04:20, "later if they overstep their bounds you can call me".
He's not saying to give up your rights he's giving advice for reality. If a cop doesn't respect your civil rights, trust me you are going to make it MUCH worse by arguing or fighting with them. I've had it happen to me a few times, it sucks. I've tried to fight it. It always ends up being your word vs theirs and the judge ALWAYS sides with the cops. That's just how it works. Unless your lucky enough to record it. Len is 100% correct.
Anyways, I came here cuz all of KGO's talk radio hosts including Len were let go because KGO is turning into pure news station. I won't be listening anymore. If I want news, I read articles online. If I want intelligent and interesting discussion related to current events, I USED to go to KGO. No more, I guess. Anyone know of any good progressive talk radio?
"Len Tillem has been a practicing attorney since being admitted to the State Bar of California in 1972."
Ok...You idiots are dismissing legal advice from someone who has practiced law for 40 years (on the radio for 20). Just because you don't like what he's saying? Use your common sense ffs.
Orly Taitz also passed the California bar (2002) but is also a dentist, second degree black belt, and speaks 5 languages. She still manages to be batshit insane, though. Being a practicing lawyer in California isn't much of a recommendation in itself.
there were people outside you fucking idiot. if 2 black males ran through the garage, the people sitting out there would have seen them run by. and the fucking door was closed, and yea if i have 2 random mother fuckers dressed like cops in my house i am gonna use my civil rights and tell them to get the fuck off my property and to fuck off. this dude talkings a fucking moron
#1. Neither this woman nor her guests were even CHARGED OR HASSLED WITH. CLEARLY the cops weren't there to fuck with them.
#2. If I ran inside a house from the cops, you best believe I would shut the doors behind me. The fact that she said the door was closed means NOTHING.
#3. This is legal advice for the PRESENT, not the past. There's nothing she can do here, if she went to court, the cops just say we thought we saw 2 suspects run inside. It would be her word vs the cops.
#1 So I can point a gun at you and you won't consider that being hassled. Good to know. I'll ask you for a loan of all the money in your wallet and you'll consider that a gift, right?
#2 It was the garage. Maybe you should listen to the video before making knee-jerk reactions to comments.
#3 You just made a compelling argument in favor of summarily executing misbehaving police officers, since there remains no other means of addressing the misbehavior.
Is this fucking idiot serious. He is a shill. He has to be defending what the cops did. Don't worry about your civil rights? Exigent circumstances? There was no exigent circumstances. The cops were looking to bust a party. They still need a fucking warrant. If this guy is a legal expert as in a lawyer he definitely sold a lot of people down the river.
correction - they cant just come in your house. if they get called by someone then yea, they can come into your house. but if they just stop at your house because its loud, no they cant come in if you tell them no. unless they see drugs/paraphernelia or smell drugs. thats the only way they can come into your hosue. at least in wisconsin
I understand doing what they say with a gun drawn, because if they're stupid enough to draw one then it's not worth arguing. But otherwise, you can exercise your rights as an American citizen, they can't do anything about that legally.
bullshit! You dumbass.... grab your camcorders and record the pirates! They constantly violate your constitutional rights as well as ethical and moral rights!
Everybody start wearing your guns the pirates must get use to this!
Yes sir! Yes Maam! Lick your boots sir? I am not a constitutional laywer and do not know the law so Yes sir! Now shine your shoes? Yes Sir! Mow your lawn next Saturday? You have the badge and you have the gun I will do as you say bright and early Saturday morning YES SIR!
this man is a fool. the police are our servants. And At every moment you should let anyone that violate your right know that you know your rights. and the report them. thats as fer as i'm going to go with this before i get mad!!
Cops are FASCIST PIGS, always have been and it's only now that with the destruction of our Constitution do they act without restraint.... Welcome to the Police State... This happens because NOBODY Goes to there City Hall and Town Hall Meetings and raise hell ! I would have called the Mayor and Governor and Senator the next morning. Including the Police Commander on duty that night and filed a complaint against that cop... THAT WORKS TOO... Cops are only allowed so many complaints against them
Do Not listen to this idiot! All the more reason to pull your cell phone out and start filming or get a cam-corder. The police had no proof of anythinggoing on. Their "Phrase" is to insert an "Pseudo" investigation, so you Should assert your rights, and tell them to get to off the property calmly and with authority.
Dial 911 and claim they are tresspassing, call the sheriffs to have them removed.
The person was right kind of . As always this is what you say. I DO NOT CONCENT TO SEARCH OF MY HOME. Then shut the hell up. Don’t get into the cops face. Don’t ague with the cop.
Find out who you are dealing with. Document who he was time date who else was wittiness to this. Have them write it out as soon as you can. File a complaint with IA, the prosecutor, the state attorney office, mayor, each of the city council. The supreme court has 7 or 8 exceptions to search warrant.
Right on man, I will just keep on bending over, and the cops will just keep on giving it to me! Who cares about my rights, you don't want to make a cop mad!
Honestly, what a joke. Learn and know your rights, and how to protect yourself. This isn't funny anymore, and just playing dead won't stop these braindead clowns.
This appears to be a one sided conversation. I doubt everything was quiet @ 2am with a fucking party going on. The cops pulling guns looking for black guys is weird but I bet this cunt's neighbors called the cops on her because her party was too loud. The LE's should have said keep it down or whatever and be cool but the pulling the gun and asking about black dudes is a bit weird. Maybe they were @ the wrong address ? Weird.
Yes this guy knows what he's talking about...why would you be upset? if the two black guys were actually in your garage with guns I guess then it's a different story right? There just doin there job, tring to keep you and your family safe.
"Exigent circumstances" do not explain these cops' behavior. There were no "suspects" they were pursuing. If there had been, they would have continued to search for them, not stand in front of the house for an hour after pointing a gun at her boyfriend. Fuckers.
In a situation like that, Len is right. Screaming about your civil liberties when cops (or anyone) have their guns drawn is a REALLY stupid thing to do. Whether or not the cops were right, that's no reason to exacerbate a high-tension situation, unless you like a hole in your face. Also, if there WERE some armed criminals hiding out near a group of people, your impedement of law-enforcement could buy a criminal time to create a hostage situation. That's the reason for exigent circumstances.
yup i can see why this is blown out of proportion, basically you do have the right to argue about your own civil liberties, and letting the cops know that you are aware of your rights will prohibit them from overstepping their bounds later.
basically if you take the talkshow host's words as advice, youll end up in jail faster because you will throw away your civil rights rather than stick up for them, such as the right to privacy.
dont make a cop mad at you.OR WHAT????? dont hire this guy. not a criminal defense attorney. and if he is straight garbage. I feel for the woman she got her civil rights violated. fuck the police.
Lol, what the guy in the video is forgetting, is that a lot of police departments are corrupt, if cops wanted to enter your home, they could make up a bullshit story, and the higher ups at the PD could be in on it. It's happened before, it happens plenty.. Many police departments and their cops operate like freaking gangs..
Sad, but true, don't trust the police, you can only trust yourself, and your mother, and sometimes you can't even trust her.
If you have not realized, Law enforcement are private security for the city and state and you the citizen are those outside the gates treated as the enemy. Remembers they exist to protect the officials and carry out the will of the elite.
You are so right,. Fortunately, people are beginning wake up over mass police corruption in the US, thanks mainly to the 'drug war'. Go to Kopbusters, and you will be outraged over how the police will frame an innocent person. For example, The Odessa PD allegedly instructed an informant to plant drugs on Yolanda Madden, sending her to 8 years in prison. Attorney generals need to do their job and begin prosecuting rogue cops!
Len Tillem seems like a nice enough guy, but I hear lots of advice he gives that does not seem that good. If the cops are very upset, guns drawn, I would not argue with them. If they've pulled their guns out, it's too dangerous then. But I've argued with them, and refused their orders, time and time again with no bad results, because I was within my rights. Remember, it's not illegal for them to give you an illegal order. Ought to be, but it's not.
if he is doing something illegal i am going to yell at him gun or not!then what happens when they come to get our guns one day, do we just give it to them and then complain? i don't think so! what a retard! stand up for your rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me say that any cop or state law enforcement that shows up at my house without any cause and tries to break in or muscle their way into my house will be in fact shot. I still live in America where I have a right to bear arms, A right to free speech, A right to be protected against any illegal search and seizure. These are constitutional rights. These are Bill of Right's ..rights. Anyone who betrays these rights are in fact breaking constitutional rights. This douche saying don't argue is X
You know, ResearchX, if more overzealous brain-dead cops actually studied history around the King George, you may not see some of the eagerness among this crowd to violate our rights on a daily bases. On a whim of suspicion, British government officers could write their own warrants to gain access into private property owned by a colonists.
There were many supporters of the regime like 420991, who argued that under special circumstances, it was needed to stop the smuggling of untaxed goods, one of the factors that sparked the revolution and the Fourth Amendment.
Exigent circumstances is nothing more than a rubber stamp by ignorant supreme court justices that given the police a back door around the judge, as in the King George era. In the video, the cops force their way into a home without permission and terrorize the residents because of two imaginary black men. And 420991, before you site more court cases by your wonderful judges who are remolding the constitution, just ask yourself what our founding fathers would have thought of this.
This country should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of thing. Even just one single violation of the 4th ammendment for ANY circumstances should result in the immediate firing of the officer and an extremely high likelyhood of criminal charges being brought up against said officer. The first time a officer loses his badge and goes to jail for 30 days for forcing entry into a home "smelling of marijuana" bullshit *cough*, will also be the last time.
my senator mitch mcconnell voted yes bailout and he has lost my VOTE here everyone else needs to do the same find out who your congressman and senators are and vote them out get a sign for who is running agianst them put it in your yard and lets vote these crooks out of office and dont forget OBAMA / MCCAIN WHO BOTH VOTED FOR IT ( VOTE THIRD PARTY)(VOTE NADER)
I don't agree with the guy in this interview. He sounds like a Zionist Jew piece of shit motherfucker. Now it this was in the rich part of Manhattan believe me there would be no searches. Fuck this mother fucker. If someone breaks into your home without a warrant or has presented no ID to indentify himself as either Police officer or a Federal Agency then you have the right to blow his or her face off with a 12 gauge shotgun. No do not give in to this fuckes. Make them present ID, or a warrent.
this goes to show that you have know understanding of the law. if an officer is at your door he will most likely be in uniform. therefore he doesnt have to present id. also if he is chasing after a suspect and he believes they may have gone into your house, they dont need a warrant to search your house to look for that suspect. now fabricating this as a reason to search is bullshit and shouldnt be tolerated but you as a citizen will never know what kind of call he is on
Then we must push to change the law. In Texas, it is legal to use deadly force if found that the police illegally entered the house. This should be the law in all other forty-nine states, as a man's home is his castle, not the local deputy's.
but theres no way for you to know if it is legal or not. unless you are listening to a police scanner then you wont know what theyre doing. they just may be chasing after a suspect that ran into your home without your knowing it. you just need to give them the benefit of the doubt and if you feel they violated your rights then take them to court not to the grave.
Well... when a judge sides with a home owner defending his 'castle' from crazed SWAT zealots picking the wrong house, it will be a sad day for jack-boot culture, wont it? As Judge Andrew Napolitino puts it: "We must not surrender our rights like sheep if we are to uphold the American spirit of rugged individualism".
you really need to brush up on your laws. the law states that if an officer is in an active pursuit of a suspect then they dont need any knid of probable cause or any warrant to enter your home. has the homeowner the law requires you to ablige the officer and remain out of his way. and to take it to court would do nothing but prove you dont know the law.
I'm not arguing about 'probable cause', defined by activist judges that give you cart blanche rights to bust into my home at your own discretion, as you just claim you're in pursuit. But the US Constitution and Bill of Rights--the supreme law of the land--demands that you provide a warrant signed by a judge. We need a good court case to set precedent with a judge that respects the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, puting more restrictions on "unreasonable" and "probable cause"!
theres a thing called exigent circumstances, if you haventheard of it. this is what its called when police dont need a warrant to enter your home. Some commonly cited exigent circumstances are: hot pursuit of a felon (to prevent a felon's escape or ability to harm others); imminent destruction of evidence before a warrant can properly be obtained.
guess what supreme court case US v. McConney specified this kind of thing and states that exigent circumstances are legal. there no fighting it.
Just because activist and politically motivated supreme court justices have reinterpeded the Fourth in favor of law enforcement doesn't mean it was the original intent of the framers. In fact, warrant-less searches by King George inspired the revolution and the Fourth Amendment. While 'exigent circumstances' sounds like a needed tool in emergency situations, many police officers abuse this and merely use it as a back door. This must either be redefined by the court or changed by amendment.
Do you have any actual evidence of this? Cause it sounds like you're just making it up. Generally, courts are very serious when it comes to 4th amendment protections, and you can be sure a police officer is going to be scrutinized heavily if he enters your home without a warrant to make sure he was abiding by the law. Your perception of reality is skewed. Maybe you should post an example of police abusing the extingency exception before you claim it happens all the time.
@thegreatfish Gee, the body "lovepats" at airports come to mind. Where do you think the Supreme Court would side on that one? My guess would be toward "Big Sis" and her boy, John Pistole.
@nomorepolicestate You're pointing to an issue that hasn't even been ruled on as your example? Generally, it's helpful to back up your argument with facts that have actually occurred. Even if we assume the SC would rule in the TSA's favor, it doesn't change the fact that over the long history of the nation, the Supreme Court has always been more than willing to expand our rights beyond the corners of the constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers.
@thegreatfish The Supreme Court is currently considering no-warrant searches. A case is pending in Kentucky, which police were chasing a suspect through an apartment building and smelled pot from another dwelling and busted those tenants. Cops are arguing this was legal under exigent circumstances.
“Everything was done perfectly lawful…. It’s unfair to the criminal? Is that a problem? I don’t really understand the problem”, Justice Scalia commented.
@nomorepolicestate If the situation happened as you describe, then that had already been ruled lawful previously. If the Supreme Court is hearing the case again, then it means they are considering making it unlawful.
@thegreatfish In 1948, Johnson vs. United States, the Supreme Court determined that cops could not enter a room without a warrant based on smell. Comments from Justice Scalia indicate that they are about to give the government the keys to your castle. After that, what’s to stop these drug warriors from bringing sniffing dogs into an apartment dwelling.
@nomorepolicestate I would need to look at the Kentucky case you're referring to, but regardless, you're still drawing on issues that have not been decided. As a matter of fact, you pointed out that the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is unlawful for police to enter a dwelling based on smell. You were trying to establish the SC has a history of taking away our Constitutional rights, but so far you've only provided cases to the contrary and issues that have not been reviewed by the SC.
@thegreatfish Okay, let’s look at a very important case in 2006. In Hudson v. Michigan , No. 04-1360,
a 5-4 ruling gave police more latitude when executing no-knock warrants. Since Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a more law-and-order court is siding with the government, weakening the Fourth Amendment.
The Kentucky case has not yet been decided as you say, but from Justice Scalia's comments and the 2006 ruling, I‘m very pessimistic on this one.
@nomorepolicestate I'm fairly certain there has never been a case where evidence was excluded because of failure to follow the knock and announce requirement. It's generally been considered a requirement meant for the protection of persons and property rather than to guard against illegal searches. This can be seen by the fact that knock and announce has never been required when it might threaten lives. It's also hard to claim illegal search when a valid warrant has already been issued.
@nomorepolicestate It seems the only difference between a search with a knock and a search without a knock is not going to be whether or not police discover evidence. It's going to be whether or not the police have to buy you a new door. I'm still finding your cases to be a leap. I'm not sure I've ever thought of having police knock before executing a search warrant to be one of my fundamental constitutional rights that I'm afraid of having taken from me. Do you have anything more significant?
@thegreatfish Here’s 5 Federal court cases that have weakened the Fourth: US v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, DELAWARE v. PROUSE 1979, TERRY v. OHIO 1968 and BROWN v. TEXAS, MICHIGAN v. SITZ. I don’t have time to explain the details, but search these cases for more information.
@nomorepolicestate The cases you cited deal with pat-downs, check points, and traffic stops, which are very divided issues. The SC allows them, but only on a very restricted basis. For example, pat-downs can only be used to check for weapons, not other contraband, and check points must be used for a specific community interest, like stopping drunk drivers. In Prouse, the SC actually finds that the traffic stop was a violation of the 4th amendment and voted to suppress the conviction.
@nomorepolicestate Considering that any restrictions they created to 4th Amendment rights were merely restrictions to rights that the Supreme Court had granted previously, I still think it's hard to say the SC has a history of stripping Constitutional Rights. In reality, they were just creating exceptions to rules they created, likely because they hadn't considered their full impact. Overall, you're still + rights from the original Constitution, and it's entirely because of the Supreme Court.
@nomorepolicestate Just as an aside, the exclusionary rule that these cases are referring to is a fairly big protection that was given by the Supreme Court. It was never provided by the Constitution, nor is there any evidence that it was meant to be. To say the Supreme Court has a history of stripping our rights based on the fact that they created an incredible protection of constitutional rights and decided it doesn't apply to one insignificant instance is not really convincing me.
@thegreatfish Court case United States v. Dunn (1987), where federal agents clearly trespassed about a half mile into private property and peered into a barn near a home to get evidence. The Court ruled that although they may have been trespassing, they did not violate any Fourth Amendment rights, and the evidence they gathered was admissable.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to learn the Supreme Court has actually expanded your rights quite a bit from the original intent of the constitution. In fact, Justice Black was probably the most inclined to follow the original intention of the constitution out of any justice in history, and he was often the dissenting opinion in cases where the Supreme Court tried to extend your rights.
@nomorepolicestate You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the Supreme Court. Generally, they've given you more rights than the founding fathers intended. All men created equal? Yeah, white men, until the Supreme Court stepped in. Right to an Attorney? Yes, but only if you payed for it, until the Supreme Court expanded your constitutional rights. Maybe you should actually find some cases where they took away your original constitutional rights before you start assuming that's all they do.
@420991 There was no one in her house. So cops can just run in your home anytime claiming I saw a Black man running? They came to our house looking for a girl that used to live here that had did something. They went through are whole house with no search warrant or anything. I let them because it just seemed easier, I have nothing to hide. Now I probably wouldnt though.
"dont worry about your civil rights" come on guy get a clue grow a set. FLEX YOUR RIGHTS YES THEY WILL BE MEAN, BUT GUESS WHO AVOIDS A CELL FOR THE NIGHT? ITS YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN TO DO SO!
@souLLost3 - Or you could get a hole in your head. Or if there WERE any armed criminals hiding somewhere close, YOUR actions could create a hostage situation by slowing down the cops. Use your head. This wouldn't be a time to be a civil-rights hero. You'd have a party full of people to witness any abuses of your rights, so what would be the point of getting in a cops face when he's waving a gun? Why not grab a shot gun to defend your house against the cops? Because it's foolhardy.
he's promoting the communitarianism idealism of "everyone police each other agenda" on heresay apparently..so in other words..a traitor..cause i'm pretty goddamned sure they have to say where they got the information about the alleged home invasion
When the cop tells you to pull down your pants and bend over, are you going to do it?
SoulShepherd84 2 months ago
Talk show lawyer, eh? Degree from Cracker Jack University?
disorganizedorg 2 months ago
04:20, "later if they overstep their bounds you can call me".
He's not saying to give up your rights he's giving advice for reality. If a cop doesn't respect your civil rights, trust me you are going to make it MUCH worse by arguing or fighting with them. I've had it happen to me a few times, it sucks. I've tried to fight it. It always ends up being your word vs theirs and the judge ALWAYS sides with the cops. That's just how it works. Unless your lucky enough to record it. Len is 100% correct.
tutorialbs 2 months ago
Anyways, I came here cuz all of KGO's talk radio hosts including Len were let go because KGO is turning into pure news station. I won't be listening anymore. If I want news, I read articles online. If I want intelligent and interesting discussion related to current events, I USED to go to KGO. No more, I guess. Anyone know of any good progressive talk radio?
tutorialbs 2 months ago
"Len Tillem has been a practicing attorney since being admitted to the State Bar of California in 1972."
Ok...You idiots are dismissing legal advice from someone who has practiced law for 40 years (on the radio for 20). Just because you don't like what he's saying? Use your common sense ffs.
tutorialbs 2 months ago
@tutorialbs
Appeal to authority (or experience).
Orly Taitz also passed the California bar (2002) but is also a dentist, second degree black belt, and speaks 5 languages. She still manages to be batshit insane, though. Being a practicing lawyer in California isn't much of a recommendation in itself.
disorganizedorg 2 months ago
lol "thank you". sounds like Microsoft sam.
Zeruckiven 3 months ago
there were people outside you fucking idiot. if 2 black males ran through the garage, the people sitting out there would have seen them run by. and the fucking door was closed, and yea if i have 2 random mother fuckers dressed like cops in my house i am gonna use my civil rights and tell them to get the fuck off my property and to fuck off. this dude talkings a fucking moron
tombeals69 4 months ago
Wow. Fucking morons.
#1. Neither this woman nor her guests were even CHARGED OR HASSLED WITH. CLEARLY the cops weren't there to fuck with them.
#2. If I ran inside a house from the cops, you best believe I would shut the doors behind me. The fact that she said the door was closed means NOTHING.
#3. This is legal advice for the PRESENT, not the past. There's nothing she can do here, if she went to court, the cops just say we thought we saw 2 suspects run inside. It would be her word vs the cops.
tutorialbs 2 months ago
@tutorialbs
#1 So I can point a gun at you and you won't consider that being hassled. Good to know. I'll ask you for a loan of all the money in your wallet and you'll consider that a gift, right?
#2 It was the garage. Maybe you should listen to the video before making knee-jerk reactions to comments.
#3 You just made a compelling argument in favor of summarily executing misbehaving police officers, since there remains no other means of addressing the misbehavior.
disorganizedorg 2 months ago
Is this fucking idiot serious. He is a shill. He has to be defending what the cops did. Don't worry about your civil rights? Exigent circumstances? There was no exigent circumstances. The cops were looking to bust a party. They still need a fucking warrant. If this guy is a legal expert as in a lawyer he definitely sold a lot of people down the river.
TheSportCompact 6 months ago
no they can come in with a warrant when they have suspicion youre doing something wrong!!!
hellridersven 6 months ago
@hellridersven
correction - they cant just come in your house. if they get called by someone then yea, they can come into your house. but if they just stop at your house because its loud, no they cant come in if you tell them no. unless they see drugs/paraphernelia or smell drugs. thats the only way they can come into your hosue. at least in wisconsin
tombeals69 4 months ago
I understand doing what they say with a gun drawn, because if they're stupid enough to draw one then it's not worth arguing. But otherwise, you can exercise your rights as an American citizen, they can't do anything about that legally.
MrSorAnthem 6 months ago
what the fuck....yes sir and yes maam!!!!!! horrible advice
isirina 7 months ago
The reason the police don't want people videotaping them is because they don't want their crimes to be made public.
narukofan2 8 months ago 4
bullshit! You dumbass.... grab your camcorders and record the pirates! They constantly violate your constitutional rights as well as ethical and moral rights!
Everybody start wearing your guns the pirates must get use to this!
johnnyboypdq 8 months ago
When satan asks ya to do somethin....ya just do it...ya got me...
gladiator1010 8 months ago
Yes sir! Yes Maam! Lick your boots sir? I am not a constitutional laywer and do not know the law so Yes sir! Now shine your shoes? Yes Sir! Mow your lawn next Saturday? You have the badge and you have the gun I will do as you say bright and early Saturday morning YES SIR!
MrBullfrog9876 8 months ago
this man is a fool. the police are our servants. And At every moment you should let anyone that violate your right know that you know your rights. and the report them. thats as fer as i'm going to go with this before i get mad!!
briliberty1776 8 months ago 2
Cops are FASCIST PIGS, always have been and it's only now that with the destruction of our Constitution do they act without restraint.... Welcome to the Police State... This happens because NOBODY Goes to there City Hall and Town Hall Meetings and raise hell ! I would have called the Mayor and Governor and Senator the next morning. Including the Police Commander on duty that night and filed a complaint against that cop... THAT WORKS TOO... Cops are only allowed so many complaints against them
2xtream 9 months ago
Do Not listen to this idiot! All the more reason to pull your cell phone out and start filming or get a cam-corder. The police had no proof of anythinggoing on. Their "Phrase" is to insert an "Pseudo" investigation, so you Should assert your rights, and tell them to get to off the property calmly and with authority.
Dial 911 and claim they are tresspassing, call the sheriffs to have them removed.
johnnyboypdq 9 months ago
looking for a couple of black guys lol
floatingcompassmedia 11 months ago
Comment removed
thegreatfish 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck this guy. you do not give up your rights to cops just because they have guns.
joeratti 1 year ago
You do not want to confront a cop that has his gun out. The cop is on edge and you doing any to make the tensions worse is a good way to get DEAD.
samten10a 1 year ago
The person was right kind of . As always this is what you say. I DO NOT CONCENT TO SEARCH OF MY HOME. Then shut the hell up. Don’t get into the cops face. Don’t ague with the cop.
Find out who you are dealing with. Document who he was time date who else was wittiness to this. Have them write it out as soon as you can. File a complaint with IA, the prosecutor, the state attorney office, mayor, each of the city council. The supreme court has 7 or 8 exceptions to search warrant.
samten10a 1 year ago
Right on man, I will just keep on bending over, and the cops will just keep on giving it to me! Who cares about my rights, you don't want to make a cop mad!
Honestly, what a joke. Learn and know your rights, and how to protect yourself. This isn't funny anymore, and just playing dead won't stop these braindead clowns.
sivraj25 1 year ago
wow dont call this guy for a lawyer
dixiejon 1 year ago
This appears to be a one sided conversation. I doubt everything was quiet @ 2am with a fucking party going on. The cops pulling guns looking for black guys is weird but I bet this cunt's neighbors called the cops on her because her party was too loud. The LE's should have said keep it down or whatever and be cool but the pulling the gun and asking about black dudes is a bit weird. Maybe they were @ the wrong address ? Weird.
mixwell1983 1 year ago
Yes this guy knows what he's talking about...why would you be upset? if the two black guys were actually in your garage with guns I guess then it's a different story right? There just doin there job, tring to keep you and your family safe.
mibrown9932 1 year ago
"Exigent circumstances" do not explain these cops' behavior. There were no "suspects" they were pursuing. If there had been, they would have continued to search for them, not stand in front of the house for an hour after pointing a gun at her boyfriend. Fuckers.
Yowzarrific 1 year ago
"2:00 AM in the morning" is pretty redundant.
thesxex 1 year ago
the voice of this guy is clearly an asshole, everyone has rights and its up to u to uphold them.
mandukar 1 year ago
So if you're not a constitutional lawyer, you can't understand your rights and should not try to exercise them. Fuck that.
williemccoy1 1 year ago
In a situation like that, Len is right. Screaming about your civil liberties when cops (or anyone) have their guns drawn is a REALLY stupid thing to do. Whether or not the cops were right, that's no reason to exacerbate a high-tension situation, unless you like a hole in your face. Also, if there WERE some armed criminals hiding out near a group of people, your impedement of law-enforcement could buy a criminal time to create a hostage situation. That's the reason for exigent circumstances.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
yup i can see why this is blown out of proportion, basically you do have the right to argue about your own civil liberties, and letting the cops know that you are aware of your rights will prohibit them from overstepping their bounds later.
basically if you take the talkshow host's words as advice, youll end up in jail faster because you will throw away your civil rights rather than stick up for them, such as the right to privacy.
Jackalofdeath 1 year ago
2:53 "if a cop pulls a gun... don't worry about your civil rights"... what a tool
moodude16 1 year ago
dont make a cop mad at you.OR WHAT????? dont hire this guy. not a criminal defense attorney. and if he is straight garbage. I feel for the woman she got her civil rights violated. fuck the police.
MsCOCKSMACK 1 year ago
Horrible lawyer! Never comply with police unless necessary under law.
apearsog00d1 1 year ago
He's a lawyer !? LMAO. what a shill...
Taxidriver987 1 year ago
thats not right!?!!
m33lad 1 year ago
This also happened to my brother and one of my friends here in Sarnia,Ontario,Canada
narukofan2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's easy to defy police who are being polite and knocking gently on your door. The REAL acid test is when they are:
1)Banging the SHIT out of your door
2)Ordering you to "open the door NOW"
3)Threatening to break it down if you do not comply
This is when Barry Cooper's advice goes DOUBLE! As a wise man once told me:
"Let them break it down before you open it to them."
cottonwhiskersuk 1 year ago
this guy is a fucking tard if a cop has a gun do what they say my ass don't worry about your civil rights fuck you ass hole
just bend over and let them do what they want go to fucking hell and quit giving people bull shit advice
warhawk357 2 years ago 4
Lol, what the guy in the video is forgetting, is that a lot of police departments are corrupt, if cops wanted to enter your home, they could make up a bullshit story, and the higher ups at the PD could be in on it. It's happened before, it happens plenty.. Many police departments and their cops operate like freaking gangs..
Sad, but true, don't trust the police, you can only trust yourself, and your mother, and sometimes you can't even trust her.
malizmaul 2 years ago
If you have not realized, Law enforcement are private security for the city and state and you the citizen are those outside the gates treated as the enemy. Remembers they exist to protect the officials and carry out the will of the elite.
Anothercoilgun 2 years ago 3
@malizmaul
You are so right,. Fortunately, people are beginning wake up over mass police corruption in the US, thanks mainly to the 'drug war'. Go to Kopbusters, and you will be outraged over how the police will frame an innocent person. For example, The Odessa PD allegedly instructed an informant to plant drugs on Yolanda Madden, sending her to 8 years in prison. Attorney generals need to do their job and begin prosecuting rogue cops!
nomorepolicestate 1 year ago
"dont worry about your civil rights"...wth is this >;/
phrek75 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Len Tillem is realistic - he doesn't want people getting shot or hurt by police unnecessisarily. This makes him an NWO stooge? You paranoid imbecile.
cryptsub 2 years ago
Comment removed
DemocraticNZL 2 years ago
Thank God this guy is being sarcastic, I got scared for a second, I thought Adolf was still alive.
PiercingKnight 2 years ago
watch?v=8qqrxEiq_oI
storm11001001 2 years ago
fuck the cops
boonedogger 3 years ago 6
Len Tillem seems like a nice enough guy, but I hear lots of advice he gives that does not seem that good. If the cops are very upset, guns drawn, I would not argue with them. If they've pulled their guns out, it's too dangerous then. But I've argued with them, and refused their orders, time and time again with no bad results, because I was within my rights. Remember, it's not illegal for them to give you an illegal order. Ought to be, but it's not.
boatbrain3 3 years ago
I feel sorry for whoever has this lawyer
represent them. Yes sir yep their gun and
batch give them cart blanc authority
answer my intrusive questions yes sir
let me search your home your car your back pack
yes sir
bend over and let me fuck you up the ass
yes sir
mollon66 3 years ago 7
you forgot to say "thank you Officer "
mnmn59 2 years ago
What a genius...he actually asked, "2 a.m. in the morning".
0:32
stopthedouchebaggery 3 years ago
don't worry about your civil rights?!?!?
give me liberty or give me death
slumsattack 3 years ago 4
if he is doing something illegal i am going to yell at him gun or not!then what happens when they come to get our guns one day, do we just give it to them and then complain? i don't think so! what a retard! stand up for your rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rescueCV 3 years ago 2
"Don't worry about your civil rights."
WHAT?!?! DO WHAT?!?!?! I can not believe I heard that right. WHAT!?!?!?
Josiah531 3 years ago 4
Let me say that any cop or state law enforcement that shows up at my house without any cause and tries to break in or muscle their way into my house will be in fact shot. I still live in America where I have a right to bear arms, A right to free speech, A right to be protected against any illegal search and seizure. These are constitutional rights. These are Bill of Right's ..rights. Anyone who betrays these rights are in fact breaking constitutional rights. This douche saying don't argue is X
ResearchX 3 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
You know, ResearchX, if more overzealous brain-dead cops actually studied history around the King George, you may not see some of the eagerness among this crowd to violate our rights on a daily bases. On a whim of suspicion, British government officers could write their own warrants to gain access into private property owned by a colonists.
nomorepolicestate 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There were many supporters of the regime like 420991, who argued that under special circumstances, it was needed to stop the smuggling of untaxed goods, one of the factors that sparked the revolution and the Fourth Amendment.
nomorepolicestate 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exigent circumstances is nothing more than a rubber stamp by ignorant supreme court justices that given the police a back door around the judge, as in the King George era. In the video, the cops force their way into a home without permission and terrorize the residents because of two imaginary black men. And 420991, before you site more court cases by your wonderful judges who are remolding the constitution, just ask yourself what our founding fathers would have thought of this.
nomorepolicestate 3 years ago
This country should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of thing. Even just one single violation of the 4th ammendment for ANY circumstances should result in the immediate firing of the officer and an extremely high likelyhood of criminal charges being brought up against said officer. The first time a officer loses his badge and goes to jail for 30 days for forcing entry into a home "smelling of marijuana" bullshit *cough*, will also be the last time.
Hostiletakeover1 3 years ago 6
Scumbag lawyer that knows all about the "agenda" ~
uvbeenwarned 3 years ago 2
my senator mitch mcconnell voted yes bailout and he has lost my VOTE here everyone else needs to do the same find out who your congressman and senators are and vote them out get a sign for who is running agianst them put it in your yard and lets vote these crooks out of office and dont forget OBAMA / MCCAIN WHO BOTH VOTED FOR IT ( VOTE THIRD PARTY)(VOTE NADER)
rumpelstillskin65 3 years ago 2
I don't agree with the guy in this interview. He sounds like a Zionist Jew piece of shit motherfucker. Now it this was in the rich part of Manhattan believe me there would be no searches. Fuck this mother fucker. If someone breaks into your home without a warrant or has presented no ID to indentify himself as either Police officer or a Federal Agency then you have the right to blow his or her face off with a 12 gauge shotgun. No do not give in to this fuckes. Make them present ID, or a warrent.
ResearchX 3 years ago 12
this goes to show that you have know understanding of the law. if an officer is at your door he will most likely be in uniform. therefore he doesnt have to present id. also if he is chasing after a suspect and he believes they may have gone into your house, they dont need a warrant to search your house to look for that suspect. now fabricating this as a reason to search is bullshit and shouldnt be tolerated but you as a citizen will never know what kind of call he is on
420991 3 years ago
Then we must push to change the law. In Texas, it is legal to use deadly force if found that the police illegally entered the house. This should be the law in all other forty-nine states, as a man's home is his castle, not the local deputy's.
nomorepolicestate 3 years ago
but theres no way for you to know if it is legal or not. unless you are listening to a police scanner then you wont know what theyre doing. they just may be chasing after a suspect that ran into your home without your knowing it. you just need to give them the benefit of the doubt and if you feel they violated your rights then take them to court not to the grave.
420991 3 years ago
Well... when a judge sides with a home owner defending his 'castle' from crazed SWAT zealots picking the wrong house, it will be a sad day for jack-boot culture, wont it? As Judge Andrew Napolitino puts it: "We must not surrender our rights like sheep if we are to uphold the American spirit of rugged individualism".
nomorepolicestate 3 years ago
you really need to brush up on your laws. the law states that if an officer is in an active pursuit of a suspect then they dont need any knid of probable cause or any warrant to enter your home. has the homeowner the law requires you to ablige the officer and remain out of his way. and to take it to court would do nothing but prove you dont know the law.
420991 3 years ago
I'm not arguing about 'probable cause', defined by activist judges that give you cart blanche rights to bust into my home at your own discretion, as you just claim you're in pursuit. But the US Constitution and Bill of Rights--the supreme law of the land--demands that you provide a warrant signed by a judge. We need a good court case to set precedent with a judge that respects the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, puting more restrictions on "unreasonable" and "probable cause"!
nomorepolicestate 3 years ago
theres a thing called exigent circumstances, if you haventheard of it. this is what its called when police dont need a warrant to enter your home. Some commonly cited exigent circumstances are: hot pursuit of a felon (to prevent a felon's escape or ability to harm others); imminent destruction of evidence before a warrant can properly be obtained.
guess what supreme court case US v. McConney specified this kind of thing and states that exigent circumstances are legal. there no fighting it.
420991 3 years ago
Just because activist and politically motivated supreme court justices have reinterpeded the Fourth in favor of law enforcement doesn't mean it was the original intent of the framers. In fact, warrant-less searches by King George inspired the revolution and the Fourth Amendment. While 'exigent circumstances' sounds like a needed tool in emergency situations, many police officers abuse this and merely use it as a back door. This must either be redefined by the court or changed by amendment.
nomorepolicestate 3 years ago 2
@nomorepolicestate
Do you have any actual evidence of this? Cause it sounds like you're just making it up. Generally, courts are very serious when it comes to 4th amendment protections, and you can be sure a police officer is going to be scrutinized heavily if he enters your home without a warrant to make sure he was abiding by the law. Your perception of reality is skewed. Maybe you should post an example of police abusing the extingency exception before you claim it happens all the time.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish Gee, the body "lovepats" at airports come to mind. Where do you think the Supreme Court would side on that one? My guess would be toward "Big Sis" and her boy, John Pistole.
nomorepolicestate 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate You're pointing to an issue that hasn't even been ruled on as your example? Generally, it's helpful to back up your argument with facts that have actually occurred. Even if we assume the SC would rule in the TSA's favor, it doesn't change the fact that over the long history of the nation, the Supreme Court has always been more than willing to expand our rights beyond the corners of the constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish The Supreme Court is currently considering no-warrant searches. A case is pending in Kentucky, which police were chasing a suspect through an apartment building and smelled pot from another dwelling and busted those tenants. Cops are arguing this was legal under exigent circumstances.
“Everything was done perfectly lawful…. It’s unfair to the criminal? Is that a problem? I don’t really understand the problem”, Justice Scalia commented.
nomorepolicestate 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate If the situation happened as you describe, then that had already been ruled lawful previously. If the Supreme Court is hearing the case again, then it means they are considering making it unlawful.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish In 1948, Johnson vs. United States, the Supreme Court determined that cops could not enter a room without a warrant based on smell. Comments from Justice Scalia indicate that they are about to give the government the keys to your castle. After that, what’s to stop these drug warriors from bringing sniffing dogs into an apartment dwelling.
nomorepolicestate 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate I would need to look at the Kentucky case you're referring to, but regardless, you're still drawing on issues that have not been decided. As a matter of fact, you pointed out that the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is unlawful for police to enter a dwelling based on smell. You were trying to establish the SC has a history of taking away our Constitutional rights, but so far you've only provided cases to the contrary and issues that have not been reviewed by the SC.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish Okay, let’s look at a very important case in 2006. In Hudson v. Michigan , No. 04-1360,
a 5-4 ruling gave police more latitude when executing no-knock warrants. Since Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a more law-and-order court is siding with the government, weakening the Fourth Amendment.
The Kentucky case has not yet been decided as you say, but from Justice Scalia's comments and the 2006 ruling, I‘m very pessimistic on this one.
nomorepolicestate 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate I'm fairly certain there has never been a case where evidence was excluded because of failure to follow the knock and announce requirement. It's generally been considered a requirement meant for the protection of persons and property rather than to guard against illegal searches. This can be seen by the fact that knock and announce has never been required when it might threaten lives. It's also hard to claim illegal search when a valid warrant has already been issued.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate It seems the only difference between a search with a knock and a search without a knock is not going to be whether or not police discover evidence. It's going to be whether or not the police have to buy you a new door. I'm still finding your cases to be a leap. I'm not sure I've ever thought of having police knock before executing a search warrant to be one of my fundamental constitutional rights that I'm afraid of having taken from me. Do you have anything more significant?
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish Here’s 5 Federal court cases that have weakened the Fourth: US v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE, DELAWARE v. PROUSE 1979, TERRY v. OHIO 1968 and BROWN v. TEXAS, MICHIGAN v. SITZ. I don’t have time to explain the details, but search these cases for more information.
nomorepolicestate 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate The cases you cited deal with pat-downs, check points, and traffic stops, which are very divided issues. The SC allows them, but only on a very restricted basis. For example, pat-downs can only be used to check for weapons, not other contraband, and check points must be used for a specific community interest, like stopping drunk drivers. In Prouse, the SC actually finds that the traffic stop was a violation of the 4th amendment and voted to suppress the conviction.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate Considering that any restrictions they created to 4th Amendment rights were merely restrictions to rights that the Supreme Court had granted previously, I still think it's hard to say the SC has a history of stripping Constitutional Rights. In reality, they were just creating exceptions to rules they created, likely because they hadn't considered their full impact. Overall, you're still + rights from the original Constitution, and it's entirely because of the Supreme Court.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate Just as an aside, the exclusionary rule that these cases are referring to is a fairly big protection that was given by the Supreme Court. It was never provided by the Constitution, nor is there any evidence that it was meant to be. To say the Supreme Court has a history of stripping our rights based on the fact that they created an incredible protection of constitutional rights and decided it doesn't apply to one insignificant instance is not really convincing me.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@thegreatfish Court case United States v. Dunn (1987), where federal agents clearly trespassed about a half mile into private property and peered into a barn near a home to get evidence. The Court ruled that although they may have been trespassing, they did not violate any Fourth Amendment rights, and the evidence they gathered was admissable.
nomorepolicestate 1 year ago
@420991
lol so all u are saying is that the STATE judiciary ruled in favor of STATE bullies & tyranical cops.
swu880 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to learn the Supreme Court has actually expanded your rights quite a bit from the original intent of the constitution. In fact, Justice Black was probably the most inclined to follow the original intention of the constitution out of any justice in history, and he was often the dissenting opinion in cases where the Supreme Court tried to extend your rights.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@nomorepolicestate You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the Supreme Court. Generally, they've given you more rights than the founding fathers intended. All men created equal? Yeah, white men, until the Supreme Court stepped in. Right to an Attorney? Yes, but only if you payed for it, until the Supreme Court expanded your constitutional rights. Maybe you should actually find some cases where they took away your original constitutional rights before you start assuming that's all they do.
thegreatfish 1 year ago
@420991 There was no one in her house. So cops can just run in your home anytime claiming I saw a Black man running? They came to our house looking for a girl that used to live here that had did something. They went through are whole house with no search warrant or anything. I let them because it just seemed easier, I have nothing to hide. Now I probably wouldnt though.
scumgod13 1 year ago
"dont worry about your civil rights" come on guy get a clue grow a set. FLEX YOUR RIGHTS YES THEY WILL BE MEAN, BUT GUESS WHO AVOIDS A CELL FOR THE NIGHT? ITS YOUR RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN TO DO SO!
souLLost3 3 years ago 12
@souLLost3 - Or you could get a hole in your head. Or if there WERE any armed criminals hiding somewhere close, YOUR actions could create a hostage situation by slowing down the cops. Use your head. This wouldn't be a time to be a civil-rights hero. You'd have a party full of people to witness any abuses of your rights, so what would be the point of getting in a cops face when he's waving a gun? Why not grab a shot gun to defend your house against the cops? Because it's foolhardy.
ralphyetmore 1 year ago
Comment removed
cubanlink908 3 years ago 4
I think everyone should become police men.
Then we can have a friendly get-together with no problems.
PennyRoyaleTea 3 years ago
BULL SHIT the only thing you need to do is KEEP YOU MOUTH SHUT. DO NOT TALK AT ALL TO THE COPS. SAY NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING
YouChooseASide 3 years ago 7
Please, this guy is the biggest douche.
Who the hell is this asshole?
Zoth77 3 years ago 6
he's promoting the communitarianism idealism of "everyone police each other agenda" on heresay apparently..so in other words..a traitor..cause i'm pretty goddamned sure they have to say where they got the information about the alleged home invasion
dellsprospects22 3 years ago 3
Boy, if that's how lawyers think, it's no wonder we're moving into a police state!
dfthompson 3 years ago 5
What a douche
slanigiro1 3 years ago 2