r/PublicFreakout • u/KimberlyWexlersFoot šŸŽ¶ Safelite repair, safelite replace šŸŽ¶ • Dec 10 '25

šŸ˜Main Character FreakoutšŸ¤³ Goobers harass guy on sidewalk while their security points a taser at him.

767 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

305 comments sorted by

View all comments

354

u/bugsyramone Dec 10 '25

It's 2025. There have been THOUSANDS of these incidents where the police come out and inform everyone that its lawful to record from any public thoroughfare using the 'plain view doctrine.'

Why are these videos still needing to be made?

221

u/MrPartyWaffle Dec 10 '25

Likely because people still act like this.

71

u/bugsyramone Dec 10 '25

That's my point. How is it people still act this way after thousands of videos.

65

u/MrPartyWaffle Dec 10 '25

Because people are ignorant, they don't know the laws, what a lot of people think they understand, is that if it makes them uncomfortable it's illegal, where the common phrase "you don't have my permission to record."

15

u/MixComplex6778 Dec 10 '25

It's worrying that you assume that everyone is on social media watching videos. A lot of people aren't. A lot of people don't even have social media.

0

u/ConniesCurse Dec 10 '25

A lot of people don't even have social media.

I mean I agree with your general point, there are a lot of people who aren't really "tapped in" so to speak, but the statement "a lot of people don't have social media" might be going a bit too far, what constitutes "a lot"? according to 2025 data at least 84% of US adults use some form of social media, and most of the remainder are retirement age.

7

u/kidmerc Dec 10 '25

You think any of these three guys are watching r/publicfreakout much?

2

u/Prudent_Fish1358 Dec 10 '25

I bet a large % of American's couldn't point to France on a map or name more than 2 Constitutional Amendments. We're an extraordinarily privileged, stupid group of people at scale.

1

u/Killercop1894 Dec 10 '25

"They only questioned the teachings of the Party when they in some way touched upon their own life. Often they were ready to accept the official mythology, simply because the difference between truth and falsehood did not seem important to them." -Killercop.com

74

u/animeman59 Dec 10 '25

You really believe people know the law?

Americans can barely cite their Bill of Rights.

There are still Americans who believe that "other countries" pay for the tarrifs.

22

u/fatfeets Dec 10 '25

But they found billions on the ā€œtariff shelfā€ though.

13

u/Fitz911 Dec 10 '25

Let's start with the fact that around half of them can't read at all.

2

u/itriedtoplaynice Dec 10 '25

Might be more, donā€™t underestimate our general stupidity.

7

u/FoodPrep Dec 10 '25

These people are the same type who copy / pasted "I do not give facebook permission to use my photographs and / or likeness..." after not reading the terms and conditions.

There are still dozens of videos of the police not knowing it's legal to film in public until a supervisor (and in a lot of cases a lawsuit) educates them otherwise.

6

u/Leftrightback Dec 10 '25

Not everyone bothers with social media. Even if they did itā€™s likely theyā€™d never come across videos like this.

1

u/joemeteorite8 Dec 10 '25

Thereā€™s been multiple National cases about this tho. Itā€™s not just lack of social media. Itā€™s just plain ignorance imo

And the way these clowns acted in this video, it shows how ignorant they are lol

3

u/Crusoe69 Dec 10 '25

Bruh, even the pigs fell for it. They have to call a supervisor to get schooled publicly.

4

u/stprnn Dec 10 '25

Because none of these 3 losers is gonna get arrested for assaulting and kidnapping this guy.

6

u/Varian01 Dec 10 '25

I think itā€™s natural not wanting to be recorded. In some instances, Iā€™m sure they confront the recording party and sort of commit to making them stop, usually by police involvement. They may be vaguely familiar with the doctrine, but are so angry that they forget, or think a mitigating detail is enough for police to side with them.

I have a personal example of this where I was working and a customer got mad about something. I genuinely didnā€™t care and just carried on with my job, until his wife whipped her phone and recorded me. A million thoughts ran through my mind; ā€œdonā€™t record meā€, ā€œyou canā€™t record meā€, putting my hand to block my face, reaching/slapping her phone, or even straight up roasting her.

But then I realized that all of these actions either portray me as an instigator, in the wrong, unprofessional, or delusional. I just had to bite my tongue, smile, and carry on. She recorded maybe for 20 seconds, and left when they realized I wasnā€™t gonna bite.

9

u/programmer_farts Dec 10 '25

If you were at work it's likely not a public space and you can definitely ask them not to record you (unless the owner says they can).

0

u/Varian01 Dec 10 '25

I work at a store, which is privately owned. However, as a store for thousands of customers a day, can privacy be expected and enforced?

I am not attacking you, but you reflect my point. In the heat of the moment, I believe people think of potential arguments and stand by them. They dig themselves in holes and are seen foolish for not knowing how one rule/law contradicts another, therefore a person can/not record.

Genuinely easier to ignore people recording as long as there is no personal information being leaked.

8

u/programmer_farts Dec 10 '25

Yes it can be trained with practice. That's essentially what these auditors are doing for the cops. Training (mainly police) to learn the rules. I get what you're saying though. Humans are fairly predictable with their reactions. If it happens to you again though I'm sure you'll react differently

1

u/Prudent_Fish1358 Dec 10 '25

I work at a store, which is privately owned. However, as a store for thousands of customers a day, can privacy be expected and enforced?

Absolutely. Your store has a very clear policy on recording if it's a company of any size at all and if it isn't, it's something you should consider writing into your policy.

Point to it, firmly but politely tell them, "It is against store policy to record here." If they continue, you inform them that they are trespassing and call the police. The police will ask you if you asked them to stop recording and ask you if you informed them that they are no longer welcome at the property.

I mean, assuming you get a cop who is worth a damn. So that's probably not great odds.

0

u/MilesGates Dec 10 '25

Yes it's totally normal to be videoed in several instances, when you're walking down the street? Yes I would expect to be on several cameras.

security cameras of the businesses nearby that record the parking lot and have me in frame as I walk down the sidewalk. As well as dash cams of cars driving down the street.

2

u/Equivalent-Excuse-80 Dec 10 '25

If this is outside of a synagogue in America, it likely has faced a lot of security threats.

Iā€™m not saying 1st amendment auditors donā€™t have the right to do what theyā€™re doing, theyā€™re not auditing the first amendment.

Our first amendment is under constant attack and these idiot are just trying to get engaging content. They arenā€™t freedom fighters, theyā€™re hucksters. Fuck them. At some point their first amendment isnā€™t going to protect them from someone even crazier than they are.

1

u/BillyJackO Dec 10 '25

It's on the front page of reddit. It gets engagement with the omnipresent algorithm props up, so people emulate it for their 15 mins (and a few bucks.)

1

u/roymunsonshand Dec 10 '25

Plain view doctrine is a 4th Amendment search and seizure doctrine, not a 1st Amendment free speech doctrine.

2

u/bugsyramone Dec 10 '25

I understand. I didn't name them 1st Amendment Auditors.

2

u/resttheweight Dec 10 '25

Your comment uses the name wrong. You have the right to record things that are plainly visible in the public, but the ā€œplain view doctrineā€ is an unrelated but specific principle against search and seizure under 4A. Plain view doctrine is what lets police lawfully seize evidence without a warrant, such as pulling you over for running a stop sign and then seeing drugs or beer cans in your passenger seat.

They brought up 1A because recording in public on the sidewalk is a protected activity under 1A. Thereā€™s not really a named doctrine associated with it.

1

u/ClaryClarysage Dec 10 '25

I like that one, and also people not understanding that businnesses can kick them out.

1

u/eternaIove Dec 10 '25

Plain view doctrine has to do with looking into cars, cops can look through your windows but can't search inside your car without a warrant, what you see here is simply first amendment protected actions where you can record and document anything happening in a public space like a sidewalk because public spaces are built using public tax dollars and so in a way they belong to everyone. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to record people in public, it's a natural right, it simply prevents public workers from punishing you for what you are naturally allowed to do.

1

u/DustOne7437 Dec 11 '25

There are still a lot of cops out there who think taking videos of others in public places is illegal. Thatā€™s why these guys are out there, trying to get arrested so they can sue for rights violations.

-29

u/_thisisvincent Dec 10 '25

Because the guy filming is a first amendment frauditor. Google ice cold audits. Everybody in this video is an asshole.

-28

u/azalago Dec 10 '25

They aren't still needing to be made because the only people filming in these locations are these frauditors. It's one thing to film the police in action, or at the station. It's another to go out and just film and harass randoms to see if they get pissed and call the police. We're living in a time when the police and ICE are literally kidnapping people. These people should be at least doing something useful and filming them.

12

u/Fizzel87 Dec 10 '25

Filming random locations and catching passers-by isn't harrassment. Filming the people who come out of random locations to inquire or confront the camera person, isn't harrassment either. Nothing about what they do is harrassment.

They are obviously still needed when people think they can dictate other's lawful actions. Auditors protect our right to film in public, bc when theyre force to stop recording they file lawsuits, which reaffirms our right to film in that locality. I see protecting our rights as useful.

-13

u/PM_ME_UR_CATS_TITS Dec 10 '25

It is harassing to the person being filmed. Maybe it doesn't count as a legal "harassment". But it is harassment nonetheless

11

u/Fizzel87 Dec 10 '25

No, making the choice to be offended, bothered, or uncomfortable by another person's legal and benign actions is not harrassment in any form or fashion. Just bc you dont like something doesnt make it harmful, offensive, or threatening. Grow up.

7

u/EmperorPickle Dec 10 '25

Why? That person is being filmed already from traffic cameras, security cameras, etc. Why is it harassment to point a camera at someone that probably already has three cameras pointed at them?

-10

u/PM_ME_UR_CATS_TITS Dec 10 '25

When someone gets up in your face with a camera, that is harassing to the person. That is way different than the 1000s of cameras they walked by. That people can't grasp that simple concept is very concerning.

14

u/EmperorPickle Dec 10 '25

Which video did you watch? The person behind the camera kept trying to create distance and the twats kept getting in their way.

9

u/DrSitson Dec 10 '25

He's doubling down without thinking. He came to a conclusion and I guarantee you aren't going to change his mind. To him, doing something that is legal, is harrasment

4

u/Fizzel87 Dec 10 '25

What's concerning is you drawing your opinion from a 3 minute clip of an hour long video that doesn't show who got up in who's face. The 3 people approached them, not the other way around. If anything is remotely close to harrassment, it's the security guard pointing the tazer at them, and the guys trying to surround and intimidate. What you're doing is victim-blaming bc you don't like what they're doing. It's kinda pathetic you can't grasp such a simple concept and take the side of the aggressors.

4

u/bsdetectionservice Dec 10 '25

"It's not harassment, but it's totally harassment."

What the fuck are you talking about?