I've found in China that the older generation (as a generalisation) are not keen on having their photo taken unless you ask them first. When I ask, I've never been refused, and they like to see the pic on the wee screen afterwards. So they're only semi-candid I suppose.
Some cultures have beleifs that photography can insult or take something away from the soul or dignity.
Michael's POV is mine too, I believe. My camera is there, I take the pictures either because I've been hunting for that shot, waiting for a component to arrive or based on everything I have trained myself to feel is interesting, my camera is reflexly at my eye, I've framed, checked focus and the shot is done before a lot of thinking goes on.
If, on reflection before or after a shot I consider the shot is demeaning to the person and that person is identified, either I won't take the shot, I'll destroy it, keep it for some compositional sake or retake the shot so that it is still truthful, powerful but respectful.
Photography is one of the few personal intimicies one can perform ffrom a distance and walk on without the other persons knowledge. If however, there is true outrage, damage, shame and hurt, I'd have a conscience problem and have pause before publishing even a great shot.
So with this shoemaker, i'd have said to myself, "That was unfortunate, but no big deal!" and keep walking. If he collapsed, I'd reconsider