Securing Military Bases from Terrorist Attack is Now Tyranny

>It was a scene straight out of Nazi Germany.

>Except it happened in the land of the free.

>A military police officer at Luke Air Force base in Glendale, Arizona was caught on video arresting a peaceful cop watcher who goes by “Silent Citizen” on YouTube.

>Because that’s his schtick.

>Silent Citizen records police all while never saying a word, refraining from comments, insults or questions solely intended to incriminate the person answering them, which is supposed to be a Constitutionally protected right in the so-called land of the free.

>But not in this February 21 video because, ironically, that’s just what Silent Citizen was doing – silently recording from a public crosswalk – when a camera shy, angry Air Force cop approached in a vaguely marked police vehicle, barking orders as if he had broken the law.

"Hey this guy is recording our ECP and monitoring our shift changes and procedures. Could be planning a terrorist attack."

OMG HOW DARE YOU ARREST HIM PIGS SCUM FOREIGN STATIST INVADERS REEEEEE

File: .jpg (109KB, 800x494px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x494px

>>33112582
I don't know why some people think recording military installations is not a big deal. I hope he rots.

>>33112582
this makes this website look stupid, photography of strategic areas of military bases is prohibited and has been for awhile. he could see the same shit on google maps. he obviously wanted to be arrested to protest this. meanwhile ahmed will use his video to plan a VBIED attack.

File: Capture.jpg (90KB, 1112x430px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1112x430px

The Reddit-tier fedora faggotry in the comments is making me want to puke blood onto my keyboard.

>>33112624
Look at the sort by best comments instead.

>>33112641

It's not working! I still hate civilians and sovereign citizens!

>>33112582
>keyword: whenever

as in, has not happened yet

goose-stepping /k/unts are illiterate retards.

>>33112646
What even are sovereign citizens? People who want to live in a country without following the laws there?

>>33112682

Literally yes

>>33112676
he is serving no purpose recording a military base entrance procedures. its the same as yelling fire in a movie theatre. he is helping the enemy by filming it as a matter of fact.

>>33112693
>serving no purpose

you probably think people should not own guns they don't need too

>he is helping the enemy by filming it as a matter of fact
>enemy

who might that be in this incident

>>33112687
Oh. They sound like incredible assholes.

>>33112697
except there is a clearly layed out purpose for owning firearms in the 2nd amendment. Filming a military base doesn't have any constitutional basis. and as the original post shows the president has the right to declare these areas off limits to filming. As to your second question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Fort_Dix_attack_plot

>>33112697

>ISIS
>Al-Qaeda
>Literally every Muslim that isn't a crayon-eating slope-headed retard from Muhamed forcing his 10yo sex slave to give birth even though her pelvis shattered
>BLM (Yes BLM, military is opressing niggas n shiet dincha hear? Shieet)
>China
>Russia
>People who support China/Russia and think they need to hurry up and take first shot against us
>Edgy anarchists who think the military is hiding Ayy Lmao tech

And especially Hollow Earth retards.

>>33112717
>Filming a military base doesn't have any constitutional basis

Public filming is literally protected by the 1st amendment. The cited law only has authority when the president says so and there is absolutely no proof that is the case.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Fort_Dix_attack_plot

Utterly stupid argument, by parity of logic anyone filming in public is an accessory to a potential crime. Funny that you cite a case where the FBI literally did all the legwork. Maybe MP's should have arrested the FBI agent that shot the recon footage.

This happens on a fucking daily basis at my base. There is literally a sign right outside the god damn gate that says do not do this sort of shit, and yet these retards do it anyways.

>>33112738
since 9/11 that rule has been in place at all installations.

>>33112718
>China/Russia is going to start a war by attacking an AF base in Buttfuck AZ
>Area 51 conspiracy theorists are going to storm a AF base in Buttfuck AZ to find aliens
>BLM is going to attack a primary source of welfare for blacks

Textbook case of paranoid delusion.

>>33112738
well lets see, this video shows

1. Number of personnel at the entrance
2. Incident response time
3. call signs
4. SOP
5. Barriers at the entrance
6. amount of traffic based on time of day
7. weapons the gate guards carry

Considering we don't know the intent of the person filming, he may very well be an accessory to a hypothetical crime. A reasonable person would question why some guy is standing on a street corner recording something like this.

>>33112747

citation needed, evidence required, etc

>>33112755
good strawman, you really knocked that one out of the park. That is definitely what the poster implied you certainly couldn't gain any insight into how operations are ran based on this video. its obvious it would be central to an invasion of the base.

>>33112768
>he may very well be an accessory to a hypothetical crime

gotcha, pre-crime is now real.

>A reasonable person would question why some guy is standing on a street corner recording something like this.

And the reasonable answer is: none of your business.

>>33112771
If you served your country instead of collecting welfare checks you would know this.

>>33112776
Another strawman, where did you get your JD?

>>33112773
>strawman

When a crazy person rambles off a bunch of "enemies" that might use this video to plan an attack on a shithole, describing the absurdity of these "enemies" even attacking this shithole is not a strawman. That is just pointing out the crazy person.

>>33112779

That is really shitty evidence.

Let's see an actual announcement from the presidential legal counsel.

>>33112776
>And the reasonable answer is: none of your business.
And detaining you for that would be a reasonable response. The 1st doesn't apply on military installations and never has. You can be all "hurr i know my rights pigfucker am i being detained", but at the end of the day they are justified.

>>33112604
if they are doing it from public they havent broken any law

>>33112786

Do you even know what a strawman is?

>>33112800
You don't have to receive a classified briefing to know that foreign intelligence agencies have an interest in knowing how base security is ran. Him naming them off doesn't imply he thinks they are going to invade the AFB.

>>33112813
>The 1st doesn't apply on military installations and never has

Citation needed, evidence required.

I do like how you toss out the pigfucker line when the man in the video didn't say a word.

>justified

That is up for a judge to decide and I am liking this guy's chances. Cops/MP's are not known for their legal acumen.

>>33112833
You need to improve your reading comprehension, My example was not me making a case for pre-crime. I stated "hypothetical" I.E. if something were to happen. The fact you made that a component of your response showed you inability to comprehend said post. hence me calling it a strawman.

>>33112857
Wrong, that isn't a strawman!

>>33112867
yeah, okay kid.

>>33112857

When you state that there is no way to deduce intent, as in, reasonable suspicion (the lowest legal bar for detainment), is already off the table, justifying this arrest on the basis of hypothetical crime is equivalent to belief in pre-crime.

File: 1472367643833.jpg (12KB, 353x353px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 353x353px

Coming from a current installation guard, having somebody stand and record your gate is pretty sketchy. Normal people don't usually stand outside and do shit like that.

Yeah probably some edgy teenager trying to get some footage, but the one time it could be something serious.

>>33112839

Oh I see, what he really meant by "helping the enemy" and listing off a bunch of "enemies" was that this tape might disappear into some Mossad or FSB server.

Talk about grasping at straws.

Gathering intelligence on military activities warrants detainment to determine the amount of informatiom gathered and what has been done or is planning to be done with the information.

If the infirmation is determined to have been used or would have imminently been used by agents hostile to the United States, then the suspect will be arrested and tried for any number of things, including treason and espionage.

In other words, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

>>33112880
Jesus christ, that was not my reason for him being detained. THAT, was in response to being an accessory to a crime. His detainment was because he was filming an entrance to a military base, thats illegal. I don't care to argue the merit of whether you think it should be allowed. He was being a sketchball and the airmen did the right thing investigating and detaining him.

>>33112895
Yeah because no adversaries have ever tried to steal things off of military bases right. Have you ever heard of open source intelligence? its literally them going on youtube and finding shit like this.

This has been happening for a while now, so any attempt to pin this on "Fascist Trump" is complete bullshit.

DHS has already issued a memo, backed up by Supreme Court ruling, that videotaping military bases from outside is a protected 1st Amendment activity.

http://www.photoattorney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Photographing-the-Exterior-of-Federal-Buildings.pdf

>>33112715
Oh they are. Just go on youtube and type in "free citizen gets arrested" and watch the tazing begin. Pure retards getting decent beatings

>>33112891
>but the one time it could be something serious.
That's when you start the counter-surveillance, not arrest the guy or do anything that could burn your only lead to a possible Muslim communist ISIS liberal BLM neo-Nazi gun-grabber terror cell.

As the saying goes, a magnetic GPS locator hidden in the target's wheel well is worth two in the bush.

>>33113315
Just go full NCIS Los Angeles on them?

>>33112582
Fucking pigs!

>>33112776
So when a bomb goes off at just the right time and place to kill multiple security forces personnel, I guess we can just shrug and say there's nothing we can do to prevent that kind of thing

>>33112771
Lemme take a photo of the sign stating that photography, videotaping, and making sketches is banned.

>>33113315
You're fucking retarded

>>33113324
>NCIS Los Angeles
Possibly, I haven't watched the show, only the original.

>>33113335
no. u.

>>33113341
NCIS Los Angeles is to original NCIS what CSI:Miami/NY/Cyber is to original CSI.

In other words, it sucks balls and/or is really silly unless you have never seen the originals.

>>33112776
If you are a guard, and your job is to guard, then it very much is your business actually.

Especially if your job is to guard a facility that belongs to the nation and the lives of the people on it.

>>33112771
I'm pretty sure that is plenty far enough into common knowledge to not require a citation. Taking photos of anywhere with airplanes, especially since 9/11, is begging to be arrested for espionage or something

>>33112800
Dismissing an entire argument by addressing only the most easily disputed elements is straw man

>>33112776
>How dare those military assholes protect their base! Fucking fascists! It's my right to record sentries protecting a military installation!

Chair Force guys did alright. If those sovereign citizen faggots want to play stupid games, they can win stupid prizes.

Sorry bootlickers, it would see you're out of luck, on top of the fact the AF guy had no authority to arrest him as he was doing nothing illegal and was not on base meaning he had no authority over him, >>33113289 also proves that what he was doing was ruled protected by the Supreme Court. Apparently they even falsified the charges and claimed he attempted to force entry because they have no leg to stand on. Better luck next time, fascists.

>>33113544
Muslim sleeper cell you need to go back to goatisfuckistan. Your intel collecting buddy isn't getting a clockmed deal out of this.

>>33113326
And if we got rid of the 4th amendment we could bring back stop and frisk and lower violent crime rates, but upholding the constitution is more important than short term solutions.

>>33113360
Unless he's being directly threatened he has no jurisdiction off government property. If it was such an issue he should've called the local PD as they actually have jurisdiction, he was doing nothing immediately threatening.

>>33113513
>It's my right to record sentries protecting a military installation!
Yeah, it is, photographing the exterior of government facilities is perfectly legal.


Hell, I'll agree the guy was looking for trouble and being an ass but the amount of people on here who want to circumvent the constitution in the name of public safety in the same way the soccer moms they hate so much do is very disparaging.

>>33113555
Very astute reply, seems to backed up with the same facts that those cops who smash people's phones for recording them use.

>>33113289
>>33113544
You two must be illiterate because right in the first fucking sentence of the details it states "Except when security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply..."

>>33113556
>The military not taking shit from faggots recording their security procedures is equal to soccer moms.

No. Muslim terrorists have and want to attack military bases in the US and detaining people behaving just like Intel gatherers is just and not in violation of your rights. In fact most DoD base property lines don't start at the gate and extend several meters before you reach a gate to prevent shit like this.

>>33113559
How about you eat your own words and read the first paragraph of the second page.

>>33113555
>chekt
>rekt

>>33113567
What about it? That paragraph only applies if there are no security regulations to be concerned about. Are you trying to tell me that a military installation has no security concerns?

>>33113565
Really, now you're gonna tell me that they have so much property it reaches across a public road and onto the sidewalk? Yeah sure.
>detaining people behaving just like Intel gatherers is just and not in violation of your rights
Yeah, it is, see >>33113289

>>33113579
Mohamed please. Don't want to go to jail? Don't record security operations at a military instillation. I'm sure you can live a long life without having the privilege to record a entry gate.

/k/ - Feeding the trolls since summer

Sweet new slogan Amirite?

/k/ -Trolled softly since day one.

I feel like I'm missing something, lil help here kunts?

>>33113586
I would never record the exterior because I don't go looking for trouble, however when someones first amendment rights have been violated, I'm going to say as much such is the case right here.

>>33113572
Read it again, that first paragraph refers to "in or on federal property"

File: 1455987649794.jpg (72KB, 651x768px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 651x768px

>>33113594
Let me break this down real simple for you.

There is a law that lets people record on federal property. Military bases are federal property. Under this law, people can record on military bases.

However, there are exceptions to this law. These exceptions mean that this law is not in force in every possible situation. This means that there are some federal properties where people cannot record. Even though a military base is a federal property, this law might not be in force in that particular location. This means that sometimes you can't record a military base.

Does that clear it up for you?

>>33112776
a person need not know they're part of a conspiracy to be guilty of conspiracy

File: Screenshot (43).png (176KB, 874x210px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 874x210px

>>33113620
Oh boy, I'm about 90% sure you're ex-mil now with these levels of reading comprehension.

Lets begin, this may be a multiple part post, you know what, fuck it, I'm not typing this out, pictures it is.

"persons entering in or on federal property"

This is the key phrase, this section that says rules and regs can apply is only referring to people ENTERING OR ON FEDERAL PROPERTY. The sidewalk across the road IS NOT federal property.

1/2

File: Screenshot (44).png (206KB, 863x203px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 863x203px

>>33113620
"absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause...must allow individuals to photograph...from publicly accessible spaces."

And before this turns into "Recording is suspicious" that will never hold up anywhere seeing as how the whole point of this document is to say why this isn't illegal. You need something legitimately suspicious.

2/2

>>33112582
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795
Read the NOTES section and not just the Sumery. It breaks down the entire requirements and statements since 1950, which surprise surprise can include all Military base entry and gated locations as they are all "restricted" area's that require accreditation to enter.

Things that are NOT covered are things such as Latrines and Base Exchanges.

>>33112682
They believe governments are corporations
Its laws are based on maritime law
And that its charter does not apply to them
And they can get out of it by demanding to know if they are under arrest, they believe this requires the police to leave the scene, go get a writ, and come back and they can then claim not to abide by it
And yes they do believe the laws don't apply to them
I have seen a video of one particularly dopey cunt in Australia speeding through red lights, refusing to pull over for police, being chased, being forced off the road, insisting through the closed window that he does not recognise their authority, and finally having the police smash through his window and haul him out while he squeals "am I under arrest?" over and over, the video ends with one cop saying in an exasperated voice "yeah mate you're under arrest"
Bizarrely he has OTHER videos, of police coming to his house asking him about his car being identified as driving off from gas stations without paying, and he goes through the same bizarro anti logic denying to acknowledge his name, asking if he is under arrest, asking if they represent the crown, etc
>Sovereign Citizens believe they can commit theft

>>33113774
Now even if you want to argue that the government is illegitimate and whatever
How does that translate into stealing from a business?

Photography is not a crime. The Supreme Court has already ruled videotaping anything within view of a public place is a constitutionally protected act.

If Akmed wanted to do surveillance on a military base for a terrorist attack, all they would need to do is turn to Google streetview and have even better intelligence from overhead satellite images without needing to expose themselves.

>muh cop watchers

wish these faggots would kill themselves desu
Hope they found drugs on him and will put him in prison

>>33113659
Clearly he WAS being suspiscious because he got himself arrested

>>33113774
P. sure there are elements of truth in sovereign citizen stuff

Law definition of driver:
>One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car.

This is where they get their authority in policing the roads, they get you to sign a contract that you are employed as a DRIVER. And they then can punish you if you violate the terms of your contract, without a jury.

>>33112582
>America
>land of the free
When will people stop making this claim? You literally cannot have freedom and society.

>>33112595
That sort of photography is EXACTLY what Hadji uses to scout for attacks. Sorry if you are butthurt, but while he may have over reacted only an enemy of the military records military activity in that manner so it's flawlessly logical to see it as a threat.

>>33113871
Thats nonsense, freedom and homogenous society somewhat works

Freedom and a shitskin infested "society" obviously doesn't work because huge fractions of the underclass are constantly plotting how to attack whites.

This is probably one of the big reasons for bringing in blacks/muslims, to justify the creation of a police + surveillance state

>>33112755
Hadjis record targets all the time. It's quite common overseas. You are ignorant and trolling and should shitpost elsewhere.

>>33112624
>HOW DARE THIS MAN BE PEACEFULLY ARRESTED AFTER DOING SOMETHING PROVOCATIVE
>HE SHOULD HAVE SHOT PEOPLE INSTEAD, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY UNPROVOCATIVE AND JUSTIFIED AND OKAY WITH ME

>>33113892
Imagine what these shitheads would say if someone came to their house, armed, and started filming it 24/7 from the sidewalk

>>33113783
>If Akmed wanted to do surveillance on a military base for a terrorist attack, all they would need to do is turn to Google streetview and have even better intelligence from overhead satellite images without needing to expose themselves.

Wrong. Street view isn't accurate enough to provide a useful traffic picture, monitor guarded areas etc. Street view doesn't monitor activity. It's not even close to being sufficient for recon.

A satellite view not in real time isn't sufficient for surveillance. Street View isn't sufficent for surveillance. Try monitoring shift changes with it if you think I'm kidding.

>>33113921

Probably something like

>"Hello, Police?"

>>33113928
>>33113921
and in theory the Police can do nothing about it as you have broken no laws. This actually happens all the time, mostly with stalkers and/or threatening boyfriends and such and the Police will simply say until an actual law it broken there is nothing they can do, have a great day!

Can only speak for Norway. Photographing and filming is illegal inside and immediately outside military installations - provided there are warning posters - and officers can arrest anyone caught doing so, then hand them over civil police authorities. To the best of my knowledge this law has been in effect for as long as cameras have been available and I really cannot recall this having ever been disputed.

>>33113783

The Google-mobile is forbidden from entering any and all military installations for that exact reason; so enemies can't get a map of the base to plan an attack just by Googling it.

>>33113877

I think you responded to the wrong post bruh.

>>33113634
>what is mens rea

>>33112624
He is right though.

A base doesn't have to be running Secret or Top Secret ops for the No Photography rule to apply.

The very way we load/unload F22s, where the access panels are located, where we store our munitions (everything from spare bullets to rockets, mortars, missiles, and bombs), the routes SecFo take through the base on patrol sweeps, all of it is Restricted information.

You'd be surprised how many run-of-the-mill day-to-day operations are For Official Use Only.

>>33115400
He's advocating that Silent Shitstain should have shot, maced, or tased the Airman to death in "self-defense." That's not only extremely edgy (literally "Imma shoot me da po-po tier") but definitely illegal and not ambiguous like video-taping.

>>33112814
Except the one in the OP

If someone fucks with my Air Force I'm fine with them getting a helicopter ride. I'll even volunteer at the wash rack if they manage to bleed on the way.

There are plenty of shitbags in the military, but nearly all civilians are trash. Anyone who interferes with the military needs to die. Fuck their rights, fuck them, fuck anyone who supports them.

>>33115684
>tips beret

Man, the sovereign citizen faggots are a bunch of screeching autists.

>>33112928
>thats illegal

No it isn't, until proof is provided that USC 795 is in force at this location (and even then interpreting sidewalk filming as a violation of that would be a stretch).

You argue it is already illegal, it isn't.

>>33115684
F

File: SecSign6032.1.jpg (88KB, 725x507px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 725x507px

>>33115792

Say hello to what's posted on every fence of every base along with additional signage at installation entrances informing you you are near a federal installation.

>>33115832
yeah, that only if you're on the property. you can stand outside the fence line and record/photograph all you want, but of course you boot licking faggots seem to think otherwise.

>>33115832

already covered by other anons, does not cover the sidewalk outside the installation.

File: 1374098805954.png (125KB, 386x318px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 386x318px

>/k/ - autistic sovereign citizen legal experts

>>33113325
You're retarded

>>33115866
>SCOTUS said its legal

they must also be sovereign citizens

>>33112622
Gotta be careful about VBIED in Glendale. And the huge, radicalized Islamic population.

>>33113376

No, that would be cherry picking. But then again the entire argument was list rambling about a fantasy, so there was not anything else to make fun of.

Here's a short tale. Back before WW1 in particular, Norway was somehow awash in painters. German painters. They especially loved to make art near our naval bases. Another round of germans arrived in the years before WW2. This time it was through "Kraft Durch Freude" which sent an enormous amount of 'tourists' to every port in Europe. Gotta love those snapshots, right sailors?

>>33113783

>The Supreme Court has already ruled videotaping anything within view of a public place is a constitutionally protected act.

Military bases aren't public property, they're federal enclaves and federal enclaves are empowered by the constitution as well.

File: plc6ghckvvjfoazg6s3t.jpg (23KB, 323x499px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 323x499px

>>33112582
i like how they included a screencap of google maps to prove they were on a public sidewalk, and the indication located is very obviously right in the middle of base property

>>33112676
That's not what whenever means.

But I would like to know if there's a presidential decree with a list of protected areas, and if the base in question was in the list.

However, US code title 18 § 793 b doesn't seems to need for the perp. to be inside.
>Whoever, for the purpose [of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation], copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense [...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

How are copyright laws in the US, btw? Can you sell postcards of a famous building is it's taken from a public area without paying anything to the owner of the rights?

AM I blind or is there a poster in the video, he even films it, that says photography is not allowed? And what did he expect exactly, I mean the officer comes up to him and tries to talk to him and all he says is "I have the right to remain silent"
Did he really think filming a military base would not raise some questions? And then he says nothing at all?

It's like these people go out and seek the best chance to get arrested and then complain about it.

>>33116761

>It's like these people go out and seek the best chance to get arrested and then complain about it.

Welcome to sovereign citizen thought processes.

I am as SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED about the first amendment as I am the second. Fuck any and all who think its okay to stop someone practicing it just because some pre-crime/though crime tier bullshit. Fuck you if you agree with that trash.

>>33118104
If I silently recorded you and your children (pretend you're not a virgin for a moment) outside your house, going to work and then when challenged (pretend you would challenge me) claimed that I was protected by the law, you would at the very least call the police.

>>33112738
>Public filming is literally protected by the 1st amendment.
Wrong! Filming encounters with law enforcement is protected by the first amendment.
For example: Come to PA and film in public and I will arrest you since it's illegal to record audio in public.
>>33113289
*buzzer* wrong again, try reading your own source

>>33118104
The first amendment isn't "shall not be infringed", it's "congress shall pass no law". The right to keep and bear arms is absolute. The right to the freedoms of speech, press, peaceful assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances are fundamental but not absolute.

You can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater.
You can't rape a kid because your religion says it's okay if you wait until they're nine.
You can't scout a military base.

REEEEE I'M A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN! I'M A FREEMAN ON THE LAND! REEEEE POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY REEEEEEEEEEE!

>>33118258
>You can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

This is actually incorrect. That was the argument to a failed case.

>You can't rape a kid because your religion says it's okay if you wait until they're nine.
You can practice a religion that says raping kids is fine and preach that as much as you want, but you can't actually rape children. This is a non-starter because rape is not speech, it is an action of violence.

>You can't scout a military base.
You most certainly can, from the outside.

If its a public place, and I can see it with my eye, there is nothing that should stop me from saving what I see to see later.

>>33115907
Exactly how many arabs do you think it takes to make a VBIED?

I love how /k/ is so anti government, but as soon as someone fucks with the US military they just bend right over and take it. If this guy was filming the atf you guys would be cheering him on. MPs are the biggest bunch of faggots in the military, anyone who fucks with them I applaud. Motherfuckers pulling me over for going 2 mph over the speed limit fuck you

>>33118343
If a VBIED has been made and no authorities are aware. Its already too late, unless the bomb fails to explode. The guards at the gate are dead. The gate is there to create standoff from the building.

File: excuse me subhumans.jpg (60KB, 422x493px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 422x493px

This entire thread is the reason why I will always side AGAINST /k/ if SHTF.

>hurr durr too fat to join muhreens
>My autism and social ineptitude make me unable to follow orders or work with normal people
>I masturbate to drawings of toddlers getting raped and tell myself her screams of agony are Asian-eqsue pleasure moans
>All these people creeped out by my disgusting fetishes deserve to die

>Fuck national security. This soldier makes reminds me of my own life failures so I hope he dies.

File: Anti-Mil Shitposters.jpg (95KB, 1409x297px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1409x297px

Reminder that people siding with Silent Shitlicker are literally jealous they weren't good enough to join the football team and believe our national hegemony is worth sacrificing for their feelings.

>>33112891

What MOS do I need to be a installation guard.

>>33118382
>2 mph over the speed limit
So don't.

>>33118382

why are you driving over the speed limit?

>>33118201
>For example: Come to PA and film in public and I will arrest you since it's illegal to record audio in public.

As always, cops are totally ignorant of the law.

Two-party consent laws do not cover conversations in public spaces where privacy is not expected. SCOTUS went over this already.

>>33118297
>This is actually incorrect. That was the argument to a failed case.
Schenck v. United States is not a failed case
>You can practice a religion that says raping kids is fine and preach that as much as you want, but you can't actually rape children.
meaning that congress can pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion to a point
>This is a non-starter because rape is not speech, it is an action of violence.
Your argument is fallacious because we're not talking about free speech. We're talking about the first amendment.
>You most certainly can, from the outside.
and yet you can't
>If its a public place, and I can see it with my eye, there is nothing that should stop me from saving what I see to see later.
You're welcome to push for a constitutional amendment saying as much, but that's not the case anywhere in the world nor should it be.

File: 1480882243491.gif (2MB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x282px

>>33118258
>You can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater.
What if the theater is really on fire?

>>33112582
AM I BEING DETAINED
AM I FREE TO GO

>>33118486
>why are you driving over the speed limit?
You obviously have never been to Texas, anon.

>>33118654

830 here

There's nothing fucking wrong with the roads. Stop speeding you prick.

>>33118571
>Two-party consent laws do not cover conversations in public spaces where privacy is not expected.
false
You can't even record conversations in private spaces with the consent of the owner without the consent of all involved parties. There is some case law pertaining to what exactly consent is, i.e. remaining in the area with a sign counts and an undisguised security camera in plain view counts.

In Gilk the First Circuit upheld his constitutional right to film only because he was filming a matter of public interest in a public place (and independently because he was filming a government official in a public place). It's also only binding in areas served by the first circuit, which is basically just MA/ME/NH/RH.

Then you have Alvarez, where the Seventh Circuit blocked enforcement of IL wiretapping law with regards to filming law enforcement encounters.

You have the constitutional right to film law enforcement encounters.
You might have the constitutional right to film public servants in public.
You do not have the constitutional right to film John Q. Public.
>SCOTUS went over this already.
They did not.

>>33118630
Then the fire rises.

>>33112582

Some of you retards arguing in favor of the suspect realize that not only the military does this right? Even Vegas casinos will grow suspicious of you for recording shit for too long.

It's called reasonable suspicion. Look it up.

>>33118748
>You can't even record conversations in private spaces with the consent of the owner without the consent of all involved parties

Good thing we are talking about public spaces.

Story on a PA case being dismissed for that reason: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-smartphone-google-glass-wiretap-laws-20150704-story.html

>The Pennsylvania courts are pretty clear that you can't arrest a person for violating the wiretap act unless the person being recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy

Cite a case where PA courts actually convicted and upheld a conviction of a person who was arrested for recording in public because the microphone was enabled. Until then, you are just another ignorant cop.

>>33112582
they should partner up if they are that nervous

>>33112755
>buttfuck AZ
>in biggest city in the state
>any target big or small isn't with it

>>33118897
>AZ
>that's the joke

>>33118811
>It's called reasonable suspicion.
Suspicion in and of itself is not a crime. It has to be reasonable articulation suspicion that a crime is about to or is being committed.

And the rest of you bootlickers are ignoring the fact that recording a military base FROM THE OUTSIDE while on public property is not illegal. Of course once they set foot on base property they can be arrested for all the things you are citing. Because if they had any sensitive materials they would keep them from public view and have walls instead of fences.

>>33112776
>>he may very well be an accessory to a hypothetical crime
>gotcha, pre-crime is now real.

is called conspiracy liberal faggot

>>33115854
>>33115862
Again, actually read the full write up of USC 795 and stop reading the damn summery. Pretty much ANYTHING classified at minimum as restricted is covered and protected from information gathering with zero specification on where that information was gathered from.

Restricted things include Fence Lines, Entry Gates, Security Forces.
Restricted things DO NOT include things like the Post Exchange, Post Office, Latrines, etc.

>>33120039

which in turn requires at the very least reasonable suspicion. and he already disavowed that legal bar in his own post.

bootlickers gonna lick

>>33120733

Not even talking about USC 795 any more, pay attention.

see >>33113289

also even if you want to apply USC 795 to this case, it is the installation in its entirety (not your piecemeal items) that requires an order from the president to deem it as restricted. there is zero proof that Luke AFB has received this classification.

>>33118985
>Suspicion in and of itself is not a crime. It has to be reasonable articulation suspicion that a crime is about to or is being committed.
Yes that's why the officer comes up to him and asks him what he's doing and if he could turn the camera off. The dude doesn't say a single word in return.
You think a random guy, that films a military base and doesn't responds to any questions, is strange? Because I sure do and I would argue most people would agree.

>>33112844
18 U.S. Code § 795 - Photographing and sketching defense installations

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795

Uneducated peasant.

>>33115888
They really didn't. 18 U.S. Code § 795

>>33113315
Just follow him until he goes home and you will get his identity via address or plates and can then put him on a watch list.

I work on a military base and I don't give a fuck if someone wants to film the entrance. Do you think stopping people filming shit will do anything? You can always set up farther away with a zoom lens if you are truely dedicated, or simply stand around and gather Intel like everyone did before cameras existed. The point is that you can't stop people from collecting intel if they so desire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0i7JDJ-cI

>>33121424
>>33121555
>not reading the thread
>not reading the actual law

stupid niggers

File: 1440511113564.jpg (15KB, 240x280px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 240x280px

>>33113289
>>33113649
>>33113659
You must be pretty fucking dumb to misunderstand your own source so badly. The document, published by the Department of Homeland Security, details the procedures to be followed by Federal Protective Service personnel. In case you can't figure it out, the DHS is a separate department than the DoD, and has no jurisdiction over it.

Additionally, because it seems like you don't know, the Federal Protective Service provides security and police services to federal buildings such as federal courthouses and federal agency buildings. This does not include military installations.

Therefore, when the report references
>For properties under the protective jurisdiction of FPS,
it does not apply to DoD buildings and bases in the slightest. Additionally, the exemption that >>33113559 cites, stating
>Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply
would nullify the requirement for FPS personnel to allow recording should they even have jurisdiction over such areas.

>inb4 why the fuck am I arguing with this idiot

>>33121390
>Because I sure do and I would argue most people would agree.
Being strange isn't against the law.

Cop has the right to come up and ask what's going on and to ask to stop filming, but the guy has the right to not answer and refuse to stop filming.

>>33121937

There's a good reason you're not a policy maker, anon.

If a terrorist attack did happen, and they were filming the base in plain sight for days beforehand, and you did nothing at all to see what they were up to, then that's your fuckup.

>>33118343
youre fucking retarded
im not even going to bother to explain why
just know it's 100% true

>>33112786
not that guy, but am a clerk for a Fed Judge.

dude in OP vid is wholly w/i his rights. This looks like some sort of training video due to compliance and cordiality on both sides.

If video guy wasn't such a pussy and not so positive of his rights, he'd never allow to be cuffed.

>>33112582
This dumbass fucks with my department all the time. Just sits outside a station and films trying to get arrested so he can sue. Problem is he doesn't actually know the law. The last 2 times he was arrested was for failing to provide his true legal name to an officer which is the law in AZ. At this point we're supposed to slap him with a disorderly conduct charge too since he knows damn well he's just doing it to accost police and waste community resources.

>>33123048
He's also homeless (at least looks like it) and always smells like he pissed himself. His videos aren't even funny either. Don't give this loser attention. If he were doing funny shit then it'd be a different story, like this fucking guy right here

https://youtu.be/cq6xKAozQLk

I would love to come across this guy and get some comic relief on duty, and he fucks with Cali cops who are actual totalitarian assholes. AZ cops are based, we give three shits about your constitutional rights and all that. Leave us alone.

>>33112582
>Securing Military Bases from Terrorist Attack is Now Tyranny
Since when is 'cop watching' going to "secure a military base against terrorist attack"?

>>33121179
>>33122218
>not reading the actual law
>if you want to apply USC 795 to this case, it is the installation in its entirety (not your piecemeal items)
Sigh....

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the foregoing statutory provisions, and in the interests of national defense, I hereby define the following as vital military and naval installations or EQUIPMENT requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto:

1. All military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which are now classified, designated, or marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, or “restricted”, and all military, naval, or air-force installations and equipment which may hereafter be so classified, designated, or marked with the approval or at the direction of the President, and located within:

(a) Any military, naval, or air-force reservation, post, arsenal, proving ground, range, mine field, camp, base, airfield, fort, yard, station, district, or area.

(d) Any naval harbor closed to foreign vessels.

(f) Any commercial establishment engaged in the development or manufacture of classified military or naval arms, munitions, equipment, designs, ships, aircraft, or vessels for the United States Army, Navy, or Air Force.

>>33123751
2. All military, naval, or air-force aircraft, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, ships, vessels, instruments, engines, manufacturing machinery, tools, devices, or any other equipment whatsoever, in the possession of the Army, Navy, or Air Force or in the course of experimentation, development, manufacture, or delivery for the Army, Navy, or Air Force which are now classified, designated, or marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, or “restricted”, and all such articles, materials, or equipment which may hereafter be so classified, designated, or marked with the approval or at the direction of the President.

3. All official military, naval, or air-force books, pamphlets, documents, reports, maps, charts, plans, designs, models, drawings, photographs, contracts, or specifications which are now marked under the authority or at the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force as “top secret”, “secret”, “confidential”, or “restricted”, and all such articles or equipment which may hereafter be so marked with the approval or at the direction of the President.

This order supersedes Executive Order No. 8381 of March 22, 1940, entitled “Defining Certain Vital Military and Naval Installations and Equipment.”

STOP READING JUST THE FUCKING SUMMERY AND READ THE ACTUAL ORDER.

This is exactly why Piecemeal item's are covered by USC 795 and the Supreme Court Ruling means fuck all for US Military Installations.

Fenceline, Guard Post, Entry Gates, Hangers, Etc are all marked as "Restricted" Area's and fall under USC 795. Shit like base housing, Base Exchanges, Latrines are NOT marked "Restricted" area's and are therefor not subject to protection under USC 795.

>>33113352
CSI: Cyber actually was pretty accurate when it came to a lot of technical stuff.

What I really hated was the somewhat subtle "the government are the only good guys on the internet" message it had going.

File: Callum is a washed up loser.png (9KB, 738x89px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 738x89px

>>33113325

>>33113877
>only an enemy of the military records military activity in that manner
>only
pretty clear that that is not the case

>>33112676
>whenever
this means if anything considered "top secret" or "classified" is recorded, he will be tried for a crime. I'm sure if he keeps persistent, a lawyer will comb through what he recorded and find a way to put him behind bars

>>33123797
Now we just need to trick him into being aroused by trap porn.

>>33122403
play stupid games etc

>>33123092
>>33123092
someday someone is going to take that twats camera away and smash his teeth in. That will be a good day for society.

>>33123951
That's not what we want and exactly what he wants, a lawsuit.

>>33124208
for which he will need evidence. I doubt cops would do that shiy while in uniform but if a few guys just happened to be driving by... be intersting to see if he reported it.

>>33115417
You are not very smart are you.

>>33118428
Fucking this. /k/ is now a safe haven for people that would be better suited for /d/ or /a/ or any other anime pornographic board where no one judges you by your actions.

>hurr if you think he should have been detained and interrogated you're a boot licker
Enjoy that ambush you retard.

>>33118258
>The right to keep and bear arms is absolute.
Nope. No right is absolute. Try entering a police station or approaching the prez with your weapon at the ready and tell us how it goes.
And I'm pretty sure no country in the world allows firearms into a court trial too, for very obvious reasons.

>>33112676
Executive Order 10104.

I have no opinion in this matter but I just need to point out that anyone spouting the "fire in a crowded theater" cliche is an idiot.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/

Short version: that line is nearly a century old rhetorical flourish from a famous eugenicist jurist who was justifying throwing WW1 protesters in prison (1st amendment get fucked), the decision in question has now been relegated rightfully to the dustbin of history.

>>33125327
>still hasn't read the thread

That does not cover the sidewalk outside, deal with it.

>>33118164
>you would at the very least call the police
To do what exactly?

>>33118258
>You can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater.
I wish this meme would die in a fire.

>Spend hours just sitting outside, recording the entrance to an air force base that's home to an F-35 fighter wing and the only current training site for said aircraft
>Get asked to stop your bullshit by an MP who could rip you in half
>Don't say anything
>Get told repeatedly to put the camera away and asked if you even speak English
>Stay dead silent
>Get arrested
Wow, truly we live in a totalitarian police state.

>>33112582
HERP DERP THE TERRORISTS GUYS IT'S JUST LIKE CSGO RUSH B

>>33115417
IYAOYAS

>>33115417

>He's advocating that Silent Shitstain should have shot, maced, or tased the Airman to death in "self-defense." That's not only extremely edgy (literally "Imma shoot me da po-po tier") but definitely illegal and not ambiguous like video-taping.

For the life of me, I just cant understand then why the military would have a problem with these people creeping around the perimeter of their bases.

>>33115989
Okay, I laughed.

>>33112624
those comments are all basically neo-/k/

>>33123728

>Reading Comprehension

>>33124409

>I have no rebuttal so I will resort to the "hurr durr dumb soldier" meme

>>33112682
People who want to freeload off society while going out of their way to contribute nothing to it.

>>33132543
>truism
>meme

pick one

>>33112582

>STOPRIGHTTHERECRIMINALSCUM.JPG

File: [Laughs in American].jpg (15KB, 374x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x378px

>>33132635

>>33112755
>BLM is going to attack a primary source of welfare for blacks
Let's see...in just the last 6 months BLM has attacked:
>public healthcare clinics (90% of clients are black, and they're free, ergo welfare)
>their own neighborhoods
>Habitat For Humanity (serves 90% blacks, and is free, ergo welfare)
>17 separate McDonald's (employs 70% blacks and ignores felonies and drug convictions, ergo welfare)
In case the above isn't clear enough, niggers don't fucking think when they're chimping out.

>>33132662
>taking the joke line seriously
>actually thinks BLM will attack a military base

this board is dumber than /pol/

>>33132696
I wouldn't put it past them honestly.

I mean, they HAVE burned a recruiter station while the recruiters were present (and then attempted but failed to barricade them inside), so technically they already have.

>>33132662
>niggers don't fucking think when they're chimping out

Then youtube videos wouldn't make the slightest bit difference, right?

>>33112582
>Combat Shirt
>On security forces
I would ask why the fuck those are even made in the Air Forces retarded camo, but this picture answers that question. Retarded "I was Air Force '''''SF""" toolbags will buy it.

File: 1e7.jpg (28KB, 600x320px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x320px

>>33132711
>a recruiting station is technically a military base

>>33132746
It's Federal property, contains classified information (all PII is considered classified), and governed by the UCMJ, so...legally yeah it is.

>>33132764

ah so all the recruiting station in run-down strip malls are actually federal property. hot damn.

>UCMJ

topkek

educate yourself nigger: https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/military-installation/

File: imrs.jpg (437KB, 1484x2144px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1484x2144px

>>33132797
Nice of you to provide an entirely irrelevant link.

Please tell me, how is TRADOC not under the direction of the Secretary of Defense?

Because TRADOC runs recruitment stations, the military either buys or leases (legally the same, the current tenant is considered the owner for most purposes) the building, etc etc.

Pic related.
>Federal building

>>33132764
PII is not "classified", it's protected or "sensitive".

"Classified" entails Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. If PII was classified then damn-near everything administrative would have to be done in a SCIF. Lel.

>>33132917
>how is TRADOC not under the direction of the Secretary of Defense

because the vast majority of recruiting stations lease commercial property to run their idiot traps, ergo the land is literally not administered by the secretary of defense.

>legally the same

It is not.

>Pic related

It isn't.

>>33132917
>makes outlandish claim that recruiting stations are legally military bases
>link is the legal definition of a military installation
>irrelevant

topkek

>>33132982
It meets the legal definition of a military base, there have been 2 court cases upholding them as military bases (including the 2011 attack on a recruitment station), the DoD is the lease-holder and thus administrator of the facility, Federal law applies on their premises, etc etc etc.

How are you not fucking understanding this?

>>33133008

Citation needed, evidence required.

Or don't, you're obviously retarded and delusional.

>2011 attack on a recruitment station
>2 court cases

Which, and provide case name.

>>33133073

> a building operated by the federal government isn't federal property

so which brand of paint chips is your favorite?

>>33133104
>a strip mall front leased by the federal government is federal property

F

Why does this autistic stuff only happen in the United States?

I never see or hear anything of the kind anywhere else.

>MPs are subhuman morons who should be euthanized for their and everyone else's sake
Understood

>>33133073
Here's the official page of USAREC showing the clear chain of command that they "own" the recruiting stations and that such stations fall under military rule

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command and its Soldiers, Families, Civilians and Contractors are the Army’s trusted ambassadors to the American people. We “Provide the Strength” from the 1,400-plus recruiting stations nationwide and overseas

Here's the DTIC page that says the military owns and governs recruiter stations and provides a clear and transparent chain of command of such all the way to the SecDef.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/516058p.pdf

Chattanooga recruitment office shootings investigated by Naval CID and the FBI because federal property, shooter killed at scene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Chattanooga_shootings

Little Rock recruitment office shootings investigated by CID and FBI, shooter charged in Federal court under Federal laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Little_Rock_recruiting_office_shooting

>>33133192
wow fucked up the first link.
http://www.militaryinstallations.dod.mil/MOS/f?p=MI:CONTENT:0::::P4_INST_ID,P4_CONTENT_TITLE,P4_CONTENT_EKMT_ID,P4_CONTENT_DIRECTORY,P4_INST_TYPE,P4_TAB:20142,Installation%20Overview,30.90.30.30.30.0.0.0.0,1,INSTALLATION,IO

>>33133192
>search "own"
>not a word on ownership

good one

>neither case in 2011 as you said
>there is actually a line in the 2015 article talking about the navy stationing guards in recruitment stations *not in military bases*

pro-tip: shooter being prosecuted in federal court says absolutely nothing about recruiting stations being military bases

tldr: you're fucking idiot

>>33112755
Luke AFB is an F-35 base, being able to infiltrate and disable these fighters would benefit China, Russia, and any other enemy.

Additionally, the military is really paranoid when weirdos decide to record military bases, and acting suspicious. Imagine if this was right in front of your moms house, and some weirdo was recording the entrance from the side walk, and when you ask him "What are you doing m8" he just ignores you.

>>33133202
>literally not a word on what you claim

1/10 for repost effort

>>33133249
>there are people who actually think videos from public streets will help penetrate secured aircraft storage far away from said public street

Alternatively: US military MP's and base security are totally incompetent

File: main-qimg-c2a5b796a4e059206137cbecc7d19419-c.jpg (40KB, 572x375px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 572x375px

>>33133345
Or China could send someone to steal more F-35 intel so that they can fix their J-31 mess.

>>33133385

They would be taking that from Lockheed Martin HQ, not some podunk AFB.

>>33112582
>AKA Retard films near military installation and wonder why he gets arrested by MPS

>>33133417
Hmm, not true, it's very reasonable that someone could try and exploit this base for the F-35 and intel on it, or alternatively someone who is crazy, like you, could be using all this information to find out when the entrances are under powered (Like female secfo instead of male) and attempt to attack them for some kind of delusional beliefs (Islamic, thinking you're fighting for liberty).

Just picture the situation in your head, remove the airforce base, and make it your home, if some reject autist was doing the same thing here, you wouldn't like that, don't deny it.

>>33133417
any base that houses those has all the tech manuals... what do you think they do when it breaks?

>>33133584
That's very true, some bases have their Level 5 TMs in relatively unguarded parts of the base, some autist with a friend stationed their or an old cac could get on if the secfo at the entrance isn't doing his or her job.

>>33133578
>>33133584

jesus christ people, whatever china needs to buff their aircraft designs won't be found in technical manuals and handbooks.

things like design dimensions and limits, material details, source code are stored with the actual brains behind the show (i.e. not the military).

>>33112582
>reads OP

HOLY FUCKIN SHIT
I got stopped at a fucking COMMISARY because I took a panoramic pic.

A goddamn grocery store. She made me delete the pic. But I could have just recovered it! Makes no sense. I guess I'm glad they didn't take away my SD card.

Smartphones get me in trouble. Im a porn addict and an internet addict so having a smartphone KILLS my productivity.

So basically, everyone approving of this shit image saying that NO ONE has the right to film ANYTHING ever. Because they might be filming to commit SOME HYPOTHETICAL CRIME.

Well, I guess we should take away all the GUNS too. Because someone might get upset and shoot some people.

Take freedom of speech away, because you might offend someone and cause them to commit suicide.

Hell, let's just throw out the whole damn thing. Who needs RIGHTS in a military state anyway?

And before you accuse me of not serving, I did serve. I served in both Iraq and Afghanistan as well. I lost a lot for my service too. My only issue is that proper procedure was not followed.