Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

It's amazing how a cop could be so wrong, but still try to double down. This officer pulled this guy over claiming he could not see his plate. The driver confused about why, goes out there to look. Listen to what the officer says. But then has the nerve... show more

Chuckling Charlie

28,874 subscribers

95,405 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Comedy Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Watch this officer get caught up. This guy gets pulled over and little did the officer know, he has a dash cam. The officer claimed he pulled him over for running a red light. However things change quick once he finds out there was a cam that recorded everything. If you don't have a dash cam, you need to get one. You will be happy you have one when the time comes you need it.

Watch this officer get caught up. This guy gets pulled over and little did the officer know, he has a dash cam. The officer claimed he pulled him over for running a red light. However things change quick once he finds out there was a cam that recorded everything. If you don't have a dash cam, you need to get one. You will be happy you have one when the time comes you need it.

Chuckling Charlie

343,862 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

This guy gets this officer caught out. Dude backed down real quick. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you don't have a dash cam I highly suggest investing in one. You never know when you will need it, but I promise you that day comes you will be very happy that you made that investment to get one.

This guy gets this officer caught out. Dude backed down real quick. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you don't have a dash cam I highly suggest investing in one. You never know when you will need it, but I promise you that day comes you will be very happy that you made that investment to get one.

Giggling Ganon

25,587 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

A Portland police officer threatens a ICE thug with arrest if he continues to try to drive through a crowd of protesters and police! Listen to what the thug says to him about not caring and then how there aren’t to many protesters so it won’t be messy! 🤬

A Portland police officer threatens a ICE thug with arrest if he continues to try to drive through a crowd of protesters and police! Listen to what the thug says to him about not caring and then how there aren’t to many protesters so it won’t be messy! 🤬

Suzie rizzio

802,512 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Stephen A. Smith says he will never be married because he couldn't be faithful and didn't know how to act Host: "If you know so much about marriage then why have you never been married?" Stephen: "Because I didn't know how to act" Host: "is it your fault?" Stephen: "Totally my fault and It's not anybody's fault but mine...I was on the road over 200 days out of the year. I'm not going to be faithful being on the road 200 days out of the year" "This is the part that men don't reveal that much but I will do it is that when you get older you don't need it anymore so you don't chase. That's entirely different from when it's handed to you on a silver platter. It doesn't mean you can't say no. It means it's harder"

Stephen A. Smith says he will never be married because he couldn't be faithful and didn't know how to act Host: "If you know so much about marriage then why have you never been married?" Stephen: "Because I didn't know how to act" Host: "is it your fault?" Stephen: "Totally my fault and It's not anybody's fault but mine...I was on the road over 200 days out of the year. I'm not going to be faithful being on the road 200 days out of the year" "This is the part that men don't reveal that much but I will do it is that when you get older you don't need it anymore so you don't chase. That's entirely different from when it's handed to you on a silver platter. It doesn't mean you can't say no. It means it's harder"

CreativeDude

847,913 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

He Got Pulled Over With Multiple Guns In The Car… Watch What Happens A young guy gets pulled over with three guns in the car. A rifle in the passenger seat. A handgun on him. A second handgun down by his legs. And the traffic stop still goes exactly how it should. The officer sees the rifle, stays calm, gives clear instructions, and tells him what he’s about to do before he does it. The driver announces what he’s reaching for, tells the officer he’s a concealed carrier, and answers clearly when asked where the other gun is. Two strangers. Three guns. No escalation. That is not luck. That is what happens when both sides understand the stakes and decide this does not have to become the other kind of video. In this video, I break down what this stop shows about armed citizens, police, disclosure, mutual respect, Philando Castile, and how I personally handle traffic stops when I’m carrying. Know your rights. Defend your rights. But be smart enough not to turn a disagreement into a war.

He Got Pulled Over With Multiple Guns In The Car… Watch What Happens A young guy gets pulled over with three guns in the car. A rifle in the passenger seat. A handgun on him. A second handgun down by his legs. And the traffic stop still goes exactly how it should. The officer sees the rifle, stays calm, gives clear instructions, and tells him what he’s about to do before he does it. The driver announces what he’s reaching for, tells the officer he’s a concealed carrier, and answers clearly when asked where the other gun is. Two strangers. Three guns. No escalation. That is not luck. That is what happens when both sides understand the stakes and decide this does not have to become the other kind of video. In this video, I break down what this stop shows about armed citizens, police, disclosure, mutual respect, Philando Castile, and how I personally handle traffic stops when I’m carrying. Know your rights. Defend your rights. But be smart enough not to turn a disagreement into a war.

Colion Noir

45,528 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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

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

Giggling Gannon

730,156 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Cop pulls family a 1.5 month old baby out of their car at gunpoint because he mistyped their plate in the computer. A vehicle, carrying a driver, his girlfriend, and their 1.5-month-old infant, was flagged as stolen out of Little Rock. Officers ordered the driver out with his hands up and immediately placed him in handcuffs and into his car. As backup arrived guns were drawn as they ordered his wife out of the car as well at gunpoint. The issue? The vehicle wasn’t stolen at all. The driver’s plate read APX 55X while the plate stolen ended in a Y. This was discovered when the backup officer took it upon himself to call in the plate to double check it. The officer that conducted the stop did zero investigation and could not even take a min to double check the plate before pulling people out with his firearm drawn. The same officer had the nerve to blame the high-stress stop on modern Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR / Flock) camera technology, claiming the automated reader misread the final letter due to scanning angles. However, records and dispatch logs raise critical questions about standard operating procedure: why wasn't the tag visually verified and double-checked against dispatch before drawing weapons and detaining an innocent family? Also there is no mention on the logs of a Flock camera getting a hit and dispatch alerting this officer. This was him making that mistake and now passing the blame on the camera/ AI. If this guy is going to have this level of integrity over something like this, what else has he lied about over the years?

Cop pulls family a 1.5 month old baby out of their car at gunpoint because he mistyped their plate in the computer. A vehicle, carrying a driver, his girlfriend, and their 1.5-month-old infant, was flagged as stolen out of Little Rock. Officers ordered the driver out with his hands up and immediately placed him in handcuffs and into his car. As backup arrived guns were drawn as they ordered his wife out of the car as well at gunpoint. The issue? The vehicle wasn’t stolen at all. The driver’s plate read APX 55X while the plate stolen ended in a Y. This was discovered when the backup officer took it upon himself to call in the plate to double check it. The officer that conducted the stop did zero investigation and could not even take a min to double check the plate before pulling people out with his firearm drawn. The same officer had the nerve to blame the high-stress stop on modern Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR / Flock) camera technology, claiming the automated reader misread the final letter due to scanning angles. However, records and dispatch logs raise critical questions about standard operating procedure: why wasn't the tag visually verified and double-checked against dispatch before drawing weapons and detaining an innocent family? Also there is no mention on the logs of a Flock camera getting a hit and dispatch alerting this officer. This was him making that mistake and now passing the blame on the camera/ AI. If this guy is going to have this level of integrity over something like this, what else has he lied about over the years?

Giggling Gannon

339,707 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨How many times has he pulled these bs stops and the drivers plead down or just paid the ticket to avoid the hassle of going to court? I'd be going down to his police department and showing that dash cam video to everybody who would look at it. ❓Do you have a dash cam?

🚨How many times has he pulled these bs stops and the drivers plead down or just paid the ticket to avoid the hassle of going to court? I'd be going down to his police department and showing that dash cam video to everybody who would look at it. ❓Do you have a dash cam?

👮‍♂️🚒 Tales of Badge & Blaze™

240,732 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

This man got pulled over for a traffic stop in another state while driving home. The officer asked him for his information, the man gave it to him. The officer came back, gave him the ticket, told him where to appear if he wanted to contest and pointed out where he could mail in the fee for the ticket since he didn’t live nearby. The man said okay. The officer asked if he had any questions, the man said no, the officer said be safe and that was that. So many people said that is a normal interaction with police officers. All the other stuff is someone seeking attention. 💯 It should be this easy every time. Kudos to both those men. 👏 When you do what you are asked to do, there is never a problem, imho. Is this how your traffic stops have went? (Mine did) Why can’t they all be like this for everyone?

This man got pulled over for a traffic stop in another state while driving home. The officer asked him for his information, the man gave it to him. The officer came back, gave him the ticket, told him where to appear if he wanted to contest and pointed out where he could mail in the fee for the ticket since he didn’t live nearby. The man said okay. The officer asked if he had any questions, the man said no, the officer said be safe and that was that. So many people said that is a normal interaction with police officers. All the other stuff is someone seeking attention. 💯 It should be this easy every time. Kudos to both those men. 👏 When you do what you are asked to do, there is never a problem, imho. Is this how your traffic stops have went? (Mine did) Why can’t they all be like this for everyone?

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

77,679 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

An off duty officer decided he wanted to play cop and perform traffic duty while once again not on duty. Looks to me like he let his own road rage get the best of him leading to what he did to this man. This is why I keep saying, make sure you have a dash cam. How would this have gone without one?

An off duty officer decided he wanted to play cop and perform traffic duty while once again not on duty. Looks to me like he let his own road rage get the best of him leading to what he did to this man. This is why I keep saying, make sure you have a dash cam. How would this have gone without one?

Chuckling Charlie

20,089 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

If people actually took the time to listen to this woman and understand her, maybe the world could be a better place. But of course, some will still try to argue with facts. They won’t get anywhere, but they’ll still most certainly try.

If people actually took the time to listen to this woman and understand her, maybe the world could be a better place. But of course, some will still try to argue with facts. They won’t get anywhere, but they’ll still most certainly try.

Blondenotblind

11,348 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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.

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

194,555 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This is exactly why body cameras matter… and why objective reality still wins. A woman steals from a store. An officer tells her to come to him. She bolts. Runs out the door. Sprints down the sidewalk. Turns around to look back at the officer… …and smashes face-first into a bright, shiny metal pole she never saw coming. Teeth gone. Immediate injury. Then comes the lie. She claims the officer did it. Here’s the hard truth… if that body cam wasn’t rolling, that officer’s life would be upside down right now. Lawsuit. Suspension. Media narrative. Career damage. All based on a false accusation. But cameras don’t have emotions. They don’t negotiate reality. They don’t bend for grievance. They record what actually happened. This is why facts matter. This is why footage matters. This is why accountability cuts both ways. You don’t get to rewrite physics. You don’t get to outrun consequences. And you don’t get to lie your way out when the truth is on video. Objective reality always shows up… even when people try to run from it. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

This is exactly why body cameras matter… and why objective reality still wins. A woman steals from a store. An officer tells her to come to him. She bolts. Runs out the door. Sprints down the sidewalk. Turns around to look back at the officer… …and smashes face-first into a bright, shiny metal pole she never saw coming. Teeth gone. Immediate injury. Then comes the lie. She claims the officer did it. Here’s the hard truth… if that body cam wasn’t rolling, that officer’s life would be upside down right now. Lawsuit. Suspension. Media narrative. Career damage. All based on a false accusation. But cameras don’t have emotions. They don’t negotiate reality. They don’t bend for grievance. They record what actually happened. This is why facts matter. This is why footage matters. This is why accountability cuts both ways. You don’t get to rewrite physics. You don’t get to outrun consequences. And you don’t get to lie your way out when the truth is on video. Objective reality always shows up… even when people try to run from it. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

A Gene Robinson

1,486,922 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

The reason that this extra diverse doctor lawyer equal does not respond as normal to simple explanations has to do with theory of mind. The police officer explains six times that she caused an accident and now has to provide her insurance. The diverse equal knows that she caused the accident. She remembers it from mere moments ago. However, the police officer was not there during the accident. She did not see him there. Therefore, according to diversity mathematics, the police officer could not possibly know that there was an accident at all. How could he? He did not see it. Or rather, she did not see him seeing it. "If I did not see the police officer looking at me as I caused an accident, then he does not know that I caused an accident. I know this because I am unable to know anything that I did not personally witness, and so that is how everybody's mind works." In the vibrant mind of the diversity, everything that does not happen in front of a person's eyes is a confusing mess that is impossible to understand. There simply is no way to ascertain that something happened if you did not see it before your eyes. That is why this extra diverse value contributor believes that the police officer is similarly confused. "It should be easy to get away with lying about this accident," she calculated, diversely. "He ain't see nothin.'" That is why, when he insists that the accident did in fact occur, she has no choice but to perceive this as racism. How could it not be? Every other diverse equal that she has ever lied to in a similar fashion has been easily confused, and let her go after committing similar crimes. So in the mind of the diversity, "black people always let me go when I lie, but white people never do, so white people must just be evil racists." We are truly enriched by the genius of these builders of civilization

The reason that this extra diverse doctor lawyer equal does not respond as normal to simple explanations has to do with theory of mind. The police officer explains six times that she caused an accident and now has to provide her insurance. The diverse equal knows that she caused the accident. She remembers it from mere moments ago. However, the police officer was not there during the accident. She did not see him there. Therefore, according to diversity mathematics, the police officer could not possibly know that there was an accident at all. How could he? He did not see it. Or rather, she did not see him seeing it. "If I did not see the police officer looking at me as I caused an accident, then he does not know that I caused an accident. I know this because I am unable to know anything that I did not personally witness, and so that is how everybody's mind works." In the vibrant mind of the diversity, everything that does not happen in front of a person's eyes is a confusing mess that is impossible to understand. There simply is no way to ascertain that something happened if you did not see it before your eyes. That is why this extra diverse value contributor believes that the police officer is similarly confused. "It should be easy to get away with lying about this accident," she calculated, diversely. "He ain't see nothin.'" That is why, when he insists that the accident did in fact occur, she has no choice but to perceive this as racism. How could it not be? Every other diverse equal that she has ever lied to in a similar fashion has been easily confused, and let her go after committing similar crimes. So in the mind of the diversity, "black people always let me go when I lie, but white people never do, so white people must just be evil racists." We are truly enriched by the genius of these builders of civilization

hoe_math = PsychoMath

233,087 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

🚨Cop has to STOP his partner from groping woman's vagina during a traffic stop "He's training. He's a new officer. With male officer's, it's supposed to be the back of the hand" All this because the officer said he "smelled Marijuana."

🚨Cop has to STOP his partner from groping woman's vagina during a traffic stop "He's training. He's a new officer. With male officer's, it's supposed to be the back of the hand" All this because the officer said he "smelled Marijuana."

Police The Police 2.0

75,787 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Here’s what’s going to be really interesting about Tom Aspinall signing with Eddie Hearn: There are times when the UFC calls up fighters and says, 'We’re not talking to your manager. If you want this fight, if you want this deal, you’re going to have to talk to us.' So the UFC could just say, 'We’re not talking to you.' Then Tom could say, 'Well, if you’re not talking to him, you’re not talking to me.' There’s going to be a game of chicken here. Tom’s not a free agent. He’s the champion. We all know how long it takes to get out of a contract. So this is going to be a fascinating story to follow.

Here’s what’s going to be really interesting about Tom Aspinall signing with Eddie Hearn: There are times when the UFC calls up fighters and says, 'We’re not talking to your manager. If you want this fight, if you want this deal, you’re going to have to talk to us.' So the UFC could just say, 'We’re not talking to you.' Then Tom could say, 'Well, if you’re not talking to him, you’re not talking to me.' There’s going to be a game of chicken here. Tom’s not a free agent. He’s the champion. We all know how long it takes to get out of a contract. So this is going to be a fascinating story to follow.

Ariel Helwani

261,615 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten