Cops make up laws now?

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus
No, you are an apologist, because you have to add the 'if only that kid did <blah blah blah>' trying to insinuate that the kid instigated it. You can't accept the fact that the kid was 100% right while the cop was 100% wrong. There IS NO QUALIFIER. The kid did not yell at the cop, he did not assault the cop, he wasn't even rude to the cop. The only statement that can be made is the officer was an unprofessional and CRIMINAL jackass. No need to comment on the kid's behavior.

That's where we disagree.

The cop was 100% wrong. The kid was NOT 100% right.

How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

So you're basically saying that he exercised his right to be an asshole. :evil:

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: manowar821
I don't understand why some of you are annoyed with the kid for looking into or researching how cops treat people. These "peace-keepers" don't have much oversight, this is a way to figure out how these police act.

I'd call it research/probing, personally.

But of course, every college student is just an idiot looking for a fight or trouble, right? He couldn't possibly be actually interested in how cops conduct themselves, being a concerned citizen and all.

When I hear your type talk about how "stupid" or "punk-ass" the students who take politics into their own hands are, it really does make me loose any kind of respect for you. You're not wiser, you're not more educated, you're not automatically right. It doesn't matter how many people say "with age comes wisdom" because it's simply not true. It's all about your environment, and to me, these older people bashing the politically active younger crowd are the true "disrespectful little punk-asses".

This kid, unlike some, has done nothing wrong.

THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF THE COP IN THE VIDEO.

Police also have a job that puts their lives at daily risk for often not a great wage. First year cadets at the special Airport District here make low $30s. County departments are a little better. For that wage, the cops get to drive their crown vics to wherever the trouble is - be it to stand in the street making sure someone doesn't get run down while they change a tire, or document vehicle accident reports, or breaking up the nightly domestic abuse calls in the crappiest parts of your cities. They go to Kohl's and Best Buy to handle shoplifters. They keep the rowdiness down when the bars close and patrol for drunks on the road.

Occasionally, they're hurt or killed while doing these things.

So, have a little respect for the cops that, because they've done their jobs, that have kept your home from being broken into while you're at work today. Or keep people from stealing the plates or tags from your car.

Are they perfect? Are cops instantly made into some super-human fortress of perfection, impervious to any provocation, fear, temptation or mistakes when they get a badge? Nope. Most of them are normal people who are drawn to the life of a cop - a daily adrenaline shot. Some cops aren't good cops... some doctors aren't good doctors. Neither should be in their jobs. Sometimes it takes far too long to get them out of their jobs - often with tragic consequences - but that has NO reflection on the rest of the doctors out there, and it shouldn't have any reflection on the rest of the cops either.

I wouldn't think you were defending the cop. I didn't respond to you anywhere, I was talking in general to those who are saying this cop had any bit of right to treat him that way.

I also agree with you, cops put themselves on the line for the law. I'd never disrespect a cop outright. When I am pulled over, or confronted by a cop, I show respect first, I smile, I even hand over my ID even though I don't have to right away. I ask what the problem is politely, and listen carefully to their response. If they reciprocate this respect, or at the least show some kind of fairness in their etiquette, the circle of respect continues. If not, well, there goes my nice face, too.

I get paid shit for hard work, I don't talk down to my clients/customers. I don't abuse them when they've done something wrong, or even if I catch them trying to get something for free by faking a "faulty product". Cops should do the same. Hell, I don't even get snippy with people when they're completely nasty with me, perhaps I get short with them, but never mean.

I've seen police officers who take the abuse that this cop gave the kid before, and keep on smiling and speaking calmly to whoever they're apprehending.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan
How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

No, he ignored the cop's initial directives, only questioning the cop, in effect challenging his authority and trying to provoke exactly the disgraceful display he received.

Did the cop need to be taken off the streets? Absolutely. Is it the job of a concerned citizen to be involved in getting him off the streets? Absolutely. Is this the way to go about it? Absolutely not.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus
No, you are an apologist, because you have to add the 'if only that kid did <blah blah blah>' trying to insinuate that the kid instigated it. You can't accept the fact that the kid was 100% right while the cop was 100% wrong. There IS NO QUALIFIER. The kid did not yell at the cop, he did not assault the cop, he wasn't even rude to the cop. The only statement that can be made is the officer was an unprofessional and CRIMINAL jackass. No need to comment on the kid's behavior.

That's where we disagree.

The cop was 100% wrong. The kid was NOT 100% right.

How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

So you're basically saying that he exercised his right to be an asshole. :evil:

Except he wasn't an asshole. He wasn't the one who pulled over the cop for no reason at all and lied about him not using his turn signal and swerving all around.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan
How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

No, he ignored the cop's initial directives, only questioning the cop, in effect challenging his authority and trying to provoke exactly the disgraceful display he received.

Did the cop need to be taken off the streets? Absolutely. Is it the job of a concerned citizen to be involved in getting him off the streets? Absolutely. Is this the way to go about it? Absolutely not.

Ignored what directive? HE ASKED A REASONABLE QUESTION. He didn't say, 'no officer, i will NOT give you an ID'. He just asked if he did something wrong. And then he gave him his ID and asked what he did wrong and the cop flew off the handle. Stop making things up.


Officer #1: Yeah, but we have problems after midnight time. People break into cars. You pgot any ID on you?
Brett: Yeah, I do.
Officer #1: Can I see it please?
Brett: Did I do something wrong?
Officer #1: Yeah you're a suspicious vehicle right now.
Brett: I'm what?
Officer #1: [Leans into the car and yells] You are a suspicious vehicle right now.
Brett: In a commuter parking lot?
Officer #1: Yeah you are cause we have car thieves in here. Yeah you're right.
Brett: Cause I can park right here.
Officer #1: You want me -- You wanna come out of the car? Come on out. Come on out.


...


Officer #1: Let me see your ID.
*******[I give him my valid Missouri License]*******
Officer #1: Let me see your insurance card for the vehicle.
Brett: Did I commit a moving violation?
Officer #1: Yeah you did, when you were coming in here.
Brett: Really? What was that?
Officer #1: Yeah, you wanna try me? You wanna try me tonight? You think you've had a bad night? I will ruin your ****ing night.
[Officer starts to get close up to my face]

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus
No, you are an apologist, because you have to add the 'if only that kid did <blah blah blah>' trying to insinuate that the kid instigated it. You can't accept the fact that the kid was 100% right while the cop was 100% wrong. There IS NO QUALIFIER. The kid did not yell at the cop, he did not assault the cop, he wasn't even rude to the cop. The only statement that can be made is the officer was an unprofessional and CRIMINAL jackass. No need to comment on the kid's behavior.

That's where we disagree.

The cop was 100% wrong. The kid was NOT 100% right.

How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

So you're basically saying that he exercised his right to be an asshole. :evil:

Except he wasn't an asshole. He wasn't the one who pulled over the cop for no reason at all and lied about him not using his turn signal and swerving all around.

Pulling into a vacant parking lot at 2am would, in my mind, raise a flag. Failure to provide a license upon request (required by law in NH) raises another. Did he commit a crime? Nope. Was he suspicious? In my opinion, yes.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus
No, you are an apologist, because you have to add the 'if only that kid did <blah blah blah>' trying to insinuate that the kid instigated it. You can't accept the fact that the kid was 100% right while the cop was 100% wrong. There IS NO QUALIFIER. The kid did not yell at the cop, he did not assault the cop, he wasn't even rude to the cop. The only statement that can be made is the officer was an unprofessional and CRIMINAL jackass. No need to comment on the kid's behavior.

That's where we disagree.

The cop was 100% wrong. The kid was NOT 100% right.

How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

So you're basically saying that he exercised his right to be an asshole. :evil:

Except he wasn't an asshole. He wasn't the one who pulled over the cop for no reason at all and lied about him not using his turn signal and swerving all around.

Pulling into a vacant parking lot at 2am would, in my mind, raise a flag. Failure to provide a license upon request (required by law in NH) raises another. Did he commit a crime? Nope. Was he suspicious? In my opinion, yes.

Except he did provide his ID. He did nothing wrong, he was only asking about why he was being pulled over, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

 

[MisterJackson]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: G Wizard
Wow.
9/11 changed everything, right?

HERE'S YOUR FUCKING PATRIOT ACT!

Wait... what?

This made me giggle like a little school girl then snort. My coworkers think I need help.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus
No, you are an apologist, because you have to add the 'if only that kid did <blah blah blah>' trying to insinuate that the kid instigated it. You can't accept the fact that the kid was 100% right while the cop was 100% wrong. There IS NO QUALIFIER. The kid did not yell at the cop, he did not assault the cop, he wasn't even rude to the cop. The only statement that can be made is the officer was an unprofessional and CRIMINAL jackass. No need to comment on the kid's behavior.

That's where we disagree.

The cop was 100% wrong. The kid was NOT 100% right.

How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

So you're basically saying that he exercised his right to be an asshole. :evil:

Except he wasn't an asshole. He wasn't the one who pulled over the cop for no reason at all and lied about him not using his turn signal and swerving all around.

Pulling into a vacant parking lot at 2am would, in my mind, raise a flag. Failure to provide a license upon request (required by law in NH) raises another. Did he commit a crime? Nope. Was he suspicious? In my opinion, yes.

Except he did provide his ID. He did nothing wrong, he was only asking about why he was being pulled over, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Eventually he did, yes. However, I still disagree when you say that he had "no reason at all" for a stop. Part of police work is knowing what your town is like and looking into things that are out of the ordinary.

Btw - Missouri law states that you must provide your insurance card to an officer upon request. From what I read, whether you've committed a moving violation is irrelevant.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus
No, you are an apologist, because you have to add the 'if only that kid did <blah blah blah>' trying to insinuate that the kid instigated it. You can't accept the fact that the kid was 100% right while the cop was 100% wrong. There IS NO QUALIFIER. The kid did not yell at the cop, he did not assault the cop, he wasn't even rude to the cop. The only statement that can be made is the officer was an unprofessional and CRIMINAL jackass. No need to comment on the kid's behavior.

That's where we disagree.

The cop was 100% wrong. The kid was NOT 100% right.

How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

So you're basically saying that he exercised his right to be an asshole. :evil:

Except he wasn't an asshole. He wasn't the one who pulled over the cop for no reason at all and lied about him not using his turn signal and swerving all around.

Pulling into a vacant parking lot at 2am would, in my mind, raise a flag. Failure to provide a license upon request (required by law in NH) raises another. Did he commit a crime? Nope. Was he suspicious? In my opinion, yes.

Except he did provide his ID. He did nothing wrong, he was only asking about why he was being pulled over, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Eventually he did, yes. However, I still disagree when you say that he had "no reason at all" for a stop. Part of police work is knowing what your town is like and looking into things that are out of the ordinary.

Btw - Missouri law states that you must provide your insurance card to an officer upon request. From what I read, whether you've committed a moving violation is irrelevant.

1) Oh you're right, apparently from what i've read so far, it appears St. George derives a huge source of income from bullsh*t traffic stops, so you're right, they do have a *cough* 'reason' to stop people :roll:

2) moot point, he provided his license. He just wanted to know why he was being pulled over, and i see nothing wrong with that. edit: sorry, i thought that read license... but when he asked for the insurance card, and asked him what the traffic violation was, the cop flew off the handle. He DID NOT SAY he wouldn't provide it to him.


Officer #1: Let me see your ID.
*******[I give him my valid Missouri License]*******
Officer #1: Let me see your insurance card for the vehicle.
Brett: Did I commit a moving violation?
Officer #1: Yeah you did, when you were coming in here.
Brett: Really? What was that?
Officer #1: Yeah, you wanna try me? You wanna try me tonight? You think you've had a bad night? I will ruin your ****ing night.
[Officer starts to get close up to my face]

 

[Agentbolt]

Police also have a job that puts their lives at daily risk for often not a great wage. First year cadets at the special Airport District here make low $30s. County departments are a little better. For that wage, the cops get to drive their crown vics to wherever the trouble is - be it to stand in the street making sure someone doesn't get run down while they change a tire, or document vehicle accident reports, or breaking up the nightly domestic abuse calls in the crappiest parts of your cities. They go to Kohl's and Best Buy to handle shoplifters. They keep the rowdiness down when the bars close and patrol for drunks on the road.

Occasionally, they're hurt or killed while doing these things.

Oh for Christ's sake, boo. freaking. hoo. Meat packers get hurt doing their job too, I don't see you going off on some random rant about how Meat Packers have hard jobs and deserve our unabashed respect.

I'm not anti-cop, like some people in this thread seem to be. I have never, ever met a rude or inappropriate one. In fact in a lot of situations I've been a complete dick to the cops and they've suffered my shit and smiled.

What I DO take exception to is these parroting sheep that simply respond to every valid complaint about cops with "RESPECT COPS DO WHAT THEY SAY DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION THEIR AUTHORITY blah blah blah" Cops are humans too and some of them are complete dicks, the only difference being they have the ability to ruin your life on a whim.

Bottom line, this cop is going to end up guarding the mall making 9.50 an hour and the kid who took the video is being treated like a quasi-victimized muckraker for his actions by most people. In other words, the cop's over a barrell and the kid's in no trouble whatsoever, which is exactly the way it should be. Cop Apologists in this thread can bitch and moan all they want but it's not gonna change that things are shaking out the way they should.

If I had the technical know-how to set up a camera system like that I'd do it too. Not because I expect anything bad to happen, but because if it DOES, the cop needs to be nailed to the wall.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
Aw c'mon ATOT, where's the Cop Apologist Brigade? You guys are always a hoot in threads like these. "Maybe that cop was having a bad day, the kid should've just shown his license and realized YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE BADGE!!!!!ONE"

cop apologist brigade? lol
so that would mean you're in the Cop Hater Brigade? it goes both ways you know. just as you think there are people who always say the police are right, the people who continually bash them, which appears you are one, are just as ridiculous.

there are times where its obvious that one side is defintiely in the wrong and then there are times when its not so clear, but it seems it could go one way or the other. While the kid does sound like a douchebag, this is one of those times where the cop is definitely in the wrong.

and again, a few bad apples does not make a bad bunch, like you seem to think.

 

[Agentbolt]

cop apologist brigade? lol
so that would mean you're in the Cop Hater Brigade? it goes both ways you know. just as you think there are people who always say the police are right, the people who continually bash them, which appears you are one, are just as ridiculous.

there are times where its obvious that one side is defintiely in the wrong and then there are times when its not so clear, but it seems it could go one way or the other. While the kid does sound like a douchebag, this is one of those times where the cop is definitely in the wrong.

and again, a few bad apples does not make a bad bunch, like you seem to think.

A: Condolences on lacking the ability to read. My post directly above yours, written ten minutes before you posted, invalidates most of what you just said

B: Literally hours after I posted that, somebody posted saying that he didn't believe the video was real and that even if it was, the cop probably just was having a bad night from breaking up a bar fight or something. It was nearly poetic.

Reading comprehension sure is fun, Pontifex, I'd look into it sometime!

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: rivan
Police also have a job that puts their lives at daily risk for often not a great wage. First year cadets at the special Airport District here make low $30s. County departments are a little better. For that wage, the cops get to drive their crown vics to wherever the trouble is - be it to stand in the street making sure someone doesn't get run down while they change a tire, or document vehicle accident reports, or breaking up the nightly domestic abuse calls in the crappiest parts of your cities. They go to Kohl's and Best Buy to handle shoplifters. They keep the rowdiness down when the bars close and patrol for drunks on the road.

Occasionally, they're hurt or killed while doing these things.

So, have a little respect for the cops that, because they've done their jobs, that have kept your home from being broken into while you're at work today. Or keep people from stealing the plates or tags from your car.

Are they perfect? Are cops instantly made into some super-human fortress of perfection, impervious to any provocation, fear, temptation or mistakes when they get a badge? Nope. Most of them are normal people who are drawn to the life of a cop - a daily adrenaline shot. Some cops aren't good cops... some doctors aren't good doctors. Neither should be in their jobs. Sometimes it takes far too long to get them out of their jobs - often with tragic consequences - but that has NO reflection on the rest of the doctors out there, and it shouldn't have any reflection on the rest of the cops either.

Cops become cops knowing what comes with the territory. They know every day on the job could somehow be their last alive because of the nature of their job. Same goes for armed forces personnel.

Regardless, none of them have the right to be power-tripping/self-gratiating dickheads. If they do their jobs well, great. I am thankful. If they get high and mighty and neglect the precepts of their job, I have no respect.

Oh, and by doing their jobs, that includes proper interaction with the public.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus
No, you are an apologist, because you have to add the 'if only that kid did <blah blah blah>' trying to insinuate that the kid instigated it. You can't accept the fact that the kid was 100% right while the cop was 100% wrong. There IS NO QUALIFIER. The kid did not yell at the cop, he did not assault the cop, he wasn't even rude to the cop. The only statement that can be made is the officer was an unprofessional and CRIMINAL jackass. No need to comment on the kid's behavior.

That's where we disagree.

The cop was 100% wrong. The kid was NOT 100% right.

How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

So you're basically saying that he exercised his right to be an asshole. :evil:

Except he wasn't an asshole. He wasn't the one who pulled over the cop for no reason at all and lied about him not using his turn signal and swerving all around.

Pulling into a vacant parking lot at 2am would, in my mind, raise a flag. Failure to provide a license upon request (required by law in NH) raises another. Did he commit a crime? Nope. Was he suspicious? In my opinion, yes.

Except he did provide his ID. He did nothing wrong, he was only asking about why he was being pulled over, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Eventually he did, yes. However, I still disagree when you say that he had "no reason at all" for a stop. Part of police work is knowing what your town is like and looking into things that are out of the ordinary.

Btw - Missouri law states that you must provide your insurance card to an officer upon request. From what I read, whether you've committed a moving violation is irrelevant.

1) Oh you're right, apparently from what i've read so far, it appears St. George derives a huge source of income from bullsh*t traffic stops, so you're right, they do have a *cough* 'reason' to stop people :roll:

2) moot point, he provided his license. He just wanted to know why he was being pulled over, and i see nothing wrong with that. edit: sorry, i thought that read license... but when he asked for the insurance card, and asked him what the traffic violation was, the cop flew off the handle. He DID NOT SAY he wouldn't provide it to him.


Officer #1: Let me see your ID.
*******[I give him my valid Missouri License]*******
Officer #1: Let me see your insurance card for the vehicle.
Brett: Did I commit a moving violation?
Officer #1: Yeah you did, when you were coming in here.
Brett: Really? What was that?
Officer #1: Yeah, you wanna try me? You wanna try me tonight? You think you've had a bad night? I will ruin your ****ing night.
[Officer starts to get close up to my face]

1) I stated why I felt a stop would be reasonable. You are free to think as you like.

2) Yes, he did. Not without tossing in a few comments, though. Again, sure, it's perfectly legal to be a smartass...since your definition of right and wrong seems to be strictly based on legality, then I could see why you think he's done nothing wrong. Also, from the quotes you posted above, it does not appear that he provided his license immediately.

Somebody's probably going to twist my posts, so I'll cliff it:

1) The stop was reasonable
2) The kid was less than cooperative
3) The officer has issues

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

cop apologist brigade? lol
so that would mean you're in the Cop Hater Brigade? it goes both ways you know. just as you think there are people who always say the police are right, the people who continually bash them, which appears you are one, are just as ridiculous.

there are times where its obvious that one side is defintiely in the wrong and then there are times when its not so clear, but it seems it could go one way or the other. While the kid does sound like a douchebag, this is one of those times where the cop is definitely in the wrong.

and again, a few bad apples does not make a bad bunch, like you seem to think.

A: Condolences on lacking the ability to read. My post directly above yours, written ten minutes before you posted, invalidates most of what you just said

B: Literally hours after I posted that, somebody posted saying that he didn't believe the video was real and that even if it was, the cop probably just was having a bad night from breaking up a bar fight or something. It was nearly poetic.

Reading comprehension sure is fun, Pontifex, I'd look into it sometime!

I don't lack the ability to read. I read quite often. Although I do admit i didn't read every post in this thread. i saw your post saying the same thing in the other thread and then saw it again here, so i thought i'd comment on it based on your wording.

as for part b? wtf does that have to do with my post?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: rivan

Originally posted by: Phokus
No, you are an apologist, because you have to add the 'if only that kid did <blah blah blah>' trying to insinuate that the kid instigated it. You can't accept the fact that the kid was 100% right while the cop was 100% wrong. There IS NO QUALIFIER. The kid did not yell at the cop, he did not assault the cop, he wasn't even rude to the cop. The only statement that can be made is the officer was an unprofessional and CRIMINAL jackass. No need to comment on the kid's behavior.

That's where we disagree.

The cop was 100% wrong. The kid was NOT 100% right.

How am I an apologist if I'm not defending the cop?

Because it's absolutely indefensible so you try to add the kid as some sort of qualifier to your statement that the cop was 100% wrong. The kid was 0% wrong. He wasn't rude, loud, abusive, or violent. The only thing the kid did "wrong" was he knew his rights and took pro-active steps to protect himself from dirty cops. :roll:

So you're basically saying that he exercised his right to be an asshole. :evil:

Except he wasn't an asshole. He wasn't the one who pulled over the cop for no reason at all and lied about him not using his turn signal and swerving all around.

Pulling into a vacant parking lot at 2am would, in my mind, raise a flag. Failure to provide a license upon request (required by law in NH) raises another. Did he commit a crime? Nope. Was he suspicious? In my opinion, yes.

Except he did provide his ID. He did nothing wrong, he was only asking about why he was being pulled over, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Eventually he did, yes. However, I still disagree when you say that he had "no reason at all" for a stop. Part of police work is knowing what your town is like and looking into things that are out of the ordinary.

Btw - Missouri law states that you must provide your insurance card to an officer upon request. From what I read, whether you've committed a moving violation is irrelevant.

1) Oh you're right, apparently from what i've read so far, it appears St. George derives a huge source of income from bullsh*t traffic stops, so you're right, they do have a *cough* 'reason' to stop people :roll:

2) moot point, he provided his license. He just wanted to know why he was being pulled over, and i see nothing wrong with that. edit: sorry, i thought that read license... but when he asked for the insurance card, and asked him what the traffic violation was, the cop flew off the handle. He DID NOT SAY he wouldn't provide it to him.


Officer #1: Let me see your ID.
*******[I give him my valid Missouri License]*******
Officer #1: Let me see your insurance card for the vehicle.
Brett: Did I commit a moving violation?
Officer #1: Yeah you did, when you were coming in here.
Brett: Really? What was that?
Officer #1: Yeah, you wanna try me? You wanna try me tonight? You think you've had a bad night? I will ruin your ****ing night.
[Officer starts to get close up to my face]

1) I stated why I felt a stop would be reasonable. You are free to think as you like.

2) Yes, he did. Not without tossing in a few comments, though. Again, sure, it's perfectly legal to be a smartass...since your definition of right and wrong seems to be strictly based on legality, then I could see why you think he's done nothing wrong. Also, from the quotes you posted above, it does not appear that he provided his license immediately.

Somebody's probably going to twist my posts, so I'll cliff it:

1) The stop was reasonable
2) The kid was less than cooperative
3) The officer has issues

How is asking why you were being stopped 'less than cooperative'? Every single time i've been stopped (3 times in my life), i was in the wrong and the officer would ask, 'do you know why i pulled you over'? And i would say, 'no' (as i was taught to do so as to not incriminate myself) and the officer would explain what i did wrong (and he was being truthful and courteous). The OFFICER was the one who was pro-actively explaining why he stopped me.

In this case, the officer would not provide ANYTHING to the kid because he was lying through his teeth. He had NO reason to stop him. I don't see how asking what infractions you committed in a calm tone is all of a sudden 'less than cooperative'. The kid gave him his license, the officer asked for for his insurance card, and the kid just asked what was the infraction. Oh god, this kid needs his ass beat, how dare he ask a simple question like that! The only reason the officer got pissed off and went berserk is because he knew he had no answer for why he stopped the kid.

 

[Agentbolt]

as for part b? wtf does that have to do with my post?

You're making fun of me for posting that, but what you fail to grasp is that hours afterward somebody made me a prophet by saying the EXACT ridiculous crap I guessed someone would. You lose on both counts. Sorry.

 

[Steve]

It's time for some of you to edit the quotes out when you reply. Just a friendly reminder!

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

as for part b? wtf does that have to do with my post?

You're making fun of me for posting that, but what you fail to grasp is that hours afterward somebody made me a prophet by saying the EXACT ridiculous crap I guessed someone would. You lose on both counts. Sorry.

is there some kind of game or contest here? how do I lose?

based on the info i had at the time, i was making fun of you for acting the same way as the people you were making fun of, just on the opposite side.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

as for part b? wtf does that have to do with my post?

You're making fun of me for posting that, but what you fail to grasp is that hours afterward somebody made me a prophet by saying the EXACT ridiculous crap I guessed someone would. You lose on both counts. Sorry.

is there some kind of game or contest here? how do I lose?

based on the info i had at the time, i was making fun of you for acting the same way as the people you were making fun of, just on the opposite side.

Why make fun? He's returning to them what they dish out. It's called "a taste of their own medicine." What's interesting is seeing whether the other side figures it out.

 

[jlee]

How is asking why you were being stopped 'less than cooperative'? Every single time i've been stopped (3 times in my life), i was in the wrong and the officer would ask, 'do you know why i pulled you over'? And i would say, 'no' (as i was taught to do so as to not incriminate myself) and the officer would explain what i did wrong (and he was being truthful and courteous). The OFFICER was the one who was pro-actively explaining why he stopped me.

Do you seriously want me to post the entire thing and bold each section in which he was not cooperating?

Officer #1: Yeah, but we have problems after midnight time. People break into cars. You pgot any ID on you?
Brett: Yeah, I do.
Officer #1: Can I see it please?
Brett: Did I do something wrong? <-- should be providing his license at this point

There's a start. Does he legally have to answer all the questions? Probably not. Does that make him uncooperative by refusing? Certainly. Is it within his rights to refuse? Sure it is.

In this case, the officer would not provide ANYTHING to the kid because he was lying through his teeth. He had NO reason to stop him. I don't see how asking what infractions you committed in a calm tone is all of a sudden 'less than cooperative'. The kid gave him his license, the officer asked for for his insurance card, and the kid just asked what was the infraction. Oh god, this kid needs his ass beat, how dare he ask a simple question like that! The only reason the officer got pissed off and went berserk is because he knew he had no answer for why he stopped the kid.

I already discussed that. Apparently we are going to disagree on this.

 

[Agentbolt]

based on the info i had at the time

Fine, your info was wrong because you didn't bother to read the thread. So you don't lose, you're just stupid. Hooray!!

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

How is asking why you were being stopped 'less than cooperative'? Every single time i've been stopped (3 times in my life), i was in the wrong and the officer would ask, 'do you know why i pulled you over'? And i would say, 'no' (as i was taught to do so as to not incriminate myself) and the officer would explain what i did wrong (and he was being truthful and courteous). The OFFICER was the one who was pro-actively explaining why he stopped me.

Do you seriously want me to post the entire thing and bold each section in which he was not cooperating?

Officer #1: Yeah, but we have problems after midnight time. People break into cars. You pgot any ID on you?
Brett: Yeah, I do.
Officer #1: Can I see it please?
Brett: Did I do something wrong? <-- should be providing his license at this point

There's a start. Does he legally have to answer all the questions? Probably not. Does that make him uncooperative by refusing? Certainly. Is it within his rights to refuse? Sure it is.

In this case, the officer would not provide ANYTHING to the kid because he was lying through his teeth. He had NO reason to stop him. I don't see how asking what infractions you committed in a calm tone is all of a sudden 'less than cooperative'. The kid gave him his license, the officer asked for for his insurance card, and the kid just asked what was the infraction. Oh god, this kid needs his ass beat, how dare he ask a simple question like that! The only reason the officer got pissed off and went berserk is because he knew he had no answer for why he stopped the kid.

I already discussed that. Apparently we are going to disagree on this.

Where did he refuse? How was he uncooperative? He asked what he did wrong. I see nothing wrong with that. He provided his license on the 2nd request. He didn't say he wasn't going to give it to him. The cop was upset because the kid caught him in a lie.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: CadetLee

How is asking why you were being stopped 'less than cooperative'? Every single time i've been stopped (3 times in my life), i was in the wrong and the officer would ask, 'do you know why i pulled you over'? And i would say, 'no' (as i was taught to do so as to not incriminate myself) and the officer would explain what i did wrong (and he was being truthful and courteous). The OFFICER was the one who was pro-actively explaining why he stopped me.

Do you seriously want me to post the entire thing and bold each section in which he was not cooperating?

Officer #1: Yeah, but we have problems after midnight time. People break into cars. You pgot any ID on you?
Brett: Yeah, I do.
Officer #1: Can I see it please?
Brett: Did I do something wrong? <-- should be providing his license at this point

There's a start. Does he legally have to answer all the questions? Probably not. Does that make him uncooperative by refusing? Certainly. Is it within his rights to refuse? Sure it is.

In this case, the officer would not provide ANYTHING to the kid because he was lying through his teeth. He had NO reason to stop him. I don't see how asking what infractions you committed in a calm tone is all of a sudden 'less than cooperative'. The kid gave him his license, the officer asked for for his insurance card, and the kid just asked what was the infraction. Oh god, this kid needs his ass beat, how dare he ask a simple question like that! The only reason the officer got pissed off and went berserk is because he knew he had no answer for why he stopped the kid.

I already discussed that. Apparently we are going to disagree on this.

Where did he refuse? How was he uncooperative? He asked what he did wrong. I see nothing wrong with that. He provided his license on the 2nd request. He didn't say he wasn't going to give it to him. The cop was upset because the kid caught him in a lie.

Where did he refuse to answer questions? Are you serious?