More Suggestions For Copwatch Responses

ABSENT INTENT OR AUTHORITY AS LEGAL ADVICE. FOR ENTERTAINMENT, INFORMATION, AND EDUCATION ONLY. AUTHOR RESERVES ALL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS USED HEREON.

Another guy I like as a cop watcher, is SAEXTAZYPREZ. The video I want to hopefully add some responses I would give is this video, and the police interaction picks up around 5:50

The videographer tells the cop first thing “I’m not armed”, and I see this as a positive.

Let me be clear. There IS a war going on with the civil rights of individuals. Cops are the enemy combatants. They don’t give a shit about your rights, and they want you to avoid exercising your rights. They’ll try any trick in the book to get you to believe that you have to abandon your rights. They’ll lie, intimidate with threats of jail, and they will get in your face while being armed (force).

To start the interaction off with a subjugation of “I’m not armed” means that the cop is acknowledged as having superior force, whether or not this is actually true. Most people just react in fear. A confident, but factual “I’m not armed” seems to be a reach for an even playing ground that is called “peace.”

“They’re just concerned about you filming the prison…” (5:58)

I would respond “Oh, they’re concerned about me exercising my rights?”

If the cop tried to get me to explain my rights, I would simply ask if the first amendment had been repealed…

“You’re kinda making some suspicious activity, you know what I mean?” (6:20)

In many of the cop watch videos that I’ve seen, cops are quick to allege that something the videographer is doing is “suspicious.” This, by itself is BULLSHIT.

The standard which a cop must meet to lawfully detain you, is to have a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) that a crime is afoot (either being committed, or about to be committed).

I like to ask them “What is your reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot?” 

If they allege that what I am doing is suspicious, I ask them again,  “What is your reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot?” (And I emphasize “crime”).

Cops are taught distraction techniques. They may continue to allege that what I am doing is suspicious, and so, I ask them “how are my actions or demeanor criminal in nature?”

Another thing, the “you know what I mean?” is a NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) tool that uses hooks on the end of claims to gain acceptance and agreement. Another example of this would be to say “right?”.

The videographer gives an EXCELLENT answer “Suspicion of misdemeanor or felony?” BAM. That separates out “suspicious activity” from “suspicion of a crime”.

The cop quickly agrees “It’s not an offense.” BAM. That seals out the future chance of the cop alleging that RAS was present. He has NO legal ground to detain the videographer, but he’s free to keep questioning him.

Then the cop starts lying. “But it’s enough to detain you and try to figure out who you are.” (6:30)

This is a flat out lie. Suspicious activity is NOT Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime is afoot. The cop just admitted there was no “offense”. So now the cop is lying and saying that it IS enough to detain the videographer, when this is legally and factually FALSE.

I’d remind him that he just admitted there was no offense, and I’d use NLP and say “Right?”

I’d ask:

“You just said there was no offense, right?”

“What gives you the right to detain someone? Is it Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that a crime is afoot, as established in Terry v. Ohio?”

If the cop admits to this, I’d ask him why he feels it is necessary to lie to me and allege that just suspicious activity is enough to detain me.

The videographer claims to be an investigative journalist, gathering content for a story. I would avoid this, but I respect the right of others to say what they want. This seems (every time) to open a door for a response of “prove it.”

The cop immediately says “How do I know that?” (6:36) EVERY cop interaction is treated as guilty until proven innocent, but it’s good when they actually take the position verbally, because this can be questioned. The cop is asking the videographer to prove his claim.

If you know that you’re not doing something illegal, it helps you to remain at ease. Here’s an attorney that has prepared a pdf document that you can print and take with you to just hand to a know-it-all cop. (I don’t recommend attorneys, but this one had a neat document that seems to be helpful.)

Instead of the journalist deal, I’d simply ask the cop if I have lost the ability to exercise my rights. “Is there some reason I’m prohibited from exercising my rights?” This question keeps the burden of proof on the cop to (a) explain any prohibition, and (b) explain why my photography of a public place from a public space is no longer a right.

In this ACLU article, the author states “First of all, photography is truly a means of self-expression and as such receives the full protection of the First Amendment.”

You, as a videographer, don’t have to be a “journalist gathering content for a story.” You might feel that this makes you more legit, but what I see is that it ALWAYS invites a “prove it” response.

The videographer at around 6:52 makes me proud when he says “You’ve already told me I’m not breaking the law.” BAM. APPLAUSE!

The cop keeps trying to obtain identification, and let’s be real. It’s ONLY for intimidation. There’s no reason he needs it, and no legal authority to ask for it. It’s a power play. EGO. Blue EGOS Matter. The American cop is 98% ego and 2% training in almost every case.

EVERY time a cop alleges that you might be a felon, or you might have a warrant on you, is an OFFER to get you into a “guilty until proven innocent” paradigm. You have the right, every time, to refuse this offer for cause (the cause being that it’s an illegitimate offer).

“What kind of journal are you doing?” (7:00) This is why I don’t see the positive of claiming to be a journalist. I’d simply hand the cop the paper, ask him if I’ve lost the ability to exercise my rights, and then let him figure out how to answer that. (There’s no really good answer to it, but they will try to distract to another tack).

A funny aside here is when the cop asks “What’s the story regarding?” (7:08) I’d posit that a really cool and space-giving response would be “It’s about cops that are trained that they must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is afoot as the legal standard to detain and demand ID, but then these same cops lie and allege that merely “suspicious activity” (and I would put air quotes around it to make it seem as ridiculous as it is) is a reason to detain and demand ID.” This would be a really non-offensive way to punch the cop in the ego. You just described what he’s doing, without accusing him of doing it…

“But you also understand the alarm that you’re creating, right?” (7:19) Again, notice the NLP hook on the end of that. (“Right?”)

I’d respond “They’re alarmed that someone would exercise their rights?”

The videographer does a really excellent job of meeting the cop with counters in this video, and I don’t want to make it seem like he could have even done better, because he rocks it. I’m just offering a different perspective.

The videographer, at 7:58, asks the cop “Are you familiar with Texas Penal Code 38.02?”

I have to admit, this surprised me. The videographer has done his homework. LOUD.RAUCOUS.APPLAUSE.

He goes on to tell the cop that he is only guilty of failure to identify if he’s been arrested. My first thought was the same as the cop’s, who countered “or detained.” Detainment is NOT a reason for failure to identify in Texas. It’s a crime to give false information if lawfully detained, or if you’re a witness to a crime, but it’s not even required to identify then.  Here’s the applicable section:

Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

This also ties into the last article I wrote, which was in Texas.

“You understand why we’re out here, right?” (8:20) Again, with the NLP hook, he’s trying to gain agreement and acquiescence to his (unlawful) authority that is suggesting the videographer leave and demanding of the ID.

I’d always avoid agreeing with or accepting the word “understand”. It’s a sign that agreement is reached, and we are totally in DISagreement with cops that believe they are above the law.

Everything this cop did was “allowed” but not “authoritative.” He’s probably with some department authorization to lie or deceive to gain information, but the Texas Penal Code makes that a misdemeanor crime if it restrains the person unlawfully.

I’d ask the cop if he was also familiar with Texas Penal Code chapter 5, section 20.01.

The cop did tell him to keep moving when no crime was committed. He also said that “it’s enough to detain you and try to figure out who you are.” This is patently false, and could have been pursued further to actually gain an admission from the cop that he was being detained illegally.

“Just stay away from the prison.” (8:29) Another unlawful restraint. The cop is without authority to demand this of the videographer, and the videographer knows it, and responds in kind, which is again, applaudable.

“You understand why they’re concerned, right?” (8:41) These NLP hooks are starting to get  comedic. Once again, I’d ask “They’re concerned because I’m exercising my rights?”

ON BEING FOLLOWED:

I would be happy to share with some of the actual cop watchers how to prevent information from being gained when followed. It’s not something I feel comfortable putting out on a public forum because of the possibility that it could be countered easier by cops. 

One thing I would have done is to walk up to the vehicle following me and get better footage. This may cause the person in the vehicle to back off if they know they are being videoed with their face showing.

That’s a case-by-case, and would depend on the comfort of the videographer.

For more information, subscribe to this blog, and check out my youtube at http://youtube.com/c/LuckFawyersInstitute\

One final time, kudos to SAEXTAZYPREZ for a great job doing what he does!

{NOTE: The goal of the cop, in their need to control (psychopathically) every situation they encounters, is to attempt to gain agreement, and more importantly, ADMISSION that a crime is being committed, so he/she can proceed to gain revenue for the entity which pays them, to wit, the STATE. The goal of the public should be to AVOID agreement, but the problem is that the EGO of the cop often takes disagreement as an opportunity to charge someone with “contempt of cop”. Walk softly, but carry a camera.}

Advertisements

Cops Regularly Break The Law. Turn The Tables.

Absent intent as legal advice. For education, information, and entertainment only.

I’ve seen this happen over and over on copwatch and first amendment audit videos. A cop walks up and threatens the videographer with jail for some bullshit reason. The cop either alleges that videoing is illegal, or refusing to ID is illegal, or refusing to answer questions is illegal. Sometimes, the videographer actually gets arrested. Well, I decided to show you that there’s a table turn here. Since this video is in Texas, I looked up the penal code for unlawful restraint, but this is mirrored in many states.

Here’s the video of the cop breaking the law (in my opinion, and seemingly, in the opinion of the legislature of Texas.)


This cop says “You prolly gonna end up going to jail, cause right now you’re witnessing a crime.” (See above video at around 1:44)

He then threatens that failing to ID is a jailable offense, and keeps threatening to jail the videographer. Every one of these threats is a crime…

screen-shot-2017-01-01-at-11-11-05-am

Here’s what the Texas Penal Code has to say about this…

TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON CHAPTER 20. KIDNAPPING, UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT, AND SMUGGLING OF PERSONS 

Sec.20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1)”Restrain” means to restrict a person’s movements

without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person’s liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is “without consent” if it is accomplished by:

(A) force, intimidation, or deception 

The moment this deputy posited the above threat of probable jail, the deputy committed a misdemeanor against Phillip (The Battousai) according to Title 5, Chapter 20 of the Texas Penal Code.

Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.

(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor

The deputy ONLY has a defense if he lawfully detains or arrests someone. Otherwise, he’s committing an offense under this section, according to 20.02(d)

(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.

The deputy used force (the badge, gun are vi et armis – by force of arms)

The deputy used intimidation, because “any reasonable person” would be intimidated by a threat of being jailed, and exponentially so if the threat of jail was for ONLY the arbitrary opinion (not factual or legal basis of law) of the deputy.

The deputy used deception, because going to jail for witnessing a crime is not an operation of Texas law. He flat out lied.

So, in this case, it is TRUE that the videographer just witnessed a crime. The crime is being unlawfully restrained by the deputy. And the deputy was kind enough to do it on film. If I were the videographer, I’d immediately proceed to the magistrate (by registered mail, and with a copy of the video) with a sworn criminal complaint, and if the magistrate didn’t act to arrest the deputy and charge him, I’d then move against the magistrate and the deputy to the district attorney, and then to the attorney general.

It’s not okay for a cop to commit a crime against you.

When they continue to assert that witnessing a crime is a cause for a duty to identify, it’s time to ask them WHERE this is written in law. They assert “We don’t do anything wrong.” BULLSHIT.

If you can’t get someone to prosecute them, this should be an easy civil slam dunk.

Sue them individually and personally for acting under the color of law to deprive you of your rights.

Some helpful questions:

  1. Are you conducting an investigation?
  2. Do I have a legal duty to assist you in your investigation, or do I have the right to remain silent?

 

For more information, see more of this blog, and/or visit the youtube channel:

http://youtube.com/c/LuckFawyersInstitute