Long Island Audit: Sean Paul Reyes and his endless Lawsuit Lotto

[ga gamba]

S.SaulGood, you may want to tone it down, your KKK is starting to show.

I've seen nothing that hints at this. It appears he's quite tolerant of gov't strong arming people and the arbitrary declaration of 'law', but this is not exclusively KKK. Plenty of actors of all political stripes left and right resort to authoritarianism once a bit of power is given to them. He places a stronger emphasis on safety and security and less emphasis on certain individual rights and freedoms. He is not alone. Seems to me the safety and security gambit is used by many.

If you're going to malign someone, you ought to have substance to back it up.

 

[S.SaulGood]

I've seen nothing that hints at this. It appears he's quite tolerant of gov't strong arming people and the arbitrary declaration of 'law', but this is not exclusively KKK. Plenty of actors of all political stripes left and right resort to authoritarianism once a bit of power is given to them. He places a stronger emphasis on safety and security and less emphasis on certain individual rights and freedoms. He is not alone. Seems to me the safety and security gambit is used by many.

If you're going to malign someone, you ought to have substance to back it up.

Actually, I'm not in favor of authoritarian strong arming. I'm in favor of sensibly applied authority, respectfully administered in such a way as to promote the safety, security and well being of ALL parties involved, though they may be on opposite sides of an issue.

Constructive mitigation. There is usually a middle ground, even if two individuals with entirely opposing views are willing to COMPROMISE.

Let's address ONE ISSUE ALONE. ONE complaint that 1AAs typically have. A very basic one. Wearing a mask.

I still wear a face mask wherever I go. If someone comes to my home, say to service the oil burner, they will be wearing one. Sensibly, prior to anyone coming to my home from a business, they typically will screen by phone, "Has anyone in the house had C-19? Our technician will be wearing a mask. We ask you to please do the same, for your safety and ours.. yatta, yatta".

I don't tell them that "They're being disorderly", and to "*advertiser censored* off. I will not have my rights violated. The mask is a request", because they will tell me to "*advertiser censored* off", and I'll have to fix my own repair issue. I agree with that policy because I myself wear a mask when around people. I feel safer doing so, and I also view it AS A SIGN OF RESPECT FOR OTHERS' SAFETY AND COMFORT. Old school. I actually care about people's feelings and have NEVER been construed by anyone I know as an inconsiderate *advertiser censored* (as far as I know).

So my view on complying with a policy that "requests" wearing a mask isn't that I'm either bucking authority or not, and whether that, in and of itself, is noble or not, since I'm not giving in to "tyrants" who are trying to keep themselves and their patrons Covid-free as much as they can, but whether or not that policy MAKES SENSE. And in my opinion, "why, yes it does. I do that anyway, so no big deal complying".

That doesn't make me a boot-licker. Or a tyrant. Or the KKK. Or a totalitarian. That policy helps to keep me SAFER than I would be while inside the building than if nobody was wearing masks.

 

[ga gamba]

I already addressed the issue of required and recommended in a prior comment. If the order, by a person duly authorised by law to do so such as a governor or president, states people are required, then they are so - excluding those granted exemptions by the order. However, we keep seeing local officials conflating required and recommended.

Your example of your home and its visitors is one about a private space. Do what you like in it. It's yours.

You may choose to comply with a request in the public domain. Or, you may choose not to. What makes sense to you makes sense to you. Wear a mask for the rest of your life, if you like. Wear two. Or a dozen. If you're really worried, wear a M50 chemical-biological respirator and latex gloves - don't neglect to change the filters daily. Do what comforts you.

What makes you an authoritarian is you expect others to comply with recommendations, misstatements of the law, bluffing by authority figures, etcetera, etcetera. My stating you are an authoritarian is accurate. Why? Let's look at the defintion: favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. Not only do you want people to obey lawful requirements, which is fine, you also want them to obey requests. You may not think you are an authoritarian, but using that definition as the benchmark to evaluate your many comments, you have revealed yourself to be one. I think you ought to be at peace with it. It'll save you the hassle of denying it. But, if you think being an authoritarian is a character flaw, and your objection suggests it may, perhaps you may want to reflect on that a bit. As for caring for others' feelings, I think you care for some people's feelings. You don't leave the impression you care about the feelings of people who object to or are offended by being arbitrarily ordered to do things that are not based on law. BTW, I don't think anyone is behooved to care about the feelings of everyone - that's a heavy burden I wouldn't wish on anyone, and I reckon it's impossible because people feel very differently about the same thing. This is why I prefer adherence to the law (based on rights such as the Constitution) rather than adherence to feelings.

As I wrote before, you're the type of person who emphasises safety (actual or perceived) over freedom (actual or perceived). That's OK. You have plenty of company. We all make trade offs - perhaps only a dictator such as Kim Jong Un can maximise both his own freedom and his own security... at the expense of everyone else's. Where you and I differ is that I have no interest in telling people to comply with requests and I don't support public officials who do so, sometimes adding the threat of arrest to it.

Compromise is fine in many situations but not all. If I accuse you of murder in the first degree and you declare your innocence (and you are), is the compromise you plead guilty to Involuntary manslaughter? That's a poor deal, yeah?

 

[S.SaulGood]

You may choose to comply with a request in the public domain. Or, you may choose not to. What makes sense to you makes sense to you. Wear a mask for the rest of your life, if you like. Wear two. Or a dozen. If you're really worried, wear a M50 chemical-biological respirator and latex gloves - don't neglect to change the filters daily. Do what comforts you.

Not being an extremist, except in the case of my physical training/conditioning, which I do take to extreme levels, wearing 1 cloth mask is sufficient for me to feel comfortable around people. Because I feel that policies requesting visitors wear a face mask DURING A PANDEMIC are FAR more sensible than authoritarian and tyrannical in nature, does not mean that I believe I should be wearing a full Hazmat suit, nor do I believe that others should.

I'm surprised that you would even mention a leap like that, from the sanity of wearing a mask around people during a pandemic, as recommended by the CDC, and stretching that as far as wearing 12 masks and an M50 biological respirator for the rest of my life and maybe even eventually on the slab too; why not, right? lol.

Comparing the wearing of a simple 2 layer cloth mask to wearing 12 of them or an M50 is like comparing a Ruger .22 to a HARP gun.

The simple cloth mask not only protects me, but OTHERS as well. Self-respect and respecting others. I simply don't think of it in authoritarian terms.

What I DO know is that I come into contact with people on a regular basis. Close contact. I train people. I have not gotten C-19 and I believe that my responsibly vigilant wearing of my 2 ply cloth mask when interacting with people is the main reason why.

I know people who were mask deniers, and sure enough, a good portion of them became C-19 infected, AND infected family members and friends, some of whom either expired or became chronically ill because of it. I'm sure they wouldn't mind a little authoritative direction about masking up in their deaths if it brought them back to life, right?

Won't be me. I have no underlying conditions. I'm healthy as a duck, strong as a bull, but WTF do I need C-19 for? Because wearing a mask infringes my rights to be "free"? Yeah. Free to die, the ultimate freedom, if somebody with C-19 sneezes right in my face and I unwisely decided masking up was too authoritarian to partake of.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Compromise is fine in many situations but not all. If I accuse you of murder in the first degree and you declare your innocence (and you are), is the compromise you plead guilty to Involuntary manslaughter? That's a poor deal, yeah?

You know what the MAIN issue here really is? What supersedes ANY discourse on the law vs. policies? WHY the !AAs are REALLY there. WHY they push everyone's buttons.

Here it is. Plain and simple. Right from two auditors who were foolishly candid enough to admit it:

Sean-Paul Reyes:

Long Island provoker Sean-Paul Reyes, 30, said he "raked in $8,000 in his first month as an “auditor,” a GIG HE PICKED UP after the pandemic"

Those are HIS words. Not mine. It's not a crusade. It wasn't started as a crusade. Matter of fact, PRIOR to losing his job or quitting, there's no mention or record of his ever doing an audit. HE calls it, "a gig".

Anselmo Enrique (Auditing America) Morales-Torres:

Anselmo: This is my job
Cop: You get paid for doing this?
Anselmo: You think I'd be here (at the post office needlessly pestering people and impeding the flow of business) on a Tuesday? You think I'd be talking to people for FREE? (Chuckle/cackle).

Do you honestly think that !AAs would give a flying rat's *advertiser censored* about who's a tyrant and who's not? About which policies are trumped by law, if youtube monetization wasn't the main component to it?

 

[ga gamba]

It doesn't bother me people get paid. There are people who work for charities, NGOs, all kinds of activist groups, etc who are paid. Some of them very well. A bit more than 10% of the private-sector workforce is employed by a non-profit. Hell, politicians claiming to perform public service - 'I was called to serve the people' - are paid. Other than genuine unpaid volunteers, not many people are motivated by altruism exclusively. But plenty of well-paid employees of 501(c) organisations depend on unpaid labour to raise funds, some of which end up in the employees' pockets. I don't oppose such an arrangement because people are free to choose to use their time and labour as they like. If one wants to work for free to put money in another person's pocket, one may do so.

WHY they push everyone's buttons? Having viewed many of Sean's videos, I've seen not everyone's buttons are pushed. People have the ability to decide how they react. Several of the visits result in nothing because the employees choose not to (over)react. They go about performing their duties, they answer questions when asked, and everything functions as it ought to. If this happened in all visits, there wouldn't be much to see ... other than professionalism, which deserves to be recognised. Would a journalist then up the ante? Possibly. And s/he may end up crossing the line, breaching the law, and be arrested. That said, what I've seen in Sean's videos is that he when interacts in a public workplace that doesn't react to his presence, he conducts and completes his visit, leaves, and praises the employees.

Do you honestly think that !AAs would give a flying rat's *advertiser censored* about who's a tyrant and who's not? I try to avoid sweeping generalisations such as using the acts and statements of one person and deeming it representative of all others. What Morales-Torres says is for himself. His motivation is his alone. Others may share the same motivation and some may not. Such sweeping judgment is the same mistake made by fools shouting 'All cops are bastards'. Clearly, some cops are but the vast majority are not. I judge each person individually, based on his/her words and deeds. Unfortunately, many people choose to cite the bad apple(s) and claim them as representative of all others by making sweeping generalisations. It's a lazy claim and betrays the person's lack of thought. I suspect the reason for this is the claim maker is putting the argument before the facts.

 

[S.SaulGood]

It doesn't bother me people get paid.

I try to avoid a sweeping generalisations such as using the acts and statements of one person and deeming it representative of all others. What Morales-Torres says is for himself. His motivation is his alone. Others may share the same motivation and others may not. Such sweeping judgment is the same mistake made by fools shouting 'All cops are bastards'.

Getting paid doesn't bother me either. Unless the person being paid is HYPOCRITICAL about being paid, and TRIES to pass off their PRIMARY CONCERN and REASON for 1A auditing as a crusade for justice; a calling, instead of the REAL primary reason, which is being paid, as LIA and Anselmo stupidly admitted. Just like most auditors share a common hatred of police, I'm sure that most auditors share a common interest in "money first, crusade last". Most won't admit that, but Anselmo and LIA share a common trait, IMO. They both LOVE to hear themselves talk. When you love yourself to that morbidly unhealthy degree, you have a tendency to *advertiser censored* up and admit things that someone who maybe DOESN'T love themselves to that same degree might have a brain that kicks in before they stupidly reveal the shot. If they're on character as a "crusader", they should STAY in character. They should restrain from comments like, "When I $8000 my first month, I made this my gig", and "Do you think I'd be talking to people for FREE?"
But some get so full of themselves that they HAVE to brag. HAVE to break character. And I see this in almost every !AA video from EVERY auditor. The gross inconsistencies. The disrespect these "great crusaders" and "great educators for the common good" have for their MARKS/Targets.

They are NOT crusaders. They are INSTIGATORS. And if their intended quarry doesn't take the bait, they'll reel in the hook and re-bait it; see if THAT works. "Can't get them to bite? I know. I'll start filming license plates. If that doesn't work, I'll film the VINs. If that doesn't work, I'll put the camera 1 inch from their eyeballs and if they're eyeballs accidentally touch my camera, I'll call the police and have them charged with assault". They take things from level to ascending level to get that reaction = views, the main goal. NOT EDUCATION, not a crusade for rights, an unholy war for CLICKS = $$$$$.

I also have a problem with millionaires running GO FUND ME drives "for help with legal bills". Yes, millionaires.

You stated something about your willingness to aid and assist LIA as much as you could. Did you DONATE MONEY to his GOFundMe drives, or paypal account? If so, how do you feel doing so, now knowing that his youtube channels are generating almost $600,000 per year, not including the paypal donations and go fund me donations of 100K subscribers? Not to mention the merchandising of T-shirts and whatever else junk being peddled in the name of being a crusader? Do you feel "taken". Like a sucker? One of their many rubes? You should. I certainly would if I bought the *advertiser censored* the 1A troops are slinging.

My guess, based on what I know of monetizing youtube accounts PLUS donations, is that LIA is good for AT LEAST 1 mil per year as a very low end of the spectrum.

Do you make that much? Do you feel that you should be or should have been constantly solicited to make contributions to someone who does? Are you still willing to donate as much as you can to him, or do you feel your philanthropic natured might be better served by donating directly to VETERAN'S charity groups, Make a Wish; things like that, rather than already very sufficiently funded auditors?

 

[S.SaulGood]

Long Island Audit: Sean-Paul Reyes showed up in Long Beach, NY today to spin the Lawsuit Lotto wheel of misfortune and take a crack at the prize; you can't win Lawsuit Lotto if you don't play, right?


First he took a spin of the wheel of misfortune at City Hall, took one look at the books, and after discovering that the municipality isn't as flush with cash as one may think, if not taking into consideration Sandy's incredibly damaging effects and costly repairs of Long Beach, meandered into the police precinct for a spin there in; you can't win Lawsuit Lotto if you don't play, right?

I don't know if he got enough yet, we'll have to wait and see what his Lawsuit Lotto fishing expeditions with FOIA requests, typical innumerable, frivolous complaints, and meetings with city hall personnel yield in the way of ammo for his probable impending lawsuits in Long Beach.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Leading me to ask a very interesting question about the public, ergo auditors, owning all public buildings, the subject of which I'll start in it's own thread.

 

[ga gamba]

Unless the person being paid is HYPOCRITICAL about being paid, and TRIES to pass off their PRIMARY CONCERN and REASON for 1A auditing as a crusade for justice; a calling, instead of the REAL primary reason, which is being paid, as LIA and Anselmo stupidly admitted.

Hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. I fail to see how they are hypocritical. They don't demand others stop filming them. They don't demand others leave the facility. They don't demand others relinquish their rights. Having their priorities not in alignment with your idea of priority does not make them hypocrites.

They both LOVE to hear themselves talk.

And some people love to see their words in print.

I also have a problem with millionaires running GO FUND ME drives "for help with legal bills". Yes, millionaires.

Doesn't bother me. It's a voluntary act. You are not obliged to donate.

You stated something about your willingness to aid and assist LIA as much as you could. Did you DONATE MONEY to his GOFundMe drives, or paypal account? If so, how do you feel doing so, now knowing that his youtube channels are generating almost $600,000 per year, not including the paypal donations and go fund me donations of 100K subscribers? Not to mention the merchandising of T-shirts and whatever else junk being peddled in the name of being a crusader? Do you feel "taken". Like a sucker? One of their many rubes? You should. I certainly would if I bought the *advertiser censored* the 1A troops are slinging.

Scale doesn't bother me. My purchase or contribution is a one-to-one transaction, one between the person or business and me. That others purchase or contribute is not an aspect of my consideration. Likewise, when I purchase a film ticket, a band's album, or a book, the volume of sales to others and the profits derived is not something I consider.

Do you make that much? Do you feel that you should be or should have been constantly solicited to make contributions to someone who does? Are you still willing to donate as much as you can to him, or do you feel your philanthropic natured might be better served by donating directly to VETERAN'S charity groups, Make a Wish; things like that, rather than already very sufficiently funded auditors?

Someone asking for a donation in a video I choose to view doesn't bother me. Someone on the pavement asking me to do so annoys me, but they have the right to do so and I tolerate the act. More aggressive solicitation where a person tries to impede my movement - charity mugging, aka chugging - annoys me more and I would support restrictions on that behaviour so that this aspect of solicitation is curbed. When I encounter chuggers who persist and walk alongside me to continue to voice their appeals I shift my walk direction so they collide into a tree, fire hydrant, bike rack, or other immovable object.

My donations go to a variety of causes. Whether a person donates to one or many, or even not at all, is not a concern of mine.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform. I fail to see how they are hypocritical. They don't demand others stop filming them. They don't demand others leave the facility. They don't demand others relinquish their rights. Having their priorities not in alignment with your idea of priority does not make them hypocrites.


And some people love to see their words in print.



Doesn't bother me. It's a voluntary act. You are not obliged to donate.



Scale doesn't bother me. My purchase or contribution is a one-to-one transaction, one between the person or business and me. That others purchase or contribute is not an aspect of my consideration. Likewise, when I purchase a film ticket, a band's album, or a book, the volume of sales to others and the profits derived is not something I consider.



Someone asking for a donation in a video I choose to view doesn't bother me. Someone on the pavement asking me to do so annoys me, but they have the right to do so and I tolerate the act. More aggressive solicitation where a person tries to impede my movement - charity mugging, aka chugging - annoys me more and I would support restrictions on that behaviour so that this aspect of solicitation is curbed. When I encounter chuggers who persist and walk alongside me to continue to voice their appeals I shift my walk direction so they collide into a tree, fire hydrant, bike rack, or other immovable object.

My donations go to a variety of causes. Whether a person donates to one or many, or even not at all, is not a concern of mine.

I tolerate begging IF SOMEBODY ACTUALLY APPEARS TO have to resort to humbling and EMBARRASSING themselves like that to survive or for a friend or loved one's well being. Food, medicine, transportation home; i.e. a necessity that doing without would be detrimental to their well being, or subject them to peril.
I'm lucky in that I need not worry about that for myself so when I see someone that appears to me to be GENUINELY put upon, I ask if they're OK.
If someone approaches me and tells me they're hungry, I'll quickly eye the block for food, a cart, Halal, burgers, a McDonalds, a cafe, ANYTHING, there's always SOME place to buy food within range. I'll tell that person, "C'mon. There's a deli. Let's cross the street and I'll get you a sub and a soda". If they start hemming and hawing about just giving them the money instead, I'll bid them bon voyage before they even finish the sentence.
If a well dressed, semi-literate person approached me, told me they were a 1A auditor and begged for money so they can sue the city hall across the street, before they finished the sentence, I would similarly wish them luck and bid them bon voyage.

 

[S.SaulGood]

Someone asking for a donation in a video I choose to view doesn't bother me.

I understand. You enjoyed the show, and although the performance has absolutely no effect, positive or negative upon your life, and it hasn't made you feel anymore safe and secure than you did before you watched the show, you were entertained so you had no qualms about feeding the dancing bear or paying for gas for the little car the clowns file out of in Ring #3.

Am I right? Or do you derive some deep, personal satisfaction and a feeling of unbridled patriotism, all warm and doughy inside from watching these 1st amendment heroes make the world a safer place for you to exist in? Or do all the audits in the world really have every little to do with how you perceive your safety and well being, or your station in life? Are you the better man for their efforts? Feel better? Uplifted? If not, do you at least think differently about every step you take, every move you make, like when you cross a street, think,"I have a 1A right to do this, the auditors made it possible"? "I have a right to turn the doorknob to the right instead of the left, the auditors made it possible"? And so forth, thanks be to God for 1AAs, where in the world would be be without them?

Or do YOUR contributions to God, nation, upholding the Constitution, selflessly having put YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE FOR OTHERS; a JEDI, as a military VETERAN FAR transcend ANY of these 1A misery monetizing self-server's efforts?

 

[S.SaulGood]

And some people love to see their words in print.

I imagine some might, more than others, but it's an internet forum so words it is.

 

[Swig]

Let's imagine a parallel universe where there are fifty 1st amendment auditors for every one who is not.

One of the latter has some errands to do, the first being a stop at their local post office, just a few blocks away, to mail some important papers as well as a parcel containing a birthday gift for their mom.

While still a few blocks away, they see throngs of people with cameras lining the sidewalk, on both sides of the street, and not a place to park anywhere in sight. There also appears to be a line of cameramen waiting to get into the post office that extends for as far as the eye can see.

Seeing this, they do a 180 and head for another post office, a little further out of the way. But as they approach that one, the same thing. It looks like New Year's Eve in NYC waiting for the ball to drop.

So they decide, "post office can wait, I'll go pay this ticket and do the post office later, something is obviously going on now".
They go to their city hall to pay their ticket and the line is around the building. They have to park 15 blocks away because the lot is jammed, they're even parked on the grass, on dirt, anywhere they can. During the walk to pay the ticket they pass a cameraman every step of the way, stationed on the sidewalk. Some say "hello". Some say, "What do you love about the first amendment", Some, sizing you up as a 1st amendment torment rube, go right for the throat, "Can you recite the first amendment, word for word?", and if you can't, they'll tell you "You HATE the 1st amendment. You're a traitor. You hate America. We're going to tar and feather you, Sir".

Some, like SGV News 1st and KC Camera Boy, wont's even dally about with any of that. They're just go for the kill for the reaction, because THAT'S what they're all about, and that has as little to do with rights as this bozo does, and more with being a pain in the *advertiser censored* for profit, and they'll just say, "*advertiser censored* you and your wife is a *advertiser censored*; we all *advertiser censored* her", as SGV does at Church on his Sunday Church parishioner crucifixion soirees.

So you survive the gauntlet of cameramen lining the sidewalk, without tripping over them or being pepper sprayed, and you're where you can SEE the front of the building. Not the doorway, because there's thousands milling around the building, and you decide to try another day.

What these people have done is DISRUPT the ability of that NON -auditor to use any of the facilities for their INTENDED PURPOSE. To provide service for patrons WITH BUSINESS, OTHER than needlessly creating a DISTURBANCE, which in this case is the disturbance and impeding of the facilities being used BY THE PUBLIC for their intended purpose.

If you had a decent point you wouldn't need to invent absurd hypothetical scenarios to try to make sense...

 

[Swig]

Just in case my point was lost in the text, while the public has a first amendment right to take pictures in public, and there is no expectation of privacy in public, at the same time, the public has every expectation to be able to access public services UNIMPEDED from those exercising their rights.

The public has every expectation to NOT be harassed, ridiculed, badgered, or verbally assaulted; and that includes unsolicited, insulting lectures on the first amendment.

The public has every right to be able to use these facilities expeditiously, without the delays caused by auditors "testing" the 1st amendment causing them delays of service and inconvenience.

THIS is why there are policies. To prevent disruption of the normal flow of service.

Lol the public has every expectation to not be lectured on the first amendment? So they should be jailed for doing so? What about religious people spreading their word to people? Should they be jailed too? There's your Nazi Germany. The auditors aren't causing delays, the employees, security, and cops are causing delays by not knowing the rules and being allergic to a camera. Its really not that complicated.

 

[Swig]

So journal

Reminds me of the Jerky Boys skit with the phone call to a lawyer from a guy that wants to sue anybody and everybody, including the lawyer he called for not giving him the answers he was expecting.

How many lawsuits now served and pending does he have concurrently in progress for "impeding a journalist's rights".

Here's a tip for auditors who consider themselves journalists. A journalist observes and reports a matter of interest or that may be of interest. An event. When the main focus, the main actor, the one creating that event or matter IS the journalist, and there would be nothing of interest to report OTHER than the actions of that "journalist", then they are NOT a journalist. They ARE the actors.
[/QUOTE

So journalists that confront and interview public officials, celebrities, politicians or anyone else gaining attention from the public and worthy of doing a story on, aren't practicing journalism? Its almost like you don't what ambush journalism or citizen journalism is...

 

[S.SaulGood]

Lol the public has every expectation to not be lectured on the first amendment? So they should be jailed for doing so? What about religious people spreading their word to people? Should they be jailed too? There's your Nazi Germany. The auditors aren't causing delays, the employees, security, and cops are causing delays by not knowing the rules and being allergic to a camera. Its really not that complicated.

How about harassed, badgered, threatened, cursed out... ever watch an SGV video when they show up at churches, block the driveway by walking back and forth in front of cars, filming plates and VIN numbers, which is an intimidation tactic, and if an occupant of the car asks why they're doing that they're told that their "mother sucks *advertiser censored* in Hell"?

Would you like your 75 years old father who showed up to worship, and never hurt a fly to be needlessly subjected to that for simply asking why they're filming his VIN, a thing you don't typically see, unless someone wants to give you the impression of IDing you for whatever reason, possibly a nefarious one?

And it's Nazi Germany to EXPECT people to be ciivil to one another, ESPECIALLY the elderly? Who is making a ridiculous comparison now?

 

[S.SaulGood]

Lol the public has every expectation to not be lectured on the first amendment? So they should be jailed for doing so? What about religious people spreading their word to people? Should they be jailed too? There's your Nazi Germany. The auditors aren't causing delays, the employees, security, and cops are causing delays by not knowing the rules and being allergic to a camera. Its really not that complicated.

"Nazi Germany", he says!! rofl. PLEASE... get a grip. You can borrow my Captains of Crush #4 if you'd like. If you can close that with either hand, then we'll compare cops to the Gestapo, a ridiculously insane leap you're trying to negotiate.

In the meantime, produce footage of a group of people surrounding the SS and taunting them, and the SS just stands there and TAKES THE ABUSE. "You're a pig. You're my slave, my servant. Take off that SS insignia and put down that Luger and I'll mop the street wall of you". Go ahead. Nazi Germany, right. Produce the footage. Let's see buckets of water thrown at the SS and they do nothing in any pre 1946 footage you can find. There is no shortage of footage, so don't let that stop you.

Seriously, what lunacy. "Nazi Germany". Did you LIVE through Nazi Germany? Know anybody who did? Show them one of Baby Huey's Lawsuit Lotto videos and ask them how it equates to survival in a concentration camp.

 

[Swig]

"Nazi Germany", he says!! rofl. PLEASE... get a grip. You can borrow my Captains of Crush #4 if you'd like. If you can close that with either hand, then we'll compare cops to the Gestapo, a ridiculously insane leap you're trying to negotiate.

In the meantime, produce footage of a group of people surrounding the SS and taunting them, and the SS just stands there and TAKES THE ABUSE. "You're a pig. You're my slave, my servant. Take off that SS insignia and put down that Luger and I'll mop the street wall of you". Go ahead. Nazi Germany, right. Produce the footage. Let's see buckets of water thrown at the SS and they do nothing in any pre 1946 footage you can find. There is no shortage of footage, so don't let that stop you.

Seriously, what lunacy. "Nazi Germany". Did you LIVE through Nazi Germany? Know anybody who did? Show them one of Baby Huey's Lawsuit Lotto videos and ask them how it equates to survival in a concentration camp.

They couldn't because the had their firearms stripped away and were marched into camps. Some people don't forget history and take steps to make sure it doesn't repeat

 

[Swig]

How about harassed, badgered, threatened, cursed out... ever watch an SGV video when they show up at churches, block the driveway by walking back and forth in front of cars, filming plates and VIN numbers, which is an intimidation tactic, and if an occupant of the car asks why they're doing that they're told that their "mother sucks *advertiser censored* in Hell"?

Would you like your 75 years old father who showed up to worship, and never hurt a fly to be needlessly subjected to that for simply asking why they're filming his VIN, a thing you don't typically see, unless someone wants to give you the impression of IDing you for whatever reason, possibly a nefarious one?

And it's Nazi Germany to EXPECT people to be ciivil to one another, ESPECIALLY the elderly? Who is making a ridiculous comparison now?

Harassment, threats, and impeding are crimes. Plates and VINs are publicly viewable and can be covered if wanting to. Seems like you have a big problem with free speech and like to group it together threats. You're probably one of those "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" types