Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(New York Daily News)   Sitting in a car when the cops crash into it while driving the wrong way down a one-way street? That's an arrestin'   ( nydailynews.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Ford SUV  
•       •       •

13404 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:58 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-02-21 04:26:09 PM  
Prepare to be judged.
 
2014-02-21 04:26:13 PM  

thamike: Whodat: Even if I am sitting in the driver's side with the key in the ignition, unless the engine is on and I am moving, I am technically NOT operating the car.

I agree.  State governments do not.  You can get a DUI if the keys are in the ignition and the car is parked.


A guy who worked for me had the floor shift lever (manual transmission) break off in his hand, and was busted for DUI.  He was "intending to drive" because he had the key in the ignition, even if the car was impossible to drive, and he was asleep at the time.

Kinda like how talking about committing a misdemeanor is a felony.
 
2014-02-21 04:29:41 PM  

nyseattitude: Why isn't the Cop charged with falsifying a police report, conspiracy and perjury?


Because that never happens. Well, OK, it's happened three times this month in the nation according to google news

We can either believe most cops are honest, or we can believe it's like rape, where one in 100 or so actually get convicted.
 
2014-02-21 04:31:30 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: durbnpoisn: Here is another situation where there seems to be a serious flaw in the way the legal system works.

In all cases, it is supposed to be proved, beyond doubt, that a person is guilty before being convicted.  But in the cases of minor offenses like this, the burden of proof actually shifts to proving that you are innocent.  This is because law enforcement officers are supposed to be above reproach, incapable of lieing, and infallable.  Therefore, their accusation is all the needed proof of a person's guilt.
The same exact thing holds true for those "infallable" automated systems.  Since it's impossible for them to make a mistake, they must be correct.

So the case proceeds from the standpoint that guilt is already proven, unless you can show otherwise.

That is backwards and wrong.  But I suppose the percentage of cases where a person actually IS guilty of whatever minor infraction they are accused of, is so high, that how backwards the assumptions are rarely get brought to light.

I would agree with you completely except for one detail.  It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  In cases like this there's no real way to prove anything fully one way or the other.  There is no physical evidence and likely no witnesses.  The way the system handles this is to provide the defendant with a trial,  That forces the state to present the evidence, if there is any, or go to trial without any.  If this were taken to trial, likely the only "evidence" the state would have is to put the cop on the stand to testify as to what he saw.  At that point, the defense would be free to cross examine and impeach the cop anyway they could.  Based on the testimony, the jury would then have to decide the the cop's story was believable enough to remove reasonable doubt in their minds that the man was in fact guilty.

The real flaw is not in the justice system, it's in the average citizen's (jury's) perception of cops being incapable of lying.  I believe that perception is slowly but su ...


Okay, all very good points.  But there is one MORE thing to add.
Most people don't have the means to actually take their case as far as a jury trial.  They are forced to face a judge on their own.  Against an actual prosecutor who is a lawyer.

In the end, I don't think it could be any other way, as far as that goes.  The courts are already WAY clogged up with trial cases.  The little ones should be handled by little courts.  The problem I'm pointing out is that in those cases, as a defendant, you are totally out matched, the system is already stacked against you (like, for instance, the perception that cops can't lie), and that is really unfair.
 
2014-02-21 04:38:06 PM  
 Here's the definition of "driver" from New York statute:

S 113. Driver.    Every  person who operates or drives or is in actual physical control of a  vehicle.

Courts have long defined "actual physical control" as having the ability to put the vehicle in motion. At a minimum it means being seated in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition. This guy was "driving" as defined by law.

That being said, the cop was a dick for driving the wrong way down a one-way street and running into a stopped vehicle. He found a technical way to try to deflect at least part of the blame to a guy in a motionless vehicle. It would have made no difference if the car was unoccupied. The cop should have sucked it up and took the write up and whatever discipline was handed out.
 
2014-02-21 04:39:20 PM  

hardinparamedic: Bathia_Mapes: A citation for what? Sitting on the passenger seat of his girlfriend's car?

The article says that he was driving with a suspended license. Since I can't see the video, did he?


It says he was accused of that, based on "evidence" of keys in the ignition that the video shows couldn't possibly have been seen by the cop, since he didn't approach the driver's side of the vehicle as he claimed to have done.

The way to prevent cops lying in their reports and on the stand is to prosecute them for obstruction and perjury when they do. I won't be holding my breath till that happens.
 
2014-02-21 04:43:10 PM  

durbnpoisn: ForgotMyTowel:

I would agree with you completely except for one detail.  It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  In cases like this there's no real way to prove anything fully one way or the other.  There is no physical evidence and likely no witnesses.  The way the system handles this is to provide the defendant with a trial,  That forces the state to present the evidence, if there is any, or go to trial without any.  If this were taken to trial, likely the only "evidence" the state would have is to put the cop on the stand to testify as to what he saw.  At that point, the defense would be free to cross examine and impeach the cop anyway they could.  Based on the testimony, the jury would then have to decide the the cop's story was believable enough to remove reasonable doubt in their minds that the man was in fact guilty.

The real flaw is not in the justice system, it's in the average citizen's (jury's) perception of cops being incapable of lying.  I believe that perception i ...


Yeah I would agree with you there.  It's not a perfect system by any means but I think it does pretty well given human limitations.  That said, this is why it is so important for police forces to weed out liars and crooked cops as soon as possible.  With the proliferation of video cameras,trying to cover up for the bad ones will only further erode the public trust in the good ones and make prosecution in cases where there can't be any physical evidence impossible.  It's also why cops should be required to carry lapel cameras and whatnot on them at all times.

/That and you know, crooked and lying cops should be weeded out because we don't want crooked and lying cops in the first place.
 
2014-02-21 04:45:04 PM  

Fissile: Rincewind53: SlothB77: wow.  once again, if there wasn't video, the crooked cop would have gotten away with it.  can't imagine all the times they must have gotten away with it before.

Exactly. Thank god for video.

This just emphasizes what I've known for years; police reports are routinely lies. Anyone who automatically believes what a police officer writes in his report is simply fooling themselves.

That's not to say that every police officer lies, or that that all reports are lies. But police officers  routinely embellish facts, and if they committed any wrongdoing themselves, expect them to lie about it.

Police reports can be accurate, if the policeman has no dog in the fight.  Fact is cops will always lie if they have a reason to, and they usually have a reason.   Get into an accident with an off duty cop, or someone with "juice"?  Guess who is at fault?  Cop thinks you "dissed" him. or he doesn't like your race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc?  Guess who is going to get the blame?

Recording all police interactions with citizens should be required by law.


And the video public record. Oh boy, would that be hilarious.
 
2014-02-21 04:45:18 PM  

hardinparamedic: timujin: Yeah, it's your computer, the surveillance video that shows the cop coming the wrong way down the street, then backing into the SUV is at the top of the article.

Yikes.

We had an idiot like that here. Only instead of causing dents, he killed two people after running a red light and t-boning them at 90 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour zone.

The fact he only got six months in jail is a goddamn travesty.


Similar thing happened in South Jersey about 8 years ago... except he was found not guilty.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/nj_state_trooper_cleared_of _c h.html
 
2014-02-21 04:47:24 PM  

ForgotMyTowel: Yeah I would agree with you there. It's not a perfect system by any means but I think it does pretty well given human limitations. That said, this is why it is so important for police forces to weed out liars and crooked cops as soon as possible. With the proliferation of video cameras,trying to cover up for the bad ones will only further erode the public trust in the good ones and make prosecution in cases where there can't be any physical evidence impossible. It's also why cops should be required to carry lapel cameras and whatnot on them at all times.

/That and you know, crooked and lying cops should be weeded out because we don't want crooked and lying cops in the first place.


Yeah, I agree with you.  We could really use something along the lines of "who is going to police the police?"

For the longest time there was no answer to that question.  But with the cameras and so on becoming so common, it's getting harder and harder to be a crooked cop.  That's a good thing.  One for our team, as it were.
 
2014-02-21 04:47:53 PM  

jjorsett: hardinparamedic: Bathia_Mapes: A citation for what? Sitting on the passenger seat of his girlfriend's car?

The article says that he was driving with a suspended license. Since I can't see the video, did he?

It says he was accused of that, based on "evidence" of keys in the ignition that the video shows couldn't possibly have been seen by the cop, since he didn't approach the driver's side of the vehicle as he claimed to have done.

The way to prevent cops lying in their reports and on the stand is to prosecute them for obstruction and perjury when they do. I won't be holding my breath till that happens.


It doesn't show him approach the drivers side door in the video but the video also doesn't show the whole event.  It's entirely possible that the cops walks up to the door later on in the incident.  As I mentioned up thread, I'm not one to usually defend cops but in this case, the video DID show that the guy was lying about not being the drivers seat.  So why would anyone trust him not to lie about whether the cop walked up the door shortly after the video cuts out?
 
2014-02-21 04:57:55 PM  

SDRR: Fissile: Rincewind53: SlothB77: wow.  once again, if there wasn't video, the crooked cop would have gotten away with it.  can't imagine all the times they must have gotten away with it before.

Exactly. Thank god for video.

This just emphasizes what I've known for years; police reports are routinely lies. Anyone who automatically believes what a police officer writes in his report is simply fooling themselves.

That's not to say that every police officer lies, or that that all reports are lies. But police officers  routinely embellish facts, and if they committed any wrongdoing themselves, expect them to lie about it.

Police reports can be accurate, if the policeman has no dog in the fight.  Fact is cops will always lie if they have a reason to, and they usually have a reason.   Get into an accident with an off duty cop, or someone with "juice"?  Guess who is at fault?  Cop thinks you "dissed" him. or he doesn't like your race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc?  Guess who is going to get the blame?

Recording all police interactions with citizens should be required by law.

And the video public record. Oh boy, would that be hilarious.


The problem with that would be privacy issues if all the folks the police interact with.
 
2014-02-21 04:59:07 PM  
Police: stop committing crimes, you're supposed to be good guys.
 
2014-02-21 05:01:31 PM  

sethen320: thamike: Whodat: Even if I am sitting in the driver's side with the key in the ignition, unless the engine is on and I am moving, I am technically NOT operating the car.

I agree.  State governments do not.  You can get a DUI if the keys are in the ignition and the car is parked.

Sometimes you can get a DUI if the car is parked and the keys aren't even in the ignition.


In VA, they have to be in the back seat.  The funny thing is that if they're in your pocket, you'll walk with a public intoxication charge, at worst.
 
2014-02-21 05:02:06 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: hardinparamedic: Bathia_Mapes: A citation for what? Sitting on the passenger seat of his girlfriend's car?

The article says that he was driving with a suspended license. Since I can't see the video, did he?

Regardless, it was a dick move, and an example of "Respect Mah authoritah" contempt of cop BS.

The SUV is parked for the whole event. Of course, some states consider you 'operating' a motor vehicle if the keys are in the ignition and you're in the drivers seat. The victim says he was in the passenger seat but the video shows him getting out on the drivers side. He said he slid over. There is usally a console between the drivers and passengers seat in a Ford Expedition. Unless the passenger door is jammed, I don't see a large guy like him 'sliding over'


The cop did walk to the passenger side after he hit the SUV. If he saw the guy in the drivers seat, he probably would have went there.
 
2014-02-21 05:05:13 PM  

commisioner: Harry Freakstorm: hardinparamedic: Bathia_Mapes: A citation for what? Sitting on the passenger seat of his girlfriend's car?

The article says that he was driving with a suspended license. Since I can't see the video, did he?

Regardless, it was a dick move, and an example of "Respect Mah authoritah" contempt of cop BS.

The SUV is parked for the whole event. Of course, some states consider you 'operating' a motor vehicle if the keys are in the ignition and you're in the drivers seat. The victim says he was in the passenger seat but the video shows him getting out on the drivers side. He said he slid over. There is usally a console between the drivers and passengers seat in a Ford Expedition. Unless the passenger door is jammed, I don't see a large guy like him 'sliding over'

The cop did walk to the passenger side after he hit the SUV. If he saw the guy in the drivers seat, he probably would have went there.


I thought they always approach the passenger side if possible? Gives them a better view of the driver's hands, and it's easier to see if they are trying to pull a gun from the glove box. Also keeps them further from passing traffic.

I've only ever been pulled over once, but he went to the passenger side.
 
2014-02-21 05:05:34 PM  
An

Rincewind53: SlothB77: wow.  once again, if there wasn't video, the crooked cop would have gotten away with it.  can't imagine all the times they must have gotten away with it before.

Exactly. Thank god for video.

This just emphasizes what I've known for years; police reports are routinely lies. Anyone who automatically believes what a police officer writes in his report is simply fooling themselves.

That's not to say that every police officer lies, or that that all reports are lies. But police officers  routinely embellish facts, and if they committed any wrongdoing themselves, expect them to lie about it.


And if you go before a judge with no with no witnesses but you and the officer, the judge automatically gives the officer more credibility.

Cameras on all cops, all the time while on duty. It's as much for their benefit as the public's.
 
2014-02-21 05:12:12 PM  

SlothB77: wow. once again, if there wasn't video, the crooked cop would have gotten away with it. can't imagine all the times they must have gotten away with it before.


Even with the video, he spent a night in jail, and it took six months of going to court before they dropped the charges.  And the cop who lied about it in order to arrest him still hasn't gotten in trouble.  He managed to clear his record, but the dirty cops still got away with it this time, so far.  Maybe - just maybe - that will change after his lawsuit.  But I doubt it.

cirby: People who file lawsuits versus police departments over things like this need to change tactics.

Instead of "I'm suing for a million dollars," make it "I'm suing for a million dollars, OR for $100,000 plus firing the cops involved."


I like the basic idea, but it needs some refinement.  The cops involved should be fired plus they should be arrested.  They lied about what happened in order to arrest an innocent man.  He had multiple trips into court to get it settled.  At some point, they had to testify.  Unless they admitted "Yeah, we made it all up", which seems incredibly unlikely, then they should be charged with perjury.  They probably broke a few other laws along the way, too.

Simply firing them will be like the catholic church moving a priest from one parish to another.  Sure, they all get moved around, but the basic problem continues.  Charge them with crimes, and it won't be so easy to just put them in another town doing the same BS.
 
2014-02-21 05:12:38 PM  

James10952001: I thought they always approach the passenger side if possible? Gives them a better view of the driver's hands, and it's easier to see if they are trying to pull a gun from the glove box. Also keeps them further from passing traffic.

I've only ever been pulled over once, but he went to the passenger side.


No they don't, and your cop was retarded.
 
2014-02-21 05:14:09 PM  

James10952001: commisioner: Harry Freakstorm: hardinparamedic: Bathia_Mapes: A citation for what? Sitting on the passenger seat of his girlfriend's car?

The article says that he was driving with a suspended license. Since I can't see the video, did he?

Regardless, it was a dick move, and an example of "Respect Mah authoritah" contempt of cop BS.

The SUV is parked for the whole event. Of course, some states consider you 'operating' a motor vehicle if the keys are in the ignition and you're in the drivers seat. The victim says he was in the passenger seat but the video shows him getting out on the drivers side. He said he slid over. There is usally a console between the drivers and passengers seat in a Ford Expedition. Unless the passenger door is jammed, I don't see a large guy like him 'sliding over'

The cop did walk to the passenger side after he hit the SUV. If he saw the guy in the drivers seat, he probably would have went there.

I thought they always approach the passenger side if possible? Gives them a better view of the driver's hands, and it's easier to see if they are trying to pull a gun from the glove box. Also keeps them further from passing traffic.

I've only ever been pulled over once, but he went to the passenger side.


Ah I did not know that. Just thought it was weird as the passenger side was on the road.
 
2014-02-21 05:25:45 PM  

mutterfark: AnRincewind53: SlothB77: wow.  once again, if there wasn't video, the crooked cop would have gotten away with it.  can't imagine all the times they must have gotten away with it before.

Exactly. Thank god for video.

This just emphasizes what I've known for years; police reports are routinely lies. Anyone who automatically believes what a police officer writes in his report is simply fooling themselves.

That's not to say that every police officer lies, or that that all reports are lies. But police officers  routinely embellish facts, and if they committed any wrongdoing themselves, expect them to lie about it.

And if you go before a judge with no with no witnesses but you and the officer, the judge automatically gives the officer more credibility.

Cameras on all cops, all the time while on duty. It's as much for their benefit as the public's.


I agree, or at least with very few exceptions. For the good cops it helps them as much as it helps the people they deal with. We waste a huge amount of resources dealing with he said/she said situations and memories are notoriously unreliable.
 
2014-02-21 05:27:47 PM  

thamike: James10952001: I thought they always approach the passenger side if possible? Gives them a better view of the driver's hands, and it's easier to see if they are trying to pull a gun from the glove box. Also keeps them further from passing traffic.

I've only ever been pulled over once, but he went to the passenger side.

No they don't, and your cop was retarded.


He was polite and professional, let me know I had a light out, checked my insurance, asked me to slow down a little and then sent me on my way.
 
2014-02-21 05:30:56 PM  

atomic-age: hardinparamedic: What I want to know is did he have his lights and sirens on?

If he did, the fact he was going down a one way street isn't the problem, because all states have traffic exemptions for emergency services to disregard traffic laws, but they have to do so in a reasonable, safe manner. Requesting the right of way, not automatically granted it.

However, arresting the guy for something that should have garnered, at most, a citation, was a dick move, and an example of contempt of cop for embarassing him. Bad cop, no donuts for you.

A cop without lights and siren ran a stop sign and crashed into a friend of mine. She was briefly unconscious, so he took the liberty of unfastening her seat belt so he could issue a ticket to her.


Hope she got off on that one.  Seems like there's several possible bits of evidence to rebut the seatbelt charge - "seatbelt sign" from the bruise you get when the seatbelt restrains you in a high-speed crash (seems like it must have been fairly high speed to have a loss of consciousness), lack of evidence of face and torso hitting air bag at high speed if you were restrained and also abrasions at the wrist from the airbag would be less likely if unrestrained, I'd think, possibly the car's computer recording that the seatbelt was engaged (and the pretensioners would be different if the seatbelt was on vs off.)  Not a crash forensic guy, just thinking out loud.
 
2014-02-21 05:32:22 PM  

James10952001: thamike: James10952001: I thought they always approach the passenger side if possible? Gives them a better view of the driver's hands, and it's easier to see if they are trying to pull a gun from the glove box. Also keeps them further from passing traffic.

I've only ever been pulled over once, but he went to the passenger side.

No they don't, and your cop was retarded.

He was polite and professional, let me know I had a light out, checked my insurance, asked me to slow down a little and then sent me on my way.


From the passenger side, right?
 
2014-02-21 05:44:50 PM  
here's hoping the cops involved all get to visit their children in the terminal cancer ward.
 
2014-02-21 06:33:16 PM  

thamike: James10952001: thamike: James10952001: I thought they always approach the passenger side if possible? Gives them a better view of the driver's hands, and it's easier to see if they are trying to pull a gun from the glove box. Also keeps them further from passing traffic.

I've only ever been pulled over once, but he went to the passenger side.

No they don't, and your cop was retarded.

He was polite and professional, let me know I had a light out, checked my insurance, asked me to slow down a little and then sent me on my way.

From the passenger side, right?


You've never seen a cop do that? I have all the time, especially on the highway.
 
2014-02-21 06:35:53 PM  

Ant: Harry Freakstorm: Of course, some states consider you 'operating' a motor vehicle if the keys are in the ignition and you're in the drivers seat.

So when I take my dog to the gas station with me, I leave the keys in the ignition, and she jumps into the driver's seat, she's technically driving? Awesome!


It is the best kind of driving, so awesome indeed!
 
2014-02-21 06:36:30 PM  

Whodat: Even if I am sitting in the driver's side with the key in the ignition, unless the engine is on and I am moving, I am technically NOT operating the car.


try telling a cop that when you're drunk.  Sitting in your car with the keys inside it can/will get you a DUI, even if you are doing the right thing and trying to sleep off your drunk.  They don't even have to be in the ignition.
 
2014-02-21 06:38:05 PM  

thamike: Whodat: Even if I am sitting in the driver's side with the key in the ignition, unless the engine is on and I am moving, I am technically NOT operating the car.

I agree.  State governments do not.  You can get a DUI if the keys are in the ignition and the car is parked.


I see this was already covered.
 
2014-02-21 07:00:09 PM  
Now say for a moment that Jackson was in the driver seat, keys were in the ignition, and he intended to drive illegally.

What part of that makes it OK for a cop to collide with a stationary vehicle, get out and the first words out of his mouth are "Dude, you ran into me."? It boggles the mind that framing a person for a crime as a trusted member of law enforcement somehow takes a back seat to another alleged crime (dubiousness of how valid it is to charge someone with thoughtcrime and a rather minor one at that notwithstanding). The cop's dirty horrendous lie with an obvious corrupt motivation (not taking responsibility) is 1,000x as bad as the other.

I think the arrest and charge should be dropped by the original officer since he stopped becoming law enforcement the millisecond he committed his own crime. Maybe the next "good apple" can take up the case but the asshole who behaved so reprehensibly is no longer an LEO in my eyes.
 
2014-02-21 07:01:51 PM  

OnlyM3: here's hoping the cops involved all get to visit their children in the terminal cancer ward.


I guess that makes you an even bigger asshole than you think the cops are.
 
2014-02-21 07:05:07 PM  

thamike: James10952001: thamike: James10952001: I thought they always approach the passenger side if possible? Gives them a better view of the driver's hands, and it's easier to see if they are trying to pull a gun from the glove box. Also keeps them further from passing traffic.

I've only ever been pulled over once, but he went to the passenger side.

No they don't, and your cop was retarded.

He was polite and professional, let me know I had a light out, checked my insurance, asked me to slow down a little and then sent me on my way.

From the passenger side, right?


Yep, he came up and tapped on the passenger window. I put it down and handed him what he asked for. I could understand why, there were cars zipping by the drivers side at 50 mph every minute or so. I wouldn't want to stand between a car and a highway lane at night either. I don't want to be the meat in a car sandwich.
 
2014-02-21 07:07:05 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Whodat: Even if I am sitting in the driver's side with the key in the ignition, unless the engine is on and I am moving, I am technically NOT operating the car.

try telling a cop that when you're drunk.  Sitting in your car with the keys inside it can/will get you a DUI, even if you are doing the right thing and trying to sleep off your drunk.  They don't even have to be in the ignition.


Which is retarded. Would they rather you chanced it and drove home drunk? I call sleeping it off responsible.
 
2014-02-21 07:07:15 PM  

OnlyM3: here's hoping the cops involved all get to visit their children in the terminal cancer ward.


That was uncalled for.  I'm gonna tell your Mom, after I do her.
 
2014-02-21 07:11:48 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: Whodat: Even if I am sitting in the driver's side with the key in the ignition, unless the engine is on and I am moving, I am technically NOT operating the car.

try telling a cop that when you're drunk.  Sitting in your car with the keys inside it can/will get you a DUI, even if you are doing the right thing and trying to sleep off your drunk.  They don't even have to be in the ignition.


What if you pop the hood, remove the air filter lid, toss the keys in the intake, shut the hood, lock all the doors, and shut yourself in the trunk to sleep it off?
 
2014-02-21 07:38:10 PM  

thamike: You can get a DUI if the keys are in the ignition and the car is parked.


Buddy of mine is a DUI attorney in New York. He had a client arrested for DUI.

Guy goes out drinking, at the end of the night decides he's too drunk to drive home, so he'll sleep it off in his car. Cop sees him asleep in the driver's seat, wakes him up, sees that he's been drinking, does the field sobriety test, which my buddy's client obvious fails, and arrests him for DUI.

This NY, and having the keys in the ignition qualifies as "operating" the vehicle.

My buddy waits until the cop gets on the stand and then eviscerates him on cross.

Basically, the cop testified on direct examination that he witnessed the keys in the ignition. My buddy gave him THREE chances to walk his comment back, and each time the cop got visibly more annoyed with my buddy. "Yes, *Counselor*, I'm 100% certain I saw the keys in the ignition."

"You are aware my client drives a Prius?"

CASE FARKING DISMISSED.

*When a cop calls an attorney "Counselor" on the stand, he means "Asshole."
 
2014-02-21 07:45:00 PM  
Well, he was guilty of being black, so I can understand why the police treated him in this manner.


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2014-02-21 07:53:14 PM  

moike: Dr Jack Badofsky: Whodat: Even if I am sitting in the driver's side with the key in the ignition, unless the engine is on and I am moving, I am technically NOT operating the car.

try telling a cop that when you're drunk.  Sitting in your car with the keys inside it can/will get you a DUI, even if you are doing the right thing and trying to sleep off your drunk.  They don't even have to be in the ignition.

What if you pop the hood, remove the air filter lid, toss the keys in the intake, shut the hood, lock all the doors, and shut yourself in the trunk to sleep it off?


Trespassing.
 
2014-02-21 07:54:33 PM  

ZMugg: moike: Dr Jack Badofsky: Whodat: Even if I am sitting in the driver's side with the key in the ignition, unless the engine is on and I am moving, I am technically NOT operating the car.

try telling a cop that when you're drunk.  Sitting in your car with the keys inside it can/will get you a DUI, even if you are doing the right thing and trying to sleep off your drunk.  They don't even have to be in the ignition.

What if you pop the hood, remove the air filter lid, toss the keys in the intake, shut the hood, lock all the doors, and shut yourself in the trunk to sleep it off?

Trespassing.


Or kidnapping.
 
2014-02-21 08:36:49 PM  
If you didn't know why cops hate video recording. Now you do>
 
2014-02-21 09:27:38 PM  

wambu: Well, he was guilty of being black, so I can understand why the police treated him in this manner.


[i.imgur.com image 270x330]


He should consider himself lucky that the cop didn't just blow his brains out right then and there.

/Existing While Black is a felony in NYC, punishable by summary execution
 
2014-02-21 09:39:10 PM  

Fissile: Police reports can be accurate, if the policeman has no dog in the fight. Fact is cops will always lie if they have a reason to, and they usually have a reason. Get into an accident with an off duty cop, or someone with "juice"? Guess who is at fault? Cop thinks you "dissed" him. or he doesn't like your race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc? Guess who is going to get the blame?

Recording all police interactions with citizens should be required by law.


Exactly.  Police reports are usually fair so long as the cop doesn't even have a puppy involved.

cirby: People who file lawsuits versus police departments over things like this need to change tactics.

Instead of "I'm suing for a million dollars," make it "I'm suing for a million dollars, OR for $100,000 plus firing the cops involved."


Nah--I'd ask for $100,000 + $100,000 in constant dollars in any year the cop(s) involved work as a cop.  Make sure no other department hires them!

Whodat: Even if I am sitting in the driver's side with the key in the ignition, unless the engine is on and I am moving, I am technically NOT operating the car.


Unfortunately, in the obsession with DUI many places have redefined "operating" a motor vehicle to include being in the driver's seat with the keys, or sometimes merely being in it with the keys.  Sorry, but that's nailing plenty of responsible people who aren't driving and had no intention of driving.  As far as I'm concerned "operating" needs to involve either moving it or putting it in gear.  In harsh climates people sometimes will use the engine just for climate control while they are sleeping off the alcohol.

James10952001: I worked on cars back before I was old enough to drive them. Sometimes that involved sitting in the drivers seat with the key in the ignition. As far as I know, that isn't generally and certainly shouldn't be a crime.


On private property!!  There's no law stopping a 10 year old from driving a car on private property--it's just few people have enough private property they can actually do that.

ZMugg: A guy who worked for me had the floor shift lever (manual transmission) break off in his hand, and was busted for DUI. He was "intending to drive" because he had the key in the ignition, even if the car was impossible to drive, and he was asleep at the time.

Kinda like how talking about committing a misdemeanor is a felony.


Depending on what gear it was in it might have been possible to drive.  My old stick-shift car was no problem to start in second and could be started in third although that would be rough on the clutch.

SDRR: Recording all police interactions with citizens should be required by law.

And the video public record. Oh boy, would that be hilarious.


No.  Record, yes--I would like to see a rule that a policeman can't testify about what his camera should have recorded unless it failed due to something a bad guy did in the incident.  Key phrase:  Should have.  You didn't turn it on?  Too bad.  The battery was dead?  Too bad.  The camera doesn't have the resolution to see what the cop saw, fine.  (Assuming the camera is as high resolution as practical.)  The bad guy punched you, breaking the camera, fine.  I do not favor making those records available to the general public, though.  Cops see too much that shouldn't automatically be out there.

dramboxf: Buddy of mine is a DUI attorney in New York. He had a client arrested for DUI.

Guy goes out drinking, at the end of the night decides he's too drunk to drive home, so he'll sleep it off in his car. Cop sees him asleep in the driver's seat, wakes him up, sees that he's been drinking, does the field sobriety test, which my buddy's client obvious fails, and arrests him for DUI.

This NY, and having the keys in the ignition qualifies as "operating" the vehicle.

My buddy waits until the cop gets on the stand and then eviscerates him on cross.

Basically, the cop testified on direct examination that he witnessed the keys in the ignition. My buddy gave him THREE chances to walk his comment back, and each time the cop got visibly more annoyed with my buddy. "Yes, *Counselor*, I'm 100% certain I saw the keys in the ignition."

"You are aware my client drives a Prius?"

CASE FARKING DISMISSED.

*When a cop calls an attorney "Counselor" on the stand, he means "Asshole."


As far as I'm concerned that cop belongs in jail for a long time.
 
2014-02-21 09:47:25 PM  

Calmamity: New York cops are out of fu*king control.

Even more than other places.


***The Los Angeles city police and Los Angeles Sheriff's Department would like a word with you...
 
2014-02-21 10:10:04 PM  

Loren: Depending on what gear it was in it might have been possible to drive. My old stick-shift car was no problem to start in second and could be started in third although that would be rough on the clutch.



It was more a case of:
Had a few too many, got in the car, stuck the keys in the ignition, grabbed the gearshift lever, pulling it out of the console*(it was in neutral), saying "Golly" and going to sleep while leaving the keys in the ignition.

* the gearshift handle inside the cabin separated from the stub on the linkage (bad weld).
He had to take the console off and grab the stub with a large pair of vice grips to drive. No way he could have driven the car that night (didn't have the vice grips).
IMHO it was a cash grab.

The preceeding does not invalidate any of your post.
 
2014-02-21 10:17:57 PM  

Loren: Exactly.  Police reports are usually fair so long as the cop doesn't even have a puppy involved.


In re: police reports, especially when dealing with DUIs, there's something a lot of people don't know and should:

It's boilerplate.

Seriously, they have about five or six boilerplate "narratives" the use again and again and again and again.

They have one for spotting a DUI on the highway (poor lane discipline, weaving, etc.) one for surface streets (failure to signal a lane change, not a full stop at a stop sign,) etc. They just plug in the name, date, make/model of car, etc.

The buddy I mentioned in my OP proved this in a court of law in NY. It was the third or fourth time he was facing the same officer in a DUI case, and noticed that the language of his arrest report was, to my buddy's mind, "startlingly similar" to previous cases. So he reviewed that paperwork, and then subpoenaed, like, that cops 30 previous DUI arrest reports. He waited to use it as rebuttal evidence and, again, eviscerated that cop on the stand.

There were almost NO variations on 10 arrest reports across 3 years for a "highway" stop. Word for word, excepting the details of the driver, date, time and car, they were EXACTLY the same, word for word. They learned what a jury wants to hear, and they tell them exactly that.
 
2014-02-21 11:12:19 PM  
I really do believe that once upon a time many people, probably especially police, believed in certain ideals and would be hesitant - nay, even loathe! - to lie in accusing another of a crime.  Now it's the norm to have them be self-serving, soulless dicks.
 
2014-02-22 12:01:05 AM  

Frederf: the first words out of his mouth are "Dude, you ran into me."?


Huh? Where does it say that?
 
2014-02-22 03:25:09 AM  

James10952001: DrPainMD: SlothB77: Officer Christopher Oliver wrote in the criminal complaint that he "went to the driver's side door of defendant's vehicle and observed the door open and the keys in the ignition" before arresting Jackson for operating a vehicle with a suspended license, according to the document.

But a surveillance video Jackson obtained from a neighbor clearly shows he immediately shut the door upon exiting the car and that the cop never went near the driver's side as he claimed.

wow.  once again, if there wasn't video, the crooked cop would have gotten away with it.  can't imagine all the times they must have gotten away with it before.

What do you mean, "would have gotten away with it"? He kidnapped somebody and committed perjury, and did get away with it.

Except he didnt, he got caught.

If you rob a bank and get caught a month later, you didn't get away with it.


He's been arrested for perjury and kidnapping? I didn't see that in the article.
 
2014-02-22 04:25:33 AM  
Obviously the crash was the fault of the police officer.  He hit a parked car.  To claim that the victim somehow caused the crash is insane.  The city should pay for the damages, and discipline the officer for lying in his report about the incident.

Also, it's pretty apparent from the video that the guy was sitting in the driver's seat the whole time.  In addition to the video "conveniently" ending as the officer walks towards the vehicle, I find it even more convenient that the video starts too late to show the vehicle pulling into the parking spot.  If it did, we would be able to clearly see the alleged person who pulled in and parked it (assuming that they then exited the vehicle while Robert Jackson waited in there).

In reality, I think we'd see Robert Jackson, the lone occupant of the vehicle, pulling into the parking spot and sitting there, waiting for his girlfriend, which would then be good evidence of him driving without a valid license.
 
2014-02-22 04:28:14 AM  

CruiserTwelve: Frederf: the first words out of his mouth are "Dude, you ran into me."?

Huh? Where does it say that?


FTA:

"I thought it was a joke," Jackson, who works as a porter, said Thursday about the questionable collar. "The cop said, 'Dude, you ran into me.'"
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report