Cop Loses It Over Minor Miscommunication – Everything Law and Order Blog

Second Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xw

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/audittheaudit

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuditTheAudit

Submit your videos here: auditheaudit@gmail.com

Sponsorship inquiries: audit@ellify.com

Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. Help us grow and educate more citizens and officers on the proper officer interaction conduct by liking this video and/or subscribing.

This video is for educational purposes and is in no way intended to provoke, incite, or shock the viewer. This video was created to educate citizens on constitutionally protected activities and emphasize the importance that legal action plays in constitutional activism.

Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them.

FAIR USE
This video falls under fair use protection as it has been manipulated for educational purposes with the addition of commentary. This video is complementary to illustrate the educational value of the information being delivered through the commentary and has inherently changed the value, audience and intention of the original video.

Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UYNO4NcV9w

LackLuster’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/LackLusterMedia

Sources:

Fla. Stat. § 322.15- https://bit.ly/3wEeefh

Fla. Stat. § 316.078- https://bit.ly/3wGt0lR

Fla. Stat. § 316.154- https://bit.ly/3G3gQI7

Donaldson v. State- https://bit.ly/3sLg8tg

State v. Rutter- https://bit.ly/39A0han

Fla. Stat. § 316.646- https://bit.ly/3G9YuFm

Fla. Stat. § 877.03- https://bit.ly/380qJtk

Delaney v. State- https://bit.ly/3NgK1tw

White v. State- https://bit.ly/3G4DFe9

City of Houston v. Hill- https://bit.ly/36hULEM

source

45 thoughts on “Cop Loses It Over Minor Miscommunication”
  1. Another Audit where "all" parties should receive and "F" including the narrator. The citizen for purposely elevating the situation with his total disrespect and personal verbal assault on the police officer (he gets a B!?), and "reckless driving" which was caught on camera. The police officer for unprofessionalism and really not doing his job. Plus the Narrator for citing legislation that is not current and in some cases refers to statues in the 1980's! Which have been updated multiple times……Audit the Audit gets an F for it's ongoing poor presentation of these situations, when it should be a learning experience for all….ugh!

  2. This very same thing happened to me. The officer was stopped on the side of the roadway. I used the open lane to pass, and he pulled me over. He proceeded to yell at me because I failed to yield. However, from my perspective, it didn't look like he was blocking off all the lanes. He was simply sitting on the side of the lanes with his lights on. I figured he had just finished a traffic stop. Anywho, I got a good scolding and was let go. The police can be confusing 😅

  3. Another autist who wants to be a big man, Its come to my attention that cops will either completely leave you alone or will purposely want to set you/someone up for a bad day.
    Edit: it wasnt a full barricade and all police barricades must have signs and lights, being on the wrong side of the road isnt a police barricade, its a traffic violation… As aduit said, it could be argued in the corrupt officers favor but its null and void when you see the fasion of the false barricade and the officer said go free, thats exactly why he let him go.

  4. Cop get's a D. He only semantically didn't violate the guys rights. The cop kept misrepresenting the facts and there is no doubt in my mind that the stop was retaliatory. The man was in complete control of his vehicle. I don't think that improper start law was meant for a little slippage. Imo it was not an overt violation of that law, the cop just wanted to go on an ego trip and humiliate the guy.

    Like others have commented, the cop even said "get the hell out of here," and pointed. So the guy did. Cops shouldn't be provoking behavior that they then cite or arrest someone for.

  5. I listened to his car go about 5 times and I never heard him squeal his tires. However, I heard the cop squeal his tires when he went after him. Maybe I'm losing my hearing faster then my eye site???

  6. Tire screeching a reasonable suspicion of a crime ? Yes, it is arguable. But common sense says he screeched his tires because he was annoyed by the stop and interaction, had a bit of a chip on his shoulder.of course the cop had a chip on his shoulder as well.

  7. Wow, the legal system is so incredibly broken. Peeling out is not the same thing as the tires barely squeeking. If thats the same thing as "peeling out" then cops are the exact same thing as the mafia.

    The cop was significantly more unsafe and was harassing people. He also didn't have any real probable cause, just manufactured probable cause from a legal system that is corrupt, broken and trash for allowing law enforcement to do whatever they want.

  8. Sentence of the supreme court of a free country ,on the crime 337 Criminal Code "resistance to a public official" 

    1) citizen commits no crime by refusing to carry out an officer's order.
    -That is, those who do not facilitate police control operations and do not obey the officers' commands such as, for example, opening the hood of the car, raising their arms upwards to allow the search, those who refuse to unbutton their jacket or those who do not want to open their suitcases for a normal check.
    Or, another example, those who refuse the request to get out of the car, or those whoto refuse to take a breathalyzer test either. Although this will be considered a positive alcohol result.

    2) There is no crime of resistance to a public official when the citizen engages in passive resistance.
    -This is the case of someone who, upon realizing that the police are arriving for a check, runs away somewhere else (think of the street vendor who, at the sight of the officers, picks up his stuff from the ground and runs away because have not license);
    –or to those who, having glimpsed a checkpoint with their car and having left their license at home, make a U-turn. 
    -or who, at the police checkpoint, simply escapes by car, provided that without maneuvers that endanger people's safety and without committing other crimes envisaged by the penal code.
    -Expressions of threats addressed to the latter do not constitute the crime of resistance to a public official, when they do not reveal any desire to oppose the performance of the official act, but rather represent a form of contestation of the previous activity carried out by the public official.

    This is the concept of law and overall for the concept of free and submission of the citizens in a free Country… 
    No one person have the authority to compulsory order any action to other person. With the exception of a reasoned and motivated order from a magistrate. Or the hierarchical superiors over subordinates, in the military forces,
    In a free country the words of the police have the same power as the words of a doctor or a professor or any citizen.

    Would it be possible for the US supreme court to rule something similar on government authority? I highly doubt it

Leave a Reply