FattMatt

Registered User
You have no conceptual understanding of the law. Law considers the totality of the circumstances, not just the letter of the law. Maybe you shouldn't be practicing law, since you're horrible at it.
Are you sure you were responding to my statement, as I clearly pointed out a person's rights when having to deal with someone with no authority.
 

Cassano

Registered User
Cassano sounds like a cop. They can twist the law anyway they want to make it fit their narrative.
I WAS a cop for 20 years and a POST instructor in Constitutional Law. I also spent 15 years as a Paralegal / Chief Investigator for a Criminal and Traffic Defense law firm. I'm not twisting anything, sunshine. I'm stating what the precedent case law has established. The ruling of the DA in the Furry Potato case is sound and has a proper legal foundation. While the actions of the security guard were reckless, prior to that, he had lawful authority, considering the totality of the circumstances, to demand the citizen leave even a public sidewalk if he perceived their presence was a potential threat. That's not MY SPIN, you idiot. That's what the courts have determined in similar situations and clearly the DA's office applied those legal principles.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
I WAS a cop for 20 years and a POST instructor in Constitutional Law. I also spent 15 years as a Paralegal / Chief Investigator for a Criminal and Traffic Defense law firm. I'm not twisting anything, sunshine. I'm stating what the precedent case law has established. The ruling of the DA in the Furry Potato case is sound and has a proper legal foundation. While the actions of the security guard were reckless, prior to that, he had lawful authority, considering the totality of the circumstances, to demand the citizen leave even a public sidewalk if he perceived their presence was a potential threat. That's not MY SPIN, you idiot. That's what the courts have determined in similar situations and clearly the DA's office applied those legal principles.
You keep talking about laws and cases, but all you have done is tell people they are idiots for asking what laws or cases you are referring to. Please name a case that is similar to this where charges were dropped on negligent discharge because the victim was filming. Remember part of the circumstances if that there is no way to know that a school is inside that building.

And remember, we are not trying to convict Furry for filming there, so time, place, and manner is irrelevant as there is no statute against what she did. We are trying to convict the security guard for discharging his weapon at someone filming his crazy reaction to her.
 

Cassano

Registered User
You keep talking about laws and cases, but all you have done is tell people they are idiots for asking what laws or cases you are referring to. Please name a case that is similar to this where charges were dropped on negligent discharge because the victim was filming. Remember part of the circumstances if that there is no way to know that a school is inside that building.

And remember, we are not trying to convict Furry for filming there, so time, place, and manner is irrelevant as there is no statute against what she did. We are trying to convict the security guard for discharging his weapon at someone filming his crazy reaction to her.
The fact is the DA cited reasons for NOT charging the guard. No case law is going to change that, so what is your point ?
 

Cassano

Registered User
"Law considers the totality of the circumstances, not just the letter of the law." Cassano

Do any of us have access to all the reports, interviews, etc. to make a truly informed opinion on the totality of the circumstances? Or are we second guessing decisions based upon our own biases and opinions? IMO no one has access to make a fully informed decision as to the validity of any decisions that have been made or will be made in the future. Even after discovery in the civil suit, I would speculate there will remain unanswered questions and speculation as to why certain decisions were made.
Why do all of you keep beating a dead horse? The DA cited the legal reasons for NOT charging the guard. What in the world do you think will change that decision?
 

Cassano

Registered User
Further information on the shooting of Furry Potato has become available. The LA County District Attorney charge evaluation worksheet indicates that the School Guard was authorized to demand that Furry Potato move from the side walk adjacent to the school under California Penal code 626.8.
Just because it’s a sidewalk doesn’t mean you can be there!
View attachment 136
View attachment 139

Continue reading...
I've been saying the same thing in this thread, and yet nobody seems to get it.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
The fact is the DA cited reasons for NOT charging the guard. No case law is going to change that, so what is your point ?
My point is that you talk about case law similar to this situation. I'm wondering if you can tell me the name of any of those cases. On the other hand, I don't really care what happens as far as a criminal case goes to the security guard.
Police Investigating Alleged Constitutional Violations By Officer Caught On Video | Jersey Shore Online
Did you see this story? How do you feel about it?
 

observer

Staff member
Curator
Why do all of you keep beating a dead horse? The DA cited the legal reasons for NOT charging the guard. What in the world do you think will change that decision?
I will disagree that we are beating a dead horse nor do I think that anything I say or do on this forum would change the decision of the DA.

What I am attempting to do is share differing perspectives and occasionally an opinion as to how I see the issue. I am not an attorney nor do I desire to be, but I do want to learn. By participating in forums like this where ideas are shared and discussed I hope to grow in both the knowledge and the application of the law. I am also hopeful that others that might read or follow the forum will also benefit. If the forum is to just post the "facts" and "documents" then it will miss a huge opportunity to assist those that it is intending to serve.

From Texas Wolfman's intro on the homepage:

Welcome to FAAN Club, your connection to the First Amendment Auditing Community. This website was created to facilitate an open discussion about how auditing and cop watching can help or hurt our ability to exercise our Constitutional Rights.

FAAN Club was created by activists and viewers who’s interest is in increasing the political strength and public support of the auditing community. Our goal is to increase the public’s trust, respect and interest.
 

worldtour

Registered User
Further information on the shooting of Furry Potato has become available. The LA County District Attorney charge evaluation worksheet indicates that the School Guard was authorized to demand that Furry Potato move from the side walk adjacent to the school under California Penal code 626.8.
Just because it’s a sidewalk doesn’t mean you can be there!
View attachment 136
View attachment 139

Continue reading...
When this community started it was to hold POLICE ACCOUNTABLE, not churches, postal workers, Hospitals etc, these people are making it a circus, Now 90% of Auditors just want confrontations, silent treatment acting fool, hoping to get pd, grown men baiting, baiting,baiting & harrassment of city, county workers trying to get a check & CONSTANTLY asking for money is an embarrassment for all, and to flip it and say you're standing up for my rights, LOL please police need to be accountable, stick to that
 

observer

Staff member
Curator
When this community started it was to hold POLICE ACCOUNTABLE, not churches, postal workers, Hospitals etc, these people are making it a circus, Now 90% of Auditors just want confrontations, silent treatment acting fool, hoping to get pd, grown men baiting, baiting,baiting & harrassment of city, county workers trying to get a check & CONSTANTLY asking for money is an embarrassment for all, and to flip it and say you're standing up for my rights, LOL please police need to be accountable, stick to that
Activism takes many forms and the Youtube First Amendment "community" is a very small segment of the larger efforts to hold government accountable. I agree that "churches, postal workers, Hospitals etc" are not normally in need of accountability. I also would agree that a large percentage of auditors use the audit to confront and harass employees that have little or no ability to implement any changes in law or policy.

I do however disagree that auditors need to focus on police accountability. I would encourage those desiring to see change to conduct open record requests on their local school board, city & county level government, to attend open meetings of the same governing boards, and to observe local courts and serve on juries if called. Becoming involved in any of these areas will enlighten you to how they operate and you may find areas that need further investigation and accountability.

It is my opinion that most government employees attempt to abide by the rules and perform their job duties to the best of their abilities. However, it takes only one "bad apple" to start the corruption and misdeeds that can spread and destroy the image and credibility of an agency.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Personally, I don't care for cop watches that much. I also don't like doing oil fields, prisons, refineries, military bases, or some churches. However, places that the general public usually goes are fair game, in my opinion. You need for the public to see that filming is allowed, even if it is annoying to them. By getting annoyed, they will be more likely to research the law themselves. The First Amendment is most importantly upheld when it creates controversy. Over the last few years, countless public employees and visitors have learned that it is OK to film in public. There are a lot more to go. Good job auditors!
 

worldtour

Registered User
Personally, I don't care for cop watches that much. I also don't like doing oil fields, prisons, refineries, military bases, or some churches. However, places that the general public usually goes are fair game, in my opinion. You need for the public to see that filming is allowed, even if it is annoying to them. By getting annoyed, they will be more likely to research the law themselves. The First Amendment is most importantly upheld when it creates controversy. Over the last few years, countless public employees and visitors have learned that it is OK to film in public. There are a lot more to go. Good job auditors!
Hello, so are you saying that the public in general do not know that they can film in public? I would disagree, like I said most are in it for views, money, etc, looking for confrontations, walking into a police station and someone ask may I help you and they get " I don't need your help, or they get cussed out" that's not teaching anyone nothing of value Silent observer answered my post which I think we both can agree
 

worldtour

Registered User
Activism takes many forms and the Youtube First Amendment "community" is a very small segment of the larger efforts to hold government accountable. I agree that "churches, postal workers, Hospitals etc" are not normally in need of accountability. I also would agree that a large percentage of auditors use the audit to confront and harass employees that have little or no ability to implement any changes in law or policy.

I do however disagree that auditors need to focus on police accountability. I would encourage those desiring to see change to conduct open record requests on their local school board, city & county level government, to attend open meetings of the same governing boards, and to observe local courts and serve on juries if called. Becoming involved in any of these areas will enlighten you to how they operate and you may find areas that need further investigation and accountability.

It is my opinion that most government employees attempt to abide by the rules and perform their job duties to the best of their abilities. However, it takes only one "bad apple" to start the corruption and misdeeds that can spread and destroy the image and credibility of an agency.
Thanks for replying, I agree with you 100%
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
Hello, so are you saying that the public in general do not know that they can film in public? I would disagree, like I said most are in it for views, money, etc, looking for confrontations, walking into a police station and someone ask may I help you and they get " I don't need your help, or they get cussed out" that's not teaching anyone nothing of value Silent observer answered my post which I think we both can agree
I'm surprised you haven't noticed the huge number of citizens in these videos that think they can't be filmed without giving their permission.
 

RogueRivered

Registered User
The great thing about auditing over copwatching is that it is often a 2 for 1 situation -- the government employee doesn't know the law, acts like a tyrant, and then calls the police. And when the police arrive, the auditor can talk to and record the police directly, as opposed to standing back and recording a scene without really being able to hear what's going on.
 

trickster

Registered User
It's a shame that a moron like this is probably going to get a huge payday from his shenanigans. No excusing what the unhinged guard did, but the passive-aggressive "silent treatment" is just asking for trouble. Just look at how many times this guy gets himself assaulted when many others auditors never get touched.
 

Cassano

Registered User
And which statute is that? I'm not aware of any statutes that restrict someone from filming on a public sidewalk, except maybe the California Penal code 626.8, which does not apply to constitutionally-protected rights of speech and assembly.
That's something that would have to be addressed by a Federal Court. As it stands, the State ruled that it was not Constitutionally protected speech or assembly and that FP violated certain State laws with her presence and actions. Whether those assertions will meet Constitutional muster would have to be determined at a later date and in a higher arena of law.
 

Cassano

Registered User
My point is that you talk about case law similar to this situation. I'm wondering if you can tell me the name of any of those cases. On the other hand, I don't really care what happens as far as a criminal case goes to the security guard.
Police Investigating Alleged Constitutional Violations By Officer Caught On Video | Jersey Shore Online
Did you see this story? How do you feel about it?
I think the article sums it up. Any sanction of the officer would depend on a lot of factors. Should every officer who does this be terminated? No. Should officers who repeatedly have disciplinary problems be penalized? Yes. Should "Police State New Jersey" follow up with a civil action? No. Quite often, the end result being sought is EDUCATION and CHANGE. Had he been arrested, that might be a different story.

By the way, finding case law (which I've never alluded to the fact that there is any) in regard to the FP situation would likely be quite difficult if not impossible. I have never referred to "case law similar to this situation" as you claim I have. I consistently referred to the California Penal Code that the DA is citing. The reason I say it would be difficult to find case law specific to those circumstances is that you have to look at all the surrounding factors. Private citizen, public sidewalk, security guard, shots fired.......this was such an aberrant and divergent situation, it's probably never happened before. If FP takes this to the Federal level, it would probably be a first, and maybe set precedent.
 

observer

Staff member
Curator
I'm surprised you haven't noticed the huge number of citizens in these videos that think they can't be filmed without giving their permission.
The one common theme that I do see throughout most "auditing" videos is the term "education." However, in the majority of the videos there is no education especially "the huge number of citizens in these videos that think they can't be filmed without giving their permission."

If the auditors truly had the motive of educating and not click bait and reaction video, they would spend the time with citizens and share the law and their goals in a polite, courteous manner. Instead those that do any "education" do so in an aggressive and incomplete manner that leaves the citizen(s) even more disillusioned with the auditor.

A little investment of time and communication could make a huge difference in public perception, but it would drastically reduce their YouTube revenue, so ask yourself what is truly their motive.

This communication also applies with law enforcement, but again which direction do most auditors take any contact with law enforcement or security.
 

Subscribe

New Threads

Featured Video

Members online

No members online now.
Top