If you could take the time to watch this video to the end I would sincerely appreciate it. It's the best way to help keep this channel going! Thank you and have a great day!
I appreciate the research you did for this video! Funny enough, the only “back the blue” politicians and voters are right wing conservative types, and the vast majority of politicians working towards accountability and policy changes for police are on the left wing. NYC abolished qualified immunity and opened up all past complaint records to the public, while Florida Sheriff Grady Judd *still* refuses to get any bodycams for his department, but loves to have his viral press conferences withbhis official state narrative, tainting the potential jury pool. Trump told a room full of police to abuse people already in cuffs, on video
Yep so call out the bad cops lying about them being in danger. We can clearly see there were annoyed by the video. Yep we got the usual boot licker is acting like that's not it. That man was completely calm in his car😂
The guy had been making threats with his vehicle, a knife, possibly a gun. It's not bootlicking to recognize there are reasonable circumstances where cops can ask you for space and that you're interfering if you don't comply.@@davidkunkle3262
@@davidkunkle3262 as someone who’s worked with people in crisis, the calm people are often the most unpredictable. These auditors were introducing tension and escalation where it can do the most harm. I am 100% absolutely against the cops and their BS. But come on, there is such thing as just basic decency.
They absolutely deserved to be arrested! This isn't the first time Mr Chi has been in trouble for not knowing what the hell he is doing! Both of them need to study what is legal and acceptable being an auditor. They have no clue!!
There's a LOT of that in the auditing community anymore.... which is why I quit doing it. Clueless and ignorant. Even the ones that used to be very good at the beginning have turned into complete dumbazzes and forgot what 'auditing' is supposed to be.
@@leewatchaudits994Auditing is becoming ‘trendy’ in the sense that some people who have no clue what/why/how they should go about it! But they see the numbers of some auditors and just see dollar signs. It’s part of the world we live in now. They don’t care that they can do this and maintain a cordial relationship with the police. In fact it’s better for views if something odd happens; possibly going viral!
I liked that, cops do condescending stuff all day, it’s entertaining/cathartic to see the tables turned. EDIT: you’re all free to whine about it in the comments 😁
@@NG-cf7zh Alright, lets say he leaves in his truck, swings back around and mows down the auditors and the officers (but aiming for the auditors) because they didn't back up? Let's say he thought that was for him? The auditors were clearly in the wrong in this case and make all other auditors look bad.
@@NG-cf7zhthat’s just plain disrespectful inhumane and disgusting. The man has mental issues and the cops looking out for them because they don’t know the situation he has a knife and if the cops said “hey I told you to step back” and they get stabbed then what?
There was no need to say "You guys are dismissed" when they weren't rude at all. Just because you call yourself an auditor doesn't mean you're not a scum bag
@@mattp6022 The end has nothing to do with the disrespect at the beginning. If you're rude to someone then expect it in return. He could have wished them a good day instead of saying rude things
@@krisstanton5736 maybe, but remember what every sheriff and police chief say about their employees, "We hold them to a higher standard." That includes professionalism and not sinking to the level of others.
@@mattp6022 Except a judge signed off on it. The judge felt that a legal order had been given, and ignored. This didn't feel like a retaliation. It does feel like enforcing the law, and taking the time to make sure they weren't overstepping the mark.
@@mattp6022 Awful take. They potentially put the safety of everybody at the scene at risk, why shouldn't they face charges? You speculating the police did it to retaliate for videoing the incident is not only totally unfounded, it is evident the female officer was happy for them to film, but from a safer distance. If anyone didn't watch the whole video, its you.
it was cool to charge the auditors after the fact with no real warning? "Step back" is a request. "Step back or after this stop is over Im gonna get a judge to arrest you" would make my ears perk up a bit.
What troubles me is that she's absolutely right in this situation and expressed all her concerns calmly and reasonably to the auditors, in a manner highly fitting for law enforcement. However, the sad reality is that her words sounded identical to those of the disingenuous officers who use the same language and tone to bully and intimidate auditors. Consequently, these two auditors thought she was just another tyrant officer trying to deny them their First Amendment right to film. Communication between civilians and the police has broken down, and the trust has been lost and needs to be rebuilt. Far too many tyrant cops have gotten away with power tripping.
In fact, all of the officers behaved in a highly appropriate manner, acting on information that was not available to the auditors. They tried their best to politely dissuade the auditors from their journalistic activity while respecting the privacy of the individual they had come to detain, whom they knew was already a potential threat. The officers made every effort to put distance between the auditors and the suspect, who was clearly growing visibly agitated by their presence, while also trying not to violate the auditors' civil rights. Balancing these considerations is extremely challenging, particularly because any words you, as a police officer, say to an auditor will be immediately met with intense suspicion, scrutiny, and reluctance to comply with authority.
They were so focused on touting their rights that the auditors forgot to be decent human beings. The poor guy was begging them to leave him alone on what was clearly an already deeply distressing situation.
Exactly. The distress in that poor man's voice and they're just there like, "Alright were getting some content here!!!" With _zero_ regard for that man in that moment. But they claim they were there to _protect him._ What bollocks! They should get prison time imo.
@@peepo2222 You're utterly delusional if you think that all auditors are just out there for our freedom. It's interesting that you're here insulting someone else while being the DF. Like Sharon said, this auditor forgot to be a decent person. I think that's something that's becoming a bit more common. It's hypocritical to act like child just because you can get away with it...practically the same thing they are supposed to be standing against. But, I guess this more complex understanding is too hard for you.
I saw another from him as well with him at a public defender's office showing off his ignorance of the law. IMO this was far worse. If he were a police officer, he'd have to change all his actions and learn how to deescalate situations. He was interfering with someone's life despite having no reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Using his power at the expense of others is exactly what he claims to be against.
I'm not going to be surprised WHEN we find out those who are doing damage to auditing are actually undercover Law enforcement or paid by them. Some it seems so obvious. What better way to shut things down then to become an (fake) auditor and be belligerent about it.
STFU, this cop had no reason to fear somoene with an obvious camera obviously filming and doing nothing else. He was 10 feet away, that is complaince. Bootlicker.
What impresses me most is the cops dealing with mental issues without resorting to violence. It is rare to see the understanding they displayed as they defused a potentially more difficult and dangerous situation.
I'm not sure that I'd call that rare. Consider this: We've all seen the video's where things went wrong, but we rarely see the points in between. Like imagine how much footage of basically just walking around most auditors just delete. It would be interesting to get some hard metrics on how much footage actually shows something wrong, and how much is completely uneventful, and then we could really make an assertion of what is or is not rare.
Yeah it is not that uncommon but it usually doesn't make interesting content so you never see it. Remember the media gets rewarded for entertaining and not providing an accurate depiction .
@@katdoral5277 I agree with you and @crimson182 below, to a point. I spend much more time watching auditors who will present both good and bad encounters. I do know I see all to much of cops who never listen at all, and whose first response to mental illness or physical disability is violence.
I disagree. He oversteps his boundary for monetary gain. He inserts himself sometimes to the point of harassment. He’s causing more laws to be made to prevent this causing the tax payers more money at a time where the economy can’t support much more. But then, he’s not the only frauditor causing this. This is just my opinion.
Yep. They came to cause a scene but the officers weren't interested. The 'you are dismissed' comment revealed they were nothing but sore-loser dickheads.
This is the same department that responded to a Domestic Violence call by going to the wrong house, then summarily executed the homeowner, Robert Dotson, because he answered the door with a firearm in his hand after 10PM. None of those officers faced any form of discipline, and the DA refused to charge any officer involved.
Yep, same police force. Looks like the night shift police's differently. How can my pizza be delivered to the correct address but the cops can't show up to the right house?
As I watched more of the video I now understand what you mean by small man. Yeah, man I get it. Definitely small man energy. Obviously I’m not up to date on all the slang terms. My bad. I apologize for jumping the gun and acting like a SM😂😂😂
Thank you to ATA for not only showing the overreach of the police, but the overreach of some of the auditors. I have learned a lot about my civil and constitutional rights by watching this channel, among others. Well done on the police for maintaining that professionalism that we should expect from our public servants. As for the "auditors", my conclusion is that they were there to try to pick a fight with the officers and the police didn't take the bait. This is a wonderful example to those who potentially wish to assert/audit our constitutional rights as to how NOT to behave.
Bait?! Simply standing on the sidewalk filming is now bait? Asking someone to move to the other side of the street is not a lawful order. Had the "professional" police ignored the press, they wouldn't have used NM's warped interpretation of "interfering" as a weapon. The interaction on the street was good. No laws broken, no rights violated. It's the weaponization of the law that is creating a chilling effect and violating rights.
@@concernedcitizen1874 with that said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your statement. However, the fault of this "weaponization" lies with SCOTUS and their Frazier vs Krupp ruling which allows the police to be dishonest. The result of this is the lack of trust in the police and virtually anything they say.
One of the best videos, showing that _"rights"_ don't preclude better discretion to exercise said rights! _"Discretion Is The Better Part Of Valor"_ I quite appreciate the majority of so-called _"Auditors"_ for showing the lack of accountability in Law Enforcement, as an example - that said, this is a clear example of Auditors needing to show their own accountability, which isn't simply to the rights available, yet to show the spirit for which is intended, and not to weaponize rights, on the offensive. Thank you-
@@Don-mi6zlyou can both respect police and still be an auditor, please keep in mind you only see the bad interactions on the internet and rarely see the good ones
@@Don-mi6zlguess you weren’t the brightest in your class. So auditors never overstep or do anything wrong in your little world 😂. I bet you are never wrong too.
Auditors like this is why so many cops have a negative view of all Auditors....the key is to know the law and they seem to only have a limited understanding.....would be nice if there could be classes with legal experts to teach auditors how to go about this in a more constructive way
These auditors are clueless. They show a clear misunderstanding of the law and lack simple human compassion. The dude needed mental help and the auditors just aggravated the situation. I'm glad to see your channel shows the other side of auditing other than the police breaking the law. The auditors give first amendment auditing a bad name.
@@caliconfessions1075 Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. What's the saying; discretion is the better part of valor? Yeah, I guess it's their right, but it seems in poor taste to insert yourself into someone else's police interaction.
Nothing about cops letting a mentally distributed individual making threats with weapons leave on his own? But yeah the auditors were the unprofessional ones. Curious, are you and ATA the determination maker on what makes a proper audit? Weird because i was doing some looking on auditing 'rules of professionalism' and not only did i not find reference to the two of you about anything defining how to conduct an audit 'properly.'
@@briangereau788 oh yeah where is the code of conduct requiring a certain behavior toward cops giving orders to law abiding citizens? Oh yeah it doesn't exist but in your head. Cops do not deserve respect, unless they show it first. Good to know you hate our constitutional rights and support the police state.
Ummmm.... "You're dismissed." Well their interaction with the guy in the truck was done and they were going to continue on with their day. So wow what complete A-Holes.
I caught some second-hand embarrassment from that. Like they're on their way out and they actually seemed pretty chill and I didn't hear any directives as they were leaving. That one cop even had a bit of a conversation about rights and seemed to be a bit more knowledgeable than most cops you see in an audit.
It was very, very evident he was joking with the cops...they even laughed before saying it. Its fucking wild that you criticize an obvious joke...they even continued the joke with them after that statement.
I'm glad that this channel always aims to a comprehensive and objective perspective and calls out the bad and wrong from everyone involved without talking sidees.
This channel sets the standard for police being a police apologist. Those cops could have easily escalated that without you knowing. That is why citizens with cameras matter. They need a bigger area for safety, put up some tape. Don't like or field safe with cameras then ALL cops need to do better. The only people cops care about in these situations are themselves and charges were pressed because their feelings were hurt and some magistrate decided to coddle the cops.
The guy in the truck was clearly dealing with mental or drug issues, but the auditors were so focused in proving a point they completely ignored the fact the guy could've gone off at any second
"Clearly" how? Because AtA filled in that information for you? What is a "clear" mental or drug issue to you? Are all mental issues visible? The same for drug misuse?
@@ivanzenteno2771 Let me turn it around on you, how can you distinguish between a mental health issue and a person under the influence when standing 10 ft away from the scene and with otherwise 0 contextual information?
@@Jamesaepp I don't have to distinguish. I just have to identify either one as being substantially possible. Dude was yelling at them and was clearly in distress. The fact that the cops are talking him down from something. Logic is hard
@@skepticusmaximus184 🤣🤣🤣...I knew something was off when I re-read my comment but I couldn't put my finger on it🤣. I teach math for a reason...basic elementary spelling and grammar, nope...useless math/ geometry/ calculus/trig, I got you👍😅.
It was SO refreshing to these officers had this encounter so professionally. They showed no arrogance towards the tools that were filming them and showed empathy towards a man who was having a "moment". Great job officers! 👏
@@mustangkrillin you mean the bullshit concept the supreme Court invented in the 60s so their precious cops wouldn't see even a shred of accountability? That qualified immunity?
"Your dismissed" Like bro they weren't there for you. The cop didn't even wanted to talk to you after they were done with problem. Also quizzing one of the cops and distracting him. He should have been arrested just for that. This video should be a lesson on how not to be stupid with a camera.
When I was visiting my sister in Farmington I was caught in the middle of a physical dispute between two tribal members. I got smashed in the head by a beer bottle meant for the tribal member behind me in line at a Safeway. The police were called, they were very professional and the issue was handled. My injuries weren't too bad so I didn't go to the hospital. I should have. The next day, at the urging of my sister, I went to the Police Department to file charges against the member that struck me I found out that "nothing happened". Nobody knew what I was talking about and there was no video of the "supposed incident" I claimed happened. Even the store manager said he didn't have video of any incident when I went there to get proof. It was like it never happened. It was very strange and seemed very biased.
They don't want to deal with the native American Trying to get a warrant for their arrest on the reservation would be a hassle Yes you should have pressed charges at the time of the incident
That is wrong; that is why officers must put out tape for crime scenes! They can't just make up reasons to dissemble the press at whim! This is one messed-up arrest, and I hope Mr Chee fights this all the way to higher courts if needed!
That’s just mind blowing…I mean there’s people who get caught with drugs and people who walk out of stores with arm loads of stuff without paying and don’t get 66 days in jail.
They were actively antagonizing a mentally ill man and broke the #1 rule of journalism You don't have to like or dislike officers to see and understand that those guys inserted themselves into the situation. The reaction of the distressed man is adequate evidence of that. You don't get to stick the camera in the face of a r@pe victim, either. Even if they are talking to police.
@@nsahandler you are very wrong. The #1 rule of journalism is the right to publish and disseminate information, thoughts, and opinions without restraint or censorship. nobody stuck the camera in anyone's face. They are in a public area and lawfully you can record anyone you want.
@@thetruth7118 If it was just the cops telling them to leave you may have a point, they had a camera and microphone a couple of metres from the guy's face and he was clearly aggravated by the auditor and he wanted privacy whilst he was being interrogated since he told them several times to go away. At that point, the auditors were aware that they were interfering with the investigation since the cops couldn't ask the guy questions whilst he was screaming at the auditor. Auditors always claim privacy if they are asked for their names, why should they be able to record this guy's name and DOB if he wanted privacy whilst he was being interrogated. The second time the cop asked him to cross the street was also because the guy requested it and was agitated. There's no way that they weren't interfering since the guy himself wanted privacy. The cops shouldn't have to take him to the police station to ask questions since that would be the only way to give the guy privacy with auditors following them otherwise.
Id disagree They were misinformed. The first cop didn't explain things well. If she had it might have been different. She said" go across the street for my investigation" which is not the same as" go across the street so this guy doesn't flip out and do something dangerous"
@@daverobson3084your first phrasing sounds like a lawful command. There’s no reason to paraphrase it with your second version. They should have listened lmao.
@@daverobson3084She said for safety. She even said for his safety and her safety. I hate cops, but she did the right thing. She could have spoon fed the guy who thinks he knows the law, but he would reject it anyway.
This video is one of the many reasons I love your channel. You do not go all cops bad and the auditor is good. I had to stop watching someone because the cops where in the right and the guy still was saying see how the cops did this and that. You call it down the middle. Keep up the good work
This was NOT a good situation, The Guy in the van was clearly off the plot and could have been a much bigger problem, I think giving more space the first time around would have been the right action.
@@RageMojo He was clearly agitating the guy in the truck and being a general POS. You're one of those YT people who says DAF stuff like "all cops are bad". Get some real perspective, kid. Just imagine that there were no police in this situation. This guy comes up filming and agitating someone. He is asked multiple times, in a calm, respectful manner to move back a bit. Rather than be a decent human being, he continues to shush the person asking him. Does that sound like the auditor was being a decent person?
@@Batmann_ Why be in public then? There are cameras stuck to buildings and utility poles, cops wearing bodycam, teslas driving by in some places, heck would even a DJI drone filming above you. Even if the guy hurting went violent, didn't SCOTUS ruled that police have no constitutional duty to protect the public? It's the auditor's neck on the line.
I don't believe that Chee and Howell deserve the same grade. Howell was antagonistic; Chee was not. Chee was also only about three steps farther from the stop after the additional officers arrived than he was before they arrived. Also, the officer who gave the orders never spoke to Chee; she was addressing Howell, who was much closer than Chee was.
Chee was convicted and is currently serving a 66 day jail sentence for obstruction. Sorry but you are just wrong. They were both told to film at a reasonable distance and refused to comply, making the situation much more dangerous for everyone involved.
@@Figgy20000 Sorry but the officer spoke directly to Howell, pointed her finger directly at him when she was speaking, and said "Sir, I need you to move." That he was convicted does not make me wrong. Judges get it wrong all the time because they "back the blue." The 66 day sentence was for a previous trespassing conviction. AtA said that the charge for this incident is still pending.
@@nomadsteve5297Not when they're so obviously just saying it because they heard other auditors say it. This was just cringe. Like two grown ass men playing dress up and acting like 5 year olds.
@Haarschmuckfachgeschafttadpole Just say you're press like they do, and claim that they are public figures due to their youtube channel's notoriety. Voila, no harassment.
Intention matters. If you intend to cause distress or evoke fear then this could be considered unlawful. Further, in order to use taxpayer resources there (in a perfect world) should be a legitimate reason for doing so, and (in a less twisted world) retaliation would not be one of them. That said, If some individual wanted to talk to them and followed them around asking questions and filming them in public, barring a restraining order, there is no law to stop them.
The largest issue with "First Amendment Auditors" is the rude and entitled behavior of the vast majority of those I've seen. Shushing an officer attempting to conduct an investigation or telling the officers they are dismissed is just distasteful. it's a good thing to have individuals testing the temperament of our peace officers, but I see no reason they can't communicate to them in a respectful manner. The constitution was made for all of us, not just these guys.
These fools don’t want to audit anything; these clowns want to push the envelope to actively cause controversy. This is all about them cosplaying “big investigative journalist” to feel like they actually amount to something. They are oozing small-man energy.
Do you want them to test the temperament of peace officers or do you want them to communicate in a respectful manner? If you think it is good for people to test cops it makes no sense to chide them for doing exactly that. Communicating disrespectfully is a relevant, legal, and efficient way to test the temperament of cops.
@@Taylorseim I think you can test temperament while still being respectful to the men and women who service to protect you risking their own lives everyday in situations that could turn lethal faster than anyone could react.
@@Taylorseimwhile it may be constitutionally protected, there is no reason for that. All it does is escalate things and turns a potentially positive situation negative. I agree most first amendment auditors are rude and don’t know the laws well enough.
These guys don't know how good they got it back in the 80s 90s when I worked as a credentialed Photojournalist the cops often excluded the public from scenes and checked credentials
i recommend the video "Pulled Over With A GUN On His Chest!" from this channel, has some super professional cops. they pulled over a guy with like 10 guns or something (which were all legal), and were extremely respectful and didn't freak out about it whatsoever
NAh Although I agree with the police in this scenario, and its a first, due to a legit safety concern, auditors due us a big solid by provoking the potentially loose canon cop through using protected speech. It is the only thing currently working right no that expose the bad cops.
These are the kind of videos I like where it shows that eta is actually unbiased and has no problem giving officers good scores when they deserve it and no issue with giving auditors bad scores when they deserve it. Keep up the good fight
100% agree with you. They put the safety of the detained, officials carrying out their duties and themselves at risk of harm for their own gain. Pathetic way of conducting a peaceful and respectful 1st amendment audit.
Weird. Within 14 mins of this upload; there’s already 30 comments on this 19 min clip. Me? I’m just doing what I’m always doing … reading comments while I watch. 😂
Its funny because as they were approaching the truck i kept saying to myself, stop, stop, stop he was maybe 10-15 ft away... that's ridiculous and he was already on probation, gotta be smarter than that
I have a completely different take than ATA and most replies. Police ROUTINELY demand that auditors "get back!" for NO LAWFUL REASON. Yes, almost every instance. So why didn't the officer explain the reason was potentially lawful in this case? A REASONABLE auditor could also assume that the command to "go across the street" was an unreasonable attempt to chill their 1st A because it happens so often.
Standing 5’ away was a bit much… what would happen if that guy jumped out of that truck or pulled a gun?… and why the whole “you’re dismissed” stuff at the end? These cops were cool with them.
She gave what the auditors thought were unlawful orders (i agree) so the "you're dismissed" is a way of reminding her she has no power over them. Her orders were just as rude imo. Personally, i would have moved back given the man was agitated, but thats not a citizens responsibility. Cops can make lots of passive aggressive comments about the filming to provoke the citizen in the Truck (her constant commands seem to contribute to the Truck man's concerns). I have seen it in lots of videos where cops try to get the other citizen against the auditors.
@@simoncohen9323 They were proven once again Chee is currently serving a 66 day jail sentence for being an asshole and a douchebag (And also obstruction from this incident)
Thank you for this video. I genuinely appreciate the breakdown of the legality of everything as well as the grade given at the end. I'm very much for auditing and holding police accountable. But there's also a huge place in my heart for those suffering from mental illness. And these officers are doing their best to keep this guy on the level in what could easily become a very volatile situation. I appreciate the officers actually trying to help this guy and get him help, rather than do what they normally do.
By this logic, anyone that doesn't want to be filmed and gets angry with the police because you are filming can stop you from filming. The first amendment will be invalid in every stop. The cops will simply provoke the person which then will lead to them arresting every auditor.
The problem here for the auditors is that there is almost no differences shown to them that this situation has changed from one where there should be no extraordinary time, place, or manner restrictions on their activities relative to the police interaction, to one where there are valid restrictions because of the circumstances known to the _officers_ but not the auditors. I can understand some of the reasons why the situation progressed the way that it did, but there was not a sufficient communication of the different circumstances that changed the officer's commands from "overreaching requests" (which can be ignored) to "lawful orders" (which are potentially subject to subsequent punishment for failure to obey).
@@simoncohen9323It is code for get out of earshot. That is overreach. The camera within earshot changes police behavior. It very likely kept these police from verbally antagonizing this guy into giving them an opportunity for a kill.
@Don-mi6zl I agree with you on the first part of being out of earshot. But from what I can see of this video, those officers seemingly had no intentions of trying to ruin anyone's day and simply wanted the situation to end peacefully. I think the one officer could have taken a second to explain why they were being asked to move, and then if the auditors chose not to they would be subject to penalties.
I feel like the grading on this one is too harsh, I don't think someone else who hadn't already been called out on the channel would have gotten an F here. Failing to comply with a police order that you believe arguably violates your constitutional rights doesn't merit an F, I think there's much worse conduct that's gotten Cs and Ds on this channel, and the order to film from across the street was apparently unnecessary seeing as they ignored it and no harm came of it, so I wouldn't call the cops faultless here - needlessly giving bystanders ambiguously lawful orders and then charging them with contempt of cop under an over-broad statute for ignoring them is not A grade behavior. I disagree that the order would fall under a 'reasonable time and place' restriction here - if you can't film standing on a public sidewalk in broad daylight then those 'reasonable time and place restrictions' have eaten the entire right to film. Even if there were unusual exigent circumstances unknown to the auditors that justified this overreaching order being given then pursuing the auditors on a resisting charge after the fact is hard to justify and creates a significant chilling effect on what would usually be considered 1st Amendment-protected behavior.
I agree with everything you said. Every other video about cops telling people to move back he’s graded has had the cops get low grades. All of the sudden bc this guy was mentally ill and maybe armed it’s different. Thing is, the auditors had no idea and the officers didn’t tell them either. Granted they don’t have to, it might have helped.
@@bchap1233 Every other video doesn't have an armed mentally agitated person demanding several times for the auditors to go away. At this point they could see that they were clearly impeding the investigation whether they knew he was mentally disturbed or not. Just as auditors have a right to the privacy of their name, this suspect should have the right to a conversation with police without having his details recorded by some random with a microphone standing almost within arm's reach.
@@joe-s5r he wasn’t armed. And if he was, so what? Does he not have a right to be? Do the auditors not have the right to be? Only police can carry? Any auditor that goes out to film police knows the risks. You say all that, and the auditors knew nothing about him being mentally ill or potentially armed. Every citizen that gets upset over getting filmed doesn’t mean automatically the auditors have to leave. If that’s your take then we have no right to be press. He doesn’t have a right to not be heard speaking in public. If he doesn’t want them to hear him speak he can use the 5th and remain silent. Y’all act like this guy had an IQ of 5, yet the police let him drive away lol.
The problem with this analysis, is that it assumes the police were engaged in their "lawful duty". They were having a consensual encounter with a person suspected of having mental health issues. The supreme court says they have no duty to protect anyone, and officer discretion says they have no duty to uphold the law. What exactly is their "lawful duty" in this instance?
It was for the officers' safety, the safety of the man, and potentially others. They were attempting to de-escalate a bad situation, and the filming and things they said made it potentially dangerous. Even if they had no duty to protect and serve others, it makes sense that it could endanger the officers, and having the guys filming move away was important. The second officer had to be vigilant in case either entered a dangerous territory of getting too close or in the face of the obviously extremely agitated man behind a 2 ton vehicle with a weapon and set him off. The officers had an astounding amount of patience for what could have easily been a disaster.
@@Wixvhen I agree with most of what you are saying. I disagree that "the second officer had to be vigilant". They have no duty to protect anyone. That means the officer chose to be vigilant. There is no duty to negotiate with mentally ubstable people, even to protect people from them. They could have just excercised their discretion and left. They had no duty to even be there. None of this matters to whether the men were interfering with the lawful "duties" of the officers. If the officers were not engaged in their lawful duty, then there is no interfering/obstruction. As far as I can tell, the only duty police have is to the oath they swore, to defend, and uphold the constitution. Everything else they do is at their discretion legally speaking. The officers may have had the will, even incentives to do what they did, but they had no duty to do anything in this instance.
@@eringallagher9381The auditors could exercise their discretion when filming as well. Like allowing police to descelate a mentally unstable individual from hurting themselves or others. Maybe to, instead, NOT antagonise said individual by knowingly upsetting them. I'd be fine if they discretely distance themselves from the auditing community. Just as they would want a bad police officer to distance themselves from law enforcement. They don't have to serve and protect, but in this (rare) instance they were. They chose to engage as they interpreted it as part of their current duty. Just because it isn't a requirement as part of their duty, doesn't mean that it can't be a part of it.
@@isnay2003 I agree with the first three paragraphs. When it comes to a police officers duty though, they can't have it both ways. Either it is their duty to intervene, and they face consequences if they do not, or it is not their duty, and they have no authority to lawfully arrest someone for interfering with them. I agree the auditors acted like tools, because they didn't know what was happening. Being a tool is not a crime though.
@@eringallagher9381 Going by that interpretation, as things are right now, there is no such thing as lawful duty and anyone can engage a law official in any way they see fit at any point of time, simply because the officers do not HAVE to do their job. Going in the opposite direction wouldn't help anyone either. Warnings could not be a thing and anyone who is caught doing the absolute miniscule of crimes MUST be charged. Otherwise the officer who witnessed the crime would not be doing their duty to the law. WE cannot have it both way. Discretion exists for everyone. The officers here were acting in an official capacity to deescalate. They were acting upon their duty, even though they do not need to. It does not mean their authority does not exist, even in a consensual circumstance.
I love when we also get to see this side of a story. Cops being professional, asking for reasonable restrictions due to safety concerns, asking for backup that allows a middle-ground on location of filming and 1st Amendment freedoms while keeping the safety of the situation in mind. Also on the other end, Auditors whom lack fundamental understanding that there are reasonable restrictions on some rights - the rights are not limitless and all encompassing. This is a great training video for current and future Officers and Auditors alike.
Arizona tried to do that. The law was challenged and no one from the state would go to court to justify the new law. Believe it happened about this time in 2022.
@Koldatt it's a bad law. Maybe 10 feet. But what if the cop walks up to you is it another 25 feet? Can you film traffic stops from inside your car. What if they are planting evidence and a camera could have saved them.
@@codyedits304No, you can’t impose restrictions on how far or how close they can be. They have to be able to see and hear, this law can easily be bypassed by just having a cop walk towards an already far away individual and then saying they’re under arrest. It’s been shot down every time a law like this has tried to come into power.
That's the paradox that rarely ever gets addressed. But I'm going to don my boot tasting hat and come up my speculation on it. Orders come from a governmental position/entity which has duties it is required to perform but has little legal repercussion if it fails to complete. The LEOs swear to take on those duties, but are still covered by constitutional protections; that means that the government can't make them run into certain demise to save another. So if a LEO refuses to do their duty there is little in terms of legal ramifications that can happen to them aside from being let go. Therefore the order for public safety is coming from an imaginary entity that can't not be responsible for itself, being processed through a fatty fleshbag that gets to pick and choose if they want to endanger themselves to save a classroom of children. Best farmyard answer I have to that doublethink.
In situations like this, where someone's mental health is in play and its a mental health situation, as an auditor, I'd respectfully back away. Do I understand the 1st amendment? Of course. Should everything be documented? Definitely. But the auditors in this situation definitely made the situation worse.
It's almost as if Access to Information requests exist, in which you can just get the bodycam footage of the encounter without being a total asshole. Or use a zoom lense 10 feet further away with the exact same quality if you have a decent camera. 100 different options which don't land you a fully justified 66 days in a prison cell for being a total asshole.
So cops are now qualified to decide who's having mental health issues? And if they thought he was, why were no EMTs called? Why did they let him drive off?
@@valentinius62 ??? The man literally called 911 and told the operator and told them he has a serious brain injury, is off his medication, has a knife, and has thoughts about ramming his vehicle into the building next to him. ??? The police don't have to access anything, they have all the information already. Also EMT absolutely NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER engages in a dangerous situation no matter the circumstance, protocol is for police to arrive first and clear the scene before they do ANYTHING. They are absolutely not allowed to go into a dangerous situation even if someone is literally about to die. That's the first fucking thing you learn in basic first aid training, let alone training to become an EMT.
@valentinius62 Dispatch alerted the officers of his previous mental issue and substance abuse issues, so they were aware if could have been one or the other, or both. If they were trained for DUI, they should have been able to tell if he was under the influence so they most likely ruled that out. However, you're right, if he's having a mental health episode he shouldn't have been allowed to drive and if he was trespassed and broke it he probably should have been taken in.
@@Figgy20000 If he was soooo dangerous then why did she walk right up to his truck, not order him out and search him for the alleged knife, and let him simply drive off? Why didn't they close off the street? 🤔 There was nothing there that indicated some kind of a high drama about to unfold. They've probably had multiple dealings with him in the past. You're just buying into the cops' and judges hysteria.
This is why I love this channel. When I saw the title and then saw their antagonistic attitudes, I was worried that this was going to be graded in the auditors favor, but as always ATA is fair and unbiased. Auditors can be annoying but there's at least some who are polite and fair. These two deserved to learn a lesson and I also hope they see this video. The irony of criticizing cops for power tripping and then using the same dumb statement "you're dismissed" as if you were the one in power.
Disgusting, the cops get an A for whining to a corrupt judge weeks after about a guy filming 30 ft away from a sidewalk, and AtA gives them an A? Furthermore, AtA thinks that this was a bad reasion to arrest someone for, but, because the guy had OTHER issues involving cops, that, it was A-OK for them to use them to justify this act? WAT? Jesus, worst AtA episode yet, I feel guilty watching this video to the end....
This comment is badly worded. This video made good points. The auditors were 100% in the wrong and could have escalated the situation. The officers handled it amazingly by telling him that it was fine to film, but please move across the street so we can do our jobs.
@@Real_Moon-Moon Yeah those pesky auditors were CLEARLY too close... 30ft in the middle of the day, on a sidewalk no less? Who the bejesus do they think they are? They might of even been able to pick up audio from that distance, CLEARLY NOT OK. THIS WAS AN EXTREMLEY DANGERIOUS SITUATION, the random 15+ bystanders who walked past the scene, on the sidewalk, getting closer than even the auditors were, clearly had their lives in danger, and more importantly the cops themselves lives were in EXTREME DANGER TOO. Hell did you see that African American WALK BEHIND THE PERPS TRUCK trying to get past? He almost got SHOT BY THE COPS they were so freaked out. I mean they only had 2 cops there, things were so dangerous the perp had to be put in handcuffs and crime scene tape was needed to be put up for public safety, they just didn't have time in the 30 mins encounter, but they WERE UP in the cops head. That was literally a 30 min situation everyone had to be on extreme tippy toes, with 110% attention to their surrounding... it's a miracle someone didn't end up in the hospital. It was so obvious that what they were doing was illegal that they even let the auditors go for days until they could talk to a magistrate judge (you know, the top echelon of legal knowledge, creme of the crop) to get a warrant for their arrest, the auditors behavior clearly warranted it, hell if they could figure out who the 15 bystanders who walked past were they'd of put out warrants for their arrests too. I mean did the guy you are replying to not hear the cop say "for my safety go 50 more feet across the road. The guy doesn't want to be recorded in public". She had to turn her back to the extremely dangerous guy for a good 10s there, hell even the cop turned off her body cam in response to the guys request cuz she was so in fear of her life. AND THEN THE AUDIOR HAD THE GULL TO REPLY "no privacy in public right?". Did you hear that? Miracle he didn't end up in the hospital with lip like that. Plus you heard AtA the cops had a history with these two guys, clearly guilty, I mean back in high school they put the middle finger to the PDs school resource officer, GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY. Maybe try getting your head out of the boot?
It sounds like these general "obstruction" statutes seem to be written deliberately vague and can encompass actions that would be covered under 1st and 4th amendment rights.
Even tho these guys are tools. One could argue that its not THEIR obligation to stop doing a lawfully protected activity just because some jackweed is annoyed at them. Police don't decide what gets recorded in public, and that man in the truck needs to respect people's rights just like everyone else has to. Honestly... why did he get away with threatening to ram people with his truck and get let go?
It's highly likely that the auditors did not violate any law since owning and possessing a fire arm is not illegal. In most states public display of a fire arm is not illegal.
These police officers were so professional, I hope other departments use this as case study. Credit to them and the leadership of their police department, clearly they are well trained to perform their duties.
![⭐️( ลอยกระทง 2024 ) Ver. แดนซ์ Remix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rMWOLhgXUHc/mqdefault.jpg)
If you could take the time to watch this video to the end I would sincerely appreciate it. It's the best way to help keep this channel going! Thank you and have a great day!
You got it. Love your channel
Aye aye captain!💪
This was a L on you. There's no reasonable reason for them to leave where they were
@@jeffalley4417 You mean an L on the law. Just because this channel says what the law is doesn’t mean he supports it.
I appreciate the research you did for this video!
Funny enough, the only “back the blue” politicians and voters are right wing conservative types, and the vast majority of politicians working towards accountability and policy changes for police are on the left wing.
NYC abolished qualified immunity and opened up all past complaint records to the public, while Florida Sheriff Grady Judd *still* refuses to get any bodycams for his department, but loves to have his viral press conferences withbhis official state narrative, tainting the potential jury pool. Trump told a room full of police to abuse people already in cuffs, on video
Good cops call out bad cops. Good auditors call out bad auditors.
Yep so call out the bad cops lying about them being in danger. We can clearly see there were annoyed by the video. Yep we got the usual boot licker is acting like that's not it. That man was completely calm in his car😂
There are no good cops
ATA routinely gets an F.
The guy had been making threats with his vehicle, a knife, possibly a gun. It's not bootlicking to recognize there are reasonable circumstances where cops can ask you for space and that you're interfering if you don't comply.@@davidkunkle3262
@@davidkunkle3262 as someone who’s worked with people in crisis, the calm people are often the most unpredictable. These auditors were introducing tension and escalation where it can do the most harm. I am 100% absolutely against the cops and their BS. But come on, there is such thing as just basic decency.
This is the first time I have seen cops get an A and auditors get an F. It's a good example to pay attention to.
Was gonna say the same
It actually happens quite frequently.
@@sunandsage I clearly need to watch more videos.
@@sunandsage
"Frequently" lmao, you will not find even 5% of Audit the Audit's 300 videos having this outcome
Not the first instance on this channel.
They absolutely deserved to be arrested! This isn't the first time Mr Chi has been in trouble for not knowing what the hell he is doing! Both of them need to study what is legal and acceptable being an auditor. They have no clue!!
There's a LOT of that in the auditing community anymore.... which is why I quit doing it. Clueless and ignorant. Even the ones that used to be very good at the beginning have turned into complete dumbazzes and forgot what 'auditing' is supposed to be.
@@leewatchaudits994Auditing is becoming ‘trendy’ in the sense that some people who have no clue what/why/how they should go about it! But they see the numbers of some auditors and just see dollar signs. It’s part of the world we live in now. They don’t care that they can do this and maintain a cordial relationship with the police. In fact it’s better for views if something odd happens; possibly going viral!
The instant he just sat there going "SHHHHHHHHH" "SHHHHHHHHH" ... what a tool.
I liked that, cops do condescending stuff all day, it’s entertaining/cathartic to see the tables turned. EDIT: you’re all free to whine about it in the comments 😁
@@NG-cf7zh Alright, lets say he leaves in his truck, swings back around and mows down the auditors and the officers (but aiming for the auditors) because they didn't back up? Let's say he thought that was for him? The auditors were clearly in the wrong in this case and make all other auditors look bad.
@@NG-cf7zhnah. guy looked like a grade A douchebag doing that. Literally was no need for him to act like a child, yet, he acted like a child.
@@NG-cf7zh No they don't, and no it's not.
@@NG-cf7zhthat’s just plain disrespectful inhumane and disgusting. The man has mental issues and the cops looking out for them because they don’t know the situation he has a knife and if the cops said “hey I told you to step back” and they get stabbed then what?
Lesson learned: If you want to push the envelope, know where all the corners are located.
stealing that
What corners?
I don't get it.
Very nicely stated. World class comment. Quite the metaphor I might add. Bravo🏆👍
all 4corners
There was no need to say "You guys are dismissed" when they weren't rude at all. Just because you call yourself an auditor doesn't mean you're not a scum bag
Did you watch the whole video!? The fact that they went and got a warrant to retaliate against him for videoing the incident.
@@mattp6022 The end has nothing to do with the disrespect at the beginning.
If you're rude to someone then expect it in return.
He could have wished them a good day instead of saying rude things
@@krisstanton5736 maybe, but remember what every sheriff and police chief say about their employees, "We hold them to a higher standard." That includes professionalism and not sinking to the level of others.
@@mattp6022 Except a judge signed off on it. The judge felt that a legal order had been given, and ignored. This didn't feel like a retaliation.
It does feel like enforcing the law, and taking the time to make sure they weren't overstepping the mark.
@@mattp6022 Awful take. They potentially put the safety of everybody at the scene at risk, why shouldn't they face charges? You speculating the police did it to retaliate for videoing the incident is not only totally unfounded, it is evident the female officer was happy for them to film, but from a safer distance.
If anyone didn't watch the whole video, its you.
I appreciate the fact you call out bad auditors and police alike. I felt like these cops were pretty cool.
it was cool to charge the auditors after the fact with no real warning? "Step back" is a request. "Step back or after this stop is over Im gonna get a judge to arrest you" would make my ears perk up a bit.
@@j.p.f.4007ignorance of the law is no excuse. Glad they got arrested.
What troubles me is that she's absolutely right in this situation and expressed all her concerns calmly and reasonably to the auditors, in a manner highly fitting for law enforcement. However, the sad reality is that her words sounded identical to those of the disingenuous officers who use the same language and tone to bully and intimidate auditors. Consequently, these two auditors thought she was just another tyrant officer trying to deny them their First Amendment right to film. Communication between civilians and the police has broken down, and the trust has been lost and needs to be rebuilt. Far too many tyrant cops have gotten away with power tripping.
In fact, all of the officers behaved in a highly appropriate manner, acting on information that was not available to the auditors. They tried their best to politely dissuade the auditors from their journalistic activity while respecting the privacy of the individual they had come to detain, whom they knew was already a potential threat. The officers made every effort to put distance between the auditors and the suspect, who was clearly growing visibly agitated by their presence, while also trying not to violate the auditors' civil rights. Balancing these considerations is extremely challenging, particularly because any words you, as a police officer, say to an auditor will be immediately met with intense suspicion, scrutiny, and reluctance to comply with authority.
Yep, the cops were worthy of their 'A' grade.
They were so focused on touting their rights that the auditors forgot to be decent human beings. The poor guy was begging them to leave him alone on what was clearly an already deeply distressing situation.
Right? It like they don't care about anyone else but themselves and their 'freedom'
@@ItIsNotMeReallyI disagree. I believe they care about everyone and their freedoms. It’s hard for some to comprehend that I guess
Exactly. The distress in that poor man's voice and they're just there like, "Alright were getting some content here!!!" With _zero_ regard for that man in that moment. But they claim they were there to _protect him._ What bollocks! They should get prison time imo.
@@peepo2222Then why didn't they respect him? Why did they insist on making the situation worse for a clearly distressed citizen?
@@peepo2222 You're utterly delusional if you think that all auditors are just out there for our freedom. It's interesting that you're here insulting someone else while being the DF. Like Sharon said, this auditor forgot to be a decent person. I think that's something that's becoming a bit more common. It's hypocritical to act like child just because you can get away with it...practically the same thing they are supposed to be standing against.
But, I guess this more complex understanding is too hard for you.
Dude's 2nd time getting an F from AtA. Pretty clear pattern of shit behavior, with no indication of improvement.
I saw another from him as well with him at a public defender's office showing off his ignorance of the law. IMO this was far worse. If he were a police officer, he'd have to change all his actions and learn how to deescalate situations. He was interfering with someone's life despite having no reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Using his power at the expense of others is exactly what he claims to be against.
There are a number of ignorant and downright criminal auditors out there. Look up the case of Hoyt Webb out of Spokane, WA.
It’s people like this who make it bad for everyone who film the police!!
I'm not going to be surprised WHEN we find out those who are doing damage to auditing are actually undercover Law enforcement or paid by them. Some it seems so obvious.
What better way to shut things down then to become an (fake) auditor and be belligerent about it.
Elaborate
@@peepo2222 They were convicted for obstruction and are currently in jail serving a 66 day sentence.
Is that enough or do you want more.
STFU, this cop had no reason to fear somoene with an obvious camera obviously filming and doing nothing else. He was 10 feet away, that is complaince. Bootlicker.
@@Figgy20000 Out of jail in April. Did you watch the video? Charges were bullsh*t. FTP!!!
What impresses me most is the cops dealing with mental issues without resorting to violence. It is rare to see the understanding they displayed as they defused a potentially more difficult and dangerous situation.
I'm not sure that I'd call that rare. Consider this: We've all seen the video's where things went wrong, but we rarely see the points in between. Like imagine how much footage of basically just walking around most auditors just delete. It would be interesting to get some hard metrics on how much footage actually shows something wrong, and how much is completely uneventful, and then we could really make an assertion of what is or is not rare.
Yeah it is not that uncommon but it usually doesn't make interesting content so you never see it. Remember the media gets rewarded for entertaining and not providing an accurate depiction .
@@katdoral5277 I agree with you and @crimson182 below, to a point. I spend much more time watching auditors who will present both good and bad encounters. I do know I see all to much of cops who never listen at all, and whose first response to mental illness or physical disability is violence.
This is why Sean from Long Island does so good. He maintains a professional demeanor, hes polite, and educated on the laws.
Last I heard I was in jail I dont know if he's out or what's going on
@@michaelanthonyortegaherrer348 Did you mean to write this comment here? I find that sometimes comments I write end up on whole other video comments.
Call him Billy because that mans the GOAT.
Yeah, he does a great job and it's rare to see him get upset, he's taken all of the chill pills.
I disagree. He oversteps his boundary for monetary gain. He inserts himself sometimes to the point of harassment. He’s causing more laws to be made to prevent this causing the tax payers more money at a time where the economy can’t support much more. But then, he’s not the only frauditor causing this. This is just my opinion.
"You are dismissed". He just had to get that last one in there didn't he.
Gotta follow the script
sometimes you have to test the law to make sure they aren't tyrants.
@@thetruth7118that’s not testing anything that’s just you acting like a imbecile for no reason. they didn’t push the auditors or anything 😂
Yep. They came to cause a scene but the officers weren't interested. The 'you are dismissed' comment revealed they were nothing but sore-loser dickheads.
@@thetruth7118that’s hilarious considering the dude was charged.
This is the same department that responded to a Domestic Violence call by going to the wrong house, then summarily executed the homeowner, Robert Dotson, because he answered the door with a firearm in his hand after 10PM. None of those officers faced any form of discipline, and the DA refused to charge any officer involved.
Great! It shows they’re taking real strides to improve their behavior! Thanks for pointing out that they are bettering their department
Yep, same police force. Looks like the night shift police's differently. How can my pizza be delivered to the correct address but the cops can't show up to the right house?
Because pizza delivery drivers have higher IQs than cops. @@josesalgado2796
@@josesalgado2796 Delivery guys are personally liable for their mistakes.
@@envya2774
No one going armed to a random address armed should think nothing bad will come from inside.....
“You are dismissed” - small man energy
Naw more like you showing the internet your a small D energy 😂🎉😂🎉🎉
If matching energy means I gotta stoop to their level, so be it..! If you’re being a small man I’m gonna speak your language..
Small man energy 😂😂😂 that’s so stupid.. What is big man energy..?
As I watched more of the video I now understand what you mean by small man. Yeah, man I get it. Definitely small man energy. Obviously I’m not up to date on all the slang terms. My bad. I apologize for jumping the gun and acting like a SM😂😂😂
@@shawnice105 so yur are a small man? lol
Thank you to ATA for not only showing the overreach of the police, but the overreach of some of the auditors. I have learned a lot about my civil and constitutional rights by watching this channel, among others. Well done on the police for maintaining that professionalism that we should expect from our public servants. As for the "auditors", my conclusion is that they were there to try to pick a fight with the officers and the police didn't take the bait. This is a wonderful example to those who potentially wish to assert/audit our constitutional rights as to how NOT to behave.
Bait?! Simply standing on the sidewalk filming is now bait? Asking someone to move to the other side of the street is not a lawful order. Had the "professional" police ignored the press, they wouldn't have used NM's warped interpretation of "interfering" as a weapon. The interaction on the street was good. No laws broken, no rights violated. It's the weaponization of the law that is creating a chilling effect and violating rights.
Agreed
@@concernedcitizen1874I also agree mostly with this statement.
@@concernedcitizen1874 with that said, I'm not sure I entirely agree with your statement. However, the fault of this "weaponization" lies with SCOTUS and their Frazier vs Krupp ruling which allows the police to be dishonest. The result of this is the lack of trust in the police and virtually anything they say.
Time place and manner restrictions that are reasonable@@concernedcitizen1874
One of the best videos, showing that _"rights"_ don't preclude better discretion to exercise said rights! _"Discretion Is The Better Part Of Valor"_
I quite appreciate the majority of so-called _"Auditors"_ for showing the lack of accountability in Law Enforcement, as an example - that said, this is a clear example of Auditors needing to show their own accountability, which isn't simply to the rights available, yet to show the spirit for which is intended, and not to weaponize rights, on the offensive. Thank you-
The guy actually sent in his video assuming audit the audit would agree with his nonsense 😂.
Falling viewership has caused audit the audit to try and appeal to the bootlicker crowd.
@@Don-mi6zlyou can both respect police and still be an auditor, please keep in mind you only see the bad interactions on the internet and rarely see the good ones
The woman officer has an ego problem,that’s all behind the arrest
@@anthonycampbell8797 yeah I think she was getting frustrated with them but she had a legitimate and legal reason to tell them to leave.
@@Don-mi6zlguess you weren’t the brightest in your class. So auditors never overstep or do anything wrong in your little world 😂. I bet you are never wrong too.
a guy called deluzio with mental issues. lmao the coincidence
That's because this damn simulation is starting to fall apart
Could be gov. Plants intended to make auditors look bad.. Could also just be bad auditors, just wanted to throw it out there.
I thought it from the start 😂😂😂😂
And Otto Octavius ends up with 8 appendages!
The irony. 😂
Auditors like this is why so many cops have a negative view of all Auditors....the key is to know the law and they seem to only have a limited understanding.....would be nice if there could be classes with legal experts to teach auditors how to go about this in a more constructive way
These auditors are clueless. They show a clear misunderstanding of the law and lack simple human compassion. The dude needed mental help and the auditors just aggravated the situation. I'm glad to see your channel shows the other side of auditing other than the police breaking the law. The auditors give first amendment auditing a bad name.
I agree. These auditors are terrible.
Hindsight is 20/20. What did the auditor's know at the time?
So many of you are wrong, the auditors have no obligation to give them space, the cops should have arrested the unstable man making threats.
@@caliconfessions1075 Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. What's the saying; discretion is the better part of valor?
Yeah, I guess it's their right, but it seems in poor taste to insert yourself into someone else's police interaction.
@@RonJDuncan I agree these are not quality auditors. People have to use their brains sometimes.
Proud of the channel for showing what happens when an audit isn’t done properly
Nothing about cops letting a mentally distributed individual making threats with weapons leave on his own? But yeah the auditors were the unprofessional ones.
Curious, are you and ATA the determination maker on what makes a proper audit? Weird because i was doing some looking on auditing 'rules of professionalism' and not only did i not find reference to the two of you about anything defining how to conduct an audit 'properly.'
@@kbhhawks exactly see you got it
@@kbhhawksyes, the auditors were most certainly the unprofessional ones.
@@briangereau788 oh yeah where is the code of conduct requiring a certain behavior toward cops giving orders to law abiding citizens? Oh yeah it doesn't exist but in your head. Cops do not deserve respect, unless they show it first. Good to know you hate our constitutional rights and support the police state.
@@briangereau788 also wondering do you unhinge your jaw too when the cops show up?
The best audits I have seen are where the auditors are silent. Everything bad that happens is entirely down to the cops, not the auditors.
Ummmm.... "You're dismissed."
Well their interaction with the guy in the truck was done and they were going to continue on with their day. So wow what complete A-Holes.
I thought the same thing. It's like starting a slow clap at the wrong time 😂
I caught some second-hand embarrassment from that. Like they're on their way out and they actually seemed pretty chill and I didn't hear any directives as they were leaving. That one cop even had a bit of a conversation about rights and seemed to be a bit more knowledgeable than most cops you see in an audit.
Goofy activities 😂
They're just following their script
It was very, very evident he was joking with the cops...they even laughed before saying it. Its fucking wild that you criticize an obvious joke...they even continued the joke with them after that statement.
These auditors give auditors a bad name. No sympathy for me with this one.
Some of them are really horrible and instigators.
@@brettmallon3254It seems that the percentage of them are. The days of real auditors like the Battousi are over.
They didn't know the situation.
Should have been more attentive.
But how would you know?
They did nothing wrong.
@@Don-mi6zlexactly
I'm glad that this channel always aims to a comprehensive and objective perspective and calls out the bad and wrong from everyone involved without talking sidees.
This channel sets the standard for bodycam channels.
This channel sets the standard for police being a police apologist. Those cops could have easily escalated that without you knowing. That is why citizens with cameras matter. They need a bigger area for safety, put up some tape. Don't like or field safe with cameras then ALL cops need to do better. The only people cops care about in these situations are themselves and charges were pressed because their feelings were hurt and some magistrate decided to coddle the cops.
This isn't a body cam channel though that's code blue cam and Midwest safety
ATA is biased half the time completely wrong
@@LucasJackson_37Who said anything about this being the first or first 50 channels of this type? Literally no one.
@@Crimson_Tango your right .. my appoliogies, I completely misread the comment.
The guy in the truck was clearly dealing with mental or drug issues, but the auditors were so focused in proving a point they completely ignored the fact the guy could've gone off at any second
So everyone must walk on eggshells so as not to upset the dangerous nut job? Why wasn't the dangerous nut job arrested?
"Clearly" how? Because AtA filled in that information for you? What is a "clear" mental or drug issue to you? Are all mental issues visible? The same for drug misuse?
@@Jamesaepp let me turn it around on you... Are NO mental issues visible? Are there NO visual cues for substance abuse?
@@ivanzenteno2771 Let me turn it around on you, how can you distinguish between a mental health issue and a person under the influence when standing 10 ft away from the scene and with otherwise 0 contextual information?
@@Jamesaepp I don't have to distinguish. I just have to identify either one as being substantially possible. Dude was yelling at them and was clearly in distress. The fact that the cops are talking him down from something. Logic is hard
When the auditors said “so that we don’t hear or see what you’re doing” I already knew their thought process
"It's called freedom of speech"... It's also called freedom to be tone deaf and inconsiderant.
I agree these guys are dicks, but being rude isn't a crime thankfully.
*inconsiderate
@@skepticusmaximus184 yes...that🤣
@StephanieDineley Because 'inconsiderant' is what you do when catching a bus without wearing any deodorant. 😉
@@skepticusmaximus184 🤣🤣🤣...I knew something was off when I re-read my comment but I couldn't put my finger on it🤣. I teach math for a reason...basic elementary spelling and grammar, nope...useless math/ geometry/ calculus/trig, I got you👍😅.
Thank you for all your videos!
It was SO refreshing to these officers had this encounter so professionally. They showed no arrogance towards the tools that were filming them and showed empathy towards a man who was having a "moment". Great job officers! 👏
When the police officers decided to leave and walking towards their car, those auditors threw out "You are dismissed". That's such a childish act.
Can the auditors claim qualified immunity?
Look up qualified immunity. Not the buzz word, the actual definition. Read it SLOWLY and answer your own question.
@@mustangkrillin Look up Sarcasm. Not the buzz word, the actual definition. Read it SLOWLY.
Of course not. That is just for the cops that are sovereign.
@@mustangkrillin you mean the bullshit concept the supreme Court invented in the 60s so their precious cops wouldn't see even a shred of accountability? That qualified immunity?
@@mustangkrillin open mouth, insert foot
"Your dismissed"
Like bro they weren't there for you. The cop didn't even wanted to talk to you after they were done with problem.
Also quizzing one of the cops and distracting him. He should have been arrested just for that.
This video should be a lesson on how not to be stupid with a camera.
When I was visiting my sister in Farmington I was caught in the middle of a physical dispute between two tribal members. I got smashed in the head by a beer bottle meant for the tribal member behind me in line at a Safeway.
The police were called, they were very professional and the issue was handled.
My injuries weren't too bad so I didn't go to the hospital.
I should have.
The next day, at the urging of my sister, I went to the Police Department to file charges against the member that struck me I found out that "nothing happened".
Nobody knew what I was talking about and there was no video of the "supposed incident" I claimed happened.
Even the store manager said he didn't have video of any incident when I went there to get proof.
It was like it never happened.
It was very strange and seemed very biased.
Almost like…you’re making it up 🤔🫡
Protecting their community from repercussions to bad behavior.
Maybe you were hallucinating
They don't want to deal with the native American
Trying to get a warrant for their arrest on the reservation would be a hassle
Yes you should have pressed charges at the time of the incident
Ask Safeway to see security cameras
Thanks Audit the Audit! You got an A for fairness. This is why your channel is top notch.
That is wrong; that is why officers must put out tape for crime scenes! They can't just make up reasons to dissemble the press at whim! This is one messed-up arrest, and I hope Mr Chee fights this all the way to higher courts if needed!
That’s just mind blowing…I mean there’s people who get caught with drugs and people who walk out of stores with arm loads of stuff without paying and don’t get 66 days in jail.
They were actively antagonizing a mentally ill man and broke the #1 rule of journalism
You don't have to like or dislike officers to see and understand that those guys inserted themselves into the situation. The reaction of the distressed man is adequate evidence of that.
You don't get to stick the camera in the face of a r@pe victim, either. Even if they are talking to police.
there's people that commit murder and walk away free. welcome to the American justice system.
@@nsahandler you are very wrong. The #1 rule of journalism is the right to publish and disseminate information, thoughts, and opinions without restraint or censorship. nobody stuck the camera in anyone's face. They are in a public area and lawfully you can record anyone you want.
Because he was already on probation.
@@thetruth7118 If it was just the cops telling them to leave you may have a point, they had a camera and microphone a couple of metres from the guy's face and he was clearly aggravated by the auditor and he wanted privacy whilst he was being interrogated since he told them several times to go away. At that point, the auditors were aware that they were interfering with the investigation since the cops couldn't ask the guy questions whilst he was screaming at the auditor. Auditors always claim privacy if they are asked for their names, why should they be able to record this guy's name and DOB if he wanted privacy whilst he was being interrogated. The second time the cop asked him to cross the street was also because the guy requested it and was agitated.
There's no way that they weren't interfering since the guy himself wanted privacy. The cops shouldn't have to take him to the police station to ask questions since that would be the only way to give the guy privacy with auditors following them otherwise.
Those auditors were idiots. Its usually the cops, not this time.
Id disagree
They were misinformed.
The first cop didn't explain things well.
If she had it might have been different.
She said" go across the street for my investigation" which is not the same as" go across the street so this guy doesn't flip out and do something dangerous"
Its not really "usually" the cops. There are tons of bad auditors and they just dont upload their videos because they know they fucked up.
@@daverobson3084ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
@@daverobson3084your first phrasing sounds like a lawful command. There’s no reason to paraphrase it with your second version. They should have listened lmao.
@@daverobson3084She said for safety. She even said for his safety and her safety. I hate cops, but she did the right thing. She could have spoon fed the guy who thinks he knows the law, but he would reject it anyway.
Watching these guys had me yellin at my phone BACK UP YOURE TOO DAMN CLOSE
Thank you for continuously uploading. I'm learning a lot about law.
Thank you!!!!!
This video is one of the many reasons I love your channel. You do not go all cops bad and the auditor is good. I had to stop watching someone because the cops where in the right and the guy still was saying see how the cops did this and that. You call it down the middle. Keep up the good work
That is some petty petty sh*t
Judges are corrupt, tyrannical Karens and Darrens.
This was NOT a good situation, The Guy in the van was clearly off the plot and could have been a much bigger problem, I think giving more space the first time around would have been the right action.
The cameras within earshot likely saved him a beating or death. Cops behave much better when there are cameras they don't control within earshot.
Why? he was 10 feet away and not doing anything, do cops need 50, feet 100 feet... stfu.
@@RageMojo He was clearly agitating the guy in the truck and being a general POS. You're one of those YT people who says DAF stuff like "all cops are bad". Get some real perspective, kid. Just imagine that there were no police in this situation. This guy comes up filming and agitating someone. He is asked multiple times, in a calm, respectful manner to move back a bit. Rather than be a decent human being, he continues to shush the person asking him. Does that sound like the auditor was being a decent person?
@RageMojo if the police ask to much, comply and follow up afterward.
@@Batmann_ Why be in public then? There are cameras stuck to buildings and utility poles, cops wearing bodycam, teslas driving by in some places, heck would even a DJI drone filming above you. Even if the guy hurting went violent, didn't SCOTUS ruled that police have no constitutional duty to protect the public? It's the auditor's neck on the line.
The entire reason I watch this channel. Call out bad actors on BOTH sides!
I don't believe that Chee and Howell deserve the same grade. Howell was antagonistic; Chee was not. Chee was also only about three steps farther from the stop after the additional officers arrived than he was before they arrived. Also, the officer who gave the orders never spoke to Chee; she was addressing Howell, who was much closer than Chee was.
Chee was convicted and is currently serving a 66 day jail sentence for obstruction.
Sorry but you are just wrong. They were both told to film at a reasonable distance and refused to comply, making the situation much more dangerous for everyone involved.
@@Figgy20000 Sorry but the officer spoke directly to Howell, pointed her finger directly at him when she was speaking, and said "Sir, I need you to move." That he was convicted does not make me wrong. Judges get it wrong all the time because they "back the blue." The 66 day sentence was for a previous trespassing conviction. AtA said that the charge for this incident is still pending.
oh no....the old "your dismissed" line
Show how unoriginal they are.
I cringe every time
I like to hear a auditor dismiss the cops as I know the cops really hate it 😅
@@nomadsteve5297 yes when the auditor is competent, sorry but these two were not
@@nomadsteve5297Not when they're so obviously just saying it because they heard other auditors say it. This was just cringe. Like two grown ass men playing dress up and acting like 5 year olds.
I'm glad that you called out these auditors, thank you very much.
Wouldn't it be funny to have some agents or private detectives follow and film those "auditors" wherever they go in public? 😂
They would prob call the police 😂😂
That would actually be considered harassment in most jurisdictions if you did it multiple times.
@Haarschmuckfachgeschafttadpole Just say you're press like they do, and claim that they are public figures due to their youtube channel's notoriety. Voila, no harassment.
Intention matters. If you intend to cause distress or evoke fear then this could be considered unlawful. Further, in order to use taxpayer resources there (in a perfect world) should be a legitimate reason for doing so, and (in a less twisted world) retaliation would not be one of them.
That said, If some individual wanted to talk to them and followed them around asking questions and filming them in public, barring a restraining order, there is no law to stop them.
The largest issue with "First Amendment Auditors" is the rude and entitled behavior of the vast majority of those I've seen. Shushing an officer attempting to conduct an investigation or telling the officers they are dismissed is just distasteful. it's a good thing to have individuals testing the temperament of our peace officers, but I see no reason they can't communicate to them in a respectful manner. The constitution was made for all of us, not just these guys.
These fools don’t want to audit anything; these clowns want to push the envelope to actively cause controversy. This is all about them cosplaying “big investigative journalist” to feel like they actually amount to something.
They are oozing small-man energy.
Do you want them to test the temperament of peace officers or do you want them to communicate in a respectful manner? If you think it is good for people to test cops it makes no sense to chide them for doing exactly that. Communicating disrespectfully is a relevant, legal, and efficient way to test the temperament of cops.
@@Taylorseim I think you can test temperament while still being respectful to the men and women who service to protect you risking their own lives everyday in situations that could turn lethal faster than anyone could react.
@@Taylorseimwhile it may be constitutionally protected, there is no reason for that. All it does is escalate things and turns a potentially positive situation negative. I agree most first amendment auditors are rude and don’t know the laws well enough.
These guys don't know how good they got it back in the 80s 90s when I worked as a credentialed Photojournalist the cops often excluded the public from scenes and checked credentials
Without ATA... they wouldn't know. Probably saved a bunch of new auditors with this one. Good job, sir.
This is the absolute best I have ever seen USA police behaved.
Good ones aren't very interesting, so not uploaded as much
i recommend the video "Pulled Over With A GUN On His Chest!" from this channel, has some super professional cops. they pulled over a guy with like 10 guns or something (which were all legal), and were extremely respectful and didn't freak out about it whatsoever
Audit the Audit you get an A+ job well done.
To all audtors: Be silent and let the camera do the eyes and ears
NAh Although I agree with the police in this scenario, and its a first, due to a legit safety concern, auditors due us a big solid by provoking the potentially loose canon cop through using protected speech. It is the only thing currently working right no that expose the bad cops.
Then they wouldn’t get any views because their videos would be boring. Provoking cops is what gets them clicks
These are the kind of videos I like where it shows that eta is actually unbiased and has no problem giving officers good scores when they deserve it and no issue with giving auditors bad scores when they deserve it. Keep up the good fight
100% agree with you. They put the safety of the detained, officials carrying out their duties and themselves at risk of harm for their own gain. Pathetic way of conducting a peaceful and respectful 1st amendment audit.
Yep, after all those cameras shoot bullets so everybody there was at danger
Wow i completely disagree with grading on this video.
This video demonstrates why you're the absolute best in game when in comes to examining police interactions AuditTheAudit.
"Check the link below and give them the credit they deserve"
This is usually a good thing to say LOL
Weird. Within 14 mins of this upload; there’s already 30 comments on this 19 min clip. Me? I’m just doing what I’m always doing … reading comments while I watch. 😂
I came back to make more comments, in case you need some more things to read.
most of the time I read with you but sometimes the fires of hell need dousing.
Them having to turn their back to a potentially dangerous, potentially armed man just for these two clowns… Jesus.
you're potentially armed and I'm afraid of you.
@@j.p.f.4007 I am, and you should be.
Its funny because as they were approaching the truck i kept saying to myself, stop, stop, stop he was maybe 10-15 ft away... that's ridiculous and he was already on probation, gotta be smarter than that
This is why I like this channel so much, it calls out bad cops AND bad auditors.
Well done to the cops here :)
It is very simple. If they want privacy they MUST create it. Put up tape. Period.
You got this one WAY wrong.
Officer Young is amazing! His professionalism and ability to respond to the auditors the way he did is commendable and he deserves a promotion!
I have a completely different take than ATA and most replies.
Police ROUTINELY demand that auditors "get back!" for NO LAWFUL REASON. Yes, almost every instance. So why didn't the officer explain the reason was potentially lawful in this case? A REASONABLE auditor could also assume that the command to "go across the street" was an unreasonable attempt to chill their 1st A because it happens so often.
Standing 5’ away was a bit much… what would happen if that guy jumped out of that truck or pulled a gun?… and why the whole “you’re dismissed” stuff at the end? These cops were cool with them.
She gave what the auditors thought were unlawful orders (i agree) so the "you're dismissed" is a way of reminding her she has no power over them. Her orders were just as rude imo.
Personally, i would have moved back given the man was agitated, but thats not a citizens responsibility. Cops can make lots of passive aggressive comments about the filming to provoke the citizen in the Truck (her constant commands seem to contribute to the Truck man's concerns). I have seen it in lots of videos where cops try to get the other citizen against the auditors.
@@bradg3906they thought wrong they where idiots her orders where pretty lawful and has been proven as such time and time again in federal courts
@@simoncohen9323 They were proven once again Chee is currently serving a 66 day jail sentence for being an asshole and a douchebag (And also obstruction from this incident)
Thank you for this video. I genuinely appreciate the breakdown of the legality of everything as well as the grade given at the end. I'm very much for auditing and holding police accountable. But there's also a huge place in my heart for those suffering from mental illness. And these officers are doing their best to keep this guy on the level in what could easily become a very volatile situation. I appreciate the officers actually trying to help this guy and get him help, rather than do what they normally do.
By this logic, anyone that doesn't want to be filmed and gets angry with the police because you are filming can stop you from filming. The first amendment will be invalid in every stop. The cops will simply provoke the person which then will lead to them arresting every auditor.
Time, place and manner restrictions apply to the First Amendment.
Cry
Good to see some thoughtful consideration in the comments.
The female officer deserves an A+ for her patience.
Very impressive treatment of a complex situation. The research and explanation you put into this video was excellent, and your ratings very fair.
Thank you for showing a balance.
The problem here for the auditors is that there is almost no differences shown to them that this situation has changed from one where there should be no extraordinary time, place, or manner restrictions on their activities relative to the police interaction, to one where there are valid restrictions because of the circumstances known to the _officers_ but not the auditors. I can understand some of the reasons why the situation progressed the way that it did, but there was not a sufficient communication of the different circumstances that changed the officer's commands from "overreaching requests" (which can be ignored) to "lawful orders" (which are potentially subject to subsequent punishment for failure to obey).
Telling someone to go across the street isn't much of a overreach
@@simoncohen9323It is code for get out of earshot. That is overreach. The camera within earshot changes police behavior. It very likely kept these police from verbally antagonizing this guy into giving them an opportunity for a kill.
@Don-mi6zl I agree with you on the first part of being out of earshot. But from what I can see of this video, those officers seemingly had no intentions of trying to ruin anyone's day and simply wanted the situation to end peacefully. I think the one officer could have taken a second to explain why they were being asked to move, and then if the auditors chose not to they would be subject to penalties.
@@Don-mi6zl ok psycho not every interaction is to get a kill this isn't call of duty
@@Don-mi6zl no it's code to get the f out of the way and possibly be out of harms way
If he hadn't been a smart Alex with his, "You're dismissed," remark, they would probably not have been arrested in the first place.
I feel like the grading on this one is too harsh, I don't think someone else who hadn't already been called out on the channel would have gotten an F here. Failing to comply with a police order that you believe arguably violates your constitutional rights doesn't merit an F, I think there's much worse conduct that's gotten Cs and Ds on this channel, and the order to film from across the street was apparently unnecessary seeing as they ignored it and no harm came of it, so I wouldn't call the cops faultless here - needlessly giving bystanders ambiguously lawful orders and then charging them with contempt of cop under an over-broad statute for ignoring them is not A grade behavior.
I disagree that the order would fall under a 'reasonable time and place' restriction here - if you can't film standing on a public sidewalk in broad daylight then those 'reasonable time and place restrictions' have eaten the entire right to film. Even if there were unusual exigent circumstances unknown to the auditors that justified this overreaching order being given then pursuing the auditors on a resisting charge after the fact is hard to justify and creates a significant chilling effect on what would usually be considered 1st Amendment-protected behavior.
I agree with everything you said. Every other video about cops telling people to move back he’s graded has had the cops get low grades. All of the sudden bc this guy was mentally ill and maybe armed it’s different. Thing is, the auditors had no idea and the officers didn’t tell them either. Granted they don’t have to, it might have helped.
Agreed 100% the grading on this one was ludicrous.
@@bchap1233 Every other video doesn't have an armed mentally agitated person demanding several times for the auditors to go away. At this point they could see that they were clearly impeding the investigation whether they knew he was mentally disturbed or not. Just as auditors have a right to the privacy of their name, this suspect should have the right to a conversation with police without having his details recorded by some random with a microphone standing almost within arm's reach.
@@joe-s5r he wasn’t armed. And if he was, so what? Does he not have a right to be? Do the auditors not have the right to be? Only police can carry? Any auditor that goes out to film police knows the risks. You say all that, and the auditors knew nothing about him being mentally ill or potentially armed. Every citizen that gets upset over getting filmed doesn’t mean automatically the auditors have to leave. If that’s your take then we have no right to be press. He doesn’t have a right to not be heard speaking in public. If he doesn’t want them to hear him speak he can use the 5th and remain silent. Y’all act like this guy had an IQ of 5, yet the police let him drive away lol.
The problem with this analysis, is that it assumes the police were engaged in their "lawful duty". They were having a consensual encounter with a person suspected of having mental health issues. The supreme court says they have no duty to protect anyone, and officer discretion says they have no duty to uphold the law. What exactly is their "lawful duty" in this instance?
It was for the officers' safety, the safety of the man, and potentially others. They were attempting to de-escalate a bad situation, and the filming and things they said made it potentially dangerous. Even if they had no duty to protect and serve others, it makes sense that it could endanger the officers, and having the guys filming move away was important.
The second officer had to be vigilant in case either entered a dangerous territory of getting too close or in the face of the obviously extremely agitated man behind a 2 ton vehicle with a weapon and set him off. The officers had an astounding amount of patience for what could have easily been a disaster.
@@Wixvhen I agree with most of what you are saying. I disagree that "the second officer had to be vigilant". They have no duty to protect anyone. That means the officer chose to be vigilant. There is no duty to negotiate with mentally ubstable people, even to protect people from them. They could have just excercised their discretion and left. They had no duty to even be there. None of this matters to whether the men were interfering with the lawful "duties" of the officers. If the officers were not engaged in their lawful duty, then there is no interfering/obstruction. As far as I can tell, the only duty police have is to the oath they swore, to defend, and uphold the constitution. Everything else they do is at their discretion legally speaking. The officers may have had the will, even incentives to do what they did, but they had no duty to do anything in this instance.
@@eringallagher9381The auditors could exercise their discretion when filming as well.
Like allowing police to descelate a mentally unstable individual from hurting themselves or others. Maybe to, instead, NOT antagonise said individual by knowingly upsetting them.
I'd be fine if they discretely distance themselves from the auditing community. Just as they would want a bad police officer to distance themselves from law enforcement.
They don't have to serve and protect, but in this (rare) instance they were. They chose to engage as they interpreted it as part of their current duty.
Just because it isn't a requirement as part of their duty, doesn't mean that it can't be a part of it.
@@isnay2003 I agree with the first three paragraphs. When it comes to a police officers duty though, they can't have it both ways. Either it is their duty to intervene, and they face consequences if they do not, or it is not their duty, and they have no authority to lawfully arrest someone for interfering with them. I agree the auditors acted like tools, because they didn't know what was happening. Being a tool is not a crime though.
@@eringallagher9381 Going by that interpretation, as things are right now, there is no such thing as lawful duty and anyone can engage a law official in any way they see fit at any point of time, simply because the officers do not HAVE to do their job.
Going in the opposite direction wouldn't help anyone either. Warnings could not be a thing and anyone who is caught doing the absolute miniscule of crimes MUST be charged. Otherwise the officer who witnessed the crime would not be doing their duty to the law.
WE cannot have it both way. Discretion exists for everyone.
The officers here were acting in an official capacity to deescalate. They were acting upon their duty, even though they do not need to. It does not mean their authority does not exist, even in a consensual circumstance.
I love when we also get to see this side of a story. Cops being professional, asking for reasonable restrictions due to safety concerns, asking for backup that allows a middle-ground on location of filming and 1st Amendment freedoms while keeping the safety of the situation in mind. Also on the other end, Auditors whom lack fundamental understanding that there are reasonable restrictions on some rights - the rights are not limitless and all encompassing. This is a great training video for current and future Officers and Auditors alike.
ATA gets an F
Louisiana just passed a law that if you want to film police, you must stay at least 25 feet away at all times or you are subject to arrest yourself.
This is good for everyone, now auditors can remain 30 feet away and not be harassed.
Arizona tried to do that. The law was challenged and no one from the state would go to court to justify the new law. Believe it happened about this time in 2022.
@Koldatt it's a bad law. Maybe 10 feet. But what if the cop walks up to you is it another 25 feet? Can you film traffic stops from inside your car. What if they are planting evidence and a camera could have saved them.
@@codyedits304No, you can’t impose restrictions on how far or how close they can be.
They have to be able to see and hear, this law can easily be bypassed by just having a cop walk towards an already far away individual and then saying they’re under arrest.
It’s been shot down every time a law like this has tried to come into power.
7:34 COP#2 taking QUIZ w/ auditor NOT watchin' supposed "dangerous man" who required them to move across the street 😂
If there was no camera, there would not be a warrant.
You dont know that.
How can a order from a cop about public safety be lawful when the Supreme Court says that cops are not responsible for citizens safety?
That's the paradox that rarely ever gets addressed.
But I'm going to don my boot tasting hat and come up my speculation on it.
Orders come from a governmental position/entity which has duties it is required to perform but has little legal repercussion if it fails to complete.
The LEOs swear to take on those duties, but are still covered by constitutional protections; that means that the government can't make them run into certain demise to save another.
So if a LEO refuses to do their duty there is little in terms of legal ramifications that can happen to them aside from being let go.
Therefore the order for public safety is coming from an imaginary entity that can't not be responsible for itself, being processed through a fatty fleshbag that gets to pick and choose if they want to endanger themselves to save a classroom of children.
Best farmyard answer I have to that doublethink.
This channel and the folks behind it are doing extremely important work for us as citizens.
In situations like this, where someone's mental health is in play and its a mental health situation, as an auditor, I'd respectfully back away. Do I understand the 1st amendment? Of course. Should everything be documented? Definitely. But the auditors in this situation definitely made the situation worse.
It's almost as if Access to Information requests exist, in which you can just get the bodycam footage of the encounter without being a total asshole. Or use a zoom lense 10 feet further away with the exact same quality if you have a decent camera.
100 different options which don't land you a fully justified 66 days in a prison cell for being a total asshole.
So cops are now qualified to decide who's having mental health issues? And if they thought he was, why were no EMTs called? Why did they let him drive off?
@@valentinius62 ??? The man literally called 911 and told the operator and told them he has a serious brain injury, is off his medication, has a knife, and has thoughts about ramming his vehicle into the building next to him. ??? The police don't have to access anything, they have all the information already.
Also EMT absolutely NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER engages in a dangerous situation no matter the circumstance, protocol is for police to arrive first and clear the scene before they do ANYTHING. They are absolutely not allowed to go into a dangerous situation even if someone is literally about to die. That's the first fucking thing you learn in basic first aid training, let alone training to become an EMT.
@valentinius62 Dispatch alerted the officers of his previous mental issue and substance abuse issues, so they were aware if could have been one or the other, or both. If they were trained for DUI, they should have been able to tell if he was under the influence so they most likely ruled that out. However, you're right, if he's having a mental health episode he shouldn't have been allowed to drive and if he was trespassed and broke it he probably should have been taken in.
@@Figgy20000 If he was soooo dangerous then why did she walk right up to his truck, not order him out and search him for the alleged knife, and let him simply drive off? Why didn't they close off the street? 🤔
There was nothing there that indicated some kind of a high drama about to unfold. They've probably had multiple dealings with him in the past.
You're just buying into the cops' and judges hysteria.
The cop could have the guy in the truck, exit the truck. Then move back into the private parking lot in gain distance from the camera
What makes you think they would not follow them? Lol
@@Sebastian-sc4pjif they did follow at least the case for the warrant would have more standing.
This is why I love this channel. When I saw the title and then saw their antagonistic attitudes, I was worried that this was going to be graded in the auditors favor, but as always ATA is fair and unbiased. Auditors can be annoying but there's at least some who are polite and fair. These two deserved to learn a lesson and I also hope they see this video. The irony of criticizing cops for power tripping and then using the same dumb statement "you're dismissed" as if you were the one in power.
This encounter backs my argument that “just because you have the right to doesn’t mean you should”
Those auditors were jerks.
Auditors, you got audited.
Disgusting, the cops get an A for whining to a corrupt judge weeks after about a guy filming 30 ft away from a sidewalk, and AtA gives them an A? Furthermore, AtA thinks that this was a bad reasion to arrest someone for, but, because the guy had OTHER issues involving cops, that, it was A-OK for them to use them to justify this act? WAT? Jesus, worst AtA episode yet, I feel guilty watching this video to the end....
This comment is badly worded.
This video made good points. The auditors were 100% in the wrong and could have escalated the situation. The officers handled it amazingly by telling him that it was fine to film, but please move across the street so we can do our jobs.
@@Real_Moon-Moon Yeah those pesky auditors were CLEARLY too close... 30ft in the middle of the day, on a sidewalk no less? Who the bejesus do they think they are? They might of even been able to pick up audio from that distance, CLEARLY NOT OK. THIS WAS AN EXTREMLEY DANGERIOUS SITUATION, the random 15+ bystanders who walked past the scene, on the sidewalk, getting closer than even the auditors were, clearly had their lives in danger, and more importantly the cops themselves lives were in EXTREME DANGER TOO. Hell did you see that African American WALK BEHIND THE PERPS TRUCK trying to get past? He almost got SHOT BY THE COPS they were so freaked out. I mean they only had 2 cops there, things were so dangerous the perp had to be put in handcuffs and crime scene tape was needed to be put up for public safety, they just didn't have time in the 30 mins encounter, but they WERE UP in the cops head.
That was literally a 30 min situation everyone had to be on extreme tippy toes, with 110% attention to their surrounding... it's a miracle someone didn't end up in the hospital. It was so obvious that what they were doing was illegal that they even let the auditors go for days until they could talk to a magistrate judge (you know, the top echelon of legal knowledge, creme of the crop) to get a warrant for their arrest, the auditors behavior clearly warranted it, hell if they could figure out who the 15 bystanders who walked past were they'd of put out warrants for their arrests too.
I mean did the guy you are replying to not hear the cop say "for my safety go 50 more feet across the road. The guy doesn't want to be recorded in public". She had to turn her back to the extremely dangerous guy for a good 10s there, hell even the cop turned off her body cam in response to the guys request cuz she was so in fear of her life. AND THEN THE AUDIOR HAD THE GULL TO REPLY "no privacy in public right?". Did you hear that? Miracle he didn't end up in the hospital with lip like that. Plus you heard AtA the cops had a history with these two guys, clearly guilty, I mean back in high school they put the middle finger to the PDs school resource officer, GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY.
Maybe try getting your head out of the boot?
Spending 2 months in jail for walking around a 'closed' park...that's owned and paid for by the people... WTF...
I needed this after watching the video on The Civil Rights Lawyer channel of a cop arresting someone in West Virginia for a Facebook post
It sounds like these general "obstruction" statutes seem to be written deliberately vague and can encompass actions that would be covered under 1st and 4th amendment rights.
They certainly are and need to be far more specific, but I think that this falls into a reasonable utilization of the charge.
Even tho these guys are tools. One could argue that its not THEIR obligation to stop doing a lawfully protected activity just because some jackweed is annoyed at them. Police don't decide what gets recorded in public, and that man in the truck needs to respect people's rights just like everyone else has to. Honestly... why did he get away with threatening to ram people with his truck and get let go?
It's highly likely that the auditors did not violate any law since owning and possessing a fire arm is not illegal. In most states public display of a fire arm is not illegal.
Not only that. It's not their duty to stop a constitutionally protected activity because some jackweeds feelings are hurt.
These police officers were so professional, I hope other departments use this as case study. Credit to them and the leadership of their police department, clearly they are well trained to perform their duties.