Cop watcher arrested for sign while protesting killing of Timothy Michael Randall of Texas

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As I always make clear, this show has a single purpose holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops. Instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible. And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of a deadly police shooting. It is a questionable use of force that raises multiple questions about if American law enforcement is properly trained and if they have knowledge of the law itself. But we’ll be discussing the aftermath of the shooting by showing you this video of what happened when a popular activist tried to protest against it and what happened when he did. Only makes my initial question more relevant and in need of an answer. That’s because after the body camera was released, a well-known cop watcher named Otto the Watchdog, decided to protest the killing and test if a few of those police officers actually knew the First Amendment at the same time.

And what happened when he did so is something you’re going to want to see. But first, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter at tes Baltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please share and comment on our videos. It helps us get the word out and it can even help our guests. And I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show off what a great community we have. And we do have a Patreon called Accountability Reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do it. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

Alright? Gotten all that out of the way. Now, one of the most important reasons we have to hold police accountable is because our government bestows upon them a unique and terrifying power. The legal authority to take a life. It’s an extraordinary exercise of state authority that should come with unique obligations for transparency and when warranted criminal liability when misused. But that’s not what happened in Henderson, Texas just two years ago, not hardly there in Henderson, a police killing occurred That was so terrifying and disturbing. We are going to break it down for you today. This troubling case started How many police killings begin with a routine traffic stop in this case in Henderson, Texas. There, Sergeant Sheen Iversson of the Russ County Sheriff’s Department alleges he saw Timothy Michael Randall, age 29 roll through a stop sign. That’s right. Failing to completely stop on a deserted road in the middle of the night. That was it. But even if that was true, what happened next is more than troubling because for this heinous crime, Sergeant Iverson not only pulls Timothy Michael over, but he immediately escalates. Take a look.

Deputy Iversion:

Good evening. How you doing, sir? Good. I’m Sergeant Iverson, the Russ County Sheriff’s Office. Yes sir. The reason I pulled you over is he blew that stop sign back there.

Timothy Michael Randall:

No, I didn’t. I came to a complete stop with that stop sign.

Deputy Iversion:

Alright.

Timothy Michael Randall:

I mean I did. I came to a stop.

Deputy Iversion:

No, you didn’t. What do you mean? I mean, what do you mean step out of the vehicle for me? Okay. I mean,

Taya Graham:

Now I just want to take a second to note how quickly the officer asked him to get out of the car if indeed this was a traffic violation when the officer first asked for his driver’s license or insurance. The only reason I can imagine is that this stop was purely pretextual, meaning it had nothing to do with the stated reason for stopping itself and overuse of law enforcement power that becomes obvious when the situation quickly unravels. Just watch.

Timothy Michael Randall:

Can you show me that I put step

Deputy Iversion:

Out of the

Timothy Michael Randall:

Okay. What? I’m just wondering.

Deputy Iversion:

Turn around. Put your hands right there real quick. You got anything on you? You should keep your hands out of your pocket. I

Timothy Michael Randall:

Wasn’t.

Taya Graham:

Now I am going to ask you to watch carefully here as I replay the video. Notice that the officer makes physical contact with Timothy thrusting his hand down into Timothy’s pockets and in the front of his pants. This is not a pat down. This is a physically obtrusive use of force. I say that because the officers essentially trapped him and in that sense arrested him almost within seconds of the stop. This is law enforcement overreach, but it gets worse. So much worse behind your back. I don’t have anything on me. Officer

Timothy Michael Randall:

Hand behind your back. Officer. I don’t have anything on me behind your back. Officer, why are you? Can you just tell me, officer, please, can you tell me what I’m under arrest for? Please, please,

Taya Graham:

Officer, please. So a man is driving home from work, not accused of any crime. Suddenly finds himself trapped in police restraint with the officer’s hands rummaging under his clothing. And like any normal human being, he pushes back not because he doesn’t want to comply, not because he hasn’t tried to comply, but because the officer’s actions are so aggressive and so invasive, he instinctively responds. In other words, all of this, every move up until now is caused by the officer and just watch what he did next. That’s right. In a horrifying move, the officer shoots him while he is running away after a stop for allegedly running a stop sign in under two minutes. Deadly forces used tragically Timothy Michael Randall died after collapsing about two blocks from the scene and the bullet slashed through his lungs and his heart. Now, as you can clearly see it on the video, Timothy is running away, but Sergeant Iversson told investigators he thought the victim was running towards him. I want you to watch the video closely to determine if that is true, because it is critical to what we will be discussing later. It’s also important to note that officers do not have the right to shoot someone who is simply running away to avoid arrest. They can only do so if they feel the suspect is an imminent threat to themselves or others. And it’s hard to conjure any sort of real threat from Timothy, a man simply driving home from work. Let’s watch a bit as the officer responds.

Deputy Iversion:

Dude, you Okay? Five 17 County, Hey, I need an ambulance. Call everybody. I’ve got a shooting.

Taya Graham:

But here’s where the story really becomes dicey and leads us to the next chapter of the saga that perhaps we’ll call the trials and tribulations of holding police accountable. That’s because after the case was brought to the grand jury, the judicial body which heard the case declined to indict Sergeant Iversson. Even with clear and compelling evidence on camera, there were no charges for what we just witnessed. And that’s when one of our favorite cop watchers sprang into action. His name is Otto, the Watchdog, and he is one of the most innovative and confounding YouTube activists we know. And like his fellow professional law enforcement documentaries, Otto finds creative ways to protest and hold police to account. In this case, he chose to give the officers in the same town where Timothy Randall was killed a bit of a law, review, a test while he protested the killing, and perhaps expressed his displeasure with a department that would kill an unarmed young man during a traffic stop.

Or maybe there was more to it. Maybe he wanted everyone to know that a police department with the legal right to kill didn’t even understand the first Amendment, let alone when it is authorized to use deadly force. And to make that highly relevant point, Otto decides to stand on a public sidewalk with a series of signs that have a variety of intriguing messages. Some could be considered obscene, some are not. Some call out bad cops, some do not. Again, like I said, the perfect test for law enforcement’s understanding of the First Amendment and likewise, a more telling assessment if the officers from the department who killed Timothy understood the law at all. Just watch.

Otto the Watchdog:

Oh yeah, they parked. Oh shit. Nope. Nope, I’m leaving. Why not?

Police Officer:

Because you got profanity on your sign.

Otto the Watchdog:

Am I being detained right this second?

Police Officer:

Yes you are.

Otto the Watchdog:

Oh boy. Okay. What do you want to do?

Police Officer:

Well, I’m just trying to figure out what’s going on. Why are you out here? Because you got that profane sign. We’ve had multiple calls.

Otto the Watchdog:

Oh, I’m so sorry about that.

Police Officer:

You got your idea

Taya Graham:

That guy’s being disorderly. So just to be clear, it is not a crime to say an obscenity or hold a sign with an obscenity That has pretty much been case law since an appellate court ruled in 1971 that a man could not be charged with a crime for wearing a jacket that said, and I quote F the draft, but apparently the Henderson police are not aware of that law. Take a look. Okay.

Otto the Watchdog:

Well you’re being detained and you’re, am I under arrest?

Police Officer:

No, but you’re required to identify yourself.

Otto the Watchdog:

Am I? Are you sure about that?

Police Officer:

Yes.

Otto the Watchdog:

It’s Texas penal code 38 0 2.

Police Officer:

The proclaimed language is cause disorder of the

Otto the Watchdog:

Conduct. Is it? Are you sure about that?

Police Officer:

Yeah. We’ve got multiple calls.

Otto the Watchdog:

Are you a hundred percent sure about that? Yes sir. So I’m standing on the sidewalk, you know what I mean? So I’m standing on the sidewalk,

Police Officer:

Right? But

Otto the Watchdog:

When

Police Officer:

You’re

Otto the Watchdog:

Inside and breach of the

Police Officer:

Piece, you got multiple.

Taya Graham:

So the officer seems to double down on the premise that holding a sign that he or someone else finds offensive is a crime. Interesting. So governments get to editorialize on what we say and how we say it. That sounds rather authoritarian to me. But Otto lays an interesting trap for the officer and another cop who joins him. A clever on the spot. First amendment aptitude test that has some interesting results. Take a look.

Otto the Watchdog:

Am I under arrest? Okay, well I under Texas penal code 38.02, I do not have to identify unless I’ve been lawfully arrested. Okay. That’s not how that works. That’s exactly how it works. I can give you

Police Officer:

The, you required, hey, look it up once you’re detained. Okay. Is

Otto the Watchdog:

That true?

Police Officer:

A video camera across the street?

Otto the Watchdog:

Oh no,

Police Officer:

He couldn’t help.

Otto the Watchdog:

Oh no, that’s terrible. Is that about me? What’d they say? Can I get back to what I was doing or am I still detained? No, you’re still detained. Can I hold my sign right here while you figure it

Police Officer:

Out? No, sir. Not the profane one.

Otto the Watchdog:

Not the profane one. Is that a content view and viewpoint restriction that you’re issuing to me right now? What are talking about? I’m talking about what you’re doing to me. I want to stand over here and hold my sign without you standing here saying things You can’t. I can. Oh, yes I can. Oh, yes I can. Yes I can. As a matter of fact, do you like this one?

Police Officer:

I got my supervisor on the way.

Otto the Watchdog:

Okay, good. Do you like this one? Can I hold this one? Okay, I can’t hold this one. You said I can’t, I’m not going to run or nothing. I’m just going to step over this metal thing so I don’t fall. Can I hold this one? Okay. How about this one? This one’s okay too? Yeah, this one’s fine. Okay, how about that one? Not this one. This is the one disorderly. Oh no, this sign is being disorderly. You can have it. You can arrest this sign. I didn’t mean to hit you. I’m sorry. Please don’t shoot me. Please don’t shoot me. How about this one? So which one of these are you? Are you this one put the signs? Well, I don’t want to put the signs down. So if I do that, it’s because you’re going to order me to do so, not because I really want to. Are you going to arrest me if I don’t put it down?

Taya Graham:

Okay. So if I were to interpret the law based upon the officer’s decision to become a free speech arbiter, the police accountability report would pretty much be shut down. I mean, it is really hard to understand how the cops are so unfamiliar with the law that they actually deem themselves legally empowered to tell us what we can and cannot say on a public sidewalk. I guess this is their stop the presses moment when we have to check in with the cops before we release our reports. And this particular cop not only seems comfortable with that state of affairs, but is joined by another impromptu speech arbiter. Just watch

Otto the Watchdog:

What if I sneak one of these other ones in here? I’ll do this one. I’ll do it like this. That way the sign can say whatever the people think it says, and then if they think it’s offensive, then that’s on them. Right? So I would definitely just me, honestly, me personally, I’d prefer to stand right here on this public sidewalk and do exactly what I’ve been doing. Okay. Without now two police officers showing up. I told you he was coming. Yeah.

Police Officer:

So we do have city ordinances

Otto the Watchdog:

As

Police Officer:

Well as state statutes.

Otto the Watchdog:

Correct. Okay, fantastic.

Police Officer:

So as part of that,

Otto the Watchdog:

If you

Police Officer:

Are in violation of one, which we are investigating because we’ve received three complaints about your son.

Otto the Watchdog:

Okay.

Police Officer:

Okay.

Otto the Watchdog:

This one?

Police Officer:

No, the other one, obviously the other one. The one with the propane

Otto the Watchdog:

Language? Yeah.

Police Officer:

Okay. Which is a violation of our city ordinance

Otto the Watchdog:

Where

Police Officer:

You are required to identify yourselves due to fact a criminal offense has occurred.

Otto the Watchdog:

A criminal offense. City ordinances are usually civil offenses where I could get a ticket or something. You

Police Officer:

Could, but you could also be arrested for violation of city

Otto the Watchdog:

Ordinances. Okay. So you might want to make sure that the city ordinance applies to a sidewalk.

Police Officer:

Okay.

Otto the Watchdog:

Underneath an American, it’s not a public. You see that flag right there? Yeah, exactly. That’s why it’s a public place. I’m not arguing about where you can or, well, I don’t care what you think you’re doing, you are arguing.

Taya Graham:

And so rather than realizing their erroneous read on the law, the officers doubled down on Otto, both seem to embrace the idea that they can on the spot deem a sign. A sign no less illegal. And that seems to be the impetus behind this statement. Just listen,

Police Officer:

I don’t mind that you’re doing it. They don’t mind that you’re doing it. They just don’t want the profane

Otto the Watchdog:

Language. Oh, well

Police Officer:

That’s

Otto the Watchdog:

What

Police Officer:

It comes down to.

Otto the Watchdog:

Tough titty. I’m sorry that they don’t like it. That’s on them. If they don’t like it, they can look away way. There’s a whole lot of things I don’t like.

Police Officer:

I understand that. But as for being civil,

Otto the Watchdog:

Yeah, I think so.

Police Officer:

Yeah.

Otto the Watchdog:

I’m going to stand right here and continue to do exactly what I was doing.

Police Officer:

Okay. Do you mind identifying yourself?

Otto the Watchdog:

Am I under arrest? Have I been arrested? Am I simply being detained for an investigation

Police Officer:

At this time? You are being detained for an investigation,

Otto the Watchdog:

But

Police Officer:

You could escalate to arrest.

Otto the Watchdog:

Well, when you guys decide to arrest me, I’ll tell you my name. But until then I would like to continue standing right here and doing exactly what I’ve been doing. If you don’t mind,

Taya Graham:

The officers seemed confused and they should be because Otto has led them into a quandary of their own making. In fact, they have literally revealed in front of not one, but two cameras, just how little they know about a basic constitutional right. But I think one of the most crucial moments of this entire encounter, the most important interaction towards understanding why this matters and why the work of cop watchers like Otto matters is what happens next. Just look,

Otto the Watchdog:

I told you, you said to wait until

Police Officer:

You’re

Otto the Watchdog:

Arrested. Yes. When you’re Yes, there’s a prerequisite there. That’s not a refusal. If you arrest me, I will follow the law and identify once I’ve been lawfully arrested Texas penal code 38 0 2 as dispatch to look it up. So once you’re detained, you’re required to id. Am I driving? It doesn’t matter. It does. What you’re referencing is traffic code.

Timothy Michael Randall:

I need that damn call. Thank

Otto the Watchdog:

You, sir. I appreciate that. How is that guy smarter than you? Are you big dummy? Jesus, this guy, this guy, this guy. You know how much this lady pays each year to have you guys here? $109. It looks like she can care less. That’s fine. I’m standing up for her rights too, because one day she might get a little bit pissed off and want to say something that somebody

Taya Graham:

Might find offensive and there you have it. One day she might want to exercise her rights one day she might be a victim of police overreach. One day she might want to protest. And as Otto encounter reveals, in order to preserve that, right, you have to be willing to stand up for it. And that’s what he’s doing and that’s why it matters. But I will have more to say about Otto’s work later because this is not the end of Otto’s push for justice for the family of Timothy Michael Randall. And for more than that, we will be joined by the man himself who will tell us what happened and why he continues to hold cops accountable in such demonstrably revealing and unique ways. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Steven Janice, who’s been researching the law and reaching out to police. Steven, thank you so much for joining me,

Stephen Janis:

Dave. Thanks Harvey. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So first, Steven, what does the law say about profane signs or the use of expletives in general? I mean, how deep is the case law?

Stephen Janis:

Well, the case law goes back for decades. There’s really no government agency, no official in any capacity who can tell you what to say or how you can use the First Amendment. Absolutely nothing that supports it goes all the way back to the seventies when a veteran was wearing a jacket that said, fuck the draft. And the court ruled that that was okay, that it wasn’t up to the government to tell you what or what not to say. So clearly there is no law or no legal basis to tell Otto what to say or what sign he can hold.

Taya Graham:

So you’ve reached out to the Henderson, Texas police. What are they saying about Otto’s protest and how their officers responded?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I reached out to ’em. I’ve not heard back. I think the department is pretty sensitive right now because of the pending lawsuit. And in those kind of cases, departments don’t comment. I think in Otto’s case, because he was not arrested, they really don’t have much comment. So really nothing said right now, but they’re under a lot of scrutiny and I think Otto is really testing the department and maybe they’re having First Amendment training right now because of it.

Taya Graham:

So back to the police involved shooting, is Timothy Randall’s family planning to sue or take some other action against the department or the officer? Have they even received an apology from the department?

Stephen Janis:

I’ll tell you, this is really interesting. The family did indeed sue in federal court. And what came up was, again, qualified immunity, which we know police use to shield themselves from liability and lawsuits. But of course, qualified immunity means that the right has not been established in that district. In other words, the right not to be shot when you’ve done nothing wrong and you’re unarmed has not been firmly established. Well, the judge said that is just not the case in this case. And in fact, the judge said the fact that he didn’t really give him warning where he just shot him almost immediately disqualify any right of the officer to be shielded from liability in this suit. So this suit is moving forward and we will update you when we hear more, but really this officer will probably have to pay in court for what he has done

Taya Graham:

And now to break down his efforts to push back against police violence with his own unique form of activism. We are joined by Otto the Watchdog. Otto, thank you so much for joining us.

Otto the Watchdog:

Oh, yes ma’am. Taya, it’s always a pleasure to be here. Thank you.

Taya Graham:

So you recently decided to go back out onto the street and protest. Tell us why you made that choice. Was there an incident that made you say to yourself, I have to get back out there and protest?

Otto the Watchdog:

What made me decide to go back out and protest was that people never stopped sending me their stories. So people kept reaching out to me and telling me what happened to ’em. And sometimes they were just so egregious that I wanted to go out, but things were going, were not situated in my life well enough to be able to do that. So I situated things in my life so that I could go back out and do that. And now I am. And now I’m here.

Taya Graham:

Otto, you sent me this body camera video, which honestly really upset me. Can you describe what happened in that encounter with the young man and the police? What are we seeing in the body camera footage? I mean this traffic stop led to his death in just under two minutes.

Otto the Watchdog:

Yeah, so you’re talking about the Michael Randall story. He was a young man that lived in Rains County and he was coming home at the end of the day and a police officer claimed that he ran a red light or well, it was a stop sign with a blinking red light. And then he was pulled over and ordered out of the car and then shot almost immediately. And that story touches me because it was completely unnecessary. It was a minor traffic violation if the allegations were true. And there there’s some legitimate questions on whether or not the young man actually did run the red light to begin with. And then everything that happened after the vehicle stopped is very telling in my opinion, because the officer walks up and puts his fingerprints on the license plate, which or on the brake light, which we’ve seen a lot. And it’s like they do that so that if they happen to not survive the encounter, if the vehicle’s found again, they can prove that it was that vehicle which gives them the mindset going in that something bad is about to happen. And in this case, I think that he invented a reason to do so.

Taya Graham:

Now, Otta, we watched a horrible death on camera. What happened to the officer involved in this case?

Otto the Watchdog:

Oh, so Officer Iversson quickly resigned right after the incident with Michael Randall. And so he was charged, which is kind of amazing given the circumstances that he was charged. But when those charges went to the grand jury, they no billed him. So he will never go through the process of court, which for so many Americans is a punishment in and of itself. And in my opinion that is a miscarriage because at least, at the very least we should have that due process. He should have to go through the process just like anybody else. And for it to be no build. I mean the rest of the community is outraged, is absolutely outraged. Local citizens are outraged as well as people around the country because we all see ourselves. And Michael Randall, he was just going home one day and he got pulled over and things escalated very quickly.

Very quickly, an officer immediately tells you to get out of the car and then you comply. And the first thing he does is put his hands down your pants up to his elbow. That would be offensive for anybody. And then he got thrown to the ground, not once, but twice. And just because Michael Randall happened to be in better physical shape than Officer Iversson does not mean that you get to shoot him dead. And Iversson said that he was reacting because of his experiences in the military where he was an active duty combat veteran. But I’ve spoken to his service buddies and they say that he never fired a shot and that he was never in combat. So he may have been combat adjacent, but that does not make you a combat veteran suffering from PTSD. So this whole story to me shines a light on a whole bunch of different issues and the police officer and his behavior is just one minor facet of what’s going on here.

Taya Graham:

Now you had an encounter with police that went viral. You were holding a series of signs with a variety of messages. Can you explain why you did this and why you chose the signs you did?

Otto the Watchdog:

I do have a variety of signs. I have a ton of signs and some of them are more intriguing than others, but most of them don’t get any attention whatsoever. There’s only a certain very few signs that get posted on Facebook. For some reason I don’t really quite fully understand why. Actually, I do understand fully why, because it is surprising and shocking and because it gets posted on Facebook, people want to know what is wrong, what is this guy doing? What would cause somebody to do that? Can he do that? There’s a lot of questions that come up with that. And I can’t put all of these things on a sign. And when I ask the citizens what their problems are, they always say the same things. It’s the roads, our justice system, our local justice system, not some abstract thing that we can’t identify exactly. We’re talking about the local courts are screwed up, our local cops are screwed up. And then they’ll tell me, well, this is the most corrupt town. This is the most corrupt city in the state, and it might be in the country. Well, that can’t possibly be true because every single town that I cover, the citizens there say the exact same thing.

This just happened to be in one small town in Texas, but this is every town that I’ve been to. So it makes me feel like it is the ones that I haven’t been to also, I just don’t know about that yet. So I go out there to protest Michael Randall. What am I supposed to put on that sign that draws that attention? Well, I mean, I know what I would put on that sign, but if you don’t, I have a sign for you too. If you don’t know what to put on your sign, you can put whatever you want to on this one right here and that’s fine with me.

Taya Graham:

Do you know why the police in this situation decided to approach you?

Otto the Watchdog:

I mean, the police say that they were called. I have no doubt that that is true. I don’t know who called or why I could get that information if I really wanted to, but it’s not super important to me why I was approached. I really don’t know why I was approached. Do you’d think that somebody would’ve heard the call go out over the radio and advised someone that nothing was actually going on there and they had plenty of time before they showed up that they could have called somebody, but that, I mean, clearly it’s because the first officer that showed up didn’t know. And then obviously the second officer that showed up didn’t know. And apparently, and I’m just assuming here, that none of the officers listening in on the radio knew so and the dispatcher didn’t know and nobody in that office knew. So I’m guessing it’s because they thought that they could take somebody to jail. I only assumed that they thought something terrible was going on some sort of a major crime and they came out there to stop me and that didn’t work out so well.

Taya Graham:

So what crime did they accuse you of and did they ever formally say you were detained?

Otto the Watchdog:

Well, they alleged several crimes and they always do. Once you shoot down one, there’s always another one. And then when it gets past crimes, now it’s in ordinances. And then once you spill all those, it turns into public decency or something like that. Why don’t you be civil about it or whatever. So the officers initially said that they were called out there because of the profane language on the sign, which is exactly, I’m sure that’s exactly what the caller said, that he’s out here holding profane language, which I mean to in the common tongue that would be accurate. But legally speaking and a police officer should know that my signs are not profane. They’re merely vulgar. They’re also not obscene because these words have very different meanings in the common language than the legal ease of things.

That’s the crux of it. Then it was failure. I have to ID and then it’s failure to id. I don’t think they tried to. Oh, and then I think it was blocking the sidewalk or something like that. I hope you understand. I have these interactions quite often and not always with police. So sometimes I get these things mixed up a little bit, but that’s generally the way it goes. And again, once you dispel all of their initial concerns, they just make up another one. So I do the best I can. I don’t want to talk to ’em. I really don’t. My whole purpose is not to talk to them. I’m here to talk to the citizens and I’m just shaking a tree for information because when somebody sees a guy out there who’s mad or madder than they are at the same things that they’re mad about, oh man, I got to talk to that guy. They will bust a U-turn. They will look me up, they will send me an email. And I appreciate every one of you. I read your comments, I read your emails. I respond to as absolute many of them as I can. And if I can’t help you, I try to find somebody that can. I’m just one guy. Well, I do have a team now, but we can’t do it.

Nobody, I don’t think that there’s enough reporters on earth that can cover the amount of corruption that’s going on. Just, I mean, pick a spot. Just pick a spot. If we were to tell every story, there would be nothing else ever talked about. So we do have to find the most compelling stories for the widest possible audience. And I think Michael Randall’s a good story because everybody can identify with just trying to get home at the end of the day, maybe he oozed through the red light and the blinking stop sign. Okay, it’s just a blinking stop sign in a podunk town with basically no one in it. So maybe he did blow past the stop sign. I don’t think he did. I don’t think he did. But I’ve grown up in the country my entire life and there’s just some places where you don’t stop for that stop sign.

Nobody stops for that stop sign because there’s only three cars that come by there in a seven day period and you just happen to be the one of ’em if you meet another car at the stop sign, sometimes we stop, but everybody just knows. And that’s what we do out here. So because that becomes a pattern and practice for the citizens, the police start knowing that because sometimes they live here and then they set up a trap to catch you. The same thing that they do when you’re traveling across and you come up to a small town, you better slow down. You can bet your ass that there’s a cop sitting there ready and waiting and just itching at the bit to write you a ticket for going five miles over their tiny little town. Why? Because you’re leaving and you’re never coming back. You’re never coming back. So you’re just going to pay that ticket because they scare the hell out of you. They’ll send you notices and they start out just a plain piece of paper, oh hey, just want to let know you got a ticket. You should take care of that. And then it’ll be a different color. It’ll be yellow, right? And then it’s yellow with red letters saying You got a warrant. They scare the hell out of you until you pay it.

Taya Graham:

Okay. So there was this brilliant moment when you asked the police if one sign was acceptable and if the others were not and he fell for it first. What did he get wrong with their choices and why did you ask him to be judge and jury on the sidewalk for your signs?

Otto the Watchdog:

Oh yeah. So I carry a couple different signs and I do that because as the series goes, I’ll show the back the blue sign and then no matter what the person who sees it reaction is, whether it’s this or they just ignore it, then I’ll whip out the other one and then they read that one. And then it’s usually either a laugh or absolute disdain. And either one is acceptable is an acceptable reaction to me. And I do that because if you’re going to back the blue, then we have to get rid of the bad ones. But I wrote the bad one, very small because it’s supposed to be only just a few of them. And it is fun. It’s funny, objectively in my opinion, it’s funny. And I asked him which one he liked because that’s exactly what my attorney asked the other officers in their depositions.

So I didn’t come up with that. My attorney did, and he’s a smart man. So I thought that it was a good idea to continue doing that. And this officer had no idea. He had no idea what was going on there, which is a problem because when the government is very restricted on how they can limit speech and a content and viewpoint restriction is the most obvious thing that they’re not allowed to do. That’s like the first thing that they should know about the First Amendment. The very first lesson should be content and viewpoint restriction issued by the government. And he had no idea. He didn’t even understand the phrase. So either he had never heard it or he hadn’t heard it enough to know what I was talking about. And then of course they do like the back, the blue sign, but they don’t like that.

I disagree with you signs. They don’t like those. And that’s exactly what he said. And that just adds clarity to the fact because when you get into court, it’s very difficult to prove what was in somebody’s mind unless you get them to express what was in their mind. So if the whole point of them coming out there is because of an actual disorderly conduct, which is very specific behavior, incitement of violence causing alarm, intentional infliction of terror, that kind of thing, then you have to get them to say so. And that just happened to be what that particular officer did that day.

Taya Graham:

What do you think their actions say about law enforcement’s concept and understanding of the First Amendment?

Otto the Watchdog:

Well, those officers showed that they clearly do not understand the First Amendment. And for some reason they believe that because somebody called then they have to do something. And by doing something, that means that I have to do something, whether it is stop using those particular signs or I need to leave or I need to go to jail or I deserve a citation of some kind, it falls upon me. And if I don’t know the law, I go to jail. Okay, alright, let’s get that right. And if they don’t know the law, the officers that show up don’t know the law, I also go to jail. Okay, so I’m the only one here that has anything to risk by this. They’re protected by qualified immunity unless they somehow trip themselves up by answering questions that they shouldn’t have been answering.

Even a dumb attorney, even a dumb attorney will tell you, don’t talk to the police. Okay, well, when an officer shows up and he sees me, I’m miked up with a body cam. I got freaking five microphones and I’m holding signs expressly devoted to him. Well, maybe not him specifically, but somebody that dresses exactly like him. And you think that, I mean, what did he expect? What do they expect when they show up? Do they think that I’m just going to apologize for hurting? I mean, I guess I’m hurting their feelings, but what am I supposed to do there? What do they expect me to do? I guess that they’ve gotten so used to people just folding and leaving that the moment somebody puts up the slightest bit of resistance, well now I need backup. And they do need backup. They need a lot of backup.

I can’t believe that they only show up at two officers. They should wheel out the Texas State penal code, which would take multiple dollies. So as a common citizen, I should not have to have a law degree to stand out there and express my displeasure with the government. I should be able to be a lowly common peasant with no education, and my sign could be misspelled, and that should be fine too. And I should be able to protest something that nobody else cares about, nobody else cares about, and I should not, no one should be fearful that they’re going to be taken away and not be able to go home to their families that night for expressing an opinion. And the place in which I was doing so on a public sidewalk underneath an American flag in front of a clock, it’s just the most iconic possible place in my opinion, that I could have protest. I was going to go down the street to the courthouse, but it wasn’t near as majestic as the place where I chose. So I have no idea what they were expecting when they showed up. But what they got is a face full of watchdog.

Taya Graham:

Now, they did not arrest you, but they also became aware of your cameras. How were they tipped off and do you think your cameras prevented your arrest?

Otto the Watchdog:

So these officers did become aware of my cameras because somebody called dispatch and told them that I had been setting up cameras before they showed up. And it would be very difficult for me to set up my camera equipment without being noticed, especially on a very busy corner. And the equipment that I currently use while I was setting up my first camera, people were asking me if I was with the news because I’ll use professional equipment. So it was already kind of rumoring around the local area that something was going on and then something went on and then they called. So it would be very difficult to not notice me setting up for one of these protests. Obviously I use multiple cameras up, body cammed up. I’m hard to miss what I mean I’m, it’s very hard to miss me. So obviously somebody saw me, this is a busy area in the neighborhood, and somebody saw me and just wanted to let the police know that they were being filmed, why that was an important thing for dispatch to let the police officers know.

I’m not entirely sure. I mean we can make our own conclusions upon that, but if the police officer’s being recorded or recording me, what are they so concerned about? I guess it would be important information. I mean, I guess I understand why they told them because that does kind of add a level of complexity to the whole situation, doesn’t it? It’s not just a guy out there holding a sign, it’s also a guy holding a sign with a bunch of cameras. That’s funny. Anyway, and do I think that the cameras prevented my arrest? No. No. I absolutely do not think that it prevented my arrest. I think that the verbal judo prevented my arrest. I talked those officers out of taking me to jail. I talked them out of violating my rights and forcing me to id. So the standard is not going to jail. Your rights are not violated just because somebody took you to jail unlawfully. Your rights are violated when you are unlawfully stopped. And any reasonable officer in their positions should know that I was engaged in a first member protected activity on a public sidewalk. I was not inciting violence. I was not causing fear or alarm. So there was nothing for them to do.

Taya Graham:

Otto, what do you think finally prompted the officers to give up? I mean, why did they finally leave you alone?

Otto the Watchdog:

So one of the officers wisely decided that he was going to make a phone call after he informed me of a city ordinance. And I asked him if that applied to a sidewalk, which one? I know that there is no ordinance because such an ordinance would be unconstitutional. Two, if it did apply to a sidewalk, then that would also be another added level of complexity to the lawsuit at the end of it. So if they did take all that was just in case they made a bad decision that day, all those questions and all that was just in case they made a bad decision, which should have been a fricking clue. They should have been a clue to these officers that something was going on and wisely. The second officer that showed up decided that he was going to call somebody, and whoever was on the other end of that phone was obviously better educated than he was. And I’m certain that they told them that there was nothing that they could do and to disengage, which they did. Thankfully, very thankfully, I do not want to go to jail even for a moment.

Taya Graham:

So based on this encounter, do you think police are worse or better at understanding the Constitution than they were when you first began your activism over 10 years ago?

Otto the Watchdog:

So I’ve been an activist for 10 years officially, and probably longer than that unofficially. And in that time I’ve noticed that police officers understanding of some constitutional rights have improved. For example, we don’t see anybody, very rarely do we have anybody arrested for merely filming in public like police departments or even anywhere in public, from public publicly accessible spaces. But we do still have people being Now the big thing is arrested for walking the wrong direction to traffic. So if you’re walking the wrong direction on traffic, you’ll be arrested for that. Is that a constitutional violation in and of itself? No, but the purpose behind that arrest is a constitutional violation, which is something that we’re going to have to work out in the courts somehow because if the courts don’t say that they can’t do that, then they’re going to continue to do so.

So I guess in that part, it’s a necessary evil. I think that police officers in general are being better trained on constitutional rights, but it’s such a complicated issue from their perspective that it’s going to take decades of dedicated study for these guys to have a proper understanding of it. I’ve studied a very niche corner of constitutional law, first Amendment, basically First amendment with that 38 failure to identify disorderly conduct and those things. And I don’t know everything about that. And I’ve been studying that hardcore for over a decade. So I can’t imagine what it would be like if every day I was faced with the opportunity to violate somebody’s rights. And I genuinely care about not violating other people’s rights. And I am certain that I would do so on accident if my job was literally to try and circumvent people’s rights to get them in trouble for things.

Taya Graham:

I know you have risked a lot and endured personal sacrifice and hardship to protest the police and advocate for the First Amendment. I mean, you were jailed, you went through intense court proceedings and intimidation, and you were even separated from your children for a period of time. You’ve sacrificed a lot and you’ve had friends and other activists who have endured a great deal of hardship. Do you have any fear of going out and protesting again? And is it worth it? Is it worth the risk because you know the price it can be paid. Why are you doing it again?

Otto the Watchdog:

Well, that’s a heavy question. So I certainly have endured a lot. I personally have been through a lot. I’ve been through a lot adjacent, meaning that a lot of the people around me have been through a lot and are going through a lot as a direct result of what we do. We’re not just reporters, we’re also activists, which is a very dangerous line. It just being an activist on its own is dangerous. And then reporting on some of the things that we report on and the people that we report on is dangerous sometimes, especially when they’re known for making threats of violence. And some of these cases, that’s exactly what they’re being accused of. Is it worth it? I guess time will tell. I certainly hope that all these sacrifices and pain and suffering wasn’t for naugh. I can only hope. But what I know for certain is that the alternative is worse than doing nothing.

If we continue to let this happen, somebody has to do something and I wish that it would be somebody else, but I’m the one that, I’m one of the ones that has been tasked with this and I don’t really have a choice in it at this point. So I’m going to have to continue doing what I’m doing. And it’s not because I do enjoy, I love protesting. I think it’s fun. And I think if you don’t enjoy it, then you couldn’t do it at least as frequently as I do because it is scary. And I’m terrified every single time, every time I see a cop go by, you don’t know if the guy inside that car is going to think it’s funny or if he’s going to hate it. Just like you don’t know if the guy that pulled you over is having a fantastic day or if he’s maybe not.

And then they might take it out on you and they might take it out on me. And if somebody calls and they’re sufficiently upset, then they might also take it out on me. They might take somebody else’s frustration out on me. They could just have a complete misunderstanding of the law. And nothing that I say or do convinces them that they should call somebody and then here we go again. And I don’t want that. I sincerely do not want to go to jail or getting in any kind of trouble. And I shouldn’t. I shouldn’t, but I don’t do this because I enjoy it. I enjoy it, so I do it, but I don’t do it for those reasons. I do it because at the end of a protest, mothers and fathers email me and message me and contact me and thank me for what I’m doing.

And other citizens in the town email me and message me and let me know that they’re also going through a very similar situation and they tell me what else has been going on that I’ve never heard about and nobody will ever hear about because nobody ever said anything. And that’s exactly what I want to do. I want to go out there and fight and shout for the little old lady who owns the barbershop or the ice cream parlor or the coffee house who has to make a living in these towns. And they’re not going to go out there and hold these signs or any signs because their livelihood is inextricably based on the community around them. And any perceived, even if it’s Ill-gotten any perceived slight, could be devastating to a business in one of these small towns where they might have 1500 or 15,000 people that can be rough. So they don’t want to say anything. And then you get the judges and the cops not liking you, and you have to drive through this town every day with the heightened risk of being pulled over and harassed and ticketed into oblivion. So they’re not going to say anything either. So that’s why I do it for them.

Taya Graham:

Okay, there is a lot to unpack here, and I want to make sure I talk about what we’ve just seen in a matter that is insightful, compassionate, and hopefully adequate to the task at hand. What I mean is ultimately this entire story is not just about one man’s life, but how his death affects all of us. It’s about a country where a traffic ticket can be a death sentence. An ordinary and routine disagreement over a stop sign can turn into a profound and life-altering event that consumes all of us. And what’s most important to realize about this is that we have in part accepted it as normal order of things. In other words, police violence has become so routine that a man dying during a traffic stop, a man who was provably unarmed, doesn’t really seem as disturbing as it actually is. Now, there’s an idea that some used to explain this phenomena, an idea that highlights how an uncommon event can seem common depending on the way it’s portrayed and how often we encounter it.

Some people describe this as a process of normalization, meaning we become accustomed to police violence because we see it so often. In other words, there’s nothing unusual about dying during a traffic stop because it happens all too often. And it is in some case, understandable. As the guardian reported in 2023, since 2017, 800 people have died during routine traffic stops by police. Now, that’s an appalling number of deaths when you consider that police are generally only authorized to use deadly force in response to deadly violence from a suspect. But I have a different idea of why the death of a young man perhaps goes without much pushback except for activists like Otto, perhaps a more illuminating way of comprehending why police killing seem so unexceptional and almost inevitable to understand this idea, let’s turn around what we just witnessed and consider another aspect of what it means if we are indeed willing to accept it.

Throughout the roughly two minute video depicting the killing, there is one aspect of it that predominates that is the unremarkable and unquestionable exercise of police power. And by extension state power, I mean the officer doesn’t hesitate to begin giving orders. When Timothy exited the vehicle, he was almost instantly manhandled without any obvious recognition of his rights. It’s like from the second the officer engages him, he controls him. And so when he is shot running away, it is like the state has extended its authority to the even most human form of dissent, protecting one’s body and one’s life. But like I said, I think there’s a reason for this, something beyond the confines of a traffic stop that pretends a more disquieting aspect of American policing that we rarely dissect, namely its role in projecting state power and quashing dissent. So what I mean is that the officer’s action and lack of legal pushback amount to a stunning and symbolic display of government power.

And when that dark theater of power is performed over and over again, the message is both appalling and subliminal. Do not resist, do not dissent because the government has both political and legal authority to take your life. Do not push back or run away obey at all times. Now, I know this might seem like a bit much like what does police authority have to do with state power? How can a car stop over traffic violation have anything to do with the expansive powers of government? And most importantly, how can a police killing be related to the way power is exercised in other facets of our lives? Well, please let me explain. There are obvious symbols of state power like a flag or a monument or a seal that are fairly common and seem unexceptional. These are static portrayals of state authority intended to create a sense of the ubiquity of government as if it were everywhere all at once.

But there are also more active demonstrations like a military parade or a televised session of Congress or even the simple presence of police on patrol. But what we saw in that video and the way police push back on Otto is a different way to project power. It is inherently active and it is inherently more potent and disturbing. What it does beyond causing the unnecessary and unjust death of a young man is show that the process of state power is as extreme as it is routine. It reveals, and most importantly projects that we are subject to extraordinary force and provocation in the most ordinary circumstances. That if we at any moment, if at any moment we dissent or refuse a lawful order or otherwise do not comply with the power of the state, then needless to say, the state can act without limit to ensure we obey.

And that’s the point. Unfortunately, that’s why a routine car stop turns into a deadly tragedy. Why police officer can escalate an encounter from a traffic infraction to a death sentence in a split second. And why even with a video revealing how unnecessary Timothy Michael Randall’s death was, a grand jury decides not to indict, I simply don’t understand how anyone could watch that video and hear his last words, officer please and not feel compassion and want his family to have justice. But as much as we protest and push back and recoil from the use of force like we just witnessed, we are also inured to it. Remember, American police kill 1000 people a year. Not all are unjustified and not all are avoidable, but many are like Timothy Randall’s, which are stunningly excessive. But we watch and I think we’re supposed to learn, I think we’re supposed to be indoctrinated.

We’re supposed to internalize the idea that what the officer did was legal. We are expected to absorb the fact that a formal process was followed and then unbiased legal system came to an objective conclusion that fatal force was necessary. This is what I mean by projection of power. And these are the consequences of its symbolic strength, which means what we all need to do is what Otto did, reverse the symbolism and take back the power and put it where it belongs in the hands of the people. I mean, that’s why YouTube activists are actually so powerful. They challenge not just a narrative but the symbolism of power. In videos like Ottos, we see police put on the spot, not just us. We see a digital expose of the inner workings of state power, and in Otto’s case, the absurdity and the extremes that Ibu Street cops with the supposed ability to judge whether your First Amendment rights can be exercised.

That’s why cop watches armed with cell phones and cameras are actually so important. Why subjecting police to on the spot? Accountability is so essential to preserving our rights because without their perspective, without their ability to convince truisms about police power, we would have the symbolism of police power that is absolute without their constant presence and their commitment to the constitutional rights of everyone. What other narrative would we have that tells us their use of power is not always justified? What other symbolic reveal what exists from the perspective of the people, not just law enforcement? This is a critical idea to understand that the symbols of the state power and dominance are often crafted to deceive us and make us compliant to rhetoric that argues against our own best interests. Just look how mainstream media continue to show the same images of unrest and pepper spray and the same darn car burning while people protested peacefully against federal power, noticed how the CNN anchors showed up wearing goggles and helmets while a little more than four blocks, four blocks in a city of 500 square miles was engulfed in what could be described as a low intensity standoff with our soldiers.

It is symbolic state power at its best images to justify using the military against its own people were conjured and cooked up by network, staffed with multimillionaire anchors, the forward guard of inequality, stoking passions with exaggerated reporting so the armed forces of the United States of America could be manipulated into going to war against own people. That is not a democracy. We are a democracy. We the people who stand up for each other and the people who stand up to power, the people who refuse to relinquish their rights no matter who is trying to persuade us that we should. I would like to thank Otto the watchdog for speaking with us, sharing his video and standing up for the First Amendment and for Timothy Michael Randall. Thank you Otto. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Steven Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you Steven

Stephen Janis:

Te thanks for me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I want to thank mods of show Noli D and Lacey R for their support. Thanks Noli D and a very special thanks to our accountability reports, Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every one of you personally. In our next live stream, especially Patreon associate producers, Johnny, David, k Louis P, Lucita, Garcia, and Super friends, Shane b Kenneth K, pineapple Gold Matter of Rights, and Chris r. And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate. Please reach out. You can email us tips privately@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on X. And of course, you can always message me directly at tia’s Baltimore on X or Facebook. And please like and comment, I really do read your comments and appreciate them and I think we have a fundraiser link on the screen somewhere below. And we also have a Patreon link pinned in the comments. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We do not run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is greatly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham, and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.