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.

(Kens 5 San Antonio)   Criminal justice major at bus stop videos police running a speed trap and posts to Facebook: "This is where your tax dollars are going, hard police work." Yes, that's an arresting   (kens5.com) divider line 116
    More: Asinine, San Antonio Police Department, Caught on Camera, Facebook, Let Me See, UTSA  
•       •       •

10068 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2014 at 6:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-01 10:18:31 PM  

jpo2269: Anyone claiming that  "bruises kept her from attending classes for a week" cannot be taken seriously and seems to be someone looking for a "payday."

1. Based on the video, the initial officer we see had previously asked this young lady to remove her bicycle from protruding into the street. The officer tried to explain that her bike protruding into the street was creating a hazard to the motorist driving in that area. It seems very clear that he had intended to give her a second "warning," that was until she decided she wasn't required to listen to a "lawful command," all in an effort to keep her precious tires from getting dirty.

2.  It appears this event has nothing to do with this lady video taping and posting to facebook and more to do with her desire to provoke a confrontation with the police.


If that is enough to actually provoke a trained police officer, then that officer should be fired, as they obviously have no self control or understanding of their job.
 
2014-03-01 10:29:49 PM  

cgremlin: MylesHeartVodak: All that we are missing is a bicycle thread, beer snob thread, and another NY pizza vs Chicago style thread.  Maybe a hot sauce thread too.

And of course a "ketchup on hot dogs" thread.


WTF is wrong with Ketchup on hot dogs? I've done it for all my life.
 
2014-03-01 10:31:53 PM  
Far Cough,

Both sides bad?  No, not at all.  The officer had asked the woman previously to remove her bicycle from the roadway and from what I could tell, he was going to give her a second chance prior to the "I don't want to get my tires dirty" episode.

This incident did not need to happen, IMO the police officer made a legitimate request, Twice and the lady in question made the poor calculation that confronting the officer was somehow going to work in her favor.  I do not think she is going to be happy with how this movie ends...

Shadow,

The officer made a legitimate request twice, was he supposed to walk away allowing this lady to keep having part of her bicycle protruding into the street?  Think of the liability the city of San Antonio would face had he blew off her offense and a car actually hit the bike in the street injuring the lady and/or the driver..
 
2014-03-01 10:37:13 PM  
All these people recording cell phone videos, yet how many hold the camera correctly? Oh, I get it, arts majors.
 
2014-03-01 11:16:49 PM  

MylesHeartVodak: Oh jeez.  Two Ukraine threads, a knife thread turned into a gun thread, Caturday, and now the mandatory anti-cop thread.  All that we are missing is a bicycle thread, beer snob thread, and another NY pizza vs Chicago style thread.  Maybe a hot sauce thread too.


And a green-lit TFD train wreck.
 
2014-03-01 11:43:06 PM  

shadow9d9: jpo2269: Anyone claiming that  "bruises kept her from attending classes for a week" cannot be taken seriously and seems to be someone looking for a "payday."

1. Based on the video, the initial officer we see had previously asked this young lady to remove her bicycle from protruding into the street. The officer tried to explain that her bike protruding into the street was creating a hazard to the motorist driving in that area. It seems very clear that he had intended to give her a second "warning," that was until she decided she wasn't required to listen to a "lawful command," all in an effort to keep her precious tires from getting dirty.

2.  It appears this event has nothing to do with this lady video taping and posting to facebook and more to do with her desire to provoke a confrontation with the police.

If that is enough to actually provoke a trained police officer, then that officer should be fired, as they obviously have no self control or understanding of their job.


Yes, because arresting someone who refuses to obey your directions, and continues to break the law right in front of you after you've warned them not to is the height of abuse of power and lack of self control in the police force.
 
2014-03-01 11:47:05 PM  

redmid17: Gyrfalcon: NewWorldDan: Gyrfalcon: That would be my first reaction. He had cited her for the infraction (the bike blocking the sidewalk), so I suppose it MIGHT fall into the Hiibel restriction. (If there is PC, you do in fact have to show ID

Nothing in the Hiibel decision requires you to either have or show identification.  It only requires you to give your name, and only if your state has a stop and identify statute.  At that point, if you want to be an obstructionist, you can ask to be represented by a lawyer, which may or may not get you tazed.

Yeah, my bad. California has such a statute, and you have to present ID. Hiibel's problem was failing to do even that.

I'm having trouble with the Nigerian princess here because her excuse for not moving her bike was she didn't want to get her tires dirty. If you want to mess with the bull, at least use a bigger flag.

California's stop and identify statute was repealed in 2008. You don't have to show ID.

Kolender v. Lawson

"In states like California and New York, the courts have ruled you can't be busted for balking on ID, said Santa Cruz lawyer Katya Komisaruk, who has practiced in both states and who has practiced in both states and written on the subject."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Is-refusing-to-show-ID-ground s- for-arrest-886038.php


I'm not talking about stop and ID laws. I am talking about lawful Terry stops. And you have to ID yourself in those, regardless of the state.

If a cop tells you to move your bike, and you refuse, you've gone past Terry and are flirting with probable cause.

Not saying who is right here, just trying to point out the law.

Just an FYI, cops are fairly easy to handle with the right attitude.
 
2014-03-02 12:15:08 AM  

StanTheMan: redmid17: Gyrfalcon: NewWorldDan: Gyrfalcon: That would be my first reaction. He had cited her for the infraction (the bike blocking the sidewalk), so I suppose it MIGHT fall into the Hiibel restriction. (If there is PC, you do in fact have to show ID

Nothing in the Hiibel decision requires you to either have or show identification.  It only requires you to give your name, and only if your state has a stop and identify statute.  At that point, if you want to be an obstructionist, you can ask to be represented by a lawyer, which may or may not get you tazed.

Yeah, my bad. California has such a statute, and you have to present ID. Hiibel's problem was failing to do even that.

I'm having trouble with the Nigerian princess here because her excuse for not moving her bike was she didn't want to get her tires dirty. If you want to mess with the bull, at least use a bigger flag.

California's stop and identify statute was repealed in 2008. You don't have to show ID.

Kolender v. Lawson

"In states like California and New York, the courts have ruled you can't be busted for balking on ID, said Santa Cruz lawyer Katya Komisaruk, who has practiced in both states and who has practiced in both states and written on the subject."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Is-refusing-to-show-ID-ground s- for-arrest-886038.php

I'm not talking about stop and ID laws. I am talking about lawful Terry stops. And you have to ID yourself in those, regardless of the state.

If a cop tells you to move your bike, and you refuse, you've gone past Terry and are flirting with probable cause.

Not saying who is right here, just trying to point out the law.

Just an FYI, cops are fairly easy to handle with the right attitude.


Why are you addressing me? I wasn't even talking to you. I was correcting someone who was wrong on a point of law. When a cop asks me my name, I give it to them followed by "Is there anything else you need from me?" If they say no or can't/won't explain why they need me to stay, I wish them a good day and leave.
 
2014-03-02 12:43:13 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Vangor: Um... not a criminal justice major, but being she was simply given two citations, and being she is from Texas in particular, would not Brown v. Texas say she cannot be arrested for failure to produce identification without reasonable cause to her committing a criminal act?

That would be my first reaction. He had cited her for the infraction (the bike blocking the sidewalk), so I suppose it MIGHT fall into the Hiibel restriction. (If there is PC, you do in fact have to show ID). But Brown v. Texas does state the cops can't just walk up on you and demand ID for no reason.


This is the same thing that was being said with that dumb jogger in California.  It was a bad argument then and it's a bad argument now.  This isn't "no reason."  The cop has to verify some sort of identification IN ORDER to give even non-criminal citations out?  Otherwise everyone would be claiming to be George W. Bush for all their traffic tickets.
 
2014-03-02 06:25:13 AM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: Mark Ratner: Serves her right for interfering with police work. LET THEM DO THERE JOB! :-/

Okay Trollsy, explain to how exactly how she was interfering with his duties.


Well they'll say she was posting video to alert drivers of a speed trap and they'll say that's against one of several laws (preventing him from duty or what's that one about assisting people to escape the law).. Anyway, if she wants, she'll hire a lawyer, he'll say free speech and they'll be on their way.

These kinds of cases are starting to lean toward free speech in the judgments.
 
2014-03-02 08:33:25 AM  
Cerebral Ballsy,

Dude, this episode has nothing to do with her videoing the speed trap, it has everything to do with her repeated refusal to follow a lawful order of removing her bicycle from the roadway.

This young lady thought she was going to land a big payday and instead will find herself with a criminal record, a fine and a period of community service in her future.
 
2014-03-02 10:32:06 AM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: StanTheMan: The time to mess with cops is not in the field. It is with Internal Affairs and lawsuits.

You have to go through point A before you can get to point B.


Unfortunately, this is the genius and justification of "The Plan."
 
2014-03-02 10:36:08 AM  

StanTheMan: redmid17: Gyrfalcon: NewWorldDan: Gyrfalcon: That would be my first reaction. He had cited her for the infraction (the bike blocking the sidewalk), so I suppose it MIGHT fall into the Hiibel restriction. (If there is PC, you do in fact have to show ID

Nothing in the Hiibel decision requires you to either have or show identification.  It only requires you to give your name, and only if your state has a stop and identify statute.  At that point, if you want to be an obstructionist, you can ask to be represented by a lawyer, which may or may not get you tazed.

Yeah, my bad. California has such a statute, and you have to present ID. Hiibel's problem was failing to do even that.

I'm having trouble with the Nigerian princess here because her excuse for not moving her bike was she didn't want to get her tires dirty. If you want to mess with the bull, at least use a bigger flag.

California's stop and identify statute was repealed in 2008. You don't have to show ID.

Kolender v. Lawson

"In states like California and New York, the courts have ruled you can't be busted for balking on ID, said Santa Cruz lawyer Katya Komisaruk, who has practiced in both states and who has practiced in both states and written on the subject."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Is-refusing-to-show-ID-ground s- for-arrest-886038.php

I'm not talking about stop and ID laws. I am talking about lawful Terry stops. And you have to ID yourself in those, regardless of the state.

If a cop tells you to move your bike, and you refuse, you've gone past Terry and are flirting with probable cause.

Not saying who is right here, just trying to point out the law.

Just an FYI, cops are fairly easy to handle with the right attitude.


This issue and the issue of putting forth ID when requested by law enforcement has nothing to do with Terry vs. Ohio.

Terry is concerned with pat downs and when those are appropriate.
 
2014-03-02 08:02:06 PM  
Litterbox:

This issue and the issue of putting forth ID when requested by law enforcement has nothing to do with Terry vs. Ohio.

False. When a person is the subject of a Terry stop (a detention pursuant to reasonable suspicion), the Fourth Amendment allows police to ask for ID, pursuant to Hiibel.

Terry is concerned with pat downs and when those are appropriate.

No, that is the second holding of Terry. The first recognizes the legality of detentions based on reasonable suspicion.

I'd suggest you expand your legal education beyond the first sentence of Wikipedia articles if you want to speak authoritatively on the law.
 
2014-03-02 08:03:26 PM  

redmid17: StanTheMan: redmid17: Gyrfalcon: NewWorldDan: Gyrfalcon: That would be my first reaction. He had cited her for the infraction (the bike blocking the sidewalk), so I suppose it MIGHT fall into the Hiibel restriction. (If there is PC, you do in fact have to show ID

Nothing in the Hiibel decision requires you to either have or show identification.  It only requires you to give your name, and only if your state has a stop and identify statute.  At that point, if you want to be an obstructionist, you can ask to be represented by a lawyer, which may or may not get you tazed.

Yeah, my bad. California has such a statute, and you have to present ID. Hiibel's problem was failing to do even that.

I'm having trouble with the Nigerian princess here because her excuse for not moving her bike was she didn't want to get her tires dirty. If you want to mess with the bull, at least use a bigger flag.

California's stop and identify statute was repealed in 2008. You don't have to show ID.

Kolender v. Lawson

"In states like California and New York, the courts have ruled you can't be busted for balking on ID, said Santa Cruz lawyer Katya Komisaruk, who has practiced in both states and who has practiced in both states and written on the subject."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Is-refusing-to-show-ID-ground s- for-arrest-886038.php

I'm not talking about stop and ID laws. I am talking about lawful Terry stops. And you have to ID yourself in those, regardless of the state.

If a cop tells you to move your bike, and you refuse, you've gone past Terry and are flirting with probable cause.

Not saying who is right here, just trying to point out the law.

Just an FYI, cops are fairly easy to handle with the right attitude.

Why are you addressing me? I wasn't even talking to you. I was correcting someone who was wrong on a point of law. When a cop asks me my name, I give it to them followed by "Is there anything else you need from me?" If they say no or can't/won't explain why th ...


Easy bro, just show me some ID, and you'll be free to go.
 
2014-03-02 08:33:46 PM  

StanTheMan: redmid17: StanTheMan: redmid17: Gyrfalcon: NewWorldDan: Gyrfalcon: That would be my first reaction. He had cited her for the infraction (the bike blocking the sidewalk), so I suppose it MIGHT fall into the Hiibel restriction. (If there is PC, you do in fact have to show ID

Nothing in the Hiibel decision requires you to either have or show identification.  It only requires you to give your name, and only if your state has a stop and identify statute.  At that point, if you want to be an obstructionist, you can ask to be represented by a lawyer, which may or may not get you tazed.

Yeah, my bad. California has such a statute, and you have to present ID. Hiibel's problem was failing to do even that.

I'm having trouble with the Nigerian princess here because her excuse for not moving her bike was she didn't want to get her tires dirty. If you want to mess with the bull, at least use a bigger flag.

California's stop and identify statute was repealed in 2008. You don't have to show ID.

Kolender v. Lawson

"In states like California and New York, the courts have ruled you can't be busted for balking on ID, said Santa Cruz lawyer Katya Komisaruk, who has practiced in both states and who has practiced in both states and written on the subject."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Is-refusing-to-show-ID-ground s- for-arrest-886038.php

I'm not talking about stop and ID laws. I am talking about lawful Terry stops. And you have to ID yourself in those, regardless of the state.

If a cop tells you to move your bike, and you refuse, you've gone past Terry and are flirting with probable cause.

Not saying who is right here, just trying to point out the law.

Just an FYI, cops are fairly easy to handle with the right attitude.

Why are you addressing me? I wasn't even talking to you. I was correcting someone who was wrong on a point of law. When a cop asks me my name, I give it to them followed by "Is there anything else you need from me?" If they say no or can't/won't expl ...


Are you a cop?
 
Displayed 16 of 116 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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