User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 3:20:05 PM EST
[#1]
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 3:30:39 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you arrest a US Citizen for trespassing into a police station? Isn't that literally what we pay taxes for? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Maybe. If they arrested him for trespassing though? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/235149/Shrug_jpg-1954471_jpeg-2837097.JPG Your taxes pay for nuclear missile launch sites but you can’t go there either. GD has a massive obsession regarding police and how people can do anything they want regarding the police. Then become massively butthurt when it doesn’t go their way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 3:34:02 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law Good thing that the US Supreme Court has already decided that the public doesn't have an absolute freedom of speech right in non-public forums then. Further, it's a good thing the NY and NYC law say they can record cops acting under the "color of law" which almost certainly aren't the police actions inside a precinct he was attempting to record. I guess those officers will be okay. ...but thanks for posting some random inapplicable thing you copy and pasted from somewhere on the internet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 3:37:09 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You should shut you are digging the hole deep..He always ask for their supervisor, sometimes the supervisors are smart enough to know he is right and has to order his officers to release him and cease and desist..Hell they have tried to arrest him at a post office where they have zero power at and had to get straightened out by federal mail cops, who explained to them he was 100% legal doing what he was doing..A cop has a computer right at his finger tips which allow him to check any law, odd they rarely use it..F***, any cop that abuses a persons rights in any form..it should never happen... I guess the difference is that I've actually read the laws people are claiming apply and given that the laws people here are simply copy and pasting without actually attempting to comprehend spell out the circumstances you can record - they likely don't apply. Consider me like his supervisors supervisor telling you that you're wrong. An ignorant person that doesn't have a clue telling me I'm digging is totally irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 3:38:05 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your taxes pay for nuclear missile launch sites but you can’t go there either. GD has a massive obsession regarding police and how people can do anything they want regarding the police. Then become massively butthurt when it doesn’t go their way. If only there was a police officer inside the launch site - then you could record since you can record police activity anywhere and everywhere. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 3:41:25 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good thing that the US Supreme Court has already decided that the public doesn't have a freedom of speech right in non-public forums then. I guess those officers will be okay. ...but thanks for posting some random inapplicable thing you copy and pasted from somewhere on the internet. NY law doesn't make that distinction. Pretty broad in fact. USSC said states can make their own rules and regs. They did. You keep forgetting that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 3:41:43 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Damn never knew there were so anti-freedom bootlickers here https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/363844/thumb_png-2837782.JPG sad really Cops are a funny bunch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 3:49:26 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do I need to make up nonsense when you're here? We dont expect officers to know laws? Be honest for once in your life. You dont want officers to know the laws that they enforce. I'll speak for myself, maybe others will agree, but if a cop is going to arrest someone for violating a law, he/she ought to know that law. If they cant be tasked with that, again, snowcones. In fact why dont you join your buddies makin' them. And then I realized you're a troll. Just curious as to what your other account's screen name is... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No we don't. In fact, if we demanded that then every officer would require a law degree and years of experience. Most departments require a 2-year associates and a few months in an academy. ...but hey - feel free to make up whatever silly nonsense you want. Why do I need to make up nonsense when you're here? We dont expect officers to know laws? Be honest for once in your life. You dont want officers to know the laws that they enforce. I'll speak for myself, maybe others will agree, but if a cop is going to arrest someone for violating a law, he/she ought to know that law. If they cant be tasked with that, again, snowcones. In fact why dont you join your buddies makin' them. And then I realized you're a troll. Just curious as to what your other account's screen name is... Threads like this are thick with them. Thick in the head too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:00:34 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No we don't expect them to know every law word for word - and neither does the USSC where enforcement of laws is based on an officer's reasonable belief, probable cause, and numerous other exceptions for officers acting in good faith. In any case, I want cops to know what laws they're enforcing - but I don't want them having their time wasted by "auditors." I want them to act on their reasonable beliefs. An officer attempted to ticket me for something until I pointed out the letter of the law and they changed their mind. They acted based on their belief and adjusted immediately once they were properly informed. In any event there's nothing trolling about pointing out all the holes in your extremely poor, extremely silly, somewhat childish ACAB-based logic. Congratulations on wasting 3x as much time posting as I have and still being wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why do I need to make up nonsense when you're here? We dont expect officers to know laws? Be honest for once in your life. You dont want officers to know the laws that they enforce. I'll speak for myself, maybe others will agree, but if a cop is going to arrest someone for violating a law, he/she ought to know that law. If they cant be tasked with that, again, snowcones. In fact why dont you join your buddies makin' them. And then I realized you're a troll. Just curious as to what your other account's screen name is... No we don't expect them to know every law word for word - and neither does the USSC where enforcement of laws is based on an officer's reasonable belief, probable cause, and numerous other exceptions for officers acting in good faith. In any case, I want cops to know what laws they're enforcing - but I don't want them having their time wasted by "auditors." I want them to act on their reasonable beliefs. An officer attempted to ticket me for something until I pointed out the letter of the law and they changed their mind. They acted based on their belief and adjusted immediately once they were properly informed. In any event there's nothing trolling about pointing out all the holes in your extremely poor, extremely silly, somewhat childish ACAB-based logic. Congratulations on wasting 3x as much time posting as I have and still being wrong. Show me where any of those chuckle fucks were acting in good faith. If a LEO is going to make an arrest, he ought to be able to determine he has a case that a jury would convict on, & he knows the statute well enough to actually make the arrest, otherwise he's just a tyrant looking to jam you up in the system. Fuck those pieces of shit excuse for LE. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:05:12 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ...because on top of dealing with the dregs of our society day in and day out - they have to take grief from strangers with agendas that paint with a very broad brush. It's definitely not a job I'd have any interest in but I understand that someone needs to do it so I respect the ones that attempt to do it legally, morally, and ethically and can understand not wanting without silly click-bait Youtubers adding additional harassment to their duties. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The boot lickers in this thread are EPIC. Why would anyone respect our law enforcement as it is today? ...because on top of dealing with the dregs of our society day in and day out - they have to take grief from strangers with agendas that paint with a very broad brush. It's definitely not a job I'd have any interest in but I understand that someone needs to do it so I respect the ones that attempt to do it legally, morally, and ethically and can understand not wanting without silly click-bait Youtubers adding additional harassment to their duties. And here you double down on stupidity. No one is giving these asshat LEO's grief, they brought that on themselves. The PIO could have met with Sean & read the law, removed the unlawful signage & everyone would be singing kum by ahh, but no way. ReSpecT My BaDgE!! You go to jail. He will be paid for his trouble & your tax dollars will foot the bill. Feel better now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:07:17 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess the difference is that I've actually read the laws people are claiming apply and given that the laws people here are simply copy and pasting without actually attempting to comprehend spell out the circumstances you can record - they likely don't apply. Consider me like his supervisors supervisor telling you that you're wrong. An ignorant person that doesn't have a clue telling me I'm digging is totally irrelevant. And yet the cops keep loosing in court, evidently you must suck at your job, most people would get fired for failing so often..maybe you should do your city a favor and save them some money and hire an actual Constitutionally trainer lawyer who can properly identify what is legal and not legal for cops..or if these suits are all because of ego, maybe you should be paying them instead of your city... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:08:00 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cops are a funny bunch. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Damn never knew there were so anti-freedom bootlickers here https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/363844/thumb_png-2837782.JPG sad really Cops are a funny bunch. It makes sense that le would oppose rights since: 1) they are granted priveleges far exceeding rights 2) recognition of rights of citizens would in effecf limit le priveleges so degrading those "rights" in effect increase the level of privelege. Non le opposing rights? Seems weird, but there were plenty of Soviet subjects on the negative end of that society who enjoyed being subjugated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:16:11 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yet the cops keep loosing in court, evidently you must suck at your job, most people would get fired for failing so often..maybe you should do your city a favor and save them some money and hire an actual Constitutionally trainer lawyer who can properly identify what is legal and not legal for cops..or if these suits are all because of ego, maybe you should be paying them instead of your city... +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:17:11 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It makes sense that le would oppose rights since: 1) they are granted priveleges far exceeding rights 2) recognition of rights of citizens would in effecf limit le priveleges so degrading those "rights" in effect increase the level of privelege. Non le opposing rights? Seems weird, but there were plenty of Soviet subjects on the negative end of that society who enjoyed being subjugated. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Damn never knew there were so anti-freedom bootlickers here https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/363844/thumb_png-2837782.JPG sad really Cops are a funny bunch. It makes sense that le would oppose rights since: 1) they are granted priveleges far exceeding rights 2) recognition of rights of citizens would in effecf limit le priveleges so degrading those "rights" in effect increase the level of privelege. Non le opposing rights? Seems weird, but there were plenty of Soviet subjects on the negative end of that society who enjoyed being subjugated. The courts have consistently cucked us (the general public) for the sake of making LEOs unaccountable for their ignorance/incompetence/malice since the 1960's. It has created a culture in LEO circles that runs marrow deep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:22:58 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plenty of posters in this thread would gladly load people in boxcars because their government told them to do so. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:23:29 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NY law doesn't make that distinction. Pretty broad in fact. USSC said states can make their own rules and regs. They did. You keep forgetting that. Actually it does - try reading. It pretty distinctly defines police activity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:24:42 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yet the cops keep loosing in court, evidently you must suck at your job, most people would get fired for failing so often..maybe you should do your city a favor and save them some money and hire an actual Constitutionally trainer lawyer who can properly identify what is legal and not legal for cops..or if these suits are all because of ego, maybe you should be paying them instead of your city... Losing in court about recording in precincts? Oh ya? Got some case law on that specific to NY? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:35:15 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law If the courts would enforce the death penalty in these cases, all the tyranny would stop ricky tik. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:39:31 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your taxes pay for nuclear missile launch sites but you can’t go there either. GD has a massive obsession regarding police and how people can do anything they want regarding the police. Then become massively butthurt when it doesn’t go their way. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe. If they arrested him for trespassing though? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/235149/Shrug_jpg-1954471_jpeg-2837097.JPG Your taxes pay for nuclear missile launch sites but you can’t go there either. GD has a massive obsession regarding police and how people can do anything they want regarding the police. Then become massively butthurt when it doesn’t go their way. But this auditor recognizes sensitive/restricted areas. The vid is not about accessing unauthorized spaces. Apples & Oranges, stay in your lane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:41:33 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Losing in court about recording in precincts? Oh ya? Got some case law on that specific to NY? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And yet the cops keep loosing in court, evidently you must suck at your job, most people would get fired for failing so often..maybe you should do your city a favor and save them some money and hire an actual Constitutionally trainer lawyer who can properly identify what is legal and not legal for cops..or if these suits are all because of ego, maybe you should be paying them instead of your city... Losing in court about recording in precincts? Oh ya? Got some case law on that specific to NY? You're the one who took a class. You should be able to look it up yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:43:58 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good thing that the US Supreme Court has already decided that the public doesn't have an absolute freedom of speech right in non-public forums then. Further, it's a good thing the NY and NYC law say they can record cops acting under the "color of law" which almost certainly aren't the police actions inside a precinct he was attempting to record. I guess those officers will be okay. ...but thanks for posting some random inapplicable thing you copy and pasted from somewhere on the internet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law Good thing that the US Supreme Court has already decided that the public doesn't have an absolute freedom of speech right in non-public forums then. Further, it's a good thing the NY and NYC law say they can record cops acting under the "color of law" which almost certainly aren't the police actions inside a precinct he was attempting to record. I guess those officers will be okay. ...but thanks for posting some random inapplicable thing you copy and pasted from somewhere on the internet. If your on duty in uniform, are you not acting under color of law? Even if your taking a shit on the terlit? How about taking a complaint from a citizen about a cops behavior? Demanding your property be returned to you? What part of the job is not under the color of law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:52:10 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But this auditor recognizes sensitive/restricted areas. The vid is not about accessing unauthorized spaces. Apples & Oranges, stay in your lane. False. According to the USSC - this would be considered a non-public forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:53:03 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If your on duty in uniform, are you not acting under color of law? Even if your taking a shit on the terlit? How about taking a complaint from a citizen about a cops behavior? Demanding your property be returned to you? What part of the job is not under the color of law? Yes bro. The law gives you the right to take video of police on the toilet. The 2A isn't unlimited but this law (which clearly limits itself to activity where police are acting under the "color of law" - something open to interpretation) clearly is You win. What part of the job isn't under the color of law? Likely actions that don't require or imply police authority; the type of stuff people do in an office setting. If they wanted it to be all actions like taking a shit they wouldn't define it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:53:42 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When assholes collide This with FPNI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 4:53:48 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're the one who took a class. You should be able to look it up yourself. True - I am more educated than you on this topic that's obvious. ...but why would I look up something regarding NY state? Especially for someone that ducked my previous statements thrashing your point? Your side made the claim so prove your statement. ...or just throw a few more ad-hominems because your precious 1A auditor needs another GoFundme bailout. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 5:04:44 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But this auditor recognizes sensitive/restricted areas. The vid is not about accessing unauthorized spaces. Apples & Oranges, stay in your lane. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe. If they arrested him for trespassing though? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/235149/Shrug_jpg-1954471_jpeg-2837097.JPG Your taxes pay for nuclear missile launch sites but you can’t go there either. GD has a massive obsession regarding police and how people can do anything they want regarding the police. Then become massively butthurt when it doesn’t go their way. But this auditor recognizes sensitive/restricted areas. The vid is not about accessing unauthorized spaces. Apples & Oranges, stay in your lane. The argument is similar to openly anti 2a people opposing something like concealed carry with the argument that rape and arson aren't legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 5:12:03 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The argument is similar to openly anti 2a people opposing something like concealed carry with the argument that rape and arson aren't legal. No...it simply pointed out that non-public forums exist and further - the US Supreme Court precedent means a police precinct would almost certainly qualify as one - even the lobby. You have less speech rights under the 1A in such a place. Ironically your argument is much more of a straw-man than his was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 5:20:46 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No...it simply pointed out that non-public forums exist and further - the US Supreme Court precedent means a police precinct would almost certainly qualify as one - even the lobby. You have less speech rights under the 1A in such a place. Ironically your argument is much more of a straw-man than his was. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The argument is similar to openly anti 2a people opposing something like concealed carry with the argument that rape and arson aren't legal. No...it simply pointed out that non-public forums exist and further - the US Supreme Court precedent means a police precinct would almost certainly qualify as one - even the lobby. You have less speech rights under the 1A in such a place. Ironically your argument is much more of a straw-man than his was. Tell us the name of the case involving filming in a police precinct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 5:21:05 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your taxes pay for nuclear missile launch sites but you can’t go there either. GD has a massive obsession regarding police and how people can do anything they want regarding the police. Then become massively butthurt when Did you mean to type "Their rights get violated"?? Because I can't believe how many people in this thread, full of people that always want to scream "freedom!", are okay with cops violating your rights when it's conveniant for them to agree with what the cops agree with. "Well, I don't like his attitude, so it's okay that they violated his rights" Are you guys listening to yourself? The guy literally got arrested for walking into a police station. That's it. Because the cops didn't like the way he presented himself(with a camera). There is no excuse for the cops failing. Quit making excuses to support that bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 5:33:26 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did you mean to type "Their rights get violated"?? Because I can't believe how many people in this thread, full of people that always want to scream "freedom!", are okay with cops violating your rights when it's conveniant for them to agree with what the cops agree with. "Well, I don't like his attitude, so it's okay that they violated his rights" Are you guys listening to yourself? The guy literally got arrested for walking into a police station. That's it. Because the cops didn't like the way he presented himself(with a camera). There is no excuse for the cops failing. Quit making excuses to support that bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Your taxes pay for nuclear missile launch sites but you can’t go there either. GD has a massive obsession regarding police and how people can do anything they want regarding the police. Then become massively butthurt when Did you mean to type "Their rights get violated"?? Because I can't believe how many people in this thread, full of people that always want to scream "freedom!", are okay with cops violating your rights when it's conveniant for them to agree with what the cops agree with. "Well, I don't like his attitude, so it's okay that they violated his rights" Are you guys listening to yourself? The guy literally got arrested for walking into a police station. That's it. Because the cops didn't like the way he presented himself(with a camera). There is no excuse for the cops failing. Quit making excuses to support that bullshit. You might want to look again because they don't really like freedom or rights. Special priveleged classes are where it is at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 5:58:02 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The guy literally got arrested for walking into a police station. That's it. Quit making excuses to support that bullshit. No. He didn't. Quit making up bullshit - period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 6:00:44 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. He didn't. Quit making up bullshit - period. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The guy literally got arrested for walking into a police station. That's it. Quit making excuses to support that bullshit. No. He didn't. Quit making up bullshit - period. Correct, he got arrested for exercising his right to a free press (not speech that you keep talking about) in the lobby. We know it was his free press rights because there were other non-police without a camera that were accosted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 6:04:10 PM EST
[#33]
Sean AKA Long Island Audit has some decent arguments, however, he is going to get his azz lost in Rikers Island if he keeps pushing it with these NYPD audits. He's just smart enough to get a few wins on his side but just lacking enough in real life to realize that some agencies just don't give a damn about lawsuits and will put his ass in the system and let him feel the experience ten fold.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 6:07:30 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sean AKA Long Island Audit has some decent arguments, however, he is going to get his azz lost in Rikers Island if he keeps pushing it with these NYPD audits. He's just smart enough to get a few wins on his side but just lacking enough in real life to realize that some agencies just don't give a damn about lawsuits and will put his ass in the system and let him feel the experience ten fold. Which is a sad thing to have to worry about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 7:22:45 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct, he got arrested for exercising his right to a free press (not speech that you keep talking about) in the lobby. We know it was his free press rights because there were other non-police without a camera that were accosted. So legal and justified that not a single code or city/state statute exists making it illegal? If it does, it sure hasn't been found or posted yet. And all this time I thought if not specifically made illegal, it is legal. The instant they questioned him filming it came under color of law. Which makes it legal under the NY law passed. If they wanted these public but "non-public" areas off limits they would have put it in the statute as an exemption. The touted USSC ruling is that State or local governments could make rules concerning filming in these specific areas. Not that it was just illegal from the get go. Big difference. No law broken unless codified. Hence they only have trespassing. Again, because the proper legal body NEVER made a law to back up the signs. I'll defer to an acknowledged bonafide legal expert to explain what I am missing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 7:25:22 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hence they only have trespassing. ... I'll defer to an acknowledged bonafide legal expert to explain what I am missing. The only thing to explain is that you can't be trespassed from public property unless you have broken the law. He didn't therefore he wasn't trespassing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 9:20:42 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So legal and justified that not a single code or city/state statute exists making it illegal? If it does, it sure hasn't been found or posted yet. And all this time I thought if not specifically made illegal, it is legal. The instant they questioned him filming it came under color of law. Which makes it legal under the NY law passed. If they wanted these public but "non-public" areas off limits they would have put it in the statute as an exemption. The touted USSC ruling is that State or local governments could make rules concerning filming in these specific areas. Not that it was just illegal from the get go. Big difference. No law broken unless codified. Hence they only have trespassing. Again, because the proper legal body NEVER made a law to back up the signs. I'll defer to an acknowledged bonafide legal expert to explain what I am missing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Correct, he got arrested for exercising his right to a free press (not speech that you keep talking about) in the lobby. We know it was his free press rights because there were other non-police without a camera that were accosted. So legal and justified that not a single code or city/state statute exists making it illegal? If it does, it sure hasn't been found or posted yet. And all this time I thought if not specifically made illegal, it is legal. The instant they questioned him filming it came under color of law. Which makes it legal under the NY law passed. If they wanted these public but "non-public" areas off limits they would have put it in the statute as an exemption. The touted USSC ruling is that State or local governments could make rules concerning filming in these specific areas. Not that it was just illegal from the get go. Big difference. No law broken unless codified. Hence they only have trespassing. Again, because the proper legal body NEVER made a law to back up the signs. I'll defer to an acknowledged bonafide legal expert to explain what I am missing. Yup. Even if one argued that law enforcement administration activities aren't law enforcement activities, as soon as they started interacting with him it became law enforcement activity the filming of which is specifically protected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 10:02:47 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup. Even if one argued that law enforcement administration activities aren't law enforcement activities, as soon as they started interacting with him it became law enforcement activity the filming of which is specifically protected. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Correct, he got arrested for exercising his right to a free press (not speech that you keep talking about) in the lobby. We know it was his free press rights because there were other non-police without a camera that were accosted. So legal and justified that not a single code or city/state statute exists making it illegal? If it does, it sure hasn't been found or posted yet. And all this time I thought if not specifically made illegal, it is legal. The instant they questioned him filming it came under color of law. Which makes it legal under the NY law passed. If they wanted these public but "non-public" areas off limits they would have put it in the statute as an exemption. The touted USSC ruling is that State or local governments could make rules concerning filming in these specific areas. Not that it was just illegal from the get go. Big difference. No law broken unless codified. Hence they only have trespassing. Again, because the proper legal body NEVER made a law to back up the signs. I'll defer to an acknowledged bonafide legal expert to explain what I am missing. Yup. Even if one argued that law enforcement administration activities aren't law enforcement activities, as soon as they started interacting with him it became law enforcement activity the filming of which is specifically protected. Well that was baiting the police in a way similar to blacks sitting at a lunch counter back in the 50's used to trigger them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 10:11:41 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good, he's a fucking piece of shit. All Fruaditors are scum. He is standing up for the rights of all citizens and pushing back on the police state that is slowly eroding away our rights. I need to see your ID. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 10:19:46 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes - the people that think cops should be free to perform administrative work free from unnecessary harassment are literally Hitler. No doubt you would have single-handedly stopped the Holocaust. Too bad you weren't born in a different era. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 11:08:30 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He is standing up for the rights of all citizens and pushing back on the police state that is slowly eroding away our rights. I need to see your ID. How do you feel about having to have your ID Presented/Scanned to buy a can of beer at a convenience store, board an airline flight, make a withdrawal from a bank, or enter a nightclub ? He isn't "standing up" for anything ........ demonetize his videos and see what a "patriot" he is |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 11:36:24 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you feel about having to have your ID Presented/Scanned to buy a can of beer at a convenience store, board an airline flight, make a withdrawal from a bank, or enter a nightclub ? He isn't "standing up" for anything ........ demonetize his videos and see what a "patriot" he is Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He is standing up for the rights of all citizens and pushing back on the police state that is slowly eroding away our rights. I need to see your ID. How do you feel about having to have your ID Presented/Scanned to buy a can of beer at a convenience store, board an airline flight, make a withdrawal from a bank, or enter a nightclub ? He isn't "standing up" for anything ........ demonetize his videos and see what a "patriot" he is Those are all voluntary interactions between me and the company offering a product or service I want, who are following the legal requirements lawfully enacted upon them. If an officer does not have reasonable, articulable suspicion of someone commiting a crime, has committed a crime, or are about to commit a crime then that person has no legal obligation to show an ID. Yet because of people like Long Island Audit and others like him, there are literally thousands of videos on YouTube and Tiktok of cops immediately demanding ID from people without legal cause. You can write a bingo card for these interactions; "I need to know I'm talking to", "In this day and age", "With everything happening in the world", "We got a call and I need a name for the report", etc. It's intimidation tactics to get people to waive their rights, and he is standing up for and educating people on the subject. Demonetize gun tubers, and see how much they actually love guns. Demonetize car channels, and see how much of a car guy they are. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 11:37:30 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you feel about having to have your ID Presented/Scanned to buy a can of beer at a convenience store, board an airline flight, make a withdrawal from a bank, or enter a nightclub ? He isn't "standing up" for anything ........ demonetize his videos and see what a "patriot" he is Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He is standing up for the rights of all citizens and pushing back on the police state that is slowly eroding away our rights. I need to see your ID. How do you feel about having to have your ID Presented/Scanned to buy a can of beer at a convenience store, board an airline flight, make a withdrawal from a bank, or enter a nightclub ? He isn't "standing up" for anything ........ demonetize his videos and see what a "patriot" he is This is the dumbest shit I've read in months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/3/2023 11:49:35 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is the dumbest shit I've read in months. You don't get out much then If you think these 1A auditors are in any way out there to protect your rights, then I'm not quite sure what to say..... I guess it's just a miracle that we made it this long without retarded youtubers and people on tiktok looking out for us |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:07:33 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't get out much then If you think these 1A auditors are in any way out there to protect your rights, then I'm not quite sure what to say..... I guess it's just a miracle that we made it this long without retarded youtubers and people on tiktok looking out for us Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is the dumbest shit I've read in months. You don't get out much then If you think these 1A auditors are in any way out there to protect your rights, then I'm not quite sure what to say..... I guess it's just a miracle that we made it this long without retarded youtubers and people on tiktok looking out for us  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:39:38 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't get out much then If you think these 1A auditors are in any way out there to protect your rights, then I'm not quite sure what to say..... I guess it's just a miracle that we made it this long without retarded youtubers and people on tiktok looking out for us Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This is the dumbest shit I've read in months. You don't get out much then If you think these 1A auditors are in any way out there to protect your rights, then I'm not quite sure what to say..... I guess it's just a miracle that we made it this long without retarded youtubers and people on tiktok looking out for us People pushing back has always been one way to keep the system in check. Many of the civil rights cases are made on cases against crappy people doing crappy things but they still benefit all of us. Have you ever heard of Turner v Driver? Worth reading the summary. I am a fan of accountability and think there are lots of places and agencies that need a lot more of it especially at the federal level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_v._Driver |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 1:01:07 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Demonetize gun tubers, and see how much they actually love guns. Demonetize car channels, and see how much of a car guy they are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 2:17:07 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I also chuckle when people conflate harassment with freedom. But them same old characters love them some 1A "auditors" If you walk out your front door into a public place some asshole should be able to follow you around and shove his iphone 3 inches from your face and follow you around with his 1A force field around him? But I do think you should be able to record in the public areas of government buildings that the public, while conducting official business, would otherwise be free to occupy. How do you think paparazzi earn their living? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 6:30:11 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tell us the name of the case involving filming in a police precinct. For non-public forums - check out Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (1985). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 6:36:23 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only thing to explain is that you can't be trespassed from public property unless you have broken the law. He didn't therefore he wasn't trespassing.  Attached File |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
