I don't know my rights...

HardCore Troubadour

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
11,956
Reaction score
12,953
it is everywhere if the commitment was ordered by authority.

But no one has really talked about these "first amendment auditors" that the thread was started about......

I would be interested in hearing some people's thoughts.
 

integra evan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,250
Reaction score
6,652
Regarding these "auditors" - from all the videos I've watched, they just seem like they want to create drama and/or need attention. The way I've seen these "auditors" treat other people are terrible...instead of treating officers or government officials or whoever they are "auditing" as other human beings just trying to do their job, they treat them like trash with so much disrespect just trying to make a "point."
 

HardCore Troubadour

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
11,956
Reaction score
12,953
the majority of them, I will agree with you, some of them are down-right nasty....but there are a few that do not do that.

Have you watched any of Amagansett Press ? Jason does not do that, but he also does not put up with any BS from the other side.
It seems as if a LOT of these publicly employed folks tend to think they are "above" everyone else. Some think that because they work at X-Y-Z (the courthouse, federal buildings, the police station etc.) they can do and or say whatever they want....
that is incorrect.

I will also say that the majority of the public officials being audited, handle it incorrectly right from the start (lack of training?) and that usually opens the can of worms to exactly what these folks are after......."clicks for $$$".
 
Last edited:

CB91710

Not Michael Sankar
Double Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
25,578
Regarding these "auditors" - from all the videos I've watched, they just seem like they want to create drama and/or need attention. The way I've seen these "auditors" treat other people are terrible...instead of treating officers or government officials or whoever they are "auditing" as other human beings just trying to do their job, they treat them like trash with so much disrespect just trying to make a "point."
Not even always the government... at least not initially.
We had one on the sidewalk filming people leaving the DirecTV building in El Segundo. Shoving the camera up to windows and filming everything in the interior, asking them to pull forward so he could film their license plate.
Obviously, the tactic was to harass the employees to the point that they would call the police, and of course, it would be tough to stick a charge on him because he was filming things from a public sidewalk in plain view, and not physically touching anyone or the vehicles.

For about 2 months, we had a weekly email reminder urging us (as city employees) to not engage or answer any questions, and if we felt threatened, or the "auditor" attempted to access non-public areas, to contact the PD dispatch desk or use one of the panic buttons.
Our PD was good about handling them tactfully, but the Airport Police were always ending up on Youtube giving these guys a hard time.

Of course, like the DirecTV situation, we didn't see the entire story on Youtube, and it is entirely possible that the Airport PD was called because they were harassing people leaving their jobs.

"Furry Potato" ended up getting shot by a security guard at a synagogue. It was a negligent discharge... but criminal charges were not filed.
 

Marshall & Moonshine

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
29,345
Reaction score
68,603
This isn't an American thing. The legally armed public is of no threat to anyone really so long as they've had practice and know firearm safety.

The ones they have to look out for are the ones with illegal weapons. Felons, those who have been admitted to psychiatric wards, etc. are NOT permitted to have guns, but it's easy enough for them to get them from Mexico, and there is jack shit being done about the issue there.
Especially since this one guy sent a whole bunch of guns down there.
 

mgenet

Cheese Burger = Earth
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
13,890
Reaction score
19,179
My philosophy is, don’t fight the cop, take it up with the judge. I came to this position after some trial and error.
Puns intended? I may assume sir?
 

integra evan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,250
Reaction score
6,652
the majority of them, I will agree with you, some of them are down-right nasty....but there are a few that do not do that.

Have you watched any of Amagansett Press ? Jason does not do that, but he also does not put up with any BS from the other side.
It seems as if a LOT of these publicly employed folks tend to think they are "above" everyone else. Some think that because they work at X-Y-Z (the courthouse, federal buildings, the police station etc.) they can do and or say whatever they want....
that is incorrect.

I will also say that the majority of the public officials being audited, handle it incorrectly right from the start (lack of training?) and that usually opens the can of worms to exactly what these folks are after......."clicks for $$$".
Nope haven't seen the one you linked...have only seen the ones looking for clicks.
I have no issues at all with people genuinely curious and wanting to know what's going on....as long as they can do it respectfully.
 

rfrizz

Tenured Luser
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
1,844
1. That was sarcasm. There's no reason to tell them I'm on a prescription medication.
2. Medications affect everyone differently, especially after a tolerance is built.
3. I don't drive to begin with so it's really a moot point.

I know that Xanax and other drugs have a different effects on different people. Believe it or not, most opioids are like amphetamine-like for me. That said, a cop is going to hear "Xanax" and wonder if you are fit to drive.

But if you aren't driving.... Yeah. Mootsville.
 

rfrizz

Tenured Luser
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
1,844

"Federal law also generally prohibits people from possessing firearms if they have been involuntarily hospitalized or committed to a mental health or substance abuse treatment facility by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority."

I suppose I should have included "involuntarily" in there, but the point stands that being admitted to a mental institution can bar you from owning firearms.

You are right. "The involuntarily" part is crucial. So long as the psych treatment is court-ordered, then federal law make possession a felony with a ~5 year sentence. It is important to note the commitment part, but people get so sloppy with language that I have heard people say, "She committed herself to Sunshine Mental Hospital." Uh, no. "She checked herself in."

Something really unexpected is the fact that a "three-day-hold" is considered a commitment as far as firearms are concerned. There is a bullshit ruling from the 11th Federal Circuit Court which makes a technical analysis of legal jargon to find that if someone makes a fraudulent claim, and the probate court finds that there is nothing wrong with you, it doesn't matter. As a matter of law, you were committed when the 72-hour hold was approved.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
36,106
Reaction score
71,398
I would agree, up to a point. You guys have way more legal protections than we do in the U.K. but, I wonder if the same basic affliction affects both countries, in that a judges default position is: 'cops don't lie'. which I can state from personal experience is, well, they fucking do.

So, with that being said, to the point, Do not say anything. Do not consent to search. But, be polite and non confrontational in saying so.

Why? well hows about the guy that got 'routinely' stopped, fell for the 'we'll just get the dogs' line. Cop searches car, finds a 'white substance' in rear passenger area floor, does a reagent test. It pings for meth. Guys doing time. Never possessed anything beyond an aspirin. The wheels turn, the cogs rotate, you cannot stop them.

Or how about, You make a statement, 'I never been to Oxford Town' A witness, with no reason to lie, so is deemed credible, identifies you as the person they saw in Oxford Town, suddenly, you have been caught 'in a lie' so was anything you said the truth? suspect convicted of murder, no chance of appeal as the evidence chain was sound.

Except that one witness made a mistake. But seeing as they had no malice toward the accused, therefore they had no reason to lie. The appeal court ruled no grounds for appeal.
There's a huge stink going on in my home area (Queens County NY) right now over that - bad cops so called "top cops" who framed people and committed crimes while hiding behind a badge.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
36,106
Reaction score
71,398
The funny thing (to me, he didn’t know) was he wasn’t getting a ticket when I stopped him. I don’t like writing them, so he was going to get a freebie warning. Then he went stupid. So, I got writer’s cramp before he left, and dumb dumb got to spend a lot of those twenties.
Play stupid games win... :D
 

CB91710

Not Michael Sankar
Double Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
25,578

"Federal law also generally prohibits people from possessing firearms if they have been involuntarily hospitalized or committed to a mental health or substance abuse treatment facility by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority."

I suppose I should have included "involuntarily" in there, but the point stands that being admitted to a mental institution can bar you from owning firearms.
I honestly couldn't remember if it was State or Fed.
I knew there were federal provisions barring possession for mental health reasons, but here in CA, we have something like 30 misdemeanors that are prohibiting for anywhere from 10 years to life, so sometimes things get a little blurred and I'm not sure if something is national or only local.
 

rfrizz

Tenured Luser
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
1,844
I will also say that the majority of the public officials being audited, handle it incorrectly right from the start (lack of training?) and that usually opens the can of worms to exactly what these folks are after......."clicks for $$$".

The majority of the public officials being audited videos which make it to Youtube handle it incorrectly.

If a cop behaves properly, will it be put on YT in the first place? I'm pretty sure there is a bias (unconscious or conscious) for posting the vids with cops acting like asses or breaking the law, and against cops behaving professionally and following the law. Hey -- call me crazy.

For those who come to the defense of cops who accost people who are obnoxiously walking around a PD and video recording, but not breaking the law... It is not lawful for cops to detain someone merely because he is annoying or doing something they don't like. I don't support anyone being an ass and trying to provoke cops, and I don't support anyone breaking the law, cop or non-cop.
 

Latest Threads



Top