Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Illinois Cook County Sheriffs ignorance on full display in a deposition flat out admitting they have no understanding of the law. ​ Meet Lieutenant Don Milazzo and Sergeant Jennifer Larson of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. In this deposition, watch as they struggle to justify the indefensible: the arrest...

GigglingGanon's profile picture

Giggling Ganon

247,320 subscribers

68,755 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Two Omaha officers get schooled on our rights. "Suspicion" isn't a crime, and filming in a public lobby isn't "suspicious" behavior—it's a protected right. ​ In this interaction at the Omaha Treasurer's Office, the officers attempt to use "public concern" as a reason to demand identification. However, the law is clear: without reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime, a citizen is under no obligation to identify. ​ Is filming the government a crime, or is the government just uncomfortable being filmed?
2:42

Two Omaha officers get schooled on our rights. "Suspicion" isn't a crime, and filming in a public lobby isn't "suspicious" behavior—it's a protected right. ​ In this interaction at the Omaha Treasurer's Office, the officers attempt to use "public concern" as a reason to demand identification. However, the law is clear: without reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime, a citizen is under no obligation to identify. ​ Is filming the government a crime, or is the government just uncomfortable being filmed?

Chuckling Charlie

29,249 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

ICE agents stopped an off-duty police officer, a U.S. citizen, and demanded she show her papers. She was not under arrest. There was no articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. 🚨 provides a constitutional breakdown of this incident in Minnesota: She attempted to record the stop—a protected First Amendment right. Agents hit the phone from her hand and drew their guns before she identified herself as law enforcement. This conduct violates: • 🔹 The Fourth Amendment — bans arbitrary stops and seizures • 🔹 The First Amendment — protects the right to record public officials • 🔹 Public trust — eroded when federal agents target citizens without cause This was not a checkpoint. It was not a warrant-based stop. It was a random demand for citizenship papers—a move without legal basis under U.S. law. When agents abandon the Constitution, the people have the right—and the duty—to respond lawfully, visibly, and together. Find out more about the capabilities PAXIS and how we can get it into the of every citizen and ally: #KnowYourRights #ConstitutionalCrisis #ICE #FirstAmendment #FourthAmendment #CivilRights #PAXIS
1:14

ICE agents stopped an off-duty police officer, a U.S. citizen, and demanded she show her papers. She was not under arrest. There was no articulable suspicion of wrongdoing. 🚨 provides a constitutional breakdown of this incident in Minnesota: She attempted to record the stop—a protected First Amendment right. Agents hit the phone from her hand and drew their guns before she identified herself as law enforcement. This conduct violates: • 🔹 The Fourth Amendment — bans arbitrary stops and seizures • 🔹 The First Amendment — protects the right to record public officials • 🔹 Public trust — eroded when federal agents target citizens without cause This was not a checkpoint. It was not a warrant-based stop. It was a random demand for citizenship papers—a move without legal basis under U.S. law. When agents abandon the Constitution, the people have the right—and the duty—to respond lawfully, visibly, and together. Find out more about the capabilities PAXIS and how we can get it into the of every citizen and ally: #KnowYourRights #ConstitutionalCrisis #ICE #FirstAmendment #FourthAmendment #CivilRights #PAXIS

Joe Walsh

20,195 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Man proves your rights do not change due to the weather outside or the time of day. At around 3:00 AM during snowfall, an individual equipped with a long rifle, tactical vest, and face covering was walking along a public sidewalk near Rocky Mountain Motors. He stated he was out "training" in cold-weather gear. ​ Englewood police officers approached and ordered the man to place his hands on his head, detaining him and placing him in handcuffs dispite no crime being committed that they could articulate. The man immediately invoked his First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights, arguing that open carry of a firearm is lawful in the state and that officers lacked reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. ​In the eyes of these officers, walking with a rifle outdoors at 3:00 AM during a snowstorm raised suspicion and justified stopping him for identification. When pressed on which law or ordinance was violated, officers acknowledged that open carry itself was not illegal and quickly realized that the constitution does not change based on the time of day. ​Lacking grounds or an articulated criminal infraction to mandate identification or prolong detention, officers ultimately removed the handcuffs and released the individual without charges. While it was great to eee these officers realize their error as the light bulb clicked on in their brains that what they were doing was in violation of this man's rights. Unfortunately we know in other areas with different officers, this could have turned out much worse. This is why it's important that men like this gentleman, test our rights for us to help educate these cops that they must actually honor the oath that they all took to defend the constitution of our country. Know your rights folks, and do not fear exercising them.
4:26

Man proves your rights do not change due to the weather outside or the time of day. At around 3:00 AM during snowfall, an individual equipped with a long rifle, tactical vest, and face covering was walking along a public sidewalk near Rocky Mountain Motors. He stated he was out "training" in cold-weather gear. ​ Englewood police officers approached and ordered the man to place his hands on his head, detaining him and placing him in handcuffs dispite no crime being committed that they could articulate. The man immediately invoked his First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights, arguing that open carry of a firearm is lawful in the state and that officers lacked reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity. ​In the eyes of these officers, walking with a rifle outdoors at 3:00 AM during a snowstorm raised suspicion and justified stopping him for identification. When pressed on which law or ordinance was violated, officers acknowledged that open carry itself was not illegal and quickly realized that the constitution does not change based on the time of day. ​Lacking grounds or an articulated criminal infraction to mandate identification or prolong detention, officers ultimately removed the handcuffs and released the individual without charges. While it was great to eee these officers realize their error as the light bulb clicked on in their brains that what they were doing was in violation of this man's rights. Unfortunately we know in other areas with different officers, this could have turned out much worse. This is why it's important that men like this gentleman, test our rights for us to help educate these cops that they must actually honor the oath that they all took to defend the constitution of our country. Know your rights folks, and do not fear exercising them.

Giggling Ganon

79,127 просмотров • 13 дней назад

Woman arrested for trespassing from her hotel room that she paid for. ​Imagine paying for your hotel room, checking in, and settling in for your stay, only to have the police knock on your door and tell you to leave. That is exactly what happened to Michelle, a guest at a hotel in Lincoln, Nebraska. ​The hotel claimed she was on a "Do Not Rent" list, yet they had accepted her money and issued her a room. When Michelle stood her ground, demanding a written explanation for why she was being kicked out of a room she legally paid for, the situation escalated. ​"I'm gonna arrest you, and your kid is gonna go to CPS," the officer stated firmly. ​Despite her calm insistence that she had a valid reservation until Monday, the officers proceeded to arrest her for trespassing. It seemed like a clear-cut case of a private business's right to remove anyone from their property—until the case reached the federal courts. ​In a massive blow to the officers involved, a federal judge recently stripped them of their qualified immunity. The court ruled that because Michelle was a "bona fide" guest with a paid contract, the officers had zero probable cause to arrest her. She wasn't a trespasser; she was a lawful occupant. Michelle filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against both the City of Lincoln and the specific officers involved in her arrest. No details on the resolution of this lawsuit.
0:58

Woman arrested for trespassing from her hotel room that she paid for. ​Imagine paying for your hotel room, checking in, and settling in for your stay, only to have the police knock on your door and tell you to leave. That is exactly what happened to Michelle, a guest at a hotel in Lincoln, Nebraska. ​The hotel claimed she was on a "Do Not Rent" list, yet they had accepted her money and issued her a room. When Michelle stood her ground, demanding a written explanation for why she was being kicked out of a room she legally paid for, the situation escalated. ​"I'm gonna arrest you, and your kid is gonna go to CPS," the officer stated firmly. ​Despite her calm insistence that she had a valid reservation until Monday, the officers proceeded to arrest her for trespassing. It seemed like a clear-cut case of a private business's right to remove anyone from their property—until the case reached the federal courts. ​In a massive blow to the officers involved, a federal judge recently stripped them of their qualified immunity. The court ruled that because Michelle was a "bona fide" guest with a paid contract, the officers had zero probable cause to arrest her. She wasn't a trespasser; she was a lawful occupant. Michelle filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against both the City of Lincoln and the specific officers involved in her arrest. No details on the resolution of this lawsuit.

Giggling Ganon

201,972 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Bank manager feels she gets to decide what rights people have on a public sidewalk. She calls the police and lucky for her she got a deputy that is just as ignorant about the laws and citizens rights as she is. Deputy L. Crawford of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office was the officer that responded and tries her best to violate this man's rights. ​The reason the call came in from the bank manager was due to concern that the man was filming from the sidewalk and capturing sensitive customer data on their monitors. The first thing Deputy Crawford did when she arrived was to immediately attempt to trespass the man and demand his identification. ​ The man remained on the city sidewalk, which is traditionally a public forum where filming is a protected right. ​Florida Law (§901.151): Under "Stop and Identify" statutes, an officer cannot legally demand ID unless they have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime is being, has been, or is about to be committed. ​The man argued that if the bank didn't want their screens seen, they should have moved them or used privacy film. Legally, anything visible from a public space is generally fair game for a camera. ​The tension peaked when the deputy noted the man was "physically shaking" as a justification for a wellness check, while the man countered by saying he gets frustrated when dealing with a bad cop referring to her being "baited" into an illegal detention. ​Know your rights folks, do not allow ignorance to bully you out of them. Also that bank is terrible if it has any screens facing a public window. The bank is responsible for putting people's personal info at risk. Let me know if you agree or if you have a different take.
2:12

Bank manager feels she gets to decide what rights people have on a public sidewalk. She calls the police and lucky for her she got a deputy that is just as ignorant about the laws and citizens rights as she is. Deputy L. Crawford of the Lake County Sheriff’s Office was the officer that responded and tries her best to violate this man's rights. ​The reason the call came in from the bank manager was due to concern that the man was filming from the sidewalk and capturing sensitive customer data on their monitors. The first thing Deputy Crawford did when she arrived was to immediately attempt to trespass the man and demand his identification. ​ The man remained on the city sidewalk, which is traditionally a public forum where filming is a protected right. ​Florida Law (§901.151): Under "Stop and Identify" statutes, an officer cannot legally demand ID unless they have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime is being, has been, or is about to be committed. ​The man argued that if the bank didn't want their screens seen, they should have moved them or used privacy film. Legally, anything visible from a public space is generally fair game for a camera. ​The tension peaked when the deputy noted the man was "physically shaking" as a justification for a wellness check, while the man countered by saying he gets frustrated when dealing with a bad cop referring to her being "baited" into an illegal detention. ​Know your rights folks, do not allow ignorance to bully you out of them. Also that bank is terrible if it has any screens facing a public window. The bank is responsible for putting people's personal info at risk. Let me know if you agree or if you have a different take.

Giggling Ganon

296,699 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Two rogue cops violate this journalist's one officer losing his job and an undisclosed settlement. A citizen journalist named Roland Reyes was recording a traffic accident scene from a public sidewalk for a local community Facebook page when he was approached by Lake Jackson Police Officers Johnny Cagle and Oscar Mendoza. ​Officer Cagle demanded that Reyes leave the scene and identify himself, falsely claiming that taking photographs of vehicles and license plates in public was illegal. Reyes knowing his rights refused to leave, asserting his right to document the scene from public property. It was clear by the response from the officers that they had zero knowledge of the laws and the constitutional rights that they swore to protect. Seeing that Reyes was going to stand his ground and not be intimidated by these tyrants, ​without ever stating that Reyes was under arrest or commanding him to show his hands, the officers tackled him to the ground. ​The handling of the arrest drew immediate backlash: ​Following the scuffle, Officer Cagle claimed injuries and took the ambulance to the hospital. Reyes, the victim, was handcuffed, transported in a squad car, and kept tied to a hospital bed during treatment before being released an hour later. ​ The City of Lake Jackson issued a statement admitting the officers acted on an "erroneous understanding of law" and that Reyes was legally filming. ​ Officer Cagle resigned from the force before he could be formally terminated, while Officer Mendoza was suspended without pay and ordered to undergo remedial civil rights training. ​Reyes subsequently retained a lawyer to file a civil lawsuit against the officers and the police department for the violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. His case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
3:09

Two rogue cops violate this journalist's one officer losing his job and an undisclosed settlement. A citizen journalist named Roland Reyes was recording a traffic accident scene from a public sidewalk for a local community Facebook page when he was approached by Lake Jackson Police Officers Johnny Cagle and Oscar Mendoza. ​Officer Cagle demanded that Reyes leave the scene and identify himself, falsely claiming that taking photographs of vehicles and license plates in public was illegal. Reyes knowing his rights refused to leave, asserting his right to document the scene from public property. It was clear by the response from the officers that they had zero knowledge of the laws and the constitutional rights that they swore to protect. Seeing that Reyes was going to stand his ground and not be intimidated by these tyrants, ​without ever stating that Reyes was under arrest or commanding him to show his hands, the officers tackled him to the ground. ​The handling of the arrest drew immediate backlash: ​Following the scuffle, Officer Cagle claimed injuries and took the ambulance to the hospital. Reyes, the victim, was handcuffed, transported in a squad car, and kept tied to a hospital bed during treatment before being released an hour later. ​ The City of Lake Jackson issued a statement admitting the officers acted on an "erroneous understanding of law" and that Reyes was legally filming. ​ Officer Cagle resigned from the force before he could be formally terminated, while Officer Mendoza was suspended without pay and ordered to undergo remedial civil rights training. ​Reyes subsequently retained a lawyer to file a civil lawsuit against the officers and the police department for the violation of his First and Fourth Amendment rights. His case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Giggling Ganon

110,420 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

The facts of what happened in Minneapolis on Jan 7 matter: at 10:25 AM CT the individual in question was using her vehicle to block-in law enforcement officers and obstruct lawful operations—a felony. Throughout the course of the morning, the individual and her partner had been stalking, harassing and impeding law enforcement. ICE law enforcement approached the individual in question and gave repeated lawful commands to stop obstructing operations and then ordered her out of her vehicle for arrest. She refused to comply. She then proceeded to weaponize her vehicle, a deadly weapon, and hit a federal law enforcement officer. The ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement, and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots. Peaceful protest is a sacred First Amendment right. This was not that. If you obstruct law enforcement operations, ignore lawful commands, and use a deadly weapon to kill or cause bodily harm to a federal law enforcement office there are dangerous, and in this case deadly, consequences. This was entirely preventable.
1:22

The facts of what happened in Minneapolis on Jan 7 matter: at 10:25 AM CT the individual in question was using her vehicle to block-in law enforcement officers and obstruct lawful operations—a felony. Throughout the course of the morning, the individual and her partner had been stalking, harassing and impeding law enforcement. ICE law enforcement approached the individual in question and gave repeated lawful commands to stop obstructing operations and then ordered her out of her vehicle for arrest. She refused to comply. She then proceeded to weaponize her vehicle, a deadly weapon, and hit a federal law enforcement officer. The ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement, and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots. Peaceful protest is a sacred First Amendment right. This was not that. If you obstruct law enforcement operations, ignore lawful commands, and use a deadly weapon to kill or cause bodily harm to a federal law enforcement office there are dangerous, and in this case deadly, consequences. This was entirely preventable.

Tricia McLaughlin

126,529 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Sergeant arrested man for recording national guard armory. This incident occurred near the Hibbing National Guard Armory. The "story" behind this case is centered on a legal dispute over first amendment rights, refusing to ID, and the definition of Obstruction. Sgt. Everett detained the camera man for filming the armory, citing "suspicious activity." When he refused to provide identification—arguing that filming from a public sidewalk is not a crime—the situation escalated into a physical arrest. The man was charged with Obstruction of Legal Process. However, a Minnesota court eventually dismissed the charges. The court found that Everett did not have "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a crime was being committed. Merely filming a government building from a public space was deemed a protected First Amendment activity, and refusing to ID during an unlawful detention does not constitute obstruction in Minnesota. Upon release the camera man sued the Hibbing police department and won costing the citizens of that city 36,000 in their tax dollars. The sad part is the Hibbing PD has done nothing from a disciplinary standpoint to Sergeant Everett.
3:21

Sergeant arrested man for recording national guard armory. This incident occurred near the Hibbing National Guard Armory. The "story" behind this case is centered on a legal dispute over first amendment rights, refusing to ID, and the definition of Obstruction. Sgt. Everett detained the camera man for filming the armory, citing "suspicious activity." When he refused to provide identification—arguing that filming from a public sidewalk is not a crime—the situation escalated into a physical arrest. The man was charged with Obstruction of Legal Process. However, a Minnesota court eventually dismissed the charges. The court found that Everett did not have "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a crime was being committed. Merely filming a government building from a public space was deemed a protected First Amendment activity, and refusing to ID during an unlawful detention does not constitute obstruction in Minnesota. Upon release the camera man sued the Hibbing police department and won costing the citizens of that city 36,000 in their tax dollars. The sad part is the Hibbing PD has done nothing from a disciplinary standpoint to Sergeant Everett.

Giggling Ganon

16,588 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

This woman becomes completely unglued when she discovers her feelings do not supersede the rights of others. ​This confrontation in Newport Beach, California, escalated rapidly when a bystander decided her personal comfort level should more important than the constitutional rights of everyone else in a public space. Spotting independent journalists filming near a Starbucks plaza, she immediately went on the offensive, aggressively demanding they shut down their cameras. ​When that didn’t work, she escalated to screeching demands for the Newport Beach Police Department to step in and execute a "citizen’s arrest" on the creators for "violating her privacy." ​What makes this footage a masterclass to watch is the contrast between her absolute meltdown and the flawless composure of the responding officers. Instead of taking the bait or taking the easy way out to quiet a loud disturbance, these officers stood ten-toes-down on the U.S. Constitution. They calmly but firmly educated her on the spot: ​The journalists were standing in a publicly accessible area. ​There is absolutely no legal expectation of privacy in a public space. ​No crime was committed, meaning no arrest—citizen's or otherwise—was going to happen. ​Major kudos to these officers for knowing the law, maintaining total control of the scene, and actively protecting the First Amendment rights of journalists exercising them. When emotions run high, a solid cop who respects the Bill of Rights is exactly what keeps a situation from turning completely sideways.
6:51

This woman becomes completely unglued when she discovers her feelings do not supersede the rights of others. ​This confrontation in Newport Beach, California, escalated rapidly when a bystander decided her personal comfort level should more important than the constitutional rights of everyone else in a public space. Spotting independent journalists filming near a Starbucks plaza, she immediately went on the offensive, aggressively demanding they shut down their cameras. ​When that didn’t work, she escalated to screeching demands for the Newport Beach Police Department to step in and execute a "citizen’s arrest" on the creators for "violating her privacy." ​What makes this footage a masterclass to watch is the contrast between her absolute meltdown and the flawless composure of the responding officers. Instead of taking the bait or taking the easy way out to quiet a loud disturbance, these officers stood ten-toes-down on the U.S. Constitution. They calmly but firmly educated her on the spot: ​The journalists were standing in a publicly accessible area. ​There is absolutely no legal expectation of privacy in a public space. ​No crime was committed, meaning no arrest—citizen's or otherwise—was going to happen. ​Major kudos to these officers for knowing the law, maintaining total control of the scene, and actively protecting the First Amendment rights of journalists exercising them. When emotions run high, a solid cop who respects the Bill of Rights is exactly what keeps a situation from turning completely sideways.

Giggling Ganon

499,380 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Regional Manager for DMV needs to stay in her lane as she loses it over being on camera. ​When public servants are confronted with the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold, the response shouldn't be ignorance and evasion. Yet, that is exactly what unfolded at the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles regional office in Charles Town, located in Jefferson County. ​An independent journalist exercising their protected First Amendment right to film in a public government facility is immediately met with hostility, unlawful demands, and a complete lack of basic legal comprehension by the staff on duty. ​The incident quickly escalated when the facility's Regional Manager, identified as Lorraine Thompson Vangosen, and the on-duty security guard approached the journalist. Rather than conducting themselves with the professionalism expected of public employees, both individuals displayed a stunning lack of understanding regarding constitutional law and citizen rights: ​ Lorraine and the security guard aggressively asserted that filming inside the DMV was strictly prohibited, demanding that the journalist delete the recorded footage. ​Staff attempted to claim that because other citizens' faces were on camera, it created an expectation of privacy that violated public service policies. In a public government building, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in open, publicly accessible common areas. When the journalist attempted to calmly de-escalate the situation and explain the legal precedent protecting the filming of public officials in public spaces, both Lorraine and the guard refused to listen, doubling down on their unconstitutional directives. ​The true nature of their "authority" was exposed the moment law enforcement arrived. After a responding deputy informed both Lorraine and the security guard that the journalist was entirely within their legal rights to record in the public areas of the building, the dynamic completely changed. ​Rather than issuing an apology or acknowledging their error, both the manager and the guard chose to retreat. For the remainder of the encounter, both individuals stayed completely out of sight, hiding in the back offices until the journalist finally left the premises. ​This encounter isn't an isolated misunderstanding—it highlights a systemic issue with how government employees interact with the public. ​When public officials choose to hide instead of acknowledging the law, it proves that accountability is sorely needed.
4:59

Regional Manager for DMV needs to stay in her lane as she loses it over being on camera. ​When public servants are confronted with the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold, the response shouldn't be ignorance and evasion. Yet, that is exactly what unfolded at the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles regional office in Charles Town, located in Jefferson County. ​An independent journalist exercising their protected First Amendment right to film in a public government facility is immediately met with hostility, unlawful demands, and a complete lack of basic legal comprehension by the staff on duty. ​The incident quickly escalated when the facility's Regional Manager, identified as Lorraine Thompson Vangosen, and the on-duty security guard approached the journalist. Rather than conducting themselves with the professionalism expected of public employees, both individuals displayed a stunning lack of understanding regarding constitutional law and citizen rights: ​ Lorraine and the security guard aggressively asserted that filming inside the DMV was strictly prohibited, demanding that the journalist delete the recorded footage. ​Staff attempted to claim that because other citizens' faces were on camera, it created an expectation of privacy that violated public service policies. In a public government building, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in open, publicly accessible common areas. When the journalist attempted to calmly de-escalate the situation and explain the legal precedent protecting the filming of public officials in public spaces, both Lorraine and the guard refused to listen, doubling down on their unconstitutional directives. ​The true nature of their "authority" was exposed the moment law enforcement arrived. After a responding deputy informed both Lorraine and the security guard that the journalist was entirely within their legal rights to record in the public areas of the building, the dynamic completely changed. ​Rather than issuing an apology or acknowledging their error, both the manager and the guard chose to retreat. For the remainder of the encounter, both individuals stayed completely out of sight, hiding in the back offices until the journalist finally left the premises. ​This encounter isn't an isolated misunderstanding—it highlights a systemic issue with how government employees interact with the public. ​When public officials choose to hide instead of acknowledging the law, it proves that accountability is sorely needed.

Giggling Ganon

20,964 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

You know the department is bad when even the Chief does not understand the law! They all get owned and do the walk of shame. ​A textbook lesson in constitutional rights unfolded right outside a Central Bank branch in Millstadt, Illinois, proving once again that public photography is not a crime—no matter how uncomfortable it makes the local authorities. ​It all started when a journalist was standing strictly on a public sidewalk and easement, minding his own business while on his cellphone. Because of the freezing winter weather, he was wearing a face mask. After looking toward the bank windows and checking out a balloon display inside, nervous bank employees called the Millstadt Police Department to report a "suspicious" masked individual filming the building. ​Officers Jacob Fowler and A. Smiddy arrived on the scene and immediately tried to flip the script. They demanded the auditor’s identification, claiming they needed to "document" his information so they could formally trespass him on behalf of the bank. ​The Police: Claimed that looking inside a bank window while wearing a mask on a freezing day constitutes "reasonable articulable suspicion" of a crime. They repeatedly called the journalist "uncooperative" simply for refusing to surrender his ID. ​The journalist: Kept his composure and stood his ground. He stood firmly on a public right-of-way, reminding the officers of his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. When officers claimed they were trespassing him from the property, he hit them with the ultimate logic check: "I was never on their property... Are you trespassing my eyeballs?" ​Realizing they had zero legal leverage to force compliance or make an arrest, the officers quickly ran out of answers. After a third officer arrived to hand out a business card (which was politely declined), the police finally admitted they knew exactly how this works—conceding that the journalist was within his rights to film them and post the interaction to online. ​With no law broken and no leg to stand on, the officers chose to disengage and walk away defeated. ​Know your rights, know the law, and never let them trespass your eyeballs.
6:44

You know the department is bad when even the Chief does not understand the law! They all get owned and do the walk of shame. ​A textbook lesson in constitutional rights unfolded right outside a Central Bank branch in Millstadt, Illinois, proving once again that public photography is not a crime—no matter how uncomfortable it makes the local authorities. ​It all started when a journalist was standing strictly on a public sidewalk and easement, minding his own business while on his cellphone. Because of the freezing winter weather, he was wearing a face mask. After looking toward the bank windows and checking out a balloon display inside, nervous bank employees called the Millstadt Police Department to report a "suspicious" masked individual filming the building. ​Officers Jacob Fowler and A. Smiddy arrived on the scene and immediately tried to flip the script. They demanded the auditor’s identification, claiming they needed to "document" his information so they could formally trespass him on behalf of the bank. ​The Police: Claimed that looking inside a bank window while wearing a mask on a freezing day constitutes "reasonable articulable suspicion" of a crime. They repeatedly called the journalist "uncooperative" simply for refusing to surrender his ID. ​The journalist: Kept his composure and stood his ground. He stood firmly on a public right-of-way, reminding the officers of his Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. When officers claimed they were trespassing him from the property, he hit them with the ultimate logic check: "I was never on their property... Are you trespassing my eyeballs?" ​Realizing they had zero legal leverage to force compliance or make an arrest, the officers quickly ran out of answers. After a third officer arrived to hand out a business card (which was politely declined), the police finally admitted they knew exactly how this works—conceding that the journalist was within his rights to film them and post the interaction to online. ​With no law broken and no leg to stand on, the officers chose to disengage and walk away defeated. ​Know your rights, know the law, and never let them trespass your eyeballs.

Giggling Ganon

41,042 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Court clerk of Hancock County Mississippi feels as though her feelings and her time are far more important than the rights of the citizens of the county. An arrogant display of government overreach at the Hancock County Justice Court in Mississippi shows exactly why First Amendment audits are so vital. When an independent journalist, entered the public lobby to document court operations, he was met with immediate, unprovoked hostility from Court Clerk Catherine Garcia. ​Claiming the lobby was a "non-recording facility," Garcia cited a state rule regarding criminal proceedings that has absolutely no bearing on a public lobby. Her primary grievance? The camera was making her clerks "uncomfortable." She even pointed to the court's own surveillance cameras—ironically used because members of the public keep stealing their counter bell—demanding that the journalist stop recording while her own cameras rolled. When journalist refused to yield his constitutional rights to appease her personal feelings, she called for security. ​The situation defused only when Investigator Egan arrived, assessed the scene, and correctly informed Garcia and her staff that filming in the public lobby is perfectly legal as long as private records aren't being exposed. Rather than admitting her mistake, Garcia and a staggering seven court clerks completely abandoned their posts and retreated from the windows, grinding county business to a halt simply because a citizen held a camera. ​This entire interaction highlights a disturbing trend: Catherine Garcia seems to have remarkably little understanding of the law and the actual rights of the citizens she is paid to serve. Because the Justice Court Clerk is an appointed position rather than an elected one, she answers directly to the Hancock County Board of Supervisors. The accountability lands squarely on them. ​The entire Board of Supervisors is up for reelection in November 2027. One can only hope that when the 2027 election cycle arrives, the voters of Hancock County demand sweeping changes on the board. A fresh, newly elected board needs to step up and replace Garcia with someone who is genuinely willing to uphold the constitutional rights of the county's citizens, rather than prioritizing their own fragile egos and personal feelings over the law.
6:07

Court clerk of Hancock County Mississippi feels as though her feelings and her time are far more important than the rights of the citizens of the county. An arrogant display of government overreach at the Hancock County Justice Court in Mississippi shows exactly why First Amendment audits are so vital. When an independent journalist, entered the public lobby to document court operations, he was met with immediate, unprovoked hostility from Court Clerk Catherine Garcia. ​Claiming the lobby was a "non-recording facility," Garcia cited a state rule regarding criminal proceedings that has absolutely no bearing on a public lobby. Her primary grievance? The camera was making her clerks "uncomfortable." She even pointed to the court's own surveillance cameras—ironically used because members of the public keep stealing their counter bell—demanding that the journalist stop recording while her own cameras rolled. When journalist refused to yield his constitutional rights to appease her personal feelings, she called for security. ​The situation defused only when Investigator Egan arrived, assessed the scene, and correctly informed Garcia and her staff that filming in the public lobby is perfectly legal as long as private records aren't being exposed. Rather than admitting her mistake, Garcia and a staggering seven court clerks completely abandoned their posts and retreated from the windows, grinding county business to a halt simply because a citizen held a camera. ​This entire interaction highlights a disturbing trend: Catherine Garcia seems to have remarkably little understanding of the law and the actual rights of the citizens she is paid to serve. Because the Justice Court Clerk is an appointed position rather than an elected one, she answers directly to the Hancock County Board of Supervisors. The accountability lands squarely on them. ​The entire Board of Supervisors is up for reelection in November 2027. One can only hope that when the 2027 election cycle arrives, the voters of Hancock County demand sweeping changes on the board. A fresh, newly elected board needs to step up and replace Garcia with someone who is genuinely willing to uphold the constitutional rights of the county's citizens, rather than prioritizing their own fragile egos and personal feelings over the law.

Giggling Ganon

121,336 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨BREAKING: in Chicago, ICE agents illegally entered Bridgeview courthouse, tackled and detained a man, and it all happened while Cook County deputies stood by and allowed it. Illinois law, and a Cook County court order says, federal agents are not allowed to make civil arrests inside courthouses unless they present a valid judicial warrant. According to the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, ICE agents claimed they had a warrant… but did not produce it. Despite that, they still entered the courthouse, handcuffed a man in the lobby, and removed him from the building. Then, in the video, a deputy is seen shaking hands with an ICE agent, after the arrest. And when the person filming questioned the legality of what just happened, another deputy shrugged, and said, “Isn’t being here illegally a crime?” Which… no. Being undocumented in the U.S. is not a criminal offense. But, besides that, instead of upholding the law, the sheriff just assumed… and potentially allowed a kidnapping to happen. The Public Defender’s office says no federal criminal charges have been identified, and the man was reportedly there for a deferred prosecution hearing. Earlier that same day, ICE also detained a woman, and a small child, outside the courthouse, which the Public Defender’s office called a clear violations of state law. So, the questions, everyone needs to be asking, are this… If there’s a law banning this, a court order banning this, and no warrant is even produced when asked… how is this still happening inside a courthouse? And why are the very people sworn to uphold the law, standing by while it happens?
2:39

🚨BREAKING: in Chicago, ICE agents illegally entered Bridgeview courthouse, tackled and detained a man, and it all happened while Cook County deputies stood by and allowed it. Illinois law, and a Cook County court order says, federal agents are not allowed to make civil arrests inside courthouses unless they present a valid judicial warrant. According to the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, ICE agents claimed they had a warrant… but did not produce it. Despite that, they still entered the courthouse, handcuffed a man in the lobby, and removed him from the building. Then, in the video, a deputy is seen shaking hands with an ICE agent, after the arrest. And when the person filming questioned the legality of what just happened, another deputy shrugged, and said, “Isn’t being here illegally a crime?” Which… no. Being undocumented in the U.S. is not a criminal offense. But, besides that, instead of upholding the law, the sheriff just assumed… and potentially allowed a kidnapping to happen. The Public Defender’s office says no federal criminal charges have been identified, and the man was reportedly there for a deferred prosecution hearing. Earlier that same day, ICE also detained a woman, and a small child, outside the courthouse, which the Public Defender’s office called a clear violations of state law. So, the questions, everyone needs to be asking, are this… If there’s a law banning this, a court order banning this, and no warrant is even produced when asked… how is this still happening inside a courthouse? And why are the very people sworn to uphold the law, standing by while it happens?

Jesus Freakin Congress

40,796 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Anti ice protesters call the cops to try and claim they are victims. It didn't take long for the truth to come out and the protesters end up taking a ride to jail. A woman claimed that her and her husband were demonstrating along the roadway near a QuikTrip gas station in Sand Springs, Oklahoma, holding signs and wearing anti-ice apparel. She claimed that everything was peaceful until a bystander in a red vehicle allegedly yelled at them regarding their signs. ​ Determined to record the motorist, the woman walked over to film him and capture his license plate. According to the couple, the driver spat in her face and attempted to back his car into her. In response, the woman threw one of her protest signs at the moving vehicle. When her husband attempted to intervene, he was knocked to the ground, sustaining abrasions to his knees. Sand Springs officers arrived on scene to handle what was reported as an active fight. While the couple maintained they were solely victims of an unprovoked hit-and-run, officers immediately requested to review external security camera footage from the QuikTrip to verify the claims. As expected the truth was not on the side of the protester as the video showed her and husband to be the aggressors from throwing stuff at the car to trying to rip off his mirror. It was clear that their unhinged rage was in full control of their actions. ​ While their ability is to protest is well within their First Amendment rights. Throwing stuff at cars and trying to destroy property is not. The officers placed her under arrest for her actions toward the vehicle. Meanwhile, EMS was dispatched to evaluate her husband's injuries and he was alerted he was under arrest as well, and their vehicle was impounded. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
10:04

Anti ice protesters call the cops to try and claim they are victims. It didn't take long for the truth to come out and the protesters end up taking a ride to jail. A woman claimed that her and her husband were demonstrating along the roadway near a QuikTrip gas station in Sand Springs, Oklahoma, holding signs and wearing anti-ice apparel. She claimed that everything was peaceful until a bystander in a red vehicle allegedly yelled at them regarding their signs. ​ Determined to record the motorist, the woman walked over to film him and capture his license plate. According to the couple, the driver spat in her face and attempted to back his car into her. In response, the woman threw one of her protest signs at the moving vehicle. When her husband attempted to intervene, he was knocked to the ground, sustaining abrasions to his knees. Sand Springs officers arrived on scene to handle what was reported as an active fight. While the couple maintained they were solely victims of an unprovoked hit-and-run, officers immediately requested to review external security camera footage from the QuikTrip to verify the claims. As expected the truth was not on the side of the protester as the video showed her and husband to be the aggressors from throwing stuff at the car to trying to rip off his mirror. It was clear that their unhinged rage was in full control of their actions. ​ While their ability is to protest is well within their First Amendment rights. Throwing stuff at cars and trying to destroy property is not. The officers placed her under arrest for her actions toward the vehicle. Meanwhile, EMS was dispatched to evaluate her husband's injuries and he was alerted he was under arrest as well, and their vehicle was impounded. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

Giggling Ganon

37,099 просмотров • 26 дней назад

Tyrant cop has zero understanding of the law and has no desire learn. Ultimately had to do the walk of shame. ​A routine First Amendment audit outside a United States Post Office in Fremont, Ohio, quickly escalated into a tense constitutional showdown, a forceful arrest, and a major federal civil rights lawsuit. ​It began when two independent videographers were standing on a public sidewalk, filming the exterior of the post office building. After a call was placed to dispatch reporting "suspicious activity," Fremont Police Department officers arrived on the scene and immediately demanded identification. ​What followed was a sharp legal disagreement over Ohio law and citizen rights: ​The Police Stance: Sergeant Kiddey claimed that the citizen call gave him the authority to demand ID, warning the videographers that refusing to comply constituted "obstruction of official business." ​The Citizen Stance: The videographers stood their ground, asserting their First Amendment right to film in public and correctly noting that Ohio is not a "stop and identify" state unless law enforcement possesses Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur. ​When the videographers refused to hand over their identification, officers moved in to make an arrest. During the struggle, one of the men—a military veteran—repeatedly cried out in pain, alerting officers to a pre-existing combat-related shoulder injury and VA disability. Despite his warnings, he and his fellow videographer were forcefully handcuffed and detained. ​The situation took a dramatic turn when a police supervisor, Captain Conger, arrived on the scene. After evaluating the facts, the supervisor recognized that the initial detention and demands for ID lacked proper legal grounds. The handcuffs were removed, and the men were immediately released. ​While the videographers walked away free that day, the incident didn't end on the sidewalk. This case has officially moved into the federal court system, bringing accountability into the spotlight. ​The Federal Lawsuit: In March 2025, a formal civil rights lawsuit—Kelley v. Fremont Police Department, et al. (Case No. 3:25-cv-00508)—was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. ​The Defendants: The suit seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically naming Sgt. Jason P. Kiddey, Officer Lucas A. Villarreal, Captain Ty J. Conger, and Detective Matthew J. Ranazzi for unlawful arrest and First Amendment retaliation. ​Current Status: After the city's legal counsel filed a formal denial of liability, the case entered the litigation track. The court has issued a strict case management schedule, setting the final deadline for fact discovery for June 15, 2026. Both sides are currently undergoing depositions and exchanging internal records, moving this case one step closer to a final resolution in front of a federal judge. We will keep an eye on this one and revisit in the future. Know your rights folks and don't count on the officers in front of you to know them for you or respect those rights.
6:38

Tyrant cop has zero understanding of the law and has no desire learn. Ultimately had to do the walk of shame. ​A routine First Amendment audit outside a United States Post Office in Fremont, Ohio, quickly escalated into a tense constitutional showdown, a forceful arrest, and a major federal civil rights lawsuit. ​It began when two independent videographers were standing on a public sidewalk, filming the exterior of the post office building. After a call was placed to dispatch reporting "suspicious activity," Fremont Police Department officers arrived on the scene and immediately demanded identification. ​What followed was a sharp legal disagreement over Ohio law and citizen rights: ​The Police Stance: Sergeant Kiddey claimed that the citizen call gave him the authority to demand ID, warning the videographers that refusing to comply constituted "obstruction of official business." ​The Citizen Stance: The videographers stood their ground, asserting their First Amendment right to film in public and correctly noting that Ohio is not a "stop and identify" state unless law enforcement possesses Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur. ​When the videographers refused to hand over their identification, officers moved in to make an arrest. During the struggle, one of the men—a military veteran—repeatedly cried out in pain, alerting officers to a pre-existing combat-related shoulder injury and VA disability. Despite his warnings, he and his fellow videographer were forcefully handcuffed and detained. ​The situation took a dramatic turn when a police supervisor, Captain Conger, arrived on the scene. After evaluating the facts, the supervisor recognized that the initial detention and demands for ID lacked proper legal grounds. The handcuffs were removed, and the men were immediately released. ​While the videographers walked away free that day, the incident didn't end on the sidewalk. This case has officially moved into the federal court system, bringing accountability into the spotlight. ​The Federal Lawsuit: In March 2025, a formal civil rights lawsuit—Kelley v. Fremont Police Department, et al. (Case No. 3:25-cv-00508)—was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. ​The Defendants: The suit seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically naming Sgt. Jason P. Kiddey, Officer Lucas A. Villarreal, Captain Ty J. Conger, and Detective Matthew J. Ranazzi for unlawful arrest and First Amendment retaliation. ​Current Status: After the city's legal counsel filed a formal denial of liability, the case entered the litigation track. The court has issued a strict case management schedule, setting the final deadline for fact discovery for June 15, 2026. Both sides are currently undergoing depositions and exchanging internal records, moving this case one step closer to a final resolution in front of a federal judge. We will keep an eye on this one and revisit in the future. Know your rights folks and don't count on the officers in front of you to know them for you or respect those rights.

Giggling Ganon

68,286 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Officer Suspended After Demanding ID from Woman Parked at Business. ​Officer Timothy Leonard of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) approached a woman sitting in her Jeep outside a Hermitage business. ​Officer Leonard demands identification from the driver (Reeba) , He claimed that seeing an unfamiliar vehicle parked in a private lot around 1:00 a.m. constituted "reasonable suspicion" of criminal trespass and insisted department policy required her to identify herself. ​Reeba stood her ground, exercising her Fifth Amendment rights and correctly pointing out that sitting in a parking lot is not a crime. She noted that under Tennessee law, citizens are not obligated to present ID during a Terry stop unless reasonably suspected of or charged with an actual crime. Even after her brother Todd emerged from the building with a key card to prove he worked there as a night courier, Officer Leonard continued to detain her and threatened her with arrest for "resisting a stop." ​After running her information through an internal database search and speaking with a supervisor, Officer Leonard eventually released her. Reeba filed an official complaint with MNPD following the encounter. ​An internal investigation sustained two formal charges against Officer Leonard: Deficient or Inefficient Performance of Duties and Violation of Policy 5.110 (Knowledge of Law). The investigation concluded that mere presence in a parking lot without a complaint does not constitute reasonable suspicion and that passive refusal to provide ID is not a crime under Tennessee law. Officer Leonard was issued a 5-day suspension without pay. The level of ignorance that is so common with these officers over their need to get their hands on someone's ID is sickening. It's like Crack to some of these officers where they have to have it no matter how many rights they trample. Also shame on that supervisor for also not knowing the law, but also not correcting/ condemning the officers abuse of the system to ID the woman just so he could rub in her face that he got the ID despite her efforts. This officer's ego is screaming here and honestly he deserves more than just a suspension in my opinion.
11:57

Officer Suspended After Demanding ID from Woman Parked at Business. ​Officer Timothy Leonard of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD) approached a woman sitting in her Jeep outside a Hermitage business. ​Officer Leonard demands identification from the driver (Reeba) , He claimed that seeing an unfamiliar vehicle parked in a private lot around 1:00 a.m. constituted "reasonable suspicion" of criminal trespass and insisted department policy required her to identify herself. ​Reeba stood her ground, exercising her Fifth Amendment rights and correctly pointing out that sitting in a parking lot is not a crime. She noted that under Tennessee law, citizens are not obligated to present ID during a Terry stop unless reasonably suspected of or charged with an actual crime. Even after her brother Todd emerged from the building with a key card to prove he worked there as a night courier, Officer Leonard continued to detain her and threatened her with arrest for "resisting a stop." ​After running her information through an internal database search and speaking with a supervisor, Officer Leonard eventually released her. Reeba filed an official complaint with MNPD following the encounter. ​An internal investigation sustained two formal charges against Officer Leonard: Deficient or Inefficient Performance of Duties and Violation of Policy 5.110 (Knowledge of Law). The investigation concluded that mere presence in a parking lot without a complaint does not constitute reasonable suspicion and that passive refusal to provide ID is not a crime under Tennessee law. Officer Leonard was issued a 5-day suspension without pay. The level of ignorance that is so common with these officers over their need to get their hands on someone's ID is sickening. It's like Crack to some of these officers where they have to have it no matter how many rights they trample. Also shame on that supervisor for also not knowing the law, but also not correcting/ condemning the officers abuse of the system to ID the woman just so he could rub in her face that he got the ID despite her efforts. This officer's ego is screaming here and honestly he deserves more than just a suspension in my opinion.

Giggling Ganon

59,270 просмотров • 11 дней назад

In a dreadful event a Hindu girl has been missing since 2019 in Pune, Maharashtra. Keep in mind that the girl was in 10th standard back then, only 16 years old! She was returning from her final SSC exams when she was abducted by an 'unidentified person' as stated by her father in a missing person complaint. Years passed and despite the continuous pleading of the girl's family, Police failed in finding the girl, after a while the family discovered that their daughter was abducted by Javed Sheikh. The family in fear of shame did not tell anyone about the abduction but were actively trying to search for the girl, In this quest the girl's brother with the help of his friend discovered that Javed was a resident of their town Manchar, after which they located his house and observed it for weeks. Later, after inquiring the neighbors, they found out there was a new girl that had joined Javed's home recently and that she was a newly added 'family member'. The family figured that their girl had been forcefully married against their will, so they decided to barge into the house on 16 May. They spotted their girl in a Hijab in one of the rooms, the girl was scared of her core!The family's earlier speculation was that the girl is scared of them and their fury of her marrying against their will. But the truth will baffle you. The girl was not scared of her family, she was scared of people, each and every person around her, because she was in trauma, in depression, after the family rescued her she revealed that- After she was abducted by Javed, she was brutally tortured and assaulted by Javed and his family members. She also said that she was raped and kept hostage for months in the apartment. She has been diagnosed with severe depression and, as said earlier, is even scared of everyone around her, including her own family members, due to trauma. She was married forcefully against her will, was raped, forced to go through conversion, marks of cigarettes were all over her body, allegation is also that she was thrown into a racket of prostitution for 6 months! Now tell me, how can a human being do this? What possible hate could they have against Hindus to fall to such a level?
1:13

In a dreadful event a Hindu girl has been missing since 2019 in Pune, Maharashtra. Keep in mind that the girl was in 10th standard back then, only 16 years old! She was returning from her final SSC exams when she was abducted by an 'unidentified person' as stated by her father in a missing person complaint. Years passed and despite the continuous pleading of the girl's family, Police failed in finding the girl, after a while the family discovered that their daughter was abducted by Javed Sheikh. The family in fear of shame did not tell anyone about the abduction but were actively trying to search for the girl, In this quest the girl's brother with the help of his friend discovered that Javed was a resident of their town Manchar, after which they located his house and observed it for weeks. Later, after inquiring the neighbors, they found out there was a new girl that had joined Javed's home recently and that she was a newly added 'family member'. The family figured that their girl had been forcefully married against their will, so they decided to barge into the house on 16 May. They spotted their girl in a Hijab in one of the rooms, the girl was scared of her core!The family's earlier speculation was that the girl is scared of them and their fury of her marrying against their will. But the truth will baffle you. The girl was not scared of her family, she was scared of people, each and every person around her, because she was in trauma, in depression, after the family rescued her she revealed that- After she was abducted by Javed, she was brutally tortured and assaulted by Javed and his family members. She also said that she was raped and kept hostage for months in the apartment. She has been diagnosed with severe depression and, as said earlier, is even scared of everyone around her, including her own family members, due to trauma. She was married forcefully against her will, was raped, forced to go through conversion, marks of cigarettes were all over her body, allegation is also that she was thrown into a racket of prostitution for 6 months! Now tell me, how can a human being do this? What possible hate could they have against Hindus to fall to such a level?

BALA

2,702,773 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Police arrest 73 year old woman with dementia. Get fired, arrested, jail time, and cost the citizens 3 million in a settlement. A 73-year-old woman with dementia tried to walk out of a Loveland, Colorado Walmart with $13.88 in unpaid items. She had offered her credit card to pay, but staff declined and took the items back before calling police. ​As she walked home, Officer Austin Hopp intercepted her. Despite her clear confusion and repeated statements that she was just going home, Hopp over powered the 80-pound woman to get her in custody. Officer Daria Jalali arrived shortly after and assisted in binding her feet and push her into the cruiser. ​At the station, she was handcuffed to a bench and left without medical care for nearly three hours. You could see her her face as well as her inability to comprehend simple questions that were being asked of her that something was not right with the woman. Never once do the officers take even a moment to explore if there was something medically wrong with her. Needless to say, the woman needed some medical care after all of this was over. The most disgusting part was the station cameras later captured the arresting officers laughing and fist-bumping while watching the bodycam footage. In the addition to the actions the officers took, ​Sergeant Philip Metzler initially approved the use of force as necessary and deemed it within policy. Once the federal civil rights lawsuit made the footage public, ALL involved officers resigned as they should have. The City of Loveland settled the lawsuit for $3 million forcing the citizens to pay the bill for these terrible officers. In addition to being unemployed, both Hopp and Jalali went to prison with Hopp getting 5 years and Jalari getting 45 days.
8:30

Police arrest 73 year old woman with dementia. Get fired, arrested, jail time, and cost the citizens 3 million in a settlement. A 73-year-old woman with dementia tried to walk out of a Loveland, Colorado Walmart with $13.88 in unpaid items. She had offered her credit card to pay, but staff declined and took the items back before calling police. ​As she walked home, Officer Austin Hopp intercepted her. Despite her clear confusion and repeated statements that she was just going home, Hopp over powered the 80-pound woman to get her in custody. Officer Daria Jalali arrived shortly after and assisted in binding her feet and push her into the cruiser. ​At the station, she was handcuffed to a bench and left without medical care for nearly three hours. You could see her her face as well as her inability to comprehend simple questions that were being asked of her that something was not right with the woman. Never once do the officers take even a moment to explore if there was something medically wrong with her. Needless to say, the woman needed some medical care after all of this was over. The most disgusting part was the station cameras later captured the arresting officers laughing and fist-bumping while watching the bodycam footage. In the addition to the actions the officers took, ​Sergeant Philip Metzler initially approved the use of force as necessary and deemed it within policy. Once the federal civil rights lawsuit made the footage public, ALL involved officers resigned as they should have. The City of Loveland settled the lawsuit for $3 million forcing the citizens to pay the bill for these terrible officers. In addition to being unemployed, both Hopp and Jalali went to prison with Hopp getting 5 years and Jalari getting 45 days.

Giggling Ganon

206,215 просмотров • 10 дней назад

Administrative assistant for the city believe her feelings trump the rights of the citizens. In this tense encounter, an independent journalist enters city offices to exercise a basic legal right: inspecting the public records index. Under Washington state law (RCW 42.56.070), this document is required to be available for public inspection. It’s not a favor; it’s the law. ​Enter Sabrina Costik, an administrative assistant who claims to be "brand new" but is already attempting to rewrite the Constitution based on her personal feelings. ​The exchange highlights a growing and dangerous trend in public service—the idea that personal "traumas and triggers" override the civil rights of the public. Throughout the video, Sabrina argues that: ​Her "comfort level" should dictate where a citizen stands. ​Her "liberties" are being violated by a camera in a government building. ​Recording her is "incredibly rude," effectively prioritizing social etiquette over the First Amendment. ​The situation required the intervention of Deputy Chief Matt McKnight of the Chehalis Police Department. In a masterclass of de-escalation and legal clarity, McKnight had to explain the hard truth to his own staff: when you are a public servant in a public building, you do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" while performing your duties. ​McKnight—who is currently campaigning for Lewis County Sheriff—remained professional, but the core issue remains: Why are public employees being put behind counters without a fundamental understanding of the Bill of Rights? As far as McKnight, he is running for sheriff in 2026 and his understanding and respect for the rights of the citizens is everything you would want in county sheriff. That said, as far as Sabrina, ​when "I’m uncomfortable" becomes a tool to suppress transparency, the public loses.
4:15

Administrative assistant for the city believe her feelings trump the rights of the citizens. In this tense encounter, an independent journalist enters city offices to exercise a basic legal right: inspecting the public records index. Under Washington state law (RCW 42.56.070), this document is required to be available for public inspection. It’s not a favor; it’s the law. ​Enter Sabrina Costik, an administrative assistant who claims to be "brand new" but is already attempting to rewrite the Constitution based on her personal feelings. ​The exchange highlights a growing and dangerous trend in public service—the idea that personal "traumas and triggers" override the civil rights of the public. Throughout the video, Sabrina argues that: ​Her "comfort level" should dictate where a citizen stands. ​Her "liberties" are being violated by a camera in a government building. ​Recording her is "incredibly rude," effectively prioritizing social etiquette over the First Amendment. ​The situation required the intervention of Deputy Chief Matt McKnight of the Chehalis Police Department. In a masterclass of de-escalation and legal clarity, McKnight had to explain the hard truth to his own staff: when you are a public servant in a public building, you do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" while performing your duties. ​McKnight—who is currently campaigning for Lewis County Sheriff—remained professional, but the core issue remains: Why are public employees being put behind counters without a fundamental understanding of the Bill of Rights? As far as McKnight, he is running for sheriff in 2026 and his understanding and respect for the rights of the citizens is everything you would want in county sheriff. That said, as far as Sabrina, ​when "I’m uncomfortable" becomes a tool to suppress transparency, the public loses.

Giggling Ganon

947,416 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад