No Crime No ID! IDIOT Police Woman Gets Owned And Dismissed With Dumb Sergeant! Copa Get Owned

30 thoughts on “No Crime No ID! IDIOT Police Woman Gets Owned And Dismissed With Dumb Sergeant! Copa Get Owned”

1. It's simple, always record the police and always be aware of your RIGHTS!
   
   Leave a comment with your thoughts and hit the like to help these videos get out there to bring awareness to every one of their rights!

   End Qualified Immunity!

2. you admitted to speeding? give the licence, you are guilty.

3. Another lying false imprisoning traitor felon with a badge…..

   NO OBLIGATION to identify unless lawfully arrested, Brown v Texas, 4th and 5th and state law.

   AND IF LAWFULLY ARRESTED, the RIGHT to REMAIN SILENT INVOKES…..

   NO OBLIGATION to answer questions per:

   Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which Justice Robert Jackson famously opined, "To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to solution of the crime because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client—guilty or innocent—and that, in such a capacity, he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem. Under this conception of criminal procedure, any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances."

   In this case, a defendant was subjected to rigorous interrogation methods, including being forced to sleep on the floor, resulting in a confession to having committed murder. The Supreme Court ruled that the confession was involuntary and reversed his conviction.

   Terry v Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
   "Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation."

   “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that refusal to answer law enforcement questions cannot form the basis of reasonable suspicion. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) ("We have consistently held that a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.") – U.S. v. Santos 403 F.3d 1120 (2005).

4. Oink oink oink 🐷

5. When they're WRONG, it's always I'm not going to argue with you.

6. You actually do have to identify, but that does not mean give your name. Tell them they can call you good citizen.

7. Another ignorant thin blue line gang member

8. By law you don’t have to ID
   But “by law” you have to give your name??? 🫤😑🙄

9. Zero tolerance 1 mile over the speed limit is still speeding and what happened to I don't answer questions You gotta learn to keep your mouth shut

10. I Minnesota you do have to give your name when you are detained.

11. Don’t compare yourself to the police, there is a big difference

12. He literally admits in the first two seconds of this video that he committed a crime.

    It doesn't matter that he was just going 'a little' over the speed limit, he was speeding.

13. I gotta tell you; it is my personal observation; most of these police officers are braindead.

14. Admits to tailgating 🤦‍♂️

15. Admits to speeding (even if it’s only 1mph over, it’s still speeding) within moments of the cop coming up. Brilliant

16. I can’t speak to the legality of the stop; the persons in Nevada are required to identify themselves when under an investigative detention.

17. Police do not have to tell you that you are detained for you to be detailed
    If a reasonably person would conclude, either by words or actions, that there are not free to leave they are detained

18. He just said speed limit is 65 and he went 66 he admitted to a crime

19. Women shouldn’t be police officers, point blank period

20. As much as I agree you should record any and all police encounters, you admitted on camera that you were breaking the law. You must show your license.

21. Another woman cop trying to kill a person

22. Don't say how fast you were going ..ever

23. He asked about the NRS code which means this is in Nevada. In Nevada, if you’re driving a car and you get pulled over, regardless of why, you must present a driver’s license. The guy admitted he was driving 66 in a 65, which technically is a violation of the speeding statute. The LEO had probable cause to pull the guy over, and therefore, he must present his driver’s license.

24. Never tell them how fast you are going, they have to proof you did something wrong……

25. 66 in a 65 was his admission of guilt, so once you say that by law, he has to identify. The officer is in the clear amd if he decides to pursue this he will get hit with a fine.

26. What state is this?

27. You admitted on camera that u were speeding….. when driving, you have to provide a license. This is a bad video….

28. Cops, it's what they do. They lie for a living.

29. Hmm… if it's the law to identify yourself to the police, why did the cop let him off this time, but have to identify next time?

30. Lady why don't you retire

Comments are closed.