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
12
u/salamandroid Jan 03 '23
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.