Don't sign anything! In doing so you submit to their authority and admit to being who your I.D. says- an agent and not a Sovereign Citizen w/ God given rights. Good Job Dude. You won! Thanks for being a freedom fighter. They held me a prisoner in my house till they got a warrant. They are the ones breaking all the laws- demand your accusers be piss tested too! If all else fails crank call em- it's legal!
@princenoah21 It's tenuous to call it misconduct given the data at hand. If anything it might qualify as false arrest or perhaps false imprisonment but in all honesty it seems more likely to simply a douchebag cop with an authority complex.
Police need reasonable cause for any searches unless they see a criminal activity in play view. Whatever happened before the video will determine what happens in court since the video is incomplete and the sheriff in this case has no authority for you to make you turn off your camera on your property. Its against the 1st and 4ht amendment.
Hang on a minute, you're clearly being arrested for something incongruous to the title of the video. You're not being arrested 'BECAUSE' you're videoing the Police, that's how I see it.
You know. Its amazing how many people can watch a video about a situation they clearly don't know the full story about and feel they can pick and choose a side against police and feel that they are unbiased and open minded.
WAKE UP "WE THE PEOPLE"---WE ARE THE ONES PAYING THE WAGE FOR THESE GESTAPO!!!!----TIME TO FIRE A BUNCH OF OUR DEVIL LEADERS ALONG WITH THEIR GESTAPO!!!!!!
Number one rule #1. As soon as the cops come on your property go outside and meet them there. The only time you let them in is if they have and show you a warrant. If they get to your door before you can get outside., go out the back door and confront them at your front door. Never ever let them in. And remember they work for us paid by our tax dollars.
It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping. My guess is this is what he was charged with. The guy getting arrested here sounds like he is lying, might just be the way he talks, but the tone just sounds like he is (bad) acting.
@Kartkid024, recording cops is not impeding them in the slightest. If you were walking and talking, and I was recording you, then would my behavior impede you, or would you choose to stop?
It is impeding if the officer is trying to talk to you and deal with a situation that involves you. Is it really going to imped his progress to accomplish what he is doing. No probably not, but in this situation it is enough to be considered impeding and officer there for he does have the legal right to do what he does.
@Kartkid024, It is not impeding a cop to be recorded, and I have the right to record cops, as they are government whom I must hold accountable to the people. Cops are citizens who volunteer to be cops. They have full citizen rights, and they do have authority delegated by the people.
In a Republic, the people have the power over the government.
Yes in many cases police can legally arrest you from impeading. If your across the street tapeing they aren't going to be able to get you for impeading, however if you are on the scene then yes its considered impeading. I never said its always right, but it is true. My only point being is he probably wasn't arrested for video taping, it was probably for impeading. Get my point. In this case something not shown here happened, and the way the suspect answers questions
I have to say he is acting and call bull shit on the way he says "Why am I being under arrest". I mean it just might be the way he is, but the way he is constructing sentences points in the direction of lieing/acting.
Off the scene. In this case any where off the property of this house. It pretty much is what any reasonable person believes would be away from the scene the the police are working in. Every situation is obviously different, but I'd say for sure in this situation anywhere off the property. Such as across the street.
Well, I don't know ever state law obviously, so it could be true, but for every state I have seen that this is considered impeding, but again I haven't seen most of them. As far as federal law, I didn't think there was anything written for impeding an officer unless it applied to a federal officer. Federal laws wouldn't apply to your typical police (state, county, or city).
Now impeding is defined as delaying, or preventing. Usally when you touch a police officer it is considered battery, and when a police has to use force it is resisting. Again I haven't seen the law in every state, but in most states I have seen this is impeding, and in every state there is some sort of law for when you don't comply with an officers requests, which could be used in this case too.
@Kartkid024 said: "Now impeding is defined as delaying, or preventing." Only if the word 'impeding' stands alone, without modifiers. Every impeding statute I've seen requires force to be used.
Would obstructing an officer fit better for you. No matter how you look at it, there are laws in everystate that even if you are not touching an officer, you can still be arrested if you are creating the officer a problem with accomplishing his duty. Most of these are actually listed under situations with video taping police.
Again, its not an issue of videotaping, its an issue of not complying. Its not really an issue of whether or not the statue exsists, its really just public knowledge. No impeding does not require force, impeding is anytime you prevent the police from doing their job, whether you touch them or not, if your in the way, your still impeding. If your not complying you still can be arrested. You don't have to agree with it, I'm just explaining what reason they used to arrest him.
Dictionary defines impeding as "to retard in movement or progress by means of obstacles or hindrances; obstruct; hinder., slow, delay, check, stop, block, thwart." Physically or non-Physically. That's what federal and state laws rely on and also where I get my information. Impeding an officer is illegal and you have already said you knew of this law, not to mention this is common sense. So is looking up a word in the dictionary if you don't know it, not cry till someone does it for you.
I'm not really sure why I'd go looking through hundreds of pages of legal crap to prove to you a law that is not only common knowledge, but that you have already stated you know exsisted. So I'm going to ask you this. If you are a police officer conducting a traffic stop, what would you do if me and my 5 buddies just decided to stand around you and/or in between you and the driver of the car. And we don't move at all no matter what you say. Do you really believe what we are doing is legal.
I ask again, if my 5 buddies walked in front of you as your performing a traffic stop but don't touch you, but we are in your way and not only making it a dangerous situation for you but making it impossible for you to perform your traffic stop, do you think its perfectly legal for us to do what we are doing as long as we are not touching you.
@Kartkid024: What part of _as soon as we wrap up the current topic_ are you having trouble comprehending? I have a reply, I just don't wish to go off on a tangent yet.
Guess I have to nudge you on a little more since your unable to do it. Well, any normal human being would believe this is not legal. Ok, so take what ever it is you believe this is a violation of and call it "A". Now here the office choose to use law "A" to arrest this guy with the camera, not arrest for having the camera. His charges are now for law "A". Making any sense to you. See how we got right back to the original situation. Too bad I had to hald your hand through it.
@Kartkid024: Still no law then, just your opinion.
So he was not arrested for videotaping.
So you are not telling the truth when you said: "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping" since video taping in itself is not unlawful.
Spin it all you want. It's almost always legal to videotape police officers.
@Pafoofnik1: Oh, and in anticipation... videotaping by itself simply cannot be impeding according to federal or my state's law. I don't know what state you are in or I would take some time to look up the law there as well.
It is almost always legal to videotape police officers in public.
So you really think a person can stand anywhere they want and keep an officer from doing his job as long as they don't touch them. If that was the case police would have a hell of a time accomplishing traffic stops, or investigations, and so much more. Come on man, use your head. And for your information there are over 250 different impeding laws in one state alone, I'm not about to state everyone of them to prove to you something you have already stated you know.
@Kartkid024 said: "So you really think a person can stand anywhere they want and keep an officer from doing his job as long as they don't touch them."
I never said that. Are you going to lie about what I've said now?
Well thats what I am saying and you are telling me I'm wrong, so yes, I am saying thats what your saying. Why are you telling me I'm right now. If thats the case I guess this conversation is over.
I think you are really believing there is a law that says what impeding is, no impeding is a term stated in a law among other things. My point doesn't come to the correct definition of impeding but rather the fact that the officer was probably not arresting him for the camera, that their was probably more before it, and even though filming police is legal, police do still have the right to arrest them for former Law "A". I don't always agree with it, but it holds up in court.
Like I said, call it what you want. If you want to pretend its not called impeding fine do so. That is not and never was my point. My point remains, their are laws that, even though you can video tape, allow police to still remove you and your camera from the scene. Here are some sites that might further dummy my argument down for you. If you still don't understand then I'm not sure I can dummy it down any more for you and I suggest you seek some other source of help.
The first site states- The Court concluded that police officers are to expect to deal with certain "burdens" as citizens practice First Amendment rights, but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they're conducting their duties responsibly.
I think you need to read this very carefully and tell me what you get out of it.
@Kartkid024 said: "If you want to pretend its not called impeding "
Please read what I wrote, not what you wish I would have written.
You said that "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping". I think you are wrong and asked for verification. The act of videotaping cannot be impeding unless doing so keeps an officer from performing an investigation, and the act is codified into law.
The only way you can get it to work for you is if you add something beyond videotaping.
for example, he is in a room the police are trying to search and they are search it because he will not step outside the room. Or he has been asked several questions and is having difficulty answering them because he is to busy video taping. There are a thousand different reasons police can come up with to call it impeding and it is what they do at times to get you out of there. So simply said for you "Yes video taping police is legal, but police many legal ways to still remove you.
Wow, I can not believe you are having this much difficulty understanding. As simple as I can say it. (If police claim your are doing something that prevents them from completeing their duty in a timely manner they can arrest you) (They can claim that by you video tapeing on the scene that your preventing them from doing their job) (So they remove you from the scene and when they are done you are free to come back). Sorry man, I can't explain it any simpler.
@Kartkid024: I understand it well. I'm watching you skate around, tossing out everything instead of admitting that you were mistaken when you said: "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping"
Now I'm watching you try to turn an opinion on a website into an arrestable statute instead of admitting you are wrong... and waiting to see what you come up with next.
I can't tell if its your ego or your just a moron. I've provided proof via a supreme court decision, a quote from a set of lawyers, and tried to explain to you in simple terms a law that is pretty much common knowledge to anyone over the age of 5.
The lawer quote clearly says it, and the other one states that their are limits to videotaping. I mean what other meaning do you get out of the quote:
"but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they're conducting their duties responsibly."
And : Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don’t interfere their ability to do their job.Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don’t interfere their ability to do their job.
@Kartkid024: Your quote doesn't back your claim that "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping".
It doesn't say a thing about impeding or arrest at all.
Still unable to get your ego in control and admit you were wrong. Maybe you can try insulting me some more. I'm mature enough to not let it bother me any.
"Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don’t interfere their ability to do their job" Doesn't get much clearer than this. Its legal as long as you don't interfere, if you interfere then it is no longer legal. I don't understand you much more I can spell it out to you.
@Kartkid024 if your standing a reasonable distance away and unobtrusive.. recording police behavior should not affect a officer doing his job... they may not like it... but the reason people have started recording is due to the behavior of some officers...
It just sucks that a reasonable distance is such a vague statement. In this case we don't know why he was recording, it could have been to show the behavior, or maybe the officer were in the clear, just too many unanswered questions. All we see is the video come on, and the guy get arrested. Maybe the officers did have a warrent and he wanted to frame them, maybe they did truly have good cause. Who knows. The video wouldn't be enough to convict though.
I can say I made a mistake, But here is my points trying to be made, 1-you can videotape police, but their are limits. 2- People can not prevent police purposly in anyway to prevent them from doing their job (ex-me and my 5 friends blocking an officer during a traffic stop). 3-Number 2 is a limit on number 1. So if your disagreeing with those points then the only thing you have left is to prove those facts.
@Kartkid024: What makes you think I have to prove a thing here? I'm not the one who made the mistake of spouting out a law... without seeing if such a law actually existed in the first place.
Your a fucking moron. No person can be this stupid. You can't seriously believe that a person can just prevent a police officer from doing his job as long as he doesn't touch him. That if I wanted I could form a chain of people around a crime scene so police can't get in and there is nothing police can do to get past me.
that is pure bullshit , no they can not enter a premisses without concent or a warrent second it is not illegal to video tape any employee or the city and tht includes police , i hope this guy sued and used his to win big .
Video taping Law Enforcement is protected by Freedom of Press, you don't have to part of the media system to video tape Law enforcement. There are 2 Civil Rights Violations here.
We the people put up with this shyt all the time,when do say enough is enough..It will probably come down to some revolution before there is any change.. live free or die...!!!!
This is why I'm becoming a police officer....too many cops not doing shit when it matters, and too many cops doing stupid shit like this and abusing their powers on people who most likely don't deserve it
@MysticDMBherb its a full time job just combating crooked cops, so why not just dedicate your time to busting cops. i think cops cause more harm then anythings else anyways.
Take it from someone with 28 years in LE. You won't change a thing. The system that allows the abuses must be forced to change. It will only get worse. Ask yourself how much freedom have you lost since 9-11?
Sorry but after the so called Patriot Act you lost a bunch of freedom. In the video it shows two goons entering a house and not producting a valid warant. It would appear that the 4 th amemdment is being violated. Many cops have forgotten who they serve and get on a huge power trip.
@cbarsonfire "Sorry but after the so called Patriot Act you lost a bunch of freedom." Again, not true. As for your attempt to connect this inappropriate police activity with the Patriot act that is tenuous at best. What this is are two cops who are ignorant of the law. That's it. Also, we have no idea of the nature as to how they entered. If they asked and the owner said ok then he lost all rights. I know the video notes make a certain claim but the guy could be lying.
Sorry it is so true. Go ahead and keep your head in the sand. Better yet, go downtown and stand in front of a federal building and just stare at the building. See how quickly you are questioned by the federal goons while standing on public property. See how quick they demand your ID.
You have no freaking clue about the subject under discussion. When you become a cop or an attorney stop back by and comment. Until then shut the fuck up douchebag.
@Pafoofnik1 There is no federal law which requires citizens to carry any form of ID. If there was then there would be a national ID card. Which there isn't. The same can be said on the state level. As far as I'm aware there is no state which requires a form of ID. The only ID that can be checked is the drivers license and that can only be demanded when you are driving. You ARE required to identify yourself however which merely means giving them your name. I'm almost positive on that.
@KamekoBruns: Yep. for example, in my state, I am free to refuse to ID myself if I am just stopped and questioned.
Some states require a person to give his name and maybe address etc but it's state dependent.
The Supreme Court, in "Hiibel", recognized that no state can require ID on demand. Officers must first have the suspicion required of a Terry stop before they can require ID.
@1775novten Once you are detained by the officer, meaning no longer allowed to leave, then you have to identify yourself which means giving your name. You cannot be arrested for not giving your name. There has to be some other applicable cause for suspicion. Google "do I have to identify myself to an officer" and look for the "Just Cause Law Collective" explaining how Hiibel affects you and how your rights typically work. It's a very well written and informative article.
@KamekoBruns There are instances where you can be detained without being accused of a crime, so no I do not think detainment by default equals ID. The reason I asked is because you said "some states require you to ID" - it is my understanding that ALL states require you to ID yourself once arrested - and if you don't, then that is an additional charge.
@1775novten Once you are arrested then yes, you have to ID yourself. Unless the officer has clear reason to suspect you have committed an act, are in the act of or will soon commit a criminal act the police are not allowed to detain you and demand you identify yourself. I'm not sure where you saw me state that some state require you to ID. Either you mistook a comment I made or you are reading someone else's post. Unless you are arrested there is no law forcing you to id yourself.
@Pafoofnik1 The code you just referenced states "(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information." So it is an offense if you don't ID yourself once arrested. I'm almost positive that all States are this way.
@Pafoofnik1 Yeah, I don't think any State can require you to do so. Although we all know that officers will threaten you with arrest if you don't do so. They will just make up something else, so you will be forced to provide them ID.
It's already happened. I was stopped and threatened with having the sheriff come down and arrest me. (They were federal agents so couldn't arrest me directly.) 7 minutes later I was driving away. Never showed my ID or stated my name once.
Amazing what knowing the law can do... And recording the stop...
@jcap623 all arrests are defaulted as lawful and no department would ever initiate the position that their arrest was unlawful. That claim would have to be initiated by the citizen and you would have to have video evidence and a shit ton of money to ever get accountability. For example the Glik v. Cunniffe case - he would never have been able to get accountability without the money and legal assistance from the ACLU.
@jcap623 I think that idea is still held by truly constitutional Americans, but I don't think the thugs in blue have ever held to that idea. They'd rather the streets be clear, with no regard whether they are putting away law abiding citizens or not. They are a lawless gang with the backing of the government who live by the motto of "do as I say, not as I do".
@Pafoofnik1 I asked the question because you said "Some states require a person to give his name and maybe address etc but it's state dependent." However, doesn't Arizona require residents to carry and show their "papers" even if they aren't suspected of committing a crime?
@KamekoBruns You haven't been to Arizona lately then have you? Not saying it's ok. As far as I know that is the only State that requires you to have your "papers" on you.
@KamekoBruns The right we have lost is seizures without a warrant. Remember the big scandal with them tapping people's phones without warrants? Another example is indefinite detention without due process. That is another violation of the Constitution.
@1775novten The legal precedent for valid searches and seizures without warrants has been in place single long before the Patriot Act ever came about. The wiretapping "scandal" was a lot of bullshit. The NSA was authorized to wiretap foreign nationals operating outside of the US. The fact that they called US residents who were helping them is incidental. If the FBI has a wiretap warrant against me and you call me and the FBI records your call to me is that an illegal search on you?
@KamekoBruns You just said "if the FBI has a wiretap warrant against me" - that's just it, they didn't have warrants and forced the phone companies to give them access to the lines without warrants. Also they started arresting people for taking pictures of Federal buildings. What say you about the indefinite detention?
@1775novten 1st off, it is the NSA conducting the wiretaps, not the FBI. The FBI was merely used in my example but you miss the point. The Constitution pertains to how the US govt operates in regard to it's own citizens. As such there is no legal requirement that the NSA obtain a warrant to wiretap foreign originating phone calls. This has long been upheld in court. As for the photographing, not one arrest resulted in a conviction. I believe there are certain buildings you 1/2
@1775novten 2/2 absolutely cannot photograph such as Ft Knox and Area 51 but I may be mistaken. I do believe that certain areas should not be allowed to photographed such as military bases and key facilities but it's a slippery slope so it's best to err on the side of caution and keep it all fair game. Bear in mind that there is a vast difference between uneducated enforcement personnel and actual legislation.
@KamekoBruns Also why would they need an Act to wiretap non-Americans outside of the US? They will do whatever they want to non-Americans, whenever they want. The Act is to undermine the Constitution, so they can do whatever they want, to whomever they want within the U.S. There is no need for it.
@1775novten I misspoke earlier. There is a requirement for the obtaining of a warrant against foreign targets of interest. It is know as The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The wiretapping you are speaking of was not a result of the Patriot Act but from an executive order issues by Bush authorizing the NSA "to conduct surveillance of certain telephone calls without obtaining a warrant from the FISC as stipulated by FISA". 1/2
@KamekoBruns 2/2 FISA permits the President to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". 50 U.S.C. §1802(a)(1)"
And this is where the issue comes from in that information was collected on US citizens.
Regardless, this is not due to the Patriot Act but a law passed in 1978.
@1775novten So in closing, we really have no lost any rights from the Patriot Act. The NSA wiretapping was authorized by a law passed in 1978. The state has had the ability to conduct legal and valid searches and seizures without a warrant for almost 200 years. The current issue of indefinite detention stems from the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and not the Patriot Act so I ask yet again, what rights have we lost from the Patriot Act?
@KamekoBruns The Patriot Act allowed the gov to classify US citizens as "domestic terrorist" and throw them into the bucket with the rest. It allows them to assassinate US citizens who are suspected of being "terrorists" without trial or due process. The NDAA just gives them even more wiggle room to deem us as domestic terrorists if we speak out against our government.
@1775novten I hate to burst your bubble but the US was identifying US citizens as "domestic terrorists" long before the Patriot Act. The FBI has produced memos defining what a domestic terrorist was that date back to the 80's. As for you other two claims you are completely wrong and now it's just starting to sound like bullshit propaganda. The govt cannot simply kill someone because of suspicion or speaking out. If you want to continue having this discussion please remain in reality.
@1775novten Lastly, as for indefinite detention without due process, that only just recently became an issue and has yet to be challenged in court. Ostensibly, there is a promise that it will not be used against US citizens and if challenged in court there is great probability that it will be struck as unConstitutional.
Beyond that, indefinite detention without due process has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
@KamekoBruns But is our government doing this? Why does it take a lawsuit to deem it unconstitutional. We KNOW it's unconstitutional, so why even create a bill like this? Why is a bill like this even needed or even conceived? What are the benefits of the Patriot Act and others?
@1775novten You don't KNOW it is unconstitutional. You just believe that it is. The legislative and the executive passes legislation or executive orders which it feels are necessary in order to obtain it's goals. It the falls to the judiciary and their power of judicial review to make sure their endeavors pass the Constitutional sniff test. This is how it has been for the past 200 years and it's worked this far. 1/2
@1775novten 2/2 The primary and most immediate benefit of the Patriot Act was to once again allow all of our law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies to once again freely communicate amongst themselves. Under Bill Clinton massive roadblocks were put into place that prevented, for example, a local law enforcement agency to share information with the FBI and other agencies. This literally led to the 9/11 attacks as key information was not shared.
@KamekoBruns What kind of "roadblocks"? If there was laws or other legislation put into place which prevented agencies from talking, then you repeal those. You don't create a new one to overwrite the old. Here's my concern - I don't see why they need to create Acts to convince us what the gov is allowed to do. They should just do it, until told otherwise by the Judicial system. It doesn't make sense. You create laws to tell want you can't do, not what you can do.
@1775novten Where do you come up with this shit? Of course you write new laws to replace the new ones. Look at the 18th Amendment. Was it repealed or was it negated by the 21st? Laws are created to tell the govt what it can do.
@MysticDMBherb I hear ya bro! But on a realistic note. These dudes take orders from the sheriff and under sheriff's office. You don't have a chance these days talking with police. I've met one or two really understanding and compassionate cops, the higher ups gave them shit and scrutinized every call they made(Dare Officers, traffic duty, under internal investigations all the time, etc). Be Sheriff, anticipate corruption and social coercion inside the force.
Tell you what I'm over 6 foot tall & over 300 pounds solid & I would love to invite Mr Big man cop to take his badge off & get in the ring with me & see how Big he really is LOL!!!!!
This country's going to hell in a hand basket when the laws of the land don't even fallow the laws without laws where no better then Communist country's !!!!!
you have to remember cops deal with criminal also. they have to be ready for anything. many put their life on the line when they make arrests, and many are paranoid that at any second their life can be endangered
What in the hell is wrong with this cop? Who peed in his cheerios? Why is he taking it out on an innocent man? And why is he making up bogus charges?
Major lawsuit I hope they get $20,000,000 for this injustice then sue the cops and take every cent and piece of property they own. Fuck the cops 187 all cops.
@Btz1911 Sad but unfortunently, it seems they will not adhere peacefully, protect your own family, man. for me we have entered a wild west senario, I beleive its time for ALL Americans to arm themselves once again, for the cops have become a gang of thugs, were its just as scary to call them as it is to call bloods and crips. good luck America, I sure hope we make it through this.
The Full story behind this will never be told to us. It is obvious that this man is well known by the police. The facts will be altered by this person. Damn this person sounds like he is stoned out of his mind too.
@Tallman67122 wow you must be right best freinds with the cops and gov. sad to see how someone is so willing to give up their rights, and because hes stoned well thats a real great reason, unfortunently the only real drugs that pose a serious problem are pain pills, handed out by the doctors and mediated between judges and police, cocaine herion, meth, all also controlled by the lawmakers, your brainwashed, you need to really look into what is happening in this world, WAKE UP!!
Needed: a camera that shoots bullets at those who enter your house w/o an invitation or a warrant.. some may say "scare my kids like that and ya better sleep in shifts with your wife, officer.."
HOW MUCH MONEY IS BEING WASTED HERE? OUTRAGED TO SEE MEN OF HONOR, WIPING THEIR ASS WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THIS IS BORDERLINE REVOLUTIONARY MANDATE! WE THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, IM TIRED OF THIS BULLSHIT!
Although I may agree with you, and police brutality along with infringement on your constitutional rights infuriates me, you should remove your post. Because, if a pig sees your post, he will get a warrant for your arrest, 'threatening physical harm to a police officer' is one he could go on. When and 'if' I threaten the police, I do it in such a way that they 'can't' clearly say I did, even though it maybe common sense. Just saying, wouldn't want a citizen getting arrested.
@oneniceguy000 Some cops are really good hearted Americans, you would be spilling good blood. for no reason, just because his buddys are evil. I know it makes me mad as hell watching this but we must resort to violence as a last ditch effort to save or nation, plus you can get in trouble for posting such a comment, remmember this is NOT America right now, and if you dont follow Nazi protocol, you may be arrested, sucks I know. But thats just the truth anymore.
I'm not saying the cops were right because this video doesn't give the entire story but the heading is wrong, they put him under arrest for resisting not recording.
Don't sign anything! In doing so you submit to their authority and admit to being who your I.D. says- an agent and not a Sovereign Citizen w/ God given rights. Good Job Dude. You won! Thanks for being a freedom fighter. They held me a prisoner in my house till they got a warrant. They are the ones breaking all the laws- demand your accusers be piss tested too! If all else fails crank call em- it's legal!
drumheadcircle 5 days ago
Typical high school loser with no prospect of success.
GrimReaper1169 2 weeks ago
That cop committed police misconduct. Arresting someone for recording them is a violation of the first amendment.
Nevertheless, you should have invoked your tight to remain silent and asked for a lawyer
princenoah21 3 weeks ago
@princenoah21 It's tenuous to call it misconduct given the data at hand. If anything it might qualify as false arrest or perhaps false imprisonment but in all honesty it seems more likely to simply a douchebag cop with an authority complex.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
I hate cops -.-
totaloffice123 4 weeks ago
Didn't look like resisting to me. Ha
MrJfischer17 1 month ago
Dum ass kid LOL Take him and his mom both to jail LOL
04meprivate 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Police need reasonable cause for any searches unless they see a criminal activity in play view. Whatever happened before the video will determine what happens in court since the video is incomplete and the sheriff in this case has no authority for you to make you turn off your camera on your property. Its against the 1st and 4ht amendment.
DynamiixFx 1 month ago
Comment removed
DynamiixFx 1 month ago
Hang on a minute, you're clearly being arrested for something incongruous to the title of the video. You're not being arrested 'BECAUSE' you're videoing the Police, that's how I see it.
trancehi 1 month ago
who do these fuckin pigs think they are fucking rambo man these fucks are just homegrown terroists
JEHERETIC 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:27 possessed by bobcat goldthwait. But seriously... Resisting law informant?
brennjames206 1 month ago
0:27 possessed by Bobcat gold. But seriously... Resisting law informant?
brennjames206 1 month ago
I apologize for the inconvenience someone could explain if permitted in the U.S. a police enter a home without a court order .... thanks
esauuuuuuuuuuuuuuify 1 month ago
Your stone big time, maybe that is why there in your home.... I still don't agree with them arresting you for filming.
ftp2leta 2 months ago
Your video is incomplete and does not explain the situation.. No one watching just this video can make a determination on what is happening..
Plsd2beme 2 months ago
I believe all corrupt cops need to die. all corrupt cops must die...
QFizzle1992 2 months ago in playlist More videos from angela0355
@QFizzle1992 agreed
dragonmaster786 2 months ago
You know. Its amazing how many people can watch a video about a situation they clearly don't know the full story about and feel they can pick and choose a side against police and feel that they are unbiased and open minded.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
WAKE UP "WE THE PEOPLE"---WE ARE THE ONES PAYING THE WAGE FOR THESE GESTAPO!!!!----TIME TO FIRE A BUNCH OF OUR DEVIL LEADERS ALONG WITH THEIR GESTAPO!!!!!!
NOSERPICOINUTAH 2 months ago 2
fuck cops they cant do anything else but lie
paul88146 2 months ago
Sick I hate cops
Naywein 2 months ago
Number one rule #1. As soon as the cops come on your property go outside and meet them there. The only time you let them in is if they have and show you a warrant. If they get to your door before you can get outside., go out the back door and confront them at your front door. Never ever let them in. And remember they work for us paid by our tax dollars.
sister2717 2 months ago
It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping. My guess is this is what he was charged with. The guy getting arrested here sounds like he is lying, might just be the way he talks, but the tone just sounds like he is (bad) acting.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024, recording cops is not impeding them in the slightest. If you were walking and talking, and I was recording you, then would my behavior impede you, or would you choose to stop?
borderraven 2 months ago
@borderraven
It is impeding if the officer is trying to talk to you and deal with a situation that involves you. Is it really going to imped his progress to accomplish what he is doing. No probably not, but in this situation it is enough to be considered impeding and officer there for he does have the legal right to do what he does.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024, It is not impeding a cop to be recorded, and I have the right to record cops, as they are government whom I must hold accountable to the people. Cops are citizens who volunteer to be cops. They have full citizen rights, and they do have authority delegated by the people.
In a Republic, the people have the power over the government.
borderraven 2 months ago
@borderraven
Yes in many cases police can legally arrest you from impeading. If your across the street tapeing they aren't going to be able to get you for impeading, however if you are on the scene then yes its considered impeading. I never said its always right, but it is true. My only point being is he probably wasn't arrested for video taping, it was probably for impeading. Get my point. In this case something not shown here happened, and the way the suspect answers questions
Kartkid024 2 months ago
I have to say he is acting and call bull shit on the way he says "Why am I being under arrest". I mean it just might be the way he is, but the way he is constructing sentences points in the direction of lieing/acting.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024, What's the separation distance to avoid impeding, but to be able to witness and record the occasion?
borderraven 2 months ago
@borderraven
Off the scene. In this case any where off the property of this house. It pretty much is what any reasonable person believes would be away from the scene the the police are working in. Every situation is obviously different, but I'd say for sure in this situation anywhere off the property. Such as across the street.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024, Look online for a Press Pass or make one yourself.
My PRESS PASS measures 4" x 6" and is colored red, yellow, blue, green, black and white.
borderraven 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: This is state dependent. Many states, and the federal law, require that force be used before an impeding charge can be levied.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
Well, I don't know ever state law obviously, so it could be true, but for every state I have seen that this is considered impeding, but again I haven't seen most of them. As far as federal law, I didn't think there was anything written for impeding an officer unless it applied to a federal officer. Federal laws wouldn't apply to your typical police (state, county, or city).
Kartkid024 2 months ago
Now impeding is defined as delaying, or preventing. Usally when you touch a police officer it is considered battery, and when a police has to use force it is resisting. Again I haven't seen the law in every state, but in most states I have seen this is impeding, and in every state there is some sort of law for when you don't comply with an officers requests, which could be used in this case too.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024 said: "Now impeding is defined as delaying, or preventing." Only if the word 'impeding' stands alone, without modifiers. Every impeding statute I've seen requires force to be used.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
Would obstructing an officer fit better for you. No matter how you look at it, there are laws in everystate that even if you are not touching an officer, you can still be arrested if you are creating the officer a problem with accomplishing his duty. Most of these are actually listed under situations with video taping police.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: The actual statute will work for me. Until it's available. we're both just going on hypothesis.
I think there are only 2 or 3 states left that think it's unlawful to videotape officers in the public.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
Again, its not an issue of videotaping, its an issue of not complying. Its not really an issue of whether or not the statue exsists, its really just public knowledge. No impeding does not require force, impeding is anytime you prevent the police from doing their job, whether you touch them or not, if your in the way, your still impeding. If your not complying you still can be arrested. You don't have to agree with it, I'm just explaining what reason they used to arrest him.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024 : Thanks for expressing your opinion of what 'impeding; means to you.
Of course, the federal and state laws on impeding do not rely on Kartkids024's opinions, but rather on what each statute says.
So where is that law you said exists? The one your studied up on before you said "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping. "
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
Dictionary defines impeding as "to retard in movement or progress by means of obstacles or hindrances; obstruct; hinder., slow, delay, check, stop, block, thwart." Physically or non-Physically. That's what federal and state laws rely on and also where I get my information. Impeding an officer is illegal and you have already said you knew of this law, not to mention this is common sense. So is looking up a word in the dictionary if you don't know it, not cry till someone does it for you.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: Federal and state laws usually rely on Black's Law Dictionary if a word in a statute is not defined in the statute.
Are you going to provide proof of this law you said exists, or are you just going to talk some more?
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
I'm not really sure why I'd go looking through hundreds of pages of legal crap to prove to you a law that is not only common knowledge, but that you have already stated you know exsisted. So I'm going to ask you this. If you are a police officer conducting a traffic stop, what would you do if me and my 5 buddies just decided to stand around you and/or in between you and the driver of the car. And we don't move at all no matter what you say. Do you really believe what we are doing is legal.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: So you told everyone here that "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping."
but can't actually beck it up with the actual law.
I'll be happy to discuss this tangent you just introduced just as soon as we wrap up the current topic.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
I ask again, if my 5 buddies walked in front of you as your performing a traffic stop but don't touch you, but we are in your way and not only making it a dangerous situation for you but making it impossible for you to perform your traffic stop, do you think its perfectly legal for us to do what we are doing as long as we are not touching you.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: What part of _as soon as we wrap up the current topic_ are you having trouble comprehending? I have a reply, I just don't wish to go off on a tangent yet.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
If you simply answer the question you will discover it will indeed answer yours.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: So, this is your response for a request for proof of a law you way exists?
I guess you won't be citing it because it doesn't exist. That's OK. I was pretty sure you wouldn't.
It is almost always legal to videotape law enforcement in public, or if they are are your property.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
Guess I have to nudge you on a little more since your unable to do it. Well, any normal human being would believe this is not legal. Ok, so take what ever it is you believe this is a violation of and call it "A". Now here the office choose to use law "A" to arrest this guy with the camera, not arrest for having the camera. His charges are now for law "A". Making any sense to you. See how we got right back to the original situation. Too bad I had to hald your hand through it.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: Still no law then, just your opinion.
So he was not arrested for videotaping.
So you are not telling the truth when you said: "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping" since video taping in itself is not unlawful.
Spin it all you want. It's almost always legal to videotape police officers.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1: Oh, and in anticipation... videotaping by itself simply cannot be impeding according to federal or my state's law. I don't know what state you are in or I would take some time to look up the law there as well.
It is almost always legal to videotape police officers in public.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
So you really think a person can stand anywhere they want and keep an officer from doing his job as long as they don't touch them. If that was the case police would have a hell of a time accomplishing traffic stops, or investigations, and so much more. Come on man, use your head. And for your information there are over 250 different impeding laws in one state alone, I'm not about to state everyone of them to prove to you something you have already stated you know.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024 said: "So you really think a person can stand anywhere they want and keep an officer from doing his job as long as they don't touch them."
I never said that. Are you going to lie about what I've said now?
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pafoofnik1
Well thats what I am saying and you are telling me I'm wrong, so yes, I am saying thats what your saying. Why are you telling me I'm right now. If thats the case I guess this conversation is over.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
I think you are really believing there is a law that says what impeding is, no impeding is a term stated in a law among other things. My point doesn't come to the correct definition of impeding but rather the fact that the officer was probably not arresting him for the camera, that their was probably more before it, and even though filming police is legal, police do still have the right to arrest them for former Law "A". I don't always agree with it, but it holds up in court.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024 said: "I think you are really believing there is a law that says what impeding is"
Read what I said, not what you wish or thought I said:
Many states, and the federal law, require that force be used before an impeding charge can be levied.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
Like I said, call it what you want. If you want to pretend its not called impeding fine do so. That is not and never was my point. My point remains, their are laws that, even though you can video tape, allow police to still remove you and your camera from the scene. Here are some sites that might further dummy my argument down for you. If you still don't understand then I'm not sure I can dummy it down any more for you and I suggest you seek some other source of help.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
ht tp://w ww.dailytech.co m/First+Circuit+Court+of+Appeals+Rules+that+Citizens+Can+Videotape+Police/article22587.h tm
h ttp://flexyourrights.c om/faq (under videotape)
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: The first cite agrees with me. I can't get the second cite to come up on this Win98 box I'm using.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
The first site states- The Court concluded that police officers are to expect to deal with certain "burdens" as citizens practice First Amendment rights, but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they're conducting their duties responsibly.
I think you need to read this very carefully and tell me what you get out of it.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: What I get out of it is that nowhere does it say a person can be arrested for impeding because he was videotaping.
After all, that's what you said.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
It says for dummies "You can videotape but there has to be limits." Limits being something that prevents an officer from doing his job.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: Thanks for your opinion. Are you ever going to get around to citing that law you say exists?
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Kartkid024 said: "If you want to pretend its not called impeding "
Please read what I wrote, not what you wish I would have written.
You said that "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping". I think you are wrong and asked for verification. The act of videotaping cannot be impeding unless doing so keeps an officer from performing an investigation, and the act is codified into law.
The only way you can get it to work for you is if you add something beyond videotaping.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
for example, he is in a room the police are trying to search and they are search it because he will not step outside the room. Or he has been asked several questions and is having difficulty answering them because he is to busy video taping. There are a thousand different reasons police can come up with to call it impeding and it is what they do at times to get you out of there. So simply said for you "Yes video taping police is legal, but police many legal ways to still remove you.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024 said: "he will not step outside the room. "
Impeding for refusing to step out of the room, not for videotaping.
and "he has been asked several questions and is having difficulty answering them because he is to busy video taping. "
Impeding for not answering questions, which is something officers cannot demand (beyond ID).
There are a thousand different ways you can add something...
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
Wow, I can not believe you are having this much difficulty understanding. As simple as I can say it. (If police claim your are doing something that prevents them from completeing their duty in a timely manner they can arrest you) (They can claim that by you video tapeing on the scene that your preventing them from doing their job) (So they remove you from the scene and when they are done you are free to come back). Sorry man, I can't explain it any simpler.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: I understand it well. I'm watching you skate around, tossing out everything instead of admitting that you were mistaken when you said: "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping"
Now I'm watching you try to turn an opinion on a website into an arrestable statute instead of admitting you are wrong... and waiting to see what you come up with next.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
Is it legal to videotape or photograph police?
Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don’t interfere their ability to do their job.
From one of the sites I have already provided you.
h ttp://flexyourrights.co m/faq (Under Videotape)
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: Thanks for showing me someone elses opinion. I don't know, maybe it's your ego that keeps you from admitting that you were wrong...
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
I can't tell if its your ego or your just a moron. I've provided proof via a supreme court decision, a quote from a set of lawyers, and tried to explain to you in simple terms a law that is pretty much common knowledge to anyone over the age of 5.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024 said: "I can't tell if its your ego or your just a moron."
Please do not try to insult me personally. There's no reason to project onto me your inability to cite a law that doesn't exist.
And you said: "I've provided proof via a supreme court decision, a quote from a set of lawyers, "
Please quote where either of these so-called proofs you provided says a person can be arrested for impeding just because they were vidertaping.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
@Pafoofnik1: A correction. I meant to say "a person can be _convicted_ for impeding just because they were videotaping."
I don't want to have you retorting about iIlegal arrests for doing something legal.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
The lawer quote clearly says it, and the other one states that their are limits to videotaping. I mean what other meaning do you get out of the quote:
"but that there needs to be a healthy balance between police officers being videotaped while acting irresponsibly and the harassment of officers with recording devices while they're conducting their duties responsibly."
Kartkid024 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And : Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don’t interfere their ability to do their job.Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don’t interfere their ability to do their job.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: Your quote doesn't back your claim that "It is however illegal if you are impeding police by video taping".
It doesn't say a thing about impeding or arrest at all.
Still unable to get your ego in control and admit you were wrong. Maybe you can try insulting me some more. I'm mature enough to not let it bother me any.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pafoofnik1
"Videotaping or photographing police in public places is usually legal, so long as you don’t interfere their ability to do their job" Doesn't get much clearer than this. Its legal as long as you don't interfere, if you interfere then it is no longer legal. I don't understand you much more I can spell it out to you.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024 if your standing a reasonable distance away and unobtrusive.. recording police behavior should not affect a officer doing his job... they may not like it... but the reason people have started recording is due to the behavior of some officers...
Plsd2beme 2 months ago 5
@Plsd2beme
It just sucks that a reasonable distance is such a vague statement. In this case we don't know why he was recording, it could have been to show the behavior, or maybe the officer were in the clear, just too many unanswered questions. All we see is the video come on, and the guy get arrested. Maybe the officers did have a warrent and he wanted to frame them, maybe they did truly have good cause. Who knows. The video wouldn't be enough to convict though.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
I can say I made a mistake, But here is my points trying to be made, 1-you can videotape police, but their are limits. 2- People can not prevent police purposly in anyway to prevent them from doing their job (ex-me and my 5 friends blocking an officer during a traffic stop). 3-Number 2 is a limit on number 1. So if your disagreeing with those points then the only thing you have left is to prove those facts.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
@Kartkid024: What makes you think I have to prove a thing here? I'm not the one who made the mistake of spouting out a law... without seeing if such a law actually existed in the first place.
Pafoofnik1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pafoofnik1
Your a fucking moron. No person can be this stupid. You can't seriously believe that a person can just prevent a police officer from doing his job as long as he doesn't touch him. That if I wanted I could form a chain of people around a crime scene so police can't get in and there is nothing police can do to get past me.
Kartkid024 2 months ago
that is pure bullshit , no they can not enter a premisses without concent or a warrent second it is not illegal to video tape any employee or the city and tht includes police , i hope this guy sued and used his to win big .
hexstall2006 3 months ago
Video taping Law Enforcement is protected by Freedom of Press, you don't have to part of the media system to video tape Law enforcement. There are 2 Civil Rights Violations here.
ATSF1927 3 months ago
@ATSF1927,
See
The Photographer's Right by Krages
O'grady vs Superior Court of Santa Clara County
Glik v Cunniffe 2011
borderraven 2 months ago
Oops I meant. What did you do to have them show up to your door and go into your house?
tyco1381 3 months ago
So what did you do the actually do to get them there in the first place?
tyco1381 3 months ago
We the people put up with this shyt all the time,when do say enough is enough..It will probably come down to some revolution before there is any change.. live free or die...!!!!
Ridgid 3 months ago
This is why I'm becoming a police officer....too many cops not doing shit when it matters, and too many cops doing stupid shit like this and abusing their powers on people who most likely don't deserve it
MysticDMBherb 3 months ago 9
@MysticDMBherb its a full time job just combating crooked cops, so why not just dedicate your time to busting cops. i think cops cause more harm then anythings else anyways.
yourallbrainwashed 2 months ago
@MysticDMBherb
Take it from someone with 28 years in LE. You won't change a thing. The system that allows the abuses must be forced to change. It will only get worse. Ask yourself how much freedom have you lost since 9-11?
cbarsonfire 2 months ago 8
@cbarsonfire "Ask yourself how much freedom have you lost since 9-11?" Um....none.
KamekoBruns 4 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns
Sorry but after the so called Patriot Act you lost a bunch of freedom. In the video it shows two goons entering a house and not producting a valid warant. It would appear that the 4 th amemdment is being violated. Many cops have forgotten who they serve and get on a huge power trip.
cbarsonfire 4 weeks ago
@cbarsonfire "Sorry but after the so called Patriot Act you lost a bunch of freedom." Again, not true. As for your attempt to connect this inappropriate police activity with the Patriot act that is tenuous at best. What this is are two cops who are ignorant of the law. That's it. Also, we have no idea of the nature as to how they entered. If they asked and the owner said ok then he lost all rights. I know the video notes make a certain claim but the guy could be lying.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns
Sorry it is so true. Go ahead and keep your head in the sand. Better yet, go downtown and stand in front of a federal building and just stare at the building. See how quickly you are questioned by the federal goons while standing on public property. See how quick they demand your ID.
You have no freaking clue about the subject under discussion. When you become a cop or an attorney stop back by and comment. Until then shut the fuck up douchebag.
cbarsonfire 3 weeks ago
@cbarsonfire Are you a cop or an attorney? If not then shut the fuck up douchebag.
List a single right we have lost from the Patriot Act. Please. I'll wait here for you to list all the rights we no longer have under the Patriot Act.
As for demanding to show ID, please cite the legislation which even requires an American citizen to carry ID.
Lastly, please show how a LEO asking you to identify yourself is cause by the Patriot Act.
Until you can do all these, fuck off.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns: Agreed. I've never seen a federal statute that allows federal agents to stop and ID to begin with.
I seriously doubt such a federal law exists.
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
@Pafoofnik1 There is no federal law which requires citizens to carry any form of ID. If there was then there would be a national ID card. Which there isn't. The same can be said on the state level. As far as I'm aware there is no state which requires a form of ID. The only ID that can be checked is the drivers license and that can only be demanded when you are driving. You ARE required to identify yourself however which merely means giving them your name. I'm almost positive on that.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns: Yep. for example, in my state, I am free to refuse to ID myself if I am just stopped and questioned.
Some states require a person to give his name and maybe address etc but it's state dependent.
The Supreme Court, in "Hiibel", recognized that no state can require ID on demand. Officers must first have the suspicion required of a Terry stop before they can require ID.
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
@Pafoofnik1 So if the supreme court ruled against it, then how can any state require you to ID yourself on demand?
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten Once you are detained by the officer, meaning no longer allowed to leave, then you have to identify yourself which means giving your name. You cannot be arrested for not giving your name. There has to be some other applicable cause for suspicion. Google "do I have to identify myself to an officer" and look for the "Just Cause Law Collective" explaining how Hiibel affects you and how your rights typically work. It's a very well written and informative article.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns There are instances where you can be detained without being accused of a crime, so no I do not think detainment by default equals ID. The reason I asked is because you said "some states require you to ID" - it is my understanding that ALL states require you to ID yourself once arrested - and if you don't, then that is an additional charge.
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten Once you are arrested then yes, you have to ID yourself. Unless the officer has clear reason to suspect you have committed an act, are in the act of or will soon commit a criminal act the police are not allowed to detain you and demand you identify yourself. I'm not sure where you saw me state that some state require you to ID. Either you mistook a comment I made or you are reading someone else's post. Unless you are arrested there is no law forcing you to id yourself.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
@Pafoofnik1 The code you just referenced states "(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information." So it is an offense if you don't ID yourself once arrested. I'm almost positive that all States are this way.
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten: You are correct and I have removed my comment.
Texas doesn't not require me to ID myself on demand, but it does require me to ID myself if I am under arrest.
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't think it sounded right.
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
@Pafoofnik1 Yeah, I don't think any State can require you to do so. Although we all know that officers will threaten you with arrest if you don't do so. They will just make up something else, so you will be forced to provide them ID.
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten: Let them threaten away.
It's already happened. I was stopped and threatened with having the sheriff come down and arrest me. (They were federal agents so couldn't arrest me directly.) 7 minutes later I was driving away. Never showed my ID or stated my name once.
Amazing what knowing the law can do... And recording the stop...
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
@1775novten but the fucked up thing is "lawfully arrested" isn't determined until after the arrest
jcap623 2 weeks ago
@jcap623 all arrests are defaulted as lawful and no department would ever initiate the position that their arrest was unlawful. That claim would have to be initiated by the citizen and you would have to have video evidence and a shit ton of money to ever get accountability. For example the Glik v. Cunniffe case - he would never have been able to get accountability without the money and legal assistance from the ACLU.
1775novten 2 weeks ago
@1775novten yeah what happened to the idea of "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
jcap623 2 weeks ago
@jcap623 I think that idea is still held by truly constitutional Americans, but I don't think the thugs in blue have ever held to that idea. They'd rather the streets be clear, with no regard whether they are putting away law abiding citizens or not. They are a lawless gang with the backing of the government who live by the motto of "do as I say, not as I do".
1775novten 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1775novten said: "So if the supreme court ruled against it, then how can any state require you to ID yourself on demand?:
They can't.
Proof can be easily obtained by trying to find any statute that requires a me to identify myself on demand. I imagine you won't be able to.
If you do decide to leook. Remember exactly what I said.
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pafoofnik1 I asked the question because you said "Some states require a person to give his name and maybe address etc but it's state dependent." However, doesn't Arizona require residents to carry and show their "papers" even if they aren't suspected of committing a crime?
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns You haven't been to Arizona lately then have you? Not saying it's ok. As far as I know that is the only State that requires you to have your "papers" on you.
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns The right we have lost is seizures without a warrant. Remember the big scandal with them tapping people's phones without warrants? Another example is indefinite detention without due process. That is another violation of the Constitution.
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten The legal precedent for valid searches and seizures without warrants has been in place single long before the Patriot Act ever came about. The wiretapping "scandal" was a lot of bullshit. The NSA was authorized to wiretap foreign nationals operating outside of the US. The fact that they called US residents who were helping them is incidental. If the FBI has a wiretap warrant against me and you call me and the FBI records your call to me is that an illegal search on you?
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns You just said "if the FBI has a wiretap warrant against me" - that's just it, they didn't have warrants and forced the phone companies to give them access to the lines without warrants. Also they started arresting people for taking pictures of Federal buildings. What say you about the indefinite detention?
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten 1st off, it is the NSA conducting the wiretaps, not the FBI. The FBI was merely used in my example but you miss the point. The Constitution pertains to how the US govt operates in regard to it's own citizens. As such there is no legal requirement that the NSA obtain a warrant to wiretap foreign originating phone calls. This has long been upheld in court. As for the photographing, not one arrest resulted in a conviction. I believe there are certain buildings you 1/2
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@1775novten 2/2 absolutely cannot photograph such as Ft Knox and Area 51 but I may be mistaken. I do believe that certain areas should not be allowed to photographed such as military bases and key facilities but it's a slippery slope so it's best to err on the side of caution and keep it all fair game. Bear in mind that there is a vast difference between uneducated enforcement personnel and actual legislation.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns Also why would they need an Act to wiretap non-Americans outside of the US? They will do whatever they want to non-Americans, whenever they want. The Act is to undermine the Constitution, so they can do whatever they want, to whomever they want within the U.S. There is no need for it.
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten I misspoke earlier. There is a requirement for the obtaining of a warrant against foreign targets of interest. It is know as The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The wiretapping you are speaking of was not a result of the Patriot Act but from an executive order issues by Bush authorizing the NSA "to conduct surveillance of certain telephone calls without obtaining a warrant from the FISC as stipulated by FISA". 1/2
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns 2/2 FISA permits the President to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". 50 U.S.C. §1802(a)(1)"
And this is where the issue comes from in that information was collected on US citizens.
Regardless, this is not due to the Patriot Act but a law passed in 1978.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@1775novten So in closing, we really have no lost any rights from the Patriot Act. The NSA wiretapping was authorized by a law passed in 1978. The state has had the ability to conduct legal and valid searches and seizures without a warrant for almost 200 years. The current issue of indefinite detention stems from the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and not the Patriot Act so I ask yet again, what rights have we lost from the Patriot Act?
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns The Patriot Act allowed the gov to classify US citizens as "domestic terrorist" and throw them into the bucket with the rest. It allows them to assassinate US citizens who are suspected of being "terrorists" without trial or due process. The NDAA just gives them even more wiggle room to deem us as domestic terrorists if we speak out against our government.
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten I hate to burst your bubble but the US was identifying US citizens as "domestic terrorists" long before the Patriot Act. The FBI has produced memos defining what a domestic terrorist was that date back to the 80's. As for you other two claims you are completely wrong and now it's just starting to sound like bullshit propaganda. The govt cannot simply kill someone because of suspicion or speaking out. If you want to continue having this discussion please remain in reality.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns: I would like to say that you are one of the most knowledgeable commenters I have seen here in quite some time.
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
@Pafoofnik1 Why thank you. But don't let that 123 clown find out. He think you and I are the same.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns: Let her think what she will. I doubt that anyone will see the words... being buried in all her profanity ad capital letter and all.
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
@1775novten Lastly, as for indefinite detention without due process, that only just recently became an issue and has yet to be challenged in court. Ostensibly, there is a promise that it will not be used against US citizens and if challenged in court there is great probability that it will be struck as unConstitutional.
Beyond that, indefinite detention without due process has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns But is our government doing this? Why does it take a lawsuit to deem it unconstitutional. We KNOW it's unconstitutional, so why even create a bill like this? Why is a bill like this even needed or even conceived? What are the benefits of the Patriot Act and others?
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns meant to say "But why is our government doing this?"
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten You don't KNOW it is unconstitutional. You just believe that it is. The legislative and the executive passes legislation or executive orders which it feels are necessary in order to obtain it's goals. It the falls to the judiciary and their power of judicial review to make sure their endeavors pass the Constitutional sniff test. This is how it has been for the past 200 years and it's worked this far. 1/2
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@1775novten 2/2 The primary and most immediate benefit of the Patriot Act was to once again allow all of our law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies to once again freely communicate amongst themselves. Under Bill Clinton massive roadblocks were put into place that prevented, for example, a local law enforcement agency to share information with the FBI and other agencies. This literally led to the 9/11 attacks as key information was not shared.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@KamekoBruns What kind of "roadblocks"? If there was laws or other legislation put into place which prevented agencies from talking, then you repeal those. You don't create a new one to overwrite the old. Here's my concern - I don't see why they need to create Acts to convince us what the gov is allowed to do. They should just do it, until told otherwise by the Judicial system. It doesn't make sense. You create laws to tell want you can't do, not what you can do.
1775novten 3 weeks ago
@1775novten Where do you come up with this shit? Of course you write new laws to replace the new ones. Look at the 18th Amendment. Was it repealed or was it negated by the 21st? Laws are created to tell the govt what it can do.
KamekoBruns 3 weeks ago
@MysticDMBherb I hear ya bro! But on a realistic note. These dudes take orders from the sheriff and under sheriff's office. You don't have a chance these days talking with police. I've met one or two really understanding and compassionate cops, the higher ups gave them shit and scrutinized every call they made(Dare Officers, traffic duty, under internal investigations all the time, etc). Be Sheriff, anticipate corruption and social coercion inside the force.
TheNaramatu 2 months ago
Where do you draw the line if the shoe was on the other foot how would the police officers like the same treatment of there family ?
thephonexmatrix309 3 months ago
Its pretty sorry they done that in front of that little child it doesn't set a good image for our children to look up to !!!
thephonexmatrix309 3 months ago
Tell you what I'm over 6 foot tall & over 300 pounds solid & I would love to invite Mr Big man cop to take his badge off & get in the ring with me & see how Big he really is LOL!!!!!
thephonexmatrix309 3 months ago
Sorry Ass Notzy stormtroopers!!!
thephonexmatrix309 3 months ago
This country's going to hell in a hand basket when the laws of the land don't even fallow the laws without laws where no better then Communist country's !!!!!
thephonexmatrix309 3 months ago
wtf, you were filming in your own house,
you have the right to film if you think something funny is going on :/
blevripidou100 3 months ago
sounds like a civil rights lawsuit. I'd sue!
Ryan2727rr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
that's why we call them PIGS
stockmarketimplode 3 months ago
Next time get a gun no the camara
sanjoseserrato1318 3 months ago
Tweeker
lawnsausages 3 months ago
you have to remember cops deal with criminal also. they have to be ready for anything. many put their life on the line when they make arrests, and many are paranoid that at any second their life can be endangered
abattoir101 3 months ago
Corrupt peace officers and YouTube protects them.
lamourlupus 4 months ago
Corrupt bullies.
lamourlupus 4 months ago
What in the hell is wrong with this cop? Who peed in his cheerios? Why is he taking it out on an innocent man? And why is he making up bogus charges?
ElGatoLoco698 4 months ago
Major lawsuit I hope they get $20,000,000 for this injustice then sue the cops and take every cent and piece of property they own. Fuck the cops 187 all cops.
wiccanmoonman 4 months ago
Cops are getting way too much power.Just like the worthless corrupt government. Maybe its time to meet force with force.
Btz1911 4 months ago
@Btz1911 Sad but unfortunently, it seems they will not adhere peacefully, protect your own family, man. for me we have entered a wild west senario, I beleive its time for ALL Americans to arm themselves once again, for the cops have become a gang of thugs, were its just as scary to call them as it is to call bloods and crips. good luck America, I sure hope we make it through this.
geovs20 4 months ago
Resisting arrest my fucking ass, he didn't do shit. I fucking hate these donut eaters
Panek911 4 months ago
The Full story behind this will never be told to us. It is obvious that this man is well known by the police. The facts will be altered by this person. Damn this person sounds like he is stoned out of his mind too.
Tallman67122 4 months ago
@Tallman67122 wow you must be right best freinds with the cops and gov. sad to see how someone is so willing to give up their rights, and because hes stoned well thats a real great reason, unfortunently the only real drugs that pose a serious problem are pain pills, handed out by the doctors and mediated between judges and police, cocaine herion, meth, all also controlled by the lawmakers, your brainwashed, you need to really look into what is happening in this world, WAKE UP!!
geovs20 4 months ago
A storms a brewin...and i wont want to be around when hot and cold mix.
Freakawn 4 months ago
Needed: a camera that shoots bullets at those who enter your house w/o an invitation or a warrant.. some may say "scare my kids like that and ya better sleep in shifts with your wife, officer.."
Dewdaahman 4 months ago
HOW MUCH MONEY IS BEING WASTED HERE? OUTRAGED TO SEE MEN OF HONOR, WIPING THEIR ASS WITH THE CONSTITUTION, THIS IS BORDERLINE REVOLUTIONARY MANDATE! WE THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION, IM TIRED OF THIS BULLSHIT!
geovs20 4 months ago
@geovs20 I'm right with you...
savagenomore 4 months ago
Cops make very good targets!!!!! Shoot 'em rite in the head!!!!!!!!
oneniceguy000 4 months ago
@oneniceguy000
Although I may agree with you, and police brutality along with infringement on your constitutional rights infuriates me, you should remove your post. Because, if a pig sees your post, he will get a warrant for your arrest, 'threatening physical harm to a police officer' is one he could go on. When and 'if' I threaten the police, I do it in such a way that they 'can't' clearly say I did, even though it maybe common sense. Just saying, wouldn't want a citizen getting arrested.
fmnma1 4 months ago
@oneniceguy000
Which by the way isn't covered by the first Amendment. Trust me, their day will come, sooner than later.
fmnma1 4 months ago
@oneniceguy000 Some cops are really good hearted Americans, you would be spilling good blood. for no reason, just because his buddys are evil. I know it makes me mad as hell watching this but we must resort to violence as a last ditch effort to save or nation, plus you can get in trouble for posting such a comment, remmember this is NOT America right now, and if you dont follow Nazi protocol, you may be arrested, sucks I know. But thats just the truth anymore.
geovs20 4 months ago
Why let them in? You should block them on the door after you read the whole paper they supposedly had...
The other option is just blow them faces as they cross the door, invasion of property by armed criminals
kawaim0m0 4 months ago
ALWAYS open and exit your home, and close the door behind you! lock it if necessary (even if you can't find the keys in your haste to the door)
bunnsguy 4 months ago
United States Supreme Court says it is NOT illegal to tape police.
First off NEVER let them inside your home without a valid Warrant.
Marblemania 5 months ago 12
@Marblemania It is illegal in three states...dunno if this guy lives in one of the three states though.
bunnsguy 4 months ago
I'm not saying the cops were right because this video doesn't give the entire story but the heading is wrong, they put him under arrest for resisting not recording.
TheEodtch 5 months ago