I went to pay my ex-husband a visit several nights ago. I wanted to sit down and talk with him for a few hours about our two boys. The thing is, my ex has had full custody of the boys for the last few years because the courts decided that my psychiatric problems made me unfit as a mother; but I've been getting better over the last two years, and so I wanted to talk with my ex about the possibility of sharing joint custody over our two boys. Little did I know at the time what was happening outside the kitchen window ...Let's pause here for a second. Ask yourself: how would you feel if you learned that someone was taking photographs of you and your loved ones without your consent? How would you feel if I told you that, right now at this very moment, there is a man outside your building with a camera, keen on getting a photograph of you no matter what? He follows you from your home to your work; and he follows you from your work to your home. He takes pictures of you in your pajamas, in your work clothes, and even in the buff. It's not just you, either: he takes pictures of your spouse and children, of your parents, of your brothers and your sisters. He isn't just invading your privacy but the privacy of everyone around you as well.
It wasn't until yesterday that I learned that someone had been taking pictures of me and my ex-husband through the kitchen window.
What would be your first response? I'll let you know mine (sorry to bias you!): I'd order him off my premises (if I caught him in the act) and I'd phone the police either way. I'd have a restraining order placed on him. I would also go and buy a gun for my family. And if the trespasser ever, ever showed up on our property again without our permission, I would call the police immediately and would fire at him in self-defense if he approached me, my spouse, or my children despite our warnings to stay away. If he was a repeat offender (and still alive), I would proceed to file a legal suit against him to have him locked away, both to keep him away from my family and to send a warning to others like him to leave my family alone.
So now, back to our story ...
It wasn't until yesterday afternoon that I discovered what had happened outside Kevin's kitchen window that night. I was sitting inside the pharmacy waiting to pick up my prescription when my eyes hovered over the tabloids and I recognized my name. There I was, walking on the sidewalk with my eldest son, and to the left of my head ran these words in big, yellow, bold-faced print: "BRITNEY AND KEVIN CAUGHT HAVING SEX."I've made up the story myself, of course, but this is what went through my mind when I saw that tabloid at CVS the other day. Far be it from me to be a Britney Spears fan -- my example here extends to all of the celebrities. I've heard it said that the celebrities make a trade -- their fame for their privacy -- but I don't think that's very fair of laypeople to argue. It boils down to saying, "If you want to become a successful person in life, one who is so successful that his name is known to people the world over, then you have to sign away your life." It almost seems like a very anti-capitalist message for such a capitalist nation to send, in my opinion: that America's most-successful are also America's least-protected when it comes to privacy rights. Why should a person's right to privacy have any bearing on how famous they are or are not? Should a no-name hobo have more privacy rights than the director of a hospital? Should the director of a hospital have more privacy rights than the governor of Maine? And should the governor of Maine have more privacy rights than the President of the United States? There's a very obvious correlation between fame and lack of privacy, but I don't think it's something that has to be or that even ought to be. I think it's a sad, sad state of affairs when we live in a country where if Joe did to me what the paparazzi did to Britney Spears that Joe would be heading to court whereas the paparazzi go collect their paycheck and then hop into their SUVs for the next big scoop.
It wasn't the lie that upset me -- it was the photograph. Someone had been hiding in one of the bushes outside Kevin's home and had photographed me and my son walking back to the front door. He then waited until nightfall before creeping up to the kitchen window and snapping photographs of Kevin and I talking at the kitchen table. Sitting in the drug store, I was reminded that I am not the celebrity everyone thinks I am. I am a second-class citizen in this country, a citizen who doesn't even have the basic privilege of privacy from photographers while inside private property.
5 comments:
I would call the police immediately and would fire at him in self-defense if he approached meYou can't legally do that, unless the person is clearly intending harm to you; see Castle Doctrine.
Hmm, apparently Blogger has stopped recognizing line breaks in comments.
I have a gun in my hands. Man approaches. I tell man to stay away. Man approaches more. I tell man if he doesn't stay where he is I am going to have to open fire. Man approaches. Distance between us will soon be less than his arm's length to the tip of the gun's barrel.
At this point, Indiana law is on my side, not yours. Click here. Section 2.a.1 states that I am permitted to use deadly force if I reasonably believe that the trespasser is about to cause serious bodily injury to either myself or to other people. I also have the right to use deadly force (so says 2.a.1) if I believe he is about to commit "a forcible felony."
The only reason a person has for approaching me when I am pointing a loaded weapon at him is that he intends to disarm me. Given that he is a creepy stalker who has been photographing me and my family, given that he shows no fear of the approaching law enforcement officers (i.e. he hasn't chosen to flee the scene), and given that he is within arm's reach of my last line of self-defense, this makes him a very real threat to my person. If he did not mean to disarm me, then he would bid me to put the firearm down as he himself sat cross-legged on the grass or perhaps even lay prone on the grass. Alternatively, he may plea for his life and turn away and flee. But a man who approaches me when I have warned him away and have a locked-and-loaded firearm is clearly intent on turning the tables, and that's grounds for Castle Law afaik.
If I'm wrong, cool, didn't know that, but also very uncool and I probably would not respect the law, I have to admit, if I was ever placed into such a position. If a man who has been stalking my little girl for the last 2 weeks shows up on our property at 9:30pm at night and attempts to approach my daughter, I am going to blow his knees out, end of story. A father is prepared to go to jail over letting his daughter be abducted, molested, etc. by some creep who wants to flaunt the law in my face.
I seriously doubt you could actually shoot somebody, over any circumstance. It takes training to pull the trigger on another human. It's nice and romantic to say you'd that, but you really probably wouldn't. I know that, even though I have no strong philosophical disagreement with self protection, I still wouldn't be able to shoot to maim or kill.
I'm not shooting to kill. I'm shooting at his legs. I don't know that I'd have any ethical quandries there. I agree with you about the being overly-romantic bit if I was thinking about shooting to kill at the head or the chest (or even the abdomen). But the legs?
You'd be better off saying, "Ryan, you're being overly romantic: you and I both know you'd never buy a gun." To which I would embarrassedly laugh and say, "True. True. :)"
Post a Comment