Indian man films children at a park and gets caught by the mothers, who confront him and call the policeIndian man says “Please please please please please I don’t know the rules…in India, it’s not a problem”Video: https://x.com/OrderOfThePoo/status/2065526434370609176
>>536959481Was he doing it in a pervy way?
>>536959481No laws were broken.
SAAAAAAAAAR sell me your children!SAAAAAAAAAAR you cannot refuse, it is my culture you RACIST SAAAAAAAAR!
Saaaaars
>>536959481>I don’t know the rulesngl i kinda feel bad for the guycanucks invite him to be slave, dont teach them norms, deport him for being exactly what they knew they were gettingi think the cultural difference between East and West about age gaps has something to do with their civilization histories being incompatible with doubled and tripled life spansthey are actually unironically literally confused by our laws, which we think are old as fuck, but is the blink of an eye in IndiaMagna Carta not even 1000 years old
>>536959593He is Indian
>>536959481Its not illegal to film anyone in public though
>>536960340You are restricted as to what you can do with those films.And children can not give their consent.Go back to your corpse river, Suhkdeep.
>>536960340Saaaars
>>536960460>>536961086Im just stating a fact, its not illegal to film anyone in a public place. Morally is it wrong and a red flag to film children, of course.
>>536960340nothing is restricted in public on the jeet brain
>>536960340If you film my kids without permission you're having your phone and your jaw broken.
>>536961292It's illegal on my watch. You stay the fuck away from children.
>>536961529Jesus, the kid is crying too. It's like there is a dog covered in mud jumped in the pool, and the event gets cancelled.
>>536960460You don't need consent to film people in public in free countries. But the UK isn't a free country.
>>536961802You need consent from me if you want to film me or else you will get hurt.
>>536961802Are you really defending taking videos of children to jack off to?
>>536961802>saar consent me
>>536961990Even if it is "legal" it clearly goes against the spirit of the law.
>>536962073It goes against the spirit of the law to prevent predators from recording children?
HELPME IM INDIAN
>>536962128It goes against the spirit of the law regarding taking photographs and such of people in public.Obviously there's a difference between a tourist taking photos of themselves at a place and some creepy indian taking videos of children.
>>536962279Theres no issue with taking videos and pictures of yourself but there are zero non creepy reasons to be filming someone else, especially kids, without consent.
>>536962390That's what I'm saying lolThe jeet in the thread is arguing that it's okay because it's technically legal, but we all know that's not what purpose of the law
>>536959481Why would you film this instead of taking that old jeet behind the bushes and curbstomping him?
>>536962390To be fair its the same for taking non consensual videos of anyone even adults. Its just worse when its children.But imo it is bad when done to anyone.
>>536959481Why are fecaloids in the west?
>>536962780Really though, when did we actually agree to these laws?
>>536959593He said it right there, "In india, it's not a problem". Are people understanding "invite the 3rd world, become the 3rd world"? What the fuck could this old decrepit piece of shit contribute to.. anything?
>>536962810sewage line backup
>>536962810>why are fecaloid on the planet?ffy.
>>536963192Ty
>>536959481>it's ok in my countryso we should import many millions more of them
>>536961529Bathing in a public space is one level. Doing it with airpods in is a completely nother.
>>536960340It's illegal for jeets to be in white countries
>>536961617Your children are filmed all day every day whenever they're outside your home. You know you live in a surveillance state, right?
>we should import millions from a country where filming children at parks is not a problemI sometimes wonder if any leftists seeing behaviour such as this have some moments of clarity or are their delusions too strong. It must take a lot of pure willpower to live in that much denial.
>>536959481filthy beggars
>>536963647Yes we know but that doesn't cover the fact, that you pajeets are vile filthy nasty disgusting creatures, with zero public awareness or principles of respect, you literally do this in public in your shithole>webm relatedIn front of a children crowd
>>536963110>110Yeah. I’ll check that. Correct you are. Import the third world. Become the third world. At this point I’m just waiting for the wheels on the bus to fall off. Should happen in a few months. Good luck out there, fren
>>536963724>I sometimes wonder if any leftists seeing behaviour such as this have some moments of clarity or are their delusions too strong.As soon as they start to have the moment of clarity, their conditioning kicks in and they tell themselves they're being racist, so they immediately terminate that line of thought and get on their phones for some more reinforcement.
>>536959481Filming people in public isn't illegal
>>536962889>Really though, when did we actually agree to these laws?"We" didn't. Freedom of press in the US means that anyone can record in public without needing to ask anyone about it. There is no expectation of privacy in public for things you can see just by looking around at a distance.What's the actual objection to the guy in OP? Any parent filming their own kids there is probably also filming other people's kids too.
>>536959481Why are they filming kids? I'm gonna assume it's for jerkoff material, but maybe I'm just unimaginative and they use the film for some more insidious purpose I'm not aware of.
>>536959481My friend is a cop here and when he was doing patrol he was always called out to a pool where there was a jeet with bright red bloodshot eyes from the chlorine who was watching kids from underwater and spanking it
>>536963908>Yes we knowSo >>536961617 are you going to go around punching the people who regularly in the real world now film your kids without permission and take their phones?
>>536963724>I sometimes wonder if any leftists seeing behaviour such as this have some momentsThey will totally deflect and gaslight the situation, clamming you are making political use of it to push far right political interests.They don't care if we die.This people go beyond suicidal empathy, they simply don't accept your freedom of thinking.They think they are morally superior.
>>536963110In India he would probably be jumped and killed by a mob, they come here to do that shit because they think we are weak
>>536959593is there a non-pervy way for a 50+ year old man to record children he doesn't know at a playground? A grown ass man shouldn't be hanging out in a kids playground area in the first place unless he himself was accompanying some children which it certainly doesn't seem like. So yeah he was clearly there to be a perv.
>>536962889>when did we actually agree to these laws?idk, but it seems strange that we allow people to just randomly film strangers.
>>536964197>a middle-aged man in a public park is presumed a priori to be a pervert>accompanying children is an acceptable reason, but this is presumed not to be the caseYes, yes, Indian bad, but was the guy actually doing anything objectionable?
>>536959481taking videos in public of children or anyone else is not illegal. I hope jeet sues all involved and wins millions so he can designate entire city block as his toilet. total jeet death otherwise
>>536964155>In India he would probably be jumped and killed by a mobYou are so wrong, India is the world capital of gang rapes, they literally display this sort of behaviors regularly and it's normal for them.
>>536964197I film playgrounds all the time trying to bait retards and cops to harass me so I can fund my neet lifestyle
>>536964294Please explain how it could possibly work any other way.
>>536959481this has to stop. stop spreading misinformation and hate against Indians. this man is clearly a paki
>>536964464Jeet
>>536959481Feminists are still quiet.
>>536964358Yes there's many rapists that's what browns do: rape. However they also lynch guys like this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-09/india-lynch-mob3a-police-arrest-22-over-vigilante-style-murder/6289754>mob breaks into a prison>lynches rapist>strings him up to the town clockHappens all the time there same with any other shithole with a joke police force
>we>caught>him>exercising>his>first>amendment>rights
>>536959726That poor girl....God I hate jeets.>>536959593Obviously anon.>>536959481Inviting invaders into our nations is rapidly erasing our norms and ethics. They need to be forced out.
>>536962390>>536962128Anon you need to read slower.The Brit is on your side.
>>536963110White erasure.Simple as.
>>536964345kill yourself you cuck.
>>536964395By making it a crime, or atleast a matter for civil courts.Creepshots are banned in some nations so its certainly possible
>>536962810>Why are fecaloids in the west?DemocratsLeftistsJewsSocialistsHomosexualsAWFULS
>>536965510I mean logistically. Consider, for example, that you might visit a city and want a photo of a landmark. You'd need to somehow get the permission of everyone who might be in frame. Before putting up a security camera, you'd need to get the permission of anyone who might wander into its view. Want to use a dashcam? Good luck contacting people before you drive by.
>>536959481>>536959593There is a chance that he was just innocently doing itI mean I wouldn't take that chance. But yeah, these fucking jeets come to our countries and don't put even the smallest bit of effort to learn social rules or legal rules unless they are trying to exploit peopleWHY was he in the park? Good question>hmm today i think i will go to the children's play park and record them enjoying themselvesIf he was feeding the ducks or something it would be more plausible that he just decided to randomly film children playing innocently
>>536965704Yeah you're kinda being jewish/talmudic about it.Spirit of the law is much more important than the letter of the law.Obviously someone being in the background of a photo you took of something else is different than specifically recording/photographing strangers.
>>536965991>Obviously someone being in the background of a photo you took of something else is different than specifically recording/photographing strangers.That's not what you said here >>536964294. I am taking the literal words you said in your proposal and pointing out some obvious problems with implementing it. In any case, exactly the same legal reasoning applies (in real-world law). You can record them whether they're the focus or not because there is no expectation of privacy in public. What, specifically, do you think is different with respect to what people should be allowed to do?>Spirit of the law is much more important than the letter of the law.The spirit is important, but the letter is where it sees implementation as policy. Notably, there has to BE a letter for there to be a law at all. So, specifically, what do you propose?
>>536960340actually it is in 2 party states
>>536964464>>536964622jeet, Paki, or Bangladeshi, they're all the same.
>>536959481those mothers are evil bitches. they knew the poor elderly indian didn't know the rules. so they chose to torment him. white women are literally demons
>>536966283>I am taking the literal words you said in your proposalLike I said you're being purposely jewish/talmudic about it by focusing entirely on the letter of the post rather than the spirit of the post.Theres a clear difference in intent between someone taking a picture of the Eiffel tower and you happening to be in the background vs someone shoving a camera in your face to specifically record you.
>>536966415"Two party consent" and related issues are about private communications (e.g. recording a phone call or using a hidden camera in a private place), not recording things in public places.
>>536959481Ehh probably not I’ll intentioned to be honest, moms are way too touchy these days
>>536965771Indians just enjoy the beauty of life. Kids playing in a park is innocent and joyous
>>536966545>you're being purposely jewish/talmudic about itSo, you think that Jews, particularly in the Talmud, analyze the literal meanings of common words in their clear and direct meanings so as to inform the consistent operation of practical tasks?>Theres a clear difference in intent between someone taking a picture of the Eiffel tower and you happening to be in the background vs someone shoving a camera in your face to specifically record you.Then explain what the law should be to allow one but not the other. As worded here, there actually is one, but it has nothing to do with the situation in OP. Actually answer the questions I ask, and we might progress in this discussion. These are not rhetorical questions.
>>536963395Holy based. Is this a real game?
>>536965589Most are imported by billionaires like Musk though
>>536964905probably cause he raped a higher caste lmao
>>536959481Even though he now knows it's a problem here he'll still do it. That's the big issue.
>>536966800Yes the talmud is about rule lawyering>Technically if I do this I dont violate the law despite breaking its spirit.Check why kikes put a bottle of water under their cars seatAs for your second question, dont specifically record strangers. Its okay for strangers to be in your video so long as you arent targeting them as the focus of the picture. Think of it like stalking, its not wrong to walk the same way as someone else, but specifically following them is different.
>>536967902>Yes the talmud is about rule lawyeringVia niche interpretations that are not widely applicable (the opposite of what I'm doing) which often directly contradict the plain text (again, the opposite of what I'm doing).>Its okay for strangers to be in your video so long as you arent targeting them as the focus of the picture.So explain what the law should be to allow one but not the other. To elaborate, since you seem not to understand what this entails, an enforceable law needs to define what is and what is not legal to do. A definition is that which makes something distinct from other things so that they can be told apart. >Think of it like stalking, its not wrong to walk the same way as someone else, but specifically following them is different.Absent a restraining order and such (wherein rights are removed via due process of law), it is totally legal to straight up follow people in public. How in the world do you imagine it works? What would an enforceable difference be?As an aside, you seem to be hand waving about the spirit of the law to get around your inability to articulate a letter which would satisfy you. However, that betrays a lack of actual spirit you have in mind, since if you did, you should be able to articulate its application to the real world.
>>536959481A simple cultural misunderstanding
>>536959726Jeets are really starting to piss me off.
>>536959726n-nooo, you cant just touch an actual 11/10 girl's hair and enjoy her pristine body before youy-you just can't okay???
>>536960340Actual American atanding for freedoms and a bunch of low i.q racist replies./pol/ is actually retarded.
>>536968329>We've gotten to the point of defending stalking.Anon really?
>>536968657subhumans do not deserve freedoms
>>536959481>I need to be told that being a pedophile is wrongJeets are full of shit anyway, he knew what he was doing
>>536959726so is hair sexual? are you muslim you can't look at hair?>>536961997she has onlyfans
>>536968406>Jeets are really starting to piss me off.>>536968406>startingGood lord anon, how much more will you wait?
Remember when camcorders used to be able to see through certain fabrics? What happened to those?
>>536960340HOW CAN SHE FILM?!?
>>536968798Answer the question. As I said above, it was not rhetorical.
>>536960340Filming surreptitiously or with intent for sexual gratification is illegal in many states. So if he's filming up skirts or zooming in on butts yeah, depending on how those states word and enforce their laws.
>>536959481>Go to a public place>Surely I can sit in public and film>You can't sit in public and film because MUH CHILLUNS>Said women letting their kids nig around on a park will then send said kids to be molested in public school for 8 hours a dayI don't care, this is all connected to our feminist society where men cannot be alone in public without being "creepy" or "weird."Gonna pass on this one entirely because you can't pee in a bush anymore without being called a pedo and just assume that foids are wrong as always.Yes, you can film in a public place whatever you want.
>>536961617Bruv you got a protect your children license on ya mate?
>>536969086>dont specifically record strangers. Its okay for strangers to be in your video so long as you arent targeting them as the focus of the picture.I already did, "dont specifically target people"
>>536969499>So explain what the law should be to allow one but not the other. To elaborate, since you seem not to understand what this entails, an enforceable law needs to define what is and what is not legal to do. A definition is that which makes something distinct from other things so that they can be told apart.Note that police are not capable of reading minds. What observable criteria may be used to identify that?
>>536969499>>536969587The government will never change the law though because if they make it illegal to film anyone in public then that will mean they can't have CCTV everywhere. If someone is clearly doing it for the wrong reasons then they should be punished.
You normie fags are something else. Is...is that a guy across the street taking a photo of my general direction? But...WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDRENS PRIVACY? OR MINE?!?!?! AAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! Im 17% Italian btw thought that was so cool!
>>536964345>was the guy actually doing anything objectionableyes, he was alone in a children's park filming kids not his own
>>536969633>If someone is clearly doing it for the wrong reasonsWhat does this entail? Preferably phrased in such a way that its presence or absence can be checked.
>>536959481DELETE THIS THREAD BASTARD
>>536965589Trump and Elon brought more indians to america than any group in history
>>536969770Stop bullying the poor lad you might make him disagree with his government and have him arrested
>>536969766If he was alone, how was he filming other people?What's a "children's park"?What is objectionable about it? Is it also objectionable for the CCTV cameras there to record the kids (the incident occurred in an English park)?
>>536967955She's barely less brown than him, too bad he didn't rape her
>>536969587What is the focus of the picture?Are you specifically recording someone or do they just happen to be in the picture.>>536969633You could get around that with the focal point distinction, a camera placed in an area and someone walking past vs specifically pointing a camera at a certain person.I'm not gonna defend cctv tho because they actively denigrate trust, you see an area with lots of cctv and think this is a dangerous shithole, you dont think this place is safe because it has lots of cameras
>>536969956>What is the focus of the picture?Did you intend to post a picture here?>Are you specifically recording someone or do they just happen to be in the picture.I'm not recording anyone at present. However, the point here is that since YOU are proposing that this be used as the basis for demarcating legal vs illegal activity, YOU need to actually draw that line in an enforceable way, because otherwise you haven;t actually proposed anything.>a camera placed in an area and someone walking past vs specifically pointing a camera at a certain person.So a gigapixel camera with a fisheye lens, capable of simultaneously capturing clear video of every person at a beach at all times would be fine by you?
>>536970138>Did you intend to post a picture here?No, are you retarded?>So a gigapixel camera with a fisheye lens, capable of simultaneously capturing clear video of every person at a beach at all times would be fine by you?I also said i'm not going to defend cctv, but its an easy distinction to make where the government could ban one without the other because they're obviously not going to ban cctvBut ultimately yes that is less intrusive than recording a specific person
>>536959481Wait, it's illegal to film in Public space in America? WTF karen. It also must be illegal for random white man to sit next to unaccompanied minor in airplane.
>>536969941stop purposely misunderstanding things"he was alone" as in "he wasn't being accompanied"a "children's park" is a park containing stuff for kids to play init's objectionable because he's filming kids that aren't his ownthe CCTV cameras, although somewhat objectionable, at least have a use to help identify criminalsnow let me ask you something, why was that indian filming kids not his own?
>>536970323>No, are you retarded?It's linguistic ambiguity. I've been repeatedly trying to get you to clearly state your point WITHOUT linguistic ambiguity, which you have so far resolutely failed to do. Care to try again? I've clearly spelled out how you can do it.>But ultimately yes that is less intrusive than recording a specific personIt is EXACTLY as intrusive as recording each specific person, multiplied by the number of people recorded. Can you articulate why it would be otherwise?
>>536970426If you dont understand thats you being retarded.I've explained it more than enough times.WHAT IS THE FOCUS OF THE IMAGE?Is it the Eiffel tower or is it that dude over there.>It is EXACTLY as intrusive as recording each specific person, multiplied by the number of people recorded. Can you articulate why it would be otherwise?Its not targeted
>>536970400>stop purposely misunderstanding thingsFrom your corrections here, it seems that you're telling me to, rather than respond to what you actually said, respond to something different which I am to imagine.>"he was alone" as in "he wasn't being accompanied"What does that have to do with anything? Suppose he was accompanied by his brother. What then?>a "children's park" is a park containing stuff for kids to play inSo there's no regulatory or moral significance? Central Park is a "children's park".>it's objectionable because he's filming kids that aren't his ownYou already said that it's objectionable. I asked WHY it's objectionable. What moral principle (or whatever) are you invoking here?>the CCTV cameras, although somewhat objectionable, at least have a use to help identify criminalsDo you imagine that personal video recordings can't identify criminals? I seem to recall a recent incident in the UK where a personal video of criminal activity became rather well known. And if CCTV cameras are only "somewhat" objectionable, what makes them different from the outright "objectionable" personal video recording of children?>now let me ask you something, why was that indian filming kids not his own?Dunno. Do you think it matters?
>>536970751Can you explain why you want jeets to be allowed to go to a childrens park and record other peoples children?
>>536970673>WHAT IS THE FOCUS OF THE IMAGE?If this is what you think matters, give your methodology for deciding what the focus of an image is. If you can't explain what you mean, how can you expect people to act on it?>I've explained it more than enough times.You have given observable criteria for distinguishing proposed legal from illegal activity precisely zero times.>Its not targetedMeaning what, SPECIFICALLY?
thinking that cow shit is sacred and holy is sign that God has given up on you and has given you over to a reprobate mind/to your delusions
>>536970833Public parks are open to the public, and people can record videos in public. If you think that's objectionable, why do you think so?
>>536959481Jeeticide increasingly seems like the only viable option.
>>536970751>>536970881are you using AI to deconstruct and counter whatever we're telling you in order to go on circles and make us give up or some shit?
>>536961529How the fuck does anyone believe these people are some sort of much needed talent? They’re literally worse than niggers.
>>536970881You're just a dumb nigger.its pretty easy to tell what someone is photographing you look at the picture and see what the focal point is.>>536970943You didnt answer the question, Why do you think its okay for jeets to go to a childrens park and record other peoples kids.>>536970959It really does feel like talking to an ai, especially with how often he loops bullshit
>>536970943You're brown.
>>536959726Smooth jeet
>>536959593>Was he doing it in a pervy way?Does it matter? Why are you filming other people's kids?
>>536970959It's a lost art known as reading comprehension. You see, first you read what someone wrote, then you think about it. If there is something relevant to say in reply, then you write a response.>in order to go on circlesIt's not circles. We're stuck at a repeating request by me for you two to actually say what you mean, and we're stuck there because you haven't.>>536971017>its pretty easy to tell what someone is photographing you look at the picture and see what the focal point is.And yet you haven't been able to describe this process in a way that can be used as the basis of the legal distinction you propose. Curious, no?>You didnt answer the question, Why do you think its okay for jeets to go to a childrens park and record other peoples kids.Because this so-called children's park is a public park, and therefore members of the public (such as the guy in OP) can go there. And being a public place, people can do things they can do in other public places, like recording other people in public places. Some of these other people may be children. If you think that's objectionable, why do you think so?
>>536971234how think is your indian skull for you to not be able to comprehend that filming kids that aren't your own makes you creep?just because it's okay to creep on kids over in india doesn't mean it's okay to do the same in other countries
>>536971234>And being a public place, people can do things they can do in other public places, like recording other people in public places. Some of these other people may be children.Why is that okay? "Because they can" is not an answer.
>>536971317how thick*
>>536959614Societal rules were broken. Laws don't matter at all if you've been alive or paying attention to the last few decades. The only way to preserve ourselves, our people and our way of life is through societal pressure. Each nation's "social contract" must be upheld and enforced by the people of said nation because it has become OVERWHELMINGLY evident that our own so-called representatives won't do the same.To quote Teddy Roosevelt>pic relatedIf you come to my country or any other country. It IS NOT RACIST to expect you to adapt to the societal and cultural norms of the country you're emigrating to. I.E. you flee your muslim or hindu shithole and try to mold your new host nation into the very same shitty muslim or hindu shithole you left, you deserve deportation.
>>53696853511/10-years-old you mean.
Rapejeets
>>536971317>filming kids that aren't your own makes you creep?Can you articulate a moral principle which results in this conclusion?>>536971333>"Because they can" is not an answer.It absolutely is in a legal sense. If this were to have happened in a country where people have rights, the existence of those legal rights per se means that it is okay.>Why is that okay?In a moral sense, because it is a personal freedom which does not harm others to exercise. That's that unless there's some meaningful objection. Can you articulate such an objection?>>536971438>Societal rules were broken.What rules would those be? Keep in mind that people have rights in the US.
>>536972272So if we make it illegal then its not okay, and you have no argument against thatgood to know you're only appealing to the law.
>>536972325>So if we make it illegal then its not okayIn a legal sense, yes, obviously.>good to know you're only appealing to the law.You were the one calling for a legal distinction between certain kinds of public video taking. Are you going for a moral distinction now? At any rate, keep in mind that in making something illegal, you have to actually say what it is that you're making illegal so that it can be identified. Have you made any progress on that front?
>>536972552I was saying we should make it illegal because its morally wrong and intrusive.Keep up.We should make it illegal and you won't have an argument against relegalising it
>>536972623>because its morally wrongHow so?>and intrusive.So your moral system involves a right to privacy in public places? How's that supposed to work?>We should make it illegal and you won't have an argument against relegalising itSo far, you haven't managed to say something that constitutes an enforceable policy, so the legal objection to get rid of it would be a lack of objective criteria for enforcement. Imagine that the guy in OP's situation instead did that in a world where your proposal is in effect. So now he's facing a trial, and you have to prepare jury instructions so that they can evaluate whether or not he broke the law. What would those instructions say?And moral arguments can operate separately from legal arguments. This one >>536972272 for example remains unanswered.
>>536972623Photographer here.This is a dangerous route to head down. Replace photography with speech and you’ll understand why you should not limit photography by laws.
>>536972908He's British. He already lives in a society that has done that.
>>536972978I did not notice the flag. Makes sense.
>>536963644Only answer
>>536959481India is everything the Bible tells us not to be.
>>536961529Everyone is misinterpreting this one. The jeet wasn't washing his ass. He scraped shit from his anus to fling it onto him afterwards
>>536961529I don't know which is worse the Jeet in the pool or the sub-human golem who sit there and do nothing.
>>536963908We CEO saar
>>536960340correct but being brown should be illegal so it's fine
>>536973352Most young men under 40 now are baseded out retard nigger cattle with the testosterone levels of a 90 year old man
>>536968535>>536968962Sad to see how jeeted Canada has become in only a few short yearsYou all need to go back to India
>>536959481>invite him to your country>give him free reign >surround him with beautiful cunny>get mad when he records it, a victimless crimeDo yts really?
>>536959593>jeet doing anything>is water wet?kill your fucking self.
China is literally a bigger shithole than India kek
>>536976322I believe you, you're a memeflag.
>>536976322India is worse China is a close second though
>>536976322not in a million years, brapkeesh, go back and wait for the nuke.
>>536959481He isn't lying, India is full with child prostitutes. Disgusting barbarians.
>>53697297824 pbtoid all defending an obvious pedophile.
>>5369773363/4 of india has been sexually assaulted as children and the real number is probably far higher but they protect izzat by lying endlessly and honour killings
