DUI Checkpoint caught on film

[Henry the Eighth]

Joab, it is not my responsibility to do your research for you. You have a computer and internet access, look it up yourself.

As far as your Columbine comment, the cops refused to even go into the building and look for the perpatrators for over an hour. They stayed outside wondering what to do.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Scary reading this thread.

I agree with the statement above - I can see how the Germans let a Hitler take control of the country.

What I can't understand is how someone can be pro-2a and pro-freedom but buy into the its for the children crap on another topic. It makes no sense.

Someone drives drunk and kills some poor Joe - lock him up and throw away the key. Take every possesion. Period.

Stop with the Nazi checkpoints.

 

[Green Lantern]

Sarcasm don't carry well on the Internet:

Sorta like the ol' Smart Gun technology? Sheesh. Some people. Don't y'all realize that meekly accepting these sorts of police-state activities in support of the WoDD, WoD, illegal immigration et al will only serve to facilitate other infringements? How about "gun stops"? They okay, too?

(in response to my comment about having all cars equipped with breathalyzers)

- I wasn't being serious with that one.

The "Something" the cops should "Do" is to patrol the roads, observe the driving, and apprehend those who drive erratically. If it is determined that the erratic driving is due to illegal drugs or alcohol, they should throw their asses in jail. Maybe have a half-hour show on a local access channel, showing video of the arrest, publish the names and addresses of the drivers, etc. Punish the wrongdoers, don't hassle the public.

That's perfectly fine to me, in place of DUI checkpoints. But it just now hit me what the real problem seems to be around here. The cops do their jobs and catch these scum....

THEN the bleeding-heart judges turn them loose again with barely a slap on the wrist.

 

[joab]

Joab, it is not my responsibility to do your research for you. You have a computer and Internet access, look it up yourself.

You are the one that made the statement of fact. The fact that you cannot or will not back it up does not speak well of you or the statement.

They are under NO obligation to protect you or stop a crime in progress and the courts have absolved them of any wrong doing when some survivors sued the police department and officer involved.

Don't try to twist the responsibility of supporting your own statements onto me.

As to your observations on Columbine
What tactics would you have used and based on what intel at the time?

 

[dave_pro2a]

joab: yes, do your own research. iirc SCOTUS clearly ruled on this, "no duty to protect individual citizens." No liability for failure to act.

In Seattle, during a mardi gras celebration, police watched a man get beaten to death. Literally, almost the entire force sat idle while a young man was bludgened to death. No charges filed, no legal recourse, nada, zip, zero... just a family who was left mourning their son (a son who was trying to stop a woman from being abused).

Some specific jurisdictions have laws with language that talks about a policemans duty to protect citizens, but it is meaningless fluff... precedent has already been set so they can 'say' whatever they want, they still won't be liable or responsible for intentionally not acting to save a person.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

dave

"In Seattle, during a mardi gras celebration, police watched a man get beaten to death. Literally, almost the entire force sat idle while a young man was bludgened to death. No charges filed, no legal recourse, nada, zip, zero... just a family who was left mourning their son (a son who was trying to stop a woman from being abused)."

could you substantiate this? is this the case?
http://www.kirotv.com/news/7587720/detail.html


if so could you explain why its so hard to reconcile the reports with your allegations?

 

[dave_pro2a]

Yes that's the case. Do some research on it. Cop's sat by as the beating happened. The police chief at that time sat on a nearby roof watching it happen.

You should have seen the footage, there was plenty of it.

Out of fear of creating a larger riot, out of fear of police getting injured, they decided it was best to let the guy get beat. Typical SNAFU, and anybody who expects more from their local police department is miguided imho.

btw, your "report" (NOT plural, as you used it), is essentially a 2 paragraph summary of the conviction... NOT a description of the actual event in any substaintial form.

 

[Deanimator]

Perhaps one of you could show me where any cop at the scene in Columbine had a clear shot at a perpetrator or even knew where they were

They never put themselves in a position to HAVE a "clear shot". They stayed outside, safe and sound, until Klebold and Harris got tired of killing and killed themselves.

 

[medic_guns]

These checkpoints are BS, plain and simple. The next time I run into one and am asked where I'm headed, I'll tell them I'm looking for Jimmy Hoffa. Dang, I need to get a video camera for the car

 

[Glockfan.45]

I have not read all 10 pages of this thing nor will I. I did read the transcript of this altercation and heres how I see it based on that. The kid has some stones but he was a smart ass from the get go and that is what got him special attention. My real problem here is with these "check points" seems like an unwarranted search to me.

 

[Jeff22]

Speaking as a cop for 25 years, I am very wary of DUI checkpoints or of the tactic of asking citizens for consent to search their vehicle on a traffic stop, absent a physical arrest or some kind of reasonable suspicion. (It is legal for the cop to ask, and it's legal for you to decline. If, however, you are actually arrested (NOT cited, arrested) then we can search the car)

Both techniques have their valid uses under the right circumstances, given a proper degree of supervisory control. But I know and have worked with cops who wouldn't have proper decision making under either circumstance.

There is a proper place for aggressive law enforcement, but when such techniques are mis-applied or abused, it just alienates the public we're supposed to be serving . . . some people are just too dumb to be wearing a badge.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

but dave

are there only 350 cops in seattle?
and wasn't he charged convicted? were'n't 20 some other folks arrested?
didn't the trial convict the guy of killing him with his hands? blind siding him as he attempted to assist another person?


i'm having a hard time reconciling these facts with your post of

"In Seattle, during a mardi gras celebration, police watched a man get beaten to death. Literally, almost the entire force sat idle while a young man was bludgened to death. No charges filed, no legal recourse, nada, zip, zero... just a family who was left mourning their son (a son who was trying to stop a woman from being abused)."

which is the truth? no wonder you support the hero of the revolutions claims about the video your cut from same cloth credibility wise

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

maybe you like these sources more

they seem to cover it from an angle more your speed

the police chief needs to go but fluffing the facts doesn't help.

http://www.natall.com/free-speech/fs0103c.html
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Seattle-riots.html
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/NNN-Seattle-riots.html
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003404.htm
"Kris’ friend, Connor O’Neal testified that Kris was “blindsided on the head by two punches” from Thomas."

 

[joab]

joab: yes, do your own research. iirc SCOTUS clearly ruled on this, "no duty to protect individual citizens." No liability for failure to act.

Dave, once again
It is not my job to do any research to substantiate the claims of someone else.

Since you have joined into the fray perhaps you will go back and read the comment that I was commenting on
Now then you can show me, as I requested, a ruling by SCOTUS that states that a police officer can show a willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to someones life by witnessing someone about to blow someones head off and doing nothing

You make a statement about something you think you remember but offer no proof of your own so it is no wonder that you see it as my job to seek out proof for something I don't believe..
I can't prove a negative

Casandrasdaddy graciously provided links to sources of the incident you speak of but I see no link to SCOTUS rulings stating that the police officers had a right to just stand around and look at the beating.
I saw no accusations that the police did actually stand around the guy and watch as he was beaten to the death.
I didn't even see any accounts of the victim being beaten to death in a manner that police could just stand around and watch as it happened.

So now do you see why it is not only your job to provide links to these allegations but also to actually read them and be able to speak intelligently about them.

Now show me one of these so called clear rulings that states that police can show willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to a persons life, or admit that you can't

Before you set out to disprove me, ask yourself why I keep using the phrase
"show a willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to another's life"
It might be illuminating

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

graciously?!

now thats a scurrilous accusation

 

[joab]

It's the only big word I could think of

 

[thexrayboy]

THE POLICE TRIED TO MAKE SMALL TALK AND THE KID WAS BEING A SMART A--. IF YOU DON`T HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE THEN WHY NOT BE RESPECTFUL OF THE LAW.

Last time I checked it wasn't an actual crime for 19 year old young adults to be a smart ass. In fact it should be expected. From what I saw on this video it looked basically like a case of "contempt of cop". I saw nothing to indicate this youngster had done anything wrong and plenty on the part of the officers to indicate a total lack of respect for citizens rights.
But then nothing new really. The populace is being effectively divided into 3 main subsets. Us (LEO), Them ( the bad guys) and the sheeple. If you don't bleat "yes siiirrrrr" you are automatically moved to the "them" category for special treatment. Just another day in the Police state of Amerika.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i feel

like john wayne when sofia loren said he was safe

 

[dave_pro2a]

LOL, cassandrasdaddy you really need to stop drinking coffee.

Many of those arrests came days and weeks after the event, via the use of photos and film of perps.

The cops did watch a guy get beat to death and did nothing. The Police chief ordered it. The mayor sat on his but (or in his bed). It took off duty paramedics to actually do anything. Nothing much came of it, afaik, after all was said and done.

Fact is, proving something to you is a waste of time. You knee-jerkm discountm and marginalize whatever facts a person brings up -- because you're rabidly pro-leo and pro establishment (at least that's the way you come off).

joab: The fact police have no duty to protect individual citizens is very well documents. If you have trouble finding the cases then log onto lexis-nexus and search there. They can sit and watch a guy die, do nothing, and feel quite confident that they will face no repercusions.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

shucks i said the chief should go

preferably on a rail tar and feathered. so that was your attempt at substantiating your accusations?they did arrest and charge folks convicted on of using his hand to hit the dead guy can you back up up any of the hype? beside the part where they didn't move in under orders from the chief.
the truth is ok when you stray from it it makes your total credibilty and that of your cause go down the tubes

 

[dave_pro2a]

yeah cassandrasdaddy, and when you lump Michelle Malkin together with white supremacists YOU lose credibility.

Try reading 'regular' Pac NW sources, i.e. Seattle Times, PI, Everett Herald, etc.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

shucks the one article

you didn't like was the mainstream press
you dodging defending the other way out claims? its cool i understand how that is

 

[dave_pro2a]

Joab Quote: "Before you set out to disprove me, ask yourself why I keep using the phrase "show a willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to another's life" It might be illuminating"

Sure, if you do a search on "no affirmative duty." It might be illuminating

 

[ProguninTN]

Malum Prohibitum

That is not the only one he missed the boat on!

By the way, even in Wardlow, flight, by itself, was not sufficient to justify the stop. It was only one factor to be used in determining whether the officers actually had reasonable suspicion of a crime that would justify seizing Mr. Wardlow.

oobray pulled out the "evasive" word from its context and claimed it justified detaining this 19 year old guy at the DUI checkpoint for "evading" the officer's questions about where he was going.

Maybe you should have asked oobray this:

oobray, please explain for us how telling the officer you prefer not to answer his personal questions about your travel plans creates an articulable, reasonable suspicion that you are committing the crime of DUI.



We're waiting.

You're absolutely correct, and thank you for the clarification on Wardlow.

 

[Lupinus]

I never said that illegal wire taps, etc... help keep us free. I am also disappointed in the deterioration of the Constitution within our country. I just pray there's never a point where I have to make the decision when to join the revolution (although based on the major news stories the last couple of days, I fear that may be sooner than later).

You claimed paid goverment agents keep us a free society. They do nothing of the sort, it is less in their job description then is protecting a citizen if it means they wont come home. Can and do some cops? Yes absoloutly, but they are cops who go above and beyond. Law Enforcment does not have jack to do with keeping us a free society.

Perhaps one of you can show me a court case that has stated that a cop has no duty to intervene in a crime and can willfully and wantonly disregard a serious threat to someones life

As has been said it isn't my job to research for you. The references are actually in several posts on THR already.

Perhaps one of you could show me where any cop at the scene in Columbine had a clear shot at a perpetrator or even knew where they were

Perhaps you could show me where any cop at the scene tried to get a clear shot. No. Actualy hey presto you saved yourself some reaserch siteing a case that shows you exactly what I am talking about.

Kids getting shot in a school, cops show up and heard terrified students outside, cops do nothing for students inside and stand by while said students inside are at the hands of heavily armed gunmen. By your thinking every cop who responded to Columbine is liable for those deaths because of the fact they did nothing. They had no legal obligation to do so, and they didn't because it was deemed to great a risk to the officers.

i thought the supreme court settled contitutional issues. part of that pesky triumvirate. can anyone point out where i got confused?

They settle them with case law. Constitutional law is that laid out in the constition, not that a judge or panel of judges interpreting it. The supreme court are the highest court that can interpret the consitition, and the highest court that can strike down part of it as being unconsititional. However, while it says in the consitition that you are inncoent until proven guilty etc consititional law says you are.