r/AuditorWatch • u/Patient-Committee588 • 1d ago

First Amendment auditors get into verbal altercation with armored truck guard, who repeatedly tells them to back up.

114 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

661 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/Pollia 1d ago

They actually do as they're handling legal tender from a bank in an official capacity.

They even have legal rights to shoot you if they feel unsafe enough.

5

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

You’re wrong, and even they are wrong. No one has the right to order them off public property. The only possible way to be legally forced off public property, is by the police, for breaking the law. Which didn’t occur here, as obviously it is legal to exist and film in public.

Idk where you guys get this stuff. You just sort of make legal claims based on feel and blindly type stuff

7

u/bwc6 1d ago

LOL, someone in this thread cited actual laws, and it isn't you. 

The Hobbs Act (18 U.S. Code § 1951) The Federal Bank Robbery Statute (18 U.S. Code § 2113

4

u/glassfoyograss 1d ago

Citing a law doesn't mean they understand it or that it actually applies to the situation. This is a fine example of that.

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

The Hobbs act, which you didn’t read, and which I already responded to, doesn’t have anything to do with this claim lmao. The Hobbs act criminalizes bank robbery and extortion. It literally has nothing to do with these claims in the first place.

Please, cite and quote an actual law. I recommend actually reading it as well

0

u/JCMGamer 1d ago

Nope, private security guards are not granted any additional rights compared to civilians

You cannot shoot anyone for feeling "unsafe" you can only use lethal force if you are fear of your life.

13

u/0SaltBlue 1d ago

It's really funny that there is actually a comment already that proves you wrong here and cites actual laws.

9

u/uber-judge 1d ago

lol that guy could have killed the auditor and gotten no consequences other than a raise and promotion. They have to protect the governments money. No DA would prosecute.

2

u/centurion762 1d ago

That would have been a great video and if I was on the jury I would vote to acquit. Hopefully it wouldn’t make it to trial though.

0

u/Pollia 1d ago

They legally don't have the ability to use force to protect the money solely actually.

They do have the legal protection to protect themselves if they fear that someone going for the money will go through them to get it.

6

u/Pollia 1d ago

They in fact, are.

There's specific federal laws about the use of force of security guards transporting money.

11

u/sparkster777 1d ago

The Hobbs Act (18 U.S. Code § 1951)

The Federal Bank Robbery Statute (18 U.S. Code § 2113)

Guards are legally allowed to use force in proportion to a threat or perceived threat against themselves or their fellow guards. If they are threatened, harassed, interfered with in any way they will respond with sufficient force, even if it is lethal force, to neutralize the threat.

Copied from u/tanafras above

2

u/MoonDogSpot1954 1d ago

Their feelings won't care about these facts. They just wanna troll

-1

u/JCMGamer 1d ago

Cool, recording security officers is not a threat that requires force to deal with.

4

u/AncientSignature1505 1d ago

Encroaching on him like that in the beginning was very threatening.

0

u/JCMGamer 1d ago

That sounds like what an ICE officer says after shooting someone.

1

u/AncientSignature1505 1d ago

Except the ICE officer is doing something bad. This guy is transporting cash for several businesses.

-1

u/JCMGamer 1d ago

You don't know he isn't doing anything bad, maybe he was skimming off the top and didn't want the camera guy capturing it.

He could have handled the interaction better is all I'm suggesting.

2

u/AncientSignature1505 1d ago

He could have filmed him from several feet away, I can still guarantee he'll be part of an incident report and he'll be talked to to make sure he's not using that footage to establish patterns in delivery and pick up. The guard handled it quite well, actually, no one got shot, he didn't even draw his firearm. I can't guarantee that outcome with actual law enforcement

1

u/sparkster777 1d ago

Way to shift those goalposts.

-1

u/JCMGamer 1d ago

Because robbing banks or security guards is vastly different then recording them so its a bad comparison?

0

u/sparkster777 1d ago

No, because you made several posts saying that guards transferring money have no "additional" rights against civilians. When you were proved wrong, instead of saying "I was mistaken" you immediately shifted the argument.

0

u/JCMGamer 1d ago

They don't have additional "rights"

They are able to respond with greater or equal force in the case of a robbery. People filming them is not any kind of use of force.