User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:23:23 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. this part is accurate |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:23:26 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. You are still getting forum and place confused. Really pathetic. It is a public place so the public can be there. If the public can be there the public can record. It isn't a public forum so the public has limited free speech rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:26:37 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NYPD Thugs Go HANDS ON Fast! Arrest Journalist For Recording! Federal Lawsuit Incoming!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoYDeBXlUKM |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:27:14 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. No - you're wrong. You're wrong and you're ignorant. Recording isn't allowed. Per the USSC restrictions can be set on the 1A in a non-public forum which extends to government buildings and the pathway through which government employees and individuals accessing the services inside utilize. The 1A which covers the freedom of speech and freedom of the press isn't absolute and the location where it certainly isn't absolute is a non-public forum like a police precinct. I'm simply telling you how the 1A is interpreted by the modern Supreme Court and until they change the precedent - it is how it is. His federal lawsuit will absolutely go nowhere except enriching himself if he gets enough fools to fund it and watch the video then he spends in lawyer fees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:29:01 AM EST
[#5]
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  The PD posted a sign as their "policy", and then choose to trespass people for disobeying their policy, which the city has specifically said is ok? How can you not see the mental gymnastics occurring here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:29:22 AM EST
[#6]
I hope he takes the money and all of it! This guy is one of us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:31:49 AM EST
[#7]
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. Wrong. The eyes can not trespass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:36:33 AM EST
[#8]
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. They can set policy Where on your blank piece of paper does it say that the State lawmakers and the law they wrote and passed isn't exactly as the USSC said they could do. Nevermind the fact that there was no specific law prohibiting filming in the first place under these specific examples. The employees don't make the laws. What you are defending is any agency literally making up their own rules and abusing their authority by misapplying a different law for cover. What USSC ruling allows the police to do that? Police can set a policy but it must still be legal and follow state/federal law. Most importantly it must still be approved by their bosses, the elected officials who are the true government. Maybe that is why they are called lawmakers? Someone filming in a public lobby is not anywhere near the threat that allowing this to go unchecked creates. The video posted above really shows how rouge that department and culture has gotten. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:38:59 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @destaccado - is this really the kind of police response you want to see for a man with a camera in a public space? Even if you believe he should be trespassed of the property - how does this seem like appropriate level of interaction? I believe this is a prime example of a culture of "Us (LEO) vs peasants" mentality. I'm fine with it. He went there looking for a negative interaction per his own video prior to arriving. What was the actual response? They gently moved him out of the building? Did he suffer any injuries, long-term damage from an officer gently shoving him out the door? He didn't seem to be affected since he continuously moves toward the officers again and again. Stay out of people's personal space. The one officer even told him - "we're outside now we can talk" and he completely ignored that guy and continued his quest to get back inside and record thinking he has the legal right to do so. From my understanding of the Supreme Court precedent and reading of the NYS law - he actually doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:42:35 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The city, which controls the police department passed a law allowing the specific behvior. The PD posted a sign as their "policy", and then choose to trespass people for disobeying their policy, which the city has specifically said is ok? How can you not see the mental gymnastics occurring here? The city passed a law saying you can record police activity and then defines police activity as activity where police are operating under the color of law. It clearly distinguished "color of law" vs all activity. In other words - his buddy was legally free and clear to record the arrest from outside the building and in fact he was able to do exactly that without any charges against him. Thanks to that recording we see that his buddy was an absolute douche and returned to the inside of the building after the police lawfully trespassed him out of it under NY PEN § 140.00 5. “Enter or remain unlawfully.” A person “enters or remains unlawfully” in or upon premises when he is not licensed or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him by the owner of such premises or other authorized person. Looks like under NYS law and with these circumstances where he's not a sex offender or bringing in a weapons - it's only a violation with a penalty of $250 and a max of 15 days in jail. Therefore I'm confused why he has a GoFundMe goal of $7500? Just kidding - I'm really not confused. I'm guessing this "auditor" is a hell of a lot smarter than his "audience."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:46:39 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If published (paid) by a news agency, yes. Some random with a YouTube channel, no Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Journalist my ass  Define journalist. A person employed by a news organization to report without editorializing. Pretty rare thing today. Tucker Carlson is not a journalist for example. His show was opinion and entertainment not journalism. Freelance journalists not journalists then? If published (paid) by a news agency, yes. Some random with a YouTube channel, no That's a very myopic view |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:48:14 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t watch YouTube videos posted here. Particularly so if they are posted by someone other than the video owner. That’s why I asked. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did he enter a non public area? I don’t watch YouTube videos posted here. Particularly so if they are posted by someone other than the video owner. That’s why I asked. lmao Go away |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:51:46 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No we don't. In fact, if we demanded that then every officer would require a law degree and years of experience. Most departments require a 2-year associates and a few months in an academy. ...but hey - feel free to make up whatever silly nonsense you want. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We demand and expect "the police" to know the laws they are enforcing. If they dont, or worse yet, wont, summer is here and snowcones need to be made. No we don't. In fact, if we demanded that then every officer would require a law degree and years of experience. Most departments require a 2-year associates and a few months in an academy. ...but hey - feel free to make up whatever silly nonsense you want. So you need a law degree to understand the law you're enforcing? How is the average person able to be arrested for violating the law if they don't have a law degree? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:53:36 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you need a law degree to understand the law you're enforcing? How is the average person able to be arrested for violating the law if they don't have a law degree? Cops arrest people who are released with the charges dropped all the time. The intricacies of different cases are limitless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:00:22 PM EST
[#15]
"Help keep L.I.A on the road to fight tyranny across the country!
All donations will also help with legal fees to fight Unlawful Arrests & file Civil Rights Lawsuits! Show your Support for the Channel & The Constitution! PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/longislandaudit Venmo @LONGISLANDAUDIT Cash App @LONGISLANDAUDIT https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-long-... Thanks for all the support! It's greatly appreciated! TOGETHER we can create real change!" We can do it together guys! Just throw me $7500 to fight my $250 ticket which isn't even considered a misdemeanor!   The ACAB preacher 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:03:52 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. The eyes can not trespass. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Wrong. The eyes can not trespass. And the camera seeing and recording for others to see isn't easily blown off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:08:03 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Help keep L.I.A on the road to fight tyranny across the country! All donations will also help with legal fees to fight Unlawful Arrests & file Civil Rights Lawsuits! Show your Support for the Channel & The Constitution! PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/longislandaudit Venmo @LONGISLANDAUDIT Cash App @LONGISLANDAUDIT https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-long-... Thanks for all the support! It's greatly appreciated! TOGETHER we can create real change!" We can do it together guys! Just throw me $7500 to fight my $250 ticket which isn't even considered a misdemeanor! The ACAB preacher Does this mean you oppose Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owmers of America, and 2A Foundation asking for donations to represent those making donations to defend against attacks on liberties? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:13:23 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does this mean you oppose Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owmers of America, and 2A Foundation asking for donations to represent those making donations to defend against attacks on liberties? Nope - I support all of them. However, I don't view my 2A rights along the lines of some guy trying to get clickbait revenue for his desire to video tape the police and crime victims in a non-public forum. It's a shame you seem to place so little value on your 2A rights to make that comparison. Ironically, I just noticed his GoFundMe goal for his $250 trespassing violation went from $7500 to $12,500. I guess once he found enough suckers for the first goal he figured he might as well keep going. Smart guy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:16:40 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Seems like you're applying a double standard if you want to wave around a court ruling as being definitive when it supports your opinion, but then you delegitimize other court rulings that would disagree with your opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:21:13 PM EST
[#20]
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. Wow you must be a lawyer then because you took a law course and got a good grade |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:22:18 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope - I support all of them. However, I don't view my 2A rights along the lines of some guy trying to get clickbait revenue for his desire to video tape the police and crime victims in a non-public forum. It's a shame you seem to place so little value on your 2A rights to make that comparison. Ironically, I just noticed his GoFundMe goal for his $250 trespassing violation went from $7500 to $12,500. I guess once he found enough suckers for the first goal he figured he might as well keep going. Smart guy.Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Does this mean you oppose Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owmers of America, and 2A Foundation asking for donations to represent those making donations to defend against attacks on liberties? Nope - I support all of them. However, I don't view my 2A rights along the lines of some guy trying to get clickbait revenue for his desire to video tape the police and crime victims in a non-public forum. It's a shame you seem to place so little value on your 2A rights to make that comparison. Ironically, I just noticed his GoFundMe goal for his $250 trespassing violation went from $7500 to $12,500. I guess once he found enough suckers for the first goal he figured he might as well keep going. Smart guy.Those kids getting kicked out of the capitol for singing the national anthem had there 1st amendment rights violated and the violators share similar traits with these NY police officers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:24:26 PM EST
[#22]
I'll post this again. From here:
Cornell Law color of law Primary tabs Color of law refers to the appearance of legal authority or an apparently legal right that may not exist. The term is often used to describe the abuse of power under the guise of state authority, and is therefore illegal. The term was used in the Civil Rights Act of 1871, where the color of law was synonymous with state action and referred to an official whose conduct was so closely associated with a state that the conduct was deemed to be the action of that state. The Act grants citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents for using their power to violate civil rights. An example is the history of redlining, which can be seen in this map from Syracuse, New Many of us are responding to the talking points from here: Legal Blog |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:24:47 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope - I support all of them. However, I don't view my 2A rights along the lines of some guy trying to get clickbait revenue for his desire to video tape the police and crime victims in a non-public forum. It's a shame you seem to place so little value on your 2A rights to make that comparison. Ironically, I just noticed his GoFundMe goal for his $250 trespassing violation went from $7500 to $12,500. I guess once he found enough suckers for the first goal he figured he might as well keep going. Smart guy.Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Does this mean you oppose Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owmers of America, and 2A Foundation asking for donations to represent those making donations to defend against attacks on liberties? Nope - I support all of them. However, I don't view my 2A rights along the lines of some guy trying to get clickbait revenue for his desire to video tape the police and crime victims in a non-public forum. It's a shame you seem to place so little value on your 2A rights to make that comparison. Ironically, I just noticed his GoFundMe goal for his $250 trespassing violation went from $7500 to $12,500. I guess once he found enough suckers for the first goal he figured he might as well keep going. Smart guy.Seems odd since those groups aren't lobbying for restricting 2A rights in ways that please the LE community. I can see why NYPD wouldn't want certain crime victims to be filmed and that footage to be viewed by others. https://www.wnyc.org/story/twenty-years-later-look-back-nypd-assault-abner-louima-and-what-it-means-today/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:24:48 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems like you're applying a double standard if you want to wave around a court ruling as being definitive when it supports your opinion, but then you delegitimize other court rulings that would disagree with your opinion. Yes that's true. The same double standard that anyone with a brain on this website utilizes with conservative vs liberal justices. No doubt it's the same standard you utilize if you have a brain so why be a hypocrite about it or do you openly support Justice Brown Jackson who doesn't know what a woman is? Of course - I'm also aware and have studied the plenitude of social sciences evidence which pretty much conclusively demonstrates that judges pass judgments based on their own desire and find the laws and precedent that support that in order to do so. Finally, we're talking the US Supreme Court vs a single judge - sort of a pretty easy distinguishing fact don't you think? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:27:06 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those kids getting kicked out of the capitol for singing the national anthem had there 1st amendment rights violated and the violators share similar traits with these NY police officers. No they almost certainly didn't. There's no 1A right to sing the national anthem in a non-public forum. However, they should have been allowed to do it anyways and it speaks to the place we're in as a country that they weren't. The reasoning behind not allowing someone to record inside the police precinct is significantly more persuasive. Apples to oranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:27:22 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cops arrest people who are released with the charges dropped all the time. The intricacies of different cases are limitless. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We demand and expect "the police" to know the laws they are enforcing. If they dont, or worse yet, wont, summer is here and snowcones need to be made. No we don't. In fact, if we demanded that then every officer would require a law degree and years of experience. Most departments require a 2-year associates and a few months in an academy. ...but hey - feel free to make up whatever silly nonsense you want. So you need a law degree to understand the law you're enforcing? How is the average person able to be arrested for violating the law if they don't have a law degree? Cops arrest people who are released with the charges dropped all the time. The intricacies of different cases are limitless. They're still expected to know the law they're enforcing. You don't have to have a law degree to understand the law -- nor should the law be so obtuse that it's written in such a way that it would require one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:31:01 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes that's true. The same double standard that anyone with a brain on this website utilizes with conservative vs liberal justices. No doubt it's the same standard you utilize if you have a brain so why be a hypocrite about it or do you openly support Justice Brown Jackson who doesn't know what a woman is? Of course - I'm also aware and have studied the plenitude of social sciences evidence which pretty much conclusively demonstrates that judges pass judgments based on their own desire and find the laws and precedent that support that in order to do so. Finally, we're talking the US Supreme Court vs a single judge - sort of a pretty easy distinguishing fact don't you think? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Seems like you're applying a double standard if you want to wave around a court ruling as being definitive when it supports your opinion, but then you delegitimize other court rulings that would disagree with your opinion. Yes that's true. The same double standard that anyone with a brain on this website utilizes with conservative vs liberal justices. No doubt it's the same standard you utilize if you have a brain so why be a hypocrite about it or do you openly support Justice Brown Jackson who doesn't know what a woman is? Of course - I'm also aware and have studied the plenitude of social sciences evidence which pretty much conclusively demonstrates that judges pass judgments based on their own desire and find the laws and precedent that support that in order to do so. Finally, we're talking the US Supreme Court vs a single judge - sort of a pretty easy distinguishing fact don't you think? I don't wave around the court's interpretation of our rights as being the epitome of truth. Case law is always evolving because it's based on people's interpretation of what someone else said -- and it's generally just their opinion. And SCOTUS is just as capable of putting out braindead/politically biased opinions, and they have repeatedly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:34:42 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Help keep L.I.A on the road to fight tyranny across the country! All donations will also help with legal fees to fight Unlawful Arrests & file Civil Rights Lawsuits! Show your Support for the Channel & The Constitution! PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/longislandaudit Venmo @LONGISLANDAUDIT Cash App @LONGISLANDAUDIT https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-long-...[/i] Thanks for all the support! It's greatly appreciated! TOGETHER we can create real change!" We can do it together guys! Just throw me $7500 to fight my $250 ticket which isn't even considered a misdemeanor! The ACAB preacher |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:35:07 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll post this again. From here: Cornell Law color of law Primary tabs Color of law refers to the appearance of legal authority or an apparently legal right that may not exist. The term is often used to describe the abuse of power under the guise of state authority, and is therefore illegal. The term was used in the Civil Rights Act of 1871, where the color of law was synonymous with state action and referred to an official whose conduct was so closely associated with a state that the conduct was deemed to be the action of that state. The Act grants citizens the right to sue government officials and their agents for using their power to violate civil rights. An example is the history of redlining, which can be seen in this map from Syracuse, New Many of us are responding to the talking points from here: Legal Blog I'm not sure if you're even understanding what you're posting. Read your own text: "Color of law refers to the appearance of legal authority or an apparently legal right that may not exist." - which also means it might exist. If not, then you think that the NYS law only applies to recording the abuse of power under the guise of state authority? LOL You've honestly went full retard now in your quest to get past your clear and convincing ignorance on this topic and rather obviously poor reading comprehension ability. The color of law are actions partaken under the guise of state authority - legitimate or illegitimate. Arresting someone - legitimately or illegitimately would both be a police activity taken under the color of law. Things a cop can do that anyone can do like take a shit on a toilet aren't actions taken under the color of law. In fact, most administrative functions in a police precinct have nothing to do with "the color of law." The government has a vested interest in efficient operations without unnecessary disruption and not allowing crime victims to be videotaped. This case is exactly the type of thing the nonpublic forum precedent encompasses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:39:26 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't wave around the court's interpretation of our rights as being the epitome of truth. Case law is always evolving because it's based on people's interpretation of what someone else said -- and it's generally just their opinion. And SCOTUS is just as capable of putting out braindead/politically biased opinions, and they have repeatedly. We can both agree to that. SCOTUS has got it wrong numerous times and it's legit to believe they even have it wrong on nonpublic forums and that someday it will change. However, I personally think it makes sense. Beyond that - either this idiot 1A auditor is waving around a law he clearly doesn't understand and attempting to apply it against that precedent...or he's a brilliant actor that's collected nearly $12,000 in GoFundMe plus probably thousands more in Youtube ad revenue for what will at worst be a $250 fine from a bunch of fools that don't understand the law or the precedent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:43:18 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: it's disingenuous at best[/i] to pretend there will not be legal bills when they fight the "$250 ticket" I'm not pretending that. Fighting the $250 ticket is part of his graft. Of course there's going to be update videos on the status of his lawsuit and future requests for additional funding. He's going to profit handsomely even if his lawsuit goes nowhere. I'm 100% certain of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:43:31 PM EST
[#32]
Those butt hurt clowns can kick rocks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:52:06 PM EST
[#33]
Quoted: 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). That isn't the relevant caselaw for public/nonpublic forums -- they made a determination as to what would be considered the actual forum and concluded it was the CFC, then using Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983), they determined what type of forum it would be. Your cited case law is very limited in scope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:52:14 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure if you're even understanding what you're posting. Read your own text: "Color of law refers to the appearance of legal authority or an apparently legal right that may not exist." - which also means it might exist. If not, then you think that the NYS law only applies to recording the abuse of power under the guise of state authority? LOL You've honestly went full retard now in your quest to get past your clear and convincing ignorance on this topic and rather obviously poor reading comprehension ability. The color of law are actions partaken under the guise of state authority - legitimate or illegitimate. Arresting someone - legitimately or illegitimately would both be a police activity taken under the color of law. Things a cop can do that anyone can do like take a shit on a toilet aren't actions taken under the color of law. In fact, most administrative functions in a police precinct have nothing to do with "the color of law." The government has a vested interest in efficient operations without unnecessary disruption and not allowing crime victims to be videotaped. This case is exactly the type of thing the nonpublic forum precedent encompasses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:52:15 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The reasoning behind not allowing someone to record inside the police precinct is significantly more persuasive. Well yeah. "are you going to believe that civilians claims or what New York's finest say happen" "Are you going to believe what New York's finest said happen or your own lying eyes and film footage of what happened" No cop involved wants uncontrolled video of something like this one. https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92902&page=1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 12:56:12 PM EST
[#36]
For more recent cases related to limited public forums, see: Good News Club v. Milford Central School
For nonpublic forums, see: Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 1:08:24 PM EST
[#37]
For specific cases of government building lobbies being considered nonpublic forums in various lower courts than SCOTUS, see
United States v. Gilbert Sefick v. Gardner Families Achieving Independence & Respect v. Nebraska Department of Social Services Keeping in mind none of these are in the 12th District where New York is located, nor do they take into account New York's specific statutes related to filming police |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 1:20:43 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you need a law degree to understand the law you're enforcing? How is the average person able to be arrested for violating the law if they don't have a law degree? LOL, 7 pages of claiming his EGO rules..if he isn't an out right cop, he sure is spending a lot of time trying to convince people he is expert... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 1:27:53 PM EST
[#39]
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. That's not exactly a resounding endorsement. Colleges are turning out idiots by the 1000's. Case in point, look at the former Anheuser Busch marketing exec that graduated from a tier 1 school. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 3:01:59 PM EST
[#40]
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 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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 How did he officers know that he had no official business? They began using force on him immediately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 3:04:29 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm fine with it. He went there looking for a negative interaction per his own video prior to arriving. What was the actual response? They gently moved him out of the building? Did he suffer any injuries, long-term damage from an officer gently shoving him out the door? He didn't seem to be affected since he continuously moves toward the officers again and again. Stay out of people's personal space. The one officer even told him - "we're outside now we can talk" and he completely ignored that guy and continued his quest to get back inside and record thinking he has the legal right to do so. From my understanding of the Supreme Court precedent and reading of the NYS law - he actually doesn't. They went hands on and used force. You can call it gentle, but it is still assault (or whatever NY calls it). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 3:06:32 PM EST
[#42]
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. You can say he wasn’t arrested for recording, bottom line is the same. He was arrested because he was recording. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 3:07:48 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We can do it together guys! Just throw me $7500 to fight my $250 ticket which isn't even considered a misdemeanor! The ACAB preacher Because now he has standing to sue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 3:36:06 PM EST
[#44]
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. No you did not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:00:10 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No - you're wrong. You're wrong and you're ignorant. Recording isn't allowed. Per the USSC restrictions can be set on the 1A in a non-public forum which extends to government buildings and the pathway through which government employees and individuals accessing the services inside utilize. The 1A which covers the freedom of speech and freedom of the press isn't absolute and the location where it certainly isn't absolute is a non-public forum like a police precinct. I'm simply telling you how the 1A is interpreted by the modern Supreme Court and until they change the precedent - it is how it is. His federal lawsuit will absolutely go nowhere except enriching himself if he gets enough fools to fund it and watch the video then he spends in lawyer fees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:08:15 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except the city passed an administrative ordinance in response to the NYPD policy. The police don't have any authority to prohibit being recorded except as set forth in the administrative ordinance the city passed. Supreme Court rulings are meaningless when the police officers' employer places more stringent rules against prohibiting recording. The NYPD has no independent authority to ignore the city administrative code. Aaah, whadda you know? Not like you're a lawyer who practices in NYS or anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:12:44 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except the city passed an administrative ordinance in response to the NYPD policy. The police don't have any authority to prohibit being recorded except as set forth in the administrative ordinance the city passed. Supreme Court rulings are meaningless when the police officers' employer places more stringent rules against prohibiting recording. The NYPD has no independent authority to ignore the city administrative code. If it's the same one that was posted here earlier it doesn't say what you think it very clearly lies out what's considered police activity. No doubt the police department has their own legal department as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:14:02 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aaah, whadda you know? Not like you're a lawyer who practices in NYS or anything. Yes - every lawyer in every state knows every aspect of the law in that state. It's not like lawyers specialize and need to research cases in advance or that they charge fees for that sort of legal research or anything Good grief. People cannot really be that ignorant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:17:02 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Journalist my ass He is an activist baiting the cops and they fell for it. In NYC that is common. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:22:35 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except the city passed an administrative ordinance in response to the NYPD policy. The police don't have any authority to prohibit being recorded except as set forth in the administrative ordinance the city passed. Supreme Court rulings are meaningless when the police officers' employer places more stringent rules against prohibiting recording. The NYPD has no independent authority to ignore the city administrative code. Here's the NYC ordinance: § 14-189 Right to record police activities. a. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: Officer. The term “officer” means any peace officer or police officer as defined in the criminal procedure law who is employed by the city of New York, or any special patrolman appointed by the police commissioner pursuant to section 14-106. Police activities. The term “police activities” means any activity of an officer acting under the color of law. Record. The term “record” means to capture or attempt to capture any moving or still image, sound, or impression through the use of any recording device, camera, or any other device capable of capturing audio, moving or still images, or by way of written notes or observations. b. Right to record police activities. A person may record police activities and maintain custody and control of any such recording and of any property or instruments used in such recording. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit a person to engage in actions that physically interfere with an official and lawful police function, or to prevent the seizure of any property or instruments used in a recording of police activities where the seizure is otherwise authorized by law, or to prohibit any officer from enforcing any other provision of law. I have little doubt that the departments own legal team determined that not all officer actions are 'under the color of law' and that their posted sign prohibiting recording of their non-public forum space was lawful under the city ordinance, state law, and SCOTUS precedent regarding the 1A. |
|
|
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.
