This is Kentucky, where Police were trained with Hitler Quotes until 2013. “The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence" among others.

Yo awesome convo with Destiny & friends a little while back. Awesome to see you engaging with people outside of your videos and talking about these issues!

wait, so it is not possible for women to commit indecent exposure since all of the language in those statues are gendered towards "he/him"? would identifying as a woman put a person beyond the scope of the legislation on the grounds of indecent exposure in this jurisdiction?

✌️

"Cop Falsely Detains Citizen But Is Swiftly Corrected" It is NOT false that he detained him...he DID! It should read "Cop Unlawfully Detains Citizen But Is Swiftly Corrected"

*Officer is, for all practical purposes, clueless* - I don't expect LEOs to know the nuances of every law, but if an LEO officer doesn't know the most basic aspects of performing a detention (a VERY common LEO activity), it is fair to ask if they are minimally qualified for their job. Here LEO stated at outset he doesn't suspect him of criminal activity (no RS), but detained anyway.

And you've hit the nail on the head here. He's trying to do the right thing, he's just so poorly trained he doesn't know what it is. He really needs to hit the books and bone up on this stuff. That said. I think with study and training he'd be a much better cop-seems like his heart is in the right place, he's just not all that knowledgeable and really needs to be.

American cops are control freaks. The officer was disturbed by someone saying no. They all do the same thing in these videos try to find something to charge you with because you showed any resistance.

if anything he acted pretty well considering children were involved.

@@cammobunker Agreed. This deputy has exactly the right attitude to be in law enforcement. He remained calm and appears to recognize there might be something about the driver's rights he (the deputy) does not fully understand.

right, usually they scurry off and drive away at high rate of speed. this guy prob wants to be sergeant one day, lol

@@MrPaxio if he continues down this path of educating himself and learning from his mistakes i think he could make a really good sergeant that could affect real, positive change in his department, one day. kudos to him!

Meh the guy seemed kind of reasonable the whole time. He's a cop not a lawyer he's going to get things wrong from time to time.

@@MrPaxio or they just cuff and take to jail knowing qualified immunity will protect them. Cops should know basic public laws, I realize there are thousands of laws but street cops should be well versed on public laws

Agreed!

He was only acting like that cause their was sheriff's deputy their to witness his actions, can't act like he's unprofessional, that all not cause of his character but to save face Infront of the deputy there

I see what you're saying, but that's also a huge assumption, I believe that there are alot of bad police, but atleast this one is trying.

@@juniorquinata1938It's obvious, that what your saying is factually incorrect.

I agree

If and when Weaver continues his career in law enforcement, 10 years down the road when he's a supervisor, he will be called to another interaction similar to what he experienced. Law enforcement doesn't pass this information on through education but by locker room talk.

No, more body cameras and more cops going to jail for being tyrants will help

@@homiehomerson2705 ahh yes, getting rid is muuuuch better than education....

​@@homiehomerson2705 we can say the same thing about most of these fraditors also.

​@mark heckman what are you talking about?

Yes. The officer mentioned a naked child and this guy's first question was "Who made that call?" That's a suspicious response, then he immediately tried to get the officer to leave. Of course he had a suspect!

I agree. That guy wasn't trained well. I hope he learns from this and goes on to become a great cop.

@@Jenifer_R_ definitely wouldn’t be my first response. Lol.

It could be that the officer was relatively new at his position. Having been recently newly employed myself, I can sympathize with the officer if that was the case. Police work can be extremely stressful and there are lots of rules to learn, especially rules which are complicated and not really clear cut and they receive pressure from both directions, from citizens in one direction, and from their departments and coworkers in another direction. This makes mistakes likely especially when first learning a job.

@@david2869 Be safe out there. I couldn't do police work. It is a tough job.

Nah. Only if financial penalties will be paid from their retirement fund. Lost 2mil? Well, someone's retirement payments are gonna be smaller.

They know the laws. They just lie and try to intimidate people into doing what they want.

If qualified immunity was abolished what would be the incentive for not violating our rights?

Our supreme Court doesn't even know the constitution. You expect people who never gone to law school to understand it? Ours code is just show that they don't even understand what The Establishment clause is or about the separation of church and state.

@@rosealexander9007 If lawsuits are coming directly out of their paychecks and bank accounts they'll think twice about violating our rights.

I like him, he seems like a good dude that just needs a more experienced partner to patrol with. The person he was talking to was being a bit of a harda**.

He was polite

His mistake though could have led to jail, prison or simply ruining a persons life as well as financially cost them! Records that follow you ALL your life!

You know he's only acting like this cause there was a deputy there to witness his actions

​@@juniorquinata1938and you know that, first of all, that is an assumption. And secondly, there are many cups who still wouldn't give a shit and break the rules eitherway bc they will hope that their fellow officer will have their back

No camera, that pig woulda dragged dad from the vehicle, jailed him, and CFS the children. That pig was on a very thin edge between duty and overreach. Weaver was working hard to violate his rights. I think Weaver needs two weeks, no pay, and personally pay for his rights education. Second offence needs firing, loss of pension, home, cottage, toys, wife and children. Then no job as a LEO in any jurisdiction.

But, nonetheless, he did TRY to violate this man;s Rights and LIED to him. That's pure BS coming out of his foul mouth. It's pretty bad when we consider what this Clown-In-A-Costume did as "good".

@@goofyrulez7914 Do you have evidence to suggest the officer knew he was tyrannically and intentionally violating his rights? Cops are only hired between an 80-90 IQ. 80 being that they're genuinely too dumb to hire and, 90 being too arrogant - believing themselves to be better job performers than they really are, leading to less routine traing time. If that every thing i stated is true, (which i hope it is because i heard Jordan Peterson say it) then i believe he was just another typical cop. They don't teach cops Law in the Academy, they teach them how to enforce it. So, it is entirely plausible he was ignorant of what was actually doing. He did apologize which is uber-rare. Have i mentioned that the average IQ in the US is 100?...

@@SusanWojcickiDidntEarnHerJob = It is sad but they ONLY want order followers that don't think. Actually, it's not that they don't think, it's that they are not taught anything but the "company line".

@@goofyrulez7914 It's a business, i don't care what anyone says. They exist to make the city, county, state money. That's the majority of it. They're not required to guarantee our safety. Not required to protect us. They're a necessary evil that exist to enforce the law.

You are right. It shows emotional maturity and a healthy ego. As a woman I have a quick check where a woman can tell a lot about a man. Just ask him to hold your purse. If he refuses he is a loser who is emotionally immature and probably has a micro_____. If he holds it out in front of him like a dead animal then he is probably just a big immature but there is hope for him. If he hangs it over his shoulder and doesn't even care, he is a real winner. I know it seems counter intuitive but that officer seemed like he would hang the purse over his shoulder and his wife or girlfriend would have to remind him it looks bad.

This Encounter was an absolute Win for the Officer, like every Lawful encounter without dismissing someones rights. Even if he was not 100% right at first, u could call this a bit misslead but he seems like a good guy, i hope he stay like that

Right!? This is it. Right here. I wish people understood this. There's a way this could go where they look so good that it'd make anyone criticizing them look dumb. We can't be mad at this guy, he was very legit.

I agree, but things like auditors calling it the 'Walk of shame' doesn't help.

I had a police training course where one of the things we taught was “as a law enforcement officer, you are never required to win an argument and it can be to your benefit to avoid one. Your job is to enforce laws and do it in a lawful manner, not be right all the time and make an effort to prove it. “ And the courts typically agree when a law enforcement officer avoids a verbal conflict.

I agree, I think he really just needed a more experienced officer to monitor him during the first few months or year of his service. Unfortunately, there’s probably not the resources for that to make it plausible.

@Mean Dean::: He did in fact power trip but he didn't know any better. The fact that he detained without any RAS is the definition of power tripping.

@@Hear-MeoutTwo2 And it's debatable that he corrected himself out of good will vs saving his own ass lol...

He was showing a distinct desire to learn, not from the assumption to know better because cop. That is delightful to observe.

@@Dowlphin No way to know that for sure.

@@minstrelca it's very obvious that's what was happening...

Only after he got caught.

It is very rare that an occifer doesnt escalate a situation to where he can brutalize a citizen.

Good is insisting he I D and illegally detained,no he screwed up .he should get a complaint. No free passes . Those are the facts. He also sporti g BLUE LINE GA G FLAG. DESECRATING OUR FLAG. FACT

​@@mochiebellina8190 oh for sure, and I agree completely. Let me elaborate on something here, I think this officer was definitely in the wrong and he needs to be dealt with accordingly. I'm just giving him the credit of owning his mistake.

@@mybuckhead oh for sure, and I agree completely. Let me elaborate on something here, I think this officer was definitely in the wrong and he needs to be dealt with accordingly. I'm just giving him the credit of owning his mistake.

Agree he’s not a dumb cop

Only because of the camera.

I seriously doubt he was trained like that in the academy. Maybe he learned it from another officer while at the department.

@@FatherManus that is possible.

It takes up to 3 years training to be a Police Officer in the United Kingdom, also there is no such thing as local Police Forces .All are trained in the same Academy as National Police Force .England and Wales are trained at the same place . Scottish Police have their own Academy and are trained in Scotland for the same time, again no such thing as local Police Forces in Scotland .There is just one for the Country , so the same Scottish rules apply through out Scotland .

^ Completely useless information. We do not care about Europe. Sorry. Nobody in America is constantly nutting all over themselves with their tongue out as they scour the internet for videos on Europe. There’s not shit going on in your boring countries.

Oh, no, the law can only be understood by the holy government priests

Haha you said among us

@@raymondmcyeetface6850 haha 😐

Don’t forget, his superior corrected him on it as well. Someone in the department has a clue.

@@SusanWojcickiTheBolshevik I was detained once for almost an hour on a way to my engagement anniversary. The cop would not let me call/text my wife. She was furious. All of this because I was seen parking in an area where thefts were occurring and I was suspicious somehow wearing my Sunday best with flowers in my hand.

They train the cops on how to intimidate citizens to obey them. They teach them to say "I need to see your ID" rather than giving an order. No cop is going to say "Although you have no legal obligation to provide me with ID, I want to get your ID so I can run you for warrants because that generates revenue for my department and inflates our arrest statistics."

Yeah, I had a clown wake me up at 1:30am two days back because they got a 911 call for (obviously not my address). After demanding that I open my door, which I refused to do, and attempting to intimidate me, they left, presumably to the correct address. I kinda hoped (but also knew it was false hope) he would be man enough to roll by the next day or two and apologize. Nope no courtesy unless it is used in an attempt to manipulate. At least the officer in the video is learning.

legend has it the officer quit the force

The cop did NOT apologize for the illegal detainment or the illegal threat of arrest. The cop did NOT learn anything.

Yes very rare for them to apologize, 90% of the time there ego want let them, because they have been told they are special!! And it goes to there head!!

Trying to save himself from a lawsuit

His intention to do good is not an excuse for not knowing the laws he claims he is enforcing.

No we need better informed officers. He still learning. This is a person who could legal take a life. Dont we want the best people for these jobs.

It's not that all cops are bad, it's that we can't get rid of the bad ones.

@@MikeJones-ce3vu everyone can legally take a life

As an officer of the court are you not held at a higher standard. If we can do what you said cops are not needed

Truth

He purposely left out when the officer refused to give the CAD number and told him to call 911 and figure it out, a real non bias grade would be a D

I bet in ten years he’ll be a good cop.

@@monteme4691 if your claiming that then can you give a link to a full video

@@DillonMagreveous it’s literally already in the description as he said in the first 30 seconds of the video

Agree. Well-said.

But it has been upheld by the SCOTUS that a person using their rights cannot be used.

It just let's you know how FEW PEOPLE know and use their rights..For it to be so rare, that cops think it is suspicious. Means we need to have parents learn about their rights. and teach their kids. Sad that schools would never teach about rights

It's not the use of rights, it's the not identifying themselves that makes them suspicious, or non-compliance. I don't think cops give a shit wether you know your rights. They know they are the law and are under assumption that people bend for the law. Why are you hiding your identity? You got warrants? Are you doing something illegal at the moment? I'm thinking that's what they think when someone doesn't ID themselves. That makes them scared I guess. He could've gave them a John Doe for name and they wouldn't even know if it's his real name. I once told a cop at a gathering that my name was Joe and it wasn't, he got more comfortable after I did.

When an officer approaches and informs you he's investigating a child who may be in distress, the normal reaction is to be helpful and understanding, not demand badge numbers, refuse basic information, demand a supervisor, and drag out the interaction as long as possible. Likewise, if a woman approaches and asks if you saw her missing child, you are well within your rights to refuse to answer her, or tell her she's a shitty mother, that she should keep an eye on her kid, and to go get fucked. That would be an exercise of your rights also, but it certainly wouldn't make you some hero! We have the right to be assholes, but we also have the right to be good conscientious citizens who try to do the right thing.

@@jasonlongton1876 maybe if he sounded like he was asking for help instead of suspecting me I would help him. Tone has a lot to do with how people respond to authority.

I hate that we have to state this every hour of every day. May we remain optimistic.

Sure, abolish it right when you start paying them more than 50k a year. "I can risk my life on a daily basis, work god-awful and ever-changing shifts, and now also face legal repercussions for every single action I do even when my job puts me into situations that soak in legal territory all the time, all for 50k/year and some benefits ? Sign me up !!" It's called incentive systems. If you abolish qualified immunity, you need to have other incentives in place otherwise you will face 1. An absurd shortage of people who want to go into law enforcement and 2. Officers who do not respond to calls on the fear that they will somehow break a law and be held responsible. Of course, it's painfully obvious why these two outcomes would be undesirable, to say the least. Yet, strangely enough, when I ask people like you how they're going to start paying officers more money in place of abolishing qualified immunity, it's all of a sudden: "What? Those are MY tax dollars!! Why should I have to pay them more money ?? REEEE" Next time you want to make dogshit claims like "abolish qualified immunity" without any consideration to the consequences, make sure you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Note: I'm not even on the officer's side. I frankly don't give a fuck about officers. I just don't like bad arguments.

@@carnivorous_vegan I mean if someone is going to become law enforcement they should provide better training and education on laws. They are LAW enforcement , and time after time we see a lot of videos of officers breaking such basic laws such as basic human rights . Maybe they shouldn’t remove qualified immunity unless officer breaks basic laws they SHOULD know.

Correct. Then the bad cops will get pushed out because the cost of their premiums will become excessive.

@@TonyRule And they wouldn't get 10 strikes until something really bad happens.

It might have help that the driver was videoing the interaction, we will never know

Good video but sad it's posted as a new, this is several months old

@@GenialHarryGrout If that deputy was of the type to 'fly off the handle', doubtful the video camera would have prevented him from doing so. His demeanor was impressive to me. If he were my son, I would be proud.

@@garytucker8739 You're so helpful. What would we do without our backseat fucking drivers?

Hope you don't try and imagine too hard there

Agree

I agree. I haven't watched to the end yet but I'm giving him an A.

except the cop is an utter muppet

@@weybye91 how so?

@@ThunderMuffinMan unless you think an adult is a juvenile, then you are a muppet

I guess it's the idea that if a cop is ignorant of the law, because he's a cop, it's presumed that he was acting in the best interest of the public. Stupid, especially when you think of how many bad cops there are out there who don't actually work in the best interest of the public, but their own.

@@oddhate abolish qualified immunity and watch those who act in the best interest educate themselves and watch those, who do not, go broke from litigation for civil rights violations.

Realistically, this is really a practical matter. If cops are required to actually know every law inside and out before they can do their job, then realistically they'll just never be able to do their job. Even most lawyers who spend years in law school don't know the entirety of every law on the books and usually have to look up the details of whatever laws are applicable before any new case. But it's important to understand that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is a cliche that people often bandy about but it's _not actually true_ even for ordinary citizens. When cases get to court (or often even before that) it is actually extremely common for people to be let off or given lighter punishments if it becomes clear that they genuinely were not aware of the laws or believed they were acting within the spirit of the law at the time. Ignorance of the law by itself is not an excuse, but _intent_ is still a significant consideration in most cases, which often does mitigate that substantially. On the flip side, in reality, ignorance of the law is also often not actually an excuse for cops either. As was noted in this video, police do (increasingly) lose qualified immunity in cases where they really should have known what the law was, and just saying they didn't know is not good enough to get them out of hot water. It's also important to realize that even if an officer retains qualified immunity, that doesn't mean that the police department that's responsible for them is off the hook. Even in cases where qualified immunity is upheld, the police department itself is often still liable, and there have been quite a lot of cases where an officer's ignorance of the law has resulted in substantial judgements against the police as a whole, because of what they did. There are mechanisms already in the law to take this sort of thing into account, and while they have historically perhaps not been applied as often as they should have been, that does appear to be slowly changing, and will likely continue to improve as well.

Take a number and stand in line brother, there are MILLIONS of us waiting for an answer to that question.

Cops have a job and that job requires some leeway, however, they are not protected by the "I didn't know the law" excuse. Cops loosing lawsuits and charges against officers are evidence of this.

Exactly

@@braggmusic5302 Suck a boot.

Also it was probably a long time ago. So either they've changed their training and he should be retrained or it's stayed the same.

No he is right. They literally train cops that every utterance that comes out of their mouth is a lawful order because they have a badge on.

Sure it is. They're trained to GET YOU TALKING. Get you to answer questions. The vast majority of the time, people will try to "tell their side of the story" which is exactly what the cop needs for probable cause.

Considering that the Kentucky state police academy used several attributed quotes by Adolf Hitler until 2013. Among them “The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence” this is very much a step up.

At least he tried to do the right thing.

I was thinking the exact thing. Hate me but I think this dude is just annoying, in the beginning at least. A call involving a child like this is serious and he is just complicating the cops investigation.

I've been beat to this comment by a few of you by the looks.

The fact that that this is seen as exceptional behavior in these comments is so depressing. The bar is so low that everyone is praising this dude for doing the BARE MINIMUM.

A bunch of boot lickers smh

I agree honestly I get both sides. He saw that he had kids but I have no idea if he knew before hand that he did or didn’t.

I agree. The officer deserves an A+.

The officer contradicted himself in less than 10 seconds. Went from "were just talking" to "you're suspicious for not talking to me" in two sentences.

Apparently you’re new here… The fact that there might’ve been a child in danger should not ever ever ever ever ever ever ever come in to play or taken into account during these things… A white man’s rights were almost violated that is the important thing on this channel… notice how the commentator doesn’t give a fuck about the fact that there was a 12-year-old girl running around naked… Because I was always it wasn’t this guy because he said so… And how dare you ever try and violate this white man’s rights. Seriously I fucking think First Amendment auditors are the most pathetic people on the planet. And this is an example of why. because a girl could’ve been in trouble and this piece of shit wouldn’t help out a single bitch because “muh rights” I guarantee if his daughter was missing and was rumored to be running around the street naked he would want them to stop anybody that was in the area and “violate the rights”

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Pant pant mha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

No he didn’t. That’s the whole point of him threatening or intimating writing a ticket for hindering and investigation. He’s threatening to use his power because the the subject is exercising his rights. The officer gets into a verbal sparring match and forgets about the supposed child running around naked. His ego got in the way of the investigation but he had plenty of time to threaten hit someone financially with a fine.

Murder investigation starts by demanding ID from the headless corpse.

Yeeeeeep

its really sickening.

@@poopsiekins2732 Yeah. I saw another video posted by The Civil Rights Lawyer where a cop responded to a report of marijuana plants growing on an abandoned property by going to a nearby house where the residents were out on their front porch and asking them in a demeaning tone if they were growing weed. When the residents were understandably confused and insulted by his question and his demeanor he then started demanding everyone identify themselves under the threat of arrest. He ended up arresting the landlord who owned the house (who was a former LEO himself and had nothing to do with the pot plants or the abandoned property they were found on) for refusing to identify. 🤷

Standards vary wildly, but it takes as little as 6 weeks to become a police officer (Minneapolis), no idea what the academy requirements are for any city in KY.

ACAB

can you STOP typing like THIS

Being willing to learn is great, but an officer should not still be learning things as basic as this while on active duty. By this I mean they should already understand what they can and cannot legally do before they are active duty ready. This is stuff they should understand thoroughly before they ever go into active duty.

The cop DID violate the man’s rights. The cop merely gave up and went away. ZERO credit to this cop. Only this bootlicking channel would give a B to an ignorant cop.

The sad thing is that EVERY department teaches their new recruits the same BS method.

He came back and admitted he was wrong, yes that doesn't mean much but it shows he's able to learn and when someone stood up to him, he educated himself further instead of losing his head and exerting his power. This is a good guy who seems to be poorly trained due to a shitty Kentucky academy

@@ptkb7774 I was glad he came back and apologised I’m just concerned how many other officers are doing this WITHOUT coming back like this one did or escalating for no reason.

@@itsjustmaddisen that is the overarching issue here for sure.

@@ptkb7774 It’s honestly a little worrying, but I do agree this guy seems like he’s a genuine person, just misinformed and I wish a lot more cops were like this. Genuinely learning and honesty is something that we can all respect and appreciate:)

You do realize that police officers have personal time that they can use to learn and study?

@@ThinkingDoesMakeMeImportant I had no idea they had personal time, I thought they were on the job 24/7…that’s what they said on Reno 911. Thanks for taking the time to set me straight, I would have never come to that realization without your wisdom.

@@CombatWombatQRF Then why did you type "it's a shame he wasn't taught" as if it's not his own fault for learnin.

@@CombatWombatQRF How do you know that he wasn't taught and just simply decided to ignore?

@@CombatWombatQRF It sounds to me like you actually need a lot of wisdom in your life.

Couldn't have put it a better way myself.

The cop was bluffing and his victim called him on it. This cop probably was used to getting his directives complied with and when his victim stood his ground, the cop began to bluff with detain his victim. I don't see a good cop, I see one that was tried to violate this victim and failed. He gets a D-.

@@adcolt54 bruh what? Did you even watch the same video? It's very clear that this is a green officer and simply misunderstood his training. If you wish to see evil in the place of an honest mistake that's a very dark worldview. If he really was acting this way out of malice I highly doubt he would have been so apologetic and reasonable. He would have just drove away. I'm by no means a boot licker but even I can see this just a regular old case of an under trained officer.

@@RapTapTap69 and yet this good cop felt the need to run the man's plate to feed his ego of identifying him. Instead of focusing on the youth running around nude ( doubt it was a real call) this cop just wanting his victim to comply. What he should of done was to explain identify himself, why he was here, ask if he seen a 12yo running around nude, ask if he does see him call the cops, thank his victim and walk away. That didn't happen. He used the thin blue line gang tactics of criminalizing his victim invoking his rights as "suspicious" to the point of detainment just to have his victim obey him. Then demanding his children be identified!! Sorry, being apologetic because his tactics failed does not negate his actions.

@@adcolt54 yeah because if you get a call that there's a nude child in a small area then arrive to see a vehicle that is housing a child matching the very vague description you received you wouldn't be suspicious. Yepp checks out. Not to mention an officer can run your plates at any time as it's publicly available information and the officer really should have run the auditors plates before even stepping out of his vehicle. But, no hate the undertrained cop who made a sincere mistake in the face of a possible sex crime and did his best to make it right with the person he harassed. That makes sense as opposed to hating the system that obviously didn't do enough to train this cop and explain to him how his job works. The dude barely understands what he's saying so I highly doubt he's got some sort of master scheme going on behind the scenes

I was thinking the same thing. How many times have we heard "Ignorance is no excuse for the law".?

You make a great point. Thanks

Put police into longer training problems. Create a qualification that's a prerequisite to their signing up as law enforcers. And encourage the recording and auditing of their behaviour via an independent organisation that regulates the maintenance of keeping a standard of law. Citizens should not be expected to know the details of the law, they should expect fair treatment in return for keeping law and order. Police incompetence should not exist. If this is a problem then the general public should protest more forcing more political pressure. After all, this is a funding and organisational issue at the root cause, the people put those in power to do this. Power shouldn't keep the people.

Exactly!!! 😡

While I generally agree that the standard is in favor of police, I do also recognize that this is a necessity for a functioning police force. The reason is that a citizen is not charged with a duty to enforce law, but an officer is. We like to look at the police and say "well it's their job and they should know better" when they screw up, but when you examine that statement and look at how many people screw up on their jobs on a daily basis in the private sector, including doctors in hospitals, and firefighters, and other people we otherwise charge with great societal responsibilities, to realize that it would be untenable to be an officer without qualified immunity. That's not to say that we should just excuse bad cops being bad because "they didn't know no better", but that we are potentially holding cops to an impossible standard where they must know the law better than lawyers and judges and also be tasked with acting on the law in stressful and possibly dangerous situations. Lawyers and judges are safe in their heavily secured courtrooms and have plenty of time and additional support to make legal decisions and take legal actions from them, the police don't have that. They have to operate in messy situations where they don't have the luxury of examining every detail about a situation prior to taking action. So we have to give them some leeway to make mistakes, even if those mistakes may seem costly, because at the end of the day cops are just fallible humans too.

Happened to me the other day. Just walking back from the store. I refused to I.D. myself or answer ??? And walked away.

SUSPICION IS ALSO NOT A CRIME.

@@sydnidowney3598 right? It’s suspicion of COMMITTING A CRIME. not just someone BEING “SUS”

Okay but be honest, if you walked up and explained what you were investigating and that person responded immediately, and defensively, “WHO MADE THAT CALL?” You wouldn’t think that’s suspicious? I wouldn’t answer like that. I’d acknowledge the crime and then inform the officer of how long my kids and I had been there and that we hadn’t seen anything. I mean the cop was in the wrong here but the guy wasn’t helping his case. Was being odd and aggressive at a few different points.

@@AshNikkosWife I think it's perfectly fair to inquire who make the report that led to this interaction. We have a right to face our accuser do we not? I think his tone was perfectly justified for someone witnessing an illegal detention.

*from a British perspective* It doesn't, it's a thing for further down the line. Someone is obviously being detained here, there is only one officer. The officer can't stop the individual leaving (generally speaking), as unless he has the car registration and can rapidly persue, that car is gone. However he can't also conduct a thorough investigation into the area and circumstances. Giving name and details, means the person could be released from being detained. If in the process of investigating the area and circumstances, all reasonable evidence points to that person/family, then they can be reached/found and appropriately engaged. But, by refusing, the individual must therefore be detained until they are found not to be involved.

In that very moment it won’t help much that I can think of outside of having his name he would run it through however many background systems they have in Kentucky allowing him to see if the individual had any prior convictions for crimes that pertain to children.

@@Arcenture I would rather my name stay far away from any investigation I'm uninvolved in. Even if I found a dead body I may not report it because right there and then you are now a suspect in a murder investigation. You will be detained and questioned and probably even searched just for being a good Samaritan. On top of that it will be attached to your name that you are or were involved in a murder investigation say if you got pulled over later or something.

Exactly. A name does not solve, dismiss, or otherwise prove that they are or are not the person who committed the act that caused the call.

@Ki Kajiru any of that information can be found from the vehicle registration. Unless it's a counterfeit plate, but he could have that info before walking up to the driver. This is lazy police work and citizens aren't required to do their jobs for them.

exactly he was "trained" that an investigation is filling out reports, which means he needs something for the name box,. he is not trained to investigate he is trained that filling out the report is investigating. At the end of the day he could have names of everyone in the car minors included and he would be no closer to having any information about who committed the crime, even if one the occupants in the car was the party that had done it, because he has no description it appears of the child in question. unless he saw the child naked he would have no evidence, as he has no description,.. even the vauge description of 12 years old means nothing how does the caller know the kid is 12? unless officer physically sees someone running around naked, or they admit to it, he has no evidence, he should be driving around looking for kids running around naked, not hassling people in a car, who given cops reaction on the scene clearly not naked. for all we know kid was still out running around naked but hes to busy looking for a name to put in his report, so he can say he "investigated" as he was trained

The officer does care, that's why he's there investigating. Mr. Double is the one who doesn't care, because when told about a possible sex crime committed, or being committed, against a minor he seizes the opportunity to play constitutional scholar and waste the officer's time. What would be the possible harm in simply cooperating, or even (god forbid) being helpful?

@@jasonlongton1876 Nonsense. The The fact that somebody claimed some kid was skinny dipping or streaking or something does not mean we all lose our constitutional rights.

@@jasonlongton1876 he did help, he said call the complainant and get a description.

@@jasonlongton1876 if the officer understood the constitution or investigating he wouldn't be wasting time with mr double whom he clearly has no RAS of commuting a crime. ATA literally defines what constitutes obstruction in this video. Mr double is not extending the interaction he would clearly be happy to see officer ill-informed leave of his own volition. it is the officer that continues his investigation to into the naked child running around the park, by looking in mr doubles back seat.

@@jasonlongton1876 He was helpful. He immediately told the officer he hadn’t seen the child. That’s all he has to do. How does identifying himself help the officer find a naked child? It doesn’t. You boot lickers are pathetic. Spineless cowards so ready to surrender your rights.

Kentucky is a commonwealth state

@Drew Tomlinson::: I don't believe that cop made up anything. He is just not bright enough to understand his training and how to react to situations in the real world.

i agree, but i think its also possible that our grade a rights activist had the naked 13 year old now clothed, and was using his skill to make the officer back up to protect his child. yes, theres no proof, no theres nothing he should have done, but if an officer can be reliably expected to tiptoe around claims of violated rights, a criminal could use that to confuse and buy time to hide evidence.... not that there's anything the cop can do about or against that. except to lock down the situation first, which is what some people claim is a violation in the first place...

It explicitly violates the 3rd amendment by saying the constitution only can protect rights that are explicitly established (enumerated) when it comes to law enforcement officers.

I didn't understand it all, I'm sure, but it sounded like a person would need to cite a specific case that clearly shows a violation of a civil/Constitutional right occurred - I'd bet such a case would also need to be an exact match to your own situation. I doubt even a Supreme Court judge would know enough cases to accomplish that feat. Audit the Audit does what it does better than any other. But we need something that can restore freedom to Americans.

It is written down in a historical document that the officers swore an oath to. If that isn't clearly established, nothing is.

its funny when cops get qualified immunity for break the constitution.. the thing you learn in school.. let alone at the police academy.

The problem is that guys like this aren't trained well enough or long enough to learn what they need to in order to do the right thing, even if they're trying to. Apologies are rare because in the U.S, legally speaking it's an admission of guilt. Which is the stupidest thing ever. If you get into a car accident and you're rear ended, lets say you've called the cops, exchanged info, and are calmed down and no one is hurt. If you apologize to the person who hit you since you're sorry you're both in this situation, that could be used to justify the accident being your fault, even if you only meant the apology as one to represent the misfortune you're both sharing. Ridiculous.

Nah. The instructors are not to blame - the officer graduated from the Academy, so it may be inferred that he, at one time, knew the law. Folks forget things over time, and sometimes they just need a refresher. Looks like this officer took the lesson where he found it, and that's worth its weight in gold.

What gets me is all these people keep saying "oh he should've known already", as if they don't occasionally make mistakes about something they've learned in the past. Even worse are the variety who expect him to know EVERYTHING after being trained. It's illogical to expect a flawed human to be correct 100% of the time. How many of us were trained at a job and officially knew everything there is to know? It's probably no one, at least if they're being honest. How many of us went to college, only to realize upon hitting the real world that they taught you a small fraction; especially when it can take upwards of a decade to learn everything, let alone understand it completely. There's people who have studied law for decades, and still learn of new things. The difference between a good cop and a bad cop is to a> be willing to admit to making a mistake, and b> willing to ask someone who's more knowledgeable on the subject. Flat out, it's impossible to teach anyone everything there is to know about a subject in any kind of reasonable time period. We all like to pretend it can happen, but that's not how the real world works.

@@paulghignon4092 I disagree. You expect your pilot to not make a mistake on his first day. You expect your surgeon and many more. Some jobs you have to get right the first time. The ignorance is not my problem it is the refusal to admit being wrong or at least research themselves to correct the issue.