When Constitutional Rights Are a Crime / Detained & Arrested Without Cause by West Des Moines Police
Articles,  Blog

When Constitutional Rights Are a Crime / Detained & Arrested Without Cause by West Des Moines Police


Subscribe

100 Comments

  • Cameras Everywhere

    DISCOURSE TIMECODE:
    5:00 – Initial Contact.
    5:44 – Lawful man requests no further contact with police.
    5:54 – Officer Clint Ray says he's investigating a "suspicious person."
    5:55 – Lawful man asserts 4th Amendment rights.
    6:21 – Lawful man walks away and Officer Clint Ray follows and gives unlawful orders.
    6:37 – Officer Clint Ray states reason for detainment: "because you won't listen."
    6:46 – Man requests clarity on lawfulness repeatedly.
    6:54 – Officer Clint Ray says to radio: *"He won't Identify Himself as the Suspicious Person I'm Investigating."*
    6:56 – Lawful man Asserts Constitutional rights repeatedly.
    7:24 – Officer Clint Ray restates reason for unlawful detainment: "you're not listening."
    7:26 – Man asks if he has broken the law and officer Clint Ray says: "that's not the point."**
    8:41 – Officer Clint Ray makes 3rd statement of unlawful detainment: "because you're not listening"
    9:05 – Officer Clint Ray accuses man of "using obscenities in front of public people" and says it's a crime.
    9:44 – Officer Clint Ray makes 4th statement of unlawful detainment: "because you're not listening"
    9:48 – Officer Clint Ray uses (threat of) violence, says "I'm done" then arrests / detains the lawful man.
    10:05 – Lawful man says "you have done it," laughs then tells the cop he is foolish.
    11:08 – Lawful man asks assisting officer to enforce the law ethically and he refuses.
    12:28 – Backup officer suggests using more force next time.
    12:38 – Backup officer tell Officer Clint Ray to turn off his body cam before articulating his original reasonable suspicion of a crime.

    REDRESS
    https://goo.gl/maps/YSgpB2voQ1q
    https://www.facebook.com/WDMPolice/
    (515) 222-3320

  • ShadowKing Studios

    You cannot tell the police to "leave me alone" when they are investigating a matter that YOU are the result of that matter. Regardless of skin color.
    You cannot walk away from police questioning if the police feel you are the suspect of whatever the circumstance may be. Regardless of skin color.

    And yes he broke a law. Dude wasn't detained and later arrested without cause. The cop told him WHY. Then the 2nd cop repeated the same WHY.
    Black people simply don't know the law, yet spout "I know my rights." Recycling this statement they've heard from some white boys in YouTube videos who literally do know the law. If you aren't committing a crime, then you should not be non-compliant with reasonable police "questioning."

    As for the comments below that allege the "tampering with evidence" & "obstruction of justice" for the one cop telling the other to turn off his mic. Well, it's these type of tom foolery comments that ignorant blacks read, adopt, & go spout like it's gospel. Then wonder why they got hemmed up & then lumped up! Many of you concoct your own theories about why this cop was wrong (when he wasn't). Do some damn homework. Formulate some close ended questions about this incident & next time you see a cop in Walmart or McDs, ask him or her these questions, and you will find out that Kevin, not Clint, was on the wrong side of the law.

    Would you "leave me alone" on my demand when you were dispatched to my location with my description before you've thoroughly investigated where I've committed any suspicious behavior that was alleged against me?

    Would you deem me to be exhibiting "suspicious behavior" if I continued to walk away from you while ignoring your polite order to stop trying to leave the scene?

    Would you take offense to me making a profanity-infused remark to you that: "I work for someone that will have you fuckin'…. Ooh. Listen, I work for someone who will get on your motherfuckin' ass?"

    The racial profiling came from the person or persons who placed the call(s). Not from Officer Ray. He was SENT OUT to INVESTIGATE if the allegations had MERIT. He was polite, respectful, & for all you so called Christians–he was LONGSUFFERING against Kevin's verbalized disrespect & blatant disregard for his "earned" authority.

    All you anti Clint haters, lack discernment on how to rightful judge a matter. You all should be praising Officer Clint for not tazing Kevin's dumb ass for that thinly veiled threat.

  • song boat

    Lee County Iowa corrupt government officials https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18mtF3_4WB2u3mEe1OoSb2QpwlgvI25ulAS5BheCPq4Q/edit?usp=sharing

  • Jason Shane

    That's racial profiling at it's best. And I'm a white man saying so. Suspicion in and of itself is not a crime and per US Supreme Court unless suspected of a CRIME you DO NOT have to show id. Sue these idiot cops in their personal capacity as well as the police department. That's easy money my friend. The case will not even go to trial as they will settle.

  • Daryl of the Owen Flesh-relations

    Idaho is not a stop and I.D. State, Not required by law to identify yourself to LEOs unless you ate under arrest.

  • Richard Smith

    all ways remember!! cops are sworn to rob you of your money! lie about everything they do and screw you like a dog! President Trump talks about gangs, and cops are gangs and there as dangerous as ms13!! >>>> DO NOT EVER TRUST a cop and ALWAYS video them! to protect your self! always remember cops are pirates and tyrants and Liars….

  • Richard Smith

    And cops wonder why so many cops are getting killed now days! this is one good reason, >>>>> cops are pirates and tyrants and Liars! There not your friend>>>>> Do not let them intimidate you! And ALL cops targets black people<<<< If cops ever stop you for no reason, >>>> DO NOT open your mouth! keep quiet!!! That is your rights!! Always ask for there sergeant………. ALL cops tries to give you some kind of bull shit lie why they pulled you over!! you can't NOT believe any of them!! and >>>>always ask for there supervisor ALWAYS<<<

  • Richard Smith

    you still have time!! >>> if you didn't OR don't file a report with the internal affairs service and file a lawsuit, then you you have no right to bitch about how cops treated you! And can't help other people from cops doing this kind of stuff!

  • Lenny D.

    So I call in on anyone at Wal-Mart and say they are suspicious? Let's all make calls on police. They are the most suspicious gang in the country.

  • Constitutional Rights, Stand Up

    Don't you realize you're in a white neighborhood, that's why the PIG said "I just wanna get him outa here"… Fuck the cops………

  • Michelle R

    There is a problem with the web page you linked for follow up. What was the outcome of this illegal arrest , please. We seem to never get that information. Thank you.

  • Noble Global

    Under arrest for not listening? And the officer repeated it several times. Wow. Whats next. Under arrest for not looking. Or maybe under arrest for not agreeing?

  • todd Michaloski

    These 2 cops should be fired. Either they don't know the law or they care more about controlling people than their rights. Bad cops.

  • Craig Martin

    This man did everything wrong an innocent person could do wrong. He could have just had a simple conversation about what he was doing from the start, but he was standoffish and not answering any questions. "Hey, I'm with So-and-So group, just going around the neighborhood I live in to get people's opinions on such-and-such matter." End of story.

  • damien Smith

    He doesn't have to identify himself if he did not commit a crime. These cops violated this guy's civil rights. These cops do not know the law well enough.

  • Al Villarreal

    because the cop doesn't like it he has the right to use his constitutional rights this cop is being a tyrant well he is a tyrant and a scumbag guy hasn't broken any laws

  • candlstudios

    The first cop was bad enough.. then the 2nd cop shows up at the end and really wants to teach this guy a lesson.

    These cops were mad because the guy wasn't following the script. He knew his rights.

  • Jumping Jim R

    Eye Dee Eye Dee Eye Dee Eye Dee Ten Tee I D 10 T
    Ignorance is bliss. But ignorance of the law is not a defense. There is no cure for stupid.

  • ssbbmoto

    Cop "You're being arrested"
    Good citizen "for what"
    Moron cop "for not listening to me"
    HAHAHAHAHAHA what a POS ignorant pig, earning the hate. I hope this guy sues the shit out of that department.

  • CentPacRR

    INVOKING ONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "BEING UNCOOPERATIVE" NOR DO THOSE RIGHTS EVER LAPSE, IRRESPECTIVE OF TIME OF DAY, BUT THEY REMAIN IN EFFECT 24/7/365. A CLAIM BY POLICE THAT YOU ARE BEING STOPPED BECAUSE "SOMEBODY CALLED" IS GROUNDS FOR DETAINMENT OR ARREST IS TOTALLY BOGUS AS THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY CONSTITUTE "RAS", NOR IS REFUSING TO "ASSIST" IN AN "INVESTIGATION" BY NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS GROUNDS FOR A CHARGE OF "OBSTRUCTION" BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO SAY NOTHING AT ALL TO POLICE. AS DECLINING TO "ASSIST" IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IT CAN NEVER BE CRIMINALIZED AS "OBSTRUCTION". ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNDER ARREST OR CHARGED WITH A CRIME TO INVOKE HIS/HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE PROVIDED BY THE 1ST, 4TH, 5TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS.

    WHEN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR FEDERAL AGENT IMPROPERLY DEMANDS ID OR POSES QUESTIONS ABSENT GROUNDS FOR A LAWFUL, NON PRETEXTUAL ARREST, DEMANDS THE ID OF PASSENGERS DURING A TRAFFIC STOP, FALSELY CLAIMS THAT BEING "SUSPICIOUS" IS GROUNDS TO DEMAND ID, OR THAT YOU HAVE NO 5TH AMENDMENT OR OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNLESS AND UNTIL ARRESTED, AND/OR DEMANDS ID "TO RUN YOU FOR WARRANTS", AND/OR EVEN CLAIMS THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CARRY ID IN THE UNITED STATES, YOUR RESPONSE SHOULD BE THE FOLLOWING:

    As a sworn law enforcement officer, you are bound by the Oath you took as required by Article VI, Paragraph 3, Clause 1 of the 1789 Constitution of the United States to "support" and protect the "Constitution" and its 27 Amendments. In four U.S. Supreme Court cases decided in 1973, 1975 and 1979, (“Almeida-Sanchez vs United States” (413 U.S. 266), “United States vs Brignoni-Ponce” (422 U. S. 873), “Zackary Brown vs State of Texas” (443 U.S. 47) and “State of Delaware vs William Prouse” (440 U.S. 648)), the Court held that both the demanding of, and warrantless searches for, a person's ID absent reasonable articulable suspicion ("RAS") sufficient to constitute grounds for a lawful, non pretextual arrest — especially when that person is engaged in any Constitutionally protected activity such as those covered by (but not limited to) the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses of the First Amendment — at a minimum violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. (Delaware v. Prouse specifically protects the right to privacy of passengers in automobiles during traffic or check point stops.)

    The Supreme Court also held in 1971 in “James Palmer v. City of Euclid" (402 U.S. 547) that without RAS, government “does not have Constitutional power” to make “suspicious” circumstances “a criminal offense”, and in 1983 the Supreme Court held as well in the "State of Florida v. Royer" (460 U.S. 491) that under the rights and protections of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments a person approached by a LEO "need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 32 -33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. "United States v. Mendenhall", at 556 (opinion of Stewart, J.)."

    In "Ernest Ramsey v. The United States", D. C. Court of Appeals. No. 11–CF–1485 (2013) the Court held that: "Any restraint of a person amounting to a seizure is invalid unless justified by probable cause. Detaining an individual, even for a few minutes, for a warrant check constitutes a seizure that is unlawful in the absence of probable cause or a reasonable, articulable basis to suspect the individual of a criminal offense."

    Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (the Supremacy Clause) makes all Federal laws and all rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States superior to any and all State or local codes or laws — real or imagined — that may conflict with them and reads as follows: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    Therefore a demand for ID and/or searching a person for it, or even demanding the acknowledgement of an LEO at all absent legitimate RAS is not only prohibited by the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, but also constitutes a Federal crime under 18 USC §§241-242 (“Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”) which is an imprisonable Federal felony for which under settled case law you would also NOT be eligible or entitled to claim “qualified immunity” as a defense.

    In addition in the 2011 case Glik v. Cunniffe (655 F.3d 78) the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of public officials (including a city manager) in a public place (including the public areas of a City Hall), and therefore arresting a citizen for criminal trespass or wiretapping violates his or her First and Fourth Amendment rights. In a unanimous decision, the Court also held that such public officials would not be entitled to invoking "qualified immunity" as a defense as the right to film public officials in public places has been "clearly established." (After losing its appeal, the City of Boston reached a settlement with the plaintiff Glik in which they agreed to pay him $170,000 in damages and attorney's fees.)

    As soon as an LEO comes up with the canard "Here's the deal…", "You have to understand…, and/or "You people…", an auditor or anyone else this is said to needs to IMMEDIATELY interrupt and stop him/her and forcefully inform the LEO that "There is no 'deal' here that you are permitted to impose", that you don't "have to understand" anything, and that you are not "You people". The individuals that the public commissions to be "law enforcement officers" are NOT "deal enforcement officers" (or "policy enforcement officers") because as Article VI public officials the ONLY thing they are permitted to enforce is actual codified law and nothing else. So what you need to say in this circumstance is "Show me the written code or statute you are actually authorized and intending to enforce. There are no "deals" in law enforcement, only law that conforms to the provisions of the seven Articles of the 1789 Constitution, the ten articles of the 1791 Bill of Rights, and the other 17 Amendments thereto subsequently ratified by the several states."

    It is the LEOs who "have to understand" that NOTHING "trumps" a citizen's right to engage in any activity that is Constitutionally protected irrespective of how "suspicious" or "objectionable" it may be to law enforcement or anyone else. LEO's are Article VI public officials who have sworn an oath (or affirmation) to protect the Constitution and the exercise of all of its rights by anyone with whom they come in contact.

  • CentPacRR

    PER THE SUPREME COURT IN "HOUSTON VS. HILL" (1987), USING "OBSCENITIES" AND/OR "FLIPPING THE BIRD" AT POLICE OFFICERS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THUS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "BREACH OF THE PEACE" OR "DISORDERLY CONDUCT"

    The US Supreme Court in "Houston vs Hill" (1987) and "Cohen vs California" (1971), and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in "Duran vs City of Douglas" (1990) have all held that using "obscenities" and "flipping the bird" at police officers is First Amendment protected speech, do not constitute a "breach of the peace" or "disorderly conduct", and that "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers."

    U.S. Supreme Court
    City of Houston vs. Hill, 482 U.S. 451
    June 15, 1987

    The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.

    "Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949). In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974), for example, the appellant was found to have yelled obscenities and threats at an officer who had asked appellant's husband to produce his driver's license. Appellant was convicted under a municipal ordinance that made it a crime "'for any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty.'" Id. at 415 U. S. 132 (citation omitted).

    We vacated the conviction and invalidated the ordinance as facially overbroad. Critical to our decision was the fact that the ordinance "punishe[d] only spoken words," and was not limited in scope to fighting words that, "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.'" Id. at 415 U. S. 133, quoting Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 405 U. S. 525 (1972); see also ibid. (Georgia breach-of-peace statute not limited to fighting words held facially invalid). Moreover, in a concurring opinion in Lewis, JUSTICE POWELL suggested that even the "fighting words" exception recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), might require a narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer, because "a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to 'exercise a higher degree of restraint' than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words.'"

    “Flipping the Bird”
    U.S. Court of Appears, Ninth Circuit
    Ralph & Alice Duran vs. City of Douglas, Arizona et al. 904 F.2nd 1372
    June 4, 1990

    Duran's conduct is not totally irrelevant, however, as it suggests a possible motive for his detention, one upon which law enforcement officers may not legitimately rely. The Durans contend, and the district court held, that Aguilar stopped their car at least partly in retaliation for the insult he received from Duran. If true, this would constitute a serious First Amendment violation. "[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." Hill, 482 U.S. at 461, 107 S.Ct. at 2509. The freedom of individuals to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby risking arrest is one important characteristic by which we distinguish ourselves from a police state. Id. at 462-63, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Thus, while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful, but protected by the First Amendment.

    Inarticulate and crude as Duran's conduct may have been, it represented an expression of disapproval toward a police officer with whom he had just had a run-in. As such, it fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speech–such as stopping or hassling the speaker–is categorically prohibited by the Constitution. Aguilar admits that he stopped Duran because he made an obscene gesture and yelled profanities toward him. Aguilar Depo. at 85-86. Because Aguilar might have detained Duran in retaliation for engaging in this protected speech and conduct, summary judgment in favor of Aguilar would have been inappropriate. At the same time, because Aguilar claims that he had no retaliatory motive–that he honestly believed Duran's actions indicated that criminal activity might be afoot–the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Duran on this issue was also error. There remains a material issue of fact, therefore, whether Aguilar intended to hassle Duran as punishment for exercising his First Amendment rights. To the extent the trier of fact determines that officer Aguilar stopped Duran in retaliation for Duran's method of expressing his opinion, this would constitute a separate constitutional violation that could form the basis of liability under section 1983.5

    If there is one irreducible minimum in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it is that a police officer may not detain an individual simply on the basis of suspicion in the air. No matter how peculiar, abrasive, unruly or distasteful a person's conduct may be, it cannot justify a police stop unless it suggests that some specific crime has been, or is about to be, committed, or that there is an imminent danger to persons or property. Were the law any different–were police free to detain and question people based only on their hunch that something may be amiss–we would hardly have a need for the hundreds of founded suspicion cases the federal courts decide every year, for we would be living in a police state where law enforcement officers, not the courts, would determine who gets stopped and when.

    No less well established is the principle that government officials in general, and police officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity. Surely anyone who takes an oath of office knows–or should know–that much. See Hill, 482 U.S. at 462, 107 S.Ct. at 2510. Whether or not officer Aguilar was aware of the fine points of First Amendment law, to the extent he is found to have detained Duran as punishment for the latter's insults, we hold that he ought to have known that he was exercising his authority in violation of well-established constitutional rights.

    United States Supreme Court
    "Paul Robert Cohen vs State of California" 403 U.S. 15
    June 7, 1971

    "To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve. That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength. . . . We cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process. Indeed, governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views. We have been able, as noted above, to discern little social benefit that might result from running the risk of opening the door to such grave results. . . . The State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display [use] of an expletive a criminal offense."

  • Philip Tomlins

    UPDATE – https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2019/04/30/keilon-hill-black-campaign-worker-iowa-david-young-acquitted-harassment-public-official-wdm-police/3621793002/

  • ShawnDRuth

    Black man in a hoodie not doing anything in a decent neighborhood…naturally a crime. Guy stands up for his rights and gets arrested for it. Suspicion is not a crime. 100 to 1 odds are the person was a white woman who called the cops. You don't have to listen to cops, either say your detained or not, otherwise you don't have to stop and talk them. This cop thinks you have to help them or talk to cops at all. You don't have to stop if you are not detained, he never said he was detained until he cuffed him. Never giving a RAS or PC to cuff or detain him naturally. You can't threaten to detain someone if they don't stop. It is either you detain or not, you can't threaten to detain if they don't stop. That is your guilty until proven innocent way of thinking. That is not how the law works. You don't have to listen to cops or help them investigate anything or anyone, especially yourself. This guy has a easy lawsuit. This cop assumes all 911 calls are true and legal facts, when they are here say in the eyes of the law. This guy has an easy lawsuit here. LOL you are allowed to curse to cops according to SC and people it is free speech. Butt hurt cop here not used to hearing no and people kissing his ring. He says he can detain but never says for what, and detains him because he refuses to follow illegal orders by a cop. Guaranteed this guy sued, he knows his rights. The cop does not understand the concept you don't have to stop or talk to cops at all, saying stop means nothing, if you don't officially say your detained with a RAS or PC. The calls are here say unless the cop say it happen, and we all know the calls were false. That is not interference nor was it a lawful order. Stop is not detained, detained is detained. He never had to give ID. Both cops are fools, such an easy lawsuit. You don't have to listen to cops at all if your not detained. You can walk away from cops legally. Both cops are living in their own world. This video should be showed to cops training on what to not do. I would love to know what happened to the guy. And they turn off body cam to come up with crimes at the end. Another reason why I think cops should not be allowed to turn off audio or video on body cams, it defeats their purpose.

  • Fernando Delosreyes

    You're a fool, if you're in my neighborhood I probably confront you with a shotgun barrel, if the police ask you to identify yourself ,what's the problem with that, study the law carefully and don't be a copy cat in u tube,

  • Jimmy Justice

    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SUE THOSE COWARD ASS PIGS PERSONALLY!!!! It should be MANDATORY that pigs know citizen’s rights!! Yes PIG!!! If he hasn’t broken the law, is breaking the law or about to break the law, he CAN WALK AWAY FROM YOUR RACIST ASS!!!

    NEWSFLASH PIGS!!!! UNITED STATES CITIZENS DO NOT NEED TO PARTICIPATE, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION OF THEM!!!!! WE DO NOT NEED TO SIT, IN HANDCUFFS, WHILE YOU TRY TO “DO YOUR JOB.” NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD BY YOUR BUDDY PIGS, THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS “INVESTIGATIVE DETAINMENT.” YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SIEZE A CITIZEN WHILE YOU INVESTIGATE WHETHER OR NOT THEY COMMITTED A CRIME.

    How dare that brother walk away from the supreme leader white boys in costumes with badges and guns??? How dare that blackie not listen to orders?

    RACIST ASS COWARDS!!!

  • Bill Smith

    Investigative detention is only after Reasonable articulable Suspicion of a crime this officer is guilty and so is his partner of USC title 18 section 241 and 242 conspiring to deny rights deprivation of rights under color of law.

  • LadyDi49 Diana

    The cop is a suspicious person! White armed thug with a gun approaching a black man doing nothing illegal.

  • Doug Bolling

    I think we all should go their and pass out the constitution along with the bill of rights , and see how they would react ?

  • Bob O'Connor

    Detained for resisting an unlawful detainment. What a crock. I guess this guy is just not white enough for them.

  • Trish House

    We have to stop paying for un=Constitutional, private, for-profit policing. We need to insist that we have Constitutional militias in every community that are made up of the men of A well armed militia can protect us from corrupt government. For profit police will not do that. Demand a militia in your community. Insist on your Constitutional rights – all of them …

  • Michael Vechnak

    Suspicion is not a crime! YOU DUMBASS FUCKING COP!

    NO WONDER PEOPLE SHOOT THEM IT SHOULD HAPPEN MORE OFTEN 🖕🐖🐷🐗🐷🐖💩

  • Michael Vechnak

    BLUE-ISIS they kill more Americans than any of the other terrorist organizations! they desecrate the American flag and use it as their gang symbol! 🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🐖🐷🐗🐷🐖💩

  • BadPop

    What law states the citizens must have consensual conversations with law enforcement?

    The second cop placed him under arrest without knowing anything about the situation… seems legit 🤪🤪

  • John Doe

    Another of many acts of police misconduct that makes it difficult to tell whether these guys are so stupid that they don’t know BASIC law or Constitutional rights.
    OR
    They’re so drunk on their perceived power that they don’t think the law applies to them…

  • John Michael Lunstrum Sr.

    thank you officer for responding to a call about a suspicious person walking to every house.

    that being said…..if it was texas I wouldn't have a need to call the police.

  • Zyz zyz

    That’s good for about $50,000 of taxpayer money unfortunately.
    Sad when you have the citizen non-cop telling the cops about the law. A young kid at that.
    The kid obviously knew the law because as soon as he put the handcuffs on him he knew that the cop had just really messed up.

  • Connie Grosser

    For being black, in a white neighborhood? Racist any? DUH…this cop has NO idea what he is doing is wrong. UNLESS he's LEGALLY ARRESTED you have NO right to ask for his ID. Stop LYING. BULLIES. You did NOT detain him…you gave him UNlawful orders…and he walked away…so WHAT? SUE THEIR BUTTS OFF.

  • Steven L

    That didn't work out for you did it officers? Yeah, when you spew BS we do get to walk away. Acquitted in 15 minutes. I think you're lucky he didn't come back and fleece your city for 5-6 figures.

  • R. Treviño

    That PS ROOKIE PIG is more Crooked than the arressting pig……CROOKED PGS WILL ALWAYS BE CROOKED PIGS………P.S. that I got a call BS LINE is defenetly getting old…….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *