Everyone is trying to portray her as "someone randomly .. taking pictures" of the bar patrons. It's clear that she wasn't taking anyone's pictures
The patrons don't know this. What's why, in the original post of mine that you responded to, I said : "Try pulling out your phone in a bar and hold it up like you're recording, you'll notice that people will shy away from you or maybe even worse."
It's not about the absolute reality, it's about the perception.
and only moved to activate the camera when personally threatened, specifically to have evidence of her own assault (not out of spite).
Motivation in this case counts for nothing at all. It was already an escalated situation. I'm not saying she wasn't right for trying to do what she did but she did, more or less, throw gas on a fire by announcing it.
Of course, I wouldn't expect the aggressor(s) to respond kindly to this, as most people who are engaged in the commission of a crime are generally not keen on others possessing evidence of their criminal activity.
However, that doesn't somehow shift the blame to the victim here.
I would agree that the legal fault is still with the aggressors. I never said anything different and if you want to try to make it seem like I was justifying their actions I'd really appreciate that you quote me where I do this. Sorry, but you seem to be trying to bend my words without providing any sourcing. Maybe you're not but it certainly seems that way.
Are you suggesting that criminals should have the right to destroy evidence (or otherwise prevent the collection of evidence) of their crimes?
Never said that either. Again, quote me or stop making gross assumptions. I can put words in your mouth too but that's counterproductive and, frankly, a sign of bad form in the matters of discourse.