Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF08Wb_1z0ONDwh4Lvhu2AA/join
Get your Trifolds and 5th Amendment Cop Cards on www.DeleteLawZ.com
Thanks,
Chille
@ChilleDeCastro PayPal
@Chille-DeCastro Venmo
$ChilleDeCastro Cashapp
ZELLE: sohi90069 AT gmail dot com
source
American cops are most wannabe Nazis…
This freaking European clowns should go back where they came from 😱
If the justice system won't work the way it's supposed to, it can't have an issue when the public reminds them what justice is.
horrible as can be
Disgusting!! Pisses me off!!
Failure to obey a police officer. Ridiculous.
ACAB
😈
Straight blue cowardice.
ADRENALINE ADDICTED!!!
U think they care. They live for this kind of shit. They get off on it.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Answer: "Why we have 30-round magazines."
Question: "What do we do when the cops are unanswerable for their evils?"
You know what kind of person becomes a cop.
Never help or talk or trust the ss.
nazis in the US
Why don't you ever take the time to identify the city of department???
america is a hellhole
we are treated like dogs by them, and they LOVE to abuse us, cops MAKE victims
All police are garbage humans.
Another target for The Watchers. Watch your back PIG.
Bro how the fuck he is not in jail that's attempted murder or life threatening injury
When Justice is abused by power for so so long. The victims will eventually rise up. I pray it won't be violent. But Violence will be given if violence is received.
Us black bin telling y’all, but we were ignored
Was this in Arizona?
They DONT care, period.
Cops will need personal insurance. We don't need to pay civil rights lawsuits on behalf of these guys in blue. Tax payers money
Police aren’t even police anymore. They aren’t all about serve and protect. They don’t even care about protecting the public. They aren’t even required. It’s what they are when they first originated. A gang. And this type of gang is much different than your average street gang, and by far way more terrifying.
We need to take take our county back soon
When did this happen…?
I've been experiencing and witnessing these things since the early 80's
All cops are corrupted fascists
That police officer needs to be convicted of attempted murder
There's no such thing as " failure to obey " !!!!
1. Always record the police.
2. Always get their names and badge numbers.
3. Always ask, "Am I free to leave?"
4. Always ask for a supervisor.
5. Always remember you have the right to disobey an unlawful order from the police if you are confident they won't be able to demonstrate in court that the order was warranted and made necessary by your conduct. An arrest following refusal to obey an unwarranted police order is unlawful.
6. Always remember you have the right to refuse to identify yourself if you're confident that the police won't be able to demonstrate in court reasonable suspicion of your involvement in a crime; otherwise, provide your full name and nothing more, especially if threatened with arrest.
7. Always tell the cops, "I don't consent to any searches or seizures, and I won't answer questions."
8. Never argue with the police!
9. Never resist arrest! Unless you can do so safely and you have a valid reason like: self defense or defense of others, unlawful arrest, excessive force, necessity, mistake of fact, duress or coercion, malicious prosecution, preventing a crime, protecting property, medical emergency etc.
10. Always get a lawyer and sue when your rights are violated, targeting individual officers, their department and the municipality.
To streamline the process during a traffic stop, please print or write out the following statement to present to the police officer along with your license, registration, and proof of insurance:
—————————————————————-
WARNING OF LEGAL ACTION FOR RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
1. You are hereby informed of my expectations during our interaction, which are lawful and reasonable. Any deviation from these expectations may result in potential legal consequences.
2. Under the Fourth Amendment, I decline any searches or seizures. Additionally, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, I affirm my right to remain silent.
3. I understand that during a routine traffic stop, suspicions may arise. However, I am under no obligation to prove my innocence. Moreover, I kindly request that our interaction remains prompt and lawful. I have other commitments and would appreciate your cooperation in avoiding unnecessary delays.
4. Acknowledging safety concerns, I want to confirm that I am unarmed and have no weapons in the vehicle. I'll keep my hands visible on the wheel and use recording devices to document the interaction for transparency. I'll briefly lower the window for document exchange, ensuring it's securely closed afterward. I will not exit the vehicle unless lawfully arrested.
5. Please be aware that any violation of my rights or unlawful actions may result in legal action, including civil lawsuits, criminal charges, and federal prosecution pursued against individual officers, their respective police departments, and the municipality.
6. In the absence of reasonable articulable suspicion that I am involved in a crime, it would be unreasonable for you to become suspicious after reading this document. Treating law-abiding citizens as criminals is unacceptable in a democratic society. I expect you to respect my rights, as per your oath to uphold the Constitution.
Your strict compliance with the law is earnestly anticipated.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
—————————————————————-
HOW QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WORKS
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, from civil liability for actions performed within their official capacity, as long as those actions do not violate "clearly established" constitutional rights. However, there are certain circumstances where qualified immunity might not protect police officers:
1. Violation of Clearly Established Law: If a police officer violates a constitutional right that has been clearly established by existing case law, qualified immunity may not apply. In such cases, the court determines whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
2. Excessive Use of Force: If a police officer uses excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, qualified immunity may not shield them from liability. Courts examine the specific circumstances of each case to determine whether the force used was objectively reasonable.
3. Malicious Conduct: Qualified immunity does not protect officers who engage in malicious conduct or who knowingly violate the law. If it can be shown that an officer acted with malicious intent or deliberately disregarded someone's constitutional rights, they may not be entitled to qualified immunity.
4. Gross Negligence: In cases where an officer's conduct demonstrates gross negligence or reckless disregard for the rights of others, qualified immunity might not apply. Courts may find that such conduct goes beyond the scope of official duties and therefore does not merit immunity.
5. Violation of Clearly Established Policies or Procedures: If a police officer violates departmental policies or procedures, which are designed to protect individuals' rights, qualified immunity may not shield them from liability. Adherence to departmental protocols does not automatically grant immunity if those actions still violate constitutional rights.
6. Lack of Subjective Reasonableness: Even if an officer's actions are deemed objectively reasonable under the circumstances, if the officer's subjective intent is malicious or in bad faith, qualified immunity might not apply.
—————————————————————-
PERSONAL OPINION
Terry v. Ohio, a landmark Supreme Court case, established the legal precedent for the "stop and frisk" practice, enabling law enforcement officers to detain and search individuals based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. While proponents argue that Terry stops are essential for crime prevention and public safety, there are compelling reasons why this ruling should be overturned.
First and foremost, Terry v. Ohio infringes upon fundamental constitutional rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Allowing law enforcement officers to detain and search individuals without probable cause undermines the core principles of privacy and individual liberty that are enshrined in the Constitution. Our rights should not be subject to suspension or compromise based solely on an officer's suspicion or intuition.
Moreover, the implementation of Terry stops disproportionately targets marginalized communities, particularly people of color. Numerous studies have shown that stop and frisk policies result in racial profiling and discriminatory practices by law enforcement agencies. This systemic bias not only violates the principles of equal protection under the law but also fosters distrust and resentment within communities, exacerbating tensions between law enforcement and the public they are meant to serve.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of Terry stops in preventing crime is highly questionable. While proponents argue that these stops are necessary for proactive policing and crime deterrence, there is limited evidence to support their efficacy. In many cases, Terry stops yield minimal results in terms of crime prevention or the discovery of contraband or weapons. Instead, they often lead to the harassment and intimidation of innocent individuals, eroding trust in law enforcement and hindering community cooperation.
In light of these concerns, it is imperative that Terry v. Ohio be overturned. Law enforcement officers should be required to adhere to strict standards of probable cause when conducting searches and seizures, ensuring that our constitutional rights are upheld and protected. Exceptions to this standard should be rare and justified, based on credible evidence that is admissible in a court of law.
In conclusion, the preservation of individual rights and civil liberties is paramount in a democratic society. Terry v. Ohio represents a troubling erosion of these rights and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked police authority. It is time for the Supreme Court to reevaluate this decision and reaffirm the principles of justice, equality, and constitutional protections for all individuals.
This abuse and cruelty must be stopped .
Awful cop
I just want to know where the judge's lawyers, They can't see what's happening out there.They turn a blind guy damn oth Breakers, they have laws,
So disturbing, does anybody still believe that cops are actually truly there to serve and protect the citizens?
This is sickening
No de escalation! Pig ass cop.
No we need to organize as citizens this is tyranny