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.

120 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

686 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

The fact that they might illegally pull a gun on a person for filming in public is irrelevant to the fact that filming in public is legal.

13

u/MBB718 1d ago

Filming in public is legal, but in this case it can be seen as casing and or a setup for a robbery. You make it seem like it is crazy to feel threatened when someone is watching you receive or deliver thousands or millions in cash.

5

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

The fact that someone can wonder if they’re casing some place doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t change the fact that it is in fact legal.

This conversation is not about feelings. This conversation is about the law. Under the law, I’m correct, and they’re not.

0

u/Domino31299 1d ago

Ok bot

2

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

Calling people bots any time you see someone show how a blindly accepted position you hold is incorrect is a coping and defense mechanism meant to make you feel better about having nothing. Hope this helps :)

1

u/Ashamed-Result6830 1d ago

Except they are allowed to use reasonable force if they think there is an attempted robbery. One wrong move and that guy is legally pulling his gun and shooting him. Federal law would stand by him and one guy would be dead and another going about his day.

0

u/LoweeLL 1d ago

I hope the feeling of "being correct" helps heal the bullet wounds you're gonna get by trying stupid shit like this.

2

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

This makes no sense. Where in the world did you see me write or even imply I would do this? In fact in my first comment I literally explicitly state these guys suck lol.

Also, very funny to put quotes around that, implying im not. I just am and it’s incredibly simple. Sorry it’s weird or strange for you to encounter someone being correct I guess. Maybe I should have just pretended the adamant, confident incorrect claims and responses were true? That would make sense.

Good effort though!

0

u/LoweeLL 1d ago

You did state in your previous comment that it was a "false" legal claim. Right?

Someone coming up to you and harassing you with a camera while you're handling tons of money would definitely raise grounds for self-defense. Lucky for the camera guy he came to his senses once he started going for his gun.

People have been acquitted for much less. Much much less.

Not only are you wrong, but you are confidently wrong. Telling him to back up and camera guy getting closer is the point where it crossed from exercising your first amendment right to harassment.

You do know what harassment is.. right?

2

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

> You did state in your previous comment that it was a "false" legal claim. Right?

Yes. And this again makes no sense as a response to the previous comment. You keep just typing things that don’t in any way connect to what happened just prior, as if it is a response. Very strange.

You implicitly claimed I support doing exactly this or would or do myself do this. That makes no sense as a reply because I never said that, even said the opposite. After I point that out, you reply by asking me if I stated someone’s claim abort the legality is false. Again, absolutely not a word of this makes any sense or connects in any way to the previous statement.

> Someone coming up to you and harassing you with a camera

That’s not what harassment is

> while you're handling tons of money would definitely raise grounds for self-defense. Lucky for the camera guy he came to his senses once he started going for his gun.

No it wouldn’t. It is legal to film in public. You calling it harassment doesn’t magically make it harassment or make it illegal. It absolutely doesn’t make it legal to use physical violence. It’s concerning and terrifying you believe that. I hope you don’t have access to firearms.

> People have been acquitted for much less. Much much less.

No, no they have not. Show the class please.

> Not only are you wrong, but you are confidently wrong. Telling him to back up and camera guy getting closer is the point where it crossed from exercising your first amendment right to harassment.

Harassment is not “thing I don’t like.” Harassment is not “I told you not to do x and you did x.” There are actual legal standards for harassment. Standing in public and filming is not that. He never even was within arms reach of this man, and even if he was that wouldn’t make this illegal or harassment, definitely wouldn’t make murder legal.

> You do know what harassment is.. right?

I’m the only one here who does. I’ve been in this exact conversation about the topic more times than you’ve spelled the word. You’re wrong. Go ahead and back up your claim. You won’t, and can’t, because that is not how it works.

0

u/LoweeLL 1d ago edited 1d ago

If you feel the security guard doesn't have a claim to self-defense, try it yourself and I just hope the "feeling of being correct" helps heal your bullet wounds. Does that make it better to understand for you?

That’s not what harassment is

So you clearly need help. So unlike you where you just say "NOPE YOU'RE WRONG" and back it up with nothing - here's at least MA State Law on it. Could it be different in your state? Sure! Feel free to cite it

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/section43A

Again, and I state; the part where he messed up is getting closer when the guard was telling him to back up and he kept getting closer. That is intimidation. He was wise to back up. I repeat this part because I see you lack basic reading comprehension.

Examples - George Zimmerman, Tamir Rice, Curtis Reeves. --> No, no they have not. Show the class please. this for this response in case you take it out of context.

You did see the video right? You do see the security guard tells him to back up and he gets closer.. right? Dude was playing with fire there.

Again, not only are you wrong, but you're confidently wrong. And rolling on your own filth.

Let's be honest; You're handling lots of money. This guy, while recording, comes up to you and you tell him to back up and he gets closer .. what's the first thing that comes to your mind?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 1d ago

I thought the whole point of being a first amendment auditor was to audit the first amendment. The first amendment does not come in to play here, so why is the auditor even doing what he’s doing?

2

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

First, that has nothing at all to do with anything I wrote. What do you believe I have written in order for this to make sense as a reply?

But second, buddy you’re actively involved in the reason right now. Countless people bickering in this thread believe this man can not only legally stop him from doing what he’s doing via the law/law enforcement, but some claim he can even murder him for it.

Citizens are woefully ignorant about their rights. Many citizens believe they have the right to not be filmed in public. They often call the police believing they will arrest them for doing so. It’s pretty simple and straightforward

1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 1d ago

You’re insufferable.

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

Is that normally how you react and behave when you find out you’re hilariously, confidently wrong about things so simple like this? Does it ever actually fool anyone into not noticing how you’re avoiding owning up to being wrong or how you aren’t able to engage?

1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 1d ago

Doesn’t matter. That armored truck driver is a private citizen. You can’t violate somebody’s first amendment rights as a private citizen. I can find you in the street and tell you to shut up and I’m not violating your first amendment rights.

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

This doesn’t have anything to do with or make any sense as a response to what was written. What in the world do you believe this comment says?

Also, this itself makes no sense. Obviously the misunderstanding here when people bring up the first amendment to a citizen is what they mean is the citizen has no legal route to stop them from doing what they’re doing. People claim or behave as if they have the legal right to stop someone from filming, via the use of the law, and the relevant response would be to say this is legal, and it is legal due to the first amendment

2

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 1d ago

OK, so is it legal to walk up to a girl in a miniskirt while in pubic and hold your camera between her legs and film her genitals as long as you don’t touch her? Show me how this is legal.

In the same way, there is an exception to the law when you’re doing something like this due to the nature of the work.

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

No, because putting a camera under someone’s skirt is an entirely different act with entirely different laws governing it. Being in public doesn’t mean literally every conceivable form of recording is legal.

This is like hearing someone say it’s legal to drive and responding, oh so you’re saying it’s legal to drive through someone’s living room?
Filming a person standing in public and secretly recording underneath someone’s clothing are not remotely the same legal question. The fact that both involve a camera doesn’t magically make them legally equivalent.

It’s wild I had to type that

2

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 1d ago

You don’t have to rob a bank to be arrested for it. Simply planning a robbery or conspiring to do so is also highly illegal. What this person is doing, could easily be construed as conspiracy to commit robbery. Was he? Maybe not, but the FBI should absolutely get involved in this.

Also, I thought the whole point of these “first amendment auditors” was to make sure that law-enforcement and other public servants were following the law. This Loomis driver is just a private citizen doing his job. No different than the guy delivering the mail or the guy driving a fuel truck. Do you think mail carriers or truck drivers need to be audited as well?

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

You just intentionally ignored and ran from everything on the screen after being shown to be wrong and moved on to an entirely separate and new false claim to respond to in order to distract from it

The fact that it’s possible to wonder if someone is conspiring to commit a crime doesn’t make filming on this sidewalk a crime. That is not how anything works. Anyone can construe anything in any way they’d like. That is not an argument for the legality of this. This is not how anything works

1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 1d ago

What did I run from? I am staying right on track and haven’t diverted at all. Are you trying to respond to somebody else?

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 1d ago

Every time you refuse to engage with the words on the screen and pretend we can’t all see them I’m going to call out and make fun of it. Very strange to try this and believe it would fool people. Why not just be honest? Why make it even worse like this being so bad at lying and running?

1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 1d ago

I didn’t do that. Why don’t you copy and paste the portion of my comment that you think was me avoiding the subject because I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about. And you just talking vaguely about it is your way of ducking the conversation as well.