Taya Graham:  Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and I’m the host of the Police Accountability Report.

Today, we’re going to be reporting on a controversial topic: the work of a cop watcher named Eric Brandt. Eric is known for his flamboyant, often confrontational style of filming police. It’s an approach that garnered attention for his cause, defending Denver’s homeless, but also criminal charges as well. Although he successfully fought over 100 arrests related to his protests, there was one case he wasn’t able to beat.

In 2021, he pled guilty to three counts of attempted retaliation against a judge through an act of digital harassment. He made statements that were interpreted as threats. These words were deemed disturbing and deeply offensive. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison, and he is still incarcerated.

Four years ago, we decided to make a documentary about Eric, along with the community of cop watchers we’ve covered on our show. The film, I Am But the Mirror: The Story of American Cop Watching, seeks to understand cop watching through the lenses of dozens of its practitioners, one of them being Eric.

In today’s show, we will discuss what we learned. We just wanted to warn you, our viewers, that some of what we discuss may be offensive or even uncomfortable to watch, but we never shy away from the truth, good, bad, or ugly, and I hope you’ll join us. Now, onto the show.

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to a special Police Accountability Report, a discussion with a special preview of our latest documentary, I Am But the Mirror: The Story of American Cop Watching. And of course, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis. Stephen?

Stephen Janis:  Hi Taya, how are you? Thanks for having me here.

Taya Graham:  I’m doing great. How about yourself?

Stephen Janis:  Yeah, I’m good. I’m good. I’m just glad to be here with you talking about this film.

Taya Graham:  Well, me too. It’s always good to have the intrepid reporter Stephen Janis with me.

Stephen Janis:  When you can coax me inside. But thank you for doing that.

Taya Graham:  Oh, absolutely.

Stephen Janis:  I would’ve missed it.

Taya Graham:  Now in this show, we are going to unpack the result of our four-year process of telling a very important story about a very intriguing group of cop watchers. But it’s not just a film about that alone — It’s a tale about exploring the boundaries of the First Amendment. It’s about crime and punishment. It’s about the limits of activism, and the impact of YouTube on journalism. Stephen, do you think I missed anything?

Stephen Janis:  No, I think you got it. It’s a broad story about a movement that goes beyond, I think, the confines of cop watching, and it’s important to remember that. We explore the boundaries of digital activism, YouTube, and even YouTube journalism. So yeah, you’re right. It’s not just about cop watching.

Taya Graham:  Now, we are going to preview some of the parts of the film with you and we’re going to discuss what it means to us, and then we’re going to have a conversation about the First Amendment with two of our favorite cop watchers that happen to have exceptional senses of humor: John Filax and Otto The Watchdog.

But first, let’s just give you a little background on our project. Now, we have been holding police accountable on YouTube for more than six years, and during that time we have met, spoke with, and interviewed and covered people known as cop watchers.

Now, most of you are familiar with the uniquely chaotic camera people who go out and film cops on a daily basis, YouTube activists who pick up their cell phones and document police in both routine and extreme situations. But for those who aren’t familiar with it, please allow me to give you a brief overview. Across this country, on any given day, hundreds, if not thousands, of people turn their cell phone cameras on police and monitor what they do. These people have colorful personalities and often creative approaches to their work, and many have built substantial audiences of viewers who watch their videos and support their push for accountability.

But they’re also controversial. There are critics who say their often colorful antics and sometimes bizarre behavior is all about attracting clicks and YouTube views. They argue watching cops has nothing at all to do with a push for law enforcement accountability, but rather it’s just a way to garner attention.

Well, me, myself, and my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, as members of the independent media, thought this was the perfect opportunity to provide fulsome coverage of a topic that warrants nuanced storytelling and complex investigation, to say the least. And we noticed that the rest of the mainstream media was acting as if these cop watchers and First Amendment auditors didn’t even exist. So we knew we had to dig in here.

Now, we started covering cop watchers almost from the beginning as we were producing and developing the Police Accountability Report. And today, we’re going to talk about how we took that coverage a step further in the form of a feature-length documentary titled I Am But the Mirror: The Story of American Cop Watching. Now, I promise you, this film is not your typical documentary, both in the way it’s produced and the way it’s put together.

But before we get into that, I want to discuss the focus of the story and how we chose it. The focus was not just about cop watching, but a very specific cop watcher named Eric Brandt. Now, Brandt is a controversial practitioner of cop watching, to say the least. His wild antics and, some say, his over-the-top approach brought him notoriety, and some people think infamy, and the attention of law enforcement. Stephen, can you talk to us a little bit about Eric?

Stephen Janis:  In many ways Eric is at the intersection of like, we have another show called The Inequality Watch. Now, he is kind of crazy to watch. If you watch his videos, you’re going to be challenged, you’re going to be offended, you’re going to have a lot of emotional reactions. But I think one of the reasons we chose him, besides stuff we’ll talk about later in terms of how law enforcement responded to him, was that he marks, in a sense, or he’s a symbol of the cross between policing and inequality. He advocated for homeless people and he fought the cops. And many times for us, and when we report on inequality, we run into policing. And I think, in this sense, Eric’s extremes reflected the extremes of the world that he was living in.

Taya Graham:  In essence, we decided to not just make a film about cop watchers, but examine the phenomenon through the prism of Eric’s story. And part of that involved examining Brandt’s wild videos and his encounters with law enforcement and how they impacted his activism and influenced others. Why don’t we watch a clip now?

Stephen Janis:  OK.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Crowd:  Olay, olay, olay, olay! Happy fuck the cops day! Shit is fucked up [inaudible]! Shit is fucked up [inaudible]!

Speaker 1:  That was awesome [laughs].

Eric Brandt:  Should I do a “Happy, Happy”? Otto, I hope you’re watching.

Crowd:  Happy, happy fuck the cops day! It’s every day of the week! [Inaudible].

Taya Graham:  Everyone told me I had to talk to this guy Eric Brandt,

Speaker 2:  And he is indefatiguable, he’s relentless.

Taya Graham:  So I went and checked out his YouTube channel,

Eric Brandt:  Think of the children and stop using profanity is what this officer incident says. Well, go fuck yourself, Denver Police.

Taya Graham:  Wow.

Speaker 2:  He’s obnoxious in the best way.

Stephen Janis:  So, the first time I heard the name Eric Brandt was from Taya.

Eric Brandt:  Sorry. Be mad at RTD.

Speaker 3:  [Inaudible] shoes on, let’s go. Come on.

Eric Brandt:  I don’t believe that you’re correct on that.

Speaker 3:  No, I am [inaudible].

Stephen Janis:  And she was like, we need to report on him. And I’m like, OK, what does he do?

Eric Brandt:  RTD, stop abusing the homeless.

Taya Graham:  So, I know cop watchers can sometimes be confrontational, but Eric really took it to a new level.

Speaker 4:  You are the one who’s [crosstalk]…

Police Officer:  …Out on the street.

Eric Brandt:  Do you see me in the street? [Crosstalk] Go fuck yourself.

Police Officer:  You were in the —

Speaker 4:  He was not in the street

Police Officer:  — You fat fucking worthless pig.

Eric Brandt:  I’m here with the Foaminator 64,000. It’s our first prototype.

Friends in Code:  That’s the kind of impression that it made to me. It was just like, fuck this guy.

Eric Brandt:  Where did my team go?

Friends in Code:  Yelling at somebody is going to only get you so far.

Police Officer:  [Crosstalk] You going to punch me?

Eric Brandt:  — Gonna take your head off.

Police Officer:  That’s what you’re threatening to do? Because I’m trying [crosstalk] —

Eric Brandt:  Are you gonna [inaudible] — ?

Speaker 4:  [Crosstalk] You’re coming at him in a very [inaudible] manner.

Eric Brandt:  [Inaudible].

Friends in Code:  I didn’t think that it was actually going to solve anything

Eric Brandt:  Because I was standing next to Thomas [inaudible] [shouting] slammed me into the fucking wall.

Friends in Code:  I thought that I’m going to watch this poor guy get his ass whipped on TV.

Eric Brandt:  Y’all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. What the fuck is wrong with you people, huh?

Otto the Watchdog:  I met Eric through YouTube. I really fucking, I really didn’t like the guy when I first saw him.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  Well, it wasn’t just Eric’s extreme behavior that made his story an effective way to explore the broader topic of cop watching. I think it was something else, namely how YouTube and digital activism impacted the real world, the tactile world as well, how Eric and other cop watchers connected through a common cause and bonded and worked towards a mutual goal through a platform that is often blasted for being divisive and conspiracy-laden.

Now first, let’s just run a quick clip on how some of our subjects actually get into cop watching.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

Stephen Janis:  The police weren’t the message. It was the fact that they were focusing on police.

NC Tyrant Hunter:  I started out watching crash videos and then the auditing videos and the cop watching videos started getting recommended to me.

Friends in Code [RECORDING]:  Rockwall PD obviously had an attitude from the second he got out of the car.

NC Tyrant Hunter:  I started seeing how the cops were doing people. So about four months later I got a camera.

Taya Graham:  And one could honestly critique that some of their interactions were intentionally provocative.

Speaker 5:  Hi, did you need something?

Speaker 6:  Did I ask for something?

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  That’s actually really interesting, and I think that’s a lesson YouTube teaches you also through the algorithm as well. They let you know the moment someone stops watching.

I was fascinated by the role reversal that cop watchers often create. And what I mean by that is when they pick up that cell phone camera and they point it at the police, they no longer just become the watched, they become the watchers, too.

Stephen Janis:  That’s true.

Taya Graham:  And if you don’t think that represents a potent inversion of power, just consider how much power government and law enforcement and corporations derive from watching us.

Now, the other important dynamic is how YouTube offers a platform of equivalence or even democracy for regular citizens. It gives them a means to tell their side of the story to an expansive audience that had not existed until recently.

Stephen, I think you know a little bit about that.

Stephen Janis:  One thing you learn as being a former member of the mainstream media, with that media construct comes power. We construct a power perception around us that gives us the ability to influence the actual world. And I think for the first time in maybe the history of humanity, an entire group of people who weren’t professional journalists or professional media makers were given that same equivalent platform where they were able to tell their side of the stories.

We like to call it on our show Police Accountability Report reverse Cops, the show Cops where they follow cops around and they arrest working-class people on the worst day of their lives and then turn it into television fodder. Well, we’re reverse Cops, and I think that is representative or illustrative of the dynamic power shift that YouTube presented for the first time, I think, for many of these people, and for the first time, I think, where a community grassroots movement, had access to the same tools of media that the mainstream media had, in some sense.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, I think that’s really important context you just added there. And all of this converges in our film as we tell the story of Eric as he attempts to push back strongly against the treatment of unhoused people in Denver, Colorado.

Now, Denver is a typical US city that has grown in popularity but has struggled to build affordable housing, and therefore the unhoused population has grown significantly. Eric and his supporters said police harass them, and that the cop watching was a means to push back. Let’s hear it in Eric’s own words.

[VIDEO CLIP BEGINS]

We’ve spent time in Denver, and homelessness is a serious issue there. And Eric, like many people, has struggled with —

Eric Brandt:  People are coming to me and they’re complaining to me about what the Westminster Police are doing to them. And one of the big complaints that I had is that they would be somewhere sleeping and the Westminster Police would roll up on them at 2:00 in the morning and they would get on their bullhorn and then drive off. Well, that’s really shitty, right? So I moved out of my apartment and I moved onto the streets of Westminster in order specifically to address this question.

[VIDEO CLIP ENDS]

Taya Graham:  And so what we’re seeing here is that Eric and other cop watchers are trying to influence a lived reality by changing the ground rules. He imposes his outrage through an electronic medium that he performs in the real world, but it becomes fodder in the digital world, and especially for YouTube.

Stephen, can you talk a little bit about the dynamics of digital and tactile worlds colliding while Eric and the other cop watchers are performing their activism?

Stephen Janis:  Well, to give the most, I think, direct response to Eric’s art, I guess we could call it for lack of a better word, art, but I think it is art in many ways. His response is as garish as inequality is in this country. And let me just explain that just a teeny, teeny bit. The people on the other side of the inequality equation in this country rarely have their stories told in a way like you see on HBO or other mainstream medias where we have constant fascination with the elites and the people who are rich.

And so Eric, I think, in some ways, created something so outlandish because there was no notice of this great inequality divide that had consumed Denver, where there was homelessness and people unhoused in greater and greater, larger proportions. And the city, according to Eric, used police to push back on that. So I think it is really essential here that we see the aesthetics of inequality in Eric’s, some people would say offensive, other people say colorful, response to this.

Taya Graham:  Stephen, I think you’re giving an excellent context here because there are so many layers to the story that we’re trying to tell. And so we are trying to do this, essentially, in a feature-length film with two distinct stories. And so, one is about Eric and the community of cop watchers who embraced him and how their individual styles impacted police reform, and then I would say the second is how YouTube and independent journalism created a different process for storytelling which resulted in an entirely different audience for receiving those stories. But what I think is really important to note is that the audience didn’t just watch, but they became engaged and activated.

Now, there is a lot more that happens in this film, and Eric is sentenced to what many of his supporters say is an extreme amount of time, a sentence that shocked his friends and his YouTube supporters. Also, the cop watchers who created the community around Eric ended up working together in the real world to accomplish something amazing. But to see that you’re going to have to watch the film, which is free on [fawesome.tv], which you can find by clicking on the link in the comments.

But before we get to our guest, and I really do want to get to our guest, John Filax, I want to let everyone know who is in this film. Now, there are a lot of names and I know I’m going to miss one, but I want to give it a try. OK, here it goes: Liberty Freak, Cut the Plastic, Otto the Watchdog, Munke83, Joe Cool, Friends in Code, Tom Zebra, Laura Shark, Pikes Peak Audits, Blind Justice, NC Tyrant Hunter, James Freeman, Pajama Audits, Carol Funk, LackLuster, DJ KDOT, The Party, Abdi and Johanna, and activist and supporters Chris Powers and Noli D.

Now, this is not everyone, but it’s most everyone, and it was their work along with Eric’s story that we tried to depict and document and portray in a way that was worthy of their efforts. And I have to emphasize that we had Noli D in this film because I think this is the first time a YouTube mod was really given their due and highlighted for their work and their support for their community.

Stephen Janis:  Agreed.

Taya Graham:  Now Stephen, that’s quite a cast.

Stephen Janis:  That is an amazing cast.

Taya Graham:  Do you want to talk about how you approached this story when you started to put the film together?

Stephen Janis:  There’s one aspect of the film, if people watch it, we’ll see where I tried to give some substance to each person, because really you could do a documentary on many of these people.

When I was talking to Cut the Plastic about his life, his life is so complex and so many things happened that you could literally do a documentary about him. So I had to, again, refer to or use the technique, an aesthetic technique of accelerated storytelling where I put a lot of people’s lives, which are very complex and very interesting, into a condensed version to give people a 12 to 14 minute primer on cop watching and their personalities.

So we’re open to doing more on that. And we have the American Cop Watcher channel, which we try to post other interviews we did that we couldn’t include completely in the documentary. So it’s there for people who are interested in hearing about the lives of the people we featured in the film.

Taya Graham:  And I’m glad you mentioned that channel because we’re going to continue to add interviews there because there is so much we had to cut out of the film because otherwise it would’ve been an eight-hour-long film.

Stephen Janis:  It would’ve been The Lord of the Rings uncut version, basically.

Taya Graham:  Basically. It really would’ve been like a trilogy. So we made a point, kind of like how people do DVD extras, to put the full interviews there, and we’re going to continue to add to them. We’re even going to add people that weren’t in the original film because I feel like this is more than just a documentary, that we’re documenting a movement.

Stephen Janis:  And so one of them is our next guest who we’re going to go to right now, John Filax.

Taya Graham:  That’s right.  

Stephen Janis:  OK. Is he here? Do we have him?

Taya Graham:  Let’s bring on John Filax.

Stephen Janis:  Can you hear us?

Taya Graham:  Hi, how are you doing? It’s great to have you here.

John Filax:  How are you? Thanks for having me.

Taya Graham:  It’s really a pleasure. So Stephen, I’m going to give you the first question for John.

Stephen Janis:  OK, so John I just want to give you a brief moment to talk about what you think about cop watching at this particular moment, if you’re still doing it, and if you still think it’s important and how you go about it, if you still do it. I know you do a wide variety of things, and we’ll ask you about that. But since this documentary is about cop watching, just give us your overview of cop watching now.

John Filax:  Cop watching is wonderful. It’s come a long way. It started with about 10 guys. Now there’s so many cop watchers, you can’t even keep track of all of them. And that’s great, because we need more than we can count. There’s bad that goes along with the good, of course, like the people who take our stuff and repurpose it. There’s so many short videos out there where I’m an FBI agent and I’ve made a million dollars suing people even though I’ve never sued anybody in my life. And that’s the bad part of it.

But at the same time, there’s exposure, and people start to look you up and can see more about who we are and what we do. And we also have haters, which is fine, because in this movement if people don’t hate you, you’re not doing something. And what I like to say is you get the most flack when you’re over the target.

Taya Graham:  It’s really interesting that you mentioned haters because, as reporters, there’s the adage we’re supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the powerful. And in doing so — And Stephen has a lot of experience with this — Powerful folks do not enjoy being held accountable, and they can react in very strong ways.

I think, how many times has a member of government tried to get you fired from your job?

Stephen Janis:  A good deal of times.

Taya Graham:  A few times.

But what I wanted to ask you though is for you to share what you think some of the impact of cop watching is. Because one thing that we know for sure and that we’ve learned through talking to so many cop watchers is that it can really have a deleterious effect on your life. You can lose your freedom, you can lose your livelihood, you can lose access to your kids. There’s a lot that can happen to someone when they choose to put themselves on the line for cop watching. So I wanted to know what kind of impact you feel cop watching has, what kind of positive impact it has?

John Filax:  Well, the positive impact is that you start to break the conditioning of the normal American, because most Americans think that the police are heroes and they can do no wrong and they deserve all this undeserved respect. Meanwhile, Americans, generally speaking, don’t know the Bill of Rights. They don’t know the First Amendment. They don’t know that you have the right to say what you want to say — Whether people like it or not, you’re supposed to be able to say it.

And it was created for offensive speech because you wouldn’t need a First Amendment if everybody agreed with everybody. And that’s the cornerstone of this country. Whereas in other countries, if you say the wrong thing, you get locked up in the gulag. Well, our country is kind of going in that direction. And then people like us, which I like to say are like modern day founding fathers, we kind of sacrifice ourselves to show meanwhile we’re not spilling blood, but still, we put ourselves out there. And like you said, like Otto for instance, lost his family, lost his house, and just for doing what? Speaking, putting up a sign.

Well, this country has become so tyrannical now, and we have shown the tyranny firsthand with all the shows on TV, the cops, the this, the that. And it wasn’t up until George Floyd happened to where people are like, oh my God, maybe they’re not the heroes we think they are. Maybe we should know the Bill of Rights. Maybe… If I could tell you a quick story, I was a restaurant owner, and I was talking to one of my servers, and I was quizzing her a little bit: Do you know the Bill of Rights? You know what the First Amendment is? So after that she goes out in the dining room and she asks one of my other servers, is John and his mom illegals? And she goes, no, why? She says, because only illegals know their constitutional rights [Graham and Janis laugh].

Taya Graham:  Oh, wow.

Stephen Janis:  Oh my God. Wow.

Taya Graham:  She’s not wrong…?

Stephen Janis:  Yeah.

Taya Graham:  I mean, that’s funny. You’re right. Your average American would fail a citizenship test. That’s so funny.

Stephen Janis:  That brings something up. So, what do you think about all these ICE agents with masks on and no warrants and not identifying themselves, does that concern you and the cop watcher community?

John Filax:  That’s beyond concerning because you let ’em all in here — I understand cracking down on violent criminals and anyone who’s done damage or some actual crime and created a victim, get ’em out of here. But you let millions of them in here and now you just want to do some blanket sweep with unnamed people, anonymous guys in groups with masks on and stuff. No, that doesn’t fly. You take the peaceful ones, you work out a system to where they can assimilate and become citizens instead of rounding ’em up and sending ’em to El Salvador so you could do what, score political points? Because you still have these police forces who think they’re basically a Gestapo of America and that you need to respect them, you need to obey everything they say. And constitutional rights aren’t part of the equation when it comes to police and policing.

Taya Graham:  Gosh, you make such excellent points, and I want to address each one of them, but one thing that just stuck in my mind is when you said we need the First Amendment, not because we’re always going to agree with each other, but because we are going to disagree with each other.

And that I think something you also mentioned that’s really important that I learned from watching cop watching, which is that it’s sort of deprogramming the public. You mentioned all the copaganda that we see on TV and how we’re pretty much indoctrinated from middle school: This police officer’s friendly and he’s your friend. But the cop watching showed that you could reverse that power, and that was really transformative for me personally.

But I did want to ask you to maybe share some of your thoughts on Eric Brandt. Some people said he’s over the top or even that he’s brought this on himself. Other people think he’s an inspiration and that he helped this grassroots movement. Where do you stand? How do you assess Eric’s actions and his activism?

John Filax:  I love Eric. He does get over — Even for me, people say the same thing about me: You’re over the top. You go too far, you’re yelling and screaming. But if I didn’t do that and I wasn’t so brash, nobody would be watching. My biggest video has 20 million views now, and it’s because I got stopped for speeding when I wasn’t speeding, I recorded it, and then I stood on my rights. I didn’t roll my window down. I followed the law to the letter, but it still wasn’t good enough for the cop.

And I got half of people are like, you’re a hero, and the other half of 20 million views now are like, you’re horrible. So you got half the population that watched the video is like, you’re horrible. To me, those are the indoctrinated, brainwashed people who can’t get past the surface level of anything who still watch TV for their news, and then you got the other half of people who live in reality and see what the cops are doing to people every day.

So, I wish he didn’t say the things he said that landed him in jail. He didn’t deserve to go to jail because, ultimately, it’s just speech. He didn’t have the wherewithal to carry out anything. And if you want to get technical, he really didn’t make any threats, he just said something they didn’t like. He doesn’t deserve to be in jail. He’s an inspiration to this movement. Is he brash? Do you have to like his style? No, but he has every right to do what he did and say what he said.

Taya Graham:  Wow. Well said.

Stephen Janis:  OK, John, we’re going to put you on the spot. You watched the film, what do you think? It’s OK, you can criticize us, because it wouldn’t be fair for us to bring you on here and then ask you to give us some sort of snowball review.

Taya Graham:  Well, you don’t want to ask him what does he think [crosstalk]? What does he think —

Stephen Janis:  Well, asking his general thoughts.

Taya Graham:  — That’s good about it. Not everything. You don’t want him to share all his thoughts, right? We want you to be honest.

Stephen Janis:  Be honest.

Taya Graham:  Be honest. What do you think?

Stephen Janis:  It is kind of cheesy, I understand, but we were trying to promote the film, so we want to get your thoughts.

John Filax:  I think everyone should watch it. I loved it. It was great. I liked that it focused on Eric. I love that you had all them people. I wish I could have been in it, I told Taya that earlier. Me too. It was good.

What I don’t like about it is the people that don’t like us, in the grand scheme of things, they’re this much and we are the rest. I wouldn’t have put them in there. They work tirelessly to restrict our freedom of speech. They don’t like our style, they don’t like words, but ultimately they can never call us liars. They can never say we’re wrong, and they can never attack the actual points.

One of the people you had in the documentary actually came after me and hurt me in real life. And I’ve never met this person, I’ve never done anything with this person. All I did was ask them to debate me on the substance and the merits of what we do. But instead of doing that, they came after me behind the scenes and started contacting YouTube and stuff.

But overall, it was a great film. My wife even watched it, and she doesn’t watch this stuff. She thought it was great. I thought it was great. I think you guys do wonderful work. And like Taya said earlier, I’m one of the very first YouTubers who discovered you guys and put a permanent link to the Police Accountability Report in the description of my videos for 3, 4, 5 years now, at least.

Taya Graham:  We appreciate that so much [crosstalk]. We really do.

Stephen Janis:  We appreciate it so much. You don’t know how, it means a tremendous amount to us. And maybe what you’re saying is we need to do a sequel and have you start up with your life and some of the things that you do.

John Filax:  [Crosstalk] me being selfish.

Taya Graham:  We should do a sequel. We should.

John Filax:  I’m just being selfish there, but that’s fine. You have enough content to make 17 of these, honestly [Janis laughs].

Taya Graham:  We really do.

Stephen Janis:  We really could.

Taya Graham:  We really do. I mean each person [crosstalk] —

Stephen Janis:  Is their own complex story in and of themselves.

Taya Graham:  There’s a documentary inside each individual person.

One last question. You’re not just a cop watcher, you have more to your activism. I’m curious how you would describe yourself, and if you could share with us one of the most important outcomes that came from your cop watching activity. Was there a time that you performed cop watching that you believe you helped prevent an arrest or you helped educate the public? Or could you share with us a moment that you said to yourself, I’m really doing the work that I signed up for here, that you felt good about?

John Filax:  Again, I’m just gonna sound like I’m bragging, but when I got pulled over and I got the video with 20 million views, that’s when my channel really took off. That was like 2017, 2018. And I came up with a lot of stuff you hear. The word “copsplain”. I made that famous. The “I don’t answer questions.” That was me. The ID crack line, that’s me.

The ID thing, again, when I first, it was the income tax, and then I started really focusing in on the Constitution, and if you read the Constitution, it’s very plain, it’s very simple, it’s very reasonable suspicion, for the right to privacy. So when I’m watching police stuff and they’re asking for ID, I’m like, what happened to the Fourth Amendment? So the whole ID thing now, that came from me because I exposed it and I said, listen, guys, every time they ask you for ID, they’re literally asking you to surrender your right to privacy voluntarily. And most Americans at that point thought, when a cop asks you for ID, you gotta jump to it and relinquish your right to privacy because most of them don’t even know that you have a right to privacy, and your right to privacy is to protect you from tyranny in the government.

So the ID thing, all the catchphrases, you hear, a lot of the accountability. When I got that viral video in 2018, that really, if you want to track it back, that really caused a snowball effect in this movement.

Stephen Janis:  We are so appreciative that you decided to make an exception to [your] not [answering] questions to answer questions for us [crosstalk].

John Filax:  You’re not government.

Taya Graham:  Yes, that’s right. You don’t answer questions, but you answered them for us and we really do appreciate it.

Stephen Janis:  That makes us feel special. So we appreciate it, John, thank you.

Taya Graham:  We want to thank you so much for joining us, and we look forward to doing an interview with you soon.

Stephen Janis:  I Am But the Mirror Part Two, starting with him, or The Story of American Cop Watching Part Two starting [crosstalk] —

John Filax:  Can I plug a couple things?

Taya Graham:  Absolutely. Go right ahead.

John Filax:  OK, so last year I did Audit Palooza. This is something I launched, Auto Palooza 2024. This is the T-shirt. You see, it says “suspicious person” on the back.

Taya Graham:  I can’t see it, unfortunately, but…

John Filax:  It says “suspicious person”. It was basically an event I had in Pensacola. Lots of auditors came, and a lot of the people who watch us came, they actually paid for tickets. We had a barbecue, live music, comedy, et cetera. It was wonderful. We’re doing it again this year, Oct. 18. I would love for you guys to show up there, and you could get tons of content. Also, I started a Bill of Rights Coalition nonprofit. It’s called TAC: Transparency Accountability Coalition, tac-us.org. And that’s what I got going right now. And thank you so much for having me, guys.

Stephen Janis:  Cool, man.

Taya Graham:  It was absolutely our pleasure, and we appreciate your work. Catch you later.

John Filax:  Namaste. See you. See you guys.

Stephen Janis:  See you. See you, bye.

Taya Graham:  Bye.

Stephen Janis:  Bye. I find —

Taya Graham:  No, go ahead. Go ahead.

Stephen Janis:  No, I was just going to say, because what I find fascinating is just hearing their personal stories of how they arrived. And he’s the second person who’s said, or we’ve learned that they started cop watching, or the process before the technology, which is interesting, because remember Tom Zebra?

Taya Graham:  Yes, yes.

Stephen Janis:  Took those videos —

Taya Graham:  Tom Zebra has VHS tapes.

Stephen Janis:  Who by the way, is featured extensively in the film.

Taya Graham:  Absolutely.

Stephen Janis:  But he told us that story [crosstalk] —

Taya Graham:  He’s considered one of those OGs of cop watching.

Stephen Janis:  In the aughts how he had a VHS in [the] trunk of his car. So that impulse, it shows the technology, how it melds with human impulse. There has to be human impulse, or that human impulse to tell your story or to give your perspective is so innate that people did it prior to the technology existing. I think a lot of people picked up and did it just because the technology existed. But I think there was a human part of this, that I want to tell my side of things when I get pulled over. And so it’s fascinating, because he’s not the only one who actually did that before there was even YouTube.

Taya Graham:  Something that always strikes me is the power reversal. And for me, as a Baltimore City resident, you know my story.

Stephen Janis:  I do.

Taya Graham:  I grew up here in Baltimore City. I experienced the brunt of zero tolerance policing where I could not leave my house without my driver’s license. Even if I was getting on a bus to go to work, I still had to have my driver’s license on me because at any time a police officer could stop me and ask me for ID. And you would say, that’s illegal. Well, in Baltimore at the time, during the aughts between 2000 and 2007, 2008, it happened. People would be arrested for not providing ID, for loitering, which meant a cop told you to get off the sidewalk and you didn’t move fast enough. You didn’t clear the sidewalk fast enough. Or spitting in public.

Stephen Janis:  Maybe you shouldn’t have been hanging out on those corners, Taya.

Taya Graham:  I should have moved faster. I should have moved faster, apparently, and I should have been ready to present my papers at all times. So for me, I didn’t even question that police had the right to treat me that way [crosstalk]. I didn’t question it.

Stephen Janis:  That’s interesting, because if YouTube had existed in the aughts when you were dealing with that, I wonder if it would’ve changed your thinking about how, and you see how that becomes a reality in and of itself, right? Because suddenly what a John Filax or Otto the Watchdog is teaching you about the First Amendment [crosstalk] —

Taya Graham:  That’s the thing, they taught me.

Stephen Janis:  — Would’ve been embedded in the way you approach it, and you say, wait a second, these cops can’t stop me on the sidewalk.

Taya Graham:  When I would watch them [crosstalk] —

Stephen Janis:  Because you really had no idea, and you’re a pretty smart person.

Taya Graham:  When I would watch them and they would reverse the power in this way, to me it was absolutely unfathomable that you could talk to a police officer this way, that you could refuse [to show] ID, let alone use profanity and say, I have a First Amendment right to tell you to go F all the way off. It never would’ve crossed my mind because on a regular basis in our city at the time, we had about a little bit over 600,000, 630,000 people, and roughly 100,000 people per year were being arrested during the zero tolerance period. Now, some of them were repeat arrests, but that’s an incredible number. One in six people. So, my fear of being taken down to central booking because I didn’t provide my ID was not a stretch of the imagination by any sense.

Stephen Janis:  I don’t think zero tolerance could have occurred, could occur in today’s age of people having cell phones and YouTube channels. I just don’t think what they were doing, they were just taking people and putting ’em in the back of a van even though they hadn’t committed a crime. I don’t think that could have occurred without, in this particular era, it just can’t occur. It could not have occurred in an era where people can film police and put it on YouTube. I just don’t think it would happen. Not that bad things don’t happen, and overpolicing still occurs, but I think it’s much harder to do now without people noticing.

Taya Graham:  I wanted to share with you, and actually with everyone, actually, you do know this story, but when I give this example of not being able to leave the house without ID, you might think, well, Taya, why would anyone suspect you of doing anything wrong? Well, I agree. Why would you suspect me of doing anything wrong? Well, the problem was that I lived and worked in what was considered “high crime areas”.

Stephen Janis:  That was a curse.

Taya Graham:  And that was part of the problem. So I’ll give an example. I was working part-time at a music studio, and I was sent to get lunch for the people in that music studio. And a police officer stopped me, and I provided my ID, but he said, I don’t think you are supposed to be in this neighborhood. I do not believe the information you’re giving me. I do not believe you work here. And that police officer said he was going to arrest me unless I could prove that I had a job.

And so that police officer followed me back to where I worked, and he actually came into the building, and I had to get the boss’s wife to validate that I did work there and that I was sent to go out and get people’s lunch. I mean, how embarrassing is that? At another place, it could have cost me my job to have a police officer follow me into the office because it would cast suspicion on me, because people think where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

So that’s just an example of how police really overstepped in our city and why it’s hard to break that kind of indoctrination when you grow up with it.

Stephen Janis:  So do we have Otto now…?

Taya Graham:  I hope we have Otto the Watchdog.

Stephen Janis:  Do we have Otto The Watchdog?

Taya Graham:  Yay, we have Otto the Watchdog. We are joined by the incorrigible, irrepressible Otto the Watchdog. Otto, thank you so much for joining us.

Otto the Watchdog:  Hi. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Taya Graham:  Oh, good. Good. That sounds familiar [laughs].

Stephen Janis:  Yeah — Oh, oh my God, was he mocking me?

Otto the Watchdog:  Not sure.

Stephen Janis:  He was mocking me.

Otto the Watchdog:  Are you sure, Stephen [Graham laughs]?

Stephen Janis:  Otto, come on. You know, I spent six years outside.

Taya Graham:  Wearing blue shirts.

Stephen Janis:  Wearing blue shirts. Yes, exactly.

Otto the Watchdog:  Welcome to the air conditioning, Stephen. It truly is a pleasure to be here. It’s an honor. I thank you guys for what you’re doing. I watched the documentary. I particularly enjoyed how you told how you got into this and how it was difficult for you, just like it was for many of us.

Like I said, I didn’t like Eric when I first watched him. I don’t like everything he does. I like some of the stuff he does, but some of it’s pretty out there. So I totally understand the reservations that you had trying to tell the story, and it is difficult, isn’t it?

Stephen Janis:  It is a tricky story.

Taya Graham:  It is.

Stephen Janis:  But weren’t you the person who came up with “Olay, Olay, Olay”, was that song yours [crosstalk] — Or was yours “Happy F the” —

Taya Graham:  The “Happy F the Cops Day” song?

Stephen Janis:  That was Otto’s. Which one was yours? I can’t remember.

Otto the Watchdog:  So, they’re both mine. I write…

Taya Graham:  Oh, wow.

Otto the Watchdog:  And it was kind of a spontaneous thing. We were driving around one day, and I don’t even remember how it happened, but I was like, Olay, and it is so easy to say. And then there’s that soccer song, and one thing led to another.

I actually drove Liberty Freak, he was in the front seat and Eric was in the back of my truck, and we were driving around downtown Denver F-copsing. And that’s where you just wish everybody a “happy fuck the cops day.” It’s a lot of fun. If you’ve never done it, you should try it. It’s fun.

Anyway, I started singing the “Olay” song, and it was just slowly developing every time I would say it, it was slowly developed into what it is today. And it actually drove Liberty Freak out of the front seat into the back of the truck with Eric, because Eric was less annoying than I was [Graham and Janis laugh].

Taya Graham:  I love the origin story there. That’s so funny.

Otto the Watchdog:  I absolutely knew I had something when he was like, pull over, I can’t take it, I was like, oh, that’s a thing. That’s a thing now. And it did. It became a thing, and now it’s a phenomenon.

Taya Graham:  Just for people who are watching, you mentioned that you went out F-copsing. That’s a verb that people might not be familiar with. Can you explain what that means?

Otto the Watchdog:  Yes. So it’s exactly what it sounds like, really. We just drive around, or you don’t have to drive, we just go around and just wish everybody a happy F the cops day. And they’re like, what? I mean, nobody’s ever heard of it. It’s not a national holiday — But it will be.

Taya Graham:  Not yet.

Otto the Watchdog:  When I become emperor of the universe, it will be, and it’s every day, and it’s twice on Tuesday, and thrice on Thursday. And that’s something, yeah. So they’ll be like, what is that? And I’ll be like, oh, well, it’s today. It’s every day. And then they get it. It’s all just a good joke.

Stephen Janis:  I have to say, when I had to try to put the beeps on one or two of those clips [Graham laughs], it was so much, it started to [crosstalk] it just became funny.

Taya Graham:  It was actually hilarious. It was like a ten-second beep.

Stephen Janis:  I shouldn’t bring it up without being able to play it. It just kept beeping and beeping.

And then you have your other one, this pretty famous “S is F’d Up and Stuff”, which we saw covering a protest in DC. Someone had that sign.

Taya Graham:  We saw someone with that sign.

Stephen Janis:  They had that sign.

Taya Graham:  “The system is F’d up and stuff.” And then there was “S is F’d up and stuff.”

Stephen Janis:  But it was S in F up [crosstalk] —

Taya Graham:  And I was like, do you know, Otto the Watchdog?

Stephen Janis:  Look at Otto twisting us into pretzels with his ingenious work, because we’re just going S is F’d up and S. It doesn’t make any sense.

Otto the Watchdog:  It makes no sense. Good luck on the transcription of this one.

Taya Graham:  Oh, good point. Good point.

Otto the Watchdog:  But that’s kind of the point, too. When Cohen was going through court, even the justices had a very difficult time even talking about the case because of that one word, and they twisted themselves into pretzels because it’s clearly not dignified speech. This is not appropriate for courtrooms and settings of that sort. And if you saw somebody on TV saying that, it would be like, oh [surprised], you know what I mean? But that’s why YouTube is important. And now so many other platforms, each individual can have their own website if they wanted to.

Stephen Janis:  Just so people know, the Cohen case you cited from ’71, that’s where the draft protester put “F the draft,” just so people know.

Taya Graham:  Yeah, it was Cohen v. California, and he was wearing a jacket that said “F the draft” on it.

Stephen Janis:  He was in a courthouse or something. But it’s really funny, because Otto has been updating the test on police officers in Texas, and they’ve been failing miserably.

Taya Graham:  Yes, you have been performing some First Amendment tests.

Stephen Janis:  I think Otto is kind of like a weird genius because he comes up with these ways of showing very complex things in very simple ways. Because he just —

Taya Graham:  And with a bit of humor too, which is what amazes me.

Stephen Janis:  Just so people know, he was showing the signs to the cop and like, is this one OK? Is this one OK? Basically, like you said, giving them street depositions to the point where they violate the law and you trick them into doing that. Was that the intention?

Otto the Watchdog:  Absolutely that’s the intention. That is absolutely the intention. I’ve been through this enough times now where I kind of know what their answers are going to be. At least, I have a presumption of what I believe their answers to be. So I lead them into questions because I’ve seen others do it before me.

One of the things that I enjoy most about this community is that we are very open and we share things that nobody else gets to ever see unless you have a law degree or you’ve been a victim. And that’s the depositions. You never get to see, rarely get to see depositions, and our community posts it on the regular. Because that’s where the attorney is asking the defendant officer very specific questions about how they came to the conclusion that a person needed to be arrested, and it gets very, very detailed. And sometimes it’s quite uncomfortable for everybody in the room, and I love it. I love that.

Taya Graham:  I had a question for you, and I think it ties into Eric, because we’re talking about the use of profanity and how some people are very much offended by it. There are areas where we’re not supposed to use it. The amount of profanity that we’re allowed to use is limited on broadcast TV, let’s say, or in the courtroom. But something that Eric said that really stood out to me is that he was doing his protests against police brutality, but no one really paid attention. He didn’t get any traction until he used the eight magic letters, which was F-U-C-K C-O-P-S. And so I’m just curious what you think the role of profanity is in testing the First Amendment?

Otto the Watchdog:  Well, you said that you can’t use profanity on TV, but you can, there’s just a fine associated with that. It’s not a criminal act, but there is a fine associated with that.

Stephen Janis:  So, anything the FCC —

Otto the Watchdog:  Yeah, the FCC. And it’s also not illegal to use those words in court. It’s not. As example, in my cases it’s required, which is also why I use that language, because anytime that you’re allowed to say things in a courtroom that typically you’re not allowed to say, I get giddy.

Stephen Janis:  Didn’t you get in trouble, though, for giving the finger to a judge in Denver or something?

Otto the Watchdog:  I certainly did, and that was a direct contempt of court charge. I disagree with that, obviously, but I did get in trouble for that, and I don’t recommend it. It’s a most unpleasant experience. I believe that my behavior was justified under the circumstances.

Taya Graham:  You were just flipping the bird leaving, right? Like, you weren’t approaching the bench, for example.

Otto the Watchdog:  No, no, no. I was already out the first set of doors. There’s double doors on these courtrooms. I was already out the first set of double doors. And it was almost an involuntary reaction, if I must say so. I was just disgruntled with the whole situation, because I’d asked for an attorney, there was a kerfluffle in the public defender’s office when I was applying for the attorney. They wanted me to donate blood and bring the receipt back to them to show that I was homeless and poor. Oh my gosh. That’s a real thing. So they literally wanted me to sell my blood —

Taya Graham:  To prove that you were indigent?

Otto the Watchdog:  To prove that I was indigent before I could qualify for an attorney. Yeah. I just couldn’t believe that that was a thing. I thought that I would have an attorney when I showed up to court because I applied for one and obviously I didn’t have the means. So I was upset with all that. And then the judge wouldn’t even hear my argument on that. I’m just nobody. I don’t really know anything.

I understand that when I’m on YouTube, the topic I’m covering I’m well versed in, but that’s a very narrow topic, and only in Texas. If I went to another state, I wouldn’t know their laws as well as I do Texas laws, right, so that’s a complicated thing too. I’m a very narrow window. That’s why I try to stay in my lane, you know what I mean? So that I don’t get in trouble for needing an attorney and flipping off the judge.

Taya Graham:  What you do know, you know very well.

Otto the Watchdog:  I know what I know, yeah.

Taya Graham:  You really do. I was wondering, you’ve been a cop watcher and involved in this kind of activism for quite some time now, a lot of members of the community. If you had to describe the impact, the real world impact that cop watchers are having, if you had to convince someone cop watching actually makes a difference, what would you tell them?

Otto the Watchdog:  If I had to tell somebody, convince somebody, OK, I got this. All right, here we go. When I started cop watching 10 years ago and producing videos for the internet, it was very difficult and nobody liked it, and I got a lot of hate for it. Five years ago, people started responding positively. And now I’m signing autographs and people are wearing my shirts and they’re bringing me bottles of water on the side of the road.

And during that time, I’ve noticed that the citizens have responded by registering to vote, and they turn up. I have a pretty good track record of doubling the people who vote in these small towns after I expose something terrible. So I understand that my signs are offensive and that my language is coarse, and it’s not for everybody, and a lot of people tell me that they don’t want their kids seeing my signs. But the alternative would be that we continue to allow bad government, whether that be police officers, city council, or otherwise, to run amok, unchecked. And that’s far more offensive than my signs could ever be.

Taya Graham:  Well said.

Stephen Janis:  That’s part of the point we made about Eric, that he was ugly, but he was also exposing something that was ugly, too: the ugly side of a country that’s extravagantly wealthy, and at the same time has homeless people in abundance. So it’s ugly, but the underlying reality it reflects is ugly. I guess that’s what you’re kind of saying, right? In a way.

Otto the Watchdog:  The alternative, I think Eric said the consequences of silencing speech are unspeakable.

Stephen Janis:  Just so we have an update on his situation, he was just denied parole, I believe, Otto, and Eric was concerned that the justice system wasn’t going to — Even though he’s had perfect behavior and his crime was not violent. What does that say to you that the system is trying to keep him in, even though he served his time, and the sentence was 12 years, but he’s been good, and they’re not letting him out?

Otto the Watchdog:  Well, it speaks volumes on a bunch of different categories. I think I’m going to have to pick one. So Eric is nonviolent, he’s never been convicted of violence, he’s been charged with it, but we can’t help what we’ve been charged with. All we can do is help our behavior. So, Eric has never been violent with anyone, and he’s been at this for a very long time. After a period of time of dealing with these heavy topics, he let it get to him.

And he said things, but it was a prayer that was offensive. That gets complicated. So let’s just dodge past that and just assume that what he said was so terrible that he needs to be in prison 12 years. That’s a long time. There are people who do some pretty terrible things to, let’s say, children, way more offensive than my signs could ever possibly be, mind you, and they get far less time, and a lot of times they will get probation also.

They stacked the deck against Eric. He was supposed to get four years on these charges. They were supposed to run together, just like anybody else would. So he would serve two to four years and be out and be over with it. They ran them [consecutively] so that he would have to serve the sentence one at a time, which is unusual. And then they deny his parole on top of that. There’s a lot of things, there’s a lot things to talk about with that.

And whether you like the guy or not, I think we can all agree that that’s a lot of time, life-changing time, not just for him, but everybody who loves him.

Taya Graham:  That’s such a good point. And for the people who’ve only seen videos of him dressed as a Pikachu —

Stephen Janis:  Or even heard the things that he said.

Taya Graham:  Or even heard the things that he said…

Stephen Janis:  Which were offensive, but…

Taya Graham:  I would ask you this: what would you tell people to explain why Eric Brandt had a positive side to his activism? What kind of positive impact did it have? Why, when people say Eric Brandt, people know who he is, cop watchers know who he is, and he’s an inspiration to them. Why would you say people should give Eric Brandt a chance?

Otto the Watchdog:  So, people should give Eric a chance because he legit made a difference. He changed laws. He forced body cameras when they did not want body cameras, he forced them to get body cameras as part of one of his settlements. So, Eric was making changes. That’s why he had to go. That’s why you should care, because he didn’t do anything besides upset a lot of people who didn’t want to be upset anymore.

And they thought that by sending him into a dungeon, that it would erase his memory and taint his name — And it did. And it did. But what actually ended up happening is it emboldened a lot of people to say, hey, as long as I don’t share my thoughts and prayers, if he can get away with all the things that he had been getting away with, then surely I can go to the council meeting and tell my counselors that I disapprove of their behavior. And now people are doing it on YouTube and they’re filming it and they’re sharing it with others. And every time somebody shares a video, it encourages somebody else just a little bit, maybe. Maybe just a little bit. But it is growing.

And it grows so fast. Like John said earlier, there’s hundreds or thousands of YouTube channels that I have never heard of with 40 and 50,000 subscribers who are out there exposing their local city. And there’s Facebook pages, there’s more people actively engaged in their government today than there was 10 years ago, at least from what I can tell. And that is a net positive. And Eric definitely had something to do with that.

Taya Graham:  Yes, absolutely.

Stephen Janis:  So, last question, let’s ask…

Taya Graham:  You had a question?

Stephen Janis:  I was just going to say, it seems to me like you’re saying that YouTube changed your life. The algorithm changed your life. Not to put it in that way, but the connections you made. And what’s interesting in the documentary, we go into how those connections went beyond YouTube, they became real. Munke83 goes out to Denver, you go out to Denver. Those connections, this weird thing called YouTube actually put you together in real life, right?

Otto the Watchdog:  Oh, for sure. So YouTube as a platform where we were sharing all of what we were up to was just a way for us to connect. And then once we connected, we ended up meeting and finding out that, hey, we can do a lot of change if we would just work together a little bit. And since then, man, we’ve been rolling. So yeah, YouTube did change my life, but it wasn’t the platform. It was the people behind it.

Stephen Janis:  That’s a good point.

Otto the Watchdog:  And man, since then we have been rolling. We still use the analogy cell phone video, but most of us don’t use cell phones anymore. Now we’re like, I do interviews and actual reporting on the side, I guess, but I wanted to be a reporter that did YouTube on the side, and it turned the other way around.

Taya Graham:  I think we rubbed off on each other maybe a little bit. Maybe a little bit of our journalism rubbed off on you [crosstalk] —

Stephen Janis:  I don’t think we’ve been as funny as he’s been.

Taya Graham:  — And a little of your cop watching rubbed off on us, maybe?

Otto the Watchdog:  Don’t count yourself short. So, Eric pushed the boundaries of what you can say and showed everybody that it could be done, and you guys have led the way on how to bring that to a wider audience.

Taya Graham:  Thank you.

Otto the Watchdog:  Because I mean, Eric’s difficult to watch. I understand that I’m not everybody’s cup of tea. But if we all share our stories and tell ’em in our own way, then we can get the message across to a wider audience. You guys have been able to bring this to a wider audience that normally wouldn’t appreciate somebody like Eric, or even me, for example. But I like Lord of the Rings, but some people prefer dark drama or something like that [inaudible].

Taya Graham:  We’re all telling the story in a different way. And I’d like to think that we helped give some legitimacy to the community because there were a lot of people who, I would say, thought the cop watchers were simply looking for attention, looking for clicks, looking for money, and I think we are one of some the first journalists that actually said, hey, this is a grassroots movement. People are trying to have an impact in their communities. Please pay attention to these folks. You can judge for yourself, but you need to know they exist.

Because for years, New York Times, Washington Post, local news ignored that cop watchers existed.

Stephen Janis:  I think more importantly, we brought some of our, since we’re mainstream media refugees, we brought some of our techniques to the practice of storytelling on YouTube and tried to make it appealing to an audience so that we could grow. And that’s part of the story in the documentary.

Taya Graham:  But I do have just one question for you. I know you might be slightly biased because you’re in the film, but what do you think this documentary says, and why would you tell someone to go watch it?

Otto the Watchdog:  I like the documentary because it shows a lot of different people who have a lot of different perspectives from across the country who are united — Very loosely mind you — Toward a common goal that is somewhat controversial. It’s getting a lot less controversial the more we do it. More and more people understand why we’re doing it, and we’re getting more support for doing it, and that’s important.

And you guys tell the story beautifully, and I think that your story is intertwined with ours because you are now also cop watchers whether you like it or not [Graham and Janis laugh], you’re part of the story right along here with us, just like our audience is.

Because if we can encourage them, if they can watch, for example, if they can watch one of my recent ID refusal videos and be inspired by that to stand up even a little bit, then man, that’s a huge thing. If the officer never knows which is the next person that’s going to know their law, then maybe they’ll just stop violating people in general. Maybe, I don’t know. Well, I guess time will tell. Check back with me in another 10 years.

Taya Graham:  Alright, we will.

Stephen Janis:  Alright, we will do so. That’s a good [inaudible].

Taya Graham:  We’ll do that for the sequel. Otto, you know we appreciate you.

Stephen Janis:  Thank you so much, Otto.

Taya Graham:  Thank you so much for joining us.

Otto the Watchdog:  Thank you, guys. I hope everything works out for you and you’re having a fantastic day.

Stephen Janis:  Thank you so much, Otto.

Taya Graham:  Thank you. You too.

Stephen Janis:  Take care.

It’s interesting because Otto’s little First Amendment tests remind me of, I knew a person who was in internal affairs, and they would do integrity tests where they’d leave drugs out and see if an officer would take it. So he’s kind of doing an internal affairs integrity test in some ways there.

Taya Graham:  Interesting. For me, this film has been a very personal journey. And what I mean by that is when I look at the piece, it’s a testament to the people I’ve connected with along the way. That’s because just like the cop watchers who joined together through YouTube, I was connected to them via that same media, and that media has engaged all of us. And so, the film is an extension of how that connection affected me.

Because as a journalist, you’re supposed to be objective about any community you cover. There’s supposed to be a distance, an arm’s-length distance. But that idea really fails to comprehend the passion that’s required to cover a community, especially one that’s often ridiculed and objectified by mainstream media, if it’s even covered at all. And this movement has democratized media, essentially.

So, both of these factors, one technological and one social, have drawn me into this story in a way that’s very new for me, and actually quite personal. And as you will see if you choose to watch the documentary, we talk about the challenges we face trying to make an independent show about policing actually work and how we struggled at times, and how the pandemic changed everything in ways that we’re still grappling with. But also how covering that community of cop watchers led us to new ways of thinking about journalism and new ways of approaching the process of storytelling and new ways of thinking about how to hold power accountable.

But really, in essence, what this film is about is telling a story, telling the stories of people who, despite being all over YouTube, are, in other ways, overlooked, and their work goes unacknowledged. Creating a long-form story and really delving into the detail of a person’s life in a way that actually changes you as you unpack and try to understand their lives. And that’s what’s been the most astonishing thing for me. The process was genuinely enlightening, and the act of filmmaking was communal, and therefore it was truly meaningful. So I am thankful for that opportunity for the people who were willing to speak to us and for the honesty and candor and courage of all the people who participated. Thank you all.

Now, I do think we should just give a little update on Eric. As many of you know, he’s still in jail in Colorado, and despite his excellent behavior, he was denied parole for this year. His next parole date hearing is not until 2026, and we are currently working on a story to try to get to the bottom of the factors that went into that decision.

Stephen, I don’t know if you want to mention where you’re going to begin your investigation there.

Stephen Janis:  Well, we’re going to look at some of the other parole decisions and see what kind of people were actually allowed to get parole. So we’re going to try to go through the records of the Colorado Parole Department.

Taya Graham:  And I want to thank Otto the Watchdog and John Filax for joining us. Two men who have the amazing gift of being able to make you laugh when you feel like you could give up and start crying. So I want to thank them both so much for joining us. We appreciate you.

And I want to thank everyone who’s been with us since the beginning in the live chat, in the comments section on the Police Accountability Report, or even on our community posts. I appreciate all of you, and you never cease to amaze me with your insights, your passion for justice, and your kind support. And thank you to my Patreons, and thanks to all of you.

And of course I have to thank mods Noli D and Lacey R for their help and support. Thank you both. Noli D introduced me to my first cop watcher to interview, and it has been a wild ride ever since. I appreciate you.

And of course, I have to thank intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his research, writing, and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:  Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Was that accurate?

Taya Graham:  That was perfect.

Stephen Janis:  OK.

Taya Graham:  That was perfect. And if you have evidence of police brutality or misconduct we might be able to investigate for you, please reach out to me on my social media or email us at par@therealnews.com.

My name is Taya Graham and I am your host of the Police Accountability Report. And as always, please be safe out there.