COPS GET SETUP BY BAIT CAR USED TO CATCH DIRTY COPS IN THE ACT COPS DONT LIE
No comments have been found at this time
Details
Feb 9, 2025 at 5:51 PM
Posted by
elboriyorker
#baitcar #setup #dirtycops
THE FOLLOW UP VIDEO
https://youtu.be/78QAXDOxsG0
COPS getting caught in lies by Chuck Bronson And one of his bait cars
A BAIT CAR IS A CAR THAT DRIVES AROUND OBEYING ALL FEDERAL LAWS, STATE CODES AND CITY ORDINANCES TYPICALLY THROUGH NORMAL USES AS A FAMILY CAR AND IN TODAYS DAY AND AGE ITS VERY EASY TO BECOME BAIT TO POLICE BY DOING THIS, SO THE BAIT CARS ARE READY WHEN THIS HAPPENS THEY STOCKED WITH MULTIPLE CAMERAS AND ALL TYPES OF EQUIPMENT TO DOCUMENT ALL INTERACTIONS IN EVERYDAY LIFE BUT REALLY COME IN HANDY WHEN A COP TAKES THE BAIT OF YOU BEING A PERFECT DRIVER AND OBEYING, BUT STILL PULLS YOU OVER UNLAWFULLY AND OR MAKES UP LIES AGAINST YOU, THE BAIT CAR IS READY TO DOCUMENT EVERYTHING UNFORTUNATELY WE MUST BE PREPARED BECAUSE THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR HAPPENS EVERYDAY ALL ACROSS THE WORLD.
THANKYOU ALL FOR WATCHING PLEASE FEEL FREE TO INQUIRE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
CHUCK SPEEDING TICKET
PRODUCTS I RECOMMEND "As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases"
BEST DASH CAM https://amzn.to/3lhABSw
BEST BODY CAM https://amzn.to/3lhHALc
BEST POLICE SCANNER https://amzn.to/3MyscGn
BEST COCK COLLECTION https://amzn.to/3lsvRK3
BIG BLUE COCK https://amzn.to/3wxMZUP
BEST FLASH LIGHT https://amzn.to/3yLmVqW
BEST BATTERY BLOCK https://amzn.to/3MG9ZXq
BEST CAMCORDER https://amzn.to/3G9OpYJ
BEST MIC https://amzn.to/385ISG7
BEST RADAR DETECTOR https://amzn.to/39F8ABO
EXERCISING FREE SPEECH
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/451/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/451/
Houston v. Hill - 482 U.S. 451, 107 S. Ct. 2502 (1987)
RULE:
The First Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I, protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. Speech is often provocative and challenging, but it is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.
FACTS:
Raymond Hill, a gay rights activist who had been arrested on previous occasions for violating a city ordinance which made it unlawful to "assault, strike, or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt" police officers in the execution of their duty, but who had never been convicted, was again arrested under the ordinance when, after officers had approached a friend of his, he attempted to divert their attention by shouting at them to pick on someone their own size. After he was acquitted on those charges by a municipal court, the activist brought an action against the city in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in which action he sought (1) a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him, (2) an injunction against its enforcement, (3) an order expunging the records of his arrests under the ordinance, and (4) damages and attorneys' fees. The District Court held that the ordinance was not an overly broad intrusion on speech protected under the First Amendment and entered judgment in favor of the city. However, the District Court's judgment was reversed and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally overbroad. The panel's decision was adhered to by the Court of Appeals en banc, in a decision which (1) noted evidence that the ordinance had been regarded by local authorities as penalizing the mere interruption of an officer acting in the line of duty, and (2) concluded that there was a substantial danger that the ordinance would be applied against constitutionally protected speech (789 F2d 1103).
ISSUE:
Is an ordinance that criminalizes constitutionally protected speech and vests excessive enforcement discretion with law enforcement officers unconstitutionally overbroad?
ANSWER:
Yes.
CONCLUSION:
The court disagreed with the City's characterization of the statute as criminal. It noted that the enforceable portion of the ordinance dealt not with core criminal conduct, but with speech. Additionally, the court noted that the First Amendment protected a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. The Houston ordinance criminalized a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech and accorded the police unconstitutional discretion in enforcement. The court concluded that the ordinance was substantially overbroad, and that the lower court did not err in holding it facially invalid. With respect to abstention, the court noted that the municipal courts had construed the ordinance. The court also noted that since the question was whether the ordinance on its face was unconstitutional, abstention from federal jurisdiction was not required.
THE FOLLOW UP VIDEO
https://youtu.be/78QAXDOxsG0
COPS getting caught in lies by Chuck Bronson And one of his bait cars
A BAIT CAR IS A CAR THAT DRIVES AROUND OBEYING ALL FEDERAL LAWS, STATE CODES AND CITY ORDINANCES TYPICALLY THROUGH NORMAL USES AS A FAMILY CAR AND IN TODAYS DAY AND AGE ITS VERY EASY TO BECOME BAIT TO POLICE BY DOING THIS, SO THE BAIT CARS ARE READY WHEN THIS HAPPENS THEY STOCKED WITH MULTIPLE CAMERAS AND ALL TYPES OF EQUIPMENT TO DOCUMENT ALL INTERACTIONS IN EVERYDAY LIFE BUT REALLY COME IN HANDY WHEN A COP TAKES THE BAIT OF YOU BEING A PERFECT DRIVER AND OBEYING, BUT STILL PULLS YOU OVER UNLAWFULLY AND OR MAKES UP LIES AGAINST YOU, THE BAIT CAR IS READY TO DOCUMENT EVERYTHING UNFORTUNATELY WE MUST BE PREPARED BECAUSE THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR HAPPENS EVERYDAY ALL ACROSS THE WORLD.
THANKYOU ALL FOR WATCHING PLEASE FEEL FREE TO INQUIRE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
CHUCK SPEEDING TICKET
PRODUCTS I RECOMMEND "As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases"
BEST DASH CAM https://amzn.to/3lhABSw
BEST BODY CAM https://amzn.to/3lhHALc
BEST POLICE SCANNER https://amzn.to/3MyscGn
BEST COCK COLLECTION https://amzn.to/3lsvRK3
BIG BLUE COCK https://amzn.to/3wxMZUP
BEST FLASH LIGHT https://amzn.to/3yLmVqW
BEST BATTERY BLOCK https://amzn.to/3MG9ZXq
BEST CAMCORDER https://amzn.to/3G9OpYJ
BEST MIC https://amzn.to/385ISG7
BEST RADAR DETECTOR https://amzn.to/39F8ABO
EXERCISING FREE SPEECH
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/451/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/451/
Houston v. Hill - 482 U.S. 451, 107 S. Ct. 2502 (1987)
RULE:
The First Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I, protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. Speech is often provocative and challenging, but it is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.
FACTS:
Raymond Hill, a gay rights activist who had been arrested on previous occasions for violating a city ordinance which made it unlawful to "assault, strike, or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt" police officers in the execution of their duty, but who had never been convicted, was again arrested under the ordinance when, after officers had approached a friend of his, he attempted to divert their attention by shouting at them to pick on someone their own size. After he was acquitted on those charges by a municipal court, the activist brought an action against the city in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in which action he sought (1) a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him, (2) an injunction against its enforcement, (3) an order expunging the records of his arrests under the ordinance, and (4) damages and attorneys' fees. The District Court held that the ordinance was not an overly broad intrusion on speech protected under the First Amendment and entered judgment in favor of the city. However, the District Court's judgment was reversed and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutionally overbroad. The panel's decision was adhered to by the Court of Appeals en banc, in a decision which (1) noted evidence that the ordinance had been regarded by local authorities as penalizing the mere interruption of an officer acting in the line of duty, and (2) concluded that there was a substantial danger that the ordinance would be applied against constitutionally protected speech (789 F2d 1103).
ISSUE:
Is an ordinance that criminalizes constitutionally protected speech and vests excessive enforcement discretion with law enforcement officers unconstitutionally overbroad?
ANSWER:
Yes.
CONCLUSION:
The court disagreed with the City's characterization of the statute as criminal. It noted that the enforceable portion of the ordinance dealt not with core criminal conduct, but with speech. Additionally, the court noted that the First Amendment protected a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. The Houston ordinance criminalized a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech and accorded the police unconstitutional discretion in enforcement. The court concluded that the ordinance was substantially overbroad, and that the lower court did not err in holding it facially invalid. With respect to abstention, the court noted that the municipal courts had construed the ordinance. The court also noted that since the question was whether the ordinance on its face was unconstitutional, abstention from federal jurisdiction was not required.
0
0
3