Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Officer and Sergeant tag team violating this guy's rights until the Sergeant realizes they were both wrong. Let’s talk about reasonable suspicion, constitutional literacy, and blatant unlawful detainment. Christopher Biederstedt (IDC Chris) was standing on a traditional public sidewalk filming the exterior of the Mendota Lutheran Home in... Mendota, IL. He was on the public sidewalk only. He trespassed on no property. He was merely exercising a right protected by decades of established Supreme Court precedent and granted to us by the constitution. Yet, what followed was a textbook display of officer incompetence and disregard for the Fourth Amendment. Officer Holland arrived on scene and immediately ordered Chris to stop walking and recording, escalating a consensual encounter straight into a non-consensual Terry stop. Her stated justification? That people inside were "upset" and that she was investigating "disorderly conduct" under Illinois law. Here is the fundamental legal reality: Public photography from a public sidewalk is not a crime, and citizen discomfort does not create reasonable, articulable suspicion. Instead of investigating whether an actual crime had occurred, Officer Holland slapped handcuffs on Biederstedt, depriving him of his liberty, and actively went to solicit a criminal complaint from a staff member after the fact. Placing someone in cuffs first and fishing for a charge later is the definition of an unlawful seizure. Then comes Sergeant Stewart. While some praise the sergeant for ultimately shutting down the arrest, the reality is that the sergeant contributed directly to an ongoing Fourth Amendment violation. Rather than immediately establishing whether lawful grounds existed to keep a citizen in handcuffs, the sergeant stood there interrogating Biederstedt, demanding explanations, and attempting to lecture him on cooperation while he remained unlawfully restrained. Supervisors are supposed to prevent constitutional violations in real time—not participate in an illegal detention before finally realizing their subordinate manufactured a baseless disorderly conduct charge. Only after Officer Holland returned ready to transport Biederstedt to jail did Sergeant Stewart finally state the obvious: walking on a sidewalk and filming a building from the outside is completely legal, no matter who is bothered by it. Biederstedt was unhandcuffed and released without charges. There are no public records or filings indicating that a formal federal civil rights lawsuit (42 U.S.C. § 1983) was pursued following the incident, but cases like this serve as a glaring reminder: if officers don't know the basic threshold of a lawful Terry stop, your rights are only as safe as the incompetence in uniform on scene. Know your rights. You are allowed to film in public from public spaces. Hold authority accountable to your rights, it is your right to exercise those God given rights.show more

Giggling Ganon

260,679 subscribers

18,467 просмотров • 3 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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 Ganon

100,790 просмотров • 14 дней назад

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

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

Giggling Ganon

16,588 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Bully officer that does not know the law costs his department 41,000 dollars. The incident took place outside the Pueblo Police Department in Colorado, where an independent journalist known as O'Connel was filming and taking photos from a public sidewalk. As we all know this a protected right that we all have. This journalist is exercising those very rights. Officer Romero notices O'Connel recording police vehicles and the building. He approaches and demands to know who O'Connel is and what he's doing. O'Connel exercises his right to remain silent and attempts to walk away. Instead of letting him go, Officer Romero immediately grabs him and places him in handcuffs. When pressed on why he is detaining the citizen, Officer Romero claims he has "reasonable suspicion." However, as O'Connel rightly points out on the scene, recording from a public sidewalk and refusing to answer a police officer's questions is not a crime, nor does it establish reasonable suspicion of a crime. The moment Captain Martin (the supervisor) arrives on the scene, the entire dynamic shifts. Captain Martin instantly recognizes the situation, identifies O'Connell as he has seen his work, and tells Officer Romero point-blank: "He has every right to do that." The supervisor orders the immediate release of the journalist, leaving the arresting officer to face a swift internal affairs complaint for deprivation of rights and illegal detainment. In the end in order to avoid litigation caused by the incompetence of officer Romero, their department settled for 41,000 dollars.

Bully officer that does not know the law costs his department 41,000 dollars. The incident took place outside the Pueblo Police Department in Colorado, where an independent journalist known as O'Connel was filming and taking photos from a public sidewalk. As we all know this a protected right that we all have. This journalist is exercising those very rights. Officer Romero notices O'Connel recording police vehicles and the building. He approaches and demands to know who O'Connel is and what he's doing. O'Connel exercises his right to remain silent and attempts to walk away. Instead of letting him go, Officer Romero immediately grabs him and places him in handcuffs. When pressed on why he is detaining the citizen, Officer Romero claims he has "reasonable suspicion." However, as O'Connel rightly points out on the scene, recording from a public sidewalk and refusing to answer a police officer's questions is not a crime, nor does it establish reasonable suspicion of a crime. The moment Captain Martin (the supervisor) arrives on the scene, the entire dynamic shifts. Captain Martin instantly recognizes the situation, identifies O'Connell as he has seen his work, and tells Officer Romero point-blank: "He has every right to do that." The supervisor orders the immediate release of the journalist, leaving the arresting officer to face a swift internal affairs complaint for deprivation of rights and illegal detainment. In the end in order to avoid litigation caused by the incompetence of officer Romero, their department settled for 41,000 dollars.

Giggling Ganon

430,781 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Officer has zero regards for rights of the journalist, Sgt arrives says hold my beer and takes dumb to the next level. This is a longer one, but well worth it to experience this Sgt. This journalist is out exercising his first amendment rights on a public sidewalk. Chase bank decided to call the police to have the journalist removed. An officer arrives first and tries to tell the journalist that he cannot record on a public sidewalk he then calls out his supervisor. The moment Sgt. Kurgxbon arrives and claims that a public municipal sidewalk is part of the bank’s "curtilage" and that a journalist can be trespassed from standing there, she instantly loses all legal credibility as well. The Definition of Curtilage: By definition, curtilage applies to the immediate, private area surrounding a home or dwelling where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You cannot claim "curtilage" on a public, concrete sidewalk in the middle of downtown Baltimore just because it sits in front of a Chase Bank. Traditional Public Forums: The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear for decades: public sidewalks are the quintessential "traditional public forum." Journalists and citizens alike have an absolute, protected First Amendment right to stand on them, gather news, film what is in plain view, and exist without having to justify their presence to law enforcement. The "Pass-Through" Myth: Telling a journalist they have the right to "walk through" but not stand still on a public sidewalk to gather footage is a completely fabricated rule. If you are legally allowed to be in a space, you are legally allowed to stand there. What’s most alarming here isn't just that the officers don't know the law—it's their absolute willingness to enforce a violation of rights anyway. Instead of educating the bank employee on public property laws, Officer Allender and the Sergeant choose to escalate, threaten a trespass warning, and attempt to intimidate a journalist who is doing absolutely nothing illegal. When law enforcement prioritizes a business's comfort over constitutional rights and press freedom, they transition from peace officers to corporate security guards funded by taxpayers. This is why these types of activities need to be done. It's mind blowing just how ignorant these officers are. It's scary and comical at the same time.

Officer has zero regards for rights of the journalist, Sgt arrives says hold my beer and takes dumb to the next level. This is a longer one, but well worth it to experience this Sgt. This journalist is out exercising his first amendment rights on a public sidewalk. Chase bank decided to call the police to have the journalist removed. An officer arrives first and tries to tell the journalist that he cannot record on a public sidewalk he then calls out his supervisor. The moment Sgt. Kurgxbon arrives and claims that a public municipal sidewalk is part of the bank’s "curtilage" and that a journalist can be trespassed from standing there, she instantly loses all legal credibility as well. The Definition of Curtilage: By definition, curtilage applies to the immediate, private area surrounding a home or dwelling where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You cannot claim "curtilage" on a public, concrete sidewalk in the middle of downtown Baltimore just because it sits in front of a Chase Bank. Traditional Public Forums: The United States Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear for decades: public sidewalks are the quintessential "traditional public forum." Journalists and citizens alike have an absolute, protected First Amendment right to stand on them, gather news, film what is in plain view, and exist without having to justify their presence to law enforcement. The "Pass-Through" Myth: Telling a journalist they have the right to "walk through" but not stand still on a public sidewalk to gather footage is a completely fabricated rule. If you are legally allowed to be in a space, you are legally allowed to stand there. What’s most alarming here isn't just that the officers don't know the law—it's their absolute willingness to enforce a violation of rights anyway. Instead of educating the bank employee on public property laws, Officer Allender and the Sergeant choose to escalate, threaten a trespass warning, and attempt to intimidate a journalist who is doing absolutely nothing illegal. When law enforcement prioritizes a business's comfort over constitutional rights and press freedom, they transition from peace officers to corporate security guards funded by taxpayers. This is why these types of activities need to be done. It's mind blowing just how ignorant these officers are. It's scary and comical at the same time.

Giggling Ganon

61,732 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

A concerning case out of Clarksville, Arkansas, raises major questions about the Fourth Amendment and police conduct. After a man jogging through a parking lot was stopped by an officer, the encounter escalated into an arrest for "obstructing governmental operations" simply because he refused to identify himself. Key takeaways from this incident:1 ⚖️ Reasonable Suspicion vs. Hunch: Under Terry v. Ohio, police need specific, articulable facts to justify a stop—not just a gut feeling or an observation of someone simply existing in public. 🚫 Lawful Presence vs. Identification:There is a critical constitutional distinction between being in a public space and being legally required to provide ID to law enforcement. ⚠️ Charge Stacking: The individual faced multiple charges, including fleeing and disorderly conduct, following a detention that lacked legal grounds to begin with. This incident is now the subject of a pending civil rights lawsuit. It serves as a stark reminder of the importance of knowing your rights during police encounters. #CivilRights #KnowYourRights #PoliceAccountability #FourthAmendment

A concerning case out of Clarksville, Arkansas, raises major questions about the Fourth Amendment and police conduct. After a man jogging through a parking lot was stopped by an officer, the encounter escalated into an arrest for "obstructing governmental operations" simply because he refused to identify himself. Key takeaways from this incident:1 ⚖️ Reasonable Suspicion vs. Hunch: Under Terry v. Ohio, police need specific, articulable facts to justify a stop—not just a gut feeling or an observation of someone simply existing in public. 🚫 Lawful Presence vs. Identification:There is a critical constitutional distinction between being in a public space and being legally required to provide ID to law enforcement. ⚠️ Charge Stacking: The individual faced multiple charges, including fleeing and disorderly conduct, following a detention that lacked legal grounds to begin with. This incident is now the subject of a pending civil rights lawsuit. It serves as a stark reminder of the importance of knowing your rights during police encounters. #CivilRights #KnowYourRights #PoliceAccountability #FourthAmendment

ChaosLensX

14,761 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

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

Giggling Ganon

110,469 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

42,800 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

First Amendment auditors are right. Feelings are not law. At a Chick-fil-A, auditors stood on the public sidewalk filming. The manager called police, claiming they were filming “private property,” making guests uncomfortable, and “scanning” vehicles. She wanted them stopped. Police officer did the correct thing: he explained the actual law. The sidewalk is public property, frequented by the public. It is not illegal to record from that location in Tennessee. He pointed out the clear line—if they stepped onto Chick-fil-A property, they could be asked to leave. While they stayed on the public side, they were free to film. He even noted he could walk around with a camera himself from the same spots. That is the entire ballgame. Public spaces belong to the public. What you can see with your eyes from a public sidewalk, you can generally record. This is core First Amendment territory—freedom of the press and the right to gather information in places open to everyone. Courts have repeatedly upheld this. Discomfort, customer complaints, or a business’s preference do not create a new exception. “It makes people feel followed” is not a legal standard. If it were, news crews, citizen journalists, and anyone with a phone could be shut down every time someone felt uneasy. Yes, the auditors could choose a less confrontational style. Standing there with cameras pointed at a drive-thru and parking lot will annoy people. That is obvious. But annoyance is not illegality. The point of these audits is often to test whether officers and businesses actually know the boundary between private property rights and public rights. In this case the officer did. The manager did not. When people start treating “I don’t like it” as equivalent to “you can’t do that,” the First Amendment erodes. Auditors force the conversation back to the actual rules instead of vibes. That is why they keep doing it—and why this one was clean. Public means public. Record away.

First Amendment auditors are right. Feelings are not law. At a Chick-fil-A, auditors stood on the public sidewalk filming. The manager called police, claiming they were filming “private property,” making guests uncomfortable, and “scanning” vehicles. She wanted them stopped. Police officer did the correct thing: he explained the actual law. The sidewalk is public property, frequented by the public. It is not illegal to record from that location in Tennessee. He pointed out the clear line—if they stepped onto Chick-fil-A property, they could be asked to leave. While they stayed on the public side, they were free to film. He even noted he could walk around with a camera himself from the same spots. That is the entire ballgame. Public spaces belong to the public. What you can see with your eyes from a public sidewalk, you can generally record. This is core First Amendment territory—freedom of the press and the right to gather information in places open to everyone. Courts have repeatedly upheld this. Discomfort, customer complaints, or a business’s preference do not create a new exception. “It makes people feel followed” is not a legal standard. If it were, news crews, citizen journalists, and anyone with a phone could be shut down every time someone felt uneasy. Yes, the auditors could choose a less confrontational style. Standing there with cameras pointed at a drive-thru and parking lot will annoy people. That is obvious. But annoyance is not illegality. The point of these audits is often to test whether officers and businesses actually know the boundary between private property rights and public rights. In this case the officer did. The manager did not. When people start treating “I don’t like it” as equivalent to “you can’t do that,” the First Amendment erodes. Auditors force the conversation back to the actual rules instead of vibes. That is why they keep doing it—and why this one was clean. Public means public. Record away.

DocumentingLibs

69,084 просмотров • 12 дней назад

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

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

Giggling Ganon

296,812 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Illinois Cook County Sheriffs ignorance on full display in a deposition flat out admitting they have no understanding of the law. Meet Lieutenant Don Milazzo and Sergeant Jennifer Larson of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. In this deposition, watch as they struggle to justify the indefensible: the arrest of a citizen for the "crime" of filming a public building from a public sidewalk. Amanda Bergquist was recording her own reflection and the exterior of the Bridgeview Courthouse in Illinois—a clearly established First Amendment right. Milazzo and Larson didn't see a citizen exercising her rights; they saw "suspicion" which was enough in their eyes for cuffs. Milazzo approached Bergquist and told her she is coming inside and they will ID her and record what she has done. When she refused to provide ID (rightfully asserting that Illinois is not a "stop and identify" state without reasonable suspicion of a crime), Milazzo ordered her handcuffed. Larson physically assisted in the arrest. Bergquist was held for three hours, her camera was seized, and her purse was searched—all without a warrant or probable cause. During this deposition, the officers were forced to answer for their actions under oath. The results were chilling: Milazzo was confronted with his own recorded words, asking, "Why do we always get the crazies?" simply because a citizen knew the Fourth Amendment. The officers tried to hide behind "Qualified Immunity," but the federal court saw right through it. The judge ruled that the right to film in public was so clearly established that any reasonable officer should have known better. Their claims of "suspicious behavior" were found legally insufficient to justify stripping a person of their liberty. Cook County eventually settled the lawsuit (Bergquist v. Milazzo) for thousands of dollars—taxpayer money used to pay for the officers' constitutional illiteracy. This case stands as a stark reminder that "I thought it was suspicious" is not a magic phrase that cancels the Constitution. When officers view the assertion of rights as "crazy" or "uncooperative," they cease to be protectors of the law and instead become the very thing the Bill of Rights was designed to guard against. This is mind blowing to hear their answers in this deposition blatantly showing zero cares or remorse for their conduct. The good news is both of these industries are no longer with the cook county sheriff office and no longer in law enforcement.

Illinois Cook County Sheriffs ignorance on full display in a deposition flat out admitting they have no understanding of the law. Meet Lieutenant Don Milazzo and Sergeant Jennifer Larson of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. In this deposition, watch as they struggle to justify the indefensible: the arrest of a citizen for the "crime" of filming a public building from a public sidewalk. Amanda Bergquist was recording her own reflection and the exterior of the Bridgeview Courthouse in Illinois—a clearly established First Amendment right. Milazzo and Larson didn't see a citizen exercising her rights; they saw "suspicion" which was enough in their eyes for cuffs. Milazzo approached Bergquist and told her she is coming inside and they will ID her and record what she has done. When she refused to provide ID (rightfully asserting that Illinois is not a "stop and identify" state without reasonable suspicion of a crime), Milazzo ordered her handcuffed. Larson physically assisted in the arrest. Bergquist was held for three hours, her camera was seized, and her purse was searched—all without a warrant or probable cause. During this deposition, the officers were forced to answer for their actions under oath. The results were chilling: Milazzo was confronted with his own recorded words, asking, "Why do we always get the crazies?" simply because a citizen knew the Fourth Amendment. The officers tried to hide behind "Qualified Immunity," but the federal court saw right through it. The judge ruled that the right to film in public was so clearly established that any reasonable officer should have known better. Their claims of "suspicious behavior" were found legally insufficient to justify stripping a person of their liberty. Cook County eventually settled the lawsuit (Bergquist v. Milazzo) for thousands of dollars—taxpayer money used to pay for the officers' constitutional illiteracy. This case stands as a stark reminder that "I thought it was suspicious" is not a magic phrase that cancels the Constitution. When officers view the assertion of rights as "crazy" or "uncooperative," they cease to be protectors of the law and instead become the very thing the Bill of Rights was designed to guard against. This is mind blowing to hear their answers in this deposition blatantly showing zero cares or remorse for their conduct. The good news is both of these industries are no longer with the cook county sheriff office and no longer in law enforcement.

Giggling Ganon

68,755 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Off duty cop gets owned trying to give someone orders. California Highway Patrol (CHP) facility in San Diego, an independent journalist exercises his rights by filming. The journalist positioned himself on the public sidewalk and easement overlooking the inspection area and parking lot. Under well-established First Amendment precedent, recording anything in plain view from a public space—including public buildings, government facilities, vehicles, and license plates—is protected by law. An off-duty CHP employee/officer approached the journalist, questioning why he was recording personal and agency vehicles and ordering him to move along and leave the area. Rather than complying with an unlawful directive, the journalist pushed back immediately. He reminded the officer that public servants have no legal authority to demand a citizen leave a public easement simply for exercising their constitutional right to record. While other staff members went about their business without incident, this encounter escalated quickly due to an attempt to intimidate someone exercising lawful activity in plain view of the public. This guy found out real quick that on this day he was better off just heading home.

Off duty cop gets owned trying to give someone orders. California Highway Patrol (CHP) facility in San Diego, an independent journalist exercises his rights by filming. The journalist positioned himself on the public sidewalk and easement overlooking the inspection area and parking lot. Under well-established First Amendment precedent, recording anything in plain view from a public space—including public buildings, government facilities, vehicles, and license plates—is protected by law. An off-duty CHP employee/officer approached the journalist, questioning why he was recording personal and agency vehicles and ordering him to move along and leave the area. Rather than complying with an unlawful directive, the journalist pushed back immediately. He reminded the officer that public servants have no legal authority to demand a citizen leave a public easement simply for exercising their constitutional right to record. While other staff members went about their business without incident, this encounter escalated quickly due to an attempt to intimidate someone exercising lawful activity in plain view of the public. This guy found out real quick that on this day he was better off just heading home.

Giggling Ganon

46,927 просмотров • 8 дней назад

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

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

Giggling Ganon

80,504 просмотров • 16 дней назад

Man gets arrested for demanding to speak with chief of police in police lobby. Who was wrong in this situation? Christopher Young walked into the Springboro Police Department lobby demanding to speak directly with the Chief of Police. Young was furious over a traffic citation he had received the previous day for not wearing a seatbelt—a ticket he adamantly claimed was based on a lie by the citing officer. When department staff informed him the chief was unavailable and asked him to calm down or leave, Young refused, repeatedly demanding to see leadership. The tension escalated rapidly when an officer ordered Young to take his hands out of his pockets. Young refused and began backing away. Believing Young was non-compliant and trespassing, the officer grabbed Young’s arm to initiate an arrest. A physical struggle ensued. Young tackled the officer to the ground, prompting multiple officers and station staff to intervene, with one officer shouting to "tase him." Young was ultimately subdued, handcuffed, and charged with criminal trespass and obstructing official business. This footage highlights a critical friction point between citizen rights and law enforcement authority. Was this a lawful arrest or did this officer violate his rights and assult Chris? Perspective A: The Officer Assaulted a Citizen Doing Legitimate Business From a strict civil liberties standpoint, many argue the officer was the unlawful aggressor. Right to be There: A police lobby is a public building funded by taxpayers. Young was there on legitimate business—to file a complaint regarding what he believed to be a fraudulent ticket. You cannot simply trespass a citizen from a public space when they are attempting to engage with their government/ have official business. The "Hands in Pockets" Fallacy: Keeping your hands in your pockets is not a crime. Because no crime was actively being committed, the officer's command to remove them was merely a request, not a lawful order. Initiating Force: Young was backing away and not posing an active physical threat. By "laying hands" on him first, the officer unlawfully escalated a verbal grievance into a physical assault, making the subsequent struggle a reaction to police aggression. Perspective B: The Officer Executed a Lawful Arrest for Obstruction From a law enforcement and prosecution standpoint, the officer's actions were fully justified under existing legal precedents. Limited Public Fora: Courts have consistently ruled that government buildings and police lobbies are "non-public fora." While open for business, citizens do not have an absolute right to remain if their conduct becomes disruptive or interferes with operations. Once ordered to leave by authorities, refusing to do so converts the stay into criminal trespass. Officer Safety and Terry Precedent: Under Terry v. Ohio, officers have the authority to manage a scene for safety. In a high-tension dispute, unseeable hands are a statistical threat for concealed weapons. Refusing a direct safety command to show your hands during an escalating dispute constitutes active non-compliance and obstruction. Lawful Use of Force: Once a subject actively obstructs and refuses a dispersal order, officers are legally permitted to use proportional physical force to effect an arrest. This case perfectly illustrates the fragile balance between a citizen's right to demand government accountability without fear of physical detention, and an officer's duty to maintain order and safety within a secure facility. Did the officer overstep his authority and assault a frustrated citizen, or did the citizen's non-compliance and disruption turn a legitimate grievance into a lawful arrest? I'm very interested to hear the debates on both sides.

Man gets arrested for demanding to speak with chief of police in police lobby. Who was wrong in this situation? Christopher Young walked into the Springboro Police Department lobby demanding to speak directly with the Chief of Police. Young was furious over a traffic citation he had received the previous day for not wearing a seatbelt—a ticket he adamantly claimed was based on a lie by the citing officer. When department staff informed him the chief was unavailable and asked him to calm down or leave, Young refused, repeatedly demanding to see leadership. The tension escalated rapidly when an officer ordered Young to take his hands out of his pockets. Young refused and began backing away. Believing Young was non-compliant and trespassing, the officer grabbed Young’s arm to initiate an arrest. A physical struggle ensued. Young tackled the officer to the ground, prompting multiple officers and station staff to intervene, with one officer shouting to "tase him." Young was ultimately subdued, handcuffed, and charged with criminal trespass and obstructing official business. This footage highlights a critical friction point between citizen rights and law enforcement authority. Was this a lawful arrest or did this officer violate his rights and assult Chris? Perspective A: The Officer Assaulted a Citizen Doing Legitimate Business From a strict civil liberties standpoint, many argue the officer was the unlawful aggressor. Right to be There: A police lobby is a public building funded by taxpayers. Young was there on legitimate business—to file a complaint regarding what he believed to be a fraudulent ticket. You cannot simply trespass a citizen from a public space when they are attempting to engage with their government/ have official business. The "Hands in Pockets" Fallacy: Keeping your hands in your pockets is not a crime. Because no crime was actively being committed, the officer's command to remove them was merely a request, not a lawful order. Initiating Force: Young was backing away and not posing an active physical threat. By "laying hands" on him first, the officer unlawfully escalated a verbal grievance into a physical assault, making the subsequent struggle a reaction to police aggression. Perspective B: The Officer Executed a Lawful Arrest for Obstruction From a law enforcement and prosecution standpoint, the officer's actions were fully justified under existing legal precedents. Limited Public Fora: Courts have consistently ruled that government buildings and police lobbies are "non-public fora." While open for business, citizens do not have an absolute right to remain if their conduct becomes disruptive or interferes with operations. Once ordered to leave by authorities, refusing to do so converts the stay into criminal trespass. Officer Safety and Terry Precedent: Under Terry v. Ohio, officers have the authority to manage a scene for safety. In a high-tension dispute, unseeable hands are a statistical threat for concealed weapons. Refusing a direct safety command to show your hands during an escalating dispute constitutes active non-compliance and obstruction. Lawful Use of Force: Once a subject actively obstructs and refuses a dispersal order, officers are legally permitted to use proportional physical force to effect an arrest. This case perfectly illustrates the fragile balance between a citizen's right to demand government accountability without fear of physical detention, and an officer's duty to maintain order and safety within a secure facility. Did the officer overstep his authority and assault a frustrated citizen, or did the citizen's non-compliance and disruption turn a legitimate grievance into a lawful arrest? I'm very interested to hear the debates on both sides.

Giggling Ganon

127,676 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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

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

Giggling Ganon

193,913 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

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

Giggling Ganon

68,286 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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

27,899 просмотров • 20 дней назад

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 Ganon

65,527 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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

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

Giggling Ganon

41,042 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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 Ganon

1,639,033 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад