Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/audittheaudit

Facebook: https://bit.ly/3fKIZF8

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuditTheAudit

Audit the Audit 2: http://bit.ly/2CD2b6j

Submit your videos here: auditheaudit@gmail.com

Sponsorship inquiries: audit@ellifyagency.com

Welcome to Audit the Audit, where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions. Help us grow and educate more citizens and officers on the proper officer interaction conduct by liking this video and/or subscribing.

This video is for educational purposes and is in no way intended to provoke, incite, or shock the viewer. This video was created to educate citizens on constitutionally protected activities and emphasize the importance that legal action plays in constitutional activism.

Bear in mind that the facts presented in my videos are not indicative of my personal opinion, and I do not always agree with the outcome, people, or judgements of any interaction. My videos should not be construed as legal advice, they are merely a presentation of facts as I understand them.

FAIR USE
This video falls under fair use protection as it has been manipulated for educational purposes with the addition of commentary. This video is complementary to illustrate the educational value of the information being delivered through the commentary and has inherently changed the value, audience and intention of the original video.

Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT_RRqgf7m4

Apologia Studios’ channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK9RJwC7Er16-Y8dvIQ-3tw

Apologia Church: https://apologiachurch.com/

Sources:

ARS 13-2412: https://bit.ly/3cWjpNh

Terry v. Ohio: https://bit.ly/30ZsCAM

Tempe City Codes: https://bit.ly/3e48mCk

CDC noise chart: https://bit.ly/3ovAmDH

Megaphone decibels: https://bit.ly/3jBoxbB

Saia v. New York: https://bit.ly/3kAmsxR

Kovacs v. Cooper: https://bit.ly/3os4r78

Cuviello v. City of Vallejo: https://bit.ly/2HHsLAW

———————————————————————————————
cops, police, informed citizen, cops,officers,police,first amendment,audit,rights,protest,activism,activist,owned,destroyed,recording,filming,citizen,sovereign,constitution,constitutional,cop owned,pd,know your rights,informed,citizen,informed,attorney,journalist,review,cop,officer,sergeant,Big Nick,accountability, ben shapiro, news now, first amendment audit,amagansett press,1st amendment audit,auditing america,news now california,sgv news first,high desert community watch,news now houston,police fail,anselmo morales,san joaquin valley transparency,photography is not a crime,first amendment audit fail,auditor arrested,walk of shame,pinac news,1st amendment audit fail,highdesert community watch,public photography,furry potato,cops triggered,record the police,copwatching,police accountability,government accountability,police intimidation fail,photography is not a crime,civil rights act,california constitution,sovereign citizens, sovereign citizen owned

source

32 thoughts on “Pastor Rejects Officers Blocking Free Speech”
  1. Do not agree with your grading. You are telling us to believe you over his lawyer from the city this is conducted in, your personal bias is easy to see especially after your multiple remarks on not showing the content of the protest. Not once did the officers inform him that he was incorrect on the law meaning they don’t know it or didn’t want to tell him, both are issues. The first cop literally tells him “Don’t give me the law”, which in any of your other videos you would claim to be an abuse of power, poor conduct and attitude, lack of transparency and accountability, inadequate training, and improper disclosure of information. Yet you gave this man the B grade. You are leaning people to believe he did something wrong with your multiple remarks on the content of his protest. This is an obvious case of police officers power tripping yet somehow you figured out a way to spin it

  2. I know the law was read on here, but as you said it was 2017 could that have changed since this happened for obvious reasons? So in other words, he may have not been wrong at the time. Just need more information on if there was any changes to the law that you read

  3. Hey,
    just wanted to share the Gospel that all men need, the Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) this means we all deserve death and separation from a perfect and holy God. But God did not leave us for dead, He sent His only begotten Son to die in yours and my place, so that anyone who believes in Him and repents of sin will be saved from separation from God, and have eternal life! I urge you please put your faith in Jesus Christ and follow Him, He promises to save all who cry out to Him and have a humble heart. We arent guaranteed another day so we must repent of sin and seek Him today while He may be found!

  4. A-po-lo-GI-a… as in apologetics.

    Why did you leave out the part of the law where it required a reasonable suspicion and must be an actual, articulate crime. In order to be legally detained, a legal basis that a crime was, or will be committed must be present. This basis did not exist and the detainment was invalid, once the investigation occurred.

    In order to be in violation – by any reasonable standard – you need a sound measuring device. The burden of proof that a crime occurred is on the officer, not on the person contacted. Unless and until a sound meter showed that a crime was committed , no crime was actually committed.

  5. Please, if you understand history police officers in America were created the second gate the black in the whites is the only reason why police even exist in our society, because they are obligated and feel like they in history history show that they created for racism to brutalize the American people in the 1960s for ever Reagan declare War on America

  6. So why was there not done in investigation before the suspicion of razz so again? Did they have a device to make sure that they’re being loud a decimal device would’ve been useful in this circumstance think that you’re over exaggerating it, bro you big Homie, but you lack the fact that you were trying to twist the manipulation and I don’t like it anymore.

  7. I would give Durbin a B or C. Use of a megaphone seems like enough for the police to have reasonable suspicion of a violation of the noise amplification ordinance (because most megaphones will exceed that noise level), even if they don't (yet) have a measured reading of its noise level. Only way to undercut that argument is if the entire ordinance is unconstitutional. Failing that, they have reason to get his full name and he failed to provide it. Police exercised discretion in not arresting him but he was virtually asking for it

Leave a Reply