Officer Tantrum (CNN)

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Caecus Veritas

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Caecus Veritas

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Agentbolt

because of some smart-ass little punk who IMO needs his ass beat.

Since you didn't bother explaining WHY he should be beat, I'll assume you were personal friends with this cop or something. It's not terribly surprising, douches tend to group together.

The kid is deliberately being evasive, he's being a smart ass, and didn't I read that he and his friend go around trolling for cops do film them like this?

If any of this is true, and it is, then the kid needs his ass beaten. If you are doing nothing wrong and the police pull you, answer their damn questions. It's easy.

This is almost up there with the idiots who get arrested for not letting stores check their bags when they leave.

I'm not defending this particular cop. Just saying that while the cop is definitely in the wrong, the kid is still a punk.
Anyone who is even semi-literate could have understood that.

man, would bush love you or what!

He's not saying that they should HAVE to answer the questions. He's saying it's easier for all parties if you do answer the questions.

Yes, it's always easier to give up your rights, not get in trouble, always trust and follow authority... just as long as you're not doing anything wrong, right? what happens when I don't want to take the easy route? you're saying it's "easier" if he answered the question. so, then, I ask you, what's the consequence of not doing the "easier" thing? in this case, the kid was threatened with imprisonment, fines, physical abuse (getting roughed up), etc etc - something you'd find in a police state. Unlike some other countries, we have the right not to take the "easy" way out, without the fear the unhealthy repurcussions.

I knew you were going to come back with a jackass response about giving up your rights. You're not giving up your rights when you voluntarily choose to not exercise a right you've been afforded. Giving up your rights would be to say that you should have to answer any and every stupid question an officer gives you.

Also, in this very thread I said the officer was completely out of line and there was no excuse for his behaviour. Should you expect the treatment that he received for simply not answering the question? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean you can't voluntarily choose to facilitate the process.

Especially at traffic stops, it's probably the most dangerous position an officer can be in. If I can make him feel more comfortable and speed it along without jeopardizing myself or my rights, I'll do so. Your choice is your own.

 

[spidey07]

That little snot nosed punk kid is going to have a VERY hard life after this little stunt of his as well we should. Getting pulled over every day is going to suck. They're going to get him back somehow.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: BigJ
He's not saying that they should HAVE to answer the questions. He's saying it's easier for all parties if you do answer the questions.

While technically he's saying that, the feeling I get from his post is that he is strongly biased towards the police in any situation. The connotation in his post seems to be that if you don't answer their questions the police are justified in treating you like shit.

Well in any conversation, it goes both ways. If you want to be a dick, expect to be treated like a dick. If you're cooperative and friendly, expect the same in return. You shouldn't be treated like shit for not answering a question, but don't expect to be treated like a princess.

Nobody expects to be treated like a princess in any situation by the police. Unless you are breaking the law and continually doing so while you are interacting with an officer, the police should be treating you with the same respect they'd afford somebody asking for directions on the street. Plain and simple, police are in a position of power and authority, they must be held to a higher standard.

Ultimately, I'd like to see the police treat everyone with more respect (and vice versa). But in the immediate future, I'd rather them still be assholes, yet enfore the laws justly and indiscriminantly. Have them actually do their jobs now, worry about the pleasantries later.

 

[pontifex]

the amount of hypocrisy that runs on this forum is amazing.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: pontifex
the amount of hypocrisy that runs on this forum is amazing.

lawlz

Wait...

 

[Caecus Veritas]

Originally posted by: BigJ


I knew you were going to come back with a jackass response about giving up your rights. You're not giving up your rights when you voluntarily choose to not exercise a right you've been afforded. Giving up your rights would be to say that you should have to answer any and every stupid question an officer gives you.

Also, in this very thread I said the officer was completely out of line and there was no excuse for his behaviour. Should you expect the treatment that he received for simply not answering the question? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean you can't voluntarily choose to facilitate the process.

Especially at traffic stops, it's probably the most dangerous position an officer can be in. If I can make him feel more comfortable and speed it along without jeopardizing myself or my rights, I'll do so. Your choice is your own.

Thank you for stating that a serious response in regards to our constitutional, or even our basic rights, is considered to be a jackass response to you. I'll still try to stay civil answering your post...

You ARE giving up rights under coercion if you choose to "voluntarily" cooperate with the police officer for fear of your own safety. do you understand that? that bolded part above on your post - very, very thin line. also, go back and read the original post that we are both responding to.

you know what... i'll just copy & paste
------------------------------------------------------------
The kid is deliberately being evasive, he's being a smart ass, and didn't I read that he and his friend go around trolling for cops do film them like this?

If any of this is true, and it is, then the kid needs his ass beaten. If you are doing nothing wrong and the police pull you, answer their damn questions. It's easy.

This is almost up there with the idiots who get arrested for not letting stores check their bags when they leave.
------------------------------------------------------------


he is implying that basically the kid asked for trouble and needs a beating because he was being "evasive" and a "smart ass" with the cop, and that anyone pulled over by a cop should just answer any and all questions asked (IF you did nothing wrong btw). you agreed with his statement by interpreting it in your own way, saying 'yeah, it's just easier if you answer the questions'.

bigj, there are reasons why we have certains laws in this country that you may think are stupid and allow stupid people to keep doing stupid things... but they are there for a reason.

also, out of my personal experience. back in high school friends and i (btw, we were very nerdy lookin', far far from gangster look) were roughed up (well, not much but much verbal abuse), lied to, and held at a parking lot for about 30 minutes. we were forced to put our hands on the cruiser hood (very hot btw) the whole time, padded down, etc etc. i asked very POLITELY (i had respect for all cops back then) for the reason we were being held. instead, i was told to shut the f up, and if i were to take my hands off the f'king hood again (i guess one hand came off the hood while asking the cop - you know, really normal hand gesture in a converstaion) he would take that as a threat and basically take me down, hurt me and then haul my ass to jail... mmmm.... so much for asking why we were being detained.

now, i'm actually glad that there are people going around with tapes. it's called checks and balances, accountability, etc. while i don't think private citizens going around with a cam picking on cops is a very good idea (very bad actually), i would rather have an oversight organization to professionally monitor at random our police force.

 

[apac]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: BigJ
He's not saying that they should HAVE to answer the questions. He's saying it's easier for all parties if you do answer the questions.

While technically he's saying that, the feeling I get from his post is that he is strongly biased towards the police in any situation. The connotation in his post seems to be that if you don't answer their questions the police are justified in treating you like shit.

Well in any conversation, it goes both ways. If you want to be a dick, expect to be treated like a dick. If you're cooperative and friendly, expect the same in return. You shouldn't be treated like shit for not answering a question, but don't expect to be treated like a princess.

Nobody expects to be treated like a princess in any situation by the police. Unless you are breaking the law and continually doing so while you are interacting with an officer, the police should be treating you with the same respect they'd afford somebody asking for directions on the street. Plain and simple, police are in a position of power and authority, they must be held to a higher standard.

Ultimately, I'd like to see the police treat everyone with more respect (and vice versa). But in the immediate future, I'd rather them still be assholes, yet enfore the laws justly and indiscriminantly. Have them actually do their jobs now, worry about the pleasantries later.

While I agree with some of what you've said, the video clearly shows the cop acting anything but indiscriminantly. The officer was clearly discriminating based on his position of superiority and age. If ANYONE talked down to me like that ("c'mon BOY") I'd go from zero to furious in about 3 seconds.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: apac

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: BigJ
He's not saying that they should HAVE to answer the questions. He's saying it's easier for all parties if you do answer the questions.

While technically he's saying that, the feeling I get from his post is that he is strongly biased towards the police in any situation. The connotation in his post seems to be that if you don't answer their questions the police are justified in treating you like shit.

Well in any conversation, it goes both ways. If you want to be a dick, expect to be treated like a dick. If you're cooperative and friendly, expect the same in return. You shouldn't be treated like shit for not answering a question, but don't expect to be treated like a princess.

Nobody expects to be treated like a princess in any situation by the police. Unless you are breaking the law and continually doing so while you are interacting with an officer, the police should be treating you with the same respect they'd afford somebody asking for directions on the street. Plain and simple, police are in a position of power and authority, they must be held to a higher standard.

Ultimately, I'd like to see the police treat everyone with more respect (and vice versa). But in the immediate future, I'd rather them still be assholes, yet enfore the laws justly and indiscriminantly. Have them actually do their jobs now, worry about the pleasantries later.

While I agree with some of what you've said, the video clearly shows the cop acting anything but indiscriminantly. The officer was clearly discriminating based on his position of superiority and age. If ANYONE talked down to me like that ("c'mon BOY") I'd go from zero to furious in about 3 seconds.

That post actually didn't have anything to do with the conduct of the officer in this case. Just a general statement about what I would rather have. Making sure the law is upheld properly, and then worry about manners. As opposed to them having great manners now but a terrible track record with upholding the law, or having medicore manners and a medicore upholding of the law.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Caecus Veritas

Originally posted by: BigJ


I knew you were going to come back with a jackass response about giving up your rights. You're not giving up your rights when you voluntarily choose to not exercise a right you've been afforded. Giving up your rights would be to say that you should have to answer any and every stupid question an officer gives you.

Also, in this very thread I said the officer was completely out of line and there was no excuse for his behaviour. Should you expect the treatment that he received for simply not answering the question? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean you can't voluntarily choose to facilitate the process.

Especially at traffic stops, it's probably the most dangerous position an officer can be in. If I can make him feel more comfortable and speed it along without jeopardizing myself or my rights, I'll do so. Your choice is your own.

Thank you for stating that a serious response in regards to our constitutional, or even our basic rights, is considered to be a jackass response to you. I'll still try to stay civil answering your post...

You ARE giving up rights under coercion if you choose to "voluntarily" cooperate with the police officer for fear of your own safety. do you understand that? that bolded part above on your post - very, very thin line. also, go back and read the original post that we are both responding to.

you know what... i'll just copy & paste
------------------------------------------------------------
The kid is deliberately being evasive, he's being a smart ass, and didn't I read that he and his friend go around trolling for cops do film them like this?

If any of this is true, and it is, then the kid needs his ass beaten. If you are doing nothing wrong and the police pull you, answer their damn questions. It's easy.

This is almost up there with the idiots who get arrested for not letting stores check their bags when they leave.
------------------------------------------------------------


he is implying that basically the kid asked for trouble and needs a beating because he was being "evasive" and a "smart ass" with the cop, and that anyone pulled over by a cop should just answer any and all questions asked (IF you did nothing wrong btw). you agreed with his statement by interpreting it in your own way, saying 'yeah, it's just easier if you answer the questions'.

<snip>
Irrelevant anecdote
</snip>

<snip>
Irrelevant commentary, but I agree with it
</snip>

First off, in no way, shape, or form am I taking a shot at our rights or trying to invalidate them. You're trying to draw some sort of connection between a practical approach which I said was acceptable and the stripping of liberties. You're trying to make a connection that isn't there.

Secondly, I ONLY agreed with the statement that it is easier to just answer the police. If you want to go ahead and fight the good fight, by all means go ahead. Also, he's speaking from a practical standpoint. He's not saying our liberties should be stripped. Again, you're trying to draw a connection that isn't there. There's a very large gap between what you feel may be moral, ethical, or practical, and what you may feel about the legality of something.

Basically, nothing you just responded with has any bearing on my post. I commented that not answering the question should not result in you being put in a similar position as the kid was put in. Which means that you shouldn't have to fear improper treatment because of you exercising your rights.

I did not use voluntary in quotes, and I was using it in the sense that it was purely voluntary. Not under coercision.

And as for this gem:

bigj, there are reasons why we have certains laws in this country that you may think are stupid and allow stupid people to keep doing stupid things... but they are there for a reason.

What in the hell is that supposed to mean? When did I ever start questioning the validity of laws?

You're looking for an argument when there is none. You're trying to make it look like I'm vehemently opposed to individual rights, when it's anything but that. Unlike some people, I can actually look at things from two sides, legal and practical. You people get so wrapped up and are so god damn zealous that you try to pick fights with anyone that doesn't staunchly support your own view point or may have a different idea.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: spidey07
That little snot nosed punk kid is going to have a VERY hard life after this little stunt of his as well we should. Getting pulled over every day is going to suck. They're going to get him back somehow.

I knew I disliked you for a reason.

 

[Mike2002]

I really wonder if the police officer is able to turn the dash cam on and off whenever he wants to. Maybe so but it seems like it would always be rolling.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Mike2002
I really wonder if the police officer is able to turn the dash cam on and off whenever he wants to. Maybe so but it seems like it would always be rolling.

It depends on a few things.

Typically when lights or sirens are running they'll come on. I believe most of them can be manually turned on also.

Depending on the department's policy, they may be required at other times or they may automatically come on at certain times. Which doesn't mean they can't turn them on or off, just that if there is a problem and Internal Affairs gets involved, it may spell trouble.