Police try to arrest Uber driver for recording them, man turns out to be a lawyer

[Final-Fan]

Aeolus451 said:

Final-Fan said:

When the driver said that at about a minute into the video, he was simply reporting what appeared to be happening at the time.  The driver never confirmed that the passenger HAD past-tense confirmed been arrested.  Additionally, that was before they searched his car.  When you said "They did search it and they ended up arresting his passenger", I figured you had heard something about him getting arrested after the search took place, subsequent to the search of the car. 

In point of fact, in a follow-up video the driver said that the search turned up nothing, the stuff on the seat wasn't "drugs", and the passenger was not arrested, but got back into the car with the driver and continued his trip home.  (He said the dog never showed signs visible to an untrained person that he was indicating a finding, and the K-9 officer never said that the dog had so indicated, but a different police officer entered the car and perfomed a search immediately after the dog started sniffing around without consulting the K-9 officer.) 

As a side note, I would personally distinguish between an "outside search" (i.e. visual inspection, dog sniffing, etc.) and an "inside search" (i.e. cop enters the vehicle and digs around), but I don't know exactly what the law has to say on that subject, although I am moderately confident that there's an important legal distinction. 

I didn't watch any extra vids. I just watched one the op put in there. So you're saying that he was being hyperbolic or lying about the situation? ugh. I really hate it click baity vids. 

I am saying that when he said "my passenger's getting arrested" he meant to say "they stopped me and got my passenger out of the vehicle and are accusing him of getting drugs from the place we were at and it looks to me like they are about to arrest him at any moment".  Perhaps he shouldn't, strictly speaking, have jumped to the conclusion that an arrest was definitely going to be made but I don't think it's totally unreasonable to the point of hyperbole (even though he turned out, in the future, to be wrong) and it certainly isn't lying, which is in fact hyperbole but yours instead of his. 

And the POINT of the video, which is that the police falsely tell people that it's illegal to film police officers on duty and illegitimately order them to stop it and threaten to jail them for not stopping, is only "click bait" in the sense that the police behavior in question is outrageous—not in the sense that the person making the video is exaggerating their behavior to get extra clicks, which (along with a misleadingly outrageous title to an otherwise reasonable main story) is what I would call the definition of "click bait".