How you doing? >> What's up? >> step out of the car for me? >> Yes, sir. Why? >> Step out of the car for me. >> What's going on? >> Oh my god, what's going on? Face away from me. >> No, wait. You What is it? >> Step out of the car and face away from me. >> What's going on? Wait. >> from me. Hey, stop or I'm going to [ __ ] you up. Turn around now. >> [ __ ] off me. >> On September 11th, 2025, in Florida, officers executing a lawful arrest warrant encountered something that raises two separate legal questions, and the answers cut in very different directions, depending on which side of the car you were standing on. >> How you doing? >> What's up? >> Hey, will you step out of the car for me? >> Yes, sir. Why? >> Step out of the car for me. >> What's going >> Oh my god, what's going on? >> Face away from me. >> No, wait. You What is it? >> Step out of the car and face away from me. >> Wait. What's going on? What's going >> Hey, stop or I'm going to [ __ ] you up. Turn around now. >> [ __ ] off me. >> TURN AROUND. TURN AROUND. I'M GOING TO PRESS THE CHARGES. GET OUT OF THE CAR. GET OUT OF THE [ __ ] CAR. I'M GOING TO CHASE GET OUT OF THE [ __ ] CAR. >> The first question is whether the officers acted within the law. The second is whether the subject had any legal basis to do what he did. Under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, a valid arrest warrant issued by a judicial officer provides full authority to arrest a named subject in a public place. That standard was confirmed in United States versus Watson, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1976. The stop here clears that bar entirely. This was not a traffic stop built on reasonable suspicion. This was a warrant. The legal authority was airtight before the first word was spoken. When the officer ordered the subject to exit the vehicle and face away, that command was also constitutionally protected. Under Pennsylvania versus Mims, 434 US 106, decided in 1977, officers conducting any lawful stop may order occupants out of of vehicle as a matter of routine officer safety. No explanation required. >> I promise you. >> 33, get out of THE CAR NOW. ON THE GROUND. >> On the [ __ ] GROUND, [ __ ] >> STUPID [ __ ] >> GET BACK AWAY FROM ME NOW. Put your hands behind your back. I got 1 10-15 Kelly to >> Please don't hurt him. Okay. >> Get over there somewhere. >> I will. Please don't hurt him. He's complying. >> Okay, get back. You're not getting back. I want you to go over there somewhere. I don't care. >> I have no weapon. I just don't want to see my son being hurt. I just say I can't do this. He just asked why he got but I know he has to comply with y'all. I understand that. I understand that. He just wanted to know why. Can you call an ambulance for him, please? >> Actually, why don't you go stand in the front of his car? >> So, will you call an ambulance for my son, please? >> I'm going to call the ambulance. can you back up? Go somewhere else. Go somewhere else. All right, go back 25 ft now. >> He just he he kind of he punched him for no reason. Like I mean pushed him in my car and was punching him in the face in front of my baby and I'm screaming my baby is in the car. And he still done that. I mean he was he just asked what he was being arrested for and he didn't say anything and he just shoved him in the car, punched him in the face. It's my baby right there and I'm screaming please my baby, you know, you're a father. I'm like please my baby, my baby. And he was still doing it. Look at the little baby having a seizure. It's not right. >> I'm not sure. He might he might but he wasn't >> You just made it so much worse. >> do nothing. I was getting out you wouldn't let me. I was asking I asked why you hit me. >> I did not prevent you from getting out. >> You're losing your job. >> Okay. >> I promise you I will I've I'm going to do the best cuz you had no reason to even know who I was. >> I'm very familiar with who you are. >> Did you see it ma'am? Please cuz he hit me beat the [ __ ] out of me for no reason. >> Do you have your driver's license and stuff on you please? >> have one. They kept it because it went out. I can give you my name and my everything. It's Sharon Thomas. We were taking the grandma to do laundry. >> So this this is my thing, okay? When I tell you to get out of the car and then I tell you to turn around and you stand and square up with me and then when I grab him and he tenses up and pulls his hands up like this, I'm not playing that. I'm not playing that. >> You don't know he has a weapon on him. I know I could have hurt myself >> Yeah, give me a second. I'm going to get these probes out, let them check them out, and we'll get them up out of here, okay? Can you lean forward quick? Ready? Can you scoot up a little bit? Are you able to scoot up a little bit? >> Hey, do you got my that cash? Can you have that cuz the baby need it? >> One, two, ready? >> Uh, why'd you chase me for? Why did he chase me? I don't ever run. You go to my [ __ ] but why did he chase me? >> He's never had anything. He's never stolen anything. >> Your your warrant's for exploitation of the elderly and swindling of $20,000 or more. >> I've never done that before. >> I didn't issue the warrant, so I don't know. I'm just telling you what it's for, okay? >> I didn't do nothing wrong, man. >> I got the lawyer. Stop. Just stop. I got the lawyer. I got the video. Just comply. >> We don't have a badge number. >> No, he knew I was getting out, though. He he shot me back for no reason. Now that's what to get out of the emergency room. Can you tell us why they issued a warrant for him? But how could he find out? >> Exploitation of an elderly or disabled person >> I'm not finishing that job, man. >> fraud over $20,000. >> Over $20,000? That's what I asked him what the [ __ ] was that for. >> $20,000? >> I I don't know. Like I said, I don't know the specifics of the case. >> I I want to be get records of that. >> I wonder if was it cuz he he was out on bond? So, would that be >> the bond? >> I had the bonds, but they went ahead and gave me back out cuz there's not a problem with him. What I mean So, would they would it be something maybe that happened within that time frame? Maybe it was just >> of that amount 20 seem like it was 20,000. >> And then they sometimes it could have been a case from 6 months ago that the state just just dropped the warrant on him. >> Never had anything. I know he had a couple jobs, but they got COVID and they were sick. >> Okay, so he had a couple jobs to get back to. >> He said it could have been from 6 months ago. >> Yeah, the $20,000. That's a lot of money. >> I know. >> Ain't nobody in yard work like that. >> They let me hug him for a crazy long time. >> Can we say goodbye? >> No, we can't say goodbye. >> No, cuz they're working on him in the ambulance. >> Okay. >> Obviously, you're not free to leave cuz you're in jail. So, we got to read you your Miranda before we ask you any questions. Do you want to have a seat for me, please? >> What happened next is where the legal analysis gets more complex. The subject verbally threatened the officer, physically resisted, and refused repeated lawful commands. At that moment, the use of force framework shifted entirely to Graham versus Connor, 490 US 386, decided in 1989. Graham versus Connor establishes that force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with 20/20 hindsight. Three factors drive that analysis. The severity of the underlying offense, whether the subject posed an immediate threat, and whether the subject was actively resisting or attempting to flee. On all three factors, the record here supports the officers. The underlying offense was a felony warrant for exploitation of an elderly person and fraud. A direct verbal threat was issued on camera, and the subject physically refused to comply after multiple commands. That combination, under Graham, places the taser deployment within the range of objectively reasonable force. It is worth being precise about what a taser is, legally. Courts classify conducted energy weapons as intermediate or less lethal force, not deadly force. The deadly force standard, which comes from Tennessee versus Garner, 471 US 1, decided in 1985, requires an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. That is a higher threshold, and it did not apply here. Once the subject was in custody, the officers administered Miranda warnings before asking any questions. Under Miranda versus Arizona, 384 US 436, decided in 1966, custodial interrogation requires that a person be advised of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney. The officers did exactly that. The subject then said, "Yeah, I'll talk to you." Under Berghuis v. Tompkins, 560 U.S. 370, decided in 2010, a suspect who receives Miranda warnings and voluntarily answers questions has implicitly waived those rights. That waiver does not need to be in writing. It does not need to be formal. Choosing to speak is the waiver. Now, the subject's side of this encounter. The subject had no legal basis to refuse the officer's commands. Florida does not recognize a right to resist a lawful arrest, even if you believe the underlying charge is wrong. The appropriate remedy for a disputed warrant is a court filing, not a physical confrontation on the side of the road. Under Florida Statute Section 843.02, obstructing or opposing an officer in the execution of legal process without violence is a first-degree misdemeanor. Under Florida Statute Section 843.01, doing so with violence is a third-degree felony. The subject was ultimately charged and convicted under the misdemeanor version. >> Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now? >> Yeah, I'll talk to you. >> Are you familiar with a Don Goodwin? >> Don Goodwin, yeah. >> Do you know him or not? >> Don, uh, is he an older man? >> Yes, sir. Over there by, um, off of Memorial >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah, okay. So, I've been in contact with him the whole time. >> I mean, well, I'm not out here trying to scam or do nothing, you know? I have a baby at home. Honestly, I just want to get I just want to get to work and show you where I've stayed in contact with the man. >> So, >> he was going to call up here and tell you. Over the span of, like, August to the current date, you have ample opportunity to get the work done. How much money did you receive from him in total? >> I think I don't want to be wrong with my head trying to probably, but he paid me to I'd say he paid me he paid me to haul the stuff away, he paid me to trim it down, which I've done over half the work? So, technically he owes me a little bit more, but I got to finish the work up. So, with that that's what I'm saying. Maybe maybe I don't want to I don't want to say a number online. I don't know right off the top of my head. He paid me like two or three, but like maybe two or three hundred bucks. >> So, around about three hundred bucks he's paid you? >> Life happens and for saying that your you said wife. My wife. >> Okay. >> COVID first and then she went to the hospital called him and I got the records where I did call him and he stayed in touch with him and he said he was even going to call up here to drop the charges or he's going to call up here and drop it. And I he said he was and and I said, "Okay, then I can come back to finish it." So, I was heading there to finish it on today. >> You had You had said today? >> You can ask my wife. She picked me up and then next thing I know I'm at the gas station where I got behind this. I was going to finish it up. I'm not trying to play games with y'all guys because I'm already out on bond. I already know what's going on. Honestly, like I really would tell you the truth Miss Pornac called she called him because it was a lady I was trying to finish up during that time when my wife got COVID. I told Miss Pornac I said, "My wife got Well, I didn't tell her my mom told her this on a message." But, if they haven't reported mine and my wife has documentation where she did have COVID. >> So, >> Well, we're not we're not disputing the fact of before that >> But, you're saying that life happened. However, whenever somebody pays you now you work and then you fail to do that and then they try to contact you several times. >> I have answered it yes, sir. I got proof on my phone and on my mom's phone, too. And we stayed in contact the whole time with her. >> So, you have proof on your phone? Your phone's here? >> No, sir. My mom I didn't my I had my mom bring it and I didn't I didn't I didn't I wouldn't lie to you about that. You know, I'm I'm honestly was meaning well. I didn't get called up here on the reported line and I was fixing the people that I was behind on. There's somebody up on the Tangent Drive with a palm tree. I went and got that taken care of. They they even called in uh dropped the charges. They dropped the complaint. There's another man I went to care of with his tools over here off of Parkway. I've been getting people like taken care of. It's just I've been, like I said, behind. I'm not trying to make any excuses. >> So, it sounds sounds like you're out here trying to You're trying to get work and you're you're getting money for the job. >> That's what it's probably looking like, and it's not that at all. My shit's All right, that's what >> Right. It's not It's not whether or what it's looking like about that. It's what's happening. >> Well, I'm taking care of them though, but I'm staying in contact at the same time. I am staying in contact with them though. >> But, I can The difference is is like like for me, I get paid after my job is done, right? So, I don't get They don't give me a check before I work next week. Right. So, what you're doing is you're getting money before the job is done, and then you're failing to complete the job. >> Well, they still owe money, too, but it's like it You're right. I shouldn't get a deposit, but I have to have You know, fuel for the chainsaw. You know, the supplies. I've been taking care of people when they got on, you know, where I did call up here and it's on a recorded line. It's on an emergency line where I've even went to care of people. This guy I've been speaking with, he doesn't wish to press charges on me. He said he even wants me to come out there and do the work, and I want to do the work for him because he's a good guy. And I'm willing That's what I told I'm willing to do the work. I'm not trying to skate around it. I really don't like this coming to jail stuff. I'm 32 years old. I'm a kid out here. >> Now for the grades, the officer receives a B. The warrant service procedure was sound. The force escalation was consistent with the use of force continuum. Miranda was properly administered. The post-arrest interview was professional and measured. The deduction comes from questions about the physical strikes, which the body camera record should fully account for in any internal review. The subject receives a D. Threatening an officer on camera, refusing repeated lawful commands, and physically resisting a valid felony warrant in the presence of an infant reflects a complete failure of judgment at every decision point in this encounter. The legal system provides remedies. Physical resistance on a public street is not one of them. The department receives a B minus. Body cameras were active and recording. Miranda procedures were followed. EMS was called after the Taser deployment. Points come off for bystander management, which was prolonged and added volatility to an already unstable scene, and for the absence of visible officer identification during the encounter. This case carries five lessons that apply broadly, well beyond this one stop. Before breaking those down, it is worth saying plainly, both sides of a police encounter have legal obligations, and both sides in this footage failed to make the best possible choices. Here is what the law and this footage teach us. Lesson one. A valid arrest warrant removes all ambiguity about whether an officer has authority to act. If you are the subject of an active warrant, compliance is the only legally protected path. Resistance, regardless of how justified it feels in the moment, creates an entirely separate criminal exposure on top of whatever the original charge was. Lesson two. The question, "Why are you arresting me?" is legitimate, but the timing matters. Asking that question after you are secured is a legal right. Asking it while refusing to comply is a physical confrontation, and the law treats those two situations very differently. Lesson three. Miranda rights exist to protect you the moment you are in custody, but they only work if you use them. The subject waived his rights and spoke voluntarily. Those statements, made freely, became part of the evidentiary record. Silence costs nothing. Talking without counsel can cost significantly more. Lesson four. Florida statute section 825.103. Exploitation of an elderly person is a felony that carries real prison exposure, precisely because the legislature determined that targeting vulnerable adults for financial gain represents a serious harm. The pattern in this case, multiple victims, multiple amounts, repeated non-completion, is exactly what that statute was written to address. Lesson five, body cameras cut both ways. In this case, the footage provided the factual record that led to a reduced sentence on the resisting charge. The same footage also documented the subject's verbal threat and physical resistance. The camera does not take sides. It records what happens, and the law decides what that footage means. The outcome here was not unusual given the facts. The resisting conviction carried 1 month and 15 days. The exploitation conviction, a felony under Florida statute section 8, 25.103, carried 1 year and 4 days. In Florida, that specific structure reflects the statutory 1-year county jail maximum with additional days added for legal and classification purposes. What is unusual is the repetition. The same pattern across multiple victims, multiple convictions, and multiple sentences suggests that neither the criminal justice process nor the individual is breaking the cycle. That is a systemic observation, not a legal conclusion. And this channel will leave the broader implications of that to the comment section. All suspects are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law. That principle applies to every person in this footage, and it applies to every case this channel covers. Legal analysis is not a verdict. It is a framework for understanding what the law requires and how closely the people in the footage came to meeting that standard. If this breakdown gave you a clearer picture of how warrant arrests, use of force standards, and Miranda rights actually work, drop your thoughts in the comments below. If you found it useful, a thumbs up helps more people find this kind of analysis. And if you want more, subscribe to our channel. We cover these cases every week.