Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Guy records DUI stop, Cops not happy, video explodes (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Gawain
- Start date
Fennis
Footballguy
azgroover
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
.Many people would disagree with this statement. Of course, it's subjective regardless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rush Limbaugh Fan
Footballguy
So the FFA is all for people's rights being #### on.
Way to go guys! You are what is wrong with this country.
Way to go guys! You are what is wrong with this country.
Fennis
Footballguy
mad sweeney
Footballguy
And if they didn't act like this when they're not in a dangerous situation, they'd have a much better rep. The first cop knew the kid was just being prickly about rights and didn't have any drugs/alcohol etc.. But his authority was challenged so he tied up the kid, a few other officers and a dog for nothing other than to punish some uppity puck who dared to cling to his rights and not submit to the authority. Yeah, the kid was a doosh, but we don't know what went on before the camera started and the cops had a ####ty attitude to start with too. Yay taxpayer money for funding this cop's ego trip. Hope no actual drunks got through the checkpoint while you were busy trampling on someone else's rights, you big man you!
Fennis
Footballguy
Yes, I watched it three times now. The third time was when it was posted to this thread.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Sorry, my friend, but you're wrong here.
The guy was doing nothing wrong. Not sure how understanding your 4th Amendment rights = acting suspicious.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fennis
Footballguy
DUI check points should not be allowed as it is. Too bad so many states allow them.
the moops
Footballguy
Wooderson
Fight The Power
Agreed bother everyone just in case you catch one person in the wrong. How about do some police work. Look for signs of DUI and pull ober that person if need be.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Seems to me the dog "scratched up his hood" because he couldn't take 15 seconds to make the cop's job a little easier. 
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Yeah, submit to a cop's ego trip or else you deserve all the extra BS heaped on you. Cop could make his own job easier by not acting like an authoritarian twit to start out with.Seems to me the dog "scratched up his hood" because he couldn't take 15 seconds to make the cop's job a little easier.
Mad Cow
Welshers and Dawdlers Beware!
If the kid just rolls down the window, it doesn't happen that way at all. I have a few cop friends and they can tell endless stories of people like this kid that do this type of stuff to bait cops to make mistakes for the simple reason they can turn around and sue. When it doubt, maybe give them a break and not act like that?
johnnycakes
Footballguy
I just can't believe the cops didn't plant some drugs after all the brouhaha. This isn't your daddy's good ol' boys, either, who would have just commenced a woopin' on the long-hair just for being a smart-### kid in need of some manners.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
I think the officer was as cordial as could be at the outset until he realized the kid was going to be uncooperative.Yeah, submit to a cop's ego trip or else you deserve all the extra BS heaped on you. Cop could make his own job easier by not acting like an authoritarian twit to start out with.Seems to me the dog "scratched up his hood" because he couldn't take 15 seconds to make the cop's job a little easier.
Rodeojones
Footballguy
Pubic Disclosure: I am police officer and a Narcotics K9 Handler.
I don't like what I saw here.
In Washington State we don't have DUI checkpoints but Federal Law is the Federal Law. Az. vs Gant (2009) radically changed police officer's abilities to do warrantless searches and the police need one of several factors to affect a warrantless search.
1. Demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee.
2. A need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee
3. In order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.
The officer's on this video had none of the above and the caveat is for any of the above to be triggered, the subject needs to be under arrest which the driver in the video was not.
Regarding the K9 search, the videographer had some of his facts incorrect. He shows what he thinks is the dog alerting on the drivers side window and states handlers can coax a false response by putting their hand on a specific area. This is not true. We present our hands on the area we want searched and do it in a matter to get the best area coverage for the dog (we call it a search pattern). What we saw on the video was the dogs claws on the window as he jumped on then off the window. That was not an alert. Obviously the video only shows the drivers side window and the K9 officer apparently had an alert somewhere else which they deemed enough to enter the vehicle. But later in the video we see and hear a second officer make the comment that the K9 alert was a weak one. That's unacceptable in my opinion on the K9 officers part. Had a good alert been given by the dog, that would have triggered a warrant to be requested and signed off by a judge, not a warrantless search.
Bottom line, I don't like what I saw on this video and disagree on many levels the way the police handled this stop. I don't agree the driver was being a "#####". He knew his rights and politely challenged what he believed (and he was right) was unconstitutional.
I don't like what I saw here.
In Washington State we don't have DUI checkpoints but Federal Law is the Federal Law. Az. vs Gant (2009) radically changed police officer's abilities to do warrantless searches and the police need one of several factors to affect a warrantless search.
1. Demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee.
2. A need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee
3. In order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.
The officer's on this video had none of the above and the caveat is for any of the above to be triggered, the subject needs to be under arrest which the driver in the video was not.
Regarding the K9 search, the videographer had some of his facts incorrect. He shows what he thinks is the dog alerting on the drivers side window and states handlers can coax a false response by putting their hand on a specific area. This is not true. We present our hands on the area we want searched and do it in a matter to get the best area coverage for the dog (we call it a search pattern). What we saw on the video was the dogs claws on the window as he jumped on then off the window. That was not an alert. Obviously the video only shows the drivers side window and the K9 officer apparently had an alert somewhere else which they deemed enough to enter the vehicle. But later in the video we see and hear a second officer make the comment that the K9 alert was a weak one. That's unacceptable in my opinion on the K9 officers part. Had a good alert been given by the dog, that would have triggered a warrant to be requested and signed off by a judge, not a warrantless search.
Bottom line, I don't like what I saw on this video and disagree on many levels the way the police handled this stop. I don't agree the driver was being a "#####". He knew his rights and politely challenged what he believed (and he was right) was unconstitutional.
Last edited by a moderator:
He made the cop's job as easy as it could be. All the cop had to do was tell him that he's free to leave. What could be easier than that?Seems to me the dog "scratched up his hood" because he couldn't take 15 seconds to make the cop's job a little easier.
Eviloutsider
Footballguy
I am going to side with the officer (usually don't) here, just roll down the window and be on your way. No need to antagonize these officers for no real reason right off the start. What what he hoping to accomplish besides creating this video?
As I was watching, the biggest surprise to me was that the dog didn't give an alert simply because there were no drugs there.
I was surprised too soon, as that oddity was soon corrected.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rirruto
Footballguy
Take this up with Scalia. The Supreme Court says they're okay.
I'm a little confused with where his rights were violated. Not rolling down your window (ostensibly to hide your physical signs of intoxication) is going to show consciousness of guilt to ask the kid to step out of the vehicle. The cops can ask you to step out if you have bloodshot, watery eyes and smell of liquor, a court is probably going to say that the 5-0 can similarly pull you out if you deliberately hide from them like this kid did.
The officer can then say "okay, I don't think this kid is drunk but we still have his consciousness of guilt. Let's bring out the k9." I'm not really sure about the false positive this kids says he got. If he's right, then that's the reason to get up in arms not anything else that happened here. If it's not a false positive, a court is likely to uphold everything that happened during this encounter.
It would at least be a fun case. The cop was a ##### which is completely uncalled for. I get why the video went viral.
Isn't that like saying that a girl wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't dressed so provocatively?
It may be true as a matter of fact, but it implicitly gets the blame backwards.
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
johnnycakes
Footballguy
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Maybe the cops shouldn't take the bait and/or start off being of service rather than being egalitarian pricks. The first cop was already ruffled when he tried to get the kid to roll down the window. No need for it. They can both hear each other. I'm not saying the kid wasn't being prickly himself, but he did nothing wrong and he was punished for it with a bunch of illegal nonsense and wastes of resources simply because he didn't give in to the tough guy's need to be obeyed. Screw him, and screw cops like him. Protect and serve, not hassle and punish.
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Look... EVERYONE is being a doosh in this flick. The kid is out looking to jerk the cops around and the cops are out walking over everyone's rights expecting to get their butts kissed just because they're cops. They're all guilty of dooshbaggery as far as I'm concerned.
mquinnjr
Footballguy
Once you stop treating the police officer with respect/baiting them (in this case with the video rolling), you deserve what comes your way.
I think this is a case-by-case scenario, no blanket statements for the private citizen or the cop. If you as a citizen treat a cop like a d-bag, a scratched hood is the least of your worries, you have no leverage. If you as a citizen are respectful and the cop starts the hard-on routine from the get-go, you still have no leverage, but uploading a video like this would garner alot more respect from internet strangers like myself.
I think this is a case-by-case scenario, no blanket statements for the private citizen or the cop. If you as a citizen treat a cop like a d-bag, a scratched hood is the least of your worries, you have no leverage. If you as a citizen are respectful and the cop starts the hard-on routine from the get-go, you still have no leverage, but uploading a video like this would garner alot more respect from internet strangers like myself.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
I guess we're all a bunch of antagonistic dooshbags for not liking what the NSA was doing.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
"Consciousness of guilt" =
. How about being conscience of the fact you're engaging people you've inconvenienced (arguably illegally though backed by BS court rulings) and not all of them feel the need to surrender to your ego trip. In fact, the ones who readily and happily obey are more likely to be Counscious of Guilt than ones who "hide" (ie: actually insist on their rights). THis cop knew he wasn't guilty of anything, the dog handler knew and even tacitly admitted it right before finding the camera. This was nothing more than a bunch of a-holes flexing nuts while simultaneously ignoring the actual reason for their checkpoint, actual drunk drivers.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
What kind of scumbag stands up for his Constitutional rights and demands that the police respect them?
Freaking hippies.
Freaking hippies.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I generally side with the police as I was raised to respect the law and understand their job is difficult and dangerous (several family members in law enforcement). This cop was a jackass. The kid was polite and deserved to be treated the same.
I'm glad you asked, because I'm sufficiently happy with it that I want to share.
I ground up some peeled cacao beans with a mortar and pestle.
I put a few teaspoons of the ground cacao in a cup with a dash of cayenne, a dash of cinnamon, a dash of allspice, and small amounts of vanilla extract and mint extract.
I filled the cup with boiling water and stirred it up until the cacao was dissolved, then I added a teaspoon of honey.
It's amazing, and yes, consciousness-altering. At least for me, it's nothing like eating a chocolate bar, which has never given me any kind of high. But this hot cacao drink makes me feel a bit dizzy, a bit calm, slightly euphoric, definitely meditative. I'd compare it very much to a cigarette. I'm a non-smoker, but once or twice a year I borrow a cigarette from somebody at my poker game, and it gets me more buzzed than a beer does, for sure. The feeling from the cacao is very much like the feeling from a cigarette.
I don't think that's what caused the typo, though, because that was a few hours ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
He knew his rights. He expressed his rights.
Cops were dooshes. Cops should understand a citizens rights.
Cops were dooshes. Cops should understand a citizens rights.
timschochet
Footballguy
So long as its not an older white guy being harassed for racism or for some gun control issue, most conservatives are going to side with the cops in these sorts of situations.
Rirruto
Footballguy
I get what you're saying, but a court won't agree with you. CoG is the justification for arresting people who refuse to take field sobriety tests. You are within your rights (in lots of states) to say "eff you I'm not walking a line" but you're going to get arrested 99 times out of 100."Consciousness of guilt" =
Here it isn't about PC to arrest, but reasonable suspicion (a much lower bar) to continue an encounter. The defense attorneys are going to have a great argument citing all the same stuff as most of the posts here, I doubt they'd succeed though.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
mad sweeney
Footballguy
I can't tell if being on the same side of your posts is good or bad for me...
johnnycakes
Footballguy
All the same, if that's as good as he says it is, I might have to give it a try.
, Maurile, complete with enough detail to (hopefully) approximate the concoction prepared by the inimitable MT himself. 
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Whether or not it succeeds is not the point. We all know this CoG is just a bunch of crap they use in situations like this when they want to flex nuts. The courts have and will constantly back police up on this, but that doesn't make it right. Technically legal, but like checkpoints to begin with, they're the kind of legal that's a steaming pile of horse dung. It's very clear from the video and hundreds of others like it that the reason for continuing the encounter was because he wasn't submitting to the cop's ego trip. The cop started off annoyed and he did nothing other than punish this kid for not obeying. Even the K9 cop essentially said that the dog's positive response was weak and came after a long time of sniffing around. These are the situations where cops could really improve their public image, build trust with the public and actually protect and serve, but unless you stroke their ego they put you through the wringer because you don't kiss their ###. That's not protecting and serving, that's authoritative d-baggery.I get what you're saying, but a court won't agree with you. CoG is the justification for arresting people who refuse to take field sobriety tests. You are within your rights (in lots of states) to say "eff you I'm not walking a line" but you're going to get arrested 99 times out of 100."Consciousness of guilt" =
Here it isn't about PC to arrest, but reasonable suspicion (a much lower bar) to continue an encounter. The defense attorneys are going to have a great argument citing all the same stuff as most of the posts here, I doubt they'd succeed though.
Gawain
Footballguy
And as long as the wind is out of the south, tim will label and generalize. But if it comes from the northeast, then he generalizes and labels.
Maelstrom
Footballguy
Since when did knowing your rights and trying to exert those rights become suspicious behavior?
No matter what the man's attitude, the cop should be the one's upholding citizen's rights, not violating them. There are a reason for those rights in the first place, and it doesn't matter that it makes the cop's job harder when people assert their rights, they should still be upheld. Same with the video of the police illegally detaining the man for carrying a gun, the officer should know the law and not violate a citizen's rights by stopping him illegally.
That being said, the guy should have just rolled his window down and treated the cop with respect. And, (as far as I know) the cop was within his rights to ask him to get out of the vehicle to facilitate the conversation. Many people believe some/most cops don't respect people's rights, so it is to be expected that if you do this, you will get any tickets for any violations the cop can find (or potentially fabricate). It is sad for us all that that is the expectation many have for cops these days. With video so easy to do, we're going to see more of this kind of stuff as long as cops continue to disrespect the law.
No matter what the man's attitude, the cop should be the one's upholding citizen's rights, not violating them. There are a reason for those rights in the first place, and it doesn't matter that it makes the cop's job harder when people assert their rights, they should still be upheld. Same with the video of the police illegally detaining the man for carrying a gun, the officer should know the law and not violate a citizen's rights by stopping him illegally.
That being said, the guy should have just rolled his window down and treated the cop with respect. And, (as far as I know) the cop was within his rights to ask him to get out of the vehicle to facilitate the conversation. Many people believe some/most cops don't respect people's rights, so it is to be expected that if you do this, you will get any tickets for any violations the cop can find (or potentially fabricate). It is sad for us all that that is the expectation many have for cops these days. With video so easy to do, we're going to see more of this kind of stuff as long as cops continue to disrespect the law.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Similar threads
