrary to my obvious stand that if my version was presented...and the photographer was Muslim that all of you would have said you would of slugged him also.

If I honestly felt that my family was threatened, I would have acted to protect my family.
Yet as I posted twice previously,and you obviously chose to avoid responding to, the men in the pictures stayed in their seats watching, until after the assault took place. Is that in itself not suspicious to you? Would you have sat there in your seat watching, if you felt that your family was being threatened? I think we all know the answer to that question. So please feel free to provide a hypothetical explanation for the men not defending their families, who you feel were being threatened.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

All as I know is you need to learn to take a girl punch....lol

Ya...Rosanne Barr won't let me come anywhere near her anymore...

LOL

Just kidding. Actual Scarlet J. is pretty hot. But Rosie is probably in my league.

Speaking of Rosanne...she just started selling nuts in Hawaii. Guess she retired from TV and bought a Macadamia nut farm.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If I honestly felt that my family was threatened, I would have acted to protect my family.
Yet as I posted twice previously,and you obviously chose to avoid responding to, the men in the pictures stayed in their seats watching, until after the assault took place. Is that in itself not suspicious to you? Would you have sat there in your seat watching, if you felt that your family was being threatened? I think we all know the answer to that question. So please feel free to provide a hypothetical explanation for the men not defending their families, who you feel were being threatened.

Simple...it happened fast...she got up and was telling him to stop in a matter of a few seconds... By the time the guys looked up...he was already crying and she was probably sad and trying to wipe his tears away...then the police called and asked the scary lady with the funny hat to sit back down.

The guys probably knew all along the lady could kick is ass if she wanted. You know...all that terrorist training in Pakistan that 98% of muslims have taken.

That lady actually looks pregnant in those photos. Whether she is or not...I don't ever mess with pregnant women...them crazy...


Anyways...you call it assault...the police obviously thought otherwise...but some people on this thread clearly know more.

And in the end the reporter got exactly what he wanted...lots and lots of free publicity.

IMHO

[CaberTosser]

Looks like this threads going pretty much where I expected it to.......

[catnthehat]

IBTL!!
Cat

[New Hunter Okotoks]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Looks like this threads going pretty much where I expected it to.......

It's at level 3,and may possibly get into level 4 territory!

[elkhunter11]

Simple...it happened fast...she got up and was telling him to stop in a matter of a few seconds...By the time the guys looked up...he was already crying and she was probably sad and trying to wipe his tears away

If you think that the man seated at the table wasn't aware of what was happening, you need to look at the pictures again. Starting with the first picture shown, where do you suppose the man at the closet table is looking? I think that it is obvious that he is looking at the man with the camera, that the woman is pointing her arm toward.As the woman walks towards the guy with the camera, he is still just sitting there watching, he hasn't made any effort to rise from his seat. In the second picture she is closing on the man, yet he still hasn't made any effort to rise from his seat. He is just sitting there with the same look on his face. And if we are to believe that the man was asked to stop taking pictures, yet he continued taking them, it is only logical that these were not the first pictures being taken. After all, the woman is already pointing at the man and is heading towards him in the first picture that we see. Given all that, it is quite obvious that the man seated at the table saw what was going on, he just chose not to act until after the assault took place.

[Gust]

I'm missing something, can someone help clarify? Why was he taking the picture anyways? It wasn't very noteworthy subject wise,,, seriously, what caught his attention enough to think "WoW!! I gotta get this picture of this family at a food court!!!",, it doesn't even fall into ironic art, or naive art, or contemporary Danish art. Don't we normally, pull out the camera for really neat stuff like while on a big hunt or during a prairie hike and seeing a wildflower or catching a huge bulltrout, but this? Would you show off that picture to your friends?

"Hey man, you gotta see this picture,, wait till I get the file, no wait it's here somewhe... no, here it is, here it is,, ok it's amazing, see the big guy in the gray shirt, yeah him, he's eating a chimicanga,, notice how I utilised the light, wait till I enhance the colours on photoshop, it's going to be brilliant,, I took 3 pics just in case,, oh here's another one, it's a family putting a heavy cooler into the back of their Subaru while their kids deflate air matresses!".

He took the picture to inflame these people. Period.

How about we all go to some random food court right now and snap a picture of a family different than ourselves and post them later. Whoever gets the blackest eye wins the rude contest.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you think that the man seated at the table wasn't aware of what was happening, you need to look at the pictures again. Starting with the first picture shown, where do you suppose the man at the closet table is looking? I think that it is obvious that he is looking at the man with the camera, that the woman is pointing her arm toward.As the woman walks towards the guy with the camera, he is still just sitting there watching, he hasn't made any effort to rise from his seat. In the second picture she is closing on the man, yet he still hasn't made any effort to rise from his seat. He is just sitting there with the same look on his face. And if we are to believe that the man was asked to stop taking pictures, yet he continued taking them, it is only logical that these were not the first pictures being taken. After all, the woman is already pointing at the man and is heading towards him in the first picture that we see. Given all that, it is quite obvious that the man seated at the table saw what was going on, he just chose not to act until after the assault took place.

I don't get up really quickly or if I know that I'm about to watch my gf go spastic on a guy with a weatherman haircut,, I just sit back and enjoy the show,, women beating on guys sure beats the hell out of UFC, no pun intended.

[elkhunter11]

I don't get up really quickly or if I know that I'm about to watch my gf go spastic on a guy with a weatherman haircut,, I just sit back and enjoy the show,, women beating on guys sure beats the hell out of UFC, no pun intended.

And that comment just proves my point.You would sit there and watch, because you know that she is not in any danger at all.And because she is not in any danger, the self defense alibi isn't valid.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you think that the man seated at the table wasn't aware of what was happening, you need to look at the pictures again. Starting with the first picture shown, where do you suppose the man at the closet table is looking? I think that it is obvious that he is looking at the man with the camera, that the woman is pointing her arm toward.As the woman walks towards the guy with the camera, he is still just sitting there watching, he hasn't made any effort to rise from his seat. In the second picture she is closing on the man, yet he still hasn't made any effort to rise from his seat. He is just sitting there with the same look on his face. And if we are to believe that the man was asked to stop taking pictures, yet he continued taking them, it is only logical that these were not the first pictures being taken. After all, the woman is already pointing at the man and is heading towards him in the first picture that we see. Given all that, it is quite obvious that the man seated at the table saw what was going on, he just chose not to act until after the assault took place.

Answer this...
So you fail to acknowledge the police felt no assault took place but that the right wing commentator says there was...so you continue the witch hunt? You believe the report and not the witnesses and the police on scene?

Hmmm your point is intriguing. Can it be that there was no assault? She walked over asking him to stop...and he is claiming more happened that actually occurred. The man seems calm. You are perfectly correct. So what validates the position that nothing really happened? The fact that no charges were laid or that the guys look bored? If my wife got up and actually was attacking some guy...I would be there in a flash. If peoples phobias that muslims are violent...why on Earth does that guy seem more interested in thinking about Avery's arrest that this fictitious violent confrontation between a woman and a large creepy male? Video would be great...I wonder if anyone had any? Given the location...there has to be surveillance footage...but still...no charges. Hmmm...I would so laugh my ars off if this was just a stunt to test the hysteria level and how quickly people assume the worst.

The more you post...the more you convince me of my impression of the events and solidify the facts that nothing happened versus his "story". No charges...no aggressive male response. Just a woman asking a creepy guy to stop taking photos of their small daughter...would be my guess based upon the facts.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And that comment just proves my point.You would sit there and watch, because you know that she is not in any danger at all.And because she is not in any danger, the self defense alibi isn't valid.

No...you don't get up quickly if there is nothing to worry about. So clearly nothing significant was happening which goes against his "Story" version. If there was any physical confrontation...any man...regardless of being related would rush in and either protect their wife from a creep or get in the middle to stop their wife or the woman from getting hurt.

The lack of moment implies nothing was happening...except maybe an exchange of words.

I hope this guy was smart enough to punch himself in the eye to actually show people something at the "fanatic are us bar".

IMHO

LOL

[Gust]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And that comment just proves my point.You would sit there and watch, because you know that she is not in any danger at all.And because she is not in any danger, the self defense alibi isn't valid.

no,, she looks po'd and felt confronted, he didn't need to be chivlarous, he knew his wife or sister or inlaw or whomever was about to go ape and handle it and besides, he was digesting and more than likely had his top button undone. You ever get the pepsi bloat after downing a gallon of the brown fizz? Whew with a capital W! Anyways, I gotta run and snap some pictures of a Hutterite family eating pizza at the Balzac Costco then off to Caroline and get some pictures of some Presbyterians pitching a tent at a Provincial Park. TTYL

[elkhunter11]

No...you don't get up quickly if there is nothing to worry about. So clearly nothing significant was happening which goes against his "Story" version.

What goes against his story? The pictures actually support his story. Apparently the only person that appears to have been offended was the one woman, everyone else just sat around and watched, right up until the woman made physical contact with him. And once again the pictures show that the woman came to him in order to instigate any physical contact that happened.

As to the actual assault,we don't have the details,apparently there were witnesses referred to, that gave statements to the police, but what they said, we don't know.My point here was to rule out the self defense alibi that many posters seemed to be preaching, and in that regard, even you agree, that the woman was in no danger at all,so self defense doesn't work as an alibi.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

What goes against his story? The pictures actually support his story. Apparently the only person that appears to have been offended was the one woman, everyone else just sat around and watched, right up until the woman made physical contact with him. And once again the pictures show that the woman came to him in order to instigate any physical contact that happened.

As to the actual assault,we don't have the details,apparently there were witnesses referred to, that gave statements to the police, but what they said, we don't know.My point here was to rule out the self defense alibi that many posters seemed to be preaching, and in that regard, even you agree, that the woman was in no danger at all,so self defense doesn't work as an alibi.

Do you think it is normal or reasonable behavior to take photos of other people then when clearly they don't like it you keep doing it? Are you supporting his behavior. As for physical contact...again...why are you ignoring the facts? The cops did not see anything worth getting upset over...especially nothing illegal like assault. So where is your proof? Admit...all you currently have is a she said he said scenario...of which he was the instigating party. What should the cops do in any situation like this? Diffuse and send the instigator on their way. Sounds like what happened. Why do you constantly read into what is not there?

You say we don't know what the witnesses said...the police did hear it and did not press charges. Again...why do you not hear that? Witness...no charges...????

You call it "actual assault"...but the police say differently. Why are you the expert over the police? You were not there...where is your personal video that disputes the facts?

You are not presenting your "facts" very well. You are countering your own arguments.

[elkhunter11]

Do you think it is normal or reasonable behavior to take photos of other people then when clearly they don't like it you keep doing it? Are you supporting his behavior.

I don't support his behavior, but if as you say there was no assault, why do you keep bringing that up, as if to justify the woman's actions?

The cops did not see anything worth getting upset over...especially nothing illegal like assault.

That is of course one possibility, the other possibility is that they saw what constitutes assault, and simply chose to overlook it in order to avoid the mess that would result if the police pressed charges. We all know that race and religion would get dragged into this if it went to court. This thread alone shows that outcome is almost guaranteed. Lets face it,neither the police or the politicians want that situation if they can avoid it.

You say we don't know what the witnesses said...the police did hear it and did not press charges. Again...why do you not hear that? Witness...no charges...????

Same possibilities, same reasoning.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I don't support his behavior, but if as you say there was no assault, why do you keep bringing that up, as if to justify the woman's actions?




That is of course one possibility, the other possibility is that they saw what constitutes assault, and simply chose to overlook it in order to avoid the mess that would result if the police pressed charges. We all know that race and religion would get dragged into this if it went to court. This thread alone shows that outcome is almost guaranteed. Lets face it,neither the police or the politicians want that situation if they can avoid it.



Same possibilities, same reasoning.

LOL...you are assuming assault...I am viewing the facts which indicate no assault. I am arguing it explains why she was approaching him as he continued to take photos. Again...facts and human nature strongly suggests if he was in a physical confrontation with a late trimester pregnant woman that one of the men would of got involved. It is amazing you just don't get it. Just read this and think about it before typing.

So you argue against the facts...and your sole response is conspiracy. The police are in on it. The witnesses are in on it. The family getting photos taken of them is in on it.

Yup...can't argue with the conspiracy theory. That makes more sense then the facts. Also impossible to argue against conspiracy theorists. Anyone against them...is just part of the conspiracy.

[rugatika]

The assault was serious enough that the Syrian couple felt compelled to come forward and tell the police what they had witnessed. The pictures he took that are shown are obviously AFTER she started having her freak out. He may have just been taking pics of his kid at the food court trying out his new camera. (update...I just reread the story and it says he was taking pictures of a neon shrine when the freak out started)

When he goes to the police to report a crime he is whining, yet when a farmer takes the law into his own hands and does something about a crime, it's the same people saying he should have reported it to the police. Meh. Best to let people walk all over you lest you get trampled by the flock.

By the way...I find menzies one of the most annoying guys on radio and generally change the channel when he comes on. He truly is a weiner. Still...he was assaulted, there were witnesses. The police are NOT judges and in this case...they weren't even police. Sometimes I wonder if police are purposely trying to inspire a wave of vigilantism.


Hah....IBTL!

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by rugatika

The assault was serious enough that the Syrian couple felt compelled to come forward and tell the police what they had witnessed. The pictures he took that are shown are obviously AFTER she started having her freak out. He may have just been taking pics of his kid at the food court trying out his new camera.

When he goes to the police to report a crime he is whining, yet when a farmer takes the law into his own hands and does something about a crime, it's the same people saying he should have reported it to the police. Meh. Best to let people walk all over you lest you get trampled by the flock.

By the way...I find menzies one of the most annoying guys on radio and generally change the channel when he comes on. He truly is a weiner. Still...he was assaulted, there were witnesses. The police are NOT judges and in this case...they weren't even police. Sometimes I wonder if police are purposely trying to inspire a wave of vigilantism.


Hah....IBTL!

another conspiracy theorist. I heard a UFO was spotted in England. The news report said the aliens are helping Earthmen build stealth space ships and that we already have an Earth colony on another planet.

witnesses? assaulted? says he but not the police. please provide the quote from this syrian couple that said a serious assault occurred. I did not see it stated from an unbiased source.

You post proves one thing...there is just not enough information to charge yet convict an assault happened.

Show me a video that shows her walking up and hitting him hard enough to hurt. Touching someone is not assault that anyone here I am sure feels should go through the court system. Otherwise...he said she said.


He he

SFOAD

P.S.

The nice new camera he was testing...surely had video capability...surprising he took no video of this "mob" and attack.

[elkhunter11]

LOL...you are assuming assault..

As I posted, there are two possibilities, one being that there was an assault.

.I am viewing the facts which indicate no assault.

You are arguing what you believe to be the facts,you have no proof that they are the facts. You are assuming one of the two possibilities that I mentioned to be fact, without even considering the other.

Again...facts and human nature strongly suggests if he was in a physical confrontation with a late trimester pregnant woman that one of the men would of got involved.

If you read the article, a mob of people gathered after the assault supposedly occurred. Do you suppose that one or both of the men were in that mob?

So you argue against the facts...and your sole response is conspiracy.

You apparently missed the part where I posted that there were two possibilities.

The police are in on it.

Possibly they are ignoring an assault to make the problem go away.

The witnesses are in on it.

Not likely, the police may have simply chose to ignore what they had to say.

The family getting photos taken of them is in on it.

Not likely, one family member might be guilty of assault though.

That makes more sense then the facts.

You can't prove the facts any more than I can. The difference is that I accept that there are two possibilities, each of which might be fact. You on the other hand, are only considering one possibility.

Assuming that just because there were no charges, there was no crime is no different than assuming that every person that has been charged with a crime is guilty.Even some people that were convicted in a court of law were innocent. Do the names Donald Marshall, and David Milgaard sound familiar?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

another conspiracy theorist. I heard a UFO was spotted in England. The news report said the aliens are helping Earthmen build stealth space ships and that we already have an Earth colony on another planet.

witnesses? assaulted? says he but not the police. please provide the quote from this syrian couple that said a serious assault occurred. I did not see it stated from an unbiased source.

You post proves one thing...there is just not enough information to charge yet convict an assault happened.

Show me a video that shows her walking up and hitting him hard enough to hurt. Touching someone is not assault that anyone here I am sure feels should go through the court system. Otherwise...he said she said.


He he

SFOAD

P.S.

The nice new camera he was testing...surely had video capability...surprising he took no video of this "mob" and attack.

I've got an slr. I've had it for 2 years now and still don't know how to use video on it...never bought it to video anything.

His pictures clearly indicate an agitated woman coming at him.

An unbiased source?? Like the CBC?? lmao. Good one.

When you accuse someone of being a conspiracy theorist in order to besmirch the premise of their argument you should always mention tinfoil hats as well. Given the facts presented by the only source so far, I'd say you're the one jumping to wild conclusions about what happened.

At any rate...I understand he has had to use Freedom of Info to try and get the Toronto Police video of the event as there was a police public video camera in the food court.

And your premise that no crime was committed because no charges were laid, ignores many other infamous isntances of charges not being laid against minorities when crimes were clearly committed. Charges were not laid to avoid further politically inconveniences. Oka comes to mind.

[FrostyinHell]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

LOL...you are assuming assault...I am viewing the facts which indicate no assault. I am arguing it explains why she was approaching him as he continued to take photos. Again...facts and human nature strongly suggests if he was in a physical confrontation with a late trimester pregnant woman that one of the men would of got involved. It is amazing you just don't get it. Just read this and think about it before typing.

So you argue against the facts...and your sole response is conspiracy. The police are in on it. The witnesses are in on it. The family getting photos taken of them is in on it.

Yup...can't argue with the conspiracy theory. That makes more sense then the facts. Also impossible to argue against conspiracy theorists. Anyone against them...is just part of the conspiracy.

Wow Sundance where to start? You seem to think that you are the only one dealing with the facts, were you there? You are dealing with the facts as you see them, as is everyone else. One fact that cannot be disputed is that regardless of how much of a weiner this Menzies guy is, if he wants to press charges the cops cannot legally stop him, even if they don't agree with him. It's the same as if a woman cries rape. Even if a cop feels that there is no evidence it is not up to him to decide whether or not to lay charges. He is merely a tool at the publics disposal.

As for people insinuating a conspiracy theory, come on. There have been countless cases of police inaction especially in Toronto. That IS a fact that cannot be disputed. The Toronto Police Services have a brutal track record when it comes to dealing out justice equally across the board, especially where other races are involved. They are all terrified of being hit with a harassment charge, even if they are cleared of it they are never free from the damage that has been done.

[hal53]

Elk!!!!... u cannot argue with a Liberal!!!!...ain't gonna work, they are right and the rest of the world is wrong....

[Supermag]

I'd like to buy a vowel, Pat.