yah i saw that video, that woman was ridiculous. the cop handled it ok i think.
but some police are just looking for a target on which to release their inner anger/frustration, and will use any provocation as an excuse to bully someone
-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Anonymous gives the cops an ultimatum
- Thread starter StoneyK
- Start date
yah i saw that video, that woman was ridiculous. the cop handled it ok i think.
but some police are just looking for a target on which to release their inner anger/frustration, and will use any provocation as an excuse to bully someone
One is not considered fully under arrest until they've been cuffed and mirandized. No where does he ever indicate anything, nothing at all, relating to him pulling her over for running a stop sign or suspecting her of DUI. He doesn't mention it in the video, he doesn't mention it in his arrest report, it's never been mentioned in any reporting of this case.
Like I said he would never have entertained the notion of letting her go with a warning if he really suspected she was DUI. If he did let her go and she was DUI and she ended up killing someone down the road, guess what? The cop would be liable for negligent homicide.
I agreee.... with the cuffs part..... they dont have to miranize her unless they intend to question her....
Its true.....until she is cuffed she is not under arrest....
the cop simply stated his intent to arrest her...
and he did....
Its true.....until she is cuffed she is not under arrest....
the cop simply stated his intent to arrest her...
and he did....
Like I said he would never have entertained the notion of letting her go with a warning if he really suspected she was DUI.
You keep thinking you know what the cop was thinking....
IMO you dont have a clue....
You keep thinking you know what the cop was thinking....
IMO you dont have a clue....
Like I said he would never have entertained the notion of letting her go with a warning if he really suspected she was DUI.
I had a conversation about this with a black ex cop..... great guy.....
I asked him....had he ever arrested someone after writing a warning....
He said lots of times....
It sounds to me like the old warning thing is a cop trick to make you lower your guard......
I had a conversation about this with a black ex cop..... great guy.....
I asked him....had he ever arrested someone after writing a warning....
He said lots of times....
It sounds to me like the old warning thing is a cop trick to make you lower your guard......
When the Miranda Warning Is Required
It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial.
If someone is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial. Police officers often avoid arresting people—and make it clear to them that they're free to go—precisely so they don't have to give the Miranda warning. Then they can arrest the suspect after getting the incriminating statement they wanted all along.
For more detail on these issues, see Miranda: The Meaning of 'Custodial Interrogation.'
Pre-Arrest Questioning
Do you have to respond to police questions if you haven't been arrested? Generally, no. (You typically don't have to answer even if you're under arrest.) A police officer generally cannot arrest a person simply for failure to respond to questions. (There are, however, situations where you might have to provide information like identification; see Daniele Watts Controversy: Can Officers Demand ID?)
It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read the Miranda rights if they want to ask questions and use the answers as evidence at trial.
If someone is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial. Police officers often avoid arresting people—and make it clear to them that they're free to go—precisely so they don't have to give the Miranda warning. Then they can arrest the suspect after getting the incriminating statement they wanted all along.
For more detail on these issues, see Miranda: The Meaning of 'Custodial Interrogation.'
Pre-Arrest Questioning
Do you have to respond to police questions if you haven't been arrested? Generally, no. (You typically don't have to answer even if you're under arrest.) A police officer generally cannot arrest a person simply for failure to respond to questions. (There are, however, situations where you might have to provide information like identification; see Daniele Watts Controversy: Can Officers Demand ID?)
If someone is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial. Police officers often avoid arresting people—and make it clear to them that they're free to go—precisely so they don't have to give the Miranda warning. Then they can arrest the suspect after getting the incriminating statement they wanted all along.
as you can see from this.... cops are sneaky bastards... this comment....is not entirely unlike this sandra case....
as you can see from this.... cops are sneaky bastards... this comment....is not entirely unlike this sandra case....
Like I said he would never have entertained the notion of letting her go with a warning if he really suspected she was DUI. If he did let her go and she was DUI and she ended up killing someone down the road, guess what? The cop would be liable for negligent homicide.
I dont think you are getting the finer details here.....
He writes the warning and intends to give her the warning if she passes dui testing......
But you are exactly right.....
if this cop had let this woman go without testing her...... and she killed someone....
he would be in serious trouble.... I would be wanting his ass too.....
I dont think you are getting the finer details here.....
He writes the warning and intends to give her the warning if she passes dui testing......
But you are exactly right.....
if this cop had let this woman go without testing her...... and she killed someone....
he would be in serious trouble.... I would be wanting his ass too.....
AUSTIN, Texas – The top boss over the Texas trooper who arrested Sandra Bland said there was reason to pull her over for failing to signal a lane change and told lawmakers Thursday that the trooper remains on the state payroll because the investigation is still playing out.
Bland was found dead in the Waller County jail on July 13, three days after her arrest. Authorities say she hanged herself with a garbage bag, a find her family has questioned. Her family and others also have criticized the traffic stop that led to Bland's arrest.
"There was a reason, if you look at it from a traffic violation standpoint," Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said, responding to sometimes pointed questions from lawmakers during a hearing at the state Capitol. "But again, I don't want to prejudge. I don't know what the trooper is going to say in terms of when he's interviewed. When the investigation is over with, I'll be able to assess."
These are the same folks that released the vid showing her run the stop sign about 10 days ago.......
They play poker real well.....
They are holding their cards close...
but they know they have the aces.....
just watch....it wont be long until they play their cards.......
Bland was found dead in the Waller County jail on July 13, three days after her arrest. Authorities say she hanged herself with a garbage bag, a find her family has questioned. Her family and others also have criticized the traffic stop that led to Bland's arrest.
"There was a reason, if you look at it from a traffic violation standpoint," Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw said, responding to sometimes pointed questions from lawmakers during a hearing at the state Capitol. "But again, I don't want to prejudge. I don't know what the trooper is going to say in terms of when he's interviewed. When the investigation is over with, I'll be able to assess."
These are the same folks that released the vid showing her run the stop sign about 10 days ago.......
They play poker real well.....
They are holding their cards close...
but they know they have the aces.....
just watch....it wont be long until they play their cards.......
no. you are not Mirandized UNTIL you are being taken into custody. they will question hell out of you until you wise up and shut your mouth.... lots of folks talk themselves into the backseat.
no. you are not Mirandized UNTIL you are being taken into custody. they will question hell out of you until you wise up and shut your mouth.... lots of folks talk themselves into the backseat.
Thats exactly what post 127 says.....
It's not a matter of knowing what he was thinking. Rather it's a matter of public safety. If a police officer is suspecting someone is under the influence and therefore unable to drive safely he's not going to let that person back on the road unless they're able to pass a roadside sobriety test. To give a roadside sobriety test a cop doesn't need some hard factual evidence. All he needs is suspicion, which he could have cited her ranting as suspicious since most people don't get that way over a failure to signal.
What you should have asked if you're trying to refute the quote of mine you posted, would be "did you ever let someone go with a warning that you thought was driving under the influence. I never said cops don't arrest people they were about to give a warning too. While Ms. Bland's case gained national attention she's likely not the first and only person to go off on a police officer that pulled them for a minor traffic violation. Some people are so defiant to authority they just can't help themselves. This is likely especially true for blacks since so many seem to get stopped by police for things they would never stop a white person for.
Like I said, had she been under the influence and he let her go with a warning and she then killed someone as a result of her impaired driving, the cop letting her go could be held as liable for that accident. It's like if a loaded gun was found in a playground, you wouldn't leave it there for some kid to maybe pick it up thinking it to be a toy and then accidentally shoot someone. Rather you would pick it up and secure it somewhere so nobody could accidentally discharge it.
I doubt it, every time a cop said he was going to let me off with a warning that's exactly what he did.
He goes back to his car....finds out she has a recent dui.....
ran a stop without knowing it.......
What are you going to do officer hempcat....
Are you going to give her that warning... let her go????
or are you going to test her first.......
LOL....
I cant wait to hear your answer.....
Unless I smelled alcohol on her breath or heard her slurring her words I would not make the assumption that because she had one DUI in the past that's reason to think she is under the influence now. There is nothing stating he ever considered she was DUI. All this DUI bs is, is an assumption on your part and yet you accuse me of being the one who knows what the cop is thinking.
The stop sign run was not a full on running of the stop sign. She did almost come to a stop but then went on. This according to my drivers education in high school back in the 70's is what is known as a "California Stop". A California stop is where a person slows down and looks when approach a stop sign and if the coast is clear they never come to a full stop before accelerating again. It is technically a violation for running a stop sign but is another thing cops tend to look the other way on because so many do the same thing. This is true for other violations.
There is a highway near where I live, the posted speed limit is 55 but at any given time at least 90% of the drivers on that highway are doing 70. The cops typically focus on all the people going faster then 70 because they represent the greater danger. It would be near impossible to enforce the letter of the law on everyone,
Im afraid my friend you dont know what a dui is.....
YOu can get a dui for taking prescriptions meds.....
Alcohol breath.....
The cop thru questioning determined she didnt realize she ran the stop...
If I ran a stop sign and knew it I wouldnt have said what she did to the cop.....
Im done posting here....
YOu dont understand the nuances here....
thanks....
Reasonable suspicion that a motorist is impaired may by established by any of the following observations:
Basically, if you’re stopped in a normal situation, where the officer puts on their lights and pulls you over, to make it a legal stop, what the law says is that the officer has to have reasonable articulable suspicion that you are violating the law in some form. Typically, that involves speeding, making an improper lane change, running a stop sign, or something of that nature. In many cases, a simple stop like that ends up being a DUI, possession of marijuana, or something more serious.
YOu can get a dui for taking prescriptions meds.....
Alcohol breath.....
The cop thru questioning determined she didnt realize she ran the stop...
If I ran a stop sign and knew it I wouldnt have said what she did to the cop.....
Im done posting here....
YOu dont understand the nuances here....
thanks....
Reasonable suspicion that a motorist is impaired may by established by any of the following observations:
Basically, if you’re stopped in a normal situation, where the officer puts on their lights and pulls you over, to make it a legal stop, what the law says is that the officer has to have reasonable articulable suspicion that you are violating the law in some form. Typically, that involves speeding, making an improper lane change, running a stop sign, or something of that nature. In many cases, a simple stop like that ends up being a DUI, possession of marijuana, or something more serious.
There are no nuances to understand, you're just making things up. No where in any part of that stop did the cop talk to her about running a stop sign. You've just decided, in your opinion that was what was on the cops mind based on the fact you felt she ran the stop sign. The cop was pulling out from his previous stop, perhaps his attention was more focused on his rearview mirror making sure nobody was coming up from behind?
Like I said before, even if it was running the stop sign that he stopped her for it doesn't make his behavior any more excusable. The way he behaved was way over the top for any sort of minor traffic violation.
And yes I do know what DUI is it means driving under the influence of anything not just alcohol. I just used smelling alcohol on her breath as one way of determining cause to do a field sobriety test. I never said that's the only thing a cop could charge a DUI for. Yes you can get a DUI for prescription drugs, marijuana or anything that impairs your ability to drive safely. That being said alcohol is still the leading cause of DUI's.
There are too many variables, to make blanket statements. The state, the part of state, the county, the town, if the person is local, are they long term resident, what are they driving, did they give the officer respect, have docs handy in clean car (not cluttered), keep hands in on wheel, admit the offense, etc., etc., etc.. Then racism, ethnicity, sex, foreigner, religion. How stupid was the maneuver. Cops hate to hear a radar detector going off.
I have been pulled over in AMG convertible Benz and Lotus for doing over 30 miles an hour over the limit, on superhighways with no traffic, admitted I was speeding, pulled over immediately, kept hands on wheel, and gave License and registration, not insurance card. Would get 80 dollar ticket, no points, no insurance increase, no possibility of losing license. State troopers here want to make money for state, and not spend time in court. Being middle aged white male, from highly taxed town, and being in my county, probably did not hurt. Also no radar helped, most jam on brakes when they hear, and if they see tail lights, or major reduction in speed when switched on, they will take it out on you (in general).
In an ideal world (which we obviously do not have) the constitution would be upheld, and none of that would matter. That is not the case.
There is a guy on another thread, that is going to go to jail for 30 days, for 2 roaches in his car. He is Rasta in Florida, with priors.
I have been pulled over in AMG convertible Benz and Lotus for doing over 30 miles an hour over the limit, on superhighways with no traffic, admitted I was speeding, pulled over immediately, kept hands on wheel, and gave License and registration, not insurance card. Would get 80 dollar ticket, no points, no insurance increase, no possibility of losing license. State troopers here want to make money for state, and not spend time in court. Being middle aged white male, from highly taxed town, and being in my county, probably did not hurt. Also no radar helped, most jam on brakes when they hear, and if they see tail lights, or major reduction in speed when switched on, they will take it out on you (in general).
In an ideal world (which we obviously do not have) the constitution would be upheld, and none of that would matter. That is not the case.
There is a guy on another thread, that is going to go to jail for 30 days, for 2 roaches in his car. He is Rasta in Florida, with priors.
