I went for a walk with my firearm holstered at my side and a camera in my hands. Seconds after arriving back at my house, there was a knock at my door.
Glad to see their supervisor get to the point and end it quickly. That’s how it supposed to be done. Good on you for exercising your rights, and good on that supervisor for shutting his padiwan’s investigation.
Dosent have to give him his name!!! Constitutional right. Wise up. Duhhh, if we the people dont stand up for our rights, we will have no rights. Nazi!!
Of course, that position makes him "uncooperative." With the third officer, the auditor answers all questions and assists with the investigation, which is courteous and brief.
That’s the kind of thing I hate when auditors do. You’re never going to earn respect from anyone doing stuff like that. Because it’s just meant to be inflammatory. Just like police shouldn’t escalate the situation, auditors also should not.
What the fuck you saying, because the pig keeps asking for I'D over and over and keeps saying the citizen is suspicious, he wasn't trained right. You my friend don't have a clue what you're talking about...lmfao.🤣
I am assuming the 3rd officer who responded was a supervisor. That supervisor, whoever you are, if you read this, I want you to know that you are doing your job at 110%. That police dept. should be very proud to have you as an asset to the community. You absolutely radiate with knowledge, great character and demeanor. That dept. should really consider another promotion or pay raise to that individual if they haven't done so already. Thank you for your service!
Oh, I can promise you that I'm not giving anything away especially the Second Amendment. We getting closer to civil war by the day. Many of us in the US have heavy military weaponry and won't hesitate to use them. The best thing will be getting israel and jewish interests our of our gov't.
But no one was trying to apprehend his gun? So no, no one there was acting like they should be the only person to carry a gun. Cop or not, if someone stepped out towards me holding a gun, I would back up too and be ready to defend myself. But the cops didn't overreact to the man carrying a gun, and the cops completely agreed with the cameraman right to carry.
They want a name and date of birth for their report so they can later hit the guy with "red flag law" when it begins in that area. They'll then take all his guns away forever.
Firstly, not saying first cop is not at fault. He is PARTIALLY. Civilian repeatedly says "I dont answer questions" and gave himself (bad) fake names. This likely provoked the cop to not answering questions related to the suspicions which Civilian would of answered (How was he meant to know when he candidly states he wont answer questions) The first cop even realizes he can't deal with the conversation and calls a supervisor. This move alone (realization) makes me believe that person the first cop is least at fault. As Civilian doesn't realize that he took a "willing tone but disrespectful words".
But none of the cops were saying what he was doing was a crime? They were just trying to investigate someone's complaint? I don't get why this has to be so difficult. If the tables were turned and if the camera man called the cops based on some suspicion of illegal activity, wouldn't they expect the cops to investigate? None of the cops weren't trying to apprehend his gun, nor silence him, etc. They were just trying to investigate a suspicion that was called in. It's part of their job. It's pretty standard for cops to ask people they are questioning their names, and why they are there. Again, they didn't say he had no right to be there, etc.
I messaged the department on Facebook about it and this was their response: "Mr. [REDACTED], A couple of months ago when this was brought to our attention, the officer was brought in and the video reviewed. He understood the mistakes he made in it and the laws for open carry were explained to him once again. He knows that he was wrong in the video and we are all working to get better. Thanks for your time and concern. It is understood."
I love this shit. At the same time, I love seeing the people in charge respecting their rights so good for that last cop. He's the one we want out there.
@@petertimmins6657 None whatsoever. I don't know which case it is but it's been ruled that open carrying a gun is not a good reason for a cop to stop that person under the pretense of "reasonable suspicion." Steven Prime is right. The guy open carrying is not obligated to hand over his ID since he didn't commit a crime, even in a stop and ID state.
Hi Civilian! 😁😁😁 I got your video on Lackluster's channel. So I wanted to come straight here to support with a view & Like! But more than that, I want to give you Appreciation for your service. I think I tend to watch out of fascination and not realize the risk of losing your freedom. This is not my path. So know I am grateful for your work as a Police Auditor! 👏👏👏👏👏👏 That 2nd was not using protocol! He would have escalated the situation eventually. He definitely would have had he been on the scene first. The first officer is giving Rookie Vibes. The 3rd officer(supervisor) gets my praise for nipping this whole situation in the bud! He knew the laws!!
We are legally mandated to find out what the supsicion is: Deberry states - When a perosn is carrying a firearm, how a person is carrying a firearm, and it is legal to carry a firearm --- no Reasonable Suspicion and or Probable Cause can be generated for said act. Thus, that defeats that statement. --- 457 A.2d 744 (1983) Tony T. DEBERRY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Supreme Court of Delaware. Submitted October 19, 1982. Decided January 27, 1983. Deberry v. State --- This a 3 plus decade old case and the cops still either do not know about it or refuse to acknolwedge it. This, the statement - this is a supsicious situation and we have a legal mandate to investigate it (to include name). --- You are legally mandated to investigate a crime. If open carry is legal, then no crime - no crime = no investigation - no investigation = get the F(*(*( out of here cop.
The exact quote from deberry v US is as follows = "They might have a Hunch he was a felon and so violating the law. It would not matter, so far as the Fourth Amendment is Concerned, as we explained earlier. But if the asking crossed over to commanding, so that DeBerry *887 was stopped, then it would be essential that the officers have a reasonable belief and not a mere hunch that if he was carrying a gun he was violating the law." - please note that the court case states - cops must have more than a "hunch" - they must have a reasonable belief that if he was carrying a gun he was violating the law. What this means is that a cop (when confronted with a legal [concealed and or open carry] must establish a reasonable belief that the person stopped is a felon. The cop can not "assume" the person is a felon and thus "fish" for the felony. The cop must have a Reasonable belief that the person is a felon and thus violating gun laws. --- No. 95-2232 United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit U.S. v. Deberry 76 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 1996) Decided Feb 22, 1996 No. 95-2232 ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1995 DECIDED FEBRUARY 22, 1996 -- Thus the cop can not ask for the name of the individual(s) (in order to search if said individual(s) have a felony). They must have some reason to determine the name (to search for the potential felony possession of the gun).
49 seconds from when the officer who knew what the laws were to arrive on scene and for the incident to be over. Holy cow what a gentlemanly officer. *applause*
When a police officer says he needs your name because he’s doing an investigation your answer should be “when your investigation bears fruit of crime then I will ID!!!”
When people ask cops to identify themselves and state why they have been pulled over, the cops always say, "I'll let you know at the conclusion of the stop." Based on this, perhaps a better response might be, "If at the conclusion of your investigation, it is determined that I have committed a crime, only then will I produce identification as required by law."
@@birdman7135 getting pulled over while driving is different than being on foot.. i'm not sure where this was (I guess Ottowa?) and don't know all the laws there - but typically they're very similar to what's in the US.
@Smith-Mundt Modernization NDAA 2013(Look into it) - But the bright thing to do, what any lawyer would recommend you do, is when a cop knocks on the door, ask if they have a warrant, and if no, ignore them, or if they're on your property, ask them to leave. If you're trying to monetize your police interactions, you do what this guy did.
@Smith-Mundt Modernization NDAA 2013(Look into it) - Come on, if you have somewhere to go or be, are you going to troll the cops? No. You might buy into the idealism, but nowadays, "auditing" is just people wanting to be RUclips stars. It's no longer observing to see what happens, it is being annoying to drive conflict for views.
If you seriously believe he's making money with 13,000 views, you have no idea how RUclips works. Even if he got millions of views, and paid accordingly, do you really think that this wasn't educational? He clearly demonstrated that the police had no reason to take anything from him. He put himself in this position knowing exactly how they would react, because he knows the law, and wants to show you a legitimate example. I would prefer to see people like him getting a bit of extra money for providing educational videos with real, live, civil situations, then some cat video compilation or teenage gamer.
The first cop just won’t stop asking for a name. Officer “Sunglasses” Meyer has the look and the stance. Too bad he doesn’t know the law he is trying to enforce. I like your “if you want to give up your qualified immunity” approach. Ottawa needs to trim its police force and save taxpayers a lot of wasted money. Good job. At least the last officer to arrive, probably the most senior, had the common sense to know the law, assess the situation and take appropriate action. It’s too bad the first two simply follow orders. They need to go.
I don't think they need to be fired. Like most officers in the U.S., they have been trained to obsess on id. That's not their fault. It is interesting that they never actually "detained" the citizen.
@@larryforeman7157 Well, he never actually indicated any desire to leave either. We'll never know, but I'm 99.999% certain had he decided to break contact he would have been detained.
Cop #1 Very poor memory. He keeps asking the same questions over and over again and you keep telling him you will not give him the answers he wants because you are not legally obligated. Cop #2 Very arrogant and stupid. He either truly does not understand your rights or he does, and simply does not care. You have articulated your rights but he continues to falsely claim you are legally obligated to ID yourself to him. Cop # 3 Hero cop. He quickly asks a few non-invasive questions and assesses the situation and clears the scene with no other issues. Cop # 3 will likely be ran out of the department because he does not automatically back the other officers.
Third LEO is right on, thanks for ending it. Second LEO needs training and stop trying to intimate--it does not work. First LEO was determined and started so sound like a broken record... keep it to the point and No backup was needed, should of deescalated and ended after a few questions. When will they learn?
Walmart give a 20% discount to police officers on their industrial strength BUTT HURT cream. Officer 1 and officer 2 could share a 1Kg tub. They were going round and round in circles getting more and more pissed off. Officer 3 could see it was rapidly going south and cut it dead before his colleagues talked themselves into a law suit.
Yes, but the questions were reasonable and on-point regarding a possible crime. The third officer was courteous and brief. None of his questions were threatening or deprived the citizen of his rights. It was evident to the citizen that this officer was making a valid investigation.
These Ohio cops are so off-base. I have open carried in Ohio for many years, everyday/everywhere, and this is completely unacceptable behavior by these tyrants.
I open carry as a female and the only people that ever have a problem with me doing it are other females. You would think that they would appreciate the fact that I don’t want to be a victim and other women should think the same way.
The second cop was the real problem. The first cop was alright, but he kept on pushing the envelop, trying to phish for the guy's name. The third cop asked the RIGHT questions like "Who called this in" and "What was the original complaint."
Whenever they claim ur a “suspicious person” we need to ask what crime they suspect has been broken. Because you can’t be suspicious unless they suspect a crime has been broken
Look at the big brain on Ofc. Vance! He conducted his investigation in 30 seconds and concluded no crimes had been committed. Gold star for him! And he's kinda cute...
These cops are not good people. I live in Ohio and many of us did a lot of hard work to get this jackasses trained properly. They know the truth and they know they are acting outside of the law. They are violating their oaths INTENTIONALLY. That makes them tyrants, not good people. I OC everyday, all day and night, as I go about my business. Ohio cops know the truth about open carry and about photography in public. Many of us made sure they knew and were trained over the years. Don't give them a pass on this tyrannical behavior.
Came over from SoloYaker. 2 things, No need to open the door. No need to speak thru the door. Also, If you say you don't answer questions, then stop talking. Ask if you are being detained and for what reason. If the answer is no, then walk away instantly. There is always a risk you will be taken into custody. You have to decide if that is worth it.
I originally seen this on Solo Yaker and had to come by and Subb in to your channel. It feels good to have People exercise their "Rights" to govern self under God. Be Safe. Bless Up.
First guy, you can tell his training is telling him to do one thing, but he wants to do the other. 2nd guy is misinterpreting his training and believe you have to request if and they have to provide it. Third guy know exactly when and where and why someone should give an Id.
1st & 2nd Constitutionally PROTECTED Rights. We do not get our Rights from the Constitution, but rather, the Constitution is to protect our God given Rights.
You might be a felon -- A felon is more likely to carry concealed. Because the felon knows that carrying a firearm (with a felony record) means going directly back to prison (under The Gun Control Act of 1968 - Federal law). This is copsplain for (I am trying to intimidate you with "the felony" talk to make you ID yourself.
The first officer seemed nice but was shaking in his pants. Civilian was respectful to the officers, well done! The third cop was a gentleman, if all police officers had his demeanor the citizens would be very happy!
The first officer was playing "good cop", he is not nice at all and is pushing the citizen with no rAs or PC to ID when it is not legally required . Tyrant just the same.
One that would be cool is if the auditors would stop saying: “I’m just out here exercising my rights.” “I’m not a threat to anyone.” “I have no ill will.” Anything like this. You’re doing God’s work and you don’t need to defend yourself. Silence is the ticket.
Third cop rules! Enough with the Karen calls and Karen police respondents demanding everyone they come in contact with give up their ID and give up their rights.
I've driven past that Eagles countless times over the years passing through. Good interaction there. I was thinking the third officer that showed up was going to escalate the situation but he was the smart one with the right questions and answers.
I believe you had an obligation to call out that officer in Front of his supervisor for lying about you being required to provide ID whenever asked by a LEO. It is your duty to request more training and education for the lying officer.
What crime did the caller suspect these folks of? Shouldn't 911 callers be asked what crime they suspect of the people on which they are calling the police?
just give me your name (so I can register you with the Fusion Center for Sovereign Citizens). I am now lying to you about my intentions and will file report with the Fusion Center for exercising Constitutional rights in the open.
„call me Mr civilian... or boss man” that is the behaviour of a man child right here. You knew that you were gonna scare the first officer by opening that door so fast with your firearm visible. Just get down from your high horse and give the officer the same respect he gives you. He is just trying to his job and pay his bills.
Jonas maybe you should watch the video before commenting. The man did not open the door "so fast", grow up, the man didn't have to hide his firearm any more than you would have expected the officer to. "He is just trying to his job and pay his bills" his job is not to investigate people lawfully about their business. There was no crime afoot, he should have left as fast as officer Vance did.
Third cop is how it should go every time. Well done
Yep, the first two were fishing pure and simple, they had no basis to suspect anything untoward was going on, the supervisor knew what was up.
Yes. Calm and attentive. Officer [Servas?] 75, earned his paycheck this day. I can only hope he talks to dispatch about wasting resources.
Indeed!
@@micks9580 he needs more respurces. Training budgets to retrain tne girst to so they avoid law suits.
The world would be a much better place if every cop was like Officer 75.
Glad to see their supervisor get to the point and end it quickly. That’s how it supposed to be done. Good on you for exercising your rights, and good on that supervisor for shutting his padiwan’s investigation.
Legend has it he's still asking for his name....
True, he still be asking till hell freezes over...
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Hahahaha
I take a guess it’s barjinmene?
Dosent have to give him his name!!! Constitutional right. Wise up. Duhhh, if we the people dont stand up for our rights, we will have no rights. Nazi!!
Best quote, " I'm not obligated to help you w your investigation. "
or "I'm not obligated to give you that legally" in reference to providing ID or giving name.
or this "So what part of the penal code covers “suspicious” and is that a felony or misdemeanor?"
Investigation of what crime? No crime, no investigation. We do not investigate people. We only investigate crimes.
Of course, that position makes him "uncooperative." With the third officer, the auditor answers all questions and assists with the investigation, which is courteous and brief.
I'm kind of a fan of:
"I'll explai--"
"I believe our job here is done."
You should have ask the third officer on scene to make sure that the second officer on scene is trained properly on the ID law!!
They are trained. They're also trained to know they can get away with lying.
That’s the kind of thing I hate when auditors do. You’re never going to earn respect from anyone doing stuff like that. Because it’s just meant to be inflammatory. Just like police shouldn’t escalate the situation, auditors also should not.
That second cop needs to be talking to whoever called in to find out what was so suspicious.
@@tomheadley2813 He will be seen by friends for what he is forever.
What the fuck you saying, because the pig keeps asking for I'D over and over and keeps saying the citizen is suspicious, he wasn't trained right. You my friend don't have a clue what you're talking about...lmfao.🤣
I am assuming the 3rd officer who responded was a supervisor. That supervisor, whoever you are, if you read this, I want you to know that you are doing your job at 110%. That police dept. should be very proud to have you as an asset to the community. You absolutely radiate with knowledge, great character and demeanor. That dept. should really consider another promotion or pay raise to that individual if they haven't done so already. Thank you for your service!
Well said
They act like they're the only ones who should carry a gun.
I know right, then act all fuckin surprised when people get nervous and shit, mother fuckers are shootin people every day. Wild as hell.
@Stop Injustice
They are the LAST ones that should carry a gun.
@מיכה מונרו
Guess which politicians in the USA promote gun control more than any others? liberal jews.
Oh, I can promise you that I'm not giving anything away especially the Second Amendment. We getting closer to civil war by the day.
Many of us in the US have heavy military weaponry and won't hesitate to use them. The best thing will be getting israel and jewish interests our of our gov't.
But no one was trying to apprehend his gun? So no, no one there was acting like they should be the only person to carry a gun. Cop or not, if someone stepped out towards me holding a gun, I would back up too and be ready to defend myself. But the cops didn't overreact to the man carrying a gun, and the cops completely agreed with the cameraman right to carry.
The last officer handled the whole thing in about 10 seconds I guess that comes with experience
They have no clue who called in a suspicious person,doing nothing wrong.......yet the cop’s need a name.
They want a name and date of birth for their report so they can later hit the guy with "red flag law" when it begins in that area. They'll then take all his guns away forever.
Firstly, not saying first cop is not at fault. He is PARTIALLY.
Civilian repeatedly says "I dont answer questions" and gave himself (bad) fake names. This likely provoked the cop to not answering questions related to the suspicions which Civilian would of answered (How was he meant to know when he candidly states he wont answer questions)
The first cop even realizes he can't deal with the conversation and calls a supervisor. This move alone (realization) makes me believe that person the first cop is least at fault. As Civilian doesn't realize that he took a "willing tone but disrespectful words".
ruclips.net/video/_Q2zkWAt1WI/видео.html Open carry been legal in Philly you just been lied 🤥 too “Good citizen” is epic smh
That first officer is super chill.
Hey officer, lets go for some drinks when your shift ends
Suspicious is not a crime ! Violation of 1st amendment rights ! Violation of 4th amendment rights ! Cameras are not Illegal !
The only suspicious guy there,dressed in black had a badge,a tazer,pepper spray and handcuffs
But none of the cops were saying what he was doing was a crime? They were just trying to investigate someone's complaint? I don't get why this has to be so difficult. If the tables were turned and if the camera man called the cops based on some suspicion of illegal activity, wouldn't they expect the cops to investigate? None of the cops weren't trying to apprehend his gun, nor silence him, etc. They were just trying to investigate a suspicion that was called in. It's part of their job. It's pretty standard for cops to ask people they are questioning their names, and why they are there. Again, they didn't say he had no right to be there, etc.
@@buckwheat1332 A complaint investigation doesn't justify anyone giving up their ID if no law is broken..Roll over if YOU want to...but NOT me!
I messaged the department on Facebook about it and this was their response: "Mr. [REDACTED], A couple of months ago when this was brought to our attention, the officer was brought in and the video reviewed. He understood the mistakes he made in it and the laws for open carry were explained to him once again. He knows that he was wrong in the video and we are all working to get better. Thanks for your time and concern. It is understood."
I love this shit. At the same time, I love seeing the people in charge respecting their rights so good for that last cop. He's the one we want out there.
Man that 3rd cop know his stuff, Asked a few questions and moved on.... If more cops were smarter they could learn from this..
So what part of the penal code covers “suspicious” and is that a felony or misdemeanor?
Steven Prime and that is my point. What reasonable and articulable crime is “suspicious”?
@@petertimmins6657 None whatsoever. I don't know which case it is but it's been ruled that open carrying a gun is not a good reason for a cop to stop that person under the pretense of "reasonable suspicion." Steven Prime is right. The guy open carrying is not obligated to hand over his ID since he didn't commit a crime, even in a stop and ID state.
@Steven Prime In this case, the officers expressed no reasonable suspicion and did not even "detain" the citizen. He could have walked away.
Hi Civilian! 😁😁😁
I got your video on Lackluster's channel. So I wanted to come straight here to support with a view & Like!
But more than that, I want to give you Appreciation for your service. I think I tend to watch out of fascination and not realize the risk of losing your freedom. This is not my path. So know I am grateful for your work as a Police Auditor! 👏👏👏👏👏👏
That 2nd was not using protocol! He would have escalated the situation eventually. He definitely would have had he been on the scene first. The first officer is giving Rookie Vibes. The 3rd officer(supervisor) gets my praise for nipping this whole situation in the bud! He knew the laws!!
We are legally mandated to find out what the supsicion is: Deberry states - When a perosn is carrying a firearm, how a person is carrying a firearm, and it is legal to carry a firearm --- no Reasonable Suspicion and or Probable Cause can be generated for said act. Thus, that defeats that statement. --- 457 A.2d 744 (1983)
Tony T. DEBERRY, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Submitted October 19, 1982.
Decided January 27, 1983.
Deberry v. State
--- This a 3 plus decade old case and the cops still either do not know about it or refuse to acknolwedge it. This, the statement - this is a supsicious situation and we have a legal mandate to investigate it (to include name). --- You are legally mandated to investigate a crime. If open carry is legal, then no crime - no crime = no investigation - no investigation = get the F(*(*( out of here cop.
The exact quote from deberry v US is as follows = "They might have a
Hunch he was a felon and so violating the law. It would not matter, so far as the Fourth Amendment is
Concerned, as we explained earlier. But if the asking crossed over to commanding, so that DeBerry *887 was
stopped, then it would be essential that the officers have a reasonable belief and not a mere hunch that if he was
carrying a gun he was violating the law." - please note that the court case states - cops must have more than a "hunch" - they must have a reasonable belief that if he was carrying a gun he was violating the law. What this means is that a cop (when confronted with a legal [concealed and or open carry] must establish a reasonable belief that the person stopped is a felon. The cop can not "assume" the person is a felon and thus "fish" for the felony. The cop must have a Reasonable belief that the person is a felon and thus violating gun laws. --- No. 95-2232
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
U.S. v. Deberry
76 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 1996)
Decided Feb 22, 1996
No. 95-2232
ARGUED DECEMBER 12, 1995
DECIDED FEBRUARY 22, 1996 -- Thus the cop can not ask for the name of the individual(s) (in order to search if said individual(s) have a felony). They must have some reason to determine the name (to search for the potential felony possession of the gun).
49 seconds from when the officer who knew what the laws were to arrive on scene and for the incident to be over. Holy cow what a gentlemanly officer. *applause*
When a police officer says he needs your name because he’s doing an investigation your answer should be “when your investigation bears fruit of crime then I will ID!!!”
When people ask cops to identify themselves and state why they have been pulled over, the cops always say, "I'll let you know at the conclusion of the stop." Based on this, perhaps a better response might be, "If at the conclusion of your investigation, it is determined that I have committed a crime, only then will I produce identification as required by law."
Actually I don’t ID unless lawfully arrested. That’s the law here.
@@birdman7135 getting pulled over while driving is different than being on foot.. i'm not sure where this was (I guess Ottowa?) and don't know all the laws there - but typically they're very similar to what's in the US.
@@ph00z00 My comment was only in regard to being on foot. You can't escape producing your I.D. in a vehicle (US or Canada).
Or you can just ask what crime are they investigating. And then you accuse them of fishing because of course it's true. Never talk to the police.
Love how the 2nd cop comes in code 3 for a consensual conversation.
Just go back inside and shut the door..
He's educating
@@mcmaster1665 - You spelled "Trying to get RUclips views" kinda funny.
@Smith-Mundt Modernization NDAA 2013(Look into it) - But the bright thing to do, what any lawyer would recommend you do, is when a cop knocks on the door, ask if they have a warrant, and if no, ignore them, or if they're on your property, ask them to leave.
If you're trying to monetize your police interactions, you do what this guy did.
@Smith-Mundt Modernization NDAA 2013(Look into it) - Come on, if you have somewhere to go or be, are you going to troll the cops? No.
You might buy into the idealism, but nowadays, "auditing" is just people wanting to be RUclips stars. It's no longer observing to see what happens, it is being annoying to drive conflict for views.
If you seriously believe he's making money with 13,000 views, you have no idea how RUclips works.
Even if he got millions of views, and paid accordingly, do you really think that this wasn't educational?
He clearly demonstrated that the police had no reason to take anything from him. He put himself in this position knowing exactly how they would react, because he knows the law, and wants to show you a legitimate example.
I would prefer to see people like him getting a bit of extra money for providing educational videos with real, live, civil situations, then some cat video compilation or teenage gamer.
The first cop just won’t stop asking for a name. Officer “Sunglasses” Meyer has the look and the stance. Too bad he doesn’t know the law he is trying to enforce. I like your “if you want to give up your qualified immunity” approach. Ottawa needs to trim its police force and save taxpayers a lot of wasted money. Good job. At least the last officer to arrive, probably the most senior, had the common sense to know the law, assess the situation and take appropriate action. It’s too bad the first two simply follow orders. They need to go.
Ida Claire The issue is that they have to bring back a report. If they don't they get reprimanded.
I don't think they need to be fired. Like most officers in the U.S., they have been trained to obsess on id. That's not their fault. It is interesting that they never actually "detained" the citizen.
@@larryforeman7157 Well, he never actually indicated any desire to leave either. We'll never know, but I'm 99.999% certain had he decided to break contact he would have been detained.
Dispatch....dispatch.....code 3....code 3....we've got a citizen exercising their rights...code 3...code 3!!!!
AMVID PAD Lmfaoooo
That first cop was STRESSED and CONFUSED. He had no idea what to do lol
Cop #1 Very poor memory. He keeps asking the same questions over and over again and you keep telling him you will not give him the answers he wants because you are not legally obligated.
Cop #2 Very arrogant and stupid. He either truly does not understand your rights or he does, and simply does not care. You have articulated your rights but he continues to falsely claim you are legally obligated to ID yourself to him.
Cop # 3 Hero cop. He quickly asks a few non-invasive questions and assesses the situation and clears the scene with no other issues.
Cop # 3 will likely be ran out of the department because he does not automatically back the other officers.
Sad but true.
Third LEO is right on, thanks for ending it. Second LEO needs training and stop trying to intimate--it does not work. First LEO was determined and started so sound like a broken record... keep it to the point and No backup was needed, should of deescalated and ended after a few questions. When will they learn?
They have been thoroughly trained in Ohio. We've been through this again and again with them. They are doing that on purpose to develop RAS or PC.
Third officer good job, the other two need to learn a lot more and stop being scare.
The second one was the only bad one
@Guy8t4 wow it's like you spoke it into existence.
In this situation, officers concern is a sign of proper mental health. Don't act like it's not. Get over hate long enough to understand that.
@@jasonballingham6780 Ok and how would you have handle the call? l like to hear you.
I liked the first guy but he was just slow... second guy was awful. Third guy should be the standard.
You were impeccable..I've never seen someone communicate as effectively as you have here .. brilliant
You handled that very well thank you for the audit and sticking up for your rights
I had to come and applaud you sir for the "black is just a color" statement. The timing, the execution, the delivery, just perfect.
Good to see a decent cop like the supervisor, great vid 👍🏽
He was not a decent cop, all he was doing is trying yo "SAVE FACE " for the 2 dumb cops!!! Please do not be a cop sucker or boot licker
FOIA the call and file a complaint about demanding for ID.
Walmart give a 20% discount to police officers on their industrial strength BUTT HURT cream. Officer 1 and officer 2 could share a 1Kg tub. They were going round and round in circles getting more and more pissed off. Officer 3 could see it was rapidly going south and cut it dead before his colleagues talked themselves into a law suit.
"I don't answer questions." 3 min later he participates in an complete interrogation by cop #3.
Yes, but the questions were reasonable and on-point regarding a possible crime. The third officer was courteous and brief. None of his questions were threatening or deprived the citizen of his rights. It was evident to the citizen that this officer was making a valid investigation.
You are so wrong it hurts.
He knows that it's not required by law other wise he would arrest u
That's why I invited him to go find the statute. We both knew it was a lie.
These Ohio cops are so off-base. I have open carried in Ohio for many years, everyday/everywhere, and this is completely unacceptable behavior by these tyrants.
I open carry as a female and the only people that ever have a problem with me doing it are other females. You would think that they would appreciate the fact that I don’t want to be a victim and other women should think the same way.
In Germany that oficir be a forced to pay 2500 $ because trow liquid from his body on the street four times.
@@aprilleerose same problem with most citizens = being intimidated
To bad this is Canada not Ohio
@@ajjj4420 AFAIK, it is Ottawa Ohio. The other cop is from Columbus Grove Ohio.
Love how visibly defeated the two original cops walk away when the supervisor shows up and clears things up
Per the supreme court, a person in possession of a firearm does not grant the officer reasonable suspicion
When they act like jerks they haven't earned the right to be called "Sir". This isn't a stop and ID state?
The second cop was the real problem. The first cop was alright, but he kept on pushing the envelop, trying to phish for the guy's name. The third cop asked the RIGHT questions like "Who called this in" and "What was the original complaint."
Don't offer to give the police anything, especially your firearm.
ruclips.net/video/_Q2zkWAt1WI/видео.html Open carry been legal in Philly you just been lied 🤥 too and we understand you
Third officer is the best officer I’ve seen in a long time ! Keep it simple !!!
Cops need to buy a dictionary and look up the difference between hindering and cooperating.
As far as I know, "Sir" is still a proper way to address a man whose name you don't know.
That was brilliant; courteous, calm and consistent- if everyone behaved like this gentleman, proper legal boundaries would be restored
Its mid April 2022 & we now have over 50% of our states that voted back Constitutional Carry.
*I have investigated myself and I find NO WRONG DOING!*
Whenever they claim ur a “suspicious person” we need to ask what crime they suspect has been broken. Because you can’t be suspicious unless they suspect a crime has been broken
Lights and sirens, putting the public in danger over a perfectly legal activity. Both officers should go straight to retraining at their own expense.
Look at the big brain on Ofc. Vance! He conducted his investigation in 30 seconds and concluded no crimes had been committed. Gold star for him! And he's kinda cute...
Came from yankers channel know that's respect from me to you these cops seem like good ppl just only seem to not understand they serve US the PEOPLE
These cops are not good people. I live in Ohio and many of us did a lot of hard work to get this jackasses trained properly. They know the truth and they know they are acting outside of the law. They are violating their oaths INTENTIONALLY. That makes them tyrants, not good people.
I OC everyday, all day and night, as I go about my business. Ohio cops know the truth about open carry and about photography in public. Many of us made sure they knew and were trained over the years. Don't give them a pass on this tyrannical behavior.
The Constitution is not a permission slip for the people, it is restrictions for the government.
Wow that ended up wonderful, at least one guy knew what his position/job was. I subscribed, video doesn’t lie. Nice job
Idiot
Came over from SoloYaker. 2 things, No need to open the door. No need to speak thru the door. Also, If you say you don't answer questions, then stop talking. Ask if you are being detained and for what reason. If the answer is no, then walk away instantly. There is always a risk you will be taken into custody. You have to decide if that is worth it.
I originally seen this on Solo Yaker and had to come by and Subb in to your channel. It feels good to have People exercise their "Rights" to govern self under God. Be Safe. Bless Up.
That third office was spot on that’s the kind of police we need!!!!!
Officer Vance, the hero we need
First guy, you can tell his training is telling him to do one thing, but he wants to do the other. 2nd guy is misinterpreting his training and believe you have to request if and they have to provide it. Third guy know exactly when and where and why someone should give an Id.
FREEDOM!!!FREEDOM!!!!FREEDOM!!!! AMERICA
Second cop is going to cost their city a lawsuit one day.
ruclips.net/video/_Q2zkWAt1WI/видео.html Open carry been legal in Philly you just been lied 🤥 too
"Comply with your investagation"?
When did we become obligated to assist in our prosecution
😂 look at this ruclips.net/video/_Q2zkWAt1WI/видео.html Open carry been legal in Philly you just been lied 🤥 too
@@ShakurCapital
I was?? I simply put what I would say at a point in the video. I don't live in Philly. Thank you for the extra video
We need more cops like the 3rd one. That is a professional right there.
Well done for you articulate responsible communication..never seen better.
Really go full NPC mode when they start asking for info
Solo Yaker sent me here,good job,subscribed
1st & 2nd Constitutionally PROTECTED Rights. We do not get our Rights from the Constitution, but rather, the Constitution is to protect our God given Rights.
Wow! Lets give the third officer a thumbs up for his direct clear approach to knowing exactly how to address these situations.
The stupidest thing a cop or one of the stupidest things they can say is giving ID a prove if you're committing a crime or not
You might be a felon -- A felon is more likely to carry concealed. Because the felon knows that carrying a firearm (with a felony record) means going directly back to prison (under The Gun Control Act of 1968 - Federal law). This is copsplain for (I am trying to intimidate you with "the felony" talk to make you ID yourself.
A felon shouldn't even be denied access to a firearm once he's done his time. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." IE= NO STRINGS ATTACHED.
@@baird5776mullet I 100% agree!
I know, it's laughably stupid to think any felon would openly carry a firearm.
@@baird5776mullet it's especially egregious when a felony can be simple possession of various quantities of herbs, or spices.
@Jaime Alonzo Do not give them any ideas. The "Red Flag" laws have begun that process.
The first officer seemed nice but was shaking in his pants. Civilian was respectful to the officers, well done! The third cop was a gentleman, if all police officers had his demeanor the citizens would be very happy!
The first officer was playing "good cop", he is not nice at all and is pushing the citizen with no rAs or PC to ID when it is not legally required . Tyrant just the same.
Came from Solo Yaker. Liked & subbed 🙂👍
“We just can’t let…” 🤔
Just can’t let what? Someone exercising their 2nd Amendment Right, without ID’ing? 😳
I appreciate that man thanks for standing up for our rights I’m glad I’m the only one
One that would be cool is if the auditors would stop saying:
“I’m just out here exercising my rights.”
“I’m not a threat to anyone.”
“I have no ill will.”
Anything like this. You’re doing God’s work and you don’t need to defend yourself. Silence is the ticket.
Boss man 😂😂😂
I kinda liked the first cop on scene, but I don’t blame this guy for expressing his rights to not identify himself to him.
Great job, bro! Soloyaker sent me.
Ur a monkas
Third cop rules! Enough with the Karen calls and Karen police respondents demanding everyone they come in contact with give up their ID and give up their rights.
I decided to check you out cause of solo yaker you now have a new subscriber.
Soloyakar directed me here. I enjoyed your video very much! Looking forward to more. Thank You.
Solo yaker sent me we got to stick together
Nice
ruclips.net/video/_Q2zkWAt1WI/видео.html Open carry been legal in Philly you just been lied 🤥 too
I've driven past that Eagles countless times over the years passing through. Good interaction there. I was thinking the third officer that showed up was going to escalate the situation but he was the smart one with the right questions and answers.
The only "crime" that i saw it was that 🐷 spitting on the road😂
Yea seriously, he acted like a thug. Luckily we have police like the 3rd guy.
Two people open carrying are accusing you of a crime because a neighbor doesn't like open carry. The irony is thick and absurd.
Solo Yaker sent me, nice work! New sub.
I believe you had an obligation to call out that officer in Front of his supervisor for lying about you being required to provide ID whenever asked by a LEO. It is your duty to request more training and education for the lying officer.
He needs to file a complaint against this officer, although I know it is not recent.
Sent by The one and only Soloyaker!!
It's ironic that a black man thinks that wearing all black is suspicious.
👊👊📸👍👍
good to see you here amigo ⏺️⏺️⏺️ always record the police!!
LOVE YOU GUYS!!!!
What crime did the caller suspect these folks of? Shouldn't 911 callers be asked what crime they suspect of the people on which they are calling the police?
Solo sent me 👍💯
If the second guy asked me my name like that, i would have answered "John fucking Wayne"
just give me your name (so I can register you with the Fusion Center for Sovereign Citizens). I am now lying to you about my intentions and will file report with the Fusion Center for exercising Constitutional rights in the open.
If you answer a cop’s question about providing ID multiple times, and they keep asking and pestering you that is harassment
Solo yaker sent me, well done, subbed!
„call me Mr civilian... or boss man” that is the behaviour of a man child right here. You knew that you were gonna scare the first officer by opening that door so fast with your firearm visible. Just get down from your high horse and give the officer the same respect he gives you. He is just trying to his job and pay his bills.
Jonas maybe you should watch the video before commenting. The man did not open the door "so fast", grow up, the man didn't have to hide his firearm any more than you would have expected the officer to.
"He is just trying to his job and pay his bills" his job is not to investigate people lawfully about their business. There was no crime afoot, he should have left as fast as officer Vance did.
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT audit, looking forward to more. Sent from Soloyaker 👍
The 5 Suspects are approximately 2" in height have a neck of .223" dressed in all brass, has a copper jacket names are 223 Winchester.
SOLOYAKER SENT ME HE USED MY VOICE FROM MY VIDEO IN THIS when the cop saw u and backed off check his video out
Third Officer is the type of man needed to train our officers in their Civic Duty to Protect and Serve...