Driver's rights trampled on at routine traffic stop

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by gsugolfer, Jul 7, 2013.

  1. gsugolfer macrumors 6502a

    gsugolfer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #1
    Now, I'm going to be honest. The title was a little bit just to get you in here.

    I think this dude brought this situation on himself by refusing to let the window down. There was no reason to do that, and he proved that he was only doing it to generate a response by having a video camera set up and all that jazz.

    Regardless, the police took the situation way too far, even though they were most definitely provoked. Some pretty embarrassing comments for the profession in this video. It's a shame that a police force in the United States would treat a citizen like this for no reason.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w-WMn_zHCVo#at=212
     
  2. waa1futs macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    #2
    We as a nation have bigger issues to worry about (poverty, obesity epidemic, domestic violence) than to really care how police deal with some troll who has a stick up his a** and is trying to cause trouble when all the cops were trying to do is keep our lives safe and get drunk drivers off the road.
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Sorry I don't really see that as a major issue really. He was perfectly polite to the police officer.
     
  4. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #4
    If your complying within the law, how can you bring any situation on yourself? Officers are supposed to act professional at all times. If the windows are not tinted and can clearly be seen through, then the driver only has to pull the window down enough to verbally communicate and pass any documents to officers.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    The police are supposed to treat people properly.
     
  6. gsugolfer thread starter macrumors 6502a

    gsugolfer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #6
    I guess my point there is his intent, moreso than his action. He let the window partially down with the intent to antagonize. Not the intent to protect his rights.

    Not that it excuses the cop's actions in any way.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    He's perfectly allowed to do that though - it's like asking the police for identification.
     
  8. waa1futs macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    #8
    Again, we as a nation have much bigger issues to worry about.

    The main reasons police want the drivers window down at DUI checkpoints is to be able to quickly smell the drivers breath if it has alcohol on it to protect the lives of other people on the road. This guy knew that keeping the window only cracked open would arouse suspicion and wanted to see what he could push/get away with. Basically being a troll.
     
  9. gsugolfer thread starter macrumors 6502a

    gsugolfer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #9
    I don't know if you followed my posts in the "Sidewalk Chalkman vs BOA" thread, but I just see it as a similar situation here. Neither did anything wrong (driving lawyer or sidewalk chalkman), but they both did it with malicious intent.
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Having a police force that follows the rules is an important principle and one that is protected by the constitution. I thought the US constitution was really important to Americans.

    I'm sure that can easily be masked with chewing gum - if they thought he was drunk they should have breathalysed him.

    ----------

    I haven't really followed the other case, but here the only bad thing he did was not winding down his window - which seems like a pretty trivial issue to me. It's like asking the police to present ID.
     
  11. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #11
    "Malice" or "malicious intent" has a specific legal meaning. You're using the term in a different sense than the legal meaning.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_(legal_term)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

    I would call sidewalk chalkman's behavior civil disobedience, except that the police had previously stated that sidewalk chalking was not vandalism. And he was found not guilty.

    Not rolling a window down I wouldn't even chalk up as civil disobedience, simply minimal compliance. In a unionized workplace, it might be called work-to-rule. There is no law that compels a person to give the police more than minimal compliance.
     
  12. samiwas Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #12
    Disclaimer: I haven't watched the video because these kinds of things generally aggravate me.

    But, judging by other comments, I agree that this dude brought it upon himself, and that it was solely on purpose seeing that he had the video ready to roll.

    As for your last statement, I think it's a shame that so many people feel that they must disrespect any kind of authority in some way to prove their rights, or escalate a situation on purpose to get the authority figure to go overboard so that they can call them out on some sort of rights violation. I really hold nothing but contempt for those kinds of people.
     
  13. gsugolfer thread starter macrumors 6502a

    gsugolfer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #13
    If you didn't watch the video, you don't know how far they took it.
     
  14. samiwas Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #14
    Which "they"?
     
  15. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #15
    Police
     
  16. gsugolfer thread starter macrumors 6502a

    gsugolfer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #16
    Police. I would have said "he" in reference to the driver.
     
  17. turtle777 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    #17
    Personal experience: I was driving around at a business park late at night to find a FedEx drop off box.

    Police pulls me over to check my ID because in a nearby building, the alarm had gone off.

    As far as I understand my rights, this pulling over and asking for ID was illegal.

    I complied, because I really didn't want to get in a fight with police during the night. But it is f$&@ed up that our rights are being more and more undermined with the excuse of "public safety". And I'm sure if I had resisted in any way, plenty of people would have accused me of just being a d:ck with an attitude.

    -t
     
  18. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #18
    I rarely get these go along to get along feelings with anyone other than my wife.
     
  19. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #19
    Yea, you really need to watch the video before you speak on it.

    The guy didn't have an attitude nor was he loud. He didn't even come off as an ass, he was just asking questions and affirming his rights. The police didn't even know they were being taped until they searched his car, so that was not any cause of irritating the police.

    It's seems like some believe saying no to police means your asking for it. That's complete BS.
     
  20. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #20
    I hated DUI checkpoints.

    The driver ought to go to Copwatch, he'd be a hero.
     
  21. MegamanX macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    #21
    No the pull over was completely legal. They only need probably cause to pull you over and ask for id. Probably cause was meet by the alarm. That was enough for it.

    Your complaint went no where because cop did nothing wrong.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    I struggle with the idea that he "brought the situation on himself." If there's no support for refusing to kowtow to the excesses of the authorities, how can anyone challenge them, even if it's a simple refusal to roll down a window.

    The police should know the law and not knowing the law is their failure. We see the problem in their eye-rolling about the Constitution while they search his car and their refusal to operate in full-view of his video camera.

    Go watch the video.

    Watch the video. He's picked the wrong battle, but he's within his rights. And, that's the point. Police officers have to acknowledge that the public has rights, regardless if the subject is a smart-ass or someone driving around with a sticker supporting the policeman's union. We have rights.
     
  23. turtle777 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    #23
    BS. Do you even know what probable cause means ?

    Uhm, what complaint ?

    -t
     
  24. Renzatic, Jul 7, 2013
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2013

    Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #24
    The kid is kind of an ass, BUT...

    ...you need asses like him running around making sure the police stay on the straight and narrow. Yeah, he obviously baited them for the sake of posting the next smash hit Youtube video, but hey...they took it and ran with it. They had no right to go as far as they did, and have no one to blame but themselves for the eventual flak they'll get over it.
     
  25. MegamanX macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    #25
    Yes I do. I also know for pulling over it does not take much for a traffic stop. The bar is set VERY VERY low for a traffic stop. aka you will NEVER win a case saying they did not have probable cause to pull you over.

    As for probable cause in your pullover lets see.

    It is late at night so very few cars on the road. I am willing to guess you where among the VERY VERY few cars on the road.
    Alarm goes off in the area so chances are very good that the likely car is in the area and there are very few.
    Cop has BOLO too look for stuff in the area.
    So they see your lone car in the area. They pull you over and what he is looking for is a nerves response. You pull over assuming a fairly routine traffic spot.


    So given what I just laid out they had a fairly good probable cause. Now what he was looking for was for some type of reaction. Notice how he did not try to search your car or even ask to do it. He was just asking for id and pulling you over. Chances are he then ran your id for warrants. If you had acted nervous you can bet he would of ask to search your car.
     

Share This Page