This Cop Doesn’t Understand Basic Civilian Rights

1. Get Surfshark VPN at https://surfshark.deals/audit – Enter promo code AUDIT for 83% off and 3 extra months for free!

2. Frank's an asshole

3. Clearly this has become a civil dispute between Panera and the petulant child Mr. Frank. All the cop had was Mr Frank's assertion, without proof that he owned the property, and that there was no longer an agreement with Panera to allow their customers to park on the adjacent property. Velasis is the only reasonable cop who does not come across as an arrogant a$$ that I have ever seen in these videos. On the othe hand, Mr Frank, who while he CAN legally keep people off his parking lot, is acting like a jerk for no apparent reason. The police are not in a position to adjudicate who owns what part of the parking lot, read tenancy contracts, order and read surveys… They can only operate on the basis of what the can see and hear as it applies to the law. Clearly the driver was NOT loitering or prowling. Also, I believe that the courts have ruled that police could only require you to present them with the ID in the course of a traffic stop, and could not stop random drivers who had not committed any violation and demand ID, despite what state law might say. No traffic stop was occurring. This was a ridiculous escalation by everyone except for the woman who wanted to sit in the shade and eat her Panera.

4. A large nearly empty parking lot and she was only taking advantage of a shade tree and was also only going to be there a short time.
   Now it's not A+, l rate him F

5. The stock footage of the guy behind the wheel drinking a beer is perfect.

6. WRONG. The officer has total discretion he is not required at all to defend the property owner or issue any trespass warnings to anyone.

7. Sorry, AtA but you're wrong on this one. Cops in most states have discretion to enforce laws, which is important because there are so very many laws, many of which are conflicting. The first officer chose not to be a dick on behalf of the dickhead alleged but unproven property owner. End of story.

8. That Hispanic cop deserves an F.affirmative action cop.

9. This Hispanic cop is sticking up for the Hispanic lady to violate the white owner property rights.

10. this cop is stupid.

11. Another affirmative action cop?

12. Even if he had an agreement with Panera bread to have his parking lot be used as overflow parking is still technically HIS property and if she has been told to leave, then she shouldn’t even be anywhere on that property, it’s still his property.

13. "strong protections for private property" – except for what owners are allowed to build on their property – e.g. you can't build a house without permits (some very useless), can't build a business without proper parking lot sizes & handicap spaces, etc. There really isn't alot of protections to private property against government intrusion/commands – just against other citizens.

14. I love ATA, this one not at all. Some lady parked in a parking spot with a sign that says she can park there. Some random dude says no.

    I loved the how the officer kept on saying "maybe tell Panera to take down that sign. To avoid confusion"

    Also, she was in a huge moving truck or whatever it was, if I was in a big vehicle I would probably also park further out away from other cars.

    Sorry, ATA I disagree. The cops were correct. Resolve the situation peacefully, tell the "property owner" to use two hands to remove a sign he has a problem with.

    Cops A+

    ALSO, do cops actually have record information to public city ownership?

15. This took place across from where I used to live.

16. If he was trespassing her from the property because she's a Muslim, then it could be violating her civil rights.

17. In the video wasn't sign to seen on the border from this place about private place, for e.g. : "No Trespassing, Authorized Personnel Only, Stay Clear". How can a person knowing, that in this area, not allowed to park?

18. Rare and strange miss from ATA. The woman was parked in a large parking lot for a bit under an honest misunderstanding that a sign meant what it obviously said. And then she left…
    But a whiney property owner got annoyed, so… TRESSPASS!

19. So does just saying you own this property, prove you own the property. I doubt it. He might or might not. Seems like deeds , id’s and other things would have to be shown

20. Typical Jew

21. What would those idiot cops do if their next door neighbors erected a sign inviting the public to park on rhe cops' properties? Bet they wouldn't like that crap very much.

22. Mr Frank could just remove that sign since it's on his property and it doesn't belong there.
    Simple. Idk why everyone thinks the cops need to clean up a simple mess that the person themselves could fix! It's ridiculous.

23. Lol poor yitz now knows how Palestinians feel 😅😅

24. Owner should remove sign himself. It’s his sign on his property. He can’t make Panera come onto his property and perform work.

25. Your grades are wrong. The cop was originally 100% correct that without evidence of who the property owner is, he can't do anything. Then the cop does the opposite by asking the lady to move. Any random person can claim they own something, but without proof of ownership, it's just meaningless words. How can a legally binding "trespass" be valid without any proof of ownership?

26. Cops did the right thing, Mr Frank could have VERY easily remove the sign, and he didn’t

    Cop did right thing here

27. Let me start off with this first. Click bait. The thumbnail shows a black officer not knowing the law. Wow. The officer was nkt black. I dislike this channel. Wish it stop popping up on my feed. This not a real audit. The officer gabe this lady a break. And the "owner" was being a real jerk. The signs where she could park and she did. So whats the harm? If anything the cops should have got an A. The "owner" should have got a B-.

28. It’s pretty clear to anybody watching this video. We don’t know about the legality of the lot and all that, but Mr. Frank is undoubtably a piece of shit. The woman who wanted to park in a shaded area. There is no competition for spaces looking around there and he just keeps harassing this woman not to park there when she said she’s going to be leaving very shortly, what kind of human being does something like that instead of harassing people why don’t you go fix the fucking sign the business has up and take care of your shit properly so that when you do bother the police about matters like this, that you can show some semblance of being a competent person. It’s still won’t change the fact that he’s a piece of shit that won’t let somebody sit under a shaded tree in a huge parking lot full of open spaces but what are you gonna do some people are just terrible.

29. This is lame

30. whoa the first one i actually diasgree with here…. signage said she could park there, if the signs say shes permitted to be there then he has no legitimate reason to say sjes trespassing……. a 4 dollar can of spray paint can fix this whole situation

31. Let's be fair to the cop. It's not his job to scour county land records and figure out who owns what property.

32. Okay I understand not taking the word of just anyone that claims to own a parking lot, but on verifying the individual does own the property the customer she be informed they need to move and if they refuse after then trespassed from the property. However the Own of the lot needs to insist the the business removes the sign or paint over it or something mot just cover it, so there can be no confusion on where parking is allowed. a cover is not sufficient.

33. Bor, I've been binged watching your video and this is this first time I disagree with your grading. The property doesn't deserve an A+, yes he was in his rights to call the cops and have the lady removed, but he didn't do the basic thing which was to remove the parking sign. Is he going to trepass everyone who parks in the parking lot thinking it still belong to the other business? The female and the cop had the valid argument, I think this whole scenario would have been avoided if he had just taken down the parking sign.

34. ATA seems to entirely rely on the spoken claim that it is indeed his parking lot. For all we know, and for all the officers knew, the manager was already in some sort of civil dispute with Panera and was asserting his right prematurely. Why does he even care this much? It's a giant parking lot and it's almost empty.

35. Mr. Frank is a Jew.

36. 2001 ilegal wire taps.. No warnt on wire taps.. 2016 Due process violation. Entrapment 2019 No warnt since 2001 on wire taps

37. Mr. Frank gets an F- for trying to ruin a person's life who was just enjoying Panera food who reasonably thought they was in the right area to enjoy their meal, but wanted to imprison that person.

38. Oy vey!

39. This is America!🤘😎🤘

40. Mr. Frank was just being an A for asshat

41. It seems to me that the officers had doubts about who owned the lot, taking that into account i believe that as a unit they performed admirably, taking a middle of the road approach.

42. The manager is being a k (ya know)

43. This is an insane take. Truly. Do better next time

44. Once again a cop isn't educated on the constitution he has sworn to uphold. However, I'd much rather the cop give people additional, nonexistent, rights….than the standard of temporarily stripping people of their rights by constantly violating them. When the cop doesn't know I'd MUCH rather them err on the side of caution and common sense, than immediately excitedly jumping to the side of respecting their authority by excessively forcing them to obey whatever it is that they want them to obey.

    But regardless of how refreshing this particular scenario was, where some innocent wasn't flexed on with a taser…THE true underlying PROBLEM is STILL the exact same. Which once again is the cops being uneducated, and undertrained on the very scope of their jobs… which is knowing the laws and constitution that they are sworn to enforce, protect, and uphold.

    However, while the biggest, truest, and most consistent problem IS the enormously inadequate amount of training and education ALL law enforcement receives…this video also proved something else extremely important: Even though the underlying issue of education would still exist, if Law Enforcement Agencies would make some drastic changes to how they vetted their candidates for employment, by requiring certain personality types (natural demeanors similar to the officer's in this video)….it's pretty apparent that those changes would undoubtedly make huge improvements to the absolutely abhorrent current state of this country's law enforcement.

45. Remove the sign. How hard is that?

Comments are closed.