on YouTube HERE:
Newest videos :
The substance of constitutional rights is meaningless if state actors can violate those rights with impunity. Such rights would become, in James Madison’s words, “parchment barriers”—symbolic commitments to individual liberty that do nothing in practice to deter or prevent unlawful misconduct by government agents. Unfortunately, most members of law enforcement operate today in a culture of near-zero accountability. Police officers rarely face meaningful consequences for their misconduct, and the public’s accurate perception of this fact has contributed to what can best be described as a crisis of confidence in our nation’s law enforcement.
Accountability has therefore become a top priority for anyone interested in criminal justice reform.
Congress must eliminate qualified immunity for state officials and create a new law giving people the right to sue federal officials for violations of their civil and constitutional rights. Americans’ civil liberties are dependent on it.
“the Supreme Court has stated that the Fourth Amendment “categorically authorizes” the police to order the driver [Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977)] and all passengers [Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 411 (1997)] out of the vehicle for the duration of the traffic stop in order to ensure the safety of the officer.¶26 The police may take these precautions because “the government’s officer safety interest stems from the mission of the stop itself.”
Follow me on my new Twitter account!:
Subscribe to my personal channel,
Christopher Ruff, here:
Join the Direct D Channel to get access to perks:
Order Merchandise directly from us here:
Get information here:
This video is intended for information, news and other entertainment & education purposes and is not legal advice
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
FAIR USE DEFINITION:
Fair use is a doctrine in the United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test. The term “fair use” originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.
U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE- FAIR USE DEFINITION
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use”. The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
#cops #police #livepd #arizona #justice #breakingnews #new #law #lawyers #firstamendmentaudit #firstresponders #police #copblock #bodycam