Warren Sapp is a "first amendment auditor"

Status
Not open for further replies.

ruxCYtable

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2007
7,726
5,413
113
Colorado
Apparently he spends all of his time away from the CU football facility harassing and recording interactions with public officials. He's recently turned his attention to the town of Louisville, south of Boulder, where I have a friend who is a cop. He comes into their office screaming and yelling, and demanding records immediately. He schedules meetings with the police chief, berates him, and storms out if the chief defends himself and his department. Oh, he also parks in their handicap spot.

Apparently he is completely broke, blew all his career earnings, and is just an angry person. What a ******* clown.
 
Feel like this guy has always had a screw loose.

Can you expand on what you mean by “first amendment auditor”? What you describe doesn’t really connect to “first amendment” kind of stuff.
 
Feel like this guy has always had a screw loose.

Can you expand on what you mean by “first amendment auditor”? What you describe doesn’t really connect to “first amendment” kind of stuff.
they stand on a sidewalk and will record people with their phones. just insane stuff. my town had some meth heads doing this outside of a bar. the old drunks came out and beat them up. the auditors pepper sprayed them. only the auditors went to jail lol
 
they stand on a sidewalk and will record people with their phones. just insane stuff. my town had some meth heads doing this outside of a bar. the old drunks came out and beat them up. the auditors pepper sprayed them. only the auditors went to jail lol
I understand “first amendment auditor” is a facetious term and meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Help me connect the dots on how this is auditing our first amendment rights.
 
I understand “first amendment auditor” is a facetious term and meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Help me connect the dots on how this is auditing our first amendment rights.
Some AI for ya:

A First Amendment auditor is an individual who records their interactions with public officials and government property in public spaces, aiming to test and document if their constitutional right to film (protected by the First Amendment) is respected, often hoping to provoke a reaction to post online as "citizen journalism" or "activism". They believe they are exercising their rights to free speech and press, but sometimes engage in provocative behavior, leading to confrontations that can result in lawsuits if officials overreact by interfering with the filming.

Key Aspects:
  • Purpose: To test if public employees (police, city workers, etc.) know and respect the First Amendment right to record in public areas, and to document any violations.
  • Method: Entering public buildings or spaces (like police stations, libraries, town halls) with cameras, recording, and asking pointed questions.
  • Provocation: Often designed to elicit a response, such as being told to stop filming, asked to leave, or threatened, which they consider a "failed" audit.
  • Content: The resulting videos are shared online (e.g., YouTube, social media) to highlight perceived government overreach.
  • Legality: While recording in public is generally legal, auditors' activities can push boundaries, and officials must respond appropriately, as interfering can lead to legal trouble (like Section 1983 lawsuits).


How Officials Respond:
  • Stay calm and professional, as confrontation is often the goal.
  • Know the rules about public forums and recording.
  • Avoid actions that interfere with the auditor's recording, as this can be seen as violating their rights.
 
Some AI for ya:

A First Amendment auditor is an individual who records their interactions with public officials and government property in public spaces, aiming to test and document if their constitutional right to film (protected by the First Amendment) is respected, often hoping to provoke a reaction to post online as "citizen journalism" or "activism". They believe they are exercising their rights to free speech and press, but sometimes engage in provocative behavior, leading to confrontations that can result in lawsuits if officials overreact by interfering with the filming.

Key Aspects:
  • Purpose: To test if public employees (police, city workers, etc.) know and respect the First Amendment right to record in public areas, and to document any violations.
  • Method: Entering public buildings or spaces (like police stations, libraries, town halls) with cameras, recording, and asking pointed questions.
  • Provocation: Often designed to elicit a response, such as being told to stop filming, asked to leave, or threatened, which they consider a "failed" audit.
  • Content: The resulting videos are shared online (e.g., YouTube, social media) to highlight perceived government overreach.
  • Legality: While recording in public is generally legal, auditors' activities can push boundaries, and officials must respond appropriately, as interfering can lead to legal trouble (like Section 1983 lawsuits).


How Officials Respond:
  • Stay calm and professional, as confrontation is often the goal.
  • Know the rules about public forums and recording.
  • Avoid actions that interfere with the auditor's recording, as this can be seen as violating their rights.

Who the hell would choose to waste time like this? You have to be a real dipshi t to get your rocks off to this.
 
Didn't he get arrested down in Florida a few years ago and ended up suing for wrongful arrest?

This is where it all stems from.

Some auditors are great, some... well... are not. I always find it hilarious that we expect SO MUCH from law Enforcement, when, these videos show that they don't know a god damn thing.
 
Didn't he get arrested down in Florida a few years ago and ended up suing for wrongful arrest?
Some more AI:

Warren Sapp has had multiple arrests, most notably in February 2015 in Phoenix, Arizona, for soliciting prostitution and assault, leading to his firing from NFL Network. He also faced a February 2024 arrest in Okeechobee County, Florida, for allegedly interfering with a traffic stop (related to filming it), with charges later dropped, prompting a $20 million lawsuit against the county for civil rights violations.
The 2015 Phoenix Incident:
  • When: February 2, 2015, after Super Bowl XLIX.
  • Charges: Soliciting a prostitute and two counts of misdemeanor assault.
  • Outcome: He was fired by NFL Network, entered a plea deal (anger management classes), and the solicitation charge was later dismissed.

The 2024 Okeechobee County Incident:
  • When: February 2024.
  • Details: Arrested for allegedly interfering with deputies during a traffic stop where he was filming, violating his free speech rights.
  • Outcome: Charges dropped; Sapp is suing the county for $20 million, alleging wrongful arrest and rights violations, according to this Instagram post and this YouTube video.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: matclone
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron