WATCH: Meet America’s Gestapo – The Cops Who Threaten Mommies

Written by Wes Walker on April 30, 2020

Notice they never quite get around to answering her questions. But they took note in their record that SHE was being uncooperative.

Would YOU have handled this interaction as calmly as ‘Amy’ here did?

Or would you have gotten a lot more loud?

To summarize the interaction, which lasted all of 3 minutes:

  • Deputy introduces himself to Amy (by name) and asks if she’s aware of the ‘Stay at home order’. She says ‘yes’. He emphasizes that it is by the Government, of Wisconsin.
  • He asks if he needs to explain that (the stay at home order) to her, telling her that he can do so. (Amy does not.)
  • She referenced a conversation with an officer 2 weeks earlier where an officer said they were not enforcing that order. The deputy said ‘oh, we’re about to’.

Now we get to the reason for the visit:

“Your daughter is going to play at other people’s homes and you’re allowing that to happen.”

Some back-and-forth and he says, ‘Stop having your kid go by other people’s homes.’ He seemed about ready to move on. Amy asked if there was anything else. He says ‘Nope. That was it.’

[That was definitely NOT ‘it’.]

Lady cop asked for Amy’s particulars. Without being either rude or aggressive, Amy matter-of-factly inquired about why that should be necessary.

Lady cop: “Last name, Amy, what’s your last name?”

Amy: (slightly flustered) “I’m not — do you — is there a reason you’re asking for it?”

Lady cop explains this will be going into some official paperwork.

Amy: Is there a reason for it?

Guy cop: Yup. Cuz you’re violating a State order.
LC: (to Amy) That’s what I’m talking about. If you’ll let me finish… because you’re violating an order…

Amy: I haven’t violated an order

LC: … we’re gonnna have to have documention on our [screen(?)] with your name on it because we’re here talking to you about that, that you said you’ve just acknowledged so then there’s docume–

Amy: I would like to see the law that requires me to give you that information.

LC [shakes head in apparent annoyance. Guy cop reads off plates. Lady Cop jots it down and thanks him.] (To Amy:) What is your middle initial?

Amy: I don’t believe that I’m required to give that to you. Are we done here?

LC: emphatically, No we’re not. Your middle initial and your last name.

[recording is cut, and resumes.]

LC [Brief chatter with GC who appears to have run the plates before turning back to Amy]” K. We’ve got it.

Amy: Ok.

LC: And that’ll be documented too, that you were uncooperative.

Amy: Ok.

For full and proper context, there is a longer clip giving a little more background on what happened that was so outrageous, specifically the video that had been clipped out of the shorter one, above.

To summarize, Amy’s daughter was visiting some nearby neighbors when the police showed up. It’s pretty clear from the context that Lady Cop was on that call. Kid phoned home to tell mom that police were at that the house. Police had the kid hang up the phone.

LC:”When there is law enforcement at someone’s home dealing with a situation, that is not a time for someone to walk up and confront an officer —

Amy: I did not confront you.

LC: What do you call that?

Amy: What do I call what? Because I came over there to get the dogs? I went over there to get the dogs. I asked you why you had my daughter hang up the phone.

[Back-and-forth chatter. Some condescending sniping from LC.]

Amy: Are we done here? [repeated some time as LC continues talking down to her]

LC: No, we’re not.

Amy: Ok.

LC: Middle initial and last name.

Amy: I’m not giving it to you. I haven’t done anything wrong.

LC: Why be immature and play games?

Amy: Because I believe this is harassment. I haven’t done anything wrong.

At this point the conversation rejoins the content of the shorter clip.


You’ll notice that LC never did get around to answering Amy’s question. She simply expected blind compliance.

Congrats anonymous butthurt LadyCop. You’re famous now. You must be so proud.