Canadian Chat → No Privacy in public; cameras everywhere

CEO would have made out better if he kicked a homeless person instead of a dog. It has already cost him $100,000, his job, and threat of prison in British Columbia, Canada.

And here is a lesson for everyone - THERE IS NO PRIVACY out in public. There are cameras everywhere and those who monitor those cameras will use their power to destroy your life if you do anything they don't approve of. Whether it is illegal or not.

»www.foxnews.com/us/2014/ ··· ort-say/

Whenever I go out in public I have no expectation of privacy at all. Zip. I'm sure some camera somewhere has caught me scratching my ass at some point.

The fact this guy was caught acting like a douchebag in public makes one wonder what he's like in private.

"privacy in public" is an oxymoron. There is not and should not be any privacy in public... because it's IN PUBLIC. More cameras is better.

This is why the saying is "in the privacy of your own home", not "in the privacy of your personal space while out in public".

Explain how a CEO kicking a homeless person is better than kicking a dog?

Explaining how anything is better than something requires a solid base of measure.

In public opinion reference space:
Kicking a cute helpless puppy makes you a pariah.
Kicking a smelly homeless person makes you a macho.

What reference space are you coming from?
Respecting one another? Heart-bleeding for a puppy is much more exciting.

I can't imagine what would make a person do that to an animal. Seriously?

Ah, I will agree with the first, he made an apology, agreed to 1000 hours of community service, gave a 100,000 dollar donation and now he is out of a job, and yet still the animal rights loonies will not be happy until the man offs himself.

However I don't think beating up a bum is any measure of anything except as to how morally bankrupt a person is. People are more important than animals.

The same thing that makes them do it to their spouses, their children, etc. it's just something wrong with him. I read the article, saw the comments about it being out of character and sorry, just don't buy it.

Agreed - the part that was likely out of character is the part about doing crap like that in front of a camera. He's probably much more careful usually.

People care way more about dogs than homeless people. The penalties are higher for kicking a dog also. And the animal rights wackos will pursue this guy until the day he dies.

Actually, there's a reason why you never see animals in shows like the Simpsons get seriously hurt or die. Even in a cartoon. Matt Groening figured this out waaay back in 1989/1990 that the uproar and nasty letters just drive away audiences and such as I think there's an early episode with one of the pets getting hurt.

But show people getting hurt, even killed, especially males, well people just laugh and shrug it off.

I've even said in conversation that if you want to go to jail for longer than a drunk driver killing another person, just throw your dog or cat out of the window of your car while doing 120 on highway 2. There will even be people picketing your home and court, unlike in a persons death.

Very strange.

I don't buy it, look at Michael Vick and his doghouse of horrors, I don't recall any boycotts when he returned to the NFL. Vick's did more than just kick a dog, he tortured and killed them for fun & entertainment.

Neither of you need to buy it but it's entirely plausible. People who would normally be the most docile and gentle person in the world can still snap and regret their actions afterward, with numerous age-old quotes to go with it: "There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man." or "Beware the fury of a patient man." being the two that I've always remembered. We have but a mere snapshot of one specific point in time with no context to go on beyond that, and most of the time when people "snap" - and each and every one of us here has, and will again - they're lucky enough to have a camera filming them when it happens.

The only thing definitive that I ever take away from discussions like this is that people on the Internet are quick to judge and rush to form opinions in haste, no matter how flawed or incomplete those opinions may be. The guy realized he did something stupid, made numerous gestures of apology and reconciliation to the point of quitting his job and yet yet evidently that still isn't enough for some people. What a wonderful judgmental world we all live in, eh?

Exactly.

And it is an interesting juxtaposition, your post and the one before:

Why was there redemption and acceptance for Michael Vick, yet none for this guy?

It may be that we have low moral expectations for NFL players....

....and also a prejudice against rich executives.

Yet as I said earlier, I suspect that this guy had already made enemies in that building, else the video would never have found its way from building security to national news.

Which also brings up the point: If there were witnesses to this guy, but no video, it probably would have blown over.

Michael Vick got off partly because there was [no] video in his case AFAIK. In today's world that makes it less real.

He's black, it would be considered racism.

ROFLMAO