OC and Photography video, Auburn, WA (02 FEB 2014)

[Dave_pro2a]

Citizen's surveillance of government should be = to the governments surveillance of citizens.

We have miles to go before we get nearly as much info on government as they have on us.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

So LEO shouldn't talk to anyone unless they've done something illegal, even when you have no obligation to respond? Join the real world already..


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

I'm perfectly OK with demanding police respect my space and refrain from "fishing" in my water. What causes you to conclude police can continue to harass someone once it is made known they do not desire to interact with someone attempting to build a prosecution against them? Or that police can "assume" they can work you and trick you into saying something they can run with?

You engage in that kind of unsolicited behavior with me and I can charge you with stalking and / or get a restraining order prohibiting you from harassing me. Sorry if you find someone taking that action "not living in the real world".

 

[Geerolla]

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...o-arrest-me-for-taking-their-photo-last-night

Police threaten and intimidate a reporter for taking pictures:



Meet the enemy of freedom.

I'm fully aware incidents like that happen, I've followed Carlos Miller for years, but what relevance does it have to this thread? Nothing like that happened during the OP's incident.

A armed gang surrounding a law abiding citizen. Ahh land of the brave.

Not sure what this level of melodrama contributes to the discussion. Both parties were armed. I didn't see any acts of aggression against the OP. Is it really such an injustice the police dare to speak to him?

I'm perfectly OK with demanding police respect my space and refrain from "fishing" in my water. What causes you to conclude police can continue to harass someone once it is made known they do not desire to interact with someone attempting to build a prosecution against them? Or that police can "assume" they can work you and trick you into saying something they can run with?

You engage in that kind of unsolicited behavior with me and I can charge you with stalking and / or get a restraining order prohibiting you from harassing me. Sorry if you find someone taking that action "not living in the real world".

Are you referring to the video the OP posted or something else? He clearly continued conversation with the LEOs on his own accord. He could have easily remained silent and walked away, but he didn't. What might have transpired from that course of action is only speculative.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Snipped



Are you referring to the video the OP posted or something else? He clearly continued conversation with the LEOs on his own accord. He could have easily remained silent and walked away, but he didn't. What might have transpired from that course of action is only speculative.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

There is nothing ambiguous about my questions. They are directly related to your post I quoted. Ray Charles could see that. The questions seek clarification regarding YOUR POSTED OPINION regarding the intrusions of government agents, concluding with how you seem to believe our failure to accept that behavior is not "living in the real world".

 

[Geerolla]

There is nothing ambiguous about my questions. They are directly related to your post I quoted. Ray Charles could see that. The questions seek clarification regarding YOUR POSTED OPINION regarding the intrusions of government agents, concluding with how you seem to believe our failure to accept that behavior is not "living in the real world".

I never said any of those things, you just assumed those are my beliefs. Are you trying to tell me you think an LEO talking to a civilian in itself is harassment?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

I never said any of those things, you just assumed those are my beliefs. Are you trying to tell me you think an LEO talking to a civilian in itself is harassment?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

So LEO shouldn't talk to anyone unless they've done something illegal, even when you have no obligation to respond? Join the real world already..


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

I'd say that establishes you implied intrusions by police are an expected norm, resentment of intrusion an indicator of "not living in the real world".

I'm certainly open to correction if I have misread your intentions.

 

[Geerolla]

I'd say that establishes you implied intrusions by police are an expected norm, resentment of intrusion an indicator of "not living in the real world".

I'm certainly open to correction if I have misread your intentions.

How is asking a question an intrusion unless you allow it to be (you're not obligated to answer)? Would you feel the same way if a random civilian asked you a question?

In the video, the OP engages with the officers. He wasn't harassed to answer anything and does so willingly. He never said the interaction was no longer desired. If he had remained silent, walked away and they pursued that would be a different story... but that's not what happened.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[notalawyer]

How is asking a question an intrusion unless you allow it to be (you're not obligated to answer)? Would you feel the same way if a random civilian asked you a question?

In the video, the OP engages with the officers. He wasn't harassed to answer anything and does so willingly. He never said the interaction was no longer desired. If he had remained silent, walked away and they pursued that would be a different story... but that's not what happened.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Unfortunately most folks are not as well informed on this topic as they should be.
If the situation had involved a less informed individual (as likely happens hundreds of times every day) the individual is being coerced into waiving some of his rights.

We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled.

 

[Primus]

Unfortunately most folks are not as well informed on this topic as they should be.
If the situation had involved a less informed individual (as likely happens hundreds of times every day) the individual is being coerced into waiving some of his rights.

Except.... he clearly asks.... "am I being detained at this point"... and all three immediately so he isn't. He then continues to speak with them on his own free will.

No seizure.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Geerolla]

Unfortunately most folks are not as well informed on this topic as they should be.
If the situation had involved a less informed individual (as likely happens hundreds of times every day) the individual is being coerced into waiving some of his rights.

Is that the fault of the LEOs? or the citizens that choose to remain uninformed? Now that we have broad access to the internet and public libraries, there's little excuse. Even the Founders said our great experiment won't work without an informed citizenry, so that's where the responsibility lies.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[notalawyer]

Except.... he clearly asks.... "am I being detained at this point"... and all three immediately so he isn't. He then continues to speak with them on his own free will.

No seizure.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Never said it was. I was stating that hundreds (likely) every day are seized, many unlawfully, or through intimidation.

 

[notalawyer]

Is that the fault of the LEOs? or the citizens that choose to remain uninformed? Now that we have broad access to the internet and public libraries, there's little excuse. Even the Founders said our great experiment won't work without an informed citizenry, so that's where the responsibility lies.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Human nature.

Very, very, few people, even among the more elightened are comfortable telling a LEO to piss-off.

Why?

I'll repeat a phrase (spoken with contempt) I've heard from nearly every single LEO I have encountered, whether if be online, or IRL.

"You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride!"

 

[FrayedString]

Except.... he clearly asks.... "am I being detained at this point"... and all three immediately so he isn't. He then continues to speak with them on his own free will.

No seizure.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I Agree, the OP clearly chose to continue to continue to engage the officers in conversation.

However, I have to agree with many of the previous posters in this thread and ask: why did the officers feel the need to engage the OP in conversation at all? Open Carrying: not a crime. Taking photographs of the courthouse from the public sidewalk across the street: also not a crime. Whether or not these two activities are "unusual" is irrelevant. This is the problem that I think most of us have with LEOs: they inject themselves into things that aren't any of their business. Their job is to uphold the law and keep the peace, for them to approach and pester someone that they have absolutely zero reason to suspect is in the process of committing a crime, or has just committed a crime, is just ridiculous. Sure the OP took it well, but if I am out minding my own business while OCing, and happen to snap a picture of an unusual bird that I just saw land on the roof of the courthouse, I'm not inviting an LEO to come have a chat with me.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Even the Founders said our great experiment won't work without an informed citizenry, so that's where the responsibility lies.

Government has seized control of education. It's one great circle of blame.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Bull crap.

OP admitted in the video to police officers he was testing them. It is clear he wanted a confrontation, shame on them for giving him one, shame on him for being petty.

 

[WalkingWolf]

One cannot incite another into actions to which they are otherwise not predisposed to.

A woman walking down the street wearing a micro bikini does not incite men to oggle, but she damn well knows they will. She has a right to dress provocatively but has no right to feel indignant when she gets the attention she craves.

The OP made it painfully clear that he wanted the attention he received. And then got pisssy when some remarked that he should not talk to police.

 

[WalkingWolf]

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation [pettiness] in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! (Barry Goldwater,Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.)

He was not defending liberty, he admitted that! He was trying to get attention, and he loved it. If he was defending liberty he would have ignored them and gone about his business. I ONLY have a problem with how he handled the encounter. It is his right to chit chat with the police, but IMO it is completely fool hardy and ignorant, and goes against everything we have tried to educate here.

The solid advice from our member who is a attorney "Keep Your Big Mouth Shut!" (USER attorney at law.)

 

[Primus]

I Agree, the OP clearly chose to continue to continue to engage the officers in conversation.

However, I have to agree with many of the previous posters in this thread and ask: why did the officers feel the need to engage the OP in conversation at all? Open Carrying: not a crime. Taking photographs of the courthouse from the public sidewalk across the street: also not a crime. Whether or not these two activities are "unusual" is irrelevant. This is the problem that I think most of us have with LEOs: they inject themselves into things that aren't any of their business. Their job is to uphold the law and keep the peace, for them to approach and pester someone that they have absolutely zero reason to suspect is in the process of committing a crime, or has just committed a crime, is just ridiculous. Sure the OP took it well, but if I am out minding my own business while OCing, and happen to snap a picture of an unusual bird that I just saw land on the roof of the courthouse, I'm not inviting an LEO to come have a chat with me.

Frayed I can't/ won't speak for the officers, but they did say they approached him because he was specifically taking photos of the court house from different angles. Is that RS for a crime? No. Hence no right and no detention. But is it enough to make any decent cop or security officer approach and just ask? I would.

The freedom thing goes both ways. The cops have the freedom/ right to approach and converse with any person they want. They DONT have the right to stop you or detain you etc.

They exercised their right and due diligence by approaching him and asking what he was doing. He more then happily answered and conversed with them. He asked if he was detained. They said now. At that point in time it became a bunch of citizens hanging out shooting the s.... they were curious and asked. He volume fairly gave an answer.

Again... as others have said... he stated he WANTED them to approach. He was "testing" them. Those are his words.

The best part..... he said they "passed" his test and that it was a "good encounter " to him and that he would post it to show everyone how decent those cops were.

So the citizen involved is pleased with the reaction that he incited... yet other observers are still mad at the police.

Ok....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Soooo you are claiming that because they were shooting the chit that they could not arrest him if he said something to indicate a crime?

There NEVER is such a thang as "just" when it comes to government encounters.

And actually I am not mad at the police, they broke no laws, but should have just left him alone. I am not mad at the OP either, I just think he acted ignorantly.

 

[notalawyer]

Frayed I can't/ won't speak for the officers, but they did say they approached him because he was specifically taking photos of the court house from different angles. Is that RS for a crime? No. Hence no right and no detention. But is it enough to make any decent cop or security officer approach and just ask? I would.

The freedom thing goes both ways. The cops have the freedom/ right to approach and converse with any person they want. They DONT have the right to stop you or detain you etc.

They exercised their right and due diligence by approaching him and asking what he was doing. He more then happily answered and conversed with them. He asked if he was detained. They said now. At that point in time it became a bunch of citizens hanging out shooting the s.... they were curious and asked. He volume fairly gave an answer.

Again... as others have said... he stated he WANTED them to approach. He was "testing" them. Those are his words.

The best part..... he said they "passed" his test and that it was a "good encounter " to him and that he would post it to show everyone how decent those cops were.

So the citizen involved is pleased with the reaction that he incited... yet other observers are still mad at the police.

Ok....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Had he had nefarious intent, you think approaching and questioning him, he would blurt out. "Who me? I'm just documenting the best location for the explosives for my terrorists friend that are staying down at the Motel 6.

No?

To what end then?

Nothing more than to intimidate him into stopping the behavior they did not agree with.

Their approach/tactics (which sucked by the way) showed that they had absolutely no concern that he was a threat in any way. Reinforcing my above statement.