Being a prick to a cop?! Or exercising rights? Or both?

[rudeguy]

If you don't think this guy (and others like him) was purposely fishing for a police interaction, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I have no idea why the cop was on the scene, but most likely someone called the police and reported strange behavior and the cop was dispatched to see what was going on. I take issue with the word "confront" as it obviously means different things to different people. What I saw was a cop approach and immediately be accosted by the douchebag who was more interested in making his video than allowing the cop to speak. If you consider that "confronting" this poor citizen, then I suppose that is your interpretation of the word.

Like others, I am very libertarian and am not 'pro-cop.' I fully support people that pull out a camera to film police interactions while such interactions are happening (as opposed to douches that troll around fishing for an interaction so they can film and later sue), but this conduct of purposely wasting department resources is reprehensible. I am 100% behind flexing your rights, but that does not mean creating the situation yourself so that you have an opportunity to flex such rights.

So then you are against demonstrations where police have to be present?

 

[jlee]

If you don't think this guy (and others like him) was purposely fishing for a police interaction, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I have no idea why the cop was on the scene, but most likely someone called the police and reported strange behavior and the cop was dispatched to see what was going on. I take issue with the word "confront" as it obviously means different things to different people. What I saw was a cop approach and immediately be accosted by the douchebag who was more interested in making his video than allowing the cop to speak. If you consider that "confronting" this poor citizen, then I suppose that is your interpretation of the word.

Like others, I am very libertarian and am not 'pro-cop.' I fully support people that pull out a camera to film police interactions while such interactions are happening (as opposed to douches that troll around fishing for an interaction so they can film and later sue), but this conduct of purposely wasting department resources is reprehensible. I am 100% behind flexing your rights, but that does not mean creating the situation yourself so that you have an opportunity to flex such rights.

Yeah, there's a huge difference between filming an incidental interaction and deliberately trolling with a camera doing shit that you know will cause a scene.

 

[Jeeebus]

So then you are against demonstrations where police have to be present?

I've read this multiple times and still have no idea what you are trying to say/insinuate.

 

[rudeguy]

I've read this multiple times and still have no idea what you are trying to say/insinuate.

What about protests where there is a police presence. Are you against that?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yeah, there's a huge difference between filming an incidental interaction and deliberately trolling with a camera doing shit that you know will cause a scene.

This.

I'm guessing someone saw people brandishing a lot of ammunition (and possibly guns) in an area where there's a lot of people/traffic and called the police to investigate. Unless you're just completely fucking out of touch you would not think that was ridiculous for the cop to approach such a situation. Plus, yes, it absolutely was setup specifically because they knew it would get that reaction, which was their intent so that they could then pull their other jackassery.

You can take issue with any specifics as I certainly don't know the laws and regulations that might apply in this specific situation (and I'm guessing people defending the guy sure as shit don't either, in fact I'm somewhat doubtful the guy himself is fully aware of all of them himself), but acting like there was no reason for police to be checking this out is straight absurd.

I also won't condemn the cop for not knowing all the regulations himself so I'm not too concerned over that. If he'd have pulled his gun and started going apeshit and arresting them then maybe they'd have a point, but it's clear they were just being dicks. I'm sure the cop could tell that as well and so he probably also was just trying to keep it from turning into a worse situation. If I have some jackass being a jackass and trying to incite a reaction from me, I'm going to act aloof and meh attitude over it as well. I'd even play dumb just to see what their reactions would be as that will help reveal their true intentions too (not to mention likely get them to do something stupid that might enable you to do something about their jackassery).

Just because the guy didn't need a license to sell ammo or whatever does not mean there likely aren't other regulations that would still prohibit him from selling a bunch of ammo out of a vehicle (and then of course taking into account differences in public and private land as well).

It's clear the guy was just trying to setup a confrontation over his rights to sell ammo and post it on Youtube for hits. He's basically just physically embodying clickbait so fuck him.

Not only that, but it's stupid shit like that that actually causes push for laws and especially broad ones that leave way too much interpretation because they know some jackass will probably try to push the issue.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Completely agree.



Now my neck hurts, jerk.

KT

Am not. D:

 

[darkswordsman17]

I've read this multiple times and still have no idea what you are trying to say/insinuate.

He's basically trying to claim that's an analogous situation to this, which it really is not. I think he's taking issue with you saying that people doing this are wasting resources of the police, but if you don't also think that's the case with police at protests then you're a hypocrite. It's just a deflectionary argument using bad logic.

 

[Jeeebus]

He's basically trying to claim that's an analogous situation to this, which it really is not. I think he's taking issue with you saying that people doing this are wasting resources of the police, but if you don't also think that's the case with police at protests then you're a hypocrite. It's just a deflectionary argument using bad logic.

Ya it's a terrible argument which makes little to no sense. I still don't understand why I would be for or against police presence at a protest. I think rudeguy needs to take a step back, think about what it is exactly he is trying to convey here, and maybe reformulate the question. Not trying to be insulting, but don't think you've (rudeguy) fully thought this one through.

 

[rudeguy]

Ya it's a terrible argument which makes little to no sense. I still don't understand why I would be for or against police presence at a protest. I think rudeguy needs to take a step back, think about what it is exactly he is trying to convey here, and maybe reformulate the question. Not trying to be insulting, but don't think you've (rudeguy) fully thought this one through.

I asked a simple yes or no question.

 

[Jeeebus]

I asked a simple yes or no question.

And I answered it. Now answer this. Do you like crab cakes?

That question is about as relevant to the discussion as yours.

 

[rudeguy]

And I answered it. Now answer this. Do you like crab cakes?

That question is about as relevant to the discussion as yours.

of course I like crab cakes

 

[pontifex]

He's just trying to make the cop look like a monkey. He does have to be federally licensed to sell ammunition. He knows this and is being a dick trying to get the cop to do something for the camera. Cop doesn't seem to be sure on the law though and is looking foolish. He should just call for his supervisor.

Interesting, the ATF seems to disagree with you.

Q: Is a license required to engage in the business of selling small arms ammunition?

No. A license is not required for a dealer in ammunition only, but a manufacturer or an importer of ammunition must be licensed.

[18 U.S.C. 922 (a)(1)(B)]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/licensees-conduct-of-business.html#small-arms-ammo-licensing

 

[MarkXIX]

What I always find funny is that guys like this have almost infinite time to find the law, fully research it, and then have the ego to brutalize a public servant with their "vast knowledge" of the law.

But, at the same time these are people who would all but refuse to foot the bill to train every cop on every law until they are walking police, lawyers, and judges with huge brains.

If the guy was trying to be anything other than a complete asshole, he would readily inform the officer of the law by either explaining it to him or handing him a piece of paper that fully describes it. Instead, he plays the "Tell me the law officer! No! I'm not doing anything until you fully recite the law verbatim to me!!!" asshole game.

 

[TheVrolok]

Dude filming is a complete prick, whether he was legally in the right or not. And why does he repeatedly say it's his constitutional right to sell things on the street?

 

[SlitheryDee]

What I always find funny is that guys like this have almost infinite time to find the law, fully research it, and then have the ego to brutalize a public servant with their "vast knowledge" of the law.

But, at the same time these are people who would all but refuse to foot the bill to train every cop on every law until they are walking police, lawyers, and judges with huge brains.

If the guy was trying to be anything other than a complete asshole, he would readily inform the officer of the law by either explaining it to him or handing him a piece of paper that fully describes it. Instead, he plays the "Tell me the law officer! No! I'm not doing anything until you fully recite the law verbatim to me!!!" asshole game.

"CHECK YOUR LAW SIR. SIR CHECK YOUR LAW. I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE HERE. I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. CHECK YOUR LAW SIR. I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING YOU SAY. CHECK YOUR LAW SIR".

Oh sweet baby jesus do I hate people that think that kind of immediate "claws-out" talk-over-everyone approach makes them look good. To me, it's a sign that they know that they would lose if the discussion ever became two sided. It could be a constitutionalists, an atheist, a religious person, a feminist, a pro-lifer, or whoever. Fuck everyone who thinks that will win anyone over to their side of the argument. When I see a person doing that I want the police to make a special exception just for them.

"Sir, I just called this in and we've decided to make it illegal for YOU to sell ammunition. Just you. Everyone else is still free to do it if they please. Now I'm going to taze you because you're clearly resisting arrest".

 

[MarkXIX]

What is also funny is that the guy keeps asking the officer to step back so that they can both be in the video, yet they never think to turn the camera the proper way that would easily capture the two of them in the video.

GAH! I keep watching it and it just pisses me off the more I watch it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

This is too funny and sad that a Police Officer would try to shake down this person for LEGAL activity!!

As another comment I read --

Mr Steve-O 1 week ago
If the cop would've just left! there would be no need for the rest of what happened, I mean where they breaking any laws?come on now stop harassing the people!!!!!!

 

[mizzou]

lol, that cop seemed to handle the guy quite well

"I'm in Full Grasp of my rights!"

Except you have no grasp on reality

 

[Gooberlx2]

The kicker is, the guy was apparently wrong.
The vid's top comment (the poster himself), links here, which links here, where you find this.

§ 118.15 LICENSE REQUIRED.

It is unlawful for any person over 18 years of age to peddle, solicit, canvass, engage in transient selling or sidewalk vending as defined in § 118.01 of this chapter within the corporate limits of the city without first obtaining a license as provided in § 118.16 of this chapter.


('63 Code, § 6-11.01) (Ord. 395-C.S., passed 1-3-84; Am. Ord. 477-C.S., passed 10-20-88) Penalty, see § 10.99

 

[JEDIYoda]

What I always find funny is that guys like this have almost infinite time to find the law, fully research it, and then have the ego to brutalize a public servant with their "vast knowledge" of the law.

But, at the same time these are people who would all but refuse to foot the bill to train every cop on every law until they are walking police, lawyers, and judges with huge brains.

If the guy was trying to be anything other than a complete asshole, he would readily inform the officer of the law by either explaining it to him or handing him a piece of paper that fully describes it. Instead, he plays the "Tell me the law officer! No! I'm not doing anything until you fully recite the law verbatim to me!!!" asshole game.

I want some of the goofy pills that you are taking!!

 

[isekii]

The kicker is, the guy was apparently wrong.
The vid's top comment (the poster himself), links here, which links here, where you find this.

Next time he runs into him running the same schtick, he'll be beat up, arrested and charged with resisting arrest on top of many other things.

 

[SearchMaster]

The kicker is, the guy was apparently wrong.
The vid's top comment (the poster himself), links here, which links here, where you find this.

I think the douche in the video's point was that it is unconstitutional for them to enact such ordinances and he wanted to be cited so he could take it to federal court. While I don't know for certain, I would assume such ordinances have been unsuccessfully challenged in court before, which is why I wish the officer had cited him to waste the douche's time for a few years.

 

[jlee]

This is too funny and sad that a Police Officer would try to shake down this person for LEGAL activity!!

The kicker is, the guy was apparently wrong.
The vid's top comment (the poster himself), links here, which links here, where you find this.

 

[amdhunter]

I bet if I tried that, I'd be posting from my grave right now.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

What I always find funny is that guys like this have almost infinite time to find the law, fully research it, and then have the ego to brutalize a public servant with their "vast knowledge" of the law.

But, at the same time these are people who would all but refuse to foot the bill to train every cop on every law until they are walking police, lawyers, and judges with huge brains.

If the guy was trying to be anything other than a complete asshole, he would readily inform the officer of the law by either explaining it to him or handing him a piece of paper that fully describes it. Instead, he plays the "Tell me the law officer! No! I'm not doing anything until you fully recite the law verbatim to me!!!" asshole game.

That an excellent idea.
Require all police to have a law degree.

It would certainly weed out a lot of those bad apples, and the police would make a decent wage for once.

I would much rather be approached by a lawyer than a meathead.