i'm well aware what street photography is, and i have worked as a photojournalist in a past life ...
( and have done some sort of documentary work for about 32 years )
sorry, the OP said he continued to photograph after he was basically told to stop,
not one shot + wait for another, but he took handfulls --- he hounded them ...
people who act like jerks get what they deserve. sorry ...
if people ask me not to shoot, i stop. I try to do candid if I can. If I'm caught and they don't like it, there are more shots around the corner. So i try not to push it.
Maybe others have found this, but when you click on the first link of post #76, I get a warning from google saying the content of the blog may only be suitable for adults and an option to continue or not.
Surely this can't be because it contains a picture with a (barely visible) child in it ??
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
It all boils down to this...are we within our legal rights to shoot as we please. After that, it rests on personal etiquette, that which varies around the world.
This is entirely the point, and why the original complaint voiced by OP is absurd at best. If you truly don't give a crap about whether or not your subjects want to be photographed, and you are interested solely in the law, then surely you'd understand your subject is under no obligation to react positively to your actions and is within his/her legal rights to be upset, call you a pervert, a creep, an obnoxious asshole etc.