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

[Dave_pro2a]

Just a comment on the officers stance. It is obvious that it is being taught in their tactical training.

In 33 years of LEO training I haven't seen this before but then I been retired 3 plus years so it could be the up and coming trend.

I can see advantages to it and disadvantages to it.

I think their over tactics were piss poor no need to all being in front of the person being approached no need for placing all your assets into the most obvious danger zone.

With four officers two should have been well back off to the sides even behind cover with only two approaching.

Seems like they were more concerned about getting this guys picture then they were worried about being attacked.

Trying to use your cell phone and do other things opens yourself up, action beats reaction every time. If they really wanted a picture of the person .

They should have just waited tell it was over and took some as he was walking down the street.

Just a comments on the stance and tactics.

Speaking of tactics, how about just leaving a law abiding citizen alone. Seems like the best and safest 'tactic' -- unless the goal is intimidation.

 

[Trigger Dr]

Here comes the judge here comes the judge....

Does the shoe fit?

 

[Freedom1Man]

Speaking of tactics, how about just leaving a law abiding citizen alone. Seems like the best and safest 'tactic' -- unless the goal is intimidation.

+1

 

[RogueReflections]

Walking Wolf:

I agree it looked petty. But then it is his right to be petty, and indignant about the reaction to it. But then he claims he does not want approval, or care about criticism. And then whines when he gets it.

Do you get butt-hurt all the time? I can no longer respond to you. You just keep going and going and going and going and going on. I'm over it now.

 

[509rifas]

Do you get butt-hurt all the time? I can no longer respond to you. You just keep going and going and going and going and going on. I'm over it now.

Dude I think you're over reacting to critique of how you choose to exercise your rights. I'm not claiming you were in the wrong or whatever (and I realize the quote is not a response to me but someone more or less agreeing with me) but the is a criticism from someone on the same team who does similar things trying to hold our ground on our rights. I've been arrested and charged with filming police, and been handcuffed and detained more than once for refusing to identify myself to LEO. I don't disagree with what you do, but think you should less flamboyant with it. If you overlty say you are doing it to test officers and see if they violate the constitution, then you automatically zap any sympathy you get from anyone, since the whole point was to see if you'd get arrested. I'm not excusing any overstepping any officers (or security guards - I've seen your channel, that guard was out of line when he drew a gun and yelled "gun gun gun" to his backup) missteps, but if you state that you are trying to test them, it looks more like "entrapment" or "baiting" (something I was accused of in a local paper.) I understand you do photography and open carry, both are completely recognized under the constitutions (not a typo). But when you do so to "test" officers it sets us back from being people who excercise our rights to people who are basically being jerks trying to jam up the cops or whoever else. I'm not saying show ID or whatever, but for christs sake don't say it's to test them. Cuz in the end if you test them, and they ail the test, you'll still look (in the public eye) like a ***** trying to get arrested, not like someone who got hassled while doing his job and happened to be armed.
Again, I don't mean this as a criticism of you or what you do, but a criticism to your approach. As I see it, open carry is to "normalize" guns in the public place. Carrying them to "test" officers doesn't help that. Carrying them and simply explaining (though I understand you don't have to) that you're just doing you job like normal people do does help to normalize it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Does the shoe fit?

Yes I'm illuminati , you are on too me.

I can't believe you were a judge, your opinionated hypocrisy in your posts with your blatant prejudices and condemnation with lack of understanding because people don't share the same love of LEO or jingoism that has ruined so much of this country is horrendous. So I laugh at your posts and will continue to point it out when you keep trying to pull straw from others eyes while the rafter is blinding your own.

Justice must have been your top priority........

 

[WalkingWolf]

Speaking of tactics, how about just leaving a law abiding citizen alone. Seems like the best and safest 'tactic' -- unless the goal is intimidation.

Because some people, OP included, has made it clear they do not want to be left alone. These people while not breaking the law encourage encounters. Then some of them pat the aggressors on the back when they get treated with what they think is politeness. And whine like toddlers wanting a passifier when it all goes south.

My own personal opinion for carry is I want to be left the hell alone when carrying. AND I do not want to bug/bother/initiate/encourage police entanglements.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Because some people, OP included, has made it clear they do not want to be left alone. These people while not breaking the law encourage encounters.

Bull crap.

 

[Geerolla]

Bull crap.

OP was clearly inciting an encounter... he even admitted so to the officers.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[notalawyer]

OP was clearly inciting an encounter... he even admitted so to the officers.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

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

 

[Geerolla]

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

That makes no sense. To believe taking photos of an LE facility, although perfectly legal, shouldn't draw their attention is ridiculous. If you or I observed someone taking photos of our private residence, we'd be inclined to ask the person what they're doing and who they're with. Unless their primary goal was photography, they would be considered to have incited an encounter with us, right? OP knew this and took full advantage to draw an encounter, which is evident by his dialog with the officers. I would imagine if he was just OC'ing and appeared to be going about his day (i.e. behaving normally), he wouldn't have been approached.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support photographer's rights and the OP's right to do whatever he was doing, but to believe it shouldn't draw attention just doesn't make sense.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[notalawyer]

That makes no sense. To believe taking photos of an LE facility, although perfectly legal, shouldn't draw their attention is ridiculous. If you or I observed someone taking photos of our private residence, we'd be inclined to ask the person what they're doing and who they're with. Unless their primary goal was photography, they would be considered to have incited an encounter with us, right? OP knew this and took full advantage to draw an encounter, which is evident by his dialog with the officers. I would imagine if he was just OC'ing and appeared to be going about his day (i.e. behaving normally), he wouldn't have been approached.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support photographer's rights and the OP's right to do whatever he was doing, but to believe it shouldn't draw attention just doesn't make sense.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Your post seems to suggest that a photographer (and OC supporter) carrying a firearm and taking photographs is somehow not 'behaving normally'.

shouldn't draw their attention is ridiculous.

Why should it? Or perhaps I've missed all the recent store of bombings/attacks of Court Houses, Police stations, etc.

The LEO in this video are there for one reason, and one reason only. To intimidate!

If you or I observed someone taking photos of our private residence, we'd be inclined to ask the person what they're doing and who they're with.

You may. Personally I could care less (if they were doing it from public property.) Perfectly legal behavior on both you and the photographer, plus he is well within his rights to tell you to piss-off too.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

OP was clearly inciting an encounter... he even admitted so to the officers.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

OMG it was... entrapment!

Bull crap.

 

[Geerolla]

Your post seems to suggest that a photographer (and OC supporter) carrying a firearm and taking photographs is somehow not 'behaving normally'.

Citizens photographing LE facilities is not normal, just like someone taking photos of my house. Obviously it's perfectly legal, but to say it's ordinary is just false.

You may. Personally I could care less (if they were doing it from public property.) Perfectly legal behavior on both you and the photographer, plus he is well within his rights to tell you to piss-off too.

That's definitely true, the person would be well within their rights to do that. Would you say my intent would be to intimidate for merely asking what they're doing and taking their photo (a perfectly legal act)?

OMG it was... entrapment!

Bull crap.

Funny, great contribution.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Citizens photographing LE facilities is not normal, just like someone taking photos of my house. Obviously it's perfectly legal, but to say it's ordinary is just false.

/controversy

But go ahead and keep stinking up the room.

 

[Geerolla]

/controversy

But go ahead and keep stinking up the room.

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

 

[Dave_pro2a]

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

Police threaten and intimidate a reporter for taking pictures:

As a reporter, when I see a buzz of police activity, I almost always stop to see what's going on. As the officers started barking louder at the man, I took out my phone and snapped this pic:

That's when one of the officers eyed me and yelled something like, "He's got a camera!"

King County Sheriff's Office Sergeant Patrick "K.C." Saulet rushed over and told me to leave or be arrested

Meet the enemy of freedom.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

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

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

 

[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

Before you are beaten with your own words, would you care to expound a bit as to WHY it seems "reasonable" to you to tolerate intrusions by government thugs under the pretext of unconsented to "consensual encounters"? I mean, you may be lonely enough to welcome that kind of abuse. I'm wondering why you seem to think WE should tolerate the obvious disrespect for everything this country was founded on. Submitting to abuse is the "real world" to you?

 

[notalawyer]

Citizens photographing LE facilities is not normal, just like someone taking photos of my house. Obviously it's perfectly legal, but to say it's ordinary is just false.



That's definitely true, the person would be well within their rights to do that. Would you say my intent would be to intimidate for merely asking what they're doing and taking their photo (a perfectly legal act)?



Funny, great contribution.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Citizens photographing LE facilities is not normal, just like someone taking photos of my house. Obviously it's perfectly legal, but to say it's ordinary is just false.

Cops exist to enforce laws, not opinions/feelings/beliefs/wishes/desires on what some might consider '[ab]normal'.

Would you say my intent would be to intimidate for merely asking what they're doing and taking their photo (a perfectly legal act)?

Perhaps not, but then again you are not a agent of the state (with clearly define role/authority) that appears, in force, armed. Are you?