Glock Talk banner
41 - 60 of 168 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,164 Posts
If the complaint is "There's someone standing on the sidewalk filming and we don't like it!" then I would have to say yes, absolutely, go ahead and ignore that call or at least take your sweet time getting there.
It’s never like that. The one I saw on the YouTube had some deuche nozzle filming outside a business of sorts. Owner of said business comes out to give the guy a piece of his mind. The guy is on public sidewalk and business owner is demanding he go away and stop taking video. No legal right to ask either. When deuche nozzle says no the owner calls cops. Dispatch tells him the guy ain’t doing nothing illegal from his own description of the scene. Owner calls back. Same result. Eventually one of the secretaries calls and says man with what looks like a gun. Now a pile of cops show up. Didn’t watch the rest.

Lots of cases there are third parties involved making false claims to get the cops to come. I really wish there was a way to arrest folks making bogus calls, but… that’s another double edged sword that may not be worth the effort for something like this.

The sad part is that these imbeciles are going to be the reason why some areas are going to majestic it difficult or illegal to film cops. Will it stand muster, no. Do you have the $$ to fight it. No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Massive Member
Joined
·
26,935 Posts
If the complaint is "There's someone standing on the sidewalk filming and we don't like it!" then I would have to say yes, absolutely, go ahead and ignore that call or at least take your sweet time getting there.
People are generally smart enough to craft their description of the situation to sound more sinister, if not at first, then after being told the original description didn’t warrant a cop coming to check it out.

Randy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,196 Posts
generally because a citizen (you know the ones who are “above” the LEO’s) called in a complaint about them. Are you suggesting that LEO’s disregard the complaints made by their citizen overlords?
What exactly is the “complaint” as you assert?
“I don’t like someone not breaking any law”
“My feelings are hurt, make them stop”

Do tell…
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,196 Posts
as Warbow already noted that is unlikely to be what is dispatched, more likely is a suspicious person or some other like trespass, or some other behavior.

any experienced cop knows that very often the complaint that was called is often not what is actually going on. And that fact is why cops respond.

a call about a suspicious vehicle at a known “ lovers lane” turns out to be a rape in progress. A complaint about a vehicle sitting on the railroad tracks turns out to be a armed suicidal individual.
So… cops aren’t smart enough to properly investigate without violating peoples rights, laws, or department policies?

Interesting that in the vast majority of these instances I see the LEO will go straight to the person with the camera instead of talking to the complainant first or in parallel.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,500 Posts
What exactly is the “complaint” as you assert?
“I don’t like someone not breaking any law”
“My feelings are hurt, make them stop”

Do tell…
These can come in as assaults, trespasses, disturbances, harassments, and any number of other things. Hard to know what’s what until you get there and talk to people. If it’s nothing then obviously take no enforcement action move on to something real.

Often as not the “auditors” are the ones calling the PD claiming they were assaulted, or whatever, when they were just oh so innocently minding their own. Gotta go to the scene to find out. If it’s nothing, then it’s nothing. Time to find something better to do. But you likely won’t know that until you look into it.
 

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
30,102 Posts
What exactly is the “complaint” as you assert?
“I don’t like someone not breaking any law”
“My feelings are hurt, make them stop”

Do tell…
the “complaint” is what the caller “complainant” calls in, which is then relayed to the officer(s) by the dispatcher.

officers on patrol dont have the luxury of first hand information. They are responding based on what someone told a dispatcher that was then relayed to them. Even rookies can attest to the fact that what was dispatched is not always what in fact is going on..

your responses above illustrate the shortcomings of your mindeset. Your responses are from an “after the fact” point of view relying on information not available to responding officers.

prior to investigating the responding officer has no way of knowing whether there is a violation of the law taking place or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seagravedriver

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
30,102 Posts
So… cops aren’t smart enough to properly investigate without violating peoples rights, laws, or department policies?

Interesting that in the vast majority of these instances I see the LEO will go straight to the person with the camera instead of talking to the complainant first or in parallel.
you a zero knowledge of how the “vast majority” of incidents turn out. You are trying to pretend you tube clips or other reports constutute a vast majority, which in fact they do not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
It’s almost never that. We’d like it to be so simple.
as Warbow already noted that is unlikely to be what is dispatched, more likely is a suspicious person or some other like trespass, or some other behavior.

any experienced cop knows that very often the complaint that was called is often not what is actually going on. And that fact is why cops respond.

a call about a suspicious vehicle at a known “ lovers lane” turns out to be a rape in progress. A complaint about a vehicle sitting on the railroad tracks turns out to be a armed suicidal individual.
Oh, I get it, I can just imagine.

I was being a little facetious with that comment.

But I personally, if policy allowed it, would simply observe for a bit and decide whether it's even worth approaching or not, simply report back that there's nothing illegal going on in these cases.

It's a complicated issue for sure. Sorting out all the BS while not missing the actually important things. Believe me, I don't envy you guys one bit, well ok I envy your retirement options, if you make it, but that's about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
Have you actually dealt with them? We get plenty of exposure to them. Ignoring them doesn’t work. Doing something stupid like walking up and taking their picture just causes them to get more into your face. What works is engaging them in dialogue that is quite neutral, neither agreeing or disagreeing with them. Talking about anything under the sun and passing the time with neutral banter until they themselves get bored and leave.

A group of them walked into our lobby one night. I invited them in. Asked them if the lighting was adequate for their filming, and offered them some coffee. I continued to barrage them with non-controversial, neutral banter until they got quite bored and left on their own accord. It never made Youtube because they didn’t get anything useful or controversial out of it.
Only once the idiot was on the other side of the fence
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
the “complaint” is what the caller “complainant” calls in, which is then relayed to the officer(s) by the dispatcher.

officers on patrol dont have the luxury of first hand information. They are responding based on what someone told a dispatcher that was then relayed to them. Even rookies can attest to the fact that what was dispatched is not always what in fact is going on..

your responses above illustrate the shortcomings of your mindeset. Your responses are from an “after the fact” point of view relying on information not available to responding officers.

prior to investigating the responding officer has no way of knowing whether there is a violation of the law taking place or not.
So if a private business really wants the police deal with an auditor they should just say they are impersonating a ATF agent and the police will take them down at gun point ( in Columbus Ohio anyway ) and you will be cheerleading their “ response “ 🙄
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,772 Posts
How is a person standing in a public space with a camera forcing anyone to do anything...




At what point did I say they are forcing anyone to do anything? We never see what they are doing before they start their interactions with law enforcement. Not all officers respond correctly to these people but why anyone would want to do what they do is beyond me. Obviously they must be doing something to instigate an interaction.
 

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
30,102 Posts
So if a private business really wants the police deal with an auditor they should just say they are impersonating a ATF agent and the police will take them down at gun point ( in Columbus Ohio anyway ) and you will be cheerleading their “ response “ 🙄
how exactly did you get that from my post?

if you were ever a cop then you would know exactly what I was referring to in my post.. the point of which was the reality that a cop cannot afford to assume that what they are told by the dispatcher as relayed by the complainant is absolutely accurate. And to never approach a situation thinking you know exactly what is going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
544 Posts
how exactly did you get that from my post?

if you were ever a cop then you would know exactly what I was referring to in my post.. the point of which was the reality that a cop cannot afford to assume that what they are told by the dispatcher as relayed by the complainant is absolutely accurate. And to never approach a situation thinking you know exactly what is going on.
I agree you can’t assume anything. Based on your posts elsewhere I noticed that despite the fact the RP in the auditor case stated he was armed the response wasn’t over the top. but in the case of the ATF idiot that you seemed to endorse a hard approach. If you were ever a cop you would see the point .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,055 Posts
I have some legitimate question, if you know the answers please share your knowledge. Same with the OP @LordAnderson. Are the auditors self employed? Do they get paid by their YouTube channel or some other means besides lawsuits? Define huge paychecks. Is it something that I can retire on? How much time do I have to put in recording? Is it like once a week for a hour or two? Or do I need to do this everyday for 4-8 hours? How much out of pocket expense will I have to get a good quality camera, a lawyer on retainer, bail or bond money if I get arrested, fuel costs, vehicle maintenance, and lastly any educational requirements in order to be an auditor?
Lots of factors involved..you not only make money from the video when it comes out you get in small residualles when older videos are also seen .i know he family of a guy that makes youtube videos showing him taking his monkeey to drive thru windows and i was told he makes $7000 a month...you can also do a superchat and i counted him getting around $500 donated to him while he did a 30 minute Q&A ..as for lawsuits thats even harder to add up because some just settle and some add NDAs to the settlement..one auditor claimed to have made 15G from a settlement where a cop went into his pocket dureing a terry search..and some have shown vry expensive cameras and trucks..as for education as long as you know alittle more then the cops then your ok..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,196 Posts
These can come in as assaults, trespasses, disturbances, harassments, and any number of other things.
I know... you missed my point

Hard to know what’s what until you get there and talk to people.
Which was my stated point... that in these instances you rarely see officers speak to the complainant first/parallel, then explain that what they are doing is perfectly legal. But rather they tend to approach the person holding the camera and instead of asking... they immediately start to play the game and/or escalate. Further, many of these folks FOIA the 911 call & body cams, which often support the lack of deescalation and intentional escalation on the part of the officers... aka poor policing.

On the other hand, many will highlight the professional officers who not only do their job well but go out of their way to emphasize protecting rights of citizens.

That right there PROVES the point that many of them are trying to make, that if some officers can be professional and do their jobs correctly... why can't they all. That's one of the aspects of those who post all the ad hominem and emotional rhetoric towards these "auditors" that makes me chuckle, they miss the point that many cops can do it right. I don't know, maybe it's the ones who can't or wont do it right that get all butthurt :ROFLMAO:
 
41 - 60 of 168 Posts
Top