1a auditor guilty of trespass (Page 24 of 25)
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Asking someone a question- basic communication- is well within customary social norms. A drug dog, bloodhound, or metal detector search is not. The first half of this thread lots of people were saying "dumbass tried to defend himself, what did he expect!" Would a good lawyer have made a difference? It's a valid question. If he appeals he will almost certainly retain the best lawyer he can find. If he'd had (and listened to) to a good lawyer, maybe he wouldn't have admitted to all the elements of the crime on the stand. "I saw a private road sign" = I entered a property that was signed or enclosed in such a way as to put me on notice that it was private "I was there as as an activist" = I wasn't just there to knock and talk, I was there to engage in behavior outside of any customary license. Unfortunately for him, gaining access to the private information of the witnesses was more important to him than being effective in court |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1477
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By brosnarp: If he'd had (and listened to) to a good lawyer, maybe he wouldn't have admitted to all the elements of the crime on the stand. "I saw a private road sign" = I entered a property that was signed or enclosed in such a way as to put me on notice that it was private "I was there as as an activist" = I wasn't just there to knock and talk, I was there to engage in behavior outside of any customary license. Unfortunately for him, gaining access to the private information of the witnesses was more important to him than being effective in court He admitted he saw the 'private road' sign but did not interpret it to be exclusionary. He never once said he was engaged in activism- he was very specific that he was engaged in journalism and was specifically working on a public interest story. Like it or not, no one can shoot holes in his actions in the facts on video of HOW he approached the house and conducted himself as a journalist on that day. If you havent watched it, you need to. They couldnt fault anything he did on the video so they had to come up with twisting some laws to make his entire visit unlawful. You guys harping on the previous encounters act like Reyes was the bad guy in those previous encounters. He wasn't. Have you watched those body cam videos of Fahey lying to the cops that day, and him and the cops on scene conspiring on how to get Reyes? Its some pretty damning footage. |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He admitted he saw the 'private road' sign but did not interpret it to be exclusionary. He never once said he was engaged in activism- he was very specific that he was engaged in journalism and was specifically working on a public interest story. Like it or not, no one can shoot holes in his actions in the facts on video of HOW he approached the house and conducted himself as a journalist on that day. If you havent watched it, you need to. They couldnt fault anything he did on the video so they had to come up with twisting some laws to make his entire visit unlawful. You guys harping on the previous encounters act like Reyes was the bad guy in those previous encounters. He wasn't. Looks like he KNOWS now 
|
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12149
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He admitted he saw the 'private road' sign but did not interpret it to be exclusionary. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He admitted he saw the 'private road' sign but did not interpret it to be exclusionary. Irrelevant. As I've explained to you before, Criminal Trespass 3 has two elements: 1. Knowingly entering without a license and 2. The property was posted or enclosed. Reyes' testimony that he saw the private road signs establishes the objective fact that the property was posted, satisfying element 2. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He never once said he was engaged in activism- Wrong.  Originally Posted By Pioneer1: You guys harping on the previous encounters act like Reyes was the bad guy in those previous encounters. He wasn't. Also irrelevant. Even bad guys have the right to enjoy their property without unwanted intruders. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1478
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By brosnarp: Irrelevant. As I've explained to you before, Criminal Trespass 3 has two elements: 1. Knowingly entering without a license and 2. The property was posted or enclosed. Reyes' testimony that he saw the private road signs establishes the objective fact that the property was posted, satisfying element 2. Wrong. https://i.imgur.com/6vwdRQi.png Also irrelevant. Even bad guys have the right to enjoy their property without unwanted intruders. Yes, he did apparently use that word when he was describing his youtube channel, not what he went to Fahey's home for. When he described what he was doing that day, he very careful to characterize it as journalism, not activism. The only words he got out of his mouth that day were to greet Fahey politely and begin asking him about the alleged overtime. Do you consider that activism? Do you consider that conduct outside of customary social norms? Let me ask you this, do you feel like he had no right to be asking about Fahey's overtime? |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Yes, he did apparently use that word when he was describing his youtube channel, not what he went to Fahey's home for. When he described what he was doing that day, he very careful to characterize it as journalism, not activism. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Yes, he did apparently use that word when he was describing his youtube channel, not what he went to Fahey's home for. When he described what he was doing that day, he very careful to characterize it as journalism, not activism. He was describing why he rocked up to Fahey's driveway in a billboard truck my guy. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: The only words he got out of his mouth that day were to greet Fahey politely and begin asking him about the alleged overtime. Do you consider that activism? Do you consider that conduct outside of customary social norms? I think that the totality of the evidence shows that Reyes' visit does not fall within any social norm, especially when you consider the fact that Connecticut pretty clearly explains the limits of the customary license in their affirmative defense law. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Let me ask you this, do you feel like he had no right to be asking about Fahey's overtime? Sure, he's got a right to ask whatever he wants, so long as he is asking from a place he has a right, license, or privilege to be in. |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Yes, he did apparently use that word when he was describing his youtube channel, not what he went to Fahey's home for. When he described what he was doing that day, he very careful to characterize it as journalism, not activism. The only words he got out of his mouth that day were to greet Fahey politely and begin asking him about the alleged overtime. Do you consider that activism? Do you consider that conduct outside of customary social norms? Let me ask you this, do you feel like he had no right to be asking about Fahey's overtime? Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By brosnarp: Irrelevant. As I've explained to you before, Criminal Trespass 3 has two elements: 1. Knowingly entering without a license and 2. The property was posted or enclosed. Reyes' testimony that he saw the private road signs establishes the objective fact that the property was posted, satisfying element 2. Wrong. https://i.imgur.com/6vwdRQi.png Also irrelevant. Even bad guys have the right to enjoy their property without unwanted intruders. Yes, he did apparently use that word when he was describing his youtube channel, not what he went to Fahey's home for. When he described what he was doing that day, he very careful to characterize it as journalism, not activism. The only words he got out of his mouth that day were to greet Fahey politely and begin asking him about the alleged overtime. Do you consider that activism? Do you consider that conduct outside of customary social norms? Let me ask you this, do you feel like he had no right to be asking about Fahey's overtime? If I sue somebody I’m not going to then put on my journalist hat and pretend nothing has happened. |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
|
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: If I sue somebody I’m not going to then put on my journalist hat and pretend nothing has happened. Today he identifies as a journalist, tomorrow he's an activist......how are you supposed to know which role he is on any given day? |
|
Good thing that trespass laws don't apply to cops that are doing law enforcement stuff. https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/local/2024/11/01/charge-dropped-against-riverside-county-woman-in-viral-arrest-video/75965041007/ |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12151
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Yes, he did apparently use that word when he was describing his youtube channel, not what he went to Fahey's home for. When he described what he was doing that day, he very careful to characterize it as journalism, not activism. The only words he got out of his mouth that day were to greet Fahey politely and begin asking him about the alleged overtime. Do you consider that activism? Do you consider that conduct outside of customary social norms? Let me ask you this, do you feel like he had no right to be asking about Fahey's overtime? Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By brosnarp: Irrelevant. As I've explained to you before, Criminal Trespass 3 has two elements: 1. Knowingly entering without a license and 2. The property was posted or enclosed. Reyes' testimony that he saw the private road signs establishes the objective fact that the property was posted, satisfying element 2. Wrong. https://i.imgur.com/6vwdRQi.png Also irrelevant. Even bad guys have the right to enjoy their property without unwanted intruders. Yes, he did apparently use that word when he was describing his youtube channel, not what he went to Fahey's home for. When he described what he was doing that day, he very careful to characterize it as journalism, not activism. The only words he got out of his mouth that day were to greet Fahey politely and begin asking him about the alleged overtime. Do you consider that activism? Do you consider that conduct outside of customary social norms? Let me ask you this, do you feel like he had no right to be asking about Fahey's overtime? He had no right to be on Fahey's property asking about overtime. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12152
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Today he identifies as a journalist, tomorrow he's an activist......how are you supposed to know which role he is on any given day? Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: If I sue somebody I’m not going to then put on my journalist hat and pretend nothing has happened. Today he identifies as a journalist, tomorrow he's an activist......how are you supposed to know which role he is on any given day? Ahem. KNOW. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1479
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: He had no right to be on Fahey's property asking about overtime. I guess not. So how was he supposed to ask him about it? He had tried asking him in public. Every time he went to the State Police headquarters- to file complaints, file FOIA requests, request discumiplinary recirds, etc. he was assaulted by Fahey- under color of law. Multiple times- when he commited no crimes. He lodged complaints and no one did a damn thing about it. He was just supposed to accept that Fahey being a big shot cop and all was 'above the law' and just given up huh? |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12155
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: I guess not. So how was he supposed to ask him about it? He had tried asking him in public. Every time he went to the State Police headquarters he was assaulted by Fahey- under color of law. Multiple times- when he commited no crimes. He lodged complaints and no one did a damn thing about it. He was just supposed to accept that Fahey being a big shot cop and all was 'above the law' and just given up huh? Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: He had no right to be on Fahey's property asking about overtime. I guess not. So how was he supposed to ask him about it? He had tried asking him in public. Every time he went to the State Police headquarters he was assaulted by Fahey- under color of law. Multiple times- when he commited no crimes. He lodged complaints and no one did a damn thing about it. He was just supposed to accept that Fahey being a big shot cop and all was 'above the law' and just given up huh? Oh well. None of that is license or permission to enter his property. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1480
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12156
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: None of that is a legitimate revocation of his implied social license either- except in that corrupt ass clown town. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Oh well. None of that is license or permission to enter his property. None of that is a legitimate revocation of his implied social license either- except in that corrupt ass clown town. No, none of THAT is, that you said which I quoted. Other things pretty clearly revoke his implied social license. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: I guess not. So how was he supposed to ask him about it? He had tried asking him in public. Every time he went to the State Police headquarters- to file complaints, file FOIA requests, request discumiplinary recirds, etc. he was assaulted by Fahey- under color of law. Multiple times- when he commited no crimes. He lodged complaints and no one did a damn thing about it. He was just supposed to accept that Fahey being a big shot cop and all was 'above the law' and just given up huh? Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: He had no right to be on Fahey's property asking about overtime. I guess not. So how was he supposed to ask him about it? He had tried asking him in public. Every time he went to the State Police headquarters- to file complaints, file FOIA requests, request discumiplinary recirds, etc. he was assaulted by Fahey- under color of law. Multiple times- when he commited no crimes. He lodged complaints and no one did a damn thing about it. He was just supposed to accept that Fahey being a big shot cop and all was 'above the law' and just given up huh? You seem to be laboring under the delusion that he had the right to access Fahey in order to ask questions. |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: I guess not. So how was he supposed to ask him about it? He had tried asking him in public. Every time he went to the State Police headquarters- to file complaints, file FOIA requests, request discumiplinary recirds, etc. he was assaulted by Fahey- under color of law. Multiple times- when he commited no crimes. He lodged complaints and no one did a damn thing about it. He was just supposed to accept that Fahey being a big shot cop and all was 'above the law' and just given up huh? Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: He had no right to be on Fahey's property asking about overtime. I guess not. So how was he supposed to ask him about it? He had tried asking him in public. Every time he went to the State Police headquarters- to file complaints, file FOIA requests, request discumiplinary recirds, etc. he was assaulted by Fahey- under color of law. Multiple times- when he commited no crimes. He lodged complaints and no one did a damn thing about it. He was just supposed to accept that Fahey being a big shot cop and all was 'above the law' and just given up huh?  He was going to confess on his front porch?  If Reyes believed that, of which he doesn't, he's even a bigger idiot. He went there to annoy and harass a person on their private property. End of story. Full stop. To generate a video for clicks and revenue. The state investigated it and found Fahey didn't violate the law. No charges for actions concerning overtime pay. |
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1481
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: He was going to confess on his front porch? If Reyes believed that, of which he doesn't, he's even a bigger idiot. He went there to annoy and harass a person on their private property. End of story. Full stop. To generate a video for clicks and revenue. The state investigated it and found Fahey didn't violate the law. No charges for actions concerning overtime pay. Just like they investigated the assaults by Fahey that were right there on camera, and investigated him slamming the door on Reyes and barring him from the State Police headquarters (where another cop then let Reyes right into the building later). Like that? Where they investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? I'd have ZERO faith in any such investigation. You do understand that there was a infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that Fahey could have decided to talk to him, and gave a statement right there on his front porch, right? Happens all the time. Sometimes not welcome huh? At the very least "no comment- get off my property" followed by slamming the door. Then file a trespass order against him. Problem solved. No- they had to be sure to fuck him up legally to stop him from holding them accountable and exposing their shit. If they weren't doing shady shit to start with then he wouldnt have been on their ass. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12164
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Just like they investigated the assaults by Fahey that were right there on camera, and investigated him slamming the door on Reyes and barring him from the State Police headquarters (where another cop then let Reyes right into the building later). Like that? Where they investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? I'd have ZERO faith in any such investigation. You do understand that there was a infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that Fahey could have decided to talk to him, and gave a statement right there on his front porch, right? Happens all the time. Sometimes not welcome huh? At the very least "no comment- get off my property" followed by slamming the door. Then file a trespass order against him. Problem solved. No- they had to be sure to fuck him up legally to stop him from holding them accountable and exposing their shit. If they weren't doing shady shit to start with then he wouldnt have been on their ass. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: He was going to confess on his front porch? If Reyes believed that, of which he doesn't, he's even a bigger idiot. He went there to annoy and harass a person on their private property. End of story. Full stop. To generate a video for clicks and revenue. The state investigated it and found Fahey didn't violate the law. No charges for actions concerning overtime pay. Just like they investigated the assaults by Fahey that were right there on camera, and investigated him slamming the door on Reyes and barring him from the State Police headquarters (where another cop then let Reyes right into the building later). Like that? Where they investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? I'd have ZERO faith in any such investigation. You do understand that there was a infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that Fahey could have decided to talk to him, and gave a statement right there on his front porch, right? Happens all the time. Sometimes not welcome huh? At the very least "no comment- get off my property" followed by slamming the door. Then file a trespass order against him. Problem solved. No- they had to be sure to fuck him up legally to stop him from holding them accountable and exposing their shit. If they weren't doing shady shit to start with then he wouldnt have been on their ass. Let's grant all of your position, in its entirety, and then some. Let's say Fahey is a complete piece of shit. Let's say his coworkers broke the law to cover for him. Let's even say the Judge was in on it, is Fahey's old fraternity brother from way back in the day. Not one bit of that excuses entering property you have no right to enter when you know you are not welcome. I respect private property more than journalism. Journalism loses the balancing test. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Just like they investigated the assaults by Fahey that were right there on camera, and investigated him slamming the door on Reyes and barring him from the State Police headquarters (where another cop then let Reyes right into the building later). Like that? Where they investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? I'd have ZERO faith in any such investigation. You do understand that there was a infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that Fahey could have decided to talk to him, and gave a statement right there on his front porch, right? Happens all the time. Sometimes not welcome huh? At the very least "no comment- get off my property" followed by slamming the door. Then file a trespass order against him. Problem solved. No- they had to be sure to fuck him up legally to stop him from holding them accountable and exposing their shit. If they weren't doing shady shit to start with then he wouldnt have been on their ass. Given Reyes' long history of criminal convictions, how does one more trespassing conviction stop him? |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Just like they investigated the assaults by Fahey that were right there on camera, and investigated him slamming the door on Reyes and barring him from the State Police headquarters (where another cop then let Reyes right into the building later). Like that? Where they investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? I'd have ZERO faith in any such investigation. You do understand that there was a infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that Fahey could have decided to talk to him, and gave a statement right there on his front porch, right? Happens all the time. Sometimes not welcome huh? At the very least "no comment- get off my property" followed by slamming the door. Then file a trespass order against him. Problem solved. No- they had to be sure to fuck him up legally to stop him from holding them accountable and exposing their shit. If they weren't doing shady shit to start with then he wouldnt have been on their ass. Attached File |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
240
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1482
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Let's grant all of your position, in its entirety, and then some. Let's say Fahey is a complete piece of shit. Let's say his coworkers broke the law to cover for him. Let's even say the Judge was in on it, is Fahey's old fraternity brother from way back in the day. Not one bit of that excuses entering property you have no right to enter when you know you are not welcome. I respect private property more than journalism. Journalism loses the balancing test. Well, I'll defer the point to your wisdom on the matter- you seem to be very knowledgeable about law. But I still don't read the Jardines language and understand it the way it has been described by others in this post. I see it as Jardines carves out not a right, but a permission (albeit a limited one) to enter property and approach someone's door for the common purpose of knocking and talking- about anything- with a reasonable expectation of not being physically attacked and then locked up. Trespassed if they don't like you? - sure. That's how I've always understood it to work. It is not easy to read the discussion of the justices around it and come up with the notion the license only applies if you might be welcome. Full trespass for just a door knock and nothing else would make more sense if you showed your ass at the door, picked a fight, etc. The CT trespass law is vague as heck on the details of what constitutes a person 'knowing' if they are licensed or not. That left it open to a pretty subjective interpretation. We've all explained our interpretations ad nauseam. I would go look at Reye's Appellate Brief, and what attorney he has retained- but he has those videos behind a paid subscription on Patreon. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12174
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can’t stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer’s house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. I dislike cops as my default position. My opinion is based on private property rights, and a healthy skepticism of "journalists." |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Well, I'll defer the point to your wisdom on the matter- you seem to be very knowledgeable about law. But I still don't read the Jardines language and understand it the way it has been described by others in this post. I see it as Jardines carves out not a right, but a permission (albeit a limited one) to enter property and approach someone's door for the common purpose of knocking and talking- about anything- with a reasonable expectation of not being physically attacked and then locked up. Trespassed if they don't like you? - sure. That's how I've always understood it to work. It is not easy to read the discussion of the justices around it and come up with the notion the license only applies if you might be welcome. Full trespass for just a door knock and nothing else would make more sense if you showed your ass at the door, picked a fight, etc. The CT trespass law is vague as heck on the details of what constitutes a person 'knowing' if they are licensed or not. That left it open to a pretty subjective interpretation. We've all explained our interpretations ad nauseam. I would go look at Reye's Appellate Brief, and what attorney he has retained- but he has those videos behind a paid subscription on Patreon. I will point you again to CT's affirmative defense statute: It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution for criminal trespass that: (1) The building involved in the offense was abandoned; or (2) the premises, at the time of the entry or remaining, were open to the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or (3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or a person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain, or that he was licensed to do so. |
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Just like they investigated the assaults by Fahey that were right there on camera, and investigated him slamming the door on Reyes and barring him from the State Police headquarters (where another cop then let Reyes right into the building later). Like that? Where they investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? I'd have ZERO faith in any such investigation. You do understand that there was a infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that Fahey could have decided to talk to him, and gave a statement right there on his front porch, right? Happens all the time. Sometimes not welcome huh? At the very least "no comment- get off my property" followed by slamming the door. Then file a trespass order against him. Problem solved. No- they had to be sure to fuck him up legally to stop him from holding them accountable and exposing their shit. If they weren't doing shady shit to start with then he wouldnt have been on their ass. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: He was going to confess on his front porch? If Reyes believed that, of which he doesn't, he's even a bigger idiot. He went there to annoy and harass a person on their private property. End of story. Full stop. To generate a video for clicks and revenue. The state investigated it and found Fahey didn't violate the law. No charges for actions concerning overtime pay. Just like they investigated the assaults by Fahey that were right there on camera, and investigated him slamming the door on Reyes and barring him from the State Police headquarters (where another cop then let Reyes right into the building later). Like that? Where they investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing? I'd have ZERO faith in any such investigation. You do understand that there was a infinitesimal, but non-zero chance that Fahey could have decided to talk to him, and gave a statement right there on his front porch, right? Happens all the time. Sometimes not welcome huh? At the very least "no comment- get off my property" followed by slamming the door. Then file a trespass order against him. Problem solved. No- they had to be sure to fuck him up legally to stop him from holding them accountable and exposing their shit. If they weren't doing shady shit to start with then he wouldnt have been on their ass. You just made the case that Reyes knew he wouldn't be welcome on the property, was not acting as journalist. He was trespassing. |
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Yes, he did apparently use that word when he was describing his youtube channel, not what he went to Fahey's home for. When he described what he was doing that day, he very careful to characterize it as journalism, not activism. The only words he got out of his mouth that day were to greet Fahey politely and begin asking him about the alleged overtime. Do you consider that activism? Do you consider that conduct outside of customary social norms? Let me ask you this, do you feel like he had no right to be asking about Fahey's overtime? I could say I’m not stealing as I go into a bank to rob it. That doesn’t mean I didn’t rob the bank. Reyes had several previous altercations with this guy. He was given advice to stay away. He filed a law suit against him. He admitted the guy would never want him on the property. And…..he parked an electronic billboard in front of the guys house. That isn’t journalism regardless of what he says. The fact is he was there to instigate a confrontation. He committed the crime of trespass under the CT law as soon as he crossed on the private property. By the time he got to the door the crime was already in progress. |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: I guess not. So how was he supposed to ask him about it? He had tried asking him in public. Every time he went to the State Police headquarters- to file complaints, file FOIA requests, request discumiplinary recirds, etc. he was assaulted by Fahey- under color of law. Multiple times- when he commited no crimes. He lodged complaints and no one did a damn thing about it. He was just supposed to accept that Fahey being a big shot cop and all was 'above the law' and just given up huh? That was not his purpose for being there. That was an excuse to cover for his purpose. Nobody has to put blinders on to ignore what he was really doing just because says he is pretending to be a journalist. |
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
241
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By EamonnWright: Why do you hate property rights? Are you a Communist? Originally Posted By EamonnWright: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. lol Why do you hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the First amendment? |
 RATT - Round And Round (Official Music Video) |
It's time to get ill
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12181
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: lol Why do you hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the First amendment? Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By EamonnWright: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. lol Why do you hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the First amendment? I haz an iPhone. I iz a jernalist. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Joined:
Jul 2025
Posts:
242
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I haz an iPhone. I iz a jernalist. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By EamonnWright: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. lol Why do you hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the First amendment? I haz an iPhone. I iz a jernalist. lol He’s got a million followers that appreciate his investigative journalism. More followers and views than probably half of the “real” news stations in the country. |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12182
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: lol He’s got a million followers that appreciate his investigative journalism. More followers and views than probably half of the “real” news stations in the country. Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By EamonnWright: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. lol Why do you hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the First amendment? I haz an iPhone. I iz a jernalist. lol He’s got a million followers that appreciate his investigative journalism. More followers and views than probably half of the “real” news stations in the country. How many followers does a person need to have before it's okay to enter your property without permission, and against the proper owner's wishes? |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1483
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12183
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: He doesn't have to be welcome to knock. Feelings don't revoke license, and the sign was bullshit. This will be overturned. Entering private property, which you know you are not welcome to enter... |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: lol Why do you hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the First amendment? Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By EamonnWright: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. lol Why do you hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the First amendment? None of which apply on privately owned property you’re unwelcome on |
|
Originally Posted By ELittlefield: I haz an iPhone. I iz a jernalist. Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By EamonnWright: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. lol Why do you hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the First amendment? I haz an iPhone. I iz a jernalist. That's a terrible argument and I have no idea why people try to use it. Who is a real journalist? Some suit on CNN that no one watches? |
Member
Joined:
Dec 2023
Posts:
12184
EE: 100% (7)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Hostile1: That's a terrible argument and I have no idea why people try to use it. Who is a real journalist? Some suit on CNN that no one watches? Originally Posted By Hostile1: Originally Posted By ELittlefield: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: Originally Posted By EamonnWright: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. lol Why do you hate the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the First amendment? I haz an iPhone. I iz a jernalist. That's a terrible argument and I have no idea why people try to use it. Who is a real journalist? Some suit on CNN that no one watches? You're starting to catch on. Journalism is a fake profession. |
I don't see no Americans. I see trespassers.
|
Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. They want attention, they want a payday or they want clicks. That's what they really want. This is just a convenient excuse. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1484
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Pretty amazing the amount of pull and influence the police unions have if they can get youtube to shut a whole category of popular content down. The timing of the demonetization, and the knowledge they have been lobbying for a long time to shut the auditors down is not coincidental. Sure, youtube is private, and can do what they want with their platform. Looks like Musk needs to buy youtube. |
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Pretty amazing the amount of pull and influence the police unions have if they can get youtube to shut a whole category of popular content down. The timing of the demonetization, and the knowledge they have been lobbying for a long time to shut the auditors down is not coincidental. Sure, youtube is private, and can do what they want with their platform. Looks like Musk needs to buy youtube. Cite? |
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
|
Originally Posted By TheJudgeHolden: None of these auditor dickheads want accountability They want attention, they want a payday or they want clicks. That's what they really want. This is just a convenient excuse. Originally Posted By TheJudgeHolden: Originally Posted By LightSwitch: This thread obviously struck a chord with the thin blue line crowd that can't stand the idea of a journalist showing up to an out of control maniac police officer's house to ask a few questions in search of accountability. They want attention, they want a payday or they want clicks. That's what they really want. This is just a convenient excuse. I think both can be true and I'd say that for the most part both apply to the guy this thread is about. I've been watching his stuff for a few years now it seems like and I don't use the word fan but I enjoy most of his videos. I think he does a better job than most auditors. I also think he greatly messed up by going to Fahey's house. I've changed my views on a lot of things as I've gotten older. One of those things is that it is absurd how far we've let it all go where basically all levels of government aren't accountable or easily accessible to the general public. It's our own fault but it still irritates me. When it comes to public buildings owned by the city state and fed it doesn't bother me at all to have these guys go in and film and do public records requests etc. Watching the public employees try to have them arrested for it also made me angry because it just shows that not only do they not care they have also not been trained in how to respect and serve the community. Much more in depth constitutional training should be required for all levels of gov employees. |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1485
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: Cite? Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Pretty amazing the amount of pull and influence the police unions have if they can get youtube to shut a whole category of popular content down. The timing of the demonetization, and the knowledge they have been lobbying for a long time to shut the auditors down is not coincidental. Sure, youtube is private, and can do what they want with their platform. Looks like Musk needs to buy youtube. Cite? No hard evidence has come to light for that theory, it's one of several alleged reasons for the demonetization. |
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1486
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Pioneer1: No hard evidence has come to light for that theory, it's one of several alleged reasons for the demonetization. Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Pretty amazing the amount of pull and influence the police unions have if they can get youtube to shut a whole category of popular content down. The timing of the demonetization, and the knowledge they have been lobbying for a long time to shut the auditors down is not coincidental. Sure, youtube is private, and can do what they want with their platform. Looks like Musk needs to buy youtube. Cite? No hard evidence has come to light for that theory, it's one of several alleged reasons for the demonetization. So you have ZERO proof to back up your false declaration. |
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Joined:
Jul 2022
Posts:
1487
EE: 0% (0)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: So you have ZERO proof to back up your false declaration. Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: Originally Posted By Pioneer1: Pretty amazing the amount of pull and influence the police unions have if they can get youtube to shut a whole category of popular content down. The timing of the demonetization, and the knowledge they have been lobbying for a long time to shut the auditors down is not coincidental. Sure, youtube is private, and can do what they want with their platform. Looks like Musk needs to buy youtube. Cite? No hard evidence has come to light for that theory, it's one of several alleged reasons for the demonetization. So you have ZERO proof to back up your false declaration. I didn't claim to have evidence. You don't have to dig hard to find a number of sites talking about the allegations. Mumford law for one. The word "If" can be used as a noun to mean a doubt, condition, or uncertainty. My post said "If" that is what's going on, then it's surprizing. Nothing more. |