How did you resist the urge to tell him to "F-off!"? "You're filming children." SO? Every amusement park, shopping mall, school, etc are recording children.
I understand that urge completely. I try and keep my composure as much as possible. I like watching my videos back simply because it helps me improve for the next encounter. I try not to get into a combative conversation with the officers as much as possible because it’s more interesting to me to see where they will take it and how they will justify what they are doing and saying. Plus it makes it much more difficult for them to make up bogus charges when I’ve been nothing but calm during the encounter.
@@trevorcreates I agree with everything you just said. I wish I had your control. I found myself yelling at the cop just while watching this insult to your character.
You are totally allowed to film children from a public spot anytime, all the time. Auditors need to stop thinking that kids are hands off when it comes to public filming. Kids are no different from adults, buildings, squirrels, or anything else when it comes to filming in public.
@@ab2761 ironically enough, the school recently recorded the children of a local elementary school for a promotional video about a referendum they were trying to pass and posted it on CZcams. Never asked any parents for their permission.
If they don’t want children filmed, I strongly suggest 20 foot walls around playgrounds with barbed wire. Remove all security cameras, including police body cameras and traffic cameras. Maybe they could just realize it’s not crime to film human beings in public even if they are little ones. I should also remind him and every other mentally disturbed person that we have minors driving cars in this country. And when it comes to buying cigarettes or alcohol 20 year olds are minors. Is illegal to film them too.
@@bearloh4740 although it’s not illegal, no one was filming children, as was stated in the video. No matter how much the officer (or you) want to claim that was happening to justify his unlawful demands or your vailed threats.
I was honestly shocked that he just gave up at the end. Seemed like he was ramping in the wrong direction throughout the conversation. With that being said…glad he just dropped it by the end.
It's not illegal. It just goes against some peoples' social mores... and I understand that. But, too bad for them... I mean 'in this day and age' and all the other BS. But this auditor was obviously NOT there to record kids. The school personnel who reported that only wanted to elevate themselves as the 'protectors of the community'. The best way to do that is to 'jam him up' and 'lock everything down'. The truth is, public schools are more concerned today with messing up kids' heads with their liberal-assed agendas than protecting them or even teaching them. Take your kids OUT of public school!!!
Not illegal from public but when these criminals are going to parks and purposely filming little girls right next to them and saying it is "journalism" one day will turn ugly. They are doing this to instigate the parents into touching them then filing assault charges so they can sue the parent and make a quick $10,000 settlement in a law suit. These are crimes being committed under the pretense of "constitutional activity and the press" which none of them are. Filming a little girl for hours including her rear body for hours right next to her is not "a press story".
Great video. I have noticed that some people use "kids" as an excuse to win an argument, and other people are overprotective of kids. That Karen or Daren who called the cops saying you are recording kids is an absolute loser. First of all, I never saw a kid on your video. Even if there were kids outside, they are in public places. Lots of people appreciates tours videos, including the outside of schools, because they want to see how the school looks, and want to remember their memory lane. That cop was really ignorant and unprofessional. He should know better that is your right to film in public places. And if there are kids around, well, too bad. There are kids everywhere. This overprotection culture of kids is getting ridiculous. I understand that it WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY if someone films the kids on purpose, and making them the center of attention. But that's sometimes could be tricky, cuz how about if someone wants to film a carousel 🎠 to share how cool is whichever park or town, and kids are riding it? Nothing wrong with that.
Firstly, this interaction was completely bogus, and you handled it well Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever on this video that you did anything illegal, nor that you were actually on school property. That said, I wish that more people would respond to cops' questions with questions of their own. For example, when the cop asked if you were recording children, I would say "Why do you ask?" or "Do you have evidence that i was doing so?" or even better "Is recording children from public illegal in any way?". At that point, the cop would be forced to justify his question and the underlying basis for it in both fact and in law. However, he could not do so because there is no justification for the question in the first place. Cops have an easy time of it with the public when they bluff their way into making people believe that a crime has actually been committed. I wish more people would put the cops on the spot and get them to justify why they are engaging citizens who have done nothing illegal.
@@RynBader Fair enough. However, if he took those shots FROM a public places, it's not illegal at all and the cop would have no lawful reason to approach and question him. People may not like or understand that, but it's the law. As someone else pointed out, if capturing pictures of kids in public were illegal, then what happens to all the video from shopping malls and amusement parks?
@@BlueSkyFalling So, are those same standards applied at parks, shopping malls, sports events and amusement parks? If not, why not? Aren't there lots of children at those places, too?
@@kyle381000 You obviously do not have kids. We had a couple of homeless weirdos walking around our school filming with phones, they were promptly escorted by the local police. End of story.
My I suggest next time police try to stop and ID , try going straight to Pleading Habeas Corpus, as per Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution . " I plead Habeas Corpus " is your first constitution civil right . All citizens should use it when being accused by police ! Habeas Corpus means I surrender if the government wants to arrest the citizen . I request to see the magistrate judge as soon as possible to motion to the court your innocent, and motion to demiss the charges based on lack of probably cause . By playing the Habeas Corpus card ,you are calling their bluff and taking them to court on your terms . After you plead Habeas Corpus try to remaining silent, and not answer any more questions and preserve your evidence of innocence for court .
But it’s concerning and alarming due to the FACTs there are several individuals call themselves auditors and they have felony sex crimes they are sex offenders so this hiding behind first amendment gives them the perfect opportunity to blend and film kids at schools film woman… predatory behavior
This is a case of the cop not being smart enough to do critical thinking so he jumped right to just judgement. I love the look on the cop's face when the victim set the cop straight.
Facts. Nj doesn’t allow any level of tint on the front windows, and you are correct, it is perfectly legal for them to have tinted front windows. They say for “officer safety”. What’s funny, and I feel this is the same for most departments. If you go through the employee parking lot, you’ll see a large number of personal vehicles with front tint, and some are pretty dark. A lot of personal vehicles without front license plates as well which is a requirement in Nj. The whole, law applies to you, but not to us sort of thing. There is a medical loophole where you can get your doctors permission for front window tint, but I doubt that’s the case for all the personal vehicles in the departments employee parking lot.
@@landism27 so we can’t have the same privacy in our own vehicles to why not Why is it illegal for us OK for them specially, considering they work for us. We don’t work for them.
@@landism27 there isn’t any issue with creating privacy. Wish I could “create privacy” in the same manner. It’s more of a comment on how the government likes to create rules on citizens but don’t want to be held to the same standards.
I didn’t. I stayed around the school for hours after working on the intersection story. If you watch the intersection video, you’ll see the next day when I speak to the Chief.
@@aihngelle I'm a parent and I know what world we live in. The first time your daughter comes home and says, "mommy, today a grown up man came to my school and started filming me" I hope you'd raise an eyebrow. If not, you're a little delusional about the fucked up shit in this world
I would always have police sitting infront of our children's schools so there is absolutely noonee hurting them. We have way to many corrupt weirdos living
That person is then making a false report to the police. And that is illegal. I would make up new laws to protect our children though every single place and punishment to the fullest if they are not following them
@@marcsolomon5285 the person who sent the officer out was the Superintendent of the school. Ironically enough, not long after this video, he recorded a video of the children in the playground as b-roll for a video he uploaded on CZcams to support a referendum he was trying to get passed. He didn’t ask the children permission or the parents either. I was never filming children, yet he accuses me of it…he films children deliberately and uploads it to CZcams, and no one bats an eye….pretty odd in my opinion.
So what stops an actual creep from standing in a public area, filming kids as they come out of the school and not giving any id if asked by law enforcement? Wouldn't the cop on duty be in trouble if he didnt at least try and the pepretrator was later found to actually be a pedo?
He had every right to ask as many questions as he wanted. In fact, he should. Unfortunately, like I stated in the video, he didn’t do much of an investigation. He could have deeper questioned the reasons for me being out there. If you watch the other video about the intersection on my profile, it shows what I had been doing there clearly. Unfortunately, he was more interested in accusing me of filming children (which it was very clear if anyone watched me for more than 5 minuets, that I wasn’t doing that) and focused too hard on obtaining my ID, which does nothing to prove what I was doing and provides no additional safety for anyone there.
"If you had any, you would have stood your ground and NOT walked away." One, he did stand his ground until the officer gave in a quit trying to get him to go away. Two, he showed his disdain for the cop and his presumed authority by turning his back on him and walking away while continuing to record. Three, if he had stayed there then the cop would have won a halfway victory by preventing him from recording whatever he wanted to from the public sidewalk. Four, if you have any, you will understand that you are not the be-all authority on how things should be done.
My first response to that cop would have been : I'm not but even if I was, it's not illegal from a public space, My first QUESTION would have been "are you detaining me for a crime"? If the officer says no, then it's see ya.
If the officer had stuck to doing his job, enforcing laws, then he never would have come out to harass a law abiding citizen. But that would require that he know the law in the first place. Which is why he was acting like a cop and trying to enforce other people's feelings instead. And with most cops, their ignorance is willing and determined so they can do whatever they want so they can keep their masters happy and get paid. It is not the job of any LAW ENFORCEMENT officer to confront and interrogate or give directives to anyone who is obeying the law. Badges do not grant extra rights, they impose extra responsibilities. According to the United States Supreme Court, no law enforcement officer anywhere may ask for your identification unless they legally detain you. And the only legal way for an officer to legally detain you is if they can articulate both the law they believe has been violated and their REASONABLE suspicion that you have and/or are violating that law. Until then, you can tell them to jump off a cliff. Suspicious activity or looking suspicious is not a crime, it is an opinion. U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) No. 77-6673 Argued February 21, 1979 Decided June 25, 1979 443 U.S. 47 Open quote. Syllabus Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined. Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal Page 443 U. S. 48 security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference. Pp. 443 U. S. 50-53. Reversed. BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Close quote.
He is the school resource officer which would explain his presence. While I agree that he exaggerated and perhaps lied about certain points (police are allowed to do that and I don’t agree with that) I know the officer casually and I know he is a good person.
Good person or not, it’s important that our officers are well trained and don’t casually go around barking unlawful orders. There are plenty of officers I’ve commended from Pompton Lakes. Officer Forte and Chief Clark are not among them. Hopefully that changes in the future.
This was just shot on an iPhone 13 Pro using a dji gimbal. It’s easy, lightweight, and I don’t have to worry about battery life. The image quality on the newer phones are pretty good. Much easier than dragging out my fx6 for these types of shoots.
Pretty silly when people consider someone filming a threat. Amazing what a group of people will come up with when they let fear take over. At the end of the day, what was going on was a constitutionally protected activity. The police that approached me the day before understood this and didn’t think I was a threat (you can see that interaction in the intersection video). Don’t let your mind run away with you. Thomas Jefferson said when people are willing to give up their liberties for safety, they deserve neither. Smart words from a smart man. I’ll also add, that Forte had every opportunity to dispel any concerns people had simply by doing a proper investigation. Instead he made baseless accusations and gave unlawful directives based on his and the school staffs feelings. Not very becoming of a LAW enforcement officer.
@@jameskelly6238 exactly my point. They have no idea. A proper investigation would have solved everything here. Officer Forte failed to deeper question, gave unlawful orders and in no way shape or form made the situation “safer” for anyone. As I said in the video, where he could have cleared up any misunderstanding by simply asking basic questions, he just cause more confusion through his lack of a proper investigation.
He had every right to approach me if he was worried about something. He directly said the reason he was out there was because he was told I was filming children. I specifically told him that wasn’t what I was doing. Never took issue with him coming out and asking “what’s up?”. The issue here is the unlawful directives and baseless accusations that followed the “what’s up?”
@@trevorcreates The cameraman targeted children. He knew going to a school would get police attention. That's what he wanted. He used and exploited children so he could make his video, try to act like a hero/Martyr, shame police, and of course make money. That's what auditors do. They do no good for our freedoms. They take police away from worthwhile actions. And if we ignore this real predators will suddenly turn into independent journalists who do not show ID or answer questions.
everyone in America. you DO NOT have to ID anywhere in the country EVEN if p!gs have reasonable suspicion. you have to identify WHEN CHARGED with a crime. that is it.
@robbieg4700 Your opinion is incorrect. See the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
@@leef_me8112 it doesn't matter how this ruling reads prima facia. Identifying falls under not JUST the 4th, but the 5th amendment. You have NO duty to assist in ANY investigation of yourself.
@@leef_me8112 "@robbieg4700 Your opinion is incorrect. See the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)" Open quote. Justice Breyer noted that the Court wrote that an 'officer may ask the [Terry] detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.' Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (emphasis added).... the Court's statement in Berkemer, while technically dicta, is the kind of strong dicta that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law. And that law has remained undisturbed for more than 20 years. There is no good reason now to reject this generation-old statement of the law. Justice Breyer also expressed a "slippery-slope" concern that the majority's opinion would lead to allowing the police to ask follow-up questions, such as what the person's license number is, or where a person lives, without running afoul of constitutional protections. Close quote. In Brown versus Texas, the US Supreme court ruled that the police were required to articulate the law that had been violated and their reasonable suspicion that an individual had or was violating that law. Forgetting the previous precedent, the court ignored the fact that the officer failed to articulate a reasonable suspicion that Hiibel had or was violating the law. Coming to a quick stop onto the side of the rode and getting out to smoke a cigarette does not present evidence that a fight had occurred. It is not against the law to have an argument. No evidence that the woman suffered injuries was presented and even though she had the opportunity to get out and walk away, she was still sitting in the vehicle.
It's weird and very strange if u do tape kids they must be fully clothed or something is definitely very very wrong and disgusting about you. Childpornography is illegal and nasty
If that’s what you got from this video, then I’m not sure anything anyone says could help you. Would be like if you took a picture at Disneyland then some weirdo accused you of CP...
People don't realize the cops here are protecting these auditors. As a father, if I find out you are following my kids at school filming them, I would have a problem with that.
I was filming adjacent to the school covering a story on the intersection. As my video stated, if the cop simply done a thorough investigation, then there wouldn’t have been an issue. Instead he came out making wild accusations that weren’t even close to being true and tried to ID me when he had no right to do so. An officer at a school isn’t a bad thing. But an officer at a school who isn’t well trained and doesn’t know the fundamentals of how to do a proper investigation is an issue. Many parents came up to me nicely and asked what I was doing over the 3 days I was there. Simply explained to them the story I was covering and they moved on. Some parents came up to me aggressively and they got nothing except embarrassment for acting like fools.
@@leevan2095 yes, you can watch the full intersection video. It is posted on my channel as well. I never intended on posting this video. Tried to talk to Officer Forte later to discuss how he could have handled this better. His commanding officer said they had no interest in speaking with me. So instead of having a conversation man to man like I would have preferred, I decided the next best option was to post this video in the hopes that it would get my point across.
@@trevorcreates thanks for the quick reply but I can't find any of the videos. I'm only seeing 3 videos and 2 shorts on this channel. Did you have another channel? BTW in case we are talking about two different things I was asking about the video coverage with the parents you mentioned in the previous comment.
@@leevan2095 I see. The videos of my conversations with any parents never made it into the final edit. There were many locals I spoke to during the 3 days though who either asked what I was doing, or just watched me for a second and realized what I was doing. A few who came up to me in rude ways never trying to understand what I was doing and tried to scare me off. I try and make the videos as digestible as possible, and adding in every conversation good or bad would have resulted in a very long and unwatchable video. I’ve had many locals approach me since the videos were released (including a number of local police) who thanked me for the work I did there. There have been a lot of positive changes made since these videos were posted (heavier police presence and the implementation of light up stop signs for the crossing guards). Not saying the video made these things happen, but I’d like to believe it helped bring awareness and push things in the right direction.
Stop baiting the police. Officer Forte did a great job. He never tried to force you into anything and he was kind the entire time. He has the right to ask you anything he wants. He didn't give you a hard time when you told him no. He was professional. Hopefully they catch you on school property. Your audit was a failure.
I was too. He seemed like he was gearing up for a second, then all of the sudden, just said “okay”. Would have been nice to see the conversation unfold differently, but at the end of the day, the 1st and 4th were honored. That’s never a bad thing.
How did you resist the urge to tell him to "F-off!"? "You're filming children." SO? Every amusement park, shopping mall, school, etc are recording children.
yeah but pedophiles do it and say they are auditors, that's their cover
I understand that urge completely. I try and keep my composure as much as possible. I like watching my videos back simply because it helps me improve for the next encounter. I try not to get into a combative conversation with the officers as much as possible because it’s more interesting to me to see where they will take it and how they will justify what they are doing and saying.
Plus it makes it much more difficult for them to make up bogus charges when I’ve been nothing but calm during the encounter.
@@trevorcreates I agree with everything you just said. I wish I had your control. I found myself yelling at the cop just while watching this insult to your character.
"Yes, I am filming children. So what?" is the answer.
You are totally allowed to film children from a public spot anytime, all the time. Auditors need to stop thinking that kids are hands off when it comes to public filming. Kids are no different from adults, buildings, squirrels, or anything else when it comes to filming in public.
You are correct. It is not illegal. I never said filming kids was. I simply made it clear that filming kids wasn’t what I was doing.
Follow my kid around with a camera, I would have to fix that problem.
@@ab2761 ironically enough, the school recently recorded the children of a local elementary school for a promotional video about a referendum they were trying to pass and posted it on CZcams. Never asked any parents for their permission.
@@ab2761 and now ur kid has no parent LOL
If they don’t want children filmed, I strongly suggest 20 foot walls around playgrounds with barbed wire. Remove all security cameras, including police body cameras and traffic cameras. Maybe they could just realize it’s not crime to film human beings in public even if they are little ones. I should also remind him and every other mentally disturbed person that we have minors driving cars in this country. And when it comes to buying cigarettes or alcohol 20 year olds are minors. Is illegal to film them too.
It still surprises me every time a officer goes this way with these encounters. You’d think by now they’d understand, but, that’s why we record.
It’s not the officer he need worry about,film one my kids and it’s me you need to worry about!
Worth it to have them safe,,,keeping police honest is one thing.filming children crosses a line only Biden thinks is ok
If they're playing baseball or some other sport, and my kid was there. Does this threat apply to these parents also?@@bearloh4740
@@bearloh4740 although it’s not illegal, no one was filming children, as was stated in the video. No matter how much the officer (or you) want to claim that was happening to justify his unlawful demands or your vailed threats.
He didn't violate but he sure tried
I was honestly shocked that he just gave up at the end. Seemed like he was ramping in the wrong direction throughout the conversation. With that being said…glad he just dropped it by the end.
Since when is photographing kids illegal? I don’t get it?
It's not illegal. It just goes against some peoples' social mores... and I understand that. But, too bad for them... I mean 'in this day and age' and all the other BS. But this auditor was obviously NOT there to record kids. The school personnel who reported that only wanted to elevate themselves as the 'protectors of the community'. The best way to do that is to 'jam him up' and 'lock everything down'. The truth is, public schools are more concerned today with messing up kids' heads with their liberal-assed agendas than protecting them or even teaching them. Take your kids OUT of public school!!!
pedophiles do it and say they are auditors, that's their cover
How about creepy?
@@nkdgolf The only thing creepy about is your mindset. You are thinking with your emotional brain. That's what animals do. Use your human logic.
Not illegal from public but when these criminals are going to parks and purposely filming little girls right next to them and saying it is "journalism" one day will turn ugly. They are doing this to instigate the parents into touching them then filing assault charges so they can sue the parent and make a quick $10,000 settlement in a law suit. These are crimes being committed under the pretense of "constitutional activity and the press" which none of them are. Filming a little girl for hours including her rear body for hours right next to her is not "a press story".
Great video. I have noticed that some people use "kids" as an excuse to win an argument, and other people are overprotective of kids. That Karen or Daren who called the cops saying you are recording kids is an absolute loser. First of all, I never saw a kid on your video. Even if there were kids outside, they are in public places. Lots of people appreciates tours videos, including the outside of schools, because they want to see how the school looks, and want to remember their memory lane. That cop was really ignorant and unprofessional. He should know better that is your right to film in public places. And if there are kids around, well, too bad. There are kids everywhere. This overprotection culture of kids is getting ridiculous. I understand that it WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY if someone films the kids on purpose, and making them the center of attention. But that's sometimes could be tricky, cuz how about if someone wants to film a carousel 🎠 to share how cool is whichever park or town, and kids are riding it? Nothing wrong with that.
actually nvr seen any kids in this video
Firstly, this interaction was completely bogus, and you handled it well
Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever on this video that you did anything illegal, nor that you were actually on school property.
That said, I wish that more people would respond to cops' questions with questions of their own.
For example, when the cop asked if you were recording children, I would say "Why do you ask?" or "Do you have evidence that i was doing so?" or even better "Is recording children from public illegal in any way?". At that point, the cop would be forced to justify his question and the underlying basis for it in both fact and in law. However, he could not do so because there is no justification for the question in the first place.
Cops have an easy time of it with the public when they bluff their way into making people believe that a crime has actually been committed.
I wish more people would put the cops on the spot and get them to justify why they are engaging citizens who have done nothing illegal.
he doesn't show the parts before hand where he was getting his kiddy shots
@@RynBader
Fair enough.
However, if he took those shots FROM a public places, it's not illegal at all and the cop would have no lawful reason to approach and question him. People may not like or understand that, but it's the law.
As someone else pointed out, if capturing pictures of kids in public were illegal, then what happens to all the video from shopping malls and amusement parks?
Creeps all around. Better to be safe than sorry…
@@BlueSkyFalling So, are those same standards applied at parks, shopping malls, sports events and amusement parks? If not, why not? Aren't there lots of children at those places, too?
@@kyle381000 You obviously do not have kids. We had a couple of homeless weirdos walking around our school filming with phones, they were promptly escorted by the local police.
End of story.
You should have stayed and filmed every kid at the school.
Are you out of your mind
@@cobusschoonderwoerd5805
No. But you seem to be upset about something.
Even if you took pics of kids in public that’s not a problem anyways. What a clown that cop is
My I suggest next time police try to stop and ID , try going straight to Pleading Habeas Corpus, as per Article 1 Section 9 of the constitution . " I plead Habeas Corpus " is your first constitution civil right . All citizens should use it when being accused by police !
Habeas Corpus means I surrender if the government wants to arrest the citizen . I request to see the magistrate judge as soon as possible to motion to the court your innocent, and motion to demiss the charges based on lack of probably cause .
By playing the Habeas Corpus card ,you are calling their bluff and taking them to court on your terms .
After you plead Habeas Corpus try to remaining silent, and not answer any more questions and preserve your evidence of innocence for court .
Filming children is not against the law.
But it’s concerning and alarming due to the FACTs there are several individuals call themselves auditors and they have felony sex crimes they are sex offenders so this hiding behind first amendment gives them the perfect opportunity to blend and film kids at schools film woman… predatory behavior
Even if u filming kids it doesn't matter it's not against the law if they r outside in public
This is a case of the cop not being smart enough to do critical thinking so he jumped right to just judgement. I love the look on the cop's face when the victim set the cop straight.
I saw no kids in this video
Beautiful neighborhood. Cops must be doing a good job there ;-)
Sorry, I don't talk to nazis
If our window tint was that dark, we’d get a ticket and we need to remove it. The cops can have dark tint like that.
Facts. Nj doesn’t allow any level of tint on the front windows, and you are correct, it is perfectly legal for them to have tinted front windows. They say for “officer safety”. What’s funny, and I feel this is the same for most departments. If you go through the employee parking lot, you’ll see a large number of personal vehicles with front tint, and some are pretty dark. A lot of personal vehicles without front license plates as well which is a requirement in Nj. The whole, law applies to you, but not to us sort of thing.
There is a medical loophole where you can get your doctors permission for front window tint, but I doubt that’s the case for all the personal vehicles in the departments employee parking lot.
Police window tints are creating privacy. Isn’t that what auditors want?🤷🏼♀️
@@landism27 so we can’t have the same privacy in our own vehicles to why not Why is it illegal for us OK for them specially, considering they work for us. We don’t work for them.
@@landism27 there isn’t any issue with creating privacy. Wish I could “create privacy” in the same manner. It’s more of a comment on how the government likes to create rules on citizens but don’t want to be held to the same standards.
Good audit. Just found you. Liked and subscribed.
Thank you. I appreciate your support
Same, I like your style.
But why did you leave??..he probably went in there and said...I took care of him....why even go...? Win for them
I didn’t. I stayed around the school for hours after working on the intersection story. If you watch the intersection video, you’ll see the next day when I speak to the Chief.
Should have stayed for a while to show the school that the cop didn’t run you off the sidewalk. Not an education for them. They got their way.
Stayed for multiple hours after covering the story I went there to cover, which was the intersection by the school.
NEW SUBBER. I WOULD HAVE RECORDED CHILDREN AND PROVED THAT IT HAS NOTHING TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF.
Creepy that you'd want to record nervous minors to prove a point. Sounds a little sick
@@Melissa-xb1vf it's sicker that you constantly think of abuse by just a camera. got issues? go to therapy.
@@aihngelle I'm a parent and I know what world we live in. The first time your daughter comes home and says, "mommy, today a grown up man came to my school and started filming me" I hope you'd raise an eyebrow. If not, you're a little delusional about the fucked up shit in this world
I just fimed a PUBLIC pool in Luftin TX and the went bezerk...
I would always have police sitting infront of our children's schools so there is absolutely noonee hurting them. We have way to many corrupt weirdos living
On our planet
That person is then making a false report to the police. And that is illegal. I would make up new laws to protect our children though every single place and punishment to the fullest if they are not following them
@@marcsolomon5285 the person who sent the officer out was the Superintendent of the school. Ironically enough, not long after this video, he recorded a video of the children in the playground as b-roll for a video he uploaded on CZcams to support a referendum he was trying to get passed. He didn’t ask the children permission or the parents either. I was never filming children, yet he accuses me of it…he films children deliberately and uploads it to CZcams, and no one bats an eye….pretty odd in my opinion.
So what stops an actual creep from standing in a public area, filming kids as they come out of the school and not giving any id if asked by law enforcement? Wouldn't the cop on duty be in trouble if he didnt at least try and the pepretrator was later found to actually be a pedo?
He had every right to ask as many questions as he wanted. In fact, he should. Unfortunately, like I stated in the video, he didn’t do much of an investigation. He could have deeper questioned the reasons for me being out there. If you watch the other video about the intersection on my profile, it shows what I had been doing there clearly. Unfortunately, he was more interested in accusing me of filming children (which it was very clear if anyone watched me for more than 5 minuets, that I wasn’t doing that) and focused too hard on obtaining my ID, which does nothing to prove what I was doing and provides no additional safety for anyone there.
If you had any, you would have stood your ground and NOT walked away.
Stayed there for 3hrs filming that location. Wasn’t there for the officer. Was working on a story covering the intersection.
"If you had any, you would have stood your ground and NOT walked away."
One, he did stand his ground until the officer gave in a quit trying to get him to go away.
Two, he showed his disdain for the cop and his presumed authority by turning his back on him and walking away while continuing to record.
Three, if he had stayed there then the cop would have won a halfway victory by preventing him from recording whatever he wanted to from the public sidewalk.
Four, if you have any, you will understand that you are not the be-all authority on how things should be done.
Great video awesome job I just subscribed to your channel i bench watch your videos
I didn't see one kid outside the school. Kind of hard to get a picture of one I would say.
3:04 sounds like a good case building line
7:41 a lot of the police on the force are just a little kids looking to help mommy
My first response to that cop would have been : I'm not but even if I was, it's not illegal from a public space, My first QUESTION would have been "are you detaining me for a crime"? If the officer says no, then it's see ya.
If the officer had stuck to doing his job, enforcing laws, then he never would have come out to harass a law abiding citizen. But that would require that he know the law in the first place. Which is why he was acting like a cop and trying to enforce other people's feelings instead. And with most cops, their ignorance is willing and determined so they can do whatever they want so they can keep their masters happy and get paid.
It is not the job of any LAW ENFORCEMENT officer to confront and interrogate or give directives to anyone who is obeying the law. Badges do not grant extra rights, they impose extra responsibilities.
According to the United States Supreme Court, no law enforcement officer anywhere may ask for your identification unless they legally detain you. And the only legal way for an officer to legally detain you is if they can articulate both the law they believe has been violated and their REASONABLE suspicion that you have and/or are violating that law. Until then, you can tell them to jump off a cliff.
Suspicious activity or looking suspicious is not a crime, it is an opinion.
U.S. Supreme Court
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
No. 77-6673
Argued February 21, 1979
Decided June 25, 1979
443 U.S. 47
Open quote.
Syllabus
Two police officers, while cruising near noon in a patrol car, observed appellant and another man walking away from one another in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic. They stopped and asked appellant to identify himself and explain what he was doing. One officer testified that he stopped appellant because the situation "looked suspicious, and we had never seen that subject in that area before." The officers did not claim to suspect appellant of any specific misconduct, nor did they have any reason to believe that he was armed. When appellant refused to identify himself, he was arrested for violation of a Texas statute which makes it a criminal act for a person to refuse to give his name and address to an officer "who has lawfully stopped him and requested the information." Appellant's motion to set aside an information charging him with violation of the statute on the ground that the statute violated the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments was denied, and he was convicted and fined.
Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873. The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal
Page 443 U. S. 48
security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference.
Pp. 443 U. S. 50-53.
Reversed.
BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Close quote.
Thanks for sharing. 👆 some quality knowledge right here.
Yes right...This cop is supposed to be a law enforcer. In this video he turned into an ignorance enforcer.
Officer if you continue to harass me, I will find out where YOU live and film YOUR children and there’s not a farking thing you can do about it.
He is the school resource officer which would explain his presence. While I agree that he exaggerated and perhaps lied about certain points (police are allowed to do that and I don’t agree with that) I know the officer casually and I know he is a good person.
Good person or not, it’s important that our officers are well trained and don’t casually go around barking unlawful orders. There are plenty of officers I’ve commended from Pompton Lakes. Officer Forte and Chief Clark are not among them. Hopefully that changes in the future.
What camera do you use? That video is awesome looking
This was just shot on an iPhone 13 Pro using a dji gimbal. It’s easy, lightweight, and I don’t have to worry about battery life. The image quality on the newer phones are pretty good. Much easier than dragging out my fx6 for these types of shoots.
I was at school that day and everyone thought you were a threat
Pretty silly when people consider someone filming a threat. Amazing what a group of people will come up with when they let fear take over.
At the end of the day, what was going on was a constitutionally protected activity. The police that approached me the day before understood this and didn’t think I was a threat (you can see that interaction in the intersection video). Don’t let your mind run away with you.
Thomas Jefferson said when people are willing to give up their liberties for safety, they deserve neither. Smart words from a smart man.
I’ll also add, that Forte had every opportunity to dispel any concerns people had simply by doing a proper investigation. Instead he made baseless accusations and gave unlawful directives based on his and the school staffs feelings. Not very becoming of a LAW enforcement officer.
You have no clue sir. With the state of our country for all they know you’re casing the school! Have you not seen the news regarding school shootings.
@@jameskelly6238 exactly my point. They have no idea. A proper investigation would have solved everything here. Officer Forte failed to deeper question, gave unlawful orders and in no way shape or form made the situation “safer” for anyone. As I said in the video, where he could have cleared up any misunderstanding by simply asking basic questions, he just cause more confusion through his lack of a proper investigation.
8:03 FAIL
3:47 i’m sure you have lots better things to do so do them
We all know that it is a criminal offense to record children, period.
if you were photographing children that is a bit of a black flag, dont you think.
He had every right to approach me if he was worried about something. He directly said the reason he was out there was because he was told I was filming children. I specifically told him that wasn’t what I was doing.
Never took issue with him coming out and asking “what’s up?”. The issue here is the unlawful directives and baseless accusations that followed the “what’s up?”
pedophiles do it and say they are auditors, that's their cover
It’s not illegal and the kid isn’t going to die or anything
Targeting children is crossing the line. Auditors now need to be stopped
@@lance3748 who targeted children? Clearly you didn’t watch the video
@@trevorcreates The cameraman targeted children. He knew going to a school would get police attention. That's what he wanted. He used and exploited children so he could make his video, try to act like a hero/Martyr, shame police, and of course make money.
That's what auditors do. They do no good for our freedoms. They take police away from worthwhile actions.
And if we ignore this real predators will suddenly turn into independent journalists who do not show ID or answer questions.
Why are you photographing/videoing children at all?
Looking at the comments , his pedo fans get off on it.
Ever had a real job?
Audit sucks boring
everyone in America. you DO NOT have to ID anywhere in the country EVEN if p!gs have reasonable suspicion. you have to identify WHEN CHARGED with a crime. that is it.
@robbieg4700 Your opinion is incorrect. See the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
@@leef_me8112 it doesn't matter how this ruling reads prima facia. Identifying falls under not JUST the 4th, but the 5th amendment. You have NO duty to assist in ANY investigation of yourself.
@@leef_me8112
"@robbieg4700 Your opinion is incorrect. See the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)"
Open quote.
Justice Breyer noted that
the Court wrote that an 'officer may ask the [Terry] detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond.' Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (emphasis added).... the Court's statement in Berkemer, while technically dicta, is the kind of strong dicta that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law. And that law has remained undisturbed for more than 20 years. There is no good reason now to reject this generation-old statement of the law.
Justice Breyer also expressed a "slippery-slope" concern that the majority's opinion would lead to allowing the police to ask follow-up questions, such as what the person's license number is, or where a person lives, without running afoul of constitutional protections.
Close quote.
In Brown versus Texas, the US Supreme court ruled that the police were required to articulate the law that had been violated and their reasonable suspicion that an individual had or was violating that law. Forgetting the previous precedent, the court ignored the fact that the officer failed to articulate a reasonable suspicion that Hiibel had or was violating the law. Coming to a quick stop onto the side of the rode and getting out to smoke a cigarette does not present evidence that a fight had occurred. It is not against the law to have an argument. No evidence that the woman suffered injuries was presented and even though she had the opportunity to get out and walk away, she was still sitting in the vehicle.
It's weird and very strange if u do tape kids they must be fully clothed or something is definitely very very wrong and disgusting about you. Childpornography is illegal and nasty
If that’s what you got from this video, then I’m not sure anything anyone says could help you. Would be like if you took a picture at Disneyland then some weirdo accused you of CP...
People don't realize the cops here are protecting these auditors.
As a father, if I find out you are following my kids at school filming them, I would have a problem with that.
I was filming adjacent to the school covering a story on the intersection. As my video stated, if the cop simply done a thorough investigation, then there wouldn’t have been an issue. Instead he came out making wild accusations that weren’t even close to being true and tried to ID me when he had no right to do so. An officer at a school isn’t a bad thing. But an officer at a school who isn’t well trained and doesn’t know the fundamentals of how to do a proper investigation is an issue.
Many parents came up to me nicely and asked what I was doing over the 3 days I was there. Simply explained to them the story I was covering and they moved on.
Some parents came up to me aggressively and they got nothing except embarrassment for acting like fools.
Are these videos available on you channel too? If not any particular reason?
@@leevan2095 yes, you can watch the full intersection video. It is posted on my channel as well.
I never intended on posting this video. Tried to talk to Officer Forte later to discuss how he could have handled this better. His commanding officer said they had no interest in speaking with me. So instead of having a conversation man to man like I would have preferred, I decided the next best option was to post this video in the hopes that it would get my point across.
@@trevorcreates thanks for the quick reply but I can't find any of the videos. I'm only seeing 3 videos and 2 shorts on this channel. Did you have another channel?
BTW in case we are talking about two different things I was asking about the video coverage with the parents you mentioned in the previous comment.
@@leevan2095 I see. The videos of my conversations with any parents never made it into the final edit. There were many locals I spoke to during the 3 days though who either asked what I was doing, or just watched me for a second and realized what I was doing. A few who came up to me in rude ways never trying to understand what I was doing and tried to scare me off. I try and make the videos as digestible as possible, and adding in every conversation good or bad would have resulted in a very long and unwatchable video.
I’ve had many locals approach me since the videos were released (including a number of local police) who thanked me for the work I did there. There have been a lot of positive changes made since these videos were posted (heavier police presence and the implementation of light up stop signs for the crossing guards). Not saying the video made these things happen, but I’d like to believe it helped bring awareness and push things in the right direction.
Stop baiting the police. Officer Forte did a great job. He never tried to force you into anything and he was kind the entire time. He has the right to ask you anything he wants. He didn't give you a hard time when you told him no. He was professional.
Hopefully they catch you on school property.
Your audit was a failure.
School property..as in public property? I’ve been inside the school. They couldn’t force a trespass if they wanted. PUBLIC
Mike, Hitler’s biggest fan
@@squonk2902 I love you keyboard warriors. Keep hiding behind that device with that stupid name.... ✌️
@@mikefas5406 love the playground bully approach.
The cop was a total jerk. Zero reason to accost the camera guy but he did it anyway. Only a nazi would say what you did.
@ 8:00, I am pleasantly surprised that this piglice backed down so quickly !!!
I was too. He seemed like he was gearing up for a second, then all of the sudden, just said “okay”. Would have been nice to see the conversation unfold differently, but at the end of the day, the 1st and 4th were honored. That’s never a bad thing.
Can't stop u filming there