User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 9:00:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote History6 years since the last one to kinda sorta learn and be trained what is acceptable. Great post and thank you! Edit: 7 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 9:03:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I strongly disagree. The 1st amendment, like the 2nd, is a core tenant of our rights, and just because it's annoying doesn't mean it should be a felony. That being said, the courts have agreed that their right to film ends when their efforts to film interfere with them doing their jobs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Filming the police should be a felony. The police have super hard jobs. Annoying 1st amendment frauditors.  I strongly disagree. The 1st amendment, like the 2nd, is a core tenant of our rights, and just because it's annoying doesn't mean it should be a felony. That being said, the courts have agreed that their right to film ends when their efforts to film interfere with them doing their jobs. Interfered with the officer sitting in his cruiser? That's what he was doing before assaulting the woman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 9:05:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hear you. Like I said, not saying he had a leg to stand on to give her orders. However once he went hands on, she needed to fucking comply. Otherwise we're going to just need to start throwing copies of The Constitution and Bill of Rights at each other in our drawstroke and shoot each other to death as the manner to champion our cause in that moment. Once you hear "You're under arrest." Your mouth needs to close and you need to do what the officer tells you the fuck to do. He's going win that battle. You need to be focused on winning the war, which she would have, and still will. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: She was just fine doing what she was doing. He didn't have any justification to tell her to go anywhere, and certainly not to detain/arrest/assault her. Calling anything "resisting" when a cop has no authority to arrest in the first place is bullshit, and it's MUCH too common. It's hilarious that cops can say "we arrested them for resisting arrest" with a straight face. I hear you. Like I said, not saying he had a leg to stand on to give her orders. However once he went hands on, she needed to fucking comply. Otherwise we're going to just need to start throwing copies of The Constitution and Bill of Rights at each other in our drawstroke and shoot each other to death as the manner to champion our cause in that moment. Once you hear "You're under arrest." Your mouth needs to close and you need to do what the officer tells you the fuck to do. He's going win that battle. You need to be focused on winning the war, which she would have, and still will. Would need a stop watch to measure the time from you're under arrest until unconsciousness |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 9:06:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree that the officer used excessive force given the situation… as for the rest of it.. you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. One must do whatever an officer says. Got it. Anyone on the street can be asked for the money in their wallet. That is where this is going with your mentality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 9:13:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It started with all the "war" on drugs and everything else. That's when they stopped dressing like police and more like tactical soldiers going to the middle east Yup. The 'war on drugs' was fun and all when its execution was applied on anti-war protestors, dealers, and "black panthers," but the machine wasn't stopped when we had the chance. Now you can get fucked on camera, and have some overpaid, underqualified law enforcement clerk-typist PIO copy/paste some bullshit CYA statement, while your antagonists are still out there uninhibited.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 9:13:56 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup, and the courts have established that they're constitutionally allowed to be an asshole 10 feet away. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That makes sense, because I wondered why; a) she already knew his name, and; b) he gave her one quick "you need to leave or you'll be arrested" and then told her she was under arrest. FWIW, I still think it was a collision of assholes, but knowing that makes it worse on the officer. One is constitutionally allowed to be an asshole. The other is lower than a piece of whale shit and more of a threat to America than ISIS Yup, and the courts have established that they're constitutionally allowed to be an asshole 10 feet away. She was at least 6 ft away from the officer before he got out of his vehicle and approached her, was she interfering with his air conditioning? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 9:14:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree that the officer used excessive force given the situation… as for the rest of it.. you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 1) Where do you see any running in the video? Step back a certain distance from what exactly? 2) 9-20ft? The other side of the street is MUCH further. Not lawful. 3) Again, not lawful, he had no probable cause. 4) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move. 5) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move. 6) Unlawful arrest. She was completely justified in resisting her kidnapping and assault. 7) Again, unlawful arrest. She was right to pull away. 8) Yet again, unlawful arrest. She is right to resist. 9) The entire fuck up by police was messy. He just topped off his assault with deadly force. I agree that the officer used excessive force given the situation… as for the rest of it.. you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. We have very clear footage and audio of the entire scene and interaction. Please explain in detail how the cops orders were lawful, and how the lady was guilty of anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 9:46:27 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We have very clear footage and audio of the entire scene and interaction. Please explain in detail how the cops orders were lawful, and how the lady was guilty of anything. Because we said so. We get to pick the time, manner, and place, just because we said so. Got a place on that hill for homeslice? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 9:57:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Call it an argument... She initiated the confrontation. It was a consensual encounter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 10:06:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 6 years since the last one to kinda sorta learn and be trained what is acceptable. Great post and thank you! Quote HistoryQuoted: 6 years since the last one to kinda sorta learn and be trained what is acceptable. Great post and thank you! 7 years since the most relevant on that list. Turner v Driver was right there in Ft Worth at a police building. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 11:40:04 PM EDT
[#11]
I'm just amused that no one has bothered to read that Arizona case and go purely off of a news headline
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 11:56:26 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll say: When I was arguing his order was lawful, I was not fully aware of the surroundings, being that they were in a parking lot with no other traffic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: During the investigation, Carolyn Rodriguez approached the officers. In a statement, FWPD said an officer asked Rodriguez to move across the street, and when she did not, the officer forcefully arrested her. She was later released from the hospital, booked into jail, and charged with Interference with Public Duties, Resisting Arrest and/or Detention, Evading Arrest and False Alarm or Report. Not a lawyer but it's unclear how refusing to move to the other side of the street turns into resisting arrest, evading arrest, and false reporting. Because like 6 different federal district appellate courts have established precedent that Time/Place/Manner restrictions on 1st Amendment Auditors (and videoing the police in general) are legal and constitutional. That means telling her to move across the street was a lawful order, failure to obey a lawful order is an arrestable offense, resisting that attempt to arrest is resisting arrest which caused interference with their investigation, combined with any attempt by her to move away or flee all combines up to probable cause for arrest and charges of Interference with Public Duties, Resisting Arrest, and Evading Arrest. Those time/place/manner restrictions have to be reasonable. She was in a public place and was not interfering with their parking enforcement or being a threat. I can't see how being told to move 50 feet away would be found reasonable. I'll say: When I was arguing his order was lawful, I was not fully aware of the surroundings, being that they were in a parking lot with no other traffic. Assume the worst from the government, and you will be less disappointed. Make them prove their case. Not the other way around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2024 11:59:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree that the officer used excessive force given the situation… as for the rest of it.. you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 1) Where do you see any running in the video? Step back a certain distance from what exactly? 2) 9-20ft? The other side of the street is MUCH further. Not lawful. 3) Again, not lawful, he had no probable cause. 4) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move. 5) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move. 6) Unlawful arrest. She was completely justified in resisting her kidnapping and assault. 7) Again, unlawful arrest. She was right to pull away. 8) Yet again, unlawful arrest. She is right to resist. 9) The entire fuck up by police was messy. He just topped off his assault with deadly force. I agree that the officer used excessive force given the situation… as for the rest of it.. you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. Well, them she was arrested and charged, what did the other supposedly good apples do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 12:08:26 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Assume the worst from the government, and you will be less disappointed. Make them prove their case. Not the other way around. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: During the investigation, Carolyn Rodriguez approached the officers. In a statement, FWPD said an officer asked Rodriguez to move across the street, and when she did not, the officer forcefully arrested her. She was later released from the hospital, booked into jail, and charged with Interference with Public Duties, Resisting Arrest and/or Detention, Evading Arrest and False Alarm or Report. Not a lawyer but it's unclear how refusing to move to the other side of the street turns into resisting arrest, evading arrest, and false reporting. Because like 6 different federal district appellate courts have established precedent that Time/Place/Manner restrictions on 1st Amendment Auditors (and videoing the police in general) are legal and constitutional. That means telling her to move across the street was a lawful order, failure to obey a lawful order is an arrestable offense, resisting that attempt to arrest is resisting arrest which caused interference with their investigation, combined with any attempt by her to move away or flee all combines up to probable cause for arrest and charges of Interference with Public Duties, Resisting Arrest, and Evading Arrest. Those time/place/manner restrictions have to be reasonable. She was in a public place and was not interfering with their parking enforcement or being a threat. I can't see how being told to move 50 feet away would be found reasonable. I'll say: When I was arguing his order was lawful, I was not fully aware of the surroundings, being that they were in a parking lot with no other traffic. Assume the worst from the government, and you will be less disappointed. Make them prove their case. Not the other way around. I've repeated it several times in these topics. Always give the citizen the benefit of a doubt. The government agent has to prove their case. When something is in doubt or questionable? It goes the citizens way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 12:15:24 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only emergency lights going was on the tow truck. Active investigation? Sure thing. Lying sacks of shit on top of it all to boot. What kind of corrupt shithole tows cars for expired meters in nearly empty parking lots? Oh, yea, FTW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 12:31:13 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup, and the courts have established that they're constitutionally allowed to be an asshole 10 feet away. And leaving the parking lot and crossing the street is only 10'? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 1:36:18 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryYou failed to mention that Boston lost the appeal on Glik vs Cunnife and that the US District Court of Appeals ruled that private citizens have the right to film police officers in public spaces. So case law does not agree with that. Policy might but case law does not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 2:23:42 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh give me a fucking break... 1,900 sworn police officers and a couple fuck ups in recent years is not a department wide epidemic of murder. The officers that fuck up, get fucked. Doctors kill enough people to be one of the top five leading causes of death in the US oh but lets give those assholes a pass and focus on what the communists want us to see. If there were a couple murders in Comanche at the hands of the SO there, I'd say there was a problem. But not in FTW Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just glad he didn't light her up. Ft worth PD does have a recent history of murder Oh give me a fucking break... 1,900 sworn police officers and a couple fuck ups in recent years is not a department wide epidemic of murder. The officers that fuck up, get fucked. Doctors kill enough people to be one of the top five leading causes of death in the US oh but lets give those assholes a pass and focus on what the communists want us to see. If there were a couple murders in Comanche at the hands of the SO there, I'd say there was a problem. But not in FTW Most people are willing go to a doctor and also understand the risks associated with it. It's also a doctors job to heal patients and or reduce suffering. I can say most interactions with law enforcement are not consensual. It's the LEO job to enforce the law not rough people up / kill them because they are annoying them. It's really not the same. A doctor typically is not willingly trying to kill the patient. LEOs on the other hand, well the actions speak for themselves. I've delt with Texas LEOs especially small town ones. I've never meet a bigger bunch of lying assholes willing and ready to violate your rights. Along with being completely incompetent, but that's LEOs everywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 3:13:47 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Negative Sir. Aaron Dean was a substandard officer, and had a rookie on his asscheek to boot. He fucked up clearing that backyard. He fucked up making the initial contact. He fucked up not getting dispatch to call the house. He fucked up not seeing the porch FULL of porch dwellers across the street. Thats was all on Aaron Dean. He was trained not to do all that shit FWPD didnt murder Atatiana Jefferson FWPD hired Aaron Dean after he failed his psychological assessment. Just like they hired this asshole Kreuger after he washed out of another department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 3:21:44 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote History"Reasonable limitations" She was in a public space, and there was no crime scene tape up. These laws that states try to pass to create recording buffer zones keep getting struck down by the courts. If she's not physically interfering with them carrying out their duty, it's not "unreasonable" for her to record them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 3:39:24 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am willing to accept the world isn't perfect and the way I want it. If being a 1A auditor is going to bring about real, good change then that's great. If it just generates more hate for the police and continues to reduce the pool of good people willing to be police, it's kind of a self fulfilling activity. What led up to the video, you and I don't know. We just see the very end and what looks like police brutality. In the mean time I think I will go fuck myself. You forgot this, as one of your examples of oppression: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 4:21:05 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: like i said, that is an argument for another thread The time to argue your case as to the lawfulness of the order is not when officers go hands on. You are going under arrest. Argue your case to the judge and get the officer in hot water if he fucked up. But dont get face planted and knocked out by the retort of the officer as you argue case law in a parking lot at 3 am Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: When was he going to start giving lawful orders? like i said, that is an argument for another thread The time to argue your case as to the lawfulness of the order is not when officers go hands on. You are going under arrest. Argue your case to the judge and get the officer in hot water if he fucked up. But dont get face planted and knocked out by the retort of the officer as you argue case law in a parking lot at 3 am This pretty much sums up why so many of us feel the system needs serious revisions. Simply because you have arrest powers does not mean you can do whatever you want and sort it out later. There are very clear rules or engagement for just about any situation. Why you think you can change them at whim because someone is "annoying" you is beyond me. I would severely limit all LEO abilities to arrest most of you can't seem to or won't understand how and when it's supposed to be used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 5:28:58 AM EDT
[#23]
Protected and Served
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 6:54:49 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Goddamn witnesses always fucking up a good Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This goes for both the police and people filming the police. Just go about your day not looking for trouble and a lot of these incidents will go away. Goddamn witnesses always fucking up a good |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 7:20:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Edited - Skg What ill-informed beliefs are they? That I believe in the Constitution? That I believe I'm a free man? That I don't bow down to the whims of others because they say so? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I've already willingly put my ass on the line when I chose to enlist in the infantry to go fight. Why do you think I have any problem fighting here at home? I have more of a problem with jackboots enforcing the will of a tyrannical government than I had with the hadjis on the other side of the planet. Cause it will get you killed over something stupid bro. In the heat of the moment you might be 100% convinced of your position but after some retrospect you might see that you could have handled things a different way. We all make mistakes. I have. And I have been SUPER convinced about how right I was at times then had a chance to cool off and thought that I might have something to reconsider. Just sayin.... I hear ya 100% however If you aren't willing to die for your beliefs then how strong is your conviction? Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather not have to ever even speak to any government agent period. I want to be left alone to live my life as I please. I wouldn't be the one choosing to impose their will upon me. Live and let live. If you want to try to fuck me, well, I'm going to fuck back. weird hill to die on, but ok. Resisting a tyrannical government is a weird hill to die on? No deciding that you're going to get killed by cops for no other reason than some weird ill informed beliefs. Edited - Skg What ill-informed beliefs are they? That I believe in the Constitution? That I believe I'm a free man? That I don't bow down to the whims of others because they say so? "Give me Liberty, or give me death" some old dude said something 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 8:09:15 AM EDT
[#26]
WTF is wrong with these cops. I work for a state agency and we have been given training about these auditors.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 8:59:42 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup, and the courts have established that they're constitutionally allowed to be an asshole 10 feet away. You obviously have studied the applicable case laws and have an above average understanding of them. The fatal flaw in your comprehension is in this question: 10 feet away from WHAT? 10 feet away from an officer under any circumstance? Or 10 feet away from an officer engaged in the performance of his official duties? No, there isn’t a 1st Amendment free zone 10 feet around any officer that happens to be hanging out in the same public place other citizens are free to occupy. The police don’t get a free pass to whip your ass and put you in a cage for approaching them for information in a public place. Which is what happened in this very case. Similar to Pennsylvania vs Mims the case law is nuanced and doesn’t give police the blanket power to order one out of the car for ANY reason. Because your continuing education class or your supervisor said so, does not make it true. As the future Dollar General stock boy is about to find out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:03:27 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WTF is wrong with these cops. I work for a state agency and we have been given training about these auditors. With the training you received, what would be the response have been if any? Looking forward to your answer. Not looking for an argument or gotcha. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:10:10 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1) Where do you see any running in the video? Step back a certain distance from what exactly? 2) 9-20ft? The other side of the street is MUCH further. Not lawful. 3) Again, not lawful, he had no probable cause. 4) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move. 5) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move. 6) Unlawful arrest. She was completely justified in resisting her kidnapping and assault. 7) Again, unlawful arrest. She was right to pull away. 8) Yet again, unlawful arrest. She is right to resist. 9) The entire fuck up by police was messy. He just topped off his assault with deadly force. Quoted: "Now in the video posted, we have the lady running up on officers. This gives us a timeline of events to compare to the above case law. 1)Lady runs up and is filming the police. This is subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions, an established reasonable restriction to this is asking the person to step back a certain amount of distance" Enigma, Your ability to embellish glows. Everything following is based on a mud foundation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:10:11 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WTF is wrong with these cops. I work for a state agency and we have been given training about these auditors. So through your training, which is more effective? Tombstone Pile Driver, Stone Cold Stunner, or Rock Bottom? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:14:56 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Now in the video posted, we have the lady running up on officers. This gives us a timeline of events to compare to the above case law. 1)Lady runs up and is filming the police. This is subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions, an established reasonable restriction to this is asking the person to step back a certain amount of distance" Your ability to embellish glows. Everything following is based on a mud foundation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 1) Where do you see any running in the video? Step back a certain distance from what exactly? 2) 9-20ft? The other side of the street is MUCH further. Not lawful. 3) Again, not lawful, he had no probable cause. 4) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move. 5) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move. 6) Unlawful arrest. She was completely justified in resisting her kidnapping and assault. 7) Again, unlawful arrest. She was right to pull away. 8) Yet again, unlawful arrest. She is right to resist. 9) The entire fuck up by police was messy. He just topped off his assault with deadly force. "Now in the video posted, we have the lady running up on officers. This gives us a timeline of events to compare to the above case law. 1)Lady runs up and is filming the police. This is subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions, an established reasonable restriction to this is asking the person to step back a certain amount of distance" Your ability to embellish glows. Everything following is based on a mud foundation. I'd describe it as the lady walks up to some women police asking questions, the officer ran up to her and assaulted her, as he was 10' or so away from her in his patrol vehicle. It wasn't the female cops she was trying to interact with that told her to move away nor arrest and assault her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:15:35 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So through your training, which is more effective? Tombstone Pile Driver, Stone Cold Stunner, or Rock Bottom? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: WTF is wrong with these cops. I work for a state agency and we have been given training about these auditors. So through your training, which is more effective? Tombstone Pile Driver, Stone Cold Stunner, or Rock Bottom? Baton to the head works well against senior citizens |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:23:11 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd describe it as the lady walks up to some women police asking questions, the officer ran up to her and assaulted her, as he was 10' or so away from her in his patrol vehicle. It wasn't the female cops she was trying to interact with that told her to move away nor arrest and assault her. Same here. My response was supposed to be directly to Enigma. My mistake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:45:12 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With the training you received, what would be the response have been if any? Looking forward to your answer. Not looking for an argument or gotcha. See, this is what gets me most of all: Don’t any of the police out there watch YouTube? One would think by now that they know what NOT to do to avoid being the subject of a creators most famous video. But I have to concede that this is a rhetorical question. Of course the police know what NOT to do to become infamous. Hell, future Dollar General employee of the month KNEW he was dealing with a 1st Amendment Auditor and KNEW he was on camera. The question is WHY do they do this shit anyway, knowing that it’s wrong and there will be negative consequences? Is a violent psychopath just who they are and they can’t help themselves? Or do they get away with this behavior so much they believe they will get away with it forever? Very, very puzzling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:49:28 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "Now in the video posted, we have the lady running up on officers. This gives us a timeline of events to compare to the above case law. 1)Lady runs up and is filming the police. This is subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions, an established reasonable restriction to this is asking the person to step back a certain amount of distance" Enigma, Your ability to embellish glows. Everything following is based on a mud foundation. Runs up to the officer? She was casually walking behind the two female cops and they didn't care about her. She moved forward with officer shit stain got out of his car and made his way to her. Couple seconds later she was on the ground. No active investigation going on, no tape up, no accident they were working. He gave her about 3 seconds to follow his unlawful command and then arrested and slammed her on the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:51:24 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You obviously have studied the applicable case laws and have an above average understanding of them. The fatal flaw in your comprehension is in this question: 10 feet away from WHAT? 10 feet away from an officer under any circumstance? Or 10 feet away from an officer engaged in the performance of his official duties? No, there isn’t a 1st Amendment free zone 10 feet around any officer that happens to be hanging out in the same public place other citizens are free to occupy. The police don’t get a free pass to whip your ass and put you in a cage for approaching them for information in a public place. Which is what happened in this very case. Similar to Pennsylvania vs Mims the case law is nuanced and doesn’t give police the blanket power to order one out of the car for ANY reason. Because your continuing education class or your supervisor said so, does not make it true. As the future Dollar General stock boy is about to find out. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yup, and the courts have established that they're constitutionally allowed to be an asshole 10 feet away. You obviously have studied the applicable case laws and have an above average understanding of them. The fatal flaw in your comprehension is in this question: 10 feet away from WHAT? 10 feet away from an officer under any circumstance? Or 10 feet away from an officer engaged in the performance of his official duties? No, there isn’t a 1st Amendment free zone 10 feet around any officer that happens to be hanging out in the same public place other citizens are free to occupy. The police don’t get a free pass to whip your ass and put you in a cage for approaching them for information in a public place. Which is what happened in this very case. Similar to Pennsylvania vs Mims the case law is nuanced and doesn’t give police the blanket power to order one out of the car for ANY reason. Because your continuing education class or your supervisor said so, does not make it true. As the future Dollar General stock boy is about to find out. This law was clearly not the case we are taking about in this thread, but before you think you're freely allowed to go wherever you want and whenever you want to film officers, keep in mind there may be laws like this: (Ohio) Section 2917.13 | Misconduct at emergency. (A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following: (1) Hamper the lawful operations of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person, engaged in the person's duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind; (2) Hamper the lawful activities of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the person's duties in an emergency facility; (3) Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind. Again, I know this wasn't the case for the story of this thread, but it should be pointed out for this discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:52:32 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With the training you received, what would be the response have been if any? Looking forward to your answer. Not looking for an argument or gotcha. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: WTF is wrong with these cops. I work for a state agency and we have been given training about these auditors. With the training you received, what would be the response have been if any? Looking forward to your answer. Not looking for an argument or gotcha. Now that I saw the other videos, I don't think there was a reason to warn her at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:53:27 AM EDT
[#38]
Wait, he tossed her to the ground, she sounds like she's unconscious and he continues to tell her to stop resisting?
Yikes.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:59:23 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This probably was not "right" by the PD, but seems to me if you are going to be one of these so called "auditors" you might want to be a person who is younger and in decent shape, because, sooner or later, you WILL be roughed up by somebody, PD or other It's amazing that "conservatives" on this site find it completely normal and acceptable that the government is just gonna fuck you up one day cause you exercised a enumerated right. WTF have we become when it's ok for the government to restrict your rights and if you don't like it then just catch an ass kicking cause you should expect it. Yea I'm looking at all you MFers that find speech suppression totally justifiable. Fuck the government. But muh 2a!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 1:55:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What kind of corrupt shithole tows cars for expired meters in nearly empty parking lots? Oh, yea, FTW. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The only emergency lights going was on the tow truck. Active investigation? Sure thing. Lying sacks of shit on top of it all to boot. What kind of corrupt shithole tows cars for expired meters in nearly empty parking lots? Oh, yea, FTW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 2:49:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This law was clearly not the case we are taking about in this thread, but before you think you're freely allowed to go wherever you want and whenever you want to film officers, keep in mind there may be laws like this: (Ohio) Section 2917.13 | Misconduct at emergency. (A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following: (1) Hamper the lawful operations of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person, engaged in the person's duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind; (2) Hamper the lawful activities of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the person's duties in an emergency facility; (3) Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind. Again, I know this wasn't the case for the story of this thread, but it should be pointed out for this discussion. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup, and the courts have established that they're constitutionally allowed to be an asshole 10 feet away. You obviously have studied the applicable case laws and have an above average understanding of them. The fatal flaw in your comprehension is in this question: 10 feet away from WHAT? 10 feet away from an officer under any circumstance? Or 10 feet away from an officer engaged in the performance of his official duties? No, there isn’t a 1st Amendment free zone 10 feet around any officer that happens to be hanging out in the same public place other citizens are free to occupy. The police don’t get a free pass to whip your ass and put you in a cage for approaching them for information in a public place. Which is what happened in this very case. Similar to Pennsylvania vs Mims the case law is nuanced and doesn’t give police the blanket power to order one out of the car for ANY reason. Because your continuing education class or your supervisor said so, does not make it true. As the future Dollar General stock boy is about to find out. This law was clearly not the case we are taking about in this thread, but before you think you're freely allowed to go wherever you want and whenever you want to film officers, keep in mind there may be laws like this: (Ohio) Section 2917.13 | Misconduct at emergency. (A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following: (1) Hamper the lawful operations of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person, engaged in the person's duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind; (2) Hamper the lawful activities of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the person's duties in an emergency facility; (3) Fail to obey the lawful order of any law enforcement officer engaged in the law enforcement officer's duties at the scene of or in connection with a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind. Again, I know this wasn't the case for the story of this thread, but it should be pointed out for this discussion. At the scene of an active emergency doesn't seem unreasonable to make people move out of the way. ETA: Situations like this:  "Chase Turns Fatal: Suspect Hit by Truck During Chicago Police Pursuit" #chicago #police #viral#usa |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 3:09:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At the scene of an active emergency doesn't seem unreasonable to make people move out of the way. That's basically what the law interpretation says from everywhere I've searched. Scenes of active emergency(including taped-off areas), you can be told to back off legally and non-compliance can result in charges. Same for private property without authorization from the owner or interrupting a LEO during an active investigation. That last part has a lot of gray areas and case law associated with it and it becomes situational and not blanket authorization for LEOs to restrict access in close proximity. Filming and questioning LEOs is still allowed, regardless of the situation. In the case of this situation, there is no case law (that I can find) to support the actions from the LEO who assaulted the women. At least, that's my layman's understanding reading explanations from legal organizations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 3:13:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's basically what the law interpretation says from everywhere I've searched. Scenes of active emergency(including taped-off areas), you can be told to back off legally and non-compliance can result in charges. Same for private property without authorization from the owner or interrupting a LEO during an active investigation. That last part has a lot of gray areas and case law associated with it and it becomes situational and not blanket authorization for LEOs to restrict access in close proximity. Filming and questioning LEOs is still allowed, regardless of the situation. In the case of this situation, there is no case law (that I can find) to support the actions from the LEO who assaulted the women. At least, that's my layman's understanding reading explanations from legal organizations. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: At the scene of an active emergency doesn't seem unreasonable to make people move out of the way. That's basically what the law interpretation says from everywhere I've searched. Scenes of active emergency(including taped-off areas), you can be told to back off legally and non-compliance can result in charges. Same for private property without authorization from the owner or interrupting a LEO during an active investigation. That last part has a lot of gray areas and case law associated with it and it becomes situational and not blanket authorization for LEOs to restrict access in close proximity. Filming and questioning LEOs is still allowed, regardless of the situation. In the case of this situation, there is no case law (that I can find) to support the actions from the LEO who assaulted the women. At least, that's my layman's understanding reading explanations from legal organizations. Video I posted above has some LEO's telling folks to move along with so-so compliance and they didn't have to arrest or assault anybody... including the dead car thief 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 3:26:40 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Video I posted above has some LEO's telling folks to move along with so-so compliance and they didn't have to arrest or assault anybody... including the dead car thief Crazy how that works lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 3:48:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: See, this is what gets me most of all: Don’t any of the police out there watch YouTube? One would think by now that they know what NOT to do to avoid being the subject of a creators most famous video. But I have to concede that this is a rhetorical question. Of course the police know what NOT to do to become infamous. Hell, future Dollar General employee of the month KNEW he was dealing with a 1st Amendment Auditor and KNEW he was on camera. The question is WHY do they do this shit anyway, knowing that it’s wrong and there will be negative consequences? Is a violent psychopath just who they are and they can’t help themselves? Or do they get away with this behavior so much they believe they will get away with it forever? Very, very puzzling. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: With the training you received, what would be the response have been if any? Looking forward to your answer. Not looking for an argument or gotcha. See, this is what gets me most of all: Don’t any of the police out there watch YouTube? One would think by now that they know what NOT to do to avoid being the subject of a creators most famous video. But I have to concede that this is a rhetorical question. Of course the police know what NOT to do to become infamous. Hell, future Dollar General employee of the month KNEW he was dealing with a 1st Amendment Auditor and KNEW he was on camera. The question is WHY do they do this shit anyway, knowing that it’s wrong and there will be negative consequences? Is a violent psychopath just who they are and they can’t help themselves? Or do they get away with this behavior so much they believe they will get away with it forever? Very, very puzzling. Low levels of intelligence probably play a large part of it. Unintelligent people have a harder time controlling themselves and their emotions. Add to that the mindset of "we're the law and whatever we say you have to obey," and they just can't help themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 4:11:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Low levels of intelligence probably play a large part of it. Unintelligent people have a harder time controlling themselves and their emotions. Add to that the mindset of "we're the law and whatever we say you have to obey," and they just can't help themselves. I have been reading up on time, place and manner. Just another misinterpretation being expounded on by the group in your post.  Time, Place and Manner explained Findlaw Time, Place, Or Manner Restriction time, place, or manner restriction n : a restriction on the time, place, or manner of expression that is justified when it is neutral as to content and serves a significant government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication [an injunction excluding demonstrators from the front of the building was held to be a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction] called also time, place, and manner restriction |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 4:18:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Not sure if anyone posted this or not. 5th Circuit:
Protecting the right to film the police promotes First Amendment principles. We agree with every circuit that has ruled on this question: Each has concluded that the First Amendment protects the right to record the police.46 As the First Circuit explained, "[t]he filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within [basic First Amendment] principles."47 This right, however, "is not without limitations."48 Like all speech,49 filming the police "may be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."50 In this case, however, we need not decide which specific time, place, and manner restrictions would be reasonable.51 Nonetheless, we note that when police departments or officers adopt time, place, and manner restrictions, those restrictions must be "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest."52 That said, to be constitutionally permissible, a time, place, and manner restriction "need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the government's interests."... Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 4:19:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure if anyone posted this or not. 5th Circuit: I think the conversation was steering that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 4:24:57 PM EDT
[#49]
And there was actually a 2022 opinion from the 10th circuit specifically siding with a YouTube 1A auditor, denying QI to the cops. They only devoted a footnote to the halfassed argument that they were engaging in a reasonable time, place, manner restriction.
This right is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. See Glik , 655 F.3d at 84. But in this case, there is no "time, place, and manner" restriction issue because a "peaceful recording" of a traffic stop in "a public space that does not interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation." Id. Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) (footnote 10) I guess we'll see what they come up with here as far as Texas statutes goes that could be considered TPM restrictions, but it looks way more like they knew who she was; they disapproved of the content of her protected activity; and they/he retaliated. Plus false arrest and excessive force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 4:34:04 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And there was actually a 2022 opinion from the 10th circuit specifically siding with a YouTube 1A auditor, denying QI to the cops. They only devoted a footnote to the halfassed argument that they were engaging in a reasonable time, place, manner restriction. Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) (footnote 10) I guess we'll see what they come up with here as far as Texas statutes goes that could be considered TPM restrictions, but it looks way more like they knew who she was; they disapproved of the content of her protected activity; and they/he retaliated. Plus false arrest and excessive force. Thanks! You just saved me a LOT of time. |
|
|
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.
