User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 6:42:35 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll defer to an acknowledged bonafide legal expert to explain what I am missing. Since you now admit to being ignorant - perhaps do some research yourself. https://www.rcfp.org/journals/news-media-and-law-winter-2014/asked-and-answered/ "Designation of a space as a “nonpublic forum” does not mean that a reporter has no right to gather news there. Rather, it means that the government can exclude reporters, and other members of the public, if authorities can show that access would interfere with normal operations of the facility." Do the police have a vested interest in protecting the identities of people reporting crimes? Yes. Do reporters have a legitimate interest in "auditing" police performing administrative tasks inside their precinct - in most cases no. In the case of click-bait Youtube videos - certainly not. Maybe get past your ACAB mentality and things will start to make a little more sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 7:13:48 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For non-public forums - check out Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (1985). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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). So we have actively soliciting donations = simply observing an area. So no filming inside a police precinct case? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:29:48 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So we have actively soliciting donations = simply observing an area. So no filming inside a police precinct case? No - we have the USSC establishing what a non-public forum is and a police precinct certainly qualifies. Unfortunately, you seem incapable of understanding USSC opinions that aren't spelled out for you cleanly. Justices have their own style and it requires an IQ above room temperature to comprehend them most of the time. If that's you - read a number of them and eventually you'll get it. Once you've done that - feel free to let your brain reason the further depth on why that might apply to someone attempting to record a police precinct for no specific purpose except click-bait Youtube videos vs the government's vested interest in protecting the anonymity of crime victims. ...and if you make it that far you'll probably also understand why the public's interest in being able to record patrol cops performing active policework under "the color of law" outweighs their interest in not being recorded. ...and then the light will shine down from the heavens and everything will make perfect sense.  Of course - if you can't make it through an inner ACAB bias it's never going to make sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:34:30 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/giphy-384.gif "Generally, you can trespass from a public place only if you have engaged in some type of disorderly conduct." https://www.ajs.org/can-you-be-trespassed-from-a-public-place/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:36:21 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Since you now admit to being ignorant - perhaps do some research yourself. https://www.rcfp.org/journals/news-media-and-law-winter-2014/asked-and-answered/ "Designation of a space as a “nonpublic forum” does not mean that a reporter has no right to gather news there. Rather, it means that the government can exclude reporters, and other members of the public, if authorities can show that access would interfere with normal operations of the facility." Do the police have a vested interest in protecting the identities of people reporting crimes? Yes. Do reporters have a legitimate interest in "auditing" police performing administrative tasks inside their precinct - in most cases no. In the case of click-bait Youtube videos - certainly not. Maybe get past your ACAB mentality and things will start to make a little more sense. So you have no statute/code or ordinance. Police are not a government body. They are agents/employees for it. Political sub division at best. Now contrast that with the written law that the filmer has specifically created by the legislature of State government. You keep ignoring that part of the USSC ruling. An elected government body made a rule allowing filming just as the court said they could do. Are you really that ignorant? Nevermind.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:41:36 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you have no statute/code or ordinance. Police are not a government body. They are agents/employees for it. Political sub division at best. Now contrast that with the written law that the filmer has specifically created by the legislature of State government. I've contrasted it with the law- a law which specifically spells out when it's lawful to record police activity - that being defined as when they're operating under "the color of law." In their precinct - they're operating in a non-public forum per the USSC and the government is allowed to place reasonable restrictions on the 1A in such locations. The mouth-breather that was arrested was ultimately arrested for trespassing - not for recording. He was told to leave and then made entry into the building a second time. The government has a vested interest in protecting the anonymity of crime victims and the public has a greater interest in that too then someone getting Youtube clicks. No amount of regurgitating a law you don't understand will change the fact that you're wrong. Does that mean he won't get the charges ultimate dropped? No. Politics also come into play. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:45:47 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've contrasted it with the law- a law which specifically spells out when it's lawful to record police activity - that being defined as when they're operating under "the color of law." In their precinct - they're operating in a non-public forum per the USSC and the government is allowed to place reasonable restrictions on the 1A in such locations. The mouth-breather that was arrested was ultimately arrested for trespassing - not for recording. He was told to leave and then made entry into the building a second time. No amount of regurgitating a law you don't understand will change the fact that you're wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So you have no statute/code or ordinance. Police are not a government body. They are agents/employees for it. Political sub division at best. Now contrast that with the written law that the filmer has specifically created by the legislature of State government. I've contrasted it with the law- a law which specifically spells out when it's lawful to record police activity - that being defined as when they're operating under "the color of law." In their precinct - they're operating in a non-public forum per the USSC and the government is allowed to place reasonable restrictions on the 1A in such locations. The mouth-breather that was arrested was ultimately arrested for trespassing - not for recording. He was told to leave and then made entry into the building a second time. No amount of regurgitating a law you don't understand will change the fact that you're wrong. He told you Beltfed308. He took a class. He knows this shit better than the civil rights lawyers and the judges who keep giving paydays to these Auditors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:47:55 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He told you Beltfed308. He took a class. He knows this shit better than the civil rights lawyers and the judges who keep giving paydays to these Auditors. Every case is different. Many auditors get paid for things that took place when they were recording in places that aren't considered non-public forums. Your inability to distinguish between the two simply shows I at least know the shit a lot better than you. Let's be honest - you didn't even know what that was before I told you.  This specific auditor was an ultra douche. He stated his intentions was to basically go looking for problems prior to arriving at the precinct. He fucked around and found out. Too bad he didn't have a better understanding of the first amendment or a better lawyer to advise him upfront. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:48:43 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: what administrative work is happening in the lobby of a govt building that is open to the public? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. A lobby is certainly not a public facing interface to the public. That's ridiculous, nobody uses lobbies for that. I will say, cops sure seem to be their own worst enemies. "Officer safety, privacy in public areas, anything I demand is a legal order..." More and more people are seeing the shenanigans the government gets up to. Shine the light, send someone to Rikers for walking calmly with a video camera just goes to show the statists who can't stand someone doing something perfectly fine. Public lobby, not trying to bust past some security perimeter. The same types of "officers" that will scream contradictory commands, shout stop resisting as they beat up someone not resisting. Video exposes evil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:50:47 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Every case is different. Many auditors get paid for things that took place when they were recording in places that aren't considered non-public forums. Your inability to distinguish between the two simply shows I at least know the shit a lot better than you. Let's be honest - you didn't even know what that was before I told you. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: He told you Beltfed308. He took a class. He knows this shit better than the civil rights lawyers and the judges who keep giving paydays to these Auditors. Every case is different. Many auditors get paid for things that took place when they were recording in places that aren't considered non-public forums. Your inability to distinguish between the two simply shows I at least know the shit a lot better than you. Let's be honest - you didn't even know what that was before I told you. So when he gets paid from this are you going to admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about? Of course not, you just like being up on that horse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:51:08 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A lobby is certainly not a public facing interface to the public. That's ridiculous, nobody uses lobbies for that. I will say, cops sure seem to be their own worst enemies. "Officer safety, privacy in public areas, anything I demand is a legal order..." More and more people are seeing the shenanigans the government gets up to. Shine the light, send someone to Rikers for walking calmly with a video camera just goes to show the statists who can't stand someone doing something perfectly fine. Public lobby, not trying to bust past some security perimeter. The same types of "officers" that will scream contradictory commands, shout stop resisting as they beat up someone not resisting. Video exposes evil. Not only is a lobby considered a non-public forum but there's precedent that the sidewalk directly surrounding that area can also be considered one in some circumstances. So, I guess you also don't have a clue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:52:04 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've contrasted it with the law- a law which specifically spells out when it's lawful to record police activity - that being defined as when they're operating under "the color of law." In their precinct - they're operating in a non-public forum per the USSC and the government is allowed to place reasonable restrictions on the 1A in such locations. The mouth-breather that was arrested was ultimately arrested for trespassing - not for recording. He was told to leave and then made entry into the building a second time. The government has a vested interest in protecting the anonymity of crime victims and the public has a greater interest in that too then someone getting Youtube clicks. No amount of regurgitating a law you don't understand will change the fact that you're wrong. Does that mean he won't get the charges ultimate dropped? No. Politics also come into play. The government lifted a restriction now written into law. You have diddly squat. Trespassing someone engaged in lawful activity is hardly something to cheer about or encourage. I don't cheer on illegal actions like yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:52:15 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So when he gets paid from this are you going to admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about? Of course not, you just like being up on that horse. No. New York is filled with ACAB and I have no doubt an ultra-left judge can rule on whatever they'd like. That's how we had legalized abortion for 40 years. I'm simply pointing out what precedent states and that your position is on the side of communist judges and ACAB. Nothing high horse about it - simply the facts sir. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:53:35 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The government lifted a restriction now written into law. You have diddly squat. Trespassing someone engaged in lawful activity is hardly something to cheer about or encourage. I don't cheer on illegal actions like yourself. They simply codified what was likely legal under USSC precedent going to at least 1985. He wasn't engaged in lawful activity - he had no official business at the police precinct other than attempting to exercise 1A rights which don't apply in a non-public forum per the USSC. You're wrong
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:54:30 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Other citizens conducting private business with the police have the right to privacy and confidentiality. He walked in and began recording what appeared to be a non police officer speaking with a police officer. My former department had signs posted in the lobbies advising auditors of this fact. If they refused to stop recording other people conducting this personal business, they would be removed or subject to arrest. Other than that, film the lobby all day long. There is no expectation of privacy in a building open to the public. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:57:45 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no expectation of privacy in a building open to the public. That means that the public doesn't have the expectation of privacy - not that you can do whatever you want. The government can still trespass you out of a non-public forum. You're comparing apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:03:01 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They simply codified what was likely legal under USSC precedent going to at least 1985. He wasn't engaged in lawful activity - he had no official business at the police precinct other than attempting to exercise 1A rights which don't apply in a non-public forum per the USSC. You're wrong The Legislature passed a law recognizing filming to be allowed. Unless stated otherwise, by a restriction or exemption your non public area is now public for filming. You got squat. Nothing in writing, just hot air. What is written inside those 4 corners is all that legally matters. Pretty basic stuff. You have emotion and a blank piece of paper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:07:15 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Legislature passed a law recognizing filming to be allowed. Unless stated otherwise, by a restriction or exemption your non public area is now public for filming. You got squat. Nothing in writing, just hot air. What is written inside those 4 corners is all that legally matters. Pretty basic stuff. You have emotion and a blank piece of paper. then Aimless posted the law he was exercising. they are still arguing it doesn't apply. LIA stated that the author of the law stated this is the very thing it was designed to protect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:07:48 AM EST
[#19]
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 Private interactions in which I don’t have to take part of by my own choice versus armed government agents trampling on my 4th amendment rights. The examples you gave are not even close to be related, at all. You can have your police state comrade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:14:37 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: first the 1A auditor haters said "But he didn't post the law he supposedly was exercising". then Aimless posted the law he was exercising. they are still arguing it doesn't apply. LIA stated that the author of the law stated this is the very thing it was designed to protect. I am just enjoying the kicking and screaming that the illegal acts under color of law are over. No more winks, nods and high 5's. The Streisand Effect will kick in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:23:18 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not only is a lobby considered a non-public forum but there's precedent that the sidewalk directly surrounding that area can also be considered one in some circumstances. So, I guess you also don't have a clue. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A lobby is certainly not a public facing interface to the public. That's ridiculous, nobody uses lobbies for that. I will say, cops sure seem to be their own worst enemies. "Officer safety, privacy in public areas, anything I demand is a legal order..." More and more people are seeing the shenanigans the government gets up to. Shine the light, send someone to Rikers for walking calmly with a video camera just goes to show the statists who can't stand someone doing something perfectly fine. Public lobby, not trying to bust past some security perimeter. The same types of "officers" that will scream contradictory commands, shout stop resisting as they beat up someone not resisting. Video exposes evil. Not only is a lobby considered a non-public forum but there's precedent that the sidewalk directly surrounding that area can also be considered one in some circumstances. So, I guess you also don't have a clue. You clearly don't see where this is headed. Cops being afraid of being recorded in areas the general public has access to indicates to us they are up to no good. NYC passed a specific law/ruling/whatever they call it that expressly legalized what he was doing. Cops have arrested people for filming in complete public. Society sees that kind of behavior, realized the pendulum has swung WAY too far, and the harder the armed government agents fight, the harder and further the pendulum is going to swing back the other way. I already don't trust what PDs put out by default. Especially if they say ANYTHING related to no footage being available when it should be. Too many instances of them hiding bad behavior. Also way too many instances of some shitbird saying the cops did something bad, and the cops ante up, show the video, and it completely exonerates the cops, and proves the shitbird is a shitbird. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:41:32 AM EST
[#22]
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. 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. I forgot about you. Not sorry. Who is "we"? I never said "every law". You interjected your thoughts into my words. I expect them to know the law that they are enforcing. If they are arresting someone over a law, they must know that law. Otherwise it's "I think this is against the law so I am going to arrest you" or "There ought to be a law so I am going to arrest you". Quoted: In any case, I want cops to know what laws they're enforcing Cops time is owned by the citizenry. Its not a a waste of time for them to find out they are wrong about a subject. Just like its not a waste of time for you to be wrong on this subject (make no mistake, you are, and have been completely destroyed in this thread by others). What is a waste of time is not knowing the law, and instead of learning from it easily, its's made into something FAR more complicated Quoted: 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. So an officer attempted to penalize you because the officer didnt know the law, and you didn't roll over and take the punishment. Cool starry bra. The officer acted incorrectly out of ignorance. Seems the same thing happened here, you just didnt like that it was an auditor. Quoted: 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. You're trying to illicit a negative response. The definition of trolling. I get it though. You believe you're intelligent, and that you know what you're talking about. And that would be an incorrect assumption on your part. But you know that. We all do at this point. Brave on you for going down with your ship, the SS Douchebag. And "ACAB-based logic"? Really? Stretch Armstrong cant make that kind of stretch, but folks, you heard it here first Wanting cops to know the laws they enforce is ACAB-think Holding cops accountable is ACAB-think Punishing cops for misdeeds is ACAB think Quoted: In any case, I want cops to know what laws they're enforcing ACAB-think 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:45:56 AM EST
[#23]
In my ideal world, there would be no first amendment auditors nor the need for them.
Unfortunately that is not the world in which I live. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:01:35 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: first the 1A auditor haters said "But he didn't post the law he supposedly was exercising". then Aimless posted the law he was exercising. they are still arguing it doesn't apply. LIA stated that the author of the law stated this is the very thing it was designed to protect. It's often irrelevant what an author of the law states that he meant. What's relevant is what it actually states because as you're aware - multiple people vote on laws and they can't mindread the author. In this case - you don't even know what the author of the law stated except through hearsay of a guy looking for clickbait revenue. Further, since the guy is a politician in NYC in 2020 - he's almost certainly a commie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:04:27 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You clearly don't see where this is headed. Cops being afraid of being recorded in areas the general public has access to indicates to us they are up to no good. Quote HistoryQuoted: You clearly don't see where this is headed. Cops being afraid of being recorded in areas the general public has access to indicates to us they are up to no good. Nonsense. There's common-sense reasons they don't want crime victims being openly recorded. They literally have glass windows to the lobby so it's pretty clear nothing untoward was happening. NYC passed a specific law/ruling/whatever they call it that expressly legalized what he was doing. Cops have arrested people for filming in complete public. Society sees that kind of behavior, realized the pendulum has swung WAY too far, and the harder the armed government agents fight, the harder and further the pendulum is going to swing back the other way. I already don't trust what PDs put out by default. Especially if they say ANYTHING related to no footage being available when it should be. Too many instances of them hiding bad behavior. Also way too many instances of some shitbird saying the cops did something bad, and the cops ante up, show the video, and it completely exonerates the cops, and proves the shitbird is a shitbird. Yes - we get it. You're a cop hater that doesn't trust cops by default. ...guess what - your little 1A douchebag auditor can follow USSC precedent and stay outside. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:06:19 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I forgot about you. Not sorry. Who is "we"? I never said "every law". You interjected your thoughts into my words. I expect them to know the law that they are enforcing. If they are arresting someone over a law, they must know that law. Otherwise it's "I think this is against the law so I am going to arrest you" or "There ought to be a law so I am going to arrest you". Cops time is owned by the citizenry. Its not a a waste of time for them to find out they are wrong about a subject. Just like its not a waste of time for you to be wrong on this subject (make no mistake, you are, and have been completely destroyed in this thread by others). What is a waste of time is not knowing the law, and instead of learning from it easily, its's made into something FAR more complicated So an officer attempted to penalize you because the officer didnt know the law, and you didn't roll over and take the punishment. Cool starry bra. The officer acted incorrectly out of ignorance. Seems the same thing happened here, you just didnt like that it was an auditor. You're trying to illicit a negative response. The definition of trolling. I get it though. You believe you're intelligent, and that you know what you're talking about. And that would be an incorrect assumption on your part. But you know that. We all do at this point. Brave on you for going down with your ship, the SS Douchebag. And "ACAB-based logic"? Really? Stretch Armstrong cant make that kind of stretch, but folks, you heard it here first Wanting cops to know the laws they enforce is ACAB-think Holding cops accountable is ACAB-think Punishing cops for misdeeds is ACAB think ACAB-think https://media1.giphy.com/media/3yP65niAsFzDa/giphy.gif Imagine posting that entire wall of text to still not have a clue about the law you're referencing or the controlling precedent on the 1A. Laughable. Fail-safe or epic fail? Let's go with epic fail since you haven't added anything valuable, interesting, or correct with any of your posts. In any case - I tried to educate you on the 1A and what a non-public forum is and why rights are restricted in such locations. You're incapable of understanding that and are instead focused on what some probable NYC communists "supposedly" meant. You've added literally nothing of value to the thread except promoted your hatred of cops and complained about their ability to have a space where they're free to do administrative work without a douchebag harassing them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:14:29 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That means that the public doesn't have the expectation of privacy - not that you can do whatever you want. The government can still trespass you out of a non-public forum. You're comparing apples and oranges. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There is no expectation of privacy in a building open to the public. That means that the public doesn't have the expectation of privacy - not that you can do whatever you want. The government can still trespass you out of a non-public forum. You're comparing apples and oranges. You've really grabbed onto that non-public forum. Too bad you avoid me when I point out you don't know what it means and are misapplying it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:19:47 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You've really grabbed onto that non-public forum. Too bad you avoid me when I point out you don't know what it means and are misapplying it. I know exactly what it means - I took the same course as a lawyer at a tier-1 school on the 1st amendment. ...and on top of that I had the second highest marks overall and the highest marks on the final. ...but thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:22:33 AM EST
[#29]
NYPD Thugs Go HANDS ON Fast! Arrest Journalist For Recording! Federal Lawsuit Incoming!
 NYPD Thugs Go HANDS ON Fast! Arrest Journalist For Recording! Federal Lawsuit Incoming! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:24:22 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know exactly what it means - I took the same course as a lawyer at a tier-1 school on the 1st amendment. ...and on top of that I had the second highest marks overall and the highest marks on the final. ...but thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You've really grabbed onto that non-public forum. Too bad you avoid me when I point out you don't know what it means and are misapplying it. I know exactly what it means - I took the same course as a lawyer at a tier-1 school on the 1st amendment. ...and on top of that I had the second highest marks overall and the highest marks on the final. ...but thanks. And they didn't teach you that the traditional public forum related to speech and protest whereas LIA us exercising his freedom of press? You should get your money back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:27:10 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And they didn't teach you that the traditional public forum related to speech and protest whereas LIA us exercising his freedom of press? You should get your money back. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You've really grabbed onto that non-public forum. Too bad you avoid me when I point out you don't know what it means and are misapplying it. I know exactly what it means - I took the same course as a lawyer at a tier-1 school on the 1st amendment. ...and on top of that I had the second highest marks overall and the highest marks on the final. ...but thanks. And they didn't teach you that the traditional public forum related to speech and protest whereas LIA us exercising his freedom of press? You should get your money back. So all of your talk about public forums is just a distraction. Or your lack of understanding. And your comment about tak8ng one class on the 1st amendment is possibly the funniest thing I've read this week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:32:26 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nonsense. There's common-sense reasons they don't want crime victims being openly recorded. They literally have glass windows to the lobby so it's pretty clear nothing untoward was happening. Yes - we get it. You're a cop hater that doesn't trust cops by default. ...guess what - your little 1A douchebag auditor can follow USSC precedent and stay outside. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You clearly don't see where this is headed. Cops being afraid of being recorded in areas the general public has access to indicates to us they are up to no good. Nonsense. There's common-sense reasons they don't want crime victims being openly recorded. They literally have glass windows to the lobby so it's pretty clear nothing untoward was happening. NYC passed a specific law/ruling/whatever they call it that expressly legalized what he was doing. Cops have arrested people for filming in complete public. Society sees that kind of behavior, realized the pendulum has swung WAY too far, and the harder the armed government agents fight, the harder and further the pendulum is going to swing back the other way. I already don't trust what PDs put out by default. Especially if they say ANYTHING related to no footage being available when it should be. Too many instances of them hiding bad behavior. Also way too many instances of some shitbird saying the cops did something bad, and the cops ante up, show the video, and it completely exonerates the cops, and proves the shitbird is a shitbird. Yes - we get it. You're a cop hater that doesn't trust cops by default. ...guess what - your little 1A douchebag auditor can follow USSC precedent and stay outside. So much for the privacy of crime victims. You trust our government? You take what folks in the government say without question? Miss the part about video protecting cops just like it protects everyday folk? I hate evil. I hate those that abuse their powers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:32:55 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So all of your talk about public forums is just a distraction. Or your lack of understanding. And your comment about tak8ng one class on the 1st amendment is possibly the funniest thing I've read this week. There's nothing distracting. The 1A doesn't give you the right to access non-public forums per the USSC. Whether that's for video recording, hanging out, or taking a shit. NY State and NYC law specifically state you can record police activities being conducted "under the color of law." That doesn't give you the right to enter a non-public forum to record what are almost certainly not activities "under the color of law" - especially since they bothered distinguishing that in the law itself. Your inability to comprehend such simple thought-processes are the funniest thing I've read all year
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:34:59 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In my ideal world, there would be no first amendment auditors nor the need for them. Unfortunately that is not the world in which I live. People address weeds by killing the weeds, or by facilitating an environment where the weeds are crowded out by plants you want. Okay, not exactly a fit metaphor, but the general idea. Don't supply a ripe environment, and the "problem" doesn't prosper. I agree, with you, in case my ramblings are too goofy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:35:45 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So much for the privacy of crime victims. You trust our government? You take what folks in the government say without question? Miss the part about video protecting cops just like it protects everyday folk? I hate evil. I hate those that abuse their powers. Cool. You hate evil - so do I. I hate stupid too. Try not to be either. I trust government enough to not need a 1A auditor to record a police lobby with potential crime victims on my behalf. What do you think the cops were doing in their precinct? Devising their evil plan for world domination? A strip-show? lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:36:30 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's nothing distracting. The 1A doesn't give you the right to access non-public forums per the USSC. Whether that's for video recording, hanging out, or taking a shit. NY State and NYC law specifically state you can record police activities being conducted "under the color of law." That doesn't give you the right to enter a non-public forum to record what are almost certainly not activities "under the color of law" - especially since they bothered distinguishing that in the law itself. Your inability to comprehend such simple thought-processes are the funniest thing I've read all year Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So all of your talk about public forums is just a distraction. Or your lack of understanding. And your comment about tak8ng one class on the 1st amendment is possibly the funniest thing I've read this week. There's nothing distracting. The 1A doesn't give you the right to access non-public forums per the USSC. Whether that's for video recording, hanging out, or taking a shit. NY State and NYC law specifically state you can record police activities being conducted "under the color of law." That doesn't give you the right to enter a non-public forum to record what are almost certainly not activities "under the color of law" - especially since they bothered distinguishing that in the law itself. Your inability to comprehend such simple thought-processes are the funniest thing I've read all year The law allows people to be in the lobby of the police department. The constitution allows you to record where you are allowed to be. The public forum rule that you keep bringing up still doesn't matter since this isn't a free speech issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:46:53 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And they didn't teach you that the traditional public forum related to speech and protest whereas LIA us exercising his freedom of press? You should get your money back. Actually they did - unfortunately for you, your ignorance led you to believe you had some sort of gotcha moment. Per the reporters committee for freedom of the press. "Designation of a space as a “nonpublic forum” does not mean that a reporter has no right to gather news there. Rather, it means that the government can exclude reporters, and other members of the public, if authorities can show that access would interfere with normal operations of the facility." I guess your problem is you mistakenly assume that the press has greater rights to their reporting than the average citizen to their speech - even your 1A auditors who claim to be journalists (and I believe legitimately are) and the journalists' own associations know better than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:51:48 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually they did - unfortunately for you, your ignorance led you to believe you had some sort of gotcha moment. Per the reporters committee for freedom of the press. "Designation of a space as a “nonpublic forum” does not mean that a reporter has no right to gather news there. Rather, it means that the government can exclude reporters, and other members of the public, if authorities can show that access would interfere with normal operations of the facility." I guess your problem is you mistakenly assume that the press has greater rights to their reporting than the average citizen to their speech - even your 1A auditors who claim to be journalists and the journalists' own associations know better than that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And they didn't teach you that the traditional public forum related to speech and protest whereas LIA us exercising his freedom of press? You should get your money back. Actually they did - unfortunately for you, your ignorance led you to believe you had some sort of gotcha moment. Per the reporters committee for freedom of the press. "Designation of a space as a “nonpublic forum” does not mean that a reporter has no right to gather news there. Rather, it means that the government can exclude reporters, and other members of the public, if authorities can show that access would interfere with normal operations of the facility." I guess your problem is you mistakenly assume that the press has greater rights to their reporting than the average citizen to their speech - even your 1A auditors who claim to be journalists and the journalists' own associations know better than that. You should read the rest of the page where you found that. Public forums are publicly owned and open to the general public. Examples are municipal sidewalks, streets, and parks. The lobby is open to the public. So the people and the press have the right to be there and record there. The non-public areas like the back are not open to the public and therefore the public doesn't have a right to record there. Like we've been telling you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:52:38 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The law allows people to be in the lobby of the police department. The constitution allows you to record where you are allowed to be. The public forum rule that you keep bringing up still doesn't matter since this isn't a free speech issue. Wrong. The law doesn't allow people unrestricted access to the police department. It's unbelievable that with all the information available to us via the internet that in 2023 - someone could actually believe that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:56:59 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You should read the rest of the page where you found that. The lobby is open to the public. So the people and the press have the right to be there and record there. The non-public areas like the back are not open to the public and therefore the public doesn't have a right to record there. Like we've been telling you. That's what you get after quoting "Examples are municipal sidewalks, streets, and parks." So the inside of a police precinct qualifies? LOL Read United States vs Grace (1983) Even the sidewalk directly in front of the police department would likely be considered a non-public forum. You should stop cherry-picking a line and thinking you understand something you're completely and totally ignorant on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:59:23 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. The law doesn't allow people unrestricted access to the police department. It's unbelievable that with all the information available to us via the internet that in 2023 - someone could actually believe that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The law allows people to be in the lobby of the police department. The constitution allows you to record where you are allowed to be. The public forum rule that you keep bringing up still doesn't matter since this isn't a free speech issue. Wrong. The law doesn't allow people unrestricted access to the police department. It's unbelievable that with all the information available to us via the internet that in 2023 - someone could actually believe that. Noone is saying that you have unrestricted access to a police department. But the public does have a right to be in the public lobby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:01:17 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's what you get after quoting "Examples are municipal sidewalks, streets, and parks." So the inside of a police precinct qualifies? LOL Read United States vs Grace (1983) Even the sidewalk directly in front of the police department would likely be considered a non-public forum. You should stop cherry-picking a line and thinking you understand something you're completely and totally ignorant on. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You should read the rest of the page where you found that. The lobby is open to the public. So the people and the press have the right to be there and record there. The non-public areas like the back are not open to the public and therefore the public doesn't have a right to record there. Like we've been telling you. That's what you get after quoting "Examples are municipal sidewalks, streets, and parks." So the inside of a police precinct qualifies? LOL Read United States vs Grace (1983) Even the sidewalk directly in front of the police department would likely be considered a non-public forum. You should stop cherry-picking a line and thinking you understand something you're completely and totally ignorant on. The public lobby is "publicly owned and open to the general public." And Grace doesn't matter because this STILL isn't a free speech case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:08:24 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The public lobby is "publicly owned and open to the general public." And Grace doesn't matter because this STILL isn't a free speech case. The 1A is the 1A buddy. The press has the same rights to report as you have to speech. The reporters own associations know it - why don't you? Maybe pick up your pocket Constitution and see how it's written. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:08:46 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. The law doesn't allow people unrestricted access to the police department. It's unbelievable that with all the information available to us via the internet that in 2023 - someone could actually believe that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The law allows people to be in the lobby of the police department. The constitution allows you to record where you are allowed to be. The public forum rule that you keep bringing up still doesn't matter since this isn't a free speech issue. Wrong. The law doesn't allow people unrestricted access to the police department. It's unbelievable that with all the information available to us via the internet that in 2023 - someone could actually believe that. It's unbelievable that you actually believe that the publicly accessible lobby for a police department lobby is not publicly accessible. That is not "unrestricted access" to the whole police department building. If they don't have anything to hide in the lobby, what are they afraid of? They afraid someone might smell the devil's lettuce and search the entire building? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:15:47 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's unbelievable that you actually believe that the publicly accessible lobby for a police department lobby is not publicly accessible. That is not "unrestricted access" to the whole police department building. If they don't have anything to hide in the lobby, what are they afraid of? They afraid someone might smell the devil's lettuce and search the entire building? What's unbelievable is you'd so ignorantly misrepresent my position. Publicly accessible doesn't have anything to do with whether it's a nonpublic forum for purposes of the 1st amendment. It's publicly accessible for individuals that have legitimate police business. In terms of the 1st amendment - your rights are limited. What are they afraid of? I don't know - crime victims and informants being revealed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:18:09 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Noone is saying that you have unrestricted access to a police department. But the public does have a right to be in the public lobby. Actually they don't have an unlimited right to that and what a ridiculously silly assertion.  They have a right to use the lobby to access government services inside. Since it's a non-public forum per the US Supreme Court, they don't have a right to picket, protest, report, sell goods, etc via various precedents. I get it - you think you know better then the US Supreme Court. Perhaps you should have been a justice and you could have voted and/or convinced your colleagues the righteousness of your position on unlimited recording in government lobbies in case the cops are "doing something evil." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:19:15 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool. You hate evil - so do I. I hate stupid too. Try not to be either. I trust government enough to not need a 1A auditor to record a police lobby with potential crime victims on my behalf. What do you think the cops were doing in their precinct? Devising their evil plan for world domination? A strip-show? lol Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So much for the privacy of crime victims. You trust our government? You take what folks in the government say without question? Miss the part about video protecting cops just like it protects everyday folk? I hate evil. I hate those that abuse their powers. Cool. You hate evil - so do I. I hate stupid too. Try not to be either. I trust government enough to not need a 1A auditor to record a police lobby with potential crime victims on my behalf. What do you think the cops were doing in their precinct? Devising their evil plan for world domination? A strip-show? lol Considering it was an NYPD precinct, it is not unheard of for their officers to parade around the facility with a blood and feces covered broomstick as a trophy. https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-abner-louima-justin-volpe-nypd-sodomy-20210105-43wtgdpjize5jpzc4t7uffrqtq-story.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:20:34 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 1A is the 1A buddy. The press has the same rights to report as you have to speech. The reporters own associations know it - why don't you? Maybe pick up your pocket Constitution and see how it's written. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The public lobby is "publicly owned and open to the general public." And Grace doesn't matter because this STILL isn't a free speech case. The 1A is the 1A buddy. The press has the same rights to report as you have to speech. The reporters own associations know it - why don't you? Maybe pick up your pocket Constitution and see how it's written. Again you are wrong. That's why there are traditional public venues and traditional public places. Getting on your soapbox is inherently disruptive. Recording what is already happening is not disruptive unless the staff and police make it disruptive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:21:26 AM EST
[#49]
When snitches get stitches, I can see why the police don’t want recording of police interactions of third parties.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:21:48 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're trying to illicit a negative response. The definition of trolling. I get it though. You believe you're intelligent, and that you know what you're talking about. And that would be an incorrect assumption on your part. But you know that. We all do at this point. Brave on you for going down with your ship, the SS Douchebag. And "ACAB-based logic"? Really? Stretch Armstrong cant make that kind of stretch, but folks, you heard it here first Wanting cops to know the laws they enforce is ACAB-think Holding cops accountable is ACAB-think Punishing cops for misdeeds is ACAB think ACAB-think https://media1.giphy.com/media/3yP65niAsFzDa/giphy.gif Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. You're trying to illicit a negative response. The definition of trolling. I get it though. You believe you're intelligent, and that you know what you're talking about. And that would be an incorrect assumption on your part. But you know that. We all do at this point. Brave on you for going down with your ship, the SS Douchebag. And "ACAB-based logic"? Really? Stretch Armstrong cant make that kind of stretch, but folks, you heard it here first Wanting cops to know the laws they enforce is ACAB-think Holding cops accountable is ACAB-think Punishing cops for misdeeds is ACAB think Quoted: In any case, I want cops to know what laws they're enforcing https://media1.giphy.com/media/3yP65niAsFzDa/giphy.gif |
|
|
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.
