3 ms·

It is unfortunate that you don't appreciate how his actions further establish and protect our rights. I suggest you read the case of Turner v Driver to see how

It is unfortunate that you don't appreciate how his actions further establish and protect our rights. I suggest you read the case of Turner v Driver to see how standing up for your rights can establish important legal precedent that benefits everyone. This case is, in my opinion, highly unlikely to go in front of a jury. I have seen many cases similar to this end in five to six figure settlements. For example, this interaction with similar circumstances resulted in a $41k settlement and a departmental policy change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV6nsq6IIHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV6nsq6IIHg. This interaction was only a short detainment, yet it resulted in a $75k settlement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02J2EVyxfbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02J2EVyxfbU. I could easily provide another dozen or so examples.

Natsu 6y ago
The important constitutional violation here was that the cop misspoke and said he was arrested when the actual encounter was effectively detainment, which may result in a few tens of thousands to be paid on lawyers. Yes, I'm sure you can find many examples like that. I don't see the "benefit" here. I've been pretext stopped in the middle of the night while driving a beaten-up car in an out of the way area. The cop asked me to get out and walk around to see something and I did so, etc. We both went our separate ways a few minutes later, because nothing was wrong. If this guy had simply said "my name is X, I'm videoing these illegally parked cars for my blog at Y" this would've ended without incident. Instead, it will become an incentive to cops to either "find something" (which, despite the headline and a quote in the article that makes it seems otherwise, I would point out that the article says the cops did not do here) or make sure they never bother to investigate anything happening in plain sight, even if that leads to bad outcomes for people. But those are invisible, because you can't see that but-for event and someone acting like a Karen with the cops will get tens of thousands of dollars for it.

Natsu 6y ago

The important constitutional violation here was that the cop misspoke and said he was arrested when the actual encounter was effectively detainment, which may result in a few tens of thousands to be paid on lawyers. Yes, I'm sure you can find many examples like that. I don't see the "benefit" here. I've been pretext stopped in the middle of the night while driving a beaten-up car in an out of the way area. The cop asked me to get out and walk around to see something and I did so, etc. We both went our separate ways a few minutes later, because nothing was wrong. If this guy had simply said "my name is X, I'm videoing these illegally parked cars for my blog at Y" this would've ended without incident. Instead, it will become an incentive to cops to either "find something" (which, despite the headline and a quote in the article that makes it seems otherwise, I would point out that the article says the cops did not do here) or make sure they never bother to investigate anything happening in plain sight, even if that leads to bad outcomes for people. But those are invisible, because you can't see that but-for event and someone acting like a Karen with the cops will get tens of thousands of dollars for it.