This Cop Doesn’t Understand Basic Civilian Rights

29 thoughts on “This Cop Doesn’t Understand Basic Civilian Rights”

1. Get Surfshark VPN at https://surfshark.deals/audit – Enter promo code AUDIT for 83% off and 3 extra months for free!

2. Just like a good deal of people in the comments the 1st officer is dumb as hell, the 2nd one is smarter but not by much. Using the first officers logic any store can have a sign pointing to a parking lot they don't own saying customers can park there and they ( the cops ) can't do anything about it, so it would be interesting to see how he would respond if a store opened across the street from his station and had a sign pointing to the stations parking lot say that it's the stores overflow parking. When it comes to him trying to get the sign down he tried talking to them but they didn't want to spend the money to get it removed, it is possible that he hasn't taken to court about it cause he could be lazy but it could also be that he thinks it would be a waste of time cause of them having way more money to burn on lawyers then he can. Also unless it was cut out that she had shown her ID then it is suspicious that she decided to leave after being asked for it.
   I advise the idiots in the comments that for future ATA videos they watch that they fully pay attention to the video so they can avoid making fools of themselves by getting the facts wrong. There are too many people who think the sign is on his property when it isn't and that they have a contract with him when they don't, among other simple things people got wrong that they wouldn't have if they really listened.

3. A storm in a tea cup.

4. From a law perspective I guess a C can be justified, but for the laymen i think he deserves an A.

   It is very refreshing to see an officer being able to think, investigate and resolve the situation, trying to find common ground, and not instantly take action because he 'got a call.'

   He got the woman to leave and made suggestions about how to prevent a similar situation from happening again.

   That said, of course the property owner did nothing wrong. But i hope the sign gets removed.

5. I disagree. That is a civil matter. The officer can't trespass someone if it is not clear who owns the property. He would leave himself or the city open to a lawsuit.

6. So according to that cop I can make a sign that says "*my address* additional parking" with an arrow pointing to my neighbors driveway and park in it for it would be "my civil right." What a joke.

7. The owner was a dick and has no right to try and tell the officer what he is going to do. I’m sure if approached the situation with a better attitude the outcome would have been different.

8. I don't understand 😕 He should petition for the sign to be removed or order more signs stating "do not park private property. "

9. He doesn’t want the sign gone. That man likes confrontation. The officer was correct in not believing his word over the sign. He should get an A. The “property owner”should get the sign removed. He should get a D.

10. I would love to see this property owner walking around Gwinnett, I have a few words to tell him.

11. That clown does not deserve an A+ and the officer deserves at least a B.

12. He says have common sense but doesn't understand common sense in property law

13. I don't agree with you. Panera is the tenant and unless there's something in the lease that says the landlord can trespass their customers, Panera has the exclusive use of that lot until another agreement is reached. This guy just didn't want to pay for a lawyer or negotiate with a corporate tenant with their own lawyers. Instead, he's making the taxpayers pay for probably violating his lease agreement by harassing customers and negatively affecting his tenant's business. If you have a visitor at your home, the landlord can't come and just kick out your brother for spending an afternoon at your house unless he's actually engaged in illegal activity.

14. Well you know what they say, “don’t let one good apple prevent you from throwing out a rotten barrel.”

15. wow regardless of managers right to ask the truck to leave wouldn't it make more sense to just remove the sign and wait for the truck to leave. Why on earth would you go around making enemies out of potential customers in the city where you are trying to do business? It's not even like the parking lot was even close to being full.

16. Tell the property owner to exercise some common decency the sign told the woman she could park there .A lot of room was in that car park .The creep of an owner was lazy not to put up a new sign and maintain it . He was totally wrong but legally allowed to harass an innocent woman.What a creep he was and still is.

17. This channel usually uploads great content. This, not so much. These officers did exactly what they should've done given the circumstances. Should these officers have trespassed this lady just because some entitled little man wanted to impose his questionable authority? I'm convinced "Mr. Frank" paid this channel to make this video. These people are very self entitled and think they own everything. Audit the audit gets an F on this video.

18. I like that the officer didn’t turn around and jump out and scream and yell the woman there was no damage done to the property the only damage done was the sake of the property owner of the property is misrepresented with Sainz designs should be corrected before anyone has ever called for a trespass again

19. Hmm, Seems like this channel is Agitated the Jew didn’t get his way. Great Job Officers

20. Sorry, but every element about this is a civil issue between the two businesses and the public is just getting caught in the crossfire. I actually have to agree with the police office on this one, the two businesses need to get their civil issue fixed and ACTUALLY get the signing removed. Anyone random person can walk up and say they own a property and ask someone to leave. I, nor anyone reasonable person would believe a random person coming up to me saying they're the property owner. Maybe I missed it, but all I heard was the guy saying he owned the property but never did anything to prove it OR show proof that there was an existing civil case between the two businesses. If he was in fact the owner, it is his burden of proof to prove he was to establish if he even had a legal standing to demand someone to leave before the officer should even consider trespassing someone. I rarely agree with the cops in these, but this seems to much like a "he said she said" situation, one of which could have been avoided if the property owner ACTUALLY removed the sign.

21. The owner of the parking lot was being petty. There was plenty of room for any other parking that he may have needed for his business.. In the meantime, he could go get some kind of crane or whatever he needed to uproot that sign

22. man did that cop ever not want to do his job

23. The complainant has a Jewish beanie cap on his head. The cop should know that he owns everything.

24. We need more cops like this

25. A cop double parked his car to accost a lady, parked correctly in a much larger and harder to park vehicle. She was the only one not in the wrong. Also, why did this guy want her to leave? What did she do to bother anybody? And how can a business owner treat potential customers like that?

26. I don't get why they don't just have him offer evidence that he owns the lot.
    As I understood what was read, if the owner documented ownership a person would have to leave.

    So the driver, reading the sign had ever reason to think she could park there.
    Someone saying she could not without any idea if they had the right to say that does not really change the fact there is a sign that says she can park there.
    meaning, the fix is him showing he owns the land.

    I don't really think the woman did anything wrong as such.
    When there is a sign that says you can park there, most people would go by that.
    And if owners and businesses have issues between them about that, it have nothing to do with the one reading the sign.
    So until its made clear she can't park there by documentation she can only work of the documentation at the place, in this case a sign. I would generally trust a sign more than a person I never met before saying something different than what the sign says.

    If a sign says " No Parking " but a random person say, " Just park there its fine " and you get a fine, I don't think any court what make the claim believing the random person over the sign is something that make sense.
    It should work the other way around to.

    But clearly when the officers tell her to leave, she has to.
    However I do think the officers should be sure he ( The owner ) does indeed have the right and own the plot as he claims, before assuming he does.

    Also unless there was video material we did not see as a viewer.
    These rates does not make any sense.
    Cops did well. the so called owner did not do well based on what was seen.

27. Officers should not have the option or be able to turn of sound or recording.
    If there is protected or sensitive information being recording, that can be registered and either deleted or made unavailable later, with accept of those who where recorded.
    US police already work like organized gangs. Different outfits fighting each other for who has the right to abuse people in there "hood", while also keeping each other safe from the law, and don't snitch on each other.
    So you should really not give companies, or groups the ability to edit information of criminal acts.
    And if they do not do something criminal. well it won't matter it was recorded.

28. He could have removed that sign himself with a hammer and chisel or spray paint.

29. I'm only about halfway through this video and I can't help but think the author of this video has flipped a script on us I think somebody has gotten to him and now he's one of them

Comments are closed.