June 5th, 2014

Texas Deputy Assaults Videographer, Blames 9/11 190

By Carlos Miller

A Texas deputy tried to snatch a man’s camera for “evidentiary purposes” after the man had recorded them making a traffic stop.

But the man had the camera attached to his wrist by a strap, so he was able to continue recording the bullying, intimidation tactics conducted by a dimwitted Gray County sheriff’s deputy named Stokes, schooling him in the process and turning him into today’s national jackass.

Stokes tried everything in the cop book to try to intimidate the man from recording him, accusing him of “suspicious activity” because he had recorded an “active open police investigation.”

He finally resorted to the old 9/11 excuse as if Al Qaeda would have any interest in terrorizing a tiny town in North Texas that apparently is already overrun by terrorists with badges.

Here’s a portion of the conversation that took place before Stokes tried to grab the camera:

“Turn the camera off or else I’m going to seize all your equipment”

Can you get the sheriff?”

“I can but I won’t.”

“Can I get the supervisor?”

“I am the supervisor. I’m in control and you’re not.”‘

“No sir, I’m a citizen. I’m ok.”

“What you need to do is be quiet.”

“No, sir, I’m allowed to talk.”

“No you’re not.”

“First Amendment, yes sir.”

“I’m fixing to put you under arrest.”

“For what?”

No answer.

“You think I make up stuff?”

The rest of the conversation continues to prove how much smarter the citizen is over the dumb deputy.

“Can I have your badge number?”

“No, you may not. When I arrest you in a minute, you can have it.”

Stokes finally relented and said Andrew was free to go. All that huffing and puffing for nothing.

Call the Gray County Sheriff’s Sheriff Don Copeland at 806-669-8022.

 


Send stories, tips and videos to Carlos Miller.
  • rust

    Porkers. Y’all gotta EYE-dentify yo’se’f when you are lee gully obligated to dew so under lawuh.

    • Ron

      Yeehaw

  • Do_You_Compute

    Now this is actually harassment. Unlike the story from Colorado that you posted on june 1st. Not to mention the officers actions were very illegal. They cant grab your property like that. If we went up to a cop and grabbed anything he/she was holding, we’d be lucky if the only thing that happened to us was that we ended up in cuffs with a few charges.

    I really hope this guy makes a complaint. Should hit up his local news media too.

  • Gerperzader

    Hey, I found the sheriff’s email address: don.copeland@graycch.com
    If we can find Deputy Stoke’s first name, this his address is probably firstname.stokes@graycch.com.

    • dagobarbz

      I sent a note suggesting they school their officers better. I nearly flunked Civics class and I’m better informed than this lardbutted bloat hole.

  • hazy

    RAS is a joke. Maybe after we’ve figured out a way to stop all the camera snatching we can start going after the joke of a threshold that Terry v. Ohio set.

    • LibertyEbbs

      I agree that the RAS standard from Terry is a joke, but even those watered down standards were not met and this was an unlawful detention.

  • Pingback: Gray County, Texas Deputy Wins the Bonehead Play of the Day

  • Beeker N

    The kid handled himself quite well. Great job keeping cool.

  • Jim Holmes

    Is the cop FAT? So many of these jerks seem to be real lardbutts.

  • Kirkus1964

    More low IQ, obese cops. “Murica!

  • JCFROMNJ

    Fat, dumb,and really stupid,no way to go through life. Sheriff Buford T. Justice did in fact commit an aggravated assault and battery on your person. You were under a second tier arrest ,you were unable to leave the area of your free will. There are only two questions that I now ask, Am I being charged with an offence and am I free to go. You may catch all hell,but that is part of the cash settlement down the road. If it was easy,everybody would be doing it…

    • Lee Carter

      The deputy violated a laundry list of laws and so did the other officers. Staying with Deputy Stokes, he violated Texas Penal Codes Title 5 § 20.01 (unlawful restraint), Title 5 § 22.02 (aggravated assault) (considering he was displaying a firearm during the commission of the crime), Title 7 § 31.03 (attempted theft by deception but it is lowered in category of offense due to Title 4 § 15.01), Title 9 § 42.01 (disorderly conduct in that he threatened arrest with no crime committed), Title 8 § 39.02 (abuse of official capacity) and Title 8 § 39.03 (official oppression). . Also, the other officers that refused to act on the deliberate and willful violations of law can be charged with the same crimes that Deputy Stokes committed under Title 2 § 7.02. Personally, I would challenge the deputy’s qualified immunity and file for a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C § 1983. Challenging his immunity, if granted, will allow you to sue the deputy directly instead of the department as happens with many cases. As far as the criminal liability though, I’m pretty sure you’ll lose out on that one as not many prosecutors are willing to go after LEOs.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        Wow! So much ignorance in such a short space. OK, first, we know that you are not familiar with Texas criminal law, or you would have properly cited the statutes, instead of just pulling them off of the internet.

        Let’s go through them one by one.

        First, it’s not Unlawful Restraint, Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 20.02. The section you cited was a definition and not a crime, period, but taking your general meaning it is still not a criminal offense due to § 9.21, Public Duty, a statute under the legal concept of justification. It states “conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law” and “even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.” That doesn’t prevent recovery for the tort, but it does prevent criminal prosecution.

        Second, it’s not Theft or Attempted Theft, Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03, nor is it Theft or Attempted Theft by a Public Servant. You forgot the enhancement in § 31.03, not that it matters, since you can’t meet the elements. Seizing something as evidence, even if not authorized by law, is not theft. A theft conviction cannot be obtained on proof that defendant intended only a temporary withholding of the property. Griffin v. State, 614 S.W.2d 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).

        Third, the claim of Disorderly Conduct, Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 42.01 is just ignorant. Exactly how does this meet the elements of an offense? The same goes with § 39.02 and § 39.03. The same goes with the § 7.02 claim also.

        Finally, challenging his immunity does not allow you to go after the deputy individually (or directly as you phrase it), it merely allows the case to go forward.

        Try not to embarrass yourself like this in the future.

        • hazy

          Are you a gunner at the 4th tier shit hole you are enrolled at currently?

        • Scott

          I used to read your replies when you treated people with respect. Why do you always have to insult people? do you feel bugger or smarter when you degrade others??

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            No, just frustrated at having to point out the same thing, over and over again.

          • inquisitor

            Perhaps you should move on to other places on your level that do not irk you so. I am joking of course. I actually appreciate your knowledge and sharing of the law.

          • Scott

            You don’t have to point out the same thing over and over again.

            You choose to do that.

          • hazy

            Sometimes you have to evaluate what is worth fighting for. While this guy was illegally detained we have bigger battles to fight.

            This Lee Carter guy is offering arm chair legal advice from the comfort of his computer when he doesn’t realize just how much time, money and energy a civil rights law suit requires. At least get the violations that have a chance of prevailing right.

          • Lee Carter

            My “arm chair legal advice” (which is rather amusing considering I am sitting in an arm chair at the moment) is not quite an accurate representation. I’m simply voicing my opinion. I’m aware that the LEOs are not likely to be charged with any of the mentioned charges nor do I expect someone to actually follow my advice. I’m not a lawyer. I have my opinion of what COULD be chargeable offenses in the matter as it is presented above.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            That’s true.

            The problem is that if no one corrects it, then people start to believe it and it can have dangerous or fatal consequences.

            Let me give you an example. Some moron posted a long time ago that Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 34 N.E. 968 (1893), gives everyone the right to kill a police officer who is making an unlawful arrest. The problem is that the case doesn’t say anything of the sort. It is misquoted on the web, and some idiot is going to believe it, and end up with a needle in their arm.

            I correct what I can.

          • hazy

            Trying to bring a civil rights law suit against this police department is probably not going to prevail because the cops here were not malicious enough. Usually someone needs to get arrested for things to really be put under the microscope in a certain town/county/district.

        • Lee Carter

          You are correct in that I am not completely familiar with the annotation process for Texas law and while they were pulled off the internet, they were pulled directly from the page http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/. The issue I have with your argument of “conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law” is that the deputy cannot be reasonably expected to believe that he had the lawful authority to seize the camera as evidence nor would the conduct of him attempting to forcefully remove the camera from the man be a required conduct. The gentleman has already stated that he understood that the deputy could have the video subpoenaed for evidence. Your comment of “even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority” applies to civilians assisting a law enforcement officer and bears no ground in this case. While I am greatly appreciative of your assistance in my ignorance of citing Texas law and subsequent misquote of the law section being that we have already ruled out § 9.21 as being a viable excuse for his actions so the rest of the charges COULD be applied. Also, I did not forget the enhancement of the charge due to the deputy being a law enforcement officer at the time of the offense. I simply left it out due to the mitigating factor of § 15.01 (it was an attempted theft not an actual theft). The length of time that the property was intended to be kept is an unknown but, bearing in mind other actions across the country, the possibility of the deputy deleting the footage obtained (destroying the person’s property with no way for it to be reasonably recovered), would be a real possibility. And yes, the video can be considered property in its own right by Texas law. On disorderly conduct § 42.01, subsection 4 which states “abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner” Obviously, § 39.02 could be argued that the officer made no attempt to obtain the camera by deceit (which would fall under abuse of official capacity) if it could reasonably be assumed that he was not aware that the victim’s action were lawful. For the presented argument, we will assume that he was aware that his actions were lawful since he could not seem to cite the laws that the victim had apparently broken. Considering he unlawfully detained the victim and intentionally impeded his right to film, § 39.03 does apply as well. As far as § 7.02 is concerned, the other officers and deputies that were standing around while this incident occurred COULD be held accountable for failing to make a reasonable effort to impede or prevent the offenses from occurring. Concerning the immunity issue, *shrug* it was how it was presented to me and the actual section on it reads like Japanese stereo instructions. Oh and considering I’m not a “law student” but just an avid researcher of law (even if it sometimes results in failures), I find nothing that I’ve posted embarrassing. Perhaps, it is you that are embarrassed that you’re going to law school and didn’t know most of these yourself and had to “look them up on the internet”?

          • hazy

            Trust me dude. Him being a law student does not mean anything.

          • Lee Carter

            I’m aware. While my sister was in school at Samford U., we’d often pour over case laws together and she’d usually end up doing just as much research as I did so we could debate it.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            Yeah, whatever.

            You came up with statutes that you thought sounded good, but paid no attention to the elements of the offense or the mens rea. You misunderstand what is needed and are assuming facts based on your feelings, not on evidence. There is no indication that Stokes intended to destroy the video and there is nothing that indicates an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.

            Second, your comments about attempt and the public servant enhancement also show an extreme lack of knowledge in how to read the law. If the camera is valued at $1,000, its theft would be a Class A misdemeanor in Texas, and its attempted theft would be a Class B. If, however, the actor is a public servant, its theft would be a state jail felony, and its attempted theft would be a Class A misdemeanor. Anyone who understands the law would have included the enhancing factors.

            The rest of your comments show a similar lack of knowledge. BTW, I used Westlaw or Lexis, not the “internet” to do research.

          • Lee Carter

            I find it amusing that you’re calling me dumb when you are trying to argue against my opinion. That’s exactly what my statements are. I’m forming opinions based on my understanding of the penal code and my knowledge and comprehension skills (which may, in fact, be flawed) of those laws. As much as we would like to think that law is objective, it’s not. It is very much subjective. Cases are won by who presents the better argument and who can establish guilt or innocence. So your statement of basing it on emotion is marginally correct. I use Lexis as well for Georgia law but have not found a suitable site other than the one I listed for Texas law and unless you have a hard copy of those law books on a shelf or on your desk, you are using the “internet” as well to find your answers. Being that I am not as familiar with Texas law, I used what I had available. I’m sure that with a bit more poking around, I’d be able to find the same sites that you used and would read a very similar rendition of the same law. Moving on. Since we have no value of the camera, we can only assume that it would fall under a Class B at minimum value (it’s value would have to be $20 or under to be a Class C). Add in the expounding factor of the deputy being a public servant and that raises it to a Class A misdemeanor and the mitigating factor of the attempt drops it back to a Class B again. So really the expounding factor (a public servant) and mitigating factor (attempted crime but not fulfilled) simply cancel each other out. Even establishing the item at $1000 or more (and thereby making it a Class A misdemeanor) does little to change the simple fact that I stated the crime would be considered a misdemeanor (I did not specify class). Texas law has long held the right for a citizen to record in public without obtaining the consent of the other individuals. Being that under Texas law, “single party consent” is required. The victim established implied consent by recording his own voice (as he was party to the recording). Discounting SCOTUS decision Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (did I cite that right?), Texas law allowed him to lawfully record the traffic stop. Can you honestly argue that the deputy performed a good faith stop of the gentleman? The deputy cannot present a solid piece of evidence to detain him for, cite any law that the victim broke, and did not even attempt to reach an agreement with the victim for rights to the video. The mens rea of the deputy, I’m sure, would be argued back and forth across this case but I have the lovely ability to state an opinion (don’t have to prove an opinion) when I say that the deputy knew what he was doing was illegal when he first performed it. The other officer approaching, attempting to de-escalate the situation as well as the other officers simply standing around and not attempting to assist the deputy proves that they knew there was no chance that the victim’s actions were not illegal. The deputy continued to “fish” for crimes which the victim shot down at every turn. I’m sure you’ll have further comments of how dumb I am and how I don’t understand what I’m reading and that’s fine too. “Winning” an argument on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you’re still retarded :)

          • LibertyEbbs

            A dirty little secret about law: it can be whatever you want it to be. Some people like to speak of law in terms of absolutes, but they are either ignorant or trying to deceive. For example, “Congress shall make no law…” really means Congress can make all kinds of laws (the courts can, too) based on [insert BS reasons here].

            Our nation has spent the last 100 years ‘lawyering’ itself to death!

          • Lee Carter

            I hold no illusion that laws aren’t absolutes.

          • LibertyEbbs

            One too many negatives in your sentence, I think, but I didn’t mean to imply that you thought this. It was more a general reply to the conversation about this law and that. Rule of law is a myth in America, thanks mostly to police, prosecutors, and judges over the past century and I like to point this out on occasion. The law is what the people with power say it is, which explains why many things that are crimes for me are okey-dokey for cops. It is rule of man under the guise of rule of law and when people try to beat us over the head with the, “Yeah but the law says….” bullshit, I like to try and expose the lie.

          • Lee Carter

            No. The sentence has the correct amount of negatives in that “no” is a negative in that I hold illusion and the aren’t is for absolutes. I think we’re all aware of this as well. I think we’re arguing more in the premise of a fair society. We all know the LEO won’t be charged for anything. I do thank you for the attempt to correct a possible oversight though :)

        • Lee Carter

          You are correct in that I am not completely familiar with the annotation process for Texas law and while they were pulled off the internet, they were pulled directly from the page http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/. The issue I have with your argument of “conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law” is that the deputy cannot be reasonably expected to believe that he had the lawful authority to seize the camera as evidence nor would the conduct of him attempting to forcefully remove the camera from the man be a required conduct. The gentleman has already stated that he understood that the deputy could have the video subpoenaed for evidence. Your comment of “even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority” applies to civilians assisting a law enforcement officer and bears no ground in this case. While I am greatly appreciative of your assistance in my ignorance of citing Texas law and subsequent misquote of the law section being that we have already ruled out § 9.21 as being a viable excuse for his actions so the rest of the charges COULD be applied. Also, I did not forget the enhancement of the charge due to the deputy being a law enforcement officer at the time of the offense. I simply left it out due to the mitigating factor of § 15.01 (it was an attempted theft not an actual theft). The length of time that the property was intended to be kept is an unknown but, bearing in mind other actions across the country, the possibility of the deputy deleting the footage obtained (destroying the person’s property with no way for it to be reasonably recovered), would be a real possibility. And yes, the video can be considered property in its own right by Texas law. On disorderly conduct § 42.01, subsection 4 which states “abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner” Obviously, § 39.02 could be argued that the officer made no attempt to obtain the camera by deceit (which would fall under abuse of official capacity) if it could reasonably be assumed that he was not aware that the victim’s action were lawful. For the presented argument, we will assume that he was aware that his actions were lawful since he could not seem to cite the laws that the victim had apparently broken. Considering he unlawfully detained the victim and intentionally impeded his right to film, § 39.03 does apply as well. As far as § 7.02 is concerned, the other officers and deputies that were standing around while this incident occurred COULD be held accountable for failing to make a reasonable effort to impede or prevent the offenses from occurring. Concerning the immunity issue, *shrug* it was how it was presented to me and the actual section on it reads like Japanese stereo instructions. Oh and considering I’m not a “law student” but just an avid researcher of law (even if it sometimes results in failures), I find nothing that I’ve posted embarrassing. Perhaps, it is you that are embarrassed that you’re going to law school and didn’t know most of these yourself and had to “look them up on the internet”?

        • YourTaxDollarsAtWork

          He may not be liable under Texas law but he certainly look like he is guilty of violating 18 USC 242.

  • StevieNitro

    I called Gray County Sheriff’s Sheriff Don Copeland at 806-669-8022 and was told there is no officer Stokes.

    • That guy… in the video.

      He is now at Pampa PD.

  • ZodiacK

    I’ve pointed out to a town policeman that I know that I don’t trust police because they can lie to me. His response is they can’t lie about the law, only other things. I have to show him this video.

    • matism

      They can lie about ANYTHING they choose with impunity. Even under oath.

  • Rickforfree

    Just called Gray County Sheriff’s office and was told that Stokes no longer works there. “He sought employment elsewhere.” He was not fired. I spoke to the Deputy Sheriff, Horde. I made it clear to him that the deputy, who was under his supervision was totally incompetent and I blame him (Horde) for letting the deputy work when he obviously is a dishonorable, incompetent idiot. He did not like that and hung up on me.

    • matism

      And then had a good laugh since you fell for that “Stokes no longer works there” lie.

      • Rickforfree

        So, do you have proof that he does still work there? If so, let’s hear it.

        • matism

          Do you have any proof he DOESN’T, other than the “word” of the deputy you spoke to? Do you understand that he and the REST of the Blue Wall routinely lie, even when under oath?

          • Rickforfree

            I never said he doesn’t work there. I said that is what I was told. You are the one who said he still works there. Prove it.

          • Rickforfree

            So, now we know for a fact that Stokes works for Pampa Police Department. 806-669-5700. I talked to his Lieutenant who stands by this thug.

          • matism

            Thanks for checking.

  • jimmyt

    Beware Obese cops, they are lazy and tend to use brutality.

  • nospamformo

    I just spoke with Sheriff Copeland. He stated that this occurred months ago, and that the Deputy no longer works there. He also said that he has not yet seen the video, but is fixin’ to do so today. He also said that I was the first to bring it to his attention. I am dubious. He also stated that he is just as upset as I was, and that his people know that what Stokes did was not acceptable.

    • That guy, In the video…

      I have spoken to Copeland in person. More to come on that soon… (just wait for it) He did know about it, so he lied to you, but we have already established that they lie. This happened the night of 4/6/14.

  • sfmc98

    I’m not sure what an illegal detention suit is worth in rural Texas but the camera guy definitely put a check in all the right boxes. Calm, collected and knows the law.

    Getting them to admit he was being detained for filming had me cheering. In my parts, he’d be about $15,000 richer. Too bad its always at the expense of the taxpayer.

  • Boomer

    I never fail to be angered at these idiots walking down the street with a gun and a badge. I don’t know what on earth goes through Stokes’ mind at a time like this, since it was clear he was unarmed in a battle of intellect.

    The idea that I don’t have the right to remain silent unless I’m under arrest is idiotic, and suggests that Stokes believes he’s intelligent enough to trick this man.

    Do you have to take an idiocy test to get a gun and a badge? I’m really starting to wonder.

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

    Everybody is calling them. Love it. When I called, you can hear the tone of the secretary that answered the phone that she was annoyed. Too funny. I then heard the phone ringing in the background and this just made me smile. Great job Carlos, and outstanding job by all of US that have no problem calling these departments that employe these ass wipes.

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Film The Police Always

    Ok, I just viewed this video and WTF! These cops are absolutely NUTS! This is the kind of shit that is happening around this country and it needs to stop. They all colluded to commit a crime against this man and they should all be fired for allowing this. This stokes asshole doesnt even know the laws, and is making shit up. BULLSHIT! I hate these fuckers for doing this type of shit! We need more citizens like this man that knows his rights. This detention was BULLSHIT, and he assaulted him!

    • Rickforfree

      He now works fro Pampa Police Department. I just spoke to the Lieutenant there. The Lieutenant thinks I don’t like cops. 806-669-5700.

  • pathman25

    This kid did a good job here. He definitely needed to use the “am I free to go” line more frequently.

  • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

    asshole cop. Need to do Texas Open Records request to learn his full name and then see if we can find out where he’s working now. Wherever town that is, is probably a place to avoid if you value your rights.

    • Tom Johnson

      Good idea, lets find out if he’s still a cop.

      • Rickforfree

        Stokes now works for Pampa Police Department – 806-669-5700.

  • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

    Gray County Sheriff’s Office FB page if you care to leave a review or comment.

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gray-County-Sheriffs-Office/133575310040091?fref=ts

    • Rickforfree

      He now works fro Pampa Police Department. I just spoke to the Lieutenant there. The Lieutenant thinks I don’t like cops. 806-669-5700

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        The Pampa Chief of Police is Kelly Rushing, chief@pampapd.com. Note that the rest of Pampa emails are first initial last name -at- cityofpampa.org, so his actual email is likely krushing@cityofpampa.org. Rushing used to be the Chief Deputy at the Gray County Sheriff’s Office before he was named chief at Pampa.

        Rushing works for the City Manager, Richard Morris, rmorris@cityofpampa.org, 806-669-5750.

  • KingE

    Wow! That Pig made himself look like a DumbAss! The guy knows more law than the Retarded Cop! I would sue the station for Assault.

    • Jim Morriss

      Please don’t call them pigs. Pigs are intelligent.

  • Eric Heiss

    “Post 9/11…” this cop needs to do some studying, and not what fox new$ tells him to think.

    • theaton

      Fox News? Are you serious? It’s all of the media. Also, the Dems have renewed and strengthened the Patriot act equally with the Repubs. The Dems have allowed the NSA carte blanche equally with the Repubs. Big government control is about the only thing bipartisan that is left.

      • Eric Heiss

        Am I serious? Yes. Fox new$. I never said that it is NOT all of the media, I know that very well. I know that the democryps & reBloodLican$ are totally in bed w/each other as the banksters and such pull their strings. Of course the dems strengthened the Patriot Act (they didn’t write it though) with the NDAA. I just brought up fox new$ as 1. it is so obvious, and 2. this cop acts like they would be his bible. Yes all of the media is in on it, but fox new$ has clearly buried themselves into 1st place – and they are WAY out in the lead.

        • theaton

          That graphic is from Homeland Security, FBI and National Counter terrorism ctr. It was on all the major network and cable news shows. It was also on their web sites. It was also on many patriot sites. On Fox and patriot sites it was used to show just how out of control the government is.

          You brought up Fox as the sole example. Please provide studies to show that Fox airs more “we need more government control” stories than other networks? I’m sure you have them handy.

          • LibertyEbbs

            Thank you for that!!

          • LibertyEbbs

            Thank you for that!!

          • Eric Heiss

            Wow someone is a fox new$ Lover. Yes I can show 100’s, literally hundreds of the “mis-takes”, lies, b.s., etc. that fox new$ has shown as news since ’93, but as I mentioned (and is quite clear from my 1st post) I did not single out fox new$, but used them as the obvious (because yes, they are obvious). You want a laundry list of something and using “go do an hours work to prove me wrong on something you didnt’ say in the 1st place!” to ….. win a discussion that never started until you got bent out of shape for your precious $ean hannity? YOU go spend YOUR time.

          • theaton

            How biased and dense can people be? I don’t love any of them. I watch them all to know the enemy. I said they were all the same. I included all networks and cable. You only inlduded Fox. The dollar sign, whatever that means, shows you obssession with socialism/liberalism. They are all in business to make money, the news, opinion and truth are secondary concerns. It is not my job to prove you wrong, it is you who singled out Fox. You prove yourself right. It is just like liberals and soclialsts to trow out nonsense and expect people to must accept it. Republicans do the same thing to a lesser degree. Facts are almost non-existent to liberals.

          • kraz

            I go through this argument with people all the time and it’s frustrating. Late night talk show hosts make fun of FOX, you’ll find it also being the one singled out kind of subliminally in movies and sitcoms. People are almost brainwashed into thinking FOX is bad but CNNCBSCBSNABCDEFG are nothing but truth.
            All MSM is the same and they’re all full of shit. FOX did have Judge Napolitano at least until they fired him. This is him on FOX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgYg1X8DUI

          • G

            Facts are definately non-existent to conservatives.

          • theaton

            agreed, but show me a fact that exists to a liberal as well.

          • G

            Thom Hartmann shows plenty of facts on his liberal radio show, but the conservatives can’t or won’t accept them and knows how to rebuttal so-called facts from his conservative oppenents like Peter Schill and Neil Cavuto..
            Mike Papantonio of Ring of Fire radio show has appear on Fox News with facts, but the conservatives either mock him, talk over him, laugh at him, or degrade him with it comes to arguing against his facts.

  • Rezist2Exist

    At 4:07 it’s actually

    cop – “I’m fixing to put you under arrest.”

    cameraman – “For what?”

    cop – “For…”

    cameraman – “no crime sir? lol”

    cop – “For no crime?… I think I make up stuff.”

    He threatened to falsely charge him.

    • Tom Johnson

      I also caught that.

    • LibertyEbbs

      I think he said, “For no crime…you think I make up stuff?” I think Stokes was just voicing his incredulity at being challenged in this way. Note that I am in no way making excuses for the multiple crimes Stokes committed during this confrontation.

      • Rezist2Exist

        No it’s crystal clear, he was threatening false imprisonment, stopped mid-sentence and then reached for the camera and was unable to steal it cuz it was strapped to the dudes wrist.

        • LibertyEbbs

          Okay, I will watch it again after work tonight. I only watched it once.

        • LibertyEbbs

          Okay watched it again and he does say, “For no crime? I think I make up stuff?” However, it seems pretty obvious that he stumbled over the words and meant something along the lines of ‘So you’re accusing me of making up stuff?’ This is also supported by the fact that he loses his temper and snatches the camera. He did not like being questioned and he reacted with violence and further abuses of authority.

          I have seen LEO’s on video, and in person, admit that they could just make something up and arrest a person, but I don’t think that happened here.

  • michael92064

    Wouldn’t be assault if you breathed hard on the officer yet he grabbed you?

  • Rickforfree

    Just got off the phone with Pampa Police Department. Stokes works there now. The Lieutenant I spoke with asked if I just don’t like cops. I told him to watch the video and call me back and let me know what he thinks. Maybe he needs to hear from others 806-669-5700.

  • Citizenzero

    That’s disgusting, obviously they have been doing this for far to long. Press charges and sue. Yeah tax payers foot the bill but eventually they won’t be able to explain why their budgets so outrageous. This needs to happen everywhere…

    • stk33

      There’s nothing to sue for. The officer has a right to detain citizen while investigating suspicious activity (by his own definition), and while he is investigating, he can use force to prevent him from fleeing, and can also put handcuffs on him. This is undoubtedly what he will say. The argument whether his suspicions were reasonable, has practically no chance – it’s his judgment.

      • Rickforfree

        Suspicion of what crime?

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          There is no requirement that a specific crime be articulated, merely that there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

          I don’t think he can meet that burden, even as low as it is.

          • Rickforfree

            Isn’t there a court ruling on law enforcement not being able to use a citizens assertion of a right as suspicion of a crime?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I’m pretty sure that you are correct. I would have to double check it though.

          • Rickforfree

            I think I found what I was referring to.

            “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right may not be converted into a crime.” -Miller v. U.S.

            “No penalty or sanction shall be imposed on one for the claim or exercise of a constitutional right.” -Snerer v. Cullen (in conjunction with Miller v. U.S.)

            Is this appropriate?

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            I would have to look at them, but right off of the top that looks right.

            And by looking at, I’m talking about making sure that they were still good law (not overruled, superseded, etc.), not that you didn’t read the language correctly.

          • Rickforfree

            Thanks.

          • Tom Johnson

            You are correct Rickforfree.

          • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

            How can you have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot if you are not aware of any criminal law that the activity may violate? If you’re just saying the officer is not required to state the specific crime in response to being challenged, then I agree. But, it does seem to me that he must have some particular law in mind that he suspects is being violated, even if he cannot cite it or give it it’s correct name, rather than some vague notion that what you’re doing is/should/must be criminal.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            No, that’s what case law says, all the way back to Terry. I agree that it would make sense that the officer had to have a particular law in mind, but that’s not required.

            The other part that people don’t seem to get is the level of proof required for both reasonable suspicion and probable cause is a lot less than they believe it is.

        • stk33

          Any crime his imagination can come up with. And he does not have to tell you, by the way.

          I realize that you will probably disagree and say all stuff about reasonable suspicion, and cite case law, it’s all understood; the thing is, regular citizen most likely won’t have the opportunity to present all that wisdom at the right level of the court. Considerations like that are usually heard only at appellate level, and good luck finding a case that reached appellate level that was not drug-related, in order to suppress the evidence – and accordingly very expensive. So, however right you are, it simply does not matter because there’s no way to enforce that rightness.

          • Rickforfree

            Honestly not trolling here, I am just trying to learn. I read this on the YouTube comments for this video.

            “Police are NOT allowed to create unreasonable reasonable suspicion.” -Terry v. Ohio

            “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right may not be converted into a crime.” -Miller v. U.S.

            “No penalty or sanction shall be imposed on one for the claim or exercise of a constitutional right.” -Snerer v. Cullen (in conjunction with Miller v. U.S.)

            Is this appropriate?

  • steveo

    wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again: when the leo comes across the street tell him emphatically that you don’t wish to talk to him, the conversation is not consensual and to leave you alone. If he asks for your ID, tell him your name, then ask him if you are under arrest. Otherwise, I have nothing to say to you, please leave me alone and go about your business.

    • stk33

      The reply will be that you are not under arrest, but you are detained while he is investigating your suspicious activity. He can handcuff you for the period of detention.

      By the way, if you later try to question his judgement about whether your activity was suspicious, he will produce any number of federal guidelines sent to his PD that will clearly show that it was indeed very suspicious.

    • Necron 99

      Think I would have told him to pound sand when he asked for a name.

      “Texas PC Sec. 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:(1) lawfully arrested the person;(2) lawfully detained the person; or(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense”

  • dagobarbz

    I think it would be useful to invent a taser/camera. So when they grab the camera, the taser goes off and drops them. Pick up your camera, walk away. Maybe kick ‘em in the ribs a little first, I dunno.

  • steveo

    Stop talking!

  • Ian Battles

    Take the video to the local news and file charges against the cop for attempted robbery.

    • nospamformo

      Here are the TV stations in Amarillo, TX, which seems to be the closest big city…http://www.stationindex.com/tv/markets/Amarillo

      • nospamformo

        ProNews 7 just told me that they are working on the story and are trying to contact the videographer.

        KVII-TV

        One Broadcast Center

        Amarillo, TX 79101

        806-373-1787

        • That guy, in the video…

          We are speaking to them now, thanks!

          • kraz

            Update?

          • nospamformo

            Anything come of it?

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      It’s not attempted robbery. We’ve discussed this before, and I assume that you do not care what the requirements are to make a case for attempted robbery. Of course, you could just be saying that officers don’t deserve the same rights as any other citizen is entitled to.

      • G

        Cops shouldn’t deserve the same rights if the rest of us can’t have them. Cops thinks that only they are entilted to legal representation, the right to remain silent, etc,, etc., etc. and believe the that US Constitution and Bill of Rights should have been toss away because they feel it hinders their police work.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          Except every other citizen gets those rights. You just don’t want a group that you dislike to have them.

          • Jim Morriss

            Face it the LEOs get all sorts of privileges by virtue of other LEOs not pressing the charges or “not seeing” them committed.

          • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

            And I have never agreed with that.

            I know of several officers who were charged with crimes, but I’ve also seen a number who should have been and were not.

          • theaton

            And what did you attempt to do about those that were not?

          • G

            He probably did nothing since he wanted to get out with his skin still intact and if he becomes a DA, he will need cops political and financial support during election time as well as trying to prosecute cases.
            If he is in private practice, he will need ex-cops to help him with his cases as private eyes or with large security firms.

          • G

            Tell that to the cops. They dislike the whole population of the USA and frimly believed that the general population should not have any rights. Heck, the cops hate each other especially hating honest cops.

        • LibertyEbbs

          Like the right to not be interviewed for up to three days, or enough time to collude and get your stories straight, after shooting or beating someone to death that police get, but nobody else does? Or the right to drive like a half-trained chimpanzee and never get a ticket? Or the right to threaten and harass basically any person you want with no fear of reprisal? The right to take peoples property without cause or due process and not have to answer for that? The right to shoot a stranger’s pet without provocation and not be punished? The right to assault, threaten, beat, murder, rape people as a course of your daily business with little or no fear that you will ever be held to account for your crimes? [Note: This list is not exhaustive.]

          I hear what you are saying, but you’re wasting your time trying to get ECLS to take those blinders off and see this issue in all its horrific reality.

          • G

            Which is why guys like Carlos will continue to film the cops until they finally get the message don’t screw with people’s rights.
            As the captain told the prisoners in the movie Cool Hand Luke, it is all up to you. In this case, it is up to the cops on whether or not want to reform or not. Otherwise, they will find that guys like Carlos can be real mean SOBs.

  • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

    Minor correction.

    Pampa is in the Panhandle, not “North Texas,” which is commonly used to refer to the area from the Dallas-Fort Worth area north to the Red River.

    • Jim Morriss

      It’s as confusing as the UK/Great Britain thing!

    • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

      Personally, I call that area West Texas. Yes, it’s also in the Panhandle. Everything in the Panhandle is in West Texas, not everything in West Texas is in the Panhandle. And, you’re Central Texas extends way too far west!

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        I agree. I just used the first map that was close.

  • nospamformo

    I spoke with Officer Hobson at Pampa Police. He hung on me. Before that, he said Officer Stokes ” now knows the law” and that “we took care of our problem”. When I asked if meant he disciplined Stokes, he said no, that was a Gray County Sheriff issue. When I then asked if he meant that he disciplined Officer Roberts, he said “no, he did nothing wrong”. When I asked again wheat he meant by “took care of our problem”, he asked for my name and then hung up when i did not answer to his satisfaction. Pampa Police 806-669-5700

  • Rickforfree

    Now working for Pampa Police Department 806-669-5700. His new Lieutenant thinks we are all cop haters. The Lieutenant is also ignorant of the Texas statute regarding ID requirements. He told me a person has to ID if detained, “he thinks”. Seems to me the whole Pampa Police Department is incompetent.

  • Kevin Hale

    I like how they tried to play the good cop bad cop game trying to get more info.

  • Tom Johnson

    How the hell can a cop, let alone a Lieutenant in the Parma Police Department not know the B A S I C L A W S that pertain to/with dealing with the public? Not only is this ridiculous, it’s down right criminal. Hey Lieutenant, a person does NOT have to ID because you said give me your ID.

    Jesus Christ, if you are that ignorant to the basic laws then I’m going to suggest that you not only go back to basic law training (where you initially went) that you received in obtaining your certificate (you do have a certificate right), but once you get yourself up-to-speed, I suggest you institute some type of a recurrent training within your department that constantly breaks down the basic laws and citizens rights, and once that’s mastered (it wont be considering the police track records), then and only then do you continue the recurrent training into other scopes of law, be it ordinance and or statue or state.

    You guys a bunch of ignorant tin badge and gun toting morons with absolutely no common sense.

    • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

      Part of the problem may be that Texas law was different many years ago and did require a person to identify themselves when stopped and questioned. I believe the law was unconstitutional under Supreme court precedents and the Texas Legislature later amended the law. Regardless, the notion that you must identify yourself is asked by a LE in Texas is widespread among LE for whatever reason.

      • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

        You are correct. Old law required that one ID themselves at the request of a peace officer.

        It was held unconstitutional in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).

  • hazy

    Google Glass is on sale for 1200 dollars. Good investment for capturing footage without being hassled like this.

    Would love to hear the thoughts from lawyers in that one North east state that criminalizes surreptitious recording in public. Which one is that again?

    The electronic interception of communications is too important of a law for there to be different interpretations by the state. Make 18 U.S. chapter 119 binding to all the states with regards to wiretapping.

    • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

      Can’t.

      It would be an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the states. It is also a statist argument, centralizing authority in the federal government.

      • hazy

        Call me a federalist then. I know it’s just wishful thinking but, It’s not like the states are protecting people from federal police anyways. Better to be raped by 1 bureaucracy than multiple ones.

        • http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/ ExCop-LawStudent

          That’s the wrong way to go.

    • dravo1

      Actually, if you think about it, the only way to get decent video with NO risk is to use a well concealed camera. If you want to play it really safe, have a second photographer focused on the first photographer only.

    • Pragmatic Liberaltarian

      I think it’s Massachusetts that you’re thinking of.

  • BFSP

    “I’m in control you’re not!” – LOL. Wrong sport. Would you like to try again?

    The lies and double talk are almost unbearable to hear. The good cop routine from grandpa was pathetic while his complicit partners coached the Sheriff on the actual law and likely told him to STFU.

    Don’t let some PoS shyster talk you into limiting the charges listed in the lawsuits. You’ve potentially hit the jackpot with these clowns. They all need a new profession.

    Potentially helpful previous PINAC comments below.

    censored1 Guest • 6 months ago

    Lay claim to this corrupt cops SURETY BOND. …..Once a cop (and any other servant that takes an OATH OF OFFICE must be bonded with a surety bond…..once a surety bond is claimed and is paid out.. (usually insures for $10k) that person can NEVER be bonded again. ..can no longer be a cop….

    Amy Barnes censored1 • 6 months ago

    Do that AFTER you collect the money – then go after the certification board to revoke the certification of the criminal in costume.

    • Tom Johnson

      The I’m in control bullshit is what he was taught in school.

      Here’s the instructor,—-With a commanding voice and repeat after me, “I’m in control and your not”. Everybody all together now repeat it, and keep repeating it until you get it down.

      MORON!!

  • Kel

    I just spoke to a gentleman at the Pampa Police Department where officer Stokes now works. he claims they are getting a lot of calls and that they are going to retrain all staff as in regards to the law on photography… Nice enough man… Secretary defo upset and transferred me right thru to the gentleman.. Feel free to call him in regards to officer Stokes 8066695700

    • Tom Johnson

      That’s a great thing that they are implementing a training program to remind them that (here ya go Carlos) Photography Is Not A Crime!! . That tells me that they understand that they hired a turd, and because of this turd they are going to make sure that this type of encounter doesn’t happen with them.

      I feel bad that they inherited a wannabe billy bad ass, but sometimes it takes the negative attention (no fault of Pampa Police) to rectify something that just may cause an issue.

      One department at a time!!

  • Pippiagain

    Some day, the citizens are going to say, “I’ve had enough!” and start beating some sense into these idiots heads–and I really hope it starts soon…

    • http://dailygrackle.wordpress.com NoelArmourson

      Isn’t that what the “PINAC wrath” is?

      • n4zhg

        No, PINAC wrath is lighting up the switchboard of the agency to inform them that they’ve got a real dumbass carrying a badge and a gun and wearing their uniform.

        • http://dailygrackle.wordpress.com NoelArmourson

          And that swarm of calls and emails is the instant and non-violent head-beating.

          • Rickforfree

            Stokes now works for Pampa Police Department. 806-669-5700.