Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Bully cop that wants to flex his authority, gets trolled throughout the stop and completely owned once the stop was over. Deputy Brian Morris (Badge #814) pulls over a driver named Travis near White Creek Baptist Church. Almost immediately after establishing the reason for the stop, Deputy Morris orders...

93,050 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 34

Фото профиля Nina
Nina2 месяцев назад

Ya got a broken tail light there, buddy. Let me take my authority and climb up your asshole to take a look around. This shit is way past ridiculous.

Фото профиля Graffiti_ruined_my_clothes88⚡️⚡️
Graffiti_ruined_my_clothes88⚡️⚡️2 месяцев назад

What i dont get(im Australian btw), is of they disarm you of your guns for "officer safety" then once your good to go, they just bloody hand them right back to you in your hands and now they're not worried about officer safety?

Фото профиля Jhay Flanagan
Jhay Flanagan2 месяцев назад

Not the mustache tyrant

Фото профиля Nunya Bidness
Nunya Bidness2 месяцев назад

Travis is 100% correct. That pig by his own admission ("I'm not scared") admitted he had no reason to pull him out of the car and disarm him. He's lying though. He was scared or he wouldn't have done what he did.

Фото профиля 𝔄𝔯𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔦𝔲𝔰
𝔄𝔯𝔪𝔦𝔫𝔦𝔲𝔰2 месяцев назад

Cops are allowed to disarm you. I think it’s bullshit as the second amendment says rights shall not be infringed

Фото профиля US Army SFC
US Army SFC2 месяцев назад

This is why people stop respecting, trusting and speaking to them🫤 Just beyond common sense and utterly ridiculous stop for a taillight 🫤

Фото профиля ElvisDawg
ElvisDawg2 месяцев назад

All of this over a brake light. Tyranny at it’s best.

Фото профиля JustSayin’🥎☘️
JustSayin’🥎☘️2 месяцев назад

Is it possible he pulled his weapons to record make, model and serial number? Hmm... 🤔

Фото профиля Check6
Check62 месяцев назад

Who protects law-abiding people from bully cops during interactions? Answer: NO ONE! You are on your own! Record EVERYTHING! Know & ASSERT YOUR RIGHTS! #End_QI_Now

Фото профиля Steven Lee
Steven Lee2 месяцев назад

Officer stated verbally that he was not afraid, thereby eliminating the only lawful cause to disarm that man.

Фото профиля Keith Eremko
Keith Eremko2 месяцев назад

Just a verbal warning for you today sir…… In the hopes that you don’t sue me for violating your rights….

Фото профиля David
David2 месяцев назад

The citizen that needs to walk around strapped with two guns saying the cop is afraid is funny. Why does he need two guns if he isn’t afraid of something?😂 Both these guys were acting like children.

Фото профиля David 🇺🇸
David 🇺🇸2 месяцев назад

I had Washington syate patrol do that same thing but kept me standing in front of my truck on a busy freeway 40 degrees out, no coat and monsooning rain, semis driving bye. He kept my firearm on the hood of his patrol car the whole time getting soaked, along with my walle. Finally let me go with a verbal warning to fix my cracked windshield. Fucking prick.

Фото профиля Mikeylodeon
Mikeylodeon2 месяцев назад

The only reason why they say “for officer safety” is because THEY ARE SCARED!

Фото профиля Sam Riddle
Sam Riddle2 месяцев назад

If a police officer is polite and respectful with me, they will get the same in return especially on a legitimate stop. First thing you should do is tell them you are armed and not start an argument over case law or any other nonsense. Just cooperate and be on your way.

Фото профиля Send_It
Send_It2 месяцев назад

Isn’t that the guy from Super Troopers??!!

Фото профиля H man
H man2 месяцев назад

What a pussy cop

Фото профиля MKCNW1820
MKCNW18202 месяцев назад

Take notes black community. This is how you can be confrontational without being a complete piece of shit. Comply with all commands and you can say whatever it is you want. The. Take them to court!!

Фото профиля PeachProof
PeachProof2 месяцев назад

Deputies will pull out Pennsylvania v. Mimms faster than their turn signal, but the second someone quotes Terry v. Ohio back to them, suddenly it’s "step out of the vehicle."

Фото профиля BlueCollarMilitia
BlueCollarMilitia2 месяцев назад

I never tell cops im armed when I get pulled over. Been pulled over many times while conceal carrying, never told the cops. They never knew and so I would get my ticket and go on about my day. The second you tell them youre armed they get scared and treat you as a criminal.

Фото профиля JnSA Fam
JnSA Fam2 месяцев назад

I know there is a lot of good cops out there but ill say it again, cops like this one are the reason many people hate the police. Doing alllllll this extra bullshit over a brake light.

Фото профиля Libertatem-Aut-Mori
Libertatem-Aut-Mori2 месяцев назад

Travis handled that perfectly! Comply but don’t cooperate!

Фото профиля Mendy
Mendy2 месяцев назад

This is why the police hate ppl I don’t blame them at all. Ppl that give cops a hard time for no reason shut up damn ignorant redbeck

Фото профиля Jimmy Richardson
Jimmy Richardson2 месяцев назад

Well, cops nowadays will shoot a man with a baseball bat and in the old days the cops would fucking take him down. rush him maybe take a lump but now they’ll just shoot the motherfucker with no hesitation, because they’re scared. That’s straight from a Cop’s mouth.

Фото профиля グレー
グレー2 месяцев назад

Citizen’s safety always comes first. This is a 2nd amendment violation.

Фото профиля Warghazm 🇺🇸
Warghazm 🇺🇸2 месяцев назад

I’m 💯 with a citizen but cops job ain’t easy man. I just seen few videos where they get shot with dude as cool as this guy. You just don’t know but it sucks that they get to violate our rights all day long.

Фото профиля Charles Watkins
Charles Watkins2 месяцев назад

There is NO trying to talk to these people on what the truth actually is and what they actually do. They violate people's rights all day,even killing unarmed civilians and they'll still think of themselves as the hero. They are the 1st to go when it's time to get er done!!

Фото профиля James
James2 месяцев назад

The police would do well to deal with real criminals, instead of not going home over some bullshit. When you get to the pearly gates and they ask you what happened, they’d say “I didn’t mind my business and took a dirt nap over a brake light or having the wrong color sticker”

Фото профиля George Gary
George Gary2 месяцев назад

You asked him to get out of the car he got out of the car no reason for him to get out of the car, but he got out now you’re jacking him up about legal carrying that he can’t carry while you talk to him. No, either writing a citation or fuck off that’s how it works.

Фото профиля Sci-Tech Arena
Sci-Tech Arena2 месяцев назад

The same law that allows him to carry a gun is the same law that allows the driver to carry! One disarming another is a violation of second amendment! If all are going to disarm to talk to each other, that would be fair!

Фото профиля Frank Woodward
Frank Woodward2 месяцев назад

Just the pignorance of an officer. Anybody know one, and notice that they're always the smartest in the room? Most of em skim through life only grasping what's useful in controlling every person around them. In my interactions they'll never admit they don't know something

Фото профиля Popsmoke7007
Popsmoke70072 месяцев назад

@Talmud_is_evil

Фото профиля morin
morin2 месяцев назад

stop kissing the pigs ass!!!hes not a Sir hes a bitch!acab

Фото профиля Glenn 🇺🇲⚓️
Glenn 🇺🇲⚓️2 месяцев назад

Did return the ammunition to Travis? If not that should be considered theft. Unfortunately in today's environment this is a rough call, since it's only for a brake light then I agree with Travis that this deputy probably should not be out on patrol. The other issue here is have the deputy disarm him is scary situation. I've at least 2 incidents where the police officer was not in any qualified to touch a gun. Because of the officer's mishandling of the weapon civilians were injured by the incompetence of the officer.

Похожие видео

Guy gets pulled over by tyrant officer knows his rights and unloads on the officer. ​A Lake County Sheriff’s deputy decided to initiate a traffic stop, he clearly wasn’t expecting a driver who actually knew the law and was prepared to push back. Once the stop was in full swing, the driver challenged the deputy as to what the reason was for the stop. The mental gymnastics this deputy went through to try and justify the stop is mind boggling. ​ As the confrontation continued to unfold, the truth slipped out—the deputy admitted the stop happened because the driver flipped him off while driving down the road. ​Realizing that a middle finger is completely protected under the First Amendment, the officer immediately shifted gears and claimed the stop was for "speeding." ​The driver wasn't having it. He immediately called out the lie, pointing out that he had a dashcam running with real-time GPS tracking to prove his exact speed. ​When an officer pulls you over out of pure retaliation and then reaches for a generic traffic violation to cover his tracks, that isn't law enforcement—it's tyranny. ​Knowing his rights, the driver initially refused to hand over his license and registration for an unlawful stop. He correctly challenged the deputy to name a legitimate, articulable crime that had been committed. "Failure to identify" cannot be used as a primary excuse to demand paperwork when the initial stop itself lacks probable cause. ​Unfortunately, when tyrants don't get immediate submission, they escalate. Instead of producing a radar reading or admitting he had no case, the deputy resorted to state-sanctioned extortion, threatening the driver with an immediate arrest just for exercising his right to question the stop. To avoid being falsely locked up, the driver handed over his ID under explicit "threat of arrest." ​The power trip didn't stop there. Because the driver dared to speak up, the deputy called in a full "Code 3" emergency backup response. Multiple units rolled up with lights flashing—wasting tax dollars and staging a massive show of force over a completely fabricated speeding allegation. ​To cap off the entire abuse of power, the deputy realized he was losing the legal argument on camera, so he resorted to a petty personal attack. He demanded to know if the truck was a commercial vehicle and threatened to call the driver's employer to get him in trouble at work. ​This driver did exactly what more citizens need to do: he kept his camera rolling, documented the badge number, and made it clear that threats of litigation are coming. When officers think they can write retaliatory tickets just because their egos are bruised, they need to be held accountable in a court of law. In my opinion this is a textbook example of a roadside fishing expedition where an officer got his feelings hurt, abused his authority, and scrambled to invent a crime after the fact.

Giggling Ganon

81,704 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This is how to handle a deputy that is fishing for crimes during a traffic stop all because he didn't like what the guy said. ​While driving past an active traffic stop at night, a citizen decided to exercise his First Amendment right to free speech by yelling a protected profanity out of his window: "F*ck the police!" ​Instead of maintaining professional composure, Harris County Sheriff's Deputy Vega immediately abandoned his current stop, ran back to his patrol vehicle, executed a U-turn, and pursued the driver. ​When Deputy Vega initially stopped the driver at a local gas station, he explicitly admitted his true motivation on camera, stating he pulled the vehicle over because the driver was "yelling something from [his] car." ​The moment the deputy realized that yelling at the police is entirely constitutionally protected speech—and does not constitute reasonable suspicion for a detention—the narrative instantly shifted. Suddenly, it became a traffic stop for a pretextual infraction: a alleged “failure to signal 100 feet before a turn.” ​Throughout the interaction, the driver handled the situation with a firm grasp of the law: ​ Because he was legally carrying a firearm, he complied with Texas law by presenting both his standard Driver's License and his License to Carry (LTC). ​He repeatedly and successfully invoked his right to remain silent, refusing to take the bait on fishing questions like "Where are you coming from?" or "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" ​After finding absolutely nothing to pin on the driver, Deputy Vega was forced to issue a mere written warning for the signal infraction. ​The most disturbing part of the footage happens at the very end. Deputy Vega explicitly tells the driver, "The stop is over, you may leave." However, as the driver cracks open his door to adjust himself, the deputy immediately reacts by drawing his firearm on an individual he just legally released from detention. ​The citizen is safe, has his own documentation of the event, and plans to update on the formal complaint process, police reports, and upcoming bodycam/dashcam requests. This deputy got butt sore because he does not feel as though people should be able to have free speech, but he had to do the walk of shame.

Giggling Ganon

41,426 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Tyrant officer gets schooled on 4th amendment and what private property is. He does the walk of shame with nothing to say. This Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy learned the hard way that stepping onto private property without your facts straight can lead to a masterclass in constitutional rights—and a legendary chewing out! Watch this standoff unfolds between a homeowner and a Yolo County Deputy (Badge #160) who decided to roll up onto land he wasn't invited on. The officer claimed he was investigating a suspicious vehicle at a home under construction, demanding that the man inside identify himself. ​But this homeowner wasn't having any of it. ​He immediately flipped the script on the deputy, pointing out the absolute lack of legal ground the officer was standing on. Nobody called 911 to have this man checked on, nobody reported a crime, and the deputy had zero confirmation of who actually owned the property before demanding ID. The property owner stood his ground, completely shutting down the officer's overreach by demanding he get off the land instead. ​Once the homeowner stepped out of his vehicle and firmly established that it was his land, the deputy realized he had absolutely nothing to hold him on. With his investigation completely dismantled, the officer was forced to turn around and walk back to his cruiser. ​To top it all off, the property owner sent him packing with a high-energy, unforgettable tirade, capping it all off by shouting that his intense vibe was fueled by nothing more than "500 calories of M&Ms, dude!" This is text book 101 of how to stand up for your rights when you have an officer that has overreached to this level. ​Dude went scorched the earth on this deputy.

Giggling Ganon

53,241 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This is how you handle a lying cop at a traffic stop. This dude knows his rights and flexes those knowledge muscles. ​The interaction begins when a deputy pulls over a driver for allegedly traveling 65 mph in a 50 mph zone. The driver adamantly denies the speed, claiming his cruise control was locked at 54 mph and pointing out his own dashcam as evidence. ​When the deputy orders him to roll his window all the way down for "officer safety," the driver stands his ground. He rolls it down just a crack—enough to pass his physical documents, which is the baseline requirement in many jurisdictions to prevent an escalation to an order to exit the vehicle. He complies fully with the law by handing over his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. ​While the deputy is well within his authority to ask questions, he crosses a serious line from asking to demanding answers that are completely voluntary: ​The Invasive Questions: The deputy demands a phone number and repeatedly presses the driver on whether there is a firearm in the car. ​The Fifth Amendment Invocation: Under the Fifth Amendment, you have the absolute right to remain silent. Florida does not have a "duty to inform" law for firearms unless you are carrying a concealed weapon and are explicitly asked, but the deputy attempts to use the color of authority to imply silence is illegal, stating: "No, you need to answer that question, sir." ​For an everyday citizen who doesn't know the law, this high-pressure tactic works almost every time to force compliance. ​Frustrated by the driver's strict non-compliance with non-mandatory questions, the deputy asks if he is a "Sovereign Citizen." ​The driver vehemently rejects the label, calling it defamation, and immediately flips the script. He accuses both the primary deputy and the arriving supervisor of being the true sovereign citizens, arguing that law enforcement routinely violates traffic laws with impunity. The supervisor steps in calmly to deliver a textbook definition, noting that their own agency vehicles are tracked via GPS. ​ After a supervisor takes over, de-escalates the technical requirements—explicitly stating, "I don't care if you answer any questions"—and hands over a $43 citation and the stop is over, the driver at that time uses his freedom of speech to tell the back up officer what he thought of the entire encounter. ​The driver remained respectful and complied with every lawful command until the stop was functionally concluded. Because his speech did not escalate to physical threats or actively obstruct an ongoing investigation, his final outburst—no matter how offensive to some—remains entirely protected under the First Amendment. ​The driver successfully protected his rights by refusing to feed an invasive information-gathering fishing expedition, while the deputies ultimately had to process the ticket and let him go on his way to fight the speed discrepancy in court. ​How did this interaction play out in your eyes, was the driver in the right for standing up or was the officer the one holding the higher ground?

Giggling Ganon

65,729 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This dude unloads on cop in a who is in the right type situation. We are in Adam's county PA where a Law Enforcement Ranger pulls over a man because he is saying he could not see his tag. By the officers own admission he was able to see the tag as he got closer but proceeded with the stop. As per usual the officer asks for ID and the man in truck went to work on this officer telling him this is an illegal stop as no crime has been committed so he is not required to provide ID. Through out the interaction he asks the officer if he is free to go and the officer doubles down on detainment. However at the same time when asked the officer was not able to articulate a crime. The man also asked for a sergeant and the officer never compiled by getting a supervisor on scene which honestly would have been the best move. There are two ways to look at this interaction. The eyes of the officer: The officer calmly maintains that the traffic stop is entirely lawful. In the United States, law enforcement needs reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. An obscured license plate or illegally dark window tint satisfies that standard in almost every jurisdiction. Furthermore, once a lawful traffic stop is initiated, a driver is legally required to produce a valid driver's license, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration. The driver's perspective: The driver claims that his tags are legit and the officer was able to see that when he ran them. He argues that because the ranger claimed at first he could not see the tags but now he can as he approached the vehicle. Since the officer admitted he can now see the tags and there is no problem with the tags, the initial stop was "erroneous" and constitutes an illegal search and seizure. He also details a personal grievance with local law enforcement, claiming a local district attorney and police officers have been "terrorizing" him. What is your take on this stop? Was this a case of an officer error where with the cop trying to save face by digging for a reason for the stop, or was this a legal stop and this officer deserves praise for staying calm while dealing with this man's outbursts? Share your thoughts below.

Giggling Gannon

194,518 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This tyrant shows why bodycams are so vital. When a routine traffic stop turns into a complete breakdown of constitutional rights, the sworn deposition under oath reveals everything. The arrogance of this deputy will blow your mind. ​Citizen journalist Jeff Gray observed and video-recorded a routine traffic stop conducted by Deputy Cook from roughly 35 feet away. Rather than completing the stop, the deputy claimed recording made him "nervous" and called for backup. ​Upon arriving, Deputy Brian Stoll attempted to control the scene by instructing Gray to stand near a commercial building—only to then approach the property manager to solicit a trespass order against him. When ordered off the private property, Gray immediately complied and walked onto the public right-of-way. Despite Gray standing fully on public property, Deputy Stoll arrested him, damaged his phone, and threatened to hold him as a "John Doe" in jail for 48 hours for not surrendering identification. ​Fast forward to the civil suit deposition, Deputy Stoll's testimony unraveled on the record: • He claimed under oath that officers possess virtually unlimited authority to issue demands, and refusing to comply automatically constitutes criminal obstruction. This is what this bully believes. • He admitted Gray did nothing disruptive beyond holding a camera from 35 feet away, yet maintained that making an officer nervous by filming equals obstruction. • He conceded on the record that Gray had already retreated to the public right-of-way before being handcuffed. Translation his ego was hurt so he wanted to punish Gray for it by arresting him and hoping he will resist. ​The criminal charges against Gray were promptly dismissed, the deputy faced internal reprimands, and Brevard County ultimately settled the federal § 1983 civil rights lawsuit out of court after the damaging deposition stripped away any viable defense. The real crime here is that this person that is not fit to wear a badge got to keep his job and the tax payers had to bail him out with an undisclosed size cash settlement.

Giggling Gannon

54,858 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

This guy owned these troopers with his knowledge of his rights as well as is and is not a law. ​This traffic stop involving the Ohio State Highway Patrol is one of the most legendary examples of a citizen dropping that education bomb that you will ever witness. What started as a completely routine stop for an expired registration tag quickly devolved into a prolonged, high-stakes debate over constitutional boundaries, officer ego, and the exact limits of police authority. ​If you want to know how to stand your ground calmly, articulate your rights under pressure, and dismantle "contempt of cop" in real-time, this is the video to check out. ​The stop began lawfully—the driver had an expired tag. But the entire energy shifted the second the driver disclosed he was recording the interaction for his own protection. ​After exiting his vehicle, the driver placed his hands in his pockets. Citing vague "officer safety concerns," the troopers immediately ordered him to remove his hands and prepared to conduct a pat-down frisk for weapons. The driver openly consented to a limited weapons check just to clear the air, but what followed was an absolute clinic on why law enforcement cannot use "safety" as a blank check to violate your civil liberties. ​The absolute moral of this entire encounter is the profound legal education this citizen handed to these troopers. While the officers attempted to rely on intimidation and commands like "stop talking and listen," the driver consistently hammered them with actual constitutional law: ​Terry v. Ohio & Pennsylvania v. Mimms: Under Mimms, an officer can order you out of a vehicle during a lawful stop. However, as this citizen correctly pointed out, that doesn't mean they get a free pass to frisk you. Under Terry, a pat-down requires a distinct, articulable "reasonable suspicion" that you are armed and dangerous. Stepping out of a car and putting your hands in your pockets during a routine paperwork stop does not automatically strip you of your Fourth Amendment rights. ​Rodriguez v. United States (2015): This is where the driver completely shut down the escalation. The Supreme Court has ruled that a traffic stop cannot be prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete its initial mission (writing the ticket/warning and checking registration). Once the troopers issued the warning, the stop was legally over. By continuing to detain him, command his movements, and lecture him, they were operating outside the law. ​City of Houston v. Hill: The troopers repeatedly tried to silence the driver for challenging them. But under the First Amendment, citizens have an absolute, protected right to verbally criticize, oppose, and argue with police officers, so long as they aren't physically obstructing justice. Standing your ground and speaking truth to power is not a crime. ​The encounter ended with the driver leaving with just a warning for the expired tag, but the real victory was the massive precedent he set on that roadside. ​This wasn't an citizen being difficult for the sake of views; this was a citizen drawing a hard, intellectual line between what is actual law and what is just an officer's feelings. When law enforcement operates out of ego, they rely on compliance through fear. The only antidote to that fear is a rigid, unshakeable knowledge of your constitutional rights. ​Know your rights. Protect your rights. And never let someone abuse authority just because they wear a badge.

Giggling Ganon

39,826 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This tyrant cop gets fully exposed on his own body cam. His side discussion with his sergeant in his squad car exposes everything. ​When a Denham Springs Police Department officer pulls over a driver that knows his rights for alleged "improper lane usage," the interaction escalates almost immediately. Armed with a smartphone and a deep knowledge of civil rights case law, the driver refuses to back down, explicitly citing Turner v. Driver—the landmark 5th Circuit ruling that protects a citizen's right to film law enforcement in public. ​The officer, trying to match the driver's energy with as his ego is getting crushed, demands the phone be put down, orders a pat-down for "officer safety," and threatens to upgrade a verbal warning to a physical ticket purely because of the driver's attitude. ​This is where things get interesting. ​Once the officer steps into his cruiser to write the citation, his supervisor steps by the window to drop a massive reality check. The supervisor warns the officer that he is out of line, coming in too hot, and creating a terrible look. The final blow to the officer's case? The police unit has zero dashcam evidence to prove the driver ever veered. ​Realizing that the driver has his own dashcam, a cell phone recording, and the law on his side, the entire legal justification for the stop crumbles. Realizing the stop is completely illegal and destined for an L in court as well as making him famous on YouTube, the officer is forced to do immediate damage control. He walks back out, hands the license over, and suddenly decides to give the driver a "break." Hearing the thought process in the car really gives you a peak behind the curtain as to how this officer thinks. He is clearly more concerned with being a bully than following the law and upholding his oath to the constitution. I think we all know how different this would end for someone that was not recording or had a dash cam.

Giggling Ganon

30,425 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Melbourne, Florida — The Brevard County Sheriff’s Office released dashcam footage showing two deputies who were attacked during a traffic stop. The incident started when Deputy Brian Potters conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle. In the very initial stages of the traffic stop, Deputy Tyler Thoman arrived on the scene and began to assist with addressing three occupants of the vehicle. At one point during the traffic stop, the passenger in the back seat of the car where the 2-month-old baby was contained, was asked to exit the vehicle at which time he immediately exited and produced a short stock rifle which he began firing at Deputy Potters. The man was identified as 38-year-old Paris Wilder. Deputy Potters was immediately struck in the lower leg, at which time both Deputies returned fire in an effort to save their own lives, protect the others at the scene, and the 2-month-old baby in the rear of the car that was directly in the middle of the gµnfire. Wilder was the initial aggressor in this case as he concealed his weapon until he exited the vehicle and immediately began firing on Deputies in an attempt to take their lives and avoid arrest as he was wanted on several warrants. As Wilder continued to violently engage Deputies, he concealed himself multiple times behind the cars and eventually ran up behind Deputy Potters and used the butt of the rifle, to strike him multiple times in the head causing significant lacerations and tissue damage. Deputy Thoman on the scene once again engaged Wilder and fired multiple times, eliminating the threat to himself and Deputy Potters…with the suspect being subsequently pronounced deceased. Wilder was a Registered Career Criminal with 23 felony arrests and 17 misdemeanor arrests for narcotics trafficking, aggravated assault with a weapon, robbery with a firearm, battery on law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence and attempted first-degree felony mµrder.

Damon Strong

62,823 просмотров • 4 дней назад

This driver turned a simple paperwork mistake into a mandatory felony arrest in under five minutes. Once the deputy confirmed that Rebecca’s license was permanently revoked, the nature of the interaction immediately shifted from a routine traffic infraction to a criminal investigation. Under Florida law, driving with a permanently revoked or suspended license is a criminal offense, meaning the deputy no longer had the discretion to simply issue a warning for the obscured plate and let her go. The confrontation usually escalates due to a combination of denial and legal misconceptions: ​The driver repeatedly denies the suspension, likely expecting the officer to take her word over the official database dispatch system. Presenting expired or irrelevant paperwork is a common stall tactic, but it does nothing to override the real-time computerized records the officer is viewing on their MDT (Mobile Data Terminal). ​Shouting into a cell phone that she is "about to be arrested" serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of de-escalating, it heightens tension and signals to the officer that the driver is mentally preparing to resist. When the deputy ordered her out of the vehicle, Rebecca crossed a legal point of no return by refusing. ​Per the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977), a police officer has the absolute authority to order a driver out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop for officer safety. Refusing to comply with this lawful order is inherently a crime (Resisting an Officer Without Violence). ​By physically resisting the extraction and threatening violence ("threatening to punch the officer"), the driver legally compounded her issues. What would have likely been a misdemeanor charge for driving on a suspended license and non-violent resisting quickly escalated into felony territory due to the explicit threats against law enforcement. ​Ultimately, the passenger's subsequent conversation with the deputy highlights the tragic irony of the situation. The root cause—a failure to complete a mandatory Basic Driver Improvement (BDI) class—was an administrative issue that could have been sorted out through the court and the DMV. By choosing physical and verbal resistance over compliance, the driver transformed a fixable paperwork problem into a severe criminal arrest.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

14,369 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Deputy enters property through a locked gate and no warrant. Gets schooled on tresspass laws and booted off the property. When law enforcement mistakes an ​In Kalispell, Montana, a Flathead County Sheriff’s deputy identifying himself only as "Deputy Mark", bypassed a chained, closed gate onto private property under the premise of investigating an abandoned Ford Expedition parked down near a local school. The deputy claimed he was conducting a welfare check to locate an individual named Eli Tully. ​The immediate issue? Had the deputy conducted basic due diligence before stepping foot past a locked perimeter, he would have known Tully had already been arrested two weeks prior and was actively sitting inside the Flathead County Detention Center on assault charges. ​When property owner Jacob Norris stepped out to address the intrusion, he immediately answered the deputy's primary question by confirming Tully was already in the county jail. He also questioned the deputy on how he got in thus getting the deputy to admit that the gate was locked with a chain. Norris then did what every citizen has the constitutional right to do: he exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and repeatedly ordered the deputy to vacate his private property. ​Under the Fourth Amendment and Montana trespass law, any implied license for an officer to conduct a warrantless knock-and-talk vanishes the moment the property owner revokes consent. Instead of walking back to his cruiser, the deputy’s ego took over. Viewing the invocation of basic rights as defiance rather than the law of the land, he refused to leave, walked over to question a neighbor on the property, and brazenly stated: ​"I'll leave when I'm done." ​That statement encapsulates an alarming mentality where an officer believes personal convenience and authority supersede the private property rights of the public. To make matters worse, after escalating the encounter and demonstrating clear contempt for a citizen standing on firm legal ground, the deputy refused to provide his full name or badge number before driving off. There are no records I can find if Jacob filed a formal complaint or lawsuit against the sheriff department based on the incident. ​Know your rights, remain calm, and never let an official convince you that following the Constitution is optional.

Giggling Gannon

1,389,206 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Cops try to harass some Good Ol' Boys and it does not go well for those officers. Deputies from the Pender County Sheriff’s Office pulled over a driver for operating a "suspicious vehicle." What was the driver's actual offense? Turning their car around after getting lost. What they found instead was some guys that knew the law and their rights. When pressed on why the stop was initiated, the deputy claimed the vehicle was traveling 31 mph in a 45 mph zone. The occupants immediately called out the obvious: driving below the speed limit isn't illegal, nor does it provide probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. When the deputy stumbled through his justification the driver quickly slammed him with the question asking if the deputy has been drinking. Left with nothing to counter that remark the deputy then asked the driver the same question and it was met with laughter. Instead of backing down, the officers continued shining high-powered tactical lights directly into the car. The passenger wasn't having it—pulling out an even brighter flashlight and shining it right back at Deputy Simmi to highlight the absurdity of the intrusion. "I got one. Mine's brighter than yours." ​ When the occupants repeatedly requested the officers' badge and ID numbers, Deputy Simmi claimed they "don't have badge numbers" and only provided his last name, further raising questions about accountability and identification protocols during traffic stops. Recognizing they had no legal basis to hold the vehicle, no traffic violation, and zero evidence of criminal activity, the deputies ran the driver's info and were forced to let them go without a single ticket or citation. These deputies were out of their league as these boys knew their rights and were not going to let these deputies trample all over them.

Giggling Gannon

134,511 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Officer said I'm taking your tag and the driver loses rational thought and puts hands on the deputy. ​The deputy initially initiated the stop for an obscured license plate frame, but a system check quickly revealed an active driver’s license suspension and a state-issued "sieze tag" order stemming from a prior lapse in auto insurance. Rather than making a physical arrest, the deputy attempted to issue a criminal citation with a court date and explain that the state issued a sieze tag order which required the deputy to seize of the vehicle's tag. ​Insisting his policy was current, the 52-year-old driver repeatedly refused to sign the citations, demanded to see a supervisor, and argued against surrendering his plate. When warned that refusing to sign a criminal summons would result in an immediate arrest, the driver turned and attempted to walk back to his vehicle. As the deputy moved in to detain him, a struggle ensued with active traffic on each side of them. Fortunately backup arrived to assist in placing the driver in handcuffs. ​Following the altercation, the driver faced five separate charges: ​Two counts of Resisting an Officer Without Violence ​One count of Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer ​One count of Driving While License Suspended (DWLS) ​One count of Possession of a Suspended Driver's License ​In the final legal disposition, prosecutors dropped the felony battery and the two suspended license charges. However, the driver was adjudicated guilty on both counts of Resisting an Officer Without Violence and sentenced to serve three days in county jail. You don't try to litigate your case on the road. The fact is in many cases if this guy would have fixed his DL as well as other issues by the time he got to court, the judge most likely would have thrown the citations out. But this guy wanted to treat the roads like it was the court room.

Giggling Ganon

25,678 просмотров • 1 месяц назад