Glock Talk banner
21 - 40 of 66 Posts
Something I just picked up on while watching this again... When they asked for the Lt., the Officers said the Lt. just talked to them, they then asked for another Lt. by name (sounded like Arburgo)...

I hope these two clowns aren't related to a police officer while acting like that.
Nah, probably the guy that took their last BS complaint.
 
I would have said (just to shut them up) my name's XXX, badge number XXX, you ARE being detained and have 5 seconds to do what I say and then I'm pulling you out.
FTW! There are those who are extreme, and these are. For all I know they are dangerous criminals. If the law is to show drivers license, (which they should understand the rules for already), then they should simply show it, let the officer do what he needs to do. If they would have cooperated, they would have been set loose to go about their business. I think the officers were professional in how they handled it.
 
Why do you need to show a driver's license? Well... duh... you're driving, asshat!
:rofl: Sometimes things are so obvious as to escape the notice of those with a severe lack of intelligence.:supergrin:
 
This video has been getting a lot of mileage at my station. Good times.

It seemed to me that the passenger was the actual owner of the vehicle and much more vocal then the driver. At one point I swear I can see the driver get the "Oh S**T" look on his face. Perhaps he felt that he'd taken this as far as he was comfortable and now he was past the point of no return. The schmuck with the camera though didn't seem to have any issues with his buddy being in the hot seat.
 
Reminds me of the Chris Rock video the way the passenger is going on.
 
According to this website, twelve states disallow DUI checkpoints: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

Like how Texas interprets them as being against the U.S. Constitution.

I don't drink, I'm no fun at parties. But it's a consideration to me (respect for our rights) as I decide where to move to, from California. Idaho is high and now higher on my list.
 
harry, Just where in the Constitution does it say you have a right or generally are alowed to drive an automobile? It doesn't. I can see part of your point concerning illegal searches and seizures but we are talking about a licensed privledge. I do not have any 'right' just do what every I want, I'm required to obey the laws that are passed by the legislature from the local all the way to the federal level
 
That video was full of "win". LEO's got a little entertainment, asshat's went to jail for being stupid. :supergrin:
 
harry, Just where in the Constitution does it say you have a right or generally are alowed to drive an automobile? It doesn't. I can see part of your point concerning illegal searches and seizures but we are talking about a licensed privledge. I do not have any 'right' just do what every I want, I'm required to obey the laws that are passed by the legislature from the local all the way to the federal level
I'm not Harry, but for argument's sake let us begin with Article 1 Section 8 Concerning the Powers of the US Congress, (both houses).

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Now, truthfully it doesn't mention manner of conveyance at all, nor does it disallow any matter of conveyance concerning conveyance used on post roads. So, it does not allow or disallow the driving or handling of any matter of conveyance including auto mobiles at the federal level. Notice the key wording within my sentence concerning that and how it relates to another part of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, specifically Amendment X to the US Constitution. The state does have a right to make laws concerning what kind of conveyance, the responsibilities of a user of a conveyance and the rights and responsibilities that go with it. So, if said person is on his own private property with a conveyance, that person can take that personal conveyance to anywhere on his property and not necessarily need a license to drive. But, on the state roads, and roads governed over by the State that person may need a license. I did not take time to look at case law, as I am not ambitious enough to do so, presently.
 
I would have said (just to shut them up) my name's XXX, badge number XXX, you ARE being detained and have 5 seconds to do what I say and then I'm pulling you out.
Not an LEO, but have nothing but respect and admiration to those that are. That said, I don't know if I would have given my bage and name at that point, knowing that this will most likely be posted on you tube. I would have thought "Sir, step out of the vehicle and I will gladly show you my badge number and name on my uniform."

Stay safe Folks!
 
I'm saying twelve states view sobriety checkpoints as being either against state law, the state's constitution or against the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I want to live in one of those states.

For decades, I've watched California legislators use all kinds of convoluted and twisted thinking to press their agenda. In my opinion, denying that sobriety checkpoints are in conflict with the Fourth Amendment is that same kind of thinking.

Grateful that the United States consists of individual states to accommodate some diversity of thought. I'm thinking I need to be in Idaho. :supergrin:
 
I dont know what the law states in this incident. This was a set up for sure. With that said, the first officer was rude when he told them to roll the window down and when asked why he said he would break it. Could have handled that a little bit better.

You could see a difference between the different officers involved.

This could have turned out much worse.

I think it would have if there had not been a camera rolling.
 
CA is like that. You can drive on your own property all you want but you need a license to go on a public road. Then again if I drove on my property, it would be all of 10 feet and then I'm done.

I'm not Harry, but for argument's sake let us begin with Article 1 Section 8 Concerning the Powers of the US Congress, (both houses).

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Now, truthfully it doesn't mention manner of conveyance at all, nor does it disallow any matter of conveyance concerning conveyance used on post roads. So, it does not allow or disallow the driving or handling of any matter of conveyance including auto mobiles at the federal level. Notice the key wording within my sentence concerning that and how it relates to another part of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, specifically Amendment X to the US Constitution. The state does have a right to make laws concerning what kind of conveyance, the responsibilities of a user of a conveyance and the rights and responsibilities that go with it. So, if said person is on his own private property with a conveyance, that person can take that personal conveyance to anywhere on his property and not necessarily need a license to drive. But, on the state roads, and roads governed over by the State that person may need a license. I did not take time to look at case law, as I am not ambitious enough to do so, presently.
 
These two idiots looked like a couple "street lawyers" who thought by recording this they would get arrested but get paid through some lawsuit. They probably thought this video would be on CNN and involve police brutality or some crap. They clearly were out to be hardass' and they don't know the law. To be honest the police gave them a lot more chances to cooperate then I would have! LOL
 
The Dred Scott case ( http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html ) is an relevant example of how SCOTUS gets it wrong sometime. A state where slavery was legal thought Mr. Scott was property. SCOTUS ruled the state was good to go.

This could be brewing in the mind of a legislator near you:

- There are kidnapped children being transported by car as we speak. The Megan kidnapping (of "Megan's Law") could have been prevented. We need "Cindy Stop" where we set up random road blocks to confirm the identity of any child inside. These stops will be regulated and done tastefully to minimize any inconvenience.

- al Qaeda could be driving to their next attack instead of flying. We need "Taliban Track" where we RFID all cars. Tracking your location will be regulated and done tastefully to minimize any inconvenience.

I joke a bit, but I can't distinguish these hypothetical laws from DUI stops. I'd rather drive soberly about my day, unobstructed in this "land of the free".

I think we need a no-BS assessment of what we are doing in this country, for the sake of safety.
 
If they won't get out of the car, why go to the trouble of breaking the window and fighting with them? Just call for the wrecker and have them towed right to jail! "Billy Bob, just drop the car in that there sally port...dispatch, I'm clear with services rendered!"
 
21 - 40 of 66 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top