Police in Miami have released bodycam footage of the stop of Miami Dolphins wide receiver, Tyreek Hill, who was pulled over for speeding on Sunday. He was very quickly pulled out of his car and handcuffed, face down on the asphalt. After about 20 minutes, he was released with citations for careless driving and not wearing a seatbelt. The incident has ignited debate regarding the constitutional limitations placed on police officers under the circumstances. Were his rights violated?
In Riverside, California, a police officer shows up at a woman’s home after a neighbor made a noise complaint. Initially a juvenile inside the home opened the door, and then quickly closed it after seeing the officer. The officer then begins to barge in. But he’s confronted by the mom, who demands that he leave. Instead, the officer defies the Fourth Amendment, enters the home and arrests the mom, all without a warrant.
Teton County Sheriff’s Deputy Ashley Hayes detained a woman and her boyfriend because they “were at a gas station an abnormal amount of time.” They were ultimately held for over 90 minutes, while a drug dog was brought to the scene, unsuccessfully searching them for drugs. The boyfriend was arrested for refusing to sit on a curb during the detention, despite the fact that no crime had even been alleged to have occurred. The video went viral locally, with many residents calling for the termination of the deputy. The sheriff acknowledged the existence of the video, but has refused to comment on the situation due to the pending (bogus) charges against the boyfriend. So basically, a couple went to the gas station, and then got harassed by some cops for no actual justified reason.
This footage was circulating on X/Twitter, showing police in Longview, Texas arresting this guy just inside the front door of his home. The incident began as a traffic stop for speeding 10 mph over. The stop took place in the driveway of the home. The driver proceeds to be extremely aggressive towards the obviously-rookie officer. After a backup officer arrived, the young officer issues the citation for speeding. Then the man goes to walk inside the house, but the backup officer follows him and an arrest was made.
So it looks like there was an outstanding warrant from 2014 for “ISSUING CERTIFICATE TO VEHICLE MISSING OR WITH NON-COMPLIANT INSPECTION ITEM” that was “executed” on the same date as the body cam recording. According to Gregg County, Texas court records, Trenton Futrell “did not show up” to the May 9, 2024 docket call / court date for that citation, resulting in a $273.00 fine (if I’m reading this correctly).
Then, after the court date on the warrant that Trenton was arrested for on April 18, 2024 (the bodycam incident), they charged him by complaint/information on May 16, 2024 with “RESIST ARREST SEARCH OR TRANSPORT” – presumably for what had occurred during the April 18 incident (though I don’t know for sure without reviewing the charging document). It appears that charge is still pending.
Here’s the text of the Texas statute he’s accused of violating:
Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.
Remember the video I did on the Broken Arrow Police Department, where the officer really hated this guy Richard, and schemed over a way to take Richard to jail, even though he was safely inside his own home? Well here’s an update, and it involves numerous police officers who no longer have a job.
Do you remember the video I did in June of last year showing the Phoenix Police Department arresting (Kenneth) Ronald McDonald in retaliation for calling one of them a “dumbass?” Not only did McDonald single-handedly beat the corrupt City of Phoenix cops and prosecutors, representing himself pro se and winning his criminal case, but he made it into the HUGE DOJ investigation report released a few months ago. Whatever happened to the two cops from the video?
In Alaska, the Anchorage Police Department shot and killed Kristopher Handy, following several 911 calls by a neighbor alleging a domestic disturbance and that Handy had a gun and was waiting for law enforcement to arrive. By the time they arrived, Handy, who had gone back inside the apartment, emerged from the apartment holding a shotgun in one hand. Officers opened fire, killing him. At their initial press conference, the APD said that Handy “raised the longarm towards the officers” prior to deadly force being used. But then neighbors produced surveillance footage showing that Handy did not actually make any movement towards raising the shotgun prior to being shot.
Here’s the raw footage showing the moment he was shot – a view not captured on the officers’ body cams, at least one of which was covered:
A little over a year ago I put up a video about the Loveland Police Department officer who was captured on bodycam punching a handcuffed woman, resulting in his being fired just three days later. Well, here’s the update. The officer was prosecuted, and the case went to jury trial a few days ago. Was justice served?
My last two videos are both updates on a video I made back in February, where an employee of a firearms-related company in Virginia Beach, owned and operated by former Navy SEALs, was arrested for allegedly stealing a missing AR-15 lower. Only 10 minutes after the arrest, while James was being interrogated, the missing lower reappeared somehow. My first update video discussed the fact that the former SEALs want my first video removed. Here’s that video:
You can watch the original video here. Yesterday I posted yet another update video about the fact that the Virginia Beach Police Department is apparently attempting to coverup this incident:
After the first update video, several of you served FOIA requests on the VBPD for the police report from this incident. Some of you received outright denials. At least one of you received a basic report with basically no substance:
But one of you actually did manage to obtain the report, after threatening to sue the VBPD over their denial to provide the report. But unfortunately, this is what they provided:
This is their explanation as to why they redacted basically the entire report:
This is the law they’re relying on to hide the substance of the report, which clearly documents their own misconduct. Here’s a great explanation as to how this is possible, from the guy who obtained the report:
For a short time after the passage of HB2004 in 2021, records of closed police investigations in Virginia were opened to public scrutiny. With the changes from that bill, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act made disclosure of criminal investigative files mandatory when the investigation was “not ongoing.” After the law took effect, the family of Kionte Spencer was able to obtain video of his fatal shooting at the hands of Roanoke County police officers—video that the department had refused to show his family since his death in February 2016.
That newfound transparency dimmed less than a year later, with the passage of HB734. In a swift reversal, legislators amended the law to give police departments and other law enforcement agencies complete discretion to decide whether or not to release records of closed investigations. Legislators who voted for the bill evidently believed the change was necessary to protect victims and their families from the release of sensitive photos of their loved ones. “We do want to protect victims as much as we can. We don’t want those pictures out on the internet,” Sen. Richard Stuart said during a committee hearing on the bill. In fact, the 2021 law already prohibited release of such photographs.
Unsurprisingly, what’s happened is that the Virginia legislature has created a mechanism whereby police agencies can hide their own misconduct from the public under the guise of protecting sensitive crime-victim information.
While the statute appears to have all sorts of exceptions and varying applications, the key word is “non-mandatory,” which renders most of it meaningless. It puts disclosure entirely within the discretion of the police agency. If they want to produce it, they produce it. If they don’t, they don’t. So if it makes you look bad, they’ll produce it. If it makes them look bad, they won’t. This is unacceptable.
There is no public interest in allowing the government to coverup its own misconduct. Thus they either tricked the public with this legislation, or the law enforcement lobby tricked the legislature. Either way, it’s outrageous.
Also, here’s the 2nd Circuit opinion that was released yesterday that I discussed in yesterday’s video regarding de facto arrests:
Here’s my complete breakdown of the important parts of the Sonya Massey shooting, utilizing indisputable screenshots from the bodycam footage of both deputies. There’s been a lot of confusion, as well as misinformation about both the facts and the law surrounding this incident. We can have differing opinions as to conclusions, but nobody is entitled to make up facts. These are all provable facts. Comparing these facts to Illinois self defense law, former-deputy Grayson faces an uphill challenge in his murder case.
Self defense in Illinois can be asserted as an affirmative defense by someone who uses force against a police officer under certain circumstances:
“A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.” Id. § 7-7.
The Illinois standard for police use of force:
The peace officer’s use of force when making an arrest is governed by section 7-5, which provides, among other things:
“[A peace officer] is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.” Id. § 7-5(a)….
“The decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time of the decision, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.” Id. § 7-5(f)….
If the officer’s use of force is not justified under section 7-5, then it is considered excessive, and section 7-7 no longer applies to the arrest. People v. Bailey, 108 Ill.App.3d 392, 398 (1982).
After the officer uses excessive, unlawful force-but not before (see People v. Haynes, 408 Ill.App.3d 684, 691 (2011))-the arrestee’s own use of force is instead governed by section 7-1(a), the general self-defense statute, which states, “[a] person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.” 720 ILCS 5/7-1(a) (West 2022). Section 7-1 is limited in turn by section 7-4, which provides that a person’s use of force is generally not justified if he is the aggressor, except in certain specific circumstances. Id. § 7-4.
Therefore, the use of excessive force by a police officer in Illinois invokes the arrestee’s right of self defense, just like any other situation where someone is using unlawful force. A jury assessing this would consider the following factors:
“In order to instruct the jury on self- defense, the defendant must establish some evidence of each of the following elements: (1) force is threatened against a person; (2) the person threatened is not the aggressor; (3) the danger of harm was imminent; (4) the threatened force was unlawful; (5) he actually and subjectively believed a danger existed which required the use of the force applied; and (6) his beliefs were objectively reasonable.” People v. Jeffries, 164 Ill.2d 104, 127-28 (1995).
Here’s the general Illinois self defense law that applies when police officers use excessive force and lose the protections of Illinois law authorizing police use of force:
“A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.” 720 ILCS 5/7-1 (West 2002).
But, self defense is not available as an affirmative defense to an assailant who:
(c) [I]nitially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.” 720 ILCS 5/7-4(c) (West 2002).
Here, former-deputy Grayson is forced to assert the Illinois general self defense statute, which prohibits him from doing so, if he was the initial aggressor. Or, I suppose he could contest the application of the police use of force statute by arguing that he did not use excessive force. Either way, he faces some difficult legal hurdles.
