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.

(News 13 Orlando)   Not news: Man arrested for marijuana possession. FARK: Telling cops he was looking for a place to smoke   (mynews13.com) divider line 24
    More: Florida, drug possession, Brevard County Jail, Sheen Estevez, Brevard County Sheriff, marijuana  
•       •       •

1641 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2013 at 12:28 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-30 11:38:30 AM  
Meh.

He really had no choice. They were accusing him of being a burgler and were going to search him anyways. The extra loitering charge was a dick move btw.
 
2013-12-30 11:49:30 AM  
I've got a job, I explore, I follow every little whiff
And I want my life to smell like this
To find a place, an ancient race
The kind you'd like to gamble with
Where they'd stamp on burning bags of shiat.
Looking for a place to happen
making stops along the way
 
2013-12-30 12:34:28 PM  
Do drugs in safe places. If no safe places then no drug usage.

Always seemed clear to me. I also don't get shiatfaced and drive.
 
2013-12-30 12:36:25 PM  
So, a guy who wasn't bothering anyone was looking for a place away from everyone to smoke his marijuana and he's stopped, searched, and arrested for three days.


/Seems fair
//Smh
 
2013-12-30 12:37:21 PM  
Idiot giving pot smokers a bad name!!  But still, just a matter of time until we get all the states.
 
2013-12-30 12:51:48 PM  
Palm Bay trifecta in play?
 
2013-12-30 12:52:10 PM  
Rule #1 - Do your smoking at home
Rule #2 - If you MUST carry your weed around, don't carry more than you can eat quickly
 
2013-12-30 01:13:41 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: So, a guy who wasn't bothering anyone was looking for a place away from everyone to smoke his marijuana and he's stopped, searched, and arrested for three days.


/Seems fair
//Smh


Fair? No.
Something that should even be illegal? No.

Reasonable interaction between cops and a person on the street? Yes.

They had reason to encounter this person. It seems, ftfa anyways, that it was a consensual encounter, and the guy gave the cops a story that didn't fit (said he lived there, address 15 miles away), and then flat out informed them he had weed and was looking to smoke it.


If it helps in your interpretations of the police action on this one, substitute a crime that you DO think should be enforced, and replace those details.

The encounter transitioning into a terry stop was done legally.
The search was done legally.
The arrest was legal.

He was not arrested FOR three days.  He was arrested a second time, three days later.

He was arrested three days later for loitering or prowling and remains in the Brevard County Jail.
 
2013-12-30 01:18:22 PM  
He wasn't arrested for telling the cops he was looking for a place to smoke.  He was arrested for possession.
 
2013-12-30 01:19:46 PM  
lendog: Correction:  He wasn't arrested for telling the cops he was looking for a place to smoke.  He was arrested for loitering.
 
2013-12-30 01:29:14 PM  

Smackledorfer: DROxINxTHExWIND: So, a guy who wasn't bothering anyone was looking for a place away from everyone to smoke his marijuana and he's stopped, searched, and arrested for three days.


/Seems fair
//Smh

Fair? No.
Something that should even be illegal? No.

Reasonable interaction between cops and a person on the street? Yes.

They had reason to encounter this person. It seems, ftfa anyways, that it was a consensual encounter, and the guy gave the cops a story that didn't fit (said he lived there, address 15 miles away), and then flat out informed them he had weed and was looking to smoke it.


If it helps in your interpretations of the police action on this one, substitute a crime that you DO think should be enforced, and replace those details.

The encounter transitioning into a terry stop was done legally.
The search was done legally.
The arrest was legal.

He was not arrested FOR three days.  He was arrested a second time, three days later.

He was arrested three days later for loitering or prowling and remains in the Brevard County Jail.


I get what you're saying but the ends do not justify the means. "Looking suspicious" is very vague. Why must we accept this as a fact? Because the police said so? For all any of us know, this man was simply walking down the street and the cops made a determination that he didn't belong. The fact that they lucked up and he had weed on him is besides the point. Since we're doing hypotheticals lets look at it the other way. What if that day he had left his weed at home. Now, we just have a guy being stopped, questioned, and searched for no reason. I think this stuff hits home for me because I live through it. I'm a homeowner in PG County, MD. The police, who are supposed to be there to protect me are the most threatening people who I encounter on a daily basis. I feel LESS safe when they're around.
 
2013-12-30 01:40:29 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: So, a guy who wasn't bothering anyone was looking for a place away from everyone to smoke his marijuana and he's stopped, searched, and arrested for three days.


/Seems fair
//Smh


Bullshiat story is bullshiat, and no reasonable person carries their stash around in 3 baggies either.
 
2013-12-30 02:31:58 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: "Looking suspicious" is very vague


Yes it is.  But if it was a consensual encounter, and it seems according to the article it was, then zero suspicion is needed.  Cop says hello, moron who doesn't know his rights gulps and starts sweating, then makes up a goofy tale to explain his presence when anyone else would easily say "omw home" and actually BE on their way home.

In no other case do I say "if you aren't guilty you have nothing to hide" but when it comes to passing a cop on the street and them saying hello, that is always going to be true.

Note as well that this is a tiny 80 word article we are reading.  We are not reading the police report which is going to have the actual articulable facts within it. They don't just put "looked nervous" but rather use specifics "avoided eye contact" "white knuckles squeezing the wheel" etc.  And yes, as you say, the cop can simply make those up, and that will always be a problem.

DROxINxTHExWIND: For all any of us know, this man was simply walking down the street and the cops made a determination that he didn't belong


Actually, that is probably what happened, and since it was a consensual encounter I would imagine the cops would openly admit to it.  "we were on patrol, saw something we couldn't put our finger on that didn't seem to fit, and went in for a closer look".  Cops should not need more than zero or mere suspicion to navigate public streets, look at, and say hello to people.  Everything starts with open search exceptions to the 4th amendment and moves from there based on a cop choosing to point himself in one direction or another.  I understand your gripe, but come on.

DROxINxTHExWIND: Now, we just have a guy being stopped, questioned, and searched for no reason.


No, we don't.  We would have a guy who was walking around and probably wouldn't look nervous to the cops in the first place (I don't walk around with drugs in my pockets, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out if I looked suspicious when breaking the law as a teenager). But let us say he did.  They approach, talk a minute, and what do you know it? He says he is just walking by his home and when they see his id it confirms he is by his home... because what he isn't doing is wandering around 15 miles from home trying to find a spot to hide and get high.  As a result no search happens in the first place.

They searched him based primarily on one articulable fact: he told the police he had drugs on him.

There are a million other stories of serious police overreach out there.  They deserve attention.  Perhaps, if the information from the article is incorrect, this is one of those stories too.  But barring the actual info we might want to see to reach those conclusions, can we just let this one go?

It is an example of textbook police work, and appears to have been executed properly.

 

DROxINxTHExWIND: I think this stuff hits home for me because I live through it.


Then talk about that, file police reports, use a camera, set your phone up with an app to auto-send to the aclu for review, etc.  But don't play the "I'm shiatting bricks about my neighborhood piggies so I'll change any facts I want in every other story I read" game.  That gets us nowhere, and if anything has us going down the boy-who-cried-wolf path.
 
2013-12-30 02:40:12 PM  
I disagree that he was being a dumbass.  He was already busted with 3 bags.  By telling them he intended to smoke it, he likely avoided an "Intent to distribute" charge.

In any case...  Can we please stop wrecking people's lives with this shiat, and legalize it already?
 
2013-12-30 02:44:01 PM  
I got arrested for weed just like 2 days ago. I was the one who called the police (a buddy was all coked out of his skull and breaking all the mirrors and threatening his girlfriend who was sobbing in the corner). Nothing like finding yourself in cuffs after you're the one who dialed 911.
 
2013-12-30 02:47:42 PM  

RockofAges: "He was duly arrested for being black, and not in his appointed slave pen. Thus sayeth the letter of the law". (Old Timey Law O' The Land -- ie. Absolute Tome of Ethics -- I think you get my point.)

I don't think anyone is defending the creeper, but rather the legitimacy of the "crime" itself. Obviously dumbass is dumb. We don't need teacher to tell us that.

Prohibition is even dumber (as it causes more harm than a singular idjit) and all arguments over nits and the obvious should be laid to rest until it's dead and buried.


Prohibition is stupid.  I said it in my Weeners and I'll say it again. If you like you can ask me to say it any time and I will agree.  None of that has a damn thing to do with the arguments Dro was making, which were NOT about prohibition being stupid, but were rather about how the facts of the arrest, as he changed them to be, should be viewed as bad police-work.

As for whether police should be enforcing the laws as written? They should. You are free to disagree, but I feel that equal enforcement is preferable to having lots of crap on the books that they can ignore when my clean cut white ass walks down the street and then jump all over to use as a stepping to stone to arrest/search/harass/whatever people that the individual cop doesn't like.

In other words, I should be pulled over for a broken tail light, or not, for the same reason a black person, a suspected illegal alien, someone dressed like a pimp, someone with the wrong political bumper sticker, wtf-ever: having a broken tail light.


In a way, I kind of believe that increased enforcement of the bad laws would actually get voters off their ass to change them.  When it comes out into the open that everybody is doing it, including successful people, we will stop being able to demonize a given activity as much.  Maybe that is just a daydream :/
 
2013-12-30 03:26:41 PM  

RockofAges: Confabulat: I got arrested for weed just like 2 days ago. I was the one who called the police (a buddy was all coked out of his skull and breaking all the mirrors and threatening his girlfriend who was sobbing in the corner). Nothing like finding yourself in cuffs after you're the one who dialed 911.

Come on man. If more people like you would just hurry up and get arrested, maybe the law would change. Put your head in the noose for the peanut gallery, son!

/sarc


No doubt. Hey I will have my day in court, whether I want to or not.
 
2013-12-30 03:36:20 PM  

LittleSmitty: Rule #1 - Do your smoking at home
Rule #2 - If you MUST carry your weed around, don't carry more than you can eat quickly

 
2013-12-30 03:49:18 PM  
I think the real news is being arrested for possession as opposed to merely cited in todays society. Looking for somewhere to smoke isnt a huge qualifier. Do people still serve jail time on personal amounts nowadays? The kids around here all get medical cards for a stubbed toe the day they turn 18 and can carry around several ounces, legally allowed by state law.
 
2013-12-30 04:20:41 PM  

D_Evans45: I think the real news is being arrested for possession as opposed to merely cited in todays society. Looking for somewhere to smoke isnt a huge qualifier. Do people still serve jail time on personal amounts nowadays? The kids around here all get medical cards for a stubbed toe the day they turn 18 and can carry around several ounces, legally allowed by state law.


Mama needs to move to wherever YOU live.
 
2013-12-30 05:30:31 PM  

RockofAges: Smackledorfer: RockofAges: "He was duly arrested for being black, and not in his appointed slave pen. Thus sayeth the letter of the law". (Old Timey Law O' The Land -- ie. Absolute Tome of Ethics -- I think you get my point.)

I don't think anyone is defending the creeper, but rather the legitimacy of the "crime" itself. Obviously dumbass is dumb. We don't need teacher to tell us that.

Prohibition is even dumber (as it causes more harm than a singular idjit) and all arguments over nits and the obvious should be laid to rest until it's dead and buried.

Prohibition is stupid.  I said it in my Weeners and I'll say it again. If you like you can ask me to say it any time and I will agree.  None of that has a damn thing to do with the arguments Dro was making, which were NOT about prohibition being stupid, but were rather about how the facts of the arrest, as he changed them to be, should be viewed as bad police-work.

As for whether police should be enforcing the laws as written? They should. You are free to disagree, but I feel that equal enforcement is preferable to having lots of crap on the books that they can ignore when my clean cut white ass walks down the street and then jump all over to use as a stepping to stone to arrest/search/harass/whatever people that the individual cop doesn't like.

In other words, I should be pulled over for a broken tail light, or not, for the same reason a black person, a suspected illegal alien, someone dressed like a pimp, someone with the wrong political bumper sticker, wtf-ever: having a broken tail light.


In a way, I kind of believe that increased enforcement of the bad laws would actually get voters off their ass to change them.  When it comes out into the open that everybody is doing it, including successful people, we will stop being able to demonize a given activity as much.  Maybe that is just a daydream :/

VK Test Time (yes, nerding out. Excuse any historical inaccuracy)

You are a law enforcement officer during a period in America in which slavery of blacks is the norm. A piece of property has escaped his owner's land; you have intercepted the slave headed north to Canada.

Do you draw down on old blacky and tell that piece of chattel to git his ass walking back to the pen?

/because really, you should.


Idiot.

But fine, any enforcement is brownshirt slavery. Seriously, did you even read the rest of the post beyond the bolded part?
 
2013-12-30 09:04:15 PM  

RockofAges: Well, I'm impressed.

/Stay classy.


You threw classy out the window when you suggested enforcing a marijuana prohibition law was comparable to shooting at fleeing slaves.
 
2013-12-31 01:54:13 AM  

Cast: Bullshiat story is bullshiat, and no reasonable person carries their stash around in 3 baggies either


Well, if you have three different strains...

/I've said too much
 
2013-12-31 02:13:17 AM  

RockofAges: Smackledorfer: RockofAges: Well, I'm impressed.

/Stay classy.

You threw classy out the window when you suggested enforcing a marijuana prohibition law was comparable to shooting at fleeing slaves.

You threw logic out the window when you produced the volume of pap you call an argument upthread, and I thought I would just give you a simple example of how your absolutism is flawed in the case of unethical laws and why people should disobey them -- and that ethical lawmen (and citizens / countrymen) should know better than to enforce victimless "crimes" with no harm principle being invoked whatsoever.

Counter to your argument that "Well that thars the law so them thar deputy's be enforcing it no matter what -- and that's good." which is essentially the authoritarian bedrock.

So there's that.

/Good night San Diago.


So instead of discussing my points, you double down on your hyperbole. Nice.

Stay classy yourself.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report