Sep 29, 2013

With an out-of-state license plate, this motorist was the ideal candidate for a bored cop who collared a criminal whose sole offense was driving 72 mph in a 70 mph zone.

Fortunately both the driver and his passenger were well versed in their constitutional rights.

The cop separated the driver and his passenger. This is a common strategy that allows police to ask both individuals the same questions hoping to get conflicting answers. The passenger, a pastor, was allowed to stay in the vehicle while the driver was forced to sit in the police cruiser.

When the cop asked the pastor-passenger, "Where y'all goin' to?" [sic]  he responded, "That's my business."

The pastor persistently refused to be intimidated by the nice cop. Rather, he educated the policeman on the Constitution. Note the officer pretended to agree with the pastor EVEN AS HE WAS IN THE ACT of violating the pastor's rights!

The driver was sequestered in the patrol car while the cop quizzed the pastor-passenger.

The driver held his phone camera on the cop for the entire ordeal. The policeman demanded he stop recording, using his personal safety as his reason for the demand. Police often use their safety as excuse to bully their victims. The driver, however, continued to hold his camera on the cop.

Ultimately the driver was issued a warning ticket.

Continue reading below the video ▼




Observations:

• Both the driver and passenger were prepared to video record the entire incident. You may want to equip your vehicle with one or more small cameras in the event your passengers may not be prepared to record a traffic stop.

• Police routinely begin by asking innocent and innocuous questions to make their victims comfortable in providing answers. Police will use that against a victim when the victim later refuses to answer questions that may implicate a crime.

• Both of the cop's victims were prepared to refuse to answer even the most mundane questions. 

• The victims were polite but firm; perhaps they were too firm. 

• Both were prepared to record the event. 

• Both were prepared not to be intimidated by the cop.

• The officer used "safety" as an excuse more than once. Public safety was his logic for randomly pulling over a motorist. Personal safety was his excuse for demanding the driver stop recording the event.

• If the cop were truly concerned for his personal safety, he would not randomly pull over decent citizens. Each stop creates is a potentially dangerous event for both the officer and his victims. When traffic stops are limited to those who truly deserve to be stopped, the officer would greatly reduce his risk.

• The policeman seemed to have no qualms about effectively erasing ten to fifteen minutes from his victims' lives and emotionally abusing them.

• The policeman willfully distracted himself from observing traffic. During the time wasted harassing this driver and his passengers, perhaps dozens of truly dangerous drivers were not being observed.

• Police waste taxpayer money when they engage in recreational bullying of decent citizens. They also endanger the lives and safety of those they are sworn to protect by willfully ignoring their priorities. It may also be considered something akin to dereliction of duty.

• Police are aware that traffic stops are emotionally stressful events for their victims, that victims are usually unprepared to be bullied and abused, and they use these to their advantage and their victim's disadvantage.

• Police represent government interests that often conflicts with your values and those of our nation's founders. 

• The policeman contended that others appreciated what he was doing. That seemed to give him comfort and encouragement to violate their Constitutional rights.  

• There is a reason why police don't like being video recorded. And it's not their humility in having their good deeds and words preserved for posterity.

Recent black-on-white crimes ► continually updated ]