View Full Version : DUI Checkpoint Video
http://youtu.be/w-WMn_zHCVo
Yikes.... A few bad apples spoil the bunch. I was skeptical until the officer practically admitted it on tape.
Either way, I think we need DAs to go after cases like this more strictly like they do so very many others. Make a few examples on the few power trip officers, and make it known they will be canned, sacked, and persecuted if they violate fundamental rights.
I'd like to make sure people remember that the majority of police are not like this, or have better intentions. And I think that many upstanding officers are just as sickened by the admissions on tape here as we are. So lets not start generic cop bashing here.
LEO question. Are you told to, or assigned to be on traffic/check point duty, or is it something that officers can seek out?
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 16:31
That is so fucked up.
BushMasterBoy
07-06-2013, 16:32
DA's going after police? Only when pressured by public outrage!
Guy needs to be fired. Bottom line. That should not be tolerated and a guy with that type of attitude should not be enforcing laws
Contrary to the other thread and the discussion about LEO's who shoot first, I also have very little patience or regard for assholes like this kid who go out of their way to deliberately antagonize LEO's who are merely doing their job. There's far too many of these "YouTube heros" out trying to "assert their rights" by needlessly pissing off cops. This guy had a camera all setup and ready to go, and I bet he was tickled shitless to find himself a DUI checkpoint to throw himself into as a "victim".
There was absolutely NO reason for this punk to refuse to roll his window down, and to then start with the "am I being detained? I know my Constitutional rights. I don't consent to a search. Etc. etc..." bullshit. That cop did nothing other than react to a suspicious driver, at a checkpoint LOOKING for suspicious drivers.
Don't start none, won't be none.
So are you mad he had a camera to video tape it? Or are you mad he didn't immediately submit to search without due process, reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
palepainter
07-06-2013, 16:43
[Pop][Metal][Pop]
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 16:44
I don't dig "set up's" either.....I believe that is the case in this video.....
However, the conduct captured here is deplorable.
So its okay for them to do this stuff off camera and then the group of them lie further about the kid. What happens if they planted drugs in the car and arrest the kid? If they mentioned it on the tape he would be free and paid and they would be jobless. Without the video he is wrongly convicted his record tarnished and the rest of his life he will be questioned for something he didn't do.
Sorry but a video camera now is a necessity. I'm considering putting a camera in my vehicles full time.
Good for him. He was polite and law abiding. I wish more people knew the law. When one doesn't exercise rights, they disappear. If we were assholes about gun rights, I could buy a full auto from Sears.
So are you mad he had a camera to video tape it? Or are you mad he didn't immediately submit to search without due process, reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
I'm not "mad" about anything. The punk was obviously out looking for this kind of confrontation, why else would he have a video camera set up and ready when he drove into the checkpoint? We've all been through DUI checkpoints - if you haven't been drinking and have nothing to hide, you roll down the window and say "howdy". A few seconds of chit-chat and you're on your way.
You refuse to roll down your window and come back with all this "am I being detained? I know my rights!" bullshit and guess what? There's the "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" right there. Pull your ass over boy, we're gonna have a chat.
I'm not anti-cop, not in the least. Far from it. But I AM anti-asshole! Regardless of which side of the fence they're from, an asshole is an asshole. And we don't need more assholes in this world. Self-righteous punks running around with video cameras trying to antagonize cops for no reason so that they can be internet heros on YouTube for "standing up for our rights" are assholes. That's my opinion. Everybody's got one. Just like assholes.
And I didn't see anything from the cops that I would consider out of line. The kid wasn't screamed at, he wasn't beaten, he wasn't shot, the dog didn't bite him...he was merely removed from his car, asked some questions, and the car searched. I wouldn't expect anything less myself if I did the same shit he did.
Now doing that to people who DIDN'T antagonize the cops, now that would be out of line. We've all seen videos of that before. But people like this punk are from the opposite end of the spectrum.
Cylinder Head
07-06-2013, 16:53
Contrary to the other thread and the discussion about LEO's who shoot first, I also have very little patience or regard for assholes like this kid who go out of their way to deliberately antagonize LEO's who are merely doing their job. There's far too many of these "YouTube heros" out trying to "assert their rights" by needlessly pissing off cops. This guy had a camera all setup and ready to go, and I bet he was tickled shitless to find himself a DUI checkpoint to throw himself into as a "victim".
There was absolutely NO reason for this punk to refuse to roll his window down, and to then start with the "am I being detained? I know my Constitutional rights. I don't consent to a search. Etc. etc..." bullshit. That cop did nothing other than react to a suspicious driver, at a checkpoint LOOKING for suspicious drivers.
Don't start none, won't be none.
You are monumentally full of shit. The cops produced a fake "hit" by the dog, told him his rights didn't matter and violated multiple laws. They were way out of fucking line.
Don't assume no rights, won't be no rights. Fuck that and fuck bowing to power hungry crooked cops.
A DUI checkpoint is a "set-up" right off the bat. An unconstitutional one at that. The only reason they are allowed to do them is if announce them in the paper before hand if I remember correctly.
kidicarus13
07-06-2013, 16:55
Law enforcement is so accustomed to receiving "compliance without question" that most of them do not know how to answer basic questions involving the 4th and 5th Amendment when they are asked. As the video demonstrates, often times the next step is to use deceit and coercion to obtain a result. For those of you who will say, "It's only a small percentage." I know better.
RonMexico
07-06-2013, 16:58
http://www.motorists.org/dui/roadblock
What To Do At A DUI Roadblock
The following article appeared in Volume 2, Issue 4 of the NMA Newsletter.
By William Pangman, a past president and founder of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
What is a motorist obliged to do when confronted with a police roadblock?
The United States Supreme Court arrived at an answer to this question in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 110 S.Ct. 2481 (1990). In Sitz, a group of Michigan motorists challenged the constitutionality of a highway sobriety check-point utilized by the Michigan State Police. The only check-point operated in Michigan was in Saginaw County. The operation lasted for an hour and fifteen minutes and every vehicle passing through the designated location was stopped for approximately 25 seconds. When officers believed that the drivers stopped at the check-point might be under the influence of an intoxicant, those vehicles were asked to pull over to the side of the road and drivers were requested to perform field sobriety tests.
Out of the 126 motorists which passed through the check-point, only three motorists were asked to pull over. These facts were apparently important to Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion for the majority. The Court determined that the Michigan check-point, under the facts and circumstances presented, did not create an overwhelming intrusion on individual's privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
Rehnquist applied a three-point balancing test to determine whether sobriety check-points in general are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This test involved balancing the State's interest in preventing accidents caused by drunk drivers, the effectiveness of the sobriety check- points in achieving the goal, and the level of intrusion on an individual's constitutional right to privacy caused by the check-points.
The Chief Justice reasoned that no one could seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the State's interest in eradicating it. Moreover, Rehnquist found that a 25 second delay in travel was minimally intrusive on motorist's rights, especially considering the fact that traveling motorists could turn off the road when they saw the roadblock, or make U-turns to avoid passing through it. As to the effectiveness of the sobriety check-point, the court held that the procedure was effective, even though only 1 of the 126 drivers stopped was arrested.
In the final analysis, it is now the law that from a narrow Fourth Amendment standpoint, nondiscriminatory sobriety check-points in general are not unreasonable. Bear in mind that other Fourth Amendment problems with sobriety check-points may exist when individual drivers passing through the check-point are asked to pull over.
Police do not have the right, per se, to check driver's licenses or registrations when the stop is not initiated by a violation. However, where the police have a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct, even though there is not actual violation of the law they may examine drivers' licenses or registration.
In the Sitz case, officers were not allowed to make a driver pull over and show his/her license or check the driver's registration unless the officer noticed signs of intoxication. Moreover, a driver never has to consent to a police search of his or her person or vehicle, but, the police may make such a search even without the driver's consent when either: 1) they have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime; 2) when the driver has been placed under arrest; or 3) they may make a visual inspection of the inside passenger compartment from the officer's position outside the vehicle, to observe illegal articles in plain view.
As to the extent of motorists rights; when citizens are faced with roadblocks, they should be cooperative. If they do not roll down their window it seems that the officer's suspicion would be heightened and, at minimum, may give the officer grounds to require the driver to pull over to the side of the road.
Upon initial contact with the roadblock, citizens may politely refuse to answer any of the officer's questions. The following is an example of an assertion of rights that can be reproduced and handed to an officer at a roadblock:
Assertion of Rights:
Officer, please understand:
I refuse to talk to you until I consult with my attorney. I also refuse to consent to any search of these premises or any other premises under my control, or in which I have a possessory, proprietary, or privacy interest, including my car, my body, or effects. I hereby demand to immediately be allowed the reasonable opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney by telephone.
I desire to exercise all my rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, to be free from your interference with my person or affairs.
If you attempt to question me, I want my lawyer present. I refuse to participate in any line-up or to perform any physical acts, or to speak or display my person or property at your direction, without first conferring with my lawyer.
If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights. If you ignore my exercise of these rights and attempt to procure a waiver, I want to confer with my lawyer prior to any conversations with you.
If I am to be taken into custody, removed from my present location, or separated from my property, I request a reasonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. I do not consent to any impoundment or inventory of my property. I do, hereby, waive any claim of liability for loss, theft, or damage against you, your superiors or any other authority, and agree to hold all harmless therefrom, if I am afforded the reasonable opportunity to arrange for the safekeeping of my own property. If this reasonable opportunity is denied or is unavailable, I demand that only such intrusion occur as is minimally necessary to secure such property, hereby waiving any claim of liability for your failure to scrutinize the property or its contents prior to it being secured.
If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so that I may go about my business.
We advise our clients to hand this card to the officer along with their license when stopped or contacted by police. However, drivers need not even present their license during the initial contact with the officer in a roadblock situation.
Drivers may also refuse to perform field sobriety tests. This does not prevent the officer from arresting the driver. However, the arresting officer will have substantially fewer factors to support the arrest when it is challenged later in court.
Generally, by the time the officer has requested a driver to perform these roadside agility tests, the officer already believes the driver is intoxicated. Citizens should think long and hard before deciding whether or not to provide the officer with additional "evidence" of intoxication by performing the field sobriety tests.
If the motorist does not wish to comply, the police, in absence of an articulable reason to believe a crime has been or is being committed, must allow the driver to proceed. In the face of police inquiries based on less than probable cause, the citizen has the right to remain silent and move on without fear of retaliation in the form of further detention. The "right not to respond" permits motorists to refrain from engaging in alphabet recitations or other "command performances" of verbal and physical exercises.
The Supreme Court of Oregon observed:
"I know of no law that obliges a driver to answer an officer's questions or perform 'field tests' directed at determining whether the driver has committed the crime of driving under the influence of intoxicants. Reluctance to inform the detained driver that such cooperation is voluntary can only demonstrate the state's willingness to take advantage of those of its citizens who are ignorant of their rights though it must respect the rights of those who know them."
Merely recognizing that a motorist is not obliged to cooperate with a police investigation, however, grants the citizen little security given the setting within which the questioning occurs. Understandably, the average motorist will hesitate to invoke this "right not to respond" to police questions and "requests" to perform so-called coordination tests. A late-night confrontation with an armed police officer will normally induce cooperation from all but the boldest citizens whose main concern is to appease the officer and avoid "trouble."
Indeed, the consequences of non-cooperation are undoubtedly understood to be further coercive detention. While this is, unfortunately, not unlikely to occur, it is, nevertheless, often advisable that the motorist insist on invoking his or her rights.
HBARleatherneck
07-06-2013, 17:00
[QUOTE=rondog;1218591 We've all been through DUI checkpoints - [/QUOTE]
i have never been through a DUI checkpoint. I have never even seen one.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 17:05
I've never been through one either HBAR.
You are monumentally full of shit. The cops produced a fake "hit" by the dog, told him his rights didn't matter and violated multiple laws. They were way out of fucking line.
Don't assume no rights, won't be no rights. Fuck that and fuck bowing to power hungry crooked cops.
And if the kid had rolled his window down and talked to the cop like a [Censor] man, none of this would have happened at all. And he wouldn't have gotten his video for YouTube. No rights violations, no bowing to anybody. "Fake hit by the dog", please. Kid was acting suspicious, that's all the PC they needed.
sellersm
07-06-2013, 17:09
RonMexico that was a fascinating read.
Sent from my fat fingers using Tapatalk
i have never been through a DUI checkpoint. I have never even seen one.
I've never been through one either HBAR.
Been through a few of them. Also had my van peeked in down in Texas to see if I was smuggling Mexicans. Ain't no big thing as long as you haven't been drinking. They can tell in seconds if you have or not, and they're happy to send you on your way.
kidicarus13
07-06-2013, 17:10
Merely recognizing that a motorist is not obliged to cooperate with a police investigation, however, grants the citizen little security given the setting within which the questioning occurs. Understandably, the average motorist will hesitate to invoke this "right not to respond" to police questions and "requests" to perform so-called coordination tests. A late-night confrontation with an armed police officer will normally induce cooperation from all but the boldest citizens whose main concern is to appease the officer and avoid "trouble."
Indeed, the consequences of non-cooperation are undoubtedly understood to be further coercive detention. While this is, unfortunately, not unlikely to occur, it is, nevertheless, often advisable that the motorist insist on invoking his or her rights.
sellersm
07-06-2013, 17:10
I've been through many of them and always wondered how we ever allowed them in this country.
Sent from my fat fingers using Tapatalk
Thanks RonMexico, I'm going to have that handy.
Double00
07-06-2013, 17:15
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think exercising your constitutional rights is bullshit!!!
I personally have no issue with DUI checkpoints. They catch drunk drivers and get them off the roads. Too bad there wasn't one up in Grand Lake to catch that drunk before he drove into that family of 8 that was leaving the fireworks show. If I were inclined to drink and then drive then maybe I'd feel differently about DUI checkpoints.
TEAMRICO
07-06-2013, 17:17
THAT cop was an asshole plan and simple.
Sorry RonDog but you are making assumptions. If you were treated like that I'm sure you would feel different.
The cop has issues and it is plain to see.
I won't support the police when they have guys like that who want to harass someone for driving and minding their own fucking business.
He needs to be fired. They were hoping to find something when he would not be a good little subject.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 17:19
Nice post RonMexico
A DUI checkpoint is a "set-up" right off the bat. An unconstitutional one at that. The only reason they are allowed to do them is if announce them in the paper before hand if I remember correctly.
I agree and I don't think it matters if the checkpoint is announced or not, still unconstitutional.
i have never been through a DUI checkpoint. I have never even seen one.
I've never been through one either HBAR.
I've been through a few in Junction... I never had to do anything though, literally just rolled up, talked to the guys politely, and they let me roll on. It all took seconds to do. It is because of this, that I find this kid is a dipshit, and he was trying to push them on purpose. I also think that the cops were stupid in trying to tic the kid off... not very smart acting out of anger..... Each side was fucking stupid in this case.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 17:21
And if the kid had rolled his window down and talked to the cop like a white man, none of this would have happened at all
I don't think this point can be argued.
BushMasterBoy
07-06-2013, 17:25
What gets me is that they were searching without a warrant, and were suddenly shocked to find they were being recorded. Hand in the cookie jar so to speak...the police make their own rules as they go. http://www.duiblock.com/dui_checkpoint_locations/colorado/
speedysst
07-06-2013, 17:30
I went through one once on Federal a couple years ago. I believe the contact lasted approx. 20 seconds. I like what Ron White said about his DUI stop. He thought it was profiling because, as it turns out, they were stopping EVERYONE that was driving on that particular sidewalk.
I've never been through one either HBAR.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 17:30
There is no question that cop is a total asshole for how he responded in the situation. The only thing in his mind at ALL was doing what Rondog was saying....yes Sir, no Sir, can I suck your dick Sir.
The kid didn't do what that cop expected everyone to do, and he didn't like it. Good reason or not, and then admits later that the kid knew his rights. fubar
I personally have no issue with DUI checkpoints. They catch drunk drivers and get them off the roads. Too bad there wasn't one up in Grand Lake to catch that drunk before he drove into that family of 8 that was leaving the fireworks show. If I were inclined to drink and then drive then maybe I'd feel differently about DUI checkpoints.
Look. I don't drink and drive. Never have, never will. I just don't get how people here don't get the similarities to where gun control is going.
What if we had gun check points. To see if you have illegal guns. Man, if only they had those before that guy shot into a family of 8 plus a bunch others in aurora, Georgia, Texas, Littleton.
Apply your logic to all laws.
Why are we all suddenly becoming hypocrites at laws. There is the constitution and there is not.
The constitution requires reasonable suspicion, or probable cause. And a warrant unless exigent circumstances exist. It has been proven so many times refusal to search is undeniably NOT probable cause. At the highest levels.
These gun laws are not OK. And neither is the way we treat any innocent driver after 1am on a weekend night.
And if the kid had rolled his window down and talked to the cop like a white man, none of this would have happened at all. And he wouldn't have gotten his video for YouTube. No rights violations, no bowing to anybody. "Fake hit by the dog", please. Kid was acting suspicious, that's all the PC they needed.
You sir are truly a piece of shit.
speedysst
07-06-2013, 17:37
Its sad that you feel the need to respond to someone else's opinion like this.
You sir are truly a piece of shit.
When did this happen? Was there an investigation on this encounter? Results?
You sir are truly a piece of shit.
Knock that off now, and I'm not asking again.
See how I'm having an intellectual debate with him... Both sides presenting their views, with facts and comparisons.
It doesn't need attacks or name calling. Don't do it again.
It it saves just 1 life...
TSA
Body scanners
NSA
Patriot act
Hb1224
And if the kid had rolled his window down and talked to the cop like a white man, none of this would have happened at all. And he wouldn't have gotten his video for YouTube. No rights violations, no bowing to anybody. "Fake hit by the dog", please. Kid was acting suspicious, that's all the PC they needed.
just out of curiosity, if they decide they "smell something" do you just let them search you? your car? do you submit to a field sobriety test? if they're not happy with that test do you let them strap you to a table to draw blood?
when Parker PD sets up their hi-cap roadblocks will you just roll down your window and consent to a vehicle search?
when I'm driving through NY should I let the PD check for preban soda?
I'm not anti-cop either, but I am pro Constitution....at what point do we say we've had enough?
oh, and who's responsible for any scratches the dog put on the car while he was on the hood?
If I had to guess, I'd say that the department in question already had a reputation for being assholes, otherwise the "punk" would have had no motivation to "set up" this encounter. I have mixed feelings about such checkpoints. On the one hand, they are reasonably effective at reducing the number of drunk idiots on the road. On the other hand, it is a clear violation of the presumption of innocence that we should all enjoy, and can be compared to the blanket wiretaps and other bullshit that comes out of the secret courts created by the Patriot Act and the NDAA, albeit on a smaller scale.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 17:46
If I had to guess, I'd say that the department in question already had a reputation for being assholes, otherwise the "punk" would have had no motivation to "set up" this encounter. I have mixed feelings about such checkpoints. On the one hand, they are reasonably effective at reducing the number of drunk idiots on the road. On the other hand, it is a clear violation of the presumption of innocence that we should all enjoy, and can be compared to the blanket wiretaps and other bullshit that comes out of the secret courts created by the Patriot Act and the NDAA, albeit on a smaller scale.
Yep
http://www.motorists.org/dui/roadblock
The Chief Justice reasoned that no one could seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the State's interest in eradicating it. Moreover, Rehnquist found that a 25 second delay in travel was minimally intrusive on motorist's rights, especially considering the fact that traveling motorists could turn off the road when they saw the roadblock, or make U-turns to avoid passing through it. As to the effectiveness of the sobriety check-point, the court held that the procedure was effective, even though only 1 of the 126 drivers stopped was arrested.
Thats funny. I turned off in front of a check point to make my way to a friends house off of the road i turned on. It only took a few seconds after that to be pulled over and being instructed to put my hands out the window.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 17:51
I kinda wondered about that Rabid. I know when they used to have "narcotic" checkpoints out here at Barr Lake on I-76, there was always a few unmarked cars at the exit ramp just before the checkpoint. And you know why they were sitting there.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 17:52
Different topic, but I don't remember why it was that the Feds aren't allowed to do those narcotic stops anymore, but sobriety ones are still okay.
Contrary to the other thread and the discussion about LEO's who shoot first, I also have very little patience or regard for assholes like this kid who go out of their way to deliberately antagonize LEO's who are merely doing their job. There's far too many of these "YouTube heros" out trying to "assert their rights" by needlessly pissing off cops. This guy had a camera all setup and ready to go, and I bet he was tickled shitless to find himself a DUI checkpoint to throw himself into as a "victim".
There was absolutely NO reason for this punk to refuse to roll his window down, and to then start with the "am I being detained? I know my Constitutional rights. I don't consent to a search. Etc. etc..." bullshit. That cop did nothing other than react to a suspicious driver, at a checkpoint LOOKING for suspicious drivers.
Don't start none, won't be none.
Not wanting to submit to unreasonable search and seizure is NOT suspicious. By law and court decision.
More people need to do this. More and more and more until the cops stop. Fucking. Doing it.
You are what is wrong with this country. You think we should just roll over and "let the cops do their thing". Never mind that they're trampling our rights. Nothing this guy did was suspicious except not wanting to deal with a checkpoint. He set up his camera when he was approaching the checkpoint, obviously. It's not like he leaves it running there on the seat all the time. The cops didn't like that he wanted to exert his rights. They want to be able to boss the citizenry around around and throw their weight around. They're working. They're getting paid. So if you try to flex your rights, they'll try to make it as painful for you as possible.
The only thing this guy did wrong was not taking the keys and locking the car when he got out.
And if you want to know why you shouldn't just say, "Okay," when the officer says, "Mind if I take a quick look inside your vehicle?"
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/03/marijuana_profiling_nebraska_colorado_family.php
When did this happen? Was there an investigation on this encounter? Results?
Happened on the 4th in Rutherford TN. It is currently under investigation.
Rondog, why is this guy a "punk"? And please explain how a "white man" would speak with the cop.
battle_sight_zero
07-06-2013, 18:18
Contrary to the other thread and the discussion about LEO's who shoot first, I also have very little patience or regard for assholes like this kid who go out of their way to deliberately antagonize LEO's who are merely doing their job. There's far too many of these "YouTube heros" out trying to "assert their rights" by needlessly pissing off cops. This guy had a camera all setup and ready to go, and I bet he was tickled shitless to find himself a DUI checkpoint to throw himself into as a "victim".
There was absolutely NO reason for this punk to refuse to roll his window down, and to then start with the "am I being detained? I know my Constitutional rights. I don't consent to a search. Etc. etc..." bullshit. That cop did nothing other than react to a suspicious driver, at a checkpoint LOOKING for suspicious drivers.
Don't start none, won't be none.
I never heard the police officers ask him he was drinking. Perhaps one of his friends, family members or himself had a bad experience in one recent search which prompted him to film this interaction. Either way in this age with cell phones and other technologies one should expect to be filmed or recorded during an interaction especially when it has to do with authority. I also believe roadblocks and check points are worthless. Just a damm show. Not bashing law enforcement would just like to see them out on patrol looking for crime, and as a citizen I dont appreciate the suspicion that I am possibly doing something wrong for driving through a check point. This is the same thing as impeding our gun rights in many ways in my mind. In the interest of safety lets stop and search everyone. There was no cause to stop this kid in the first place.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 18:19
It's an anglo term for being a Stand Up Guy.
It could be varied to represent any racial background.
Speak to him like a "black man", instead of ebonics...etc etc.
So let me get this straight, cops can use photo radar to ticket me but then I'm not supposed to film them?
It's an anglo term for being a Stand Up Guy.
It could be varied to represent any racial background.
Speak to him like a "black man", instead of ebonics...etc etc.
I think you're being very generous with your definition. But I'll leave it up to the author to expand if he so chooses.
It's an anglo term for being a Stand Up Guy.
It could be varied to represent any racial background.
Speak to him like a "black man", instead of ebonics...etc etc.
So the only good man is a white man. I should be good then... [Sarcasm2] There could have been much better word choices, you know, ones that do not sound completely racist.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 18:33
Hey, it was a meager attempt on my part to divert the possibility of the thread going racial.
Weak, yes.
Ok, sorry about the "white man" thing. I only meant to talk to the cop in a civilized, non-confrontational manner. And there's been DUI checkpoints as long as there's been drinking drivers. Nothing new, and I fail to see how stopping people to find drivers under the influence violates anyone's rights. Unless a person's been drinking of course.
Other motorists have rights too, and drunks driving around endangering everyone kinda violates everybodys rights ya know. Catching them is a good thing, not a bad thing.
And cops have rights too. Refusing a simple request at a checkpoint only puts everyone on edge and alert unnecessarily. It sure appears that the driver had set up that camera for the express purpose of going to that checkpoint and causing a scene.
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 18:34
Either way in this age with cell phones and other technologies one should expect to be filmed or recorded during an interaction especially when it has to do with authority.
Good point BSZ
battle_sight_zero
07-06-2013, 18:37
And there's been DUI checkpoints as long as there's been drinking drivers. Nothing new, and I fail to see how stopping people to find drivers under the influence violates anyone's rights. Unless a person's been drinking of course.[/QUOTE]
Because there is no probable cause other than driving.
hurley842002
07-06-2013, 18:56
Okay, I swore I wasn't going to involve myself with these threads, but I've been through a local checkpoint so I'll share my experience.
About 6 or 7 years ago, I believe it was the 4th, I was coming home from a friends house in Elizabeth.
Get to around Lincoln and Chambers and traffic is waaay backed up. I just figured it was an accident, and I didn't know the area very well, so I just stayed my course.
I must have progressed half a mile or so, when I realized there were motorcycle cops pulling people over for what I called "breaking line".
When I finally got to the "checkpoint" it must have been an hour that I waited, but the officers were very courteous and professional, quickly explaining what they were doing, and apologizing for the inconvenience, and I was on my way.
I'm from small town southeast Colorado, so this was a first for me. I won't say rather I agree with the concept or effectiveness of DUI checkpoints, because I promised myself I wouldn't get into pissing contests in these threads. What I will say, is this particular experience was a complete waste of my time, quite irritating, and painfully similar to "in an effort to effectively control those who wish to do harm to other's, we must treat all gun owners as criminals". Just my thoughts...
Rondog, why is this guy a "punk"? And please explain how a "white man" would speak with the cop.
Cause the kid was needlessly an asshole. That's why. The cops were pricks also, and more than likely acted that way because the kid was a dick *on purpose. As stated earlier, the cop would have more than likely saw the kid had no liquor on his breath, and was acting fine, and the kid would have been on his way in under 20 seconds. Instead, the kid had to act like a dick and provoke the cop. All he had to do was to roll down his window... That's fucking harmless. Now if the cop reached in, grabbed his head and yanked it out the window to smell his breath, that's a different story. But by being an ass, just to be an ass.... The kid is dumb, but the cops in that video are not any better.....
OtterbatHellcat
07-06-2013, 19:03
Well put, Spyder.
ChunkyMonkey
07-06-2013, 19:03
I thought the kid was a dick til the cop admittedly said he was innocence.. that's just pure ego and harassment from then on. [fail]
jerrymrc
07-06-2013, 19:38
Hey, it was a meager attempt on my part to divert the possibility of the thread going racial.
Weak, yes.
It did. [Bang]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.