Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.560 --> 00:05.120]  Dave Champion here. I want to share with you a phone call that I received from a buddy of mine
[00:05.120 --> 00:13.360]  who is a retired police executive. He called me the other day and he was fit to be tied. His
[00:13.360 --> 00:18.960]  relatives live in California, Southern California in particular, and the community in which they
[00:18.960 --> 00:26.640]  live or at least the community through which his relative was driving to go to work has a 10 pm to
[00:26.640 --> 00:36.000]  5 am curfew. So he's driving and a police unit lights him up, pulls over. The cop comes to the
[00:36.000 --> 00:42.000]  window and says, do you have your papers proving you're an essential worker?
[00:50.160 --> 00:55.040]  Needless to say, this is appalling in the United States. Oh, I'm not sure California is. Is
[00:55.120 --> 01:00.080]  California part of the United States anymore or they're full on communist? Anyway, so
[01:01.680 --> 01:07.840]  there's a couple of issues here, but the main thing is that this is Nazi stuff. You're on the
[01:07.840 --> 01:15.040]  street. Show me your papers that you are government authorized to be out of your house. Insane. Now,
[01:15.040 --> 01:20.400]  there are two levels of legal issues here. Let me quickly cover each of them. One is,
[01:20.640 --> 01:26.560]  would it, if challenged in court and went up the food chain, would it be found constitutional to
[01:26.560 --> 01:33.680]  tell people who are presumably healthy, they can't go out of their homes between this time and this
[01:33.680 --> 01:38.480]  time? You don't know that they're sick. You don't know they're infecting anybody. You don't know
[01:38.480 --> 01:43.920]  you have absolutely no particularized cause or suspicion, right? Can you tell them to stay home?
[01:44.080 --> 01:49.040]  Can you tell them to stay home? I'm pretty sure a court would say, no, sorry, that doesn't fly.
[01:49.920 --> 01:54.800]  And the second issue, and the one that probably as former law enforcement irks me the most,
[01:56.720 --> 02:02.080]  there was zero reasonable suspicion. Now, I'm not going to go into the whole reasonable suspicion
[02:02.080 --> 02:07.200]  thing, but I will quickly say that you have to have, as a law enforcement officer, reasonable
[02:07.200 --> 02:15.920]  suspicion to make a temporary detainment, and then you have to discern that the information you
[02:15.920 --> 02:20.560]  possess that led you to believe a crime might be committed and this guy might be involved,
[02:20.560 --> 02:26.080]  that you have decided that's not so, and you let the person go. Or you question the person,
[02:26.080 --> 02:30.160]  and you reach the higher level of probable cause, and then you put silver bracelets on him and take
[02:30.160 --> 02:35.440]  him off to jail. Okay, so that's how the reasonable suspicion probable cause thing works. However,
[02:35.440 --> 02:40.880]  for reasonable suspicion, there's a reason that the word reasonable is in there.
[02:42.400 --> 02:48.960]  A reasonable officer, that's according to the courts, not me, a reasonable officer has to be in
[02:50.400 --> 03:01.200]  possession of information that would lead a reasonable officer to believe a crime is being
[03:01.280 --> 03:06.320]  committed and that it's being committed by that person. The officer has to be able to say,
[03:07.040 --> 03:15.360]  I have enough particularized information about that guy or that car. The guy's driving down the
[03:15.360 --> 03:26.720]  street, minding his own business. He's not violating the vehicle code. So what particularized
[03:26.720 --> 03:34.160]  information did that law enforcement officer have? As he will say, he's parked and he sees
[03:34.160 --> 03:40.080]  this guy go by. What particularized information was possessed by that officer that would lead
[03:40.080 --> 03:49.760]  him to believe that that car and that driver were engaged in criminal conduct? Yeah. Bubkiss, zero.
[03:49.760 --> 03:56.800]  This is Nazi shit right here. I have long said, and cops do this so often and I find it so
[03:56.800 --> 04:05.920]  egregious, and I used to preach this when I was training. The door you crack open to doing worse
[04:05.920 --> 04:13.600]  shit is when you ignore reasonable suspicion because it's a constitutional right. So once you
[04:13.600 --> 04:18.000]  crack the door open and say, you know what? Yeah, screw reasonable suspicion. I'm going to concoct
[04:18.000 --> 04:23.120]  some fantasy in my head for which I have no articulatable facts. I'm going to concoct some
[04:23.120 --> 04:27.360]  fantasy and I'm going to pull this guy over. Okay. Once you've gone there, where's the line?
[04:27.360 --> 04:31.920]  Years ago, I heard an audio recording actually made by the detective, which is really the
[04:31.920 --> 04:38.000]  boneheaded thing, where they had entered a guy's house looking for some sort of firearms. I forget
[04:38.000 --> 04:42.560]  it's been too many years now. And the conversation that ensued between the two detectives was, well,
[04:42.560 --> 04:46.400]  we don't really have any probable cause to be in this guy's house. So how are we going, literally,
[04:46.400 --> 04:49.440]  how are we going to manufacture the probable cause that doesn't exist?
[04:50.400 --> 04:55.360]  Okay. So guess where that mentality begins? That mentality begins, okay, that's probable cause,
[04:55.360 --> 05:01.520]  right? That mentality begins down here when you start cracking the door open to violating
[05:01.520 --> 05:05.760]  the constitutional rights of the public, which is expressed in law enforcement training as you
[05:05.760 --> 05:11.360]  must have reasonable suspicion. Okay. So that's what's going on in Southern California. Now,
[05:12.160 --> 05:15.520]  my buddy, of course, being a retired law enforcement executive, he was like,
[05:15.520 --> 05:19.520]  if that had been me, I would have said, hey, hook me up, because this is going to be the test case
[05:19.520 --> 05:24.000]  that goes to the courts. But yeah, so the family member didn't do that. But I did want you to know
[05:24.000 --> 05:30.240]  that that's exactly what's going on right now in America. Again, is California part of America?
[05:30.240 --> 05:33.040]  So if that happens to you, because I know there's a lot of different governments that are putting
[05:33.040 --> 05:37.520]  curfews in place. So if that happens to you, you should definitely get your phone on the record
[05:37.520 --> 05:42.720]  mode, put it in your lap, whatever, and say to the officer who's standing at your window,
[05:42.720 --> 05:46.800]  can you please articulate for me a reasonable suspicion to believe that I'm violating the law?
[05:47.520 --> 05:54.240]  That's super, super important. If you don't fight back, if you don't push back against this,
[05:55.200 --> 06:01.440]  yeah, it's only going to get worse and worse and worse. And I'm giving you in this video,
[06:01.440 --> 06:05.520]  the tools to fight back. I mean, you all have a phone, you all have a record mode.
[06:06.080 --> 06:09.680]  So that's what you're going to do. If you get pulled over during hours of curfew, you're going
[06:09.680 --> 06:13.680]  to put the phone on your thigh with the recording running and you're going to ask the officer
[06:13.680 --> 06:21.440]  straight up. What is your reasonable suspicion? Don't say probable cause reasonable suspicion to
[06:21.440 --> 06:26.720]  believe I have engaged in criminal conduct. Okay. It kills me when I see these people all the time
[06:26.720 --> 06:33.040]  in these videos. All they've been is temporarily detained and they'll say, what's your probable
[06:33.040 --> 06:38.640]  cause? And the cop is just like, shut up, dude, because he knows the guy's an idiot because he's
[06:38.640 --> 06:43.520]  saying probable cause to affect a temporary seizure, a detainment only needs reasonable
[06:43.520 --> 06:48.240]  suspicion. So if you get pulled over, don't say probable cause, say reasonable suspicion.
[06:48.240 --> 06:54.160]  And if you want to know a whole lot more about how the law operates, may I encourage you to go to
[06:54.160 --> 06:59.280]  drreality.news and get a copy of income tax shatter and miss. Now you may think that you read income
[06:59.280 --> 07:03.680]  tax shatter and miss and all you're going to learn in there is income tax law. No, there is so much
[07:03.680 --> 07:10.160]  history. There is so much, I guess what I would refer to as fundamental principles of law.
[07:11.200 --> 07:17.440]  Let's say you read it at 37. These principles of law, you can still apply when you're 90. They
[07:17.440 --> 07:24.400]  are timeless principles of law that show crystal clear that the income tax doesn't apply to the
[07:24.400 --> 07:27.280]  vast majority of Americans. The Congress never imposed it on the vast majority of Americans.
[07:27.280 --> 07:33.120]  It's probably more legally accurate way to put it. But the way the courts have gotten there over
[07:33.120 --> 07:38.240]  the years and the way the government has acknowledged the truth of what I'm telling you over the years,
[07:38.240 --> 07:44.480]  yeah, it relies on all those core fundamental legal principles that you will learn in income
[07:44.480 --> 07:56.640]  tax shatter and miss. So I suggest you go to drreality.news and learn some really cool stuff.