What are First Amendment Auditors?

[Bigdtc]

Since this hasn't been applied to Maryland, it is not settled law in Maryland as is a 5th Circuit decision. Problem is, there is no law in Maryland against videoing the police. Why would doing so need to be decided by a court. The 1st amendment is enough. Maryland Sucks.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Since this hasn't been applied to Maryland, it is not settled law in Maryland as is a 5th Circuit decision. Problem is, there is no law in Maryland against videoing the police. Why would doing so need to be decided by a court. The 1st amendment is enough. Maryland Sucks.

Ripe for the Supremes to settle the circuit split .

 

[TheBert]

Interesting view point. But, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. There is no law restricting a person from jumping off of their own roof but, it's just not a good idea because the person may break both their legs or die. Sure, you can video tape it and monetize it but, eh... Is it a good idea exercising that right?

Some things shouldn't be done because they are just not smart or nice. No one would like a person standing in front of their house in the roadway, albeit on public property, video taping your house. Rightly, you would be concerned. Also, being an annoyance and provoking a person to violence is two vastly different things.

As far as thoughts and feelings, it is certainly reasonable to contend that thoughts and feelings does not infringe on constitutionality however, thoughts and feelings of the framers of the constitution is what resulted in the constitution being written. If the framers didn't have thoughts and feelings about their country and protections from England, they would have never drafted such a document.

Although these auditors may believe that they are providing some type of constitutional service, or gain notoriety, monetize their feeds, and create civil law suits, there is also the extraordinary hazard of coming across a person with legitimate mental issues. If they approach the wrong person that person could erupt resulting in a deadly outcome. Getting in someone's face who suffers from PTSD may not have the outcome they desire. What do you think?

Anything that is not explicitly identified as illegal can and should be performed at anytime.

What is the difference between a 1A auditor and a 2A auditor? The 1A auditor uses a camera and the 2A auditor uses arms and should use a camera too.

 

[Bigdtc]

Ripe for the Supremes to settle the circuit split .

Never thought about that. Problem is, most of these things go through court as minor violations which are dropped somewhere in appeals then settled civilly afterwards. And oftentimes the incidents get buried in the civil suit because they usually cant talk about it. Even though it's a civil rights issue at it's core, how do you get a loitering charge trespassing arrest to The Supreme Court?

 

[Biggfoot44]

Never thought about that. Problem is, most of these things go through court as minor violations which are dropped somewhere in appeals then settled civilly afterwards. And oftentimes the incidents get buried in the civil suit because they usually cant talk about it. Even though it's a civil rights issue at it's core, how do you get a loitering charge trespassing arrest to The Supreme Court?

My post was particularly focused on Turner v Driver , establishing the Right to film Police in public .

 

[md77]

IMO many of the auditors are worse than the sovereign nitwitizens because they go out to create drama so they can get paid for their YouTube videos. There are some legit ones, but the numbers are slight.

Standing outside a business on a public sidewalk and filming workers and customers so the police will get called and they can spend an hour trying to egg the officers on enough to create a confrontation serves nobody except the youtuber.

Poster 7 is a great example, it states on it that you can only film inside with the permission of the head of the facility. Now I went to public school but that is still easy to dissect, it means if they don't give you permission, you can't. Sure you can stand outside a school or playground and film kids, it isn't illegal. It is kind of creepy and pervy and you should expect people to call the pice and for the police to show up. Are they going to ask for ID, of course. Did they ask to violate your rights or to find out if you are prohibited because you are a registered sex offender? What would you want the police to do if a creepy old man was filming your kids on the playground? Should dispatchers just say, "...nope, we aren't sending officers because people can film wherever they want," or should officers say, "...nope we aren't going there, it's only a guy filming kids, no big deal."

I guess my point is it draws police away from calls for service that are generally more important. What is the end game? Do enough of these that you finally find an officer who has just cleared a call after a few hours with a car wreck where a family was killed by a drunk and harass them until they do or say something they may not have any other day. Then call him some sh1tty names and accuse him of being a naz1 hoping he will react and you can get a billion views or hopefully win a lawsuit? Ok. I changed my mind, they are great people in search of truth.

 

[TI-tick]

IMO many of the auditors are worse than the sovereign nitwitizens because they go out to create drama so they can get paid for their YouTube videos. There are some legit ones, but the numbers are slight. Standing outside a business on a public sidewalk and filming workers and customers so the police will get called and they can spend an hour trying to egg the officers on enough to create a confrontation serves nobody except the youtuber. Poster 7 is a great example, it states on it that you can only film inside with the permission of the head of the facility. Now I went to public school but that is still easy to dissect, it means if they don't give you permission, you can't. Sure you can stand outside a school or playground and film kids, it isn't illegal. It is kind of creepy and pervy and you should expect people to call the pice and for the police to show up. Are they going to ask for ID, of course. Did they ask to violate your rights or to find out if you are prohibited because you are a registered sex offender? What would you want the police to do if a creepy old man was filming your kids on the playground? Should dispatchers just say, "...nope, we aren't sending officers because people can film wherever they want," or should officers say, "...nope we aren't going there, it's only a guy filming kids, no big deal." I guess my point is it draws police away from calls for service that are generally more important. What is the end game? Do enough of these that you finally find an officer who has just cleared a call after a few hours with a car wreck where a family was killed by a drunk and harass them until they do or say something they may not have any other day. Then call him some sh1tty names and accuse him of being a naz1 hoping he will react and you can get a billion views or hopefully win a lawsuit? Ok. I changed my mind, they are great people in search of truth.

L:

O:

L:

At this post.

 

[Abuck]

L:

O:

L:

At this post.

BCOS

 

[TI-tick]

BCOS

Try.
Some.
Punctuation.
And.
Spacing.

I'm no expert but JFC!

LOL

 

[Abuck]

Photography is allowed in public areas. It is not allowed in restricted areas. There is a reason a lot of these auditors are allowed to remain. Some police, post masters, and postal police actually know the law. WE, and they, are citizen journalists.

“Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes
Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corri- dors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local Postmaster or installation head.”

https://about.usps.com/posters/pos7.pdf

FYI, as I mentioned before about jurisdiction, in a lot of these older post offices your local LEO don’t have any. I’m sure they can enforce felony violations, but for basic trespassing or other misdemeanors, nope. This is another way they get jammed up legally.

If I were an LEO, I’d be watching some of these interactions and learning what is or isn’t a civil rights violation. It seems it is not being taught, or explained to them. That is a disservice to the officers that try and stay on this side of the law. The ones that don’t care can pound sand. With all due respect.

 

[Abuck]

Try.
Some.
Punctuation.
And.
Spacing.

I'm no expert but JFC!

LOL

Battered.
Camera.
Owner.
Syndrome.

Ok?

Lol

 

[Bigdtc]

Battered.
Camera.
Owner.
Syndrome.

Ok?

Lol

 

[TI-tick]

Battered.
Camera.
Owner.
Syndrome.

Ok?

Lol

LOL on the films of these idiots that are not on youtube.
The one's where they look like what they are in real life.

Peace

 

[md77]

Try.
Some.
Punctuation.
And.
Spacing.

I'm no expert but JFC!

LOL

Punctuation is all those small marks that don't look like letters.

You are right about the whole lack of paragraphs thing.

 

[Kman]

I haven't paid attention to them, but the youtube videos are pervasive and hard to ignore.
You'd think departments would educate officers. Cops have to respond to a call of a man with a camera on a public sidewalk. Fine, send one cop with information of what is constitutionally protected. He can see that the bear poker is on a sidewalk with a camera. No crime observed. Remind the bear poker of limits, tell the caller to calm the fvck down and it's legal and drive away.
No need to lean on the bear poker for ID and call half the fvcking department to the scene with lights and threats for 90 minutes just to leave and accomplish nothing.
The bear poker didn't waste cop time and resources, the Karen citizen and the cops did.

 

[Bigdtc]

I haven't paid attention to them, but the youtube videos are pervasive and hard to ignore.
You'd think departments would educate officers. Cops have to respond to a call of a man with a camera on a public sidewalk. Fine, send one cop woth information of what is constitutionally protected. He van see that the bear poker is on a sidewalk with a camera. No crime observed. Remind the bear poker of limits, tell the caller to calm the fvck down and it's legal and drive away.
No need to lean on the bear poker for ID and call half the fvcking department to the scene with lights and threats for 90 minutes just to leave and accomplish nothing.
The bear poker didn't waste cop time and resources, the Karen citizen and the cops did.

Would your assessment be the same if the "bear poker" is a legal open carrier? They audit too.

 

[Kman]

Would your assessment be the same if the "bear poker" is a legal open carrier? They audit too.

Sure. Why not?
Legal is legal, not subject to bunched up panties.

 

[Bigdtc]

Sure. Why not?
Legal is legal, not subject to bunched up panties.

Gotcha, thanks.

 

[Abuck]

Since this hasn't been applied to Maryland, it is not settled law in Maryland as is a 5th Circuit decision. Problem is, there is no law in Maryland against videoing the police. Why would doing so need to be decided by a court. The 1st amendment is enough. Maryland Sucks.

Baltimore officially recognized it as legal in 2014.

New policy says public has right to film Md. officers

The Baltimore Police Department has instituted a new policy that prohibits officers from stopping people from taping or photographing police actions

www.police1.com

There IS precedent in MD that recording public, on-the-job communications of police is legal. Here is the infamous motorcyclist case.

Wrongful Charges Dropped Against Motorcyclist Prosecuted for Videotaping Encounter with Police | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

There was also this;
“On July 7, 2010, the Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler released an opinion advising a state legislator that, contrary to the claims of Harford County State's Attorney Joseph Cassilly, a traffic stop is not an instance where a police officer can claim a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

Maryland v. Graber - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I think that ship has sailed for police expecting privacy in public.

 

[slsc98]

What are First Amendment Auditors?

Do you agree with first amendment auditors? Why or why not?

LOL, what is capsaicin? Better yet, what is the Scoville scale? Sounds like First Amendment Auditors - who “cross the line of societal norms and / or personal space” - might also be volunteers for testing the effectiveness of pepper spray at close range.

Maybe.

Preferably color-dyed pepper spray.

Definitely.

As to the second question, “Heck yeah!” Cuz I have interest in more than one pepper spray vendor.