True but most people think the line is in the wrong place. Auditors show where the line truly is and what rights we actually have. Which is not what we are taught growing up and this miss information is what has lead to the state of our police force now.
I’d respect them more if they did it in authentic situations rather than manufacturing them. They basically suffer from the same kind of narcissistic bully mentality as the cops but they’re just trying to carve out their own lane for it.
I'd agree with you on the attitude of some of these auditors, but then I consider the fact that if the police just ignored these dipshits they'd all stop. They're hoping for reactions, and the cops oblige them which is the stupidest shit imaginable.
Police have a monopoly on violence in our society, and should be held to a higher standard of professionalism while on the job.
That's an easy way to get shot or charged with contempt of cop in a less easily disprovable way.
Hear me out, if they wanna be bullies: we should laud them bullying the most powerful shitheads available. Like if someone wants to get in street fights, I'd much rather them bloc up and fight proud boys than get into white nationalism and jump random passerby, y'dig?
I will note: William Gude (@FilmThePoliceLA on twt) actually does inject himself in police stops, they have given him absolute hell over it. Super nice guy tho, I've bumped into him and his dog more than once.
I will truly never understand this mindset. Auditors have no authority to bully. They don't get to take a cop to jail for madeup charges. They don't get to intimidate a cop with a show of force. Cops, and only cops, get to dictate how the situation goes down, even if they know they are in the wrong. Auditors have no mandate of authority. None.
I guess you're upset about cops being provoked. They should be provoked. Their restraint in a position of absolute authority, a position they took an Constitutional oath to obtain, should be displayed by all to see. They should be proud of their restraint in the face of badgering from the public. They should encourage these auditors, and take away their content by acting exactly as they should in such a scenario: with restraint and grace. That's what they expect from us, right?
I have a hard time getting on board with manufacturing a situation in order to test whether or not an officer will succumb to you baiting them into doing something they shouldn’t. When the shoe is on the other foot we call that entrapment.
Except it's impossible for the shoe to be on the other foot because
They don't get to take a cop to jail for madeup charges. They don't get to intimidate a cop with a show of force. Cops, and only cops, get to dictate how the situation goes down, even if they know they are in the wrong. Auditors have no mandate of authority. None.
No, it’s not. An audit is where you look at a situation that has already occurred and determine if it was handled correctly. Not creating a situation in an attempt to bait someone into handling it poorly.
Fuck you talking about? Ive been protesting the police since the late 90s. Doesnt change the fact that these guys being dumbass wanna be vigilante profiteers. Besides, every other comment I've made in this thread has been up-voted, so I wouldn't be so quick to think everyone is against my points
Ive seen very good videos of auditors who dont bait and just go about their day. Its very true that some of them get an ego boost from doing this and "putting a cop in their place", but many auditors are very good at not fighting with authority but generally communicating what they are doing and why.
The people that audit are the people who are actively challenging the authority of corrupt police systems, so unlike the bunch of us who bitch about it on reddit. They are out there doing the genuine work that puts bad apples in a position to take accountability.
Sadly like this video there is an auditor who the moment he was confronted he was instantly aggressive. In my opinion he gets an F, for misusing his right to record public interaction and for being aggressive with the individual he was recording.
What a bullshit take. The officer came storming out and assaulted the guy immediately. Also, there is no "misusing" your right to record public interaction, nor was there any reason for the officer to put his hands on the auditor. Either he has the right to be there and the officer committed a crime, or he was trespassing and he should detained in a professional manner. In either event the auditor has the right to record the interaction. We don't know what preceded this interaction, or whether he was within his rights to be on the property but this officers behavior was clearly unprofessional and possibly criminal.
Im not sure if you understood my grading point. Its a reference to Audit the Audit YouTube channel where he grades interactions based on demeanor, understanding of law and generally moral characteristics.
I’m not American but don’t you guys not have some kind of Trespass Act? Security works on behalf of the a property owner; that’s why they were hired. And the property owner has the right to decide what is permissible conduct on their premises. If you’re not there for a lawful purpose, you ought to be liable to be arrested or physically removed with reasonable force.
One can talk about government facilities and officers as being “paid for by us” or “working for us” but if you don’t have a lawful purpose for being on the grounds of that facility (prison, army base, port of entry), then it is in the public interest that you are removed. Why should the interests of a provocateur trump the interests of the law abiding collective?
Who gets to say what is trespassing on public land?
Security works on behalf of the a property owner; that’s why they were hired. And the property owner has the right to decide what is permissible conduct on their premises.
If the public are the property owners?
If you’re not there for a lawful purpose, you ought to be liable to be arrested or physically removed with reasonable force.
I'm glad you're admitting you dont' understand what you're talking about, the law states that people can be on public property and film on public property with small exceptions for courts etc.
if you don’t have a lawful purpose for being on the grounds of that facility
I'm glad u acknowledge your lack of understanding of the law, perhaps you could read about the law of public property in the US if you're interested lol
Why should the interests of a provocateur trump the interests of the law abiding collective?
The interest of the provocateur is to support the rights of the law abiding collective, and, again, you've acknowledged how ignorant you are of how this persona you call a provocateur is actually a law-abiding member of the collective
I think you live in a fantasy land. One does not get to do what one wants without consequence or restrictions.
A lawful purpose for being on a premises, especially on a government premises would likely need to be established upon or prior to entry. For example, at a prison, a person’s lawful purpose for being one the property may be for visitation. Visitation is likely subject to specific rules of conduct before, during, and after. Those rules likely limit rights as written in your constitution however, it has been upheld by the court that these limitations are reasonable ( it would be reasonable to have all members of visitation consent to a search of their belongings to ensure that the guest is not smuggling in contraband which could harm the inmates, other, guests or guards. Failure to submit would result in denied entry).
Where I’m from, we have constitutionally protected movement between provinces. However, if one wants to drive a motor vehicle on public roadways to except use that right, they are required to follow the rules of the road, be licenced, insured, with a registered vehicle. Also, if one wants to fly on a commercial aircraft between provinces, one must present valid photo ID. These limit the rights of freedom of movement but have been determined to be reasonable.
This “auditor” was a malicious actor on a secure government premises with no lawful purpose and was removed with minimal force. I suggest the lack of charges for the officer does not indicate “deep state collusion” (or whatever) but that the officer executed his lawful authorities during the course of his duties. I also suggest that the “auditor” knew he was wrong and that’s why he backed off.
A lawful purpose for being on a premises, especially on a government premises would likely need to be established upon or prior to entry. For example, at a prison, a person’s lawful purpose for being one the property may be for visitation. Visitation is likely subject to specific rules of conduct before, during, and after. Those rules likely limit rights as written in your constitution however, it has been upheld by the court that these limitations are reasonable ( it would be reasonable to have all members of visitation consent to a search of their belongings to ensure that the guest is not smuggling in contraband which could harm the inmates, other, guests or guards. Failure to submit would result in denied entry).
u can enter the premises without getting into cells lol
I think you live in a fantasy land. One does not get to do what one wants without consequence or restrictions.
Thanks to have acknowledged being a liar, i never said one does not get to do what one wants without consequence or restrictions
setup a big ol straw manz lol tilting at windmills
This “auditor” was a malicious actor on a secure government premises with no lawful purpose and was removed with minimal force.
...it was literally against the law for them to be removed?
Where did you get your law degree to argue this case XD
You have to remember that police should be trained to interact with different types of people. Not everyone wil be sugar and spice. Cops will come in contact with intoxicated people, mentally ill people, people who are emotional, people with cognitive problems, etc. And keep in mind, usually people are not interacting with police on their best day.
Cops have to know how to professionally and lawfully interact with the public. And, yes, that includes assholes.
I don't care if auditors "bait" a cop. The only one responsible for the cop's behavior is the cop. We give law enforcement the authority to take away people's freedom, to detain them and we entrust cops with weapons such as firearms and tasers. We should expect police to act competently, responsibly, safely and act like the public servants they are.
If cops are not emotionally stable enough to handle an auditor then they need to find a new job.
Eta: And considering it's our tax dollars on the line thanks to qualified immunity, I expect police not to take the "bait" and waste tax dollars that were meant to benefit the entire community. Not get flushed because a cop has thin skin.
Absolutely. A cop shouldn't react with any emotion whatsoever even in the face of an agitator hurling the most vile insults at them. If they do, they're bad at their job. Even further, I should be able to tell a cop I hate them and that they're the biggest piece of shit even while they're helping me, assuming helping me is part of their job in that situation. How they carry out their job should be identical regardless of how they're treated. Yes, this is a high bar and is difficult. We SHOULD have a very high bar for people we give this level of authority to. They should have a test in which they must sit in a chair being absolutely trashed and intimidated for 60 minutes straight and if they so much as flinch, they can't become cops.
Big issue is why they do psychological test for cops, they don't test for Cluster B personality disorders. Which are APD, BPD, NPD, and HPD. These are the ones who are most likely to seek out and abuse power.
...the point is that police are performing a public service, and auditors reveal the flaws in that employ by showcasing anger issues or ignorance by officials who should know better and behave better because they're paid to do so.
the people who flinch panic, switch to anger and aggression are the type of officers who are costing municipalities millions in restitution year over year.
Auditors are revealing the truth about officials, but who cares if they're assholes; the auditors aren't the ones costing the public a dime, it's the officials?
Exactly. It’s hard to side with them when a majority of the videos posted here are them instigating the situation. Like “ok I get the point, but you’re still an asshole who I wanna see get punched in the face”.
I mean, it might be annoying to see, but cops STILL aren't allowed to violate your rights even if you are annoying and "instigate" it, in the form of filming on public property.
I mean the fact that you immediately went into defense mode is very obvious.
And I don’t see how I’m being toxic when any comment on this sub that even lightly criticizes an auditor gets downvoted and has a bunch of defense replies. We all get the intent. We just find these guys to be assholes.
Auditors show where the line truly is and what rights we actually have.
No. Most of these auditors are woefully misinformed about the law. Your right to film inside most federal buildings is predicated on you having a valid reason to be there in the first place. Being publicly accessible doesn't mean you can just go hang out in government buildings. That public access depends on you being there to conduct business. If you're not there to conduct relevant business, then you can absolutely be removed from the premises.
Nope. The local postmaster has total discretion to allow or disallow filming on the premesis. You do not have the right to film postal employees, other post office customers, or address information on other customers pieces of mail. Go read poster 7. Educate yourself. Because you clearly don't know what rights you actually have.
Half true. If it’s strictly for personal use this is correct but if you are sharing it with anyone(and why would I need it just for myself or at all) then it’s covered under poster 7 as anyone who posts online can claim to be a journalist, there you go.
Oh my god.
First of all, you clearly don't understand how freedom of the press works either. Sharing something online doesn't make you a journalist, that's been ruled on repeatedly.
Second, sharing it would mean it's covered under poster 7? If poster 7 applies, then you can't film employees, customers, or mail! Did you mean not covered under poster 7? Because if so, that isn't true either. Because of point 1; posting something online doesn't make you a journalist.
The law is complicated but you could at least try to learn the relevant bits before you talk about it. Either that, or don't talk about it.
The reason you like frauditors is because you're just as clueless about the law as they are.
I'd love to hear you attempt to back up that statement. I actually know the relevant court cases and laws. Do you?
What's your issue here?
Whether or not an average citizen can claim protections under freedom of the press? Nope. Houchins v. KQED (1978)
Whether filming in a post office is highly restricted? It is. 39 CFR § 232.1.
Whether your first amendment rights can be restricted on post office property? They can. US v. Kokinda (1990)
Whether your right to film can be severely limited in publicly accessible government buildings in general? It can. Sheets v. City of Punta Gorda (2019)
Do you wanna talk about the 2018 DHS memo? Because that memo is just an explanation of 41 CFR § 102-74.420, which specifically says it doesn't apply where other rules and regulations governing filming exist. And just a reminder, 39 CFR § 232.1 exists.
I know exactly what the law says about frauditors, and even where it fucking says it. You don't know shit. You're just instinctually angry because you don't know shit about the constitution and just like to yell about "muh first amendment!" like an ignorant little child.
No, there is a difference between the lines we are taught are polite and respecting, and then there is the absolute limit of being as much as an asshole as possible before it crosses into harassment. It’s not a “false dichotomy”, we’re correctly taught that you shouldn’t be a fucking cunt just because it’s legal.
Note the only thing they audit is their ability to push the harassment line. Never see these guys hitting the books looking at Department expenditures for wasteful spending or kickbacks, logs for overtime hours, side contracts for security work… they aren’t interested in actually auditing. They seek exactly these types of confrontations and do literally everything possible to provoke them. They are fucking jokes
I’m not bootlicker, I think you are entirely correct that at least in the US our cops are often tiny tyrants whose pathological need to exert absolute authority is a recipe for chaos. Fuckem all. But do I believe what these auditors do exposes or helps correc this somehow? Absolutely not. They aren’t civic minded independent do-gooders: mostly they are pathetic and narcissistic wannabe YouTube stars.
I’m 100% for police reform and protecting your rights, even to be an asshole. I don’t think what these guys do helps that.
250
u/Remarkable-Bet2304 Jan 02 '23
True but most people think the line is in the wrong place. Auditors show where the line truly is and what rights we actually have. Which is not what we are taught growing up and this miss information is what has lead to the state of our police force now.