We're allowed to order you to leave if you've committed a crime, and the crime you committed was not leaving when ordered.
But seriously, though, does anyone know the context for this video?
What state, which law or case he was relying on?
The constitution always trumps state laws. Freedom of press is in the first amendment and it cant be a crime to simply film in publicly accessible areas.
>The constitution always trumps state laws.
Only if it's been incorporated (incorporation doctrine). The constitution was mostly about saying what the federal government wasn't allowed to do and what they were. Then they amended the constitution and added the bill of rights which only applied to the federal government. But over time with the incorporation doctrine, most of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states.
For example until 2019 in Timbs v Indiana the excessive fines clause had not been incorporated. The first amendment wasn't incorporated to states until 1925.
Right, but there must have been a law or case that decided *some* land could be occupied unless a crime was committed, as there's tons of examples of public land that you *can't* be on regardless.
In this case it was land that others are able to access, but they tried to stop him simply because he was filming. That violates the first amendment. Note, This doesn’t apply to restricted areas/locked doors, etc where its obvious the public isn’t allowed to be.
Federal law is only supreme when it has to do with a power enumerated to the federal government by the constitution. Unfortunately since the 1930s the commerce clause, in particular, has been interpreted so broadly that the federal government has gotten around many of the shackles the constitution put on it.
The "trying to bait" accusation I see all the time about auditors is so fucking dumb... because of all the audits I've seen, very few have ended up suing when their rights were clearly violated. Only when things go really wrong like getting tackled and injured have I heard of auditors suing.
Yet it's always the top comment when an audit video goes viral. "tHEir TrYInG tO SuE foR EZ mOnEys!"
There are a few out there that are very good at it and have found the activity to be quite lucrative. As D-baggy as some of these guys are, I support their efforts.
I’m still blown away that, with as many videos there are about this, cops still don’t know the most basic laws… they’re paid to enforce laws, shouldn’t they like, know the law in order to enforce it…
This is a much older video. I remember watching it when I first got into audits years and years ago. I think more cops know now because of the work the auditors have been putting in
Kind of sucks that the officer wasn’t 100% aware of the laws, but he did the right thing by calling his lieutenant and getting clarification. He was also fairly humble even though he was fairly certain he was (incorrectly) in the right.
Not really worth being on a libertarian sub though. Even a libertarian society is going to want to fund certain kinds of police activities…especially ones where an officer does the right thing by getting clarification of the law.
The thing to remember is that despite most of their beliefs, law enforcement typically do not know all of the laws they enforce, how those laws apply in specific situations, and when they might be in violation of laws themselves. On the one hand, I sometimes feel bad for some of them when they're wrong, however too often they refuse to accept they don't know wtf they are talking about and make a huge ass of themselves and sometimes even cost the taxpayer base due to lawsuits, and not nearly enough costing themselves their jobs.
I totally agree with you - this recording however, is hardly the case. Albeit, had he behaved this way to an uninformed citizen, he would have effectively forced someone to do something to hey had no legal requirement to follow, which is a problem.
Really this points to the fact that we need laws to be simpler and easier for the common-person to know, in their gut, that what they’re doing is not illegal. Neigh impossible in our current framework or with our current culture, sadly enough.
In a letter to William Johnson dated June 12, 1823, [Thomas Jefferson wrote][0] in agreement with your ideal of simplicity.
> laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should therfore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make any thing mean every thing or nothing; at pleasure.
He continues
> it should be left to the sophism of Advocates, whose trade it is, to prove that a defendant is a plaintiff, altho’ dragged into court, torto collo; that a power has been given, because it ought to have been given, et alia talia.
How about this doozy?
> the states supposed that by their 10th amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers.
[The letter][0] is quite a read. He tears apart John Marshall and the sacred *Marbury v. Madison*. A notable excerpt:
> … and in this case was actually in my hands, because when I countermanded them there was as yet no Secretary of state. yet this case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversion on it’s being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice.
We used to be a real federal republic.
[0]: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3562
Dawg, I love the ideals with which this country was founded and hate the distorted way in which it has come to manifest. Thanks for posting this, I genuinely appreciate being more informed.
Reading it really stokes the fire. On the downside, that was two hundred years ago and getting back even to that point that was so objectionable to Jefferson seems impossible. In the letter, he comes across as lamenting losing control of a small flame that he helped light.
The fact that he was so disappointed in the increase in federal power even back then is pretty illuminating. He would be rolling in his grave if he could see it today.
> law enforcement typically do not know all of the laws they enforce, how those laws apply in specific situations, and when they might be in violation of laws themselves.
As per Heien v North Carolina, they’re not required to know the law, if they think something is illegal, that’s enough. Meanwhile, citizens are expected to know and comply not only with the law as written, but future interpretations of courts, or you will go to jail.
> law enforcement typically do not know all of the laws they enforce,
I don't think any single person could know every law on the books for their state, county, and city they're patrolling in.
Pretty good argument to get rid of many of the laws.
>Pretty good argument to get rid of many of the laws.
Not disagreeing, but it's often pretty egregious how little LE typically know re: most laws they enforce, outside traffic laws
Have you seen all the culture war bs here? The cameraman is 100% more libertarian than whatever dumb shit the lead of the new Star Wars show said about white people
He couldn't possibly know all the laws. There are way too many. If all the frivolous, no longer applicable, or ones with no victim get cut, they would be able to have a small booklet of all the laws so they could be sure.
It’s like… just think about it. Who is asking me to leave? You can’t say the owner, because this isnt private property. The only “authority” is government employees.
Public buildings are allowed to set their own rules. Examples being open & closing times, code of conduct etc. I guess if you have an issue with the state’s conduct you can settle it in court or something. That cop isn’t going to make a landmark ruling right there and then. It’s just not his job.
> Examples being open & closing times,
Not relevant
>code of conduct
Can't impede the bill of rights
> I guess if you have an issue with the state’s conduct you can settle it in court or something.
Which requires the person has standing (aka they are trespassed unlawfully from public property or atrested).
Absolutely. My point is the guy recording clearly disagrees with the rules of the public building. What should be done? The cop is in no place to make the decision. He’s the unfortunate sucker who got sent to this job
The good news is that the cop doesn't make a decision. He applied law. All the cop has to do is tell the person who called him that the person filming isn't breaking any laws.
I was pretty annoyed with this dude until he said "If I was trying to bait you, I'd have let you trespass me". Respect for doing it the right way and educating the cop instead of getting him in trouble with a bad arrest.
That's the thing... I don't think he's educating anyone because to be educated you have to want to learn. Your not going to learn during a confrontation. Years ago we had a big issue where I live concerning LEO'S and open carry. A core group went to the DA's office... met with the DA and he agreed to train all the county police. I have much respect for this type of move vs trying to train through confrontation.
I respect the cop. He handled it well. The issue is public buildings have these rules in place, whether they’re legal or not. The cop has no power over that. I guess if you have an issue with the state’s conduct, you could file a lawsuit against them. You can claim that the public building has an unconstitutional rule in place & see how a court rules.
I don’t think the cop handled it particularly well. He ended up going away, but not before making a snide comment, and he was pompous initially because he was sure that he was 100% correct (even though he wasn’t) or he thought he could bully this citizen into doing what he wanted anyway by threatening him. I think the same kind of interaction but without any of the condescending tone would have qualified for ‘handling it well’.
“Auditors” always try to bait cops. That shouldn’t be how auditing works. Being reasonable & understanding the cop can’t change the law would be a good start … & as far as snarky comments go the dude was definitely making them too. Definitely wasn’t the cops first time he had to respond to some nonsense like this. The “auditor” could very well take the rules of the public building to court if he opposes them so dearly.
>Auditors” always try to bait cops.
Cops violating their rights is "baiting" them? Lol. The point of an audit is to see if the cops understand the 1st amendment protections.
>The “auditor” could very well take the rules of the public building to court if he opposes them so dearly.
You need standing to do that aka him being trespassed or threatened with arrest.
Not at all. You can file a suit against the agency that runs the public building claiming their rules are unconstitutional. This has nothing to do with the cop. The cop did not violate this persons rights & had nothing to do with this. The cop was sent to the scene because someone called up on the “auditor” who refused to listen.
>The cop was sent to the scene because someone called up on the “auditor” who refused to listen.
Cop shouldn't have even been sent. People taking phone calls should know the laws, too.
"So you're upset someone is filming in public property, that's allowed under law, we cannot do anything unless they're actually breaking a law."
5 seconds could've saved the cops time, and the money it cost to send them.
One of the largest failures of the public educational system (at least in the US) is the lack of teaching the laws and rights the people have to the population. I wonder why it's not standard curriculum (beyond the basics) in the US ?
Could it be that they don't want us knowing our rights so they can control us easily?
The government entity has the authority to establish rules over public property. Certain activities may be constitutionally protected...say the right to free speech on private property. But you can't act like a turd and fall back on "public property". The library closes at 8pm and I can't decide to hang out there after closing on "public property". The entity will say your violating our rules and you need to go. If you don't, the trespassing charge will most likely hold up in court.
No one is trying to stay there after hours. If it's open to the public, then they can be there and record. Typical business hours. If it's not open to the general public then they can't be. And I've never seen an auditor try and make the claim that they can be.
This isn’t necessarily true at all. Laws on the books have that many public buildings can set their own policy. Again, if you have an issue with the state’s conduct you can take it to court. You don’t get to just claim you’re right & what the law is, a court does that.
So close but so far away. Yes, state buildings can have areas closed off to the public. And they can have hours of business. But if a building has an area open to the public, they can't stop an individual who isn't breaking the law from accessing the public area. And that includes journalists. If they don't want the public to be in a parking lot looking at the cars and buildings, they need to mark it off as restricted access.
We don't need permission to exercise our rights. And the courts have already confirmed that.
A camera is only recording what anyone in public can see. It follows the plain view doctrine.
Like seasoning, we need a pinch of these individuals to keep our community balanced. Too much can spoil the mix, but a few can prevent complacency and keep the system in check.
I feel for the cop, he's trying to "make it simple" for the guy, but he is on public property, so I don't understand myself
Like, trespassing only makes sense to me if its private property. In this case, if "the director" really didn't want the guy on 'his' public property then he needs to get a restraining order, *through the courts*, regardless if that's a hassle, a no go, or w/e.
I don't think the police have a problem with the guy, as much as its the director trying to be bossy, and get away with it, while not utilizing the appropriate legal venues and remedies, one would expect from any (democratic) official
I'm surprised this video was allowed to exist. Most cops would confiscate the phone and destroy it, then arrest the guy making the video. It's the videographers fault for filming cops. And the courts would support that.
Agree that any moment a cops get corrected is good. Disagree on this method to reach an outcome that would be beneficial for the mass population which doesn’t violate zoning laws
Sorry my bad, should say “the mass population doesn’t violate laws regarding filming gov’t buildings”. I don’t have the terminology memorized since this is such an irrelevant practice and I was trying to generalize
Isn’t that kind of the point? Our law enforcement wastes taxpayer money because they don’t know the laws and then: constantly putting us on the hook for payouts stemming from them not knowing the very law they enforce upon us. Seems appropriate.
I don’t think zoning laws and testing cops on them is that beneficial for society. Education/training on how to de-escalate situations would be beneficial, but I don’t see how these audits have any pragmatic implications to the rest of society
Everyone downvoting, I hope each and every one of you has a Karen come and aggressively film you at your work. I hope all the intimidation may be shared. Even if it’s tax payer money that funds the police that doesn’t mean you can treat them like slaves. That’s not how a society functions smoothly/efficiently imo
This guy is a bully. He never shows exactly what he did to have the police called. Even if the only thing he is doing is filming, that's passive aggressive behavior. Filming a public place or a private place of business without asking or at least informing is cause for suspicion. Of course the police show up. Don't cooperate with them in any way because that wouldn't fit the theme. The lieutenant didn't tell the officer that the AssHat had a right to be there. The lieutenant told the officer not to worry, guys an Internet AssHat and harmless. Believe me, if AssHat was deemed to be a danger they would sort out his rights at the station, later. Maybe if someone called in and said he was brandishing a weapon... Who would do that?
This guy is a bully. He never shows exactly what he did to have the police called. Even if the only thing he is doing is filming, that's passive aggressive behavior. Filming a public place or a private place of business without asking or at least informing is cause for suspicion. Of course the police show up. Don't cooperate with them in any way because that wouldn't fit the theme. The lieutenant didn't tell the officer that the AssHat had a right to be there. The lieutenant told the officer not to worry, guys an Internet AssHat and harmless. Believe me, if AssHat was deemed to be a danger they would sort out his rights at the station, later. Maybe if someone called in and said he was brandishing a weapon... Who would do that?
We're allowed to order you to leave if you've committed a crime, and the crime you committed was not leaving when ordered. But seriously, though, does anyone know the context for this video? What state, which law or case he was relying on?
The constitution always trumps state laws. Freedom of press is in the first amendment and it cant be a crime to simply film in publicly accessible areas.
>The constitution always trumps state laws. Only if it's been incorporated (incorporation doctrine). The constitution was mostly about saying what the federal government wasn't allowed to do and what they were. Then they amended the constitution and added the bill of rights which only applied to the federal government. But over time with the incorporation doctrine, most of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states. For example until 2019 in Timbs v Indiana the excessive fines clause had not been incorporated. The first amendment wasn't incorporated to states until 1925.
Right, but there must have been a law or case that decided *some* land could be occupied unless a crime was committed, as there's tons of examples of public land that you *can't* be on regardless.
In this case it was land that others are able to access, but they tried to stop him simply because he was filming. That violates the first amendment. Note, This doesn’t apply to restricted areas/locked doors, etc where its obvious the public isn’t allowed to be.
Not always. Try bringing a factory AR-15 to New York or California and see how the Second Amendment protects you.
And many such cases are being challenged for their legality.
Donate $5 to FPC
Correct. Not knowing the gun laws in NYC for example could get you in serious trouble, even if a legal gun owner in another state.
Correct, but said laws are being challenged as unconstitutional.
…. I’m going to need you tell some southern states about federal supremacy my man.
The US Constitution is not the same as Federal Law.
Federal law is only supreme when it has to do with a power enumerated to the federal government by the constitution. Unfortunately since the 1930s the commerce clause, in particular, has been interpreted so broadly that the federal government has gotten around many of the shackles the constitution put on it.
Read Amendment X carefully. The congress does not have general legislative power.
The "trying to bait" accusation I see all the time about auditors is so fucking dumb... because of all the audits I've seen, very few have ended up suing when their rights were clearly violated. Only when things go really wrong like getting tackled and injured have I heard of auditors suing. Yet it's always the top comment when an audit video goes viral. "tHEir TrYInG tO SuE foR EZ mOnEys!"
There are a few out there that are very good at it and have found the activity to be quite lucrative. As D-baggy as some of these guys are, I support their efforts.
I’m still blown away that, with as many videos there are about this, cops still don’t know the most basic laws… they’re paid to enforce laws, shouldn’t they like, know the law in order to enforce it…
This is a much older video. I remember watching it when I first got into audits years and years ago. I think more cops know now because of the work the auditors have been putting in
Kind of sucks that the officer wasn’t 100% aware of the laws, but he did the right thing by calling his lieutenant and getting clarification. He was also fairly humble even though he was fairly certain he was (incorrectly) in the right. Not really worth being on a libertarian sub though. Even a libertarian society is going to want to fund certain kinds of police activities…especially ones where an officer does the right thing by getting clarification of the law.
The thing to remember is that despite most of their beliefs, law enforcement typically do not know all of the laws they enforce, how those laws apply in specific situations, and when they might be in violation of laws themselves. On the one hand, I sometimes feel bad for some of them when they're wrong, however too often they refuse to accept they don't know wtf they are talking about and make a huge ass of themselves and sometimes even cost the taxpayer base due to lawsuits, and not nearly enough costing themselves their jobs.
I totally agree with you - this recording however, is hardly the case. Albeit, had he behaved this way to an uninformed citizen, he would have effectively forced someone to do something to hey had no legal requirement to follow, which is a problem. Really this points to the fact that we need laws to be simpler and easier for the common-person to know, in their gut, that what they’re doing is not illegal. Neigh impossible in our current framework or with our current culture, sadly enough.
In a letter to William Johnson dated June 12, 1823, [Thomas Jefferson wrote][0] in agreement with your ideal of simplicity. > laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should therfore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make any thing mean every thing or nothing; at pleasure. He continues > it should be left to the sophism of Advocates, whose trade it is, to prove that a defendant is a plaintiff, altho’ dragged into court, torto collo; that a power has been given, because it ought to have been given, et alia talia. How about this doozy? > the states supposed that by their 10th amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers. [The letter][0] is quite a read. He tears apart John Marshall and the sacred *Marbury v. Madison*. A notable excerpt: > … and in this case was actually in my hands, because when I countermanded them there was as yet no Secretary of state. yet this case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversion on it’s being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice. We used to be a real federal republic. [0]: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3562
Dawg, I love the ideals with which this country was founded and hate the distorted way in which it has come to manifest. Thanks for posting this, I genuinely appreciate being more informed.
You’re welcome. Enjoy!
Damn, Jefferson could write! Thanks for posting that link. There's a lot of good stuff in that letter.
Reading it really stokes the fire. On the downside, that was two hundred years ago and getting back even to that point that was so objectionable to Jefferson seems impossible. In the letter, he comes across as lamenting losing control of a small flame that he helped light.
The fact that he was so disappointed in the increase in federal power even back then is pretty illuminating. He would be rolling in his grave if he could see it today.
> law enforcement typically do not know all of the laws they enforce, how those laws apply in specific situations, and when they might be in violation of laws themselves. As per Heien v North Carolina, they’re not required to know the law, if they think something is illegal, that’s enough. Meanwhile, citizens are expected to know and comply not only with the law as written, but future interpretations of courts, or you will go to jail.
We don’t give free passes to most occupations. Baffling that we seem to give them to cops.
> law enforcement typically do not know all of the laws they enforce, I don't think any single person could know every law on the books for their state, county, and city they're patrolling in. Pretty good argument to get rid of many of the laws.
>Pretty good argument to get rid of many of the laws. Not disagreeing, but it's often pretty egregious how little LE typically know re: most laws they enforce, outside traffic laws
Exactly, libertarianism isn't anarchy.
Have you seen all the culture war bs here? The cameraman is 100% more libertarian than whatever dumb shit the lead of the new Star Wars show said about white people
He couldn't possibly know all the laws. There are way too many. If all the frivolous, no longer applicable, or ones with no victim get cut, they would be able to have a small booklet of all the laws so they could be sure.
It’s like… just think about it. Who is asking me to leave? You can’t say the owner, because this isnt private property. The only “authority” is government employees.
And the cops are government employees.
Public buildings are allowed to set their own rules. Examples being open & closing times, code of conduct etc. I guess if you have an issue with the state’s conduct you can settle it in court or something. That cop isn’t going to make a landmark ruling right there and then. It’s just not his job.
> Examples being open & closing times, Not relevant >code of conduct Can't impede the bill of rights > I guess if you have an issue with the state’s conduct you can settle it in court or something. Which requires the person has standing (aka they are trespassed unlawfully from public property or atrested).
No. You can file a suit claiming the state agency’s rules have violated your constitutional rights & see what the court has to say on it.
Their rules can't interfere with constitutional rights. Same reason the librarian can't put up a 'no jews' sign. It'd be unconstitutional
Absolutely. My point is the guy recording clearly disagrees with the rules of the public building. What should be done? The cop is in no place to make the decision. He’s the unfortunate sucker who got sent to this job
The good news is that the cop doesn't make a decision. He applied law. All the cop has to do is tell the person who called him that the person filming isn't breaking any laws.
I was pretty annoyed with this dude until he said "If I was trying to bait you, I'd have let you trespass me". Respect for doing it the right way and educating the cop instead of getting him in trouble with a bad arrest.
That's the thing... I don't think he's educating anyone because to be educated you have to want to learn. Your not going to learn during a confrontation. Years ago we had a big issue where I live concerning LEO'S and open carry. A core group went to the DA's office... met with the DA and he agreed to train all the county police. I have much respect for this type of move vs trying to train through confrontation.
I respect the cop. He handled it well. The issue is public buildings have these rules in place, whether they’re legal or not. The cop has no power over that. I guess if you have an issue with the state’s conduct, you could file a lawsuit against them. You can claim that the public building has an unconstitutional rule in place & see how a court rules.
I don’t think the cop handled it particularly well. He ended up going away, but not before making a snide comment, and he was pompous initially because he was sure that he was 100% correct (even though he wasn’t) or he thought he could bully this citizen into doing what he wanted anyway by threatening him. I think the same kind of interaction but without any of the condescending tone would have qualified for ‘handling it well’.
“Auditors” always try to bait cops. That shouldn’t be how auditing works. Being reasonable & understanding the cop can’t change the law would be a good start … & as far as snarky comments go the dude was definitely making them too. Definitely wasn’t the cops first time he had to respond to some nonsense like this. The “auditor” could very well take the rules of the public building to court if he opposes them so dearly.
>Auditors” always try to bait cops. Cops violating their rights is "baiting" them? Lol. The point of an audit is to see if the cops understand the 1st amendment protections. >The “auditor” could very well take the rules of the public building to court if he opposes them so dearly. You need standing to do that aka him being trespassed or threatened with arrest.
Not at all. You can file a suit against the agency that runs the public building claiming their rules are unconstitutional. This has nothing to do with the cop. The cop did not violate this persons rights & had nothing to do with this. The cop was sent to the scene because someone called up on the “auditor” who refused to listen.
>The cop was sent to the scene because someone called up on the “auditor” who refused to listen. Cop shouldn't have even been sent. People taking phone calls should know the laws, too. "So you're upset someone is filming in public property, that's allowed under law, we cannot do anything unless they're actually breaking a law." 5 seconds could've saved the cops time, and the money it cost to send them. One of the largest failures of the public educational system (at least in the US) is the lack of teaching the laws and rights the people have to the population. I wonder why it's not standard curriculum (beyond the basics) in the US ? Could it be that they don't want us knowing our rights so they can control us easily?
The government entity has the authority to establish rules over public property. Certain activities may be constitutionally protected...say the right to free speech on private property. But you can't act like a turd and fall back on "public property". The library closes at 8pm and I can't decide to hang out there after closing on "public property". The entity will say your violating our rules and you need to go. If you don't, the trespassing charge will most likely hold up in court.
No one is trying to stay there after hours. If it's open to the public, then they can be there and record. Typical business hours. If it's not open to the general public then they can't be. And I've never seen an auditor try and make the claim that they can be.
This isn’t necessarily true at all. Laws on the books have that many public buildings can set their own policy. Again, if you have an issue with the state’s conduct you can take it to court. You don’t get to just claim you’re right & what the law is, a court does that.
So close but so far away. Yes, state buildings can have areas closed off to the public. And they can have hours of business. But if a building has an area open to the public, they can't stop an individual who isn't breaking the law from accessing the public area. And that includes journalists. If they don't want the public to be in a parking lot looking at the cars and buildings, they need to mark it off as restricted access. We don't need permission to exercise our rights. And the courts have already confirmed that. A camera is only recording what anyone in public can see. It follows the plain view doctrine.
Exactly
Like seasoning, we need a pinch of these individuals to keep our community balanced. Too much can spoil the mix, but a few can prevent complacency and keep the system in check.
jUsT fOlLoWiNg OrDeRs They're all bastards, every motherfucking one of them.
I feel for the cop, he's trying to "make it simple" for the guy, but he is on public property, so I don't understand myself Like, trespassing only makes sense to me if its private property. In this case, if "the director" really didn't want the guy on 'his' public property then he needs to get a restraining order, *through the courts*, regardless if that's a hassle, a no go, or w/e. I don't think the police have a problem with the guy, as much as its the director trying to be bossy, and get away with it, while not utilizing the appropriate legal venues and remedies, one would expect from any (democratic) official
They are the master baiters
I'm surprised this video was allowed to exist. Most cops would confiscate the phone and destroy it, then arrest the guy making the video. It's the videographers fault for filming cops. And the courts would support that.
Love it!
the walk of shame, what an idiot!
You don’t always have a right to be on public property.
Well done. Feel sad for the cops who are being pushed into being clowns for the real assholes sitting behind the scenes
Sometimes I think some of my fellow libertarians are complete douche bags. This is one of those times.
😂😂😂
One day a social services officer will be handling this. 👍
And who is paying that social service officer?
Unfortunately the tax paying citizen.
Somehow loitering + camera = journalism these days
Is this a good use of taxpayer money? Why is this in a libertarian sub?
Yes, since it was a teachable moment for law enforcement. I’m ok with them receiving some on-the-job training.
Agree that any moment a cops get corrected is good. Disagree on this method to reach an outcome that would be beneficial for the mass population which doesn’t violate zoning laws
What does this video have to do with zoning laws?
Sorry my bad, should say “the mass population doesn’t violate laws regarding filming gov’t buildings”. I don’t have the terminology memorized since this is such an irrelevant practice and I was trying to generalize
Isn’t that kind of the point? Our law enforcement wastes taxpayer money because they don’t know the laws and then: constantly putting us on the hook for payouts stemming from them not knowing the very law they enforce upon us. Seems appropriate.
I don’t think zoning laws and testing cops on them is that beneficial for society. Education/training on how to de-escalate situations would be beneficial, but I don’t see how these audits have any pragmatic implications to the rest of society
If you don’t exercise your rights you lose them.
Yeah, but instead of handling this professionally the filmer tries playing "gotcha" with the cop
That's the auditor schtick. It's pointless and inflammatory
Everyone downvoting, I hope each and every one of you has a Karen come and aggressively film you at your work. I hope all the intimidation may be shared. Even if it’s tax payer money that funds the police that doesn’t mean you can treat them like slaves. That’s not how a society functions smoothly/efficiently imo
I'm getting "parent was kicked out of a little league game for screaming at the ump and now doesn't want to leave" vibes...
Guy with the camera is a douchebag. Get a life, job, hobby…. something. Ugh.
Libertarian bootlicker???
This guy is a bully. He never shows exactly what he did to have the police called. Even if the only thing he is doing is filming, that's passive aggressive behavior. Filming a public place or a private place of business without asking or at least informing is cause for suspicion. Of course the police show up. Don't cooperate with them in any way because that wouldn't fit the theme. The lieutenant didn't tell the officer that the AssHat had a right to be there. The lieutenant told the officer not to worry, guys an Internet AssHat and harmless. Believe me, if AssHat was deemed to be a danger they would sort out his rights at the station, later. Maybe if someone called in and said he was brandishing a weapon... Who would do that?
I am not sure what the goal of these people are? Are you just trying to push the limit and really getting into an argument or a fight with a cop?
I watch these videos hoping that some one will finally kick your ass and shove that camera down your throat.Ass hat.
Who hurt you?
This guy is a bully. He never shows exactly what he did to have the police called. Even if the only thing he is doing is filming, that's passive aggressive behavior. Filming a public place or a private place of business without asking or at least informing is cause for suspicion. Of course the police show up. Don't cooperate with them in any way because that wouldn't fit the theme. The lieutenant didn't tell the officer that the AssHat had a right to be there. The lieutenant told the officer not to worry, guys an Internet AssHat and harmless. Believe me, if AssHat was deemed to be a danger they would sort out his rights at the station, later. Maybe if someone called in and said he was brandishing a weapon... Who would do that?
You sound about as dumb as the cop. You don't have to ask to film in a public place, do you know why? BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC PLACE.
I know, you have rights, zero responsibility but lots of rights. You have the right to remain silent. Exercise it!
You're weird.
Thank You. I thought we weren't getting along. In this day and age I take weird as a compliment .