laohaowoai_88
Region: US
Wednesday 02 July 2025 05:33:08 GMT
79178
828
54
7
Music
Download
Comments
zeke7474 :
It doesn’t matter even if they say they don’t want on camera. If viewable from public no expectation of privacy.
2025-07-02 06:01:52
101
_nowayjay_ :
lol privacy doesn’t exist in public.
2025-07-02 14:47:32
31
JimmDeanGA :
she almost got it right and then...
2025-07-02 07:03:16
22
Lags654 :
What these videos really show is how willing people are to weaponize the police against someone who makes them feel the slightest bit uncomfortable. That should scare us all
2025-07-04 18:14:21
15
Brian Lunsford906 :
She is almost correct
2025-07-09 16:25:25
8
tufty :
if he can see it from a public place he can film them no privacy in public
2025-07-03 16:22:09
7
Don :
Can't believe people still dont get this! We're not talking a movie production, we're talking public journalism.
2025-07-02 14:26:33
6
JP :
EXACTLY..CANT TRESPASS WHAT THE EYES CAN SEE....
2025-07-02 21:16:14
6
Sum1uknew :
The one thing that seems to be common in all these videos is people walking up to the camera man and saying they are harassing them. You put yourself there
2025-07-03 15:44:43
4
Dylan Watson762 :
When no crime has occurred or is reasonably suspected, calling the police to provoke their presence may serve as an intimidation tactic, particularly when done in coordination with law enforcement. Although officer presence is the first step in the use of force continuum, its misuse raises serious constitutional concerns. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures, and coercive police presence without cause may violate civil liberties. If done with others to suppress lawful conduct—such as filming in public—it may constitute conspiracy to violate rights under 18 U.S. Code § 241, a federal crime. As affirmed in United States v. Price (1966), officials acting under color of law can be criminally liable. A conviction requires only proof of an agreement and intent to deprive rights—not actual harm. In Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (2011), the First Circuit held that filming public officials in public is a “basic, vital, and well-established liberty” protected by the First Amendment.
2025-07-02 14:14:56
2
Játéknepper :
Vègre egy becsületes tendőr
2025-07-02 09:41:15
1
Debra LaRegina Belangia :
Thank you police officer
2025-07-18 23:53:59
1
ethovirus87 :
You can still record even if people tell him they don’t want to be recorded. You have no privacy while in public.
2025-07-22 17:17:07
1
user1883154551279 :
Ask walmart not to video you SEE WHAT THEY WILL TELL YOU
2025-07-02 18:45:40
1
Mike Kelley :
🥰🥰🥰
2025-07-23 02:33:27
0
Teresa Rodriguez :
😁
2025-07-15 16:40:07
0
crazyanimal :
👍👍👍
2025-09-02 18:50:05
0
guyhowden :
😁
2025-07-19 05:10:46
0
yaaz0075 :
He should open underground and creative tunnel for them, and that will lead the way
2025-07-19 21:02:47
0
andrewbrownstein5 :
🥰🥰🥰
2025-07-20 14:30:22
0
William Mackin722 :
There you go
2025-07-20 17:22:50
0
Tom W ‘69 :
Put up a big wall. Problem solved
2025-07-21 03:16:50
0
michaelperryremodeling :
😂😂😂
2025-07-21 10:15:52
0
BenjaminWeiler :
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
2025-07-02 09:05:14
0
Adam HINES :
🥰
2025-07-23 10:55:32
0
To see more videos from user @laohaowoai_88, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
