Jesus Ain't no way they actually posted that ain't No way Che Out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve. August 8th 2022 Officers from the Cincinnati Police Department in Cincinnati Ohio responded to the home of YouTuber Darren Isow Speed Watkins Who as of the date of writing this episode has 13.7 million subscribers After law enforcement received a call from someone claiming that Mr Watkins had a firearm and was going to hurt himself and his family, The ensuing interaction was captured on an officer's body camera. hey, how you doing you all right? Oh yeah, we seen that. Remember that? Oh, not in any trouble.

What the heck? Come to the back yo bro Bro bro. Hey hey hey, hold on I'll tell you we're to talk I'll tell you why. Good relax back yo. Get my phone bro.

Get my phone. Get my phone is right right there right there. Press Go Live Bro Go live. Press it bro.

Right now bro. We explain. Press Bro Press Public Real Bro Live What is What did I do Bro I Going exp Take minute. Listen in your me ready.

What did I do? Bro You're going to listen to me. He's trying to explain to you yeah we're going to explain too I Didn't y bro Oh my God Bro I Swear bro. Chill away from chill chill hey yo chill. 31 month sex Qcl Are you serious Right now? That's I bet her hole is red raw from all the daily consumption of cat food.

child line phoning one Mich starw chickening meat tomato ketchup McDonald's ass looking food. Imag that I'm listen to this Bro chill I'm trying to shut up I'm trying to listen to this Bro I'm listening breaking a PS4 he plays video games live on stream. like I said 100,000 people watching. Okay, that's what we does.

We're going to shut that part down for right now. full. Don't turn it off. You don't got to do that.

We're We're going to do that. While we have a conversation over the protests of Mr Watkins's Friend the officer turns off the live stream on Mr Watkins's phone while they discuss the situation. as we have discussed many times on. ATA The Supreme Court has not explicitly held that the First Amendment protects the right to film government officials performing their duties in public.

However, based on relevant Supreme Court First Amendment Precedence Wait. wait a minute in public, bro, it's his an own home. Man, it's his own home. It's not public.

Six of the 12 Us Courts of Appeals have recognized a First Amendment right to film Law Enforcement Officers while they are carrying out their official duties in a public place. Notably, the Sixth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Ohio is one of the six Courts of Appeals that have not yet acknowledged that filming the police is covered by the First Amendment. However, even in jurisdictions that have determined that recording Law Enforcement Officers is protected speech, the issue as to whether the same safeguards apply to live streaming is largely unsettled. In the 2021 case of Sharp versus Winterville police depart the United States District court for the Eastern District of North Carolina which is part wait, wait wait chat.

There would have to be a case law where where the the the duties of the police was hindered by the nature of the broadcast being Al literally right There would have to be a case off for that. But I don't think there has been untion that has not recognized the First Amendment right to film. The police held that officers did not violate the First Amendment when they ordered Dean Sharp who was a passenger in a vehicle subject to a routine traffic stop to stop live streaming The encounter claiming a safety issue, the officers told Mr Sharp that he could film the interaction, but he could not simultaneously broadcast it. The court determined that quote assuming without deciding that the First Amendment entitled Sharp to record the traffic stop from inside the car during the traffic stop.

The First Amendment did not entitle Sharp to live stream the traffic stop from inside the car during the traffic stop. That's kind of interesting hold up. did not entitle Sharp to live stream the traffic stop inside the car Wait? Well, why the not? What? Sharp to live stream the traffic stop from inside the car during the traffic stop and that quote inl of existing precedent and the differences between recording and live streaming from inside the stopped car during the traffic stop, the court rejects Sharp's argument that the First Amendment provided him a right to live stream a traffic stop from inside the stopped car. Okay, okay, I I can think of I can think of a reason why it could be bad if it's a big organization.

let's say right and there are multiple parties in it, right? it's being live streamed. The dudes could could come up and help and interfere or hurt some parties involved with a certain stop or certain ongoing right and that becomes dangerous for the police officers involved with whatever is happening and that puts them at risk immediately. So Mr appealed this decision and in early November 2022 the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard Arguments for the case. However, instead of focusing on the First Amendment implications of this case, it was reported that the judges' questioning seemed to center around whether an officer can prevent an individual from live streaming without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures.

As of the date of writing this episode, this case is still pending and it will be interesting to see what the Fourth Circuit decides and on what constitutional grounds it bases its decision yo chat spam L CH they making a his mom call his dad's out front we're talking we talking to his dad out front. damn I'm just cameraman that's all I am but lives in Miami he same thing happened to him last night. There's something going on right now. they swatting.

It's the thing that people do. They find that his address has been oh, somebody got killed doing that yeah moment. Yeah, so you're saying somebody oh I called us yeah I know for sure with some B yeah and if you, if you don't believe me, you can. We literally just ended a live stream he''s been streaming for the past three and a half hours.

Two hour, two and a half. Three and a half hours. You can see everything he's done for the past two and a half hours. Okay, so do me a favor.

you can walk out here with us. Leave your pH there for now. Well here I'll car for Mr Watkins's Friend explains to the officers that Mr Watkins has been quote swatted and offers to show them footage from Mr Watkins's live stream from the last few hours. Generally swatting involves fake emergency calls claiming that a violent crime is about to take place or is already in progress with the goal of provoking a significant police response, often including the deployment of special weapons and tactics or SWAT teams to the home of the individual being swatted.

A large portion of the swatting incidents that occur involve individuals such as Mr Watkins who engage in online gaming and live streaming. Swatting can typically be prosecuted under section 29732 of the Ohio Revised Code, which makes it a crime to quote report to any law enforcement agency, an alleged offense or other incident within its concern knowing that such offense did not occur. However, if the state legislature passes pending legislation House Bill 462 two, it would create a separate offense that specifically addresses swatting. The proposed text: States The quote isn't this Certain states that have this now: I Thought they ramped ramped that the Up I thought they they Mega ramped it up person by means of a telecomunications device or telecommunications service shall purposely trigger an emergency response when no emergency response is warranted by reporting or causing to be reported false or misleading information to a law enforcement agency emergency service provider.

or Public Safety answering Point whoever violates this section is guilty of swatting. Additionally, many swatting incidents can be prosecuted under Federal law. For instance, Section 1038 of Title 18 of the United States code prohibits engaging quote in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where the information May reasonably believed or where the information indicates that certain criminal activity has taken place is taking place or will take place including homicide or attempted homicide. Likewise, section 875 of Title 18 of the United Interstate stating that quote: whoever transmits into Interstate or foreign Commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the person of another shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both without knowing the exact details of where the caller in this situation was located and what they explicitly said.

It is challenging to know which particular crimes they could be charged with for swatting. Mr Watkins Still, it seems likely that the individual responsible for Mr Watkins is swatting could be prosecuted for the violation of at least one of these statutes. Listen to me. Someone called a 911 Center and said with your name that you wanted to hurt your family and hurt yourself.

So we came. We came to make sure you're okay. All right, just listen to me. Okay I am a popular streamer I am a YouTuber Okay I have 10.

Let me talk. So guess what? You're good. You may be out these cuss. But relax.

We're on your side. We're here to make sure you're not going to harm yourself, right? All right now people dox people right? Yeah, Yeah, yeah. All right, let me talk. Let me talk.

Okay, I am a popular streamer I have 10 million Subs You know what a streamer is Right U Sure I guess Okay, so tell us about the streamer. What' you say? Did you say were you trying to be funny? No I didn't do nothing Well, Apparently someone called a help center out in Iowa and said and I want to kill myself My family. He's lying. It's obviously a lie.

It's a lie. Well, we're here to make sure, right? Yes, Because of school shootings, right? Be on my side. work with me. All right? Well, let's put you in the car and then guess what? what? the Okay, there wasn't much of a corelation here I don't know.

that was kind of a stretch. like I'm trying to calm down, but it's just a streamer that was a really you think, um, they tried to this a streamer they call somebody somebody called I know y'all pranking my house exactly exactly I I just told him that actually I keep telling I'm we're just trying to figure it out right now I mean it's not really that much exactly this a prank I Keep telling y I'm a I can't really explain it to Y cuz I'm probably older, but you know it's just like you know what Twitch is Twitch YouTube you know I'm bro, bro I don't want to insult the Ohio whatever counter County whatever he lives in PD but that was like a really like slow bad response though. like brother, brother, brother. the swatting call.

the Ninja of the call was pretty insane and they just walked in slowly without without saying much or whatever through the side gate and just chilled in like I don't know, you know and I'm popular like upset, jealous or something like that. No, just trolls like it's just common trolls this I know, but it's a call. that's why we got to do our job. The officers handcuff Mr Watkins and place him in the back of one of the Cruisers.

Although the line between a reasonable suspicion based Terry stop and a probable cause-based arrest can be confused using, courts have consistently held that in some situations officers may use restrictive methods such as handcuffing and placing a suspect in a police oh, they talked to his that before in front vehicle during a Terry stop without converting it into a full-blown arrest. However, it is uncertain in this situation whether the officers even had the requisite Reasonable Suspicion required to be able to constitutionally detain Mr Watkins in. Anyway, as the Supreme Court explained in the 1972 case of Adams versus Williams quote informance is I Like all other Clues and evidence coming to a policeman on the scene, they vary greatly in their value and reliability. One simple rule will not cover every situation.

Some tips completely lacking in indicia of reliability would either warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized. But in some situations, for example, when the victim of a street crime seeks immediate police Aid and gives a description of his asant, or when a credible informant warns of a specific specific impending crime, the subtleties of the hearsay rule should not thwart an appropriate police response. Relying in part on this decision, the Supreme Court determined in the 1990 case of Alabama versus White that although an anonymous tip alone seldom justifies a Terry stop, when sufficiently corroborated, it can exhibit quote sufficient indicia of reliability to furnish reasonable suspicion that the suspect was engaged in criminal activity and justify an investigatory stop. However, the Supreme Court also held in the 2000 case of Florida versus JL that an anonymous tip that an individual was carrying a gun was insufficient on its own to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person.

The court explained that quote the tip in the instant case lacked the moderate indici of reliability present in White and essential to the Court's decision. In that case, the anonymous call concerning JL provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. All the police had to go on in this case was the bare report of an unknown, unaccountable informant who neither explained how he knew about the gun nor supplied any basis for believing he had inside information. Given the highly fact specific level of analysis required for this type of determination and the limited and conflicting details we have about the individual who called 911 and what he said, it is nearly impossible to predict what a court would decide in this situation.

However, if the tip was made anonymously and did not include any information besides Mr Watkins's name and address, it seems likely that a court would conclude that the officers did not have the Reasonable Suspicion to detain him without additional corroborating evidence. I've never been in the cup in my life have anything on I'm about to kill I'm spr I know we just got to do our job Yeah you momz they prank at my house are you Mom yes they prank my they prank our house yo I'm going to give I'm going to give it a B with the N Okay with with with my information that I have usually about about the the the nature of the calls okay it's it would be reasonable to detain anybody in the house until it's fully clear and the welfare check's like done pretty much well. Let us figure it out. oh my God We were just got to stop.

no y'all taking my son over breing my son y got him in handcuffs right now. Well we're going to make sure he doesn't want to harm himself. No, he ain't going to harm himself in our house right now here. I'm on your side I Got five kids letal calm down first handcuff for no reason.

well come talk to us so we can let him out of cuffs he to go with us but because of school shootings we take it serious I Understand that he's not about to kill nobody. This is constant pranks, constant prank. Hey Sge, this is his mom and the police are surrounding my house right? Is that what they're doing pranking you guys? That's what I right? Yeah I know Aiden happened to Aiden last night. same thing.

same thing we were worried about you Who said that they had your address his name is people was pranking. Have to figure this out. Have fure I explain mean let's get him unhooked. Okay, yeah, it's hard to me like it's hard to like, really explain like tell you what's really going on.

The officers eventually determined that Mr Watkins had been swatted and did not pose an actual threat, and they released him from the back of the vehicle. It is unclear whether Mr Watkins intends to file a complaint or take any legal action against the officers involved. As of the date of this episode, the individual who swatted Mr Watkins has not been publicly identified. Overall, the Cincinnati officers get a C because although they were not overly aggressive in their demeanor, they repeatedly talked over Mr Watkins instead of listening to him and used unnecessarily restrictive detention methods on Mr Watkins even after several individuals had explained that this was an instance of swatting.

While I appreciate that the officers did not use physical force or otherwise escalate the situation, there was absolutely no reason to handcuff Mr Watkins and place him in the back of the police cruiser once they confirmed he did not have a weapon on his person as Mr Watkins remained cooperative and nonviolent throughout the encounter, and by the time they put him in the cruiser, at least two different individuals had confirmed that the call was made by a swatter and there was no legitimate threat. The officers repeatedly demonstrated that they did not understand what swatting was, for instance, by making comments implying that Mr Watkins had made the call himself as a prank and although I understand that they may not dealt with this issue before in Cincinnati Ohio I would encourage them to educate themselves on the subject, considering how prevent it has become in the field of modern policing. Mr Watkins gets an A for maintaining a relatively okay dude okay dude, calm demeanor throughout the encounter, exercising patience while the officers attempted to understand the situation and expressing his disagreement with the officers overly restrictive methods of detention. While I do not have enough information to make an informed assessment of the constitutionality of the officer's actions, it is certainly feasible that they violated Mr Watkins's rights by detaining him, handcuffing him, and placing him in the police cruiser potentially without.

Reasonable Suspicion I Commend Mr Watkins for making rational decisions when faced with an unforeseen, frightening situation, and although he could have expressed a stronger descent to his restrictive detention, I certainly understand why he chose to Simply comply in this situation. Finally, the swatter gets an F senselessly placing Mr Watkins and his family in potential danger wasting Community Resources on a prank, diverting Law Enforcement Officers away from protecting against actual crime and likely committing state and federal criminal offenses. Swatting is not only illegal, but it can also be deadly. and multiple people have been killed during various swatting incidents.

Contrary to what some individuals believe, swatting is not a harmless prank. and I would strongly urge the swatter to reconsider any plans they have to swat again in the future. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content.

JZ Well Mr Watkins gets a gets a good letter least yo this is X x on the video you he my voice as well that is anyone knows that boy I don't know, he's just so s anyone knows that boy I don't know he's just so s.