That escalated quickly, just because of some hearsay that there’s a suspicious person in the area.
Those cops scattered like roaches…once they realized they had been caught violating his rights. But NOT before trying to explain away their reasoning for their blatant rights violations. Imagine how this would have went down had the cops not been videoed. Makes one wonder how cops treat people who are NOT videoing. Wow. Wow. Wow.
“When we get a call….” Yeah, when you get a call, why not ask the caller what, exactly, he has seen and what crime he thinks he is reporting. “Hello 911? Like, there’s this guy and he’s walking down the sidewalk and he’s BREATHING and holding a phone and stuff. ” “Don’t worry, a SWAT team is on the way.”
Can we define Hypocrisy?
Police officers, who handcuff and detain a man because someone made a phone complaint, later tell the person they handcuffed to not accuse people of things they didn’t do!?!This is what Qualified Immunity has done to the Constitution of the United States. Police do not fear violating anyone’s rights now. Police can legally perform a Terry frisk on anyone they encounter, which is a simple pat down for weapons, they CAN NOT do any kind of search. That IS a violation of his 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. But notice, these cops don’t even blink, they regularly violate people’s rights so they think it is normal for them to do it.A man with a camera is treated like the most dangerous criminal today. Very scarey for cops who’ve never had true accountability.I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, this is the quality of officer you end up with when you do away with standards. These officers actually think what they did is perfectly legal, because they were scared. Wow, bring back minimum standards, please.
You need to give the cops a break. They are doing what they have been trained to do and how they were trained to do it. Every police officer involved in a shooting is told to (even after the shots are fired) yell the command drop the weapon or show me your hands repeatedly. That way they can testify under oath that they gave the command multiple times. In some cases witnesses said the officer made the command 11 times AFTER the shooting and then when asked in court if he gave the victim commands he said he told him eleven times to show me your hands. They are trained to lie and violate rights. What do you need to be a cop? A driver’s license and a GED. Until we raise the bar we will continue to get total crap for cops.
so if someone is just “suspicious” how about walking up to them and asking them politely what they are doing.. not surrounding them, guns drawn, screaming.
Officer safety, for your safety and mine. Red herrings! Cops do not say these things because their afraid, they say them as a pretence for them to violate your rights to assault you with legal standing. Same with “Get your hands out of your Pockets”. They don’t care if your hands are in your pockets or not. It’s a power play. They tell you to take your hands out of your pockets, you do, now your conditioned to follow their further directions. Suspicious is just an official sounding word that cops use to impress you when they don’t really have a reason, little own a good reason to stop and question you and in the hope that you will be intimidated enough to play by their rules and not the law nor the constitution. As seen here! When to really worry though is when cops say “stop resisting, relax or he’s going for my gun”. That’s when the cops are really going to hurt you or worse. Another nicely completed social experiment that these cops failed miserably at Floyd. Armchair Auditor out.
They didn’t do a pat down for weapons, they emptied his pockets hoping to find drugs. These thugs need to all be suspended and re-educated. Bring this to court.
She gets a call that you were acting suspicious and so she detained you because acting suspicious is lethal
You don’t have to go in his pockets to check for weapons , anyways your only allowed to Pat him down .
The fact that the Police claim “they got a call” or claim to be “investigating”, still gives the Houston Police no authority to order someone on the ground, or illegally search and detain a citizen. No crime was committed and both the 1st and 4th amendments were violated. When they want to get rid of a camera operator, the safety they refer to is their job safety. Not the personal or public safety.
The fact that the Police claim “they got a call” or claim to be “investigating”, still gives the Houston Police no authority to order someone on the ground, or illegally search and detain a citizen. No crime was committed and both the 1st and 4th amendments were violated. When they want to get rid of a camera operator, the safety they refer to is their job safety. Not the personal or public safety.
Oh my crap… an anonymous caller can ruin someone else’s life! Cops can use “ call” as an excuse to violate every amendment of the constitution. And this is duplicated from town to town!!!
Cameras saves lives. The police changed as soon as he started talking about it rights
It’s hilarious how they always want to violate your rights “FOR YOUR SAFETY”
I never knew that I had the power to have someone assaulted just by making a suspicious person call.
I keep watching, trying to find the exact moment the cop knew he screwed up! I think it was definitely while illegally emptying his pockets!
LOL the cop at the end, before you start accusing someone…….so they literally accused him of ‘acting suspicious’ and hand cuffed him……wtf……then they searched him without a warrant or any reasonable explanation as to what law he had broken
That woman has no business being a cop if she is THAT AFRAID of a man walking down the sidewalk.
“Officer safety” is cop slang for “Officer cowardice”.
As soon as their fingers went into the pocket, it was no longer a pat down. So clearly it is a 4th Amendment infringement. Especially after saying that you don’t consent to being searched.
We don’t have any rights. That’s what they don’t tell you. It’s call qualified immunity, which is an absolute immunity. Cops can twist you up in a pretzel for no reason at all and the judges protect them.
“For our safety”!!! You cops are the ones armed!!! Those thugs in uniform will never honour the first or fourth amendement. I hope the guy lodges a complaint and files a lawsuit against the cops. I hope they loose their qualified immunity, this is ridiculous.
The female cop keeps saying someing about ‘we don’t know what kinds of weapons you have on you’. So that is a legal reason to violate a persons rights?
Should have stuck to the story of them stealing that money, they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they didn’t steal his money even if it is in his pocket. At this point they should have to pay even if the money was put back this man is completely within his right to accuse them of stealing even if they put the money back because there’s no proof. Is it the job of the police to put back your stuff nicely the way they found it? That would be a joke within itself.
If a cop rolls up and says they got a call about a suspicious person, just tell them that if you see one, you will give them a call.
The lady knew they had messed up that’s why she went silent then at the end tried being nice
14:52 What you need to do with your money is: always expect police harrassment and configure your cash for imminent civil rights violations.
Meet Jerry Nadler, the Next House Judiciary Chairman and Trump’s New Enemy No. 1
New York Democrat may not impeach president, but his rigorous oversight will be a thorn in his side
Jerrold Nadler remembers when he began to figure out that you’ve got to fight back when life seems unfair.
It was 1957. Nadler was 10. He was at home in Brooklyn watching Disney’s film production of the 1943 novel “Johnny Tremain,” a young apprentice of silversmith Paul Revere on the eve of the American Revolution.
In the movie’s climatic scene, colonial lawyer James Otis delivers a rallying speech to revolutionaries in a cramped wooden attic in Boston.
Otis was the colonial lawyer whose five-hour speech in 1761 decrying British “writs of assistance” would later become the foundation of the Fourth Amendment protecting Americans from unreasonable search and seizure.
At the end of his winding speech, the fictionalized Otis scans the room and leaves his comrades with a parting message: “We fight and die for a simple thing — only that a man can stand.”
“I still remember watching it,” said Nadler, whom aides and confidants claim has a photographic memory.
.. First elected to Congress in 1992, Nadler is poised to become the next chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January after the Democrat-controlled 116th Congress is sworn in.
Immigration, voting rights, and Justice Department oversight — read: Mueller investigation — are just three of the politically charged issues under the committee’s jurisdiction.
.. Nadler has likewise skirted around such questions, though he said he is eager to conduct oversight hearings on the Trump administration’s policies of
- separating immigrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border,
- increases in anti-Semitic incidents and hate crimes since the president took office, and
- voter suppression, not to mention
- Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
.. “The question of impeachment is down the road,” Nadler told Roll Call in a wide-ranging interview in which he cast doubts over whether Democrats would ever reach a point where they would seriously pursue impeaching Trump.
“As far as impeachment is concerned, we have to see what Mueller comes up with,” Nadler said. “I certainly wouldn’t predict it.”
.. Though he hails from one of the most liberal districts in the country, New York’s 10th, Nadler’s political demeanor more closely resembles the calculated coolness of party leaders than the pot-stirring of liberal firebrands such as California Rep. Maxine Waters, the presumed next House Financial Services chairwoman
.. Multiple former aides could not identify a single hobby of his that didn’t include reading or debating public policy with his friends.
.. “Hobbies? He doesn’t have any,” said Brett Heimov, Nadler’s former Washington chief of staff. “Reading books — that’s his hobby.”
.. the only yeshiva-educated member of Congress. He does not drink. The most alcohol Nadler will consume is on Jewish holidays: a sip or two of Manischewitz for the Kiddush ritual.
.. He has retained senior staff in Washington and field directors in his district at an astonishingly high rate. Nadler’s Washington director, John Doty, has been with him since the congressman’s first full term. Same with his scheduler, Janice Siegel.
“Twelve years, 20 years, they’ve stuck with him,” said Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, a longtime friend. “He’s always had good staff around him.”
.. Just about the only thing that has changed about Nadler since the 1990s is his weight.
In the early 2000s, the congressman peaked at a gargantuan 338 pounds. The butt of countless bodyweight jokes, even among his peers, during the Clinton impeachment trial, Nadler used to take the elevator up to the second floor of the Capitol for votes because he just couldn’t make it up a lone flight of stairs. He underwent a stomach-reduction surgery during Congress’ August recess in 2002 and eventually cut his weight roughly in half.
.. Since arriving in Washington in 1992 after a 15-year stint in the New York state Assembly in Albany representing liberal Manhattan, Nadler has lived out of a suitcase in a series of hotels whenever he’s in town for work. For the first few years, he stayed at the Howard Johnson’s near the George Washington University campus.
.. From the start, Nadler opposed the sweeping 1994 crime bill that originated in the Judiciary Committee over the “three strikes” statute for previously convicted felons.
After the GOP picked up 54 seats and a majority in the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Revolution in the 1994 midterm elections, Nadler confronted Democratic leadership in a head-on clash to chip away at senior members’ monopoly of power at the committee and subcommittee level.
.. After the midterm trouncing, they agitated for a vote on a party rule that would bar Democratic chairs and ranking members from leading subcommittees, too. When Democratic leader Richard A. Gephardt refused, Nadler collected the requisite 50 petition signatures to force a vote.
The caucus voted to adopt the new rule, infuriating some members, including former Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Dingell of Michigan, who was forced to give up one of his subcommittee posts.
“There were a number of committee chairmen who wouldn’t talk to me for years after that,” Nadler recalled. The clash over the rule, still the party standard, is largely forgotten these days.
Nadler didn’t make waves on the national scene until four years later, though, in 1998 when he emerged as one of Clinton’s most outspoken defenders during the impeachment proceedings.
Nadler relished being a nettle for Republicans as they pursued allegations that Clinton had perjured himself when he told independent counsel Ken Starr in a deposition that he never had a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The New York congressman was a frequent guest on CNN and other TV networks, on which he argued that Clinton may well have perjured himself — but that alone was not grounds for impeachment.
.. “An impeachable offense is an abuse of presidential power designed to or with the effect of undermining the structure or function of government, or undermining constitutional liberties,” he told the crowd of several hundred.
.. “The fact is, impeachment is not a criminal punishment,” Nadler told Roll Call. “There are crimes that you could commit that are not impeachable offenses and there are impeachable offenses that are not crimes. They’re different tests.”
.. During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Nadler believed a crucial function of the Judiciary Committee was to educate Americans about that distinction between crimes and impeachable offenses.
He pushed for, and secured, a Judiciary hearing in 1998 to answer what constitutes an impeachable offense, even though Democrats were in the minority.
.. “The purpose of the whole impeachment process is to protect the integrity of liberty and of the rule of law and of government, to protect against a person with aggrandized power or who destroys the separation of powers or something like that,” Nadler said.
.. “If you’re serious about removing a president from office, what you’re really doing is overturning the result of the last election,” Nadler said. “You don’t want to have a situation where you tear this country apart and for the next 30 years half the country’s saying ‘We won the election, you stole it.’”
.. And by bipartisan support for impeachment, Nadler does not mean winning over Republican lawmakers.
“I’m talking about the voters, people who voted for Trump,” he said. “Do you think that the case is so stark, that the offenses are so terrible and the proof so clear, that once you’ve laid it all out you will have convinced an appreciable fraction of the people who voted for Trump, who like him, that you had no choice?
.. He has already promised to investigate the circumstances surrounding Sessions’ firing.
.. Part of that probe will focus on “cooperation” between Russians and Americans, including, potentially, some members of Trump’s inner circle
.. Legislatively, one of his top priorities will be to strike a deal with the Republican president and Senate on immigration, an elusive feat for recent administrations.
Is Clarence Thomas the Supreme Court’s Future?
The conservative justice’s obsession with the past was on full display during the recent term.
.. It’s going on 50 years since Warren E. Burger, President Richard Nixon’s chosen chief justice and the first of his four Supreme Court appointees, took his seat in June 1969, initiating the turn to the right that continues to this day.
.. He has long insisted that the only legitimate way to interpret a constitutional provision is to give it the “public meaning” it supposedly had at the time it was written. So in 2011, for example, he dissented from a majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia that struck down, on First Amendment grounds, a California law that made it a crime to sell a “violent” video game to a minor without parental permission. “The founding generation,” Justice Thomas wrote in dissent, “would not have considered it an abridgment of ‘the freedom of speech’ to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minor’s parents.”
.. In another case, Justice Thomas reiterated his vigorous and longstanding objection to the “negative” Commerce Clause. This is a doctrine that dates at least to the mid-19th century, prohibiting states from discriminating against out-of-state enterprises in favor of their own residents. It is based on the court’s “negative” interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which empowers the national government to regulate interstate commerce and so, by extrapolation, deprives the states of that power. The court has applied it dozens of times over many years as a bulwark against a feared “Balkanization” of the country. But it is not, as Justice Thomas has frequently pointed out, actually in the Constitution’s text.
.. Justice Thomas took aim in another solo concurring opinion at the court’s approach to what is known as severability, which dates to the 1850s. Under this doctrine, when the court finds that a portion of a statute is unconstitutional, it goes on to decide whether that portion is severable from the remainder of the law or whether the entire statute has to fall. The question is one of legislative intent: Would Congress have enacted the law without the offending provision? This was an important question in the first Affordable Care Act case and in the past term’s decision that permitted states to authorize sports gambling... In a second Fourth Amendment case, Justice Thomas dissented from a majority opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. that the government needs a warrant in order to search the cellphone location records that wireless carriers automatically collect and store as their phone-carrying customers go about their daily business. In deciding that the government’s acquisition of these records was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, the majority applied the 50-year-old “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, which does not depend on the government’s physical entry onto a suspect’s property... Taken as a whole, as the work of a single justice during a single Supreme Court term, they paint an extraordinary picture of a judge at war not only with modernity but with the entire project of constitutional law.
.. Young people graduating from law school today have never lived in a world in which Clarence Thomas was not on the Supreme Court. The very fact of his position and his persistence makes opinions that would have been hooted out of the room a few decades ago look respectable in many eyes. In 1997, in Printz v. United States, he was the first modern justice to assert that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun, and to invite anyone interested to bring the right case to a Supreme Court newly open for Second Amendment business. It took a mere 11 years, and we were handed District of Columbia v. Heller.
.. “Clarence Thomas Is the Most Important Legal Thinker in America.” I did a double take. How could the estimable Mr. Millhiser sign his name to such an exaggerated claim? But his argument was not that Justice Thomas, who recently turned 70, is winning victories today, but that he is paving the way for victories down the road — and perhaps not all that far down the road. Observing that 20 percent of Trump-appointed appeals court judges are Justice Thomas’s former law clerks, Mr. Millhiser wrote, “Thomas lost the war for the present, but he is the future of legal conservatism.”