quote:Brett: Did I commit a moving violation? Officer #1: Yeah you did, when you were coming in here. Brett: Really? What was that? Officer #1: Yeah, you wanna try me? You wanna try me tonight? You think you've had a bad night? I will ruin your ****ing night. [Officer starts to get close up to my face] Officer #1 You want to try me? [Officer is inches away from my face, screaming as I'm pinned between him and my vehicle] Officer #1 Do you wanna try me young boy? Do you want to try me tonight young boy? Brett: No I don't. Officer #1: Do you want to go to jail for some ****ing reason I come up with? Brett: No I don't. Officer #1: Do you wanna see who knows the law better, me or you. My experience compared to your young ass. Huh? Don't ever get smart mouthed with a cop again. I show you what a cop does. Do you understand me? Brett: Yes sir. Officer #1: Try and talk back -- Talk back to me again. I bet I could say you resisted arrest or something. You want to come up with something? I come up with nine things. Do you wanna try something? Brett: No I don't.
quote:Brett: Do you know what the 5th Amendment right is? Officer #1 Do you know what impeding the flow of a police officers duties are? Brett: What's that? Go ahead, tell me. Officer #1: Whenever I ask you... If I'm conducting an investigat... This is called a field investigation, if you're impeding it, you're impeding it. Brett: You're saying, I can't refuse to answer your questions? Officer #1: They're not incriminating are they? Brett: You don't know that. Officer #1: Are they incriminating? Brett: Yes they are. Officer #1: They are? Brett: They could be. Officer #1: Then are you doing something illegal here? Brett: No I'm not. Officer #1: Then they are not incriminating. Brett: Yes, they could be incriminating. I have the right to privacy. Officer #1: What privacy? Not when you're out in public, you don't have the right to privacy. Brett: Yes, I do have a right to not tell you where I'm going or what I'm doing. Officer #1: Really? Brett: It's the 4th Amendment right. Officer #1: Really?
quote:Officer #1: You have issues man. Okay? Brett: Alright, I'm sorry. Officer #1: I think I want to take you to jail just to prove you wrong.
I can't stop giggling. Brett didn't handle it very well (and this isn't his first "unconventional" incident with the police), but this officer needs to be fired.
posted
The fewer officers like that and the more Officers who respect people's rights and sincerely want to protect and serve, the better. I understand it's a dangerous, high-stress job, but that sort of bullying and intimidation has no place in a police force.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sickening. The cop's attitude sure changed when he noticed the camera. I don't know what's more pathetic, the police officer falling all over himself to self-justify his horrible behavior after noticing the camera, or the behavior itself. This kind of crap is the reason people don't trust the police.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That cop has serious issues. I'm glad he was suspended quickly, and I hope a thorough investigation ensues.
Also, look for smart defense attorneys with active cases to skewer this guy on cross. Especially if anyone's charged with resisting arrest.
Some general warnings, though:
1.) Be VERY careful about recording video and especially voices. It's often illegal - you need to check state and federal laws. And I can't give any specific advice regarding legality in particular instances.
2.) There's a pretty good ACLU video around that shows how to protect one's rights in auto stops. This guy did poorly in that regard, actually. He also acted in such a way as to antagonize the officer without actually doing much to protect his rights. This absolutely does NOT excuse what the officer did. However, if you're goal is to assert your rights, antagonizing is not necessarily helpful. It's worth knowing how to assert your rights in a manner calculated to have the smallest chance of pissing other people off, even if their getting pissed off is not warranted. Of course, some people, likely including this officer, will get pissed off regardless. Even if you want to act in certain ways that might antagonize an officer, at least you'll know that's what you're doing.
3.) The officer did nothing wrong in approaching the guy and asking questions. It's what followed that is poor (very, very, very poor) behavior.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that the "nothing wrong with them asking, but I don't have to answer" kind of situation discussed in the store security thread?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My other favorite part, besides the quoted portions of the transcript, is that the cop asserts repeatedly that they have cameras and body mics as well, and the police chief corroborates this, saying that it's required for all traffic stops...
...but the footage is nowhere to be found. Whoops!
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is that the "nothing wrong with them asking, but I don't have to answer" kind of situation discussed in the store security thread?
There's a lot of complexity here. The video may answer some questions for you, and if you have specific hypotheticals I can shed more light on them.
quote:My google-fu has failed me. Would you know how to locate that video?
Juxtrapose's link has links to the video I'm thinking of.
quote:It doesn't cover being asked to exit your vehicle. Does anyone know the law on this?
In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held per curiam (without signed opinion or published dissent) that an officer conducting a lawful traffic stop may order the driver out of his vehicle. In Maryland v. Wilson, the Supreme Court held 7-2 (with 3 of the 4 liberals agreeing) that "An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
