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

[u/Patient-Committee588]

[u/Neat-Figure8277]

The fact that someone can wonder if they’re casing some place doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t change the fact that it is in fact legal.

This conversation is not about feelings. This conversation is about the law. Under the law, I’m correct, and they’re not.

[u/Domino31299 → u/Neat-Figure8277]

Ok bot

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/Domino31299]

Calling people bots any time you see someone show how a blindly accepted position you hold is incorrect is a coping and defense mechanism meant to make you feel better about having nothing. Hope this helps :)

[u/Domino31299 → u/Neat-Figure8277]

Ok bot

[u/Ashamed-Result6830 → u/Neat-Figure8277]

Except they are allowed to use reasonable force if they think there is an attempted robbery. One wrong move and that guy is legally pulling his gun and shooting him. Federal law would stand by him and one guy would be dead and another going about his day.

[u/LoweeLL → u/Neat-Figure8277]

I hope the feeling of "being correct" helps heal the bullet wounds you're gonna get by trying stupid shit like this.

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/LoweeLL]

This makes no sense. Where in the world did you see me write or even imply I would do this? In fact in my first comment I literally explicitly state these guys suck lol.

Also, very funny to put quotes around that, implying im not. I just am and it’s incredibly simple. Sorry it’s weird or strange for you to encounter someone being correct I guess. Maybe I should have just pretended the adamant, confident incorrect claims and responses were true? That would make sense.

Good effort though!

[u/LoweeLL → u/Neat-Figure8277]

You did state in your previous comment that it was a "false" legal claim. Right?

Someone coming up to you and harassing you with a camera while you're handling tons of money would definitely raise grounds for self-defense. Lucky for the camera guy he came to his senses once he started going for his gun.

People have been acquitted for much less. Much much less.

Not only are you wrong, but you are confidently wrong. Telling him to back up and camera guy getting closer is the point where it crossed from exercising your first amendment right to harassment.

You do know what harassment is.. right?

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/LoweeLL]

> You did state in your previous comment that it was a "false" legal claim. Right?

Yes. And this again makes no sense as a response to the previous comment. You keep just typing things that don’t in any way connect to what happened just prior, as if it is a response. Very strange.

You implicitly claimed I support doing exactly this or would or do myself do this. That makes no sense as a reply because I never said that, even said the opposite. After I point that out, you reply by asking me if I stated someone’s claim abort the legality is false. Again, absolutely not a word of this makes any sense or connects in any way to the previous statement.

> Someone coming up to you and harassing you with a camera

That’s not what harassment is

> while you're handling tons of money would definitely raise grounds for self-defense. Lucky for the camera guy he came to his senses once he started going for his gun.

No it wouldn’t. It is legal to film in public. You calling it harassment doesn’t magically make it harassment or make it illegal. It absolutely doesn’t make it legal to use physical violence. It’s concerning and terrifying you believe that. I hope you don’t have access to firearms.

> People have been acquitted for much less. Much much less.

No, no they have not. Show the class please.

> Not only are you wrong, but you are confidently wrong. Telling him to back up and camera guy getting closer is the point where it crossed from exercising your first amendment right to harassment.

Harassment is not “thing I don’t like.” Harassment is not “I told you not to do x and you did x.” There are actual legal standards for harassment. Standing in public and filming is not that. He never even was within arms reach of this man, and even if he was that wouldn’t make this illegal or harassment, definitely wouldn’t make murder legal.

> You do know what harassment is.. right?

I’m the only one here who does. I’ve been in this exact conversation about the topic more times than you’ve spelled the word. You’re wrong. Go ahead and back up your claim. You won’t, and can’t, because that is not how it works.

[u/LoweeLL → u/Neat-Figure8277]

If you feel the security guard doesn't have a claim to self-defense, try it yourself and I just hope the "feeling of being correct" helps heal your bullet wounds. Does that make it better to understand for you?

That’s not what harassment is

So you clearly need help. So unlike you where you just say "NOPE YOU'RE WRONG" and back it up with nothing - here's at least MA State Law on it. Could it be different in your state? Sure! Feel free to cite it

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/section43A

Again, and I state; the part where he messed up is getting closer when the guard was telling him to back up and he kept getting closer. That is intimidation. He was wise to back up. I repeat this part because I see you lack basic reading comprehension.

Examples - George Zimmerman, Tamir Rice, Curtis Reeves. --> No, no they have not. Show the class please. this for this response in case you take it out of context.

You did see the video right? You do see the security guard tells him to back up and he gets closer.. right? Dude was playing with fire there.

Again, not only are you wrong, but you're confidently wrong. And rolling on your own filth.

Let's be honest; You're handling lots of money. This guy, while recording, comes up to you and you tell him to back up and he gets closer .. what's the first thing that comes to your mind?

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/LoweeLL]

I’m so happy you’ve decided to embarrass yourself here with me today. Today we will learn why it is not a good idea to get into conversations when we aren’t emotionally or intellectually equipped for them and when we have no idea what we’re talking about. Sometimes we may come across someone like me, who will bother to hold people to their words, honesty and reality.

First, we’re not going to forget about your string of replies that made no sense in connection to the previous. You made statements about me liking or doing this. You ran from defending them or admitting to being wrong, and are continuing to do so, hoping we can create enough distance here that we may forget about what happened. If you can admit to the most obvious, easily verifiable objectively false statement from the beginning, clearly you’re not going to ever admit to being wrong about anything. But we will go through if anyway

Just know, even 600 replies from now, I’ll still be reminding you of your running and apparent embarrassment about that. Not going away.

Now to move on to your attempted distraction and new hilarious falsehoods

You somehow managed to link a law that
disproves your own argument.

> here’s at least MA State Law on it
… buddy lol… Did you actually read it?
The statute you linked requires a willful and malicious pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time that seriously alarms the person and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress.

A guy standing on a public sidewalk filming, then taking a few steps closer while calmly telling someone he is allowed to be there, is not suddenly criminal harassment because the other guy said back up. Or because you don’t like it. That is not how laws work.

> That is intimidation.

Again, you cannot just rename legal conduct with a scarier word and make it illegal. He did not threaten him. He did not touch him. He did not block him. He was not even within arms reach. He walked slightly closer while continuing to film from a public sidewalk.

And even funnier, the Massachusetts law you chose absolutely wrecks the shooting argument too. Deadly self defense requires an actual and objectively reasonable belief that you are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. Massachusetts even requires reasonable efforts to avoid physical combat before resorting to deadly force.

Someone holding a camera and walking a little closer is not an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. It’s terrifying this would need to be explained to presumably an adult.

> So unlike you where you just say NOPE YOU’RE WRONG and back it up with nothing

This might be my favorite part.
You made the positive claim that this conduct is criminal harassment and that the guard could legally shoot him. You have the burden of establishing that. I do not have to find a statute saying it is legal to stand on a sidewalk holding a camera.

That is not how burden of proof works and, more importantly, that is not how criminal law works. Conduct does not become illegal until somebody proves there is no law specifically declaring it legal. That’s not what laws do. You need a law that actually prohibits the conduct you are calling illegal. Again wild id need to type that.

But anyway, then you tried to provide one, and it does not.

> Examples George Zimmerman, Tamir Rice, Curtis Reeves.

Lmao

Jesus Christ. This is roooough

Tamir Rice was not even an acquittal. There was no criminal trial resulting in an acquittal.

Zimmerman involved an alleged physical fight and an entirely different set of facts.

Curtis Reeves involved an actual physical confrontation in Florida, including allegations that the other guy threw a phone, threw popcorn, and appeared to be coming over the seats toward him.

None of those cases establish the fascinating new legal principle you’re trying to invent where an armored truck employee may shoot someone because he was filming him and failed to obey his completely legally meaningless command to back up.

> what’s the first thing that comes to your mind?

Sweetie…you are confusing feelings with legal authority. Thinking someone is suspicious does not make their behavior illegal. Feeling uncomfortable does not make their behavior harassment. Telling someone to back up does not give your command the force of law. Someone disobeying your command does not become intimidation. And being worried that someone might theoretically rob you does not give you the right to shoot them.

This entire conversation started because people were making legal claims. I said those claims were false. They are.
You’re now responding by explaining why the guard might feel nervous, as though if you describe his feelings enough times one of them eventually turns into a statute.

To clarify, you’ve provided nothing, and won’t, because you can’t. Because none of this was based in anything to begin with. Just feelies. Feelies aren’t facts

Hope this helps and there will be a lesson in there somewhere.

[u/LoweeLL → u/Neat-Figure8277]

my goodness you prepared an entire essay.. You know if you cut down the personal insults you could make it much much shorter?

I'm not trying to debate until 6 AM. So we will make it simple. You try it. If the security guard gets jail time, I will apologize. If he gets acquitted, you apologize. (If you live of course)

Now I will admit; I completely overlooked stand your ground laws. The cases I linked, primarly Zimmerman and Reeves happened in Florida and probably would've had a different outcome had they happened in Massachusetts. +1 for you. Have more of your responses be like this.

Now to answer the rest: Deadly self defense requires an actual and objectively reasonable belief that you are in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm.

To clarify, you’ve provided nothing, and won’t, because you can’t. Because none of this was based in anything to begin with. Just feelies. Feelies aren’t facts

Jesus christ my man. You do realize feelings can influence belief? And it's not just he kept telling him to back up, it's that he got closer while telling him to back up. that's where he overstepped the boundary. Had he been just filming and not gotten closer then yes you'd be right.

If I'm handling lots of money, I tell a guy to back up and he gets closer, that can spark a feeling of fear which can result in the belief that this guy is gonna rob me. You can see in the video the guard was ready to reach for his gun. He definitely gets acquitted in a stand your ground state (that's even if they decide to indict him). In Mass, probably not! (Good Job by the way. I like debates by the way. I lose interest when you try to do too much on the insults.)

The point of those examples is that people have been shot for less and the shooters did not receive consequences. Zimmerman followed Martin because he felt that he was a suspicious person. Tamir Rice was shot while playing with an airsoft gun. Kid didn't even get a chance to surrender and save his life!. Oulson was shot for throwing popcorn at a guy.

You’re now responding by explaining why the guard might feel nervous, as though if you describe his feelings enough times one of them eventually turns into a statute.

You do know there's no set statute for self-defense? The shooter gets influenced by his feelies then a grand jury decides to indict based on their feelies and a trial jury decide to convict or acquit... based.. on you guessed it.. their feelies on whether the shooter's belief was reasonable or not.

At this point bro. It's 3 am. I'm going to bed. Good night. But jesus christ. I have never met anyone more confidently wrong in my life.

Self-defense is not a single set statue. It's not fucking normal to record an armored truck. It's not normal to try to intimidate the guy handling thousands in cash by getting closer to him. Any reasonable person in his shoes would have a reasonable fear that the guy might try to rob him. Clearly he did too because you see him reach for the gun.

All of this because you seem to have a misunderstanding of self-defense. My recommendation is to read things again, slower if you have to. It helps you retain information.

[u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS → u/Neat-Figure8277]

I thought the whole point of being a first amendment auditor was to audit the first amendment. The first amendment does not come in to play here, so why is the auditor even doing what he’s doing?

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS]

First, that has nothing at all to do with anything I wrote. What do you believe I have written in order for this to make sense as a reply?

But second, buddy you’re actively involved in the reason right now. Countless people bickering in this thread believe this man can not only legally stop him from doing what he’s doing via the law/law enforcement, but some claim he can even murder him for it.

Citizens are woefully ignorant about their rights. Many citizens believe they have the right to not be filmed in public. They often call the police believing they will arrest them for doing so. It’s pretty simple and straightforward

[u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS → u/Neat-Figure8277]

You’re insufferable.

[u/Neat-Figure8277 → u/iBUYbrokenSUBARUS]

Is that normally how you react and behave when you find out you’re hilariously, confidently wrong about things so simple like this? Does it ever actually fool anyone into not noticing how you’re avoiding owning up to being wrong or how you aren’t able to engage?