Way to go! I took a whole bunch of pictures at a "Divestment Conference" at Michigan and It's too bad nobody trieds to mess with me. Although if they had, I would probably have been the one arrested.

Unfortunately the flash didn't go off the first time, so I recharged the flash and humored her by asking permission to take her picture. She said no, and since I didn't need her permission in the first place, I took her picture again anyway.

I agree with you on the politics, but this goes beyond rude--you should probably count yourself lucky that all you lost was a disposable camera.

Good luck getting a jury to convict this guy.

Good thing is was just a disposible camera!

Mr Coates,

Whether he was rude or not is completely irrelevant to the charges. He was well within his rights and the letter of the law to take a photograph of a person within a public venue. Rudeness doesn't factor into the equation, and the jury (if it comes to that, which I very much doubt) will be instructed, by the judge, to disregard subjective notions of propiety, and instead focus ont he letter of the law.

As I said, however, this will almost certainly never come to an actual trial. There will most likely be a plea bargain, and that Mr. Chaikhouni, stark-raving moonbat he is, will do some community service.

Good luck, that child gets what he deserves.

>> Mr. Chaikhouni, stark-raving moonbat he is, will do some community service.

Unfortunately, said "community service" will probably be something cause-related, not something socially useful (such as cleaning up litter).

I'm glad it was just your camera. When I read "victim of a felony" I was afraid you'd gotten hurt.

I'm amazed at your coolness under pressure, and how you were able to control your emotions during the disruptions. Keep us informed about the progress of the case against the criminal. Even if he is treated leniently, a felony conviction is a serious matter.

If he'd throw a punch or 2, he might actually get some jail time. If I were in that position, a couple of bruises would be well worth the satisfaction of pressing assault charges on a "stark-raving moonbat".

I'd like to see the perp (thief-vandal) catch some jail time for his behavior, but I'm not holding my breath.

Community service on top of a month in jail would be appropriate. May I suggest that the perp be required to sweep up and clean around any and all synagogues in the area? That'd be a nice touch...

Stefan,

Good for you! Fulfilling your part in the Global Zionist Conspiracy by having a peaceful, anti-Zionist protestor manhandled, beaten, and arrested.

;-)

I wonder if Mr. Chaikhouni will be available for press comments. Google, your best friend and worst enemy, eh?

Stephan:

I wrote about your Berkeley assault in my daily column, "News Nuggets," on "Sierra Times." The item will appear tomorrow (11/21). The URL for "Sierra Times" is: http://www.sierratimes.com and "Nuggets" can be found at the bottom of the page.

I first heard about "blogs" in Doonesbury, but got the URL of "InstaPundit" (which sent me to you) from an article in "Rocky Mountain News" by Linda Seeback on Nov. 6.

I don't know if the "THOMA$ REPORT" is a "blog," but it might be, as is Matt Drudge's "Drudge Report."

I linked to and wrote about your experience last night in the first entry in my blog today, linking what you experienced to the general pattern of violence that pro-Palestinians demonstrators use, as opposed to the peaceful nature of pro-Israel demonstrations.

Good for you by standing up for yourself!

http://www.mikesilverman.com/log.html

I'm sorry to see that you were assaulted and that your camera was destroyed, but I'm hearted to see that you stood up for yourself and that the cops did their jobs.

However, how long before CAIR starts making a stink about how the thug was arrested simply for being a Muslim expressing himself?

Judging from the way you rudely and creepily took the picture of the asian lady everyone obviously thought your were undercover intelligence. The property destruction was wrong and the perp deserves to be charged, but outside of your little warblog crowd, don't be surprised to find any sympathy for your "plight."

At the very least, the camera smasher will forever have to answer "yes" on employment and credit applications asking if he has ever been arrested, and explain why. That ought to be interesting.

"I was protesting against free speech at Berkeley..."

Good Job! One point I'd like to make, though; You were within your rights as a citizen, not as a photographer or a journalist. Photographers and journalists are accorded no special rights that the rest of us don't have.

stefan,
next time you go, let me know and i'll go with you. there is safety in numbers. i live in monterey and would love to agitate some berkley shits in my spare time.

So, 'Jim Peters', if Stefan had been photographing an extreme right neo-Nazi demo and one of the skinheads had grabbed his camera and smashed it, would you still cavil and equivocate and call his actions 'creepy?' I think not.

And what sort of 'undercover intelligence' operative asks someone permission to surveil him and then photographs him with a $10 disposable camera? If the protestors really thought that then their tinfoil hats are too tight and have cutting off the flow of blood to their brains.

BTW, Stefan, I think this points up the need for a 'backup piece'. Imagine the protestors' rage and chagrin if you'd had this scumbag arrested and then pulled out another camera. Sweet.

Hey, "Jim Peters," someone in "undercover intelligence" would would not have been taking pictures openly, nor would they have been asking permission to do so. Time for you to get a new tinfoil hat.

I am unsympathetic toward the protesters Mr. Sharkansky writes about. Their bawling and shrieking are enough to put off most folks, and their lack of thought disqualifies them from any serious consideration.

Is Mr. Sharkansky any better? No he is not. He is going to
have a brilliant career in journalism, with tons of television appearances, lecture fees, book deals, columns and squawk shows his reward for all the attitude he staggers under, balanced only by the chip on his shoulder that will save him from drowning when he tries to swim the serious seas of journalism. Do you like bullying? Does exempting yourself from the rules you prescribe for everyone else give you a thrill? Then Mr. Sharkansky is for you.

Is this too harsh? Not at all. Consider these paragraphs of his:

“One of the people who disrupted Barak was a young Asian woman who burst out yelling something unintelligible. I think it might have been the word "lie" or "liar". She was quickly escorted out of the lecture hall by a couple of police officers. I spotted her again after the talk let out. She was standing around outside with some other demonstrators. I went up to the Asian glossolalist disrupter woman and took her picture. She scowled and yelled at me, and insisted that I have to ask permission in order to take her picture. In fact, I did not need her permission since she was standing in a public place. I wanted her picture because she chose to turn herself into a news item by disrupting a public event.

“Unfortunately the flash didn't go off the first time, so I recharged the flash and humored her by asking permission to take her picture. She said no, and since I didn't need her permission in the first place, I took her picture again anyway. Now perhaps I could have gone about that in a different way, I have not yet cultivated the unguent manner of the professional photojournalist. But I was within my rights and there was no justification for what happened next.”

The young woman insisted Mr. Sharkansky needed her permission to photograph her. Almost surely she is wrong, but let that pass. He had asked her permission to take her picture. In doing so, he entered into an implicit bargain, to wit, if she had refused, he would not take her picture. Otherwise, why ask permission? Why not just do what professional photographers do, and just take the photograph? (Never mind their manner, “unguent” or not.) What happened next? He took the picture anyway, breaking the implicit bargain. Why? Mr. Sharkansky knows why---maybe---and perhaps we will soon see his justification for breaking his implicit promise rolling forth like steel from a rolling mill at ceaseless length, the Endless Harangue by the Endless Harangoutang as Ambrose Bierce would say.

Until then, let me venture a guess about his motive: he broke this bargain because he wanted to stir up trouble. Breaking this bargain would make the young woman angry, and maybe stir her up even more, giving him instant gratification: “Wow! I can piss you off, you antiwar jerk, you!” This hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the lack of any other substantive information about the young woman. What’s her name? Why did she come to the speech? Why does she disagree with Barak? What action would she have the United States follow instead? You could argue that the young woman’s answers would be puerile, not worth reporting. But if you argue that, why bother following the young woman at all? Why give attention to her ravings? More, once the situation had been taken in hand by the cool professionalism of the police, why didn’t Mr. Sharkansky follow up and try to interview the young woman? Would a journalist on the staff of the by-this-blog-likely-despised-NEW YORK TIMES have pressed charges if this incident had happened to him? Or would he have used this opportunity to interview the young woman? You wonder what Mr. Sharkansky was going to do with the pictures he was taking. His own pictures have not appeared in his blog before. But instead of trying to find out the “other side’s” thoughts and motives and report on them, he jumped at the chance to press charges and glorify himself. It’s true, he may still report on the other side, but we’ve already seen that for him, hot news is that which puts him in a favorable light, and his rights must take precedence over all else. Hard news, even if likely dull and tedious? Forget it baby, my rights come first, and I’m going to insist on them as I did no fewer than three times in my post.

Mr. Sharkansky is within his rights to do this, just as I am within mine to be disgusted by Mr. Sharkansky’s immaturity, ego, arrogance, and hotheadedness. Journalism? You can have the Sharkansky approach to it as your penance.

For the record, I am a registered Republican who thinks the United States has waited far too long to go to war with Iraq and the Middle East in general. I have no use for the bulk of the antiwar left in the United States or abroad. Perhaps the most apt comment on Mr. Sharkansky’s bullying is that it reminds me of Barbra Streisand’s antics with her gullible followers. Both insist on their rights and the primacy of their interpretation, and any dissent from this line is motivated by rotters who will suffer for their wickedness in Hell, even while such rotters make Mr. Sharkansky and Ms. Streisand “victims,” a word right at the start of his post. I hope Ms. Streisand and Mr. Sharkansky meet some day, and swap anecdotes about how easy it is to put out fires by pouring gasoline on them. And I’m dismayed that Glenn Reynolds would think this is worthy to be linked to the Instapundit site. The antiwar cranks are a public nuisance, but if this is backing for a firm line, I say a plague on such backing.

Gregory Koster

Um, yeah, Gregory Koster, all the TV appearances and cereal endorsements I expect to get from this, right. And no. I was not seeking a confrontation. I was seeking photographs. I would much rather have come home an hour earlier with a camera full of film, so I could post the pictures today for everyone's enlightenment.

Koster says I'm no better than the creep who broke my camera?
Let's see -- I took a picture of a disruptive protester. She didn't like it, but I was peaceful and posed absolutely no threat to her. Bullying? hardly. A different person (whose picture I didn't even take) steals and destroys my property.

Interesting comparison. Koster wins today's award for fatuous moral equivalence.

Gregory--

While you may think it was "bullying," I'd like for you to put yourself in the protestor's place.

Why don't you want your picture taken? Aren't you proud of your protest against the Zionist oppressor? Why do you smash a camera instead of just saying, "you're a jerk, why don't you lay off the photographing?"?

Stefan's photography incident points out the typical intemperate, extremist, pro-Palestinian/(really anti-Israel) protestor. They supposedly value their precious right to "dissent," yet cannot tolerate the merest hint of responsibility for their actions--like being photographed in a public place.

I don't care if/when a person takes my picture siding with the pro-Israel faction at these protests. Why did she?

(maybe conscience?)

David

It is interesting that the point of such protests appear to be gaining media attention but not to the point of actually being identified in a photo. Didn't the Asian protester break the "implicit" bargain of being the center of attention? If I were to strip, paint my body in alternating purple and green stripes and run through the same speech, should I not expect for someone to want to take my picture? Wouldn't that have obviously been the point?

Thanks for attending the speech, Stefan. I think taking her picture after asking her permission and getting a no was provocative, but grown-ups (especially those who don't want to tarnish their cause) don't let themselves be provoked without good reason.

Any comments on Barak's talk itself?

"but this goes beyond rude"

No it doesn't. Grabbing and smashing someone else's property does.

For Mr. Sharkansky: No, I don't expect you to get TV appearances or cereal endorsements out of this. That will come after many more of these incidents that you are provoking. I repeat: When you asked permission to take the young woman's picture, you were implicitly agreeing not to take her picture if she said no. You broke your promise, an unspoken one. Why? Do you think it's good practice for a journalist to ask permission and then go ahead if the permission is refused. I think it likely that a real journalist would not have asked permission to take the picture, but just taken it. More importantly, the real journalist would have something to tell us about the young woman's motivations, what she would do differently etc. There is nothing about this in the original post. So this leads me to ask: What were you going to do with the pictures you took? So far, I haven't seen any results of the picture taking, beyond self-advertisement on your part. I repudiate your suggestion that I said or implied that "...says I'm no better than the creep who broke my camera?" The fellow who broke your camera was dead wrong and deserves punishment with the meatgrinders of the law, and a hearty contempt from the populace for this action. As others have pointed out, there will be consequences for this fellow for some time, even if he is acquitted or "gets off." My concern has been with the young woman you pursued. So far you have not responded to any of these questoins of mine. The reason is simple: you can't respond honestly without looking hothead, immature, and above all, a provacateur, someone looking for trouble. To my mind, you are that young woman turned inside out, lots of attitude, and not much else. I repeat, if this is the kind of backing a hard line toward terrorism and Iraq attracts,a plague on such backing.

For David: Your questions deserve answering, though not in order:

2. "Aren't you proud of your protest against the Zionist oppressor? "

Yes indeed, the young woman was quite proud of her protest. She was showing that she was Radical, Committed, Spitting in the Eye of the Hated Despised Middle Classes Who are Warmongers Against All That Is Good, True, and Beautiful. (Whew. Excuse me while I take an aspirin after all that self-righteous hooey.)

1. "Why don't you want your picture taken? ... (maybe consicence?)"

David, she didn't want her picture taken becuase allowing it meant she might have to stand behind her "protest" and be accountable for it. All of a sudden, the dreadful hooey of question #1 boiled away, leaving fear. The young woman is a fraud, ready to bawl defiance so long as she doesn't have to account for it. Her character would test out to 99 and forty four hundredths hollowness, a mere cipher for the wind to whistle through.

3. "Why do you smash a camera instead of just saying, "you're a jerk, why don't you lay off the photographing?"?

You are perfectly right, but this conflates two incidents. It wasn't the young woman who smashed the camera, it was the young man whose Mr. Sharkansky is busily broadcasting to the world. Not satisfied with the law's progress against the camera smasher, he must needs try to get up public feeling against the smasher. Is this good practice for someone who is trying to be a journalist and spread knowledge and maybe insight to his readers/ No it is not. It is good practice for the self-centered demagogue who wants to whip up feeling.

I say once more: the camera smasher had no right to do what he did, and deserves punishment at the hands of the law. The young woman is a puerile fraud who will bawl her opinions to the heavens, putting more calluses on God's (and Allah's) eardurms, until the least bit of trouble appears, and then it's retreat bawling for help and protection twice as loudly as the protests went out. Mr. Sharkansky says he was not threatening the young woman in any way. But what else could he say? I would like an account from a disinterested bystander, which doesn't seem likely in this case. So I must draw conclusions from what Mr. Skarkansky writes, tempered with my own experience. My own experience tells me that often journalists have to put up with bullying, threats, intimidation, often worse than anything Mr. Sharkansky has written about here.

David you've been very kind asking me these questions. I'd like to ask you a couple: Let's suppose you are a bureau chief for the Associated Press. Mr. Sharkansky has applied to you for a job. He gives you a copy of his original post as part of this job application.

1. Would this post make you more likely to hire Mr. Sharkansky?
2. Do you think he showed cool professional judgment (in the manner of the police he praised in his post) in pursuing the young woman, asking permission to photograph her, and then disregarding her refusal?
3. You've asked what the motivation was for the young woman's protest,and I've tried to answer, perhaps not to your satisfaction. What was Mr. Sharkansky's motivation in following the young woman? So far, we've learned almost nothing about her. To be sure, there may be "no story" as the journalists would say. But then, why pursue it?

Meanwhile we can wait for Mr. Sharkansky''s answers to my questions. I'm not expecting any honest straightforward answers because an honest straightforward answer would show him in a poor light. Thus, the attempts to change the subject, the personal abuse (as opposed to attacks on actions that the poster brought to public light in the first place.) The hard line crowd against terrorism in Iraq among other places, does not need to be painted as immature, hotheaded, and provoking. Can you show me anything Mr. Sharkansky has written so far that expands your wisdom, tells you more about the other side, perhaps suggests arguments that the hard liners could use in this discussion?

Many thanks
Gregory Koster

Gregory Koster:

Please wake me when you finally get to the poi...poin....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz...

Since this guy will almost certainly have the charges reduced to a misdemeanor and will get no jail time, you ought to consider pursuing this further. If you don't, this idiot will undoubtedly look upon his night in jail as a badge of honor.

Consider a civil suit based upon battery, theft, and destruction of property. I'm guessing you can find a sympathetic attorney or foundation willing to do the heavy lifting for you. If I were licensed in California, I'd do it myself. I'm sure that one of your readers can turn you on to someone who can help.

Mr. Koster,

You state in your original comment "The young woman insisted Mr. Sharkansky needed her permission to photograph her. Almost surely she is wrong, but let that pass."

Well, lets not let that pass for a moment. The fact of the matter is that, as you acknowledge, he DIDN'T need her permission to take the picture. Consequently, his asking permission should be considered just what it was - an gratuitous kindness. As a result, her permission wasn't really hers to deny him.

Lets consider an alternate formulation of the issue. Lets say I told you that you needed my permission to have dinner. Now, of course, you don't. I'm the one out of line even implying that you do. But, to humor me, you decide to play along and ask for my permission anyway. Now I really have no business denying you going and having dinner. But, I say no, you can't have dinner. Is it your contention that, given you'd asked my permission, you'd be in the wrong having dinner until such time that I deemed fit to allow you to do what you had every right in the world to do anyway?

Hey, whadda ya know? It's the Koster & Dalasio Legal NitPickers Show! How are things in L-school, guys?

Us non-lawyerly types probably woulda just punched the twerp out and got a good riot going, lots of media coverage for all. Interviewed on channel 2.

And Steve would've still lost a 10-buck cheapie camera.

I have been visiting my brother at Berkeley every few weeks, and most of the people I talk to say the demonstrators are a small [but aggressive] minority. Most of the students are focused on upcoming finals.

At first I thought the demonstrator threw your film/digital camera, but regardless what he did was wrong. You need someones signed permission to publish a photograph not to take one. I am not sure if that is the case for a news related picture.

The demonstrators need to learn to respect other's rights when expressing their opinions. If you are ashamed of having a picture taken of your actions, maybe you should act differently.

Next time you are going to attend a speech/protest at Berkely, drop me a line. I guaruntee you no one will be throwing my camera.

For Bill Dalasio: OK, suppose I decide that I can't have dinner until Bill Delasio says I can (my doctor would doubtless be telling you that I could afford to miss dinner for awhile.) If I consider myself bound, and followed my decision, the world would hoot with laughter, considering me a silly fellow. Does this mean we should laugh at Mr. Sharkansky and consider him a silly fellow for making such a promise? I think you'd have to say yes. So he breaks his promise. This gets him out of the absurd situation. But it leaves him in the wrong. No does mean no. Part of the difficulty here is that it was a "fast situation" with no time for reflection about the best way to approach it. This also brings up JorgXMcKie's challenge: Having made a bit of a spectacle of herself at the Barak speech, did she make herself a "public figure," fair game for the journalist? I think, without any legal training, that the answer is to a limited extent yes. I won't presume to argue if she had walked far enough away from the scene to not be a public figure. I expect the answers to this would vary (mine: I don't know.) But the privilege we extend to the journalist presumes that something comes of it. So far there haven't been any results of this "interview" beyond the original post. I admit the camera smasher made any picture display impossible. But what have we learned from Mr. Sharkansky's prose. Not much. So I ask you: given the lack of result, can he claim to be a journalist for this encounter?

Thanks for asking your questions, Mr. Delasio. If you feel like it, how about trying your hand at the three questions I posed to David earlier? Many thanks.

For Andrew Thomas: I do seem to be complete in all my answers, don't I? I suppose it's because I seem to disagreeing with most of the other folks here, and I'm trying to keep my answers above the level of the average TV squawk show with it's "You're wrong, dummy and your mother is ugly to boot." So everyone's eyes get a workout. Well, sleep is the cheapest amusement available to us, and whether you are a baby or a beauty queen please continue sleeping, and I will try to get to the point a bit sooner. Not with much success so far.

Gregory Koster

Greg, you keep implying that the request for permision was an implicit promise. That is wrong. It was (most likely) an atempt to make a point (that the permision was unnessisery).

I only read part of Gregory Koster's comments, but he seems to be right about one point: you established what looks like a verbal agreement (contract?) with the Asian lady. You broke it by then taking her picture.

You also appear to me to have gone there with less of an professional journalist's mindset than with that of someone looking for an altercation. That didn't come out right, but your statement "Now perhaps I could have gone about that in a different way, I have not yet cultivated the unguent manner of the professional photojournalist" tells me that you weren't approaching this as if you were just, say, a bored wedding photographer hired to take shots of yet another wedding.

That said, what Chaikhouni did appears to be a crime, and he should be punished for it. However, your hands are not as clean as they could be. If you expect to do things like this in the future, I'd suggest making sure that you don't do anything that could be used against you, such as breaking an agreement.

Regarding anti-anti-war prank demonstrations mentioned be someone else here, I think I read a while back about someone from the S.F. chapter of www.cacophony.org going to Berkeley and trying to speak at Peace Park from a right-wing perspective and getting shouted down. I'll let you search for it.

I haven't filled out an employment app for a long time, but I thought they only asked if you had been convicted of a felony. If the perp is convicted of a misdemeanor, that would probably turn up in a background check however.

I also wonder about the claim that this is a "hate crime," or at least the ability of any hate crime charges to stick. That would seem to require their actions being accompanied by, say, yelling racial epithets at you.

Next time you go to one of these, I'd suggest you determine beforehand whether you're going to be a detached professional photographer, or whether you're going to involve yourself in the demonstration in some way.

BTW, I speak as a non-professional photog and a non-lawyer.

SF.Indymedia.org has a different view of your confrontation:

After the talk was over, a proIsreal fanatic attacked a Palestinian woman and after a small scuffle he dropped a disposable camera and yelled for the police. A Palestinian man who may have pushed him was then arrested and is being held on felony charges for stealing and damaging the man's disposable camera…

Greg Koster says: "I won't presume to argue if she had walked far enough away from the scene to not be a public figure."
However, as it was reported: "She was quickly escorted out of the lecture hall by a couple of police officers."
So Greg you make her departure sound voluntary, as if she wished to withdraw from the controversy. I don't think the distance she "withdrew" is relevant. If she were at an abortion clinic and then retreated back beyond the no protest zone is she absolved?
Just a quick question on the nationality of the camera smasher? If he is a foreign national student attending school are there other restraints on him other than legal? i.e. INS or even the school?

Gregory Koster, you have too much free time on your hands and too delicate a sensibility to be effectual in the interesting times that lie ahead. Get thee to a country club.

Stefan, you rock. Push this case to the limit: Chaikhouni must be made to suffer.

Wesley Dabney, you have a good idea; I'm in the Bay Area and would love to cheer on some anti-anti-war mischief. Stefan, is there some way you could subtly disseminate word of such provocations?

I fear I must go with Gregory. I was with you until you asked her permission and then ignored the response. By this you became an in-your-face disrespectful belligerent, and most young males would respond in some fashion to what they perceived as bullying of a young woman. This one was an overreaction, but I think understandable.

Even after she had refused peermission you might have asked if you could note her views: the implied flattery might have gotten you the picture.

awesome, you rule. :-)

From where I sit, here in the Great Midwest (on another planet): You're all nuts! :)

Hehehe, having just graduated UC Berkeley I know Omar well. He is a cowardly little punk. I have a big grin on my face, thinking about the *process* he is gonna get in jail. They will love his cute little SJP ass...

Interesting that the lefties get all upset when someone is gonna have their picture. Note for future SJP demo's -- take their pictures!

In the meantime, over at sf.indymedia.org, they've published Sharkansky's address and phone number. So taking a picture of a leftie is bad but publishing the contact info on a conservative is good? Anyone got Omar's contact info?

Interesting that the lefties get all upset when someone is gonna have their picture. Note for future SJP demo's -- take their pictures!

In the meantime, over at sf.indymedia.org, they've published Sharkansky's address and phone number. So taking a picture of a leftie is bad but publishing the contact info on a conservative is good? Anyone got Omar's contact info?

Sorry to hear what happened to you. But hey, look on the bright side: at least Barak's speech actually happened (unlike Netanyahu's scheduled speech at Concordia, that was prevented by mass-rioting).

Good on you, Stefan! Sock it to him.

Gregory:

I have to admit that you opened my eyes up to the provocation issue. No matter how bad the behavior, standards are standards.

Asking someone permission to do something and then purposely breaking the promise *was* childish. But not the mortal sin that you are making it out to be.

And, aren't you going into overdrive when you suggest that Stefan is somehow going to leverage this little incident into a lucrative book deal?

I think that Instapundit was quite right to link to this. I read first-person blog accounts of things with the full understanding that I am reading a thoroughly subjective account of a situation, and thus mentally filter accordingly.

I resort to blogs because I have become quite fed up with the major media's censorship (and I use that word consciously and advisedly) of what really happens on the campuses, especially with respect to Israel/Middle East related matters. So I am very grateful to read blog-accounts of what really goes on.

Have a little more faith in reader's ability to separate out the reportage from the personal emotion.

But thanks for the mental stimulation, which is all part of the mix.

I think that everyone agrees that
(a) the woman who disrupted the speech turned herself into a news item
(b) She was in a public place, so I had every right to take her picture
(c) she didn't want her picture taken, yet had no basis to deny me permission to do so. Her only legitimate defense against being photographed would be to walk away or cover her face.

So the question becomes what is best way for a news photographer to get a picture from a hostile subject? The best way, probably, is to try to establish trust. But that's not guaranteed to work. In many cases, the subject simply doesn't want their picture taken, but the picture is taken anyway and the subject is left feeling royally pissed off. Tough toenails, sucks to be her. But I believe the law is clearly on the side of the photographer.

The issue is not whether I'm experienced and skilled at verbally disarming hostile subjects in order to take their picture (I don't claim that I am). The issue is the robbery and destruction of my property.

But let me turn this around to all those who think they know a better way to handle the hostile woman and still walk away with her picture. (And if you were there and saw both the way she disrupted Barak's speech and the expression on her face when I took her picture, you would know she was in the mood to start a fight). I especially want to hear from any experienced photojournalists. How would you have handled the situation?

Stefan, I wouldn't have said anything to her. Speaking to the subject immediately creates some kind of reciprocal relationship. Just take the picture. If your camera malfunctions, fix it. Now, you say you were trying to establish trust. Well, asking someone something and then doing what they say not to do is breaking trust. So forget about the trust and just do what you have to do.

If I were a real photojournalist and this was a news event in a public place, I would just take the picture. I wouldn't have asked permission or talked with her if she's hostile. I would have used zoom. I might have made her think I'm actually shooting at someone else by pointing the camera at someone else first. Or by holding the camera on my chest as if I'm not shooting, but actually try to aim and shoot. Or do the same thing while making it look like I'm just adjusting the camera. See a lawyer at least before publishing photos like this if you think there might be problems.

I was raised here in Berkeley, and all this follows the pattern of windmill tilting that's so popular here.

This is the latest in a long string of bad causes espoused by the local quasi-commies.

It seems as if 18 year-olds from across the country come to vent their youthful ignorance on our otherwise lovely city. They then grow up and realise how silly their belief system is, and then they move back to wherever it was they came from... Those that never grow out of their ignorance stay here and settle into their rent controlled hovels and rapturous mentalities.

Anyone who is truly informed about the middle east and its history is heart-broken for the Palestinians and recognizes that Israel is in the right.

Hi. I was at the protest, and I've looked at media coverage of it afterwards. The event was peaceful, even dull. I have seen plenty of photos that were taken of the students who left Zellerbach hall, as well as the other areas where protest was happening in the corner of Lower Sproul. Apparently nobody harassed or attacked these other photographers. I seriously doubt Stefan's version of events. I have seen the so-called "cool professionalism" of police in action in the Bay Area and in the rest of the US. Police routinely defend right-wing anatagonists and attack people of color, especially if they dress or speak like "radicals." This is nearly as true in the SF Bay Area and Berkeley as it is in the places I have lived in the Deep South, only here it is sugar-coated with PC garbage about "diversity" and "tolerance."

I am more inclined to give credence to the IMC report: "After the talk was over, a pro-Isreal fanatic attacked a Palestinian woman and after a small scuffle he dropped a disposable camera and yelled for the police. A Palestinian man who may have pushed him was then arrested and is being held on felony charges for stealing and damaging the man's disposable camera..."

Stefan is a skilled sophist and hand-wringer, but these skills won't convince me that his account is true. Obviously, I'm the only one here who questions the veracity of his account. Virtually everyone here is ready to jail this guy Omar, without hearing another side to the story, and some go as far as suggesting that they hope he is raped in jail, quite obviously motivated by their own political or racial prejudices. I'm surprised nobody has suggested a lynching, as it would obviously go over well on this blog.

In your orgy of exaggeration and distortion, one of you even asserted that when Netanyahu came to speak at UCB, it was cancelled due to "mass-rioting." Oh, yes, I remember when Berkeley was burned to the ground by those mass riots. What a load of hooey.

I do not believe that Stefan was attacked by Omar based on the provocation of a photo alone. It does seem likely that he provoked a fight with the woman in question, but he likely wouldn't want to present himself as someone who picks fights with girls, so he is instead picking on ("fingering" to use his term) someone who came to her aid when he attacked her.

Try to speak for yourself and not what others "would like to see".

Re: Straight Bull (emphasis on the Bull).

I am always amused by people like the above who have such a hard time leaving the fantasy world of their nutty belief system and entering the real world of actual events.

And if I were such a "skilled sophist" who wanted to fabricate a story, don't you think I would have invented a story that was so much more interesting and dramatic and dangerous than what I described? I mean, come on, why bother to make up a story if I don't give myself hero points for at least being kicked or spat on, or called a nasty name?

Naturally, those who like to think they are most brave to come here and accuse me of lying, racism, cowardice, etc., are invariably the ones who decline to give their real name or e-mail address. This particular coward posted from IP address 128.32.79.44, which resolves to dwin-b3-4.WMF.Berkeley.EDU

Well, one way to find out if his account is (generally) correct is via evidence. I'm sure one of the first things that was done by the cops was taking Omar's fingerprints. If Omar grabbed the camera, no doubt his fingerprints would be on it. Him picking it up from the ground or being given it so as to get his fingerprints on it would seem implausible. (Of course, some tinfoilers might suggest that, if his fingerprints are found they were planted, but that can probably be dismissed).

The IMC quote "he dropped a disposable camera" sounds like something out of Pravda, except Pravda would have put quotes around "dropped" so as to make it just a little bit more believable.

Re: Stefan Sharkassky (emphasis on the "shark" and "asshole")

I made a comment here precisely because I was at the actual event in question, and you label me as hopelessly trapped in a "nutty belief system" because I don't blindly swallow your account of what happened. Lovely. Your account rings hollow, based on what I saw of that event. Just like Stalin, you claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "duped by the capitalists" (or people in "tin foil hats," whatever that means).

Then you call me a coward for not giving you my name and email address. I did not claim to be "most brave," I'm just calling it like I see it, and I don't want to give you my personal info. Your name calling and insults certainly don't make me want to hand that stuff over to you. I try to prevent my personal info from falling into the hands of merely annoying spammers; why would I hand it to you, a clearly spiteful and malicious political creep? You would probably try to have me arrested for some made up bullshit.

You're already skirting the territory of the stalker, posting where "this particular coward posted from." Does this add credibility to your dubious story? No. Does it give you further credibility as a creep blinded by his own skewed sense of political self-righteousness? Yup. That's right, creep, I posted from the basement computer lab in the Dwinelle building on the UC campus. I'm doing it again this time. Maybe I'll use another computer lab next time, what with your vaguely threatening stalkerish behavior. Maybe not, though, because you could camp out at this computer lab and never know who I was, out of the many people who use the lab each day.

See, your threats and taunts won't have much effect, not because of my bravery, but because of my caution: I don't give out my personal info to malicious, politically self-righteous wackos. If that makes me a coward in your eyes, why would I care? Your every statement gives me more reason to think you're a lunatic.

As for whether you would have used your sophistry to skew events even more favorably in your light and to exaggerate your plight, I don't know. Storytelling isn't my business. I suspect you would craft a story that you think people would believe (at least, people who weren't at the event in question). Why would you need to make up further insult and injury, if you can convince people that some random Palestinian hooligan destroyed your camera, if in fact you dropped it during a fight that you started with a girl?

Regarding Lonewacko (approriate, no emphasis needed), he's quite sure of what the police and all the participants in this fiasco did and didn't do. I'm far less certain, because I've actually had some real world experience. In the world, things are messier than that. We'll see whether there is any forensic evidence of wrongdoing and who it implicates, if the police investigate properly, which they often don't. I'm downright doubtful. As for Pravda, Stefan's account reads like something out of the old Stalinist Pravda. The IMC account looks a lot more like straightforward, factual reporting of events. There is no hand-wringing sophistry and clothes-shredding over the poor victim and the villainous hooligan. The only part of the IMC report that is remotely dubious is the use of the term "fanatic," which would however be appropriate if their reporter's account is accurate. The characterization of Stefan as a fanatic certainly seems true based on his tantrum tempered rhetoric on this blog.

I'm still unconvinced of Stefan's sob story. It looks to me like he's a creep who starts fights with girls, then "fingers" bystanders as the antagonist to get off the hook himself and provide grist for his self-righteous propaganda mill.

IMC and "...straightforward, factual reporting of events" in the same sentence? Man, Bull, you sure know how to throw "it" around don't you? What local comedy club are you playing this weekend? I do believe it's time to put down the bong, stop drinking the peyote tea, take off the Birkenstocks and rejoin us on this side of the space/time continuum.
Either that, or how about going over to Israel and buying a year-round bus pass and spend about 16 hours a day riding around and waiting for one of the "Peaceful Religion" faithful to set himself off in a crowd of school kids? Courage? Nah, just a computer and a basic knowledge of how to surf the blogs and instigate.
PS: Love the prose, though. Very convincing, if I hadn't spent those years with Middle Easterners in language school and ACTUALLY BEING IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

A Norweigian company has come out with a silver foil lined hat, allegedly to protect cell phone users...but we know better, don't we? Guaranteed to stop those pesky Ashcroft/Mossad Mind Rays! Only 54 dollars (14,563 yen) and just in time for the Winter Solstice celebration at Berkeley. Special Discounts for Computer Lab Students!

Dear Stefan Sharkansky,
The lady asked you not to take her photo therefore you had no right to do that! You should respect the wishes of other people and by not doing that, you, yourself are violating human rights!

Having one's wishes respected is now a human right? Great! I want Islamofascism to disappear and fanatics to stop blowing up Israeli civilians. By not doing so, they are violating my human rights. Somebody call Kofi Annan, quick!

Dear Dema,
So you think the lady's human rights were violated? How about Ehud Barak's? I'm sure his wish was to give a lecture without being interrupted. Didn't this "lady" then violate his rights??
In fact, isn't it true then that the disruptive demonstrators are violating the rights of all the other participants who wish to have a peaceful/quiet conference?

Dear Steve and Phil,
You know what? I also wish for peace and all forms of fanatism to disappere, but I don't think it's going to happen as long as humans continue to disrespect each other. or is it that you don't consider respect to be a human right? So maybe we should start with ourselves and community before talking about "a nation" or the world.

Please, please, please, let me know what happens to the perp.

Thanks,
Susan

Straight Bull somehow relies on IndyMedia. Has he (?) read their story on the Bali bombing perpetrated by the Mossad (of course)?

IndyMedia publicly states that they take articles as they are submitted by anyone who chooses to submit them. Here is the relevant quote:

The www.indymedia.org News Wire works on the principle of "open publishing," an essential element of the Indymedia project that allows independent journalists and publications to publish the news they gather instantaneously on a globally accessible web site. The Indymedia newswire encourages people to become the media by posting their own articles, analysis and information to the site. ...Indymedia relies on the people who post to the Indymedia news wire to present their information in a thorough, honest, accurate manner. While Indymedia reserves the right to develop sections of the site that provide edited articles, there is no designated Indymedia editorial collective that edits articles posted to the www.Indymedia.org newswire.

Dema believes fanaticism should be ended. If she is really related to this Chaikhouni chap, I'm curious to know what she has done to stop the Islamic fanaticism which seems to be in the process of attacking all that is free and good in the world - such as, for example, the entire concept of human rights, which she so glibly cites (incorrectly, might I add).