There is no reason to move this to the political forum. This is actually a very good subject and while it may touch on some nerves, it doesn't make it political in nature. Just sayin.
Your thoughts.........
- Thread starter The Joker
- Start date
it is political. the whole thing was orchestrated and promoted by the libertarian party.
http://www.dnj.com/article/20130706/NEWS01/307060032?odyssey=mod|mostcom
"The ?crash the checkpoint party? incident was planned, David said.
David said Kalbaugh contacted him Thursday night to tell him that he planned to ?exercise his rights? at the checkpoint and record the results by video camera. David said he encouraged him to go ahead."
I do know this. I also know that no LAWFUL commands were given. Much like failing to read a suspect their Miranda rights negates any evidence subsequently collected. A police officer CANNOT violate any individual's rights and be acting within the law, therefore incapable of giving a lawful command. The kid asked if he was being detained, he never got answered. He didn't even have to pull over at that point. If the kid would have asked if he was free to go, that officer is required by law to release him and detain him no further. Period. I am sorry you don't like it and you can say whatever you want about what I know, but sure as fuck know my rights and I am so right here it is sick.
Hope this helps,
FDC
you aren't right.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2013/07/08/2499007/
I'll side with a DUI attorney with 30 years of experience. :0074
I mean the thread, it's not political. I don't care where the video was first aired. That's not what was asked. The thread asked for our thoughts which led us to this.
The article you quoted goes on to report that the Police are investigating the incident to see if any action is necessary and no charges are filed against the kid. All sides seem to agree that the officer was abusing his position.
The thread is fine right here though, is what I was saying.
I'm not siding with the cops, they were clearly in the wrong. That doesn't mean the kid isn't a dickhead. There are several times in life (and this is clearly one of them) that if you don't go looking for trouble odds are you don't find any.
He put the cop on the defensive for no reason other than to look for trouble, well, he found some.
If I have an employee standing by his work station at 7:59 it's probably not a big deal. If he's standing there at 7:59 proclaiming that he isn't doing a lick of work before 8:00 and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it, well, he's probably right. I'm certainly going to be there at 4:59 to make sure he works right up until 5:00, though. I wouldn't think twice about it if he doesn't open his mouth for no reason first.
See how that works?
First, the thread is entitled, "Your thoughts". When asked for my thoughts, I generally express my own and not arbitrarily paraphrase someone else's off a google search. Secondly, at no point in either of the videos did I see or hear anyone say that the kid acted unlawfully or violated a lawful command. Your lawyer friend simply states that ignoring a lawful command CAN put you in violation of the law. When asked to pull over, the kid did just that. The cop tried to force him from his car by physically opening his door. He refused to answer if he was detaining the kid. The cop never once asked the kid anything about being intoxicated or a single question about being impaired.
Your lawyer friend also states that you don't have to answer questions that can be self incriminating.
He answered his question and was cooperating. The cop even states, "He knows his rights" and then turns the camera around. The cop gave no lawful commands that were disobeyed.
Still so right it is sick.
Hope this helps,
FDC
Absolutely!! I agree 100%.
I was expressing my immediate thoughts and my first thoughts were that the entire thing could have easily been avoided, but that isn't what either party was looking for anyway.
1. if you watched the video for 40 seconds you would have heard them say that the lawyer said the kid should have immediately followed the deputies orders.
2. so why wouldnt he roll his window down? rolling your window down is a bigger inconvenience than pulling over to the side of the road? if he obeyed the command to pull over, why disobey the command to roll the window down?
3. he probably would have gotten to asking him about being intoxicated if the dickhead didnt start an immediate confrontation from the start by causing a scene about rolling down his window.
4. you still aren't right. you think you are, and thats cool I guess, but you don't have a law degree and i'll definitely side with the attorney who specializes in DUI cases over your opinion.
Dude,
Cut Portis some slack, he isn't wrong, he is expressing his thoughts on the matter. I don't find it necessary to point and laugh slick. Sheesh. :0003
Hope this helps,
FDC
yeah I am sure that picture wasn't meant for the guy who writes a diatribe on every discussion he doesn't agree with.
No need to pick sides bro.
Also, I don't really care who Jaek directed the post at, it was funny regardless. Since I am right though, just sayin.
Again, no charges to kid. Cop under investigation.
We have a winner.
That;s pretty presumptuous of you.
You are the one that said you would "side" with the lawyer everyone was talking about, I simply was going by what you said.
The thing is saying that "most" agree with you, even if it were remotely true doesn't really prove much when "most" people take a simple mathematical equation and can't get the right answer.
Hope this helps,
FDC
not as presumptuous as you declaring you are right.
i'd side with the lawyer because believe it or not, he has a clue when it comes to situations like this. it is his profession after all.
So you are saying that the kid broke the law and was wrong on all counts, right? The kid had nary a leg to stand on in a court of law right? The cop acted completely appropriately and is well within his duty to serve and protect to force someone to allow him to detain and search any vehicle driven by a kid that tries to invoke his rights? In other words, the kid was asking for it and deserved what he got right?
