DUI Checkpoint Video

[The Chosen One]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo

Very very very sad.

All these people posting comments sympathizing with the cops saying "just do what you're told".

I hope that idiot gets fired for what he did.


I had a similar situation happen to me a year ago. Not a checkpoint, but I was followed by a cop coming home from the gym at like 1 AM, and he pursued me for 3 minutes before he turned on his lights to pull me over. He and his buddy pulled me over, I immediately turned off the car and they had their spotlight on me and their guns pulled out and standing from an aggressive position behind their doors. I got out the car without any hesitation, they called 6 more guys to the scene, cuffed me and detained me in the backseat without telling me why. They searched my car and found nothing. The idiot cop that followed me, ID'd the WRONG PLATE NUMBER. I drive a silver Pontiac Grand Am, and the car reported stolen in Lansing Michigan was a Green Plymouth Truck 1993. Not only that, but after they checked the registration and saw it was under my dad's name, they had the balls to ask me 1) Does my dad know I'm driving the car, and 2) Am I related to my dad (we have a unique last name, so it was extremely stupid)? After telling them I'd only been driving the car for 4 years, they still had the balls to lie and say my dad reported the car stolen earlier that night, when I had just seen my dad hours before that when I left the house (he knows I go to the gym late every night).

I posted that story last year in the pulpit, and gilesfan said I was a pussy making a big deal out of it because the same thing happened to his wife. Well it's different being a minority and not a white female. It also traumatized me for a few days, had hard time going to sleep and cringed whenever I drove by a cop car.

[ESP47]

He won't get fired. The last thing a cop or a judge will ever do is admit when they're wrong. Kind of like how they realized they completely had the wrong guy when they pulled you over yet they tried justifying it by saying that your dad reported it stolen. They'll try every trick in the book to try and arrest you at that point so they don't have to admit they screwed up. There was a story on Yahoo a couple weeks ago about a girl that walked out of a convenience store with a box of sparkling water and in no time she had 6 or 7 armed cops with guns drawn on her because they thought she had beer. Why the hell do you need 7 armed officers to arrest a sorority girl even if she was underage and buying beer?

[The Chosen One]

He won't get fired. The last thing a cop or a judge will ever do is admit when they're wrong. Kind of like how they realized they completely had the wrong guy when they pulled you over yet they tried justifying it by saying that your dad reported it stolen. They'll try every trick in the book to try and arrest you at that point so they don't have to admit they screwed up. There was a story on Yahoo a couple weeks ago about a girl that walked out of a convenience store with a box of sparkling water and in no time she had 6 or 7 armed cops with guns drawn on her because they thought she had beer. Why the hell do you need 7 armed officers to arrest a sorority girl even if she was underage and buying beer?

I know. The seargant said I needed to go to the dmv and fix it. I drive in Atlanta all the time and they have cameras that id people. That would've triggered something but didn't. They kept digging deeper holes

[zitothebrave]

I would have tried to find a Johnny Cochrane type of attorney to sue those cops. Listen they typed the plates in wrong, that's human error, but to lie and say your dad reported it wrong is just wrong.

I watched the video, while the kid was being a bit of a douche, the cops behavior especially with the drug dog is horrible.

[Metaphysicist]

I think this video does an excellent job at highlighting the way cops fudge the system to do whatever they want. That dog shot was perfect (though fairly circumstantial).

BUT this kid is a douchebag and deliberately instigated the situation. He refused to comply with basic and non intrusive requests ("roll down your window"; "how old are you"). Acting like a paranoid weirdo is a great way to single yourself out for escalated investigation.

Additionally, the overlays are pretty misleading.

- While you are not "legally required" to answer any questions or whatever, that doesn't mean than the cops will just let you drive away if you do that, since doing so is incredibly suspicious.

- The cop didn't want to play his game by saying "yes you are detained," but the supreme court has ruled that DUI checks are perfectly legitimate, and if you flat out refuse to cooperate with them the cops can and will detain you. Again, because refusing to cooperate with basic, non-incriminating requests is incredibly suspicious.

- Further, asking a car to pull over to the side of the road is standard procedure when an officer wants to continue asking questions at a checkpoint; this is so that they don't impede the flow of traffic. Responding to this request by saying "AM I BEING DETAINED" is only going to further aggravate the officers.

- The kid complains that the officer "illegally" asked for his ID, but never did any sobriety checks. Asking a suspect multiple questions in quick succession, such as to produce their ID is textbook (http://www.iadlest.org/Portals/0/Files/Documents/DDACTS/Docs/Use%20of%20Sobriety%20Checkpoints.pdf) field sobriety stuff. How you respond to those requests gives the officer insight into your state of mind.

- The dog trick was over the line, but that kid was asking for it. They played right into his hands.

There is a lot of real police misconduct out there, so I find it really annoying when kids like this go around deliberately creating problems and then acting like their rights are being trampled.

[gilesfan]

My wife was detained and had several police cars throw her to the ground, Sav.

I agree with what Meta said. Obv there are bad cops and they should be punished. But, these youtube videos of people goading cops really irritates me. I've been through DUI checkpoints similar to this where it was just a stop and go. And that may have been the case here if the dude in the car wasn't so confrontational.

[Carp]

Stupid video. And the kid obviously does not know his constitutional rights very well, since a lot of what he said was in fact wrong.

[zitothebrave]

Stupid video. And the kid obviously does not know his constitutional rights very well, since a lot of what he said was in fact wrong.

What exactly did he say that was wrong? Police don't have a right to check your license and registration if you're not being pulled over for a violation, you can refuse to talk to the police if you choose. You can tell the officer that you refuse to answer questions without legal council, and many more things. Unfortunately the vagueness of the SC ruling on DUI checkpoints makes it unfairly beneficial towards cops, if you follow your constitutional rights, officers can pull you over and then take them away.

[gilesfan]

What does antagonizing the cop the way this kid did accomplish?

[NinersSBChamps]

What does antagonizing the cop the way this kid did accomplish?

Yeah seriously. The cops are doing their job and this little prick just can't do what he is asked to do. If he has nothing to hide he should have no problem giving consent or anyone else in this case. Just cooperate with them because they are their to do a job. After living in different countries and seeing these type of videos, it's clear why a lot of people really hate America.

[zitothebrave]

Yeah seriously. The cops are doing their job and this little prick just can't do what he is asked to do. If he has nothing to hide he should have no problem giving consent or anyone else in this case. Just cooperate with them because they are their to do a job. After living in different countries and seeing these type of videos, it's clear why a lot of people really hate America.


Lulz the old if you have nothing to hide line

[Bdawg2309]

the guy was a tool.
roll your damn windows down and the whole situation is avoided.
instead he goes on acting like a cunt

[zitothebrave]

the guy was a tool.
roll your damn windows down and the whole situation is avoided.
instead he goes on acting like a cunt

No it wouldn't have been, that may have started the **** storm but the cop would have pulled him over for refusing to give license and registration since they're used to that happening.

[ESP47]

the guy was a tool.
roll your damn windows down and the whole situation is avoided.
instead he goes on acting like a cunt

That's part of the problem though. They are slowly taking your rights away to the point where it becomes norm to just let them do what they need to do to avoid any kind of confrontation. That's where the rights we do have are pretty much worthless because the second you try to use your rights, they use theirs to **** your stuff up, cuff you and do all they can to make your life hell. There is no law that states how far your window has to be rolled down. The fact that the window wasn't rolled down to the cops liking just goes to show how big of a douche he was as well. The second a cop feels like you're challenging him, he's going to do everything in his power to screw you as much as possible.

[cajunrevenge]

While I do think the kid should have rolled his window down there are several important things this video documents. One, exercising your rights is deemed to be suspicious behavior by cops. Two, it shows if cops want to search your car then they will make it up. The cop in the video even states that the alert from the dog was very weak. Personally I think if they search the car without consent and find nothing that the citizen should have any violation voided and/or the cop should be fined. I think that would stop the false alerts and liberal use of probable cause. I had a cop claim probable cause to search my vehicle once because it was dirty on the inside. I told him I would give consent to search if when he found nothing he wouldnt write me a ticket. He said no. I then told him I would consent to a search if when he found nothing he would apologize to me. He said no to that too. When he let me go he pulled over another car immediately. This was 2 am as I was coming home from work and there was no other car on the road but the one passing by as he let me go.

[elmonthc]

I go through one almost every weekend. I think they are a great idea and if they save one innocent person from getting killed they are worth it. I dont think the punishments for dui are tougj enough.

[ESP47]

I go through one almost every weekend. I think they are a great idea and if they save one innocent person from getting killed they are worth it. I dont think the punishments for dui are tougj enough.

You can't just give up rights like that. It's like saying you don't mind if the police tap everyone's phones in your city because if they save one life by stopping a plot for murder over the phone, then it's worth it.

[elmonthc]

You can't just give up rights like that. It's like saying you don't mind if the police tap everyone's phones in your city because if they save one life by stopping a plot for murder over the phone, then it's worth it.

Soery but I dont see how the two are similar. People thinking that a dui checkpoint infringes on theirrights is funny to me. I think seat belt laws are worse and nobody is complaining about that.

I dont know what you guys deal with but I stop at the checkpoint, cop sees im not impaired and lets me go. Its light being stopped at a red light. Thete is a difference betwen not liking a checkpiint and not liking an asshole cop.

Some people have been reading too many of sturgs posts.

[ESP47]

Soery but I dont see how the two are similar. People thinking that a dui checkpoint infringes on theirrights is funny to me. I think seat belt laws are worse and nobody is complaining about that.

I dont know what you guys deal with but I stop at the checkpoint, cop sees im not impaired and lets me go. Its light being stopped at a red light. Thete is a difference betwen not liking a checkpiint and not liking an asshole cop.

Some people have been reading too many of sturgs posts.

I just don't think that you should have to pull over and be questioned unless there is already some sort of suspicion that you're impaired. It's none of the cops business what your name is, where you're going or what you drank that night unless you've been driving erratically. Plus like you saw, if you try and exercise your rights, they take it as a sign of guilt and do everything in their power to mess with you.

I agree about the seat belt laws. I just debated that with zito on the last invision board. I said being forced to wear a seatbelt while guys can be out there riding motorcycles is BS. Zito initially argued with me but then he ended up realizing he was wrong and apologized and proclaimed me the victor.

[Metaphysicist]

I just don't think that you should have to pull over and be questioned unless there is already some sort of suspicion that you're impaired. It's none of the cops business what your name is, where you're going or what you drank that night unless you've been driving erratically.


And sturg doesn't think you should have to pay taxes, but what you think is right and what the constitution allows are not the same thing.

[The Chosen One]

Maybe I'm just biased because I've been racially profiled by cops on more than one occasion (I'm sure the reason I was pulled over in the story above, had some to do with the fact I drive a 2002 Pontiac Grand Am with tinted windows... which as my black and white friends on the force have told me is a warning sign for drug dealer car).

Also, giles still doesn't understand how being a minority male and being outnumbered against 8 cops, is not the same as being a white female presumably in her 30's.

I've seen the way some white cops here treat black folks. I'm not even black and I feel offended when I see it sometimes. lol

[AerchAngel]

That is sad Sav, I had the same thing happened to me but it was worse. DWB with a white womEn in the car (designated driver) get you harsher treatment. I posted about this in the Scout's forum a few years ago. If I did anything to provoke them it would've been another Rodney King fiasco, but in Iowa.

[kingphatcow]

I didn't know Sav was black. Now I can tell the truth when I say i know "several" black people.

[kingphatcow]

I'm torn on this.

On the one hand, I hate, loathe, and despise obnxious, know-it-all, troublemaking punks. I want to hit them all with a car.

On the other hand, I'm sick and freaking tired of abusive authority taking what it wants without regard to the people that pay them and entrust them with power.

i have no doubt that most cops are good men. But still, even they do their best to take advantage of people's fear, respect and lack of knowledge. So, even the good ones are somewhat suspect. There's got to be a way to stand up for your rights without being like these dickhead kids just stirring the pot.

or maybe we need to stir the pot until it boils over...

(Hi, Obama. I know you're reading this.)

[Metaphysicist]

I didn't know Sav was black. Now I can tell the truth when I say i know "several" black people.

SAV wishes he was black, but he only chose the thug life, it did not choose him.

[The Chosen One]

SAV wishes he was black, but he only chose the thug life, it did not choose him.

Growing up asian, I loved math and crunching numbers. So when my teacher lectured our class (24 black kids, 1 mexican, and 1 asian) one day she said "Don't become another statistic", I immediately felt like I needed to truly be one with the numbers, so I chose the thug life so I could one day become another statistic.

[Julio3000]

So can you turn a television into a watch?

[The Chosen One]

http://youtu.be/lsIxNXgv8oE?t=52s

:52

[gilesfan]

Maybe I'm just biased because I've been racially profiled by cops on more than one occasion (I'm sure the reason I was pulled over in the story above, had some to do with the fact I drive a 2002 Pontiac Grand Am with tinted windows... which as my black and white friends on the force have told me is a warning sign for drug dealer car).

Also, giles still doesn't understand how being a minority male and being outnumbered against 8 cops, is not the same as being a white female presumably in her 30's.

I've seen the way some white cops here treat black folks. I'm not even black and I feel offended when I see it sometimes. lol

LOL off asians being considered minorities. Woah is me. Did you read why I put? My wife was thrown to the ground with a gun in her face. Is that scary enough?

[sturg33]

LOL off asians being considered minorities. Woah is me. Did you read why I put? My wife was thrown to the ground with a gun in her face. Is that scary enough?

And you're cool with your wife being thrown to the ground with a gun in her face?

[AerchAngel]

Growing up asian, I loved math and crunching numbers. So when my teacher lectured our class (24 black kids, 1 mexican, and 1 asian) one day she said "Don't become another statistic", I immediately felt like I needed to truly be one with the numbers, so I chose the thug life so I could one day become another statistic.

After you list your height and weight, I can believe it.

[AerchAngel]

LOL off asians being considered minorities. Woah is me. Did you read why I put? My wife was thrown to the ground with a gun in her face. Is that scary enough?

wow that is scary.

[gilesfan]

And you're cool with your wife being thrown to the ground with a gun in her face?

hmmm. good question. I wish it wouldn't have happened obviously. But, the cops thought they had someone they were looking for and made a mistake. No one was injured (thank goodness)

So I guess, I don't like it, but accept it because its the society I choose to live in.

[Carp]

What exactly did he say that was wrong? Police don't have a right to check your license and registration if you're not being pulled over for a violation, you can refuse to talk to the police if you choose. You can tell the officer that you refuse to answer questions without legal council, and many more things. Unfortunately the vagueness of the SC ruling on DUI checkpoints makes it unfairly beneficial towards cops, if you follow your constitutional rights, officers can pull you over and then take them away.

Asking for your ID is not illegal, for one.

[zitothebrave]

Asking for your ID is not illegal, for one.

Neither is refusing to present one. You only have to present one if you are pulled over for a violation. For example if you smell like booze then they can.

[Krgrecw]

If you don't have anything to worry about why not just give him your Id? The difference in time between a cop asking for your Id and you being an ass and arguing about it or just giving him your id and your id is clean so he gives it back and you can leave is negligible.

[Carp]

Neither is refusing to present one. You only have to present one if you are pulled over for a violation. For example if you smell like booze then they can.


Identification is required by law in order to be driving a motor vehicle. So while technically you are not legally required to present an id, failure to to do so is obviously enough for them to detain you.

And police can pull you over for any reason they deem as "suspicious behavior." And there nothing in the law that really classifies what suspicious behavior is. They can say they smell booze on you whether you've been drinking or not. Now in a court of law the cops argument may not hold up, but that doesn't mean what he did was illegal.

[sturg33]

If you don't have anything to worry about why not just give him your Id? The difference in time between a cop asking for your Id and you being an ass and arguing about it or just giving him your id and your id is clean so he gives it back and you can leave is negligible.

LOL... so anytime a policeman demands to come into your house without a warrant... You should not ask questions you should always let them in and let them do whatever you want. You have nothing to hide!

[Krgrecw]

I think there's a difference between a cop stopping you at a checkpoint and wanting to see your license and a cop knocking on your door and demanding to get in your house for no reason

[ESP47]

If you don't have anything to worry about why not just give him your Id? The difference in time between a cop asking for your Id and you being an ass and arguing about it or just giving him your id and your id is clean so he gives it back and you can leave is negligible.

The topic is about how people can't use their rights anymore because laws have allowed the cops to completely get around them. You're arguing that it's easier to just comply with the cops whether they are in their rights or not. Which is absolutely true but it defeats the purpose of this subject and that kind of thinking only further allows our rights to be taken away.

[Carp]

The topic is about how people can't use their rights anymore because laws have allowed the cops to completely get around them. You're arguing that it's easier to just comply with the cops whether they are in their rights or not. Which is absolutely true but it defeats the purpose of this subject and that kind of thinking only further allows our rights to be taken away.


I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. DUI checkpoints are completely legal. Acting like a jackass because you have the legal right to act like a jackass only makes you look suspicious and gives the cop all they need to detain you.

[zitothebrave]

Identification is required by law in order to be driving a motor vehicle. So while technically you are not legally required to present an id, failure to to do so is obviously enough for them to detain you.

And police can pull you over for any reason they deem as "suspicious behavior." And there nothing in the law that really classifies what suspicious behavior is. They can say they smell booze on you whether you've been drinking or not. Now in a court of law the cops argument may not hold up, but that doesn't mean what he did was illegal.

Why is it obviously enough to detain you?

What you're pointing out is the stupidity of the laws set forth by Supreme Court rulings. If a cop walks up to you on the street he can't ask for you ID. Same law applies for driving.

A cop who abuses that power should be punished. Someone at a DUI checkpoint who doesn't provide ID or registration (honestly can we all agree that stupid piece of paper should be abolished, what a waste of money) shouldn't be considered suspicious. Though again as I stated earlier the letter of the law indicates it's up to the cops discretion and there's no recourse for him so why wouldn't he just be a dick?

[zitothebrave]

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. DUI checkpoints are completely legal. Acting like a jackass because you have the legal right to act like a jackass only makes you look suspicious and gives the cop all they need to detain you.

So exercising your rights makes you a jackass? Lovely.

[weso1]

So exercising your rights makes you a jackass? Lovely.

Come on Zito.. the kid was a jackass. Not lowering your window? That's pretty obnoxious.

[Carp]

Why is it obviously enough to detain you?

What you're pointing out is the stupidity of the laws set forth by Supreme Court rulings. If a cop walks up to you on the street he can't ask for you ID. Same law applies for driving.

A cop who abuses that power should be punished. Someone at a DUI checkpoint who doesn't provide ID or registration (honestly can we all agree that stupid piece of paper should be abolished, what a waste of money) shouldn't be considered suspicious. Though again as I stated earlier the letter of the law indicates it's up to the cops discretion and there's no recourse for him so why wouldn't he just be a dick?

A police officer has every legal right to ask for your license, whether on the street on in your car. Legally you are not required to show it to him, but if you are driving, a license is REQUIRED. And if you do not comply u, that makes you look suspicious. And all a cop needs to detain you is suspicion.

And if you are a cop, why shouldn't someone who refuses to comply with a simple request be considered suspicious.

[goldfly]

Come on Zito.. the kid was a jackass. Not lowering your window? That's pretty obnoxious.

ask a lawyer

they would tell you to only roll down the window far enough to get your id out of the car

[weso1]

ask a lawyer

they would tell you to only roll down the window far enough to get your id out of the car

Most lawyers are jackasses. I'm not saying the kid was wrong, but he was obviously looking for trouble. Now, he had a decent reason to go looking for trouble. I thought his video pointed out some important things (The search dog at the window), but he was being a jackass.

[Carp]

So exercising your rights makes you a jackass? Lovely.


Deliberately being uncooperative at simple requests is indeed being a jackass. There is no law that requires you to roll your window down all the way. But only effing asshole would roll their window down 2 inches when someone asks you too.

[Carp]

ask a lawyer

they would tell you to only roll down the window far enough to get your id out of the car

I would expect a lawyer to say that. It reduces visibility from the cop into yout car. But the lawyers purpose of telling you to do that is to protect yourself from going to jail. This kid's purpose was to be a dick and get a lot of hits on youtube.

[zitothebrave]

A police officer has every legal right to ask for your license, whether on the street on in your car. Legally you are not required to show it to him, but if you are driving, a license is REQUIRED. And if you do not comply u, that makes you look suspicious. And all a cop needs to detain you is suspicion.

And if you are a cop, why shouldn't someone who refuses to comply with a simple request be considered suspicious.

No they don't have the legal right to ask for your license.

I was bored and wanted to search for the site I used for my friend a while ago when he was getting harrassed by a cop but found this well put post from yahoo answers.

"The police need probable cause or a reasonable suspicion to stop and ID you.

There is no law requiring you to carry any ID, other than driving.

It is illegal to lie about your ID to police.

In short, if they have to ASK, they have no authority."

Now I know you'll say that you have to have a license to drive but then there's this from a former defense attorney

"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."

So basically cops can make **** up. They don't have the right ot just check id. Nor do they have the right ot just check if you're insured. Anyone telling you that is a liar. Cops though can easily abuse their powers and make a situation where they can legally do it.

[zitothebrave]

Deliberately being uncooperative at simple requests is indeed being a jackass. There is no law that requires you to roll your window down all the way. But only effing asshole would roll their window down 2 inches when someone asks you too.

Oh so following the laws makes you a jackass. I got it.

[Carp]

No they don't have the legal right to ask for your license.

I was bored and wanted to search for the site I used for my friend a while ago when he was getting harrassed by a cop but found this well put post from yahoo answers.

"The police need probable cause or a reasonable suspicion to stop and ID you.

There is no law requiring you to carry any ID, other than driving.

It is illegal to lie about your ID to police.

In short, if they have to ASK, they have no authority."

Now I know you'll say that you have to have a license to drive but then there's this from a former defense attorney

"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."

So basically cops can make **** up. They don't have the right ot just check id. Nor do they have the right ot just check if you're insured. Anyone telling you that is a liar. Cops though can easily abuse their powers and make a situation where they can legally do it.



That is not true at all. There is no law at all that says police do not have the right to ask for ID. ANYONE can ask for your I.D. There is nothing illegal whatsover about an officer asking for your ID. However, there no one legally required to present an ID either unless you are being detained.

However, if you are driving and they do ask your your ID and you refuse, you are going to come off as suspicious, and at that point they can and most likely will detain you. of you don't like it, take it up with your Congressman.

[Carp]

Oh so following the laws makes you a jackass. I got it.


No, but deliberately being a tool to get a bunch of likes on youtube is what makes you a jackass. He was purposely trying to be uncooperative so he could get get a rise out of the cops to see how they would react so that he could run and upload his video to youtube and say "ZOMG!!! THE POLICE IZZ ABUUZZZING MY RIGHTZZZ!!!

[zitothebrave]

No, but deliberately being a tool to get a bunch of likes on youtube is what makes you a jackass. He was purposely trying to be uncooperative so he could get get a rise out of the cops to see how they would react so that he could run and upload his video to youtube and say "ZOMG!!! THE POLICE IZZ ABUUZZZING MY RIGHTZZZ!!!

Oh so it's his fault not the cop for abusing his power? Lulz at Carpe.

[zitothebrave]

That is not true at all. There is no law at all that says police do not have the right to ask for ID. ANYONE can ask for your I.D. There is nothing illegal whatsover about an officer asking for your ID. However, there no one legally required to present an ID either unless you are being detained.

However, if you are driving and they do ask your your ID and you refuse, you are going to come off as suspicious, and at that point they can and most likely will detain you. of you don't like it, take it up with your Congressman.

Eh, I'm not gonna touch this any further. You're clearly not changing what you're saying so eff it, I'm just gonna let you enjoy the slow erosion of our rights.

[Carp]

Oh so it's his fault not the cop for abusing his power? Lulz at Carpe.


Still trying to see horrible the abuse of power in the video. Watched it at least 20 times. I'll admit, the dog part was a bit much, but the guy had it coming. Sorry if I don't feel pity for the stupid.

[Carp]

Eh, I'm not gonna touch this any further. You're clearly not changing what you're saying so eff it, I'm just gonna let you enjoy the slow erosion of our rights.


LMAO!


You do realize all DUI checkpoints are advertised in the paper and on the news like at least week before don't you? And they news tells you specifically they will be checking ID's as well as checking to see if you have been drinking Yet this moron makes a clear decision to go there and stir the pot.

[ESP47]

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. DUI checkpoints are completely legal. Acting like a jackass because you have the legal right to act like a jackass only makes you look suspicious and gives the cop all they need to detain you.

That's the thing....right now we have a molehill but if we keep letting them twist the constitution, we're going to have a mountain on our hands before we know it.

If you are driving along legally and minding your own business, there should be no reason why you should have to stop at a DUI checkpoint. The 4th amendment guards you against unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is probable cause. There is no way to tell a cop no at a DUI checkpoint without looking like you're being a jackass. Like Zito said, the cop can just make up whatever he wants. So you denying to give him your ID means you're suspicious, now he has probable cause and can do damn near whatever he pleases. It's an ass backwards rule that basically leaves you without any rights. You have absolutely zero power to protect yourself from a bad cop. You're at the mercy of however big of an A-hole the officer is that you're dealing with.

I don't agree with drunk driving at all but I don't agree with being able to pull everyone over at a DUI checkpoint either. An officer shouldn't be able to just walk up to you on the street an ask you for your ID for no reason. You either give him your ID because you don't want trouble or you tell him no and then he makes up his own probable cause to get it. I mean whats next after this? Are they going to start having sidewalk intoxication checkpoints outside of bars? Are they going to start going door to door and asking people to take a drug test to make sure they aren't on drugs? Because if you tell them you don't want to take a drug test, they will think you're trying to avoid getting caught and now they have probable cause to test you.

[Carp]

That's the thing....right now we have a molehill but if we keep letting them twist the constitution, we're going to have a mountain on our hands before we know it.

If you are driving along legally and minding your own business, there should be no reason why you should have to stop at a DUI checkpoint. The 4th amendment guards you against unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is probable cause. There is no way to tell a cop no at a DUI checkpoint without looking like you're being a jackass. Like Zito said, the cop can just make up whatever he wants. So you denying to give him your ID means you're suspicious, now he has probable cause and can do damn near whatever he pleases. It's an ass backwards rule that basically leaves you without any rights. You have absolutely zero power to protect yourself from a bad cop. You're at the mercy of however big of an A-hole the officer is that you're dealing with.

I don't agree with drunk driving at all but I don't agree with being able to pull everyone over at a DUI checkpoint either. An officer shouldn't be able to just walk up to you on the street an ask you for your ID for no reason. You either give him your ID because you don't want trouble or you tell him no and then he makes up his own probable cause to get it. I mean whats next after this? Are they going to start having sidewalk intoxication checkpoints outside of bars? Are they going to start going door to door and asking people to take a drug test to make sure they aren't on drugs? Because if you tell them you don't want to take a drug test, they will think you're trying to avoid getting caught and now they have probable cause to test you.



Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. DUI checkpoints are in fact legal and that has been upheld by the supreme court.

[Metaphysicist]

What you're pointing out is the stupidity of the laws set forth by Supreme Court rulings. If a cop walks up to you on the street he can't ask for you ID. Same law applies for driving.


The same rules do not apply to driving and walking because driving and walking are not the same thing.

[The Chosen One]

Agreed with ESP.

I used to be in the "nothing to hide" crowd, until I realized the more and more of that nothing to hide leeway you give them, the more they're going to test and push the limits.

Our rights are our rights. We shouldn't have to give leeway to someone who's supposed to be PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS, when we shouldn't have to.

I shouldn't have to do something just because a police officer tells me to. If he has no legitimate probably cause for doing so, then there's no reason he should continue pursuing. If this was a DUI checkpoint, take the kid smell his breath and give him a blow test. Why the trouble of searching for leprechaun gold in his car? Bringing the dog out?

The kid didn't wreak of alcohol, and the guy was searching everywhere and couldn't find anything, yet he wanted to show him who's the authority figure and still went cowboy.

Thank god this wasn't a black guy, they probably would've harassed him even more and Sharpton and Co would be all over it.

[Metaphysicist]

ask a lawyer

they would tell you to only roll down the window far enough to get your id out of the car

They would tell you that, and then they would tell you roll your window down all the way if the cop asks, because refusal to do so is an unnecessary instigation.

I don't think he was a jackass for not rolling his window all the way down at first; that's sensible. I think he was jackass for how how he reacted to reasonable benign requests.

[Metaphysicist]

If you are driving along legally and minding your own business, there should be no reason why you should have to stop at a DUI checkpoint. The 4th amendment guards you against unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is probable cause.

Yeah, this is wrong. The Supreme court has ruled the 4th amendment allows for DUI checkpoints. I think there should be a fine for people who complain about the infringement of rights they don't have.

[Metaphysicist]

If this was a DUI checkpoint, take the kid smell his breath and give him a blow test.


This, of course, is more than the cop was even going to do had the kid behaved like a normal person. The breathalyzer would never have come out. He'd just look him over, ask him some questions, and send him on his way.


Why the trouble of searching for leprechaun gold in his car? Bringing the dog out?

Because he was trying to look him over to see if he was inebriated and ask him some questions to judge his mental state. Exactly the things you just said he should do. The kid resisted both of those things, which is suspicious.

The dog and search were an f' you to a kid that was wasting their time.

[zitothebrave]

Yeah, this is wrong. The Supreme court has ruled the 4th amendment allows for DUI checkpoints. I think there should be a fine for people who complain about the infringement of rights they don't have.

Actually the SC ruled in favor of DUI checkpoints as long as there was no discrimination (or something along those wordings) which one could construe a cop pulling someone over without probable cause as discrimination right?

[zitothebrave]

Still trying to see horrible the abuse of power in the video. Watched it at least 20 times. I'll admit, the dog part was a bit much, but the guy had it coming. Sorry if I don't feel pity for the stupid.

The guy had it coming? LMAO

And you don't see the abuse in power? Seriously? Wow.

[zitothebrave]

LMAO!


You do realize all DUI checkpoints are advertised in the paper and on the news like at least week before don't you? And they news tells you specifically they will be checking ID's as well as checking to see if you have been drinking Yet this moron makes a clear decision to go there and stir the pot.

Ah ok so if you advertise that someone is gonna take our rights then it's all good.

Sure the kid was being an intentional thorn, but the cop was the one in power and those in power have the responsibility to behave a certain way, he didn't.

[zitothebrave]

Because he was trying to look him over to see if he was inebriated and ask him some questions to judge his mental state. Exactly the things you just said he should do. The kid resisted both of those things, which is suspicious.

The dog and search were an f' you to a kid that was wasting their time.

When did you become as irrational as Carpe?

It's acceptable for the police to be dicks to you for you not bending to their whim? What a great mental state that is.

[Metaphysicist]

Actually the SC ruled in favor of DUI checkpoints as long as there was no discrimination (or something along those wordings) which one could construe a cop pulling someone over without probable cause as discrimination right?

I want you to think again about what you are saying because it doesn't make any sense.

[Metaphysicist]

It's acceptable for the police to be dicks to you for you not bending to their whim? What a great mental state that is.

This is, of course, not at all something I said.

[zitothebrave]

I want you to think again about what you are saying because it doesn't make any sense.

I refuse to think things over twice!

But I will post this

"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."

In fact one could argue the general opinion of the of the SC ruling in favor of allowing DUI checkpoints was that it was minimally invasive and only delayed most motorists for 25 seconds or so. That clearly is not the case of what was shown in this video. it was highly invasive and one can easily make an argument that his 4th Amendment rights were violated.

[Metaphysicist]

One could argue anything, but one should not expect success.

[zitothebrave]

One could argue anything, but one should not expect success.

Maybe you should read the facts of Sitz again. But then again I don't really expect you to do that and change your opinion.

[Metaphysicist]

Dude, I googled your quote, and from the very page you are quoting:

"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."

Come on.

[zitothebrave]

Dude you still haven't handled my poitn about Sitz, you know the actual SC ruling. Remind me again, were they checking everyone's papers at Sitz?

[Metaphysicist]

Papers? Wha... try and keep those goalposts planted, sir. My direct quote you took issue with:

Because he was trying to look him over to see if he was inebriated and ask him some questions to judge his mental state. Exactly the things you just said he should do. The kid resisted both of those things, which is suspicious.

At no point did I say the police should be asking everyone for their papers.

Anyway, my quote is exactly what Sitz was about. The officers briefly detained the citizens to ask them questions and visually assess them for signs of intoxication. If they found something suspicious, they would extend the detainment and have the person pull over.

THAT SAID, the procedures in Sitz did in fact call for police to check license and registration once the person went from regular person to suspicious person. Quoting Rehnquist (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11348246873623439918&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr):

Under the guidelines, checkpoints would be set up at selected sites along state roads. All vehicles passing through a checkpoint would be stopped and their drivers briefly examined for signs of intoxication. In cases where a checkpoint officer detected signs of intoxication, the motorist would be directed to a location out of the traffic flow where an officer would check the motorist's driver's license and car registration and, if warranted, conduct further sobriety tests. Should the field tests and the officer's observations suggest that the driver was intoxicated, an arrest would be made. All other drivers would be permitted to resume their journey immediately.

Note that "signs of intoxication" does not mean "open and shut evidence." They move the guy to the side to do an actual investigation. Refusal to roll down your window for a visual investigation or answering questions in a suspicious manner could be simple signs of intoxication that warrant further investigation.

[zitothebrave]

So if you don't roll your windows down all of the way you're showing signs of intoxication? LMAO. If that guy was drunk that I have a drinking problem cause I never think more sober than that.

[Metaphysicist]

Yeah, if you are a cop at a DUI checkpoint, and you go to do the banal "How are you this evening" and the guy refuses to roll his window down or answer basic questions, that's a pretty decent sign he could be intoxicated. It's not evidence, but it is grounds for suspicion, which is why you have him pull over to do an actual investigation. How are you not getting this?

[zitothebrave]

Lol let's watch the video again.

He followed the instructions going to the last questions, answered how he was doing and said that having the window at the height it was at was fine without slurring his speech. He asked his age which you are never required to tell anyone.

[gilesfan]

Agreed with ESP.

I used to be in the "nothing to hide" crowd, until I realized the more and more of that nothing to hide leeway you give them, the more they're going to test and push the limits.

Our rights are our rights. We shouldn't have to give leeway to someone who's supposed to be PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS, when we shouldn't have to.

I shouldn't have to do something just because a police officer tells me to. If he has no legitimate probably cause for doing so, then there's no reason he should continue pursuing. If this was a DUI checkpoint, take the kid smell his breath and give him a blow test. Why the trouble of searching for leprechaun gold in his car? Bringing the dog out?

The kid didn't wreak of alcohol, and the guy was searching everywhere and couldn't find anything, yet he wanted to show him who's the authority figure and still went cowboy.

Thank god this wasn't a black guy, they probably would've harassed him even more and Sharpton and Co would be all over it.

He probably lets the kid on his merry way if the kid rolls his window down. But, barely rolling his window down and acting like a jerk started it.

[gilesfan]

LOL META destroys Zito again. Zito, you don't know how to throw the towel in?

[Metaphysicist]

He followed the instructions going to the last questions, answered how he was doing and said that having the window at the height it was at was fine without slurring his speech.

Zito, put down the mustard.

Literally the first thing the officer says (after mumbling "howadoin'") is for the guy to roll down his window. To which the kid awkwardly replies "this is fine." (*) Now, this is a perfectly legitimate request at a DUI checkpoint, since the whole point is for him to look you over and see if you are drunk. The cop could have pulled him over right there, since the kid hasn't allowed him to do his legal check. But then he asks him a second question "How old are you?" The kid says jaggedly intones "Uh... is that a... required.... question to answer?" THAT'S TWO STRIKES, GET THE **** OVER KID, IT'S ESCALATED INVESTIGATION FOR YOU.

*He could have at least said something like "No thank you, I am aware of my rights and that I don't have to allow that." Instead he said something that made it sound like he thought the officer was giving him friendly advice, like a stoner or something.

[ESP47]

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. DUI checkpoints are in fact legal and that has been upheld by the supreme court.

You still aren't understanding the topic at hand here. I'll try one more time.

The whole point of this is about our rights being taken away. They were given to us by the constitution and now they're slowly doing away with them. The supreme court is one of the reasons why they are being taken away from us. It's not like supreme court rulings are everything that is good with the world. They may be the law now but that doesn't make them constitutional. The only reason they were able to get around DUI checkpoints is because there were no cars back when it was written. The ruling itself was still 6-3, which meant 3 of the justices thought it was unconstitutional.

The supreme court could come out and rule in favor of the NSA tracking all of our calls, internet activity and every step we take in life. I'd would immediately say that it's BS and an infringement of our rights and and privacy while you'd say that the NSA tracking everything we do is legal because the supreme court ruled in favor of it. The whole point is that the laws they are making these days are made to take our rights away. Everything that we think is a "right" has a loophole designed in it to work against us. Just look at any high profile court case involving searches or seizures. They all have some sort of "it's unlawful to search and seizure without probable cause except for under special circumstances". That basically means they can make up their own special circumstances whenever they want.

[zitothebrave]

Zito, put down the mustard.

Literally the first thing the officer says (after mumbling "howadoin'") is for the guy to roll down his window. To which the kid awkwardly replies "this is fine." (*) Now, this is a perfectly legitimate request at a DUI checkpoint, since the whole point is for him to look you over and see if you are drunk. The cop could have pulled him over right there, since the kid hasn't allowed him to do his legal check. But then he asks him a second question "How old are you?" The kid says jaggedly intones "Uh... is that a... required.... question to answer?" THAT'S TWO STRIKES, GET THE **** OVER KID, IT'S ESCALATED INVESTIGATION FOR YOU.

*He could have at least said something like "No thank you, I am aware of my rights and that I don't have to allow that." Instead he said something that made it sound like he thought the officer was giving him friendly advice, like a stoner or something.


Lol so because he answered questions asked to him, and fumbled over asking the officer if he needed to know his age, that's cause for him to be treated hostile? Lovely.

As far as the "impeding the check" or whatever there's nothing in Sitz that dictates what can and can't be checked, again pointing out the issue I stated earlier with the wide open area that the SC allowed. But I would say that what the kid experienced wasn't along the lines of a minor inconvenience as was stated in the ruling of Sitz.

[Metaphysicist]

The whole point of this is about our rights being taken away. They were given to us by the constitution and now they're slowly doing away with them.

Again, people who don't understand the constitution should not be allowed to lecture about it. The Constitution itself does not "give us rights." The Constitution gives the government rights, and sets limits on the rights of the government. This mentality is why a number of the founding fathers actually argued against the Bill of Rights, because they said that articulating these rights made them seem like they emanate from the document, rather than them being "natural" rights.


The supreme court is one of the reasons why they are being taken away from us. It's not like supreme court rulings are everything that is good with the world. They may be the law now but that doesn't make them constitutional.


Actually, the Supreme court saying something is exactly what makes something constitutional.


The only reason they were able to get around DUI checkpoints is because there were no cars back when it was written.

Wha.. what?


The ruling itself was still 6-3, which meant 3 of the justices thought it was unconstitutional.

Actually, if you read the dissents, their big issue was not that the 4th amendment was being trampled, per se, but that there was no evidence that DUI checkpoints were actually doing any good, and thus there was no real societal benefit to balance out the infringements. Pulling cars over for checks without individual probable cause is an allowable 4th amendment infringement in a number of circumstances (e.g., immigration check points, truck weigh stations), but they thought DUI checkpoints might actually just be counterproductive.

[Metaphysicist]

Lol so because he answered questions asked to him, and fumbled over asking the officer if he needed to know his age, that's cause for him to be treated hostile? Lovely.

He answered them strangely and refused to let the cop get a good look at him. That caused him to be selected for further investigation, yes.

I don't understand what you think is supposed to happen. The cop has like 20 seconds to judge whether something is suspicious. After 20 seconds, he does NOT arrest the person, but just has to decide whether to investigate further or send them along. But you think that refusing to roll down your window is fine. You think that refusing to answer questions is fine. So you think that you should just be able to roll up to a checkpoint with your window up, answer every question by shouting through the window, "No, thanks I'm fine!!!," and that the cop's only response should be "Well, shucks, that gent sure seems sober, move along now"?


As far as the "impeding the check" or whatever there's nothing in Sitz that dictates what can and can't be checked, again pointing out the issue I stated earlier with the wide open area that the SC allowed. But I would say that what the kid experienced wasn't along the lines of a minor inconvenience as was stated in the ruling of Sitz.

Ok, first off, we both know that of the two of us, I'm the only one that actually read the court case. You are getting your synopses from DUI defense lawyer websites. If you want to opine about what Sitz did and did not dictate go read it first. I'd be glad to continue this conversation afterwards.

Anyway, Sitz did not lay out specific rules for DUI checkpoints because the scope was broader than that. But they (a) laid out a "balancing" requirement to judge whether an 4th amendment infringement was reasonable, and (b) specifically endorsed the Michigan checkpoint procedures, which are almost exactly the same as what happened to this kid.


But I would say that what the kid experienced wasn't along the lines of a minor inconvenience as was stated in the ruling of Sitz.

This is you just using real weaselly language to avoid admitting you're wrong. Pretty much everyone agrees that the drug dog/search crap was not a minor inconvenience, but that's not what we are talking about. The minor inconvenience was rolling down your window and answering some boring questions for 20 seconds. If you don't agree that this was a "minor inconvenience," then you should turn off the internet because you don't have many more brain cells left to lose and you should treasure these last remaining moments. His refusal to cooperate with the minor inconvenience was probable cause for a greater inconvenience.

[gilesfan]

Meta, Zito will get back to you after doing some googling.

[sturg33]

Question for the pro-cop folks...

If a cop comes to my house and wants to search it for drugs, and I say "no - not until you go get a warrant" - is that me being a dick? Should that be enough reason for him to have enbough suspicion to be allowed in?

[gilesfan]

I'll think about that and answer if you answer whether you think driving on a public road is the same as your house.

[zitothebrave]

He answered them strangely and refused to let the cop get a good look at him. That caused him to be selected for further investigation, yes.

I don't understand what you think is supposed to happen. The cop has like 20 seconds to judge whether something is suspicious. After 20 seconds, he does NOT arrest the person, but just has to decide whether to investigate further or send them along. But you think that refusing to roll down your window is fine. You think that refusing to answer questions is fine. So you think that you should just be able to roll up to a checkpoint with your window up, answer every question by shouting through the window, "No, thanks I'm fine!!!," and that the cop's only response should be "Well, shucks, that gent sure seems sober, move along now"?

What I think should happen is that a DUI checkpoint you should have to answer a few questions that are not specific. His window was open so that he and the cop could communicate. Want him to lean out the window and breathe in the cops face so the cop can get a good whiff of his breath? The issue is that there's no recourse for this type of police behavior. If you think how the cop acted was right, I don't really know what to say. Even if you assume the kid should have been pulled to the side, should the cop have been yelling at him? Should he have triggered the dog to search his car? So on so forth. You seem to think the cops reaction is OK. I think that it isn't. We live in a country where police can do damn near anything they want to and can get away with it as long as they just "inconvenience" people. That cop should be fired as should anyone who witnessed them tipping off the dog and not speaking up about it. Police are there to police crimes not to harass citizens, even if that citizen is "being a jerk"




Ok, first off, we both know that of the two of us, I'm the only one that actually read the court case. You are getting your synopses from DUI defense lawyer websites. If you want to opine about what Sitz did and did not dictate go read it first. I'd be glad to continue this conversation afterwards.

Anyway, Sitz did not lay out specific rules for DUI checkpoints because the scope was broader than that. But they (a) laid out a "balancing" requirement to judge whether an 4th amendment infringement was reasonable, and (b) specifically endorsed the Michigan checkpoint procedures, which are almost exactly the same as what happened to this kid.

I've read Sitz. I'm well aware that you think you're high and mighty king of all information and no one else knows anything about anything you may have perused at one point or another. I'll admit that it's been several years since I read it so I'm not 100% keen on all the details from memory but I recall my synopsis that I did on it.

And you're right they did lay out a balancing part and a part of that being that it wasn't a grave inconvenience to the innocent and that it wouldn't violate 4th Amendment rights. Which again you can argue very easily was not the case in the video as he was pulled off to the side because he didn't want to tell a cop his age or roll his window all the way down and the cop essentially searched his car without probable cause or a warrant.

And you are yet again pointing out the issue with the ruling of Sitz and the legality of DUI checkpoints, there are no rules and they'll keep getting pressed more and more until cops can just randomly stop you and search your car to find stuff that's illegal.


This is you just using real weaselly language to avoid admitting you're wrong. Pretty much everyone agrees that the drug dog/search crap was not a minor inconvenience, but that's not what we are talking about. The minor inconvenience was rolling down your window and answering some boring questions for 20 seconds. If you don't agree that this was a "minor inconvenience," then you should turn off the internet because you don't have many more brain cells left to lose and you should treasure these last remaining moments. His refusal to cooperate with the minor inconvenience was probable cause for a greater inconvenience.

So you're saying it's impossible to answer questions through an open window? It must be all the way down? Why isn't it just a minor inconvenience for the cops to stop you make you get out of the car and sing the national anthem it only takes a few seconds.

[zitothebrave]

I'll think about that and answer if you answer whether you think driving on a public road is the same as your house.

Your car is your property, that has been set as a standard in court cases and you're entitled to privacy in your own car. Your house is on land owned by the US Government. They can if they choose kick you out of your house and build a highway through it if they damn well please. They dont' do that but a car on a public road should be viewed the same as a house on public land. It's your own little piece of ownership in a grander world.

[gilesfan]

I don't think you understand the laws of real estate.

[Metaphysicist]

Question for the pro-cop folks...

If a cop comes to my house and wants to search it for drugs, and I say "no - not until you go get a warrant" - is that me being a dick? Should that be enough reason for him to have enbough suspicion to be allowed in?

I am a "pro-cop" folk?

[zitothebrave]

I don't think you understand the laws of real estate.

Maybe you should Google Eminent Domain?

If a cop sees something illegal on your property they can come in regardless correct? Smae basic premise with an auto should be in place.

[sturg33]

I'll think about that and answer if you answer whether you think driving on a public road is the same as your house.

I do not think it is the same

[gilesfan]

Maybe you should Google Eminent Domain?

If a cop sees something illegal on your property they can come in regardless correct? Smae basic premise with an auto should be in place.

I do not need to google eminent domain as I have a a degree in real estate.

Eminent domain is the power of the governement to take PRIVATE PROPERTY for public use.

Your comment was:

"Your house is on land owned by the US Government."

[Metaphysicist]

What I think should happen is that a DUI checkpoint you should have to answer a few questions that are not specific. His window was open so that he and the cop could communicate. Want him to lean out the window and breathe in the cops face so the cop can get a good whiff of his breath?

The purpose of the stop is to observe, visually and audibly, whether drivers are impaired. He refused to let the cop observe him by only cracking his window. And then he answered abnormally. I don't see how you don't get this.


If you think how the cop acted was right, I don't really know what to say.

Clearly, you do not.


Even if you assume the kid should have been pulled to the side, should the cop have been yelling at him?

He only started yelling at him when he refused to pull to the side and instead started saying "AM I BEING DETAINED!?!?"


Should he have triggered the dog to search his car? So on so forth. You seem to think the cops reaction is OK. I think that it isn't. We live in a country where police can do damn near anything they want to and can get away with it as long as they just "inconvenience" people.

This proves what I've suspected all along: you aren't paying any attention to what I wrote. I've already said their is plenty of very real cop abuse and that the dog stuff was bullhockey. Congratulations. You lose.

[gilesfan]

I do not think it is the same

Ok, then the situations are not the same either. A DUI stop is a quick roll down the window and check to make sure driver isn't drunk. It would be like a cop coming to your house and visually observing you from the doorway.

The act of searching the car was due to the driver not being cooperative and not allowing the cop to judge whether the driver was sober or not.

[zitothebrave]

I do not need to google eminent domain as I have a a degree in real estate.

Eminent domain is the power of the governement to take PRIVATE PROPERTY for public use.

Your comment was:

"Your house is on land owned by the US Government."

I was talking in a more grand scheme. Your land is in the US, they can take it from you if they choose. Not saying they will but neither can the government just take your car.

If you don't think your house and a car should have similar policing as far as searching goes, then lulz.

[sturg33]

Ok, then the situations are not the same either. A DUI stop is a quick roll down the window and check to make sure driver isn't drunk. It would be like a cop coming to your house and visually observing you from the doorway.

The act of searching the car was due to the driver not being cooperative and not allowing the cop to judge whether the driver was sober or not.

I think they are different for different reasons. One is a mobile property and one is not.

But you never answered my question, if a cop knocks on your door - thinks you could be high, and asks to search your house for drugs. If you say no, then what? Isn't that enough reason for the cop to be suspicious and go in your home?

[zitothebrave]

I'm too lazy to add quotes here.

The purpose of the stop is to observe, visually and audibly, whether drivers are impaired. He refused to let the cop observe him by only cracking his window. And then he answered abnormally. I don't see how you don't get this.

So you can't see and hear through a cracked car window? I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure you can see through normal car windows. It's not like he had super tint on them.

Clearly, you do not.

Nice quip, as usual, all sizzle no steak

He only started yelling at him when he refused to pull to the side and instead started saying "AM I BEING DETAINED!?!?"

So asking if you're being detained is warrant to being yelled at? Lovely.

This proves what I've suspected all along: you aren't paying any attention to what I wrote. I've already said their is plenty of very real cop abuse and that the dog stuff was bullhockey. Congratulations. You lose.

I'm paying attention to what you have been saying, but you're using your typical meta speak of staynig high above things without actually giving a real opinion. About par for the course but I was hoping for better.

[gilesfan]

I think they are different for different reasons. One is a mobile property and one is not.

But you never answered my question, if a cop knocks on your door - thinks you could be high, and asks to search your house for drugs. If you say no, then what? Isn't that enough reason for the cop to be suspicious and go in your home?

What was the reason for the cop knocking on my door?

[sturg33]

Loud music

[gilesfan]

I was talking in a more grand scheme. Your land is in the US, they can take it from you if they choose. Not saying they will but neither can the government just take your car.

If you don't think your house and a car should have similar policing as far as searching goes, then lulz.

Do you understand when, why, and how they take your land? The gov't cannot come up to my house and simply take it.

[zitothebrave]

Do you understand when, why, and how they take your land? The gov't cannot come up to my house and simply take it.

No but they can take it for public use. If where you live is a great site for a new highway they can take it.

[zitothebrave]

Loud music

Funny smells, a number of other things that aren't necessarily illegal.

[gilesfan]

No but they can take it for public use. If where you live is a great site for a new highway they can take it.

No was in reference to you not understanding when, why, and how, right? Because that is clearly the case.

[zitothebrave]

No was in reference to you not understanding when, why, and how, right? Because that is clearly the case.

Lol

[gilesfan]

Loud music

No lawyer, but they would need a warrant or probable cause to search my house correct? f the cop comes to my house for loud music and I open the door a quarter of the way and act suspicious (while being a dickhead) and tell them to get a warrant, I'm probably asking for them to go get a warrant, correct?

[zitothebrave]

No lawyer, but they would need a warrant or probable cause to search my house correct? f the cop comes to my house for loud music and I open the door a quarter of the way and act suspicious (while being a dickhead) and tell them to get a warrant, I'm probably asking for them to go get a warrant, correct?

LMAO

LOL

LOL

LOL

[sturg33]

Why are you being a dickhead for not allowing a stranger into your house?

And yes, he can go get a warrant - but if his suspicion is simply you asking him to go get a warrant- then good luck.

But the question was, should he be allowed to search immediately based on his suspicion. Should you allow him to - especailly if you have nothing to hide?

[gilesfan]

Lol

FYI, we are expert witnesses in eminent domain cases.

[sturg33]

LMAO

LOL

LOL

LOL

Pretty clear that GF is in favor of any sort of police state.

[gilesfan]

Why are you being a dickhead for not allowing a stranger into your house?

And yes, he can go get a warrant - but if his suspicion is simply you asking him to go get a warrant- then good luck.

But the question was, should he be allowed to search immediately based on his suspicion. Should you allow him to - especailly if you have nothing to hide?

No, the act of refusing the search wasn't being a dickhead. The kid acting like a dickhead to the cop was acting like a dickhead. "AM I BEING DETAINED!"

In my case if I have nothing to hide, I will let an officer search my house. But, I'm 99.999% sure I will never have that happen. I don't hear of a lot of cases of completely innocent people having their homes searched due to a cop answering a call for loud music or smells, etc and the homeowner being a dickhead.

[gilesfan]

Pretty clear that GF is in favor of any sort of police state.


You know there is a grey area between your tin foil hat and a police state, correct?

[sturg33]

No, the act of refusing the search wasn't being a dickhead. The kid acting like a dickhead to the cop was acting like a dickhead. "AM I BEING DETAINED!"

In my case if I have nothing to hide, I will let an officer search my house. But, I'm 99.999% sure I will never have that happen. I don't hear of a lot of cases of completely innocent people having their homes searched due to a cop answering a call for loud music or smells, etc and the homeowner being a dickhead.

Asking if he is being detained is a reasonable question. It should be on the official record in case court.

And last week we had a party at my house, and a cop came and then demanded to come inside to ensure we were not serving people undersage. I explained that we weren't and he insisted to come in to ID. I told him, no he cannot come into my house without a warrant. He tried to intimidate us by letting us know how much trouble we were going to be in. I told him he can not come into our house. He then called two other policeman to come to the house. I went inside back to my party. In 10 minutes there were 3 cop cars outside of our house with their lights flashing. I came out once again to ask what the problem was - as we turned down the music. They told me there is suspician of underage drinking. I asked what the suspician was, and they told me the people looked young and that I wasn't letting them inside. I told them they either need to go obtain a warrant or they need to leave. The original cop got on his radio to his boss (I presume), and 2 min later, they left and never came back.

[sturg33]

You know there is a grey area between your tin foil hat and a police state, correct?

You say grey area, I (and history) says thin line

[gilesfan]

Asking if he is being detained is a reasonable question. It should be on the official record in case court.

And last week we had a party at my house, and a cop came and then demanded to come inside to ensure we were not serving people undersage. I explained that we weren't and he insisted to come in to ID. I told him, no he cannot come into my house without a warrant. He tried to intimidate us by letting us know how much trouble we were going to be in. I told him he can not come into our house. He then called two other policeman to come to the house. I went inside back to my party. In 10 minutes there were 3 cop cars outside of our house with their lights flashing. I came out once again to ask what the problem was - as we turned down the music. They told me there is suspician of underage drinking. I asked what the suspician was, and they told me the people looked young and that I wasn't letting them inside. I told them they either need to go obtain a warrant or they need to leave. The original cop got on his radio to his boss (I presume), and 2 min later, they left and never came back.

What is your point of that story? You didn't let them in, they went away (like you want to happen). I would have let in so they wouldn't bother me.

Why were the cops called?

[sturg33]

What is your point of that story? You didn't let them in, they went away (like you want to happen). I would have let in so they wouldn't bother me.

Why were the cops called?

The point was that does indeed happen and may one day happen to you.

The cops were not called. One was driving by the neighborhood and stopped on his own. He was being a dick on purpose and I was a dick back to him. I asked him if he had anything better to do, and told him how disappointed I was that my tax dollars were funding calling 3 different cops to sit outside of my house for no reason.

If I let them in my house, then they will do it to the next person and so on. Maybe next time, they will think twice about it - because the original cop looked like a bafoon when they all had to go away after all of his threats.

If I let them in, they are now bothering me and everyone else at my party. I'm glad I stand up for my privacy rights unlike you.

[gilesfan]

As I expected you acted like a dick to the cop.

You probably acted a lot like the kid in this video.

I have had cops come to the door. I have volunteered to let them check things out if they would like and in both instances they declined and went on their way.

[sturg33]

As I expected you acted like a dick to the cop.

You probably acted a lot like the kid in this video.

I have had cops come to the door. I have volunteered to let them check things out if they would like and in both instances they declined and went on their way.

I was a dick only after the cop was intentionally wasting my time. When he asked us to turn the music down, we happily complied. When he insisted I should let him in my house and tried to intimidate, I got angry.

[zitothebrave]

Someday Gilesfan will have someone in power abuse him then it will be fun to see his change. Though maybe he's just the subservient type.

[Krgrecw]

I don't know where you guys seem to live with all these cops being 'dickheads' but every cop I know is cool. Never had one show his ass to me. believe it or not but at every DUI checkpoint I've ever been in I just showed the cop my id, he gave it right back and I left in matter of seconds of him asking for it.
I do believe that if you come across like an ass, always cry about how unfair life is, or have drama in your life you get the same back. Are some cops pricks? Yes but every job has pricks and everyone can be a prick at times.

[zitothebrave]

I don't know where you guys seem to live with all these cops being 'dickheads' but every cop I know is cool. Never had one show his ass to me. believe it or not but at every DUI checkpoint I've ever been in I just showed the cop my id, he gave it right back and I left in matter of seconds of him asking for it.
I do believe that if you come across like an ass, always cry about how unfair life is, or have drama in your life you get the same back. Are some cops pricks? Yes but every job has pricks and everyone can be a prick at times.

I know cool cops, I know dick cops. I ran into a cop who tried to intimidate me when I was 17 cause he clocked the wrong guy speeding. I wasn't being smart he asked why he pulled me over I said I wasn't sure and he said for going 60 in a 40. Considering I never go 60 through that spot and was going I believe 50 at the time I was near his radar (was descending in speed so may have been slightly over or under) which no one ever gets pulled over on that stretch for going 50 but was passed by someone very quickly and told him what happened. He was bullying me trying to get me to confess and I just wouldn't admit it. He wrote me a ticket but wound up never filing it. Don't know if in the end he felt bad for being a dick or if he believed my story.

I also had a local cop pull me over for doing nothing wrong but having my cruise control on at 2 in the morning and he was fishing for a DUI. He claimed I was swerving but I wasn't and was gonna even write me a ticket for reckless driving or something to coerce me into taking a field sobriety test and I flat out asked him what suspicion he had I was intoxicated and that I had nothing to drink and I did not swerve and I'm sure his traffic camera would confirm that, he went back into his car and came back 10 minutes later and handed me license and sent me on my way.

Of course there are plenty of cool cops. I'm not goldy who wants all cops gone. But I hate people who abuse their power and if I find out about a cop who has I will chastise him for eternity because you're given a position of power by your community and you're abusing it.

[weso1]

Question for the pro-cop folks...

If a cop comes to my house and wants to search it for drugs, and I say "no - not until you go get a warrant" - is that me being a dick? Should that be enough reason for him to have enbough suspicion to be allowed in?

No... That's not why we're saying the kid was being a jackass though. He was just being purposefully obnoxious from the very beginning.

[Carp]

Question for the pro-cop folks...

If a cop comes to my house and wants to search it for drugs, and I say "no - not until you go get a warrant" - is that me being a dick? Should that be enough reason for him to have enough suspicion to be allowed in?

Question for you:

Should I buy salted or unsalted peanuts?


That's about as relevant to the conversation as yours

[sturg33]

Question for you:

Should I buy salted or unsalted peanuts?


That's about as relevant to the conversation as yours

So you don't have an answer?

FYI - I would go with salted.

[Carp]

So you don't have an answer?

FYI - I would go with salted.


Of course the answer is no, but the scenarios are in no way related, aside from the fact that cops are involved.

[sturg33]

Of course the answer is no, but the scenarios are in no way related, aside from the fact that cops are involved.

But why not just comply? You have nothing to hide? And not doing so makes you suspicious.

[Metaphysicist]

I'm too lazy to add quotes here.

...

Nice quip, as usual, all sizzle no steak

...

I'm paying attention to what you have been saying, but you're using your typical meta speak of staynig high above things without actually giving a real opinion. About par for the course but I was hoping for better.

Sorry, I'll bring it down to Zito approved discourse:

LOL LMAO LOL ROFLCOPTER U THINK WOT M8??

[Carp]

But why not just comply? You have nothing to hide? And not doing so makes you suspicious.


Find me where these situations are remotely similar and perhaps I'll answer.

Do you have problems with truck weigh stations as well?

[sturg33]

Find me where these situations are remotely similar and perhaps I'll answer.

Do you have problems with truck weigh stations as well?

I'm not trying to compare it to the other situation... I'm asking you why wouldn't you just comply, especially if you have nothing to hide? Not doing so is only going to instigate, right?

[gilesfan]

I've been through several DUI checkpoints and only once was even asked to present ID. The others I just rolled down window, said Hi and went on my merry way.

[gilesfan]

I know cool cops, I know dick cops. I ran into a cop who tried to intimidate me when I was 17 cause he clocked the wrong guy speeding. I wasn't being smart he asked why he pulled me over I said I wasn't sure and he said for going 60 in a 40. Considering I never go 60 through that spot and was going I believe 50 at the time I was near his radar (was descending in speed so may have been slightly over or under) which no one ever gets pulled over on that stretch for going 50 but was passed by someone very quickly and told him what happened. He was bullying me trying to get me to confess and I just wouldn't admit it. He wrote me a ticket but wound up never filing it. Don't know if in the end he felt bad for being a dick or if he believed my story.

I also had a local cop pull me over for doing nothing wrong but having my cruise control on at 2 in the morning and he was fishing for a DUI. He claimed I was swerving but I wasn't and was gonna even write me a ticket for reckless driving or something to coerce me into taking a field sobriety test and I flat out asked him what suspicion he had I was intoxicated and that I had nothing to drink and I did not swerve and I'm sure his traffic camera would confirm that, he went back into his car and came back 10 minutes later and handed me license and sent me on my way.

Of course there are plenty of cool cops. I'm not goldy who wants all cops gone. But I hate people who abuse their power and if I find out about a cop who has I will chastise him for eternity because you're given a position of power by your community and you're abusing it.

Why do you even bring up confessing to a speeding ticket? You don't have to confess or not, if he said you were speeding and wanted to write you a ticket, he would.

I've been pulled over for nothing before. One time it was a mistaken identity and the cops played it off as someone claimed I was driving recklessly and said he clocked me speeding (I was a mile from house). I was friendly to the cop, explained and explained that I had just left my house and admitted to going 10 over the speed limit. He sent me on my way. I've also been pulled over twice for going 17 over the speed limit and have been let go with a warning.

I don't see what people get out of being dickheads to cops. Maybe making youtube videos and having your tin foil hat screw circle jerk to them? Probably 99% of the time, it is beneficial to you to be friendly.

[ESP47]

As I expected you acted like a dick to the cop.

You probably acted a lot like the kid in this video.

I have had cops come to the door. I have volunteered to let them check things out if they would like and in both instances they declined and went on their way.

Why would you invite a cop to just come in and rummage through your stuff? Maybe you aren't as private a person as I am but there are a number of reasons other than privacy that would keep me from letting one in voluntarily. What if they decided to pull a bag of weed out of their pocket and claim they found it in a drawer? What if you had a party and someones drugs slipped out of their pocket and got wedged into your couch? What if you meet the description of a known rapist/murderer and they coincidentally find suspicious looking evidence in your house of a crime you didn't even know about? Sometimes cops are just looking for anyone to place the blame on whether they're guilty or not. I don't see the point in even risking that no matter how low the chances are.

[gilesfan]

I've never had a cop rummage through my stuff. Im guessing people that don't act guilty aren't treated suspiciously.

I guess you are under the assumption that cops are shady and would plant evidence? (I'm sure there is a very small percentage that would be willing to do it, if any).

If a cop planted evidence against, me I will worry about that in court when I accuse them of planting the evidence. What are the odds of that actually happening?

I don't have parties at my house with people that I believe would bring drugs to my house. I don't hang out with that crowd, why would I?

You are making not only off the wall assumptions, but also bringing up 1 in a billion scenarios.

[zitothebrave]

I've never had a cop rummage through my stuff. Im guessing people that don't act guilty aren't treated suspiciously.

I guess you are under the assumption that cops are shady and would plant evidence? (I'm sure there is a very small percentage that would be willing to do it, if any).

If a cop planted evidence against, me I will worry about that in court when I accuse them of planting the evidence. What are the odds of that actually happening?

I don't have parties at my house with people that I believe would bring drugs to my house. I don't hang out with that crowd, why would I?

You are making not only off the wall assumptions, but also bringing up 1 in a billion scenarios.

Man you are white and privileged.

[gilesfan]

Privileged in which way?

[50PoundHead]

Why would you invite a cop to just come in and rummage through your stuff? Maybe you aren't as private a person as I am but there are a number of reasons other than privacy that would keep me from letting one in voluntarily. What if they decided to pull a bag of weed out of their pocket and claim they found it in a drawer? What if you had a party and someones drugs slipped out of their pocket and got wedged into your couch? What if you meet the description of a known rapist/murderer and they coincidentally find suspicious looking evidence in your house of a crime you didn't even know about? Sometimes cops are just looking for anyone to place the blame on whether they're guilty or not. I don't see the point in even risking that no matter how low the chances are.

Didn't we just have a thread about profiling? Seriously, I'm not trying to dredge something up here. You are making a pertinent point.

[thethe]

Wait, cops aren't always ethical? Wow...

Bottom line is that if he just lowered his window and answered a question he would have been gone in less than a minute.

[ESP47]

I'm not saying there's a good chance of that happening, but why even take the risk at all? It's not like you can just stroll on down to the court and tell the judge you didn't do it and have the case dropped. At best you come out of it without doing any jail time while paying thousands in lawyer fees.

When I bought my house a few years back I had been living there for about 6 months when I was doing some work in the garage one day. I was cleaning stuff off of this home made shelf deal way up in the joists when I found a revolver with the serial numbers filed off. I ended up calling the cops and they sent an officer out to get it with no questions asked. But what if I hadn't known about that and I voluntarily let an officer search my place at some point? They could end up finding a throwaway gun that has ties to a murder and now I'm getting charged or at least getting interrogated. None of which sounds appealing to me so I'd much rather never take the risk.

Some cops get recognition or feel self worth by just throwing someone in prison. You've seen those shows where guys are wrongly accused and the evidence supports it, yet the initial cop that filed the charges never admits that he was wrong. He would rather send an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life than just admit he was wrong and that he had the wrong guy. Not all cops are like that but you don't want to take the chance of running into one that is.

[gilesfan]

I also watch shows about lighting striking people, but Im not particularly scared of lightning. I don't have anything to hide.

[sturg33]

I also watch shows about lighting striking people, but Im not particularly scared of lightning. I don't have anything to hide.

Do you think I should have allowed the cop in my house to start questioning my guests?

[ESP47]

Absolutely spot on analogy there dude. Oh well there's just no communicating with the nothing to hide crowd. I hear the NSA is hiring folks that think like you.

[gilesfan]

Wasn't there. Would he have asked if you weren't a jerk?

[gilesfan]

Absolutely spot on analogy there dude. Oh well there's just no communicating with the nothing to hide crowd. I hear the NSA is hiring folks that think like you.


Which one is more likely to happen?

[sturg33]

Wasn't there. Would he have asked if you weren't a jerk?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I only became a jerk when he insisted to let him in my house.

To recap:

1. Cop knocks on my door, asks t turn the music down
2. I comply, apologize, and wish him a merry day
3. He then looks in my house and asks me if I'm serving underage folks
4. I say, "No sir, we are not"
5. He says "You mind if I come in for a minute to make sure?"
6. I say "Yes, I do mind, you are not welcome in my house."
7. He says "Excuse me? What do you mean by that?"
8. I said, "I don't consent to you entering my house without a warrant. Have a nice day"
9. He then tries to intimidate me and calls his cop friends
10. I go back in my house and enjoy my party - 10 min later, 3 cop cars all outside of my house
11. I go outside to ask what the problem is. Cop tells me that they believe I'm serving underage folks and want to come in to verify.
12. I say no.
13. They inform me how much trouble I'm going to be in
14. I then start being a dick and mocking them and asking them why they are spending so much time at my house while real crime is happening
15. They get upset. Get told by their boss to leave.

So, I'll ask once again, would you have let the cop in your house to start questioning your guests?

[thethe]

I'm still waiting on some sort of timeline for the government to take us over and live in a 1984 scenario. Its so easy to say, "IT'S COMING!!! BEWARE." And in 100 years when it doesn't happen we are all dead so you're never wrong.

[gilesfan]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I only became a jerk when he insisted to let him in my house.

To recap:

1. Cop knocks on my door, asks t turn the music down
2. I comply, apologize, and wish him a merry day
3. He then looks in my house and asks me if I'm serving underage folks
4. I say, "No sir, we are not"
5. He says "You mind if I come in for a minute to make sure?"
6. I say "Yes, I do mind, you are not welcome in my house."
7. He says "Excuse me? What do you mean by that?"
8. I said, "I don't consent to you entering my house without a warrant. Have a nice day"
9. He then tries to intimidate me and calls his cop friends
10. I go back in my house and enjoy my party - 10 min later, 3 cop cars all outside of my house
11. I go outside to ask what the problem is. Cop tells me that they believe I'm serving underage folks and want to come in to verify.
12. I say no.
13. They inform me how much trouble I'm going to be in
14. I then start being a dick and mocking them and asking them why they are spending so much time at my house while real crime is happening
15. They get upset. Get told by their boss to leave.

So, I'll ask once again, would you have let the cop in your house to start questioning your guests?

Why did you go outside and confront the cops the second time?

[thethe]

Why did you go outside and confront the cops the second time?

He's a freedom fighter fighting the good fight.

[sturg33]

I'm still waiting on some sort of timeline for the government to take us over and live in a 1984 scenario. Its so easy to say, "IT'S COMING!!! BEWARE." And in 100 years when it doesn't happen we are all dead so you're never wrong.

LOL... I can't help you. $17 trillion in debt. The federal government runs everything. The DHS is stocking up, new laws have been passed for complete takeover, new executive orders have been signed for complete takeover. The government has been caught spying on over 100 million Americans. Drones are now flying over the US. Laws are being passed to help disarm the people.

It's all coincidence in your world. I hope you're right and they are just passing these things for fun because they are bored. But history tells a different story every time.

[sturg33]

Why did you go outside and confront the cops the second time?

As usual, you have no answer for my question. But I will continue to answer yours.

The cop asked me to turn the music down. I did. When three more cops are sitting outside of my house. I went out to asked why they were there?

Is that unreasonable? If you have 3 cops outside your house with lights flashing, are you not going to ask what the issue is?

Now, answer my question.

[gilesfan]

LOL... I can't help you. $17 trillion in debt. The federal government runs everything. The DHS is stocking up, new laws have been passed for complete takeover, new executive orders have been signed for complete takeover. The government has been caught spying on over 100 million Americans. Drones are now flying over the US. Laws are being passed to help disarm the people.

It's all coincidence in your world. I hope you're right and they are just passing these things for fun because they are bored. But history tells a different story every time.


So America has become a police state before?

[sturg33]

He's a freedom fighter fighting the good fight.

Yes. Because if 3 cops are sitting outside of your house, you wouldn't ask them why they are there.

[sturg33]

So America has become a police state before?

World history. And yes. It happened in WW2

[gilesfan]

Yes. Because if 3 cops are sitting outside of your house, you wouldn't ask them why they are there.

Didnt you already know why they were there? You walked outside to act like a tough guy to the cops. If the cops were sitting outside, why would you be concerned?

[thethe]

Yes. Because if 3 cops are sitting outside of your house, you wouldn't ask them why they are there.

IF I knew I wasn't doing anything wrong I wouldn't have to.

[sturg33]

Didnt you already know why they were there? You walked outside to act like a tough guy to the cops. If the cops were sitting outside, why would you be concerned?

Once again. You have not answered my question. But I will answer yours.

I wanted to see if they had any other issues because otherwise I wanted them off my property. Which is what I told them and it is why they left. They were starting to concern my guests and it was becoming an issue. So I asked if they had a warrant to come in my house and if not, to leave. Their boss told them to leave. My party resumed without flashing coplights through every window.

So, you want to answer my question now?

[sturg33]

IF I knew I wasn't doing anything wrong I wouldn't have to.

LOL... If you have ever downloaded an MP3 song you are a criminal

There are so many laws in this country that everyone is guilty of something. That is why we have the highest incarceration rate in the world... in the land of the free

[ESP47]

I'm still waiting on some sort of timeline for the government to take us over and live in a 1984 scenario. Its so easy to say, "IT'S COMING!!! BEWARE." And in 100 years when it doesn't happen we are all dead so you're never wrong.

There isn't going to be a big take over or FEMA camps or anything like that, but there is some shady **** going on out there that people don't always notice or give much thought to. The house just voted to continue tracking our phone calls. The gov has been knocking on the doors of ISP's asking for passwords. It's pretty scary when you think about it. They do all this stuff somewhat secretly because people are wasting their time arguing Zimmerman, left vs. right and abortions. When people catch wind of it they are calmed by the gov saying that they're doing it to "prevent terrorism" or they just simply say "have you forgotten 9/11?" because Americans all over the country are locked in their homes and afraid to go anywhere for fear of another terrorism attack.

[sturg33]

thethe, for your information, the person at 1:47 "wasn't doing anything wrong"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MezLoczjfY

[gilesfan]

Once again. You have not answered my question. But I will answer yours.

I wanted to see if they had any other issues because otherwise I wanted them off my property. Which is what I told them and it is why they left. They were starting to concern my guests and it was becoming an issue. So I asked if they had a warrant to come in my house and if not, to leave. Their boss told them to leave. My party resumed without flashing coplights through every window.

So, you want to answer my question now?


WHich question?

LOL off cops sitting outside alarming guest. Nice job, P-Diddy.

[sturg33]

WHich question?

LOL off cops sitting outside alarming guest. Nice job, P-Diddy.

Should I have let the cops in my house to question my guests?

[sturg33]

LOL off cops sitting outside alarming guest. Nice job, P-Diddy.

Not so much of a concern - but more of a distraction. Everyone was looking out the window talking about what a bunch of dicks they were and how wasteful their time was. They of course, were right.

[gilesfan]

Should I have let the cops in my house to question my guests?

Well, you could have. Or asked if the guests could come outside to talk to the police.

Do you think if they "suspected underage people" would have offered to come outside and show id, that the cops would have still harassed you?

[sturg33]

Well, you could have. Or asked if the guests could come outside to talk to the police.

Do you think if they "suspected underage people" would have offered to come outside and show id, that the cops would have still harassed you?

Would you like to answer the question? Should I have let them in or not?

And yes, I could have succumb to their power trip and proven my innocence but I don't feel the need to prove my innocence. It was an inconvenience to me, but hopefully, the cop will think twice about it to someone else. Constantly giving in to their overreaching authority only encourages more of it.

[gilesfan]

Would you like to answer the question? Should I have let them in or not?

And yes, I could have succumb to their power trip and proven my innocence but I don't feel the need to prove my innocence. It was an inconvenience to me, but hopefully, the cop will think twice about it to someone else. Constantly giving in to their overreaching authority only encourages more of it.

"You could have" isn't answering your question?

Were you inconvenienced more by your actions than you would have been if your guests simply provided ID? I would probably say so. So if your concern was convenience, you probably chose the wrong path. Correct?

[sturg33]

"You could have" isn't answering your question?

Were you inconvenienced more by your actions than you would have been if your guests simply provided ID? I would probably say so. So if your concern was convenience, you probably chose the wrong path. Correct?

You could have is not an answer. Of course I know I could have. Should I have? It is yes or no? What do you do?

And no, I believe that a cop coming into my house and questioning the 40 people I had there would have been a major inconvenience. I spent about 10 total minutes talking to them - and that would have been much more.

But it isn't just about convenience as I explained. I simply was not going to allow him to bully me into coming into my house with no justifiable reason. Nobody in the house was under the age of 24. It was simply a case of the cop being bored and wanted to do something. That is why he spent the next 30 minutes sitting outside my house with his buddies.

[gilesfan]

Without being there and talking to the cop, how the **** would I know?

How do you know he was bored? How do you know he didn't believe there were underage drinkers? I'm sure if the cop was bored and intent on screwing you, he could have waited for your guests to leave and pulled them over for suspected DUIs....no?

[ESP47]

Sturg, you already know the answer to his question. Giles lets the cop come in and question all his guests, look through all his stuff and go through his phone and computer. He has nothing to hide.

Or maybe he's just arguing to be arguing?

[sturg33]

I asked the question on page 5.

"If a cop comes to my house and wants to search it for drugs, and I say "no - not until you go get a warrant" - is that me being a dick? Should that be enough reason for him to have enbough suspicion to be allowed in?"

I have yet to get an answer. All I have gotten is several distracting questions back, something about peanuts, and mocking. It's a simple yes or no question. I have explained all of the details to GF and he still says he doesn't know what the answer is.

That is because the correct answer is you of course should not let the cop in just because he demands to come in. But the pro cop folks refuse to admit that. It would also undermine their car theory, even if just a tad. So they won't answer the question.

[sturg33]

Sturg, you already know the answer to his question. Giles lets the cop come in and question all his guests, look through all his stuff and go through his phone and computer. He has nothing to hide.

Or maybe he's just arguing to be arguing?

Agreed.. and I would never want to be a guest at GF's party

[gilesfan]

Agreed.. and I would never want to be a guest at GF's party

Tin foil hats are not allowed.

Your analogy is not apples to apples, maybe that is why the lack of answers. The cop didn't search the car until the driver was suspicious and condescending.

If your question is if a cop came up to the door and asked to search without any kind of evidence, then I could see someone not letting them in. Just like cops don't pull over cars at DUI checkpoints and ask to search without reasons to search. Do you see cops just stop cars and search for no reason?

[gilesfan]

Then you aren't getting one, bc nothing will satisfy you.

[50PoundHead]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I only became a jerk when he insisted to let him in my house.

To recap:

1. Cop knocks on my door, asks t turn the music down
2. I comply, apologize, and wish him a merry day
3. He then looks in my house and asks me if I'm serving underage folks
4. I say, "No sir, we are not"
5. He says "You mind if I come in for a minute to make sure?"
6. I say "Yes, I do mind, you are not welcome in my house."
7. He says "Excuse me? What do you mean by that?"
8. I said, "I don't consent to you entering my house without a warrant. Have a nice day"
9. He then tries to intimidate me and calls his cop friends
10. I go back in my house and enjoy my party - 10 min later, 3 cop cars all outside of my house
11. I go outside to ask what the problem is. Cop tells me that they believe I'm serving underage folks and want to come in to verify.
12. I say no.
13. They inform me how much trouble I'm going to be in
14. I then start being a dick and mocking them and asking them why they are spending so much time at my house while real crime is happening
15. They get upset. Get told by their boss to leave.

So, I'll ask once again, would you have let the cop in your house to start questioning your guests?

If he looks into your house and sees what he believes are underage drinkers and thus acting illegally, he has probable cause and doesn't need a warrant, so I don't think this particular example works. If he tore up your couch looking for drugs, that would be another matter.

[ESP47]

That just means that he didn't actually see anyone that looked underage so he was just lying to try and get in there to look around. In the end he didn't feel like the hassle of lying was worth it the same way a lot of people don't feel like the hassle of using their rights are worth it.

[Metaphysicist]

The real scandal here is that sturg is serving alcohol to children. He is history's greatest monster.

[sturg33]

I've never had a cop rummage through my stuff. Im guessing people that don't act guilty aren't treated suspiciously.

I guess you are under the assumption that cops are shady and would plant evidence? (I'm sure there is a very small percentage that would be willing to do it, if any).

If a cop planted evidence against, me I will worry about that in court when I accuse them of planting the evidence. What are the odds of that actually happening?

I don't have parties at my house with people that I believe would bring drugs to my house. I don't hang out with that crowd, why would I?

You are making not only off the wall assumptions, but also bringing up 1 in a billion scenarios.



LOL... just strolling through today's news and came across this:

Police Caught Planting Drugs In Small Business
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMA1Otuat2U&feature=youtu.be

[thethe]

We all know that some cops are corrupt. What is this proving?

[sturg33]

GF told me he has a better chance of being struck by lightening... I would imagine evidence get planted more often than people get struck by lightening.

[elmonthc]

I asked the question on page 5.

"If a cop comes to my house and wants to search it for drugs, and I say "no - not until you go get a warrant" - is that me being a dick? Should that be enough reason for him to have enbough suspicion to be allowed in?"

I have yet to get an answer. All I have gotten is several distracting questions back, something about peanuts, and mocking. It's a simple yes or no question. I have explained all of the details to GF and he still says he doesn't know what the answer is.

That is because the correct answer is you of course should not let the cop in just because he demands to come in. But the pro cop folks refuse to admit that. It would also undermine their car theory, even if just a tad. So they won't answer the question.

Why would a cop come to your house to begin with? They dont show up.on my door step and I have a bunch of weed and pills.

[elmonthc]

We all know that some cops are corrupt. What is this proving?

Thanks Serpico ;)

[elmonthc]

GF told me he has a better chance of being struck by lightening... I would imagine evidence get planted more often than people get struck by lightening.


Whats your point?

[thethe]

GF told me he has a better chance of being struck by lightening... I would imagine evidence get planted more often than people get struck by lightening.

Yeah, but evidence doesn't get planted on a white kid (assuming you're white) in the suburbs.

[sturg33]

Yeah, but evidence doesn't get planted on a white kid (assuming you're white) in the suburbs.

But if you agree that there are corrupt cops, then why would anyone ever willingly let them search their private property?

[sturg33]

Why would a cop come to your house to begin with? They dont show up.on my door step and I have a bunch of weed and pills.

I've already explained this

[weso1]

So, Sturg... have you at least come around to the realization that the kid in the car was acting like a jackass. I mean you did open the door and weren't looking for a fight like this kid was. This is why he was a jackass and you weren't. Based on your description, you weren't looking for a fight.

[sturg33]

So, Sturg... have you at least come around to the realization that the kid in the car was acting like a jackass. I mean you did open the door and weren't looking for a fight like this kid was. This is why he was a jackass and you weren't. Based on your description, you weren't looking for a fight.

I think the kid was trying to make a point. The cop basically played right into his hands... Could all of it have been avoided? Sure. But that doesn't excuse how the cop reacted to a person exercising their rights.

[thethe]

But if you agree that there are corrupt cops, then why would anyone ever willingly let them search their private property?

Because I am not afraid of the Cops planting evidence on me. Its an effed up world but its not going to happen to me.

[weso1]

I think the kid was trying to make a point. The cop basically played right into his hands... Could all of it have been avoided? Sure. But that doesn't excuse how the cop reacted to a person exercising their rights.

THIS IS A NO SPIN ZONE!! THE SPIN STOPS HERE! ANSWER THE QUESTION!

[sturg33]

No. I don't believe the kid was acting like a jack ass

[Metaphysicist]

And that's why people don't take people who complain about these things seriously. Because folks can never admit to gradation.

[AerchAngel]

And that's why people don't take people who complain about these things seriously. Because folks can never admit to gradation.

you might want to explain "gradation" to these peeps in this scenario. I understand you, but that is a word, some people do not understand the full meaning. Black folks do though. <wink>

[zitothebrave]

you might want to explain "gradation" to these peeps in this scenario. I understand you, but that is a word, some people do not understand the full meaning. Black folks do though. <wink>

I think black people have a problem with gradation, that's why so many of them have ****ty jobs :YDS:

[AerchAngel]

I think black people have a problem with gradation, that's why so many of them have ****ty jobs :YDS:

<sigh>

No kidding.

don't tell Steak Sauce, he thinks it is a conspiracy against blacks. My cuz in Atlanta is in charge of one of your major companies. He told me that he made them spend 1.4 mil to change their system and they let him do it and now they are prospering. He said with my skills, he couldn't understand why I am not at his level. I said, well, my wife refuses to live in any area that has poisonous stuff, meaning nothing in the south and she runs the house. Eff all of you if you think I am p whipped. She gave me two kids when I didn't think I would have any more and they are more precious than being p whipped.

I might have to move to Minneapolis if I don't get what I want soon.

[sturg33]

And that's why people don't take people who complain about these things seriously. Because folks can never admit to gradation.

So we have a difference of opinion on what constitutes a "jackass." If you ask me, the cop was clearly a jackass. The kid was was arrogant and wanted to prove a point. The kid won. The cop lost.

[Metaphysicist]

But you always consider the cop the jackass.

[sturg33]

But you always consider the cop the jackass.

Of course, that is not the case