It's a great recruiting tactic hey if you become a cop you can do whatever you want😂😮😅🐷💩🤡s until you come up against the knowledgeable citizen who knows the law😮
Cop can't decide whether he is asking or commanding you to ID 😂😂😂 the black man in the car knows the law better than the old white guy who was a cop for probably years what an as ho😮
Not at all. You need to know and stand up for the Legal/Lawful Definition of; Inalienable/Unalienable and what constitutes a Human Right. As long as you're willing to challenge these members of their Cult of Authority on such matters then they are obligated/bound to respect them or become Criminal by their own same set of Rules. Coercion is a Crime no matter whom is committing it. I'm looking at you Police Officers...
Always remember and never forget, the police are legally allowed to lie to you. Let me clarify something...In the midst of an officers investigation,whether it's a murder investigation,or if you're pulled over for a traffic violation...that makes it to court before a judge... "yes your honor,but he lied about that in his investigation when questioning me." Judge - "that may be true,but he's allowed to lie to you in an investigatory capacity...so I can't help you there." That's what I mean,when I say they can "legally" lie to you. You can't use it as a defense against a police officer. Now if he lies to the court,that's where their lying is not legal or allowed.
This isn't entirely true. Unless you somehow make it clear that you're exercising your 5th Amendment right, you can still land in trouble in unlucky situations (fit a description, etc) @@innocentbystander3317
But they aren't allowed to make issuance of threats of violence, threats of arrest without actual probable cause to do a arrest are threats of violence
@@innocentbystander3317ding ding: that's the correct answer, the cops aren't interested in making friends or interacting with the community LMFAO you can't lose that one if you don't play
These officers didn't "misunderstand" or "misinterpret" the 4th amendment. They knew full well what they were doing. They've just been trained that lying and pressuring citizens usually gets their compliance. This isn't an ignorance problem, it's a maliciousness problem.
Even he looks away from a suspicious vehicle! He could have been killed. Did they call the plate number in for wants or warrants? Did they genetic mark the car? If they don't they are not in fear for their life!
Always remember when saying they demonstrated a false understanding, they might know what it truely is. They are absolutely 10000% allowed and encouraged to lie to you.
If you think about what arrest entails, threatening components of it outside legal backing (assault, battery, kidnapping, etc) is actually illegal. I'm unaware of the legal theory of such threats being tested in the case of police, my guess is no court would allow it, but I do hold that this makes such a threat actually illegal.
I think the basic problem is that many citizens think cops have ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, and therefore, cave-in to every demand made by cops. Thanks to COP WATCH and AMENDMENT AUDITOR channels, citizens are learning that there are guidelines and laws the cops MUST follow. THANK YOU ALL! 👍👍
Well we had auditors like the Black Panthers way back in the 60s but too many didn't want to listen thanks to slanted media. Thank god the people can be their own media today.
Dude you r a miserable cuck…vast majority of ppl cant stand you. You like to make cops day miserable for no reason? We r a country of law n order. Gtfo here. We have rules for a reason
He even asked him WHAT CRIME he's "suspected" of, but of course, the cop had no answer because the caller didn't have an answer. That's why he kept grasping at every straw he could think of and pivoting faster than an ice-skater. 🙄
When cops get out of line, doing illegal stuff ,...acts against thier training and current law. The public is punished twice. We have to pay the huge settlements when sued and we also get the ship kicked out of us. GO FIGURE.
God knows all, and every heart is as an open book .When cops get out of line, doing illegal stuff ,...acts against thier training and current law. The public is punished twice. We have to pay the huge settlements when sued and we also get the ship kicked out of us. GO FIGURE.
called the cops to report suspicious people in my neighbors garden and when the cops got there they realized it was just garden gnomes my neighbor placed there, but the sad part was the cops spent 15 minutes trying to I.D. the gnomes in hopes of an arrest
oversimplification. Police do not need to actually see you doing anything illegal to lawfully detain you. All they need is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot. They can continue the stop for as long as it takes to extinguish their initial suspicion for the stop, or until they establish probable cause to make an arrest. In this case, the police simply did not have enough reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
As a LEO in Pennsylvania, I have a problem with everything that sergeant is trying to do and some of the lies he’s told to the driver. I hope he filed a complaint for harassment and civil rights violations against him.
I'm glad you feel that way. Step one is always identifying the real problem, especially when you're in the same field. Now the second step is for you to go to that Sergeant and tell him how wrong he was. Be part of the change
It's different. It's worse. In the Germany of "that certain time", there was a legal justification for identifying people. That's just a statement, not a defense. But there were legal reasons for the police to want to know who (and what) you were, where you lived, if you had the right to be where they met you... With a few exceptions, such reasons do no longer exist in our law. It's true that every German citizen is legally required to _own_ a "Personalausweis" - the state-issued ID. But (again, with a few exceptions), we are not required to show them on request. Or even have them on us. Similar to the U.S. regulations, there are these situations where the police can demand you to identify. When you are suspected of a crime, or are considered a witness to a crime. But mostly, you are not required to "show your papers"... and our police would ask just anyone to do so. That's the difference. U.S. police does that _even when they don't have the legal right to do so_. It's an intimidation tactics... just like in our brown past. _"We know you now. We know where you live. We have an eye on you. Don't do anything we might not like!"_ And it's worse. Because our police back then was legally allowed to do that. Yours is not... and they still do it.
@Groffili Don't need to go to Germany for that. Black Americans needed "walking papers" upon demand all the way until the 1970s. In some areas still do. Doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional when LE has local judges as buddies.
Yes, on that basis that, any unknown, unvetted individual can make any claim, and that would be taken as gospel by the police over the word of the person they’re “investigating”!!! It’s just ludicrous!
Not if they simply drop the charges before you go to court. At that point, your only form of recourse is by filing an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.
filled with "innocent people" you are spot on! But most people vote for "tough on crime" politicians that did this to us. Too many people don't really understand the difference between "tough on crime" and "not oppressing the innocent".
@@halkreitman7838 Yep... that is common these days... just remember.... God is going to make everyone that has done that to you pay the price. There is a reason Christ said most people will not be saved. Far too many people are okay with what happened to you.
I remember the first time I heard about privately owned, for profit prisons, I was terrified. Once there's an economic motivation to fill these prisons, we, to be blunt, are fucked.
ESPECIALLY about the law. You can't expect people to TRUST police AND allow them to lie. You CAN'T have it both ways. I actually heard an ex-cop in the USA say, "You have to trust law enforcement." I haven't laughed that hard in a while!!!
“Reasonable suspicion” means they can articulate probable cause (by penal code) on a charging document. The 4th Amendment is very clear on when you are required to show ID “when you are lawfully arrested”. There’s no such thing as “stop & ID”.
C- seems particularly generous. That implies that the officer was at least partially right, which he absolutely wasn't. He was entirely wrong in every way. The only thing he didn't do was act on his wrong assertions or outright lies.
I think if the officer arrested the man, ATA would have given him an F. But since he officer did not, he gave him the C-. That's kinda been ATA's MO on these things.
Personally, I think the moment a cop lies, they should get an F. But I get it. If lying is an F, then what do you give to a cop who assaults someone? ATA should probably change to a 1 to 10 system, where10 is a cop performed well, friendly and within the law. And a 1 where a cops just fails miserably, being aggressive and breaking every law possible.
if you give them all an F, it takes away the significance of when the officers go completely bat shit crazy and beat/arrest the individual. So the C- makes sense if you consider that
Another thing to keep in mind as well, is the fact that a good portion of police are horribly trained. Unless they take it upon one's self to further their education they behave the way they were trained.
@@aurelijus1I hate to say this but your country is definitely free when your biggest problem is police not having a 100% understanding of the law.. Wait until you see an actual country that’s not free, where the law doesn’t even matter in some cases, and you are killed or imprisoned for saying something about the leader. America is one of the most free countries on our planet, and it’s not the best, but you definitely don’t understand the conditions anywhere else if you think America isn’t free or is bad
C- ? And then you go on to list the sergeants' multiple failures. At least he did not follow through with an arrest. I would score him no higher than a D.
Yep, just because a playground bully doesn't follow through and actually take your lunch money doesn't make him any less a bully for having demanded it.
@@gotherecomNo the argument here is the bully ASKED for the lunch money. Of course physical threats or physically forcing someone to do something are going to be objectively more severe under law.
Bingo. Cop lies you hear daily: "We got a call", "In this day and age", "Doing this for officer safety", "With all the stuff going on in the news", "Been a lot of recent break ins"....the list of generalizations they substitute for actual evidence of a specific criminal act committed by a specific person, is amazing.
Ive been approached by cops for being parked even briefly on a street or parking lot. Thankfully i am pretty good at politely declining help, not giving them an inch & being on my way.. still.. not okay.
Having and even invoking the right to remain silent doesn’t necessarily mean you need to self-muzzle and not protest unlawful behavior by the cops. The right exists so as not to self-incriminate. What I’ve seen some say is, “I refuse to answer certain questions.”
These videos are amazingly revealing. The cop's lecture about "our city, our streets" reveals a lot about their mentality. Thank God for the ubiquity of cameras.
What is incredible is that a random person can call in anything, not be held accountable, and the police will treat it as absolute fact. So many times on this channel is that apparent. Police should be verifying the validity of the call with the evidence presented when they arrive, until then calls should always be treated as ANECDOTAL evidence and not as ABSOLUTE fact that seems to happen.
Not going to happen. The public has been taught”See something, say something.” This is why people need to know their rights and shut up. If a cop has enough to arrest you, they will. If they don’t, you can inadvertently give them something they need to arrest you.
It's an absolute fact that hypothetically someone somewhere at some time called in and said "something". What they SAID may be anecdotal but that they called and SAID anything at all is "absolute fact". It's the thought process of being wilfully ignorant that this could (and does get) abused. "There was a call." The content of the call is entirely incidental to the fact that a call was made in the first place. Because no one would ever make a call for a bad or frivolous reason. The details are window dressing for a post facto justification. Ergo "we got a call about (×)" is not actually about (×) but that "we got a call".
Yes I hate the cop okay that I've heard it thousands of times on here. It varies on exactly what it means but one thing is for sure, it never means okay.
I think Gilmore 100% knew he was wrong, otherwise he would have taken mr LAC to jail. He also stepped very carefully in his speech and never completely threatened arrest if the ID wasn't given. Seems pretty clear he knew exactly where the line was and how to not cross it.
Right, which is why he gets a C. He at least knows not to cross that line. It that a good thing? No, that is a net-neutral thing. But were this some other officer we have seen on this channel, he may not have hesitated to cross that line as soon as he pulled up. The grading scale is relevant to other police actions and how the interaction could have gone, not how the viewer personally feels about the officer's (or citizen's) conduct.
It's sad when the cops lie and said they onky asked for ID. Then the body cam and private video shows they say demand and you must and then later lie and say they only asked for id. How can we fix this ?
There would already be an incident number if somebody actually "called in a suspicious vehicle," because that would be a call for service. An incident number is automatically generated into the CAD when Dispatch sent the cop to the location. So OBVIOUSLY the cop is lying. There will never be an incident number because the cop will never generate one because if there was ever a complaint, or legal action taken the cop will say it was consensual, even though it wasn't.
We can be 99% sure that the city is using a databae using a database to track their 911 calls and a unique record number would be generated for every single call. That record is probably merged with the report that the officer will file and that record number may stay the same, or a different record or incident number might be generated when the call "clears" as they said. Thay first record number does exist but it's probably not released to the public until later.
No moron, this is not how "incident numbers" happen. The CAD number IS NOT an incident number and that is not and has never been information police are required to inform you of when investigating you. If they issue a citation that citation will have the relevant numbers on it.@@thenatural1759
So wait, if an unlicensed teenager decided they wanted to wait in the car and listen to the radio while their parents are shopping or whatever, they could get in trouble if they jump in the driver seat pretending to drive while they are waiting? Cuz I used to do that..
Absolutely. I had exactly that happen to me. I was EIGHT years old, hopped into the front seat to fiddle with the radio and a police officer approached the window. He was kind to me and asked if I had a driver's license then explained that because I was 'operating a motor vehicle' I was required to wear a seatbelt etc. The car was not running, just the radio- but the key WAS in the ignition as the officer pointed out. Again, I was a child and this interaction was meant to create awareness. I did not get into any trouble and (I think) the officer left before my family returned to the car. No threats, no arrests, no problem. But this was in 🇨🇦 in the 90's. I was raised to be polite and respectful to those in uniform.
Yep. And if you leave the bar, get to the parking lot, and decide you're too drunk to go home so you sleep it off in your car, you can be arrested for dui.
@@sarahtar what if someone decided sleep it off and they are the only person in the car but they are in the passenger seat, with the engine running, could they still get in trouble?
@@jestinnawelch35 It depends on which state they're living in. Some will bust you if your keys are anywhere in the vehicle. I saw a case about fifteen years ago where, this dude was drunk, he refused the request of his friend to drive him home because he didn't want to leave his car overnight. His friend let him stay in the car, but took his keys, and told him he'd be back in the morning to return the keys. The guy was crashed out in the drivers seat when a cop busted him for DUI. Cops couldn't find his keys, the guy couldn't remember his keys were taken by his friend. Since he didn't remember his keys were confiscated by his friend, the cop argued that his intent was to drive drunk, and busted him for that. He beat the case in court, and the judge admonished the police for having the audacity to jail a guy on intent, when there was no such legislation. He should have never mentioned that he didn't know where his keys were, because that opened the door for the cop to argue, that he could have easily thought they were there in the car. That's why you limit conversation with them. They're always looking for an angle to pad their numbers.
Reasonable suspicion has to be specific: evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime is being or is about to be committed. Not just generalized suspicion which amounts to "I don't know what you're doing."
Cops are held to a much lower standard by the courts? Lmao. What an ignorant thing to say. Prosecutors, lawyers and judges hold their police to an extremely high standard or else any evidence they collect would be suppressed by the exclusionary rule @@timb7775
@@andrewvelonis5940what is CRIMINAL about what you said? What do cops have authority over? Crime? Sounds like an investigation outside their scope of authority to me. That'd be like me, a pleb, walking up to the podium of a professional speaker in a professional field and just taking over.....I have no business being there. A better solution would be to talk to the caller first. If no crime can be articulated tell that carrier THEY ARE MISUSE OF 911, A CRIME.
@@timb7775 incorrect. The Constitution EXPLICITLY says citizens have ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE SEVERAL STATES. If you can sit on a PUBLIC ROAD in your state you can do it in one you don't live in too. What crime is he committing? Cops deal with CRIME specifically correct?
@@andrewvelonis5940go ahead mate, explain away your rights some more, maybe another false flag operation needs to take place so they can steal some more. Suppose it’s not necessary if you’re willing to hand them over anyways.
Holy shit... that guy needs to get fired. "You're sitting in a parked car, if you're drunk it's a DUI." "You're sitting in your car, it's suspicious." My god.
I've watched plenty of audit channel videos but your channel is the best in my opinion. I appreciate the time you take to look up and reference the law. Kudos!
12:57 I love that island accent when he says "your tyrants, threatening me!" Guy knows his stuff. Glad he wasn't pulled from his car for no ID like we have seen before on ATA.
There is another video with cos from the same station bugging the same guy on the same street. A female cop called on him twice. They failed twice, but I'm the second go a second cop figured that he might be an insurance investigator.
I invoked my fifth amendment during traffic stop & the officer reported to the court that I was extremely uncooperative & the D.A. Was prepared to handle me as such. My proof on looking into the laws of the reason for the stop proved I was not uncooperative. But the officers like almost made my life hard & expensive.
Ugh right off the bat, they think someone making a “call” can just violate someone’s rights. I wonder if there was even a call and it was just nosy bored cops?
No they got a call shouldn't be grounds for the police to do squat if when they show up there's no other indications of any legal violations\crimes present. Look how often not only do ppl call whine one one for feelings enforcement. But also look at how often what gets dispatched to the officers enroute. Wasn't what the caller actually said and reported at all. Instead it's what that dispatchers own mind filled the gaps in the callers irrational (because it's feelings driven) story with.
When I see an ATA video where the cops get a good grade, I think 2 things. First, I hope the officers see the video and strive to continue to do the right thing. Second, I love that ATA chose to make a positive video about the cops. It would be so easy to only dunk on the Police exclusively. ATA gets an "A".
The only problem is that they don't about being sued because the people pays for it instead of the department paying, like make law enforcement pay. Take away their pension
The real issue are busybody citizens who call things in like this and embellish the call with 'acting suspicious' just to get the cops to show up. The cops already have a opinion of guilt before they even interact.
Even if it could be argued that the stop was consensual, the PA Supreme Court in Comm. v. Cost said that during a police-citizen interaction (“mere encounter”) when officers retain an individual’s ID to check for warrants and ask if there was anything the officer needs to know, it escalates the mere encounter into an investigation detention.
A supervisor that knows nothing about the law. Absolutely ridiculous. There is no complainant so there is no RAS. This cop is escalating the situation because there is no violation being committed. He doesn’t like anyone telling him no! Now the threat of walking next to a car because of a dog. What? I definitely would not have gotten out of my car.
You do not need to have a "complainant" for reasonable articulable suspicion to exist. In Terry v. Ohio, there was no complainant at all. What constitutes RAS depends on the totality of the circumstances. I am not defending what the cops did here, they did not have RAS, but I find it funny that you complain about people not knowing the law while also spreading misinformation about the law in the same comment.
"C-"? This "supervisor" doesn't know basic law, and became argumentative,combative, and threatening when confronted with a citizen asserting their civil rights.
I could be a 6 foot tall female named Tim Tom Billy jilly with an address from space. None of that information will tell you if my actions in that moment are criminal or not. 🙄
@@muzzledwon1845 Key here is how he says it's ACCEPTED that you just give up your ID whenever police ask. Thankfully this guy knew his rights! Never just give up your ID, it feeds this cop's tyrannical case.
Sargent Gilmore got a C+ for F level conduct? Just because he didn't follow through on his threat to arrest for failure to ID, doesn't let him off the hook for displaying the most abject ignorance of the laws he's purporting to enforce. "AtA gets .... an F" for this one.
@@Darkside007 My thinking is there is a line which, when crossed, demonstrates an F level performance. It's like a final exam. If you get 50% wrong, it's an F. If you get 90% wrong, it's still an F.
The irony is, as a result of police lying, and being ignorant of the law, they have only made things more difficult on themselves. We need to continue to learn the laws to protect ourselves during police interactions.
well a friend was sleeping in the back seat of a (his) broken pickup truck in the middle of the night, when police showed up. he did not hesitate to give them ID. they run an alcohol test on him after he said that he has not been driving because he has had alcohol. according to him, he was in an empty "farm field" that he owned since his father passed away and inherited it. so he was in his own property. they arrested him for DUI. his actual running car, a sedan was parked a few feet away with a cold engine, as he said he had been there since early evening clearing weeds and having beers. he decided to sleep in the broken down truck because it was more roomy. according to him that truck's engine was stuck or seized or something. he had his driving licence suspended for 3 or 6 months (cant remember) and the judge told him "he should have told the police officers that the truck he was found in was broken so it could not be driven. He couldn't afford a lawyer and he showed up alone at court trying to get through it as quickly as possibly to come back to his shift at starbucks were we worked together. he did not win obviously and had to resign from his job because he lived in the next town over and without a car he couldn't get to work. (having a prior DUI did not help him in any way, and by his words the prior one was legit)
Drives me crazy how many times an officer will threaten but never follow through implying they know the threat is empty and they cannot legally follow through because they are in the wrong.
I have now heard cops demand ID to prove you are legally able to drive. You never have to prove innocence in the US. This officer needs to learn something about the law. He lies so effortlessly. You don't lose your rights by simply sitting in a parked car in America.
That’s the only weird part to me where I can see how cops can demand it. If you’re sitting in public space they can’t demand ID, but being in a car, they could verify that either you’re allowed to be operating it, or at least, how do I know you either own or are allowed to be sitting in it if I can’t tell who you are? 100% for not incriminating oneself, but through the context of, “what if this was a stranger that had just broken into my car and talked his way out of it,” I can understand the cops clarifying it
@@MotoNoir86 I don't know of a law that requires you to prove your innocence before you engage in a specific act. They could have waited for the driver to pull away and then engaged in a pretextual stop and they would probably get away with that unlawful act. But if a LEO approaches me, he cannot demand that ID if I am performing an act that is not criminal. The "hunch" or general possibility that I might not be licensed is not reasonable, articulable suspicion.
Alabama has stop and ID. But most people don't the know the law. Thanks to your channel, Long Island Audits and The Civil Rights Lawer I know the what the law is that covers citizens
This is crazy! I've been watching this channel for a long time and this is the first time my old hometown is featured on this channel. This is a small town. Good work!
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Be sure to check out my second channel if you haven't yet: ruclips.net/channel/UClTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw
They never articulated a crime. Not even close.
If you don't already know about this guy, you WILL WANT to know about him 😂 rayrayz camera, çops seem to fear him 😊
Can you please do Dolton, IL and Dolton Police it will go viral!!!!!!!
It's a great recruiting tactic hey if you become a cop you can do whatever you want😂😮😅🐷💩🤡s until you come up against the knowledgeable citizen who knows the law😮
Cop can't decide whether he is asking or commanding you to ID 😂😂😂 the black man in the car knows the law better than the old white guy who was a cop for probably years what an as ho😮
A person needs a law degree to live free in the land of freedom.
Not at all. You need to know and stand up for the Legal/Lawful Definition of; Inalienable/Unalienable and what constitutes a Human Right. As long as you're willing to challenge these members of their Cult of Authority on such matters then they are obligated/bound to respect them or become Criminal by their own same set of Rules. Coercion is a Crime no matter whom is committing it. I'm looking at you Police Officers...
Even if you do, the fuzz will tell you that your degree is worthless, inaccurate, and lacks qualified immunity.
Remember that they say ignorance of the law is no excuse
Except cops, they are not required to have to know all the laws
I THINK YOU MEANT TO SAY THE LAND OF FEIFDOM CITIZENS ARE PEASANTS , YOU KNOW .
Problem is police don't and they have qualified stupidity.
Always remember and never forget, the police are legally allowed to lie to you. Let me clarify something...In the midst of an officers investigation,whether it's a murder investigation,or if you're pulled over for a traffic violation...that makes it to court before a judge... "yes your honor,but he lied about that in his investigation when questioning me."
Judge - "that may be true,but he's allowed to lie to you in an investigatory capacity...so I can't help you there." That's what I mean,when I say they can "legally" lie to you. You can't use it as a defense against a police officer. Now if he lies to the court,that's where their lying is not legal or allowed.
And they will even when they don't need too.
And I'm legally allowed to ignore them and answer none of their questions or assist their investigation whatsoever.
This isn't entirely true. Unless you somehow make it clear that you're exercising your 5th Amendment right, you can still land in trouble in unlucky situations (fit a description, etc) @@innocentbystander3317
But they aren't allowed to make issuance of threats of violence, threats of arrest without actual probable cause to do a arrest are threats of violence
@@innocentbystander3317ding ding: that's the correct answer, the cops aren't interested in making friends or interacting with the community LMFAO you can't lose that one if you don't play
Officer, have you ever heard of "Swatting?" Anyone can call anonymously and report anything. Doesn't mean it's creditable.
Gilmore thought he could bluff his way past an educated black man parked in a car doing nothing wrong😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
🐷💩🐷💩. 📸🦾📸🦾📸🦾📸🦾📸🦾📸🦾📸📸📸
The officer is now the subject of an investigatory detention😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😮😮😮😮
All too often. Law enforcement will lie they got an actual call. Proof of such a false allegation can be and is standing evidence in a court of law..
Or the cops can simply lie and say someone called so they can have their way.
@@markfaas4052
That's so wrong
These officers didn't "misunderstand" or "misinterpret" the 4th amendment. They knew full well what they were doing. They've just been trained that lying and pressuring citizens usually gets their compliance. This isn't an ignorance problem, it's a maliciousness problem.
Yep. These jokers have been around for a long time. They know exactly what they are “trying” to do.
It's "accepted"
The behavior of these two make me fear for their potential behavior toward their families behind closed doors
The real question is why is ID ike crack to them ??
They misrepresented it
It is beyond disturbing how many officers lack even a basic understanding regarding ID laws, especially considering how vital it is to their duties.
They don't need to know anything when the system is on their side and turns a blind eye to their wrongful actions.
The majority know the law; they just ignore it.
Cops Lie.
Even he looks away from a suspicious vehicle! He could have been killed. Did they call the plate number in for wants or warrants? Did they genetic mark the car? If they don't they are not in fear for their life!
It’s funny how the police can interpret laws differently for different people.
Always remember when saying they demonstrated a false understanding, they might know what it truely is. They are absolutely 10000% allowed and encouraged to lie to you.
so the officer failed to investigate the caller... as usual. Threatening false arrest should be grounds for firing.
Their jobs would be so much easier if they actually did their jobs and respected people's civil rights
Haircut is scary. This cop is going fishing. Hope this man sued this township.
If you think about what arrest entails, threatening components of it outside legal backing (assault, battery, kidnapping, etc) is actually illegal. I'm unaware of the legal theory of such threats being tested in the case of police, my guess is no court would allow it, but I do hold that this makes such a threat actually illegal.
I bet there was no caller
Definitely should be. @@admthrawnuru
I think the basic problem is that many citizens think cops have ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, and therefore, cave-in to every demand made by cops. Thanks to COP WATCH and AMENDMENT AUDITOR channels, citizens are learning that there are guidelines and laws the cops MUST follow. THANK YOU ALL! 👍👍
Yep and anyone who stands up for their rights is automatically resisting, obstructing and a criminal in their eyes.
Well we had auditors like the Black Panthers way back in the 60s but too many didn't want to listen thanks to slanted media. Thank god the people can be their own media today.
The bigger problem is most police think they have absolute authority.
They are so power hungry. That first cop was SO furious he wouldn't yield to his demands
Dude you r a miserable cuck…vast majority of ppl cant stand you. You like to make cops day miserable for no reason? We r a country of law n order. Gtfo here. We have rules for a reason
"I don't consent to any searches, seizures, or questions...so either arrest me for whatever crime you think I have committed or leave me alone."
He even asked him WHAT CRIME he's "suspected" of, but of course, the cop had no answer because the caller didn't have an answer. That's why he kept grasping at every straw he could think of and pivoting faster than an ice-skater. 🙄
Yeah you going to jail 😂
Love it!
Mic drop
Just dont drop said mic infront said cop, or its littering! 😂@user-fm2iw3um3u
"Suspicion of being aware of his rights."
Rumor has it they are still trying to figure out why they are hated from coast to coast.
When cops get out of line, doing illegal stuff ,...acts against thier training and current law. The public is punished twice. We have to pay the huge settlements when sued and we also get the ship kicked out of us. GO FIGURE.
God knows all, and every heart is as an open book .When cops get out of line, doing illegal stuff ,...acts against thier training and current law. The public is punished twice. We have to pay the huge settlements when sued and we also get the ship kicked out of us. GO FIGURE.
called the cops to report suspicious people in my neighbors garden and when the cops got there they realized it was just garden gnomes my neighbor placed there, but the sad part was the cops spent 15 minutes trying to I.D. the gnomes in hopes of an arrest
😂👌🤣😂🤣
They were trying to determine what name the g was an abbreviation of; finally put Goober on the report.
Flamingos, on the other hand, would have been really suspicious.
I'm just curious how seeing my ID tells a cop if I have broken the law or not.
🤣🤣🤣
The man has been a cop for probably 30+ years and shows that much ignorance of the law.
That is how we know this is a very very profoundly lazy person with a very very lazy brain
It’s not ignorance. He’s lying on purpose
“We got a call..” And we believe anything the public says when “we get a call.” However, that’s all out he window when we have to go investigate…
How the hell do you give the cop a C for lying and attempting to violate this man's rights repeatedly?
because thats the minimum standard apparently
Threats of violence too you forgot
As long as the cop doesn't beat the man within an inch of his life, they'll get a passing grade on this channel
@@BabomomebeoNot true.
Because it’s legal for the police to do those things 🤷♂️
“We didn’t say you were doing anything illegal.”
Exactly. Which is a violation of my rights.
oversimplification. Police do not need to actually see you doing anything illegal to lawfully detain you. All they need is reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot. They can continue the stop for as long as it takes to extinguish their initial suspicion for the stop, or until they establish probable cause to make an arrest. In this case, the police simply did not have enough reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
WHAT OTHER JOB CAN YOU PULL THIS SHIT?
@@President.GeorgeWashingtonThen what crime does the citizen in the video appear to be committing? Name it, and explain why.
@@LAkadian Read the last sentence dummy
I wish I had that much control over my temper. God bless you my brother. You showed so much strength.
As a LEO in Pennsylvania, I have a problem with everything that sergeant is trying to do and some of the lies he’s told to the driver. I hope he filed a complaint for harassment and civil rights violations against him.
It's guys like him that make your job harder.
which side of Appalachia are you?
I'm glad you feel that way. Step one is always identifying the real problem, especially when you're in the same field. Now the second step is for you to go to that Sergeant and tell him how wrong he was. Be part of the change
Be the change you wish to see. Speak up, and watch your career trajectory immediately flatten because you're not being a good "team player" anymore.
@@Ld7snake east siiide!!!
"We ID everyone we come into contact with" sounds a lot like "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!"
It's different. It's worse.
In the Germany of "that certain time", there was a legal justification for identifying people. That's just a statement, not a defense. But there were legal reasons for the police to want to know who (and what) you were, where you lived, if you had the right to be where they met you...
With a few exceptions, such reasons do no longer exist in our law. It's true that every German citizen is legally required to _own_ a "Personalausweis" - the state-issued ID. But (again, with a few exceptions), we are not required to show them on request. Or even have them on us.
Similar to the U.S. regulations, there are these situations where the police can demand you to identify. When you are suspected of a crime, or are considered a witness to a crime.
But mostly, you are not required to "show your papers"... and our police would ask just anyone to do so.
That's the difference. U.S. police does that _even when they don't have the legal right to do so_. It's an intimidation tactics... just like in our brown past. _"We know you now. We know where you live. We have an eye on you. Don't do anything we might not like!"_
And it's worse. Because our police back then was legally allowed to do that. Yours is not... and they still do it.
My mind is blown reading someone saying any police policy in America is worse than what nazi Germany did. Unreal
@@Groffili sad , but true .
@Groffili Don't need to go to Germany for that. Black Americans needed "walking papers" upon demand all the way until the 1970s. In some areas still do. Doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional when LE has local judges as buddies.
If you did nothing wrong, you got nothing to fear. All I read in the comments are whiny Karens who are definitely hiding sonmething.
How is that not an "F"?!!
It pisses me off how they act like an anonymous call superceded all Your Constitutional Rights.
Yes, on that basis that, any unknown, unvetted individual can make any claim, and that would be taken as gospel by the police over the word of the person they’re “investigating”!!! It’s just ludicrous!
@@cindland "Well then just prove your innocence! If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear!"
they knew not to generate an incident number because then they'd have to explain, likely in court, why they did.
It's like you go on his walkie-talkie That's 1 inch away from his lying mouth to ask for a number that he does all the time for traffic citations
Not if they simply drop the charges before you go to court. At that point, your only form of recourse is by filing an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.
He should’ve got an F
no wonder that with cops like that the prison is filled with innocent people .
I was one..60 months for nothing
filled with "innocent people" you are spot on! But most people vote for "tough on crime" politicians that did this to us. Too many people don't really understand the difference between "tough on crime" and "not oppressing the innocent".
@@halkreitman7838 Yep... that is common these days... just remember.... God is going to make everyone that has done that to you pay the price. There is a reason Christ said most people will not be saved. Far too many people are okay with what happened to you.
I remember the first time I heard about privately owned, for profit prisons, I was terrified. Once there's an economic motivation to fill these prisons, we, to be blunt, are fucked.
@@CD-vb9fi
Yes, 'the back the blue til it happens to you,' good ole boy cop suckers.
Lying should be illegal for cops.
Employment should be illegal for cops.
Most cops are professional liars
ESPECIALLY about the law. You can't expect people to TRUST police AND allow them to lie. You CAN'T have it both ways. I actually heard an ex-cop in the USA say, "You have to trust law enforcement." I haven't laughed that hard in a while!!!
Investigate that cops haircut.I would call cops for that. Then start fishing for crimes. Talk to the caller. These idiotic will use their weapons.
“Reasonable suspicion” means they can articulate probable cause (by penal code) on a charging document. The 4th Amendment is very clear on when you are required to show ID “when you are lawfully arrested”. There’s no such thing as “stop & ID”.
C- seems particularly generous. That implies that the officer was at least partially right, which he absolutely wasn't. He was entirely wrong in every way. The only thing he didn't do was act on his wrong assertions or outright lies.
Their ratings suck a lot lately
I think if the officer arrested the man, ATA would have given him an F. But since he officer did not, he gave him the C-. That's kinda been ATA's MO on these things.
Personally, I think the moment a cop lies, they should get an F. But I get it. If lying is an F, then what do you give to a cop who assaults someone? ATA should probably change to a 1 to 10 system, where10 is a cop performed well, friendly and within the law. And a 1 where a cops just fails miserably, being aggressive and breaking every law possible.
if you give them all an F, it takes away the significance of when the officers go completely bat shit crazy and beat/arrest the individual.
So the C- makes sense if you consider that
Another thing to keep in mind as well, is the fact that a good portion of police are horribly trained. Unless they take it upon one's self to further their education they behave the way they were trained.
The sergeant gets a C-? No, he gets an F+ for not knowing the law and making up Supreme Court ruling. Stuff like that can cause someone their life.
This why I don't subscribe to your channel. Your playing both sides
You mean F- lower than an F
''tuff like that can cause someone their life.'' - already did probably thousands of times, yea... freedom
@@aurelijus1I hate to say this but your country is definitely free when your biggest problem is police not having a 100% understanding of the law.. Wait until you see an actual country that’s not free, where the law doesn’t even matter in some cases, and you are killed or imprisoned for saying something about the leader. America is one of the most free countries on our planet, and it’s not the best, but you definitely don’t understand the conditions anywhere else if you think America isn’t free or is bad
My thoughts exactly lol
It's that power trip they are on. Cops keep doing this because there has been little to no reprocussion. He should be suspended .
C- ? And then you go on to list the sergeants' multiple failures. At least he did not follow through with an arrest. I would score him no higher than a D.
Yep, just because a playground bully doesn't follow through and actually take your lunch money doesn't make him any less a bully for having demanded it.
its the minimum standard apparently
I’m still waiting for ATA to implement a sorely-needed “F-minus” grade
@brad30three yes. I have often asked, "What's lower than an F ?"
@@gotherecomNo the argument here is the bully ASKED for the lunch money. Of course physical threats or physically forcing someone to do something are going to be objectively more severe under law.
They didn't generate a incident number is because they were lying about the phone call!
I’m guessing the guy in the car called himself in
@@adamgrove9198never thought of that
@@adamgrove9198 yep he’s just trolling the cops
Bingo. Cop lies you hear daily: "We got a call", "In this day and age", "Doing this for officer safety", "With all the stuff going on in the news", "Been a lot of recent break ins"....the list of generalizations they substitute for actual evidence of a specific criminal act committed by a specific person, is amazing.
@@adamgrove9198proof of this claim ?
Ive been approached by cops for being parked even briefly on a street or parking lot. Thankfully i am pretty good at politely declining help, not giving them an inch & being on my way.. still.. not okay.
It always infuriates me when someone who KNOWS they have to right to remain silent keeps talking to the cops
Exactly
Having and even invoking the right to remain silent doesn’t necessarily mean you need to self-muzzle and not protest unlawful behavior by the cops. The right exists so as not to self-incriminate. What I’ve seen some say is, “I refuse to answer certain questions.”
You still should talk to cops if you haven't done anything wrong. You shouldn't answer questions.
Right to remain silent means I DON'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS!
Seriously.
These videos are amazingly revealing. The cop's lecture about "our city, our streets" reveals a lot about their mentality. Thank God for the ubiquity of cameras.
Yes as if to say they know the man isn’t even from the area. The audacity feels criminal in and of itself.
Yo !!! Nice seeing a local on here . I’m from linwood in lower chi!!! Good work on keeping them boys on their toes !!!
What is incredible is that a random person can call in anything, not be held accountable, and the police will treat it as absolute fact. So many times on this channel is that apparent. Police should be verifying the validity of the call with the evidence presented when they arrive, until then calls should always be treated as ANECDOTAL evidence and not as ABSOLUTE fact that seems to happen.
Not going to happen. The public has been taught”See something, say something.” This is why people need to know their rights and shut up. If a cop has enough to arrest you, they will. If they don’t, you can inadvertently give them something they need to arrest you.
It's an absolute fact that hypothetically someone somewhere at some time called in and said "something".
What they SAID may be anecdotal but that they called and SAID anything at all is "absolute fact".
It's the thought process of being wilfully ignorant that this could (and does get) abused.
"There was a call."
The content of the call is entirely incidental to the fact that a call was made in the first place. Because no one would ever make a call for a bad or frivolous reason. The details are window dressing for a post facto justification.
Ergo "we got a call about (×)" is not actually about (×) but that "we got a call".
Dispatch NEEDS to ask callers what the 'suspect'is doing or has done. If nothing, the tell the caller what's going on is NOT ILLEGAL.
Most cops don't even know the law. What makes you think any dispatchers do?
Dispatchers have no right to do that.
There may not have been a call. The cop. Could have lied as an excuse for approaching the car.
The Right Of People To Be Secure In their Person's, Houses, PAPERS, and Effects, Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Shall Not Be Violated
The sergeant's Heinrich Himmler haircut is fitting.
Lol spot on!
lmao
lol, between that and Bert from Bert and Ernie, I agree
😂 he looks like a muppet!!😂😂
@@bbennyj😂😂😂
It's very worrying how many cops don't know/ignore laws and constitutional rights.
Qualified immunity allows it
Liars... soon as dispatched there is a log of incident of the "suspicious person" by the dispatcher!
Whenever a cop says, "Okay," it's NEVER ok. It's a tell that you just did or said something that triggered them. Beware!
Yes I hate the cop okay that I've heard it thousands of times on here. It varies on exactly what it means but one thing is for sure, it never means okay.
I think Gilmore 100% knew he was wrong, otherwise he would have taken mr LAC to jail. He also stepped very carefully in his speech and never completely threatened arrest if the ID wasn't given. Seems pretty clear he knew exactly where the line was and how to not cross it.
Right, which is why he gets a C. He at least knows not to cross that line. It that a good thing? No, that is a net-neutral thing. But were this some other officer we have seen on this channel, he may not have hesitated to cross that line as soon as he pulled up. The grading scale is relevant to other police actions and how the interaction could have gone, not how the viewer personally feels about the officer's (or citizen's) conduct.
It's sad when the cops lie and said they onky asked for ID. Then the body cam and private video shows they say demand and you must and then later lie and say they only asked for id. How can we fix this ?
You’re being generous giving the Sargent a C-. He totally failed.
There would already be an incident number if somebody actually "called in a suspicious vehicle," because that would be a call for service. An incident number is automatically generated into the CAD when Dispatch sent the cop to the location. So OBVIOUSLY the cop is lying. There will never be an incident number because the cop will never generate one because if there was ever a complaint, or legal action taken the cop will say it was consensual, even though it wasn't.
This is not how it happens
@adamgrove9198 this is not how it's supposed to happen. There, I fixed it.
We can be 99% sure that the city is using a databae using a database to track their 911 calls and a unique record number would be generated for every single call. That record is probably merged with the report that the officer will file and that record number may stay the same, or a different record or incident number might be generated when the call "clears" as they said. Thay first record number does exist but it's probably not released to the public until later.
@@spasticnapjerk also when people call the non-emergency dispatch number.
No moron, this is not how "incident numbers" happen. The CAD number IS NOT an incident number and that is not and has never been information police are required to inform you of when investigating you. If they issue a citation that citation will have the relevant numbers on it.@@thenatural1759
The lying cop gets an F for falsifying reasons to ask for identification.
He’s operating a vehicle he has to provide it
So wait, if an unlicensed teenager decided they wanted to wait in the car and listen to the radio while their parents are shopping or whatever, they could get in trouble if they jump in the driver seat pretending to drive while they are waiting? Cuz I used to do that..
Absolutely. I had exactly that happen to me. I was EIGHT years old, hopped into the front seat to fiddle with the radio and a police officer approached the window. He was kind to me and asked if I had a driver's license then explained that because I was 'operating a motor vehicle' I was required to wear a seatbelt etc. The car was not running, just the radio- but the key WAS in the ignition as the officer pointed out. Again, I was a child and this interaction was meant to create awareness. I did not get into any trouble and (I think) the officer left before my family returned to the car. No threats, no arrests, no problem. But this was in 🇨🇦 in the 90's. I was raised to be polite and respectful to those in uniform.
Yup, know what you mean.
Yep. And if you leave the bar, get to the parking lot, and decide you're too drunk to go home so you sleep it off in your car, you can be arrested for dui.
@@sarahtar what if someone decided sleep it off and they are the only person in the car but they are in the passenger seat, with the engine running, could they still get in trouble?
@@jestinnawelch35
It depends on which state they're living in.
Some will bust you if your keys are anywhere in the vehicle.
I saw a case about fifteen years ago where, this dude was drunk, he refused the request of his friend to drive him home because he didn't want to leave his car overnight.
His friend let him stay in the car, but took his keys, and told him he'd be back in the morning to return the keys.
The guy was crashed out in the drivers seat when a cop busted him for DUI. Cops couldn't find his keys, the guy couldn't remember his keys were taken by his friend.
Since he didn't remember his keys were confiscated by his friend, the cop argued that his intent was to drive drunk, and busted him for that.
He beat the case in court, and the judge admonished the police for having the audacity to jail a guy on intent, when there was no such legislation.
He should have never mentioned that he didn't know where his keys were, because that opened the door for the cop to argue, that he could have easily thought they were there in the car. That's why you limit conversation with them. They're always looking for an angle to pad their numbers.
Blatant F!!!! They should have moved on once there was zero reasonable suspicion.
Every cop on ATA can’t get an F. It takes away the mystery of the grade.
Agreed! Sic Semper Evello Mortem Tyrannis!
Fs are for arrests.
Don't forget he also issue threats of violence towards the citizen which is a crime
Should be an F- at this point. He was lying on purpose and should be taken off the police force forever and serve jail time.
Reasonable suspicion has to be specific: evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime is being or is about to be committed. Not just generalized suspicion which amounts to "I don't know what you're doing."
I would certainly ask exactly what it was that made my legally parked vehicle appear suspicious. Be specific.
But it's not a reasonable person, it's reasonable cop. We all know cops are held to a much much lower standard.
@@georgejones3526Exactly. "Suspicious of what?" At the very least you'll know what to avoid
Cops are held to a much lower standard by the courts? Lmao. What an ignorant thing to say. Prosecutors, lawyers and judges hold their police to an extremely high standard or else any evidence they collect would be suppressed by the exclusionary rule @@timb7775
Imagine living in a country where you can’t even sit in a car without people thinking you’re suspicious and cops wanting to arrest you 🤦🏾♂️
TBF, he was parked under power lines in an area where people do not usually park, with the intent of provoking the reaction ghat he got.
It depends if you belong in that neighborhood or not.
@@andrewvelonis5940what is CRIMINAL about what you said? What do cops have authority over? Crime? Sounds like an investigation outside their scope of authority to me. That'd be like me, a pleb, walking up to the podium of a professional speaker in a professional field and just taking over.....I have no business being there. A better solution would be to talk to the caller first. If no crime can be articulated tell that carrier THEY ARE MISUSE OF 911, A CRIME.
@@timb7775 incorrect. The Constitution EXPLICITLY says citizens have ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE SEVERAL STATES. If you can sit on a PUBLIC ROAD in your state you can do it in one you don't live in too. What crime is he committing? Cops deal with CRIME specifically correct?
@@andrewvelonis5940go ahead mate, explain away your rights some more, maybe another false flag operation needs to take place so they can steal some more. Suppose it’s not necessary if you’re willing to hand them over anyways.
Holy shit... that guy needs to get fired. "You're sitting in a parked car, if you're drunk it's a DUI." "You're sitting in your car, it's suspicious." My god.
I've watched plenty of audit channel videos but your channel is the best in my opinion. I appreciate the time you take to look up and reference the law. Kudos!
12:57 I love that island accent when he says "your tyrants, threatening me!" Guy knows his stuff. Glad he wasn't pulled from his car for no ID like we have seen before on ATA.
There is another video with cos from the same station bugging the same guy on the same street. A female cop called on him twice. They failed twice, but I'm the second go a second cop figured that he might be an insurance investigator.
I invoked my fifth amendment during traffic stop & the officer reported to the court that I was extremely uncooperative & the D.A. Was prepared to handle me as such. My proof on looking into the laws of the reason for the stop proved I was not uncooperative. But the officers like almost made my life hard & expensive.
Ugh right off the bat, they think someone making a “call” can just violate someone’s rights. I wonder if there was even a call and it was just nosy bored cops?
Unfortunately there are many people who just call the police for practically anything which makes the situation worse.
@@AnalogWolfGiven how out of line many cops are, calling the police on someone who is not an immediate threat should b considered attempted murder.
“We got a call” is one of their magic terms.
No they got a call shouldn't be grounds for the police to do squat if when they show up there's no other indications of any legal violations\crimes present. Look how often not only do ppl call whine one one for feelings enforcement. But also look at how often what gets dispatched to the officers enroute. Wasn't what the caller actually said and reported at all. Instead it's what that dispatchers own mind filled the gaps in the callers irrational (because it's feelings driven) story with.
The cops lie with every word they mutter. It's impossible to know if there was ever a call
That ego will drive you mad eventually.
When the officer finds himself deep in a hole, he should stop digging
A C- ? WTF? That’s such an injustice in itself!
Need room for the real bad ones
When I see an ATA video where the cops get a good grade, I think 2 things. First, I hope the officers see the video and strive to continue to do the right thing. Second, I love that ATA chose to make a positive video about the cops. It would be so easy to only dunk on the Police exclusively. ATA gets an "A".
The only illegal activity I saw was the supervisor's haircut
😂 thank you for saying it. I was looking for this
And the shades, what are those things about?
Straight out of an 80s cop show
It was startling.
He looks like burt, from burt and ernie!!😂😂😂
The Sergeant's haircut is hilarious.
This is the comment I was searching for lmao dude needs to let the hair go and just go full bald
You ought to see his taint
He went to the barber and said "I want the 'you can spot that I'm a cop from a mile away' haircut please"
If you watch WWII documentaries, you'll recognize it as Nazi SS chief Heinrich Himmler's haircut. I think the sergeant is a fan.
@@jmmahony oh for sure that is definitely the Unterschnitt style...
The only problem is that they don't about being sued because the people pays for it instead of the department paying, like make law enforcement pay. Take away their pension
"Blatant misunderstanding" - "Hostile" - "Authoritarian" - "Implying... [false] arrest"
*C-* 😂😂😂
Cops on ATA usually only get Ds or Fs when violence by the police officer is involved
Maybe in this the C stands for a certain 4-letter word that can refer to both cops and a lady part.
These officers are complete and total clowns. This is just insane.
They stated they got a call for a suspicious vehicle so if that's the case, there is an event number created by the dispatcher
Its amazing that we don't require our law enforcement to actually know the law
Winning hearts and minds. We got a call is right up there with "office safety"
The real issue are busybody citizens who call things in like this and embellish the call with 'acting suspicious' just to get the cops to show up.
The cops already have a opinion of guilt before they even interact.
"Stay away from my dog" what's he gonna do? Phase through the car and take it? 💀
Even if it could be argued that the stop was consensual, the PA Supreme Court in Comm. v. Cost said that during a police-citizen interaction (“mere encounter”) when officers retain an individual’s ID to check for warrants and ask if there was anything the officer needs to know, it escalates the mere encounter into an investigation detention.
Is this the double standard law they use to say dui pullover no Miranda rights needed says traffic then turns around and charges you with a crime?
A supervisor that knows nothing about the law. Absolutely ridiculous. There is no complainant so there is no RAS. This cop is escalating the situation because there is no violation being committed. He doesn’t like anyone telling him no!
Now the threat of walking next to a car because of a dog. What? I definitely would not have gotten out of my car.
You do not need to have a "complainant" for reasonable articulable suspicion to exist. In Terry v. Ohio, there was no complainant at all. What constitutes RAS depends on the totality of the circumstances. I am not defending what the cops did here, they did not have RAS, but I find it funny that you complain about people not knowing the law while also spreading misinformation about the law in the same comment.
"C-"? This "supervisor" doesn't know basic law, and became argumentative,combative, and threatening when confronted with a citizen asserting their civil rights.
You forget that he didnt get arrested or assaulted , ATA doesn't grade base on moral he grade base on legality
It seems to me if your driving a motor vehicle,
you'd have to provide a valid driver's licence, no?
I could be a 6 foot tall female named Tim Tom Billy jilly with an address from space. None of that information will tell you if my actions in that moment are criminal or not. 🙄
Fair enough but if you have a warrant for your arrest or you’re wanted that’s worth a lot of kudos during rollcall in the morning
@@muzzledwon1845 sickening how true that is.
@@muzzledwon1845 Key here is how he says it's ACCEPTED that you just give up your ID whenever police ask. Thankfully this guy knew his rights! Never just give up your ID, it feeds this cop's tyrannical case.
If that information is incorrect it is, even without RAS
@@BarterIrving yeah but they aren’t supposed to be able to force that information unless RAS is there so my point still stands.
Asking for ID is the laziest form of policing. They are just fishing for warrants as they assume everyone has one. I doubt there was even a call
These clowns been in trouble covering up dui’s for their officers and other local police officers
They get privilege. They will cover up mistakes other police officers have made also
As someone from the islands, I am proud that he stood his ground. These cops were trying to find some dumb excuse to arrest him. So dumb
Excellent content thank you and God bless you sir
Sgt. Brian Glimores Extension is 444 in case anyone was wondering
Sargent Gilmore got a C+ for F level conduct? Just because he didn't follow through on his threat to arrest for failure to ID, doesn't let him off the hook for displaying the most abject ignorance of the laws he's purporting to enforce.
"AtA gets .... an F" for this one.
Ata is a bit of a shill. Imo
AtA always skews in favor of the police
Yep... Par for the course around here... 😕
He backed down. If threatening to arrest someone and backing down is F, what is false arrest?
@@Darkside007 My thinking is there is a line which, when crossed, demonstrates an F level performance. It's like a final exam. If you get 50% wrong, it's an F. If you get 90% wrong, it's still an F.
Why do all cops think you have to give your id in any circumstance?
The irony is, as a result of police lying, and being ignorant of the law, they have only made things more difficult on themselves. We need to continue to learn the laws to protect ourselves during police interactions.
Sergeant has quite the haircut
Barber shop was closed and he did it himself.
Lies lies and more lies yet they wonder why people hate them
Keep up the great work you're doing. The world needs this information.
well a friend was sleeping in the back seat of a (his) broken pickup truck in the middle of the night, when police showed up. he did not hesitate to give them ID. they run an alcohol test on him after he said that he has not been driving because he has had alcohol.
according to him, he was in an empty "farm field" that he owned since his father passed away and inherited it. so he was in his own property.
they arrested him for DUI. his actual running car, a sedan was parked a few feet away with a cold engine, as he said he had been there since early evening clearing weeds and having beers. he decided to sleep in the broken down truck because it was more roomy. according to him that truck's engine was stuck or seized or something.
he had his driving licence suspended for 3 or 6 months (cant remember) and the judge told him "he should have told the police officers that the truck he was found in was broken so it could not be driven.
He couldn't afford a lawyer and he showed up alone at court trying to get through it as quickly as possibly to come back to his shift at starbucks were we worked together. he did not win obviously and had to resign from his job because he lived in the next town over and without a car he couldn't get to work. (having a prior DUI did not help him in any way, and by his words the prior one was legit)
How was he being detained? He chose to pull over and sit on the side of the road.
Drives me crazy how many times an officer will threaten but never follow through implying they know the threat is empty and they cannot legally follow through because they are in the wrong.
It’s called a bluff
I have now heard cops demand ID to prove you are legally able to drive. You never have to prove innocence in the US. This officer needs to learn something about the law. He lies so effortlessly. You don't lose your rights by simply sitting in a parked car in America.
That’s the only weird part to me where I can see how cops can demand it. If you’re sitting in public space they can’t demand ID, but being in a car, they could verify that either you’re allowed to be operating it, or at least, how do I know you either own or are allowed to be sitting in it if I can’t tell who you are?
100% for not incriminating oneself, but through the context of, “what if this was a stranger that had just broken into my car and talked his way out of it,” I can understand the cops clarifying it
@@MotoNoir86 I don't know of a law that requires you to prove your innocence before you engage in a specific act. They could have waited for the driver to pull away and then engaged in a pretextual stop and they would probably get away with that unlawful act. But if a LEO approaches me, he cannot demand that ID if I am performing an act that is not criminal. The "hunch" or general possibility that I might not be licensed is not reasonable, articulable suspicion.
@@PaleoCon2008good point
@@MotoNoir86Here in the US we are presumed innocent. So the cops can kick rocks without ras or probable cause.
Alabama has stop and ID. But most people don't the know the law. Thanks to your channel, Long Island Audits and The Civil Rights Lawer I know the what the law is that covers citizens
My question is - Can he be ordered out of the car considering this is not a traffic stop?
If the cop can show his safety was at risk, probably.
This is crazy! I've been watching this channel for a long time and this is the first time my old hometown is featured on this channel. This is a small town. Good work!
No duty to verbally identify
"It's part of our routine" is not the same as The Law