正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Two tyrants get schooled on citizen rights. Mind blowing what the do not know. Outside a Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office facility in North Carolina, an independent journalist began filming from a publicly accessible county parking lot. Two deputies, one of which named including Sergeant McNigley quickly approached him. The... officers demanded to see his ID, claiming he was acting suspiciously by filming patrol vehicles and insisting the area was "private county property." Class is in session from that point on. The journalist stood his ground on Identification: He calmly educates the officers on the law, reminding them that North Carolina is not a "stop and identify" state. Without reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime, law enforcement cannot compel a citizen to present identification. Refuting the "Private Property" Myth: When the deputies claim the parking lot is private county property, the journalist correctly counters that public facilities funded by taxpayers are subject to public access and First Amendment protection when visible from public space. De-escalating the Pressure: Despite repeated attempts at intimidation and circular arguments about authority, the journalist remains composed, eventually forcing the officers to admit he is not being detained. In the end, the officers are forced to let him walk away—proving once again why understanding your constitutional rights is your greatest defense. The journalist did an incredible job refusing to bow to unlawful demands and standing tall for civil liberties. This is how it's done.show more

Giggling Ganon

266,913 subscribers

28,175 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Two Omaha officers get schooled on our rights. "Suspicion" isn't a crime, and filming in a public lobby isn't "suspicious" behavior—it's a protected right. In this interaction at the Omaha Treasurer's Office, the officers attempt to use "public concern" as a reason to demand identification. However, the law is clear: without reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime, a citizen is under no obligation to identify. Is filming the government a crime, or is the government just uncomfortable being filmed?

Two Omaha officers get schooled on our rights. "Suspicion" isn't a crime, and filming in a public lobby isn't "suspicious" behavior—it's a protected right. In this interaction at the Omaha Treasurer's Office, the officers attempt to use "public concern" as a reason to demand identification. However, the law is clear: without reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime, a citizen is under no obligation to identify. Is filming the government a crime, or is the government just uncomfortable being filmed?

Chuckling Charlie

29,249 次观看 • 5 个月前

👮‍♂️"Open Carry Is Legal But It's Not Legal Here!" Gaston County, NC — late 2025. A First Amendment auditor filming as a self-described journalist was open-carrying a handgun on the exterior grounds / parking area of the Gaston County Jail Annex and courthouse complex in Gastonia. Deputies approached and told him he could not carry there. They said it was county property, signs banned guns in the buildings, and he needed to put the firearm in his car. He refused. He said North Carolina is an open-carry state, he was not inside a building, the grounds are tax-funded public property, and filming is legal. The exchange stayed verbal. Deputies argued county rules and location; he argued the Second Amendment and that restrictions apply inside the courthouse, not the lot. No arrest. No law was broken. Gaston County has a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution. NC generally allows open carry outdoors; weapons inside courthouses are separately restricted. The video is the argument over where that line sits. ❓Can Gaston County allow open carry on county property only until a deputy sees someone carrying that he doesn't feel comfortable with? ❓If the auditor was breaking a law why didn't the deputy arrest him instead of only arguing with him?

👮‍♂️"Open Carry Is Legal But It's Not Legal Here!" Gaston County, NC — late 2025. A First Amendment auditor filming as a self-described journalist was open-carrying a handgun on the exterior grounds / parking area of the Gaston County Jail Annex and courthouse complex in Gastonia. Deputies approached and told him he could not carry there. They said it was county property, signs banned guns in the buildings, and he needed to put the firearm in his car. He refused. He said North Carolina is an open-carry state, he was not inside a building, the grounds are tax-funded public property, and filming is legal. The exchange stayed verbal. Deputies argued county rules and location; he argued the Second Amendment and that restrictions apply inside the courthouse, not the lot. No arrest. No law was broken. Gaston County has a Second Amendment sanctuary resolution. NC generally allows open carry outdoors; weapons inside courthouses are separately restricted. The video is the argument over where that line sits. ❓Can Gaston County allow open carry on county property only until a deputy sees someone carrying that he doesn't feel comfortable with? ❓If the auditor was breaking a law why didn't the deputy arrest him instead of only arguing with him?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

67,281 次观看 • 16 天前

Police and sheriff department violate rights of journalist end up costing the city $9500 dollars in a settlement. A journalist entered the Silverthorne Post Office to peacefully film public-access areas like the lobby and bulletin boards. Objecting to the camera, postal employees called local law enforcement to remove him. When officers from the Silverthorne Police Department and a Summit County Sheriff’s deputy arrived, they attempted to trespass the journalist at the request of the local postmaster. The fundamental breakdown in this interaction stems from a misunderstanding of public property rules. Under federal regulation 39 CFR § 232.1 (colloquially known as USPS Poster 7), citizens have an explicit right to take photographs and record video for news purposes in public spaces—such as lobbies, foyers, and corridors—provided they do not disrupt postal operations. While the journalist correctly argued his rights on federal property, local officers mistakenly attempted to treat the federal building like private property, enforcing a trespass order based on the staff’s "feelings" rather than an actual violation of law. The journalist didn't let the violation of his civil liberties slide. Following the encounter, he pursued legal action against the municipality for violating his First Amendment rights. Rather than dragging the case through a lengthy, expensive federal civil rights lawsuit, the Town of Silverthorne ultimately agreed to a $9,500 economic settlement with the journalist. While the town did not formally admit liability, Silverthorne's Police Chief later acknowledged that his officers would handle the situation completely differently given a second chance. I can't stress enough how important it is to understand your rights and how vital that it is that we stand up for those rights when confronted by tyrants like these officers try to step on those rights.

Police and sheriff department violate rights of journalist end up costing the city $9500 dollars in a settlement. A journalist entered the Silverthorne Post Office to peacefully film public-access areas like the lobby and bulletin boards. Objecting to the camera, postal employees called local law enforcement to remove him. When officers from the Silverthorne Police Department and a Summit County Sheriff’s deputy arrived, they attempted to trespass the journalist at the request of the local postmaster. The fundamental breakdown in this interaction stems from a misunderstanding of public property rules. Under federal regulation 39 CFR § 232.1 (colloquially known as USPS Poster 7), citizens have an explicit right to take photographs and record video for news purposes in public spaces—such as lobbies, foyers, and corridors—provided they do not disrupt postal operations. While the journalist correctly argued his rights on federal property, local officers mistakenly attempted to treat the federal building like private property, enforcing a trespass order based on the staff’s "feelings" rather than an actual violation of law. The journalist didn't let the violation of his civil liberties slide. Following the encounter, he pursued legal action against the municipality for violating his First Amendment rights. Rather than dragging the case through a lengthy, expensive federal civil rights lawsuit, the Town of Silverthorne ultimately agreed to a $9,500 economic settlement with the journalist. While the town did not formally admit liability, Silverthorne's Police Chief later acknowledged that his officers would handle the situation completely differently given a second chance. I can't stress enough how important it is to understand your rights and how vital that it is that we stand up for those rights when confronted by tyrants like these officers try to step on those rights.

Giggling Ganon

13,349 次观看 • 3 个月前

Itchy trigger finger cops get schooled. All 8 of them had to do that walk of shame. A tense standoff highlights a critical dynamic in law enforcement: the power of a knowledgeable supervisor to prevent a massive civil rights lawsuit. While the interaction started with intimidation and legal misinformation, it ended up being a masterclass in how police supervisors should handle citizens who know their rights. A journalist—lawfully filming in public while open-carrying a holstered handgun outside the Henderson County Sheriff's Office get surrounded by 8 deputies all worried about a guy with a camera. One of the deputies seems to have an itchy trigger finger by the name of Detective Williams gets challenged by the journalist on his defensive posture. Williams is standing with his hand resting on his firearm, his security hood completely deactivated. When questioned, Williams claims he's doing it for his safety and "because I can." The journalist stands his ground, pointing out that preparing a weapon's unholstering mechanics without an active threat serves as an implicit, lethal threat to a peaceful citizen. As backup arrives, the situation deteriorates into a classic display of "authority by default." Multiple deputies try to bully the journalist into compliance by confidently claiming that the parking lot is restricted because it is "county property." The journalist doesn't flinch. He holds his ground and educates the deputies on a vital legal distinction: while the lot is county-owned, it is a taxpayer-funded, public-use space. He openly acknowledges that carrying a weapon inside the government building is illegal, but correctly notes that the exterior parking lot remains public domain. The deputies look visibly uncomfortable, caught off guard by a citizen who refuses to be intimidated. The entire trajectory of the encounter shifts the moment unit supervisor Corey Payne enters the frame. Instead of backing up his deputies' bad legal takes, Payne takes a rare, commendable approach: Admitting the Law: Supervisor Payne explicitly concedes that the parking lot is public property and that open carry is 100% legal under state law. The Voice of Reason: While Payne defends his team's response—explaining that walking a government lot with a firearm and a camera is highly "abnormal" behavior that naturally prompts a public safety check—he completely validates the journalist's right to be there. When Payne asks for the journalist's name to document the contact, the journalist politely declines, asserting he has broken no laws and identifying only as a "good citizen." Because Supervisor Payne actually knows the law, he recognizes a legal stalemate when he sees one. He understands that the journalist is fully within his rights to open carry, film, and refuse identification without reasonable suspicion of a crime. Rather than letting his deputies violate a citizen's rights, Payne shuts down the interaction, commands his team to leave, and walks away. This supervisor likely saved his county thousands of dollars in legal fees just by respecting the Constitution. The walk of shame is in effect at the end as it should be.

Itchy trigger finger cops get schooled. All 8 of them had to do that walk of shame. A tense standoff highlights a critical dynamic in law enforcement: the power of a knowledgeable supervisor to prevent a massive civil rights lawsuit. While the interaction started with intimidation and legal misinformation, it ended up being a masterclass in how police supervisors should handle citizens who know their rights. A journalist—lawfully filming in public while open-carrying a holstered handgun outside the Henderson County Sheriff's Office get surrounded by 8 deputies all worried about a guy with a camera. One of the deputies seems to have an itchy trigger finger by the name of Detective Williams gets challenged by the journalist on his defensive posture. Williams is standing with his hand resting on his firearm, his security hood completely deactivated. When questioned, Williams claims he's doing it for his safety and "because I can." The journalist stands his ground, pointing out that preparing a weapon's unholstering mechanics without an active threat serves as an implicit, lethal threat to a peaceful citizen. As backup arrives, the situation deteriorates into a classic display of "authority by default." Multiple deputies try to bully the journalist into compliance by confidently claiming that the parking lot is restricted because it is "county property." The journalist doesn't flinch. He holds his ground and educates the deputies on a vital legal distinction: while the lot is county-owned, it is a taxpayer-funded, public-use space. He openly acknowledges that carrying a weapon inside the government building is illegal, but correctly notes that the exterior parking lot remains public domain. The deputies look visibly uncomfortable, caught off guard by a citizen who refuses to be intimidated. The entire trajectory of the encounter shifts the moment unit supervisor Corey Payne enters the frame. Instead of backing up his deputies' bad legal takes, Payne takes a rare, commendable approach: Admitting the Law: Supervisor Payne explicitly concedes that the parking lot is public property and that open carry is 100% legal under state law. The Voice of Reason: While Payne defends his team's response—explaining that walking a government lot with a firearm and a camera is highly "abnormal" behavior that naturally prompts a public safety check—he completely validates the journalist's right to be there. When Payne asks for the journalist's name to document the contact, the journalist politely declines, asserting he has broken no laws and identifying only as a "good citizen." Because Supervisor Payne actually knows the law, he recognizes a legal stalemate when he sees one. He understands that the journalist is fully within his rights to open carry, film, and refuse identification without reasonable suspicion of a crime. Rather than letting his deputies violate a citizen's rights, Payne shuts down the interaction, commands his team to leave, and walks away. This supervisor likely saved his county thousands of dollars in legal fees just by respecting the Constitution. The walk of shame is in effect at the end as it should be.

Giggling Gannon

133,331 次观看 • 3 个月前

You know the department is bad when even the Chief does not understand the law! They all get owned and do the walk of shame. A textbook lesson in constitutional rights unfolded right outside a Central Bank branch in Millstadt, Illinois, proving once again that public photography is not a crime—no matter how uncomfortable it makes the local authorities. It all started when a journalist was standing strictly on a public sidewalk and easement, minding his own business while on his cellphone. Because of the freezing winter weather, he was wearing a face mask. After looking toward the bank windows and checking out a balloon display inside, nervous bank employees called the Millstadt Police Department to report a "suspicious" masked individual filming the building. Officers Jacob Fowler and A. Smiddy arrived on the scene and immediately tried to flip the script. They demanded the auditor’s identification, claiming they needed to "document" his information so they could formally trespass him on behalf of the bank. The Police: Claimed that looking inside a bank window while wearing a mask on a freezing day constitutes "reasonable articulable suspicion" of a crime. They repeatedly called the journalist "uncooperative" simply for refusing to surrender his ID. The journalist: Kept his composure and stood his ground. He stood firmly on a public right-of-way, reminding the officers of his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. When officers claimed they were trespassing him from the property, he hit them with the ultimate logic check: "I was never on their property... Are you trespassing my eyeballs?" Realizing they had zero legal leverage to force compliance or make an arrest, the officers quickly ran out of answers. After a third officer arrived to hand out a business card (which was politely declined), the police finally admitted they knew exactly how this works—conceding that the journalist was within his rights to film them and post the interaction to online. With no law broken and no leg to stand on, the officers chose to disengage and walk away defeated. Know your rights, know the law, and never let them trespass your eyeballs.

You know the department is bad when even the Chief does not understand the law! They all get owned and do the walk of shame. A textbook lesson in constitutional rights unfolded right outside a Central Bank branch in Millstadt, Illinois, proving once again that public photography is not a crime—no matter how uncomfortable it makes the local authorities. It all started when a journalist was standing strictly on a public sidewalk and easement, minding his own business while on his cellphone. Because of the freezing winter weather, he was wearing a face mask. After looking toward the bank windows and checking out a balloon display inside, nervous bank employees called the Millstadt Police Department to report a "suspicious" masked individual filming the building. Officers Jacob Fowler and A. Smiddy arrived on the scene and immediately tried to flip the script. They demanded the auditor’s identification, claiming they needed to "document" his information so they could formally trespass him on behalf of the bank. The Police: Claimed that looking inside a bank window while wearing a mask on a freezing day constitutes "reasonable articulable suspicion" of a crime. They repeatedly called the journalist "uncooperative" simply for refusing to surrender his ID. The journalist: Kept his composure and stood his ground. He stood firmly on a public right-of-way, reminding the officers of his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. When officers claimed they were trespassing him from the property, he hit them with the ultimate logic check: "I was never on their property... Are you trespassing my eyeballs?" Realizing they had zero legal leverage to force compliance or make an arrest, the officers quickly ran out of answers. After a third officer arrived to hand out a business card (which was politely declined), the police finally admitted they knew exactly how this works—conceding that the journalist was within his rights to film them and post the interaction to online. With no law broken and no leg to stand on, the officers chose to disengage and walk away defeated. Know your rights, know the law, and never let them trespass your eyeballs.

Giggling Gannon

41,238 次观看 • 3 个月前

Sergeant has zero understanding of the law, gets schooled as he becomes unglued. Westmont Police Sergeant Confronted by Independent Journalist over First Amendment Rights. A Westmont Police Department Sergeant, tasked with supervising officers and upholding the law, recently demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of basic constitutional protections during an encounter with an independent journalist. When the Sergeant attempted to claim that filming from a public space violated LEADS regulations due to visible information on an unshielded laptop screen, the journalist stood his ground. He clearly articulated established court precedents—including ACLU v. Alvarez, Glick v. Cunniffe, and Terry v. Ohio—reminding the officer that citizens have a protected right to record public officials performing their duties in public spaces. Furthermore, the journalist pointed out that officers bear the responsibility of securing their own confidential screens, rather than infringing on a citizen's constitutional rights. Faced with unwavering legal knowledge and no valid legal grounds for detention, the Sergeant was forced to disengage and leave the scene doing that walk of shame as he realized in the back of his head that he is about to become a social media star in a bad way. Know your rights and do not be afraid to stand up and exercise them. Together we will continue to make those that swore to protect the constitution but fail to do so famous. Meet officer Sergeant Rolando Padilla of the Westmont IL PD.

Sergeant has zero understanding of the law, gets schooled as he becomes unglued. Westmont Police Sergeant Confronted by Independent Journalist over First Amendment Rights. A Westmont Police Department Sergeant, tasked with supervising officers and upholding the law, recently demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of basic constitutional protections during an encounter with an independent journalist. When the Sergeant attempted to claim that filming from a public space violated LEADS regulations due to visible information on an unshielded laptop screen, the journalist stood his ground. He clearly articulated established court precedents—including ACLU v. Alvarez, Glick v. Cunniffe, and Terry v. Ohio—reminding the officer that citizens have a protected right to record public officials performing their duties in public spaces. Furthermore, the journalist pointed out that officers bear the responsibility of securing their own confidential screens, rather than infringing on a citizen's constitutional rights. Faced with unwavering legal knowledge and no valid legal grounds for detention, the Sergeant was forced to disengage and leave the scene doing that walk of shame as he realized in the back of his head that he is about to become a social media star in a bad way. Know your rights and do not be afraid to stand up and exercise them. Together we will continue to make those that swore to protect the constitution but fail to do so famous. Meet officer Sergeant Rolando Padilla of the Westmont IL PD.

Giggling Gannon

103,088 次观看 • 1 个月前

Officer has zero regards for rights of the journalist, Sgt arrives says hold my beer and takes dumb to the next level. This is a longer one, but well worth it to experience this Sgt. This journalist is out exercising his first amendment rights on a public sidewalk. Chase bank decided to call the police to have the journalist removed. An officer arrives first and tries to tell the journalist that he cannot record on a public sidewalk he then calls out his supervisor. The moment Sgt. Kurgxbon arrives and claims that a public municipal sidewalk is part of the bank’s "curtilage" and that a journalist can be trespassed from standing there, she instantly loses all legal credibility as well. The Definition of Curtilage: By definition, curtilage applies to the immediate, private area surrounding a home or dwelling where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You cannot claim "curtilage" on a public, concrete sidewalk in the middle of downtown Baltimore just because it sits in front of a Chase Bank. Traditional Public Forums: The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear for decades: public sidewalks are the quintessential "traditional public forum." Journalists and citizens alike have an absolute, protected First Amendment right to stand on them, gather news, film what is in plain view, and exist without having to justify their presence to law enforcement. The "Pass-Through" Myth: Telling a journalist they have the right to "walk through" but not stand still on a public sidewalk to gather footage is a completely fabricated rule. If you are legally allowed to be in a space, you are legally allowed to stand there. What’s most alarming here isn't just that the officers don't know the law—it's their absolute willingness to enforce a violation of rights anyway. Instead of educating the bank employee on public property laws, Officer Allender and the Sergeant choose to escalate, threaten a trespass warning, and attempt to intimidate a journalist who is doing absolutely nothing illegal. When law enforcement prioritizes a business's comfort over constitutional rights and press freedom, they transition from peace officers to corporate security guards funded by taxpayers. This is why these types of activities need to be done. It's mind blowing just how ignorant these officers are. It's scary and comical at the same time.

Officer has zero regards for rights of the journalist, Sgt arrives says hold my beer and takes dumb to the next level. This is a longer one, but well worth it to experience this Sgt. This journalist is out exercising his first amendment rights on a public sidewalk. Chase bank decided to call the police to have the journalist removed. An officer arrives first and tries to tell the journalist that he cannot record on a public sidewalk he then calls out his supervisor. The moment Sgt. Kurgxbon arrives and claims that a public municipal sidewalk is part of the bank’s "curtilage" and that a journalist can be trespassed from standing there, she instantly loses all legal credibility as well. The Definition of Curtilage: By definition, curtilage applies to the immediate, private area surrounding a home or dwelling where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You cannot claim "curtilage" on a public, concrete sidewalk in the middle of downtown Baltimore just because it sits in front of a Chase Bank. Traditional Public Forums: The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear for decades: public sidewalks are the quintessential "traditional public forum." Journalists and citizens alike have an absolute, protected First Amendment right to stand on them, gather news, film what is in plain view, and exist without having to justify their presence to law enforcement. The "Pass-Through" Myth: Telling a journalist they have the right to "walk through" but not stand still on a public sidewalk to gather footage is a completely fabricated rule. If you are legally allowed to be in a space, you are legally allowed to stand there. What’s most alarming here isn't just that the officers don't know the law—it's their absolute willingness to enforce a violation of rights anyway. Instead of educating the bank employee on public property laws, Officer Allender and the Sergeant choose to escalate, threaten a trespass warning, and attempt to intimidate a journalist who is doing absolutely nothing illegal. When law enforcement prioritizes a business's comfort over constitutional rights and press freedom, they transition from peace officers to corporate security guards funded by taxpayers. This is why these types of activities need to be done. It's mind blowing just how ignorant these officers are. It's scary and comical at the same time.

Giggling Ganon

61,732 次观看 • 3 个月前

Country security guard thinks his rules supersede the law. This bodycam footage from Montgomery County, Tennessee, captures one of the most stunning, blatant misunderstandings of basic law you will ever see from a county security officer. What starts as a standard First Amendment audit at a county government building quickly devolves into an extreme case of ego-driven overreach, leaving a county sheriff's deputy stuck playing law professor to an incredibly hostile and incompetent guard. The situation is simple: A citizen journalist is on public property, outside a government facility, filming. She is exercising her constitutional rights. With absolute, unearned confidence, this guard approaches the auditor and demands she stop filming, declaring that government property is "not public property." Let that sink in for a moment. Someone hired to protect a public county facility genuinely believes that the public has no right to be there, and that a citizen requires permission from a facilities manager just to stand on the sidewalk with a camera. When a Montgomery County sheriff’s deputy arrives, things take a truly bizarre turn. Instead of backing down when actual law enforcement arrives, the guard doubles down. The deputy, after confirming the law with his superiors, calmly explains to the guard that the auditor is entirely within her legal rights. The ground is public. No laws are being broken. But ego is a powerful thing. Instead of accepting the correction, the guard snaps. He begins yelling at the deputy, arguing that his internal company policy somehow supersedes constitutional law. He literally tries to pull rank on a sworn law enforcement officer, claiming the rules are his to enforce and threatening to call higher-ups to get his way. It gets worse. When the auditor attempts to walk into the building to file a legitimate public records request—a fundamental right of every American citizen—the guard says he will physically remove her. "You're not going in that building," he barks, threatening removal if she tries to step past him. Watching this level of aggression and ignorance play out is infuriating, but it also forces you to ask a much darker question: How many citizens has this man violated the rights of during his career? How many everyday people, intimidated by the uniform and the aggressive posture, simply complied and walked away? How many people were denied access to public records, forced off public sidewalks, or unlawfully detained because this man weaponized his ignorance? First Amendment auditors often take a lot of heat, but this video is the exact reason why accountability filming is so vital. Without a camera rolling, this guard's word would have been taken over an ordinary citizen's every single time. Fortunately, accountability caught up with him. Once this bodycam footage made its way to the public and county officials saw the liability walking around their complex, action was taken. The guard was officially removed from his position at the facility. It is a stark reminder that a uniform is a responsibility, not a license to bully. If you are tasked with protecting a public space, you better understand the rights of the public you are serving.

Country security guard thinks his rules supersede the law. This bodycam footage from Montgomery County, Tennessee, captures one of the most stunning, blatant misunderstandings of basic law you will ever see from a county security officer. What starts as a standard First Amendment audit at a county government building quickly devolves into an extreme case of ego-driven overreach, leaving a county sheriff's deputy stuck playing law professor to an incredibly hostile and incompetent guard. The situation is simple: A citizen journalist is on public property, outside a government facility, filming. She is exercising her constitutional rights. With absolute, unearned confidence, this guard approaches the auditor and demands she stop filming, declaring that government property is "not public property." Let that sink in for a moment. Someone hired to protect a public county facility genuinely believes that the public has no right to be there, and that a citizen requires permission from a facilities manager just to stand on the sidewalk with a camera. When a Montgomery County sheriff’s deputy arrives, things take a truly bizarre turn. Instead of backing down when actual law enforcement arrives, the guard doubles down. The deputy, after confirming the law with his superiors, calmly explains to the guard that the auditor is entirely within her legal rights. The ground is public. No laws are being broken. But ego is a powerful thing. Instead of accepting the correction, the guard snaps. He begins yelling at the deputy, arguing that his internal company policy somehow supersedes constitutional law. He literally tries to pull rank on a sworn law enforcement officer, claiming the rules are his to enforce and threatening to call higher-ups to get his way. It gets worse. When the auditor attempts to walk into the building to file a legitimate public records request—a fundamental right of every American citizen—the guard says he will physically remove her. "You're not going in that building," he barks, threatening removal if she tries to step past him. Watching this level of aggression and ignorance play out is infuriating, but it also forces you to ask a much darker question: How many citizens has this man violated the rights of during his career? How many everyday people, intimidated by the uniform and the aggressive posture, simply complied and walked away? How many people were denied access to public records, forced off public sidewalks, or unlawfully detained because this man weaponized his ignorance? First Amendment auditors often take a lot of heat, but this video is the exact reason why accountability filming is so vital. Without a camera rolling, this guard's word would have been taken over an ordinary citizen's every single time. Fortunately, accountability caught up with him. Once this bodycam footage made its way to the public and county officials saw the liability walking around their complex, action was taken. The guard was officially removed from his position at the facility. It is a stark reminder that a uniform is a responsibility, not a license to bully. If you are tasked with protecting a public space, you better understand the rights of the public you are serving.

Giggling Gannon

39,827 次观看 • 4 个月前

Off duty cop gets owned trying to give someone orders. California Highway Patrol (CHP) facility in San Diego, an independent journalist exercises his rights by filming. The journalist positioned himself on the public sidewalk and easement overlooking the inspection area and parking lot. Under well-established First Amendment precedent, recording anything in plain view from a public space—including public buildings, government facilities, vehicles, and license plates—is protected by law. An off-duty CHP employee/officer approached the journalist, questioning why he was recording personal and agency vehicles and ordering him to move along and leave the area. Rather than complying with an unlawful directive, the journalist pushed back immediately. He reminded the officer that public servants have no legal authority to demand a citizen leave a public easement simply for exercising their constitutional right to record. While other staff members went about their business without incident, this encounter escalated quickly due to an attempt to intimidate someone exercising lawful activity in plain view of the public. This guy found out real quick that on this day he was better off just heading home.

Off duty cop gets owned trying to give someone orders. California Highway Patrol (CHP) facility in San Diego, an independent journalist exercises his rights by filming. The journalist positioned himself on the public sidewalk and easement overlooking the inspection area and parking lot. Under well-established First Amendment precedent, recording anything in plain view from a public space—including public buildings, government facilities, vehicles, and license plates—is protected by law. An off-duty CHP employee/officer approached the journalist, questioning why he was recording personal and agency vehicles and ordering him to move along and leave the area. Rather than complying with an unlawful directive, the journalist pushed back immediately. He reminded the officer that public servants have no legal authority to demand a citizen leave a public easement simply for exercising their constitutional right to record. While other staff members went about their business without incident, this encounter escalated quickly due to an attempt to intimidate someone exercising lawful activity in plain view of the public. This guy found out real quick that on this day he was better off just heading home.

Giggling Ganon

46,927 次观看 • 1 个月前

It's astounding how ignorant this female cop is on the law. When public photography gets treated as a potential crime, knowing your rights makes all the difference. In this bodycam encounter out of Kansas City, Missouri, KCPD Officer Sarah Holland responded to a call regarding an independent journalist filming near bank branches along Ward Parkway. Prior to arrival, dispatch discussions framed the activity as potentially "casing" the locations, leading to immediate tension upon contact. When Officer Holland arrived, she demanded the journalist’s identification. The journalist maintained that he was standing strictly on a public sidewalk, gathering content for a story, and declined to provide ID without reasonable, articulable suspicion of an actual crime. Despite his assertion of First Amendment rights and city easement protections, Officer Holland placed him in handcuffs, insisting he was legally detained for refusing to leave after the bank requested it. The situation escalated until a field supervisor arrived on scene to assess the stop. After questioning bank management and surveying the area, the supervisor stepped in to correct the procedural missteps, clarifying that standing on a public sidewalk to record is constitutionally protected activity and that police cannot simply demand identification or detain an individual without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Ultimately, because the journalist remained in public space he was uncuffed and released without identifying himself or facing charges. A textbook breakdown of public easement rights, stop-and-identify standards, and why supervisor intervention matters on the street. The scary part is you have to wonder how many people's rights has this woman violated through her career. She needs re-education on the constitution that she swore to protect.

It's astounding how ignorant this female cop is on the law. When public photography gets treated as a potential crime, knowing your rights makes all the difference. In this bodycam encounter out of Kansas City, Missouri, KCPD Officer Sarah Holland responded to a call regarding an independent journalist filming near bank branches along Ward Parkway. Prior to arrival, dispatch discussions framed the activity as potentially "casing" the locations, leading to immediate tension upon contact. When Officer Holland arrived, she demanded the journalist’s identification. The journalist maintained that he was standing strictly on a public sidewalk, gathering content for a story, and declined to provide ID without reasonable, articulable suspicion of an actual crime. Despite his assertion of First Amendment rights and city easement protections, Officer Holland placed him in handcuffs, insisting he was legally detained for refusing to leave after the bank requested it. The situation escalated until a field supervisor arrived on scene to assess the stop. After questioning bank management and surveying the area, the supervisor stepped in to correct the procedural missteps, clarifying that standing on a public sidewalk to record is constitutionally protected activity and that police cannot simply demand identification or detain an individual without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. Ultimately, because the journalist remained in public space he was uncuffed and released without identifying himself or facing charges. A textbook breakdown of public easement rights, stop-and-identify standards, and why supervisor intervention matters on the street. The scary part is you have to wonder how many people's rights has this woman violated through her career. She needs re-education on the constitution that she swore to protect.

Giggling Ganon

22,974 次观看 • 1 个月前

Two rogue cops violate this journalist's one officer losing his job and an undisclosed settlement. A citizen journalist named Roland Reyes was recording a traffic accident scene from a public sidewalk for a local community Facebook page when he was approached by Lake Jackson Police Officers Johnny Cagle and Oscar Mendoza. Officer Cagle demanded that Reyes leave the scene and identify himself, falsely claiming that taking photographs of vehicles and license plates in public was illegal. Reyes knowing his rights refused to leave, asserting his right to document the scene from public property. It was clear by the response from the officers that they had zero knowledge of the laws and the constitutional rights that they swore to protect. Seeing that Reyes was going to stand his ground and not be intimidated by these tyrants, without ever stating that Reyes was under arrest or commanding him to show his hands, the officers tackled him to the ground. The handling of the arrest drew immediate backlash: Following the scuffle, Officer Cagle claimed injuries and took the ambulance to the hospital. Reyes, the victim, was handcuffed, transported in a squad car, and kept tied to a hospital bed during treatment before being released an hour later. The City of Lake Jackson issued a statement admitting the officers acted on an "erroneous understanding of law" and that Reyes was legally filming. Officer Cagle resigned from the force before he could be formally terminated, while Officer Mendoza was suspended without pay and ordered to undergo remedial civil rights training. Reyes subsequently retained a lawyer to file a civil lawsuit against the officers and the police department for the violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. His case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Two rogue cops violate this journalist's one officer losing his job and an undisclosed settlement. A citizen journalist named Roland Reyes was recording a traffic accident scene from a public sidewalk for a local community Facebook page when he was approached by Lake Jackson Police Officers Johnny Cagle and Oscar Mendoza. Officer Cagle demanded that Reyes leave the scene and identify himself, falsely claiming that taking photographs of vehicles and license plates in public was illegal. Reyes knowing his rights refused to leave, asserting his right to document the scene from public property. It was clear by the response from the officers that they had zero knowledge of the laws and the constitutional rights that they swore to protect. Seeing that Reyes was going to stand his ground and not be intimidated by these tyrants, without ever stating that Reyes was under arrest or commanding him to show his hands, the officers tackled him to the ground. The handling of the arrest drew immediate backlash: Following the scuffle, Officer Cagle claimed injuries and took the ambulance to the hospital. Reyes, the victim, was handcuffed, transported in a squad car, and kept tied to a hospital bed during treatment before being released an hour later. The City of Lake Jackson issued a statement admitting the officers acted on an "erroneous understanding of law" and that Reyes was legally filming. Officer Cagle resigned from the force before he could be formally terminated, while Officer Mendoza was suspended without pay and ordered to undergo remedial civil rights training. Reyes subsequently retained a lawyer to file a civil lawsuit against the officers and the police department for the violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. His case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Giggling Gannon

110,729 次观看 • 2 个月前

Tyrant judge thinks he can decide what rights people have in a public building just because he says so. We are in Clay County, Indiana. A journalist entered the public spaces of the building to document public servants doing the people's business. But instead of transparency, he was met with immediate resistance. The judge stepped in, attempting to deny the journalist's constitutional rights and shut down the camera under the guise of local courthouse policies. But here is the reality: local rules and administrative policies do not override the United States Constitution. The journalist holds their ground, calmly refusing to back down while facing immense pressure from the judge and deputies. You can see the exact moment the gears turn and the narrative shifts. As the journalist stands firm, the judge realizes that enforcing an unconstitutional order on camera is a direct path to a federal civil rights lawsuit. Knowing they were in blatant violation of the journalist's rights, the judge did the one thing authority figures hate doing: they backed down. No arrest, no trespass, just a quiet retreat. This is a prime example of why independent journalism and auditing exist. Public officials answer to the taxpayers—not the other way around. Know your rights folks and do not bend a knee to comply when tyrants try to steal your rights from you.

Tyrant judge thinks he can decide what rights people have in a public building just because he says so. We are in Clay County, Indiana. A journalist entered the public spaces of the building to document public servants doing the people's business. But instead of transparency, he was met with immediate resistance. The judge stepped in, attempting to deny the journalist's constitutional rights and shut down the camera under the guise of local courthouse policies. But here is the reality: local rules and administrative policies do not override the United States Constitution. The journalist holds their ground, calmly refusing to back down while facing immense pressure from the judge and deputies. You can see the exact moment the gears turn and the narrative shifts. As the journalist stands firm, the judge realizes that enforcing an unconstitutional order on camera is a direct path to a federal civil rights lawsuit. Knowing they were in blatant violation of the journalist's rights, the judge did the one thing authority figures hate doing: they backed down. No arrest, no trespass, just a quiet retreat. This is a prime example of why independent journalism and auditing exist. Public officials answer to the taxpayers—not the other way around. Know your rights folks and do not bend a knee to comply when tyrants try to steal your rights from you.

Giggling Ganon

127,074 次观看 • 4 个月前

This dude was pulled over for a headlight violation. During the stop the officer involved demands to see the ID of the passenger ( his wife). The response from the driver is no, she was not driving. The officer involved throws out that Alabama is a stop and ID state. (Alabama Code § 15-5-30:) This state law allows officers to demand the name, address, and an explanation from someone in a public place if they reasonably suspect the person is committing or about to commit a crime. The driver’s argument rests on the principle that while he (the driver) is required to provide a license for a traffic violation, a passenger typically does not have to provide identification unless there is "reasonable articulable suspicion" that they have committed a crime. The Driver’s Stance: He correctly asserts that as the driver, he is the one being investigated for the headlight, and since the passenger has not committed a violation, the officer's authority to demand her ID is limited. Also Social Security Request: The driver also challenges the officer's demand for his Social Security number, citing federal privacy protections. In short the driver schooled these officers which is why he is quickly sent on his way once they see he knows his rights.

This dude was pulled over for a headlight violation. During the stop the officer involved demands to see the ID of the passenger ( his wife). The response from the driver is no, she was not driving. The officer involved throws out that Alabama is a stop and ID state. (Alabama Code § 15-5-30:) This state law allows officers to demand the name, address, and an explanation from someone in a public place if they reasonably suspect the person is committing or about to commit a crime. The driver’s argument rests on the principle that while he (the driver) is required to provide a license for a traffic violation, a passenger typically does not have to provide identification unless there is "reasonable articulable suspicion" that they have committed a crime. The Driver’s Stance: He correctly asserts that as the driver, he is the one being investigated for the headlight, and since the passenger has not committed a violation, the officer's authority to demand her ID is limited. Also Social Security Request: The driver also challenges the officer's demand for his Social Security number, citing federal privacy protections. In short the driver schooled these officers which is why he is quickly sent on his way once they see he knows his rights.

Giggling Ganon

439,003 次观看 • 5 个月前

First Amendment auditors are right. Feelings are not law. At a Chick-fil-A, auditors stood on the public sidewalk filming. The manager called police, claiming they were filming “private property,” making guests uncomfortable, and “scanning” vehicles. She wanted them stopped. Police officer did the correct thing: he explained the actual law. The sidewalk is public property, frequented by the public. It is not illegal to record from that location in Tennessee. He pointed out the clear line—if they stepped onto Chick-fil-A property, they could be asked to leave. While they stayed on the public side, they were free to film. He even noted he could walk around with a camera himself from the same spots. That is the entire ballgame. Public spaces belong to the public. What you can see with your eyes from a public sidewalk, you can generally record. This is core First Amendment territory—freedom of the press and the right to gather information in places open to everyone. Courts have repeatedly upheld this. Discomfort, customer complaints, or a business’s preference do not create a new exception. “It makes people feel followed” is not a legal standard. If it were, news crews, citizen journalists, and anyone with a phone could be shut down every time someone felt uneasy. Yes, the auditors could choose a less confrontational style. Standing there with cameras pointed at a drive-thru and parking lot will annoy people. That is obvious. But annoyance is not illegality. The point of these audits is often to test whether officers and businesses actually know the boundary between private property rights and public rights. In this case the officer did. The manager did not. When people start treating “I don’t like it” as equivalent to “you can’t do that,” the First Amendment erodes. Auditors force the conversation back to the actual rules instead of vibes. That is why they keep doing it—and why this one was clean. Public means public. Record away.

First Amendment auditors are right. Feelings are not law. At a Chick-fil-A, auditors stood on the public sidewalk filming. The manager called police, claiming they were filming “private property,” making guests uncomfortable, and “scanning” vehicles. She wanted them stopped. Police officer did the correct thing: he explained the actual law. The sidewalk is public property, frequented by the public. It is not illegal to record from that location in Tennessee. He pointed out the clear line—if they stepped onto Chick-fil-A property, they could be asked to leave. While they stayed on the public side, they were free to film. He even noted he could walk around with a camera himself from the same spots. That is the entire ballgame. Public spaces belong to the public. What you can see with your eyes from a public sidewalk, you can generally record. This is core First Amendment territory—freedom of the press and the right to gather information in places open to everyone. Courts have repeatedly upheld this. Discomfort, customer complaints, or a business’s preference do not create a new exception. “It makes people feel followed” is not a legal standard. If it were, news crews, citizen journalists, and anyone with a phone could be shut down every time someone felt uneasy. Yes, the auditors could choose a less confrontational style. Standing there with cameras pointed at a drive-thru and parking lot will annoy people. That is obvious. But annoyance is not illegality. The point of these audits is often to test whether officers and businesses actually know the boundary between private property rights and public rights. In this case the officer did. The manager did not. When people start treating “I don’t like it” as equivalent to “you can’t do that,” the First Amendment erodes. Auditors force the conversation back to the actual rules instead of vibes. That is why they keep doing it—and why this one was clean. Public means public. Record away.

DocumentingLibs

69,376 次观看 • 1 个月前

Regional Manager for DMV needs to stay in her lane as she loses it over being on camera. When public servants are confronted with the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold, the response shouldn't be ignorance and evasion. Yet, that is exactly what unfolded at the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles regional office in Charles Town, located in Jefferson County. An independent journalist exercising their protected First Amendment right to film in a public government facility is immediately met with hostility, unlawful demands, and a complete lack of basic legal comprehension by the staff on duty. The incident quickly escalated when the facility's Regional Manager, identified as Lorraine Thompson Vangosen, and the on-duty security guard approached the journalist. Rather than conducting themselves with the professionalism expected of public employees, both individuals displayed a stunning lack of understanding regarding constitutional law and citizen rights: Lorraine and the security guard aggressively asserted that filming inside the DMV was strictly prohibited, demanding that the journalist delete the recorded footage. Staff attempted to claim that because other citizens' faces were on camera, it created an expectation of privacy that violated public service policies. In a public government building, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in open, publicly accessible common areas. When the journalist attempted to calmly de-escalate the situation and explain the legal precedent protecting the filming of public officials in public spaces, both Lorraine and the guard refused to listen, doubling down on their unconstitutional directives. The true nature of their "authority" was exposed the moment law enforcement arrived. After a responding deputy informed both Lorraine and the security guard that the journalist was entirely within their legal rights to record in the public areas of the building, the dynamic completely changed. Rather than issuing an apology or acknowledging their error, both the manager and the guard chose to retreat. For the remainder of the encounter, both individuals stayed completely out of sight, hiding in the back offices until the journalist finally left the premises. This encounter isn't an isolated misunderstanding—it highlights a systemic issue with how government employees interact with the public. When public officials choose to hide instead of acknowledging the law, it proves that accountability is sorely needed.

Regional Manager for DMV needs to stay in her lane as she loses it over being on camera. When public servants are confronted with the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold, the response shouldn't be ignorance and evasion. Yet, that is exactly what unfolded at the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles regional office in Charles Town, located in Jefferson County. An independent journalist exercising their protected First Amendment right to film in a public government facility is immediately met with hostility, unlawful demands, and a complete lack of basic legal comprehension by the staff on duty. The incident quickly escalated when the facility's Regional Manager, identified as Lorraine Thompson Vangosen, and the on-duty security guard approached the journalist. Rather than conducting themselves with the professionalism expected of public employees, both individuals displayed a stunning lack of understanding regarding constitutional law and citizen rights: Lorraine and the security guard aggressively asserted that filming inside the DMV was strictly prohibited, demanding that the journalist delete the recorded footage. Staff attempted to claim that because other citizens' faces were on camera, it created an expectation of privacy that violated public service policies. In a public government building, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in open, publicly accessible common areas. When the journalist attempted to calmly de-escalate the situation and explain the legal precedent protecting the filming of public officials in public spaces, both Lorraine and the guard refused to listen, doubling down on their unconstitutional directives. The true nature of their "authority" was exposed the moment law enforcement arrived. After a responding deputy informed both Lorraine and the security guard that the journalist was entirely within their legal rights to record in the public areas of the building, the dynamic completely changed. Rather than issuing an apology or acknowledging their error, both the manager and the guard chose to retreat. For the remainder of the encounter, both individuals stayed completely out of sight, hiding in the back offices until the journalist finally left the premises. This encounter isn't an isolated misunderstanding—it highlights a systemic issue with how government employees interact with the public. When public officials choose to hide instead of acknowledging the law, it proves that accountability is sorely needed.

Giggling Ganon

20,964 次观看 • 3 个月前

This is how you educate officers that clearly do not understand the law or their job. As the conversation goes on you can see the the male officer realizes he is wrong but instead of taking the L he tries to double down on his error but in the end is forced to do that walk of shame. COEUR D’ALENE, IDAHO — Public Rights vs. State Property: First Amendment Auditor Threatened with Arrest for Obstructing Outside State-Run Liquor Store. What happens when a state-run business tries to trespass a citizen from public property for filming? This intense confrontation breaks down the exact legal battleground between a First Amendment auditor and the Coeur d'Alene Police Department. The videographer was standing on the sidewalk outside a state-owned and operated liquor store, exercising his right to film and take photographs. Taking issue with being recorded, a store employee confronted the auditor and requested he leave. When the auditor refused—maintaining he was on public property—management called law enforcement to issue a formal trespass warning. When Officer J. Chaffin and Officer C. Ziegler arrived on the scene, a massive constitutional debate unfolded: The Auditor’s Stance: Because the liquor store is a state-owned entity, the surrounding property and sidewalks are publicly funded, open spaces. He argues that citizens cannot be trespassed from public property unless they are actively committing a crime, asserting his 1st Amendment right to record and 4th Amendment right against unlawful seizure. The Police Stance: Officers countered that even though the business is state-run, it functions as a commercial space open for public commerce. They argued that management retains the right to refuse service and remove individuals deemed disruptive, and that refusing to leave constitutes criminal trespass. The ID Demand: Officer Chaffin demands the auditor’s identification, explicitly stating that failure to comply will result in an immediate arrest for obstructing and resisting. Qualified Immunity Threatened: While complying under the threat of arrest, the auditor fires back, telling Officer Ziegler that the department is violating his constitutional rights and that they will face a personal lawsuit and lose their qualified immunity. The "Hypothetical" Stand-off: Officer Ziegler attempts to use hypothetical scenarios to justify the trespass order, but the auditor shuts it down, demanding they stick to the reality: he was standing 20 to 30 feet away, completely peaceful, minding his own business. Ultimately, the officers documented his information, issued the official trespass warning, and walked away without making an arrest—leaving the auditor to give them a parting shot as they drove off.

This is how you educate officers that clearly do not understand the law or their job. As the conversation goes on you can see the the male officer realizes he is wrong but instead of taking the L he tries to double down on his error but in the end is forced to do that walk of shame. COEUR D’ALENE, IDAHO — Public Rights vs. State Property: First Amendment Auditor Threatened with Arrest for Obstructing Outside State-Run Liquor Store. What happens when a state-run business tries to trespass a citizen from public property for filming? This intense confrontation breaks down the exact legal battleground between a First Amendment auditor and the Coeur d'Alene Police Department. The videographer was standing on the sidewalk outside a state-owned and operated liquor store, exercising his right to film and take photographs. Taking issue with being recorded, a store employee confronted the auditor and requested he leave. When the auditor refused—maintaining he was on public property—management called law enforcement to issue a formal trespass warning. When Officer J. Chaffin and Officer C. Ziegler arrived on the scene, a massive constitutional debate unfolded: The Auditor’s Stance: Because the liquor store is a state-owned entity, the surrounding property and sidewalks are publicly funded, open spaces. He argues that citizens cannot be trespassed from public property unless they are actively committing a crime, asserting his 1st Amendment right to record and 4th Amendment right against unlawful seizure. The Police Stance: Officers countered that even though the business is state-run, it functions as a commercial space open for public commerce. They argued that management retains the right to refuse service and remove individuals deemed disruptive, and that refusing to leave constitutes criminal trespass. The ID Demand: Officer Chaffin demands the auditor’s identification, explicitly stating that failure to comply will result in an immediate arrest for obstructing and resisting. Qualified Immunity Threatened: While complying under the threat of arrest, the auditor fires back, telling Officer Ziegler that the department is violating his constitutional rights and that they will face a personal lawsuit and lose their qualified immunity. The "Hypothetical" Stand-off: Officer Ziegler attempts to use hypothetical scenarios to justify the trespass order, but the auditor shuts it down, demanding they stick to the reality: he was standing 20 to 30 feet away, completely peaceful, minding his own business. Ultimately, the officers documented his information, issued the official trespass warning, and walked away without making an arrest—leaving the auditor to give them a parting shot as they drove off.

Giggling Gannon

67,133 次观看 • 4 个月前

👮‍♂️Officer "Right Here" meets "Truth Be Told Audits" March 2022 — Ascension Parish, Louisiana A First Amendment auditor was filming from a public area outside the Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office headquarters and courthouse complex. Gonzales PD Officer T. Berkholz closed distance, told him to leave, claimed it was private property, and referred to him as “one of those types” to Officer Dunnaway. More officers arrived and the encounter escalated with orders to step off the property. A sergeant later arrived, recognized they were on public ground, and allowed the filming to continue. No arrest. No publicly reported discipline. Filming government buildings and police from public property is protected by the First Amendment. The initial “private property / leave now” order did not hold. ❓When police lie about public property being "private" do they really think most people are dumb enough to believe that? ❓What did Berkholz mean when he said the auditor was "one of those types"? ❓Have you noticed how many police officers believe any directive that comes out of their mouth is a "lawful order" simply because they said it?

👮‍♂️Officer "Right Here" meets "Truth Be Told Audits" March 2022 — Ascension Parish, Louisiana A First Amendment auditor was filming from a public area outside the Ascension Parish Sheriff’s Office headquarters and courthouse complex. Gonzales PD Officer T. Berkholz closed distance, told him to leave, claimed it was private property, and referred to him as “one of those types” to Officer Dunnaway. More officers arrived and the encounter escalated with orders to step off the property. A sergeant later arrived, recognized they were on public ground, and allowed the filming to continue. No arrest. No publicly reported discipline. Filming government buildings and police from public property is protected by the First Amendment. The initial “private property / leave now” order did not hold. ❓When police lie about public property being "private" do they really think most people are dumb enough to believe that? ❓What did Berkholz mean when he said the auditor was "one of those types"? ❓Have you noticed how many police officers believe any directive that comes out of their mouth is a "lawful order" simply because they said it?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

21,658 次观看 • 22 天前

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

42,931 次观看 • 4 个月前

🎥A First Amendment auditor was filming at the Lee County Jail in Florida when a female corrections deputy approached him. She told him he was in an unauthorized area, and directed him leave go to the adjacent parking lot. He refused, saying the area wasn’t gated, he’d recorded there before, and it was county property. She asked him to leave. He noted she was asking, not ordering. She called for backup. The clip is a classic public-access vs. facility-control standoff. ❓Is an ungated jail lot a public forum for recording, or can staff restrict it on a whim? ❓What do you think of the actions of the male deputy who arrived on scene and communicated with the auditor.

🎥A First Amendment auditor was filming at the Lee County Jail in Florida when a female corrections deputy approached him. She told him he was in an unauthorized area, and directed him leave go to the adjacent parking lot. He refused, saying the area wasn’t gated, he’d recorded there before, and it was county property. She asked him to leave. He noted she was asking, not ordering. She called for backup. The clip is a classic public-access vs. facility-control standoff. ❓Is an ungated jail lot a public forum for recording, or can staff restrict it on a whim? ❓What do you think of the actions of the male deputy who arrived on scene and communicated with the auditor.

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

20,504 次观看 • 1 个月前

Sergeant arrested man for recording national guard armory. This incident occurred near the Hibbing National Guard Armory. The "story" behind this case is centered on a legal dispute over first amendment rights, refusing to ID, and the definition of Obstruction. Sgt. Everett detained the camera man for filming the armory, citing "suspicious activity." When he refused to provide identification—arguing that filming from a public sidewalk is not a crime—the situation escalated into a physical arrest. The man was charged with Obstruction of Legal Process. However, a Minnesota court eventually dismissed the charges. The court found that Everett did not have "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a crime was being committed. Merely filming a government building from a public space was deemed a protected First Amendment activity, and refusing to ID during an unlawful detention does not constitute obstruction in Minnesota. Upon release the camera man sued the Hibbing police department and won costing the citizens of that city 36,000 in their tax dollars. The sad part is the Hibbing PD has done nothing from a disciplinary standpoint to Sergeant Everett.

Sergeant arrested man for recording national guard armory. This incident occurred near the Hibbing National Guard Armory. The "story" behind this case is centered on a legal dispute over first amendment rights, refusing to ID, and the definition of Obstruction. Sgt. Everett detained the camera man for filming the armory, citing "suspicious activity." When he refused to provide identification—arguing that filming from a public sidewalk is not a crime—the situation escalated into a physical arrest. The man was charged with Obstruction of Legal Process. However, a Minnesota court eventually dismissed the charges. The court found that Everett did not have "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a crime was being committed. Merely filming a government building from a public space was deemed a protected First Amendment activity, and refusing to ID during an unlawful detention does not constitute obstruction in Minnesota. Upon release the camera man sued the Hibbing police department and won costing the citizens of that city 36,000 in their tax dollars. The sad part is the Hibbing PD has done nothing from a disciplinary standpoint to Sergeant Everett.

Giggling Ganon

16,588 次观看 • 5 个月前