User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 9:57:44 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: Did you put Arfcom Court in the AI prompt?  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 11boomboom: Originally Posted By LawyerUp: I'm not the OP. As a cult leader, I don't need to ever be an OP. I have a compound where I enjoy the fruits of the clicks... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/277223/exhibituno-3251802.png Did you put Arfcom Court in the AI prompt? No, but I asked for a penguin judge. This reject about killed me... If I only had more time this morning, but I have a zoom deposition. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:01:24 AM EDT
[#2]
I did run another thumbnail contest w/ this one, though again didn't make them different enough probably.
I was in the middle of doing a video on the Charlotte cop who was caught stealing 900 bucks on bodycam when people started sending me this newspaper article about me. So I was rushed to create a response video instead. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:05:20 AM EDT
[#3]
Before I go... Streisand effect in action. Comparison w/ the original demonetized video about the deputy, as compared to the new video about the sheriff's response to that video, for views in same respective time frame:
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:08:01 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: I'm not the OP. As a cult leader, I don't need to ever be an OP. I have a compound where I enjoy the fruits of the clicks... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/277223/exhibituno-3251802.png Zero OPSEC, the internet knows all about your fort. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:08:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11boomboom]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Before I go... Streisand effect in action. Comparison w/ the original demonetized video about the deputy, as compared to the new video about the sheriff's response to that video, for views in same respective time frame: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/277223/exhibitquatro-3251813.png  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:12:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: John_Wayne777]
[#6]
I will remind everyone that the West Virginia State Police command was recently mostly fired because they were all corrupt shitwits abusing their power and state resources including covering up for a dude who was running a camera in the women's locker room at their academy and then trying to nail a whistleblowing trooper on fake charges they got out of an ex girlfriend.
That's the state police. It gets no prettier at the local level. Sheriffs departments are highly variable across the country. The sheriff in my county is, as best I know, a straight shooter. His predecessor isn't sheriff anymore because he was caught driving drunk home from what can only be described as an orgy with his staff. The sheriff in the county adjacent at the moment is a closeted homosexual who has promoted a bunch of other closeted homosexuals and you'd need a whiteboard to track out all the dudes fucking other dudes inside the department. But he's at least not as corrupt as the dude before him...or at least not yet. What happens when one of the members of the homo orgy club breaks the law and then threatens to blow all that up? Who knows. Beyond the openly corrupt there are plenty of them out there who have no fucking idea how anything actually works or what the limits of their powers are because the department does a shit job of training them on that, or has a regular practice of breaking the law themselves because nobody ever challenges it. The sheriff and the prosecutor/commonwealth's attorney and the judges and most of the lawyers and elected city/county officials all hang out together. It's a club. You aren't in it. Expecting justice out of that kind of arrangement is...optimistic at best. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:24:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fargo007]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceDiver: Depending on what was actually said or posted online it is possible that there was PC for a criminal threatening charge. The DA dismissing the charge does not mean there wasn't PC at the time of the arrest. It only means they didn't wish to pursue the charges. (Which happens a lot) When the guy told the deputy to go get the warrant after he threatened to do so, that is when he decided to arrest him. Honestly a lot of LEO's need a hard reset on how they handle interactions like this. When someone says "fuck off I'm done talking" that shouldn't change the course of their investigation. I.E. trigger an arrest. Obviously there are many times where an officer has every intention of arresting the individual before they even speak to them and may try to have a conversation prior to that arrest. That doesn't appear to be the case here since the officer says in the video that he just wanted to talk to him. It sure looks like the guy got arrested for not following the "respect my authority" mantra. I see many elected Sheriffs that have the old school mentality and honestly it isn't a good thing most of the time. Hopefully it is a learning experience for everyone involved. Did you listen to the whole interaction? What was allegedly posted was discussed by the deputy in the video. It does not even come close to probable cause for arrest on a terroristic threat. Why do you think the prosecutor didn't want to touch this? The answer is that they knew this deputy violated his civil rights plainly and clearly. On camera. And standing behind that bullshit situation would provide the guy with more lawsuit ammunition as well as tarnish his office ethically. The deputy showing up on the guy's property to ask him about it and refusing to let him leave also constitutes a custodial interrogation. So if your theory of the deputy arriving with all the probable cause he needed was actually the case, he should not have been asking him questions about it without Miranda. The fact that he didn't shoots that theory down for me ab initio. And it's out of step with common sense to threaten to go and get an arrest warrant while you already sit on all the probable cause required. You know who already has way more than enough probable cause but won't do jack shit here? The FBI Civil Rights division. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:37:36 AM EDT
[#8]
LOL that paper is getting beat up on facebook
|
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:38:16 AM EDT
[#9]
Arrested for not talking to the cop?
Cop can fuck right off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:50:21 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: I'm not the OP. As a cult leader, I don't need to ever be an OP. I have a compound where I enjoy the fruits of the clicks... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/277223/exhibituno-3251802.png  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:53:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BB: LOL that paper is getting beat up on facebook I didn't even think to tell my 400K plus Facebook followers about this. I should post something there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 10:55:49 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceDiver: Depending on what was actually said or posted online it is possible that there was PC for a criminal threatening charge. The DA dismissing the charge does not mean there wasn't PC at the time of the arrest. It only means they didn't wish to pursue the charges. (Which happens a lot) When the guy told the deputy to go get the warrant after he threatened to do so, that is when he decided to arrest him. Here's where it could have ended, at least for that morning: "I could 100% write up a warrant for you. You want me to do that?" "I don't give a fuck" "Okay. I'll gladly do that for you" We're now at an implied status of "come back with a warrant", and the deputy has even agreed to it. "I gotta go to work. (see ya later)" "Hold on, I ain't done talking to you" "Bleep bleep bleep" (I'm done talking to you, come back with a warrant like you just promised to do) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:00:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: PepePewPew]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aimless: The guy who got dragged to jail (and locked up for two days) on charges the prosecutor dropped didn't want any more trouble when they went to "investigate" the video? Go figure Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Aimless: The guy who got dragged to jail (and locked up for two days) on charges the prosecutor dropped didn't want any more trouble when they went to "investigate" the video? Go figure I'm assuming the "investigation" occurred during the 2 1/2 months the prosecutor was holding felony charges over Paul's head like the Sword of Damocles, and those charges weren't going away until Paul's complaint against Deputy Mayle went away. Originally Posted By BB: LOL that paper is getting beat up on facebook When I read that article, my first thought was "this would have looked a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT if I were reading it in the Kenosha County Eye". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:27:38 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: I'm assuming the "investigation" occurred during the 2 1/2 months the prosecutor was holding felony charges over Paul's head like the Sword of Damocles, and those charges weren't going away until Paul's complaint against Deputy Mayle went away. When I read that article, my first thought was "this would have looked a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT if I were reading it in the Kenosha County Eye". Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: Originally Posted By Aimless: The guy who got dragged to jail (and locked up for two days) on charges the prosecutor dropped didn't want any more trouble when they went to "investigate" the video? Go figure I'm assuming the "investigation" occurred during the 2 1/2 months the prosecutor was holding felony charges over Paul's head like the Sword of Damocles, and those charges weren't going away until Paul's complaint against Deputy Mayle went away. Originally Posted By BB: LOL that paper is getting beat up on facebook When I read that article, my first thought was "this would have looked a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT if I were reading it in the Kenosha County Eye". When these things pop off, I end up getting all sorts of messages with inside information, some conflicting, some corroborating the others. Best as I can piece together, the sheriff and the prosecutor actually do not like each other. I think the sheriff wasn't happy about the prosecutor dismissing the charges, and I believe they went after Paul for something unrelated, which is still pending. So you have a trifecta of the county commission wanting to do the right thing, the prosecutor wanting nothing to do with any of it, and the sheriff grandstanding. I've heard that the county commission would like to remove the sheriff. But it's very difficult to do so, and expensive and time consuming. Because an elected sheriff in WV is entitled to due process in the form of basically a trial of sorts, prior to removal. And I don't believe he has very long left on his term. But guys like that are always running for something, or have some government job in their sights. And I want to say someone said he ran for county commission himself and lost. Anyways, he apparently has some well known skeletons and should have just STFU. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 11:37:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: I'm not the OP. As a cult leader, I don't need to ever be an OP. I have a compound where I enjoy the fruits of the clicks... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/277223/exhibituno-3251802.png Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Originally Posted By Alnen123: Is this the one where youtube got you for the background comment from the back of the car? Or is it yet another demonitization for criticizing the kings men? Would you protect me if I made a video about it too? Lol. It would of course be HEAVILY edited to make a point. I'm not the OP. As a cult leader, I don't need to ever be an OP. I have a compound where I enjoy the fruits of the clicks... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/277223/exhibituno-3251802.png Who made Aimless a Judge? |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 1:13:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: The funny thing is I've received maybe a dozen messages from anonymous cops in that area with all sorts of information on this sheriff, including an incident with body cam footage that will be the subject of a future video. That's how I know when I've found a really good one, because other cops love to spill the beans - at least privately or anonymously. Excited for that video |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 1:14:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: When these things pop off, I end up getting all sorts of messages with inside information, some conflicting, some corroborating the others. Best as I can piece together, the sheriff and the prosecutor actually do not like each other. I think the sheriff wasn't happy about the prosecutor dismissing the charges, and I believe they went after Paul for something unrelated, which is still pending. So you have a trifecta of the county commission wanting to do the right thing, the prosecutor wanting nothing to do with any of it, and the sheriff grandstanding. I've heard that the county commission would like to remove the sheriff. But it's very difficult to do so, and expensive and time consuming. Because an elected sheriff in WV is entitled to due process in the form of basically a trial of sorts, prior to removal. And I don't believe he has very long left on his term. But guys like that are always running for something, or have some government job in their sights. And I want to say someone said he ran for county commission himself and lost. Anyways, he apparently has some well known skeletons and should have just STFU. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Originally Posted By PepePewPew: Originally Posted By Aimless: The guy who got dragged to jail (and locked up for two days) on charges the prosecutor dropped didn't want any more trouble when they went to "investigate" the video? Go figure I'm assuming the "investigation" occurred during the 2 1/2 months the prosecutor was holding felony charges over Paul's head like the Sword of Damocles, and those charges weren't going away until Paul's complaint against Deputy Mayle went away. Originally Posted By BB: LOL that paper is getting beat up on facebook When I read that article, my first thought was "this would have looked a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT if I were reading it in the Kenosha County Eye". When these things pop off, I end up getting all sorts of messages with inside information, some conflicting, some corroborating the others. Best as I can piece together, the sheriff and the prosecutor actually do not like each other. I think the sheriff wasn't happy about the prosecutor dismissing the charges, and I believe they went after Paul for something unrelated, which is still pending. So you have a trifecta of the county commission wanting to do the right thing, the prosecutor wanting nothing to do with any of it, and the sheriff grandstanding. I've heard that the county commission would like to remove the sheriff. But it's very difficult to do so, and expensive and time consuming. Because an elected sheriff in WV is entitled to due process in the form of basically a trial of sorts, prior to removal. And I don't believe he has very long left on his term. But guys like that are always running for something, or have some government job in their sights. And I want to say someone said he ran for county commission himself and lost. Anyways, he apparently has some well known skeletons and should have just STFU. Gods work. Thank you. |
|
|
|
ME, USA
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 2:03:24 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmilingBandit: If the deputy thought there was PC to arrest then he should have gotten a warrant. And if you think that anyone on the police side learned anything from this, when the investigation shockingly found the officer did nothing wrong, then you are delusional. I've been called way worse than delusional before.  I'm not defending the officer's actions here, only spitballing potential thought process. |
|
|
ME, USA
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 2:10:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: Did you listen to the whole interaction? I thought I listened to most of it. What was allegedly posted was discussed by the deputy in the video. It does not even come close to probable cause for arrest on a terroristic threat. Without seeing or hearing everything the deputy did I can't say if PC existed or not, only that it might be possible. Why do you think the prosecutor didn't want to touch this? Either the case sucked or it requires extra work on their part. I've seen both. The answer is that they knew this deputy violated his civil rights plainly and clearly. On camera. And standing behind that bullshit situation would provide the guy with more lawsuit ammunition as well as tarnish his office ethically. I am not standing behind this situation, only making observations. The deputy showing up on the guy's property to ask him about it and refusing to let him leave also constitutes a custodial interrogation. So if your theory of the deputy arriving with all the probable cause he needed was actually the case, he should not have been asking him questions about it without Miranda. The fact that he didn't shoots that theory down for me ab initio. And it's out of step with common sense to threaten to go and get an arrest warrant while you already sit on all the probable cause required. If the officer went there with the intent to arrest him then arguably it would have been a custodial interrogation. He said he only wanted to talk to him in the video however which negates that argument, however refusing to let him leave says he is in custody. Cop was dumb. You know who already has way more than enough probable cause but won't do jack shit here? The FBI Civil Rights division. FBI sucks |
|
|
ME, USA
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 2:10:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PepePewPew: Here's where it could have ended, at least for that morning: "I could 100% write up a warrant for you. You want me to do that?" "I don't give a fuck" "Okay. I'll gladly do that for you" We're now at an implied status of "come back with a warrant", and the deputy has even agreed to it. "I gotta go to work. (see ya later)" "Hold on, I ain't done talking to you" "Bleep bleep bleep" (I'm done talking to you, come back with a warrant like you just promised to do) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 2:45:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceDiver: Depending on the local law and severity of a crime you don't always need a warrant to arrest. I've been called way worse than delusional before. I'm not defending the officer's actions here, only spitballing potential thought process. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceDiver: Originally Posted By SmilingBandit: If the deputy thought there was PC to arrest then he should have gotten a warrant. And if you think that anyone on the police side learned anything from this, when the investigation shockingly found the officer did nothing wrong, then you are delusional. I've been called way worse than delusional before. I'm not defending the officer's actions here, only spitballing potential thought process. Potential exceptions being hot pursuit, or PC plus exigent circumstances. Or a warrant, of course. Observing PC for certain crimes is going to be exigent circumstances. E.g., starts attacking someone. We agree with the district court that no exception to the warrant requirements applies here. Reasonable suspicion and probable cause, absent "exigency [or] emergency," are insufficient to justify a warrantless search and seizure on the curtilage of a suspect's property. United States v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731, 738 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Martinez, 406 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2005)). Even assuming the Officers had probable cause to arrest Brizuela, the record does not demonstrate that any exigent or emergency circumstances existed here: the Officers had not chased Brizuela to his home, nor was this a case of "hot pursuit." Id. at 744. The "knock and talk" exception for a warrantless search, which "permits law enforcement officers to encroach upon the curtilage of the home for the purpose of asking questions of the occupants," Lundin, 817 F.3d at 1158 (internal quotation marks omitted), also did not apply here. The exception only "is coterminous with [the] implicit license" to "approach the home and knock." Id. at 1158-59. Here, Brizuela did not consent to being questioned on his front porch and repeatedly asked the Officers to leave. Supreme Court precedent clearly establishes that, when law enforcement encroaches on the curtilage of a suspect's home without a warrant, it violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches. See Jardines, 569 U.S. at 7. It is likewise clearly established that "[i]n terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980). The Officers detained Brizuela on the curtilage of his home without a warrant or probable cause, and questioned him while he repeatedly asked them to leave. Thus, the district court did not err by denying qualified immunity to the Officers and granting summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on the Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claims. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 7:33:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Pioneer1]
[#22]
"I could get a warrant"... "Go ahead"
It should have ended there period, until such later time as he had a warrant in hand. The cop's swollen ego just could not let the man walk away. Plus, he probably knew he wouldn't get the warrant, or he would have already had it. He then overstepped very badly. The fact that the cop told him there was no warrant yet, told the guy all he needed to know that they were done there. Everything that happened next should be on every cop who was there. Sheriff maybe should have: 1. Immediately watched the BC footage, and understood that was a civil rights violation. 2. Fired that deputy. 3. Made a statement that such as that would not be tolerated. Instead, they maneuvered, enlisted the local paper, and tried to weasel it to put them in a good light. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2024 8:11:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LawyerUp: Anyways, he apparently has some well known skeletons and should have just STFU. I'm not sure that's an option when the County Commission declares a public meeting to interrogate the Sheriff. What's he going to say, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that the truth will humiliate me"? His options include "we will need time to faithfully and carefully investigate these claims", and "we investigated ourselves and found nothing". The only surprising part is that he took option #2 and apparently nobody bothered to press him for a detailed explanation. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
