Pretty much all the big cities in CT are high crime. Hartford us so bad that at one point (not sure if they're still doing it) they had armed civilians patrolling the streets because it's so high crime and there aren't enough cops
You're correct. Another fact ; , what makes an area high crime? The number of arrests. So just because cops make a lot of arrests in an area doesn't mean cops should be able to violate rights in that area
Agreed. Unfortunately, "high crime area" doesn't seem to mean much except that you have fewer rights for some reason. Police have claimed it all over, and it never seems to require any specific metrics or evidence other than their word.
@@tvc1848 ...Yeah, kid: ...It's a "JURY" that is convened by the *_Clerk:_* Who is probably friends with a lot of judges & Police Officers. Not to mention the possible penalties that the Plaintiff (victim) can face if he doesn't "agree" to a SETTLEMENT !!! ...And guess who gets to make _THAT_ determination ??? ...Yep, his "buddy" The Judge !!! ...God, it's so great being a SovCit Pig in America isn't it ???
while helpful.... "knowing your rights and the law" is irrelevant..... you only NEED to know how to defend yourself...then to do it. your right to self defense dosnt end at their fictional beliefs, costume, or paycheck.
@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER demonstrating knowledge of rights is useful primarily when confronted by police for random questioning. I ride a bicycle - unarmed- locally and have been confronted by police on multiple occasions. They gave the impression that they were looking for an easy mark as I had done nothing to warrant being stopped. Being calm and knowledgeable is vital in controlling the encounter
@@Uberragen21 I noted who stopped me, time and location as well as as much of the conversation as I can remember as soon as possible. This should be done no matter what the outcome.
It want even the reason for the stop!!! It seems to me the whole stop was illegal. “Why did you stop him?” “He was pulled over in a high crime area, clearly he was a criminal!”
You guys are allowing your judgement to be crowded with insignificant details. The peoples Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's written in English. No need for translation. No need for interpretation. Unconstitutional laws / rulings need to be stricken
@@tvc1848 Again, what consequence? It is universal in police contracts to indemnify the officer for on the job conduct. Any settlement will come from the taxpayers.
This is a big win for liberty. However, if the cop who committed this violation is not properly punished other cops will continue with the same conduct.
What did the district court say? No qualified immunity. What did the Second Circuit say? No qualified immunity. There is no “guise” here. There’s a childish misunderstanding of the law on the cop’s part. But I blame his department. They did a garbage job training their officers. This cop is going to lose it all and it’s his own fault, but also the fault of the department.
The officer states he couldn't be sued due to qualified immunity. Therefore he willingly abused his power believing he had the protection of qualified immunity.
@@micahputman3374 And the court said…what? Then the Second circuit said…what? Where did this cop get the idea of qualified immunity that, like the public’s beliefs about it, were wrong? The cop willingly abused his power because the victim of his unlawful activities was LEGALLY carrying a firearm. It had nothing to do with qualified immunity and EVERYTHING to do with anti-gun sentiment in Connecticut.
Qualified Immunity/Sovereign Immunity would probably take several videos to adequately cover. Remember some knot heads complained about a lot of very reasonable actions taken when the various authorities were in hot pursuit of the Boston Bombers. The time and place to argue about reasonable and unreasonable is not at the side of the road but in court like here. Example - You are driving an easily stolen red Kia, a few miles away a carload of disadvantaged yutes driving a stolen Red Kia shoot and kill several people in an armed robbery that went south. A responding unit sees you and attempts to pull you over in a felony stop. You decide that you haven't done anything wrong, so you don't quickly stop. But shortly after you do stop. At that point, what you do can cause a range of consequences. Some yahoos may call it bootlicking but polite cooperation when your rights are possibly being violated, but they aren't (reasonable/unreasonable, RAS, you think "None, I didn't do anything.") The officer has RAS up the ying-yang, Red Kia moving away from the location of a multiple murder, apparent failure to yield, etc. Things YOU don't know. You do stupid things because you aren't no bootlicker and you didn't do anything wrong. Consequences, you get chewed out and embarrassed up to including you getting dead. It's on tape, they jury sees you doing dumb things. It's going to be a long and hard fight overcoming qualified immunity. You want to see Immunity get squirrely, look at the laws regarding Immigration and Customs Services and similar with regards to stop and search, search in-land, seizures, etc. They pre-date the United States, let alone the Constitution, some maybe even pre-date the Magna Carta. Why ? Because the 4th Amendment says "against unreasonable searches and seizures," and what is not unreasonable in a Customs situation might be very unreasonable other places.
Near Waterbury Connecticut. Connecticut sucks, but Waterbury is about the most corrupt city around. I used to live next door in Naugatuck, but got out of there as fast as I could.
@@JeffsAquaponicsyea, no doubt. Waterbury 2nd only to Bridgeport. Mayor Joe Ganim, convicted and served Fed prison time for taking bribes and racketeering as the mayor. Got out and is mayor once again in Bridgeport. Crazzy shlt man….
Cop here. It's also important to note that the prerequisite for a Terry frisk is both prongs of armed AND dangerous. Someone who proffers their CHL and is compliant the entire contact does not rise to the level of dangerous, merely because they possess a firearm.
@@thechach050 thank you for clarifying that. Even the lawyer misstated that point saying “armed and therefore potentially dangerous”, which is not what Terry vs Ohio says at all.
I got stopped at a road block with an AR on the passenger seat of my hummer, and a pistol on the center console, the officer said, “You look like you don’t wanna be F’d with, have a nice day.” 😂
The answer ought to be a firm, emphatic "No." The presence of a weapon does not, in itself, constitute probable cause to permit a search. The activity is "carrying," which is protected under the 2A, but the degree and amount of evidence required to permit a search is stipulated in the _4A._ As the carrying of a weapon is protected activity under the 2A, it is therefore both a legal action and _not_ evidence that a crime has been or is being committed by the bearer. The detainment was therefore unlawful, the search invalid, and the following arrest also unlawful. All of which the officer should have known, thus qualified immunity does not cover their actions. But, of course, when you have a court system that isn't interested in doing it's proper job of _protecting and securing_ the rights of those before it, and instead leverages it's power to extend government reach...they're not gonna come to that conclusion at anything less than the end of a long range hole punch, now are they?
What brainwashed indoctrinated incompetent American citizens do not comprehend and understand is probable cause under the 4th amendment text is only to get a legal lawful valid search warrant nothing else.
What about the permit itself? The law states "A liberty may not be converted into a privilege and charged a fee therefore" Murdock vs Pensilvania. Police are in violation all over the country while they enforce state policy, ignoring the law.
Yes there is the broader issue of permits being unconstitutional. Until that is adjudicated, lawful activity like carrying with a permit is not probable cause of a crime and this LEOs actions are clearly unconstitutional.
@@RARufus Correct. Permits or licenses have never been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so until then it’s just a debating point. I agree that there should be no required permits but Article III of the US Constitution doesn’t mention my opinion. It is also clear that you are correct about this officer’s actions being unconstitutional. I don’t see how this if even a debate. The officer has the right just as anyone else to plea his case but the facts of the case which are not in dispute (a key factor), show that the officer had no reasonable suspicion of a crime, much less probable cause to make an arrest. That officer now has to face a jury who I hope are not very happy with his unlawful violation of rights.
Qualified immunity is a load of bs. If I cannot claim ignorance of a law as a defense, or even a mistake of fact, then an officer sure as hell shouldnt be allowed to. Rules for thee, but not for me is the hallmark of tyranny.
May not means you don't have permission to do something. Can not means you are not able to do something. Must not is no permission but stronger than may not.
i don't understand. He was stopped, told the officer he had a permit for a gun. Why was he detained to find the firearm if he had a permit? What crime was allegedly committed? He had a permit.
Yup, has happened too me, a white unarmed male college student when I went the wrong direction (entered the exit) in my university parking garage. Guns to our heads. Except we spent 45 minutes cuffed in the back of the car.
As a retired LE supervisor, one question would be...How many times has this officer done this prior to this incident and had not been caught? Bad judgement means bad laws.
As a retired LE supervisor have you ever arrested a brother in blue? Legally, this officer broke the law. He restrained, assaulted, and illegally arrested this guy against state law. Federally, he violated his rights. Both are criminally prosecutable offences.
@@ledwallet1944 this type of violation would be investigated, possible suspension first. If all allegations were substantiated then it's up to the Chief for termination and forwarded to the DA for possible criminal filing. To answer your question, yes, arrests have been made.
The reverse is also true, unfortunately. Bad laws (and worse, bad court decisions) can and do mean bad enforcement practices. There's a _lot_ of bad laws on the books now--which is inevitable given just how many of them there are, and our legislators' general unwillingness to repeal laws instead of adding more--while police seem to have developed an over-reliance on court decisions and lost the willingness to exercise their own judgement. I dunno what _specifically_ is causing that, but I kinda doubt it's a single point of failure and I suspect it's a fairly complex interplay between not wanting to get sued, local laws, department policies, and improper training (which is a couple of cans of worms in itself, at this point).
That's the play if you haven't figured it out. They let criminals run wild so legal gun owners can defend themselves only to throw them under the jail and confiscate the rest of your guns at your home. Another way to take out law abiding citizens and stripping your rights away. JUST MY LOGICAL OPINION.
Funny... but realistically, a lot of Police believe that they should be the only ones allow to carry: They don't believe that "Civilians" should be allowed to carry at all.
That was what this entire video was about. The federal appeals court found that the officer has no qualified immunity. He is about to be personally liable.
Now, is it more likely that Andrzejewiski will end up reflecting on his actions as a result of this case and change his tyrannical behavior, or will he instead double down on his behavior and go the extra mile to make sure his tyrannical actions are backed up by evidence, found or manufactured?
Being found to have violated constitutional rights under color of law should IMMEDIATELY AND PERMANENTLY bar the individual from any employment involving authority.
Conservatives who back the blue need to remember that there are no lockdowns without cops. Take a quick look at what happened in Minnesota with cops shooting citizens with paintball guns for standing on their own porch on their own property. From the article: "If a law enforcement officer or other public safety official asks you to go inside, or take any other action, you must follow the instruction," the document said. What country do these people live in?
I live here in Yakima washington. The other day I was taking my son to a birthday party and we got pulled over on the way there. The cop said he pulled me over for failing to use my blinker in front of him which was a lie cuz I saw him following me for over a mile and a half. I told him we both know that's a lie I put my blinker on in front of you what is your word against mine to do whatever you got to do. I gave him my driver's license insurance registration and CCW card. Told him I had a weapon on me. Give me a weird look around my information came back and told me you know I can search your car right. I told him for what you have no cause he says cuz you have a concealed weapons permit it has to be concealed on your body you can't have it anywhere else in the car you can't have it in the bag in the trunk you can't have it in your glove box you can't have it in the center console you can't have it in the door you can't have it under your seat if I search your car right now to find it anywhere but concealed on your person I can take you to jail now. I told him no you can't that's a complete lie. Then he told me that I cannot open carry in this state I have to concealed carry it even though I wasn't open carrying then I told him Washington state is an open carry state we can open carry here legally he says but you have a permit so you have to carry concealed I don't have to carry concealed. Then he points at his 21 round Magpul mags and tells me that if I have anything more than 10 rounds you can take me to jail for that. I told him that is another lie because I've had bought these bags before the band went into effect last year and there's no way you can enforce that law on anything I have cuz you can't prove when I bought them them. Even though I did not show him any of my magazines or tell them about any of my magazines he just started talking about he can search me for magazines over 10 rounds and take me to jail and confiscate my magazines. I told him everything you have said in our interaction has been a lie but you have a great day now take it easy. Then he said you are free to go after that
@@robertlawson698 🤣 no. Hey was Hispanic and that's what they say i am too. I Have always identified as American my whole life as well all my relatives Grandparents, mom, dad everyone
There shouldn't be a probable cause exception for LEOs given that a warrant is provided with probable cause. The courts are supposed to determine that, not the officer.
Learn the Pot Bros At Law script “Why did you pull me over?” “I’m not discussing my day” Follow ALL orders and give any requested documents and REMAIN SILENT “I do NOT consent to any searches” “Am I being detained or am I free to go?” If detained you MUST say “I invoke the 5th” and BE SILENT - Remember EVERYTHING you say WILL be used against you
All of these "BAD" cops are giving all of the others GOOD cops a negative vibes...... Need to get all of these bad seeds out of the jobs... Make this country GREAT again!!
If any cop sees or knows about his/her coworker doing something wrong, and they say nothing, they, too, are a bad cop. At least 95% of cops are bad cops.
There are no good cops in America. We get dumps of videos week after week where the other officers stand by and do nothing to stop the bad ones. We NEVER see any ones where the other officers step in. The culture of policing wouldn't ever allow that. A good officer would step on. So as long as the culture prevents intervention, there are no good ones.
That's interesting since you cannot name a single form of tyranny that isn't up to the discretion of "good cops". I'm curious what constitutes "good" here?
I hate how qualified immunity is always used as an excuse for bad behavior when qualified immunity only protects an officer during the lawful execution of their duties. Any unlawful or unjustified act is not protected.
@212caboose I say end qualified immunity period. But still give them the same ability to defend themselves as we have. In the courts. If only they'd stop setting the deck with juror picks like the people that sent Matt Hoover to the pen over a non-functional device. And device is a strong word for an autokeycard. The atf couldn't even maje it work yet the jury blistered him over bs. It seems like it's all a lose lose in America for law biding citizens
Write in Richard L Kemp Tennessee for president in 2024 qualified immunity will cease to exist anyone useing it will be brought to justice for corruption of justice.
It doesn’t “sound like” an unlawful detention, arrest and seizure!! The circuit court (one step below the Supreme Court) found the he DID commit an unlawful detention, arrest and search. Only the Supreme Court can overturn this decision and they aren’t going to touch it. Now it goes back to the trial court and a jury to determine the damages.
The second he is cuffed and moved to the vehicle it is kidnapping if it is a unlawful arrest (seizure), applicable under Title 18 U.S.C. sections §241,§242 felony conspiracy against rights and felony deprivation of rights under color of law.
That's what SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT did to me. I'm a felon with restored rights which I let them know as I gave them my concealed permit and notified them of my firearms in the car......5 days in jail, phone , wallet, birth certificate, spare tire, waterbottle, backpacks, scarfs, belts, holsters, ammo ALLLLL GONE!! Even took my dog to the pound and inpounded my car (almost $2k) STILL have my guns even tho all bogus charges were dropped. After calling my ARP a rifle and saying concealed permits are only good for a year ( mine was 2 years out of the 5 years it's valid at the time) and refused to let me get my paperwork proving that I had restored rights even tho they should have been able to see it when they looked me up. All as a traffic stop because they were going over speed limit by 5 mph and SAW (no radar) I also was going over limit? It also lied and said I was trying to evade them by getting off the exit that I was literally trying to get off of to pick up my girlfriend. 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 SPD AND RPD ARE DIRTY
Please sue them. It is important that there be consequences when they do that sort of thing. We all think it is awful, but you are in a unique position to do something about it. Ask for help if needed!
That scares me. I live in Sammamish and carry and have my rights restored and my concealed pistol license. I mean if you showed them u have a cpl license then they should know you can’t get that license unless you passed the nics barons and cpl background check. Wtf. Sue them and post this info for people to see. I got pulled over once for being on my phone and after checking my Cpl and making sure pistol was registered they let me go
@@Drakkheart For every one of us whose rights have been violated, if attorneys will not help, then it's those very attorneys (and everyone else) that will bear the consequences next. Apathy for others' rights has consequences. People here do not care until it's their own rights and lives that bear the consequences.
It doesn't mean it doesn't happen unfortunately I live in a duty to inform state, but I've seen it happens in those that aren't, more than one would think.
Yes, they can. Any other answer is pie in the sky. I'll share with you all what my Dad told me when I was a kid. "Avoid the police, because they can do anything to you they want". He didn't mean that it's legal, but they can and you can't stop them, all you can do is survive to get to court and hope you get a judge who's read the Constitution.
As an FTO we had a County Jail in our city. The academy covers the three levels of contact at a high level. I had to explain exactly what you explained about consensual encounters, detentions and arrests. We saw a known felon in the area of the jail. They stamp the hand of released persons and provide a release form. My trainee activated the red/blue lights "emergency equipment." This moves the stop from a consensual encounter to a detention. Which is exactly as you described RAS must be established. Call it a constructive stop for investigation (Terry v. Ohio) you damn sure better to be able to explain why you are going hands on doing a pat-down or searching/cuffing and stuffing. How this continues to happen in 2024 make my head hurt.
I remember my first gun. Dude was reaching into his center console, stopped abruptly, slammed the door down and looks at me. "Sorry, I completely forgot I had a gun in my console." I was like "Uh, ok, hand it to me then...?" He did, I set it on top of his roof and handed it back before I left. Being a rookie I did take extra precaution, but grew to realize that if someone wants to harm me... they aren't gonna tell me they are armed. "You don't touch yours, I won't touch mine" from then on. Only guns I touched after that was incident to arrest, lol.
I would question whether “Duty to Inform “ laws are Constitutional under the Bruen decision. If you are a cop, and you are scared of citizens who are armed, find a different job. This cop is a tyrant and should not be allowed to carry a gun and badge.
My experiences in AZ (we have constitutional carry, open and concealed): on the rare occasions I get detained (or even consensually questioned) I always tell the officer if I’m carrying and where the gear is, usually in the form of “hey officer I just want to give you a heads up that I’m lawfully carrying a firearm (or whatever I have on me) and I’d like you to know so that if you need assistance I can provide it.” That tends to verbally disarm even the few police that are actively anti-gun as I phrase it in the form of offering assistance. The most common response I get from police is to ask if I’m an officer-duty LEO, to which I reply (truthfully of course) that I’m a medically retired combat veteran. Half the time that by itself ends the stop without even a technical warning, but with the officer phrasing his warning as a heads up that I was violating some statute (because most cops in AZ are either veterans or regret not having served in that capacity, and veterans tend to stick together) so that the warning is couched as a friendly reminder that whatever I was doing was improper (it’s usually speeding in a construction zone…. Seriously who is going to drive 35 on an empty highway?). Half of the remaining time (so about a quarter of all events) it turn into a chat about our respective service, or a consensual chat about firearms (I tend to carry obscure, rare, or hard to get firearms - especially when it’s a rifle bolted to my motorcycle, cops are always amused at how I 3D printed adapters so my LMT AR-10 could be mounted to my Harley saddlebag while still being secured but accessible, and seeing a relatively gigantic rifle with a 25x night vision scope, range finder, and enormous break on a bike is honestly hilarious). These chats have even evolved into police escorts to where I’m going so I can drive as fast as I want (I’m disabled and need a walker to be able to walk, so it’s been extra funny these past few years seeing a Harley with a big black rifle on one side, forearm crutches on the front batwing fairing, and a walker catching the wind and strapped to the tour-pak on the back). I’ve even been pulled over when I don’t have a rifle and wasn’t breaking the law, with the officer asking if I needed assistance getting where I was headed (that particular time it was a big yes as I was headed to the hospital as my central line had been torn out by my medical alert animal at home - she saw a tube running into me while I was asleep so she pulled it out and woke me up - which was my reminder that I forgot to train her about it - that cat has saved my life several times by alerting me to impending heart and infections so it’s totally worth it, a lot of animal can detect abnormalities and can be trained to alert you that something is wrong, far more than most people realize. I’m pretty sure that was a lawful stop under the police community caretaking rules, and it was both welcome and helpful as the officer just drove ahead of me with lights and siren on to clear the road, but I’m a bit curious if the lawyers here agree with me that it was lawful. That cop also followed up with me while I was in the hospital and escorted me home - his offer, I accepted, which was also helpful even though the return trip was as a passenger with my wife driving and helped me me out and into the house. Good cops can be really great, though they often get a bad reputation as people almost by definition only interact with the police under terrible circumstances). End of story. I have others, but I condensed a few interactions to make them more concise and interesting :)
This is awesome! I appreciate William Kirk’s video here. I wanted to add: If you make it known that you are in lawful possession of a firearm during a police encounter, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to remain silent under the 5th amendment. You DO NOT have to respond to the officers bullshit inquiries. 100 percent of the time, the officer will try to build a case against you regardless of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. by answering further questions, there is a high probability he will incriminate you. The officer may NOT compel you to speak. Ever!! Invoke your fifth amendment right to remain silent AND remain silent. You MUST invoke verbally. If not, silence can be deemed suspicious giving an officer legal authority with reasonable suspicion. If the officer retaliates because of your silence after you have invoked the 5th amendment, sue.
That is correct, I served in our local county jails for 20 years, when I was presented that a crime occurred in the jail I would arrest the suspect and read him his Miranda Warning which tells the person they have the right to an attorney if I question them, and that they cannot be forced to talk!!! All I would do is write in my report that I read the suspect his Miranda warning and he chose to not speak to me as an officer!! No court can order you to incriminate yourself!!! Folks need to read the constitutions for the country and state they live in!!!! Above all say as little as possible to officers even if you are Not a suspect, but be respectful as you wish to be treated!!!
Ha! Jokes on them. I carry a Kamala for President sign in my trunk and a rainbow flag on my back seat. I just don't tell them that I have several guns and ammunition in my car also. Also I don't tell them that I voted for Trump twice and will for a third time also.
Qualified immunity just means that it's ok for cops to be ignorant of the law. Even though it's been said for decades that ignorance of the law is not a defence
You just heard an attorney explain QI and you still come back with that. It’s not Sovereign or Blanket immunity. It has reasonable limits. I have seen plaintiffs lawyers misfile their cases and exclude the department under training and policy that allowed/generated the violation and get a case tossed due to faulty filing.
This officer was ignorant of rights or simply disregarded it. The federal circuit court ruled that he has no qualified immunity. Even if it was just an ignorant mistake, the officer violated the man’s rights and now has to face a jury. Apparently this entire video discussing how qualified immunity does not protect an officer even if he unknowingly violated a person’s rights, has gone over some people’s heads.
@@tvc1848 because in practice Qualified Immunity IS used to protect officers who knowingly violate people's rights. There's multiple videos of officers mockingly telling people to sue them because they KNOW qualified immunity will protect them.
As a Cop retired from 20 years in law enforcement I am glad this case was correctly decided. Too many PDs treat an individual with a gun as a threat and send the entire on-duty shift to deal with a simple CCW license holder as a threat when in many times it would be that same CCW license holder that would stop and help an officer in distress. I retired in 2012 so Active Shooter was the focal point for training as the number of CCW licenses holders rapidly increased resulting in the topic of this video being rarely addressed in annual training. Thank you to those CCW holders who carry everyday.
I think it is more of a question of "Will They" because it is obvious that they already CAN regardless of what was written down on paper and signed by someone who may no longer be in office.
Exactly, government powers have shown no restraining on their powers, or are people forgetting 2020 already and the "19".can they NO, will they absolutely.
@@fjb960 then you have never been subject to it. I spent 87 days in jail for a false arrest. Literally nothing happened to that specific cop. Now. If I kidnapped someone, restrain them against their will, torture them and imprison them. I would be eligible to have no charges? GTFO
Qualified immunity as said in this video only covers officers who have acted lawfully. This officer did not and the appeals court agreed so he is about to face his punishment.
So anybody having an interaction with a cop can sue them personally for any trumped up accusation? Qualified immunity only protects officers from being sued while doing their job legally. If they break the law they can be sued. Without it activists will sue every cop standing guard at a protest just to fuck with them. So many people have no idea what it means.
I dont even tell them when I'm carrying. If they ask I will. But last time I informed one as a courtesy the officer escalated an absolute nothing burger. So now they can figure it out on their own.
My understanding is that the driver had pulled over to the side of the road because his GPS had frozen and he was unfamiliar with the area that he was in. It wasn't technically a traffic stop.
I've had this happen to me before twice in two different cities in Washington for a routine traffic stop, 7 years apart. Both times I had a CCW permit, was legally carrying and was still put in cuffs and my car searched. I called to register a complaint with both city's Chief of Police and in both cases was told they stood by their officers and they were within their rights. I was completely humiliated, I felt completely violated and was treated hostily like I was a criminal.
Back in my day, when the Constitution said something, it meant something! "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it says. Plain as day, right there in black and white! But now, here we are, jumping through hoops, filling out paperwork, and paying fees just to exercise a right that’s already ours. A concealed pistol license? Give me a break! I’m supposed to ask the government for permission to carry what I already have the God-given right to carry? It’s downright ridiculous! They act like they're doing us a favor by letting us jump through all their bureaucratic nonsense. Last time I checked, the Second Amendment didn’t come with a bunch of fine print about permits and licenses. It’s just one more way they’ve found to chip away at our freedoms. Bit by bit, they put up more barriers and call it "public safety" or some other nonsense. But let me tell you, no piece of paper or shiny card is going to make me any safer. What makes me safe is knowing I can defend myself and my family whenever and wherever I need to, without waiting on some bureaucrat's approval! It’s a slippery slope, I tell you. Today it’s a license; tomorrow it’s who knows what! The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves watching what’s become of this country. If we don’t stand up and say enough is enough, we’re going to wake up one day and realize we’ve lost the very freedoms they fought so hard to give us!
It's all about the money and attempt to deny you of your rights... after all, how can they feel safe to push you around if you're armed? (That's rhetorical)
All gun laws in the united states are unconstitutional therefore illegal null and void in violation of The supremacy clause. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1. Second amendment shall not be Infringed clause. 9th amendment enumeration clause. 10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause. 14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause combined.
I totally agree. I live in Oregon. Last week I renewed my concealed carry for $75. It was $55 last time and 35 the first time. I am living on social security. Lone woman who hikes and travels alone. Carry all the time through states that I do not have a license for. Couldn't get a license if I tried. It's a felony. But, seeing some of the things I have I would never be without protection. Sadly, 2 weeks ago there was a 40-year-old woman raped on a trail. Very close to my home. Home. Of course they'll never locate the rapist. That happened to a couple of my girlfriend 's. But the final decision to get a weapon was when a couple of Park rangers met me after a hike and said I had no business hiking without a weapon that there were cougar sighted on the trail. Several years ago a cougar was in the thicket and growled at me. That low ferrell growl was a real shock. Apparently I had ventured into his territory. I immediately did a 180 and walked a little faster away. Was told by a couple of guys they tried to stop me when they saw me starting out on the trail but couldn't catch up with me. So you can't depend on anyone...but yourself.
An Illinois gun store employee licensed for CC told me he was stopped by police in Illinois and held, handcuffed in the squad car. His girlfriend had to contact his attorney.
Big Piggy🐷Pritzker tells ISP cops what to do and they do it. That’s why at “The End of The World As We Know It,” Illinois Staties are Public Enemy #1️⃣
@@consco3667 It did not occur to me to ask him and I've not had the opportunity to visit the Aurora Illinois gun shop since our conversation. I should set aside time for a visit soon as I would like to obtain a reference for a good attorney.
@@consco3667 👍🏼 The police get away with this behavior because people let it go. Thank goodness for this plaintiff who refused to let it go. He is about to get paid, the officer is about to be personally sued and clear precedent has been set at least in that circuit.
ALL qualified immunity must end. Make THEM carry their OWN INSURANCE. Why should citizens pay for their malfeasance? Clearly this system is corrupted beyond reason.
@@psychoholicslag4801 ...Kid, it's not about being a "blue line simp": ...It's the fact that all "abolish qualified immunity" nonsense is literally *_Controlled Opposition_* by the Elites: ...It's an "Ace up their sleeve" that they will use in the future to pacify the "Sheeple Stampede" back onto "the reservation" of their own enslavement: And if you don't understand, "government" is constructed from two words: (1) govern: "to control", & (2) ment: "the mind". The reality is that "abolish qualified immunity" is NOT "the solution". ...When enacted in the future, it'll only be to pacify the mob. But later (a week, a month, a year), it'll be back to "business as usual" with Cops once again violating people's Rights. Except this time, it'll be much, much worse: Think of it as akin to killing off a population of bacteria or viruses: You're effectively fighting them off, but since you cannot "get them all", the rest of them develop into a "new strain" & hence develop "new immunities" to protect themselves.... ...What are these "new immunities" you ask... Yeah, you POS Sheeple NPC who has pawned off all their thinking onto Twitter, Reddit, & CNN: Now you have something to actually THINK about it: Which I know is very difficult for you, because you have "atrophy of the brain" !!! ...But i'll give you a HINT: ...It's called *_unintended consequences._*
They can do anything they want. It takes us a few years and lawyers and courts to undo it, and they don't care because they are immune to being held accountable.
There was an appellate case back in 2009 that held the “Mere possession of a firearm, which is legal, cannot produce reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop. See Malone v. State, 882 N.E.2d 784 (Ind. Ct. Court of Appeals of Indiana
Same thing, except "begging the question" has an extra meaning associated with it, since it's the formal name of one of many different *_Logical Fallacies._* So, viewed in this respect, we can argue semantics about whether or not one applies to an actual back & forth argument or discussion between two or more people, and whether the other encompasses that scenario as well as a presentation or soliloquy with only one speaker present. Altho, I would personally disagree with such a classification, maybe there's an actual difference in the Legal connotation: Where one might be a formal *_Objection_* while the other one might be an *_invocation_* during a response (aka ABC "raises the issue/question" XYZ). And if that's your argument, that would be pretty pedantic in my opinion, "Boss".
A friend of mine was sitting in his car looking at his phone. He has a black Audi with tinted windows. He was approached be a county sheriff who wanted to search his car. My friend refused to allow the search because he had an appointment soon. The deputies impounded his car using the tinted windows as an excuse. He he’d too walk about 15 miles late at night with his 14 year old dog to get back to town. His car was held hostage for several days by the sheriff. It ended up costing him $1500. I wonder if he has a cause of action against the sheriff’s deputies?
@@granitejeepc3651 True. However. Most people would get a fix it ticket. I don’t think they had probable cause to impound his car. Maybe they don’t need it for that. In my opinion it was a chicken shit move. He didn’t have any drugs in his car. He doesn’t use any drugs.
In the USA we have a right to remain silent and we are not obligated to assist in an investigation. Our right to free speech also means any law compelling speech, especially self incriminating, is utterly repugnant. We are not required to answer ANY questions.
@@BeyondPC unfortunately Washington found a way to illegally bypass that. I mean aside from illegally requiring you to have a CCW to conceal a pistol, they also made a law that says you would be guilty of false swearing if you lie to an officer about something they would reasonably use to determine their “safety.” And then stuck a clause into the permit that you have to present it upon request or risk losing it. Basically they just don’t care about your freedoms.
This really goes back to rights and the old argument that you should not say anything at all, some say tell the officer you have a gun, others say NO WAY! After watching this I say NO WAY don't tell them anything!
Police get the leeway to make mistakes because of Qualified immunity? Normal jobs dont seem to have this: if you mess up. Youre fired. This isnt fair: do your job correctly or be sued into the ground
Connecticut has a duty NOT to inform!!! The so loosely called “officer” was way out of line and hope that he get a justifiable punishment for his crime!!!
Wichita, KS here. Was recently pulled over speeding. Got my documents out and ready... first thing I told the officer was I have one on my right hip. Nothing bad happened after that, except I have speeding ticket on my record.
If I have a license to drive does that immediately allow an officer to arrest me for possession of a car? Glad the second appeals court is starting to uphold laws (even if they don't want too).
Licenses and permits are unconstitutional therefore illegal in the first place,no American citizen needs permission from anyone to exercise their constitutionally protected rights, liberties, privileges, immunities whatsoever.
Don't forget, in Tennessee at least, consent can be revoked at any time during the search. Search incident to arrest is illegal in Tennessee, it is now called taking an inventory of the vehicle.
Still a felony crime in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. sections §241 conspiracy against rights §242 deprivation of rights under color of law any search without a legal lawful valid warrant is still a illegal unlawful search and seizure in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,4th amendment warrant clause,10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause,14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause combined. All evidence obtained would be inadmissible in a court of law under the fruit of the poisonous tree, and a criminal trial under exclusionary rule because it was obtained illegally.
The Law that you are overlooking, and that police overlook , is that a citizen has the presumption of innocence. Cops often are using an assumption of guilt , and that is illegal or unlawful. I was stopped in an open field by the Ohio sheriff’s dept once,when I was taking a walk. They assumed I was trespassing . I told them as they approached me with guns drawn that I had a presumption of innocence. They detained me . I told them I had permission of the landowner. They called the land owner and also checked my ssn. Then , after searching my backpack for drugs , they released me and said, it was just a misunderstanding. Right. It was Their misunderstanding. I then told them that my lawyer had told me of the law that unless a property is gated or posted, there is implied consent. They didn’t reply.
Actions like this should be sending law enforcement officers to prison for years. No qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is missaplied and used by bad, corrupt, and criminal cops to hide behind. It hurts the common, innocent citizen, and bad, corrupt, and criminal cops know it. Sadly, many good cops let the bad cops get away with it, which makes such good cops bad.
Great video, very relieved that the court recognized the 4th amendment. Could you please make a video similar to this explaining the nuances if this scenario happened in a constitutional carry state where the citizen doesn't need a permit to carry but informs the officer of the firearm?
I can, I live in Arizona, am a retired law enforcement officer and military veteran. I own and carry a 9mm Sig Sauer as a part of my daily life, I have had officers ask if i was carrying concealed to which I stated yes, his response was I will not touch my gun if you do not touch yours!!! I was also questioned when walking around the long block in my neighborhood because someone called the cops on me. The officer's simple question was, "was I staying on the sidewalks? My answer was yes, he told me to enjoy the exercise and to have a great evening then he drove away!!! He did not watch me return home, I did not present any sheriff's office documentation or military documentation!!! In Arizona we may carry concealed or open without any documents, it is built into the Arizona Constitution!!!
I practice don't ask, don't tell. For me, it was 1988 or maybe 89. It was a few years after Washington State had passed concealed carry. I gave the officer my driver's license and my concealed permit. The officer, SPD, told me to get out of my car. He put me in cuffs, confiscated my firearm and put me in the back of his vehicle while he went through my car. Didn't ask permission, didn't ask anything.10 to 15 minutes later I had my firearm returned and I was on my way, but it was a pain in the ass.
And 99.999% of the time they are exactly right! If it's not from Marxist Judges unwilling to uphold citizens rights it's citizens not being willing to enforce their rights! I bet at least 60% of Americans have not got a clue to what their rights are!
Had this happen to me , showed a silly cop my ccp, and the fool literally shat himself...Pulled his gun, made me put my hands out the window , handcuff them through the window...Half way searched car, ran my gun serial number all sorts of bs...I didn't sue but I never EVER EVER show my ccp anymore...Dude literally freaked out ,i was baffled and confused....no criminal says "Hey officer here's my ccp"..Made no sense to me
Here's the problem with Qualified Immunity that last part '... of which a reasonable person would have known.' I would argue if someone is doing their job they are not a "Reasonable Person" are lawfully bound to do KNOW their job. The country worked much better before Qualified Immunity and it should be done away with or in the meantime get rid needing a former lawsuit to which is needed to bring a lawsuit. Allow anyone their day in court in Front of a jury and see how fast everyone starts getting their job right. Already doing great things for Chevron Deference. Oh you say this would effectively get rid of Qualified Immunity ... win/ win.
I had someone do the same thing to me many many years ago. He presented his permit which was valid. I simply instructed him to please keep his hands visible at all times. Issued the citation without incident. He was polite and even apologized for his lane change into an occupied lane.
Isn't that called kidnapping? Holding a person who has committed no crime without due cause is illegal! The search is illegal, too. There was no cause to search because of the disclosed firearm permit.
We shouldn't say "crapped his pants" because it's crude and we wouldn't want our children speaking that way. We should say, 'He stooled himself' or 'He had a fecal event'
Here ingood ol' tn. The local law enforcement bunch believe that if you are stopped for a traffic citation they have probable cause to search your vehicle!!
Exactly. Juries do not know that they have power. Wished I had known it 50 years ago when I was on a jury. I still feel bad because the old guy hadn't had any sleep for two nights, had two beers on his way home from work and was stopped. The things you don't know.
Wow…this is nuts. I didn’t catch the location of this stop, but I never could have imagined this happening simply by notifying a Leo that I have a firearm. That is nuts!
That 2nd condition for QI is just BS. Ignorance of a law isn't an excuse for a civilian, it certainly shouldn't be for someone who is supposed to enforce the law.
There is ample case law, including here in WA as I recall, that the mere lawful possession of a firearm does not even get to reasonable suspicion, AND if there is any real possibility that one can carry a firearm lawfully, it is not a basis for a Terry stop. It appears to me that this "officer" was acting on a personal bias. I am pretty sure that virtually all officers in WA would know better. While it has not been updated in 9 years, the first place I start research on a search and seizure question is the manual on the WAPA website. There is case law that the officer can disarm a person for the length of the contact and make it temporarily unusable by removing the ammo and keeping them separate. (That manual at p142.) Generally, if the officer is not a gun person, they may not be able to do so safely. I admit that would irritate the hell out of me and this leads to part two. NEVER resist past the point of denying consent verbally. Comply, then complain. Any other course of action is unwise. Note that the citizen in this case Bill is describing got treated pretty poorly, but handled it correctly by suing. I suspect that the agency has a big crap sandwich coming - not only is there is no real defense, so they need to pay up, but there is some serious re-training needed. They also almost certainly have a Brady/PID (somewhere on the same WAPA website is a description of PID and I think a model policy) problem with this officer and maybe some others. Sure sounds like poor supervision.
I was told 20 yrs ago not to get my cwp in Washington because when a cop runs your plates it will flash CWP in red and gave the officer the right to approach the vehicle with gun drawn!!
If they draw their gun they are committing a felony crime in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law. Title 18 U.S.C. section §242 deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the united states... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both,or may be sentenced to death.
The way you handled those name pronunciations is just outstanding. Sure the content might have been engaging but I was dazzled by the pronunciations that I missed everything else.
An officer definitely can, if the alleged suspect does not watch Washington Gun Law to know that the office may not under these circumstances take such steps. So thank you for the information!
The detail that makes me laugh is the inclusion that it's a "high crime area." If it's a high crime area, all the more reason to be carrying!
Pretty much all the big cities in CT are high crime. Hartford us so bad that at one point (not sure if they're still doing it) they had armed civilians patrolling the streets because it's so high crime and there aren't enough cops
Because cops are on their phones doin tictoc
Click bater
You're correct.
Another fact ;
, what makes an area high crime?
The number of arrests.
So just because cops make a lot of arrests in an area doesn't mean cops should be able to violate rights in that area
Agreed. Unfortunately, "high crime area" doesn't seem to mean much except that you have fewer rights for some reason. Police have claimed it all over, and it never seems to require any specific metrics or evidence other than their word.
Police will keep doing this crap until there are actual consequences.
Might as well just say they will keep doing this forever
@@jondoe406 pretty much
@@bluewater454
Did you miss the part where this officer lost and is about to face a jury?
@@tvc1848 ...Yeah, kid: ...It's a "JURY" that is convened by the *_Clerk:_* Who is probably friends with a lot of judges & Police Officers. Not to mention the possible penalties that the Plaintiff (victim) can face if he doesn't "agree" to a SETTLEMENT !!! ...And guess who gets to make _THAT_ determination ??? ...Yep, his "buddy" The Judge !!! ...God, it's so great being a SovCit Pig in America isn't it ???
@@tvc1848 did you miss the part where officers do this daily, without consequence, making this single instance the exception not the rule?
Police will push as hard as we allow them. Stand up for your rights. Know the law. Know your rights.
@@jimcoleman3053 being able to demonstrate to police you know the law makes a huge difference!
while helpful.... "knowing your rights and the law" is irrelevant..... you only NEED to know how to defend yourself...then to do it.
your right to self defense dosnt end at their fictional beliefs, costume, or paycheck.
@@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER demonstrating knowledge of rights is useful primarily when confronted by police for random questioning.
I ride a bicycle - unarmed- locally and have been confronted by police on multiple occasions.
They gave the impression that they were looking for an easy mark as I had done nothing to warrant being stopped.
Being calm and knowledgeable is vital in controlling the encounter
@@robertcuny934 and record them every single time.
@@Uberragen21 I noted who stopped me, time and location as well as as much of the conversation as I can remember as soon as possible.
This should be done no matter what the outcome.
A gun where legally carried cannot be the only reason for a stop.
Exactly. Lawful activity is not probable cause of a crime.
It want even the reason for the stop!!! It seems to me the whole stop was illegal.
“Why did you stop him?” “He was pulled over in a high crime area, clearly he was a criminal!”
You guys are allowing your judgement to be crowded with insignificant details.
The peoples Right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's written in English. No need for translation.
No need for interpretation.
Unconstitutional laws / rulings need to be stricken
Correct.
Doesn't matter to cops.
It's clear the officer messed up and violated this man's rights
And will suffer zero consequences. The officer should be in prison. Instead, the taxpayers will pay and the officer will carry on.
@@matthewbeasley7765
This entire video was about the officer about to suffer the consequences of an unlawful arrest.
At the end of the day, so what?
@@paulbritton1436That’s a dumb question.
@@tvc1848 Again, what consequence? It is universal in police contracts to indemnify the officer for on the job conduct. Any settlement will come from the taxpayers.
This is a big win for liberty. However, if the cop who committed this violation is not properly punished other cops will continue with the same conduct.
The idea that an officer can violate your rights under the guise of qualified immunity is concerning.
What did the district court say? No qualified immunity. What did the Second Circuit say? No qualified immunity. There is no “guise” here. There’s a childish misunderstanding of the law on the cop’s part. But I blame his department. They did a garbage job training their officers. This cop is going to lose it all and it’s his own fault, but also the fault of the department.
The officer states he couldn't be sued due to qualified immunity. Therefore he willingly abused his power believing he had the protection of qualified immunity.
@@micahputman3374 And the court said…what? Then the Second circuit said…what? Where did this cop get the idea of qualified immunity that, like the public’s beliefs about it, were wrong? The cop willingly abused his power because the victim of his unlawful activities was LEGALLY carrying a firearm. It had nothing to do with qualified immunity and EVERYTHING to do with anti-gun sentiment in Connecticut.
For clearly established law, they aren't . That's the qualified part.
Qualified Immunity/Sovereign Immunity would probably take several videos to adequately cover. Remember some knot heads complained about a lot of very reasonable actions taken when the various authorities were in hot pursuit of the Boston Bombers. The time and place to argue about reasonable and unreasonable is not at the side of the road but in court like here.
Example - You are driving an easily stolen red Kia, a few miles away a carload of disadvantaged yutes driving a stolen Red Kia shoot and kill several people in an armed robbery that went south. A responding unit sees you and attempts to pull you over in a felony stop. You decide that you haven't done anything wrong, so you don't quickly stop. But shortly after you do stop. At that point, what you do can cause a range of consequences. Some yahoos may call it bootlicking but polite cooperation when your rights are possibly being violated, but they aren't (reasonable/unreasonable, RAS, you think "None, I didn't do anything.") The officer has RAS up the ying-yang, Red Kia moving away from the location of a multiple murder, apparent failure to yield, etc. Things YOU don't know. You do stupid things because you aren't no bootlicker and you didn't do anything wrong. Consequences, you get chewed out and embarrassed up to including you getting dead. It's on tape, they jury sees you doing dumb things. It's going to be a long and hard fight overcoming qualified immunity.
You want to see Immunity get squirrely, look at the laws regarding Immigration and Customs Services and similar with regards to stop and search, search in-land, seizures, etc. They pre-date the United States, let alone the Constitution, some maybe even pre-date the Magna Carta. Why ? Because the 4th Amendment says "against unreasonable searches and seizures," and what is not unreasonable in a Customs situation might be very unreasonable other places.
Soukaneh's first mistake was residing in Connecticut.
2nd was providing ID without cause
Near Waterbury Connecticut. Connecticut sucks, but Waterbury is about the most corrupt city around. I used to live next door in Naugatuck, but got out of there as fast as I could.
Who cares. The US Constitution still applies. Police need to uphold their oath.
His first mistake was even talking to the cop, let alone providing ID when he didn't have to.
@@JeffsAquaponicsyea, no doubt. Waterbury 2nd only to Bridgeport. Mayor Joe Ganim, convicted and served Fed prison time for taking bribes and racketeering as the mayor. Got out and is mayor once again in Bridgeport. Crazzy shlt man….
Cop here. It's also important to note that the prerequisite for a Terry frisk is both prongs of armed AND dangerous. Someone who proffers their CHL and is compliant the entire contact does not rise to the level of dangerous, merely because they possess a firearm.
Thanks for your service in your field.
Depends on which state you're in.
Nope. Terry v. Ohio is case law for the entire nation.
So you are stupid and violate people's rights for a living?!
@@thechach050 thank you for clarifying that. Even the lawyer misstated that point saying “armed and therefore potentially dangerous”, which is not what Terry vs Ohio says at all.
I got stopped at a road block with an AR on the passenger seat of my hummer, and a pistol on the center console, the officer said, “You look like you don’t wanna be F’d with, have a nice day.” 😂
😂Not in CT. Otherwise you would have a different story.
Texas?
@@TheRotorhound Georgia, Go Dawgs
Considering the price of a hummer, I don't believe you'd be the type to cause the trouble they're looking for.
@@TheRotorhoundHALF of the states are free.
The answer ought to be a firm, emphatic "No." The presence of a weapon does not, in itself, constitute probable cause to permit a search. The activity is "carrying," which is protected under the 2A, but the degree and amount of evidence required to permit a search is stipulated in the _4A._ As the carrying of a weapon is protected activity under the 2A, it is therefore both a legal action and _not_ evidence that a crime has been or is being committed by the bearer. The detainment was therefore unlawful, the search invalid, and the following arrest also unlawful. All of which the officer should have known, thus qualified immunity does not cover their actions.
But, of course, when you have a court system that isn't interested in doing it's proper job of _protecting and securing_ the rights of those before it, and instead leverages it's power to extend government reach...they're not gonna come to that conclusion at anything less than the end of a long range hole punch, now are they?
Well said.
Thanks for your comment. Came here to express the same perspective.
What brainwashed indoctrinated incompetent American citizens do not comprehend and understand is probable cause under the 4th amendment text is only to get a legal lawful valid search warrant nothing else.
And if they somehow believe there's wiggle room in the 2nd or 4th, they can refer to the 9th
Not in CT
Handing a the Cop a CCW permit would indicate he had a gun. But the disregard of that Permit should be a violation of the law.
What about the permit itself? The law states "A liberty may not be converted into a privilege and charged a fee therefore" Murdock vs Pensilvania.
Police are in violation all over the country while they enforce state policy, ignoring the law.
Yes there is the broader issue of permits being unconstitutional. Until that is adjudicated, lawful activity like carrying with a permit is not probable cause of a crime and this LEOs actions are clearly unconstitutional.
CCW is unconstitutional.
@@RARufus
Correct. Permits or licenses have never been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so until then it’s just a debating point. I agree that there should be no required permits but Article III of the US Constitution doesn’t mention my opinion.
It is also clear that you are correct about this officer’s actions being unconstitutional. I don’t see how this if even a debate.
The officer has the right just as anyone else to plea his case but the facts of the case which are not in dispute (a key factor), show that the officer had no reasonable suspicion of a crime, much less probable cause to make an arrest.
That officer now has to face a jury who I hope are not very happy with his unlawful violation of rights.
The 2nd Amendment is your permit. Stop 🛑 contracting your constitutional rights away.
Qualified immunity is a load of bs. If I cannot claim ignorance of a law as a defense, or even a mistake of fact, then an officer sure as hell shouldnt be allowed to. Rules for thee, but not for me is the hallmark of tyranny.
The cop is always right and supreme; he can lie to you all day about everything, and you cannot.
Matt it was not inconsistent in to law so why they use it don't understand
Bull shit@@harriettanthony7352
Huge difference between MAY NOT and CAN NOT.
May not means you don't have permission to do something.
Can not means you are not able to do something.
Must not is no permission but stronger than may not.
i don't understand. He was stopped, told the officer he had a permit for a gun. Why was he detained to find the firearm if he had a permit? What crime was allegedly committed? He had a permit.
The answer is yes. The police will always do as they like. You can sue them later but at the time they will do as they like at the moment
Because they know 99.9% of the time they will face no consequences
Truth!
Always need at least $10k in your savings for lawsuit money
Yup, has happened too me, a white unarmed male college student when I went the wrong direction (entered the exit) in my university parking garage. Guns to our heads. Except we spent 45 minutes cuffed in the back of the car.
Roadside resistance is a very bad idea. Do courtroom stuff in courtrooms.
This incident is exactly why Americans don't trust law enforcement. One arrogant cop ruins it for many people.
You mean, PSYCO PIGNORANT PIGGY
The fact that"law enforcement"is a greater threat to our rights and well-being than common criminals shows how far our society has sunk!
@robertlawson698 I wouldn't go quite that far, but, I hear ya!
There's only one?
@@donavandean1078 I would have to agree with the other guy.
Thank You for covering this case. I'm from CT and this case was conveniently "buried". No coverage at all
As a retired LE supervisor, one question would be...How many times has this officer done this prior to this incident and had not been caught? Bad judgement means bad laws.
As a retired LE supervisor have you ever arrested a brother in blue? Legally, this officer broke the law. He restrained, assaulted, and illegally arrested this guy against state law. Federally, he violated his rights. Both are criminally prosecutable offences.
@@ledwallet1944 this type of violation would be investigated, possible suspension first. If all allegations were substantiated then it's up to the Chief for termination and forwarded to the DA for possible criminal filing. To answer your question, yes, arrests have been made.
The reverse is also true, unfortunately. Bad laws (and worse, bad court decisions) can and do mean bad enforcement practices. There's a _lot_ of bad laws on the books now--which is inevitable given just how many of them there are, and our legislators' general unwillingness to repeal laws instead of adding more--while police seem to have developed an over-reliance on court decisions and lost the willingness to exercise their own judgement. I dunno what _specifically_ is causing that, but I kinda doubt it's a single point of failure and I suspect it's a fairly complex interplay between not wanting to get sued, local laws, department policies, and improper training (which is a couple of cans of worms in itself, at this point).
Lack of training could be part of it. Also power trip could be in play.
@@austinphillips5036Yes, but how often does it happen that way?
Here in California criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens
Move out of these blue states and let them turn into the hellscape people voted for. Escape from LA was supposed to be a work of fiction 😂
New York also..
Commifornia sucks I would never live in that sh!thole
That's the play if you haven't figured it out. They let criminals run wild so legal gun owners can defend themselves only to throw them under the jail and confiscate the rest of your guns at your home. Another way to take out law abiding citizens and stripping your rights away. JUST MY LOGICAL OPINION.
Illinois, too. I'm leaving for a red state. Can't fight back once the commies have a supermajority.
I'll bet officer Andrzejewski was jealous and angry that his carry gun is not as good as Soukaneh's...
Funny... but realistically, a lot of Police believe that they should be the only ones allow to carry: They don't believe that "Civilians" should be allowed to carry at all.
That cop needs to be held personally liable, qualified immunity only applies to LAWFUL discharge of duties. This was no such thing.
That was what this entire video was about. The federal appeals court found that the officer has no qualified immunity.
He is about to be personally liable.
In a federal court law enforcement have no legal lawful claim of qualified immunity for civil rights violations.
@@dragonf1092
Qualified immunity is only in federal court for civil rights violations.
No! Terry v. Ohio, 1968. Police must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime. ❤
Now, is it more likely that Andrzejewiski will end up reflecting on his actions as a result of this case and change his tyrannical behavior, or will he instead double down on his behavior and go the extra mile to make sure his tyrannical actions are backed up by evidence, found or manufactured?
Being found to have violated constitutional rights under color of law should IMMEDIATELY AND PERMANENTLY bar the individual from any employment involving authority.
Conservatives who back the blue need to remember that there are no lockdowns without cops. Take a quick look at what happened in Minnesota with cops shooting citizens with paintball guns for standing on their own porch on their own property.
From the article:
"If a law enforcement officer or other public safety official asks you to go inside, or take any other action, you must follow the instruction," the document said.
What country do these people live in?
Yup. Alll that crap occurred in communist dem areas.
That paintball incident wasn't about covid. They set an emergency curfew due to the george floyd riots.
That's what you wind up with when one political party captures the entire state apparatus.
Weren't the Holocaust victims given the same kind of"instructions"by the gestapo?
@@robertlawson698 YES indeed they were.
I live here in Yakima washington. The other day I was taking my son to a birthday party and we got pulled over on the way there. The cop said he pulled me over for failing to use my blinker in front of him which was a lie cuz I saw him following me for over a mile and a half. I told him we both know that's a lie I put my blinker on in front of you what is your word against mine to do whatever you got to do. I gave him my driver's license insurance registration and CCW card. Told him I had a weapon on me. Give me a weird look around my information came back and told me you know I can search your car right. I told him for what you have no cause he says cuz you have a concealed weapons permit it has to be concealed on your body you can't have it anywhere else in the car you can't have it in the bag in the trunk you can't have it in your glove box you can't have it in the center console you can't have it in the door you can't have it under your seat if I search your car right now to find it anywhere but concealed on your person I can take you to jail now. I told him no you can't that's a complete lie. Then he told me that I cannot open carry in this state I have to concealed carry it even though I wasn't open carrying then I told him Washington state is an open carry state we can open carry here legally he says but you have a permit so you have to carry concealed I don't have to carry concealed. Then he points at his 21 round Magpul mags and tells me that if I have anything more than 10 rounds you can take me to jail for that. I told him that is another lie because I've had bought these bags before the band went into effect last year and there's no way you can enforce that law on anything I have cuz you can't prove when I bought them them. Even though I did not show him any of my magazines or tell them about any of my magazines he just started talking about he can search me for magazines over 10 rounds and take me to jail and confiscate my magazines. I told him everything you have said in our interaction has been a lie but you have a great day now take it easy. Then he said you are free to go after that
I wonder if he was a rookie.
I'm a Yakimaniac, too.
You’re awesome !!!
Was this"cop"wearing a swastika armband?
@@robertlawson698 🤣 no. Hey was Hispanic and that's what they say i am too. I Have always identified as American my whole life as well all my relatives Grandparents, mom, dad everyone
@@MichaelTheophilus906 i honest have no idea
There shouldn't be a probable cause exception for LEOs given that a warrant is provided with probable cause. The courts are supposed to determine that, not the officer.
Learn the Pot Bros At Law script
“Why did you pull me over?”
“I’m not discussing my day”
Follow ALL orders and give any requested documents and REMAIN SILENT
“I do NOT consent to any searches”
“Am I being detained or am I free to go?”
If detained you MUST say
“I invoke the 5th” and
BE SILENT -
Remember EVERYTHING you say WILL be used against you
All of these "BAD" cops are giving all of the others GOOD cops a negative vibes...... Need to get all of these bad seeds out of the jobs... Make this country GREAT again!!
If any cop sees or knows about his/her coworker doing something wrong, and they say nothing, they, too, are a bad cop. At least 95% of cops are bad cops.
There are no good cops in America. We get dumps of videos week after week where the other officers stand by and do nothing to stop the bad ones. We NEVER see any ones where the other officers step in. The culture of policing wouldn't ever allow that.
A good officer would step on. So as long as the culture prevents intervention, there are no good ones.
The "good" cop is a myth until they hold the bad cops accountable
ALL COPS ARE CORRUPT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
That's interesting since you cannot name a single form of tyranny that isn't up to the discretion of "good cops". I'm curious what constitutes "good" here?
I hate how qualified immunity is always used as an excuse for bad behavior when qualified immunity only protects an officer during the lawful execution of their duties. Any unlawful or unjustified act is not protected.
This. Too many people are uneducated and stoopid and think QI covers everything.
Yep- that's why I say "end the ABUSE of Qualified Immunity".
@212caboose I say end qualified immunity period. But still give them the same ability to defend themselves as we have. In the courts. If only they'd stop setting the deck with juror picks like the people that sent Matt Hoover to the pen over a non-functional device. And device is a strong word for an autokeycard. The atf couldn't even maje it work yet the jury blistered him over bs. It seems like it's all a lose lose in America for law biding citizens
Qualified immunity doesn't legally lawfully exist, qualified immunity is nothing but corruption of justice and treason.
Write in Richard L Kemp Tennessee for president in 2024 qualified immunity will cease to exist anyone useing it will be brought to justice for corruption of justice.
Sounds like an unlawful search, unlawful arrest and unlawful detention. Boarder line kidnapping if he had been transported.
Don’t forget he didn’t consent 😅
It doesn’t “sound like” an unlawful detention, arrest and seizure!!
The circuit court (one step below the Supreme Court) found the he DID commit an unlawful detention, arrest and search. Only the Supreme Court can overturn this decision and they aren’t going to touch it.
Now it goes back to the trial court and a jury to determine the damages.
The second he is cuffed and moved to the vehicle it is kidnapping if it is a unlawful arrest (seizure), applicable under Title 18 U.S.C. sections §241,§242 felony conspiracy against rights and felony deprivation of rights under color of law.
A arrest (seizure) without a legal lawful valid search warrant is a unlawful arrest (seizure) a kidnapping.
He was transferred from his car to the other car and locked in.
That's what SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT did to me. I'm a felon with restored rights which I let them know as I gave them my concealed permit and notified them of my firearms in the car......5 days in jail, phone , wallet, birth certificate, spare tire, waterbottle, backpacks, scarfs, belts, holsters, ammo ALLLLL GONE!! Even took my dog to the pound and inpounded my car (almost $2k) STILL have my guns even tho all bogus charges were dropped. After calling my ARP a rifle and saying concealed permits are only good for a year ( mine was 2 years out of the 5 years it's valid at the time) and refused to let me get my paperwork proving that I had restored rights even tho they should have been able to see it when they looked me up. All as a traffic stop because they were going over speed limit by 5 mph and SAW (no radar) I also was going over limit? It also lied and said I was trying to evade them by getting off the exit that I was literally trying to get off of to pick up my girlfriend. 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 SPD AND RPD ARE DIRTY
Please sue them. It is important that there be consequences when they do that sort of thing. We all think it is awful, but you are in a unique position to do something about it. Ask for help if needed!
That scares me. I live in Sammamish and carry and have my rights restored and my concealed pistol license. I mean if you showed them u have a cpl license then they should know you can’t get that license unless you passed the nics barons and cpl background check. Wtf. Sue them and post this info for people to see. I got pulled over once for being on my phone and after checking my Cpl and making sure pistol was registered they let me go
@@Drakkheart For every one of us whose rights have been violated, if attorneys will not help, then it's those very attorneys (and everyone else) that will bear the consequences next. Apathy for others' rights has consequences. People here do not care until it's their own rights and lives that bear the consequences.
@@Drakkheartlots of money to sue SPD and city of Seattle in general. I'm sure they have plenty enough of their "city" taxes
God Dam Seattle bastards. GET OUT OF SEATTLE!!!!
Good thing Tennessee is NOT a duty to inform state.
It doesn't mean it doesn't happen unfortunately I live in a duty to inform state, but I've seen it happens in those that aren't, more than one would think.
All states should assume average citizens to be armed, responsibly!
Same as Florida, and we have constitutional carry so no concealed permit necessary
So is Connecticut.
Neither is Connecticut..😒
Yes, they can. Any other answer is pie in the sky. I'll share with you all what my Dad told me when I was a kid. "Avoid the police, because they can do anything to you they want". He didn't mean that it's legal, but they can and you can't stop them, all you can do is survive to get to court and hope you get a judge who's read the Constitution.
Your Dad is wise man and knowledgeable.
Pretty much how it is and sucks. Survive and live on to fight another day
As an FTO we had a County Jail in our city. The academy covers the three levels of contact at a high level. I had to explain exactly what you explained about consensual encounters, detentions and arrests. We saw a known felon in the area of the jail. They stamp the hand of released persons and provide a release form. My trainee activated the red/blue lights "emergency equipment." This moves the stop from a consensual encounter to a detention. Which is exactly as you described RAS must be established. Call it a constructive stop for investigation (Terry v. Ohio) you damn sure better to be able to explain why you are going hands on doing a pat-down or searching/cuffing and stuffing. How this continues to happen in 2024 make my head hurt.
Thanks
Because nothings changed from the 70s and 80s. Body cams haven't done shit
I remember my first gun. Dude was reaching into his center console, stopped abruptly, slammed the door down and looks at me. "Sorry, I completely forgot I had a gun in my console." I was like "Uh, ok, hand it to me then...?" He did, I set it on top of his roof and handed it back before I left. Being a rookie I did take extra precaution, but grew to realize that if someone wants to harm me... they aren't gonna tell me they are armed. "You don't touch yours, I won't touch mine" from then on. Only guns I touched after that was incident to arrest, lol.
Ever watch a guy have his rights violated? Ever turn those officers in and testify against them?
I would question whether “Duty to Inform “ laws are Constitutional under the Bruen decision.
If you are a cop, and you are scared of citizens who are armed, find a different job.
This cop is a tyrant and should not be allowed to carry a gun and badge.
Agreed
CT is not a Duty to inform, and you are right. It sucks that some places force you to give up your 2nd, 4th, and 5th
@truckpilot01 yes but in CT, if you have a permit, they know about it before even getting to your car and will sometimes ask if you're carrying.
Cops SHOULD be scared of people with guns!!
This is one if not my favorite channels to view for legal advice.
My experiences in AZ (we have constitutional carry, open and concealed): on the rare occasions I get detained (or even consensually questioned) I always tell the officer if I’m carrying and where the gear is, usually in the form of “hey officer I just want to give you a heads up that I’m lawfully carrying a firearm (or whatever I have on me) and I’d like you to know so that if you need assistance I can provide it.” That tends to verbally disarm even the few police that are actively anti-gun as I phrase it in the form of offering assistance. The most common response I get from police is to ask if I’m an officer-duty LEO, to which I reply (truthfully of course) that I’m a medically retired combat veteran.
Half the time that by itself ends the stop without even a technical warning, but with the officer phrasing his warning as a heads up that I was violating some statute (because most cops in AZ are either veterans or regret not having served in that capacity, and veterans tend to stick together) so that the warning is couched as a friendly reminder that whatever I was doing was improper (it’s usually speeding in a construction zone…. Seriously who is going to drive 35 on an empty highway?).
Half of the remaining time (so about a quarter of all events) it turn into a chat about our respective service, or a consensual chat about firearms (I tend to carry obscure, rare, or hard to get firearms - especially when it’s a rifle bolted to my motorcycle, cops are always amused at how I 3D printed adapters so my LMT AR-10 could be mounted to my Harley saddlebag while still being secured but accessible, and seeing a relatively gigantic rifle with a 25x night vision scope, range finder, and enormous break on a bike is honestly hilarious). These chats have even evolved into police escorts to where I’m going so I can drive as fast as I want (I’m disabled and need a walker to be able to walk, so it’s been extra funny these past few years seeing a Harley with a big black rifle on one side, forearm crutches on the front batwing fairing, and a walker catching the wind and strapped to the tour-pak on the back). I’ve even been pulled over when I don’t have a rifle and wasn’t breaking the law, with the officer asking if I needed assistance getting where I was headed (that particular time it was a big yes as I was headed to the hospital as my central line had been torn out by my medical alert animal at home - she saw a tube running into me while I was asleep so she pulled it out and woke me up - which was my reminder that I forgot to train her about it - that cat has saved my life several times by alerting me to impending heart and infections so it’s totally worth it, a lot of animal can detect abnormalities and can be trained to alert you that something is wrong, far more than most people realize. I’m pretty sure that was a lawful stop under the police community caretaking rules, and it was both welcome and helpful as the officer just drove ahead of me with lights and siren on to clear the road, but I’m a bit curious if the lawyers here agree with me that it was lawful. That cop also followed up with me while I was in the hospital and escorted me home - his offer, I accepted, which was also helpful even though the return trip was as a passenger with my wife driving and helped me me out and into the house. Good cops can be really great, though they often get a bad reputation as people almost by definition only interact with the police under terrible circumstances).
End of story. I have others, but I condensed a few interactions to make them more concise and interesting :)
I liked hearing about your experiences. You should write a novel. Thank you for sharing❤
This is awesome! I appreciate William Kirk’s video here.
I wanted to add:
If you make it known that you are in lawful possession of a firearm during a police encounter, you ABSOLUTELY have the right to remain silent under the 5th amendment. You DO NOT have to respond to the officers bullshit inquiries. 100 percent of the time, the officer will try to build a case against you regardless of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. by answering further questions, there is a high probability he will incriminate you.
The officer may NOT compel you to speak. Ever!!
Invoke your fifth amendment right to remain silent AND remain silent.
You MUST invoke verbally. If not, silence can be deemed suspicious giving an officer legal authority with reasonable suspicion.
If the officer retaliates because of your silence after you have invoked the 5th amendment, sue.
That is correct, I served in our local county jails for 20 years, when I was presented that a crime occurred in the jail I would arrest the suspect and read him his Miranda Warning which tells the person they have the right to an attorney if I question them, and that they cannot be forced to talk!!! All I would do is write in my report that I read the suspect his Miranda warning and he chose to not speak to me as an officer!! No court can order you to incriminate yourself!!! Folks need to read the constitutions for the country and state they live in!!!! Above all say as little as possible to officers even if you are Not a suspect, but be respectful as you wish to be treated!!!
Good thing he didn’t have a signed ballot for a Republican candidate on the front seat. He’d still be in jail.
Only thing worse than that would be if he was wearing an NRA cap.
@@timinwsac: Double-Secret Imprisonment, authorized!
Ha! Jokes on them. I carry a Kamala for President sign in my trunk and a rainbow flag on my back seat. I just don't tell them that I have several guns and ammunition in my car also. Also I don't tell them that I voted for Trump twice and will for a third time also.
They'll just erase the vote and change it to democrat.
YOU are the best. I watch several others that inform us similarly, but you are unquestionably the best. Thank you for all you do for us!
Qualified immunity just means that it's ok for cops to be ignorant of the law. Even though it's been said for decades that ignorance of the law is not a defence
You just heard an attorney explain QI and you still come back with that. It’s not Sovereign or Blanket immunity. It has reasonable limits. I have seen plaintiffs lawyers misfile their cases and exclude the department under training and policy that allowed/generated the violation and get a case tossed due to faulty filing.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense FOR YOU
The purpose of"qualified immunity"is to enable"law enforcement"(the king's men)to do bad things to good people without consequences!
This officer was ignorant of rights or simply disregarded it.
The federal circuit court ruled that he has no qualified immunity. Even if it was just an ignorant mistake, the officer violated the man’s rights and now has to face a jury.
Apparently this entire video discussing how qualified immunity does not protect an officer even if he unknowingly violated a person’s rights, has gone over some people’s heads.
@@tvc1848 because in practice Qualified Immunity IS used to protect officers who knowingly violate people's rights. There's multiple videos of officers mockingly telling people to sue them because they KNOW qualified immunity will protect them.
As a Cop retired from 20 years in law enforcement I am glad this case was correctly decided. Too many PDs treat an individual with a gun as a threat and send the entire on-duty shift to deal with a simple CCW license holder as a threat when in many times it would be that same CCW license holder that would stop and help an officer in distress. I retired in 2012 so Active Shooter was the focal point for training as the number of CCW licenses holders rapidly increased resulting in the topic of this video being rarely addressed in annual training. Thank you to those CCW holders who carry everyday.
I think it is more of a question of "Will They" because it is obvious that they already CAN regardless of what was written down on paper and signed by someone who may no longer be in office.
Exactly, government powers have shown no restraining on their powers, or are people forgetting 2020 already and the "19".can they NO, will they absolutely.
Qualified immunity will set them free from anything that would lock you up for life.
@thehimself4056 that isn't how qualified immunity works
@@fjb960 then you have never been subject to it. I spent 87 days in jail for a false arrest. Literally nothing happened to that specific cop. Now. If I kidnapped someone, restrain them against their will, torture them and imprison them. I would be eligible to have no charges? GTFO
This is gonna be a HUGE settlement for Mr. Soukaneh!
How do you know? How much do you think?
End Qualified Immunity. Now.
End criminal activity first
Ehhhhhh, end the abuse of qualified immunity. I'm sorry- but MOST law suits are stupid.
@@nolanschanck4861 Police acting in this manner ARE criminals.
Qualified immunity as said in this video only covers officers who have acted lawfully.
This officer did not and the appeals court agreed so he is about to face his punishment.
So anybody having an interaction with a cop can sue them personally for any trumped up accusation? Qualified immunity only protects officers from being sued while doing their job legally. If they break the law they can be sued. Without it activists will sue every cop standing guard at a protest just to fuck with them. So many people have no idea what it means.
I dont even tell them when I'm carrying. If they ask I will. But last time I informed one as a courtesy the officer escalated an absolute nothing burger. So now they can figure it out on their own.
My understanding is that the driver had pulled over to the side of the road because his GPS had frozen and he was unfamiliar with the area that he was in. It wasn't technically a traffic stop.
Voluntary interaction justifies contact, involuntary means an assault is in process.
I've had this happen to me before twice in two different cities in Washington for a routine traffic stop, 7 years apart. Both times I had a CCW permit, was legally carrying and was still put in cuffs and my car searched. I called to register a complaint with both city's Chief of Police and in both cases was told they stood by their officers and they were within their rights. I was completely humiliated, I felt completely violated and was treated hostily like I was a criminal.
Back in my day, when the Constitution said something, it meant something! "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it says. Plain as day, right there in black and white! But now, here we are, jumping through hoops, filling out paperwork, and paying fees just to exercise a right that’s already ours. A concealed pistol license? Give me a break!
I’m supposed to ask the government for permission to carry what I already have the God-given right to carry? It’s downright ridiculous! They act like they're doing us a favor by letting us jump through all their bureaucratic nonsense. Last time I checked, the Second Amendment didn’t come with a bunch of fine print about permits and licenses.
It’s just one more way they’ve found to chip away at our freedoms. Bit by bit, they put up more barriers and call it "public safety" or some other nonsense. But let me tell you, no piece of paper or shiny card is going to make me any safer. What makes me safe is knowing I can defend myself and my family whenever and wherever I need to, without waiting on some bureaucrat's approval!
It’s a slippery slope, I tell you. Today it’s a license; tomorrow it’s who knows what! The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves watching what’s become of this country. If we don’t stand up and say enough is enough, we’re going to wake up one day and realize we’ve lost the very freedoms they fought so hard to give us!
and our government is trying to take away the damn guns sadly. get unregistered its the only way to go.
Apparently you don’t keep up with history or Constitution.
It's all about the money and attempt to deny you of your rights... after all, how can they feel safe to push you around if you're armed? (That's rhetorical)
All gun laws in the united states are unconstitutional therefore illegal null and void in violation of
The supremacy clause.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1.
Second amendment shall not be Infringed clause.
9th amendment enumeration clause.
10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause.
14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause combined.
I totally agree. I live in Oregon. Last week I renewed my concealed carry for $75. It was $55 last time and 35 the first time. I am living on social security. Lone woman who hikes and travels alone. Carry all the time through states that I do not have a license for. Couldn't get a license if I tried. It's a felony. But, seeing some of the things I have I would never be without protection. Sadly, 2 weeks ago there was a 40-year-old woman raped on a trail. Very close to my home. Home. Of course they'll never locate the rapist. That happened to a couple of my girlfriend 's. But the final decision to get a weapon was when a couple of Park rangers met me after a hike and said I had no business hiking without a weapon that there were cougar sighted on the trail. Several years ago a cougar was in the thicket and growled at me. That low ferrell growl was a real shock. Apparently I had ventured into his territory. I immediately did a 180 and walked a little faster away. Was told by a couple of guys they tried to stop me when they saw me starting out on the trail but couldn't catch up with me. So you can't depend on anyone...but yourself.
Thank U for your delivery :)
Well spoken !
An Illinois gun store employee licensed for CC told me he was stopped by police in Illinois and held, handcuffed in the squad car. His girlfriend had to contact his attorney.
Big Piggy🐷Pritzker tells ISP cops what to do and they do it. That’s why at “The End of The World As We Know It,” Illinois Staties are Public Enemy #1️⃣
Sounds about right
Has he sued yet?
@@consco3667 It did not occur to me to ask him and I've not had the opportunity to visit the Aurora Illinois gun shop since our conversation.
I should set aside time for a visit soon as I would like to obtain a reference for a good attorney.
@@consco3667
👍🏼
The police get away with this behavior because people let it go.
Thank goodness for this plaintiff who refused to let it go. He is about to get paid, the officer is about to be personally sued and clear precedent has been set at least in that circuit.
An excellent synopsis of this critically important case. Thank you.
ALL qualified immunity must end. Make THEM carry their OWN INSURANCE. Why should citizens pay for their malfeasance?
Clearly this system is corrupted beyond reason.
Make everyone obey the law first
@@nolanschanck4861 blue line simp?
Criminal bootlicker beta?
@@psychoholicslag4801 ...Kid, it's not about being a "blue line simp": ...It's the fact that all "abolish qualified immunity" nonsense is literally *_Controlled Opposition_* by the Elites: ...It's an "Ace up their sleeve" that they will use in the future to pacify the "Sheeple Stampede" back onto "the reservation" of their own enslavement: And if you don't understand, "government" is constructed from two words: (1) govern: "to control", & (2) ment: "the mind".
The reality is that "abolish qualified immunity" is NOT "the solution". ...When enacted in the future, it'll only be to pacify the mob. But later (a week, a month, a year), it'll be back to "business as usual" with Cops once again violating people's Rights.
Except this time, it'll be much, much worse: Think of it as akin to killing off a population of bacteria or viruses: You're effectively fighting them off, but since you cannot "get them all", the rest of them develop into a "new strain" & hence develop "new immunities" to protect themselves....
...What are these "new immunities" you ask... Yeah, you POS Sheeple NPC who has pawned off all their thinking onto Twitter, Reddit, & CNN: Now you have something to actually THINK about it: Which I know is very difficult for you, because you have "atrophy of the brain" !!!
...But i'll give you a HINT: ...It's called *_unintended consequences._*
End QA for more than the cops. End it for all public employees. Judges included!
They can do anything they want. It takes us a few years and lawyers and courts to undo it, and they don't care because they are immune to being held accountable.
Great information, thanks!
There was an appellate case back in 2009 that held the “Mere possession of a firearm, which is legal, cannot produce reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop. See Malone v. State, 882 N.E.2d 784 (Ind. Ct. Court of Appeals of Indiana
It does not "beg the question." It raises the question
Same thing, except "begging the question" has an extra meaning associated with it, since it's the formal name of one of many different *_Logical Fallacies._* So, viewed in this respect, we can argue semantics about whether or not one applies to an actual back & forth argument or discussion between two or more people, and whether the other encompasses that scenario as well as a presentation or soliloquy with only one speaker present.
Altho, I would personally disagree with such a classification, maybe there's an actual difference in the Legal connotation: Where one might be a formal *_Objection_* while the other one might be an *_invocation_* during a response (aka ABC "raises the issue/question" XYZ). And if that's your argument, that would be pretty pedantic in my opinion, "Boss".
A friend of mine was sitting in his car looking at his phone. He has a black Audi with tinted windows. He was approached be a county sheriff who wanted to search his car. My friend refused to allow the search because he had an appointment soon. The deputies impounded his car using the tinted windows as an excuse. He he’d too walk about 15 miles late at night with his 14 year old dog to get back to town. His car was held hostage for several days by the sheriff. It ended up costing him $1500. I wonder if he has a cause of action against the sheriff’s deputies?
Whats up with the tinted windows? If the tint was illegal then that is not an excuse as its a violation. Just playing devils advocate.
@@granitejeepc3651
True. However. Most people would get a fix it ticket. I don’t think they had probable cause to impound his car. Maybe they don’t need it for that. In my opinion it was a chicken shit move. He didn’t have any drugs in his car. He doesn’t use any drugs.
They never need to know you are carrying in my opinion. They only get my License.
In Washington if they ask you are supposed to truthfully tell them but you have no duty to inform if they haven’t asked.
@@np4057that's why they ask every time they pull someone over
In the USA we have a right to remain silent and we are not obligated to assist in an investigation. Our right to free speech also means any law compelling speech, especially self incriminating, is utterly repugnant. We are not required to answer ANY questions.
No warrant no license, license is your papers protected under the warrant clause.
@@BeyondPC unfortunately Washington found a way to illegally bypass that. I mean aside from illegally requiring you to have a CCW to conceal a pistol, they also made a law that says you would be guilty of false swearing if you lie to an officer about something they would reasonably use to determine their “safety.” And then stuck a clause into the permit that you have to present it upon request or risk losing it. Basically they just don’t care about your freedoms.
This really goes back to rights and the old argument that you should not say anything at all, some say tell the officer you have a gun, others say NO WAY! After watching this I say NO WAY don't tell them anything!
How is "a high crime area" grounds for even being pulled over?
Thanks Mr. Kirk. As I have family in Washington State I appreciate your videos from the Great State of Texas.
Police get the leeway to make mistakes because of Qualified immunity?
Normal jobs dont seem to have this: if you mess up. Youre fired.
This isnt fair: do your job correctly or be sued into the ground
Listened again.
Great job explaining this topic.
Connecticut has a duty NOT to inform!!! The so loosely called “officer” was way out of line and hope that he get a justifiable punishment for his crime!!!
LOL
Wichita, KS here. Was recently pulled over speeding. Got my documents out and ready... first thing I told the officer was I have one on my right hip. Nothing bad happened after that, except I have speeding ticket on my record.
Just 30min south of you around Wellington....
If I have a license to drive does that immediately allow an officer to arrest me for possession of a car? Glad the second appeals court is starting to uphold laws (even if they don't want too).
...i like how all the *_States_* will recognize your *_Driver's License,_* but not your *_Carry Permit_* !!! ...Total *_Clown World._*
Licenses and permits are unconstitutional therefore illegal in the first place,no American citizen needs permission from anyone to exercise their constitutionally protected rights, liberties, privileges, immunities whatsoever.
Don't forget, in Tennessee at least, consent can be revoked at any time during the search. Search incident to arrest is illegal in Tennessee, it is now called taking an inventory of the vehicle.
Still a felony crime in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. sections §241 conspiracy against rights §242 deprivation of rights under color of law any search without a legal lawful valid warrant is still a illegal unlawful search and seizure in violation of the supremacy clause, article 4 section 2 paragraph 1,4th amendment warrant clause,10th amendment nor prohibited by it to the states clause,14th amendment section 1 no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states clause combined. All evidence obtained would be inadmissible in a court of law under the fruit of the poisonous tree, and a criminal trial under exclusionary rule because it was obtained illegally.
If I was a cop I would assume everyone has a gun . So it would be best to treat people with respect in the first place
The Law that you are overlooking, and that police overlook , is that a citizen has the presumption of innocence. Cops often are using an assumption of guilt , and that is illegal or unlawful.
I was stopped in an open field by the Ohio sheriff’s dept once,when I was taking a walk. They assumed I was trespassing . I told them as they approached me with guns drawn that I had a presumption of innocence. They detained me . I told them I had permission of the landowner. They called the land owner and also checked my ssn. Then , after searching my backpack for drugs , they released me and said, it was just a misunderstanding. Right. It was Their misunderstanding.
I then told them that my lawyer had told me of the law that unless a property is gated or posted, there is implied consent.
They didn’t reply.
Actions like this should be sending law enforcement officers to prison for years. No qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is missaplied and used by bad, corrupt, and criminal cops to hide behind. It hurts the common, innocent citizen, and bad, corrupt, and criminal cops know it. Sadly, many good cops let the bad cops get away with it, which makes such good cops bad.
Didn’t watch the video, right?
If we truly had good cops there would be no bad cops. Because truly good cops would never allow or permit bad cops to be among them.
Great video, very relieved that the court recognized the 4th amendment. Could you please make a video similar to this explaining the nuances if this scenario happened in a constitutional carry state where the citizen doesn't need a permit to carry but informs the officer of the firearm?
I can, I live in Arizona, am a retired law enforcement officer and military veteran. I own and carry a 9mm Sig Sauer as a part of my daily life, I have had officers ask if i was carrying concealed to which I stated yes, his response was I will not touch my gun if you do not touch yours!!! I was also questioned when walking around the long block in my neighborhood because someone called the cops on me. The officer's simple question was, "was I staying on the sidewalks? My answer was yes, he told me to enjoy the exercise and to have a great evening then he drove away!!! He did not watch me return home, I did not present any sheriff's office documentation or military documentation!!! In Arizona we may carry concealed or open without any documents, it is built into the Arizona Constitution!!!
Reasonable people don't leave anything to the discretion of known idiots.
I practice don't ask, don't tell.
For me, it was 1988 or maybe 89. It was a few years after Washington State had passed concealed carry. I gave the officer my driver's license and my concealed permit. The officer, SPD, told me to get out of my car. He put me in cuffs, confiscated my firearm and put me in the back of his vehicle while he went through my car. Didn't ask permission, didn't ask anything.10 to 15 minutes later I had my firearm returned and I was on my way, but it was a pain in the ass.
As far as most police are concerned; Qualified immunity means they can do any damn thing they want.
No it doesnt
And 99.999% of the time they are exactly right! If it's not from Marxist Judges unwilling to uphold citizens rights it's citizens not being willing to enforce their rights! I bet at least 60% of Americans have not got a clue to what their rights are!
Had this happen to me , showed a silly cop my ccp, and the fool literally shat himself...Pulled his gun, made me put my hands out the window , handcuff them through the window...Half way searched car, ran my gun serial number all sorts of bs...I didn't sue but I never EVER EVER show my ccp anymore...Dude literally freaked out ,i was baffled and confused....no criminal says "Hey officer here's my ccp"..Made no sense to me
Here's the problem with Qualified Immunity that last part '... of which a reasonable person would have known.' I would argue if someone is doing their job they are not a "Reasonable Person" are lawfully bound to do KNOW their job. The country worked much better before Qualified Immunity and it should be done away with or in the meantime get rid needing a former lawsuit to which is needed to bring a lawsuit. Allow anyone their day in court in Front of a jury and see how fast everyone starts getting their job right. Already doing great things for Chevron Deference. Oh you say this would effectively get rid of Qualified Immunity ... win/ win.
Stoopid take. You’d have no cops then, because every single arrest would lead to a lawsuit. Geezus you anti QI muppets are smooth brains.
I had someone do the same thing to me many many years ago. He presented his permit which was valid. I simply instructed him to please keep his hands visible at all times. Issued the citation without incident. He was polite and even apologized for his lane change into an occupied lane.
My 4th amendment don't fold because I'm exercising my 2A right
You're 2a right is the only reason you still have 4a rights
Thank you for continuing to educate us on our rights.
For public safety no officer should have a gun, because we would not hurt anyone with ours.
Isn't that called kidnapping? Holding a person who has committed no crime without due cause is illegal! The search is illegal, too. There was no cause to search because of the disclosed firearm permit.
We shouldn't say "crapped his pants" because it's crude and we wouldn't want our children speaking that way. We should say, 'He stooled himself' or 'He had a fecal event'
Anal Evacuation Process
Here ingood ol' tn. The local law enforcement bunch believe that if you are stopped for a traffic citation they have probable cause to search your vehicle!!
From the last name, the only thing I can see the defendant guilty of is …….. Guilty of driving while being a minority.
Thanks William
My guess is another jurisdiction will try this, but they'll keep it under 30 minutes.
Would you explain to people what jury nullification is? Cops. D. A’s. Judges don’t want citizens to know about this. It terrifies cops especially
Exactly. Juries do not know that they have power. Wished I had known it 50 years ago when I was on a jury. I still feel bad because the old guy hadn't had any sleep for two nights, had two beers on his way home from work and was stopped. The things you don't know.
Wow…this is nuts. I didn’t catch the location of this stop, but I never could have imagined this happening simply by notifying a Leo that I have a firearm. That is nuts!
It’s nice to hear the truth for a change!
That 2nd condition for QI is just BS. Ignorance of a law isn't an excuse for a civilian, it certainly shouldn't be for someone who is supposed to enforce the law.
What an excellent explanation of the law.
A very good and practical presentation.
There is ample case law, including here in WA as I recall, that the mere lawful possession of a firearm does not even get to reasonable suspicion, AND if there is any real possibility that one can carry a firearm lawfully, it is not a basis for a Terry stop. It appears to me that this "officer" was acting on a personal bias. I am pretty sure that virtually all officers in WA would know better. While it has not been updated in 9 years, the first place I start research on a search and seizure question is the manual on the WAPA website. There is case law that the officer can disarm a person for the length of the contact and make it temporarily unusable by removing the ammo and keeping them separate. (That manual at p142.) Generally, if the officer is not a gun person, they may not be able to do so safely.
I admit that would irritate the hell out of me and this leads to part two. NEVER resist past the point of denying consent verbally. Comply, then complain. Any other course of action is unwise. Note that the citizen in this case Bill is describing got treated pretty poorly, but handled it correctly by suing. I suspect that the agency has a big crap sandwich coming - not only is there is no real defense, so they need to pay up, but there is some serious re-training needed. They also almost certainly have a Brady/PID (somewhere on the same WAPA website is a description of PID and I think a model policy) problem with this officer and maybe some others. Sure sounds like poor supervision.
I was told 20 yrs ago not to get my cwp in Washington because when a cop runs your plates it will flash CWP in red and gave the officer the right to approach the vehicle with gun drawn!!
If they draw their gun they are committing a felony crime in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law.
Title 18 U.S.C. section §242 deprivation of rights under color of law.
Whoever under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom willfully subjects any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession, or district to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the constitution or laws of the united states...
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life or both,or may be sentenced to death.
Thank you for this information and analysis.
The way you handled those name pronunciations is just outstanding. Sure the content might have been engaging but I was dazzled by the pronunciations that I missed everything else.
An officer definitely can, if the alleged suspect does not watch Washington Gun Law to know that the office may not under these circumstances take such steps. So thank you for the information!