Sam1647545489 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Yeah, they are indeed doing their jobs. Kudos to them. These kids knew their rights. Kudos to them. What are the rights? Serious question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffro Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 this is one of the most ignorant things i hear. Woman walks into a police station... Woman: My husband beat me up last night, i was scared to call. Cop: Do you have any injuries? Woman: Yes, here they are. (Shows some redness consistent with her statement) Cop: Did anyone else witness this? Woman: No, we were home alone. Cop: What do want to do? Woman: I want my piece of shit husband arrested. Scenario #1 Cop: Did you beat your wife up last night? Man: (says Nothing) Cop: Are you going to answer my questions? Man: No, talk to my lawyer. Cop: You are under arrest for Domestic Violence. Scenario #2 Cop: Did you beat your wife up last night? Man: Nope, my wife was drunk last night and fell down. I wasn't even home last night. Cop: Where were you? Man: I was with my girlfriend. My wife found out about us. Cop: Copy that. Will your girlfriend confirm your story? Man: Yes. Cop: Have a nice day, sir. Police are looking for facts and evidence, not guilt. That's the court's job, homeboy. Bad example. New Ohio law mandates that someone MUST be arrested on all domestic violence calls. As for the topic at hand, there was some vids posted that dude was just out to prove a point, and be annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 What are the rights? Serious question If you are stopped in a checkpoint, or otherwise randomly, the officer has no legal reason to detain you, and unless you've got something illegal right in their face, no probable cause to be able to search you. You always have the right to remain silent. Answer no questions, and ask if you are free to go, till they let you leave. Edit: I offer no legal advice, just my understanding of my rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam1647545489 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvvRjDxShGo&feature=player_embedded :lolguy::lolguy::lolguy::lolguy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Brian Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigOxley Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Bad example. New Ohio law mandates that someone MUST be arrested on all domestic violence calls. As for the topic at hand, there was some vids posted that dude was just out to prove a point, and be annoying. not true, but i did pick that scenario specifically to show an example In Ohio, the preferred course of action is to arrest IF a primary physical aggressor can be determined. People don't automatically get arrested if a claim is made. That said, they probably will get arrested if they don't make a statement offering a plausible explanation for why the other person is making the claim. Edit: Also, George Zimmerman wasn't initially arrested by the cops because he gave a statement and offered an explanation of self defense. He only was arrested after a special prosecutor got involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Brian Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) Bad example. New Ohio law mandates that someone MUST be arrested on all domestic violence calls. As for the topic at hand, there was some vids posted that dude was just out to prove a point, and be annoying. brb calling 911 saying my neighbors are fighting.. ONE OF THEM MUST GO Edited November 1, 2012 by Not Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffro Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 not true, but i did pick that scenario specifically to show an example In Ohio, the preferred course of action is to arrest IF a primary physical aggressor can be determined. People don't automatically get arrested if a claim is made. That said, they probably will get arrested if they don't make a statement offering a plausible explanation for why the other person is making the claim. Edit: Also, George Zimmerman wasn't initially arrested by the cops because he gave a statement and offered an explanation of self defense. He only was arrested after a special prosecutor got involved. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/docs/Domestic_Violence_Arrest_Policies_by_State_11_07.authcheckdam.pdf Perhaps i took it the wrong way, but probable cause goes a long way sometimes. Claim? What is this, an insurance call? Also, what does Zimmerman have to do with domestic violence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam1647545489 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Well after reading a 20 page thread on another forum, everyone posting rights, I still dont understand why not just say no and be on your way. If they wanna start searching your car then I can see if you wanna do it this way. But why not just not waste both parties time, say no and move on. Or am I the only person who see's it this way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigOxley Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/docs/Domestic_Violence_Arrest_Policies_by_State_11_07.authcheckdam.pdf Perhaps i took it the wrong way, but probable cause goes a long way sometimes. Claim? What is this, an insurance call? Also, what does Zimmerman have to do with domestic violence? He doesn't, separate points about giving a statement to the po-po Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Sam, I think it's more just advising people of their rights, and what they can expect exercising those rights in a similar fashion. Everyone in situations with LEOs will have to decide how they conduct themselves. If I go through one my actions will be similar. I simply despise as a matter of principle, and freedom, going through a police checkpoint to conduct whatever activity I am on my way to doing. If people disagree that's fine too, I advise they handle the same situation how they see fit. For me avoiding the hassle through compliance would be cowardly, and tacitly accepting of the practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 All I am saying is, fight the battle in the court of law, not by being a jackass with a video camera intentionally trying to troll. And if you suggest these guys were not intentionally trolling, you're delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M0nk3y Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I hope the people in this thread realize that DUI checkpoints are hardly successful...and mostly a waste of tax money. They would be more effective if they were actually patrolling the streets. If you were actually smart, you'd realize that LEO are required to post the locations of DUI checkpoints 24 hours prior to conducting. By being polite with the officers: Have you had anything to drink tonight? Yes! About 6-7 an hour ago You're under arrest For drinking water? Just FYI: Avoiding a checkpoint with a legal turn does not justify a stop. There is a lot of case law on this. Any tickets or charges will be dropped because the stop was unlawful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Sam, I think it's more just advising people of their rights, and what they can expect exercising those rights in a similar fashion. Everyone in situations with LEOs will have to decide how they conduct themselves. If I go through one my actions will be similar. I simply despise as a matter of principle, and freedom, going through a police checkpoint to conduct whatever activity I am on my way to doing. If people disagree that's fine too, I advise they handle the same situation how they see fit. For me avoiding the hassle through compliance would be cowardly, and tacitly accepting of the practice. So do something about it, besides complain? File a lawsuit, collect signatures, go to a media outlet to explain and garner support, join groups that are doing these things, etc.... Otherwise, you're no better. And that goes to all the internet warriors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 By being polite with the officers: Have you had anything to drink tonight? Yes! About 6-7 an hour ago You're under arrest For drinking water? quit fear mongering. I have been there, and already shown that scenario wont 'necessarily' play out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 All I am saying is, fight the battle in the court of law, not by being a jackass with a video camera intentionally trying to troll. And if you suggest these guys were not intentionally trolling, you're delusional. It serves both to educate the officer, and the public. How many people see these videos and ask "can you do that?", or start a conversation, spread ideas. Is it trolling, baiting? Sure, but it serves a purpose. I'm for fighting it in court too, but civil disobedience puts the disapproval in their faces, and if enough people didn't comply they may reconsider the tactic. Again, these officers could be out patrolling, actively seeking out drunk drivers. No one is protecting them, just us non-drunk drivers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuicedH22 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 It serves both to educate the officer, and the public. How many people see these videos and ask "can you do that?", or start a conversation, spread ideas. I will mark the video examples above in the "highly ineffective" category at accomplishing that task. Clearly the officers just said "yup, this guy is sober and being an asshole, move him along and try to catch criminals". I think you've watched V for Vendetta too many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I will mark the video examples above in the "highly ineffective" category at accomplishing that task. Clearly the officers just said "yup, this guy is sober and being an asshole, move him along and try to catch criminals". I think you've watched V for Vendetta too many times. That's exactly the point, the officer had to let him go. Not sure what you're looking for. I've never actually seen that movie, though I've heard I'd like it. Say what you want, yet here we are discussing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) this is one of the most ignorant things i hear. Woman walks into a police station... Woman: My husband beat me up last night, i was scared to call. Cop: Do you have any injuries? Woman: Yes, here they are. (Shows some redness consistent with her statement) Cop: Did anyone else witness this? Woman: No, we were home alone. Cop: What do want to do? Woman: I want my piece of shit husband arrested. Scenario #1 Cop: Did you beat your wife up last night? Man: (says Nothing) Cop: Are you going to answer my questions? Man: No, talk to my lawyer. Cop: You are under arrest for Domestic Violence. Scenario #2 Cop: Did you beat your wife up last night? Man: Nope, my wife was drunk last night and fell down. I wasn't even home last night. Cop: Where were you? Man: I was with my girlfriend. My wife found out about us. Cop: Copy that. Will your girlfriend confirm your story? Man: Yes. Cop: Have a nice day, sir. Police are looking for facts and evidence, not guilt. That's the court's job, homeboy. You obviously misread "whenever you are stopped by the police" I clearly don't recall writing "whenever you call the police for help" :dumb: I stand by the fact that when you are pulled over in a DUI or a traffic stop the police are NOT there to help you. You're right homeboy, they are looking for Evidence....and NOT evidence to help you get out of the reason they pulled you over. In traffic violations they are looking for evidence to support their role in court which is to support the prosecution. Cops don't write notes about my reactions, behaviors and statements during a traffic stop to protect me. My wife started off in the prosecutors office for several years. I know the drill from the inside. I've never seen a cop write a ticket then go to court and side with the driver in order to get them out of the ticket. Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST YOU. It legally can't be used to help you as it will be objected to as hearsay. Edited November 2, 2012 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Edit: Also, George Zimmerman wasn't initially arrested by the cops because he gave a statement and offered an explanation of self defense. He only was arrested after a special prosecutor got involved. and it's a fact that he would have been better off to shut the fuck up and not give said statement until after consulting with his lawyer. It's likely the cops "convinced him" that they were there to "help him" avoid going to prison, blah, blah, blah.....no thanks. He should have said he will be glad to provide a statement after consulting with a lawyer and that until then he isn't going to answer ANY questions or say anything further. Even if he was arrested, that's okay because in the long run he likely did himself harm by putting ANY statement out there. Again, who cares if you're arrested and spend a day or two in jail if the alternative is speaking without a lawyers who IS THERE TO PROTECT you to speak on your behalf. Dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Sam, I think it's more just advising people of their rights, and what they can expect exercising those rights in a similar fashion. Everyone in situations with LEOs will have to decide how they conduct themselves. If I go through one my actions will be similar. I simply despise as a matter of principle, and freedom, going through a police checkpoint to conduct whatever activity I am on my way to doing. If people disagree that's fine too, I advise they handle the same situation how they see fit. For me avoiding the hassle through compliance would be cowardly, and tacitly accepting of the practice. ^^ Well said. There's no big deal in saying that you're not going to answer their questions. At that point you've done nothing wrong that would lead to feeling intimidated in ANY way. At that point they are going to try and get you to engage in conversation / talk in some fashion to aid THEM not you. They will then have to assess through your mannerisms, speech and eyes if you warrant further action. If not, they will cut you loose. All I am saying is, fight the battle in the court of law, not by being a jackass with a video camera intentionally trying to troll. And if you suggest these guys were not intentionally trolling, you're delusional. You only have to fight the battle in court if you are indeed drunk enough to warrant a sobriety test and are then found guilty. If you're not drunk and are simply on your way home from dinner with a coworker or wife then you don't have to answer ANY questions nor should you. EVERY DUI attorney will tell you the same thing.....'don't say ANYTHING' as it will ALL be used AGAINST you. So even if you are tested and arrested SAY NOTHING. Let your lawyer do the talking. I agree these guys were likely just trolling to troll, but I'm way more tolerant of these vids as their actions were cool and they weren't being ass-hats in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Sounds like you must of got a ticket for some bs and decided to take you anger on all police officers.. Perfect record, no accidents or tickets, never been stopped, thanks. Imagine if the US decided to make every child attended the military for atleast 2 years, spank there kids accordently (not abuse), drug test for welfare... Just imagine how the crime rate would drop and how strong this country would be Did you know that corporal punishment increases the chance of criminal behavior? http://www.nospank.net/maurer1.htm Whereas if people were more educated, the odds of them engaging in criminal behavior decreases? Oh, and it decreases behavior such as drinking and driving as well... http://www.educationvoterspa.org/index.php/site/issues/education-and-crime/ So no. We don't need DUI check points. We need more education. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 We don't need no, education.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 . Otherwise, you're no better. And that goes to all the internet warriors. I respectfully disagree. To take 5 minutes to exercise your rights at a DUI Checkpoint and inform the officers that you are NOT going to answer their questions doesn't make you wrong or horrible. It's easily done in a polite respectful way. Reverse the roles, if you walked up to an officer filling out paperwork while parked on your side street and asked him what he was doing there, where's he going and if he was working or just killing time, he'd likely give you an earful. Rightfully so and the underlying reason is the same...you have no place nor do they. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 (edited) Clearly the officers just said "yup, this guy is sober and being an asshole, move him along and try to catch criminals". perhaps..and you're right, they saw the guy as sober......or they just moved a guy who's had something to drink but isn't drunk enough to be clearly under the influence. Believe me, there are plenty of times where people have had 1-2 drinks, aren't drunk, yet still drive (not that I condone it) but aren't drunk. However, if they answer said question and say, "yes officer...I've had 2 drinks tonight at dinner but am fine" I think you would agree they just increased their odds of having a bad night and an expensive situation that could cost them their job, home, car, wife, a ton of time and money, etc..... Again, no thanks. Say nothing thus even if you are pulled out and given sobriety test, you can't be charged with providing false information by saying "no" and chancing it as even if you blow a .04 you're likely going to have rough night going forward. When in doubt and allowed to stay silent, do so. Again, DUI checkpoints are not there to help you and anytime you're involved in a situation with a law enforcement officer, even if you're a lawyer, let another one do the talking for you. If one isn't present or needed at that point in the situation, stick to your right to stay silent. Much wiser move and ANY Competent Lawyer will tell you that. Edited November 2, 2012 by TTQ B4U Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.