Tuggz Demands a Bench Trial For Getting Wrongfully Convicted! | NoPixel RP | GTA RP | CG 

Henceforth this case is a representation of los santos edumacation

"stop me if you want to, i'm just like making up shit to be honest" "no no it's just fine. sound like he's doing the same thing" the fact that the cop is not trying to make shit up, makes it so much funnier 😂😂😂😂

Tugz 19.1 but knows the laws(his rights) better than the cops dood 😂

Never knew you had a youtube, but yeah this was fucking great, you deserve way more subs my dude!

Props to this cop for trying something fun... shame it made absolutely no sense.

Civil case but under arrest??

The cop wanting to give up after he requested a bench trial 😂😂😂😂1:40:50

This is why I love court rp. The stacking of good lawyers while they let tuggz do the work is funny

Wait, Right legit has the same name as my cousin? This definitely wasn't the first time I've heard "the state V Stanley Miller"

I could be wrong but I believe if the officer had cited PIPPA (or PIPAA I can’t remember how they made the acronym) legislation they would have likely won the case. Again I could be wrong but I believe it considers the hospital private space. They really need to have these officers study legislation more bc not everything is just in the charges. That is WHY legislation exists.

This is the same guy who is a judge, who legit bent over Mr k time and time again. This case right here just shows why the state of NP is where it’s at. Crazy

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:27 *🚓 The driver gets pulled over in a stolen car and decides to give up.* 01:31 *🛑 The officer starts questioning the driver about why he was driving a stolen car.* 02:53 *🔒 The driver, who is a felon, is read his rights and taken into custody.* 04:29 *🚗 The officer confirms the car is flagged as stolen despite the driver claiming it was borrowed.* 06:21 *📋 The officer processes the driver for joyriding in a stolen vehicle.* 07:49 *🧑‍⚖️ The driver is taken to court, where he claims he was wrongfully charged by another officer, Avery.* 09:15 *🧠 Discussion about brain development and the driver mocking the officers' career choices.* 11:10 *🏛️ The driver, now in court, asks for his handcuffs to be removed, claiming he's not a flight risk.* 12:38 *👨‍⚖️ The driver seeks assistance from multiple lawyers for his small claims court case.* 13:25 *👥 The lawyer requests clarity on the charges, highlighting confusion about the case's basis.* 14:52 *💼 The state is suing for consequential damages related to the driver's recording at a hospital.* 15:36 *📋 The officer provides an overview of the charges and the basis for the lawsuit.* 18:24 *⚖️ The defendant's lawyer motions to dismiss, arguing the state's case is confusing and lacks merit.* 20:08 *🗣️ The officer defends the state's right to sue for special damages, emphasizing the public nature of the defendant's actions.* 21:50 *📝 The case continues with further clarification needed on the damages and the legal basis for the claim.* 28:04 *🤝 Both parties are sworn in for the court proceedings.* 29:38 *👮‍♂️ Officer Mason Dixie testifies about witnessing Stanley Miller recording at the hospital and being told multiple times to stop.* 33:03 *📝 The officer decided to pursue a civil lawsuit instead of pressing criminal charges at the time of the incident.* 35:10 *📜 The officer argues that recording a deceased officer's viewing was disturbing the peace and disobeying lawful orders.* 37:22 *💬 Stanley Miller's lawyer questions the basis for the probable cause of disturbing the peace.* 39:57 *📚 Stanley Miller cites the Bill of Human Privileges, emphasizing the right to record in public view.* 41:48 *📹 Stanley presents recorded evidence showing he was allowed to record in the hospital lobby.* 43:05 *🎥 The court allows the introduction of the video evidence supporting Stanley's claim.* 53:11 *📑 The video evidence is presented, confirming Stanley was given permission to record in the hospital lobby.* 55:22 *🗂️ Officer requests the full raw footage for discovery but ultimately agrees to proceed with the submitted four-minute clip.* 56:16 *❓ Stanley Miller questions the officer about the lawful order and probable cause for disobeying it.* 57:13 *👮 The officer explains that multiple doctors approached him, treating the recording incident as a domestic dispute.* 59:03 *🏥 Officer confirms that the recording took place in a public area and emphasizes the disturbance caused by recording a deceased officer.* 01:00:14 *📹 The officer admits he assumed the recording would be made public but had no direct confirmation.* 01:02:13 *🕵️ Stanley's lawyer motions to impeach the officer as a witness for contradictory statements, but the judge denies it.* 01:05:17 *🎤 Stanley confirms the recording was done in public areas, challenging the officer's claims about private conversations.* 01:06:53 *📜 Stanley asks if he had permission to record in the lobby based on the video evidence; the officer agrees but notes conflicting testimony.* 01:08:32 *🏢 Officer claims the lobby was made private during the viewing of the deceased officer, a decision Stanley challenges.* 01:11:15 *🏛️ The judge sustains an objection regarding Hippa relevance, focusing on the public nature of the recording.* 01:12:26 *⚖️ Stanley prepares to give his testimony, recounting his interactions and asserting his right to record in public areas.* 01:19:41 *📹 Stanley explains he was silently recording in the hospital, only responding when approached by others.* 01:21:04 *👮‍♂️ Officer Dixie questions Stanley about the number of people who approached him while recording in the hospital.* 01:23:26 *👨‍⚕️ Stanley confirms around twelve government employees, including off-duty ones, approached him while recording.* 01:26:38 *🥴 Stanley describes an officer who was visibly distressed and drinking beer while approaching him.* 01:27:32 *🎥 Stanley shares his long history of recording, stating he has been doing it since around 2015.* 01:31:07 *📜 Stanley argues he was unaware of the body being brought through the lobby and asserts his right to record in public areas.* 01:33:32 *🚔 Officer Dixie questions if ignorance of the law protects Stanley from the law; Stanley responds that sometimes it does.* 01:35:20 *📢 Stanley emphasizes his rights and argues the officers could not press criminal charges, thus resorting to a civil lawsuit.* 01:37:05 *⚖️ The judge reviews the testimonies and evidence, preparing to deliver the verdict in the small claims court.* Made with HARPA AI

So cops feelings got hurt and pressed charges. Classic Cry Gang PD 😂😂😂

I love your content keep up the good work you are doing your a top tier roleplayer like mr k and ramee brother

Was a yes or no question lmao

This cop lost the case before he even started. This was painful to watch. lol

I like this cop. Hes down to RP

Is that Suarez on a new cop character?

Impeachment!!!! Final a suite against this cop for this bs case

Pretty sure that cop plays a judge

HOOOOOLYYYYYYYY THIS GUY IS A YAPPPPPPPERRRRRR

Didn’t Slacks say recently that the the dead have no rights.

Crane getting these ppl feeling almighty

why does tuggs want laywers when he does all the talking

You honor if I may

This making no sense ..

How is Tuggz 19 if he's been recording in Los Santos since 2015? Don't characters have to be at least 18?