Washington Bus Driver Attacks Armed Photographer for Recording Him in Public

[notalawyer]

<SIGH> Okay, let's try this again...

Regardless of whether or not one considers the cameraman "the victim", I did not blame anyone for the fisticuffs. I said: 1) the cameraman was an a$$, and 2) by his actions he reinforces negative stereotypes.

I stand behind my previous statements.

So he was an ass for exercising his constitutionally protect rights. Perhaps you only support the 2nd, as it appears you show significant disdain for the 1st.

Or you can point out for us the microaggression trigger that is responsible for your feels?

 

[notalawyer]

In my experience this beats coffee every time:

 

[WalkingWolf]

So he was an ass for exercising his constitutionally protect rights. Perhaps you only support the 2nd, as it appears you show significant disdain for the 1st.

Or you can point out for us the microaggression trigger that is responsible for your feels?
View attachment 12836

I have asked him to explain but he seems incapable of articulating his reason for his very offensive post. His post is a stain on liberty minded folks, his because I said so is no different then anti's.

 

[FreeInAZ]

Cliff notes of this thread: man who is exercising his rights (legally) gets jumped by person who he pays via taxation & he somehow is at fault?

OK got it! Just do as you're told regardless, always, and you'll have nothing to worry about.

Hey wait a minute isn't that called a totalitarian state?

to·tal·i·tar·i·an
adjective
of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

noun
a person advocating a totalitarian system of government.

Carry on .....

 

[Difdi]

I'm curious. Where in my posts did I say anything about the illegitimacy of concurrently exercising rights?

Scroll up. I'm sure you'll recall your words. But just in case you missed them the first time you typed them:

Though they're not all like it, this one is yet another example of an a$$ with a camera - and a OCed gun?

The a$$ behind the camera 1) reinforces the negative stereotype of PINAC, and 2) reinforces the negative stereotype of a belligerent OCer.

Just plain stupid all around.

I'll say it again: Where in the Constitution does it state that you can only legitimately exercise one Constitutional right at a time?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Scroll up. I'm sure you'll recall your words. But just in case you missed them the first time you typed them:



I'll say it again: Where in the Constitution does it state that you can only legitimately exercise one Constitutional right at a time?

I think his assessment is wrong. Yet I don't see that claim being made.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

In case it helps others to know, Washington state is a stand-your-ground state by court ruling. A person does not have the duty to retreat from a place where he has the legal right to be.

Although handguns are obviously the open or concealed carry weapon of choice for you, there are uses in being armed with nonlethal measures such as pepper spray. Pepper spray may serve as a deterrent or protective agent when a person does not wish to draw their handgun, as happened in this exact case.

Too dangerous. The driver was stupid enough to fight with an armed man and he's lucky he wasnt shot for that kind of attack. Trying to gouge an eye out is certainly reason enough to draw though perhaps not fire unless the driver continued to show aggression and continued to prove he was a serious and imminent threat.

The key is always to use as little force as possible. Draw, hold him there and call the police and this is where voice technology comes in handy. Tell the phone to dial 911 without removing it from your pocket and thus distracting oneself for even a moment as this could prove fatal.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Too dangerous. The driver was stupid enough to fight with an armed man and he's lucky he wasnt shot for that kind of attack. Trying to gouge an eye out is certainly reason enough to draw though perhaps not fire unless the driver continued to show aggression and continued to prove he was a serious and imminent threat.

The key is always to use as little force as possible. Draw, hold him there and call the police and this is where voice technology comes in handy. Tell the phone to dial 911 without removing it from your pocket and thus distracting oneself for even a moment as this could prove fatal.

But a cop can shoot an unarmed man in the back and NBD, not guilty.

Can slam an innocent man against a wall leaving him pretty much brain dead and paralyzed, hey no problem.

Or execute a wood carver holding a pocket knife for jaywalking, hey sooooo justified.

Legal myth: we are all equal before the courts.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

But a cop can shoot an unarmed man in the back and NBD, not guilty.

Can slam an innocent man against a wall leaving him pretty much brain dead and paralyzed, hey no problem.

Or execute a wood carver holding a pocket knife for jaywalking, hey sooooo justified.

Legal myth: we are all equal before the courts.

I understand your frustration and I am no friend of the police at all but shall we show them how wrong they are by acting like barbarians? Of course not! Now do I support the idea that citizens should control the police and force them to be accountable? Yes I do but we have standards. Worst case scenario we'll have to use citizen militia to defend against the police but even then, THAT can be done with zero bloodshed as in the case of the Bundy Ranch. That should be held up by all true Americans as the way to defend this nation and defend our rights.

We cannot oppose tyranny, tyrannically. simple

 

[Geerolla]

Okay, let's try this again...

Regardless of whether or not one considers the cameraman "the victim", I did not blame anyone for the fisticuffs. I said: 1) the cameraman was an a$$, and 2) by his actions he reinforces negative stereotypes.

I stand behind my previous statements.

What's the point of making these statements if you can't even explain your reasons for making them?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[BB62]

<SIGH> Okay, let's try this again...

Regardless of whether or not one considers the cameraman "the victim", I did not blame anyone for the fisticuffs. I said: 1) the cameraman was an a$$, and 2) by his actions he reinforces negative stereotypes.

I stand behind my previous statements.

What's the point of making these statements if you can't even explain your reasons for making them?

I certainly CAN explain myself, were I of the mind to do so, but given the complete and utter blindness demonstrated by some, I've decided that it's simply not worth the effort.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I watched the whole sickening tape from beginning to end.

Though they're not all like it, this one is yet another example of an a$$ with a camera - and a OCed gun?

The a$$ behind the camera 1) reinforces the negative stereotype of PINAC, and 2) reinforces the negative stereotype of a belligerent OCer. :banghead:

Just plain stupid all around.

So, the first amendment NOW reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But these guarantees only apply to nice people. And the government gets to determine who nice people are. Yeah, sucks to be you.

ditto w/2nd amendment, etc...

 

[Geerolla]

I certainly CAN explain myself, were I of the mind to do so, but given the complete and utter blindness demonstrated by some, I've decided that it's simply not worth the effort.

What a cop out...


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

 

[mikeyb]

The photographer needs to be a bit more tactful when interacting with people.

"I don't answer questions." And then proceed to engage with those people further? I just don't understand it. It seems like an ahole thing to do.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The photographer needs to be a bit more tactful when interacting with people.

"I don't answer questions." And then proceed to engage with those people further? I just don't understand it. It seems like an ahole thing to do.

How would you have liked him to exercise his 5th amendment right?

I see nothing wrong with saying "I don't answer questions". Now if he added profanities, or insults that would be different, but he did not. Nothing in the constitution implies that people kiss the ass of government agents.

 

[Freedom1Man]

The photographer needs to be a bit more tactful when interacting with people.

"I don't answer questions." And then proceed to engage with those people further? I just don't understand it. It seems like an ahole thing to do.

The government agents should be answering questions, unless it's okay for you to not know your servant's name. Why would it be okay for your public servants to not identify themselves?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[BB62]

The photographer needs to be a bit more tactful when interacting with people.

"I don't answer questions." And then proceed to engage with those people further? I just don't understand it. It seems like an ahole thing to do.

Mikey, clearly you are some sort of nut!

 

[Dave_pro2a]

The photographer needs to be a bit more tactful when interacting with people.

"I don't answer questions." And then proceed to engage with those people further? I just don't understand it. It seems like an ahole thing to do.

To clarify: by people you mean employees of governmental agencies, infringing on someone's Rights, while on paid time and acting in their official capacity.

Yeah, exerting his Right to not give information that might be used against him is totally a JERK thing to do.
(so says every cop and prosecuting attorney.... ever)

 

[Jeff Hayes]

Maybe it was because he was interested in protecting his constitutional rights and not surrendering them to a bully. Maybe he didn't feel like answering questions that he was not required to answer. Maybe he wanted to be left alone to engage in the legal activity he was engaged in. Maybe he he had a tooth ache that hurt when he spoke. There are dozens of reasons why he might do what he did and not one that I can think of for the bus driver to do what he did.

+1

 

[solus]

sorry, the use of deadly force would not hold up in court for simple assault:
rcw 9a.16.020
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020

rcw 9a.16.050
(1)...to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

finally, not sure the instigator (photographer) can use deadly force against someone they themselves upset, the aggressor (bus employee)

so let's finally put your silly ideas away about shooting the bus employee over simple assault that the photo-idiot instigated in the first place.

ipse