Cop Slaps Handcuffed Man | Caught on Video | Under “Review”

Did you see any "resistance?"
Details: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2024/02/16/cop-slaps-handcuffed-man-caught-on-video-under-review/

Stop resisting, Stop resisting, Stop resisting……..It kind of goes no where. Over used and desensitized .

$1200/ minute

First he's In Handcuffs, so there's no Need to Slap Him this Excessive FORCE!!!!!

Idk.
After 5 or 6 times I don't see a hit.
I see them shoving back against the car a 2 or 3 times bit if he is trying to stand upright or twist away then what are the cops supposed to do?
Just let him stand up all the way before they are ready for him to do that?

stop hitting yourself
stop hitting yourself
stop hitting yourself…

In regards to the investigation we the pilice find our officers and leadership acting in the manner that there training requires them to do we have investigated our selves and find there is no wrong doing…. isnt that how it usually gos

Kudos to the cameras!

1. Always record the police.
2. Always get their names and badge numbers.
3. Always ask, "Am I free to leave?"
4. Always ask for a supervisor.
5. Always remember you have the right to disobey an unlawful order from the police if you are confident they won't be able to demonstrate in court that the order was warranted and made necessary by your conduct. An arrest following refusal to obey an unwarranted police order is unlawful.
6. Always remember you have the right to refuse to identify yourself if you're confident that the police won't be able to demonstrate in court reasonable suspicion of your involvement in a crime; otherwise, provide your full name and nothing more, especially if threatened with arrest.
7. Always tell the cops, "I don't consent to any searches or seizures, and I won't answer questions."
8. Never argue with the police!
9. Never resist arrest! Unless you can do so safely and you have a valid reason like: self defense or defense of others, unlawful arrest, excessive force, necessity, mistake of fact, duress or coercion, malicious prosecution, preventing a crime, protecting property, medical emergency etc.
10. Always get a lawyer and sue when your rights are violated, targeting individual officers, their department and the municipality.

To streamline the process during a traffic stop, please print or write out the following statement to present to the police officer along with your license, registration, and proof of insurance:
—————————————————————-

WARNING OF LEGAL ACTION FOR RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

1. You are hereby informed of my expectations during our interaction, which are lawful and reasonable. Any deviation from these expectations may result in potential legal consequences.

2. Under the Fourth Amendment, I decline any searches or seizures. Additionally, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, I affirm my right to remain silent.

3. I understand that during a routine traffic stop, suspicions may arise. However, I am under no obligation to prove my innocence. Moreover, I kindly request that our interaction remains prompt and lawful. I have other commitments and would appreciate your cooperation in avoiding unnecessary delays.

4. Acknowledging safety concerns, I want to confirm that I am unarmed and have no weapons in the vehicle. I'll keep my hands visible on the wheel and use recording devices to document the interaction for transparency. I'll briefly lower the window for document exchange, ensuring it's securely closed afterward. I will not exit the vehicle unless lawfully arrested.

5. Please be aware that any violation of my rights or unlawful actions may result in legal action, including civil lawsuits, criminal charges, and federal prosecution pursued against individual officers, their respective police departments, and the municipality.

6. In the absence of reasonable articulable suspicion that I am involved in a crime, it would be unreasonable for you to become suspicious after reading this document. Treating law-abiding citizens as criminals is unacceptable in a democratic society. I expect you to respect my rights, as per your oath to uphold the Constitution.

Your strict compliance with the law is earnestly anticipated.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

—————————————————————-
HOW QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WORKS

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, from civil liability for actions performed within their official capacity, as long as those actions do not violate "clearly established" constitutional rights. However, there are certain circumstances where qualified immunity might not protect police officers:

1. Violation of Clearly Established Law: If a police officer violates a constitutional right that has been clearly established by existing case law, qualified immunity may not apply. In such cases, the court determines whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

2. Excessive Use of Force: If a police officer uses excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, qualified immunity may not shield them from liability. Courts examine the specific circumstances of each case to determine whether the force used was objectively reasonable.

3. Malicious Conduct: Qualified immunity does not protect officers who engage in malicious conduct or who knowingly violate the law. If it can be shown that an officer acted with malicious intent or deliberately disregarded someone's constitutional rights, they may not be entitled to qualified immunity.

4. Gross Negligence: In cases where an officer's conduct demonstrates gross negligence or reckless disregard for the rights of others, qualified immunity might not apply. Courts may find that such conduct goes beyond the scope of official duties and therefore does not merit immunity.

5. Violation of Clearly Established Policies or Procedures: If a police officer violates departmental policies or procedures, which are designed to protect individuals' rights, qualified immunity may not shield them from liability. Adherence to departmental protocols does not automatically grant immunity if those actions still violate constitutional rights.

6. Lack of Subjective Reasonableness: Even if an officer's actions are deemed objectively reasonable under the circumstances, if the officer's subjective intent is malicious or in bad faith, qualified immunity might not apply.
—————————————————————-

PERSONAL OPINION

Terry v. Ohio, a landmark Supreme Court case, established the legal precedent for the "stop and frisk" practice, enabling law enforcement officers to detain and search individuals based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. While proponents argue that Terry stops are essential for crime prevention and public safety, there are compelling reasons why this ruling should be overturned.

First and foremost, Terry v. Ohio infringes upon fundamental constitutional rights, particularly the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Allowing law enforcement officers to detain and search individuals without probable cause undermines the core principles of privacy and individual liberty that are enshrined in the Constitution. Our rights should not be subject to suspension or compromise based solely on an officer's suspicion or intuition.

Moreover, the implementation of Terry stops disproportionately targets marginalized communities, particularly people of color. Numerous studies have shown that stop and frisk policies result in racial profiling and discriminatory practices by law enforcement agencies. This systemic bias not only violates the principles of equal protection under the law but also fosters distrust and resentment within communities, exacerbating tensions between law enforcement and the public they are meant to serve.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of Terry stops in preventing crime is highly questionable. While proponents argue that these stops are necessary for proactive policing and crime deterrence, there is limited evidence to support their efficacy. In many cases, Terry stops yield minimal results in terms of crime prevention or the discovery of contraband or weapons. Instead, they often lead to the harassment and intimidation of innocent individuals, eroding trust in law enforcement and hindering community cooperation.

In light of these concerns, it is imperative that Terry v. Ohio be overturned. Law enforcement officers should be required to adhere to strict standards of probable cause when conducting searches and seizures, ensuring that our constitutional rights are upheld and protected. Exceptions to this standard should be rare and justified, based on credible evidence that is admissible in a court of law.

In conclusion, the preservation of individual rights and civil liberties is paramount in a democratic society. Terry v. Ohio represents a troubling erosion of these rights and sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked police authority. It is time for the Supreme Court to reevaluate this decision and reaffirm the principles of justice, equality, and constitutional protections for all individuals.

Thank you for all your Updates…

$$$$$that boy just got him some.$$$$$

I hate seeing someone vulnerable and helpless, it hurts my heart. I don’t care what this man supposedly did, that officer was jerking his neck while handcuffed and that can cause permanent damage if done too hard. Like what was the man gonna do with no hands and many cops surrounding him? Ugh.

the casual cops walking buy inadvertently shining flashlights at the cameras…. fucked up

I wish if a cop asked my why i did something illegal i could say "im aware theres concern a crime was committed and im performing an internal investigation to see if i have done anything wrong. Until i comolete my investigation i ant comment. Alo i will conckude i didnt do anything"

"Stop resisting, stop resisting." The well rehearsed phrase used by the Thin Blue LIE.

I still remember a comment my father made when I was a kid in the 1960s. "It want be the Commies that destroys America. It will be idiot's starting a race war that destroys America. "

This is kidnapping with being assault including false statements regarding multiple matters in the jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Government.

Those Deplorable guilty right wing Thugs have committed multiple Federal Crimes and Felonies.

There is no qualified immunity.

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241

IF you are in handcuffs and are not trying to kick someone then there should be no qualified immunity… and they should be charged for assault. CLEAN HOUSE!!!!