MrEWyss...since it was concurrent jurisdiction, they did not have to have a civilian law enforcement officer present. I stopped many a civilian on both those highways for speeding and issued them citations without having to have CHP present. Their is a federal magistrate and court on base for the civilians who have citations issued. They have the option to pay the fine or show up for their day in court.
I was stationed at VAFB before and for all those who have a question about jusrisdiction over civilians on this highway or highway 1, which also cuts thru the base, are base/federal property so the jurisdiction is concurrent on both highways. This means that no matter who you are, military or civilian, you have to abide by both state laws and military laws/regulations and can be stopped by either civilian or military police for breaking any law/regulation (speeding, protesting, etc).
As you drive on these highways, you come across signs that say "Welcome to Vandenberg AFB" and tell you that you are entering base property. The problem is most people are driving too fast and just do not like to read or pay attention to these signs.
He was not arrested, he was just detained so he could receive his citation. If he was arrested he would have had his rights read to him. Military does have authority as soon as they step foot on federal property or federally patrolled property. As far as not having local law enforcement present, it was not needed they may issue him a citation to appear and detain him with out the local law enforcement's blessing as long as they are authorized to patrol that certain area,
@hellcatair18 There was no justifiable cause for his detainment. He was on a public highway, so there fore the citation is not legal. It is not necessary for a LEO to read your rights upon being arrested, as long as they are read before interrogation. Military has no jurisdiction on state roads, their action was illegal as this is not federal property. Local law should have been contacted. This action is in violation of posse comitatus.Military has no jurisdiction in civilian surrondings.
@ohannahdad There is a thing called Concurrent Jurisdiction meaning that they did have the right to do what they did regardless if it was not inside the fence line.
@Psykojr Cocurrent Jurisdiction deals with courts of equal lattitude or standing. There are different courts at state level which could have jurisdiction over a matter. (see) Separation of Powers & Rules article 3 10thy amendment. This is military law enforcement on civilian property which violates Posse Comitatus Act.
@ohannahdad Now with you saying the Posse Comitatus Act here is something else to look at. In the video description, it states that the highway bisects, or runs through, Vandenberg AFB, therefore, while driving along, there should be a sign stating "Now Entering Vandenberg AFB" and hence they are driving on military property and they have every right to detain, arrest, and bar said individual from the base and base property.
@Psykojr The public highway that this man was arrested on doesn't run through the AFB. It crosses over the road that runs through the AFB. This public road is the only road allowing access to a train station and a county beach. These military clowns BROKE THE LAW because they don't like the sign message he is carrying. In the past, they have treated this old guy like an animal because of a peaceful protest and they have to break the law to do it. They are disgusting, and you run to their defense
I am an ex-USAF SP and I watched all three videos. The main thing the my brother AF cops did wrong was to not have a civilian law enforcement officer (US Marshall, C.H.P., or county sheriff deputy) with them. They have no authority over civilians. Because it is a public road the gentleman has a right to be there, no matter how annoying he may be.
There is no basis for your "assumption." He was never arrested for failure to appear. His trespassing conviction was "vacated" because, based on the facts, he was not guilty. He was so not guilty, that they government couldn't even retry him.
FLAW FLAW FLAW FLAW THIS video STATES that the man was arrested, He was not therefore ur wrong, take that! but in all truths you should never mess with the military their there to protect you, and if u argue ur just as bad as a terrorist to this country, love ur country Hobert. love ur country
There is conflicting information. The district court appeal, where he was found not guilty, says he was "cited"
"Parker was cited twice for violating section 1382 and the VAFB Commander issued a “barment” letter... Several days later, Parker was cited for the third time."
...
"Because the government does not have an exclusive right of possession over Ocean Avenue... Parker’s presence and protest activities cannot constitute violations of section 1382."
Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security. See Title 18 of United States Code. Don't think so? Call your local United States Attorney's office. You may not like it, but they can and do prohibit it- even from where you think you're on public land.
@oscarwildeghost; I concede that the President can disallow the photographing of a subset of military installations that are labelled "top secret", "secret", "confidential", or "restricted". I would challenge, but cannot prove, that such designations would require that the item be restricted from public view.
However, 'can' does not mean 'has'. I will still require proof of the 'has' when I address someone saying I cannot take a photo from a public place.
There is nothing sensitive, and even if there was, the law (50 U.S.C. Section 797) requires posting of any activities that are prohibited. There thousands of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians who pass through the military installation daily. Anybody can take a picture, and I have seen whole busloads of people stop at the main gate and take pictures. It would be impossible to stop anybody from filming or taking photos.
which im assuming besides this one case you have nother to go off of... and like i said i was involved in something exactly like this, except the man was compliant... and moved off the military property and did everything that was asked... he even came back and stayed off the property and we didnt do a thing except call the local police cause he and a group of people were basically in the street protesting which isnt the safest thing to do... as i said jurisdiction plays a part, pay attention.
@Pafoofnik1 i already told you what you asked for. but you just dont get it. im done talking you obviously just don't understand what im telling you. it is what it is. i told you what says he cannot take photographs and what gives military personnel the authority to detain him as a civilian for his actions. thats what you asked for and thats what you got.
@Pafoofnik1 and you cant prove anything either... why cant you cite what says he can huh? cause you have no proof...all you are doing is going off what other people say but you can't even come up with anything yourself... just riding the bandwagon.... trust me they all agree with me... as i said i was involved in a case exactly like this, except we asked the guy to leave and he left from the bases property... you are the one beating around the bush why dont you offer a quote for proof? big guy..
@sdot18: I'll be happy to debate the U.S. legal system of "allowed unless denied" just as soon as we are finished with the original topic.
Let me remind you:
You said: "unfortunately that's what all civilians think, that their rights allow them to do that... but that isnt true, just because you can see something doesnt mean you can take pictures (...of things in public view... but that isnt true, just because you can see something doesnt mean you can take pictures."
@Pafoofnik1 youre clownin... still cant argue youre side... cause youve got nothing... ive provided my proof.. go look it up for yourself... use youre head since you think you are so intelligent and that you think you know something about military law and rules and regulations...
@Pafoofnik1 lol i already cited what pertains to this, go look it up. i could easily say whatever i want to "prove" what it says... try using your head for a change... you havent cited anything that relates to this. nor have you explained anything from your side... you are saying yes he can do that, well why can he? cite what says he can and prove it for me. and cite was says they arent allowed to DETAIN not arrest... cause military doesnt arrest ANYONE at all.
@sdot18: I also asked for quotes. Requiring quotes helps to keep people from running around looking up cited laws and court cases, only to find the actual proof absent.
I don't need to explain a thing. I'm not the one that said I'm not allowed to take photos of things public view. You did.
And now you are showing us all that you can't support your guess with any proof.
You never said a thing about detain or arrest in your original comment. Please stay on topic.
@Pafoofnik1 hahaha yes i did. as i said pay attention. you are just proving youve got nothing but empty words, you say you can, well how do you know? cause the picture fairy told you you can? get real son. it's not a guess it's fact, you are the one guessing cause you cant say anything else beside yes i can, ive cited actually text. it's not my fault you are either too inept or incapable or lazy or whatever of doing things yourself... whatever your reason for not, i told you where to find it.
@Pafoofnik1 you are just making assumption, it is proven by you saying it is almost always legal.
it isnt based on any known knowledge if you can or not... strengthening the fact poofnik 1 doesnt know what he's talking about...
seeing how his argument doesnt even make reference to anything other than his own opinion..
no matter how poofnik 1 responds he still cant provide anything other than someone else's comments on youtube on if you can take photos of federal property and tresspass
@Pafoofnik1 how did i prove you right? you said you can photograph because someone else said you can. not because you know. you must live in some dream world my friend. why dont you offer some proof backing your words, if not, i guess that means im proved right... make my job easy, just assume things. not backed on anything but your own opinions. showing you have no clue what you are talking about. and no knowledge of any laws, you cant even make reference to anything backing your claims.
@Pafoofnik1 hahahaha you are a clown... just avoiding proving yourself wrong... im done talking to you, you have no clue what you are talking about, American democracy? really get a clue... how about this... educate yourself on federal laws first, then come talk to me... youtube is a terrible place to get your law degree my friend...
@Pafoofnik1 basically what this boils down to is. just because you have the ability to do something. doesnt mean you should or that its allowed, i could go outside and shoot some one right now, i shouldnt but who would know to stop me? i could walk right on to someones lawn & take pictures of their house right? thats what youre saying, it's in public view so irrespective of their privacy by law im allowed to trespass & invade peoples privacy? i think not. just because you can dont sound stupid.
@Pafoofnik1 check your statement, you just contradicted yourself... you said you can take pictures whats in public view... just cause the public can see it doesnt mean it's ok to take pictures, good to know you are confused about the subject.. the fact is it's private property which yes the public can see. but that doesnt mean taking pictures is ok... what you are saying and what i said is no different... shouldnt you be in school btw?
@Pafoofnik1 hahaha well you should have stayed in school cause teaching yourself isnt working out.... you still are basing your claims on personal opinion. which is very misinformed... we are talking about whether or not you can take pictures of a military base you are trying to change it around... please stay on topic what this was originally about...
@Pafoofnik1 lol, you are obviously behaving childish now, im gonna stop responding to you now, have a nice day pafoofnik 1. you are nothing more than a child asking "why" continuously after being given a reason...
and as far as filming or photographing we have OI's or operating instructions as in for the air force AFI 31-201/31/207 says they cant and what we can do when civilians do do those things my friend... those are military which means they are federal regulations that all citizens must adhere to... and you were the one saying civilians cacn photograph and they shouldnt have put that guy in cuffs. so tell me where it says they cant and where it says he is allowed... unless you have no proof...
@sdot18 said: "and you were the one saying civilians cacn photograph and they shouldnt have put that guy in cuffs. so tell me where it says they cant and where it says he is allowed... unless you have no proof..."
This is a false statement.
I never said any such thing.
However., I'll be happy to discuss this topic just as soon as we finish with the current debate, which is just as soon as you admit that there is no law you said exists.
umm i pretty sure i already did, you are just refusing to acknowledge it my friend, all those are federal laws title 18 usc is united states code... 7b UCMJ is uniform code of military justice, and rule 302 RCM is rules for courts martial, that is where mp's get their authority to apprehend military and detain civilians... it's there black and white i cited what you wanted... and as i said jurisdiction at each base is different and it also plays a part.. in that respect there is nothing to cite.
@sdot18: You cited something, but failed to quote where in that cite that makes my comment that "People can almost always photograph things in public view." unlawful.
Doesn't really matter. I am not almost never subject to the UCMJ as a civilian in a public place.
and once he moved that was that he kept protesting and it was fine as long as he wasnt on our property.. although it was a public road we still had jurisdiction on it thus allowing us to tell him he needed to move.. being completely within the rule of law... but im in texas, and that is california, two different places...
also jurisdiction of every base isnt the same as i said, some places military is allowed to go off base and detain civilians, and sometimes what civilians think is public property actually at times belong to the military which means they are tresspassing which means they can be detained NOT arrested, i have seen this personally and dealt with a case like this, where a civilian was protesting outside the gate but still ON military property... he was asked to moved so he did... across the street.
@pafoofnik, you said yourself people can almost always photograph whats in public view. except illegal thing like upskirts, i said when it comes to the military and it's assets no they cant. you need to get your fact straights while were on the topic, cite what statute that says the militry cannot go off base and detain civilians for photographing things on base.. title 18 usc. aricle 7b UCMJ. rule 302 RCM. just to name a few. gives us our authoruty to arrest AND detain civilians my friend...
the military bases dont start/end right where the gate/ fence is. it usually extends out 100 yards or so. something else people dont realize. and if it is split by a public highway like vandenberg in CA or lackland in San Antonio the military police or government contractors are allowed to patrol those places, thats what this guy doesnt realize. now we werent there we dont know how far off from the highway he was... but if he was close they would have removed him from the area first...
@Pafoofnik unfortunately that's what all civilians think, that their rights allow them to do that... but that isnt true, just because you can see something doesnt mean you can take pictures. certain rules we have say, this can be photographed or it cant be photographed. and civilians have a misconception that military cannot go off military bases and enforce certain military laws, which isnt true, under certain circumstances yes we can. and yes this is that instance it is allowed.
also depending on the jurisdiction in the immediate area surrounding and on base mp's or security forces are allowed to patrol off base out to a certain distance and enforce certain laws/regulations, so him photographing something he wasn't supposed to may have been against some military regulation, especially since the highway splits the base. he may not have been wrong, but that doesnt mean he was right...
actually just because you arent on a military base doesnt mean you can photograph whatever you like, depending on the importance of what it is, if it was something very sensitive, the civilian police could have been called and his camera or phone could have been confiscated, photos siezed or deleted right there and he'd be released.
Mr Hobert Parker was non cooperative, vulgar and the Security Forces were extremely professional. This video only shows how this man did everything wrong and the Security Forces gave him every opportunity to cooperate which he did not. As a former Security Forces I am very proud of the way these AF Cops reacted.
Ok just read the sign and this old man is a flippin lunatic What Security Forces Crime? What is he talking about. Get a life Old Man and stop hassling the good SF's at Vandernberg!!!!!
What crime? How about the one you just witnessed? Fucking hypocritical douchebags - will be the first pompous assholes to say "theyre protecting our rights" at the same time denying this old man's right to protest!
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO PHOTOGRAPH IN PUBLIC ON A PUBLIC STREET! UNTIL YOU ASSHOLES GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS, THIS SHIT WILL KEEP HAPPENING!
@Stalicone So this is how you communicate and determine what is right and wrong by being insulting and using vulgarity? Thats really mature. As a former Security Forces member photographing resources is not allowed, Being a public nusiance and non-cooperative is illegal. Just peel out in front of a civilian police officer and flee and evade and see how much time that gets you in jail. Same here the SF officers were polite and cordial and this moron was not.
Tell me please, what law or statute prevents ANYONE from photographing ANYTHING that takes place in public? Tell me my well educated friend, exactly what law or statute makes it "illegal" to be "uncooperative" with Police or security forces? Asserting one's civil rights is NOT "illegal" - EVER! Peeling out in front of a cop - Illegal by statute - Fleeing and evading? Illegal by Statute! Telling cops and AF security douches to "Fuck off"? NOT ILLEGAL!
And yes - invectives, insults and even vulgarity is still.....FREE SPEECH! "The measure of freedom in any society is found in it's ability to tolerate speech. Even that speech which we find most offensive" - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Again - the man is on a PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD! He is absolutely free to Photograph and protest all he wants! Why do those of us who understand civil rights have to keep reminding you Cop-o-philes that the very activity these AF morons are trying to suppress is an activity that is protected according SCOTUS rulings? Offending you peckerheads is NOT a crime! The crime here is the suppression of Constitutionally protected rights! YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO "NOT BE OFFENDED" !
Mr Hobert Parker was non cooperative, vulgar and the Security Forces were extremely professional. This video only shows how this man did everything wrong and the Security Forces gave him every opportunity to cooperate which he did not. As a former Security Forces I am very proud of the way these AF Cops reacted.
@zseartcc25: Earlier you said: "He was arrested for failure to ID himself and for video taping the base."
Now you say: "he was never arrested, he was detained."
Why the discrepancy?
Why do you keep saying he was arrested for videotaping the base after we've already established that videotaping from a public area is almost always legal?
@Pafoofnik1 It's illegal to film or photograph military bases from any public area without permission. That said, he wasn't filming or photographing the base and was peacefully protesting, which he has an inalienable right to do. This zseartcc25 guy is the guy that got pushed around in school and became an MP because he thought cops have a right to detain/arrest people if they didn't do anything a cop told them to.
@dallassailor said: "It's illegal to film or photograph military bases from any public area without permission"
I've seen this assertion pop up frequently. So far, no one has been able to present proof that it is illegal to film anything that can be seen from a public place... including military bases.
Statute please! Tell me now what statute makes it illegal to photograph ANYTHING from a public area? NO SUCH STATUTE EXISTS! When you make claims about what is "legal" and what is "not" you had better be prepared to back it up with citable evidence - it is NOT illegal because YOU say it is - or should be - So now, Put up or shut up!
Good grief. Getting a citation for a misdemeanor is being arrested. He wasn't free to go until the police gave him the citation (he'd have to hacksaw the handcuffs). He was arrested, charged, and convicted. His conviction was vacated because he wasn't guilty. There is no law against being non-cooperative if there is no physical force used, which is why he was acquitted at trial (the U.S. Attorney saw the writing on the wall) of the resisting charge. Vulgarity is protected by the 1st Amend.
Everybody that thinks the MP were right in this don't understand your own rights. That is public area and he has a constitutional right to peacefully protest there. Nobody, not one person can tell him that he is not allowed to protest peacefully. Millions of Americans have given their lives defending his right to protest there and those MP proved they aren't heroes but are pieces of trash for deciding that even though patriots' blood was spilled for his right to protest there, he still can't.
Your an idiot. At a lot of bases Security Forces has jurisdiction on the outlying portion of the base. If you are caught taking photos of videos of the base at all, you will have contact with them, you can bet that. This man obviously is one of the retards who set this shit up just to get a rise out of the SF members and "try" and make a statement. What do they gain out of this. NOTHING. What he does will not change anything.
When it comes to DOD you lose most of your civilian rights. Especially with what goes on in these videos. There is nothing that says as a Security Forces member that I can't stop you just to check your paperwork on your vehicle. When you come on base even as a civilian you fall under DOD rules. When you come on base, guess what. I can stop you at the gate, pull you out of your car and search it.. About the photo taking comment. You are not allowed to take Photographs
That was an example fool. And who said you are on public land right outside the air force base? Not all bases jurisdiction end at the gates... Or did you know that already
Who said I was on public land? Why I did. Read my comment again.
Now you say: "Not all bases jurisdiction end at the gates". I'll be happy to discuss this belief of yours just as soon as we finish the current topic.
A belief huh? I work at a base where my jurisdiction is about the size of a state. My beliefs are what I have been taught, and what I have read with the stacks of AFI's, SOI's etc that I have. I just processed a DUI last week that was 20 miles from the base entrance..... hmmm thats on public land isn't it, but my jurisdiction didn't stop there did it.
Why can't you just admit your wrong?? haha You have no idea of what you speak of. You try to defend a man with BS thats coming out your ass because you "think" that the law is the same when it comes to DOD. Like it or not, in most areas we have jurisdiction to enforce the law outside of the gates. Nothing you can do about it. You break the law, this is what happens. You may think your rights extend everywhere, but they don't.
@zseartcc25: I'm not wrong. Your own comments prove this. They are long on opinions, but devoid of any independently verifiable statutes or case law.
Again you say: "in most areas we have jurisdiction to enforce the law outside of the gates. "
Like I keep saying, in an attempt to keep you on topic, I will be happy to discuss this belief of yours just as soon as we are done with the topic at hand.
I never said my rights extend everywhere. Please stay on topic.
Show me a statute - I'm tired of listening to your absolutely outrageous claims with NOT ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE to back up your ridiculous assertions!
@zseartcc25 "Stupid hippies with their "protest rights" and taking video just to make something happen so they can try and my the nightly news. "
Lastly, as a member of the military you should feel ashamed for even saying this. Millions of americans have died defending his right to protest and you and those other MPs have decided their sacrifice didn't matter. Pathetic. Believe it or not, your word is not law. Just because you say something and a person doesn't listen to you does not break law.
Why would I feel ashamed for saying that? I don't care because for one its true. Have you even watched all of this retards videos? I could give two shits about his protesting. Nothing says he can't protest. I have said nothing about the man being arrested for protesting. He was arrested for failure to ID himself and for video taping the base. Its obvious. Civilian populous thinks laws don't apply to them, and freedom extends to no ends.
First of all, if you are detained it means you are not free to leave, hence your Liberty has been removed, as you are not free. Secondly, you are NOT required to identify yourself to police unless you have committed a crime or they have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a felony. Lastly, THIS GUY DIDN'T DO THE TAPING YOU IDIOT. A member of SF clearly did, hence them being with them the whole time. Do you even know where you are right now?
Except that he WASN'T on base! Additionally, Civilians NEVER lose their Constitutional rights! Ever! Where did you get that idea? Who told you that? EVEN ON A MILITARY BASE - There is no law in the United States that allows ANY governmental entity to "Suspend" US citizens civil rights! - Sheesh....And we give these idiots Guns?
Funny thing is I work outside the states, and I put a 2 local nationals in handcuffs two weeks ago OFF BASE. OMG,,, you youtube vigilantist are funny, just because you get put in cuffs doesn't mean you are under "arrested". Im going to break it down simple for you stupid civilians. SF was serving this man his barment letter. Old man got stupid. Old man god put on the ground and put in cuffs. Old man was served. Old man was released.... what civil rights did the old guy lose.
There is no law in the United States that permits the "detention" of a civilian to be "served" with any kind of legal notice, subpoena or writ....A Terry stop or any other kind of detention requires the officer have some kind of reasonable suspicion that a crime was, is or is about to be committed. You keep referring to civilians as "retards" and "Stupid" yet you continually prove your ignorance over and over. What rights did he lose? Lets start with the 1st and 4th amendments.
Ummm - yeah, you better check the results of this case - The misdemeanor convictions were overturned on appeal because the Court found that the government DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT HIS 1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON A PUBLIC ROAD! - JUST LIKE WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ! Now - who is "stupid"? Who is the "retard"? I suggest you look in the mirror and then research United States V. Hobert Parker, Jr. (9th Circuit Court of Appeals)
@zseartcc25: I think you are wrong. Please cite fthe statute or case law you say exists that removes my right to take photos of things in public, when on public land.
Remember, I said cite, not just more of your words.
I have no need to look anything up. I'm not the one that said something was against the law... without actually checking to see if it was, indeed, against the law.
Indeed - AND PHOTOGRAPHY IN AND OF ITSELF IS NO REASON FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO CONDUCT A TERRY STOP! PUBLIC PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE POLICE TO "INVESTIGATE" ANYTHING - EVER!!!!
And they never will - I had one guy try with a different video and when his citation proved to be a complete fabrication - I called him on it - (He cited a PA Statute as a supporting statute of similarly absurd claims of police powers) When I pulled it - it was a statute on "Precious Metals" LOL - Priceless THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET AND THE ABILITY TO DEBUNK THESE "POLICE" OFFICERS. I am discovering that no one seems to know LESS about the law, than cops and security ppl. PATHETIC!
I read your whole conversation here and *you're* mistaken on most of your points. This man was not taking pictures or video, and that is a public highway. As such, he has a right protected by the constitution (which you're sworn to protect) to protest peacefully on public property. He was breaking no law, and therefore could not be legally told to leave, hence the CO's order being unlawful. Further, if he wanted to press charges he would have the right to. >>> Continued
This video is a continuation of his other problems with Vandenberg Security Forces. Have you even watched the videos??? They were very professional. Your defending this retarded idiot?? He was barred from base. Walked off as he was being cited. Resisted and was apprehended. Where was he oppressed during this entire adventure he put on. Its obvious Vandenberg SF Jurisdiction extends outside of the base. Just because your on a public highway doesnt mean you can do w/e you want.
@zseartcc25 Oh, and clearly you don't know what oppression means. Let me hold your hand: He committed NO crime, they abused their authority to illegally remove a liberty from him. Oppression. Google it.
Being nice while making a false arrest is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Police sometimes intentionally make a false arrest by being nice because it makes uninformed people (that is those, who justify lawbreaking if the police do it nicely) sympathetic to the police.
You people only see what you want to see. Also your only going to see what this guy wants to you see to make SF look bad. As that's not obvious enough. So whats the other side to this story. Do you have any clue? No, you just go off what you read in the comments section of the video.
Have you heard of Official Oppression? It's a law that states that those in an official position are not permitted to forcefully remove a person's right (in this case Liberty and right to freedom of speech) without their witnessing him breaking a law or having reasonable suspicion that he committed a felony. If an officer violates that law it's a class A misdemeanor. It is an illegal act for you to remove a person's God given rights without just cause. Learn what you're defending.
He has changed a lot. It appears that the police are no longer harassing peace protesters for merely standing alongside the road holding signs for one hour per month.
The military was acting like a bunch of bullies. Hobert was merely holding a sign. The police stopped Hobert. Hobert tried to walk around them. The nice thing about the First Amendment is that it would even protect a 5 year old if he wanted to hold a sign saying, "I like lolly pops, you should too." The police aren't supposed to falsely arrest people who are not breaking the law, even if their speech is "juvenile."
If that is Military land, they canjust shoot him next time. He needs to realize that. I think they demonstrated amazing control over not just beating his ass. He sounds like a drunk.
wow wow wow wow wow wow wow our own united states military has come a long way it has already begun to turn on those they're trained to protect. not a single thing about this encounter was appropriate.
I have some things called eyes and although the servicemen didn't beat of shoot him they did throw him to the ground and to most people that warrants an attack. Also you don't seem to realize that man was a CIVILIAN and in the united states military members should never interact with the populous in this way they should have called the civilian police if there was a problem which I didn't see one.
LOL so putting the man on the ground is attacking him huh. Damn I learned something new today. I guess next time I put a man in cuffs that's resisting Ill just let him run away. I don't want to hurt the man or anything. It doesn't matter if the man is a civilian. We can apprehend (arrest for you civilians) civilians, bring them to the station and turn them over to local law enforcement. There is so much you have no idea about and just throwing stuff out your ass.
Hate to tell you this, but under state law, he may have been resisting, but under federal law he must use "force" before he is guilty (18 U.S.C. Section 111). They couldn't arrest him for violating state resisting statutes because the Assimilative Crimes Act can't be used because there is also a federal resisting statute. The government must choose the federal statute. The U.S. attorney dismissed the resisting during trial because the judge said she saw no force in the video.
who the fuck is "we" mr gi fuckin joe over there i won't doubt any military patriot act "authority" you folks claim to have so this is my last comment before you trace my connection using military "authority" and come to my house and kill me in a shoot out you wonder why the people you "serve" hate the military and police
Somebodies getting defensive because they know how stupid their comments are. You know your wrong, so just live with it. Why would I waste a nice 5.56 on you anyway. People hate the police when they get a ticket for breaking the law. People who hate the military are just fucking hippies who believe in make peace not war. grow up
"on May 24, three judges from the Ninth Circuit Court ordered Parker's convictions be “VACATED.” The Air Force could not claim it was trespassed, the judges opined, if it did not in fact enjoy “exclusive right of possession” over Ocean Avenue."
All you dumb shits who feel sorry for that Ass licking old man should serve a day as an SP/MP. Then you can complain about shit talking old fucktards telling you to wipe your ass with a citation and to fuck off for just doing your job. And it's a very important job. Wouldn't look very good on the US military if we had some missiles or a plane go "missing" now would it? AND USAF SP's are getting deployed to the middle east. They see combat, and they have had casualties (road side bombs/IEDs)
Right, you are over there protecting our freedoms to not be falsely arrested, carry a sign, etc., here. No wonder so many people think that you are doing nothing at all to protect our freedom here (like one commenter implied, "make war not peace."
if their job is to take away our constitutional rights, they are doing a great job! the sign would not have been an issue if there was no truth behind it! tell me is the problem the sign or the truth these pigs want to hide? murderers and rapists walking the streets and they worry about a sign, man am I glad I get to pay A S S holes like them to keep my community safe, he might show up on my front lawn with a sign
Thank you for these comments. I told a federal judge that the military needs to get control of their troops because they are extremely violent. They are scofflaws.
AS A RETIRED USAF SECURITY POLICE NCO, THESE AIRMAN ARE DOING WHAT WE ARE CHARGED TO DO. PROTECT THE PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES ON OUR ASSIGNED BASES. THEY DID THEIR JOB VERY PROFESSIONALY!
yeah I am sure they need protection from a 60 year old man, oh wait I am sorry he was armed with a sign maybe he was going to papercut someone to death, get your head out of your a s s if they did their job right they would have never been there or they would have went there to ensure his safety,,,,, do we remeber or did we forget
MrEWyss...since it was concurrent jurisdiction, they did not have to have a civilian law enforcement officer present. I stopped many a civilian on both those highways for speeding and issued them citations without having to have CHP present. Their is a federal magistrate and court on base for the civilians who have citations issued. They have the option to pay the fine or show up for their day in court.
afsf74 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was stationed at VAFB before and for all those who have a question about jusrisdiction over civilians on this highway or highway 1, which also cuts thru the base, are base/federal property so the jurisdiction is concurrent on both highways. This means that no matter who you are, military or civilian, you have to abide by both state laws and military laws/regulations and can be stopped by either civilian or military police for breaking any law/regulation (speeding, protesting, etc).
afsf74 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As you drive on these highways, you come across signs that say "Welcome to Vandenberg AFB" and tell you that you are entering base property. The problem is most people are driving too fast and just do not like to read or pay attention to these signs.
afsf74 3 days ago
These Air Force Officers are being really paitent I would have had him on the ground the first time he turned around
AmberMcQuaker 1 week ago
Comment removed
Loganj94 1 week ago
steve jobs 3:15
CrotainProductions 3 weeks ago
Take it and wipe your ass with it stupid zionist serving young bastard.
DeutcherKonnig 3 weeks ago
LOL, whats with the biker retard?
RoboBagons 1 month ago
Is this what happens when you get older? Your brain starts to melt into goo, just like becoming a child again?
RoboBagons 1 month ago 3
Trying to do you a favor. You have been served leave. Typical government employee.
cazmaniandevil1 1 month ago
should've called county out for him. freaking hippies
hafeya 1 month ago
He was not arrested, he was just detained so he could receive his citation. If he was arrested he would have had his rights read to him. Military does have authority as soon as they step foot on federal property or federally patrolled property. As far as not having local law enforcement present, it was not needed they may issue him a citation to appear and detain him with out the local law enforcement's blessing as long as they are authorized to patrol that certain area,
hellcatair18 2 months ago
@hellcatair18 There was no justifiable cause for his detainment. He was on a public highway, so there fore the citation is not legal. It is not necessary for a LEO to read your rights upon being arrested, as long as they are read before interrogation. Military has no jurisdiction on state roads, their action was illegal as this is not federal property. Local law should have been contacted. This action is in violation of posse comitatus.Military has no jurisdiction in civilian surrondings.
ohannahdad 3 weeks ago
@ohannahdad There is a thing called Concurrent Jurisdiction meaning that they did have the right to do what they did regardless if it was not inside the fence line.
Psykojr 2 weeks ago
@Psykojr Cocurrent Jurisdiction deals with courts of equal lattitude or standing. There are different courts at state level which could have jurisdiction over a matter. (see) Separation of Powers & Rules article 3 10thy amendment. This is military law enforcement on civilian property which violates Posse Comitatus Act.
ohannahdad 2 weeks ago
@ohannahdad Now with you saying the Posse Comitatus Act here is something else to look at. In the video description, it states that the highway bisects, or runs through, Vandenberg AFB, therefore, while driving along, there should be a sign stating "Now Entering Vandenberg AFB" and hence they are driving on military property and they have every right to detain, arrest, and bar said individual from the base and base property.
Psykojr 2 weeks ago
@Psykojr The public highway that this man was arrested on doesn't run through the AFB. It crosses over the road that runs through the AFB. This public road is the only road allowing access to a train station and a county beach. These military clowns BROKE THE LAW because they don't like the sign message he is carrying. In the past, they have treated this old guy like an animal because of a peaceful protest and they have to break the law to do it. They are disgusting, and you run to their defense
ohannahdad 2 weeks ago
Why won't you just cooperate? I'd shoot you in the fucking head if I was a police officer. All you have to do is cooperate, it's simple.
Gport92 2 months ago
I am an ex-USAF SP and I watched all three videos. The main thing the my brother AF cops did wrong was to not have a civilian law enforcement officer (US Marshall, C.H.P., or county sheriff deputy) with them. They have no authority over civilians. Because it is a public road the gentleman has a right to be there, no matter how annoying he may be.
MrEWyss 2 months ago 4
@MrEWyss you sound like a very professional and fair former SP.
trueethnic 2 months ago
i assume that he was latter arrested for not showing in court now? :O
shareamotion 2 months ago
There is no basis for your "assumption." He was never arrested for failure to appear. His trespassing conviction was "vacated" because, based on the facts, he was not guilty. He was so not guilty, that they government couldn't even retry him.
quackn 2 months ago
Comment removed
Kevn3000 3 months ago in playlist More videos from quackn
FLAW FLAW FLAW FLAW THIS video STATES that the man was arrested, He was not therefore ur wrong, take that! but in all truths you should never mess with the military their there to protect you, and if u argue ur just as bad as a terrorist to this country, love ur country Hobert. love ur country
FreeRunMovement 4 months ago
@FreeRunMovement:
There is conflicting information. The district court appeal, where he was found not guilty, says he was "cited"
"Parker was cited twice for violating section 1382 and the VAFB Commander issued a “barment” letter... Several days later, Parker was cited for the third time."
...
"Because the government does not have an exclusive right of possession over Ocean Avenue... Parker’s presence and protest activities cannot constitute violations of section 1382."
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security. See Title 18 of United States Code. Don't think so? Call your local United States Attorney's office. You may not like it, but they can and do prohibit it- even from where you think you're on public land.
oscarwildeghost 4 months ago
Comment removed
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@oscarwildeghost; I concede that the President can disallow the photographing of a subset of military installations that are labelled "top secret", "secret", "confidential", or "restricted". I would challenge, but cannot prove, that such designations would require that the item be restricted from public view.
However, 'can' does not mean 'has'. I will still require proof of the 'has' when I address someone saying I cannot take a photo from a public place.
This is why I say 'almost always'.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
There is nothing sensitive, and even if there was, the law (50 U.S.C. Section 797) requires posting of any activities that are prohibited. There thousands of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians who pass through the military installation daily. Anybody can take a picture, and I have seen whole busloads of people stop at the main gate and take pictures. It would be impossible to stop anybody from filming or taking photos.
quackn 2 months ago
which im assuming besides this one case you have nother to go off of... and like i said i was involved in something exactly like this, except the man was compliant... and moved off the military property and did everything that was asked... he even came back and stayed off the property and we didnt do a thing except call the local police cause he and a group of people were basically in the street protesting which isnt the safest thing to do... as i said jurisdiction plays a part, pay attention.
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: I am paying attention,
paying attention to the fact that you talking to me a lot, but not providing the one thing I asked for.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 i already told you what you asked for. but you just dont get it. im done talking you obviously just don't understand what im telling you. it is what it is. i told you what says he cannot take photographs and what gives military personnel the authority to detain him as a civilian for his actions. thats what you asked for and thats what you got.
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: No you did not. You cited, but you failed to quote the part of any cite that proves your assertion.
Like I said, I've seen that most of the time when people cite but fail to quote, it's because the cite doesn't actually agree with them.
Now you say: "thats what you asked for "
No it is not. I haven't seen a single quote of proof from anywhere... but you own words.
Looks like you can't prove, but also are unwilling to admit that you can't.
It's happened before here.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 and you cant prove anything either... why cant you cite what says he can huh? cause you have no proof...all you are doing is going off what other people say but you can't even come up with anything yourself... just riding the bandwagon.... trust me they all agree with me... as i said i was involved in a case exactly like this, except we asked the guy to leave and he left from the bases property... you are the one beating around the bush why dont you offer a quote for proof? big guy..
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: I'll be happy to debate the U.S. legal system of "allowed unless denied" just as soon as we are finished with the original topic.
Let me remind you:
You said: "unfortunately that's what all civilians think, that their rights allow them to do that... but that isnt true, just because you can see something doesnt mean you can take pictures (...of things in public view... but that isnt true, just because you can see something doesnt mean you can take pictures."
Please provide proof.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 Oops. Formatting is a bit muddled. Let me annotate:
(...of things in public view.)
The words in parenthesis are mine.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 youre clownin... still cant argue youre side... cause youve got nothing... ive provided my proof.. go look it up for yourself... use youre head since you think you are so intelligent and that you think you know something about military law and rules and regulations...
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: Argue what?
I asked you to proof your assertion. You have refused to do so.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 lol i already cited what pertains to this, go look it up. i could easily say whatever i want to "prove" what it says... try using your head for a change... you havent cited anything that relates to this. nor have you explained anything from your side... you are saying yes he can do that, well why can he? cite what says he can and prove it for me. and cite was says they arent allowed to DETAIN not arrest... cause military doesnt arrest ANYONE at all.
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: I also asked for quotes. Requiring quotes helps to keep people from running around looking up cited laws and court cases, only to find the actual proof absent.
I don't need to explain a thing. I'm not the one that said I'm not allowed to take photos of things public view. You did.
And now you are showing us all that you can't support your guess with any proof.
You never said a thing about detain or arrest in your original comment. Please stay on topic.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 hahaha yes i did. as i said pay attention. you are just proving youve got nothing but empty words, you say you can, well how do you know? cause the picture fairy told you you can? get real son. it's not a guess it's fact, you are the one guessing cause you cant say anything else beside yes i can, ive cited actually text. it's not my fault you are either too inept or incapable or lazy or whatever of doing things yourself... whatever your reason for not, i told you where to find it.
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: Like I've said many time before .
It is almost always legal to photograph things that can be seen from a public place.
sdot18's failure to prove otherwise strengthens this fact. Also strengthening this fact will be that, no matter how sdot18 responds...
It won't include a quoted, cited pointer to a applicable statute or litigated court decision that disproves my statement.
Have at it.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 you are just making assumption, it is proven by you saying it is almost always legal.
it isnt based on any known knowledge if you can or not... strengthening the fact poofnik 1 doesnt know what he's talking about...
seeing how his argument doesnt even make reference to anything other than his own opinion..
no matter how poofnik 1 responds he still cant provide anything other than someone else's comments on youtube on if you can take photos of federal property and tresspass
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: There's the proof.
I don't have to provide a thing. I'm not the one that said there is a law... where there wasn't.
Make my job easy. Prove me right again. Comment without providing proof of that law that doesn't exist.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 how did i prove you right? you said you can photograph because someone else said you can. not because you know. you must live in some dream world my friend. why dont you offer some proof backing your words, if not, i guess that means im proved right... make my job easy, just assume things. not backed on anything but your own opinions. showing you have no clue what you are talking about. and no knowledge of any laws, you cant even make reference to anything backing your claims.
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18 said: "you said you can photograph because someone else said you can. "
This is also a falsehood. I never said that at all.
And you repeat: "why dont you offer some proof backing your words" etc etc.
Like I said. I'll be happy to explain the principals of American Democracy just as soon as we finish with the current topic.
Where's your proof?
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 hahahaha you are a clown... just avoiding proving yourself wrong... im done talking to you, you have no clue what you are talking about, American democracy? really get a clue... how about this... educate yourself on federal laws first, then come talk to me... youtube is a terrible place to get your law degree my friend...
sdot18 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sdot18 said: "im done talking to you"
So, no proof? No worries. One rule of debate is to never ask a question unless you already know the answer.
So. See ya.
It is almost always legal to photograph something that can be seen from a public place.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 basically what this boils down to is. just because you have the ability to do something. doesnt mean you should or that its allowed, i could go outside and shoot some one right now, i shouldnt but who would know to stop me? i could walk right on to someones lawn & take pictures of their house right? thats what youre saying, it's in public view so irrespective of their privacy by law im allowed to trespass & invade peoples privacy? i think not. just because you can dont sound stupid.
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: said: "i could walk right on to someones lawn & take pictures of their house right? thats what youre saying,"
You stated a falsehood. I never said public, not private.
Still proving I'm right about taking pictures I see. Good to know.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 check your statement, you just contradicted yourself... you said you can take pictures whats in public view... just cause the public can see it doesnt mean it's ok to take pictures, good to know you are confused about the subject.. the fact is it's private property which yes the public can see. but that doesnt mean taking pictures is ok... what you are saying and what i said is no different... shouldnt you be in school btw?
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: I'm not confused, I made a typo.
Please read my correction.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@sdot18 said: "but that doesnt mean taking pictures is ok."
Agreed. Of course I never said different. That's why I used the word 'almost'
Now you say: "shouldnt you be in school btw?"
Which one? I graduated college some 25 years ago, but I never stopped learning. But, thanks for an example of a ad-hominem argument.
Where's your proof? Or are you just going to be spouting your own words from now on?
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 hahaha well you should have stayed in school cause teaching yourself isnt working out.... you still are basing your claims on personal opinion. which is very misinformed... we are talking about whether or not you can take pictures of a military base you are trying to change it around... please stay on topic what this was originally about...
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: I'll be happy to discuss my claims just as soon as you provide proof of this law you say exists. Until the, please stay on topic.
Where's your proof?
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@sdot18\: Oh you said: "we are talking about whether or not you can take pictures of a military base"
I never can take a photo of a military base that can be seen from a public place? I'd sure like to see that statute.
Looks like you won't be providing that one either.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 so childish, such a shame....
sdot18 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1: Oops. another correction:
_I never said private, I said public place._
Pardon the typo.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 yeah he was on a public road taking pictures of private property what dont you get about that?
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: He sure was.
Is this want you consider proof, or are you going off on a tangent now?
If neither, then where's that proof of yours?
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 lol, you are obviously behaving childish now, im gonna stop responding to you now, have a nice day pafoofnik 1. you are nothing more than a child asking "why" continuously after being given a reason...
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18 said: "m gonna stop responding to you now,"
That's probably a good idea at this point.
See you.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
Comment removed
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
and as far as filming or photographing we have OI's or operating instructions as in for the air force AFI 31-201/31/207 says they cant and what we can do when civilians do do those things my friend... those are military which means they are federal regulations that all citizens must adhere to... and you were the one saying civilians cacn photograph and they shouldnt have put that guy in cuffs. so tell me where it says they cant and where it says he is allowed... unless you have no proof...
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: Please quote, not just cite.
I've found that the vast majority of the time that people don't quote, it's because their cite doesn't include the proof requested.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@sdot18: Please quote, not just cite.
I've found that the vast majority of the time, if a person cites without quoting, it's because their cite doesn't support their original assertion.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@sdot18 said: "and you were the one saying civilians cacn photograph and they shouldnt have put that guy in cuffs. so tell me where it says they cant and where it says he is allowed... unless you have no proof..."
This is a false statement.
I never said any such thing.
However., I'll be happy to discuss this topic just as soon as we finish with the current debate, which is just as soon as you admit that there is no law you said exists.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
umm i pretty sure i already did, you are just refusing to acknowledge it my friend, all those are federal laws title 18 usc is united states code... 7b UCMJ is uniform code of military justice, and rule 302 RCM is rules for courts martial, that is where mp's get their authority to apprehend military and detain civilians... it's there black and white i cited what you wanted... and as i said jurisdiction at each base is different and it also plays a part.. in that respect there is nothing to cite.
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: You cited something, but failed to quote where in that cite that makes my comment that "People can almost always photograph things in public view." unlawful.
Doesn't really matter. I am not almost never subject to the UCMJ as a civilian in a public place.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
and once he moved that was that he kept protesting and it was fine as long as he wasnt on our property.. although it was a public road we still had jurisdiction on it thus allowing us to tell him he needed to move.. being completely within the rule of law... but im in texas, and that is california, two different places...
sdot18 4 months ago
also jurisdiction of every base isnt the same as i said, some places military is allowed to go off base and detain civilians, and sometimes what civilians think is public property actually at times belong to the military which means they are tresspassing which means they can be detained NOT arrested, i have seen this personally and dealt with a case like this, where a civilian was protesting outside the gate but still ON military property... he was asked to moved so he did... across the street.
sdot18 4 months ago
@pafoofnik, you said yourself people can almost always photograph whats in public view. except illegal thing like upskirts, i said when it comes to the military and it's assets no they cant. you need to get your fact straights while were on the topic, cite what statute that says the militry cannot go off base and detain civilians for photographing things on base.. title 18 usc. aricle 7b UCMJ. rule 302 RCM. just to name a few. gives us our authoruty to arrest AND detain civilians my friend...
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18 said: "i said when it comes to the military and it's assets no they can't."
I've already asked you to cite your proof of this, in the form of an applicable statute or litigated court case.
"cite what statute that says the militry cannot go off base and detain civilians for photographing things on base"
No need for me to prove something I never said.
Where does title 18 usc. aricle 7b UCMJ. rule 302 RCM talk about filming?
Stop beating around the bush and prove your point.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
the military bases dont start/end right where the gate/ fence is. it usually extends out 100 yards or so. something else people dont realize. and if it is split by a public highway like vandenberg in CA or lackland in San Antonio the military police or government contractors are allowed to patrol those places, thats what this guy doesnt realize. now we werent there we dont know how far off from the highway he was... but if he was close they would have removed him from the area first...
sdot18 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik unfortunately that's what all civilians think, that their rights allow them to do that... but that isnt true, just because you can see something doesnt mean you can take pictures. certain rules we have say, this can be photographed or it cant be photographed. and civilians have a misconception that military cannot go off military bases and enforce certain military laws, which isnt true, under certain circumstances yes we can. and yes this is that instance it is allowed.
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18 said: "unfortunately that's what all civilians think, that their rights allow them to do that... but that isnt true"
Please cite your fact, as in an applicable statute or fully litigated court case to support your assertion.
You may want to read through these comments. You won't be the first here to attempt this.
and "just because you can see something doesnt mean you can take pictures."
I never said I could. I said the opposite. Please comment on what I said that you disagree with
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
also depending on the jurisdiction in the immediate area surrounding and on base mp's or security forces are allowed to patrol off base out to a certain distance and enforce certain laws/regulations, so him photographing something he wasn't supposed to may have been against some military regulation, especially since the highway splits the base. he may not have been wrong, but that doesnt mean he was right...
sdot18 4 months ago
actually just because you arent on a military base doesnt mean you can photograph whatever you like, depending on the importance of what it is, if it was something very sensitive, the civilian police could have been called and his camera or phone could have been confiscated, photos siezed or deleted right there and he'd be released.
sdot18 4 months ago
@sdot18: People can almost always photograph things in public view. Exemptions include illegal activives like up-skirt videos.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
Mr Hobert Parker was non cooperative, vulgar and the Security Forces were extremely professional. This video only shows how this man did everything wrong and the Security Forces gave him every opportunity to cooperate which he did not. As a former Security Forces I am very proud of the way these AF Cops reacted.
Ok just read the sign and this old man is a flippin lunatic What Security Forces Crime? What is he talking about. Get a life Old Man and stop hassling the good SF's at Vandernberg!!!!!
jimhadly 4 months ago
@jimhadly
What crime? How about the one you just witnessed? Fucking hypocritical douchebags - will be the first pompous assholes to say "theyre protecting our rights" at the same time denying this old man's right to protest!
IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO PHOTOGRAPH IN PUBLIC ON A PUBLIC STREET! UNTIL YOU ASSHOLES GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS, THIS SHIT WILL KEEP HAPPENING!
Stalicone 4 months ago
@Stalicone So this is how you communicate and determine what is right and wrong by being insulting and using vulgarity? Thats really mature. As a former Security Forces member photographing resources is not allowed, Being a public nusiance and non-cooperative is illegal. Just peel out in front of a civilian police officer and flee and evade and see how much time that gets you in jail. Same here the SF officers were polite and cordial and this moron was not.
jimhadly 4 months ago
@jimhadly
Tell me please, what law or statute prevents ANYONE from photographing ANYTHING that takes place in public? Tell me my well educated friend, exactly what law or statute makes it "illegal" to be "uncooperative" with Police or security forces? Asserting one's civil rights is NOT "illegal" - EVER! Peeling out in front of a cop - Illegal by statute - Fleeing and evading? Illegal by Statute! Telling cops and AF security douches to "Fuck off"? NOT ILLEGAL!
Stalicone 4 months ago
@jimhadly
And yes - invectives, insults and even vulgarity is still.....FREE SPEECH! "The measure of freedom in any society is found in it's ability to tolerate speech. Even that speech which we find most offensive" - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Stalicone 4 months ago
@jimhadly exactly whats shown in the video... what crime. what video did you watch professional.....
blueshiftchess 4 months ago
@jimhadly
Again - the man is on a PUBLIC ACCESS ROAD! He is absolutely free to Photograph and protest all he wants! Why do those of us who understand civil rights have to keep reminding you Cop-o-philes that the very activity these AF morons are trying to suppress is an activity that is protected according SCOTUS rulings? Offending you peckerheads is NOT a crime! The crime here is the suppression of Constitutionally protected rights! YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO "NOT BE OFFENDED" !
Stalicone 4 months ago
Mr Hobert Parker was non cooperative, vulgar and the Security Forces were extremely professional. This video only shows how this man did everything wrong and the Security Forces gave him every opportunity to cooperate which he did not. As a former Security Forces I am very proud of the way these AF Cops reacted.
jimhadly 4 months ago
And on top of all of this, he was never arrested, he was detained..........
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25: Earlier you said: "He was arrested for failure to ID himself and for video taping the base."
Now you say: "he was never arrested, he was detained."
Why the discrepancy?
Why do you keep saying he was arrested for videotaping the base after we've already established that videotaping from a public area is almost always legal?
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1 It's illegal to film or photograph military bases from any public area without permission. That said, he wasn't filming or photographing the base and was peacefully protesting, which he has an inalienable right to do. This zseartcc25 guy is the guy that got pushed around in school and became an MP because he thought cops have a right to detain/arrest people if they didn't do anything a cop told them to.
dallassailor 5 months ago
@dallassailor said: "It's illegal to film or photograph military bases from any public area without permission"
I've seen this assertion pop up frequently. So far, no one has been able to present proof that it is illegal to film anything that can be seen from a public place... including military bases.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@dallassailor
Statute please! Tell me now what statute makes it illegal to photograph ANYTHING from a public area? NO SUCH STATUTE EXISTS! When you make claims about what is "legal" and what is "not" you had better be prepared to back it up with citable evidence - it is NOT illegal because YOU say it is - or should be - So now, Put up or shut up!
Stalicone 4 months ago
Good grief. Getting a citation for a misdemeanor is being arrested. He wasn't free to go until the police gave him the citation (he'd have to hacksaw the handcuffs). He was arrested, charged, and convicted. His conviction was vacated because he wasn't guilty. There is no law against being non-cooperative if there is no physical force used, which is why he was acquitted at trial (the U.S. Attorney saw the writing on the wall) of the resisting charge. Vulgarity is protected by the 1st Amend.
quackn 2 months ago
Everybody that thinks the MP were right in this don't understand your own rights. That is public area and he has a constitutional right to peacefully protest there. Nobody, not one person can tell him that he is not allowed to protest peacefully. Millions of Americans have given their lives defending his right to protest there and those MP proved they aren't heroes but are pieces of trash for deciding that even though patriots' blood was spilled for his right to protest there, he still can't.
dallassailor 5 months ago
@dallassailor
Your an idiot. At a lot of bases Security Forces has jurisdiction on the outlying portion of the base. If you are caught taking photos of videos of the base at all, you will have contact with them, you can bet that. This man obviously is one of the retards who set this shit up just to get a rise out of the SF members and "try" and make a statement. What do they gain out of this. NOTHING. What he does will not change anything.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25 said: "At a lot of bases Security Forces has jurisdiction on the outlying portion of the base."
Almost all non-consensual public law enforcement encounters require that officers first have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Then said: "If you are caught taking photos of videos of the base at all, you will have contact with them."
Taking photos of things in public, when on public land, is almost always legal.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
When it comes to DOD you lose most of your civilian rights. Especially with what goes on in these videos. There is nothing that says as a Security Forces member that I can't stop you just to check your paperwork on your vehicle. When you come on base even as a civilian you fall under DOD rules. When you come on base, guess what. I can stop you at the gate, pull you out of your car and search it.. About the photo taking comment. You are not allowed to take Photographs
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25 said: "When you come on base "
Illogical comparison.
I never said I was on base.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
That was an example fool. And who said you are on public land right outside the air force base? Not all bases jurisdiction end at the gates... Or did you know that already
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25: More words of your I see.
Who said I was on public land? Why I did. Read my comment again.
Now you say: "Not all bases jurisdiction end at the gates". I'll be happy to discuss this belief of yours just as soon as we finish the current topic.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
A belief huh? I work at a base where my jurisdiction is about the size of a state. My beliefs are what I have been taught, and what I have read with the stacks of AFI's, SOI's etc that I have. I just processed a DUI last week that was 20 miles from the base entrance..... hmmm thats on public land isn't it, but my jurisdiction didn't stop there did it.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25; Still more of your words I see.
I will be happy to comment about your DUI arrest, just as soon a we finish the current topic.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
Stupid hippies with their "protest rights" and taking video just to make something happen so they can try and my the nightly news.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25: Thanks for your opinion. I guess you won't be doing much more besides giving opinions here?
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
Why can't you just admit your wrong?? haha You have no idea of what you speak of. You try to defend a man with BS thats coming out your ass because you "think" that the law is the same when it comes to DOD. Like it or not, in most areas we have jurisdiction to enforce the law outside of the gates. Nothing you can do about it. You break the law, this is what happens. You may think your rights extend everywhere, but they don't.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25: I'm not wrong. Your own comments prove this. They are long on opinions, but devoid of any independently verifiable statutes or case law.
Again you say: "in most areas we have jurisdiction to enforce the law outside of the gates. "
Like I keep saying, in an attempt to keep you on topic, I will be happy to discuss this belief of yours just as soon as we are done with the topic at hand.
I never said my rights extend everywhere. Please stay on topic.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@zseartcc25
Show me a statute - I'm tired of listening to your absolutely outrageous claims with NOT ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE to back up your ridiculous assertions!
Stalicone 4 months ago
It's scary how ignorant the military police can be.
quackn 2 months ago
@zseartcc25 "Stupid hippies with their "protest rights" and taking video just to make something happen so they can try and my the nightly news. "
Lastly, as a member of the military you should feel ashamed for even saying this. Millions of americans have died defending his right to protest and you and those other MPs have decided their sacrifice didn't matter. Pathetic. Believe it or not, your word is not law. Just because you say something and a person doesn't listen to you does not break law.
dallassailor 5 months ago
@dallassailor
Why would I feel ashamed for saying that? I don't care because for one its true. Have you even watched all of this retards videos? I could give two shits about his protesting. Nothing says he can't protest. I have said nothing about the man being arrested for protesting. He was arrested for failure to ID himself and for video taping the base. Its obvious. Civilian populous thinks laws don't apply to them, and freedom extends to no ends.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25
First of all, if you are detained it means you are not free to leave, hence your Liberty has been removed, as you are not free. Secondly, you are NOT required to identify yourself to police unless you have committed a crime or they have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a felony. Lastly, THIS GUY DIDN'T DO THE TAPING YOU IDIOT. A member of SF clearly did, hence them being with them the whole time. Do you even know where you are right now?
dallassailor 5 months ago
Hobert was never arrested for failure to ID himself.
quackn 2 months ago
@zseartcc25
Except that he WASN'T on base! Additionally, Civilians NEVER lose their Constitutional rights! Ever! Where did you get that idea? Who told you that? EVEN ON A MILITARY BASE - There is no law in the United States that allows ANY governmental entity to "Suspend" US citizens civil rights! - Sheesh....And we give these idiots Guns?
Stalicone 4 months ago
@Stalicone
Funny thing is I work outside the states, and I put a 2 local nationals in handcuffs two weeks ago OFF BASE. OMG,,, you youtube vigilantist are funny, just because you get put in cuffs doesn't mean you are under "arrested". Im going to break it down simple for you stupid civilians. SF was serving this man his barment letter. Old man got stupid. Old man god put on the ground and put in cuffs. Old man was served. Old man was released.... what civil rights did the old guy lose.
zseartcc25 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zseartcc25 said: "Funny thing is I work outside the states, and I put a 2 local nationals in handcuffs two weeks ago OFF BASE. "
So, you weren't in the U.S.?
So, your comment is not applicable to Stalocone's assertion.
So, is this what you consider proof?
All I see is more of your opinions.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@zseartcc25 said: "what civil rights did the old guy lose."
His right to be free from unlawful arrest:
"Hobert's trespassing conviction was reversed by the 9th Circuit because the Air Force violated already established precedent."
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
He was never arrested as SF cannot arrested civilians....
zseartcc25 4 months ago
@zseartcc25: OK, unlawfully seized, detained, cited and brought to trial then.
"Parker’s charges arose from his protest activities on Ocean Avenue, which is a public road..."
"...three occasions charged"
"Parker was cited twice for violating section 1382 and the VAFB Commander issued a “barment” letter..."
"The government is mistaken"
"Parker’s presence and protest activities cannot constitute violations... The judgment of conviction is therefore VACATED."
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@zseartcc25
There is no law in the United States that permits the "detention" of a civilian to be "served" with any kind of legal notice, subpoena or writ....A Terry stop or any other kind of detention requires the officer have some kind of reasonable suspicion that a crime was, is or is about to be committed. You keep referring to civilians as "retards" and "Stupid" yet you continually prove your ignorance over and over. What rights did he lose? Lets start with the 1st and 4th amendments.
Stalicone 4 months ago
@zseartcc25
Ummm - yeah, you better check the results of this case - The misdemeanor convictions were overturned on appeal because the Court found that the government DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT HIS 1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS ON A PUBLIC ROAD! - JUST LIKE WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ! Now - who is "stupid"? Who is the "retard"? I suggest you look in the mirror and then research United States V. Hobert Parker, Jr. (9th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Stalicone 4 months ago
He lost his civil right to protest and not be falsely arrested.
quackn 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
of DOD facilities AT ALL. EVEN IF YOU ARE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY. Those facilities are not public, so guess what? You lose that right.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25: I think you are wrong. Please cite fthe statute or case law you say exists that removes my right to take photos of things in public, when on public land.
Remember, I said cite, not just more of your words.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
I think I'm not, because I am an AF MP. Go look up the AFI yourself, you seem smart and know more than I do.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25: More of your words I see.
I have no need to look anything up. I'm not the one that said something was against the law... without actually checking to see if it was, indeed, against the law.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
Indeed - AND PHOTOGRAPHY IN AND OF ITSELF IS NO REASON FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO CONDUCT A TERRY STOP! PUBLIC PHOTOGRAPHY IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE POLICE TO "INVESTIGATE" ANYTHING - EVER!!!!
Stalicone 4 months ago
@Stalicone: Yeppers. I guess that's why no-one attempted to refute me.
Pafoofnik1 4 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
And they never will - I had one guy try with a different video and when his citation proved to be a complete fabrication - I called him on it - (He cited a PA Statute as a supporting statute of similarly absurd claims of police powers) When I pulled it - it was a statute on "Precious Metals" LOL - Priceless THANK GOD FOR THE INTERNET AND THE ABILITY TO DEBUNK THESE "POLICE" OFFICERS. I am discovering that no one seems to know LESS about the law, than cops and security ppl. PATHETIC!
Stalicone 4 months ago
@zseartcc25
I read your whole conversation here and *you're* mistaken on most of your points. This man was not taking pictures or video, and that is a public highway. As such, he has a right protected by the constitution (which you're sworn to protect) to protest peacefully on public property. He was breaking no law, and therefore could not be legally told to leave, hence the CO's order being unlawful. Further, if he wanted to press charges he would have the right to. >>> Continued
dallassailor 5 months ago
@dallassailor
This video is a continuation of his other problems with Vandenberg Security Forces. Have you even watched the videos??? They were very professional. Your defending this retarded idiot?? He was barred from base. Walked off as he was being cited. Resisted and was apprehended. Where was he oppressed during this entire adventure he put on. Its obvious Vandenberg SF Jurisdiction extends outside of the base. Just because your on a public highway doesnt mean you can do w/e you want.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25 Oh, and clearly you don't know what oppression means. Let me hold your hand: He committed NO crime, they abused their authority to illegally remove a liberty from him. Oppression. Google it.
dallassailor 5 months ago
Being nice while making a false arrest is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Police sometimes intentionally make a false arrest by being nice because it makes uninformed people (that is those, who justify lawbreaking if the police do it nicely) sympathetic to the police.
quackn 2 months ago
You people only see what you want to see. Also your only going to see what this guy wants to you see to make SF look bad. As that's not obvious enough. So whats the other side to this story. Do you have any clue? No, you just go off what you read in the comments section of the video.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25
Have you heard of Official Oppression? It's a law that states that those in an official position are not permitted to forcefully remove a person's right (in this case Liberty and right to freedom of speech) without their witnessing him breaking a law or having reasonable suspicion that he committed a felony. If an officer violates that law it's a class A misdemeanor. It is an illegal act for you to remove a person's God given rights without just cause. Learn what you're defending.
dallassailor 5 months ago
He has changed a lot. It appears that the police are no longer harassing peace protesters for merely standing alongside the road holding signs for one hour per month.
quackn 2 months ago
@dallassailor
RIGHT ON BROTHER!
Stalicone 4 months ago
Nothing like acting like a 5 year old lol.
and1hotsizzle18 5 months ago
The military was acting like a bunch of bullies. Hobert was merely holding a sign. The police stopped Hobert. Hobert tried to walk around them. The nice thing about the First Amendment is that it would even protect a 5 year old if he wanted to hold a sign saying, "I like lolly pops, you should too." The police aren't supposed to falsely arrest people who are not breaking the law, even if their speech is "juvenile."
quackn 2 months ago
If that is Military land, they canjust shoot him next time. He needs to realize that. I think they demonstrated amazing control over not just beating his ass. He sounds like a drunk.
frankfritter35 5 months ago
Yep, sounds like murder is the thing to do (sarcasm)
quackn 2 months ago
Thanks guys for not beating him up.
nomadak47 6 months ago
wow wow wow wow wow wow wow our own united states military has come a long way it has already begun to turn on those they're trained to protect. not a single thing about this encounter was appropriate.
tubevideoguy762 6 months ago
@tubevideoguy762
You have no idea what your talking about.. Go stand outside with a sign and video camera of your local Army or Air Force Base and see what happens
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25
i don't understand the reasoning of your comment are you saying i will or won't get attacked by the military if i stand by a base with a sign?
tubevideoguy762 5 months ago
@tubevideoguy762
Who said anything about being attacked? You think that was being attacked?? LOL
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25
I have some things called eyes and although the servicemen didn't beat of shoot him they did throw him to the ground and to most people that warrants an attack. Also you don't seem to realize that man was a CIVILIAN and in the united states military members should never interact with the populous in this way they should have called the civilian police if there was a problem which I didn't see one.
tubevideoguy762 5 months ago
@tubevideoguy762
LOL so putting the man on the ground is attacking him huh. Damn I learned something new today. I guess next time I put a man in cuffs that's resisting Ill just let him run away. I don't want to hurt the man or anything. It doesn't matter if the man is a civilian. We can apprehend (arrest for you civilians) civilians, bring them to the station and turn them over to local law enforcement. There is so much you have no idea about and just throwing stuff out your ass.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
Hate to tell you this, but under state law, he may have been resisting, but under federal law he must use "force" before he is guilty (18 U.S.C. Section 111). They couldn't arrest him for violating state resisting statutes because the Assimilative Crimes Act can't be used because there is also a federal resisting statute. The government must choose the federal statute. The U.S. attorney dismissed the resisting during trial because the judge said she saw no force in the video.
quackn 2 months ago
"CIVILIAN and in the united states military members should never interact with the populous in this way"
Well, guess what, we have the authority to.
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25
who the fuck is "we" mr gi fuckin joe over there i won't doubt any military patriot act "authority" you folks claim to have so this is my last comment before you trace my connection using military "authority" and come to my house and kill me in a shoot out you wonder why the people you "serve" hate the military and police
tubevideoguy762 5 months ago
@tubevideoguy762
Somebodies getting defensive because they know how stupid their comments are. You know your wrong, so just live with it. Why would I waste a nice 5.56 on you anyway. People hate the police when they get a ticket for breaking the law. People who hate the military are just fucking hippies who believe in make peace not war. grow up
zseartcc25 5 months ago
@zseartcc25: I don't think you have any idea what you are talking abut. That's why you keep using your words, and not proving you assertions.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
Jackbooted thug kids need to learn respect for the constitution and their elders.
MrBullfrog9876 6 months ago
The guy on the bike at 3:13 cracks me up!
onegr8latino 6 months ago
At the end where he turned around was funny
1968bigcity 6 months ago
he was convicted of trespassing by a federal magistrate judge.
this video illustrates his refusal to obey a law and have complete contempt
rlgonion 6 months ago
@rlgonion:
"on May 24, three judges from the Ninth Circuit Court ordered Parker's convictions be “VACATED.” The Air Force could not claim it was trespassed, the judges opined, if it did not in fact enjoy “exclusive right of possession” over Ocean Avenue."
SOURCE: Santa Barbara Independent.
Pafoofnik1 6 months ago
JUST ARREST THE SIGN , HE'S NOTHING WITH OUT IT . IT'S THE PEACEFUL WAY. AGREED ?
tony2010822 7 months ago
All you dumb shits who feel sorry for that Ass licking old man should serve a day as an SP/MP. Then you can complain about shit talking old fucktards telling you to wipe your ass with a citation and to fuck off for just doing your job. And it's a very important job. Wouldn't look very good on the US military if we had some missiles or a plane go "missing" now would it? AND USAF SP's are getting deployed to the middle east. They see combat, and they have had casualties (road side bombs/IEDs)
So
Loganj94 7 months ago
Right, you are over there protecting our freedoms to not be falsely arrested, carry a sign, etc., here. No wonder so many people think that you are doing nothing at all to protect our freedom here (like one commenter implied, "make war not peace."
quackn 2 months ago
this must be some sort of prank camera, americans cant really be that stupid lol
Backstabber360 7 months ago
if their job is to take away our constitutional rights, they are doing a great job! the sign would not have been an issue if there was no truth behind it! tell me is the problem the sign or the truth these pigs want to hide? murderers and rapists walking the streets and they worry about a sign, man am I glad I get to pay A S S holes like them to keep my community safe, he might show up on my front lawn with a sign
zachary121701 7 months ago
Isnt it illegal to stand on a road like that?
MATTNATTMATT 7 months ago
hope the cunt gets hit with a fuckin truck.
TheRockomb 7 months ago
Thank you for these comments. I told a federal judge that the military needs to get control of their troops because they are extremely violent. They are scofflaws.
quackn 2 months ago
Put your hand on your head. "Do you want him to rub his belly with the other one."
When he was stopped he was walking in the direction he was told.
Marcel1157 7 months ago
Nazi's
danman911 8 months ago
AS A RETIRED USAF SECURITY POLICE NCO, THESE AIRMAN ARE DOING WHAT WE ARE CHARGED TO DO. PROTECT THE PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES ON OUR ASSIGNED BASES. THEY DID THEIR JOB VERY PROFESSIONALY!
salawatt 8 months ago
@salawatt
yeah I am sure they need protection from a 60 year old man, oh wait I am sorry he was armed with a sign maybe he was going to papercut someone to death, get your head out of your a s s if they did their job right they would have never been there or they would have went there to ensure his safety,,,,, do we remeber or did we forget
"TO SERVE AND PROTECT"!!!!!!!!!!!
zachary121701 7 months ago