Do you approve or not? I'm thinking about doing this.
1st and 2nd Amendment Audits...
You are on page out of 2 | Reverse Order
Ask supes for tips on abusing police and walking away with your life. He knows all the tricks.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptune
Ask supes for tips on abusing police and walking away with your life. He knows all the tricks.
Again, fake news.
They assaulted me first. What part about that do you not get? Oh yea, SJW “femnazis” don’t careclick to expand
HEIL HILLARY
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptune
Ask supes for tips on abusing police and walking away with your life. He knows all the tricks.
Again, fake news.
They assaulted me first. What part about that do you not get? Oh yea, SJW “femnazis” don’t careclick to expand
Oy vey. Let me guess...you're from the southern part of the U.S.?
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptune
Ask supes for tips on abusing police and walking away with your life. He knows all the tricks.
Again, fake news.
They assaulted me first. What part about that do you not get? Oh yea, SJW “femnazis” don’t careclick to expand
Were you breaking the law?
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
Posted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by LadyNeptune
Ask supes for tips on abusing police and walking away with your life. He knows all the tricks.
Again, fake news.
They assaulted me first. What part about that do you not get? Oh yea, SJW “femnazis” don’t care
Were you breaking the law?
Whatever law is being broken doesn’t matter.
It’s their responsibility to identify themselves and they failed to do so prior to putting hands on me. They violated MY rights and I acted accordingly. I had no idea about anything back then as I was only a teen. I took a deal when I didn’t have to because I was bullied by a Judge, DA and the cops.......to save their face.click to expand
If you're in the act of committing a crime, they can arrest you. With force.. if needed.
Posted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.click to expand
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
by the Terry v. Ohio ruling, police officers are allowed to detain and frisk individuals if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is doing a criminal activity or has intent of doing a criminal activity
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?click to expand
Photography is not a crime.
Posted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.click to expand
I didn't say photography.
Loitering
Posted by Endless
by the Terry v. Ohio ruling, police officers are allowed to detain and frisk individuals if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is doing a criminal activity or has intent of doing a criminal activity
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
Photography is not a crime.
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.
I didn't say photography.
Loiteringclick to expand
Loitering means to wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
The purpose is to take photos.
Posted by _DazedPosted by Endless
by the Terry v. Ohio ruling, police officers are allowed to detain and frisk individuals if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is doing a criminal activity or has intent of doing a criminal activity
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
Photography is not a crime.click to expand
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in a public place.
detain =/= arrest
Posted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.
I didn't say photography.
Loitering
Loitering means to wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
The purpose is to take photos.click to expand
Inside a post office?
It may differ from state to state but I'm pretty sure photography and filming in a post office is under strict guidelines.
You can only take photos for personal use as long as they don't disrupt employees.
He clearly stated he is posting this publicly online and since police were called, obviously caused disruption.
Also pretty sure your pics/film can't depict any postal service employees, customer, security camera, and customers info (aka cover of mail).
Posted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
by the Terry v. Ohio ruling, police officers are allowed to detain and frisk individuals if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is doing a criminal activity or has intent of doing a criminal activity
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
Photography is not a crime.
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in a public place.
detain =/= arrestclick to expand
You just said that an officer needs reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to detain.
Taking photos is not criminal activity.
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
so hard to watch that, the guy is full of shit, he doesn't realize the difference between being detained by the police and being arrested
he's just saying "but muh rights" "what crime, muh rigths"
He committed no crime though and was on public property.
Loitering is illegal in some jurisdictions on public property, no?
Photography is not a crime.
I didn't say photography.
Loitering
Loitering means to wait around idly or without apparent purpose.
The purpose is to take photos.
Inside a post office?
It may differ from state to state but I'm pretty sure photography and filming in a post office is under strict guidelines.
You can only take photos for personal use as long as they don't disrupt employees.
He clearly stated he is posting this publicly online and since police were called, obviously caused disruption.
Also pretty sure your pics/film can't depict any postal service employees, customer, security camera, and customers info (aka cover of mail).click to expand
He was never inside the post office.
He was outside and on a public easement.
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
by the Terry v. Ohio ruling, police officers are allowed to detain and frisk individuals if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is doing a criminal activity or has intent of doing a criminal activity
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
Photography is not a crime.
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in a public place.
detain =/= arrest
You just said that an officer needs reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to detain.
Taking photos is not criminal activity.click to expand
no, I said and quoted "Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime"
the "is going" is also there, if the officer suspect someone is taking photos in order to commit a crime (knowing how many people are around, the position of goods and other stuff) he can detain in order to investigate.
Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security end up adding some rules to take pictures of federal buildings too
"The federal regulations on the topic are lengthy but concisely address the issue of photographing federal buildings. The guidelines read:"
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of -
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."
Posted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
by the Terry v. Ohio ruling, police officers are allowed to detain and frisk individuals if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is doing a criminal activity or has intent of doing a criminal activity
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
Photography is not a crime.
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in a public place.
detain =/= arrest
You just said that an officer needs reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to detain.
Taking photos is not criminal activity.
no, I said and quoted "Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime"
the "is going" is also there, if the officer suspect someone is taking photos in order to commit a crime (knowing how many people are around, the position of goods and other stuff) he can detain in order to investigate.
Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security end up adding some rules to take pictures of federal buildings too
"The federal regulations on the topic are lengthy but concisely address the issue of photographing federal buildings. The guidelines read:"
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of -
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."click to expand
"(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."
Dude was just asking for it. He may be in the right, legally, but in a country where we constantly read about mass shootings, etc. he's gonna get harassed... because no one truly knows his intent.
For all that police lady knew, he could've been looking to molest some single moms. 😄
For all that police lady knew, he could've been looking to molest some single moms. 😄
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
by the Terry v. Ohio ruling, police officers are allowed to detain and frisk individuals if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is doing a criminal activity or has intent of doing a criminal activity
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
Photography is not a crime.
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in a public place.
detain =/= arrest
You just said that an officer needs reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to detain.
Taking photos is not criminal activity.
no, I said and quoted "Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime"
the "is going" is also there, if the officer suspect someone is taking photos in order to commit a crime (knowing how many people are around, the position of goods and other stuff) he can detain in order to investigate.
Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security end up adding some rules to take pictures of federal buildings too
"The federal regulations on the topic are lengthy but concisely address the issue of photographing federal buildings. The guidelines read:"
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of -
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."
"(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."
click to expand
AFAIK that could be the back side of the agency, most agencies I know don't have the truck park side in the front.
so as to my speculation, there's no entrance, lobbie, foyer, corridor, or auditorium in his "photography"
but you're just mindlessly pushing for your side ofc
Posted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
by the Terry v. Ohio ruling, police officers are allowed to detain and frisk individuals if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is doing a criminal activity or has intent of doing a criminal activity
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
Photography is not a crime.
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in a public place.
detain =/= arrest
You just said that an officer needs reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to detain.
Taking photos is not criminal activity.
no, I said and quoted "Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime"
the "is going" is also there, if the officer suspect someone is taking photos in order to commit a crime (knowing how many people are around, the position of goods and other stuff) he can detain in order to investigate.
Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security end up adding some rules to take pictures of federal buildings too
"The federal regulations on the topic are lengthy but concisely address the issue of photographing federal buildings. The guidelines read:"
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of -
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."
"(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."
AFAIK that could be the back side of the agency, most agencies I know don't have the truck park side in the front.
so as to my speculation, there's no entrance, lobbie, foyer, corridor, or auditorium in his "photography"
but you're just mindlessly pushing for your side ofcclick to expand
I will always push for the rights of citizens.
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by Endless
by the Terry v. Ohio ruling, police officers are allowed to detain and frisk individuals if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is doing a criminal activity or has intent of doing a criminal activity
"Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime and may be armed and dangerous"
"However, the Supreme Court has limited this search by stating that the detainment must be brief in nature and the police officer is limited to frisking the outside of the individual’s clothes. Additionally, anything that the police officer feels while frisking the individual must be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order for a further search"
so what? nor the 4th neither the 1st Amendment means his reaction to the officer questioning his motives are justifiable
Photography is not a crime.
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in a public place.
detain =/= arrest
You just said that an officer needs reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to detain.
Taking photos is not criminal activity.
no, I said and quoted "Reasonable suspicion means that the police officer must believe that the individual has or is going to commit a crime"
the "is going" is also there, if the officer suspect someone is taking photos in order to commit a crime (knowing how many people are around, the position of goods and other stuff) he can detain in order to investigate.
Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security end up adding some rules to take pictures of federal buildings too
"The federal regulations on the topic are lengthy but concisely address the issue of photographing federal buildings. The guidelines read:"
"Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of -
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."
"(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes."
AFAIK that could be the back side of the agency, most agencies I know don't have the truck park side in the front.
so as to my speculation, there's no entrance, lobbie, foyer, corridor, or auditorium in his "photography"
but you're just mindlessly pushing for your side ofc
I will always push for the rights of citizens.click to expand
good, then go and push for their rights somewhere else, cuz there was no violation here, just a jerk trying to be an smartass
Posted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
How it should go
How it should go
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _Dazed
People fall for that intimidation crap on the daily.click to expand
It's how they get you to give up your rights.
Posted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
He was on public property.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _Dazed
People fall for that intimidation crap on the daily.
It's how they get you to give up your rights.
I fell for that shit when I was youngerclick to expand
May I ask a question since you live in gun country?
How do you feel about about carry? Or just Texans in general.
Posted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _DazedPosted by ItsSupes2Posted by _Dazed
People fall for that intimidation crap on the daily.
It's how they get you to give up your rights.
I fell for that shit when I was younger
May I ask a question since you live in gun country?
How do you feel about about carry? Or just Texans in general.
I don’t have an issue with open carry.
When Texas was more Conservative nobody was concerned about guns. Hell, half the people had shotguns in their back window or behind the seat.
There’s only been an issue since the California and NY liberals have been coming by the tens of thousands for the tax breaks.click to expand
Yeah I don't get it.
90% of people I know here have firearms. Most conceal carry. Several open carry.
I'm not sure why people are so terrified of guns.
Posted by TheRabbitPosted by _DazedPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
He was on public property.
Timothy McVeigh parked a truck on public property.click to expand
The FBI knew well in advance what McVeigh was up to.
Posted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
People with YouTube channels who are unable to provide any real content. Smh
Posted by TheRabbitPosted by _DazedPosted by TheRabbitPosted by _DazedPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
He was on public property.
Timothy McVeigh parked a truck on public property.
The FBI knew well in advance what McVeigh was up to.
That's conjecture. And irrelevant in that there's nothing stopping a repeat of that incident.
What's relevant is that Feds monitor "public property" around their facilities. If you're acting in a manner that is remotely suspicious or concerning, they will take appropriate action.
click to expand
As they should.
That action should stop at unlawful arrests/detainment.
Posted by TheRabbitPosted by _DazedPosted by TheRabbitPosted by _DazedPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
He was on public property.
Timothy McVeigh parked a truck on public property.
The FBI knew well in advance what McVeigh was up to.
That's conjecture. And irrelevant in that there's nothing stopping a repeat of that incident.
What's relevant is that Feds monitor "public property" around their facilities. If you're acting in a manner that is remotely suspicious or concerning, they will take appropriate action.
click to expand
Also.. get out of here with your Timothy McVeigh straw man crap.
Posted by TheRabbitPosted by _DazedPosted by TheRabbitPosted by _DazedPosted by TheRabbitPosted by _DazedPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
He was on public property.
Timothy McVeigh parked a truck on public property.
The FBI knew well in advance what McVeigh was up to.
That's conjecture. And irrelevant in that there's nothing stopping a repeat of that incident.
What's relevant is that Feds monitor "public property" around their facilities. If you're acting in a manner that is remotely suspicious or concerning, they will take appropriate action.
Also.. get out of here with your Timothy McVeigh straw man crap.
It's not a straw man. The Feds are very concerned about the immediate area (including public space) around their facilities. This includes people photographing non-tourist buildings. There are regular patrols in the city park across the street from the federal building just down the street. The enhanced security started AFTER the OKC bombing. It's extremely relevant.
If you engage in suspicious activity, then get stopped for said activity, you really can't complain.click to expand
"suspicious activity" is not a crime and does not constitute the removal of citizen's rights.
Posted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.click to expand
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.click to expand
There is no expectation of privacy in public.
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.click to expand
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
Posted by Tartarus
I would imagine the first video in its entirety is similar to this one.. I have a reasonable suspicion, anyway.
Tell me, how is inside the post office public property?
You clearly see the PO boxes and the inside of the office?
The first video in this thread didn't involve the inside of a Post Office.
Posted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by Tartarus
I would imagine the first video in its entirety is similar to this one.. I have a reasonable suspicion, anyway.
Tell me, how is inside the post office public property?
You clearly see the PO boxes and the inside of the office?
The first video in this thread didn't involve the inside of a Post Office.
That's your assumption. He elludes to the contrary.click to expand
There is no mention from him or the personnel that he ever entered the Post Office.
As for the video you posted..
http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the-usps-is-not-a-government-agency/
Posted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's gettingclick to expand
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
Posted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.click to expand
ah, my bad, with so many amendments being throw around I got confused lmao
but heck, I didn't even know there was a big list of "Conduct on postal property" that is very specific about filming and what not.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
there's nothing to discuss in that particular case, the cop had all the right to detain him.
P.S what you mention about the names in the packages is in there too.
Posted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by Tartarus
I would imagine the first video in its entirety is similar to this one.. I have a reasonable suspicion, anyway.
Tell me, how is inside the post office public property?
You clearly see the PO boxes and the inside of the office?
The first video in this thread didn't involve the inside of a Post Office.
That's your assumption. He elludes to the contrary.
There is no mention from him or the personnel that he ever entered the Post Office.
As for the video you posted..
http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the-usps-is-not-a-government-agency/
8:45 of your video.
Are you saying government property = public property?
click to expand
Ahh.. I see. Fair point.
As for your question..
https://nppa.org/sites/default/files/FPS-Photography-Bulletin-8-2-2010-redacted-1% 5B2% 5D-1.pdf
Post Offices are under the jurisdiction of FPS.
Posted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
ah, my bad, with so many amendments being throw around I got confused lmao
but heck, I didn't even know there was a big list of "Conduct on postal property" that is very specific about filming and what not.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
there's nothing to discuss in that particular case, the cop had all the right to detain him.
P.S what you mention about the names in the packages is in there too.click to expand
What reason was there to detain?
Photography is not a crime.
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
ah, my bad, with so many amendments being throw around I got confused lmao
but heck, I didn't even know there was a big list of "Conduct on postal property" that is very specific about filming and what not.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
there's nothing to discuss in that particular case, the cop had all the right to detain him.
P.S what you mention about the names in the packages is in there too.
What reason was there to detain?
Photography is not a crime.click to expand
Posted by Endless
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in the post office as you violate their regulations.
detain =/= arrest
detain =/= crime
Posted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
ah, my bad, with so many amendments being throw around I got confused lmao
but heck, I didn't even know there was a big list of "Conduct on postal property" that is very specific about filming and what not.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
there's nothing to discuss in that particular case, the cop had all the right to detain him.
P.S what you mention about the names in the packages is in there too.
What reason was there to detain?
Photography is not a crime.
Posted by Endless
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in the post office as you violate their regulations.
detain =/= arrest
detain =/= crimeclick to expand
You get detained when you are suspected of a crime.
Detaining a citizen without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
"Unlawful Detention, occurs when a police officer or other state actor, acts under the color of state law to deprive an individual of their Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so. This “detention” does not necessarily mean an actual arrest. Unlawful detention may occur if an individual is detained for an unreasonable amount of time
A police officer doesn’t necessarily need to arrest or charge an individual for there to be an unlawful detention. Typically, if the individual reasonably believes they are not free to leave without fear of arrest then they are detained. This does not mean an officer may not confront an individual. Police officers may at all times confront an individual and ask them questions. This is known as a consensual encounter. An officer may also briefly detain an individual if they have reasonable suspicion supported by clearly articulated facts that a crime may be afoot. This kind of interaction with Police is called a Terry stop. A Terry stop which may become a full blown detention if it lasts for an unreasonable amount of time or if other factors such as handcuffing or detention make the brief detention feel more like a traditional arrest."
Posted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by TartarusPosted by _DazedPosted by Tartarus
I would imagine the first video in its entirety is similar to this one.. I have a reasonable suspicion, anyway.
Tell me, how is inside the post office public property?
You clearly see the PO boxes and the inside of the office?
The first video in this thread didn't involve the inside of a Post Office.
That's your assumption. He elludes to the contrary.
There is no mention from him or the personnel that he ever entered the Post Office.
As for the video you posted..
http://postalnews.com/blog/2015/05/09/postal-myths-2-the-usps-is-not-a-government-agency/
8:45 of your video.
Are you saying government property = public property?
Ahh.. I see. Fair point.
As for your question..
https://nppa.org/sites/default/files/FPS-Photography-Bulletin-8-2-2010-redacted-1% 5B2% 5D-1.pdf
Post Offices are under the jurisdiction of FPS.
If he was just photographing the exterior while standing on the sidewalk I doubt there would be an issue at all. I just dont believe that's all that happened, and I think the video was deliberately cut so that it began at the confrontation he knew he would entice.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1
click to expand
From your link..
"Photography and Filming for Personal Use
Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be allowed at the postmaster’s discretion provided that there is no disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions; however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns."
Posted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by _DazedPosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by LadyNeptunePosted by EndlessPosted by Tartarus
These people are lame and the system worked as it should. He knew he would provoke this exact reaction as he even stated. And on top of that he wore a holster to add to the 'Suspension' aspect of the fabricated scenario. Why wear an empty holster when taking innocent photos of a post office?
He was never detained as he continued progressing on his path, the officers used ZERO force to keep him from moving. They in fact walked with him and continued asking questions. He CHOSE to stop and engage law enforcement. They never searched him even after noticing the holster. And the police ultimately left without incident.
Ultimately this was a case of postal employees seeing what they thought to be questionable behavior and called the police. Well within their rights to do so. The police show up as the man expected, police ask questions as part of their job as it related to original call. Man refuses to answer questions. Police then determine guy is just another antagonist who only wanted to elicit a reaction and police leave the scene.
While I do believe everyone should understand their rights, I believe people like this actually hurt more than help. I tend to believe most of this comes from a place of entitlement and not responsibility.
And technically I guess he broke the rules of the Post Office as a self proclaimed professional.
"Professional Photographers and Film/TV Production Companies
People who request to take professional-grade photographs or film on Postal Service premises must be referred to the Office of Rights and Permissions, and they will be required to sign a license and/or location agreement prior to taking any photographs or filming. Included in this category are documentary and student film-makers and photographers."
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
also they talk about the first amendment (I imagine freedom of press?) but that only deal with the spread of information, it has little to do with the way the information is gathered, so it doesn't apply, in the case of the thread is worse, the second amendment? why?
the whole detain vs arrest thing fall under the fourth amendment, but clearly the guy in the video is an idiot himself, only doing that for views.
And what about the fifth amendment? There’s no reason someone needs to be filming in a post office with peoples personal info on display.
well, it didn't really even get that far, like @Tartarus said, the guy was just told he was detained, yet he moved around freely, and the officer didn't use force or anything, he was just being questioned about his motive, which he refused to answer to the officer.
and then hes just start flapping every amendment he can imagine would work for his benefit, to talk about the 5th he would need to go to trial or be actually arrested (which he didn't) AFAIK
he's just a jerk trying to get a reaction, and then go surprised-pikachu face when he gets the reaction he's getting
I meant the 5th amendment of the post office employees, customers, their packages with names/address etc.
ah, my bad, with so many amendments being throw around I got confused lmao
but heck, I didn't even know there was a big list of "Conduct on postal property" that is very specific about filming and what not.
https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2008/html/pb22228/html/info_005.html
there's nothing to discuss in that particular case, the cop had all the right to detain him.
P.S what you mention about the names in the packages is in there too.
What reason was there to detain?
Photography is not a crime.
Posted by Endless
you get arrested for a crime, photography is not a crime, you get detained if someone complain about you taking photos in the post office as you violate their regulations.
detain =/= arrest
detain =/= crime
You get detained when you are suspected of a crime.
Detaining a citizen without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
"Unlawful Detention, occurs when a police officer or other state actor, acts under the color of state law to deprive an individual of their Fourth Amendment Constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures. In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so. This “detention” does not necessarily mean an actual arrest. Unlawful detention may occur if an individual is detained for an unreasonable amount of time
A police officer doesn’t necessarily need to arrest or charge an individual for there to be an unlawful detention. Typically, if the individual reasonably believes they are not free to leave without fear of arrest then they are detained. This does not mean an officer may not confront an individual. Police officers may at all times confront an individual and ask them questions. This is known as a consensual encounter. An officer may also briefly detain an individual if they have reasonable suspicion supported by clearly articulated facts that a crime may be afoot. This kind of interaction with Police is called a Terry stop. A Terry stop which may become a full blown detention if it lasts for an unreasonable amount of time or if other factors such as handcuffing or detention make the brief detention feel more like a traditional arrest."click to expand
the quote say "In everyday speak, an unlawful detention occurs when a police officer detains you for an unreasonable amount of time without probable cause to do so"
there was no "unreasonable amount of time" involved, she was investigating the call she got, she had a reason, cuz the man was clearly violating postal office regulation, also she had reasonable suspicion that there could be some hidden agenda on why he was taking photos without asking consent with the office a priori.
P.S: before you post what I imagine come next
"Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns"
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
What are yours?
Do you believe that Lilith was the first on woman on earth? A Pisces friend asked me to look into it. I was quite astonished with the information on the internet that keeps proclaiming this myth. However, I just want to hear from you guys what you think o
So there is this Gay Guy and I find him so attractive and interesting. I think hes a pisces.
I've been wondering about him and I think hes been wondering about me.
Sexuality is a spectrum right?
I find alot of gay men to be intrigued by me.
Im like 90
If you're anything like me, you internalize most of what you feel; leaving others in the dark, and robbing yourself of raw experiences...and/or clarity...or closure.
Even if they're not on DXP, feel free to release your ambiguous message here.
My ambi
So i got this thought. Now everyone one wants to be first pick. it feels good. But would if you are someones second choice? i mean it is better then not being a choice. or if you are a persons third choice. Do you say forget that? Your thoughts on my thou
Post your photos, gentlemen!
We've all had them.
Guys: did you cum so hard that you accidentally sharted?
Ladies: did you accidentally let him go down on you when you had yeast infection cream on your hoo-ha?
Share your stories, folks!
https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/22/r-kelly-charged-aggravated-criminal-sexual-abuse-10-counts/
LATER GATOR
Let us try again..
I'm so fucking depressed and sad. Sounds contradictive but those are the things I feel with some periods of hope inbetween.
I'm an ugly guy and I have a one year younger brother who is handsome as fuck, like a model. He hangs out with everyone I used to
Give me your best signs and indicators or fake ass friends:
Why is pof sending these hot virgos? NO Witch NO. its a trap. life so not funny. just got a lot of likes from some very hot looking virgos. i am soo being test. NOO NOO. not going there again. NO. one of you slap me if i do. please. There are 5 of them an
So a friend got me to sign up with POF thingy. A young Scorp guy wants to get with me. He is hot. I am just not sure about the age difference. He says he loves older women. He also said he think its hot that i am a gamer, grandmother and still hot looking
What should be the punishment for such a thing?
Faking a rape?
Faking a hate crime?
Should we allow street justice to do it's thing?
Should we wait to all the evidence to be presented in a Grand Jury?
Of queers
Of trans people
Of genderfluid people
Of non-monogamists
Of anyone who’s not Christian or religious
Of immigrants
Of people of color
Of performers
Of crossdressers and drag queens
Of sex workers
Of kinksters
Of other minorities and alt culture m
@nikkistar
Someone get her some milk!
Say, you’re stuck in an elevator with 5 dxp members (of your choice), and there’s no getting out for an hour or two, at least.
Who would you be stuck with?
Choose 5 group sex positions, and describe them in relation to people and their roles.
Greetings, Ladies and Gentlemen.
With cohabitations and other forms of shack-ups on the rise, do these arrangements last?
Do people stay together for long periods of time this way?
Would you do it?
Does it usually lead to divorce if the people actual
I should have been done earlier
-when I came here, I thought I would get adult discussions and give/receive relationship advice but I get more educated discussions on fucking 4chan and the rship threads here are always idiotic
-I don't care about astrol
Post them here.