While I don't support any shoving there is one thing that cops and authority figure always forget. There is no expectation of privacy in a public setting, you cannot order someone to delete photos taken of you. I don't agree with the man's method, shoving a camera in someones face is idiotic but there are numerous cases to back this up.
Pilot needs to be fired. No excuse for assault but you don't slap someone's phone out of someone's hands.
That the pilot can't force him to delete the photos is irrelevant. It doesn't appear to have even come up.
The airline won't fire the pilot because I'm sure they have no interest in punishing him for being a victim of harassment.
While you normally can't slap somebody's cell phone out of their hand, having watched the video, it clearly was not a normal situation. The passenger following the pilot the way he did and behaving as described is harassment, and if it can be established that the pilot at any time before then told the passenger to stop following him, the burden of proving the passenger intended to intimidate him is fulfilled. Keep in mind it is not necessary he be told this. Telling him only establishes he is aware of the intimidating effect of his actions, and thus, by choosing to continue, he is knowingly committing harassment. I'm not going to bother looking up Missouri law, but there's a fair amount of similarity in criminal laws between states, and I know where to find my own:"Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person
It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under this section that the stalker was not given actual notice that the person did not want the stalker to contact or follow the person."
In that context (or in almost any other context, for that matter), sticking anything abruptly in his face, cell phone or otherwise, is a reasonable cause for further alarm, and knocking the hand away, phone or otherwise, is a perfectly reasonable response in proportion to the level of alarm.
If you want to take a picture of somebody, do it from arm's length. They don't have a right to stop you from taking a photo, but you don't have a right to intimidate them to get exactly the photo you want.
Washington law is very clear. Regardless of constitutional legality, it is on the books and has been for at least 20 years. I do believe it falls under voyeurism and is a misdemeanor.
You are mistaken if you're arguing it requires permission to take photos in public. The voyeurism law deals with exactly what it sounds like it should. It does not apply in places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (to clarify, that still means it prohibits, while in public, trying to see what is not public, such as up a skirt).http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115
Can't believe that anyone could defend the passenger. His actions were totally uncalled for. The pilot had more control then I, and most people I knew, would have.
I don't know if it was self-control or sheer intimidation. In the limited discussions I've had with people who have been or have helped out friends who have been assaulted (including a much higher percentage of the women you know than you probably realize), many of them describe themselves as basically shutting down because they don't know what to do.
Regardless, when the passenger was following the pilot, leaving as he did was the proper course of action. The pilot did not have to leave. He had a right to be there. But it was clearly prudent nonetheless.
Once the passenger grabbed him, he had every reason to believe he was going to be harmed (in fact, grabbing somebody like that and placing them in fear of pain, if not actual pain, is legally considered harm).
When the passenger advanced at him a second time, I tend to think that for his own safety the most prudent reaction would have been to hit the guy as hard as he could. The passenger had proven from the start that retreat was not an option (even had the law required he continue trying to retreat) and that he was willing to hurt him. He gave *no* indication he was going to do anything less again, if not more. In all seriousness, when the passenger tensed up to deliver that second shove, I thought he was going to punch the pilot, even though I'd already read transcript.