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.

Officer and his sergeant get owned by a 19 year old law student from beginning to end. This video is a glaring example of how under educated the average officer is on the laws. 3 to 6 months of training is not enough. Officers from the New Mexico State... University Police Department responded alongside campus security to an uncorroborated, anonymous tip claiming a student carried a case of beer into his dorm. Instead of conducting an actual investigation to establish independent Reasonable Suspicion, Officer Pirtle knocked on the door and demanded entry, answers, and identification under the guise of an underage drinking inquiry. When student Joel Martinez stepped out, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, denied consent to search his private room, and refused to hand over his ID. All within his rights. Right off the bat, Joel reminded Officer Pirtle that New Mexico abolished qualified immunity under state civil rights law, warning them to tread carefully before escalating. When Sergeant John Lovelace arrived, he pulled out his smartphone to look up New Mexico’s "concealing identity" statute (NMSA § 30-22-3) while Joel watched, pointing out that an officer should already know the statute they are threatening to enforce. Under New Mexico precedent (State v. Aguilar), concealing identity is a secondary charge. Officers cannot lawfully compel identification under threat of arrest unless they already possess independent Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) of an underlying crime. Recognizing that officers often try to mask unlawful coercion as "voluntary cooperation," Joel demanded a clear command. He forced Sergeant Lovelace on camera to state: "Show us your ID or you will be arrested." By complying strictly under duress and the explicit threat of jail, Joel locked down proof that the seizure of his identification was compelled. Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous report alone—without independent corroboration or predictive details—does not provide lawful Reasonable Suspicion to detain or search. Realizing they had zero legal ground to freeze the dorm room, no consent to search, and insufficient evidence to obtain a warrant from a judge, the officers took down Joel's details solely for an incident report and cleared the scene. Knowing your constitutional rights isn't obstruction—it's the only line of defense against unlawful police overreach.show more

Giggling Gannon

274,605 subscribers

26,313 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

26 Kommentare

Profilbild von 💚🍀Bobby's Bong🍀💚

💚🍀Bobby's Bong🍀💚vor 1 Monat

cops are low IQ because they only hire people who follow orders they do not want independent thinkers who think for themselves

Profilbild von John Clark

John Clarkvor 1 Monat

That's what entrapment feels like but they're too dumb to realize that

Profilbild von Gianna 🇺🇸 IRS Free Since 1999

Gianna 🇺🇸 IRS Free Since 1999vor 1 Monat

I wish he would have called the cop's bluff. They were not going to arrest him for not IDing.

Profilbild von Ryan Cebrosky

Ryan Cebroskyvor 1 Monat

Under constitutional search n seizure protections (n state case law), an anonymous tip must be corroborated by independent police observation or contain predictive details indicating illegal activity b4 it justifies a forcible stop. bare assertion from unknown caller is a hunch

Profilbild von Steve

Stevevor 1 Monat

Dumbass Sgt said he wasn’t going to bother trying to get a warrant because it wasn’t worth the effort. What he failed to say was he knew there was a snowball’s chance in hell of him getting a warrant based on an anonymous 911 call unless the judge is corrupt.

Profilbild von Blessed Tribal Caucasian

Blessed Tribal Caucasianvor 1 Monat

"We got a call," or an "anonymous complaint" is not a valid sworn complaint that the PiGs can act on.

Profilbild von The Prairie Observer

The Prairie Observervor 1 Monat

Once again, a ‘call for service’ does NOT create Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a CRIME. It’s hearsay evidence. Unreliable. Unproven. Cops hope you’re dumb enough to fall for their stupid, incomplete, thought processes. Cops are just lazy, stupid, fucks.

Profilbild von JD

JDvor 1 Monat

@EricaRN4USA All this for a college kid drinking beer🤦🏼‍♂️ go do some real police work you faqqots.

Profilbild von Jody Stucco

Jody Stuccovor 1 Monat

You know cops were serious before when they had to remember the Miranda rights by heart. Nowadays they don’t do that. Where I’m from (Hawaii) officers had to memorize the Miranda rights by heart in order to be put on patrol.

Profilbild von Wally Cox

Wally Coxvor 1 Monat

He’s not a “law student” if he’s only 19. Pre-law, maybe.

Profilbild von Richard

Richardvor 1 Monat

This is a perfect example of how they clearly violated this man's rights. All they have is hearsay, somebody said that's hearsay, that is a clear violation of the law. They did no investigation. They seized his identification under a threat of arrests. That is a clear violation

Profilbild von RIP_SunsetDreamsWV

RIP_SunsetDreamsWVvor 1 Monat

Kick rocks officer

Profilbild von “Codeman”

“Codeman”vor 1 Monat

By saying “could” he is being very uncooperative

Profilbild von MD

MDvor 1 Monat

I like how the bitches who snitched are hiding in the next room !!! Own that shit dumb hoes!!

Profilbild von Joel Anderson

Joel Andersonvor 1 Monat

Kid walked back in his room and popped a beer with a big grin on his face.

Profilbild von Equity Justice

Equity Justicevor 1 Monat

Wow 😲 look at all the crimes these popo are solvitout there. Excellent use of tax payer money 🤑💰.

Profilbild von TEXAS HORNDAWG

TEXAS HORNDAWGvor 1 Monat

100 grand in babies my ass.

Profilbild von Spray

Sprayvor 1 Monat

Wow arrested for concealing identity that's a new one I don't believe I've ever heard that one yet

Profilbild von Anthony Kessler | Moderate 🇺🇸

Anthony Kessler | Moderate 🇺🇸vor 1 Monat

@grok what was the outcome? Did he sue?

Profilbild von stacks

stacksvor 1 Monat

@grok is this a lawsuit that the 19 year old is claiming

Profilbild von jason

jasonvor 1 Monat

@grok what happened in this case? Did Joel Martinez file a lawsuit and was he awarded anything monetary?

Profilbild von Freddy

Freddyvor 1 Monat

Pigs always taste better after the slaughterhouse

Profilbild von Wally Cox

Wally Coxvor 1 Monat

I thought he was pre-med

Profilbild von ⚠️🐺OVERLORD MMM🔥🐉

⚠️🐺OVERLORD MMM🔥🐉vor 1 Monat

No one said “case of beer” 🧐

Profilbild von She Nanigans

She Nanigansvor 1 Monat

Busted. They never sd case of beer they sd alcohol lol

Profilbild von Unbiased American 🇺🇸 Ŧ Ŧ

Unbiased American 🇺🇸 Ŧ Ŧvor 1 Monat

How does a sergeant not know that you can’t have probably cause just bc some rando said “I saw him do this”

Ähnliche Videos

Officer Karen goes tyrant mode demanding ID like it's Crack from some workers. A group of contract field workers were simply doing their jobs, moving between scheduled appointments at a local property complex, when a female police officer decided to intervene. Her reasoning? She claimed the group looked "suspicious" going in and out of the buildings, and pointed out that one worker wasn't visibly wearing an employee ID badge around her neck. Instead of backing down under the threat of arrest, the man (Jeffrey) stood his ground. He repeatedly offered alternative solutions, including showing digital employee credentials on his phone and providing his supervisor's direct contact number. When the officer refused those alternatives and continued to demand his physical ID under threat of taking him to jail, Jeffrey laid down the legal facts: Unless an officer has Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that an individual has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, you are not legally required to identify yourself or hand over physical ID simply because an officer asks. Walking between work appointments without a lanyard badge isn't a crime, and vague claims of "looking suspicious" don't meet the legal threshold for forced identification under Fourth Amendment precedent. Despite the officer shutting down conversation and insisting he was in the wrong, Jeffrey held firm and requested a police supervisor. Once the supervisor arrived on scene and evaluated the situation, the narrative completely flipped. The supervisor confirmed that no crime had been committed and acknowledged that Jeffrey was entirely within his rights to withhold his identification. The incident ended with zero citations, zero arrests, and a textbook lesson in constitutional rights. Know the law in your state—it makes all the difference when authority gets unchecked.

Officer Karen goes tyrant mode demanding ID like it's Crack from some workers. A group of contract field workers were simply doing their jobs, moving between scheduled appointments at a local property complex, when a female police officer decided to intervene. Her reasoning? She claimed the group looked "suspicious" going in and out of the buildings, and pointed out that one worker wasn't visibly wearing an employee ID badge around her neck. Instead of backing down under the threat of arrest, the man (Jeffrey) stood his ground. He repeatedly offered alternative solutions, including showing digital employee credentials on his phone and providing his supervisor's direct contact number. When the officer refused those alternatives and continued to demand his physical ID under threat of taking him to jail, Jeffrey laid down the legal facts: Unless an officer has Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that an individual has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, you are not legally required to identify yourself or hand over physical ID simply because an officer asks. Walking between work appointments without a lanyard badge isn't a crime, and vague claims of "looking suspicious" don't meet the legal threshold for forced identification under Fourth Amendment precedent. Despite the officer shutting down conversation and insisting he was in the wrong, Jeffrey held firm and requested a police supervisor. Once the supervisor arrived on scene and evaluated the situation, the narrative completely flipped. The supervisor confirmed that no crime had been committed and acknowledged that Jeffrey was entirely within his rights to withhold his identification. The incident ended with zero citations, zero arrests, and a textbook lesson in constitutional rights. Know the law in your state—it makes all the difference when authority gets unchecked.

Giggling Ganon

37,347 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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.

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 Gannon

110,729 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Guy has his ADA rights violated over his service dog. Puts on a clinic exercising his rights. Brandon Hopkins and his service dog, Jack Jack, attempted to address a newly announced venue policy. Fairgrounds management had instituted a rule restricting service animals strictly to designated camping and trailer areas. Under Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), service animals must be permitted to accompany individuals with disabilities into all areas of a facility where the general public is allowed to go. Blanket-relegating service dogs to campsites is a direct breach of federal law. When Brandon approached regional chairperson Ms. Crowder at the fairgrounds office to seek clarification on this non-compliant policy, she refused to engage in a constructive dialogue, slammed the door, and demanded he be removed from the grounds. Enter Officer James Wyss (Badge #109) of the Berrien Springs-Oronoko Township Police Department. Despite Brandon remaining calm, identifying himself verbally as Brandon Hopkins, and explaining the situation, Officer Wyss repeatedly demanded physical identification under threat of arrest for criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. When Brandon peacefully exercised his Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections—refusing to hand over physical ID during an encounter where no reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime existed—Officer Wyss escalated the pressure. Even as Brandon complied with the directive to leave the property and walked toward his vehicle, Officer Wyss followed him through the parking lot. The officer then attempted to justify his continued demands for ID by claiming Brandon might match someone with pending warrants from "St. Joe Police," suggesting that failing to clear up the suspicion could constitute "obstruction of justice." Under Michigan law and long-standing constitutional precedent: Pedestrians are not required to hand over physical photo ID on demand without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) of a crime. Questioning an ADA-violating venue policy is First Amendment protected activity. Asserting your rights and declining to present ID during a non-criminal encounter does not constitute physical obstruction. Brandon maintained his composure throughout the extended exchange, stood firm on his constitutional rights, and ultimately departed the premises without arrest or citation. Know your rights because unfortunately officers like this and worse are out there. It's a small number of bad apples that unfortunately spoil the whole lost by their actions.

Guy has his ADA rights violated over his service dog. Puts on a clinic exercising his rights. Brandon Hopkins and his service dog, Jack Jack, attempted to address a newly announced venue policy. Fairgrounds management had instituted a rule restricting service animals strictly to designated camping and trailer areas. Under Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), service animals must be permitted to accompany individuals with disabilities into all areas of a facility where the general public is allowed to go. Blanket-relegating service dogs to campsites is a direct breach of federal law. When Brandon approached regional chairperson Ms. Crowder at the fairgrounds office to seek clarification on this non-compliant policy, she refused to engage in a constructive dialogue, slammed the door, and demanded he be removed from the grounds. Enter Officer James Wyss (Badge #109) of the Berrien Springs-Oronoko Township Police Department. Despite Brandon remaining calm, identifying himself verbally as Brandon Hopkins, and explaining the situation, Officer Wyss repeatedly demanded physical identification under threat of arrest for criminal trespass and disorderly conduct. When Brandon peacefully exercised his Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections—refusing to hand over physical ID during an encounter where no reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime existed—Officer Wyss escalated the pressure. Even as Brandon complied with the directive to leave the property and walked toward his vehicle, Officer Wyss followed him through the parking lot. The officer then attempted to justify his continued demands for ID by claiming Brandon might match someone with pending warrants from "St. Joe Police," suggesting that failing to clear up the suspicion could constitute "obstruction of justice." Under Michigan law and long-standing constitutional precedent: Pedestrians are not required to hand over physical photo ID on demand without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) of a crime. Questioning an ADA-violating venue policy is First Amendment protected activity. Asserting your rights and declining to present ID during a non-criminal encounter does not constitute physical obstruction. Brandon maintained his composure throughout the extended exchange, stood firm on his constitutional rights, and ultimately departed the premises without arrest or citation. Know your rights because unfortunately officers like this and worse are out there. It's a small number of bad apples that unfortunately spoil the whole lost by their actions.

Giggling Ganon

93,610 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

$Officer gets upset at man that knows his rights so he packs up his toys and goes to sit in his squad car until another officer gets him to come out and finish the traffic stop. The driver, identified as Mr. Brewer, is pulled over for a standard nighttime headlight violation. He complies fully with the initial lawful demands—handing over his driver's license and proof of insurance. But once the officer has the necessary paperwork to write a fix-it ticket or a standard citation, the questions start drifting into unlawful territory. After processing the license, the officer asks Mr. Brewer for his phone number, followed by a request for his Social Security number. Mr. Brewer correctly draws the line here. While law enforcement can ask for voluntary information, they cannot legally compel a driver to hand over a Social Security number or phone number during a routine traffic infraction. Mr. Brewer stands his ground, stating clearly: "I've given you everything I'm legally required to give you." The core battle of this stop happens when a backup officer arrives on scene. The original officer had demanded identification from Mr. Brewer’s wife, who was sitting quietly in the passenger seat. The second officer attempts to back his partner up by claiming that because Alabama is a "Stop and Identify" state, they have the right to demand her ID. This is a massive and common misconception among law enforcement, and Mr. Brewer shuts it down perfectly: The reason for the stop is a headlights violation. The scope of the officer's traffic investigation stops at the driver. Under Fourth Amendment precedent, a passenger in a vehicle is not the operator and cannot be forced to identify themselves unless officers have reasonable, articulable suspicion that the passenger specifically has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Simply riding in a car with a headlight violation does not strip you of your right to privacy. Knowing that Mr. Brewer knows the law, is well-aware that refusing to sign a ticket can result in an arrest, but that signing it means the stop is legally concluded, the officers realize they have zero leverage. With the citation signed and no legal grounds to prolong the detention or force the passenger to comply, the officers back down and send them on their way. Knowing your rights isn't about being difficult—it's about keeping the system accountable.$

Officer gets upset at man that knows his rights so he packs up his toys and goes to sit in his squad car until another officer gets him to come out and finish the traffic stop. The driver, identified as Mr. Brewer, is pulled over for a standard nighttime headlight violation. He complies fully with the initial lawful demands—handing over his driver's license and proof of insurance. But once the officer has the necessary paperwork to write a fix-it ticket or a standard citation, the questions start drifting into unlawful territory. After processing the license, the officer asks Mr. Brewer for his phone number, followed by a request for his Social Security number. Mr. Brewer correctly draws the line here. While law enforcement can ask for voluntary information, they cannot legally compel a driver to hand over a Social Security number or phone number during a routine traffic infraction. Mr. Brewer stands his ground, stating clearly: "I've given you everything I'm legally required to give you." The core battle of this stop happens when a backup officer arrives on scene. The original officer had demanded identification from Mr. Brewer’s wife, who was sitting quietly in the passenger seat. The second officer attempts to back his partner up by claiming that because Alabama is a "Stop and Identify" state, they have the right to demand her ID. This is a massive and common misconception among law enforcement, and Mr. Brewer shuts it down perfectly: The reason for the stop is a headlights violation. The scope of the officer's traffic investigation stops at the driver. Under Fourth Amendment precedent, a passenger in a vehicle is not the operator and cannot be forced to identify themselves unless officers have reasonable, articulable suspicion that the passenger specifically has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Simply riding in a car with a headlight violation does not strip you of your right to privacy. Knowing that Mr. Brewer knows the law, is well-aware that refusing to sign a ticket can result in an arrest, but that signing it means the stop is legally concluded, the officers realize they have zero leverage. With the citation signed and no legal grounds to prolong the detention or force the passenger to comply, the officers back down and send them on their way. Knowing your rights isn't about being difficult—it's about keeping the system accountable.

Giggling Ganon

39,430 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Officer arrests passanger for not providing ID. Then lies to cover up his error. We are in Miami Dade and the officer involved is identified as D. Echeverria. He initiated the encounter by demanding identification from the passenger, despite the passenger's clear assertion that they were not the driver and had committed no crime. Under established legal standards, passengers generally have no obligation to provide identification during a routine traffic stop unless the officer possesses reasonable, articulable suspicion that the passenger is actively involved in criminal activity. The officer’s insistence on obtaining the passenger's ID, despite the lack of evidence linking them to a crime, illustrates a disregard for the passenger's rights against unreasonable detention and questioning. After the officer consulted with his partner, he knew he messed up which is why he cooked up the excuse of mixing up vehicles. This interaction serves as a stark reminder of the importance of knowing one's rights when facing law enforcement, as the demand for ID—even when legally unjustified—is a common maneuver to intimidate or control individuals in public spaces.

Officer arrests passanger for not providing ID. Then lies to cover up his error. We are in Miami Dade and the officer involved is identified as D. Echeverria. He initiated the encounter by demanding identification from the passenger, despite the passenger's clear assertion that they were not the driver and had committed no crime. Under established legal standards, passengers generally have no obligation to provide identification during a routine traffic stop unless the officer possesses reasonable, articulable suspicion that the passenger is actively involved in criminal activity. The officer’s insistence on obtaining the passenger's ID, despite the lack of evidence linking them to a crime, illustrates a disregard for the passenger's rights against unreasonable detention and questioning. After the officer consulted with his partner, he knew he messed up which is why he cooked up the excuse of mixing up vehicles. This interaction serves as a stark reminder of the importance of knowing one's rights when facing law enforcement, as the demand for ID—even when legally unjustified—is a common maneuver to intimidate or control individuals in public spaces.

Giggling Gannon

1,642,279 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

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

Giggling Gannon

67,133 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Tyrant deputies harass a man that is trying to legally open carry. He unloads on them for violating his rights as they all take the walk of shame. In Brevard County, Florida, Michael Taylor went out for a lawful walk to a fishing spot less than a mile away exercising his rights 2A style, carrying a crab net, bait bag, and an openly holstered .22 caliber sidearm. Under Florida Statute § 790.25(3)(h), openly carrying a firearm is explicitly legal when engaged in, or traveling directly to or from, fishing, hunting, or camping. Instead of recognizing a clear statutory exemption, Brevard County deputies demonstrated an alarming display of legal incompetence: Deputies swarmed him based purely on 911 calls reporting a man with a gun. Under Florida’s Stop and Frisk law (F.S. § 901.151), detention requires reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.Simply exercising a codified right is not a crime. When Taylor lawfully refused to provide ID, deputies escalated, wrongly insisting he had an affirmative duty to prove his innocence on the sidewalk before being allowed to walk away. Under the guise of officer safety, deputies seized his firearm and rifled through his personal gear, completely ignoring Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Deputies tried to justify their stop by demanding to inspect his Florida recreational fishing license under F.S. § 379.354, completely blind to the fact that their local authority doesn't override the lack of criminal predicate as well as none of them have the authority as they are not FWC. Taylor even cited F.S. § 379.105 (harassment of lawful hunters and fishermen) to a line of badge-wearing public servants who looked visibly baffled by their own state's penal code. It took roughly nine armed deputies on the side of a road, standing in an awkward cluster of walkie-talkies and scratched heads, to figure out what a citizen knew all along: no crime had been committed. After repeatedly violating his Fourth and Second Amendment rights, demanding ID they were never entitled to receive, and realizing they had zero legal footing to make an arrest, the deputies handed his unloaded firearm back in a blatant walk of shame. Swearing an oath to defend the Constitution means nothing if you refuse to read it. When nine armed officers don't know the law, citizens don't get policing—they get armed intimidation under color of law.

Tyrant deputies harass a man that is trying to legally open carry. He unloads on them for violating his rights as they all take the walk of shame. In Brevard County, Florida, Michael Taylor went out for a lawful walk to a fishing spot less than a mile away exercising his rights 2A style, carrying a crab net, bait bag, and an openly holstered .22 caliber sidearm. Under Florida Statute § 790.25(3)(h), openly carrying a firearm is explicitly legal when engaged in, or traveling directly to or from, fishing, hunting, or camping. Instead of recognizing a clear statutory exemption, Brevard County deputies demonstrated an alarming display of legal incompetence: Deputies swarmed him based purely on 911 calls reporting a man with a gun. Under Florida’s Stop and Frisk law (F.S. § 901.151), detention requires reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.Simply exercising a codified right is not a crime. When Taylor lawfully refused to provide ID, deputies escalated, wrongly insisting he had an affirmative duty to prove his innocence on the sidewalk before being allowed to walk away. Under the guise of officer safety, deputies seized his firearm and rifled through his personal gear, completely ignoring Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Deputies tried to justify their stop by demanding to inspect his Florida recreational fishing license under F.S. § 379.354, completely blind to the fact that their local authority doesn't override the lack of criminal predicate as well as none of them have the authority as they are not FWC. Taylor even cited F.S. § 379.105 (harassment of lawful hunters and fishermen) to a line of badge-wearing public servants who looked visibly baffled by their own state's penal code. It took roughly nine armed deputies on the side of a road, standing in an awkward cluster of walkie-talkies and scratched heads, to figure out what a citizen knew all along: no crime had been committed. After repeatedly violating his Fourth and Second Amendment rights, demanding ID they were never entitled to receive, and realizing they had zero legal footing to make an arrest, the deputies handed his unloaded firearm back in a blatant walk of shame. Swearing an oath to defend the Constitution means nothing if you refuse to read it. When nine armed officers don't know the law, citizens don't get policing—they get armed intimidation under color of law.

Giggling Gannon

27,974 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

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.

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 Gannon

41,238 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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.

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

61,771 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Sergeant has zero understanding of the law, gets schooled as he becomes unglued. Westmont Police Sergeant Confronted by Independent Journalist over First Amendment Rights. A Westmont Police Department Sergeant, tasked with supervising officers and upholding the law, recently demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of basic constitutional protections during an encounter with an independent journalist. When the Sergeant attempted to claim that filming from a public space violated LEADS regulations due to visible information on an unshielded laptop screen, the journalist stood his ground. He clearly articulated established court precedents—including ACLU v. Alvarez, Glick v. Cunniffe, and Terry v. Ohio—reminding the officer that citizens have a protected right to record public officials performing their duties in public spaces. Furthermore, the journalist pointed out that officers bear the responsibility of securing their own confidential screens, rather than infringing on a citizen's constitutional rights. Faced with unwavering legal knowledge and no valid legal grounds for detention, the Sergeant was forced to disengage and leave the scene doing that walk of shame as he realized in the back of his head that he is about to become a social media star in a bad way. Know your rights and do not be afraid to stand up and exercise them. Together we will continue to make those that swore to protect the constitution but fail to do so famous. Meet officer Sergeant Rolando Padilla of the Westmont IL PD.

Sergeant has zero understanding of the law, gets schooled as he becomes unglued. Westmont Police Sergeant Confronted by Independent Journalist over First Amendment Rights. A Westmont Police Department Sergeant, tasked with supervising officers and upholding the law, recently demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of basic constitutional protections during an encounter with an independent journalist. When the Sergeant attempted to claim that filming from a public space violated LEADS regulations due to visible information on an unshielded laptop screen, the journalist stood his ground. He clearly articulated established court precedents—including ACLU v. Alvarez, Glick v. Cunniffe, and Terry v. Ohio—reminding the officer that citizens have a protected right to record public officials performing their duties in public spaces. Furthermore, the journalist pointed out that officers bear the responsibility of securing their own confidential screens, rather than infringing on a citizen's constitutional rights. Faced with unwavering legal knowledge and no valid legal grounds for detention, the Sergeant was forced to disengage and leave the scene doing that walk of shame as he realized in the back of his head that he is about to become a social media star in a bad way. Know your rights and do not be afraid to stand up and exercise them. Together we will continue to make those that swore to protect the constitution but fail to do so famous. Meet officer Sergeant Rolando Padilla of the Westmont IL PD.

Giggling Gannon

103,088 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Deputy and local PD team up to bully residents of this home refusing to let them close their own door when it's discovered they do not have a search warrant. Law enforcement officers—including a Lake Hamilton officer and a local sheriff's deputy—show up at a private residence under the assumption that a wanted individual named "TT" (a Black male with an outstanding felony warrant) is hiding inside. The residents immediately make it clear: The suspect is not there, they do not consent to a search, and they want the officers off their property. In a heavily sarcastic exchange, the residents even point out the obvious irony to the deputy standing on the porch, noting that the only Black male present at the scene is the deputy himself. Under the Fourth Amendment, the threshold of a home is a sacred boundary. Unless officers possess a search warrant for that specific address, or are dealing with an active emergency ("exigent circumstances"), they cannot legally force their way inside. Recognizing this, the homeowner attempts to terminate the voluntary encounter by pulling the front door shut. Instead of backing off, an officer physically blocks the door from closing, delivering a swift ultimatum: "If you hit him [with the door], you're going to jail." The moment the resident attempts to shut his door anyway, the officers push past the threshold. A physical struggle ensues as the drag the man outside placing him under arrest. The aftermath of this encounter highlights what many critics describe as blatant law enforcement bullying: The Homeowner: Arrested on the spot and charged with assaulting an officer and resisting arrest—simply for attempting to close his own front door on officers who lacked a search warrant. The Co-Resident: During the argument, an officer explicitly tells the woman filming to call for a supervisor herself. When she stops recording to dial 911 to get a supervisor to the scene, the officers arrest her as well, slapping her with a charge for "misuse of an emergency number." Ultimately, the legal system recognized that these charges were completely baseless. All charges against both the man and the woman were completely dropped. However, despite clear video evidence of the officers escalating the situation, violating the residents' constitutional rights, and utilizing retaliatory arrest tactics, absolutely no disciplinary action was taken against the officers involved. This is the type of stuff that makes me sick. Qualified immunity does not protect officers that knowingly violate the rights of citizens. Hopefully these people file a lawsuit against the city any county.

Deputy and local PD team up to bully residents of this home refusing to let them close their own door when it's discovered they do not have a search warrant. Law enforcement officers—including a Lake Hamilton officer and a local sheriff's deputy—show up at a private residence under the assumption that a wanted individual named "TT" (a Black male with an outstanding felony warrant) is hiding inside. The residents immediately make it clear: The suspect is not there, they do not consent to a search, and they want the officers off their property. In a heavily sarcastic exchange, the residents even point out the obvious irony to the deputy standing on the porch, noting that the only Black male present at the scene is the deputy himself. Under the Fourth Amendment, the threshold of a home is a sacred boundary. Unless officers possess a search warrant for that specific address, or are dealing with an active emergency ("exigent circumstances"), they cannot legally force their way inside. Recognizing this, the homeowner attempts to terminate the voluntary encounter by pulling the front door shut. Instead of backing off, an officer physically blocks the door from closing, delivering a swift ultimatum: "If you hit him [with the door], you're going to jail." The moment the resident attempts to shut his door anyway, the officers push past the threshold. A physical struggle ensues as the drag the man outside placing him under arrest. The aftermath of this encounter highlights what many critics describe as blatant law enforcement bullying: The Homeowner: Arrested on the spot and charged with assaulting an officer and resisting arrest—simply for attempting to close his own front door on officers who lacked a search warrant. The Co-Resident: During the argument, an officer explicitly tells the woman filming to call for a supervisor herself. When she stops recording to dial 911 to get a supervisor to the scene, the officers arrest her as well, slapping her with a charge for "misuse of an emergency number." Ultimately, the legal system recognized that these charges were completely baseless. All charges against both the man and the woman were completely dropped. However, despite clear video evidence of the officers escalating the situation, violating the residents' constitutional rights, and utilizing retaliatory arrest tactics, absolutely no disciplinary action was taken against the officers involved. This is the type of stuff that makes me sick. Qualified immunity does not protect officers that knowingly violate the rights of citizens. Hopefully these people file a lawsuit against the city any county.

Giggling Ganon

49,153 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Two tyrants get schooled on citizen rights. Mind blowing what the do not know. Outside a Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office facility in North Carolina, an independent journalist began filming from a publicly accessible county parking lot. Two deputies, one of which named including Sergeant McNigley quickly approached him. The officers demanded to see his ID, claiming he was acting suspiciously by filming patrol vehicles and insisting the area was "private county property." Class is in session from that point on. The journalist stood his ground on Identification: He calmly educates the officers on the law, reminding them that North Carolina is not a "stop and identify" state. Without reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime, law enforcement cannot compel a citizen to present identification. Refuting the "Private Property" Myth: When the deputies claim the parking lot is private county property, the journalist correctly counters that public facilities funded by taxpayers are subject to public access and First Amendment protection when visible from public space. De-escalating the Pressure: Despite repeated attempts at intimidation and circular arguments about authority, the journalist remains composed, eventually forcing the officers to admit he is not being detained. In the end, the officers are forced to let him walk away—proving once again why understanding your constitutional rights is your greatest defense. The journalist did an incredible job refusing to bow to unlawful demands and standing tall for civil liberties. This is how it's done.

Two tyrants get schooled on citizen rights. Mind blowing what the do not know. Outside a Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office facility in North Carolina, an independent journalist began filming from a publicly accessible county parking lot. Two deputies, one of which named including Sergeant McNigley quickly approached him. The officers demanded to see his ID, claiming he was acting suspiciously by filming patrol vehicles and insisting the area was "private county property." Class is in session from that point on. The journalist stood his ground on Identification: He calmly educates the officers on the law, reminding them that North Carolina is not a "stop and identify" state. Without reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime, law enforcement cannot compel a citizen to present identification. Refuting the "Private Property" Myth: When the deputies claim the parking lot is private county property, the journalist correctly counters that public facilities funded by taxpayers are subject to public access and First Amendment protection when visible from public space. De-escalating the Pressure: Despite repeated attempts at intimidation and circular arguments about authority, the journalist remains composed, eventually forcing the officers to admit he is not being detained. In the end, the officers are forced to let him walk away—proving once again why understanding your constitutional rights is your greatest defense. The journalist did an incredible job refusing to bow to unlawful demands and standing tall for civil liberties. This is how it's done.

Giggling Ganon

28,175 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

This dude was pulled over for a headlight violation. During the stop the officer involved demands to see the ID of the passenger ( his wife). The response from the driver is no, she was not driving. The officer involved throws out that Alabama is a stop and ID state. (Alabama Code § 15-5-30:) This state law allows officers to demand the name, address, and an explanation from someone in a public place if they reasonably suspect the person is committing or about to commit a crime. The driver’s argument rests on the principle that while he (the driver) is required to provide a license for a traffic violation, a passenger typically does not have to provide identification unless there is "reasonable articulable suspicion" that they have committed a crime. The Driver’s Stance: He correctly asserts that as the driver, he is the one being investigated for the headlight, and since the passenger has not committed a violation, the officer's authority to demand her ID is limited. Also Social Security Request: The driver also challenges the officer's demand for his Social Security number, citing federal privacy protections. In short the driver schooled these officers which is why he is quickly sent on his way once they see he knows his rights.

This dude was pulled over for a headlight violation. During the stop the officer involved demands to see the ID of the passenger ( his wife). The response from the driver is no, she was not driving. The officer involved throws out that Alabama is a stop and ID state. (Alabama Code § 15-5-30:) This state law allows officers to demand the name, address, and an explanation from someone in a public place if they reasonably suspect the person is committing or about to commit a crime. The driver’s argument rests on the principle that while he (the driver) is required to provide a license for a traffic violation, a passenger typically does not have to provide identification unless there is "reasonable articulable suspicion" that they have committed a crime. The Driver’s Stance: He correctly asserts that as the driver, he is the one being investigated for the headlight, and since the passenger has not committed a violation, the officer's authority to demand her ID is limited. Also Social Security Request: The driver also challenges the officer's demand for his Social Security number, citing federal privacy protections. In short the driver schooled these officers which is why he is quickly sent on his way once they see he knows his rights.

Giggling Ganon

439,003 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

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

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

Giggling Ganon

39,826 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

A routine traffic stop quickly escalated after a driver refused to provide identification and actively resisted officers. The entire encounter—from the initial tailgating violation to the final arrest—was captured on bodycam footage. The officer initiated the stop after Joe reportedly followed her squad car at an unsafe distance while constantly honking his horn and flashing his lights. Throughout the encounter, Joe was extremely confrontational, aggressive, and uncooperative: He repeatedly used profanity and hurled derogatory insults at the officer. He refused to identify himself or provide his driver's license. He instructed his young child, who was a passenger in the vehicle, to get out and scream for help. He claimed that the officer was the one breaking the law by using her cell phone while driving. When a backup officer (a supervisor) arrived on the scene, Joe continued his combative behavior. He argued that honking his horn was not illegal and demanded to know what specific law he had broken. When the officers attempted to place Joe under arrest, he actively resisted. He refused to exit his vehicle, screamed that the officers were choking him (which the video evidence contradicts), and had to be physically removed and secured in the back of the police cruiser. Joe's actions during the traffic stop led to several specific criminal charges: 1. Following Too Closely / Unlawful Use of a Horn The initial reason for the stop was a traffic violation. Under most state traffic laws (including Wisconsin, where this incident took place), drivers must maintain a safe following distance. Furthermore, vehicle horns are legally intended only to warn of immediate danger, not to harass or signal displeasure. Joe's continuous honking and tailgating constituted a valid reason for a traffic stop. 2. Refusal to Identify / Provide a License While Joe correctly noted that citizens do not always have to identify themselves to police, traffic stops are a major exception. When operating a motor vehicle, a driver is legally required to present a valid driver's license upon the request of a law enforcement officer. Refusing to do so is a secondary offense and prevents the officer from issuing a standard citation. 3. Resisting and Obstructing an Officer Joe was charged with resisting/obstructing an officer. Legally, "obstructing" includes knowingly giving false information or refusing to comply with lawful commands (such as refusing to sign a ticket or show ID). "Resisting" applies to his physical non-compliance when officers ordered him out of the vehicle and his subsequent physical struggle against being handcuffed and placed in the squad car. 4. Disorderly Conduct Joe's loud, profane screaming in a public space, combined with triggering a disruptive situation by forcing his child to scream for help, falls under disorderly conduct. This charge applies to behavior that is violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, or otherwise unreasonably disruptive. 5. Battery to a Law Enforcement Officer During the physical struggle to place Joe under arrest, his actions escalated to physical resistance that resulted in a charge of battery to a law enforcement officer. This is a felony charge in many jurisdictions, applying when an individual intentionally causes bodily harm (or takes actions likely to cause harm) to an officer acting in their official capacity.

A routine traffic stop quickly escalated after a driver refused to provide identification and actively resisted officers. The entire encounter—from the initial tailgating violation to the final arrest—was captured on bodycam footage. The officer initiated the stop after Joe reportedly followed her squad car at an unsafe distance while constantly honking his horn and flashing his lights. Throughout the encounter, Joe was extremely confrontational, aggressive, and uncooperative: He repeatedly used profanity and hurled derogatory insults at the officer. He refused to identify himself or provide his driver's license. He instructed his young child, who was a passenger in the vehicle, to get out and scream for help. He claimed that the officer was the one breaking the law by using her cell phone while driving. When a backup officer (a supervisor) arrived on the scene, Joe continued his combative behavior. He argued that honking his horn was not illegal and demanded to know what specific law he had broken. When the officers attempted to place Joe under arrest, he actively resisted. He refused to exit his vehicle, screamed that the officers were choking him (which the video evidence contradicts), and had to be physically removed and secured in the back of the police cruiser. Joe's actions during the traffic stop led to several specific criminal charges: 1. Following Too Closely / Unlawful Use of a Horn The initial reason for the stop was a traffic violation. Under most state traffic laws (including Wisconsin, where this incident took place), drivers must maintain a safe following distance. Furthermore, vehicle horns are legally intended only to warn of immediate danger, not to harass or signal displeasure. Joe's continuous honking and tailgating constituted a valid reason for a traffic stop. 2. Refusal to Identify / Provide a License While Joe correctly noted that citizens do not always have to identify themselves to police, traffic stops are a major exception. When operating a motor vehicle, a driver is legally required to present a valid driver's license upon the request of a law enforcement officer. Refusing to do so is a secondary offense and prevents the officer from issuing a standard citation. 3. Resisting and Obstructing an Officer Joe was charged with resisting/obstructing an officer. Legally, "obstructing" includes knowingly giving false information or refusing to comply with lawful commands (such as refusing to sign a ticket or show ID). "Resisting" applies to his physical non-compliance when officers ordered him out of the vehicle and his subsequent physical struggle against being handcuffed and placed in the squad car. 4. Disorderly Conduct Joe's loud, profane screaming in a public space, combined with triggering a disruptive situation by forcing his child to scream for help, falls under disorderly conduct. This charge applies to behavior that is violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, or otherwise unreasonably disruptive. 5. Battery to a Law Enforcement Officer During the physical struggle to place Joe under arrest, his actions escalated to physical resistance that resulted in a charge of battery to a law enforcement officer. This is a felony charge in many jurisdictions, applying when an individual intentionally causes bodily harm (or takes actions likely to cause harm) to an officer acting in their official capacity.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

16,503 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Kid owns 2 cops with his understanding of the law and the rights of his middle finger. The situation began when an officer with the Little Egg Harbor Police Department pulled over after witnessing a pedestrian walking down the shoulder of the road. According to the officer, the individual flipped him the finger twice as his cruiser drove past. Refusing to ignore the gesture, the officer confronted the pedestrian, demanding to know what their problem was. What started as a verbal disagreement quickly spiraled. The pedestrian immediately asserted their right to walk away, repeatedly asking, "Am I free to go?" He claimed the pedestrian was being legally detained for "acting strange" and "causing a public disturbance." When the pedestrian tried to continue walking, the officer physically grabbed their arm, leading to a tense struggle where the pedestrian began shouting for help. A second officer arrived shortly after to act as a cover unit. Throughout the interaction, the pedestrian fiercely protected his rights, arguing that cursing and flipping off a police officer are entirely protected under the First Amendment—and legally, he is correct. The backup officer attempted to play mediator, explaining that while the pedestrian wasn't being charged with a crime, the primary officer had the right to detain them to investigate "behavior that's out of the ordinary" and ensure public safety. After a lengthy back-and-forth about the Fourth Amendment and what constitutes an unlawful order, the pedestrian handed over their ID (which I think he should not have) to clear the investigation. The officers returned it, giving a warning to stay out of the roadway, and the pedestrian walked away—but not before taking down badge numbers and promising a lawsuit. Federal courts have consistently ruled that expressing vulgar gestures or language toward police officers, while disrespectful, is protected speech under the First Amendment. It does not, on its own, constitute reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Also check out our new triva below. I look forward to reading your answers to the trivia question.

Kid owns 2 cops with his understanding of the law and the rights of his middle finger. The situation began when an officer with the Little Egg Harbor Police Department pulled over after witnessing a pedestrian walking down the shoulder of the road. According to the officer, the individual flipped him the finger twice as his cruiser drove past. Refusing to ignore the gesture, the officer confronted the pedestrian, demanding to know what their problem was. What started as a verbal disagreement quickly spiraled. The pedestrian immediately asserted their right to walk away, repeatedly asking, "Am I free to go?" He claimed the pedestrian was being legally detained for "acting strange" and "causing a public disturbance." When the pedestrian tried to continue walking, the officer physically grabbed their arm, leading to a tense struggle where the pedestrian began shouting for help. A second officer arrived shortly after to act as a cover unit. Throughout the interaction, the pedestrian fiercely protected his rights, arguing that cursing and flipping off a police officer are entirely protected under the First Amendment—and legally, he is correct. The backup officer attempted to play mediator, explaining that while the pedestrian wasn't being charged with a crime, the primary officer had the right to detain them to investigate "behavior that's out of the ordinary" and ensure public safety. After a lengthy back-and-forth about the Fourth Amendment and what constitutes an unlawful order, the pedestrian handed over their ID (which I think he should not have) to clear the investigation. The officers returned it, giving a warning to stay out of the roadway, and the pedestrian walked away—but not before taking down badge numbers and promising a lawsuit. Federal courts have consistently ruled that expressing vulgar gestures or language toward police officers, while disrespectful, is protected speech under the First Amendment. It does not, on its own, constitute reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Also check out our new triva below. I look forward to reading your answers to the trivia question.

Giggling Gannon

82,149 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Warrantless Entry from chief of police & Taser Arrest of former deputy Leads to Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit. Buhl, Idaho resident and former deputy Eli Johnson was pulled over by officers for allegedly traveling 41 mph in a 25 mph zone. Johnson pulled directly into his own driveway. While the stopping officer stepped back to his patrol vehicle to retrieve a citation book, Johnson exited his car and walked toward his house. Despite being ordered to remain by his vehicle, Johnson went inside his home, arguing that officers had no proof of speeding and demanding to speak with a supervisor. When Buhl Police Chief Jeremy Engbaum arrived at the scene, Johnson opened his front door to speak with the chief while standing within the entry threshold of his home. Officers instructed him to step outside to receive the traffic ticket, warning that failing to do so constituted obstruction and delaying an officer. Johnson agreed to being issued the citation but said he was staying in the safety of his home. Showing an understanding of his rights, Johnson refused to step outside and requested to speak his attorney and wait for witnesses because he does not trust the chief. When Johnson attempted to close his front door, the chief physically blocked the threshold with his foot to prevent it from shutting. Officers then forcefully opened the door, entered without a warrant into the entryway, deployed a Taser on Johnson, and pulled him outside onto his lawn to place him under arrest. While Johnson was initially charged with multiple offenses following the incident, all criminal charges against him were later dismissed. Johnson subsequently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (Johnson et al. v. City of Buhl et al.) alleging that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights through warrantless entry, unreasonable search and seizure, and excessive force. During summary judgment proceedings, U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Raymond E. Patricco ruled that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by crossing the doorway threshold into the home without a warrant or exigent circumstances. Addressing the deployment of the Taser and use of force, the court noted that body camera footage was "quick, chaotic and confusing," leaving key facts for a jury to evaluate. Following the summary judgment rulings, the parties entered court-ordered settlement negotiations, ultimately reaching an agreement that led to an official Order of Dismissal to close the federal civil rights case. The was settled for an undisclosed amount.

Warrantless Entry from chief of police & Taser Arrest of former deputy Leads to Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit. Buhl, Idaho resident and former deputy Eli Johnson was pulled over by officers for allegedly traveling 41 mph in a 25 mph zone. Johnson pulled directly into his own driveway. While the stopping officer stepped back to his patrol vehicle to retrieve a citation book, Johnson exited his car and walked toward his house. Despite being ordered to remain by his vehicle, Johnson went inside his home, arguing that officers had no proof of speeding and demanding to speak with a supervisor. When Buhl Police Chief Jeremy Engbaum arrived at the scene, Johnson opened his front door to speak with the chief while standing within the entry threshold of his home. Officers instructed him to step outside to receive the traffic ticket, warning that failing to do so constituted obstruction and delaying an officer. Johnson agreed to being issued the citation but said he was staying in the safety of his home. Showing an understanding of his rights, Johnson refused to step outside and requested to speak his attorney and wait for witnesses because he does not trust the chief. When Johnson attempted to close his front door, the chief physically blocked the threshold with his foot to prevent it from shutting. Officers then forcefully opened the door, entered without a warrant into the entryway, deployed a Taser on Johnson, and pulled him outside onto his lawn to place him under arrest. While Johnson was initially charged with multiple offenses following the incident, all criminal charges against him were later dismissed. Johnson subsequently filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (Johnson et al. v. City of Buhl et al.) alleging that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights through warrantless entry, unreasonable search and seizure, and excessive force. During summary judgment proceedings, U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Raymond E. Patricco ruled that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by crossing the doorway threshold into the home without a warrant or exigent circumstances. Addressing the deployment of the Taser and use of force, the court noted that body camera footage was "quick, chaotic and confusing," leaving key facts for a jury to evaluate. Following the summary judgment rulings, the parties entered court-ordered settlement negotiations, ultimately reaching an agreement that led to an official Order of Dismissal to close the federal civil rights case. The was settled for an undisclosed amount.

Giggling Ganon

88,730 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

53 year old mechanic working on a car in a church parking lot gets arrested by two bully cops for not giving his ID immediately. In a church parking lot in Huntsville, Alabama. Roland Edger was doing exactly what he was paid to do: repair a broken-down vehicle for a regular customer. But a local security guard spotted them after hours and mistakenly phoned the police, reporting "suspicious males" messing with a car. When Huntsville Police Officer Krista McCabe arrived, Edger was entirely transparent, explaining precisely why he was there. But when McCabe demanded his physical ID, Edger questioned the order. Without warning, a second arriving officer, Cameron Perillat, grabbed Edger from behind and threw him into handcuffs. Even though Edger offered his physical ID multiple times while being detained, the officers proceeded to arrest him on charges of obstructing governmental operations. While taking him into custody the officer lied to Edgar's step son that was present saying she repeated asked him and he repeatedly refused to provide his ID. She then threatened Edgar with a resisting arrest charge even though he was already cuffed and complying. Edgar was taken to jail and booked on obstruction charges, however Edger didn't back down. Immediately after his charges were dismissed, he took the city and the officers to court. Initially, a lower court judge dismissed his civil rights lawsuit by granting the officers "qualified immunity." But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit stripped that immunity away in a unanimous, historic decision. The court made the law crystal clear: Under Alabama's stop-and-identify statute, police have the right to ask for your name, address, and an explanation of your actions if they have reasonable suspicion. Crucially, the law does not compel citizens to hand over a physical ID card or driver's license unless they are operating a motor vehicle. Because Edger was verbally explaining his actions and the officers never actually asked for his verbal name or address before arresting him, they had absolutely no legal cause to seize him. The case finally went before a federal jury, which delivered justice for Roland Edger by awarding him $77,000 in damages—including $75,000 for pain and suffering and $1,000 in personal punitive damages out of the pockets of each officer involved. The real crime is these tyrant officers didn't face public termination or criminal charges, the case forced the City of Huntsville to completely overhaul its training protocols regarding Fourth Amendment boundaries. Know your rights. A badge does not give law enforcement the power to rewrite the law on the spot.

53 year old mechanic working on a car in a church parking lot gets arrested by two bully cops for not giving his ID immediately. In a church parking lot in Huntsville, Alabama. Roland Edger was doing exactly what he was paid to do: repair a broken-down vehicle for a regular customer. But a local security guard spotted them after hours and mistakenly phoned the police, reporting "suspicious males" messing with a car. When Huntsville Police Officer Krista McCabe arrived, Edger was entirely transparent, explaining precisely why he was there. But when McCabe demanded his physical ID, Edger questioned the order. Without warning, a second arriving officer, Cameron Perillat, grabbed Edger from behind and threw him into handcuffs. Even though Edger offered his physical ID multiple times while being detained, the officers proceeded to arrest him on charges of obstructing governmental operations. While taking him into custody the officer lied to Edgar's step son that was present saying she repeated asked him and he repeatedly refused to provide his ID. She then threatened Edgar with a resisting arrest charge even though he was already cuffed and complying. Edgar was taken to jail and booked on obstruction charges, however Edger didn't back down. Immediately after his charges were dismissed, he took the city and the officers to court. Initially, a lower court judge dismissed his civil rights lawsuit by granting the officers "qualified immunity." But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit stripped that immunity away in a unanimous, historic decision. The court made the law crystal clear: Under Alabama's stop-and-identify statute, police have the right to ask for your name, address, and an explanation of your actions if they have reasonable suspicion. Crucially, the law does not compel citizens to hand over a physical ID card or driver's license unless they are operating a motor vehicle. Because Edger was verbally explaining his actions and the officers never actually asked for his verbal name or address before arresting him, they had absolutely no legal cause to seize him. The case finally went before a federal jury, which delivered justice for Roland Edger by awarding him $77,000 in damages—including $75,000 for pain and suffering and $1,000 in personal punitive damages out of the pockets of each officer involved. The real crime is these tyrant officers didn't face public termination or criminal charges, the case forced the City of Huntsville to completely overhaul its training protocols regarding Fourth Amendment boundaries. Know your rights. A badge does not give law enforcement the power to rewrite the law on the spot.

Giggling Gannon

65,023 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Hey, Dallas Police Dept, you have a problem! ᯓ★ Your SERGEANT thinks suspicion is a crime. He displays an obstinate, recalcitrant attitude throughout the interaction and appears to be incompatible with the profession of law enforcement. ᯓ★ The officer must be able to articulate specific facts supporting the belief that the person is both armed and dangerous to do a pat-down. After exactly zero seconds of investigation, your roving legal scholars had neither. Why did your Sergeant allow that to happen? ᯓ★ An officer may briefly detain a person if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Your boys couldn't articulate a crime before, during, or after the interaction. ╰┈➤ˎˊ˗ "Officer safety" is not a law, nor is it an excuse to break the law. ╰┈➤ˎˊ˗ A 911 call is hearsay, not probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Newsflash: You have to investigate. ╰┈➤ˎˊ˗ This post is brought to you by the First Amendment. Link to the original video in the comments. H/T Lone Star Lens

Hey, Dallas Police Dept, you have a problem! ᯓ★ Your SERGEANT thinks suspicion is a crime. He displays an obstinate, recalcitrant attitude throughout the interaction and appears to be incompatible with the profession of law enforcement. ᯓ★ The officer must be able to articulate specific facts supporting the belief that the person is both armed and dangerous to do a pat-down. After exactly zero seconds of investigation, your roving legal scholars had neither. Why did your Sergeant allow that to happen? ᯓ★ An officer may briefly detain a person if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Your boys couldn't articulate a crime before, during, or after the interaction. ╰┈➤ˎˊ˗ "Officer safety" is not a law, nor is it an excuse to break the law. ╰┈➤ˎˊ˗ A 911 call is hearsay, not probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Newsflash: You have to investigate. ╰┈➤ˎˊ˗ This post is brought to you by the First Amendment. Link to the original video in the comments. H/T Lone Star Lens

GuerrillaBrain

82,132 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

INDIANAPOLIS- Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Sergeant, Eric Huxley, 44, was sentenced to 1 year and 1 day in federal prison after pleading guilty to violating the civil rights of an arrestee by using excessive force. He was also fired. Huxley was on patrol in downtown Indianapolis when another officer requested his assistance in confronting a disorderly person. After officers placed the victim, identified as J.V., under arrest for disorderly conduct, Huxley assisted other officers with conducting an inventory of J.V.’s property. When officers began to remove J.V.’s belt, he became confrontational with the officers. The primary arresting officer used a department-approved takedown maneuver to bring J.V., who had already been handcuffed, to the ground. The arresting officer held J.V. down with one hand while a second officer restrained his legs. This reasonable and appropriate use of force effectively overcame J.V.’s resistance and rendered him physically unable to move. Despite knowing that J.V. had been effectively restrained and posed no further danger to officers or the public, Huxley then intentionally raised his right foot and drove it down onto J.V.’s head and face. “This sentence holds a former police officer accountable for abusing his authority when he violently assaulted a homeless man who posed no threat,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department is committed to aggressively investigating and prosecuting law enforcement officials who violate federal civil rights laws.”

INDIANAPOLIS- Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Sergeant, Eric Huxley, 44, was sentenced to 1 year and 1 day in federal prison after pleading guilty to violating the civil rights of an arrestee by using excessive force. He was also fired. Huxley was on patrol in downtown Indianapolis when another officer requested his assistance in confronting a disorderly person. After officers placed the victim, identified as J.V., under arrest for disorderly conduct, Huxley assisted other officers with conducting an inventory of J.V.’s property. When officers began to remove J.V.’s belt, he became confrontational with the officers. The primary arresting officer used a department-approved takedown maneuver to bring J.V., who had already been handcuffed, to the ground. The arresting officer held J.V. down with one hand while a second officer restrained his legs. This reasonable and appropriate use of force effectively overcame J.V.’s resistance and rendered him physically unable to move. Despite knowing that J.V. had been effectively restrained and posed no further danger to officers or the public, Huxley then intentionally raised his right foot and drove it down onto J.V.’s head and face. “This sentence holds a former police officer accountable for abusing his authority when he violently assaulted a homeless man who posed no threat,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department is committed to aggressively investigating and prosecuting law enforcement officials who violate federal civil rights laws.”

Damon Strong

15,741 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen