Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Tyrant cop gets his feelings hurt by a camera. Owned from beginning to the end by this journalist. We are in unincorporated Riverside County, California, when a bystander stepped in to film a routine traffic stop involving Riverside Police Department Field Training Officer (FTO) Vicente De La Torre (Badge...

GigglingGanon's profile picture

Giggling Ganon

256,338 subscribers

83,884 просмотров • 3 дней 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

This out of control officer gets owned as he pulls his gun on this guy because he reached for his wallet. Keep in mind the officer asked him to present his ID. Things escalate to where the officer threatened to violently pull him from his vehicle. The man asked to wait for backup. When they arrived he alerted he has everything on video. The man was thus told he was free to go and he answered then I'm free to stay and told the first officer what he thought of him exercising his freedom of speech.
0:51

This out of control officer gets owned as he pulls his gun on this guy because he reached for his wallet. Keep in mind the officer asked him to present his ID. Things escalate to where the officer threatened to violently pull him from his vehicle. The man asked to wait for backup. When they arrived he alerted he has everything on video. The man was thus told he was free to go and he answered then I'm free to stay and told the first officer what he thought of him exercising his freedom of speech.

Chuckling Charlie

41,369 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

This dude took over the parking spot that the local PD likes to radar from and the officers can't handle it. It's like a child that got their favorite toy taken away. ​We are in Henrico County for this one. You have a citizen journalist that is aware of the favorite parking spot that the local PD loves to post up at to conduct speed traps. The journalist took over the parking spot minutes before the officer and let's just say, the officers was lost on what to do about it. The attempt by the officer he pulled up behind the parked vehicle of the journalists. Officer James approached the driver’s side window, standard protocol and tried to turn things into a welfare check, and requested that the driver roll down the glass. Right from the jump, the driver established his boundary: he flatly refused to roll down the window, asserting through the glass that he could hear the officer perfectly fine. ​Recognizing a non-standard situation, Officer James immediately called for backup ("Code 2") while attempting fish for something to escalate the situation and turn this into a traffic stop. He began by asking if the journalist was broken down, experiencing a medical emergency, or in need of assistance. What followed was a clinic on how to handle the police through awkward silence. Instead of speaking, the driver responded to the officer's safety inquiries exclusively with thumbs-up gestures through the closed window. ​The interaction hit a snag when Officer James questioned why the journalist was stopped in a turn lane. While the driver refused to answer out loud to the officer, he later pointed his camera to show the layout of the road. The journalist showed he wasn't blocking a turn lane at all; he was parked on an asphalt cutout next to the turn lane—an area that is frequently used for overflow parking. Realizing he was not getting anywhere, the officer went back to his car for one last ditch effort by running the plates of the journalist. Once things came back clean the officer had to do that walk of shame and left. ​The encounter didn't end there, though. A second officer, Officer Jennings, arrived shortly after also looking to park in the spot to conduct a speed trap. Interestingly, the driver shifted strategies for the second interaction. Rather than sticking to the silent thumbs-up routine, the driver chose to verbally engage with Officer Jennings through the glass. He explicitly confirmed that he was completely fine, did not require any emergency help, and was simply sitting there. Once again another walk of shame when the officer came up empty handed from his fishing exercise. It's amusing to see these officers have to basically pack up their toys and go home because they could not use their favorite radar spot.
5:09

This dude took over the parking spot that the local PD likes to radar from and the officers can't handle it. It's like a child that got their favorite toy taken away. ​We are in Henrico County for this one. You have a citizen journalist that is aware of the favorite parking spot that the local PD loves to post up at to conduct speed traps. The journalist took over the parking spot minutes before the officer and let's just say, the officers was lost on what to do about it. The attempt by the officer he pulled up behind the parked vehicle of the journalists. Officer James approached the driver’s side window, standard protocol and tried to turn things into a welfare check, and requested that the driver roll down the glass. Right from the jump, the driver established his boundary: he flatly refused to roll down the window, asserting through the glass that he could hear the officer perfectly fine. ​Recognizing a non-standard situation, Officer James immediately called for backup ("Code 2") while attempting fish for something to escalate the situation and turn this into a traffic stop. He began by asking if the journalist was broken down, experiencing a medical emergency, or in need of assistance. What followed was a clinic on how to handle the police through awkward silence. Instead of speaking, the driver responded to the officer's safety inquiries exclusively with thumbs-up gestures through the closed window. ​The interaction hit a snag when Officer James questioned why the journalist was stopped in a turn lane. While the driver refused to answer out loud to the officer, he later pointed his camera to show the layout of the road. The journalist showed he wasn't blocking a turn lane at all; he was parked on an asphalt cutout next to the turn lane—an area that is frequently used for overflow parking. Realizing he was not getting anywhere, the officer went back to his car for one last ditch effort by running the plates of the journalist. Once things came back clean the officer had to do that walk of shame and left. ​The encounter didn't end there, though. A second officer, Officer Jennings, arrived shortly after also looking to park in the spot to conduct a speed trap. Interestingly, the driver shifted strategies for the second interaction. Rather than sticking to the silent thumbs-up routine, the driver chose to verbally engage with Officer Jennings through the glass. He explicitly confirmed that he was completely fine, did not require any emergency help, and was simply sitting there. Once again another walk of shame when the officer came up empty handed from his fishing exercise. It's amusing to see these officers have to basically pack up their toys and go home because they could not use their favorite radar spot.

Giggling Ganon

1,028,588 просмотров • 2 месяцев 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

30,425 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Officer holds man at gunpoint that does not fit description of the person he is looking for. Officer Kerzaya was called out to this hotel as a white man pulled a gun on the hotel staff. As the officer was searching the premises he ran into Trey an employee of the hotel and also African American. The officer proceeded to pull his firearm on and hold Trey at gun point for a number of minutes. The whole time Trey had his hands up and was eventually on his knees. Once verified Trey was an employee all he said to him was get out of here. Next this officer pulled his gun on another person in the hotel that also did not fit the description. The officer resigned from duty as his certification was stripped from him. Trey filed suit against the city and pulled in a settlement.
3:30

Officer holds man at gunpoint that does not fit description of the person he is looking for. Officer Kerzaya was called out to this hotel as a white man pulled a gun on the hotel staff. As the officer was searching the premises he ran into Trey an employee of the hotel and also African American. The officer proceeded to pull his firearm on and hold Trey at gun point for a number of minutes. The whole time Trey had his hands up and was eventually on his knees. Once verified Trey was an employee all he said to him was get out of here. Next this officer pulled his gun on another person in the hotel that also did not fit the description. The officer resigned from duty as his certification was stripped from him. Trey filed suit against the city and pulled in a settlement.

Chuckling Charlie

45,180 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

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

429,442 просмотров • 1 месяц 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

193,729 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

110,339 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Officer pulled this car over for speeding on the highway. When they approached the car the driver had his hands out the window saying his son has been injured. Great job by this officer to understand the concern of the father and leap into action to get some help for the boy. This officer is a great representative of his department and the town he serves.
0:46

Officer pulled this car over for speeding on the highway. When they approached the car the driver had his hands out the window saying his son has been injured. Great job by this officer to understand the concern of the father and leap into action to get some help for the boy. This officer is a great representative of his department and the town he serves.

Giggling Ganon

124,094 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Cop gets caught lying in real time. Tried moving the goal posts to justify his actions. ​We are in Midland Texas where Midland Police Department ​Officer Gill pulls the driver over under the absolute certainty that he saw the driver holding a phone in his hand. The driver immediately points to his dashboard, showing the phone is securely mounted. Left with nowhere to hide, Officer Gill is forced to admit his mistake on camera, stating, "I stand corrected." ​Under the Fourth Amendment, once the officer realizes the initial reason for the stop was invalid, the driver should be free to go. Instead, Officer Gill pivots immediately. Determined to salvage the stop and force the driver to identify, he suddenly claims the driver was speeding. ​When the driver presses him for proof—asking if he was clocked on radar or paced—Officer Gill admits he has no data. Instead, he claims he "visually estimated" that the truck was going exactly "10% over the speed limit." Mind you, the officer was parked at a complete standstill. The driver calls out the absurdity, pointing out that his speed was a cautious 16 mph in a 20/25 (30 was the confirmed limit) mph zone. ​Recognizing that the officer is fishing, the driver firmly refuses to hand over his driver's license. He rightly argues that because the original cause was a mistake and the secondary cause is completely fabricated, the officer lacks the reasonable articulable suspicion required by law to demand identification. He demands a supervisor. ​Sergeant Wilson (Badge #330) arrives on the scene and initially tries to back up his officer with a classic legal bluff: claiming that the traffic code allows police to pull anyone over just to check for a driver's license. The driver holds his ground, refusing to be intimidated. ​Realizing the driver knows the law, won't back down, and that Officer Gill’s shifting allegations wouldn't hold up for a second in court, Sgt. Wilson quickly de-escalates and tells the driver he is free to go—without ever getting his ID. ​Know your rights, keep your cool, and always roll recording. What do you think about how this driver handled the shifting goalposts? I will say that while the Midland police did a terrible job due to their lack of understanding of the law, I have seen these types of situations get much worse. Officers threatening arrest and pulling people from cars. These guys never once did any of that, so perhaps there is hope in Midland.
5:33

Cop gets caught lying in real time. Tried moving the goal posts to justify his actions. ​We are in Midland Texas where Midland Police Department ​Officer Gill pulls the driver over under the absolute certainty that he saw the driver holding a phone in his hand. The driver immediately points to his dashboard, showing the phone is securely mounted. Left with nowhere to hide, Officer Gill is forced to admit his mistake on camera, stating, "I stand corrected." ​Under the Fourth Amendment, once the officer realizes the initial reason for the stop was invalid, the driver should be free to go. Instead, Officer Gill pivots immediately. Determined to salvage the stop and force the driver to identify, he suddenly claims the driver was speeding. ​When the driver presses him for proof—asking if he was clocked on radar or paced—Officer Gill admits he has no data. Instead, he claims he "visually estimated" that the truck was going exactly "10% over the speed limit." Mind you, the officer was parked at a complete standstill. The driver calls out the absurdity, pointing out that his speed was a cautious 16 mph in a 20/25 (30 was the confirmed limit) mph zone. ​Recognizing that the officer is fishing, the driver firmly refuses to hand over his driver's license. He rightly argues that because the original cause was a mistake and the secondary cause is completely fabricated, the officer lacks the reasonable articulable suspicion required by law to demand identification. He demands a supervisor. ​Sergeant Wilson (Badge #330) arrives on the scene and initially tries to back up his officer with a classic legal bluff: claiming that the traffic code allows police to pull anyone over just to check for a driver's license. The driver holds his ground, refusing to be intimidated. ​Realizing the driver knows the law, won't back down, and that Officer Gill’s shifting allegations wouldn't hold up for a second in court, Sgt. Wilson quickly de-escalates and tells the driver he is free to go—without ever getting his ID. ​Know your rights, keep your cool, and always roll recording. What do you think about how this driver handled the shifting goalposts? I will say that while the Midland police did a terrible job due to their lack of understanding of the law, I have seen these types of situations get much worse. Officers threatening arrest and pulling people from cars. These guys never once did any of that, so perhaps there is hope in Midland.

Giggling Ganon

66,738 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

DRIVER SPEEDS OFF WITH OFFICER ON HOOD…COP LEFT WITH BROKEN BACK SHOULD THE OFFICER ACCEPT SOME OF THE BLAME? THE CRIMINAL SAYS HE SHOULD… A routine traffic stop in western Iowa turned into a nightmare when a driver suddenly took off with a police officer on the hood of his car. Authorities say Dennis James Guider Jr., 29, of Chicago Heights, Illinois, sped away during the stop while the officer was on the vehicle. Moments later, the officer was thrown from the car and crashed onto the roadway, suffering a broken back. Guider later pleaded guilty to serious injury by vehicle, a felony. As part of a plea deal, a felony eluding charge was dropped. He was sentenced to up to five years in prison. Guider claims the officer shares some responsibility, arguing the situation escalated when the officer pointed a gun and stepped onto the hood of the car. If someone drives off with an officer on the hood and leaves him with a broken back, should there be zero excuses? Is five years in prison enough for an action that left an officer permanently injured?
0:44

DRIVER SPEEDS OFF WITH OFFICER ON HOOD…COP LEFT WITH BROKEN BACK SHOULD THE OFFICER ACCEPT SOME OF THE BLAME? THE CRIMINAL SAYS HE SHOULD… A routine traffic stop in western Iowa turned into a nightmare when a driver suddenly took off with a police officer on the hood of his car. Authorities say Dennis James Guider Jr., 29, of Chicago Heights, Illinois, sped away during the stop while the officer was on the vehicle. Moments later, the officer was thrown from the car and crashed onto the roadway, suffering a broken back. Guider later pleaded guilty to serious injury by vehicle, a felony. As part of a plea deal, a felony eluding charge was dropped. He was sentenced to up to five years in prison. Guider claims the officer shares some responsibility, arguing the situation escalated when the officer pointed a gun and stepped onto the hood of the car. If someone drives off with an officer on the hood and leaves him with a broken back, should there be zero excuses? Is five years in prison enough for an action that left an officer permanently injured?

𝐌𝐑. 𝐖𝐇𝐈𝐓𝐄 ™

46,615 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The 19-year-old in blue was talking to the police, possibly arguing with them about bullying. A racist police officer attacked him. His brother came over to talk to the officer and stop him from attacking his brother for no obvious reason. The officer then turned and started punching the brother in the face. The brother, dressed in grey, defended himself against the aggressor. A fight ensued, and it quickly escalated out of control. The police officers lost the fight they had started without reason. They used tasers, causing the young man in blue to fall to the ground with his hands behind his back. His brother in grey sat on a bench, putting his hands on his head. The officer who initiated the incident went over and kicked the 19-year-old in the face and stomped on his head. The entire situation arose because of the unprofessional and racist behavior of the officer. Jail time is needed.
0:24

The 19-year-old in blue was talking to the police, possibly arguing with them about bullying. A racist police officer attacked him. His brother came over to talk to the officer and stop him from attacking his brother for no obvious reason. The officer then turned and started punching the brother in the face. The brother, dressed in grey, defended himself against the aggressor. A fight ensued, and it quickly escalated out of control. The police officers lost the fight they had started without reason. They used tasers, causing the young man in blue to fall to the ground with his hands behind his back. His brother in grey sat on a bench, putting his hands on his head. The officer who initiated the incident went over and kicked the 19-year-old in the face and stomped on his head. The entire situation arose because of the unprofessional and racist behavior of the officer. Jail time is needed.

Super Partisian

350,645 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Tyrant officer gets schooled on 4th amendment and what private property is. He does the walk of shame with nothing to say. This Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy learned the hard way that stepping onto private property without your facts straight can lead to a masterclass in constitutional rights—and a legendary chewing out! Watch this standoff unfolds between a homeowner and a Yolo County Deputy (Badge #160) who decided to roll up onto land he wasn't invited on. The officer claimed he was investigating a suspicious vehicle at a home under construction, demanding that the man inside identify himself. ​But this homeowner wasn't having any of it. ​He immediately flipped the script on the deputy, pointing out the absolute lack of legal ground the officer was standing on. Nobody called 911 to have this man checked on, nobody reported a crime, and the deputy had zero confirmation of who actually owned the property before demanding ID. The property owner stood his ground, completely shutting down the officer's overreach by demanding he get off the land instead. ​Once the homeowner stepped out of his vehicle and firmly established that it was his land, the deputy realized he had absolutely nothing to hold him on. With his investigation completely dismantled, the officer was forced to turn around and walk back to his cruiser. ​To top it all off, the property owner sent him packing with a high-energy, unforgettable tirade, capping it all off by shouting that his intense vibe was fueled by nothing more than "500 calories of M&Ms, dude!" This is text book 101 of how to stand up for your rights when you have an officer that has overreached to this level. ​Dude went scorched the earth on this deputy.
4:11

Tyrant officer gets schooled on 4th amendment and what private property is. He does the walk of shame with nothing to say. This Yolo County Sheriff's Deputy learned the hard way that stepping onto private property without your facts straight can lead to a masterclass in constitutional rights—and a legendary chewing out! Watch this standoff unfolds between a homeowner and a Yolo County Deputy (Badge #160) who decided to roll up onto land he wasn't invited on. The officer claimed he was investigating a suspicious vehicle at a home under construction, demanding that the man inside identify himself. ​But this homeowner wasn't having any of it. ​He immediately flipped the script on the deputy, pointing out the absolute lack of legal ground the officer was standing on. Nobody called 911 to have this man checked on, nobody reported a crime, and the deputy had zero confirmation of who actually owned the property before demanding ID. The property owner stood his ground, completely shutting down the officer's overreach by demanding he get off the land instead. ​Once the homeowner stepped out of his vehicle and firmly established that it was his land, the deputy realized he had absolutely nothing to hold him on. With his investigation completely dismantled, the officer was forced to turn around and walk back to his cruiser. ​To top it all off, the property owner sent him packing with a high-energy, unforgettable tirade, capping it all off by shouting that his intense vibe was fueled by nothing more than "500 calories of M&Ms, dude!" This is text book 101 of how to stand up for your rights when you have an officer that has overreached to this level. ​Dude went scorched the earth on this deputy.

Giggling Ganon

53,076 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Dude rips into tyrant officer who lied about the reason he pulled him over. ​The video starts with Officer Nablo pulling over a motorcyclist right outside his own home. Right out of the gate, the officer asks didn't you hear me when I was trying to pull you over? The rider said no, because he has a Bluetooth speaker in his helmet. The officer falsely claims having helmet speakers is illegal (spoiler: it’s not). So this was off to a wonderful start. ​When the rider directly asks, "Why are you pulling me over first?" the officer completely deflects, stating it's simply "to ID who you are." That is a massive red flag. Officers need reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime to initiate a traffic stop—they cannot just pull you over to demand papers and see who you are. ​It isn't until long after the confrontation begins, after the officer has already demanded ID, that he walks to the back of the motorcycle to look for a retroactive justification. He then tries to claim that the plate has to be visible and says he can't see the plate. The rider pushes back calling out it officer for lying. After getting the ID and running the plate the officer did happen to get lucky as he discovered the vehicle registration expired , meaning it is expired. ​The rider immediately calls out the absolute hypocrisy and shifting narrative: ​The officer first claimed he couldn't see the license plate at all. ​Yet, the officer simultaneously claimed he pulled the rider over because he knew the registration on that very plate was expired. ​How can you pull someone over for an expired plate that you just admitted you couldn't even see until after you detached him from the bike? It makes zero sense. ​Failure to Yield or Safe Stopping Point? ​Officer Nablo tries to claim the rider was "failing to yield" and evading the stop because he didn't pull over the exact second the lights went on. However, the rider stands his ground, explaining that he did not flee; he simply continued riding a short distance to his own home where he felt safe and where he had multiple security cameras recording the interaction. ​ ​This doesn't seem to be a random encounter, either. The rider alleges a disturbing pattern of personal harassment from Officer Nablo, claiming this exact same officer previously came onto his property and threatened to shoot his dog just for barking inside the house. ​ ​Eventually, a supervisor/sergeant steps in to de-escalate the hostile officer. The supervisor confirms that the citations for the expired registration will be sent by mail and that the rider has 10 days to contest them. When the rider demands to file a formal complaint for harassment, the supervisor instructs him that individual officer complaints must be taken up directly with the Chief of Police. ​The rider made it clear this is going straight to court and social media. ​What do you think? Was this officer legitimately enforcing traffic laws, or was he a tyrant fishing for a reason to flex his badge?
6:59

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

Giggling Ganon

723,895 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Unhinged officer pulled his gun on a man with a camera. The encounter began when the videographer approached Officer Everette while the officer was conducting a routine traffic stop near the San Diego Mesa College campus. Officer Everette noticed the man filming and became uncomfortable with a piece of equipment—a handheld stabilizer with a GoPro attached—that the videographer was holding. Everette claimed he "didn't know" what the device was and repeatedly ordered the man to put it down. When the videographer refused, citing his First Amendment right to film in public, Everette unholstered his handgun and pointed it at the unarmed man for approximately 20 to 45 seconds Backup arrived shortly after, at which point Everette holstered his weapon. The videographer eventually surrendered the GoPro but continued to record the interaction on his phone. Following the viral spread of the video, Officer Everette was immediately placed on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation by the SDCCD. The department took the incident seriously, noting that the videographer was within his rights to film. However, records of specific settlements or private lawsuits resulting from this particular case are not as widely publicized as the incident itself. In many "First Amendment audit" cases like this, the focus often stays on the officer's disciplinary record or smaller out-of-court settlements that don't always reach a formal trial.
0:59

Unhinged officer pulled his gun on a man with a camera. The encounter began when the videographer approached Officer Everette while the officer was conducting a routine traffic stop near the San Diego Mesa College campus. Officer Everette noticed the man filming and became uncomfortable with a piece of equipment—a handheld stabilizer with a GoPro attached—that the videographer was holding. Everette claimed he "didn't know" what the device was and repeatedly ordered the man to put it down. When the videographer refused, citing his First Amendment right to film in public, Everette unholstered his handgun and pointed it at the unarmed man for approximately 20 to 45 seconds Backup arrived shortly after, at which point Everette holstered his weapon. The videographer eventually surrendered the GoPro but continued to record the interaction on his phone. Following the viral spread of the video, Officer Everette was immediately placed on paid administrative leave pending an internal investigation by the SDCCD. The department took the incident seriously, noting that the videographer was within his rights to film. However, records of specific settlements or private lawsuits resulting from this particular case are not as widely publicized as the incident itself. In many "First Amendment audit" cases like this, the focus often stays on the officer's disciplinary record or smaller out-of-court settlements that don't always reach a formal trial.

Giggling Ganon

29,810 просмотров • 3 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✨️

16,503 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Oklahoma sheriff department and local PD have a blow up while out on a call. The conflict began when a Lexington Police officer pulled over a black SUV for speeding (85 mph in a 55 mph zone). The driver was Cleveland County Sheriff Chris Amason, who was in a marked vehicle but was out of uniform. Amason informed the officer he was responding to a high-priority "SWAT call" involving a barricaded subject and an injured officer in the nearby town of Noble. The Lexington officer allowed the Sheriff to proceed but immediately notified his Chief. When Lexington Police Chief Ronnie Johnson and his officers arrived at the active tactical scene to offer assistance and investigate why their local police hadn't been notified of an operation in their jurisdiction, the situation escalated. Lieutenant John Szymanski of Cleveland County Sheriff's Office confronted the Lexington officers, telling them to "get the f*** out of my face." A physical scuffle broke out between Lieutenant Szymanski and a Lexington officer. Szymanski is seen grabbing and shoving the officer while shouting, "This is my county!" ​ Sheriff Amason eventually intervened, telling the Lexington Chief that it was his operation and his county, essentially ordering the local police to leave the scene. Following the incident, the Lexington Police Department filed a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the Sheriff’s deputies. Yelling and swearing at each other is free speech. Placing your hand up to stop someone from entering into your space is also not assult. So at least they all got it right by not trying to arrest each other.
3:37

Oklahoma sheriff department and local PD have a blow up while out on a call. The conflict began when a Lexington Police officer pulled over a black SUV for speeding (85 mph in a 55 mph zone). The driver was Cleveland County Sheriff Chris Amason, who was in a marked vehicle but was out of uniform. Amason informed the officer he was responding to a high-priority "SWAT call" involving a barricaded subject and an injured officer in the nearby town of Noble. The Lexington officer allowed the Sheriff to proceed but immediately notified his Chief. When Lexington Police Chief Ronnie Johnson and his officers arrived at the active tactical scene to offer assistance and investigate why their local police hadn't been notified of an operation in their jurisdiction, the situation escalated. Lieutenant John Szymanski of Cleveland County Sheriff's Office confronted the Lexington officers, telling them to "get the f*** out of my face." A physical scuffle broke out between Lieutenant Szymanski and a Lexington officer. Szymanski is seen grabbing and shoving the officer while shouting, "This is my county!" ​ Sheriff Amason eventually intervened, telling the Lexington Chief that it was his operation and his county, essentially ordering the local police to leave the scene. Following the incident, the Lexington Police Department filed a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the Sheriff’s deputies. Yelling and swearing at each other is free speech. Placing your hand up to stop someone from entering into your space is also not assult. So at least they all got it right by not trying to arrest each other.

Giggling Ganon

172,070 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

NEW: Two women arrested after a police officer suffered a brutal head injury while trying to stop one of the women from fleeing the scene. The police officer was sent to the hospital for a head injury and remains in serious condition. 28-year-old Jamaysha Butler could be seen trying to flee the scene when the Beaumont, Texas officer tried stopping her. Police were initially called to the location due to an early morning disturbance involving a group of people. The officer fell off the side of the car and banged his head on the pavement. When the officer handcuffed 22-year-old Melissa Bell, Butler, who was also going to be arrested, bolted for the car. The officer tried stopping her but sadly fell from the car. Butler was charged with intoxication, assault, and evading detention. Bell is facing charges including public intoxication, resisting arrest, interference with public duties, and assault on a peace officer. The officer is in stable but serious condition.
0:26

NEW: Two women arrested after a police officer suffered a brutal head injury while trying to stop one of the women from fleeing the scene. The police officer was sent to the hospital for a head injury and remains in serious condition. 28-year-old Jamaysha Butler could be seen trying to flee the scene when the Beaumont, Texas officer tried stopping her. Police were initially called to the location due to an early morning disturbance involving a group of people. The officer fell off the side of the car and banged his head on the pavement. When the officer handcuffed 22-year-old Melissa Bell, Butler, who was also going to be arrested, bolted for the car. The officer tried stopping her but sadly fell from the car. Butler was charged with intoxication, assault, and evading detention. Bell is facing charges including public intoxication, resisting arrest, interference with public duties, and assault on a peace officer. The officer is in stable but serious condition.

Collin Rugg

12,917,903 просмотров • 1 год 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

80,843 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

On behalf of the largest police news outlet in the world, we're officially calling for the resignation or termination of this officer IMMEDIATELY. A female Fort Worth police officer was caught on camera threatening to ticket a retired federal law enforcement officer and Christian street preacher for “offensive speech.” The officer told the man that if someone is offended by his preaching, then “we have a problem” and said she would issue him a ticket. When he asked if she was really going to ticket him for offensive speech, she replied, “Yes, I am.” This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Police officers do not have the authority to ticket people for speech that offends others. That is the exact opposite of how freedom of speech works in America. The fact that this officer targeted a retired federal law enforcement officer who was simply preaching makes this even more unacceptable. Departments that employ officers who openly disregard the Constitution need to clean house. This kind of behavior erodes public trust and makes every good officer’s job harder. Pass this along so more people see what is happening on our streets. #FortWorthPD #FirstAmendment
1:02

On behalf of the largest police news outlet in the world, we're officially calling for the resignation or termination of this officer IMMEDIATELY. A female Fort Worth police officer was caught on camera threatening to ticket a retired federal law enforcement officer and Christian street preacher for “offensive speech.” The officer told the man that if someone is offended by his preaching, then “we have a problem” and said she would issue him a ticket. When he asked if she was really going to ticket him for offensive speech, she replied, “Yes, I am.” This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Police officers do not have the authority to ticket people for speech that offends others. That is the exact opposite of how freedom of speech works in America. The fact that this officer targeted a retired federal law enforcement officer who was simply preaching makes this even more unacceptable. Departments that employ officers who openly disregard the Constitution need to clean house. This kind of behavior erodes public trust and makes every good officer’s job harder. Pass this along so more people see what is happening on our streets. #FortWorthPD #FirstAmendment

Blue Lives Matter

1,529,262 просмотров • 1 месяц назад