Father and Son Force Cops to Give Up and Leave

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 videos:

Sources:

[AuditTheAudit]

Thanks for joining us! Watch to the end if you have the attention span for it! It helps the channel grow and it helps you be more informed!

EDIT: I generally try to avoid making an edit like this, but after reviewing the comments I think it is important to remind everyone that I do not make these laws. If you disagree with the way our legal system is structured then we probably have a lot in common in that regard. The point of AtA is to help citizens understand the legal system as it is currently interpreted. Often times, I wholly disagree with how the legislation and laws are structured, but again, the point is to showcase the law, not advocate for it to be changed. The moment this channel begins casting dissent on any particular law, it introduces political bias and ruins the objectivity and appeal of the show. You are free to disagree with how the content is presented, and I understand that this channel is not for everyone, but please be socially responsible and consider the fact that this channel is only reporting on the law, not making it. Channel your emotions regarding the law somewhere productive, such as at the voting booth or your next city council meeting. It is up to all of us to change the things about our justice system that we don't agree with. Hope this helped clarify a few thing. Have a great day!

EDIT 2: I stand by the grade I gave the officers considering the totality of the circumstances, however, I will admit that I should have chosen better phrasing to describe the officer's demeanor. One of the three officers involved was not necessarily "cordial". Officers do not generally get an F if there is some legal merit to their actions, and ultimately no one was arrested and the department accepted his complaint. If they had arrested Mr. Gutterman or done something to dramatically impair his quality of life in that interaction, then their grade would have been different. We have to reserve the F for those officers who commit blatant acts of maleficence to the detriment of others. As mentioned in the episode, there is some legal ambiguity involved in this encounter regarding the legality of the officer's conduct, and we must weigh those possibilities as evenly as we do the considerations of civilian rights. One last thing to mentions is that the grading section is designed to spark debate, disagreement, and perspective. If you disagree with the grades, that's normal. That is encouraged. But it is not an excuse to cast judgement and be hateful.

[travd]

OH and that female officer said on the phone “yeah unfortunately he’s a constitutionalist, he knows his rights so we can’t do anything” imagine TAKING AN OATH to something and being upset that someone is respecting that thing they took an oath too..

[aleximhoff]

"They could want to send me to mars, you gonna do that too? You have to follow the law buddy". Best line

[davidfigueroa]

"They're gonna want me sent to Mars, you're going to do that too?"
That was Gold right there!

[srtghost]

“You’re talking to her” then he proceeds to insert himself into the conversation. My response would have been “shut the F up, I’m talking to her”

[StephenLPhotos]

The second cop that walks up has SUCH a disgusting attitude and immediately escalates the situation. He's an embarrassment.

[michellerutter]

ANY officer that doesn't know the law deserves an F everytime!

[dta]

'They could want me sent to mars; you gonna do that too??' Funniest shit I've heard all day

[joeblow]

If the cop asked a store owner "do you want them to leave" that is soliciting a trespass and against the law.
Idaho is one of those states where the liquor stores are state owned. These cops were embarrassing.

[Taywi]

When the second cop said “you’re talking to her” and then decided to talk over him he should’ve told him “I’m talking to her” 🤣

[LADcoronary]

“They want you trespassed” “Well, they could want me sent to Mars, you gonna do that too?” I died.

[zalupa]

Saying they released Jason and left the scene is a gross under statement of what happened. The original video shows the Police giving back the ID then tucking their tales and running away without any explanation. That act alone says they deserve an "F" as well for their blatant disrespect and unprofessional conduct throughout the whole time they were there.

[kaleblejarett]

When the male cop says, "you're talking to her...", I filled with rage, this is so disrespectful. Cops need to learn their place as public SERVANTS and check their egos.

[stephenhill]

Are we not going to address that she threatend to make up a disorderly charge?

[DFWHoppe]

A "C"??? Male cop REFUSED to identify himself stating, "You're talking with her." Literally, 7 seconds later he starts barking orders at the citizen... without identifying himself.

[beeneealston]

As soon as the male cop jumped in, the father should have said "Remember, I am talking to her!"

[chrisbammer]

9:53
"Maybe they want me sent to Mars, you going to do that too? You have to follow the law buddy"

[robertbarker]

ANY officer that LIES about the law should immediately get an F

[canilernproto]

Man Cop: "You're talking to her"
Man Cop: "You're talking to HER"
Auditor: "Okay" Proceeds talking to her
Man Cop: Immediately interjects and starts talking to him on her behalf.

I see way too often cops give people contradictory signals and then punish people for failing to read their mind. The Cop doesn't want you to read their mind, it's their way of getting as close as possible to violence because they are angry at you. Like when a person slam doors because they're angry or glares or yells / raises their voice. It doesn't serve a purpose other than to get that cathartic release of violence from anger. If someone is so emotionally unstable that they have to use violence of this sort rather than constructively solving a problem, they shouldn't be in a position where they can kill people with relative impunity.

[wademarshall]

I have encountered a similar issue with a male officer that showed and when I tried talking to him he said the officer that initiated contact with me was in charge and who i needed to talk to, and within seconds interrupted us and started addressing me. But unlike in this video, I said "I thought he was in charge and who I needed to talk to?" Needless to say he did not like that response. Lol