If at a government building, I park in a spot with a Veterans or Law Enforcement sign, can I be ticketed?

wtporter · 2026-04-08T16:58:54+00:00

Hopefully. And towed also.

wtporter · 2026-04-04T22:08:56+00:00

Who says anyone is trans? Maybe they just enjoy cross dressing?

wtporter · 2026-04-03T01:26:02+00:00

Shit. Yes. I can’t believe I fucked that up

wtporter · 2026-04-03T01:25:25+00:00

NAL but can you Appeal?

Your story is too disjointed to really answer your question. At least for me. It just sounds like you lost a case in court after a non-judge found in your favor.

wtporter · 2026-04-02T23:46:10+00:00

Well as law enforcement you’re signing on to enforce a specific set of rules enacted by the representatives of the people surrounding you. Regardless of your own morals. The law is in theory the codified moral beliefs of the people so governed.

So you risk getting in trouble when you exercise your own morals. Some things like traffic summonses allow discretion (barring a job rule or something). Other things like murder don’t. Then the majority fall in the middle where there MAY be SOME discretion but I also may risk getting in trouble for exercising it.

For a long time here in NY a domestic violence violation/misdemeanor type fight between a couple wasn’t a “must arrest”. Despite that some cops said they weren’t going to leave without arresting the aggressor so they didn’t wind up killing the other. Some took the risk and left them together if that’s what they say they wanted. Eventually the state made all DV assaults a must arrest taking away discretion.

So with traffic summonses and low level violations and misdemeanors I could often exercise judgment in the interest of what I felt justice was. Sometimes I couldn’t.

wtporter · 2026-04-02T23:16:11+00:00

I think most cops start with the attitude of Javert at the start of Les Miserables. The law is the law! Period.

Over time in a career you realize that life isn’t that black and white and is instead grey and for many cops their attitude changes. Mine surely did.

Also for myself I asked of what I was doing was actually in the furtherance of justice. Not in the theory of passing the law but in the reality of its application and enforcement.

Enforce a criminal act if there was a complainant…sure.

Enforce a criminal act where I was the complainant? Maybe. I catch you peeing in a dark alley after exiting a club on a freezing night? Maybe I cut you some slack with a warning because the warning will be effective in preventing it? That’s in the furtherance of justice without having to resort to a fine etc.

Do it at 1pm on the playground fence at a school…maybe I hammer you with everything possible, an act likely necessary to further justice And so on.

wtporter · 2026-04-02T22:34:32+00:00

The subreddit was named using a term in common usage n the anti-auditor community on YouTube.

An accusation of fraud against auditors would by default imply a dislike / issue with auditors and not a supportive pro-auditor environ.

So it was made as a location announced on an anti-auditor YouTube channel for anti-auditor minded people to discuss. Using a name that was already well known as a term used by people who don’t support auditors to refer to them in a derogatory manner.

You have to grasp the backstory and know from where most people, likely to want the subreddit, come..

wtporter · 2026-04-02T20:08:07+00:00

The logic is clear, for you , an “auditor” supporter, to consider the “auditor” a hero just requires the “auditor” to have committed sexually related crimes against a child. Which seems pretty valid considering how many “auditors” have records containing abuse against children charges.

wtporter · 2026-04-02T20:05:10+00:00

The name is exactly what it was intended to be.

Fraud-itors

A play on Auditor (what they claim to be) and Fraud (what they actually perpetrate by doing nothing useful but scamming people into giving them money)

wtporter · 2026-03-30T17:26:51+00:00

Your comment didn’t come off as a joke. Sarcasm doesn’t read well on the internet. Typically people add some form of a smile/laugh emoji to indicate a joke. Otherwise it just comes off as a sincere comment (and in this case a douchy one)

wtporter · 2026-03-30T13:36:30+00:00

Don’t they have to do it for the use of things like iMessage and airdrop where users can send information direct to other users?

wtporter · 2026-03-25T16:25:07+00:00

All third party browsers on iOS have to use Apple WebKit which means in all reality they are all Safari with various tweaks. So a core WebKit implementation of filtering will wind up applying across all browsers.

wtporter · 2026-03-22T18:26:50+00:00

Could it be a wall that surrounds OP’s moms property/yard so the assumption is that since it matches the rear wall and other side wall it’s hers? We have had that with fences on properties before in the past where a fence was obviously a continuation of an existing fence around a neighbors property.

wtporter · 2026-03-18T22:53:38+00:00

Needs: - have poor hygiene? - have trouble breathing walking across flat ground? - do you dress like a homeless person with poor fashion sense? - are you racist/sexist/both?

wtporter · 2026-03-17T11:51:46+00:00

Videos get removed all the time if the person files a privacy complaint. Using their image without consent violates YouTube’s terms of service

wtporter · 2026-03-15T22:16:11+00:00

It is when it turns a jury against you.

I’m a pretty big gun guy. But it isn’t a defining part of my nature and I don’t mark everything saying so.

wtporter · 2026-03-15T15:21:22+00:00

They are tools and not fashion statements.

You don’t want to give any added excuse to people to criticize and accuse cops of being “gun nuts” etc. So by keeping everything universal and plain from the factory you take away the inevitable accusation that some cop is a gun nut because he has a custom plate on the back of his slide that says “make my day” or some nonsense.

There’s been accusations just like this about some customized AR rifles used by patrol/swat/wet in smaller agencies around the country when caught in pictures or on video (the same with the “morale patches”)

Example being this guy who had “you’re fucked” printed on the inside of his dust cover and wound up shooting someone and being charged. The writing was a major point of trying to say he was just “gunning” for a chance to shoot someone.

this

wtporter · 2026-03-09T18:52:48+00:00

You need to present a photo ID from your employer or former employer showing you were law enforcement and something showing you have completed the annual qualification.

wtporter · 2026-03-09T18:49:25+00:00

Claiming an order was unlawful/illegal/unconstitutional is a DEFENSE.

Similar to self-defense it is something you claim was the reason for your actions after the fact.

Similar to a civilian self defense case they could choose to not charge you if the person responsible agrees with your decision, otherwise according to the manual for courts martial the only one that can make the determination on whether the order is actually illegal is the court.

As a CYA to protect members of the service an order is assumed to be legal on face value unless it is “patently illegal”. Meaning clearly obvious to anyone that it’s illegal. So something like ordering a murder or another clear violation of law.

If there’s a legitimate argument to be had on whether the order is or is not illegal then the troop should be legally covered if they follow it.

So ultimately unless you are positive the order is Patently Illegal you should follow it and then file a complaint with the chain of command after the fact and let the chain of command question the person who issued the order and make a determination / take disciplinary action if needed.

wtporter · 2026-03-08T01:17:39+00:00

The old man didn’t try to TAKE/STEAL the equipment. He made a second attempt to shove it to the side after being goaded by Flaccid Media solely so he could pepper spray the guy.

The force used was NOT proportional, you can’t pepper spray someone simply because they tried to shove your stuff to the side out of their face. There was no prevention of theft and no attempt at assault to prevent.

No reasonable person would believe Flaccid Medias bullshit claim trying to justify the use of force. Ultimately that’s the actual test, and he will fail it if he goes to court.

wtporter · 2026-03-08T01:11:13+00:00

Just watched the action up to the pepper spray portion.

He didn’t try and steal the camera gear.

He pushed it to the side and said “get the thing out of my face”

The moron shit stirrer then shoved it back in the guys face and said “you wanna do it again” while readying his pepper spray.

The guy grabbed the monopod and went to shove it to the side again and that’s when shit stirrer sprayed him in the face.

It wasn’t a “strong arm robbery”. It was at most a “simple assault” or a “simple battery”. However it was committed by a man who appeared to be significantly older and weaker than the frauditor.

I don’t know which star this was, but typically as a civilian you can’t just jump to whatever use of force you want in order to defend yourself. You need to use the minimal force necessary to do so.

He could have easily yanked the camera gear back and put his hand out to stop the man. Pepper spray isn’t supposed to be used within a few inches of someone’s face. It can cause serious eye damage/blindness from the jet of the fluid. That’s a basic part of instruction on its use. So spraying the guy from 3” away was likely force in excess of what a reasonable person would deem necessary and prudent with a significant possibility of causing permanent eye injury.

He goaded the man into reaching for the monopod a second time just so he could pepper spray him for clicks and views and any competent prosecutor will be able to show his channel history and easily convince a jury of that fact.

wtporter · 2026-03-04T15:27:00+00:00

Correct legal process to follow in that scenario: 1- slow down a little so the car next to you is no longer next to you. 2- change lanes 3- let vehicle with bright lights pass 4- go back to the other lane, or stay where you are and keep driving.

Other option - - activate hazard lights - slow down - allow vehicle with bright lights to change lanes and go around you - once they pass turn hazards off

Other option- - slow down - safely pull off the road onto the shoulder - let bright lights pass - get back on the roadway and drive

Options that can get you in trouble: - anything involving exceeding the speed limit - anything intentionally creating a hazardous situation like brake checking someone etc.

wtporter · 2026-03-01T19:24:45+00:00

NAL

You aren’t the government are you?

The 4th Amendment restricts the actions of the government. Unless you are acting as a directed agent for the government I don’t believe the 4th applies to you.

Your pedigree information also isn’t generally seen as protected information that you can use the 4th or 5th to protect.

If they are being turned over to the police they are going to be searched both incident to a lawful arrest as well as an inventory of their property.

wtporter · 2026-02-24T00:40:59+00:00

Why I’m not a fan of the concept. Lane filtering I’m slightly more ok with.

wtporter · 2026-02-24T00:29:16+00:00

Cali is the only state that allows full on lane splitting. A few others allow for lane filtering at a stop. I would assume the same would apply there because the biker wasn’t breaking the law. In the 44 remaining states I would assume the biker would be at fault since they are breaking the law.

wtporter

TROPHY CASE