Kevlar, your anti police attitude has blinded you to the facts.

1) Private citizens called the police and voiced their concern for their safety when they saw an armed man taking pictures on the side of the road.

2) The police responded to the call.

3) The policè asked simple questions in an attempt to ascertain his intentions.

4) Once they realized there was no threat, they let him go.

These are the facts.

Anything else you say is simply your opinion.

.

Kevlar, your anti police attitude has blinded you to the facts.

Anti-police attitude? My brother's a cop. I have immense respect for the job. But doesn't mean I'm going to turn a blind eye to illegal behavior on their part.

1) Private citizens called the police and voiced their concern for their safety when they saw an armed man taking pictures on the side of the road.

Really? Private citizens? Where did you get that? I heard the officers say they responded because he was taking photos of a federal building. If you're going to intuit or guess who called, wouldn't it be someone in the building, i.e., a fed?

2) The police responded to the call.

Agreed.

3) The policè asked simple questions in an attempt to ascertain his intentions.

Actions they're not legally able to do as per the federal court ruling in the NYC case.

4) Once they realized there was no threat, they let him go.

Yeah, that's self apparent.

These are the facts.

Some facts with your opinions mixed in, but close enough.

Anything else you say is simply your opinion.

Actually, I'm the only one who's cited court rulings, i.e., facts.

They have never enforced the law, or had to protect any important assets in their life; naturally, they won't understand.

My brother is in HPD. I have the utmost respect for their profession - shit hours for decent to shit pay, all while having to deal with the worst criminal scum in society. They're the proverbial wolf hound guarding us against the predators. I get it.

That being said, I don't excuse behavior that violates the rule of law. Their detention of this man was illegal. A federal court ruling as made that explicitly clear.

Everyone can cry about how we don't support the constitution because we agree with what the cops did. Unless you have actually had to assist, protect and/or defend actual VIPs and/or assets, and understand just what those duties entail, your opinion is just an assumption.

So, because I've never gone to culinary school means I can't critique a meal?

And if you think its a free country and you can photograph whatever the hell you want, go stand outside of Schofield and photograph the gate all day long; see what happens.

This is a strawman argument. Earlier in this thread, I stated that you couldn't pull this crap at an instillation like Area 51. So, I've made the distinction between sensitive military and/or federal compounds and those located on PUBLIC streets.

Look, at the end of the day we're never going to agree, but I think you would agree with me that our rights have been incrementally chipped away, right? Just read the NDAA and their ability to detain someone indefinitely w/out charges under military control. Posse Comitatus, Habeas Corpus, and maybe even the 4th Amendment have been shredded by this law.

.

1. Just because your brother is in HPD doesn't mean you have any concept of what it is to conduct LE activities, defend an asset or VIP, or the responsibilities or actions necessary to complete thos roles. That is like saying 'I know what its like to deploy, because I play COD and I watched Hurt Locker'.

I never said it did. It was just a response to your allegations that I don't get it. Or perhaps I don't have respect for the profession. Nothing can be further from the truth.

P.S. He wasn't detained. The officers did not place him in hand irons, nor did they incarcerate him or forcibly prevent him from leaving.

Yeah, he was. Re-watch the video. The man asks the officer if he was being detained and the officer said "yes". Being detained isn't contingent on being handcuffed. And we'll never know if they would've used force to keep him there if he simply started walking away after being told he was being detained. I'm guessing they wouldn't just stand there.

2. You are free to critique any meal you wish, but I can guarantee that unless you are a seasoned professional in the meal critiquing business, people would generally dismiss your recommendations compared to someone who has experience in that field; the same applies to law enforcement tactics. Unless you have conducted LEO operations, you will never know what it is like, nor what one might have to do in those situations.

You're missing the point. Having an opinion on something isn't restricted to having to practice in the field you're referencing. That's like saying I can't say a steak hasn't been cooked properly (it's raw) when I asked for well done all because I never went to culinary school.

I've stated a fact: a federal ruling has stated his actions are 100% legal. Ergo, the police have absolutely NO REASON OR LEGAL RECOURSE to approach or speak to him over said actions. None. Zero. Nada. No one in this thread has been able to refute that point. Unless you can show a reason - legally speaking - their actions are NOT countering the aforementioned NYC case, then my assessment remains unchallenged and correct: the police were in the wrong.

3. The streets outside of Schofield are not federal; they are state/county controlled areas. I never said 'go on to base and film'; I meant stand on the public streets outside of the gate, and film the TCP. I can guarantee you would be in for a magical surprise.

Which is still a strawman, because I've already stated their are certain instances where you can't film facilities. I don't know about the legalities of your scenario, but the one mentioned here has been addressed in a previous case per my link, and it's been determined that the police CANNOT do what  this video shows them doing.

But you are right; our rights are being eroded away slowly. But this situation is not a proper demonstration of such events, as the officers in this video are clearly ensuring the safety of their building and themselves by inquiring why an armed individual is recording their building for no specific reason other than 'it is his right to do so.'

And based on the prior ruling in NYC - in a federal court, no less - their actions are ILLEGAL. Anytime the 'authorities' violate the rule of law, I consider that a violation of our rights. You don't see it that way, I do.

I've stated a fact: a federal ruling has stated his actions are 100% legal. Ergo, the police have absolutely NO REASON OR LEGAL RECOURSE to approach or speak to him over said actions. None. Zero. Nada. No one in this thread has been able to refute that point. Unless you can show a reason - legally speaking - their actions are NOT countering the aforementioned NYC case, then my assessment remains unchallenged and correct: the police were in the wrong.

This is absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
It's called probable cause.
To contend that a police officer has no right to question anyone is absolutely ludicrous.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about a police officer questioning someone exhibiting suspicious behavior.
Until you can prove that a court ruling has stated that no police officers can question suspicious people then YOU ARE WRONG.

This is absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Then you haven't re-read your earlier posts in this thread. I don't know how you can "hear" written words.

It's called probable cause.

The federal ruling in the NYC has ALREADY stated that taking photos of a federal building does NOT constitute probable cause.

To contend that a police officer has no right to question anyone is absolutely ludicrous.

And there you go off into strawman territory. I never stated that a police officer has no right to question anyone. You have constructed a false premise of my points and have argued against that falsely constructed narrative - a strawman fallacy.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about a police officer questioning someone exhibiting suspicious behavior.

It has already been determined that video tapping/photographing a fed building from a public street is 100% legal. It's protected under the 1st Amendment. LEOs swear an oath to protect the constitution. So, when they intervene and question you practicing said right, they're violating their oaths as well as a federal court's ruling, i.e., it's against the law. One should be able to exercise their unalienable rights w/out interference, you seem to think otherwise.

Until you can prove that a court ruling has stated that no police officers can question suspicious people then YOU ARE WRONG.

The court ruling stated that video tapping and/or snapping pics of federal buildings is protected free speech. Whether you think what he's doing is suspicious or not is IRRELEVANT. His actions are PROTECTED under the 1A. His behavior in and of itself does NOT meet the legal criteria to be stopped and detained, no matter how short the duration. It isn't probable cause under the LEGAL jurisprudence/ruling of the federal court in NYC. LEO must have a LEGIT REASON to stop, harass, and detain you. The legal precedent has already been set that that behavior isn't enough.

Just like the other open carry videos, you see time and time again LEO stopping people precisely because of their firearm, when they know darn well that is not reason enough to stop and temporarily detain them. The 4th circuit court has already ruled that a open carry weapon isn't probable cause to stop someone, but how many times have you seen videos of LEOs stopping people for it? If we have to live under the law, so should the law keepers. They're not exempt from it.

.

I'm sorry, allow me to apologize; I had no idea that LEO were not allowed to conduct inquiries based on on questionable behavior, which essentially equates the probable cause to inquire what the hell that guy was doing, even though I did it for several years. I guess all that training I received as an LEO was bullshit, right?

Man + filming federal building + at night + who happens to be carrying firearm = not suspicious to you?

Give me a break man; you are just talking out of your ass if you think this behavior is acceptable and shouldn't draw any suspicion.

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I LEO (although I worked with Fed agents at USPACOM/JIATFW).

Q, can you tell me what the difference is between "probable cause" and "looking suspicious"?  My understanding (limited) is that PC exists when you have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by the individual you are questioning.  Someone acting suspicious might cause the little hairs on the back of your neck to stand up, but I dodn't think it rises to the level of PC.  PC, if not mistaken, is needed to detain, but you can question someone for any reason.  The questions are voluntary, and the individual can decline to answert. 

It seems kevlar is hung up on whether a cop can ever approach you and ask what you're doing without PC.  Like if a cop sees a guy "looking suspicious" in his car, I believe the cop can't execute a stop unless he has probable cause (tail light out, driver matches the description of a wanted criminal, car reported stolen, blood trail oozing from the trunk) ...

How is it a cop requires PC to stop your car, but it's not that way if he approaches you on a street to satisfy his "suspicion" that you might be up to something?

I understand if a dispatcher says there is a report of someone taking pictures or carrying a holstered gun.  That requires the cop to investigate -- that report could be as simple as "individual was walking in public and doing nothing illegal."  That's different than the cop initiate the encounter with no 911 call to investigate.

Anyway, these two situations, probable cause versus "looking suspicious," seem a bit confusing.

I'm sorry, allow me to apologize; I had no idea that LEO were not allowed to conduct inquiries based on on questionable behavior, which essentially equates the probable cause to inquire what the hell that guy was doing, even though I did it for several years. I guess all that training I received as an LEO was bullshit, right?

I don't care about any training you may or may not have had. This man's actions in and of itself isn't probable cause for a stop. The federal ruling has stated that. You want to argue that, take it up with the courts. Just like the open carry videos we've all seen, LEOs routinely stop people for open carry weapons, even stating that is the sole reason for the temporary detainment, questioning, etc., and yet, they're not supposed to stop them because it's legal jurisprudence that an exposed firearm is not reason enough to warrant that type of response. Does that stop LEOs from continuing to do this? No. But they do it anyway - in clear VIOLATION of the 4th circuit ruling amongst others. You seem to think the police should be allowed to flaunt the rule of law and continue behavior that violates their oaths when they do this.

Man + filming federal building + at night + who happens to be carrying firearm = not suspicious to you?

Whether it's suspicious to me or not is irrelevant. This a matter of legal jurisprudence/precedent. The courts have ruled that behavior is protected under the 1A. When a LEO interferes w/ someone exercising a constitutional right, they're behaving unlawfully. i.e., they themselves are breaking the laws they're supposed to defend. Just because a LEO thinks a home is suspicious, it doesn't give him the justification to kick in a door and search the premises w/out a warrant or REAL probable cause like screaming from within. I don't think you'd be in favor of police violating the 4th Amendment due solely to suspicion. Yet, that is what you're arguing in favor of - police acting outside their proscribed powers.

Give me a break man; you are just talking out of your ass if you think this behavior is acceptable and shouldn't draw any suspicion.

It's protected free speech. LEO can have their suspicion. I don't give a damn. It's when it veers from suspicion into a violation of the constitution, and then it's serious.  Also, you're conflating suspicion with probable cause. One is a feeling, the other is a legal justification. You, as a former LEO, should know this. Unless, of course, you're just talking out of your ass.

If you have this attitude, then I presume you're okay w/ LEO stopping open carriers based on fact they're open carriers and nothing else, right? Or, let's say a low rider pulls up alongside your squad car and it's full of black males dressed all gangsta, listening to rap music and they begin to mean mug you (stare you down intently). Is that suspicious behavior? Yeah. Is it probable cause to stop their car and search it? Nope.  You seem to be arguing it is, though.

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I LEO (although I worked with Fed agents at USPACOM/JIATFW).

Q, can you tell me what the difference is between "probable cause" and "looking suspicious"?  My understanding (limited) is that PC exists when you have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by the individual you are questioning.  Someone acting suspicious might cause the little hairs on the back of your neck to stand up, but I dodn't think it rises to the level of PC.  PC, if not mistaken, is needed to detain, but you can question someone for any reason.  The questions are voluntary, and the individual can decline to answert.

It seems kevlar is hung up on whether a cop can ever approach you and ask what you're doing without PC.  Like if a cop sees a guy "looking suspicious" in his car, I believe the cop can't execute a stop unless he has probable cause (tail light out, driver matches the description of a wanted criminal, car reported stolen, blood trail oozing from the trunk) ...

How is it a cop requires PC to stop your car, but it's not that way if he approaches you on a street to satisfy his "suspicion" that you might be up to something?

I understand if a dispatcher says there is a report of someone taking pictures or carrying a holstered gun.  That requires the cop to investigate -- that report could be as simple as "individual was walking in public and doing nothing illegal."  That's different than the cop initiate the encounter with no 911 call to investigate.

Anyway, these two situations, probable cause versus "looking suspicious," seem a bit confusing.

Therein lies the problem, as you've stated. Q is conflating PC with suspicion. They're two different things and yet he tries to use them interchangeably.

And here is a recent example of LEO acting OUTSIDE of their proscribed powers and arresting a man for open carrying a weapon, and what's their reason for this behavior? Suspicion, not probable cause.

And what gems did these geniuses drop? "We're exempt from the law." "They don't care what the law is."  "You're under arrest for resisting arrest [for a non-crime]"

This type of police action is what Q and KK seem to be for.

Brother, your not adapted to this police controlled country yet? It's over! They won!  Unless someone with power steps up and restore what was United States or we start a revolution... Don't worry and calm down, this is just only the beginning of our troubles.... So I suggest you arm up or shut up! The fight is still on for our freedom!!!

.

Its obvious you got a chip on your shoulder about cops, so I will continue to assert that unless you have experience in the LE field, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Go ahead and quote the same 4th circuit quote you have for the 17th time; fact remains that you are attempting to act like an expert in a field you have no experience in.

Aww. Look at that. Poor little Q has to resort to an Appeal to Authority argument -  a logical fallacy. Your lame response is a simple obfuscation from the legal facts I've cited. You can't refute that so you resort to an Appeal to Authority argument.

Now if you will excuse me, I will need to go play some call of duty and read some books on special operations so I can come back and tell everyone exactly what its like to be a navy seal and how they should be doing things.

And now an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. Hilarious.

Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra
Kevlar
Q
All

I have redacted my Reply #1 in this thread and I apologize.  My post said:

I gots news for you.

1.  The Federal Protective Service does not fuck around.

2.  It actually is illegal to take a picture of a federal building without a permit.

This was told to me by a person "in the know" on the subject several years ago, whom I regarded as a knowledgable source, and the federal building he worked at had a sign prominently posted to this effect, with the federal code citations.
 
Apparently, this has changed.

I am one who is constantly bellyaching about "fact-checking" in our news media reports on firearms, and here I am falling victim to the same error.

My apologies.

Terry, 230RN

.

I don't care about any training you may or may not have had. This man's actions in and of itself isn't probable cause for a stop. The federal ruling has stated that. You want to argue that, take it up with the courts. Just like the open carry videos we've all seen, LEOs routinely stop people for open carry weapons, even stating that is the sole reason for the temporary detainment, questioning, etc., and yet, they're not supposed to stop them because it's legal jurisprudence that an exposed firearm is not reason enough to warrant that type of response. Does that stop LEOs from continuing to do this? No. But they do it anyway - in clear VIOLATION of the 4th circuit ruling amongst others. You seem to think the police should be allowed to flaunt the rule of law and continue behavior that violates their oaths when they do this.Whether it's suspicious to me or not is irrelevant. This a matter of legal jurisprudence/precedent. The courts have ruled that behavior is protected under the 1A. When a LEO interferes w/ someone exercising a constitutional right, they're behaving unlawfully. i.e., they themselves are breaking the laws they're supposed to defend. Just because a LEO thinks a home is suspicious, it doesn't give him the justification to kick in a door and search the premises w/out a warrant or REAL probable cause like screaming from within. I don't think you'd be in favor of police violating the 4th Amendment due solely to suspicion. Yet, that is what you're arguing in favor of - police acting outside their proscribed powers. It's protected free speech. LEO can have their suspicion. I don't give a damn. It's when it veers from suspicion into a violation of the constitution, and then it's serious.  Also, you're conflating suspicion with probable cause. One is a feeling, the other is a legal justification. You, as a former LEO, should know this. Unless, of course, you're just talking out of your ass.
If you have this attitude, then I presume you're okay w/ LEO stopping open carriers based on fact they're open carriers and nothing else, right? Or, let's say a low rider pulls up alongside your squad car and it's full of black males dressed all gangsta, listening to rap music and they begin to mean mug you (stare you down intently). Is that suspicious behavior? Yeah. Is it probable cause to stop their car and search it? Nope.  You seem to be arguing it is, though. Then you haven't re-read your earlier posts in this thread. I don't know how you can "hear" written words. The federal ruling in the NYC has ALREADY stated that taking photos of a federal building does NOT constitute probable cause. And there you go off into strawman territory. I never stated that a police officer has no right to question anyone. You have constructed a false premise of my points and have argued against that falsely constructed narrative - a strawman fallacy. It has already been determined that video tapping/photographing a fed building from a public street is 100% legal. It's protected under the 1st Amendment. LEOs swear an oath to protect the constitution. So, when they intervene and question you practicing said right, they're violating their oaths as well as a federal court's ruling, i.e., it's against the law. One should be able to exercise their unalienable rights w/out interference, you seem to think otherwise. The court ruling stated that video tapping and/or snapping pics of federal buildings is protected free speech. Whether you think what he's doing is suspicious or not is IRRELEVANT. His actions are PROTECTED under the 1A. His behavior in and of itself does NOT meet the legal criteria to be stopped and detained, no matter how short the duration. It isn't probable cause under the LEGAL jurisprudence/ruling of the federal court in NYC. LEO must have a LEGIT REASON to stop, harass, and detain you. The legal precedent has already been set that that behavior isn't enough. Just like the other open carry videos, you see time and time again LEO stopping people precisely because of their firearm, when they know darn well that is not reason enough to stop and temporarily detain them. The 4th circuit court has already ruled that a open carry weapon isn't probable cause to stop someone, but how many times have you seen videos of LEOs stopping people for it? I'm an annoying know it all with no real life law enforcement experience so ill just keep babbling the same crap until someone agrees with me. If we have to live under the law, so should the law keepers. They're not exempt from it. I don't care about any training you may or may not have had. This man's actions in and of itself isn't probable cause for a stop. The federal ruling has stated that. You want to argue that, take it up with the courts. Just like the open carry videos we've all seen, LEOs routinely stop people for open carry weapons, even stating that is the sole reason for the temporary detainment, questioning, etc., and yet, they're not supposed to stop them because it's legal jurisprudence that an exposed firearm is not reason enough to warrant that type of response. Does that stop LEOs from continuing to do this? No. But they do it anyway - in clear VIOLATION of the 4th circuit ruling amongst others. You seem to think the police should be allowed to flaunt the rule of law and continue behavior that violates their oaths when they do this. Whether it's suspicious to me or not is irrelevant. This a matter of legal jurisprudence/precedent. The courts have ruled that behavior is protected under the 1A. When a LEO interferes w/ someone exercising a constitutional right, they're behaving unlawfully. i.e., they themselves are breaking the laws they're supposed to defend. Just because a LEO thinks a home is suspicious, it doesn't give him the justification to kick in a door and search the premises w/out a warrant or REAL probable cause like screaming from within. I don't think you'd be in favor of police violating the 4th Amendment due solely to suspicion. Yet, that is what you're arguing in favor of - police acting outside their proscribed powers. It's protected free speech. LEO can have their suspicion. I don't give a damn. It's when it veers from suspicion into a violation of the constitution, and then it's serious.  Also, you're conflating suspicion with probable cause. One is a feeling, the other is a legal justification. You, as a former LEO, should know this. Unless, of course, you're just talking out of your ass. If you have this attitude, then I presume you're okay w/ LEO stopping open carriers based on fact they're open carriers and nothing else, right? Or, let's say a low rider pulls up alongside your squad car and it's full of black males dressed all gangsta, listening to rap music and they begin to mean mug you (stare you down intently). Is that suspicious behavior? Yeah. Is it probable cause to stop their car and search it? Nope.  You seem to be arguing it is, though.

And yet after hours of typing and retyping the exact same things over and over, you've still failed to cite any specific Supreme Court ruling to back up your ramblings.

Kevlar has facts, logic, and real-world examples on his side.

Q appears to have run out of arguments.  He has resorted to the "Whatever! :| " tactic ... attempting to shutdown the debate after he clearly demonstrated he only has personal opinion to back up his position.

This debate goes to KEVLAR!  I think a LEO/former LEO will always have the opinion they must follow what they see as common sense tactics in spite of what is legal.  That's why there are so many videos around demonstrating too many cops don't have a clue what the law says.  In their minds, they ARE the law (Judge Dredd attitude).

The LE community has been more and more militarized and is less of a citizen protection organization.  In fact, the courts ruled cops have no responsibility to protect individuals, just to ensure the safety of the public at large.  Hence the argument for acquiring firearms ... police are not there to protect you, merely to investigate afterward and make an arrest.