[bg_collapse view=”button-orange” color=”#4a4949″ expand_text=”Show More” collapse_text=”Show Less” ]
Sources:
United States v. Robinson- https://bit.ly/38DJAau
Whren v. United States- https://bit.ly/3gX0kyJ
Yick Wo v. Hopkins- https://bit.ly/38NBVXY
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney- https://bit.ly/3kwePdc
Illinois v. Caballes- https://bit.ly/3aYrksV
Rodriguez v. United States- https://bit.ly/2LS1sqc
Michigan v. Defillippo- https://bit.ly/3ycKfNU
Kolender v. Lawson- https://bit.ly/3F5ep7j
Florida v. Harris- https://bit.ly/3y315Pk
Efficacy of drug detection by fully-trained police dogs- https://bit.ly/39yEFez
Court Records (2018-TR-123713-A-O)- https://bit.ly/3FfATm3
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByoL5…
Real World Police’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChaE…
Comments:
Look at the zeal with which he seeks to find suspicion in an ordinary person’s response to being approached with his level of aggression. Look at how thoroughly his desire to enforce drug busts—which are both profitable and valuable to him as a career move—corrupts his ability to to do his job properly. This entire situation is a ruse to bust someone for drugs. It has no legitimate traffic-enforcement purpose.
On top of that, there’s no actual complaint or meaningful indication of drug activity. This cop just pulled over some guy for a common, minor traffic thing and decided to turn his day into a nightmare, on the excuse that he reacted in a totally reasonable way (nervousness, invoking his rights) to a trap the cops manufactured to go fishing. The truth is that it wouldn’t matter how he reacted. They’d find an excuse to run the dog either way. This young man did exactly the right thing by invoking his rights.
On the cop’s own word, he doesn’t care about the traffic offenses in the least—even though he should, as traffic control is an important function that protects the public. He also doesn’t care about the rights of private citizens—arguably the most important function of his job—as evidenced by his willingness to play out this pretext to bully people into vehicle searches that contravene the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.
I know it sounds extreme, but if the justice system itself won’t fix problems like this, our only peaceful option as individual citizens is to document the abuses and then avoid cities with police like this at all costs. It’s a slow bleed, but it will work. Starve them of taxes, tourism, and fines. Pressure the local government to fix the problem or watch itself gradually turn into a ghost town.
- As a law abiding citizen, I’ve always resented that fact that I feel intimidated every time I see the police, LEO’s need to learn that their job is to protect and serve, it seems these days they’re more concerned with being sneaky and trying to shaft anyone they can because they noticed your brake light burned out before u could.
“Get me your license and registration sir.” reaches for documents “What are you reaching around for? You got guns? Turn off your vehicle!” reaches for key “Why are you reaching around? Undo your seatbelt!” reaches for seatbelt “Stop reaching around!”
- I hate seeing this happen to people. I have been pulled over a few times in my life and each time I get extremely nervous and get a bad adrenaline rush. So much so that isn’t visible to the officers and I have been asked “why are you so nervous” it’s one of the most terrifying questions I have ever been asked by a police officer and even though I didn’t have anything to hide I still couldn’t explain to an officer why I was freaking out so bad, and IM WHITE, and I grew up with a father for a cop. If this is how I feel during a traffic stop then I can’t even begin to image how people of minorities, or other races feel during police interactions. My heart goes out to you and I truly hope that the police in this country get a serious reconstruction because this system is messed up.
- “Roll your window updown.” “You got your license and registration? Why you reaching around all crazy?” Can’t even go 15 seconds into the encounter without cops doing things to intentionally confuse the citizen so they can make a mountain out of a molehill.
- “You’re making me nervous” -the fully armed and armored person with another identically outfitted guy on his side talking to the unarmed guy he just detained for “reaching around” after being asked for his registration.
- this encounter hasn’t “tainted his view towards police officers”. It has set it straight, once and for all.
@kareem Spaulding I’m so sorry you went through this, but I know I not alone in my admiration of you; the way you handled these fucks – and especially the way you handled yourself – would take some serious strength, self-control, and a calm and knowledgeable mind.
- Don’t forget that the cop (I’ll edit the timestamp in) admitted that Spalding’s refusal to answer questions played a part in his decision to search the car. That’s a violation of his fifth amendment rights.
- @Tom Orr Dude do you fucking live in the same world we do? As soon as those cops got out and approached from both sides at once I was terrified for this man. They behaved like predators from zero, escalating at every opportunity until they had him out of the car and on the sidewalk.
“Fruits of the Poisonous Tree”
As a retired Police Officer, I can tell you that the speeding citation will be tossed. I don’t care about his “well calibrated” Police cruiser, because you’re still required to pace the speeding vehicle at least one mile without losing or gaining distance. I heard a Judge once ask a state Trooper who tried to pull this stunt,;
“you’re telling the court…. with your calibrated eyeballs you clocked him at this rate of speed?!”From the aggressive bullying by these officers, I’m fairly sure that the pacing did not happen. Improper Lane change in the intersection? Their PC for stopping this man is suspect at best.
This foolishness of pulling people over just because you can is dangerous! This traffic stop is pregnant for a disaster. He could have shot them or vice-versa.
Wow, they are intentionally escalating everything they possibly can. They are playing, I’m the Good Guy, and I’m Your Friend. Neither is true. This is a guy with power, and he knows how to use it, so he’s going to twist everything he can, to get what he wants. You have no rights while this guy is near you, and I would imagine police hq would agree with that, and with everything he does.
The driver has every reason to be scared of these guys, and yes, they have guns, and it’s takes a second to have that gun out, and killing you. So, the fact that it isn’t in their hand means nothing at all. Just the fact that cops are still acting like this, after everything that has happened in the last few years, is really a problem.
They are actually using the fact, that anyone would be nervous of cops as reason to invade your privacy, and do what they want, in the guise of your being suspicious, because your nervous. Like anyone can really stay completely calm around cops acting like they are. It’s a really shady way to do justice.
The ones actually acting suspicious, are the cops. They are screaming, Don’t Trust Us!!!
This was a fishing expedition, like most police stops like this. They do their best to Escalate anything they can, to give you a ticket, or take you to jail. Either way, they want you feeding money into the system, to fight the system. They want to get you in front of a judge. Nothing else matters, because police do no wrongs, and they never lie.
Sadly, talking to lawyers this is EXTREMELY common. Where cops will try to delay something as much as possible to get a drug dog out there to harass someone.
What they told me is if something like that happens. Tell the officer “am I free to go”, and “I do not consent to stay here longer than a reasonable time for you to do your investigation.” Another is if they say you’re not free to go, say “please tell me when I’m free to go so I can leave. Thank you” Basically, it shows you didn’t voluntary stay there longer than needed for a normal traffic stop. It is likely, if he brought it to court with this body cam and a good lawyer. He wouldn’t have to pay a dime, and he could’ve sued for the extended time being stuck there.From what they told me, if they pull a I smell x. You say, “can you prove in court that you smell x?” They might get PO, but basically it signals that won’t fly in court. They will most likely try to pull a drug dog, and mention “your lawyer will pull up the record of the drug dog training, and all officers involved.” Like they and others will pull BS that saying that forces them to do it. But in reality, by the time they are pulling a stunt with a drug dog or threatening it. They are going to do it no matter what you say, and fear of it not being held up in court is the only way to get them to back down.
#1: I’ll help you- the young Black man (that’s what this is all about) gets an A+++ as he did what a Judge (a relative of mine) told us to do: keep your hands on the wheel or up in plain sight, no movements unless asked to do so, simply ask why you’re being stopped, try to remain calm, let the cops know you’re going to exercise your rights, & that you don’t consent to any searches or seizures. Despite clearly doing this, he is assaulted, handcuffed, harassed, & subject to numerous rights violations during this course of racial profiling.
#2: This is the modus operandi for these cops (seen it & been thru it enough myself) and they clearly stated what their real intentions where while they used the plethora of tricks afforded them by the Courts.
#3: I thought this was going to be another young Black man murdered by cops during a traffic stop for nothing. IF you couldn’t tell, the young man was literally frightened for his life. He was confused by what they really wanted from him/their actions. Their approach, tone, & attitude let him know that “road piracy” wasn’t what this was all about. He did NOT know if he would survive this encounter.
#4: He probably can’t afford a $750/hour attorney (if he could find one) & how many of us can? He paid the ticket as he wanted to be through with this system as much as anything else. Besides, the Courts ain’t gonna listen to him even if these 2 regularly planted drugs on innocent citizens. Period.
#5: He is permanently scarred by this treatment from “those sworn to serve and protect” & will do his best to avoid them forever.Oh, but the system loses as well. He will return to his community & add his fear and humiliation to that of his community which will continue to not trust law enforcement (exactly why should they?).
So, forget about expecting virtually any cooperation when law enforcement needs help from them.
- Why anyone would believe that this type of “law enforcement” is either fair, okay, or sustainable is beyond me. People are beyond tired of this crap…..
- I find it disappointing that when a person doesn’t jump through their hoops in assisting the officers in finding evidence to arrest them on, and politely says they won’t answer questions: the officers assume he’s some “extremist sovern citizen”.
- I’ve encountered cops talking to me like that, too, except for the narcotics stuff.
- Cop “Your acting all nervous, reaching around, rolling up your windows..” Later same cop “You’re making me nervous.”
- This video just infuriates me….this is THE definition of a pre textual stop…..this driver was absolutely mistreated and the only reason the cop didn’t catch an a$$ whoopin is because he IS a cop…..disgusting law enforcement overreach
- The footage is from the bodycam footage of the cops, which was continuously edited, as the breaks are clearly noticeable… The footage did not show the driver’s actual violation, as would have been captured on the cop’s car dashcam… There is not any footage showing anything to the claimed traffic violation… Clearly there is a lawsuit in play, being that we are seeing this on Audit the Audit… The cops violated an array of the driver’s rights, creating false narratives and outright lying… The crooked and racist courts of that jurisdiction will drag the lawsuit… This is police gang behavior, at the expense of taxpayers.
I get a laugh out of the cops that say, “you’re shaking. Why are you nervous?” Idk, maybe because ARMED men are escalating what should be a routine traffic stop for no other reason to try and pin an actual crime on me.
Seriously, cops like this drive me insane. For the record, I’m a law-abiding citizen and even I’ll admit that I get nervous during traffic stops, even though I know I’m not doing anything wrong. Why? Just because you’re innocent doesn’t mean a cop won’t try anything funny, like planting evidence. It does happen and I actually fear the long-term repercussions of such an action more so than the “in the moment.”
There’s also one more factor to consider. It was very obvious from the search that the “suspect” drives for Uber. I can say this as a former Uber driver. I have had clientele accidentally leave and spill drugs in my vehicle that I didn’t see until the end of the day when I was done driving. What would happen if I was pulled over and they ended up calling a K-9 unit? I would get in trouble for my own clientele’s illegal behavior. I did get pulled over once while driving for Uber and it was an absolute baloney stop. Officer claimed I failed to yield at a stop sign at a right turn and I called him out on it because I HAD to stop. There was oncoming traffic coming from the left and I had to wait for that vehicle to pass through the intersection. Cop let me off with a warning but honestly, if he did site me, I would’ve FOIA’d the dash cam footage and taken it to traffic court. The cop had absolutely nothing. I had a passenger at the time too and she actually felt bad for me because she knew I didn’t do anything wrong either.
[/bg_collapse]
Cop Tries To Harass Black College Student But Gets Owned And Taught The Law
“You we’re hiding in the bushes” at what point was he hiding in the bushes lol!He wanted to arrest him so bad “when you’re going to jail it is gonna be real funny”I wish we could see them driving away. The UNCG code of conduct is online. It took me 1 minute to search for identification. Nowhere does it say you have to produce ID except in a hearing.>> I agree when the cop started saying keep your hands out your pockets off camera who knows what would of happened. He was walking backwards to his car..lol ..WTF what a !!COWARD
The crazy thing about some of these cops is they have gotten away with things like this in the past. If it wasnt on camera he would have been arrested and the story would have been different. you see how he stated you were in the bushes, what “THESE” people do at times. Not all, not all, but a lot of them. It’s in them
>> Now that Officer did violate that students 4th Amendment Rights. The Sgt. Knew her Officer was wrong…and she still tried to cover for him. Comply…make it home alive… then contact an attorney. That’s the smartest approach.At the school I attended COC did indeed list showing your student I.D. to security and cops. Nevertheless, there’s a lot of people walking back and forth, so how is he unusual or suspicious? Besides, why sets up a camera on a main road if you intends to commit a crime?
Good Citizens Stop Lazy Officer From Arresting the Wrong Teens
That lady kept the peace and did more investigating than the cops. She asked if she could have them leave with her. When the cops refused, she went and grabbed the witness to identify that it wasnt those boys. She, and only she, not the cops deescalated that situation.
[bg_collapse view=”button-orange” color=”#4a4949″ expand_text=”Show More” collapse_text=”Show Less” ]
As a lawyer, I can confirm that this channel’s explanations of different laws isn’t an easy thing to do and is EXTREMELY time consuming.
Bystander woman gets an A++, for recognizing that the lazy police work was going to lead to an injustice, and getting involved. Then proceeding actually investigate, and bring a peaceful resolution.
Huge round of applause for all of the concerned citizens who stood up for those kids. I can only imagine the outcome had they not been there. 👏👏👏👏
Love how after the manager confirms that the boys aren’t the ones who caused the disturbance the cop still asks if he can trespass them 😂 he’s like come on bro please let me arrest these kids, they didn’t lick my boots
Yeah, No, That Study Doesn’t Debunk Police Racism
Sloppy social science and the mental gymnastics of racism deniers.
Some people will say anything to deny the problem of racism in policing.
These are people who would have found ways to defend Bull Connor in Birmingham too, or Jim Clark and his goons in Selma six decades ago.
One thing about their denials has changed though — they’ve become more sophisticated.
Increasingly, such folks wrap their denial in a patina of respectable “evidence,” whereas, back in the day, they would have just said something about how those n-words were asking for trouble and left it at that.
But bullshit, even when footnoted, is still bullshit.
White racism deniers love ’em some Roland Fryer
My favorites are the white folks who send around the study from a few years ago by Roland Fryer, a Harvard academic, which concluded police were no more likely to use lethal force against Blacks than whites.
They love this one because Fryer is Black.
Apparently, if a Black guy says there’s no racism in policing — or if that’s what they think he’s saying — there must not be.
It’s funny — first, because conservative white people are so quick to latch on to any Black person who they think confirms their nonsense, and second, because they don’t understand what the Fryer study says, why much of it doesn’t support their view, and why the part that does is seriously flawed.
The Fryer study looked at four data sets, mainly focusing on three: stop-and-frisk data from New York City, data from 12 large cities or counties in Texas, Florida, and California, and a special data set from Houston.
The racism deniers focus on the finding that there was no racial disparity in use of lethal force, but before examining the data used to reach that conclusion, it’s worth looking at what the deniers ignore.
Non-lethal force shows clear disparity
Looking at non-lethal force, Fryer relied on stop-and-frisk data from New York for 2003–2013 and found that Black New Yorkers were 53 percent more likely than whites to be met with non-lethal force by the NYPD.
Interestingly, when he controlled for variables like civilian behavior during the stop — did they resist arrest, for instance — or the neighborhood crime rate, not only did this not reduce the disparity, it sometimes increased it.
This means police were using force against African Americans even in cases where they put up less resistance and in parts of town where crime rates were not elevated.
Nonetheless, when Fryer controlled for 125 supposedly non-racial variables, the observed disparity in non-lethal force fell from 53 percent to 17 percent — still significant, albeit less so.
But how is this possible?
If the disparity remained huge even when suspect behavior and neighborhood crime rates were held constant, what variables could have had such a depressive effect on disparity?
We don’t know for sure. The complete list wasn’t provided in Fryer’s paper. But what we do know about them is methodologically troubling.
Consider his controls for “community dangerousness.”
As noted previously, Fryer examined the neighborhood crime rates and actual suspect behavior during encounters because these would predictably increase the likelihood of police use of force.
But remember, neither of these controls reduced the racial disparities and tended to increase them.
So, where did the reductions come from?
According to Fryer, three “precinct effects” cut racial disparities in the use of force by nearly 20 percentage points — more than a third below their initial level. And what were those?
According to Fryer, they were socioeconomic variables often correlated with crime rates: median education levels, median income, and median levels of unemployment in a neighborhood. As Fryer puts it, these are “proxies for dangerousness.”
But why control for “proxies for dangerousness” when you’ve already controlled for neighborhood crime rates and the behavioral dynamics of particular stops?
At that point, Fryer has already controlled for dangerousness and by a more direct method than using socioeconomic proxies to estimate it.
If the crime rate in a neighborhood fails to explain the racial disparity, controlling for variables that are often correlated with a higher crime rate is superfluous. And if actual encounter dynamics failed to explain the racial disparity, controlling for variables that might predict greater resistance by civilians is equally absurd.
Either the person who was stopped resisted or they didn’t. If they had, Fryer would have already controlled for that. If they didn’t, the fact that there are many unemployed high school dropouts living on the block can hardly justify cops throwing someone who isn’t resisting against a wall.
Ultimately, even though he artificially minimizes the problem, Fryer’s data shows Black folks are much more likely to be handled violently by police. And this is so, even when they put up less resistance, comply with all demands, have no weapons, and have committed no crime.
Of course, this finding is ignored by those who point to Fryer’s research as vindication of their racism denial.
Lethal force data shows disparity too — Fryer’s data sets are garbage
When we look at Fryer’s data on lethal force, his conclusions are dubious to the point of being laughable.
First, let’s look at the data set from Houston, which consisted of interactions where officers fired at suspects or specific high-risk arrest scenarios where lethal force would have been most likely.
The Houston data doesn’t disprove racial bias
Here, Fryer discovered no real racial difference in the likelihood that Blacks, as opposed to whites, were shot by police once subjected to a stop or arrest.
But a central flaw in Fryer’s analysis is the suggestion that bias can only be operating if Black people are more likely to be shot by police than whites once both have been stopped.
Although such a position may seem intuitive, it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny for two reasons:
- Racism can influence who gets stopped in the first place — and thus, how many encounters there are between cops and Blacks versus cops and whites — and,
- Police could be confronting Black folks for more subjective, less legitimate reasons.
If the latter is true, this would naturally reduce the likelihood of those Black people being shot because they weren’t doing anything serious. Thus, there would be less likelihood of a violent reaction by the Black person stopped.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeIf I’m Black and you stop me because of racialized suspicion and bias, and our encounter doesn’t result in a shooting — which it shouldn’t since I hadn’t even done anything to justify the stop — you can’t use your lack of deadly force against me as proof of goodwill.
And if police are more likely to stop Black folks in the first place for reasons of bias, then the risk they face in the general population would still be higher.
A hypothetical can demonstrate the point.
Imagine a community where the white-to-black population ratio is 5 to 1 (similar to the U.S.), with 120,000 people: 100,000 whites and 20,000 Blacks.
EXAMPLE: 1/200 vs 1/20000
And imagine that in a given year, police stopped 10,000 Black people (half the Black population) and 5,000 whites (5 percent of white folks). And of the 10,000 Blacks stopped, 100 were shot by police, and of the 5,000 whites stopped, 50 were.
In both cases, the odds of being shot once stopped would be one percent, but 1 in 200 Blacks would have been shot, compared to 1 in 2000 whites.
The question isn’t, “Once whites are stopped, are they as likely as Black people who’ve been stopped to be shot?”
The question is: “Are white people, walking down the street, driving their vehicle, or just living their lives, as likely to be stopped in the first place and then shot as Black people?”
The answer to that is no, and nothing in the Fryer study suggests otherwise.
The 10-city data set is no better
In addition to the special data set culled for him by the Houston PD, Fryer examined a 10-city data set from Florida, Texas, and Los Angeles involving interactions where officers had discharged their weapons.
Since everyone in the data set had been shot at by police, Fryer wasn’t seeking to determine the relative risk of whites or Blacks being shot by cops, but rather, how quickly officers had discharged their weapons.
Did police shoot before or after being attacked by the civilian? Ultimately, Fryer found there was no significant difference based on race.
Perhaps the question of how quickly an officer decided to shoot is an interesting one to explore. Still, it seems far more important to determine the relative risk of being shot as an unarmed Black person compared to an unarmed white person than to narrowly focus on a cop’s reaction time.
Although Fryer suggests it would have been impossible to answer this larger question, other researchers have been more ambitious.
One recent study found that the odds of being Black, unarmed, and shot by police in Los Angeles county (one of the places Fryer examined) are twenty times higher than the odds of being white, unarmed, and shot by police there.
And honestly, what fact do you think would be more important to the average Black person?
- When they get shot by cops, unarmed whites are shot just as quickly as unarmed Blacks are, or
- Unarmed white people are only one-twentieth as likely as unarmed Blacks to be shot in the first place.
I’ll wait.
Don’t like ads? Become a supporter and enjoy The Good Men Project ad freeReaction time differences are a stupid metric in that we shouldn’t expect them to vary all that much, especially in high-risk situations like the ones examined by Fryer. An officer doesn’t have the luxury of much reflecting when a gun is pointed at them, or they’re being attacked, no matter the suspect’s race.
But that hardly means that racial bias wasn’t operating at the point where the person was stopped in the first place.
Nor does it preclude bias regarding whether the officer perceived danger and chose to fire at all.
Imagine a community where police shot 500 black people in a year, 300 of whom were attacking, and 200 of whom were not; and only five whites, three of whom were attacking and two of whom were not. As per Fryer, there would be no racial bias: for both groups, 60 percent of the shootings occurred after the officer was attacked and 40 percent before an attack.
But seriously? Does it seem remotely logical to suggest there isn’t a problem here in terms of greater risk for black people, relative to their share of the population and non-attacking population?
What the facts say, deniers notwithstanding
The facts are these, no matter what liars and fools choose to believe:
- Black folks killed by police are 2.3 times more likely than whites killed by police to have been unarmed at the time, and whites killed were about 50 percent more likely than black victims to have been shot while attacking the officer or another civilian.
- Likewise, the rates of police-involved shootings bear little if any relationship to crime rates in the places where those shootings occur. This is why some communities with much higher crime rates have lower rates of police-involved shootings than cities with less serious crime problems.
- Ultimately, police are just as likely to shoot an unarmed black person as an armed white person in this country.
That’s what matters — not the beliefs of internet trolls looking for any “evidence” to justify their biases and ways to rationalize disparate treatment of Black people.
Not that facts will likely matter to the kinds of folks who make these silly arguments.
But at least you can’t say we never offered a rebuttal to Roland Fryer and his white conservative fan club.
Some of y’all need to find a better mascot.
—