Thanks for tuning in. Be sure to show your support if you enjoyed this episode! Second channel: ua-cam.com/channels/lTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw.html Twitter: twitter.com/AuditTheAudit
You do an excellent job and I appreciate it and have learned so much. One thing I haven't seen is women being sexually intimidated by police. Ine time I was at a srop light in Edinburgh, Indiana and it was early morning. I was getting of work from an overnight shift and I was taking my coworker home. While at the light, I saw that I didn't need my headlights on, so, I turned thrm off. After the light turned green...this was a split 2-lane highway. My tags were good, condition of my car all in proper working order...I was driving a small Rabbit Volkswagen...nothing flashing to draw anyone's attention...after thr light changed, the officer behind me turns on his sirens and I was confused as to why he was pulling me over...he was an older white cop..mI was in my mid-20s and when he walked up to the car...I was tired and irritated and I pointedly asked him why in the world was he pulling me over...he walks to the front of my car and taps the headlight and then he walks back to me and square, "Well, ma'am, it's like this...I am an and you are a woman...I think I know how we can take care of this. WTF! I'm a soft--tender and kind woman, but I am a Leo-Lioness, too. And injustice or crap like that and then I have no problem coming out roaring. I looked at my friend and asked if he really just the fuck said what I think he said and she nodded yes and I looked at h qnd roared, "Oh, he'll no!" And I asked for his seargents number qnd I told thr cop to write the fucking ticket qnd let's see how this goes down in court...he turned and walked away. I called his seargent when I got gone and he laughed at me qnd said he would for sure take a statement. I've have two other similar incidents like this sexual intimidation I and harassment over the years. It is equally scary qnd infuriating. One time, it was dark and I was driving a long trip on the interstate and I was alone. I was in my huge Dodge truck and in am area that wad outside of a larger town qnd notch traffic at that time...around 3:00 a.m. It was a Oregon state trooper and he pulls me over...I wasn't speeding...used cruise control, driving well qnd safely...again. irritated at being pulled over qnd he taps on the passenger side window...I was expecting him in the driver side...scared the crap out of me when he tapped on the window...I locked doors and rolled down the window and asked why I was being pulled over and he said he was doing a safety check qnd I asked what that was and he asked fir my licenses and registration and I said "for a safety check??" and then he pointed at my breaststroke and said he could meet me at the motel up the road and I was instantly fucking furious and I wrapped my hands around the steering wheel and clamped down to catch my breath and words...I looked at him and said that I was going to drive off now qnd he stood back and held up his hand like ok...no harm done. I drove to a busy truckstop and smoked, drank coffee, and shook mad for about an hour before I could drive again. Angry and very scared he was still un the area. The third time, officer gave me a ticket for speeing...which I was 7 miles over the speed limit on the unterstate...geez and the officer hands me back all my stuff and the speeding ticket and he asked me fir my number...he still had a hold of the paperwork...wasn't letting it go when I reached for it and I said no, I wasn't interested qnd he said, "...but baby I could make you feel so good." Giys like that get aggressive when you engage them and say no, I tugged at the paper work and shook my head no qnd he said jus number was in the ticket if I changed mind. I don't understand how they don't know it isn't cute, sexy, or charming...it's scary qnd intimidating and it doesn't do anything to turn them in. Ask almost any Wan and she will habe stories like this, too...most likely.
Why is this video tagged with "Sovereign Citizen Movement." This video neither mentions anything about "Sovereign Citizens" nor contains material related to such a "movement." Is this the result of some collusion between Google and Law Enforcement to vilify anyone who stands up for their rights OR reports on individuals who challenge police on the legality of their actions?
@@robertanderson6929 I agree. However, this could be good for his video because the resulting increase of comments over the issue. More comments means the video gets promoted more. You can provide feedback by clicking on the three dots by the tag.
I respect anyone who goes out and defends out freedom!!! I am physically unable to do it. But I’m sorry and will say this as gently as I can…… keep you damn windows closed!!!🤬
Why the heck is the wiki article for sovereign citizen movement posted right under this video?! YT is crazy. This has nothing to do with sovereign citizen crap. Apparently, merely standing up for one’s rights now makes one a “sovereign citizen.”
Yes whats the deal with that? Why do they care so much about ID? I feel like I would just put Jon Doe on my paperwork and get on with my day if I was an officer.
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
I have seen videos where an officer requests something and when they are challenged they say it's not a lawful order but a request. Those are the good cops with a solid grasp on their duties and know the law though
Didn't the driver explain the situation that would have dispelled the "suspicion" the cops had? After that explanation, there is no longer any "articulatable reasonable suspicion". Hence, there is no longer any reason for the cop to prolong nor escalate the encounter.
@H2 Lo: i agree, the problem is that sometimes the proceeding is judge only. As a juror, i can relate to turnin around in a city in which i am unfamiliar, therefore like yo said dispelling any RAS. This stop was bogus, but that's GA for ya - gotta get that id crack fix
See, an explanation alone doesn't necessarily dispel suspicion. A guy actually there to attack the warden could lie. The explanation and the identification would easily dispel the suspicion though. That's the issue here. I think the biggest issue is that the officers failed to explain their reasoning and just assumed the citizen would obey. If they had said, "you turned around at a roadblock after a some threats were made. We are stopping you now as a reasonable suspicion that you could be involved in the incident. If we can identify you and confirm no involvement, you will be on your way in a minute" that could have gone a long way. Failure to communicate is key in many of these interactions for both sides
IMO, when you hand over your I.D. you have effectively detained yourself or voluntarily submitted to being detained indefinitely since you cannot reasonably leave until the cop _chooses_ to return your I.D. It is a tactic the police are trained to use to avoid allegations of illegal detentions and interrogations. Most people would invoke their right to remain silent if an officer says, "You are being detained until you answer all of my questions." But oddly, if a cop is holding your I.D. and says "As soon as you answer my questions, I can get you on your way," then people are more _cooperative._ This guy like EVERYONE else, should have _objected to being detained_ and _invoked his right to remain silent._ He would likely have been arrested for doing so. But they could not have used anything he said as evidence against him, not even the fact that he refused to say anything. And you literally CANNOT talk your way out of a conviction. You can only "talk" yourself into one.
@@robertanderson6929 Surprisingly you can ID without a physical ID... so this point makes no sense because you're already detained at that point and not free to leave.
Its extremely weird too. Im only 24 but i feel like as a kid it was common to hear people make fun of the papers please thing by the Nazis, being proud that America and other modern free countries don't force everyone to ID, and idk i wasn't watching traffic stops back when i was 10 but it seems cops were less adiment on IDing every person they make contact with. Its just so odd the cops don't see that they're doing the Nazi Germany thing, and a lot of people say, "just make it easy on yourself and give ID" like no one cares that we are just sliding closer and closer to Nazi style police state, when like in my life i can remember this being something America hated.
It's the "power" move. "I have authority so you have to do as I say. Give me your ID or there will be consequences." It's disgusting. Mr. News correctly calls out the trooper; "Is giving you my ID going to make what I did legal or illegal?"
"How's my ID going to tell you what I'm doing?" I think this all the time when the cops stop this! Seeing an ID isn't going to help them figure anything out besides running someone's name, hoping they're wanted for something..
The only logic I can see behind the request is that it may clue the officers in on whether or not the citizen may have any bad intentions for being in the area. It won't tell them what the person is doing, but may hint at what they might be doing.
@@TheOrichalconNah, they're just lazy and it makes their jobs a whole hell of a lot easier. Whenever they don't get their ID fix, they actually have to do their jobs, and investigate if a crime has taken place or was about to take place. When they get their ID fix AND the person is actually wanted for something like a bench warrent, then they don't have to do shit, cause their job is done. They can stretch something like that out for the rest of their day. They take you in, speak to their buddies on the tax payers dime about who you are and what you did, take forever to do the paperwork, and they do all this right in front of the people they just had arrested in order to try and get them to lose their tempers and do something stupid.
This actually is one of the rare cases where I think it *could*. The suspicious activity is going onto the warden's residence and turning around to avoid a roadblock at the prison, in the aftermath of issues at the prison. Identifying the person and determining whether they have any known association with the instigators of the prison riots or anyone currently in the prison helps tilt the balance between "outside accomplice to more disruption" and "happened to turn around in that particular driveway." I'm a little surprised they didn't try to identify the passenger as well, even if they didn't have a legal basis to *demand* the passenger's ID.
“We’re just trying to figure out what you’re doing” He already answered that. He saw he couldn’t get through because of their road block so he turned around. Is this cop demented?
Anytime a cop asks me where I'm coming from I literally point in the direction I came from and say that way. It's not lying and it's not their business to know where I came from.
Why yes...yes he is demented.....police policy to identify as many people as possible creates that dementia in police officers. If judges and lawmakers were on the side of actual JUSTICE....a simple ruling that NO ONE could be identified for ANY reason...unless commiting a misdemeanor of felony..could eliminate this...but as the system is now...there are too many exceptions to our 4th amendment....and police take advantage at every opportunity.
I've seen this one before. He never "actually" gave him his ID. the officer actually grabbed it out of his hand. I am surprised you didn't mention/cover that :)
He also missed that Missouri is a no-stop & ID EXCEPT for KCMO who has that ability, in a different video. AtA was called out and never corrected as far as I know.
@@alexsnow3319 I think he pretty much said that at around 5:31. Unless I'm misunderstanding...I know he didn't say "Missouri..." but he said "officers can not demand a driver ID himself without reasonable suspicion......."
@@alexsnow3319 nevermind... I get what you're saying... you meant in a different video from Missouri. I read your comment wrong and when I realized this occurred In Georgia I rewatched.
Or you could leave it all to the private sector. Don’t like speeders on your private road? Hire a private defense agency. Have someone threatening you? Call your insurance company and have them send a private defense agent.
Just like doctors have to have malpractice insurance. But you also need to have a civilian review board for all complaints and get rid of qualified immunity.
Insurance will only make their salary go up to accommodate premiums. It will not affect offending cops personally and they will not have any incentive to improve their conduct.
This is insane. The fact that these clown courts think whenever a cop assumes something Is "suspicious" rather than acting human and listening to citizens and not escalating is ok is telling how police culture works in the U.S.
What’s really happening is that they are scared of actual violent criminals and gang members and they choose us the lawful unsuspicious citizens to look like they are doing their job which is to go after violent criminals so they are cowards. It is easier and safer to harass innocent civilians and increase their quotas by giving us tickets and arresting us for no reason. I think that’s what it comes out to.
Cops can lie in the line of duty, it's perfectly legal. That is what happens when you don't research what and who you vote for. But, f these clowns. How is turning over your driver's license going to hurt them. They are encouraging these stops. Check out how often they get into altercations with cops, do you have that much trouble, that often? No. Their purpose is exactly what they pretend they want to stop. I can't think of a single good reason to withhold your identity. Not one
For some reason UA-cam has labeled this as part of some "sovereign citizen movement". I can only imagine that they mean that based on the actions of the police. They definitely acted as if they were above the law.
Nope we are all white supremacist now lol apparently sovereign citizens are an off shoot of far right wing extremist groups and white supremacist groups 🤣🤣🤣 the gas lighting is real on UA-cam now 🤣
Basically because this is a pro rights video. Sandbagging at its finest. "You know your rights? What are you one those whacks that thinks you're a sovereign citizen"
The more you hear these court rulings the more you realize that these judges are interpreting these laws in the favor of the police and against the citizens. To take the events leading up to a stop into consideration when the person had nothing to do with those events is nonsense. So if you drive through an area that has high drug use then that can be used against you even though you have nothing to do with that.
Judges pay into the retirement fund for Piggies and Piggies in return pay for the Judges Retirement fund.. so it is in their best interest to side with Piggies unless they massively fucked up.. and even then Piggies tend to walk away into a new job in a different city..
Makes me sick knowing that Republicans back the blue even though cops actions are unconstitutional. Really makes you think about what ideals the right really has about the principals our country was founded on.
This guys entire UA-cam channel is terrible. He never actually acknowledges the constitution. He just reads policies that trump our civil rights. This guy that runs this UA-cam channel also talks about lots of feelings and barely any facts. Not a fan of this guys youtube at all. He always sides with the feelings of officers and policies written by crooked city officials in order to make cops have easier access to get away with crimes.
@@TheRealBearFamily It says in the statute pulled up that loitering is when someone "is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity" It wasn't usual to turn around in a driveway and neither is it raising any alarms. He also immediately dispelled any suspicion when the cop asked. Therefore, it seems like he wasn't loitering since all he did was turn around, which is typical and it wasn't obvious there was any alarm. Like I get what you're saying but I don't even think by Georgia's definition that he was loitering either
This cop gotta chill a bit and tell the driver about the prison riot. That's it. You have a reason to be suspicious, be straight to citizens. Don't treat citizens like suspects by default.
Exactly my thought. A little bit of "human interaction" would go a long way, instead of the "I'm in charge" attitude many police have. Just be fair and honest. I'll bet Mr News would see the police point of view here.
they are trained to treat any and all citizens as potential criminals, they won't admit to it but they are, its a way to keep cops on alert 100% throughout the shift. it also turns them into state protected patsys that automatically assume someone is a suspect, and they are lying to you, even if you tell them the truth when stopped.
The supervisor did explain that, though. He explained that there was events at the prison and Mr News use of the warden's driveway was suspect in that context. It seems reasonable, to me, to get ID and the explanation so this can be noted in case further developments or investigations would indicate criminal activity involving the warden's property or driveway.
@@sharlesdaviskendy2391 the u turn wasn’t illegal. But the fact it happened in the wardens driveway right after the riot is what gave them the right to pull him over. You’re simplifying things too much and leaving out pertinent details to the interaction.
Just saying “suspicion” is not the same as having reasonable, articulable suspicion. That officer could not articulate what was suspicious. So frustrating
One thing to note, I love that he apologizes for not turning off the car. It really showed that he was trying to be respectful while at the same time asserting his rights.
Why? What does "respect" matter? I was taught you have to give respect to get respect. Has any cop ever been "respectful" to the people they serve? Just because someone does or doesnt show respect doesnt mean anything...
@@negemyshibalbeckbojiya4875 If you have to give respect to get respect, then no one would ever get respect or be respectful unless someone gave it first without getting it. I was taught, respect people, until they prove they are unworthy of it.
You can provide feedback as to why this is a mislabeling. The three dots in the right hand corner provide you with this function. Don't know if they will listen but it doesn't hurt to let one' voice be heard.
The fact that a "context" thing pop's up when viewing this video, apparently labeling this as "sovereign citizens" speaks volumes to the state of affairs this country is in
It's because this comment section is filled with sovereign citizen comments, that's why that context popup is there. UA-cam reads both the comments as well as the video itself.
Well, all police are sovereign citizens by definition according to qualified immunity. Ignorance of the law is no excuse when you're a citizen. Ignorance of the law while performing law enforcement is protected.
And the fact check calls them “conspiracy theorists” and another multitude of words that have a negative connotation in our society. It’s definitely giving a propaganda vibe.
You’re not the figure out what I’m doing police, your the law enforcement police.” This guy is right up there with the grammar police and fashion police
They’re just bullies and thugs. I used to support law-enforcement all the time but lately it’s become clear they’ll use their authority to abuse the hell out of people, and I’m sick of it. There was no reason they had to have his ID. They just wanted it, and they wanted to prove they had the authority to get it.
Same here: taught until age 12 to trust law and seek them out for help. At 13, my first encounter with law, my reputation by them was "guilty until proven innocent". They've earned their standoffish behavior from me and my freedom-winning debates approx 15-0 to date.
Not taking the side of *corrupt police* but when you operate a motor vehicle there are many, many requirements and compliances that each citizen / driver is required to fulfill. You can not obtain a drivers licence without fulfilling numerous requirements and all the compliances required. You have to comply with all the requirements to register your motor vehicle. You have to comply with all the requirements to obtain your motor vehicle insurance. You have to comply with the requirements to obtain licence plates and renew the tags. Your signature is required on numerous documents involved. Your multiple place signatures, in effect, is an express understanding that you will obey and comply relative to all that is involved operating a motor vehicle. You know that there are a multitude of Laws and Regulations and Ordinances and Requirements involved. You know those Laws and Regulations and Ordinances and Requirements and Compliances are enforced by Law Enforcement officers. You know you can be held accountable and responsible and liable when operating a motor vehicle if and when you do violate any of the many Laws or Regulations or Ordinances or Requirements relative to the legal operation of a motor vehicle. You know you are required to show your driver's licence and prove you have a current drivers licence and current / valid motor vehicle registration and current / valid motor vehicle insurance and current / valid licence plates and tags. People drive about for years and years and thousands of hours of driving while all the while complying and obeying all the many traffic related Laws and Regulations and Ordinances and Requirements and in effect complying all the time. But then, people are stopped and engaged by police officer for infractions of any of those many traffic related Laws or Ordinances or Regulations or Requirements and then, after all of that compliance for years and years they suddenly decide to not comply and refuse to show their Drivers licence to a police officer....when they know full well *that aspect* of operating a motor vehicle is also a requirement and all part of the compliances involved. Like Duh ...🙄🙄
For some reason that I'll never understand, so many cops just want ID for any and all reasons. Its almost like a crack addict needing to get crack, by any means possible. ID must be the crack that keeps cops going somehow?
What's with UA-cam putting the "Sovereign citizen movement" wikipedia article below the video? Nobody in the video matched the description of a "sovereign citizen." Sovereign citizens interpret laws in their own way to try avoid the laws altogether. This behavior however was not present in this video. I understand this thing was likely placed by a bot, but the fact that the bot sees this as involving a "sovereign citizen" shows a clear misunderstanding on the term on UA-cam's part.
I'd want to ask if they were taught during their training that citizens must give up ID when requested. Then I'd want them to know, LOUD and CLEAR, that their training has failed them miserably while I'm deciding who to add into the litigation
Unfortunately you have to be willing to take the arrest and then fight the initial charge along with add on charges resisting etc your not just up against a cop but a whole system that is created to violate your rights
When I was in training it was one of the steps no matter what. Same as practicing with handcuffs. It was just the steps. No law on when to ask just to get Id for all interactions. That was 2013. I left 2 years later smh.
@@dennishoule2570 Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@ItsConstitutional You are mixing federal and state definitions. The federal definition only claims what is required for regulation of "automobiles" under their own definition, states themselves have rights to their own regulations of "automobiles" under the 10th amendment, which is what allows states to make their own regulations for other laws as well.
@@kosgoth Each vehicle has a weight class. Each weight class has a specific name given to it. It you dont like it, just pay the fine like everyone else because the Truth is not for everyone. Good Luck with your journey!
They cant answer any questions that are outside their knowledge of law. And they dont know the law! Look here..Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@ItsConstitutional dude, shut the fuck up, spamming it, even if you are correct, won't help your cause in any way. It will get people to just hate you more. Bring it up when the commenter brings it up, if not, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND MAKE YOUR OWN COMMENT.
The deputy admitted he stopped them because he doesn't know what they're doing. Reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime can't be based on suspicion resulting from a lack of knowledge. Cops can't detain and ID all of us because they don't know what we're doing. It's unreasonable to assume everyone is committing a crime unless they prove otherwise. Our system of jurisprudence is supposedly based on the presumption of innocence, but most of the time, as we see here, it's based on the presumption of guilt.
@@Liberty4Ever No, the court of law is working on the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, but the police arrest and detain arent working on the same way. In fact, the police working with the DA to prove that you are guilty, so they are already under the presumption or suspicion that you did something wrong. But in this case, the police must still be able to state what his suspicion was, or he can just keep watching for further information/evidence.
The true "sovereigns" are the cops, judges, bar attorneys and public officials. Here is why..Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
Man your explanations are sooooo on a knife point. 1 grain of rice to the other side and poif you land your butt in jail. That is is the judge had a bad day.
Why would they care? Republicans back them regardless of their actions. I mean seriously, why would they care about changing when 1/3 of the country back them no matter what.
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
Me too!!!!! I cannot wraap my head around how popular this is these days, but I guess there are so many people who are not aware or complacent there is no reason to change. I mean I guess..... If I see something showing something is not legal or incorrect or not true, I change once I confirm that. Odd man.
I have a “context” warning thing that popped up with a link to wiki for sovereign citizens. Terrific. People exercising their rights are now being fact checked as sovereign citizens.
I know right! I wish I could tell Wiki about this...Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
And that suspicion is easily dispelled when you keep seeing things fly out a window. Cop: I don't understand what you are doing. It isn't normal. Me: I'm sure your boss should discuss sleeping on the job then. Nearly ever road sees one of us each night. How do you think that paper arrives in the morning? This is literally very common. You just weren't awake to see it.
Meanwhile during this encounter thousands passed by on the nearby highway who potentially should be "figured-out-what-your-doing" and went merrily on their way. The "logic" displayed by these cops is mind-numbingly "illogical."
I supportuou, for me I don't want to be slammed to the ground face first ,tased or shot over a license..I'm just saying goons are trigger happy...be careful
Love when the cops say “that’s reasonable suspicion” but forget to add OF A CRIME!!! You being an officer and being suspicious of someone’s actions means nothing unless a crime is associated with those actions. They always magically forget the last part.
"The reasonable, articulable suspicion is suspicious behavior." Suspicion is not a crime. They're a bunch of clowns who will literally say ANYTHING to get their way. Tyrants.
@@MichaelDover10 and they’ve never met the person so how can they determine what someone’s normal behavior is? Like this person may enjoy turning around in driveways. Is it weird? Sure, is it illegal? NO!!
@@matteframe That's when they want you to step out of the vehicle. Not for identification but the cop is completely making shit up to get his ID. Saying the crime could be possibly loitering when we all know that's bullcrap. All he did was make a U turn.
One of the most frustrating things about these episodes is how often it turns out that the law actually is on the cop's side. It's unbelievable how much unreasonable power they are imbued with. The law seems to be a blank check for authoritarianism if you have a badge.
It indeed is. I got to experience this before body cams and audit v audit lol. I got fucked royal and was just me vs the words of the crooked ass OKC pigs. Wish I was born in 2000 lol.
These videos shouldn't be about your or anyone's "God given rights" they should ALWAYS adress the lack of public servant training and not the publics lack of knowledge. Let's say there is a citizen who doesn't know anything about the law whatsoever, hypothetically the citizen was born yesterday and somehow hypothetically the citizen is not a baby but a grown person and knows nothing about the law, the public servants should be the ones to know the law and enforce it because how well they do know their field of occupation (job). Now if a crane operator didn't know how the crane works wouldn't that be the problem and not the crane manufacturers? If a chef in a restaurant doesn't know how to make an omelet wouldn't that be the problem of the said chef and lack of his own knowledge or maybe it's the eggs fault? Is it the fault of the chicken? Is it the fault of the farmer? Don't twist the truth to fit you. Truth is the truth
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@ItsConstitutional Yes there are many plot holes in the law like this but all of you people are getting the wrong message in all of this this shouldn't be about citizens learning the law it should be about public servants knowing the law and their jobs, period.
The buffoon literally said "it's reasonable articulable suspicious that you did that" TWICE. We're talking about a 9 year old's understanding of the law there. Yet you gave them a C? Cops get an F. Audit the Audit gets a D.
Your not being harsh here, that Officer was pathetic to actually say that twice. Had he said it once and then corrected himself, it would be chalked up as a simple misspeak during a contentious moment but he went back to it as though it was logic, it wasn't even a coherent sentence.
I feel like these officers got way too angry and emotional whilst carrying out their service. They should remain professional, the interaction would have gone much smoother this way. It always annoys me when officers accuse citizens of 'making things difficult'. No. The officers are supposed to be the ones responsible for keeping the interactions civil.
@@ScanManDaMurka i feel like he's being realistic because there's basically a 50/50 chance the court could side against him. Now, there's not really a question whether they should or not, but AtA cited the relevant statues and pointed out a cop's actual reasoning for a stop does not come into account when considering the constitutionality of it (which is horseshit)
They had reasonable suspicion based off a separate incident that happened almost the exact same way. The courts have the cops the right to pull his ass over.
@@trainwreck2100 A so-called riot inside some prison down the road 3 days earlier = Something happened almost the exact same day ?!? That’s not even a suspicion, just weak assed pathetic BS excuse. What’s the suspicion? That some mastermind inmate might have planned a prison riot to help cover up his escape, spend 3 days with the warden’s daughter, then have Tha Boyz pick him up? Psst Columbo, a cybercrime happened yesterday and today I’m right here online. Damn suspicious that is. Come quick to ID me, bring backup
I truly feel that with all the cameras and body cameras we can dispense with giving officers qualified immunity. Giving them a benefit of the doubt over a citizen is outdated and rarely proves a citizen has done a crime. This only creates a divide between government and it's citizens
Sovereign Citizen: "You pulled into the warden's driveway back there." Informed Free Citizen: "To turn around." Sovereign Citizen: "Yeah, and we're trying to figure out what you were doing." Informed Free Citizen: "Turning around is what I was doing."
I mean they literally link to what that is in this video so idk how you could mess that up. And this video has nothing to do with SC since they pretty much just believe LEAs and the gov't have no/more limited authority over them.
If cops only had one job, but they fail that completely! Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@ItsConstitutional I believe it! Lot of mismatching legal terms in traffic law is why traffic attorneys have such a high success rate getting tickets dropped or reduced even if theres a confession on camera of speeding or racing for example. It’s probably intentional to allow them to get out of their own traps, but obfuscated enough in stupid legalese that the avg citizen has minimal chance of figuring out they can get out of it easily.
What’s really happening is that they are scared of actual violent criminals and gang members and they choose us the lawful unsuspicious citizens to look like they are doing their job which is to go after violent criminals so they are cowards. It is easier and safer to harass innocent civilians and increase their quotas by giving us tickets and arresting us for no reason. I think that’s what it comes out to.
My favourite line in this whole interaction is the trooper saying "It's articulable reasonable suspicious that you're performing something illegal there." That officer should be arrested for torturing the English language.
Neither, I live in Australia. Cops here aren't half as dumb as American ones or as willing to violate people's right's, or as aggressive, arrogant and ignorant though so it's more entertaining to watch theirs lol.
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@danielgarrett7226 Yes, there are states that call themselves stop and ID states but even there they simply lower the level of RAS that is required for identification. Technically you're correct but a handful of states still call themselves stop and ID states and that's why the term is even alive.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn Why don't you just raise my kids for me? Give them some more power maybe? I can't believe people like you exist. I really can't. Cheerleading oppression of freedom. Then talk about freedom and liberty as you vote for fascism. Disgusting. What a disgsuting, repugnant, foul human being.
"we're trying to identify you" "How is my ID going to tell you what I'm doing?" "well cuz we're trying to identify you" You can see his brain short circuiting in real time
The grade of C for the cops was overly generous. They should have gotten a D or F for at least several reasons. 1) They lied about in saying that Georgia law required citizen to ID on request. 2) They did not call a supervisor when the auditor asked for one.
They did not lie about that. Georgia Code Title 40 § 40-5-29 - License to be carried and exhibited on demand. Google it. Subsection a) states all drivers must have a valid license with them at all time when operating a motor vehicle. Subsection b) states "every licensee shall display his license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer". So, yeah, he needed to present his license to the cops. I don't understand how we watch a person defying legal orders and flagrantly violating law and decide he deserves an "A" and the officers rightly enforcing valid law, deserve a "C".
If they weren’t doing those things it would be an a or b as from what I saw that’s all they did while they were obviously in the wrong they didn’t escalate or antagonise so I think C is fair
Jason Longton: Courts have ruled that cops can demand a driver's license only during legitimate traffic stops. These cops made it very clear that stop was not for a traffic violation but because they considered their turning around suspicious in light of recent events at the jail. In other words, the stop was the same as stopping someone walking by. What's more, these cops go on to make the extraordinary claim that people must provide ID when cops ask for it; full stop. That is simply not true in Georgia. In fact, in Georgia (unlike some other states) there is no law that requires you to provide ID even if the cops can articulate a reasonable suspicion.
Right? The *driveway*! That Warden is the ultimate nosey irate old man to have background checks done on someone for their tires touching his driveway to turn his vehicle around. IN AMERICA.
@Seth Hawkins You can provide feedback as to why this is a mislabeling. The three dots in the right hand corner provide you with this function. Don't know if they will listen but it doesn't hurt to let one' voice be heard.
How come nobody ever tells the cops that "figuring out what someone's doing" is not justification to begin an investigation. You can always tell when the police aren't so sure about what they're saying when they hesitate to forcefully detain the person they're interacting with. When they know they're legally within their rights, the police will not give a 2nd thought to doing just that. If you're not in handcuffs within 30 seconds then stand your ground.
This isn't great advice. The difference between RAS and Probable Cause could land someone following this advice in cuffs. Plenty of states allow a cop to demand that a person identify themselves with RAS as the hurdle that needs to be cleared.
I don't know, but I have seen me say "If you're afraid for your life officer, you're in the wrong profession." to over 20 aggressive cops including their wrongful firearm brandishings.
I absolutely love what you all do for a bunch of internet strangers. Thank-you! ✌😎🤘 Edit: This cop is making me chuckle watching him try to come up with a reasonable explanation for demanding his license. The struggle is real. 🤣
He’s LYING about the whole event. In my entire 50 years of driving I’ve never heard of being pulled over for turning around in a driveway as being suspicious or a crime.
No, no. They're trying to connect it to a prison riot which is even more stupid. If he meant the warden harm why turn around and linger waiting for the cops? He's run away.
@@berrydinglejr You licked boots, showed your fear and subservience to their dominance and ultimately were rewarded with your freedom (something you already possessed and were entitled to, all along). Congratulations on surviving your encounter with armed terrorist criminals and professional kidnappers. Not all are so fortunate.
I think this was very well handled as a teaching moment for other auditors who I have seen behaving unprofessionally (if this is their chosen profession). There are some who are completely disrespectful for absolutely no reason and I will say they deserve every single bit of the officer's disrespect towards them.
Have the police forgotten that We The People are innocent until proven guilty of breaking a law? Is Reasonable Articulable Suspicion not taught at the academy? I’m stunned that this officer didn’t hear what he said & realized that he sounded stupid and was acting outside his authority. This officer is lost thinking that turning around is a reasonable reason to pull him over & ask for identification. I personally don’t think police get enough training to do the job that’s required of them. 2yrs minimum should be required with the constitution taught during that time. Policing is more than harassing & shooting people! They truly should be taught that We The People have rights & when infringed upon the consequences will fall on them & not the department, city or F.O.P..
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
So by your logic the police would never investigate any crimes since the potential criminal has never been proven guilty? I do agree with the lack of training. I wonder what costs the states more...Properly trained Law Enforcement or the litigation for a improperly trained staff?
Cops are required to have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime to detain and ID but they are not required to articulate their reasonable suspicion. It must be articulable, not articulated. This allows them to falsely claim RAS to magically make an illegal stop "legal", ID you, and run you through a database to check for warrants or see if you're a fugitive. If their presumption-of-guilt fishing expedition catches a fish, they can then invent RAS when writing their report hours later. In this case, the deputy admits that he doesn't know what these guys were doing, and reasonable suspicion can't be based on a lack of knowledge. He admitted that he didn't have RAS that a crime has been, is being or will be committed. Cops can't detain and ID everyone because they don't know what we're all doing. That makes it an unlawful stop for a presumption-of-guilt 4th amendment violating fishing expedition, but good luck convincing the cop with a gun and Respect Mah Authoritah attitude.
Bottom line I've learned from these videos is that ALL American police seem to have 'in their minds'... reasonable articulable suspicion of EVERYONE. You people are a police state and that's why I stopped visiting the USA. That and the gun culture.
This officer's tone and body language clearly shows he knew he was being unlawful and disingenuous cause he couldn't think of any crime the driver committed so he just kept repeating, "I have articulable, reasonable suspicion" ....without any mention of an actual crime XD
Oddly..........the Supreme Court has ruled that "tone" and "body language" cannot be used as a reason to assume a person is guilty or innocent, but you are! hahahaha!
The question the police needed to answer and the gentlemen should have asked is "what does a prison riot inside the prison have to with a couple of Florida men driving down the road three days later?". Boil it all down to the basics and it sounds more preposterous than even the video shows it to be.
This is just another example of how we’ve created so many laws that you truly never know if you’re breaking the law or not. Unfortunately we’re heading down the path where citizens just have to submit to the law enforcement or face being arrested.
And when cops end up in shoot outs, they want to be supported by the public...want to have cake and eat it too.. People that see these videos do not expect fair treatment and if there is no body cam, you can end up in a ditch with a bullet in your phone as well as your head. And the report will make you the problem.
I think you made an excellent point. It doesn't necessarily point to the trooper but rather the countless gray areas that have been created through legislation and subjective adjudication.
That is a problem, and courts not interpreting the law, but trying to make their own. However, the core of this law, is the police have to have reasonable suspicion of a crime, or a crime in progress. These Officers were clearly in the wrong.
I love how they always say they’re just trying to figure out what they’re doing. They just told the cop. And regardless, how is his license going to tell him what they were doing ??
You can provide feedback as to why this is a mislabeling. The three dots in the right hand corner provide you with this function. Don't know if they will listen but it doesn't hurt to let one' voice be heard.
@@boink666 I won’t give UA-cam ANY of my money because of their wildly deceptive tactics which are long overdue for being fixed. UA-cam has the best content, but they eventually ban all the best content. 🤦🏻♂️
@@boink666 Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
Sorry AtA, you’ve got this one wrong. The acronym “RAS” (Reasonable articulable suspicion) is too often truncated to exclude the other much more important words in the law, which is, “…of a crime.” The officer admitted Mr. News was not accused of a traffic infraction, then further admitted what Mr. News did was not a crime. The ID demand most certainly violated Mr. News’ 4th Amendment rights, by the officer’s own words. Add to this the snatching of the driver’s license out of Mr. News’ hand and there is no way these officers are warranted a “C”.
@@prescottwilliams4637 AtA should convert his grading system from letter grades to a 10-scale. I believe he doesn’t want to rate this encounter with the same grade as the truly awful and/or violent videos he rated as “Fs”. In other words, he doesn’t have enough range to assign misbehaviors.
Totally agree, look at the demeanor of these oath breakers and let's not forget the nazi snatched the ID. All the gestapo wanted to do is run him for warrants which he reluctantly stated
@{ro,is54" i agree with you on the 4th Viol; however, i agree with ATA that a judge-only proceeding would yield support of the police officers bc that's just what they do, so the question is, "Is it worth the time, drive back to this state, etc.?" No.
Hold on a second, here we go again comparing apples to oranges. In the Wynn case, the driver had an open container of alcohol in plain sight and the alcohol could probably be smelled by the office as well, so probable cause. In this case, the driver asks "what the reasonable suspicion articulate for pulling him over is" and the trooper can't give him a valid lawful reason, first stating only" I need to know what you're up to." The trooper knowing this is not enough and knowing that he is being filmed states, "You turned around in a cul-de-sac." and "You were loitering." Well the two made up trooper accusations contradict themselves which means the officer is lying but mainly neither are really enough to justify what he did and he knows it by the tired old cop scheme of "throwing as much BS on the wall to see what sticks." Or a fishing expedition and mainly not giving a quick direct answer to "what law or suspicion of breaking a law have I committed?" The hallmark of liars.
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
I don’t “drive” anything. A driver is a legal term when you are conducting business with a vehicle. You are legally a “traveler” Never identify as a driver, you are legally a TRAVELER.
Here's the legal problem for the "Federal travellers" or sov folks. Your driver license is granted by the state and not the federal government. You can call it driving, moving, travelling, rock&rollin' whatever. If you don't have a driver license you will at some point legally (as well as other reasons) regret it.
@@jaimeortega4940 Wrong, you get a drivers license from a PRIVATE company, not a STATE run agency. All DMVs are PRIVATELY owned. Thats how a state uses the loop holes because NO state can issue their own license.
Ok great if you could send me the business card info for the DMV company and their website that would be great. Plus I want to trade the DMV company's stock on the stock market so I'll be needing their ticker symbol as well. Thanks.
It’s been done. They absolutely freak out. But to lawfully practice your right to remain silent you need to speak up enough to invoke it. Then you are covered by it. I would like to see someone actually invoke their Miranda rights. Cops falsely believe you are free game to interrogate up until they arrest you and read you your rights. So they hold off detaining or arresting people In this game of chicken to scare them into incriminating themselves on something. This isn’t part of the law though. Rights do not turn on or off based on any actions of the police. I will absolutely provide you with my ID and answer questions as soon as you get a lawyer on the phone. This doesn’t obstruct their investigation. It shuts it down. They cannot provide an attorney on the roadside. And they cannot arrest you for demanding it.
If they say, "we don't know what you're doing", then its insane that cops can be allowed to move forward in their investigation. When they "DO know...." then ok, cops may have the right.
They might had reasonable supicision but didn't mention it. Remember the jail the Warden works at had a riot recently that injured alot of people. It might be they feared the Warden's Life might in danger. I did a whole comment on it but it's just conspiracy theorizing. Eitherway the officers did say they were on high alert around the Warden's house for some sort of reason, be it by order or by own choice. Also most F on cops are because they used force, lied about the law and statutes or tried to twist the law in such a favor to get what they want or defending clear violations by the officer. Here the officers were wrong, but they didn't escalate it. They wanted to run an ID check cause of a suspicion that should been dispelled but they thought more. These cops didn't do anything as bad as those who deserve a flat F or lower in some cases we see.
@@SliceIceNDice ATA almost always sides with the law enforcement. You can read any statute and slant it more favorable for law enforcement if you want to. I think ATA is just being honest in that respect because the courts almost always slant towards law enforcement. And police know that, that is why they say "I had RAS", because in their own mind, they make up RAS and know it will most likely never be challenged.
So if the cop is "trying to figure out" if the citizen is committing a crime then they don't have reasonable suspicion that the citizen is committing a crime.
The "loitering" excuse was made up by the tropper on the fly. This because the act of turning around in a private driveway negates that excuse or acusation.
Read the statute as to what loitering is, as opposed to what the dictionary definition is. GA loitering statute basically reiterates the requirements for a Terry Stop/Investigative Detention which does criminalize refusing to id, making GA a stop and ID state.
they always do this. and it is easy to do in a nation with so many laws that they are literally unknowable in totality except to dedicated professionals
I read the statute more important I know what loitering is and it's legal definition and so do most common sense jurys. The loitering excuse was the cops last ditch effort second excuse/lie for why he pulled him over because he knew legally he had no real reason to and subsequently no right to ask for an ID.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn I didn't think you were right at first, but having read it, this stop seems to be valid: "O.C.G.A. 16-11-36 (2010) 16-11-36. Loitering or prowling (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern."
I would’ve made them give me a citation. If they can’t think of an infraction for a citation and will not give you one no matter how much you beg, then there was no reason to be pulled over which makes the stop unlawful. Obviously the cops wanted to see his ID because his ID was definitely going to tell cops what the guys were doing, right…?🤔
Worst part is that it takes a couple minutes to run the plate and if he's the owner, his license pops up on the search and they'd literally have his license if that's what they really wanted. But what they want is to have power and control over you and get hard off forcing citizens to do as they say. Fucking disgusting.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn Isn't failure to ID considered a secondary charge? There needs to be reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime for the order to ID to be considered lawful in the first place.
@@RedGreen1 That depends on the State and their statutes, and what meaning you want to ascribe to "secondary offense". Secondary offense is MOST often used in the context of a traffic offense, where an LEO can NOT use the offense as a basis for the stop, unless he witnesses some other offense to stop the vehicle. Used in some states for seat belt violations, even if the officer sees you not wearing one. As far as refusing to id, in an investigative detention (Terry Stop) there DOES NOT have to be a first offense. There only has to be RS that, based upon your actions, a reasonable Police Officer, could conclude YOU MAY BE involved in criminality. It may after investigation turn out that your behavior was totally legal, but if the officer has the required RS you commit a primary offense in your refusing to id, if that state has such a statute. As far as a criminal charge, even resisting can be either a primary offense, IN NY resisting someone else's arrest but would be a secondary offense in resisting your own, or FL where resisting an officer covers both resisting arrest as well as their obstruction type charges.
A lot of the logic in this video hinges on this being a traffic stop. But this wasn’t a traffic stop. He wasn’t pulled over for any driving infraction. He was pulled over for suspicion. That is not a traffic stop. If you do something suspicious or they don’t like…. Doesn’t give them the right to pull you over after- then rely on a “traffic stop” to force identifying.
Sadly the law kinds does allow them to do it, there is precedent for police to pull over people under the pretense of a traffic stop, even with different intentions. He also does mention multiple times in this video that this stop is potentially unconstitutional because he didn't commit any traffic violation.
9:00 "Abnormal or unusual actions taken to avoid a roadblock may give an officer a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity even when the evasive action is not illegal." What a treasonous ruling for a judge to make. That throws your constitutional rights out the window unless the vast majority of citizens exercise the right. So if others don't use their rights, you lose yours. Not the way that rights work according the US constitution which means this judge was ignoring/violating/waging war on the constitution and we the people with that ruling.
So, if I'm getting this right, if there is a riot in a prison wether known or unknown, everyone who drives near said prison, AUTOMATICALLY makes those passers-by a suspected criminal ! BBAAA Humbug !
It wasn't the fact that he just "drove near said prison". It was the fact that, when seeing the police activity in the area that didn't actually block his route, he turned around in the warden's driveway and went the other direction before stopping along the road. As ATA explained, since his route was not actually blocked, it seems reasonable in this context for police officers to suspect that the individual wanted to avoid passing by the police cars for some reason which, as ATA also explained, is often considered as reasonable suspicion given the totality of the context (riot days before, threats against the warden, road not actually blocked, out-of-state vehicle, turning around in warden's driveway, stopping on side of road). Certainly the auditors explanations seemed plausible but if police officers let everyone leave a scene without questioning or identifying them, numerous criminals would be let go after giving the officer a good story.
@@ForensicEng - You think there's something wrong with letting citizens go if they have a reasonable explanation of their actions? The alternative would be to violate the rights of all citizens because you never know if they might be good liars.
@@UserNameAnonymous - What rights did I suggest they violate? Even ATA (who ALWAYS sides against police) said that their decision to stop and question these individuals would likely be found reasonable because of reasonable suspicion in the totality of circumstances. You would rather officers never be able to question a citizen unless they were 100% certain that they could get a conviction in court? You can argue extreme ends of the possible options but it makes a lot more sense, as a society, to not be so butt-hurt about police asking some questions when a citizen does something unusual in an unusual situation and only be truly concerned if the police actually make a wrongful arrest.
@jasonwatson3643 - This isn't about the reasonableness of the stop. They may have had reasonable articulable suspicion, but they might not have. They questioned them. Fine. Then they explained what they were doing. You yourself said the auditors' explanation seemed plausible. Their suspicion should have evaporated once they were given the explanation. That's it.
@@UserNameAnonymous - So a murderer, caught at the scene of the crime has to be unquestionably allowed to leave with no further questions as soon as he says that he happened to be walking by and saw the victims and the blood all over his clothes are from him trying to see if the victims were still alive. It is a plausible explanation so the police aren’t allowed to ask any other questions once a criminal gives a reason that could easily have been rehearsed for just such an instance when they happen to get stopped? Thus my point that you seem to believe that police can only ask any further questions once they already have 100% proof of a crime in hand. Under that belief, no criminal would ever be arrested because no investigation could be conducted.
“Completely normal driving does not justify a terry style stop.” How is turning around not a normal driving action? Like how could that be spun? Edit: bro the riot was days before hand!? This is happening more and more, while areas are basically no gos where police can stop you for anything
Here is how a nearly identical situation was handled by a German police officer. I was with my private car on a way to a customer and was accounting a roadblock. So i turned around and stopped to review the map for an alternative route. A police officer came and asked if i need help. He something like "I see your not from around here, where do you want to go? Maybe i can help you with the route." We got into talking from that. He provided information about the extend of the bock and i told him a lot about my destination and what I'm doing. I did provide a lot of information without feeling threatened or under investigation and got good information how to continue my travel. He never asked me about my identification. I think this is a much better way to do things.
Many years ago in the uk someone broke into my car by smashing the small front quarter window. Not wanting to be out of pocket, I went to where I knew an identical car had been abandoned to remove the glass I needed. Alas, a cop car came by, it was a quite remote area at night so it definitely looked super suspicious, me being there alone Messi g about with an abandoned car, with my car there with its smashed little window. They asked what I was doing, I told them the truth, that someone had broken into my car and I knew this abandoned one had been here for weeks (it was pushed halfway into a bush, completely obviously abandoned), they saw my window and immediately asked if it was my car, I said yes here's my keys, they asked for my details to confirm my car was my own, and once satisfied I was telling the truth, they said while they understood why I was trying to take the glass from the abandoned car, they couldn't let me do it as it was still technically someone else's property. That was it, they let me go, no hard questioning or attitude.
Thanks for tuning in. Be sure to show your support if you enjoyed this episode!
Second channel: ua-cam.com/channels/lTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw.html
Twitter: twitter.com/AuditTheAudit
You do an excellent job and I appreciate it and have learned so much.
One thing I haven't seen is women being sexually intimidated by police. Ine time I was at a srop light in Edinburgh, Indiana and it was early morning. I was getting of work from an overnight shift and I was taking my coworker home.
While at the light, I saw that I didn't need my headlights on, so, I turned thrm off. After the light turned green...this was a split 2-lane highway. My tags were good, condition of my car all in proper working order...I was driving a small Rabbit Volkswagen...nothing flashing to draw anyone's attention...after thr light changed, the officer behind me turns on his sirens and I was confused as to why he was pulling me over...he was an older white cop..mI was in my mid-20s and when he walked up to the car...I was tired and irritated and I pointedly asked him why in the world was he pulling me over...he walks to the front of my car and taps the headlight and then he walks back to me and square, "Well, ma'am, it's like this...I am an and you are a woman...I think I know how we can take care of this. WTF!
I'm a soft--tender and kind woman, but I am a Leo-Lioness, too. And injustice or crap like that and then I have no problem coming out roaring.
I looked at my friend and asked if he really just the fuck said what I think he said and she nodded yes and I looked at h qnd roared, "Oh, he'll no!" And I asked for his seargents number qnd I told thr cop to write the fucking ticket qnd let's see how this goes down in court...he turned and walked away.
I called his seargent when I got gone and he laughed at me qnd said he would for sure take a statement.
I've have two other similar incidents like this sexual intimidation I and harassment over the years. It is equally scary qnd infuriating. One time, it was dark and I was driving a long trip on the interstate and I was alone. I was in my huge Dodge truck and in am area that wad outside of a larger town qnd notch traffic at that time...around 3:00 a.m.
It was a Oregon state trooper and he pulls me over...I wasn't speeding...used cruise control, driving well qnd safely...again. irritated at being pulled over qnd he taps on the passenger side window...I was expecting him in the driver side...scared the crap out of me when he tapped on the window...I locked doors and rolled down the window and asked why I was being pulled over and he said he was doing a safety check qnd I asked what that was and he asked fir my licenses and registration and I said "for a safety check??" and then he pointed at my breaststroke and said he could meet me at the motel up the road and I was instantly fucking furious and I wrapped my hands around the steering wheel and clamped down to catch my breath and words...I looked at him and said that I was going to drive off now qnd he stood back and held up his hand like ok...no harm done. I drove to a busy truckstop and smoked, drank coffee, and shook mad for about an hour before I could drive again. Angry and very scared he was still un the area.
The third time, officer gave me a ticket for speeing...which I was 7 miles over the speed limit on the unterstate...geez and the officer hands me back all my stuff and the speeding ticket and he asked me fir my number...he still had a hold of the paperwork...wasn't letting it go when I reached for it and I said no, I wasn't interested qnd he said, "...but baby I could make you feel so good." Giys like that get aggressive when you engage them and say no, I tugged at the paper work and shook my head no qnd he said jus number was in the ticket if I changed mind.
I don't understand how they don't know it isn't cute, sexy, or charming...it's scary qnd intimidating and it doesn't do anything to turn them in. Ask almost any Wan and she will habe stories like this, too...most likely.
Why is this video tagged with "Sovereign Citizen Movement." This video neither mentions anything about "Sovereign Citizens" nor contains material related to such a "movement." Is this the result of some collusion between Google and Law Enforcement to vilify anyone who stands up for their rights OR reports on individuals who challenge police on the legality of their actions?
@@robertanderson6929 I agree. However, this could be good for his video because the resulting increase of comments over the issue. More comments means the video gets promoted more.
You can provide feedback by clicking on the three dots by the tag.
I respect anyone who goes out and defends out freedom!!! I am physically unable to do it. But I’m sorry and will say this as gently as I can…… keep you damn windows closed!!!🤬
There is a "sovereign citizen" notice on this video....lol
"You are not the figuring out what I am doing police, you're the law enforcement police" GOLD, JERRY! GOLD!
Banya!! 👊🤣😂🤣😂
I came here to quote that brilliant statement! 😂😂😂
He should be given a brand new Armani suit for his troubles. Maybe a nice dinner, at Mendy's.
Why the heck is the wiki article for sovereign citizen movement posted right under this video?! YT is crazy. This has nothing to do with sovereign citizen crap. Apparently, merely standing up for one’s rights now makes one a “sovereign citizen.”
Seriously perfect. These police are insane.
"You are making things hard." A private citizen is under no obligation to make it easy.
Right ✅️
One thing I've learned watching every one of these videos... refusing to give the cops your ID really f****** triggers them 😂
Right? They HATE being told no
I'm going to just respond with "Maybe".
These cops are bullies……. as usual!
Yes whats the deal with that? Why do they care so much about ID? I feel like I would just put Jon Doe on my paperwork and get on with my day if I was an officer.
@@MrSigmatico They want to catch you on a possible warrant, and they get mad when you refuse to allow them.
Has any cop ever answered the question, "Is that a lawful order?", by saying "No."
They believe a lawful order is any order they give.
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
They are trained to lie because it's legal for them to do so "in the course of their investigation."
"Is it a lawful order. Well, I'm law enforcement and a I gave an order. Boom! Lawful order. Man them 6 weeks at the academy made me brilliant!"
I have seen videos where an officer requests something and when they are challenged they say it's not a lawful order but a request. Those are the good cops with a solid grasp on their duties and know the law though
Didn't the driver explain the situation that would have dispelled the "suspicion" the cops had? After that explanation, there is no longer any "articulatable reasonable suspicion". Hence, there is no longer any reason for the cop to prolong nor escalate the encounter.
@H2 Lo: i agree, the problem is that sometimes the proceeding is judge only. As a juror, i can relate to turnin around in a city in which i am unfamiliar, therefore like yo said dispelling any RAS. This stop was bogus, but that's GA for ya - gotta get that id crack fix
See, an explanation alone doesn't necessarily dispel suspicion. A guy actually there to attack the warden could lie. The explanation and the identification would easily dispel the suspicion though. That's the issue here. I think the biggest issue is that the officers failed to explain their reasoning and just assumed the citizen would obey. If they had said, "you turned around at a roadblock after a some threats were made. We are stopping you now as a reasonable suspicion that you could be involved in the incident. If we can identify you and confirm no involvement, you will be on your way in a minute" that could have gone a long way. Failure to communicate is key in many of these interactions for both sides
IMO, when you hand over your I.D. you have effectively detained yourself or voluntarily submitted to being detained indefinitely since you cannot reasonably leave until the cop _chooses_ to return your I.D. It is a tactic the police are trained to use to avoid allegations of illegal detentions and interrogations. Most people would invoke their right to remain silent if an officer says, "You are being detained until you answer all of my questions." But oddly, if a cop is holding your I.D. and says "As soon as you answer my questions, I can get you on your way," then people are more _cooperative._ This guy like EVERYONE else, should have _objected to being detained_ and _invoked his right to remain silent._ He would likely have been arrested for doing so. But they could not have used anything he said as evidence against him, not even the fact that he refused to say anything. And you literally CANNOT talk your way out of a conviction. You can only "talk" yourself into one.
It's not like someone can just fabricate that story, it's far too advanced for that I guess...
@@robertanderson6929 Surprisingly you can ID without a physical ID... so this point makes no sense because you're already detained at that point and not free to leave.
The mentality of “I need your ID to figure things out” makes no sense.
Its extremely weird too. Im only 24 but i feel like as a kid it was common to hear people make fun of the papers please thing by the Nazis, being proud that America and other modern free countries don't force everyone to ID, and idk i wasn't watching traffic stops back when i was 10 but it seems cops were less adiment on IDing every person they make contact with. Its just so odd the cops don't see that they're doing the Nazi Germany thing, and a lot of people say, "just make it easy on yourself and give ID" like no one cares that we are just sliding closer and closer to Nazi style police state, when like in my life i can remember this being something America hated.
I had no idea our drivers licenses worked as a Psycho-Pass that always records our mental states and intentions.
Yet he remained steadfast in his idiocy.
It makes sense from the revenue generation and surveillance perspective.
It's the "power" move. "I have authority so you have to do as I say. Give me your ID or there will be consequences." It's disgusting. Mr. News correctly calls out the trooper; "Is giving you my ID going to make what I did legal or illegal?"
"How's my ID going to tell you what I'm doing?" I think this all the time when the cops stop this! Seeing an ID isn't going to help them figure anything out besides running someone's name, hoping they're wanted for something..
The only logic I can see behind the request is that it may clue the officers in on whether or not the citizen may have any bad intentions for being in the area. It won't tell them what the person is doing, but may hint at what they might be doing.
@@TheOrichalconNah, they're just lazy and it makes their jobs a whole hell of a lot easier.
Whenever they don't get their ID fix, they actually have to do their jobs, and investigate if a crime has taken place or was about to take place.
When they get their ID fix AND the person is actually wanted for something like a bench warrent, then they don't have to do shit, cause their job is done. They can stretch something like that out for the rest of their day. They take you in, speak to their buddies on the tax payers dime about who you are and what you did, take forever to do the paperwork, and they do all this right in front of the people they just had arrested in order to try and get them to lose their tempers and do something stupid.
This actually is one of the rare cases where I think it *could*. The suspicious activity is going onto the warden's residence and turning around to avoid a roadblock at the prison, in the aftermath of issues at the prison. Identifying the person and determining whether they have any known association with the instigators of the prison riots or anyone currently in the prison helps tilt the balance between "outside accomplice to more disruption" and "happened to turn around in that particular driveway."
I'm a little surprised they didn't try to identify the passenger as well, even if they didn't have a legal basis to *demand* the passenger's ID.
that cop is like a dog in heat trying to get that I.D.
These cops are like crackheads and ID is their fix. You really have to question why they are SOOOOO freaking desperate to get people's ID...
Gimme that I. D., I need that I.D. crack
Need that fix yo, he's clucking for that ID
I.Ds are magical artifacts that speak and are able to tell law enforcement what crime was commited
Woof woof.
“We’re just trying to figure out what you’re doing”
He already answered that. He saw he couldn’t get through because of their road block so he turned around. Is this cop demented?
likely, yes
Anytime a cop asks me where I'm coming from I literally point in the direction I came from and say that way. It's not lying and it's not their business to know where I came from.
@@dragonskull473slayer9 You can always say "I don't answer questions".
Why yes...yes he is demented.....police policy to identify as many people as possible creates that dementia in police officers. If judges and lawmakers were on the side of actual JUSTICE....a simple ruling that NO ONE could be identified for ANY reason...unless commiting a misdemeanor of felony..could eliminate this...but as the system is now...there are too many exceptions to our 4th amendment....and police take advantage at every opportunity.
That's the excuse when there's no real real reason for a detainment.
I've seen this one before. He never "actually" gave him his ID. the officer actually grabbed it out of his hand. I am surprised you didn't mention/cover that :)
He also missed that Missouri is a no-stop & ID EXCEPT for KCMO who has that ability, in a different video. AtA was called out and never corrected as far as I know.
@@alexsnow3319 I think he pretty much said that at around 5:31. Unless I'm misunderstanding...I know he didn't say "Missouri..." but he said "officers can not demand a driver ID himself without reasonable suspicion......."
Its audit the audit folks.. set the bar low and you wont be as dissapointed.
@@alexsnow3319 nevermind... I get what you're saying... you meant in a different video from Missouri. I read your comment wrong and when I realized this occurred In Georgia I rewatched.
@@kamaumau if you can do a better job then start posting videos.
making cops carry private insurance would solve a lot of these problems, screw up too may times, can't get insured? no job. end of story.
Or you could leave it all to the private sector. Don’t like speeders on your private road? Hire a private defense agency. Have someone threatening you? Call your insurance company and have them send a private defense agent.
@P Shali impeccable argument 🤌🏻
This is a great idea. Are there any implementations of this in reality?
Just like doctors have to have malpractice insurance. But you also need to have a civilian review board for all complaints and get rid of qualified immunity.
Insurance will only make their salary go up to accommodate premiums. It will not affect offending cops personally and they will not have any incentive to improve their conduct.
This is just another example of thousands of why cops are so freaking despised
This is insane. The fact that these clown courts think whenever a cop assumes something Is "suspicious" rather than acting human and listening to citizens and not escalating is ok is telling how police culture works in the U.S.
This is what happens they require officers to have an IQ of 90 or lower
What’s really happening is that they are scared of actual violent criminals and gang members and they choose us the lawful unsuspicious citizens to look like they are doing their job which is to go after violent criminals so they are cowards. It is easier and safer to harass innocent civilians and increase their quotas by giving us tickets and arresting us for no reason. I think that’s what it comes out to.
I agree with you 100% especially when the Officer has a history of being a liar or has had complaints filed against them for being dishonest or a liar
Cops can lie in the line of duty, it's perfectly legal. That is what happens when you don't research what and who you vote for.
But, f these clowns. How is turning over your driver's license going to hurt them. They are encouraging these stops. Check out how often they get into altercations with cops, do you have that much trouble, that often? No. Their purpose is exactly what they pretend they want to stop. I can't think of a single good reason to withhold your identity. Not one
Judges make a ton of enemies and law enforcement will pull security from them. Judges know that angering the police is a way to risk their lives.
For some reason UA-cam has labeled this as part of some "sovereign citizen movement". I can only imagine that they mean that based on the actions of the police. They definitely acted as if they were above the law.
Nope we are all white supremacist now lol apparently sovereign citizens are an off shoot of far right wing extremist groups and white supremacist groups 🤣🤣🤣 the gas lighting is real on UA-cam now 🤣
"I am *not* detaining. I am *suspecting*."
in the same tone as "I am not driving, I am traveling."
Some videos do, some don't, my guess is a bot assumes that it is due to some words said I assume.
I submitted feedback. Wikipedia itself says it is not to be use as a credible source. I think it’s inappropriate to put that ad up.
Basically because this is a pro rights video. Sandbagging at its finest.
"You know your rights? What are you one those whacks that thinks you're a sovereign citizen"
The more you hear these court rulings the more you realize that these judges are interpreting these laws in the favor of the police and against the citizens. To take the events leading up to a stop into consideration when the person had nothing to do with those events is nonsense. So if you drive through an area that has high drug use then that can be used against you even though you have nothing to do with that.
Judges pay into the retirement fund for Piggies and Piggies in return pay for the Judges Retirement fund..
so it is in their best interest to side with Piggies unless they massively fucked up.. and even then Piggies tend to walk away into a new job in a different city..
Because it feeds their system.
This is the result of low taxes. Cities have to get revenue somewhere.
Makes me sick knowing that Republicans back the blue even though cops actions are unconstitutional. Really makes you think about what ideals the right really has about the principals our country was founded on.
@@willking9043 Tax the churches, they obviously are weighing in on politics these days so it seems logical to me.
"its reasonable articulable suspicion that you are doing something illegal"
bro turning around is not illegal
This guys entire UA-cam channel is terrible. He never actually acknowledges the constitution. He just reads policies that trump our civil rights. This guy that runs this UA-cam channel also talks about lots of feelings and barely any facts. Not a fan of this guys youtube at all. He always sides with the feelings of officers and policies written by crooked city officials in order to make cops have easier access to get away with crimes.
@@Crunchykyle?
Loitering. I wouldn't have considered that loitering, but apparently, it is in Georgia.
@@TheRealBearFamily It says in the statute pulled up that loitering is when someone "is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity"
It wasn't usual to turn around in a driveway and neither is it raising any alarms. He also immediately dispelled any suspicion when the cop asked. Therefore, it seems like he wasn't loitering since all he did was turn around, which is typical and it wasn't obvious there was any alarm.
Like I get what you're saying but I don't even think by Georgia's definition that he was loitering either
@@kitten68mew52
Yup, no crime observed at all nor one to suspect or even articulate.
This cop gotta chill a bit and tell the driver about the prison riot. That's it. You have a reason to be suspicious, be straight to citizens. Don't treat citizens like suspects by default.
Exactly my thought. A little bit of "human interaction" would go a long way, instead of the "I'm in charge" attitude many police have. Just be fair and honest. I'll bet Mr News would see the police point of view here.
they are trained to treat any and all citizens as potential criminals, they won't admit to it but they are, its a way to keep cops on alert 100% throughout the shift. it also turns them into state protected patsys that automatically assume someone is a suspect, and they are lying to you, even if you tell them the truth when stopped.
The supervisor did explain that, though. He explained that there was events at the prison and Mr News use of the warden's driveway was suspect in that context. It seems reasonable, to me, to get ID and the explanation so this can be noted in case further developments or investigations would indicate criminal activity involving the warden's property or driveway.
I’d argue that prison riots don’t make making U-turns illegal…
@@sharlesdaviskendy2391 the u turn wasn’t illegal. But the fact it happened in the wardens driveway right after the riot is what gave them the right to pull him over. You’re simplifying things too much and leaving out pertinent details to the interaction.
Just saying “suspicion” is not the same as having reasonable, articulable suspicion. That officer could not articulate what was suspicious. So frustrating
Cops are so dumb they think their "hunch" meets the legal definition of suspicion.
It was like he heard the phrase before and was throwing it around in his vocabulary to sound smart even though he doesn't know what it means
I have reasonable articulable suspicion that the cop was undertrained.
I’m sure he knew what it meant I just don’t think he knew what it entailed. That was a dumb stop though.
That's why it says "articulable" suspicion. The officer could articulate any law he might be breaking. Suspicion alone was insufficient.
It baffles me how many instances like these are reinforced by court cases that basically say, "cops can do what they want lol."
I was born and raised in that county, and am not surprised at all that it showed up here
One thing to note, I love that he apologizes for not turning off the car. It really showed that he was trying to be respectful while at the same time asserting his rights.
Bingo. Good eye
Why? What does "respect" matter? I was taught you have to give respect to get respect. Has any cop ever been "respectful" to the people they serve? Just because someone does or doesnt show respect doesnt mean anything...
@@negemyshibalbeckbojiya4875 If you have to give respect to get respect, then no one would ever get respect or be respectful unless someone gave it first without getting it. I was taught, respect people, until they prove they are unworthy of it.
@@jorgedasilva7665 I can agree with that.
Saying something repeatedly, louder and faster will not eventually make what you are saying the truth. 🙄
Well yeah, it has to be louder and slower. LOUDER. Also SLOWER.
@@tactileslut 😂👍🏻
I love the saying; “just because you are louder, it doesn’t make you right. And repeating something false doesn’t make it true.”
@@sirslickrock That may be true to most extents, but some tyrants have proven otherwise.
let's give the driver huge props for keeping the trooper in frame on his phone without even looking. Dang!
And recording horizontally too!!!
Suspicious person is crazy. They wanna traffic stop you they can. But "you're suspicious" is a crazy way to stop someone
is "suspicious a misdemeanor or a felony?"
They put a sovereign citizen tag on the video. How lame. UA-cam 🤡
The People's Republic of UA-cam
Report it, the only true sovereign citizens are police
You can provide feedback as to why this is a mislabeling. The three dots in the right hand corner provide you with this function. Don't know if they will listen but it doesn't hurt to let one' voice be heard.
There's a lot of crossover of beliefs between Frauditors and SovCits so UA-cam probably just picked up on some keywords
There were sovereign citizens in this video. The sovereign citizen (police) didn't believe in following the Constitution and the auditor's rights.
The fact that a "context" thing pop's up when viewing this video, apparently labeling this as "sovereign citizens" speaks volumes to the state of affairs this country is in
Write feedback and tell them as an American, you don't appreciate Americans exercising their rights, as being labeled sovereign citizens movement.
It's because this comment section is filled with sovereign citizen comments, that's why that context popup is there. UA-cam reads both the comments as well as the video itself.
Well, all police are sovereign citizens by definition according to qualified immunity.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse when you're a citizen. Ignorance of the law while performing law enforcement is protected.
Yeah but at least UA-cam is calling out the cops for being Sovereign Citizens.
And the fact check calls them “conspiracy theorists” and another multitude of words that have a negative connotation in our society. It’s definitely giving a propaganda vibe.
He’s out fishing for any possible way to fine him, cage him, or both.
You’re not the figure out what I’m doing police, your the law enforcement police.” This guy is right up there with the grammar police and fashion police
They’re just bullies and thugs. I used to support law-enforcement all the time but lately it’s become clear they’ll use their authority to abuse the hell out of people, and I’m sick of it. There was no reason they had to have his ID. They just wanted it, and they wanted to prove they had the authority to get it.
Same here: taught until age 12 to trust law and seek them out for help. At 13, my first encounter with law, my reputation by them was "guilty until proven innocent".
They've earned their standoffish behavior from me and my freedom-winning debates approx 15-0 to date.
Kudos to you for rethinking your previous beliefs. Many people don’t want to do that
Not taking the side of *corrupt police* but when you operate a motor vehicle there are many, many requirements and compliances that each citizen / driver is required to fulfill.
You can not obtain a drivers licence without fulfilling numerous requirements and all the compliances required.
You have to comply with all the requirements to register your motor vehicle.
You have to comply with all the requirements to obtain your motor vehicle insurance.
You have to comply with the requirements to obtain licence plates and renew the tags.
Your signature is required on numerous documents involved.
Your multiple place signatures, in effect, is an express understanding that you will obey and comply relative to all that is involved operating a motor vehicle.
You know that there are a multitude of Laws and Regulations and Ordinances and Requirements involved.
You know those Laws and Regulations and Ordinances and Requirements and Compliances are enforced by Law Enforcement officers.
You know you can be held accountable and responsible and liable when operating a motor vehicle if and when you do violate any of the many Laws or Regulations or Ordinances or Requirements relative to the legal operation of a motor vehicle.
You know you are required to show your driver's licence and prove you have a current drivers licence and current / valid motor vehicle registration and current / valid motor vehicle insurance and current / valid licence plates and tags.
People drive about for years and years and thousands of hours of driving while all the while complying and obeying all the many traffic related Laws and Regulations and Ordinances and Requirements and in effect complying all the time.
But then, people are stopped and engaged by police officer for infractions of any of those many traffic related Laws or Ordinances or Regulations or Requirements and then, after all of that compliance for years and years they suddenly decide to not comply and refuse to show their Drivers licence to a police officer....when they know full well *that aspect* of operating a motor vehicle is also a requirement and all part of the compliances involved.
Like Duh ...🙄🙄
You hit the mail on the head brother.
For some reason that I'll never understand, so many cops just want ID for any and all reasons. Its almost like a crack addict needing to get crack, by any means possible. ID must be the crack that keeps cops going somehow?
What's with UA-cam putting the "Sovereign citizen movement" wikipedia article below the video? Nobody in the video matched the description of a "sovereign citizen." Sovereign citizens interpret laws in their own way to try avoid the laws altogether. This behavior however was not present in this video. I understand this thing was likely placed by a bot, but the fact that the bot sees this as involving a "sovereign citizen" shows a clear misunderstanding on the term on UA-cam's part.
The only true sovereign citizens carry a badge and gun.
I'd want to ask if they were taught during their training that citizens must give up ID when requested. Then I'd want them to know, LOUD and CLEAR, that their training has failed them miserably while I'm deciding who to add into the litigation
Unfortunately you have to be willing to take the arrest and then fight the initial charge along with add on charges resisting etc your not just up against a cop but a whole system that is created to violate your rights
When I was in training it was one of the steps no matter what. Same as practicing with handcuffs. It was just the steps. No law on when to ask just to get Id for all interactions. That was 2013. I left 2 years later smh.
@@dennishoule2570 Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@ItsConstitutional You are mixing federal and state definitions. The federal definition only claims what is required for regulation of "automobiles" under their own definition, states themselves have rights to their own regulations of "automobiles" under the 10th amendment, which is what allows states to make their own regulations for other laws as well.
@@kosgoth Each vehicle has a weight class. Each weight class has a specific name given to it. It you dont like it, just pay the fine like everyone else because the Truth is not for everyone. Good Luck with your journey!
Nothing is more dangerous than sincere ignorance.
It's suspicious. Of what? They can't answer. That's telling. They avoid the question.
They cant answer any questions that are outside their knowledge of law. And they dont know the law! Look here..Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@ItsConstitutional dude, shut the fuck up, spamming it, even if you are correct, won't help your cause in any way. It will get people to just hate you more. Bring it up when the commenter brings it up, if not, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND MAKE YOUR OWN COMMENT.
Suspicious of being suspicious silly.
The deputy admitted he stopped them because he doesn't know what they're doing. Reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime can't be based on suspicion resulting from a lack of knowledge. Cops can't detain and ID all of us because they don't know what we're doing. It's unreasonable to assume everyone is committing a crime unless they prove otherwise. Our system of jurisprudence is supposedly based on the presumption of innocence, but most of the time, as we see here, it's based on the presumption of guilt.
@@Liberty4Ever No, the court of law is working on the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy, but the police arrest and detain arent working on the same way. In fact, the police working with the DA to prove that you are guilty, so they are already under the presumption or suspicion that you did something wrong. But in this case, the police must still be able to state what his suspicion was, or he can just keep watching for further information/evidence.
I love how the Sovereign Citizen Movement pops up 😂 just because they are informed doesn't make them Sovereign Citizen's
The true "sovereigns" are the cops, judges, bar attorneys and public officials. Here is why..Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
If it looks like shit, smells like shit, tastes like shit, it's shit.
Man it's so damn funny how out of breath those cops get with the perpetual explanation of what HE thinks you'd done wrong.
Man your explanations are sooooo on a knife point. 1 grain of rice to the other side and poif you land your butt in jail. That is is the judge had a bad day.
I’m always shocked at how many videos are like this out on the internet, yet these police officers still don’t know the freaking law 🤦♂️
Well their departments investigate themselves and find no wrong doing, so of course no ones correcting their activates
Why would they care? Republicans back them regardless of their actions. I mean seriously, why would they care about changing when 1/3 of the country back them no matter what.
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
Me too!!!!! I cannot wraap my head around how popular this is these days, but I guess there are so many people who are not aware or complacent there is no reason to change. I mean I guess..... If I see something showing something is not legal or incorrect or not true, I change once I confirm that. Odd man.
I see plenty of Democrats backing rouge police too in the areas they control.
Are there any cases of citizens physically fighting back against unlawful detentions and still coming out on top in a court of law ?
I have a “context” warning thing that popped up with a link to wiki for sovereign citizens. Terrific. People exercising their rights are now being fact checked as sovereign citizens.
I know right! I wish I could tell Wiki about this...Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
That's what I was thinking....I heard zero about "sovereign citizens" while watching.
saddening, isnt it?
just do the Send Feedback thing so youtube knows to fix their bot
And that suspicion is easily dispelled when you keep seeing things fly out a window.
Cop: I don't understand what you are doing. It isn't normal.
Me: I'm sure your boss should discuss sleeping on the job then. Nearly ever road sees one of us each night. How do you think that paper arrives in the morning? This is literally very common. You just weren't awake to see it.
"You're not the figure-out-what-youre-doing police, you're the law enforcement police." I died 🤣🤣
Meanwhile during this encounter thousands passed by on the nearby highway who potentially should be "figured-out-what-your-doing" and went merrily on their way. The "logic" displayed by these cops is mind-numbingly "illogical."
nice job repeating the top comment🤡
I'm so weak
I supportuou, for me I don't want to be slammed to the ground face first ,tased or shot over a license..I'm just saying goons are trigger happy...be careful
Love when the cops say “that’s reasonable suspicion” but forget to add OF A CRIME!!! You being an officer and being suspicious of someone’s actions means nothing unless a crime is associated with those actions. They always magically forget the last part.
"The reasonable, articulable suspicion is suspicious behavior."
Suspicion is not a crime. They're a bunch of clowns who will literally say ANYTHING to get their way. Tyrants.
@@MichaelDover10 and they’ve never met the person so how can they determine what someone’s normal behavior is? Like this person may enjoy turning around in driveways. Is it weird? Sure, is it illegal? NO!!
They don't forget - they don't know!
cops don't have to tell you the specific crime they suspect you of, at least that's what ATA has said in the past...
@@matteframe That's when they want you to step out of the vehicle. Not for identification but the cop is completely making shit up to get his ID. Saying the crime could be possibly loitering when we all know that's bullcrap. All he did was make a U turn.
It’s shocking these officers aren’t incredibly embarrassed of themselves
Cops can’t think straight due to ID withdrawals.
Nah, they have no shame and believe in their hearts that everyone but them is a criminal.
This is rogue nation. Love his audit videos.
"We're trying to figure out what you're doing." How many times did he say that he was turning around and checking a map?
One of the most frustrating things about these episodes is how often it turns out that the law actually is on the cop's side. It's unbelievable how much unreasonable power they are imbued with. The law seems to be a blank check for authoritarianism if you have a badge.
It indeed is.
I got to experience this before body cams and audit v audit lol.
I got fucked royal and was just me vs the words of the crooked ass OKC pigs.
Wish I was born in 2000 lol.
Only because nationalist yeehaws who claim they're pro-construction gladly throw Americans rights away in the name of the Skin Blue Line
Well Nooooooot always but qualified immunity takes care of all those
Hearing how crrupt these courts are is just infuriating
YUP ,,,ITS A MESS
"You're not the, 'figure out what we're doing' enforcers, you are LAW enforcers"....... Freaking brilliant!
the way the officer smiled and looked down and continued to say “im trying to figure out….”
I read this as I heard it. That was so funny 😂
@@DextahPC That was very kind, thank you!
Take the time to study your rights! You won’t regret it
What Rights?
Look up "Japanese Americans WW2" and then tell me more about these "rights."
These videos shouldn't be about your or anyone's "God given rights" they should ALWAYS adress the lack of public servant training and not the publics lack of knowledge. Let's say there is a citizen who doesn't know anything about the law whatsoever, hypothetically the citizen was born yesterday and somehow hypothetically the citizen is not a baby but a grown person and knows nothing about the law, the public servants should be the ones to know the law and enforce it because how well they do know their field of occupation (job). Now if a crane operator didn't know how the crane works wouldn't that be the problem and not the crane manufacturers? If a chef in a restaurant doesn't know how to make an omelet wouldn't that be the problem of the said chef and lack of his own knowledge or maybe it's the eggs fault? Is it the fault of the chicken? Is it the fault of the farmer?
Don't twist the truth to fit you. Truth is the truth
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@ItsConstitutional
Yes there are many plot holes in the law like this but all of you people are getting the wrong message in all of this this shouldn't be about citizens learning the law it should be about public servants knowing the law and their jobs, period.
The buffoon literally said "it's reasonable articulable suspicious that you did that" TWICE. We're talking about a 9 year old's understanding of the law there. Yet you gave them a C? Cops get an F. Audit the Audit gets a D.
Your not being harsh here, that Officer was pathetic to actually say that twice. Had he said it once and then corrected himself, it would be chalked up as a simple misspeak during a contentious moment but he went back to it as though it was logic, it wasn't even a coherent sentence.
I like The Sovereign Citizen Banner where it gives you the description of what that cop exactly is
What does this mean? Is sovereign citizen banner a channel?
I feel like these officers got way too angry and emotional whilst carrying out their service.
They should remain professional, the interaction would have gone much smoother this way.
It always annoys me when officers accuse citizens of 'making things difficult'. No. The officers are supposed to be the ones responsible for keeping the interactions civil.
Professional would have required them to actually know the law and act accordingly.
Well said and I agree completely.
@@RedboneUnincorporated you nailed it man! 💯💯💯
Never identify as a driver, you are legally a TRAVELER.
@@oneofthosepeople2101 ridiculous libertarian garbage. Long tried and always failing.
'They admitted they had no legitimate suspicion'
"They get a C".
OK bud.
Audit the Audit has become fucking awful.
@@ScanManDaMurka i feel like he's being realistic because there's basically a 50/50 chance the court could side against him. Now, there's not really a question whether they should or not, but AtA cited the relevant statues and pointed out a cop's actual reasoning for a stop does not come into account when considering the constitutionality of it (which is horseshit)
They had reasonable suspicion based off a separate incident that happened almost the exact same way. The courts have the cops the right to pull his ass over.
@@trainwreck2100
A so-called riot inside some prison down the road 3 days earlier
=
Something happened almost the exact same day ?!?
That’s not even a suspicion, just weak assed pathetic BS excuse.
What’s the suspicion?
That some mastermind inmate might have planned a prison riot to help cover up his escape, spend 3 days with the warden’s daughter, then have Tha Boyz pick him up?
Psst Columbo, a cybercrime happened yesterday and today I’m right here online. Damn suspicious that is. Come quick to ID me, bring backup
@@trainwreck2100
But they didn’t pull him over.
Did you miss that part?
Just how many, many, many times does someone need to ask for a Supervisor before one shows up.
It was hilarious the supervisor was just standing back there the whole time 😂😅
Put your ID on the floorboard, open your door, tell the cop to take it if he thinks he has a right to take it.
I truly feel that with all the cameras and body cameras we can dispense with giving officers qualified immunity. Giving them a benefit of the doubt over a citizen is outdated and rarely proves a citizen has done a crime. This only creates a divide between government and it's citizens
Sovereign Citizen: "You pulled into the warden's driveway back there."
Informed Free Citizen: "To turn around."
Sovereign Citizen: "Yeah, and we're trying to figure out what you were doing."
Informed Free Citizen: "Turning around is what I was doing."
Yeah, going out on a limb and guessing you don't know what sovereign citizens are...
@@ddrew1973 he does, the police.
@@ddrew1973 In short a Sovereign Citizen is someone who thinks the law doesn't apply to them.
@Scrub Lord that is not what Sovereign Citizen means....
I mean they literally link to what that is in this video so idk how you could mess that up. And this video has nothing to do with SC since they pretty much just believe LEAs and the gov't have no/more limited authority over them.
"You're not the 'We're trying to figure out what you're doing' police. You're the 'Law Enforcement Police". Lol
I am using that next time I get an officer pulling that back on me
If cops only had one job, but they fail that completely! Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@ItsConstitutional I believe it! Lot of mismatching legal terms in traffic law is why traffic attorneys have such a high success rate getting tickets dropped or reduced even if theres a confession on camera of speeding or racing for example.
It’s probably intentional to allow them to get out of their own traps, but obfuscated enough in stupid legalese that the avg citizen has minimal chance of figuring out they can get out of it easily.
What’s really happening is that they are scared of actual violent criminals and gang members and they choose us the lawful unsuspicious citizens to look like they are doing their job which is to go after violent criminals so they are cowards. It is easier and safer to harass innocent civilians and increase their quotas by giving us tickets and arresting us for no reason. I think that’s what it comes out to.
Turning around to avoid a police checkpoint is highly suspicious, it doesn't matter whose driveway it was.
My favourite line in this whole interaction is the trooper saying "It's articulable reasonable suspicious that you're performing something illegal there."
That officer should be arrested for torturing the English language.
This channel is addictive. I can't stop watching videos, it is so informative. The weird thing is that I don't even live in the US.
ahahah exactly the same here !!
Neither, I live in Australia. Cops here aren't half as dumb as American ones or as willing to violate people's right's, or as aggressive, arrogant and ignorant though so it's more entertaining to watch theirs lol.
yep, joining the club )))
And me 3
Same here
I can't believe cops think you have to provide an ID w out RAS or PC. Not even in "stop and ID" states can a cop demand your ID w out at least RAS.
there is no "stop and id" state. I don't know where this term comes from. 4th Amendment is federal and can not be superceded by state law.
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@danielgarrett7226 Yes, there are states that call themselves stop and ID states but even there they simply lower the level of RAS that is required for identification. Technically you're correct but a handful of states still call themselves stop and ID states and that's why the term is even alive.
And NOWHERE is there any requirement for an LEO to debate with the person stopped what his RS or PC is.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn Why don't you just raise my kids for me? Give them some more power maybe? I can't believe people like you exist. I really can't. Cheerleading oppression of freedom. Then talk about freedom and liberty as you vote for fascism. Disgusting. What a disgsuting, repugnant, foul human being.
"we're trying to identify you"
"How is my ID going to tell you what I'm doing?"
"well cuz we're trying to identify you"
You can see his brain short circuiting in real time
The grade of C for the cops was overly generous. They should have gotten a D or F for at least several reasons. 1) They lied about in saying that Georgia law required citizen to ID on request. 2) They did not call a supervisor when the auditor asked for one.
He saves the F’s for when the thugs murder a free human.
Outrage over giving cops generous grades is how he makes money.
They did not lie about that. Georgia Code Title 40 § 40-5-29 - License to be carried and exhibited on demand. Google it. Subsection a) states all drivers must have a valid license with them at all time when operating a motor vehicle. Subsection b) states "every licensee shall display his license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer".
So, yeah, he needed to present his license to the cops.
I don't understand how we watch a person defying legal orders and flagrantly violating law and decide he deserves an "A" and the officers rightly enforcing valid law, deserve a "C".
If they weren’t doing those things it would be an a or b as from what I saw that’s all they did while they were obviously in the wrong they didn’t escalate or antagonise so I think C is fair
Jason Longton: Courts have ruled that cops can demand a driver's license only during legitimate traffic stops. These cops made it very clear that stop was not for a traffic violation but because they considered their turning around suspicious in light of recent events at the jail. In other words, the stop was the same as stopping someone walking by. What's more, these cops go on to make the extraordinary claim that people must provide ID when cops ask for it; full stop. That is simply not true in Georgia. In fact, in Georgia (unlike some other states) there is no law that requires you to provide ID even if the cops can articulate a reasonable suspicion.
If only I had a private army for which I could dispatch when someone pulls into my driveway to turn around....
Right? The *driveway*! That Warden is the ultimate nosey irate old man to have background checks done on someone for their tires touching his driveway to turn his vehicle around. IN AMERICA.
Yeah I can careless if you use my driveway, just make it quick. The cops are just fishing.
Love how they put the sovereign citizen wikipedia article attached to it lol 😂
The Democratic People's Republic of UA-cam
Heaven forbid the internet create an educated populace.
@Seth Hawkins You can provide feedback as to why this is a mislabeling. The three dots in the right hand corner provide you with this function. Don't know if they will listen but it doesn't hurt to let one' voice be heard.
Maybe UA-cam is finally recognizing police as the sovereign citizens in this video. Can only hope. 😂
@@thelanecampbell In this case, they would have to engage in education instead of propaganda.
They are trying to figure out how to get some money out of you!
How come nobody ever tells the cops that "figuring out what someone's doing" is not justification to begin an investigation. You can always tell when the police aren't so sure about what they're saying when they hesitate to forcefully detain the person they're interacting with. When they know they're legally within their rights, the police will not give a 2nd thought to doing just that. If you're not in handcuffs within 30 seconds then stand your ground.
so when they see someone prowling around your grandmas house they should just ignore it instead of"figuring what someone is doing"
This isn't great advice. The difference between RAS and Probable Cause could land someone following this advice in cuffs. Plenty of states allow a cop to demand that a person identify themselves with RAS as the hurdle that needs to be cleared.
I don't know, but I have seen me say "If you're afraid for your life officer, you're in the wrong profession." to over 20 aggressive cops including their wrongful firearm brandishings.
I absolutely love what you all do for a bunch of internet strangers. Thank-you! ✌😎🤘
Edit: This cop is making me chuckle watching him try to come up with a reasonable explanation for demanding his license. The struggle is real. 🤣
Internet strangers, absolutely love that.
They run your ID & add info to your file.. even if they let u go.. re: surveilling the public
He’s LYING about the whole event. In my entire 50 years of driving I’ve never heard of being pulled over for turning around in a driveway as being suspicious or a crime.
I have. Told who I was, what I was doing, and left.
@@berrydinglejr that’s weird
No, no. They're trying to connect it to a prison riot which is even more stupid. If he meant the warden harm why turn around and linger waiting for the cops? He's run away.
@@berrydinglejr
You licked boots, showed your fear and subservience to their dominance and ultimately were rewarded with your freedom (something you already possessed and were entitled to, all along).
Congratulations on surviving your encounter with armed terrorist criminals and professional kidnappers.
Not all are so fortunate.
It's called fishing, they consider driving away from law enforcement "suspicious"
I think this was very well handled as a teaching moment for other auditors who I have seen behaving unprofessionally (if this is their chosen profession). There are some who are completely disrespectful for absolutely no reason and I will say they deserve every single bit of the officer's disrespect towards them.
Have the police forgotten that We The People are innocent until proven guilty of breaking a law? Is Reasonable Articulable Suspicion not taught at the academy? I’m stunned that this officer didn’t hear what he said & realized that he sounded stupid and was acting outside his authority. This officer is lost thinking that turning around is a reasonable reason to pull him over & ask for identification.
I personally don’t think police get enough training to do the job that’s required of them. 2yrs minimum should be required with the constitution taught during that time. Policing is more than harassing & shooting people! They truly should be taught that We The People have rights & when infringed upon the consequences will fall on them & not the department, city or F.O.P..
" Is Reasonable Articulable Suspicion not taught at the academy? "
Nope.. if it were they wouldn't get qualified immunity.
@@MarkOfTzeentch DAYUM! You Just Drop Some Quantum Knowledge On Me! You're Right! 💯
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
@@ItsConstitutional you're no lawyer so quit trying to give legal advice.
So by your logic the police would never investigate any crimes since the potential criminal has never been proven guilty? I do agree with the lack of training. I wonder what costs the states more...Properly trained Law Enforcement or the litigation for a improperly trained staff?
The important aspect of these cases is that "reasonable articulable suspicion" can be dispelled and once dispelled the interaction needs to end.
Cops are required to have reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime to detain and ID but they are not required to articulate their reasonable suspicion. It must be articulable, not articulated. This allows them to falsely claim RAS to magically make an illegal stop "legal", ID you, and run you through a database to check for warrants or see if you're a fugitive. If their presumption-of-guilt fishing expedition catches a fish, they can then invent RAS when writing their report hours later.
In this case, the deputy admits that he doesn't know what these guys were doing, and reasonable suspicion can't be based on a lack of knowledge. He admitted that he didn't have RAS that a crime has been, is being or will be committed. Cops can't detain and ID everyone because they don't know what we're all doing. That makes it an unlawful stop for a presumption-of-guilt 4th amendment violating fishing expedition, but good luck convincing the cop with a gun and Respect Mah Authoritah attitude.
Bottom line I've learned from these videos is that ALL American police seem to have 'in their minds'... reasonable articulable suspicion of EVERYONE. You people are a police state and that's why I stopped visiting the USA. That and the gun culture.
This officer's tone and body language clearly shows he knew he was being unlawful and disingenuous cause he couldn't think of any crime the driver committed so he just kept repeating, "I have articulable, reasonable suspicion" ....without any mention of an actual crime XD
Oddly..........the Supreme Court has ruled that "tone" and "body language" cannot be used as a reason to assume a person is guilty or innocent, but you are! hahahaha!
The question the police needed to answer and the gentlemen should have asked is "what does a prison riot inside the prison have to with a couple of Florida men driving down the road three days later?". Boil it all down to the basics and it sounds more preposterous than even the video shows it to be.
Imagine being detained for "turning around".
This is just another example of how we’ve created so many laws that you truly never know if you’re breaking the law or not. Unfortunately we’re heading down the path where citizens just have to submit to the law enforcement or face being arrested.
And when cops end up in shoot outs, they want to be supported by the public...want to have cake and eat it too..
People that see these videos do not expect fair treatment and if there is no body cam, you can end up in a ditch with a bullet in your phone as well as your head.
And the report will make you the problem.
I think you made an excellent point. It doesn't necessarily point to the trooper but rather the countless gray areas that have been created through legislation and subjective adjudication.
We didn't create many of these laws , courts get together and make these up as they go , I have never been asked if I approve or disapprove
I don't understand why the police don't have attorneys immediately available, who they can phone to clarify these matters.
That is a problem, and courts not interpreting the law, but trying to make their own. However, the core of this law, is the police have to have reasonable suspicion of a crime, or a crime in progress. These Officers were clearly in the wrong.
I love how they always say they’re just trying to figure out what they’re doing. They just told the cop. And regardless, how is his license going to tell him what they were doing ??
Putting a sovereign citizen thing on this shows that this platform wants us to live in a police state. Don't know your rights, don't question anything
You can provide feedback as to why this is a mislabeling. The three dots in the right hand corner provide you with this function. Don't know if they will listen but it doesn't hurt to let one' voice be heard.
I agree!
It's this mislabeling and anti-freedom stance that UA-cam takes that makes me NEVER want to buy into UA-cam premium.
@@boink666 I won’t give UA-cam ANY of my money because of their wildly deceptive tactics which are long overdue for being fixed. UA-cam has the best content, but they eventually ban all the best content. 🤦🏻♂️
@@boink666 Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
If he didn't sue them for this then he's the bigger fool.
Sorry AtA, you’ve got this one wrong. The acronym “RAS” (Reasonable articulable suspicion) is too often truncated to exclude the other much more important words in the law, which is, “…of a crime.” The officer admitted Mr. News was not accused of a traffic infraction, then further admitted what Mr. News did was not a crime. The ID demand most certainly violated Mr. News’ 4th Amendment rights, by the officer’s own words. Add to this the snatching of the driver’s license out of Mr. News’ hand and there is no way these officers are warranted a “C”.
I'm noticing ata is starting to rate these criminals cowards softly the grade for the cop should've got an F
@@prescottwilliams4637 AtA should convert his grading system from letter grades to a 10-scale. I believe he doesn’t want to rate this encounter with the same grade as the truly awful and/or violent videos he rated as “Fs”. In other words, he doesn’t have enough range to assign misbehaviors.
Totally agree, look at the demeanor of these oath breakers and let's not forget the nazi snatched the ID. All the gestapo wanted to do is run him for warrants which he reluctantly stated
@{ro,is54" i agree with you on the 4th Viol; however, i agree with ATA that a judge-only proceeding would yield support of the police officers bc that's just what they do, so the question is, "Is it worth the time, drive back to this state, etc.?" No.
@@RightToFreedomGirl lol hello again.
Hold on a second, here we go again comparing apples to oranges. In the Wynn case, the driver had an open container of alcohol in plain sight and the alcohol could probably be smelled by the office as well, so probable cause. In this case, the driver asks "what the reasonable suspicion articulate for pulling him over is" and the trooper can't give him a valid lawful reason, first stating only" I need to know what you're up to." The trooper knowing this is not enough and knowing that he is being filmed states, "You turned around in a cul-de-sac." and "You were loitering." Well the two made up trooper accusations contradict themselves which means the officer is lying but mainly neither are really enough to justify what he did and he knows it by the tired old cop scheme of "throwing as much BS on the wall to see what sticks." Or a fishing expedition and mainly not giving a quick direct answer to "what law or suspicion of breaking a law have I committed?" The hallmark of liars.
Notice the word MOTOR VEHICLES in the Georgia Code Title 40? We drive AUTOMOBILES under Title 49 CFR section 523.3 Definitions of AUTOMOBILE. We dont drive Motor vehicles under Title 49 USC section 31301 Definitions of MOTOR VEHICLE. Look me up "AUTOMOBILE vs MOTOR VEHICLE by Rod Class" and learn what you are not learning here.
I don’t “drive” anything.
A driver is a legal term when you are conducting business with a vehicle.
You are legally a “traveler”
Never identify as a driver, you are legally a TRAVELER.
Here's the legal problem for the "Federal travellers" or sov folks. Your driver license is granted by the state and not the federal government. You can call it driving, moving, travelling, rock&rollin' whatever. If you don't have a driver license you will at some point legally (as well as other reasons) regret it.
@@jaimeortega4940 Wrong, you get a drivers license from a PRIVATE company, not a STATE run agency. All DMVs are PRIVATELY owned. Thats how a state uses the loop holes because NO state can issue their own license.
Ok great if you could send me the business card info for the DMV company and their website that would be great. Plus I want to trade the DMV company's stock on the stock market so I'll be needing their ticker symbol as well. Thanks.
I'd like to see someone remain silent during a minor or unjustified stop to see what the police would do.
A violent kidnapping would undoubtedly result.
They’d rip him out of the car and beat him
i imagine they'd try to escalate the situation as much as possible asking for ID and fishing for some way to arrest
It’s been done. They absolutely freak out. But to lawfully practice your right to remain silent you need to speak up enough to invoke it. Then you are covered by it. I would like to see someone actually invoke their Miranda rights. Cops falsely believe you are free game to interrogate up until they arrest you and read you your rights. So they hold off detaining or arresting people In this game of chicken to scare them into incriminating themselves on something. This isn’t part of the law though. Rights do not turn on or off based on any actions of the police. I will absolutely provide you with my ID and answer questions as soon as you get a lawyer on the phone. This doesn’t obstruct their investigation. It shuts it down. They cannot provide an attorney on the roadside. And they cannot arrest you for demanding it.
They'll probably drag you out of the car and beat u senseless
that fool actually said “i have reasonable suspicion that you turned around back there.” geniuses.
If they say, "we don't know what you're doing", then its insane that cops can be allowed to move forward in their investigation. When they "DO know...." then ok, cops may have the right.
You gave the pigs a C? WTF? I give Audit the Audit an F. There was ZERO reason for the stop.
@48: agreed, but even BAY AREA's lawyer said a Court won't grant u anything for a brief stop. The judge would argue the stop was prolonged by Mr News
They got a C because they didn't use lethal force...
@@RightToFreedomGirl
That's a good point.
@@deejayyy1681
It's a low bar, huh...lol...
They might had reasonable supicision but didn't mention it. Remember the jail the Warden works at had a riot recently that injured alot of people. It might be they feared the Warden's Life might in danger. I did a whole comment on it but it's just conspiracy theorizing. Eitherway the officers did say they were on high alert around the Warden's house for some sort of reason, be it by order or by own choice.
Also most F on cops are because they used force, lied about the law and statutes or tried to twist the law in such a favor to get what they want or defending clear violations by the officer.
Here the officers were wrong, but they didn't escalate it. They wanted to run an ID check cause of a suspicion that should been dispelled but they thought more.
These cops didn't do anything as bad as those who deserve a flat F or lower in some cases we see.
How does he get a c? He tried to violate his rights!! That’s an F!
He CLEARLY tells you why he gave the grade, you have a different opinion you're entitled too so now you can make YOUR OWN video and give him an F.
Because Audit the Audit is one of the biggest bootlickers in the game!
@@SliceIceNDice ATA almost always sides with the law enforcement. You can read any statute and slant it more favorable for law enforcement if you want to. I think ATA is just being honest in that respect because the courts almost always slant towards law enforcement. And police know that, that is why they say "I had RAS", because in their own mind, they make up RAS and know it will most likely never be challenged.
truth - that's an F
@@SliceIceNDice found the “I bleed blue” clown
So if the cop is "trying to figure out" if the citizen is committing a crime then they don't have reasonable suspicion that the citizen is committing a crime.
The "loitering" excuse was made up by the tropper on the fly. This because the act of turning around in a private driveway negates that excuse or acusation.
Read the statute as to what loitering is, as opposed to what the dictionary definition is. GA loitering statute basically reiterates the requirements for a Terry Stop/Investigative Detention which does criminalize refusing to id, making GA a stop and ID state.
they always do this. and it is easy to do in a nation with so many laws that they are literally unknowable in totality except to dedicated professionals
I read the statute more important I know what loitering is and it's legal definition and so do most common sense jurys. The loitering excuse was the cops last ditch effort second excuse/lie for why he pulled him over because he knew legally he had no real reason to and subsequently no right to ask for an ID.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn I didn't think you were right at first, but having read it, this stop seems to be valid:
"O.C.G.A. 16-11-36 (2010)
16-11-36. Loitering or prowling
(a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.
(b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern."
@@jaimeortega4940 Its one of those catchall laws with vague meaning and defined by interpretation. Nevertheless, even that law didn't fit.
I would’ve made them give me a citation. If they can’t think of an infraction for a citation and will not give you one no matter how much you beg, then there was no reason to be pulled over which makes the stop unlawful. Obviously the cops wanted to see his ID because his ID was definitely going to tell cops what the guys were doing, right…?🤔
Worst part is that it takes a couple minutes to run the plate and if he's the owner, his license pops up on the search and they'd literally have his license if that's what they really wanted. But what they want is to have power and control over you and get hard off forcing citizens to do as they say. Fucking disgusting.
Not producing your id, more than likely, will not lead to a citation but an arrest.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn Isn't failure to ID considered a secondary charge? There needs to be reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime for the order to ID to be considered lawful in the first place.
@@RedGreen1 That depends on the State and their statutes, and what meaning you want to ascribe to "secondary offense". Secondary offense is MOST often used in the context of a traffic offense, where an LEO can NOT use the offense as a basis for the stop, unless he witnesses some other offense to stop the vehicle. Used in some states for seat belt violations, even if the officer sees you not wearing one. As far as refusing to id, in an investigative detention (Terry Stop) there DOES NOT have to be a first offense. There only has to be RS that, based upon your actions, a reasonable Police Officer, could conclude YOU MAY BE involved in criminality. It may after investigation turn out that your behavior was totally legal, but if the officer has the required RS you commit a primary offense in your refusing to id, if that state has such a statute. As far as a criminal charge, even resisting can be either a primary offense, IN NY resisting someone else's arrest but would be a secondary offense in resisting your own, or FL where resisting an officer covers both resisting arrest as well as their obstruction type charges.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn In my state of PA it's not even secondary. You don't ever have to ID except for a traffic stop.
This is such a systemic issue within the police departments. They feel owed that they can identify anyone they want.
because it's not a problem until these youtubers started filming themselves
Another example of people learning their rights.
A lot of the logic in this video hinges on this being a traffic stop. But this wasn’t a traffic stop. He wasn’t pulled over for any driving infraction. He was pulled over for suspicion. That is not a traffic stop.
If you do something suspicious or they don’t like…. Doesn’t give them the right to pull you over after- then rely on a “traffic stop” to force identifying.
Sadly the law kinds does allow them to do it, there is precedent for police to pull over people under the pretense of a traffic stop, even with different intentions. He also does mention multiple times in this video that this stop is potentially unconstitutional because he didn't commit any traffic violation.
9:00 "Abnormal or unusual actions taken to avoid a roadblock may give an officer a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity even when the evasive action is not illegal." What a treasonous ruling for a judge to make. That throws your constitutional rights out the window unless the vast majority of citizens exercise the right. So if others don't use their rights, you lose yours. Not the way that rights work according the US constitution which means this judge was ignoring/violating/waging war on the constitution and we the people with that ruling.
Gotta love how none of the cops are wearing body cams
So, if I'm getting this right, if there is a riot in a prison wether known or unknown, everyone who drives near said prison, AUTOMATICALLY makes those passers-by a suspected criminal ! BBAAA Humbug !
It wasn't the fact that he just "drove near said prison". It was the fact that, when seeing the police activity in the area that didn't actually block his route, he turned around in the warden's driveway and went the other direction before stopping along the road. As ATA explained, since his route was not actually blocked, it seems reasonable in this context for police officers to suspect that the individual wanted to avoid passing by the police cars for some reason which, as ATA also explained, is often considered as reasonable suspicion given the totality of the context (riot days before, threats against the warden, road not actually blocked, out-of-state vehicle, turning around in warden's driveway, stopping on side of road). Certainly the auditors explanations seemed plausible but if police officers let everyone leave a scene without questioning or identifying them, numerous criminals would be let go after giving the officer a good story.
@@ForensicEng - You think there's something wrong with letting citizens go if they have a reasonable explanation of their actions? The alternative would be to violate the rights of all citizens because you never know if they might be good liars.
@@UserNameAnonymous - What rights did I suggest they violate? Even ATA (who ALWAYS sides against police) said that their decision to stop and question these individuals would likely be found reasonable because of reasonable suspicion in the totality of circumstances. You would rather officers never be able to question a citizen unless they were 100% certain that they could get a conviction in court? You can argue extreme ends of the possible options but it makes a lot more sense, as a society, to not be so butt-hurt about police asking some questions when a citizen does something unusual in an unusual situation and only be truly concerned if the police actually make a wrongful arrest.
@jasonwatson3643 - This isn't about the reasonableness of the stop. They may have had reasonable articulable suspicion, but they might not have. They questioned them. Fine. Then they explained what they were doing. You yourself said the auditors' explanation seemed plausible. Their suspicion should have evaporated once they were given the explanation. That's it.
@@UserNameAnonymous - So a murderer, caught at the scene of the crime has to be unquestionably allowed to leave with no further questions as soon as he says that he happened to be walking by and saw the victims and the blood all over his clothes are from him trying to see if the victims were still alive. It is a plausible explanation so the police aren’t allowed to ask any other questions once a criminal gives a reason that could easily have been rehearsed for just such an instance when they happen to get stopped? Thus my point that you seem to believe that police can only ask any further questions once they already have 100% proof of a crime in hand. Under that belief, no criminal would ever be arrested because no investigation could be conducted.
“Completely normal driving does not justify a terry style stop.”
How is turning around not a normal driving action? Like how could that be spun?
Edit: bro the riot was days before hand!? This is happening more and more, while areas are basically no gos where police can stop you for anything
Imagine you're just trying to keep out of their way, and they want to violate your rights in response.
The funniest part of this is how you can break down the cops argument as:
"I'm giving you reasonable articulable suspicion of you being suspicious."
Guilty of suspicion
If I were this clueless at any job I’ve ever had, I would’ve been fired. And this officer is carrying a weapon…
Here is how a nearly identical situation was handled by a German police officer.
I was with my private car on a way to a customer and was accounting a roadblock. So i turned around and stopped to review the map for an alternative route. A police officer came and asked if i need help. He something like "I see your not from around here, where do you want to go? Maybe i can help you with the route." We got into talking from that. He provided information about the extend of the bock and i told him a lot about my destination and what I'm doing. I did provide a lot of information without feeling threatened or under investigation and got good information how to continue my travel. He never asked me about my identification.
I think this is a much better way to do things.
I wish America was like this :(
Many years ago in the uk someone broke into my car by smashing the small front quarter window. Not wanting to be out of pocket, I went to where I knew an identical car had been abandoned to remove the glass I needed. Alas, a cop car came by, it was a quite remote area at night so it definitely looked super suspicious, me being there alone Messi g about with an abandoned car, with my car there with its smashed little window. They asked what I was doing, I told them the truth, that someone had broken into my car and I knew this abandoned one had been here for weeks (it was pushed halfway into a bush, completely obviously abandoned), they saw my window and immediately asked if it was my car, I said yes here's my keys, they asked for my details to confirm my car was my own, and once satisfied I was telling the truth, they said while they understood why I was trying to take the glass from the abandoned car, they couldn't let me do it as it was still technically someone else's property. That was it, they let me go, no hard questioning or attitude.
I’m happy you guys are more impartial than many others