Cop/Security Baiting- First Amendment Audits

[Ingio Montoya]

https://youtu.be/t-93hUKPujg

So this video was actually recorded right outside the front gate of a site that I used to work at.

The videographer and his partner came walking down the trail in the park stopped righ at the front gate and started filming with the specific intent of causing a confrontation with security.

I can also tell you did the first guard who responds is incorrect when he states that they are not authorized to film in that location. His post orders specifically state that if the person is not on utilities property you can't ask them to stop.

So my question is how many of you have post orders to deal with this situation? How many of you have had to deal with this situation?

FWIW both of the videographers are open carrying which is legal in Colorado. I think the guy had a Glock in the woman had a Springfield XD

[Condo Guard]

Trolls filming me for their stupid video blogs? Thankfully, not yet. People challenging me as to whether they could be on the property? Many times. The problem with these youtube videos is that since 9-11-01 "sensitive" sites like government buildings, utilities, etc. haven't liked people filming and what not, but haven't trained their security in what's legal and what's not. (Generally, if you're on the sidewalk you can do what you want.)

Sadly, post orders vary. Most of the ones I've seen are either vague, or, if filming is not allowed, have some vague course of action. (I'm not going to waste the police's time unless I can articulate some other suspicious circumstances.) That's why it pays to do your own research if you have to and learn the laws that apply to you at your site.

[Consolewatcher]

Trolls filming me for their stupid video blogs? Thankfully, not yet. People challenging me as to whether they could be on the property? Many times. The problem with these youtube videos is that since 9-11-01 "sensitive" sites like government buildings, utilities, etc. haven't liked people filming and what not, but haven't trained their security in what's legal and what's not. (Generally, if you're on the sidewalk you can do what you want.)

Sadly, post orders vary. Most of the ones I've seen are either vague, or, if filming is not allowed, have some vague course of action. (I'm not going to waste the police's time unless I can articulate some other suspicious circumstances.) That's why it pays to do your own research if you have to and learn the laws that apply to you at your site.

Part of the problem I've seeb is that clients often have unreasonable (and sometimes illegal) expectations. I've seen sites thst have expensive artwork in public areas that want their guards to try to stop people taking photos of it. I've also seen "People to Look Out For" memos where the only "suspicous" thing a person did was take pictures of the outside of the building (a nice office building that would look good in a photo)....

[SgtWinters]

Hell, I love talking pictures of nice architecture, specially old stuff that is unique & may not be here in 10-20 yrs. I guess I'm a suspicious troll that needs to be "locked" up now. Quite a few years ago someone took a picture of my Dads unique old lobstering boat, did it from a public road through a chain link fence. He then sold it with the id quite visible locally & to a semi local calendar company.

It was quite the PITA to get him to give up the copyright/trademark on it. His lawyer even admitted that if the idiot had removed our id mark from the side of the boat he would have walked away scott free as it was taken from a public road. Even shooting around a no trespassing no photography sign as it was just after 9/11 & the area was considered "sensitive".
I'm still pissed folks have my boat in their calendars, although hopefully most just tossed them at the end of the year.

So, because of that I found the photographers right sheet & keep it in my camera bag, my drone bag & my truck. I also research the laws in the various states so I know my rights when I travel. I try to avoid folks "unique" items unless I get a release to use them, I try to work out something fair with the owners.

I think if 9/11 in the USA, 7/7 (right date?) in Europe & the terrorism that many face nowadays had not happened or been as widespread as it is a lot of places wouldnt care if you took pictures.
Couple years ago I was in DC & waiting at Grand Central for some fellow members to return from political meetings, so I started taking pictures of the roof interior of the station up in the waiting area, it has some awesome IMHO shapes up there. Couple DC cops came over & questioned me because the restaurant maitre de didnt like me doing it. I showed them the pictures, they shrugged & moved on, no biggie.

Living life with these lousy SJW's are just making it worse for our rights, & thats my not so humble opinion.

[Condo Guard]

You nailed it. The place I work has very nice flowers and some unique architecture - the only thing people can't take pictures of are the business signs, since they are trademarked. We do monitor people taking pictures, but we generally leave them alone. Simply having a camera isn't a crime.

I will say where I'm at the "watch for" bulletins are clear - one we received was about two people taking pictures of a prominent landmark and taking notes. They were suspicious because a) they were taking pictures and notes specifically of the building's exterior security cameras, and b) they left quickly when they saw security approaching from a distance.

[Squid]

You nailed it. The place I work has very nice flowers and some unique architecture - the only thing people can't take pictures of are the business signs, since they are trademarked. We do monitor people taking pictures, but we generally leave them alone. Simply having a camera isn't a crime.

I will say where I'm at the "watch for" bulletins are clear - one we received was about two people taking pictures of a prominent landmark and taking notes. They were suspicious because a) they were taking pictures and notes specifically of the building's exterior security cameras, and b) they left quickly when they saw security approaching from a distance.

I'm pretty sure trademarked signs are Fair Game under 'fair use' doctrine, meaning as long as you aren't using the imagine to represent yourself as the company, etc.

Can you sell postcards of AT&T baseball park in SF with the big Coke bottle? sure.

IMO these guys are just like when nations do "Freedom Of the Seas" exercise and get kinda obnoxious sailing warships right up to offshore limit.

[TOII]

You can always ask....but you can't always enforce.

[SgtWinters]

(snipped)

I will say where I'm at the "watch for" bulletins are clear - one we received was about two people taking pictures of a prominent landmark and taking notes. They were suspicious because a) they were taking pictures and notes specifically of the building's exterior security cameras, and b) they left quickly when they saw security approaching from a distance.

Yeah, I hate the suspicious types, I try to not act like that when I'm taking pictures. Although I will admit that if I'm taking shots then writing the info down I dont take off if I see "security" approaching me. Sometimes though I'm off in my own lil world & may not see them, if it was me on the other side I'd call out to get their attention. A nice polite "hello, can I help you?" just to get the attention.

I'd have no reason to be taking notes of security cameras, if it was that I'd go find someone to talk to about them.

It seems nowadays not only do you have to deal with possible terrorists, folks with grudges wanting to shoot places up & these dang SJWs sticking cameras places they really dont belong just to get a rise out of honest hardworking security or police. Makes me really hope more & more than I get a quiet site, course where I live thats a fairly decent prospect.
If ya cant tell I really really dislike SJWs.

[PhantomX0990]

We have a strict no cameras and no recording. Hospital. Kind of obvious why.

Though, if they are off property, power ends at the property line.

Hell depending on the situations, their cell phones (patients') are straight up taken and locked up during their stay. If people refuse to stop recording, they get the boot, refuse to leave, trespassed, still refuse, we call our off duty roamer to arrest them.

The only time I know of recording being allowed was in a controlled situation I had with a doctor and patient. Nurse asked if I knew about it, which I had, but never experienced. Basically, you can record in a controlled situation your meeting with your doctor, that means just you or your care team/doctor, doors closed, etc. This is a means to have something to look back, rewatch, and understand what is going on. Only time I've ever seen it was with a patient that had an altered mental status and their legal guardian wanted something to show the patient when they were more clear.

[mjw064]

You nailed it. The place I work has very nice flowers and some unique architecture - the only thing people can't take pictures of are the business signs, since they are trademarked. We do monitor people taking pictures, but we generally leave them alone. Simply having a camera isn't a crime.

LOL, no, no and more no. People can take photographs of anything they want as long as they are on public property. Even on your private property if they snap a photo of your sign; they have still committed no crime... they broke your silly rule and you can ask them to leave and thats it (no you can't erase their photo or seize their camera!)

Also, people do not do these First Amendment Audits for amusement per say... they do it to raise awareness and prevent innocent people from being harassed by security guards and police officers. I seriously cannot believe how many security guards that believe they can run across the street and tell people to stop taking photos of their property... so silly.

[Squid]

If I was running any site I cared about, I'd have some of the firms other guards come do a "1st Amend audit".

In fact, I'd make it similar to hazing at a frat. Every newbie undergoes a test under fire and the rest of the crew gets to view video of it.

Both educational and amusing.

IMO its down right negligent to put largely unknown persons is a situation when you've never tested them "under fire".

I'm pretty sure this stuff is well covered in all State's basic guard class, yet at least 1/2 of all guards will act like their cheesy badge and uniform gives them all sorts of rights on public property that not even real cops got.

[Consolewatcher]

If I was running any site I cared about, I'd have some of the firms other guards come do a "1st Amend audit".

In fact, I'd make it similar to hazing at a frat. Every newbie undergoes a test under fire and the rest of the crew gets to view video of it.

Both educational and amusing.

IMO its down right negligent to put largely unknown persons is a situation when you've never tested them "under fire".

I'm pretty sure this stuff is well covered in all State's basic guard class, yet at least 1/2 of all guards will act like their cheesy badge and uniform gives them all sorts of rights on public property that not even real cops got.

Maybe we could have "camera simulators" and "camera ranges" so that we can test the guards' reactions under stress.

I can imagine it now; a new guard trainee steps up to the line, while the instructor hits the "start button". A cardboard cutout of a guy holding an ice cream cone pops out. The guard does nothing. A cardboard cutout of a guy holding a map pops out. The guard does notthing. A cardboard cutout of a guy holding a camera pops out. The guard pulls out his gun and shoots it.

Instructor: "Dammit, Frank! We talked about this already!"

[Soper]

If I was running any site I cared about, I'd have some of the firms other guards come do a "1st Amend audit".

In fact, I'd make it similar to hazing at a frat. Every newbie undergoes a test under fire and the rest of the crew gets to view video of it.

Both educational and amusing.

IMO its down right negligent to put largely unknown persons is a situation when you've never tested them "under fire".

I'm pretty sure this stuff is well covered in all State's basic guard class, yet at least 1/2 of all guards will act like their cheesy badge and uniform gives them all sorts of rights on public property that not even real cops got.

And you’d be sued. learning how to sleep on shift according to you is “testing under fire”. You are an utter failure as an example of a guard.

[Tom Horn]

And you’d be sued. learning how to sleep on shift according to you is “testing under fire”. You are an utter failure as an example of a guard.

Why so angry?

[Squid]

And you’d be sued. learning how to sleep on shift according to you is “testing under fire”. You are an utter failure as an example of a guard.

wanna sue me? lol. GET IN LINE.

wanna find out why one of the Mafia's strictest rules is "never sue anyone" ??? See what happens when you sue me.

Hint: one word, 4 syllables..... "discovery".