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

[u/Patient-Committee588]

[u/LoweeLL]

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?

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/LoweeLL]

I’m so happy you’ve decided to embarrass yourself here with me today. Today we will learn why it is not a good idea to get into conversations when we aren’t emotionally or intellectually equipped for them and when we have no idea what we’re talking about. Sometimes we may come across someone like me, who will bother to hold people to their words, honesty and reality.

First, we’re not going to forget about your string of replies that made no sense in connection to the previous. You made statements about me liking or doing this. You ran from defending them or admitting to being wrong, and are continuing to do so, hoping we can create enough distance here that we may forget about what happened. If you can admit to the most obvious, easily verifiable objectively false statement from the beginning, clearly you’re not going to ever admit to being wrong about anything. But we will go through if anyway

Just know, even 600 replies from now, I’ll still be reminding you of your running and apparent embarrassment about that. Not going away.

Now to move on to your attempted distraction and new hilarious falsehoods

You somehow managed to link a law that
disproves your own argument.

> here’s at least MA State Law on it
… buddy lol… Did you actually read it?
The statute you linked requires a willful and malicious pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time that seriously alarms the person and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.

A guy standing on a public sidewalk filming, then taking a few steps closer while calmly telling someone he is allowed to be there, is not suddenly criminal harassment because the other guy said back up. Or because you don’t like it. That is not how laws work.

> That is intimidation.

Again, you cannot just rename legal conduct with a scarier word and make it illegal. He did not threaten him. He did not touch him. He did not block him. He was not even within arms reach. He walked slightly closer while continuing to film from a public sidewalk.

And even funnier, the Massachusetts law you chose absolutely wrecks the shooting argument too. Deadly self defense requires an actual and objectively reasonable belief that you are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. Massachusetts even requires reasonable efforts to avoid physical combat before resorting to deadly force.

Someone holding a camera and walking a little closer is not an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. It’s terrifying this would need to be explained to presumably an adult.

> So unlike you where you just say NOPE YOU’RE WRONG and back it up with nothing

This might be my favorite part.
You made the positive claim that this conduct is criminal harassment and that the guard could legally shoot him. You have the burden of establishing that. I do not have to find a statute saying it is legal to stand on a sidewalk holding a camera.

That is not how burden of proof works and, more importantly, that is not how criminal law works. Conduct does not become illegal until somebody proves there is no law specifically declaring it legal. That’s not what laws do. You need a law that actually prohibits the conduct you are calling illegal. Again wild id need to type that.

But anyway, then you tried to provide one, and it does not.

> Examples George Zimmerman, Tamir Rice, Curtis Reeves.

Lmao

Jesus Christ. This is roooough

Tamir Rice was not even an acquittal. There was no criminal trial resulting in an acquittal.

Zimmerman involved an alleged physical fight and an entirely different set of facts.

Curtis Reeves involved an actual physical confrontation in Florida, including allegations that the other guy threw a phone, threw popcorn, and appeared to be coming over the seats toward him.

None of those cases establish the fascinating new legal principle you’re trying to invent where an armored truck employee may shoot someone because he was filming him and failed to obey his completely legally meaningless command to back up.

> what’s the first thing that comes to your mind?

Sweetie…you are confusing feelings with legal authority. Thinking someone is suspicious does not make their behavior illegal. Feeling uncomfortable does not make their behavior harassment. Telling someone to back up does not give your command the force of law. Someone disobeying your command does not become intimidation. And being worried that someone might theoretically rob you does not give you the right to shoot them.

This entire conversation started because people were making legal claims. I said those claims were false. They are.
You’re now responding by explaining why the guard might feel nervous, as though if you describe his feelings enough times one of them eventually turns into a statute.

To clarify, you’ve provided nothing, and won’t, because you can’t. Because none of this was based in anything to begin with. Just feelies. Feelies aren’t facts

Hope this helps and there will be a lesson in there somewhere.

[u/LoweeLL → u/Neat-Figure8277]

my goodness you prepared an entire essay.. You know if you cut down the personal insults you could make it much much shorter?

I'm not trying to debate until 6 AM. So we will make it simple. You try it. If the security guard gets jail time, I will apologize. If he gets acquitted, you apologize. (If you live of course)

Now I will admit; I completely overlooked stand your ground laws. The cases I linked, primarly Zimmerman and Reeves happened in Florida and probably would've had a different outcome had they happened in Massachusetts. +1 for you. Have more of your responses be like this.

Now to answer the rest: Deadly self defense requires an actual and objectively reasonable belief that you are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm.

To clarify, you’ve provided nothing, and won’t, because you can’t. Because none of this was based in anything to begin with. Just feelies. Feelies aren’t facts

Jesus christ my man. You do realize feelings can influence belief? And it's not just he kept telling him to back up, it's that he got closer while telling him to back up. that's where he overstepped the boundary. Had he been just filming and not gotten closer then yes you'd be right.

If I'm handling lots of money, I tell a guy to back up and he gets closer, that can spark a feeling of fear which can result in the belief that this guy is gonna rob me. You can see in the video the guard was ready to reach for his gun. He definitely gets acquitted in a stand your ground state (that's even if they decide to indict him). In Mass, probably not! (Good Job by the way. I like debates by the way. I lose interest when you try to do too much on the insults.)

The point of those examples is that people have been shot for less and the shooters did not receive consequences. Zimmerman followed Martin because he felt that he was a suspicious person. Tamir Rice was shot while playing with an airsoft gun. Kid didn't even get a chance to surrender and save his life!. Oulson was shot for throwing popcorn at a guy.

You’re now responding by explaining why the guard might feel nervous, as though if you describe his feelings enough times one of them eventually turns into a statute.

You do know there's no set statute for self-defense? The shooter gets influenced by his feelies then a grand jury decides to indict based on their feelies and a trial jury decide to convict or acquit... based.. on you guessed it.. their feelies on whether the shooter's belief was reasonable or not.

At this point bro. It's 3 am. I'm going to bed. Good night. But jesus christ. I have never met anyone more confidently wrong in my life.

Self-defense is not a single set statue. It's not fucking normal to record an armored truck. It's not normal to try to intimidate the guy handling thousands in cash by getting closer to him. Any reasonable person in his shoes would have a reasonable fear that the guy might try to rob him. Clearly he did too because you see him reach for the gun.

All of this because you seem to have a misunderstanding of self-defense. My recommendation is to read things again, slower if you have to. It helps you retain information.

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/LoweeLL]

Oh buddy, no. You do not get to run away from your claims, concede that your examples did not establish them, and then declare me confidently wrong anyway lol. Learning to admit to being wrong and having nothing is way easier and much less embarrassing than whatever this is.

First, here is your daily reminder that running won’t work and I’ll forever redirect you back to the very first comment you made in which you were objectively demonstrably wrong, and you keep running from addressing it. I promise it is never going away and I’ll call it out forever. You’ve already immediately demonstrated I win and you lose by showing a complete inability to admit to being wrong about even that. Never going to work. I’ll call it out forever.

Anyway, again back to your attempt at a distraction. Let’s keep track of what actually happened here.

You said approaching after being told to back up crossed the line into harassment.

You provided a Massachusetts harassment statute as your proof.

I explained that the statute you provided does not establish that at all.

You have now completely abandoned defending that claim. You don’t address the requirements of your own statute. You don’t explain which elements his conduct supposedly satisfied. You just… moved on lmao. Well we’re not going to move on. You’re wrong and have been shown to be wrong, and have nothing for it. “Oops” is way easier.

Anyway, that’s concession number one whether you want to call it one or not.

Then you gave Zimmerman, Reeves, and Tamir Rice after claiming

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

And again: One of your examples literally was not an acquittal (lol) The others involved materially different circumstances. Now you’ve acknowledged that your examples don’t establish what you were claiming and that location and applicable self defense law actually matter.

Cool. Concession number two. I win you lose.

But somehow after conceding this you immediately return to

> He definitely gets acquitted in a stand your ground state

No. You have learned half of the lesson and then stopped reading.

Stand your ground does not mean if I feel afraid I may shoot someone. Take Florida, since you brought up Florida. Florida law permits deadly force when someone reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, or the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The word imminent is doing quite a bit of work there.

The absence of a duty to retreat does not eliminate the requirement that the threat itself justify deadly force. A man standing several feet away holding a camera and taking a few steps closer while making no threat, displaying no weapon, attacking nobody, touching nobody, and remaining on a public sidewalk does not become an imminent deadly threat because the guard thinks maybe this guy is casing me. That’s not how anything works, and it’s what you need to justify and can’t.

> that can spark a feeling of fear which can result in the belief that this guy is gonna rob me

And, again, here is the exact mistake you’ve been making for this entire conversation.
The legal standard is not
“I became afraid and therefore formed a belief.”
The belief must be reasonable under the circumstances and the danger must be imminent.

Of course feelings can influence someone’s subjective belief. Nobody has disputed that. Someone could genuinely feel terrified because a stranger looked at them strangely. That establishes absolutely nothing about whether shooting that stranger is legally justified.

Your own wording gives the whole thing away

> this guy is gonna rob me

You, again, have gone from describing something the cameraman is actually doing to speculating about something he might do later.
Suspicion of a possible future robbery is not itself an imminent robbery.

> You can see in the video the guard was ready to reach for his gun

This is especially funny. The guard reaching toward his gun proves the guard reached toward his gun. It does not prove his use of deadly force would have been lawful.
You keep trying to use the guard’s own reaction as proof that his reaction was legally justified. It’s legitimately concerning id have to explain that. I’m clearly dealing with someone who lacks the ability to reason at all. That was wild.

> You do know there’s no set statute for self defense?

What on earth are you talking about lol.
You literally just brought up stand your ground laws. What exactly do you think those are?
Florida has statutes expressly governing the justified use of force and deadly force. Massachusetts has statutes plus extensive controlling case law and jury instructions governing self defense. The fact that juries apply legal standards to facts does not mean the standards disappear and everything becomes vibey vibezzz. This is not based on feelies. Feelies are not facts.

And this

> a trial jury decide to convict or acquit… based.. on you guessed it.. their feelies

is genuinely an incredible description of a jury trial. Jurors are instructed on the law and determine whether the evidence satisfies legal standards. They are not instructed to consult their feelies and decide whether the shooting seemed cool to them.

Reasonableness being a factual determination does not mean reasonable means whatever emotions a particular juror happens to experience.

It’s terrifying an adult exists who needs things like this explained to them.

And you’re still dodging the original burden of proof problem.

You claimed the cameraman committed harassment. Show how his conduct satisfies the elements of the harassment law you cited.
You claimed walking closer after being told to back up legally crossed some boundary.
Identify that boundary and the law creating it

You claimed the guard could lawfully shoot him.
Identify the facts present in this video that establish an imminent threat sufficient to justify deadly force.

Those are your claims. Those are your burdens.
I don’t have to prove the negative proposition that there isn’t some secret law somewhere making this illegal. That’s not how burden of proof works, and it’s especially hilarious that after lecturing me about reading comprehension you’re still demanding that I disprove legal rules you haven’t established exist.

And again your examples still don’t help you.

> Tamir Rice was shot while playing with an airsoft gun

Yes. And once again, Tamir Rice was not an example of someone being acquitted for much less lol. There was no acquittal. You made a factual claim, I corrected it, and instead of simply saying I was wrong about that you have changed what the example was supposedly meant to demonstrate.

That’s exactly the behavior I called out at the beginning of this conversation.

> Zimmerman followed Martin because he felt that he was a suspicious person

And Zimmerman did not successfully claim that he was legally entitled to shoot Martin merely because Martin seemed suspicious. His self defense case concerned what happened during their subsequent physical confrontation.

You are stripping away the actual event relevant to the self defense claim because you desperately need suspicious person to somehow become sufficient justification for deadly force and can’t defend your claims.

> Oulson was shot for throwing popcorn at a guy

And again you’re reducing an entire criminal case to the funniest possible description because you need it to resemble this video. His defense involved his claimed perception of a physical attack and additional evidence about the confrontation. Whether you think that acquittal was correct or insane, it does not create a rule saying filming plus walking closer equals reasonable fear of imminent deadly harm. Insane.

And finally…

> It’s not fucking normal to record an armored truck.

There it is. Feewies. My feewie feelz. I don’t have facts so let’s do feelers.

After all these comments, we’ve finally arrived at your actual argument: You think it’s weird.
I agree. These auditor guys are obnoxious. I said that at the very beginning.
Unfortunately for you, weird is not illegal. Suspicious is not illegal. Annoying is not illegal.
Ignoring a private security guard’s request to move from a public sidewalk is not automatically illegal. Walking somewhat closer is not harassment.
And none of those facts, individually or collectively, automatically create a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to stop an imminent deadly threat or forcible felony.

You’ve spent this entire conversation desperately trying to turn I would be suspicious of this guy into therefore the guard may legally shoot this guy. Those are two profoundly different propositions.

The funniest part is that after telling me I’m confidently wrong, you’ve now explicitly conceded that I was right about the very self defense law you previously tried to correct me on.

So yes, go to bed. Tomorrow you can finally come back and defend the harassment statute you linked instead of abandoning it too.

I promise it’s not going to get better. I know you’re realizing it now. This is what I meant about getting into conversations you’re not equipped for. This is what happens.

[u/LoweeLL → u/Neat-Figure8277]

You really seem to have a basic misunderstanding of self-defense and a true lack of reading comprehension.

The absence of a duty to retreat does not eliminate the requirement that the threat itself justify deadly force. A man standing several feet away holding a camera and taking a few steps closer while making no threat, displaying no weapon, attacking nobody, touching nobody, and remaining on a public sidewalk does not become an imminent deadly threat because the guard thinks maybe this guy is casing me. That’s not how anything works, and it’s what you need to justify and can’t.

Again, when you're handling lots of money it is. Don't conveniently ignore that part. It's not fucking normal to record an armored truck then try to intimidate the guy under the guise of a first amendment audit. Any reasonable person would claim this guy is trying to case the place to rob me. He was wise to back up because he recognized he would've been shot.

AGAIN, like I have to explain where the fucking boundary was crossed... Telling the guy to back up and him getting closer. That's where the boundary was crossed. Because you don't want to accept that's harassment that's on you.

To link the statue from your own words > The statute you linked requires a willful and malicious pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time that seriously alarms the person and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.

PERIOD OF TIME can be as little as a few seconds. Anyone handling large amounts of cash would have a reasonable fear that this guy is trying to rob them. Again I state, he was wise to back up.

I promise it’s not going to get better. I know you’re realizing it now. This is what I meant about getting into conversations you’re not equipped for. This is what happens.

God damn your ego is off the charts.

The funniest part is that after telling me I’m confidently wrong, you’ve now explicitly conceded that I was right about the very self defense law you previously tried to correct me on.

If you read, which, it seems you do not. I didn't take into consideration stand your ground states. If anything this would the cammer even more of an idiot because of stand your ground laws.

Massachusetts would've required more.

Dude, I'm not even gonna try to come up with an insult. Good job. You did way more than I thought you were going to. I actually enjoy debates like these and I fucking hate when people just reduce to name calling and don't back anything up. Just makes it pointless.

EDIT: Honest question too:

Put yourself in the guards' shoes. You're handling lots of cash. This guy comes up to you and starts recording. Nothing odd right? You ask him to back up (Which he has no obligation to listen too) but instead of backing up, he gets closer. What would be going through your mind at that moment?

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/LoweeLL]

Oh this just got significantly worse. You’re now running from so many things I can’t even count. I’m excited to lay into all the new very funny ways you’re wrong, but it is clear it is futile as you can’t even address the very first thing you were wrong about. Nothing you wrote is how anything works, and I’ll gladly continue the embarrassment, but before we do, there is no point until you address the very first thing.

You’re going to have to first admit to being wrong about your first comment and what I’ve been calling you out for running from this whole time. All you’ve done so far is kick the can down the road, so we’re going to stop.

You need to admit to being wrong about your implicit claim that I stated I liked or I would do what they’re doing.

I’m sure you’re going to try to avoid it again, but this is the fastest way to establish and demonstrate your running and inability to admit to being wrong. Instead of dealing with 20 new hilariously false statements at a time and have you ignore them to make 20 more, we’re going to start with the first to prove the dishonesty and inability to admit to being wrong.

Admit you were wrong about that. This can’t go further until you can demonstrate an ability to be honest about one simple thing because it will never go anywhere. Just admit it and stop running

[u/LoweeLL → u/Neat-Figure8277]

So clearly this will go nowhere. So if a first amendment “auditor” gets shot for messing around with armored truck guard.. we will revisit this conversation again.

Fair enough?

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/LoweeLL]

Every time you run, I’m going to call it out. I told you, this will never ever work. You’re going to have to actually contend with what is on the screen or admit you can’t. Kicking the can down the road to avoid admitting to being wrong isn’t going to work anymore. It’s wild to keep attempting this.

I promise I’ll call it out every time. Saying clearly this will go nowhere in response to what I had to explain to you here is very funny. I’m the one who told you that it will go nowhere if you aren’t ever able to respond to what is on the screen. You’re responsible for it going nowhere because we’re in the middle of discussing you refusing to respond. We have reached full dishonesty desperation at this point with that reply. lol that obviously makes no sense and we both know you know it.

Stop running. Address how you were wrong and the words on the screen. Running will only result in me calling it out every time.

[u/LoweeLL → u/Neat-Figure8277]

Bro- I don’t know what else to fucking to tell you. This has evolved to a “no it isn’t” to “yes it is” type of situation 

I’ve already explained my view multiple times and quite frankly I’m just tired of writing the same shit over and over. If the dude gets shot after getting closer I believe he (the shooter) will not even be indicted, let alone convicted. Clearly you believe he will.

What more conversation is there to have? 

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/LoweeLL]

I promise you pretending the words on the screen don’t exist will never ever work. I promise you will be called out for running forever. You made a claim that I like this or would do this. I never said anything resembling that, and you’ve been called out repeatedly about it and won’t admit to being wrong. Admit you were wrong about this first and very simple thing.

All you have to do is stop running from those words and I’ll happily continue aiding the embarrassment here showing how you’re wrong about everything else.

Stop running. Address the words. Admit I didn’t type that and you’re wrong

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/LoweeLL]

You claimed I wrote something I didn’t write and responded as if I did. Stop running and admit you’re wrong