Virginia Cop Block Founder Nathan Cox Sued by VSP Trooper Melanie McKenney

Warrant in Debt

Warrant in Debt
On March 17, 2014 I was served a “Warrant in Debt”. As you will see in the attached image, I’m being sued for $5,000 by Virginia State Police Trooper Melanie McKenney. Some of you readers may recall that two years ago I was pulled over by Trooper Melanie McKenney during Memorial Day Weekend when the Virginia State Police had many of their Revenue Generating Officers out on the interstates. I had described it as the second most aggressive traffic stop I had ever been involved in. She violated my rights and denied my right to record her by claiming my cell phone could be a gun – however the information and videos given to me through the FOIA Request showed that she knew it wasn’t a gun, in her words, “I don’t want myself on any type of YouTube or whatever.” If you are not aware of this incident and would like to see the article and videos of that incident click here.

So almost two years later VSP Trooper Melanie McKenney is suing me for “Defamation”. That’s all the information I have and that apparently she has provided the courts. Below is a statement from my Attorneys Stephen Lewis and Danielle Lewis. As you’ll noticed it’s directed to local CBS 6 reporter Mark Holmberg who has already expressed in this story.

Press Release

After being pulled over two years ago, I asked the public if anyone else had run-ins with Trooper McKenney and what type of experiences they had. A handful of people replied and said they were in similar situations where she was unprofessional and rude. If you’re reading this and YOU have been pulled over by Trooper Melanie McKenney of the Virginia State Police, please contact Virginia Cop Block!

I am as confused about these allegations as anyone else. My suspicion is that she may be upset that her Dashboard Camera video, along with my cell phone videos, did in-fact make it to You Tube and have accumulated more than a Half a Million views. I will keep the public up to date on this situation.

UPDATE:
Coverage about this by NBC12:

http://www.nbc12.com/story/25096433/va-state-trooper-dues-driver-she-pulled-over-for-defamation

  • Pup

    Wow. What a turd. (I hope I don’t get sued for defamation now.)

    Is there any way to counter sue, or at least recover legal expenses incurred as a result of this nuisance/harassment lawsuit.

  • Timothy Hutz

    As per 1st District Federal Court in Glik Vs. Boston, He has EVERY right to video record anyone in public space and the police have NO expectations of privacy in the performance of their duties. This is an intimidation tactic by the cop to harass and cost the defendant money for his lawyer. Federal courts have already ruled this constitutional and by no ways is defamation of character. This will get dropped by court VERY Quickly as there is no burden of proof submitted as required by small claims court in VA. ITS frivolous!!! His attorney should Demur this action!

    • renegadesix

      Glik upheld the right of a BYSTANDER to film the police, not the person being detained. Cox wasn’t a bystander. No federal court has EVER ruled that the person actually being detained by the police has the right to video their own detention.

  • Ray

    This trooper is clearly lying. She knows it’s a phone. She just doesn’t want to be recorded. My take away from this is to remember to lock the door and partially roll the windows. Thanks Nathan for keeping them honest!

  • Panxer

    This doesn’t substantiate a claim, not to mention he’s just under the wire for statute of limitations to expire. He’s got to substantiate damage. I don’t see that here. Fight.

  • Jack Armstrong

    Clear attempt to intimidate and squash our Constitutional rights… I hope you take her to the cleaners!!

  • Joe

    Fuck her Nate. She admitted exactly why she was violating your civil rights, and now shes pissed because she’s looked at and laughed at because she came across as a baggy ass’d bitch who doesn’t belong as a State Trooper. I hope you file a counter suit to go after this bitch.

    Also,…start a go fund me account to help pay for your Lawyer. Copblock.org will get you the required attention you need.

  • MN

    Hah – that bitch apparently hasn’t heard that she has no expectation of privacy while she’s standing on a public freeway.

    Hope you own her ass.

    Fucking oath-breaking pig.

  • I’m surprised that Lewis’s letter even mentions state immunity. Is he thinking of countersuing for SLAPP or the like, and that she might claim immunity to such a suit? Is there precedent?

  • Consider yapping with a lawyer about the prospect of counterclaiming for malicious prosecution, among other torts, and asserting violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because you might be able to attrack a civil rights lawyer to handle your counterclaim in light of the 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 attorney fees statute!!! You should compile the case law on your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VIDEOTAPE A COP WHILE IN PUBLIC PLACE, assuming this did take place in a public place.

  • Toni

    If you have never done anything other than be factual about the events, then I see this as yet another act of senseless vindictiveness.
    If she alleges you defamed her, perhaps her definition of defamation is in-congruent with the rest of the legal professions definition?
    — He / she who alleges, MUST PROVE… Good luck.

  • Hitmute

    Good for him, cops dont prevent crimes, they are only useful after the damage is done. Troopers prey on drivers like school yard bullies and expect us to take it. Get em Cox!!! Dont back down

  • Pete

    From the looks of the “public” court web site you have quite an extensive history interacting with law enforcement. Why do you think the law doesn’t apply to you? This Trooper puts her life on the line every day for “you” and us, and this is the way your react. If you needed help you would be the first to call law enforcement. You were afraid this big mean Trooper was going to violate your rights; “Poor Baby.” I’m glad the Trooper had back up; to protect you from her!

    Why did you block out your address on the Warrant in Dept but left the Trooper’s? Are we afraid of the government? It’s public information.

    All I can say, get a life and obey the laws and you wont get stopped to start with.

    • Joe

      here, here.
      Now I am all about protecting your rights, my rights, and their rights. But when you are wrong, your wrong. Man up, admit it, and take your punishment like a man. You had an expired inspection sticker and no from license plate. What do you expect? Whether you like the law or not, whether there is a victim or now is irrelevant. The law is the law. If you have an issue with it take it up with your local delegates not the trooper, she didn’t write the law. But it is her job to enforce it. Respect that.
      All this is coming from someone who has had their share of dealing with law enforcement, and even being charged, tried, and convicted. And I still say, that you sir were in the wrong, not the trooper.

      • LibertyforAll

        Six months old but someone should have responded… You missed this one Joe. Nathan was NOT complaining about the license plate or the inspection although he very well should. He was complaining about her attempts to stop him from filming the episode and her illegally searching him. Of what are cops afraid anyway? If they are doing it right then they should say, “film away!” From the looks of things, she knew who she was stopping before she stopped him and was merely harassing him because of it.

    • Bob Barnes

      Yes, if you obey the laws, you will never get stopped in the 1st place. Its never ever happened.

  • kat

    where is the link to the you tube videos from that day?

  • The public

    I think your all a bunch of idiots and if you have nothing to hide then don’t act like an ass. If your asked to step out of the vehicle then a simple “why” is the only thing you should ask, unless your guilty and are concealing some contraband. For any of you that think you could do a better JOB as a police, State Trooper or Sheriff’s Deputy then I encourage you to go to school and give a try. I promise you it’s not as easy as you think. That’s why your not a COP….

    • Alex

      Off course we can not get in to police force , as you know, you have to be in certain IQ categorize to get in , at I do NOT mean high IQ !

      Watch it yourself :

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

      • Greg

        But they make $250 grand a year in Massachusetts…

    • LibertyforAll

      This is the very attitude that gives rise to the likes of the Ferguson and Baltimore riots. The level of ignorance it takes to make a statement like this, never mind actually believing it, it mind boggling. How dare you even imply that a person demanding their rights must be guilty of something.
      A cop has zero right to ask anyone to do anything without probable cause of a legitimate violation of the law or otherwise a legitimate public order issue. Even then the Constitution trumps and nobody should be expected to comply merely because someone is wearing a badge. Where do you allow for the accountability of the criminal actions by police forces? I have every right to ask more than why when given an arbitrary order by some cop. I do not have to merely “let” them violate my freedoms.

      • renegadesix

        “A cop has zero right to ask anyone to do anything without probable cause of a legitimate violation of the law or otherwise a legitimate public order issue. ”

        Wrong again. A cop has EVERY right to ASK anyone to do almost anything for any reason or no reason at all. We ALL have that right. That IS part of the First Amendment. The question is whether they have the power to order it.

      • Greg

        Wrong wrong….. A cop can ask you anything they want… They cant demand anything without reasonable suspicion. Man, you retards have no idea what your talking about.

        • John Ash

          Your reading comprehension sucks.

  • Jason

    Please. You tried to bait her into a confrontation from the start. Quit acting like a baby. She was polite and professional. You Sir were a dick!

    • Ned Beatty

      Lick the badge, lick the badge……….

      • renegadesix

        Lick the dick, lick the dick…

        • Bob Barnes

          jangle the balls, jangle the balls……..

        • LibertyforAll

          Renegadesix, do everyone a favor and keep your inability to handle discourse to yourself.

          • renegadesix

            Well, I would prefer a higher level of discourse, but since you cop-haters dwell in the gutter, that’s where I have to go to call you out.

  • edward shegogue

    see that her case against you was dismissed and that you lawyered up, so what was the basis of the judges dismissal? maybe the rest of us can learn from it

  • Pingback: Case Dismissed In Trooper Melanie McKenney vs VACB Founder Nathan Cox (Update: Saga Continues) |()

  • Will

    I work hard for a living and my taxes go to pay for this idiot to sit at home and think of ways to con the government.
    The state should revoke your license since you have demonstrated you choose not to follow the laws governing operating a motorized vehicle.

    • LibertyforAll

      Great, now we’re calling for the licenses of people to be revoked when they attempt to protect their rights. They guy didn’t have a front plate for Christ’s sake.

      • renegadesix

        What “right” did he try to protect? My copy of the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to be a confrontational asshole, disobey the law, and refuse to follow the lawful commands of a police officer on a traffic stop. But I’m willing to be educated, please cite for me the specific portions of the Constitution that you contend contain these rights.

  • Joel

    You sir are an Asshole, really sorry the judge let you off for any tickets. I’m not a cop and totally agree with free speech etc… but that doesn’t give you a right to be an A**Hole. Hope you lose this case so more people like you don’t think they can harass a police office as you did and get away with it.

    • Bob Barnes

      Actually, being an asshole is is not illegal or a police matter and is part of free speech. Otherwise you’d be under arrest.

      • renegadesix

        It depends upon how you manifest being an asshole as to whether it is illegal or not.

        • Bob Barnes

          No, there is no such law nor has anyone ever nor will anyone ever be criminally charged with “being an asshole”. They would have to break an actual existing law to be arrested. That is like saying lighting a match is illegal if you throw the match into something that burns down a house.

          • renegadesix

            I didn’t say it was a statute, I said it depended upon how you manifest being an asshole. I understand your confusion because you have demonstrated you can’t read. I’m guessing its due to all the brain cells you’ve killed smoking dope.

            Let me see if I can help. You’re an asshole. You’re manifesting your assholeness by posting to me on the internet all the cop-hate built up in your criminal dope smoking ass. The asshole you are being on the internet is not illegal.

            Now, when you smoke your dope, get behind the wheel of a car, and kill a family of four, THAT kind of “being an asshole” IS illegal.

            Got it? Probably not. I’d suggest putting down the bong but I’ve heard that weak people such as yourself have a hard time breaking addiction.

          • Bob Barnes

            I didn’t say you said it was a statute. I said being an asshole is not illegal and you said. “It depends upon how you manifest being an asshole as to whether it is illegal or not.” You very clearly tried to argue that depending what kind of asshole one is being, there are cases where being an asshole is illegal, asshole. Now you are back peddling, insulting me and denying what you said because you realize how fukking idiotic it was, asshole. And, asshole, far, far more people are killed by assholes like you drinking alcohol and driving, and you can explain it away and make yourself sound even like more of an idiot, but under no circumstances, ever is being any kind of asshole illegal. The crime there is still DUI, asshole. And, asshole, where I live “dope” is legal, and is is far far less likely to cause harm to a non user than the alcohol assholes like you drink, asshole. Fukking moron, what are you 100 years old? Who calls it dope in 2015?

          • renegadesix

            How does something get to be illegal if not by statute? There are no more common law criminal laws. There haven’t been for a hundred years.

          • Bob Barnes

            And, asshole, I was being completely civil. You are just the type of asshole that acts your true self(an asshole) because someone dared disagree you with you in a civil manner, asshole. Also, you faking moron, if I’ve demonstrated that I can’t read, why are you writing response too me, you fukking moron?

          • renegadesix

            Right, because “civil” people use “Fukking” instead of “fucking.” /sarcasm.

          • Bob Barnes

            So you actually believe that being an asshole is illegal? My god, you are a fukking moron.

          • renegadesix

            So you actually can’t read?

          • Bob Barnes

            That you would write the question “So you actually can’t read?”, is proof of what a fukking moron you are, idiot.

          • renegadesix

            I didn’t ask if your mom didn’t come down to the basement and read it for you, now did I?

  • Pingback: POLICE VS. WATCHDOG Trooper hits blogger with $1.3M suit over traffic stop – News-9.com – The best Source of Latest Worldwide News()

  • renegadesix

    Hope she takes your ass to the cleaners. You are what is wrong with America.

    • JesusChristSucks

      You’re wrong. Christianity is the problem!

      • renegadesix

        Pound sand, troll boy. Cop hating liberal scumbags are single-handedly destroying this nation.

        • LibertyforAll

          What is with people actually thinking that name calling contributes to the argument? Emotionally responding to discourse with personal insults only highlights a weakness in one’s own statement.

          Which is it, cop hating or being liberal scumbags? Do my conservative credentials counter balance my profane disdain for cops?

          • renegadesix

            Cop-hating and liberal scumbag are not mutually exclusive. You have no conservative credentials that I’ve seen.

      • gwDisqus1712

        Oh good grief. Get a life freak.

    • John Ash

      Good luck, she has zero case.

      • renegadesix

        She has an excellent case. It will depend, however, on the jury she draws.

    • Bob Barnes

      Come on now, dont you think she was lying when she said she thought the phone could be a gun? She called it a phone over and over. Don’t try to pin the liberal tag on me for this, I hate liberal pc nonsense. I dont like the black community and feel no shame in admitting it after living in cleveland for a year. I just think the police must not be allowed to deny us our rights, no matter how rude one is to them. A good cop(s) are huge asset and do a tremendous amount of good. If they weren’t there people would do as they pleased. But, she is flat out lying to try to attempt to deny him his absolute right to film the stop and lying about her fear that his phone is a gun in order to do that.

      • renegadesix

        No, I don’t think she was lying when she first said it. People have been shot carrying nothing but cell phones because something black and shiny in the hand, with only a moment’s view, can be mistaken for a gun.

        You do not have a right to hold something in your hand that can be used as a weapon, and yes a cell phone can be used as a weapon, during a traffic stop. Period. End of story. If you want to video your interactions with the police, set the phone down or get the same body cam that people are demanding cops wear.

        • Bob Barnes

          You fukking idiot, she clearly said, many times, she knew it was a cellphone. And, had she though he had a gun in his hand she would have drawn her own. What do you think she was talking about when she said she didnt want this on youtube? Do you think she though she was being filmed with a gun? Moron

          • renegadesix

            What part of “when she first said it” did you not understand? Probably all of it. The statement about Youtube came WAY later in the video…after all the other troopers arrived. Facts are so inconvenient to you cop hating leftists.

          • Bob Barnes

            Then, why, you fukking moron, after she realized it was not a gun, did she still insist on taking it?

          • renegadesix

            Because it can still be used as a weapon, you “fukkin moron.” ANY object can be used as a weapon.

  • renegadesix
  • Cody Silver

    You are a whinny idiot, put a front plate on your car and shut up!!!!!!!!!

    • Peder Nales

      Typical millennial. He now wants a trophy for putting a video on the internet.

    • LibertyforAll

      Yeah, gosh, you’re so smart. Your use of the label idiot there. Just wow. I am so enamored by your obvious intelligence over and above the average citizen out there. Where were you educated? How did you manage to derive that perception? It must have taken you hours of research.

      Hitler believed the best way to control a population was making criminals out of every citizen so that you could then use enforcement in the name of the law whenever it suited the purpose.

      A front plate certainly rises to the level of public safety. Next you’ll be calling for LEOs to shoot violators on sight.

      We have the Bill of Rights for a reason. How is it you liberals out there so easily dismiss it?

      • Guy

        Driving is a privilege, not a right. By accepting the driver’s license in the state in which you live, you agree to the rules and regulations as passed by the representatives voted in by the people of that state. If there’s some law or regulation you don’t like, work to get it changed. You don’t get a pass because you feel it isn’t lawful.

        • LibertyforAll

          You are obviously keying in on something here but, for the life of me cannot figure out what. If you’re trying to imply the license plate violation, I do not recall anyone defending Nathan for allegedly violating it (although I think it is a b.s. statute) – What is at the heart of this issue is the blatant violation of Nathan’s Constitutional rights NOT the front license plate, NOT the safety inspection sticker (a.k.a. license to steal). All of the cop apologists posting here demonstrate the very problem we are experiencing in our society and are showing exactly why we are seeing the riots throughout the country. The cops are the problem, not so much the rules and regulations.

          • Guy

            Oh that part is easy. You’re not very smart and have a permanent persecution complex. The moron that posted the video attempted to bait the cop into behavior that he could take to a shyster lawyer for a payday.

            What YOU want to believe is a BS law means nothing. You agreed to the rules when you accepted the license to drive. If you can’t or won’t accept those rules then turn your license in OR (as I said) work to change the rules you don’t agree with instead of whining about it. Driving is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

            As far as Nathan’s rights go, act like an ass and then pretend (because he wanted the confrontation) to be surprised? No sympathy here. Going after bad cops is noble, goading them into bad behavior not so much.

            Screw him and you for encouraging it

          • LibertyforAll

            You make me chuckle. You say, “that part is easy” and then you start in with the ad hominem attack mantra. A typical response for someone with no foundation to their position(s).

            I asked you specifically what he did to bait her and, as easy as it was purported to be, you couldn’t answer the question. You merely repeated your unsubstantiated allegation. This is what cops like to do, just say something into being true.

            Nathan did not act like as ass. I know several of you cop worshiping government loving lefties like to throw those names/accusations around (I inventoried them earlier) but not one of you are able to show anywhere where Nathan acted like an ass. Just because the cops hate being questioned it does not make the behavior inappropriate whatsoever.

            The expression put up or shut up comes to mind.

            P.S. save the misguided attempts to say what I “believe” because you are incapable of knowing what that might be.

            I will repeat it again since you seem to not be able understand it, the issue is the illegal search and impeding of his ability to record NOT the license plate law you seem so eager to affiliate with this issue.

          • Guy

            Well sunny Jim, so glad I made you chuckle. I get the feeling there’s not many laughs in your life and few friends outside your tinfoil-hat wearing crowd. Nathan is an ass. It would have been easy to just take the ticket for which he was stopped for and move on with his pathetic little life, but no, he has to go out of his way to be a jerk. Of course you admire him for that since I’m sure you practice doing that too in front of a mirror every day.

            If you expect me throw out a time stamp for his jerk behavior that’s easy too. Start at 00:00:00 until the video ends.

            Oh and as for knowing what you believe? You’re so painstakingly simple-minded that it takes very little effort.

            I expect you’ll come back with more nonsense but I think I’ve spent all the time you’re worth and then some. Bye-bye little boy. Enjoy your impotent rage because really that’s all you have.

          • LibertyforAll

            You just can’t hold a conversation using big boy words can you Guy? Are the only capabilities in that head of yours that of insults, derogatory statements and baseless claims? just like the cop in this story, you appear incapable of handling the questioning of your assertions. If you’re so right about anything being questioned shouldn’t be an issue but welcomed. It shows the absolute weakness in your argument.
            *point* *set* *match*

      • Cody Silver

        The police have a job to do on the road. The state law was written for a reason and it was not written by he police! If you would have cooperated and don’t act like you had a gun put to your head you most likely would have gotten a warning. You should spend some time in a foreign country and see how people are treated. I’m not a liberal I’m a retired police officer and my opinion is that you my friend are a cry baby grow up!!

        • LibertyforAll

          “cooperated”… (translation: blindly do whatever I tell you, let me decide what rights you have) you apologists think that it is okay for a cop to get in the people’s faces but when questioned by the people you claim they are not cooperating. She clearly knew early on that he had a cell phone and she clearly attempted to prevent him from recording the incident. Lastly, don’t defend the bad behavior of cops by pointing to foreign countries; we should clearly rise above the bad examples. a cop’s job is to protect and serve not harass and intimidate. Of course you resorting to the name calling at the end took the level of your post down ten points.

  • Pingback: POLICE VS. WATCHDOG Trooper hits blogger with $1.3M suit over traffic stop - State of Kerala()

  • Pingback: POLICE VS. WATCHDOG Trooper hits blogger with $1.3M suit over traffic stop | Country Connections()

  • braniff1

    Not being a officer I believe traffic stops for an officer the most dangerous thing an officer faces. Truly you give new meaning to red neck fool. Dancing around out around the car you could have stepped into traffic been injured and waving your arms like you in a dangerous situation. Officer, I respect you for holding your cool and his web site gives idiots, fools, a bad name. You kept saying you a veteran, well I think that you just embarrassed all of us veterans. I want to apologize to the officer on behalf of veterans of America and let you know that we never would act like this and it would be totally out of character. Everyday you work that job I pray you make it home safe to your family. God Bless our Peace Officers.

    • AZJeepGuy2014

      Thank you, as a veteran myself, I 100% agree with every word of your statement. Assuming he truly is a veteran. Where is his DD-214 on his blog? What is his re-enlistment code?

      • LibertyforAll

        It is amazing how you question everyone’s service when they pose an opposing view to yours AZ. It makes me wonder if you really ever served. Somehow I doubt it.

        • renegadesix

          Maybe because he’s acting like someone who has problems with authority figures — those folks usually don’t last long in the military and their DD-214s reflect the less than honorable character of their service.

    • LibertyforAll

      Now this is funny, “web site gives idiots, fools, a bad name”. I would have thought the name ‘idiots’ and ‘fools’ were bad names. You learn something new everyday! ROTFLMAO

  • roguemodel .

    Hope you have to pay out….the video backs her up and makes you look like an idiot. You were looking for a confrontation, well, buddy, you got one now!

    • AZJeepGuy2014

      You reap what you sow…this jerk will get everything he deserves and I look forward to the follow-up story on his bankruptcy petition.

      • LibertyforAll

        Every post AZ, every post. Are you capable of saying anything without name calling?

        • renegadesix

          Is your hero, Mr. Cox, capable of saying anything about the police without name calling?

  • Hold on a sec….all you guys are getting on this guy. Cops are a real problem. They think they are above the law. Someone needs to fight back. He keeps winning in court. Criminal and civil. So obviouslry the justice system agrees with him….not the officers.

    • AZJeepGuy2014

      People with your attitude are the problem. How about just obey the laws. He was a jerk from the moment of the legal traffic stop. And you support jerks?

      • LibertyforAll

        Why do you love to use name calling as a method of expressing yourself? It shows you to be weak, unintelligent and thoughtless. Unless . . .?

        • renegadesix

          Uh, maybe because the guy who started this whole thing did?

    • renegadesix

      Uh actually, no, he lost on the tag ticket and he settled ONCE in civil court when the city didn’t back its officer. He didn’t win “in court.”

      Facts are such inconvenient things.

  • ian smith

    What a pussy you are, grow up.

    • LibertyforAll

      This is a thoughtful well articulated statement and offers so much to the dialogue.

      • renegadesix

        It matches the level of Cox’s conduct.

  • Peder Nales

    You didn’t have your proper sticker. She pulled you over. You conduct was out of line. You have a duty to cooperate with the police, even on minor stuff like that. If you were compliant she may have let you off with a warning. You were trying for another law suit. This time it backfired. You are a typical spoiled millennial who grew getting a trophy whether you won or lost. Your whole generation is the same. That’s why I got of teaching college. You all feel so entitled, and your video proves it.

  • Omegaboy

    You have a beef against authority figures. If you’d pulled over right away and cooperated, you’d have been on your way. You brought it on yourself.

  • pigskin1000 .

    Cox. get a life you fuckin tool.

  • Peder Nales

    Being a millennial doesn’t grant you extra rights, spoiled little boy. You know in my entire life I have NEVER had a negative experience with a police. Even one time I was arrested for DUI and blew only a .06. He just drove me home. No big deal. He smelled alcohol and wanted to test me.

    • JesusChristSucks

      You’re crazy. First you claim in capital letters (illiterate) that you’ve never had a negative experience with police, and in the next sentence you admit to being arrested for a DUI. Which one is it, you inbred redneck?

      • Ken

        Uh, maybe he didn’t consider it a negative experience, because the officer was a professional? Maybe because the DUI resulted in some change in his life? Just because you look at an arrest as a negative, doesn’t necessarily mean everyone does. I know some folks who will tell you getting arrested was the best thing that ever happened to them, because it made them go through court ordered treatments, etc. that they otherwise would not have done.

        • Kelly Jackson

          Or maybe because he just made the whole thing up.

          • Ken

            Possible, but I’m generally not in the habit of calling people liars unless I have fairly substantial proof. Like I said above, I know a few people who will tell you an arrest is the best thing that ever happened to them. Do I believe that is the norm? Not for a second.

          • Bob Barnes

            So you beliewe that someone that soem drug addict being forced to get his shit together is an acceptable reason to violate the rights and, in many many cases, destroy the lives of people that used drugs without problems? I say let the people that allow themselves to become addicts suffer the consequences of their poor chioces, the same as alcoholics, cigarette smokers and obese people. We could save a large number of them from early death by outlawing the behaviors that are destroying their health for everyone, and it would have the exact same result. Some people would be able to eliminate their destructive behavior after serving prison time that would not have been able to otherwise and would express gratitude at have been arrested and ultimately become healthy when they would not have otherwise been able to do so. It is the exact same thing.

          • Ken

            LOL… I never said or suggested anything you said there. Listen, like it or not, drugs are illegal, and that is not a violation of “your rights”.. I’m not saying I totally agree w/ our drug laws, but I don’t completely disagree w/ them either. Take a Xanax (assuming you have a legal prescription for them) and relax.

          • Bob Barnes

            LOL… I never said you said or suggested anything I said there. like it or not, only certain drugs are illegal. And, yes it is a violation of my rights to not be able to treat myself with the medication of my choosing because of the war on certain drugs. That you would make such ridiculous statements that have no connection to reality like “like it or not, drugs are illegal” is proof that you dont consider the facts, the reality, and only parrot the idiotic idea that “drugs are illegal” while the drugs that are killing the most people(ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT DONT PARTAKE OF THEM) are using multi million dollar marketing campaigns to addict ever more people. Keep saying, if you like, that “drugs are illegal”. Just know that it is simply not true.

          • renegadesix

            There are only two kinds of drug users:

            1. Those that have hurt someone under the influence of drugs; and
            2. Those who WILL hurt someone under the influence of drugs.

            Being fat doesn’t make you any more or less likely to hurt someone. Being stoned makes you a near certainty to hurt someone else.

            I’d be all for legalizing drugs if you stoners were all put in a walled enclosure away from decent people so that the only people you killed were yourselves and other stoners.

          • Bob Barnes

            That is utter bullshit. Being stoned makes me a near certainty? Absolutely not one bit true. You are an utter fukking moron. What about alcohol? People using alcohol kill more innocent people than all the other drugs combined. Also, and again: ALCOHOL, CIGARETTES AND SUGAR ARE ALL DRUGS THAT KILL WAY MORE PEOPLE THAN MARIJUANA. You fukking idiot.

          • renegadesix

            I always laugh when you dopeheads trot out alcohol as if that somehow makes being stoned not being stoned. Being drunk and stupid is every bit as dangerous as being stoned and stupid. You are a danger to everyone around you either way.

          • Bob Barnes

            You are a moron if you believe that “Being stoned makes you a near certainty to hurt someone else.”(it should be “makes IT a near…” you fukking moron). You are a clueless idiot that whose opinion has aged out of being relevant. Most people understand how harmless marijuana is and old funks like you can whine all you want, your day has passed. Idiot.

          • renegadesix

            Right, that’s why in the jurisdictions that have legalized it, drugged driving deaths have increased dramatically. Ooops.

            http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pot-fuels-surge-drugged-driving-deaths-n22991

          • Bob Barnes

            I dont even need to read that to know there is nothing that will back up th utterly moronic statement That being stoned “makes you a near certainty to hurt someone else”.

          • Bob Barnes

            I dont even need to read it to know it doesn’t support your moronic statement ” Being stoned makes you a near certainty to hurt someone else.” Just total bullshit spouted by an idiot. nothing more.

          • renegadesix

            Right, because an increased in drugged driving deaths when pot is legalized proves nothing…to someone with brain damage from smoking too much pot.

          • Bob Barnes

            You aren’t even able to write in english, moron.

          • renegadesix

            The fact that you can’t understand anything more than monosyllables does not mean my writing skills are suspect.

          • Bob Barnes

            And I bet you share that laugh with your online pals, fukking social ret

          • renegadesix

            Says the guy who needs to be stoned to cope with life.

          • Bob Barnes

            Yes, just like the TV says, I need to be stoned to cope with life. Moron.

          • renegadesix

            I could tell that without the TV.

          • Bob Barnes

            Yes, I need to be stoned to cope with life. Fukking moron.

          • renegadesix

            That was clear from the jump.

          • Bob Barnes

            YOU FUKKING MORON, I am pointing out another one of your idiotic statements here. “drugs are illegal” you are a fukking moron.

          • renegadesix

            Drugs, in the context of this discussion, ARE illegal, moron.

        • Bob Barnes

          If we started to arrest obese people for eating at fast food places, ten years from now we’d have formally obese people saying the same thing. We dont need the government to protect us from ourselves, let those that choose to stay on drugs do as they want. I, for one, have no more desire to contribute financially to forcing them into a healthy lifestyle than I do for obese people or cigarette smokers. The dui I am happy to have tax money spent locking up the drivers, but not drug use.

          • Ken

            I don’t disagree…. but that’s a totally different argument. People just go through a rut in life sometimes… some have to be kicked in the junk to get back on track.. and a minor arrest is might be enough to do it. More often than not though, it probably isn’t

          • Bob Barnes

            Well, I shouldn’t have to be kicked in my junk because others cant handle weed or any other drug reponsibly any more than than we should have to suffer4 being kicked in the nuts over eating shitty food because some people cant handle that either. I want to be able to make my own decisions without having to get kicked in the nuts because some person that made poor chances needs our gov. to treat us like children in order for them to be healthy. Same as we dont shut down mcdonalds because of fat people. I would rather they suffer the consequences of their decisions, just like fatiies and smokers, than have their short comings interfere with my rights. If I want a goddamn cheeseburger and a cigarettes with my whiskey, I can do that. Whats the difference?

          • Ken

            Uh, there’s a big difference. If you can’t see it, then no amount of space that I have to type here on this page is going to explain it to you.

          • Bob Barnes

            Uh, then stop typing if you dont understand that it is EXACTLY the same thing. If you don’t see that if we started to prosecute and jail the obese at the same rate we do drug offenders that their would be “success stories” exactly like the ones you described as a result of the gov “kicking us in our junk” than you are clueless. Since you are admittedly can’t explain your bullshit and have resorted to condescension, how about you just shut the fukk up?

          • Ken

            Again.. huge, huge difference.

          • Bob Barnes

            Again.. exactly the same.

          • Ken

            Apparently only in your mind.. because there is zero correlation.

          • Bob Barnes

            You dont see the connection between protecting people from unhealthy habits? And, dumbass, many obese people are addicted to sugar. Sugar is a drug that causes cravings and makes people consume things that are destroying their health. Still don’t get it?

          • Ken

            No, I get it perfectly that you’re delusional.

          • Bob Barnes

            You do realize that sugar is a drug that most obese people are addicted to, don’t you? If you can’t see the connection, you are a moron.

    • Kelly Jackson

      So what was the reason she stopped him?

      She cited him for no front plate and expired inspection, neither of which she could have known from being BEHIND him.

      She claimed she wasn’t trying to stop him recording her, but her own radio traffic proves she “didn’t want to end up on Youtube”.

      Being harressed by the state police is a problem if you have a concealed carry permit. People need to make sure these rogue cops are held accountable.

    • John Ash

      I’ve had plenty of experiences with cops where they were trigger happy and looking for an excuse to start a car chase or a beating. I’ve been tailgated, one pretended he was going to run me over. I was even threatened for explaining what was wrong with the cop’s argument. Just because you haven’t had one doesn’t mean there aren’t a huge problem with dickhead cops.

      • Greg

        John, apparently you’re just a piece of trash.

        • John Ash

          Or maybe cops are constantly looking for violent confrontations. And they find them. I’ve been harrassed by cops at least 8-10 times for doing nothing but obeying the law while they were bored and looking for action.

          But I suspect you suck a lot of police dick.

  • Douglas G.

    I hope she wins! I hope she takes your home, your cars, and you have to sell everything you own. You were a peckerhead. Had you simply stepped out and been polite, you may have simply walked off with a simple warning. Being a tool, means you get treated like a tool.

    • HAVOC

      Not all people have a police state mentality. Some of us still believe that our Constitutional rights protect us.

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      • Douglas G.

        It has nothing to do with a police state mentality. It has everything to do with no front tag, past due inspection, and ALL the guy needed to do was treat the officer the way he would want the officer to treat him. He was a prick, AND, he defamed her by claiming she molested him. THAT right there has nothing to do with free speech. I think she will take him to the cleaners.

        • HAVOC

          Having no front license plate and bad sticker are minor infractions, not felonies. She opened his car door and demanded he step out.
          If you are okay with that, would you also be okay with a cop opening your front door of your house without a warrant, and demanding you step outside to speak about unpaid parking tickets?
          The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with free speech. That’s the First Amendment.

          • Michelle Baker

            I believe she ordered him out because he has a conceal and carry. That’s not an uncommon practice when pulling someone over with a conceal and carry. My husband told me he learned that in his CCW class.

          • LibertyforAll

            At what point is it okay Michelle? If she locked him up in the back of her squad car for five minutes would that be okay? How about five hours? What about five years? The point is the Constitution clarifies a God given right to keep and bear arms and any infringement is a violation.
            By the officer’s own words he was holding a cellphone and she could not see it clearly. Once clarified, she should have stood down. The conceal permit should trigger no such action and in fact should put the officer at ease. Patting him down was a clear violation of his right against unreasonable search. LEOs actually believe they are a different class than the rest of us and it is time we push back and demand our rights be protected.

          • Myles Time

            Just to define this as well..Here in Nevada ( a concealed carry state) when you are pulled over the officer is alerted to your CCW when they run your plates. So,1) she was aware that he could be carrying. 2) because he has a CCW and the LEO was aware any object that cannot be clearly identified is a cause for worry and just becuase it was a phone does not mean he did not have a gun on or near his person. 3) Due to the actions of people who are carrying there is no ‘at ease’ in this situation nor in general. There was no infringement of his 2nd ammendment rights and the pat down was not illegal. While not a LEO I am in a position where I carry when I work and my work involves regular interaction with Metro. I would be more than willing to discuss the legality of any of this in an adult and rational matter if you choose to…

          • LibertyforAll

            Exercising your rights to keep and bear arms in the form of a CCW does NOT automatically give LEOs the right to pat you down every time they encounter you in public. She had NO reason to have Nathan exit his vehicle therefore she had NO reason to pat him down. A reasonable, experienced officer would not have bothered. This officer in this story set out to harass Nathan from the get go. The entire encounter, with the exception of the plate stop, was illegal. You’re obviously close to LE and think like a cop (although I usually do not credit them with having a lot of thought processes).

            The primary reason for a concealed weapons permit (a permit a.k.a. government permission to exercise your right) is to run a thorough background investigation on the permit holder. There should actually be an “at ease” when dealing with a holder as opposed to an unknown. I am quite certain that the vast majority of illegal shootings in this country are NOT done by permit holders. So, trying to justify this unconstitutional illegal search by saying he had a permit therefore needed to be checked for a weapon is poppycock!

          • Greg

            Dummy, he didn’t stop for over mile…. The bully should have been beaten!

          • Greg

            Most LEO’s are veterans who fought for your freedoms you now abuse.

          • SGTRena

            Actually, if you watch the video, she didn’t know that until about 15 minutes into the detainer.

          • eli

            It may well be common but it’s still wrong.

          • Greg

            She got him out of the car because he didn’t stop….The big bully should of got his ass beat.

          • Shmuck

            He only looks big because she is short and squatty . All ass and no body.

        • John Ash

          Since you don’t understand what words mean –

          MOLEST’, verb transitive [Latin molestus, troublesome, molo. See Mill.]

          To trouble; to disturb; to render uneasy.

          They have molested the church with needless opposition.

          • LibertyforAll

            I reposted a definition again because some people apparently don’t get it. Liberals typically ignore legal precedence in favor of emotion when issues are discussed.

            I for one am looking forward to the scolding this officer and her attorney are going to receive from a Judge.

          • renegadesix

            Molest:

            1: to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
            2
            : to make annoying sexual advances to; especially : to force physical and usually sexual contact on

            Please pay particularly close attention to the second definition.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/molest

        • John Ash

          “Police state mentality”. IOW, you want to make people do something “just because” and then punish them deeply when they don’t.

          Learn words –

          MOLEST’, verb transitive [Latin molestus, troublesome, molo. See Mill.]

          To trouble; to disturb; to render uneasy.

          They have molested the church with needless opposition.

        • LibertyforAll

          say the traffic stop had nothing to do with a ‘Police State”? In what world are you living? State troopers love to hide behind hills, trees and other structures in their quest(s) to “supervise” citizens’ activities and generally enforce so called laws which are based on the “Political” will of a particular jurisdiction. The requiring front license plates, safety inspections, etc. are nothing more than political as evidenced by their non existence in other jurisdictions.

          I think that makes it “a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens’ activities” – Get real!

          “The Nazi Police State was to ensure that everybody did as they were told – or paid the price” (History, 2015)

          Reference:

          History “The Nazi Police State”, retrieved on July 15, 2005 from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-nazi-police-state/

          • goodbygal

            In the state of Florida if you pet a dolphin, you are molesting it and will be fined and arrested – any time I am touched unwillingly it should also count as molestation, right.

        • SGTRena

          Ever been searched for no reason? I am constantly molested by the TSA every time I go to the airport. She had ZERO cause to search his person during a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion.

          • LibertyforAll

            Which you talking about SGTRena? The police would never ever do anything that would violate someone’s Constitutional rights. Unless of course they, say for reasons of clarity, question the officers legal reasoning.

            You do know that, according to posts here, your questioning anything a police officer says makes you an idiot, a peckerhead, a millennial, an ass, a spoiled little boy, a poor baby, a troll boy, a liberal scumbag, ill-mannered, crazy and a freak?

            Not that people who are posting use name calling to make their point(s), or lack thereof.

          • SGTRena

            I’m with you. Just can’t stand it when the libtards think it’s perfectly ok to trample on our rights and we should stand silently by. They can call me all the names they want.

          • LibertyforAll

            It really boils down to a lack of understanding of the real world.
            They live in these protected bubbles, many on government handouts to which they will tell you they are entitled, and really believe that government is the only answer to a civilized society.

            It is the people who stand up and demand that their rights be respected who are truly protecting and serving the people.

          • John Milliy

            For someone who wants people to believe they are all about protecting the rights of their fellow citizens you seem pretty shallow and close minded. You imply that people only disagree with you because they are freeloaders, ignorant, uneducated, living in bubbles, not realistic and any other negative garbage you can use to diminish people who value their rights but don’t respect these types of tactics. How can you proclaim to be a crusader for the rights and freedoms we all share when you are so hostile to them even having an opinion different than yours or them having the audacity to question this young mans authority to pretend that he speaks for the masses? You are guilty of the same arrogance you claim these officers have in behaving as if their opinion, position or actions give them special privilege and dominion over the rest of us. Its not the people (myself included) who hide behind electronic devices furiously punching keyboards that protect. Its not punks who try to wear t shirts to provoke people or agitate that protect people. Its not sleaze bags that waste our tax dollars clogging up our streets and courts with fake “cop stings” and court proceeding where only they and their lawyers get paid that protect citizens rights. I’ve been pulled over, harassed, questioned unreasonably and the like but here is a simple truth. There are people who put their lives on the line every single day, with every stop they make. There are people who are running in when armchair quarterbacks and pontificating bloviates are running out. Guess which one you and this dingbat trouble maker are more likely to be? What risk do you face punching a keyboard or celebrating the dingbats paper cut at the clerks office? Its crazy you equate fake policing the police, writing and ranting about protecting freedoms with actually serving and protecting people. Get educated on the real difference between the two. One doesnt risk or cost anything so its easy I guess that’s the one you like?

          • LibertyforAll

            JM>For someone who wants people to believe …

            Just Damn. Point so well made.. “Shallow and close minded” – You see that is the problem with the people on your side of this debate. They just cannot have a reasonable dialogue without the insults, slights and just plain bullying. You can’t resist it. What frustrates you is that you can’t shove a broomstick up the ass of a poster here simply because they disagree with you and your tactics. You can’t slap them upside their head when you have them under your total control, when they have no witnesses or recourse and you won’t be seen (except by another LEO who disrespects the rights of the people). It just pisses you off doesn’t it?

            JM>You imply that people only disagree with you because …

            I am sure you had a point in there somewhere but I just can’t make it out. It sound like a bunch of rhetorical diatribe designed and intended to make yourself look brave or heroic but you fail to see it just makes you look, well, rhetorical. What inferences you may derive does not make your assertions correct or even aligned with my implications.

            The names of which I quoted here are ALL from posts defending the so called honor of LEOs on this very board. They exemplify the very anger that pretty much every LEO defender on this board seems to be unable to overcome. Interesting that you come up with a bunch of derogatory names in which to use to misrepresent me or my position. Do me a favor, leave the name calling out of quoting me unless I wrote it and then keep it in context please. If there are people who “value their rights” then those people have an absolute obligation to defend the Constitution of these here United States and call out every LEO who bullies, strikes, intimidates or otherwise harms any citizen. There is no ambiguity in a LEO’s role in our society.

            JM> How can you proclaim to be a crusader for the rights …

            Hostility isn’t the issue here. It is the inability of your side of the debate to actually express your “opinion” whether it be different than mine or not. You may wish to label me audacious but the reality is that one has to read through so much diatribe and plain garbage to try and reason a point most of the time. So many posters believe they can threaten, intimidate, label or name call their way to winning a point. The difference is that LEOs do it in the real world and real people are irreversibly harmed by them every single day. I merely insist that LEOs stay 100% in the factual context, never lie, never misrepresent, never strike an individual unless truly necessary for the protection of themselves or others. I can pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of resisting arrest complaints are pure B.S. and the LEO know just how to write it. I can only imagine the millions of people whom have been dragged before a judge to face charges that are purely false, fabricated or misaligned with the facts. I can safely say there are hundreds if not thousands behind bars for these same reasons.

            JM>You are guilty of the same arrogance …

            I am not too sure that you are agreeing with the fact that LEOs are arrogant but I don’t see where it applies to my posts. Yes, I do have strong opinions. Yes, they are based on factual first hand accounts of witnessing police brutality, of witnessing absolute dishonesty under sworn testimony and know of bullying when no one else is looking. Do I demand they shut up or keep their opinions to themselves, not in the least. Expressing one’s opinion is NOT the same as ad homonym attacks, it certainly is not the same as veiled threats and then denials. You’re not going to call for my demise too are you?

            JM> Its not the people (myself included) …

            I can’t dispute too much in this quote although, if you are keeping with the sworn duty then cop stings would not even be an issue. If they do their job and they do it right then the stings have, well, no sting. We can debate Lawyers another day (and the good old boy court systems) but suffice it to say I am about integrity, honesty and putting the really guilty behind bars. To me this isn’t about destroying someone who merely pissed off the wrong cop on the wrong day. It is about the integrity of law enforcement. This case is about a cop with an attitude, not some fool brained sting.

            JM> I’ve been pulled over, harassed, questioned unreasonably … people who put their lives on the line every single day …

            The two statements here are mutually exclusive. Cops do put their lives on the line everyday. That does not give them the freedom, the right or even the benefit of doubt to harass or question unreasonably. Its wrong in every circumstance and most cops will defend it and/or lie about it if defending another LEO.

            JM> There are people who are running in when armchair quarterbacks and pontificating bloviates are running out. Guess which one you and this dingbat trouble maker are more likely to be?

            See, here you go again. The irresistible urge to insult demean or label me as some sort of coward merely because the viewpoint I express or label me with some crap name just can’t be ignored by you LEO defenders. You make my point for me. You make me want to celebrate when a LEO career is destroyed by their own Neanderthal tactics. You make me cheer when I see an ex LEO in front of a judge. You make many people want to look the other way when the dingbats in Ferguson protested over a good shoot instead of finding a factual example because the underlying theme is bad cops and thugs with a badge.

            JM> Its crazy you equate …

            You know so little about me or my life yet you heavily imply that I somehow don’t “serve” or “protect”. The fact is, you don’t know. You tell me to get educated and yet my level of education likely surpasses the vast majority posting on this board, especially on the LEO side. It is so easy for you to dislike me because I do not accept the company line that cops are good because they’re cops. I fight for freedom, not permission to pass.

            The patrolman (or patrolwoman in this case) wanted to have the freedom to administer her own brand of rights, mostly hers. She wanted to align the facts with her version of the events instead of proudly performing her duties with or without a camera rolling. LEO don’t need to make up facts to feed their egos, there are plenty of idiots out there who will give them real facts with which to proceed.

            If LEOs are so good then it would show all the time and not really need defending here.

          • John Milliy

            Your perspective on where I am coming from is very biased. I havent championed the cause of cops anywhere in my posts. Yet you rant that I have. Why don’t you reread my posts from top to bottom. I think I am far more wary of cops than you or SGTRena could ever be. The difference is that when I see a picture of cops beating the hell out of someone I DON’T STOP at their color, location, gender, education, economic status or any other superficial label. Then use just that label to throw my support for rights in or out of the mix.

            LB4A: You make many people want to look the other way when the dingbats in Ferguson protested over a good shoot instead of finding a factual example because the underlying theme is bad cops and thugs with a badge.

            In the post where I tried to have a conversation about municipalities I was trying to bring SGTRena and now you some CLARITY. Yes, There were idiots, opportunists and dingbats out there protesting the shooting. Michael Brown, in my opinion, was not a martyr but i don’t celebrate anyone dying. But once again the simple view from both of you is it was all about one thing…it was not.

            The history of the municipality (police, public officials and the legal community) in Ferguson is very clear to those who want to see it . It is well documented for those who want to really peel the onion. True devotees of the cause of Liberty and Freedom would look beyond the hype.

            Here is an example:
            The staff also patted themselves on the back for charging more for petty offenses than other municipalities. “Our investigation found instances in which the court charged $302 for a single Manner of Walking violation; $427 for a single Peace Disturbance violation; $531 for high Grass and Weeds; $777 for Resisting Arrest; and The staff also patted themselves on the back for charging more for petty offenses than other municipalities. “Our investigation found instances in which the court charged $302 for a single Manner of Walking violation; $427 for a single Peace Disturbance violation; $531 for high Grass and Weeds; $777 for Resisting Arrest; and $792 for Failure to Obey, and $527 for Failure to Comply, which officers appear to use interchangeably. Those last two should be of particular interest to you.

            And when people couldn’t pay, they were arrested. Around 21,000 people live in Ferguson. But in 2013, the city’s municipal court issued a staggering 32,975 arrest warrants for minor offenses, according to Missouri state records. and $527 for Failure to Comply, which officers appear to use interchangeably.

            For those who stop and viewed the entire situation through the Michael Brown lens that was the narrow angle that answered all your questions. Hes black and a criminal. All black people love criminals. End of story. For people like SGTRena (based on his posts) They are all nothing but welfare whores. True activists of FREEDOM and JUSTICE didn’t hide from the fact that for the situation above to exist there must be rampant corruption in the police department independent of the Michael Brown issue. Are you saying you believe these statistics are on the up and up? Do you really believe officers can help generate this kind of money by making ALL lawful stops? Wheres you skepticism now?

            Where was your sense of devotion to the cause? These very same officers who had repeatedly engaged in the racket they called policing now show up in full battle gear to add insult to injury. How would that have looked to you if the people in the community had been different? How could you say you are a champion of the masses and not be disturbed by the images of these LEO’s (many who are quite corrupt and deserved to be prosecuted) escalating their harassment of many good people (NOT ALL) in that community.

            I was trying to help SGTRena and people who think along those lines to recognize that he was far more willing to accept the idea of police corruption and violation of rights for someone like you but not for others. Its really about EXPLICIT vs. IMPLICIT Bias. It never even registered.

          • Myles Time

            Wrong.. she was aerted to the fact he had a CCW when she ran his plates. The fact that he did not state “Im not carrying” didnt help his cause

          • LibertyforAll

            By the way, he did say he was not armed.

          • goodbygal

            In the state of Florida if you pet a dolphin, you are molesting it and will be fined and arrested – any time I am touched unwillingly it should also count as molestation, right. According to Florida Law

          • SGTRena

            Agreed, and I currently live in Florida also.

          • John Milliy

            He drove for a mile without pulling over when she directed him to? That wouldn’t be a cause for suspicion? This kid is not about the protection of the everyday citizens rights. He is about being an opportunist looking to harrass and agitate police officers. He wants to make fast money using sleazy tactics and lawyers while hiding behind the banners of victimization and civil liberties. If he really was invested in the cause his respect and actions would reflect it. Anybody with an ounce of common sense knows if you force a police officer to drive an unreasonable distance (a mile is unreasonable) to try and get you to pull over there may be a problem. I think he drove that far to set this police officer up. Its the perfect way to agitate and frustrate the officer then get them out in the open to video tape them having a natural reaction to a sleazebag. Manufacturing tension plays to his advantage and his fake crusade. As for this TSA molests you. You have the freedom to get in a car, on a bus or not travel at all. Noone forces you to go to the airport. I travel all the time and thats just part of the deal GET OVER IT. People with legitimate grievances can’t get the justice they seek or the treatment they deserve because of bullshit like this guy is pulling and you are trying to justify. It’snot about not questioning police officers, not responding to being treated unfairly or putting bad office out on front street. But using underhanded, intentionally provocative situations to elicit a particular action or response is generally considered unfair no matter which way the game is being played. Get a life.

          • SGTRena

            I think you misread something. He did not drive over a mile prior to pulling over, nor is that even something she stated in the video, nor cited for. Manufacturing facts does little to help your cause. Further, following her attempts to sue him in small claims, did not even provide him proper notice as the dates were all off by one year. P.S. It isn’t defamation when it’s true–which both the defendant’s video and the LEOs dash cam (uploaded to Youtube) both fail to rise to her claims. Additionally, she is a m0r0n…to sue personally, waives her rights to immunity and the general indemnification provided LEOs.

            Most of us who still believe we don’t live in a Nazi state, expect that our LEOs, paid from the taxpayer pocket, maintain some amount of professionalism. The female LEO and her counterparts both later heard on the videos as well as read from their text messages massively FAILED on these points.

          • John Milliy

            I really get tired of people like you throwing around labels like NAzi State, Police State and the like. If we lived in such a treacherous environment all the nonsense you spew would not be an option and if it were the consequences would be dire. Please stop the mellow dramatic potrayal of your struggle under this oppressive regime. Why dont you spend some time listening and speaking to people who have lived under oppressive regimes? Real people who dont have this imaginary, sanctimoneous crap spewing from their lips about something they imagine, theorize and speak on but have NO GENUINE EXPERIENCE LIVING IN. In addition maybe you should read more than just this websites account of the incident. I f you feel so tortured and put upon living here then leave. Or maybe people like you and others who are so twisted about cops should find a way to remove yourself from places where you have to interact with them and relocate…..the Moon seems nice.

          • SGTRena

            Well, we are of like mind, then. I’m tired of people like yourself who believe that chipping away at your constitutional rights is acceptable to “protect and serve”. There are many good cops; however, there is a very big problem with the hiring and retention of officers who seem to enjoy violating our rights. Such as, the right to film a public official conducting business in their official capacity; or forming probably cause for an arrest that does not stand up in court, but costs the individual who was violated monies to fight it (most just give up); or not being informed on the difference between a person in the midst of a diabetic emergency and instead allows that person to die in jail because they think they are drunk and lack proper training.

            Ignoring the issues don’t make them go away. Acknowledging they exist, getting the bad apples off the street, proper training, hiring and retention policies are what is needed, and I have a difficult time believing that good officers would not want the same.

            P.S. I know plenty of folks from Poland, Ukraine, etc who feel the same way about the direction of this country.

          • John Milliy

            I do not believe in chipping away at constitutional rights but I do not agree with the methods and antics this young man calls standing up for the people. Since you are so concerned with the rights of individuals to stand up for not being used and abused by public officials where is your banner on this subject. Let’s assume that you have a municipality that draws 80-85% of its revenue from traffic stops, tickets, citations, and court appearances. 80% is 3 times the national average. These stops are then piled on top of court fees, probation fees, warrant feees, court and county fees and so on. Fee after fee generated by a municipality that directly encourages its officers to feed this source of revenue. Can you honestly say that anywhere is this country a municipality and city government it’s public official are not abusing these citizens? If you are such a champion of the rights of others and correcting bad cops can you say with a straight face that all the stops, arrest and prosecutions in the municipality were legal and above board? People like you and Libertyforall champion this thug in his pointless and ego driven games yet I’ve read posts of you so called liberty lovers where you could not see other peoples rights being trampled on who truly were victims. Every community has bad and good but to discount whole communities and their valid claims then put your strength behind fakers like this guy makes you come across as hypocritical and disingenuous. For your information I have lived in communities with lawless cops and can speak on it. Also there are many more places in the world than just the places you cited that in this very hour live under unspeakable, brutal conditions with REAL radical governments who violate peoples rights.

          • SGTRena

            Great, so we should just sit back and allow our communities to become one of these other “places in the world” with “brutal conditions”? You see nothing wrong with that? The man is a combat veteran. He wants to exercise rights he fought for, good for him and good for the rest of us who may yield the benefits of a better-informed police force.

            “The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.” ~ Edward Burke

            Guess you’re one of those who’d rather sit around with your rose-colored glasses hoping no one rocks the ship? It could be worse? At least it isn’t F-ing Liberia?

            If it isn’t him, and it isn’t the folks from PINAC (or other)…then no one will and no one has, challenged the authority they avail themselves of with zero impunity. It is people like this young man who will lead change within the LEO ranks, which can only aid all communities, especially those least capable of affording to challenge the authority. You think the BLM movement, who can’t separate themselves from violent criminals and rhetoric are going to spearhead change? That’s naive.

          • John Milliy

            I’m not sure why you feel the need to equate my disagreement with his TACTICS and ANTICS to some deficiency in my view of the world, my patriotism or my expectations of accountability and respect for and from those hired to protect us all. It’s a kind of willfull resistance to the truth in what I’m saying and the intentional distortion of my comments to imply you and this guy have some monopoly on the truth and patriotism. You don’t. I never implied we should become one of those other places. I said you and others like you rant about tyranny and nazism as if you really live in a society that borders on falling into that abyss. I guess I find this type of hype disingenuous when you people can see other Americans you don’t identify with being mistreated and you look the other way or find every excuse to blame them and not the system like you do for this young man who looking for trouble. I noticed you completely ignored my question about the municipality. FIgures.

          • SGTRena

            Actually, I did address your question about municipalities, quite generically. You just have no reading comprehension.

          • John Milliy

            Okay. I have no reading comprehesion? I’ve always believed in being able to communicate with people whether or not we see eye to eye. I actually find speaking with people I disagree with or have different ideas than more interesting than people who see the world like I do. I was always taught that no conversation is without merit even if it only causes me to reevaluate the reasons for my personal perspective. ONE of the points I was trying to make is that many people who holler the loudest about freedoms and rights are the ones least tolerant of the expressions of their fellow citizens that don’t match their own. You do not have a monopoly on how and where civil rights and freedoms are protected. You are not more patriotic, intelligent or worthy than people who disagree with you. GET OVER YOURSELF. Your intolerance is exactly what this country does not need. If you’re such a freedom fighter your most basic ability should be respecting the process of others expressing views that aren’t the same as yours. We can have the same destination as our goal but our methods of getting there can be different and both be RIGHT. Hypocrites who rant and rave about the principles of our nation always fall short of living up to them. This guy you’re celebrating may have the right idea but his methods are dishonorable. I was hoping to have a genuine exchange of ideas but your perspective is tilted in one direction and you choose not to be bigger than your singular perspective. In my opinion you should be a much better representation of what you say you and this guy stand for. Freedom and the love of it, the protection and exchange of the ideas at its core and the ideas we have for protecting these precious things should be a TRUE freedom fighters FAVORITE CONVERSATION. I guess I’m saying is if you were truly an advocate of freedom you would find ways to turn people on, bring them in instead of turning them off or trying to berate them. I don’t need you to help me find my way around the issue of civil rights and freedoms but that doesn’t mean we cant exchange ideas. Thanks for nothing. By the way a specific question should elicit a specific response. Your vague, bs response to my question is exactly why I say your words are hollow.

          • LibertyforAll

            And you were doing so well until you got to…”GET OVER YOURSELF. Your intolerance” – It is so easy to label disagreement as intolerance. What I fail to understand is how you see the opinions supporting the citizen in this case as intolerance.

            John, you’re more berating than SGTRena has been. The name calling and insults are deafening in the vast majority of these posts. Most pointedly on the LEOs side of the argument.

            I DO NOT support the positions, antics or representations of the Klu Klux Klan but I will fight for their right to speak freely. Freedom isn’t limited to those who agree with you. SGTRena, in my humble (I suppose biased) opinion has been rather cordial overall.

          • John Milliy

            With all due respect my responses to SGTRena apply to more than just the post you speak of. I have seen his handywork and responses to many posters and he is more than rude, condescending and dismissive of ANY opinion not like his. On an issue of voting rights and a calculated effort to deny AMERICAN citizens the right to vote or create barriers to their ability to cast their vote his answer is they don’t deserve to vote because they are on welfare….a gross generalization and stereotype. On the issue of private prisons he couldnt see the point I was trying to make about the danger of these for profit prisons to all of us. I tried in every post to explain. The principal is not about the individual its about the collective. OUR RIGHTS. The reason an organization like the Ku Klux Clan was able to commit the heinous acts they did is because we felt certain AMERICANS weren’t worthy of the protections we championed because they didn’t fit the criteria. Our silence, tolerance and intolerance paved the road.

            Freedom isn’t limited to those who agree with you.

            If you read the progression of my posts I started out trying to point that out but he decided attacking me worked better. Maybe we have different definitions of cordial.

          • LibertyforAll

            JM> I guess I find this type of hype disingenuous when you people can see other Americans you don’t identify with being mistreated and you look the other way or find every excuse to blame them and not the system …

            You know this specifically how? What a huge assumption you make there John.

            JM> I noticed you completely ignored my question about the municipality.

            SR> Great, so we should just sit back and allow our communities to become one of these other “places in the world” with “brutal conditions”? You see nothing wrong with that?

            My definition of ignored must be far different than yours. Defending wrongs by highlighting other wrongs seems more disingenuous to me. The responsible citizen would label them both bad and work the change both circumstances.

          • LibertyforAll

            Never mind that the United States leads the world on the per capita incarceration rate. Nope, police state is just the wrong label. The streets are safe as long as you aren’t in a LEOs focus.
            and then there is the “spew”, sanctimonious” not derogatory at all.
            Love it or leave it is your best answer John? Why not make it better? Why not demand integrity, honesty and the truth from our LEOs? Why defend the bullying? Why defend the tactics which protect officers bad behavior? The reality is most LEOs DO NOT think they serve people, they think the people are their servants.

          • John Milliy

            Please reread my posts carefully because your post is not all what Ive said.

          • LibertyforAll

            A mile is ONE MINUTE at 60 m.p.h. – You assume he could just stop right then and there. You don’t know nor is their an explanation from his perspective. This point is rather pointless.
            I find it laughable that you defend one minute as reasonable enough to agitate an officer of the law. Seriously?
            On your “GET OVER IT” point… I believe the LEO in this case has a problem with the word. He merely accurately described what happened to him. You just don’t like his choice of words.
            Most of the time you sound reasonable and then you slip into gutter tactics. Stick to your positions and you’ll do much better than where name calling will take you.

          • John Milliy

            His response to my referencing the mile ( which was mentioned in several articles on the web but not on this site) was to imply I was lying. I’m not sure what communities you two live in but MOST PEOPLE choose to find the first place they can to stop. They don’t drive until they find a spot that’s comfortable or that they deem suitable. Hence people pull over on the highway with 5 lanes of traffic blasting by. They pull over in the median on a busy street blocking turning lanes and intersections. They pull over when signaled to and then they and the officer can decide to move or stay put. It happens a thousand times everyday. In many communities the act of continuing to drive is seen as a refusal to comply, defiance or aggression. It alone is enough to lead to very bad things, create suspicion or justification for the officer. This is a LUXURY many don’t have or choose not to excercise. If you really read posts with an unbiased eye this is usually the starting point for peoples perspective. Most people, off all stripes, don’t find the risk of this insignificant act of defiance worth taking. They bet against the officer or perhaps the two of you live in a community where you believe the officers to be reasonable enough to deal with or overlook it. That is not he case everywhere but especially in communities where BAD cops don’t even try to see the residents as worthy of being their servants.

        • Shmuck

          Aren’t we always told that these officers are so well trained to deal with stress? A waiter or a waitress has to endure irate customers many times and very seldom do they escalate the situation like police do. Douglas, I am glad you were not in charge of our country during WW2 . We would all be goosestepping .

      • aaahh

        po·lice state
        noun
        a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens’ activities.

        The term ‘Police State’ is thrown around all the time, but you millenials have no clue what it means. This traffic stop had nothing to do with the definition above.

        • LibertyforAll

          You say the traffic stop had nothing to do with a ‘Police State”? In what world are you living? State troopers love to hide behind hills, trees and other structures in their quest(s) to “supervise” citizens’ activities and generally enforce so called laws which are based on the “Political” will of a particular jurisdiction. The requiring front license plates, safety inspections, etc. are nothing more than political as evidenced by their non existence in other jurisdictions.

          I think that makes it “a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens’ activities” – Get real!

          “The Nazi Police State was to ensure that everybody did as they were told – or paid the price” (History, 2015)

          Reference:

          History “The Nazi Police State”, retrieved on July 15, 2005 from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-nazi-police-state/

          • Greg

            So, everyone has to pay to have safe cars on the road except you fruitloops? AAWAC Another Asshole With A Camera

    • Eric Peloquin

      Keep hoping. She won’t win.

    • Kelly Jackson

      @disqus_vSHMxTQi9t:disqus Keep hoping moron, she isn’t going to win this..

      What was the reason for her stop in the first place? He was cited for no front plate and expired inspection, neither of which she would have known since she was BEHIND him.

      Her claims that she thought the phone was a weapon are disproved by her own radio traffic where she states the reason she tried to take the phone from him was because she didn’t want to end up on Youtube.

      • Douglas G.

        Sorry, he drove by her, she then pulled out to pull him and after she lit him up, he drove another mile before pulling over. All you have to do is research a bit to find out that he FIRST drove by her. Which means, she saw him in her rear view mirror, and THAT’S how she knew he didn’t have a front plate.

        • ripvoid

          Actually by driving by a cop doesn’t mean then she sees everything by 30 miles an hour or 20mph for that matter you prove you can retain something driving by at fast speed to indicate as such or shut up You boot-licking dumb-ass.

      • Greg

        Oh, she’ll win and cost this bully douchebag ten of thousands in legal fee’s. Her union is paying her fee’s… It’s a win win for her.

        • John Ash

          Not if she’s basing her suit on some sort of defamation, dummy, she has zero case there. Because she’s an idiot that doesn’t understand English.

    • David Reinke

      Hay Dug,…..GET INLINE WITH THE REST OF THE SHEEP, DUG

      • Douglas G.

        Not sheeple, just polite. I treat police, the way I would want to be treated. I guess Manners aren’t your forte.

        • Bob Barnes

          That is fine, but what do, or would you do should they ever treat you in a manner that you did not want to be treated?

          • renegadesix

            Let them do it then sue the shit out of them. That’s where you win.

          • Bob Barnes

            Moron. Fukking idiot.

          • renegadesix

            You? Why yes, we have established that. The street is not the place to argue the finer points of constitutional law. But you go ahead and get your stupid ass shot or tazed. I’ll smile politely and line up my facts for the lawsuit.

            I’d rather be right, alive, and rich than right, stupid, and dead.

          • Bob Barnes

            Moron, Fukking idiot.

          • renegadesix

            Outstanding response. Hey, HypocrisyForAll, why aren’t you coming down on your fellow cop hater here?

          • Bob Barnes

            Fukking idiot, moron.

          • renegadesix

            Keep ’em coming, stoner. What would be really cool though is if you would put down the bong for a few minutes and think of something ELSE to call me.

          • Bob Barnes

            Fukking moron, idiot.

          • renegadesix

            Keep trying. Some day you MIGHT come up with a new insult. We have given up any hope that you might be able to make a cogent argument, but I am hoping for a new insult.

          • LibertyforAll

            I try to encourage every one to be cordial and stop with the insults but that was fukking funny right there!

    • LibertyforAll

      Name calling by you (or by ripvoid) does nothing but diminish credibility. Where in your precious law is it “required” that you be polite? Where in the second Amendment does it allow for you to be redirected (i.e. get out of your car and be searched) because you choose to exercise that right?

      I quoted it before and I will again…

      “The Nazi Police State was to ensure that everybody did as they were told – or paid the price” (History, 2015)

      Reference:
      History “The Nazi Police State”, retrieved on July 15, 2005 from
      http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-nazi-police-state/

    • SGTRena

      Apparently you don’t understand your rights. Perhaps you should actually go review the 30 minute video and her conversations with other officers. SHE was being the peckerhead and has, as a direct result of her suit, waived her immunity from counter suit. My hat is off to the young man.

  • Dontbefooled

    The more media coverage this gets the more the payday will be for the officer. The suit filed is a civil suit. Looking at the less than civil action by Cox (what an appropriate name) and his misleading blog post about the incident he’s going to have a tough time convincing the majority of a Jury that the officer is not entitled to recompense. Mind you, Cox has gone beyond just the incident in hunting down past offenders who have dealt with the officer. It’s borderline harassment on his part. He going to lose some cash, hopefully enough that any future cop baiting antics Cox tries will simple result in a payment to the officer.

  • jarheadjeff

    This appears to be no more than a setup from a wanna be “bad cop video” poster. I’m no arrogant cop fan believe me, but you look like the asshat loser in this case. Hell, no wonder cops lose their patience and beat the shit out of assholes like you. You’re definitely not helping the civilian-victim case here. What a douche. You know what? I got pulled over for the same thing in Va and guess what, I got a ticket..paid it..end of story. Didn’t the Army teach you any manners you pussy?

  • AZJeepGuy2014

    Well idiot; now you made it to Fox, so now the whole country and your parents can see how much of an idiot and jerk you are. You are just seeking attention. You were 100% responsible for breaking two traffic laws and being aggressive and confrontational with the cop who was only doing her job enforcing state traffic laws. What is the matter with you; did you apply to be a cop and get turned down? BTW, win or lose, your attorney gets paid. That is why they take this case, not because they believe in you. Think about that. Hope you lose and have to pay this wonderful cop for the rest of your miserable life. Yes, you have no life!!! You are pathetic. And BTW, it is not molestation, its called a “Pat Down” for weapons which SCOTUS strongly supports.

    • a_ford

      I can’t agree with you more, AZJeepGuy2014. What a wimp, whining about being “molested.” It’s wrong to bait an officer and then complain about her doing one of the hardest jobs on the planet. Most people wouldn’t have the guts to do police work, yet they expect others to do it and then try to sue them when they do something you don’t agree with.
      I’m rooting for the officer in this case. You were violating laws, which were just cause for the officer to stop you, and then you pitched a fit and tried to bait her. I am so sick of people behaving badly and then expecting to win their own personal little lottery if they bitch loudly enough. Go, Officer McKenney.

      • LibertyforAll

        Yeah, what does it matter what words mean? When the driver “violates” the law and you say throw the book at them but when the police violate the law and you say good job. An officer clearly violates her oath of office and all you have to offer is that you’re rooting for the officer in a pathetic abuse of the court system. To say he was baiting her is interesting however… care to elaborate?

        She stops him, demands he exit his vehicle, he does, demands he stop filming her, he shows her it is a phone and she still demands he hand it over claiming that “some phones look like guns”, she pats him down and you, with your infinite knowledge, say he baited her. Please, tell us how you derived this conclusion?

        Did you even watch the video?

        • renegadesix

          The police did not violate the law. He does not have a right to hold something in his hand that can be used as a weapon against the officer and I challenge you to cite ANY legal authority that says otherwise.

    • LibertyforAll

      it always amazes me how people who come out on the cops side always use aggressive, belligerent tactics to *attempt* to make a point. Speaking of idiots, molest means: To disturb, interfere with, or annoy – If this officer thinks she will win based on that word, she’ll be very disappointed. .

      • AZJeepGuy2014

        Mix the words all you want; but what he is trying to imply occurred is a sexual molestation in nature. If I was on the jury, that is how I would see it. I would award the cop a lot of money for character defamation.

        I support cops, they keep our society in check so that I don’t have to. Just like our military keep other countries in check.

        His behavior was completely out of line. What he needs is a good spanking from his father.

        • Michael Malone

          You’re wrong. An educated person would know the full definition of molestation. He felt violated and molested. In other word, she inappropriately touched him while reaching for the phone and she inappropriately got within his personal space. Although I agree he performed entrapment, she still should have not done what she did without reasonable cause. She clearly knew what was in his hand. She clearly was irritated that she unknowingly pulled over a well known police monitor. To make it short, both she and he are wrong therefore a lawsuit of any kind from either one of them should not be initiated. There’s no justification whatsoever. Defense attorney will educate the jurors the true meaning of molestation and I can guarantee you without any reasonable doubt she will loose miserably and ruin her own reputation as a lawsuit trigger happy type of person.

          • LibertyforAll

            The irony… she sues for defamation and ends up ruining her own reputation. Only in America. You have just got to love it.

          • renegadesix

            She “ruined” her reputation only with cop-haters like you who hated her before this event ever took place.

        • John Ash

          Sounds like you inferred it. Words have meanings.

        • LibertyforAll

          No, he was playing on the ignorance of people whom might hear “sexual” because they lack the prerequisite knowledge to understand the meaning of the word. Fortunately, our courts still (mostly) live where facts matter and the meaning of words matter.

          Did you even watch the video? I am alarmed that people actually exist who think this guy did anything to justify stripping him of his rights. There is no requirement that people follow any unlawful order period. The Supreme Court, you know, those guys that you love when they decide your way and hate when they don’t, ruled that not only do we have a right to film the cops, they do not have to right to obstruct your ability to do so (as this ill advised officer did). She even came back and knocked his camera down so that it would not face the cruiser. These are signs of tyranny. You should be upset with the officer’s actions, not the drivers.

          • renegadesix

            “The Supreme Court, you know, those guys that you love when they decide your way and hate when they don’t, ruled that not only do we have a right to film the cops, they do not have to right to obstruct your ability to do so (as this ill advised officer did).”

            Uh, no. The Supreme Court has never actually ruled on that issue. They have refused to take up appeals in cases dealing with the issue, letting stand Circuit Court decisions that have held that a BYSTANDER may film the police (e.g., Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) ). To my knowledge, no Court has EVER upheld the “right” of a person who is the subject of a detention, stop, and/or arrest to film the police — particularly when such would leave an object in the person’s hands that could be used as a weapon.

          • LibertyforAll

            Which is it, the Supreme Court has never ruled or they let a Circuit Court ruling stand which is a defacto ruling? Please tell me you are not trying to argue that filming cops is not sanctioned by the Supreme Court because they didn’t repeat a lower court’s ruling… . Or, more likely are you trying to discredit my arguement because you found a little nuance in a few of the thousands of words Which I have posted?

            ALSO, since you cops and or cop apologists seem to overlook (probably because you typically hate anything exculpatory or otherwise supporting of a member of the unwashed masses) your hero officer picked the man’s phone up and faced it in such a direction to prevent the further gathering of evidence. Face it cops, this one is a black eye. With Ferguson you cops were on the right side defending Darwin Wilson but here, a “good honest” cop would identify this as bad policing. But alas, that would betray the brotherhood.

          • renegadesix

            “Which is it, the Supreme Court has never ruled or they let a Circuit Court ruling stand which is a defacto ruling?”

            Ooops, you almost had it up to the “de facto ruling” thing. It is the first two, it is not the third in your list. Let me correct your ignorance. When the SCOTUS lets a court of civil appeals ruling stand, said ruling is binding precedent ONLY in the jurisdiction of that particular circuit. However, when the Court actually takes up an issue and RULES on it, that ruling is binding on EVERY court in the land. So, when the SCOTUS refuses to take an appeal, it both lets the ruling stand and does not rule on the issue. Got it? Try not to make the same mistake again.

            You should be paying me for this education.

            “your hero officer picked the man’s phone up and faced it in such a direction to prevent the further gathering of evidence.”

            Cite any court that has upheld the right of a detained person to video his detention. This is the second time I’ve asked you to back up your assertion that preventing a detained person from filming the officer is a violation of the detained person’s rights. Are you going to support this claim or not? The only way the officer’s manipulation of the phone has any relevance is if there has been a ruling by an appellate court with jurisdiction over Virginia holding that a DETAINED PERSON and not a BYSTANDER has a right to film his detention.

        • LibertyforAll

          Here AZJeepGuy2014, this sounds like it was written for you…
          In Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (U.S. 1966), the court stated:

          “There is, first, a strong interest in debate on public issues, and, second, a strong interest in debate about those persons who are in a position significantly to influence the resolution of those issues. Criticism of government is at the very center of the constitutionally protected area of free discussion. Criticism of those responsible for government operations must be free, lest criticism of government itself be penalized. It is clear, therefore, that the “public official” designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.”

          • AZJeepGuy2014

            What is your point here? My point was; he acted like an idiot and moron..and that stills stands. He needs a good old fashion blanket party by the men and women in blue.

          • LibertyforAll

            He used the proper definition of a word, “molest” and you are all up in arms about it. You use words like “idiot” and “moron” and you walk away feeling pretty good about yourself. AZ, you really need to do better here. He exercised his God given rights as clarified in the Constitution and by the courts. Anyone arguing to the contrary is either a cop or ignorant of the law. The shame of it is that LEOs actually defend the behaviors of violating folks’ rights instead of honoring the document (and what is represents) that so many have died protecting. All of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

          • AZJeepGuy2014

            Without laws, and enforcers of the law, you have anarchy. Somebody has to be empowered to question violators of the law. We call them LEO’s and empower them in each state to enforce laws. I can’t make it any simpler than that. Those who want to break the law, they need to expect being held accountable.

          • LibertyforAll

            Nobody is advocating anarchy here AZ, lest of not me. LEOs are a necessary element in our society. You’re a right, those who break the law need to be held accountable but that goes both ways, citizens and LEOs. With that being said, LEOs are not above the law and should never lie (or even twist the truth), should always stay above the fray and NEVER ever cross that line into violating freedoms outlined in the Constitution. This officer in this encounter was wrong, Nathan had every right to post it and comment accordingly and our courts are needed for serious issues. This pathetic lawsuit highlights the very culture inherent in the evil of policing.

          • renegadesix

            How was she “wrong”? Did he have a front plate? Was his sticker valid? You might want to look up “probable cause.”

          • renegadesix

            The “proper” definition of the word? Where is that written? You are making a post-defamation excuse for him by taking the word out of the context in which it was used. Molest, particularly when combined with allegations that her hands were all over him, has another connotation as well. In context of what was actually written, YOUR “proper” definition is NOT the “proper” definition.

          • renegadesix

            You might want to consider the actual malice standard. He knows for a fact she did not “molest” him in the context in which he used the statement (hands all over my body). Then there is the accusations of her being “crazy.” Making a statement about anyone, even a public official, knowing that it is false or with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity finds know protection under the First Amendment. NYT v. Sullivan, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964).

  • JAMES

    I’ve seen plenty of videos from your kind. Ya’ll don’t give a crap about the law or anyone else for that matter. You are just trolls trying to get famous on the internet. Put the camera down and settle this like a real man.

    • AZJeepGuy2014

      She is more man then he is!!!

      • eli

        She’s a coward.

        • renegadesix

          She’s got more guts than a scumbag sheep like you will ever have.

          • eli

            Doubtful. I don’t assume everyone I meet is out to harm me nor I jump to the irrational conclusion that a cell phone is dangerous weapon. I also don’t need to call in multiple other people as backup whenever I talk to someone who’s upset.

          • renegadesix

            You don’t have a job where people are out to harm you, now do you? Ever been hit in the head with a cell phone by someone who, like Cox, has about a foot on you?

          • eli

            Most people aren’t out to harm cops. 115 out of just under a million died on the job last year, and half of those were accidents or medical issues. She was at far more risk from the traffic than the guy. In addition, a bit of commonsense would tell you that a guy planning to harm a cop would not want to film it. As to your other point, I no longer work in a dangerous job but in the past I did (military). I’ve also worked for a Sheriff’s dept, which is where I got my dislike of most cops. They lived in terror of hypothetical scenarios despite working in a very safe area with also no violent crime. One even shot and killed a pastor who had the audacity to be carrying a weapon on his own property and asked the police (in an unmarked car) to please leave the property. After being in the military and knowing about real threats, their fear of U.S. citizens seemed pathetic to me. I have nothing against being prepared, just against treating all citizens as threats.

          • renegadesix

            “Most people aren’t out to harm cops.”

            True. Unfortunately, in the REAL world where cops live and you don’t, they don’t have a magic ball or 20/20 hindsight to let them know who it is that is out to harm them and who isn’t.

            “115 out of just under a million died on the job last year, and half of those were accidents or medical issues.”

            So, because “only” half of 115 were killed by “citizens”, they have no right to be careful? Seriously? What about all those that aren’t killed and manage to survive? For example, in 2013, 49,851 officers were injured in duty related assaults. I guess they don’t count in your world because they didn’t die, right?

            https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2013-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted

            “She was at far more risk from the traffic than the guy.”

            Says the person with 20/20 hindsight. AND, the way he fought against her efforts to disarm him — yes a cell phone CAN be used as a weapon — he INCREASED the danger to her and himself from the traffic. You can’t watch the traffic when you’re having to watch some confrontational idiot.

            “a bit of commonsense would tell you that a guy planning to harm a cop would not want to film it.”

            You say that as if cop killers were rational people. Regardless, you do not have a right to film the police when you are being detained by them. In doing so you are holding something in your hand that can be used as a weapon. They are entitled by God knows how many Supreme Court decisions to make you empty your hands for the duration of the detention.

            “I’ve also worked for a Sheriff’s dept, which is where I got my dislike of most cops.”

            Being a trustee in a jail doesn’t count.

            “They lived in terror”

            You just lost what little credibility you might have had.

            “One even shot and killed a pastor ”

            Funny how you would side against a cop confronted by an uncooperative man ARMED WITH A GUN!!!!

            http://www.krem.com/story/news/crime/2014/09/22/14967028

            “After being in the military and knowing about real threats, their fear of U.S. citizens seemed pathetic to me.”

            I was a grunt. I’ve been in combat, and I say you are full of shit. Every citizen IS a potential threat because every stop they make has the potential to turn into this:

  • crysrandy

    Get a life Nathan!! You’re a jerk!

  • KG1967

    Primarily, this trooper had the right to pull you over. You were not displaying your front license plate and your inspection sticker was expired. You took over a mile to finally pull over. This last action created a concern for the safety of the trooper. All too often police are shot at during traffic stops. It is one of the most dangerous activities that a cop must do. And yet, you were not attempting to cooperate in any way. Were you looking for a fight? I think so. Get a life.

    • HAVOC

      You think it’s okay for a cop to walk up, open your car door and demand you get out of your car? Not having a front license plate or sticker are civil infractions, not felonies.
      Do you also think it would be okay for a cop to open the front door of your house, without a warrant, and order you outside to discuss unpaid parking tickets?
      Ever heard of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?

      • Douglas G.

        You truly don’t have a clue do you? States that call this a “Civil Infraction”, make it harder to fight the tkt, because a “CIVIL INFRACTION”, requires less proof than a criminal or traffic, and may not even require the officer to be present. What happened here was, after the trooper lit up the car, turned on the lights to alert the driver they are being pulled over. the driver keep driving for a whole mile. That’s bad, because NOW, you have given the officer probable cause. WHAT were you doing for that mile? Hiding some illegal drugs, putting your bottle of whiskey away, or attempting to hide some other illegal activity? Were you preparing to attack the officer somehow after pulling over, and getting your gun ready? Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. Had the guy pulled over immediately, and placed his hands on the steering wheel while she walked up, we probably wouldn’t have been having this conversation. I got pulled over the other day for an illegal u-turn. I didn’t see the sign, MY BAD! As soon as I was lit up, I pulled over, rolled my window down, and then placed my hands on the steering wheel. I was polite, I answered the officer honestly, that I didn’t see the sign, he asked for my license and registration, came back a few moments later, and gave me a VERBAL warning, not even a written one.. The difference is? I treated the officer with the respect I would want to be treated with. I know, shocking.. Manners, being polite.. You may want to try it some time.

      • renegadesix

        Ever heard of Pennsylvania. v. Mimms, a Supreme Court case which held that everything you just said is wrong?

  • Karen Green

    There are very few bad cops out there. I want to encourage us all to pray for all law enforcement. I wouldn’t even fault them for taking the bait and arguing, as how frustrating is it to run across someone like YOU who has nothing to risk personally for doing what you do.? Please, let them do their job, and spend all that time you spend “doing what you do” for this blog, and put some effort toward blogging about something that’s possibly more bothersome for everyone than cops stepping on our rights like, say, what about righteous, bored, spoiled, internet junkies who seek to destroy others’ livelihood by falsely witnessing to the public in order to gain personal power and influence, Lord help us.

  • a_ford

    Your problem is that you claimed the officer “molested” you. Police are not “molesting” you when they stop you for violations. Stopping cars is one of the most dangerous jobs an officer does, because they never know what the driver has waiting when they open the door. I’ll never forget hearing about one officer who was stabbed in the eye socket, through the skull wall, by a granny-looking old lady who stabbed him with an umbrella.
    When the police stop you, do what they ask. They aren’t asking you to do anything other than show them your license, registration and insurance card, unless you’ve done something else for them to be suspicious about. I agree with Jason, below. The “lick the badge” guy, no. Only a moron pitches a fit when an officer is just trying to do the job he’s paid to do.

  • Pingback: POLICE VS. WATCHDOG Trooper hits blogger with $1.3M suit over traffic stop | Infos.Link()

  • D H

    I hope one day you need a Cop because somebody is breaking into your home and all the Cops are tied up on more important calls

    • LibertyforAll

      The last thing I would want is a cop when someone is breaking into my home. The shame of it is, a cop does not bring with them any real safety. Their primary focus is on damaging the lives of the people they view as sheep. Don’t be fooled by this false sense of security. They want you to believe they are keeping you safe all the while watching you, looking for anything they can use to mess up your life. I will protect my house far better than a cop ever would.

      • renegadesix

        Great! Don’t call them. It would be delicious poetic justice were one of your fellow “rights protectors” to take you out while exercising their “right” to your household goods. I look forward to reading your obituary.

        • LibertyforAll

          Spoken like a real honest law abiding citizen. So in your mind “rights protectors” are the ones who would take me out and “rights protectors” are on the opposite side of why the police exist. Wow, seriously. Did you just advocate the celebration of my being murdered?

          • renegadesix

            Just using your definition of the phrase as evidence by your support of Mr. Cox. I would call them “criminals”, but you have already demonstrated that you believe the meanings of words are fluid, so I just assigned a term I figured you would understand and approve of.

        • LibertyforAll

          “Great! Don’t call them. It would be delicious poetic justice were one of your fellow “rights protectors” to take you out while exercising their “right” to your household goods. I look forward to reading your obituary.” -renegadesix

          I can’t get past this one. Your name calling is one thing but wow. I am going to assume you got caught up in your emotions and didn’t mean this the way it sounds. I will give you a chance to retract and apologize. You are suggesting it would be good for me to get murdered. WOW!

          Otherwise I will refrain from any dialogue with you. You are a very danderous, scary individual. I surprised none of the apologists called you on this. Holy crap!

          • renegadesix

            LOL. You’re a coward. I’m nailing you on the issues directly and so you take pretend umbrage at this. You, who have no compunction about calling people you don’t even know liars, bullies, cheats, and sociopaths, cry like the coward you are when someone returns so much as a tenth of the vitriol you have unjustifiably unleashed on cops back to you.

            For the record, liar, I didn’t say it would be “good” for you to be murdered. I said it would be “delicious poetic justice.”

            Go. Run, you gutless coward. You’ll get no apology from me.

  • tim

    Yep hope she takes everything you own and you have to pay her to the day you die

  • Timothy J. Williams

    I hope the officer wins. You are an idiot, and a professional victim “moocher” looking to cash in on lawsuits yourself. Go get a job, loser.

  • AZJeepGuy2014

    He says he is an Army vet. Prove it and post your DD-214 to your blog. Include the separation narrative at the bottom which gives the discharge authority cited, the character of service, and the re-enlistment code.

  • SICK OF IT ALL 3

    Dude, you are a complete douche…..get a real job and let the cops do theirs

  • pointvet

    I hope the Bill of Rights wins, a paper lost on most warriors, cops, judges, legislators and all presidents today. There are too many wimps who cave to authorities violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th amendments — and all of them….allowing themselves to be violated for the sake of ‘cooperating’. No one here went by the rules and law more than me, but I have been abused by cops for no more than long hair and an ear ring plus holding my rights as a value higher than cowering with cooperation. I was one of the worlds only true gunfighters too many times to remember all of the events, carrying a copy of The Bill of Rights with the Code of Conduct side by side. My not “cooperating” in a way to forfeit my rights helps the next guy in line; running point without a stick, means the guy behind me has to do the fight that was mine to do.

    • LibertyforAll

      Here Here PointVet, well said. It is the people out there defending the Constitution who are the real hero’s. Cops just want the glory without the sacrifice.

      • renegadesix

        What Constitution are you referring to? It sure isn’t the US Constitution that he was talking about.

    • renegadesix

      And there are too many ignorant fools like you who think they know the Constitution when they probably have never read it. The problems occur when the pretend rights you think you have but don’t (like being able to keep an object in your hand that can be used as a weapon in a traffic stop) runs smack dab in the actual powers law enforcement officers have to preserve their own safety.

      And the truly amazing thing? Idiots like you don’t seem to understand that those powers protect YOUR safety as well. Keeping your hands empty and in view goes a long way towards preventing tragedies from occurring.

      • pointvet

        Unjust laws are all around us now. Hundreds of judges make laws from the bench. Basically, each Bill of Right is exceptioned to the extent no rights exist, as we now have privileges tolerated by government. Progressives who are or are kin in bringing us to this, none of which was done so legally, such as with Article V, are not welcome in my life at all, other than here in such debate. —I did tutor the Constitution….which was written for 6th grade levels to read; not for liberals to read into it. Supremes make law regularly now, legislators work for their own careers, lessor judges work for the government, lawyers cower to their almighty judge….rendered victims set before judges and juries not going by the Bill of Rights….harmed by exceptions of rights. Nixed by judges voiding the rights of juries and the victim.
        I helped put stripes on the flag, always carrying a copy of The Bill of Rights in the same pocket with my Code of Conduct card. Much is lost. Many are now conditioned to feel abusive government and Constitutional violating judge instructions to juries are acceptable. But this runaway is a horse which will not come back to the barn on its own. Not soon enough people will tire of the abuse……retrain the animal to take lead of the reins.
        In your long study of the Constitution, you must have found value of known ahead of time laws (the Constitution). Such as fad, not a governing race of people, nor a political agenda, no trade of false security rather than rights….religion takes no life or liberty away, not even a simple majority has a right to remove known ahead of time rights. It requires a Constitutional process, or we live in lawlessness…….”unjust law”. Look what ‘it’ does for us.

  • jswjr

    Perhaps we should consider passing a law that exempts those who revile the police from ever receiving police protection. Maybe we should require a sign to be posted on their property that reads something like, “This is a Police-free zone. Police are not required to provide protection to this property or its inhabitants”. I wonder how long it would take to become a blood-spattered crack house? On the bright side, there would be no yellow crime scene tape to impair the gangland drug traffic!

    • LibertyforAll

      Everything has to be black or white to you apologists doesn’t it? You are so hung up on yourselves that you actually believe cops are God’s gift to the free world.

      Why is it that you imply that people should either accept bad police action or give up any protection from the police? You probably support the unethical cops standing down in Baltimore too. Why can’t we have a society where the police actually protect the citizens, actually serve them and help them live free of violence, free of harassment and able to enjoy the freedoms so many have died to protect? Why is it that apologists are so willing to look the other way when a police officer lies, twists the facts to suit conviction, arrests people merely because they don’t like the person’s attitude or the fact the people are demanding their rights be honored, when they get the blue flue, when they see a phone and call it a gun because they know what to say and how to say it? What is wrong with serving the people instead of having a we versus they mentality? Why are you not condemning the Cop in South Carolina who shot an unarmed man running away with his back to the officer? Cops do commit crimes, they do bully people they do abuse their power and you apologists turn a blind eye and wonder why cops are hated.

      It sickens me to know people out there actually believe arrogant self serving police officers ought to be glorified.

      • renegadesix

        “Why is it that you imply that people should either accept bad police action or give up any protection from the police? ”

        Because what you leftist cop haters call “bad police action” 9 times out of 10 isn’t. That’s why.

  • Kenneth Walker

    Technically he can sue her for sexual harassment, she searched him which she don’t suppose to. It be like male cop trying get a feel from a woman. I was a cop for a short time and should know some basic rule’s.

    • AZJeepGuy2014

      I can see why you were a cop for a short time, if that is even true. You cannot even put together a complete sentence structure. 5th graders write better than you. She did a pat down, not a search. You should know the difference between the two if you were a cop.

      • Kenneth Walker

        Dear Azjeep go fuck off, little girl’s like you that stay in their mom’s basement and have no life should stay out of grown up post. When i wrote that i was have a nice cold beer and a nit drunk unlike you underage little brat. Try serving your country then mocking someone on here. And yes i have severed 10 years in the army and did 3 tours in Iraq. And what do i have to show for it, an artificial leg after being blown off by (IED) because the wuzzies don’t want to fight like men.

        • AZJeepGuy2014

          So now you were in the army..lol..what are you going to claim next? BTW, I served in Desert Storm.

        • LibertyforAll

          Kenneth, Thank you for serving. There is a difference between you and AZJeep one of you has served with honor and distinction. As is obvious, AZJeep is incapable of having a discussion on anything without resorting to name calling, insults and vulgar expressions. He actually thinks it makes him look in control or somehow powerful. I will say he is somehow affiliated with law enforcement and often demonstrates the shameful behavior and mentality of the many thugs wearing a badge.

          • Kenneth Walker

            I went from serving as a cop for 5 year into the army. I felt at that time i needed to fill a bigger roll in my life. I think god that i made it through the hard time’s and miss my friend’s that didn’t come back. When the IED went off i lost 2 good friend’s.

          • Kenneth Walker

            Also half the time when i write these am either on my pain medicine or drunk lol

        • renegadesix

          Geeze, they didn’t offer you any GED classes or something to teach you how to write? And before you go off, I’m a combat vet too. I still know how to write.

    • renegadesix

      You’re a liar. You have never been a cop. No cop would make a mistake about the law like you just did. Opposite sex pat downs are VERY MUCH constitutionally permissible. Terry v. Ohio doesn’t prevent it and neither does any other Supreme Court holding.

      Furthermore, as badly as you write, I have a difficult time believing someone like you could make it out of the academy.

  • rpmdb

    Boo-hoo, little boy. “I’m as confused…” The typical reaction when a wanna-be bully is confronted with his stupidity with the potential to make his life miserable and costly. I can only imagine the ice ball in your stomach when you got your subpoena. Sucks when your frivolous, mercenary actions backfire, doesn’t it? Acting like a d-bag has its costs. I hope yours are dear.

    • LibertyforAll

      You really don’t think this lawsuit goes anywhere do you? This officer, at best, will get a scolding from the judge for wasting to court’s time. It was already thrown out once. The officer here is highly likely to get stuck with Nathan’s legal fees. Do your homework. Read the filings, watch the video and actually stop thinking with the herd.

      Oh, and kudos for the name calling. You started out with half your position in question.

      • renegadesix

        It was not thrown out, you friggin’ liar. She took a voluntary non-suit — a dismissal without prejudice. I suggest you read NYT v. Sullivan before commenting further.

      • rpmdb

        Oh, please. Run along. Adults are communicating here, and only a troll would post what you did. There is no way the officer is going to pay a dime.

        • LibertyforAll

          We’ll see at the end of the day. This case is clearly a 1st Amendment issue. Remember, the patrolman is the plaintiff here. She is the aggressor in the court case and the one who is trying to squash Nathan’s right to free speech which strikes at the very heart and essence of the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Even if there were a judge somewhere that could be found to agree with this “public servant” it would never stand up in appeal. What I don’t understand is how any supporter of law enforcement would support shutting down free speech in any vernacular. Do you guys ignore the “Protect the Constitution” part of your oaths?

          The courts are very quick to allow a very broad leeway to people commenting on public officials. Nathan Cox is on very solid ground here.

          Thank you for showing the world your level of dignity by insulting the writer instead of the point. Why is it pro police people (mostly, not exclusively) find degrading posters is an acceptable form of behavior? It is a bully tactic and nothing more. It serves NO purpose in civilized debate. Really, “Run along. Adults are communicating here? ” Have you read the comments that have been posted on this forum? If you can’t be dignified in your responses then perhaps you shouldn’t be posting at all.

          You may hate people who are willing to stand up and be heard but it does not make you correct.

          • rpmdb
          • renegadesix

            The First Amendment has NEVER protected defamation, even against public officials. Still haven’t read NYT v. Sullivan I see. Keep spouting your ignorance.

  • bill

    You kids need to back off harassing law enforcement. With all the riots we have had in the last year and what I like to call the “war on cops”, The last thing the police need is jerks like you purposely making their jobs more difficult. I’m not a cop, but I can feel for those who are. Every traffic stop is a potential deadly encounter now. They must have some loose laws in VA is they let you have a CCW.

    • LibertyforAll

      Bill is one of those liberals who believes only the chosen, only the police, have the right the keep and bear arms. He believes that a cop violating a citizens rights is okay because, after all, the cop is sacrificing himself to do so. Golly gee.
      He had a fair well written statement going until he just couldn’t make it without name calling. I love it, almost everyone out there supporting the cops can’t do it without resorting to insults

      Oh, and by the way Bill, we had riots because the black community is getting sick and tired of being bullied and abused at the hands of your beloved police. They have had enough and I for one am happy to see them standing up for their rights.

      • renegadesix

        Its because you cop-hating leftists are like crotch-rot, there is just nothing good that can be said about you.

  • JesusChristSucks

    Virginia is a useless, Christian, fly-over-sht-hole!

    • Karen Green

      Well said, bigot of Christians! Save the world from them! Those darned Christians, they’re so scary, especially those nasty Virginia ones. Wow, I can’t believe all the ridiculous historical stuff that happened in Virginia when our country was being founded! 🙂

      • JesusChristSucks

        Only a Christian redneck would defend the crimes against humanity that occurred in Virginia during the times you’re so fond of. I have no respect for your disgusting religion. You need to grow up.

        Also, you’ve never lost anything, and you have no license to use the word bigot because you are one because of your worthless religion, you inbred Christian redneck.

  • Bill Crum

    People! Let’s get one thing straight, right now! If you are writing to express the words “you are,” as in “you are an ass,” then please use correct grammar. “You are . . .” when written as a contraction is “you’re,” not your. This is, I guess, what happens when schools no longer take off points for misspellings.

  • Mark 4 Steelers

    A lot of cops are good people, but many are not. Too many are hypocritical a-holes who combine anger management issues with their superiority complexes & use the badge as a venue to feed their addiction to power by belittling others. A purge needs to happen within all of our State & Federal policing agencies to eliminate anyone with the mindset that the public is somehow inferior to them. The most common misconception that is distorted by cops is the idea that they are in control rather than they are here to serve.

  • HAVOC

    I believe the officer walking up and opening the door of the car is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights. You have the right to be secure in your person, papers, houses and effects.

    The police can’t just walk up to the front door of your house and open it without a warrant. Same goes for your car. They can’t ask you for an ID if you are just walking down the road unless they suspect you of committing a crime, and they have to tell you what crime they suspect you of committing. Otherwise they need a warrant to see your ID. Those ARE your “papers”. Of course some states have violated the Constitution and enacted ID laws, be sure you don’t live in one of those states if you plan to exercise your 4th Amendment rights.

    The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads thus: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    This officer had no warrant, and no right to open this man’s car door. She has no right to physically touch him accept in the event of an actual arrest. He has the right to be secure in his person. The officer had no right to grab at his phone. He has the right to be secure of his effects. His cell phone is one of his effects.

    • renegadesix

      “I believe the officer walking up and opening the door of the car is a violation of your 4th Amendment rights. ”

      You can believe it, but you would be wrong. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977).

      “You have the right to be secure in your person, papers, houses and effects.”

      From UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. It is not unreasonable for an officer who has observed a subject who took a mile to pull over and who was reaching around in the vehicle to order that subject out of the car.

      “The police can’t just walk up to the front door of your house and open it without a warrant.”

      Actually, they can under exigent circumstances including:

      1. Fresh pursuit of a felon Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967);

      2. To prevent the destruction of evidence Kerr v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963);

      3. . To protect themselves or other persons from a risk of imminent harm. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978).

      “Same goes for your car.”

      Actually, no. The Supreme Court has held that a home and a car are not the same and that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a car. All that is needed to search a car is probable cause. Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

      “They can’t ask you for an ID if you are just walking down the road unless they suspect you of committing a crime”

      Actually, they can. Cops are just as free as any other person to talk to citizens and make requests. And that includes walking up and knocking on the door of your home. Whether you are compelled to provide it turns on the law of your state.

      “Those ARE your “papers”.”

      Not if it is a state issued ID/DL.

      “Of course some states have violated the Constitution and enacted ID laws, be sure you don’t live in one of those states if you plan to exercise your 4th Amendment rights.”

      The Supreme Court disagrees. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), although it left open the question of whether, if the revealing of your name would lead to an arrest, could be a Fifth Amendment violation.

      Your concluding paragraph fails due to your clear ignorance of the law. Educate yourself and try again.

  • Mike Dean Eldridge

    I saw this story but I have not yet seen the video so bear this in mind regarding my particular views on this subject. Yet what is most discouraging to me are the people who choose to comment so aggressively without truly knowing all the details and truth about the entire ordeal. Despite whatever first impression we may have about who is right and wrong, we should all be looking for the truth about what really happened and then try to help educate others who may not know the whole thing. No one needs to be enemies over something so simple as a traffic stop.

    • renegadesix

      Some of us have watched the video…before commenting…and therefore know the facts.

      You might try that some time.

  • mickey esham

    when you look for trouble and too stupid to realize you found it .oh well!

  • Love_Virginia

    Ha ha ha, I hope she wins you little punk.

  • Pingback: A Virginia State Trooper Is Suing A Blogger For $1.35 MILLION Over A Traffic Stop Video. | ViralSpell()

  • thestruggleOMG

    I am all for defending my rights with cops, but this moron goes about it completely the wrong way. Just don’t answer her f-ing questions you dumbass, stop bouncing around like an idiot.

  • Pingback: $1.3M Traffic Stop? Virginia state trooper sues blogger over online claims – St. Louis authorities hunt for gunman who ‘tried to assassinate’ cop – News-9.com – The best Source of Latest Worldwide News()

  • gwDisqus1712

    Sounds like you need to fucking obey the law.

  • jim

    You’re a smart-ass little parasite on a misguided campaign to champion for what you think are Constitutional rights. You need to review your entire platform because obviously you are ignorant of the information you spew. Nowhere are you guaranteed to the right to be the first class asshole you are. I can only hope that the next Trooper you encounter adjusts your juvenile attitude.

  • Joe Goins

    I think it is very hypocritical of you to publish her private contact information when you pinked your own information out.

    And you also acted like an ass. You shouldn’t argue with a cop on the side of the road; you should do what they say. Then, you take them to court and win a bunch of money.

  • Bogeymon

    This guy is a punk ass bitch. She should have busted a cap in his dumb ass.

  • John Smith

    Good for her. We’ve had enough iPhone wielding, narcissistic, selfie-taking hipsters and their blogs. Even if she doesn’t win, I hope she buries him in legal fees.

  • Been there

    Wow what a bunch of disrespectful over entitled jerks! Stop taking things out of context. He drove by her that’s how she saw the missing plate. He didn’t pull over for over a mile, News flash,, this is what criminals do in order to hide things and or to prepare for worst. She made the comment only after she was told he was the creep that exploits cops on YouTube. It’s like you only understand what you want to understand regardless of the facts. If you don’t want to respect authority then you should give up your right to use them. So next time you are in trouble DON’T CALL THE COPS FOR HELP!

  • Sampler

    1. Missing front tag? Is it really worth cop time and possibility of being confronted with a weapon? Follow him when he exists? Run plate while following and mail him citation for missing front tag is not an option? How many vehicles were exceeding the 70 mph speed limit while cop had him pulled over?
    2. From the video, it appears that she puts her head, shoulders and some of her torso into his vehicle. Even thought she asks, she does not appear scared there could be a weapon. By placing some of her body in his vehicle she made herself susceptible to more than being confronted by a weapon.
    3. It is my understanding that the police are not supposed to have access to CWP information. She gets that info and much more on him.
    4. After she ran his info, if she was issuing a ticket she should have written it and handed to him to sign immediately. She dragged this out but didn’t want to appear on copblock or youtube? Her actions and comments state otherwise.
    5. What does cop touch on his rear window? His phone or wallet?
    6. Cop admits to knowing it is a cell phone and not a weapon but continues to whine and carry on when other cops arrive instead of giving him the ticket immediately and sending him on his way.

  • Pingback: $1.3M Traffic Stop? Virginia state trooper sues blogger over online claims – St. Louis authorities hunt for gunman who ‘tried to assassinate’ cop | Equality 4 ever()

  • Pingback: Virginia State Police Trooper Sues Blogger for $1.3M()

  • Pingback: $1.3M Traffic Stop? Virginia state trooper sues blogger over online claims – News-9.com – The best Source of Latest Worldwide News()

  • Kevin Taylor

    That`s what happens when your an asshole! Is this all you do just drive around looking to set up a cop. Grow the hell up. I deal with police just about every day. Most of them are good people and doing their jobs. If you had a plate on the front of your car none of this would`ve happened. I`m sure you know that. I doubt the trooper will get anything but she proved her point! How does it feel to be fucked with. You deserve every damn bit of it.

    • LibertyforAll

      You open with weak minded name calling and you tell this guy to grow up.

      • renegadesix

        “The guy did NOTHING to “deserve every damn bit of it”. ”

        YOU LIE!

        He had an expired sticker.
        He did not have a plate as required on the front of his vehicle.
        He took a mile to pull over.
        He moved around in the vehicle as if reaching for a weapon.
        He initially failed and refused to obey the officer’s LAWFUL commands to: 1) get out of the vehicle; and 2) empty his hands.

        Those facts demonstrate conclusively that he deserved “every damn bit of it.”

  • andres garcia

    You are a fucking idiot pussies like you need be taught a lesson. I hope she wins and takes everything you have. Hahahaha you pussy

  • Pingback: $1.3M Traffic Stop? Virginia state trooper sues blogger over online claims | Equality 4 ever()

  • Al Bobblehead

    pay up numb nuts. you lose!

  • ipinsao

    You blame cops for revenues yet you have no problems using cops for your own selfish revenues in blogs and youtube? hahaha what a fool. Liberty emporment my @$$ you idiots have no idea what liberty is all about. Americans like yourself abuse your freedom. America by far has the most lenient traffic laws yet surprisingly we have the most craziest drivers. You idiots get a ticket and you whine like cops were gonna give you the death penalty because that is how it is in other countries.

    • LibertyforAll

      Thank you for the label, “idiot” ipinsao. I always like it when posters show their level of competence right out of the gate by name calling and emotional characterizations.

      Like most of the cop apologists here, you fail to substantiate your claims. You haven’t a clue, you can’t, as to how much anyone knows about liberty. Some Americans don’t abuse their freedom, they cherish it. This very blog is a prime example. Copblock.org is yet another and yes, burning the flag is one too.

      I have stated so many times here that this issue is NOT about the ticket (or even the validity of the law allegedly being violated. It is about the clear cut violations of Nathan Cox’s civil rights by the unlawful and unreasonable search of his person and the violation of his 1st Amendment protections by impeding his recording of the event as it unfolded. Its called evidence tampering for those LEOs and other cop apologists hanging out and lurking around here.

      As for having the craziest drivers, you obviously have not been to Europe…

      • renegadesix

        “It is about the clear cut violations of Nathan Cox’s civil rights by the unlawful and unreasonable search of his person and the violation of his 1st Amendment protections by impeding his recording of the event as it unfolded. Its called evidence tampering for those LEOs and other cop apologists hanging out and lurking around here.”

        Name ONE case that hold that a person who is the subject of a lawful detention — and this detention was unquestionably lawful — has the right to hold an object in his hand that can be used as a weapon against the officers. Name ONE case that holds that the person BEING DETAINED can film his own detention.

        You can’t, because there isn’t one. Just like there is no provision of the Constitution that says you can. The First Amendment says NOTHING about filming the police, nor can such a right be found “lurking in the penumbra” of said Amendment.

        Maybe, just maybe, if you leftist jackasses would focus on ACTUAL DOCUMENTED RIGHTS instead of the ones that you make up out of whole cloth, you MIGHT find a bit more support from normal people.

        • LibertyforAll

          Thank you for highlighting your credibility with the “Jackass” statement because it exemplfies your level of stability. Just couldn’t resist could you?

          A simple reading of his Attorney’s filing discredits your assertions here. The officer gave up her claim to fear of the phone on several occasions and her picking his phone up and laying it face down on his car AFTER he was not holding it is a clear 1st Amendment violation. Since you obviously have not done your homework, let me educate you. The courts have on multiple occassions, ruled that it is a 1st Amendment right to film the police. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant LEOs and their apologists are in regard to actual, what did call them, “DOCUMENTED RIGHTS”?
          It will be a fun day when this pathetic suit gets thrown out on its ears. When will you apologists and LEOs realize this suit is going to make it worse for you, not better?

          • renegadesix

            My “assertions” were a challenge to you to cite ANY legal authority for the proposition that you can hold something in your hand that can be used as a weapon during a traffic stop. You side stepped the challenge, because you know you can’t meet it.

            I see you can be schooled because now instead of claiming the Supreme Court has upheld the right to film the police (a lie as they have never issued an opinion in such a case), you are now falling back on a more generalized statement that “courts” have upheld that right. However, in each of those cases in which circuit courts of appeals have upheld, on First Amendment grounds, the right to film the police, it was in the context of a BYSTANDER’s right, not the “right” of the person being detained. NO COURT HAS EVER UPHELD THE “RIGHT” OF A PERSON BEING DETAINED TO FILM THE POLICE.

            Cox was not a bystander, he was being detained. He had no right to film the police.

            And to use your “logic,” I called you a jackass because, like you believe all cops are liars, bullies, etc., I believe you are a jackass. And what makes me better than you is that I’m applying said term to a single person based upon that single person’s conduct. You ought to try that sometime, Mr. Hypocrite.

            1: : donkey; especially : a male donkey
            2: a stupid person : fool

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jackass

            So you don’t get confused, I’m referring to definition number 2.

      • ipinsao

        Your blog contents label how much of an idiot you are. I drive in Europe so many times. You whine about a traffic ticket in America and label cops revenue driven really?? Anyone who has driven in Europe will know that you don’t even need to have a traffic violation to pay just to drive through roads in Europe. The laws against using cell phones while driving have been in place in Europe for ages now yet Americans still whine about it. Obviously you have not even driven in Canada where undercover/unmarked patrol cars are common. You live in lala land you have no idea what civil rights is all about. I am so glad that cops have the right to search. It makes me feel safer especially with the number of deranged and unpredictable drivers in America. What you are is a pathetic ungrateful ignorant. My cousin from Australia just visited and you know what he enjoys in America? he can go faster than the posted speed limit and it still amazes him that Americans drive pass him even faster. Like I said you are ignorant.

  • Da Frogman

    You are a dick head, I hope you lose a ton of money and I hope you are harassed the rest of your life.

  • LibertyforAll

    According to posts here, your questioning anything a police officer says makes you an idiot, a peckerhead, a turd, a millennial, an ass, a spoiled little boy, a poor baby, a troll boy, a liberal scumbag, ill-mannered, crazy and a freak?

    And they say civil discourse is dead!

    • AZJeepGuy2014

      Acting like an idiot is; well, an idiot. If it walks like a duck-quacks like a duck-it’s a duck!

      • LibertyforAll

        Thank you for making my point AZ. Grow some and talk like an adult. It is no wonder people here think you are a teenager living in your momma’s basement. I am beginning to think they are right.

    • renegadesix

      Those words mean so much coming from a guy who writes:

      “Every sworn police officer is pretty much a liar, a cheat, a bully and most are sociopaths.”

      Here, let me add something else to your list of names good people call cop haters: “hypocrite.”

      • LibertyforAll

        I have addressed that in full detail in another post. However I will say that you too are following the “group” and probably think you’re so clever. Your attempting to discredit me using a one sentence statement (which I am willing to defend) instead of formulating and articulating a response is meaningless at its core but typical of shallow thinking. Epic fail.

        • renegadesix

          And I destroyed your response, in detail. You had no “point” here other than the people supporting the trooper called you cop-haters names. I concede said point. My post was only to call you out on your hypocrisy.

  • Myles Time

    Ill add my 2 cents.. speaking in the most general of terms if you act like an ass things do not generally go well for you. This applies to many situations

  • Dan C.

    I seldomly write into blogs like this because I feel it is pointless but I felt compelled. First off, the broad brush you are using to describe police is so far from reality its almost concerning. Are there bad police officers? Of course. But you would have everyone believe that every sworn peace officer is out to beat you, moleste your rights, and that there is some mass conspiracy. This just is not true. Yes, the 1/1000 cops that are bad and corrupt should be removed from their positions. But we shouldn’t remove the actual position itself!! Just as there are bad cops there are bad doctors, lawyers… Veterans. Aren’t you a veteran? So because CNN posted pictures of war veterans doing horrible things to Iraqi’s, this makes you bad? Because by your logic it makes all veterans terrible. Lets drop the shotgun justice attitude of blasting all cops because there are a handful of bad ones. Also, if you have issue with the laws you are ill-advised to be blaming the police. Police are members of the executive branch of government, responsible for enforcing laws. It is the legislature, your elected officials, that are responsible for making the laws the police enforce. You don’t like that front plate law? Take it up with the legislature. And finally, the place to debate is not on the side of the road with the police, it is in court. Speaking of courts… I am quite sure that several courts, like the one that awarded you $10,000, have ruled on the issue of exit orders from vehicles, furtive movements, failing to stop for police, etc. The trooper having you exit based on the circumstances is clearly warranted not because she said so, but because the courts say so. Her pat-frisk of you is also warranted based on case law. It seems reasonable that while pat-frisking someone you take what is in their hands… Like their cell phones. All and all your not part of the solution bro… Your part of the problem.

    • LibertyforAll

      The “broad brush” stroke being used to describe the police is actually very accurate Dan. Every sworn police officer is pretty much a liar, a cheat, a bully and most are sociopaths. I have seen it first hand. I have witnessed cops lying under oath and high fiving themselves after court. I have known them to beat prisoners in custody when witnesses were not around. Your one in a thousand figure is so far off the mark that trying to argue it would be fruitless. For every good honest cop there is… oh wait, honest people don’t stay on with the police so there aren’t any. Clearly the cop apologists don’t understand that enforcing the law does not allow for violating the civil rights of those whom the police interact. If cops were these saints like you apologists blindly portray then as there would be no need for a blog such as this.

      • renegadesix

        “Every sworn police officer is pretty much a liar, a cheat, a bully and most are sociopaths.”

        What was it you have hypocritically been saying about name-calling? What is it with you leftists and hypocrisy?

        • LibertyforAll

          Oh no, sorry you’re dead wrong on that account.. I am not even hypocritical. I have witnessed first hand cops lying therefore the title fits. Not to mention that I do not believe there is a cop alive that wouldn’t cover for a fellow officer by lying. Hell, look at the vile coming from you apologists. Just the Baltimore stand down alone proves the cheat label and I have witnessed and / or experienced being bullied by just about every cop I have ever encountered beyond merely seeing them. My supposed name calling was directed at a group of people who have clearly demonstrated the actions associated with the labels. The derogatory names to which I referred do not fit the target of their vitreal. Of course, calling someone a liar requires that the subject actually knows what he is saying to be incorrect factually. I believe the statement to be factual. Last three points… “Pretty much” qualifies the [e]very to correct your obvious personal jab at me specifically. As far as being a leftist, if you only knew but alas, you already have all the answers. Lastly, while you’re itching at the bit to attack me or somehow discredit me, you did what the apologists (and liberals) on this board resort to… Attack the writer, not the arguement. I take it you agree they are bullies and sociopaths but just the liar title upset you?

          • renegadesix

            Assuming, and this is a HUGE assumption, that the cops you have met did lie, you have not met EVERY cop, therefore your statement that “Every sworn police officer pretty much a liar . . .” is NOT supported by your evidence.

            “My supposed name calling was directed at a group of people who have clearly demonstrated the actions associated with the labels.”

            And that’s where you lose by your own admission. It was directed at the GROUP not at the individuals you have allegedly encountered. I know a lot of cops and none of them are liars or cheats. None of them work in Baltimore…thank God (can’t imagine why anyone would want to be a cop in that city of ingrates).

            “Of course, calling someone a liar requires that the subject actually knows what he is saying to be incorrect factually. I believe the statement to be factual.”

            Until you meet EVERY SWORN POLICE OFFICER you cannot rationally believe that statement. You’re a liar.

            “I take it you agree they are bullies and sociopaths but just the liar title upset you?”

            I suggest you learn to read because my quote, and subsequent destruction of your argument, included every lie you told about them.

      • Dan C.

        Regardless of our difference of opinion regarding the sheer number of police officers who may be viewed as corrupt, their service is needed and is commendable. Despite your arguments i seriously doubt you will not be calling 911 if two men are trying to break into your house tonight.

  • LibertyforAll

    I wanted this on its own thread. God I hope there is nobody else on this blog that condones this type of posting. This goes beyond civil discourse.

    “Great! Don’t call them. It would be delicious poetic justice were one of your fellow “rights protectors” to take you out while exercising their “right” to your household goods. I look forward to reading your obituary.” -renegadesix

    I can’t get past this one. Your name calling is one thing but wow. I am going to assume you got caught up in your emotions and didn’t mean this the way it sounds. I will give you a chance to retract and apologize. You are suggesting it would be good for me to get murdered. WOW!
    Otherwise I will refrain from any dialogue with you. You are a very danderous, scary individual. I surprised none of the apologists called you on this. Holy crap!

    • renegadesix

      Well then, let me return the spam:

      LOL. You’re a coward. I’m nailing you on the issues directly and so you take pretend umbrage at this. You, who have no compunction about calling people you don’t even know liars, bullies, cheats, and sociopaths, cry like the coward you are when someone returns so much as a tenth of the vitriol you have unjustifiably unleashed on cops back to you.

      For the record, liar, I didn’t say it would be “good” for you to be murdered. I said it would be “delicious poetic justice.”

      Go. Run, you gutless coward. You’ll get no apology from me.

    • renegadesix

      And don’t forget your first response…before you realized you could use this as an excuse to run like the cur you are …

      LibertyforAll

      Spoken like a real honest law abiding citizen. So in your mind “rights protectors” are the ones who would take me out and “rights protectors” are on the opposite side of why the police exist. Wow, seriously. Did you just advocate the celebration of my being murdered?

      ——————————————————-

      renegadesix

      Just using your definition of the phrase as evidence by your support of Mr. Cox. I would call them “criminals”, but you have already demonstrated that you believe the meanings of words are fluid, so I just assigned a term I figured you would understand and approve of.

      And no, I would not lose any sleep reading your obituary. Much like I laughed my ass off at the animal rights protesters a few years ago who were killed letting lions out of their cages at a zoo, so too would I laugh if one of you cop-hating criminal coddlers were killed by one of the scumbags you seek to protect.

    • renegadesix

      And, of course, the guy who is crying for “civil discourse” would be the same guy who wrote:

      ——————————

      LibertyforAll:

      The “broad brush” stroke being used to describe the police is actually very accurate Dan. Every sworn police officer is pretty much a liar, a cheat, a bully and most are sociopaths.

      ——————————-

      Cry me some more crocodile tears, Mr. Hypocrite.

    • renegadesix

      One last post on this, since we are going to make it a thread unto itself, let’s start with Mr. Hypocrite’s initial post which drew the quoted response from me:

      ————————

      The last thing I would want is a cop when someone is breaking into my home. The shame of it is, a cop does not bring with them any real safety. Their primary focus is on damaging the lives of the people they view as sheep. Don’t be fooled by this false sense of security. They want you to believe they are keeping you safe all the while watching you, looking for anything they can use to mess up your life. I will protect my house far better than a cop ever would.

      ————————-

      Get that? Mr. “Civil Discourse” alleges that the “primary focus” of cops is to damage the lives of people they view as sheep. Of course he has no evidence to support his claims other than a relative handful of incidents in the context of literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of police/citizen encounters.

      To our resident Hypocrite in Chief it is “civil discourse” to level unsupported and unsupportable accusations on nearly a MILLION of his fellow citizens who put their lives on the line every day for each of us. It is not “civil discourse” in his warped view when someone treats him the same way he treats cops.

      He cries because I said I’d look forward to his obit after he makes a stupid decision not to call the police when someone breaks into his home, but wrote that he was “happy” to see RIOTING:

      “Oh, and by the way Bill, we had riots because the black community is getting sick and tired of being bullied and abused at the hands of your beloved police. They have had enough and I for one am happy to see them standing up for their rights.”

      That, ladies and gents, is textbook hypocrisy.

    • LibertyforAll

      I came back to see if renegadesix had come to his senses but apparently not. All of you LEOs and apologists out there realize that this individual represents you on this forum? He speaks for your side and supports the murder of people with whom he disagrees. While I clearly have a differing viewpoint from law enforcement, I WOULD NEVER celebrate the death of any one of you nor condone any violence against any law enforcement official.

      • renegadesix

        “I WOULD NEVER celebrate the death of any one of you nor condone any violence against any law enforcement official.”

        Written by the same guy who wrote:

        “Oh, and by the way Bill, we had riots because the black community is getting sick and tired of being bullied and abused at the hands of your beloved police. They have had enough and

        I for one am happy to see them standing up for their rights.”

        ****************************************************************************

        Not only does he condone violence against the police in the riots that have occurred, he is HAPPY about it.

        Hypocrite, liar, and a cop-hater, three terrible things that seem to go hand in hand.

  • Phil Greek

    I cannot believe how many people are so down on the police. Who is it they call when they get robbed, burglarized, molested, kidnapped, or raped, etc? Some idiot liberal spouting off at the mouth to gain attention to him/herself? Nope, they snivel to the press or city counsel there aren’t enough police to protect the citizenry. Yes, there are some coppers out there that shouldn’t be, just like Doctors, nurses, attorneys, judges etc. You can’t condemn all for the actions of one. Wake up people.

  • I watched the first 7 minutes of the video and the officer was doing what a cop does. He was just being a jackass.
    But I do think 1.3 mil is a bit much.

  • Pingback: POLICE VS WATCHDOG Trooper hits blogger with $1.3M suit over traffic stop – News-9.com – The best Source of Latest Worldwide News()

  • alrightythen2

    Counter sue the Officer who has not upheld her oath to the constitution, protected your rights, and hopefully, since she seems to have operated out of the scope of her position, will be sued personally for everything she has… As Doug G. stated… but this time in reference to the officer, “I hope you take her home, her cars, and she has to sell everything she owns.”

  • buck

    U are a embarrassment to all veterans. Get a life u attention craved douche bag.

  • lovemycountry

    I too hope she wins. She was harassed treated dis respectfully just for doing her job. He had obvious infractions, holding an object in his hands, and no cooperation. His behavior was threatening. He shames the military. No one of integrity would behave in such a fashion.

  • xmob20001

    I would have given you one five second command,drop the devices in your hand on the ground then tased you lazy ASS for not listening !! Hope she gets every dime buddy.Do you have any idea the risk officers take every time someone is pulled over.

  • Yes, really.

    This guy is a dick pure and simple. Seeing more and more like him over the past decade. They failed at whatever endeavor they tried at so they become bloggers to vent on how the system is unfair. Eventually he’ll step way over the line siting his rights and will lose terribly.

  • Melissa

    I hope she wins . She did what was right . Now that no good for nothing is ruining her name and reputation . Then she can get on with her life and I hope the judge makes him apologize In public with his rights . He’s a money hungry prick

  • Pingback: POLICE VS WATCHDOG Trooper hits blogger with $1.3M suit over traffic stop | Equality 4 ever()

  • Pingback: POLICE VS WATCHDOG Trooper hits blogger with $1.3M suit over traffic stop - State of Kerala()

  • Greg

    Make that 1.35 Million! Go Trooper…. Send him to the slums he deserves to be in!

    • Greg

      AAWAC Another Asshole With A Camera

  • John E. Wagstaff

    Good luck i hope you can win! The deck is stacked against us!

  • Ronald Blackburn

    Well I know I should not even start, but my mind controls my fingers. When you are stopped any where Do not confront a police officer on the side of the road, be nice deal with it in court if you think the officer has done something wrong to you. I will also say Virginia make their own rules just because it is not illegal in your home state, and can be a simple is having your radar detector on in their state, this was me, I feel that it was illegal search and seizure , because the officer went into my car and took it from me, Virginia, I would think that was illegal, but it happed. I took my ticket and went on my way. My point there is always going to be a cop out there that will take your money, and private property, you can’t win on the side of the road, just give it to them you have no one but you and their help is just a radio call away, you want win. Please don’t fuss with them the older I get , the more I believe it is better to have no contact with a cop if you can help it. That being said not all cops are bad but my experience has been very bad, I rather pay my fine and give up my radar detector than get locked up or shot for a hundred dollars it is not worth it.

  • goodbygal

    In the state of Florida if you pet a dolphin, you are molesting it and will be fined and arrested – any time I am touched unwillingly it should also count as molestation, right.

  • edrebber

    Another whining sniveling trooper got their feelings hurt. Anything turn law abiding citizens into criminals and to avoid confronting real criminals. Cowardice, McKeneny is thy name.