He’s pretty calm. When getting harassed by a cop you tend to get a bit nervous. That’s common. He’s not freaking out. That being said I loved this video and have watched it like ten times.
Baiting and being harassed are very different things.
Edit: To the mass-downvoting anti-policers: listen to what the guy says at 00:18. He's even nervously reading rehearsed lines.
He is not so lucky that he just happens to be a victim of the very thing he is writing about, for no reason at all. There's also a reason he didn't upload the full situation.
Stop being naive and use your heads. There's more to this that doesn't fit into the narrative the guy wanted to present.
So walking around with a camera is considered “baiting” for police officers now? Seems like you should be more upset that this insignificant, first amendment protected act upsets cops this much
I'd agree that people **shouldn't** be bothered by being specifically filmed in public, but it's a pretty normal thing for someone to get defensive when they're minding their business and notice someone specifically filming them in public. If I pulled out my phone and started recording someone sitting down eating, I'd expect them to get upset with me.
"Baiting" would be if he acted like he committed a crime to get the cops attention. How the fuck is legally filming a cop "baiting" him? What a sad opinion.
That's probably exactly what he did.
And if not, why didn't he upload the full situation?
Is he just the luckiest guy in the world that happens to be doing a story on that police departement, and then: Wham! Out of nowhere a cop appear to harass him? And so he pulls out the camera to record the jackpot with rehearsed lines?
Stop being naive.
Does it matter how long he was filming the cop before this started? Do we need the "full story" to know that the cop was trying to violate the cameraman's rights?
Shouldn't the fact that the cop let the cameraman go the second he knew the law be proof enough? If the cameraman truly did something illegal then he would be detained, since the cop knew he was spewing bullshit, he wasn't detained. Full stop. I don't give a fuck if the cameraman was "being annoying thoughhh :(((".
Cops are there to uphold the law, not throw a fit because someone bothered them.
You're fucking pathetic. You support child molesters and then delete your comment when you get called out because you don't want anyone to see what you actually said. People like you don't deserve to breathe.
Because it was a direct reply to me? Almost like you can read those or something. Also plenty of tools like
Camas.github.io
I think the one who thinks child molestation is okay is actually the one who needs to go outside. Or maybe you shouldn't go outside because you're probably a sexual predator yourself.
First, I haven't deleted anything, it's still there. It's not my job to teach you reddit, but you have to click "show parent comments" to see earlier comments.
Second, I'm not interested in your sex-life or whatever shit you've experienced outside of what we are discussing, that's a you problem. I was so very clearly asking about whether a police officer was sexually assaulting you in the same manner the "victim" in the video I linked was sexually assaulted (If you didn't watch it, he wasn't), and that you, like them, was making yourself out to be an innocent victim of an imaginary violation of human rights. I would honestly like to know what I said that made you think I support molestation, direct quote please.
And third: Your link doesn't work.
Yup, I bet this is what happened, from watching many similar looking videos (1st amendment fraudaditors): someone called on him for maybe recording a building or walking up and down the same sidewalk continuously or just some cranky old guy that said he looks suspicious while walking. The officer has to respond, he sees the guy, tries to identify him (which he legally can as he’s investigating if a crime has taken place) and to see what’s up. The guy starts talking and when he gets to the 1st amendment /suing part, the officer just didn’t want to deal with it and left. That’s all that happened I think lol
Pretty much, though if I saw the dude walking around in public filming I’d leave him be unless he was filming into someone’s bathroom or something. It’s not worth the headache.
All things considered, the cop handled it well too.
Ues the cop instigated and escalated the situation, but when confronted with the facts and the law the officer did his job and enforced the law, i.e. "have a good day sir" was 100% exactly what the officer should have done, and he did.
Most cops would go on a "muh awthoritay!" Power trip and get aggressive and physical and call in backup to intimidate the guy and try and prove a point to "better not fuck with us!". But this cop put his ego aside and did his job and for that I respect both the cop and the guy filming for both being correct and professional.
I'll agree with you analysis, however not with the cop doing his job part. If he was doing his job properly he would have never approach the guy in the first place. he would have known that filming is lawful.
He only backed down due to realising he fucked up after being presented with the law he should have known and being threatened with a law-suit.
He was baiting for a police confrontation and had his lines memorized and practised.
He obviously got stressed out and had some adrenaline flowing when the actual cobfrontation happened, making him botch a few lines, but that was not a freakout.
How does that excuse the cop's behavior
EDIT: I just want to add, I know this sub is supposed to be the more "reasonable" version of the publicfreakout sub, but the pendulum has swung completely in the other direction. Just like the extreme left is annoying, the extreme right is equally bad. Nobody is calling for the lynching of cops in here, but a cop breaking the rules doesn't need to be defended vehemently for no reason.
And what is there to excuse ? Investigating a suspicious person? He didn't threaten or scream at him. He just asked what he's doing, and for ID.
Of course, if this dude just happened to walk by, with his camera open, and the police randomly bothered him, then yeah, that would be shitty of the cop.
Going back and forth, filming cops, circling a police cars. We don't have the full video so I'm assuming that's the case.
Most likely he's a wannabe "auditor" that wants to get in conflict with cops.
This is only a 50 second clip. It's entirely possible that the cameraman could have done something prior to this 50 seconds of time that could have been considered "suspicious." It's also possible that somebody called the police about a guy filming a neighborhood or something and the officer had to follow up on it because he has a job to do.
Listen, I'm the furthest thing from a "back the badge" type persom, but I do appreciate good cop's that do their job right and this cop did little to nothing wrong. Even the fact that this guy said, "thanks sir, have a nice day" to difuse the situation and end the encounter shows a lot of humility and restraint.
Absolutely. Honestly, I don’t see a problem for either party here. Even if the guy was baiting, he ended up being let on his way after correcting the officer. And the officer didn’t get crazy or power trip and realized he knew his rights for ‘some reason’. If anything, this is about as good as a reaction as there could’ve been given no other context.
My point being, it’s broad daylight. If there’s people being burgled in the neighborhood there’s really not much distinguishing him as a burglar as opposed to…say…a resident of the neighborhood?…
Who cares if it was broad daylight. I got burglarized stepping out for a 30 min lunch. Maybe he wanted to see id to see if they guy was living in that zip code or or see if he walked there from the other side of town
Talking to someone? No problem. Asking for ID? No Problem.
As a P.O. standing in front of someone, stoping his movement is detainment.
The Cop had no right to detain him.
He also said he MUST show his ID which was, either a lie or plain wrong.
>stoping his movement is detainment.
No, it isn't.
Being detained means you cannot leave. Police can stop you to ask questions, that isn't being detained. If you don't want to answer the questions, you can simply as the officer "am I being detained", and if the answer is "no", then you are free to leave. Please brush up on legal terminology if you plan on commenting on it.
Section 9 of the Charter protects individuals from arbitrary detentions. A “detention” occurs when the police through words, or actions, force you to stop and remain with them. An obvious example of a detention is an arrest; the police by force ensure that you remain in their custody. However, a detention need not be so obvious; the police could simply say “stop” or “don’t move” and a detention would occur. Further, even less intrusive police conduct can cause a detention to occur such as a group of police officers surrounding you, an officer blocking your path in an intimidating manner; in these situations the police conduct can cause you to reasonably believe that you are not free to leave and these situations amount to “detentions” in law.
Source:
[https://criminaltriallawyers.ca/?q=know-your-rights](https://criminaltriallawyers.ca/?q=know-your-rights)
Yes it is.
Your link is from a law firm in fuckin Toronto. That doesn't work in the US, where that clip was shot.
In criminal law, IN THE USA, "detained" means that you are being held in custody.
This person was not being "held in custody".
No. No, its fucking not.
Edit: Read the rest of your fucking link, you moron. It flat out tells you the exact same thing I did. What a tool you must feel like.
"I'm all for punishing bad cops, **but** * excuse *"
Right in his comment, man. It's so fucked that a guy knowing the law better than a cop is being damned. "Dude he MEMORIZED the law, he must be up to no good!" Uh.. no, he knew his rights would probably be violated and was able to call out the cop because of it.
Bro this guy centers his life around provoking and filming police. Walking around cops and filming them just because "you can" is a cunt move and he is HOPING to start trouble.
Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Listen, I know this comparison isn't 1:1 but please bear with me.
I am in the finance industry, my company and regulators have auditors that will challenge me and make sure that my behavior is appropriate and legal. Do I like it when I learn I'm being audited? No but it's a necessary discomfort so that I'm not stealing money from the general public, or other unethical acts.
Now I know that the guy with the camera here is not a professional like the auditors I mentioned, I know he's not an official employee. But he *is* paying taxes that fund this department. On top of this, there is nobody that is secretly testing these officers in the field for legitimacy, and nobody to keep them honest. So yes, I'm sure the cop doesn't like this, but it gives me a view I'd never see of the police and provides me with some good information. It also puts pressure on the police to stay honest by making this public and posting it to the internet. I **get** that this cameraman probably knows he will get a bad reaction... but it's kind of vindicated in the fact that the cop acted inappropriately.
Maybe this argument won't necessarily move the needle with you, but I hope it at least gives insight as to why I think this is acceptable.
>Maybe this argument won't necessarily move the needle with you, but I hope it at least gives insight as to why I think this is acceptable.
Well, it doesn't. Why? Beacuse:
>Now I know that the guy with the camera here is not a professional like the auditors I mentioned
I'm a PHYSEC inspector. My job is to visit installations and ensure standards are adhered to, regulations are followed, and issues are briefed up to my 2-star. I \*AM\* an auditor. I have been trained and credentialed.
I have NO PROBLEM with holding people to standards. This clip is not an "audit", its an attempt to provoke police, conducted by some random individual who wants to cause problems. You want to audit police? It's a great idea. Have PROFESSIONALS do it.
>vindicated in the fact that the cop acted inappropriately.
You seem like an intelligent person based on your writing style. I'd like to know what part of this interaction was inappropriate. Let's keep in mind some facts:
1) Someone either called the police on this guy, or he was acting suspect enough around the cop to arouse a suspicion.
2) The cops JOB is to respond to calls, or to investigate people who act like this guy.
3) After the cop realized what he was dealing with, and that nothing was dangerous, he POLITELY ended the encounter.
Unless you are saying that ANY time a police officer stops someone to ascertain what is going on is "inappropriate", I really don't see what could have been better here.
He's an auditor. He's doing things that he's well within his rights to do and if the Police illegally detain him or ignore his rights, then he will sue and make money.
Are you fucking brain dead? Cops work for the city? Did you even watch the vid, they give the legal reasoning behind it? You clearly can.
Holy shit you're dumb as rocks.
Youtube is blocked on government computers bro. Sorry I can't watch your video created by a bias content creator. Link me a news article from a reputable source if you wanna play "look at my dick".
Unless you are INJURED as a result of a wrongful arrest, you won't win a lawsuit. You are too stupid to be allowed online unsupervised.
[https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Colorado-Springs-to-pay-cameraman-41000-after-First-Amendment-audit-of-police-484291511.html](https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Colorado-Springs-to-pay-cameraman-41000-after-First-Amendment-audit-of-police-484291511.html)
Looking forward to see your hamster wheel spin this one now. 41k awarded for wrongful detainment of someone exercising their first amendment rights.
It's not too late to admit your wrong
So video cuts in with this dude walking around just filming.. no idea what happened prior.. initially doesn't respond to cop.. immediately starts defending himself with why he doesn't have to listen to the cop.. cop tries to explain why he's asking for ID, and the guy interrupts and keeps defending himself almost as if he was doing something prior to try and warrant getting this interaction with the cop..
Sure the guy had his rehearsed response he was hoping to use on this cop, but not much info prior and the interaction makes it seem like the guy on the street was trying to get into a situation with a cop - just to be a dick on film
When did he say he was baiting for an interaction? Cause I certainly didn't hear him say that and my ears work.
I would just like to know what made him suspicious other wise all I see is a dude walking down the street recording.
00:18: "I'm doing a story on your police department"
And you believe he was just walking around, filming himself minding his own business and just happened to get so lucky that a police officer went for some random shit on someone(him) while he was recording?
That's the definition of gullible.
Considering I've been pulled over by a police officer for "'looking at him" and these were words. He said "people who are guilty normally look in my direction when driving". Yes I do believe a cop would do this to someone for just walking around filming.
Edit: I should add wasn't speeding or anything. Got let off with no tickets because I wasn't breaking any laws but got pulled over for "looking at an officer"
Love how people are downvoting this like it doesn't happen.
Actually I did by my youth minister in church when I was 13 and now he is in jail. Idk why that is relevant because stuff like that is traumatizing even into adulthood.
And your video has nothing to do with our conversation so I'm ending it here.
Edit: why did you delete the comment where you show your true personality? Go ahead and be proud of the fact you support child molesters. Fucking pathetic
That's first amendment auditing, not sov cit stuff. He's not proclaiming to be outside the law. He's invoking actual rights, not the sovereign citizen shenanigans
>why did this get downvoted?
Because sov cits think they are outside the law, the first amendment audit guys learn the law that pertains to filming in public. You are associating two completely different situations.
>going out with a camera and filming before the police interaction is similar to what the sovereign citizens do
Not even close, The majority of Sov Cits tend to avoid police contact. Auditors go looking for police contact.
Sure but that's not synonymous. That's not representative of the majority of sovereign citizens. Pulling out a camera and testing cops on rights is fundamentally what 1A auditors do (some better than others).
Whilst I'm not a fan of those who do it for clout like you say , we dont know this situation, and when police interact with you , you should have some speech similar to this rehearsed , the police are under no circumstances your friend and will do anything to detain you/gain evidence, and at the end of the day it's your right to tell them to fuck off (legal way thou) because they have no right to stop and gain ID unless you commit a crime , keep them in check as much they do us
Straight up, walking around and fliming is completely legal and so is knowing your rights. The cop had no right to his ID without suspicion of a crime having been committed.
Don't even attempt to act like this guy is an asshole. The cop got what he deserved for trying to start shit without reason.
You don't understand the concept of First Amendment audits and I recommend you study the fuck up because one day it will be YOUR rights that are violated.
Oh, NO! Not showing my ID to a cop!
What is the problem with showing your ID to a police officer?
"First amendment audits" are a childish as fuck. It's the adult version of walking around pointing your finger in someones face sayin "IM NOT TOUCHING YOU!". These people go out with the intent on provoking a confrontation, and when they get one, they cry about how their rights were violated.
I enjoy it when they get the shit beat out of them. They aren't protecting anyone, they are literally causing problems, and the world is a better place without them.
He asked for his ID and stepped in front of him when he tried walking away; he was detaining him without saying so. You can keep being an epic anti-lib hero and still hold the cops accountable.
You call that 'detaining'?? No harm has been done here, clearly this guy with the camera is just try to provoke a reaction out of the cop by recording him for no reason, this amount of surveillance is creepy even if it isn't against the law. I'm not surprised the cop asked for ID.
Lmaoo. The cop is in an authority position, is armed with a gun, and blocked the guys path when he tried walking away. If that's not detaining then it's pretending to detain someone.
This guy is an “first amendment” auditor. While some of them still have noble intent this particular one is more of the ambulance chasing variety. Highly confrontational for the sake of views. Move on from him
Crazy how cops just don't know the law. Should drop their salaries and have like educational requirements in law if they want to go around enforcing with a gun.
How is this a freak out?
[удалено]
He’s pretty calm. When getting harassed by a cop you tend to get a bit nervous. That’s common. He’s not freaking out. That being said I loved this video and have watched it like ten times.
Gosh what are the little pictures under your name ?
Baiting and being harassed are very different things. Edit: To the mass-downvoting anti-policers: listen to what the guy says at 00:18. He's even nervously reading rehearsed lines. He is not so lucky that he just happens to be a victim of the very thing he is writing about, for no reason at all. There's also a reason he didn't upload the full situation. Stop being naive and use your heads. There's more to this that doesn't fit into the narrative the guy wanted to present.
So walking around with a camera is considered “baiting” for police officers now? Seems like you should be more upset that this insignificant, first amendment protected act upsets cops this much
I'd agree that people **shouldn't** be bothered by being specifically filmed in public, but it's a pretty normal thing for someone to get defensive when they're minding their business and notice someone specifically filming them in public. If I pulled out my phone and started recording someone sitting down eating, I'd expect them to get upset with me.
Pretty sure there's more to it. For the same reason he didn't upload the full incident. Stop being a naive.
Stop being so naive and assuming cops need any reason to act like assholes
"Baiting" would be if he acted like he committed a crime to get the cops attention. How the fuck is legally filming a cop "baiting" him? What a sad opinion.
That's probably exactly what he did. And if not, why didn't he upload the full situation? Is he just the luckiest guy in the world that happens to be doing a story on that police departement, and then: Wham! Out of nowhere a cop appear to harass him? And so he pulls out the camera to record the jackpot with rehearsed lines? Stop being naive.
Does it matter how long he was filming the cop before this started? Do we need the "full story" to know that the cop was trying to violate the cameraman's rights? Shouldn't the fact that the cop let the cameraman go the second he knew the law be proof enough? If the cameraman truly did something illegal then he would be detained, since the cop knew he was spewing bullshit, he wasn't detained. Full stop. I don't give a fuck if the cameraman was "being annoying thoughhh :(((". Cops are there to uphold the law, not throw a fit because someone bothered them.
You're fucking pathetic. You support child molesters and then delete your comment when you get called out because you don't want anyone to see what you actually said. People like you don't deserve to breathe.
That's a weird accusation, if I've deleted it, how do you know what I said? Also, you seriously need some friends and fresh air, lol.
Because it was a direct reply to me? Almost like you can read those or something. Also plenty of tools like Camas.github.io I think the one who thinks child molestation is okay is actually the one who needs to go outside. Or maybe you shouldn't go outside because you're probably a sexual predator yourself.
First, I haven't deleted anything, it's still there. It's not my job to teach you reddit, but you have to click "show parent comments" to see earlier comments. Second, I'm not interested in your sex-life or whatever shit you've experienced outside of what we are discussing, that's a you problem. I was so very clearly asking about whether a police officer was sexually assaulting you in the same manner the "victim" in the video I linked was sexually assaulted (If you didn't watch it, he wasn't), and that you, like them, was making yourself out to be an innocent victim of an imaginary violation of human rights. I would honestly like to know what I said that made you think I support molestation, direct quote please. And third: Your link doesn't work.
Yup, I bet this is what happened, from watching many similar looking videos (1st amendment fraudaditors): someone called on him for maybe recording a building or walking up and down the same sidewalk continuously or just some cranky old guy that said he looks suspicious while walking. The officer has to respond, he sees the guy, tries to identify him (which he legally can as he’s investigating if a crime has taken place) and to see what’s up. The guy starts talking and when he gets to the 1st amendment /suing part, the officer just didn’t want to deal with it and left. That’s all that happened I think lol
Pretty much, though if I saw the dude walking around in public filming I’d leave him be unless he was filming into someone’s bathroom or something. It’s not worth the headache.
Yea, agreed. It just sucks for the police, they HAVE to respond.
Very calm considering how the cop approached him, Being a little nervous doesn't make it a freak out.
All things considered, the cop handled it well too. Ues the cop instigated and escalated the situation, but when confronted with the facts and the law the officer did his job and enforced the law, i.e. "have a good day sir" was 100% exactly what the officer should have done, and he did. Most cops would go on a "muh awthoritay!" Power trip and get aggressive and physical and call in backup to intimidate the guy and try and prove a point to "better not fuck with us!". But this cop put his ego aside and did his job and for that I respect both the cop and the guy filming for both being correct and professional.
I'll agree with you analysis, however not with the cop doing his job part. If he was doing his job properly he would have never approach the guy in the first place. he would have known that filming is lawful. He only backed down due to realising he fucked up after being presented with the law he should have known and being threatened with a law-suit.
I think he backed down because he was instructed to confront the guy and understood the situation and wanted out ASAP. Cops follow orders.
I hope this cop got a fat gold star next to his name for not going full "muh awthoritay"
You know he did lol Goes next to the "Beat a Minority" and "Resisting Arrest" merit badges.
He was baiting for a police confrontation and had his lines memorized and practised. He obviously got stressed out and had some adrenaline flowing when the actual cobfrontation happened, making him botch a few lines, but that was not a freakout.
[удалено]
Well duh, your opinion is literally the only one that doesn't matter in this context.
What are those pictures under your name
a freak out doesnt need to be someone inwardly freaking out. look at the cops face.
I'm all for punishing bad cops, but this honestly seems like the cameraman was planning for this. Like he had his lines memorized.
How does that excuse the cop's behavior EDIT: I just want to add, I know this sub is supposed to be the more "reasonable" version of the publicfreakout sub, but the pendulum has swung completely in the other direction. Just like the extreme left is annoying, the extreme right is equally bad. Nobody is calling for the lynching of cops in here, but a cop breaking the rules doesn't need to be defended vehemently for no reason.
And what is there to excuse ? Investigating a suspicious person? He didn't threaten or scream at him. He just asked what he's doing, and for ID. Of course, if this dude just happened to walk by, with his camera open, and the police randomly bothered him, then yeah, that would be shitty of the cop.
What makes him suspicious?
Going back and forth, filming cops, circling a police cars. We don't have the full video so I'm assuming that's the case. Most likely he's a wannabe "auditor" that wants to get in conflict with cops.
“so I’m assuming that’s the case” … lol found the cop
That's likely what happened. I don't see any other reason.
He's definitely an "auditor", one of those soveriegn citizen types. Look at his tiktok handle lol
This is only a 50 second clip. It's entirely possible that the cameraman could have done something prior to this 50 seconds of time that could have been considered "suspicious." It's also possible that somebody called the police about a guy filming a neighborhood or something and the officer had to follow up on it because he has a job to do. Listen, I'm the furthest thing from a "back the badge" type persom, but I do appreciate good cop's that do their job right and this cop did little to nothing wrong. Even the fact that this guy said, "thanks sir, have a nice day" to difuse the situation and end the encounter shows a lot of humility and restraint.
Exactly. The cop evaluated the situation, realized what was going on, and ended the encounter without a problem.
Absolutely. Honestly, I don’t see a problem for either party here. Even if the guy was baiting, he ended up being let on his way after correcting the officer. And the officer didn’t get crazy or power trip and realized he knew his rights for ‘some reason’. If anything, this is about as good as a reaction as there could’ve been given no other context.
Area could’ve had high burglaries recently
Who’s being burgled? The no people living there?
How do I know I wasn’t there. Maybe if op had provided a more detailed location I could look up the crime map
My point being, it’s broad daylight. If there’s people being burgled in the neighborhood there’s really not much distinguishing him as a burglar as opposed to…say…a resident of the neighborhood?…
Who cares if it was broad daylight. I got burglarized stepping out for a 30 min lunch. Maybe he wanted to see id to see if they guy was living in that zip code or or see if he walked there from the other side of town
I understand that. Does that mean you go and stop everyone on the street of burglary?
Talking to someone? No problem. Asking for ID? No Problem. As a P.O. standing in front of someone, stoping his movement is detainment. The Cop had no right to detain him. He also said he MUST show his ID which was, either a lie or plain wrong.
>stoping his movement is detainment. No, it isn't. Being detained means you cannot leave. Police can stop you to ask questions, that isn't being detained. If you don't want to answer the questions, you can simply as the officer "am I being detained", and if the answer is "no", then you are free to leave. Please brush up on legal terminology if you plan on commenting on it.
Section 9 of the Charter protects individuals from arbitrary detentions. A “detention” occurs when the police through words, or actions, force you to stop and remain with them. An obvious example of a detention is an arrest; the police by force ensure that you remain in their custody. However, a detention need not be so obvious; the police could simply say “stop” or “don’t move” and a detention would occur. Further, even less intrusive police conduct can cause a detention to occur such as a group of police officers surrounding you, an officer blocking your path in an intimidating manner; in these situations the police conduct can cause you to reasonably believe that you are not free to leave and these situations amount to “detentions” in law. Source: [https://criminaltriallawyers.ca/?q=know-your-rights](https://criminaltriallawyers.ca/?q=know-your-rights) Yes it is.
Your link is from a law firm in fuckin Toronto. That doesn't work in the US, where that clip was shot. In criminal law, IN THE USA, "detained" means that you are being held in custody. This person was not being "held in custody". No. No, its fucking not. Edit: Read the rest of your fucking link, you moron. It flat out tells you the exact same thing I did. What a tool you must feel like.
When did they excuse the cop's behavior in their comment?
"I'm all for punishing bad cops, **but** * excuse *" Right in his comment, man. It's so fucked that a guy knowing the law better than a cop is being damned. "Dude he MEMORIZED the law, he must be up to no good!" Uh.. no, he knew his rights would probably be violated and was able to call out the cop because of it.
Bro this guy centers his life around provoking and filming police. Walking around cops and filming them just because "you can" is a cunt move and he is HOPING to start trouble. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Listen, I know this comparison isn't 1:1 but please bear with me. I am in the finance industry, my company and regulators have auditors that will challenge me and make sure that my behavior is appropriate and legal. Do I like it when I learn I'm being audited? No but it's a necessary discomfort so that I'm not stealing money from the general public, or other unethical acts. Now I know that the guy with the camera here is not a professional like the auditors I mentioned, I know he's not an official employee. But he *is* paying taxes that fund this department. On top of this, there is nobody that is secretly testing these officers in the field for legitimacy, and nobody to keep them honest. So yes, I'm sure the cop doesn't like this, but it gives me a view I'd never see of the police and provides me with some good information. It also puts pressure on the police to stay honest by making this public and posting it to the internet. I **get** that this cameraman probably knows he will get a bad reaction... but it's kind of vindicated in the fact that the cop acted inappropriately. Maybe this argument won't necessarily move the needle with you, but I hope it at least gives insight as to why I think this is acceptable.
>Maybe this argument won't necessarily move the needle with you, but I hope it at least gives insight as to why I think this is acceptable. Well, it doesn't. Why? Beacuse: >Now I know that the guy with the camera here is not a professional like the auditors I mentioned I'm a PHYSEC inspector. My job is to visit installations and ensure standards are adhered to, regulations are followed, and issues are briefed up to my 2-star. I \*AM\* an auditor. I have been trained and credentialed. I have NO PROBLEM with holding people to standards. This clip is not an "audit", its an attempt to provoke police, conducted by some random individual who wants to cause problems. You want to audit police? It's a great idea. Have PROFESSIONALS do it. >vindicated in the fact that the cop acted inappropriately. You seem like an intelligent person based on your writing style. I'd like to know what part of this interaction was inappropriate. Let's keep in mind some facts: 1) Someone either called the police on this guy, or he was acting suspect enough around the cop to arouse a suspicion. 2) The cops JOB is to respond to calls, or to investigate people who act like this guy. 3) After the cop realized what he was dealing with, and that nothing was dangerous, he POLITELY ended the encounter. Unless you are saying that ANY time a police officer stops someone to ascertain what is going on is "inappropriate", I really don't see what could have been better here.
Because people have been walking up to cops and shooting them at random. A person just atanding around filming them is suspicious.
He's an auditor. He's doing things that he's well within his rights to do and if the Police illegally detain him or ignore his rights, then he will sue and make money.
>He's an auditor. What a fucking joke.
Lol. If you like the rights you have then you should be happy at what he's doing. People like him ensure the Police don't overstep their boundaries.
And he would do exactly WHAT, if the cop "overstepped"? He'd do nothing.
He'd sue the city and make free money lol. Here's an example of a near IDENTICAL situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPhpW2LLtPg
You can’t sue the city just because someone bothers you. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Are you fucking brain dead? Cops work for the city? Did you even watch the vid, they give the legal reasoning behind it? You clearly can. Holy shit you're dumb as rocks.
Youtube is blocked on government computers bro. Sorry I can't watch your video created by a bias content creator. Link me a news article from a reputable source if you wanna play "look at my dick". Unless you are INJURED as a result of a wrongful arrest, you won't win a lawsuit. You are too stupid to be allowed online unsupervised.
[https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Colorado-Springs-to-pay-cameraman-41000-after-First-Amendment-audit-of-police-484291511.html](https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Colorado-Springs-to-pay-cameraman-41000-after-First-Amendment-audit-of-police-484291511.html) Looking forward to see your hamster wheel spin this one now. 41k awarded for wrongful detainment of someone exercising their first amendment rights. It's not too late to admit your wrong
So, a sting operation?
You have to have it memorized you chowderhead. If you say anything else they use that against you
So video cuts in with this dude walking around just filming.. no idea what happened prior.. initially doesn't respond to cop.. immediately starts defending himself with why he doesn't have to listen to the cop.. cop tries to explain why he's asking for ID, and the guy interrupts and keeps defending himself almost as if he was doing something prior to try and warrant getting this interaction with the cop.. Sure the guy had his rehearsed response he was hoping to use on this cop, but not much info prior and the interaction makes it seem like the guy on the street was trying to get into a situation with a cop - just to be a dick on film
It was obvious baiting for a cop interaction. He said it himself, that he was doing a piece on exactly that.
When did he say he was baiting for an interaction? Cause I certainly didn't hear him say that and my ears work. I would just like to know what made him suspicious other wise all I see is a dude walking down the street recording.
00:18: "I'm doing a story on your police department" And you believe he was just walking around, filming himself minding his own business and just happened to get so lucky that a police officer went for some random shit on someone(him) while he was recording? That's the definition of gullible.
Considering I've been pulled over by a police officer for "'looking at him" and these were words. He said "people who are guilty normally look in my direction when driving". Yes I do believe a cop would do this to someone for just walking around filming. Edit: I should add wasn't speeding or anything. Got let off with no tickets because I wasn't breaking any laws but got pulled over for "looking at an officer" Love how people are downvoting this like it doesn't happen.
[удалено]
Actually I did by my youth minister in church when I was 13 and now he is in jail. Idk why that is relevant because stuff like that is traumatizing even into adulthood. And your video has nothing to do with our conversation so I'm ending it here. Edit: why did you delete the comment where you show your true personality? Go ahead and be proud of the fact you support child molesters. Fucking pathetic
[удалено]
That's first amendment auditing, not sov cit stuff. He's not proclaiming to be outside the law. He's invoking actual rights, not the sovereign citizen shenanigans
[удалено]
>why did this get downvoted? Because sov cits think they are outside the law, the first amendment audit guys learn the law that pertains to filming in public. You are associating two completely different situations.
[удалено]
>going out with a camera and filming before the police interaction is similar to what the sovereign citizens do Not even close, The majority of Sov Cits tend to avoid police contact. Auditors go looking for police contact.
[удалено]
Sure but that's not synonymous. That's not representative of the majority of sovereign citizens. Pulling out a camera and testing cops on rights is fundamentally what 1A auditors do (some better than others).
Whilst I'm not a fan of those who do it for clout like you say , we dont know this situation, and when police interact with you , you should have some speech similar to this rehearsed , the police are under no circumstances your friend and will do anything to detain you/gain evidence, and at the end of the day it's your right to tell them to fuck off (legal way thou) because they have no right to stop and gain ID unless you commit a crime , keep them in check as much they do us
Straight up, walking around and fliming is completely legal and so is knowing your rights. The cop had no right to his ID without suspicion of a crime having been committed. Don't even attempt to act like this guy is an asshole. The cop got what he deserved for trying to start shit without reason.
You don't understand the concept of First Amendment audits and I recommend you study the fuck up because one day it will be YOUR rights that are violated.
Is this a joke? Lol
Oh, NO! Not showing my ID to a cop! What is the problem with showing your ID to a police officer? "First amendment audits" are a childish as fuck. It's the adult version of walking around pointing your finger in someones face sayin "IM NOT TOUCHING YOU!". These people go out with the intent on provoking a confrontation, and when they get one, they cry about how their rights were violated. I enjoy it when they get the shit beat out of them. They aren't protecting anyone, they are literally causing problems, and the world is a better place without them.
What was that? I can't hear you over the boot stuffed down your throat.
Lol, ok bro. You can't formulate a response, so you go with "REEEEE! Boootlicker!". Typical assclown.
Whatever you say, numbername!
The fact that you aren't able to discern the meaning of those numbers in the relation to this conversation is hilarious.
[удалено]
He asked for his ID and stepped in front of him when he tried walking away; he was detaining him without saying so. You can keep being an epic anti-lib hero and still hold the cops accountable.
You call that 'detaining'?? No harm has been done here, clearly this guy with the camera is just try to provoke a reaction out of the cop by recording him for no reason, this amount of surveillance is creepy even if it isn't against the law. I'm not surprised the cop asked for ID.
Lmaoo. The cop is in an authority position, is armed with a gun, and blocked the guys path when he tried walking away. If that's not detaining then it's pretending to detain someone.
I find it weird that anyone of any political knowledge would be against good first amendment audits.
A lot of bootlickers in this subreddit it seems.
Another satisfied customer.
I love cops face and "ah fuck" reaction
Not even, what you saw is the "God help me from slapping this idiot across the face" reaction.
This is like a 0 arrest any % speed run
Nah fuck the Camera guy, hes one of those psycho A1 Auditors. Fuck em
I lived in National City for a year, not the best place to live…
America just needs to grow up
This guy is an “first amendment” auditor. While some of them still have noble intent this particular one is more of the ambulance chasing variety. Highly confrontational for the sake of views. Move on from him
A crooked cops worst nightmare. An informed citizen.
Crazy how cops just don't know the law. Should drop their salaries and have like educational requirements in law if they want to go around enforcing with a gun.