Dash Cam Catches Cop Losing Control
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 03. 2022
- Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/audit - Enter promo code AUDIT for 83% off and 3 extra months for free!
Second Channel: / @johnlang6593
Patreon: / audittheaudit
Twitter: / audittheaudit
Submit your videos here: auditheaudit@gmail.com
Sponsorship inquiries: audit@ellify.com
Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. Help us grow and educate more citizens and officers on the proper officer interaction conduct by liking this video and/or subscribing.
This video is for educational purposes and is in no way intended to provoke, incite, or shock the viewer. This video was created to educate citizens on constitutionally protected activities and emphasize the importance that legal action plays in constitutional activism.
Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them.
FAIR USE
This video falls under fair use protection as it has been manipulated for educational purposes with the addition of commentary. This video is complementary to illustrate the educational value of the information being delivered through the commentary and has inherently changed the value, audience and intention of the original video.
Original video: • MHP Traffic Stop
Matthew Sones’ channel: / @matthewsones5287
Sources:
Whren v. United States- bit.ly/3gX0kyJ
Miss. Code § 63-1-41- bit.ly/3pxAEML
Miss. Code § 63-3-1213- bit.ly/3IiYfrB
Miss. Code § 63-3-1201- bit.ly/3hsQ2Wh
Pennsylvania v. Mimms- bit.ly/39nFjsF
Miss. Code § 97-35-7- bit.ly/3LZscz9
Rogowski v. State- bit.ly/3vkvQxA
Case update: / 2563429153734924
Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/audit - Enter promo code AUDIT for 83% off and 3 extra months for free!
Don't "they" already have all your info anyways from browsing unsecured, so masking it now with VPN is pointless?
You may not license a right.
The Constitution gives us the right to travel.
And no less than three cases, the supreme Court has upheld this right. And says it follows you no matter what type of traveling you're doing horse and buggy car etc.
So how are you allowed to require a license for something Americans have a right to do?
For that matter how are there 33,000 gun laws in the USA when we have the second amendment. Shall not be infringed could not be more clear.
Americans have to purchase access to the rights they are guaranteed in the Constitution
NordVPN is much better
Would be great if you searched the history of the traffic laws. Here in new York, vehicle and traffic laws that are currently enforced trace back to 1924. When the chauffeur license requirement was AMENDED to include the operator license. In 1968 they merged the chauffeur license and operator license into the Driver license.
The original laws amended throughout the decades to form current laws, All regulating interstate and intrastate commerce.
But we are told everyone driving needs a license.
I’m a conceal weapon carrier in NC and I was taught that when confronted by law enforcement I must notify them that I have a weapon. Since Mississippi is a reciprocal state with NC in terms of conceal carry was the driver in fault of not notifying the officer he had a weapon in his possession at the start of their encounter?
I'm sorry but you can't put "Cop Losing Control" in the title then give him a B+. If he mostly did the right thing then he didn't "Lose Control." If he did actually "Lose Control" then a B+ is a terrible grade.
He technically did lose control of the situation. Really didn't even have it; it took a random citizen helping him to get that dude out the vehicle.
YUP THATS WHY I PULLED MY SUB FROM ATA... I WISH MY TEACHERS USED HIS CURVE....
@@MPD90 it is clickbait but also he couldn't get the man to show his id. The cop didn't lose control as in go crazy but he lost control of the situation of the traffic stop.
Despite how great these videos are, this channel has been using clickbait thumbnails and titles for ages. Sometimes they are counter to the actual video content. Though this one could be debated somewhat, I think most people would read 'loses control' in the title and see the 'you're being recorded' in the thumbnail, and would deduce that the cop probably behaved extremely poorly.
Agreed, very clickbait title, surprising from this channel.
The right to remain silent really needs to be used more often.
I don't answer questions.
That should never stop people from expressing their opinions of these adult toddlers and their tantrums.
I usually go the opposite route and just spout a litany of non-sequiturs and double negatives.
@@neil_mch agreed. But he just came out and offered up a reason for the pull over. That part is what I meant. But I’m the same way…don’t answer any questions at all.
@@JP-st9hn another good way to get them off their game. Just wish he didn’t give the cop a reason as soon as the cop came up to the door. This would’ve went different if just said “I will remain silent for this stop”. Doesn’t mean he can’t revoke the right and do as you said.
The cop should have identified and told him the reason for the stop. The B+ seems a little high to me. He escalated the stop and failed to call for backup, the driver definitely gets an F-
'Officers' across the nation should be required by law to inform a citizen of the 'real' reason for any and all 'traffic' stops. 'Officer' abuse of power will continue until this happens.
That's why more and more drivers are keeping a dashcam of their own in the vehicle in conjunction with their camera phones to film the encounters with police, because it's easier to obtain than the police's body cam footage.
You hit the nail, The law gives the officers unwarranted authority to be dicks at the same time the law expects and demands citizens to blindly comply to unreasonable orders without explanation ignoring the human nature and impulses to repel against such orders which a great portion of the population don't have the capacity to keep their cool at the moment and later challenge it in court, thus you put them in a situation where they're very prone to make mistakes that lands them greater charges even if the initial stop was unlawful!!
@@mofleh177this all the plan
Yep. It's a terrible ruling/law that allows them to pull that crap. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to tell you when you ask. Ridiculous. Good ole America.
Yes, how are we going to have any chance to determine if the stop were or were not awful?
Oh wait, we need need to deal with that in court. That means we have to waste more of our time dealing with the government. Vegetating on my couch would be more productive that going to court.
I've noticed that more and more people are starting to keep a dashcam of their own in their vehicles to film police encounters only because their footage is easier to obtain than the cops. I like it!
I got a front and rear facing camera. It also links in the speed of the vehicle. Haven’t needed it YET
They should be held accountable
You can get a dash cam for like $130. They should really be standard on all cars nowadays, but they're also super easy to install.
@@CRneu the ones with a rear cam are difficult.
It's not because it's easier to obtain really, it's primarily because when the cops realize that you don't have any footage, their body cam footage will mysteriously disappear and everyone knows it! I just love it when the crooked corrupt cops ask people why are you recording I have a body cam right here, like seriously?! They act like they don't know all the crooked games they play!
About 20 years ago, I had a small town cop pull me over for “excessive acceleration “. I asked him if I had spun the tires (laying drag) or exceeded the speed limit and his reply was no. I then asked if he was basically pulling me over for accelerating too quickly from a stop sign. He said yes and wanted all of my information. I immediately went to the City Hall and talked to the mayor after the stop and he was reprimanded on the site. This same cop, years later, pulled my wife over for having a “non-functioning tag light“ at 2:30 in the afternoon in bright sunlight. I had to inform this idiot that the light only worked when the headlights were on. He said that that was not true and that the light is supposed to be on all the time. I sent him to look at his tag light on his own patrol car to see if it was on when his headlights were off and he came back and told us to have a nice day. Some people are just ignorant.
You ignorant or just take their job and power way too seriously.
I don't know about the USA but in my country you have to have the lights on at all times.
@@LuchoLavalle well then your cars are probably made to have them on. Here, we don't have that law so our cars dont
@@CoralBlueNumber2Lipstick Nah, you mostly just have to remember to turn the lights on each time. Idk about EU, but here, in Russia, driving without lights in daylight can't be fined, but it's a legit reason to initiate a traffic stop. Some higher end cars have an auto feature, but there are reasons why some people hate it. IIRC the rules here and in EU are pretty much the same due to Vienna Convention on Road Traffic 1968 (that the US hasn't signed btw).
I always drive with my lights on. It just makes it easier for people to see you coming regardless of lighting conditions. What's fun is when idiots flash me during the day to say my lights are on - as if I didn't know.
This is one of those things in the law that I don't like. I believe that in the interests of justice, if you are being detained for any reason, be it on foot or a traffic stop, an officer should be required to articulate the reason for it. This would promote transparency and accountability and would prevent officers from getting "creative" after the fact.
Whats that 4th Amendment again?
That's beautiful.
However completely incapacitates this ability to assess what is actually going.
It's not because someone screams "fire" that you ignore the murder
I agree with the sentiment, but it's not hard to think of instances where this would be an impediment to legitimate law enforcement. I think I'd rather see it as part of department policy (where something like "if reasonable" would be acceptable) than as law, but then again police department would need to actually enforce those and be transparent for that to mean anything at all.
@@guillermorelobalopez7553 definitely should be policy. a loose law in a relatively peaceful situation requiring cops to identify themselves and explain the reason for the intrusion might be appropriate
The laws are written the way the are specifically to give cops an out.
Trooper could have easily done what 99% of cops do and tell him why he pulled him over
Actually, most cops do not tell you why they pull you over until they get the ID. If you watch a lot of the videos on this channel, you will see that most of the time. The reason police ask for the ID before disclosing why they pulled you over is because what if the stop is related to a crime. "Yes sir, the reason I pulled you over was because this matches the description of a bank robbery suspect. Let me see your ID." Most of it of course is due to traffic violations. I am mostly critical of police these days, but this guy needed to give his license when asked for it. Don't give the police any reason to make this worse than they already do.
@Scott L good point, the officers where I live have always been quick to give me a reason, but I always have my ID ready so I have never thought about if they get my ID before or after the reason 🤔
@@scottl6173 i dont get it, if a stop is related to a crime, then what? What difference does it make before or after your ID?
@@AnimeZone247 so, while not being able to fully articulate all the possible reasons, my initial reaction is because of the scenario we play out in almost all these videos. When an officer makes an accusation the natural response is to disagree or argue. Once that dynamic has begun it makes getting identification harder. That’s why identification is asked for up front in traffic stops.
stop the person first, take the ID as blackmail/leverage then force them to remain there until they come up with a bogus excuse... "i smell drugs, have you been drinking" annoy the driver until they do something to get them arrested.
Remember cops have arrest quotas and fine quotas, they need to take x money from people. and he took 1700 ish from this one.
The officer could’ve just told the man why he stopped him and de-escalate the situation but his ego was in the way
I mean same goes for the driver.
Cop knew he was drunk, the guy wanted to know if the cop knew he was drunk. May well have tried to drive off.
As usual.
A small dick, even smaller mental capacity, and steroid rage from steroid abuse, made the cnut in uniform behave like a petty tyrant.
It was SO easy for him to be courteous, informative, and reasonable - but he CHOSE not to be.
Zed minus is my value for him.
The driver gets an A Plus for standing up to tyranny.
Unless there was no valid reason. So he didn't want the actual reason stated on camera.
There are dozens of videos on this channel where you could use the same reasoning regarding the civilian.
The fact that cops aren't required by law to begin the traffic stop by stating the reason for the stop is such classic cop BS.
Police don't make the laws though?
@@Caleb-jb3gv no, they're worse, because they enforce and take advantage of the laws that bureaucrats write. "Just following orders"
@@Caleb-jb3gv But police unions lobby for these sorts of laws.
@@SierraTangoGuns yeah cops are definitely worse, they enforce the laws without fully knowing them (usually)
100% agree. And any cop could do that I’d they choose to, as a simple matter of courtesy and respect. Choosing not to when asked tells you everything you need to know about them.
If a cop doesn't have to articulate a reason for pulling someone over unless it comes up in a courtroom, then doesn't that just give them full "stop and ID" power since they can always retroactively justify it later?
*Varies by jurisdiction* - in some jurisdiction a traffic stop can be initiated for no other reason than to check your driver's license.
@@1SCme can you give an example? That seems like a blatant violation of our 4th amendment rights. I want to make sure not to visit whichever state that is.
It's almost as if your rights don't actually matter because there's always some loophole for pigs you violate them.
Yes! I agree with you. I think the argument is that driving is a privilege not a right but that gives cops too much room to make things up.
If you are driving and being pulled over that is the RAS. It just doesn’t need to be articulated to you.
Imagine if they made it illegal for cops to lie to a citizen while in uniform.
We can only dream. Or even make it mandatory that a cop has to tell you why they stopped you.
that would put them at a giant disadvantage when confronting real criminals, i dont think it would be a great idea
@JBMUSIC why? It's impossible to trust police for the very reason that they can lie to you. If they can't lie to you about the charges or why they stopped you, it seems only good. Also, lying to people in an interview is a tactic to extract a confession at all costs. Like them holding minors for 12 to 25 hours as they show them pictures of a dead sibling saying they did it and we have proof and you can go home if you confess.
Or if they were fined for escalating
That's funny. There wouldn't be anymore cops ❤
Things like this are so sensitive that they need to be addressed more aggressively. If you get pulled over one time without doing anything wrong, you will never have faith in the system again. Everywhere you go you will feel watched and followed by someone trying to ruin your day, when police are supposed to be protectors and good guys.
Exactly. I was framed by cops once and I don't trust them by default no more. I did that. Now it's gone. When I see a cop car I have to withhold myself, not flipping them.
The dude was speeding and driving DUI. It had nothing to do with "not trusting the system" and everything to do with him not wanting to he caught. You wouldn't make it long on the job being that gullible.
@@hook86 he accelerated to the speed limit extremely fast, that is not speeding. This is said in the video, did you even watch it? The crimes he was charged for other than the speeding charge which was a lie because he was within the limit as the video stated, were caused by the cop, he wasn't even charged with disorderly conduct because he didn't do anything of the sort. He rightfully resisted a wrongful arrest and was charged for it. while he was a complete idiot if he was never stopped in the first place he wouldn't have committed any crimes to be charged with. That is why people don't trust cops, even if you do everything right, they'll start charging and fining you for resisting their extreme uses of force and corruption if you're an innocent confused person.
I'm a little confused how you can title the video "cop losing control" but then still give the cop a B+ for his "calm demeanor".
Clickbait - Combined with the shitty adverts for VPN's is making this channel suck big time.
My thoughts exactly
It’s called click bait.
Good point.
@@shayemarina7930 this man is educating ppl about the law - click baiting is NOT ok in this context
I feel like the officer could have gotten an A if he had just explained why he was pulling the vehicle over. Always seems so shady when an officer refuses to do that, especially since it sounds like there is history there.
Because it IS shady. They don't want to admit that they pulled you over for some personal reason, racism, just to be a cunt - whatever their "reason" is.
I completely agree. The cop seemed shady when he can't articulate why he stopped him.
@@schmidth and then they even get a leway out through the law. i dont undertsand why police are not obligated to tell them your reason upon request.. its like being illegali detained for something thats legal and then resisting just to end up actually legally arrested after an illegal one!?!?!??!
would've greatly simplified that interaction if he had.
A lot of cops do this type of thing all the time, it's all about their ego, power, and control.
I can't believe hair Pulling earned a B+
I mean literally the cop said give me the license OR step out. If this guy would have just done the whole "do you know why I pulled you over..." Thing this may never have even happened, the dude just wanted to know why he was being pulled over. Tho the fact that he's apparently under the influence isn't a great detail for him
He didn't. He reached towards it, but brought his hand back to him.
@@z9brigade 10:01 as soon he tries pulling him out after opening the door he pulls him by the hair
This is reasonable use of force. when he resist to arrest, the officer doesn't need to convince him...
Amazing isnt it
I always wondered what happened to Greg The Hammer Valentine...
Thats is the answer to my question!
The justice system pisses me off. If a cop falsely accuses you braking a law, you have to spend thousands of dollars just to clear your name. How is this justice? They steal your money either way.
Welcome to America.
@@56585656587 Yup welcome to America
It's because cops don't care if the stop is valid or not. They will pile up the charges and let the DA decide if it will end up in court. Then it's up to the judge. Cops need their qualified immunity revoked so they and their police union can be sued.
Maybe, but how is this relevant for the video at hand?
Guns & Jesus saves! we are born to die, make it fun..
damn imagine pulling this guy over and him quote every case that relate to the situation off the top of his head and the cops just leave
I think he does a lot of searching when he reviews a case like this. I beleive its probably not him knowing everything off the top but if he does thats pretty insane and impressive and props to him. A.T.A is very knowledgable it seems to be able to find all the actual cases and the relevant laws depending on the state.
@@duckie1300 but given how knowledgeable i bet ATA knows a large amount of the law
that applies to him or think he may have to deal with but he prob also does know a bunch of random case facts off the dome
Lmao would love to see it and I think ATA is very intelligent, but he likely researches statutes as they relate to each video he analyzes. Would be cool if he could memorize the essence of all of them tho!
@@gabeyeah297 yeah especially because some of their videos repeat same offenses so I’d bet they have a lot memorized
"So are you an attorney or what?"
"Did you hear of Audit the Audit?"
"Have a good day Sir."
4:08 I can't believe a police officer pulled over Kylo Ren. That's one dedicated and brave cop.
I think it’s nuts for an officer to say you’re making this difficult when they themselves could very easily check that box and simply explain the reason for a stop.
so many tiny lines in th fkn law, so many tiny details, the more humanity"evolves", the more tiny detail will exists, and it will come the time where people wont be abble to know anything because there will allways be something tiny we dont know. and then the world will end. kinda funny thou
He didn't have to. Isn't that the entire point?
@@nezukoshiki3579 Well damn son. You are a little off but that was pretty good.
I think it's nuts that this audit the audit guy is justifying the insanely criminal laws in place that allow LEOs to act in this way with extremely simple situations. It was essentially a speeding ticket situation. You normally just sit there and get a ticket for it. The 👮♂️ pulled out his taser lol. And audit the audit says B+ ?? Sounds like he does not care at all about revamping an insanely criminal set of special privileges given to the entire LEO society. Did the 👮♂️ really need to get his rocks off that much. The fact that they can do these things is what creates the bad cop scenarios in the first place. Get it together audit the audit and start thinking for yourself, not just reviewing based off of shitty laws that need a rework. Honestly sounds like you are advocating for them and think there's nothing wrong with the current guidelines. Just sayin
@@ryuken0088 It seems like you lack a fundamental understanding of the law, or maybe you just don't care, not sure which. It's explained exactly what was illegal and legal, which is the point of this channel. I'm not sure that someone who just hates police and can't even type the name but has to use emojis instead can comprehend the actual law though.
I think they should absolutely have to tell you why you were pulled over. There are so many wacky laws/rules/regulations, it's ridiculous. You shouldn't have to argue something they did wrong in court. Cops should be held accountable (in a more severe way) so that this sort of thing doesn't even happen.
Mimms dissent had three votes - two of them from judges nominated by Democratic presidents. Might want to think how you vote. It would have been useful if Mimms would have added a line or two about LEOs having a reasonable fear of safety to justify them requesting individuals exit their cars).
I think they generally want the ID before they say why one has been detained so if the detainee runs they already know who they are.
State of Washington ALL vehicles are required to have mud flaps they only enforce it when they need a excuse to pull you over
@@exhaustguy Democrats are worse than bad cops. Anyone voting that way is part of why this nation is the way it is, today.
yeah exactly, why is it a citizens job to de-escalate? with a freaking cop. thats their job. if they can see the situation building, arent they here to serve and protect, or just protect whatever and take no bullshit with it. very serving
Thank you for these videos. Truly informative when it comes to police interactions.
Should have waited for back up. What would have happened if the guy jumped out with the cop as he pulled him into traffic? I feel it is a little unsafe for both of them.
We need a federal law requiring officers to inform us why they pulled us over.
Agree
But currently there in not such a law
It’s in the constitution
@@philipsalibo7641 where exactly
@@rywynn13 Good question. I don't recall that either Redcoats or American authorities were pulling horse-buggies over and saying, "I'm stopping you for going 64 clop-clop-clops in a 32-clop-clop-clop-zone".
Only cops are “granted special privileges” to violate traffic laws, right?
Fire and EMS
All laws, they are above the law as stated in the constitution. Certain people can be granted the ability to fuck the law I can do whatever I want . ... Or does it ?
@@bigisrick
Point was, ATA stated, being a mechanic doesn’t grant special privileges to violate traffic laws. That’s reserved for the cops to turn around and wrote us citations for the exact same thing. When was the last time you witnessed and ambulance or fire truck hauling ass down a crowded street, zipping in and out of traffic without using signals in order to get to their lunch appointment with their cop buddies? My recollection is, never. That’s reserved for cops.
@@tinfoilsombrero1439 as it should be. What’s your point? You think you’re on the same level as a police officer?
@@robv5834
I would NEVER put myself on the same level as a cop. I do no harm and don’t strut around calling myself a hero while being a revenuer for gubmint. Being compared to a cop is among the lowest of insults. Do you think a cop is better than you?
Who would have thought a "wide open throttle" test in front of a cop would cause any issues?
Cops should have to speak into his camera why he’s pulling someone over before getting out of the car.
Yes this guy was wrong, but why can't the Trooper just say why he pulled him over to help de-escalate the encounter.
Likely because his ego didn't allow him to. Most cops have an "I ask the questions, I'm running the show, you'll do what I say" mentality, and will not indulge a civilians demands/requests especially when they get the slightest sense that their power/authority isn't being acknowledged and fully respected.
And excellent example of a power trip. Now you tell me the people who want to limit police powers are wrong.
ATA gave the cop a B+? WTF? The cop was a dick. Why did he refuse to tell the driver why he pulled him over? Just because the Supreme Court says a cop has the constitutional right to be a dick, doesn't mean the cop should be a dick.
serve and protect the people who hired you, escalate and not de-escalate the people who pay us. i think thats what the new motto is
This driver was being a real idiot, it is clear to me that if this trooper had given him the reason for the stop the driver would then just say that he didn't do what ever the trooper claimed. I know it is not part of the discussion but as soon as I saw the t shirt I understood this driver to be an entitled idiot.
Got pulled over for "excessive acceleration" back before cameras, 0 to speed limit 35. Stayed calm n compliant, cop called 2 back ups, full search DUI tests left humiliated with a warning. This channel with everything on video nowadays is a truly valuable resource for citizens and LEO.
I have seen better channels
@@JoshuaR83 link pls
@@jasen. Lackluster being one
@@JoshuaR83 ayo stay mad
@@WaxYourButt stay biased and ignorant
I see that cops use the "disorderly conduct" card when they dont have a reason to be harassing someone
Challenging crap in court can take countless hours and money for a lawyer. The government assumes little to no risk, while the citizen assumes all the risk.
While it may be legal for an officer to not explain why they pulled you over, it is certainly a power play on their part not to tell you, and we all know they love that power.
The power play was on the idiotic driver for refusing to hand over his license until he was told why he was stopped. I can't stand idiotic cops, but this cop was not an idiot by any means. The driver was the idiot here.
Personally I have never done well when someone refuses to tell me what is going on. The driver in this case was a complete fool. But I can understand the driver's trepidation for surrendering his ID to a stranger without an explanation.
Anytime I have gotten pulled over the officer has always told me first. Must have gotten good officers or lucky.
@@manoflemancha2407 That's because they had an actual reason to stop you. If a cop refuses to tell you why they pulled you over usually it's because they did it illegally
@@joelsefur666 True, but the cop had the law on his side here. He could've told the guy why he pulled him over first, but the guy also could've handed over his license as required by law.
If the officer can just pull you over, take your ID, run you for warrants then send you on your way, we now have a police state. It's important that police give you their probable cause, there must be some infraction. They can't just grab your id, run you and then say, I pulled you over because your tire touched the white line 5 miles back. That doesn't work for me!
Especially when a lot of states log ID searches
He cannot do that, he needs to have a reason to stop you. Having said that, Every time I’ve been pulled over the cop has told me why and I think it’s poor practice not too.
For me ita the fact that they can pull you out and arrest you just for saying no to a lawful command. That completely negates our rights. What's the good of us having rights if cops are given a loop hole to abuse?
They can. That’s why you are able to challenge it in court. That’s the law. And there’s nothing wrong with it.
Welcome to New Zealand
While the officer could have explained why he pulled him over, it wasn't like that drunk belligerent man would have just been like "Oh okay". The Trump shirt was the most unsurprising aspect of this entire encounter.
This is like an IRL key and peele sketch. Hilarious
You know how they constantly tell us “Just Comply and nothing bad will happen”. Why can’t they just tell us why they are pulling us over? Like is it really that hard? The fact its backed up by law is so disappointing.
It's propaganda, that's why. Anyone who says just comply and nothing bad will happen is lying. When the only recourse to unlawful treatment by police it to accept it and argue it later in court, we have no other option. It's easier to lie and say nothing bad will happen than to convince people to accept that cops are legally allowed to violate their rights.
@@fanboye5183 Except they are not violating your rights, as evidenced in this very video. The cognitive dissonance in this comment section is too real.
The only thing you can control in this situation is your own attitude towards the cops, whilst it may not be 100% that nothing will happen, the likelihood of something bad happening is increased with belligerence. Instead of being mad at the cop that this is legal, get mad at your elected officials for allowing this to be legal.
Well in this case the guy really wasn't giving him a chance to, he kept asking and then going on and on about other things that had nothing to do with it. I'm not defending the cop I'm just saying this guy was being a pain in the ass from the start
@@jam4631 Talk about cognitive dissonance. I never said the person in this video was violating any rights, nor did I say I'm NOT mad at my elected officials. I'm not even sure how to respond to your comment, it seems like you're trying to claim that cops NEVER violate any rights. Is that what you're saying here? My issue is with the fact that legally they can (not their fault), and in some cases do 100% their fault). I'm specifically responding to the claim that "if you comply, nothing bad will happen." I disagree that nothing bad WILL happen. Bad things CAN happen if you blindly comply and they often do. It's propaganda to say otherwise and I welcome you to try and disprove that.
The rule of thumb is never admit guilt or provide evidence to police but if the driver merely opened up throttle for a few seconds and broke the speed limit (and the cop saw this) and the driver promptly handed over all documents and apologized and explained that they were a mechanic and testing the vehicle than the cop would have went back and looked up their record and if they had any warrants and there would have been a good chance the driver would have gotten a warning only
A cop should always tell you why he is pulling you over, that should be standard practice.
I went to my Sheriffs Citizen Law class. He demands his officers tell folks immediately why the traffic stop occured. I support honest LE, too bad they're an endangered species.
This seems reasonable at first , but there are 2 other considerations. 1) Officer safety - the officer is trying to quickly identify if the person is a dangerous criminal and they can't do that from the plate alone (especially true with armed and hostile people who are upset like this driver) 2) The driver already new why they were being pulled over as he admitted it several times and was looking just to argue, which wastes the officers time and taxpayers money . Debating and arguing should be done in court . If the driver simply explained why he broke the speed limit by going WOT for a moment in a polite manner than perhaps the cop could have given him a warning
I agree. But they will claim it forces them in a dangerous situation when, like with a wanted person, they have to explain why they are stopped. Which is bs anyway, because it would be a felony stop, and they could still just lie. So the only thing it accomplishes is it spares them having to make up a fake excuse on why they stopped someone. Which they've already proved is not a problem for them, seems like a favorite hobby of cops. Just one stupid abuse of their power because we lost our way long, long ago.
@@sanisidrocr Wrong. Unlawful
@@richcampbell6808 Unlawful is pulling someone over without reasonably suspecting them of a crime(not this case). There is nothing the law demands that the officer needs to explain himself immediately instead of in a couple minutes after he has secured the scene. This is different if the person was walking instead of driving and I can understand why you would want to extend the same rights to drivers as well, but I believe someone in a vehicle with a weapon is a much different scenario of danger for the officer so the LEO wanting to immediately identify the driver and if they are dangerous is reasonable as the supreme court agrees.
You are good at explaining the laws bro. Thanks for the efforts and I will sub. peace.
Dude should have just given his ID for sure
Cop should have just told him what he did wrong for sure
I feel like a C would be better for the officer. True he didn't have to tell the man why he was pulled over, but he could have potentially de-escalated very quickly had he just answered the simple and straight forward question. Most of what the officer did was justified...however he still seemed like an abrasive ass hat on a power trip.
Feels like theyre both fighting for the power trip, the hair pull was crazy
So many situations escalate because officers refuse to explain something to citizens. I, for one, am much more likely to comply with orders if I understand what is going on. This is a great example of where an officer could immediately prevent a situation from escalating by simply giving a minimal amount of information.
The saddest part of the whole video is when he said "he was finally pulled from the car with he help of a passing motorist"......ie, your neighbours are goign to turn on you when the law asks them to
@@scottwall8419 This same neighbor if left unchecked would mow down your kids driving drunk.
He doesn't have to explain at all, but that drive has to show id and has to exit the vehicle, when told to.
Especially when he has a dame gun in the car with him.
This is a butt hurt pig with no rights retaliating because he didn't get his own unlawful way. Nothing more than that.
Drivers are legally required to identify no matter what, but cops aren't legally required to tell you why they pulled you over. Brilliant.
People have a right to move without being assaulted,accosted,molested. Freedom of travel.
I hate that so much, having a reason why would solve so many problems... Instead it's legal to hide your motives. 🙃
"Drivers are legally required to identify" - not exactly. Drivers are required to show that they are licensed to drive. Practically this is the same act, but the meaning is different.
@@EbNorth No according to the supreme court.
Wrong, no crime no id
Dude legit didn't even know if he was lawfully stopped. 🤣🤣
The trooper is surprisingly gentle when compared to videos of other police confrontations.
Only because it was just him. If a few of his blue buddies came, they would have beat the shit out of him.
In the part that was cut out the trooper tazed him and repeatedly elbowed him in the face.
So an officer is required to have a reason for pulling someone over but have no obligation for to tell the driver what that reason was? Yeah that seems logical and would never cause problems. WHO THINKS THIS STUFF IS OK?? FFS!!!
This is why we say "Fuck the police"
Shoot a cop when you have a chance
Never respect the authority of anyone who refuses to inform you why they're stopping you.
With no reason given it's logical to assume it's merely harassment.
Not a lawyer but I would like to see the SCOTUS decision on this as it sounds politically motivated.
remember this is all build on the foundation of slavery
Agree. There is no way to know if this was a legal stop or one of a personal nature. That law needs to be changed.
"Cop Losing Control" = click bait. You gave the officer a B+ after all.
he pulled him by the hair when trying to get him out
The cop literally couldn't muscle this guy out at all, if the driver wanted to fight back for real with a weapon with that cop was distracted in his struggle at any point like a really conflict he would've not been going home that night. Those big arms in that tight shirt all those hours at the gym and this is what he's got to shoe for it, pathetic honestly.
@@billypurdy8581 How many people have you pulled out of a car? How many of those people didn't want to come out? It is more difficult than you think, even if you're in good shape.
@@owentbreen So?
@@Evan_Horvath doesn't matter, cop should know that would be the case and should put himself in a greater position of leverage and not escalate in such a dumb way. Asking me if I've ever tried to wrestle someone out of a car would assume I'm dumb enough to size up a situation like this and think it's a good idea. I guess you have really low expectations for how smart officers oughta be boot licker.
I'm filming this, so I can make sure my family can see how stupid I am :D :D
The driver should've kept quiet. He was quite the chatterbox.
Maybe legally you give him a B+ but morally he gets a total F. It was a power struggle from the beginning. The driver simply wanted to know why he was being stopped, and the cop refused to tell him. I don't know why it can't be a gentlemanly, polite exchange. If the cops want us to respect them, it goes both ways. But in actuality, more leeway and respect must be given to the citizen. It is the disconnect from the mental perspective between enforcing laws and upholding rights. The driver has a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. A traffic stop is a temporary seizure, and it would be respectful on a human level to tell someone over whom you exert authority what the authority is by which you demand they act. Do we not all agree and abide by the sentiment that they are our public servants?
Whatever
Doesn't the police normally ask ppl do you know why I pull you over first? Just asking
@Jeremiah Osborne Excellent, intelligent comment. I completely agree.
@@richardflorence3927 Stupid, pointless comment. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, you don't need to let everyone know you don't have anything intelligent to say.
If a driver is asking why them just tell them. It does seem they have some history. The driver was being difficult and so was the officer. I personally would have just given it to him. Why waste time with roadside court?
Why are they so against communicating adequately? It's almost like they want there to be a feeling off unease..
I can see the officer concealing that the stop was for DUI, but not concealing the stop for speeding and following too closely.
It's a "blindly obey me, I have authority over you" thing.
That uneasiness is then weaponized as a being nervous and a reason for a vehicle search
It causes people to become irate. It helps escalate situation and jacks up charges and fines.
@@1SCme What, the driver is going to "will" himself sober?
Wtf is the point of "rights", when there's a million loopholes around them.
That drifting clip as an example of a person "accelerating around curves" made me lol 😅
This officer could have de-escalated quickly by telling the driver why he stopped him.
Cop are criminal filth, terrorists with badges. Their job is to stop people for minor offenses, offenses which they often fabricate, then escalate those minor traffic stops into major offenses. There's more booty for the state for major offenses.
Agreed
Not all cops are garbage man nobody wants to talk about the good ones and nobody ever shows the good interactions.
@@godragonborn5356 The good cover for the bad.
@@godragonborn5356 Of course, I shoudl have said that there is no such thing as a good violent highway robber with a badge.
God holds those who support and escuse evil to be as equally guilty as those who commit it.
You will be held accountable, lowlife.
Every time I've been pulled over, the officer told me the reason. In fact they've asked me if I knew how fast I was going, or my tail light was broken or whatever. It should be required to avoid padding a case after the fact. Just my opinion.
If a cop asks you "do you know why I pulled you over?," or "do you know that you were speeding?" you should always invoke your fifth amendment rights and politely let him know that you can't discuss any alleged violations of the law.
Cop getting B+ is a joke. He likely did not follow his department's policy. He didn't identify himself and he did not tell the driver why he was pulled over. Although not required by law, these are policies written to prevent incidents from escalating. So he didn't follow police policy and needlessly escalated a situation and still gets a B+. ATA is being taken over by police unions apparently.
@@youtubeyoutube-nq3ho When you get pulled over, you're required to show the cop your ID. You can be arrested just for not showing it. The cops have the authority to order you out of your car, you can be arrested for disobeying a lawful order. Cop gave this guy every chance to do the right thing, and the guy just kept refusing to follow orders. Honestly I'm surprised this guy didnt claim sovereign citizenship.
@@felironmaden1429 only cops are sovereign citizens
@@felironmaden1429 The cop kept saying that the guy was being difficult by refusing to give him his driver's license. It never occured to the cop that he was the one being difficult for not willing to explain why he pulled the guy over in the first place.
Honestly this channel is better than TV!!!!
If any company offers an 83% discount on a product, the discounted price was always the intended price.
Having watched countless auditing videos, I would say the number one underlying factor with escalation is officer ego. In this case, it appears both the officer and the motor vehicle operator have some ego issues that if they had only backed off their ego trip would have made this a perfectly peaceful stop.
You reminded me of something. A cop friend worked for a while investigating other cops, internal affairs or whatever they call it. Interestingly many of the cops would lose their sh*t when they found out they were under investigation. My friend got a lot of death threats, all from other police. Just in my limited opinion I suspect percentage wise more cops than the public react badly to being investigated.
@@davespanksalot8413 That type of reaction says so much about the nature of an officer's behavior while enforcing the law. Kinda like their own often-repeated statement to people they stop: "If you don't have something to hide, why are you acting that way?"
Unless I'm misunderstanding, there was plenty of reason for the officer to pull over the operator. It was stated that the operator was charged with DUI, speeding, and others that I can't remember. After being told there is a firearm, I could see how an officer would not want to disclose the reason for the stop, especially if the officer had a suspicion of DUI. However if he did, he definitely should have waited for backup. I could be wrong on the charges as I'm watching on my TV and it is very laggy and I don't wanna rewind it to find it though.
@@topherthe11th23 have you never been at a bar and hear someone drunk get cutoff? It's not pretty. Drunk people don't like hearing they're drunk. I mean sure, it could've been ego. That's not my point. My point is THE DUDE WAS DRINKING AND DRIVING. I don't care how "ego" the cop is, I'm glad he got pulled over. Drunk drivers should be punished to the fullest extent of the law every time.
I'm not defending the cop, I'm just saying that I could see how not bringing up DUI could be a tactic cops use. I'm no expert, I have no idea what they should do. It's simply my "idea".
Yeah, and one is supposed to be a trained public servant who is supposed to de-escalate situations. One is not. I get it, someone has to be "in control" of unwieldy people - but this was certainly escalated by the officer WAY further than it had to be, assuming that if the officer just answered the guy's simple question he would have then complied (we will never know).
Sure an officer can demand ID if you’re operating a vehicle but countless times when officers illegally demand ID they are never disciplined. Demanding ID with no RAS when walking & not operating a vehicle. Demanding ID from passengers on a vehicular stop with no RAS. Demanding ID when the vehicle is parked and not in motion.
Whether the vehicle is in motion or parked, the police's right to identify you is the same. When you are walking, your rights are completely different.
Some states have stop and identity statutes where you have to identify yourself to a cop when walking. Some don't. Depends on where you live.
@@oren000 No State can stop you while walking in public without reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. It’s not to say any officer can’t try to invent something after the fact and that a corrupt supervisor and prosecutor won’t support that officer’s actions. You take a risk standing on your rights but my statement stands that our 4th amendment rights are not always being respected beyond operating a moving vehicle where the driver in this video was incorrect.
@@oren000 wow.... no crime no id buddy.. constitution overrides any made up state or federal law....
@@oren000 that's wrong. No such thing as a stop and identify. In any state. If that was the case, we would be under Hitler's laws. This is the US, not Germany!
As much as I enjoyed your other other video's, I feel privileged to also witness your objectivity in such matters as in this case.!.!
Cops are great at escalating a calm situation
The officer's refusal to state the reason for the traffic stop was childish, dictatorial, and devoid of professionalism. It created the conflict for no justifiable reason. Giving him a B+ is a joke.
He also grabbed the guy and yanked him with body weight toward the road. Easily could have resulted in the two being struck by a vehicle.
Cop's logic was this: "I know I'm on the right side of the law. I'm also up for a fight if this guy gives me an excuse. If I withold the info he's asking for - which I lawfully do not need to supply - then he's going to escalate this and I'll get to have my fun without any serious consequences."
People forget why cops choose their career path in the first place. New recruits who don't have at least a little bit of dictator in them rarely last more than a month in the job. You have to WANT to be in the situations that being a cop puts you into.
I mean, imagine it was for idk, something actually kinda of troublesome, the guy gets told that, and he runs away, the police has no way of actually confirming who the guy was, because he didnt get the ID
getting the ID first does make sense
You consider the charges he plead guilty to a non reason?
@@joesecord3066 We're talking about the video. There is no court in the video. It's the initial encounter.
I disagree with SCOTUS here, if you're stopping someone from going about their business then you need to tell them why. The only reason for not explaining your legal obligation for the stop is to entrap the suspect via obtuse and confusing questioning.
PS: This is why "I don't answer questions." is the only viable defense against police corruption and their abuse of our rights.
Tell them what you think of them if you wish and consider asking them as many questions you can think of while ignoring their attempts to incriminate you.
I won't answer your questions, you're paid to answer mine.
SCOTUS has all the legitimacy of a kangaroo court. They cant restore that legitimacy until they aggressively review every bad call previously made, starting with Wickard v Filburn. They even had that brought in front of them again via Gonzales v Raich and still made the wrong call, so they have no demonstrated ability to make the right decision and therefore deserve no respect. Your disagreement with them is just one in a list of very bad calls.
@@jadedandbitter This what you expect from political appointees, they aren't their for their judgement, they're there to toe the line of which side appointed them.
The Swanson approach works especially if framed like you're dumber than you are. Just reframe everything as a question, why did you pull me over? Maybe I know but you tell me, just in case.
Scotus? He's a punk.
Actually the police don't have to answer your questions. The police have the exact same constitutional and civil rights that you have, which also includes the right to remain silent.
Also just like you have the right to jot ID yourself if you are not detained the police don't have to their name and badge number, because their is no laws requiring them to do it.
This cop is a great example of why you should be careful when registering a firearm to a cop. They use that as a reason to legally intrude on your property and potentially your life.
Any cop that won't tell you what they pulled you over for (or what you did "wrong") is scum.
"ADA" is SUS
Any cop -that- -won't- -tell- -you- -what- -they- -pulled- -you- -over- -for- ( -or- -what- -you- -did- -"wrong"- ) is scum
Any driver that refuses to follow the law is scum.
You don't even know why he was pulled over. What if he was pulling the guy over because the car was reported stolen or the guy matched the description of a serial killer and the cop was attempting to identify him before putting himself at risk. Cops get to identify you before giving you ANY information when you are driving a literal killing machine.
I mean can’t say for sure but had the driver handed him his license like he should have then I feel the officer would’ve told him why he stopped him
An officer honestly should always inform an individual of why they are being pulled over that benefits the citizen and the officer
Yes, and it benefits society. The notion that you are free to travel unless someone has a reasonable cause to stop you. If they have interfered with your travel, the onus should be on them to explain the reason, not on you to audition to regain the right to resume your journey. So many places seem to have it backward, where on paper you have rights, but in practice someone can interfere in those rights, not say why, and you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a fair result, even if at the end of the day, you hadn't done anything that warranted being stopped.
No one in the history of humanity said an officer shouldn’t have to inform you.
The dispute in this video, which you clearly missed, is When they inform you. Guy in vid wanted to know before the encounter went any further. Officer said no. Officer had the letter of law on his side.
@@jimbobeire Hell yes.
they are ordered to... its almost like the cops act outside of their own powers attained because they have military authority unequal to their legal authority and maintain their gang-like presence despite law
@@bobdole7292 I think everyone would agree that at least during traffic stops an officer should inform the driver the moment they approach the window.
none of this "yknow why i pulled you over" Bullshit, Just tell me "i stopped you today because you were going 35 in a 25" Thats literally it. Its not fucking hard and it should be apart of their god damn rule book or something. Dont lick boots even if the law is on there side as this is a case of the law being fucking dumb.
It's always been a pathetic thing that police officers are not legally required to state why they pull someone over.
"officer remained calm" B thumbnail : officer loses control.
Trooper gets an F from me. While he wasn't required to say why the driver was detained, simply informing the driver why would have deescalated the situation.
I would fail the officer for an illegal command. 5:04 *The law only requires he display his license, not surrender it,* demanding he surrender his license at that point was an illegal command, extending the stop attempting to get compliance to fill this illegal command was a violation of his rights.
ATA gets an F- for this video... Because while ATA usually does a good job of explaining the laws and breaking down interactions, they COMPLETELY 💩 the bed on this video!!!
@@United_Corporations_of_America ATA only issues an F if the officers are completely outside of their authority. The reason for the B is because he was legally in the right. He stayed within his legal authority, so it wouldn't make sense to fail him on ATA's scale. However, legally right and ethically right are two different things, and ATA rates on legality. The cop could have avoided all of this by just giving a reason in the very beginning, but his ego got in the way.
Yea ata is a copsucker
@@shadowbanded bruh, ATA is very clear on his grading based specifically using case law and department policy. It's not his fault the Supreme Court has a history of boot licking. There are tons of videos where ATA outright disagrees with their own grading morally and criticizes officer conduct.
When I was a COP I ALWAYS told the motorist why I was stopping them. It is common courtesy, and human decency. And I cannot give the Trooper a B+ because he should have called for backup before attempting to remove him, he gets a C at best. The driver is an idiot.
Lol? Whats with you guys and having over exaggerating every freaking call for backup? Seriously im dying to know why there should be 3-5 if not more cop cars and or even more than 2 officers (1 male 1 female) and maybe one or two more for sketchy situations but im not paying tax dollars for egotistical badge monkeys to have picnics every freaking stop.
@@SmallAndSoft lol, how old are you actually?
Richard’s reply is perfectly reasonable
@@jimn1968 just your average manchild lol. Thea just got triggered out of the blue lmao
The trooper should have stayed the reason for the stop first and foremost. That's not negotiable. He chose to escalate the situation. The driver should have shown his license up against the glass if nothing else. Stop sucking on that boot.
Just give the driver's license while detained under driving occurrences. They go together, literally legitimately. Being randomly asked for identification while walking, without being detained, is totally different. Had he just handed it over, none of it would've happened...unless the trooper acquired a suspicion of DUI.
I'm no law enforcement... BUT... Wouldn't this have just been easier to call for "Back-Up" ?!?
I was pulled over for accelerating once. I was driving a 2014 Ram, I pressed the "resume" button on my cruise control which promptly brought me back to 70mph - speed limit. I told the cop the truth and he said to just be careful as it was raining. It was honestly one of the more positive encounters I've had.
When I made a left turn in center lanes because I wasn't in left turn lane. But there no oncoming car on left lane and car behind me. Then I put signal before the light turn green and cop turn siren on me🤦. I just wanted to avoid drive far when gas station prices has increased and I was pulling over. He ask if I have a weapon,I said no and he asked my license, registration and insurance and he gave me back in 10 second and he warned me not to do that because it's dangerous when i making the turn when I wasn't in left turn lane. Because I might get hit by a car without headlight on . There a supercar out there.
You lick boots, and your comment does not matter!
I have accelerate quickly when making a right turn onto a curved blind road or while coming off a shoulder in order to get up to appropriate speed & not getting rear ended by 55mph traffic!
I believe some places may have cruise control in city limits prohibited, I might be wrong on that maybe some one else would have a better understanding than my self.
A friend of mine was pulled over for speeding, when the officer came to his window to request ID insurance and registration he told the officer he wasn't speeding, he was in neutral (standard transmission) and with a downward grade was picking up speed. The officer looked At him and said he'd be back in a minute or two, then handed him 2 tickets 1 for speeding, the other from wreckless driving/driving with undue care and attention for "not being in full controll of the vehicle"
Was an expensive "smart ass" remark for my friend lol
Accelerating quickly saves you more time than speeding at 5 mph over on an average stretch between traffic lights, and it also saves gas in any car with fuel injection. The faster you get up to "cruising speed," the more efficient fuel-injected engines are. It also helps with traffic congestion at lights, allowing more people to get through the light, which cuts down on people running traffic lights to avoid being stopped by the same one twice.
Accelerating quickly should be encouraged, not discouraged.
like 90% of videos like this is a cop telling someone to do something without explaining what they did to have the cops get involved or pull them over. I feel like that is what causes so many of these issues. People just want to know what's going on WITH THEM, like what they did wrong or how they fucked up, and so many cops seem to never want to share that which just escalates the situation from the start. I don't get why this happens so often...No matter how right the cop is or how right the civilian is, nobody is going to just blindly comply. Take a damn second to explain the situation before making demands? I don't get why that is the last thing to get done. Once you are in handcuffs in the back of the car, they will tell you what you did
It’s done by design
They just want a reason to pull people over to search the car and check for warrants.
That's especially true in a country where defence, privacy and freedom are EVERSO valued like in the US. The policing system is a permanent violation of those values.
I agree. Cops are on an ego trip and like to exert power over people just because they can which is really off-putting to people. Just because there is a law about something doesn't make it right. Cops abuse this law to go around demanding things of people without making a reasonable attempt to inform them of their motives.
@@trix1227 yeah. That’s the problem
The fact that they try to open the door by any means results unnecessary scary. They're supposed to protect and create trust, but honestly, as a person that, fortunately, doesn't live in the US, just gives me more reasons why US police shouldn't be trusted. And, also, the propaganda than is made just seem like a very bad try to keep everything under control instead of doing something about these cases. Dash cams and body cams have been something great, not gonna lie, but until there's SEVERE consequences (like life in prison FOR EXAMPLE) for the things some cops do, I don't think is going to stop anything any time soon
Cops:"We're here to protect and serve."
Also Cops:"We can legally lie to you "
🤔
B+ is a little generous IMHO. He asked for his license one last time when he was getting it out to give to hum, but hiss ego refused to take it from him and as you pointed out he could've contacted a supervisor, but again his ego wouldn't let him. This trooper is dangerous..
It’s unbelievable we can watch the same video and have two completely different takeaways. He sat on the side of a road risking both lives to hear this idiot tell fake laws. The officer heard the story many times and asked for his license many times. After the idiot refused many requests, it’s time to step it up. Of course everyone caves when they know their getting arrested, then claims they were complying.
So dangerous that no one got hurt.
@@DrewRycerz You’re right, an idiot stating fake laws on the side of a busy road could have injured both by passing traffic. He admitted breaking the law the argues he doesn’t need to provide anything.
@@Zooks75 I definitely saw him comply at the end. I saw him handing him his license then the cop changed his mind for the final time, refuse to take it then try to eject the guy from the car.
@@Zooks75 it's funny how you're making it seem like the driver was putting people in danger when the trooper is the one who made him stop on the side of the road lol.
This police officer might have been able to de-escalate a lot of this encounter by just telling the driver why he pulled him over, even-though he was not legally required to. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened then.
Yeah, that is why I don't agree with the officer's grade. He could have possibly de-escalated the entire situation by informing the guy why he pulled him over. The guy actually admitted to basically speeding, so just say for speeding. But as belligerent this guy was, I suspect that wouldn't have been enough for him.
You people do not understand that the officer is in a position of authority. He is given authority by the state, county, city, etc. He is under no obligation to make exceptions. The person he pulls over, has obligations under the law. This individual is not following the law, and you are asking the officer to do something he is not obligated to do in order to "deescalate" a situation with an individual who has escalated the situation by not following lawful commands. It is this type of thinking in not respecting an officers authority and not following the law that has caused so much trouble. Once citizens follow the law, they can then address bad cops. Your logic and those agreeing with you have flawed logic in suggesting a cop should do anything he is not obligated to do by law, and that he should accommodate someone who is willfully disobeying them. Let me put it another way, a cop has authority over you. That authority is outlined in detail. You are wrong to think you have any "say so" beyond what is given to you by the laws of the land. I will ad that i do not seek out the police for help and find their involvement makes situations frequently worse, however to not understand the hierarchy is a detriment and pollutes the weaker ones' minds.
They hate being told what to do and ego is what gets people in trouble. This cop is the type who thinks he has power over all citizens. Had he just said I stopped you for speeding then the guy would give the papers. Maybe he doesn’t have to tell him but sometimes you need to just give in.
@@MrAlexdimm Although true and I believe no one is arguing they have certain position of authority. However, negotiation skills don't stay in a vacuum. If you have the opportunity to take things down a notch isn't worth trying? What would have been lost by this officer just to say why he pulled him over if that would stopped this situation from getting any worse? Don't get me wrong he did a lot of things right in this situation...... including even pulling out a taser and then drawing it back....showing restraint.....but I do think he did escalate the situation by being standoffish. Perhaps things never would have got physical by just saying why he pulled him over. Maybe they still would have, but it would have been worth trying ihmo. Although he is not legally obligated to tell him of his intentions for why he pulled him over....that does not mean he can't also tell him either.
@@MrAlexdimm well it wouldn’t be this way if we could have some professionalism in more cops. Things have changed in way of respect for law enforcement because of how they treat us.
If this guy had been black, you'd've called this an egregious violation of his civil rights and linked his gofund me 🤣
Exactly.... He dindu nuffin
yes, but he would be dead as well.....
Traffic laws NEED to be DEFINED EXPLICITLY.
The cop never identified him self.
He actually refused to identify him self. That’s a safety concern.
Perhaps the driver should have made a call to the Police Station to find out if the officer was a real officer??
@@MPD90 citizen safety is the responsibility of our civil servants not "nonsense" 🤡
@@millerscorner2 Perhaps officers should just be required to say the reasons they are pulling you over. Would be two whopping seconds to do so.
@@millerscorner2
Ok.
I wasn’t there.
But the fact the cop didn’t identify him self when asked doesn’t discount the fact he should have.
I think most places it’s mandatory when asked.
You want to say the driver escalated….
If the cop would have identified him self when asked this video would have been all on the driver as far as I’m concerned.
@@MPD90 dont agree with you
Imagine a world where we employed competent, understanding while capable people into the police rather than egotistical bullies?
Sounds like it will only ever be a fairytale unfortunately.
The people who employ them are the ones that determine that - which is why I believe they should be held accountable for any crimes committed by those they employ or vet etc.
There are egotistical bullies in every profession just like there are compassionate, understanding and capable people.
Most people that the cops come in contact with are confrontational. 40 hours a week. Without condoning, i can empathize.
The guy decided to pick a fight from jump. He was looking for a technicality to give the cop a hard time.
@@margaretthomas5548 I also think that any unlawful act committed by a LEO in front of other officers, then all should be immediately prosecuted for conspiracy unless they step in to stop the criminality of their colleague.
That cop was on a power trip.
……When one stubborn ass meets another stubborn ass.
It sounds like an imbalance of responsibility under the law where citizens are required to submit to law enforcement without them having to identify themselves and justify their actions. Along the same lines as qualified immunity where officers are not responsible for being aware of the laws they are required to enforce, but a citizen can be accused of a crime regardless of their awareness of those laws in many cases.
If cops didn't have that kind of power/responsibility over citizens, there would be no point in having cops to begin with.
Sadly these things are needed in order to make a police force effective. That is why on a policy basis almost all pds require their officers to identify themselves and the reason for the stop.
@@MPD90 sure you are right. But In This case clearly there is some sort of history. So why not inform the driver why you pulled him over so he can give up the license peacefully. Not everyone is just going to do what they are told without explanation. Especially if you haven’t done anything wrong.
@@williambutler1955 because he may have suspected the driver to be doing more than just what he pulled him over for. If you listened to the end of the video the guy plead guilty to driving under the influence. If the cop pulled him over and just said "I pulled you over for speeding and because I think you are under the influence" how do you think it would go for questioning to see if they can get him to confess?
Needed for a police force to be effective? Can't basic logic determine what should or needs to be done? If the suspect is not attempting to flee and is not suspected to be or does not appear to be dangerous, what's the danger in putting the cop on the hook right at the start of the interaction for why he initiated the contact. If the cop stops a black man and goes on record for suspecting him of a crime and no valid reason for that is revealed, then it could be a clear case of racial profiling. If the cop actually sees something that a court would agree is suspicious, or witnesses a crime, then you have your valid reason. If the suspect is actively committing a crime or is obviously violent and out of control, then you shouldn't be required to articulate a reason, and should be on the hook for deciding to use force for that reason. It seems like we have law that completely precludes logic and rationality and just writes a blank check for law enforcement to make as many mistakes as they can and only holds them accountable if there isn't a loophole for what they did yet.
“Dash cam catches cop losing control” gives him a B+ 😂
3:55 in and I'm ready to drive pencils in my ears. This driver is such an annoying pain in the butt! I prefer the people who actually know the laws. A know-it-all who's always wrong is so irritating!
In Italy we say something like "They wanted to show each other who got it longer". Unnecessary display of pride from both sides
In the US here we call it a “pissing contest”.
Exactly
Hothead trooper vs wannabe-smartypants driver. No sympathy for either.
"schwanzvergleich" in Germany. "Dick Comparison"
@@zendakk "Hothead trooper" could have tazered the living shit out of the guy and would have been fully within the law. He's not a hothead.
Imagine being pulled over before the wave of the injustice actions being used by SOME police officers and the department's policies to move foward with body cams. Being pulled over in the middle of the night on the side of the highway without being told a reason why you're being pulled over in the first place. Really shady.
Shady and honestly terrifying. With the recently widespread adoption of body cameras, I'm seeing how many situations there must have been in the past where citizens' rights were likely blatantly violated without any chance for recourse.
Shady, but lawful.
They demand unearned respect and punish anyone who doesn't provide it. Hmm, sounds a lot like what we called a BULLY back in school.
2:36 the way he drops his head as if he’s trying to hide his face kills me
This is definitely a "watch till the end" video. The charges and guilty plea explain everything
they explain nothing at all, a lot of not guilty people plead guilty because how stupid US justice system is
@@petervansan1054 Drinking and driving? That's pretty open and shut.
@@brianbagnall3029 is it? Where is blood test? He doesnt look drunk at all
@@brianbagnall3029 you have lost me on that one. 🥴🥴🥴🥴🥴
Why can't we just require cops to articulate what crime, or suspicion of a crime they are detaining you for? "I'll try to think of something before going before the judge, or just hope it will be too much of an inconvenience for you to fight."
Everything can be solved with more murder, yes it introduces more problems but it solves a lot with enough of it
@@aterack833 ???
@@chrisgunther109 which part gave you pause?
Man: "I know the law."
Narrator: "He did not, in fact, know the law."
Love how instead of just telling the guy why he pulled him over he decided that making the situation worse was the best way to progress the situation.
Tie up the corts time, tie up his time, and create a criminal out of someone who just had a simple question.
Yet this video clearly states the person had to hand him his id without anything else. The civilian in this case tried to say that the guy should first tell him why he was being stopped. The only thing he could do better at that point was say: I'm not legally obliged to tell you at this moment why you are being pulled over. You however are obliged to hand me your identification. All you 'muricans seem to be so much on the police hate, and I get that. There's a lot of shit going on there. But in a lot of this guy's videos the civilians make it very hard for themselves.
It is disgusting, the amount of power courts have given law enforcement, demanding identification without reasonably, articulate suspicion and removing a person from their vehicle without a warrant or reason for arrest is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendant. It is a slippery slope which I fear will eventually lead to police being able to enter and remove citizens from there homes without RAS or warrant.
Why can't the cop just tell him?
The citizen is being stupid, but the cop can be an adult and just say why.
Stupid is just Obeying to some costume wearing clown. I For 1 am willing to die taking out a bully. Are you?
Why is standing up for his rights being “stupid”?
@@tinfoilsombrero1439 what right was he standing up for
@@andrewmarion7073 Crazy idea I know, but people have rights that aren't in the constitution, because the constitution is an imperfect document. Just because the government doesn't recognize certain rights doesn't mean you can't still practice them, it just means you'll have to fight for those rights like we've done since the founding of this country.
Why should the cop submit to the driver? That’s not the way it works.
I have watched many of the videos on this channel. I think this is the best one I have seen in regards to grading the officer and the citizen.
Both parties showing childish behaviour.
As someone who has been kidnapped by someone I knew & trusted, this gets my ptsd going. Reaching into my vehicle & trying to take me wouldn’t end well for either of us.
been snatched up by latin kings n ion even think this would’ve gone well for either party aswell
My God so sorry to hear this.
Fellow PTSD person here, different reasons - I’m sorry you had to go through that. That’s truly terrifying and I’m so glad you made it out. ❤️ I often worry what would happen if I just found myself in a weird situation like this and PTSD brain kicked in. I don’t always know what will trigger it and why - but it never stops being embarrassing, nearly smacking your friends heads off when they try to pick a fuzz from your hair or something totally innocuous. Jumped a foot in the air when my phone buzzed the other day. It’s a battle.
This was pretty clearly a state trooper.
@@RedboneUnincorporated while this is obvious, ptsd doesn’t care. Similar; think about the 4th of July. Everyone knows they are “just fireworks” but to folks with ptsd from battle, they are likely reminders & may cause flashbacks to war time & it’s miserable. I’ve not been thru that still yet my ptsd HATES the 4th of July now, which used to be my favy holiday.