正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

A man repeatedly swung at a First Amendment auditor before the auditor fought back. But the real controversy began after police arrived, as the auditor believed officers had already made up their minds before reviewing the evidence he offered. 👀🚔

20,021 次观看 • 15 天前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

This is how you educate officers that clearly do not understand the law or their job. As the conversation goes on you can see the the male officer realizes he is wrong but instead of taking the L he tries to double down on his error but in the end is forced to do that walk of shame. ​COEUR D’ALENE, IDAHO — Public Rights vs. State Property: First Amendment Auditor Threatened with Arrest for Obstructing Outside State-Run Liquor Store. ​What happens when a state-run business tries to trespass a citizen from public property for filming? This intense confrontation breaks down the exact legal battleground between a First Amendment auditor and the Coeur d'Alene Police Department. ​The videographer was standing on the sidewalk outside a state-owned and operated liquor store, exercising his right to film and take photographs. Taking issue with being recorded, a store employee confronted the auditor and requested he leave. When the auditor refused—maintaining he was on public property—management called law enforcement to issue a formal trespass warning. ​When Officer J. Chaffin and Officer C. Ziegler arrived on the scene, a massive constitutional debate unfolded: ​The Auditor’s Stance: Because the liquor store is a state-owned entity, the surrounding property and sidewalks are publicly funded, open spaces. He argues that citizens cannot be trespassed from public property unless they are actively committing a crime, asserting his 1st Amendment right to record and 4th Amendment right against unlawful seizure. ​The Police Stance: Officers countered that even though the business is state-run, it functions as a commercial space open for public commerce. They argued that management retains the right to refuse service and remove individuals deemed disruptive, and that refusing to leave constitutes criminal trespass. ​The ID Demand: Officer Chaffin demands the auditor’s identification, explicitly stating that failure to comply will result in an immediate arrest for obstructing and resisting. ​Qualified Immunity Threatened: While complying under the threat of arrest, the auditor fires back, telling Officer Ziegler that the department is violating his constitutional rights and that they will face a personal lawsuit and lose their qualified immunity. ​The "Hypothetical" Stand-off: Officer Ziegler attempts to use hypothetical scenarios to justify the trespass order, but the auditor shuts it down, demanding they stick to the reality: he was standing 20 to 30 feet away, completely peaceful, minding his own business. ​Ultimately, the officers documented his information, issued the official trespass warning, and walked away without making an arrest—leaving the auditor to give them a parting shot as they drove off.

Giggling Ganon

65,527 次观看 • 2 个月前