Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

First Amendment Auditors YouTube

  • 20-08-2021 1:12pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭


    I have been watching some of these recently so thought I would start a thread for people who enjoy watching them. (Not, mind you, for people who do not!)

    Came across a guy called Long Island Audit and he was very impressive. Intelligent, Calm and on the balll. Holding people to account. He really is something else. .alls of steel.

    I also enjoy some of the British auditors. When they go at it it is somehow more real than some Americans who audit in blazing sunshine.

    Which one do you watch?



Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,544 ✭✭✭Hangdogroad


    You're assuming from the off that everyone is familiar with these people and what they do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,892 ✭✭✭silliussoddius




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,736 ✭✭✭weisses


    A pain in the hole ... Inbred type of idiot..

    I prefer schrodingers cat



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    Thank you for your post.

    Fair point but yes I am assuming that. (They are, in fact, individuals ie auditors who enter public buildings and environs with a camera to see how they will be received by employees of same.)

    Again I would like to stress that I am only interested in discussing the content of the videos from people who enjoy watching them. I have no interest in any opinion or discussion about the auditors' right or otherwise to do so in the first place.

    Thanks



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭85603


    First time hearing about it.

    Sounds annoying. sounds like that busybody on a bike that used to make videos while in dublin traffic and upload them on youtube . you crossed an unbroken white line wah wah wah. zero niner Delta Lima, silver grey Avensis. speed 22 knots.north north west. elevation zero.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,184 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    So basically you want an echo chamber of how great they are without a discussing on there merits



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    I've never gone looking for videos of the type but have seen some over recent years and close to 100% feel that they are attention seekers looking to insert themselves in to situations that have nothing to do with them or to antagonize police officers so that they can 'own' them. Saw one of a guy walking up to a traffic stop and immediately swearing at the police officer to not tell him to leave or to stop recording. In that instance given how he was creating an obvious and seemingly intentional distraction for the officer, I think the officer should have arrested him for interfering with the police doing their job and let him b*tch about it a couple of hours later even if not charged with anything.

    These people should seriously consider putting their efforts in to something that benefits society or themselves or whoever rather than this type of 'gotcha' activism.

    I'm struggling to think of any newsworthy event that came about as a consequence of one of these 'auditors' who went looking for a reaction. Any of the significant events that have appeared in the media have come about as a consequence of a bystander who just happened to be there recording what was going on, or the release of police bodycam video footage through the choice of the Dept of after a FOI type request. Not some supposed guardian of the galaxy type character looking to feel important.

    I've been very vocal on Boards about the support for BLM protests calling for fair treatment for all at the hands of the police, I have no time for anyone looking to create a story where there isn't one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    Although I don't know which video you are referring to specifically , I agree with your point in the first paragraph 100%. The approach of some of these people and the way they interact with the police is childish and self defeating.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    Their behaviour actually mirrors GO'D an her ilk here i.e. They're a bunch of sick eejits looking to get an unitentional reaction from people who are meant to look after their own safety. The best thing to do is to ignore these cúnts & get on with your day.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    The gamechanger has been the ready use of a camera through a mobile. The police do not, by and large, like being videoed while they are doing their job.

    I do not agree with the goading of police but if you are filming the police at a reasonable distance (which I think is legal; after all we see the police on the news every day on TV) and the police tell you to turn it off, well this is problematic. The people who filmed George Floyd were quite close to him and the police. What would have happened Derek Chauvin otherwise? In America some police have body cameras and audio and they film the people.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,544 ✭✭✭Hangdogroad


    As another poster pointed out the people who filmed the George Floyd incident wernt "youtube auditors" but random bystanders. From what I can gather about these types op is posting about they're mainly attention seeking busibodies



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    Yes the people who filmed George Floyd were indeed bystanders and not auditors. No question of that. And certainly a number of them are attention seekers. However what many do is to uncover misuse of police power. Perhaps the most frequent and most blatant is police detaining someone without having committed a crime. Just because they are using a camera in public places. And just because the police do not like that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,753 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    They use the camera in a public place, but that "public place" usually seems to be a sidewalk outside of a police station or a military complex, these idiots do it for a reaction. Nothing but attention seeking fùckwits.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    That is often the case yes. You are right. But they are not doing anything illegal.

    The police who tell them they are not allowed to do that are abusing their power.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,753 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    They are not doing anything illegal but they know thier actions will provoke a reaction in a security heightened area.

    And the police on most of the ones I have seen are not "abusing thier power" they are just not fully on the statutes about filming on public property.


    As soon as someone in authority comes along they sort it out politely. Meanwhile the "auditor" I'd being an abusive dìck head trying to get more reactions and being gobby to anyone in uniform.


    Sad fùcks who spend thier days looking for reactions so they can get likes on social media.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    Yes to a large extent they are there to get a reaction I agree. You are correct.

    I do not know how You tube works but they may get paid for those videos I do not know. For some or many of them it is their job. The more likes may mean the more money but I really do not know much about that.

    It shows up the lack of training the police have. If they are engaging in something legal they should be left alone. Imagine if you were looking at McDonalds downtown and a policeman told you to move along or pushed you along? That might be actionable.

    The 'security heightened area' you mention I assume would be a police station? Yet anybody can enter publicly accessible areas police station, even in Ireland. Google Earth can do it!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,753 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    They film officers going in/out of buildings, they stand outside military bases and film personnel going in/out. Have you ever seen them film a ticket warden or a crossing guard?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,128 ✭✭✭✭Oranage2


    They do the odd warden and I've seen one do a library before



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    They are allowed to film anything they want as long as they are in a public space. I've seen an video of a guy taking photos of birds in a tree and some tit called the cops on him. That's how much of a snitch society America is. You ask if these people don't have anything better to do. Why not ask if the police don't have anything better to do rather than to demand what a person is doing? They demand to know what a person is doing and they also demand that person produces identification. The cops know full well that you are not required to identify yourself (unreasonable search and seizure) but people like you still side with the cops even when they are abusing their powers and attempting to assert their authority over people when they have no right to do so.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan



    I've seen them filming Post Offices, City Hall, Court Houses, shopping malls.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,753 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    I'm not siding with the cops, if I was randomly asked for my I.D I would also refuse. I'm on about the fùckwits who deliberately go to places they know they will be confronted so they can abuse the cops and get reactions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,810 ✭✭✭take everything


    Any I have seen on YouTube are cretins. Auditing Britain's stupidity and attitude always makes me laugh.

    They seem to have a fair number of subscribers and I'm surprised how many positive comments there are on their channels ignoring the obvious faults in the auditor's own behaviour and the disgusting comments about policeperson's appearance etc.

    I can only conclude there are a lot of people out there who have an unreasonable hatred of the police.

    Examples of Auditing Britain's crass behaviour included videoing people working on their computers in an office through their own window in the guise of exposing the office workers' supposed failure to preserve the confidentiality of client information on those computers because the computers were facing outward to the street. From about 10 feet away! And through a pane of glass! In other words, no risk to client confidentiality.

    Yet, when eventually confronted about it by the manager, he remonstrated with him and then a security guard (iirc) and then the cops.

    Utter fool. The irony is he hates being filmed himself. Now that the cops in the UK know about him and his name, one video shows a young female cop addressing him by his name where he proceeds to threaten her with (his usual) GDRP for mentioning his name on camera. When he is the one in control of filming. It's laughable the way he goes on.

    Another video posted by a UK comedian shows what is allegedly him following and harassing the comedian through the streets of London.

    I remain amazed at the support these clowns get.

    But they get the subscribers and that's what matters to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,810 ✭✭✭take everything


    Actually another stunt that clown Auditing Britain pulled was videoing himself at a Tescos (IIRC) and somehow getting the alarm to go off after he left with presumably paid for goods. Of course when asked to produce a receipt he refuses to do so and gives awful abuse to the security guard (he really is an angry little fucker when he gets going btw) insisting they check the security cameras instead of "harrassing" him.

    Technically if he has paid for it, he may be not obliged to produce a receipt if the alarm went off in the wrong but he lives for filming this drama. He obviously dreamt this scenario up and revelled in videoing himself being asked to produce a receipt by a Tesco security guard.

    Weird individual.



  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Well it all depends on what exactly they are filming.

    filming people just doing their jobs is just annoying and Pretty pointless. particularly they way they go about it, shoving it in the face of police and swearing at them isn't in anyway helpful.

    if course, if they film a crime or even an incident that results in a complaint against a Garda member here in Ireland, they would find their phone taken as evidence. So, as long as they don't mind losing their phone, fair enough.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 47,352 ✭✭✭✭Zaph


    Should the police and those in authority be held accountable and filmed by people in the vicinity if they're observed abusing their powers? Absolutely.

    Should self-appointed individuals specifically go looking for such abuses and provoke the police just so they have something to film? Definitely not, they sound like a bunch of self-righteous dickheads who have nothing better to be doing with their time. Even the name - First Amendment Auditors - talk about being up your own arse.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    In most cases they do not stick any camera in a face. It is usual that the police approach them and ask them what they are doing. In other words they do not approach the police. It's the other way around.

    But let's not kid ourselves. This is, I understand, their job. They want to earn money.

    Some people may call them !ickheads and so on but it is not a crime to be that. Whereas being detained without cause I think is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,810 ✭✭✭take everything


    But sure there'd be no YouTube video if they weren't approached. So clearly it's imperative that the police approach them (ie it's imperative that they act in such a way that the police approach them). Otherwise no content.

    I'm amazed at the support they have.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I'm amazed by the lack of the one, to me obvious, word to describe these people. Trolls. Trolls covering their desire to annoy with a mask of civil duty. Maybe some are doing it out of a sense of holding police forces to a higher standard but there's also those simply trying to intentionally provoke a hostile reaction, then acting aghast when they get it. The other word useful here is "sealioning".

    Post edited by pixelburp on


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Perhaps the most frequent and most blatant is police detaining someone without having committed a crime.

    Generally, the crime won't be recorded by the person with the camera, either because they weren't aware, or simply not interested in what was happening. A police officer arresting someone though is far more noticeable. It's highly unlikely that anyone filming an arrest will be able to show that the person is innocent. That's what the courts are for.

    The problem is that these auditors have skin in the game. They're biased from the beginning even before they record anything. Even with random bystanders recording something, who is to know whether they're impartial in what/how they record? Nah. There's too much scope for this to be a political/social gesture that supports one of the various movements out there, or simply to paint the police in a bad light, irrespective of the actual facts of the incident.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭manonboard


    I'm quite a fan of the auditors. The well behaving, respectful, and not crossing the line trolling.

    The ones i've enjoyed the most are when they are simply walking along a curbside, road, or standing still... and get pulled over for ID. They refuse to give ID and are detained because of that, even thought they are not required to produce ID.

    I think people like this shine a spotlight on the mentality and frequently accept abuse of power by the cops. Some really show the tyrannical nature of some police officers. The complete power trip, the abusive demeanors, and the down right lies they tell.

    Most police officers are fine though, and just want to get through their day without any nonsense.

    Given the police brutality that USA seems to have, i think civilian led accountability towards the police force makes alot of sense. These little actions i think help build that.

    Some auditors are trolling too hard though. Nothing wrong with testing your civil rights, but some cross a line and become dangerous.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    In most countries/states (US), if a police officer suspects someone of committing a crime, they can demand the show of Identification. The same for anyone driving. Now, sure, there needs to be reasonable grounds for that suspicion, but the police can easily enough find a reason for the request, based on the behavior of the suspect. The same with checking ID of someone suspected of loitering. Refusing the police officers demand is hardly doing anything to diffuse the situation...

    Now, I'm sure that some police misuse that authority to check ID and ask what someone is doing in an area.. but honestly, I can't see what the problem with them doing so. So, out of curiosity, why would you find it objectionable that they would ask for ID, and/or check why someone is in a particular area?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭manonboard


    I think the part about if a police officer suspects you of committing a crime, that's perfectly fine. The 'bad' officers in the published videos don't tend to know which crime they are suspecting.. it very often is a search for some information, or some conversation game to try to the civilian to trip up SO that they can then have more justification for further intrusion into the persons time/freedom.

    I think if the laws in the state they live say that they only have to show ID (which also means historic records once its run through the systems) when a crime is suspected, then that is the only time a citizen should need to show it. Not because some cop doesn't like the person, or feels insecure about their authority in the eyes of the citizen. Someone once told me a sentence that I think captures what appears in many of these videos 'If you don't respect my authority, then I won't respect you as a person'.

    I think since the videos are purely recording the actual events, then the cops who follow the law, and behave well have nothing to hide. They're not entitled to privacy like a civilian is. The bad cops (which are a small number) are often disciplined or have it placed on their records. I think overall this is a good direction to help reform the police force in the states, which will take a century or more.

    The last paragraph you wrote mentioned 'misuse', and 'why someone is in particular area', are both exactly why it needs to be done. Civilians have a right to privacy and to be assumed to be not doing anything wrong, unless there is suspicion of a crime. I tend to think of it as Civilians own society, and the police force is a utility to protect it. So the civilians rights rank above the police power if there is a conflict. Of course, I'm pretty reasonable and I know this is a huge grey area with incredibly complexity of which i cannot begin to guess correct solutions to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    I think that in America the courts have ruled that photography in a public place is not grounds to ID.

    ' ... the police can easily enough find a reason for the request...' is troubling however. This is where there is an abuse of power. If the courts have proved otherwise then these people do not have to give ID. Also there is freedom of the press embedded in their constitution.

    if I was walking down the street and I was asked for name, address and DOB, I would not be forthcoming unless I legally had to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,138 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    The first amendment of the Constitution was the 1939 act that extended the definition of "time of war" in Article 28.3.3° to include armed conflict that the State itself was not a participant in (amended addition in bold):

    3º Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in pursuance of any such law. In this sub-section "time of war" includes a time when there is taking place an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but in respect of which each of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have resolved that, arising out of such armed conflict, a national emergency exists affecting the vital interests of the State.

    An interesting chapter in Irish history, given that it was signed into law the day after Germany invaded Poland, and allowed the Irish Government to exercise emergency powers during World War II. But it's hardly something that I'd waste my time watching people "audit" on YouTube.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,642 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    even weirder when you have people in the US and UK doing this.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Whereas I don't think that civilians have a "right" to privacy (against the police) within a public space. If, by your behavior, you are drawing the attention of the police, then you should be willing to diffuse the suspicion by producing ID or explaining why you're there. Refusing to comply with a reasonable request, merely adds to any suspicion that the police officer might have (Especially, in many parts of the US where crime is more common). To me, it makes practical sense for the protection of the overall population, that the police should be able to stop, identify and query the behavior of individuals. Which is what the law provides in most cases. It takes very little time to explain your circumstances, so it's hardly any real problem for anyone queried. (your own statement about the police not having anything to hide, extends just as easily to any civilian in a public space)

    I think there's too much interest in tweaking the noses, or showing some kind of misplaced resistance to authority in society today. Looking for trouble so that you can complain about the police being unreasonable. Which is what these kind of recordings often seek to portray, without any real context for how the situation developed.

    As for why it needs to be done, I don't see it the same way. It encourages a lack of trust in the police, and a stereotype that the police are abusing the power entrusted to them. Which is disruptive to society, since it does encourage others to resist the police when they're stopped. Makes far more sense to obey, and clear up the problems involved in a logical/calm manner. And yes, I have been stopped in many countries (the US, Spain, China, etc), and by treating the police with respect, been allowed to go my own way. Three times I've been taken to the station, clearing up the misunderstanding there... and I still don't see any of those experiences as an abuse of power. Rather I feel the police are doing their jobs.

    In how many of these videos you watch, do the people stopped for questioning resist the attentions of the police? (verbally, body language, etc)



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Except, as I said, under many State laws, you would be legally obliged to reveal that information. If you're doing nothing wrong, then, what's the big deal?

    No idea why you're talking about photography...

    As for an abuse of power... the police are our watchdogs. They're supposed to monitor the behavior of the public, and be ready to respond to a crime. That would include watching and checking the behavior of people in their vicinity. I wouldn't see them questioning the public as being any kind of abuse of their authority. Going beyond questioning, without reasonable suspicions, and/or evidence, would be an abuse.. but how is that proved on a camera? That could only be proved at the police station when the charges are applied, and set to be investigated. No?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭BobMc


    I watch a few of these on YouTube, Amagansett Press, very respectful and gives respect if he gets respect, fair enough,

    a few of them are downright dicks, swear etc and are looking for a re-action, you have to give Kudos to some of them,

    the reaction and training of some of the police would really question how reliable they are to carry out their duties,

    I've often wondered why as there are so many of these in circulation they dont mandate more training on it so the police

    are doing their job correctly ?? Teach them what the Auditor can and cant do, when they get a call, respect the auditors rights

    and inform the caller regards the law as it stands. Some of these videos show multiple squad cars and officers turning up for 1 guy

    and a camera what a waste of resources

    Have no time for the reactionist seekers though



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    I agree with you. Long Island Audit is the very best I think. Very courageous. Quiet. Respectful. Polite. Never ever raises his voice. And he follows up. Bay Area Transparency does not stand down also. There are other that are a pain. I do like some of the English ones mainly because they come across as witty and quirky.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,513 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    I like them and it shows the way police in the USA are badly trained and uneducated. American cops are decidedly aggressive and arrogant. I asked a cop in downtown Boston for directions to a Salvation Army store once and he decided I was homeless and threatened to arrest me as a vagrant. He put his hand on his gun and started moving towards but the other cop with him held him back and explained I was looking for the shop not the services. Just wanted some vintage shirts and nearly got arrested and/or beaten.

    One thing these video show is the amount of cops doing nothing when 3 or 4 cars turn up over nothing



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,276 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    And another thing they show is how easily the police think that their instructions must always be followed. And that comes from a lack of challenge to their behaviour And some of the auditors do exactly that.

    One video I saw has an officer say (under his breath) to his colleague words to the effect that if they (ie the auditors) did that twenty years ago they would be laying on the ground and missing teeth. This is shocking stuff for a policeman to say. Don't know what happened him but he should be held to account. He was recorded by a fellow policeman as they were wearing cameras etc. The public can request the footage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,513 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Yeah saw that one and all the aggression was from the cops. If there were cameras about when I was a teenager there would have been several Gardai charged for assaulting teenagers. There was one who was notorious for it in Coolock until he messed with the wrong kid not knowing who is brother was. Rumour is he left the country and even then had to move a few times.



Advertisement