America! Wanna Get Tazed?! Jamal Jones Shows How!


It sucks that the stupidity of some people effects others, and it sucks that many American blacks are angry at white police officers, when they should mostly be angry at stupid stuff that some other blacks are doing that put cops on edge. Are there crooked cops? Sure!
But the cops aren’t proving to be more of a problem to the black community as too many blacks are to themselves. Here more in this ZoNation!

To see the full video of the incident, CLICK HERE and scroll to the second video.

Thanks for watching my vids! If you like the message in them then You’ll have a BLAST nukin’ the liberal Narrative with my audio book of Christian Conservalicious profundus, written and read by Me! WEAPON OF A.S.S. DESTRUCTION! CLICK HERE OR IMAGE AND CHECK OUT SOME REVIEWS, AND GET YOUR COPY!!!

  • jay

    Gotta laugh! In fact I did, throughout the whole video (Zo’s and the actual utube posted video)! If anyone deserved to be tased, this joker did! It will be interesting to see just how much of a fight the police dept puts up to defend their officers! Even the police union should be out supporting these officers! Frankly I can’t stand the animal way these ghetto rats act. In your face, and daring you to react, and ready to get violent in an instant. This is exactly how they act! If they don’t react violently first. I was watching some videos from the Ferguson situation. How many different times did I see blacks get so close and in your face with the police? And the police just put up with it! If these people hadn’t been black, they would have been immediately read the riot act and then possibly tased and arrested. Threatening behavior is just that. Can anyone explain to me why this behavior is ok for a black to do, but not for a white (or any other group)?

  • steven

    Zo I can’t help but remember the words of William Powell, you know the black dude who wrote the anarchist cookbook.
    You should never argue with the cops, remember they have the gun or something along that line It has been about 40 years since I owned that book. lol.

  • coastx

    Cops in this case were lawful.

  • Scott M. Kruchell

    A LONG TIME AGO, I was drunk and doing STUPID STUFF, I was tazed, it was not fun. It was an EYE OPENIG EXPERIENCE that has never been repeated. Just watching the little Zo shows, I knew this PUNK deserved what he got, over not wearing a seat belt, THAT IS THE DUMBEST REASON OF ALL.

  • SteveD

    This particular horse is not one that I’d want to hook my cart to..

    While complying and obeying is the quickest way to deal with officers and their requests it’s not always the only way.
    As the driver of a vehicle you are required, by law, to have ID and proof that you are a licensed driver and either the owner of the vehicle or that you are permitted to drive it. You must also provide proof that you are insured.

    As a passenger in a vehicle.. any vehicle.. you have no duty to provide papers or ID. The Police have no legal authority to demand it without suspicion of a crime or as part of an investigation. In Indiana the Police may ask. And you are free to refuse. And that refusal does NOT constitute a crime nor rise to the level of demanding an investigation.

    And in the video.. After a lot of badgering he did comply with their request. He gave them his ID in the form of a ticket he had received. They didn’t like that form so demanded another. After that they demanded he get out of the vehicle and submit himself to a search. Again. No legal reason for him to comply.. much less for the officers to ask.

    The reasoning behind pulling him out.. That he was going for a backpack. holds no water. He went into his pack near the middle of the vid.. the cops didn’t bust the window until 3 minutes later. 3 minutes of waiting after they thought he was going for a gun or weapon? Sorry.. But no.

    This entire situation was not because of this persons failure to comply.. But because you had a couple cops that were incensed that some lippy civilian had the temerity to disobey him.

    Yes.. In the end this could have been prevented by simply complying. But where do you draw the line? Where do you stop the Police from crossing the line? The Cops can come to the door of your house. Knock.. and demand entrance, without reason or warrant. You have every right to refuse. And you should be expected to do so. And then the cops can kick in your door. Taser you and charge you with resisting arrest. And it would be no different than this case here. Had you just let them in none of this would have ever happened right?

    The “If you have nothing to hide” line of reasoning is flawed on numerous levels. We a Constitution and laws for a reason. You have a right to be secure in your person, property and papers and not be subjected to unlawful search and seizure. Just because a cop demands it in no way means that they have a right to it nor that you are legally bound to comply.

    • sleeping bear

      I noticed you didn’t mention the passenger was not wearing his seat beat. In the state of Illinois, all passengers are required to wear a seat belt. There he is breating get the law and the officer has the right to ask for ID.
      Love that Alfonzo.

    • SteveD

      Nitpick.. They weren’t in Illinois.. They were in Indiana. And only the driver was not wearing her seatbelt. And she was ticketed for it.

      Beyond that.. Not wearing your seatbelt does not give the Police the right to search you or your car.

      Also.. This level of escalation was completely and utterly unnecessary. Nobody in the car was a threat to anyone. The woman was on the phone from the beginning of the video asking for a supervisor to be dispatched to the scene. It would have cost the Police absolutely nothing to simply wait. This wasn’t a standoff. There was no threat to the public. And the procedural steps to follow do not go from “Requesting info” straight to Violence. Especially when the subject is offering no resistance other than refusing to submit to an unlawful and unwarranted search.

    • Scott M. Kruchell

      Did you watch the WHOLE VIDEO, just click the link below, or are you some lawyer/ “legal expert”, out to pick a PC “fight”? Common sense dictates, DON’T MESS WITH THE POLICE. It is QUITE CLEAR THESE PEOPLE HAD NO INTENTION OF COMPLYING. If you had watched either of the video’s there is a SUPERVISING OFFICER THERE, ON THE SCENE, I believe it was at least a Lt.
      Again, WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO, IT IS QUITE CLEAR NONE OF THE “RESPONSIBLE” ADULTS WERE GOING TO COMPLY, even while they are talking about the “kids in the back”.

    • The Jackrabbit

      Right….. And we’re all children and of course a badge automatically equals good guy no questions asked. Give me a break, If this same guy came and demanded you hand over your firearms I bet your high and mighty tune would change real quick. And believe me, if we do not stand up for our rights now, it will come to that.

      Everyone seems to forget the fact we are sovereign citizens. Unless a law is being broken, most “orders” given by LEO’s are actually forceful requests.

    • Scott M. Kruchell

      I have no problem talking with LEO’s, at least TWO of my high school friends are/ were LEO’s. I just use my head and I don’t do stupid things like these people did.
      I have in my home town of Milwaukee, WI. seen the other side too. Ther are three examples right off the top. (1.) Lawrencia (run, Bambi run) Bambenik (2.) Ed Lacy, a black man beaten to death by MPD in the back of a “paddy” wagon, for being drunk and pissing in an alley. (3.) Jeffery Dahmer, I’m not sure I need any details for this one.

    • SteveD

      Don’t mess with the Police. I already mentioned.. if you had read.. that there was a easy way to deal with the situation.
      That said there is also a limit to Police power and what they are allowed to demand from you. There has to come a point and time where we, as citizens, put a stop to abuses of Police power and their unlawful demands.

      If you’re going to do that you have to understand that there is the very real possibility that you will be detained.. maybe even arrested. And you’ll have to resolve it in the courts. I would not have chosen that particular place to take a stand. Not with my children in the car. But he did.

      And this is more than a PC fight. As it stands right now you have been conditioned to submit to ANY and ALL demands from the Police. No matter if they’re legal or constitutional. You have willingly balled up the paper with those rights and chucked them out the window. Which rights and legal protections are you going to surrender next?

    • Drooperdoo

      Showing a ticket is not ID. No picture on tickets. Therefore he did not show them ID. (I can show a ticket from you if I’;d like. It doesn’t mean I’m you.) On what planet is a ticket valid ID?

      So let’s repeat this so there’s no misunderstanding: He did not show ID.

      He was also passive aggressive and non-compliant.

      In Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the US Supreme Court uphold the ruling that, yes: You have to show ID when a cop requests it.

      This joker did what you should never do: Turn a nothing “warning” infraction for not having a seatbelt on into a tense situation, with his noncompliance making the cops wonder if he was hiding a larger crime [and possibly posing a danger to them with a hidden weapon]. He was constantly reaching into bags and rifling through things–a no-no when dealing with law enforcement. You always keep your hands where they can see them. Cops actually DO get shot in the face when stopping people for speeding. Knowing the dangers, they’re trained to lock down situations–which this guy was refusing to allow them to do.

      The only procedural problem I see is that the cops didn’t demand with greater vehemence that the woman [i.e., driver] open HER door. After she, too, was noncompliant and they felt that it might end in broken glass, their Victorian politeness took over and they decided to yank out the dude. So they kept pressuring him [due to their disinclination to visit violence upon the woman].

      My only reprimand to the officers [who used massive restraint] was that they ought to have yanked out the driver. Equal rights for women means equal responsibility. If she refuses to comply, she needs to deal with the consequences.

    • SteveD

      Interesting.. I wouldn’t have used Hiibel as the case law to stand behind on this for a number of reasons.

      First.. It was a challenge to Nevada law.

      Second.. Hiibel clearly states that you must provide ID if and only if “.. if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. ”

      Third.. What is ID? Per the case law you cited it is the mere disclosure of the persons name. Not providing a photo ID to the officers liking.

      Fourth.. You have absolutely ZERO legal requirement to provide a photo ID as a passenger in a car or as a person walking down the street. The only reason a Driver needs to provide one is because they are operating a motor vehicle on a public road and the law requires that you possess a license to do so. And that you have that license on your person any time you are behind the wheel.

      Finally.. It is quite shocking to see.. yet not unexpected.. that you see not only a legal right for the Police to engage in violence against the citizenry AFTER they fully comply with their legal obligations.. but also a sick desire to see violence done upon people by out of control Police.

      The fact that the passenger had no photo ID on him (Which he had no obligation to have on his person) meant, in no uncertain terms, that even if he had WANTED to comply with the unlawful request by the officers that he could not do so. So.. In your mind these officers have the right to stop and beat, taze, detain and arrest ANYONE on the street for not having their “papers” on them. Regardless of whether or not they have actually committed a crime or not.

      These officers need to go back to the academy and learn what the law is and what they are allowed to ask for and more importantly.. what the people are required to provide and when they can legally refuse to do so.

  • DeLonte Daine

    This Alfonzo Jig is one of the first coons Conservatives will run to to try and prove that their viewpoint isn’t “racist”.

    • RightUnite

      Awwww!!! Bless your heart!! And I don’t mean that in a nice way. And they say black folks aren’t racist! HA!! That is hilarious!

    • DeLonte Daine

      Whatever helps you sleep at night. I’m sure you love this moon cricket up until he impregnates your daughter.

    • Do you realize how racist that statement truly is?

    • DeLonte Daine

      It’s not “racist”, it’s a fact. If your daughter, mother or sister brought this spear chucker home, you and the majority of Conservative white males would throw a fit.

    • I am part Native American you half wit. My family has been Conservative since I was born Also if you look at this study you would see the lie in this statement. Oh I know facts are hard for you slaves of the Democrat party to understand but please try.

    • DeLonte Daine

      That’s you bringing home a girl of color. I’m sure that was a nice conquest in the eyes of your parents. If your sister brought home a buck like alfonzo, they would flip their lids.

    • Why so racist? I mean it seems the only person who has a problem with people of other races hooking up it is you for you are the only person talking about it.

    • Ladies and gentlemen liberal racism.

    • J_R_K

      Funny how a reader on this blog who has never met you, wouldn’t know you from Adam can tell what your skin color is just by what you have to say and how you say it…. Alphonso Jig? ” coons”
      You put your own mis-educated, unthinking, liberal, racists punkism on display …. Obviously Alphonso hit pretty close to home, huh, Homeboy? And like all liberals, you really hate that kind of f conservative accuracy.

  • PAFreedom

    Conservatives tend to be respectful people who have respect for the law
    and those that uphold it, but times have changed and we need to wake up
    to that federal/militarization of law enforcement. It’s fine to have a
    gut reaction to defend, especially against punks but we need to honor
    the spirit of the bill of rights first and decry rising police plurality
    regardless of what occupation they belong to and how decent they used
    to be.

    He’s a different conservative, or better yet, constitutional take:

  • Cultural Marxism Kills

    Who shall the police make out that citation to? The law says that the police have the duty to haul you in front of a magistrate immediately if unwilling to cooperate or violate any of these…

    IC 35-44-3-3
    Resisting law enforcement
    Sec. 3. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally:
    (1) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties as an officer;
    (2) forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with the authorized service or execution of a civil or criminal process or order of a court; or
    (3) flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, identified himself and ordered the person to stop;
    commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection …

    Suppose Jones gives a false name or happens to give your name and address to avoid supplying his. Regardless of what you believe he was incorporative for a reason and that is probable suspicion requiring a Terry stop and to be brought in for purposes of establishing identity to receive the seat belt citation. Then he is also subject to several new misdemeanors failure to assist and resisting. As it turns out another police department recognized him and it so happens they reissued a warrant for drug dealing and failure to appear. He is a “Great Father Figure” but those aren’t his kids. Their last name is Ivy, his is Jones and hers is Mahone. It turns out that Ms. Mahone pleaded guilty to having 485 grams of cocaine in US District Court in Hammond in Case No 2:11-CR-114. According to Court documents, her sentence included 3 years of supervised release after a 16 month prison term. Court records show that Mahone was released from prison on November 28, 2012 which would mean she will remain on supervised release until November 2015.”

  • Incrementalism has worked

    I don’t usually disagree with Alfonso Rachel’s summation and stance on issues, however in this I do. Please make sure that the jury is fully informed on the subject of ‘jury nullification’ in both the criminal and civil trials.

Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to get the lastest from Alfonzo Rachel!