Skip to comments.Bodycam Video Shows Business Owner Harassed And Arrested by Police for Staying Open
Posted on 04/22/2020 12:54:02 PM PDT by Enlightened1
You’re going to just LOVE the new America.
Where business owners will be arrested and fined for working.
And mothers will be arrested for bringing their children to a park.
Winslow, Arizona police recently released body camera footage of the arrest of a
hardened criminal business owner.
“We don’t want you to feel like we’re harassing you.” – Winslow police.
“If you’re open for business we have that right.” – Winslow police.
Arizona, a state of 7 million, has had 208 coronavirus deaths this year.
This is an shocking video!
Gov. Doug Ducey had declared a public health emergency because of the coronavirus outbreak in March. Later that month, he issued a stay-at-home order, prohibiting any business not deemed essential from conducting in-person business.
But several people complained to the Winslow mayor when Authentic Indian Store, which primarily sold Native American jewelry, stayed open well into April, police said.
The body camera video shows police contacting the owner, 71-year-old Daniel J. Mazon, on April 11.
As soon as the officers walk in, Mazon starts recording them with his cell phone. When officers tell him he can’t stay open, Mazon argues that he is in compliance, saying he changed his license name to “Indian Department Store.”
He told officers he was now selling hay, paper towels, water and food, which officers noted were just candy bars.
“I get one or two people a day – corona bologna,” Mazon says as an officer looks at his store license.
Police said Mazon had been warned twice about keeping his store open, once by the Winslow mayor and once again by police, in the days before this incident. The officer says in the body camera video that these warnings came after the store license was issued on March 24.
This business is essential to his life.
“You don’t need my driver’s license. I’m not driving,” Mazon responds in the video.
Police then handcuff and detain him for failing to identify himself.
Lousy. Nazi Pigs.
If rights can be suspended by government at Will, then we have privileges.
We are no longer a free people. We are slaves of a tyrannical government and have surrendered without so much as a whimper.
Old man. Let me see your papers!
Cops dont make the law they enforce it.... the courts decide.... this guy will be acquitted and should be able to sue the state government.
AG Barr, you were waiting for what exactly to start defending the US Constitution??
“...without so much as a whimper...”
It’s going to get worse folks. . . Wait til they begin rounding up the Christians because they have a fish, cross or pro-life sign on their bumper or rosary beads hanging from the mirror. It’s beginning to look like a “left behind” scene before the Rapture.
“Grubernor Doosh Dougie”
This is not America.
If the U.S. Constitution is no longer in play, then the other Founding document, the Declaration of Independence is activated.
He had no obligation to give him his DL, just his name (and then only if reasonably suspected of committing a crime):
Under AZ law:
13-2412. Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained; classification
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the persons refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person’s true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person’s true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
Everybody take a Xanax. if things was so brutal then, as all of you agree, the tyrannical state of New York that I live in would have pulled me over a dozen times for the past several dozen trips I’ve taken during this thing. That’s going to visit a friend in a project in Brooklyn and went up the elevator with a cop and talked to him. I told him I was just visiting and he said nothing. I wear a mask in no small stores. Nor when I’m walking around and I have passed policeman and seen them in the stores.
I’m still free
I saw the whole thing.
I was standing on a corner.
Actually, it is. The cops were responding to complaints by other people. Look at the polls the way Americans over whelming support these lock downs. And fearpers havent weighed in yet, but we know they would rage that he was putting lives in danger, and how stupid he is. America is no longer the place you think it is.
“essential” is the hook that should hang every one of these orders.
The argument is that “lockdown” is necessary to “slow the spread”.
SO the governmental purpose is “slow the spread”, not “lockdown”.
They allow essential businesses to stay open, and therefore the state admits that businesses staying open does not damage the lockdown.
So, the argument would be, that a store can be forced to comply with “social distancing”, because that is a compelling governent purpose, but not “shutting down”, because the government CANNOT show that closing a store completely does anything more for “slowing the spread” than just operating the store with correct social distancing.
They have no collected evidence that stores have spread the virus. They have ample evidence that the essential stores are NOT a prime spreader.
For example, in Virginia they are tracking “outbreaks”. Most of our outbreaks are in nursing homes. Of the rest, only a few are in retail stores, most are in apartment buildings (where people are locked down), and in medical facilities (where people go to get treated for illness).
No governor could present a reasonable case that closing a business meets the government need any better than proper social distancing.
And in the absense of that kind of evidence, the state defining what is, and is not, essential is a violation of our basic liberties to decide for ourselves what is important.
This argument is strongest with churches; no government has the right to say that a church service is NOT ESSENTIAL, since the requirement of church and other activities is a religious requirement, and the religion defines what is essential, and government is not allowed to interfere in the free exercise of religion, except with compelling and non-discriminatory interest. Defining “essential” is discriminatory. A church COULD be held to the same standards as other businesses, so if a grocery store can operate with X people per 100 square feet, a church needs to be allowed to do so as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.