Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

A Hasidic Jew was passing through border security when the officer began asking him the usual questions. Before leaving, he asked the officer one question of his own: “Are you Jewish?” “Yes,” the officer replied. “Would you like to put on tefillin?” The officer hesitated for a moment… then...

153,461 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

This dad called 911 because his seven year old autistic son wasn’t behaving and was having a tantrum. The officer that spoke with him told the father that it was completely inappropriate to call the police over this. He said they have an entire town to protect and three officers responded and then asks the dad while chuckling - “can’t handle a seven year old?” The dad tells him that he has called 911 twice before but no one has ever got mad at him like this officer. The officer tells him that they are approaching charging him with false summoning a police officer. He also tells him that if he can’t handle a seven year then maybe they should get CYS involved because clearly the dad needs parenting classes. 😳 Many said the officer was rude and didn’t have to be. That his job is to protect and SERVE the community and that the family was just reaching out, that he needed support and someone to to talk to because they have no idea how hard it is to raise an autistic child? But others said this is not a job for a police officer, that they aren’t counselors and therapists and that there are many resources available through the city that he should using. 💯 I am team police officer. Some may find it rude but this is not in their job description. And being the third time? You have to put a stop to the 911 calls. What do you think? Do you think the officer had a right to be upset and talk the way he was talking to the dad being that this is the third time this has happened? Or, do you think he should have had more compassion for the father?

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

26,642 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Stephen A. Smith Presses Officer Tatum to Defend His Claims in the Nolan Wells Case Stephen A. Smith: My question to you, Officer Tatum, is: why do you think the parents decided to go that route? What are your thoughts? Officer Tatum: There’s two thoughts that come to my mind. One, is that Al Sharpton and Benjamin Crump are manipulating this family’s trauma in order for them to make a crap ton of money. That’s one. The second one is, is the parents trying to cash in on this. Stephen A. Smith: But hold on. It’s one thing to feel what you feel about Benjamin Crump, Reverend Al Sharpton, etc. It’s another thing entirely to lump the parents who just lost their child, and accuse, talking about they’re trying to profit off this. You sure you want to say that? Officer Tatum: Let me be clear about this. You asked me what my thoughts were. I didn’t say that that was facts. I just said those are my thoughts based on a few facts. Stephen A. Smith: Okay. Officer Tatum: Ain’t no reason for Al Sharpton to be doing that boy’s eulogy when Al never knew him. Charles F. Coleman Jr.: That’s not even your call or your business to make, that family had a choice. And who is that, why is that, they don’t have to answer to you. Officer Tatum: They don’t, but I have an opinion. Charles F. Coleman Jr.: That family had a choice. They could have chosen anyone they wanted to. That’s their choice. Officer Tatum: It don’t seem normal to me for a man that don’t even preach sermons to do a eulogy for a boy that he didn’t know.

‏ً

82,116 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

Dude rips into tyrant officer who lied about the reason he pulled him over. ​The video starts with Officer Nablo pulling over a motorcyclist right outside his own home. Right out of the gate, the officer asks didn't you hear me when I was trying to pull you over? The rider said no, because he has a Bluetooth speaker in his helmet. The officer falsely claims having helmet speakers is illegal (spoiler: it’s not). So this was off to a wonderful start. ​When the rider directly asks, "Why are you pulling me over first?" the officer completely deflects, stating it's simply "to ID who you are." That is a massive red flag. Officers need reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime to initiate a traffic stop—they cannot just pull you over to demand papers and see who you are. ​It isn't until long after the confrontation begins, after the officer has already demanded ID, that he walks to the back of the motorcycle to look for a retroactive justification. He then tries to claim that the plate has to be visible and says he can't see the plate. The rider pushes back calling out it officer for lying. After getting the ID and running the plate the officer did happen to get lucky as he discovered the vehicle registration expired , meaning it is expired. ​The rider immediately calls out the absolute hypocrisy and shifting narrative: ​The officer first claimed he couldn't see the license plate at all. ​Yet, the officer simultaneously claimed he pulled the rider over because he knew the registration on that very plate was expired. ​How can you pull someone over for an expired plate that you just admitted you couldn't even see until after you detached him from the bike? It makes zero sense. ​Failure to Yield or Safe Stopping Point? ​Officer Nablo tries to claim the rider was "failing to yield" and evading the stop because he didn't pull over the exact second the lights went on. However, the rider stands his ground, explaining that he did not flee; he simply continued riding a short distance to his own home where he felt safe and where he had multiple security cameras recording the interaction. ​ ​This doesn't seem to be a random encounter, either. The rider alleges a disturbing pattern of personal harassment from Officer Nablo, claiming this exact same officer previously came onto his property and threatened to shoot his dog just for barking inside the house. ​ ​Eventually, a supervisor/sergeant steps in to de-escalate the hostile officer. The supervisor confirms that the citations for the expired registration will be sent by mail and that the rider has 10 days to contest them. When the rider demands to file a formal complaint for harassment, the supervisor instructs him that individual officer complaints must be taken up directly with the Chief of Police. ​The rider made it clear this is going straight to court and social media. ​What do you think? Was this officer legitimately enforcing traffic laws, or was he a tyrant fishing for a reason to flex his badge?

Giggling Ganon

722,733 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce