one of my favorite dark jokes "since people started carrying cameras in their pockets; aliens stopped visiting, Bigfoot disappeared, and the cops started killing innocent people"

Let's not forget that the Black Panthers were the first ones to conduct a 2nd amendment audit in California. The police showed up, and verify that every black panther member had permits for their guns. This act frightened the then governor, Ronald Reagan, so badly that he had the NRA write the most restrictive gun-control law in California history.

12:15 Interesting that he left out the part where the cops were talking about how 5 years ago he would have been on the ground, while they walked away. They were recording talking about it on their own body cams.

I don't like watching audit videos but I do enjoy the channel Audit the Audit, who breaks down possible arguments or laws of the interaction, giving the officers and the auditor a grade at the end for their conduct and approach to the interaction.

It's amazing how police misconduct magically started when video camera started being everywhere.

Honorable mention to afroman, being sued for filming police in his own home ✌

One of my favorites is the Honor your oath guy, Jeff. he's the most non confrontational guy you could imagine. Just stands around holding a sign and inevitably somebody calls the cops on him. How the cops react is about a fifty-fifty split. Sometimes they tell him to carry-on and other times they try to tell him to move on...

the guy literally standing in front of the bank saying "God willing, peace be with you 🤣

In summary: every social and political movement will have grifters. First amendment auditors are no exception.

I generally support auditors who take the time to actually understand the law and who at least act as though they genuinely care about police accountability.

This is such a touchy subject. I love the idea of a first amendment audit I hate the execution online that is driven to get views. BTW, some are excellent and respectful. Like in life, not all are bad

12:26 “shouts”??? lol He was so calm and polite in that video while the cop was an absolute bully for no reason.

"The public is well aware of their Constitutional rights to film in public." Until it gets to court, then the cops not knowing it is a basis for a Qualified Immunity defense.

I had to train security on this. Ignore the camera. Only address the bad behavior (loitering, harassing staff, disrupting operations, etc). They want to make it about the recording, but a person can’t go anywhere or do anything just because they’ve got a camera in hand that they couldn’t otherwise

shining camera lights in cops faces is bs. they regularly shine mega ultra bright flash lights in everyones faces, but then if anyone shines any light at them, they say they got disoriented and arrest you for battery. So knowing that crooked habit, it seems that "the camera light disoriented me" seems like in the same category of bs.

I can understand making sure government officials are upholding their oath. But people that go up to cops to verbally Assault them while doing theirs duty is very immature and annoying.

I enjoy Audit the Audit. He holds the auditors and police or whoever accountable for their actions. And grades them on the interaction.

I started watching first amendment audit stuff a long time ago and after a while I realized how varied it was. Some people know every applicable law off the top of their head and some people who don't know laws that everyone should know. Ex - one guy was threatened with arrest for filming in the front of a post office even after showing the sign on the wall where it stated it was illegal to prevent filming in that area.(edit - the post office workers were fine with recording someone else called) Ex 2 one guy thought he could drive without a license plate or registration (sovereign citizen) and that by filming he would be let go Audit the Audit is good at checking the legal side of this stuff and has multiple videos on bad "auditors" but doesn't ignore when officer behavior.

Reyes is actually calm and polite. He is not abusive like many auditors. Danbury police were way out of line in their use of force and commentary afterward.

I think my main problem with the audit stuff is that typically people come looking for trouble and will film into offices and random people rather than actually trying to have a productive conversation.

I'm an IT auditor for a living, and I had a tiny panic when I saw the video pop up in my feed before I realised we're talking a different type of auditor 😅

Would love to see you do a video on Wizards of the Coast sending the Pinkertons to a man's house after he was accidently sent an unreleased Magic The Gathering set.

A Canadian guy tried doing this with Canadian cops but quoting American laws and, um. The laws aren’t the same here. Some people watch too much KZfaq and go to jail for that.

A camera can't make you look good or bad,it's un unobjective witness. As far as "antagonizing police goes,if they cannot handle a person with a camera how well will they respond to a real emergency? The larger point is when the government restricts the citizens right to record public officials while performing their duties it restricts the publics ability to witness for themselves how our public servants are behaving and treating the citizens. If they take away your right to observe and film,what rights will they go after next? Trust me power doesn't want transparency, it just wants more power. This is why theese protections were put into the constitution to begin with.

This is definitely something that can be done ethically. The issue is that the money is in the unethical confrontational style. Both to get you viral videos and to produce a police response severe enough to warrant a large payout in court. It's a corrupting incentive structure. The issue is that the government can violate your rights, but if they don't hurt you in the process you aren't getting much in a lawsuit.

Theres also a huge divide within the auditing community. I find that the auditors that peacefully assert their rights usually get better results and interactions and get the message out better those who go in hot. I know I certainly tend to stop listening to someone who screaming profanities at me. Even as ATA has said, "There's a time, place and manner in which to do these things"

Let's make this simple. If you are standing in a publicly accessable space (public sidewalk, street, ect.) you are free to film anything in plain view (police, buildings ect). When you are on private property or in a building, it's dfferent but the general rule is there is no expectation of privacy in public. I'm a Deputy Sheriff and when somebody films me, I just wave and go about my business (my camera is on too).

Reyes is actually one of the least confrontational auditors. The point was that they didn't have a right to restrict recording in there, and he absolutely didn't shout out why do you have to be a tyrant, he said it calmly because the cop was mocking him. I don't even agree with a ton of auditing, but Reyes from Long Island is the Gold Standard for what an Auditor should do.

Audit the audit is a channel I like for this sort of thing. It takes an educational approach to everything which I appreciate

Love to watch "Audit the Audit". He comments on the legal situations in videos and does a great job of it.

I am glad they are here standing up for our rights. I personally can't afford to be arrested and go to court, so if my rights are infriged upon, i will comply like most citizens, so cops try to get away with to much a lot. This makes them rhink twice before abusing their power.

Secerity guard should have at least got a charge of neglect discharge of a fire arm. You can’t shoot your wepon as a threat

I remember going up in the 60's - 70's and people driving around with police scanners and Super 8 video cameras doing exactly this so they could sell it to local news

rights need to be exercised to maintain their relevance and effectiveness. In other words, if we don’t use our rights, we risk losing them.

If cops just comply with the law, they have nothing to worry about.

Great video and ultimately the correct conclusion. There's a massive difference between recording yourself yelling racist slurs at a cop for 10 minutes and standing outside city hall with a sign that says 'God bless the homeless vets'

If im out with other officers on an arrest and i see someone recording, i will ask the arrestee/detainee if they know the person recording and if they are ok with it. Those are usually the only times i will ASK someone to stop recording. The only othe time was when a woman was having a mental health crisis where she took her clothes off and was walking around naked. We had to detain her until EMS got there to get her to the hospital (and they were taking FOREVER). We had to handcuff her and i ended up putting my raincoat over her to cover her up. I asked a woman to stop recording for the patient's privacy ask she was clearly having a mental health crisis. My department will periodically remind us to be aware of 1st Ammendment Auditors.

Purposely harassing the cops is messed up. However, when the cops are bullying people that’s wrong as well.

Would be really interested in you breaking down the charge of "Resisting Arrest"

4:10 he was arrested 4 times, and all charges were dropped is kinda proof of the effectiveness of filming cops.

Auditors are essential to ensure that criminal and corrupt police activities are kept in check. As a law enforcer, it is your duty to adhere to and uphold the law, especially when wearing the badge.

I'm not from US, in my country we don't have the 1's amendment. Here you can be arrested for speech. So you guys should absolutely fight for you rights and for police accountability, before your country become like mine.

This reminds me of lower stakes instance years and years ago where a cop pulled over a woman right in front of our house while we were already outside and tried to tell us we were doing something illegal by witnessing his harassment of this woman. She was a neighbor so we were already familiar with her bright pink “save the tatas” breast cancer car and stayed out there sitting in the driveway while he desperately tried to find a reason to detain her for having a bright pink “save the tatas” breast cancer car without having three additional witnesses. I think at one point one of us started filming and he very quickly wrapped up and “let her go with a warning” (for what I don’t really know). She told us after that that particular cop pulled her over before because of the nature of her car but it was sponsored and she had a permit or something. Also she was a breast cancer survivor so it was something she wasn’t going to just give up on since it was totally above board and deeply personal to her.

What’s scary is here In Phoenix they were really pushing hard a law where you could not film police officers AT ALL, and if you did you would have to be 15 feet away or more. But knowing how officers are, they would just walk towards you and cuff you for recording. The law almost went into effect and then it just never did.

Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right-and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties

I want an "Audit the Auditor" situation.

I'm stunned that when you referenced the Long Island Audit video at the Danbury, CT library, you chose to highlight the auditor calling one of the cops a tyrant, and not the veteran cop caught saying, "20 years ago that m***f*** would be dead."

Some context for the Furry Potato shooting: she was filming students being dropped off for class before she attempted to walk into the synagogue, tried to film through windows of classrooms, and attempted to enter the synagogue several times despite being told to leave by the security guard. Also, the Tree Of Life synagogue shooting had taken place three months before, which was why Etz Jacob had an armed security guard in the first place and why he was a bit on edge. She didn't deserve what happened, but her behavior was quite insensitive.

"Cast themselves as patriotic." They are patriotic.

I work for a county Health and Human Services Department and we had a First Amendment Auditor try to enter places where people were receiving therapy and children were receiving birth to 3 services. Needless to say the auditor was a complete jerk and had no understanding of how we couldnt allow him to record in private areas due to HIPAA. It was horrible for the people who attempt to help others and scared a lot of people.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand why the synagogue would be very nervous with someone hanging around for no apparent reason. Recent events gives them a very good reason to act to protect their property and lives. Why the heck was he bothering someone behind a locked door in a religious compound anyway?

As an American citizen and a veteran, I am all for public recording by AUDITORS and COP WATCHERS.

A security guard firing a weapon as a warning and the ricochet hitting an auditor outside of a property's boundaries seems like a cause for a Neglect of a Firearm charge to be issued. Security Guards don't have Qualified Immunity.

I think my favorite incident I've ever seen with cameras-vs-cops was actually a TV news broadcast. Washington DC at Union Station one of the major news networks was interviewing management about the rules on taking pictures/videos at the train station or of trains, and while the official was explaining that its legal as long as the people are not interfering and otherwise allowed to be in the space...a security person puts their hand up in front of the camera and starts telling them how its illegal to record and refusing to listen to the fact they were media, with a media pass, doing an interview with the station management, about the legality of recording. I think the story is old enough its not anywhere I've found copies of video but it was extremely amusing.

Ever wonder what happens to the "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you" school kids when they grow up?

I got arrested for holding cameras at cops many times over the years.

I knew a guy who said "But the IDF says it hasn't done anything wrong" I replied "Sure, and I'll Believe that the same way I believe with the police said about Rodney King."

PLEASE do one on sovereign citizens!!!!!

I love the "I'm a lawyer" under the find a lawyer button, I was really worried that guy might not actually be a lawyer

Auditing / protesting and Self-Interest / Promotion are NOT mutually exclusive. Their motivations can be multi-faceted; that doesn't erase or excuse the rights violations undertaken by public officials against them.

Thank you, a lawful take on the subject. The root of the problem is outdated police training and not enough civil rights attorneys.

Since I don't live in the USA the Amendment doesn't apply to what people do here. But I have to say I am actually kind of proud of my city's police department and how they react to recording. There was a video that went viral shortly after George Floyd was murdered from my city where the police appear to be using force to arrest a woman screaming her head off while the person record is asking them the police why they are being so rough. The officer asked the person recording to step back for safety reasons and even says; I will explain what's happening but first we need to get her in the car. They get her in the car, and then the officer comes right over and calmly explained that the woman had an outstanding warrant and attempted to flee the police, when restrained she became violent, so for the safety of the officers and her they placed her on the ground to cuff her. The officer even went on to explain that yes it is a rough way to handle someone but in cases where the person under arrest fights the police it is better to get the person to the ground and risk some cuts and bruises then it is to risk broken arms or other more serious injuries, and then asked the person filming if they were alright since it is a traumatic thing to witness and provided the person filming with their card (officers here have to carry business cards with all their information and their supervisors information on it so if we ask for the officer's information they can just hand us the card and there is no fumbling to write down a badge number and name) should they have anymore questions or concerns. The video that went viral was actually highly commended by the City and Police with the Police Chief commenting on it that "she was very proud of the officer's actions in the video, and how he followed the training for dealing with public reaction and recording to the letter keeping everyone safe and informed."

I have been on the receiving end of an auditor and it was weird. Some background: I'm a sheriff's deputy for a large metro department in Texas. My department constantly lectures us on 1A auditors reminding us they have the right to film us. State law allows for filming with a distance restriction (I think 25 ft if unarmed and 50 ft if armed). This would surprised no one here but my department is not a fan of 1A auditors and quite a few were gleeful when one local auditor got arrested for possession of child porn. My encounter occurred near the end of my shift one night. I went to my station to do some paperwork and the auditor came up to me and pointed out one of my coworkers had parked a patrol car in a handicap. Bad look especially considering the parking lot was fairly empty and the station was closed to the public at the time. I called my sergeant who found the deputy and had him move his car. For the most part the sergeant and I were the only people she directly encountered. The deputy with the parked car left without saying a word and a deputy constable told her to leave via PA but didn't linger. The whole thing seemed surreal in the "can't believe this is happening to me" way. In the end the auditor actually thanked me for my professionalism and left. Even posted it to KZfaq.

its about not loosing your rights, not all but there are a lot of police that dont even know the constitution they took an oath to uphold. if you dont exercise your rights you will eventually loose them

I’d love for you to do a follow up to this that better discusses the difference between traditional public forums and limited public forums and non public forums. Those differences are usually where the line is drawn regarding where you can record.

Good video.. I do disagree with your ending question. Auditor can simultaneously want to uphold and constitution and enjoy the money they make doing that. Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

The city of St. George in St. Louis county(MO) was long known as a community that made most of their revenue from speed traps. Their cops also had a reputation for intimidation, disrespect and abuse. Backnin the 90's one of their cops had targeted a young resident and pull him over any time they saw him. The kid set up a vhs camera in his car and caught the cop on camera threatening to charge the kid with anything liked. The video was released to local news and the fall out contributed to the disolution of St. George's PD and the city contracting with St. Louis county for law enforcement.

What does it say about society that the music industry being litigous is the main legal deterrent used by police. 😅

God Bless The Homeless Vets This guy is perfect and highlights law enforcment violations and violating his rights. Even if they can sometimes be tools they are needed.

So glad you’re waging into this. I’m all for public auditors, but so many use it as a loophole to instigate confrontation. Document and move on, make your report or whatever.

I think your characterization of Sean Paul Reyes his own face. He's actually very cordial, and he does not instigate conflict. He does respond when it happens, but even then, he does his best to try to keep it cordial. Calling someone a tyrant because they're violating your rights to me is not out of bounds.

Any police officer that tries to say that its illegal to record them is just confessing that they are abusing their power and belong behind bars

No defund this news board.

If they are doing it within the letter of the law and are capturing legitimate undue restriction from public officials, it doesn't matter whether they're doing it for money, fame or the constitution. The result is the same

Wow you really post the Sean Paul Reyes clip and said he trying to antagonize the police but didn’t post the police saying “10 years ago he would be dead and I’ll do it myself” and not happen to him.

Wow this lawyer isn't biased much lol

A)Lawsuits wouldn't be successful if cops weren't found guilty. B) every Network news organization is monetized, what makes it wrong for independent journalist? C) A reality of living in a free society means people can and most likely will say and do things you do not agree, while staying in bounds of the law. D) An extremely high percentage of these encounters reveal most of the officers lack even a basic understanding of the law .

This is why I like the channel Audit The Audit, kinda helps me understand do's and don'ts. Like most groups there are fools who take things too far and ruin the name for everyone else, and Audit The Audit tends to do a good job of showing examples of good audits and bad audits. Just my opinion tho.

3:08 The fact that they are different in their origin does not make them different in scope, nor morality. It doesn’t matter that it’s marketable, it doesn’t matter that it’s antagonistic, it doesn’t matter that it’s intentional, and it doesn’t matter that there’s a backlash. Rights are rights, and those who would challenge them can and should be met with ridicule, shame, and impeachment. If the internet and its ability to ostracize is the only weapon you have against a group that is frequently cruel, abusive, and corrosive to your civil rights, then by god, you must use it.

Just keep in mind the disconnect between how a rich lawyer views cops and how regular citizens do

It also exposes bad training, education and low IQ policing.

The Battosai is the best. He's mild-mannered and respectful, and he got new case law made while filming, from the interaction to the court case

Auditors who remain calm and respectful like long Island audit, and follow up with the appropriate complaints, are ones I follow. I reconise that the rude, disrespectful ones are more important though as they test the cops in more stressful situations. We did the same thing in the military, audits and tests are daily underway for small scale, and weekly for large scale things. You have a gun, you need to be able to do the right thing even when someone is upsetting you. And the best way to get better at it is to experience it. Best way to experience it is via audits where the stakes are low compared to an actual situation with say, someone having a mental break down or some kind of medical emergency. However that being said I can't watch auditors who are nearing harassment to get a reaction.

I’ve been riding that KZfaq wave for a bit so thanks for weighing in on this!

Long Island Audit, is nothing but extremely respectful, sure he ended up calling that police officer a tyrant but that was only after they acted like Tyrants. In he is one of the most respectful auditors out there, and he's now won practically all of the cases against him with exception of a 85 dollar ticket which was a nothing burger. (with one or 2 still on going). Also you are allowed to film in libraries, regardless what the libraries policies are, that's been proven at that specific library due to Jean Paul, and at numerous other libraries across the USA. That all said... Many Auditors are complete arseholes. So I only try to watch the cool and collected individuals. And remember calmly standing up for your rights and refuses unlawful orders is not the same as being confrontational or disrespectful.

I never understood how a public servant didn't want to be filmed doing their job in public. And now many departments made it mandatory to where cameras.

I've dealt with one of those people at my job and it's really frustrating because the workplace has policies against recording, and this dude kept saying he's a "federal citizen" so he only follows laws. He was a jerk and it escalated because he kept trying to argue the law with someone who can't actually argue the law with him in yhe scope of their job. Like I am not the one, and you're just making my day terrible while also potentially harming random bystanders by recording in this place where confidentiality is important, so thanks. 😅

The cops don't like it because like the 1 person said the cops said 5 years ago they have the guy on ground. If you watch some people get took to jail for no good reason.

The higher courts have decided that "there is no expectation of privacy when in public or in a publicly accessible area" and also that "the eyes cannot be trespassed" so anything or anyone you can see while standing in a publicly accessible area can be photographed or video recorded." They have also come down with decisions stating that "you cannot make something lawful into something unlawful to support your argument"...meaning that "photography is not a crime, especially when in public areas. "Policy differs from rules or law. While the law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve the desired outcome. Federal and State laws overrule company policies. Your company policies must be in accordance with state and federal laws for it to be a valid policy. Typically, a business policy is not legally enforceable or binding, unless that policy is an essential term in a business contract. Policy is not law, but a proposed course of action. To make a policy legally binding, it needs to include several key elements: Offer and acceptance - One party needs to offer something (money, services, rights, etc.), and the other party needs to accept the offer. Consideration - The benefit that both parties receive. A business can establish policies for their employees and if the employees wish to continue their employment with that business they need to adhere to the company’s policies. The company cannot enforce their policies upon non-employees because nothing has been offered nor accepted as when a contract is in effect between the two parties involved. Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution declares that federal law is “the supreme law of the land.” As a result, when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other law or laws. This is commonly known as “preemption.” The Supreme Court relied on the Supremacy Clause to hold that the federal law controlled and could not be nullified by state statutes or officials. In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute”. The right to defy an unconstitutional law is also basic to our constitutional structure. Our Constitution guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual-like freedom of speech, press, and religion. The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. The Fourth Amendment of our Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon [PROBABLE CAUSE], supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance. No member of law enforcement at any level has the lawful authority to demand you produce identification or have you identify yourself unless they first have [REASONABLE SUSPICION] with [PRECISE ARTICULABLE FACTS] to support their claim that you have committed a crime, are in the process of committing a crime or will soon commit a crime, even in situations where States enforce “Terry Stops”. “Suspicion” and/or “Suspicious Behavior” is neither a misdemeanor nor a felony and does not support an officer detaining you or demanding you produce identification or give them your name or any other personal information. If the officer insists, you can verbally claim your Fifth Amendment Right to remain silent and protect yourself against self-incrimination. If an officer insists that you give up your identification, just tell him to ["Mirandize"] you and demand your attorney be present before you supply law enforcement with any information and remain silent. Any conversation between a member of the public and any member of law enforcement should be [CONSENSUAL ] by both parties. No one has to have a conversation with law enforcement at any time unless you have been [LAWFULLY DETAINED] or [ARRESTED} and then only if your attorney is present to counceel you. Law enforcement is NOT your friend! Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law! Always ask the officer if you are being [LAWFULLY DETAINED]. If he says “no”, you have the option to leave the scene or remain and continue doing whatever it was that you were doing prior to your confrontation with the officer. If law enforcement detains you without [REASONABLE SUSPICION] being established, it constitutes an [UNLAWFUL DETAINMENT] and is a breach of your Civil Rights which should eliminate the officer’s [QUALIFIED IMMUNITY] and make him personally liable in civil and possibly in criminal court as well. If he makes physical contact with you in any way to force you into handcuffs, pepper spray you, taser you or take you to the ground, it is considered [AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND BATTERY] and the officer or officers involved can be prosecuted in a criminal court. If he puts you in handcuffs and/or restricts you movement or puts you in the back seat of his patrol vehicle, it constitutes an [UNLAWFUL ARREST] and [FALSE IMPRISONMENT] and he officer or officers can be prosecuted in criminal court. If he keeps you in his vehicle or transports you to his precinct, he is committing [KIDNAPPING], all prosecutable charges! Without the officer’s “get out of jail free” card (ie. “QUALIFIED IMMUNITY”) the officer or officers are personally prosecutable in civil and criminal courts as well as the department for which the officers are employed and the city in which the department is located! Every Citizen and tax payer in this country has the right and the obligation to redress and petition his government for grievances and monitor how his tax dollars are being spent by HIS “public servants” all of whom work for him! The tax payer pays his salary, he owns the vehicles they use while on duty and he owns the building they works out of…they are “public servants” who work for you so tell him to have some respect for his employer and lose the condescending attitude or look for another job! If you are making a video recording your interaction with your public servants then you are actually gathering content for a news story that interests and involves every Citizen of this country. By supplying the general public with your “news story”, you are making your personal experience available to each of those interested. This makes you a “Citizen Journalist”, a Civil Right guaranteed you by our Constitution! Members of the public are always interested to see stories about interactions with their “public servants” who are spending their tax dollars! Your personal experience offers them an unbiased opportunity to see how these public employees conduct themselves when interacting with the general public! By making your journalistic endeavors available to the general public through social venues such as KZfaq, you give every person who watches your video the opportunity to evaluate the job performance and character analysis of those individuals who appear in your video interactions. Through your experiences, they can measure how that public servant will most likely interact with them if and when they come in contact. Through your videos, every person can evaluate those individuals job performance and their abilities to socially interact with “public servants” and their “employers”, the tax payer!

12:15 I saw this one. That older cop says "30 years ago and he'd be dead."

There are 3 sides to every story : yours, theirs & the truth…

There's nothing technically wrong with auditors (other than that it can be dangerous), the biggest issue is a ton of these people think they are legal experts when they are very much NOT

Talking about the auditlong island at the library video and not saying that the high ranking cop resigned after a police bodycam that wasnt turn off recorded him saying that 20 years ago the auditor would be put 7feet under by the law and order blue gang 😮

It's the people's government and our constitutional rights are for the people to use against the government if they forget that they work for us 🇺🇸

Resisting arrest is such a messed up charge. The vast majority of people are going to attempt to resist if being manhandled. Doesn't matter if youve done anything or not, if anything you're more likely to resist if you know you haven't done anything and it's so vague that it's a charge that can be added on to almost any interaction with the police

As a librarian I find it so weird when these people audit libraries. What are they trying to catch us doing?

Ad at the very end that’s a new one , nice

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Whoah. Been watching this genre for a while. Not so much the raw stuff and the live streams... more the Audit the Audit style of dispassionate review, informed by research. Most auditor content leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, one way or another. But I like a channel that does genuinely try to inform on the relevant legal precedent offers practical advice and constructive criticism.

I've been waiting for you to cover this topic for ever