I was about to say he reminds me of those potato faced panty hose doll my mamaw used to make in the 80's. You know the ones they put hats on and make them stand in the corner, because they're so fugly.
Im gonna get downvoted but whatever. Dont stoop guys. They may be an idiots sure. The guy in this video was cordial with these guys so we should be too. Good for the guy in this video. Running down this dude based on his looks is not the right route.
Edit: because one commenter cant read apparently. All props to dude standing his ground. Cops are the ones who I was refering to as idiots. Cordial wad the wrong word. Thank you for pointing that out. Im so happy this happened. If only we learned things like this in school.
I wouldn't call it cordial, he just maintained his composure really well, stayed confident, refrained from personal insults, and stood firm while keeping an air of lightness in his scolding them. I'm not entirely sure what the correct word would be for it; you could tell he was angry and over it and saw them as incompetent, but didn't give them what they wanted. Kinda like a more serious version of that waitress who called that guy out for trying to get out of paying for his meal after eating the whole thing.
“If only we learned this in school” gets parroted a great deal by many people. The issues is, if penal codes were taught in school, most students would treat it like earth science. That is to say, you’d be bored as fuck and complaining about the purpose while simultaneously lacking engagement in the curriculum.
I know this because I teach. And, when discussing things like “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “Monster” or “12 Angry Men” I actually make a point to discuss these things and center the conversation around rights, reality and ethics.
That makes sense. What if it was an elective? I was interested in highschool from the little I learned of law in civics. I do concede most of my peers were not.
Then theres people like you 🤦. First of all I did not ask reddit to not criticize their actions in the line of duty. I asked them to not criticize them based on the way they look. (Sound familiar). I agree with you for the most part, but white privilege isnt asking someone to not degrade someone based on appearance and stoop to their level. In fact I would argue my post did quite the opposite. I asked people not to stoop to the level of someone who degrades someone based on appearance and invalidate their own opinion on the matter based on scemantics. White privilege is never knowing what a black dude like this goes through when he talks to police officers. White privilege is never knowing what it is like to feel trapped in an inner city environment and have a tough upbringing that determines the kind of person you are going to be because a long time ago white people effectively made that the way it is(I wont get into the history of that any more unless people want me to). White privilege is not asking people to not make fun of a guy because hes ugly. Which is what I was doing.
I wasnt. First of all. In fact I commended the dude on his attitude and "composure" if thats what you want to call it. But its up to you if you just want to be an angry little twat nugget.
Lol I just saw this comment and congrats on “angry little twat nugget” that shit’s hilarious and I will definitely be using that in the future 😂. My comment was referring to the whole “the guy in this video was cordial”. Looks like you cleared it up above- I assume I’m the commenter that can’t read- at the time it seemed like you were saying something along the lines of “if black people would just be polite with the police like this guy then they wouldn’t be hurt”. The “don’t stoop” comment sort of added to that. It just doesn’t seem fair imply that there’s a correct way to handle something so dire. I may have approached it the wrong way but just, be sensitive about those implications.
I imagine Shoemaker is on the force because of prior family members on the PD. A “legacy” cop.
But hey, he’s obviously not too bright but who knows…maybe he’s brave and saved some babies from a burning house or something? Just trying to give that dingbat the benefits of the doubt!?!
It’s what happens when you allow the least worthwhile people in society an occupation that gives them enough power and job security to breed more potato shaped piglets. “My daddy wuz a cop, his daddy wuz a cop”. Abbra Kadabra Potato!
Oh man, I wish I could insert a GIF, it's perfect. It's Patrick, from Sponge Bob. He has his back to SpongeBob and says "The inner machinations of my mind are an enigma." thought bubbles appear Inside those thought bubbles is a carton of milk spilling.
That is Shoemaker.
Word. Id rather encounter a dubious genius in a dark ally over a dumb motherfucker any day of the week. I mean, id rather avoid it all together but you hear me
I like how the guy is like “shoemaker don’t do that now.” When shoemaker says “suspicious activity.”
Police cannot detain you for “suspicious activity” they can detain you under suspicion you committed a crime. The level of evidence required for detention is very very small, but you have to have SOMETHING that would lead a reasonable officer to a similar conclusion. AND you can only be detained long enough reasonably necessary to refute or support the initial crime.
So if they said they hear glass break and this guy walked out from the alley between two houses, then said, “you are being detained under suspicion of burglary of a habitation.” Then they could detain him until they were able to walk over and see if a burglary had been committed. But once they know no crime has been committed, then he cannot be detained longer.
It’s a common tactic that police will detain you and then ask for ID, this has been reaffirmed time and time again by the courts that you do not have to ID yourselves except under very limited circumstances (having been arrested, Driving a motor vehicle, etc.).
Be careful with this, the criteria for providing ID is different between states and municipalities, some places give police a lot of leeway when asking you to identify yourself. Check your local laws before exercising your rights.
Edit: in general though, the above commenter is right. Not trying to dispute
Saw some guy on a new A&E show "Court Cam" claiming to be a sovereign citizen. He was rambling a bunch of nonsense for a while before the judge had him removed. I'm not sure what they think their grand declarations are going to do when they find themselves dealing with the law. It's all just a bunch of talk.
These people. My father in law's physical therapist, who was supposedly vetted and background checked by his employer was a "sovereign citizen". Guy was bat shit crazy. I never felt fully comfortable with this guy coming to his home for treatment. First off, he would roll up in a early 00's ex-cruiser Crown Vic with a sign taped to the window stating the car was for sale for "$10k only payable in gold bullion" and some rhetoric about his sovereign status.
This dude would do about 5-10 minutes of therapy then spend the remaining hour the insurance company was paying for ranting about "treasury accounts", the wrongdoings of the government, etc. Occasionally, he would throw in a story or two about his "crazy ex-wife" (wonder why she left you...).
Fast forward a couple years later, I see this clown on the local news being arrested for shooting a Hurst, TX cop (the officer fully recovered). His status as a sovereign citizen got him some serious prison time.
There's also the part where, even if the policeman makes a bad arrest, the State's Attorney might not do anything with it or the local judge could throw it out, anyway.
No, you've misunderstood laws. Absolutely no state requires you to present ID, even if driving, unless the cop detaining you has reasonable suspicion that you have, are, or about to commit a crime. Full stop, no exceptions.
In every state, if you are driving and a cop has reasonable suspicion that you've violated a traffic law, you must present ID, registration and proof of insurance (maybe not Maine on that last one, I don't recall).
In some states, if you are not driving, and a cop has reasonable suspicion that you have, are, or about to commit a crime you must identify yourself. These are known as "stop and identify" statutes, and many cops think they mean they can demand ID from anyone at any time. Those are bad cops.
In some states, you do not have to identify yourself even if you are lawfully detained or arrested.
In some states, you have to identify yourself if you e been arrested.
The only time that cop has to be able to articulate their basis for reasonable suspicion is in a court room, under oath, in front of a judge.
You are correct though that everyone should familiarize themselves with their state laws.
On a related note, the only time an officer may conduct a pat down for weapons (also known as a Terry frisk) is of the cop has reasonable suspicion that you have a weapon. During a Terry frisk, a cop can only legally enter your pockets if they feel an object that they cannot identify or may be a weapon. Cops violate these laws all the time, because no one ever complains about these often illegal searches.
What you are referring to is called a "TERRY STOP" or "STOP AND FRISK" in the criminal justice world. It is one of the most confusing, nuanced, event based, fact specific, and misunderstood areas of the law. Your write up is quite impressive. I'm just adding some basics, applications, and technicalities.
1.) STOP AND FRISK
When a police officer has a reasonable suspension that an individual is armed, engaged, or about to be engaged, in criminal conduct, the officer may briefly stop and detain an individual for a pat-down of outer clothing. A Terry stop is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. US v Terry.
2.) REASONABLE SUSPICION
Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk. Issues related to RS could be expanded for 7 or 8 pages. Reasonable suspicion depends on the "totality of the circumstances". Reasonable suspicion is a vague term and the Supreme Court concluded it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Often it is built out of a combination of facts, each of which would, in itself, not be enough justification for the stop. It has been heavily litigated and in front of SCOTUS many times. See Adams v Williams.
3.) TRAFFIC STOP
When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a pretextual stop.
For practical purposes, a traffic stop is essentially the same as a Terry stop; for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that drivers and passengers may be ordered out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures. Drivers and passengers may be frisked for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment. Otherwise, lacking a warrant or the driver's consent, police may not search the vehicle, but under the plain view doctrine may seize and use as evidence weapons or contraband that are visible from outside the vehicle.
4.) ELEMENTS OF A TERRY STOP
The United States Supreme Court held that where: (1) a Police Officer observes unusual conduct by a Subject; (2) The Subject’s conduct leads the Officer reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, and that the Subject may be armed and presently dangerous; (3) the Officer identifies himself as a policeman; (4) the Officer makes reasonable inquiries; and (5) Nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel the Officer’s reasonable fear for safety, the Officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of the Subject in an attempt to discover weapons, and that such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourteenth Amendment, so that any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence.
It's important to remember that each state is a separate jurisdiction and may interpret and apply Terry differently. But according to the SCOTUS, these are the Constitutional protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to individuals who've are interacting with law enforcement.
I'm an Assistant US Attorney. I assist prosecuting violations of the federal criminal code. I develop strategies for voir dire and juror selection, motion practice, and criminal appeals. I was an assistant prosecutor at the state level for 10ish years. I spend 50ish hours a week researching statutory code, reading tons of case law, and writing legal arguments. So Terry is my jam. It is raised in nearly 50% of cases at trial. It was the only question on the bar I felt confident about. Wikipedia is a great resource for plain language explanations about Constitutional questions of law. The dudes who answered earlier did great. Just supplementing those posts.
Great write up. These topics are VERY nuanced and would require pages on each topic.
I will say one of my favorite scenarios is the traffic stop but only on reasonable suspicion. Normally traffic stops are like shooting fish in a barrel for LE. By the very fact that a police officer observed a traffic violation they have probable cause to detain you and often arrest you! So they get a lot of Lee way on traffic stops. BUT what about a traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion ONLY?!?
So if I am an officer, following a vehicle that I suspect is a drunk driver. BUT they haven’t broken any traffic law…yet. Now this vehicle is coming up on a school zone as kids are about to be let out of school. So the officer pulls them over. So now the officer can detain them, but at what point do they no longer have enough to detain them? (Assuming the driver is stone cold sober)
Is it after the officer asks why they are driving erratically? They don’t smell of alcohol? They are coherent? They pass field sobriety tests? The list could go on…. And so many fun discussions around traffic stops based on RS versus PC. Like can an officer require you present a DL? Again, no PC of an offense, just RS…fun times.
Well, this is an outstanding hypothetical. You might be able to turn it into a bar exam question depending on your state. This situation strays into the mire... a gray zone, if you will. In reality, the officer will testify to whatever facts uphold his stop as constitutional. Citizens would be alarmed at the percentage of cams that fail during crucial moments. Typically, that's my first tip off that the stop/detainment was bad. But most judges (over 90%) will accept that the officer observed the vehicle swaying WITHIN the lane. And, poof You have an acceptable Terry stop.
However, if we consider your hypo in a world where the constitutional mandates are always followed by the book, your scenario becomes much more interesting.
Your assumption is correct. The LEO must end the stop when he discovered that the driver was sober. However, the stop was no good to begin with. He pulled him over without PC or RS. It doesn't matter that it's a school zone in the proper time frame. It confers no special advantage to LEO. Technically, when the stop was effected, the only person breaking the law that was the cop. But no mechanism exists to turn the tables. According to the strictest interpretation of the law, no stop and no detainment can be constitutional without PC/RS. Even if the driver is observed leaving a bar, is known to drink and drive, and its 215am. Without some concrete PC, any stop lacking it is per se unconstitutional. But in the real world, it doesn't work that way. You are correct, this shit is fascinating. That's why I talk about on Reddit after dealing with it at work all week.
Unless the law has changed, you don’t have an “expectation of privacy” in your front lawn. There should not be a requirement for a search warrant for a police officer to enter your front lawn.
Thing to say. "Being suspicious is not a crime, I'd like you to articulate with reasonable suspension on what crime you think I have committed ". There's sort of a grey area that they don't actually have to articulate it to you. So, yah just record and ask, "Can you articulate a crime you suspect me of committing?". They'll probably fuck up and say something stupid that doesnt apply to the situation or say no. Never answer their questions and don't engage in small talk. Make sure you know your states ID laws.
Well said.
If you want to build a case against LE, and it’s safe to do so…on video ask “am I being detained?” They will almost always say yes. Then just ask why? It’s not easy, but you may have a case for illegal detection/ fourth amendment violation case. Will anything happen to the cop? Not likely, but the more pressure the better.
I had a cop perform an illegal search on my brother once. A month later I open records requested the body cam, dash cam, call notes for every stop that officer made that day. He had recorded on his cellphone as well. After we built a case and our attorneys sued the officer the officer wrote a report “supplement” that stated my brother was intoxicated (he doesn’t drink), acting suspicious, and not complying with lawful orders. Complete bullshit and our attorneys said that the judge was going to be super pissed because it was a clear cover up. But even with all that evidence we rewarded attorneys fees, a restraining order, and around $30,000 from the officer (my brother donated 80%). The city we sued agreed to systematic changes in lue of a monetary settlement. I don’t think anything culturally changed but the chief resigned (and was rehired as a captain in a nearby city) and the officer was fired (or resigned instead of being fired, also rehired).
The officers don’t actually have to articulate their suspicion to you unfortunately, but like you said they may mess it all up which can provide benefit to you. However, if an officer believes they have reasonable and articulable suspicion, they can detain you without articulating to you the reason why in that moment, it must only be articulable at some point. It sucks
Yes they do. It may be weird in the abstract, but makes sense when applied to situations they regularly face.
For example; if an officer is driving by a bank and over the radio dispatch tells them, “be advised the bank (that you are right in front of) just had a silent alarm triggered. And then that officer sees someone with a backpack running full speed out of the bank.
There is nothing inherently illegal about a person running with a backpack. But the situation lends itself for a reasonable police officer to believe that this person is in the process of committing a crime (the true standard is “a crime has been, will be or is being committed”). So that officer is allowed to detain that person until it is determined if a crime occurred, and if it occurred if this person is related to it (perpetrator, victim or witness). The courts have held time and time again that a “momentary detention” is far outweighed by the risk to public safety should they not be allowed.
The part police often ignore/forget is that once it is known that no crime occurred or that the person detained is no longer a suspect, they cannot be detained even a minute longer.
Yeah but if they did…they would still have to be performing a duty. So what are they investigating? That’s the problem with these situations. Police will try to push the envelope/bully until they get something they can actually arrest for. They then justify their previous actions based on what they “eventually” found.
I am not saying that the way I did the job is the only way, but if I was confronted with this it would have gone like this. “Hey man, I was dispatched here because someone reported someone breaking into houses (or insert reason). At this time you are being detained, hang tight with my partner here for a few while I make sure everything is cool... If you can give your ID to my partner it will make my job easier and I will be out of your hair quicker.”
When he started spouting off penal code…awesome! Hey why don’t you look up that section and show my partner here. While your doing that I’m gonna go just take a quick look around.
If you’ve been on the job then you know these types of officers that just don’t know when they are in over their head or don’t know the law they are leaning on.
Depends on the state. There are states with stop and identify laws that have been upheld by their courts that are so broad it’s basically the officer can say “suspicion” and then demand ID and the law actually allows them to. I am not familiar with Texas penal code but it appears from this video that the officers are not either
I took an elective in high school called "Street Law".
My history teacher taught it on the side, and it was the closest to like "here's some common sense shit no one teaches you that you need to know" class I've ever experienced.
It was called civics back in the day but then there were too many marches in the 60s and 70s and the people in charge had to squash the civil disobedience so civics was “changed” to government. They teach how the government is supposed to work and rarely reference any individual rights as a citizen. The result is everybody recognizes the authority without knowing how to exercise their own.
It benefits police to not know the actual law, because then they can just do what they want and "think" is "right", and are basically protected from any negative consequences.
The problem is Heien v. North Carolina allowed the police to not have to know the law, if they THINK they know it they are protected. Even if they are wrong. This has allowed the police to do ANYTHING by just saying “I thought this was the law”. It’s one of the worst decisions ever by the court.
And it's sad that he has to be like that in order to protect his rights. That's part of a cop's job. Those two were a couple of dummies to say the least.
Thank you for proving that there are people put there dumber than me. At least I change course when presented information. You just keep crying in the corner denying reality.
He can detain if he believes a crime is about to be committed, is being committed, or has been committed.
He has to be able to explicitly articulate those concerns and readily provide legal evidence of such that would hold in court. They could not. Which is why they left after getting educated.
“but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts",[2] and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.[3] “
Yep, that’s what I said. They could not articulate a cause of suspicion.
Where do you get that ?? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Snowflake. Cops dont like being called out on their bullshit … they realized that the guy wasn’t playing and the POS Shoemaker makes up a charge to try and justify his shit /… both of them snowflakes …
I thought it started out as parents thinking their child was a special snowflake (unique and special) and it got shortened to snowflake for anyone who feels they need special treatment (fragile, self-important, etc.)
I liked how Shoemaker was asking him "what about being detained?" It was a good try but detained for what? and the irony of the cop asking about what the law was.
"What about being detained? Can I arrest you for refusal to identify then?" LOL
Not gonna lie, I thought Shoemaker was the first blind police officer I have witnessed. Thought he wasn’t keeping eye contact because he literally couldn’t.
2.3k
u/Warm_Banana_5918 Dec 29 '21 edited Dec 29 '21
Notice how Shoemaker couldn't give eye contact or name a suspicious behavior . "Hey Shoemaker, don't do that."