[music] On October 17th, 2024, Officer Crystal Edwards of the Cherokee Indian Police Department responded to a call from Hara's Cherokee Casino in Cherokee, North Carolina, indicating that employee Michael Zapeda had made statements about harming himself to a casino investigator. After Mr. After Sepa was transported to the Cherokee Indian Hospital and placed under an involuntary commitment order, his son, Travis Sepa, arrived at the emergency room demanding to see his father, which led to a separate interaction with probation officer Joshua Taylor and Sergeant Cody Owl of the Cherokee Indian Police Department. The encounter that followed was captured on officer body camera. Okay. >> Just because they brought my mom in here. >> Is he talking to his dad? >> Yeah, I'm on the phone with him right now. >> Explain to him. >> The only thing that keeps me alive is my mother and the fact that they're having a release. I can't give him specifics, but I've told him we have >> Well, the officers just walked in here and uh >> Yeah, >> we're just going to talk to you. >> Yo, what's up, guys? Your dad's in a situation. Um, he was at work at the casino. >> Yep. >> Um, he's made some threats to his life. I >> But he did threaten. He just said, >> "Listen, we got it on camera." >> All right, then. Show the video. >> We can't show you. We can't We can't magically make the damn thing pop up. >> Well, what I'm saying is if he really didn't say that, say he's going to hurt himself now. >> Hey, >> I just heard him. The only thing that's keeping him alive. >> That's not saying he's going to hurt himself now. >> He's told multiple times. >> He's told us if law, we cannot. >> But if he hurts his when his mom dies, his mom's healthy as hell. >> Travis disputes the basis for his father's involuntary commitment, arguing that the statement Michael made was not a threat of imminent self harm. Under section 122-500 of the Cherokee Code of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, anyone with knowledge of an individual who is mentally ill and is either dangerous to self, dangerous to others, or in need of treatment to prevent further deterioration that would predictably result in dangerousness, may appear before a magistrate and execute an affidavit and petition for a custody order. If the magistrate finds reasonable grounds to believe that the facts alleged in the affidavit are true and that the respondent meets those criteria, the magistrate shall issue an order directing a law enforcement officer to take the individual into custody and deliver the respondent to the tribe's facility for examination by a commitment examiner. Well, according to Officer Edwards's incident report, while still at the casino, Michael told her that self harm had been an ongoing issue, that when he decided to act on it, no one would be able to stop him, that his mother was the only individual who had kept him from doing it already, and that he possessed weapons, but he did not have any with him at the time. Now, if a court were to credit those statements as accurately reflecting what Michael said to Officer Edwards before she transported him to the hospital, a court could conclude that the reasonable grounds threshold for a custody order under Cherokee law was met, as Michael's statements constituted an affirmative articulation of suicidal ideiation and suggested dangerousness to self in the immediate future. Here, Officer Edwards's report indicates that she completed a petition for involuntary commitment based on the statements Michael had made to her, which was granted by Magistrate T. Welch. The report further documents statements and conduct from Michael at the hospital after being served with the involuntary commitment order, such as telling officer Edwards that she would quote unquote just have to shoot him, making comments about taking officer's weapons and forcing officers to shoot him and telling another officer that if he was going to do anything, it would be to someone like him and that he would grab his gun. The report also describes a physical altercation in which Michael attempted to leave the exam room and physically struggled with officers, kicking at them and attempting to bite an officer's arm, which led officers to apply a pain compliance technique and place him in hard restraints. Now, these statements and actions, if accurately reported, occurred after the magistrate had already issued the order and accordingly did not contribute to the reasonable grounds for the commitment. However, they do provide further support for the validity of the involuntary commitment. >> But but Travis, listen. We don't want to be doing this. We don't want to be here. >> Yeah, but really, he said if if he said he was, I would totally back y'all 110%. So, >> that's what we're trying to tell you, Travis. He's >> Say it out loud. He can hear it. >> He's not being straight up with you about what he said. >> No. My dad. Dad, are you lying to me? >> I don't lie. He doesn't ever lie to me. And let me tell you something. I just hand $2,000. I'll go up up and beyond to and cuz my dad doesn't ever lie to me. >> Put your head behind your back. You're not [ __ ] >> Oh, I see how this is. I see. What happened? I can't breathe. I can't breathe. I didn't even breathe, dude. I just said Oh my god. I hope you got this camera's on. You don't know what you just did. I didn't threaten you. I just said I would go up, up, and beyond for him. That's my dad. >> You're hurting me. Your head underneath you. I CAN'T. YOU GOT ME PUSHED DOWN. >> Put your hand underneath you. >> Oh, what the what the is supposed to be a cop. You're a goddamn bully. I NEVER ONCE SAID I WAS GOING TO THREATEN you or anything. I said I go up and be with my dad. I never said what the dude. >> Officer Taylor orders Travis to put his hands behind his back, shoves him against the wall, and tells him that he is not going to threaten him. Officer Taylor and Sergeant Al then take Travis to the ground and place him under arrest for disorderly conduct and resisting lawful arrest. Under section 14-25.12 of the Cherokee Code, disorderly conduct is defined as purposely causing or recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by, among other things, engaging in fighting or threatening to engage in violent or tumultuous behavior. Officer Taylor wrote in his report that he initiated an arrest because he interpreted Travis's statement about the $2,000 to refer to bond money that would be used to bail him out after he assaulted a law enforcement officer. A court evaluating the arrest would likely find that this strained interpretation of Travis's statement did not amount to probable cause that Travis had purposely caused or recklessly created a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm by threatening to engage in violent or tumultuous behavior. particularly when the complete lack of any physical cues of aggression and the restrained volume of his voice are considered. Now, as for the resisting lawful arrest charge, section 14-70.19 of the Cherokee Code makes it unlawful to create a substantial risk of bodily harm or to employ means of resistance justifying or requiring force to overcome the resistance for the purpose of preventing a law enforcement officer from affecting an arrest and by its terms presupposes that the arrest is lawful. Accordingly, a court would likely find that the resisting charge was likewise not justified because the underlying arrest was not supported by probable cause. I didn't make I didn't resist or anything. You just choked the out of me. Call 911. Dude, man, did you see that? Like for real, I didn't resist or nothing. He just I said I'd go up up beyond for my dad. I need to talk to y'all. charging. >> Y'all did what? >> I gave his wife. >> Oh, hell. >> I gave her $2,000 cuz I feel above Y'ALL FOR MY DAD. I NEVER ONCE THREATENED YOU, DUDE. >> Where you at? >> I need Hey, I need >> I need to talk to y'all. Sergeant, >> I am. I'm right here. >> Oh, who's above y'all? Cuz that was not Anybody WOULD KNOW I DIDN'T THREATEN Y'ALL. I SAID I'D GO ABOVE AND BEYOND FOR MY DAD. WHO WOULDN'T? AND THEN HE ATTACKS ME LIKE A RAVAGE ANIMAL. >> Calm down. >> NO, DUDE. Y'ALL JUST ATTACKED. I WASN'T RESISTING. [clears throat] >> You're under arrest. >> I get that. I DON'T GIVE A ABOUT THE REST. I can't just choke the [ __ ] out of me. >> Calm down. >> For my life. You don't think I didn't put Oh man, this is up, dude. And that lady seen it. If she's here to help people, THEN SHE WOULD SAY WHAT REALLY JUST HAPPENED. I got attacked and bullied. But he's I don't know. >> I need help. I need some other officers to take me to jail because this dude's crazy. >> This dude's nuts. He's attacked me. I wasn't resisting. Look on the video cams on your chest. I hope it's recording. >> You've been hostile this WHOLE TIME. >> I WASN'T HOSTILE. MY HANDS WERE OPEN. >> I'M FREAKED OUT. YOU JUST CHOKED ME. YOU JUST CHOKED ME. I'M SCARED. >> You've been hostile. >> I'm scared to death. You just choked THE OUT OF ME. >> Travis confronts the officers about their use of force during his arrest, repeatedly stating that he was choked. But during the arrest, the body camera footage captured complaints from Travis about being unable to breathe. I can't breathe. I can't breathe. >> And shows an officer with his hand against the side of Travis's head or neck while he is face down on the floor, which is consistent with Travis's version of events. The Supreme Court set out the controlling standard for evaluating an officer's use of force during an arrest in the 1989 case of Graham v. Connor holding that the reasonleness of the force used is judged under the totality of the circumstances by weighing factors such as the severity of the crime at issue, whether the individual posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether the individual was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Here, Travis was suspected of disorderly conduct, a low-level misdemeanor offense. And as we discussed earlier in this episode, there was likely not even probable cause to believe he had committed this offense. At the time force was applied, there was no evidence that Travis posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others as he was unarmed, had not engaged in any physically aggressive behavior, and was outnumbered in an emergency room lobby with hospital security in the area. And although Travis did appear to struggle against the officers after they initiated the arrest, as we discussed earlier in this episode, he was entitled to resist an unlawful arrest under North Carolina law, and he did not quote unquote resist in an assaultive or violent manner. As such, there is a strong argument that the officers used excessive force during the arrest. >> HELP! >> UH, shut up, >> dude. You're scared of me. YOU SCARE ME, DUDE. YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO ATTACK ME LIKE A OW MY WRIST. >> SAY YOUR YOU DIDN'T EVEN HIT YOUR WRIST. STOP. >> HAVE YOU EVER HAD GODDAMN HANDS ON? >> YEAH, >> DUDE. DID YOU REALIZE YOU JUST TWISTED MY >> HELP? >> HUSH. >> HELP ME. PLEASE. >> YOU'RE GOING TO GET ANOTHER. >> Get different officers. I'll stop. You guys are nuts. >> Cody, >> please. Just get different officers. >> Come on. >> Help me. THEY JUST BEAT ME UP. HUSH. >> HELP. >> I didn't do nothing. You have me like a goddamn crazy dude. Mama Carol, GO TO THE JAIL. HELP. OW. [ __ ] PLEASE TELL ME THIS THING'S RECORDING. I >> He's been >> crazy, dude. >> You're bullying. >> Play the rest on his dad and he was trying to bite me as we secured him. >> I never >> Your dad did. >> God damn. What's wrong with him? >> They're all freaking crazy. >> His dad was trying to bite my arm while >> the minute we freaking made contact with him, he's been hostile. >> As long as $2,000, he's ready to go up. I'm not in the house in a turkey. >> Following the arrest, the criminal charges against Travis were eventually dismissed. Michael is currently seeking counsel to file a civil complaint against the officers, but has been unable to retain an attorney as of the date of writing this episode. Overall, Officer Taylor and Sergeant Al get an F for arresting Travis based on a tortured interpretation of plainly innocuous statements, characterizing protected speech as an arrestable offense, and applying unnecessary force to affect that unlawful arrest. Travis's comments, considered in the context in which they were actually made, were a son's expression of devotion to his father, volunteered as evidence of how much he was willing to do for him in the middle of a heated disagreement about his father's involuntary commitments. Reading those statements as a coded reference to bond money for a planned assault on a law enforcement officer was a plainly unreasonable interpretation that was not supported by anything that Travis actually said, did, or signaled with his body. The force used to affect the arrest added to the underlying problem as a lowlevel misdemeanor allegation involving a citizen who had not raised a hand toward either officer did not warrant a takedown that left Travis on the ground stating that he could not breathe. This interaction highlights the danger of an officer treating words a reasonable listener would never have heard as a threat as the basis for an arrest. Travis gets a B+ for exercising his right to disagree with the officers without engaging in any conduct that could lawfully be criminalized, asserting that his father was not a threat to himself based on the information he had and calling out the officers for their egregious actions after they forcefully arrested him for his protected speech. The First Amendment strongly protects the right to verbally oppose and challenge police action. And Travis did exactly that. pushed back on the officer's characterization of his father's statements, disputed the basis for the involuntary commitment, and refused to accept the officer's framing simply because it was being delivered by a uniformed officer. While Travis did speak aggressively to the officers and did appear to nonviolently resist their attempts to arrest him, he remained within his First Amendment rights in his speech and did not behave assaultively during the struggle. I commend Travis for standing up for his father in a moment when his father could not stand up for himself. For refusing to be intimidated into silence by officers prepared to treat his words as a basis for criminal charges and for exercising his First Amendment right to engage in unapologetic verbal challenge to police action. On October 31st, 2023, around 3:00 a.m., Walmart employee Nathan Argent was taking his lunch break in the store parking lot in Stutgart, Arkansas, when he was approached by Officer Haley Johnson and Sergeant Williams of the Stutgart Police Department. The officers were responding to a call from Mr. Argent's ex-wife, Patricia Amd, who claimed that Mr. Argent had been making threats against himself via text. Mr. Argent asserts that this claim was false. The interaction that followed was captured on Officer Johnson's body camera. >> Hey, Bob. >> Are you Nathan? Is your name Nathan? Could be. Is it up? >> Hey. So, your wife wanted us to check on you. >> My wife? >> Yeah. Are you going through something? Um. >> Yeah. >> Can you put your hands out of your pocket for me? >> No, you're good. >> No. No. Hey, I need you to come back over here and talk to me, though. >> That's a order. Hey, sir. Yes or no? >> Sir, I'm just trying to listen. We're just doing a welfare check on you. >> Yes, I might be. Yes or no? >> Not right now. I need to talk to you. >> He don't want to talk. >> Hey, come here. >> Come here. Well, it's not wasting your time right now. >> Well, if you're That is a crime. >> It's a crime to >> Sergeant Williams tells Mr. Argent that he is being detained based on Ms. Amdy's allegations regarding his intentions, claiming that it was a crime. At common law, the act of ending one's life was a felony offense, and an attempt to do so was considered a misdemeanor. However, these actions have since been decriminalized in the United States, although they still remain a crime in some other countries. Notably, ideiation alone was never outlawed as all crimes require an individual to take some sort of action or engage in conduct, and a mere mental state cannot be criminalized. While the allegations involving Mr. Argent clearly were not of a criminal nature. Contrary to Sergeant Williams' assertion, there are circumstances where officers can detain or even take into custody individuals who are experiencing a mental health crisis. According to section 20-47-207 of the Arkansas Code, individuals can be involuntarily admitted to a hospital, receiving facility, or treatment program. Now quoting from the section, if he or she is in such a mental condition as a result of mental illness, disease, or disorder that he or she poses a clear and present danger to himself or herself or others. The statute clarifies that whether an individual is a clear and present danger to themselves is established by demonstrating certain particular conduct such as that they have inflicted serious bodily injury on themselves or have attempted to end their lives or inflict serious self-injury. and there is a reasonable probability that the conduct will be repeated if admission is not ordered. The statute also states that quote a clear and present danger to others is established by demonstrating that the person has inflicted, attempted to inflict or threatened to inflict serious bodily harm on another and there is a reasonable probability that the conduct will occur if admission is not ordered. Additionally, under section 20-47-210 of the Arkansas Code, quote, "Whenever it appears that a person is of danger to himself or herself or others, an immediate confinement appears necessary to avoid harm to the person or others, an interested citizen may take the person to a hospital or to a receiving facility or program. If no other safe means of transporting the individual is available, it shall be the responsibility of the law enforcement agency that exercises jurisdiction at the site where the individual is physically located and requiring transportation. The statute also authorizes a judge to order a law enforcement agency to transport an individual to a receiving facility if the judge determines that quote immediate confinement is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm to either the person sought to be involuntarily admitted or to others. Given the requirement that an individual pose an immediate threat to themselves or others for involuntary commitment to be appropriate, it is almost certain that even if Mr. Argent was expressing ideiation to his ex-wife, he would not be a candidate for admission for treatment under these statutes. As such, it is probable that a court would conclude that the officers did not have the authority to detain Mr. Argent, as they did not have any reason to believe he was a clear and present danger to himself or others or that he had committed a crime. Now, while the officers certainly could have engaged in a consensual encounter to attempt to help him if needed, Mr. Argent would have a strong argument that they could not force him to engage in conversation against his will. >> Well, that's not what we got. >> Well, that's Do you have your ID on you? >> Nope. >> You're going to go to jail. Walk away. >> Been taken to jail. >> If you walk away from me, you're going to jail. >> Really? >> Yes. >> Obstruction. >> So, keep arguing. >> I'm being detained for what? >> We got a call. We're here to talk to you. I don't care if you want to talk to us or not. >> Okay. So, you're just going to keep me out in the cold? >> I will. So, what is going on? >> I'm not talking to you without any further. >> That's fine. Go ahead and turn around. >> Sergeant Williams threatens to take Mr. Argent to jail for obstruction if he walks away from him. Then, when Mr. Argent refuses to answer any questions without a lawyer present. Sergeant Williams places him in handcuffs. Under section 5-54-102 of the Arkansas Code, quote, "A person commits the offense of obstructing governmental operations if the person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the performance of any governmental function." Accordingly, if an individual walks away from a lawful detention, they could potentially be convicted of violating the obstruction statute. However, even assuming for the sake of argument that Sergeant Williams lawfully detained Mr. Argent. He only attempted to walk away after officer Johnson told him he was not being detained. And when Sergeant Williams informed him that he was being detained, he made no additional attempts to leave. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that individuals are within their rights to walk away from consensual encounters with police officers and to refuse to answer questions during both consensual and non-consensual interactions. For instance, in the 1983 case of Florida versus Royer, the Supreme Court explained in the context of consensual encounters that quote, "The person approached need not answer any question put to him. He may declined to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way." Likewise, in the 1984 case of Burkimer versus McCarti, the Supreme Court recognized the right to refuse to answer questions during a Terry stop, stating that, quote, "Under the Fourth Amendment, we have held a policeman whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime may detain that person briefly in order to investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion. Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions, but the detainee is not obliged to respond. Accordingly, it is highly likely that a court would conclude that the officers did not have probable cause to believe that Mr. Argent committed obstruction by attempting to walk away from what Officer Johnson characterized as a consensual encounter, or by refusing to answer questions after Sergeant Williams informed him that he was being detained. It should also be noted that in her police report about the encounter, Officer Johnson implied that Mr. Argent was arrested for a refusal to identify, which can support an obstruction charge in some circumstances under Arkansas law. In her report, Officer Johnson wrote, quote, "The man, later identified as Nathan Argent, was being very confrontational during the entire encounter." Argent walked away from officers on scene multiple times while trying to investigate the situation. Sergeant Williams asked Argent to provide his identification, in which his response was in the nature of, "Well, I'm not going to talk to you then." Argent was then arrested for obstruction of governmental operations. Now, although Mr. Arjent did state that he did not have his identification on him, he never refused to identify himself. And even if he had, in the 2008 case of Stufflelebeam versus Harris, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Arkansas, concluded that Arkansas law did not permit a police officer to arrest an individual for refusing to identify themselves when they are not suspected of other criminal activity, and their identification is not needed to protect officer safety or to resolve whatever reasonable suspicions prompted the officer to initiate an ongoing traffic stop or Terry stop. The obstruction statute also states that quote, "This section does not apply to obstruction, impairment, or hindrance of what a person reasonably believes is a public servants's unlawful action." Accordingly, it is likely that a court would conclude that Mr. Argent could not be convicted of obstruction if he had refused to identify himself because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him. >> Oh, well, you can detain me without intimidating me. All right. Do you have anything that's going to poke or stab me? I don't know. You don't know? Probably. >> If there is anything in there, can you please let us know? I know. >> That's fine because if anything does stab me, that's a truck. >> Really? Really? You're on this. >> I'm sorry. Why are you searching me? Cuz this is this is more than Yes, it is. Why? >> I'm obviously not obstructing you. You obviously were. >> Okay. Cuz when you walk away from us, when we're here legally and you were detained, that is obstruction. You walk away from here. You were 100% walking away from us. At first, that was before you told me I was detained. And it was so on your body cam. Now, you're just violating my right. Well, there's no way for me to >> Sergeant Williams goes through Mr. Argent's pockets and places the contents on the hood of the police cruiser. And when Mr. Argent protests, Sergeant Williams claims that the search does not violate any of Mr. Argent's rights because he is under arrest. Despite his earlier contention that Mr. Argent was only being detained. The Supreme Court established in the infamous Terry case that during a detention based only on reasonable suspicion, an officer may conduct a patown search to determine whether the detainee is carrying a weapon if the officer has reason to believe that they are armed and presently dangerous. However, as the Supreme Court explained in the 1993 case of Minnesota versus Dickerson, this sort of protective search, sometimes referred to as a Terry Frisk, now quoting, must be strictly limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby. If the protective search goes beyond what is necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, it is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will be suppressed. On the other hand, it has long been established that officers may conduct an extensive search of an individual's person once they have been placed under arrest. And in the 1973 case of US versus Robinson, the Supreme Court confirmed that quote, "In the case of a lawful custodial arrest, a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that amendment. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that in order for a search incident to arrest to be constitutional, it must be conducted as part of a lawful arrest based on probable cause. Accordingly, if an underlying arrest is not supported by probable cause, any evidence the officers obtained as a result of the search incident to arrest could be suppressed, meaning that it could not be used in a criminal case against the individual who was searched. Here, the officer's search clearly exceeded the scope of a terry frisk as they removed objects that were clearly not firearms or weapons from his pockets and examined them. And although the extent of the search would have been appropriate during a lawful arrest, as we discussed earlier in this episode, it is likely that a court would conclude that the officers did not have the probable cause necessary to constitutionally arrest Mr. Argent. So, it is probable that any evidence the officers obtained during this search could be suppressed in any attempted criminal prosecution. Do you know who is over the construction for tonight? >> Uh, I can call somebody. >> Okay. So, we uh came over here to do a welfare check on a Nathan Argent. Um, I don't have his driver's license. Hold on. He drives a Prius with a rack. camera go. >> Okay. >> Okay. He's been arrested. >> Oh, >> okay. So, we came over here to do a welfare check. We His wife said that he's been threatening to kill himself, that she's been trying to beg him to come home. >> I knew something wrong with him in the last couple days of the project. He was off. >> So, um he was walking away from his car whenever we pulled up and I asked the other officer, "Do you know, is that him?" She was like, "I never even saw that person." So, I did my little whoop whoop at him, ignored it, did it two more times. He looked back and kept on walking. Refused to talk to me, you know, hey, I need to know if you're okay. I ain't got to talk to you. Walks off. So, he's going to jail. >> Okay. >> I don't know what you want to do with this car out there. >> Oh, I mean, dude's like 2 hours away from home. >> Yeah. Atkins or Elkins, something like that. >> What's When will he be released? >> Uh, I personally don't know if the jail will be holding Misdemeanor. So, it's possible that that he'll go down there to dwit and just get oar, but he'll be on the streets and dwit. But, um, >> how far is that way? Like an hour. 30 minutes. It's not >> It's Yeah, it's 25 miles. It's not It's not too terrible. But, I I do suggest that. I mean, I'm going to call his wife when we're done here cuz he was very agitated with us when >> Oh, yeah. >> had an attitude when I asked to get his hands out of his pockets cuz, you know, we were told that he likes carry knives and sharp objects. Went to pat him down. Is there anything in here that's going to stick or poke me? you'll find out. >> Oh wow. >> So, um >> yeah, that's not that's not something you want to >> Yeah. >> I mean, honestly, I hate to see dude stuff go to get impounded and stuff. I hate to see him get >> Well, we're not going to tow it because we never actually physically saw him inside the car. >> Okay. >> So, we didn't search his car. We don't know what's in it. Um we know he had a box cutter. That's probably from working up in here. >> Yeah. >> But I think we're just going to get him with obstruction just because he wouldn't like sit there, talk to us, didn't want to give us his ID, you know? We already knew who he was, but >> While the officers were searching Mr. Archer, they found a bottle of non-narcotic blood pressure pills that belonged to his father-in-law in one of his pockets. After she spoke with Mr. Argent's employer. Officer Johnson reported that she contacted Miss Amity, who claimed that Mr. Argent must have taken the pill bottle from her home. Mr. Argent was transported to the Arkansas County Detention Center, and according to Officer Johnson's police report, he was charged with obstruction of government operations and quote unquote theft by receiving. The charges against Mr. Argent were eventually dropped, but Mr. Argent was fired from his job at Walmart. As of the date of writing this episode, Mr. Argent is still looking for a civil rights attorney to help him file a lawsuit and has started a GoFundMe campaign to assist with legal fees and his pass due storage unit rent, which he fell behind on after losing his job. I've included a link to his campaign in the description down below. Overall, the Stutgard officers get an F for arresting Mr. Arjent for simply attempting to exercise his rights, disparaging Mr. Argent and misrepresenting his conduct to his employer after the unlawful arrest and demonstrating an appalling lack of compassion and common sense throughout the interaction. It is truly mindblowing that Sergeant Williams told Mr. Argent it was a crime to express selfharming thoughts. And at every point during the encounter, the officers treated Mr. Argent like a criminal rather than a citizen who they claimed to believe was experiencing a mental health crisis. Had Mr. Arjent actually been struggling with ideiation or any other sort of mental health issues, these officers actions would have made the situation far worse. And rather than exhibiting any sort of care for Mr. Argent's well-being, the officers approached the encounter in the same authoritarian manner they would have employed when investigating a criminal suspect, likely violating Mr. Argent's Fourth Amendment rights in the process. This encounter demonstrates how woefully inadequate mental health training can be in police departments and how inappropriate traditional law enforcement methods are for certain community caretaking functions officers are required to complete. Mr. Argent gets an A for asserting his right to walk away from a consensual encounter and his right to refuse to answer questions, reasonably complying with officer commands, and pursuing appropriate legal action after the encounter. While Mr. Sergeant did have some choice words for the officers. He was certainly within his First Amendment rights to express himself and his opinion of their behavior during the interaction, and he still made sure to comply with the officer's orders while challenging their validity. I commend Mr. Arjun for his ability to protest the officer's actions and exercise his rights while still remaining within the requirements of the law. And I truly hope that he is able to find an attorney and pursue a civil rights lawsuit. >> [music] [music]