Consensual Encounter FAIL Fastest dismissal Ever. It’s 100° no time to play!

#Firstamendment #Audit
rogue nation
kitty girl productions:

——–Help Support the channel (Thank you)———

—————Equipment: —————
Body Camera:
Cheaper Gimbal:
Knoxville Sunglasses:
Mavic 2 Pro Drone (Current)
Mavic Pro (filmed this video)
Mavic Battery
Video Cameras:
Audio: (Yes for real) This video may not have utilized them
Wind Muff:
Full video coming soon but we toured a Naval air station and it’s like batting the hornets nest.

When it’s too hot to audit send them on the way and catch an Uber. Bye officer, we got to go!

** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **

Author: rafael.nieves


44 thoughts on “Consensual Encounter FAIL Fastest dismissal Ever. It’s 100° no time to play!

  1. I think something auditors need to do more of is use something called Socratic questioning to use logic in order to expose the twisted mentality and logic necessary for officers to do what they do. It's so effective that the person it's named after was murdered by those in power for using logic and reason to expose the fallacies those that govern used to control thinking. They just called it corrupting the minds of the youth. The same fallacies from then are still used to control today. Why stop doing what works, right? However, it's harder to murder people for exposing it today. You may end up in a cage, but they can seldom get away with killing you outright. You're pretty good at using dialog to expose what LE does, so this isn't about what you do. It's just a good video for me to put thoughts into words on something I've been thinking about a bit. It's honestly more about me working through an idea than it is publicly voicing my opinion. I think auditors need to start using the consensual encounter and prior restraint approaches more often. Honestly, I think it should be used every time in order to establish the dominance and control LE uses questions themselves to establish. If you can't avoid a fight, strike first and strike hard. Even if the fight is tongue foo. The employer needs to be in charge of the employee and I think this is an incredible way to do that very quickly. Have it established at the start that the encounter has to be consensual since no violation of law is suspected. Articulate from the start that prior restraint has been frowned on throughout the history of this country and the actions they about to take are prior restraint. If they try the I'm investigating approach, ask them if they're aware that they have to articulate evidence in order to meet one of the components necessary in order to satisfy the burden of proof on them in order to detain or ID. I also think highlighting the components necessary to satisfy the burdens placed on them is important, since they tend to ignore components to suit their needs. Like saying they got a call as justification for things that doesn't justify. That's literally using hearsay, which isn't evidence. Just doing this will usually open the door to other questions that expose them. They don't want custody status to come up if they don't have justification to alter that status, and try to avoid answering it. Most are smart enough to understand they lose power, and they're trained to maintain control and power. Custody status, contact type and the articulation of their actions possibly being prior restraint completely takes that control away from them. When they continue their fishing after it's been established that the contact in consensual, ask them if they're aware that their mere presence at this point makes you feel like you need to stop the constitutionally protected activity you're engaged in. That really puts them on the spot since you've just articulated you feel the need to end your constitutionally protected activity due to them refusing to honor your removal of their consent to talk to you. Obviously, it's no longer consensual, so ask them what level of contact the conversation has now moved to. When they continue, as most of them will, ask them what other profession in society allows for an employee to keep harassing their boss after being told a conversation is over. Especially when that employee is now completely violating his employment agreement by not following the rules and regulations he accepted when he took the job. Ask them why they think their profession is special and can behave this way. Ask them why they think there are different levels of contact, including the specific classification of consent, if they're just going to ignore consent and do what they want. Ask them why they think the word consent is used in the type of contact they're engaged in if consent wasn't a necessary component. A big tool of LE in the violation of rights is ignoring every component cited in laws and policy. That's how they get away with false arrests using public disturbance and interfering charges. I seldom see them if they know every component required and why they're attempting to ignore specific components that don't support the actions they're threatening. Ask them why there would be a contact category requiring consent if they think they can just do what they want when it comes to contacting and questioning a member of the public. A lot of times their behavior will likely lead to being able to expose them as the sovereign citizens they are, that think they don't have to respect our rights or the laws that govern them. The exposure auditors bring to unlawful actions by police and other public servants is great, but a large portion of the population isn't capable of reasoning things out on their own and need some help and guidance to see things in their proper context. Questions, their answers or lack of answers go much further in shaping the thoughts of those watching than statements of fact do. I believe it works far better on people that think with emotion rather than logic since it paints the person questioning in a more reasonable light to them. While also painting the person avoiding those questions, or unable to answer them, in a negative light. They see statements of fact that challenge their cognitive dissonance as something easier to reject. Reasonable questions that can't be replied to with reasonable answers don't trigger immediate emotionally based rejection as quickly, and may work better at getting through to more people. Seeing someone expose the lack of logic guiding the actions of those doing wrong is a powerful tool that I think should be used more. Questions are exactly how LE expose things that can be exploited in the approach they use, they should be used on them in return more. Preemptively even.

  2. I police in Florida I go up to people all the time and have simple conversations if they don't wanna talk to me because of a badge I got nothing against them it's their choice we are human too and I think some people forget that . I don't like how y'all disrespect the officers right off the bat tho. It's called being a decent human being . I love my community and everyone in it no one has ever done this to me

  3. cops must hate uber and ride share… they can't just run the plates of the car and hope to get an ID of one of them anymore. Or in the past the cop would have just got in his cruiser and pulled the driver over. Neither works very well anymore

  4. This guy seems to be nice but like the rest of them he just dont get it when he is not in control and dominating the situation, he has no business asking you anything. That shouldn't be surprise to him. He don't need to know what everybody is doing. If not under suspected crime or no reason then why they care? Mind control and. Communism. Hitler ain't got nothing on what the general police are trying to do to America but Americans seem not to be worried about it. Land of the free lmao yea right

  5. Thank you I learned something new. Prior restraint, some community's actually try to enforce such laws.
    The board walk in Atlantic City.

  6. They are trained to start dialogue with you in effort to criminalize yourself . It's really scary how they either don't know people's rights or just flat out ignore them. And if you do anything to protect yourself from them they go alpha male and get pissed. Great video !!

  7. Excellent police officer that knows the law didn't accuse you of anything didn't try to detain then you left…so whats the problem…NOTHING

  8. Police are allowed to make consensual encounters. He didn’t do anything wrong but ask how y’all are doing, nothing wrong with that. Rather have police do that for the community but everyone says that there is a break down with the police. It’s both sides civilian and police both sides are at fault not just the police. There are good cops out there and he was probably one but yet you shoved a piece of paper in his face saying ‘you violating my rights’ blah blah.

  9. did you notice that he took the notice straight to the trashcan? what was on the notice that he didnt notice and take note of?
    sorry but i just noticed and could help but take note

  10. Subbed. Can't wait to go through your library. Gave it a glance . . . 1A/2AA and educating the public and officials w/o alienating. Next stop; our school systems, lest "We" and Madison are in serious trouble. When people fear to use their rights, something very wrong is afoot.

Comments are closed.