Good Cop DEFENDS Citizen From His Fellow Officers!
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- The first 100 people to use code AUDIT with the link below will get 60% off of Incogni: incogni.com/audit
Second Channel: / @johnlang6593
Spotify: spoti.fi/439TpHT
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: • Cleveland Clinic Patro...
Eitai from Up High’s channel - / @eitai44
Sources:
Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.29- bit.ly/3iWHTuK
State v. Blair- bit.ly/44Xb8SB
State v. Deacey- bit.ly/3PD2kgs
Graham v. Connor- bit.ly/3vk7YaX
Terry v. Ohio- bit.ly/2SFAnK9
U.S. v. Heath- bit.ly/48ggYSg
Navarette v. California- bit.ly/2Nzuo6W
State v. Burnett- bit.ly/48hrcS8
Srisavath v. City of Brentwood- bit.ly/48hLyLk
Smith v. City of Cumming- bit.ly/2XRc26E
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck- bit.ly/3ZKEEIL
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner- bit.ly/3AvCsvC
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Both the cops and the suspect don't fully understand their rights.
This is just a mess
But blue pigs get overpaid to know and enforce laws?
The second most dangerous thing is a citizen misunderstanding their rights, the most dangerous this is an officer misunderstanding peoples rights
My thoughts exactly. The individual, cops, security all had no clue to what was going on or what their rights were or werent.
You listen to AtA shill for the police unions and think he cares about rights?
What does he say at the end of every video now? Always comply with unlawful directives. What a joke.
The sad part is that the officers who ‘do the right thing’ and ensure that the citizen’s rights are respected and protected, often face backlash from their fellow officers because they “weren’t a team player, didn’t support their fellow officers or have their back”. It’s the “us vs. them” mentality, which places the good officers on the wrong side of the blue line.
Exactly , so why do we the public allow this?
I'll be a team player when I get the same share of the profit as the CEO
Correct. There is no such thing as a retired good cop. They can either report the other bad cops, or they can become a bad cop themselves. These are the choices. When they report bad cops, as you say, they get ran out of the department. Ergo, there is no such thing as a retired good cop.
@@3232mykewhat's the alternative when the courts are on their side
I don't know. He needed to question the man and the man started walking away so he grabbed his arm. That doesn't seem like a problem because you are not allowed to flee from a cop. The man also wouldn't let him get a complete sentence in without talking over him. Not illegal but it delays things and prevents a resolution of the cops investigation. In this particular video, I don't think the first cop did anything wrong.
Interesting that the security guard seems to know more about the rights of the property owner than the cops or the guy being harassed.
Treating people like human beings really goes a long way, I know it does for me.
When ATA says “HOWWWWEVER”
you know he’s about to make somebody look dumb af 😂
I KNOW RIGHT. It's drawn out for dramatic purposes! 😂
ATA is a bootlicking fudd.
@@TheAntistatist892says systemofaclown 😂
AtA is undercover cop
As a law school student, ATA has been wrong countless times. Just because you see something on CZcams, doesn't mean it's true.
That a person can look at another person, call the police and that's all it takes for the police to assume the caller is telling the truth is highly disturbing.
Exactly. I've studied police history in America and going back to the beginning, the cops have this tendency to automatically believe the caller, even for questionable calls.
@@AffluentBlacksWell, for them it's a cya situation. If they don't check it out and something happens, the consequences could be far worse than going and checking it out and it ends up being nothing.
In video after video, I see cops failing to take the obvious investigatory step of contacting the person who called 911. In this case, one of the cops could have detained the "suspect" while the other talked to the caller. The cop could have told the caller that the "suspect" said he was doing exercises, not looking into cars. The caller could have cleared up the situation by saying that "Exercise Guy" was not the right suspect or that the caller mistakenly thought he was looking into cars and didn't realize he was exercising. Police dispatchers have the caller's phone number, so the caller should be easy to contact.
Check it out yes but don't roll up with a biased frame of mind where you're not even listening.
@@AffluentBlacksespecially if the are black. Been doing it since reconstruction
Fun fact: Someone shouting multiple time that they gonna file lawsuit, they don't file lawsuit.
I've seen like 100+ people who actually have.
It's not hard to file a lawsuit.
@@jennifermoreno8956right, you can literally file one for $25
incorrect lol
Edit that comment so it makes sense
Brodie got that, "Blade haircut" you know he don't play. 😂
I wish public education taught more about the law
The problem with teaching law in the public education system is that laws change,laws are added,and different states and counties have different laws. I don’t think teachers are qualified to teach law. I was taught about the constitution in the fourth or fifth grade ,so not much stuck. I find it disturbing that police don’t know the basics of the law. Some laws have points that are not clear and are subject to interpretation but police don’t even get the first 4 amendments right. I think watching 10 hours of CZcams Amendment Audits with a lawyer in police academy would help officers with public interactions.
They want us dumbed down
Yeah, so people would stop defending this criminal.
Legal detention; Illegal resistance and refusal to ID.
Clinic called the cops
Some say the public "education" system is incompatible with the preservation of a constitutional republic of limited government, and that it is by design and intent.
@@beckyshell4649 that does not mean that certain Constitutional basics cannot be taught. For the most part, they're pretty constant.
I've never seen 2 cops look so dreadfully clueless...
Well, the important thing is they did everything by the law. We can be thankful for some good cops.
I agree, but would argue it’s considerably worse watching clueless cops double down.
These guys had the sense to realise and balls to admit they might not be completely in the right.
Edit: As in that there is not enough evidence to know with certainty whether either party was right in this specific instance in this specific court system.
Everything containing this is “reasonably articulated” at the end of the bloody video and is why nobody got a passing grade.
If you think the cops had enough information to justifiably and unwaveringly double down, time stamp and write what you’d have done differently.
Jfc.
@@Jay22222 But.. they were in the right. 🤦♀️
As clearly evidenced in the video.
The cop needed an ego check but the civilian needed a MUCH BIGGER ONE!
First time watching this channel?
You haven't? Every time I've ever seen 2 cops they look totally clueless.
How can a cop forget about the "Plain View Doctrine" to stop a citizen for looking in a car!
Last cop used his card to be chill with the professional victim
Suspicion is not a crime
Any other cliches?
@@morbidmanmusic Innocent till proven guilty is a good one. Reasonable articulable suspicion is another one
Nobody said it was, what point are you trying to make. Suspicious behavior can get you detained, which is what the first officer was doing before being whined at for “assault ”
@@matthewspawn5916it is assault any physical engagement with a person that isnt consensual is assault.
@@superyahci5339The fact that it's detainment would throw that out in court. Just like if I shoot someone while protecting myself, it's no longer murder because another factor that trumps the initial crime came into play. And in this case, everything seems to be pointing toward a legal detainment.
It's awesome that anybody can call the cops and just say anything and the cops will come on lay hands on you because they can. Why are the callers never dealt with?
they are dealt with the same way women that falsely accuse men....."never"
Exactly false report arrest
Probably not wanting for people to be afraid to call for help. However, people SHOULD be afraid to call them.
Don’t blame the callers. Blame dumb cops for just doing whatever a caller tells them to do.
@@TheBooban
Eh, blame both. 🤷♀️ Mostly the cops, but also the callers that call over AnY-fKn-tHiNg and don't give correct information and/or descriptions.
This should have been a rather simple situation altogether. Police get the call. Officer spots the man, calls out to him, asks him who he is and what he's doing. Man declines to identify but claims he exercises in this location every week/day. If the source is anonymous, the officer thanks the man for his time and leaves. If the source is not anonymous, the situation escalates to speaking with the source to ascertain the legitimacy of the claim. If this is a state where they can demand identification they can state as such and hell... Use their phone or some other source to show that they could demand it if the man did not believe he had to. If the man claims assault for the grab, the officer explains 'I needed to talk to you and you wouldn't stop. Force like this is considered reasonable for the sake of speaking with a *possible* suspect when said possible suspect is ignoring or moving away since it's the minimum needed in case you can't hear me. You can put in a complaint to my office if you think I have hurt you or ignored one of your rights'. After this, the situation is done. There either was no crime or suspect, or the caller was able to provide some evidence worth escalating to a detainment or arrest. An anonymous call is enough for a stop and chat. That's about it.
Thanks for all your hard work keeping us safe ATA.
Things cops think give them magic powers:
1) someone called us
2) disorderly conduct
3) the uniform
You forgot the magic ring that binds all those magic powers together - qualified immunity!
Why does someones concern for public safety not matter at all though? We pay for cops so we can call them and have them investigate suspected crimes. Thats OUR right.
Also, Obstruction and Resisitng Arrest. Two of their favorite charges to throw at people after they can't articulate an actual crime. Vagrancy and Loitering are also favorites of their's, they were often used in the south during the Jim Crow era to keep black men from voting.
4) their massive egos
5) gun
"Obstruction"
"Resisting"
They dont care about a lawsuit, they dont have to pay it...thats why we should end qualified immunity
Well that and in this case, it’s not really worth anything. The guy has his arm grabbed. He wasn’t hurt, he was annoyed someone touched him. How much is that worth? Probably nothing, or not much. No lawyer would take something like this typically because he wasn’t actually hurt (damaged). So why would they care about a lawsuit that likely goes no where and has almost no value.
1. The officers named in a lawsuit would most definitely care about it lol.
2. In this case specifically, the officer didn’t violate the persons rights, and the level of force used was as minimal as possible. Thus the threat of a lawsuit doesn’t hold much validity here…
3. Qualified immunity does need to be completely restructured.
@@Logan4201 cops really don’t care as much as you’d think. They know the money isn’t coming out of their pocket. And if they weren’t disciplined, they definitely aren’t going to sweat. Just means they may miss some time from work to testify.
Youre asking for no police. Thats what youre asking for
A simple baby step, on a long road.
"We got a call." The call, in almost all cases (98% or greater), is hearsay and requires the officer to use there own observations to validate the call information. They can't just grab someone for non-violent allegations without confirming the activity with their own evaluation.
Incorrect 7:00
It’s so important to do your part in accurately knowing the law in your state/ states you are visiting
Plain view doctrine. Not a crime to look in vehicles
I think that depends on who you ask. It can easily be considered suspicious activity by many people, regardless of what the law says on it. It's pretty circumstantial too, like if this guy was looking through cars in a parking lot holding a large blunt object like a bat because he was looking for a car to rob, I think a court of law would probably stand on the cops side for detaining or arresting someone like that even if he didn't actually end up doing it.
In this case I don't really think that they had enough to arrest him
@alfredpeverly2093 did anyone say he had a club in his hand? No. Suspicious is that a felony or misdemeanor?
@@sean6319that is true. I didn't say he did either lol.
I'm just speculating that I think a court of law might find it suspicious enough to validate the officer's behavior if the circumstances were different.
It's true that suspicious behavior isn't necessarily a crime, but the point is that investigating suspicious behavior is what cops do, so blanket statements like "its not illegal" isn't going to dismiss an officer's RAS.
@@sean6319nice editing your comment to clown on me lmao
But seriously though I don't think you're paying that much attention. I'm speaking in hypotheticals to try to explain in case you actually wanted to knwo but I guess you don't care anyway.
RAS of a crime is enough to detain. If the cop thinks that you committed or are going to commit a crime can arrest you. If you think it was against the law or you think it was unconstitutional or whatever, save it for the judge. The cop won't care. Probably.
@alfredpeverly2093 you can hypothetical all day long and twist it any way you want, that would all be irrelevant. The only one making you look like a clown is you.
Man i wish I'd learned this stuff decades ago
Learned what? If he was on private property then they can tell him to stop filming and he can be detained for recording random people's cars which was all explained in the video LOL also why would you want to know how to harass random people with a camera In the first place?.. Especially from an auditor who's not even right about any of the legal shit hes saying 😂😂😂
@@ssgemactv1775🥾👅
@@ssgemactv1775how do the boots taste bro?
@@thatonehispanic7982 delicious 😋
You and me both. I can't tell you how many times I got pulled over for being white in the wrong neighborhood. I legit had no idea the fuckin cops had zero authority
It's weird how cops will act like an anonymous tip must be true but then when someone is speaking to them face-to-face that person is lying to them.
They believe what they want to believe so that they can do what they want to do.
Guilty until *proven* innocent. That being said, the uniformed individual had it right: the dude was trespassing.
@@brianfrolo245 Not trespassing in the criminal sense until asked to leave, which he wasn't. It was still a "public place". Also that was not the basis of the original call and detention.
@@brianfrolo245 suspicious until identified might be a little more honest. but I don't think many people are here for that.
Thank you for covering this.
All the first cop had to do was hang back and watch OP to determine if he was exercising or scoping out cars. Then punt the info back to the clinic so they could make a determination to trespass OP or not. That took me 30 seconds to figure out, and I don't even work in law enforcement! 😂
Not working in law enforcement is why you have a reasonable way to go about it. It's senseless that for non-violent calls that officers don't "observe". Pull up 100 feet away and WATCH. This way (if a crime was being committed) they would have 1st hand evidence. Instead of gathering evidence or determing there was no crime, they must IMMEDIATELY flex their authority and beg for the ID. It's not good policing even if there is a crime.
I love arm chair cops. Except you know almost no details. For instance, what if the guy was leaving after he vandalized a car.
You literally know nothing.
@@SlyNine billions of comments on the internet today you might have just posted the dumbest.
Many cops treat calls for service like an assembly line. They want to “clear” the call ASAP so they take the quickest… not necessarily the best… path to do so. Cops in places like this are likely bored, as well, so having an interaction breaks up the boredom.
@SlyNine Well, I know you are a d*ck, so that's something.
It is so astounding, how few cops understand the law. It genuinely stresses me out.
Edit: good lord there are sooo many boot lickers in my comments …. Why are y’all even here?
Where did you find this statistic? What is the percentage? I can't find any information anywhere.
@@Coolcarting They only get 6 weeks training in the USA in most "develeped" countries it's 3 years. There is no way they can possibly have a good understanding of the law and their job in 6 weeks, it obvious unless they are all Incredbily intellignet and studious.
most do shut up
@@michaelandrews4783 agreed. I feel like their training should include a law corse on constitutional law.
How about how the public LIES, Fights, and the cop does the best they can. They are not lawyers.
Love it when the security guard trys to come in and ack like he knows something.
Love this. It’s nice to see both sides.
The fact that no one in this video knew what they were doing was very frustrating. Makes me very happy to live where I do as the officers are the best in the country in my opinion.
That just means they haven’t abused you yet.
What are you talking about
Probably a delusion.@@mick9419
So you havent been harassed by them yet.
Your tune will change.
..Guam?
Coffee and audit the Audit... great combo
You’re videos are the best in cop watching man, no doubt about it
@johnlang6593 I just stumbled across your channel recently and have been binge watching for days now. I'm a 13-year E6 in the Navy and greatly appreciate the educational and inquisitive way you explore the boundaries of authority and practical vs theoritcal applications. I especially applaud the commending of those who model professional, courteous behavior on both sides.
I am pleased to find a channel that supports mature examination and reflection on these tense interactions, instead of another hocker of "recreational outrage". I expect to continue watching as a source of continuing professional education and keeping my eye out for examples to pull for training my subordinates about escaliting/descalating conflict as they step into higher ranks.
Thank you for this positive contribution to the inter-webs.
Looking in windows is not a crime. If it were, every police officer in the world can be arrested right now.
cops on a lawful traffic stop vs some rando person looking into cars is not the same thing.
one is suspicious, the other is situational awareness (until it becomes a 4th violation of course)
The issue was that he is on private property and he was told to stop and leave.
"Plain view doctrine" - If a cop looks through my windshield and sees a pile of heroin on my dashboard, he can absolutely arrest me. Imagine if a cop needed a warrant just to look through my car window...
if someone is dumb enough to have a pile of herion on their dashboard, they deserve to be arrested LOL@@ianbattles7290
If looking into cars was illegal, my 90 year old dad and myself would be in jail a few times. My dad loves to look at the inside of some of the newer cars, he just glances, not taking much time. We also have a lot of historical cars in our area and when they are in the parking lots, we both check them out.
Not everything is meant to be a negative situation.
" There is not One single police officer in America that I am not afraid of and not one that I would trust to tell the truth or obey the laws they are sworn to uphold. I do not believe they protect me in any way."
- Henry Rollins
The Supreme Court says that police officers have absolutely no obligation to protect anyone or keep anyone safe that their job is to protect property
Which makes no f****** sense why they're allowed to write me a ticket or a fine based on my safety or lack thereof when it's literally none of their f****** business
Preach
Clearly Rollins's is an idiot. That is stupid profiling on his part.
You're special Ed. I've worked armed security with cops for years. Some are bad, others will sacrifice their lives if it means the chance of saving you.
Yeah, but Hank built his house fortified against a siege; so, using him as a base for trusting people, let alone police, isnt the greatest.
Great analysis of a case on the edge. This is the most type of case.
Hes trying to arrest him on hearsay and the act of looking into cars isnt even illegal🤦🏾
His partner didnt seem surprised, he seemed more fed up with the BS.
I think it is valid to point out that theres a lot about this interaction we dont know. I would be curious to see dash cam or body cam from the Officer's POV to see what they found so suspicious about his behavior. Also would like to hear this "description" they kept going on about.
Someone saw a Black guy near cars and they called the cops. That's what that means.
I agree. This is becoming a serious problem with a lot (too many) of these videos.
Love this channel!
The Good cop that helped him out showed some good amount of respect, just how you want to see it. The others are so clueless.
"Clueless"? They followed the law. The cameraman in the video was an idiot who DIDN'T know their rights.
Lmao naa he just rizzed him up so he would go beserk and get the hell out. They throw that shit out the moment it hit the desk
Black men generally do not perceive other black people as criminals like their white coworkers do. It’s called racism and profiling
Mutual respect and understanding for both private citizens and public officials can go a long way. But that takes time, patience and goodwill -something that seems to be in short supply.
Citizens are fed up with these public servants overstepping their authority
Bruh you need to travel to other countries and see how it is. Cops got a call, they tried investigating in the most dull and peaceful way I've ever seen and the dude recording had a mental breakdown.
@@fertilerevitilizer7833just because other areas bad don’t mean we can’t get better goofy
@@fertilerevitilizer7833stupid comment.
Dumb muricans call this blue line criminals law or peace officer..
Reality is blue idiots enforce their fragile ego...and escalate anything
@@Chuida17 these cops didn't do anything wrong, the state this video took place has stop and ID laws, also touching someone isn't an assault. These internet lawyers act like fools in public. The officer gets a call of someone prowling through cars, sees someone marching the description, yes he has the right to detain and investigate. In other countries I've been the police would have just shot him instantly as soon as he started acting up.
"We got a call" doesn't nullify the Bill of Rights, nor give police license to commit violent crimes.
2nd of week, thank you! keep up the great work
Great assessment as usual.
ID will not determine criminal activity. The cop just wants to run him for warrants. It's lazy policing.
It's a violation of the 4th Amendment. That's not lazy, it's criminal.
I wonder if the cop did run him, discovered that he was arrested for breaking into cars the previous day, perhaps in that same parking lot, would that be significant to know?
@@jasonshults368being lazy can also be criminal 😂 especially when your being lazy at your job.
@@samibuckthats when the cops should actually do some WORK and investigate. If this cop was suspicious the smart thing to do would have been to hang back and WATCH what the man is doing. Is he snopping around cars and looking in? Does it appear he doesn't have a key/own that car? Was the call correct? By jumping the gun and immediately contacting this gentlemen and not actually seeing anything suspicious happen is just bad policing and leaves it way open to completely innocent people being harassed. It's also lazy.
@samibuck I wonder if I find you on the street, tell the police your description and that you broke into a car, if they would then harass you until they arrested you for anything they could find. Hypotheticals can last all day.
Your ID doesn't have a window into clarity rarely ever.
They always claim that they received a call...
I know that good cop. He’s a good friend of mine, I worked with him and texted him the internet loves him! He’s always been a great man. I’m not surprised how well he handled this!
If the officer had waited for a crime to happen, he would have saved himself and everyone involved alot of time and headache
Can't get enough of this channel! I have learned so much from watching all the different videos about the legal system, corrupt cops, and delusional citizens. On the topic of the case... just because the cop has a legal right to grab his arm and detain him, it is still up to him whether he exercises it.
I'm with you. I've learned a lot from this channel as well. I've often discussed this channel with my LEO brother who's in the NYPD.
Nobody has a legal right to put their hands on anyone. It's a duty, or responsibility, granted to them. Right to grab somebody? You've been watching too much AtA.
@@danielboone8435 Wow. AtA provided receipts and you're just denying reality.
You really are a SovCit, huh?
You should listen to the old narrator. I could easily get my fill of this channel with that dude at the helm 😂
@@Alexa-Raine What kind of half ass sovcit talks about legal duties and responsibilities? Learn what you're talking about, victim.
What kind of Grinch police detain black Santa? They're going on the naughty list for sure.
That's what I thought! Santa is just trying to keep in shape during his off season. That cop is going to be a very sad boy on Christmas morning.
Your channel makes a difference in the world. You should be really proud.
I’m confused, did they legit go from stopping him due to a call about looking in cars, to saying security called because he was filming?
Yeah something like that lol
I don't think so. I think the police stop happened because of an anonymous call. He was filming the interaction with police. Hospital (private) security was probably pulled out to see if they wanted to trespass him off the private property or otherwise get the "owner's" take and the guard didn't want to be filmed nor for the parking lot to be filmed. There are probably signs up saying that some areas can't be filmed but we're extrapolating a lot.
Whether the guard can tell him to stop filming on private property during a police interaction is.. complex.
@@dreamcoyote The "pursuit of happiness" is now empty words. Policemen destroy the peace and safety of citizens.
Yep. They are just itching to get him on something to satisfy their ego. They knew they had nothing on him
Boot licking security guard.
i always look forward to your Videos!!
Police credibility is so low that people would rather be WRONG than allow for police corruption. If police officers held each other accountable this wouldn’t be an issue.
Calling the police against a person is essentially calling a gun.
Im glad so many of the early comments are giving love to the channel. This channel does make a difference and im so proud that theres such a dedicated community to this cause
Okay, I'm not sure where you're going with this, but....
Think about this....
1. We never see the court proceedings after any of these videos. So.... how would anyone know if this guy did win or lose the case.
2. When you leave out this part of the EVIDENCE, you are just talking crap.
@@ryans.7426you can look up the court cases your self. They can't show something that hasent happened yet or didn't happen (some auditors never follow through on law suit threats)
Ahahahaha Ahahahaha ATA is a statist, bootlicker.
@@ryans.7426 What in the hell do you think the court proceedings will look like?
Maybe providing all pertinent settled case law?
EXACTLY LIKE YOU JUST WATCHED!
To be fair they forget to show the parts from LE, or why they're actually there.
I think the main issue is the grabbing….If the subject wasn’t attempting to flee (which it doesn’t appear he was), he should’ve just detained him, and questioned him.
The cop said he wouldn't stop and wouldn't identify. From what's presented in the video, we simply do not know what happened before. It could be that the cop approached him and tried to talk to him but the guy walked away and grabbing him was the least intrusive method he had to prevent him leaving.
I love this channel. I literally wait for the word "HOWEVER..."
One of the problems of police interactions is that the police aren’t forced to disclose information about the reason for a detainment to the individual until it goes to court. That means that as long as police have any sort of call on someone’s behavior they’re pretty much allowed to detain you and harass you because the veracity of a caller (and wether or not their information rose to the level necessary to allow police to initiate a detention) isn’t typically gauged or known until after the fact. Yet another reason to quickly assert your fifth amendment rights during any police interaction.
The problem is laws,judges and police are given to much unchecked power. Many need to changed and end qualified immunity for everyone.
Sad part is, in some cases of the judges there hands are actually tied by the law forcing corruption by either violating someone's rights because unchallenged laws caused it, or by going outside their authority to see actual justice done instead of feeding the prison complex. An example of the second case comes from a judge that by all rights violates the "Cruel and unusual" punishment restrictions, by giving the guilty in his court the choice between the standard jail time/fine or to perform some unusual action as a "community service" style punishment and while some would have seen the unusual sentencing the guilty agreed to as cruel most of them were happy that they had the chance to avoid jail/fines that would have severely hurt them in exchange for a bit of humiliation that helped them see how they screwed up and can grow.
You did NOT just say that laws have too much power. Laws regulate how we deal with each other. The problem is that the letter of the law sometimes allows someone to do something that is immoral, like the former employers who don't pass on the information that a particular individual is a problem to prospective employers because they are afraid of being sued.
The basis of and enforcement of bad laws is at the root of the problem. There are too many who will enforce them with little to no reservation.
But really it's the fault of society for allowing such to exist. We will always have those who will gleefully enforce corruption.
laws have too much power? lol wut? Do you realize our court system is the reason why we live the good lives we live in this first world country? The fact that AtA needs to cite a dozen legal precedents every video is the reason we have and we keep the rights that we have, and how we live in the comparatively safe world we live in. Give me another country youd rather live in and explain how their justice system gives them better lives than us. If you can do that at all I guarantee you cant do it for *most* of the rest of the world. Not to mention laws and judges ALSO keep the police in check.
I mean if that happened there would be no one enforcing any peace which would just turn into a free for all mess with no consequences.
Their are still good ones. Had a problem that required the police this weekend two officers had to come to my house. They asked if there was anything dangerous in the house I replied a gun, some knives and a cat. The officer made sure to close the door telling me she did not want the cat to get out and did not fear for officer safety because their was a gun someplace. The were both very respectful and nice while handling the problem. I was not recording them so their was no reason for this behavior other then being good people.
The issue is there seems to be more bad ones than good ones.
@@alienbob21There are probably millions of daily police interactions in US. Hard to determine the general quality only based on the published videos. It could be that 99% of the cops are good, but we get to see mainly the bad interactions because those are the ones to get most views.
You gave way to much information, lol. I hope you dont have to learn the hard way.
Your videos and analysis of the various laws, statues, and regulations is brilliant. I have military experience and was an LEO for several years. In law enforcement there is a good amount of training. But, as these videos have demonstrates the laws can be conflicting, yet somewhat point to an answer. Until you experience it, you will not know what to do, that's why the shift supervisor is a key position. I think the best thing is that comply where you can and fight the battle(s) in the courts. Whereas camera evidence and witness statements, coupled by supervisor(s), judge or jury will reach the correct choice. I have gone through a lot of stuff from my days, it's hard to take the high road, over and over. But, we are human. There is a huge shortage of officers across the community and low pay, uncertain days off, with forced overtime is really tough on a persons mental focus. It's like being in the military again, except for the MRE's.... Without this countries first responders, you would call us Chad or Cuba. Don't stop learning. Be Safe.
"Yeah you fit the description - we were investigating a Black man between the ages of 1 and 100, and whose roughly 4 feet to 10ft tall - oh, and did I meantion being black?"
stop pulling the race card. the officer clearly said he fit the description based on CLOTHING.
@@arthurcheater3359 Learn to recognise humour, nonce.
The officer looks like matt Walsh lol
He sure does! 😂
They don't care if you sue them because THEY don't have to pay out of THEIR pockets. The citizens have to pay.
When cops want to interrogate someone they ALWAYS say that someone called. The mysterious caller is never identified nor verified.
So when they get a call and don't witness any crime, they can still detain and use violence against you. But when a security officer or police assault a citizen then they wont arrest or detain unless they witnessed the crime...
The look on their faces is like man this is way more trouble than it's worth, should have just left this guy alone...
The Whole foods pictured @4:30 is the old one on Centre Ave in Pittsburgh, lol.
I learned something new, Cleveland clinic has a private police force.
my dad is responsible for setting a precedent that you can’t individually sue an officer, because he sued like six cops individually lol
That's unfortunate, you should be able to sue both the county and individual officers. Smhhh
Would the cop repeatedly stating it is private property undo the legal requirement to identify on public property?
Basically, they flip the law and circumstance until it matches. But you can't do that
Honestly with how often laws change involving how to act when stopped by police in each state it's near impossible to know what your rights are.
In the aerial stock footage of the parking lot not only did a guy open his door into the car beside him, he then opened the back door into the same car.
Has anybody ever heard of a cop killing somebody? If so does that mean you have the right to detain a cop?
Derek Chauvin
Looking into vehicles is not a crime... Therefore ZERO force was necessary... ZERO interaction was necessary.
That is incorrect. Some force can be used to stop a person during a terry stop. That force must be reasonable, and if you refuse to stop, you can be arrested for obstruction, and then the reasonable force escalates, because the force used to effectuate an arrest will always be more than the force needed to stop someone.
Did we watch the same video?
@@luciddream2033
In order to initiate a 'terry stop' ..the office must have .. reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must have "specific and articulable facts".
"You were looking into cars"
Does not meet this criteria OR EVERY member of the public would be forced not to "look into cars" while walking on the street.
How would that be possible.
When have you ever been on the street and not seen a driver in a car.
@AspenDarkfire this all depends on what information was relayed to the officer during the dispatch of the 911 call. Regardless of whether you like it or not, a 911 call can be the basis of a terry stop, so long as it has some predictive power and indicates that a crime is or will be occurring.
If you read the case Terry v Ohio, the cops just seen a person looking into a window of a store, walking back and forth. Is looking into a store while waiting on a friend illegal? No, but it led the officer to believe a crime may occur, and that justified his detention of the men.
@@AspenDarkfire
7:50
There's big difference between a call about "Alleged" 'Suspicious Behavior' and having actual Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a Crime! The officer certainly had the right to approach and talk to the man but had no RAS to compel the man to answer or ID. Even if he could temporarily detain for investigative purposes, the man does not have to assist the officer with an investigation against himself. The officer could get in touch with the caller to get a better understanding of the situation or view security footage etc to determine if there was a crime committed. Obviously looking in cars is no crime. When that officer grabbed him, he may have struggled which could have led to other things and charges or perhaps even death. It's not right for an officer to go hands on over a call.
Remember when the supreme court ruled that looking into vehicles parked in a public lot was illegal?
Yeah, me either.
Telling a cop he’s “about ti get a lawsuit” sounds dumb. They don’t give a shit.
I was approached when I was younger in a parking lot at night by an officer who engaged me - Telling me they had a car broken into an hour earlier, had I seen anything, did I know the area, when did I arrive - etc. I assume he also got the information he needed (if I was involved) by body language etc.
Gave me his card right off the bat also.
I later found out that my clothing (but not height) was similar to the earlier report. The officers light energy and calm questioning of me was clever and on purpose - got the job done and he never asked for my name until the end and of course I was also relaxed and engaged by that time ( a couple of mins at most) so gave it readily ( bet he still ran me as soon as he got in his car). . . .
In my State where Qualified Immunity was abolished, observing behavior has become the norm in investigations. The only goal post moved is proactive policing. They don't hem you up and make up reasons for the stop anymore. I say that approach catches more criminals than not.
This is how false arrest and hare crimes go un punished.
lol that one cop having a hard time deciding whether to back his brother in blue or his brutha from anotha mutha 😂😂
You completely missed that looking into cars isn't a crime.
Neither is looking into a store, but the courts upheld the detention in Terry v Ohio based on that. Nothing the person did in the Terry case was illegal, but taken in the totality of circumstances, it could lead a reasonable officer to believe the person was about to commit a crime.
I would suggest reading the Terry case.
@luciddream2033 oh I know, but regardless you still need RAS of a crime. Terry v Ohio is a very problematic case law for a multitude of reasons
@0_k_1_ There is a long history of case law justifying a detention based on suspicious behavior and 911 calls that indicate someone is or will be engaged in some crime.
Having had my car and house broken into, I would definitely want cops investigating people that seem to be up to no good, regardless of whether their actions have a benign explanation.
7:23
@@luciddream2033 that doesn't make it right, legal, or moral. Hence why it can and should be tried
When an officer breaks the law or policy that equals A FAIL
Cop thinks “ I got a call, game on! Investigating is against all my training and Ego. I’m the police, dambit!”
The officer complacently dangling his left arm down during the initial detention is officer safety pucker factor 3000!
Didn’t know using your eyes to look some where was a crime
It's not a crime, it can be indicative that a crime may be about to occur. Read Terry v Ohio
@@luciddream2033 so you can arrest someone for maybe committing a crime 🙄
@HA-jq1mu no, they need probable cause to make an arrest. They can detain someone for investigation if they believe that the person is, was, or WILL be committing a crime.
@@luciddream2033 how do they determine it though, anyone can look like they are about to commit crime then dont
@HA-jq1mu by stopping them and investigating. If they see burglary instruments on them, then they can likely arrest them. At a minimum, it establishes police presence as a deterrent.
Have you ever had your car broken into?
If you are recording my house from the public street and you see me doing anything I don’t want the public to know, I deserve that. It’s called privacy and you can create it for yourself if you want it. These guys don’t care about privacy they care about power, they care about telling another human what to do, because they are small and powerless in their own lives
If you want privacy, it's your responsibility to create it. You can't restrict someone's right to view or record something visible from public.
Your post reminded of a video I came across that I clicked out of because it was wrong. A group of teens filmed a man masturbating from a window in another apartment building. The guy had his back turned but I still felt embarrassed for him. The fact they thought that was okay to post on social media is crazy.
Yes, anyone can record you from outside your property. The question is, can they enter your property and then record you? Because that's the case in this video. He was on private property and the owner allowed him to enter, even if he had no business of being there. However, the owner wasn't ok with him recording and he should have respected that.
@@ACarelessOstrichI get what you're saying but if you take that logic to it's maximum it would mean that every action you do in public could be recorded and archived by anyone which isn't a society most would want to live in
@@ACarelessOstrich And you can create it by suing whoever is filming your private business in your own home
Many people with ring/security cameras have already been stung by this, thinking they can use a "security" camera as an excuse to record private conversations a house over
I was not prepared for the reflection
Not sure why I’m seeing so many comments stating that the cops needed more to stop the man. They had a clear articulable suspicion. Someone claimed he was peering through car windows in the parking lot. They did not have probable cause. So it’s a good thing they did not arrest him.
Those cops all looked so clueless 🤦🤦
It's almost infuriating how people don't know the laws
its just that its never brought up in schools even if it was there are so many laws that knowing most of them would be a headache and a massive time sink
To be honest... the only laws you know are only the ones most commonly violated and known charges stemming from those violated laws. I can walk up to you and ask you to break down a certain law or statute you've never had to deal with and you'd be clueless.
If we just took whatever city you happen to be in now, you would still need to know all of the city and county ordinances, all of the state laws, all of the federal laws, and all of the case law surrounding all of those laws. Even then you couldn't truly know all of the laws there, because one may be interpreted by the courts later in a way that is inconsistent with how you (or anyone else) interpreted it.
The most infuriating part is the laws are so inconsistent and change constantly... stop and identify is a perfect example.
Well, it's not like we're taught basic law in school. The only way the general public would know about the laws is either reading it or experiencing it.
The security guard needs to shut up and stay out of it. Otherwise, the company can become named in any ensuing litigation.
When you think about it it’s quite ridiculous that police aren’t as knowledgeable about the law as lawyers. When a citizens asks them they should be able to cite case law. Their job is literally to enforce laws.
What if this guy pulled his hand back and away from this cop? Would he arrest him for this? Is he allowed to defend himself from being accosted?
Absolutely would have been resisting. The stop was not unlawful, he had no legal right to resist the stop.
@@imakefightswhat was the crime, copsucker? You don't put your hands on another man, unless you're under arrest. Loser.
You're allowed to defend yourself against unlawful arrest Plummer V State.
@@TheAntistatist892not anymore, officers can now break the law in good faith. Unless the officer is really fighting you, you'll never win. Police are a protected class
@@imakefights How do you know the detainment was legal and therefore legal for the cop to go hands on ? The legality of the detainment is based off of the information provided by the person that made the call to the police and unless you know what was said you don't know.
*The general license for access on private property open to the public that for general purpose, is deemed a public space enables this gentleman to do everything he was doing, and the only thing the Cleveland Clinic can do is ask him to leave. If he refuses, only then is he trespassing and do the police have reasonable suspicion to detain him if he refuses their lawful order to leave the property after the property manager requesting him to leave.*
I have been treated exactly this way many times *which throws the race card out of these games they play with us and others that use it make it possible for me to be treated in a relative way to what they did to this man, many times.*
*It is not worthy of a lawsuit, but it was on the verge!* It was an assault based on hearsay though and that police officer is thickheaded and ignorant.
I walked out into our company's parking lot (near lunch time) and a local officer was in the face of someone I knew. I walked over and the officer approach me and told me this person was suspicious (In reality a Black man in a hooded jogging outfit in April) - what?. I knew he ran every lunch.
I told him (the office) to Just leave and went over to Jake said lets go and we walked out to the park (across the street) together. The officer was still standing there after we crossed the street - I assuming not knowing what to do. Jake said stuff like this happened all the time. He was once pulled over because he was driving a too nice car for a N when he was younger -wow.
Man it sure hit me that day how careful that minorities have to be just going about normal life....and in some ways showing me how easy my path was . . .
Your anecdotal stories doesnt refute the fact that black people are harrassed way more when doing everyday shit.
@@danielweston9188 I've been fed the suspicious line before. When you tell them suspicious is rooted to the word suspect so what crime are they suspected of, they just parrot the other word and insist it's reasonable suspicion for making contact.
They say crap like "it's a cause for concern" well so what, being suspicious is not reasonable suspicion without evidence or a formal accusation from a potential witness or victim. *Today, I regularly see people arrested for resisting arrest and THAT'S the only charge!* Some people look like murderers or illegal aliens but it's not reasonable for a cop to make contact in hopes of finding an actionable offense unrelated to their profile.
It's insane what has happened to America when you can arrest someone for resisting arrest, it's the only charge they face when attending court and many are actually convicted. *Our country is dying and nearly dead.* This is why so many *law abiding citizens* hate the police.
Traffic stops where they gamble on finding a crime, harass people, bully them and make excuses to search them. *Then they call it good police work if they find drugs, stolen property, guns etc., but 99.999% of these interactions turn up nothing and are harassment.*
@@danielweston9188 "Jake said stuff like this happened all the time. He was once pulled over because he was driving a too nice car for a N when he was younger -wow."
That happened to me 10 years ago.....Im 48 now....its not just the younger ones
@@313Sonny your racist drivel has no basis in reality particularly considering how many times I've been harassed by police since I was 15. *I've had far worse than this done to me and unlike all the black people that complain without justification, I was convicted of several felonies I didn't commit when I was 15 and locked up.* I constantly hear the bullshit you just said and then when I ask blacks, or brainless whites parroting that drivel, they have no *PERSONAL* story to recount, let alone something as despicable as what was done to me.
*Back in March, a cop I called couldn't believe I did nothing wrong.*
10:30 at night, I'm driving home from the grocery store and 30 seconds from my house a deranged drunk walks out of the bar. He looks me dead in the eyes and screams "hey MF! You got a problem?!? We'll settle this right F'ing now!!" Then continues to threaten me, jump in front of my car and carryon for over 10 minutes while I waited for the police. *The cop was decent, but couldn't wrap his head around my having done nothing wrong or even never seen the guy before.*
It's always some brainless dumb fuck like you that plays the race card, *but even most unarmed people shot and killed by the police are white.* You can't be bothered to know WTF you're talking about, so you say racist shit like that.
Regarding the ad for this video forget about searches. I was talking to my neighbor about perimeter spraying for insects while listening to music on my phone and later that day I was getting ads for insect spray.
"We got a call of legal behavior!!! We have no idea who called, what their motive was, what their reliability is, and we observed no crimes!!! How dare he believe that has rights and that we can't do whatever we want!!! Where does he think he is, the land of the free?"
These stop and ID laws are unConstitutional IN MY OPINION because even though it says that the officer must have RAS, they rarely tell the citizen why they are seizing/detaining them until after the ID has been seized under threat of arrest or abuse (and they have no RAS anyway - saying 'We got a call'). For a long time, our government has amended our rights to serve their purposes and not the citizen's rights.
There is no such thing as a stop and ID law. You have to be suspected of a crime. Stop and ID would be a papers please type situation.
No grounds for a lawsuit whatsoever. Probably why no lawyer would even touch it.