正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

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...

GigglingGanon's profile picture

Giggling Gannon

279,073 subscribers

103,088 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

喜剧新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

35 条评论

Trevor 的头像
Trevor1 个月前

Which part of no expectation of privacy do these psychopath pigs not understand

Bubba's truth! 的头像
Bubba's truth!1 个月前

So many cops are ignorant of the law!

David Welch 的头像
David Welch1 个月前

Dumb fucking sergeant doesn't know the fucking law and should be behind bars himself. Cops are literally more moronic than any other classification of human being

just leave me alone 的头像
just leave me alone1 个月前

Not much different than a fluck camera other than a citizen is holding and operating the camera. Any thing you can see just like the police is far game.

Todd DeVries 的头像
Todd DeVries1 个月前

“ I used to sell weed and you guys used to follow the shit out of me” . That explains everything. Just a 50 year-old attention whore.

TheDemMigrantChildTraffickingRingof2020-24 的头像
TheDemMigrantChildTraffickingRingof2020-241 个月前

@j0ker937 Low iq copper is saying… “good for you”. It’s cops like this, that should make everyone understand why these auditors are so important.

Hitesh Sikka 的头像
Hitesh Sikka1 个月前

Who made him sergeant? He is a POS. This is what has gone wrong in both countries canada and usa when immigrants like this are given authority in a customer facing job and they think they can trespass or detain anyone they want just because they can. Or talk to anyone like this.

First Amendment Freedom 的头像
First Amendment Freedom1 个月前

The auditor’s YouTube channel is Dupertrooper 5-0 (also listed as Dupertrooper 5-0 (Dupage county audits)). The original video of the Westmont, Illinois encounter with Sergeant Rolando Padilla is titled something like “Illegally detained Westmont IL pd off Padilla threatened arrest for filming,” posted on that channel. Other creators (such as San Joaquin Valley Transparency) have reacted to or re-uploaded versions of it, but Dupertrooper 5-0 is the source channel for the footage. You can find the channel here:

Descendant 的头像
Descendant1 个月前

@heyitsmeCarolyn Police should have to take tests routinely on the laws they enforce those test results should be published and easy for the public to find.

blue chips 的头像
blue chips1 个月前

@j0ker937 auditors are assholes and their supporters are morons

ManE 的头像
ManE1 个月前

I thought cops liked being recorded after all they promoted a t.v. show called COPS and enjoy Flock cameras. Time to defund these redcoats of the 21st century. They work for a corporation, not the Republic. They follow statutory policy not law.

Popsmoke7007 的头像
Popsmoke70071 个月前

Beautiful display of authority over our “public servants” these shitbag corporate policy enforcement officers routinely violate the rights of the people and fail to recognize their lower position on the chain of command. Below is an example of what is written in every single State Constitution which mirrors the 1787 Constitution for the United States.

Ben Davies 的头像
Ben Davies1 个月前

I’m BRITISH living in the UK 🇬🇧 @USApolice and even I KNOW that what the guy on the side walk is doing is PERFECTLY LEGA. It’s called FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Randag 的头像
Randag1 个月前

I hate these jerks, stop messing with the people you will call when you are scared. This is the new ambulance chasing lawyers. He sounds so scared and has the balls to say I’m a good person.

Yo-Yo street🪀🆙 的头像
Yo-Yo street🪀🆙1 个月前

You been doing this for 15 yrs how many pension did you attach yourself too so far ? If zero that means you either haven’t gone through the process or you have and the judges have not granted you I just wanna know if you’ve ever won one of these cases and gotten money

Jose Marroquin 的头像
Jose Marroquin1 个月前

Just another brainless dumb fuck with a camera filming people

Ben pharttin 的头像
Ben pharttin1 个月前

That law-enforcement officer was taught about privacy in POST! If he has forgotten that already they need to pull him off the street and send him back through the classes one more time

chris 的头像
chris1 个月前

Get a job you dumb fuck. Your 50 years old acting like that

No One Special 的头像
No One Special1 个月前

I love it when non-lawyers rattle of cases they know nothing about or even how the law works.

Ada Lovelace 的头像
Ada Lovelace1 个月前

I’ve recorded their screens many times and it’s legal because it’s their job to protect the screen and they get in trouble not you!

Gordius E. Richardson ✝🌞🌹⛵🦁🦅🦀🇺🇸 的头像
Gordius E. Richardson ✝🌞🌹⛵🦁🦅🦀🇺🇸1 个月前

Officer: But but that’s how we do it in Guatemala.

Carlos 的头像
Carlos1 个月前

Idiots like this make all Americans look bad just to “go viral” The cop should have beaten the crap out of him since his parents didn’t.

barry everett 的头像
barry everett1 个月前

why doesn’t he just answere the question - it’s easier when one does that. A lot of these videos people start off as dicks. they just make it hard on them selves.

BCS 的头像
BCS1 个月前

LEADS rules only apply to authorized users. The sergeant is to stupid to know this.

Karlmonty Augustine 的头像
Karlmonty Augustine1 个月前

Plain view doctrine.... Cops use it daily to harass civilians but feel like it should not apply to them. I foresee a future where many of these kkk police will pay a heavy price for their misdeeds

Jonathan Keller🇺🇸 的头像
Jonathan Keller🇺🇸1 个月前

Another USELESS auditor.

Grow with Gandolf 的头像
Grow with Gandolf1 个月前

That ain't a cop. Thats a pig

Mike Davis 的头像
Mike Davis1 个月前

POS COPS need to be charged with Capital Felony Treason! @POTUS @SecWar @FBIDirectorKash

Ugk26 的头像
Ugk261 个月前

Hey @grok is this Westmont Illinois?

zai 的头像
zai1 个月前

this dude needs to just answer the cops fucking questions. him and his pussy ass with his camera need to go get a life and a job

Ace Ventura 的头像
Ace Ventura1 个月前

A journalist? You must have meant to say complete fucking loser dipshit.

leaton crawford 的头像
leaton crawford1 个月前

Effing eeediottt Piglet

🇺🇸Lt. Paul Hart🇺🇸 的头像
🇺🇸Lt. Paul Hart🇺🇸1 个月前

You can’t record the computer screen in a police vehicle because it may have legally confidential information displayed.

erl masse 的头像
erl masse1 个月前

Look at this coward corrupt fagot pig pussies

Freedom 156 的头像
Freedom 1561 个月前

Another douche

相关视频

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.
5:53

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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.
9:04

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.

Giggling Gannon

21,585 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

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

Giggling Ganon

20,964 次观看 • 3 个月前

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.
11:06

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

Male karen loses his mind because he does not want to be on camera. ​A peaceful filming session in a public space quickly escalated into a physical altercation, a threat of pepper spray, and a lesson in First Amendment rights outside a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse in Anaheim Hills, California. ​The incident began while a journalist was recording video outside the restaurant's outdoor patio area. A customer dining on the patio took issue with being filmed. Instead of ignoring the camera or asking the creator to move along, the customer escalated the situation by stepping around the patio partition to directly confront the cameraman. ​The interaction instantly turned physical as the customer attempted to grab the recording equipment. Seeing the journalists being targeted, on of his partners jumped in to intervene, physically pushing the customer back. To prevent further advancement from the customer or surrounding patrons, the partner brandished pepper spray, loudly warning the crowd to back up or face being sprayed. Restaurant employees and nearby diners stepped in to separate everyone before the violence could escalate further. ​When the Anaheim Police Department arrived on the scene, they were met with two very different approaches from officers. ​The first officer wanted to treat the journalist like they were the problem and not the victim as he demanded ID out of the gate without even seeing the evidence. When he sergeant arrived things moved in the right direction as he respected the rights of the journalists as the complaint was taken. ​After talking to the sergeant the journalist decided to shift gears. Expressing that his primary goal was to educate the public on constitutional rights rather than see someone hauled off to jail, the journalist offered a compromise. ​He stated he would forgo pressing charges if the customer agreed to a formal, face-to-face apology. The police sergeant stepped in to facilitate, and the customer ultimately apologized to the journalist directly on camera. With the apology accepted, the journalist declined to pursue the matter further, and officers concluded the investigation with zero arrests.
9:39

Male karen loses his mind because he does not want to be on camera. ​A peaceful filming session in a public space quickly escalated into a physical altercation, a threat of pepper spray, and a lesson in First Amendment rights outside a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse in Anaheim Hills, California. ​The incident began while a journalist was recording video outside the restaurant's outdoor patio area. A customer dining on the patio took issue with being filmed. Instead of ignoring the camera or asking the creator to move along, the customer escalated the situation by stepping around the patio partition to directly confront the cameraman. ​The interaction instantly turned physical as the customer attempted to grab the recording equipment. Seeing the journalists being targeted, on of his partners jumped in to intervene, physically pushing the customer back. To prevent further advancement from the customer or surrounding patrons, the partner brandished pepper spray, loudly warning the crowd to back up or face being sprayed. Restaurant employees and nearby diners stepped in to separate everyone before the violence could escalate further. ​When the Anaheim Police Department arrived on the scene, they were met with two very different approaches from officers. ​The first officer wanted to treat the journalist like they were the problem and not the victim as he demanded ID out of the gate without even seeing the evidence. When he sergeant arrived things moved in the right direction as he respected the rights of the journalists as the complaint was taken. ​After talking to the sergeant the journalist decided to shift gears. Expressing that his primary goal was to educate the public on constitutional rights rather than see someone hauled off to jail, the journalist offered a compromise. ​He stated he would forgo pressing charges if the customer agreed to a formal, face-to-face apology. The police sergeant stepped in to facilitate, and the customer ultimately apologized to the journalist directly on camera. With the apology accepted, the journalist declined to pursue the matter further, and officers concluded the investigation with zero arrests.

Giggling Gannon

31,891 次观看 • 3 个月前

Police and sheriff department violate rights of journalist end up costing the city $9500 dollars in a settlement. ​A journalist entered the Silverthorne Post Office to peacefully film public-access areas like the lobby and bulletin boards. Objecting to the camera, postal employees called local law enforcement to remove him. ​When officers from the Silverthorne Police Department and a Summit County Sheriff’s deputy arrived, they attempted to trespass the journalist at the request of the local postmaster. ​The fundamental breakdown in this interaction stems from a misunderstanding of public property rules. Under federal regulation 39 CFR § 232.1 (colloquially known as USPS Poster 7), citizens have an explicit right to take photographs and record video for news purposes in public spaces—such as lobbies, foyers, and corridors—provided they do not disrupt postal operations. ​While the journalist correctly argued his rights on federal property, local officers mistakenly attempted to treat the federal building like private property, enforcing a trespass order based on the staff’s "feelings" rather than an actual violation of law. ​The journalist didn't let the violation of his civil liberties slide. Following the encounter, he pursued legal action against the municipality for violating his First Amendment rights. ​Rather than dragging the case through a lengthy, expensive federal civil rights lawsuit, the Town of Silverthorne ultimately agreed to a $9,500 economic settlement with the journalist. While the town did not formally admit liability, Silverthorne's Police Chief later acknowledged that his officers would handle the situation completely differently given a second chance. ​I can't stress enough how important it is to understand your rights and how vital that it is that we stand up for those rights when confronted by tyrants like these officers try to step on those rights.
6:51

Police and sheriff department violate rights of journalist end up costing the city $9500 dollars in a settlement. ​A journalist entered the Silverthorne Post Office to peacefully film public-access areas like the lobby and bulletin boards. Objecting to the camera, postal employees called local law enforcement to remove him. ​When officers from the Silverthorne Police Department and a Summit County Sheriff’s deputy arrived, they attempted to trespass the journalist at the request of the local postmaster. ​The fundamental breakdown in this interaction stems from a misunderstanding of public property rules. Under federal regulation 39 CFR § 232.1 (colloquially known as USPS Poster 7), citizens have an explicit right to take photographs and record video for news purposes in public spaces—such as lobbies, foyers, and corridors—provided they do not disrupt postal operations. ​While the journalist correctly argued his rights on federal property, local officers mistakenly attempted to treat the federal building like private property, enforcing a trespass order based on the staff’s "feelings" rather than an actual violation of law. ​The journalist didn't let the violation of his civil liberties slide. Following the encounter, he pursued legal action against the municipality for violating his First Amendment rights. ​Rather than dragging the case through a lengthy, expensive federal civil rights lawsuit, the Town of Silverthorne ultimately agreed to a $9,500 economic settlement with the journalist. While the town did not formally admit liability, Silverthorne's Police Chief later acknowledged that his officers would handle the situation completely differently given a second chance. ​I can't stress enough how important it is to understand your rights and how vital that it is that we stand up for those rights when confronted by tyrants like these officers try to step on those rights.

Giggling Ganon

13,349 次观看 • 3 个月前

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

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

Giggling Gannon

110,729 次观看 • 2 个月前

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.
2:07

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

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

Giggling Ganon

16,588 次观看 • 5 个月前

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

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

Giggling Gannon

41,238 次观看 • 3 个月前

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.
5:16

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 Gannon

434,618 次观看 • 3 个月前

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.
16:26

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.

Giggling Gannon

26,313 次观看 • 1 个月前

This tyrant cop gets fully exposed on his own body cam. His side discussion with his sergeant in his squad car exposes everything. ​When a Denham Springs Police Department officer pulls over a driver that knows his rights for alleged "improper lane usage," the interaction escalates almost immediately. Armed with a smartphone and a deep knowledge of civil rights case law, the driver refuses to back down, explicitly citing Turner v. Driver—the landmark 5th Circuit ruling that protects a citizen's right to film law enforcement in public. ​The officer, trying to match the driver's energy with as his ego is getting crushed, demands the phone be put down, orders a pat-down for "officer safety," and threatens to upgrade a verbal warning to a physical ticket purely because of the driver's attitude. ​This is where things get interesting. ​Once the officer steps into his cruiser to write the citation, his supervisor steps by the window to drop a massive reality check. The supervisor warns the officer that he is out of line, coming in too hot, and creating a terrible look. The final blow to the officer's case? The police unit has zero dashcam evidence to prove the driver ever veered. ​Realizing that the driver has his own dashcam, a cell phone recording, and the law on his side, the entire legal justification for the stop crumbles. Realizing the stop is completely illegal and destined for an L in court as well as making him famous on YouTube, the officer is forced to do immediate damage control. He walks back out, hands the license over, and suddenly decides to give the driver a "break." Hearing the thought process in the car really gives you a peak behind the curtain as to how this officer thinks. He is clearly more concerned with being a bully than following the law and upholding his oath to the constitution. I think we all know how different this would end for someone that was not recording or had a dash cam.
10:54

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

Giggling Ganon

30,425 次观看 • 3 个月前

Bully sergeant assaults journalist gets reported to lieutenant. They both get owned in real time. Powerful moments on here. ​What happens when a journalist asks a few simple questions on public property? In Hot Springs, Arkansas, it gets you a face full of police ego and broken equipment. ​We went down to the Hot Springs Police Department to get an update on the infamous "Halloween Incident" where Lt. Kenny May violently tackled a minor teenage girl over a discarded Red Bull can, sparking community outrage and second-degree battery charges. But instead of transparency, we got a masterclass in police bullying. ​While having a peaceful conversation with two polite officers, Sergeant M. Brown decided to step in and manufacture a conflict. Falsely claiming that asking questions constitutes "interfering with a governmental operation," Brown immediately began escalating the situation. When the journalism didn't stop, the badge-heavy tactics came out: Sergeant Brown walked right up, violated the journalist's rights, and physically snatched and breaks his camera mount. ​Enter Lieutenant L. Patrick. At first, the Lieutenant did exactly what you'd expect—he stood there making excuses, trying to protect his boy, and spinning the narrative to cover up the Sergeant's blatant misconduct. He even tried to claim the journalist was being "confrontational" just for testing the officer's knowledge on the First Amendment! ​But the cover-up crumbled the second the video was played back. When forced to look at the undeniable proof of his Sergeant committing criminal mischief and assault on tape, the Lieutenant realized he couldn't hide the truth. He was forced to admit that there cannot be two tiers of the law—what is illegal for a citizen is illegal for a cop. The Sergeant had to tuck his ego in, offer a weak apology, and the Lieutenant was forced to hand over formal citizen complaint forms. You really get a peek into how the minds of these officers work in this video. The lieutenant laughed it off when they wanted to report the assault as in his eyes it was no big deal, until the journalist spun it around on him and asked what would happen if he grabbed the lieutenant's camera. You can't go to jail for one and not the other. You see the light go on in his head in real time.
7:10

Bully sergeant assaults journalist gets reported to lieutenant. They both get owned in real time. Powerful moments on here. ​What happens when a journalist asks a few simple questions on public property? In Hot Springs, Arkansas, it gets you a face full of police ego and broken equipment. ​We went down to the Hot Springs Police Department to get an update on the infamous "Halloween Incident" where Lt. Kenny May violently tackled a minor teenage girl over a discarded Red Bull can, sparking community outrage and second-degree battery charges. But instead of transparency, we got a masterclass in police bullying. ​While having a peaceful conversation with two polite officers, Sergeant M. Brown decided to step in and manufacture a conflict. Falsely claiming that asking questions constitutes "interfering with a governmental operation," Brown immediately began escalating the situation. When the journalism didn't stop, the badge-heavy tactics came out: Sergeant Brown walked right up, violated the journalist's rights, and physically snatched and breaks his camera mount. ​Enter Lieutenant L. Patrick. At first, the Lieutenant did exactly what you'd expect—he stood there making excuses, trying to protect his boy, and spinning the narrative to cover up the Sergeant's blatant misconduct. He even tried to claim the journalist was being "confrontational" just for testing the officer's knowledge on the First Amendment! ​But the cover-up crumbled the second the video was played back. When forced to look at the undeniable proof of his Sergeant committing criminal mischief and assault on tape, the Lieutenant realized he couldn't hide the truth. He was forced to admit that there cannot be two tiers of the law—what is illegal for a citizen is illegal for a cop. The Sergeant had to tuck his ego in, offer a weak apology, and the Lieutenant was forced to hand over formal citizen complaint forms. You really get a peek into how the minds of these officers work in this video. The lieutenant laughed it off when they wanted to report the assault as in his eyes it was no big deal, until the journalist spun it around on him and asked what would happen if he grabbed the lieutenant's camera. You can't go to jail for one and not the other. You see the light go on in his head in real time.

Giggling Ganon

145,177 次观看 • 3 个月前

City attorney feels as though he gets to decide which of your rights are valid and when. When a town attorney—the very person hired to advise a municipality on the law—completely disregards the United States Constitution, it raises massive red flags. Meet Richard Harris the city attorney for Port Jefferson, NY. ​Here is the breakdown of what happened in Port Jefferson, New York, when a journalist walked into a public building recording to request a FOIA form. ​ ​The Official: Richard Harris, the town attorney. As a legal professional representing a municipality, Harris is expected to have a flawless, comprehensive understanding of constitutional law and public access rights. ​ Instead of upholding the law, Harris is seen explicitly attempting to override it. He orders the journalist to stop recording and leave the public premises, acting as though he possesses the personal authority to determine when and where a citizen's rights are valid. ​ Harris threatens to call law enforcement and physically steps in to block the journalist from moving down public hallways toward the clerk’s office. ​ Local constables and code enforcement personnel are brought into the mix to enforce Harris’s unconstitutional demands, escalating a simple paperwork request into a full-blown confrontation. ​ When police supervisors arrive on the scene, he does hit them with the dose of reality as he educats the building on the rights of journalist. ​ ​When public officials freak out over a camera in a public lobby, it begs the ultimate question: What exactly are they trying to hide?
8:02

City attorney feels as though he gets to decide which of your rights are valid and when. When a town attorney—the very person hired to advise a municipality on the law—completely disregards the United States Constitution, it raises massive red flags. Meet Richard Harris the city attorney for Port Jefferson, NY. ​Here is the breakdown of what happened in Port Jefferson, New York, when a journalist walked into a public building recording to request a FOIA form. ​ ​The Official: Richard Harris, the town attorney. As a legal professional representing a municipality, Harris is expected to have a flawless, comprehensive understanding of constitutional law and public access rights. ​ Instead of upholding the law, Harris is seen explicitly attempting to override it. He orders the journalist to stop recording and leave the public premises, acting as though he possesses the personal authority to determine when and where a citizen's rights are valid. ​ Harris threatens to call law enforcement and physically steps in to block the journalist from moving down public hallways toward the clerk’s office. ​ Local constables and code enforcement personnel are brought into the mix to enforce Harris’s unconstitutional demands, escalating a simple paperwork request into a full-blown confrontation. ​ When police supervisors arrive on the scene, he does hit them with the dose of reality as he educats the building on the rights of journalist. ​ ​When public officials freak out over a camera in a public lobby, it begs the ultimate question: What exactly are they trying to hide?

Giggling Ganon

66,313 次观看 • 4 个月前

It's astounding how ignorant this female cop is on the law. When public photography gets treated as a potential crime, knowing your rights makes all the difference. ​In this bodycam encounter out of Kansas City, Missouri, KCPD Officer Sarah Holland responded to a call regarding an independent journalist filming near bank branches along Ward Parkway. Prior to arrival, dispatch discussions framed the activity as potentially "casing" the locations, leading to immediate tension upon contact. ​When Officer Holland arrived, she demanded the journalist’s identification. The journalist maintained that he was standing strictly on a public sidewalk, gathering content for a story, and declined to provide ID without reasonable, articulable suspicion of an actual crime. Despite his assertion of First Amendment rights and city easement protections, Officer Holland placed him in handcuffs, insisting he was legally detained for refusing to leave after the bank requested it. ​The situation escalated until a field supervisor arrived on scene to assess the stop. After questioning bank management and surveying the area, the supervisor stepped in to correct the procedural missteps, clarifying that standing on a public sidewalk to record is constitutionally protected activity and that police cannot simply demand identification or detain an individual without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. ​Ultimately, because the journalist remained in public space he was uncuffed and released without identifying himself or facing charges. ​A textbook breakdown of public easement rights, stop-and-identify standards, and why supervisor intervention matters on the street. The scary part is you have to wonder how many people's rights has this woman violated through her career. She needs re-education on the constitution that she swore to protect.
12:48

It's astounding how ignorant this female cop is on the law. When public photography gets treated as a potential crime, knowing your rights makes all the difference. ​In this bodycam encounter out of Kansas City, Missouri, KCPD Officer Sarah Holland responded to a call regarding an independent journalist filming near bank branches along Ward Parkway. Prior to arrival, dispatch discussions framed the activity as potentially "casing" the locations, leading to immediate tension upon contact. ​When Officer Holland arrived, she demanded the journalist’s identification. The journalist maintained that he was standing strictly on a public sidewalk, gathering content for a story, and declined to provide ID without reasonable, articulable suspicion of an actual crime. Despite his assertion of First Amendment rights and city easement protections, Officer Holland placed him in handcuffs, insisting he was legally detained for refusing to leave after the bank requested it. ​The situation escalated until a field supervisor arrived on scene to assess the stop. After questioning bank management and surveying the area, the supervisor stepped in to correct the procedural missteps, clarifying that standing on a public sidewalk to record is constitutionally protected activity and that police cannot simply demand identification or detain an individual without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. ​Ultimately, because the journalist remained in public space he was uncuffed and released without identifying himself or facing charges. ​A textbook breakdown of public easement rights, stop-and-identify standards, and why supervisor intervention matters on the street. The scary part is you have to wonder how many people's rights has this woman violated through her career. She needs re-education on the constitution that she swore to protect.

Giggling Ganon

22,974 次观看 • 1 个月前

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.
6:03

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✨️

42,931 次观看 • 4 个月前

Unhinged detective completely loses his composure all on camera over two men that stand up to his bully style tactics. Detective Sergeant Greg Morabito of the Utica Police Department in Michigan responded to a call at a gas station parking lot after a driver reported being recorded by some independent journalists. ​What happened next became a textbook example of how not to handle public interactions—and the entire confrontation was caught in 4k. ​Morabito pulled up in an unmarked SUV and attempted to question the men recording in public. Exercising their rights, the journalists immediately shut him down, reminding him that they were under no legal obligation to answer questions without reasonable suspicion of a crime, and advised him to go speak to the reporting party instead. ​Morabito refused to disengage, insisting they were going to answer his questions. The situation quickly degraded into an intense argument over police policy, tax-funded property, and constitutional rights. ​During the exchange, Morabito became more and more unhinged as he saw that he was not going to be successfully in steam rolling the rights of these men. He eventually got so lost in his anger that he flipped off the men, yelled, and eventually swatted the camera out of Jones’s hand as officers on the scene repeatedly tried to pull Morabito back and de-escalate their supervisor. ​After officers left the scene, the journalists went directly to the Utica Police Department station to file a formal misconduct complaint against Morabito. Instead of a complaint process, Morabito gave them "two minutes" to leave before arresting and handcuffing Jones for disorderly conduct. Once the footage was released, ​Morabito was placed on administrative leave while the department launched an internal review. ​The Macomb County Sheriff's Office conducted an independent investigation into the officer's actions. ​While prosecutors ultimately declined to press criminal charges against Morabito, the internal pressure and public outcry led to his official resignation from the Utica Police Department. ​Public service requires accountability, transparency, and a cool head under pressure. This detective displayed none of this. It's scary to think how many folks this man. Most likely violated the rights of over the years and got away with it.
4:14

Unhinged detective completely loses his composure all on camera over two men that stand up to his bully style tactics. Detective Sergeant Greg Morabito of the Utica Police Department in Michigan responded to a call at a gas station parking lot after a driver reported being recorded by some independent journalists. ​What happened next became a textbook example of how not to handle public interactions—and the entire confrontation was caught in 4k. ​Morabito pulled up in an unmarked SUV and attempted to question the men recording in public. Exercising their rights, the journalists immediately shut him down, reminding him that they were under no legal obligation to answer questions without reasonable suspicion of a crime, and advised him to go speak to the reporting party instead. ​Morabito refused to disengage, insisting they were going to answer his questions. The situation quickly degraded into an intense argument over police policy, tax-funded property, and constitutional rights. ​During the exchange, Morabito became more and more unhinged as he saw that he was not going to be successfully in steam rolling the rights of these men. He eventually got so lost in his anger that he flipped off the men, yelled, and eventually swatted the camera out of Jones’s hand as officers on the scene repeatedly tried to pull Morabito back and de-escalate their supervisor. ​After officers left the scene, the journalists went directly to the Utica Police Department station to file a formal misconduct complaint against Morabito. Instead of a complaint process, Morabito gave them "two minutes" to leave before arresting and handcuffing Jones for disorderly conduct. Once the footage was released, ​Morabito was placed on administrative leave while the department launched an internal review. ​The Macomb County Sheriff's Office conducted an independent investigation into the officer's actions. ​While prosecutors ultimately declined to press criminal charges against Morabito, the internal pressure and public outcry led to his official resignation from the Utica Police Department. ​Public service requires accountability, transparency, and a cool head under pressure. This detective displayed none of this. It's scary to think how many folks this man. Most likely violated the rights of over the years and got away with it.

Giggling Gannon

119,250 次观看 • 2 个月前

State trooper spits in the face of a journalist that is asking him questions on his 75k in overtime pay for a desk job. ​Connecticut State Police Sergeant Bryan Fahey—a trooper reassigned to a 9-to-5 desk job over anger issues—made over $212,000 in a single year, with more than $75,000 coming from overtime pay. ​When independent journalist went to Fahey’s residence to ask about these taxpayer-funded overtime claims as one wonders how you accumulate 75k in OT working a desk job. Fahey immediately told the journalist to leave his property and as they were in the process of leaving, Fahey came out of his door and confronted the journalist with an unholstered firearm. The camera man's video shows an aggressive Fahey following the journalists down the road to the street with his firearm in hand while body checking the journalist, and spitting directly in the journalist's face. ​Instead of holding the trooper accountable, responding Groton Police Department officers claimed spitting on a civilian wasn't a crime and arrested Reyes for "voyeurism" and "trespassing" even though no signs were on the property stating no trespassing and the journalist was leaving immediately upon when asked to do so. Following the arrest and the footage going public, Fahey has resigned from the department. Also, Fahey had to turn himself in on criminal charges. The journalist has federal Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits are underway against Fahey, the Connecticut State Police, and the Groton Police Department for First Amendment retaliation and malicious prosecution.
5:50

State trooper spits in the face of a journalist that is asking him questions on his 75k in overtime pay for a desk job. ​Connecticut State Police Sergeant Bryan Fahey—a trooper reassigned to a 9-to-5 desk job over anger issues—made over $212,000 in a single year, with more than $75,000 coming from overtime pay. ​When independent journalist went to Fahey’s residence to ask about these taxpayer-funded overtime claims as one wonders how you accumulate 75k in OT working a desk job. Fahey immediately told the journalist to leave his property and as they were in the process of leaving, Fahey came out of his door and confronted the journalist with an unholstered firearm. The camera man's video shows an aggressive Fahey following the journalists down the road to the street with his firearm in hand while body checking the journalist, and spitting directly in the journalist's face. ​Instead of holding the trooper accountable, responding Groton Police Department officers claimed spitting on a civilian wasn't a crime and arrested Reyes for "voyeurism" and "trespassing" even though no signs were on the property stating no trespassing and the journalist was leaving immediately upon when asked to do so. Following the arrest and the footage going public, Fahey has resigned from the department. Also, Fahey had to turn himself in on criminal charges. The journalist has federal Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits are underway against Fahey, the Connecticut State Police, and the Groton Police Department for First Amendment retaliation and malicious prosecution.

Giggling Gannon

201,348 次观看 • 1 个月前

Tyrant judge thinks he can decide what rights people have in a public building just because he says so. We are in Clay County, Indiana. A journalist entered the public spaces of the building to document public servants doing the people's business. But instead of transparency, he was met with immediate resistance. ​The judge stepped in, attempting to deny the journalist's constitutional rights and shut down the camera under the guise of local courthouse policies. ​But here is the reality: local rules and administrative policies do not override the United States Constitution. ​The journalist holds their ground, calmly refusing to back down while facing immense pressure from the judge and deputies. You can see the exact moment the gears turn and the narrative shifts. As the journalist stands firm, the judge realizes that enforcing an unconstitutional order on camera is a direct path to a federal civil rights lawsuit. ​Knowing they were in blatant violation of the journalist's rights, the judge did the one thing authority figures hate doing: they backed down. No arrest, no trespass, just a quiet retreat. ​This is a prime example of why independent journalism and auditing exist. Public officials answer to the taxpayers—not the other way around. ​Know your rights folks and do not bend a knee to comply when tyrants try to steal your rights from you.
7:11

Tyrant judge thinks he can decide what rights people have in a public building just because he says so. We are in Clay County, Indiana. A journalist entered the public spaces of the building to document public servants doing the people's business. But instead of transparency, he was met with immediate resistance. ​The judge stepped in, attempting to deny the journalist's constitutional rights and shut down the camera under the guise of local courthouse policies. ​But here is the reality: local rules and administrative policies do not override the United States Constitution. ​The journalist holds their ground, calmly refusing to back down while facing immense pressure from the judge and deputies. You can see the exact moment the gears turn and the narrative shifts. As the journalist stands firm, the judge realizes that enforcing an unconstitutional order on camera is a direct path to a federal civil rights lawsuit. ​Knowing they were in blatant violation of the journalist's rights, the judge did the one thing authority figures hate doing: they backed down. No arrest, no trespass, just a quiet retreat. ​This is a prime example of why independent journalism and auditing exist. Public officials answer to the taxpayers—not the other way around. ​Know your rights folks and do not bend a knee to comply when tyrants try to steal your rights from you.

Giggling Ganon

127,074 次观看 • 4 个月前