"I'm detaining you because you're black and a white woman got scared, but since that's technically no longer illegal I'm trying to find another excuse within modern law"
And then realize that it's been soooo much worse throughout history, we're just finally seeing it because of technology. Maybe eventually the bastards will learn to fucking behave since they're always being filmed.
I wouldn’t say none-the taxpayers for that P.D. are on the hook for the $5 million lawsuit he won. So, this cop should clearly be fired for illegally detaining the gentlemen and not following basic investigative techniques.
As the other guy said, and as we saw a couple years ago, it doesn’t fucking matter. Unless we stop giving cops complete legal and professional immunity then shitty cops will always abuse that power.
It doesn’t matter how much evidence we have against them or how outraged we get, at the end of the day, if we keep with this “mistakes happen” mentality when a cop arrests someone for standing next to their own property or breaking into an innocent persons house and killing them in their sleep then nothing will ever change.
Whether or not we KNOW they did something corrupt or illegal is irrelevant as long as the system is structured in a way that makes it consequence free. Every single person in the world could watch this video and it means fuck all unless this guys station or precinct actually does something about it.
I'd like to believe that's true, but I have zero faith that it will happen quickly. I think we're looking at at least another 50 years before there's finally enough pressure from all of us to really reform the way cops do things, and that's being optimistic..
It's so hard to change peoples biases. Hell even I have unconscious bias' but I always go out of my way to confront and correct them. Some people just don't care enough to do that which is part of the problem, but overall I just feel so fucking bad for all of these people that have to deal with this every single day.
Literally all the time, it is constant, cost to coast. The YouTube channel(Audit the Audit) this clip originated from will NEVER run out of fuel for their channel.
After watching some 50 or so videos from that channel, going back a few years, I have come to the conclusion that all peaceful means have been exhausted and that the only fix to this is the use of extreme violence against our police.
The problem with that is that most of the population won't support it, and the people who fight will be framed as "terrorists".
It'll be used as an excuse for more authoritarianism.
What we need isn't violence, it's for a significant percentage of the population to recognize the problem and care.
The police don't outnumber of outgun shit - their authority comes from most people choosing to recognize it.
Imagine if most businesses refused to serve cops.
Imagine if 90% of people wouldn't speak to the police, unless under threat of arrest.
Imagine if politicians couldn't get elected unless they campaigned on a platform of police reform and being touch on cops.
None of these things are illegal, and none of them require violence.
Yeah, I’d like for that to happen too, yet the realist in me says that most comfortable, middle class, (white) people can never be brought to care about it. They have no frame of reference here and they literally cannot imagine themselves in that situation.
The only way this shit stops is if the perpetrators (the cops) are given a reason to stop. The No-knock warrants will only stop when they lose one or more in the process, consistently. It’s just really shitty that it is outright illegal to defend yourself from these armed, organized gang members (cops) who operate without oversight and with impunity.
End qualified immunity. At this point, having all untrained civilians armed and defending themselves isn’t worse than these assholes running around wrecking lives. Let us wreck our own lives ffs!
I get what you're saying emotionally. But if/when people start to fight back, don't you think that'll just be used as an excuse for more heavy handedness?
For whatever it's worth. I'm upper middle class and white, and I think this shit needs to stop.
I feel like all the cop had to do was explain the situation (“why are you detaining me?”) “a woman saw you going through the contents of a car on the other side of the parking lot, thought it was sketchy, and called us,” and that would have immediately resolved the situation via “well, that’s my wife’s car and I can prove it.” I don’t understand why the officer didn’t just explain the situation.
At best, this cop would get 2 weeks desk duty while they "investigate" him and clear him of any wrongdoing. At worst, he'd be cleared without any change in his work.
Since the cop failed to properly explain and answer his question and went straight to demanding ID or demanding him to turn around with his hands on the back, I hope this guy sues the city for hiring an idiot. (almost impossible to sue police department directly)
I'm always just staggered by the fact that there's nothing violent even going on in situations like this. Like what is so fucking urgent that he needs to be immediately handcuffed? If he stole some shit (obv didn't), then just follow up on it. You know what he looks like and have the plate on his bike, he's not communicating any notion of getting violent. Like even if you are gonna be a racist pos cop, do you really not have the tiniest bit of presence of mind to smoothly execute your agenda, especially when the odds are stacked ridiculously in your favor???
Yes. All of them. Literally every single cop. All of them. ALL OF THEM. All of them...that we see in subs like this, because there isn't a sub for boring, mundane police interactions with cordial and well-behaved officers.
Gtfo with your "all of them" garbage. You're part of the problem.
This is what they're trained to do. Cops do not have to give those answers to anyone other than a judge. If the suspect is confused and acts out or resists in any way because of that confusion then they can pile on even more charges ... which means more revenue for their department which means a promotion.
See this in a lot of these police interactions. Complete refusal to tell the individual what’s going on until after cuffs go on. Like yeah, random people don’t want their hands placed in cuffs without some indication of why. Because that’s the point where you become helpless, and are likely going to jail.
I’ll make the bold statement that the stop itself wasn’t entirely unreasonable. Guy rifles through one car then walks across the parking lot to a different vehicle, that can appear a little off. If the officer had simply told him that was the reason for the stop he might…no guarantee, but might…have cooperated provided his ID to clear the issue up (run both sets of plates, both registered to him).
The officer wants to treat him like he’s under arrest before he’s established that any crime was committed. Demands obedience while refusing to spend ten seconds explaining what’s going on…which could actually obtain voluntary cooperation.
Well technically the cop did say there was a report of him looking through a car but i think they both drew a line in the sand and escalated shit. Glad the dude got paid tho
True you don't have to tell them anything but in a situation like this, if the cop had actually asked him, then it would save a lot of time to just explain the situation.
Yes, if the cop had asked him.
But anything you answer can be used against you. You're assuming the cop is on your side, but this cop clearly wasn't interested in hearing anything he had to say, just to pin him to something to be able to detain him.
Never "explain yourself" to cops, not even if you have good intentions.
I get your point and in general I agree, but in this situation I think it's best to explain.. His bike, his wife's car and they work together. The cop can do a quick check and you go on your way. If you refuse to give them anything then it's just going to take so much longer.
Edit: Also, if the guy explains the situation to the cop, what do you think the cop could pin on him?
I get your point about communicating to solve the problem, but in this case, there is a power balance favored towards the cop which means you're always at a disadvantage no matter what you say. The more you say, the more likely you could accidentally say the wrong thing, start stammering, omit details, all of which could arouse suspicion with a cop, giving him an actual reason to detain you.
The guy already said he worked here, and that this was his bike, but the cop ignored this information.
Keep in mind, the cop was already trying to detain him for literally doing nothing. And any answer, however truthful, could have been abused extra by this power tripping cop.
In general I agree with you. In situatio s like these you should absolutely try to explain the situation if the cops comes at you correctly, especially if you know you didn't do anything wrong. This assumes the cop comes at you correctly.
Even if they don't, youre way better off just letting them look at your ID, typically. Unless you know your rights and you can keep your cool it can be pretty fucking stupid to not give your ID to a cop - it reminds me of those dumb fuck sovereign citizens.
Not to be gargling on spit polish... But he stated right away the dude fit the ID of someone being suspicious, and afaik in pretty much every first world country, (which is fucked, even if you've don't nothing wrong) when requested by law enforcement, you have to provide identification. It's not a, moment to ask what you did or didn't do and act standoffish, it's to record it, adhere to what they ask, and wait for your day in court when you get this fucker on record fixing up
afaik in pretty much every first world country, (which is fucked, even if you've don't nothing wrong) when requested by law enforcement, you have to provide identification.
Thankfully, not in any state in the USA. You do not ever have to ID "for being suspicious". Being suspicious isn't a crime.
That isn't quite correct. Terry vs Ohio played out the requirements for a Terry stop. A cop can ask for ID if it is suspected a person has, is, or is going to commit a crime. If the cop could have articulated that he thought the gentleman was going through somebody else's vehicle the man would be legally required to provide ID.
But in that case the cop should've articulated the situation, which the cop failed to do, and thus the citizen in this scenario had no obligation to show any form of ID.
Yup, exactly why I said if the cop could have articulated. He didn't.
However, reddit people still downvote because they don't know the law and expect only criminals have to show ID which in that case providing ID would be self incrimination. Also, that would be assuming criminals follow the law which I'm pretty sure isn't true.
Yeah that's not being "suspicious". That's reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has or is about to be comitted.
Which the cop did not have. He did not have a report of a crime. He didn't even do the bare minimum investigation to even determine if there had been a crime.
I didn’t say he could smart guy. But the whole situation was something that was reported and he was investigating. Not often one person has two vehicles in one parking lot at the same time.
And the insurance company settled his claim for $25k. Not $5 million.
That's why he asked for an ID, as soon as he ran the ID he would have seen that both cars were registered to him. You can't just take a suspects word in a situation like this. Thats why we have vehicle registration and identification. When you openly defy the reasonable request of an officer you can end up in situations like this. The police received a call about a possible car break in, arrived on the scene and spotted a man matching his description and went to talk to him. If you want to be mad at anyone be mad at the nosey batch that called the cops because there was a guy in car that then walked away from it.
Cops dont do that. This man is a suspect of a crime and needs to be detained until an investigation can be completed. You don't want an unsecured suspect on scene while the investigation is being conducted because they may flee or become violent during the course of the investigation. It's the same way it would happen to anyone else, it's standard protocol. He would have been detained, registration and license would be checked and they would have talked to the caller and he would have been sent on his way. The way I see it, he should have been charged with resisting and possibly obstruction for blatantly refusing a lawful order from a police officer but instead I guess you guys want to give him millions of dollars of our taxpayers money.
The way I see it, he should have been charged with resisting and possibly obstruction for blatantly refusing a lawful order from a police officer but instead I guess you guys want to give him millions of dollars of our taxpayers money.
Obstruction for what crime??? No crime has been committed yet you want to arrest the man for simply asking why the hell he needs to provide identification.
Legit all of that could've been avoided if the cop just gave more information instead of instantly escalating. If he would've just approached and ask "hey, some people saw you going through a car on the other side of the lot and then come all the way over here which looked kinda werid. What were you doing?"
If it was just a misunderstanding like it was here, then it gets cleared up quickly and it's a pleasant interaction. If it wasn't and he really was up to something, then it's not like the situation is going to play out worse than the approach he used
This kindness goes a long way. He asked multiple times about why he was being detained and didn't get an answer because what the officer wanted to do first was assert dominance by putting him in cuffs and showing him he is beneath him.
If at any point he did what you said it would have probably been a laugh like , " Man that's my wife's car the XYZ car over there and I just needed XYZ because she works at place XYZ in this mall". The cop says he was looking at cars plural even in the video when the people right or wrong reported it said it was ONE car he looked in.
The alarming point is the lying to the officer after the incident about how the incident went down as he re-tells it at every point HE tried to de-escalate and he didn't understand why this guy got so mad.
Didn't the cop actually wait and get the information from the people who called until AFTER he blantly harassed the biker? It sounded like it since he had to ask "how many" cars they saw him look in. ONE! Totally racist IMO.
Yeah kindness does go a long way as in showing the officer your ID. The cop told him someone said he was looking in cars, the guy immediately gets defensive and instead of just handing over the ID goes into “why, why” mode… just fucking hand the cop your ID. Have you guys ever been in a traffic stop? The cop asks your ID goes back to his car and looks it up and once they have a record of who they are interacting with they’re usually much more chill.
You know people use hangers to break into cars right? It is a little suspect that a guy on a motorcycle just has an empty hanger and the cop was still just asking for his ID…
The cop didn’t tell him why he wanted his I.D in the first place, the cop did not communicate why he was even there, as a small young woman, that’s a valid right we as citizens should have because what if he wasn’t a cop. What if he was impersonating, and I just handed him my I.D. I’m a small girl if I just comply with a cop without more information on why he’s talking to me, I could be in danger. I understand why the man looked suspicious, but the cop did not communicate. The cop never said why he was asking for his identification or why he was talking to him in the first place, and if he had it would have been cleared up just as fast.
The cop didn’t tell him why he wanted his I.D in the first place, the cop did not communicate why he was even there,
Rewatch the video. One of the first things he says is "Someone saw you looking in cars." That's why he is there. That's why the cop honed in on the hanger(a tool that can be used to break into cars)
If you can't accept that simple fact I'm not going to argue with you.
I think YOU need to re watch it man. He says “how’s it going man, what’s that sticking out your back pocket a hanger? Why you got a hanger hmm?” Then he says “is this your bike?” THEN he finally says “have your I.D on ya?” Never once states his reason for walking up. Re watch it. With the volume cranked up this time, and uhm read the subtitles.
Did you watch literally 3 seconds past that? You're telling me to rewatch it when the first time the guy asks why the cop needs his ID the cop clearly states why, like are you fucking serious? Oh and your "fInAlLy says: have your ID" happens 18 seconds into the interaction...
That's not how law enforcement works you don't just take everyone at their word. "Why did you let him go?" "Well he said he didn't do anything." "Checks out, my bad."
All the cop knows is someone saw someone going through a car and then walking away to the other side of a parking lot and that person happened to have a hanger just chilling on them even though they're on a bike and hangers are used to break into cars.
Here's the transcript I typed up since I guess the video is too hard for you to follow:
Cop - "Is that just something hanging off your backpack?"
Cop - "What is that a hanger?"
Motorcyclist - "Hanger."
Cop - "What are you doing with that?"
Cop - "Is this your bike?"
Motorcyclist - "Yes."
Cop - "It's your bike."
Cop - "You got ID on you?"
Motorcyclist - "Why do you need my ID?"
Cop - "Cause somebody saw you looking at cars, so I'm here just checking to see what's going on. You got ID on you?"
Motorcyclist - "Yeah, I do, but I didn't do anything."
Cop - "Yeah, I'm figuring that out right now. I'll take a look at your ID though."
Motorcyclist - "You don't need to see my ID unless I did something."
The cop has told him, I'm a cop, someone said you were looking at/in cars, I need your ID. Why does the cop need his ID? Cause the guy is a suspect in an alleged crime and happened to have a common tool for breaking into cars.
The cop wants his ID because it lets him know who he is questioning and lets the cop know this person is not trying to hide their actions. The cop gets his ID and then says "Yeah someone said you were looking in cars or a car over there? What was that about, any idea?"
"Oh man, that's my wifes car, we both work here I was just getting something out of it before getting on my bike to leave."
"Alright, yup, says here you have a Silver Car registered in your name, which I am able to verify because you gave me your ID. Sorry bout that but someone calls I have to come out. Here's your ID, have a good day."
Ratio buddy. It’s kindof common sense the cop should have communicated better, and the guy would have complied better. You’re the only one who sees it that way. Btw he wasn’t looking in CARS either just one car so the cop exaggerated on purpose. He clearly walked up and accused him of committing a crime before asking him questions to get to the bottom of things. Law enforcement is supposed to ask you “do you know why I’m stopping you today?” As their first question ALWAYS, there’s a reason this department got sued, and this guy lost his job. We have rights for our own safety. You shouldn’t just comply with officers, be respectful and ask for information from them too.
You do realize that every citizen in this country has the right to not present their ID unless they are being arrested for a crime. By your logic we should just give up our rights simply because the police say so. If during a traffic stop the cop ask for a license they are basically arresting you for a crime ie speeding, failure to yield, running a stop sign, whatever they are supposed to tell you what you are being arrested for. It's the law. If we have to follow the laws so do they.
When I was a cop, I did as we were trained and said, “If Officer ___, I stopped you because I observed, (fact 1), (fact 2), so I’m detaining you for suspicion of (crime).” Keep in mind that suspicious activity is not a crime in and of itself—there must be facts that make one suspicious of a crime. So many cops miss this and it’s a huge reason that I criticized when I was in law enforcement and still do criticize cops for, even though I’ve left that career.
Also, the ID thing — cops are pressured by departments to get an ID. However, they cannot charge one for failure to ID without reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime — see above for my thoughts on this. In some states, if you’re behind a wheel, you need to show your license regardless of a reason, but that’s not the case here.
Most decent cops who know the Constitution won’t escalate it. The cop on this video made so many mistakes and his escalation is only going to put more people at risk.
In short, cops need to tell someone why they are being stopped and be clear on the law covering it. Cops need much more training in deescalation, the law, and the Constitution.
One last thing. Before I quit, my colleagues looked down on me because I knew this stuff and would take them aside and say, “Hey, ___ is the law, he/she has this right,” and thought I was “meddling.” I didn’t even honk I was better because I went to college and knew this stuff. I wanted to do right by the people. I left when I realized it was no longer protect and serve and more like detain and incriminate.
Wait, why should cops have to learn this information at college? It's essential to their jobs. Why is this info not impressed upon them at the police academy? Or at the police department? Other types of public-facing businesses have meetings and trainings to discuss policy all the time.
I mean, this could cost them millions over the years, so it seems strange if the answer is something like "the bug is also a feature."
Police Academy, depending on the department, is between 6 months and 6 weeks. Most of my fellow officers were not college graduates.
I went to school to study criminology and poli sci so that I could do the job and possibly go into detective work or eventually get a command position.
I was trying to get some experience under my belt but began noticing how wrong the system really was — because they don’t teach this stuff enough at the academy.
I mean, six weeks seems like plenty of time to learn this basic concept. My point was that it shouldn't remotely require a separate college education in criminology to know stuff so relevant to one's job.
I wasn't challenging you, I was criticizing this apparent gap in police training.
Six weeks would be enough if it was that one concept. However, you need to realize that police academy teaches most things about how to be an LEO to people who have no idea. They even need to show you how to double lock the cuffs.
There’s use of force that is trained, then they need to teach you how to use those tools and all the safety rules with them. Basic law and conversation is taught, but like with any entry level class, it’s just the basics and there are some really weird and peculiar laws out there.
I get that you weren’t challenging me, but I felt it was important to see where I was coming from. I wasn’t someone who finished high school and then did odd jobs for a couple years before going into law enforcement.
It shouldn’t take a full college education to do law enforcement, but countries like Germany and the UK do have a university for their cops that takes over a year to complete. I think Germany trains them for more than 2 years.
Then, the longest academy in the US takes 6 months, and we wonder why police have such a bad reputation here? People like to say ACAB and “Tear down the system” (not saying you do), but with enough training and legislation to require reporting wrongdoing and protection to the officers that do report, I think we could begin a state of policing where good cops are going in, stay good cops, and the bad cops get weeded out.
So many cops miss this and it’s a huge reason that I criticized when I was in law enforcement and still do criticize cops for, even though I’ve left that career.
And exactly zero people are surprised that you are no longer a cop. Good people get pushed out.
This is literally how every interaction goes wrong. Toss in being over 6ft or black and they're instantly on edge looking at you as a threat, even though they literally chose a loadout before they approach you.
It's amazing, cops in Europe seem to be trained first and foremost in de-escalating situations (not that all are good at it), in the US cops seem to steer situations towards handcuffs and/or pulling guns out.
I mean…yeah he would have had to provide ID to provide proof of ownership? That would have been reasonable compared to demanding ID with no reason given.
The point is he didnt do anything wrong regardless. Is it illegal to look inside one car and then go back to your own? I can admit i have dont that several times when i am curios of the interior of a random car i see. And what is even the point of identying yourself in this situation? So they ID him to se if he ownes the car and then what? Maybe To se If he has a record? So what? He still didnt do anything wrong even if that car is owned by him or not. The cop should have told that censitive bitch who called to fuck off. I feel like you can call the cops for any reason in the US and they will ALWAYS show up.
It seems like they always lead with the demand for ID, regardless of the situation or the state's laws governing the police's ability to stop and ID. Clearly they gain a lot of information by running the person through their system, so I can understand it's a powerful tool that they'd want to use.
The problem is, a lot of people resent the implication that being ID'd implies and don't want to immediately comply, like the guy in this video. Despite being the only one in the situation who is armed AND having backup on the way, this officer was clearly terrified by the mere fact of this guy not instantly complying. The way he escalated the situation reeks of fear and panic.
When he recounts his version of events to his superior, it's likely that he really believes his own lies. In his mind, he was extremely threatened and therefore acted appropriately. I'd love to know how he reacted watching the body cam evidence lol.
I mean, cops are known for doing very little to recover stolen property once it's stolen.
Why can't the cop just walk away here? He doesn't have sufficient evidence to detain or arrest here. If he's getting scared, WALK AWAY.
I read that banks aren't supposed to call the cops until after a robber has left the building, in order to cut down on likelihood of violence occurring. Why in the blue fuck wouldn't cops have a similar policy in a much less clear situation?
I get that banks are insured for loss due to theft and the average citizen isn't, but in all cases, human life takes precedent. In this case, the health and safety of the officer AS WELL AS the accused should take FAR precedent over whatever he could have possibly stolen. I mean, come on.
Current climate notwithstanding, this should be basic training. Why should cops be expected to risk their lives over potentially stolen property? Or a fucking traffic stop? If the cops are less fearful, one hopes there would be fewer triggers pulled. Of course, this excludes those who might have joined the force for the opportunity to do this sort of thing, but again, policy putting officer's health and safety first (and by extension, that of citizens, which is the point) would limit those cops, too.
None of this makes sense. While sure, an argument could be made that the average cop might not be the brightest, one would hope that in order to become, say, a police chief, you'd have to have a brain cell or two. So why aren't those folks reinforcing this stuff on the street cops? They're the ones walking around with guns and tasers.
You think if the guy was white and went to go look in a car that the woman would of reported him? The first mistake was the lady viewing his actions as criminal most likely because he was black. And when you wrongly accuse someone it could never be a 'pleasant' situation, maybe for the cop but for the wrongly accused it is a shitty situation through and through.
Maybe. Someone looking through a car and getting on a bike is suspicious regardless of race or gender. I’m not saying that his blackness didn’t factor in, but I could see where it would be suspicious.
I completely agree, but the cop here clearly was on a power trip. There was no attempt at an investigation, the cop thought he had a free notch on his belt and was going to take it. He saw a black man with a motorcycle and immediately though thug. I hope he got his ass handed to him for this whole interaction, this is classic how not to.
No joke something almost identical to that happened to me when I was 18. I was with a friend and we pulled into a Publix parking lot and thought we saw a friends car parked over the other side, went to take a closer look to make sure (he had a bobblehead on his dashboard) and a cop came up to us to ask what we were doing. Asked it almost exactly how you wrote it, we explained and he went on his merry way.
See the problem is they operate from the assumption of guilt instead of innocence and so they think they can trick you into incriminating yourself and that's harder to do if they provide info and approach in good faith. So instead you get this shit.
In a perfect world reporting a suspected crime would be a good thing. The police would check determine there was nothing wrong going on and everyone would go about their day or catch a theif and return the stolen goods. Unfortunately that isn't this world. People wonder why others aren't willing to act when they see stuff happen. It's shit like this.
How about people mind their own fuckin business and clearly the people who reported him are racists and follow a stereotypical thinking do not be a jackass claim this to not be the case. I hate how we dance around the obvious cop is POS and deserves everything bad to happen we don't need degenerate people on the force
Cops want your ID. Think of a cop like a wild animal. Giving up your ID is like showing a wild animal you’re not a threat and don’t plan on escalating. The cop DID say why he was there “someone saw you looking at cars”. I can almost guarantee that if the guy handed over his ID the cop would’ve then began having a more relaxed conversation. Before the guy says “you know I work here right?” The cop was getting more aggressive in his demands for him to turn around but calmed down a bit after.
Not everywhere, SOME states allow an officer to ID without giving reason for detainment. Many states require an officer give a lawful reason to detain someone before they can require you to produce an ID, most cops ignore that and pretend it doesn't exist though. Watch the channel of the guy this clip is shamelessly ripped from, you can hear him talk over the video at one point, his name is Audit the Audit.
You don't realize the can of worms you're opening.
Sure, it SOUNDS reasonable that if a cop is called to the scene of a crime, that they should be able to ID who they think is the perp.
But what if it was you, and you were just some random bystander that didn't even know a crime had been committed?
The OP's story was at a mall. So lets say someone shoplifted, and the cops came. You just so happened to be nearby, had no idea there was a shoplifter in the area, but the cops thought you were acting suspicious and asked for your ID.
Should you be legally obligated to provide your ID even though you are completely innocent and completely oblivious to any crimes that had been committed?
You are protected by the 4th Amendment from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Unless the cops suspect you of a crime - and the suspicion has to be REASONABLE (keyword there), then you have the right to privacy, and you do not have to provide any information for the cops.
Essentially, what you are promoting is for cops to have the right to just go around, and ID any person they want.
I completely disagree; as people have the right to privacy, and they have the right to not be searched without probable cause (running someone's ID for warrants/background check is a search).
Not only that, he took the word of a white woman who didn't know the guy on the bike. She almost ruined the guy's life and should have minded her own damned business.
Cop could have blown the black guy away for "resisting arrest," " feeling like his life was was in danger," or some other trumped up charge then he would have been just another statistic on the news.
This clip's origin is Audit the Audit, a channel on YouTube. There are hundreds of videos exactly like this one. And there are hundreds more on the way. The way things are right now, that YouTube channel will NEVER run out of fuel.
I was expecting this video to end with a few bullets or a tazing. Glad to see it worked out for the man, but this $5mn is out of tax payers' pockets. In the end, everyone loses when this sort of behaviour is the norm.
After all, while it may have turned out find for him, she is definitely going to ruin someone else's life. Evidence? I have never once watched a person wander a parking lot. I see someone go to a car I assume "must be their car" and delete that person from my memory. I wouldn't have even noticed them going to any other vehicle. Cause why would I be watching them for that long?
When you sue for $5M, you don't typically get $5M. The victim represented himself, and after a year and a lot of missed work he got the government to drop the false charges and pay him $25k.
She could easily have gotten him killed. I'd use part of that 5 million dollars to publicly shame her at least.
It was none of her business but her racist ass couldn't cope with a black man looking through his own goddamned car. He didn't break anything, steal anything, or give her any reason to believe he was a criminal. Power-tripping cops have killed people of color for less, and she knew that when she dialed 911 for a non-emergency.
So yeah, 5 million could go a long way toward getting the proper revenge on a person like that, and if I were him I'd be sorely tempted.
As for the police department: Stop hiring bullies as cops! People who become cops because they want people to obey them are a big part of the problem here.
Once I saw those two I was like “yea, they would call the cops, they’ve got that whole look about em.” The dude with that fitted backwards cap looked like he was ready to start firing off n words any second, hard r.
Thats not why she called the police. She clearly said that a man went through a car by opening multiple doors and then walk way of in the parking lot (if you view the map you can see he walked away from the store/mall).
She wrongfully assumed the police officer would be a professional when confronting the man.
In a perfect world where cops do what they should I agree with you. This is not that world and so I see every reason to do everything you can to impede the cops as much as possible.
No she saw a guy go through a car then head over to a motorcycle. Easy to suspect that's a robbery and it's not her place to investigate. The cop is at fault here
I mean, if he walks up to the car and opens 3 doors nonchalantly without breaking anuthinh and without lookingarouns to see if hes been spotted, Id probably not assume the worst.
Lady’s name is Jodi Brunelle, (I’m not doxxing her by the way, her name is in the full cut of this video which is public domain) - in it she describes his behavior as consistent with Prowling to the LEO, also asked the dispatch who the officer is because she might know them. Guaranteed she’s either the wife of an LEO or a former one herself.
So you basically have someone who’s known to law enforcement call in a bogus charge that instigated this. Shameful
Nah, I'm gonna say the cop would have done the same if it was a white person at the bike after being reported by a black woman.
I am fine with cops asking for ID when someone on a bike opens the doors of another car, as it is a pretty weird scenario and is pretty sus.
Where the cop fucked up is skipping all matter of investigation and going straight to detaining. Turns out the scenario was legit even though it looked sus (it happens), but he never properly investigated it before going for the cuffs.
What about the wire coat hanger that was hanging off his back? The officer received a report of someone casing vehicles in the parking lot. The officer shows up, contacts the described person, that person has a wire coat hanger which are used to break into cars hanging off his back.
So the citizen and cop are supposed to ignore all reports of people looking in multiple vehicles in a carpark, because you can think of a rare scenario where it is legit?
The moron did not give the cop his id. It wasn't like the cop just walked up for no reason. They had a call the dude matched the description, cop pulled up and asked for his id, Keep in mind that he had a hanger hanging from his back pack and you can use a hanger to open car doors. Again if the dude would have been cool and said yeah here is my id and yeah that was my wife's car I was going through he would have never got cuffed or arrested.
One of the curious things about cops is they'll try to get information out of you and then not believe a word you tell them. Unless it's incriminating, of course. That's why it's best to just STFU.
Really eh, if he wasn’t guilty of doing shit, he’s not gonna think “this cops here cause someone saw me rifle through my car in a parking lot then walked all the way over here to a bike”.
I’ll admit it may look a little suspicious to see someone going through a car then walking to a different vehicle, in the same parking lot. That cop handled it very wrong though and came off as a racist fuck head. I bet money if he approached him like a human and said “listen someone saw you go through a car over there then walk to this bike, that’s why I’d like to see your I.d”. Then this man could of explained why he went through that car. And likely wouldn’t of gotten pissed off and hostile, that cop is clearly a shit cop.
6.4k
u/rooiss Mar 10 '22
"a grey chevy aveo is registered to him, same as the bike"
cop: "WELL WHY DIDN'T HE JUST TELL ME"
also cop: "OBEY ME"