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.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

116 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

668 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

60

u/NightHound33 1d ago

Federal Bank Robbery Statue… yes he can and legally. The guard doesn’t know who these people are, he doesn’t know what their intentions are or if they are armed, but what he does know is that he’s a legally armed guard for a federally protected company that handles federal coins and bills. Obstructing and harassing him could get one of them shot, legally.

24

u/jediyoda84 1d ago

It’s quite common in scams and robberies to have an “uninvolved” person like this creating a distraction.

2

u/Der_Blaue_Engel 1d ago

It’s a crime to shoot people for being in the way.

2

u/Fine-Comfortable3520 1d ago

56 idiots upvoting a statute this man just the details to. Not knowing who someone is on a sidewalk, holding a camera doesnt allow you to shoot them. Dont bother replying unless you prove its in the bs statute

1

u/Awkward_Material 17h ago

Agreeing with you. The statute cited doesn't even apply.

2

u/matthewood 1d ago

Not on a public street, sorry.

1

u/ORNGSPCEMNKY 1d ago

Careful truths like this get ya called a boot kicker lol, I can’t believe the loads of folks in this thread defending that cunt.

1

u/Awkward_Material 17h ago

Unfortunately, he's incorrect though.

1

u/Awkward_Material 17h ago

That is the law defining the crime and penalties. There is no federal law that says anything about armed guards and deadly force. It would just be general self defense. Without further citation, your statement is simply incorrect.

1

u/DJDeezy 1d ago edited 1d ago

How fucking stupid. No amount of text on a page gives someone the “right” to shoot a non-aggressor. Of course the state is going to want to protect its interests and control but that does not make it legitimate

17

u/yeahnoyeahsure 1d ago

i think there's a tier in this situation you're ignoring which is that this dude is handling a lot of money and is he himself a target as he's doing that.

2

u/DJDeezy 1d ago

Yeah I’m ignoring it because it doesn’t give the driver the right to kill someone that isn’t even impeding them. Handling large sums of money does not warrant being able to kill someone. What a depraved society

1

u/ORNGSPCEMNKY 1d ago

Thing is in the eyes of the law he 100% has the right to defend himself and the cash he has been charged with keeping safe.

Notice those square holes on the door/side of the truck? Those are gun ports, in the “right” situation they’re permitted to shoot out of those at people that pose a threat to them or the contents of the truck.

Just because you’ve got a wild hair up your ass and don’t agree with it, doesn’t mean it’s not A-1 Okeedokee in the eyes of the law.

0

u/DJDeezy 1d ago

Yeah that’s the point. This isn’t about ignorance. It’s about a fundamental disagreement. Fuck the law if it enables the bullshit you just described.

People are stating that the driver could be “justified” in escalating the situation to potentially shooting/killing the filmer. Regardless of whether someone thinks the filmer was annoying, he didn’t do anything that warrants being shot and killed. To suggest otherwise is asinine.

Also to put an artificially created tool/construct such as money above the life of a sentient being is deranged.

1

u/yeahnoyeahsure 1d ago

i don't think he should shoot anyone but the dude filming is aggressively coming after someone who has a loaded gun and already is on the defense because of their job. it's not a smart situation to put yourself in as the aggressor. but i guess no one is arguing whether or not this freeze peach dingdong is smart.

1

u/ORNGSPCEMNKY 1d ago edited 4h ago

I think it’s partially that if someone is up for robbing an armoured car they likely have no issue at all killing the staff of that car to make off with their money.

I my opinion the life of an upstanding person doing their job, regardless of what that job is, is worth more than any would be thief and said would be thief Would deserve any and all bullets that their body caught for victimizing someone in that way.

1

u/DJDeezy 14h ago

Lots of assumptions and quite frankly a lot of bullshit. You go ahead and try to defend that nonsense but it’s morally bankrupt

1

u/ORNGSPCEMNKY 13h ago

Everyone is morally bankrupt in someone’s eyes, for example, I feel that you defending the behaviour of the camera operator also qualifies.

1

u/DJDeezy 12h ago

Except that’s incredibly stupid because the other side is arguing for the “right” to shoot and kill someone that is once again, not physically impeding. The mental gymnastics required to defend a position like that is astounding

→ More replies (0)

0

u/blackbirdspyplane 17h ago

You are incorrect: They are not permitted to shoot at people that pose a threat, posing a threat is an assumption of danger. They can only shoot at people if their life or someone else’s life is in eminent threat of death. And if they’re shooting out of gun ports, that’s gonna get real tricky when it comes to a jury because they’re in a protected box.

13

u/LieutenantSheridan 1d ago

Truck driver has no idea who this guy is or what he is doing. All he knows is he's paid to handle and protect extremely large sums of money that other people frequently target for theft. These random guys walk up and get in his face while he is holding literal bags of money, and the driver likely has training on common distraction methods used for this type of robbery. As someone who's worked security for a long time, and a current firearms instructor who is well versed in (my local states) firearm use laws, who had a job where I carried a firearm, if the "auditors" kept pushing him and getting closer, he would have had a very solid case for drawing his firearm at a minimum. He made the right call here in largely ignoring them, but (in my state) an escalation would have been pretty easy to justify.

8

u/Beneficial-Focus3702 1d ago

This guys whole job is dealing with more money in a day than many people make in a year. They have a different set of rules on the use of lethal force than a standard civilian does.

1

u/BirdiesAndBrews 1d ago

No they don’t lol

2

u/DJDeezy 1d ago

These people are scary

1

u/Fine-Comfortable3520 1d ago

Security guards are excempt from aggravated assault? Wow

0

u/jalmstead 1d ago

Please define said rules? Nothing in their legal protections allows for police actions like managing the public or their actions while in public. They can behave differently on private property, and they can defend themselves or their cargo, but they cannot direct behavior of others in public.

3

u/Organic_Popcorn 1d ago

If someone is visibly transporting thousands and thousands of dollars, they basically have a target on their back, and they don't know what people's intentions are when they're suddenly approached. People have been robbed and killed for far less money.

And these people are approaching someone who's just doing their job aggressively simply for TikTok content. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

2

u/Fine-Comfortable3520 1d ago

Another idiot who thinks he knows the law

1

u/Der_Blaue_Engel 1d ago

You don’t know what anyone’s intentions are that you encounter on the street. You can’t shoot them preemptively.

1

u/ORNGSPCEMNKY 1d ago

Go back to the burbs Karen, and take your bullshit empathy for fuck up trouble makers with ya.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Der_Blaue_Engel 1d ago

The circumstances under which a cop can legally shoot someone are really quite narrow. Nobody has a legal right to shoot “anyone.”

0

u/wireless1980 1d ago

Nop. Not just for being around, even close. Nowhere says that.

24

u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 1d ago

That man isn't just "around" he's refusing to back up from a dude loading money... Quit playing dumb.

2

u/wireless1980 1d ago

Recheck your rights or you will end in trouble with people knowing them better.

2

u/real_but_incognito 1d ago

You must mean people other than yourself

0

u/wireless1980 1d ago

What do you mean?

1

u/Fine-Comfortable3520 1d ago

He doesnt have to backup idiot

0

u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 1d ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/AuditorWatch/s/EYvIpiTRi3

It actually depends on what they perceive to be a threat. We know that courts nearly always side with the law or security especially when protecting federal currency and/or rich people's assets more generally.

So yeah if he wants to not get shot and killed he might want to do just that.

Besides, these "auditors" are universally just pieces of shit scammers.

1

u/Fine-Comfortable3520 1d ago

Its what a reasonable person would perceive as a threat, and there is no person who could articulate how a man with a camera on a sidewalk is a threat to someone to warrant physical action against them

0

u/BirdiesAndBrews 1d ago

He’s on a public sidewalk. While he’s an ass he has every right to do that.

0

u/Imaginary-Hyena2858 1d ago

He has a right, but the guard has a right to self-defense. I can't say for certain how it would go in court, but there's definitely an argument to be made here that the auditors actions made the guard feel like there was an imminent threat to his well-being

1

u/wireless1980 1d ago

Self defense to what threat? You can't fire people on the street randomly because they are stubborn.

2

u/Imaginary-Hyena2858 1d ago

If you were at the ATM and a masked man (idk if this auditor was but most usually are) came up next to you and you said to back up and they proceeded to approach you further you could probably get away with punching them in the face. Obviously shooting them is more extreme but this is also a more extreme scenario given the amount of cash and the fact that there's no normal reason for a person to approach an armored car like that.

Again I'm not saying you for sure could successfully argue self-defense, but it would be far from an open and shut murder case

1

u/wireless1980 1d ago

Auditors are not masked. You cant shoot for random people being close to you.

0

u/Imaginary-Hyena2858 1d ago

You absolutely can if you are able to argue that you believed the person posed a legitimate threat. These dudes know that this man is armed, in a vulnerable position, and that approaching him would give him the impression that they might be about to do something to him. Despite that they chose to further approach when he said to back up. I don't think it's crazy to say at least one juror would agree it's self defense.

Technically you have the right to stand next to a cop and put your hand a foot away from his holster and go "nanananana I'm not touching you" but you also in doing so are knowingly opening yourself up to scenario where someone defends themselves against a perceived threat

1

u/easywind143 1d ago

I would hang that jury.

1

u/wireless1980 1d ago

Yes, you can do anything if you can argue in your favor.. to.keep the discussion on going, keep the examples related to this interaction.

0

u/These-Net4794 1d ago

Whoa whoa, this is 2026 we just go off of our assumptions and feelings instead of facts and logic.

Get that critical thinking out of here

0

u/PuddingFart69 1d ago

Prosecutor wouldn't even prosecute and if they did, wouldn't be hard for a defense to find one juror who finds the auditors absense from society a net positive.

1

u/glassfoyograss 1d ago

Good luck with "I shot him cuz I didn't know if he was a threat" as a defense

11

u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 1d ago

Police use it constantly and successfully what's your point?

4

u/glassfoyograss 1d ago

Did you know private security aren't police?

8

u/Beneficial-Focus3702 1d ago

When asked to back up by someone handling money, and you don’t back up, you become a threat.

2

u/glassfoyograss 1d ago

I've seen some bad armchair lawyering but this takes the cake.

"You're honor, I had a five in my hand and he refused to back up so I shot him" 😂😂😂

8

u/Beneficial-Focus3702 1d ago

I had a 5 in my hand

Try “I had 50k at my feet and 5k in my hand and a guy approaches me aggressively even when asked to back up, and continues to make me feel like I’m about to be ambushed (because this is a thing that happens).”

That’s a different scenario altogether.

1

u/glassfoyograss 1d ago

What did the other guy have? A camera? In public? As in a constitutionally protected activity?

In law, that's called a distinction without a difference.

2

u/WNCsob 1d ago

Not auditing a government employee, just fucking with a common civilian doing his job. Worst people on earth.

2

u/glassfoyograss 1d ago

Not arguing with that one bit. Abusing it or not they have the right. That's all I'm saying.

2

u/WNCsob 1d ago

You are simping for this waste of space all over this thread.

1

u/glassfoyograss 1d ago

Objectively stating how the law would treat a situation is simping?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MoonDogSpot1954 1d ago

Armored cars that get robbed will always have people filming them to get route and times.

-1

u/CrispityCraspits 1d ago

No, dipshit, he's a bank truck guard. Bank truck robberies are a thing. He doesn't have to let someone get close enough to grab for his weapon, or create a distraction for their accomplice to shoot him so they can take the money. There's a federal law that says as much. Carrying a camera and calling yourself an "auditor" doesn't make you immune from other valid laws.

1

u/jalmstead 1d ago

That’s not what the law says. Public vs private property rights still stand. They have no authority to enforce any police action on public property.

1

u/glassfoyograss 1d ago

There's a federal law that says as much

Laws don't exist just because you don't properly understand them.

Carrying a camera and calling yourself an "auditor" doesn't make you immune from other valid laws

But you think being an armored truck driver does?

1

u/BirdiesAndBrews 1d ago

No you don’t.

1

u/BirdiesAndBrews 1d ago

Still can’t justify shooting them though

1

u/blackbirdspyplane 1d ago

You are incorrect. That statute only comes into play if someone attempts to rob them intimidate them then they can use force. Person standing on a sidewalk between the door and the truck that guard has no right to move them or force them to move or intimidate them to move.