Cops owned. Can't ID me or stop me for Pokémon. 

Pokemon and cop watching. Good stuff. The ex got me into pokemon. Ive lost over pounds and i get the chance to film the police more often.

This 'am I being detained or am I free to go' stuff gets old. You let them take your picture?

Outstanding reply!

@@davidpallin772 thank you! Haha

Undistinguished, I didn’t think one needs a reason to walk around at 1:00 am in the USA., thanks man.

You are not known for you intellectual prowess are you? He passed the spot and needed to turn back to it, Short Bus

Herbin' Avenger yeah he found a PIGachu!

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

There always has to be a brown nose "D" sucker in the comments section!

Excellent job staying cool calm collected!

LMFAO

Attacks are super effective though lol not just saying Pokemon

😂

🤣

Wow you just find a police pokemon look stupid and have no power..😂😂 i bet that the cops also played pokemon trying to find some one who dont commid a crime, just to be a ashole..

idiot

2A Forever ...you need to pluralize that. As of today, OG_designer_Tee has 48 likes.

@@2AForever-wi8yj stop looking in the mirror and speak a sentence, loser.

2A forever will not be a boot licker once he realizes that these men in uniform will most likely be the ones that will come for his guns. I laugh every time I see a “come and take it” bumper sticker next to the “thin blue line” sticker. I mean, who do you think is going to “come and take them”? Lol

If you flee you can be detained so you have to be careful.

@Phil Allison I guess you’re smarter than the Supreme Court... internet stranger

Actually the current circumstances dictate that he had reasonable suspicion, not a "hunch or gut" feeling. Officers can stop you for that. Of course the officer was wrong in asking for ID among other things.

Big Al Bag Daddy Pidgeys? Man, Magicarps where it's at.

STRONK COMMENT!

he has to.where ele is he gonna sell his minbending steroids to his pals..ha ha..

Washable Junk That would explain a lot lol.

Washable Junk No he is protecting his donut shop

Yeah, and I'd bet he was Team Instinct too... (spits)

Washable Junk 😂

Salt Maker they can stop and question him, but they can not detain him if they do not have proof of him doing an illigal action. Opinion is irrevelent and it actually not ligal for a cop to presume that you are doing something illigal, they need physical proof. This is the law.

Salt Maker you know the dude un the video is a lawer right? He told the cops te same thing I told you. He is probably informed about the law then you and I.

Salt Maker talk about an ignorant twat. The guy didn’t even base a radical opinion and here you are not being able to take on other opinions. Talk about a libtard

Alden Myers take about keybored warrior much.

Salt Maker 😂😂 man I basically implied everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Liberal or not. Your argument needs to be more validated and factual for you to go against other people’s opinions. Saying you voted agains and for, whilst calling names throughout it all, makes it seem as tho you’re the one who’s offended

Ik

No one has rights

@Minerx no the correct way to do it isn't to ask what crime cuz they will just pull whatever they want out there ass and use it as an excuse.. The law states you must be able to articulate the reason as to why you believe said crime is has been or is about to be afoot.. And just cuz there has been break ins in the area and its late at night doesnt meet the laws criteria.. So it'll get most cops thinking twice when you know what your talking about.. Cops use ppls ignorance of the laws and their rights to run all over ppl and pen false charges on ppl just to make their resumes look good.. Everyone needs to study their rightand the laws very good and not be some of the tyrants victims.

Who is he.......Joe Friday?

IKR?!!! Yeah, break-ins in that neighborhood and dude is just walking around in circles at 1am. NO WAY JOSE could that be suspicious! Hey, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you, real cheap.

rollercoaster55 If they actually used observation skills, they'd probably notice he was looking at his phone and not in the houses. That's a clue right there. Just because someone is doing something and not bowing down to the cops doesn't make them suspicious, and it certainly doesn't warrant them getting someone's ID.

ecwinste Listen to what you wrote: "Just because someone is doing something and not bowing down to the cops doesn't make them suspicious" You truly really need to look up the definition of "suspicious"! Something being suspicious or not has nothing to do with "bowing down to the cops". Nor does you (probably incorrectly) presuming the cops didn't notice him looking at his phone avoid him looking suspicious.

Cops seem to think it is. They stated that their basis for him being suspicious is the fact that he appeared to be walking away from them. He's walking between two areas and looking at his phone! If they've watched him for any period of time, a reasonable person would see that he was not doing anything that would implicate that he was going to attempt a break in.

ecwinste Again, please look up "furtive behavior" and start to understand what that is. Cops can't read his mind to know he's following pokemon rather than reversing direction every time he sees the cops trying to get away from them. How can you not get that seeming to run or walk away from a cop approaching you is going to make them think you're avoiding them. That's furtive behavior. It's happened to me when I was about to jaywalk and when I saw the cop I ran back the other way to curb then to the intersection to cross, but not before the cop saw me running and started to chase me thinking I'm running from him. That's what a lot of criminals do (run).

he used that as part of the justification. They observed someone who upon seeing them immediately changed direction and then did it a second time. That is suspicious behavior and that makes it perfectly legal for them to stop you.

@@2AForever-wi8yj this guy must have been there!

By its nature, an illegal stop isn't justifiable period. So I'm assuming you mean past criminal activity in an area to justify a stop? What case law did you read that stated that? Genuinely asking.

I would agree with you that repeatedly changing direction was enough of a reason to stop him, but their tone should have been a lot lighter. They went in like they'd seem him commit a crime when really they were just fishing for a sign of a crime.

@@libo2000 I'd agree with that.

??? He was doing his job??? You have a guy with a backup 1am walking around a building that has recently been broken into what better cause do you want?

Xeroff actually committing a crime would be a start

Avonne Rice: Hey there, this is my video and I was the one stopped. If you liked that line as much as I did, you might love the animation and song I made with it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--0E3378AGJk.html

Cops foot in his own mouth.

The cop is so dumb that he is repeating What he read somewhere

Avonne Rice I mean, that’s the legal definition of reasonable suspicion. I know it sounds silly, but it’s used often in training. www.encyclopedia.com/articles/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/

ruffryder818 no and no

Turning away, even RUNNING away from police officers is not a crime or reasonable suspicion if they did not have reasonable suspicion to detain you beforehand. This was highlighted in a recent court case in MA, Commonwealth of MA v. Jimmy Warren. The police are in violation of your 4th amendment rights if the only reason they stop you is running from them (and they did not have reason to stop you to begin with).

Nick Carpenter good luck trying to get the courts to side with you over the police officers, even if you are right and can prove you're right.

ruffryder818 well yes on curfew depending on your age

Where I live if you’re a minor then you can’t walk outside without an adult after 10:00

Except for letting the felons steal his picture....

Expertly? No.

+*fooloof* Actually, one has to question if he has the right to video record them, don't they have the right to photograph him?

***** My only question is this- WHY did they photograph him? There have been cases where the police have gathered photos of people not under suspicion of any criminal activity, and then used those photos in photo lineups, in at least one case leading to a living nightmare for an innocent person. Courts have ruled such behavior by the police is not to be tolerated. I wonder what's happened with the photo, and if the victim should talk to a lawyer?

***** Why did they photograph him, tho'? He had reason to record them, considering the record some cops have made for themselves and others of their profession. What was their reason for photographing someone they already admitted had done nothing they should hold him for? This opens up their behavior to suspicion. What are they going to do with that photo? Are they going to try and frame him later, since he bested them this go-round? It's not that far fetched.

Reasonable suspicion is what's needed to detain you. Probable cause is what's needed to arrest someone. In this case the cops were right in their language, but I would not agree that the cops had reasonable suspicion.

James Barnes if you think detain and arrest are the same thing then you are so far behind in this conversation you should just step away. The government (from cop to judge to congress) have stated clear differences for the two terms. You are detained when pulled over or stopped without being free to leave. You are under arrest when you have charges against you. You may or may not be free to go after being arrested. If you respond to this with disagreement then you represent a foolish part of the community that hates police blindly and is uneducated in even the most basic part of the subject.

Some here are conflating reasonable suspicion with probably cause. Cops can legally detain someone with reasonable suspicion. Probably cause is for arrest. The problem is the cops are conflating reasonable suspicion (which means they can articulate facts relating the individual to be detained with a crime), with being suspicious. One is a legal standard, the other is just a bullshit excuse to stop you.

fooloof You don't know what Reasonable Suspicion means. What you think are "specific, articulable facts" are not, and quite simply DO NOT meet any legal standard for what a fact is that reasonably connects an individual to a crime.

fooloof You don't know the law. I could quote it to you from memory. You don't know what Reasonable Suspicion is, nor do you know what what a specific articulable fact is, nor do you know what threat of arrest is, or loitering, or ANYTHING you have asserted to know in any comment on this video. People are dumber for having read anything you have written, and I sincerely hope you will take this opportunity to get informed instead of wasting your time being wrong.

Good luck with that buddy

That doesn't work on cops lol

Yeah you haven't many encounters with cops plus I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you aren't a POC lol

Lmaoooooooo

Dynx and right there too

Avary “there and there”

‘Reasonable suspicion’ of a crime because you might ? Commit a crime while playing Pokémon? “No doubt the precogs have already seen this.” From dystopian ‘Minority Report.’

He found some PIG achus!

Yes this. Thanks Jacob.

Was that a third cop at the end of the video saying; "He's looking for pokémon? Have a good night. Stay safe, sir!." Seemed to me that this was a new officer (C.O.?) on scene that managed to assess the situation correctly, at once even when only informed by his colleague with "he's lookin' for poke-man[sic]". Those two first cops were a disgrace.

Duffy ODonnell speak on it brother

well said mate but please stop playing that brainwashing game that tracks your every movement while not even playing, over 9 billion spent on this shit will go to the chinese!!!!!

我喜欢中国。

Neither. Suspicion is enough to detain, but not arrest. Probable cause is needed for an arrest.

Solaris Correct. In order to detain someone legally, they need to have reasonable, articulable suspicion that he has committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime. 'Articulable' means they have to be able to name the crime, and the reasons they suspect a crime has been committed. (They don't have to actually tell you then and there though.) Being "suspicious" is not enough. They need to be able to name a specific crime. In practice they pretty much ignore the law though. I high proportion of cops are thugs.

If you're the cop accusing someone of being suspcious in order to justify detainment, the crime is harassment by the police, or abuse of authority acting under the color of law.

+David Messer case law terry v ohio, or brown v texas

hahahahah

Armedlegally .. I think you're mistaken. Those were two highly common Piggly Wiggly's.

Armedlegally he got 2 piggymon

So do I - nothing suspicious or unusual about that.

Its sad that we feel that way towards the people thats suppose to be on our side. I stay far away from them because they always want my money

bullshit

Yeah and I always wonder if there is a neighborhood in the country that police couldn’t say that about.

Dave Haji looool true

Dave Haji The biggest crime here is *you* making it sound like it's a bad thing that an adult is playing Pokémon. Pokémon is *E* for *Everyone.*

harrimat100 And a comment from a 13 yr old....

Dave Haji Correction, a comment from a 24 year old who still plays Pokémon. Don't *ever* assume that a person is a kid on RU-vid.

harrimat100 A 24yr old with the psyche and maturity of a 13yr old...thanks for clearing that up.

Randy E shotgun to their brains more like it. h8 terrorists with badges

Randy E they had probable cause to stop him hes the one that draged it on lol

Cops certainly go over the top too often, but if they didn't do this then imagine how much worse the crime would be, and of course the same people who criticize the cops would be complaining they're not doing their job stopping criminals.

If they kill folks point blank, in broad daylight with a dash cam, body cam etc.... What is going to file a compliant really do?

@@michaelparker2449 with out his camera, you can and will get screwed by probable cause. Go after the real criminals

Cliff Roberson So how else is the cop supposed to know he wasn't an actual robber????

Facts don't care about your feelings lmao 😂

Joe T cops can ASK you anything they just don't have a right to force you to answer.

Well they do force the answer and at the end of the day citizens cant do shit about it

Yes, they can ask you whatever they want but you are under no obligation to answer and while they ask you whatever they want you are free to leave at any moment. In order to detain someone you need reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime. Being "suspicious" or walking past a business that has been robbed is not illegal. These cops actions were illegal.

GoodSteve123 No, it was not illegal stop; the officers had a reasonable suspicion to stop him. Know the facts and information before you run your mouth I have a bachelors degree in criminal justice. Look up this case law terry v. Ohio

its about control and subservience. Papier Bitte.

"there have been a lot of break-in's recently..." is THE go-to excuse to illegally detain and coerce ID from citizens. If it were true even half the time, there would mobilized National Guard on a lot of street corners.

+fooloof Those bad cops are suspicious of the guy, but that is not a legal standard or ground for detainment. They do not have facts they can articulate as to reasonably suspect that the guy committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

fooloof An officer must have Reasonable Suspicion, a legal term, which is specific, articulable facts that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed BY THE INDIVIDUAL BEING STOPPED. They never said the word loitering, nor did they say he was standing around. Which means not only do you not know what Reasonable Suspicion means, but also what loitering mean. The reason for the stop given by the officer was: 1) walking around at night DOES NOT meet a legal standard (LS) for reasonable suspicion (RS) or Detention (Det) 2) has a back pack DOES NOT meet a LS for RS or Det 3) we have a lot of suspicious activity in the area DOES NOT meet a LS for RS or Det 4) You're in an area that we've have had a lot of break-ins. DOES NOT meet a LS for RS or Det And, to point 4, because you don't seem to understand what a specific fact means in a legal sense. Unless they cops were immediately responding to a call for a break-in at that location, which they were not, there is simply NO FACT, and thus no RS, to connect that individual to any crime of a break-in. The person recording this video asks exactly the right questions, and gets exactly the wrong answers from cops who are abusing their authority under color of law, being disrespectful and condescending, using a threatening tone, and illegally detaining the individual. 5) then they mention another excuse to illegally detain him, walking away from police Having no RS, this too DOES NOT meet a LS for RS or Det The police have EVERY RIGHT to contact someone and ask questions. They DO NOT have the right to illegally detain an individual until they answer the cop's questions and produce ID without RS. And an individual does not forfeit their right to remain silent, or to not incriminate themselves. Under NO circumstances, should police condescend to, try to coerce, act in a threatening manner towards, or act in a very unprofessional manner toward any civilian under any circumstances, outside of what is absolutely necessary to execute an arrest with probable cause. You literally do not know things, and made other things up because you suffer from confirmation bias, and the stress and humiliation of being wrong is too great for you to bare.

Stacey E Thank you. Its awesone to see a free citizen that knows how it works and just how police use their authority improprely to coerce and intimidate law abiding citizens into self incrimination. Absolutely ridiculous that it has to be this way but you gave the facts in your comment and they were spot on. However, unfortunately, there is hardly an officer out there that would agree with anything contained therein. Sad times we live in. Sad indeed.

I luckily had my phone already out, so I didn't have to risk my life reaching for it in my pocket. In this world, it's best to have your phone at the ready, it's your best defense.

Exitof99 what life risk? You're WHITE

Nein

If Germany had had RU-vid, maybe the Holocaust would never have happened. So glad people are recording and standing up for thier rights AND posting the encounters for all to see. Pay attention America, THESE are Patriots.

@@HaikHakopyan Your English isn't good enough for you to judge. Braden said ,"if Germany" etc.. Do you know what "if" means? You're the "idiot".

@@onanist9305 obviously I know what if means. But that is just a plain stupid scenario. So STFU and GTFO of here 😎

@@HaikHakopyan 1915......

They can only detain someone for a brief period of time under reasonable suspicion. Demanding to be free to go would be reasonable if the detention it longer than so many minutes (there isn't a legal specification for the actual time that they can hold you).

Exitof99 i see what you're saying and you're right that "demanding to be free to go [after a few minutes of police contact to determine you actually haven't committed a crime]" but.... no there is actually depending on state law even though the constitution doesn't explicitly spell it out. legally in my state they have 24 hours to detain you with probable cause before they have to arrest you or set you free with more time granted for charges like murder, and even more time if suspected for terrorism. also, the 6th amendment guarantees your right to a speedy trial which is usually 72 hours. the DA can alter charges and bring new charges or ask a judge for more time etc however, reasonable suspicion is definitely not grounds for a lengthy detention as it's like the lowest standard of proof for a crime committed and you could probably sue. probable cause on the other hand would mean they have an eyewitness, which is still not all that reliable, or concrete evidence like a crowbar in your hands with a window smashed or they have you on video attempting entry. but yea

It was suspicious though. If a neighborhood gets robbed frequently and it's 1 am and a cop sees a guy walking around with a back pack and then purposely avoid the police, how is that not suspicious? It's not illegal but it's suspicious. The cop was looking out for the neighborhood isn't that what he is suppose to do?

Ricardo Oviedo and yet the perp is still at large, imagine that?

Ricardo Oviedo Exactly , how don’t more people see it that way? Like he’s not doing anything wrong but to refuse your Id at that hour for no reason is just silly

@@jamesb2106 Right? Some people are just raised the wrong way in my opinion and some just don't have common sense.

Ricardo Oviedo yeah man

You guys do know its an expression right? stoopid

Shit sounded weird when he said it like WTF you speaking bitch

2jz Fox I looked at the crime map in my area. There's shit loads of crimes including theft. They must be suspicious of the whole damn town at this point.

Yeah something here is a foot... 😂

What, this guy is Sherlock Holmes?

Jeff Ranger Haha, that's one of my friend's favorite parts. She laughs and imitates Sherlock Holmes while saying it.

Jennifer Pocock Isn't it the other way around?

Mark C-R it is. She was talking about these cops' philosophy.

yep! Just wait until you hit the news and definitely guilty until proven innocent!

If you want to detain someone, just watch them until they change direction #coplogic

@@MistrDamige what your not understanding is the law is simple when you see a police car you must synchronize your movements with that of the police car.

@@springthunderboxer haha yeah according to them they should have a convoy of cars behind every cop car. Yeah right

I agree and kept to it except by asking questions, rather than answering questions. The only thing I willingly answered is why I turned because that should be safe from incrimination and give the cops enough to realize there was nothing going on.

French Bastard The term is “afoot”

The '95 CA Barber Yadadda?! My foot does not do crimes dammit. It’s a nice foot

They are quoting the words out of the court case Terry v Ohio for meeting the standards on detaining for investigating.

A crime is a crime, not a foot? Wtf..

Theodore Pollock yeah but the officers had no RAS which was the best part.

Yes. They lie out their pig mouths. Check out some of my vids

Sky King yep, because they can’t give a description

shouldn't be. not everyone works a 9-5. I get off work around midnight so that's the only time I was able to play.

fooloof being suspicious is not a crime.

M Shakir Agreed. Neither is the police questioning a suspicious person.

Chris Thompson No, but they have no more authority when doing so than any other person on the street. they can't detain you for being what they deem suspicious unless they suspect you committed a crime. How many time do we have to hear about the "I'm detaining you until I figure out whats going on" No that's not how it works. if you suspect me then you can detain me. Its the type of foolishness when we hear cops arresting people for resisting arrest. If he wants to go and is not able then he is detained and if he is detained then he must be suspected of a crime

Chris Thompson grown man playing Pokemon looks suspicious to me or just weird, must not have a girlfriend

What city n state was that?

Haha, nice.

Slavonic Yeah let's wait for the guy to break in and shoot someone before we arrest him. Or let's spend the next hour following this one guy who might Judy be minding his own business, while the real criminals get to run around.

tompizzawood. Obviously because they like fucking with people after a certain time and people get shot by cops for doing less every day

nicolasraage his opinion can't be used in a court of law and what crime he is walking around and the cop says I believe a crime is being committed the judge will agree it's called a cop is harassing a private citizen because he thinks he is big shit tough guy cause he has a badge fuck that cop and every other cop on the planet

They have no reason.

nah fam he said afoot its a word lmao

LOOOOL

losepoundsandinches Lol pathetic.

RKFCGSBGK but have you said a single thing to counter what I've said? No.

RKFCGSBGK when you can't argue and make up some pseudo intellectual argument as to I am the same thing by saying I'm biased and look at the people below me as the problem. When everything I've said is statistically correct and backed by official crime sources(FBI), the census, and only government sites. I never once said the super wealthy weren't a problem. Look at George zoros. He's the one funding all of the anti trump campaigns and street wars because he's scared trump is going to end his business and make him lose money once trump goes hard on crooks like him. I'm actually not biased at all. You're the one saying if it was a black kid he'd get shot. That's about as biased as it gets. And I'm looking at the vast majority of people below me who are too lazy to go get a job when the recession ended fucking years ago and now there's plenty of jobs. Maybe if they'd stop selling drugs and beating autistic kids they'd go somewhere in life lmao

RKFCGSBGK "tricked by the rich to blame people below you for your problems" bet you also watch CNN too lmao. And every liberal biased media that only looks at the terrible side of things. There are millions of incredible cops who do nothing but protect people and will risk their own life for another's. The news only shows you the bad because it gets them views. All these black kids in the news that are getting paraded as heroes are gangbangers and deserved what they got. Granted there was one or two where the cop was at fault but they don't get off Scott fucking free like the news tells you. They get tried for murder and actually get harder sentences because they swore an oath to uphold the people's rights. (Us law records show this too)

RKFCGSBGK and yet you're still not proving me wrong because you can't lmao. I'm not racist I have several black friends and I live in a farming community in Arizona with the majority being Mexicans that can't even speak english. I just hate how the majority of them do nothing but start fights because they're lazy and get called out for it.

I wanted to ask if there was an ongoing investigation that they are stopping me for, but they steamrolled over me several times in the conversation. I do believe they provided the crime they suspected being "burglary" and that the reasonable suspicion was based on "high crime area" and "turning from police". I wasn't about to contest their claim of reasonable suspicion because it would only agitate the situation and would lead to me saying more than I wanted to.

Exitof99 Ahhh, I see your point. You're right, the less you say the better and sometimes it's just best to let the children in grown-up costumes to have their little tantrum and send them on their way. Stay safe!

Exactly, and since it was filmed, if it went in to a bad situation where I took it to court, I could say, "I wasn't combative or argumentative, just assertive in stating that I do not need to provide ID." If wanted, I could then go on to contest the basis for reasonable suspicion, and do so fully prepared and not waste time arguing without a full understanding of the law or with someone who will not give up their position.

Exitof99 You could also do a FOIA request on the picture/s they took of you and any police report they made to make sure they're being fair and accurate in their "investigation" and also to make sure it was a flattering photo.

Haha, "this is my good angle". Maybe I should send in an autographed headshot. Good point, though. I will look up the police report online, though, it should be on the website.

when cops say they have several breakins reply with weve had several cops violating peoples rights in the area. or just tell them their questions assume youre required to remember specific events in a detailed chronological order in anticipation of a police interrogation and youre not.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Chante Moody There are so many stories like this out there, that's the sad part. This is why I responded the way I did. I had my prescribed medication on me and didn't want to get hassled for it. You know had I let them search me, they would have tried to find something to get me on.

The one relevant comment on this video.

Well said, and I agree. They showed very little respect in this interaction, they just wanted to accuse me of things I would never do. Glad they didn't go psycho cop on me and break laws, possibly injuring me. As for the stop and ID states, I believe there is one that makes it criminal to not provide ID upon demand. Other than that, there seems to be a loophole is if you feel giving that information would incriminate you. The stop and ID laws assume that providing your name would not incriminate you, and only then is it legally required.

From what I understand, Stop and ID originally allowed police to demand ID from any person for any reason, but courts have ruled that it can only be required if you are placed under arrest, or detained with probable cause. Even then, it is only a misdemeanor I believe, and you cannot be arrested for it. The law allows for the police to keep you until you can be identified, but under no circumstances, in any state, can you be arrested for failure to identify yourself. Idk, its been a while since I studied Stop and ID, so I could be mistaken, or things could have changed.