Washington Bus Driver Attacks Armed Photographer for Recording Him in Public

BB62 said:

This thread is going nowhere fast.

Click to expand...

You relate, huh.

Dave_pro2a said:

Aggressive = subjective
Without purpose = subjective
Individual = Hell no. Government agent acting in official capacity.

I'm an individual. You're an individual. That metro bus driver, while on the clock, is not merely an 'individual' -- he IS the EMBODIMENT of government.

Government, embodied in the flesh. That's a different kind of animal than you or I will EVER be.

Click to expand...

go video a postal employee...let me know how that works out ?

and the purpose? lawsuit? or flat out just cuz?

was anything served?

was anything remotely associated to 1A served?

ipse

solus said:

go video a postal employee

Click to expand...

So, you're rebuttal is "go do something else that's legal."

Odd rhetoric, but sure I'll go with that.

Dave_pro2a said:

So, you're rebuttal is "go do something else that's legal."

Odd rhetoric, but sure I'll go with that.

Click to expand...

no dave, i thought you wanted a 'government' representative to video instead of some inconsequential bus driver whom you and others seem to represent your perception of the face of 'government'.

better yet...go find an active duty service member and stick the camera in their face out of the blue...

MSG Laigaie, and other active/retired military members...care to have, without purpose except for someone's distorted perception care to have a vid cam stuck in your face??

again let me know how that works out for ya...

ipse

ps: i see you also danced on the purpose or what was served question nobody wishes to discuss

solus said:

video

Click to expand...

Video?

Video?!?!

This whole thread is over video? Seems pretty petty.

Not like someone's life or freedom was at risk. I mean, just the presence of a camera right?

What's the big deal?

Public space?

What's SCOTUS say about that? Anyone got cites?

solus said:

no dave, i thought you wanted a 'government' representative to video instead of some inconsequential bus driver whom you and others seem to represent your perception of the face of 'government'.

better yet...go find an active duty service member and stick the camera in their face out of the blue...

MSG Laigaie, and other active/retired military members...care to have, without purpose except for someone's distorted perception care to have a vid cam stuck in your face??

again let me know how that works out for ya...

ipse

ps: i see you also danced on the purpose or what was served question nobody wishes to discuss

Click to expand...

I have been caught on many tourist videos I am sure.

I have been many places with cameras out and pointed in many different directions.

Also the bus driver was on government video at the same time. Why are you being so..... anti-freedom?

Why are you supporting a violation of the pact of non aggression? That is what freedom is based on. If you do not cause me, or threaten to cause me harm, then I would have no business causing you harm. The cameraman did not even point the deadly camera at the arse-clown until he drew the attention of the cameraman.

Why do you support government sponsored violence so much?

Why do you support the stripping of our rights so much?

Are you a mole for the government or something?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I wish people would stop quoting Solus... I have him blocked for a reason. I don't care what he has to say. But people keep quoting him anyway... it's like nobody cares about my rights here :uhoh: /sarcasm

Here is a thought.... most open carry folks record covertly. You know, concealed carry of a recorder/camera. And there are many videos of over the top responses to open carry of a pistol recorded by concealed carried recorder/cameras. And those videos have brought about comments from anti gunners about open carriers being intimidating, offensive, seeking 15 minutes of fame, wannabe bad arses, and even supposed supporters of the 2nd Amendment (actually anti gunner "lites") have complained open carriers are not helping further the right to bear arms and demand open carriers justify their actions.

And now we are discussing a video of an over the top response to the... ready for it?... open carry of a camera.

Bikenut said:

<snip>

And now we are discussing a video of an over the top response to the... ready for it?... open carry of a camera.

Click to expand...

I like these vids .. shows how much people have been brainwashed into thinking that citizens have no rights anymore.

WW, SVG, et al., nowhere did i say nor infer what the rude videographer did was illegal but rather have from the beginning stated common courtesy goes a long way. There was no purpose to this video except to generate chaos...proven by the video immediately ceasing when the initial encounter didn't generate the reaction the videographer was seeking ~ severe reaction since the supervisour, in both encounters, failed to react and in the first segue way the video immediately ceased.

I'd liken this and similar video to those antics exhibited during the recent TX LGOC grassroots campaign ~ which i lambasted as a bad idea. initially, it was publicity in your face TX citizen's shock and awe; but when the antis pushed it nationally the entire carry community suffered as retail established put restrictions on firearm carry in their stores. Grassroot organizers tried to regroup...too late as the damage is done.

TX group & this chaos shock and awe videographer had the right, they had the amendment(s) behind their activities but the TX LGOC organizers HAD A PURPOSE to begin this ill fated crusade.

tho asked numerous times, nobody has provided any type of purpose for this video ~ which leads everyone to believe it is to cause chaos! no where to exercise a 1st amendment right.

now Freedom, Rogue, Jeff, the individual AZ...from afar, et al., you have failed to respond to the basic question of why hiding behind 'cuz i can due to the 1st amendment' yet this individual has you on your tippy-toes upset, resorting to hurling elementary level playground taunts at me for politely exercising my annotated 1st amendment rights, while OC'g i might add, on a public forum...imagine if you will how upset or high you would be jumping if i were there in your face...would you have resorted to fist-cuffs when pushed for answers?

thanks for letting me exercise my 1st & 2nd amendment rights...glad to see your buttons can be pushed from afar...

ipse

Solus the constitution does not require a reason to exercise a right. Recording does not steal souls as some savages once believed, we are not savages, and should rejoice at freedom. The attacker was a public employee in a public place, he has no more expectation of privacy than the common citizen WHO IS recorded by government. I have no fear of being recorded by citizens, I do object to government eaves dropping. This incident is nothing more than a man exercising his rights not harming, or even coming close to threatening anyone.

There are times we agree, and times such as this not. But I am strongly in favor of rights being exercised. And I have no right to demand why.

WalkingWolf said:

Solus the constitution does not require a reason to exercise a right. Recording does not steal souls as some savages once believed, we are not savages, and should rejoice at freedom. The attacker was a public employee in a public place, he has no more expectation of privacy than the common citizen WHO IS recorded by government. I have no fear of being recorded by citizens, I do object to government eaves dropping. This incident is nothing more than a man exercising his rights not harming, or even coming close to threatening anyone.

There are times we agree, and times such as this not. But I am strongly in favor of rights being exercised. And I have no right to demand why.

Click to expand...

+1

The justifications for rights were figured out long ago. Across centuries the price was paid in blood, smoke, and treasure to wrest from government recognition of certain rights. No further explanation can be required. If the reader does not know, it is his job to find out the justifications--not the writer's job to explain it to him.

Rights are rights are right are rights. Part of the reason they are called rights is because exercising them no longer requires an explanation or justification.

The legal exercising of a right should never be held hostage to the opinion(s) of what someone else might consider to be inappropriate, unreasonable, or unacceptable.

No one should ever have to justify legally exercising a right to anyone no matter how important someone might think they are simply because no one is so important they can impose their standards of what they consider acceptable onto others.

I legally open carry and I legally video record everyone within camera range when out in public. I don't care if someone is offended by seeing my visible sidearm and I also don't care if someone is offended by being recorded. Both are legal exercising of a right.

And no, I do not have to justify why I am recording any more than I have to justify why I am carrying a pistol in plain sight. I do not have to have any noble reason nor do I have to concern myself with any organizations goals. Anyone who thinks I should is suffering from an abundance of self importance and an arrogant attitude that somehow I am required to adhere to their opinions.

WalkingWolf said:

Solus the constitution does not require a reason to exercise a right. Recording does not steal souls as some savages once believed, we are not savages, and should rejoice at freedom. The attacker was a public employee in a public place, he has no more expectation of privacy than the common citizen WHO IS recorded by government. I have no fear of being recorded by citizens, I do object to government eaves dropping. This incident is nothing more than a man exercising his rights not harming, or even coming close to threatening anyone.

There are times we agree, and times such as this not. But I am strongly in favor of rights being exercised. And I have no right to demand why.

Click to expand...

Furthest from the truth. There are two cases in the federal courts right now over being forced to have their picture taken, one civil and one criminal. Both are Amish cases. Many Old Order Amish believe being ordered by law to have their pictures taken violates their religious rights under the first amendment. Also see 42 USC 2000bb.

The one civil case is an Amish man having to have a photo ID to purchase a firearm. The other is a criminal case over a mug shot prior to being convicted of anything.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

So, your belief is misplaced.

solus said:

no dave, i thought you wanted a 'government' representative to video instead of some inconsequential bus driver whom you and others seem to represent your perception of the face of 'government'.

better yet...go find an active duty service member and stick the camera in their face out of the blue...

MSG Laigaie, and other active/retired military members...care to have, without purpose except for someone's distorted perception care to have a vid cam stuck in your face??

again let me know how that works out for ya...

ipse

ps: i see you also danced on the purpose or what was served question nobody wishes to discuss

Click to expand...

Postal worker, active duty service member, you, me have no expectation of privacy in a public place. Video cameras are recording everyone everywhere.

What would you do about a person with a video camera filming you on the sidewalk from 10 feet away or even 3 feet?

color of law said:

Furthest from the truth. There are two cases in the federal courts right now over being forced to have their picture taken, one civil and one criminal. Both are Amish cases. Many Old Order Amish believe being ordered by law to have their pictures taken violates their religious rights under the first amendment. Also see 42 USC 2000bb.

The one civil case is an Amish man having to have a photo ID to purchase a firearm. The other is a criminal case over a mug shot prior to being convicted of anything.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

So, your belief is misplaced.

Click to expand...

No matter what a persons religious beliefs are if they are in public their picture can be taken.

Jeff Hayes said:

No matter what a persons religious beliefs are if they are in public their picture can be taken.

Click to expand...

Did I say otherwise?

Jeff Hayes said:

Postal worker, active duty service member, you, me have no expectation of privacy in a public place. Video cameras are recording everyone everywhere.

What would you do about a person with a video camera filming you on the sidewalk from 10 feet away or even 3 feet?

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. I don't know that I agree with that.

The whole "privacy in public" thing is a construct of federal courts. The rationalization being that stuff you open to public view is not protected against government viewing--and seizure. Basically, it was a rationalization for the government to water down our 4th Amendment rights.

The worst part of it is that "privacy" is a red-herring. Nowhere does the Fourth Amendment mention privacy. It expressly discusses security. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..." But, the government turns the discussion (and legal analysis) to "privacy."

I am not so sure you, me have no expectation of privacy in a public place. Right off the top of my head I can think of the urinal, the phone booth/stall, the quiet corner of a restaurant, the far corner of the parking lot, etc.

NavyLCDR said:

There is a huge difference between being required or forced to pose for a photo and having one's photograph taken in public.

Click to expand...

You are correct and your point is what?

Citizen said:

Hmmmm. I don't know that I agree with that.

The whole "privacy in public" thing is a construct of federal courts. The rationalization being that stuff you open to public view is not protected against government viewing--and seizure. Basically, it was a rationalization for the government to water down our 4th Amendment rights.

The worst part of it is that "privacy" is a red-herring. Nowhere does the Fourth Amendment mention privacy. It expressly discusses security. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..." But, the government turns the discussion (and legal analysis) to "privacy."

I am not so sure you, me have no expectation of privacy in a public place. Right off the top of my head I can think of the urinal, the phone booth/stall, the quiet corner of a restaurant, the far corner of the parking lot, etc.

Click to expand...

As far as your first paragraph goes I agree if it is the government taking pictures of the general public. But since we are talking about me taking a picture of you the constitution does not protect you from me or me from you etc. You are correct the government was/is watering down our 4A rights we fully agree there as well.

Second paragraph the 4A does not apply to your interactions with me only our interactions with the government.

I did say in public, but I also said in a public place in an earlier post. Public place was a bad choice of words as you point out a public bathroom is a public place. I still maintain that if one is in public such as walking down the sidewalk, at a park, attending a sporting event etc anyone can take a photo/video. How could it work any other way?

Now in a restaurant would be an entirely different matter assuming the restaurant is not owned by the government that would depend on the owners policy.