Amazing ID Refusal – Extreme ego check

 

Original video https://youtu.be/S01EvBA0Y3U

 

  • This cop is an huge embarrassment to all law enforcement officers …he yells and screams at the citizen, but when he gets on the radio, or his own supervisor approaches, he completely changes his demeanor .

 

  • If I was sitting on a police review board I would recommend this officer for a psych test and retraining.
    I see 2 major issues here.
    1) His main job was to back up his partner.
    Hard to do that when your not backing up your partner.
    2) He took a supervisor away from her job.

 

  • He knew exactly what the law was and tried intimidation to get his way all he ended up doing was failing to do his job.

 

  • What a punk. There is no reason for this contact except to attempt to intimidate this photographer. He can ask all day and no one is obligated to give up their rights. These cops know the law and choose to ignore it because they can violate people’s rights with impunity.

 

  • “Did I ask you for ID?” The level of cowardess once his boss was there is amazing… She says “No, he explained to me pretty well”… What did he explain? Surely not told the truth. I’d pull up the bodycam footage and send it to her… is that what he explained to you pretty well? I guess not.

 

  • Yes they can ask for ID, but being told a dozen or so times” no”, is hardly vague. Asked and answered 12+ times. That’s attempted harassment and intimidation, grind you down til you (may) give in.
  • Cop wasn’t asking in a reasonable manner. He demanded it and only backed down when he was challenged. When anyone walks up to your face and makes loud demands it is clearly an act of intimidation. Simply put, what would the cops do if you walked up on them in the same manner?
  • At 4:00, The cop says, That’s the last time I’m going to ask you (for your ID). Then proceeded to ask him seven more times. The behavior of this cop is a prime example of narcissism.
  • So by the officer’s logic the photographer is creating a disturbance if he films them without identifying himself. And not creating a disturbance if he does identify. This cop has lost his shit, I really hope he watches this video and sees how stupid he sounds! Photographer your policy is to identify, officer yeah and your policy is, photographer I don’t have a policy, I’m dying over here. This cop is killing me, gunphones oh my God, we need more interaction with this officer.
  • “Blame shifting.” Thanks for the word for the concept of blaming an auditor for the chaos caused by the cop.
  • If she’s happy saying that’s just him maybe she knows he’s a bit unstable!

 

  • 16:12 – Isn’t that cute how he casually walked over to make sure he gets to give his side of the situation before the supervisor hears what’s going on? I can hear it now – ” He won’t give me his ID. He thinks he knows the law, Mr. Lawyer. He’s one of those “rights” guys.” Then the supervisor would say, “Alright. Well, I’ll try getting him and then he can go to jail with that attitude.”

 

  • This cop is a flagrant intimidator. What you prefer, he will violate. He tries to install a policy on your side, and then tells you he has “a right” to ask you for ID. This is true, but you have a right to decline. Now, back to the Constitution and your oath – what was that about rights? Officer safety is one form of blame shift. But they also use YOUR safety to direct you into what they want. They authorize themselves to have authority over you and “safety” is their way in, but they work each side to qualify your rights. Nothing this cam man is doing gives the cop anything to work with. This cop isn’t just bad. He’s outta date. Sounds like he took his test when the qualifications to be a cop were relaxed or set lower. Actually, he sounds like an a$sh*le. How’d you like having that voice in your ear, being his wife. Ugh…!

 

  • I understand that everyone is focused on the interaction between the cop and the cameraman but, I think the cop is there to distract the camera to him and off of the stop itself. I remember the guy auditing the military base and they got in his face, then he elevated the camera over their heads on a tele pole to eliminate them blocking the camera. They looked so lost at that point. It was great!
  • what do these police do so easily that makes them so afraid of cameras that they assign a designated distraction for videographers?
  • Amazing how you could have 20 people standing around a crime scene, but the police always approach the one with the camera.

 

  • Everyone including the auditor here seemed to forget that the officer did threaten with arrest and say that denying ID was a crime. They decided quickly to cover that misunderstanding up, and apparently the auditor forgot. It wasn’t just his aggressive demeanor. He outright lied with intention of intimidating this man into giving his name.
  • What’s crazy is cops like this get promotions instead of being fired like they should be

 

  • Always amazes me how much an ID can dispell all their suspicions.

 

  • The cop was so afraid of this guy that he turned his back on him, hilarious

 

  • I noticed that the way he talks into the radio and the way he talks to the citizen were very different. Listen to his voice.
  • 12:30 – So because the rare concern comes up, EVERYBODY is a suspect, everybody is potentially a criminal. Right? So this cop admitted they see each person as a threat – “you know how it is out there.” So, what? There is one in 40,000 who would harm a cop, and that increases with population. Now we find justification for how THE PEOPLE are treated, and rights are violated under an assumption that you are already something you aren’t yet. Same thing with this cop. You are exercising your rights, where you should be, and then he conveys what your lawful actions ARE into what he needs to make them, by context. Sorry, dumb cop. You can’t reassign an ‘action’ (toward intent) because laws can’t be installed to contravene the Constitution and our rights. See how “they” corrupt the view, the perspective? It’s less obvious these days but “they” still do it. “They” just don’t insist it the same way. After all, “what ate you gonna do about it?” Sue the cops, the department, the human.

 

  • Old video. But, when ever a cop wonders why you won’t provide ID, ask for theirs right back. “Are you trying to hide something?”

 

  • For someone concerned about his safety he sure is quick to turn his face away and look away when he talks on the radio.
  • OK, this cop is certifiably crazy! He has ranted for over a minute straight and says he is not the one creating a scene? Wow, denial ain’t just a River in Egypt.

 

  • Shoot.. classic roid-rage! Scary that there are folks like him walking around out there with badges and guns. Sad to see the lady cop put her head in the sand and cover for his obnoxious behavior. No good will come from protecting a guy like him. Next time he will cause bodily hard or perhaps kill someone and then what will she say… “no I don’t see a problem – he explained it to me and makes sense“? This guy is the type to get butt-hurt easily and I can see him planting drugs on people down the line or giving the next guy he comes upon a beating because that guy isn’t holding a camera phone… bummed to see this happen

 

  • Funny how he changed his story. Both of these cops are liars.

 

  • You see how his attitudes changed, now he’s trying to be friendly and laugh with the guy. When he came up aggressive. I can’t stand when the cops always think they’re right. That they know the law 100% even when time and time again they’re proven wrong. But they won’t ever change their ways cuz they investigate themselves and discipline themselves and they NEVER find wrong doing UNLESS it’s caught on camera and they damn near killed someone or beat the hell out of someone!

 

  • IF I were this officers Chief, I truly would tell this cop to calm down for his own good.
    He comes across as ineffective and hostile.

 

  • COP – “Ok, now that you’re filming me and everything, let me see your ID”.
    ME – But officer the only crime here is your haircut.

 

  • This is brilliant. The dude was so chill he deserves an award. Great to watch thankyou

 

  • I like this auditor. He sounds so relaxed. Like his sarcastic laugh aswel

 

  • It’s funny how he talks so normal to his sergeant but he was so loud and aggressive and raspy to the auditor

 

  • This is a perfect example of what’s wrong with law enforcement today, officers forget who they work for.

 

  • This guy HAS to be a former marine drill sgt. Just look at his stance, demeanor, hair and graveley voice. He is NOT used to being told no. Great job by the auditor standing his ground!

 

  • No, it’s ‘ not an ego, it’s training to look threatening. Police officers are trained to control every situation as the matter of their safety, and this is good example of this cop putting up a performance. He himself is clearly not that badass, but he is doing his best to perform the act – but has not enough in him to last long.
  • Camera guy handled that very well. Even made the cop laugh cause he realized how ridiculous his little rant was
  • I wouldn’t want to give him my ID based on the fact that he seems to be insane and I wouldn’t want an insane person with a gun and the ability to get away with murder to know where I live.
  • I thought he was only going ask one more time(liar). . More like he walked up on the man to try to intimidate. The auditor should have just not even talked to him, that would have drove that cop crazy. From what I’ve seen, cops have nothing but disdain for auditors, or anybody who doesn’t kiss their axxes
  • This cop did a GREAT JOB! …. Of distracting the auditor from recording the traffic stop.
  • Opinion: “Prior restraint” This is a “consensual conversation” devised by the cop to consume the time and attention of the camera operator, with the sole intention to distract from the event.

 

  • If you’re willing to risk it, put your hands in your pockets in this “non-detainment” Once the cop demands you remove your hands from said pockets do so. You have now complied with a show of authority, and you have now been detained. Thereby requiring him to explain to a judge why he detained you once you take them to court.
  • I have a problem.. the sgt drives up without her headlights on. I’d be concerned. You know for officer safety and probably the public too.

Recommended Dash Cam:

Sure, Now Ted Cruz and Kevin McCarthy Want ‘Unity’

Where was that spirit when election results were being counted?

The Republican Party has devised its response to the push to impeach the president over his role in the attack on the Capitol last week, and it is so cynical as to shock the conscience.

“Now the Democrats are going to try to remove the president from office just seven days before he is set to leave anyway,” said Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who voted with 146 other Republicans in Congress not to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election. “I do not see how this unifies the country.”

The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, also said that impeaching the president “will only divide our country more.”

“As leaders, we must call on our better angels and refocus our efforts on working directly for the American people,” McCarthy said in a statement given two days after he also voted not to accept the results of a free and fair election in which his favored candidate lost.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas helped lead the Senate attempt to object to Joe Biden’s victory. “My view is Congress should fulfill our responsibility under the Constitution to consider serious claims of voter fraud,” he said last Monday. Now, he too wants unity. “The attack at the Capitol was a despicable act of terrorism and a shocking assault on our democratic system,” he said in the aftermath of the violence, as calls to impeach the president grew louder and louder. “We must come together and put this anger and division behind us.”

I’m reminded, here, of one particular passage from Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 address at Cooper Union in Manhattan, in which he criticized the political brinkmanship of Southern elites who blamed their Northern opponents for their own threats to break the union over slavery.

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”

There are a handful of Senate Republicans, like Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who are open to impeachment. But much of the Republican response is exactly this kind of threat: If you hold President Trump accountable for his actions, then we won’t help you unify the country.

Or, as another Republican, Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, said on Twitter,

Those calling for impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment in response to President Trump’s rhetoric this week are themselves engaging in intemperate and inflammatory language and calling for action that is equally irresponsible and could well incite further violence.

These cries of divisiveness aren’t just the crocodile tears of bad-faith actors. They serve a purpose, which is to pre-emptively blame Democrats for the Republican partisan rancor that will follow after Joe Biden is inaugurated next week. It is another way of saying that they, meaning Democrats, shot first, so we, meaning Republicans, are absolved of any responsibility for our actions. If Democrats want some semblance of normalcy — if they want to be able to govern — then the price for Republicans is impunity for Trump.

House Democrats have already introduced their resolution to impeach the president, formally charging President Trump with “incitement of insurrection” for his role in the attack on the Capitol. There is still a ways to go in this process, but it is a stronger start than I expected. But there may still be some hesitation about taking the most aggressive stance, as evidenced by Majority Whip James Clyburn’s proposal to hold off on a trial until after the first 100 days of the Biden administration.

This would be a mistake.

There is no way past this crisis — and yes, we are living through a crisis — except through it. The best way to push forward is as aggressively as possible. Anything less sends the signal that this moment isn’t as urgent as it actually is. And as we move closer to consequences for those responsible, we should continue to ignore the cries that accountability is “divisive.” Not because they’re false, but because they’re true.

Accountability is divisive. That’s the point. If there is a faction of the Republican Party that sees democracy itself as a threat to its power and influence, then it has to be cut off from the body politic. It needs to be divided from the rest of us, lest it threaten the integrity of the American republic more than it already has. Marginalizing that faction — casting Trump and Trumpism into the ash heap of history — will be divisive, but it is the only choice we have.

This does not mean we must cast out the 74 million Americans who voted for the president, but it does mean we must repudiate the lies, cruelty and cult of personality on which Trump built his movement. It means Republicans have to acknowledge the truth — that Joe Biden won in a free and fair election — and apologize to their voters and to the country for helping to stoke the madness that struck at the Capitol.

The alternative is a false unity that leaves the wound of last Wednesday to fester until the infection gets even worse than it already is.