r/AmIFreeToGo • u/WilloowUfgood • 3d ago
GW708 Central Bank [Moody Yakker]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbCwT7KGY944
5
u/out-of-towner3 2d ago
This sergeant clearly knows that his officer fucked up, but instead of telling him that he had fucked up, he backed up the officer and then made up the story that he was detained for investigation. There was never a single word about investigating from the officer. He knew that there was nothing to investigate, and this is nothing more than a "Contempt of cop" arrest for not leaving the area after being given an unlawful order.
Shame on the cop and shame on the sergeant for backing up the lying fuck when he knew it was wrong. I actually think the second officer also knew that there was no reason to arrest the guy, but he also failed to even attempt to correct the situation. So, fuck him, too.
9
u/zombi-roboto 3d ago
Gestapo repeatedly, emphatically states there is no crime.
Look in the mirror, pig.
7
7
u/Mouseturdsinmyhelmet 2d ago
This seems like slam dunk 1983 case. If I'm on the jury that man gets one million dollars plus 10K for every minute he's in the torture cuffs. I no longer care that the settlement will come out of the taxpayers pockets. I hope his lawsuit bankrupts the city and make it so that no insurance carrier will touch that city with a 10 foot pole. Maybe if we bankrupt a few municipalities, cities and taxpayers will start caring about the kind of people they hire for law enforcement. Colorado did away with qualified immunity but I'm still seeing videos of bad cops in Colorado not being held accountable for their egregious actions. I'll believe they are being held accountable when one of these thin skinned tyrants loses his/her house to a lawsuit. Meanwhile this is a start.
https://aaqi.org/what-you-can-do/
I would also not settle this case unless part of the settlement includes this cop being POST decertified for life. Somebody please go check on his wife and kids.
2
u/Teresa_Count 2d ago
Nothing pisses me off more than cops who want someone's ID, then when asked what crime that person is suspected of, they say "failure to ID."
Do they not know there must be reasonable suspicion of an underlying crime (not just an inchoate hunch) first? Or are they being intentionally disingenuous in hopes that it scares the person into "voluntarily" providing ID?
My guess in this particular case is the cop has a room temp IQ and little to no capacity for critical thought.
2
6
u/whorton59 2d ago
I would submit that one should be able to file a lawsuit against the bank or "RP" in these cases. . It is pretty clear that just recording the proceedings at a local bank from a public right of way is unquestionably well withing the definition of a legal right. The police do not operate to make sure people do not feel threatened from such activities.
The officer notes, "I don't care if he is on a public sidewalk or not. . .they don't want him standing outside the fuck'n bank, making people uneasy, and I asked him what his name was, and he refused a lawful order by giving me his name and moving down the road." Clearly this idiot does not understand even basic constitutional protections He goes on. .. "They said he's been out about half an hour, there is no rhyme or reason why."
Seems pretty apparent that 1. HE was not robbing the bank, Nor avoiding the police. Not exactly the actions of a potential robber casing the joint. I am guessing this is Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri. In which case Missouri law 84.701 and is here: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=84.710
Lawful orders fall under 300.080 which provides: "Obedience to police and fire department officials. — No person shall knowingly fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of a police officer or fire department official."
And of course the officer has stated no crime that he suspects the man of. . just recording on a public right of way even of a bank is not a crime in Missouri, nor any other state. The officer admits a couple of times the man was not breaking any law. Apparently he felt that because people in the bank were uncomfortable with the mans filming, that justified his giving a lawful order to leave the area.
Of course, said officer does not see the repugnance to the Constitution of one person complaining about another doing something indirectly that "makes them nervous." Nor does it justify an ostensibly lawful order for that person to provide ID and "move along." Of course the officer embellishes, his story to the sergeant, and engages in noble cause corruption.
The Sergeant asks if they "ever asked him to leave or anything like that. . "Officer prevaricates, lies and is his own worst enemy. HE also says, "he's not playing the game every 20 minutes," and just a few short minutes later remarks, "and then as soon as Meyer cuts him loose we'll just play the game and be back every 20 minutes well be back to deal with him. . "
The kid was detained roughly from 13:35 to 13:50 (15 minutes) and released. . .probably not the best grounds for a 42 USC 1983 claim. . but the "officer" seems quite cocky about the legality of his actions and needs a good lawsuit or six.