What is Digg?236 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+96You've got to be ***** me. Are you a cop? He did nothing wrong. He did not want to answer a question that he did not have to answer so Mr. Billy Bad Ass cop decided to throw his weight around. If the kid is smart, he'll sue the living ***** out of every officer that wasted his time and violated his civil rights.
Not everyone wants to live on their knees. Make sure to keep your knee pads changed regularly so you don't chafe your knees. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+82Two massive thumbs up for this guy. Talk about balls of steel! When the ***** are we going to quit allowing ourselves to be treated as convicts until proving our innocence to these thugs? He was dead right that it was none of the officer's ***** business where he was going or what he was doing. Checkpoints are a 4th amendment violation to begin with.
I hope he owns those *****. He can sue the individual officers for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation of his civil rights: http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm (This is your best friend the next time some prick with a badge decides to waste your night because you won't bow down and lick his boots!)
Take their pensions, homes, and the dog bones out of their doggy's dishes!!! Maybe then they'll learn they are public servants, not masters.
Camcorders are cheap now. ALWAYS keep one in your car!!! - joshross4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+69There are plenty of jobs out there for someone who cannot obey the laws that they have sworn to protect. Some people just cannot handle the power. Perhaps they would like some merlot, made in a toilet.
- olik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+53You want someone to counter your points? You mean, the one where you call him a "*****?" Ok, here - regardless of the accusation you throw around, the driver's motivation was clear and simple: get through the checkpoint. He is off the clock, and doing nothing wrong. The cops on the other hand are in the process of doing their job, and are therefore required to act with a modicum of professionalism. That means not harassing or intimidating law-abiding citizens, not entering their cars without cause (equal to a search), and, at the very least, not breaking the law.
Yes, the officers broke the law. He should sue for a civil rights violation and for false imprisonment. In our society the remedy for a civil rights violation is one of the few deterrents against people in positions of authority, and it is hard to win at that. - nickstl77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39I live in STL too, and have been treated like common street trash at a DWI checkpoint. Some of the cops that run these things are complete idiots and will do anything to find a reason to root around inside your vehicle.
- ZipZapZorp, on 10/12/2007, -9/+45This kind of thing always makes me embarrassed to live in the "Land of the Free".
- NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31Forcing him to get out of the car so THEY could move it, is a clear violation of his rights, as they used that for an excuse to quickly search a few things... it seems... =/
- eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32I'd rather have an officer who fears getting sued then an officer who oversteps their authority. Not only that the money should not come from the state, but the officers own livlihood.
It was completly unreasonable for the officer to pull him out of the car, and he should have let the person drive it to the side of the road unless there was an immediate indication that he was going to drive away.
And if you bothered to read:
Brett: Why am I being detained officer? (directed toward Officer #4)
Officer #4: You better stop runnin your mouth or the other officer will find a reason to lock you up tonight.
(Audio can now be heard again)
3:22
Brett: You're saying you're going to make up a reason to arrest me?
Officer #4: No I didn't. I said we would find a reason.
Brett: Okay. I just want to let you know all of this is being recorded.
Officer #4: That's good, we're recording it too. Do what he tells you to do--
Brett: I don't have a right to talk right here in a normal voice?
Officer #4: Yes you do.
Brett: You're saying I'm going to be arrested.
Officer #4: I'm just saying...
Brett: You just said you‘re going to find a reason to lock me up.
Officer #4: I said do what he telld you to do.
Brett: You said if I keep runnin my mouth, I will be locked up.
Officer #4: I said he'll find a reason.
Why are you going to find a reason to lock me up when I'm only asking why I'm being detained in a normal voice?
Officer #4: Do what he tells you to do.
Brett: Am I being detained?
Officer #4: Yes you are!
Brett: May I leave?
Officer #4: No, you may not.
Brett: Why am I being detained?
Officer #4: Because you don't have a driver's license.
Brett: I do have a driver's license. I gave it to the other officer.
Officer #4: When the other officer comes back--When he comes back--When he comes back you can talk to him about it.
Brett: Why are you saying I don't have my license?
Officer #4: Nineteen years old and you know everything.
Brett: Yes sir.
If you dont think that speaks miles...
(If you want to argue the validity of whether that is a correction translation from the video i can handle that. But based on the info at hand, being a punk is no excuse for the officers statements at all, ever)
As for the cops sensing something not right argument, are you saying that if he has nothing to hide then why should he decline the conversation? Oh thats right, this is america, wed rather see 1 innocent man and 1 guilty man go to jail then the guilty guy get away. Of course were all guilty until proven innocent too. When you see a cop do you feel any safer? I don't. (and this is coming from somone whos never been drunk/high and generally follows the speed limit)
Anyway summary: The kid was probably a punk, but the officers acted out of line. If the officers did indeed do any harm to the car it should come out of their own pockets to repair it and not that of the states. - calbff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28Ok, I'm embarassed. I looked at the video again and realized that I was completely wrong with my first post. This sort of civil rights violation happens so often now that I'm completely desensitized. How did I miss the part about making something up to arrest him? You guys are 100% right - this is an absolute civil rights violation and needs to be dealt with the same as any others. It's scary what we start to accept as "normal" if we're not careful.
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24People should know their basic rights on the other hand. Especially constitution, which is quite short.
Just say 'no' to police searches...
http://www.flexyourrights.org/ - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24He got them dead to rights. They didn't have any cause to take him out of his car, move his car, any of it. If his clutch is ruined, the states gonna be paying for it. We're going to be paying for it, because we have jackass officers that don't understand that private citizens don't have to volunteer information on where they are going just because they happen to be on the road.
And not volunteering information is not 'just cause' for a search.
The stuff about 'we'll find some way to arrest you'. Those guys aren't going to have a job soon. - djtorque, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29As a St. Louis county resident I have been stopped by one of these same checkpoints before. I feel that the officer saw that I had a baseball cap on so he assumed that I was a young driver that is probely drunk.
- groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Why the hell should you have to tell a cop anything at all? Checkpoints are *****. Clear violations of individual rights. I don't know how the hell they got through Constitutional challenge. Giving someone trouble and threatening them because they don't want to have a conversation with you is total abuse. Who cares whether the kid was looking for it or not. He found it - and he found it pretty easily. These cops are abusing their power - get it through your thick skulls people. It doesn't matter what/where/why/how the kid did anything. If he wasn't breaking the law then he shouldn't have been bothered. This is not an interpersonal one-on-one where the cops can be dicks to him if he's a dick to them. They have the power to destroy your life. They should never abuse it and when they do - for whatever reason- they should be held accountable.
- agree2disagree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22I was arrested once for no reason, i had a palm pilot and recorded my entire conversation, the cop put me in jail for no reason, after they found out i have been recording everything, they (took my belongings at jail) and when i came out in the morning, they erased all of my recordings. when i went to court, the 2 cops didn't show up. i walked away not guilty, but then i have nothing to prove that they were power tripping.... i am so glad you caught them at their own game! kudos do you man!
- Legion303, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Ghostcow:
"You have to take an IQ test to become a police officer, and if you do too well on it, they won't accept you. This is a fact. I believe the story has been on both Digg and Slashdot"
In one town, in Connecticut. Don't post ***** generalizations and call them facts. - NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Getting into his car to move it was clearly a sneeky way to do a quick search... but damaging his clutch... man I'd sue...
I think I'll be keeping an audio/or even video/ recorder in my car... but then again I never see check points here... =/
More and more people seem to be catching cops these days... and hell I'm glad... this ***** needs to stop. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17He doesn't have to, and frankly, shouldn't, because where he is going is irrelevant to the cop doing his job. All he can do is get into trouble by giving them a reason to think he might have just left a bar.
- HaltingPoint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17The thing I'm curious about is lets say you get stopped, and have a recorder in your dash. If you pull it out while the officer starts talking to you can they not allow you to turn it on and film the incident? Would you then get into trouble if you proceeded to try to turn it on and they detained you? I'm curious how this guy had his camera set up at the time. I wonder what an officer's reaction would be if I was pulled over and proceeded to make his interrogation process slower because I needed to get my camera ready to film the incident. Not saying I wouldn't love to do it and screw a bad cop to the wall, but just wondering about the logistics of it.
- rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I don't know that "bold" is the word I'd use to describe the police force in the most dangerous city. Try "ineffective" or "dysfunctional."
- SillyDigger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19*plonk* *flush*
- Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19No harm was done here. At the MOST, this kid was inconvenienced.... AND the officer probably got his ass ripped by his supervisor for pulling him into it. When people sue for silly things like this"
First a massive harm was done. you really need to learn this its more important than anything else in ALL of our miserable little existences.
We have rights. They rights are not GIVEN to us by governments these rights are OURS simply by EXISTING.
Governments TAKE these rights from you without your consent or any valid reason and give them back (some of them) under the PRETENSE of "privilege" which is a farce.
The united states did something unique. IT PUT DOWN some of these AUTOMATIC RIGHTS onto paper and made it BINDING to the government of this nation.
IE is spelled out YOU (the GOVERNMENT) WILL NOT VIOLATE THESE RIGHTS PERIOD !!!!
NOTHING is more important than your right. NOTHING because without your rights you have NOTHING ELSE as guarenteed.
ONCE you lose your rights its a ridiculously simply matter to TAKE AWAY anything else that is desired.
the most GRIEVOUS thing any "official" can do short of imprisoning or killing you is to VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS.
NOW with that on the table lets go over this "check point"
First they should not have moved his car. If I were the person I would have simply refused to give them my keys (there is no law that mandates I give it to them) Giving them your keys IS consenting to a search by implication. IE what reason do you have to give your keys except to permit them entry into the car. Its implied consent if I recall correctly. So simply and POLITELY refuse. they can either let you move the car or leave it where it is and work traffic around you.
Second they did no damage that I could see to his car. simple stall and move no big deal I did not hear grinding gears or a whining clutch or anything bad (Manual Trans cars are rather easy to drive even for someone not overly familiar with them if you are only using 1st gear)
The First Violation of his rights was in tricking him into consenting to a search. I consider this permission under fraudulent condition. he did not intend to permit a search (though it really does appear that they ONLY moved his car IE the officer did not spend much time at all in the car ie no "grevious" search was performed that I could see.
The second and more critical violation was the "touting" of his power - the threat to arrest.
I never tell police where I am going. If I feel like being a prick and I happen to know it I might give them the GPS coords of where I am going but I have never done this (I have rarely come across ***** cops most are very good people)
They do have the right to demand your name and legally you must give it. In some places you must also provide an address (home address) NO state that I am aware of requires you to provide a destination. A safe answer is my destination in in determinant. IE I am just driving around. but if you do have a destination this is technically lying and I hate lying.
The kid was confronted by someone in a position of POWER and they asked for an answer. Saying NO I do not want to answer you is not only rude but not advised (regardless of your RIGHT power is power and flaunting it is silly) I consider his answer to be a VERY good compromise. He very civily and politely refused by stating he did not wish to discuss his personal life with the officer.
I consider that to be a VERY good polite proper way of engaging his rights to refuse without being antagonistic or rude. The officer is after all just doing his job. Asking for destination is a "test" officers use. how you answer can speak volumes (ie just engaging you in conversation and asking where your going is a normal conversational thing to ask a driver) and if they ask you again later they can listen for differences or if you lied the first time and goofed the second time etc..) but you DO have the right to simply and politely refuse. Makes his job harder but thats OK your rights are more important than making his job easier.
There was no "audible" damage to his car that I could hear that was just sillyness and thats fine but I personally would not have fretted over it. I would have fretted over the illegal search and the "threat" to abuse the power they are entrusted with. He failed to gripe about the search but DID put them on the spot for power abuse and did a mighty fine job of doing it and being civil about it (if he is a teenager I am impressed)
He stayed civil polite and intelligent and he made certain they knew that he knew they screwed up without any chest thumping or being a *****.
If the police academy or whatever training they get does not educate them on the limits of the power GRANTED to them then it is OUR DUTY as US Citizens to educate them ourselves. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16There are other jobs. Keep in mind they suck too.
- mathchemist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17These punk police need to understand that they do not run the streets.
- loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Those cops did a sneaky thing saying they'll move his car. They wanted to search inside it but didn't want to ask him because they knew he was a "smartass" who knew his "rights". (That they didn't know how to drive a stick cracks me up. Dumbasses.)
Let's hear it for the police: heroes at the front lines working to protect us from ourselves! Yay! - jabberwonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Knowing your rights is one of the most important things you can do - and it will come in handy in these situations. 99% of people out that do not know what their rights are and just guess at it by watching COPS and Court TV.
Here's the link for the ACLU BustCard - download the PDF and give them out to everyone you know.
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/racialprofiling/15865pub20040714.html - kcmcgruff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17As a former officer, not only did I find this story amusing enough to do the initial digg, but know that what these cops did was wrong to the nth degree. Being a cop DOES suck. The reasons for becoming a cop are many, but for most boil down to one thing...the desire to make a better society. Sure there are some power hungry ***** who wear a badge. Those are the ones personified in this story. The good ones would never have been involved in this issue whatsoever.
Digging a guy down for commenting that being a cop sucks is kinda silly. He is simply telling the truth. - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"I use it if the comment is worthless to the conversation."
Show me one comment in support of the police that is not worthless.
Personally, I think the kid was looking to set up the cops. So what? All the cops had to do was obey the law.
They didn't. - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@yukevstr
"as if we have been betrayed"
There is no "if", you have been betrayed.
Yes, reasonable people would say "just going to my Mom's". Reasonable people adjust to circumstances. Which is why progress comes through the actions of *unreasonable* people. The one's that have the guts to stand up for their beliefs.
As long as you're playing the age card, I'm 54. I've seen what all these little "reasonable" responses add up to, and it ain't pretty. Slowly, one by one, each "reasonable" response adds up. Not for the individual, they only experience these situations occasionally. They add up for the cop, he sees plenty. Each "reasonable" response reinforces their actions, until they think they have the right to do anything they want. - Ogopogo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Yea.. all the cops need is a brown-nosing pisshead like you on the jury and they're home-free.
- catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13They're looking for easy arrests. That means they're looking for drugs. Drugs are everywhere, the police know it, and know all they have to do is throw up the loose net of a DWI checkpoint, and they're not only going to find DWIs, but drugs, too. And the only way they can get to those drugs for the arrest is if the drug holder has an attitude. For some reason, attitude means probable cause. For the average joe police officer, probable cause is simply annoying you. Once you are annoyed, they have probable cause.
If only law enforcement weren't so wrong headed. They are now a part of the prison/local municipality business. Speeding tickets, parking tickets, or any citation, esp. for travelers (passing through) means income for the local government. Lots and lots of it. Travelers rarely return to fight tickets. If they can get someone in jail, that's even more income for the local government. The State actually pays the jail (owned by a private, for-profit company) to keep a prisoner, so, like a hotel, they desire to have no vacancy all the time. Maybe they fill them as much as they can with violent offenders, we hope, but when there's room left over, they just fill up the rest with drug addicts and the mentally ill.
We need to get this administration out that allows prosecuting drug offenders with laws designed for terrorists, this judgemental bigoted bunch of morally superior ***** that have very nearly destroyed our economy and our environment will keep stealing elections if we let them. More than one person needs to take the inconvenience it is, and stand up for their, and all our, civil rights.
On the other hand... the moderate left needs to find someone who is electable. - leedonahoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Just walk out! There was a link on Digg recently to a blog where a guy encourages everyone to do that.
- SlvrEagle23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14...that jerk off into socks?!
This is a social networking site composed of mostly decent people, many of whom have steady jobs, reasonable paychecks and a life to attend to outside of this site. Using the digg/bury system to express disagreement is not only common but fully allowed by the inner workings of the system, and tends to produce a reasonably effective overview of the collective opinion of active Digg users. If you disagree with the opinion revealed through feedback, it doesn't invalidate the system's usefulness, nor does it mean the end users jerk off into socks.
Besides...if you're here, what do you jerk off into? - rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The cops set themselves up.
- groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@JustinPM
People with that kind of power don't have the luxury of giving you ***** because they perceive you dislike them. If they can't hold themselves to a higher standard and keep themselves above the fray and enforce the law instead of abusing it because of perceived slights (real or not) then they need to be held accountable and to get into a new line of work.
As long as we treat them like regular people and make excuses for them behaving like ***** because of circumstances they will continue to abuse their power - and this "guilty until proven innocent" system we've allowed to flourish will bring us to ruin. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Well, he's right. You really should just stop shopping at stores where they treat the customers as if they were convicted shoplifters who have to prove their innocence before they can be allowed to leave.
- ecorona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Cops breaking the law is despicable. As a society, we put our trust in them. I think this job should have much stiffer requirements, higher pay, and thorough psychological tests. We should brief them on civil rights and raise the penalties for violating civil rights. Any violation of civil rights should mean an officer automatically loses his job.
- Robstah, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11After being arrested for street racing with no one, I have decided to install cameras in my car. Hard evidence, like a recording, is the only way you can stay innocent in this country. The judicial system is a money maker. When they do not see enough dough coming in, the higher ups get the cops (idiotic jackass robots) to pick at random, innocent people and place DUI charges/random charges on them. I guess 2000 dollars is worth ruining someones job and record for any future employment.
- wacki, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"Brett: Okay. I just want to let you know all of this is being recorded."
Brett said this at 1 minute and 48 seconds. One thing I don't understand is why good citizens tell the bad police officers they are being recorded this early. I mean it makes no sense. If anything he should let them arrest him. Why warn someone you are have a trap set? - TheMadCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Actually, you don't have to show your receipt. If you willingly allow them ask you and you offer it, then fine. Otherwise, once you have paid for the item, they have no further right to press for proof of anything. Fry's and Best Buy tries that all the time. I just blow past the checker or if stopped, immediately inform them - either stand aside or produce a refund for the product I just purchased pronto.
- rhizome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9So, logically you're saying that the guy was instigating something with the police for not waiving his rights.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"I can't drive stick"
hahaha - groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@ecorona
Agreed. But more so than briefing - They should be required to learn the relevant parts of the Constitution. It should be drilled into them. Unfortunately the standards are low and the objective is to get bodies that can write tickets to provide revenue and give the illusion of protection. - Ogopogo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11It's not like the old soviet union where the gov't assigns you a job for the rest of your life. The only reason most cops aren't in prison is because they wear a badge. Their mind-set isn't much different from most criminals. Both groups quickly learn what they can get away with.
- Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9> One thing I don't understand is why good citizens tell the bad police officers they are being recorded this early. I mean it makes no sense.
It makes a lot of sense from a legal liability standpoint and this kid was smart to let the cop know he was being recorded. It is illegal in many places to record someone without giving notice or in some cases getting consent. Recording a police officer(or anyone for that matter) without notifying him could land him in a world of legal trouble.
You'll notice that any property with surveillance will also have a written notice to that effect posted in plain view. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10great Job man I love how you stand up to him. I am 100 percent supporter of police but this is downright stupid im glad you did this. something I could of never done :)
- Hellmark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'm originally from St Louis county and went to school with some of the relatives of the kid pulled over, and I know how the cops are. For a while, the police were giving tickets for as little as 2 miles over the speed limit, which isn't legal (a 3 MPH variance is allowed due to accuracy of the speedometers from the factory). The cops are horrible in the area. For 4 years I had someone stalk my mom, and break into my house and steal things regularly, yet they refused to file a report, but on numerous occasions had officers pull me and my friends over to harass me. Had one cop decide to cuss me out (dropping F-bombs and such) for "unsafe driving" when I changed from the slow lane to the left lane to give the cop room because he had someone already pulled over (which in Missouri, is state law, requiring drivers to do so). The cops there give law enforcement a bad name.
- agree2disagree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8anyone know how he mounted the camera in his car without the cops seeing it? i need to do this to all of my cars.
- yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I once said, "I'd rather not" when asked to see in my bag; I then walked off while she shouted me to come back - it's actually quite humiliating to have your private property searched through after you just did them a favor and bought something from their shop.
There has to be a less intrusive way to check for shop-lifting. - jtstogner, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12broomett:Another ***** looking for trouble (the reason for the video camrea)
Not everyone who carries a camera in their car is trying to entrap police officers. A lot of people are installing video camera in their cars for safety and security reasons to document accidents, theft and vandalism. I'm not saying he was or was not looking for trouble but you can not make that assumption with just by having a recording device active in his vehicle. - MadN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The problem is that every time we see this, we use blinders.
Oh, it's just Missouri; Oh, it's those New York police.
Face it, the Police are the new Mafia.
These are NOT isolated incidents, these are the normal way Police treat a citizen.
No knock warrants, killing old ladies defending their homes, shooting unarmed men in an SUV 50 times, shooting an old Miami man 113 times because he had a shovel......
The Police involved need hard prison time over these "incidents" as a warning to the rest of their Police gang members. -
Show 51 - 100 of 233 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is