ugh

Oh bullshit. You're not going to do ANY of that bullshit you're saying. Sounds great, but you're not going to do that.

This is not the Sadaam Hussein regime. Cops are not going to take you back to Udays palace and let him rape you.

You can beat the case, but you likely wont beat the ride.

We need good law enforcement so we dont put citizens in situations like this.

Thats why this cop is done.

I understand your position. I'll just never agree with that.

If a cop wrongly decides to go hands on with me they better be ready to fight for their life.

Yes....you are right..

While I don't disagree with where your heart is, this is how people die (you).  Not the smartest thing in the world, LEOs WILL dogpile you in the belief that their brother/sister is in the right.

You may be right, but you could end up dead for it.

Or, just you do you and see how it goes.

Yes, they should treat him just like any other criminal they witness violently assaulting a woman.

I agree with you that it isn't a realistic expectation of how government henchman operate. Like I said a few posts back cops don't believe the laws apply to them.

However, just because it's "how things really work right now" doesn't mean we should accept it. Change won't happen unless we force it.

I hear ya...

If you think about it, a whole lot of people in the US adopted that mindset during the summer of love and refused to be taken into custody too based on the fact that they felt like they were entitled to do what they were doing too.

Except when there was a few hundred thousand of them.....it worked.

Looks like he was defending the honor of of his annoyed coworkers in hopes one would turn out to be the Maegan Hall of his department.

Point taken

I know.  But reasonable officers rarely do the right thing when it's a brother in blue violating the law.  It happens sometime (see the $900 theft thread for example), but it's depressingly rare.

I've already willingly put my ass on the line when I chose to enlist in the infantry to go fight.

Why do you think I have any problem fighting here at home? I have more of a problem with jackboots enforcing the will of a tyrannical government than I had with the hadjis on the other side of the planet.

*edit*

And no, this cop has fucked over how many people in his career? He's been let go for fucking up more than once already. If he was gunned down long ago that would have protected a lot more people than hoping the system actually does something this time.

But interfering with them doing their job is a physical act, not someone talking, yelling, filming, calling them names.

I agree some the auditors are annoying as hell. But on the other hand, they know their rights. The police have been able to lie and force people to do what they say for years. Now, people know their rights and it fucks them up.

By the way, interesting to chat with you fellows

Thank you for the civil discourse.

Cause it will get you killed over something stupid bro. In the heat of the moment you might be 100% convinced of your position but after some retrospect you might see that you could have handled things a different way.

We all make mistakes. I have. And I have been SUPER convinced about how right I was at times then had a chance to cool off and thought that I might have something to reconsider.

Just sayin....

I hear ya 100% however

If you aren't willing to die for your beliefs then how strong is your conviction?

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather not have to ever even speak to any government agent period. I want to be left alone to live my life as I please.

I wouldn't be the one choosing to impose their will upon me. Live and let live. If you want to try to fuck me, well, I'm going to fuck back.

Do you hear me know.

Nothing the cop did was reasonable.

One is constitutionally allowed to be an asshole. The other is lower than a piece of whale shit and more of a threat to America than ISIS

"Its her fault for creating the conditions that would encourage my client to act like a tyrannical scumbag, Your Honor.

This was clearly entrapment by the old lady."

Fuck that. They are accomplices.

Apparently boots are very tasty.

Look how they are trying to say that filming at and in the most innocuous circumstances, like this case, qualifies as time and manner guidelines.

Towing cars at 3 am in a parking lot. They obviously know of the 6 cases establishing 1st A protections but go for the cherry picked lines.

And look how they acted? All 3 of them were more than willing to kill while being legally in the wrong. Their convictions are solely power and a paycheck.

The defense against illegal arrest laws were PUT on the books for close to 200 years for this exact reason. They were removed because the system was supposed to be self correcting. With a timely legal redress.

Obviously that has gone south for a great many years.

The investigation and corrective action for their very own "Freddy" will be released in about 4 years.

The victim had 4 seconds.

"However, the court also noted that the right to film public officials was subject to reasonable limitations with respect to the time, place and manner in which the recording was conducted."  <- this means telling the person filming to step back to a reasonable distance is a lawful order.  Many state laws and jurisdictions now clarify "reasonable distance" to be 9-20 feet away.  Several other appellate have also concluded that reasonable time/place/manner restrictions are constitutional including asking  the person filming to step a reasonable distance away.

Refusing a lawful order is probable cause for arrest, this is well established in state and federal case law.

Now,  Graham V. Connor has established the Graham rules for use of force, which specifically calls out actively resisting arrest and attempting evade arrest by flight as factors justifying use of force.

Now in the video posted, we have the lady running up on officers.  This gives us a timeline of events to compare to the above case law.

1)Lady runs up and is filming the police.  This is subject to reasonable time/place/manner restrictions, an established reasonable restriction to this is asking the person to step back a certain amount of distance

2)officer gives lady a lawful order to step back and go to the other side of the street, assuming the other side of the street is not excessively far away, this is a reasonable restriction making his order to step back/move across the street a lawful one.

3)Lady refuses the lawful order, this is usually a misdemeanor offense and creates probable cause for arrest.

4) Officer gives reasonable warning that if she does not move she will be arrested.  This isn't actually legally required under current case law, but is likely part of the officers departmental policy for use of force.

5)Lady refuses again, as above, a misdemeanor offense that is probable cause for an arrest.

6) Officer states that she is under arrest.  Legally anything after this point that is not doing exactly what the officer says to facilitate the arrest is resisting arrest.  Technically her saying "you're not going to arrest me!" is resisting arrest without violence in many states, and likely meets the statutory definition in this state though I haven't confirmed that yet.

7)Lady says "You're not going to arrest me!" and there appears to be some sort of struggle, which implies she's actively resisting the arrest via pulling away and tensing.  Obviously if there's bodycam footage brought up in the impending civil case that will add some more clarity, but based on just her own phone video there's enough there to make probable cause for charges of resisting arrest.  Same with pulling away, if she tried to pull away or turn and run away at all that is also probable cause for charges of fleeing/eluding arrest.

8) Officer is attempting to arrest the lady and she appears to be resisting and possibly attempting to flee, officer orders the lady to stop resisting.  Again, not legally required under the law but likely specified in the department use of force policy as a warning for impending use of force.  Now given that resisting arrest and fleeing to evade arrest are both specific factors in the  Graham Rules for use of force, this means that use of force is now justified.

9)Office uses force to attempt to subdue the lady and arrest her.  Now HERE is where things get messy, because while use of force was justified under the law, did the officer use excessive force? An excessive force claim often hinges on whether the amount of force used in the situation was necessary under the circumstances. This is a fact-specific inquiry that considers how a reasonable officer would have responded in the same situation, knowing the same information as the officer using the force/making the arrest. The threshold at which force becomes excessive increases if a suspect is resisting or fleeing arrest, which is most likely a factor at play here.  Obviously there was a pretty severe injury and clearly their department policy requires a use of force investigation, and honestly there's not really enough shown in the video for me to make a solid call.  I can bet you a fine steak dinner that the level of force he used is likely authorized in the department use of force policy for arresting a fleeing/resisting suspect, but remember use of force is fact-specific on a case by case basis, and 20/20 hindsight rule says we can only really examine this with what facts were known at the time.  What it's going to boil down to is whether or not her age would be a factor in the use of force, and whether or not he could have/should have known it was a factor at the time of the use of force.

If you like being a bitch for daddy government you're welcome to.

Traditional police uniforms were modeled after contemporary military uniforms.

Living well is the best revenge.  They kill you, they might pay or they might not.  Live and sue them.  Make it your mission to wreck their lives.  Live well on the $$.

Brilliant write up!  If only the circumstances fit your scenario that would be real useful to Officer Dollar General.

I can just see baby Jack Booties taking notes on your interpretation of the case law abiding on the first amendment.  Gonna get lots more DG stock boys/decertified officers that thought all they had to do was “call it an investigation, whip that ass, charge with obstruction” will cover them from having to respect citizens constitutional rights.

The times I've not been speeding and really was innocent I'm convinced it's because I am Hispanic. In reality its just asshoke cops being asshole cops. Race rarely plays a part in it if someone is a tyrant.

Then you'll probably be killed.  I mean it is what it is, and you've made your choice.

Not according to the courts.  There's plenty of case law around what is and isn't interfering.

weird hill to die on, but ok.

Yup, and the courts have established that they're constitutionally allowed to be an asshole 10 feet away.

You just cannot help but manipulate words or intent can you.

She ran up to them?

Ok, sure. Prove it!

Lawful orders need to be lawful. Not just because Officer Blowhard thinks he can do it.

Nothing you posted above could be remotely construed to apply in the videos in this case.

Even filming 10" away from an arrest in progress was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is what got this ball rolling.

I'm genuinely curious how you feel they differ factually from what I detailed here.

1) Where do you see any running in the video? Step back a certain distance from what exactly?

2) 9-20ft? The other side of the street is MUCH further. Not lawful.

3) Again, not lawful, he had no probable cause.

4) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move.

5) Again, unlawful, she doesn't have to move.

6) Unlawful arrest. She was completely justified in resisting her kidnapping and assault.

7) Again, unlawful arrest. She was right to pull away.

8) Yet again, unlawful arrest. She is right to resist.

9) The entire fuck up by police was messy. He just topped off his assault with deadly force.

Resisting a tyrannical government is a weird hill to die on?

Her approaching them is literally in her video... I'm not sure what facts you're citing that counters that?

Uh....yeah it does apply, per case law, I'm not sure just claiming it doesn't is really going to change that.

What case are you talking about?  Every appellate court decision out there says that it IS in fact constitutional to impose time/place/manner restrictions on filming police.

That's funny. COPS documented a shit ton of abuse of force in Ft. Worth some years ago because they all thought it was fine. Were happy to be documented as complete fucks. It was transparent as hell.

No deciding that you're going to get killed by cops for no other reason than some weird ill informed beliefs.

I edited the original quote:

“I can just see baby Jack Booties taking notes on your interpretation of the case law applied to the first amendment.  Gonna get lots more DG stock boys/decertified officers that thought all they had to do was “call it an investigation, whip that ass, charge with obstruction” will cover them from having to respect citizens constitutional rights.

Edited - Skg

What ill-informed beliefs are they? That I believe in the Constitution? That I believe I'm a free man? That I don't bow down to the whims of others because they say so?

It was only a civilian.

Federal judge strikes down Arizona law limiting recording of police as unconstitutional (8 feet distance, BTW)

From an independent film school article written with the help of NYU in 2020
Attached File

Approaching now? What happened to the running?

Manipulate what you want. The videos are quite clear on what went down.

This wasn't an arrest or crime in progress. The only investigating appears to be towing cars. Hardley an argument for time, manner or place to flex. Not even threatening words or officer safety.

Apply your research to chilling of speech and what that entails.

Long ago in a minecraft bbq..
I was on the only non Leo. Shtf topics cane up...eye opening to see how and  which guys spoke of how to control things.i sat.. drank my beer...until one vocal guy keep going about " who" they'd detain/pull over,/,etc.
I just said...
" can your vest stop 762x51ap.   "


Crickets....I then had to have a talk to..By the host of the bbq( a friend).  

Cool story...I know..
But it was 20yrs ago.

I doubt it's changed....

woosh

Hey man, if you want to die in a hail of bullets that's on you. Why doesn't really matter when you're laying there bleeding out. No one will know or care.

I agree that the officer used excessive force given the situation… as for the rest of it.. you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about.