Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4th July DUI stop vid

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 4th July DUI stop vid

    This is making the rounds.

    Snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kid acts like Snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kids often do.

    LEO officer takes the bait it appears.

    Goes down hill from there. There's an accusation of having the dog falsely alerting. I'm not a dog handler or k9 LEO, so I can't comment there.

    Thoughts?

    In these modern times, LEOs should assume they are on camera 100% of the time they are interacting with the public no? A camera can now be places anywhere pretty much any time.

    Is that how you approach it?

    - Will

    Performance/Fitness Advice For the Tactical Community

    www.OptimalSWAT.com

    General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

    www.BrinkZone.com

  • #2
    5:09-5:15 "He's perfectly innocent and he knows his rights, he knows what the Constitution says".

    I'm going to be completely objective here and say that the person being pulled over did nothing wrong. This was a violation of the 4th Amendment and if believing that makes me a "Snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kid" then I guess that's what I am.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Columbus View Post
      5:09-5:15 "He's perfectly innocent and he knows his rights, he knows what the Constitution says".

      I'm going to be completely objective here and say that the person being pulled over did nothing wrong. This was a violation of the 4th Amendment and if believing that makes me a "Snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kid" then I guess that's what I am.
      You can be both: Snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kid having his Const. Rights trampled on.
      - Will

      Performance/Fitness Advice For the Tactical Community

      www.OptimalSWAT.com

      General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

      www.BrinkZone.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Why is he a 'snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kid'? Merely for be assertive, and not accepting the subject status that the drafters of our 4th amendment attempted to protect us from?

        I'm sorry if I sound over defensive about this, but in my stupid youth, I'd always assumed that the police's intentions were always to help me, and consented to their search requests. After the 4th time of having everything in my car thrown out into the street, I became a little more wary, and did my research. The next time I was asked for consent to search my vehicle (10 years later), and I said 'no', the requesting officer went absolutely ballistic. I was talked down to like a two bit street thug by a 21-22 year old officer in front of my own neighborhood. It was one of the most embarrassing experiences of my life. I filed a request for the dashcam video. It took quite a bit of jumping through hoops to acquire, and I eventually received an edited copy (cut off right before he went on his ridiculous tirade). I attempted to bring it to the attention of his superiors, and they didn't give two rips. I lost complete faith in the leadership of that department. Since then, I sold that property, and took my tax dollars to a more rural county. Now my elected Sheriff actually cares about protecting the rights of the constituents within his jurisdiction.

        To those of you who wonder why I constantly opine against prohibition laws, this incident is what shaped my disdain for drug policy. It does far more harm than good, and creates a huge barricade of distrust between LE, and those they are there to protect.
        Last edited by Carbonfiberfoot; 07-06-2013, 02:42 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Carbonfiberfoot View Post
          Why is he a 'snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kid'? .
          Because I found him so. Not sure how or why your story would apply to that. I found him annoying, and of the snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all ilk, which is a totally separate issue from whether or not his Const. Rights were ignored.

          As I said, it's not one or the other and both can exist at the same time. It's not illegal to be snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kid.
          - Will

          Performance/Fitness Advice For the Tactical Community

          www.OptimalSWAT.com

          General Performance/Fitness Advice for all

          www.BrinkZone.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by WillBrink View Post
            ...It's not illegal to be snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kid.
            No, but it's probably more difficult

            I just hate the fact that every time someone under the age of 25 references the Bill of Rights, they always seem to be written off as a 'wise ***'. If they're right, they're right. It's the dumb ***es among us that scare me, and seem to create a majority of society's problems, not the wise ones.

            Comment


            • #7
              Based on what information was available, he was guilty of contempt of cop, nothing more. This cop couldn't handle having his authority questioned.

              With that being said, all the kid had to do was comply, and then if he really felt he had his rights violated, he could take the video tape to the D.A., or to the officer's department and file a complaint. If the info posted about the officers comments were accurate, the cop needs a refresher course in constitutional law.

              The officer obviously took the bait like a rookie.

              To answer the last question by the OP, I handled every incident the same whether or not I was being filmed. I didn't trample on the rights of the public to penalize for a contempt of cop situation.
              Retired

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by WillBrink View Post
                Because I found him so. Not sure how or why your story would apply to that. I found him annoying, and of the snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all ilk, which is a totally separate issue from whether or not his Const. Rights were ignored.
                I respectfully disagree. Some Police Officers are very reluctant to respect some of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of persons who vocally assert them. The young man was courteous. I suspect that you found the young man annoying because he was not sufficiently meekly acquiescent when confronted by an overbearing Police Officer. I like the Officer and I like the kid.

                As I said, it's not one or the other and both can exist at the same time. It's not illegal to be snot nosed wise *** dumb know-it-all kid.
                In my view the young man spoke within his rights and the Officer found him defiant and became rankled.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by retired View Post
                  With that being said, all the kid had to do was comply, and then if he really felt he had his rights violated, he could take the video tape to the D.A., or to the officer's department and file a complaint. If the info posted about the officers comments were accurate, the cop needs a refresher course in constitutional law.
                  I agree that the incident could have been avoided by his compliance, but why should he if he doesn't want to and isn't legally obligated to do so? It's a free country (supposedly). And you're right that he could have used the video to file a complaint... but somehow I think the millions of views this is getting online will have more of an effect.
                  Last edited by Columbus; 07-06-2013, 06:08 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Columbus View Post
                    I agree that the incident could have been avoided by his compliance, but why should he if he doesn't want to and isn't legally obligated to do so? It's a free country (supposedly). And your right that he could have used the video to file a complaint... but somehow I think the millions of views this is getting online will have more of an effect.
                    I don't agree with the way the overbearing cop handled the situation. I think the cop was on an ego trip. But as the kid says in his video, it was a DUI checkpoint, and he should have rolled his window all the way down in order for the officer to determine if there was an odor of alcohol about the driver. I assume the DUI checkpoint was a legal one, and the kid knew that.

                    I'll give the kid credit, he was smarter than the officer since the officer fell for the bait.
                    Retired

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yep the cop took the bait. He should have told the boy "you are /not/being detained" .had this kid continue with his rant,a quick look see of the vehicle, and send Mr.wise *** on his way.

                      The officer does not like having his authority questioned. It shows. He lost control of himself and let a kid dictate the encounter. Not good when they turned the camera around.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I lol'd when he said the K9 handler forced his dog to false. I am a K9 handler, what you heard were the toe nails of the dog on the vehicle. That's what it sounds like when they jump on the car to sniff.

                        I don't mind kids like that, it makes it entertaining. Personally, my time is way to valuable to waste; however, if view counts on your youtube video is a priorty, then this is a great way to go about increasing your numbers.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Michigan View Post
                          I lol'd when he said the K9 handler forced his dog to false. I am a K9 handler, what you heard were the toe nails of the dog on the vehicle. That's what it sounds like when they jump on the car to sniff.
                          I've been meaning to ask: when a K9 jumps up against the car, are there any scratches left on the vehicle? If so, is the agency liable for any damage the K9 might cause while sniffing around the vehicle (assuming no contraband is found)?
                          "In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends." - Martin Luther King, Jr

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jacob2899 View Post
                            I've been meaning to ask: when a K9 jumps up against the car, are there any scratches left on the vehicle? If so, is the agency liable for any damage the K9 might cause while sniffing around the vehicle (assuming no contraband is found)?
                            I've never seen damage caused by the nails. I'm sure it's happened, it certainly plausible.

                            I assume if there was damge, then the department would be liable.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm enjoying the fact that the OP and others here are already coming to conclusions based on an edited version of a youtube video. What a surprise.

                              Was the officer a butt-heat? probably, but driving is a privilege, not a right. DUI checkpoints put a big deterrent on DUIs, which is the one crime that kills more people than any other crime in this country. The kid refused to comply with a reasonable request to roll his window down. The officer's job is to detect impairment. Part of that requires using your senses. While this situation definitely could have been handled differently, I don't see anything in the officer's actions that constituted gross or malice conduct that escalated to the level of a valid 1983 (or state tort) claim. Given the fact this kid is refusing to have a legitimate interview by the local news, I think he's going to continue to hide behind the youtube video and that's going to be the extent of his complaint.

                              Remember, courts DO give officers some latitude during valid DUI checkpoints. It's obvious they weigh the intrusion of the general public against the government's efforts to curb the highest death-related crime in this country. Bring on the lawsuit. It won't go anywhere. There may be a possible slap on the hand by the involved agency and if a lawsuit occurs, a little chunk o change to make everyone happy.

                              The consitutional issue at hand is Article I, Section 7 of the TN Constitution, which is the counterpart to the 4th Amendment. People need to remember what really has to be shown to violate someone's constitutional rights.

                              SO here's the question: If it's your job to get impaired drivers off the road during one of the most well known holiday weekends for alcohol-related deaths, is it REASONABLE to believe that someone who's refusing to do something as simple as roll their window down might be concealing said crime (or another)? Is it REASONABLE to move the car to the side to conduct an investigatory detention to either confirm a possibility of impairment or disspel it? Both questions I say yes. That's what any court will look at.

                              And keep in mind during an investigatory stop it's completely legal to remove any occupant from a vehicle without RS or PC. For those suggesting that the K9 didn't alert, how do you know? You're basing your conclusion on the one shot of the dog at the driver's door and this kid's input during his (edited) video. How do you know it didn't show an alert signal at any other point during the walkaround? You don't so how about refraining from the quick MMQB.

                              State v. Downey, 945 SW2d 102 Tenn(1997) (TN Supreme Court on Constitutionality of DUI checkpoints)
                              Last edited by SgtScott31; 07-06-2013, 11:08 PM.
                              I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 12362 users online. 423 members and 11939 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X