@Cops&Cons Legal Expert Breaks Down Recent Cases

Dan our legal expert talks about about our recent video uploads and recent police cases around the country.

The featured content is NOT intended to be violent nor glorify violence in any way. We are sharing this footage STRICTLY for the purposes of news reporting and education.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53_xlUqWr24 ** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **

Author: phillynews215


21 thoughts on “@Cops&Cons Legal Expert Breaks Down Recent Cases

  1. "The place to dispute an unlawful arrest is in the court" is a very bland sentence in a justice system you can only access with money. Poverty is the main reason why people can't fight for their rights.

  2. FTP! Ulvalde showed us police "protection" of citizens. Back the blue until it happens to you. Bootlickers & cops are matches made in hell.

  3. It figures you wouldn't take an actual stand on the San Antonio shooting. After the door lightly "bumped" the officer he was no longer in ANY danger from the vehicle yet he shot anyway. You ignored that inconvenient fact. You claim the officer was in no danger after the first five shots when the vehicle was moving away from him. That's false. He was in no danger after the bump of the door. After the door bumped him he was no longer in the path of travel and in no danger of getting hit by the vehicle, the vehicle was, after all, moving away from him. Then you mention the policy that if a vehicle is moving towards you you have to move out of the way first. That's option #1 before you start shooting. You fail to mention that after the minor bump by the door, even if the vehicle changed direction and started moving towards the officer, the officer had ample time and space to move out of the way.

    You ignore the atrocious decision making on the part of the officer when approaching the car. He doesn't know if the driver is the person who fled, it only looks like the car that fled. If you think this car is one that's fled from you in the past it 100% reasonable to think it might do so again. Why not get in your patrol car and pull up behind the suspect vehicle boxing it in then turn on the reds and blues and approach the driver? There were no exigent circumstances that required immediate action so the officer had time to think of a low risk way to conduct this contact. However, with use of force and escalation training officers don't think about how to achieve their lawful purpose with the least risk to themselves, the suspects, and the public in general. Nope, they think escalate. You ignore the fact that with only RAS to contact the drive the officer was stupid enough to open the car door. What right does the officer have to open the door of the vehicle? And you completely ignore the fact that the officer failed to initiate a lawful stop from the get go!

    Then you tell the joke about police investigating themselves. Yes, those investigations take months, and months, and months. Given how fast they fired this officer it seems they're capable of doing these investigations much faster then what they normally do. I can only assume they prolong these investigations for so long so that the story is out of the news cycle and the collective memory of the public has forgotten the situation which make it that much easier to sweep under the rug.

    Not directly related but it speaks to the poor training or leadership failure of the SAPD, the SAPD gunned down another person just the other day. An officer stopped someone under the guise of "I simply want to talk to you." This was because he "matched the description" of a burglary suspect, hispanic male. They did not initiate a traffic stop or any form of lawful detention and when the guy turned to walk away from the consensual contact the officers went hands on. While going hands on in this consensual contact an officer said, "Give me your ID or you're going in cuffs." The Texas ID law is very clear you only have to ID if you've been lawfully arrested. You don't have to ID if you've been detained or during a consensual contact. I'll dive deeper on the poor decision making of the SAPD in a moment. I place a lot of blame on the guy the SAPD stopped for what happened next. When the officer went hands on and attacked the guy he foolishly said that he had a gun and was going to shoot the officer and he moved his hands towards his waistband. Bad move. That caused the attacking officer to pull his weapon and shoot and kill the person they made contact with, who, by the way, did not have a gun. Now to the poor training and leadership failure. Do you see a pattern? SAPD failed to initiate a lawful detention and instead opted for a consensual contact and then immediately escalated to violence! (Reminds me of McDonald's.) These foolish cops could have easily initiated a lawful detention, a traffic stop, and gotten the guy's ID that way. They could have ran him for warrants, written a warning, and talked to him about the burglaries in the area. Instead they went the the consensual contact route and got violent demanding an ID the victim wasn't lawfully required to give. Once again, extremely poor decision making on the part of the officers results in another dead citizen. A pattern, if you will, of citizens paying the price, sometimes with their lives, for the terrible decision making of the SAPD. This latest shooting won't receive the same public outcry as the McDonald's shooting so the officers won't be held accountable, but their terrible decision making created the situation where another citizen ends up dead at the hands of the police.

  4. You said the officers are to support protecting the public. Is the Police at more risk to the public chasing a drunk man at high speed where the perps' car plus many police cars going at high speeds or is it safer that they back off and the man slows down to a safer speed and not driving in a crazy manor and police cars are not involved in a potential accident? If he had a gun or the police thought he had a gun that he is pointing at people or police then that changes things. The police did good on this one. The FBI said no one died in Sandy Hook that day. A woman that die that day in Sandy Hook died again in the Boston smoke bomb thing then she did an interview on TV at the Columbine school incident. Satin must keep bringing her back to die again.

  5. Darrell Brooks was playing as a Sovereign Citizen. He is very aware of what he has done and what he's doing now.

  6. @Cops&Cons The live chat is gone. Would you please put the links in the description page or pin them as the top comment?

  7. Bernalillo county compare it to Breaking Bad 😡 How about comparing it to Stranger Things it was also filmed here. Those in Bernalillo are grateful there is a prominent film industry. It is honestly second to LA aka Hollywood. Comparing Bernalillo county to breaking bad is not the true depiction on what goes on here. If that's what you think you are sadly misinformed.

  8. So sorry I missed the live but hello from Texas! Slow down Sweetie. Breathe! 😉 In Texas we talk & hear slower. 😁

  9. How about the cops get trained for as long as it took me to get my frigging barber license!!! 6 months is just plain stupid! Took me a year plus State practical and written Exam. Bet no cop would want to get a first haircut with me if they knew my training was 6 months of "defensive" haircuts and a smattering of State sanitation laws. Insanity.

  10. Frankly you can assume what he was thinking or knowing as you said "he knew it was an officer" I believe he was scared and didn't have time to process what was going on and ran. There is cases that creepers dress as a police. The officer imo will just move to another state and get a gun back and do this again. Wish a vid would pop up about all this officer background

Comments are closed.