Yes, more stupid laws. Officers have guns, lots of them quickly available to them within a short radio call. Seems like maybe they need to figure out that innocent civilians caught in the cross fire is what they should be concerned about. Defund the police was about this at its core. I’m not arguing for that at all, but lots of innocent people have been put in jail overnight or worse because of ridiculous police actions. Just one is the Mom who was trying to teach her kids some responsibility and respect by making him walk the few blocks home who was arrested. Officers need more training on what they are actually swearing to protect not BS laws that will cause harm.
And if we don't overturn TERRY V OHIO, which is the case law that allows officer safety to trump our Fourth amendment right, our safety will always be a jeopardy.
Something has gone very wrong when people need to be given instruction on how to stay safe with 'peace' officers just as we need to know how to stay safe with wild animals
Somethings been going wrong for years.... I was a cop in the late 70s and throughout the 80s for 10 years working for federal, state and county/ city authorities in reserve units while looking for a department I was happy working for until I got hurt working construction and unable to pass the physical.... But I saw good and bad and intolerable in many areas, the best of which was the US ARMY Military Police and the Sheriff Department showed the least amount of corruption....
Let's remember how we kept losing more of our Rights (and "who") "War on Drugs" ? (Reagan) "War on Terror"? (G.W. Bush). What about the courts? Well, not only did (R) Mitch McConnell deny a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland but ALL Federal Court nominees were blocked by McConnell for Obama's last 2 years of his Presidency. Did Barack make enough noise about it? Sure doesn't seem like it but then; When has msm been interested INFORMING us about important information??? George Floyd's death made it on the news because the story blew up on social media and they couldn't ignore it. McConnell meanwhile, ALWAYS lurked and did damage in the shadow of media "distracted by something else".
I still think the designers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and Amendments made the First Amendment first for a reason and I believe they put the Second Amendment second so we could protect ourselves from just such officers.
The second amendment was originally to prevent a Britain scenario, where the overall government forcibly subjugates the population. It wasn't meant for local governments
The only reason that police do not want to be recorded is that they very often DO NOT conduct policing within the limits of the law. After all, the police would have to actually know the law to do that.
@ Not really or the police would be protecting the rights of the people and not violating the rights of the people. The police would be wise enough to keep We The People on their side instead being Tyrants Thugs bullies rights violators and operating outside of the limits of the law. You can put on RUclips and watch the police break the law by violating the rights of the people all day !
@@captainjimolchsI can assure you, they DO NOT know the law. They can't even conduct a consensual encounter without demanding ID with no crime or RAS, and threatening an obstruction or failure to ID arrest... I LOVE when cops ask me where I went to law school when correcting their bs. The University of Colorado, btw (final year of my JD with a master's degree in Administrative and Constitutiinal Law already). That usually shuts them right up, especially when I turn it around and ask them where THEY went to law school...
Indeed they have from enforcing unconstitutional mandates, unconstitutional laws, edicts from self-proclaimed dictators and enforcing censorship. The police have done themselves a great deal of harm and many people want to defund the police because of the police's behavior. They have chosen to take the approach. We were just doing our jobs. The same defense that the soldiers in Germany chose during the Nuremberg trials. Like the German soldiers, they are declaring that everything they did was legal. Anything that isn't a front to the Constitution, regardless of what the courts say is illegal.
Put the phone in your shirt pocket with camera lens above the pocket. Cop cannot claim you are recording. If cops want your phone- Lock It and return it to your pocket. Tell the officer he has no authority to confiscate. Tell the cop you will not prevent him taking it, but you will not hand it over. Force him to break law.
I was going through an area 2 blocks from a crime screen where at least 2 soccer fans had gotten rowdy. Two young police officers were stationed on the perimeter to get some learning experience. The short, young, male officer started mouthing off at me. The young, female watched. It became obvious that the male officer had become police in order to bully. He walked up to me, expecting me to reflexively back up. However, I have lots of training and experience with behaviorist psychology and carefully picked my response to his aggression. I simply stood still. He kept walking towards me, confident that I would reflexively back up to keep normal social distance. I kept standing still. At the last moment, he continued to pick aggression, and I continued to pick standing still. He walked right into me, pushing me off balance such that I fell. He was shocked that I had not either backed up, nor put a foot out to counter his force. I had merely stood still to provide no resistance to the force of impact. He then demanded that I get up. I got out my smartphone and recorded. I told him that I needed paramedics to assist me. He started freaking out. I remained calm and down. After a few minutes, an older police officer, who out ranked the newbie wanna be police, came over and was shocked that the new guy had pushed me down by body contact. I got each of the young officer's name recorded on video. To the end of our encounter, all 3 police believed I was going to file a complaint against the one who pushed me down. I believe I was entitled to. However, my intention was for the young bully to remember that the public is entirely capable of NOT behaving as he expects and that the public is capable if getting him thrown out if the police force. I expect the older, experienced officer understood the newbie wanna be police was flawed.
Here in California, we have the Thomas Bane Act, which allows someone to civilly sue anyone who attempts to abridge your Constitutional Rights through threat or intimidation, including your right to record officers in the performance of their duties. It's a personal right, meaning you don't need a (maybe corrupt) DA to file the charges. We also have Penal Code section 148(g), which says an officer can't create probable cause solely out of you recording. They need other facts of criminal activity to detain you, as long as you have a right to be where you're standing.
So, you can be arrested for "interferring" with a police officer performing his or her duties if you simply stand there quietly and record. Ok. So, lesson learned here, never interfere with a police officer performing his or her duties. If I ever see a cop struggling with a suspect I will remember it's wrong to interfere. You can't have it both ways, officer.
It happened to me in the spring of 2018. I observed & recorded a uniformed employee of the Des Moines Police Dept. walking to her car from the building. At all times I was on the public sidewalk, at police headquarters, in broad daylight. A dozen or more officers gathered around me, harassed me, arrested me, and confiscated my phone & camera. Then they un-arrested me and held onto my property for 12 days. It took almost five years to resolve the Fourth Amendment case, so justice was delayed (and denied) for the duration of the legal proceedings. This is the hard part: I lost in FDC and the 8th CCA on my First Amendment complaint because I was "evasive" in my answers to inquiring officers; and because a monster named Scott Greene murdered two metro police officers in the dark of night in another part of the metro, ambush style, some months prior to my encounter with police; also, because the Black Panthers are thought to have set off an explosive device at PD HQ in 1970. I shit you not!
Those such laws need to be challenged in court. 25 feet is absolutely wrong and such laws need to be tailored that police & DAs can't use laws against citizens.
The Arizonal law requiring 8 feet was challenged and deemed unconstitutional by the federal courts due to nits chilling nature on the 1st Amendment. I do not see any other outcome for any other similar law. Not only that, but the 5th Circuit has already ruled in Turner v Driver that the people do have the right to record public officials in the course of their duties.
Just curious, the woman who filmed the beating by the officer, and was subsequently arrested, does she now have an arrest record, even though the case was dropped? If so, I hope she sued the authorities for millions because they stole her good name.
Ime, no. There's nothing you can do via legal channels. If you feel that the unlawful arrest is adversely affecting your income potential, you simply have to compensate for the lost income via extra-legal means.
Yes, she now has a record. Even if you are able to get a false arrest expunged, the private corporations who make money from background checks will have already picked it up and will report it to any employer who asks.
I just don't understand how the Supreme Court could find it permissible for cops to lie, ever. Obviously, the Justices know more about the law and Constitution than I do.
It makes it easier for police to use another officer to block your view and for sure to get clear audio of a interaction This makes using more professional equipment instead of just a phone and that's why the blue line and certain politicians want these distance law's
Since you have the interaction on film, if the officer says you're being detained, ask them what crime they suspect you of. If they say something like "I wanna figure out what's going on," "I'm gonna ID you," or "because you're filming," you now have what should be a bulletproof defense to most crimes they might accuse you of later, because none of those answers create the legal obligation to provide ID, and it is completely reasonable to assert that you believed the officer was lying, trying to trick you into surrendering your rights. If he doesn't answer, that also creates the grounds to believe he is lying about his authority to demand ID. I really like the idea of putting a mirror on the back of your phone. If they try to blind the camera, you can shine it back at them. For them to complain about assault, they'd have to admit what they did to you first was a use of force, without any lawful authority to do so. Yes, there's the real potential that'll be an uncomfortable interaction.
Jeff you are the best! Your most profound teaching is to claim one’s refusal to have your rights violated and then save if for court. In front of a judge is where these arguments should be made!
Louisiana law created by bullies who want to make it easier to be bullies. It should be a criminal offense for an officer to tell someone some act is illegal when that act is not illegal. If a LEO asks why your recording you could say you're going to submit the recording to "America's Dumbest Criminals" (without making it obvious who the criminal is)
I used to be republican. Now am anarchist. I know Jeff Landry and he is a typical republican totalitarian. I supported Edwards, a democrat, over Landry, because Edwards is actually better on the constitution and our rights than Landry is. Landry is also ex law enforcement, which explains his totalitarian nature. I don't even vote anymore, but I will be voting for ANYONE running against Landry.
@@DaveBigDawg Which we never needed to begin with. It's just a government trick. You already had the right. They created a law saying you now have the right. But if that law is later repealed, they will say you no longer have the right becuase they repealed the law. More laws only hurt us. They never help. If he wanted constitutional carry, there was a better way to do that and it doesn't include any lawmaking. Repeal the unconstitutional laws saying we don't have the right that we clearly do have as explained in the 2nd amendment. Some people even believe that if they repealed the 2nd amendment that we wouldn't have the right anymore, but that's just because they don't understand rights. I never got any rights from government or their pieces of paper. They are mine by birth by virtue of being human, because no other human has a right to tell me what I can or can't do, unless I am harming someone or their property. But you never see them repeal anything. It's always add. More laws, makes us less free.
Could you be arrested and go to jail for ... ? For any such question the answer is "Yes!". This is why we need laws to require police chest cameras. Of course they will turn them off before doing something wrong, so do document police bad behavior.
And worse than that be prosecuted and convicted, and hopefully win on appeal. Plus you could be seriously injured, spend a year in the hospital and subsequently die.
@@Sir_Scrumpalicious There already exists a law like that, if you can prove the police destroyed evidence. I agree with you - we shouldn't have to prove the an alleged malfunction was intentional.
I tend to think long lenses and parabolic microphones. One can be 60ft away and get everything. I've also thought of developing a laser microphone that bounces an invisible laser off the windshield of a police vehicle stopped behind you to record audio from inside the police cars. One that can be linked to a car cam so not just police or anybody. I just need investors. The technology exists.
If you do not enforce your rights, you have none. It is your duty to enforce your rights. States can not usurp the constitution, nor should they. States agree to enforce and protect the constitution by joining the United States. @simplerick3851
So now the cops are putting up tape at 25 feet then telling you to be 25 more feet from that point. Indiana law needs to be changed as well as Louisiana law.
6:30 I have a legal theory question on this one. Hypothetical situation: For some reason or another cop tries to confiscate individuals' phones. Said individuals phone happens to contain DoD credentials information that has that whole "it is unlawful for anyone other than the individual privileged to this information to be in possession of it" (can't remember the exact legal jargon but if you've seen it you know what I'm talking about). This creates a legal dilemma. Cop may or may not have authority under the situation to seize said phone; but now in doing so they're knowingly committing a federal crime (Assuming you told them beforehand so they can't weasel and say they didn't know). On one hand, qualified immunity. On the other, they didn't just illegally try to seize your phone; they did so knowing their reason was unlawful AND that they'd be taking possession of whatever level of classified information they weren't allowed to have access to. Theres also the attorney route of "theres privileged information with clients on there" but i remember there being a whole thing about calling another lawyer into supervise any snooping of said device. Regardless folks; remember the lockdown feature exists & how beneficial it is to disable biometrics & create a strong password. A defense attorney i know said his password is like, 26 characters long because he knows how much of complete dirtbags cops can be.
Where does this leave us? It leaves us in the same place we’ve been in for 80 years, as subjects of an authoritarian government not citizens in a free country.
so all a cop has to do is literally RUN towards you and if you can't run away and stay 25+ feet from the cop, who is RUNNING TOWARDS YOU... you are arrested. great law.
In every state in the union, an officer can lawfully order you to maintain a safe distance from a crime scene or traffic stop, etc. The problem is that safe distance has never been defined in law. I think it's good that a law specifying a distance was passed because it puts actual limits on how far an officer can order you back. There's less room for abuse with more specificity, and if you're filming, you can always use landmarks to determine distance to use as evidence in your lawsuit. As with anything that can be exploited or abused by law enforcement, there will have to be some lawsuits but without a specific distance requirement it's hard to point at something concrete to show that your rights were violated.
So cops with: body armor mace billy club tazers riot gear (shields/helmets etc) grenades and grenade launcher (flashbangs/smoke) shotguns handguns assault rifles in some cases (seen it) armored vehicles multiple backups and more available within minutes via radio are afraid of: Sally Housewife with a CELL PHONE got it.
Police Interfering with a private citizen recording their interactions including purposely blocking their view should be grounds for immediate termination.
10:50 A cop will never tell you you're free to go, they'll try to evade the question with a vague answer such as "I never said you could leave." Unless they explicitly say they are detaining you or order you to stop when you start to leave, you are not being detained.
All my phones are configured to start recording on boot. They also do some automatic network scanning, remote logging, etc., and open up SSH and VNC onion services, so I can connect remotely. They also "phone home" to initiate external scans. The feeds get analyzed by shitty AI that describes calls me fat and does an ok job at transcription.
All that my friend is a flat out lie. We the people have to right to do and exercise our rights however we see fits. To be a crime it MUST BE AN INJURED PARTY. Officer’s safety is a presumption and assumption that his life might be in danger. The aggressor or instigator can’t possibly be a victim or fabricated charges of a crime because he’s been recorded for evidence of his actions and abuse of authority delegated by congress as a foreign agent of the state, county or city limits of which he or she discharged his or her duties to taxed, shake down the community for money and personal gains with the judge and prosecutors. It’s all colorable and creatures of the law which are opinions for profits. ALL CRIMES ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE 100%.
Peace officers just like firefighters don't know what kind of situation they're walking into and how bad the situation will get as time progresses. This is why it is highly encouraged for the public to stay back. Then we have the eager beavers that only catch part of the interaction and then post it on social media, which causes a wildfire of speculation only for it to be completely wrong and have peoples lives turned upside down because of it. The one thing social media is good at is spreading wild speculations, the bad thing Social media does, is apologizing for the bad speculations. I think the 25 foot rule is a good compromise. People should use good judgment when trying to insert themselves into a potential bad situation. Nothing worse than having to look at a dead officer's child and letting them know that their parent died because they chose to protect a look-y-loo that was too close to the scene instead of seeking cover from a firing weapon.
A similar law in Arizona was passed in 2022 (the 8 ft rule). That law was challenged in federal court, where the court held that it would unnecessarily chill the 1st Amendment Rights of citizen journalists. I do not see these laws standing up to constitutional scrutiny, and as such, I see the ACLU filing a lawsuit to repeal these laws.
I would say that if a cop sees you are too close to record, then the cop is not in actual danger, because if I am in danger, I am focused on the danger, not someone watching what is happening, like the cops seem to be...
If your going to do it, don't save the video to an SD card. They can just pull it out and take it, deleting the footage. Also no biometric locks as he said, they can force you to open them
In two party states for recording it doesn't apply in public in general. Seeing the camera and continuing to talk is basically considered implied consent even for non police. At least that's how it's been explained to me in Illinois, and as far as i understand the law is essentially the same in all states that require two party consent.
I can easily see an occasion where one officer is conducting the "official police business", while another officer starts telling bystanders to back up to beyond 25'. As they do, the second officer will continue to walk towards the bystanders, putting himself within 25' of them, thus justifying his continued order to tell the by standers to backup beyond 25'. Rinse and repeat.
You can thank many of the so called auditors who have put themselves right in the middle of police investigations, many who shout profanities or do everything they can in order to provoke the officers into a physical confrontation so that they can sue the officers/departments. If it wasn’t for them these laws about distance wouldn’t be necessary.
When you're recording the cops. What they do is come straight up to your face within 6 inches and tell you to get that camera out of their face. what are you supposed to do then? When they're being aggressive, you never answer the questions that they're actually doing.
Well, I see it a bit differently, the governor gets campaign funds and the number of times that anyone has ever been prosecuted for campaign finance violations is essentially negligible. 💁 So it’s basically a perfect readymade mechanism for laundering proceeds from illegal activities. The thing is, if you had semi-effective law enforcement that could really put a dent in those proceeds. 🤔 See now it really starts to sort things out.
A problem with those idiotic laws in those horrible places that say "25 feet" is how does a good upstanding citizen standing 25 feet away comply if a Blue Line thug who has no attention span decides to walk toward the innocent citizen? If the innocent citizen does not retreat in a step to step matching of the Blue Line thug's approach,, they will be in violation of the 25 foot rule, and the cop can arrest them. I can see a person retreating rapidly as a cop approaches getting charged with felony fleeing--when all they were doing is disparately trying to maintain the 25 foot rule. Clearly the brain-dead authoritarian legislators in Lousy-anna and Indiana hadn't thought about that...But then again what do we expect in either of those places..
I am a police officer. Film me. Film me to your hearts content. Please get my good side..... However, if we are dealing with a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation, and we tell you to step back, then step back. The last thing I want is another victim on the list of stuff that goes bad. Bullets, explosions, vehicle traffic is a problem at police encounters. All for 1st amendment rights, but the safety of everyone at a scene is the police officer job as well. Please continue to film. Transparency is important.
Contra Costa County, California recently paid 8.4 million dollars for a false arrest. I recommend that you plan on winning a lawsuit for false arrest with a payout in the amount of 8.4 million dollars. If you play your cards right you can become very wealthy because of a false arrest.
But the Supreme Court ruled its only 10 ft ! Also cops have guns they already have safety what about Citizens safety ,you know of and by ans for the Citizens???
If a person is arrested under one of your recording-the-police scenarios, are their civil rights suspended due to the arrest? Are their 2nd amendment rights suspended?
Get a password protected bodycam of your own and have an attorney on a retainer. I hope I can remember all this legal advice that various YT lawyers are dispensing. Anyway, it seems that cops need to be better trained and held accountable and to not treat every citizen as an enemy.
What invariably happens is the cop is the one who approaches...and KEEPS approaching till they are well within your "personal space" and THEN claims YOU are the problem. It then goes downhill from there. The key is to record...and KEEP recording. And use an app that concurrently uploads the video to the cloud so the cops can't simply steal your phone...and I do mean STEAL and then erase the video.
I am all for the 1st amendment and the police should be monitored but it also seems reasonable that here is some buffer. There needs to be some oversight to prevent abuse by the police. Vague laws are a minefield.
I believe when this happens to me, and it will, I will comply, of course, but then will make a VERY big deal of asking what this officer is hiding, what is this officer planting, what is this officer saying, and what laws is this officer breaking. Also, I will be recording livestream so even if they steal my device or delete my footage, it's still done.
![FORTNITE CLASSICS IS BACK! Fortnite Item Shop [November 15th, 2024] (Fortnite Chapter 5)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RbQURbeFwqs/mqdefault.jpg)
Citizen safety is far more important than officer safety. Otherwise, we do not need the police.
Good point
Yes, more stupid laws. Officers have guns, lots of them quickly available to them within a short radio call.
Seems like maybe they need to figure out that innocent civilians caught in the cross fire is what they should be concerned about. Defund the police was about this at its core. I’m not arguing for that at all, but lots of innocent people have been put in jail overnight or worse because of ridiculous police actions. Just one is the Mom who was trying to teach her kids some responsibility and respect by making him walk the few blocks home who was arrested. Officers need more training on what they are actually swearing to protect not BS laws that will cause harm.
And if we don't overturn TERRY V OHIO, which is the case law that allows officer safety to trump our Fourth amendment right, our safety will always be a jeopardy.
@Brrrap743 it's also Pennsylvania vs Mimms. That should only be applied in that state only. But it is abused in the entire country.
Police will say they are recording for "officer safety." I would say I am recording for "public safety."
💯🤦🏼♀️
Something has gone very wrong when people need to be given instruction on how to stay safe with 'peace' officers just as we need to know how to stay safe with wild animals
Goes both ways.
The DIFFERENCE being...?
Somethings been going wrong for years....
I was a cop in the late 70s and throughout the 80s for 10 years working for federal, state and county/ city authorities in reserve units while looking for a department I was happy working for until I got hurt working construction and unable to pass the physical....
But I saw good and bad and intolerable in many areas, the best of which was the US ARMY Military Police and the Sheriff Department showed the least amount of corruption....
@@TheAlienPoisonIt's the police's job to keep citizens safe. Not the other way around.
Let's remember how we kept losing more of our Rights (and "who") "War on Drugs" ? (Reagan) "War on Terror"? (G.W. Bush). What about the courts? Well, not only did (R) Mitch McConnell deny a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland but ALL Federal Court nominees were blocked by McConnell for Obama's last 2 years of his Presidency.
Did Barack make enough noise about it? Sure doesn't seem like it but then; When has msm been interested INFORMING us about important information??? George Floyd's death made it on the news because the story blew up on social media and they couldn't ignore it. McConnell meanwhile, ALWAYS lurked and did damage in the shadow of media "distracted by something else".
Officer safety is a priority , report all falling acorns and squirrels immediately !
Justice for Peanut!! And Fred! 😁
Yeah… don’t report the squirrels or raccoons. They will kill them.
"Shots fired! Shots fired!".... Oh wait, it (really) was an acorn.... AND the officer responding to the acorn drop "attack".
I still think the designers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and Amendments made the First Amendment first for a reason and I believe they put the Second Amendment second so we could protect ourselves from just such officers.
The second amendment was originally to prevent a Britain scenario, where the overall government forcibly subjugates the population. It wasn't meant for local governments
For police, a camera is scarier than a gun.
Well, if it's one scary gun and many, MANY officers, it's still the gun as well. Am I right, poor, ethnic people of Uvalde?
With the acorn in a close second.
Especially if you direct upload to the cloud where police can’t get to it.
Transparency and accountability are feared by less than competent officers.
Limits on a right are a right restricted and denied!
Do NOT use face or fingerprint security! 8 digit passcode!
Keep finger on power button to be able to power it off in case they try to grab it.
Steve Lehto covered that - yup!
Recording on RUclips live also keeps dirty cops from deleting what you recorded if you can't turn off the camera fast enough.
The only reason that police do not want to be recorded is that they very often DO NOT conduct policing within the limits of the law. After all, the police would have to actually know the law to do that.
They know the law. That's why
@
Not really or the police would be protecting the rights of the people and not violating the rights of the people. The police would be wise enough to keep We The People on their side instead being Tyrants Thugs bullies rights violators and operating outside of the limits of the law. You can put on RUclips and watch the police break the law by violating the rights of the people all day !
@@captainjimolchsI can assure you, they DO NOT know the law. They can't even conduct a consensual encounter without demanding ID with no crime or RAS, and threatening an obstruction or failure to ID arrest...
I LOVE when cops ask me where I went to law school when correcting their bs. The University of Colorado, btw (final year of my JD with a master's degree in Administrative and Constitutiinal Law already). That usually shuts them right up, especially when I turn it around and ask them where THEY went to law school...
Especially Florida cops.
That's because police do not operate under law. They follow policy,protocol, and procedures.
Self proclaimed heroes have abused every law and tool they have been given.
Indeed they have from enforcing unconstitutional mandates, unconstitutional laws, edicts from self-proclaimed dictators and enforcing censorship. The police have done themselves a great deal of harm and many people want to defund the police because of the police's behavior. They have chosen to take the approach. We were just doing our jobs. The same defense that the soldiers in Germany chose during the Nuremberg trials. Like the German soldiers, they are declaring that everything they did was legal. Anything that isn't a front to the Constitution, regardless of what the courts say is illegal.
Put the phone in your shirt pocket with camera lens above the pocket. Cop cannot claim you are recording.
If cops want your phone-
Lock It and return it to your pocket.
Tell the officer he has no authority to confiscate.
Tell the cop you will not prevent him taking it, but you will not hand it over.
Force him to break law.
And have face-ID turned off. Cops often use that to open the phone and delete evidence of their crimes.
I was going through an area 2 blocks from a crime screen where at least 2 soccer fans had gotten rowdy. Two young police officers were stationed on the perimeter to get some learning experience.
The short, young, male officer started mouthing off at me. The young, female watched. It became obvious that the male officer had become police in order to bully.
He walked up to me, expecting me to reflexively back up. However, I have lots of training and experience with behaviorist psychology and carefully picked my response to his aggression. I simply stood still. He kept walking towards me, confident that I would reflexively back up to keep normal social distance. I kept standing still.
At the last moment, he continued to pick aggression, and I continued to pick standing still. He walked right into me, pushing me off balance such that I fell.
He was shocked that I had not either backed up, nor put a foot out to counter his force. I had merely stood still to provide no resistance to the force of impact.
He then demanded that I get up. I got out my smartphone and recorded. I told him that I needed paramedics to assist me.
He started freaking out. I remained calm and down.
After a few minutes, an older police officer, who out ranked the newbie wanna be police, came over and was shocked that the new guy had pushed me down by body contact. I got each of the young officer's name recorded on video.
To the end of our encounter, all 3 police believed I was going to file a complaint against the one who pushed me down. I believe I was entitled to.
However, my intention was for the young bully to remember that the public is entirely capable of NOT behaving as he expects and that the public is capable if getting him thrown out if the police force.
I expect the older, experienced officer understood the newbie wanna be police was flawed.
You can contact the Institute for Justice (IJ) instead of the ACLU.
Or both
Here in California, we have the Thomas Bane Act, which allows someone to civilly sue anyone who attempts to abridge your Constitutional Rights through threat or intimidation, including your right to record officers in the performance of their duties. It's a personal right, meaning you don't need a (maybe corrupt) DA to file the charges.
We also have Penal Code section 148(g), which says an officer can't create probable cause solely out of you recording. They need other facts of criminal activity to detain you, as long as you have a right to be where you're standing.
It is also important to remember that you are dealing with domestic te*rorists.
So, you can be arrested for "interferring" with a police officer performing his or her duties if you simply stand there quietly and record. Ok. So, lesson learned here, never interfere with a police officer performing his or her duties. If I ever see a cop struggling with a suspect I will remember it's wrong to interfere. You can't have it both ways, officer.
He's being paid to deal with it, you are not. And scotus said they do not have a constitutional right to protect you. What they are being paid for.
@@delresearch5416 - They are being paid to "keep the peace" which has nothing to do with justice.
Who ever said you're obligated to help when someone is fighting police? You're probably too fat and weak to be of any help anyway.
It happened to me in the spring of 2018. I observed & recorded a uniformed employee of the Des Moines Police Dept. walking to her car from the building. At all times I was on the public sidewalk, at police headquarters, in broad daylight. A dozen or more officers gathered around me, harassed me, arrested me, and confiscated my phone & camera. Then they un-arrested me and held onto my property for 12 days. It took almost five years to resolve the Fourth Amendment case, so justice was delayed (and denied) for the duration of the legal proceedings. This is the hard part: I lost in FDC and the 8th CCA on my First Amendment complaint because I was "evasive" in my answers to inquiring officers; and because a monster named Scott Greene murdered two metro police officers in the dark of night in another part of the metro, ambush style, some months prior to my encounter with police; also, because the Black Panthers are thought to have set off an explosive device at PD HQ in 1970. I shit you not!
Those such laws need to be challenged in court. 25 feet is absolutely wrong and such laws need to be tailored that police & DAs can't use laws against citizens.
The Arizonal law requiring 8 feet was challenged and deemed unconstitutional by the federal courts due to nits chilling nature on the 1st Amendment. I do not see any other outcome for any other similar law. Not only that, but the 5th Circuit has already ruled in Turner v Driver that the people do have the right to record public officials in the course of their duties.
The police officer simply extends the scene by walking in pursuit after you're more than 25-feet from the scene.
Just curious, the woman who filmed the beating by the officer, and was subsequently arrested, does she now have an arrest record, even though the case was dropped? If so, I hope she sued the authorities for millions because they stole her good name.
Ime, no. There's nothing you can do via legal channels. If you feel that the unlawful arrest is adversely affecting your income potential, you simply have to compensate for the lost income via extra-legal means.
Yes, she now has a record. Even if you are able to get a false arrest expunged, the private corporations who make money from background checks will have already picked it up and will report it to any employer who asks.
Cops should be under oath while on duty. Lie to anyone and go to prison. We need trustworthy cops
That's not going to happen. The courts have already ruled that cops are allowed to lie to you.
I just don't understand how the Supreme Court could find it permissible for cops to lie, ever. Obviously, the Justices know more about the law and Constitution than I do.
It makes it easier for police to use another officer to block your view and for sure to get clear audio of a interaction This makes using more professional equipment instead of just a phone and that's why the blue line and certain politicians want these distance law's
Politicians that make these laws are getting their pockets lined by the police unions and should be investigated by the Feds.
Since you have the interaction on film, if the officer says you're being detained, ask them what crime they suspect you of. If they say something like "I wanna figure out what's going on," "I'm gonna ID you," or "because you're filming," you now have what should be a bulletproof defense to most crimes they might accuse you of later, because none of those answers create the legal obligation to provide ID, and it is completely reasonable to assert that you believed the officer was lying, trying to trick you into surrendering your rights.
If he doesn't answer, that also creates the grounds to believe he is lying about his authority to demand ID.
I really like the idea of putting a mirror on the back of your phone. If they try to blind the camera, you can shine it back at them. For them to complain about assault, they'd have to admit what they did to you first was a use of force, without any lawful authority to do so. Yes, there's the real potential that'll be an uncomfortable interaction.
Arizona is now a stop and ID state. You no longer have to be lawfully arrested. And also is Arizona you cannot resist an unlawful arrest.
People have the right to record the police in public under the first amendment.
An 8 foot rule in Arizona was ruled unconstitutional by the 9th circuit.
This should be overturned as well.
Next, they will try to restrict your ability to use your camera zoom to effectively get closer.
Sounds unconstitutional
Jeff you are the best! Your most profound teaching is to claim one’s refusal to have your rights violated and then save if for court. In front of a judge is where these arguments should be made!
Louisiana law created by bullies who want to make it easier to be bullies. It should be a criminal offense for an officer to tell someone some act is illegal when that act is not illegal.
If a LEO asks why your recording you could say you're going to submit the recording to "America's Dumbest Criminals" (without making it obvious who the criminal is)
I used to be republican. Now am anarchist. I know Jeff Landry and he is a typical republican totalitarian. I supported Edwards, a democrat, over Landry, because Edwards is actually better on the constitution and our rights than Landry is. Landry is also ex law enforcement, which explains his totalitarian nature. I don't even vote anymore, but I will be voting for ANYONE running against Landry.
Only thing Landry has done positive so far is Constitutional Carry
@@DaveBigDawg Which we never needed to begin with. It's just a government trick. You already had the right. They created a law saying you now have the right. But if that law is later repealed, they will say you no longer have the right becuase they repealed the law. More laws only hurt us. They never help. If he wanted constitutional carry, there was a better way to do that and it doesn't include any lawmaking. Repeal the unconstitutional laws saying we don't have the right that we clearly do have as explained in the 2nd amendment. Some people even believe that if they repealed the 2nd amendment that we wouldn't have the right anymore, but that's just because they don't understand rights. I never got any rights from government or their pieces of paper. They are mine by birth by virtue of being human, because no other human has a right to tell me what I can or can't do, unless I am harming someone or their property. But you never see them repeal anything. It's always add. More laws, makes us less free.
What about OUR safety?
Cops know the law…….
Take the ride.
Get the check.
What if you are the one being investigated by police?
Good question!
I suggest that you go live on social media if things get dicey.
You do not assert rights. You enforce them.
Assert first, Enforce later.
Could you be arrested and go to jail for ... ? For any such question the answer is "Yes!".
This is why we need laws to require police chest cameras. Of course they will turn them off before doing something wrong, so do document police bad behavior.
And worse than that be prosecuted and convicted, and hopefully win on appeal. Plus you could be seriously injured, spend a year in the hospital and subsequently die.
Simple answer to that is to require that if there is no body camera footage than the "suspect" has to be let go due to lack of evidence.
@@Sir_Scrumpalicious There already exists a law like that, if you can prove the police destroyed evidence. I agree with you - we shouldn't have to prove the an alleged malfunction was intentional.
@@Sir_Scrumpalicious Which is why the cops have wizened up and now turn away so the footage still exists but doesn't show their illegal actions.
I tend to think long lenses and parabolic microphones. One can be 60ft away and get everything. I've also thought of developing a laser microphone that bounces an invisible laser off the windshield of a police vehicle stopped behind you to record audio from inside the police cars. One that can be linked to a car cam so not just police or anybody. I just need investors. The technology exists.
State laws do not trump the constitution. Period.
but they do and should.
If you do not enforce your rights, you have none. It is your duty to enforce your rights.
States can not usurp the constitution, nor should they. States agree to enforce and protect the constitution by joining the United States. @simplerick3851
So now the cops are putting up tape at 25 feet then telling you to be 25 more feet from that point. Indiana law needs to be changed as well as Louisiana law.
I've tried to record them when they acted illegally , but they didn't let me .
6:30 I have a legal theory question on this one. Hypothetical situation: For some reason or another cop tries to confiscate individuals' phones. Said individuals phone happens to contain DoD credentials information that has that whole "it is unlawful for anyone other than the individual privileged to this information to be in possession of it" (can't remember the exact legal jargon but if you've seen it you know what I'm talking about).
This creates a legal dilemma. Cop may or may not have authority under the situation to seize said phone; but now in doing so they're knowingly committing a federal crime (Assuming you told them beforehand so they can't weasel and say they didn't know).
On one hand, qualified immunity. On the other, they didn't just illegally try to seize your phone; they did so knowing their reason was unlawful AND that they'd be taking possession of whatever level of classified information they weren't allowed to have access to.
Theres also the attorney route of "theres privileged information with clients on there" but i remember there being a whole thing about calling another lawyer into supervise any snooping of said device.
Regardless folks; remember the lockdown feature exists & how beneficial it is to disable biometrics & create a strong password. A defense attorney i know said his password is like, 26 characters long because he knows how much of complete dirtbags cops can be.
Awesome advice. I would definitely want you on my side.
Gazoo
Where does this leave us? It leaves us in the same place we’ve been in for 80 years, as subjects of an authoritarian government not citizens in a free country.
Nothing trumps the U.S. Constitution
so all a cop has to do is literally RUN towards you and if you can't run away and stay 25+ feet from the cop, who is RUNNING TOWARDS YOU... you are arrested. great law.
Gangster in uniform
Indiana passed a 25 foot rule! Fascist State!
Domestic terrorist where badges!
You mean wear*, right? 🤦🏻
This 25 foot rule is ridiculous. So, if they pull someone over, they can arrest anyone else in the car just because they’re within 25 feet?
In every state in the union, an officer can lawfully order you to maintain a safe distance from a crime scene or traffic stop, etc. The problem is that safe distance has never been defined in law. I think it's good that a law specifying a distance was passed because it puts actual limits on how far an officer can order you back. There's less room for abuse with more specificity, and if you're filming, you can always use landmarks to determine distance to use as evidence in your lawsuit. As with anything that can be exploited or abused by law enforcement, there will have to be some lawsuits but without a specific distance requirement it's hard to point at something concrete to show that your rights were violated.
Thx so much for your channel. Are there apps that automatically stream live video to a private account in the cloud?
New Louisiana law is unconstitutional!
So cops with:
body armor
mace
billy club
tazers
riot gear (shields/helmets etc)
grenades and grenade launcher (flashbangs/smoke)
shotguns
handguns
assault rifles in some cases (seen it)
armored vehicles
multiple backups and more available within minutes via radio
are afraid of:
Sally Housewife with a CELL PHONE
got it.
Police Interfering with a private citizen recording their interactions including purposely blocking their view should be grounds for immediate termination.
10:50 A cop will never tell you you're free to go, they'll try to evade the question with a vague answer such as "I never said you could leave." Unless they explicitly say they are detaining you or order you to stop when you start to leave, you are not being detained.
.. record from inside your vehicle or from your own property, using a tripod if you must & wearing a wireless microphone .. 🎥🎙️
All my phones are configured to start recording on boot. They also do some automatic network scanning, remote logging, etc., and open up SSH and VNC onion services, so I can connect remotely. They also "phone home" to initiate external scans. The feeds get analyzed by shitty AI that describes calls me fat and does an ok job at transcription.
All that my friend is a flat out lie. We the people have to right to do and exercise our rights however we see fits. To be a crime it MUST BE AN INJURED PARTY. Officer’s safety is a presumption and assumption that his life might be in danger. The aggressor or instigator can’t possibly be a victim or fabricated charges of a crime because he’s been recorded for evidence of his actions and abuse of authority delegated by congress as a foreign agent of the state, county or city limits of which he or she discharged his or her duties to taxed, shake down the community for money and personal gains with the judge and prosecutors. It’s all colorable and creatures of the law which are opinions for profits. ALL CRIMES ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE 100%.
Peace officers just like firefighters don't know what kind of situation they're walking into and how bad the situation will get as time progresses. This is why it is highly encouraged for the public to stay back.
Then we have the eager beavers that only catch part of the interaction and then post it on social media, which causes a wildfire of speculation only for it to be completely wrong and have peoples lives turned upside down because of it.
The one thing social media is good at is spreading wild speculations, the bad thing Social media does, is apologizing for the bad speculations.
I think the 25 foot rule is a good compromise.
People should use good judgment when trying to insert themselves into a potential bad situation.
Nothing worse than having to look at a dead officer's child and letting them know that their parent died because they chose to protect a look-y-loo that was too close to the scene instead of seeking cover from a firing weapon.
Remember, if you can't hire a good lawyer, you don't have any rights!
A similar law in Arizona was passed in 2022 (the 8 ft rule). That law was challenged in federal court, where the court held that it would unnecessarily chill the 1st Amendment Rights of citizen journalists. I do not see these laws standing up to constitutional scrutiny, and as such, I see the ACLU filing a lawsuit to repeal these laws.
Ah no problem. Go to plan B. Get out my Swarovski 20 by 60 HD spotting scope with a directional microphone at about 1 mile😂😂😂😂👍😄
I would say that if a cop sees you are too close to record, then the cop is not in actual danger, because if I am in danger, I am focused on the danger, not someone watching what is happening, like the cops seem to be...
Remember George Floyd? So do cops. That's precisely why they don't want you recording them.
Transparency and accountability are feared by less than competent officers.
The problem is it costs you money to fight it,and you don't get that back unless you sue and win which costs you more money.
ACLU needs to step in for journalists rights
The ACLU does NOT always give any assistance. In the State of RI, everything is political!
Let's be honest, it's just another way for them.The government or officers to get what they want instead of us taking back our rights
If your going to do it, don't save the video to an SD card. They can just pull it out and take it, deleting the footage. Also no biometric locks as he said, they can force you to open them
In two party states for recording it doesn't apply in public in general. Seeing the camera and continuing to talk is basically considered implied consent even for non police. At least that's how it's been explained to me in Illinois, and as far as i understand the law is essentially the same in all states that require two party consent.
I can easily see an occasion where one officer is conducting the "official police business", while another officer starts telling bystanders to back up to beyond 25'. As they do, the second officer will continue to walk towards the bystanders, putting himself within 25' of them, thus justifying his continued order to tell the by standers to backup beyond 25'. Rinse and repeat.
I wuld use telegram to record it bc than i can delete it only for myself and not for who im sending it to their is also a copy on your phone itself
WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT FROM SOMEONE TRAINED TO LIE TO YOU A CAMERA IS SO SCARY TO THEM RECORD ALL POLICE INTERACTIONS FOR YOUR SAFETY
Without watching the video, i have a pro-tip, get a driver facing dash cam that records audio and hardwire it to be always on.
You can thank many of the so called auditors who have put themselves right in the middle of police investigations, many who shout profanities or do everything they can in order to provoke the officers into a physical confrontation so that they can sue the officers/departments. If it wasn’t for them these laws about distance wouldn’t be necessary.
Institute for Justice is another good one.
When you're recording the cops. What they do is come straight up to your face within 6 inches and tell you to get that camera out of their face. what are you supposed to do then? When they're being aggressive, you never answer the questions that they're actually doing.
PA.... Requires the consent of all parties involved, whether in person or electronically
Carry a laser measure with you if you’re going to record police. But don’t point it at them directly when taking a measurement.
Well, I see it a bit differently, the governor gets campaign funds and the number of times that anyone has ever been prosecuted for campaign finance violations is essentially negligible. 💁 So it’s basically a perfect readymade mechanism for laundering proceeds from illegal activities. The thing is, if you had semi-effective law enforcement that could really put a dent in those proceeds. 🤔 See now it really starts to sort things out.
thank you,i live in montgomery county and i have been threatened with arrest if i dont move 200ft away
The most important thing is NEVER use biometric "security".
So where does this leave us?
Comply or Die.
Law Enforcement has become a toxic hazard to We The People engaged in normal life.
Hopefully Trump doesn't push for total police immunity like he said they need
He never said that.
He never said that.
A problem with those idiotic laws in those horrible places that say "25 feet" is how does a good upstanding citizen standing 25 feet away comply if a Blue Line thug who has no attention span decides to walk toward the innocent citizen? If the innocent citizen does not retreat in a step to step matching of the Blue Line thug's approach,, they will be in violation of the 25 foot rule, and the cop can arrest them. I can see a person retreating rapidly as a cop approaches getting charged with felony fleeing--when all they were doing is disparately trying to maintain the 25 foot rule.
Clearly the brain-dead authoritarian legislators in Lousy-anna and Indiana hadn't thought about that...But then again what do we expect in either of those places..
We need to expect better not worse from these thugs.
AZ's law regarding distance and recording didn't last a week. The ACLU shut that crap down quickly.
There's NO way to know all the 'laws', especially constantly changing in Texas. Hell, even the Texas Constitution is over 300pgs
I am a police officer. Film me. Film me to your hearts content. Please get my good side.....
However, if we are dealing with a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation, and we tell you to step back, then step back. The last thing I want is another victim on the list of stuff that goes bad. Bullets, explosions, vehicle traffic is a problem at police encounters. All for 1st amendment rights, but the safety of everyone at a scene is the police officer job as well. Please continue to film. Transparency is important.
Contra Costa County, California recently paid 8.4 million dollars for a false arrest. I recommend that you plan on winning a lawsuit for false arrest with a payout in the amount of 8.4 million dollars. If you play your cards right you can become very wealthy because of a false arrest.
They voted for their hatred and other fears by putting their skewed beliefs before their oath to country, and it shows.
History is repeating itself.
You can legally resist an illegal arrest with your own force
But the Supreme Court ruled its only 10 ft ! Also cops have guns they already have safety what about Citizens safety ,you know of and by ans for the Citizens???
They also ruled that cops are not required to protect people, which means they're useless to real people.
If a person is arrested under one of your recording-the-police scenarios, are their civil rights suspended due to the arrest? Are their 2nd amendment rights suspended?
Get a password protected bodycam of your own and have an attorney on a retainer. I hope I can remember all this legal advice that various YT lawyers are dispensing. Anyway, it seems that cops need to be better trained and held accountable and to not treat every citizen as an enemy.
A similar law in flordia was declared unconstitutional.
Why don't lawyers sue these states to get the catch all laws to be abolished.
What invariably happens is the cop is the one who approaches...and KEEPS approaching till they are well within your "personal space" and THEN claims YOU are the problem. It then goes downhill from there. The key is to record...and KEEP recording. And use an app that concurrently uploads the video to the cloud so the cops can't simply steal your phone...and I do mean STEAL and then erase the video.
I am all for the 1st amendment and the police should be monitored but it also seems reasonable that here is some buffer. There needs to be some oversight to prevent abuse by the police. Vague laws are a minefield.
I believe when this happens to me, and it will, I will comply, of course, but then will make a VERY big deal of asking what this officer is hiding, what is this officer planting, what is this officer saying, and what laws is this officer breaking.
Also, I will be recording livestream so even if they steal my device or delete my footage, it's still done.
Louisiana, corrupt much?
Why do we need this law? Because Officer Friendly got butthurt.