Videos of people "auditing" the police.

[JoeMoma]

These auditors are filming mainly government functions. Those are the people we have the most right to watch. We pay their salary. Ya, not a good idea filming other people's kids that is a different story. As far as I am concerned most these auditors are performing a service to us. Some of these videos are not auditors they are filming chance encounters with the police where the police are abusing their power. Videos are the best way to keep this in check. Where I spend most my time right now the cops do a good job and are reasonable to deal with. How ever when I spent a lot of time in Columbus Ohio those ass holes were power tripping ass holes. Surprised we don't see more videos from there.

Yes, my example of videoing children is a bit extreme. That said, many of the auditors are purposely trying to provoke a response from LE. Sometimes the auditors go a bit too far IMO, even if it is within their legal rights to do so. They are not really there to simply film the location as much as they are there to goat some cop into making a bad decision.

 

[JoeMoma]

they can "want" all they want too,,

freedom doesnt come easy,,

And I would be a major asshole if I were to actually do what I described.

 

[fncceo]

filming in public cant be determined to be disturbing people since its a 1st A protected activity

If a police officer reasonably believes an offense has been committed. In this case, the offense of disturbing the police, give the police officer the right, under law, to detain you for the purposes of getting your identity.

Now, let's say you don't agree with that (or you don't believe it is reasonable). Then, you have two choices. You can A) comply and make a complaint later. Or B) resist and face charges for resisting (as well as the original offense).

Either choice, you will be lawfully arrested.

If you make the decision to complain. You can bring a charge to court and let the judge decide -- not if you had the right to photograph -- if you could reasonably be said to be disturbing the peace. But, you can't accomplish that without originally complying with the police officer who detains you.

The problem with auditors / sovereign citizens (besides not really knowing the law) is that they believe they can resolve the issue solely by non-compliance. Sometimes, that will work. Sometimes the officer will be busy and their only goal is to get you to stop doing whatever it is you're doing. Just having the right to arrest you doesn't mean a police officer has to (unless you have committed a felony).

 

[progressive hunter]

If a police officer reasonably believes an offense has been committed. In this case, the offense of disturbing the police, give the police officer the right, under law, to detain you for the purposes of getting your identity.

Now, let's say you don't agree with that (or you don't believe it is reasonable). Then, you have two choices. You can A) comply and make a complaint later. Or B) resist and face charges for resisting (as well as the original offense).

Either choice, you will be lawfully arrested.

If you make the decision to complain. You can bring a charge to court and let the judge decide -- not if you had the right to photograph -- if you could reasonably be said to be disturbing the peace. But, you can't accomplish that without originally complying with the police officer who detains you.

The problem with auditors / sovereign citizens (besides not really knowing the law) is that they believe they can resolve the issue solely by non-compliance. Sometimes, that will work. Sometimes the officer will be busy and their only goal is to get you to stop doing whatever it is you're doing. Just having the right to arrest you doesn't mean a police officer has to (unless you have committed a felony).

he has to be able to articulate the crime in question,, and as SCOTUS said any 1st A protected activity can not be a probable cause for detainment,,

what you or I think doesnt mean shit,,

as for fighting it in court later that is a pipe dream for a person that can barely put food on the table and pay basic bills when that can cost in the tens of thousands,,
I say stand up for rights on the scene and get supervisors out there to put over reaching cops in check

 

[fncceo]

Perhaps part of a cops training should be the proper way to deal with an auditor that is trying to provoke him.

Believe me, this is part of your training. You will receive this type of scenario in academy training and on the street. What you don't see from these videos is the hundreds, or thousands, of times (there are millions of interactions between police and the public every day) where a person does try to provoke a cop and through knowledge and a calm demeanor, the auditor comes off looking like an idiot on the video.

Oddly enough, those videos don't get posted to YouTube. But, the are often captured on police body worn camera and make for interesting viewing.

 

[evenflow1969]

Yes, my example of videoing children is a bit extreme. That said, many of the auditors are purposely trying to provoke a response from LE. Sometimes the auditors go a bit too far IMO, even if it is within their legal rights to do so. They are not really there to simply film the location as much as they are there to goat some cop into making a bad decision.

The cops should know their jobs. We have to know ours.

 

[fncceo]

he has to be able to articulate the crime in question,, and as SCOTUS said any 1st A protected activity can not be a probable cause for detainment

The huge mistake that most auditors / sovereign citizens make is believing that a police interaction is a court of law. It isn't.

There is no requirement that a police officer convince you they are right in order to arrest you. They don't.

There is no requirement that a police officer engage in a legal argument with you in order to arrest you. They don't.

There is no requirement to seek approval from a supervising police officer in order to arrest you. There isn't.

No court expects a police officer to be a Constitutional lawyer.

The only requirement for a police officer to detain you in most circumstances is that he had a reasonable belief that you have committed an offense. Once a police officer has that reasonable belief, you can be legally detained.

In some circumstances, you can be detained without a reasonable suspicion, such as driving in a state that has "Implied Consent" laws. Those laws give police the right to stop you anytime you operate a motor vehicle on a public road.

Engaging in circular arguments or making a demand like, "I wasn't driving ... I was traveling" or, "Are you arresting me?" or, "I demand you call your sergeant", will only go on for so long before the police officer can reasonably say you failed to comply with his lawful order and use reasonable force to place you under arrest.

 

[JoeMoma]

If a police officer reasonably believes an offense has been committed. In this case, the offense of disturbing the police, give the police officer the right, under law, to detain you for the purposes of getting your identity.

Now, let's say you don't agree with that (or you don't believe it is reasonable). Then, you have two choices. You can A) comply and make a complaint later. Or B) resist and face charges for resisting (as well as the original offense).

Either choice, you will be lawfully arrested.

If you make the decision to complain. You can bring a charge to court and let the judge decide -- not if you had the right to photograph -- if you could reasonably be said to be disturbing the peace. But, you can't accomplish that without originally complying with the police officer who detains you.

The problem with auditors / sovereign citizens (besides not really knowing the law) is that they believe they can resolve the issue solely by non-compliance. Sometimes, that will work. Sometimes the officer will be busy and their only goal is to get you to stop doing whatever it is you're doing. Just having the right to arrest you doesn't mean a police officer has to (unless you have committed a felony).

I think many of these auditors are trying to get arrested. That said, cops often arrest people for "crimes" that they know will not stick. Arresting someone who is calmly and quieting videoing in a public area where there is no expectation of privacy would be quite a stretch of public disorderly conduct laws in and of itself. Is spending a night in jail worth it, even if the charges will be dropped?

 

[progressive hunter]

The huge mistake that most auditors / sovereign citizens make is believing that a police interaction is a court of law. It isn't.

There is no requirement that a police officer convince you they are right in order to arrest you. They don't.

There is no requirement that a police officer engage in a legal argument with you in order to arrest you. They don't.

There is no requirement to seek approval from a supervising police officer in order to arrest you. There isn't.

No court expects a police officer to be a Constitutional lawyer.

The only requirement for a police officer to detain you in most circumstances is that he had a reasonable belief that you have committed an offense. Once a police officer has that reasonable belief, you can be legally detained.

In some circumstances, you can be detained without a reasonable suspicion, such as driving in a state that has "Implied Consent" laws. Those laws give police the right to stop you anytime you operate a motor vehicle on a public road.

Engaging in circular arguments or making a demand like, "I wasn't driving ... I was traveling" or, "Are you arresting me?" or, "I demand you call your sergeant", will only go on for so long before the police officer can reasonably say you failed to comply with his lawful order and use reasonable force to place you under arrest.

how on gods green earth can you compare 1st A auditors to sovereign citizens???
those are opposite side of the spectrum,,

the rest of your rant is just that,,

 

[progressive hunter]

I think many of these auditors are trying to get arrested. That said, cops often arrest people for "crimes" that they know will not stick. Arresting someone who is calmly and quieting videoing in a public area where there is no expectation of privacy would be quite a stretch of public disorderly conduct laws in and of itself. Is spending a night in jail worth it, even if the charges will be dropped?

when charges are dropped law suits are made and payouts given at the tax payer expense,,

real 1st A auditors dont want to be arrested ,, but if they are and bad cops are taken off the streets its a win for freedom,,

 

[JoeMoma]

when charges are dropped law suits are made and payouts given at the tax payer expense,,

real 1st A auditors dont want to be arrested ,, but if they are and bad cops are taken off the streets its a win for freedom,,

Some of the auditors in the videos I've seen do want to be arrested IMO. It makes for more hits on their videos and has more potential for a payday law suite.

 

[fncceo]

Arresting someone who is calmly and quieting videoing in a public area where there is no expectation of privacy would be quite a stretch of public disorderly conduct laws in and of itself.

Yes, and this is where a cops judgement will come into play. There are cases where a cop, believing what is called "police presence" will work in his favor, will get himself into a situation where he is on shaky ground, legally speaking. The problem is, this will often work and later come back to bite them.

In this case, if there is someone filming children in a park and a police officer observes it, there really is no legal reason to stop that person. You could probably come up with one if you watched them long enough. But, no cop has the time to do that and a court would probably not consider that reasonable.

However, if you have a couple of calls from upset parents (cell phones work both ways), and police are responding to those calls, then it is reasonable to say that peace has been disturbed and you're on very strong footing to confirm the identity of all involved.

 

[progressive hunter]

Some of the auditors in the videos I've seen do want to be arrested IMO. It makes for more hits on their videos and has more potential for a payday law suite.

telling a cop to arrest them doesnt mean they want arrested,, its them challenging the cop to committ to what they know is wrong and in most cases it makes the cop shut up and walk away,,

 

[fncceo]

how on gods green earth can you compare 1st A auditors to sovereign citizens???
those are opposite side of the spectrum,,

the rest of your rant is just that,,

Actually, the use precisely the same tactics. They may have different motivations. But, from a tactical perspective, they are identical.

 

[progressive hunter]

Actually, the use precisely the same tactics. They may have different motivations. But, from a tactical perspective, they are identical.

I think youre a nut job that doesnt know what hes talking about,,

 

[fncceo]

I think youre a nut job that doesnt know what hes talking about,,

And that's fine. Like arguing with an auditor / sovereign citizen. Nothing is to be gained by allowing an argument to just spin its wheels.

I merely offer advice to any auditor / sovereign citizens who believe there are no consequences for continually attempting to goad police into a confrontation.

 

[progressive hunter]

And that's fine. Like arguing with an auditor / sovereign citizen. Nothing is to be gained by allowing an argument to just spin its wheels.

I merely offer advice to any auditor / sovereign citizens who believe there are no consequences for continually attempting to goad police into a confrontation.

save it spanky,,

you want to compare a group that thinks laws dont apply to them and want to avoid cops to a group that wants constitutional laws applied and want to interact with cops,,,

now go play with your dolls and leave the adults to talk,,

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why isn’t word out to all police about these guys?

When I first heard of this, I thought ‘assholes. I’m libertarian, but wait for real cases of police violating people’s rights, don’t try to create them. That’s no better than police entrapment.’

But then I saw show many police officers take a an immediate aggressive attitude toward a person breaking no law at all, just because “someone called.” The country seems divided between people who hate and want to defund police and people who love police no matter what. So cops immediately categorize everyone they meet into one of those.

The idea of a law-abiding taxpayer exercising their rights, for no other reason than to remind people that such rights exist seems completely alien to them. Some of them, such as Kern County Transparency, work in areas in which police know exactly what the auditors are doing and treat them exactly as the law requires. Guess what? There is no trouble in those interactions.

Too bad there is no way to do similar audits to FBI agents. Not sure what they would look like. A couple of people have tried it in front of FBI offices and the agents’ response has been to call local police hoping local police will violate the rights of the photographer.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, and this is where a cops judgement will come into play. There are cases where a cop, believing what is called "police presence" will work in his favor, will get himself into a situation where he is on shaky ground, legally speaking. The problem is, this will often work and later come back to bite them.

In this case, if there is someone filming children in a park and a police officer observes it, there really is no legal reason to stop that person. You could probably come up with one if you watched them long enough. But, no cop has the time to do that and a court would probably not consider that reasonable.

Nor should they find the time, with all the rapists and murderers that Democratic prosecutors are putting back on the streets. If they want to watch someone “in case” they commit a crime, one of those released criminals would be more productive.

However, if you have a couple of calls from upset parents (cell phones work both ways), and police are responding to those calls, then it is reasonable to say that peace has been disturbed and you're on very strong footing to confirm the identity of all involved.

Nope.

If I see you juggling oranges in the park and I think that is weird and that you shouldn’t be allowed to do it, you did not disturb the peace no matter how many times I and others called the police. They disturbed the peace by calling the police for no crime.

I have seen many officers threaten a photographer with a disturbing the peace arrest, but never once have they actually been arrested on that charge. If they ever were, it would never stick. Constitutionally protected activities are not “disturbing the peace,” because of the way people react to them.

If you want people arrested or stopped and identified for taking pictures of children in the park, pass a law that says taking pictures of children in the park is illegal. The cops will be very busy at Disneyland, since nearly everyone has a camera and it is almost impossible to take pictures there without kids being in it.

BTW, Sovereign Citizens are people who believe that they are above the law. When police demand that you ID when no reasonable suspicious of a crime that they can articulate, it is they who believe the law does not apply to them.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think many of these auditors are trying to get arrested. That said, cops often arrest people for "crimes" that they know will not stick. Arresting someone who is calmly and quieting videoing in a public area where there is no expectation of privacy would be quite a stretch of public disorderly conduct laws in and of itself. Is spending a night in jail worth it, even if the charges will be dropped?

That’s why police have a saying, “you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.” In other words, they see themselves as judge and jury except that night in jail is the only penalty they can mete out.

Maybe before 9/11, such an attitude had a net benefit in suppressing the criminal element. But with all the ramped-up hiring and affirmative action, the police we have now often seem to have little interest in stopping actual crimes from occurring.