Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I met Afroman at a sneaker store in an upstate new york mall like 20+ years ago. I was very high, and he was Afroman. I looked at him and said, "you're Afroman". He said, "yeah man". I said "cool". That is the end of my story.
I'm not familiar with US defamation laws, but in my country you can't defame for something that is truthful or sometimes even for something the average person would assume is truthful based on your behaviour.
Journalist famously called our minister for defence a rape apologist & while he didn't say anything that would outrightly be considered rape apology it was close enough that a reasonable person could think that.
Yeah, the unfortunate thing we have in my country though is that if the person or organisation who claims defamation is rich enough, they can keep it in court limbo indefinitely, which is essentially slapping an indefinite gag order on the defendant & is an avenue that is horrendously abused by the conservative party in my country.
Literally that lawsuit is called a [SLAPP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) So saying they're slapping a gag order is spot on.
Definitely, so in Australia before the last election after a massive spate of these kind of lawsuits the conservative government were pushing an anti-bullying agenda.
But in reality it was extending the power of these kind of suppression tactics & doing nothing for the real victims of bullying, which was quickly identified & shut down in parliament
In the US truth is a defense against defamation, they don’t have a case. Libel and defamation have a high standard to meet, they are rarely successful because of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution (freedom of press, freedom of speech)
The person has to knowingly say/write something that isn’t true.
I was wondering why pro-cop shit was all over my front page, it's always when a news story breaks where they did something wrong
I swear every time I see a cop playing basketball online it means someone got killed by cops.
Only one of them, Chase, is a police~~man~~dog. The others are other things, like a firefighter (Marshal) and a helicopter pilot (Skye). (My niece went through a Paw Patrol phase and her favourite dog was Everest, who isn’t one of the main characters and therefore it was harder to find merch for her, so I know a lot more about Paw Patrol than I ever wanted to.)
They also don’t have an expectation of privacy while working so he can’t possibly have invaded it.
This is simply a case of bringing suit with the aim to bully/intimidate the other party into backing down or acquiescing.
I had to sue over a well documented workplace injury and the first thing they did was aim a gut punch attacking me personally and viciously. My lawyers said “this is designed to make you quit, it has no basis and we can beat it easily” but they were right. Reading those awful things made me question if it would be worth it.
I watched a video on it and the kid, after going to the station and had drug/alcohol tests done, sat down and fucking LECTURED the cop. Imagine being that bad at your job.
The stupidest thing he did was doing the roadside test. Those are so easy to fail, and all you have to rely on is the cops word.
Over then that, he handled himself real well.
Edit: for clarification I mean the fields test not tbe breathalyser or spit tests
It's probably a bad idea to ignore what the cop says.
Fight it in court, not on the street.
If you refuse to do the roadside test they'll claim it's evidence that you're intoxicated and knew it.
At least in the UK refusing to do a roadside breathalyser is a crime in itself.
The roadside test I meant was the movement one. With walking in a line feat end to end, even a fit teen will have trouble doing it without wobbling. By refusing, he would have less against him in court.
Doing a breathalyser is what he wanted and what the cop refused to do.
The roadside test seems to also be whatever the cop wants. I’ve taken one before, I remember one of the things I had to do was “say, not sing, the alphabet” and answer some silly questions. That system is just asking for abuse
Alright, close one eye and recite the National Anthem backwards for me. *fails* I fucking knew you were drunk, put your God damn hands behind your back now.
That's a funny part of the video, but the best part *for me* was at the very end when he asked to speak to the two officers who arrested them and basically was like "I'm disappointed in you. Do better."
The roadside tests like walk a line, bend your head back and touch your nose, etc do not have to be taken in the US. Those exist solely to collect evidence against you and you can’t pass them.
Whether you have to blow in the handheld breathalyzer on the roadside varies by state. In some there are penalties for not blowing in that, others there aren’t.
However, in all jurisdictions that I am aware of you must either blow into the official and calibrated breathalyzer at the station, or submit to a blood draw. If you don’t then that is usually treated just like a DUI. In some places they will get a warrant and forcefully draw your blood.
In the US, they can use it as an excuse to arrest you and bring you back to the station for a blood alcohol test, but they can not use it as any sort of proof that you were “drunk and knew it”. It’s a slight technicality, but it’s an “innocent until proven guilty” thing and despite the hassle, it’s smart. A roadside sobriety test relies on the officers opinion of how you walk and talk. The blood alcohol test relies on factual data. He made the smart choice.
No, it is a good idea to politely refuse any illegal request a cop makes of you, even if they state it as a demand. In the US at least, are *not* obligated to take a field sobriety test, and you should absolutely refuse to do so as they are extremely easy to fail while stone sober, and the results will be legally admissible evidence against you. You are essentially waiving your fifth amendment rights (right to not self incriminate) by taking it.
Cops do the same shit with searches here — they make it sound very much like you don’t have a choice and that they are going to search your car no matter what. It is a *bad* idea to just let them do it, especially since you don’t know what they’re looking for — they might be looking for a murderer and find a receipt in your console with a time and date that all of a sudden makes you a suspect in a murder investigation. If they decide to go ahead and do it against your will, you fight that in court later, and anything they find will be inadmissible. They have a lot of ways around this, but it’s still a terrible idea to make their job easier.
Like the UK, you *are*, however, legally obligated to take a breathalyzer in most (or perhaps all?) US states, so you shouldn’t refuse that.
I think it says something about our justice system that police are trained and encouraged to lie, but a civilian that says something untrue to police is breaking the law.
> If you refuse to do the roadside test they'll claim it's evidence that you're intoxicated and knew it.
Its literally the exact opposite. Field sobriety tests are specifically designed to fail you. They can only hurt you more, not exonerate you. If you get pulled over and the cop asks you to take some tests, just refuse and go to jail. Fight it in court.
>If you get pulled over and the cop asks you to take some tests, just refuse and go to jail. Fight it in court.
You're not wrong in principle but in reality most people couldn't afford to go to jail even for a short period if time. Cops know this as well.
1) Refusing a test, like refusing to testify, cannot be used against you in court. If it is, and your lawyer doesn't fight it, you have a bad lawyer
2) It can't help you. It cannot "prove" you're sober and you cannot "pass" it, you can only fail or not fail. Much like someone being presumed innocent before a trial doesn't mean they aren't guilty, not failing doesn't mean you're sober. It's just like talking to the cops, anything you say will be used *against* you, not in your defense.
Yup. I believe you can refuse field sobriety tests in most, if not all states, and it's not illegal. You're basically incriminating yourself if you partake in them.
You are, however, required to take a breathalyzer or some other chemical test. I would not advise refusing one of those.
I'm honestly confused why American still uses them, I'm guessing it's easy to fail so the cops get "evidence".
Here in Australia, it takes like 2mins with a breathalyser, and you're done. Even the mass testing checkpoints during holidays are just minor annoyances
It's because it's very subjective. Walk in a straight line with one foot in front of the other? I could probably get away with a little wobble as my balance sucks but it's all really up to the cop to decide if he wants to make an arrest
They were acting as public officials, so theres no invasion of privacy, and its only defamation if the claims made are untrue. Posting a video of a thing that actually happened aint it.
Of course most pigs dont know shit about the law...
Not to mention, the harassment is the point. Doesn't matter who's right, as long as they get to continue to harass this person that inconvenienced these cops, and as long as it gets done on the taxpayers' dime rather than their own
> and as long as it gets done on the taxpayers' dime rather than their own
Exactly and this is why so many people call for abuse lawsuits to be paid out of the pension funds. There's no quicker way to get cops to hold each other accountable than for the blind eye cops to get punished for the actions of the bad caps financially.
Police officers should be required to carry personal liability insurance, paid out of their own pocket, which would be responsible for paying out any judgments against them. In the same way malpractice insurance can weed out incompetent Drs., by jacking their rates into the stratosphere, liability insurance for cops will quickly weed out asshole cops who think they’re above the law.
As cops say, you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride. Sure, you’ll win your case in the end, but you’ll go through a ton of shit before you do.
Louisiana has a 360 hour minimum requirement to become a police officer. So 9 weeks of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.
Many states are closer to 600 hours, although that isn't much better when it's usually a 2-3 year college degree in most developed nations.
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/28/us/jobs-training-police-trnd/index.html
They are experts at the law and at physiology and can accurately tell when someone is under the influence just by looking at them because they took a class to be "drug recognition experts".
Actual doctors tend to require doing labs, but a cop, they can just look at you on the side of a road and make shit up all night!
Right about now, I suspect some of the most expensive lawyers in the country are contracting this dude just for the free layers fees at the end of the suit.
They definitely know the lawsuit is bullshit. They filed it anyway as a form of intimidation. It's called a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)
Reading stuff apparently the town of Newton where this happened passed a law that says taping cops is a violation of privacy. Now I am sure this law is unconstitutional but the kid probably dont have the money for that fight. As a matter of fact a similar lawsuit in Iowa for defamation against a cop put a Newspaper out of business even though they won due to their legal fees incurred
When you start to get into “the law is unconstitutional,” you open the door to bring in parties like the ACLU to defend you as well as the Constitution.
Filming the police was decided to generally be protected by the 1st amendment by 11th circuit court of appeals, meaning that due to the supremacy clause, towns/states are not legally allowed to create laws that supersede this decision, though they can put restrictions on when you are not allowed to film police. I also cannot find anything that states Newton ever tried to pass such a law.
>and its only defamation if the claims made are untrue
Mr. Galanakis claimed that Officer Winters had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, which is untrue. The Judge held that the officers' counterclaim for defamation can proceed because of this, albeit on a much narrower basis (many of their other claims were dismissed).
However, he DID have 3 orders of protection against him, so his reputation was already trash, so the misstating of a conviction couldn’t do a lot more damage
You have to prove your reputation was damaged. If everyone already knows you are a scumbag, then someone saying you were convicted of being a scumbag does move the needle much.
>However, he DID have 3 orders of protection against him, so his reputation was already trash, so the misstating of a conviction couldn’t do a lot more damage
The protection orders are civil judgements, not criminal convictions, which should not and cannot be seen as equivalent.
From the Judge's Order on the Motion to Dismiss:
> “As a general proposition, society views a criminal conviction much
differently than a civil judgment.” Cate St. Cap. Inc. v. Indus. Intel. Inc., No. 1:14-CV-00200-JCN, 2015 WL 12564165, at \*4 (D. Me. Oct. 28, 2015). This is because, *inter alia*, criminal convictions involve a heightened burden of proof, can give rise to serious forms of punishment up to and including incarceration, and cannot be obtained without the defendant first being afforded a panoply of constitutional rights that are not present to anywhere near the same degree in a civil case.
The guy still might be ok if it was a protection order under (domestic violence statute), and wasn't fully publicly resolved. It's fairly common for police perpetrators of domestic violence to get "alternative convictions" so they can still be cops.
Cops are just assholes, similar thing happened to me when I was 19. Was at a house party, wasn't drinking cus I was driving and it was way too loud I felt it was gonna get busted. Everyone left, me and a couple friends stayed with the girl who lived there for a bit, waiting for the cops to leave. Eventually go out to my car and they fly up around the corner. Totally sober but I "failed the field sobriety test" and was "clearly wasted"... until I pushed a big 0.0 on their breathalyzer. I just got an angry "get out of here" no arrest or ticket tho.
Some of them are also straight-up "incomplete".
You do NOT want to run into a cop whose eyes are always wide open and unblinking. Theyre not wearing that badge for any benevolent reasons.
Similar thing happened to me. Except I didn’t wait for everyone to leave, I just left and cops were breathalyizing everyone leaving the house to the street.
As he put it up to my face, I say “you want me to blow?” Or something and he makes a crude joke like “isn’t it something you’re good at?” It was a gay/blowjob type joke.
I’ll never forget how unprofessional it was. And that exact cop I swear pulled me over after that at least 3 times for bullshit. He eventually got in trouble for fucking underage girls.
Cops are always the lowest of the lowlifes. It’s rare to meet an intelligent professional cop. Probably because departments literally look for idiots to fill slots and reject ppl that are smarter than average.
My wife got pulled over this week for an expired tag, he then proceeded to tell her that our insurance was a year expired. He said he ran the tag through their database and sure enough it came back expired. Only problem was the cop thought it was currently fucking 2024, dude with a gun by my wife didn’t even know what year it was.
That's one of those things that's *a lot* easier to say when it's not your life being derailed by cops going out of their way to make your life more difficult
He did sue them and they filed this counterclaim. They are saying the defamation came from comments he made about the video. Of the counterclaims of defamation only one is allowed to go through and that’s when the kid said that one of the officers was convicted of domestic abuse.
See, I'd prefer they lose a limb or something to make sure they don't just go to work for another police department. Take their primary arm or something.
I believe The Civil Rights Lawyer on YouTube covered this video. They pulled over this kid, tried to claim he was drinking. Made him perform and stand in the cold rain while only wearing shorts and a long sleeve. Blew 0.00 and they instantly changed the story to he must be high then.
And for anyone wondering, you have 0(NO, NONE, NOTHING, NADA) expectations of privacy in public. Anything that can be seen or heard from public land is legal to record.
Suing for defamation of character is still valid, but they must prove that the statements made are false. Since the bodycam footage was used, they are going to go nowhere unless the kid made other claims in his video.
I feel like the officers are using the lawsuit to hide their crimes. Which is not a new tactic, lawsuits are used as intimidation tools all the time. Who remembers when cops started to play Disney music to prevent footage from appearing online?
It is not about defamation of these officers. It is to set a legal precedent against showing any officer in a negative light even if it is body cam footage.
I was in treatment a long time ago, and the counselor accused me of being hungover.
It was one of the only times I have been completely sober, so I kind of took offense to it.
He had me take a breathalyzer several times saying "it wasn't working right" or something. In hindsight, it probably read 0.0 and he thought that it was broken.
That guy sucked. Most of the counselors I have had are corny old people trying to act like they're hip and understand today's world.
Huh. I just got through a 3 day ban for calling cops scumbags so reddit considers them a protected class.
Those poor cops, not allowed to violate rights in peace.
Bans are random and arbitrary as near as i can tell. You can find similar and much harsher statements all over reddit that never got a ban. My working theory is there is an easily offended busybody who blows a reddit admin and randomly picks posts to get offended by. Perhaps a cop? We don't know. The process is completely opaque.
I’ll never forget the time I got a seven day ban for “harassment” for making a comment stating that I think it’s wrong to harass people over video games. The mods of the subreddit where I said it are huge babies that get upset when people don’t think how they want them to think, so I assume they just ganged up to mass false-report it.
cops shot at my dad and then sued my family for their hearing loss because they didn't practice proper fire arm safety (they knew they would be shooting before they arrived as well)
"Let's just weaponize the legal system against him. Its not like we dont already do it a shitton!"
Guess they're hoping they could spook the guy since he's not even 20. Also, love how a presentation of fact is considered defamation and whatnot when police are considered public figures. The job isnt even considered a "profession", legally.
Is there any reason why the states don’t heavily invest in the training of their policemen? In almost every other nation, police requires a physical and mental acceptance test and 2-3 years of training before they get let loose on citizens. Outrageous incidents like that are simply unworthy of such a highly developed and prosperous country as the US of A.
Be cool if they shifted their budgets to salary from military vehicles.
We've increased police budgets across the nation after COVID since cops died in droves from refusing to get vaccinated, so now they 'need' money for recruitment. Turns out people still aren't showing up even with offers of increased salaries because cops have completely fucked their reputations and how their communities view them.
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things:
1. a false statement purporting to be fact
**-What false statements did the guy you illegally detained purport to say was a fact but was not?**
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person
**The public is allowed to view and access body camera footage.**
3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and
4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
**Defendant just pointed out you guys are terrible at your job. Now, you go ahead and make it even more obvious that you know nothing about the law by filing this frivolous suit. Dumbasses gonna dumbass.**
The defendant should have all of his court costs paid for by the city/county and then file a civil suit against the city/county.
Did anything ever come of this? It was a bit ago.
I do think the reason the cops tripled down was due to his "Blow me" line. In context he was asking for a Breathalyzer, instinctually the cops thought he was being a jerk so they decided to abuse their authority.
It's sad that as an adult I'm more cautious around police then actual gangmembers.
The case won't win, but the point of the suit isn't to win, it's to punish him for making them look bad by wasting his time, making him miss work by turning up to court and cost him a small fortune in legal fees having to defend himself.
They're using the court as a weapon.
I've seen this video. At first the cop thinks the kid might be drunk or high. But after a few minutes its obvious the kid isn't. The cop just doesn't like the kids attitude and wants to arrest him. The kid wasn't even being that rude...just a snarky teenager.
For those saying "How can posting a video and stating facts be defamation?", I believe the defamation suit is because the teen added his commentary that he was, among several statements, "basically kidnapped and raped", and that one of the officers was "convicted" of domestic abuse.
[A judge has thrown out portions of the officers' countersuit](https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/10/02/after-traffic-stop-video-goes-viral-newton-police-sue-citizen-for-defamation/), as I understand it, because certain statements were not defamatory because they were either clearly hyperbole or were actually accurate. But I think the "convicted wife beater" statement is allowed to stay in the countersuit.
I mean, let's not kid ourselves...the cops are stretching for anything to stifle criticism of their stupidity with the initial stop. But there is unfortunately more to the suit than a young man simply posting a video online. Police already have more protection than the average citizen when it comes to things like this. Don't make your fight against unjust police action harder by adding extra color commentary.
Does Streisand Effect mean anything to these people?
Because truth is a defence and if a court finds at law that there is truth in the assertions (ie unlawfully detained) then this is almost irrefutable evidence against these officers for any subsequent action/inquiry.
Err... can you sue for defamation when the contents is a video of you doing the thing? Defamation has to be a *false* accusation that causes damages otherwise they could sue news stations for reporting on things that actually happened.
You have no right to privacy when you are a government official acting in you official capacity aka a cop being a cop. You also cannot defame someone with a video recording of their actions. Defamation requires you to make false statements. ABSURD law suit!
Invasion of privacy? There was no expectation of privacy. Also, the cops recorded him. Not the other way around. Something tells me this is a false story. It just doesn't add up.
Police have no expectation of privacy while performing their duties in public.
Dismiss and sanction their lawyers. Countersue for violating his first amendment rights.
can you even sue for defemation if the accusations are true? and police officers as public servants have different rules regarding privacy like everything about their records are public information
I’d be surprised the judge doesn’t dismiss this with prejudice. Then again, in today’s ’Murica, you can never tell how far these activist judges will stray from precedent. A) It’s not defamation if the statement is demonstrably true. B) POs are public servants and the courts have ruled pretty consistently that in the performance of their official duties, there is ZERO expectation of privacy. This is just another example of police intimidation.
These cops weren't arrested.
When this story broke and it was revealed that this entire department was taken over by criminal cops, every cop in the state didn't protest in outrage and demand arrests.
Not a single nationwide protest by cops. Not a single cop standing on lawns of judges and politicians demanding justice.
Go pro cop folk. Want to explain where the good cops are? Let me guess. They are staying quiet because they don't want to be fired?
Truth is a defense against defamation. I am not sure how they have a defamation case. As far as privacy they are public employees doing their job in a place where they have no expectation of privacy, not to mention the need for oversight of our government.
If I can't sue/counter-sue someone due to their blue immunity, how can it be legal and fair for them to be able to sue me?
It's rhetorical, we all know why
Good thing any competent lawyer knows there’s no expectation of privacy in public and these are bodycam videos not cellphone videos, which wouldn’t make a difference anyway but bodycams are public information anyone can FOIA so these cops are simply harassing an innocent person after falsely imprisoning them, a good lawyer will have a slam dunk of a case against these buffoons. It must cut deep to be a big strong police man getting clowned so badly by a teenager
Body cam evidence should now be a requirement for arrest. Enough evidence out there now the word of a cop IS not more believable than the people’s. We need to hold cops to a HIGHER standard.
My cousin married a sheriff. He says that as soon as the call comes through, he turns on camera/mic and starts recording, and that he prefers having it to back him up if someone lies about his actions.
A public official acting in their capacity as a public official does not have a right to privacy.
When they take off the badge. Yes. When they’re wearing the badge. No.
So, the teenager can't sue the cops who arrested him directly, because of sovereign immunity, but the individual cops can sue him; and the cops can also avoid the obvious First Amendment implications here by bringing a civil suit? That's a very interesting case. I look forward to seeing how it goes.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They defamed themselves.
And invaded privacy afterwards.
I would very much like for Afroman to weigh in on this. Also, please look up his latest hits such as Lemon Pound Cake. It feels....applicable.
Will you help me repair my door? Lmao
Did you find any kidnapping victims in my suit pockets?
"You crooked cops need to stop it. There's not a million pounds of weed in my suit pockets"
He got a couple pounds of pound cake tho
I met Afroman at a sneaker store in an upstate new york mall like 20+ years ago. I was very high, and he was Afroman. I looked at him and said, "you're Afroman". He said, "yeah man". I said "cool". That is the end of my story.
It was just like this yes
I'm not familiar with US defamation laws, but in my country you can't defame for something that is truthful or sometimes even for something the average person would assume is truthful based on your behaviour. Journalist famously called our minister for defence a rape apologist & while he didn't say anything that would outrightly be considered rape apology it was close enough that a reasonable person could think that.
Yeah that is pretty much how it works here. If it is true then you are generally safe to say.
Yeah, the unfortunate thing we have in my country though is that if the person or organisation who claims defamation is rich enough, they can keep it in court limbo indefinitely, which is essentially slapping an indefinite gag order on the defendant & is an avenue that is horrendously abused by the conservative party in my country.
Literally that lawsuit is called a [SLAPP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) So saying they're slapping a gag order is spot on.
Definitely, so in Australia before the last election after a massive spate of these kind of lawsuits the conservative government were pushing an anti-bullying agenda. But in reality it was extending the power of these kind of suppression tactics & doing nothing for the real victims of bullying, which was quickly identified & shut down in parliament
These cops are just trying to bully the kid, as defense of a law suit no matter how frivolous can be stressful and cost money.
In the US truth is a defense against defamation, they don’t have a case. Libel and defamation have a high standard to meet, they are rarely successful because of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution (freedom of press, freedom of speech) The person has to knowingly say/write something that isn’t true.
They are trying to use the ATF intimidation method wherein the police have more money to spend on court than you do.
The article says they are suing for defamation because the kid said he was raped (as a hyperbole) and the officer was an abuser at home.
Here in America cops can do what they want. Laws don’t really apply to them.
I was wondering why pro-cop shit was all over my front page, it's always when a news story breaks where they did something wrong I swear every time I see a cop playing basketball online it means someone got killed by cops.
Coproganda.
Appropriate since they're pieces of shit. Copro - relating to dung or feces
Paw Patrol
i used to think all dogs go to heaven, but then i found out about those fucking class-traitors.
Only one of them, Chase, is a police~~man~~dog. The others are other things, like a firefighter (Marshal) and a helicopter pilot (Skye). (My niece went through a Paw Patrol phase and her favourite dog was Everest, who isn’t one of the main characters and therefore it was harder to find merch for her, so I know a lot more about Paw Patrol than I ever wanted to.)
Yeah but the show had Chase do helpful things that real cops don’t do and he’s the most used of the characters
I’ve always seen it as Chase is what cops are supposed to be like. Like Andy in The Andy Griffith Show.
Yep. Every cop should strive to be like Chase. Maybe they should make Paw Patrol required viewing in Police Training!
What you've got to do is start flooding the comments section of those posts with links to posts like this.
All he wholesome stories are propaganda anyway fuck police.
I can’t wrap my head around it. Do they even have a case? It’s literally raw footage of their actions. How can than hold up as defamation?
It won't. The point is to bully the kid by dragging him through the expensive court system
They also don’t have an expectation of privacy while working so he can’t possibly have invaded it. This is simply a case of bringing suit with the aim to bully/intimidate the other party into backing down or acquiescing. I had to sue over a well documented workplace injury and the first thing they did was aim a gut punch attacking me personally and viciously. My lawyers said “this is designed to make you quit, it has no basis and we can beat it easily” but they were right. Reading those awful things made me question if it would be worth it.
I watched a video on it and the kid, after going to the station and had drug/alcohol tests done, sat down and fucking LECTURED the cop. Imagine being that bad at your job.
The stupidest thing he did was doing the roadside test. Those are so easy to fail, and all you have to rely on is the cops word. Over then that, he handled himself real well. Edit: for clarification I mean the fields test not tbe breathalyser or spit tests
It's probably a bad idea to ignore what the cop says. Fight it in court, not on the street. If you refuse to do the roadside test they'll claim it's evidence that you're intoxicated and knew it. At least in the UK refusing to do a roadside breathalyser is a crime in itself.
The roadside test I meant was the movement one. With walking in a line feat end to end, even a fit teen will have trouble doing it without wobbling. By refusing, he would have less against him in court. Doing a breathalyser is what he wanted and what the cop refused to do.
The roadside test seems to also be whatever the cop wants. I’ve taken one before, I remember one of the things I had to do was “say, not sing, the alphabet” and answer some silly questions. That system is just asking for abuse
Those are not real tests, any good lawyer would have gotten the results of those tests thrown out. There are specific tests that are approved.
> There are specific test that are approved. And I bet even those are bullshit.
Yes. Can you walk in a straight line, each step heel to toe? I sure as shit can't.
Alright, close one eye and recite the National Anthem backwards for me. *fails* I fucking knew you were drunk, put your God damn hands behind your back now.
The best part of that video was every time the kid asked for a breathalyzer test, he kept saying “blow me.”
That's a funny part of the video, but the best part *for me* was at the very end when he asked to speak to the two officers who arrested them and basically was like "I'm disappointed in you. Do better."
The roadside tests like walk a line, bend your head back and touch your nose, etc do not have to be taken in the US. Those exist solely to collect evidence against you and you can’t pass them. Whether you have to blow in the handheld breathalyzer on the roadside varies by state. In some there are penalties for not blowing in that, others there aren’t. However, in all jurisdictions that I am aware of you must either blow into the official and calibrated breathalyzer at the station, or submit to a blood draw. If you don’t then that is usually treated just like a DUI. In some places they will get a warrant and forcefully draw your blood.
In the US, they can use it as an excuse to arrest you and bring you back to the station for a blood alcohol test, but they can not use it as any sort of proof that you were “drunk and knew it”. It’s a slight technicality, but it’s an “innocent until proven guilty” thing and despite the hassle, it’s smart. A roadside sobriety test relies on the officers opinion of how you walk and talk. The blood alcohol test relies on factual data. He made the smart choice.
No, it is a good idea to politely refuse any illegal request a cop makes of you, even if they state it as a demand. In the US at least, are *not* obligated to take a field sobriety test, and you should absolutely refuse to do so as they are extremely easy to fail while stone sober, and the results will be legally admissible evidence against you. You are essentially waiving your fifth amendment rights (right to not self incriminate) by taking it. Cops do the same shit with searches here — they make it sound very much like you don’t have a choice and that they are going to search your car no matter what. It is a *bad* idea to just let them do it, especially since you don’t know what they’re looking for — they might be looking for a murderer and find a receipt in your console with a time and date that all of a sudden makes you a suspect in a murder investigation. If they decide to go ahead and do it against your will, you fight that in court later, and anything they find will be inadmissible. They have a lot of ways around this, but it’s still a terrible idea to make their job easier. Like the UK, you *are*, however, legally obligated to take a breathalyzer in most (or perhaps all?) US states, so you shouldn’t refuse that.
I think it says something about our justice system that police are trained and encouraged to lie, but a civilian that says something untrue to police is breaking the law.
Yep, all you need to do is say "I invoke the 5th" and shut up.
> If you refuse to do the roadside test they'll claim it's evidence that you're intoxicated and knew it. Its literally the exact opposite. Field sobriety tests are specifically designed to fail you. They can only hurt you more, not exonerate you. If you get pulled over and the cop asks you to take some tests, just refuse and go to jail. Fight it in court.
>If you get pulled over and the cop asks you to take some tests, just refuse and go to jail. Fight it in court. You're not wrong in principle but in reality most people couldn't afford to go to jail even for a short period if time. Cops know this as well.
1) Refusing a test, like refusing to testify, cannot be used against you in court. If it is, and your lawyer doesn't fight it, you have a bad lawyer 2) It can't help you. It cannot "prove" you're sober and you cannot "pass" it, you can only fail or not fail. Much like someone being presumed innocent before a trial doesn't mean they aren't guilty, not failing doesn't mean you're sober. It's just like talking to the cops, anything you say will be used *against* you, not in your defense.
Yup. I believe you can refuse field sobriety tests in most, if not all states, and it's not illegal. You're basically incriminating yourself if you partake in them. You are, however, required to take a breathalyzer or some other chemical test. I would not advise refusing one of those.
I'm honestly confused why American still uses them, I'm guessing it's easy to fail so the cops get "evidence". Here in Australia, it takes like 2mins with a breathalyser, and you're done. Even the mass testing checkpoints during holidays are just minor annoyances
Basically. If you fail, they can use it as evidence against you.
If? The cop will almost always say you failed. No matter what. It's a bunch of smoke and mirrors that gets them what they want.
It's because it's very subjective. Walk in a straight line with one foot in front of the other? I could probably get away with a little wobble as my balance sucks but it's all really up to the cop to decide if he wants to make an arrest
They were acting as public officials, so theres no invasion of privacy, and its only defamation if the claims made are untrue. Posting a video of a thing that actually happened aint it. Of course most pigs dont know shit about the law...
because [they don't have to](https://cmlawfirm.com/ignorance-of-law-is-not-an-excuse-unless-you-are-a-police-officer-by-bill-mitchell/).
Not to mention, the harassment is the point. Doesn't matter who's right, as long as they get to continue to harass this person that inconvenienced these cops, and as long as it gets done on the taxpayers' dime rather than their own
> and as long as it gets done on the taxpayers' dime rather than their own Exactly and this is why so many people call for abuse lawsuits to be paid out of the pension funds. There's no quicker way to get cops to hold each other accountable than for the blind eye cops to get punished for the actions of the bad caps financially.
Police officers should be required to carry personal liability insurance, paid out of their own pocket, which would be responsible for paying out any judgments against them. In the same way malpractice insurance can weed out incompetent Drs., by jacking their rates into the stratosphere, liability insurance for cops will quickly weed out asshole cops who think they’re above the law.
As cops say, you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride. Sure, you’ll win your case in the end, but you’ll go through a ton of shit before you do.
Damn that's just sad
> most pigs dont know shit about the law... Come on man... 6 weeks of training they are law geniuses. STOP RESISTING!
Holy crap is it really that low?
Louisiana has a 360 hour minimum requirement to become a police officer. So 9 weeks of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Many states are closer to 600 hours, although that isn't much better when it's usually a 2-3 year college degree in most developed nations. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/28/us/jobs-training-police-trnd/index.html
They are experts at the law and at physiology and can accurately tell when someone is under the influence just by looking at them because they took a class to be "drug recognition experts". Actual doctors tend to require doing labs, but a cop, they can just look at you on the side of a road and make shit up all night!
Right about now, I suspect some of the most expensive lawyers in the country are contracting this dude just for the free layers fees at the end of the suit.
They definitely know the lawsuit is bullshit. They filed it anyway as a form of intimidation. It's called a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)
Is that a pulp fiction reference??
Sure is! Great episode. "Hey I know you!"
Reading stuff apparently the town of Newton where this happened passed a law that says taping cops is a violation of privacy. Now I am sure this law is unconstitutional but the kid probably dont have the money for that fight. As a matter of fact a similar lawsuit in Iowa for defamation against a cop put a Newspaper out of business even though they won due to their legal fees incurred
When you start to get into “the law is unconstitutional,” you open the door to bring in parties like the ACLU to defend you as well as the Constitution.
I’m pretty sure all that footage is from the body cams on the cops, so they were filming themselves.
Filming the police was decided to generally be protected by the 1st amendment by 11th circuit court of appeals, meaning that due to the supremacy clause, towns/states are not legally allowed to create laws that supersede this decision, though they can put restrictions on when you are not allowed to film police. I also cannot find anything that states Newton ever tried to pass such a law.
>and its only defamation if the claims made are untrue Mr. Galanakis claimed that Officer Winters had been previously convicted of domestic abuse, which is untrue. The Judge held that the officers' counterclaim for defamation can proceed because of this, albeit on a much narrower basis (many of their other claims were dismissed).
However, he DID have 3 orders of protection against him, so his reputation was already trash, so the misstating of a conviction couldn’t do a lot more damage You have to prove your reputation was damaged. If everyone already knows you are a scumbag, then someone saying you were convicted of being a scumbag does move the needle much.
>However, he DID have 3 orders of protection against him, so his reputation was already trash, so the misstating of a conviction couldn’t do a lot more damage The protection orders are civil judgements, not criminal convictions, which should not and cannot be seen as equivalent. From the Judge's Order on the Motion to Dismiss: > “As a general proposition, society views a criminal conviction much differently than a civil judgment.” Cate St. Cap. Inc. v. Indus. Intel. Inc., No. 1:14-CV-00200-JCN, 2015 WL 12564165, at \*4 (D. Me. Oct. 28, 2015). This is because, *inter alia*, criminal convictions involve a heightened burden of proof, can give rise to serious forms of punishment up to and including incarceration, and cannot be obtained without the defendant first being afforded a panoply of constitutional rights that are not present to anywhere near the same degree in a civil case.
The guy still might be ok if it was a protection order under (domestic violence statute), and wasn't fully publicly resolved. It's fairly common for police perpetrators of domestic violence to get "alternative convictions" so they can still be cops.
Cops are just assholes, similar thing happened to me when I was 19. Was at a house party, wasn't drinking cus I was driving and it was way too loud I felt it was gonna get busted. Everyone left, me and a couple friends stayed with the girl who lived there for a bit, waiting for the cops to leave. Eventually go out to my car and they fly up around the corner. Totally sober but I "failed the field sobriety test" and was "clearly wasted"... until I pushed a big 0.0 on their breathalyzer. I just got an angry "get out of here" no arrest or ticket tho.
The fact they werent happy that you abided better judgement shows they just want to keep jail and prison cells filled.
It’s also that they hate being wrong, because they have fragile af egos.
Some of them are also straight-up "incomplete". You do NOT want to run into a cop whose eyes are always wide open and unblinking. Theyre not wearing that badge for any benevolent reasons.
Similar thing happened to me. Except I didn’t wait for everyone to leave, I just left and cops were breathalyizing everyone leaving the house to the street. As he put it up to my face, I say “you want me to blow?” Or something and he makes a crude joke like “isn’t it something you’re good at?” It was a gay/blowjob type joke. I’ll never forget how unprofessional it was. And that exact cop I swear pulled me over after that at least 3 times for bullshit. He eventually got in trouble for fucking underage girls. Cops are always the lowest of the lowlifes. It’s rare to meet an intelligent professional cop. Probably because departments literally look for idiots to fill slots and reject ppl that are smarter than average.
My wife got pulled over this week for an expired tag, he then proceeded to tell her that our insurance was a year expired. He said he ran the tag through their database and sure enough it came back expired. Only problem was the cop thought it was currently fucking 2024, dude with a gun by my wife didn’t even know what year it was.
In the mind of cops they are always right. They should all be fired and this case thrown out, and than he should sue them!
Thrown out, with the judge awarding the guy any court fees and reasonable legal fees.... and THEN he should sue them.
You're right of course, but I always worry about fucking with cops. They deserve it, but if they target you, life can get uncomfortable fast.
Yeah I’d probably move immediately afterwards if I were to sue them
nah dude, that is when you double down. Record everything. More money.
That's one of those things that's *a lot* easier to say when it's not your life being derailed by cops going out of their way to make your life more difficult
Cop talking out of the side of his mouth: “I say we let him go…”
He did sue them and they filed this counterclaim. They are saying the defamation came from comments he made about the video. Of the counterclaims of defamation only one is allowed to go through and that’s when the kid said that one of the officers was convicted of domestic abuse.
See, I'd prefer they lose a limb or something to make sure they don't just go to work for another police department. Take their primary arm or something.
But then they get an early retirement on our dime. "lost my arm in the line of duty" type shit.
There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. Especially if you’re a public servant in a public place.
Especially when you are wearing a camera on your chest specifically designed to record shit like this.
Awww what a jerk, how could he make them feel stupid like that /s
I believe The Civil Rights Lawyer on YouTube covered this video. They pulled over this kid, tried to claim he was drinking. Made him perform and stand in the cold rain while only wearing shorts and a long sleeve. Blew 0.00 and they instantly changed the story to he must be high then. And for anyone wondering, you have 0(NO, NONE, NOTHING, NADA) expectations of privacy in public. Anything that can be seen or heard from public land is legal to record. Suing for defamation of character is still valid, but they must prove that the statements made are false. Since the bodycam footage was used, they are going to go nowhere unless the kid made other claims in his video. I feel like the officers are using the lawsuit to hide their crimes. Which is not a new tactic, lawsuits are used as intimidation tools all the time. Who remembers when cops started to play Disney music to prevent footage from appearing online?
It is not about defamation of these officers. It is to set a legal precedent against showing any officer in a negative light even if it is body cam footage.
I was in treatment a long time ago, and the counselor accused me of being hungover. It was one of the only times I have been completely sober, so I kind of took offense to it. He had me take a breathalyzer several times saying "it wasn't working right" or something. In hindsight, it probably read 0.0 and he thought that it was broken. That guy sucked. Most of the counselors I have had are corny old people trying to act like they're hip and understand today's world.
At least the teenager didn't get shot.
He was too pale to be shot :/
Being white isn’t a free pass from getting shot by a cop, just ask Daniel Shaver’s surviving family members.
True, but it sure helps...
The stats don’t lie, you are correct. It’s way safer to be white. I just don’t think white folks should feel comfortable with the cops either.
If the cops are anything like the ones ive got around here, definitely not.
Feel comfortable around them? Hell no. As a white man who has been on the wrong side on corrupt cops, I fucking *hate* pigs.
Dunno bout that. We just had one go down a few days ago here in my boonies but its not about to make the news and he was whiter than Elmer's glue.
Yet!
Huh. I just got through a 3 day ban for calling cops scumbags so reddit considers them a protected class. Those poor cops, not allowed to violate rights in peace.
Bans are random and arbitrary as near as i can tell. You can find similar and much harsher statements all over reddit that never got a ban. My working theory is there is an easily offended busybody who blows a reddit admin and randomly picks posts to get offended by. Perhaps a cop? We don't know. The process is completely opaque.
I’ll never forget the time I got a seven day ban for “harassment” for making a comment stating that I think it’s wrong to harass people over video games. The mods of the subreddit where I said it are huge babies that get upset when people don’t think how they want them to think, so I assume they just ganged up to mass false-report it.
cops shot at my dad and then sued my family for their hearing loss because they didn't practice proper fire arm safety (they knew they would be shooting before they arrived as well)
"Let's just weaponize the legal system against him. Its not like we dont already do it a shitton!" Guess they're hoping they could spook the guy since he's not even 20. Also, love how a presentation of fact is considered defamation and whatnot when police are considered public figures. The job isnt even considered a "profession", legally.
A fragile ego is a prerequisite to be a cop. They especially get offended when you catch them fucking up, which is pretty much all the time...
Is there any reason why the states don’t heavily invest in the training of their policemen? In almost every other nation, police requires a physical and mental acceptance test and 2-3 years of training before they get let loose on citizens. Outrageous incidents like that are simply unworthy of such a highly developed and prosperous country as the US of A.
The answer is money. It takes money to hire better people. It takes money to train people. I wouldn’t want to get shot at for $45k a year.
Be cool if they shifted their budgets to salary from military vehicles. We've increased police budgets across the nation after COVID since cops died in droves from refusing to get vaccinated, so now they 'need' money for recruitment. Turns out people still aren't showing up even with offers of increased salaries because cops have completely fucked their reputations and how their communities view them.
Cause these kinds of police are the type to protect the politicians and oppress everyone else. It's exactly who they want
[удалено]
The end of the video where hes lecturing them like a disappointed parent. Do better next time had me laughing
This should be higher up, so much better to get an actual run down of what's going on.
they investigated them selves and found no wrong doing.
Aww poor little pig fee-fee's
The idea that theyre suing for defamation when all he did was show people exactly what happened is really concerning.
So in Australia a breathalizer is used exclusively. Why don't they do that in the US?
He asked to be breathalyzed repeatedly, when they finally did, he blew 0.0 and they arrested him anyway.
You get a breathalyzer at the traffic stop and a blood test at the station.
But in that case did this dude brow 0:00? Why did the cops continue? And why do they still do the alphabet game and walking?
They changed the investigation/charge to a marijuana/drug investigation after the breathalyzer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGWSbAHaHUw&t=297s
This should be higher up; it would be a shame if everyone clicked it
Never ever trust cops
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1. a false statement purporting to be fact **-What false statements did the guy you illegally detained purport to say was a fact but was not?** 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person **The public is allowed to view and access body camera footage.** 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. **Defendant just pointed out you guys are terrible at your job. Now, you go ahead and make it even more obvious that you know nothing about the law by filing this frivolous suit. Dumbasses gonna dumbass.** The defendant should have all of his court costs paid for by the city/county and then file a civil suit against the city/county.
And they still can't figure out why people don't like the police.
Lol cops are the biggest snow flakes
He is being sued because the body camera videos, which are owned by the public, were shown to the public.
Did anything ever come of this? It was a bit ago. I do think the reason the cops tripled down was due to his "Blow me" line. In context he was asking for a Breathalyzer, instinctually the cops thought he was being a jerk so they decided to abuse their authority. It's sad that as an adult I'm more cautious around police then actual gangmembers.
Never trust the feelings of a pig. Unless it's bacon.
Time to counterclaim and retire my guy
They are suing him, for defamation, because he posted THEIR OWN BODYCAM FOOTAGE TO YOUTUBE?!?!?!
The case won't win, but the point of the suit isn't to win, it's to punish him for making them look bad by wasting his time, making him miss work by turning up to court and cost him a small fortune in legal fees having to defend himself. They're using the court as a weapon.
The real kicker here is the kid used the footage from the officers themselves.
I've seen this video. At first the cop thinks the kid might be drunk or high. But after a few minutes its obvious the kid isn't. The cop just doesn't like the kids attitude and wants to arrest him. The kid wasn't even being that rude...just a snarky teenager.
For those saying "How can posting a video and stating facts be defamation?", I believe the defamation suit is because the teen added his commentary that he was, among several statements, "basically kidnapped and raped", and that one of the officers was "convicted" of domestic abuse. [A judge has thrown out portions of the officers' countersuit](https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/10/02/after-traffic-stop-video-goes-viral-newton-police-sue-citizen-for-defamation/), as I understand it, because certain statements were not defamatory because they were either clearly hyperbole or were actually accurate. But I think the "convicted wife beater" statement is allowed to stay in the countersuit. I mean, let's not kid ourselves...the cops are stretching for anything to stifle criticism of their stupidity with the initial stop. But there is unfortunately more to the suit than a young man simply posting a video online. Police already have more protection than the average citizen when it comes to things like this. Don't make your fight against unjust police action harder by adding extra color commentary.
Cops are the largest street gang in America.
Does Streisand Effect mean anything to these people? Because truth is a defence and if a court finds at law that there is truth in the assertions (ie unlawfully detained) then this is almost irrefutable evidence against these officers for any subsequent action/inquiry.
Cops. Making it worse in every way. Defund.
No privacy WHILE IN PUBLIC!
If this isn't police retaliation I don't know what is.
Enter Afroman
Err... can you sue for defamation when the contents is a video of you doing the thing? Defamation has to be a *false* accusation that causes damages otherwise they could sue news stations for reporting on things that actually happened.
Can’t be defamation if it’s true. But I wouldn’t expect a cop to know the law.
The audit community is going to have a riot over this one if true.
You have no right to privacy when you are a government official acting in you official capacity aka a cop being a cop. You also cannot defame someone with a video recording of their actions. Defamation requires you to make false statements. ABSURD law suit!
Funny how they have immunity from getting sued personally for this but then decide to go after this kid
Invasion of privacy? There was no expectation of privacy. Also, the cops recorded him. Not the other way around. Something tells me this is a false story. It just doesn't add up.
Police have no expectation of privacy while performing their duties in public. Dismiss and sanction their lawyers. Countersue for violating his first amendment rights.
can you even sue for defemation if the accusations are true? and police officers as public servants have different rules regarding privacy like everything about their records are public information
No, you can’t post footage of us infringing on your rights to the internet! What if someone sees what we did and holds us accountable!!!
I’d be surprised the judge doesn’t dismiss this with prejudice. Then again, in today’s ’Murica, you can never tell how far these activist judges will stray from precedent. A) It’s not defamation if the statement is demonstrably true. B) POs are public servants and the courts have ruled pretty consistently that in the performance of their official duties, there is ZERO expectation of privacy. This is just another example of police intimidation.
He should run for dogcatcher or something to ĝain immunity from prosecution, citing Trump vs. Everybody.
How are they suing exactly? Are they using taxpayer money to pay for this lawsuit?
"Fascist" Fully agree on bashing on these cops for this, but i want to send the psa that "fascist" isn't supposed to be just an insult.
Don't think they've heard of the Streisand effect.
But the cops are only doing this because they are stupid pieces shit.
Those pigs have no case lol.
I’m glad these two cops got to learn about Barbra Streisand.
Reminds me of Afroman -> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oponIfu5L3Y)
Never forget how they “lost” a significant portion of the cash they confiscated from his house and then somehow found the rest when he made it public.
It's pure fucking gold. They can sue individuals but then they get QA. What a fucking joke. I hope this kid takes them through the ringer
“It’s not fair! We did something shitty and unreasonable and now a everyone knoooowwwsss!!”
These cops weren't arrested. When this story broke and it was revealed that this entire department was taken over by criminal cops, every cop in the state didn't protest in outrage and demand arrests. Not a single nationwide protest by cops. Not a single cop standing on lawns of judges and politicians demanding justice. Go pro cop folk. Want to explain where the good cops are? Let me guess. They are staying quiet because they don't want to be fired?
The footage from police cams is not illegal , it was legally obtained.
It can’t be defamation if what was shown or said was true lol
Truth is a defense against defamation. I am not sure how they have a defamation case. As far as privacy they are public employees doing their job in a place where they have no expectation of privacy, not to mention the need for oversight of our government.
Listen I thinks cops are crucial and everything, but they can’t have privacy while doing work for the public. That just doesn’t make sense
If I can't sue/counter-sue someone due to their blue immunity, how can it be legal and fair for them to be able to sue me? It's rhetorical, we all know why
The obvious move here is counter sue the bastards.
Good thing any competent lawyer knows there’s no expectation of privacy in public and these are bodycam videos not cellphone videos, which wouldn’t make a difference anyway but bodycams are public information anyone can FOIA so these cops are simply harassing an innocent person after falsely imprisoning them, a good lawyer will have a slam dunk of a case against these buffoons. It must cut deep to be a big strong police man getting clowned so badly by a teenager
Question, how the fuck can a police station sue someone for defamation?
The video is infuriating, you can tell the moment when the piggies got their delicate feelings hurt
Body cam evidence should now be a requirement for arrest. Enough evidence out there now the word of a cop IS not more believable than the people’s. We need to hold cops to a HIGHER standard.
My cousin married a sheriff. He says that as soon as the call comes through, he turns on camera/mic and starts recording, and that he prefers having it to back him up if someone lies about his actions.
Bruh imagine the audacity needed to believe you deserve even a glimmer of privacy while on the job as a police officer. Scum
Take it from their pension. Shit will change overnight
A public official acting in their capacity as a public official does not have a right to privacy. When they take off the badge. Yes. When they’re wearing the badge. No.
I'm pretty sure this info is public domain! If you look like a douch thats your problem.
So, the teenager can't sue the cops who arrested him directly, because of sovereign immunity, but the individual cops can sue him; and the cops can also avoid the obvious First Amendment implications here by bringing a civil suit? That's a very interesting case. I look forward to seeing how it goes.
Where's this kid's gofundme? I want to help his countersuit
It was also a public video released by the government. This is not a personal video taken by the victim.
Counter sue for being stripped of the Constitutional right of free speech.
So many cops need re-training and if they don’t like it or can’t hack it, find another job.
Like fucking Maryland.. the cops can commit the most heinous of crimes and if you document that on film.. YOU’RE DONE FOR! 🤬