To Protect and to Serve II

#2,253
#2,253
n_huffhines said:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/p_V1CkUe04E[/youtube]
Click to expand...

If you have a good DUI attorney, they can be beaten. I won't say "easily" but, all the attorney has to do is plant the seed of doubt and it can be thrown out.

The biggest deciding factor for impairment on a DUI, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eye), is not something you can present into evidence unless you also happen to be a physician due to its complexity but is used towards the totality of circumstances.

The injuries she sustained due to the wreck are enough to throw out her inability to pass FST's. I won't armchair QB this officer's decision to arrest because I could literally be in the exact situation tomorrow.

Not an easy call.

And the search was a search incident to arrest, completely legal. He used his thumb for the inside of her chest, a common hiding spot for drugs. All things being equal, you'd call for a female officer to do that search but staffing doesn't alway dictate that.
 
#2,255
#2,255
orangeblood79 said:
If you have a good DUI attorney, they can be beaten. I won't say "easily" but, all the attorney has to do is plant the seed of doubt and it can be thrown out.

The biggest deciding factor for impairment on a DUI, Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (involuntary jerking of the eye), is not something you can present into evidence unless you also happen to be a physician due to its complexity but is used towards the totality of circumstances.

The injuries she sustained due to the wreck are enough to throw out her inability to pass FST's. I won't armchair QB this officer's decision to arrest because I could literally be in the exact situation tomorrow.

Not an easy call.

And the search was a search incident to arrest, completely legal. He used his thumb for the inside of her chest, a common hiding spot for drugs. All things being equal, you'd call for a female officer to do that search but staffing doesn't alway dictate that.
Click to expand...

For the sake of everyone involved, wouldn't it have been better to instead wait for a warrant to search a citizen on the roadside (assuming the cop had probable cause to search) instead of a female officer? I think we gloss over the fact that many of these road side stops and searches are 4th Amendment violations. Or am I asking for too much?
 
Last edited:
#2,256
#2,256
Rasputin_Vol said:
For the sake of everyone involved, wouldn't it have been better to instead wait for a warrant to search a citizen on the roadside (assuming the cop had probable cause to search) instead of a female officer? I think we gloss over the fact that many of these road side stops and searches are 4th Amendment violations. Or am I asking for too much?
Click to expand...

Once your under arrest, you're immediately searched, hence "Search Incident to Arrest."

This wasn't a roadside search, from what I can tell, it was a wreck where the female subject exhibited signs of impairment which necessitated Field Sobriety Tasks, which she failed and was placed under arrest.

As I explained before, her injuries are enough to introduce doubt in a juror that would cause her to fail the walk and turn and one leg stand but, the eye test is, by far, the best indicator of impairment but also the hardest to introduce into evidence.
 
#2,257
#2,257
Looks like Layton, Utah? Suburb ofor salt lake? My dad lived there when stationed at Hill. Spent 4 summers there. Awesome place. Seems like 4 out of 5 Mormon girls are blondes. Crazy.
 
#2,258
#2,258
orangeblood79 said:
Once your under arrest, you're immediately searched, hence "Search Incident to Arrest."
Click to expand...

Which leads to another question, why she placed under arrest?

So you're saying that it is common practice to go up to an accident, arrest a party in the accident (keep in mind she was the person that called the police), and THEN pat them down and search them with no probable cause?
 
#2,259
#2,259
Glad I don't live there. I would have been in jail. When I totaled my vehicle and had a concussion, I stumbled for 9 days after that. I didn't even know where I was until hours later.
 
#2,260
#2,260
Rasputin_Vol said:
Which leads to another question, why she placed under arrest?

So you're saying that it is common practice to go up to an accident, arrest a party in the accident (keep in mind she was the person that called the police), and THEN pat them down and search them with no probable cause?
Click to expand...

It's standard procedure to investigate all aspects of a wreck, including the well-being of all parties involved, specifically the drivers. You develop a very keen eye on this job, but it doesn't mean you're always right. Keeping in mind the video very rarely tells the entire story, this officer performed a perfectly legal search upon arrest. Like I said before, assuming a female officer is available, procedure dictates a female searches a female but that's not always feasible.

I've arrested people who called US. You would think that implies some sort of innocence but, alas, people aren't the brightest sometimes.

I wasn't on the scene so I can't speak to what this officer saw that lead to him conducting FST's (which she failed and led to this officer arresting her) but, that being said, I have arrested people involved in a wreck who were impaired...they just happened to be responsible for the wreck. However, just because you were the person that was hit doesn't give you a free pass from driving impaired, you're subject to the same investigation.
 
Last edited:
#2,261
#2,261
RollinVol said:
Glad I don't live there. I would have been in jail. When I totaled my vehicle and had a concussion, I stumbled for 9 days after that. I didn't even know where I was until hours later.
Click to expand...

You would think that the fact that she was injured would have been taken into account...
 
#2,263
#2,263
n_huffhines said:
Good news



FBI Stats Show ?War on Police? Claim Still Not Accurate - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Click to expand...

I'll let others argue whether there's a "War on Police" but the statistics show an increase of assaults on police from 2014-2016 and I'd wager 2017 will continue that trend.

I will say that tensions are higher, especially when there's an officer involved shooting. It's noticeable. Hopefully the ambushes in Dallas and Baton Rouge are anomalies and not a sign of things to come.
 
Last edited:
#2,265
#2,265
orangeblood79 said:
I'll let others argue whether there's a "War on Police" but the statistics show an increase of assaults on police from 2014-2016 and I'd wager 2017 will continue that trend.

I will say that tensions are higher, especially when there's an officer involved shooting. It's noticeable. Hopefully the ambushes in Dallas and Baton Rouge are anomalies and not a sign of things to come.
Click to expand...

Fair point, and yeah war on police is a completely subjective perception.

That being said, are these reported assaults or convictions? Body count is a reliable measurement, whereas reported numbers can be fudged and convictions can be wrong (tho I would put more faith in convictions than reports).
 
#2,266
#2,266
n_huffhines said:
Fair point, and yeah war on police is a completely subjective perception.

That being said, are these reported assaults or convictions? Body count is a reliable measurement, whereas reported numbers can be fudged and convictions can be wrong (tho I would put more faith in convictions than reports).
Click to expand...

Id say any that have been reported but I'm not 100% sure. It looks as though they get the same stats as the Officer Down Memorial page and they keep a pretty accurate count.

And the thing about non-convictions is that it doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. Domestics are the poster child for that, the victim FREQUENTLY drops the charges or testifies in favor of the offender.

Literally had a guy use his g/f's head as a battering ram through a window, a wall, then lock her in a head lock and choke/drag her down a hallway...all in front of their 5 year old son. Took warrants out, checked on her multiple times over the next week...only to have him back a week and a half later and then PROTECTED him while we tried to apprehend. He's still on the run.

Sorry...ranting...

Anyway...the thing about crime statistics are how they're classified, as events or individual crimes. For example, the FBI categorizes stats by events, such as a Strong Armed Robbery that, while getting away, results in a wreck with injuries or even a fatality. IIRC, they only classify that event by the crime that set the wheel in motion, Strong Armed Robbery, a Class C Felony...even though it could result in a conviction of vehicular homicide. So, in other words, the only statistic that would be recorded for that entire event would be a robbery, nothing more.

Now that I've thoroughly muddied the waters...
 
Last edited:
#2,270
#2,270
Grand Vol said:
While I thought the case should have gone to trial originally, doesn't this seem like since the DOJ isn't getting the outcome they wanted, so they replace the investigators and prosecutors?
Click to expand...

Possibly right. The objective of the DoJ should be to seek justice. Justice has not been served in the Garner case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement













Back
Top