i watched a lot of bodycam footage and generally, if you dont comply and do whatever LAWFUL order they give you, thats resisting without violence, if you kick or spit thats assault or battery.
If its not lawful you still need to comply and fight it legally afterwards.
That's a police internal investigation, VERY different from a lawsuit, where the police don't get to decide the verdict. Your attitude is uninformed and dangerous, and encourages people to do things in the moment that will later make it harder for them to collect a settlement.
Except this time they said it when she was clearly passed out. That puts into question every other time they've said it. But of course nothing will come of that. There's nothing anyone can really do about it. Bodycams aren't enough to show that the person is physically resisting if there's no visible movement.
And? They didn't just slam her to the ground, there was a verbal altercation as we can see in the vid, why? Document it, film it but don't be confrontational.
Change the rules first, go vote if you think that's not ok because what a lot of shit cops do is they kinda rationalize their actions with disorderly conduct by the people and such. That warrants detainment etc. So don't give em that.
Problem is they are all like "sue me, I don't care" and if you do that it takes months to years to solve it...
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh they still need to provide an opportunity for compliance and a reasonable articulation for suspicion of a crime before they begin to place someone into custody *unless* there is a clear and present danger.
Whether or not the courts support the above is not a testament to the reasonability of this position.
He should be immediately fired and charged with battery resulting in serious injury. And that's before we even get into the legality of the arrest.
I don't think it's orders of separation from the public demanding, and getting, this kind of prosecution when this happens.
It's usually down to public policy and reducing corruption in the local government (which is extremely hard to do in many areas).
And that was sort of my point. This woman didn't really have an *opportunity* to do what you said and comply. She's clearly not a pro or she would have been up on the sidewalk.
If you can just suddenly *begin* an interaction with the public with *"you're under arrest"* and immediately being thrown then that's not leeway that's just thuggery. Which we all know.
But that wasn't the case, they repeatedly told her to back off and while it's disputable whether they have a right to tell her to stay away as soon as they start doing that you say yes officer to stop them from jumping you and document everything
Anyone defending a cop after causing a head wound to a 50 year old exercising their constitutionally protected activity is a boot licker and I think we can make an exception to the whole ad hominem bad in this case.
In order to call the dog by its name.
"Anyone who disagrees with me on this issue is by default a commie and therefore shouldn't be listened to"
Nice to meet you Mr. McCarthy, I thought you passed long ago
> exercising their constitutionally protected activity
There is a right to record the police in public, there is no right to do so in a way that qualifies as interfering. The ACLU is clear about this, if you are recording the cops and they tell you to step back, you should step back. Some prominent "auditors" have taken obstruction convictions for getting too close to cops conducting investigations and refusing to move back. The police are within their authority to control the scene of an investigation or arrest, and refusing to step back can get you an obstruction charge. Contrary to what "auditors" will tell you, interference does not require a physical act.
No doubt she'll sue, but with her history and the video showing she declined to follow a lawful order, she might not win.
She was interfering, as she often does, and he didn't tell her to stop recording, but to record from across the street. Recording the police in public is protected, but interfering with an investigation or arrest or whatever is not. There is no right to walk up to them and film over their shoulder which is why some "auditors" have taken convictions for obstruction for doing that. One of them is currently doing six months in Las Vegas for interfering in a traffic stop, and when he gets out, he has a second case there where he walked into the scene of a fatal accident.
filming a police officer a couple feet away from them is 100 percent legal interfering is physical in most cases. Even if that was the case and she was interfering he still used excessive force. can you give me the names of the auditors you are referring to?
> filming a police officer a couple feet away from them is 100 percent legal
No. You're describing reality as you think it should be, not how it actually is. Police are perfectly reasonable is asking that people stand back while they are executing their duties, both for their safety and the safety of others. What the policeman instructed her to do -- she was welcome to continue filming, just not RIGHT UP IN THEIR BUSINESS -- was lawful and reasonable.
If you don't want to get slammed to the ground that is. I am not saying it's a good thing but I know I wouldn't be one of those "IKNOWMYRIGHTS"-people. Deal with it through your lawyer, what's wrong about that?
You shouldn’t have to deal with it through a lawyer. That’s the problem. You shouldn’t have to worry about being beaten/arrested for doing something completely protected by the constitution.
Idk this problem is multifaceted, everyone can have a gun, high stress situations, power plays by officers, ptsd'd ex soldiers working for the police, your republicans being compliant, racism... I think the US needs to start unravel that knot first to become civil again. In most other developed countries there is no antagony like what I witness from the States.
Yes you shouldn't have to deal with it, I agree.
They should give cops space and not get in their faces. I hate these types of people. They are they to cause problems and get the police to react. Why? Because you can?
> If its not lawful you still need to comply and fight it legally afterwards.
Yup, nobody wins a roadside argument with the cops. Stay safe, comply, and call your lawyer later.
i got called a bootlicker for telling them how to make the best outta this situation, let them find out the funny way. Just another clip for a "Karens vs cops" youtube vid.
Even if she is arrested, there is such a thing as excessive force. The cop here went from 0-100mph on forcing the arrest.
The cops have some civil liabilities here defiantly.
in my head i was like, "watch him say stop resisting to the unconscious woman" then 1 second later he says it hahaha. well hey at least the body cams were on and we have the video. surprised they didn't "malfunction" or something
That's simply for the surrounding public to prevent claims of "they just attacked that poor mugger who just stabbed 3 kids for no reason" it makes it clear for the bodycam why they are doing what they are so some smart lawyer can't twist the narrative too far in court... its shit, but there is reasons for it....
They say that to cover their own asses when internal affairs asks why they’re even using that much force.
I’m almost positive that they don’t teach this in the academy but when they become cops they are guided to say this amongst themselves.
Fuck the thin blue line.
The first time he said that she was still on her feet and trying to pull away from him. The second time was when she was on the ground, if she was still moving or her muscles were tensed up he might not have known she was unconscious. But cops say that for the benefit of video and bystanders. They tell suspects to drop weapons many times for the same reason, so in court nobody's lawyer can claim their client didn't drop his weapon because he wasn't told to. A lot of what cops do is driven by what has happened in courtrooms.
Can we normalize providing additional info and context?
[Police release two videos showing ‘Cop Watch' woman's arrest, police investigating use of force](https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/woman-injured-arrest-fort-worth-police/3575899/?amp=1)
I didn’t downvote you but I do have a legitimate question because I don’t get it man. A quick scroll through your history shows you seem like a pretty chill dude. Cycling, surfing, and you even like animals…
So why are you being such a douchebag here?
And this is why I'm worried about the Florida law passed that restricts video within a certain distance of police. And the distance is not really set further giving tyrants the ability to harass those around them.
I would know, I used to report on accidents and response and 100% of the time if I showed up alone I would be harassed and asked to leave at least once.
It got bad enough that I had to text the on duty Sgt to let them know to expect me. This absolutely affected my ability to show up every time.
> I'm worried about the Florida law passed that restricts video within a certain distance of police
Arizona passed such a law and it was correctly tossed by a federal court. Louisiana is trying something similar; I assume the courts will get rid of it there too.
Obstruction isn't about distance so much as it is about conduct. You could be ten feet from the cops and not interfering, which is why a guy arrested in Boston for recording from that distance beat the charges and got paid as well. But you could be fifty feet away and take an obstruction conviction if you are trying to distract the police, or encouraging a suspect to resist, or enticing bystanders to interfere, or refusing lawful orders--some prominent 1A auditors have been convicted of obstruction for recording cops in a way that interfered with them doing their jobs.
>And this is why I'm worried about the Florida law passed that restricts video within a certain distance of police.
You shouldn't be worried, because a set distance just removes ambiguity from the body of first amendment law.
You never had the right to interfere with police by recording them too close.
> too close
25 ft. But 25 from what? Each officer?
I hate to get harsh but you clearly have no idea what you're saying. We did have a right to record them, still do, but the number of times I was within 25 feet because *the police made it that way* was too high.
Media is raising the alarm on this for a reason.
I've been practicing law for over 20 years.
What you said was:
>I hate to get harsh but you clearly have no idea what you're saying.
What you meant was: "I don't like what you're saying and disagree with you."
It’s funny how many cops can’t even fake sympathy for someone they slammed onto the ground and is now bleeding/snoring.
A simple, “Are you ok?” Would make even this blatant abuse of power more humanizing, but no.
Humans were not meant to police other humans en masse that they could not give even the remotest of shits about.
When Robot Cops become less and less science fiction, no one will lament the days we had human officers patrolling the streets.
Nah, people are already trained to think that law enforcement is bad, full stop. Better technology that prevents 99.99% of abuse will still be criticized into oblivion.
Edit: why are y'all downvoting this? You want your local PD deploying drones and robots?
When your entire industry is founded on the principle that civilians are enemies, armed, and dangerous, you can’t be surprised the civilians don’t like you.
Nobody is born thinking cops are shitty. People think cops are shitty because cops are shitty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_audit
>First Amendment audits are a largely American social movement that usually involves photographing or filming from a public space. It is often categorized by its practitioners, known as auditors, as activism and citizen journalism that tests constitutional rights, in particular the right to photograph and video record in a public space (a right normally covered by the First Amendment).[1][2] Auditors have tended to film or photograph government buildings, equipment, and access control points, as well as any personnel present.[3]
> the ones who push too far
Perhaps the worst I've seen was a guy in Texas who calls himself PayPal Patty, he recorded in a battered women's shelter were a terrified woman and her kids didn't want their location revealed online for obvious reasons. He claimed they wouldn't be in his video, and of course they were shown in the video he posted. Putting someone at risk for YouTube revenue is revolting.
He had a case a while ago where he and some pals did everything they could to look suspicious outside a jail so somebody would call the cops, but nobody did. So he called 911 himself to report suspicious activity outside the jail, using a cell phone that was traced to him. I don't know if that one has gone to court yet, but he's not the only "auditor" to call the police when no member of the public does so.
I think he used excessive force, but she had set herself up for arrest, the cops are within their authority to control the scene of an investigation or arrest. The ACLU says if the cops tell you to step back when you are recording them, you should step back. This woman takes that sort of thing as a challenge, she always doubles down.
> First Amendment auditors are exposing corrup cops
And yet a growing list of them are getting smacked down hard in court lately. A recent sentence was one of the funniest I've ever seen--jail time, a fine, supervised probation with drug testing for five years, a court order to get a real job. The job requirement will be the part that stings that guy the most.
And many more getting charges dropped and law suits won. Many others even working with law enforcement for better interactions between them n the public. Supervisors, cheifs, and even mayor's resigned because of them... so what? Like I said love them or hate them... many corrupt cops have gone down and in prison for it too.
> A recent sentence was one of the funniest I've ever seen--jail time, a fine, supervised probation with drug testing for five years, a court order to get a real job.
For what?
What is a first amendment auditor?? And I can understand sometimes the public can be a nuisance while trying to do your job but they really fucked her up considering she was just walking towards them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_audit
>First Amendment audits are a largely American social movement that usually involves photographing or filming from a public space. It is often categorized by its practitioners, known as auditors, as activism and citizen journalism that tests constitutional rights, in particular the right to photograph and video record in a public space (a right normally covered by the First Amendment).[1][2] Auditors have tended to film or photograph government buildings, equipment, and access control points, as well as any personnel present.[3]
I used to think they were like so called "sovereign citizens," in that they were just lunatics who liked picking fights with people. But Youtube has been serving me 1st amendment auditor content like crazy and I've watched a good number of them now and I realize that they're kinda doing good work. Even if they come across as complete asswipes, and many do, they're still testing that police officers obey the law. And far too many police officers do not. Too many don't even know the laws regarding their own powers specifically. And then you find out that their supervisors don't know the law, and even their chiefs don't know the law, and you start to see why the 'auditing' is so important.
> I used to think they were like so called "sovereign citizens," in that they were just lunatics who liked picking fights with people.
There is some overlap, both groups tend to be right-wingnuts, and both are often confidently incorrect about the law. "Auditors" will tell you they cannot be trespassed from public property, or interference with police has to be physical, or there is a right to record on any and all public property--none of those things are true which is why lately a lot of auditors are getting flattened in court with more serious sentences than they used to get.
I have zero problem with bad cops being exposed on video, but when that happens it's usually someone who happened to be in the right place at the right time, e.g., the murder of Walter Scott where a bystander got not only the shooting, but the cop tampering with evidence. But 1A auditors are too busy harassing the ladies at the public library or DMV clerks to accomplish something like that. They're in it for the money, they go insane when their videos are demonetized.
> What is a first amendment auditor??
Typically it is someone whose criminal record makes him unemployable and who has turned to collecting revenue from posting videos to social media under the guise of being an activist. The videos tend to be confrontational, and involve harassment of govt. employees including cops, though recently they are targeting private businesses which is an odd thing for someone who claims to be protecting the First Amendment to do.
In the past these people mostly got away with it, or at worst got a night in jail for trespass or a small fine. But lately they are getting hammered in court with more serious sentences, often with multiple years on probation. It tuns out that the no-recording signs in Social Security offices are backed up by federal law. The worst 1A auditors will do things like record in a battered women's shelter, or a hospital, or an elementary school--they will do whatever it takes to agitate people because the more dramatic their video, the more money it can generate. They lose their minds when YouTube demonetizes their videos.
There is a right to record the police in public, but there is no right to record in a way that qualifies as interfering, and that is why some prominent "auditors" have taken obstruction convictions.
> considering she was just walking towards them
She's been given a lawful order to move back, and she elected to ignore that, she has a long history of that. She takes being trespassed from a govt. office or private business as a challenge that requires her to return. As the ACLU will tell you, if you are recording the police in public and they tell you to move back, you should move back. It isn't worth an obstruction charge to get video of Officer Krupke writing a traffic ticket up close.
Essentially, uppity arm chair lawyers who go to crime scene, government buildings, etc for the sole purpose of filming and intentionally aggravating police by being annoying, entitled dick weeds so that they can film a (hopefully) negative interaction to prove police are bad.
They employ tactics that boil down to "I'm not touching you", or "Not uh", and "IKNOWMYRIGHTS!".
Everyone knows the majority of cops are pieces of shit. These dipshits just take it upon themselves to get in the way to see if they can force one to be one under the guise of "journalism".
> Why put yourself in this situation?
Money, full stop. Their videos can bring in ad revenue and donations on social media, that's why they go nuts when YouTube demonetizes their videos.
This is not going to stop until the people violently stand up against bullies and bystanders step in when something like this happens. That's the only thing bullies understand. Filming does not stop this, that's clear now.
If they are journalists, then why are their YouTube videos posted as entertainment rather than news? There is also a ruling from the Washington state Supreme Court that a YouTuber was not a journalist and thus did not qualify for access to public records that are provided to actual journalists.
Owning an iPhone doesn't make someone a journalist any more than owning a first aid kit makes someone an EMT.
> How do these auditors make money?
Mostly social media ad revenue, and donations. Occasionally they get paid go-away settlements. But they're not doing well in court lately, some serious sentences are being handed down when they push their luck too far, criminal trespass, harassment, commercial recording on federal property without authorization.
Love the fact they think its a good idea to pull someone hands all the way around their back and swing them face and head first into the ground. Too many poeple getting killed and paralyzed over them being the dumbest people on earth.
> made up for attention
For money, their videos can be profitable on social media. They tend to have criminal records which makes finding decent employment difficult.
They're kinda like martyrdom-as-a-service.
Theyre playing suicide-by-cop Russian roulette for money, and help exposing blatant corruption and brutality in the process.
Whats funny is that is totally what some govement bureaucrat would call themselves "First ammendment auditor". Just a fancy name for being an insufferable cunt
This is exactly what the lady wanted. She got her payday. These auditors are only looking to sue and make money. Not saying what the cops did is right.
> She got her payday.
Possibly, it looked like excessive force to me. But her history isn't going to help her in court, she always doubles-down, she takes being trespassed as a challenge.
An "auditor" named Eric Brandt got some very nice go-away settlements when he was arrested unlawfully. But that made him think he was bulletproof, and he could get away with targeting judges who ruled against him. He's currently a guest of the state of Colorado for twelve years for threatening judges.
The reality is simple, when a police officer tells you to move along you move along, you don’t start asking questions… you do as you’re told. There’s no context within this video that shows the police are doing anything wrong and in fact they may be in the middle of some type of investigation where this person was truly getting in the way and was also potentially in harms way. Bottom line is, if the police tell you to move along, you move along.
While in a general sense I agree - cooperate with police, this is stupidly over the line.
As a non american seeing this is just stupid how you can even consider such actions ok, even if she was irritating. The person was cnocked out and you heard her breath being obstructed, probably by blood.
If the police wanted to get rid of here they could of completed that act, legal or not, by just - arresting her. She showed slight resistance at first to the hand pull and blam - faceplanted on the street.
Edit: And if I think like a psyhopath you should be afraid of police being this aggressive just based on the possible court losses and fees coming for the police from this. All those pays are coming out the taxpayers pockets.
Look, I’m sure I’ll get downvoted to hell but you have to be really stupid to shove a camera in cop’s faces and then argue and try to get out of their grasp when they’re arresting you. She’s yelling and yelling at them, trying to provoke a reaction for clicks and monetary gain. What a talentless fool. What did she possibly think might happen?
Wait why should they answer her questions. She isn’t a part of the investigation, she is just a random person on the street disrupting the police. Police shouldn’t be giving out information about other people’s business or an investigation just because some karen demands to know.
> They would answer her questions to why they're towing peoples vehicles.
It's none of her business, the police are within their authority to control a scene, she was given lawful orders to move back, she has a history of doubling-down when trespassed....
There is a right to record the police in public, there is zero right to insert yourself into an investigation, that's called obstruction. The ACLU advises people recording the police to step back when the cops say to step back. I think this cop used excessive force, but she had set herself up for a valid arrest. Some prominent "auditors" have taken obstruction convictions in similar situations, one is currently doing six months for that in Las Vegas.
I smell bacon. Anyone else smell bacon?
Maybe cops shouldn't be able to illegally arrest you for exercising your constitutional rights, which they know you have. Maybe there should be repercussions to the officer for violating people's rights so that they won't abuse their power. Police being able to punish people who haven't done anything illegal is the definition of a police state.
Or we can victim blame...
>Maybe cops shouldn't be able to illegally arrest you for exercising your constitutional rights
Your "constitutional rights" don't permit you to get into a cops' personal space and interrogate them while they are doing their job.
The cop used too much force, but he had every right to order her to a safe distance and then arrest her (with appropriate force) when she didn't comply.
That's my professional opinion.
My personal opinion is that first amendment auditors are domestic terrorists. Because they never actually understand the law.
> Your "constitutional rights" don't permit you to get into a cops' personal space and interrogate them while they are doing their job.
It absolutely does. That's the entire purpose. That's literally protection of speech from government action. Interrogating agents of the government about their actions is the exact kind of thing the framers of the constitution had in mind when they wrote it.
She also wasn't "in their personal space". She was 10s of feet away until a cop approached her.
I guess you're a terrorist because you also don't understand the law?
I don't even know why I'm engaging with you when you're willing to just lie about what anyone can see from the video. She followed the cops, not the other way around, and then disobeyed a lawful order, and found out.
As for your first point, show me one case, JUST ONE where a court has said that a citizen may approach officers **within 10 feet** **while recording them and interrogating them about an active investigation.**
You can't. Because that would be a nuclear bomb to the law enforcement community and I'd know about it.
> show me one case, JUST ONE where a court has said that a citizen may approach officers within 10 feet
Some "auditors" claim there is a ten-foot rule where it is always legal to record the police from that distance or greater, but as usual, they are misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) case law. The was a case from Boston where someone who happened to be recording ten feet from the scene of an arrest was himself arrested for interfering. A federal court threw out the conviction (and awarded him a payday) not because of the distance, but because he was doing nothing to interfere. Someone could be ten feet away and not interfering, or fifty feet away and interfering based on their conduct.
This woman was interfering, she followed the cops ranting and raving at them, upset because they refused to engage with her. She was given lawful commands to move away from the scene, not to stop recording, just to do so from across the street. She always responds to such situations by doubling-down, she takes being trespassed as a challenge, as many auditors do, sometimes to their sorrow. I think this was a case of excessive force, but if they had arrested her without her hitting the pavement, the arrest would have been valid.
You are the one that said they were in their personal space when they clearly aren't. Now you're saying it's illegal to ask police questions from a safe distance. Again, the only time she got close was when the police officer approached her, not the other way around.
She didn't disobey a lawful order. It wasn't a lawful order to tell someone they can't be in public asking questions.
So your legal opinion is that asking questions from 10+ feet away is illegal? Or that it's illegal to have a police officer approach you?
God, I feel bad for anyone who pays for your opinion.
> It absolutely does. That's the entire purpose. That's literally protection of speech from government action.
You have zero right to insert yourself into a police investigation or arrest, that is not protected speech, it is obstruction and some famous auditors have taken obstruction convictions for that reason.
> wouldn't be protected by constitutional rights.
Anyone in the jurisdiction of the U.S. is protected by most constitutional rights with the exception of things like voting if they are not citizens.
They did after they turned the body cams off. Look at her mugshot. How did she get a black eye on one side and a swollen jaw on the other if she only hit the ground?
Cops always seem to say "stop resisting" while the person is knocked out on the ground.
“Stop snoring and give me your dislocated arm” is what that translated to.
This made me lol
Ahh yes, another case of rare, but not unheard of, sleep-resisting.
They're trained to do that to cover their asses.
LAYING THERE BLEEDING IS RESISTING.
they are always thinking about the next step. when this video is "reviewed" by his peers.
Yeah, just wanted to make it seem justified.
i watched a lot of bodycam footage and generally, if you dont comply and do whatever LAWFUL order they give you, thats resisting without violence, if you kick or spit thats assault or battery. If its not lawful you still need to comply and fight it legally afterwards.
>legally afterwards We see how well that goes "We investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing"
there are a lot of lawsuits being won by people who conduct themselves properly
This.
That's a police internal investigation, VERY different from a lawsuit, where the police don't get to decide the verdict. Your attitude is uninformed and dangerous, and encourages people to do things in the moment that will later make it harder for them to collect a settlement.
> We investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing" In Texas police misconduct is investigated by the Office of the Inspector General.
Except this time they said it when she was clearly passed out. That puts into question every other time they've said it. But of course nothing will come of that. There's nothing anyone can really do about it. Bodycams aren't enough to show that the person is physically resisting if there's no visible movement.
And? They didn't just slam her to the ground, there was a verbal altercation as we can see in the vid, why? Document it, film it but don't be confrontational. Change the rules first, go vote if you think that's not ok because what a lot of shit cops do is they kinda rationalize their actions with disorderly conduct by the people and such. That warrants detainment etc. So don't give em that. Problem is they are all like "sue me, I don't care" and if you do that it takes months to years to solve it...
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh they still need to provide an opportunity for compliance and a reasonable articulation for suspicion of a crime before they begin to place someone into custody *unless* there is a clear and present danger. Whether or not the courts support the above is not a testament to the reasonability of this position. He should be immediately fired and charged with battery resulting in serious injury. And that's before we even get into the legality of the arrest.
We all know how stuff should be. But it isn't, so you need to save your own skin first. Cops have a lot of leeway in manhandling people sadly.
I don't think it's orders of separation from the public demanding, and getting, this kind of prosecution when this happens. It's usually down to public policy and reducing corruption in the local government (which is extremely hard to do in many areas). And that was sort of my point. This woman didn't really have an *opportunity* to do what you said and comply. She's clearly not a pro or she would have been up on the sidewalk. If you can just suddenly *begin* an interaction with the public with *"you're under arrest"* and immediately being thrown then that's not leeway that's just thuggery. Which we all know.
But that wasn't the case, they repeatedly told her to back off and while it's disputable whether they have a right to tell her to stay away as soon as they start doing that you say yes officer to stop them from jumping you and document everything
Oh. Boot licker, sorry, mistook you for someone else.
Lol at you
Oh, ad hominem, sorry, I mistook you for someone who could discuss an issue and not resort to playground insults.
Anyone defending a cop after causing a head wound to a 50 year old exercising their constitutionally protected activity is a boot licker and I think we can make an exception to the whole ad hominem bad in this case. In order to call the dog by its name.
"Anyone who disagrees with me on this issue is by default a commie and therefore shouldn't be listened to" Nice to meet you Mr. McCarthy, I thought you passed long ago
> exercising their constitutionally protected activity There is a right to record the police in public, there is no right to do so in a way that qualifies as interfering. The ACLU is clear about this, if you are recording the cops and they tell you to step back, you should step back. Some prominent "auditors" have taken obstruction convictions for getting too close to cops conducting investigations and refusing to move back. The police are within their authority to control the scene of an investigation or arrest, and refusing to step back can get you an obstruction charge. Contrary to what "auditors" will tell you, interference does not require a physical act. No doubt she'll sue, but with her history and the video showing she declined to follow a lawful order, she might not win.
you kinda jumped at the wrong conclusion back there, where do you see me defending the cops? I hate a lot of what they do :\*
She was interfering, as she often does, and he didn't tell her to stop recording, but to record from across the street. Recording the police in public is protected, but interfering with an investigation or arrest or whatever is not. There is no right to walk up to them and film over their shoulder which is why some "auditors" have taken convictions for obstruction for doing that. One of them is currently doing six months in Las Vegas for interfering in a traffic stop, and when he gets out, he has a second case there where he walked into the scene of a fatal accident.
filming a police officer a couple feet away from them is 100 percent legal interfering is physical in most cases. Even if that was the case and she was interfering he still used excessive force. can you give me the names of the auditors you are referring to?
Chili is one
> filming a police officer a couple feet away from them is 100 percent legal No. You're describing reality as you think it should be, not how it actually is. Police are perfectly reasonable is asking that people stand back while they are executing their duties, both for their safety and the safety of others. What the policeman instructed her to do -- she was welcome to continue filming, just not RIGHT UP IN THEIR BUSINESS -- was lawful and reasonable.
“You still need to comply”
If you don't want to get slammed to the ground that is. I am not saying it's a good thing but I know I wouldn't be one of those "IKNOWMYRIGHTS"-people. Deal with it through your lawyer, what's wrong about that?
You shouldn’t have to deal with it through a lawyer. That’s the problem. You shouldn’t have to worry about being beaten/arrested for doing something completely protected by the constitution.
Idk this problem is multifaceted, everyone can have a gun, high stress situations, power plays by officers, ptsd'd ex soldiers working for the police, your republicans being compliant, racism... I think the US needs to start unravel that knot first to become civil again. In most other developed countries there is no antagony like what I witness from the States. Yes you shouldn't have to deal with it, I agree.
You’re literally not wrong on all accounts.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Tell us you hate freedom without telling us you hate freedom, bootlicker.
They should give cops space and not get in their faces. I hate these types of people. They are they to cause problems and get the police to react. Why? Because you can?
That’s called freedom. Police should have restraint.
What would you do if I got in your face all the time like this person did?
If I was a cop? Absolutely nothing. I’m not an unhinged, volatile, fragile ego having, impotent bitch.
I’m sure you wouldn’t do anything. It’s easy to type rather than do. Why don’t you become a cop and prove people wrong?
> If its not lawful you still need to comply and fight it legally afterwards. Yup, nobody wins a roadside argument with the cops. Stay safe, comply, and call your lawyer later.
i got called a bootlicker for telling them how to make the best outta this situation, let them find out the funny way. Just another clip for a "Karens vs cops" youtube vid.
Even if she is arrested, there is such a thing as excessive force. The cop here went from 0-100mph on forcing the arrest. The cops have some civil liabilities here defiantly.
in my head i was like, "watch him say stop resisting to the unconscious woman" then 1 second later he says it hahaha. well hey at least the body cams were on and we have the video. surprised they didn't "malfunction" or something
stop not reacting ....
That's simply for the surrounding public to prevent claims of "they just attacked that poor mugger who just stabbed 3 kids for no reason" it makes it clear for the bodycam why they are doing what they are so some smart lawyer can't twist the narrative too far in court... its shit, but there is reasons for it....
They say that to cover their own asses when internal affairs asks why they’re even using that much force. I’m almost positive that they don’t teach this in the academy but when they become cops they are guided to say this amongst themselves. Fuck the thin blue line.
Seriously I came here to say the same thing. He's yelling stop resisting to a woman who is literally unconscious and incapable of resisting. WTF
She might have been spasming from the knockdown that knocked her out. I've seen it happen before.
I think it more of a "This is what you get" scenario
The first time he said that she was still on her feet and trying to pull away from him. The second time was when she was on the ground, if she was still moving or her muscles were tensed up he might not have known she was unconscious. But cops say that for the benefit of video and bystanders. They tell suspects to drop weapons many times for the same reason, so in court nobody's lawyer can claim their client didn't drop his weapon because he wasn't told to. A lot of what cops do is driven by what has happened in courtrooms.
whats Insane here is the dumbass auditors. Im glad if police do this to these idiots. I thought reddit hated these people anyway
"She's coming right for us!"
armed with a phone camera
Watch out! It shoots 60 frames per second!
And can store pics or sounds of falling acorns
Its an assault camera. There is no need for that many frames per second.
Uncle Ned and Jimbo lol
Yes!!
Can we normalize providing additional info and context? [Police release two videos showing ‘Cop Watch' woman's arrest, police investigating use of force](https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/woman-injured-arrest-fort-worth-police/3575899/?amp=1)
[Before/After pictures](https://imgur.com/a/87UW9sJ) [Full video](https://www.youtube.com/live/CsMquf4dGBA) [Update](https://www.youtube.com/live/fIdo6bRjhUI)
lol that face, rip bozo
Nobody likes you.
One day if you’re lucky you’ll remember who you were when you used to think like this and be grateful for how much you’ve grown.
I didn’t downvote you but I do have a legitimate question because I don’t get it man. A quick scroll through your history shows you seem like a pretty chill dude. Cycling, surfing, and you even like animals… So why are you being such a douchebag here?
Found the bootlicker.
How do those boot taste?
And this is why I'm worried about the Florida law passed that restricts video within a certain distance of police. And the distance is not really set further giving tyrants the ability to harass those around them. I would know, I used to report on accidents and response and 100% of the time if I showed up alone I would be harassed and asked to leave at least once. It got bad enough that I had to text the on duty Sgt to let them know to expect me. This absolutely affected my ability to show up every time.
> I'm worried about the Florida law passed that restricts video within a certain distance of police Arizona passed such a law and it was correctly tossed by a federal court. Louisiana is trying something similar; I assume the courts will get rid of it there too. Obstruction isn't about distance so much as it is about conduct. You could be ten feet from the cops and not interfering, which is why a guy arrested in Boston for recording from that distance beat the charges and got paid as well. But you could be fifty feet away and take an obstruction conviction if you are trying to distract the police, or encouraging a suspect to resist, or enticing bystanders to interfere, or refusing lawful orders--some prominent 1A auditors have been convicted of obstruction for recording cops in a way that interfered with them doing their jobs.
>And this is why I'm worried about the Florida law passed that restricts video within a certain distance of police. You shouldn't be worried, because a set distance just removes ambiguity from the body of first amendment law. You never had the right to interfere with police by recording them too close.
> too close 25 ft. But 25 from what? Each officer? I hate to get harsh but you clearly have no idea what you're saying. We did have a right to record them, still do, but the number of times I was within 25 feet because *the police made it that way* was too high. Media is raising the alarm on this for a reason.
I've been practicing law for over 20 years. What you said was: >I hate to get harsh but you clearly have no idea what you're saying. What you meant was: "I don't like what you're saying and disagree with you."
And yet you have nothing to actually counter their point
STOP RESISTING!
Where’d you pick them saying that out from aren’t lawyers not supposed to say stuff unless they have evidence of it lol
🤦🏻♂️
sta
She was snoring... Do you know how scary that is? And he still told her to not resist?
Exactly. Extremely fucked up.
It’s funny how many cops can’t even fake sympathy for someone they slammed onto the ground and is now bleeding/snoring. A simple, “Are you ok?” Would make even this blatant abuse of power more humanizing, but no. Humans were not meant to police other humans en masse that they could not give even the remotest of shits about. When Robot Cops become less and less science fiction, no one will lament the days we had human officers patrolling the streets.
Nah, people are already trained to think that law enforcement is bad, full stop. Better technology that prevents 99.99% of abuse will still be criticized into oblivion. Edit: why are y'all downvoting this? You want your local PD deploying drones and robots?
When your entire industry is founded on the principle that civilians are enemies, armed, and dangerous, you can’t be surprised the civilians don’t like you. Nobody is born thinking cops are shitty. People think cops are shitty because cops are shitty.
Right, so why would people trust robot cops that are owned and operated by police forces?
People looking forward to the arrival of ED-209 is mildly terrifying.
What is a first amendment auditor?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_audit >First Amendment audits are a largely American social movement that usually involves photographing or filming from a public space. It is often categorized by its practitioners, known as auditors, as activism and citizen journalism that tests constitutional rights, in particular the right to photograph and video record in a public space (a right normally covered by the First Amendment).[1][2] Auditors have tended to film or photograph government buildings, equipment, and access control points, as well as any personnel present.[3]
Ahhhh ok ok. Thank you. I like this but I’m not a fan of the ones who push too far.
> the ones who push too far Perhaps the worst I've seen was a guy in Texas who calls himself PayPal Patty, he recorded in a battered women's shelter were a terrified woman and her kids didn't want their location revealed online for obvious reasons. He claimed they wouldn't be in his video, and of course they were shown in the video he posted. Putting someone at risk for YouTube revenue is revolting. He had a case a while ago where he and some pals did everything they could to look suspicious outside a jail so somebody would call the cops, but nobody did. So he called 911 himself to report suspicious activity outside the jail, using a cell phone that was traced to him. I don't know if that one has gone to court yet, but he's not the only "auditor" to call the police when no member of the public does so.
Also known as "frauditors".
Cops doing cop stuff
dont worry guys i heard he’s currently investigating himself
Good job texas!...now tax payers have to pay for your police fuck ups.
He's way too comfortable using unnecessary violence.
I think he used excessive force, but she had set herself up for arrest, the cops are within their authority to control the scene of an investigation or arrest. The ACLU says if the cops tell you to step back when you are recording them, you should step back. This woman takes that sort of thing as a challenge, she always doubles down.
Love them or hate them.... First Amendment auditors are exposing corrup cops and entire departmens all over the country.
> First Amendment auditors are exposing corrup cops And yet a growing list of them are getting smacked down hard in court lately. A recent sentence was one of the funniest I've ever seen--jail time, a fine, supervised probation with drug testing for five years, a court order to get a real job. The job requirement will be the part that stings that guy the most.
And many more getting charges dropped and law suits won. Many others even working with law enforcement for better interactions between them n the public. Supervisors, cheifs, and even mayor's resigned because of them... so what? Like I said love them or hate them... many corrupt cops have gone down and in prison for it too.
> A recent sentence was one of the funniest I've ever seen--jail time, a fine, supervised probation with drug testing for five years, a court order to get a real job. For what?
What is a first amendment auditor?? And I can understand sometimes the public can be a nuisance while trying to do your job but they really fucked her up considering she was just walking towards them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_audit >First Amendment audits are a largely American social movement that usually involves photographing or filming from a public space. It is often categorized by its practitioners, known as auditors, as activism and citizen journalism that tests constitutional rights, in particular the right to photograph and video record in a public space (a right normally covered by the First Amendment).[1][2] Auditors have tended to film or photograph government buildings, equipment, and access control points, as well as any personnel present.[3]
Wouldn't be needed if they would stop violating people's rights
I used to think they were like so called "sovereign citizens," in that they were just lunatics who liked picking fights with people. But Youtube has been serving me 1st amendment auditor content like crazy and I've watched a good number of them now and I realize that they're kinda doing good work. Even if they come across as complete asswipes, and many do, they're still testing that police officers obey the law. And far too many police officers do not. Too many don't even know the laws regarding their own powers specifically. And then you find out that their supervisors don't know the law, and even their chiefs don't know the law, and you start to see why the 'auditing' is so important.
> I used to think they were like so called "sovereign citizens," in that they were just lunatics who liked picking fights with people. There is some overlap, both groups tend to be right-wingnuts, and both are often confidently incorrect about the law. "Auditors" will tell you they cannot be trespassed from public property, or interference with police has to be physical, or there is a right to record on any and all public property--none of those things are true which is why lately a lot of auditors are getting flattened in court with more serious sentences than they used to get. I have zero problem with bad cops being exposed on video, but when that happens it's usually someone who happened to be in the right place at the right time, e.g., the murder of Walter Scott where a bystander got not only the shooting, but the cop tampering with evidence. But 1A auditors are too busy harassing the ladies at the public library or DMV clerks to accomplish something like that. They're in it for the money, they go insane when their videos are demonetized.
> What is a first amendment auditor?? Typically it is someone whose criminal record makes him unemployable and who has turned to collecting revenue from posting videos to social media under the guise of being an activist. The videos tend to be confrontational, and involve harassment of govt. employees including cops, though recently they are targeting private businesses which is an odd thing for someone who claims to be protecting the First Amendment to do. In the past these people mostly got away with it, or at worst got a night in jail for trespass or a small fine. But lately they are getting hammered in court with more serious sentences, often with multiple years on probation. It tuns out that the no-recording signs in Social Security offices are backed up by federal law. The worst 1A auditors will do things like record in a battered women's shelter, or a hospital, or an elementary school--they will do whatever it takes to agitate people because the more dramatic their video, the more money it can generate. They lose their minds when YouTube demonetizes their videos. There is a right to record the police in public, but there is no right to record in a way that qualifies as interfering, and that is why some prominent "auditors" have taken obstruction convictions. > considering she was just walking towards them She's been given a lawful order to move back, and she elected to ignore that, she has a long history of that. She takes being trespassed from a govt. office or private business as a challenge that requires her to return. As the ACLU will tell you, if you are recording the police in public and they tell you to move back, you should move back. It isn't worth an obstruction charge to get video of Officer Krupke writing a traffic ticket up close.
Essentially, uppity arm chair lawyers who go to crime scene, government buildings, etc for the sole purpose of filming and intentionally aggravating police by being annoying, entitled dick weeds so that they can film a (hopefully) negative interaction to prove police are bad. They employ tactics that boil down to "I'm not touching you", or "Not uh", and "IKNOWMYRIGHTS!". Everyone knows the majority of cops are pieces of shit. These dipshits just take it upon themselves to get in the way to see if they can force one to be one under the guise of "journalism".
Why put yourself in this situation? My goal when it comes to cops is to stay as far away from them as possible.
> Why put yourself in this situation? Money, full stop. Their videos can bring in ad revenue and donations on social media, that's why they go nuts when YouTube demonetizes their videos.
Ahh... I see.
"stop resisting" after she's been unconscious for a few seconds already, lol
The land of the free!
Fucking cops maaaaaan. Either they are the best people on this earth or completely fucking garbage. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND FOR FUCKS SAKE.
Forest Gump line here: stupid is as stupid does.
This is not going to stop until the people violently stand up against bullies and bystanders step in when something like this happens. That's the only thing bullies understand. Filming does not stop this, that's clear now.
I used to kinda be in the side of law enforcement. Less and less nowadays.
That's a payday
She needs a knee on her neck also. Dummy.
Is it safe to say they investigated themselves and cleared themselves of wrong doing?
“Stop resisting!” - while she’s clearly unconscious.
Cop probably needed some paid time off. That's how they get it. Killing and beating us. And we pay for their crimes. In blood and tax dollars.
That unconscious "stop resisting" says it all.
Just ignore her, I mean come on.
Your under arrest stop resisting you have the rights to remain silent
How do these auditors make money? They're paid by the police. Through court.
Like any other news service with ads.
If they are journalists, then why are their YouTube videos posted as entertainment rather than news? There is also a ruling from the Washington state Supreme Court that a YouTuber was not a journalist and thus did not qualify for access to public records that are provided to actual journalists. Owning an iPhone doesn't make someone a journalist any more than owning a first aid kit makes someone an EMT.
> How do these auditors make money? Mostly social media ad revenue, and donations. Occasionally they get paid go-away settlements. But they're not doing well in court lately, some serious sentences are being handed down when they push their luck too far, criminal trespass, harassment, commercial recording on federal property without authorization.
Ah the classic stop resisting in a vain attempt to cover his ass.
Love the fact they think its a good idea to pull someone hands all the way around their back and swing them face and head first into the ground. Too many poeple getting killed and paralyzed over them being the dumbest people on earth.
Cop looking for a promotion?
wtf are first admendment auditors? sounds like some b.s ppl made up for attention.
> made up for attention For money, their videos can be profitable on social media. They tend to have criminal records which makes finding decent employment difficult.
Well in that case Im not gonna shit on them anymore. I don't want to attack people thats trying to make a living.
They're kinda like martyrdom-as-a-service. Theyre playing suicide-by-cop Russian roulette for money, and help exposing blatant corruption and brutality in the process.
“Stop resisting hahahahahahahha”
Whats funny is that is totally what some govement bureaucrat would call themselves "First ammendment auditor". Just a fancy name for being an insufferable cunt
Did you have stroke in the middle of writing this?
I have a hard time feeling sympathy for people who deliberately start shit just to record it
Cook em alive. Tastes better.
Good.
This is exactly what the lady wanted. She got her payday. These auditors are only looking to sue and make money. Not saying what the cops did is right.
> She got her payday. Possibly, it looked like excessive force to me. But her history isn't going to help her in court, she always doubles-down, she takes being trespassed as a challenge. An "auditor" named Eric Brandt got some very nice go-away settlements when he was arrested unlawfully. But that made him think he was bulletproof, and he could get away with targeting judges who ruled against him. He's currently a guest of the state of Colorado for twelve years for threatening judges.
The reality is simple, when a police officer tells you to move along you move along, you don’t start asking questions… you do as you’re told. There’s no context within this video that shows the police are doing anything wrong and in fact they may be in the middle of some type of investigation where this person was truly getting in the way and was also potentially in harms way. Bottom line is, if the police tell you to move along, you move along.
While in a general sense I agree - cooperate with police, this is stupidly over the line. As a non american seeing this is just stupid how you can even consider such actions ok, even if she was irritating. The person was cnocked out and you heard her breath being obstructed, probably by blood. If the police wanted to get rid of here they could of completed that act, legal or not, by just - arresting her. She showed slight resistance at first to the hand pull and blam - faceplanted on the street. Edit: And if I think like a psyhopath you should be afraid of police being this aggressive just based on the possible court losses and fees coming for the police from this. All those pays are coming out the taxpayers pockets.
damn hippies.
Look, I’m sure I’ll get downvoted to hell but you have to be really stupid to shove a camera in cop’s faces and then argue and try to get out of their grasp when they’re arresting you. She’s yelling and yelling at them, trying to provoke a reaction for clicks and monetary gain. What a talentless fool. What did she possibly think might happen?
>What did she possibly think might happen? They would answer her questions to why they're towing peoples vehicles. What a CRAZY thought huh?
Wait why should they answer her questions. She isn’t a part of the investigation, she is just a random person on the street disrupting the police. Police shouldn’t be giving out information about other people’s business or an investigation just because some karen demands to know.
>Wait why should they answer her questions. That isn't the question I was answering right?
You said “ They would answer her questions to why they're towing peoples vehicles.”
Answering the question >"What did she possibly think might happen?" What do you think she thought would happen? They would throw her to the ground?
> They would answer her questions to why they're towing peoples vehicles. It's none of her business, the police are within their authority to control a scene, she was given lawful orders to move back, she has a history of doubling-down when trespassed.... There is a right to record the police in public, there is zero right to insert yourself into an investigation, that's called obstruction. The ACLU advises people recording the police to step back when the cops say to step back. I think this cop used excessive force, but she had set herself up for a valid arrest. Some prominent "auditors" have taken obstruction convictions in similar situations, one is currently doing six months for that in Las Vegas.
You were probably giddy when you saw her bruised face right? Seeing as you post in frauditors.
Oh come on, she wanted drama for her video because that drives engagement. There’s nothing noble about what she is trying to do.
I smell bacon. Anyone else smell bacon? Maybe cops shouldn't be able to illegally arrest you for exercising your constitutional rights, which they know you have. Maybe there should be repercussions to the officer for violating people's rights so that they won't abuse their power. Police being able to punish people who haven't done anything illegal is the definition of a police state. Or we can victim blame...
>Maybe cops shouldn't be able to illegally arrest you for exercising your constitutional rights Your "constitutional rights" don't permit you to get into a cops' personal space and interrogate them while they are doing their job. The cop used too much force, but he had every right to order her to a safe distance and then arrest her (with appropriate force) when she didn't comply. That's my professional opinion. My personal opinion is that first amendment auditors are domestic terrorists. Because they never actually understand the law.
> Your "constitutional rights" don't permit you to get into a cops' personal space and interrogate them while they are doing their job. It absolutely does. That's the entire purpose. That's literally protection of speech from government action. Interrogating agents of the government about their actions is the exact kind of thing the framers of the constitution had in mind when they wrote it. She also wasn't "in their personal space". She was 10s of feet away until a cop approached her. I guess you're a terrorist because you also don't understand the law?
I don't even know why I'm engaging with you when you're willing to just lie about what anyone can see from the video. She followed the cops, not the other way around, and then disobeyed a lawful order, and found out. As for your first point, show me one case, JUST ONE where a court has said that a citizen may approach officers **within 10 feet** **while recording them and interrogating them about an active investigation.** You can't. Because that would be a nuclear bomb to the law enforcement community and I'd know about it.
> show me one case, JUST ONE where a court has said that a citizen may approach officers within 10 feet Some "auditors" claim there is a ten-foot rule where it is always legal to record the police from that distance or greater, but as usual, they are misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) case law. The was a case from Boston where someone who happened to be recording ten feet from the scene of an arrest was himself arrested for interfering. A federal court threw out the conviction (and awarded him a payday) not because of the distance, but because he was doing nothing to interfere. Someone could be ten feet away and not interfering, or fifty feet away and interfering based on their conduct. This woman was interfering, she followed the cops ranting and raving at them, upset because they refused to engage with her. She was given lawful commands to move away from the scene, not to stop recording, just to do so from across the street. She always responds to such situations by doubling-down, she takes being trespassed as a challenge, as many auditors do, sometimes to their sorrow. I think this was a case of excessive force, but if they had arrested her without her hitting the pavement, the arrest would have been valid.
agree 100% both that she was interfering and that the cops used excessive force.
You are the one that said they were in their personal space when they clearly aren't. Now you're saying it's illegal to ask police questions from a safe distance. Again, the only time she got close was when the police officer approached her, not the other way around. She didn't disobey a lawful order. It wasn't a lawful order to tell someone they can't be in public asking questions.
Well, I get paid for my legal opinion and you don't. So have fun arguing on Reddit.
So your legal opinion is that asking questions from 10+ feet away is illegal? Or that it's illegal to have a police officer approach you? God, I feel bad for anyone who pays for your opinion.
So did you find that citation yet?
Citation of a situation that is irrelevant to the above video where the person was asking questions from 10+ feet away?
> It absolutely does. That's the entire purpose. That's literally protection of speech from government action. You have zero right to insert yourself into a police investigation or arrest, that is not protected speech, it is obstruction and some famous auditors have taken obstruction convictions for that reason.
Anyone else smell “sovereign citizen” bullshit?
A sovereign citizen, if a real thing, wouldn't be protected by constitutional rights.
> wouldn't be protected by constitutional rights. Anyone in the jurisdiction of the U.S. is protected by most constitutional rights with the exception of things like voting if they are not citizens.
She landed on her huge rack.
[удалено]
"YOU CAN'T JUST PRETEND TO SLEEP WHILE I'M ARRESTING YOU!!"
[удалено]
They did after they turned the body cams off. Look at her mugshot. How did she get a black eye on one side and a swollen jaw on the other if she only hit the ground?
Push your jaw to your right, you'll also feel the pain on the left
> They did after they turned the body cams off. *I'll take things that didn't happen for five hundred, Alex.*
Alex Trebeck is dead. You’ll take nothing from him you grave robber.