Filming/photographing in public space relevant to open carry

[davidmcbeth]

Address the issue(s) singularly that are relevant to OC and then keep it on topic. Some find it too tempting to stray.

But there really is no debate on the question of if citizens can record police ... its a done-been-fried-enough subject.

The OP's 1st post is not asking to evaluate a specific incident ... so what's the point of this thread I'm questioning.

I think we all agree that there have been violations of our right to record cops...and will continue to be.

 

[Primus]

But there really is no debate on the question of if citizens can record police ... its a done-been-fried-enough subject.

The OP's 1st post is not asking to evaluate a specific incident ... so what's the point of this thread I'm questioning.

I think we all agree that there have been violations of our right to record cops...and will continue to be.

The point of the OP was just thumbing the nose at moderators. As you said the subject is well beaten and many other ways to discuss even more then discussion how not to discuss the subject the subject that can't be discussed unless you referring to said non discussable discussion via allusions to lack of discussability. All why swearing it's discussable because the dude had a camera and ocers have cameras therefore they are the same somehow.

How's that for a discussion?

 

[WalkingWolf]

The point of the OP was just thumbing the nose at moderators. As you said the subject is well beaten and many other ways to discuss even more then discussion how not to discuss the subject the subject that can't be discussed unless you referring to said non discussable discussion via allusions to lack of discussability. All why swearing it's discussable because the dude had a camera and ocers have cameras therefore they are the same somehow.

How's that for a discussion?

I don't know about thumbing nose, but I agree that the topic of this thread was to continue a discussion that was shut down by a moderator. That prior subject had nothing to do with OC, or RKBA.

 

[davidmcbeth]

The point of the OP was just thumbing the nose at moderators. As you said the subject is well beaten and many other ways to discuss even more then discussion how not to discuss the subject the subject that can't be discussed unless you referring to said non discussable discussion via allusions to lack of discussability. All why swearing it's discussable because the dude had a camera and ocers have cameras therefore they are the same somehow.

How's that for a discussion?

I'm blaming you, of course.

 

[skidmark]

I don't know about thumbing nose, but I agree that the topic of this thread was to continue a discussion that was shut down by a moderator. That prior subject had nothing to do with OC, or RKBA.

We (OK, 2 or 3 of us) agreed to change it to keep TPTB from getting his knickers all twisted again.

Apparently the democracy-leaning posters here decided to change it back again. You, too.

stay safe.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I don't know about thumbing nose, but I agree that the topic of this thread was to continue a discussion that was shut down by a moderator. That prior subject had nothing to do with OC, or RKBA.

That is most certainly irrelevant anyhow, clearly no connection to OC or RKBA is required in the off-topic forum. Even though many rules still apply, that is not one of them, most certainly. Moderators can take enforcement action without the backing of an explicit or implicit rule, which happens frequently here. That's fine, I'm not thumbing my nose at it. I believe there could have been a valuable discussion in the abstract without any absolute need for a specific example case. If there are no takers, that's another matter.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Darn! Also Sugar! Probablt also Fudge!

Here I was hoping that we really could get away from folks being pervs or legislatures being too stupid to realize that they are leaving ginormous loopholes in their efforts to make perviness illegal. I though we were going to discuss how to get magistrates and prosecutors and judges and CLEOs figure out how to put a stop to the Each-And-Every-Effing-Time lawsuits that are Settled-Out-Of-Court-So-No- Actual-Precedent-Is-Established way of dealing with cops ignoring what in fact is settled law, or how to eliminate qualified immunity for cops who trample settled law.

I threw what I thought were a few sparkly notions out there to see if they would get anybody's attention. I got one taker, who shot them down but offered nothing as an alternative except to say that Texas had a law, but stopped short of saying that magistrates and prosecutors and judges are not using it to put a stop to this sort of behavior by the police.

I'm left wondering: apathy, ignorance (as in "haven't a clue what to do"), or ADHD?

Somebody please PM me when this thing gets back on track, please.

stay safe.

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of my post. If I understand your post and see correctly what you're referring to, what you call ignorance is obviously an admission that I do not have the answers and would like to discuss potential solutions with other posters.

If I count correctly, I used SEVEN question marks in my response to your post. If that isn't asking for discussion, I don't know what is. Perhaps you also missed the part where I said "I'd love to hear what someone else thinks about this."

 

[Primus]

I'm blaming you, of course.

Well let's discuss it.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Me understanding my rights, which are painfully simple to understand, will not be clouded by equating me OCing to what that perv did to get out of a perv charge, via a legal loophole. You presume too much and consider, critically, too little.

Deal.

I did not equate the two. In fact, sir, if you cared to understand the purpose of this thread you'd know that in fact it sets out to draw clear distinctions which could be used to defend your rights in the face of others should they attempt to equate the two! Saying "nay, they are different!" is not sufficient, at least not for me! Explain it, thoroughly and logically! If you don't care to put in the effort, you may see yourself out. Nobody is attempting to obligate you to participate in discussion.

If anyone doesn't care to participate, why not just skim past the thread like so many others that they don't take an interest in? Why feel the need to oppose the existence of the thread? Because they grossly misunderstand the purpose of the thread? Maybe.

It is no wonder how screwed up our society is when even a group of rights advocates can't get together and resolve how to prohibit bad behavior with care to not inadvertently prohibit any good with it.

 

[skidmark]

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of my post. If I understand your post and see correctly what you're referring to, what you call ignorance is obviously an admission that I do not have the answers and would like to discuss potential solutions with other posters.

If I count correctly, I used SEVEN question marks in my response to your post. If that isn't asking for discussion, I don't know what is. Perhaps you also missed the part where I said "I'd love to hear what someone else thinks about this."

Not you. Just about everybody else.

stay safe.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The topic isn't about the perv being a perv and whether he has a right to be one. Although that is the incident that sparked the "what is public" discussion.

Why isn't it some find it hard to seperate that topic?

 

[Grapeshot]

The topic isn't about the perv being a perv and whether he has a right to be one. Although that is the incident that sparked the "what is public" discussion.

Why isn't it some find it hard to seperate that topic?

First there has to be a genuine interest in keeping things in perspective.

Seems to me that the judge had no choice - if you don't like the law, change it.

We've worn this one out - locked it.