Shit, I wouldn’t say anything just because the prosecutors said they wouldn’t use what I said against me. I don’t have a problem with any of this, honestly. Unless I’m missing something. Nobody should get on the stand if they thing the government might fuck with them. Cops know the system is rigged more than anyone else.
Judges are usually bigger butt-buddies with prosecutors. Though I have seen plenty of judges who side with the defense. Judges know that prosecutors have unlimited time and resources to destroy lives. Watching the impeachment hearings really brought that home. All of “the evidence” for quid pro quo was how people felt and what they thought. You can bring an army of people who’s professional opinion is that a crime was committed. It’s the judges job to keep that shit from looking like evidence. I think most judges take that job seriously.
I just watched a video of yours where the prosecution was actually in the wrong. Here? It seems like they're in the right. Are you just against all prosecution? Or for all judges?
So "trust the government" trumps our constitutional right, @@teancoffee208? Listen closely to the judge. The prosecution is trying to invent an argument running afoul of a basic right outlined in the Bill of Rights (and they lose, by the way, if you watched the video). So yes, I am against them in this video, and don't try to slippery slope fallacy me into being "against all prosecution" -- prosecutors are to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I have met honest, hardworking and talented prosecutors in my career and we defense attorneys all know who they are.
I watch your videos and thoroughly enjoy then. But how can this guy claim the 5th Amendment when he’s on duty as a public servant and has a testimony that may be crucial to justice. To me, it’s kinda like how we have a right to be secure with our property but the police may seize a cell phone or camera if they believe that their is evidence that may be crucial to a case or incident. Isn’t that a violation of our 4th amendment, yet it can be trumped in order to have the truth and justice? Curious on your thoughts
@@genemachine13menges14 I'm as anti cop as they come. I 100% think that judged should have forced him to testify in an official role. Period. He abused the protection when it suited him. Well,the judge should have forced him.
I think they should have had them in uniform, paid them for there time have them on duty. They then could not use there civil rights because they acted as law enforcement, they should be charged wuth obstruction.
Kolya-The-Vodka-Guzzler lol you look just like him. Just add 75 years to him and a I like to fuck my sister smile and you’re the same person. And quit blowing my cover god damnit. They find out I’m over here on the internet and I’m a dead man.
well sort of, persecution and cops generally work quite well together as they are both part of the executive power of the state, but as the judge said. Trust on someones word is hard, especially after the innitial slip up of the attorney of calling the witness the defendant. Maybe that slipup just fucked that up for them.
@@alberich3099 no thats not it at all, u heard that older prosecutor all the cops were filling for the 5th, that man was doing it because he shot his gun at un armed ppl so he didnt wanna say anything at the behest he gets charged for blank, i do see why though they didnt wanna give immunity, because then anyone that thinks they did somthing wrong but is told they arent being charged would be able to play the 5th game
@@alberich3099 the fact that you said “generally work well together” is the whole point…. The 5th amendment protects him from the times that don’t fall into the general situations
A real life example of this case is Bill Cosbey. He was told submit your testimony and we won’t charge you by the prosecutor at the time. Then later when a new prosecutor was in office turned around and used that information to convict him. Just for clarification I’m only use this as example of why a prosecutor can’t just say trust us not as to weather he was guilty or not.
The DA has a point if you give this cop immunity then why not everyone can ask for immunity for information. The Judge is basically lawyering for the witness. Blue ISIS
@@jefferycsm - That "right" however, is upheld for some ie. your uniformed thug seen here....and arbitrarely bulldozed for others ie. John & Jane Q. Sheeple. Judge dude here is practicing law from the bench. The question is why....
Your statement makes no sense. Isn't the judge supposed to be "practicing" the law from his bench. He's just playing devil's advocate. More power to him. As for the "uniformed thug" statement. I'm all for prosecuting bad cops. But I INSIST on finding them guilty FIRST. Have a nice day!
The minute a police officer invokes the 5th while simultaneously invoking all the rights and privileges and immunities provided to police- they must be fired immediately.
@dogguy8603 Because if what the cop is withholding will incriminate him or her then they shouldnt be cops. Also, none of his or her civil rights will be violated by firing them.
Uh yes? You said it. He was right. And blatantly disregarding the law and someone’s constitutional rights would be grounds for a mistrial in any circumstance. They absolutely could re present evidence to a grand jury even though they say they won’t charge him. The prosecution is a slimy little fuck with his answers. Really is.
The judge represents the Constitution not the prosecutor the whiteness has his right to do this. NEVER trust the prosecutor prosecutorial misconduct is rampid in this justice system. And there's nothing you can do about... Even the cop knows this
Bruce Wilson the best part is all of them are being paid. Whose paying the judge, cop on the stand, prosecutor, court reporter, person operating the camera, bailiff, etc.
I was charged with assualt on a officer. My brother invoked a 5th amendment right. State fault it. Judge did the same thing for my brother against the state. So to say judges are on cops side is BULLSHIT! Get off it
The judge simply applying the law.. If he didnt this would have been tossed on appeal.. Without immunity the officer has every right and is sensible to take the 5th.. If the state were being sincere, they could have just drawn up an immunity contract as suggested They up to no good as usual and the state lawyers arguments were verging on embarrassing and infantile..What sort of lawyer be using Pinky Swear instead of a legally binding contract
@@johnflynn5044 This is probably a city or country prosecution. Since they can't speak for the entire state on state infractions, they can't issue immunity without agreement of the highest authorities, likely the state attorney general. Even then, federal immunity would probably have to be granted as if his gun was fired there are likely federal statutes in play that no state office has the authority to issue immunity. Seems most likely to me the prosecution would have issued the immunity if they had such authority. Obviously, the judge realizes all of this, but the prosecution is just whining because that is what bullies do when their bullying fails.
Wow. The judge is actually defending this officers right to the 5th amendment, although he was a witness to a crime as he's sworn under duty to give statements of.
***** ***** Phil MrAdvise This is a perfect example of cops being protected by the judicial system. This judge just told all the cops that were involved in this murder of 2 unarmed people that they don't have to testify against other cops. Since they were the primary witnesses to the crime. The judge was able to support his not guilty verdict. This is justice?
***** bullshit . there was never a command to exit the vehicle. The car was at a standstill boxed in. They had no weapons and they weren't going anywhere. The cops opened up on them without warning. After initial barrage of shots and no responding shots from the victims "Dirty Harry" jumps on the hood and fires 15 more shots into them. Suicede my ass that was murder by cop. Brelo was getting off based on the judge's demeanor which he demonstrated throughout the trail. I don't trust cops. Never have and never will. The fucking cops were making jokes about killing them.
he's the official defense attorney of the law. The right to plead the 5th is not some common law, but a fundamental constitutional right of any witness. The jugde knows that, and knows that if he orders the witness to answer (which he can do) and any other persecution (other than those in the video) from another jurisdiction get hold of taht statement and decide to go for him, as they could, the jugde, the whole case and a large portion of trust into the system will be shattered. So he doesn't become a defense attorney of teh cop but the defends the constitutional right and rightfully doesn't rely on someones word.
@@Chasecka Well I'm not sure how it works in the US, but we have a similar law here and the law states taht it can be overruled by a judge if what you were to say would not incriminate you (either by beeing immaterial or by you having immunitiy) if you then would not answer you would be held in contempt of court which would lead to a fine or depending - prison. Yes no one can be forced to talk but not talking if ordered so by court has it's consequences.
This is why police always go for bench trials. Because the Judge is going to act as one of their attorneys and manipulate the law for the benefit of the officer.
Not really. The witness invoked his 5th amendment right against self incrimination. The DA then motioned that the court deny the witnesses ability to assert this right based on established policy and legal arguments already filed in a previous brief based on the prosecutions knowledge of the witnesses intent to invoke this right. The judge then heard the argument for the motion, asked clarifying questions to multiple members of the DAs office. He then made his ruling, allowing the witness to invoke his 5th amendment right and thus bringing an end to his testimony. And the truth is, the judge was right in his ruling. The DA simply promising not to pursue charges against someone isnt enforceable, and if they really have no intention of charging him they need to grant immunity in order to compel his testimony against interest.
ahmed King Is you think the huge is a piece of shit but not the DA then you are a fucking moron! The DA is literally sayin “we won’t charge you, take our word for it.” Do you trust a DA to just take his word for it? Not saying the cop isn’t wrong for not wanting to talk. But the DA is just as much of a crooked piece of shit.
Sounds like the DA was saying an "informal" transactional immunity was "offered". "But your honor we told him he wouldn't be charged". As we all know verbal agreements are worth the paper they are written on. As much as I've seen cops clearly lying, and proven as such by video, sound file, etc etc, on the witness stand, the Constitution protects him as much as anyone else. Don't talk to cops or talk in court unless you got immunity, looked over by your attorney, signed by the DA.
And the DA granting immunity is not a sure thing. One of the core issues in the case against Bill Cosby was that he was granted immunity so that he would testify in a civil case. That immunity was later ignored and he was charged criminally. While I think that he was guilty ( based on his own words after the grant of immunity ), that testimony and anything developed from it should not have been used in a later case against him. This is what the cop is afraid of when he's taking the Fifth.
@Steve SmithBroadFU So? Does that mean he's not allowed to use his 5th Amendment rights? Last I knew the Constitution applied to everyone; Even those charged of crimes.
@checkoutmyballz I would say the prosecutor's argument is an immoral one. He's trying to convince a judge to order a witness to give up a constitutional right against self incrimination based on his verbal assurance he wont be charged with a crime. There is absolutely no assurance some DA wont take his evidence tomorrow and pursue charges. It's all semantics anyway. The witness has the right to take the 5th. in any case where he believes telling the truth might incriminate him in some way. That's his decision to make. The prosecutor can still ask questions, the witness just doesnt have to answer those he feels might incriminate him. That is the prosecutor's job to provide evidence, not force a confession from a witness.
@checkoutmyballz Everyone here seems to have strong opinions stated as fact but they are mostly wrong. A wise man is never sure he's right. A stupid man is always sure he's right.
maybe that that slip swayed the jugdes opinion of the persecution. Now I maybe to picky but if the persecution calls a witness defendant after he pleaded his constitutional right to remain silent it would get very causicous on what comes next.
Maybe, but there is a reason you're never suppose to talk to the police. And that reason is the prosecution. If he makes a mental fumble, and self-incriminates (even if its mispoken, or incorrectly phrased by him) then he's culpable and can be tried at any time. "trusting" someone else aside from your council with your life in a court is idiocy.
did you not watch the video..he wasnt protecting his buddies he was protecting his own ass..he shot at the car too..if they had given him imunity he would have testified
When a lawyer says something to a judge, that becomes inherent. Otherwise, the lawyer can lose their license. When a prosecutor says they won't charge someone in court, that is the same as immunity.
When the prosecutor accidently slipped called him "defendant" instead of "witness" he goofed big time, look at the witness' reaction to that comment you know he knew what they were planning to do. Detective done the smart thing.
I like how the judge is challenging the prosecutor who says they won't charge someone but can't guarantee but won't give immunity for his testimony. In essesnce, the judge is challenging them as liars.
I think the judge's point was that even if he trusted them then that's not a legal argument. They could be telling the truth that they won't press charges against the cop, but if there's no legal guarantee of that then his fifth amendment rights still apply. The judge can't compel a witness to possibly incriminate themselves just because the judge thinks the prosecutor is an honest guy. That, and you're right, they're probably liars.
@@Altitudes Exactly! If they aren’t going to prosecute the witness, then make it concrete and grant him immunity. But to “trust” the DA would be foolish on his part.
Exactly...all it would take is to drum up "new evidence" at a later date and charge the guy. Lawyers are lawyers and they're scummy. Defense lawyers are scummy because they lie and protect criminals for a living, prosecutors are scummy because they lie and create criminals for a living.
@@jektonoporkins5025 Then any reports and testimony this cop gave should be thrown out. If someone was convicted on his "report" that he could incriminate himself over? Didnt he just say "What I did, that has been proven now, incriminates me. And differs from the official report"?
But if he talks it looks bad for the officers who is guilty . All the judge is doing is trying to eliminate witness to help the cop that shot and killed two people.it is so obviously he even had to say sorry for being so defense that shows you what side he was on.pittafull excuse for a judge.
He would have made him testify if the prosecution had given him immunity. The prosecution refused to give him immunity, so they can't compel him to testify. That's how the law has always worked and the prosecution has nobody but themselves to blame for the ruling.
Yea but even if they compel him to get on the stand, he can just say "I dont recall" to every question, and they cant prove perjury because they cant read the witness's mind.
Pac West yes, because as is the prosecution was just giving their word he wouldn’t be charged. That means as much in court as a fart in the wind. Granting him immunity prevents them from charging him, thus he wouldn’t be able to self incriminate.
More like the judge was protecting the man's constitutional, legal right to not incriminate himself. Remember we are all guaranteed the same rights both cops and robbers. If the prosecutor was not going to prosecute him all he would have to do is give him immunity from prosecution for his testimony, his word alone is not valid.
Dennis White you are correct and that’s called the 5th amendment to the constitution. Now, my comment. Wasn’t based on that but instead based on the fact (based in this video evidence) that the judge spent longer than necessary regarding this. His ruling is his ruling. So, if the prosecution doesn’t like it too bad. In that instance that is why we have appellate courts. So, finally, I am on the side of law enforcement. My brother-in-law is a police officer within a very dangerous city but the comment was regarding hw the defense was essentially remaining silent and allowing this presiding Judge to argue the case. The judiciary has a role but that role isn’t universal, that “checks and balances” thing. If he wants to clarify all this then call either the defense/prosecution or both parties into his chambers outside of the court’s time. He doesn’t need to argue anything. All he has to do is make a ruling and if someone doesn’t accept this then he can hold them in contempt of court to make sure that the court proceedings go through in an efficient and lawful manner. In essence, my comment that he was on the side the defense was due to the fact he argues for the defense instead making a courtroom ruling or decision regarding what goes on in his court. The time take for this could’ve been used in a much better way because it’s no secret that the judicial system has a, in general, a backlog regarding anything argued, heard, and/or tried within a courtroom. So, Mr. Dennis White, I believe you misunderstood my comment and I can see from the briefness of it where you assumed I was saying someone’s basic rights being upheld shouldn’t fall under the purview of the court/judiciary.
Did that attorney representing the government actually say that we should trust them to do the right thing? Where is the the theme music from The Twilight Zone when you need it?
Lol. Not true. Was on trial on a lawsuit and before court started lawyers and defendant and lawyer went to the back with the judge before the bench trial. Judges mind was made up
Until we destroy corruption within the "thin blue line" this will not change. If he did speak, he would have a huge target on his back. Sadly this is why none of the good cops speak out.
Exactly what I thought when I heard it. Trust the people who'll introduce blurry as shit (and possibly tampered with) video evidence to a court to try and convince a jury you did something you didn't do, then (possibly intentionally) withhold the high quality version of that footage from your defence? Get bent. Get absolutely bent.
If that child stayed home 2 more people would be alive today so even though he was found not guilty he still is the soul reason 2 people died if his little adolescent brain stayed home we would have a burned dumpster but 2 more people would be alive.
@@jeremystern1471, had that thug not chased him down and lunged at him, no one would have died. The last two victims may have verywell thought they were doing good by trying to stop an active shooter, but the first man who died was the true criminal. Furthermore, you cannot blame, or at least you should not blame, an innocent person for the result of their just behaviors. He had every right to be in those streets that night as anyone else. If you are going to blame him for being there, then every person in those streets are to blame, which is obviously idiotic.
@@michaelnaak with your logic we should give ever 17 year old a gun and send them to a protest. Let the rest play out. You understand how insane that sounds that child's brain wasn't developed enough to use proper judgment on weather he should pull the trigger or not... he was to young and didn't understand the implications of his actions so he started shooting people. Oh and let's talk about why he shot them shall we? He attacked the first guy because the first guy started a dumpster fire so let me spell it out if that child stayed home we would have one less dumpster and 2 more people alive today so don't try and tell me he had the right to uphold the law himself and start executing criminals in the streets
11:00 did this Prosecutor really just say "he should trust us" ???? someone please save this tape until the day this young prosector becomes a criminal defense attorney and completely argues the opposite side of his argument when he's fighting FOR a defendant one day
You didn't listen. The prosecution already knew his testimony and that it was in fact honest and truthful and he had nothing to hide. Unless you know all the details and reasons you can't says he crooked
@@2jz4me25 my dad was shot by a in armed guy in a car that he thought wasnt armed.. Reverse that just like this story and you have a bad cop? It in my dad's case a dead dad. Tragedy indeed but there are good cops who make quick decisions or it their lives . They may be dirty but this crap makes me sick as if all cops are dirt.
@@bryane2857 the simple fact is, cops get paid by the citizens to defend their liberty. That is an inarguable fact. Are there cops that just go to work and do what they're supposed to do? I'm sure there are. That doesn't mean the police force as entity isn't corrupt. Not everybody at Enron was a lying thief. Im sure there were plenty of secretaries, mail room attendants etc... that just went in and did their job and had nothing to do with what they were doing. But enron as an entity was totally corrupt, everybody new it and and was reported on as such. The exact same principle applies to the police force.
You can't fire someone for invoking their constitutional rights, that would be a violation of the officer's civil rights. He would sue in federal court and he would win.
Different standards of evidence and cop unions. Brelo got off because the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the other cops had their charges dismissed because of the blue wall meaning the prosecutors knew they couldn't get them convicted. At civil trial, however, the standard is "preponderance of evidence", meaning it is more likely than not. This the civil court found it more likely than not the killings were wrong, while the criminal court found that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brelo acted wrongly.
because civil court requires preponderance of the evidence and criminal court requires beyond a reasonable doubt (basically civil court has a lower threshold for how much doubt you can have if someone is guilty. preponderance of evidence is over 50% of the evidence shows guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt is like over 90% sure they're guilty)
Maybe if all the witnesses to the murder were compelled to testify the outcome of the criminal trial would have been different. I don’t know, just sayin. I’ll bet his ass wouldn’t have a problem testifying against you or me, but since it’s another cop he needs this protection.
if they wanted his testimony that bad all they had o do was grant him immunity instead of just promising to not charge him lol the DA was being sneaky and they know it
I disagree, if they has said that behind closed doors I would agree with you, but this was in OPEN COURT, ON THE RECORD. This USELESS bastard was just upholding the blue wall of corruption.
@@StigmaShadow The military, in court, cannot violate Constitutional rights to reach a conviction. Due process, the 5th Amendment- those things cannot be superceded in a court marshal. What I suspect you are referring to is suspension of some rights, like freedom of speech, in the performance of duties. This is for a specific purpose- national security. But a court marshal is not in the performance of duty, and the concept of national security being dependant on a guilty outcome does not ever manifest.
@@jamesticknor1134 Thanks for the clarification. But technically freedom of speech is a constitutional right, and they give that up, so I was just curious
@@StigmaShadow No worries. I totally get it. It can be tricky. I was in for seven years (USAF). Sure did feel like a prison sometimes with all the regulations. I appreciate you keeping an open mind and being polite.
@@bubbasmith179 Of course they do. That's the only thing it applies to. That's like saying the right to freedom of religions doesn't mean you can worship what you want. Um, yeah, it does, that's ALL it does.
That's not the meme. The meme is when you WANT someone to plead the 5th and shut up like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case where the witness gives evidence against your case. Saying someone can't/shouldn't plead the 5th is perfectly natural otherwise you could never have any witnesses. Every witness could potentially stone wall you, plead the 5th and then every case would fall through. "because it's devastating to my case!" Yeah no shit. If everyone stonewalls you and hides evidence then you don't have a case anymore? Who would have thought that 🙄
Remember, this is every cop, this is every judge. There are no exceptions because there's no way to live within their world without being a part of this.
You might not like it but if that was you sitting there invoking the 5th you'd appreciate what the judge just did. I say fry the asshole but he still has the same constitutional right to avoid self incrimination as everyone else. The DA could certainly use his testimony here at a later date to charge him. Mostly because he's guilty as sin. What the judge did was correct. The DA was full of crap suggesting it wouldn't be used against him, cross his heart pinky swear.
I think cops or anyone who works for the CJ System should be held to a higher standard. I think if you work for the CJ System which is voluntary then you should not be able to plead the fifth.
What if his wife gets into an accident and he gets an emergency phone call. So he talks on the phone while driving, not to mention going 9.5 miles over the speed limit! Both super illegal and he can plead the 5th so he doesnt incriminate himself on reckless driving and speeding...He should be fired?
Matt Fierimonte Whether a policeman should be fired for a lack of good judgement is up to his boss. A policeman refusing to testify in court is like a fireman refusing to put out a fire.
LᗩᑎDO LᗩᑎD I think that I unintentionally introduced semantics into the argument and I regret it. I don't see the difference but I suppose it validates C DeBo's comment which I think points to the fact that I refuse to bamboozle.
@@reginaldgraves1684 You can't fire someone for invoking a constitutional right, if they fired this officer for invoking the 5th they would be violating his civil and constitutional rights. He'd get a huge settlement in federal court and his job back.
Nothing will happen to you, you can plead the fifth at any point and not be forced to speak. Same as when arrested you have the right to remain silent.
@@alexblaze8878 we all know what this is, the judge protecting the Thin Blue Line of Silence, the judge would have railroaded anyone without a badge and we all know it
@@alexblaze8878 the same ones cops say don't exist? he already gave the reports, so he already testified when he did so, as far as rights, he has none, he sold them when he put on the badge, he does not get to hide behind the badge and be a cop then claim to be a civilian, since he is now claiming the fifth amendment he is being deliberately evasive and not telling the truth, and has such should be fired for dishonesty
@@alexblaze8878 do copps care when they say the fifth amendment does not apply to their questions, hell no, so for them to claim they can invoke it but no one else can is the height of hypocrisy
public servants should be forced to waive their 4th and 5th amendments while on duty for public service. when the shift is over they become normal citizens again
I have to disagree. His right to remain silent is one of the most core principles in the justice system. Even as a police officer, his basic constitutional rights being waved sets a scary precedent. He is also being advised to remain silent by an attorney, if you remove his right to remain silent you're also hindering his right to have an attorney. Just a very slippery slope. I know this particular case pisses people off, but removing his right to remain silent isn't a good idea to me.
Yes, that is essentially what I wrote above before I scrolled down here. His duty prevails over his rights while he is getting paid, earning a pension, and everything else. We aren't paying him to protect his friends by allowing him to omit crucial facts under the guise of protecting his personal Constitutional rights. I don't think the DA made an effective argument here and he should have been more prepared to wage this battle before it was upon him.
What are you talking about? He did his job that night (right or wrong idk) and told administration/internal affairs exactly what happened. He did his job. Now he just prefers not to help prosecutors send him to prison. Not saying he won’t go, but his attorney correctly advised him not to help them with it
@@chrisd4655 in other words you're defending this criminal too. As a cop he needs to be sending criminals to prison. If he won't do that he's not doing his job.
dennis doroshenko honestly? I think he’s a piece of shit... But even the shittiest of the shittiest are entitled to their constitutional rights. You think anybody cares about right and wrong in there? It’s a game dude. The point of playing the game is to win. That’s it.
The judge is right in this case..the DA is basically saying "We promise not to charge him" when they've done it multiple times in the past, even with that particular judge's case. No matter what you say, the problem isn't the judge, it's the law which allows people to plead the fifth. Don't be mad at the person enforcing the correct law.
@@Pozzaa90 I don't think you quite understand what I was saying.. or perhaps I didnt explain it clearly. I have no problem with the Fifth Amendment. I think it's necessary. What I'm saying is that everyone's gripe at the judge is misplaced.. their real gripe is the 5th amendment, and they expect this cop to incriminate himself. I believe that if they see their issue is the fifth amendment, they might realize that they are getting mad at the wrong entity (the judge, who is enforcing the law here). It's the other commenters who have a gripe with the fifth (not me).. they just think they have a gripe with the judge.
@@thebeasters well that's funny, considering the judge is literally claiming those same DAs have charged cops in previous cases. So your statement is verifiably false based on watching less than five minutes of the video.
I disagree the judge is upholding his oath and being blind and is shuting down a constitutional rights violation destroying the prosecution and the guy on the stand is subject to the law of parties and other laws after the fact of covering for the defendant....we dont put murders or rapists on the stand and force them to tell on themselves most of the time they think they can lie/talk their way out of it or garner some sympathy when they take the stand...
There is a name for it. It's called the courthouse workgroup. Just like most have a comrodary with their co-workers...the same applies at the courthouse. Judges, clerks, filers, bailiffs, court reporters, prosecutors, defense lawyers...while they don't all share a common employer...they do work with one another on a regular basis. Therefore they work with one another to make their own lives easier. When you hire a defense lawyer the LAST thing you want to hear him/her say is "I've worked with that (judge/prosecutor/opposing council)". That means they likely have a working relationship and you are the pawn being played. You want your representation to NOT be friendly with those looking to lock you up. Only in the rarest of cases will their previous relationship work out in your favor. No lawyer wants to go to court and present a case...lawyers are just like everyone else on this planet...they are lazy and only if motivated by copious amounts of cash will they do their job to the best of their ability. Sadly this is why most cases are settled. If a lawyer can convince the client to take a plea deal..even if you're innocent..they don't care. When they start telling you how expensive a trial will be....that's when you'll know that your lawyer doesn't want to do any work. What the lawyer is saying is 'thank you for the money you have given me, but if you want me to actually do something...I need alot more.
I do, the DA was correct in the notion that if they gave THIS POS immunity, then couldn't EVERYONE ask for it prior to testifying? Kind of a pandora's box thing. But the idea of giving this bastard immunity was pointless HE was not in danger of being charged, that was made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, his ONLY MOTIVE WAS TO NOT TESTIFY AGAINST ANOTHER POS COWARD COP. Nothing more.
Here is why you can't just grant immunity on a whim www.foxnews.com/us/seal-medic-who-confessed-to-killing-isis-captive-could-face-perjury The REAL murderer walked.......
If he had been attacked while at home or the grocery store and he had to shoot someone, fine, immunity would work..... he fired and saw others fire their weapons while performing their duty as POLICE OFFICERS, they should be REQUIRED to testify, not seek immunity or plead the fifth. Maybe he shouldn't be a police officer.
Wrong. The prosecutor could have overridden the judge by offering immunity. It is the prosecutors that are obviously dirty (wanted that result - cover up).
But HE also shot into the car...thats the point of the 5th,so he can't be forced to testify against himself and the DA can take anything he says in this trial.and use it in thos cops murder trial..😂😂😂
@@christopherhill7586 your right but pleading the 5th is a right not to SELF incriminate not to protect or help someone else be convicted.he shot into the car so he had as much chance to be charged as the others
That is just wrong. Ask anybody ever having considered the military. In order to be able to serve they have to give up some rights. And indeed this is true for police officers, too (well in normal countries, the U.S. seem to have some very strange opinions about how police officers should get all kinds of extreme special powers, but very few obligations to use them to help. In Germany everybody has obligations to help people in need seemingly extending those some states in the U.S. apply to police officers -- if the reporting is somewhat reliable).
up voted because you are wrong. It has long been held that basic rights (freedom of speech for one) is surrendered when working in police, judicial, and military settings (on duty)
Your Honor, I know we gave our Scout's Honor promise not to charge the detective but something has come up and we are forced to charge him with murder one. We hope you will understand that he gave us some damning information that we are obliged to use against him....thank you sooooooo much for understanding.
Stugotz98 you get it. America seems to think our justice system is built on innocence or guilt. Our justice system has nothing to do with innocence and guilt, but everything to do with win or lose. Prosecutors are no better than defense attorneys. I’d argue their worse. Yes, there are times where defense attorneys fight to have somebody they know is guilty go free, but there are also many times that prosecutors fight to have people they know are innocent get locked up. The truth is irrelevant. Hell, juries are instructed to play the game. It’s not guilty or innocent. It’s guilty or not guilty. Google the difference between innocent and not guilty if I’ve lost ya.
K Y what are you talking about? The officer is not the defendant nor is he a victim, he is categorized as a witness? Are you saying that witnesses have no rights?
How the F can a police officer, working in his/her official capacity and enjoying qualified immunity when so-doing, be able to invoke the right not to incriminate themselves? Absurd.
Because he shot into the car also..this wasn't about not testifying against other cops,he didn't want to testify anything about why he shot into the car..
“We can’t charge him…yet”. The exact reason for taking the 5th. Granting immunity is normal when they need testimony. Their argument is nonsense and makes them look bad. Based on the “legal” system, the average person should ask for immunity. Prosecutors are known to be bent toward “winning” and don’t appreciate not getting their way. Everyone has the right to remain silent.
This cop doesn’t need a lawyer he got the judge
Well stated .. dang wow
Shit, I wouldn’t say anything just because the prosecutors said they wouldn’t use what I said against me. I don’t have a problem with any of this, honestly. Unless I’m missing something. Nobody should get on the stand if they thing the government might fuck with them. Cops know the system is rigged more than anyone else.
Edward Gray Of course, its the police vs the people, not for the people
Judges are usually bigger butt-buddies with prosecutors. Though I have seen plenty of judges who side with the defense. Judges know that prosecutors have unlimited time and resources to destroy lives. Watching the impeachment hearings really brought that home. All of “the evidence” for quid pro quo was how people felt and what they thought. You can bring an army of people who’s professional opinion is that a crime was committed. It’s the judges job to keep that shit from looking like evidence. I think most judges take that job seriously.
He pleaded the 5th so he doesn't need to say a thing. His lawyer told him to. The prosecution is wanting 2 suspect's with one hearing.
The guy in the background around 11:00 minutes in when the prosecutor says “he should trust us” Lol hilarious
You should have more likes!
Haha did not expect his reaction to be so embellished
That was courtroom gold! 🤣🤣🤣
That mans head went up so quick 😂 he looked around laughed and shook his head 😂😂😂 priceless
LMAO 🤣 He even knows you gotta be R to do that.
THE GOLDEN MOMENT: 10:53.
When a prosecutor says that a witness should "trust us" (the prosecution) -------- RUN!
The DUI Guy ayyy good seeing you here DUI Guy! 😎
I just watched a video of yours where the prosecution was actually in the wrong. Here? It seems like they're in the right. Are you just against all prosecution? Or for all judges?
So "trust the government" trumps our constitutional right, @@teancoffee208? Listen closely to the judge. The prosecution is trying to invent an argument running afoul of a basic right outlined in the Bill of Rights (and they lose, by the way, if you watched the video). So yes, I am against them in this video, and don't try to slippery slope fallacy me into being "against all prosecution" -- prosecutors are to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I have met honest, hardworking and talented prosecutors in my career and we defense attorneys all know who they are.
I watch your videos and thoroughly enjoy then. But how can this guy claim the 5th Amendment when he’s on duty as a public servant and has a testimony that may be crucial to justice. To me, it’s kinda like how we have a right to be secure with our property but the police may seize a cell phone or camera if they believe that their is evidence that may be crucial to a case or incident. Isn’t that a violation of our 4th amendment, yet it can be trumped in order to have the truth and justice? Curious on your thoughts
@@TSammut0219 You need to learn some basic civics. He's a public servant, not a slave.
This cop knows not to trust the system,he is a part of it and knows what they do.
Freedom Inc. yet was totally cool with it provided it wasn’t himself in the hot seat
@@genemachine13menges14 I'm as anti cop as they come. I 100% think that judged should have forced him to testify in an official role. Period. He abused the protection when it suited him. Well,the judge should have forced him.
Freedom Inc.: Exactly right.
I think they should have had them in uniform, paid them for there time have them on duty. They then could not use there civil rights because they acted as law enforcement, they should be charged wuth obstruction.
Freedom Inc. your name is “Freedom Inc.” and you’re advocating for compelled testimony hahahahaha this is rich.
I bet he never took the 5th when testifying when he was putting others in jail
Damm right
John Smith that’s like saying I bet you don’t wipe your ass unless you just took a shit....
Your comment just shows that you haven't understood what's going on.
Kolya-The-Vodka-Guzzler lol you look just like him. Just add 75 years to him and a I like to fuck my sister smile and you’re the same person. And quit blowing my cover god damnit. They find out I’m over here on the internet and I’m a dead man.
Everyone has a right to remain silent. Even the people he put in jail.
Lawyer “he should trust us” lol that’s laughable
well sort of, persecution and cops generally work quite well together as they are both part of the executive power of the state, but as the judge said.
Trust on someones word is hard, especially after the innitial slip up of the attorney of calling the witness the defendant.
Maybe that slipup just fucked that up for them.
@@alberich3099 no thats not it at all, u heard that older prosecutor all the cops were filling for the 5th, that man was doing it because he shot his gun at un armed ppl so he didnt wanna say anything at the behest he gets charged for blank, i do see why though they didnt wanna give immunity, because then anyone that thinks they did somthing wrong but is told they arent being charged would be able to play the 5th game
@@alberich3099 the fact that you said “generally work well together” is the whole point…. The 5th amendment protects him from the times that don’t fall into the general situations
dude in the back right legit smirks/laughs too.
A real life example of this case is Bill Cosbey. He was told submit your testimony and we won’t charge you by the prosecutor at the time. Then later when a new prosecutor was in office turned around and used that information to convict him. Just for clarification I’m only use this as example of why a prosecutor can’t just say trust us not as to weather he was guilty or not.
The DA has a point if you give this cop immunity then why not everyone can ask for immunity for information. The Judge is basically lawyering for the witness. Blue ISIS
True
Immunity asked for/granted or not, as an American citizen he is entitled to invoke and assert the 5th amendment, is he not?
"He doesn't have a real, appreciable right." Are you kidding me?! EVERY American has that right.
@@jefferycsm - That "right" however, is upheld for some ie. your uniformed thug seen here....and arbitrarely bulldozed for others ie. John & Jane Q. Sheeple.
Judge dude here is practicing law from the bench.
The question is why....
Your statement makes no sense. Isn't the judge supposed to be "practicing" the law from his bench. He's just playing devil's advocate. More power to him. As for the "uniformed thug" statement. I'm all for prosecuting bad cops. But I INSIST on finding them guilty FIRST. Have a nice day!
"You know what's in the constitution? The same amendment we're talking about" I fucking died lmao
The minute a police officer invokes the 5th while simultaneously invoking all the rights and privileges and immunities provided to police- they must be fired immediately.
😊😊😊a
Why? Its a constitutional right, ones occupation dosent negate thoes rights
@dogguy8603 Because if what the cop is withholding will incriminate him or her then they shouldnt be cops. Also, none of his or her civil rights will be violated by firing them.
@@thetroof5525 yes they will its called retaliation, and that is his right you can not force another person to self incriminate
@@thetroof5525 why not just get rid of the 5th amendment, make people self incriminate, like in North Korea or Iran
The Judge may be right but I wonder if he would have taken the same rigorous stance if the witness was not a cop
Not
Uh yes? You said it. He was right. And blatantly disregarding the law and someone’s constitutional rights would be grounds for a mistrial in any circumstance. They absolutely could re present evidence to a grand jury even though they say they won’t charge him. The prosecution is a slimy little fuck with his answers. Really is.
Josh Rauzi questioning a judges integrity. Hmmm.
The judge represents the Constitution not the prosecutor the whiteness has his right to do this. NEVER trust the prosecutor prosecutorial misconduct is rampid in this justice system. And there's nothing you can do about... Even the cop knows this
Absolutely not
In the movie version of this trial, Jonah Hill will play the prosecutor, Ted Danson will play the judge and Sam Rockwell will play the witness.
Jason Kifner 🤓😊😂😅
any role for the USA king trumpet
Absolutely hilarious.
I'm thinkin' the judge is a little bit more of a Bill Hemmer, personally.
@Robert Slackware Speaking of the Props Dept., I'm surprised the cops on scene didn't have a drop gun from the Plants Dept. that night.
The camera person putting in the finest of work to make sure we have the right person on screen at all times
Uh, yeah. You think?! What else are they supposed to do with the camera?
@@talontodd2354 grow up
@@infernogamers168 Nope.
@@talontodd2354 fair enough
lmao
The blue wall. “I won’t talk, but just keep paying me.”
more like "I won't do my job, but give me your fuckin money now or I'll shoot"
Bruce Wilson the best part is all of them are being paid. Whose paying the judge, cop on the stand, prosecutor, court reporter, person operating the camera, bailiff, etc.
I was charged with assualt on a officer. My brother invoked a 5th amendment right. State fault it. Judge did the same thing for my brother against the state. So to say judges are on cops side is BULLSHIT! Get off it
Blue code of silence
Everyone has a right to remain silent. What's your problem with that?
Weird almost like The Judge and Police work together to make sure Police Officers do not get charged. Great Job people.
The judge simply applying the law.. If he didnt this would have been tossed on appeal.. Without immunity the officer has every right and is sensible to take the 5th.. If the state were being sincere, they could have just drawn up an immunity contract as suggested They up to no good as usual and the state lawyers arguments were verging on embarrassing and infantile..What sort of lawyer be using Pinky Swear instead of a legally binding contract
@@johnflynn5044 This is probably a city or country prosecution. Since they can't speak for the entire state on state infractions, they can't issue immunity without agreement of the highest authorities, likely the state attorney general. Even then, federal immunity would probably have to be granted as if his gun was fired there are likely federal statutes in play that no state office has the authority to issue immunity. Seems most likely to me the prosecution would have issued the immunity if they had such authority. Obviously, the judge realizes all of this, but the prosecution is just whining because that is what bullies do when their bullying fails.
The police should be held accountable for all their actions!!
Wow. The judge is actually defending this officers right to the 5th amendment, although he was a witness to a crime as he's sworn under duty to give statements of.
He is corrupt politically .
so,, millions of witnesses wont testify, for fear of legal reprissals
johnny llooddte *won't
That's what Judges are for asshole
That's why it's called a RIGHT. Everybody has them!
***** ***** Phil MrAdvise
This is a perfect example of cops being protected by the judicial system. This judge just told all the cops that were involved in this murder of 2 unarmed people that they don't have to testify against other cops. Since they were the primary witnesses to the crime. The judge was able to support his not guilty verdict.
This is justice?
Pro-active self defense.
***** bullshit . there was never a command to exit the vehicle. The car was at a standstill boxed in. They had no weapons and they weren't going anywhere. The cops opened up on them without warning. After initial barrage of shots and no responding shots from the victims "Dirty Harry" jumps on the hood and fires 15 more shots into them. Suicede my ass that was murder by cop. Brelo was getting off based on the judge's demeanor which he demonstrated throughout the trail. I don't trust cops. Never have and never will. The fucking cops were making jokes about killing them.
***** fine arrest them and charge them. That is the law. They were killed when they presented no threat. You sound like a cop apologist.
***** look they were shoot when their car wasn't moving. What threat were they presenting then?
GREG PORTER you got that right dude.
The camera going back and fourth when everyone is talking makes this so much more dramatic lmao
'back and fourth'? How about 'forth'?
The judge has officially become the defense attorney for the cop
he's the official defense attorney of the law.
The right to plead the 5th is not some common law, but a fundamental constitutional right of any witness.
The jugde knows that, and knows that if he orders the witness to answer (which he can do) and any other persecution (other than those in the video) from another jurisdiction get hold of taht statement and decide to go for him, as they could, the jugde, the whole case and a large portion of trust into the system will be shattered.
So he doesn't become a defense attorney of teh cop but the defends the constitutional right and rightfully doesn't rely on someones word.
Alberich how could he force him to talk? Put him in jail for life? No human has to talk.
@@Chasecka Well I'm not sure how it works in the US, but we have a similar law here and the law states taht it can be overruled by a judge if what you were to say would not incriminate you (either by beeing immaterial or by you having immunitiy) if you then would not answer you would be held in contempt of court which would lead to a fine or depending - prison.
Yes no one can be forced to talk but not talking if ordered so by court has it's consequences.
Alberich all that typing means noting man you are an idiot would of the judge ruled the same if a regular citizen was pleading the fifth
That’s why mark furman took the 5th in the OJ trial. He didn’t want to commit perjury for a case against him down the road
This is why police always go for bench trials. Because the Judge is going to act as one of their attorneys and manipulate the law for the benefit of the officer.
Innocent till PROVEN guilty..go back to N korea
johnny llooddte *North Korea
why are you not showing the comments with these videos?
He forgot to mention he's also a ventriloquist.
The judge is practicing law from the bench!!!
I agree
Upholding it and explaining why you mean
As is his duty! These anti-freedom nuts in the comments section who says we shouldn’t have 5th amendment rights are just fascists in the making.
I believe this sort of thing is common. The witness was in court without representation, so the judge sort of stepped in.
Not really. The witness invoked his 5th amendment right against self incrimination. The DA then motioned that the court deny the witnesses ability to assert this right based on established policy and legal arguments already filed in a previous brief based on the prosecutions knowledge of the witnesses intent to invoke this right. The judge then heard the argument for the motion, asked clarifying questions to multiple members of the DAs office. He then made his ruling, allowing the witness to invoke his 5th amendment right and thus bringing an end to his testimony.
And the truth is, the judge was right in his ruling. The DA simply promising not to pursue charges against someone isnt enforceable, and if they really have no intention of charging him they need to grant immunity in order to compel his testimony against interest.
It says a lot when even the Judge doesn’t trust the DA.
@ahmed King okay bro. Just upholding God given human rights but meh, whatever.
ahmed King Is you think the huge is a piece of shit but not the DA then you are a fucking moron! The DA is literally sayin “we won’t charge you, take our word for it.” Do you trust a DA to just take his word for it? Not saying the cop isn’t wrong for not wanting to talk. But the DA is just as much of a crooked piece of shit.
ahmed King You’re a fucking idiot!!
Lee Shackelford AMEN!!
This is in regards to shooting of unarmed innocent people 137 times because their car backfired.
The judge is right here. Without the DA's office granting him immunity, he's allowed to take the 5th.
Sounds like the DA was saying an "informal" transactional immunity was "offered". "But your honor we told him he wouldn't be charged". As we all know verbal agreements are worth the paper they are written on.
As much as I've seen cops clearly lying, and proven as such by video, sound file, etc etc, on the witness stand, the Constitution protects him as much as anyone else.
Don't talk to cops or talk in court unless you got immunity, looked over by your attorney, signed by the DA.
And the DA granting immunity is not a sure thing. One of the core issues in the case against Bill Cosby was that he was granted immunity so that he would testify in a civil case. That immunity was later ignored and he was charged criminally. While I think that he was guilty ( based on his own words after the grant of immunity ), that testimony and anything developed from it should not have been used in a later case against him.
This is what the cop is afraid of when he's taking the Fifth.
@Steve SmithBroadFU So? Does that mean he's not allowed to use his 5th Amendment rights? Last I knew the Constitution applied to everyone; Even those charged of crimes.
@checkoutmyballz I would say the prosecutor's argument is an immoral one. He's trying to convince a judge to order a witness to give up a constitutional right against self incrimination based on his verbal assurance he wont be charged with a crime. There is absolutely no assurance some DA wont take his evidence tomorrow and pursue charges. It's all semantics anyway. The witness has the right to take the 5th. in any case where he believes telling the truth might incriminate him in some way. That's his decision to make. The prosecutor can still ask questions, the witness just doesnt have to answer those he feels might incriminate him. That is the prosecutor's job to provide evidence, not force a confession from a witness.
@checkoutmyballz Everyone here seems to have strong opinions stated as fact but they are mostly wrong.
A wise man is never sure he's right. A stupid man is always sure he's right.
That jump scare at 0:20 really freaked me out. He was still talking but his lips were not moving!
I thought he had subliminal powers...
Ha ha ha, "the defendant"
oopsie I meant the witness.
Guess where my head is at judge!
maybe that that slip swayed the jugdes opinion of the persecution.
Now I maybe to picky but if the persecution calls a witness defendant after he pleaded his constitutional right to remain silent it would get very causicous on what comes next.
@@alberich3099 prosecution - big difference
I’m pissed that he’s protecting his (probably) corrupt cop buddies. But the judge is right that just taking prosecution ‘at their word’ is laughable
Maybe, but there is a reason you're never suppose to talk to the police. And that reason is the prosecution. If he makes a mental fumble, and self-incriminates (even if its mispoken, or incorrectly phrased by him) then he's culpable and can be tried at any time. "trusting" someone else aside from your council with your life in a court is idiocy.
did you not watch the video..he wasnt protecting his buddies he was protecting his own ass..he shot at the car too..if they had given him imunity he would have testified
They all shot at the car so act of shooting wasn't on trial..it's mr Rambo who jumped on the hood of the car that's on trial
When a lawyer says something to a judge, that becomes inherent. Otherwise, the lawyer can lose their license.
When a prosecutor says they won't charge someone in court, that is the same as immunity.
All the money the spent on this clownshow for years after the shooting and no one goes to jail.
When the prosecutor accidently slipped called him "defendant" instead of "witness" he goofed big time, look at the witness' reaction to that comment you know he knew what they were planning to do. Detective done the smart thing.
Yep, that Freudian slip is all any reasonable person needs to hear to shut the f up...
I like how the judge is challenging the prosecutor who says they won't charge someone but can't guarantee but won't give immunity for his testimony. In essesnce, the judge is challenging them as liars.
I think the judge's point was that even if he trusted them then that's not a legal argument. They could be telling the truth that they won't press charges against the cop, but if there's no legal guarantee of that then his fifth amendment rights still apply. The judge can't compel a witness to possibly incriminate themselves just because the judge thinks the prosecutor is an honest guy.
That, and you're right, they're probably liars.
@@Altitudes Exactly! If they aren’t going to prosecute the witness, then make it concrete and grant him immunity. But to “trust” the DA would be foolish on his part.
but prosecutors are notorious liars...they care about conviction rates not justice
Exactly...all it would take is to drum up "new evidence" at a later date and charge the guy. Lawyers are lawyers and they're scummy. Defense lawyers are scummy because they lie and protect criminals for a living, prosecutors are scummy because they lie and create criminals for a living.
@@jektonoporkins5025 Then any reports and testimony this cop gave should be thrown out. If someone was convicted on his "report" that he could incriminate himself over? Didnt he just say "What I did, that has been proven now, incriminates me. And differs from the official report"?
"His testimony will not self-incriminate himself." Okay.
But if he talks it looks bad for the officers who is guilty . All the judge is doing is trying to eliminate witness to help the cop that shot and killed two people.it is so obviously he even had to say sorry for being so defense that shows you what side he was on.pittafull excuse for a judge.
I heard the same thing. "self" was not necessary there. young ADA.
LAWYER-100
Needs to go to another judge ! Something isn't right with this judge !
That's why they ain't choose a jury because this judge is crooked
Yes, he respects the Constitution, you morons!!!
@@jacobgalloway9123 - Obviously not you imbecile.
Your all stupid. General public has no brains, leftist p.o.s.
I'd bet that the Judge has family in law enforcement. A son-in-law perhaps?
The judge definitely didn’t want this cop to testify
He would have made him testify if the prosecution had given him immunity. The prosecution refused to give him immunity, so they can't compel him to testify. That's how the law has always worked and the prosecution has nobody but themselves to blame for the ruling.
Yea but even if they compel him to get on the stand, he can just say "I dont recall" to every question, and they cant prove perjury because they cant read the witness's mind.
Pac West yes, because as is the prosecution was just giving their word he wouldn’t be charged. That means as much in court as a fart in the wind. Granting him immunity prevents them from charging him, thus he wouldn’t be able to self incriminate.
This judge seems to be a part of the defense team representing the officer
100%
More like the judge was protecting the man's constitutional, legal right to not incriminate himself. Remember we are all guaranteed the same rights both cops and robbers. If the prosecutor was not going to prosecute him all he would have to do is give him immunity from prosecution for his testimony, his word alone is not valid.
That's how it always goes, they always take care of each other.
Dennis White you are correct and that’s called the 5th amendment to the constitution. Now, my comment. Wasn’t based on that but instead based on the fact (based in this video evidence) that the judge spent longer than necessary regarding this. His ruling is his ruling. So, if the prosecution doesn’t like it too bad. In that instance that is why we have appellate courts. So, finally, I am on the side of law enforcement. My brother-in-law is a police officer within a very dangerous city but the comment was regarding hw the defense was essentially remaining silent and allowing this presiding Judge to argue the case. The judiciary has a role but that role isn’t universal, that “checks and balances” thing. If he wants to clarify all this then call either the defense/prosecution or both parties into his chambers outside of the court’s time. He doesn’t need to argue anything. All he has to do is make a ruling and if someone doesn’t accept this then he can hold them in contempt of court to make sure that the court proceedings go through in an efficient and lawful manner. In essence, my comment that he was on the side the defense was due to the fact he argues for the defense instead making a courtroom ruling or decision regarding what goes on in his court. The time take for this could’ve been used in a much better way because it’s no secret that the judicial system has a, in general, a backlog regarding anything argued, heard, and/or tried within a courtroom. So, Mr. Dennis White, I believe you misunderstood my comment and I can see from the briefness of it where you assumed I was saying someone’s basic rights being upheld shouldn’t fall under the purview of the court/judiciary.
@@edub1894 Yes, I see your point now that you've explained it thoroughly. I'm sorry you had to but appreciate you doing so. Thank you.
The Detective knows that the system is crooked .
The detective knows that he’s crooked
Yes, he witnessed a crime and did nothing... He has the right to remain silent though and he used it. Jokes on everyone
The detective is the crooked one . He literally won’t testify against a fellow cop
Did that attorney representing the government actually say that we should trust them to do the right thing? Where is the the theme music from The Twilight Zone when you need it?
Is the judge the cops lawyer?....damn. Cops should always have to testify if they are involved in a case. Period!
Might be my favorite youtube picture ever
One of the Judges roles is to stand up for the rights of the accused!
He’s taking the fifth to keep from crossing that blue line.
Lol. Not true.
Was on trial on a lawsuit and before court started lawyers and defendant and lawyer went to the back with the judge before the bench trial. Judges mind was made up
I hate that fucked up blue line it only helps bad cops
If you crossed the blue line the blue line crosses you out homie
Until we destroy corruption within the "thin blue line" this will not change. If he did speak, he would have a huge target on his back. Sadly this is why none of the good cops speak out.
John Smith pfff get a clue
A prosecutor saying, "He should trust me," is the most rediculas thing I've ever heard. The Rittenhouse prosecution proved that.
Exactly what I thought when I heard it. Trust the people who'll introduce blurry as shit (and possibly tampered with) video evidence to a court to try and convince a jury you did something you didn't do, then (possibly intentionally) withhold the high quality version of that footage from your defence? Get bent. Get absolutely bent.
So rediculas
If that child stayed home 2 more people would be alive today so even though he was found not guilty he still is the soul reason 2 people died if his little adolescent brain stayed home we would have a burned dumpster but 2 more people would be alive.
@@jeremystern1471, had that thug not chased him down and lunged at him, no one would have died. The last two victims may have verywell thought they were doing good by trying to stop an active shooter, but the first man who died was the true criminal.
Furthermore, you cannot blame, or at least you should not blame, an innocent person for the result of their just behaviors. He had every right to be in those streets that night as anyone else. If you are going to blame him for being there, then every person in those streets are to blame, which is obviously idiotic.
@@michaelnaak with your logic we should give ever 17 year old a gun and send them to a protest. Let the rest play out. You understand how insane that sounds that child's brain wasn't developed enough to use proper judgment on weather he should pull the trigger or not... he was to young and didn't understand the implications of his actions so he started shooting people. Oh and let's talk about why he shot them shall we? He attacked the first guy because the first guy started a dumpster fire so let me spell it out if that child stayed home we would have one less dumpster and 2 more people alive today so don't try and tell me he had the right to uphold the law himself and start executing criminals in the streets
All cops need to have cameras everywhere and one on each officer and if evidence comes up missing the supervisors or chief should be charged.
Dave Franklin are you sure that’s what you want.
11:00 did this Prosecutor really just say
"he should trust us" ????
someone please save this tape until the day this young prosector becomes a criminal defense attorney and completely argues the opposite side of his argument when he's fighting FOR a defendant one day
Fasho!✊🏾
Any officer who pleads the Fifth should immediately be fired and lose any and all retirement benefits. They’re clearly crooked.
You didn't listen. The prosecution already knew his testimony and that it was in fact honest and truthful and he had nothing to hide. Unless you know all the details and reasons you can't says he crooked
@@bryane2857 he's part of the crew that shot and killed 2 unarmed people in their car. He's as crooked as the day is long.
@@2jz4me25 my dad was shot by a in armed guy in a car that he thought wasnt armed.. Reverse that just like this story and you have a bad cop? It in my dad's case a dead dad. Tragedy indeed but there are good cops who make quick decisions or it their lives . They may be dirty but this crap makes me sick as if all cops are dirt.
@@bryane2857 the simple fact is, cops get paid by the citizens to defend their liberty. That is an inarguable fact. Are there cops that just go to work and do what they're supposed to do? I'm sure there are. That doesn't mean the police force as entity isn't corrupt. Not everybody at Enron was a lying thief. Im sure there were plenty of secretaries, mail room attendants etc... that just went in and did their job and had nothing to do with what they were doing. But enron as an entity was totally corrupt, everybody new it and and was reported on as such. The exact same principle applies to the police force.
You can't fire someone for invoking their constitutional rights, that would be a violation of the officer's civil rights. He would sue in federal court and he would win.
Confused--The family was awarded 3 m. And yet the cops involved were found not guilty. So why was the family given a judgement of 3m?
Different standards of evidence and cop unions. Brelo got off because the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the other cops had their charges dismissed because of the blue wall meaning the prosecutors knew they couldn't get them convicted. At civil trial, however, the standard is "preponderance of evidence", meaning it is more likely than not. This the civil court found it more likely than not the killings were wrong, while the criminal court found that the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brelo acted wrongly.
The not guilty was tried in criminal court, the judgement is civil court. Liability for damages is different criteria than criminal liability.
because civil court requires preponderance of the evidence and criminal court requires beyond a reasonable doubt (basically civil court has a lower threshold for how much doubt you can have if someone is guilty. preponderance of evidence is over 50% of the evidence shows guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt is like over 90% sure they're guilty)
Cause they were guilty as sin but they had to keep the blue line in tact
Maybe if all the witnesses to the murder were compelled to testify the outcome of the criminal trial would have been different. I don’t know, just sayin. I’ll bet his ass wouldn’t have a problem testifying against you or me, but since it’s another cop he needs this protection.
if they wanted his testimony that bad all they had o do was grant him immunity instead of just promising to not charge him lol the DA was being sneaky and they know it
Michael Stepp I think you said it brilliantly sir.
that is correct.. theyll hang him if he makes even a slight misstatement
johnny llooddte *they'll
I disagree, if they has said that behind closed doors I would agree with you, but this was in OPEN COURT, ON THE RECORD. This USELESS bastard was just upholding the blue wall of corruption.
Then they have to do it for everyone
This witness looks like he should be an actor playing the next Frankenstein monster.
The Monster or I-Gor. (played by Marty Feldman)
Yooooo where can I hire this defense judge!? Dude is good.
kodos to that last prosecutor who stood up to the judge.
Yea he was, appeal and lose.
Yep, kudos to all the prosecutors who would rather skirt the Bill of Rights because it is an inconvenience.
@commonsense Dumb Ass no he was not.
Tf is a kodo?
Say hi to your fellow corrupt prosecutors for us.
this is why they dont want the public to film in courtrooms and are actively and aggressively making sure it doesnt happen
Our judicial system is a joke
Have you been to Australia 😂 bro our justice system is a joke
This is why we the people have to bring justice against in this country
The witness may be compelled to speak if he is granted transactional immunity.
How can a public servant take the 5th, while on duty and keep his job?
Because the cop works for the government. The government cannot penalize people for exercising their Constitutional rights- including job termination.
@@jamesticknor1134 The military can... I don't know why Law Enforcement Officers would be any different.
@@StigmaShadow The military, in court, cannot violate Constitutional rights to reach a conviction. Due process, the 5th Amendment- those things cannot be superceded in a court marshal.
What I suspect you are referring to is suspension of some rights, like freedom of speech, in the performance of duties. This is for a specific purpose- national security. But a court marshal is not in the performance of duty, and the concept of national security being dependant on a guilty outcome does not ever manifest.
@@jamesticknor1134 Thanks for the clarification. But technically freedom of speech is a constitutional right, and they give that up, so I was just curious
@@StigmaShadow No worries. I totally get it. It can be tricky. I was in for seven years (USAF). Sure did feel like a prison sometimes with all the regulations. I appreciate you keeping an open mind and being polite.
Attorney - your honor he CANT plead the 5th
Judge - why not?
Attorney - because it's devastating to my case!
#MurderPoliceForSport
A witness does not have the right to plead the 5th . A police officer must testify
@@bubbasmith179 everyone has the right against self-incrimination
@@bubbasmith179 Of course they do. That's the only thing it applies to. That's like saying the right to freedom of religions doesn't mean you can worship what you want. Um, yeah, it does, that's ALL it does.
That's not the meme. The meme is when you WANT someone to plead the 5th and shut up like in the Kyle Rittenhouse case where the witness gives evidence against your case.
Saying someone can't/shouldn't plead the 5th is perfectly natural otherwise you could never have any witnesses. Every witness could potentially stone wall you, plead the 5th and then every case would fall through.
"because it's devastating to my case!" Yeah no shit. If everyone stonewalls you and hides evidence then you don't have a case anymore? Who would have thought that 🙄
fire the cop and judge because both are corrupt and should never work in law enforcement again.
Remember, this is every cop, this is every judge. There are no exceptions because there's no way to live within their world without being a part of this.
You might not like it but if that was you sitting there invoking the 5th you'd appreciate what the judge just did.
I say fry the asshole but he still has the same constitutional right to avoid self incrimination as everyone else. The DA could certainly use his testimony here at a later date to charge him. Mostly because he's guilty as sin.
What the judge did was correct. The DA was full of crap suggesting it wouldn't be used against him, cross his heart pinky swear.
I think cops or anyone who works for the CJ System should be held to a higher standard. I think if you work for the CJ System which is voluntary then you should not be able to plead the fifth.
Note his partner was detective O’Donnell and the judges name is O’Donnell. I’m sure most people didn’t see the correlation there. Cover up!
Idiotic comment. I think most people can see that. sheesh.
Your right
@@KB4QAA your an asswipe.
@@droidnick 2:1 you lose.
@@droidnick facts
10:54 “They should trust us.” Check out the dude in the background when he says that. Lol.
Brooo.. 😂🔥😭😂😂😂😂🤯
TheMightyOdin that says a lot. 🤣😂
Twas my reaction as well!
Great catch...
POLICE throw that line all the time. whats the difference
Did the family of the murdered kids get even? How many of the crooked officers did they kill, the shooter or all involved? Is there video of it?
A policeman claiming that he risks incriminating himself if he gives evidence in court! His career in the police must be over.
What if his wife gets into an accident and he gets an emergency phone call. So he talks on the phone while driving, not to mention going 9.5 miles over the speed limit! Both super illegal and he can plead the 5th so he doesnt incriminate himself on reckless driving and speeding...He should be fired?
C DeBo To testify is to relate the circumstances which is to give evidence.
Matt Fierimonte Whether a policeman should be fired for a lack of good judgement is up to his boss. A policeman refusing to testify in court is like a fireman refusing to put out a fire.
LᗩᑎDO LᗩᑎD I think that I unintentionally introduced semantics into the argument and I regret it. I don't see the difference but I suppose it validates C DeBo's comment which I think points to the fact that I refuse to bamboozle.
@@reginaldgraves1684 You can't fire someone for invoking a constitutional right, if they fired this officer for invoking the 5th they would be violating his civil and constitutional rights. He'd get a huge settlement in federal court and his job back.
This is corruption....when a judge automatically takes the side of law enforcement.... seriously...wtf !
🤔Eye seriously don't believe what Eye'm seeing!😱
@Cool Breeze Agreed. =
Cool Breeze eloquently stated
Shouting prosecutors are always a clear sign they have something really foul up their sleeves...
That judge need to be fired.you go on the stand and refuse to answer questions .and see what happens to you.
Nothing will happen to you, you can plead the fifth at any point and not be forced to speak. Same as when arrested you have the right to remain silent.
Thomas Caldwell it‘s what you actually should do. In most cases at least.
@@Bsquaredplus2 He's pleading the fifth while under oath and already a called witness...?
Let's make a trial where everyone takes the 5th. A silent trial. Justice at its best.
Fascinating argument. Without immunity always go with understanding “never trust anyone.”
Wow...thus judge went to defense? So impartial!
He went to the defense of the Constitution which is the Oath he took. You cannot force someone to speak...unlike in third world countries.
@@alexblaze8878 we all know what this is, the judge protecting the Thin Blue Line of Silence, the judge would have railroaded anyone without a badge and we all know it
TheDarkalkymist so u agree with violating people’s rights like communist China does?
@@alexblaze8878 the same ones cops say don't exist? he already gave the reports, so he already testified when he did so, as far as rights, he has none, he sold them when he put on the badge, he does not get to hide behind the badge and be a cop then claim to be a civilian, since he is now claiming the fifth amendment he is being deliberately evasive and not telling the truth, and has such should be fired for dishonesty
@@alexblaze8878 do copps care when they say the fifth amendment does not apply to their questions, hell no, so for them to claim they can invoke it but no one else can is the height of hypocrisy
I guess after this the judge is going out with the witness for a drink
And a little action afterwards if you know what I mean.
Nah, the judge is simply following the Constitution!
“They should trust us” HAHAHAHA!!! Good one bud.
Unaccountable Law Enforcement.
This guy does NOT look like a cop.
But the judge does...
he is undercover vice...said it at the beggining.
He called him the defendant instead of the witness, and then pinky promises they won't charge him 😂😂
public servants should be forced to waive their 4th and 5th amendments while on duty for public service. when the shift is over they become normal citizens again
THANK YOU, MR. BLACK!
I have to disagree. His right to remain silent is one of the most core principles in the justice system. Even as a police officer, his basic constitutional rights being waved sets a scary precedent. He is also being advised to remain silent by an attorney, if you remove his right to remain silent you're also hindering his right to have an attorney. Just a very slippery slope. I know this particular case pisses people off, but removing his right to remain silent isn't a good idea to me.
Same exact thing I was thinking.
Do you think your rights should stop when you're at work?
Yes, that is essentially what I wrote above before I scrolled down here. His duty prevails over his rights while he is getting paid, earning a pension, and everything else. We aren't paying him to protect his friends by allowing him to omit crucial facts under the guise of protecting his personal Constitutional rights. I don't think the DA made an effective argument here and he should have been more prepared to wage this battle before it was upon him.
Cop corruption. Ok he can plead the 5th and not do his job, but he should be fired for not doing his job!
Grand jury in New York require all witness’ be given immunity to testify
The cop won't do his job. The judge won't do his job. Cronyism. Corruption.
What are you talking about? He did his job that night (right or wrong idk) and told administration/internal affairs exactly what happened. He did his job. Now he just prefers not to help prosecutors send him to prison. Not saying he won’t go, but his attorney correctly advised him not to help them with it
@@chrisd4655 in other words you're defending this criminal too. As a cop he needs to be sending criminals to prison. If he won't do that he's not doing his job.
dennis doroshenko honestly? I think he’s a piece of shit... But even the shittiest of the shittiest are entitled to their constitutional rights. You think anybody cares about right and wrong in there? It’s a game dude. The point of playing the game is to win. That’s it.
The judge is right in this case..the DA is basically saying "We promise not to charge him" when they've done it multiple times in the past, even with that particular judge's case. No matter what you say, the problem isn't the judge, it's the law which allows people to plead the fifth. Don't be mad at the person enforcing the correct law.
A cop charged?
Yeah.. No
I agree
Fifth amendment is a problem? Are you nuts???
@@Pozzaa90 I don't think you quite understand what I was saying.. or perhaps I didnt explain it clearly. I have no problem with the Fifth Amendment. I think it's necessary. What I'm saying is that everyone's gripe at the judge is misplaced.. their real gripe is the 5th amendment, and they expect this cop to incriminate himself. I believe that if they see their issue is the fifth amendment, they might realize that they are getting mad at the wrong entity (the judge, who is enforcing the law here). It's the other commenters who have a gripe with the fifth (not me).. they just think they have a gripe with the judge.
@@thebeasters well that's funny, considering the judge is literally claiming those same DAs have charged cops in previous cases. So your statement is verifiably false based on watching less than five minutes of the video.
Just after 15:00 what was cut out? The Judge was starting to say something.
The judge has become this cops lawer, and our system has become greatly corrupt.
The judge is on the police side he sounds like his attorney
I disagree the judge is upholding his oath and being blind and is shuting down a constitutional rights violation destroying the prosecution and the guy on the stand is subject to the law of parties and other laws after the fact of covering for the defendant....we dont put murders or rapists on the stand and force them to tell on themselves most of the time they think they can lie/talk their way out of it or garner some sympathy when they take the stand...
There is a name for it. It's called the courthouse workgroup. Just like most have a comrodary with their co-workers...the same applies at the courthouse. Judges, clerks, filers, bailiffs, court reporters, prosecutors, defense lawyers...while they don't all share a common employer...they do work with one another on a regular basis. Therefore they work with one another to make their own lives easier. When you hire a defense lawyer the LAST thing you want to hear him/her say is "I've worked with that (judge/prosecutor/opposing council)". That means they likely have a working relationship and you are the pawn being played. You want your representation to NOT be friendly with those looking to lock you up. Only in the rarest of cases will their previous relationship work out in your favor. No lawyer wants to go to court and present a case...lawyers are just like everyone else on this planet...they are lazy and only if motivated by copious amounts of cash will they do their job to the best of their ability. Sadly this is why most cases are settled. If a lawyer can convince the client to take a plea deal..even if you're innocent..they don't care. When they start telling you how expensive a trial will be....that's when you'll know that your lawyer doesn't want to do any work. What the lawyer is saying is 'thank you for the money you have given me, but if you want me to actually do something...I need alot more.
@@nonperishables5870 I can agree with that and the prosocuter/s thought they were going to get that in this case most likely
Should the point here be that in his capacity as a civil servant, a police officer, he should be compelled to testify.?
Exactly. And he still has the right to the 5th but can be fired for taking it.
They could have given immunity. I don't get it.
I do, the DA was correct in the notion that if they gave THIS POS immunity, then couldn't EVERYONE ask for it prior to testifying? Kind of a pandora's box thing. But the idea of giving this bastard immunity was pointless HE was not in danger of being charged, that was made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, his ONLY MOTIVE WAS TO NOT TESTIFY AGAINST ANOTHER POS COWARD COP. Nothing more.
Here is why you can't just grant immunity on a whim
www.foxnews.com/us/seal-medic-who-confessed-to-killing-isis-captive-could-face-perjury
The REAL murderer walked.......
If he had been attacked while at home or the grocery store and he had to shoot someone, fine, immunity would work..... he fired and saw others fire their weapons while performing their duty as POLICE OFFICERS, they should be REQUIRED to testify, not seek immunity or plead the fifth. Maybe he shouldn't be a police officer.
@@ricoaztec1 NOT ON YOUR LIFE! The union would never allow such a search for the TRUTH!
It’d be nice to have my lawyer and judge be the same what a great deal
And the officers that shot 137 times into the car were convicted. Of nothing.
The judge let the cops go based on his decision.
Wrong. The prosecutor could have overridden the judge by offering immunity.
It is the prosecutors that are obviously dirty (wanted that result - cover up).
@@2Truth4Liberty maybe, or just so beholden to leftists that they refuse to give immunity to a cop
This judge is backing the cop ... America ... land of the free and the home of the brave. 🇮🇱 oops I mean🇺🇸
Freemasons of a feather flock together.
Police testify against other officers every day all across this country without being charged themselves. This officer is holding the thin blue line.
But HE also shot into the car...thats the point of the 5th,so he can't be forced to testify against himself and the DA can take anything he says in this trial.and use it in thos cops murder trial..😂😂😂
Corrupt judge how much was he paid do you think maybe or in on it
I'm pleading the 5th for what I'm about to do to all these courtrooms releasing single-channel audio
Single channel audio😠😡🤬😡
It's the cops right as well as anyone in the US to exercise the 5th amendment right. That should never be challenged
Politicians and public officials should be held to a higher standards and it should be harder for them to plead the 5 th.
@@christopherhill7586 your right but pleading the 5th is a right not to SELF incriminate not to protect or help someone else be convicted.he shot into the car so he had as much chance to be charged as the others
I’m OK with that as long as it’s an automatic firing offense
No matter what occupation a person has, all of your rights remain intact. No one loses their rights.
@Jimmi Jams apperantly the constutition says that, but that is useless anyway.
@@alberich3099 let's do away with the Constitution and goose-step under a rainbow flag with a dildo-shaped hammer and sickle on it.
You waive some when you join the military but, fundamentally I agree with you.
That is just wrong. Ask anybody ever having considered the military. In order to be able to serve they have to give up some rights. And indeed this is true for police officers, too (well in normal countries, the U.S. seem to have some very strange opinions about how police officers should get all kinds of extreme special powers, but very few obligations to use them to help. In Germany everybody has obligations to help people in need seemingly extending those some states in the U.S. apply to police officers -- if the reporting is somewhat reliable).
up voted because you are wrong. It has long been held that basic rights (freedom of speech for one) is surrendered when working in police, judicial, and military settings (on duty)
This so called (dirty)sitting judge should be removed from the case for practicing law from the bench and the copsucker charged with contempt
You clearly do not understand what a judge does
So what happened in this case?
He is prepped to answer what questions and how. Why is a judge leading him? this is what happens when they create a hero class above the law.
Your Honor, I know we gave our Scout's Honor promise not to charge the detective but something has come up and we are forced to charge him with murder one. We hope you will understand that he gave us some damning information that we are obliged to use against him....thank you sooooooo much for understanding.
9:00 my favorite part. “He swore an oath to the community and the constitution”
“The same constitution that gives him 5th amendment rights?”
Lol
That DA is hilarious. Just “TRUST US!!” Ummmmm NO. You’re a Lawyer. NEVER TRUST A LAWYER!! NEVER!!
Mike Hunt No. I’m not a Cop. I live in “reality” and NOT in fairytale land.
Mike Hunt My “reality” includes viewing idiotic comments on TH-cam. Thank goodness I don’t give a crap about what idiots think.
Stugotz98 you get it. America seems to think our justice system is built on innocence or guilt. Our justice system has nothing to do with innocence and guilt, but everything to do with win or lose. Prosecutors are no better than defense attorneys. I’d argue their worse. Yes, there are times where defense attorneys fight to have somebody they know is guilty go free, but there are also many times that prosecutors fight to have people they know are innocent get locked up. The truth is irrelevant. Hell, juries are instructed to play the game. It’s not guilty or innocent. It’s guilty or not guilty. Google the difference between innocent and not guilty if I’ve lost ya.
Chris D You are correct. I do get it!!
You'll trust one when you need one.
I bet he never plead the fifth in any other case that he testified in during his career. Oh wait, he must be guilty of something relating to this one.
K Y what are you talking about? The officer is not the defendant nor is he a victim, he is categorized as a witness? Are you saying that witnesses have no rights?
How the F can a police officer, working in his/her official capacity and enjoying qualified immunity when so-doing, be able to invoke the right not to incriminate themselves? Absurd.
Because 5th Amendment?
Because he shot into the car also..this wasn't about not testifying against other cops,he didn't want to testify anything about why he shot into the car..
That judge if you want yo call him that is a disgrace, the whole system is rotten from top to bottom
Even if charges were brought upon him, I doubt a grand jury would indict. Everything goes in the favor of the cops.
EXACTLY!
Just because this District Attorney won't charge him, what it to say a Federal Prosecutor may not come in and file federal charges?
“We can’t charge him…yet”. The exact reason for taking the 5th. Granting immunity is normal when they need testimony. Their argument is nonsense and makes them look bad. Based on the “legal” system, the average person should ask for immunity. Prosecutors are known to be bent toward “winning” and don’t appreciate not getting their way. Everyone has the right to remain silent.
Ofcourse they are trying to win they are prosecutors...