Mt. juliet police department
The reason that police officer asked you to get out of your car was a power trip and it made his ego feel bigger.
This gentleman just exposed what the public is up against and certainly is NOT the treatment we pay for. The fact that this supervisor can NOT be honest just further highlights the problem with cops.As soon as a cop says, this isn’t a courtroom. You’ve proved they have no case.Really good way he went about doing this, instead of arguing with the supervisor he told him to talk to the cop who didn’t explain to him what he did wrong. This is a perfect interrogation question.There was no reason for this man to get out of his car for a simple traffic stop. This supervisor is covering for this copThe cop was angry because you used your rights to not talk and to record. So he had to do a power play and pull you out of the car. The cops can’t explain it any other way. Because we can….FTPYou decided to exercise your right and that’s suspicious to usI LOVE how you turned their “officer safety” around on them!!When an officer is vain enough to say I don’t care, they should automatically be liable to pay out of their pay for any lawsuits that come of the situation. They’re use to citizens paying for their mistakesHe was pulled out because this vet didn’t lick the cop’s boots. It’s their way of bullying and exerting power over citizens that don’t kiss their asses.Like you said this is why there is a disconnect with the public and the police. Their ego over the law.EXERCISING OUR RIGHTS IS NOT SUSPICIOUS!Why is he so clearly annoyed by a member of the public exercising his 1st amendment right to free press while he interacts with the officer. Honestly it’s infuriating to see a Public Servant annoyed at a citizen using rights. How unprofessional. Clear conduct unbecoming of an officer. Very rude and unprofessional.You’re a very smart individual the way you manipulated that. You wanted to know so you don’t do that again was a genius move.👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽Absolutely it was harassment there was no reason to pull him out of the car. That cop knows it anyone who watched this video knows it.We can all clearly see he was butt hurt and wanted to some how gain back power.He asked him to get out of the vehicle because he was hoping the man would refuse so then he could tase him, drag him out, and arrest him. All because he didn’t like the man invoking his 5th amendment rights!Nice job with maintaining your composure while our public servants did not! This is a good example of egotistical tyranny in our cities. They earn the respect the get.This gentleman is lucid, coherent, and makes good points. The officers should be embarrassed by their behavior and their ‘copsplaining’…Isn’t it interesting how they always say “I don’t mind you recording its already being recorded by myself, that officer over there and this officer” what they DON’T tell you, is that you will have to PAY for THEIR recordings and that they will redact anything that shows them acting unlawfully.“You can do what you want to but you are gonna stand over there if I tell you to stand over there” ahhh, the double think and speak of a tyrantIt’s weird how some cops freak the f*** out if you get out of your vehicle on your own during a traffic stop because of “officer safety” … yet when they want to really assert their authority, they will demand you get out of your vehicle. Cops always tell you they are recording via their body cams, yet they get very defensive and confrontational when you (we) record them, because they only want ONE recorded version of the incident. They can mute their body cams on the spot, lose (delete) the footage when it’s requested. Any cop worth his weight would never, ever mind being recorded during any interaction with a member of the public. Ego should never play a part in how a cop performs his duties.Cop got butt hurt do he had to show you who’s in charge. By pulling you out of the vehicle. BTW, never let a public servants to speak to you with an attitude. Especially being a veteran. 12:08 cop “you’re going to stand over there if that’s what I tell you to do”. That should’ve set you off. Law enforcement has no authority over you!So I guess exercising your constitutional rights in the presence of a law enforcement officer is now a form of Defiance , or their absolute favorite saying , Uncooperative….We all know that the driver was pulled out of the vehicle in order for the officer to passively control what the driver’s camera was able to witness.LT has zero authority to tell this free citizen where to freaking stand if he’s not being detained. Absolutely ridiculous behavior.What’s amazing to me is the cop showed Zero respect for the Veteran and treated him like an enemyYou go boy all I got to say is BOOOOM . He turned it all around when he asked that supervisor what he did wrong to make the officer feel unsafe.“you’re gonna stand right there if that’s what I tell you to do” who do these people think they are? Bloody low livesJust imagine if we could treat cops the way they treat us.“If you wanna go to court on it” That’s the truth right there, they KNOW the justice system is broken and KNOW they have zero accountability. “We do what we want, don’t like it, take it to court where the system will chew you up” “You’ve already filed your complaint” lol, yeah sure he was going to file paperwork on that and start an investigation.
15:22 This is where the “supervisor” misquotes and thus misunderstands the SCOTUS ruling. Police have a wide range of description in where they conduct a traffic stop based on “officer and detained individual safety”. The auditor points out the officer has abused his entrusted authority to use this description as a bully tactic which is not related to officer (or detained individual) safety. It’s a far too common practice which needs to be eliminated in order to regain public trust in law enforcement.Pennsylvania v Mimms says an officer can ask u to step out for “officer safety”. Not just because a cop “feels like it” or “wants u to”.And still none of those Sovereign Citizens with Badges and Guns has given a REASON for why a Docile Law Abiding Citizen made that Supposedly trained and qualified Officer “feel unsafe”, and yet STILL failed to ensure his safety with a pat down. Because it obviously WAS a tactic to instill fear and blind obedience to his Tyranny. It’s also extremely disappointing to see the other two completely ignore their own oaths to the Law and Constitution. Bully with a Badge, afraid the camera is going to document his distain for the Citizens who pay his salary.15:20 the Corporal said is doesnt matter what he calls it! Oh! I very much DOESNT matter because when that deprivation of rights lawsuit comes and the other cops qualified immunity is on the line the jury will have to decide what a OTHER reasonable officers would have done in that same situation!“Cause I wanted to” isn’t a lawful reason to require someone to exit their vehicle. That’s something that is lawful for officer safety but “cause I wanted to” isn’t an officer safety thing.The only reason he was asked to get out was to intimidate him for saying he wasn’t going to answer questions, as his right. That was the only reason.Mimms v PA says they can pull you from the car if they fear for their safety. That’s it. Not because they “feel like it”
Refusing to participate in presidential debates is a symptom of the Republicans’ embrace of authoritarianism
“This is insane. Why.” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) tweeted about the news that the Republican National Committee will require candidates for America’s highest office to pledge to not participate in debates run by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
The nonprofit commission, which has organized the debates for 30 years, is bipartisan. That’s a big problem for the GOP, which is now an authoritarian party that has withdrawn its support for bipartisan rule and democratic institutions. In vacating the debate stage, the Republicans are mimicking autocratic heads of state like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Debates between presidential candidates enact the democratic principle of mutual tolerance: the notion that those who don’t share your political views have a right to free expression. The public hears an exchange of views by two individuals who are on equal footing and bound by the same rules, which are enforced by an impartial arbiter.
This is anathema to the authoritarian mindset. Personality cults posit the leader as a man above all others, and the egalitarian staging and format of debates make them dangerous to his brand. Since authoritarians sustain their power through disinformation, threat, and corruption (including fixing elections) who knows what might be exposed if they submit to spontaneous questioning by a rival or a third party?
Putin, who came from an intelligence background into politics, understands this well. He set the tone for 21st century illiberal rulers when he refused to debate his opponents during a 1999-2000 presidential race marked by the resumption of Russia’s war with Chechnya and a series of apartment building explosions that were devastating for Russians but conveniently timed for the emergence of his strongman persona.
Avoiding debates became a feature of Putin’s rule over the next 20 years as he built a kleptocracy founded on secrecy and the silencing of rivals. In 2012, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed that taking time for debate would “impede his ability to carry out his duties”– which is true given that the main goal of Putinism is not governance but thievery.
Russian opposition parties have unsuccessfully lobbied for years to change election laws to require all candidates for parliament or the presidency to participate in debates. Instead, Putin offers the public yearly live call-in shows in which he answers scripted questions.
Orbán, who is a Putin client, has followed Moscow’s lead. Sixteen years have passed since the Hungarian leader last agreed to debate a competitor. A poor performance in 2006, which contributed to his defeat to the incumbent Hungarian Socialist Party, soured him on the experience. A 2018 attempt by opposition politicians to amend election law to require presidential debates did not succeed.
Four years later, Orbán’s under more pressure. He may be the darling of the American far right, but he faces a challenge in the April presidential elections from a newly unified opposition. Six parties have come together to defeat what coalition leader Peter Márki-Zay calls a “corrupt dictatorship.”
Still, Orbán rejected the proposal by Márki-Zay, the opposition’s presidential candidate, to hold a debate. “To his followers, Orbán must always appear invincible,” autocracy expert Kim Scheppele Lane says, and the Hungarian leader feels he can rely on his system of electoral autocracy, where substantial control of the voting apparatus and the judiciary by the incumbent and his cronies helps to produce the outcome needed to stay in office.
These autocratic actions offer context for evaluating the GOP’s rejection of presidential debates. Trump signaled his break with American presidential debate customs early on: after Megyn Kelly grilled him during an August 2015 debate among contenders for the GOP nomination, he boycotted the next one, so as not to show weakness. And who can forget him shadowing Hillary Clinton in a menacing way during their October 2016 debate? “My skin crawled,” Clinton later wrote of that occasion.
By 2020, with four years’ experience in autocratic leadership, Trump was ready to use the debate experience to try to take down his adversary in a different way: He attended the Sept. 29 debate with Joe Biden knowing that he had recently tested positive for Covid-19, making his health status public only several days later. Putin, who silences critics with poison, likely approved of Trump turning a democratic ritual into an experiment in biological warfare.
With Trump as their cult leader, a coup attempt in their recent past (57 GOP officials participated in the rally that preceded the Jan. 6 takeover effort), and a mission to create an Orbán-like election subversion system, it’s no surprise that Republicans are abandoning the debate stage. When a party decides to rely on lies, corruption, and violence, it has too many secrets to face public questioning.
Autocrats see debates as risky, which is why they refuse to participate in them. It’s another sign of the GOP’s authoritarian turn that it’s decided to follow suit.
Its kind of odd, but I thought I felt at home in sunny Cali since I lived there from 2 years old. I didn’t realize that I didn’t really know what being home felt like, until I went to bootcamp for the Marines at age 20. I remember our first PFT, straggling in slow where the senior DI called a few of us out saying we weren’t going to make it. For the first time, I felt really at home and good because we were all the same in every way. It was strangely comforting. The senior DI kept asking for me every week to see if I was there. I made it, dropped 58–60 lbs, 300 PFT, and was yoked out. Senior DI Chavez gave me the firmest handshake at graduation and wished me well.
Fast forward to the age of 44. I lived a great life and experienced cool things all over as an American. I felt an ever bigger feeling of being “home,” once I visited S Korea for a short vacation. I rushed home, sold all, quit all, and severed most ties. I moved as quickly as I could and I’m 48 (Korean age) today! Bootcamp was the first, but this move was the most powerful. Everything and every part of me wanted to move back. It’s been fulfilling, amazing in timing, and I’m a new person. I consider this move to be the first, since it was so moving and meaningful for me. The Corps still has a part of my heart and loyalty, but the rest is with and in S Korea. I even enjoy hospital visits now.
LONDON — Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, bruised by scandal and faced with an alarming rise in coronavirus cases, is refusing to change course. “We have a chance,” he bullishly proclaimed on Jan. 4, “to ride out this Omicron wave without shutting down our country once again.”
Public health experts may disagree. Yet Mr. Johnson is at least being consistent — not only with his conduct throughout the pandemic, where lockdowns were a last resort and restrictions were to be shelved as soon as possible, but also with the political platform that elevated him to the highest office. After all, this is the man who rose to power — bringing about Brexit in the process — on the promise to restore “freedom” and “take back control.”
Undeterred by the pandemic, Mr. Johnson has been quietly pursuing that agenda. But instead of reforming the country’s creaking democracy and shoring up Britons’ rights, he and his lieutenants are doing the opposite: seizing control for themselves and stripping away the freedoms of others. A raft of bills likely to pass this year will set Britain, self-professed beacon of democracy, on the road to autocracy. Once in place, the legislation will be very hard to shift. For Mr. Johnson, it amounts to a concerted power grab.
It’s also an answer. Mr. Johnson is a political chameleon, and his true ideological bent — liberal? one-nation Tory? English nationalist? — has long been a subject of speculation. Now he has, beyond any doubt, revealed who he really is: a brattish authoritarian who puts his personal whims above anything else. And whatever his future, Britain will be remade in his image.
Amid the chaos wrought by the pandemic, Brexit tumult and increasing questions about the stability of Mr. Johnson’s individual position, the full scale of the impending assault on civil liberties has — understandably — not yet come into focus for much of the British public. The list of legislation is long and deliberately overwhelming. But pieced together, the picture is bleakly repressive.
First, there’s the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, a draconian and broad piece of legislation that effectively bans protest in England and Wales. The police would be equipped to shut down demonstrations that create “serious disruption.” Those who break this condition, which could be done just by making noise, would face prison sentences or hefty fines. Combined with other measures, such as outlawing traditional direct-action tactics like “locking on,” the bill could eventually make it almost impossible to attend a demonstration without committing an offense.
Yet it goes beyond protest, putting minority groups in the cross hairs. New trespass provisions, which make “residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle” a criminal offense, would essentially erase nomadic Gypsy, Roma and Traveler communities from public life. And the expansion of police powers would not only allow officers widespread access to private education and health care records, but also pave the way for suspicionless stop and search. Ethnic minority communities, disproportionately singled out for police attention, are likely to bear the brunt of such overreach.
Similarly punitive is the Nationality and Borders Bill. Stiffening Britain’s already hawkish immigration policy, it seeks to criminalize asylum seekers who take unsanctioned routes: Refugees who arrive by boat, for example, could face up to four years in prison, regardless of the validity of their claim for safe haven. And if claimants escape traditional jail, they would be kept in concentration camp-style housing and offshore processing centers, sites long denounced by human rights activists.
Not even British citizens are safe from the dragnet. A provision slipped into the bill in November by its architect, the home secretary, Priti Patel, would endow the government with the power to remove British citizenship from dual nationals without notice. Those singled out might not even have recourse to the law: Proposed reform of the Human Rights Act would make it easier for the government to deport foreign nationals and deny them claims of mistreatment.
Such draconian measures, in time, are sure to be contested. But the government has a plan for that: draining the life blood from democracy. There’s the Elections Bill, which — alongside potentially disenfranchising millions through the introduction of mandatory voter ID — aims to furnish the government with new powers over the independent elections regulator, sealing up the political process. Unless substantially amended, the bill’s consequences could be constitutionally far-reaching.
The urge to centralize power also underlies the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which would enable Mr. Johnson and his ministers to overrule judicial review findings that challenge their agenda. The Online Safety Bill, ostensibly designed to regulate Big Tech, is yet to be introduced to Parliament. But many free-speech advocates fear that it could be used to silence critics on social media, censoring those reporting details Mr. Johnson’s government would rather keep from public view. No more pesky judges or overly inquisitive journalists interfering with government business.
It’s a truism that nations sleepwalk into tyranny, and England — the most politically powerful of the nations comprising Britain — is no exception. For decades it has possessed all the necessary ingredients: ever more spiteful nationalism, press fealty sold to the highest bidder and a fervent, misplaced belief that authoritarianism could never set up shop here, because we simply wouldn’t let it.
In this event, though, concerted opposition to Mr. Johnson’s plans has not materialized. Establishment politics have been no match for the determination of Mr. Johnson and his allies: A hefty and largely supportive Conservative majority means that even when the Labour Party has decided to oppose legislation, its votes have barely counted. And despite valiant efforts by a coalition of grass-roots groups and the initial groundswell of the “Kill the Bill” protests, a mass movement opposing these bills has failed to come together. Instead, a miasma of grim inevitability has settled in.
That’s dangerous, not least because this authoritarian assault is so comprehensive that once settled as law, it will prove very tricky to unpick. Like many leaders who seek to transcend the constraints of democracy, Mr. Johnson may not foresee a future where he isn’t the one calling the shots. But the miserable shadow his power grab will cast over Britain is likely to last far longer than the tenure of the would-be “world king” himself.
His place in the history books, however, is secured. He will forever be the libertine whose pursuit of personal freedom and “control” saw his countrymen robbed of theirs.
i’m honestly astounded by again theprescience um that you wrote becausepart of the crisis in handmaid’s talestarted with an attack on on congressand and the the you know the falloutfrom that i mean here all these decadeslater in 2021we had an attack on congress and thereare many who believe that thefundamental democracy of the unitedstates is under threat so what doestotalitarianism look like in the u.sor couldwhen when it arrivesuh well it’ll have a lot of god in itum and a lot of things will be done inthe name of of said worduh that if you actually uh believe insome form of god and in the in the uhlatter part of that book uh you wouldthink that such a god would notindulge in these practices i’m beingvery circumlocations hereum yeah so it would have a lot of godand it would have a lot of americanflags in itand it would have a lot of let’s getback to the old days in itwhen were those old days and what wasgoing on in themso you can’t separate anything thathappens in the united states fromuh its history of uh slaveryand umso-called reconstruction and and jimcrow laws and segregation that’s allvery recentsoi think the totalitarianisms of the leftlead through hopeso things are going to get much betterexcept we have to get rid of thosepeopleand those of the right to lead throughfearunless you follow me and do what i sayterrible things will happenand there’s a list of terrible thingswhich are specific to eachcircumstance but i wouldn’t say that’show it goesdon’t you think well it’s fascinatingagain i mean just reallyjust watching all of this unfold thingsthat i personally never dreamed couldhappen uh an attack on americandemocracy of all places rolling backquote unquote the woman question umwhich we see right now and again goes tothe very heart of the handmaid’s taleand that of course i don’t need to tellyou the texas abortion law themississippi uh abortiondecisions that are about to come up theidea that roe versus weighed may beoverturned either in whole or in parthow well i mean you obviously areconcerned did you ever imagine thoughthat when you wrote the handmaid’s talethis amount of reality would shape up somany decades laterokay i’ve never believed inexceptionalismi’ve never believed it can’t happen here[Music][Music]you