re: POS cop begs judge for mercy at sentencing

quote:

---

to put the girl's head through glass.

---

where in the vid did that happen ,, a timestamp.. approximate

thanks

quote:

---

Yea but they mistake in saying the cop has to articulate it to the suspect.

---

Well, that's because they do, assuming a citizen knows his rights. This isn't Bolshevik Russia: you can't walk up to someone not breaking a law and demand their papers else they go to the gulag.

quote:

---

While I do think it might be a good idea at times,

---

It's a good idea all the time, every time. In fact, it's an inalienable right, but if you're one of the ones who thought someone walking on the beach alone during covid was a perfectly reasonable, sane, and logical arrestable offense, then you'll most certainly disagree.

quote:

---

a lot of these first amendment auditors don’t think they have to comply before the cop explains his full reasoning. That’s not how it works.

---

That's exactly how it works; which is precisely why every single one where they're arrested, if constitutional law was followed by the citizen, winds up with charges being dropped and/or a lawsuit being won. It's really not up for debate on whether or not that's how it works: that's how it works, and that's how it should work.

I don't owe an agent of the state my government papers for simply existing and not breaking a law. Making a Karen uncomfortable is not against the law. Move to Great Britain or pretty much any other country on planet earth if you want that from a government.

quote:

---

Our heroes in blue at it again! Thank the good lord we have these brave, educated souls to keep us all safe!

---

People like you are retarded af and would be the first to call the cops when your panties got ruffled.

Your argument can be said for every industry under the sun:

Presidency
Doctors
Cops
Engineers

But continue on with your gotcha bro. Awesome!

It is if no crime has been committed, otherwise the bill of rights mean nothing.

Haha okay so you have no point. I’ve had multiple responses and you can’t bother to say what you were responding to.

I’ll take a guess then. You are saying that an officer has to give reasonable suspicion if no crime has been committed, which is a nonsensical statement.

Gotcha. I understand now. The first amendment auditor is not the one who determines if a crime has been committed. They can resist if they disagree, but if the court finds the officer has reasonable suspicion, then that’s that. And their resisting charge will be upheld. In that way, first amendment auditors often times steer their followers down a dangerous path that can lead to arrest.

quote:

---

The woman was drunk and belingerent but that didn't give the cop carte Blanche to put the girl's head through glass.

---

She went through glass? I saw him throw her onto a chair.

quote:

---

She went through glass? I saw him throw her onto a chair.

---

That's what I was wondering. I would like to see the full video without interruptions or the guy talking. Is there a link to this?

quote:

---

if the court finds the officer has reasonable suspicion

---

Over and over again you see the officer thinking suspicious behavior = reasonable suspicion. I think they honestly don’t understand it’s “reasonable suspicion of a crime.” The officer thinks they’re doing things the right way, by the book, because it’s how the officer was trained.

Why should someone give up a Constitutional right when they aren’t required to do so? Whenever I see one of those videos and the police say it’s not a big deal to give up your identity just to be cooperative, I cringe. If someone returns to that address later (including the angry officer) and throws a brick through a window, detectives are going to appear at the innocent person’s door in the morning and he’s going to want to hire a lawyer. All because he forfeited his rights.