Now, this gentleman in particular, if it was known that his internet was to share this video with others, he could fall under the "3 or more" category. While not 3 or more at present, it could concievably turn into 3 or more. if an officer suspects ones actions could cause a riot, then the order for dispersal is lawful.
.
Well seeing as how the media all the way in Hickory has seen it and reported that the video had already received 3000 hits -and that was before the dozen or so of us that have debated it (and master-debated it), it's pretty safe to say his intent was to share it with at least two other individuals. I'd still be curious as to how long he was taping PRIOR to the officer walking up to him, and what exactly he recorded. It's pretty obvious that he focused on the flags (which he had a horribly obstructed view of) after he figured he had attracted the attention of the officer.
Here again, I still go back to: So he wasn't doing anything "illegal", where is the line that he will have to cross when those who feel his First Amendment rights were violated
(listed here in case you hadn't read it - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.) If he had shown up on the same sidewalk with 10,000 rounds of ammunition strapped to him and a can of gas in hand, would the police have had sufficient cause to be alarmed and question and/or detain him? Last I checked, it's not against the law to walk around with large quantities of ammunition on your person, nor walk on the sidewalk with a can of gas. The police officer would have to INFER his INTENT.
OR... if someone is lurking around a parking lot, going from car to car peering in windows, is it not safe to assume he is casing the lot looking for unlocked vehicles? Wouldn't you want a police officer to inquire as to what he was doing and if he still appeared shifty, ill-responsive, or belligerent to inquire further? Now, it is possible that the person in question rode to his location with someone that got too drunk and handed him the keys to his car and this person is looking in the windows to find the car he rode there in (has happened to me before). Again, this would be evident to a police officer with a few quick questions and I bet the LEO would even help him find the car.
What people like this don't realize is that by standing "just inside the law" (doing something that appears suspicious for the express purpose of baiting the police into reacting in such a way that violates a right) and making a spectacle of it only serves to push lawmakers further toward the police state that you are trying to avoid. Now, the police and lawmakers are forced to review their policies and establish a safe limitation to avoid this from happening again. It may be to post signs around the police station of where you can stand and where you can't stand to video. Then, they have to take into account that someone may try to stand just inside THAT line and mount their camera on a pole which can then record inside the line, even though they are physically standing outside it. Or, better yet, a quad-copter with a GoPro mounted to it (a drone). So now, we have to make sure the rule is clear for all of these possible scenarios, so they paint the letter of the law with such a broad paint brush that they say, "No video recordings of any kind on any public accessway in any tax-funded municipality, blah blah blah". All because some dude wanted to be a jerk and a cop felt lead to be a bigger jerk.
hey got a new clutch for the trail rig! Guna be super rad!!!