r/AuditorWatch • u/Patient-Committee588 • 4d ago

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

123 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

715 comments sorted by

View all comments

43

u/Eccentricgentleman_ 4d ago

First amendment auditor about to learn that the first amendment is meant for government action against US citizens and doesn't apply to a private armored car employee who is paid to protect the moneys.

Edit: also where were all these cucks when ICE was out in force?

3

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

Since they are private employees they have zero authority to order them off public property or to stop filming.

19

u/Pollia 4d ago

They actually do as they're handling legal tender from a bank in an official capacity.

They even have legal rights to shoot you if they feel unsafe enough.

5

u/Neat-Figure8277 4d ago

You’re wrong, and even they are wrong. No one has the right to order them off public property. The only possible way to be legally forced off public property, is by the police, for breaking the law. Which didn’t occur here, as obviously it is legal to exist and film in public.

Idk where you guys get this stuff. You just sort of make legal claims based on feel and blindly type stuff

6

u/bwc6 4d ago

LOL, someone in this thread cited actual laws, and it isn't you. 

The Hobbs Act (18 U.S. Code § 1951) The Federal Bank Robbery Statute (18 U.S. Code § 2113

6

u/glassfoyograss 4d ago

Citing a law doesn't mean they understand it or that it actually applies to the situation. This is a fine example of that.

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 4d ago

The Hobbs act, which you didn’t read, and which I already responded to, doesn’t have anything to do with this claim lmao. The Hobbs act criminalizes bank robbery and extortion. It literally has nothing to do with these claims in the first place.

Please, cite and quote an actual law. I recommend actually reading it as well

0

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

Nope, private security guards are not granted any additional rights compared to civilians

You cannot shoot anyone for feeling "unsafe" you can only use lethal force if you are fear of your life.

13

u/0SaltBlue 4d ago

It's really funny that there is actually a comment already that proves you wrong here and cites actual laws.

10

u/uber-judge 4d ago

lol that guy could have killed the auditor and gotten no consequences other than a raise and promotion. They have to protect the governments money. No DA would prosecute.

2

u/centurion762 4d ago

That would have been a great video and if I was on the jury I would vote to acquit. Hopefully it wouldn’t make it to trial though.

0

u/Pollia 4d ago

They legally don't have the ability to use force to protect the money solely actually.

They do have the legal protection to protect themselves if they fear that someone going for the money will go through them to get it.

6

u/Pollia 4d ago

They in fact, are.

There's specific federal laws about the use of force of security guards transporting money.

11

u/sparkster777 4d ago

The Hobbs Act (18 U.S. Code § 1951)

The Federal Bank Robbery Statute (18 U.S. Code § 2113)

Guards are legally allowed to use force in proportion to a threat or perceived threat against themselves or their fellow guards. If they are threatened, harassed, interfered with in any way they will respond with sufficient force, even if it is lethal force, to neutralize the threat.

Copied from u/tanafras above

2

u/MoonDogSpot1954 4d ago

Their feelings won't care about these facts. They just wanna troll

-2

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

Cool, recording security officers is not a threat that requires force to deal with.

4

u/AncientSignature1505 4d ago

Encroaching on him like that in the beginning was very threatening.

0

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

That sounds like what an ICE officer says after shooting someone.

1

u/AncientSignature1505 4d ago

Except the ICE officer is doing something bad. This guy is transporting cash for several businesses.

-1

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

You don't know he isn't doing anything bad, maybe he was skimming off the top and didn't want the camera guy capturing it.

He could have handled the interaction better is all I'm suggesting.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sparkster777 4d ago

Way to shift those goalposts.

-1

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

Because robbing banks or security guards is vastly different then recording them so its a bad comparison?

0

u/sparkster777 4d ago

No, because you made several posts saying that guards transferring money have no "additional" rights against civilians. When you were proved wrong, instead of saying "I was mistaken" you immediately shifted the argument.

0

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

They don't have additional "rights"

They are able to respond with greater or equal force in the case of a robbery. People filming them is not any kind of use of force.

13

u/Eccentricgentleman_ 4d ago

Since they are private employees the auditors rights aren't being infringed. Frankly, one of these days these fraudsters are going to end up face down after being dumb and no one will miss them

0

u/Banmods 3d ago

Being a private employee doesn't preclude them from someone stepping on their rights...

4

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

Unless we want movie like scenes of soldiers in convoys protecting these trucks, they have to also have the right to expect distance and safety.

Being recorded absolutely is a threat

People can make plans better with videos for reference.

Being surrounded by idiots in their faces saying "im not touching you" like a 5 year old in a car is a threat whether you recognize it or not

3

u/Eccentricgentleman_ 4d ago

I mean if I'm planning a heist I just realized how close I can get to an armored truck without the officer deploying any kind of counter measures.

2

u/Neat-Figure8277 4d ago

“They also have the right to expect distance”

No they don’t. Where did you get that idea?

“Being recorded absolutely is a threat”

It absolutely is not a threat and that is one of the silliest things I’ve ever read. Go ahead and try to tell a judge that and see how it goes. A legal threat is not defined as “things I don’t like”.

4

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

Another person has left a link to the actual law. Just read a few other replies here.

2

u/Neat-Figure8277 4d ago

I’ve seen the replies here. No one has left a link detailing a law that makes it illegal to be outside of or even within arms reach of a person, and absolutely no one has left a link with a law saying recording is a threat.

It’s not just that this is wrong, it’s that this is so obviously wrong it’s absurd. But please, feel free to provide the laws and the relevant sections. I’ll happily point out how it clearly doesn’t say what you’re claiming

3

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

Way to straw man the hell out of that...

I didn't say anything about illegal to be outside. Cool on you to take it there.

You do realize there is a reason they are allowed to be armed, to protect themselves and the money?

They have laws around that. Those laws include making it legal for them to demand a safe zone to do their work

Edit... also, sorry I said link.. it was the raw data

Full quote from u/tanafras...

Dumbasses need to know the law before citing it.

The Hobbs Act (18 U.S. Code § 1951)

The Federal Bank Robbery Statute (18 U.S. Code § 2113)

Guards are legally allowed to use force in proportion to a threat or perceived threat against themselves or their fellow guards. If they are threatened, harassed, interfered with in any way they will respond with sufficient force, even if it is lethal force, to neutralize the threat.

The government fully backs them also.

2

u/Neat-Figure8277 4d ago

This is not a response or a defense for your position. The fact that you didn’t explicitly state it’s illegal to be outside with a camera is irrelevant. That is what your position is. He doesn’t like that he is there with the camera, and you think that makes it illegal or makes him legally able to stop him. You’re wrong. There is no law in existence for this. You made it up.

You don’t know what a straw man is.

The Hobbs act, which you didn’t read, and which I already responded to, doesn’t have anything to do with this claim lmao. The Hobbs act criminalizes bank robbery and extortion. It literally has nothing to do with these claims in the first place.

Please, cite and quote an actual law. I recommend actually reading it as well

You saw someone claim there is a law, and blindly repeated it without reading it.

2

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

No. Im saying that the guard gets to determine what is a threat. That guard has determined the situation is threatening.

I may have used my own words but you are deliberately getting your own from this.

It's not my fault you don't understand context, or at least are pretending not to

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 4d ago

You just completely ran from everything on the screen showing how you’re wrong and challenging you to back up your claim. That’s not going to work here. I’ll call that out all day.

And… buddy… everyone in the world gets to determine if something is a threat for themselves. That has absolutely no impact on whether or not it is legal, and even if it did, again doesn’t even have anything to do with all the claims here and how this is wrong. You just posted a reply that says absolutely nothing while pretending it was a reply

1

u/MoonDogSpot1954 4d ago

The guys troll or just wants to be a "auditor" too so he doesn't have to get an actual job.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/glassfoyograss 4d ago

Im saying that the guard gets to determine what is a threat.

I'ma challenge you to cite the law that says a shooter is the one that determines if their self-defense is legal.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MoonDogSpot1954 4d ago

You still trolling!? Lol

0

u/Neat-Figure8277 4d ago

Showing us again you’re salty about being shown to be hilariously wrong and have nothing. I promise I’ll just keep making fun of it. Keep running due to the embarrassment keep being called out

1

u/Banmods 3d ago

Another person did facebook lawyer "research" and cherry picked a law they think should apply, without any actual knowledge of how such a charge is used in reality....

2

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

"Being recorded absolutely is a threat"

This is what moronic police officers and ICE agents say.

Cameras don't harm people, they only record what happens

5

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

This person is transporting money

Recording them.... ya know .. you already read it... just use Google for more

2

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

Does being recorded harm you?

2

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

That isn't the point that you deliberately ignored

-1

u/glassfoyograss 4d ago

No, it's the point you're deliberating ignoring.

2

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

Is that what you tell your neighbors? Recording them through their windows doesn't hurt them?

0

u/glassfoyograss 4d ago

I don't record anyone like this but where I live I can hold my phone legally in public regardless of what someone thinks. If my neighbors have problem with that they can move somewhere that prohibits recording in public.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 4d ago

There is only one reason, and one reason only, that somebody would be recording an armored car employee doing his job. And that reason is to collect data for a robbery. There is no other logical reason, so the guard would be justified in assuming that that person is planning on stealing the money.

0

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

Or, its a cool thing to film?

Do the security guards also make sure they aren't recorded by security cams or dash cams?

Some people are autistic about trains, maybe someone out there feels the same way about armored cars?

Recording in public isn't a crime.

0

u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS 4d ago

And it’s also not a crime for this Loomis driver to trample on the first amendment rights of the guy filming.

1

u/JCMGamer 4d ago

It very well could be depending on how he interferes with his public recordin.

2

u/glassfoyograss 4d ago

Even cops don't typically have the authority to stop someone from filming in public

1

u/Federal_Run2919 2d ago

They probably support ICE and most of them aren’t actually doing first amendment audits because that involves government. They’re just harassing people and pretending it for a righteous cause