I can't tell you how often this happens, cops think they can so whatever they want, and the courts backs them ALWAYS. Such bullshit...I'm so discusted with America right now....we have to take this country back.
@woodbr30043: If you research your state's identify laws, you'll certainly find that it does not require that you show a physical form of identification.
In other words:
Here is the complete list of all forms of identification that one is required to carry in the United States:
Wow this guy lost in court,all the way to the supreme court?Make your own justice American People.They can't jail 300 million of us.We've seen the wheels of justice and how shitty they are.They are designed everyone to make money (cough just like our government) except the little guy.I'd have really hurt the judge if that were me.If I'll go to jail,you will have a reason.
It looks more like arrested for not cooperating in an official investigation. The lady in the truck actually identified the man by being right there... So how can that be a violation of the constitution? Anyways, this is not an ID issue, this is interference with an Investigation.
And before Johnny Do -Good opens his yap... Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
i have been questioned by the police dozens of times. Never had the slightest problem, never been arrested, never been beat. Why? because i understand it is my job to co-operate with them. Pretty simple hey
@PInk77W1 That's not why I hire people. The LEO(s) swear to defend the constitution in my behalf. When they fail to do this they should be fired. I co-operate with them when they act within the constitution. I will NOT kiss ass because of a uniform that my tax dollars bought for them to wear. Without justifiable cause I will NOT show ID, or answer any questions. Never had the slightest problem, been arrested or beaten; because I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN and stand proud..... of it and for it!!
@ohannahdad if u dont show id and the cops r looking for a certain person, how do they know if u r them or not? Or do u prefer they take u to jail and figure it out? i am not trying to argue or b a dick, just wondering? thx.
@PInk77W1 I stated I would not show ID without justifiable cause. If they say they are looking for a person(s) they have my complet attention and co-operation. I also am not being a dick about any of this; but I am very defensive of the few rights that we...as Americans...have left. Once it's established that I am NOT the suspect, I don't want to hear "where are you coming from, where are you going, and (other than a quick look in my back seat & trunk) can we search your car?
@ohannahdad cool. i just answer all questions and they have a way of going away. i have been questioned about 40x in my life by LAPD and others. never been arrested or beaten or anything.
@PInk77W1 Having to produce ID, and answer questions about your personal life & business without cause is a violation of the constitution. These are Nazi party tactics. We fought wars and lost too many men & women defending against this type of control being put in place against us. I could "comply" with these illegal demands and it might be easier. The end does not always the means. I value my independence and my privacy too much to roll over just because I was told to do so.
@ohannahdad i have done so all my life, never once did i feel like i was being questioned by a nazi. In fact most cops who questioned me and found i was not a criminal apologize and thank me for my co operation... not all but most.
@PInk77W1 I didn't say that cops have acted like Nazis'. The illegal stop, detain, question, etc is a Nazi TACTIC. The old line "show me your papers," or being searched without probable cause, or "where are you going, or coming from." Give me a reason, and I will prove who I am, and that I have no suspect(s) in my vehicle (as discussed before) Anything beyond what is legal,..I won't comply. If my rights are violated it doesn't matter if the cops are polite about it or not. Legality is the issue
This is a possible domestic violence call and he's acting like an idiot. I don't hear the officer tell him he is under arrest at least not before the tape ends. Looks to me like he was securing him until they could figure out what was going on. And look at her, all out of control. If they had cooperated maybe everything would have been just fine. Most people that have a problem with the police is because they act like fools, break the law, get arrested... but it's the cops fault! HA, HA, HAAAAA!
so why did they beat up the girl..was she suspect of being the victim of man handling? only to be manhandled some more by the responding SERVANT...Served out some brutality in my opinion!
@TheoryIsSpeculation Agree, but the Supreme Court has also ruled that if you are suspected of committing, have committed, or about to commit a crime that the police can detain you and identify you. It is my understanding that the police received a call of a man who assaulted a woman and his vehicle fit the description, so they legally had a right to detain and identify him. Otherwise, you are correct.
@MrBillytree No, that was YOU that said " I bet there are african americans watching this and going now you know how we felt." Funny you, trying to cover your tracks.
@MrBillytree ...and you might just have a point there if you can tell me how ANY of that has ANYTHING to do with THIS VIDEO.
For starters, this vid was filmed in AMERICA, not the UK. So, way to ramble about yet another topic that has nothing to do with this video. Any other displays of idiocy you'd like to present?
@MrBillytree Yeah. White people get asked for ID all the time too. Im sure there are white people, mexicans, latinos, natives, and asians that know what it feels like to be asked for ID. So I ask again - what the hell do black people have to do with this?
Black or white, you're looking to make everything fit your cause. Good luck with that, Lancelot, it just makes you look retarded.
@MrBillytree What the fuck does racism have to do with this? Goddamn, some of you negros will twist ANYTHING to serve your fuckin' supremacist causes!
youtube "yuri bezmenov" and you know what i mean... people will realize the truth when there is a kick in their rare by a military boot at one of the FEMA camps.
@tonyteb I have, and am quite familiar with it, so I need no schooling, thanks. The 4th amendment protects people from UNREASONABLE search/seizure. Is a police officer requesting ID unreasonable? I hardly think so.. Police have the right to know who they're dealing with, you do not have the right to deny a sworn law enforcement officer proper identification. If that were the case, imagine how many more criminals would be running around?
@bullzisnipr3 Just asking for ID without any reason IS unreasonable. If they have no reason to suspect you of anything, then pestering you is harassment. It's covered by the 4th Amendment and recognized that way by the Supreme Court. I wonder what Kangaroo-Court politics caused this arrest to stick... it normally gets thrown out in court.
. First part of video the cop said they were called about a fight (domestic). That plus dudly aggressive attitude. It probable had a charge frailer to cooperate with a police investigation (name). When the female half of the domestic did not have a buses to jail dudly on they use what they had.
@samten10a At 1:24 the cop says, "You're not being charged with anything." An admission that there is no probable cause, and the "suspect" should have been free to go. Continuing to detain him after that point was unlawful.
Any cop can say "we got a complaint" and they usually do to trick you into compliance, but are required to inform you of the reason for their suspicion if you ask. Saying he's not being charged is an admission of no probable cause, thus no legal detainment.
@superjump01 Not without reasonable suspicion that you may have committed a crime. As soon as the cop said he wasn't being charged with anything, he was admitting there was no reasonable suspicion to hold him, because he has no reason to think he's committed a crime. Flexing your rights (i.e. not showing ID or refusing to answer questions) does not constitute reasonable suspicion.
@galathonredd "Flexing your rights (i.e. not showing ID or refusing to answer questions) does not constitute reasonable suspicion"
True refusing to show ID by itself dosent constutie reasonable suspcion.. however recieving a 911 call of an assult with the car matching that descrption dose.
@galathonredd "Flexing your rights (i.e. not showing ID or refusing to answer questions) does not constitute reasonable suspicion."
Also the officers suspicions were confirmed-- the officers said they were reponsing to a report of a fight.. and at 04:54 she said "I told you we got into a fight"
@superjump01 Not without reasonable suspicion that you may have committed a crime. As soon as the cop said he wasn't being charged with anything, he was admitting there was no reasonable suspicion to hold him, because he has no reason to think he's committed a crime. Flexing your rights (i.e. not showing ID or refusing to answer questions) does not constitute reasonable suspicion.
Cops, are not becoming the scared ones, at least not yet. The Constitution maybe the highest law of the land, but it more and more these days, doesn't mean a damn thing. People have the Constitutional right to film police, yet there is a guy facing 5 years for doing just that. That being said, Constitution? Whats that?
I think it's cause they kept saying the word "Garbled" in Klingon that means "Nazi Prick Ass Cop" so watch what you say to the man, I mean "Big Man and Big Men"!!!
Rite investigation, no Id then he has to give name and dob to Id himself, failing to do so is called failing to Id in Texas. You don't have to have Id but when asked for information like that u have to give it state law. Female would have been arrested for interfering and disorderly conduct. If he was drunk but not driving public intoxication. All these state and local laws that are set by state this is how your rights are there but your state has some also that people forget and only learn abo
This vid leaves a lot to be desired. The cop says he heard "they" were fighting. This is grounds for investigation and a request for ID. He didn't have any ID. Was he driving? This man was in a very irritated state,and made no effort to cooperate with the cop about anything. This could be interpreted as disorderly and failure to comply. Then the screaming lady. Was drinking involved? I rarely agree with the law, but for what is here to see on this vid, the cop was right!
@darkhorse2reign what's it for? This guy is obviously arrested for not having his ID. There is absolutely nothing else he has done to justify being arrested, and that in and of itself would make this a false arrest... Perhaps this sort of thing flies in a state court, but the precedent has already been set by the feds...
@gobbly1337 ... The 4th Amendment protects citizens like this gentleman from "unreasonable search and seizure". The problem for this gent is that the police have a right to investigate when they have probable cause. And part of the investigation is to identify folks. The officer told the gent in the beginning of the vid the nature of the investigation. If the facts support the citizen - SUPPORT him/her. If the facts seem to support LE I say SUPPORT LE! In this case it looks like support LE.
@darkhorse2reign what you say is true, however it still doesn't change the precedent set by the supreme court when they stated that people are not required to possess ID when they are not operating a motor vehicle. In those cases it is perfectly legal to provide your name and other required information. This gentleman states several times that he doesn't have an ID and is arrested for it, there's not as much grey as you imply.
@gobbly1337 Ok now I'm on unknown ground as far as knowing what you stated "folks aren't required to possess ID..." That passes the common sense test so let's assume THAT is true. What doesn't add up (and I'm ignorant here) is that the vid poster says the Supreme Court upheld the arrest right? I'm making all kinds of assumptions here b/c I don't know the facts except as we discuss them. I'm thankful for is a mature civil discussion vs many YT comments. Would you happen to be a fellow gun owner?
@darkhorse2reign hehe, and I certainly am not claiming to be a lawyer, but I have heard several ACLU lawyers speak on this particular issue. As far as the state supreme court, they are only there to uphold the constitution of their state. Though they may make an effort to not decided cases in a way that leads to many federal appeals, they also must uphold the state constitution which might contradict federal constitution. The supreme court wins all battles though if it gets that far :)
@gobbly1337 I mean the federal supreme court wins all battles. It sounds like this guy didn't attempt to appeal past the state level, for whatever reason. I guess my real issue with this arrest is that the guy says several times that he is not carrying ID, and the officer makes no attempt to get any info from him, he keeps badgering him for something the guy repeatedly said he doesn't possess.
@gobbly1337 Glad we're getting down into the core issues. So you're arguing that once he says he has no ID the cop should move on with his investigation. He could simply ask him his name right? THAT right there would further the investigation. He could also run the plates to verify that information since the guy admits that's his truck. Now that he has identified the man he can run a background check while asking questions about the fight. I now see a possible issue with rights but still...
@gobbly1337 ... but still I don't know the facts of the case which brings me to a bigger issue. YT vids are "quick and dirty" public opinion courts. These are excellent for gaining the "appearance" of guilt or innocence and horrible for replacing the cold, detached and sterile environment of a court. Having said all that I think I can agree with you about the appearance of a possible 4th Amendment(?) violation... or would it be due process(?). Either way something seems amiss...
we are anonymous, we are aware of the corruption in the world's governments and their apathy for the human lives because of money.
we are aware of the governments' attempt to cover on the news of the rebellions to keep us as slaves for the current system.
we are anonymous, we declare war on the corrupted system, join the plan to get your freedom and rights back. you are a human being, your life has value. we are anonymous, we are legion, expect us!
@snyder561 you are non anonymous....they dont post on youtube video's like this. they would have a direct message to the individuals doing wrong in this case. Not a generalized statement. You shouldnt pose my friend...anonymous wouldnt like that. you also shouldnt have a named youtube account if you are anonymous...im not claiming to be anonymous, but they do not take kindly to people posing as them, trust me i know.
If the officer received a report of individuals fighting (which the woman admits near the end), then police are required to investigate. During an investigation, if an individual obstructs an officer from performing his duty...that individual is breaking the law. If the female was told to remain in the vehicle during the investigation, she was guilty once she exited.
The Supreme Court got that one right!
BTW: the man acted drunk, which was "OK" only because he wasn't driving when approached.
@MackTruck40 well this case IS slightly different than people think. he does not have to produce ID but he does have to ID HIMSELF. simply saying I am SO AND SO would have satisfied his legal requirements.
@mrmike677 If he was Black or Muslim he would have been beaten. Face it, you're a white male with all the protections and privileges afforded in the greatest country on earth and you're still trailer park trash; you have nobody to blame for your shortcomings but yourself.
It was my assumption that a cop may hold you until they can verify your identification. They can't arrest you or charge you for anything, but you aren't free to just walk away until your identity is confirmed.
@JJMillertime I didn't know he was born in Hawaii. Was he? Oh yeah, that whole birth certificate deal. That one that shows he was born in Hawaii which was found to be made up of several layers of fake writing. Oh yeah, that whole birth certificate deal that has yet to be produced. The last thing he presented was another COLB. Yet again. Look at the top of it. Oh yeah, and just to be clear. It doesn't matter to me either way. He's CEO of a corporation and doesn't need a BC for that.
@mrmike677 What are you talking about? What does being a muslim have to do with this video, and what evidence do you offer that muslims don't have rights in America? Or, perhaps the better question is, what rights do you think you don't have in America that you have in, oh, say any country where the islam cult is predominately practiced? I guarantee you it is far easier to be a Muslim in America than it is to be a Christian and stay alive in any Muslim country.
@mrmike677 ,<<<<< FACELESS COWARDLY TROLL fuck you childmolesting cocksucker fucking goof,where is your pic chiuldmoelster? oh ya on the sex offenders regerstry list
well the officer asked him "you're not going to cooperate at all?" and the dumbass hilly billy lost his case by saying no. that was enough justification for the officer to arrest him which was why he worded his question that way in the first place. He's a smart cop facing the dumb reality
@mrmike677 , whats that FACELESS COWARDLY TROLL ? YOU MOLESTED YUOR COUSIN AGAIN? YOU ARE A INTELLIGENT SAVAGE SPOOK OBAMA LOVING TROLL,SO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS TROLL ,STAY IN SCHOOL A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE....OOPS! TOO LATE, LOL
@mrmike67 <<<< a FACELESS COWARDLY TROLL like this he, she or it doesnt deserve any rights. All theyve proven 2 do is reject education for strip clubs, being drunk a dope fiend and unable 2 tell whether they or male or female in some cases like this thing,probably sleep with animals. This TROLL is profane, vulgar with no social skills unable 2 express its mind so it is good this thing is placed under police custody as it behaves like a SAVAGE & a savage only understands violence,USA born in EVIL
any one that is a cop will argue this, but all most all the cops in the u.s. are curupt. all the comments about germany and stuff like that is actualy very true. one of my friends his uncle was publicly growing pot and selling it, the reason nothing ever happend to him wait for it, yes thats right he was a cop. finaly the news got ahold of some videos of it and then crap happened, but every one acted like they didn't know, well i turned in some pics of the c.o.p. smoking with him and it was good
The police said they got called about a fight. The woman admitted on the tape that they were fighting. The cops weren't lying or anything. The person who called was a witness. Obviously they don't want to just leave without making sure everything was okay. They didn't even get a chance to talk to the woman before the man refused to cooperate.
What if the police get called about a shoplifter? They find the suspect and he refuses to give ID or cooperate. Should the police just walk away?
it is illegal to shoplift. therefore you must ID yourself in that case.
contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to fight as long as you are both consenting adults and neither of you wants to press charges. you do not need to provide ID in this case. this man broke NO laws. the cop, however, wrongfully arrested this man and will more than likely be punished with a paid vacation(administrative leave). that should teach him.
@badpanda84 That if the cop has something to arrest him for , then to get it over with, if not, the man didn't want to talk with him or show him identification, so leave him the fuck alone.
i like how you skipped over the first part of HiLlSpEaKeR's comment
let me explain: a cop has something to arrest a criminal for so he wouldn't have to leave them alone.
this man did not break the law so the cop should have asked both parties if they needed him, if they replied "no" then he should have left and made a report stating that both adults were fine with working out their own problem and did not need a mediator.
I am curious if any charges were layed in this incident; ie dui?? this guy sure seemed to me to exhibit signs of being impaired. If he wasnt impaired, and really was merely standing up for his rights, he could have done so in a less confrontational manner, thereby not causing the officer to react as he did. The guy looked loaded to me, and i would have probably reacted the same as that officer did.
I think every state has their own laws regarding wether or not you are required to present ID. The officer did say that there was a report of a fight. Now I'm definetly not defending how the officer handled the sitiation however since there was a report made that is "reasonable cause" which gives the officer the right to ask for ID. The guy arrested acted like a idiot. Being a smart ass with the cop only made things worse for him. What the hell was with the tussle with the woman?
This is nothing but crap! If there is a State Supreme Court anywhere that would back the actions of the officers in this situation, they should be censured. They are legislating from the bench to subvert the protective rights of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. No one should have to prove their identify unless they are suspected of an unlawful act beyond an inarticulate hunch. Evidence of wrong doing must present to go beyond the 4th Admend. protection. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
i am amaized lots of peeps are uneducaited. lets start by educaiting yourself.
as accordingly mention
You are not required to identify yourself to police without cause under the 4th freakin amendment. "your ignorance amazes me" also for the simple fact that you are not by law required to carry identification on you at all.
@jewelsrforfools He wasn't operating it. He was seen standing next to a truck. I think most people would say he wasn't operating any motor vehicle. So your ridiculous comment doesn't make much sense.
@Owenj33 I think most people would say he wasn't operating any motor vehicle"
Yes while the camera was filming -- we don't know what happened prior to the camera filming.. Also it's not like he was stopped at a shop .. he was on the side of the road.
Please review any type of case law, or ANY law at all for that matter before making ignorant comments. And by ignorant, I mean the definition of ignorant, NOT KNOWING.
The officer responded to a call about a possible domestic disturbance between the man and woman, therefore he is conducting an ACTIVE INVESTIGATION into whether a crime has been committed. In this situation, during an ACTIVE INVESTIGATION, you are required to ID yourself if a policeman asks you to.
Even if a cop has probable cause to believe you may be involved in a crime, you are only required to *verbally* state your name and address. You are not under any obligation to produce any paperwork unless you were seen operating a motor vehicle.
He actually did break the law by not showing his identification. He was in control of a vehicle which means if a law enforcement officer ask you for your drivers license, you HAVE to provide it. That has always been the law. The cop doesn't have to have reasonable cause or suspicion if you are in control of a vehicle. He may not have been driving it, but the vehicle had to been driven to get to that point and the man admitted he parked the vehicle and was standing next to it when questioned
one thing to note: at one point the officer said, so your not going to cooperate with me? the man said , "no" and something else. the correct answer is, "yes, I'd love to cooperate with you, but the law does not require me to provide identification unless if I am detained." and that should be the end of that part of the conversation. at the same time, the officer has no reason to ask for identification for a call about a fight. he should be talking to the two individuals. id is not necessary
@iThiZz925 , the officer has no reason to ask for identification for a call about a fight. he should be talking to the two individuals. id is not necessary"
WTF that is very good reason to ask for ID.. and of course its necessary -- what are they going to put in the report -- spoke to some unknown guy about another unknown guy about a fight..
dudley SHOULD have lost. the officer was investigating a possible crime in progress. would you want him to smile and say ok and leave when the guy refused to ID if the man had you beaten up and tied up hidden in his car? he had every right to check the man when he was responding to a call at the location. idiots.
Police State, No Probable Cause what so ever, they can not do that, those Idiot's should be beaten from there Jobs, then lose them, Unreal, How can Cops get away with this? Wake up People.
@69coquito we been saying WAKE UP PEOPLE for a long time and know one is paying attention how the police are eating away at our rights,,a cop in tn said the only rights you have are the ones i say you got and that's the way all tn cops look at it.most cops if they had there way [and there getting there ] would arrest anyone they wanted to throw you in jail for as long as they wanted to keep you there.right now there are over 15 men in jail in tn been there for over 2 years with no charges
I will bet the cop had description of the truck and kind of description of person and a name involve in the fight. So asking the person for positive id is not out of line. If the person fails to positively id him self then jail him. That un-id person stays in jail. Until some who knows him and will swear to the person name. that person will have half to positively id him self so the cop can come after him for lying to the cops if.
This is a very clear case of intrusion.. No crime has been committed. No probably cause to believe a crime has been committed.. This is a bullshit stop..
@TACMAN518 Most of those that are responding to this and claim that there was no violation here, have not read the case nor understand the 4th Amendment. He was not required to produce ID, however he is required to identify himself. Had he simply said, "my name is Joe Dudley and my date of birth is 12/12/1912" he'd have been fine. The ONLY time you are required to produce ID is when you are producing a license for something the state issues for a privilege you've obtained. (i.e. drivers license)
what a bunch a fucking swine!! this is why my generation hates cops!! here piggy piggy i got donut for your fat ass.......no wonder more cops have been killed this year than any year ever!! lol!!! force goes both ways.....what happened to being officers of peace
you are required to give information to an officer who is conducting some kind of investigation, including a routine stop. however, you are only required to give ID after you have been informed that you are in some way part of an investigation (lights and sirens are an easy way to tell if youre being investigated.)
The officer was answering a call of a possible fight occuring. That's the suspicion, that's the probably cause. He had reason to believe a crime had been committed or was being committed. Sorry but you gotta show your id. It would be stupid if people who were reportedly involved in criminal activity were allowed to just ignore the police and walk away. lol
If anybody would like a link to the FLETC handbook I can PM it. I believe they actually talk about this case. Or you could just google "FLETC Handbook" and look up 4th Amendment.
Your a moron.....the cop was INVESTIGATING claims of a fight....key word INVESTIGATING...so ya there was no reason to take him to jail...but he ruined that....
Of course the Courts didn't over turn this....The officer is there conducting an investigation on a report that 2 people were fighting....He didn't just pull up out of the blue and start investigation nothing...If you have nothing to hide and your a regular law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about...and yes you can be arrested if you do not show your ID when asked by a police officer....
The idiot in the cowboy got what he wanted and he didn't get anywhere with it.
runningwolfkenpo 23 hours ago
with the passage of bill 1867 america is gone.the constitution is dead
stealthgerm 3 days ago
America is gone people........It's to late they got this shit Raped up......
ThreeFingerlynch 2 weeks ago 2
I can't tell you how often this happens, cops think they can so whatever they want, and the courts backs them ALWAYS. Such bullshit...I'm so discusted with America right now....we have to take this country back.
Homegrownhealer 3 weeks ago 2
@Homegrownhealer truer words have never been spoken.
ThunderRyke 1 week ago
Pigs
todddguillory 3 weeks ago
What if you don't have an ID card? Can they still arrest you then?
woodbr30043 3 weeks ago
@woodbr30043: If you research your state's identify laws, you'll certainly find that it does not require that you show a physical form of identification.
In other words:
Here is the complete list of all forms of identification that one is required to carry in the United States:
1) None
Any questions?
Pafoofnik1 3 weeks ago
Wow this guy lost in court,all the way to the supreme court?Make your own justice American People.They can't jail 300 million of us.We've seen the wheels of justice and how shitty they are.They are designed everyone to make money (cough just like our government) except the little guy.I'd have really hurt the judge if that were me.If I'll go to jail,you will have a reason.
MrMellowMuse 3 weeks ago 2
It looks more like arrested for not cooperating in an official investigation. The lady in the truck actually identified the man by being right there... So how can that be a violation of the constitution? Anyways, this is not an ID issue, this is interference with an Investigation.
MendotaTech 3 weeks ago
these cops are nazis who deserve the nazi death. A hot 45 round to the dome...
blueshiftchess 4 weeks ago
so they can make up a flase complaint call and that gives them the right
TheDman216 1 month ago
Citizens are going to adopt a shoot first attitude with this kind of bullshit happening.
stinkystu1 1 month ago
Welcome to the Jewnited corporate states of Naziraelerica!
mrtundra45 1 month ago
Pls don't compare these pigs with Nazis! Nazis were followed the law, pigs don't!
user7897 1 month ago 6
This is a How To Violate the 4th amendment, clip!
And before Johnny Do -Good opens his yap... Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
wjanisheck 2 months ago
i have been questioned by the police dozens of times. Never had the slightest problem, never been arrested, never been beat. Why? because i understand it is my job to co-operate with them. Pretty simple hey
PInk77W1 2 months ago
@PInk77W1
No it isn't, you mealy mouth pussy. They work for us; not the other way around.
goandfuckoff 2 months ago
@goandfuckoff yes they work for us... that is exactly y we MUST co-operate..... stupid
PInk77W1 2 months ago
@PInk77W1
Not what the law says, pussy.
goandfuckoff 2 months ago
@PInk77W1 That's not why I hire people. The LEO(s) swear to defend the constitution in my behalf. When they fail to do this they should be fired. I co-operate with them when they act within the constitution. I will NOT kiss ass because of a uniform that my tax dollars bought for them to wear. Without justifiable cause I will NOT show ID, or answer any questions. Never had the slightest problem, been arrested or beaten; because I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN and stand proud..... of it and for it!!
ohannahdad 2 months ago
@ohannahdad if u dont show id and the cops r looking for a certain person, how do they know if u r them or not? Or do u prefer they take u to jail and figure it out? i am not trying to argue or b a dick, just wondering? thx.
PInk77W1 2 months ago
@PInk77W1 I stated I would not show ID without justifiable cause. If they say they are looking for a person(s) they have my complet attention and co-operation. I also am not being a dick about any of this; but I am very defensive of the few rights that we...as Americans...have left. Once it's established that I am NOT the suspect, I don't want to hear "where are you coming from, where are you going, and (other than a quick look in my back seat & trunk) can we search your car?
ohannahdad 2 months ago
@ohannahdad cool. i just answer all questions and they have a way of going away. i have been questioned about 40x in my life by LAPD and others. never been arrested or beaten or anything.
PInk77W1 2 months ago
@PInk77W1 Having to produce ID, and answer questions about your personal life & business without cause is a violation of the constitution. These are Nazi party tactics. We fought wars and lost too many men & women defending against this type of control being put in place against us. I could "comply" with these illegal demands and it might be easier. The end does not always the means. I value my independence and my privacy too much to roll over just because I was told to do so.
ohannahdad 2 months ago
@ohannahdad i have done so all my life, never once did i feel like i was being questioned by a nazi. In fact most cops who questioned me and found i was not a criminal apologize and thank me for my co operation... not all but most.
PInk77W1 2 months ago 3
@PInk77W1 I didn't say that cops have acted like Nazis'. The illegal stop, detain, question, etc is a Nazi TACTIC. The old line "show me your papers," or being searched without probable cause, or "where are you going, or coming from." Give me a reason, and I will prove who I am, and that I have no suspect(s) in my vehicle (as discussed before) Anything beyond what is legal,..I won't comply. If my rights are violated it doesn't matter if the cops are polite about it or not. Legality is the issue
ohannahdad 2 months ago
More Tax Money wasted on stupid Cops harassing Americans, Pathetic!
toxsickdog 2 months ago
tinyurl . com / 44m5y3o
JesusDillinger 2 months ago
lorenavelvet you need to read your 4 amendment and what cops can and can not do to you as a citizen of america u should know at least i hope.
NavyxSEALxGuy 3 months ago
This is a possible domestic violence call and he's acting like an idiot. I don't hear the officer tell him he is under arrest at least not before the tape ends. Looks to me like he was securing him until they could figure out what was going on. And look at her, all out of control. If they had cooperated maybe everything would have been just fine. Most people that have a problem with the police is because they act like fools, break the law, get arrested... but it's the cops fault! HA, HA, HAAAAA!
lorenavelvet 3 months ago
BIG MEN!!
doacarnage 3 months ago
"has no charges to bring upon this man, except maybe that of suspicion. The case went to the supreme court and Dudley lost"
To ask for ID all they need is probably cause ( or suspicion)...
Not only that but the other guy literially consented to being arrested
badpanda84 3 months ago
so why did they beat up the girl..was she suspect of being the victim of man handling? only to be manhandled some more by the responding SERVANT...Served out some brutality in my opinion!
TERRY72763 3 months ago
@TheoryIsSpeculation Agree, but the Supreme Court has also ruled that if you are suspected of committing, have committed, or about to commit a crime that the police can detain you and identify you. It is my understanding that the police received a call of a man who assaulted a woman and his vehicle fit the description, so they legally had a right to detain and identify him. Otherwise, you are correct.
1775novten 4 months ago
BUY GUNS. LEARN TO LIVE OFF THE LAND. i'm dead ass serious.
MrFr0zak 4 months ago
@Genka420 The good ones find that they can't do shit to change the corruption .
1dosucol1 4 months ago
it was best to say i have no id,then do what cops love to say shut your mouth.
stealthgerm 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrBillytree No, that was YOU that said " I bet there are african americans watching this and going now you know how we felt." Funny you, trying to cover your tracks.
galathonredd 4 months ago
@MrBillytree ...and you might just have a point there if you can tell me how ANY of that has ANYTHING to do with THIS VIDEO.
For starters, this vid was filmed in AMERICA, not the UK. So, way to ramble about yet another topic that has nothing to do with this video. Any other displays of idiocy you'd like to present?
galathonredd 4 months ago
I hope all these cops that do not want to honor peoples right to freely travel get shot in their damn face!
laidbackguy1972 4 months ago
@MrBillytree My "cause" is that I'm sick of everyone seeing colors. Slavery was 200 years ago, and segregation 50. Move the fuck on.
galathonredd 4 months ago
@MrBillytree Yeah. White people get asked for ID all the time too. Im sure there are white people, mexicans, latinos, natives, and asians that know what it feels like to be asked for ID. So I ask again - what the hell do black people have to do with this?
Black or white, you're looking to make everything fit your cause. Good luck with that, Lancelot, it just makes you look retarded.
galathonredd 4 months ago
@MrBillytree What the fuck does racism have to do with this? Goddamn, some of you negros will twist ANYTHING to serve your fuckin' supremacist causes!
galathonredd 4 months ago
I'm African American watching this thinking about how I hate police
60TO64 4 months ago
People say - the law requires this, or this state law requires that...
The plain and simple truth is that NO LAW can compel performance without a contract being present.
Compelled performance, no matter how minimal without contract is called slavery.
mindprism 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
youtube "yuri bezmenov" and you know what i mean... people will realize the truth when there is a kick in their rare by a military boot at one of the FEMA camps.
MrSeriouslynot 4 months ago
Like, who's does more physical crimes than COPS?
11mac11s 4 months ago
When the cops are involved, all bets are off. Be careful out there folks.
weatherkop 5 months ago
No, not goodbye America. If people weren't required to give identification, would we catch people on warrants? Probably not.
It's idiotic not to give your ID, if there's no problem then fine, that's that.
bullzisnipr3 5 months ago
@bullzisnipr3 well fuck you ever hear of the 4th amendment idiot
tonyteb 5 months ago
@tonyteb I have, and am quite familiar with it, so I need no schooling, thanks. The 4th amendment protects people from UNREASONABLE search/seizure. Is a police officer requesting ID unreasonable? I hardly think so.. Police have the right to know who they're dealing with, you do not have the right to deny a sworn law enforcement officer proper identification. If that were the case, imagine how many more criminals would be running around?
bullzisnipr3 4 months ago
@bullzisnipr3 Just asking for ID without any reason IS unreasonable. If they have no reason to suspect you of anything, then pestering you is harassment. It's covered by the 4th Amendment and recognized that way by the Supreme Court. I wonder what Kangaroo-Court politics caused this arrest to stick... it normally gets thrown out in court.
galathonredd 4 months ago
@galathonredd
. First part of video the cop said they were called about a fight (domestic). That plus dudly aggressive attitude. It probable had a charge frailer to cooperate with a police investigation (name). When the female half of the domestic did not have a buses to jail dudly on they use what they had.
samten10a 4 months ago
Comment removed
galathonredd 4 months ago
@samten10a At 1:24 the cop says, "You're not being charged with anything." An admission that there is no probable cause, and the "suspect" should have been free to go. Continuing to detain him after that point was unlawful.
Any cop can say "we got a complaint" and they usually do to trick you into compliance, but are required to inform you of the reason for their suspicion if you ask. Saying he's not being charged is an admission of no probable cause, thus no legal detainment.
galathonredd 4 months ago
@galathonredd being charged and being detained are not the same thing Dumbass. You can be detained without being charged with a crime.
superjump01 4 months ago
@superjump01 Not without reasonable suspicion that you may have committed a crime. As soon as the cop said he wasn't being charged with anything, he was admitting there was no reasonable suspicion to hold him, because he has no reason to think he's committed a crime. Flexing your rights (i.e. not showing ID or refusing to answer questions) does not constitute reasonable suspicion.
galathonredd 4 months ago
@galathonredd "Flexing your rights (i.e. not showing ID or refusing to answer questions) does not constitute reasonable suspicion"
True refusing to show ID by itself dosent constutie reasonable suspcion.. however recieving a 911 call of an assult with the car matching that descrption dose.
badpanda84 3 months ago
@galathonredd "Flexing your rights (i.e. not showing ID or refusing to answer questions) does not constitute reasonable suspicion."
Also the officers suspicions were confirmed-- the officers said they were reponsing to a report of a fight.. and at 04:54 she said "I told you we got into a fight"
badpanda84 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@superjump01 Not without reasonable suspicion that you may have committed a crime. As soon as the cop said he wasn't being charged with anything, he was admitting there was no reasonable suspicion to hold him, because he has no reason to think he's committed a crime. Flexing your rights (i.e. not showing ID or refusing to answer questions) does not constitute reasonable suspicion.
galathonredd 4 months ago
@bullzisnipr3 yada yada sure everyone is a criminal and they will be running around everywhere right give me a break go back and reread the 4th again
start at the begining
tonyteb 4 months ago
Cops, are not becoming the scared ones, at least not yet. The Constitution maybe the highest law of the land, but it more and more these days, doesn't mean a damn thing. People have the Constitutional right to film police, yet there is a guy facing 5 years for doing just that. That being said, Constitution? Whats that?
fmnma1 5 months ago
I think it's cause they kept saying the word "Garbled" in Klingon that means "Nazi Prick Ass Cop" so watch what you say to the man, I mean "Big Man and Big Men"!!!
MrJimbob91389 5 months ago
Rite investigation, no Id then he has to give name and dob to Id himself, failing to do so is called failing to Id in Texas. You don't have to have Id but when asked for information like that u have to give it state law. Female would have been arrested for interfering and disorderly conduct. If he was drunk but not driving public intoxication. All these state and local laws that are set by state this is how your rights are there but your state has some also that people forget and only learn abo
medic25cav 5 months ago
This vid leaves a lot to be desired. The cop says he heard "they" were fighting. This is grounds for investigation and a request for ID. He didn't have any ID. Was he driving? This man was in a very irritated state,and made no effort to cooperate with the cop about anything. This could be interpreted as disorderly and failure to comply. Then the screaming lady. Was drinking involved? I rarely agree with the law, but for what is here to see on this vid, the cop was right!
ohannahdad 5 months ago
the supreme court of . . . what? do you have a case citation?
roaringwaterbay 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What ID are you talking about?
Here's the list of all the identification I am required to carry in the U.S.:
1) None.
Any questions?
EV1LDC4Teggy 5 months ago
nothing wrong with that arrest at all.
darkhorse2reign 6 months ago
@darkhorse2reign what's it for? This guy is obviously arrested for not having his ID. There is absolutely nothing else he has done to justify being arrested, and that in and of itself would make this a false arrest... Perhaps this sort of thing flies in a state court, but the precedent has already been set by the feds...
gobbly1337 6 months ago
@gobbly1337 ... The 4th Amendment protects citizens like this gentleman from "unreasonable search and seizure". The problem for this gent is that the police have a right to investigate when they have probable cause. And part of the investigation is to identify folks. The officer told the gent in the beginning of the vid the nature of the investigation. If the facts support the citizen - SUPPORT him/her. If the facts seem to support LE I say SUPPORT LE! In this case it looks like support LE.
darkhorse2reign 6 months ago
@darkhorse2reign what you say is true, however it still doesn't change the precedent set by the supreme court when they stated that people are not required to possess ID when they are not operating a motor vehicle. In those cases it is perfectly legal to provide your name and other required information. This gentleman states several times that he doesn't have an ID and is arrested for it, there's not as much grey as you imply.
gobbly1337 6 months ago
@gobbly1337 Ok now I'm on unknown ground as far as knowing what you stated "folks aren't required to possess ID..." That passes the common sense test so let's assume THAT is true. What doesn't add up (and I'm ignorant here) is that the vid poster says the Supreme Court upheld the arrest right? I'm making all kinds of assumptions here b/c I don't know the facts except as we discuss them. I'm thankful for is a mature civil discussion vs many YT comments. Would you happen to be a fellow gun owner?
darkhorse2reign 6 months ago
@darkhorse2reign hehe, and I certainly am not claiming to be a lawyer, but I have heard several ACLU lawyers speak on this particular issue. As far as the state supreme court, they are only there to uphold the constitution of their state. Though they may make an effort to not decided cases in a way that leads to many federal appeals, they also must uphold the state constitution which might contradict federal constitution. The supreme court wins all battles though if it gets that far :)
gobbly1337 6 months ago
@gobbly1337 I mean the federal supreme court wins all battles. It sounds like this guy didn't attempt to appeal past the state level, for whatever reason. I guess my real issue with this arrest is that the guy says several times that he is not carrying ID, and the officer makes no attempt to get any info from him, he keeps badgering him for something the guy repeatedly said he doesn't possess.
gobbly1337 6 months ago
@gobbly1337 Glad we're getting down into the core issues. So you're arguing that once he says he has no ID the cop should move on with his investigation. He could simply ask him his name right? THAT right there would further the investigation. He could also run the plates to verify that information since the guy admits that's his truck. Now that he has identified the man he can run a background check while asking questions about the fight. I now see a possible issue with rights but still...
darkhorse2reign 6 months ago
@gobbly1337 ... but still I don't know the facts of the case which brings me to a bigger issue. YT vids are "quick and dirty" public opinion courts. These are excellent for gaining the "appearance" of guilt or innocence and horrible for replacing the cold, detached and sterile environment of a court. Having said all that I think I can agree with you about the appearance of a possible 4th Amendment(?) violation... or would it be due process(?). Either way something seems amiss...
darkhorse2reign 6 months ago
5 minutes out of their day and a few days out of his week
MinoritiesRlazy 6 months ago
Supreme Court doesn't give a shit about the law either.
Our entire justice system is completely corrupt and will remain that way until Americans grow some balls.
fuzzywzhe 6 months ago
we are anonymous, we are aware of the corruption in the world's governments and their apathy for the human lives because of money.
we are aware of the governments' attempt to cover on the news of the rebellions to keep us as slaves for the current system.
we are anonymous, we declare war on the corrupted system, join the plan to get your freedom and rights back. you are a human being, your life has value. we are anonymous, we are legion, expect us!
whatis-theplan(dot)org
snyder561 6 months ago
@snyder561 you are non anonymous....they dont post on youtube video's like this. they would have a direct message to the individuals doing wrong in this case. Not a generalized statement. You shouldnt pose my friend...anonymous wouldnt like that. you also shouldnt have a named youtube account if you are anonymous...im not claiming to be anonymous, but they do not take kindly to people posing as them, trust me i know.
JustinCase10261 6 months ago
@snyder561 You're not anonymous...
Izakokomarixyz 6 months ago
If the officer received a report of individuals fighting (which the woman admits near the end), then police are required to investigate. During an investigation, if an individual obstructs an officer from performing his duty...that individual is breaking the law. If the female was told to remain in the vehicle during the investigation, she was guilty once she exited.
The Supreme Court got that one right!
BTW: the man acted drunk, which was "OK" only because he wasn't driving when approached.
backpayne2007 7 months ago
@backpayne2007
This is a bunch of crap.
Why doesn't that Police officer go to the nearest Home Depot and ask all the illegal aliens for their ID
CSATexan 7 months ago
Americans should pull over and ask if they can assist the citizen. Video tape all arrests.
TheBelldiver 7 months ago
::german accent:: show me your papers
lcmtvbreath4 7 months ago
is this a trick????.. @ 2:20 "M'kay. You're not going to cooperate with me at all?" answer was "no"
dukemam 7 months ago
its time do something about these unlawful cops who terrorize women.old school justice.keep it up coppers.
MackTruck40 7 months ago
@MackTruck40 well this case IS slightly different than people think. he does not have to produce ID but he does have to ID HIMSELF. simply saying I am SO AND SO would have satisfied his legal requirements.
nerys71 7 months ago
Knock knock...Who's there? Control freak. Now you say control freak who?!
jerami101 8 months ago
cops who violated a American's 4th ammendment rights.
wellingtonian 8 months ago
These cops clearly violated civil rights. Period. Any argument to the contrary and you have simply watched too many cop shows.
1980PintoMan 8 months ago
We have a "lawless america dot com" also search Nightmare in Georgia
superwhuffo1 9 months ago
We live in a police country...this is no longer America...land of the free...these cops have become a detriment to man and a disgrace to society....
search: Kerry Walker Story
superwhuffo1 9 months ago
@mrmike677 If he was Black or Muslim he would have been beaten. Face it, you're a white male with all the protections and privileges afforded in the greatest country on earth and you're still trailer park trash; you have nobody to blame for your shortcomings but yourself.
maquih 9 months ago
It was my assumption that a cop may hold you until they can verify your identification. They can't arrest you or charge you for anything, but you aren't free to just walk away until your identity is confirmed.
TapangcoTV 9 months ago
@mrmike677 Barry "My President". I don't claim the foreigner.
oldNavyJZ 9 months ago
@oldNavyJZ I thought he was born in Hawaii. Oh yeah, that whole birth certificate deal. The one that shows he was born in Hawaii.
JJMillertime 9 months ago
@JJMillertime I didn't know he was born in Hawaii. Was he? Oh yeah, that whole birth certificate deal. That one that shows he was born in Hawaii which was found to be made up of several layers of fake writing. Oh yeah, that whole birth certificate deal that has yet to be produced. The last thing he presented was another COLB. Yet again. Look at the top of it. Oh yeah, and just to be clear. It doesn't matter to me either way. He's CEO of a corporation and doesn't need a BC for that.
chop98 8 months ago
Comment removed
oldNavyJZ 9 months ago
Comment removed
oldNavyJZ 9 months ago
Comment removed
oldNavyJZ 9 months ago
Comment removed
oldNavyJZ 9 months ago
@mrmike677 What are you talking about? What does being a muslim have to do with this video, and what evidence do you offer that muslims don't have rights in America? Or, perhaps the better question is, what rights do you think you don't have in America that you have in, oh, say any country where the islam cult is predominately practiced? I guarantee you it is far easier to be a Muslim in America than it is to be a Christian and stay alive in any Muslim country.
oldNavyJZ 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrmike677 ,<<<<< FACELESS COWARDLY TROLL fuck you childmolesting cocksucker fucking goof,where is your pic chiuldmoelster? oh ya on the sex offenders regerstry list
angelsnupnup7Warrior 9 months ago
@mrmike677 Have you read the Patriot Act? Since I have, and you said what you said, I am assuming you have not read it.
oldNavyJZ 9 months ago
well the officer asked him "you're not going to cooperate at all?" and the dumbass hilly billy lost his case by saying no. that was enough justification for the officer to arrest him which was why he worded his question that way in the first place. He's a smart cop facing the dumb reality
usman2hype92 10 months ago
Depends on what the state law says. What state was this in and when did it happen?
Coalbunny 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrmike677 , whats that FACELESS COWARDLY TROLL ? YOU MOLESTED YUOR COUSIN AGAIN? YOU ARE A INTELLIGENT SAVAGE SPOOK OBAMA LOVING TROLL,SO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS TROLL ,STAY IN SCHOOL A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE....OOPS! TOO LATE, LOL
angelsnupnup7Warrior 10 months ago
@mrmike67 <<<< a FACELESS COWARDLY TROLL like this he, she or it doesnt deserve any rights. All theyve proven 2 do is reject education for strip clubs, being drunk a dope fiend and unable 2 tell whether they or male or female in some cases like this thing,probably sleep with animals. This TROLL is profane, vulgar with no social skills unable 2 express its mind so it is good this thing is placed under police custody as it behaves like a SAVAGE & a savage only understands violence,USA born in EVIL
angelsnupnup7Warrior 10 months ago
...and this is fighting crime and/or keeping our communities safe, how?
plprz 10 months ago
NOt sure what everyone is arguing about -- the supreme court has spoken -- Dudley lost..
badpanda84 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michaelruth75
"contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to fight as long as you are both consenting adults"
Not entire true -- try for instance doing that in a nightclub or shopping centre and you will get kicked out be security
badpanda84 10 months ago
And it's only going to get worse, welcome to NAZI USA.
ritmotraveler 10 months ago
any one that is a cop will argue this, but all most all the cops in the u.s. are curupt. all the comments about germany and stuff like that is actualy very true. one of my friends his uncle was publicly growing pot and selling it, the reason nothing ever happend to him wait for it, yes thats right he was a cop. finaly the news got ahold of some videos of it and then crap happened, but every one acted like they didn't know, well i turned in some pics of the c.o.p. smoking with him and it was good
cloudian159 11 months ago
The police said they got called about a fight. The woman admitted on the tape that they were fighting. The cops weren't lying or anything. The person who called was a witness. Obviously they don't want to just leave without making sure everything was okay. They didn't even get a chance to talk to the woman before the man refused to cooperate.
What if the police get called about a shoplifter? They find the suspect and he refuses to give ID or cooperate. Should the police just walk away?
MarkedSoul 11 months ago
@MarkedSoul
it is illegal to shoplift. therefore you must ID yourself in that case.
contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to fight as long as you are both consenting adults and neither of you wants to press charges. you do not need to provide ID in this case. this man broke NO laws. the cop, however, wrongfully arrested this man and will more than likely be punished with a paid vacation(administrative leave). that should teach him.
michaelruth75 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michaelruth75
"contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to fight as long as you are both consenting adults"
Not entire true -- try for instance doing that in a nightclub or shopping centre and you will get kicked out be security
badpanda84 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michaelruth75 @michaelruth75
"contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to fight as long as you are both consenting adults"
Not entire true -- try for instance doing that in a nightclub or shopping centre and you will get kicked out be security
badpanda84 10 months ago
@michaelruth75 contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal to fight as long as you are both consenting adults "
Not entirely true -- for instance try fighting in a shopping centre or nightclub.. -- you will get kicked out be security if you did so
badpanda84 10 months ago
@badpanda84
true: you would be kicked out of either place.
true: you could be arrested if you fought at a shopping center.
true: you would be arrested for breach of peace, not for fighting.
true: you could be arrested if you fought at a bar.
true: you would be arrested for public intoxication, not for fighting
michaelruth75 10 months ago
@michaelruth75 true: you would be arrested for breach of peace, not for fighting."
Same thing -- of course "fighting" isnt the official legal term for it so they call it breach of peace
badpanda84 10 months ago
isnt it true that if your operating a vehicle you have to have a valid license and you have to show your license if you are pulled over
titob32 1 year ago
Lol he dosent want to show ID but he litereally consents to being arrested -- what exactly was the point of that
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 That if the cop has something to arrest him for , then to get it over with, if not, the man didn't want to talk with him or show him identification, so leave him the fuck alone.
HiLlSpEaKeR 1 year ago
@HiLlSpEaKeR ", if not, the man didn't want to talk with him or show him identification, so leave him the fuck alone."
Cause clearly he was involved in some kind of fight. Crimincal dont want to talk to police either so maybe police should leave them alone too
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84
i like how you skipped over the first part of HiLlSpEaKeR's comment
let me explain: a cop has something to arrest a criminal for so he wouldn't have to leave them alone.
this man did not break the law so the cop should have asked both parties if they needed him, if they replied "no" then he should have left and made a report stating that both adults were fine with working out their own problem and did not need a mediator.
michaelruth75 10 months ago
@michaelruth75
this man did not break the law so the cop should have asked both parties if they needed him"
Acutally you can draw that conclusion he didn't break the law based on that video -- clearly further inventifation is needed
badpanda84 10 months ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@michaelruth75 if they replied "no" then he should have left and made a report stating that both adults were fine"
that is assuming that the women isnt answering under duress.... in many domestic violence cases the women alway claims " she ran into a door" etc..
badpanda84 10 months ago
I am curious if any charges were layed in this incident; ie dui?? this guy sure seemed to me to exhibit signs of being impaired. If he wasnt impaired, and really was merely standing up for his rights, he could have done so in a less confrontational manner, thereby not causing the officer to react as he did. The guy looked loaded to me, and i would have probably reacted the same as that officer did.
rattlunhum 1 year ago
Comment removed
mrdouglas51510 1 year ago
I think every state has their own laws regarding wether or not you are required to present ID. The officer did say that there was a report of a fight. Now I'm definetly not defending how the officer handled the sitiation however since there was a report made that is "reasonable cause" which gives the officer the right to ask for ID. The guy arrested acted like a idiot. Being a smart ass with the cop only made things worse for him. What the hell was with the tussle with the woman?
ryanb788 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so what happend? :S
10lilcripsonthewest 1 year ago
This is nothing but crap! If there is a State Supreme Court anywhere that would back the actions of the officers in this situation, they should be censured. They are legislating from the bench to subvert the protective rights of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. No one should have to prove their identify unless they are suspected of an unlawful act beyond an inarticulate hunch. Evidence of wrong doing must present to go beyond the 4th Admend. protection. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
1955thekeeper 1 year ago
Everyone's talking about the guy...what about the girl?
kansasisaband 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i am amaized lots of peeps are uneducaited. lets start by educaiting yourself.
as accordingly mention
You are not required to identify yourself to police without cause under the 4th freakin amendment. "your ignorance amazes me" also for the simple fact that you are not by law required to carry identification on you at all.
rath2am 1 year ago
Operation of a motor vehicle. Automatic identification required. You whiny losers need to grow up.
jewelsrforfools 1 year ago
@jewelsrforfools He wasn't operating it. He was seen standing next to a truck. I think most people would say he wasn't operating any motor vehicle. So your ridiculous comment doesn't make much sense.
Owenj33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Owenj33 I think most people would say he wasn't operating any motor vehicle"
Yes while the camera was filming -- we don't know what happened prior to the camera filming.. Also it's not like he was stopped at a shop .. he was on the side of the road.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@jewelsrforfools In what part of the video do you see someone operating a motor vehicle, besides the cop?
tjhombs 1 year ago
Comment removed
Dawgtha 1 year ago
Please review any type of case law, or ANY law at all for that matter before making ignorant comments. And by ignorant, I mean the definition of ignorant, NOT KNOWING.
The officer responded to a call about a possible domestic disturbance between the man and woman, therefore he is conducting an ACTIVE INVESTIGATION into whether a crime has been committed. In this situation, during an ACTIVE INVESTIGATION, you are required to ID yourself if a policeman asks you to.
agentsmoke 1 year ago
@agentsmoke
Even if a cop has probable cause to believe you may be involved in a crime, you are only required to *verbally* state your name and address. You are not under any obligation to produce any paperwork unless you were seen operating a motor vehicle.
logik316 1 year ago
He actually did break the law by not showing his identification. He was in control of a vehicle which means if a law enforcement officer ask you for your drivers license, you HAVE to provide it. That has always been the law. The cop doesn't have to have reasonable cause or suspicion if you are in control of a vehicle. He may not have been driving it, but the vehicle had to been driven to get to that point and the man admitted he parked the vehicle and was standing next to it when questioned
4409supporter 1 year ago
Comment removed
maverick10241 1 year ago 2
@maverick10241 no id you go to jail that simple,that's where police officers should be fired when they just aresst someone because there pissed off."
To be fair the guy literally consented to being arrested..
badpanda84 1 year ago
one thing to note: at one point the officer said, so your not going to cooperate with me? the man said , "no" and something else. the correct answer is, "yes, I'd love to cooperate with you, but the law does not require me to provide identification unless if I am detained." and that should be the end of that part of the conversation. at the same time, the officer has no reason to ask for identification for a call about a fight. he should be talking to the two individuals. id is not necessary
iThiZz925 1 year ago
@iThiZz925 , the officer has no reason to ask for identification for a call about a fight. he should be talking to the two individuals. id is not necessary"
WTF that is very good reason to ask for ID.. and of course its necessary -- what are they going to put in the report -- spoke to some unknown guy about another unknown guy about a fight..
badpanda84 1 year ago
dudley SHOULD have lost. the officer was investigating a possible crime in progress. would you want him to smile and say ok and leave when the guy refused to ID if the man had you beaten up and tied up hidden in his car? he had every right to check the man when he was responding to a call at the location. idiots.
mikeholmanlovesyou 1 year ago
Police State, No Probable Cause what so ever, they can not do that, those Idiot's should be beaten from there Jobs, then lose them, Unreal, How can Cops get away with this? Wake up People.
69coquito 1 year ago
@69coquito we been saying WAKE UP PEOPLE for a long time and know one is paying attention how the police are eating away at our rights,,a cop in tn said the only rights you have are the ones i say you got and that's the way all tn cops look at it.most cops if they had there way [and there getting there ] would arrest anyone they wanted to throw you in jail for as long as they wanted to keep you there.right now there are over 15 men in jail in tn been there for over 2 years with no charges
maverick10241 1 year ago
I will bet the cop had description of the truck and kind of description of person and a name involve in the fight. So asking the person for positive id is not out of line. If the person fails to positively id him self then jail him. That un-id person stays in jail. Until some who knows him and will swear to the person name. that person will have half to positively id him self so the cop can come after him for lying to the cops if.
samten10a 1 year ago
This is a very clear case of intrusion.. No crime has been committed. No probably cause to believe a crime has been committed.. This is a bullshit stop..
Hope the pigs lose their jobs.
TACMAN518 1 year ago
@TACMAN518 Most of those that are responding to this and claim that there was no violation here, have not read the case nor understand the 4th Amendment. He was not required to produce ID, however he is required to identify himself. Had he simply said, "my name is Joe Dudley and my date of birth is 12/12/1912" he'd have been fine. The ONLY time you are required to produce ID is when you are producing a license for something the state issues for a privilege you've obtained. (i.e. drivers license)
chamsdropz24 1 year ago
what a bunch a fucking swine!! this is why my generation hates cops!! here piggy piggy i got donut for your fat ass.......no wonder more cops have been killed this year than any year ever!! lol!!! force goes both ways.....what happened to being officers of peace
ProdigyN9NE 1 year ago
If a cop ever pulls me over, I'm pulling the gun I have in my side compartment and shooting him in the face. All decent Americans should do this too.
TrollSturm 1 year ago
Well at least they caught this moment for future history classes.
Ghostsofthefuture 1 year ago
you are required to give information to an officer who is conducting some kind of investigation, including a routine stop. however, you are only required to give ID after you have been informed that you are in some way part of an investigation (lights and sirens are an easy way to tell if youre being investigated.)
laluenke 1 year ago
The officer was answering a call of a possible fight occuring. That's the suspicion, that's the probably cause. He had reason to believe a crime had been committed or was being committed. Sorry but you gotta show your id. It would be stupid if people who were reportedly involved in criminal activity were allowed to just ignore the police and walk away. lol
Stink808 1 year ago
@Stink808
shut the fuck up , u bitch ass PIG ( cop )
fucking idiot
kunzy3000 1 year ago
Your papers please!
eastwood13 1 year ago
While this bullshit was going on I bet someone was really commiting a crime!
terry2tone 2 years ago
whats crime got to do with anything?
mull79204 1 year ago
If anybody would like a link to the FLETC handbook I can PM it. I believe they actually talk about this case. Or you could just google "FLETC Handbook" and look up 4th Amendment.
Ghostsofthefuture 2 years ago
in calif penal code look up 148.
bullhead86442 2 years ago
i hate cops as much as the next guy, however wrong is wrong. the cops in this insident was right.
bullhead86442 2 years ago
Your a moron.....the cop was INVESTIGATING claims of a fight....key word INVESTIGATING...so ya there was no reason to take him to jail...but he ruined that....
cg257 2 years ago
In California...especially in Torrance...the cops will run up on you for no reason.
If you do not cooperate, they will beat you down and take you to jail for "Resisting Arrest".
kennymacdaddy 2 years ago
here in Long Beach too.
lbcitezen 2 years ago
Of course the Courts didn't over turn this....The officer is there conducting an investigation on a report that 2 people were fighting....He didn't just pull up out of the blue and start investigation nothing...If you have nothing to hide and your a regular law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about...and yes you can be arrested if you do not show your ID when asked by a police officer....
cg257 2 years ago
cops LOVE that line, if you dont have anything to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. THAT IS NOT THE POINT! i
jonerton15 2 years ago