laohao_mg_ai27
Region: US
Tuesday 02 June 2026 13:21:45 GMT
8899
225
10
10
Music
Download
Comments
Justin :
you’re allowed to film police doing their daily duties
2026-08-17 21:45:33
0
Watching :
He’s reading the warning at the start of the vhs tape
2026-06-03 10:05:43
1
Psycho :
blah blah blah
2026-06-02 13:48:11
2
peterose54 :
Authority lover
2026-06-03 14:14:04
0
John Boricua :
end qualified immunity for once and all
2026-06-03 23:41:57
0
Big Jim Pete Gunn :
😂😂😂
2026-06-03 12:24:47
0
Joe Western :
😂😂😂
2026-06-03 20:34:41
0
DEAL WITH IT 2.0 :
Robert Jordan is the plaintiff from the landmark 1996 legal case Jordan v. City of New London. He was rejected from becoming a police officer in New London, Connecticut, after scoring a 33 on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (the equivalent of an IQ of 125), which the department deemed too high.The DetailsThe Applicant: Robert Jordan was a 46-year-old college graduate and former law student.The Test & Score: He took the standardized Wonderlic test—a cognitive ability and problem-solving exam. He scored a 33 out of 50, which equates to an IQ of 125.The Department's Policy: The New London Police Department had a long-standing policy to only interview applicants who scored between 20 and 27.The Rationale: The city argued that candidates who scored "too high" would get bored with mundane police routines and quit shortly after the department invested expensive academy training in them (estimated at $25,000 per recruit).The LawsuitThe Claim: Jordan sued the city in federal court, alleging that the policy violated his constitutional rights and constituted discrimination based on intelligence.The Ruling: The federal district court, and later the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, ruled against Jordan.The Legal Logic: The court did not necessarily rule that the city's policy was smart or wise. Instead, it ruled that the city was not violating equal protection laws because they applied the exact same maximum IQ standard evenly to all applicants—regardless of race, gender, or class. The courts acknowledged the city’s rationale of reducing job turnover as legally valid.After exhausting his appeals, Jordan gave up his fight to become a New London cop and took a position as a prison guard, noting that his new job required exactly the kind of critical thinking the police department had deemed a liability.
2026-06-02 18:00:42
1
DEAL WITH IT 2.0 :
Yes, as an American citizen under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, you have the protected right to verbally criticize, insult, and call out police officers. Courts have repeatedly ruled that public officials, including law enforcement, must tolerate a higher level of verbal abuse and criticism than private citizens.However, there are important legal distinctions regarding your First Amendment rights, how you conduct yourself, and the legal obligations of police:1. Protected Speech vs. Illegal ActionsWhile you can verbally criticize police and compare them to oppressive regimes, your speech cannot cross the line into illegal behavior.What is protected: You can use profanity, yell, question their integrity, or make highly offensive statements as long as it does not incite immediate violence.What is not protected: You do not have the right to obstruct an officer in the performance of their duties, interfere with an ongoing investigation, incite a riot, or physically threaten them. Doing so can result in lawful arrest.2. The Duty to ProtectYou specifically mentioned police not "serving and protecting." While it is the mission of law enforcement to serve and protect communities, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect specific, individual citizens from harm. Generally, you cannot sue a law enforcement agency for monetary compensation if an officer fails to protect you.3. Practical ConsiderationsEven when your speech is constitutionally protected, getting into a verbal altercation with a police officer can escalate a situation. To safely exercise your rights, you should:Comply and complain: If an officer gives you a lawful order, it is safest to comply with it first, and then formally challenge their behavior later by filing a complaint with the department's internal affairs, your local Civilian Complaint Review Board, or by seeking legal counsel.Record the encounter: You have a clearly established First Amendment right to film and record police officers in public spaces, provided you are not interfering with their work.
2026-06-02 18:02:06
0
DEAL WITH IT 2.0 :
The $3.2 billion figure comes from a comprehensive investigation by The Washington Post into misconduct payouts at 25 of the largest police and sheriff's departments in the United States between 2010 and 2020.You can explore the findings and view the data directly through these resources:The Investigation: Read the full findings in The Washington Post: The hidden billion-dollar cost of repeated police misconduct.Searchable Database: Look up specific departments and track total payouts via The Washington Post Database.Key Takeaways from the Data:Major Drivers: Nearly 80% of the $3.2 billion total was driven by just three massive departments: New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.Repeat Offenders: A small fraction of officers were responsible for a massive portion of the costs. Over 7,600 officers across these 25 departments had multiple payouts, accounting for $1.5 billion of the total.Broader Tracking: To track ongoing civil settlements and public funding for police lawsuits on a national scale, you can also utilize the Legal Defense Fund's National Police Funding
2026-06-02 18:00:28
0
To see more videos from user @laohao_mg_ai27, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
