Comments by "Clown Life" (@Clownlife432) on "" video.

  1. Although I disagree with how he acted. Never consent to searches. He shouldn’t be arrested for finding a gun. We have the second amendment, and a gun is not a crime.
    5
  2.  @IceLynne  I know you don’t have to. But you should still never consent because when in court, if they throw out the stop based on suspicion of smell, the cops can revert to you consented. I stand by the statement, never consent, and openly say you don’t consent to searches. You’re not saying it for the moment, you’re saying it for the legal battle if need be.
    1
  3.  @quasicrystal5166  I do know the law friend. If you learn the law, what you well see is that often times cops will falsely claim that when they want to search. So often times that can get thrown out. So in that case, you should always verbally refuse searches where they proceed or not because it protects you in court. Is it possible the cops story holds, yes, but you stack the odds in your favor. Further, I agree that the cop acted kind considering that the guy was acting erratically. I already conceded that I don’t agree with how he acted. But I do not also agree that having a gun makes you criminal. They found a gun, so what? Guns are legal. Maybe he did or didn’t smell weed, but you always stack the odds in your favor by verbally not consenting to searches. I’ve known good cops and bad cops. This guy seems like he’s walking the line of becoming a bad cop. But look into what I said, and you will see that I am correct. If the cops smell gets thrown out he will pivot to that he consented. No consent means it all gets thrown out. So please, you need to learn a bit more before commenting. Also, the cop doesn’t have the right to search. That’s not what rights are. He has probable cause. Again, please learn the law.
    1
  4.  @KilgorSoS 😆 you didn’t read what I said. Instead of reacting, read, and process. First, I never said he there was no ability to search due to smell. I said, quite clearly, do not consent to searches as a citizen. If a search was to be thrown out in the future on whatever pretext the officer used, they would revert to saying but he consented. So it is always wise to never consent to a search. Does this make sense. Further, you should not get arrested for having a gun. I do not care what law they pass, the second amendment supersedes those laws. Knowing the law also means understanding the process, and that means understanding that politicians routinely pass unconstitutional laws that get struck down by the Supreme Court. I think this is one that might go. I as a staunch supporter of the second amendment do not believe that anyone should be arrested ever for merely possessing a firearm. Knowing the law, as you say, means knowing that the second amendment says not to be infringed, and there is a strong case to say you’re infringing on someone’s rights because they are being arrested for having a gun, and it also comes into conflict potentially with the fifth amendment as well. Does that clear things up? An analogy to help, Michigan just passed a law compelling people to use the “correct” pronouns with people. “Knowing the law”, as you would say, I know that will be ruled unconstitutional in alignment with the second amendment. So if you go back and read what I wrote, I never said some politician didn’t put words to paper saying such nonsense. I said a gun is not a crime. Just like I think speech is not a crime. Those statements are full stop. They should be for yo has well if you are a second amendment supporter. You can attack people, you can call names, but that doesn’t make you right. I would suggest a deep dive into the constitution, followed by the federalist papers, followed by what is typical legal advice when dealing with police. Here’s a great place to start. You go ahead and have a great day, chief. https://constitutioncenter.org/
    1