Cops make up laws now?

[Parasitic]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Parasitic

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Parasitic

Originally posted by: RyanW2050
While there is no question that the cop flew off the handle, he should have just shown him his ID and acted respectfully instead of questioning him like some stereotypical whiny "i know my rights" college kid.

That doesn't work. I got ticketed once in an illegal speed trap with a radar reading that was never shown to me. I followed the instructions on TicketAssassin very closely, and the cop still gave me a ticket and threatened to take me to jail BECAUSE I WAS READING THE EFFIN' TICKET to make sure everything was correct.

Contrary to popular belief, you have absolutely no right to see the radar (speaking from NH). Maybe Cali is weird.

I know that we have no right to see the radar. You can request so, and the police can deny it. However when I asked him about it he just went on saying bogus things like how he didn't save it, instead of a flat-out no. There's a difference between legitimate and bogus in my book. If he refused I'd be ok with that, but he didn't and lied.

Our radar doesn't log speed. So, if you asked me, it wouldn't be saved. *shrug* That's how it is.

some how i find that i little odd..... you dont log speed? so what if you have to prove something? is it simply your word against theirs?

How are you supposed to prove things without any physical evidence or record? Isn't the burden of proof on the peace officer?

I guess this is another sign (not directed toward CadetLee personally, so please don't take offense) that the police body, as a whole, have become so accustomed to power and authority that they are no longer required to prove themselves under the laws.

 

[bluestrobe]

Originally posted by: Parasitic
How are you supposed to prove things without any physical evidence or record? Isn't the burden of proof on the peace officer?

I guess this is another sign (not directed toward CadetLee personally, so please don't take offense) that the police body, as a whole, have become so accustomed to power and authority that they are no longer required to prove themselves under the laws.

I guess you would have hated it when they timed your car between two fixed points and judged your speed from there.

Also I think this guy's videos are staged. I can't watch them in full at work but the beginning of both are too fishy. In cars I was a passenger in that were pulled over, we were chatting like crazy wondering what we did wrong, not quiet and calm. Probably just another punk kid who wants to take a swing at "the man" in an immature and unprofessional way.

edit: I got a chance to read the transcript and would say this kid was egging them on mid way through. Refusing to answer routine questions because of his 5th amendment right? You only pull that card if you are guilty of something, not because you don?t want to answer a simple question. Too many punk kid armchair lawyers these days.

I was stopped at a check point the other weekend. I was asked for my DL, Registration and insurance card. My insurance card was expired ($450ish fine). The deputy asked me why it was expired and I told him my insurance was current and I forgot to stick the card in the truck when I got it. Things would have gone bad quick if I answered the deputy "Sir, I plead the fifth amendment!"

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: bluestrobe


I was stopped at a check point the other weekend. I was asked for my DL, Registration and insurance card. My insurance card was expired ($450ish fine). The deputy asked me why it was expired and I told him my insurance was current and I forgot to stick the card in the truck when I got it. Things would have gone bad quick if I answered the deputy "Sir, I plead the fifth amendment!"

You're story reminds me of the video except

Police had a lawful checkpoint
You were breaking the law by not having your insurance card in your vehicle
He didnt start screaming at you and threating to make up charges.
You were kissing his butt so he didnt give you a lawful citation, dont worry I do that too when I break the law and speed.

Other than that your real life experience is comparable to the video.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: bluestrobe

Originally posted by: Parasitic
How are you supposed to prove things without any physical evidence or record? Isn't the burden of proof on the peace officer?

I guess this is another sign (not directed toward CadetLee personally, so please don't take offense) that the police body, as a whole, have become so accustomed to power and authority that they are no longer required to prove themselves under the laws.

I guess you would have hated it when they timed your car between two fixed points and judged your speed from there.

Also I think this guy's videos are staged. I can't watch them in full at work but the beginning of both are too fishy. In cars I was a passenger in that were pulled over, we were chatting like crazy wondering what we did wrong, not quiet and calm. Probably just another punk kid who wants to take a swing at "the man" in an immature and unprofessional way.

edit: I got a chance to read the transcript and would say this kid was egging them on mid way through. Refusing to answer routine questions because of his 5th amendment right? You only pull that card if you are guilty of something, not because you don?t want to answer a simple question. Too many punk kid armchair lawyers these days.

I was stopped at a check point the other weekend. I was asked for my DL, Registration and insurance card. My insurance card was expired ($450ish fine). The deputy asked me why it was expired and I told him my insurance was current and I forgot to stick the card in the truck when I got it. Things would have gone bad quick if I answered the deputy "Sir, I plead the fifth amendment!"

The kid egged it on!?! Who gives half a flying shit what the kid said??

The police officer threatened to invent charges against a civilian in order to tow his vehicle and put him in jail. The intimidation tactics alone are enough to catch a battery charge in my state (most cases are domestic, but this would over qualify).

Was the kid looking for trouble? Probably. Was the kid a prick? Definitely. But that is completely irrelevant, police officers can not threaten to arrest you on false charges and then further intimidate you by saying that you WILL be found guilty on said false charges. Thats not the way it works here. Matter of fact, its completely opposite of how it is supposed to work. We DO have rights and like it or not so do the little prick kids. Cops are sworn to UPHOLD the law and protect our rights.

If the video is fake then the kid should go to jail. If it is not fake (in light of the departments actions it does not appear to be fake) the cop should go to jail. Period.

 

[Jschmuck2]

It's on Fox 11 news in LA tonight

 

[bluestrobe]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
The kid egged it on!?! Who gives half a flying shit what the kid said??

The police officer threatened to invent charges against a civilian in order to tow his vehicle and put him in jail. The intimidation tactics alone are enough to catch a battery charge in my state (most cases are domestic, but this would over qualify).

Was the kid looking for trouble? Probably. Was the kid a prick? Definitely. But that is completely irrelevant, police officers can not threaten to arrest you on false charges and then further intimidate you by saying that you WILL be found guilty on said false charges. Thats not the way it works here. Matter of fact, its completely opposite of how it is supposed to work. We DO have rights and like it or not so do the little prick kids. Cops are sworn to UPHOLD the law and protect our rights.

If the video is fake then the kid should go to jail. If it is not fake (in light of the departments actions it does not appear to be fake) the cop should go to jail. Period.

I would say that the kid was egging it on with those actions.

If he would have answered the questions in the first place he would not have got under the cop's skin to get that far. I don't need to hear about rights or the Patriot Act, these are the same questions that a cop would have asked even before the act was passed.

Originally posted by: bctbct

You're story reminds me of the video except

Police had a lawful checkpoint
You were breaking the law by not having your insurance card in your vehicle
He didnt start screaming at you and threating to make up charges.
You were kissing his butt so he didnt give you a lawful citation, dont worry I do that too when I break the law and speed.

Other than that your real life experience is comparable to the video.

Wow, showing respect is kissing butt now days? I guess manners is a sign of weakness also? I knew I was guilty and didn't hide it but was respectful at the same time. If I would have questioned his authority or pulled the fifth amendment crap then he would have got agitated and I would be a lot poorer and have a notch on my criminal record. I used to work with LE closely and don't view them as "oppressors" or "thugs" and realize without them, we would be fending for ourselves and society would crumble. On the same note, I also saw the results of punk kids who don't answer questions and quote the law like armchair lawyers. 99% of those types don't know their rights and only known stuff from incorrect or opinionated sources.

 

[Parasitic]

Originally posted by: bluestrobe

Originally posted by: Parasitic
How are you supposed to prove things without any physical evidence or record? Isn't the burden of proof on the peace officer?

I guess this is another sign (not directed toward CadetLee personally, so please don't take offense) that the police body, as a whole, have become so accustomed to power and authority that they are no longer required to prove themselves under the laws.

I guess you would have hated it when they timed your car between two fixed points and judged your speed from there.

Of course I would, because that's a blantant speed trap, which is illegal in California (and I assume a lot more states as well).

 

[bluestrobe]

Originally posted by: Parasitic
Of course I would, because that's a blantant speed trap, which is illegal in California (and I assume a lot more states as well).

That's how a lot of places clocked speeders up until radar units became cheap enough to purchase in quantity in the mid 80's. Where do you think the term "clocked" came from? Also planes and helicopters still do it to this day so I don't see how it could be a speed trap? What does it say in the CA traffic code that defines what a speed trap is?

 

[SketchMaster]

The first video is pretty crazy, but if you watch his other video it starts to look like the kid is trying to start hostilities so he can catch pissed off cops on tape and then post them online.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: bluestrobe

Originally posted by: Darwin333
The kid egged it on!?! Who gives half a flying shit what the kid said??

The police officer threatened to invent charges against a civilian in order to tow his vehicle and put him in jail. The intimidation tactics alone are enough to catch a battery charge in my state (most cases are domestic, but this would over qualify).

Was the kid looking for trouble? Probably. Was the kid a prick? Definitely. But that is completely irrelevant, police officers can not threaten to arrest you on false charges and then further intimidate you by saying that you WILL be found guilty on said false charges. Thats not the way it works here. Matter of fact, its completely opposite of how it is supposed to work. We DO have rights and like it or not so do the little prick kids. Cops are sworn to UPHOLD the law and protect our rights.

If the video is fake then the kid should go to jail. If it is not fake (in light of the departments actions it does not appear to be fake) the cop should go to jail. Period.

I would say that the kid was egging it on with those actions.

If he would have answered the questions in the first place he would not have got under the cop's skin to get that far. I don't need to hear about rights or the Patriot Act, these are the same questions that a cop would have asked even before the act was passed.

Way to skip over the more relevant parts of my post.

Yes, the kid egged the cop on

Since when do we allow law enforcement officers to BREAK THE LAW and use public intimidation (another crime) because some punk kid egged them on? Maybe we can just skip the judge and jury part if the guy the cop arrests is an asshole. Hell, lets amend the Bill of Rights to exclude people who "egg" on cops.

I have a better idea. How about we "pile on" the charges on the cop like he was threatening to do to the kid who "egged" him on. The only difference is we don't have to make up crimes that the cop committed.

 

[sandmanwake]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

..it's also illegal in some states to record audio/video without consent/notice.

So in other words, it's harder for the average citizen to prove their innocence in cases where cops other figures of authorities go rouge. No one else has a problem with this?

 

[AMCRambler]

For those of you saying he should have just handed over his id, the thing I've always heard is that once you hand over your id and registration and the cop goes back to his car that's it. The ticket is in the system and there's no letting you go. Not being a police officer I can't see if this is true but its what I've always heard. So basically you need to do any talking to the officer before that happens, aka don't just hand them your papers as soon as they get to the car. Not having a video camera in the car, I think I would have just given the fellow my license if he started acting like that and I couldn't calm him down. He is the one with the gun, police man or not I don't want to get shot or beat up because he was having a bad day and I didn't immediately hand over my license.

 

[Parasitic]

Originally posted by: bluestrobe

Originally posted by: Parasitic
Of course I would, because that's a blantant speed trap, which is illegal in California (and I assume a lot more states as well).

That's how a lot of places clocked speeders up until radar units became cheap enough to purchase in quantity in the mid 80's. Where do you think the term "clocked" came from? Also planes and helicopters still do it to this day so I don't see how it could be a speed trap? What does it say in the CA traffic code that defines what a speed trap is?

CVC 40802

Speed Traps

40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:

(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.

(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects.

 

[waggy]

i never considered that a speed trap.

 

[waggy]

heh those saying it is fake since its not on a real news sight can eat shit. its on CNN!

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: rivan

That cop needs to be canned, but douchebags like the filmmaker just make it harder for the overwhelming majority of cops - the ones that DON'T suck - to do their job, engendering idiotic mentalities like:

Incorrect. An officer must always be courteous and respectful to the public, regardless of the situation. The only thing that this changes is that officers are more worried about being held accountable through videotaped evidence.[/quote]

No, cops most definitely do NOT always have to be courteous. Now, this particular cop was definitely out of his mind - I'm not defending him, but should we expect cops to act like Cartman's mom to some guy who's all drugged up? How about the mentally unstable? The average cop has no idea what's inside the car he's walking up to. The kid in the car could have just as easily had a gun strapped to his headrest and an 8ball of coke on his dash as the setup he had in place.

Cops should always start the encounter with courtesy - but it's their job to maintain control of the situation. They're trained that situations out of their control can end up meaning they're dead men. It's that simple. If this douchebag filmmaker had complied with the officer's initial requests, he probably could have been asking the exact questions he was WHILE doing what the officer asked and there probably would have never been an issue.

Again, this cop is obviously unstable and not fit to be on duty - but the kid did nothing but push his boundaries looking to provoke a response.

Originally posted by: Phokus
Yeah, F*CK that SOB for knowing his rights! We should be more like the Soviet Union!!!!
:roll:

Yeah, I'm suggesting a police state without any personal rights. :roll:

What the hell ever happened to respect for authority? By all means, question it but there's a time and a place to do it, and a manner in which to conduct yourself while doing it. And no, that "SOB" wasn't doing anything but driving aroudn with the express intent of provoking a response from someone.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: bluestrobeIf I would have questioned his authority or pulled the fifth amendment crap then he would have got agitated and I would be a lot poorer and have a notch on my criminal record.

Duh, that's because you broke the law! Mr. Darrow did not, and there is nothing an officer can legally do to him.

Supreme Court justices much smarter than you have repeatedly stated that no one has any obligation to answer police questions, and that failure to answer can not be used against you. Remaining silent isn't even allowed to satisfy the incredibly low requirement of "reasonably articulable suspicion" to perform a Terry Stop.

That said, what the fuck is your point? Even if we lived in your authoritarian dreamland where annoying the police is illegal, the cop would still be committing a crime by fabricating two traffic tickets and threatening a false felony arrest.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Parasitic

Originally posted by: bluestrobe

Originally posted by: Parasitic
Of course I would, because that's a blantant speed trap, which is illegal in California (and I assume a lot more states as well).

That's how a lot of places clocked speeders up until radar units became cheap enough to purchase in quantity in the mid 80's. Where do you think the term "clocked" came from? Also planes and helicopters still do it to this day so I don't see how it could be a speed trap? What does it say in the CA traffic code that defines what a speed trap is?

CVC 40802

Speed Traps

40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:

(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.

(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects.

Wow bluestrobe - burn dude. Burn.

Maybe go back to hanging out by the police station - if you're good they might take you on a ride along.

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Ya'll also act like if there was a jury they would convict the kid of a made up crime, I can tell you personally I would never convict someone based on one mans word over another even if one is cop and the other is a punk kid.

Since when is traffic court held in front of a jury. It's you and the cop and the judge. In instances where it is your word vs. the cops word is is standard precedent that the cop is correct. I have multiple friends who are officers and they have all attested to this truth. Without some form of hard evidence to defend yourself, and officer can say that you did whatever they want. In the case of this instance, the officers in car video was even "lost", so what proof would the kid have about what was said to him concerning this other than his in car video.

Even scarier: what proof would you have?

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: SketchMaster
The first video is pretty crazy, but if you watch his other video it starts to look like the kid is trying to start hostilities so he can catch pissed off cops on tape and then post them online.

Someone needs to police the police. The departments obviously don't do it.

I like how the officer in this one admits that Mr. Darrow is being detained solely for not answering questions, which is blatantly illegal, and then forces a situation in which the police "must" enter his vehicle, which is an Unconstitutional search. Then they fuck up his clutch. What a joke.

 

[Spook]

The guy that shot this video explains himself more in this video on CNN, http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid...ulled.over.dashcam.cnn

Apparently, after getting a speeding ticket, he believed he didn't deserve, he put in this camera to help protect himself. So, its not like he was just going around, trying to get arrested. He was in the lot, waiting for a friend, because he had left a cell phone at his house.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus
Yeah, F*CK that SOB for knowing his rights! We should be more like the Soviet Union!!!!
:roll:

Yeah, I'm suggesting a police state without any personal rights. :roll:

What the hell ever happened to respect for authority? By all means, question it but there's a time and a place to do it, and a manner in which to conduct yourself while doing it. And no, that "SOB" wasn't doing anything but driving aroudn with the express intent of provoking a response from someone.

He wasn't disrespectful, he was just asking questions before giving anything to the cops and he was in the RIGHT to do it, considering the cop was lying like a sack of sh*t the whole time. I mean, give me a break, the cop said he didn't use his turn signal (but he actually did) and was swerving and not staying in his lane (but he actually did). WTF are you supposed to do? You dirty cop apologists are whats wrong with this country. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Spook
The guy that shot this video explains himself more in this video on CNN, http://www.cnn.com/video/#/vid...ulled.over.dashcam.cnn

Apparently, after getting a speeding ticket, he believed he didn't deserve, he put in this camera to help protect himself. So, its not like he was just going around, trying to get arrested. He was in the lot, waiting for a friend, because he had left a cell phone at his house.

So that's why he has a radar detector and a scanner, eh? I just have a feeling that there's a bit more behind it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Great video, that officer needs to be fired.

 

[bluestrobe]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Parasitic

CVC 40802

Speed Traps

40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:

(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.

(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects.

Wow bluestrobe - burn dude. Burn.

Maybe go back to hanging out by the police station - if you're good they might take you on a ride along.

I asked for proof of a law, he gave it. Yea, I got burned, uhh, whatever. Then you step lower to insult me with the police station comment. I haven't been to a police station in years and don't talk to cops on a regular basis. I do agree the cop was totally in the wrong and should be fired but this kid in this case isn't a glowing angel either.