The Michigan Supreme Court threw out a fleeing and eluding case. What it means for policing

[@TommySupporterFinally]

Exercising your rights is dangerous.. tells you everything you need to know about he American Police State

[@Resist_JWO_1984]

Truth spoken!

[@Sondan1988]

--"136 federal, state, county, municipal, military, tribal and campus officers died in the line of duty in 2023," - Fraternal Order of Police. -- "officers killed 1,329 people last year, representing nearly a 19-percent increase over the 11-year span." - The Hill 01/17/24 1,329 divided by 136 ≈ 10 to 1 kill rate. So law enforcement is killing us at a rate of 10 to 1 but they BELIEVE we are trying to kill them ??? Amazing cognitive dissonance !!

[@turtletruth]

U.S.M.C. MARINE VETERAN: (Victimless Eternal Enslavement!) 50 YEARS AGO I received my DUI 3rd offense in Michigan! After serving (6) years as a young Marine during the Iranian crisis in (1979) returning to civilian life was difficult for me! Ironically, all three DUI offenses occurred the same year I was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps. These victimless DUIs took place before meeting my wife and having children and grandchildren. (Age 25 at the time, today I'm 67) DUI offenses with NO victim, incident, accident, or damaged party should never be an eternal lifetime 2-A ban! Title 18 922(g)(1) Requires Supreme Court review because the only damaged party was an "Honorably Discharged United States Marine"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811) TRUMP/VANCE FOR PRESIDENT ...

[@crispyblack8779]

I just posted the same thing.

[@JoeBlow-jj9uu]

4❤

[@HazelwithaZ]

Grateful to this guy for pushing his case all the way through. Shouldn't be this hard to exercise and defend our rights.

[@turtletruth]

POLICE Revenue HEROES dishonorably drain the wealth and freedoms from honorable taxpayers creating financial devastation with the loss of jobs, credit, homes, marriages, and desire to even stay alive after complete mental anguish and economic ruin. In contrast, the police & courts convert taxpayers into welfare recipients! ($15,000 to $100.000 on average to prove innocence in court!) Revenue Heroes often LAUGH, saying "The initial arresting process even without a conviction, is severe punishment" ..., and they would be correct! Taxpayers get screwed both ways... POLICE seldom, if ever, benefit the taxpayer!

[@John-lj8rv]

They make sure your rights are so expensive that the average American can't afford to have them.

[@turtletruth]

U.S.M.C. MARINE VETERAN: (Victimless Eternal Enslavement!) 50 YEARS AGO I received my DUI 3rd offense in Michigan! After serving (6) years as a young Marine during the Iranian crisis in (1979) returning to civilian life was difficult for me! Ironically, all three DUI offenses occurred the same year I was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps. These victimless DUIs took place before meeting my wife and having children and grandchildren. (Age 25 at the time, today I'm 67) DUI offenses with NO victim, incident, accident, or damaged party should never be an eternal lifetime 2-A ban! Title 18 922(g)(1) Requires Supreme Court review because the only damaged party was an "Honorably Discharged United States Marine"! - USMC (Semper Fidelis) SGT E-5 (5811) TRUMP/VANCE FOR PRESIDENT ...

[@patrickday4206]

Shows the lower courts couldn't protect his rights well enough

[@ygrittesnow1701]

The scariest statement in this whole video is, "Exercising your rights can put you in harms way." How does that not scare the #$@ out of everyone?

[@raymondjjohnsonjr363]

$h!+

[@georgebatiste7921]

He lost credibility when he said " you have to understand ". I understand that I have rights. Cops need to understand that!!

[@raymondjjohnsonjr363]

@@georgebatiste7921 remove the words "you have to understand" from a cop's repertoire would leave them almost speechless.

[@errantwraith445]

I wasn't around when the redcoats got dealt with. I'm here for this one though.

[@timdowney6721]

It should be violating your rights puts cops in harm’s way…….loss of job, jail time, personal financial liability.

[@williammoore3279]

This became a fluff piece once a law enforcement interview began. Thousands of hours of news coverage, court cases, activist videos, and driver dash cam videos are published each week to social media showing officers with a paper-thin understanding of where their authority begins or ends. You could test every single law enforcement agent in Michigan, and I guarantee they would fail one simple fact of the overused Terry v Ohio stops. It is two-pronged - the Terry Stop and the Terry Search. The number of lives ruined because of a traffic stop is astounding. Lost wages, lost jobs, and lost savings since we are financially responsible where law enforcement is not. So two points (if a person's finances permit), 1. the purchase of a dash camera with date-time-speed-coordinates is money well spent, and 2. phone apps like Attorney Shield with a few dollars a month subscription fee is again money well spent. Remember police/sheriff are permitted to lie and often do. Having dash cam evidence and an attorney available 24x7 to interact on your behalf when stopped may save you from financial and emotional ruin.

[@vadr1651]

Any example of Attorney Shield actually helping someone?

[@georgepaust8416]

Police can lie to their suspect but they go too far when they lie to their superiors, the press,the district attorney, judges and even their fellow officers.

[@paulstoyek381]

Said better than LackLuster himself..😊

[@tina7147]

Michigan keeps building bigger jails & courts. Now offering expungements to the over policed citizens.

[@tina7147]

Come on vacation and leave on probation. I have a permanent record without any conviction. I was arrested for cleaning garbage from my backyard. During a malicious prosecution I was told to take a plea for cleaning my backyard, lie to a crime that would protect government abusers

[@KrisBennett-pt6gq]

Here's what YOU need to know. The Bill of Rights isn't a list rights granted to you by the government. It is a list of restrictions on the government placed there by the people. WE the people.

[@madjackpatciderhouserules8436]

Police tend to violate that on the daily.

[@cwhulke97]

That's right! and think about this The founding fathers were very scrupulous when crafting the founding documents! I mean they agonized over every word and were very CAREFUL in the choosing of EVERY word to ensure that they meant what they said and said what they meant in those documents. From the "We the people" to the Bill of Rights. If for One second they had meant there to be ANY exception to ANY one of those rights they would have enumerated it in that right! Much like they did with the 4th Amendment with the warrant exception...or the 2nd where they state, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" but every exception we have to those amendments granted to cops such as the Terry v Ohio exceptions of the 4th Amendment were granted by the Supreme Court.........And That's where our Problem truly lies! Political activists sitting on the highest court in the land! Make no mistake A Terry stop and Frisk is a warrant exception and violation of the 4th amendment that "satisfies an officers hunch" and it should NOT exist! Just like Civil Asset Forfeiture laws...and many others!

[@menace9579]

@@madjackpatciderhouserules8436 dont forget, the police only do what they are told by the politicians and the politicians are the ones trying to get rid of the constitution

[@Lisa-vd5vu]

SCOTUS ruled over fifty years ago on this in Terry v Ohio(1968) that police may stop someone only when they have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of a crime either having been, being, or about to be committed. This has been established law for a long time and cops still don’t know when they can and can’t detain someone. The trainer mentioned that police have to be trained on many things but Terry is easily the important thing they should be learning. Disgusting.

[@grumble_one]

100%, this entire dummy system (cops, judges, DA's) should already know this since Terry. Don't know why it had to be re-litigated.

[@USMC6976]

Yes, and law enforcement turned that into we can stop anyone and identify them if they are suspicious. It has take time and many lawsuits to get the message across, there has to be suspicion of a crime for that specific individual. And they can't just hold you to "figure it out".

[@raymondjjohnsonjr363]

This says a whole lot about the intelligence of cops. If they cannot learn this one simple fact after this many years then we are all £u¢k€d.

[@maxdamage4259]

instead of advising the public to just give up your rights so you wont get injured by the police...tell the police that if they violate someones rights and injure them ..that they will do hard time behind bars.

[@ani1344]

Except they don’t end up doing time for violations

[@lostmysoul1595]

What's crazy is that law enforcement officers don't know the laws that they're enforcing

[@itspat5299]

@@lostmysoul1595 they certainly do not know the constitution either

[@lostmysoul1595]

@@itspat5299 if the new both they wouldn't be costing taxpayers billions of dollars yearly in lawsuits a McDonald's employee is set to a higher standard than a police officer

[@raymondjjohnsonjr363]

It is crazy and it is also normal I guess that makes the cops crazy or just plain old stupid.

[@lostmysoul1595]

@@raymondjjohnsonjr363 it's normal because people have allowed it to be normal I've always thought it was nuts and I still think it's nuts

[@raymondjjohnsonjr363]

@@lostmysoul1595 guess it's about time for a change. Ending qualified immunity would be a good start

[@ReasonNLogic]

Wow! Did he just say exercising our rights can be 'dangerous' when dealing with the police? That's the problem.

[@lizcollinson2692]

The police say they will adjust, they haven't yet figured out that you don't have to ID just because an officer asks.

[@YouveBeenMiddled]

Reasonable suspicion *of a crime.* Suspicion alone is not enough, it must be tied to a specific crime.

[@Justicehunter1971]

And now you know why our prisons are filled with innocent people

[@abirdscastle]

I have a good idea. Instead of warning the public about being careful of using their rights, how about warning and training law enforcement about violating ones rights and freedoms. It's called train them and hold them accountable when they violate someone's rights.

[@withgreatpower1331]

Giving up your rights BEFORE they are protected by police is NOT the answer. AND EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS SHOULD NEVER BE DANGEROUS!

[@opforwarrior]

Training to skirt the law is the problem. Allowing police to lie during an investigation is the moral mis-step. This is not a police state.

[@mattbosley3531]

Yeah, it is. The police will do anything and in most cases they investigate themselves afterward and clear themselves of any wrongdoing. This case is an outlier. The police can and do lie, cheat, steal and murder in the pursuit of "justice".

[@ygrittesnow1701]

"This is not a police state." In theory you are correct. In practice, I think we all know better. This really changes nothing. Now they will be training officers to work around this.

[@dknowles60]

Michigan is a police state

[@bradgates9780]

He wasn’t a suspect and he didn’t run. Something the producers of this segment completely missed. A better title would be ‘police can’t detain you while investigating you for no crime.’

[@Frank-sr1dz]

💯💯💯🏝️🥥🥥🥥✌️

[@TERRY-cb2ku]

Qualified immunity has given "law enforcement" a brazen illegal ability to infringe on citizens rights.

[@hunny___]

I’m sure they’ll learn absolutely nothing.

[@Mikevdog]

"Exercising your rights can be dangerous". Describes the modern police state.

[@birdman7135]

*Police Chief: **_"We're really going to look into that."_* ... It's 2024, and you STILL don't know that you can't just randomly detain people without reasonable suspicion of a crime? ... Seriously???

[@5400bowen]

Exactly, what mumble mouth liar that chief is.

[@mrbriceno3949]

That’s where the incompetence is coming from

[@kimberlynparsons7709]

Keep in mind, not everyone has the money to fight tyrants in court. If it was free to fight for your rites, tyrants would stop hurting us/we the people.

[@grumble_one]

this should've never even happened. Didn't need the supreme court. No reasonable suspicion OF A CRIME, no detainment. Stupid cops, stupid courts. This should ALREADY be known.

[@stephengreen3566]

But, the cops had nothing to lose. When the taxpayers are footing the legal bill, why not fight it all the way to the highest court? It just shows that the police are willing to violate your rights, all the way to the supreme court because they know most people won't fight it. The police have forgotten who they work for. (We the People!)

[@saltyexxer8253]

@@grumble_one Qualified immunity needs to go away.

[@tina7147]

Greedy, vindictive & drunk on power. DeSandre V Oscoda county Michigan

[@tina7147]

Our side of the story was kept off record. We sued & we were told take a settlement or they get immunity. Settlement dismisses them as not responsible or guilty.. immunity is admitting guilt.

[@Mario-t8b8y]

They create a crime out of thin air.

[@efs83dws]

The Attorney is wrong. The cops are in the wrong to say that citizens should submit to cops. Cops need to follow the law. If cops violate the law, they must go to jail. And the man who was illegally arrested by criminal cops still has an arrest record that will always be a blemish on his life.

[@johnpaulwebb3440]

Someone please tell that man he lives in a society where cops will stop and search you for no reason. Happens all day every day.

[@KFish-bw1om]

0:22 - False, the US Constitution does not give the citizens anything. Your rights are endowed by your Creator, and the US Constitution recognizes those rights and explicitly prohibits the government from infringing upon them. The reason we got to this place where the government and its agents think that they can run roughshod over our rights as they please, is because of widespread misunderstanding of these basic fundamental truths about our constitutional republic. So let's correct the record at every chance we get.

[@jamiedill1391]

Amen

[@bskec2177]

This is wrong and dangerously so. Your Constitutional Rights flow from the Constitution, and nowhere else. If you think America's laws were ever Biblically based, you have been lied to. The Ten Commandments are not the basis for American law - in fact, the Constitution gives me the right to break 7 of the 10 without legal penalty. I can worship any God I choose, or no God at all. I can make graven images of whatever I want. I can ignore the Sabbath. I can do this against the wishes of my father. I can "Take the Lord's name in vain". I can covet my neighbor's wife, (as long as you interpret covet as being desirous of, or even having an affair with, but not kidnapping). Nowhere in the Bible is there any talk of rights at all. It endorses slavery, and encourages slaves to be obedient. Jesus encourages pacifism (turn the other cheek) and deference to government tyranny (give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars). .

[@KFish-bw1om]

@@bskec2177 Any legal analysis of the US Constitution always requires an analysis of the historical context to discern what the framers understood and intended it to mean at the time of its ratification. The most significant historical context with respect to this question is this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." Despite all of the post-modern efforts to divorce the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence, and all other historical context. It is inarguably, unequivocally, inescapably true, that this declaration alone provides the most explicit, definitive expression of intent from which the entire basis of the US Constitution is predicated. Without these self-evident truths being declared as such, there is simply no basis, no justification, no meaning at all to the US Constitution, or the government which it formed. All of it begins with those declared fundamental truths, or all of it never exists at all. So thank your Creator, without Whom you would have no rights, no intrinsic value, no meaning at all, and be hopelessly subject to every abuse the wretchedness of your fellow man can conspire to wage against you, in all the days of your life.

[@rogueamerican20]

@@bskec2177 At no point in his comment did he refer to Christianity or the Bible. He referred to what most of us (excluding you) know to be self evident. That we are endowed by our creator or nature’s god with certain inalienable rights the moment you’re conceived. As I said they are self evident. Cannot be allowed to be infringed upon by anyone or anything. It’s called Natural Law.

[@oldjarhead386]

@@bskec2177Read the documents. They do not grant the government and rights over the citizens. Every article in the bill of rights restrict the government. The phrase “Bill of Rights” alone proves you are wrong. And your comment about “Biblically based” is also completely wrong. Just because you are free to worship on no doesn’t have anything to do with the founders view of religion. There are numerous references to “God” all thru the founding documents.

[@Sondan1988]

FIVE YEARS fighting the criminals with badges and guns. How much money, time, and effort did it take this man who was following the law ???? But don't worry, the police will investigate themselves and find they did no wrong doing ! (Just ignore this news story because they are going to 'really look into that'. - David Boysen Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety)

[@raymondjjohnsonjr363]

I noticed the attorney stated that they were asking officers to do what is legal instead of telling them to do what is legal.

[@David-nv6wv]

One last thing. A constitutional class, especially on the 4th and 2nd amendment, should be done BEFORE any badges are handed out. Even hiring officers from other departments, just to be sure they know people's rights and how NOT to violate them.

[@gary94h]

It doesn't matter, there are no consequences for the police if they violate these "clearly established law". They rarely are held financially responsible. The city has insurance that pay these settlements. We are expected to know the law, when law enforcement gets a pass. They are the the ones that have to know the law. There should be extreme consequences when they get it wrong. That would force them to be certain before they take money, freedom, or time from us citizens.

[@ronjohnson9032]

So the one guy says officer safety overrides public safety?🤔

[@SreyAun-sd1eb]

No more comply. We are way beyond that. Time for citizen safety to override officer safety.

[@madjackpatciderhouserules8436]

Officer safety is Cowardice.

[@vadr1651]

So the bottom line is - (1) we have the rights (2) but it's better not to assert them, bend over and later argue in court for 3+ years and $XX,000 (2) meanwhile, we need to give the police more money for training. By the way, all these considerations, that just being in the "high crime area" is not a reasonable suspicion, had been in place for decades. Not to mention that "high crime area" is practically always a lie, and if you obtain the actual data, it's one broken-into car 2 years ago 10 miles from here.

[@jefflitchford1422]

And another thing you can't enforce as a law an apartment complexes policy

[@ctcanine]

Yeah, take your case to court…. if you have millions and millions of dollars and many years

[@Joemama-crzy]

Now sue them

[@PrayingPanda]

4:38 the 4th amendment should have been notice enough. Multple SCOTUS case rulings should have been notice enough. Those cops just made every other cops job harder because of their ineptitude.

[@johnq.public7019]

bottom line...cops patrol by ego and only ego

[@philwatson1972]

“Exercising you RIGHTS is dangerous. You may be murdered …by law enforcement …for following the law. Just comply.” Absolutely RIDICULOUS!

[@thagenet]

Officers feelings of safety should never equate to violence and possible death.

[@williamholcombe31]

So sounds like everything the KZbinrs have been showing on their 🎥 videos for past few years .

[@Sniperaccountability]

If they are not held accountable, nothing will change. Problem is the justice system is blind and corrupt from the top down

[@warrenfrudd9324]

Decertify them and hold them accountable.

[@princeknight9775]

It's called Presumption Of Innocence. The cops don't do that. They presume everybody's a criminal.

[@mftatvop]

Guilty of questioning my “authoritaaaah”… ham

[@Jkirk3279]

Stunned. The Police Chief admitted they need a REASON to question a Citizen.

[@miguelortiz6404]

Policy is not law. A policy can't be higher than the law.

[@conniehonsinger2643]

If their lips are moving, they are lying. Record everything!!! Answer NO questions. Keep calm and hopefully you will live thru the encounter.

[@georgejones3526]

The Constitution giveth rights and the Supreme Court taketh them away, piece by piece.

[@williamhale6794]

The cops KNOW that we have rights and know that they have to have a reason to stop him but they didn't care. They know most people cannot even afford a lawyer so they just do what they want.

[@jonathanhernandez4304]

So glad that's been established. I'm very very suspicious of any attitude that says the common citizens must see police safety from the officers view point. That alone suggests that we must advocate setting aside our rights and safety in order to satisfy some subjective arbitrary feelings an officer might have. When we are called to do that, we are no longer citizens but submissive wards of the state wondering if this officer feels safe because of endless reasons......wow

[@Freddieduda]

Winning in court , even the supreme court will not stop law enforcement behaving like they do. The only way to stop this is to make each individual police officer responsible for their own actions. Take away qualified immunity and make the police officer or the police union pay for lawsuits themselves.

[@tompinkerton1106]

I have another comment about this attorney you have talking about civil rights. If we the people don't stand up against unreasonable and illegal detainment or arrest and just submit to tyranny then our children are going to live in an unrecognizable country. We have a constitutional that's worth fighting for. Just because an officer doesn't feel safe doesn't give them the right to violate our rights. You see innocent people killed every day by cops that use their go to explanation of "i feared for my safety." It's wrong and has to change.

[@24-Card]

They need to remove the word “Protect” off our vehicles.

[@russellnodder9626]

Maybe they should not be cops if they are scared.

[@countbenjamin1442]

My understanding is cops have ti have responsible articulable suspicion of a crime to detain. They cant detain for " we wanna look into you and have no reason besides suspicious". Glad Michigan SC held thay right up. Perhaps better law enforcement training over years instead of weeks would help out

[@JerrySavage-c6k]

Where do we go for us who have been wrongfully convicted for situations similar? Knowing the information being given and having this with police being put in a spotlight.

[@clbcl5]

Reasonable suspicion, officer safety, give me your I/D. All police buzz words to make it seem legal.

[@thadrepairsitall1278]

Who is going to pay for the five years of life for this man who lost the prime of his life, a dream job, possibly a wife and children?

[@godbless9563]

Tell New York this please they do this all the time. Thanks Michigan Supreme Court.

[@jamesbell739]

My question is, WHY ARE WE ASKING POLICE TO FOLLOW THE LAW? They job is to know and uphold it, not break it for convenience.

[@davidgaitho3633]

Wait... Did I hear a lawyer say I should just watch my rights being violated to waste my days in court which said I have a right to run? From the police?

[@experienceofchris1108]

@@davidgaitho3633 that way he makes more money!!

[@jiml9856]

Why are police enforcing the policies of a private business?

[@monikaramirez8067]

Fleeing, Evading, Resisting, all these charges need to be done away with. What do you expect FREE PEOPLE to do when their life and liberty are being threatened? Resisting is as American as being pissed off about taxes.

[@whackly]

cop says "i wouldn't want to live in a society where officers can stop me for no reason." bruh. we already do and YOU are the one doing the stopping. why is this hard for cops to understand?

[@bltvd]

Because you have to be a f’in moron to be a cop!

[@michaelccopelandsr7120]

Guilty until proven innocent or we make you guilty, mentality

[@jrmaddog]

If a "high crime area" infers automatic suspicion for everyone, who are the crime victims? 😲

[@jwilliams8320]

Apartment complex policy versus the police and the law. The police should not work a security for an apartment complex

[@PrayingPanda]

5:11 sound like a POLICE STATE no??

[@halfmil6467]

Peaceful slavery vs dangerous freedom. What will YOU choose?

[@stuartbuckley6113]

​@@halfmil6467Dangerous freedom, freedom is scary, deal with it.

[@PrayingPanda]

@@stuartbuckley6113 exactly

[@PrayingPanda]

@@halfmil6467 I'm pro-2a. I think you have your answer.

[@ronstill3868]

The police are not in the policy enforcement there in crime enforcement. It's not there to support the apartment 's policy.

[@brianrader7155]

Mich. Has always been a problem dealing with citizens!

[@KaiHouston-m6j]

Safety is NOT first. We have a constution.

[@mazsenior]

The same Court just made a significant ruling on Civil Asset Forfeiture too. Law Enforcement needs actual

[@yt650]

This kind of action has been taking place for decades. Law enforcement hates to have a body camera or someone videoing them with a cell phone. This comes from inadequate training and dirty tricks that the officers learn from the older ones. If they’ve been on the job for 15 or 20 years, they’re not use to being videoed, and they go back onto their old routine of denying people their civil rights and constitutional rights. Doorbell, cameras, and video from security cameras on businesses and homes many times fly in the face of what the police say happened let alone their own body cameras. They’ve gotten away with everything in the past, and I mean everything up to, and including ending someone’s life and not been accountable for it. I really started paying attention and number of years ago when I was cited with disorderly conduct and fighting with first responders only because the trooper did not like what I said to him. In court, I whipped him and two of his pals that were on the scene that should have stopped him from roughing me up, sticking his hand in my pocket and taking out my wallet a fourth amendment violation. If you think that law enforcement can be trusted to do a good job, just look at Butler Pennsylvania at a political rally. A 20 year old boy made fools of the Secret Service, the Pennsylvania State police, and the local police and sheriff department. This was proven by cell phone video from a spectator who tried to warn them someone was on the roof with a rifle.

[@mulengroak4687]

No, the constitution does not give us our rights. They are natural rights. The constitution limits how the government and it's agents interact with the people.

[@glenclarkchidley3637]

When do we get to exercise or 2nd amendment against overreach from government agents ( Thin Blue line gang)?

[@ljsmooth69]

A Court ruling doesn't give us the diameters in which you can do or can't do something when it comes to our fundamental freedoms and the United States Republic constitution of we the people that back them up.

[@miked1639]

more money to learn the constitution. really? swearing to uphold something you dont know is concerning

[@hearsemanjeff1477]

Will they ever learn? Policies aren't laws. They took an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws, not policies.Whay are all the police department so ignorant?

[@martystrasinger3801]

When you are being beaten 2 d%th, the concept that your only recourse is the courts is simply inadequate.

[@damned1313]

He said probably look at it. Not definitely.

[@jlastre]

I thought it was pretty settled law that merely being in a high crime area was not sufficient to be detained/have reasonable suspicion, and that you needed more for the totality of circumstances to raise it to that level.

[@kingkawala767]

The scariest thing said on this video is exercising your rights can be dangerous that's step one that needs to be changed

[@RobertSmith-lg7jp]

Do you think that the police will accept that their authority is indeed limited?

[@dbree9668]

the cops tried to ruin the guy, each one should be repaid in kind

[@kerryedavis]

There really needs to be serious consequences for police misconduct. And I don't mean lawsuits. Lawsuits cost them nothing, and they learn nothing.

[@dr.kevorkian7535]

Safety is not first, especially officer safety, my rights come first. If my rights and my exercise of them is frustrating to officers, sucks to be them.

[@gabby8388]

It was already a constitutional right, so I have no clue why they have to retrain. All of these things all of these constitutional rights have always been in place. They should have been trained on the constitution before they left school.

[@danielvest9602]

I've lived in places where having any civil interaction with police brings all kinds of suspicion from the rest of the neighborhood. So you have to walk a fine line, being disrespectful enough to let the criminals know you aren't a snitch while not being disrespectful enough to get arrested. Much better to avoid all interactions if possible.

[@17_73]

In police state it extremely dangerous to exercise your rights . Because the state stands with the police not the citizens.

[@stephenharvey5932]

If the police were forced to lean constructional rights. Then you don't need to lean, with rulings coming down.

[@Headcase650]

Police interactions need to be standardized across the entire nation. If that means we need a federal law then so be. There should be defined rules of police interaction. They should be.. hello I'm officer such and such, The reason for our interaction is.. fill in the blank. This is consensual... You're free to leave or not participate at any time, You're being detained for.. with an explanation of their reasonable articulable suspicion, or you're being arrested with an explanation of their probable cause.

[@christianwolf68]

learning this should be standard BEFORE cops graduate from their respective academy's

[@eaglestrike3759]

That chief says " I wouldn't want police having the right to search my pockets just based on a hunch". My question is considering what "his officers" did. Did he penalize or fire those officers for that behavior? I would bet at best he maybe gave them a paid vacation and called it a punishment. Beyond that he did nothing which just tells them their behavior is accepted and proper. Even more I bet his initial statements when it happened were in full support of his officers.

[@lazyj616]

The police departments need to realize that the trainers teach some bad actions to the recruits. That's why it is so prevalent in some departments in the US. They may not change their lessons.

[@deepincyder7087]

Wait a minute did he really say he doesn't want to live in a society that were cops can just stop you for no reason. He is one of the people that is responsible for this it comes from the top down these officers would not do this stuff if it wasn't agreed to buy their bosses they got their hand caught in the cookie jar oops we didn't know lawsuits should come out of their pensions end qualified immunity and end police unions

[@cynthiarowley719]

Should be reported widely, so it can be known by everyone. Rights are right! Why are they dangerous? Because freedom is not respected? 😮😢 court is a right for rich folks.

[@tomeauburn]

A lot of people cannot afford to take a case through the courts against the state with unlimited resources to try and win their case

[@1bigibaLL]

Crazy that a person could die exercising their natural rights!

[@errantwraith445]

Police express a hatred for law. (Constitution) As long as they have immunity, I will consider them Lawless.

[@ricladouceur6202]

Police need to have reasonable suspicion! To suggest that this man didn't have a right to not participate in a consensual conversation is ridiculous! Police created the dangerous situation notthe citizen who had broken no law!

[@MrHappyDuckie]

Wow what a surprise, our law enforcement does not know the law and Constitution that they're supposed to enforce!!