Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

This dude was pulled over for a headlight violation. During the stop the officer involved demands to see the ID of the passenger ( his wife). The response from the driver is no, she was not driving. The officer involved throws out that Alabama is a stop and ID...

GigglingGanon's profile picture

Giggling Ganon

214,522 subscribers

438,882 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ЮморНовости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Officer gets upset at man that knows his rights so he packs up his toys and goes to sit in his squad car until another officer gets him to come out and finish the traffic stop. ​The driver, identified as Mr. Brewer, is pulled over for a standard nighttime headlight violation. He complies fully with the initial lawful demands—handing over his driver's license and proof of insurance. But once the officer has the necessary paperwork to write a fix-it ticket or a standard citation, the questions start drifting into unlawful territory. ​After processing the license, the officer asks Mr. Brewer for his phone number, followed by a request for his Social Security number. ​Mr. Brewer correctly draws the line here. While law enforcement can ask for voluntary information, they cannot legally compel a driver to hand over a Social Security number or phone number during a routine traffic infraction. Mr. Brewer stands his ground, stating clearly: "I've given you everything I'm legally required to give you." ​The core battle of this stop happens when a backup officer arrives on scene. The original officer had demanded identification from Mr. Brewer’s wife, who was sitting quietly in the passenger seat. The second officer attempts to back his partner up by claiming that because Alabama is a "Stop and Identify" state, they have the right to demand her ID. ​This is a massive and common misconception among law enforcement, and Mr. Brewer shuts it down perfectly: ​The reason for the stop is a headlights violation. The scope of the officer's traffic investigation stops at the driver. ​ Under Fourth Amendment precedent, a passenger in a vehicle is not the operator and cannot be forced to identify themselves unless officers have reasonable, articulable suspicion that the passenger specifically has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Simply riding in a car with a headlight violation does not strip you of your right to privacy. ​Knowing that Mr. Brewer knows the law, is well-aware that refusing to sign a ticket can result in an arrest, but that signing it means the stop is legally concluded, the officers realize they have zero leverage. With the citation signed and no legal grounds to prolong the detention or force the passenger to comply, the officers back down and send them on their way. ​Knowing your rights isn't about being difficult—it's about keeping the system accountable.
4:06

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

Giggling Ganon

36,777 просмотров • 2 дней 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.
3:50

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

1,626,550 просмотров • 11 дней назад

A police pull over a car for heavily tinted windows. The officer approaches the passenger side and asks the passenger for ID. He refuses he’s not driving, didn’t break any laws, so why should he identify himself? After a tense exchange, officers discover the driver, his uncle has an active warrant. Now, the bigger debate begins. If the driver is wanted, should every passenger automatically have to show ID, even if they committed no violation? Is that reasonable officer safety or creeping overreach? At what point does an investigation cross the line into infringing on individual rights?
1:48

A police pull over a car for heavily tinted windows. The officer approaches the passenger side and asks the passenger for ID. He refuses he’s not driving, didn’t break any laws, so why should he identify himself? After a tense exchange, officers discover the driver, his uncle has an active warrant. Now, the bigger debate begins. If the driver is wanted, should every passenger automatically have to show ID, even if they committed no violation? Is that reasonable officer safety or creeping overreach? At what point does an investigation cross the line into infringing on individual rights?

Dr.L

1,266,004 просмотров • 3 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.
6:08

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

184,614 просмотров • 3 дней назад

Midland cop caught fishing for violations just to get his hands on the driver's ID. The driver in this traffic stop out of Midland, Texas, put on a clinic with regards to knowing your rights when the "reasonable suspicion" starts to shift mid-conversation. ​ Officer Gilpin initially pulls the driver over claiming he was holding his phone. The driver immediately points to the dashboard mount. The phone wasn’t in his hand; it was secured. ​ Once the phone excuse fell through, the officer pivoted, claiming the driver was speeding. The driver’s response? He was doing 16 mph in a 25 mph zone. ​ When challenged, Gilpin admitted he didn't use radar and wasn't pacing the vehicle—he was sitting still. He claimed he knew the driver was speeding based on "visual interpretation" alone. The driver demanded a supervisor which also does not seem know the law as he also wanted the ID just because he asked. Meanwhile Texas is not id on demand state. ​ Because the initial reason for the stop was proven false and the second reason lacked any objective evidence, the driver refused to hand over his ID, citing his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure. After this footage went viral, the Midland Police Department conducted an internal review. They concluded the officer’s conduct didn't meet department standards, and the City Manager later confirmed that the officer faced disciplinary action. ​When you know the law and have the footage to back it up, "visual interpretations" don't hold much weight in the face of the facts.
6:37

Midland cop caught fishing for violations just to get his hands on the driver's ID. The driver in this traffic stop out of Midland, Texas, put on a clinic with regards to knowing your rights when the "reasonable suspicion" starts to shift mid-conversation. ​ Officer Gilpin initially pulls the driver over claiming he was holding his phone. The driver immediately points to the dashboard mount. The phone wasn’t in his hand; it was secured. ​ Once the phone excuse fell through, the officer pivoted, claiming the driver was speeding. The driver’s response? He was doing 16 mph in a 25 mph zone. ​ When challenged, Gilpin admitted he didn't use radar and wasn't pacing the vehicle—he was sitting still. He claimed he knew the driver was speeding based on "visual interpretation" alone. The driver demanded a supervisor which also does not seem know the law as he also wanted the ID just because he asked. Meanwhile Texas is not id on demand state. ​ Because the initial reason for the stop was proven false and the second reason lacked any objective evidence, the driver refused to hand over his ID, citing his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure. After this footage went viral, the Midland Police Department conducted an internal review. They concluded the officer’s conduct didn't meet department standards, and the City Manager later confirmed that the officer faced disciplinary action. ​When you know the law and have the footage to back it up, "visual interpretations" don't hold much weight in the face of the facts.

Giggling Ganon

364,073 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Guy gets pulled over by tyrant officer knows his rights and unloads on the officer. ​A Lake County Sheriff’s deputy decided to initiate a traffic stop, he clearly wasn’t expecting a driver who actually knew the law and was prepared to push back. Once the stop was in full swing, the driver challenged the deputy as to what the reason was for the stop. The mental gymnastics this deputy went through to try and justify the stop is mind boggling. ​ As the confrontation continued to unfold, the truth slipped out—the deputy admitted the stop happened because the driver flipped him off while driving down the road. ​Realizing that a middle finger is completely protected under the First Amendment, the officer immediately shifted gears and claimed the stop was for "speeding." ​The driver wasn't having it. He immediately called out the lie, pointing out that he had a dashcam running with real-time GPS tracking to prove his exact speed. ​When an officer pulls you over out of pure retaliation and then reaches for a generic traffic violation to cover his tracks, that isn't law enforcement—it's tyranny. ​Knowing his rights, the driver initially refused to hand over his license and registration for an unlawful stop. He correctly challenged the deputy to name a legitimate, articulable crime that had been committed. "Failure to identify" cannot be used as a primary excuse to demand paperwork when the initial stop itself lacks probable cause. ​Unfortunately, when tyrants don't get immediate submission, they escalate. Instead of producing a radar reading or admitting he had no case, the deputy resorted to state-sanctioned extortion, threatening the driver with an immediate arrest just for exercising his right to question the stop. To avoid being falsely locked up, the driver handed over his ID under explicit "threat of arrest." ​The power trip didn't stop there. Because the driver dared to speak up, the deputy called in a full "Code 3" emergency backup response. Multiple units rolled up with lights flashing—wasting tax dollars and staging a massive show of force over a completely fabricated speeding allegation. ​To cap off the entire abuse of power, the deputy realized he was losing the legal argument on camera, so he resorted to a petty personal attack. He demanded to know if the truck was a commercial vehicle and threatened to call the driver's employer to get him in trouble at work. ​This driver did exactly what more citizens need to do: he kept his camera rolling, documented the badge number, and made it clear that threats of litigation are coming. When officers think they can write retaliatory tickets just because their egos are bruised, they need to be held accountable in a court of law. In my opinion this is a textbook example of a roadside fishing expedition where an officer got his feelings hurt, abused his authority, and scrambled to invent a crime after the fact.
2:06

Guy gets pulled over by tyrant officer knows his rights and unloads on the officer. ​A Lake County Sheriff’s deputy decided to initiate a traffic stop, he clearly wasn’t expecting a driver who actually knew the law and was prepared to push back. Once the stop was in full swing, the driver challenged the deputy as to what the reason was for the stop. The mental gymnastics this deputy went through to try and justify the stop is mind boggling. ​ As the confrontation continued to unfold, the truth slipped out—the deputy admitted the stop happened because the driver flipped him off while driving down the road. ​Realizing that a middle finger is completely protected under the First Amendment, the officer immediately shifted gears and claimed the stop was for "speeding." ​The driver wasn't having it. He immediately called out the lie, pointing out that he had a dashcam running with real-time GPS tracking to prove his exact speed. ​When an officer pulls you over out of pure retaliation and then reaches for a generic traffic violation to cover his tracks, that isn't law enforcement—it's tyranny. ​Knowing his rights, the driver initially refused to hand over his license and registration for an unlawful stop. He correctly challenged the deputy to name a legitimate, articulable crime that had been committed. "Failure to identify" cannot be used as a primary excuse to demand paperwork when the initial stop itself lacks probable cause. ​Unfortunately, when tyrants don't get immediate submission, they escalate. Instead of producing a radar reading or admitting he had no case, the deputy resorted to state-sanctioned extortion, threatening the driver with an immediate arrest just for exercising his right to question the stop. To avoid being falsely locked up, the driver handed over his ID under explicit "threat of arrest." ​The power trip didn't stop there. Because the driver dared to speak up, the deputy called in a full "Code 3" emergency backup response. Multiple units rolled up with lights flashing—wasting tax dollars and staging a massive show of force over a completely fabricated speeding allegation. ​To cap off the entire abuse of power, the deputy realized he was losing the legal argument on camera, so he resorted to a petty personal attack. He demanded to know if the truck was a commercial vehicle and threatened to call the driver's employer to get him in trouble at work. ​This driver did exactly what more citizens need to do: he kept his camera rolling, documented the badge number, and made it clear that threats of litigation are coming. When officers think they can write retaliatory tickets just because their egos are bruised, they need to be held accountable in a court of law. In my opinion this is a textbook example of a roadside fishing expedition where an officer got his feelings hurt, abused his authority, and scrambled to invent a crime after the fact.

Giggling Ganon

76,439 просмотров • 9 дней назад

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

28,334 просмотров • 3 дней назад

Watch the exact moment a traffic stop went from a citation to an arrest over a single piece of plastic. An officer pulls the driver over, stating she failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The driver refuses to physically hand over her driver's license to the officer. Instead, she holds it up so the officer can see the information but refuses to surrender physical possession of the license. She cites a belief that she is not legally required to "hand" the officer her license. ​The officer repeatedly explains that he needs to hold it to verify it as part of the traffic stop. The driver continues to refuse, and the officer orders her to step out of the vehicle. ​The driver eventually steps out of the vehicle after a lengthy debate about the law and her rights. The video concludes with the driver outside her vehicle, continuing to argue her legal stance with the officers and getting arrested for resisting and obstructing law enforcement. ​The Conflict Over "Presenting" a License ​In Florida, as in many states, the requirement to "present" or "submit" a driver's license is not interpreted as merely showing it from a distance. Law enforcement requires physical possession of the document for several operational reasons: ​Authentication: Officers must verify the security features of the card (holograms, tactile elements, etc.) to ensure it is not a counterfeit or an altered document. ​Database Verification: To complete a traffic stop investigation, the officer must run the license through the FCIC/NCIC (Florida Crime Information Center / National Crime Information Center) databases. This check verifies the status of the license (valid, suspended, revoked) and checks for outstanding warrants or other issues. An officer cannot perform this background check without the license number and/or the ability to scan the card. ​The Charge of "Resisting Without Violence" ​While the driver may have provided other documentation, the refusal to surrender the driver's license for verification is viewed by law enforcement as a failure to comply with a lawful order during a traffic stop. ​The Legal Trigger: Under Florida Statute § 843.02, an officer can charge a person with "resisting an officer without violence" if they believe the individual is obstructing them in the "lawful execution of any legal duty." ​The Interpretation of Obstruction: If an officer determines that the driver's refusal to hand over the license prevents them from completing the mandatory identification and background check, they may consider the driver to be intentionally obstructing their investigation. ​The Escalation: Even if the driver was cooperative in other aspects, the persistent refusal to comply with the officer’s instruction to hand over the license can lead to a formal detention and, ultimately, an arrest. The arrest is typically made because the officer determines that the driver is willfully impeding their ability to perform their official duties. ​In court, defense attorneys often argue whether a driver's actions constituted "obstruction" or merely a misunderstanding, but the outcome is highly dependent on the judge's interpretation of whether the driver’s refusal effectively stopped the officer from performing their duties.
9:28

Watch the exact moment a traffic stop went from a citation to an arrest over a single piece of plastic. An officer pulls the driver over, stating she failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The driver refuses to physically hand over her driver's license to the officer. Instead, she holds it up so the officer can see the information but refuses to surrender physical possession of the license. She cites a belief that she is not legally required to "hand" the officer her license. ​The officer repeatedly explains that he needs to hold it to verify it as part of the traffic stop. The driver continues to refuse, and the officer orders her to step out of the vehicle. ​The driver eventually steps out of the vehicle after a lengthy debate about the law and her rights. The video concludes with the driver outside her vehicle, continuing to argue her legal stance with the officers and getting arrested for resisting and obstructing law enforcement. ​The Conflict Over "Presenting" a License ​In Florida, as in many states, the requirement to "present" or "submit" a driver's license is not interpreted as merely showing it from a distance. Law enforcement requires physical possession of the document for several operational reasons: ​Authentication: Officers must verify the security features of the card (holograms, tactile elements, etc.) to ensure it is not a counterfeit or an altered document. ​Database Verification: To complete a traffic stop investigation, the officer must run the license through the FCIC/NCIC (Florida Crime Information Center / National Crime Information Center) databases. This check verifies the status of the license (valid, suspended, revoked) and checks for outstanding warrants or other issues. An officer cannot perform this background check without the license number and/or the ability to scan the card. ​The Charge of "Resisting Without Violence" ​While the driver may have provided other documentation, the refusal to surrender the driver's license for verification is viewed by law enforcement as a failure to comply with a lawful order during a traffic stop. ​The Legal Trigger: Under Florida Statute § 843.02, an officer can charge a person with "resisting an officer without violence" if they believe the individual is obstructing them in the "lawful execution of any legal duty." ​The Interpretation of Obstruction: If an officer determines that the driver's refusal to hand over the license prevents them from completing the mandatory identification and background check, they may consider the driver to be intentionally obstructing their investigation. ​The Escalation: Even if the driver was cooperative in other aspects, the persistent refusal to comply with the officer’s instruction to hand over the license can lead to a formal detention and, ultimately, an arrest. The arrest is typically made because the officer determines that the driver is willfully impeding their ability to perform their official duties. ​In court, defense attorneys often argue whether a driver's actions constituted "obstruction" or merely a misunderstanding, but the outcome is highly dependent on the judge's interpretation of whether the driver’s refusal effectively stopped the officer from performing their duties.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

12,796 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Perfect way to handle an officer that just violated his rights. This officer pulled him over for a tint violation but then without consent took it upon him self to open the door of the vehicle and remove the firearm of the driver. Keep in mind the driver already provided his permit with his ID during the stop with the tint.
0:40

Perfect way to handle an officer that just violated his rights. This officer pulled him over for a tint violation but then without consent took it upon him self to open the door of the vehicle and remove the firearm of the driver. Keep in mind the driver already provided his permit with his ID during the stop with the tint.

Chuckling Charlie

107,220 просмотров • 2 месяцев 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.
8:22

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

39,666 просмотров • 19 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.
2:12

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

Giggling Ganon

295,551 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🚨Another day, another video of ICE agents demanding a U.S. citizen prove his citizenship… this time, in Philadelphia. In the video, ICE agents box in a man’s car and immediately demand ID, without giving an explanation… Just, “There is a subject we are looking for.” The man responds exactly how anyone who knows their rights would: “What did I do?” And that matters… Because under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement cannot detain you just to “check.” They need reasonable, articulable suspicion that you committed a crime, or are the specific person they’re looking for. Not just the same race, or, “you look like someone.” When agents surround a vehicle so you can’t leave, that’s a seizure, legally. That triggers constitutional protections. Instead of articulating a reason, the agent shifts the language: “I need to verify your identity.” No, they don’t. They can only demand identification if the stop, itself, is lawful. And the stop is only lawful if they can clearly explain why they believe you are the subject they’re looking for. Notice what they never say in the video: -They never describe the suspect. -They never state a crime. -They never explain how he matches the person they are “looking for.” Just, “we’re looking for someone.” That is not enough. Then, the agent tries to grab the man’s ID without consent. The man pulls it back and says, “Don’t touch my ID.” He’s right. Officers don’t get to physically seize your property without legal authority. The agent then looks at the ID from a distance and walks away. Which tells us something important… If they truly had probable cause, this would not have ended with a casual glance and retreat. ICE does not have authority to randomly stop citizens to “verify” they’re not someone else. That is exactly the kind of policing the Constitution was written to prevent. If agents can box in your car, demand your identity without stating a crime, and fish for compliance… then everyone’s rights are conditional. And conditional rights aren’t rights at all.
0:38

🚨Another day, another video of ICE agents demanding a U.S. citizen prove his citizenship… this time, in Philadelphia. In the video, ICE agents box in a man’s car and immediately demand ID, without giving an explanation… Just, “There is a subject we are looking for.” The man responds exactly how anyone who knows their rights would: “What did I do?” And that matters… Because under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement cannot detain you just to “check.” They need reasonable, articulable suspicion that you committed a crime, or are the specific person they’re looking for. Not just the same race, or, “you look like someone.” When agents surround a vehicle so you can’t leave, that’s a seizure, legally. That triggers constitutional protections. Instead of articulating a reason, the agent shifts the language: “I need to verify your identity.” No, they don’t. They can only demand identification if the stop, itself, is lawful. And the stop is only lawful if they can clearly explain why they believe you are the subject they’re looking for. Notice what they never say in the video: -They never describe the suspect. -They never state a crime. -They never explain how he matches the person they are “looking for.” Just, “we’re looking for someone.” That is not enough. Then, the agent tries to grab the man’s ID without consent. The man pulls it back and says, “Don’t touch my ID.” He’s right. Officers don’t get to physically seize your property without legal authority. The agent then looks at the ID from a distance and walks away. Which tells us something important… If they truly had probable cause, this would not have ended with a casual glance and retreat. ICE does not have authority to randomly stop citizens to “verify” they’re not someone else. That is exactly the kind of policing the Constitution was written to prevent. If agents can box in your car, demand your identity without stating a crime, and fish for compliance… then everyone’s rights are conditional. And conditional rights aren’t rights at all.

Jesus Freakin Congress

77,352 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

A routine traffic stop quickly escalated after a driver refused to provide identification and actively resisted officers. ​The entire encounter—from the initial tailgating violation to the final arrest—was captured on bodycam footage. ​ The officer initiated the stop after Joe reportedly followed her squad car at an unsafe distance while constantly honking his horn and flashing his lights. ​Throughout the encounter, Joe was extremely confrontational, aggressive, and uncooperative: ​He repeatedly used profanity and hurled derogatory insults at the officer. ​He refused to identify himself or provide his driver's license. ​He instructed his young child, who was a passenger in the vehicle, to get out and scream for help. ​He claimed that the officer was the one breaking the law by using her cell phone while driving. ​When a backup officer (a supervisor) arrived on the scene, Joe continued his combative behavior. He argued that honking his horn was not illegal and demanded to know what specific law he had broken. ​When the officers attempted to place Joe under arrest, he actively resisted. He refused to exit his vehicle, screamed that the officers were choking him (which the video evidence contradicts), and had to be physically removed and secured in the back of the police cruiser. Joe's actions during the traffic stop led to several specific criminal charges: ​1. Following Too Closely / Unlawful Use of a Horn ​The initial reason for the stop was a traffic violation. Under most state traffic laws (including Wisconsin, where this incident took place), drivers must maintain a safe following distance. Furthermore, vehicle horns are legally intended only to warn of immediate danger, not to harass or signal displeasure. Joe's continuous honking and tailgating constituted a valid reason for a traffic stop. ​2. Refusal to Identify / Provide a License ​While Joe correctly noted that citizens do not always have to identify themselves to police, traffic stops are a major exception. When operating a motor vehicle, a driver is legally required to present a valid driver's license upon the request of a law enforcement officer. Refusing to do so is a secondary offense and prevents the officer from issuing a standard citation. ​3. Resisting and Obstructing an Officer ​Joe was charged with resisting/obstructing an officer. Legally, "obstructing" includes knowingly giving false information or refusing to comply with lawful commands (such as refusing to sign a ticket or show ID). "Resisting" applies to his physical non-compliance when officers ordered him out of the vehicle and his subsequent physical struggle against being handcuffed and placed in the squad car. ​4. Disorderly Conduct ​Joe's loud, profane screaming in a public space, combined with triggering a disruptive situation by forcing his child to scream for help, falls under disorderly conduct. This charge applies to behavior that is violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, or otherwise unreasonably disruptive. ​5. Battery to a Law Enforcement Officer ​During the physical struggle to place Joe under arrest, his actions escalated to physical resistance that resulted in a charge of battery to a law enforcement officer. This is a felony charge in many jurisdictions, applying when an individual intentionally causes bodily harm (or takes actions likely to cause harm) to an officer acting in their official capacity.
12:16

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

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

16,384 просмотров • 26 дней назад

Grad Rapids Michigan state police jump on the young boy for an alleged turn signal violation. Plus the passenger not having a ID which is not required in that state. Especially as the damn passenger.
1:45

Grad Rapids Michigan state police jump on the young boy for an alleged turn signal violation. Plus the passenger not having a ID which is not required in that state. Especially as the damn passenger.

JOKAMRREDPILLZ

81,031 просмотров • 6 дней назад

This guy just built a driver’s drowsiness detection software using Python. The software detects when a driver is sleepy or distracted and immediately triggers an alarm to wake them up. He also integrated a voice system that speaks to the driver as an additional alert. The system allows the driver’s company to monitor the driver’s activity, and a report is sent to the company whenever the driver appears sleepy or distracted.
4:48

This guy just built a driver’s drowsiness detection software using Python. The software detects when a driver is sleepy or distracted and immediately triggers an alarm to wake them up. He also integrated a voice system that speaks to the driver as an additional alert. The system allows the driver’s company to monitor the driver’s activity, and a report is sent to the company whenever the driver appears sleepy or distracted.

𝐀𝐬𝐚𝐤𝐲𝐆𝐑𝐍

85,735 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents, in Texas, admitted, on camera, that they illegally pulled over a woman, and still demand to see her ID. In the video, the agent tells the driver that they are looking for a woman, and say the person’s name they are looking for. The driver immediately responded that they had the wrong person. The agent responded, “I know. I understand that.” But, instead of ending the stop… he continued to harass her, and asked, “Are you going to be childish?” Then he doubled down… saying she looked like the person they were looking for, and that he needed her ID. That’s when she pushed back and said, “bullshit.” And pointed out that they hadn’t even run her plates, because then they would know who she was… So, to break down what just happened: The ICE agents didn’t have a match on the vehicle registration. They were told, directly, they had the wrong person. They admitted that they knew that. And they still continued to demand to see her ID based on “she looks like her.” The Fourth Amendment requires more than a resemblance. It requires reasonable suspicion you are involved in a crime, or the law enforcement saw you commit a crime. If “you look like somebody” is enough to pull someone over, then there’s no meaningful limit left on who can be pulled over… which puts everyone in danger.
1:39

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents, in Texas, admitted, on camera, that they illegally pulled over a woman, and still demand to see her ID. In the video, the agent tells the driver that they are looking for a woman, and say the person’s name they are looking for. The driver immediately responded that they had the wrong person. The agent responded, “I know. I understand that.” But, instead of ending the stop… he continued to harass her, and asked, “Are you going to be childish?” Then he doubled down… saying she looked like the person they were looking for, and that he needed her ID. That’s when she pushed back and said, “bullshit.” And pointed out that they hadn’t even run her plates, because then they would know who she was… So, to break down what just happened: The ICE agents didn’t have a match on the vehicle registration. They were told, directly, they had the wrong person. They admitted that they knew that. And they still continued to demand to see her ID based on “she looks like her.” The Fourth Amendment requires more than a resemblance. It requires reasonable suspicion you are involved in a crime, or the law enforcement saw you commit a crime. If “you look like somebody” is enough to pull someone over, then there’s no meaningful limit left on who can be pulled over… which puts everyone in danger.

Jesus Freakin Congress

30,843 просмотров • 12 дней назад

The dude laid out the absolute blueprint for how to handle a traffic stop. He destroy the officer's strategy of fishing for violations just by staying calm and silent. ​The officer originally pulled the driver over for minor equipment violations: a dead left taillight and an unlit registration plate bulb. But as we see so often, the initial violation quickly took a backseat to a barrage of casual, probing questions designed to dig for something bigger. The officer started checking boxes—asking where the driver was coming from, where he was going, and if there were any weapons, drugs, or alcohol inside the vehicle. ​Instead of getting defensive, argumentative, or nervous, this driver completely flipped the script by invoking his constitutional rights with absolute precision: ​"I don't really wanna answer all these questions." ​When the officer made it clear the driver was being detained for the traffic infraction, the driver didn't panic. He just set a firm boundary: ​"So I can remain silent... I'm gonna remain silent." ​By refusing to take the bait, the driver effectively shut down the officer's strategy. Without any verbal missteps, nervous stumbles, or conflicting stories to build "reasonable suspicion" on, the officer had absolutely nothing extra to work with. ​Even when the officer exercised his right to order the driver out of the car for a standard safety pat-down, the driver remained cooperative but quiet. He handed over his physical ID, showed his proof of insurance on his phone, and let his silence do the heavy lifting. ​The result? The officer's tone stayed professional, the boundaries were respected, and the driver walked away with nothing but a verbal warning for the lights. Before cutting him loose, the officer even tried one last ditch effort, asking for consent to search the front of the vehicle. A simple, calm "No" put the final nail in the coffin. ​You don't need to argue on the side of the road to protect your rights. Know the law, stay calm, keep your mouth shut, and let them drive away empty-handed.
6:25

The dude laid out the absolute blueprint for how to handle a traffic stop. He destroy the officer's strategy of fishing for violations just by staying calm and silent. ​The officer originally pulled the driver over for minor equipment violations: a dead left taillight and an unlit registration plate bulb. But as we see so often, the initial violation quickly took a backseat to a barrage of casual, probing questions designed to dig for something bigger. The officer started checking boxes—asking where the driver was coming from, where he was going, and if there were any weapons, drugs, or alcohol inside the vehicle. ​Instead of getting defensive, argumentative, or nervous, this driver completely flipped the script by invoking his constitutional rights with absolute precision: ​"I don't really wanna answer all these questions." ​When the officer made it clear the driver was being detained for the traffic infraction, the driver didn't panic. He just set a firm boundary: ​"So I can remain silent... I'm gonna remain silent." ​By refusing to take the bait, the driver effectively shut down the officer's strategy. Without any verbal missteps, nervous stumbles, or conflicting stories to build "reasonable suspicion" on, the officer had absolutely nothing extra to work with. ​Even when the officer exercised his right to order the driver out of the car for a standard safety pat-down, the driver remained cooperative but quiet. He handed over his physical ID, showed his proof of insurance on his phone, and let his silence do the heavy lifting. ​The result? The officer's tone stayed professional, the boundaries were respected, and the driver walked away with nothing but a verbal warning for the lights. Before cutting him loose, the officer even tried one last ditch effort, asking for consent to search the front of the vehicle. A simple, calm "No" put the final nail in the coffin. ​You don't need to argue on the side of the road to protect your rights. Know the law, stay calm, keep your mouth shut, and let them drive away empty-handed.

Giggling Ganon

313,126 просмотров • 26 дней назад

This truck driver is crocked. He does not even recognize his boss. Scary to think he was climbing in that truck getting ready to drive it. ​This wild bodycam footage out of the Palmetto Police Department in Florida shows the absolute dismantling of a commercial truck driver’s career in real-time. Officers were on the lot of Philadelphia-based Inox Cargo Inc., officers quickly realized the driver was in no condition to be behind the wheel of an 80,000-pound rig as he was exiting the rig. ​When asked point-blank by the officer if he was intoxicated, the driver didn't even try to hide it—just gave a casual, slurry "Yeah." ​But the real kicker happens when the officer points to a man standing right outside the cab. "You know this gentleman here?" The driver stares blankly, completely failing to recognize his own boss. The officer has to spell it out for him: "He owns the truck. That's your boss." ​With the truck still running, the officer warns him that he's looking at a commercial DUI and can say goodbye to his CDL. Hearing enough, the fed-up owner steps in to tell the officers that the driver is officially terminated on the spot. The boss demands the driver get his gear out immediately so they can search the cab for illegal substances, making it clear he’s not letting his business go down with the ship. ​Scary stuff right there as this man really could hurt someone if he was out on the road in this condition.
3:00

This truck driver is crocked. He does not even recognize his boss. Scary to think he was climbing in that truck getting ready to drive it. ​This wild bodycam footage out of the Palmetto Police Department in Florida shows the absolute dismantling of a commercial truck driver’s career in real-time. Officers were on the lot of Philadelphia-based Inox Cargo Inc., officers quickly realized the driver was in no condition to be behind the wheel of an 80,000-pound rig as he was exiting the rig. ​When asked point-blank by the officer if he was intoxicated, the driver didn't even try to hide it—just gave a casual, slurry "Yeah." ​But the real kicker happens when the officer points to a man standing right outside the cab. "You know this gentleman here?" The driver stares blankly, completely failing to recognize his own boss. The officer has to spell it out for him: "He owns the truck. That's your boss." ​With the truck still running, the officer warns him that he's looking at a commercial DUI and can say goodbye to his CDL. Hearing enough, the fed-up owner steps in to tell the officers that the driver is officially terminated on the spot. The boss demands the driver get his gear out immediately so they can search the cab for illegal substances, making it clear he’s not letting his business go down with the ship. ​Scary stuff right there as this man really could hurt someone if he was out on the road in this condition.

Giggling Ganon

464,594 просмотров • 8 дней назад

Driver arrested for DUI fails to inform officers about the three kids riding in the trunk Westminster PD in Colorado spotted a driver driving recklessly and conducted a stop. The officer smelled a hint of alcohol coming from the driver, who blamed it on his Zyns. Initially, the driver agreed to perform sobriety test but quickly changed his mind. Only after he was arrested did he tell the officers about the three kids riding in the trunk.
0:55

Driver arrested for DUI fails to inform officers about the three kids riding in the trunk Westminster PD in Colorado spotted a driver driving recklessly and conducted a stop. The officer smelled a hint of alcohol coming from the driver, who blamed it on his Zyns. Initially, the driver agreed to perform sobriety test but quickly changed his mind. Only after he was arrested did he tell the officers about the three kids riding in the trunk.

The Facts Dude 🤙🏽

23,137 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Tyrant cop arrests driver and his wife because the driver asked why he was being pulled over. ​This incident took place in Taylor, Michigan (a suburb. in the Downriver area of Metro Detroit). Taylor Police officers pulled over a vehicle driven by a man named Calvin Jones. Inside the car with him were his wife, Keithia Jones, and their young son. The officer pulled over Calvin and immediately demanded his ID as well as other paperwork needed for the stop. Calvin inquired as to why he was being pulled over to which the officer doubled down on demanding ID before telling him why he was pulled over. ​What began as a routine traffic stop instantly turned into a high-stakes standoff due to a fundamental disagreement over roadside procedures: ​The Driver’s Stance: Calvin Jones wanted to know the exact reason he was being pulled over before handed his identification over to the officers, asking, “You gotta let me know what’s going on, man.” ​The Officers' Stance: The officers demanded compliance first and answers second. Instead of de-escalating, the officer barked back, “You’re going to jail is what’s going on.” ​As other officers arrived the officer that conducted the stop began putting on tactical gloves. This is where things go off the rails as the officer completely shattered the driver-side window, forcefully dragged Calvin Jones out of the vehicle, and took him to the ground to execute an arrest. ​Meanwhile, inside the vehicle, his wife Keithia began recording the unfolding chaos on her cell phone. Because she was filming the interaction, she was also forcefully arrested by responding officers as well. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan stepped in to legally back the family, obtained the raw dashcam footage, and publicly exposed the department's aggressive tactics. ​The criminal charges against Calvin and Keithia Jones for resisting and obstructing were ultimately dismissed. ​The ACLU sent a formal complaint to then-Taylor Police Chief Mary Sclabassi, triggering a massive internal affairs investigation. ​Despite the immense public backlash and the clear visual escalation captured on camera, the Taylor Police Department's internal affairs unit officially cleared the officers of any wrongdoing in August 2017, finding no basis for internal disciplinary action or termination. ​However, the case forced permanent operational changes within the city: ​The "Reason for Stop" Policy: Taylor Police instituted a mandatory rule requiring all officers to explicitly state the basis of a traffic stop to a driver during an interaction. ​De-escalation Training: The department rolled out mandatory retraining focused on officer demeanor and conflict avoidance. ​Federal Scrutiny: Because the local department cleared the officers, the ACLU anchored this case into a massive petition to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), citing it alongside nearly 20 other incidents to push for a federal investigation into systemic excessive force within the department. ​In my opinion, the request to ask what you were stopped for is reasonable. The response from the officers is aggressive and it is departments like this one that give police a bad name as you have video evidence like this but instead circle the wagons to protect the bull cop Would love to see your thoughts below.
7:16

Tyrant cop arrests driver and his wife because the driver asked why he was being pulled over. ​This incident took place in Taylor, Michigan (a suburb. in the Downriver area of Metro Detroit). Taylor Police officers pulled over a vehicle driven by a man named Calvin Jones. Inside the car with him were his wife, Keithia Jones, and their young son. The officer pulled over Calvin and immediately demanded his ID as well as other paperwork needed for the stop. Calvin inquired as to why he was being pulled over to which the officer doubled down on demanding ID before telling him why he was pulled over. ​What began as a routine traffic stop instantly turned into a high-stakes standoff due to a fundamental disagreement over roadside procedures: ​The Driver’s Stance: Calvin Jones wanted to know the exact reason he was being pulled over before handed his identification over to the officers, asking, “You gotta let me know what’s going on, man.” ​The Officers' Stance: The officers demanded compliance first and answers second. Instead of de-escalating, the officer barked back, “You’re going to jail is what’s going on.” ​As other officers arrived the officer that conducted the stop began putting on tactical gloves. This is where things go off the rails as the officer completely shattered the driver-side window, forcefully dragged Calvin Jones out of the vehicle, and took him to the ground to execute an arrest. ​Meanwhile, inside the vehicle, his wife Keithia began recording the unfolding chaos on her cell phone. Because she was filming the interaction, she was also forcefully arrested by responding officers as well. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan stepped in to legally back the family, obtained the raw dashcam footage, and publicly exposed the department's aggressive tactics. ​The criminal charges against Calvin and Keithia Jones for resisting and obstructing were ultimately dismissed. ​The ACLU sent a formal complaint to then-Taylor Police Chief Mary Sclabassi, triggering a massive internal affairs investigation. ​Despite the immense public backlash and the clear visual escalation captured on camera, the Taylor Police Department's internal affairs unit officially cleared the officers of any wrongdoing in August 2017, finding no basis for internal disciplinary action or termination. ​However, the case forced permanent operational changes within the city: ​The "Reason for Stop" Policy: Taylor Police instituted a mandatory rule requiring all officers to explicitly state the basis of a traffic stop to a driver during an interaction. ​De-escalation Training: The department rolled out mandatory retraining focused on officer demeanor and conflict avoidance. ​Federal Scrutiny: Because the local department cleared the officers, the ACLU anchored this case into a massive petition to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), citing it alongside nearly 20 other incidents to push for a federal investigation into systemic excessive force within the department. ​In my opinion, the request to ask what you were stopped for is reasonable. The response from the officers is aggressive and it is departments like this one that give police a bad name as you have video evidence like this but instead circle the wagons to protect the bull cop Would love to see your thoughts below.

Giggling Ganon

463,026 просмотров • 14 дней назад