He actually didn’t know his monologue! He rehearsed it for two hours, but he has Dyslexia, which made it super hard to do in that amount of time. So he improvised the whole thing. The whole monologue was filmed and only this much made the cut! I’ll be releasing an interview with Larry soon I just spoke with him today!
@@HeX341 I'm glad that "BITCH" has almost half the likes the head comment has. Really shows you that most of us have the same mentality to comment "Bitch"
Yeah given his apparent constitutional expertise (and his clear wisdom/intellect), it wouldn't surprise me if he was just as adamant as Walt that the _magnet escapade_ couldn't be traced back. And I believe that was his last involvement.
@@DLHarv I did take that into consideration when I wrote it. But I wouldn't say he was _involved_ during El Camino, the low jack was activated mere moments before Joe fled, and when I say _involvement_ I meant in a way that he could possibly be caught. He didn't involve himself in El Camino in such a way as he could be caught...that's why I left that occurrence out.
The fact that Joe only showed up about 5 minutes before this scene with no other info and immediately got involved to help is amazing lol He just showed up to destroy the vehicle so as far as he’s concerned he wasn’t even in the frame for doing anything wrong
Out of all the entirety of Breaking Bad, this scene was one of the most nerve-racking to watch. The way Walt is desperately trying to hold the door shut with his brother-in-law tries to pry it open with a fucking tire iron. Jesus christ, I can't take it. And once again, he gets them out of it by the skins of their teeth. Some riveting shit, mane.
BB did it the best. Getting characters into impossible situations. I remember pausing the episode and thinking how they could get out of this... I couldn't think of any way. Then it was exciting to see Walter thinking of a way. Vince Gilligan told on Conan that, they often paint themselves into a corner and his brilliant writers will figure out a way!
@@cultclassic999 yeah the only thing that could be argued thats better would be either The Wire or the sopranos. But all 3 are definitely the top 3 shows of all time. BB is number 2 for me, 3 is the sopranos and number one would be the wire. The wire is just so damn good.
Old Joe: "Well until your boys bring that warrant on a "satin pillow' you are, thus far, on MY property without MY permission to be here. You dont just get to sit here and wait for the warrant to come. So scramola" they really didnt need to involve Marie
I need to watch the episode again to see the set up but most junkyards have high fences. Longs hes not allowed to be right up on it, should be ok to slip out
texas thunder it would still be difficult to get away from the junkyard without hank seeing. While he is waiting outside, he would almost certainly try to scout the perimeter to see if Jesse tries to run. Walt being a 51 year old cancer patient, isn’t the most nimble
Something that most people that 'try doing' are not. They either have the law completely wrong or are just spouting absolute jibberish... and then scream/holler and act like an idiot when arrested.
Director: this is my own private domicile and I will not be harassed. Action! Bryan Cranston: (whispers) this is my own private domicile and I will not be harassed. Aaron Paul: This is my own private domicile and I will not be harassed .... BITCH!!!!!
This whole scene demonstrates the degree of off beat attitude and amoral actions that would lead Hank to attack Jesse .Very well written . Now I want a full blow Legislative analysis of Breaking Bad .
@@wardaddy6374 Excuse me, Mr. Bear. This show ended in Sept of 2013. Its a little hard to find spoiler complaints valid when we've had THAT long to watch the whole series. Lol
When Hank takes the tape off, the light shines in through the bullet holes on to Walt's stomach. Where does Walt get wounded in the last episode again?
This is such a great video for so many reasons. Besides this being so pragmatic and made so digestible with cultural references, it also highlights the depth of research that the creators of this show went to and their commitment to realism for the sake of their art. And the commentary on Hank (the cop) is pretty even-handed, given that he's pretty much the villain of this - and many other - scenes.
@@PolishGod1234 I don't agree that calling him a villain implies he's evil - he's Walt's foil in so many scenes, making him the opposition. And he sure as shit ain't the main antagonist - Breaking Bad is a story of Walt's war against himself, not Hank, not Gus, not Tuco, not Uncle Jack. It's Walt's own ego that stacks the dominoes in such a way that he takes a bullet to the gut.
@@michellelies villain means a legit bad/evil person who's an enemy of protagonist. Walt's ego is just Walt being Walt, Hank is the main antagonist if you exclude Walter considering how Hank opposes Walt through almost entire show.
You should love it because if the presumption of innocence and their individual rights are not protected then neither will the rights of anyone else be, even when they are innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. For some reason, THAT part of the critical thinking equation always seems to be missing from people's way of looking at these situations. I absolutely abhor everything that stems from and supports the "war on drugs" mentality, because it is one of the most prevalent and egregious excuses used by government actors to behave unconstitutionally. That said, I have no problem with actual criminals getting caught and prosecuted PROPERLY, which means with full respect to individual rights and the law. What I *DO* have a problem with are cops and prosecutors that think none of these rights or how they violate them actually matters as long as they get their man and make an arrest or get a conviction.
@@taooflaw8744 It was just a joke, in all honesty I didn’t fully read the comment but I’m sure your analysis of the amendment use is great I was just joking lol
@@gxdhabakkagw6268 I really was not trying to make it sound like I was attacking you or your comment. I was just pointing out how it actually ties into the whole point of why I made the video in the first place. Thank you for the comment and compliment. lol
Lmao it always cracks me up when Hank drags the tire iron across the side trying to intimidate them like the twin drags the axe when trying to kill him lol
Old Joe had a criminal record back in New York City, from stealing raisins from an NBC office, in the mid 90's. He then attended the American Samoa University where he studied law. Unfortunately he had his license suspended (thats a long story...he was actually a pretty sharp lawyer) and finally ended up owning a junkyard. After retirement he chilled out in a Sandpiper seniors residence.
To be honest, just as Hank did listen and go back to obeying the law by having a warrant come around to help him investigate, a phone call saying that Marie was in hospital drove him away.
Pretty good assessment. Concealing the weapon before approach is easily articulated as officer safety and certainly doesn't amount to premeditation. Any type of manipulation to the "domicile" by Hank is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. That said in this type of case Hank would have to pray he could adequately articulate facts to sway a judge. Even without that Hank would be well within his rights to continue to observe the "domicile" while awaiting the search warrants approval. Granted he would most likely have to conduct said observation from off property which may have prevented view in which case he'd have to hope for a climbable tree nearby or rent a bucket lift to maintain visual contact. As for advising people to fight back against any officer of the court or federal agent I would advise against that in the strongest possible terms. You lose the battle but win the war in court and most likely via 7+ figure civil right's lawsuit.
Such a simple and fantastic way of explaining this. This is what some people don’t understand about “probable cause.” It’s why “drug sweeps” at schools are totally illegal and unconstitutional. Cops wouldn’t know that drugs are in somebody’s car unless they take the dogs around. What reason do they have to take the dogs around? That’s fishing for probable cause. It’s not readily apparent
Some of the people you at least expect to be super smart are always around us. People ask why is he a junkyard guy? Well if he's super intelligent who are we to question his motives?
@Nate Steere - Just an FYI, but a "vehicle," by its very definition, is a self-propelled device used to engage in COMMERCIAL USE of the roads and highways for PRIVATE PROFIT OR GAIN. The term "vehicle" DOES NOT and NEVER DID mean "every device traveling upon the roads that is self-propelled." If it DID mean that, then THAT is how the legislatures of the various states would have defined it don't you think?? . I know, I know, of course you don't, because that kind of thinking requires actual KNOWLEDGE found ONLY by the READING AND STUDYING of the actual laws and their history dealing with the subject of "motor vehicles" and "transportation" in order to be fully understood. And who has that kind of time and mental focus these days, not you, cops, lawyers, judges, government officials, and self-serving bureaucrats in general, right? . You say "This is the moment vehicles became domiciles." Well, how is this moment any different than the one where some judge without a clue made a ruling that merely APPEARED to convert an individual right into a government granted privilege to engage in a licensable business/occupation that most individuals traveling upon the roadways in their private conveyances are not actually engaged in, and never were? . As Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) wrote, "It is better to be silent and thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
@@taooflaw8744 "This is the moment when x became y" is a breaking bad meme. There are several examples of it in the comments on this very video. There was no need to insult my education or intelligence.
@@njsteere - And I was in no way trying to personally insult you. My point is directed at the uses of the TERMINOLOGY that is so often used to obfuscate the legal difference between terms defined by and used IN LAW versus that same term's meaning and usage in common and ordinary language. . My intent is to show how the term "vehicle" has a completely different and LIMITED meaning when used in reference to a given LAW than it does when used by layman in daily conversations, while at the same time, showing how people usually speak and think that these two meanings and uses of such terms are interchangeable when they really are not. . So, as I said, my goal was not to insult you personally, but merely to highlight that the use of certain terms does not always mean what one thinks it does, especially across all contexts. A concept that I have had to break down and explain to cops and attorneys over and over again through the years because most of them are too simple and singularly minded to grasp the concept and real-world distinctions. . .So, my sincere apologies if that is how you took my comment. I spend my days trying to educate as many people as possible on subjects like this so they can learn what the cops, attorneys and judges simply refuse to discuss and accept if they can avoid it. Mainly because it proves that most of them are truly incompetent at what they do and in what they only THINK they know and understand. . But because of over two decades of time invested in doing this I tend to be rather blunt and to the point when discussing such things and may not always be clear that there is nothing personal in the exchange. At least, not from my intentions, as I do not tend to verbally attack someone unless I have already been attacked. I'm just very blunt and direct in my responses.
The problem with that statement is that it was NEVER reported as stolen by the owner. As such, there was no "stolen vehicle" report as supporting evidence of a crime that would serve to establish probable cause for Hank to search or seize it, which, as a federal officer, he would not have any authority and jurisdiction to do under the existing circumstances. The mother's statement that it was stolen would not have been enough since Hank lacked legal jurisdiction to act on a state-based crime where there was no evidence of the crime itself extending across state lines so as to invoke any level of federal jurisdiction. He only had a SUSPICION that this COULD be the RV he was looking for and that it was involved in the manufacturing of meth, but no actual facts or evidence that would support a warrant to seize and search it as such.
I've been sent here from the channel Audit The Audit. They did a video talking about the same scene and what's true or not about the legality (or lack thereof) of Hank's actions. Your video was pretty good and wish you would do more of them, if you are able to. Anyways, thank you and cheers from France! 🍻🇫🇷🇺🇸
How exactly are the bullet holes probable cause anyway? Pretty sure there are no laws against discharging a legally owned firearm at the door of your vehicle. Doesn't make the vehicle non-roadworthy. If a man wants to shoot the door of his vehicle that's his own business
Too bad that if a cop draws on you, and you defend yourself, there's no court in the country that won't take the cop's side and no police department in the country that won't stick behind their officer and his lie about probable cause.
@Tao of law. Do you have any other law breakdowns of movie clips? Also, remember any other "abuse of rights," moves by cops in this show? Or in other shows?
Pick pretty much ANY made-for-TV or reality show and you can find all the rights violations you could hope for in pretty much any given episode. One of the WORST I've seen about warrantless searches and such is "Criminal Minds." Pretty much EVERYTHING the FBI BAU Unit does to locate their TV serial killer is highly unconstitutional and illegal. And that's just one show. It is MY personal theory that these shows are more about mental grooming of the population to accept the idea that the ends ALWAYS justify the means when it comes to government doing what IT perceives as "the right thing" than it actually is about DOING the right thing and protecting the people and their individual rights in EVERY respect, not just their physical safety.
4:25 Hank basically confessed to breaking & entering since he's saying "You want your warrant?" If things didn't go differently, i.e Hank beating up Jesse next episode and Hank getting targetted by the Salamander cousins, Jesse could've filled a lawsuit of breaking & entering against Hank.
If you live in your car does that technically mean police need a warrant and not just probable cause to search the vehicle? If only it worked like that right
I guess if it is on private property and it is not registered at the DMV thus has no license plates could be. If you use your car to get around and happen to live in it or be on public grounds I don't think this applies. But then again don't they need a warrant to even be on private property against your will anyway besides if a crime was committed or smth.
I dont think so. Since it is technically property that can move it would not make sense to need a warrant. Similar to how they can search your car after stopping you for anything suspicious
@@joshuacarmona7642 They cannot they need probable cause for example if they would smell weed or see a fire arm in the car by looking through the window
unfortunately, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applies to mobile homes, such as an RV. see California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985). also the fact that it's in a scrapyard and the occupant isn't known to the owner of the scrapyard more or less dispels any notion that it's being used as a domicile. so Hank didn't need a warrant. all he needed was probable cause.
I've already answered this observation once before, so here we go again. In Carney the court specifically stated "These reduced expectations of privacy derive not from the fact that the area to be searched is in plain view, but from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways. Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, at 440-441. As we explained in South Dakota v. Opperman, an inventory search case: . "Automobiles, unlike homes, are subjected to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and controls, including periodic inspection and licensing requirements. As an everyday occurrence, police stop and examine vehicles when license plates or inspection stickers have expired, or if other violations, such as exhaust fumes or excessive noise, are noted, or if headlights or other safety equipment are not in proper working order." 428 U. S., at 368." . And herein lies the rub. The courts have ruled on the very real distinctions between those vehicles that are "regulated" and those that are not. However, the revenue stream that is lost by openly admitting that such a distinction exists was too much for the dishonest and statist-minded individuals in power. The distinction is drawn between those that are engaged in commerce and using the roadways as a PLACE OF BUSINESS versus the use of the roadways ONLY for one's own private personal business and pleasure. . A man by the name of Charlie Sprinkle sued then governor of California Ronald Reagan for allowing the state and local police agencies to ILLEGALLY enforce such laws upon the traveling public. He even named Nancy Reagan as a co-conspirator for laundering Reagan's paycheck as governor by spending it. The state of California cut him a deal that they would no longer enforce the commercial regulations against him if he would just drop his suit, which he did after they guaranteed him to be left alone. . The point being, the actual laws, and their original purpose and applicability have NOT changed over the years. Only the lies told to the public and perpetuated by the lower courts in treating both classes of automobile as if they are the same, which they legally are NOT. There is simply too much money to be stolen by defrauding the gullible public for any of them to ever openly tell the truth and end up in prison for their fraud. But if you do a little research on your own you just might find out that you HAVE been lied to about pretty much EVERYTHING relative to automobiles and the so-called laws regulating them. These laws operate more on the concept of "conventional wisdom" than upon the actual law itself and the required factual and evidentiary acknowledgment of these legal distinctions between the two legal classifications. . That all said, Hank STILL never had either reasonable suspicion OR probable cause to even enter the private property of the scrapyard, much less to try and break into *A* motor home he found parked there. Hank had NEVER seen the motor home traveling on the roadways nor ever seen it parked in different locations. This is the very first time he EVER laid eyes on it. He doesn't even know whether or not this is the SAME motor home, because he had no license plate number for the one recorded on video at the gas station. He doesn't even know if THIS particular motorhome runs (and Carl specifically asks him about that fact). Most importantly, Hank had NEVER witnessed ANYTHING even remotely resembling a CRIME having occurred anywhere near or in THIS specific motorhome or on the grounds of the scrap yard. . Thus, even without the "not regulated" portion of the facts, Hank was STILL WRONG and acting ILLEGALLY in every possible way in this scene.
@@taooflaw8744 i didn't actually say he could search, just that he wouldn't require a warrant to do so. but i'm happy to get into this. i'm not gonna dig into the weeds of this whole commercial vs. non-commercial argument, nor the Charlie Sprinkles episode, because it has little bearing on whether evidence seized from a vehicle is going to get suppressed in real life. i will note that the real long-standing law enforcement rationale behind the automobile exception is that cars can move, and the courts don't want to make cops seek warrants to search things that are able to move. SCOTUS said as much in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), a case decided long before the rise of pervasive automobile regulations. SCOTUS later started bolstering this point with stuff about widespread regulations because they were living in a post-Katz world and they needed to find a way to shut down the argument that people had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cars. see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). at any rate, what Carney teaches us is that in the realm of criminal procedure, cars are cars and we don't care if that's your home. the stuff you mention about how Hank doesn't know if it can move is not really relevant to the question of whether there's enough suspicion, but just whether he knew it was a domicile for 4A purposes. no court in the nation would say that a cop behaved unreasonably because he needed to wait for proof that the car could move before he could decide it wasn't a domicile. so that issue is moot. the real issue here, though, is that constitutional law is fictional. 99% of Fourth Amendment law is about "reasonableness," which is defined by a group of conservatives who love the police. the justices decide what's reasonable, and they empower lower courts, as well as cops in their split-second decision-making capacity, to also determine reasonableness. they've done this time and time again, the end result being the bloated monster called qualified immunity. the Constitution is a nice tool for sometimes challenging the abusive behavior of feds like Hank when you get a sympathetic judge in front of you, but like any text, it's whatever the powerful say that it is, and it doesn't deserve to be fetishized. in reality, a federal district court loaded with federalist society wingnuts would probably think there was at least reasonable suspicion to order Jesse out of the RV here, if not full blown probable cause, based on Hank's prior investigations and surveillance of Jesse. Hank's confidence in this reality is demonstrated by the fact that he ultimately bothers to seek a warrant. you can't get a warrant without probable cause. he knew a magistrate would rubber stamp his behavior and declare that probable cause was present. you could call that illegal, but it's not really illegal because the law is determined by politics and power dynamics, and it always will be.
Old joe deserved way more screen time
Agree
At least El Camino gave him a little love
He actually didn’t know his monologue! He rehearsed it for two hours, but he has Dyslexia, which made it super hard to do in that amount of time. So he improvised the whole thing. The whole monologue was filmed and only this much made the cut! I’ll be releasing an interview with Larry soon I just spoke with him today!
@@ItsTheDevShow sounds sick looking forward to it
@@ItsTheDevShow when you think you gonna upload the interview?
This is the moment Joe became Saul Goodman
UNDER-RATED comment
lol
😂😂😂
Dying meme.
@@rawtrout007 overrated shit zombies upvote to feel part of a culture within memes because they're lowly fools***
“This is my own private domocile and I will not be harrassed... bitch” is my favorite moment of the whole show
I just die laughing everytime I even think about it 😂
Same.
Classic.
and then jesse ran to that same "bitch" for protection later on, guess we found out who the real bitch was lol
Freedom of speech... beautifal... ain't it? 😀
I wish this junkyard guy was president
Big Money would never finance him.
rnelson299 😂
fuckin A man, me too lol
rnelson299 Better than tRump
Just make sure you keep an eye on your raisins
Crazy he did all this knowing he was being filmed.
Omg right? He's fucking insane
Lol
Pigs in America do worse daily. He knew he'd get away with it.
Who are you talking about?
XD
2 of Hank's weaknesses were he allowed things to get personal and he always thought he was smarter than everybody
Just like Walt.
@@blckbeauty4406 Yeah except Walt was smarter
@@blckbeauty4406 except Walt never got outsmarted
@@bait5257 He was, by Hank, Jessie and Gomez. They lured him to show where he buried the money barrels
Which pretty much got him killed at the end
THIS IS MY OWN PRIVATE DOMICILE AND I WILL NOT BE HARASSED
BITCH!
Walt: 😧
Be-atch!
Walt: 🤨
@@HeX341 I'm glad that "BITCH" has almost half the likes the head comment has. Really shows you that most of us have the same mentality to comment "Bitch"
Hank: You really own this place?
Old Joe: I could own this place.
You're disturbing my oboe practice.
lmao YESS. BB and Friends crossover. Great work dude
😂😂
@@acydneon you don't play the oboe
I loved the genius of this subtle reference
I'm glad Mr. Heckles never died. He just opened a junkyard
Yeah given his apparent constitutional expertise (and his clear wisdom/intellect), it wouldn't surprise me if he was just as adamant as Walt that the _magnet escapade_ couldn't be traced back. And I believe that was his last involvement.
@@carlhartwell7978 he’s in the El Camino movie
@@DLHarv I did take that into consideration when I wrote it. But I wouldn't say he was _involved_ during El Camino, the low jack was activated mere moments before Joe fled, and when I say _involvement_ I meant in a way that he could possibly be caught. He didn't involve himself in El Camino in such a way as he could be caught...that's why I left that occurrence out.
Hope his cat Buh Buh.. Buttons is alive too...
The guy served time. In Alcatraz. Next to Clint Eastwood. All for stealing raisins from Jerry Seinfeld.
The fact that Joe only showed up about 5 minutes before this scene with no other info and immediately got involved to help is amazing lol
He just showed up to destroy the vehicle so as far as he’s concerned he wasn’t even in the frame for doing anything wrong
200th pile
*Like
To Walt he seems like a hero, but to everyone else he just enabled a villain.
He hates Cops trying to fuck over people by breaking the Law they supposedly uphold
I love how he added BITCH at the end lmao
Lmaooo bro i fucking died when he added that 😂😂😂
And Walt's reaction to it😂
That's his character thorough and through.
Adding single line of code to code you copied from stack overflow
Hank: "what are you, a lawyer??"
Joe: "I could be a lawyer"
I love how Jesse hypes himself up before shouting at Hank 😂
Kinda like when he's in front of that house, rehearsing "Where's my money, bitch?" ;)
The "... -Bitch!" Gets me every time lmao
Me too LOL 🤣🤣🤣
Not to mention Walter's reaction. That is gold :)
And the look of Walter to Jessie as if he says WTF with his eyes 😂😂
Hank was so pissed that a junkyard owner took him to school and called him out for breaking the law😂😂
Out of all the entirety of Breaking Bad, this scene was one of the most nerve-racking to watch. The way Walt is desperately trying to hold the door shut with his brother-in-law tries to pry it open with a fucking tire iron. Jesus christ, I can't take it. And once again, he gets them out of it by the skins of their teeth. Some riveting shit, mane.
BB did it the best. Getting characters into impossible situations. I remember pausing the episode and thinking how they could get out of this... I couldn't think of any way. Then it was exciting to see Walter thinking of a way. Vince Gilligan told on Conan that, they often paint themselves into a corner and his brilliant writers will figure out a way!
Can you imagine if hank got that door opened?? He would have shit himself, as would have walt.
@@cultclassic999 yeah the only thing that could be argued thats better would be either The Wire or the sopranos. But all 3 are definitely the top 3 shows of all time. BB is number 2 for me, 3 is the sopranos and number one would be the wire. The wire is just so damn good.
Old Joe: "Well until your boys bring that warrant on a "satin pillow' you are, thus far, on MY property without MY permission to be here. You dont just get to sit here and wait for the warrant to come. So scramola" they really didnt need to involve Marie
Stole my comment....
@@rogergarrison4271
Yeah, but Walter and Jesse were in the RV so I don't think they would do that.
Hank could probably still watch the rob from outside, even if he couldn’t it would be difficult for Walt to get out of there
I need to watch the episode again to see the set up but most junkyards have high fences. Longs hes not allowed to be right up on it, should be ok to slip out
texas thunder it would still be difficult to get away from the junkyard without hank seeing. While he is waiting outside, he would almost certainly try to scout the perimeter to see if Jesse tries to run. Walt being a 51 year old cancer patient, isn’t the most nimble
This is one of my favorite scenes of this show
That dude was amazing in flexing his rights
Something that most people that 'try doing' are not. They either have the law completely wrong or are just spouting absolute jibberish... and then scream/holler and act like an idiot when arrested.
I guess it’s goodol
Hank, His name is hank
That's ASAP Schrader to you
@@hasan_z A$AP Schrader
His name is ASAC Schrader and you can go fuck yourself.
Creed?
@@abolishious Guys his name is not Hank it's something like........Hey.....chief.
The way he says, "oh, there's somebody in there. " It cracks me up everytime.
Director: this is my own private domicile and I will not be harassed.
Action!
Bryan Cranston: (whispers) this is my own private domicile and I will not be harassed.
Aaron Paul: This is my own private domicile and I will not be harassed .... BITCH!!!!!
Brbaception
The attention to detail in this is show is incredible
The junkyard guy is the same actor that took the raisins in Seinfeld when he played Kramer in the pilot
He was also the airport cop in Home Alone who Kate McCallister was talking to. He was the cop on the phone eating the donut. Lol
Downstairs neighbor in early seasons of Friends.
Carl from Billy Madison also
This whole scene demonstrates the degree of off beat attitude and amoral actions that would lead Hank to attack Jesse .Very well written .
Now I want a full blow Legislative analysis of Breaking Bad .
The bullet holes Hank rips off foreshadow Walts shot he took when he died
Bezza 03 thanks for the spoiler
@@wardaddy6374 why you on youtube searching Breaking Bad. Just watch it, then go on youtube 💁♂️
Bezza 03 I did, this was the last episode I watched and this scene was hilarious
@@wardaddy6374 Excuse me, Mr. Bear. This show ended in Sept of 2013. Its a little hard to find spoiler complaints valid when we've had THAT long to watch the whole series. Lol
Mrodgt exactly. I just finished watching BB for the first time and made sure not to peep at the comments till I was finished.
3:13 I thought Vince was trying to foreshadow Walt's possible death
well maybe, the first ray of light goes exactly to where walt got shot in the finale.
he was
bravo vince
Bravo Vince
YEAH!!! I thought the same
Imagine if Old Joe never came lol
Nothing would happen.
Well then he'd not have children and grandchildren
"See the look on his face? He's an actor."
MusicalSavior23 LOL
Bruh 😂😂
VERY informative analysis of a tension building scene in an iconic show! Everyone should watch this at least 3 times!
Do you have a warrant to post this?
he's got probable cause
@@rishav4343 probable cause refers to a vehicle by my understanding
@@rishav4343 traffic stops and what not
I have to return some videotapes
@@kylepatrick253 see those round rubber things? those are wheels
When Hank takes the tape off, the light shines in through the bullet holes on to Walt's stomach. Where does Walt get wounded in the last episode again?
walt got shot from his machine gun on series finale. crazy 8 and his cousin shot the RV door on end of season 1 ep 1.
Foreshadowing at it's finest
Arl Grmes I think it’s just a coincidence
It's like pottery
Arl Grmes Whoa.
This is such a great video for so many reasons. Besides this being so pragmatic and made so digestible with cultural references, it also highlights the depth of research that the creators of this show went to and their commitment to realism for the sake of their art. And the commentary on Hank (the cop) is pretty even-handed, given that he's pretty much the villain of this - and many other - scenes.
Hank isn't the villain, he's main antagonist of the show. Villains are evil, Hank is good but is still antagonist as he opposes main protagonist
@@PolishGod1234 I don't agree that calling him a villain implies he's evil - he's Walt's foil in so many scenes, making him the opposition. And he sure as shit ain't the main antagonist - Breaking Bad is a story of Walt's war against himself, not Hank, not Gus, not Tuco, not Uncle Jack. It's Walt's own ego that stacks the dominoes in such a way that he takes a bullet to the gut.
@@michellelies villain means a legit bad/evil person who's an enemy of protagonist. Walt's ego is just Walt being Walt, Hank is the main antagonist if you exclude Walter considering how Hank opposes Walt through almost entire show.
Commitment to realism? This show's good and all but it's so far from being realistic
@@masterknife8423 it is realistic in most aspects. But there are some scenes which are quite unrealistic as well
This is the moment junkyard man becomes Heisenberg
I love how this guy is showing two meth cooks avoiding being caught by the DEA to exemplify lawful use of the 4th/5th amendment
You should love it because if the presumption of innocence and their individual rights are not protected then neither will the rights of anyone else be, even when they are innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. For some reason, THAT part of the critical thinking equation always seems to be missing from people's way of looking at these situations.
I absolutely abhor everything that stems from and supports the "war on drugs" mentality, because it is one of the most prevalent and egregious excuses used by government actors to behave unconstitutionally. That said, I have no problem with actual criminals getting caught and prosecuted PROPERLY, which means with full respect to individual rights and the law. What I *DO* have a problem with are cops and prosecutors that think none of these rights or how they violate them actually matters as long as they get their man and make an arrest or get a conviction.
@@taooflaw8744 It was just a joke, in all honesty I didn’t fully read the comment but I’m sure your analysis of the amendment use is great I was just joking lol
@@gxdhabakkagw6268 I really was not trying to make it sound like I was attacking you or your comment. I was just pointing out how it actually ties into the whole point of why I made the video in the first place. Thank you for the comment and compliment. lol
This is one of the best comment chains i read, as well as one of the greatest videos i saw now
Great job Tao of Law
Even criminals have some rights.
That scene is realistic. More like real life.
yeah its pretty good
Jesse's first word's as a child: 4:12
Mr Heckles: This vehicle could be a private domicile
You owe me 4th & 5th Amendment
Lmao it always cracks me up when Hank drags the tire iron across the side trying to intimidate them like the twin drags the axe when trying to kill him lol
Old Joe had a criminal record back in New York City, from stealing raisins from an NBC office, in the mid 90's. He then attended the American Samoa University where he studied law. Unfortunately he had his license suspended (thats a long story...he was actually a pretty sharp lawyer) and finally ended up owning a junkyard. After retirement he chilled out in a Sandpiper seniors residence.
One of the best scenes in the whole series. Old Joe is a fucking god lol
4:16 Walters face like “Did you HAVE to add that last part?” Lmao 🤣 💀
Thanks for the help. Now I can finish my crime and punishment project in no time
To be honest, just as Hank did listen and go back to obeying the law by having a warrant come around to help him investigate, a phone call saying that Marie was in hospital drove him away.
I have jus realised that junkyard guy is mr.heckles downstairs from FRIENDS
Yes
o shit; Monica and Rachel neighbor
At least he finally got to be on a good show
What’s also pretty funny in this scene is how Walt is just feeding Jesse the lines. 😆
Pretty good assessment. Concealing the weapon before approach is easily articulated as officer safety and certainly doesn't amount to premeditation. Any type of manipulation to the "domicile" by Hank is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. That said in this type of case Hank would have to pray he could adequately articulate facts to sway a judge. Even without that Hank would be well within his rights to continue to observe the "domicile" while awaiting the search warrants approval. Granted he would most likely have to conduct said observation from off property which may have prevented view in which case he'd have to hope for a climbable tree nearby or rent a bucket lift to maintain visual contact. As for advising people to fight back against any officer of the court or federal agent I would advise against that in the strongest possible terms. You lose the battle but win the war in court and most likely via 7+ figure civil right's lawsuit.
4:18 Walter's face when Jesse says bitch!
PLEASE MAKE MORE OF THESE! Will help fund this and even give a streaming platform if needed.
Carl Alphonse left Madison Hotels in a scandal and bought a junkyard
Aw hell yeah. Now I have new lines to use when talking to the in laws.
Sometimes It Be Like Dat that gave me a good laugh. Nice.
@@ocifer update: i used the line, and they somehow hate me. I wonder what upset them.
I never knew that the junkyard owner is also Carl in the movie Billy Madison, he looks so much different here.
Such a simple and fantastic way of explaining this. This is what some people don’t understand about “probable cause.” It’s why “drug sweeps” at schools are totally illegal and unconstitutional. Cops wouldn’t know that drugs are in somebody’s car unless they take the dogs around. What reason do they have to take the dogs around? That’s fishing for probable cause. It’s not readily apparent
Who else remembers watching this scene the first time?? Chills!
Some of the people you at least expect to be super smart are always around us. People ask why is he a junkyard guy? Well if he's super intelligent who are we to question his motives?
It's a good thing they got an RV instead of a bus or van
This is my one of the favourite episodes of the series. Bitch! 😂
The added 'bitch' from Jesse was cherry on the top of Walt's masterfully baked legal argument cake
This is the moment vehicles became domiciles.
@Nate Steere - Just an FYI, but a "vehicle," by its very definition, is a self-propelled device used to engage in COMMERCIAL USE of the roads and highways for PRIVATE PROFIT OR GAIN. The term "vehicle" DOES NOT and NEVER DID mean "every device traveling upon the roads that is self-propelled." If it DID mean that, then THAT is how the legislatures of the various states would have defined it don't you think??
.
I know, I know, of course you don't, because that kind of thinking requires actual KNOWLEDGE found ONLY by the READING AND STUDYING of the actual laws and their history dealing with the subject of "motor vehicles" and "transportation" in order to be fully understood. And who has that kind of time and mental focus these days, not you, cops, lawyers, judges, government officials, and self-serving bureaucrats in general, right?
.
You say "This is the moment vehicles became domiciles." Well, how is this moment any different than the one where some judge without a clue made a ruling that merely APPEARED to convert an individual right into a government granted privilege to engage in a licensable business/occupation that most individuals traveling upon the roadways in their private conveyances are not actually engaged in, and never were?
.
As Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) wrote, "It is better to be silent and thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
@@taooflaw8744 "This is the moment when x became y" is a breaking bad meme. There are several examples of it in the comments on this very video.
There was no need to insult my education or intelligence.
@@njsteere - And I was in no way trying to personally insult you. My point is directed at the uses of the TERMINOLOGY that is so often used to obfuscate the legal difference between terms defined by and used IN LAW versus that same term's meaning and usage in common and ordinary language.
.
My intent is to show how the term "vehicle" has a completely different and LIMITED meaning when used in reference to a given LAW than it does when used by layman in daily conversations, while at the same time, showing how people usually speak and think that these two meanings and uses of such terms are interchangeable when they really are not.
.
So, as I said, my goal was not to insult you personally, but merely to highlight that the use of certain terms does not always mean what one thinks it does, especially across all contexts. A concept that I have had to break down and explain to cops and attorneys over and over again through the years because most of them are too simple and singularly minded to grasp the concept and real-world distinctions.
.
.So, my sincere apologies if that is how you took my comment. I spend my days trying to educate as many people as possible on subjects like this so they can learn what the cops, attorneys and judges simply refuse to discuss and accept if they can avoid it. Mainly because it proves that most of them are truly incompetent at what they do and in what they only THINK they know and understand.
.
But because of over two decades of time invested in doing this I tend to be rather blunt and to the point when discussing such things and may not always be clear that there is nothing personal in the exchange. At least, not from my intentions, as I do not tend to verbally attack someone unless I have already been attacked. I'm just very blunt and direct in my responses.
Amazing camera work when Hank pulls off the tape, and the sunlight hits Walter in the chest
Huh. There’s somebody in there. 😂
Things really took a turn for Joe between Billy Madison and Breaking Bad.
Classic scene along with some well done analysis on it. Good job!
Shit man, I didn’t even realise the window part. Really nice subtle touch
When he takes off the first tape the light hits Walter in the same spot he got shot in the end. foreshadowing?
No, unshadowing...
One of my favorite scenes of the show
“these round rubber things” Hank, are actually Tyres.
pause at 3:11 (spoiler alert)
the placement of the first hole light on walter was the exact part where he shot himself in the end
Low key wanna have this guy in BCS as a lawyer
This was one of my favorite series.
Actually hank did have probable cause as the RV was stolen, combos mom even admitted it was stolen
Yeah, I didn’t think of that. He did have it didn’t he 🤔
The problem with that statement is that it was NEVER reported as stolen by the owner. As such, there was no "stolen vehicle" report as supporting evidence of a crime that would serve to establish probable cause for Hank to search or seize it, which, as a federal officer, he would not have any authority and jurisdiction to do under the existing circumstances.
The mother's statement that it was stolen would not have been enough since Hank lacked legal jurisdiction to act on a state-based crime where there was no evidence of the crime itself extending across state lines so as to invoke any level of federal jurisdiction. He only had a SUSPICION that this COULD be the RV he was looking for and that it was involved in the manufacturing of meth, but no actual facts or evidence that would support a warrant to seize and search it as such.
@@taooflaw8744 yeah you’re right.
@@taooflaw8744 I love how well versed you are about this stuff
@@Krawna Thank you, I do my best.
I thought this was a meme video, yet I'm extremely satisfied with the content. Subscribed!
Very good analysis of this scene, really breaks down how there are bad and/or criminal intentions done by both sides in this show
“Damn it! Now I have to go out and do some work instead of not doing anything by the book!”
I've been sent here from the channel Audit The Audit.
They did a video talking about the same scene and what's true or not about the legality (or lack thereof) of Hank's actions.
Your video was pretty good and wish you would do more of them, if you are able to.
Anyways, thank you and cheers from France! 🍻🇫🇷🇺🇸
Can you link the video?
Jesse's like, "That sounds too much like how Mr. White talks. I know. I'll add a 'bitch' at the end."
Hey man I really hope you make more video like this one. It's really edutaining. Thanks!
Cop tries to break into rv and learns a valuable lesson
Btw, cool video, one of those things that you'd only see on good old youtube.
3:13 these bullet holes foreshadow Walt’s death.
This was the first time I actually felt sorry for Hank 😄
I remember watching this scene for the first time and almost shitting my pants.
How exactly are the bullet holes probable cause anyway? Pretty sure there are no laws against discharging a legally owned firearm at the door of your vehicle. Doesn't make the vehicle non-roadworthy. If a man wants to shoot the door of his vehicle that's his own business
I wish the uploader responded to this.
Well, Jesse is trying to avoid being arrested. “Fabricate” is stretching it... we are all resisting arrest to one degree or another.
When speaking with a police officer, always make sure you end your statements with "bitch". That'll show em' who's boss.
Too bad that if a cop draws on you, and you defend yourself, there's no court in the country that won't take the cop's side and no police department in the country that won't stick behind their officer and his lie about probable cause.
This is the moment Joe became Charles Mcgill
great video, you deserve more views
I've incorporated the use of the word "domicile" in to my everyday speech.
@Tao of law. Do you have any other law breakdowns of movie clips? Also, remember any other "abuse of rights," moves by cops in this show? Or in other shows?
Pick pretty much ANY made-for-TV or reality show and you can find all the rights violations you could hope for in pretty much any given episode. One of the WORST I've seen about warrantless searches and such is "Criminal Minds." Pretty much EVERYTHING the FBI BAU Unit does to locate their TV serial killer is highly unconstitutional and illegal. And that's just one show. It is MY personal theory that these shows are more about mental grooming of the population to accept the idea that the ends ALWAYS justify the means when it comes to government doing what IT perceives as "the right thing" than it actually is about DOING the right thing and protecting the people and their individual rights in EVERY respect, not just their physical safety.
This was the moment Walt became Heisenberg
I love how big of a smart ass Hank is 😂
Who is here, after the new trailer?
I am too!
That was 7 months ago?!
4:25 Hank basically confessed to breaking & entering since he's saying "You want your warrant?" If things didn't go differently, i.e Hank beating up Jesse next episode and Hank getting targetted by the Salamander cousins, Jesse could've filled a lawsuit of breaking & entering against Hank.
4:12 You came here for this.
The 'bitch' is very essential in exercising your 4th and 5th amendment rights
If you live in your car does that technically mean police need a warrant and not just probable cause to search the vehicle?
If only it worked like that right
I guess if it is on private property and it is not registered at the DMV thus has no license plates could be.
If you use your car to get around and happen to live in it or be on public grounds I don't think this applies.
But then again don't they need a warrant to even be on private property against your will anyway besides if a crime was committed or smth.
I dont think so. Since it is technically property that can move it would not make sense to need a warrant. Similar to how they can search your car after stopping you for anything suspicious
@@joshuacarmona7642 They cannot they need probable cause for example if they would smell weed or see a fire arm in the car by looking through the window
See the comments exchanged between myself and "Blue Line RV Adventures" within the last two days on exactly that subject.
Fun fact: Look closely and you might recognize joe from adam sandlers movie billy madison! He played Carl
I think crazy carl is right
Oh my fucking god XD
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh mann. Hahahhaha LOLLL..this has me laughing so hard
Crazy Carl for president
unfortunately, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applies to mobile homes, such as an RV. see California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985). also the fact that it's in a scrapyard and the occupant isn't known to the owner of the scrapyard more or less dispels any notion that it's being used as a domicile. so Hank didn't need a warrant. all he needed was probable cause.
I've already answered this observation once before, so here we go again. In Carney the court specifically stated "These reduced expectations of privacy derive not from the fact that the area to be searched is in plain view, but from the pervasive regulation of vehicles capable of traveling on the public highways. Cady v. Dombrowski, supra, at 440-441. As we explained in South Dakota v. Opperman, an inventory search case:
.
"Automobiles, unlike homes, are subjected to pervasive and continuing governmental regulation and controls, including periodic inspection and licensing requirements. As an everyday occurrence, police stop and examine vehicles when license plates or inspection stickers have expired, or if other violations, such as exhaust fumes or excessive noise, are noted, or if headlights or other safety equipment are not in proper working order." 428 U. S., at 368."
.
And herein lies the rub. The courts have ruled on the very real distinctions between those vehicles that are "regulated" and those that are not. However, the revenue stream that is lost by openly admitting that such a distinction exists was too much for the dishonest and statist-minded individuals in power. The distinction is drawn between those that are engaged in commerce and using the roadways as a PLACE OF BUSINESS versus the use of the roadways ONLY for one's own private personal business and pleasure.
.
A man by the name of Charlie Sprinkle sued then governor of California Ronald Reagan for allowing the state and local police agencies to ILLEGALLY enforce such laws upon the traveling public. He even named Nancy Reagan as a co-conspirator for laundering Reagan's paycheck as governor by spending it. The state of California cut him a deal that they would no longer enforce the commercial regulations against him if he would just drop his suit, which he did after they guaranteed him to be left alone.
.
The point being, the actual laws, and their original purpose and applicability have NOT changed over the years. Only the lies told to the public and perpetuated by the lower courts in treating both classes of automobile as if they are the same, which they legally are NOT. There is simply too much money to be stolen by defrauding the gullible public for any of them to ever openly tell the truth and end up in prison for their fraud. But if you do a little research on your own you just might find out that you HAVE been lied to about pretty much EVERYTHING relative to automobiles and the so-called laws regulating them. These laws operate more on the concept of "conventional wisdom" than upon the actual law itself and the required factual and evidentiary acknowledgment of these legal distinctions between the two legal classifications.
.
That all said, Hank STILL never had either reasonable suspicion OR probable cause to even enter the private property of the scrapyard, much less to try and break into *A* motor home he found parked there. Hank had NEVER seen the motor home traveling on the roadways nor ever seen it parked in different locations. This is the very first time he EVER laid eyes on it. He doesn't even know whether or not this is the SAME motor home, because he had no license plate number for the one recorded on video at the gas station. He doesn't even know if THIS particular motorhome runs (and Carl specifically asks him about that fact). Most importantly, Hank had NEVER witnessed ANYTHING even remotely resembling a CRIME having occurred anywhere near or in THIS specific motorhome or on the grounds of the scrap yard.
.
Thus, even without the "not regulated" portion of the facts, Hank was STILL WRONG and acting ILLEGALLY in every possible way in this scene.
@@taooflaw8744 i didn't actually say he could search, just that he wouldn't require a warrant to do so. but i'm happy to get into this. i'm not gonna dig into the weeds of this whole commercial vs. non-commercial argument, nor the Charlie Sprinkles episode, because it has little bearing on whether evidence seized from a vehicle is going to get suppressed in real life. i will note that the real long-standing law enforcement rationale behind the automobile exception is that cars can move, and the courts don't want to make cops seek warrants to search things that are able to move. SCOTUS said as much in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), a case decided long before the rise of pervasive automobile regulations. SCOTUS later started bolstering this point with stuff about widespread regulations because they were living in a post-Katz world and they needed to find a way to shut down the argument that people had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cars. see Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). at any rate, what Carney teaches us is that in the realm of criminal procedure, cars are cars and we don't care if that's your home. the stuff you mention about how Hank doesn't know if it can move is not really relevant to the question of whether there's enough suspicion, but just whether he knew it was a domicile for 4A purposes. no court in the nation would say that a cop behaved unreasonably because he needed to wait for proof that the car could move before he could decide it wasn't a domicile. so that issue is moot.
the real issue here, though, is that constitutional law is fictional. 99% of Fourth Amendment law is about "reasonableness," which is defined by a group of conservatives who love the police. the justices decide what's reasonable, and they empower lower courts, as well as cops in their split-second decision-making capacity, to also determine reasonableness. they've done this time and time again, the end result being the bloated monster called qualified immunity. the Constitution is a nice tool for sometimes challenging the abusive behavior of feds like Hank when you get a sympathetic judge in front of you, but like any text, it's whatever the powerful say that it is, and it doesn't deserve to be fetishized. in reality, a federal district court loaded with federalist society wingnuts would probably think there was at least reasonable suspicion to order Jesse out of the RV here, if not full blown probable cause, based on Hank's prior investigations and surveillance of Jesse. Hank's confidence in this reality is demonstrated by the fact that he ultimately bothers to seek a warrant. you can't get a warrant without probable cause. he knew a magistrate would rubber stamp his behavior and declare that probable cause was present. you could call that illegal, but it's not really illegal because the law is determined by politics and power dynamics, and it always will be.