Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)
5. What was the context?
Thu Sep 14, 2017, 09:29 AM
Sep 2017

Were they filming outside military buildings, recruiting stations, base entries, etc?

Googling "First Amendment Audits" they appear to be groups who videotape in areas to intentionally provoke confrontations with law enforcement (military and government)
and when confronted, such as "Why are you taping the entrance to the police station, etc"
First Amendment Audit becomes very verbally aggressive and confrontational, taping the confrontation and posting it to Youtube.

So the citizens confronted by armed military may have been filming near a military installation,
and may have become angry, aggressive, confrontational when asked why they were doing it.

Even 'free speech' has it's limitations.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Think that these are their personal guns, so totally legal Not Ruth Sep 2017 #1
These are MPs and SPs ....... they are in uniforms and working Angry Dragon Sep 2017 #2
Need more details sarisataka Sep 2017 #3
Okay more details Angry Dragon Sep 2017 #4
I think I have the picture... sarisataka Sep 2017 #6
If they aren't on federal property they have zero authority as LEOs Major Nikon Sep 2017 #9
Correct however sarisataka Sep 2017 #10
Hard to imagine how someone with a camera could equate to a car bomb Major Nikon Sep 2017 #11
Perhaps you are misunderstanding sarisataka Sep 2017 #12
The context of the OP is military police asking for ID off base Major Nikon Sep 2017 #13
I disagree sarisataka Sep 2017 #14
Posse Comitatus Act isn't limited to detention Major Nikon Sep 2017 #15
You are correct sarisataka Sep 2017 #16
Sounds like you were suggesting if they weren't detaining someone they weren't violating the law Major Nikon Sep 2017 #17
Yes it is a very tricky situation sarisataka Sep 2017 #19
I've had SP duty on occasion back in the 1980's. Jurisdiction was always tricky. haele Sep 2017 #20
thank you for your input Angry Dragon Sep 2017 #21
thank you for your input Angry Dragon Sep 2017 #22
What was the context? left-of-center2012 Sep 2017 #5
yes to your first sentence Angry Dragon Sep 2017 #7
Yes, they can and will left-of-center2012 Sep 2017 #8
Military police have a legal right to police a certain distance outside the gate. Solly Mack Sep 2017 #18
Was it the National Guard that patrols flood areas and keep control of Jim Beard Sep 2017 #23
NO...........MPs at front gates and National Guard coming onto public property Angry Dragon Sep 2017 #26
Not sure what this is about. Link? linuxman Sep 2017 #24
here is an example Angry Dragon Sep 2017 #27
They are allowed a small distance off base in line with their duties. linuxman Sep 2017 #28
okay Angry Dragon Sep 2017 #29
Wondered the same as I saw this in Key West malaise Sep 2017 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Military Personnel Carryi...»Reply #5