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

[Geerolla]

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?

He never said that. Why do people on this forum feel the need to constantly twist the words of those they don't agree with?

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

Maybe if the majority of citizens would educate themselves on their rights, this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Also, I think you would consider a police encounter just if they solve a crime perpetrated against you, right?

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

Just because the government has 'control' over education (which, actually, they only have control over public schools; I didn't learn a thing about my rights from public school, yet I'm still informed), doesn't mean it's their fault. We have a civic duty to be informed which has been around since well before public school existed.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[notalawyer]

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.

ETA: Their hand position on their vests result from a couple things: 1) They are lazy' 2) They are fat, 3) Their vests not do fit properly - likely due to #2. Also the fitting of the vests is far too low and offers little to no protection to the great vessels of the heart.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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

Yes. Proactive policing is wrong and contrary our liberty foundation and unconstitutional.

No law being broken, no victim, yet they used color of authority for a fishing expedition.

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

They also didn't end the encounter when he asked if he was detained and they said no, they kept up the fishing expedition on the tax payers dime, several cops for a "consensual encounter" I don't buy it, if so they have way too many cops employed if they could spare them all to talk to people not breaking the law.

 

[Geerolla]

Yes. Proactive policing is wrong and contrary our liberty foundation and unconstitutional.

Which of the OP's rights did they violate?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Which of the OP's rights did they violate?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Did I say they violated the OP's rights?

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Also the fitting of the vests is far too low and offers little to no protection to the great vessels of the heart.

They have hearts?

No conscience no heart.

 

[notalawyer]

They have hearts?

No conscience no heart.

OK, OK. Blood Pump.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Our constitutional republics are supposed to have a negative effect according to natural law and the theories of justice (the ideology the constitution was based on), so did the costumed agents of the state have a positive or negative affect?

I would say it leaned on the positive.

 

[Primus]

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.

Just because you assume the guys won't say "hey I'm a terrorist " doesn't mean you just hang out and let him do something that is clearly not ordinary. That would be lazy.

The guy knew he was doing something not ordinary. He did it to test the officers. The officers passed to him.

What more is there to say?

Some guys are trying to make him into a victim and he himself said he wasn't. Blows my mind...



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

Yes. Proactive policing is wrong and contrary our liberty foundation and unconstitutional.

No law being broken, no victim, yet they used color of authority for a fishing expedition.



They also didn't end the encounter when he asked if he was detained and they said no, they kept up the fishing expedition on the tax payers dime, several cops for a "consensual encounter" I don't buy it, if so they have way too many cops employed if they could spare them all to talk to people not breaking the law.

Why would they have to leave? Its a public sidewalk. Again the rights/freedom goes both ways.

They have the right to put 40 officers to stand and gab if they want on that sidewalk. It clearly didn't make the OP scared or uncomfortable. It didn't even remotely "intimidate" him.

This really can't be spun no matter how much effort is put into it. They followed all the rules. They were friendly. They didn't even demand he leave or threaten to arrest him. They told him it wasn't a good idea to stand out there and do that. Which is the truth. Many guys on here see that.

Again... can't stress enough. We talk about IRS supposed to be all about the citizen and their rights and feelings. Well he wasn't violated or victimized. So who are we to victimize him for him. He knew his rights.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[FreeInAZ]

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Just because you assume the guys won't say "hey I'm a terrorist " doesn't mean you just hang out and let him do something that is clearly not ordinary. That would be lazy.

The guy knew he was doing something not ordinary. He did it to test the officers. The officers passed to him.

What more is there to say?

Some guys are trying to make him into a victim and he himself said he wasn't. Blows my mind...



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Have you ever considered how truly powerless you are over what we think or believe? Your "authority" reaches into our pockets, not into our minds. And the fact we each have an individual perspective that differs from yours is what is "blowing your mind".

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Why would they have to leave? Its a public sidewalk. Again the rights/freedom goes both ways.

They have the right to put 40 officers to stand and gab if they want on that sidewalk. It clearly didn't make the OP scared or uncomfortable. It didn't even remotely "intimidate" him.

This really can't be spun no matter how much effort is put into it. They followed all the rules. They were friendly. They didn't even demand he leave or threaten to arrest him. They told him it wasn't a good idea to stand out there and do that. Which is the truth. Many guys on here see that.

Again... can't stress enough. We talk about IRS supposed to be all about the citizen and their rights and feelings. Well he wasn't violated or victimized. So who are we to victimize him for him. He knew his rights.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Who is this "we" you speak of? You do not open carry, do not support open carry, ridicule those that engage in the protesting of violation of our rights.

Again, you are as much of "we" as Sarah Brady.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Funny. A Super Moderator suggested that I do the same, concerning the same individual.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Why would they have to leave? Its a public sidewalk. Again the rights/freedom goes both ways.

They have the right to put 40 officers to stand and gab if they want on that sidewalk. It clearly didn't make the OP scared or uncomfortable. It didn't even remotely "intimidate" him.

This really can't be spun no matter how much effort is put into it. They followed all the rules. They were friendly. They didn't even demand he leave or threaten to arrest him. They told him it wasn't a good idea to stand out there and do that. Which is the truth. Many guys on here see that.

Again... can't stress enough. We talk about IRS supposed to be all about the citizen and their rights and feelings. Well he wasn't violated or victimized. So who are we to victimize him for him. He knew his rights.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Um I didn't say they violated his rights. But ask yourself did they have a positive effect or a negative effect as agents of government?

Also please stop the it goes both ways argument. It is simply false, government does not have rights. The government has no "right" to put 40 guys there to talk to civilians.

My focus isn't that they created a victim it is they acted outside delegated authority and what they are hired to do.

 

[FreeInAZ]

He is here to be fed...and by now he needs a fork lift to get him around this forum. I have no issue with law-abiding PEACE officers, only the ones who think they or others in their ranks who break the law, ARE not CRIMINALS. You either apply the laws equally as a sworn officer, or get a job beating up skateboarders for mall security.

 

[Primus]

Um I didn't say they violated his rights. But ask yourself did they have a positive effect or a negative effect as agents of government?

Also please stop the it goes both ways argument. It is simply false, government does not have rights. The government has no "right" to put 40 guys there to talk to civilians.

My focus isn't that they created a victim it is they acted outside delegated authority and what they are hired to do.

I'd say they have a positive effect. The OP said they did a GOOD job and was happy with the encounter. Seems positive to me.

Again.. he wasn't feeling a victim so why make him into something he isn't?

Granted I agree, the .gov has constraints. But the agents on that corner are still citizens. We are equals remember? I firmly believe that. So that means i can stand there just as you can. You can take pictures of me and I'll do the same. Etc. Etc.

I would counter and say they did EXACTLY what they are there to do. Serve and protect the citizens in and around that building. How did they know he wasn't there with nefarious intent? They didn't. They approached, acted within their constraints and left.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

I'd say they have a positive effect. The OP said they did a GOOD job and was happy with the encounter. Seems positive to me.

Again.. he wasn't feeling a victim so why make him into something he isn't?

Granted I agree, the .gov has constraints. But the agents on that corner are still citizens. We are equals remember? I firmly believe that. So that means i can stand there just as you can. You can take pictures of me and I'll do the same. Etc. Etc.

I would counter and say they did EXACTLY what they are there to do. Serve and protect the citizens in and around that building. How did they know he wasn't there with nefarious intent? They didn't. They approached, acted within their constraints and left.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

OP got the attention he craved, which was more important than protecting his liberty.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'd say they have a positive effect. The OP said they did a GOOD job and was happy with the encounter. Seems positive to me.

Again.. he wasn't feeling a victim so why make him into something he isn't?

Granted I agree, the .gov has constraints. But the agents on that corner are still citizens. We are equals remember? I firmly believe that. So that means i can stand there just as you can. You can take pictures of me and I'll do the same. Etc. Etc.

I would counter and say they did EXACTLY what they are there to do. Serve and protect the citizens in and around that building. How did they know he wasn't there with nefarious intent? They didn't. They approached, acted within their constraints and left.

If you go to the doctor you want your terminal illness test to come out positive?

No You are not equal members while engaged in government duty, you are a servant.

They did more than that, look how many were there, look at how insistent they were on taking his picture, did they leave him alone after saying he wasn't detained?

Guess what liberty means? You don't have to know what people's intents are if they are not breaking the law.

Yes the OP continued to engage them so it was his intent to test them, good. They didn't act as some cops do and were more polite and didn't violate his rights, that doesn't mean they acted "constitutionally".

 

[RogueReflections]

Rifas

Dude I think you're over reacting to critique of how you choose to exercise your rights.

What you just said is an actual critique. It is well balanced and fair. I was responding to this "Walking Wolf" person. I can take critique. I welcome it and learn from critique. Thank you for your valuable input. I used to have a problem with "baiting." I thought baiters were just looking for trouble. Then I started challenging my own thoughts. Is it really a bad thing to "bait?" I mean...why not just get to the root of the problem? Although I was not "baiting" in this video. I was also filming the downtown area and trains going by. When I noticed I was being filmed from inside the courthouse, I remained. If a "baiter" goes to where he/she knows there is a high probability to be "encountered" I am thinking he/she is just cutting to the chase. It is only baiting if something bites. If something bites, it is because it does not recognize it is bait. With the thousands of videos that exist, one would think law enforcement should have gotten the message by now.
What do you think?
-Rogue-