bellissturdivant
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 19
- Classified ads
- 1
well yeah, they did bring up that they concealed carry somewhere in all this. dont be rude!
PSA: First Amendment Auditors
- Thread starter raellic
- Start date
D
Deleted member 6005
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 167
He has a history on this site discussing CCW. Did you see his own video in post #1? Keep up.
bellissturdivant
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 19
- Classified ads
- 1
not just on this site, but on this specific thread..... which is why some of have been bringing it up
- Messages
- 646
- Classified ads
- 13
He returns to confront these guys and tries to order them to keep their hands out of their pockets on video while carrying. This is amateur hour.
- Messages
- 646
- Classified ads
- 13
@raellic post the original video you recorded before this one.
- Messages
- 260
- Classified ads
- 3
I stand corrected. He did mention having a CCW. And specifically that he wouldn't pull his gun in this situation.
Yet a lot of dudes in here keep talking about him threatening violence, when by my viewing of the video, he was the one threatened with violence. But didn't return the threat or pull his gun or ask anyone to commit violence against these guys.
It worries me how many of you go straight to the thought of pulling your gun or committing violence after OP explicitly said that wouldn't be appropriate in this situation.
Yet a lot of dudes in here keep talking about him threatening violence, when by my viewing of the video, he was the one threatened with violence. But didn't return the threat or pull his gun or ask anyone to commit violence against these guys.
It worries me how many of you go straight to the thought of pulling your gun or committing violence after OP explicitly said that wouldn't be appropriate in this situation.
- Messages
- 646
- Classified ads
- 13
What are you reading?
D
Deleted member 6005
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 167
You're missing the point. When you have a CCW you avoid confrontation.
bellissturdivant
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 19
- Classified ads
- 1
with utmost respect I dont think anyone here is "going straight to the thought of pulling our guns"....
It seems like the consensus is that if you carry a gun you shouldnt seek conflict.
Is it really out of question to consider what comes next after these people are pepper spraying?
I haven't been pepper sprayed myself but it seems pretty unpleasant. I could imagine some people in the heat of the moment drawing their weapon if they were pepper sprayed. I'm not saying I would, or that I advocate for it, or that it's the correct order of actions.
I think most of us are just pointing out that this situation is bound to escalate and atm OP is the one escalating it, and escalating an already somewhat violent situation when you carry is just plain old always a really bad idea.
Making claims of bringing up concerns of escalating violence being indicative of irresponsible gun ownership and behavior is IMO a low blow and unfair assessment.
IMO most of our input here comes from a place of concern to some degree; we dont want to see anything bad happen here and that doesnt mean we ourselves would do something bad
- Messages
- 5,684
- Classified ads
- 5
Thanks for taking care of this.. I was just coming to see this...
I watch alot of these videos, some are good and some are bad.
Bottom line is they are allowed to film in public. Like it or not it is their right just like it is yours.
As far as being outside of a vendors door, that is open to the public to enter like a Trader Joes in a strip mall, they can be there just like anyone else, but can be asked to leave and trespassed by the property owner right? That seems like the logical way to go about it. Sometimes that doesn't even happen. Until then, they have as much right to be there as anyone else. I mean what would be the difference if I was out in front of Trader Joes filming some products they are selling outside and someone walked in front of what I was filming? These auditors are just going about it in a different way that gets reactions. If you give them what they want, you just took their bait.
Look up "Honor your Oath Civil Rights Investigations." This guy just stands on public property holding a sign "God bless the homeless Vets" while saying it to people walking by and some of the reactions he gets are crazy. He is an example of a "good" one IMO because he is not trying to bait anyone like some of the auditors do.
Bottom line is they are allowed to film in public. Like it or not it is their right just like it is yours.
As far as being outside of a vendors door, that is open to the public to enter like a Trader Joes in a strip mall, they can be there just like anyone else, but can be asked to leave and trespassed by the property owner right? That seems like the logical way to go about it. Sometimes that doesn't even happen. Until then, they have as much right to be there as anyone else. I mean what would be the difference if I was out in front of Trader Joes filming some products they are selling outside and someone walked in front of what I was filming? These auditors are just going about it in a different way that gets reactions. If you give them what they want, you just took their bait.
Look up "Honor your Oath Civil Rights Investigations." This guy just stands on public property holding a sign "God bless the homeless Vets" while saying it to people walking by and some of the reactions he gets are crazy. He is an example of a "good" one IMO because he is not trying to bait anyone like some of the auditors do.
I think these guys are tools....however....as someone who takes a lot of photos on the street and a licensed FAA drone pilot I can't stand people who don't mind their own business.
The amount of people who walk up to me and assume I got them in a picture (Usually Wrong) or I was using a drone to spy on them (always wrong) and demand I show them the photos/video and delete it immediately is astounding.
People have no expectation of privacy in public and don't understand that.
There is a group by me who is always at post offices/trader joe/starbucks/ect
I must have walked by them at least 15 times and never been on their video.
Me *walks by* "Hello"......them "Hello"
Me *Leaving* "Have a good day"....them "You too"
They make money from all the people who get in their face over what? Being filmed for 10 seconds?
The amount of people who walk up to me and assume I got them in a picture (Usually Wrong) or I was using a drone to spy on them (always wrong) and demand I show them the photos/video and delete it immediately is astounding.
People have no expectation of privacy in public and don't understand that.
There is a group by me who is always at post offices/trader joe/starbucks/ect
I must have walked by them at least 15 times and never been on their video.
Me *walks by* "Hello"......them "Hello"
Me *Leaving* "Have a good day"....them "You too"
They make money from all the people who get in their face over what? Being filmed for 10 seconds?
- Messages
- 348
I've seen a bunch of these guys on Instagram. They setup outside public places (stores, Police precincts, Jails, Army bases, etc. filming from Public Right of Ways trying to get a response from the general public and from LEO. My guess is most are trying to get attacked or detained to then sue the city or individual for violating their 1st amendment rights.
The thing about the 1st is you have to open to opposing views and the antics of guys like this or views you hate, in order for it to work. Do I like it? NO. Would I want them to be denied their rights. NO! There is no expectation/guarantee of privacy in public. Many mistakenly think "You cannot film me without my permission" which is just not the case. You are filmed in public all day long by Waymos, Google, Security Cameras, and yes people taking pictures. Again we may not like it, but it's not illegal.
As for confronting them, sorry OP you could have handled it differently. License to Carry is not a "License to Get Involved" as others have stated. You should have (and this is what I would have) done, is just called the police if you were concerned about the old ladies. There was "no immanent danger" until you pressed the issue which led to escalation, which led to Pepper Spray which led to what happened.
Again these guys filming were turds for sure, but even turds get to exercise their right to free speech.
The thing about the 1st is you have to open to opposing views and the antics of guys like this or views you hate, in order for it to work. Do I like it? NO. Would I want them to be denied their rights. NO! There is no expectation/guarantee of privacy in public. Many mistakenly think "You cannot film me without my permission" which is just not the case. You are filmed in public all day long by Waymos, Google, Security Cameras, and yes people taking pictures. Again we may not like it, but it's not illegal.
As for confronting them, sorry OP you could have handled it differently. License to Carry is not a "License to Get Involved" as others have stated. You should have (and this is what I would have) done, is just called the police if you were concerned about the old ladies. There was "no immanent danger" until you pressed the issue which led to escalation, which led to Pepper Spray which led to what happened.
Again these guys filming were turds for sure, but even turds get to exercise their right to free speech.
barjon
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 1
Agreed, unfortunately California does have a lot of auditors who try and antagonize people into a physical altercation. Jeff, battousai, Sean Paul Reyes and the father/son duo Amangansett press do good work.
showminato
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 4
- Classified ads
- 2
IRL ragebaiters. Ignore and move on.
Isn't it against California law for a convicted felon to possess or carry pepper spray?
BillSmith
Active member
- Messages
- 146
There is a difference between what is allowed by law and what is prudent in public. This is a double-edged sword. On one hand, as I related in an earlier post, where there are auditors/agitators/protestors present, returning with the purpose of confronting these individuals would not be in keeping with prudent behavior in regard to concealed carry.
If you are about your normal business and cannot avoid someone 'in your face', then move on. When you are not allowed to retreat, then--and only then--would it be prudent to exercise your rights. I don't think that is controversial.
In regard to grumpy grandma, if she's your responsibility, put an arm under hers and escort her, boy scout style, away for the situation. Retreating to higher ground, so to speak, is usually a winning strategy. You aren't carrying a weapon to keep from being a
, it is for turning those away that would do you and/or family bodily harm.
On that other hand, if you want to push the envelope of civil decency, understand there are those trying to live normal lives that are not the norm. They have security teams that follow their children. I am originally from the San Francisco Bay Area. On the mid-Peninsula, it would be safe to say there are a number of families in affluent neighborhoods that would not want their pictures taken for reason of personal safety. Imagine there will be many more as Middle East conflict escalates. Push a camera in a face that daddy does not want published on the internet and that camera becomes a distinct liability once you, the photographer, might be out of public view.
BTW, please note that karma is a Persian word.
If you are about your normal business and cannot avoid someone 'in your face', then move on. When you are not allowed to retreat, then--and only then--would it be prudent to exercise your rights. I don't think that is controversial.
In regard to grumpy grandma, if she's your responsibility, put an arm under hers and escort her, boy scout style, away for the situation. Retreating to higher ground, so to speak, is usually a winning strategy. You aren't carrying a weapon to keep from being a
, it is for turning those away that would do you and/or family bodily harm.On that other hand, if you want to push the envelope of civil decency, understand there are those trying to live normal lives that are not the norm. They have security teams that follow their children. I am originally from the San Francisco Bay Area. On the mid-Peninsula, it would be safe to say there are a number of families in affluent neighborhoods that would not want their pictures taken for reason of personal safety. Imagine there will be many more as Middle East conflict escalates. Push a camera in a face that daddy does not want published on the internet and that camera becomes a distinct liability once you, the photographer, might be out of public view.
BTW, please note that karma is a Persian word.
There is lines the main issue.... Someone can want their info private and their picture to not be taken.... those people should just stay home. There are cameras everywhere.
All these auditors are annoying, that said:
Some of these auditors really try to provoke people and tell them they are taking everyone's picture/License Plate/Vin number for online facial recognition tracking info (complete lie but its to get under peoples skin.
Some stand in front of banks and take pictures and pretend to be cryptic (also to draw attention)
Some like the father and son one will literally walk up and down city centers and take video and when asked they say the are traveling and wanted to take pictures of this beautiful city and people still loose their mind....
Im not the most friendly looking guy and still have people Im not taking pictures of try to get in my face. I can tell from their opening line if I can respectfully tell them I did not take their picture and even if I did I am perfectly allowed too under the first amendment.... or if I need to tell them to go f off.