Washington Bus Driver Attacks Armed Photographer for Recording Him in Public

[Freedom1Man]

If you want some back up, let's try to match schedules. You know for a FACT I will be recording.

I have offered to join you

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[1245A Defender]

Well,,,

You have yet to articulate how the camerama was the aggressor.

Your argument would give police legitimate reason to kill people filming in public.

The guy in the car had zero business asking for information. The guy in the car had every responsibility to answer the question (he is or was a public servant).

The other guy attacked the camera man causing him to spit coffee he had just sipped onto his attacker. Even the police said that the cameraman was perfectly legal and that the bus driver (attacker) assaulted the camerman on security video.

I believe that the cameraman had every right to use deadly force to stop the attacker, permanently.

I am starting to believe that you might be a government plant, a troll, and/or an idiot.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

He is acting as a troll! He calls the unlawful attacker a gentleman!
He speaks of aggressive photography.
He has been debunked by everybody.
He needs to be ignored, but he doesnt want to be ignored, he wants to stir a pot of BS he invented.

 

[RogueReflections]

Well this descended into a playground. Sorry I don't have suckers for any of you


Look, the fact is a man was assaulted on a bus for exercising his rights. And instead of rallying together and demonstrating against this crime, y'all are bickering

This is no different than the mentality behind any other people who hate a guy who has a camera. The media has mentally masturbated society to believe cameras are bad and tools for terrorism only. A guy with a camera can be harassed and attacked and forced to defend himself, but if he has a camera, he deserved it and was looking for confrontation. People are willing to allow American citizens to be deprived of rights, under color of law, and with threat of coercion and incarceration...so long as the citizen is a photographer with a camera.
Needless to say, I don't do this for popularity contest wining or approval from others. It pains me to see some of my fellow 2nd Amendment friends who are so deluded by the WAY I defended myself, they neglect to consider the absurdity that I even HAD to defend myself against this lunatic.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

In this state we also do not have any duty to retreat. We have the right to defend were we lawfully are.

 

[RogueReflections]

So, an openly carried handgun is a threat, by your standards?
I am confused, I thought that this forum was supposed to help promote OC and other lawful activities. I never once heard the camera man issue any threats. Also you advocate attacking anyone who might be a threat just to get the first punch in? Do you work for the DOD or something? That sounds like it came straight out of a DOD play book. "We must strike __________________ first because they have _____________________ weapons."

What you seem to be advocating is neither peaceful nor lawful/legal. That would seem like a forum rules violation.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I think it is pretty interesting that my attacker, identified through public records request as Harold Priest, told responding officers that he never even saw the gun. He was so enraged by a camera that was never even pointed at him, that all he could see was the camera. He was literally "blinded" to anything else because of this rage. What s kind of humorous is that I never even would have taken notice of him until he engaged me with words. I would have walked right past him, thinking the situation was over when the "supervisor" drove off.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I think it is pretty interesting that my attacker, identified through public records request as Harold Priest, told responding officers that he never even saw the gun. He was so enraged by a camera that was never even pointed at him, that all he could see was the camera. He was literally "blinded" to anything else because of this rage. What s kind of humorous is that I never even would have taken notice of him until he engaged me with words. I would have walked right past him, thinking the situation was over when the "supervisor" drove off.

That is the feeling I had from watching your video too.

 

[RogueReflections]

I have offered to join you

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Indeed you have. You have offered many times. Like I said, I was not doing a "1st Amendment Audit" that day. I certainly will be planning some now that I see there is a specific need. If you want to match schedules, let's go visit them again for the specific purpose of an audit. They can count on more audits now.

 

[BB62]

I for one am glad that we have fine people like the videographer representing OCers (and civil rights activists otherwise) everywhere.

Yes sir, a great ambassador and educator he is.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I for one am glad that we have fine people like the videographer representing OCers (and civil rights activists otherwise) everywhere.

Yes sir, a great ambassador and educator he is.

Whether he is, or is not, has not got one thing to do with his rights, or ours. If you want an ambassador YOU be one, and that means stopping your bovine scatology. Right now you are a poor ambassador.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I for one am glad that we have fine people like the videographer representing OCers (and civil rights activists otherwise) everywhere.

Yes sir, a great ambassador and educator he is.

I'm not a role model... Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids.

If your kid needs a role model and you ain't it, you're both...[rhymes with... ducked, bucked, trucked]

 

[Jeff Hayes]

This is no different than the mentality behind any other people who hate a guy who has a camera. The media has mentally masturbated society to believe cameras are bad and tools for terrorism only. A guy with a camera can be harassed and attacked and forced to defend himself, but if he has a camera, he deserved it and was looking for confrontation. People are willing to allow American citizens to be deprived of rights, under color of law, and with threat of coercion and incarceration...so long as the citizen is a photographer with a camera.
Needless to say, I don't do this for popularity contest wining or approval from others. It pains me to see some of my fellow 2nd Amendment friends who are so deluded by the WAY I defended myself, they neglect to consider the absurdity that I even HAD to defend myself against this lunatic.

+1

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Whether he is, or is not, has not got one thing to do with his rights, or ours. If you want an ambassador YOU be one, and that means stopping your bovine scatology. Right now you are a poor ambassador.

+1

 

[BB62]

This thread is going nowhere fast.

Buh bye.

 

[WalkingWolf]

This thread is going nowhere fast.

Buh bye.

And you are the driver taking it nowhere.

 

[FreeInAZ]

This thread is going nowhere fast.

Buh bye.

https://youtu.be/deFDXYdF2g4

 

[WalkingWolf]

https://youtu.be/deFDXYdF2g4

+1 :lol:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

NWA weren't role models either.

They did a great job fighting for free speech rights.

Personal opinions of others is irrelevant.

 

[solus]

i find it interesting as a group of promoters of OC'g of our personal handguns as well as advocating the 2A right in our individual communities, we are respectful to those citizens who ask questions and try to provide insight into the OC'g & 2A concept using handouts and so forth.

on the whole , members of this OC community are respectful even when we discuss those who are CC'g, anti's, ad nauseam.

yet, here we have an individual who has a camera who wanders aggressively pushing the camera into individual's faces without purpose under the auspices of just cuz!

then, when someone gets upsets someone to the point they VERBALLY threatens the photographer, who then spits on the upset citizen and then, then hides their actions as being their 1st right.

what a tremendous disappointment nobody sees through the veil of this chaos being generated by an individual, who without any purpose ~ other than causing chaos amongst the countryside. yet when the chaos raises a ruckus states...'i'm exercising my 1st amendment rights'.

the folks out here feel strongly about rights...so let's take your firearms out and point it wildly at citizens in you community and when the chaos starts...state: 'i can do this as i am exercising my 2A rights'

nowhere has a specific purpose been stated for doing this video activity...except to specifically elicit the woe is me i got tassled in your 15 minutes of fame. SO tell me what advancement to the 1st amendment was accomplished?

and yet i get called names for challenging someone for doing something akin to LGOC into a starbucks...yes it is a right but when pursued in this manner piss citizens off to the point we must now defend said right.

ipse

 

[Dave_pro2a]

aggressively pushing the camera into individual's faces without purpose

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.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

nowhere has a specific purpose been stated for doing this video activity

Being alive in America <- seems like an awesome reason.