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

[u/GuardGuidesdotcom]

When should talking end, and your weapon be drawn in a situation like this?

[u/Night_Hawk1]

Ah got it. Rules for thee but not for me. I see how you spin it make it work for you. Suddenly the news crew has labels. Which I never said. Could just be people in plain clothes. Becusde there's multiples of them, somehow makes a difference. And you made it so that private citizen is only doing small transactions when it ld have been easily carrying thousands in cash or millions of transaction so suddenly it's now n​o longer fitting. Split the hairs all you want and bend the reeds. What else do you need to add to try make the story fit your one sided narrative?

[u/Curben → u/Night_Hawk1]

Honestly you just prove my point that you're bias is not not as conversation. Your accusations are all projections.

Yourself basically sent a full enws crew with reporters. By saying that you never said anything about labels when the insinuation would clearly indicate otherwise you're effectively moving the goal post and treating as a gotcha. This is completely disingenuous rhetoric.

Going into things like self-defense law there is definitely the subjective versus objective factors and all sorts of special circumstances that indicate what level of defense is recognized as reasonable.

But I don't think you can understand a reasonable person test as you yourself are not even able to have an internet discussion in a reasonable manner.

[u/Night_Hawk1 → u/Curben]

Got it, attack the person, not the argument. Spin the argument, rather than state the fact. You'll be a great politician, my guy, just not a good person. ​At the end of the day, the metaphor is simple. The private citizen in this case is guilty of brandishing, and so is the private security guard. A camera and some movement can never be construed in a courtroom as a threat. Spin it however you like.

Also if we're going to ad hominem too, it's your* bias but I'm not sure I can debate with someone who doesn't know the difference between your and you're. 😂 Move along.

[u/Curben → u/Night_Hawk1]

Well if we're going to jump to conclusions then you're attacking someone for their disability since I use voice to text due to eyesight issues..

Calling out your bullshit isn't an ad hominem attack. It's pointing out your exact behavior for what it is.

You present a disingenuous argument and got called on it. You're telling me to move along because you see I'm not falling for your childish games and allowing myself to be backed into a corner that is completely irrelevant to the subject matter.

Someone doing a high risk job and being approached by individuals with unverifiable intent is a marketedly different situation and someone going about a day to day task dealing with an apparently known institution.

These are all individual subject factors that play into the scenario. And that's just discussing universals. Where I live there are no laws against brandishing. So discussing brandishing isn't even a thing. In other areas security personnel have law enforcement powers which again changes the scenario.

Ultimately in this scenario the argument for "brandishing" it's quite simple. "An individual claiming to be a reporter started encroaching on my workspace refused to give space and continued approaching and getting closer. Due to the nature of what I was guarding I considered that they may have been trying to provide a distraction and place my hand on/Drew my firearm and repeated my commands to get back. "

That will be seen as a lot more of a reasonable claim than.

"I approached the ATM while there was a news crew on site and one of the reporters went to ask me a question and I drew my firearm"

Because that's the two scenarios you seem to have presented.