Thoughts arising from police bodycam footage

[Hlafordlaes]

All I know about police matters is that:

• the pickpockets and shell game scammers working tourist areas in the port area of Barcelona gave each cop on their beat €50 a day to look the other way
• the pickpockets are organized and are run by an exceedingly polite Slovenian gent who used to be a customer of mine
• he ordered his guys to be nice to me because, he explained, "You tough guy. Respect."
• the police in my village all wink when they go by, because reasons
• French police routinely beat the ever living hell out of Muslims and Africans, just 'cuz

 

[a_unique_person]

Steve Martin agrees.

 

[Brainster]

It is astounding that folks are attempting this nonsense to this very day, even though it has been thoroughly debunked . . . wait a minute, I forgot where I was.

Here's a recent example of sovcit stupidity:

The stop and arrest is mostly a view of the sovcit's lap, but the arraignment starts at 17:42. She is actually reading from a script, but to no avail. If this crap goes to trial, it will be epic.

After watching a few of the Sovcits interact with judges, I can readily believe they are all working from a script. At every arraignment they are asked if they want to plead guilty or not guilty. Of course they go on with their silly jurisdiction arguments, so the judge says "Okay, I'm going to enter a plea of not guilty," which results in an immediate objection every time that the judge is "practicing law from the bench."

 

[PitPat]

After watching a few of the Sovcits interact with judges, I can readily believe they are all working from a script. At every arraignment they are asked if they want to plead guilty or not guilty. Of course they go on with their silly jurisdiction arguments, so the judge says "Okay, I'm going to enter a plea of not guilty," which results in an immediate objection every time that the judge is "practicing law from the bench."

Yeah, that or they just refuse to state their name to the court because it's unconstitutional. Or ask if the judges have the authority deprive them of liberty for a for-profit enterprise. Or bring up SCOTUS cases that have no relevance to their cases while constantly talking over them. It gets so silly sometimes that it stops being funny.

Sometimes.

You know it's all downhill when they insist on acting on their attorney. Most judges are like "You understand that you will be treated as if you are a licensed attorney. We won't cut you any breaks. Please reconsider your situation." I'm sure there are some who may have won their cases acting as their own lawyer, but I really can't think of any. At least for serious cases.

 

[dirtywick]

After watching a few of the Sovcits interact with judges, I can readily believe they are all working from a script. At every arraignment they are asked if they want to plead guilty or not guilty. Of course they go on with their silly jurisdiction arguments, so the judge says "Okay, I'm going to enter a plea of not guilty," which results in an immediate objection every time that the judge is "practicing law from the bench."

i think it is, essentially, a script. they have a few talking points they all seem to believe and bring up.

what i’d like to know is how have they not stumbled upon the many, many sov cit getting destroyed in court videos to have realized none of this stuff works.

 

[malbui]

i think it is, essentially, a script. they have a few talking points they all seem to believe and bring up.

what i’d like to know is how have they not stumbled upon the many, many sov cit getting destroyed in court videos to have realized none of this stuff works.

I think they ignore all that and just focus on the cases where charges are dropped or the police don’t show up to testify or there has been an error in the paperwork, viewing such acquittals as evidence that their magic mumbo-jumbo is actually legally valid.

 

[novaphile]

It always cracks me up, "I had two drinks". Maybe it was two 40 ouncers. But yeah, always two drinks. Not four, not one, but two. Like that's the magic number to get away with it.

'Two drinks' is pretty much guaranteed to be an indicator that the person is way over the limit.
Apparently, this is because an inebriated person can typically remember the first drink and the last drink, but is very hazy on everything that happens in between.

 

[theprestige]

'Two drinks' is pretty much guaranteed to be an indicator that the person is way over the limit.
Apparently, this is because an inebriated person can typically remember the first drink and the last drink, but is very hazy on everything that happens in between.

For me it's because that's how I learned it in driver's ed. One drink per hour. Two hours, plus one buffer hour, and you're probably good to go.

I just figured "a couple drinks a couple hours ago" is what everybody says because everybody thinks that's what a responsible driver sounds like.

Indeed, the one time I was pulled over for erratic driving, I had been a responsible driver, and gave exactly that answer because it was the truth. In the event, the cop found no evidence of DUI. They let me go with a warning, not to get so distracted by my date, on future excursions.

Watching bodycam footage now, I'm amazed to see that the roadside sobriety test protocols haven't changed a bit in 30+ years. Even the portable breathalyzers looks identical to what I remember.

 

[arthwollipot]

For me it's because that's how I learned it in driver's ed. One drink per hour. Two hours, plus one buffer hour, and you're probably good to go.

This, as long as they are "standard drinks" as defined above. Two shots of vodka hits quite differently from two pints of lager, despite both being "two drinks".

 

[theprestige]

This, as long as they are "standard drinks" as defined above. Two shots of vodka hits quite differently from two pints of lager, despite both being "two drinks".

Yes, yes, and different body weights, and other individual variations.

Responsible drinkers are constantly getting done for accidentally going over their personal limit before getting behind the wheel. /s

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, yes, and different body weights, and other individual variations.

Responsible drinkers are constantly getting done for accidentally going over their personal limit before getting behind the wheel. /s

Yep. And that's why these days I only ever drink at home. I have been known to... er, make mistakes.

 

[PitPat]

I coordinated the survey data collection for the CDC's study of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for several years in WA and OR - hundreds of thousands of respondents. It was a very strict definition of what is considered a "drink". Pretty sure it hasn't changed.


cdc.gov/brfss/index.html


From AI. Not sure if that study has been extended with new budget cuts. It was a very effective tool for state and smaller local governmental healthcare agencies to get solid data about their residents.

In the BRFSS (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System), a standard drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits. These quantities are roughly equivalent to 14 grams of pure alcohol. The BRFSS uses this definition to categorize and analyze alcohol consumption patterns, including binge drinking.

Not only recent alcohol consumption, but diabetes. Domestic and sexual abuse. Heart disease, racism in healthcare. Things that only affect certain people in smaller geographies. Genealogical histories. Basically everything and it took about 45 minutes to complete over the phone for people who were willing to complete it. It wasn't a cold call - I spent hours arranging a system for thousands of pre-notification snail-mail letters to people who were on the list - that you should be expecting a call. They could opt out, but if they didn't, we called them up at max 15 times a month. It was as very rigid methodology and of course we blended web, cell phones and snail mail with it too.

Anyway, here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Beer:
  One standard drink is a 12-ounce can or bottle of regular beer, typically containing about 5% alcohol by volume, according to the CDC.
• Wine:
  One standard drink is a 5-ounce glass of wine, which usually has an alcohol content of around 12%.
• Spirits:
  One standard drink is a "shot" or 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits (like whiskey or vodka) that are typically 80-proof (40% alcohol).

 

[theprestige]

Yep. And that's why these days I only ever drink at home. I have been known to... er, make mistakes.

Haha same!

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

For me it's because that's how I learned it in driver's ed. One drink per hour. Two hours, plus one buffer hour, and you're probably good to go.

I just figured "a couple drinks a couple hours ago" is what everybody says because everybody thinks that's what a responsible driver sounds like.

Indeed, the one time I was pulled over for erratic driving, I had been a responsible driver, and gave exactly that answer because it was the truth. In the event, the cop found no evidence of DUI. They let me go with a warning, not to get so distracted by my date, on future excursions.

Watching bodycam footage now, I'm amazed to see that the roadside sobriety test protocols haven't changed a bit in 30+ years. Even the portable breathalyzers looks identical to what I remember.

Interesting how different Driver's ed is in different countries.
Here we are taught that any drink some 4 hours prior to driving will always impair your decision making speed so drinking and driving is always wrong (of course most people think they are the exception, but that's the same everywhere I guess)

 

[Darat]

UK Highway Code (all UK drivers are expected to know all the sections relevant to themselves, driving tests now consist of a theory section and driving section) I suppose is the equivalent to "driver's ed"?

The section on drink driving is quite short: https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-drivers-and-motorcyclists-alcohol-and-drugs.html

Seems well crazy is the only word I can think of to me that you would teach anyone learning to drive a rule of thumb of how much you CAN drink and still drive.

 

[arthwollipot]

Seems well crazy is the only word I can think of to me that you would teach anyone learning to drive a rule of thumb of how much you CAN drink and still drive.

It's not my experience that it is taught that way. All learner drivers are taught that there is zero safe level of drinking, but the facts are that if you're below 0.05 (in my jurisdiction), you're not driving illegally. Also, the legal limit for learners, or drivers of heavy vehicles or public passenger vehicles, or vehicles transporting dangerous goods, is zero. 0.00.

 

[ahhell]

All I know about police matters is that:

• the pickpockets and shell game scammers working tourist areas in the port area of Barcelona gave each cop on their beat €50 a day to look the other way
• the pickpockets are organized and are run by an exceedingly polite Slovenian gent who used to be a customer of mine
• he ordered his guys to be nice to me because, he explained, "You tough guy. Respect."
• the police in my village all wink when they go by, because reasons
• French police routinely beat the ever living hell out of Muslims and Africans, just 'cuz

Well, right up to that last bit, that was all quite quaint.

As to police body cams, great idea should be adopted universally. I think the footage should all be downloaded at the end of the shift and stored under control of a third party for IDK, minimum of 90 days or something. If any accusations come up later even in the absence of reported incident, the footage is there.

 

[ahhell]

It's not my experience that it is taught that way. All learner drivers are taught that there is zero safe level of drinking, but the facts are that if you're below 0.05 (in my jurisdiction), you're not driving illegally. Also, the legal limit for learners, or drivers of heavy vehicles or public passenger vehicles, or vehicles transporting dangerous goods, is zero. 0.00.

In at least some jurisdictions in the US there are two separate crimes. 1. Driving over the legal limit, I think .008, I could be wrong. 2. Driving while intoxicated. For the lightweights and drugs other than booze.

When I get might license renewed, I typically get a little flyer with, if you weight this much you can have X drinks in Y amount of time and be over limit. I think its usually 2 in an hour for someone of my weight and sex. It's lower for women than men.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Well, right up to that last bit, that was all quite quaint.

Boots on the ground experience is just that, which is why its lessons are usually ignored as seen at distance from a height above the nose.

 

[Darat]

In at least some jurisdictions in the US there are two separate crimes. 1. Driving over the legal limit, I think .008, I could be wrong. 2. Driving while intoxicated. For the lightweights and drugs other than booze.

When I get might license renewed,
I typically get a little flyer with, if you weight this much you can have X drinks in Y amount of time and be over limit. I think its usually 2 in an hour for someone of my weight and sex. It's lower for women than men.

That to me seems crazy. It's almost asking to get drunk drivers.

It's not my experience that it is taught that way. All learner drivers are taught that there is zero safe level of drinking, but the facts are that if you're below 0.05 (in my jurisdiction), you're not driving illegally. Also, the legal limit for learners, or drivers of heavy vehicles or public passenger vehicles, or vehicles transporting dangerous goods, is zero. 0.00.

See above it not only seems to be taught but officially refreshed!