Army Ranger Gets Arrested While Filming Police
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2021
- Second Channel: / @johnlang6593
Patreon: / audittheaudit
Twitter: / audittheaudit
Submit your videos here: auditheaudit@gmail.com
Sponsorship inquiries: audit@ellify.com
Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. Help us grow and educate more citizens and officers on the proper officer interaction conduct by liking this video and/or subscribing.
This video is for educational purposes and is in no way intended to provoke, incite, or shock the viewer. This video was created to educate citizens on constitutionally protected activities and emphasize the importance that legal action plays in constitutional activism.
Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them.
FAIR USE
This video falls under fair use protection as it has been manipulated for educational purposes with the addition of commentary. This video is complementary to illustrate the educational value of the information being delivered through the commentary and has inherently changed the value, audience and intention of the original video.
Original video: • My 1st Amendment right...
Oshae Jackson’s channel: / @oshaejacksonoverwatch
Sources:
Branzburg v. Hayes- bit.ly/3lYzh6R
Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins- bit.ly/3u8hq1c
Fields v. City of Philadelphia- bit.ly/3m31pWO
Smith v. City of Cumming- bit.ly/2XRc26E
Glik v. Cunniffe- bit.ly/2XPnIXT
Gericke v. Begin- bit.ly/2SiII5U
Ga. Code § 16-10-24- bit.ly/3ubF5O9
Johnson v. State- bit.ly/2Zlglrm
Lebis v. State- bit.ly/3i1TM1h
Thanks for joining us! Check out my second channel for more content: ruclips.net/channel/UClTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw
Georgia does seem to have problems with officer training.
Police officers don't want to be recorded simply because they know they then need to be on their best behaviour and professionalism. This, unfortunately, doesn't come naturally to many officers especially in situations where the citizens don't blindly comply but rather stand up for their lawfully protected rights.
I believe you made some statements that are questionable. You stated that they demanded that he move to secure the scene. However, there is no way you could know their intentions on asking him to move.
I have a question Mr audit the audit. I live in Utah which I believe is a stop and id state and I are very little first ammendment audits filmed here, and have some confusion around law enforcement demanding id if they randomly stop you while walking. By the 4th amendment it seems unconstitutional, however state law requires you to surrender that 4th amendment right? Do you have any videos regarding this topic? Love the channel. Respect and gratitude.
You can't lawfully be that close to a crime scene.. They can tell you to get back, they can seal off an entire block for a duration. When a cop says move back, you have to do it. It is a lawful order. So many people on here, and out there have no clue, they see these audit retards, (not this channel) pushing the limits. The ONLY reason you don't see many arrests for this type of impeding on a crime scene is it's not worth the time. but when it comes down to a serious felony.. you need to back up away from the scene. Stolen car is 5-15 years in prison in most states. It's a big deal, stolen cars, mean career criminals. usually armed.
Jackson gets bonus points for not playing the "im a veteran" card
A veteran should ALWAYS play that card because we have earned that right through sacrifice!
@@DS-nq1dg I'm a veteran.
What extra rights should we get under the law that non serving civilians shouldn't?
@@DS-nq1dg anyone working in government should have those rights. Even though first responders is more dangerous then the military and their new flower power. First responders like firefighters get no discounts or special treatments like that. I say it's kinda lame when someone pulls out the " I am a vet card"
@@DS-nq1dg that's such crap. I served with just as many assholes as hero. America gave me the promised services it offered. It owes me no more.
@@DS-nq1dg if your still alive it mean you didn't sacrifice anything ! lol what ?? you simply worked a job like everybody else that you willingly enrolled for and yet want vanity for ? thats not what the service is for.
If the car was stolen, and the area was a crime scene… I might object to my personal firearm being placed in the crime scene, on top of the actual evidence.
Damn it!!!! Good catch!!!! 🤣👍
I thought about that too!
Some liability issues right there lol
Yeah why didn't he put it on his cruiser
That cop loses their job if properly addressed this.
Smh. The dude moved back clearly enough distance to be out of the way. Just because the police truck was parked there, does not mean the “crime scene” extends that far. This was an unreasonable request IMO.
Officer, you obstructed your own investigation in order to have a pissing match with a man trying to do his job
Jackson : I have video.
Cops : We have video too. Lots of it.
Jackson : Yeah, but mine won't mysteriously disappear on my court date!
You mean theirs (cops) won’t be blurred out with the audio missing.
Except we have the video, and the cops were in the right. Y’all just complain no matter what
@@dicksherman284 Way to take that post wrong!!
Congrats to you!!
@@JSBIRD69 way to ignore the video. Congrats to you!
JSBIRD69, 🤣👍
"a man with a firearm is not listening."
says the man with a firearm that is not listening lmfao.
*Spiderman pointing meme*
All cops know is lies and hypocrisy
@@ObservationofLimits big lie
That's some police officers lol. The irony is laughable. If it was a crime then they should've put up barriers or boundaries so the public know.
@@Virtual_C_ they didn’t have time for boundaries and I don’t think they planned on being there long plus they don’t need them in this case
If this encounter was an episode of COPS , these gang members are famous for letting the cameras get all up in the middle of their extortions and shenanigans . The courts need to clarify that law enforcement can not pick and choose who gets that type of camera access .
They all walked away from the traffic stop to arrest the guy with a camera? Oh, man.
Crazy, right?! And yet, Audit the Audit gave those cops an 'A' and gave the guy with a camera a 'C-.' What a joke!🤔
@@mcraig2237 Agreed. I do love the research and detail, which takes no small amount of time. But this was not the first time I've heard LEOs say, "Record all you want!" while violating those same people engaged in constitutionally protected activity.
They clearly were not fearful of this armed individual, nor of the traffic stop, as demonstrated by their position and body language. This was a poorly concealed attempt to violate this individual's right to record.
I grant he was *way* too close when the clip started. But the distance he retreated and re-planted his tripod was entirely reasonable.
I've responded to and documented many police interactions. About half were traffic stops. Excepting the potential danger of vehicles fleeing or being used as weapons, the hazards are generally similar. This attitude and judicial support is, "This is my crime scene, I am god here" needs specific attention.
I'm extremely tired of the same complaint from LEOs in fear for their safety for a myriad of reasons that a reasonable person would dismiss. How many times have we heard, "Whatever I have to do to get home safely to my family" with zero regard for the safety or liberty of the public.
Audit the audit, great content, but I believe you got this one wrong.
Yeah and he “obstructed” their duties when in fact they walked away from their own scene by about 100 feet and ignored it, so that’s on them to turn their own backs on that. The cops are the idiots here.
When cops say they have video it’s laughable, they routinely drag their feet on any FOI request especially when it’ll show them in a poor light.
And also cops regularly say that "if you've got nothing to hide then why are you nervous or why won't you let us search your car" etc.
How about "if you've got nothing to hide officer, then what's the problem with filming?"
Also sometimes it disappears completely
@@likainenerkki7047 but the cops said he could film?
@@johnmerlino7133 I was talking in general. There's thousands of clips on youtube where the cops get pissy about someone filming. Just funny that they always talk to people about "nothing to hide".
@Donald Thorpe I think that's a poor analogy because him stepping back another 10' is not going to make a huge difference from where he was filming from. especially since it appears he has a variable zoom lens or a really nice prime lens.
We all know that if he were standing a hundred feet away with a parabolic mic, they'd STILL ask him to move back, just so they could flex their authoritah...
As a fellow soilder I'm not gonna lie but that dude is a pretty big ranger like damn that gives me hope
Wym it's not that hard I just copped a ranger tab at the PX
@@0000x0000referenced lol that's how I got my medal of honor! (Kidding of course)
We're actually a pretty skinny bunch. I was a Ranger instructor and platoon leader in 3rd Ranger battalion. Endurance is more important than strength and we have to be strong swimmers too, so big, muscle-bound Rangers are rare. None of us are fat.
He's not passing any PT run.
I know several Rangers. I've never met one that big. Imagine doing covert ops with an office building.
As always, GREAT content. I love well researched, concise arguments.
"legal order" = "any order we want as long as we append the words 'officer safety' to it"
Or “I was in fear of my life.”
Officer safety is a made up slogan...it doesnt exist in any legal book, in any federsl registry or criminal law. Its a made up word that police were instructed to use when they cannot legaly move someoe whenbeing bothered.dd
@@MarceloVeronezzi absent of a crime, they have no authority to command anything! He committed no crime filming them. He's under no obligation to obey anything they ask of him to do regardless of what he said if he heard them or not
@@MarceloVeronezzi He said he couldn't hear the stop, meaning he couldn't record the audio between the officers and the suspect, from infront of the cruiser. He never claimed he couldn't hear the cops order to move. You're clearly confused. Hopefully a Judge would be able to follow the story better than you did.
Yeah lawful or legal order is such a gray and muddy term it twists my stomach. Because in the end it forces the decision of if it was lawful or legal on the court. Wasting time, money and police resources. What police can do and say needs to be made clearer to both the public and the offices on the street. Ambiguity is part of why a lot of people don't like police interactions.
It's crazy how the police are more worried about the person recording than the person with the stolen car
You hit the nail right on the head. Just goes to show they have a lot to hide and really don't want to be held accountable. Just like doctors and nurses are the worst patients, cops are the worst criminals.
they are more concearned with a man armed with a pistol at their back..... people will take any excuse to criticize the police.
How do you know they dont have the situation with the stolen vehicle under control already? Also, this just goes to show why obstruction is a crime and why they are so inclined to address it and make the arrest. It does disrupt bigger issues and cause problems, distracting from what otherwise would be receiving their more immediate attention.
@@jackburton2680 Because they said that they had an armed suspect who had stolen the car and they were trying to get it under control. So they all turned their attention away from the supposedly armed car thief and decided to worry about a man filming. Their inability to do their jobs is due to their own adhd or incompetence, not some guy filming them. They just like to make excuses.
@@imabegood More concerned with a man legally carrying and filming them than the armed car thief that they stopped. Yeah sure, that makes sense.🙄
As for being a Army Ranger, this is what you are fighting for.
Corrupt criminal cops, prosecutors, and judges that could care less about the oath they took.
Not only are they disappointing but embarrassing.
As a reasonable person, It appears to me that the cops could have went about their business without interference from the "auditor", but they instead decided that his filming was a more pressing matter than the actual crime they were investigating.
they said filing wasn’t a issue.
@@nekoeades1499 they lie
@Reader Stuff doesn't matter who he is or what he wants. Not relevant
@Reader Stuff They knew who he was they where not concern about his weapon. As soon as the cuffed him they calmly removed the weapon like they had done before as to the routine they do every time they arrest him. This looked like Otis Campbell getting lock up in the jail of the sheriff's office on the Andy Griffin show level of routine. No one had their hand on their pistol if he was "unknown" to them.
They were going to put as much interference with his recording as they can without seemingly violating right while violating his rights.
@@nekoeades1499 As long as he did it from so far away he couldn't record audio which adds to their accountability. That is unacceptable.
It's such a narcissist move when they willingly go out of their way to approach someone, then accuse the person of obstructing them. It's kind of like when a domestic abuser says something to the effect of "look what you made me do"
Truth
Hahahaha the word narcissist being used around most RUclips videos is being over used and abused. Please find another word instead of copying and pasting 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏿♀️🤦🏿♀️🤦🏿♀️🤦🏿♀️
@@MarceloVeronezzi uhhh 8-10ft is what the S.C deemed far enough so. He'll be fine.
Stupid comment by Pinochet here.
Stupid comment by Pinochet here.
When someone shows up with a camera mounted to a tripod his intentions are clear. Also, he has a history of police retaliation for filming cops. There's at least one video of him being pulled over without probable cause. So they know him. They have history and it's personal for the cops
just because he has a camera doesnt give him special access to a crime scene so wtf are you talking about a history of retaliation? at no point do you ever begin to think logically. i dunno what your deal is... if you are a little 9 year old kid or something, but you need to grow tf up and start living in the real world or else get eaten by it.
@@wesleyhempoli5548 > Some guy makes an incorrect interpretation
> You completely flip out on him and beat him over the head with demeaning statements.
You feel big and smart now? 9_9
@@wesleyhempoli5548 You sound like the ignorant one. If they are so worried about the guy filming, why were cars still driving directly by the seen. They weren’t worried about them? Just the guy with the camera? Like we can’t tell you’re a DA cop. 🙄
@@wesleyhempoli5548 you need to smoke a little hempoli and give the guy a break.
@@Galiaverse lol ikr
Amazing how terrified the cops are of that mans hands. Just cowards.
i love how unbiased and fair this channel is, cops AND civillians alike can both be assholes, so always having an impatial view of whats right and wrong is very key and i commend this channel for it
I still think an A was generous here cause as usual, ego was involved. When he actually moved back, it should’ve been over. I’d give them a B.
True but they were not the arrogant escalating police that we see a lot. They were respectful.
Thid channel they are real generous with the police grading on this thing.
@@jwdathefax377 well kind of; pends on if you are coming from a legal view vs "what is right".
Everything the LEOs did was technically legal and correct; also the same reason most of us hate/fear/loathe LEOs and avoid like the plague.
@@Aerogrow Oh I don’t think they did anything wrong, I also didn’t notice the first time I watched, that the guy was standing right next to what was supposed to be a stolen car, meaning that he was still on the crime scene even after he moved back. I just noticed how they turned their focus completely on him and suddenly the real reason they were there wasn’t that important anymore. They did their jobs….I just can’t stand their egos.
What's the difference between ordering him to stop filming and ordering him to move to a location where he can't get a shot of the scene?
Because ordering him to stop filming would prevent him from filming even if he could still get a shot of the scene.
Because your equipment is not good enough is not an excuse to encroach on the scene.
The distance between the guy that's filming, and phisical evidence he could tamper with. Dude stood right next to a stolen car...
He’s on a crime scene, unauthorized people are not allowed to be on a crime scene. Recording isn’t the issue
@@AndreyKrichevsky and he backed up 10 feet from the car. It looked like the place he was being directed to would’ve unreasonable to get get audio and decent footage. You’d need some pretty good equipment to pick up audio from 30-40 feet with traffic going by.
@@joshseely8350 I get what you're saying, but the problem is the court seemed to have established that even though you have the right to film, that right doesn't supersede any and all other rights and considerations. Like people above are saying, the safe and reasonable boundaries of a crime scene can't depend on the quality of some random dude's microphone...
"You're impeding my investigation" = "I allowed myself to be impeded by your legal activity and if I had just kept doing what I was doing and left you alone, this wouldn't have been an issue"
Yep! 👍
These cops still suck. They could have just left the cameraman alone.
@@nicholastheofrastou1953 they asked for a simple directive. It's not their fault his equipment can't pick up the audio.
"I made the decision to walk up to you and start a conversation. That means you are interfering with my actions".
Did you watch the video?
At the same time the Columbus Police could have just ignore him and let him be. Therefore the situation would not have escalated. It just seems like the police interfered with their own investigation to confront him.
This is a good example for not engaging in “open carry” of a firearm off your property
"Go over here where you can't see anything and you can record all you want." Classic
The problem with "time, manner, and place" restrictions is that the cops version is: time = never, manner = with a chisel and stone tablet, and place = from a mile away.
Not applicapable in this situation though, since the cops didnt give any unreasonable distance req like sending him a mile off. He was given a very specific location, still relatively close to the scene, to go stand, and he refused to move back. The restrictions the cops put in place were perfectly reasonable.
@@jackburton2680 So, the cars driving directly by were ok though? Makes no sense.
@@jackburton2680 And yet other people were allowed to walk through the crime scene and were way closer to the stolen car than he was.
@@jackburton2680
episode for gggvguug
@@jackburton2680 it was unreasonable; it was too far
I suppose it all depends on the definition of “public space” “investigation” “lawful order”. In these cases of filming it appears the main concern is “if I can see you then you’re obstructing.” It’s sad that enforcement doesn’t equate to understanding.
First I just want to say I absolutely love your channel and how you fairly interpret all asapects of these encounters and give credit to your sources! I really appreciate your outlook on these issues! As for questions, I am just curious if it would be a benifet to those filming these types of encounters to call the nearest police precinct and respectfully let them know they're intentions on the scene prior to entering the area so if they are arrested and reported for recording, the office would be able to relay there is fair reason for said filmer to be present? I would think that could help clear some of the misunderstanding in these types of encounters if dispatch were to already be aware of the filmers presence ? 🙂
DISPATCHER TO COPS ON THE SCENE: "Officers, be advised that we got a call from some nut who says he approaching your crime scene with a camera and a registered firearm. No need to panic."
I know you mean well, elizabethpaletta, but there is ALREADY a "fair reason for said filmer to be present." It's called the First Amendment. Auditors don't need prior permission to exercise their rights. Cops just need to respect those rights.
They could do that.
The point being made here is he's not required to and the officers don't have the right to do what they did.
It's interesting to note that there ARE videos on this channel where the person did exactly that. In one video it resulted in a fairly constructive conversation but it still resulted in officers being called.
In the second one the man ended up sitting in a lot with guns aimed after him after letting police know in advance he was going to be exercising his right to open carry a firearm in a particular area and during a particular time.
Point there is even doing as you suggest can still lead to a tense encounter.
Meanwhile, both cops have their backs to the guy they stopped. He could be loading a gun to shoot them because they have let themselves become so distracted by the camera. And obstruction is a physical act.
Lol good point. Cops have ADHD when it comes to cameras
Whether obstruction requires a physical act depends entirely on the wording of the state law. There are states where that is true, but Georgia is apparently not one of them.
They also had to deal with a guy that was really big and clearly armed behind them even if he was just recording. My guess is they had the guy they initially stopped detained at this point.
@@nicolasrimer8589 Being Large is not a crime. Being armed is not a crime. Filming public officials while they are on duty is not a crime.
Detaining a large, armed, camera man for filming, however, is a crime.
The original suspect was already handcuffed in a police cruiser as seen in the original video. Would be pretty hard to load a gun and shoot them from that position.
To summarize; you have a constitutional right to film the police, however, the police decide when, how, why and how well you are allowed to film them with massive discretion and vague interpretations that will be interpreted in a court in the light most favorable to the officers.
He needs more powerful lenses and mic.. cops will still hate it.
“Summarize” is an interesting way to say manipulate the facts to support your made up reality
Within reason. They can't back you up half a mile down the road unless there is a good reason to do so (tanker spill maybe?). Had he at least backed up to the tailgate of the truck they likely would have let him be.
It was an active crime scene. A stolen car could easily have evidence surrounding it. Imagine if there was yellow caution tape and the guy stepped through it to film.
@@yuikol14 there wasn't any tape though.
FYI this was the first time you presented a map of the circuit courts jurisdictions while citing a decision.
Thank you!
This might be relevant information to your other subscribers
The Columbus Police department deserves recognition for their excellent officer training and the professionalism of their officers.
I disagree with the C-. I feel like it's a B at least. He articulated a reason, remained calm and cogent, and didn't resist the arrest or really do anything outlandish or obstructive. He simply refused to move beyond the distance where he thinks he could reasonably obtain the necessary audio.
He broke the law, that degrades the rating from a B in my mind. The order to move back was clearly lawful and he was clearly too close to the scene. While police cannot make people move wherever they wish, in this case it is obvious that the order was reasonable and consistent with caselaw. By refusing to obey the order, he broke the law. And he was rightly convicted in court.
You give him a B for wilfully disobeying the police?! How does that work?
@@velocibadgery I don't disagree with you, but the courts need to decide what is appropriate distance. The officer told him behind his truck. However, if he told him two miles down the road, is that still lawful?
@@velocibadgery you can't break a law if it's an unlawful order
@@velocibadgery no he wasn't lmao he was found not guilty... 🤡
“Yeah you can film us, but do me a favor and back up so far that you can’t see or hear us abusing our power…”
I feel like it’s unfair to assume that he was saying that to cover anything up. They were being pretty damn fair to him and he kinda went out of his way to make an issue. This situation was entirely avoidable.
@@PathIsntReal It’s unfair to assume anything camera guy is doing is obstructing but the ‘possibly fair’ cops already did that when they harassed him over it
@@Number1FanProductionsThey didn’t assume he was obstructing by filming, they were fine with it. All they asked was for him to back up a bit from an active scene which is their right to do so (lawfully). He refused to do it out of stubbornness and got himself arrested.
Hear maybe, but that’s not a cell phone camera. It was a legit camera on a tripod. He could see them a mile away LOL
@@PathIsntReal Well most auditors on this page don't actually care about holding people accountable they just want to shit on cops and talk shit so dont expect anyone to be reasonable.
Wow you are great! I just started checking out RUclips and saw a pic of you in your car pulled over that said "Boss" had to check it out. Ive learned more tonight than in my whole life. I thank God I never have to deal with police so far I am terrified of it. When I saw them pull that bullshit arrest where you were moving like they asked i was fuming. I respect the police I was raised with some fear so I stear away but after watching you at least now ive learned a few things to protect myself thank you for sticking your neck out there for all of us it truly helps the police and the public. Its time to get back to reality and stop fighting each other over who is right or wrong too much hate and fear we are killing ea h other for what? Again thank you and keep up the good work.
"I don't have a problem with you filming" What a lying toerag, he absolutely hates being filmed and will absolutely twist distort or pervert the facts to support his case.
It took three cops to walk up on a guy with a camera instead of putting up crime scene tape if it was really that important.
He did have a gun, and crime scene tape takes longer than intimidation by force. Also, a traffic stop usually is so transitory, tape is unnecessary. They aren’t investigating that scene in particular, they are securing the area around the subject vehicle. No need to “preserve” the area with tape, just need some space so a guy with a gun doesn’t shoot them in the back.
They were afraid of black man with a firearm
@@tolsti1 a legally possessed firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
@@tolsti1 He didn’t have his gun out, he was holding a camera, if they really thought he was going to use the gun, giving him space is the worst thing you can do. And then detaining him because he didn’t back up all the way to the truck is a major nono because he doesn’t have to. Intimidation by force against someone who’s exercising his right is a bit of a problem.
@@damicothebest I won’t speak to the possible merit of that claim because it’s not the point of my comment.
I find it really odd that every single video I've ever seen, the officers ALWAYS say "you came up and obstructed our investigation", yet the only reason the officers are focusing on HIM, instead of the person they stopped, was because THEY talked to him. THEY stopped their investigation. The amount they wanted him to step further back was like, 8 ft. That isn't going to change anything other than he will no longer be able to capture audio. Which is what a cop with something to hide would do.
How do you know that that was the case here?
@@bomber9912 How do I know what? That they said the man filming was "obstructing their investigation" even though the offeres were the one that stopped their investigation to speak to him? I that's what you mean, then I know that's the case because it's literally what happened in the video. If you mean "how do I know he wasn't actually obstructing?", he backed up to a distance that was clearly far enough away, and they wanted him to go much farther, which they know would make it so that his camera can no longer pick up audio, AND there would be another vehicle in the way of view. This isn't hard to understand.
Agree. The cops decided to interrupt the investigation.
Because they aren’t going to ignore someone walking up and standing by with a .45 on their hip. It’s abnormal behavior, some of you guys seem to forget that cops DO GET SHOT often times in totally unpredictable ways…
@@MotoVloggedOUT By 'unpredictable', do you mean the cop shot himself/his partner, an innocent person or carried out an extra judicial execution because of contempt of cop? It's a difficult decision! In fairness to the paranoid android cops the fact that the guy was armed & watching intently could reasonably been a reason to get one of the cops to offer security in that direction. Once that could have been established the guy could have recorded to his hearts content. Everybody would have been safe. If cops genuinely believe their safety trumps the Constitution, they should hand in their badge. Please remember it is,'We The People...', not 'We the blue line gang....'.
The 1st cop was trying so hard to be polite 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The supervisor should have deescalated this. No need to arrest him.
They arrest people to make money. It’s called policing for profit. It is one of the components of fascism.
How can you de-escalate someone who refuses to obey a lawful order after having been repeated 3-4 times? The citizen was just going to argue and argue, without obeying the law. These frauditors do it all the time.
@@KrowShow. he wasnt doing anything illegal
@@KrowShow. You don't know what you're talking about. That was NOT a lawful order. That was an ARBITRARY order based on the cop's ego, NOT the law. Nevertheless, the auditor DID move back. He just didn't move the arbitrary distance that the cop's fragile ego mandated. And then, the cop lied and said he only moved 5 feet. Caught in that lie, the cop admitted that Mr. Jackson moved 8 to 10 feet. (09:14) What cowards and lemmings call arguing and arguing, true patriots call standing up for one's rights.
@@mcraig2237 Did you even watch the video & the audit? The police were in the right given the circumstances that was occurring at the time. Just because you're anti-police, doesn't mean everything you view through your colored lens is correct. Some of these frauditors are just as bad as corrupt police.
You have every right to film as long as it’s far enough away for the filming to be pointless.
How would it have been pointless? It looks like he has a really nice camera so I am sure he would have been just fine. You don’t have a right to just do whatever you want in a crime scene.
@@jamescash887 crime scenes are taped off, this wasn't an established crime scene. 😒
@@madmack10g88 they verbally told him it was a crime scene. There is no law that says they have to use tape. That’s very stupid that people believe that. Could you imagine every domestic call, traffic stop, or stolen car putting crime tape around someone’s entire house or car. If you go wandering into an investigation they can tell you to step away. They don’t need crime tape. Very dumb comments
@@jamescash887 it was clearly to far away to capture clear audio if any audio at all. On top of that, the angle created by that distance would make it extremely easy for the officers to stay out of the camera's line of sight. After backing up, the man was not close enough to impede the traffic stop in any way by filming. The officers were objectively wrong.
@@jamescash887 He may have a nice camera, but the audio was his concern. I think this is where the courts need to resolve this matter. If they say hearing is just as important as videoing, but officer safety trumps the first amendment, what happens when the two clash? We've also seen too many scenes where one officer tells the recorder to stand one place, but then another arrives to the scene and tells them to go to a much further distance.
he was possibly too close initially, he backed off to more than a fair distance but it was too late the officers pride was on the line he was going to find a way to arrest that man if it took him all month to do so.. also when my cars stolen i appreciate all the nice scratches it comes back with not from the thief but from the officers rubbing glocks all over it, really professional
It’s about the audio and nothing more...
I was filming a friend of mine last week who was being investigated for a DUI. I filmed all of her FSTs, just barely, because the cops were griefing me so much. Then they began to pressure her into taking the roadside breathalyzer test, to which I informed my friend to just take the one back at the station and that she didn’t have to take the roadside one (Sidenote: They never had her take a test after they brought her back to the station). That pissed them off because that was the second time I advised her of her rights (I told her before she began her FSTs that she didn’t have to do any of them).
When they tried to get me to back off from filming before they began doing the FSTs on her, I stood my ground and told them that they could put up crime scene tape if they wanted, but I am standing at a reasonable distance and not interfering with their investigation. Well they took that suggestion and ran with it.
I heard an officer tell the one who was leading the FSTs that the “box,” and then rephrased it as “the yellow box” was at their police car. I didn’t figure it out at the time, but later on I figured out that that was their coded language for the area they were about to put up crime scene tape up so that I couldn’t be close enough to film for audio to be picked up on what they were all going to be saying... She did end up succumbing to doing the roadside breathalyzer test against my advice, like a moron, unfortunately.
This is the kicker though:
They put the crime scene tape up around their police car which they made her go to and stand in front of, and the tape was _NOT_ around the actual place where the accident had happened (she had sideswiped a parked car in a very slight fender bender, and her bad luck was that somebody was actually sitting in that one parked car at 10:30pm, and was already on a very emotional phone call which had her in tears before she even stepped out of the car lol - she even chose to go to the hospital in an ambulance despite having told me multiple times that she was not hurt when I asked her before the cops showed up).
Anyways, the point is that this crime scene tape loophole really needs to be addressed in the country for how it is being abused to avoid cameras/transparency. They said very clearly that I was not allowed to follow her over to the police car, and when I tried to do so I was given the “lawful order“ that if I stayed there that I will be arrested (they made sure to use that specific phrase “lawful order“).
They demanded that I went over to the other side of the street so that I would be out of earshot, so I did so but gave them a few “fuck yous“ as I walked over there.
They also used the line that my filming a good 20 feet away was “threatening officer safety” and deterring them from their investigation. I told them that that is another line they always use to try to deter filming, that standing here filming wasn’t interfering whatsoever, and they could frisk me for weapons if they wanted (to which I heard multiple voices saying no, no we don’t need to do that).
They said that there is no specific feet - that it is just what they deem as “reasonable.” I don’t think that even if I standing on the moon it would be a “reasonable” distance for them.
@@anti-ethniccleansing465 copy and paste much? Very curious
@@anti-ethniccleansing465 oof
It is pretty safe to assume that you are never happy with anything. Perpetual whining is kinda your schtick huh.
@@anti-ethniccleansing465Your friend was driving under the influence and hit another car and you have the audacity to downplay it as a “fender bender” then place the blame on “bad luck” and the victim. And you only claim they’re a moron because they took a field breath test instead of went with the loophole to waste everyone’s time more? I’m all for the audits of making sure a cop is accountable but sitting here and defending a DUI suspect (I’m assuming because you claimed she took the test but was still taken to the station) who already used said car as a deadly weapon kills your credibility. Her rights were not violated, she waived them.
The fact that this individual was an Army Ranger has nothing to do with this situation.
I bet that lil wave off at the beginning of the video really pissed these cops off .. lol don’t shoo shoo me 😂😂
i love when cops stop doing their job so they can go play with their friends with cameras, so wholesome
So childish of the cops....I agree with you titans 27
@@812MSS It's a fair pity that supreme court case of Turner vs Driver didn't go the way of the gestapo. In particular I loved the questioning by the supreme court of the representative for Driver repeatedly asking 'what crime did you suspect Mr Turner of committing?'. None was forthcoming. Apparently leaving the cops to remain unaccountable got right up the noses of the supreme court(it got up mine too!). Of course Mr Turner had to be sweat boxed(tortured)at the time in an attempt to MAKE him to see sense! Can you imagine if a person had done that to a cop? The People are now more informed.....'We The People..', has a certain ring about it, don't you believe tyrant Jones? God bless the 5th circuit.
Ok buddy you aren’t very smart so please don’t have kids
@@812MSS that boot taste real good huh lil boy? Bow down
@@812MSS Coming from a coward hiding behind a fake name account. 😂
How does being in possession of a legal firearm added credibility to their commands? Was Mr. Jackson hostile or menacing in any way to them? No, clearly he wasn’t and he was holding a tripod with both hands, so clearly that had nothing to do with their commands. Regardless if they were fearful of him because he owned a firearm then asking him to step back and giving his more space is actually the more dangerous decision for them. Do you think it’s easier to disarm a man who is several feet away from them or 10 ft away and can now use their truck as hard cover? Sorry but you get a C minus for this.
Yeah, you’re clearly an expert on the subject. Clearly. Appreciate you writing this, clearly.
@@Dylan-wz3dz you’re response is called deflecting…
@@jimmythemuscle9612 first off, your*. Second, something would have to be addressed to me if I were to deflect anything. That Detroit education something else huh.
what always baffles me is that officer always surprised if someone armed... hello 2nd amend? everyone armed by default, including toddlers
@@Dylan-wz3dz Why did you use "huh" and uppercase the word detroit in your comment, you were doing so well going over someone else's grammar then you fumbled the bag yourself. That dylan education is something else huh....
What concerns me here is when the officer violated the man's right to keep and bear arms....."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The black officer's face during this whole ordeal is hysterical. He's constantly giving a look like, "guys, we serious right now??"
Cops: “you can film all you want”
Also cops: *proceeds to do everything they can do to limit you from filming*
you: being a karen who completely failed to understand the deeper implications of the laws he discussed.
@@cornthrow137 tf are you talking about…
My statement was just a generalization of cops behaviors.
@@cornthrow137 trying to suckle the thin blue line
@@tolerbrian2012 uhh oh boys looks like we got a karen here! some get the defibs! she is going into menstral
Could you be more wrong? They have 5 body cams with audio for your request
It would be interesting to see how the outcome would have been if he moved himself to where the officer directed, but left his camera, on the tripod, recording where he initially was located.
The officer would have placed it on the ground facing the opposite way probably. Saying "I'm just laying it down so I don't knock it over when we're walking by".
@@josephkerrigan733 You are probably right. If you video taped him doing it and complained he was violating the 1st amendment it would make an interesting video.
How about a camera on an remote control vehicle, ground based not flying drone.
@@rossstevens6165 If they saw it they would almost certainly try to get it claiming it could be a bomb. If they could see you controlling it they'd arrest you under suspicion of disrupting a crime scene or potential terrorism.
If they couldn't see you and couldn't catch the remote control vehicle I assume they'd just carry on but they'd be quite likely to get into their cars to prevent the car from capturing audio.
These are all just my assumptions but I'll admit if I was a police officer I might be concerned if a remote control car with a camera was moving around without seeing whose controlling it.
@@josephkerrigan733 yes, I agree with you. But that would also demonstrate how far they would go to violate 1st amendment rights. Again I think it would make an interesting video. Assuming it was done in a legal manner
That was my very first thought... leave the camera and walk to where he instructed. But they would've found a problem or loophole to obstruct that too. The entire point was to have his footage from a POV where it wouldn't catch everything.
"Let me just put this giant tripod in the center of the sidewalk in the middle of this crime scene....yup, looks good to me!"
"you got something with you that's illegal?"
- "yea, my freedom."
The trouble is that next time the police don't like someone filming them, they just have to keep saying he 'has to go further back' until there is no point filming at all.....which is exactly what the police want. And the courts are letting them get away with it.
It was a reasonable distance. He could still see everything.
@@peterb2272 wrong
@@chuckboy9372 But he couldn't hear anything which sets a potentially dangerous precedent for recording.
@@peterb2272 you're like a broken record.
@@stoiccrane4259 wrong
Thanks Audit the Audit, even though I don't agree with everything, I think it was fair and impartial. Don't forget the fact that other people were walking where I was walking unmolested. But thanks again
AtA did you wrong, you were fine and police just abused their power as we have seen time and time again.
For what it's worth, I think they were a bit off on your grade. The officers behaved... _pretty_ reasonably, but I don't think it was out of line for you to demand proper audio at all (although I'd say you should get a better mic, but it's not like you had the option then & there). Video without audio could render the video useless depending on how the situation unfolds. And that you didn't resist them, I'd say probably a B or B- would've been more warranted.
You were fine man! Especially after u moved back they should’ve never continued
Mister "molested" next time stop breathing down people's neck when you try to film.
PS: I have a duck video, a chicken video, a video where i am begging for money on Twitter... Also a patreon
Yeah definitely an A on your part man
Notice the officer pointing Mr Jackson’s pistol AT the other officer BEFORE clearing it of all ammunition!! Just proved his incompetence.
"Man with a firearm" so scary 6 cops need to come over to the camera guy. 🤣
12:50 AtA says that at no point did the officers stop Jackson for filming. Except they did, by detaining him and putting him in the car which stopped him filming.
Yes though had he complied and backed up to where they asked him to which didn't appear to be that far away he could have continued to record.
Lucky for the general public and people with comprehension, courts are able to make the distinction between suppression of free speech and genuine need for public safety.
A for the officers is generous. I think to get an A here they would have to let him film the encounter.
Wasnt the whole video jackson getting detained for being too close to film? They never said he couldnt film
@@menyce3 yeah, but they "offered" him a place so far away that it's more or less the same as "stop filming", it's about audio too
@bigdavexx1, I agree, they could have disarmed him and let him film with good audio
They were letting him film, and for Mr Jackson to use the excuse of he couldn’t hear, maybe he should buy some better gear, microphones in particular.
@@scotsbear1 what Mic do you suggest someone buy to pick up audio from 50 feet away, outside? Lol
Proceeds to leave unsupervised handgun with ammo with the 2 other suspects
They were all so polite to each other.
Gotta love how the arresting officer is trying to be intimidating while sounding exactly like Gomer Pyle.
WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION? DID YOUR MOTHER NOT LOVE TOU ENOUGH, WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD?!?
@@DiceyXD_ 🤷🏻 wtf?
@@DOLsenior He's quoting Full Metal Jacket. One of the Recruits is nicknamed Gomer Pyle in that movie.
@@robertwilson8184 thanks
@@DOLsenior Great movie
I thought 10ft was the amount if space needed by the Supreme Court
I find it amazing that all the officers turned away from the person they stopped. Amazing
SCOTUS has never ruled on recording police in public. SCOTUS only takes cases, otherwise known as granting cert, when there is a disagreement in the circuit courts on an issue (there are other issues that go directly to the court, but ignore the minutia). Since all circuits agree that recording the police is legal, there is no reason for SCOTUS to take up the issue.
According to AtA, the First Circuit established the 10 foot holding. Mr. Jackson probably did not assert that right correctly at trial, and therefore got convicted. "A Man Who Is His Own Lawyer Has a Fool for a Client." That is a lawyer, a lay person definitely needs a specialist.
I would like to see a discussion of what the parameters are for police defining the boundaries of a crime scene: i.e., how they decide how far back someone has to stand from any activity the person is trying to record.
+eponymousime, writes _" i.e., how they decide how far back someone has to stand from any activity the person is trying to record."_
Considering the other civilians allowed to walk through the "crime scene", in this case the distance would be mere inches.
Gotta love Georgia cops “whattyuh mean back eem up”
Repping 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. Miss them boys. Fort Benning, Georgia. Home of the infantry. Stay away from Victory (VD) Drive or you’ll end up marrying a stripper and buying a Charger at 38% APR
Lmfao
Us at 1/75 know better then to buy a Dodge to start with 🤣
Took my AIT there 11c10.... then a year later went back for Airborne School
Good ol sand Hilton
This comment made my legs burn thinking about stairway to heaven. 🥲 Damn right though! 💪
I've come to the conclusion that a right to record test should be performed to gauge their response. Simply attempt to walk by the traffic stop or crime scene without filming. If they don't block access to pedestrians then feel free to record at reasonably close distance.
We've seen that in Australia with Rebel news...As the reporter is being surrounded by officers and told to "get back", pedestrians walk around them, str8 towards and around the "incident area" the cops are making the reporter move away from...Got a camera, "Stay back"...Just walking thru, nothing
I think I saw a woman walk thru when they was going after Mr Jackson
@@stevedavies1261 need a chopping board do you mate
This was pretty clear cut & I agree with your assessment on this one
Something you missed:
- at 1.24 Mr Jackson offered to disarm himself for the benefit of the officers,
- Mr Jackson moved immediately after being instructed the car he was stood next to was stolen, thereby undermining the 'knowingly and willfully' requirement for the obstruction charge
- The arresting officer (not the one who placed the cuffs stated the purpose for their arrest was the alleged obstruction that occurred before Mr Jackson moved, NOT anything that occurred afterwards.
- 4 -5 Officers took 5 minutes each to talk to and arrest Mr Jackson, after he had already volunteered to be disarmed, undermining the case that he was in fact interfering with an investigation (undermining the case that Mr Jackson was in fact causing interference)
How hard is it to just conduct the traffic stop and ignore the guy with the camera? Until he actively interferes with the traffic stop, leave him alone and do your job.
Because when someone with a gun walks up on you and gets too close it presents a known possible safety concern. You can't just ignore that.
@@chuckboy9372 So in your mind, where an officer told an auditor to stand have a difference that, bullets won't reach an officer? When you are this dumb, try not to post on RUclips.
@@chuckboy9372 really? I cant just ignore the safety threat possed by an armed individual approaching me ? So people should cap hostile cops?
They can't ignore them because their inflated egos take up a lot of space
@@brianwilson7624 or just ask the man to disarm himself and step back 10 feet and proceed on…
@ 6:16 Police :you can record all you want but we don't want you to hear ...wtf
They did not say that they didnt want him to hear. They just told him to step back to a save distance.
"You're standing right next to a stolen car." So fckn what!
The fact the sidewalk is directly congruent to the stop location should have been a provisional consideration.
They cops were so worried about his safety they walked him up to the area he was told to get away from.
Their primary goal was to suppress the recording. Just because they said "move" instead of "stop recording" doesn't change that fact. By all accounts this is a false arrest and the charge of interfering/obstructing is a convenient catch-all that cops use when they know they don't have a case, much like disorderly conduct. Nice to see cops can still get an A for violating rights and making a false arrest as long as they use the right words and are polite about it.
true
Totally agree. ATA got this one wrong. Plus, 1A auditing can be about holding officials accountable while following the rules to a T... or it can be about gently pushing those boundaries, as this Ranger did quite respectfully, and challenging unfair practices. ATA did a disservice by overlooking this perspective.
This shit is always the adult equivalent of "I'm going to kick the air and walk in that direction. If you get hurt, it's your own fault."
Fu*k that "A". Their primary objective in asking him to step back was because they didnt want to be recorded. They only agreeed that he could record because they wanted to wiggle out of the lawsuit. They were asking him to move beyond his ability to likely most video and all audio. They just didnt want him to record. We need an established distance for recording and officers to respect it.
Amen!!! Audit the Audit issues the most ridiculous grades. Actually, the other reporter (the one with the funny voice) is pretty good. This one, however, sounds great but he's wack. Notice how he didn't call out that cop for lying about Mr. Jackson only moving 5 feet. Later, the cop was forced to admit that Mr. Jackson moved 8 to 10 feet. (09:14) But the cops STILL get an 'A' for lying.
these AtA episodes are so concisely written, it makes me feel dumb :)
I was saying the same thing 😂😂
Mean you might be learning!!! Can’t learn from yourself or dimbasses
I wish I knew how to research things the way he does!
That's your natural disposition. You think you would be comfortable with it.
It depends on what "point of view" you want to impose.
You can scan through other "court decisions" and come up with the exact opposite conclusion.............something similar to the Bible.
The ranger was remarkably calm while being arrested and disarmed. The order was not necessarily lawful nor was this the crime scene that needed protection. Just where the crime ended. Nothing in the vicinity was related to the crime or potential evidence. I totally disagree with you. I think the judge disagreed too, for the most part.
Well you are smarter than everyone.
You sir have bruised our egos, you’re therefore under attack I mean arrest
"You can record all you want to." You just can't be anywhere that you might be able to see us doing any misconduct.
Leaving his firearm and magazine unattended on the hood of the stolen vehicle makes me question the "A" grade but they seemed to act in a professional manner.
Agree on the grades. You were off on both. Nothing professional about the unsecured firearm in a.......CRIME SEEN......LOL. we do have many guess from Bkk with us today. Hope you will remain fair in your grading of all parties. Remember if you want to find out someone's true character put them in a position of power. Please don't forget about NUSTICE
Did the officer take the weapon, remove the clip, empty the chamber, then place the gun and clip on the hood of the car unsecured? Why is the officer walking away from a gun and clip. Clearly they don't care about the gun, or safety.
The officer pointed the pistol at the black officer while clearing it lol
the police could tell you that a mile away is too close for "their safety", he wasnt close enough to interfere with their investigation. no one will reasonably say he was interfering with their investigation
Excellent and fair breakdown, ty.
You have to understand ‘they da boss’ n like children they cannot stand anyone to say NO to them. Either OBEY or be arrested.
Yes, because this could have gone very wrong very quick. That guy had a gun.
@@Firu256 but he didn’t…it could have also gone way different if a meteor hit the area…
@@benweber5186 what do you mean he didnt? That guy had a gun on his waist and the police takes it after he is arrested.
🥾 👅
@@Firu256 so what. Most Americans have a gun
Random fact: O’Shea Jackson is also Ice Cube’s legal name.
Random fact: A Wombat will produce cube shaped poop.
Random fact: Ice cubes hurt my teeth.
Random fact: blue whales can have 12 feet penises
Random fact: facts can be random.
Random fact: Cats have barbs on their penises.
OMFG. 4 Police Officers to detain a dude in handcuffs taking photos?? And then endlessly debate the situation, Thank God for body cameras. Insane waste of recourses.
I have to say, you got an F on this one. You gave the reasons for obstruction while at the same time explaining how they did not apply. Moving back to a reasonable distance sufficed, as it was not a dangerous scene and he was well back far enough to not interfere with the investigation. He posed no threat nor did he pose any obstruction. He was calm and peaceful and asserted his rights, of which the cops ignored. The police also get an F, as they knew by having him stand as far back as they asked, he would have a difficult time in holding them accountable.
1. When he got arrested he didn't resist
2. He didn't get emotional
I think it makes a big difference
Also when ask questions he was able to articulate the sound issue
My 2 points is that by remaining calm he didn't get the resisting arrest charge which 75% of the time is the only charge that they don't drop
Also the fact that he wasn't emotional he was able to talk to the police without a violent arrest
The fact that he got arrest is secondary
Also according to the final outcome he might not have a record on the obstruction charge but the part i am not clear
But still didnt change the fact that he didnt want to obey lawfull orders by moving back a reasonable distance.
Doing the correct things doesn't mean everything you're doing is correct.
@@Firu256 if the sidewalk is open for walking, it is open for recording. The cops could have established a perimeter with tape, but chose to leave the sidewalk open. So it was an unlawful order since he had the right to be there.
@@letsgobrandon7567 Not really. There is a big difference if you just want to walk by because you want to go somewhere and if you stand behins police officers with a gun on your hip and a camera in hand.
Dunno.
Especially with protests, cops arrest as an intimidation tactic, and then release everyone after the fact sans charges.
Much like probable cause, the law should be clear when an arrest is valid, and if upon review, there are numerous arrests that don't lead to charges, it's clear cops are abusing their authority.
lol, as soon as you hear, "We're recording you too", or "I don't mind if you record, BUT", you know they don't want to be recorded.
Dude really thought he was gonna get a fat check lol
The dominant rule when interacting with police is: record always, obey on the street, challenge in court.
I love when a person drops the truth on the cops....their response is...."I am not going to argue with you". Then they start running their mouths again.
Nothing to argue about, he was in the wrong. Arguing is pointless
This is why it’s silly when people say cops should just google or call something in to confirm someone is right. People ALWAYS think they are right, and it’s a waste of time to argue this on the side of the road.
Hey "special people" commenting on here. #1 this is ment in general.
#2 dude wasn't wrong about everything.
@@beverslayer oh so just showing us your own bias via word vomit. Got it 😂
@@robv5834 yeah my bias for the truth. You got me good with your canned reddit response. Keep laughing at your own jokes. I am sure your mom thinks you are really funny too.
They can violate your rights in the name of "safety" but have been ruled to not be responsible for protecting you. Where did the Constitution grant police extra rights? I must have missed that one.
I would have told the cops when they handcuffed me, ya have just lost your qualified immunity and ya will get sued.
Dude didn't need to get so close & really didn't need to escalate.
"I don't mind at all if you film, but I'm gonna need you to go stand on the moon to do it."
It’s fine……the police are already filming themselves don’t forget.
LMAAOO
Please god... make sure I NEVER find myself in GEORGIA! thank you lord.
Did that guy say "Actually, that's 10 meters".... METERS? I'm impressed! All glory to the metric system.