If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Ledger)   Man spits on grass after refusing pat-down. Backup officer spits on grass after arriving on scene. Guess which one spent the night in jail for spitting on the grass?   (theledger.com) divider line 104
    More: Florida, sidewalks  
•       •       •

8451 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2013 at 11:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-29 01:04:39 PM  

EddieWearsUnderoos: abhorrent1: If you have nothing to hide -let them pat you down and be on your way.

10/10


Except instead of attempting to further reason with him, he started patting him down anyway. Hard to trust the police when the police don't act trustworthy.
 
2013-01-29 01:07:46 PM  

The Larch: Dirtybird971: According to the law, a law enforcement officer can stop and search someone who committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

So the cops are psychic now?

Reporters are lawyers now? That's not the criteria for a Terry Stop. The reporter just stuck that in their because he had a half hour to write a 500 word article, and he half remembered that maybe somebody told him something like that once. The editor left it in there because he's stuck in a dead-end job working as an editor for a dying newspaper in a shiathole town, and the bottle of vodka he keeps in his bottom drawer makes it easy not to think too hard about any of it.


The cops have to have "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to initiate a Terry Stop. The problem is, literally walking down the street can give a cop "reasonable suspicion" when you take into account the time, the area and if there's been criminal activity in the area. The fact is, the cops know exactly what to say to invoke "reasonable suspicion". The 4th has been dismantled.
 
2013-01-29 01:08:56 PM  
Man, this ignore function works great for trolls. Goodbye Clane. Nice not knowing you.
 
2013-01-29 01:24:49 PM  

Arkanaut: Seriously? Spitting on the grass? What is this, Singapore?


No, it's middle school pre-zero tolerance days.  The cops had to write essays on what they did wrong.  In this case, two things:

1. The first cop, as far as we know, didn't specify a reasonable suspicion for the stop in his report.  (As far as I can tell, the law does not require a cop to give a detainee a reason at the time of a stop. Obviously, doing so helps obtain cooperation.)

.2. Neither cop read the guy his Miranda rights after the arrest.

If the stop was justifiable, the frisk was justifiable under the circumstances.  The bulge in the guy's pants was sufficient reason to suspect he might be "armed and dangerous" to the officer's safety.  Whether he's "agitated" or possibly high isn't critical.

Yes, the cops can arrest you for a petty offense like spitting if they personally observe the offense; the exception is misdemeanor traffic violations.


 
2013-01-29 01:33:12 PM  

tukatz: But it sounds like he couldn't keep his mouth shut, made comments about a dead cop,


Well, at least there's one good cop in this story.
 
2013-01-29 01:38:11 PM  
That shouldn't be arrestable offense, but I'm baffled as to why people thinking spitting in public is socially acceptable. My parents would've smacked my head if I had done that growing up and I certainly don't do it now.

If you're chewing tobacco and spitting it on the sidewalk, you deserve a punch.
 
2013-01-29 01:38:33 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: .2. Neither cop read the guy his Miranda rights after the arrest.


Only applies to interrogations. If they weren't going to question him (and in this case, question him for what? They caught him red handed at what they arrested him for), then there is no need to read him his rights.
 
2013-01-29 01:49:45 PM  

abhorrent1: If you have nothing to hide -let them pat you down and be on your way.


You can use that foolish argument to give away all your Constitutional rights: I don't have guns, so shiat-can the Second; I don't have a newspaper, so shiat-can the First; I don't have a religious faith, so freedom of religion isn't important; I've got nothing to hide, so come into my home in the middle of the night and tear it apart looking for whatever; I'm a dude so who cares about women's suffrage; etc., etc., etc.

A Right not used is a Right relinquished. Sheesh, dude. Get a clue.
 
2013-01-29 01:50:16 PM  

NightOwl2255: About 5 post into the thread, which has nothing to do with politics, someone posts something political.


welcometofark.jpg where every thread ends up political eventually.
 
2013-01-29 02:04:14 PM  

abhorrent1: If you have nothing to hide -let them pat you down and be on your way.


1/10
 
2013-01-29 02:06:04 PM  

rattchett: meintx2001: Too Pretty For Prison: AverageAmericanGuy: The guy seems like an asshole. I'm not saying we should lock up assholes (god knows I'd be the first on the block to be taken away), but people should try not to be assholes, especially around cops.

And chewing tobacco is a farking nasty habit. I've never met someone who used chewing tobacco that didn't need a beatdown.

The guy is absolutely an asshole. BUT - he was just out walking in his neighborhood. That's not illegal or a reason to have his 4th Amendment Rights shiat on. The dipshiat cop was abusing his power (gee, go figure). A slap on the wrist to "write a paper" is complete horseshiat. About 3 weeks ago, I was in my front yard with my dog. A cop drove by, rolled down his window, chatted with me why I was out at 3:00 a.m. He explained there was a car break-in a few nights earlier (we don't have much crime), told me to have a good night and drove on. That's reasonable. If he had told me to empty my pockets I would be in an article on Fark too for being an asshole, just like this guy.

THIS x 100. All of this was escalated because Mr. Citizen questioned the Po-po. 100% abuse of power.

Ahhhm. Ahhhm. I am sorry, maybe you didn't get the memo, but the word "Po-Po" has been forbidden by unanimous consent of pretty much everybody in the world. Same goes for "totes", "bestie", and "man cave".


That's cray-cray.
 
2013-01-29 02:10:22 PM  

GanjSmokr: NightOwl2255: About 5 post into the thread, which has nothing to do with politics, someone posts something political.

welcometofark.jpg where every thread ends up political eventually.


True, but damn, just 5-6 post into it? He should at least wait to see if the thread is going to roll before dropping trou and dumping a duce.
 
2013-01-29 02:13:19 PM  

Habitual Cynic:
I don't have guns, so shiat-can the Second; I don't have a newspaper, so shiat-can the First; I don't have a religious faith, so freedom of religion isn't important; I've got nothing to hide, so come into my home in the middle of the night and tear it apart looking for whatever; I'm a dude so who cares about women's suffrage; etc., etc., etc.

A Right not used is a Right relinquished. Sheesh, dude. Get a clue.


So much THIS.

"First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."

We all know how that ended up.
 
2013-01-29 02:13:28 PM  
NightOwl2255:

The cops have to have "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to initiate a Terry Stop. The problem is, literally walking down the street can give a cop "reasonable suspicion" when you take into account the time, the area and if there's been criminal activity in the area. The fact is, the cops know exactly what to say to invoke "reasonable suspicion". The 4th has been dismantled.

See Illinois v Wardlow.  "An individual's presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime."
 
2013-01-29 02:18:12 PM  

BarkingUnicorn:
See Illinois v Wardlow.  "An individual's presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime."


Cops like this one don't need no damn precedents. They just lock 'em up and let the courts sort it out.
 
2013-01-29 02:23:07 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: BarkingUnicorn: .2. Neither cop read the guy his Miranda rights after the arrest.

Only applies to interrogations. If they weren't going to question him (and in this case, question him for what? They caught him red handed at what they arrested him for), then there is no need to read him his rights.


True; the arrest was still valid.  But not Mirandizing him was a mistake that closed the door on potentially getting other incriminating info.  They might have talked him into revealing Jimmy Hoffa's location. :-)
 
2013-01-29 02:23:14 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Too Pretty For Prison: Most police were obnoxious fat kids who were picked on.

Pretty much this. Officers come from two backgrounds: bullies who never grew up, and the bullied who figured out that they can be the bullies.

Sure, there is the occasional naive guy who "wants to make a difference", but they burn out quick.


Its almost as if there is a common theme among many problems in society.

Perhaps one day we as a society will wake up and deal with the issue of bullying.
 
2013-01-29 02:28:11 PM  
Cop: Can I search you?
Guy: No.
Cop: Well, I am going to anyway.
Guy: Then why did you ask?
Cop: Lets me know how thorough I have to be. You have elected the 'cavity search' option.
 
2013-01-29 02:28:47 PM  

Warlordtrooper: ArcadianRefugee: Too Pretty For Prison: Most police were obnoxious fat kids who were picked on.

Pretty much this. Officers come from two backgrounds: bullies who never grew up, and the bullied who figured out that they can be the bullies.

Sure, there is the occasional naive guy who "wants to make a difference", but they burn out quick.

Its almost as if there is a common theme among many problems in society.

Perhaps one day we as a society will wake up and deal with the issue of bullying.


There's a very fuzzy line between intimidation and eliciting cooperation.  Cops can lie to get a confession, but they can't threaten to beat you even if  they don't really intend to do so.
 
2013-01-29 02:30:11 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: NightOwl2255:

The cops have to have "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity to initiate a Terry Stop. The problem is, literally walking down the street can give a cop "reasonable suspicion" when you take into account the time, the area and if there's been criminal activity in the area. The fact is, the cops know exactly what to say to invoke "reasonable suspicion". The 4th has been dismantled.

See Illinois v Wardlow.  "An individual's presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime."


Notice I said take into account, the time, the area... it's the totality of the circumstances that allow the police to drum up any circumstance into "reasonable suspicion". While I have no doubt you can find a case where evidence was tossed due to a court ruling that the cops "reasonable suspicion" wasn't reasonable, there are thousands of cases in which the barest of cause was found to be reasonable. Actual case, two guys sitting in a car in the parking lot of a 7/11 in a bad area of the city. Cops pull up and start to question the men separately. Both tell the same story, they are waiting to meet a friend to get tickets to a basketball game (which turns out to be true). The only discrepancy in their stories is the color of the friends car, one says grey, one says green. Police search the car and find dope, bust the men. The count found the the discrepancy was enough for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when taken in its totality.

For the Court in United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), Chief Justice Burger wrote:
Courts have used a variety of terms to capture the elusive concept of what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person. Terms like "articulable reasons" and "founded suspicion" are not self-defining; they fall short of providing clear guidance dispositive of the myriad factual situations that arise. But the essence of all that has been written is that the totality of the circumstances-the whole picture-must be taken into account. Based upon that whole picture the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity
 
2013-01-29 02:31:36 PM  

tukatz: Yet they had the right to search him and, if he would have just cooperated, he would have been on his merry way a few minutes later.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/



Um, first sentence: "A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity..."

What criminal activity did the cop 'reasonably suspect' he was engaged in??
 
2013-01-29 02:36:18 PM  
Is there an archive somewhere of these inumerable cop-being-law-breaking-asshole stories?
 
2013-01-29 02:44:34 PM  

NightOwl2255: While I have no doubt you can find a case where evidence was tossed due to a court ruling that the cops "reasonable suspicion" wasn't reasonable, there are thousands of cases in which the barest of cause was found to be reasonable. Actual case, two guys sitting in a car in the parking lot of a 7/11 in a bad area of the city. Cops pull up and start to question the men separately. Both tell the same story, they are waiting to meet a friend to get tickets to a basketball game (which turns out to be true). The only discrepancy in their stories is the color of the friends car, one says grey, one says green. Police search the car and find dope, bust the men. The count found the the discrepancy was enough for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when taken in its totality.


Yep, all sorts of shiat happens at the trial court level.  Was this case appealed?
 
2013-01-29 02:47:11 PM  
You mean like, governed at all?

I was not aware the conservative position was anarchy and fark the police.

There's a lot of biting obvious trolls here today, and this one looked fun to join in on.
 
2013-01-29 02:50:23 PM  

mdeesnuts: Is there an archive somewhere of these inumerable cop-being-law-breaking-asshole stories?


I don't know, but this is as close as I could find.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-29 02:51:00 PM  
Noticeably F.A.T.: BarkingUnicorn

And I have to note I found this quite amusing for some reason.
 
2013-01-29 02:52:29 PM  
fredklein

tukatz: Yet they had the right to search him and, if he would have just cooperated, he would have been on his merry way a few minutes later.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/


Um, first sentence: "A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity..."

What criminal activity did the cop 'reasonably suspect' he was engaged in??


walking at night, breaking curfew, and eventually not obeying a policeman's direct order.
 
2013-01-29 02:52:51 PM  
Well originally my post was a reply but I guess that got lost hitting back to resubmit on a bad connection. Im learning my phone isnt the way to do this
 
2013-01-29 02:56:39 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Yep, all sorts of shiat happens at the trial court level. Was this case appealed?


No, they plea bargained for a no-time sentence. Everyone went home happy. And the 4th took another body blow.
 
2013-01-29 03:08:32 PM  

Dirtybird971: fredklein

tukatz: Yet they had the right to search him and, if he would have just cooperated, he would have been on his merry way a few minutes later.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/


Um, first sentence: "A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity..."

What criminal activity did the cop 'reasonably suspect' he was engaged in??

walking at night, breaking curfew, and eventually not obeying a policeman's direct order.


Walking at night is perfectly legal and does not make you a suspect.

A quick look online says that there isn't a curfew for adults in that area.

If a policeman told you to suck his cock (a "direct order") would you obey?
 
2013-01-29 03:37:08 PM  

The Larch: If some dillhole was walking back and forth down my street at 2:00 AM spitting his tobacco juice on lawns and blathering into his cell phone about baseball, it's my sincere hope that they tazer him first.


The sidewalk in front of your house is not your property and you have no control over who uses it. Should you decide to impede traffic on the sidewalk then you are breaking the law. If you happen to damage the sidewalk in doing so you have also caused destruction of public property.
 
2013-01-29 03:52:50 PM  
These douchbag cops make the two good cops look bad.

/Should be worth at least a $250,000 settlement.
 
2013-01-29 03:58:26 PM  

mdeesnuts: Noticeably F.A.T.: BarkingUnicorn

And I have to note I found this quite amusing for some reason.


LOL!  Thanks for pointing it out.
 
2013-01-29 04:43:52 PM  
GanjSmokr


Smartest
Funniest

2013-01-29 03:08:32 PM

Dirtybird971: fredklein

tukatz: Yet they had the right to search him and, if he would have just cooperated, he would have been on his merry way a few minutes later.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/


Um, first sentence: "A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity..."

What criminal activity did the cop 'reasonably suspect' he was engaged in??

walking at night, breaking curfew, and eventually not obeying a policeman's direct order.

Walking at night is perfectly legal and does not make you a suspect.

A quick look online says that there isn't a curfew for adults in that area.

If a policeman told you to suck his cock (a "direct order") would you obey?


lay off the pot dude, it's making you too literal.
 
2013-01-29 04:52:29 PM  

NightOwl2255: BarkingUnicorn: Yep, all sorts of shiat happens at the trial court level. Was this case appealed?

No, they plea bargained for a no-time sentence. Everyone went home happy. And the 4th took another body blow.


Pity.  FWIW, I don't believe the cops had enough cause to search the car just because the colors mentioned by suspects didn't match.  I'd love to read a full account of this case.
 
m00
2013-01-29 05:03:54 PM  

China White Tea: tukatz: But it sounds like he couldn't keep his mouth shut, made comments about a dead cop,

Well, at least there's one good cop in this story.


You sir, win one Internets.
 
2013-01-29 05:58:35 PM  

Dirtybird971: What criminal activity did the cop 'reasonably suspect' he was engaged in??

walking at night, breaking curfew, and eventually not obeying a policeman's direct order.


So, to your way of thinking, simply "walking at night" is enough evidence for you to "reasonably suspect" that that person is committing a crime??

There is no curfew that I saw in the article. Also, a case could be made that curfews violate the 1st Amendment (that whole 'Right to peaceably assemble' thing)

A person is required to obey a cops LAWFUL order. Once they start detaining you ILLEGALLY, that ceases to be LAWFUL.
 
2013-01-29 06:17:05 PM  

Big Man On Campus: I think I would have urinated in the patrol car. There's no law against that, and the arresting officer likely couldn't get rid of the smell until a shift change.


Right, because public indecency and becoming a registered sex offender will help.
 
2013-01-29 06:29:47 PM  
Officer Arnulfo Crispin's name came up during the arrest. Crispin was shot in December 2011 while searching a group of teens at a city park, according to reports. He later died at Lakeland Regional Medical Center.

Good. tell me where he's buried and I'll piss on his grave.
 
2013-01-29 06:32:55 PM  
AverageAmericanGuy
(favorite: Blamed "right wing conspiracy " for Family Research Council shooting after shooter was identified as left wing gay activist)

The guy seems like an asshole.

Of course he is. *rolls eyes* The only person who should have rights is people like you who spew insane conspiracy theories onlline.
 
2013-01-29 06:35:12 PM  

Egoy3k: The sidewalk in front of your house is not your property and you have no control over who uses it. Should you decide to impede traffic on the sidewalk then you are breaking the law. If you happen to damage the sidewalk in doing so you have also caused destruction of public property.


Depends on state or local law. Where I grew up, it was still considered the homeowner's land, the sidewalk was an official easement, and there were maintenance obligations spelled out in the deed for the status of the sidewalk. Basically, if you didn't keep it up to spec, the city could do it and charge you for it(at 3x the rate of hiring a private contractor to do it).
 
2013-01-29 06:38:41 PM  

BarkingUnicorn

There's a very fuzzy line between intimidation and eliciting cooperation. Cops can lie to get a confession, but they can't threaten to beat you even if they don't really intend to do so.

Bullshiat. we have 2 examples of cops caught on tape threatening to murder people already this year. Both still "on the job".
 
2013-01-29 08:56:47 PM  
I always negate these infuriating stories by reading a story about a cop getting shot in the face. Always good for a chuckle.
 
2013-01-29 09:20:31 PM  

Virtue:
Is it illegal to be an asshole around a cop?


When in Rome...
 
2013-01-29 09:44:09 PM  
Apik0r0s

I always negate these infuriating stories by reading a story about a cop getting shot in the face. Always good for a chuckle.

^ This. There are a few youtube videos that show them squealing like the pigs they are.

Watching them always brighten my day.
 
2013-01-30 01:20:06 AM  
FTFA: They also reported his pupils were dilated and he was agitated, which caused them to think he was under the influence of something.


Let's see. It's 2:30 AM, hence it's farking dark out, so I'd be more concerned if his pupils weren't dilated.
 
2013-01-30 02:48:54 AM  
Silly rabbit, laws don't apply to cops. Nothing to see here, move along.
 
2013-01-30 08:24:42 AM  

Firethorn: Egoy3k: The sidewalk in front of your house is not your property and you have no control over who uses it. Should you decide to impede traffic on the sidewalk then you are breaking the law. If you happen to damage the sidewalk in doing so you have also caused destruction of public property.

Depends on state or local law. Where I grew up, it was still considered the homeowner's land, the sidewalk was an official easement, and there were maintenance obligations spelled out in the deed for the status of the sidewalk. Basically, if you didn't keep it up to spec, the city could do it and charge you for it(at 3x the rate of hiring a private contractor to do it).


Yeah you're right, I was going by local rules here I just assumed that it was a pretty standard arrangement. It turns out that assuming things isn't a bright idea. Around here it's required that you keep it clear of snow/ice and trim the grass between the walk and the curb but it's technically not your property and messing with it is not in your best interests.

In either case though it's still against the law to impede traffic on the sidewalk regardless of how you feel about it.
 
2013-01-30 08:59:09 AM  

Dirtybird971: GanjSmokr


Smartest
Funniest

2013-01-29 03:08:32 PM

Dirtybird971: fredklein

tukatz: Yet they had the right to search him and, if he would have just cooperated, he would have been on his merry way a few minutes later.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/


Um, first sentence: "A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity..."

What criminal activity did the cop 'reasonably suspect' he was engaged in??

walking at night, breaking curfew, and eventually not obeying a policeman's direct order.

Walking at night is perfectly legal and does not make you a suspect.

A quick look online says that there isn't a curfew for adults in that area.

If a policeman told you to suck his cock (a "direct order") would you obey?

lay off the pot dude, it's making you too literal.



That's a great deflection! I'll take that as an admission that you would suck the cop's cock if he ordered you to. Nothing to be ashamed of. Some people - like you - are natural born boot lickers.  Carry on.
 
2013-01-30 09:20:22 AM  

GanjSmokr


Dirtybird971: fredklein

tukatz: Yet they had the right to search him and, if he would have just cooperated, he would have been on his merry way a few minutes later.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/


Um, first sentence: "A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity..."

What criminal activity did the cop 'reasonably suspect' he was engaged in??

walking at night, breaking curfew, and eventually not obeying a policeman's direct order.

Walking at night is perfectly legal and does not make you a suspect.

A quick look online says that there isn't a curfew for adults in that area.

If a policeman told you to suck his cock (a "direct order") would you obey?

lay off the pot dude, it's making you too literal.


That's a great deflection! I'll take that as an admission that you would suck the cop's cock if he ordered you to. Nothing to be ashamed of. Some people - like you - are natural born boot lickers. Carry on.


You sir are a comedic genius! I wouldn't know about the shame, thanks for sharing your experience.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report