Geeez! What utter trash. He's psycho and his bitch is his hypnotized slave who screams like an animal because her psychotic slave master is being arrested. He probably beats her too. That's how sick the whole thing is.
The officer starts out by saying that they received a call that the people were involved in a fight (domestic). The officer has an obligation at that point to identify everyone involved, because he is conducting an investigation. During a official investigation you are required to provide ID to law enforcement, or jsut like this case, you can be arrested.
@grunticus09 THIS OFFICER WAS IN THE WRONG. A officer just cant stop bye and start demanding to see your I.D. this officer stopped to talk to these people trying to find a reason to take someone to jail peroid. THIS OFFICER IS A SCUM BAG.
@srcetme lol... actually A Law Enforcement Officer has all the right to stop and ask for I.D. look it up and learn the rules before you open your mouth. k? lol
@grunticus09 no only when your operating a motor vehicle. which this guy was not at the current moment. learn the law before opening your mouth and learn to use spell check. BABABABABABAHAHAHAHA. no wonder you think the cop is in the right. because your an idiot. lol
Hiibel LOST his U.S. Supreme Court case all the way back in 2004, so you're the one who needs to learn the law before opening your mouth. Cops CAN demand that a person identify themselves when they are investigating a report of a crime or other breach of the peace and failure to identify yourself to the officers satisfaction WILL result in your being arrested and held until the officer can positively establish your identity.
@grunticus09 you agree with cops that just see people and go over and conduct an investigation? for what? they where doing nothing. A asshole cop does shit like that. a cop that doesnt know what a crime is. i hope the cops just stop by your house and conduct an investigation for no reason. all they try to do is find some reason to take you to jail. just like this citizen. i guess the cops dont know that there're people driving drunk or shooting up heroin. just mess with the guy doing nothing
The cop didn't "see people and go over and conduct an investigation" as you put it. They had a report of a man abusing a woman by the side of the road near a red and silver pickup truck that matched the description of Hiibels' truck. He was acting on the report of a crime, he didn't just stop to bust his balls. He had a valid reason to investigate because the circumstances matched those of the reported crime scene. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the cop, so that ends it. You lose.
Look up Hiibel vs Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. The Supreme Court ruled that YES you MUST identify yourself when asked by a police officer. I know what I'm talking about. You need to educate yourself or just STFU.
@gamewizard you didnt read it very well or understand it. it states only when involved in a investigation and doesnt have to if it violates the 4th amendment. so ash yourself what constitutes a investigation?? so everytime a cop sees you he can demand your id? nope think not. YOU DONT KNOW SHIT so just shut the fuck up.
What do you think an investigation is? Someone calls the police and the police respond to the call. That IS an investigation. The police receivved a report of a disturbance so they *drumroll* INVESTIGATED. Imagine that, police investigating a report of a crime or disturbance. The very fact that the person shown in this video LOST his case in the Supreme Court shows that you are the one that doesn't know shit and should STFU.
You disagree with my definition of an investigation? What's yours then? That is what an investigation is. The police are called and they send someone to look into the call. That is an investigation. You are an idiot.
Yeah, so? Oh, yes, you don't even own one, do you? Of course not. Only intelligent people use such things. Idiots like you just argue with nothing to back you up. You just shout "Is not!" or "Is too!" like a 3 year old. I've shown you the Supreme Court case that says that you do have to identify yourself to the police when asked, and still you insist you are right. Only an idiot continues to argue after being shown proof they are wrong. A smart person corrects themselves and moves on.
@gamewizard a officer cant just walk up too you out of the blue and demand your id in nevada. if your under investigation then you must show id thats with every state. because if a cop did come out of the blue and demand your id, it would be considered against your 4th amendment. dont you get it yet pin head? i use my memory. i dont need to go and copy info to seem smart like you. you still dont know the law.
That's not what happened, though. The officer was conducting an investigation into a report of a woman being abused by the side of the road. He was well within the scope of his authority to investigate the report and ask for identification when he got there because he had this thing called probable cause. He suspected a crime was being committed based on the call of a witness and went out to investigate. He did not just show up out of the blue and start harassing the guy.
@gamewizard i see your trying to bash me for a earlier comment that i made and all ready was told to turn up my speaker because is missed it. i already had stood corrected. but i see your starting to see what the law is.
What do you mean "starting to see"? The law is that you must identify yourself when asked by a police officer. That's what the Supreme Court decision was all about. The Supreme Court decision held that it does not violate the 4th Amendment for an officer to ask you to identify yourself as it is not an unreasonable search or seizure and does not require a warrant. It also does not violate the 5th Amendment because your name alone is not incriminating in itself.
@gamewizard they have too be investigating you. officers can approach you for no reason and ask for your ID and you dont have to show them, only when they are investigating you.
An officer wouldn't approach you and ask you for ID if he didn't suspect you were doing something that you shouldn't be doing. If an officer sees you lurking in the bushes under someone's bedroom window, does he have the right to approach you and ask for some ID? Hell, yes he does.
How am I blind? I should hope that a police officer has a right to question someone who is acting suspiciously when they are around my house. I suppose if a police officer walked on by while someone jimmied open your window you'd accuse him of dereliction of duty. You can't have it both ways.
@gamewizard The law is that you must ID yourself when asked AND when reasonable articulated suspicion exists that you have committed a crime or are a witness to a crime.
Hiibel was suspected of being involved in a crime so he had to show his ID.
BUT, an officer just cant randomly walk up to someone and demand ID without reason.
Thats what the supreme court said in its decision.
We're going to give our officer a chance to squeak out of it. We get him on the stand next week. One of the questions we'll be asking (and giving him an escape route) is whether or not he was trained to not follow the law. Then we line up our claims on the dept.
I'm so sick of the paranoia and cowardliness I constantly hear coming from police. These guys are supposed to be brave, a cut above, fearlessly dedicated for the fat salaries they get. But I just hear so much "boo hooo my job is so dangerous I don't have to follow the law. But one of you non-cop subhuman cilivian pieces of shit cattle for our feast better not fucking blink wrong or we'll jack your ass up and put you in cages for administrative bullshit. NOw and then we actually bust a criminal."
@whodare The 5th Amendment doesn't have a part in this. The Constitution doesn't give you the right to fight and not have any repercussions and it says nothing about having no punishment for not showing your ID during an investigation with probable cause. He wanted to be arrested and he got it.
To me that is all you have to do, they ask you questions or want to see your ID let them see it and answr their questions. If you feel they did something wrong then report it afterwards, you are just asking for trouble by not doing what they say.
@bud11dy if you show id or admit to being a social security account you'll lose due to point of contact jurisdicto,/ If you want to be a social security account,m you can get regulated as one.
The man was obviously drunk, with the police officer there (as stated at 0:25) to investigate the report of a fight between him and woman in vehicle. When suspect refused to cooperate and was unresponsive to the actual questions addressed to him, the officer responded correctly by placing him under arrest. The woman was also likely drunk, but appears to eventually cooperate.
These people were assholes. All they had to do was cooperate with the officers. If this were another country and they got smart with the police, they would have been taken by a deserted road and shot in the head. They should be glad they are in America.
@checkers1245 It is a good thing this man is in America where liberty (should) reign free. This is what separates us from the rest of the world where in many parts tyranny runs rampant. I had a similar situation riding in a vehicle that was involved in a traffic stop. The officer was extremely angry, but had no legal right to do anything about it so I exited the encounter just as free as when it started. I used my natural right not to speak to stay out of the officers fishing expedition.
And your stupid ass would have gotten taken to jail. We are all required by law to carry an ID. If the officer has probable cause to stop you, he can demand you produce the ID. If you don't, you can be arrested. If you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't be afraid to hand your ID over to the cops. Dumb ass!
@checkers1245 it's not that easy to end up in jail, they would probably send me to the local office or something, oh and btw I don't live in USA, thanks God I'm not that stupid yet to end up living in a country that's full of BS brainwashed people like you who know nothing about their rights.
Well it is a good thing you don't live in America. We have a beautiful country and we don't want you here. Too many foreigners come here and don't want to leave. We are trying our hardest to get rid of all the illegal Mexicans and we don't want anymore illegal people in our country.
I don't see what is the problem with this person, perhaps I missed his crime. Otherwise certainly, there is no victim here except the citizen, and no crime being committed until the guy with the gun showed up on the scene..
Bullshit, the cop was responding to a fight. Perhaps the idiot and his girlfriend were fighting by the side of the road and someone called. That is why he asked for his ID in the first place. But since the guy and the girl were reluctant, it made it seem like they had something to hide. So fuckem both, take both their asses to jail.
This cop was one of the few non-arrogant officers. He was just enforcing a poorly justified law in Nevada that requires folks to render an ID at anytime when questioned. Unfortunately, this case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the law was deemed constitutional. So really, the cop was within the statute but the rancher had an inherent right of liberty that that statute violated. Without a doubt, some arrogant cop will soon use this statute to help inflate his ego.
Do you realize how many criminals pass through Nevada? Everyone is required to carry an ID plain and simple. If the cop has a probable cause to stop you and you don't produce ID, they can and will arrest you. Why is that so hard to understand. A lot of criminals are caught this way. So shut the fuck up.
@checkers1245 Go fuck yourself. Your level of intelligence is reflected by your personal attack against folks who disagree with your position. You have made a real horse's ass of yourself on this site. Disagree, but grow up.
The purpose of a Terry Stop in to enable the police to investigate underlying suspicion as quickly as possible. If the suspicion is confirmed, police may move to the next stage(searchs). If police do not develope grounds for arrest within a relatively short amount of time, they must release the detainee even though the investigation is incomplete. The
4th Amend. does not allow police to detain citizens for lengthy periods of time on a mere suspicion of criminal activity.
Terry searches have only one legitimate purpose-Weapons. Officers may not search for non-dangerous contraband during a terry stop. Searching for objects besides weapons is only permitted when an officer has a warrant, probable cause for an arrest, or obtained consent. When an officers search goes beyond what is nesessary to determine whether a suspect is armed, the search ceases to be valid Terry stop and the fruits of the search is inadmissable.
C'on the dude doesnt have any ID's, and for making things worth he's behaving erractally.
He's aking to get nailed...He commited no crime but he started to mix up or distort to such an extent as to make misleading or incomprehensible like behaviour
The are some things you should do, some things you must do and some things you cannot do. If you are in the middle of a police encounter, you need a handy and quick reference to remind you what your rights and obligations are.
As long as your papers show that you are not a Jew or otherwise in a matter that I don't agree with, we won't be detained, tortured or execute you!
Some of you are missing the point in all this. He was conducting an investigation on WHAT? He committed no crime nor did he even know why the police would be interested in him except that he might have been illegally parked or that his tail end was protruding into the highway. Some of you forget what freedom really is...
To fight police abuse effectively you need to know your rights. ... You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. You should only have to ask 1 time for I.D, good police job, top notch
1) He was standing next to a car, outside of it. If you were DRIVING a car you need to present a DRIVERS license. Your Papers, Please, I hope you're not a Jew inside a No Jews Allowed grocery store or I'll have to take you outside and beat you to death.
Some may thing that's an exaggeration but Hitler and company didn't take power overnight. It was a gradual process which I assure you we're on the right path to repeating history.
Driving or not you have to present a current, valid, government issued photo identification when requested to do so by an officer. Doesn't have to be a "driver's license", unless of course you are DRIVING.
Stupid dumb fucken crack whore and stupid dumb farmer looking like motherfucker. He told you he was conducting an investigation your lucky he didn't knock out the few teeth you might have had so stupid cocksucking bitch ass mother fucker!!!!!
The guy was an obvious asshole. The PD were restrained and professional, espescially where the lunatic trash bitch is concerned. I'd have just taken them out in the woods and done society a favor.
The arresting person was a Deputy and not a Trooper. You can tell because of the patch and brown uniform.
Also the car is white and Nevada has blue cars, they did then and still do to this day.
The backup people were actually Troopers.
This deputy was far to nice in this situation.
You should only have to ask 1 time for I.D. and then warn them of whats to happen then if they still refuse then cuff them, search them and stick them in the car.
As an officer, I can say good job by PD...but unless that woman was an immediate threat to the officer, I would have had that guy in cuffs after the first 10 seconds of his belligerency.
Belligerency? He was confused why he was being questions and required to show his papers. He repeated went to the road to double that he wasn't halfway into the road as that was the only feasible reason why they'd be bother him.
Fuck you and your kind. Obviously this man was being targeted only because he was on the side of the road. It had nothing to do with probable cause. There's nothing to suggest this rancher looked like a criminal or anything like that. This was just police abuse.
@danimal9579 Beligerent? What beligerence. People minding thier own business jacked up for nothing. That's why the farmer refused to ID. He has a right to privacy. Oh, yeah, I forgot, you cops take shits and wipe your asses with the constitution. You swore an oath to uphold it and willing to bet you never even read it. IN fact I know you haven't. You just spewed the words of the oath without sincereity to get the power of the office.
I would have asked the cop for HIS id (required).
@VerifiedNews Fighting is minding their own business? Please. You cop haters make me sick. The cop was conducting an investigation and was legally permitted to ask for a license. The man's right to privacy means nothing if he is being investigated. That's the cost of fighting. Also, the cop is not required to show ID. His badge number and last name is all you're entitled to. You should be condemning this man for hitting someone, especially if it's that woman that he hit, instead of the police.
@Cowboy97892 MGL Chapter 41 Section 98D "Officers required to carry and show state issued id upon request." I'm pretty sure that's true in any state, because the laws are the same everywhere, just phrased and codified differently. What state are you in? I'll look up the law for you.
Licensing is for commercial activity. The whole thing's a fraud. We are persons, we're people.
Don't believe me? Look at a statute, any statute, and ask this:
@VerifiedNews oops: We are NOT persons. We're poeple. C.mon, you know about "personal jurisdiction, contact points, and purposeful availment," don't you? You know it's all voluntary. You know it's a fraud.
@VerifiedNews 98d is in Mass. and that's not how it is phrased.
"Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification."
I don't think this applies to citizens, the badge and last name is ID enough. Suspects don't need to see state ID, which has the cops address.
@Cowboy97892 It applies only to Police Officers specifically. Look it up and read the heading fer chrissakes. If you ever fail to ID yourself to me I'll write you a citation and drop the other copy off with the local courthouse. You'll pay me 50.00. Just ask "agent 200!" lol.
@VerifiedNews I meant it probably doesn't apply to showing citizens. Still, it is only the picture of the cop and the Seal, and it's only one state. I looked it up. You obviously didn't because you didn't even quote it correctly. Are you a cop? If a cop asks for my ID, which has happened before, I would cooperate and not act like Johnny Cochran and make a big scene.
@Cowboy97892 I don't have ID, except for my birth certificate, and I don't give out the title or the number to my social security account. That's what a legal name is. Lol look it up. You've already made an assumption that is the opposite of reality.
Look at your report form. See those "point of contact" or "Personal Jurisdiction" areas that you absolutely must attain? That's where the governments power lies. It's ours. It's fraudulent.
@VerifiedNews Please, keep your conspiracy theories out of this. They're meaningless. I don't know where you live, but most places require you to carry an ID, including Nevada. Telling the cops your name won't cut it. Just like that prisoner that gave the cop a fake name.
@Cowboy97892 So you're going to force me to sign a contract? An application? lol you really don't understand. You never will. You crave power too much. You can use your gun and foce to make me do something? You have no understanding of the law. Why do you think you're trained so intently to get consent if you think you don't you need it? On most the force thing will produce a conviction. But to someone who understand where the authority really is that won't fly once civilized men take over.
@Cowboy97892 Listen to you rationalize why you don't need to follow the law! lol the statute is specifically for police officers and required by them. I know they don't oick you guys for brains, but at least you could try not stepping into your own words. Jeez, talk about easy. If a police officer is afraid of what's on that ID, then he should quit, rather than violate the law.
@VerifiedNews You're not making any sense. I haven't rationalized breaking any law. What law have I advocated breaking? Why would cops be afraid of what's on a ID, which is only their picture and seal? As far as we know, it's just in that state. Why would a suspect be afraid to show their ID? If it bother them that bad, they can live in another country where there isn't any police, or perhaps they can live in Russia, where the police can lawfully assault suspects.
@Cowboy97892 YOu're saying you wouldn't show ID even if it was the law because you're too scared of the people knowing where you live. Why would you be scared? You're not violating any rights on a daily basis are you?
@Cowboy97892 Are you condoning police officers breaking the laws that apply to them? And isn't that the real argument? You can't handle the fact that a citizen can demand peformance from YOU, can you? You'll rationalize and resist and maybe even kill someone so you don't have to surrender any of your alleged godlike power. That's the real truth. You can't take being given orders by one of us, can you? You think YOU'RE the God. I know your wrong. Read a little on "Personal Jurisdiction"
@VerifiedNews You can't stand that suspects must listen to a lawful order or face the consequences, can you? Obey the law and your ok. Tell me what crime I have advocated the breaking of. The police aren't there to take orders. Imagine if that were the case. It would be chaos. If you are unhappy with a cop's decision, argue it in court. That's why we have courts. There is nothing legally or morally wrong about asking for an ID.
@Cowboy97892 The police aren't there to give orders either. You guys are just way too full of yourselves. YOu'll never understand. But the prosecutor in our case understands. After five minutes in conference with him he explained the process for motiotning to dismiss. IMagine that, the prosecutor scared shitless to be a part of the action because we passed the tests of avoiding contact points. Don't pretend you don't know about contact points and what they mean.
@Cowboy97892 It seems to be considered legally and morally wrong to ask a police officer for ID in your opinion. I thought you took an oath to the constitution? Ever heard of equal protection under the law? No, never? Really? So you never read the document you swore an oath to? Don't bother answering I already know the answer. You have no idea who you're working for. You trust psychopaths to train you properly. And you trust them to train you constitutionally. YOU'VE been and are being USED!
@VerifiedNews So tell me this. If someone commits a crime, how do we identify them without an ID? A few years ago in Florida (I think), a man escaped prison, was stopped by a cop, and released because the cop couldn't identify him. The suspect didn't have an ID and gave the cop a false name. He was let go. We have to balance the rights of the people with the justice of criminals. It's not a big deal if someone asks for your ID, especially to investigate a crime. cont.
@Cowboy97892 Well, if soemone commits a real crime, you'd have a witness, right? Someone who can point and say "he did it." Without that, it's administrative bullshit of tricking people into believing you have the authority, and then you do.
@VerifiedNews An investigation is to investiage if a crime was committed and by whom. Asking for an ID is what helps the investigation move more smoothly. There obviously was a witness in this crime because someone called the cops.
@Cowboy97892 Investigating for the sake of investigating? With no complaint being filed? lol. I'm wating for you to start threatening me like usual when you can't keep up!
@VerifiedNews There was a complaint. How do you think the cops were called? Why would cops be scared of suspects having cops address? How about the gang banger they arrest? You don't think the gang banger would have the cop killed? You need to think. Nothing you say makes sense. I didn't say it was legally wrong for cops to show ID, it's just not a good idea for the cops sake.
@Cowboy97892 It's required by the law that you ID. Supreme court: "Government agents must scrupulously obey the law. Failure to do so invites men to become law unto themselves and risks anarchy." And that's why you better show ME your ID. I know the law and won't let the judge slide it under the rug: "OBJECTION reversible error and disregard for the law." Forma Pauperius so I don't have to pay for filing motions and counterclaims.
@VerifiedNews Again, the ID is just a picture and Seal. Why would you even want to see that, other than out of arrogance and/or the want or need to try to control a situation?
@Cowboy97892 Again, to see if the cop is going to obey the law. To see if the cop thinks he's above the law. To make sure the real cop isn't dead in a ditch somewhere. To inform you that I know my rights, your obligations, and expect you, as MY employee and SERVANT, to live up to those obligations, however much you may feel that law doesn't apply to you.
The reason I'll be so adamant about seeing your ID is to know who I'm going to bill. Tha's why you're trained not to show ID, by the way.
@VerifiedNews Just what I thought-the need to control the situation. So, you think cops should legally be required to show their ID, but not suspects? Do you not remember how this conversation was started? You argued that it was an invasion of privacy for cops to ask for ID. "That's why the farmer refused to ID. He has a right to privacy. Oh, yeah, I forgot, you cops take shits and wipe your asses with the constitution." Sound like you are confused and/or hypocritical.
@Cowboy97892 Ok, a complaint lends validity. But was it bona fide? A signed complaint alleging damages? If so it's legit. As far as this fear you police are constantly suffering from relating to the consequent danger of your job, well, no one forced you to be a police officer. You, on the one hand claim bravery, and on the other, cower in fear of what a gang banger might to do you. If you don't think the law applies to you, and you're afraid to follow it, then get another job.
@VerifiedNews Your logic makes no sense. A phone call to the police is all the legality needed to conduct an investigation and make an arrest, if necessary. You want to talk about cops cowering in fear? Want me to send you videos of cops in shootouts with heavily arms thugs? Face it, you can't do as you please. This is a civilized society, and we need law in a civilized society. If you prefer the ability to do as you please, there are many countries that can use you.
@Cowboy97892 Why do you keep talking about thugs? I'm not a thug and have no criminal record. Are you saying gang-bangers have the wherwithal to ask you for id? Right. WHy do you keep avoiding the issue, which is the LAW. ALL you keepdoing is rationalizing why it doesn't apply to you.
@Cowboy97892 So, the LAW is that you have to show ID. Obviously you don't like that law. It's inconvenient, and implies that your power isn't godlike. Now, when's the last time you let someone off because the law was inconvenient for them? Lol...To use your own words: " Face it, you can't do as you please. This is a civilized society, and we need law in a civilized society. If you prefer the ability to do as you please, there are many countries that can use you."
@VerifiedNews No, I don't mind cops showing their Id's, as long as there is no personal contact information, which there is not. What is funny is your hypocricy in thinking it is unconstitutional for cops to ask suspects for ID, but nothing wrong to ask a cop for ID. You must be a libertarian. Libertarians think we should be legally allowed to do anything, and think all laws are invalid, yet expect cops to obey the same laws that they condemn. Typical anti-cop attitude. Sounds like you.
@Cowboy97892 If you're just going to keep throwig labels around designed to provoke me (like you all do on the streets) then there's not much point. I've shown you the law, you don't think you have to obey it. You're a police officer claiming that LAW doesn't apply to you. You're arguing that your above the law and not accountable to your employers. I'll even grant you every other point. Anything except cops ID you win. So now there's only one issue. The LAW that requires cops to identify.
@VerifiedNews Typical response when you have no answer. You are a sterotypical cop hater. You are a dime a dozen. You act like you are pro-cop but is against bad cops, when the truth is you are against all cops. You have only shown me 1 law, which I never said cops don't have to obey. Everything else you have told me is pure conspiracy. I am not saying cops are above the law - you are saying that "civilians" are above cops and they don't have to abide by the laws, but cops do have to obey laws.
@Cowboy97892 Actually I just conceded every point you made except the part where cops have to ID. And yes, we are above the office of a police officer. As men we are equal. But when you put on that uniform you become our employee and servant. At that point you become loaded down with obligations of your office. Yes, we the peopel ar above your office. As men we are equal. When you wear a public office you are taking our money. That maeans you work FOR us. Not the other way around.
@VerifiedNews The money we pay as taxes is our fee for a free society. That doesn't mean they are subjected to our every demand- that would be impractical and counter-productive, as the arrogance of people would abuse that if it were the case. It sucks, but the laws of nature demand it.
@Cowboy97892 Speaking of the money, there is no money. That's why we've been converted into chattel and drained and drained and drained. Why register a car? Because you don't own it. You bought it with federal reserve notes borrowed from the federal reserve. The federal reserve owns EVERYTHING (literally) because it hasn't ever been paid back. All of our dollars are representation of debt. If the debt were paid, there wouldn't be any more dollars.
@Cowboy97892 If I was ant-cop I'd just tell you to stick it where it hurts the most. Look at MGL chapter 90 section 3A-3D. That's my real bugaboo. That's where your authoriy comes from. You don't know it, but all of your power is the power of the individual who's been violated by illegal statutes. Undisclosed seizures of powers of attorney. Allows reciprocal agreements to be made without my knowledge...like agreements with the police...
@VerifiedNews Again, pure conspiracy. I don't want to hear it. I have been suspecting that you believe there should be no laws, except in regard to police. I just saw one of your videos where you think it is a right to drive without a license. Again, typical libertarian. You want people to do as they please and who cares about what the outcome might be. In case you didnt know, a right is something guaranteed by law. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
@Cowboy97892 "I don't want to hear it" he says! "I'm not interested in the law" he says! "If there's bad stuff going on in government I don't care" he says! "If your rights are being violated I will conveniently forget my oath" he says! You are lawless. I doubt you have ever looked at a statute, yet sit there trying to tell me you know something. Every time you type a character you are screaming your willfull and purposeful ignorance. What I'm talking about is right there in the statutes. Truth.
@Cowboy97892 What I think is what the supreme court thinks and they think that a test of competency is enought to prove that travelling (a right) in an automobile is not a danger to the public. Licensing is something different, and only applies to commercial activity. But that's not the way it's enforced. People are conned into it. Through threats of violence and imprisonment and seizure of property. But the statutes assume consent. hmm...What happens when you know that, and deny consent?
Traveling in an automobile is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the states that can be revoked if you violate the laws governing the driving privilege. A right is something that can't be taken away. The fact that courts can and do revoke driver's licenses proves that it is NOT a right.
@gamewizard A drivers license if only required when operatin a registered vehicle. There is no requirement to register a private motor carrier (dept of transportation).
That is federally. You do not need a license from the FEDERAL government, but you still need a license issued by a state to drive. Ask any cross country Greyhound bus driver. Even if you weren't driving commercially, like for Greyhound, say you were driving a church bus across state lines, you still wouldn't need a federal license, but you would still have to have a state issued license. You are confusing federal law with state law.
@Cowboy97892 When you understand that it's all rationalized as consentual on an individual basis by the law (a claim stands until rebutted, sure enough), and that the court needs points of voluntary "purposeful availment" in order to gain jurisdiction, well, then, it becomes easy to make administrative charges (victimless "crimes") go away. You simply refute consent. "The only reason I applied is because i need to travel to get to work, and i'll be imprisoned if I don't sign your contract."
@Cowboy97892 The jurisdiction goes like this (will look up the statute series that documents it if you like): Someone signs applicatio/enters road in MA. Registrar assumes power of attorney and makes reciprocal agreements with the police using that POA. Agreements that bind the person to statute (which isn't law, by the way see: supreme court rulings). Yous see, the statutes are activated by rationalized AGREEMENT. The law rationalizes undisclosed contracts as binding agreements. It's FRAUD
@Cowboy97892 So, when you're citing someone for a violation, you're enforcing a contract born in fraud and non-disclosure. We're currently challenging the law, but they're throwing the POLICE OFFICER up for sacrifice, because we've done it in a way that makes that easy, and a way for the courts to avoid the major issues by throwing their low level grunts to the wolves.
We just got a note from the prosecutor that the officer will be available for examination at the motion hearing. Can't wait.
@Cowboy97892 So when you run into one of us that knows all about this and can cite the statutes that are illegal, your bosses that you're so loyal to will throw you to the wolves without a single thought to avoid dealing with the core issue of the enslavement of the American Population.
But you get a fat salary and that's more important to you than the conquering of our country from the inside out. Fraudulent contracts, jurisdictional transfers, etc.
Look up points of contact. The courts needs our consent. They can do nothing without some rationalized consent. That's what the sucurity points are for. To get peopel to waive into the jurisdiction of the court. I say, before entering "I'll do that, as long as you understand I'm not waiving any rights or acknowledging jurisction." Then I don't stand up for the judge. One guy said "you should stand up" I asked "why" and he dried up and blew away. I had not allowed point of contact jurisdiction.
@VerifiedNews cont. Else, we can keep letting criminals go because they don't want to show ID. How is showing ID invading privacy, anyways? It has your name and address. Much of this info is available to the public. How do you think PI's get their information about their target? Why doesn't anyone complain about showing ID to cash a check or do something that conveniences them? Isn't that invasion of privacy? When you mail a letter with your name and address, is that invasion of privacy?
@Cowboy97892 I'm not a cop hater. YOU guys HATE US. Don't you get it? I've gotten along with every cop I've ever met, well enought I guess. Have a friend who's an ex-cop. I just know what cops think of us. And it's wrong. That's why you're having so much trouble with the populace. And this insistence that you have authority that is absolute and infinite, and that you can make excuses for abandoning the obligations of your office, yet nail the populace for every little thing you can, has
turned you all into predators. It's not really your fault. If you read some law I could show, you'd understand. I don't know if it would change your actions, due to peer pressure, but it would sure leave you with some thoughts, I bet. Here's an example of an unconstitutional statute. We have a motion in and a hearing to discuss it, and this statute is one of the issue we're bringing up, and the simplest issue: Maligislature_gov /existing laws
What you'll se there is a subversion of the unltimate right "No state shall make any law impairing the obligations of contracts." A power of attorney transfer, undisclosed, by legislative fiat. I've found the equivalent in other states. This allows reciprocal agreements to be made, all undosclosed, and rationalized as "jurisdiction." Take a good look. That's what you're enforcing. Enhanced powers of service. I should show you our motion. It'll be establish as legal fact maybe we'll se soon.
The police in this case may have saved the womans life, because this rancher was abusive.
Until something happens to them."im not doing anything wrong" means they are willing to waive rights to unreasonable search seizure of property and 'the Constitution is just a piece of paper.'
More people know who wins American idol than know about the Constitution .
Waiver of Constitutional rights has to be voluntary and affirmative. Police are not allowed to infer a waiver of Constitutional rights. At no time prior to arrest does the officer have the right to fully search the suspect, unless he suspected the presence of weapons
You are absolutly wrong on that. I know becuase I am a crimianl justice graduate student. Law enforcement officers have the right to search at any time they encounter a person being investigated. This is called a Terry Stop.
Actually, from what I've learned from my internships and criminal Justice classes is that Terry deals with authorized investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion. Not searches and seizures (4th ammend.) . An officer can do a non-intrusive pat down without probable cause, but once PC is established and a custodial arrest is made, they can search incident to arrest-person arrested and passenger compartment including containers.
This was not the NHP but a sheriff's department. I think it was Lander County. I do know that this moron took this all the way to the supreme court and lost big time. Another idiot who thought he knew the law and it backfired on him. Pure Nevada white trash. Thanks for giving Law Enforcement even MORE power to do their jobs! Enjoy paying off those lawyer bills Larry!! You dumb hick.
That was a boring video. The cop just pulled her to the ground and put cuffs on her because the girl would have tried to get the cop from arresting her boy friend.
Rogue my ass. They were DISPATCHED to a domestic in progress and found their subjects, which is obvious in the video. Learn your facts before you run your suck...........
he he.... us hiibel's.....
colizonthedragon 3 months ago
Define investigation because in my mind that is exactly what the officer is doing here!
22mattbaer 3 months ago
The guy is obviously drunker than hell
northofmackinaw 5 months ago
@northofmackinaw no he's not, i'd do the same thing as him if i was in the same situation... and i don't drink
omgpuppies0707 1 month ago
@robinhoodtn1 PAPERS PLEASE!
ThePoisonYouth 5 months ago
Geeez! What utter trash. He's psycho and his bitch is his hypnotized slave who screams like an animal because her psychotic slave master is being arrested. He probably beats her too. That's how sick the whole thing is.
JetMechMA 5 months ago
DO A WEB SEARCH ON:
charles h. miranda OR:
charlesthepoet2003
THANKS.
charlesthepoet2004 6 months ago
The officer starts out by saying that they received a call that the people were involved in a fight (domestic). The officer has an obligation at that point to identify everyone involved, because he is conducting an investigation. During a official investigation you are required to provide ID to law enforcement, or jsut like this case, you can be arrested.
sfcgfc2628 6 months ago
THIS OFFICER WAS IN THE RIGHT
grunticus09 8 months ago
@grunticus09 THIS OFFICER WAS IN THE WRONG. A officer just cant stop bye and start demanding to see your I.D. this officer stopped to talk to these people trying to find a reason to take someone to jail peroid. THIS OFFICER IS A SCUM BAG.
srcetme 7 months ago
@srcetme lol... actually A Law Enforcement Officer has all the right to stop and ask for I.D. look it up and learn the rules before you open your mouth. k? lol
grunticus09 7 months ago
@grunticus09 no only when your operating a motor vehicle. which this guy was not at the current moment. learn the law before opening your mouth and learn to use spell check. BABABABABABAHAHAHAHA. no wonder you think the cop is in the right. because your an idiot. lol
srcetme 7 months ago
@srcetme
Hiibel LOST his U.S. Supreme Court case all the way back in 2004, so you're the one who needs to learn the law before opening your mouth. Cops CAN demand that a person identify themselves when they are investigating a report of a crime or other breach of the peace and failure to identify yourself to the officers satisfaction WILL result in your being arrested and held until the officer can positively establish your identity.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@srcetme Its called "Conducting an invesigation"
grunticus09 7 months ago
@grunticus09 you agree with cops that just see people and go over and conduct an investigation? for what? they where doing nothing. A asshole cop does shit like that. a cop that doesnt know what a crime is. i hope the cops just stop by your house and conduct an investigation for no reason. all they try to do is find some reason to take you to jail. just like this citizen. i guess the cops dont know that there're people driving drunk or shooting up heroin. just mess with the guy doing nothing
srcetme 7 months ago
@srcetme
The cop didn't "see people and go over and conduct an investigation" as you put it. They had a report of a man abusing a woman by the side of the road near a red and silver pickup truck that matched the description of Hiibels' truck. He was acting on the report of a crime, he didn't just stop to bust his balls. He had a valid reason to investigate because the circumstances matched those of the reported crime scene. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the cop, so that ends it. You lose.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@srcetme
The U.S. Supreme Court says differently. You lose.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard the us supreme court never has said you must show a officer your ID. your an idiot. dont speak.
srcetme 5 months ago
@srcetme
Look up Hiibel vs Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. The Supreme Court ruled that YES you MUST identify yourself when asked by a police officer. I know what I'm talking about. You need to educate yourself or just STFU.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard you didnt read it very well or understand it. it states only when involved in a investigation and doesnt have to if it violates the 4th amendment. so ash yourself what constitutes a investigation?? so everytime a cop sees you he can demand your id? nope think not. YOU DONT KNOW SHIT so just shut the fuck up.
srcetme 5 months ago
@srcetme
What do you think an investigation is? Someone calls the police and the police respond to the call. That IS an investigation. The police receivved a report of a disturbance so they *drumroll* INVESTIGATED. Imagine that, police investigating a report of a crime or disturbance. The very fact that the person shown in this video LOST his case in the Supreme Court shows that you are the one that doesn't know shit and should STFU.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard your a moron. you dont have any word comprehension.
srcetme 5 months ago
@srcetme
You disagree with my definition of an investigation? What's yours then? That is what an investigation is. The police are called and they send someone to look into the call. That is an investigation. You are an idiot.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@srcetme
in·ves·ti·ga·tion [in-ves-ti-gey-shuhn]
noun
1.
the act or process of investigating or the condition of being investigated.
2.
a searching inquiry for ascertaining facts; detailed or careful examination.
Under both definitions above the officer was carrying out an investigation. You lose.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard hahaahahaa you went and copyed it from the dictionary. your a clown
srcetme 5 months ago
@srcetme
Yeah, so? Oh, yes, you don't even own one, do you? Of course not. Only intelligent people use such things. Idiots like you just argue with nothing to back you up. You just shout "Is not!" or "Is too!" like a 3 year old. I've shown you the Supreme Court case that says that you do have to identify yourself to the police when asked, and still you insist you are right. Only an idiot continues to argue after being shown proof they are wrong. A smart person corrects themselves and moves on.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard a officer cant just walk up too you out of the blue and demand your id in nevada. if your under investigation then you must show id thats with every state. because if a cop did come out of the blue and demand your id, it would be considered against your 4th amendment. dont you get it yet pin head? i use my memory. i dont need to go and copy info to seem smart like you. you still dont know the law.
srcetme 5 months ago
@srcetme
That's not what happened, though. The officer was conducting an investigation into a report of a woman being abused by the side of the road. He was well within the scope of his authority to investigate the report and ask for identification when he got there because he had this thing called probable cause. He suspected a crime was being committed based on the call of a witness and went out to investigate. He did not just show up out of the blue and start harassing the guy.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard i see your trying to bash me for a earlier comment that i made and all ready was told to turn up my speaker because is missed it. i already had stood corrected. but i see your starting to see what the law is.
srcetme 5 months ago
@srcetme
What do you mean "starting to see"? The law is that you must identify yourself when asked by a police officer. That's what the Supreme Court decision was all about. The Supreme Court decision held that it does not violate the 4th Amendment for an officer to ask you to identify yourself as it is not an unreasonable search or seizure and does not require a warrant. It also does not violate the 5th Amendment because your name alone is not incriminating in itself.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard they have too be investigating you. officers can approach you for no reason and ask for your ID and you dont have to show them, only when they are investigating you.
srcetme 5 months ago
@srcetme
An officer wouldn't approach you and ask you for ID if he didn't suspect you were doing something that you shouldn't be doing. If an officer sees you lurking in the bushes under someone's bedroom window, does he have the right to approach you and ask for some ID? Hell, yes he does.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard your blind
srcetme 5 months ago
@srcetme
How am I blind? I should hope that a police officer has a right to question someone who is acting suspiciously when they are around my house. I suppose if a police officer walked on by while someone jimmied open your window you'd accuse him of dereliction of duty. You can't have it both ways.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard The law is that you must ID yourself when asked AND when reasonable articulated suspicion exists that you have committed a crime or are a witness to a crime.
Hiibel was suspected of being involved in a crime so he had to show his ID.
BUT, an officer just cant randomly walk up to someone and demand ID without reason.
Thats what the supreme court said in its decision.
2204Alpha 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They arrested him because he refused to show ID according to Nevada state law. Has nothing to do with him driving.
jameghiskhan2005 8 months ago
We're going to give our officer a chance to squeak out of it. We get him on the stand next week. One of the questions we'll be asking (and giving him an escape route) is whether or not he was trained to not follow the law. Then we line up our claims on the dept.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
Big man.
megrace33 9 months ago
I'm so sick of the paranoia and cowardliness I constantly hear coming from police. These guys are supposed to be brave, a cut above, fearlessly dedicated for the fat salaries they get. But I just hear so much "boo hooo my job is so dangerous I don't have to follow the law. But one of you non-cop subhuman cilivian pieces of shit cattle for our feast better not fucking blink wrong or we'll jack your ass up and put you in cages for administrative bullshit. NOw and then we actually bust a criminal."
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
big men with guns.... when they ask me for ID I give it up. and i am proud to say that I have never worn the stainless steal bracelets.
hackajim 10 months ago
so did he get arrested for not identifing him self? how does the 5th amendment have a part of this?
whodare 11 months ago
@whodare The 5th Amendment doesn't have a part in this. The Constitution doesn't give you the right to fight and not have any repercussions and it says nothing about having no punishment for not showing your ID during an investigation with probable cause. He wanted to be arrested and he got it.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
I love it when ppl video their tv with their phone cameras! :D
emlvsmm 1 year ago
To me that is all you have to do, they ask you questions or want to see your ID let them see it and answr their questions. If you feel they did something wrong then report it afterwards, you are just asking for trouble by not doing what they say.
bud11dy 1 year ago
@bud11dy if you show id or admit to being a social security account you'll lose due to point of contact jurisdicto,/ If you want to be a social security account,m you can get regulated as one.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
harassment, assault, unlawful detention
jimbobob1983 1 year ago
The man was obviously drunk, with the police officer there (as stated at 0:25) to investigate the report of a fight between him and woman in vehicle. When suspect refused to cooperate and was unresponsive to the actual questions addressed to him, the officer responded correctly by placing him under arrest. The woman was also likely drunk, but appears to eventually cooperate.
stewartx5 1 year ago
This is not the NHP contacting the individual or making the arrest.
roxygirl9398 1 year ago
Comment removed
roxygirl9398 1 year ago
These people were assholes. All they had to do was cooperate with the officers. If this were another country and they got smart with the police, they would have been taken by a deserted road and shot in the head. They should be glad they are in America.
checkers1245 1 year ago
@checkers1245 It is a good thing this man is in America where liberty (should) reign free. This is what separates us from the rest of the world where in many parts tyranny runs rampant. I had a similar situation riding in a vehicle that was involved in a traffic stop. The officer was extremely angry, but had no legal right to do anything about it so I exited the encounter just as free as when it started. I used my natural right not to speak to stay out of the officers fishing expedition.
justonemori 1 year ago
if i were this guy i would just say "im not going to answer anything unless you get me a lawyer first, period"
mourkos 1 year ago
@mourkos
And your stupid ass would have gotten taken to jail. We are all required by law to carry an ID. If the officer has probable cause to stop you, he can demand you produce the ID. If you don't, you can be arrested. If you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't be afraid to hand your ID over to the cops. Dumb ass!
checkers1245 1 year ago
@checkers1245 it's not that easy to end up in jail, they would probably send me to the local office or something, oh and btw I don't live in USA, thanks God I'm not that stupid yet to end up living in a country that's full of BS brainwashed people like you who know nothing about their rights.
mourkos 1 year ago
@mourkos
Well it is a good thing you don't live in America. We have a beautiful country and we don't want you here. Too many foreigners come here and don't want to leave. We are trying our hardest to get rid of all the illegal Mexicans and we don't want anymore illegal people in our country.
checkers1245 1 year ago
@checkers1245
don't worry I'm not Mexican and I'm not planning to come to your "beautiful country".
mourkos 1 year ago
what the hell is wrong with these people. They did everything in their power to get arrested haha.
rasko67 1 year ago
Heres something funny. Nevada has a stop and indentify law which requires people to show their identification to the officer.
Let me ask all you illegal mexican lovers this: whats the difference between this law in Nevada and the new law that Arizona passed?
nothing
Parafrog8654 1 year ago 2
Big man!!!!
Mercenary641 1 year ago
Well then, It don't know.... : /
chalchazcatzin 1 year ago
I don't see what is the problem with this person, perhaps I missed his crime. Otherwise certainly, there is no victim here except the citizen, and no crime being committed until the guy with the gun showed up on the scene..
I must have missed it.
950horsepower 1 year ago
@950horsepower
Bullshit, the cop was responding to a fight. Perhaps the idiot and his girlfriend were fighting by the side of the road and someone called. That is why he asked for his ID in the first place. But since the guy and the girl were reluctant, it made it seem like they had something to hide. So fuckem both, take both their asses to jail.
checkers1245 1 year ago
This cop was one of the few non-arrogant officers. He was just enforcing a poorly justified law in Nevada that requires folks to render an ID at anytime when questioned. Unfortunately, this case went all the way to the Supreme Court and the law was deemed constitutional. So really, the cop was within the statute but the rancher had an inherent right of liberty that that statute violated. Without a doubt, some arrogant cop will soon use this statute to help inflate his ego.
tylermrnak 1 year ago
@tylermrnak
Do you realize how many criminals pass through Nevada? Everyone is required to carry an ID plain and simple. If the cop has a probable cause to stop you and you don't produce ID, they can and will arrest you. Why is that so hard to understand. A lot of criminals are caught this way. So shut the fuck up.
checkers1245 1 year ago
@checkers1245 Go fuck yourself. Your level of intelligence is reflected by your personal attack against folks who disagree with your position. You have made a real horse's ass of yourself on this site. Disagree, but grow up.
tylermrnak 1 year ago
@tylermrnak
The only horses ass on here is you. You fuckin mindless prick. Go suck a dirty condom, you know you like it.
checkers1245 1 year ago
Glad they arrested this prick! Good job Nevada Highway Patrol.
bedlaminbelgiumroxzz 2 years ago
Wow, hello obstruction! Good arrest.
oldskoolsk8er1 2 years ago
1:06 "I'm investigating!" LOL!!!
DBR00 2 years ago
Comment removed
philkaras 2 years ago
I love how he refers to the 2 officers as "big man" several times, before correcting himself and saying "big men"
LightninBoltz 2 years ago
Hmm kind of like let me see your papers. So much for land of the free.
vector150 2 years ago 2
He was conducting an investigation! clearly you are as restarted as this rancher
Sackett8 2 years ago
@Sackett8 Learn to spell!! And you are blind.
vector150 2 years ago
Hi Prof. Connell!!!!!!
pandaeatr 2 years ago
totally justified and very well conducted arrest
vik238 2 years ago
Cop was totally justified
Picster007 3 years ago
NOT the Highway Patrol.
DPK2000 3 years ago
should have just arrested him.
gviper7 3 years ago
D*mn cops criminalize everybody. I hate cops.
hotgirljen99 3 years ago
Definitely not NHP...maybe a county sheriff's unit?
Killah89107 3 years ago
Thats not the Nevada Highway Patrol.
kmacpahrump 3 years ago
The purpose of a Terry Stop in to enable the police to investigate underlying suspicion as quickly as possible. If the suspicion is confirmed, police may move to the next stage(searchs). If police do not develope grounds for arrest within a relatively short amount of time, they must release the detainee even though the investigation is incomplete. The
4th Amend. does not allow police to detain citizens for lengthy periods of time on a mere suspicion of criminal activity.
G21shooter 3 years ago
Ohoideerhunter21
Terry searches have only one legitimate purpose-Weapons. Officers may not search for non-dangerous contraband during a terry stop. Searching for objects besides weapons is only permitted when an officer has a warrant, probable cause for an arrest, or obtained consent. When an officers search goes beyond what is nesessary to determine whether a suspect is armed, the search ceases to be valid Terry stop and the fruits of the search is inadmissable.
G21shooter 3 years ago 2
C'on the dude doesnt have any ID's, and for making things worth he's behaving erractally.
He's aking to get nailed...He commited no crime but he started to mix up or distort to such an extent as to make misleading or incomprehensible like behaviour
southcop 3 years ago
The are some things you should do, some things you must do and some things you cannot do. If you are in the middle of a police encounter, you need a handy and quick reference to remind you what your rights and obligations are.
southcop 3 years ago
All you have to do is cooperate and usually you don't go to jail.
walkintall67 3 years ago
Papiere, Bitte!
As long as your papers show that you are not a Jew or otherwise in a matter that I don't agree with, we won't be detained, tortured or execute you!
Some of you are missing the point in all this. He was conducting an investigation on WHAT? He committed no crime nor did he even know why the police would be interested in him except that he might have been illegally parked or that his tail end was protruding into the highway. Some of you forget what freedom really is...
hctalive 3 years ago
Yeah man, unfortunatly you have to act like a little bitch sometimes.
lisichka265 3 years ago
To fight police abuse effectively you need to know your rights. ... You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. You should only have to ask 1 time for I.D, good police job, top notch
southcop 4 years ago
1) He was standing next to a car, outside of it. If you were DRIVING a car you need to present a DRIVERS license. Your Papers, Please, I hope you're not a Jew inside a No Jews Allowed grocery store or I'll have to take you outside and beat you to death.
Some may thing that's an exaggeration but Hitler and company didn't take power overnight. It was a gradual process which I assure you we're on the right path to repeating history.
hctalive 3 years ago
Driving or not you have to present a current, valid, government issued photo identification when requested to do so by an officer. Doesn't have to be a "driver's license", unless of course you are DRIVING.
HellbentTexan 3 years ago
big man, ha
futbolfanatic15 4 years ago
Stupid dumb fucken crack whore and stupid dumb farmer looking like motherfucker. He told you he was conducting an investigation your lucky he didn't knock out the few teeth you might have had so stupid cocksucking bitch ass mother fucker!!!!!
yeahyeat 4 years ago
The guy was an obvious asshole. The PD were restrained and professional, espescially where the lunatic trash bitch is concerned. I'd have just taken them out in the woods and done society a favor.
luvda5o 4 years ago 2
The arresting person was a Deputy and not a Trooper. You can tell because of the patch and brown uniform.
Also the car is white and Nevada has blue cars, they did then and still do to this day.
The backup people were actually Troopers.
This deputy was far to nice in this situation.
You should only have to ask 1 time for I.D. and then warn them of whats to happen then if they still refuse then cuff them, search them and stick them in the car.
bigbluemsp 4 years ago
As an officer, I can say good job by PD...but unless that woman was an immediate threat to the officer, I would have had that guy in cuffs after the first 10 seconds of his belligerency.
danimal9579 4 years ago 2
All these cops " I only ask 1 time for ID" What a powertrip for little me who cant get real jobs.
grandewavos 4 years ago
Belligerency? He was confused why he was being questions and required to show his papers. He repeated went to the road to double that he wasn't halfway into the road as that was the only feasible reason why they'd be bother him.
Papiere, Bitte!
hctalive 3 years ago
Fuck you and your kind. Obviously this man was being targeted only because he was on the side of the road. It had nothing to do with probable cause. There's nothing to suggest this rancher looked like a criminal or anything like that. This was just police abuse.
BottomContributor 3 years ago
Did you not hear the part when the officer said they had a report of him fighting?
HellbentTexan 3 years ago
@danimal9579 Beligerent? What beligerence. People minding thier own business jacked up for nothing. That's why the farmer refused to ID. He has a right to privacy. Oh, yeah, I forgot, you cops take shits and wipe your asses with the constitution. You swore an oath to uphold it and willing to bet you never even read it. IN fact I know you haven't. You just spewed the words of the oath without sincereity to get the power of the office.
I would have asked the cop for HIS id (required).
VerifiedNews 1 year ago
@VerifiedNews Fighting is minding their own business? Please. You cop haters make me sick. The cop was conducting an investigation and was legally permitted to ask for a license. The man's right to privacy means nothing if he is being investigated. That's the cost of fighting. Also, the cop is not required to show ID. His badge number and last name is all you're entitled to. You should be condemning this man for hitting someone, especially if it's that woman that he hit, instead of the police.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 MGL Chapter 41 Section 98D "Officers required to carry and show state issued id upon request." I'm pretty sure that's true in any state, because the laws are the same everywhere, just phrased and codified differently. What state are you in? I'll look up the law for you.
Licensing is for commercial activity. The whole thing's a fraud. We are persons, we're people.
Don't believe me? Look at a statute, any statute, and ask this:
Do persons have inalienable rights?
Do me?
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews oops: We are NOT persons. We're poeple. C.mon, you know about "personal jurisdiction, contact points, and purposeful availment," don't you? You know it's all voluntary. You know it's a fraud.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews 98d is in Mass. and that's not how it is phrased.
"Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer’s person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification."
I don't think this applies to citizens, the badge and last name is ID enough. Suspects don't need to see state ID, which has the cops address.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 It applies only to Police Officers specifically. Look it up and read the heading fer chrissakes. If you ever fail to ID yourself to me I'll write you a citation and drop the other copy off with the local courthouse. You'll pay me 50.00. Just ask "agent 200!" lol.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
Comment removed
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VerifiedNews I meant it probably doesn't apply to showing citizens. Still, it is only the picture of the cop and the Seal, and it's only one state. I looked it up. You obviously didn't because you didn't even quote it correctly. Are you a cop? If a cop asks for my ID, which has happened before, I would cooperate and not act like Johnny Cochran and make a big scene.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 I don't have ID, except for my birth certificate, and I don't give out the title or the number to my social security account. That's what a legal name is. Lol look it up. You've already made an assumption that is the opposite of reality.
Look at your report form. See those "point of contact" or "Personal Jurisdiction" areas that you absolutely must attain? That's where the governments power lies. It's ours. It's fraudulent.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews Please, keep your conspiracy theories out of this. They're meaningless. I don't know where you live, but most places require you to carry an ID, including Nevada. Telling the cops your name won't cut it. Just like that prisoner that gave the cop a fake name.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 So you're going to force me to sign a contract? An application? lol you really don't understand. You never will. You crave power too much. You can use your gun and foce to make me do something? You have no understanding of the law. Why do you think you're trained so intently to get consent if you think you don't you need it? On most the force thing will produce a conviction. But to someone who understand where the authority really is that won't fly once civilized men take over.
l
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Listen to you rationalize why you don't need to follow the law! lol the statute is specifically for police officers and required by them. I know they don't oick you guys for brains, but at least you could try not stepping into your own words. Jeez, talk about easy. If a police officer is afraid of what's on that ID, then he should quit, rather than violate the law.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews You're not making any sense. I haven't rationalized breaking any law. What law have I advocated breaking? Why would cops be afraid of what's on a ID, which is only their picture and seal? As far as we know, it's just in that state. Why would a suspect be afraid to show their ID? If it bother them that bad, they can live in another country where there isn't any police, or perhaps they can live in Russia, where the police can lawfully assault suspects.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 YOu're saying you wouldn't show ID even if it was the law because you're too scared of the people knowing where you live. Why would you be scared? You're not violating any rights on a daily basis are you?
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Are you condoning police officers breaking the laws that apply to them? And isn't that the real argument? You can't handle the fact that a citizen can demand peformance from YOU, can you? You'll rationalize and resist and maybe even kill someone so you don't have to surrender any of your alleged godlike power. That's the real truth. You can't take being given orders by one of us, can you? You think YOU'RE the God. I know your wrong. Read a little on "Personal Jurisdiction"
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews You can't stand that suspects must listen to a lawful order or face the consequences, can you? Obey the law and your ok. Tell me what crime I have advocated the breaking of. The police aren't there to take orders. Imagine if that were the case. It would be chaos. If you are unhappy with a cop's decision, argue it in court. That's why we have courts. There is nothing legally or morally wrong about asking for an ID.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 The police aren't there to give orders either. You guys are just way too full of yourselves. YOu'll never understand. But the prosecutor in our case understands. After five minutes in conference with him he explained the process for motiotning to dismiss. IMagine that, the prosecutor scared shitless to be a part of the action because we passed the tests of avoiding contact points. Don't pretend you don't know about contact points and what they mean.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 BUt they do tell you "wee need those boxes checked first thing" isn't that right? Now why is that do you think? lol..... I know....
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 It seems to be considered legally and morally wrong to ask a police officer for ID in your opinion. I thought you took an oath to the constitution? Ever heard of equal protection under the law? No, never? Really? So you never read the document you swore an oath to? Don't bother answering I already know the answer. You have no idea who you're working for. You trust psychopaths to train you properly. And you trust them to train you constitutionally. YOU'VE been and are being USED!
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews So tell me this. If someone commits a crime, how do we identify them without an ID? A few years ago in Florida (I think), a man escaped prison, was stopped by a cop, and released because the cop couldn't identify him. The suspect didn't have an ID and gave the cop a false name. He was let go. We have to balance the rights of the people with the justice of criminals. It's not a big deal if someone asks for your ID, especially to investigate a crime. cont.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Well, if soemone commits a real crime, you'd have a witness, right? Someone who can point and say "he did it." Without that, it's administrative bullshit of tricking people into believing you have the authority, and then you do.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews An investigation is to investiage if a crime was committed and by whom. Asking for an ID is what helps the investigation move more smoothly. There obviously was a witness in this crime because someone called the cops.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Investigating for the sake of investigating? With no complaint being filed? lol. I'm wating for you to start threatening me like usual when you can't keep up!
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews There was a complaint. How do you think the cops were called? Why would cops be scared of suspects having cops address? How about the gang banger they arrest? You don't think the gang banger would have the cop killed? You need to think. Nothing you say makes sense. I didn't say it was legally wrong for cops to show ID, it's just not a good idea for the cops sake.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 It's required by the law that you ID. Supreme court: "Government agents must scrupulously obey the law. Failure to do so invites men to become law unto themselves and risks anarchy." And that's why you better show ME your ID. I know the law and won't let the judge slide it under the rug: "OBJECTION reversible error and disregard for the law." Forma Pauperius so I don't have to pay for filing motions and counterclaims.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews Again, the ID is just a picture and Seal. Why would you even want to see that, other than out of arrogance and/or the want or need to try to control a situation?
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Again, to see if the cop is going to obey the law. To see if the cop thinks he's above the law. To make sure the real cop isn't dead in a ditch somewhere. To inform you that I know my rights, your obligations, and expect you, as MY employee and SERVANT, to live up to those obligations, however much you may feel that law doesn't apply to you.
The reason I'll be so adamant about seeing your ID is to know who I'm going to bill. Tha's why you're trained not to show ID, by the way.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews Just what I thought-the need to control the situation. So, you think cops should legally be required to show their ID, but not suspects? Do you not remember how this conversation was started? You argued that it was an invasion of privacy for cops to ask for ID. "That's why the farmer refused to ID. He has a right to privacy. Oh, yeah, I forgot, you cops take shits and wipe your asses with the constitution." Sound like you are confused and/or hypocritical.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Ok, a complaint lends validity. But was it bona fide? A signed complaint alleging damages? If so it's legit. As far as this fear you police are constantly suffering from relating to the consequent danger of your job, well, no one forced you to be a police officer. You, on the one hand claim bravery, and on the other, cower in fear of what a gang banger might to do you. If you don't think the law applies to you, and you're afraid to follow it, then get another job.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews Your logic makes no sense. A phone call to the police is all the legality needed to conduct an investigation and make an arrest, if necessary. You want to talk about cops cowering in fear? Want me to send you videos of cops in shootouts with heavily arms thugs? Face it, you can't do as you please. This is a civilized society, and we need law in a civilized society. If you prefer the ability to do as you please, there are many countries that can use you.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Why do you keep talking about thugs? I'm not a thug and have no criminal record. Are you saying gang-bangers have the wherwithal to ask you for id? Right. WHy do you keep avoiding the issue, which is the LAW. ALL you keepdoing is rationalizing why it doesn't apply to you.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 So, the LAW is that you have to show ID. Obviously you don't like that law. It's inconvenient, and implies that your power isn't godlike. Now, when's the last time you let someone off because the law was inconvenient for them? Lol...To use your own words: " Face it, you can't do as you please. This is a civilized society, and we need law in a civilized society. If you prefer the ability to do as you please, there are many countries that can use you."
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews No, I don't mind cops showing their Id's, as long as there is no personal contact information, which there is not. What is funny is your hypocricy in thinking it is unconstitutional for cops to ask suspects for ID, but nothing wrong to ask a cop for ID. You must be a libertarian. Libertarians think we should be legally allowed to do anything, and think all laws are invalid, yet expect cops to obey the same laws that they condemn. Typical anti-cop attitude. Sounds like you.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 If you're just going to keep throwig labels around designed to provoke me (like you all do on the streets) then there's not much point. I've shown you the law, you don't think you have to obey it. You're a police officer claiming that LAW doesn't apply to you. You're arguing that your above the law and not accountable to your employers. I'll even grant you every other point. Anything except cops ID you win. So now there's only one issue. The LAW that requires cops to identify.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews Typical response when you have no answer. You are a sterotypical cop hater. You are a dime a dozen. You act like you are pro-cop but is against bad cops, when the truth is you are against all cops. You have only shown me 1 law, which I never said cops don't have to obey. Everything else you have told me is pure conspiracy. I am not saying cops are above the law - you are saying that "civilians" are above cops and they don't have to abide by the laws, but cops do have to obey laws.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Actually I just conceded every point you made except the part where cops have to ID. And yes, we are above the office of a police officer. As men we are equal. But when you put on that uniform you become our employee and servant. At that point you become loaded down with obligations of your office. Yes, we the peopel ar above your office. As men we are equal. When you wear a public office you are taking our money. That maeans you work FOR us. Not the other way around.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews The money we pay as taxes is our fee for a free society. That doesn't mean they are subjected to our every demand- that would be impractical and counter-productive, as the arrogance of people would abuse that if it were the case. It sucks, but the laws of nature demand it.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Speaking of the money, there is no money. That's why we've been converted into chattel and drained and drained and drained. Why register a car? Because you don't own it. You bought it with federal reserve notes borrowed from the federal reserve. The federal reserve owns EVERYTHING (literally) because it hasn't ever been paid back. All of our dollars are representation of debt. If the debt were paid, there wouldn't be any more dollars.
That's why the founders demanded gold money
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 If I was ant-cop I'd just tell you to stick it where it hurts the most. Look at MGL chapter 90 section 3A-3D. That's my real bugaboo. That's where your authoriy comes from. You don't know it, but all of your power is the power of the individual who's been violated by illegal statutes. Undisclosed seizures of powers of attorney. Allows reciprocal agreements to be made without my knowledge...like agreements with the police...
Your power is OUR power. We are waking up.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews Again, pure conspiracy. I don't want to hear it. I have been suspecting that you believe there should be no laws, except in regard to police. I just saw one of your videos where you think it is a right to drive without a license. Again, typical libertarian. You want people to do as they please and who cares about what the outcome might be. In case you didnt know, a right is something guaranteed by law. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Look up the statutory definition of "driver" "operator"
Go ahead. Look them up. Find out what you're really charging someone with when you charge them with "operating" or "driving."
All were asking of the prosecutor is that very thing! So if you're right, then prove it. Post the statutory definition of operator and driver.
What you'll see is that an operator under the law isn't a private individual, it's a "driver of a commercial vehicle" or the "owner of a business."
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 "I don't want to hear it" he says! "I'm not interested in the law" he says! "If there's bad stuff going on in government I don't care" he says! "If your rights are being violated I will conveniently forget my oath" he says! You are lawless. I doubt you have ever looked at a statute, yet sit there trying to tell me you know something. Every time you type a character you are screaming your willfull and purposeful ignorance. What I'm talking about is right there in the statutes. Truth.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 What I think is what the supreme court thinks and they think that a test of competency is enought to prove that travelling (a right) in an automobile is not a danger to the public. Licensing is something different, and only applies to commercial activity. But that's not the way it's enforced. People are conned into it. Through threats of violence and imprisonment and seizure of property. But the statutes assume consent. hmm...What happens when you know that, and deny consent?
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews
Traveling in an automobile is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the states that can be revoked if you violate the laws governing the driving privilege. A right is something that can't be taken away. The fact that courts can and do revoke driver's licenses proves that it is NOT a right.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@gamewizard A drivers license if only required when operatin a registered vehicle. There is no requirement to register a private motor carrier (dept of transportation).
VerifiedNews 5 months ago
@VerifiedNews
That is federally. You do not need a license from the FEDERAL government, but you still need a license issued by a state to drive. Ask any cross country Greyhound bus driver. Even if you weren't driving commercially, like for Greyhound, say you were driving a church bus across state lines, you still wouldn't need a federal license, but you would still have to have a state issued license. You are confusing federal law with state law.
gamewizard 5 months ago
@Cowboy97892 When you understand that it's all rationalized as consentual on an individual basis by the law (a claim stands until rebutted, sure enough), and that the court needs points of voluntary "purposeful availment" in order to gain jurisdiction, well, then, it becomes easy to make administrative charges (victimless "crimes") go away. You simply refute consent. "The only reason I applied is because i need to travel to get to work, and i'll be imprisoned if I don't sign your contract."
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews Then don't sign it and go to prison pal.
kgbrammstein 8 months ago
@Cowboy97892 The jurisdiction goes like this (will look up the statute series that documents it if you like): Someone signs applicatio/enters road in MA. Registrar assumes power of attorney and makes reciprocal agreements with the police using that POA. Agreements that bind the person to statute (which isn't law, by the way see: supreme court rulings). Yous see, the statutes are activated by rationalized AGREEMENT. The law rationalizes undisclosed contracts as binding agreements. It's FRAUD
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 So, when you're citing someone for a violation, you're enforcing a contract born in fraud and non-disclosure. We're currently challenging the law, but they're throwing the POLICE OFFICER up for sacrifice, because we've done it in a way that makes that easy, and a way for the courts to avoid the major issues by throwing their low level grunts to the wolves.
We just got a note from the prosecutor that the officer will be available for examination at the motion hearing. Can't wait.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 So when you run into one of us that knows all about this and can cite the statutes that are illegal, your bosses that you're so loyal to will throw you to the wolves without a single thought to avoid dealing with the core issue of the enslavement of the American Population.
But you get a fat salary and that's more important to you than the conquering of our country from the inside out. Fraudulent contracts, jurisdictional transfers, etc.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
Look up points of contact. The courts needs our consent. They can do nothing without some rationalized consent. That's what the sucurity points are for. To get peopel to waive into the jurisdiction of the court. I say, before entering "I'll do that, as long as you understand I'm not waiving any rights or acknowledging jurisction." Then I don't stand up for the judge. One guy said "you should stand up" I asked "why" and he dried up and blew away. I had not allowed point of contact jurisdiction.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@VerifiedNews cont. Else, we can keep letting criminals go because they don't want to show ID. How is showing ID invading privacy, anyways? It has your name and address. Much of this info is available to the public. How do you think PI's get their information about their target? Why doesn't anyone complain about showing ID to cash a check or do something that conveniences them? Isn't that invasion of privacy? When you mail a letter with your name and address, is that invasion of privacy?
Cowboy97892 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 Sorry early and no coffee lol...
Does a person, as they appear in statute, have any rights? No. Only priviledges that must be purchased.
Doe a man have rights? Yes, but only if he can avoid personal jursdiction. You know, voluteering.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
@Cowboy97892 I'm not a cop hater. YOU guys HATE US. Don't you get it? I've gotten along with every cop I've ever met, well enought I guess. Have a friend who's an ex-cop. I just know what cops think of us. And it's wrong. That's why you're having so much trouble with the populace. And this insistence that you have authority that is absolute and infinite, and that you can make excuses for abandoning the obligations of your office, yet nail the populace for every little thing you can, has
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
turned you all into predators. It's not really your fault. If you read some law I could show, you'd understand. I don't know if it would change your actions, due to peer pressure, but it would sure leave you with some thoughts, I bet. Here's an example of an unconstitutional statute. We have a motion in and a hearing to discuss it, and this statute is one of the issue we're bringing up, and the simplest issue: Maligislature_gov /existing laws
Chapter 90 Section 3A-3D inclusive/
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
What you'll se there is a subversion of the unltimate right "No state shall make any law impairing the obligations of contracts." A power of attorney transfer, undisclosed, by legislative fiat. I've found the equivalent in other states. This allows reciprocal agreements to be made, all undosclosed, and rationalized as "jurisdiction." Take a good look. That's what you're enforcing. Enhanced powers of service. I should show you our motion. It'll be establish as legal fact maybe we'll se soon.
VerifiedNews 9 months ago
The police in this case may have saved the womans life, because this rancher was abusive.
Until something happens to them."im not doing anything wrong" means they are willing to waive rights to unreasonable search seizure of property and 'the Constitution is just a piece of paper.'
More people know who wins American idol than know about the Constitution .
DVincentW 4 years ago
Waiver of Constitutional rights has to be voluntary and affirmative. Police are not allowed to infer a waiver of Constitutional rights. At no time prior to arrest does the officer have the right to fully search the suspect, unless he suspected the presence of weapons
Bigthuder1636 3 years ago
You are absolutly wrong on that. I know becuase I am a crimianl justice graduate student. Law enforcement officers have the right to search at any time they encounter a person being investigated. This is called a Terry Stop.
ohiodeerhunter21 3 years ago
Actually, from what I've learned from my internships and criminal Justice classes is that Terry deals with authorized investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion. Not searches and seizures (4th ammend.) . An officer can do a non-intrusive pat down without probable cause, but once PC is established and a custodial arrest is made, they can search incident to arrest-person arrested and passenger compartment including containers.
Chadwick/Carroll/Betlon/Chimel/Robinson doctrines
DRUM57IX 3 years ago
This was not the NHP but a sheriff's department. I think it was Lander County. I do know that this moron took this all the way to the supreme court and lost big time. Another idiot who thought he knew the law and it backfired on him. Pure Nevada white trash. Thanks for giving Law Enforcement even MORE power to do their jobs! Enjoy paying off those lawyer bills Larry!! You dumb hick.
bren100 4 years ago
That was a boring video. The cop just pulled her to the ground and put cuffs on her because the girl would have tried to get the cop from arresting her boy friend.
dylan344 4 years ago
Typical rogue cops
909512b 4 years ago
Rogue my ass. They were DISPATCHED to a domestic in progress and found their subjects, which is obvious in the video. Learn your facts before you run your suck...........
bren100 4 years ago
I'll have to disagree, their ROGUES, your garden variety crooked cops...LOL
909512b 4 years ago
Does mom and daddy know you are using the computer right now?
ares310 4 years ago 2
LOL, blow-it out your Ass ares310...LOL
fucking inbred Bastard....LOL
909512b 4 years ago
Larry, u be a dick
gotrottin 4 years ago