To Protect and to Serve II

#7,427
#7,427
lawgator1 said:
That's absurd.
Click to expand...
No, it’s your superstition that’s absurd.
You believe that the alcohol content of someone’s blood should be a crime. I’m saying when the drunk driver actually commits a crime, you know, damages life or property, that’s his crime. The makeup of his blood has nothing to do with it.
 
#7,429
#7,429
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
No, it’s your superstition that’s absurd.
You believe that the alcohol content of someone’s blood should be a crime. I’m saying when the drunk driver actually commits a crime, you know, damages life or property, that’s his crime. The makeup of his blood has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
You’re on a island with that one friend
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, YankeeVol and RockyTop85
#7,430
#7,430
hndog609 said:
Here's more on the case.

Henry County Sheriff: Smell of pot escalated traffic stop in viral video

At best I find the explanation unsatisfying after watching the video. I might have missed it but I don't recall the smell of weed being brought up. If it wasn't then citing that as a reason after the fact seems...well a different kind of smell.
Click to expand...

If he smelled marijuana, he would have put her in cuffs too, so she couldn’t go toss it in the woods or eat it or shoot him with the gun that police assume is present when they smell marijuana. He definitely wouldn’t have been sending her back to the car repeatedly.

That said, the passenger was wrong. Most states and courts would hold that he was under an obligation to identify himself. By refusing to do so, he just made the officer suspect that he had warrants.

Her running around, refusing requests to return to the vehicle etc. was foolish and dangerous and probably a crime. A lot of officers would have felt threatened in that situation and been a lot more aggressive, like the younger guy that showed up and almost immediately took her to the ground.

I don’t watch these videos very often because they put out a lot of misinformation when they overdo it on what their rights are (which is almost always) and I end up thinking “is this really necessary?” Both sides almost always look like idiots in the end.

Also, the article says dude damaged their police cruiser by kicking it. Which is another common theme among these “hold my beer and watch this” type videos. The people trying to test the officer’s restraint almost always end up losing their cool before the officer does.

Was it worth arresting them for? Probably not. Was it worth getting arrested for? Definitely not. Just be calm, respectful, and professional, treat people like human beings, and don’t sweat the small stuff and life is a lot more enjoyable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#7,431
#7,431
RockyTop85 said:
If he smelled marijuana, he would have put her in cuffs too, so she couldn’t go toss it in the woods or eat it or shoot him with the gun that police assume is present when they smell marijuana. He definitely wouldn’t have been sending her back to the car repeatedly.

That said, the passenger was wrong. Most states and courts would hold that he was under an obligation to identify himself. By refusing to do so, he just made the officer suspect that he had warrants.

Her running around, refusing requests to return to the vehicle etc. was foolish and dangerous and probably a crime. A lot of officers would have felt threatened in that situation and been a lot more aggressive, like the younger guy that showed up and almost immediately took her to the ground.

I don’t watch these videos very often because they put out a lot of misinformation when they overdo it on what their rights are (which is almost always) and I end up thinking “is this really necessary?” Both sides almost always look like idiots in the end.

Also, the article says dude damaged their police cruiser by kicking it. Which is another common theme among these “hold my beer and watch this” type videos. The people trying to test the officer’s restraint almost always end up losing their cool before the officer does.

Was it worth arresting them for? Probably not. Was it worth getting arrested for? Definitely not. Just be calm, respectful, and professional, treat people like human beings, and don’t sweat the small stuff and life is a lot more enjoyable.
Click to expand...

Always be submissive and compliant. 👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#7,432
#7,432
VolFaninFla said:
Always be submissive and compliant. 👍
Click to expand...

If you don’t know or care enough about your rights to know what they are and how and when to assert them, like these people? That’s your best bet. Also, because it’s pretty close to what your rights actually are.
 
#7,434
#7,434
RockyTop85 said:
If he smelled marijuana, he would have put her in cuffs too, so she couldn’t go toss it in the woods or eat it or shoot him with the gun that police assume is present when they smell marijuana. He definitely wouldn’t have been sending her back to the car repeatedly.

That said, the passenger was wrong. Most states and courts would hold that he was under an obligation to identify himself. By refusing to do so, he just made the officer suspect that he had warrants.

Her running around, refusing requests to return to the vehicle etc. was foolish and dangerous and probably a crime. A lot of officers would have felt threatened in that situation and been a lot more aggressive, like the younger guy that showed up and almost immediately took her to the ground.

I don’t watch these videos very often because they put out a lot of misinformation when they overdo it on what their rights are (which is almost always) and I end up thinking “is this really necessary?” Both sides almost always look like idiots in the end.

Also, the article says dude damaged their police cruiser by kicking it. Which is another common theme among these “hold my beer and watch this” type videos. The people trying to test the officer’s restraint almost always end up losing their cool before the officer does.

Was it worth arresting them for? Probably not. Was it worth getting arrested for? Definitely not. Just be calm, respectful, and professional, treat people like human beings, and don’t sweat the small stuff and life is a lot more enjoyable.
Click to expand...
Many states have said that their is no obligation to identify yourself unless you are suspected of a crime, and that being a passenger in a vehicle in which the driver has been pulled over for a driving infraction does not require the passengers to identify themselves. I know it’s different in each state.
 
#7,437
#7,437
YankeeVol said:
I've seen a lot of dumb s*** on VN, but this takes the cake.
Click to expand...
Freedom is dangerous. How does the state extorting cash from someone who hasn’t harmed anyone helpful? As I stated, if there are victims, fine, lock the person up or let him pay restitution to the actual victim of the crime, not the state. The state is not a victim here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ToineMac
#7,440
#7,440
davethevol said:
Many states have said that their is no obligation to identify yourself unless you are suspected of a crime, and that being a passenger in a vehicle in which the driver has been pulled over for a driving infraction does not require the passengers to identify themselves. I know it’s different in each state.
Click to expand...
To explain the basis of my statement:

Most states tend to track SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has held that LEOs can ask anybody for ID with reasonable suspicion. That seems pretty obvious but somebody challenged it. I think the case was Hiider. They noted in the case that asking for ID was a de minimus intrusion into the person’s privacy. So I think the question left open is whether they can do it without suspicion.

They’ve held in Pennsylvania v. Mimms (one of the worst decisions ever, IMO) that the police can order the driver out of the car and frisk them without suspicion or any nexus to the pretext for the stop. The reasoning was based on officer safety to protect them not only from the driver, but also from oncoming traffic.

They’ve also held in Brendlin v. California that a passenger of a car is seized along with the driver. That doesn’t violate the passenger’s rights. So to some extent the passenger is subject to some slight intrusion along with the driver.

So the government would need to draw a connection between some compelling government interest, like officer safety, and knowing the identity of the passenger. Courts tend to defer pretty heavily to the police on what they think is necessary to do their jobs safely.

Just doing some google research, it looks the first circuit has already said made this connection, but I didn’t check to see their reasoning.
 
#7,441
#7,441
I’ll propose a scenario. Let’s say a man is drunk and drives into a private citizens fence, destroying it. To me, the issue is between the driver and the property owner. The property owner is the victim here. Why shouldn’t the two parties exchange insurance info and that be the end of it? Why does the state have to show up with their enforcers (police) and arrest the driver and extort him out of thousands of dollars the actual fence owner will never see? The most likely answer is it’s used as a deterrent. Let’s see, upwards of 35,000 people are killed on American roadways every year. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis. People drive drunk every day, it’s unenforceable. This attitude simply leads to checkpoints and other losses of liberty.

My Aunt was killed by a drunk driver back in 1990. I would never dream of advocating for more laws to make the alcohol content of someone’s blood a crime. Life is full of tragic situations and it is very fragile, but so is freedom.
 
#7,446
#7,446
RockyTop85 said:
To explain the basis of my statement:

Most states tend to track SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has held that LEOs can ask anybody for ID with reasonable suspicion. That seems pretty obvious but somebody challenged it. I think the case was Hiider. They noted in the case that asking for ID was a de minimus intrusion into the person’s privacy. So I think the question left open is whether they can do it without suspicion.

They’ve held in Pennsylvania v. Mimms (one of the worst decisions ever, IMO) that the police can order the driver out of the car and frisk them without suspicion or any nexus to the pretext for the stop. The reasoning was based on officer safety to protect them not only from the driver, but also from oncoming traffic.

They’ve also held in Brendlin v. California that a passenger of a car is seized along with the driver. That doesn’t violate the passenger’s rights. So to some extent the passenger is subject to some slight intrusion along with the driver.

So the government would need to draw a connection between some compelling government interest, like officer safety, and knowing the identity of the passenger. Courts tend to defer pretty heavily to the police on what they think is necessary to do their jobs safely.

Just doing some google research, it looks the first circuit has already said made this connection, but I didn’t check to see their reasoning.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply, because that definitely provides a lot of insight.
 
#7,450
#7,450
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I’ll propose a scenario. Let’s say a man is drunk and drives into a private citizens fence, destroying it. To me, the issue is between the driver and the property owner. The property owner is the victim here. Why shouldn’t the two parties exchange insurance info and that be the end of it? Why does the state have to show up with their enforcers (police) and arrest the driver and extort him out of thousands of dollars the actual fence owner will never see? The most likely answer is it’s used as a deterrent. Let’s see, upwards of 35,000 people are killed on American roadways every year. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis. People drive drunk every day, it’s unenforceable. This attitude simply leads to checkpoints and other losses of liberty.

My Aunt was killed by a drunk driver back in 1990. I would never dream of advocating for more laws to make the alcohol content of someone’s blood a crime. Life is full of tragic situations and it is very fragile, but so is freedom.
Click to expand...

Sorry about your Aunt. I hope the offender answered for their crime. Yes, it was a crime.

So...no personal injury, no foul, right? Okay...you walk into a bank; show a robbery note; never show a weapon; and walk out with a bag of money. Customers in the bank didn't even know it was a robbery until after you left.

Civil matter, right? No one was hurt. The bank is the victim here, not the State.

Hmmmm.......
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top