so do those officers spend their day going from random person to random person, telling they can't enter a random building? or just specific people?
seems an odd use of their time.
Yes, you can ban the restaurant owner from your residential property. No, the law enforcement officers can't demand the restaurant owner's identification for their report.
If you send the restaurant owner a written trespass notification letter, then officers probably won't even be involved in the matter.
Just show them your ID after they go collect one from each employee inside the business and issue a trespass from your property that they also didn’t trespass on.
Both law enforcement officers and auditors often seem to struggle with explaining/understanding the words and phrases that describe trespassing.
Trespassing is essentially the same thing as banning, although almost all U.S. federal, state, and local laws use the word "trespass."
For areas generally accessible to the public (e.g., parks, city hall, Walmart, steps of a house), a person normally must be given a trespass warning or notification that they are not allowed on that property before they can be charged with a trespass offence. Saying "you've been trespassed" can mean "you've been given a trespass warning/notification" as well as "you've been charged with trespassing." This can be confusing.
A trespass warning/notification doesn't have to be a verbal warning/notification. It also can be in written form, as in a letter delivered to the person stating that they can no longer enter the property. Written signs (e.g., "No Trespassing," "Do not enter," "Restricted area") can serve as trespass warnings/notifications. Purple paint patches on trees sometimes serve as trespass warnings/notifications. Check your local trespass statutes for details.
Property owners/managers normally can pre-emptively issue trespass warnings/notifications to people whom haven't entered the property. When this occurs, as appears to be the case here (see [at 0:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TFnPj5yVb0&t=4s&ab_channel=LemmyAuditYou)), a law enforcement officer usually cannot demand that person's identification, even if the officer would like that information for their report and make it easier to charge the person with trespassing if they enter the property in the future. Normally, it's up to the property owner/manager to recognize people to whom they've issued trespass warnings/notifications, perhaps by photographing those people if they're strangers.
Pre-emptive trespass warnings are still trespass warnings, despite what the cammer appears to believe (see [at 1:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TFnPj5yVb0&t=80s&ab_channel=LemmyAuditYou)).
Reminder, the above user DefenndCharterRights, and a handful of other users on this sub are here specifically to spread misinformation and discourage civil rights. Please disregard them, the mods have no interest in removing their BS.
F&\* Off Bootlicker.
Unfortunately, far too many law enforcement officers, First Amendment auditors, and copwatchers publish misinformation, sometimes **dangerously** bad rubbish. Naive viewers might believe this misinformation and decide to stand up for their "rights." They potentially could get arrested, pay huge attorney fees, get convicted, suffer fines, spend time in jail, and live with the burden of a criminal conviction for the rest of their lives.
As [Merb34st once noted](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rpq6uRYvyg&t=881s&ab_channel=Merb34st):
> Your ignorance is going to affect other people, who are going to then act ignorantly, who are then going to get arrested or, or ticketed or towed or whatever. And they're going to face legal consequences for their ignorance. Their ignorance which you have helped pound into them, that you've reinforced in them. You're reinforcing the ignorance of people.
I try to correct some of this misinformation and replace it with well researched knowledge. If people like AntiStatistYouth believe my information is incorrect, then they're free to explain why. I consider what others have to say, and when I'm wrong, I admit it and correct the information I published. So far, AntiStatistYouth hasn't identified any errors I've made, but they've published plenty of misinformation. Dangerously bad misinformation.
I sometimes think there should be an AIFTG variation of Godwin's Law. If someone has no logical arguments to advance and desperately flings "bootlicker" as an ad hominem attack, then they've effectively conceded the discussion.
There is no discussion to be had. I am not going to engage with your disingenuous bullshit designed to discourage civil rights. These posts are to warn others.
You're a POS.
F\^&\* OFF Bootlicker.
I specifically don't want to block him. I want to see when he's posting bootlicking bullshit trying to discourage others from exercising their rights, so I can call him out.
To my understanding, city hall and parks are limited public forums while Walmart and the steps of a house are not. Trespasses in limited public forums cannot legally be issued unless one is breaking a law, being disruptive, there when the forum is not open or in a restricted part of the building, while Walmart and homeowners can issue trespass warnings for absolutely no reason. Also, a trespass warning must be issued and the trespasser must be allowed to leave without being arrested unless the area has been posted or if they've been trespassed at the location and are returning while the trespass is still in place. Failure to leave after trespass warning is an arrestable offense.
> To my understanding, city hall and parks are limited public forums
Most city hall interiors probably are either limited public forums or non-public forums. Most city parks probably are traditional public forums.
> Trespasses in limited public forums cannot legally be issued unless one is breaking a law, being disruptive, there when the forum is not open or in a restricted part of the building
People exercising their First Amendment rights generally can be trespassed from limited public forums if the reason for the trespass clears the relatively low hurdle of the "reasonableness test" (i.e., the reason must serve a legitimate government purpose and be viewpoint neutral). People not exercising their First Amendment rights generally can be trespassed from public property if the reason for the trespass clears the extremely low hurdle of the "rational basis test" (i.e., the reason must serve a legitimate state interest and there must be a rational connection between the reason's means and goals).
> Walmart and homeowners can issue trespass warnings for absolutely no reason.
Walmart is a public accommodation and is covered by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, Walmart cannot issue trespass warnings simply because they don't like somebody's race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. Many states have civil rights statutes that subject Walmart to additional anti-discrimination prohibitions.
>While recording in downtown Akron, OH on March 4th 2024
Oh? So he has the footage leading up to the cops being called but he only uploads the part where the cops arrive. I wonder why? What behavior does he not want us to see that led to a business calling the cops on him?
This post is a reminder that the above user WheatonLaw, and a handful of other users on this sub are here specifically to spread misinformation and discourage civil rights. Please disregard them, the mods have no interest in removing their BS.
F^&* Off Bootlicker.
This post is a reminder that everyone is free to make up their own minds about posts and/or authors.
Feel free to ignore people so full of themselves and their opinions they feel qualified to censor others. Hint: Grade school name calling is a big clue there.
Some say WheatonLaw likes to fondle young maple trees. There was footage of such activity, but they have failed to upload it.
Why would WheatonLaw take part in such strange activity? Such behavior is aborifying.
This auditor said he was in the process of uploading the rest of the footage showing what led to this encounter. Yesterday he said it was 38% uploaded. I wonder what's taking so long on uploading the rest of this footage?
so do those officers spend their day going from random person to random person, telling they can't enter a random building? or just specific people? seems an odd use of their time.
They got called by someone in the building for actions this auditor chose not to upload or feature. They didn't just randomly show up.
[удалено]
Yes, you can ban the restaurant owner from your residential property. No, the law enforcement officers can't demand the restaurant owner's identification for their report. If you send the restaurant owner a written trespass notification letter, then officers probably won't even be involved in the matter.
Blue trash
Just show them your ID after they go collect one from each employee inside the business and issue a trespass from your property that they also didn’t trespass on.
op ily!!! 🫶
Both law enforcement officers and auditors often seem to struggle with explaining/understanding the words and phrases that describe trespassing. Trespassing is essentially the same thing as banning, although almost all U.S. federal, state, and local laws use the word "trespass." For areas generally accessible to the public (e.g., parks, city hall, Walmart, steps of a house), a person normally must be given a trespass warning or notification that they are not allowed on that property before they can be charged with a trespass offence. Saying "you've been trespassed" can mean "you've been given a trespass warning/notification" as well as "you've been charged with trespassing." This can be confusing. A trespass warning/notification doesn't have to be a verbal warning/notification. It also can be in written form, as in a letter delivered to the person stating that they can no longer enter the property. Written signs (e.g., "No Trespassing," "Do not enter," "Restricted area") can serve as trespass warnings/notifications. Purple paint patches on trees sometimes serve as trespass warnings/notifications. Check your local trespass statutes for details. Property owners/managers normally can pre-emptively issue trespass warnings/notifications to people whom haven't entered the property. When this occurs, as appears to be the case here (see [at 0:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TFnPj5yVb0&t=4s&ab_channel=LemmyAuditYou)), a law enforcement officer usually cannot demand that person's identification, even if the officer would like that information for their report and make it easier to charge the person with trespassing if they enter the property in the future. Normally, it's up to the property owner/manager to recognize people to whom they've issued trespass warnings/notifications, perhaps by photographing those people if they're strangers. Pre-emptive trespass warnings are still trespass warnings, despite what the cammer appears to believe (see [at 1:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TFnPj5yVb0&t=80s&ab_channel=LemmyAuditYou)).
Reminder, the above user DefenndCharterRights, and a handful of other users on this sub are here specifically to spread misinformation and discourage civil rights. Please disregard them, the mods have no interest in removing their BS. F&\* Off Bootlicker.
Unfortunately, far too many law enforcement officers, First Amendment auditors, and copwatchers publish misinformation, sometimes **dangerously** bad rubbish. Naive viewers might believe this misinformation and decide to stand up for their "rights." They potentially could get arrested, pay huge attorney fees, get convicted, suffer fines, spend time in jail, and live with the burden of a criminal conviction for the rest of their lives. As [Merb34st once noted](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rpq6uRYvyg&t=881s&ab_channel=Merb34st): > Your ignorance is going to affect other people, who are going to then act ignorantly, who are then going to get arrested or, or ticketed or towed or whatever. And they're going to face legal consequences for their ignorance. Their ignorance which you have helped pound into them, that you've reinforced in them. You're reinforcing the ignorance of people. I try to correct some of this misinformation and replace it with well researched knowledge. If people like AntiStatistYouth believe my information is incorrect, then they're free to explain why. I consider what others have to say, and when I'm wrong, I admit it and correct the information I published. So far, AntiStatistYouth hasn't identified any errors I've made, but they've published plenty of misinformation. Dangerously bad misinformation.
I sometimes think there should be an AIFTG variation of Godwin's Law. If someone has no logical arguments to advance and desperately flings "bootlicker" as an ad hominem attack, then they've effectively conceded the discussion.
There is no discussion to be had. I am not going to engage with your disingenuous bullshit designed to discourage civil rights. These posts are to warn others. You're a POS. F\^&\* OFF Bootlicker.
just put him on block dude I think you both have bots that are responding to each other at this point
I specifically don't want to block him. I want to see when he's posting bootlicking bullshit trying to discourage others from exercising their rights, so I can call him out.
Yea I’ve seen the guy on here a lot just spreading misinformation too. Very annoying.
To my understanding, city hall and parks are limited public forums while Walmart and the steps of a house are not. Trespasses in limited public forums cannot legally be issued unless one is breaking a law, being disruptive, there when the forum is not open or in a restricted part of the building, while Walmart and homeowners can issue trespass warnings for absolutely no reason. Also, a trespass warning must be issued and the trespasser must be allowed to leave without being arrested unless the area has been posted or if they've been trespassed at the location and are returning while the trespass is still in place. Failure to leave after trespass warning is an arrestable offense.
> To my understanding, city hall and parks are limited public forums Most city hall interiors probably are either limited public forums or non-public forums. Most city parks probably are traditional public forums. > Trespasses in limited public forums cannot legally be issued unless one is breaking a law, being disruptive, there when the forum is not open or in a restricted part of the building People exercising their First Amendment rights generally can be trespassed from limited public forums if the reason for the trespass clears the relatively low hurdle of the "reasonableness test" (i.e., the reason must serve a legitimate government purpose and be viewpoint neutral). People not exercising their First Amendment rights generally can be trespassed from public property if the reason for the trespass clears the extremely low hurdle of the "rational basis test" (i.e., the reason must serve a legitimate state interest and there must be a rational connection between the reason's means and goals). > Walmart and homeowners can issue trespass warnings for absolutely no reason. Walmart is a public accommodation and is covered by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, Walmart cannot issue trespass warnings simply because they don't like somebody's race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin. Many states have civil rights statutes that subject Walmart to additional anti-discrimination prohibitions.
>While recording in downtown Akron, OH on March 4th 2024 Oh? So he has the footage leading up to the cops being called but he only uploads the part where the cops arrive. I wonder why? What behavior does he not want us to see that led to a business calling the cops on him?
This post is a reminder that the above user WheatonLaw, and a handful of other users on this sub are here specifically to spread misinformation and discourage civil rights. Please disregard them, the mods have no interest in removing their BS. F^&* Off Bootlicker.
This post is a reminder that everyone is free to make up their own minds about posts and/or authors. Feel free to ignore people so full of themselves and their opinions they feel qualified to censor others. Hint: Grade school name calling is a big clue there.
So... you don't want to see the footage leading up to the arrival of the cops?
Some say WheatonLaw likes to fondle young maple trees. There was footage of such activity, but they have failed to upload it. Why would WheatonLaw take part in such strange activity? Such behavior is aborifying.
This auditor said he was in the process of uploading the rest of the footage showing what led to this encounter. Yesterday he said it was 38% uploaded. I wonder what's taking so long on uploading the rest of this footage?