Furry Potato Shooting – Guard Charge Evaluation Sheet

[observer]

I agree that there is much to consider. I am going to back up a step or two and focus on this quote

the discussion about whether 626.8 applies.

.
It is my opinion that many of the reasons you brought forth is the exact reason while 626.8 applies and why it needs to be addressed in a court of law.

I have lots of the same issues that you have raised such as lawful activity and expressive activity. However, those are questions and issues that needed to be answered in an appellate process. I am more bothered by the original text and intent of the law prior to attempting to correct the flaw in CENTER FOR BIO ETHICAL REFORM INC v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT.

The language of the "Any person who comes into any school building or upon any school ground, or street, sidewalk, or public way adjacent thereto" is troublesome as the courts have long held that sidewalks are traditional public forums, which offers some of the greatest protections to First Amendment activities. This language appears to have existed in the original bill and has survived both case law and legislative review.

The "lawful business" clause could again raise legal issues as harassment and loitering statutes could come into play. We know after the fact that the security guard and school allegedly knew that Furry was recording placement of cameras, locations of windows and doors, which allegedly caused security guard and school to become concerned for the safety of staff and students. This could rise to the legitimate question of lawful activity, which would need to be decided.

I was troubled very early as to the claims that the security guard and school knew so much of the activities of Furry. I still question the validity of many of the claims they made as a result of this alleged knowledge.

A final note regarding your comment of the differing versions of bills as it went through the process and what actually became law. It is my understanding from civics class, which admittedly was many years ago, that this is not unusual. Many times last minute spending/funding bills are inserted into bills and are passed with almost no comment or acknowledgement that this was done.

 

[observer]

http://mycharterlaw.com/pdf/Managing-Disruptive-Parents-100713-JAR.PDF

I do not say a date on this, are you aware of when it was published? I ask because as I read through the presentation, I saw references to law that I do not recall previously reading. For example the 7 and 14 day periods.

 

[worldtour]

I like how Furry uses silence to frustrate others that try to amp up a encounter. While it is not always a 100% successful outcome, her videos do tend to bring more public knowledge to those that have little awareness of what our Contitutional rights are.

First ( HE ) is never silent, always talking *advertiser censored* looking for confrontations , 2nd if HE can get rid of that Y chromosome I will gladly change my stance & apologize to all, its Amazing how a simple comment you can tell if they are a donkey or elephant, peace

 

[PillarOfSociety]

Despite what some people think, I myself had looked that incident over. Watched the video and even seen her wound. First, let me point out that the guy did warn her multiple time and despite his warnings she kept on antagonizing the guard. Secondly, if you would look at where he aimed the gun, you can see that it was aimed down towards the sidewalk. When he discharged his firearm, the bullet hit the sidewalk and ricocheted hitting her in the shin. After viewing the footage and seeing the whole story for myself, then finding out that another synagogue was attacked before that day, I said to myself that she was really lucky that was a warning shot and not a kill shot.

You don't fire warning shots.

First ( HE ) is never silent, always talking *advertiser censored* looking for confrontations , 2nd if HE can get rid of that Y chromosome I will gladly change my stance & apologize to all, its Amazing how a simple comment you can tell if they are a donkey or elephant, peace

Fact you are fixating on her gender, shows your mental energy is being divested elsewhere not to this discussion.

I've seen other cases where being silent ends in total fail. Remember James Freeman at Fort Huachuca? He was silent there and then arrested and charged, and he wasn't even on property, he was on public property. Being 100% silent makes people do dumb crap.

As though sodium pentothal is as common in food and beverage as iodide in salt. Does anyone seriously believe a determined terrorist will openly reveal his plans when confronted when he can convincingly make up a story?

The whole intent of getting police and security to hassle photographers is to extract an ID, which government agencies then use to launch a threat assessment. Where it goes horribly wrong: civilians and some law enforcement assume attack in process instead of possible attack down the road.

 

[PillarOfSociety]

When this community started it was to hold POLICE ACCOUNTABLE, not churches, postal workers, Hospitals etc, these people are making it a circus, Now 90% of Auditors just want confrontations, silent treatment acting fool, hoping to get pd, grown men baiting, baiting,baiting & harrassment of city, county workers trying to get a check & CONSTANTLY asking for money is an embarrassment for all, and to flip it and say you're standing up for my rights, LOL please police need to be accountable, stick to that

Because DHS propaganda has convinced 90+% (its my guesstimate, so don't ask for a poll) of US citizens photography=terror. That and there are many long standing myths like HIPPA applying to car wrecks out in public. Reasonable conversations aren't going to change a populace that is inherently arrogant viewing anyone outside of authority as a mental invalid.

The only effective way to illicit behavioral modification or rather education is to openly challenge the scenario at hand. Court rulings, settlements and policy changes are sometimes the only way change long standing dogma. When anyone of you thank God for something, you aren't thanking God. You are thanking those who made sacrifices before you, sacrifices you personally do not have to make.

Now, are some auditors select body parts? ABSOLUTELY! Do some cross the line, or go to far? OF COURSE! That I do not dispute. But at the same time when you have security going hands on unprovoked just because they spot an Iphone... I think being a porcupine is warranted. It takes an arse to reason with an arse. Or a despot like Saddam Hussein to keep jackals like ISIS in line.

 

[PillarOfSociety]

Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. For decades, the courts in this country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that free speech is not necessarily free. In the more recent rulings throughout the U.S. District Courts, justices have acknowledged the importance of free speech and have, for the most part, upheld that basic Constitutional right. The take-away is that it has been repeatedly said that free speech is subject to "reasonable time, place, and manner" restrictions. This is the issue with Furry Potato. The question becomes "was the time (school in sesssion), place (outside an active school with children present) and manner (physical appearance causing alarm) REASONABLE? In the context of things, and considering the totality of the circumstances, I would submit that this situation was not befitting the concept of a "reasonable time, place, and manner".

All auditors need to realize that, despite it not being illegal, their activity, to most, does appear to be somewhat suspicious. One has to take that into account and be aware that reactions can, and often will, be ratcheted up a bit. Is reaction to a "suspicious person" taken too far? Yes, quite often it is, and it is used by authorities to both force cessation of the activity and to punish it. With that potential outcome in mind, it would behoove auditors to ease off under those circumstances, and achieve change through other avenues and approaches (i.e., information and training).

As the article says, just because you're on a public sidewalk, it doesn't mean you are legally allowed to be there. That being said, just because you're not required to identify yourself, doesn't mean you shouldn't to diffuse a situation and dash those "suspicions", potentially avoiding an unnecessary arrest (or worse).

This is what you want humanity to be like? Where it gets to a point a MAGA hat is considered inciting violence given the political climate? Banning books because Mien Kamp may give someone ideas?

If you can't pull a fire alarm, you need some means to get people to start evacuating a burning building. Shouting fire is one of them.

As of right now "reasonable" seems to be determined by what violent jihadists set forth. Where any man hating western freedom can kill scores of people so his his wishes can be fulfilled where behavior that previously would go unnoticed now lands someone in jail.

 

[Nukedaddy]

Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. For decades, the courts in this country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that free speech is not necessarily free. In the more recent rulings throughout the U.S. District Courts, justices have acknowledged the importance of free speech and have, for the most part, upheld that basic Constitutional right. The take-away is that it has been repeatedly said that free speech is subject to "reasonable time, place, and manner" restrictions. This is the issue with Furry Potato. The question becomes "was the time (school in sesssion), place (outside an active school with children present) and manner (physical appearance causing alarm) REASONABLE? In the context of things, and considering the totality of the circumstances, I would submit that this situation was not befitting the concept of a "reasonable time, place, and manner".

All auditors need to realize that, despite it not being illegal, their activity, to most, does appear to be somewhat suspicious. One has to take that into account and be aware that reactions can, and often will, be ratcheted up a bit. Is reaction to a "suspicious person" taken too far? Yes, quite often it is, and it is used by authorities to both force cessation of the activity and to punish it. With that potential outcome in mind, it would behoove auditors to ease off under those circumstances, and achieve change through other avenues and approaches (i.e., information and training).

As the article says, just because you're on a public sidewalk, it doesn't mean you are legally allowed to be there. That being said, just because you're not required to identify yourself, doesn't mean you shouldn't to diffuse a situation and dash those "suspicions", potentially avoiding an unnecessary arrest (or worse).

But if the time, place and manner was not reasonable to be there and be silent because it was a school and children were present, then how was it reasonable to fire a gun at all? Warning or otherwise?

 

[Dr. Dave Debunker]

It's too bad that bullet didn't ricochet a bit higher and hit Fuzzy Tomato in his junk!

 

[S.SaulGood]

It's too bad that bullet didn't ricochet a bit higher and hit Fuzzy Tomato in his junk!

Based on Furry's claim of indestructability, as evidenced by many statements in Furry's videos where he's implying superhuman strength, fighting ability, and invulnerability, I'm surprised that the bullet even phased Furry. I would think it should have hit Furry, flattened and fragmented, then bounced right off Furry's impenetrable hide, Furry giggling in his typical quasi-demented manner as it did.

 

[Iceman1965]

I think you are making this way too complicated. Also, I'm not adamant about any "obligation" of the DAs. I think the DA in NNP's case would be wise to drop the case, because there is no crime.
In FP's situation, I simply think the security guard is guilty of an illegal or reckless discharge of his weapon (which I believe to be by accident. He clearly looked surprised when it went off).

The constitutionality of being on a sidewalk in front of a school when filming and being asked to leave is an interesting issue. However, Furry is not being charged with anything. I didn't know that security guards were allowed to shoot people who trespass in front of schools, even if accidentally. But Furry wasn't trespassing nor guilty of that CA statute. Hint: Read the definition of "lawful business." That statute was mainly meant to control irate parents, but I digress.

OK, you have a point, but, now put a person there, that what's to shoot up the school,or to kill people inside, what should the security guard do then ?

 

[ByTheBook]

'As the article says, just because you're on a public sidewalk, it doesn't mean you are legally allowed to be there. That being said, just because you're not required to identify yourself, doesn't mean you shouldn't to diffuse a situation and dash those "suspicions", potentially avoiding an unnecessary arrest (or worse).'

This last paragraph does take away your personal rights. A member of the public (the security guard) has no authority to move you on from a public place, and your right to privacy by not volunteering your name, if not committing an offence. You are right about not escalating the situation, but you cannot just be passive because the other person is demanding something that they know they should not ask.

Standing one's ground just because you can is not an argument you should make when someone is holding a gun & you've provoked someone with your irresistible charm! My suggestion would be look for the exit door (stage left preferably) ASAP, & make sure you thank the person holding the weapon.