Watch a Texas lawman's pathetic scramble for a reason not to record him

Do you think this guy was positively discriminated against? In your ideal world would he have been treated worse? It’s not privilege to not have your rights violated, it’s how things are supposed to work.

Not in this instance, but he’s also probably aware that he gets away with a lot of things in other contexts and situations. It’s a lot easier to stand up for your civil rights when you don’t actually live in fear of them being violated on a daily basis and instead have the expectation that they will and should be respected.

It is a privilege to be let off on traffic stops with a warning, or to not have officers ask to search your car or assume you might be armed and dangerous and treat you as such (which the police can legally do). Recognizing that privilege may be what led him to make the video.

2 Likes

Doesn’t really seem relevant to my argument.

I disagree. Had he spoken to the police first the police probably wouldn’t have approached him in the first place in which case there would be no opportunity to demonstrate how to establish one’s rights while dealing with adversarial police officers.

Again, disagree. I think the intent was to provoke a confrontation with police officers to demonstrate how to establish one’s rights while dealing with adversarial police officers.

While true, this again has no bearing on my argument whatsoever.

Occasionally instructors will demonstrate how not to do something, e.g. they will do something they know to be stupid (as I am conceding this person’s actions were) for a non-stupid purpose (showing people how to deal with having done something stupid). I believe that is what’s going on here. Intent does matter.

I didn’t shoot the video. AndrewWake58 at Youtube shot the video.

I just posted a link to the video and wrote about it.

ECLS

1 Like

He’s not an “instructor”. He’s a jerk with a toy. Stop trying to give him excuses for clearly doing something wrong and dangerous. Here’s why what he did is a problem:

He attended several scenes (and tried to lie to us so that we’d think the police overreacted). Police are private citizens. They also have a right to do their jobs without being harassed. There’s a word for what he was doing, and a law against it:

42.072. STALKING. (a) A person commits an offense if
the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same
scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at
another person, knowingly engages in conduct, including following
the other person, that:
(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other
person will regard as threatening:
(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;

As I said, by him NOT IDENTIFYING HIMSELF and then REPEATEDLY showing up at scenes and hanging around, he made those police nervous (with good reason). They could have actually arrested him for stalking, and chose instead to let him walk away - probably knowing full well he’d post this trash. He has no effing clue how lucky he is.

Umm, when you quote a law, it’s best to quote the entire thing (unless you know what you’re doing). You’ve only quoted part of the first element of the Texas Stalking law. The second element is that the stalkee had to be in actual subjective fear of bodily injury or death or injury to property. This subjective prong is balanced by the third prong: the fear must have been objectively reasonable, such that that an average person would have felt this fear.

I don’t think any jury would say that observing a series of police interactions is: 1) conduct that is directed specifically at a person or that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening injury or death upon that specific person; 2) that the police officers being observed would feel threatens them with injury or death; and 3) that a reasonable person would feel police being observed as they do their job is a threat of injury or death.

On the other hand, if I know that police are staking me out, can I charge them with stalking?

1 Like

I will reply to you ONLY ONCE.

Go back and reread the statute. Note this word: “or”.

Go away.

1 Like

There is the word “or” between sub-elements A), B), and C) of element 1). But elements 1), 2), and 3) are joined by “and.” See for yourself:

A person commits an offense if the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conduct, including following the other person, that:

(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other person will regard as threatening:

(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the other person’s family or household; or
© that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property;

(2) causes the other person or a member of the other person’s family or household to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death or fear that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property; and

(3) would cause a reasonable person to fear:

(A) bodily injury or death for himself or herself;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person’s family or household; or
© that an offense will be committed against the person’s property.

I trust no further response in necessary.
Your confidence is charming, though.

1 Like

[shakes head sadly]

If (a)(1)(A) applies, then 2 AND 3 - by logic - also probably follow (otherwise the complaint wouldn’t have been made). That’s why I didn’t bother to post them. In fact, it’s part one that relies on the actor behaving in a manner that they know is a problem. We know that the photographer did this, because if he thought it was fine to video multiple stops and force an encounter, he would have told us that’s what he did. He led us to believe this was the first one of the day: a lie.

Parts 2 and 3 of the law require that the person was worried (the officer was). I already, in previous posts explained why police officers have a reasonable fear of harm/death if they are repeatedly pursued by an unidentified person.

Get over yourself. You aren’t as smart as you think you are.
You’re just irritating.

Now that you have truly had your say I SERIOUSLY WON’T TALK TO YOU ON THIS THREAD AGAIN. Say anything you like.

1 Like

Yeah, I guess legislators just like to include duplicative elements when they write laws. Like, “Let’s include this elements even though it will logically follow, just for shits and giggles.”

And was there a stalking complaint made, as you seem to be claiming? Let me know how it turns out and if the prosecutor goes ahead with it.

Let me use your logic: you knew that your selective quoting of the statute was a problem, because why else would lead us to believe you were quoting all of the relevant law and why would you flatly deny (i.e., lie) that the word “and” appears between the three elements, thus also requiring subjective fear that was objectively reasonable?

No, only element 2 requires that the person be in fear (and fear is not “worried”). Element 3, as I said, requires that the actual fear be reasonable. There are situations where there is real fear, but it is unreasonable. And there are situations where a reasonable person might be afraid but the actual person was not. Elements 2 and 3 do not do the same thing.

Said in true, “I’m taking my ball and going home” fashion.

Without needing to agree or disagree with you on any other issue, I have to say that bwv812 has clearly demonstrated through quoting the actual law that it requires 1, 2 and 3 for the law to be invoked. There is no “or by logic” to the way the law works. You have to meet all the statutory elements.

2 Likes

The reason I am fed up and short with bvw812 is because said person is trying to troll me.

First we had one dialog on the thread about Ikeahackers, where he claimed there was a product liability issue at stake (there wasn’t and I explained why).

Next he followed me onto the thread about Timberland’s new warranty - pull quoting me because he thought he’d kinda trip me up with my own words. Not so. The two issues were totally different legally, and in Timberland’s case, a change to policy may have been warranted to avoid product liability from a newly known defect.

Now he’s here, once again trying to prove something. Guess what? I’m not going to waste this thread or any other thread’s time by bothering to re-re-reexplain myself in minute detail to his satisfaction.

The fact is: I posted one part of the law BECAUSE it was the MOST RELEVANT and I HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THE OTHER TWO PARTS WERE SATISFIED. Him posting more of it and being argumentative doesn’t make my point any less true.

Not NOT NOT discussing this further.

2 Likes

That may be as you say, but it has nothing to do with whether you were right in this specific instance, which bvw812, for good or for ill, proved you were not by quoting the full text of the statute with appropriate explanation. Asserting “Not NOT NOT discussing this further” doesn’t make anything you say correct, so I’m not getting why you keep saying stuff like that.

Catgrin being correct or not is irrelevant. bwv812 will neither add anything to the discussion nor do anything but attack catgrin’s comments, splitting hairs and producing nothing but fluff. The intention is to make catgrin angry. bwv812 is very good at this kind of trolling. Speaking as a former victim.

If that is what Catgrin feels bwv812 is doing, then responding over and over, with words like “SERIOUSLY WON’T TALK TO YOU ON THIS THREAD AGAIN” is like an alcoholic saying "I’m gonna quit drinking, right after I have just one more drink. By which I mean, baiting only works if you take it. We are empowered to ignore people we think are trolling us.

The idea isn’t that white people should be treated worse, it’s that non-white people should be treated better.

catgrin14h
The reason I am fed up and short with bvw812 is because said person is trying to troll me.

Man I hate it when someone trolls me by pointing out the logical fallacies and holes in my arguments. Why can’t I just make public declarations and receive my well deserved adulation without having this annoying ‘burden of reason’ applied by mean internet people!

Yes… I can see why the officer may have been ‘worried’ that a citizen was filming him. Not cause he was in fear of his life… but because clearly this isn’t an officer who wants scrutiny or any kind of permanent record of his behavior. Even if we allow for a rampant paranoia that somehow makes this officer believe the next Al Queda plan after 9-11 is to wait 13 years and then start filming traffic stops in his podunk town in Texas as prep work for some kinda huge (traffic stop related) action movie scheme… his reaction should have been more along the lines of…
“gee… that guy over there is filming us. That’s worrying. Wish I could do something about it, but I’m totally held back by all these annoying ‘legal requirements’… and civil liberties that I’m well trained and obligated to uphold and protect.”

Mod note: Get back on topic. Or I will begin to feast.

2 Likes

I agree. That doesn’t seem to be what milliefink and bwv812 were saying though.

In this case, it seems like the camera guy should be treated even more betterer.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.