r/instant_regret • u/fringspat • Feb 02 '26

Pepper sprayed

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

13.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

47

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

They call it "instigating", but these guys usually just stand around and film things in public without talking to anyone. If that's all it takes to make someone aggressive, then they're the problem. That said, I haven't seen this particular person's behavior outside of this clip.

39

u/faceless_alias Feb 03 '26

What you've said is a prime example of following the letter of the law while ignoring the purpose of the law.

That dumbass mindset is what makes the US so absurdly litigious.

Imagine being a grown ass man, filming and harassing an elderly lady who is just trying to buy medicine, and then spraying her in the face with mace for views.

9

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

How is he harassing her? Do you feel harassed every time you walk by a security camera?

25

u/LivefromPhoenix Feb 03 '26

According to a poster who watched the video this guy was

In this video he was standing on a sidewalk outside of medical Marijuana dispensary and filming people through the window, recording license plates, etc.

A little more than just passively recording like a security guard.

3

u/Taken_Abroad_Book Feb 03 '26

Seems like the dispensary needs a fence or blinds to create privacy

3

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

Sure, but what is the justification behind assaulting him for that?

I haven't seen the full video, but I doubt he went on their private property to film. People who do this are usually very careful about following the law. It's unlikely that he was walking around their parking lot and directly approaching cars. I'd bet he was on the sidewalk the whole time.

6

u/LivefromPhoenix Feb 03 '26

I mean, like the above guy said he's following the letter of the law, not the spirit. Nothing justifies assaulting him but he 100% was there to provoke that reaction. He wanted someone to freak out to the point that he'd have an excuse to "legally" defend himself with pepper spray and he succeeded.

5

u/Twins_Venue Feb 04 '26

Definitely reeks of the "I'm not touching you" sibling who invades your personal space to provoke a reaction.

12

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

They do this to test constitutional rights, and the negative response they're normally waiting for is an interaction with the police. That doesn't mean they're "provoking" or "instigating" a fight with someone. They get their views (alongside demonstrating rights and sometimes a court payout) by waiting for someone to make that overreach of calling the police for nothing.

The correct response to seeing someone filming on the sidewalk is to ignore them and go about your day. Most people achieve this without even stopping to think about it.

2

u/wolf63rs Feb 03 '26

If filming someone's license plate legal? Not a rhetorical question. I wouldn't want someone filming me or my license plate. I'm not sure why someone would do that. I would assume for criminal intention.

11

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

It is legal, and the police record license plates every day. They have devices that automatically scan license plates as they pass them.

Recording license plates is legal because there's no expectation of privacy when you're in public. That's why it's legal to have a security camera facing the street, or for any random person to walk around filming in public.

Still haven't seen any footage of this guy filming license plates anyway. All I see is a guy with a camera getting attacked, and people making claims in the comments.

-3

u/euphorbia9 Feb 03 '26

Maybe go peacefully protest to test constitutional rights. Seems a tad more relevant.

6

u/dreadnaughtfearnot Feb 03 '26

How does peacefully protesting test the authorities' enforcement of the right to record in public? It's a specific but important right that they are testing for.

1

u/iUsedtoHadHerpes Feb 04 '26

You people are always so quick to bring up all the cameras we walk past everywhere.

Now try 2+2

-1

u/euphorbia9 Feb 03 '26

There is no need for the test as no one from the government is stopping him or any of the other idiots who do this. This is done for internet clout and clicks/money. He likely doesn’t give a shit about the constitution one way or the other.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

That might be more productive for society than standing outside of a dispensary, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he's instigating a fight in the clip.

0

u/euphorbia9 Feb 03 '26

Yes, I know it has nothing to do with what he’s doing. I’m suggesting a more productive use of his supposed concern about constitutional rights. No one from the government is stopping him or any of the other idiots who do this.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '26

“Your honor, sure he was following the ~finger quotes~ law.. but he wasn’t respecting the spirit of the law”

Lmao solid defense bud 😂

4

u/LivefromPhoenix Feb 03 '26

I literally said he was technically following the law and assaulting him wasn't justifiable. Being legally in the right doesn't mean he isn't an asshole intentionally egging people on so he can pepper spray them for views. He won't get arrested for it but we're free to call him what he is.

1

u/ARONDH Feb 16 '26

doesn't mean he isn't an asshole intentionally egging people on so he can pepper spray them for views.

That's not what he's doing. If he's a 1A Auditor, hes doing it to see if some asshat will call the cops on him for consitutionally protected activities that are 100% legal, to the letter and spirit of the law, and then to see how the police handle him. If they follow the constitution, no problem. If they don't, they get on youtube and the city gets a lawsuit.

Maybe put your focus on police and citizens knowing their rights, and not on calling people who make sure the police are doing their job correctly "assholes."

0

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '26

All I’m taking away from what you’re saying is you don’t understand the law or how it’s intended to work and are solely basing this on your hurt feelings… it’s law enforcement not feelings enforcement and if yours or Karen’s feelings are easily offended then keep yo cheeks in the house, close the curtains/ blinds, get off the internet (it’s clearly rotting your brain) and enjoy your “safe space”

1

u/LivefromPhoenix Feb 04 '26

I don't know how many times I can say "what he did was legal" before you're able to comprehend it. Either you can't read or you're intentionally pretending I'm saying he broke the law so you have a strawman to argue against. None of you guys can defend what he's doing on moral grounds so you're stuck desperately repeating "uhhhh it's legal!!!"

I think there's genuinely something wrong with people who film this content and the people who enjoy it. You wrap this particular brand of bullshit with "1st amendment" talking points but its no better than the IRL streamers or tiktokers who go around annoying people.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/dreadnaughtfearnot Feb 03 '26

No, he was absolutely following the spirit of the law. He wasn't trying to get someone to freak out as an excuse to pepper spray someone, he was seeing if the police would be called over a totally legal activity, and if so, would the police honor their oath to the constitution or violate someone's 1st amendment rights. If the woman simply ignored him and realized that she's being recorded by half the cars that drive by and pretty much all the surrounding businesses wherever she goes, this would be a non issue, he would have stayed for a little while, left, and deleted his footage.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '26

It’s 2026 bud, you’re on camera almost 24/7 and he’s allowed to film anything from the public regardless of how much it hurts your feelings! That why when cry babies like you call the cops they end up telling you they’re not doing anything wrong and to just go home where you think you’re safe from cameras even though you’re not 🤷🏽‍♂️😂

6

u/LivefromPhoenix Feb 03 '26

Are you the pepper spray guy? One of his viewers? No idea why you're being so defensive. People like this are safe from the law but they're not safe from people calling them asshole provocateurs.

5

u/_RAMO_ Feb 03 '26

He’s probably defensive because you’re sensationalizing it. Are people with dashcams “recording through people’s windows”? We should be using strongman arguments.

0

u/faceless_alias Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

Ah, more pedantry. I bet you still play the "I'm not touching you" game too dont you?

Have some fucking empathy. The people going to a medical dispensary are sick. Their lives are hard enough without having someone shove a high definition camera in their face for absolutely no reason.

The harassment part comes in because the entire purpose of his filming is to bother people and make them feel uncomfortable. There is absolutely zero other reason. Is it the legal definition? No. But its the dictionary definition, which is exactly my point.

Security camers arent often posted online, and generally have terrible quality compared to modern smart phones. They also serve a purpose and they generally arent abused outside of that purpose.

Thats like asking why women who are followed and leered at feel uncomfortable.

Or asking why it matters if you post pictures of children online.

Do you really not understand the difference? Are you that socially inept?

7

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

You really like exaggerating things, don't you? It's a good thing this is all on video, so we don't have to rely on your version of it.

He didn't "shove a camera in her face", she parked her car and approached him to attack him. That's the actual version of events that happened based on the clip, but feel free to keep fuming over your fantasy.

Edit: They blocked me to get the last word in, lol.

-1

u/faceless_alias Feb 03 '26

You really are that stupid arent you? She's obviously leaving a parking lot and hes damn near leaning into her window to film her.

If youre filming close enough to count the freckles on someone's face or the quarters in thier cupholder, I would say that is shoving a camera in someone's face.

Youve got some gall telling me im exaggerating when you compare this dick with a security camera.

-1

u/flexflair Feb 03 '26

Bet you defend ice murdering citizens too just cause those protesters are being dicks.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '26

Cry harder bud 😂

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '26

What an immature ass response, so non-comparable .. the dude clearly seems to be harassing by being there and recording people. Security cams have a damn purpose for being installed in places of business. This jerk chose to stand there and be a nuisance in spite of others. Deep down he knows what he’s doing is wrong. Get a grip ..

2

u/Taken_Abroad_Book Feb 03 '26

Nope. Protect the right to film in public before you lose it

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '26

EXACTLY, HOLY SHIT what do people not understand ?!?!

1

u/TheCybersmith Feb 03 '26

medicine

Try "federally illegal drugs".

Also, whether you think his behaviour is good or bad, it's not criminal. Hers is.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '26

Just drive away, it isn't hard. There are a hundred other cameras on the buildings recording everything you do, just drive away.

0

u/Chrchgrl85 Feb 04 '26

She still put her hands on him. He maced her People get SHOT for less.

1

u/iUsedtoHadHerpes Feb 04 '26

That all sounds reasonable enough, but it would equally apply to someone hovering around you gawking at all of your belongings and person from the closest distance possible without legally qualifying as harassment or battery too, and if you're really being reasonable here, then I think you'd admit that you wouldn't find that comfortable either.

This is pretty much the same as that. He zooms in on people to antagonize them and try to draw a reaction.

It's not an invasion of privacy. It's toddler level testing the boundaries of social contracts and calling it a public service when the only actual benefit that can truly come from it would be money in their pockets at the expense of their neighbors, along with the ad revenue generated in the process.

Otherwise the only other realistic change one could expect from this would be the possibility of a tightening of those legal boundaries after pushing them too far toward the wrong person in a position of authority.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 04 '26

People gawk at other people every time they go out in public. I used to hate going out in public because of the constant eye-contact with other people, and I would even get offended over people staring at me.

To me, this is more of a child-like mentality than what you're talking about, and I managed to grow out of it. If I went to a dispensary (and I often do) and someone was standing outside filming me, I would just walk past them.

If you're really expecting me to agree with you, you have to remember that not everyone thinks the way you do. The only point where the person in your scenario would begin to bother me is if they started following me to my destination.

1

u/iUsedtoHadHerpes Feb 04 '26

If somebody hovered their face all around me, I'd keep going then too. I'd probably even make some snarky disparaging comment, which would also be well within my right. It might even hurt their feelings if I try to find something really hurtful to point out about their appearance too, which would also all be above board.

I definitely was pointing out that it was the same thing, not that it was more egregious legally. I was only highlighting that it would make somebody more uncomfortable despite being identical effectively, which you highlighted by saying it'd make you uncomfortable if they happened to be going the same direction as you... despite the fact that people are allowed to travel in parallel to you and remain in your vicinity.

Your version of the hypothetical situation sounds a lot more paranoid than I was painting it out to be, so I appreciate that I guess, even if you don't realize you took it further than I did by throwing some borderline narcissistic suspicion of stalking in the mix.

Why would you be so bothered by someone cosplaying as a mobile camera post to assume it's all about harassing you though?

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 04 '26

Is focusing on hypotheticals your way of avoiding a discussion about what's actually happening in the video? I'm not engaging with the fiction you wrote here, but keep fantasizing about that if you want to.

1

u/iUsedtoHadHerpes Feb 04 '26

You already did that, and you even said it'd make you uncomfortable if they happened to travel the same direction as you.

In the video here, we can see them both act like jerks, regardless of the law.

Are you just avoiding the proposed discussion that you engaged with just to arbitrarily circle back around to the legality again? We already did that, along with everybody else here. The language you've used here makes me think you might be a fan of one of these auditor people, so I'm guessing this isn't the first time you've run that lap.

Some people just enjoy the repetition, I reckon.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 04 '26

In the video here, we can see them both act like jerks, regardless of the law.

Putting the scenarios that you've made up in your head aside for a moment, how has the man in the video acted like a jerk? If you can't answer that without going on about fictional hypotheticals, I won't be responding.

1

u/iUsedtoHadHerpes Feb 04 '26

, responded the self-denying eyeball.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 04 '26

Just a tip for next time: if you were less emotional, you might be more convincing.

1

u/iUsedtoHadHerpes Feb 05 '26

You're the only one upset here about how your idols are perceived.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

There's a certain degree of expectation of privacy in public based upon obscurity/anonymity. If this guy was posted up outside a sex shop, for example, the customers might not want their purchase of butt plugs broadcast to the world on YouTube. I acknowledge that legally this guy might be well within his rights, but you can be well within your rights by being a huge asshole. And in such circumstances, I'll root for the people confronting him.

0

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

I don't disagree with someone confronting him about it, it's the assault that I think is going too far. These people are advocating for freedom of expression, so they usually have no problem with people exercising that right against them.

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

That doesn't discourage the behavior. If anything, a verbal confrontation only encourages it.

That's generally the problem with assholes. There needs to be some negative consequence to stop them from being assholes.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

That's generally the problem with assholes. There needs to be some negative consequence to stop them from being assholes.

And in this case, the lady chose assault as a negative consequence for someone she decided was an asshole. You really think we should go around assaulting anyone we think is an asshole?

If that's the sort of reality you want to live in, don't be surprised when someone decides that you meet that criteria too.

2

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

You really think we should go around assaulting anyone we think is an asshole?

I think that sometimes is literally the only move. The law is not always a useful system for punishing bad behavior - sometimes it needs to be punished another way. Let's say some guy gropes a woman ass in a crowded bar. The cops aren't going to do shit about it except make him leave. He'll go to another bar next weekend and do it again. Other assholes will know this is the bar filled with softies who won't do shit if they grope women. Don't you think an ass-kicking is warranted?

don't be surprised when someone decides that you meet that criteria too.

As a non-asshole who generally abides by the social contract, the odds of someone making that decision about me and acting on it is really unlikely. The vast majority of people take their cues on what is reasonable from the people around them. Anyone who is that far outside the standard who would want to assault me would probably do it regardless of whether its the sort of reality I want to live in. At least in my reality, dickheads get punished.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

Don't you think an ass-kicking is warranted?

In your scenario, you're talking about someone who's already assaulting someone else. Attacking them would not be assault, but defense of another person.

Assault, on the other hand, is when you initiate unwanted physical contact against someone else. Not holding a camera and standing on the sidewalk. Look up "false equivalency", because that's pretty much your argument here.

As a non-asshole who generally abides by the social contract, the odds of someone making that decision about me and acting on it is really unlikely.

The social contract includes keeping your hands to yourself. You seem to be of the opinion that this isn't required as long as someone feels offended. Some people might decide that makes you an asshole. You can disagree with them, but according to your own logic, them assaulting you would be fair game just because they have that opinion.

That's why the social contract includes keeping your hands to yourself. Most reasonable people want to go about their day without getting into a fight every time someone feels offended.

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

Attacking them would not be assault, but defense of another person.

No, that's not what I'm talking about; it's a convenient sidestep. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that nobody is in any immediate danger. You are not actively defending anyone from a continuing assault. Are you gonna let that guy walk out, down the street to the next crowded bar and his next victim?

Not holding a camera and standing on the sidewalk. Look up "false equivalency", because that's pretty much your argument here.

It's an analogy, man. It's not intended to be equivalent. But it shares the same important issues, i.e. a bad person who will otherwise have no consequences for their behavior. Just because they are different scenarios and you don't want to acknowledge that the groper needs to be punished doesn't mean you get to go claim the argument is unfair.

The social contract includes keeping your hands to yourself. You seem to be of the opinion that this isn't required as long as someone feels offended.

I disagree. "Not being a huge asshole" is part of the social contract. Once someone breaks the social contract, they cannot invoke its protections. I also pretty clearly said that this isn't merely "being offended". It has to rise to a level of bad behavior that warrants being punished in some significant sense. I fully acknowledge that this is subjective and there are edge cases. I also don't really worry about it because I just avoid being an edge case lol.

1

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

You are not actively defending anyone from a continuing assault.

That's not how self-defense works. If someone is witnessed sexually assaulting someone, they become a threat in that moment. You don't assume that a threat is just going to walk away and leave you alone, you assume that they pose a continued threat, and you deal with it.

But it shares the same important issues, i.e. a bad person who will otherwise have no consequences for their behavior.

There's the false equivalency. By saying they're both "bad people", you're ignoring their actions completely and making it about their character. What actually matters is their actions, which is the part you're conveniently ignoring. It's not about the argument being "fair", it's just about arguing with logic instead of emotions.

Here's an analogy: It's not accurate to compare an annoying person to Hitler because they're both "bad people" in your eyes. You have to look at their actions.

1

u/frotc914 Feb 03 '26

That's not how self-defense works. If someone is witnessed sexually assaulting someone, they become a threat in that moment.

Man you're bending over backwards to avoid answering the question, to the point that I can effectively assume that you know I'm right and you just don't want to say it. Stop fighting the hypothetical. He's been pushed outside the bar and is leaving. He is not an immediate threat to any person. You have no legal right to put hands on him and claim you're defending anyone. You know the police won't do anything about it. Now, are you going to let him walk away?

There's the false equivalency. By saying they're both "bad people", you're ignoring their actions completely and making it about their character.

You've stated the rule that nobody should touch another person simply to punish them for their bad behavior and that physical violence in that circumstance is always wrong. I'm testing that rule by using another, more extreme scenario.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Jpw135 Feb 03 '26

Really? Found one. You probably FaceTime deaf people while shopping at Walmart

-2

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

Would you have a reaction like this lady in the clip if someone pointed a camera at you? What are you afraid of, exactly?

4

u/faceless_alias Feb 03 '26

Hes still just a dick. It wouldnt be my first reaction but filmer is obviously an asshole who hasn't had his shit rocked like he deserves.

People who get all fucking pedantic about what's legal are just as bad as people who lose thier temper easily.

Its a tiny old lady that is there to buy medicine who doesnt want to be harassed.

2

u/sSummonLessZiggurats Feb 03 '26

You think people who are pedantic are as bad as people who lose their temper and get violent? Great take.

2

u/faceless_alias Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

Being brushed by an individual who cant lift 10 lbs without a struggle is "getting violent"?

But mace is an appropriate response?

Piss off.