That was not the same woman, same situation, or same photographer.and now stone ( and the peanut gallery ) has attached her again by suggesting the only reason she didn't
want to have her photograph taken was because she was "fat and ugly" ... ( like all fat / ugly women? )
and if she was a "beautiful person" she would have relished the extra attention she was getting.
Stone was not involved in either situation; he just made a comment. There is nothing to indicate that ming had been staring/spying at them. If a kid is jumping over a bench right between two people (which lots of folks would call misbehaving), then watching that kid can hardly be called staring, and sitting on a bench in plain view while so doing can never be called spying.if ming and stone did nothing wrong .. the lady did nothing wrong either ...
she didn't want a stranger who had been staring/spying at her and her kids
for 3-5 minutes photographing them.
Yes, it comes with the territory. But it doesn't justify the name-calling and verbal abuse, or the general overreaction.if a person with a camera is going to take grab shots
( and if the subject is upset all the better ) then the photographer
gets what he paid for if/when the subject calls them names, verbally abuses them and/or calls the police.