Head on over to https://kamikoto.com/AuditTheAudit to get $50 off your entire order! Thanks again to Kamikoto for sponsoring this episode!

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://bit.ly/32jCLGR

The DockTor’s channel: https://bit.ly/3c25x3q

GoFundMe: https://bit.ly/38Sqb40

Update video: https://bit.ly/2SPvxas

Sources:

Local article: https://bit.ly/2VeFdNy

United States v. Santana: https://bit.ly/2umnA3c

UCC 76-8-305.5: https://bit.ly/2PgTG7A

UCC 76-8-305: https://bit.ly/2v7KJqv

Motorized bicycle kits: https://bit.ly/2Pi6FGj

UTC 41-6a: https://bit.ly/38TATXM

UTC 53-3-202: https://bit.ly/3c3gDF4

UTC 41-6a102: https://bit.ly/2HLSYeB

source

By elboriyorker

HOSTING BY PHILLYFINESTSERVERSTAT | ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2024 | ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. POST QUESTION OR INQUIRIES SEND ME AN EMAIL TO elboriyorkeratgmailcom (www.phillyfinest369.com)

45 thoughts on “Teen Stands Up To Cops Arresting His Father”
  1. Head on over to https://kamikoto.com/AuditTheAudit to get $50 off your entire order! Thanks again to Kamikoto for sponsoring this episode!

    Full disclosure: This episode was originally made a little over a year ago but it was initially rejected by YouTube. They have since changed their mind. There may be some outdated information or conclusions here, but I still felt like it had enough useful information to release it. There may be updates to this case available online.

  2. The kid did not need a license to ride that motorized bicycle that was equipped with brakes and pedals In Utah, you do not need a driver's license to ride a motorized bicycle with a 50cc engine as long as it is equipped with pedals and meets specific requirements

  3. bro, u give people grades for this crap? that pisses me off… u just watched a video and all the sudden know the full story? yeah, no you don’t. so i suggest leaving things to other people and quit trying to get views from attempting to talk about laws in these videos. also, the kid outsmarted the officers and he defo had much better reasoning. seems like the kid knows more bout the law then u. :/

  4. it just sounds like amerikkka sets up people to fail, like all these rules in one place that is breaking rules im another lol the country is a joke

  5. IDGAF if it’s technically illegal for him to ride a motorized bike, he’s 15 fuckin years old and just saw his dad get arrested, he’s gonna get emotional and he disrespectful to the officers. I would too

  6. Nobody should be on the kids side sure he's allowed to record but why they came in the house his dad tried to run from it if you want you could call it filleting so they had the right to arrest him

  7. Them trying to cook up the report at the end is utterly disgusting. " Im going to check (a conceled gun permit.) the handgun it may fly it may not fly" that is horrid.

  8. Aren't cops supposed to immediately explain why they're there and immediately give their names and badge numbers if asked?
    They did none of that.
    Though the Father was a little premature in going back into his house. Personally I think that was a silly move. Should've just said no I'm staying here on my porch. What are you enquiring about? Then they could've found out within 30seconds that the bike is legal.

  9. Basically based on their knowledge there was no suspicion but from he police's perspective there was, so technically they both understood the law

  10. If you're going to complain that the neighbor isn't getting arrested and that he was the one threatening you then perhaps you should have called the police and reported him. You aren't going to be believed when you only say that after they've called the police on you

  11. When I was in my late teens (I'm in my sixties now), I had a friend in the neighborhood who used to own a mo-ped and ride it around town. He told me once about the time a cop pulled him over asking for his permit for it. The cop was actually stunned that he had all the proper paperwork. I suspect his day was ruined because he didn't get to give the kid a citation.

  12. there are times and places where common sense would be the way to go, that man was home, he had the choice to either open the door or not open the door, he was in his right no matter what he chose to do. He had an incident with his neighbour prior to the officer showing up, not answering anything was indeed his rights, and lets just that is what he chooses to do, the officers leave and that's the end of the police encounter. He still lives next door to his neighbour, and that old incident will reoccur no mattter how anyone tries to discuss with the other, you can also go that route. Without the police interraction, there is no possibility to settle that dispute unless one of the 2 neighbours move from there, From what i see there, the dispute with the neighbour is over and done with, he can try to sue the officer which in turn, just turns the attention elsewhere. which can prove to be costly, Now, wether he wins his case or not, It only transfers the problem elsewhere and the dispute with the neighbour is only postponed temporarily. It will re-occur. You have rights and by all means, use those rights, but using common sense is always a viable solution. A few minutes where you feel your rights are being violated, vs a lifetime of anguish with a neighbour, guess where i would go

  13. We can grade them all we want against the merits of law enforcement but law enforcement in America writ large gets an F. I'm not American, but even for my freedom hating ass, this ain't freedom. Shit like this should not happen – and it doesn't in my country.

  14. City and state codes are not law if they violate the rights of the People as stated in the Constitution. This man had every right to retreat into his home. He had not broken any laws. The statement that someone's front porch is public is false. That is private property. The Law of the Land is the Constitution and state Constitutions – not code, not ordinance- not policy.
    What if a statute conflicts with the U.S. Constitution?

    The Federalist # 78 states further that, if any law passed by Congress conflicts with the Constitution, "the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

  15. You have a second amendment right to have a firearm in this country and a 4th amendment right to retreat into your home. Ata kinda cares about one right and everything else is glory to the state

  16. NOPE…thats NOT!!!…the way it works they have to say "you are being detained at this time" and cannot run into the persons house. not although the front porch is considered public that ONLY applies to visual references only and does not include pursuit of persons because the front porch is the CURTILAGE of the home and thus and then is "PRIVATE PROPERTY"…IF AT FIRST they said "we are here to detain you for questioning at this time and don't go back into the house" then they would have exigent circumstances to pursuit inside the house,…and not until then…LEARN THE LAW……they just can't say when he turns to go into the house "hey buddie wait…wait…wait…and then break into the house, the law is CLEAR about this,…if this was the law then the cops could break into anyone's house after they open the door and make the "HOT PURSUIT" claim.

  17. This is the first audit the audit I disagree with. There was no right to detain him or go in the house. With that being said, dad should have never come outside to talk.

Comments are closed.