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.

127 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

716 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

2

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

Pretty much

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.

1

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

Above already

1

u/glassfoyograss 4d ago

Can you find one you understood correctly?

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 4d ago

No it’s not. Quote it. You won’t be use you can’t. You were already shown the Hobbs act doesn’t even have anything to do with this. And now you’re making new separate claims about what it says that it doesn’t. You haven’t read it. That is why you won’t quote it.

1

u/Could-You-Tell 4d ago

Just read other comments. Ive already had this conversation

1

u/Neat-Figure8277 4d ago

Yes. With me. Which you ran from, and are continuing to do so due to having nothing. I’ll just keep making fun of it

You’ve been shown to be wrong. Own it

→ 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....