If you ask me, they should get rid of qualified immunity and instead allow penalties to complaints made in bad faith. BUT The standard for proving that should be high enough that someone's going to be on the hook for perjury if they get caught lying about it.
I believe in a good faith standard if these man babies can't do their job if they're so afraid everything they do could get them sued or w/e then at least let them have this only when it can be proven they were acting in good faith. They clearly weren't here
@@shentino you can't get "rid" of qualified immunity, it's not a law or rule but the inevitable conclusion that any sovereign government is only beholden to themselves and can not be forced to take actions against their own interest, basically the government and any person acting in there capacity is by default beyond reproach of the law since they are themselves the government, the only laws that can exist are once to limit that default situation, you can not get rid of it you can simply limit when it can be used(and to be honest it's less limiting when qualified immunity can be used and more increasing the cases where it can't be used)
Qualified immunity is a made up thing. Under 18 USC 241 and 242, it allows and mandates the removal of the servant from their position. There is no statute that grants qualified immunity.
Without body camera footage this man would have been convicted solely on the testimony of all 6 officers. God bless technology and police being held accountable. Edit: they should all be placed on the Brady list.
I wish Congress would pass a federal law requiring cameras for all arrests. There is a somewhat famous, Polk Co, Florida sheriff whose officers make an enormous number of arrests, and the sheriff has press conferences on a bi-weekly, if not weekly, basis. He is very dramatic in the press conferences when presenting the info regarding his investigations and arrests. He posts these pressers on YT, and from what he says, almost every comment is positive about him. Now, I worked on one of his arrested defendant's cases, and I was stunned to find no video in discovery. I found out he refuses to allow any of his officers to wear body-cams. I felt in my brain and from my instincts that this defendant was telling us the truth but it contradicted the statements of two officers. There is no doubt in my mind that he has ruined a few lives on people that were actually innocent of the charges -- of course, many, if not most, take pleas. Body-cams should not be optional.
Yeah, It is ridiculous. In today's world of 1tb MicroSD cards and lithium ion batteries, there is no reason why any law enforcement officer should be on the clock and no being recorded
@@B_BodziakI know! I saw a video recently of Judd's deputies putting their foot into the doorway to prevent a resident from closing his door. They had no search warrant and the person they were looking for did not live there. They held his door open and eventually yanked him out of his house and arrested him. Only footage available us that of another resident who recorded the encounter. I was once a big fan of that sheriff but learning that he won't allow body cameras in his department just SCREAMS corruption
STEVE HAS INFORMED ALL THAT LEGALLY CORRECT, IS NOT PHYSICAL LAW. FEELINGS OF ??? TYPES OF LIVED HUMAN EXPERIENCES IS OVER LAWED FEELINGS OF A RANDOM JURY.
This can also be a tactic to remove someone from a situation a let all parties concerned "cool off". In this case the Fair Director should have been threatened with arrest for interference of an officer or harassment.
Yes, I saw the video. He should be in the lawsuit. 42 USC 1983 states, “Every person who…under color of any …custom, or usage, …causes to be subjected, …thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law,…” Since his complaints and calls to the police resulted in the action, he can be held liable, and I say he should be. The only way people are going to learn to keep their noses on their faces and out of the affairs of others, is to hold them accountable.
The fair director is presumably an employee of some municipality. A privately run fair can restrict the speech (including a shirt) of attendees, but a government operated fair has very limited power to restrict speech. The guy could potentially sue the municipality for infringing his 1st amendment rights.
@@TheBooban Symantics. The constitution by definition defines what the government can and cannot do. So by that definition, you only have free speech in regards to what the government can do. It does not restrict private companies activities except when other rulings and laws state otherwise.
@@TheBooban Not at all how that works. Private parties are fully within their rights to prohibit specific elements of speech on their properties. If you are removing someone because of something they've said, their presence is only restricted once they violate restrictions on the speech itself. If your presence is permitted, then revoked due to something you've done, theyre not "restricting your presence", theyre restricting the behavior that got you kicked out.
SO TRUE... #1 things cops should know, "When they can arrest someone"...that is part of their job they can do everyday and one they cannot mess up. False Arrest can DESTROY someones life.
Not just false arrest. Also false accusations that lead to false arrest. It happened to me, and I am still dealing with it. I can not get a job, or even housing assistance due to my felony charge. The charges against me were dropped by the DA at the start of my arraignment deposition. I am having to hire an attorney again to help me obtain a copy of my court docket. So, that I can clear my name, and get my record expunged. The worst of it is that I can not even sue the person that filed the false charges against me. For filing a false police report, and defamation of character. Due to the fact that the statue of limitations ran out. Even though I was found not guiltily and the charges against me were dropped.
@@VickyGeagan That sucks. Need to file the civil suit, but put it on hold until criminal charges are resolved. That way it is filed within the statute of limitations. Sorry you missed it.
Their number one job is to uphold the constitution. They all put their hand on a Bible and swore too do so. Seems like they are more worried about making arrests no matter what. There are no good cops anymore because the system will not allow it, communities make too much money off of police making arrests, they wouldn’t stand for a good cop.
A couple of years ago, a Texas Ranger was fired when he pulled his weapon on a man that displayed an insulting digit while both were on the road. The Ranger was off duty and in an unmarked car. Never a dull moment here in Waco Texas.
Some cop in his own car tried to pass me unsafely in a lane merge, I didn't shoot the finger or show a fist, but I said something with an expression, I doubt he could read lips, but he shook his finger and head at me and got on his radio, but I went my way and never heard anything about it, he was so rude and driving aggressively. Hurst Texas.
Even a first year law student can tell you that flipping off a cop is not illegal. And unfortunately for this cop, *ignorance of the law is not an excuse!!!!!*
You know what's really terrifying about this? The bill of rights was almost never a thing, as many of the founding fathers didn't think that constitutionally protecting the rights of the people was needed... We should be overjoyed that several state representatives at the constitutional congress refused to ratify the constitution until citizens' rights were protected.
They were the tinfoil hat paranoid of their day and thank God for them. The reason the others thought that the bill of rights was unnecessary was because they thought the people would be stacking bodies by now.
@@frankney8284 I won't support that but I know at times it seems like it would get the point across. Back in the late 1800's a number of mining camps were overrun by thieves, swindlers, card cheats, and murderers. The solution was to establish a Vigilante Committee and hang or run out of camp the forementioned people. Virginia City, NV had one and they did a pretty good job of cleaning up the mining camp.
The founding fathers weren't protecting average people with The Bill of Rights, they were only protecting male land owners which were the only people who could vote back then. Hell, It didn't even protect women until the 20th Century.
@Carl Menger Their was a bit more to it than that. Outside of a handful of forward thinking men, most of the early pols were wealth paranoid asses who thought the poor were going to "take" their land and leave them destitute if you gave them any power at all.
Qualified Immunity has been getting chiseled away at all over the country, it just doesn't make the news because the news only exists to piss us off these days. @_@
ESPECIALLY, in regards to unlawful arrests. Of course, police officers should know what is and what isn't lawful. Just remember, that this only pertains to one case in Michigan.
A long time ago, my friend who grew up in Denver, told me him and some buddies drove by a policeman and his friend in the back seat decided to flip off the policeman. The next thing that happened was the police officer turned on his lights and pulled them over. The officer walked up to the car and looked at the kid who shot him the bird and said to him next time you wave to me please use all five fingers. The officer than went back to his car and left.
Steve, I liked the bit where you quoted "look at these thugs with badges behind me, how many is there? You mother-FFers, six bitch-ass Effing pigs, Effing thugs with guns, don't uphold the constitution. F all of you, you dirty rat bastards, F-ing thieves, F-ing thugs, thugs with badges." I'm going to have to make myself a T-shirt with all that on it.
I like it. The polieman didn't over react to the rudeness and sent a somewhat humourous message back in way which didn't cause resentment - but still sent the message.
Ehh he overreacted pulling them over. A normal citizen doesn’t get to get out of their vehicle and tell someone what they think if they get flipped off by another driver. Same standards should apply to police
Main issue should be, that all police that lose qualified immunity, should never have their attorneys fee's paid for by tax payers. Would be far less of these type cases if that were the case.
The fair decision is, the officer gets suspended. But the government has insurance, so I assume they don't give a rats ass what happens. The only way for this to change is to have better cops arrest the bad ones.
Yes. require the cops to carry malpractice insurance, with the rate determined by their individual history. The bad apples will price themselves into a different job.
@@svenjorgensenn8418 - The fair decision is the officers are terminated and forced to pay any settlement out of their own pockets, NOT the taxpayers. Since that won’t happen, the award should be large enough to bankrupt the city - that way an unmistakable message would be sent to these Jack-booted tyrants. The fairgrounds manager also should be terminated.
@@bradcrosier1332 Your own statement makes little sense. You want the police to be held accountable for the wrongful arrest, which is fair but what if you made a mistake at work and you were financially liable for a huge sum of money by making 1 mistake, in which no one was harmed but jailed for some number of days. You think that it is fair to bankrupt a city where you live that everyone around you should suffer for your one mistake at work? There are tons of 1st amendment auditors on social media sites but they are hunting for lawsuits, encouraging and greatly rewarding this kind of behavior cannot have a good outcome. Either police are going to be granted for power by the state or less power and there could be a day when you call for help and no one is coming.
@@davidclay3737 like doctors? One mistake can cost you a reputation, a practice, your license, and a huge judgment. What about the reputation, career and possibly the family of the wrongly accused? What if he was involved in a custody dispute and lost substantial access to a child due to the cops mistake?
The guy running the fair, as Steve mentioned, actually said "I'm not having this at MY fair" and proceeded to be a complete tyrant. The videos on TH-cam show that clearly. He was the major factor in escalating this into an arrest.
@@timdowney6721 cops know that they are the law, their training tells them as much, and that they can legally do whatever they like and are immune from prosecution...
@@timdowney6721 sometimes cops seem to forget about law enforcement, and act as feelings enforcers instead. They attempt to convert upset/hurt feelings into laws being broken. If a citizen questioned it, sometimes the cops do the right thing, and be Pease officers. Other times though they attempt to trespass people from a public building, because an employee says they're uncomfortable. Totally ridiculous.
@@rcpilot179 True. The reaction of the police in this case is very similar to that of the Russian police who are arresting people just for attempting to say anything about the "war" or the military operation in the Ukraine. We shouldn't want to emulate anything which Putin's government does unless we want to throw away our Republic and become another authoritarian country.
Well yeah absolutely, but the police don't have have to follow orders from the public to arrest people. They need to be driven by the law not some petty tyrant.
Qualified Immunity is a substitute for Sovereign Immunity. It is past it's expiration date and no person should be given immunity for their wrongful actions. I also think that the system of Civil and Criminal Law that we have extends to prior to Hamarabi's Code, I think it was the land of Ur and their laws. It is almost as old as dirt. It needs to be revised so that minor incidents need not be handled as criminal with all that entails. We need something beside Criminal and Civil.
Qualified immunity should be replaced with an immunity that covers warrants and probable cause ONLY. In those cases te real culprit would be the court system. everywhere else -- I think the cops have forgotten that they are CIVILIANS.
That's why they do all the stupid s*** that they do because they think they can do what they want to whoever they want whenever they want until until they start losing their paychecks and their houses and their cars for their stupidity I promise you I promise you as soon as they start losing money personally there behavior will change
If I got selected for jury duty and stayed on as a juror in a case like this I would be highly upset. Wasting people's valuable time over cops ego is ridiculous. I would award the man a good amount of money.
I doubt the cops ego had much to do in this case. They were escorting him out and at the demand of the manager of the fair ended up arresting him. Still a bad arrest and shouldn’t happen, but the complaint from the manager to their department for not doing their job also holds a lot of weight unfortunately. Better training all around is needed.
I'd award him the damages due for anyone wrongfully imprisoned for however long he was in lockup, and his attorney's fees, and $100. And that's it. It was self-inflicted, but that is no excuse for law enforcement overstepping their arrest authority.
@@WntBorn last time I checked a fair director doesn't have power to arrest anyone, that's no excuse for these tyrants not knowing the constitution and law.
@@SirBrass Agreed. This should NOT even be ALLOWED to go to Trial, because it's a clear cut win. No matter what. Period. Trials are for when things more evidence, but also when things are meddled and subjective. There was NOTHING Subjective about this. This was FULLY Recorded, from start to finish, and a clear cut case of Constitutional First Right Violation. Period. The cause should be over right then and there, Cops guilty and guy won, give him his reward. There is literally no reason for a Trial to exist.
This is what happens when you have officers that try to pull an arrest out of their hat, and are policing off their feelings, and not the law. This is something that has gone over the top, in this day and age. Time to set them straight, these cops earned everything they get, and more. If they can't do their job properly, then get rid of them. We would be better off, with fewer cops, than ones that does not know how to do their job, by the law.
Seems to have proved the guys shirt right. We have an enemy occupation force pretending to be a legitimate government and these asshole cops are their standing army.
@@M33f3r that is some good think. Here's some more: Kings, Slave owners, and people rich enough to buy those with power, versus peasants, slaves, and the rest of us. If one side is to be preferred... well, it's probably our own, right? Also, police don't have to be wealthy to be in the wrong, they just have to enforce the class interests of the wealthy on the rest of us.
The county who pays him should be sued. Maybe it'll sting enough that they'll see the light and fire him. At that guy's age losing his .gov retirement would absolutely ruin him.
Thank you for your support. I litigated pro se for two years before I got attorney to represent me. I filed another law suit in January which includes Dean Blair and the county. Michael Wood v Deborah Burchett, 3:22-cv-11.
if a prosecutor suggested he could have avoided all this by simply not exercising his rights, that would immediately tick me off personally that'd be a way to instantly lose me if I were ever on a jury.
I disagree. Let's change the story a little and change the rights being exercised from the First Amendment to the Second Amendment. Instead of an "F the police" t-shirt, let's say he was wearing a AR-15 rifle across his back. How would you feel about the director's decision in this scenario? Is a person's ability to exercise their rights unlimited? Or do you agree that in certain venues (such as fairgrounds), specific limitations should apply (in this case, limitations of vulgarity)? For example, I would not have any problem if he wore a shirt that said, "The police are evil". It's a matter of the F-word that I would agree with the Fairground director's decision.
@@SergeantExtreme no, places are supposed to post up policies regarding that kind of stuff, and there's usually all kinds of vulgarity in public. not saying that people shouldn't have respect for those around them because some people would rather their children nit be exposed to vulgarity, at the end of the day, it's your job as the parent.
@@SergeantExtreme How would I feel? I'd side with the man. "Or do you agree that in certain venues (such as fairgrounds), specific limitations should apply (in this case, limitations of vulgarity)? " Obscenity has no standing. The constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The end. "It's a matter of the F-word that I would agree with the Fairground director's decision." Its not. You're unamerican. And it is for that reason that jury members are anonymous. Otherwise, problems like you would be. Dealt with.
@@SergeantExtreme Yes. It is. Free speech is absolute. There is no such thing as hate speech. I wouldn't suggest it because other people are children, and of course the blacks would try to beat you to death because they are savages. But you don't expect an animal to act like a man.
I saw the original vid on this one. The t-shirt guy, who I found obnoxious, nevertheless captured some damning footage of the Cops. And its gonna cost 'em much more than refunding a $3 entry fee BTW: your story didn't include the mutually antagonistic behavior and profanity laden language from the Fairground Operator who was leading t-shirt guy out.
Yeah, I saw it to, his statements are damning when they stand alone but he was only giving back what he got. I felt that the fair ground director should have been restrained and detained before the victim.
@@leehiller2489 Thank you. I thought I was the only one who saw the unedited exchange. It's an important detail, considering the Fairgrounds Manager ISNT a Cop.
He wasn't kicked out for cussing at cops,the cussing came after he was kicked out for his free speech that he had written on his shirt by the way the guy had already had changed his shirt when was approached and kick out go to the youtube channel Lackluster where you can find the video of it happing
The most interesting thing Steve said was, "Was it self-inflicted?" The answer is, "Yes, it is self-inflicted." My take is that it was self-inflicted by the police. The police stopped the man when he wasn't wearing the shirt. From that point on, anything (good or bad) is self-inflicted by the police.
@@any1alive The most egregious violations of his rights happened at the hands of police. He should NOT want any of that thrown out as it strengthens his case. Maybe I misunderstood your post.
@@hugoh.9694 Yes and no, i am beyond tired and need a drink, so it wasnt really thought out fully nor written with much sense, but in my mind if i could ever word it better would help him. get the verdict where he wasinthe right and gets hsi proper compensation
As a former LEO, the only scuffles I got into during making arrests is when I was partnered with a male officer and the suspect being arrested began hurling insults. When I, a female, was partnered with a woman, whatever the suspect said didn’t bother us. Once he or she got his or her thoughts verbalized and out there, the person was compliant and amiable. We were even thanked many many times for our fairness and professionalism! But the males I worked with would not stand for someone insulting them. Such a pain. I’m so glad I’m not in law enforcement anymore. Terrible profession.
One of my closest friends became a cop and was so disgusted by their behavior she quit the force AND divorced her cop husband! She warned me cops you consider friends are NOT your friend, the only friends they have are other cops... you're just a "civilian" to them. Don't ever let a cop into your home, even if they're an acquaintance, and don't ever date one.
The men who join have been bullied into smithereens early in life and are looking for sick revenge. The Ponytail cops usually are just ladies who diverge from the domestic scene, and good for them.
Wait you said something in the podcast that makes me crazy, the police can claim ignorance of the law but we cannot ... wow that is hypocritical as heck.
@@steveriley1000 What do you not understand about 'qualified immunity'? The whole point to this video of Steve's is that cops get away with everything all the time and this exception to the rule being so unusual makes that point. Lawyers don't know every law. Cops get taught to lie and dominate in every situation regardless, not the law
@@steveriley1000 if anything they should be required to at least know constitutional law and what they can and cannot do... Too many Leo's think they have a lot more authority then they actually do. For example, "contempt of cop" is not a crime...
Why am I not surprised this happened in Ohio? LOL. These tyrants will stop you for traveling at 67mph in a 65mph zone. Yes, I’ve seen it. People in Ohio… WAKE UP and stand up for your Constitutional Rights!!!
Thank you for taking up this issue. At this time there are a few States who have limited or removed qualified immunity for Police. It is my desire that it would be removed entirely not only police but for public prosecutors and other Fed. State and Local gov't employees. It would be put the onus on them all that they could be personally sued for their actions and the public would stop having to pay with their taxes for their careless, power driving misconduct.
The money is going to come from taxpayers no matter what. If it doesn't come from paying the cost of insuring the police as a whole it will come from paying the higher salaries of individual cops who have personal insurance as a necessary job expense. The only financial benefit will be that cops may change their behavior (I wouldn't hold my breath), or they'll end up in other jobs as a result of increasing premiums if they're sued too often.
I think cops and some other public servants should be required to carry a bond that would provide insurance against being sued. When a cop screws up enough, no bond agent would write their coverage, they'd be no longer able to work as a cop, if they can't be bonded. Free market solution.
You will have societal breakdown if you get your way. No one will enforce any law at all and then eventually individuals will enforce their own laws. Just because QI wasn't granted at the trial level doesn't mean it won't be reinstated upon appeal. Don't get too ahead of yourselves.
@@suedenim9208 my entire department has said they would quit immediately if there was some kind of "personal insurance" requirement. So has every officer in every department in my region.
I would side with the defendant too, in order to uphold the Supreme Court ruling about this because too many people are still getting arrested for disorderly conduct after flipping off cops.
The minimum for a false arrest/kidnapping should be 20 million US dollars and up from there as warranted. Plus, the perps should be sent to prison for the kidnapping.
I remember seeing the bodycam video. The fair director tried to claim he owned the property (which he does not). They tried VERY hard to throw him out the front gate, to make him walk all the way around to where he was parked.
As Fair Director, he would in fact have managerial control of the grounds, and therefore can lawfully tell someone to leave. So he is good there. It's the lies that undercut his position.
@@nunya3163 cant be told to leave public property when you didn't commit a crime. the shirt wasn't a crime. in fact the fair director could be sued for deprivation of rights under the color of law since he lied and said he owned the property, etc.
In addition to unlawful arrest I would think the suit should include that he was illegally forced to leave the fair. He was singled out for his free speech and punished for it.
With each and every passing day, it seems the police are more and more determined to prove the truth behind the saying: "Too ugly to fu*k, too dumb to steal? Give him a gun and an automobile."
@@daltongarrett7117 I got unjustly raided while growing marijuana. The summit guys stole my parents wedding rings among other things. My dad is just a petty thief -_-
I watched that video. One of the downfalls of the officers was them discussing what they could arrest him on…while being recorded on their own cameras. 🤦🏻♀️ I honestly think it will settle out of court. The city (taxpayers) will end up footing the bill.
It only comes from the taxpayers inasmuch as they pay for the insurance policy. So if you sue the police they're covered on the policy. Approximately 90% of all Michigan have the same insurance.
Sheriff arrested me for "pointing" at him while getting video coverage outside a Hamblen County TN voter polling place in 2021. 14 months later and they still don't know if they have enough evidence to proceed with the case.
It's absolutely amazing how many cops don't know the law, and will quick to violate people's rights. I've been watching first ammendment auditor videos. They have opened my eyes to law enforcement's corrupt behavior
Think about this. The public and politicians decide whether or not to fund the police to either have a well trained law enforcement or a law enforcement poorly trained because of lack of funds resulting in poorly trained officers. So with that said the politicians and ultimately the public is at fault!
@@Pledgeman Yes public decides to fund the police, but the police choose what to do with those funds. Instead of using it on training, they use it on more officers, increased pay, military style weapons, and lawsuits like this one because they know they can get away with anything.
Rich P it has nothing to do with training. The problem is there’s a culture of us against them, corruption and tyranny throughout law-enforcement. It definitely varies among departments and agencies but it’s not a money issue it’s a integrity, accountability and oversight issue.
Steve, I too have a ton of intrest in this case, and am following it! I wanted to point out a major part you might of overlooked, one of the arresting officer was caught on camera admitting they screwed him and violated his rights just because of the shirt. The donut eater stated, "Hows that work, you wore a shirt that says F@#& the police, yet you want us to uphold and protect your constitutional rights", as he was laughing at Mr Woods while transporting him to jail! The bar for police officers just keeps dropping and the public &their victims are the only ones that seem to pay for their ridiculous decisions & criminal actions! 🙄
Yes and the solution to attracting highly qualified people to serve as law enforcement officers is to decrease pay and increase personal liability. I'm certain that will correct the issue.
The bar hasn't dropped at all, people have just realised they can point it out with less fear of retaliation now. As a cop caught on bodycam in a separate case said '10 years ago we would've beat his ass, 15 20 years ago he'd be dead, knocked him down and his teeth all over the ground'.
@@WilC379 Given the gross overreaction of having six cops for the terrible threat of a guy wearing a tee shirt, it’s obvious there are too many cops on the payroll. Three intelligent, better-trained cops can avoid the idiocy of a half-dozen clowns with over-developed amygdalas. They’ll also gain trust from citizens, allowing better help in finding actual criminals, rather than a guy who bruises blue gang egos.
@@timdowney6721 only one police officer was needed to discuss this issue with the man. Once it was determined the man was entitled to wear his shirt and no laws were broken, the policeperson should have left. The other officers probably came over since they were bored. Poor training results in poor actions.
The cops deserved every single word. I would convict them in a heart beat if I was on that jurry. And I would have awarded the man every single penny I was allowed to. If you have a right to say it you have a right to say it. I wouldn’t say it. I very much dislike that kind of speech. But the cops won’t learn if there are no consequences.
Welp I’m glad you’re not on that Jury. A real juror only makes a suggestion of the punishment based on the evidence. You are not the judge. And also you must act in restraint as the punishment must fit the crimes. This is why jail/prison times are not set in law but is “up to” this amount of time.
Number one reason not to flip off the cops is if the cops think they're Rambo, you might get shot 60 times in the back. And you can't sue them if you're dead. Also in Ohio.
I saw the video of that incident. I don't agree with his conduct or views, but I do agree that if the police can take his rights away they can certainly take away mine. Many times things like this happen and nothing is done to those in power. For that reason, if I was on his jury, unless there was some other evidence that changed things... I would have to side with the man.
I stopped supporting the police when they stopped supporting the constitution. Red flag laws were the final straw. I am open to supporting them again if they start arresting the traitors in power but I’m not I holding my breath.
When police authorities fail to follow the law, then the society has entered the era of a diminished democracy. If it goes too far, you can end up with an authoritarian government or worse a dictatorship such as the one operated in today's Russia. The police there are arresting people who even try to gather together or demonstrate or discuss any "current" activity of the government.
The cops are quite literally proving his views correct. There are hundreds of videos on youtube of cops brazenly violating people's rights. Audit the Audit is one such great channel. Most people don't know their rights, or that their rights are even being violated in the first place. The cops know, and they don't care, and consistently escalate when a citizen exercises their constitutional rights.
@@timdowney6721 Do you even have a clue where or even what state Clark County is located ? While you're at it, tell us what color the sun is on your planet.
You talked about the way he was speaking to the officers and seeing the first amendment auditors, and what happens when they get into court. That's why I like Long Island Audits. He is always respectful and always polite in all of his videos. So when came time for him to appear in court in Connecticut it was everybody else that looked out of control in the body cam footage.
But why are you going to be respectful to someone who is not respectful to you, wants to talk down to you and violate your rights? Alot of times cops have already being sued, lost and they will still claim after alll that, that you cant film in public place. Their only goal is to excert their power over you and send you jail. And especially the public servants that run libraries, post offices, etc. They try to treat you like if your one of their workers
@@tocadadj2951 not because they deserve ANY respect, but because you don't want to take the chance that a bootlicker on the jury will use your behavior to sway the others to convict out of emotion
@BulldogBBMC yes i get that but many times, these lawsuits dont even go to trial and juries. City just settles out court. So my preference are the auditors that call cops pigs to their face
My students were at an elementary school science fair. A man shows up with "YOUR CANDY A** IS NEXT" on his shirt; pictures of skulls and weapons and so on. Police wouldn't go near him because "he looked like he would start trouble." Somewhere between the two scenarios is common sense.
Threatening children at an elementary school science fair is illegal. No one took any action to remove this guy. That is precisely how school shootings happen.
I only had to read the title to know that IJ was going to be a part of it. Bless their efforts in restoring faith in the court system and in public accountability to the degree that they have.
Restoring faith in the courts? Not even close. Restoring faith in lawyers? Yeah. IJ are the real public servants that protect us from the "red tape" of the "blue line" mafia.
I remember a sergeant in the police Dept tell the officers "there's no law about talking sh!t". I still chuckle when I see these videos where people loose it over words.
I watched this entire interaction on Audit the Audits channel. There were several officer's questioning thier Sargent as to whether they could even charge the man. His language made me cringe, I would never speak to anyone with that foul of language, cop or otherwise. That being said, I firmly believe the fair official and the officers involved escalated this encounter completely out of control due to their own egos. They were not following the law from the second they approached the man and continued to antagonize him into a greater and greater rage. The cops behavior during the entire interaction was completely unacceptable, as a juror on this case I would award the man whatever he asked for even though I believe his language was completely unacceptable he has the right to insult them in any manner he chooses within the bounds of protected speech. Law officers have a multitude of sources at thier disposable to understand an individual's constitutional rights. For that matter so do the judges in the lower courts, this should have never been kicked up to the 6th circuit. The voters of that district should seriously consider replacing the lower court judge as, in my opinion, he unqualified to hear cases concerning an individual's constitutional rights.
Problem is, the opinion below came from a U.S. District Judge, who is appointed for life. Voters can't touch him. Only Congress could impeach him, and that's not going to happen here.
@@mwduck Judges are not imputable. If the constituents of that district truly wanted them off the bench they would let their elected congressional leaders know it. The breakdown of the system is not just at the federal level, it falls into the lap of the People as well. I did not realize the suit originated in Federal district but now that you correct me it make sense, it was his constitutional right that was violated so filing in Federal district would be the correct jurisdiction.
@@aeonstar5867 To preserve judicial independence, federal judges in the U.S. are appointed for life to avoid that very thing -- the whim of an electorate and the influence of the other branches of govt. They aren't -- and shouldn't be -- removed from the bench merely for making an unpopular decision or being wrong on a particular issue.
@@mwduck I agree that preservation of judicial independence is paramount. Removal of judges at the state and federal level is extremely rare and it should be. But I respectfully disagree that removal from the bench is never warranted. Thinking about this subject in this particular instance I would agree with you that removal for an opinion I simply disagree with would be draconian. I think now the better method would be to insist that elected members of Congress more thoroughly vet potential lower court judges before appointment.
@@aeonstar5867 A thorough vetting is always a good thing. It's unfortunate that it -- and confirmation hearings -- have become such political events, esp. for nominees to the federal appellate courts. If you read my posts again, you'll see that I never wrote "removal from the bench is never warranted." Google, for a modern example, Alcee Hastings from Florida, who was impeached and removed from the federal bench for bribery and perjury, then got himself elected to Congress! Or Hon. Carlos Murguia, a federal judge in Kansas who resigned from the bench in 2020 in the face of some serious charges of judicial misconduct. Both VERY warranted. On the other hand, removal of Judge Rose for his decision in Wood v. Eubanks, which was reversed on appeal, would never be considered in Congress. Simply being "wrong" isn't enough. Different story with state court judges. Some are directly elected by the people and have to stand for re-election every so often. In some states, judges are appointed by the governor and face retention elections every so often. The voters get their chance to defeat ("fire") an unpopular judge in those cases. In no state that I know is a judge appointed for life without being subjected to a vote of the people at some point. And, of course, state court judges can also be removed from office mid-term for misconduct, which happens frequently. (E.g., check out the bizarre case of Judge Donald Thompson in Oklahoma: www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ex-judge-donald-thompson-busted-penis-pump-trials-pension-cut-article-1.968325) The mechanism for removal varies from state to state.
George Washington said, " If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter ". I was raised with polite and courteous mannerisms. But there comes a time when a man has to put aside good manners and stand on his beliefs. You may not like the words but by God you should respect a man's right to speak them. There is a reason why free speech is first in the Bill of Rights. It is the cornerstone, the anchor for freedom in our society. Those who don't respect the 1st Amendment should really study our history. Our founding fathers came from a time and place where even the slightest of criticisms against the ruling authorities could land them in jail or worse, to the gallows. Peaceful speech is a powerful tool for change and against tyranny. With regard to the children at that county fair, you have to ask yourself, which is the better lesson to learn, what not to say in polite society or fighting for your rights even though you may be arrested is an honorable thing?
Most kids have heard the same or worse already. If anyone's kids are too fragile, don't take them out in public. The shirt didn't cause the nasty language, the director did by his actions.
I'm from Ohio...and if on your theoretical jury on this case and after watching the video offered as evidence as described...I would rule in favor of the citizen, and would strongly encourage everyone on the jury to follow suit. Like you...while I don't condone the behavior or language, I do TOTALLY support the first amendment and forcing those in authority to abide by our laws.
Unfortunately, the arrest will never be erased from the internet. This man may have been looking to trigger the police and the county representative but the police damaged his life - FOREVER. He deserves some compensation.
The worst part, unless he already has been recorded somewhere in a police dept. is now his name, fingerprints and other personal data are in the data files both locally and will eventually be sent to the FBI as part of the data files they collect. You don't need to be convicted, just arrested. Not a good outcome so yes he needs to be compensated plus his attorney's fees should also be paid.
@@Harry-zz2oh if this was self inflicted, why he take the shirt off. why were the cops ever there? he may have tickled the sleeping lions foot but the cops and director punch he lion leat some punk for lunch.
I thought long and hard about this. The phrase “a person of ordinary firmness” keeps coming up. When the police use their badge and authority to indicate that a person of ordinary firmness should not be engaged in a perfectly legal activity it is wrong. It’s not just the guy who’s being arrested that is affected by this. Everyone at the fair that day was being taught a lesson. If they knew about the shirt the lesson was you’re not allowed to wear a shirt that says something like that. Even if they didn’t know about the shirt they’re watching A man being herded by the police and forced to leave under duress. Again the lesson is you’re not allowed to say things like that. Some little boy the fair is going to turn to his mom or dad and say was that a bad man? And the answer is he didn’t do anything wrong but the same little boy might say if he didn’t do anything wrong then why are the police arresting him? The police action that day has a chilling effect on every single person there is their exercise of freedom. It’s not about the guy being arrested although he certainly has damages. It’s about the way that they are using that moment to teach every person there that you cannot push back even verbally against their authority. That is wrong. That is the problem.
@@briandillon2274 very perceptive! They want us to fear the police. Qualified immunity keeps our corrupt politicians in power. They know that the police, are the only thing keeping us from throwing them all out of office. Tyranny is enforced thru fear. Fear the governemnt.....
@8:50 -- "Police should know..." I once dated an ADA. Her phone was constantly ringing. Police don't know anything but how to pull a trigger. I mean they would call us during dinner asking WHAT they could arrest for, not whether they should. Many times she had to tell them to let people go or leave them alone!
If you go to his channel you will see that he has had run-ins with the police before. They definitely targeted him because he has complained about them before.
I like your point about the unpredictability of jury awards. People get tunnel vision over the constitutional issues and often forget that even if you win the argument (case) you still have to deal with the whims of a jury . Why such a huge percentage of cases are settled. The attorneys on both sides know that come award time it's a crap shoot.
No. Cases are settled because people are stupid and take plea deals for things that ARE NOT CRIMINAL OFFENSES. I will be judged by 12 every single time. I'm not going to take a known failure, over appealing to my peers. Thanks. You enjoy the taste of a boot smashing your face.
triple jeopardy: 1) maybe you win the case; 2) maybe a jury grants you a sizable award; 3) maybe the defendant has assets and pays after years of stalling.@@buttonsf3293
From years ago, before qualified immunity I believe. For the Michigan-Ohio football game there were a bunch of students with F*** Michigan t-shirts on. Arrests etc. When it went to trial the judge threw it out as a free speech issue. I believe this was in the early to mid 60's. That case would be pretty much spot on with this one.
Back in the early 1970s, USC sold t-shirts that read "FUCLA" while making use of the UCLA logo. And another one that read "I used to go to UCLA, but then my dad got a real job." Those were the days.
Getting your case "thrown out" or even winning your case and beating the charges has NOTHING to do with "Immunity".... Cop arrests you.... you are found innocent or it's simply thrown out and either way you WIN the case..... NONE of that has to do with "Immunity".... Qualified Immunity means that now you have won your case... you cannot target the cop who arrested you with a lawsuit FOR arresting you.
The video that I watched had the cops discussing "what should we do?" Also, the fair director instigated the man further by dogging him a cursing at him. The man needs to go after the cops with a "Surety" bond claim and have them fired. No bond no job.
When I was a cop back in the 70's I was taught this response to that type of verbal insults, just let it go, and say, " everyone is entitled to their opinion."
I sincerely believe there should be a random Citizen's panel to determine legality of constitutional rights violations AND immunity. They should also determine civil asset forfeiture, whether they are justified or not. Put it in the hands of the people. Hold police accountable.
Yes. NYC tried doing this, but the Blue Line mafia stonewalled it. I can't imagine why they feared being held accountable by the community they policed. They're the "good guys", right? Also, folks on the Right called it a "Commie panel" or some such. They love licking their boots too.
@@citizenfour9622 this is why I say we have an enemy occupation force pretending to be a legitimate government. Many on the right have stopped their support over gun control.
The problem I have with this is that fair and equal protection of basic human rights, without trying to find double standards that only benefit oneself specifically, has become uncoothe. In my ALS class, most of it was just debate about ethical scenarios. Because I'm a massive nerd, I could recognize where most of these "fictional" scenarios came from. One "fictional" scenario was where a local n@zi group filed all the right paperwork necessary to peacefully protest in a predominantly minority community, got denied by the city for no reason other than that it would be un-PC. Then we were basically asked who is in the wrong, GO. I immediately called out the scenario as based on a real world ACLU case, in which the n@zi group sued the city, AND WON. More astonishingly, they were represented by a jewish lawyer. The lawyer cared more about fair and equal interpretation of the law, and cared more about basic human rights like freedom of speech, than he did the fact that he was representing a group of people who actually despised his kind... I'd like to hope simply having to interact with a jew who helped them achieve their goals maybe made them reconsider their own prejudices (which is why the Daryl Davis approach to activism is imo, significantly more effective than modern SJW victim olympics). Anyway, I talked about the actual case, and ended what I had to say fervently agreeing with the outcome of the case. You should defend basic human rights, even for those you vehemently disagree with. Because if you strip those rights from people like that... There is nothing stopping them from one day doing the same to you. Either everybody is afforded the same rights... Or nobody is. ... One of the most disheartening experiences... I was shocked by how many people disagreed with me. Something like 20 out of the 22 people in the class argued with me the whole time that that particular demonstration needed to be shut down, even if the means werent legal. ... The couple of black women in the class argued with me the most, and their reasoning was that the protest was not actually peaceful. I pressed for an explanation. After all, if they're filing for an official permit to be there, obeying laws on where and when they can and cant protest... They probably aren't rolling up with as a lynch mob as it were, just showing up with stupid signs, stupid uniforms, and stupid words. Their argument was that it incited violence because the response from a black community would be to riot and destroy the neighborhood... I'm not making this up, this is literally the most internalized racist sh@t I have ever heard. The woman who said it basically infantalized all black people as only being capable of responding to a protest of offensive people, with actual property destruction. True or not, how is that the responsibility or fault of the protest? Most people are in control of their emotions enough to, you know... Not let words bother them that much? As a bisexual, I got called a F@gg@t by like, the same 4 people from the local nutjob church everyday walking through the main square of my campus to class. It has never once bothered me, because literally, A, who gives a f@ck what they think, and B, they're well within their right to do that... Just as I'm well within my right to retort with all manner of obscenities in return. Usually, I was more interested in just getting to my class on time to go make something of myself. The only other person who agreed with me was an asian american. And for good reason, for a lot of reasons, they get sh@t on by both liberals and conservatives, often through actual policies (for example, since they're overachievers for being an ethnic minority, they actually are weighted the most heavily against in affirmative action school admissions... Even more so than white people. Yet they still have a long history of being mistreated in this country). Anyway... It was disappointing. If 20 out of 22 average citizens can be expected to vote to demolish freedom of speech because offensive language is considered inciteful of violence in others, then to be quite honest, I don't even want to give your average american the chance to vote on this sh@t. The founding fathers had these basic rights in the constitution mostly right from the getgo, and giving people too many opprotunities to change that just leads to more authoritarian restrictions. Just look at how many different exceptions there are to freedom of speech today, how many types of speech "arent protected", exceptions that never existed over a century ago. These are all recent changed made BY the people to try and undermine our basic freedoms.
Having an overwhelming force protects officers and the suspect. If the situation turns violent everyone benefits from the police being able to swiftly get control of the incident and that requires having enough people.
And you can bet that this call will be used as justification for either more overtime for this event or hiring more police officers. This is a old tactic used by police and firefighters to justify increases in budgets over the years. A one or two person call ends up with 3-15 more officers for “backup” and in the next budget the department heads claim a shortage of trained bodies. I’m a 27 year veteran of municipal politics and have seen this done repeatedly.
"we told him to go out the front gate, but he went out the back gate (because we allowed him to)" even though he didn't have to go out of any gate because they had no lawful authority to eject him from a public place that he had a right as a tax-payer, not to mention by contract, to be. We won't even get into that contract being revoked under duress by, presumably, a county employee. So, that don't really fly as grounds to dismiss, either. Although it might work at trial and have to go through the appellate process again.
@@Joxman2k At least in my jurisdiction, Not unless they either flatly refused to vacate, or vacated and later attempted to re-enter. We've had this problem with vagrants.
@@Joxman2k stores are private property. Owners can tell you to leave for any reason other than discrimination against a protected class. The county fairgrounds, at a county fair, ran by the county, is not the same.
"we told him to go out the front gate, but he went out the back gate (because we allowed him to)" OK, so why didn't you charge him for it when you seized him? I think they would fail with their "we could have" approach.
@@Joxman2k If a woman was being harassed then an arrest is in order. If their is no proof then that is what security at fair grounds are for (i used to do security for fairs and sporting events and music concerts). Usually if a security guard lets his presence be known the guy will stop unless he's drunk at which point you have a reason to do a citizens arrest for drunk and disorderly behavior. I used to get at least on drunk per job who tried to start a fight. The rule was to ignore them until they got physical then do a CA till the police showed up. I've seen some really shitty behavior out there which is most likely why i don't have a lot of faith in humanity in a general sense.
In police department training, one of the maxims was “a police officer’s peace cannot be disturbed.” One could extend that to public employees, presumably including a county or state fair director. Bad arrest for sure. And the fact of such training should be brought out in a trial. A jury should hear something like that in the judge’s instructions. Still, you could easily get a couple yahoos on the jury, which is why jury selection consultants are rarely poor.
@@scattergun2317 good point! I would definitely like to see him get enough to cover all the litigation costs, maybe even a little extra as this case might be used as case law in future cases.
@@scattergun2317 This is why cops need to carry their own personal malpractice insurance, just like doctors. This way they will have to pay for their own bad behavior, instead of taxpayers. I believe that cops should also have a law enforcement degree that is similar to a regular law degree, but with added aspects of enforcement. Then they should have to pass a fitness and character review, along with a state LEO bar exam in the state they wish to work in. Better to pay fewer cops with more money if they are better educated and more effective at their jobs, and do not cost society in lost taxpayer money, loss of confidence in LE, along with wasted time and resources that could be better used for real crimes.
@@GoCoyote it won't happen. No one will work under those conditions, period. Plus, some of what you're suggesting, such as law enforcement degrees and LEO bar exams have existed for decades. Maybe it's YOU that doesn't know what the job entails or what the law is.
@@eq1373 I suspect that you must be a police officer. Or at the very minimum a sympathizer. I respectfully disagree with your opinion I believe very much that you could get people to work under those conditions and they would work in a calm respectful law-abiding manner.
@@scattergun2317 I only disagree with your statement if you imply he should not be compensated. His constitutionally provided freedoms were improperly taken away from him, albeit temporarily. Freedoms are valuable enough to fight for and I strongly believe he should be compensated.
I live in Ohio, I am a supporter of police. I am totally against Qualified Immunity. It takes away the expectation of responsible and reasonable actions by the police. If the Police need better training then get it.
I think in addition to training they should also have some amount of education in the law. They should also be held criminally liable in certain situations.
@@huwhitecavebeast1972 You Tuber Delete Lawz is exposing a ton of police corruption. He is a different flavor and takes some getting used to (auditor type) but he means well and is working to get people justice from the crooked cops there. He has been there two days now gathering content.
Steve, So much appreciation towards the sharing of these qualified immunity cases, knowledge, and effort to help get people notified of the issue, and help in hoping to get this dissolved soon, thanks so much for your effort.
I'm afraid there are going to be so many civil rights lawsuits that Congress will want to abolish the Constitution when that happens kiss America good by
And also protect them if a disgruntled criminal tries to pop them in a drive by, which is easily foreseeable. Cops need to realize that public surveillance can help keep them safe on the job.
I've been a jury prisoner twice, and on either occasion did the prosecution bother to prove that a state law was violated - instead they simply said that the defendant did something they thought was wrong. I was trained as a cop, so when they fail to prove each element of a state crime, they lose. They lost both cases for this reason alone. I guarantee that, as a juror i will absolutely protect any citizen against unlawful use of power, or wilful violation of your freedom... I'll happily force a jury of idiots who think otherwise to sit there indefinitely if they are too stupid to understand the concept... Sadly, most jurors I have served with are utter morons who only care what the prosecutors say...
When I went through FLETC back in '04 they specifically discussed this exact kind of thing. The instructor told us, people are going to call you everything in the book and say all kinds of things, and you Have to ignore it. Because if you don't ignore it you're gonna end up in a lawsuit.
When I was a Parking Enforcement Officer, I was called: F******* NAZI G**** D***** NAZI Get a job F***** D******* NAZI Bastard GD Bastard F****** Bastard .... I took it as part of the job (where people do not like getting parking tickets). I even had full water bottles thrown at me I have had crumbled tickets thrown at me .... Again, that is part of the job. Take all parts of the job with the job.
He never should of been approached in the first place to be harassed as he wasn’t even wearing the shirt. Cops should of known better at that exact point. I would of rewarded a substantial sum due to the fact it had to go this far and police need to be held accountable for their actions.
Correct, once the shirt was removed there was no issue What do you say. The shirt he used to wear offended me, well he's not wearing it now what's the problem.
I hired a deputy for the set out of a tenant that had been evicted. She was screaming and stomping her feet. The deputy turned to me and asked if my peace was disturbed. Evidently you cannot disturb an Ohio Peace Officer’s peace. Since I wasn’t disturbed he didn’t arrest her.
Yah that would of got him in big trouble becuase he solicited the charge and even if you brought it up the person probly would of been within their rights becuase until they leave the door the eviction isn't completed so it be telling cop to pound sand in there own residents
I gave notice (90 days) to not continue month to month rent to a tenant. She said I would have to evict her through the court. I told her that would show on her credit report along with her late rent payments. She moved out on her own.
I live in Ohio, police officer for many years. And I've never heard of this. Disorderly conduct was a fall back charge that was used when no other charge was there. Maybe police officers especially in Ohio should be aware of this, or they'll continue to violate constitutional law.
Nice admission of guilt there, Tardid. 'Disorderly Conduct is a fall back charge if there isn't anything ELSE we can use to arrest'. You should really, HONESTLY re-evaluate your life and your work.
You must be joking. My Uncle was a NYCPD officer and Disorderly or interfering with the investigation/ duties of an officer were used as the catch all to arrest essentially anybody they wanted to whenever they felt it was warranted. Charges could then be dropped yet the citizen had been arrested and had a record affecting him for life and he is in the system. There were many abuses.Back then anybody who got particularly mouthy and abusive would meet jack. The slapjack where they would be spitting out a mouthful of teeth and likely had to have their jaws wired shut and that corrected the attitude problem. These were the 60s to the late 70s and knight sticks wee commonly carried. They would be used to effect to end any scuffles (as they should) because tasers are ineffective, those expanding batons are weaksauce, and cops dont get paid enough to wrestle with idiots who will not comply. I wish horse mounted Police with batons had cleared the streets of the leftist rioting rabble after that POS drug addled moron died in a non lethal compliance hold across the neck and the nation would not have been thrown into chaos. Large Police Departments should be disbanded and elected Sheriffs should take their place who are elected and are answering to the people in the community instead of politicians. Nobody wants to see their community burn. I'm pro Police but you cant arrest people for non threatening words. Blanket protections for police are wrong. They should know the law. Some departments impound the cash of travelers and make millions this like highway bandits and force citizens to fight for years to try and get it back. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? These cops belong in prison sucking locks for cup a soups while wearing lipstick and getting passed around. If you shot a bandit for doing this along the highway you would be congratulated but some Police fund entire departments like this.
a fallback charge for when nothing else is there? sounds to me like a reasonable person should never associate with police officers, since they're licensed to arrest you on a fallback charge if they can't find anything else actionable.
I have an idea of how to get around qualified immunity. Cities could put a clause into employment contracts that state if a police officer causes the city to have to pay out or settle a Lawsuit the Officer would be forced to repay every penny to the municipality. This would be an end run around lawmakers who refuse to do what the citizenry want. It would force officers to change their behavior because they will be held financially accountable for their actions, sometimes the only way to make people change is to hurt their wallet.
Uh, no thanks. That would be the end of police, which would be ruinous to society. I want them better trained and better supervised including civilian complaint review boards.
How would this change the legal reality that qualified immunity does exist, and as a result, none of the lawsuit losses or settlements referred to the employment clause would come about? There's no end run. There's no functional change whatsoever.
Better yet, require all LEOs to carry minimum ($50,000?) personal liability insurance policy on themselves so that they fully understand that they alone are responsible for their actions.
We need more of this, if a cop goes outside his constitutional authority then he should lose immunity. P.S. The Franklin is beside his right ear today.
Not just lose his immunity, he should be FIRED on the spot, and maybe even Arrested for Treason against the General Public and either Executed, or serve 20 years in Prison, and never allowed to hold a job with any ties to the Government ever again. Breaking the Constitution should ammount to Treason, and should be one of the HIGHEST levels of Crime to exist in the country, and the punishment for breaking it HARSH and even down right LETHAL if bad enough. ESPECIALLY for Cops, Politicians, Judges, Lawyers, and others in Government who should KNOW the Law better than everyday Citizens.
That's already supposed to be law, called the "stripping doctrine" 18 USC 242 also applies, which means cops themselves had better be mindful unless they want to get caught committing a federal offense. The chauvin case should be a warning to law enforcement across the country and world. I'm not in favor of riots in the first place but that was pretty much textbook karmic backlash.
Enjoyed your show and legal interpretation of protected rights and impunity for police. I am a 2 time veteran who uses a service dog in public places. I train service dogs for other people with disabilities who need and use legal service animalsin public places. I also teach and educate disabled people what their City, State & Federal ADA Rights are to take their SA inside public places, government agencies, law enforcement departments, stores, restaurants, concerts, etc. I also enlighten & educate businesses, government agencies, law enforcement departments, and other public places what their legal City Ordinances, State, Federal & Constitutional Rights are, regarding the treatment & service of potential & actual disabled customers & their service animal/s in their business, agency, department and/or facility. I have 20 yrs experience traiming dogs as a professional, in obedience, competition, search/rescie, scentwork, tracking, protection and service animals for an array of minor and major disabilities including; autism, chromes disease, ptsd, seizure alert, epilepsy, hearing impaired, mobility and more. The bavkground will help you assess my unique legal problem. I cannot find an attorney willing to defend my legal rights against the USPS (2 separate ppst offices), one in Springfield Ohio and one in East Lansing Michigan. The Ohio post office called police who ordered me to leave with my service dog, even though it was well socialized, trained to perfection & posed no threat to USPS Employees, Patrons, or Police Officers.Three Springfield Ohio Postal Postmasters trespassed me each of those years (showing a history & pattern of disability & racial discrimination). I have pictures of a young college white female student being allowwd public access with her large dog which, according to her, was not a service dog, not an emotional support animal, nor even a psychiatric nor therapy dog. Her dog was unruly, not trained, was jumping on an elderly white male customer, she could not maintain control of her large dog, unlike myself, who maintained superior control of my service dog, as is required by the ADA Federal Law, and the Ohio State Laws, but I was denied publuc access and reasonable accommodations, even though a posted sigh stated; "No Pets Allowed; Service Dogs Welcomed." Yet, she was never forced to vacate the post office, the police were never called and the white female college student was never trespassed, nor forced to vacate the post office property under threat of arrest by the police. I, on the otherhand, was subjected to such unlawful treatwment in; 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019 to the present date of July 2022. According to the Springfield Ohio Chief of Police and his Second in Command, I am effectively trespassed permanently and for life! Quotes for a lawyer are $20K to $40K and could go higher. I was also denied public access to the Springfield Ohio SCAT City Transit Bus System, yanked off the bus after agreeing to cooperate with police & leave the bus under my own power. The 2 Officers arrested me for criminal trespass & resisting arrest to cover their excessive use of force when they slammed me to the ground & placed their knees into my back causing me to nearly pass out due to lack of ability to breathe. As a former law enforcement officer, I imformed the police of my background and stated I'd give my full cooperation to them, even putting my own hands before my back and tryong to kneal to the ground as ordered by the police. Prior to my Court Trial, one of the arresting officers stalked, stopped, harassed, intimidated and threatened me (Obstrimuction of Justice)! I reported the unlawful threat to his supervisor and Internal Affairs, who allowed him to resign in lieu of charging him with the crime he committed. I moved to Lansing Michigan, out of fear that this corrupt, gangster like thug cop, would get even with me, make a false arrest, set me up with drugs or even murder me and my service dog, a Bernese Mountain Dog. The officer had told me he could stop me anytime for any reason and arrest me again because he was a white officer, in his own words! Still, I cannot find a lawyer brave enough to File a Lawsuit against the Springfield Police Dept or Internal Affairs. I supppose it is up to me to File, Pro Se, or let a dangerous man become an officer with another police department. I won my Trial, but my freedom and safety were at risk due to the threat of the officer, so, I fled the city and moved. Now, I am facing the same injustices and dangers in Michigan. The East Lansing Mi Abbott Branch Post Office denied public access to me and my service dog on March 10, 2021, called police, trespassed me. On March 29, 2022 and again in June, denied me access to their post office, only this time, the same white female Clerk who denied me access in 2021, filed a false report to the USPS Federal Police Agents, statimg that I threatened her life; causing two armed USPS Federal Agents to appear at my home door, unannounced to conduct a criminal investigation on me, which could have caused me to be arresyed or shot dead, if they had neen over zealous or I had been resistant or sjow any anger or aggression. I was just motified by Pre Paid Legal that none of their lawyers will take my case against the Post Office or the most recent issue where the Michigan CATA Nus Transit System denied punlic access to me, due to my service dog, who was wrll nehaved and more civilized then the CATA Bus Driver who got within inches of my face and my service dog, threatening me, and telling me to leave the depot and tgat I was not allowed to get on any CATA Bus. How is it all these crazy lawsuits like McDonalds Hot Coffee spill between a woman's legs can find a lawyer, but a legitimate disabled veteran with a legal and well trained service dog, obeying the letter of the law, cannot find a lawyer to file a lawsuit when both State and Federal ADA Laws, even the Offenders' own Service Animal Policies clearly support my position, can not get a contingency based lawyer or a regular lawyer to handle my cases. This is why I am sharing my story with you. Can you share this with the law group that helps people like me, who canmot afford or find a law firm to defend my legal rights? Appreciatively, Michael Gilbert
I get so sick and tired of tyrant A-holes like the Fair Director and the Thin Blue Line of Fear and Cowardice gang members that back him up. REMOVE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY!!!
I am nearly positive that no one in my area would side with LE in this particular case. Fair director should be removed from his cushy little county job, cops should pay out of their own pockets. Not the city insurance, not the county insurance. The armed thugs who used firearms to kidnap that man, need to be held accountable. As far as little fair boy... he needs to pay his fair(no pun intented) share. Actions have consequences and those were illegal actions. I saw this video some months ago. Those cops and that unfair fair dude were way, way in the wrong.
I have said it before and I say it again, they arrested this guy, and the prosecution failed to take the case so why are the cops not charged with battery for putting their hands on someone who should not have been touched? If more cases of false arrest become cases of battery against the arresting officers then they will quit with the garbage policing and learn their jobs.
... AND if restitution for those cases was paid out of the police pension fund, rather than We the People, then I bet you the cops would learn some manners, learn their boundaries and learn to mind their business!
@@citizenfour9622 dam that is a great idea, or 80-20, 80% out of police pension fund and 20% from the offending cop itself, make them financially responsible for their shitty attitudes and bad decisions
It won’t happen, because the DA and Prosecutors won’t prosecute them. And they won’t charge themselves. We probably should have a way to criminally prosecute government officials, especially members of the ordinary judicial and executive processes. Law Enforcement and their bedlam of Prosecutors and Attorneys for example. They after all are the gatekeepers on State snd City level charging and prosecution. And they don’t touch their own. However how you accomplish that is very very important. It cannot be prone to misuse.
@@chickenmonger123 The last thing an official protected drug racket mob boss (district attorney) ever wants to do is to prosecute one of his own drug racket enforcers.
I once told a cop " Keep it up and I'll sue you !" His response : "Are you threatening me ?!" And I said " Yes I am ! What are you gonna do about it ?" That was the end of the conversation because That was not an 'Arrestable' threat.
Plaintiff: "F the police! You're a bunch of thugs!" Police: "Let us prove you correct by falsely arresting you." Plaintiff: "Great! Now, I'll sue you." Police: "Ha!! You can't!" Court: "Guess again, thugs!"
Opinion: he should get the monetary value for every penny he spent getting out of jail, missed work, and fighting the law plus a “small” compensation for his time, and something to the cops for conspiring to unlawfully detain him. Hypothetically-Wages- $10 an hour =$100 a day, Lawer- $10k, his lost time- $3k, tyranny- $1million. Total- $1,013,110.
My logic is much simpler, a Legislature CANNOT give ANYONE the Right to break the law, it’s beyond simplistic to say ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, hence the concept of Immunity is invalid.
I think he should settle "in terms favorable to him". I would only take this to a jury verdict if the prosecution didn't drop the charges and decided put me through the ringer in a lengthy, expensive criminal trial. If that were the situation I would double down on them in a civil trial because they doubled down on me on the criminal side. But that didn't happen here so I would probably settle for a large cash payout in this case. This guy is now living in the Punta Gorda, FL area where the city there has a profanity ordinance and the cops hand out citations for any signage with profanity on it. He even projected "F*** The Police" with a laser projector on the police dept or the city hall or a school or something and the cops hemmed and hawed for a while, and they got the go ahead over the radio to issue the citation for the signage and to trespass him off of public property where he parked his car and laser projected the words from the car's roof. This guy has dozens and dozens of "profanity citations" issued by the city of Punta Gorda because the idiotic city council passed an unconstitutional law without first running it through a "contitutionality check" first. Now because of these taxpayer elected officials, the taxpayers themselves will be on the hook for a new round of $$$multi-lawsuit$$$ filed by this guy.
The city manager and city lawyer should have advised the city council that their actions passed unconstitutional ordnances. The city council should be held accountable.
you do realise by settling the terms would probably say they will not admit to any wrong doing and at that point the police officers are let off the hook to go out and do it again. his rights were violated the moment he was asked to leave public property for no crime being committed.. so he was being discriminated against. the guy in Punta Gorda found himself a winning slot machine and the city attorney is too stupid to put an end to it by informing city council the law is unconstitutional and repealing it, so they deserve every lawsuit they get filed on them
Do the police have to accept being insulted that harshly. Over here in Germany he would have been arrested for a short time to identify him correctly, and he later would have to pay big fines for insulting 6 Officers could easily become 4-5 digits in fines.
I’m a pastor. I do not swear. I haven’t used any profanity in my adult life. It’s how I live my life. I detest the use of profanity, even in the case in the video. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want my kids to hear it. BUT!!! I believe the man has every right to wear the shirt he was wearing. And I’ll defend his right to do so. Why? Because I also want the right to say things that others find offensive. My Christian beliefs are offensive to some. I hope we ALL would defend each other’s rights to say what we believe.
Qualified immunity should be as rare as law-enforcement investigating themselves and finding themselves guilty.
If you ask me, they should get rid of qualified immunity and instead allow penalties to complaints made in bad faith.
BUT
The standard for proving that should be high enough that someone's going to be on the hook for perjury if they get caught lying about it.
I believe in a good faith standard
if these man babies can't do their job if they're so afraid everything they do could get them sued or w/e then at least let them have this only when it can
be proven they were acting in good faith.
They clearly weren't here
@@shentino you can't get "rid" of qualified immunity, it's not a law or rule but the inevitable conclusion that any sovereign government is only beholden to themselves and can not be forced to take actions against their own interest, basically the government and any person acting in there capacity is by default beyond reproach of the law since they are themselves the government, the only laws that can exist are once to limit that default situation, you can not get rid of it you can simply limit when it can be used(and to be honest it's less limiting when qualified immunity can be used and more increasing the cases where it can't be used)
Qualified immunity is a made up thing. Under 18 USC 241 and 242, it allows and mandates the removal of the servant from their position.
There is no statute that grants qualified immunity.
100%
SIX officers attended this arrest. No wonder they can't find robbers, thugs, kidnappers, murderers ...
Too busy finding offensive shirts.
they should start by looking at your house
All they need to do is look in the mirror 😅
TELL US ALL THAT LEOS CAN'T FIND THEMSELVES, ON TH-cam, AS EXEMPLARS OF THE ROBBERS........ETC!
Without body camera footage this man would have been convicted solely on the testimony of all 6 officers. God bless technology and police being held accountable.
Edit: they should all be placed on the Brady list.
good luck with that
@@ryojimata3708 It's time to do what is somewhat visionary not what is popular
I wish Congress would pass a federal law requiring cameras for all arrests. There is a somewhat famous, Polk Co, Florida sheriff whose officers make an enormous number of arrests, and the sheriff has press conferences on a bi-weekly, if not weekly, basis. He is very dramatic in the press conferences when presenting the info regarding his investigations and arrests. He posts these pressers on YT, and from what he says, almost every comment is positive about him. Now, I worked on one of his arrested defendant's cases, and I was stunned to find no video in discovery. I found out he refuses to allow any of his officers to wear body-cams. I felt in my brain and from my instincts that this defendant was telling us the truth but it contradicted the statements of two officers. There is no doubt in my mind that he has ruined a few lives on people that were actually innocent of the charges -- of course, many, if not most, take pleas.
Body-cams should not be optional.
Yeah, It is ridiculous.
In today's world of 1tb MicroSD cards and lithium ion batteries, there is no reason why any law enforcement officer should be on the clock and no being recorded
@@B_BodziakI know! I saw a video recently of Judd's deputies putting their foot into the doorway to prevent a resident from closing his door. They had no search warrant and the person they were looking for did not live there. They held his door open and eventually yanked him out of his house and arrested him. Only footage available us that of another resident who recorded the encounter. I was once a big fan of that sheriff but learning that he won't allow body cameras in his department just SCREAMS corruption
All they did was prove his shirt right.
Excellent point.
STEVE HAS INFORMED ALL THAT LEGALLY CORRECT, IS NOT PHYSICAL LAW. FEELINGS OF ??? TYPES OF LIVED HUMAN EXPERIENCES IS OVER LAWED FEELINGS OF A RANDOM JURY.
The police often use disorderly conduct as kind of a catch all when they don't like the behavior of the folks they are interacting with.
Disorderly conduct, obstruction, breach of the peace, resisting arrest...are all "contempt of cop" charges that they use for false arrests.
@@ChicagoTRS I was going to say the exact same thing but you beat me to it. Well said.
This can also be a tactic to remove someone from a situation a let all parties concerned "cool off". In this case the Fair Director should have been threatened with arrest for interference of an officer or harassment.
@Doug Spooner or when the only charge is failure to ID in a state where you only have to ID yourself when you are already under arrest.
the police use disorderly conduct to stop free speech
"Disorderly conduct and breach of peach."
Let's call it what it is, contempt of cop.
The Fair Director self inflicted this by going up to the man and provoking him. I can only hope that he was included in the lawsuit.
Yes, I saw the video. He should be in the lawsuit.
42 USC 1983 states, “Every person who…under color of any …custom, or usage, …causes to be subjected, …thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law,…”
Since his complaints and calls to the police resulted in the action, he can be held liable, and I say he should be. The only way people are going to learn to keep their noses on their faces and out of the affairs of others, is to hold them accountable.
The fair director is presumably an employee of some municipality. A privately run fair can restrict the speech (including a shirt) of attendees, but a government operated fair has very limited power to restrict speech. The guy could potentially sue the municipality for infringing his 1st amendment rights.
@@TheBooban Symantics. The constitution by definition defines what the government can and cannot do. So by that definition, you only have free speech in regards to what the government can do. It does not restrict private companies activities except when other rulings and laws state otherwise.
@@TheBooban Not at all how that works. Private parties are fully within their rights to prohibit specific elements of speech on their properties. If you are removing someone because of something they've said, their presence is only restricted once they violate restrictions on the speech itself. If your presence is permitted, then revoked due to something you've done, theyre not "restricting your presence", theyre restricting the behavior that got you kicked out.
@@merylsmith8297 Then how does one know the rules if the rules are not presented to them?
SO TRUE...
#1 things cops should know, "When they can arrest someone"...that is part of their job they can do everyday and one they cannot mess up. False Arrest can DESTROY someones life.
Hopefully, it will destroy some LEOs careers.
Not just false arrest. Also false accusations that lead to false arrest. It happened to me, and I am still dealing with it. I can not get a job, or even housing assistance due to my felony charge. The charges against me were dropped by the DA at the start of my arraignment deposition. I am having to hire an attorney again to help me obtain a copy of my court docket. So, that I can clear my name, and get my record expunged. The worst of it is that I can not even sue the person that filed the false charges against me. For filing a false police report, and defamation of character. Due to the fact that the statue of limitations ran out. Even though I was found not guiltily and the charges against me were dropped.
@@UncleKennysPlace Needs to happen more.
@@VickyGeagan That sucks. Need to file the civil suit, but put it on hold until criminal charges are resolved. That way it is filed within the statute of limitations. Sorry you missed it.
Their number one job is to uphold the constitution. They all put their hand on a Bible and swore too do so. Seems like they are more worried about making arrests no matter what. There are no good cops anymore because the system will not allow it, communities make too much money off of police making arrests, they wouldn’t stand for a good cop.
Police *SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMMUNITY* against false arrest charges.
A couple of years ago, a Texas Ranger was fired when he pulled his weapon on a man that displayed an insulting digit while both were on the road. The Ranger was off duty and in an unmarked car. Never a dull moment here in Waco Texas.
Never a dull moment in Waco Texas... No Doubt!
Some cop in his own car tried to pass me unsafely in a lane merge, I didn't shoot the finger or show a fist, but I said something with an expression, I doubt he could read lips, but he shook his finger and head at me and got on his radio, but I went my way and never heard anything about it, he was so rude and driving aggressively. Hurst Texas.
Even a first year law student can tell you that flipping off a cop is not illegal. And unfortunately for this cop, *ignorance of the law is not an excuse!!!!!*
Waco is known for having great stable law enforcement 😂
All he has to do is appeal
You know what's really terrifying about this?
The bill of rights was almost never a thing, as many of the founding fathers didn't think that constitutionally protecting the rights of the people was needed... We should be overjoyed that several state representatives at the constitutional congress refused to ratify the constitution until citizens' rights were protected.
They were the tinfoil hat paranoid of their day and thank God for them.
The reason the others thought that the bill of rights was unnecessary was because they thought the people would be stacking bodies by now.
@@M33f3r We should have been using trees and lamp posts for their proper political purposes 50 years ago.
@@frankney8284 I won't support that but I know at times it seems like it would get the point across. Back in the late 1800's a number of mining camps were overrun by thieves, swindlers, card cheats, and murderers. The solution was to establish a Vigilante Committee and hang or run out of camp the forementioned people. Virginia City, NV had one and they did a pretty good job of cleaning up the mining camp.
The founding fathers weren't protecting average people with The Bill of Rights, they were only protecting male land owners which were the only people who could vote back then. Hell, It didn't even protect women until the 20th Century.
@Carl Menger Their was a bit more to it than that. Outside of a handful of forward thinking men, most of the early pols were wealth paranoid asses who thought the poor were going to "take" their land and leave them destitute if you gave them any power at all.
Why the hell are SIX armed police officers confronting a man over his choice of clothing??? I didn't know America had literal fashion police...
WRONG! THEY ARE ACADEMY TRAINED IN QUALIFIED SCOTUS IMMUNITY, VERSUS THE TYRANNY OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS MYTHOLOGIZED FOR CITIZENS.
I believe the important part, is that a court finally acknowledged a tiny limitation on “qualified immunity.”
FINALLY!!!!!!
Qualified Immunity has been getting chiseled away at all over the country, it just doesn't make the news because the news only exists to piss us off these days. @_@
ESPECIALLY, in regards to unlawful arrests. Of course, police officers should know what is and what isn't lawful. Just remember, that this only pertains to one case in Michigan.
@B_Bodziak Yes but now it will be used as established
I flipped off a cop once. I didn’t know it was a cop. Do you know what that cop did??? He flipped me off right back.
Now that's what I'm talking about
equal pound for pound
Lmao
THAT MY FRIEND IS THE CORRECT RESPONSE TO THAT. SHOT AT A COP GET SHOT BACK.SPIT,BITE,HIT A COP AND THATS WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO YOU. SIMPLE.
I would actually respect that cop more
Lolololol!
A long time ago, my friend who grew up in Denver, told me him and some buddies drove by a policeman and his friend in the back seat decided to flip off the policeman. The next thing that happened was the police officer turned on his lights and pulled them over. The officer walked up to the car and looked at the kid who shot him the bird and said to him next time you wave to me please use all five fingers. The officer than went back to his car and left.
Thank god that he had nowhere else to be and nothing else to do.
Steve, I liked the bit where you quoted "look at these thugs with badges behind me, how many is there? You mother-FFers, six bitch-ass Effing pigs, Effing thugs with guns, don't uphold the constitution. F all of you, you dirty rat bastards, F-ing thieves, F-ing thugs, thugs with badges."
I'm going to have to make myself a T-shirt with all that on it.
So the least worst authoritarian jackboot.
I like it. The polieman didn't over react to the rudeness and sent a somewhat humourous message back in way which didn't cause resentment - but still sent the message.
Ehh he overreacted pulling them over. A normal citizen doesn’t get to get out of their vehicle and tell someone what they think if they get flipped off by another driver. Same standards should apply to police
Main issue should be, that all police that lose qualified immunity, should never have their attorneys fee's paid for by tax payers. Would be far less of these type cases if that were the case.
The fair decision is, the officer gets suspended. But the government has insurance, so I assume they don't give a rats ass what happens.
The only way for this to change is to have better cops arrest the bad ones.
Yes. require the cops to carry malpractice insurance, with the rate determined by their individual history. The bad apples will price themselves into a different job.
@@svenjorgensenn8418 - The fair decision is the officers are terminated and forced to pay any settlement out of their own pockets, NOT the taxpayers. Since that won’t happen, the award should be large enough to bankrupt the city - that way an unmistakable message would be sent to these Jack-booted tyrants. The fairgrounds manager also should be terminated.
@@bradcrosier1332 Your own statement makes little sense. You want the police to be held accountable for the wrongful arrest, which is fair but what if you made a mistake at work and you were financially liable for a huge sum of money by making 1 mistake, in which no one was harmed but jailed for some number of days. You think that it is fair to bankrupt a city where you live that everyone around you should suffer for your one mistake at work?
There are tons of 1st amendment auditors on social media sites but they are hunting for lawsuits, encouraging and greatly rewarding this kind of behavior cannot have a good outcome. Either police are going to be granted for power by the state or less power and there could be a day when you call for help and no one is coming.
@@davidclay3737 like doctors? One mistake can cost you a reputation, a practice, your license, and a huge judgment. What about the reputation, career and possibly the family of the wrongly accused? What if he was involved in a custody dispute and lost substantial access to a child due to the cops mistake?
The guy running the fair, as Steve mentioned, actually said "I'm not having this at MY fair" and proceeded to be a complete tyrant. The videos on TH-cam show that clearly. He was the major factor in escalating this into an arrest.
But, the cops should have known the fair director’s wishes don’t have any weight when it comes to the rights of citizens to not be arrested.
@@timdowney6721 cops know that they are the law, their training tells them as much, and that they can legally do whatever they like and are immune from prosecution...
@@timdowney6721 sometimes cops seem to forget about law enforcement, and act as feelings enforcers instead. They attempt to convert upset/hurt feelings into laws being broken. If a citizen questioned it, sometimes the cops do the right thing, and be Pease officers. Other times though they attempt to trespass people from a public building, because an employee says they're uncomfortable. Totally ridiculous.
@@rcpilot179 True. The reaction of the police in this case is very similar to that of the Russian police who are arresting people just for attempting to say anything about the "war" or the military operation in the Ukraine. We shouldn't want to emulate anything which Putin's government does unless we want to throw away our Republic and become another authoritarian country.
Well yeah absolutely, but the police don't have have to follow orders from the public to arrest people. They need to be driven by the law not some petty tyrant.
Qualified Immunity is a substitute for Sovereign Immunity. It is past it's expiration date and no person should be given immunity for their wrongful actions. I also think that the system of Civil and Criminal Law that we have extends to prior to Hamarabi's Code, I think it was the land of Ur and their laws. It is almost as old as dirt. It needs to be revised so that minor incidents need not be handled as criminal with all that entails. We need something beside Criminal and Civil.
Qualified immunity should be replaced with an immunity that covers warrants and probable cause ONLY. In those cases te real culprit would be the court system. everywhere else -- I think the cops have forgotten that they are CIVILIANS.
The cops' victim was "redressing his grievances" with the government. The cops were acting with the supposition they had Qualified IMPUNITY.
That's a good word for that
@@BionicLemming I call it how the "Just Us system" of cops, lawyers, judges, and politicians abuses it.
or 'unQualified Immunity'
That's why they do all the stupid s*** that they do because they think they can do what they want to whoever they want whenever they want until until they start losing their paychecks and their houses and their cars for their stupidity I promise you I promise you as soon as they start losing money personally there behavior will change
@@ELREASON44 that's actually a thing. Called absolute immunity. No qualifier needed, you're not liable period. End of discussion.
If I got selected for jury duty and stayed on as a juror in a case like this I would be highly upset. Wasting people's valuable time over cops ego is ridiculous. I would award the man a good amount of money.
Time to raise up our children to be judges!🗽
I doubt the cops ego had much to do in this case. They were escorting him out and at the demand of the manager of the fair ended up arresting him.
Still a bad arrest and shouldn’t happen, but the complaint from the manager to their department for not doing their job also holds a lot of weight unfortunately.
Better training all around is needed.
I'd award him the damages due for anyone wrongfully imprisoned for however long he was in lockup, and his attorney's fees, and $100. And that's it.
It was self-inflicted, but that is no excuse for law enforcement overstepping their arrest authority.
@@WntBorn last time I checked a fair director doesn't have power to arrest anyone, that's no excuse for these tyrants not knowing the constitution and law.
@@SirBrass Agreed. This should NOT even be ALLOWED to go to Trial, because it's a clear cut win. No matter what. Period. Trials are for when things more evidence, but also when things are meddled and subjective. There was NOTHING Subjective about this. This was FULLY Recorded, from start to finish, and a clear cut case of Constitutional First Right Violation. Period. The cause should be over right then and there, Cops guilty and guy won, give him his reward. There is literally no reason for a Trial to exist.
Just the fact that Steve purchased the NWA cassette in college speaks volumes for this guy. Awesome.
This is what happens when you have officers that try to pull an arrest out of their hat, and are policing off their feelings, and not the law. This is something that has gone over the top, in this day and age. Time to set them straight, these cops earned everything they get, and more. If they can't do their job properly, then get rid of them. We would be better off, with fewer cops, than ones that does not know how to do their job, by the law.
Oh, "just a few bad apples" they always say! 🙄
@@citizenfour9622 Have spoiled the bunch.
@@cycleboy8028 - Exactly!
Seems to have proved the guys shirt right. We have an enemy occupation force pretending to be a legitimate government and these asshole cops are their standing army.
@@M33f3r that is some good think. Here's some more: Kings, Slave owners, and people rich enough to buy those with power, versus peasants, slaves, and the rest of us. If one side is to be preferred... well, it's probably our own, right? Also, police don't have to be wealthy to be in the wrong, they just have to enforce the class interests of the wealthy on the rest of us.
I've read a good bit about this case, I wish the fair director could also have been sued.
The county who pays him should be sued.
Maybe it'll sting enough that they'll see the light and fire him. At that guy's age losing his .gov retirement would absolutely ruin him.
nothing stops him from filing a lawsuit on the fair director later... other than time
Thank you for your support. I litigated pro se for two years before I got attorney to represent me. I filed another law suit in January which includes Dean Blair and the county. Michael Wood v Deborah Burchett, 3:22-cv-11.
if a prosecutor suggested he could have avoided all this by simply not exercising his rights, that would immediately tick me off personally
that'd be a way to instantly lose me if I were ever on a jury.
I disagree. Let's change the story a little and change the rights being exercised from the First Amendment to the Second Amendment. Instead of an "F the police" t-shirt, let's say he was wearing a AR-15 rifle across his back. How would you feel about the director's decision in this scenario? Is a person's ability to exercise their rights unlimited? Or do you agree that in certain venues (such as fairgrounds), specific limitations should apply (in this case, limitations of vulgarity)?
For example, I would not have any problem if he wore a shirt that said, "The police are evil". It's a matter of the F-word that I would agree with the Fairground director's decision.
@@SergeantExtreme no, places are supposed to post up policies regarding that kind of stuff, and there's usually all kinds of vulgarity in public. not saying that people shouldn't have respect for those around them because some people would rather their children nit be exposed to vulgarity, at the end of the day, it's your job as the parent.
@@ezlomacks6533 So you're saying it would be OK for me to wear a T-shirt with the n-word on it at the fair?
@@SergeantExtreme How would I feel? I'd side with the man.
"Or do you agree that in certain venues (such as fairgrounds), specific limitations should apply (in this case, limitations of vulgarity)? "
Obscenity has no standing. The constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The end.
"It's a matter of the F-word that I would agree with the Fairground director's decision."
Its not. You're unamerican. And it is for that reason that jury members are anonymous. Otherwise, problems like you would be. Dealt with.
@@SergeantExtreme Yes. It is. Free speech is absolute. There is no such thing as hate speech. I wouldn't suggest it because other people are children, and of course the blacks would try to beat you to death because they are savages. But you don't expect an animal to act like a man.
I saw the original vid on this one. The t-shirt guy, who I found obnoxious, nevertheless captured some damning footage of the Cops. And its gonna cost 'em much more than refunding a $3 entry fee
BTW: your story didn't include the mutually antagonistic behavior and profanity laden language from the Fairground Operator who was leading t-shirt guy out.
Yeah, I keep calling him the yappy ankle biter. It seems to fit well.
Yeah, I saw it to, his statements are damning when they stand alone but he was only giving back what he got. I felt that the fair ground director should have been restrained and detained before the victim.
@@leehiller2489 Thank you. I thought I was the only one who saw the unedited exchange. It's an important detail, considering the Fairgrounds Manager ISNT a Cop.
The fact was the guy was leaving and the cops and fair guy kept mouth off also BTW you are allowed to cuss and swear at cops and flipped off the cops
He wasn't kicked out for cussing at cops,the cussing came after he was kicked out for his free speech that he had written on his shirt by the way the guy had already had changed his shirt when was approached and kick out go to the youtube channel Lackluster where you can find the video of it happing
The most interesting thing Steve said was, "Was it self-inflicted?" The answer is, "Yes, it is self-inflicted." My take is that it was self-inflicted by the police. The police stopped the man when he wasn't wearing the shirt. From that point on, anything (good or bad) is self-inflicted by the police.
I would add that weather he was wearing the shirt or not is immaterial. The moment they challenged him over the alleged shirt, they sealed their fate.
Yes exactly, i wonder if they cang et everything after the police was involved, thrown out since he was no longer wearing it
I like your take on the situation.
@@any1alive The most egregious violations of his rights happened at the hands of police. He should NOT want any of that thrown out as it strengthens his case. Maybe I misunderstood your post.
@@hugoh.9694 Yes and no, i am beyond tired and need a drink, so it wasnt really thought out fully nor written with much sense, but in my mind if i could ever word it better would help him. get the verdict where he wasinthe right and gets hsi proper compensation
As a former LEO, the only scuffles I got into during making arrests is when I was partnered with a male officer and the suspect being arrested began hurling insults. When I, a female, was partnered with a woman, whatever the suspect said didn’t bother us. Once he or she got his or her thoughts verbalized and out there, the person was compliant and amiable. We were even thanked many many times for our fairness and professionalism! But the males I worked with would not stand for someone insulting them. Such a pain. I’m so glad I’m not in law enforcement anymore. Terrible profession.
One of my closest friends became a cop and was so disgusted by their behavior she quit the force AND divorced her cop husband!
She warned me cops you consider friends are NOT your friend, the only friends they have are other cops... you're just a "civilian" to them. Don't ever let a cop into your home, even if they're an acquaintance, and don't ever date one.
It is a terrible profession, and only terrible people are or were LEOs.
The men who join have been bullied into smithereens early in life and are looking for sick revenge.
The Ponytail cops usually are just ladies who diverge from the domestic scene, and good for them.
@@buttonsf3293 In my opinion, your friend is spot on.
@@davidgriffin6724 ouch! Well thanks for calling me a terrible person David. It feels really good!
I hope the victim sought Exemplary Damages from the “Official” who incited the Police.
Yeah that’s my hope as well.
Wait you said something in the podcast that makes me crazy, the police can claim ignorance of the law but we cannot ... wow that is hypocritical as heck.
Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense for citizens to use. Dear Lord it certainly shouldn’t be for “Law Enforcement” officers.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one ! Including those who enforce the law !
@@steveriley1000 What do you not understand about 'qualified immunity'? The whole point to this video of Steve's is that cops get away with everything all the time and this exception to the rule being so unusual makes that point. Lawyers don't know every law. Cops get taught to lie and dominate in every situation regardless, not the law
@@steveriley1000 if anything they should be required to at least know constitutional law and what they can and cannot do...
Too many Leo's think they have a lot more authority then they actually do.
For example, "contempt of cop" is not a crime...
Why am I not surprised this happened in Ohio? LOL. These tyrants will stop you for traveling at 67mph in a 65mph zone. Yes, I’ve seen it. People in Ohio… WAKE UP and stand up for your Constitutional Rights!!!
Police illegally made me homeless in 2019.
I'm getting one!
One man's vulgarity is another man's poetry!
Thank you for taking up this issue. At this time there are a few States who have limited or removed qualified immunity for Police. It is my desire that it would be removed entirely not only police but for public prosecutors and other Fed. State and Local gov't employees. It would be put the onus on them all that they could be personally sued for their actions and the public would stop having to pay with their taxes for their careless, power driving misconduct.
The money is going to come from taxpayers no matter what. If it doesn't come from paying the cost of insuring the police as a whole it will come from paying the higher salaries of individual cops who have personal insurance as a necessary job expense. The only financial benefit will be that cops may change their behavior (I wouldn't hold my breath), or they'll end up in other jobs as a result of increasing premiums if they're sued too often.
Agree 100% I am all for that!
I think cops and some other public servants should be required to carry a bond that would provide insurance against being sued. When a cop screws up enough, no bond agent would write their coverage, they'd be no longer able to work as a cop, if they can't be bonded. Free market solution.
You will have societal breakdown if you get your way. No one will enforce any law at all and then eventually individuals will enforce their own laws.
Just because QI wasn't granted at the trial level doesn't mean it won't be reinstated upon appeal. Don't get too ahead of yourselves.
@@suedenim9208 my entire department has said they would quit immediately if there was some kind of "personal insurance" requirement. So has every officer in every department in my region.
If I were on the jury, I would side with the guy who was arrested. With enough of a penalty to ensure the cops never do it again.
Hopefully, no one on this jury is an uptight religious prude, disgusted by his language, and will base their decisions on their 'feelings'.
I would side with the defendant too, in order to uphold the Supreme Court ruling about this because too many people are still getting arrested for disorderly conduct after flipping off cops.
The minimum for a false arrest/kidnapping should be 20 million US dollars and up from there as warranted. Plus, the perps should be sent to prison for the kidnapping.
Awsome channel. I don't know if there's other lawyers doing the same thing on social media but I'm sure glad you are.
He is totally right about these officer's.
I remember seeing the bodycam video. The fair director tried to claim he owned the property (which he does not). They tried VERY hard to throw him out the front gate, to make him walk all the way around to where he was parked.
Probably because it was closer to their cruisers. Didn't want to have to walk all the way around to throw him in the back of one.
As Fair Director, he would in fact have managerial control of the grounds, and therefore can lawfully tell someone to leave. So he is good there.
It's the lies that undercut his position.
@@nunya3163 Not on public property, which the fairgrounds was. You have to have committed a crime to be trespassed from public property.
@@nunya3163 cant be told to leave public property when you didn't commit a crime. the shirt wasn't a crime. in fact the fair director could be sued for deprivation of rights under the color of law since he lied and said he owned the property, etc.
@@liquidfiretibby yep and hopefully the fair director will be sued.
In addition to unlawful arrest I would think the suit should include that he was illegally forced to leave the fair. He was singled out for his free speech and punished for it.
With each and every passing day, it seems the police are more and more determined to prove the truth behind the saying:
"Too ugly to fu*k, too dumb to steal? Give him a gun and an automobile."
My dad is a retired officer in Ohio. He most def can steal.
@@Seldomheardabout most Ohio cops can, and do, if they don't they cover for their buddy who did.
@@daltongarrett7117 I got unjustly raided while growing marijuana. The summit guys stole my parents wedding rings among other things.
My dad is just a petty thief -_-
Asset forfeiture.... 😝
I watched that video. One of the downfalls of the officers was them discussing what they could arrest him on…while being recorded on their own cameras. 🤦🏻♀️
I honestly think it will settle out of court. The city (taxpayers) will end up footing the bill.
No ... that's the purpose of removing their Qualified Immunity. He gets to sue the cops in their individual capacity.
@@johnswicegood7000 It can still settle out of court.
It only comes from the taxpayers inasmuch as they pay for the insurance policy.
So if you sue the police they're covered on the policy.
Approximately 90% of all Michigan have the same insurance.
@@johnswicegood7000 True, but the "blue line" mafia will offer him taxpayer cash to settle the case out of court and spare their footsoldiers.
Does anyone have a link to the body cam footage?
Sheriff arrested me for "pointing" at him while getting video coverage outside a Hamblen County TN voter polling place in 2021. 14 months later and they still don't know if they have enough evidence to proceed with the case.
“Cops lose immunity” best three words ever
It's absolutely amazing how many cops don't know the law, and will quick to violate people's rights.
I've been watching first ammendment auditor videos. They have opened my eyes to law enforcement's corrupt behavior
Think about this. The public and politicians decide whether or not to fund the police to either have a well trained law enforcement or a law enforcement poorly trained because of lack of funds resulting in poorly trained officers. So with that said the politicians and ultimately the public is at fault!
@@Pledgeman Yes public decides to fund the police, but the police choose what to do with those funds. Instead of using it on training, they use it on more officers, increased pay, military style weapons, and lawsuits like this one because they know they can get away with anything.
They know. They just don't care because there are no real consequences for their illegal behavior.
Well stated. Ditto
Rich P it has nothing to do with training. The problem is there’s a culture of us against them, corruption and tyranny throughout law-enforcement. It definitely varies among departments and agencies but it’s not a money issue it’s a integrity, accountability and oversight issue.
Great point that you made toward the end of the video Steve. You never know what type people you will have in the jury that makes the decision.
Steve, I too have a ton of intrest in this case, and am following it! I wanted to point out a major part you might of overlooked, one of the arresting officer was caught on camera admitting they screwed him and violated his rights just because of the shirt. The donut eater stated, "Hows that work, you wore a shirt that says F@#& the police, yet you want us to uphold and protect your constitutional rights", as he was laughing at Mr Woods while transporting him to jail!
The bar for police officers just keeps dropping and the public &their victims are the only ones that seem to pay for their ridiculous decisions & criminal actions! 🙄
Yes and the solution to attracting highly qualified people to serve as law enforcement officers is to decrease pay and increase personal liability. I'm certain that will correct the issue.
The bar hasn't dropped at all, people have just realised they can point it out with less fear of retaliation now. As a cop caught on bodycam in a separate case said '10 years ago we would've beat his ass, 15 20 years ago he'd be dead, knocked him down and his teeth all over the ground'.
@@WilC379
Given the gross overreaction of having six cops for the terrible threat of a guy wearing a tee shirt, it’s obvious there are too many cops on the payroll.
Three intelligent, better-trained cops can avoid the idiocy of a half-dozen clowns with over-developed amygdalas. They’ll also gain trust from citizens, allowing better help in finding actual criminals, rather than a guy who bruises blue gang egos.
@@timdowney6721 only one police officer was needed to discuss this issue with the man. Once it was determined the man was entitled to wear his shirt and no laws were broken, the policeperson should have left. The other officers probably came over since they were bored. Poor training results in poor actions.
Thank you for your support. The audio and video data was tampered with. Still fighting.
The cops deserved every single word. I would convict them in a heart beat if I was on that jurry. And I would have awarded the man every single penny I was allowed to. If you have a right to say it you have a right to say it. I wouldn’t say it. I very much dislike that kind of speech. But the cops won’t learn if there are no consequences.
Welp I’m glad you’re not on that Jury. A real juror only makes a suggestion of the punishment based on the evidence. You are not the judge. And also you must act in restraint as the punishment must fit the crimes. This is why jail/prison times are not set in law but is “up to” this amount of time.
Number one reason not to flip off the cops is if the cops think they're Rambo, you might get shot 60 times in the back. And you can't sue them if you're dead. Also in Ohio.
I saw the video of that incident. I don't agree with his conduct or views, but I do agree that if the police can take his rights away they can certainly take away mine. Many times things like this happen and nothing is done to those in power. For that reason, if I was on his jury, unless there was some other evidence that changed things... I would have to side with the man.
I stopped supporting the police when they stopped supporting the constitution. Red flag laws were the final straw. I am open to supporting them again if they start arresting the traitors in power but I’m not I holding my breath.
When police authorities fail to follow the law, then the society has entered the era of a diminished democracy. If it goes too far, you can end up with an authoritarian government or worse a dictatorship such as the one operated in today's Russia. The police there are arresting people who even try to gather together or demonstrate or discuss any "current" activity of the government.
The audio and video data was tampered with.
The cops are quite literally proving his views correct. There are hundreds of videos on youtube of cops brazenly violating people's rights. Audit the Audit is one such great channel.
Most people don't know their rights, or that their rights are even being violated in the first place. The cops know, and they don't care, and consistently escalate when a citizen exercises their constitutional rights.
I live next door to Clark County. Nothing in this case surprises me at all except the prosecutor dropping the charges.
So, you’re saying it’s a GOP county…..which would explain their contempt for Constitutional rights.
@@timdowney6721 Do you even have a clue where or even what state Clark County is located ? While you're at it, tell us what color the sun is on your planet.
I'm in Springfield and I literally just posted that exact thing. LOL
You talked about the way he was speaking to the officers and seeing the first amendment auditors, and what happens when they get into court. That's why I like Long Island Audits. He is always respectful and always polite in all of his videos. So when came time for him to appear in court in Connecticut it was everybody else that looked out of control in the body cam footage.
I think of LIA as more of an educator versus an agitator. I respect his attitude.
It's never a good look for the cops when they are acting more out of control than the person they are investigating.
But why are you going to be respectful to someone who is not respectful to you, wants to talk down to you and violate your rights?
Alot of times cops have already being sued, lost and they will still claim after alll that, that you cant film in public place. Their only goal is to excert their power over you and send you jail.
And especially the public servants that run libraries, post offices, etc. They try to treat you like if your one of their workers
@@tocadadj2951 not because they deserve ANY respect, but because you don't want to take the chance that a bootlicker on the jury will use your behavior to sway the others to convict out of emotion
@BulldogBBMC yes i get that but many times, these lawsuits dont even go to trial and juries. City just settles out court.
So my preference are the auditors that call cops pigs to their face
Does anyone notice how if we speak a threat it's a crime but when a cop does that it's not even a policy violation
I financially support both the IJ and Howard University School of Law. There are too few attorneys looking out for our civil rights.
My students were at an elementary school science fair. A man shows up with "YOUR CANDY A** IS NEXT" on his shirt; pictures of skulls and weapons and so on. Police wouldn't go near him because "he looked like he would start trouble." Somewhere between the two scenarios is common sense.
Threatening children at an elementary school science fair is illegal. No one took any action to remove this guy. That is precisely how school shootings happen.
Those cops would have no problem roughing-up one of your students who was caught with a joint.
@@ianbattles7290plus that guy was probably an off duty cop
I only had to read the title to know that IJ was going to be a part of it. Bless their efforts in restoring faith in the court system and in public accountability to the degree that they have.
Restoring faith in the courts? Not even close. Restoring faith in lawyers? Yeah. IJ are the real public servants that protect us from the "red tape" of the "blue line" mafia.
@@citizenfour9622 I didn't say their mission is done, only mentioned their efforts towards that goal.
I remember a sergeant in the police Dept tell the officers "there's no law about talking sh!t". I still chuckle when I see these videos where people loose it over words.
**twitch** and I lose it over too many "o"s in lose...heh
@@phillipsofthedriver I guess I got carried away!! lol
Yes there is... First Ammendment.
If this happened in Philly, the jury would vote against the cops.
I watched this entire interaction on Audit the Audits channel. There were several officer's questioning thier Sargent as to whether they could even charge the man. His language made me cringe, I would never speak to anyone with that foul of language, cop or otherwise. That being said, I firmly believe the fair official and the officers involved escalated this encounter completely out of control due to their own egos. They were not following the law from the second they approached the man and continued to antagonize him into a greater and greater rage. The cops behavior during the entire interaction was completely unacceptable, as a juror on this case I would award the man whatever he asked for even though I believe his language was completely unacceptable he has the right to insult them in any manner he chooses within the bounds of protected speech. Law officers have a multitude of sources at thier disposable to understand an individual's constitutional rights. For that matter so do the judges in the lower courts, this should have never been kicked up to the 6th circuit. The voters of that district should seriously consider replacing the lower court judge as, in my opinion, he unqualified to hear cases concerning an individual's constitutional rights.
Problem is, the opinion below came from a U.S. District Judge, who is appointed for life. Voters can't touch him. Only Congress could impeach him, and that's not going to happen here.
@@mwduck Judges are not imputable. If the constituents of that district truly wanted them off the bench they would let their elected congressional leaders know it. The breakdown of the system is not just at the federal level, it falls into the lap of the People as well. I did not realize the suit originated in Federal district but now that you correct me it make sense, it was his constitutional right that was violated so filing in Federal district would be the correct jurisdiction.
@@aeonstar5867 To preserve judicial independence, federal judges in the U.S. are appointed for life to avoid that very thing -- the whim of an electorate and the influence of the other branches of govt. They aren't -- and shouldn't be -- removed from the bench merely for making an unpopular decision or being wrong on a particular issue.
@@mwduck I agree that preservation of judicial independence is paramount. Removal of judges at the state and federal level is extremely rare and it should be. But I respectfully disagree that removal from the bench is never warranted. Thinking about this subject in this particular instance I would agree with you that removal for an opinion I simply disagree with would be draconian. I think now the better method would be to insist that elected members of Congress more thoroughly vet potential lower court judges before appointment.
@@aeonstar5867 A thorough vetting is always a good thing. It's unfortunate that it -- and confirmation hearings -- have become such political events, esp. for nominees to the federal appellate courts. If you read my posts again, you'll see that I never wrote "removal from the bench is never warranted." Google, for a modern example, Alcee Hastings from Florida, who was impeached and removed from the federal bench for bribery and perjury, then got himself elected to Congress! Or Hon. Carlos Murguia, a federal judge in Kansas who resigned from the bench in 2020 in the face of some serious charges of judicial misconduct. Both VERY warranted. On the other hand, removal of Judge Rose for his decision in Wood v. Eubanks, which was reversed on appeal, would never be considered in Congress. Simply being "wrong" isn't enough. Different story with state court judges. Some are directly elected by the people and have to stand for re-election every so often. In some states, judges are appointed by the governor and face retention elections every so often. The voters get their chance to defeat ("fire") an unpopular judge in those cases. In no state that I know is a judge appointed for life without being subjected to a vote of the people at some point. And, of course, state court judges can also be removed from office mid-term for misconduct, which happens frequently. (E.g., check out the bizarre case of Judge Donald Thompson in Oklahoma: www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ex-judge-donald-thompson-busted-penis-pump-trials-pension-cut-article-1.968325) The mechanism for removal varies from state to state.
George Washington said, " If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter ". I was raised with polite and courteous mannerisms. But there comes a time when a man has to put aside good manners and stand on his beliefs. You may not like the words but by God you should respect a man's right to speak them. There is a reason why free speech is first in the Bill of Rights. It is the cornerstone, the anchor for freedom in our society. Those who don't respect the 1st Amendment should really study our history. Our founding fathers came from a time and place where even the slightest of criticisms against the ruling authorities could land them in jail or worse, to the gallows. Peaceful speech is a powerful tool for change and against tyranny. With regard to the children at that county fair, you have to ask yourself, which is the better lesson to learn, what not to say in polite society or fighting for your rights even though you may be arrested is an honorable thing?
Most kids have heard the same or worse already. If anyone's kids are too fragile, don't take them out in public. The shirt didn't cause the nasty language, the director did by his actions.
Well said,thumbs up. But go edit, you forgot the “ not” before “ like the words”. Rock on
Well said
I'm from Ohio...and if on your theoretical jury on this case and after watching the video offered as evidence as described...I would rule in favor of the citizen, and would strongly encourage everyone on the jury to follow suit. Like you...while I don't condone the behavior or language, I do TOTALLY support the first amendment and forcing those in authority to abide by our laws.
Same here, I'm from Ohio, and I agree, with you 100% . The police should of known better. $25,000 per officer involved for the arrest..
Well said!
Unfortunately, the arrest will never be erased from the internet. This man may have been looking to trigger the police and the county representative but the police damaged his life - FOREVER. He deserves some compensation.
The worst part, unless he already has been recorded somewhere in a police dept. is now his name, fingerprints and other personal data are in the data files both locally and will eventually be sent to the FBI as part of the data files they collect. You don't need to be convicted, just arrested. Not a good outcome so yes he needs to be compensated plus his attorney's fees should also be paid.
@@Harry-zz2oh if this was self inflicted, why he take the shirt off. why were the cops ever there? he may have tickled the sleeping lions foot but the cops and director punch he lion leat some punk for lunch.
I thought long and hard about this. The phrase “a person of ordinary firmness” keeps coming up. When the police use their badge and authority to indicate that a person of ordinary firmness should not be engaged in a perfectly legal activity it is wrong. It’s not just the guy who’s being arrested that is affected by this. Everyone at the fair that day was being taught a lesson. If they knew about the shirt the lesson was you’re not allowed to wear a shirt that says something like that. Even if they didn’t know about the shirt they’re watching A man being herded by the police and forced to leave under duress. Again the lesson is you’re not allowed to say things like that. Some little boy the fair is going to turn to his mom or dad and say was that a bad man? And the answer is he didn’t do anything wrong but the same little boy might say if he didn’t do anything wrong then why are the police arresting him? The police action that day has a chilling effect on every single person there is their exercise of freedom. It’s not about the guy being arrested although he certainly has damages. It’s about the way that they are using that moment to teach every person there that you cannot push back even verbally against their authority. That is wrong. That is the problem.
@@briandillon2274 very perceptive! They want us to fear the police. Qualified immunity keeps our corrupt politicians in power.
They know that the police, are the only thing keeping us from throwing them all out of office.
Tyranny is enforced thru fear. Fear the governemnt.....
@@briandillon2274 nice. they should use this in court to defend they case tbh
I wish more police thought of rights as something to cherish and protect rather than an obstacle to overcome.
Six cops for an "offensive" t-shirt? Guess the real criminals took the day off.
@8:50 -- "Police should know..." I once dated an ADA. Her phone was constantly ringing. Police don't know anything but how to pull a trigger. I mean they would call us during dinner asking WHAT they could arrest for, not whether they should. Many times she had to tell them to let people go or leave them alone!
Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that things the cops said might also matter. It seems very clear that this was a deliberately retaliatory arrest.
If you go to his channel you will see that he has had run-ins with the police before. They definitely targeted him because he has complained about them before.
And if any of them fibbed about it they need to be jailed on perjury charges.
I like your point about the unpredictability of jury awards. People get tunnel vision over the constitutional issues and often forget that even if you win the argument (case) you still have to deal with the whims of a jury . Why such a huge percentage of cases are settled. The attorneys on both sides know that come award time it's a crap shoot.
No. Cases are settled because people are stupid and take plea deals for things that ARE NOT CRIMINAL OFFENSES.
I will be judged by 12 every single time. I'm not going to take a known failure, over appealing to my peers. Thanks. You enjoy the taste of a boot smashing your face.
It's messed up that simply being right about the law sometimes isn't enough.
AND even if you are awarded a dollar amount, then you have to collect it.
triple jeopardy: 1) maybe you win the case; 2) maybe a jury grants you a sizable award; 3) maybe the defendant has assets and pays after years of stalling.@@buttonsf3293
From years ago, before qualified immunity I believe. For the Michigan-Ohio football game there were a bunch of students with F*** Michigan t-shirts on.
Arrests etc. When it went to trial the judge threw it out as a free speech issue.
I believe this was in the early to mid 60's.
That case would be pretty much spot on with this one.
Back in the early 1970s, USC sold t-shirts that read "FUCLA" while making use of the UCLA logo. And another one that read "I used to go to UCLA, but then my dad got a real job." Those were the days.
Getting your case "thrown out" or even winning your case and beating the charges has NOTHING to do with "Immunity".... Cop arrests you.... you are found innocent or it's simply thrown out and either way you WIN the case..... NONE of that has to do with "Immunity".... Qualified Immunity means that now you have won your case... you cannot target the cop who arrested you with a lawsuit FOR arresting you.
@@realtijuana5998 hahahaha
The video that I watched had the cops discussing "what should we do?"
Also, the fair director instigated the man further by dogging him a cursing at him.
The man needs to go after the cops with a "Surety" bond claim and have them fired.
No bond no job.
I wish the prosecutor had arrested the fair director for ACTUALLY disturbing the peace.
When I was a cop back in the 70's I was taught this response to that type of verbal insults, just let it go, and say, " everyone is entitled to their opinion."
The adult response.
I sincerely believe there should be a random Citizen's panel to determine legality of constitutional rights violations AND immunity. They should also determine civil asset forfeiture, whether they are justified or not. Put it in the hands of the people. Hold police accountable.
Yes. NYC tried doing this, but the Blue Line mafia stonewalled it. I can't imagine why they feared being held accountable by the community they policed. They're the "good guys", right? Also, folks on the Right called it a "Commie panel" or some such. They love licking their boots too.
Who decides who's on this board? What's their limits? Political affiliation? No thank you
@@citizenfour9622 this is why I say we have an enemy occupation force pretending to be a legitimate government.
Many on the right have stopped their support over gun control.
@@M33f3r I'm what one would call "on the right" and I have never supported police. It's made me a paraiah among the typical BoomPubliTards.
The problem I have with this is that fair and equal protection of basic human rights, without trying to find double standards that only benefit oneself specifically, has become uncoothe.
In my ALS class, most of it was just debate about ethical scenarios. Because I'm a massive nerd, I could recognize where most of these "fictional" scenarios came from.
One "fictional" scenario was where a local n@zi group filed all the right paperwork necessary to peacefully protest in a predominantly minority community, got denied by the city for no reason other than that it would be un-PC. Then we were basically asked who is in the wrong, GO.
I immediately called out the scenario as based on a real world ACLU case, in which the n@zi group sued the city, AND WON. More astonishingly, they were represented by a jewish lawyer. The lawyer cared more about fair and equal interpretation of the law, and cared more about basic human rights like freedom of speech, than he did the fact that he was representing a group of people who actually despised his kind... I'd like to hope simply having to interact with a jew who helped them achieve their goals maybe made them reconsider their own prejudices (which is why the Daryl Davis approach to activism is imo, significantly more effective than modern SJW victim olympics). Anyway, I talked about the actual case, and ended what I had to say fervently agreeing with the outcome of the case. You should defend basic human rights, even for those you vehemently disagree with. Because if you strip those rights from people like that... There is nothing stopping them from one day doing the same to you. Either everybody is afforded the same rights... Or nobody is.
... One of the most disheartening experiences... I was shocked by how many people disagreed with me. Something like 20 out of the 22 people in the class argued with me the whole time that that particular demonstration needed to be shut down, even if the means werent legal.
... The couple of black women in the class argued with me the most, and their reasoning was that the protest was not actually peaceful. I pressed for an explanation. After all, if they're filing for an official permit to be there, obeying laws on where and when they can and cant protest... They probably aren't rolling up with as a lynch mob as it were, just showing up with stupid signs, stupid uniforms, and stupid words.
Their argument was that it incited violence because the response from a black community would be to riot and destroy the neighborhood... I'm not making this up, this is literally the most internalized racist sh@t I have ever heard. The woman who said it basically infantalized all black people as only being capable of responding to a protest of offensive people, with actual property destruction. True or not, how is that the responsibility or fault of the protest? Most people are in control of their emotions enough to, you know... Not let words bother them that much?
As a bisexual, I got called a F@gg@t by like, the same 4 people from the local nutjob church everyday walking through the main square of my campus to class. It has never once bothered me, because literally, A, who gives a f@ck what they think, and B, they're well within their right to do that... Just as I'm well within my right to retort with all manner of obscenities in return. Usually, I was more interested in just getting to my class on time to go make something of myself.
The only other person who agreed with me was an asian american. And for good reason, for a lot of reasons, they get sh@t on by both liberals and conservatives, often through actual policies (for example, since they're overachievers for being an ethnic minority, they actually are weighted the most heavily against in affirmative action school admissions... Even more so than white people. Yet they still have a long history of being mistreated in this country).
Anyway... It was disappointing. If 20 out of 22 average citizens can be expected to vote to demolish freedom of speech because offensive language is considered inciteful of violence in others, then to be quite honest, I don't even want to give your average american the chance to vote on this sh@t. The founding fathers had these basic rights in the constitution mostly right from the getgo, and giving people too many opprotunities to change that just leads to more authoritarian restrictions. Just look at how many different exceptions there are to freedom of speech today, how many types of speech "arent protected", exceptions that never existed over a century ago. These are all recent changed made BY the people to try and undermine our basic freedoms.
Six cops? Sounds like that police department is overstaffed by at least 5.
Having an overwhelming force protects officers and the suspect. If the situation turns violent everyone benefits from the police being able to swiftly get control of the incident and that requires having enough people.
@aebalc having more than needed also endangers a suspect and other officers depending on the situation.
And you can bet that this call will be used as justification for either more overtime for this event or hiring more police officers. This is a old tactic used by police and firefighters to justify increases in budgets over the years. A one or two person call ends up with 3-15 more officers for “backup” and in the next budget the department heads claim a shortage of trained bodies. I’m a 27 year veteran of municipal politics and have seen this done repeatedly.
@@briangarrow448 we had "extra" cops/pigs at the last mass shooting in Dayton - They killed the gunman in seconds. just sayin
@@aebalc That certainly worked out for Rodney King.
The Thick Blue Skulls never learn until the prison doors slam shut on THEM.
"we told him to go out the front gate, but he went out the back gate (because we allowed him to)" even though he didn't have to go out of any gate because they had no lawful authority to eject him from a public place that he had a right as a tax-payer, not to mention by contract, to be. We won't even get into that contract being revoked under duress by, presumably, a county employee. So, that don't really fly as grounds to dismiss, either. Although it might work at trial and have to go through the appellate process again.
@@Joxman2k At least in my jurisdiction, Not unless they either flatly refused to vacate, or vacated and later attempted to re-enter. We've had this problem with vagrants.
@@Joxman2k stores are private property. Owners can tell you to leave for any reason other than discrimination against a protected class.
The county fairgrounds, at a county fair, ran by the county, is not the same.
"we told him to go out the front gate, but he went out the back gate (because we allowed him to)" OK, so why didn't you charge him for it when you seized him? I think they would fail with their "we could have" approach.
@@Joxman2k If a woman was being harassed then an arrest is in order. If their is no proof then that is what security at fair grounds are for (i used to do security for fairs and sporting events and music concerts). Usually if a security guard lets his presence be known the guy will stop unless he's drunk at which point you have a reason to do a citizens arrest for drunk and disorderly behavior. I used to get at least on drunk per job who tried to start a fight. The rule was to ignore them until they got physical then do a CA till the police showed up. I've seen some really shitty behavior out there which is most likely why i don't have a lot of faith in humanity in a general sense.
@@Joxman2k you can’t be trespassed from a public place
Great breakdown. I really enjoy your channel, Steve. It's not only entertaining but a valuable public resource.
I live in Clark county and I can say with certainty the law enforcement here are a prime example of why police academy needs to be a 4 year degree
In police department training, one of the maxims was “a police officer’s peace cannot be disturbed.” One could extend that to public employees, presumably including a county or state fair director. Bad arrest for sure. And the fact of such training should be brought out in a trial. A jury should hear something like that in the judge’s instructions. Still, you could easily get a couple yahoos on the jury, which is why jury selection consultants are rarely poor.
@@scattergun2317 good point! I would definitely like to see him get enough to cover all the litigation costs, maybe even a little extra as this case might be used as case law in future cases.
@@scattergun2317
This is why cops need to carry their own personal malpractice insurance, just like doctors. This way they will have to pay for their own bad behavior, instead of taxpayers. I believe that cops should also have a law enforcement degree that is similar to a regular law degree, but with added aspects of enforcement. Then they should have to pass a fitness and character review, along with a state LEO bar exam in the state they wish to work in.
Better to pay fewer cops with more money if they are better educated and more effective at their jobs, and do not cost society in lost taxpayer money, loss of confidence in LE, along with wasted time and resources that could be better used for real crimes.
@@GoCoyote it won't happen. No one will work under those conditions, period.
Plus, some of what you're suggesting, such as law enforcement degrees and LEO bar exams have existed for decades.
Maybe it's YOU that doesn't know what the job entails or what the law is.
@@eq1373 I suspect that you must be a police officer. Or at the very minimum a sympathizer. I respectfully disagree with your opinion I believe very much that you could get people to work under those conditions and they would work in a calm respectful law-abiding manner.
@@scattergun2317 I only disagree with your statement if you imply he should not be compensated. His constitutionally provided freedoms were improperly taken away from him, albeit temporarily. Freedoms are valuable enough to fight for and I strongly believe he should be compensated.
I live in Ohio, I am a supporter of police. I am totally against Qualified Immunity. It takes away the expectation of responsible and reasonable actions by the police.
If the Police need better training then get it.
Are you watching whats happening in Ironton?
I think in addition to training they should also have some amount of education in the law. They should also be held criminally liable in certain situations.
@@patricktracy6472 What is happening in Ironton? That's where I adopted my first rescue dog from.
@@huwhitecavebeast1972 You Tuber Delete Lawz is exposing a ton of police corruption. He is a different flavor and takes some getting used to (auditor type) but he means well and is working to get people justice from the crooked cops there. He has been there two days now gathering content.
@@patricktracy6472 ???
Getting overtime so they can walk around checking out all the
“ young girls and boys”🤔🤔🤔🤔
Steve, So much appreciation towards the sharing of these qualified immunity cases, knowledge, and effort to help get people notified of the issue, and help in hoping to get this dissolved soon, thanks so much for your effort.
I'm afraid there are going to be so many civil rights lawsuits that Congress will want to abolish the Constitution when that happens kiss America good by
Having camera's rolling is the best way to keep authorities honest!
And also protect them if a disgruntled criminal tries to pop them in a drive by, which is easily foreseeable.
Cops need to realize that public surveillance can help keep them safe on the job.
I've been a jury prisoner twice, and on either occasion did the prosecution bother to prove that a state law was violated - instead they simply said that the defendant did something they thought was wrong. I was trained as a cop, so when they fail to prove each element of a state crime, they lose. They lost both cases for this reason alone. I guarantee that, as a juror i will absolutely protect any citizen against unlawful use of power, or wilful violation of your freedom... I'll happily force a jury of idiots who think otherwise to sit there indefinitely if they are too stupid to understand the concept... Sadly, most jurors I have served with are utter morons who only care what the prosecutors say...
When I went through FLETC back in '04 they specifically discussed this exact kind of thing. The instructor told us, people are going to call you everything in the book and say all kinds of things, and you Have to ignore it. Because if you don't ignore it you're gonna end up in a lawsuit.
When I was a Parking Enforcement Officer, I was called:
F******* NAZI
G**** D***** NAZI
Get a job F***** D******* NAZI
Bastard
GD Bastard
F****** Bastard
....
I took it as part of the job (where people do not like getting parking tickets).
I even had full water bottles thrown at me
I have had crumbled tickets thrown at me
....
Again, that is part of the job.
Take all parts of the job with the job.
He never should of been approached in the first place to be harassed as he wasn’t even wearing the shirt. Cops should of known better at that exact point. I would of rewarded a substantial sum due to the fact it had to go this far and police need to be held accountable for their actions.
Thank you for your support.
Correct, once the shirt was removed there was no issue
What do you say. The shirt he used to wear offended me, well he's not wearing it now what's the problem.
whow, the Institute Of Justice has a podcast! That's something to bingewatch right now
I hired a deputy for the set out of a tenant that had been evicted. She was screaming and stomping her feet. The deputy turned to me and asked if my peace was disturbed. Evidently you cannot disturb an Ohio Peace Officer’s peace. Since I wasn’t disturbed he didn’t arrest her.
Yah that would of got him in big trouble becuase he solicited the charge and even if you brought it up the person probly would of been within their rights becuase until they leave the door the eviction isn't completed so it be telling cop to pound sand in there own residents
An LEO cannot be the victim of breach of the peace or disorderly conduct.
I gave notice (90 days) to not continue month to month rent to a tenant. She said I would have to evict her through the court. I told her that would show on her credit report along with her late rent payments. She moved out on her own.
@@Smart-Towel-RG-400 you have a cite for that soliciting thing? No one's been able to show me that's a thing. Thanks
@@70baja I've seen where soliciting a trespass is illegal for a police officer to do.
I live in Ohio, police officer for many years. And I've never heard of this. Disorderly conduct was a fall back charge that was used when no other charge was there. Maybe police officers especially in Ohio should be aware of this, or they'll continue to violate constitutional law.
Maybe there shouldn’t be any “fall back” charges when people haven’t committed a crime! No?
If you need a "fallback" charge there is no charge
Nice admission of guilt there, Tardid. 'Disorderly Conduct is a fall back charge if there isn't anything ELSE we can use to arrest'.
You should really, HONESTLY re-evaluate your life and your work.
You must be joking. My Uncle was a NYCPD officer and Disorderly or interfering with the investigation/ duties of an officer were used as the catch all to arrest essentially anybody they wanted to whenever they felt it was warranted. Charges could then be dropped yet the citizen had been arrested and had a record affecting him for life and he is in the system. There were many abuses.Back then anybody who got particularly mouthy and abusive would meet jack. The slapjack where they would be spitting out a mouthful of teeth and likely had to have their jaws wired shut and that corrected the attitude problem. These were the 60s to the late 70s and knight sticks wee commonly carried. They would be used to effect to end any scuffles (as they should) because tasers are ineffective, those expanding batons are weaksauce, and cops dont get paid enough to wrestle with idiots who will not comply.
I wish horse mounted Police with batons had cleared the streets of the leftist rioting rabble after that POS drug addled moron died in a non lethal compliance hold across the neck and the nation would not have been thrown into chaos. Large Police Departments should be disbanded and elected Sheriffs should take their place who are elected and are answering to the people in the community instead of politicians. Nobody wants to see their community burn.
I'm pro Police but you cant arrest people for non threatening words. Blanket protections for police are wrong. They should know the law.
Some departments impound the cash of travelers and make millions this like highway bandits and force citizens to fight for years to try and get it back. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? These cops belong in prison sucking locks for cup a soups while wearing lipstick and getting passed around. If you shot a bandit for doing this along the highway you would be congratulated but some Police fund entire departments like this.
a fallback charge for when nothing else is there? sounds to me like a reasonable person should never associate with police officers, since they're licensed to arrest you on a fallback charge if they can't find anything else actionable.
I have seen the video of the case you're discussing. Thanks for it catching your mind enough to follow up. This is GREAT!!
I have an idea of how to get around qualified immunity. Cities could put a clause into employment contracts that state if a police officer causes the city to have to pay out or settle a Lawsuit the Officer would be forced to repay every penny to the municipality. This would be an end run around lawmakers who refuse to do what the citizenry want. It would force officers to change their behavior because they will be held financially accountable for their actions, sometimes the only way to make people change is to hurt their wallet.
pretty sure this violates long established employment law. Same way your boss can't just dock your pay for any mistakes you make while on the clock.
🎯🎯🎯🗽
Uh, no thanks. That would be the end of police, which would be ruinous to society. I want them better trained and better supervised including civilian complaint review boards.
How would this change the legal reality that qualified immunity does exist, and as a result, none of the lawsuit losses or settlements referred to the employment clause would come about? There's no end run. There's no functional change whatsoever.
Better yet, require all LEOs to carry minimum ($50,000?) personal liability insurance policy on themselves so that they fully understand that they alone are responsible for their actions.
We need more of this, if a cop goes outside his constitutional authority then he should lose immunity.
P.S. The Franklin is beside his right ear today.
Not just lose his immunity, he should be FIRED on the spot, and maybe even Arrested for Treason against the General Public and either Executed, or serve 20 years in Prison, and never allowed to hold a job with any ties to the Government ever again.
Breaking the Constitution should ammount to Treason, and should be one of the HIGHEST levels of Crime to exist in the country, and the punishment for breaking it HARSH and even down right LETHAL if bad enough. ESPECIALLY for Cops, Politicians, Judges, Lawyers, and others in Government who should KNOW the Law better than everyday Citizens.
They do. Tbeir bond can be revoked for unconstitutional actions. See post above.
If there no intent to act unlawfully or unconstitutionaly then there is no need for immunity.
That's already supposed to be law, called the "stripping doctrine"
18 USC 242 also applies, which means cops themselves had better be mindful unless they want to get caught committing a federal offense.
The chauvin case should be a warning to law enforcement across the country and world.
I'm not in favor of riots in the first place but that was pretty much textbook karmic backlash.
Enjoyed your show and legal interpretation of protected rights and impunity for police. I am a 2 time veteran who uses a service dog in public places. I train service dogs for other people with disabilities who need and use legal service animalsin public places. I also teach and educate disabled people what their City, State & Federal ADA Rights are to take their SA inside public places, government agencies, law enforcement departments, stores, restaurants, concerts, etc. I also enlighten & educate businesses, government agencies, law enforcement departments, and other public places what their legal City Ordinances, State, Federal & Constitutional Rights are, regarding the treatment & service of potential & actual disabled customers & their service animal/s in their business, agency, department and/or facility. I have 20 yrs experience traiming dogs as a professional, in obedience, competition, search/rescie, scentwork, tracking, protection and service animals for an array of minor and major disabilities including; autism, chromes disease, ptsd, seizure alert, epilepsy, hearing impaired, mobility and more. The bavkground will help you assess my unique legal problem.
I cannot find an attorney willing to defend my legal rights against the USPS (2 separate ppst offices), one in Springfield Ohio and one in East Lansing Michigan. The Ohio post office called police who ordered me to leave with my service dog, even though it was well socialized, trained to perfection & posed no threat to USPS Employees, Patrons, or Police Officers.Three Springfield Ohio Postal Postmasters trespassed me each of those years (showing a history & pattern of disability & racial discrimination). I have pictures of a young college white female student being allowwd public access with her large dog which, according to her, was not a service dog, not an emotional support animal, nor even a psychiatric nor
therapy dog. Her dog was unruly, not trained, was jumping on an elderly white male customer, she could not maintain control of her large dog, unlike myself, who maintained superior control of my service dog, as is required by the ADA Federal Law, and the Ohio State Laws, but I was denied publuc access and reasonable accommodations, even though a posted sigh stated; "No Pets Allowed; Service Dogs Welcomed." Yet, she was never forced to vacate the post office, the police were never called and the white female college student was never trespassed, nor forced to vacate the post office property under threat of arrest by the police. I, on the otherhand, was subjected to such unlawful treatwment in; 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019 to the present date of July 2022. According to the Springfield Ohio Chief of Police and his Second in Command, I am effectively trespassed permanently and for life!
Quotes for a lawyer are $20K to $40K and could go higher. I was also denied public access to the Springfield Ohio SCAT City Transit Bus System, yanked off the bus after agreeing to cooperate with police & leave the bus under my own power. The 2 Officers arrested me for criminal trespass & resisting arrest to cover their excessive use of force when they slammed me to the ground & placed their knees into my back causing me to nearly pass out due to lack of ability to breathe. As a former law enforcement officer, I imformed the police of my background and stated I'd give my full cooperation to them, even putting my own hands before my back and tryong to kneal to the ground as ordered by the police. Prior to my Court Trial, one of the arresting officers stalked, stopped, harassed, intimidated and threatened me (Obstrimuction of Justice)! I reported the unlawful threat to his supervisor and Internal Affairs, who allowed him to resign in lieu of charging him with the crime he committed.
I moved to Lansing Michigan, out of fear that this corrupt, gangster like thug cop, would get even with me, make a false arrest, set me up with drugs or even murder me and my service dog, a Bernese Mountain Dog. The officer had told me he could stop me anytime for any reason and arrest me again because he was a white officer, in his own words!
Still, I cannot find a lawyer brave enough to File a Lawsuit against the Springfield Police Dept or Internal Affairs. I supppose it is up to me to File, Pro Se, or let a dangerous man become an officer with another police department. I won my Trial, but my freedom and safety were at risk due to the threat of the officer, so, I fled the city and moved. Now, I am facing the same injustices and dangers in Michigan. The East Lansing Mi Abbott Branch Post Office denied public access to me and my service dog on March 10, 2021, called police, trespassed me. On March 29, 2022 and again in June, denied me access to their post office, only this time, the same white female Clerk who denied me access in 2021, filed a false report to the USPS Federal Police Agents, statimg that I threatened her life; causing two armed USPS Federal Agents to appear at my home door, unannounced to conduct a criminal investigation on me, which could have caused me to be arresyed or shot dead, if they had neen over zealous or I had been resistant or sjow any anger or aggression. I was just motified by Pre Paid Legal that none of their lawyers will take my case against the Post Office or the most recent issue where the Michigan CATA Nus Transit System denied punlic access to me, due to my service dog, who was wrll nehaved and more civilized then the CATA Bus Driver who got within inches of my face and my service dog, threatening me, and telling me to leave the depot and tgat I was not allowed to get on any CATA Bus. How is it all these crazy lawsuits like McDonalds Hot Coffee spill between a woman's legs can find a lawyer, but a legitimate disabled veteran with a legal and well trained service dog, obeying the letter of the law, cannot find a lawyer to file a lawsuit when both State and Federal ADA Laws, even the Offenders' own Service Animal Policies clearly support my position, can not get a contingency based lawyer or a regular lawyer to handle my cases.
This is why I am sharing my story with you. Can you share this with the law group that helps people like me, who canmot afford or find a law firm to defend my legal rights?
Appreciatively,
Michael Gilbert
I get so sick and tired of tyrant A-holes like the Fair Director and the Thin Blue Line of Fear and Cowardice gang members that back him up. REMOVE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY!!!
You're a great attorney! Keep it up.
What do you call one thousand lawyers at the bottom of a lake ??
I am nearly positive that no one in my area would side with LE in this particular case. Fair director should be removed from his cushy little county job, cops should pay out of their own pockets. Not the city insurance, not the county insurance. The armed thugs who used firearms to kidnap that man, need to be held accountable. As far as little fair boy... he needs to pay his fair(no pun intented) share. Actions have consequences and those were illegal actions. I saw this video some months ago. Those cops and that unfair fair dude were way, way in the wrong.
I have said it before and I say it again, they arrested this guy, and the prosecution failed to take the case so why are the cops not charged with battery for putting their hands on someone who should not have been touched? If more cases of false arrest become cases of battery against the arresting officers then they will quit with the garbage policing and learn their jobs.
... AND if restitution for those cases was paid out of the police pension fund, rather than We the People, then I bet you the cops would learn some manners, learn their boundaries and learn to mind their business!
@@citizenfour9622 dam that is a great idea, or 80-20, 80% out of police pension fund and 20% from the offending cop itself, make them financially responsible for their shitty attitudes and bad decisions
It won’t happen, because the DA and Prosecutors won’t prosecute them. And they won’t charge themselves. We probably should have a way to criminally prosecute government officials, especially members of the ordinary judicial and executive processes. Law Enforcement and their bedlam of Prosecutors and Attorneys for example. They after all are the gatekeepers on State snd City level charging and prosecution. And they don’t touch their own. However how you accomplish that is very very important. It cannot be prone to misuse.
@@chickenmonger123 The last thing an official protected drug racket mob boss (district attorney) ever wants to do is to prosecute one of his own drug racket enforcers.
@@yomommaahotoo264 That's why we need REAL Patriots to run for office more!
It used to be that we were innocent until proven guilty it's not that way anymore. Some Cops simply don't know the law.
I once told a cop " Keep it up and I'll sue you !" His response : "Are you threatening me ?!" And I said " Yes I am ! What are you gonna do about it ?" That was the end of the conversation because That was not an 'Arrestable' threat.
Plaintiff: "F the police! You're a bunch of thugs!"
Police: "Let us prove you correct by falsely arresting you."
Plaintiff: "Great! Now, I'll sue you."
Police: "Ha!! You can't!"
Court: "Guess again, thugs!"
Opinion: he should get the monetary value for every penny he spent getting out of jail, missed work, and fighting the law plus a “small” compensation for his time, and something to the cops for conspiring to unlawfully detain him. Hypothetically-Wages- $10 an hour =$100 a day, Lawer- $10k, his lost time- $3k, tyranny- $1million. Total- $1,013,110.
My logic is much simpler, a Legislature CANNOT give ANYONE the Right to break the law, it’s beyond simplistic to say ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, hence the concept of Immunity is invalid.
tell that to the educated idiots on the supreme court
I think he should settle "in terms favorable to him".
I would only take this to a jury verdict if the prosecution didn't drop the charges and decided put me through the ringer in a lengthy, expensive criminal trial. If that were the situation I would double down on them in a civil trial because they doubled down on me on the criminal side. But that didn't happen here so I would probably settle for a large cash payout in this case.
This guy is now living in the Punta Gorda, FL area where the city there has a profanity ordinance and the cops hand out citations for any signage with profanity on it. He even projected "F*** The Police" with a laser projector on the police dept or the city hall or a school or something and the cops hemmed and hawed for a while, and they got the go ahead over the radio to issue the citation for the signage and to trespass him off of public property where he parked his car and laser projected the words from the car's roof.
This guy has dozens and dozens of "profanity citations" issued by the city of Punta Gorda because the idiotic city council passed an unconstitutional law without first running it through a "contitutionality check" first. Now because of these taxpayer elected officials, the taxpayers themselves will be on the hook for a new round of $$$multi-lawsuit$$$ filed by this guy.
Nice! I hope that guy’s able to keep up the good work for all our rights.
The city manager and city lawyer should have advised the city council that their actions passed unconstitutional ordnances. The city council should be held accountable.
you do realise by settling the terms would probably say they will not admit to any wrong doing and at that point the police officers are let off the hook to go out and do it again. his rights were violated the moment he was asked to leave public property for no crime being committed.. so he was being discriminated against.
the guy in Punta Gorda found himself a winning slot machine and the city attorney is too stupid to put an end to it by informing city council the law is unconstitutional and repealing it, so they deserve every lawsuit they get filed on them
Yeah, I absolutely wouldn't settle if I was him. The officers need to personally be taught a lesson. If the city foots the bill, they learn nothing.
Do the police have to accept being insulted that harshly. Over here in Germany he would have been arrested for a short time to identify him correctly, and he later would have to pay big fines for insulting 6 Officers could easily become 4-5 digits in fines.
Yes. It's protected speech under the first amendment.
I’m a pastor. I do not swear. I haven’t used any profanity in my adult life. It’s how I live my life.
I detest the use of profanity, even in the case in the video. I don’t want to hear it. I don’t want my kids to hear it.
BUT!!!
I believe the man has every right to wear the shirt he was wearing. And I’ll defend his right to do so.
Why?
Because I also want the right to say things that others find offensive.
My Christian beliefs are offensive to some. I hope we ALL would defend each other’s rights to say what we believe.