• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Thoughts arising from police bodycam footage

theprestige said:
That too. But everybody knows that part. There's a whole litany:

  • "I haven't been drinking."
  • "I had two drinks like six hours ago."
  • "I live right over there."
  • "You can follow me home if you want."
  • "I can just walk from here."
  • "Don't you have more important things to do?"
  • "But I did all the tests perfectly!"
  • "But why?"
  • "But why?"
  • "But why?"
Click to expand...
You forgot

--I didn't do anything wrong (while being captured after a foot chase)
--What? I didn't know I had a warrant. For what?
--Can I just talk to my girlfriend first?
--The classic, after being caught running, "I was scared, I didn't know what was going on!"
--I had to pee/poop really bad
--I have no idea how that got into my car
--I'm a good person, can't you just let me go
 
Resume said:
Certainly.

The disgusting frauditor Glenn Cerio enters a taped off crime scene after hours and when advised by a black officer in passing patrol car to leave, he berates the officer, calling him an effing N-word. Or when the same vile fellow insinutates himself on a DUI stop where a female officer is towing the car, he shouts she probably slept her way to her position. He also has some expletives for the tow truck driver.

Or the Iowa frauditor who when not getting the exact supplication he demands from a county clerk, calls her an effing C-word and more. The whole public servant, yaddah yaddah yaddah thing. He returns to harass her and is finally charged with harassment and serves time for it, deservedly so.

This ◊◊◊◊ crosses the line, and is the reason some states have passed halo laws concerning traffic stops, and harassment laws protecting clerks, librarians, etc. from jerks with cameras with nothing else to do.
Click to expand...

These people are clearly tossers.

In conterpoint, I see plenty of instances of 'auditors' exposing some police officers for utterly failing to know, understand or respect the rights granted by the US constitution.
 
PitPat said:
You forgot

--I didn't do anything wrong (while being captured after a foot chase)
--What? I didn't know I had a warrant. For what?
--Can I just talk to my girlfriend first?
--The classic, after being caught running, "I was scared, I didn't know what was going on!"
--I had to pee/poop really bad
--I have no idea how that got into my car
--I'm a good person, can't you just let me go
Click to expand...
Haha yes!

I was only referring to the DUI litany. But I did forget, "I can't even do these tests sober!"
 
3point14 said:
These people are clearly tossers.

In conterpoint, I see plenty of instances of 'auditors' exposing some police officers for utterly failing to know, understand or respect the rights granted by the US constitution.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, that's a matter for the court to decide. Litigating an arrest on the scene is simply not a thing at all.
 
theprestige said:
Strictly speaking, that's a matter for the court to decide. Litigating an arrest on the scene is simply not a thing at all.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that one is obliged to provide one's details to a police officer absent articulatable, reasonably suspicion?

You may as well throw those bits of the constitution in the bin.
 
theprestige said:
My view is that it's always and obviously foolish to argue in favor of defaulting to a slogan. It never occurred to me that's what you were proposing.
Click to expand...

ok then i don't understand what your original comment was supposed to mean in the context of mine. and that's fine, it's not worth revisiting.
 
Here in WA, these are the rules.

Legally in Washington State, when you are stopped by a police officer, your rights and responsibilities depend on the context of the stop. Here's what you need to know:
If you are driving a vehicle and stopped for a traffic infraction:
  • You are required to stop when signaled by a law enforcement officer.
  • You must provide your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance upon request.
  • You must give your name and current address.
  • The officer can detain you for a reasonable period to identify you, check for warrants, verify your license and registration, and issue a traffic infraction notice.
  • Refusing to provide information like your name, address, and vehicle information when operating or in charge of a vehicle is unlawful and can lead to a misdemeanor charge.
If you are not driving a vehicle (e.g., walking down the street) and stopped:
  • Washington is NOT a "stop and identify" state. This means, generally, you are not required to provide identification if you are randomly stopped.
  • However, if you are to receive a notice of a civil infraction, you are required to identify yourself by providing your name, address, and date of birth. You may also be asked to produce reasonable identification, such as a driver's license or identicard.
  • You have the right to remain silent and do not have to answer questions beyond providing identification when legally required. You can clearly state that you are "exercising your right to remain silent".
  • You can ask if you are free to leave. If the answer is yes, you can leave.
  • Do not resist or obstruct the officer. This could lead to arrest or charges.
Important Considerations:
  • While you may not be legally required to provide identification in every scenario, it is generally recommended to show your ID if asked, as it may help avoid prolonged interactions and potential issues.
  • If you are unsure about your rights or if the officer's request for identification seems unrelated to an investigation, you can respectfully state that you do not consent to a search and calmly ask if you are free to leave.
  • It's always best to consult with a lawyer if you have any questions or concerns about your interaction with law enforcement.
Click to expand...
This is from AI though, so maybe Skynet may be misleading me.
 
3point14 said:
Are you saying that one is obliged to provide one's details to a police officer absent articulatable, reasonably suspicion?

You may as well throw those bits of the constitution in the bin.
Click to expand...
In every state a driver is required to ID on a traffic stop or be subject to arrest. In many states, if you are lawfully detained, you also must ID. RAS can apply if you are simply loitering, prowling, or trespassing in some jurisdictions
 
theprestige said:
I know there's a lot of bad behavior by cops. But there's also a *lot* of good behavior. There's a lot of departments that are training their cops well, and a lot of cops that are taking that training to heart. There's a lot more police encounters out there, than just the ones that go viral, or get sensationalized in the media.
Click to expand...
Someone hands you a nice big plate of delicious ice cream, and says "You can eat as much of this ice cream as you want. And don't worry, there's only a tiny little piece of poo somewhere in there. You'll be able to eat around it, no problem. It's tiny. You'll probably never even notice it."

Are you going to eat that ice cream?
 
arthwollipot said:
Someone hands you a nice big plate of delicious ice cream, and says "You can eat as much of this ice cream as you want. And don't worry, there's only a tiny little piece of poo somewhere in there. You'll be able to eat around it, no problem. It's tiny. You'll probably never even notice it."

Are you going to eat that ice cream?
Click to expand...
Ice cream is not analogous to human societies. This kind of thinking is what gets people shot for walking while black. It's very good that so many American cops don't think the way you want me to think.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Strictly speaking, that's a matter for the court to decide. Litigating an arrest on the scene is simply not a thing at all.
Click to expand...
I'd disagree with that a bit. Cops have the leeway to decide what's arrestable (for lack of a better word). I've seen a lot where I was like "What? You're gonna let them go?"

And others like "What? You're going arrest them for that?"

Again it depends on where you live. And the pressure of having a camera crew on you and trying to make a good impression for your department.

The old COPS show was pretty hardcore pro-enforcement. I've noticed a trend lately that the producers attempt to show more of an empathetic approach.

After George Floyd, A&E cancelled their show Live PD as a direct result. It has came back after some rebranding.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Someone hands you a nice big plate of delicious ice cream, and says "You can eat as much of this ice cream as you want. And don't worry, there's only a tiny little piece of poo somewhere in there. You'll be able to eat around it, no problem. It's tiny. You'll probably never even notice it."

Are you going to eat that ice cream?
Click to expand...
No of course not, so therefore we should get rid of all cops. Hell, we should get rid of doctors, because some of them are crappy too. In fact, it's crap all the way down.
 
Good doctors and hospitals don't tend to cover for bad doctors who get people killed.
In your analogy, no hospital would report a doctor who had killed a number of patients, and another hospital would hire him without knowing.

People should check the full quote of the expression "a few bad apples".
 
theprestige said:
We have a plethora of evidence that not all cops are bastards. It would be foolish to argue that we should default to that.
Click to expand...
Every cop, the world over, has either witnessed a colleague going, "over the line", or has done so themselves. The instances of their own guys stopping them or of them reporting themselves are so rare that we can safely conclude that ACAB.
 
cxkwz3374 said:
I just learned something new. I didn't know about drunk drivers' claims of nearby residency. I thought that every drunk driver swore that he only had two beers.
Click to expand...
It's an ancient charter or something. In the same way that in every single bond hearing the defendant is starting a new job next Monday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom