Wait. In order for a person to have a DUI, doesn’t the person have to fail a breathalyzer test, or a blood alcohol test? It sounds like the actions by the officer allude to a supposed frame for “open container”. Something is missing.
Also, the man was driving with a suspended license. They had a reason to arrest him. If they suspected DUI, found alcohol in the vehicle, and he then refused to submit to a field sobriety test to prove his innocence, then they had every reason to arrest him under the suspicion of DUI. Did he refuse a breathalyzer test at the scene? Was one offered? If he refused that, or one was not available, then they would need to take him in for a blood test to determine blood alcohol level.
Bottom line here: What was this man’s blood alcohol level?
There is a lot of bullshit here… NAL, but you can make a case that they intended to drink, or if they had a non-0 BAC, you can make a case that they were too impaired to drive. While the 0.08% limit is a “standard”, it’s not a hard and fast line, from what I’m aware of, but NAL. I would assume it’d be hard as shit to make a case that someone was too impaired with a BAC of 0.01%… But that doesn’t mean you can’t try.
You’re literally arguing that they could drink it, so they were intending to drink it? Do you have any knives in your house? Shall we call the authorities because you could murder someone, and therefore intend to murder someone?
I think my intention got mixed up here. I think it’s all bullshit. But essentially what you said is closer to how the law is written.
To be totally clear, the ruling that an officers assessment of someone being impaired is taken as highly, if not higher, as an objective BAC here, is bullshit. It basically means that if they think you are drunk, you are drunk. That’s insane to me.
I had a former cop explain to me once that he had an absolutely fool proof test involving tilting sometimes head and seeing if their retinas jiggle or something. I kinda assumed that it was bullshit, but if he thought that was the case, then he had the “right” to issue a DUI.
My point is that the BAC being really low is not an instant case closed in the way that it should be. Which is highlighting just how ridiculous things can get in these cases and still go to court.
There is a video of an officer planting evidence. That should be the end of the story. But for you it is not.
You trying to control the debate shapiro-style. You create a fictional story, first in conditionals (“if they suspected … then they had every reason”), and by asking questions (“Did he refuse a breathalyzer test at the scene? Was one offered?”). Now there is a vivid image in the readers head, that you use to derail the discussion into a completely different direction (“Bottom line here: What was this man’s blood alcohol level?”).
But the counter to this is very simple: Instead of following your tangent, I will simply un-derail the topic by asking something like:
“Why do you think the officer felt the need to plant evidence?”
Just for giggles I also asked GPT4 oppinion on the subject. His response
To support the officer’s actions and shift the blame onto the accused individual, leveraging the scenario as described would involve a number of stratagems, focusing heavily on hypothetical questions, assumptions, and diverting attention from the core issue. Here’s how such tactics might be applied:
Emphasize Uncertainty and Technicalities: Begin by stressing the complexities and procedural nuances of DUI arrests. Highlight the importance of blood alcohol content (BAC) testing and the legal protocols involving field sobriety and breathalyzer tests. This shifts the debate from the ethics of planting evidence to the technicalities of DUI arrests, muddying the waters.
Frame Hypotheticals as Probabilities: Use hypothetical situations—such as the accused refusing a breathalyzer test or having a reason for arrest due to a suspended license—as almost certain probabilities. This reframes the narrative, suggesting that the officer had just cause for suspicion, thereby indirectly justifying their misconduct.
Construct a False Dilemma: Imply that there are only two possibilities - the accused was either guilty of DUI or not, completely sidestepping the issue of the officer planting evidence. This narrows the debate’s focus to the accused’s potential guilt, diverting attention from the officer’s actions.
Utilize Red Herrings: Introduce unrelated facts (e.g., the suspended license) to distract from the primary issue of evidence tampering. By focusing on these details, you can create a narrative where the officer’s actions seem minor compared to the accused’s alleged law-breaking behavior.
Through these strategies, the conversation can be steered towards scrutinizing the accused’s behavior and the procedural aspects of DUI arrests, rather than the ethical implications of a police officer planting evidence. Such tactics, while effective in shifting debate focus, rely heav…
The officer didn’t plant it. The alcohol bottle was already in the suspect’s vehicle. No one has proven it was sealed. If it is revealed to have been opened, then this man is guilty of having an opened container in his vehicle, as well as driving with a suspended license.
You don’t need to attack me personally. Save your personal attacks for your therapist.
you mean the shapiro thing? I actually thought you intentionally used a shapiro-style argument. I didn’t think you’d take it as an insult.
No one has proven it was sealed. If it is revealed to have been opened, then this man is guilty of having an opened container in his vehicle, as well as driving with a suspended license.
Now this is a much more interesting line of thought. It doesn’t rely on reframing and red herrings. Instead this arguments directly attacks the central point. This is much better.
Who cares? Cops can’t plant evidence. End of story.
If they did, even if the rest of the bust was legitimate, the entire thing goes out the window. If they had an actual reason to arrest him, they should have followed procedure and the law rather than going around trying to plant evidence.
That user is a straight-up Nazi. Look at their comment history:
I’m not. I’m just saying that it hurts my feelings to have this guy be called white. There are so many mixed race white supremacists out there, and they make white people look bad. Why are we calling this guy white?
Well, I’m sorry you’re racist, but placing your statement of such views in a comment reply to my own comment, is not the place to discuss it. I suggest you find a therapist.
And was he charged with “open container”? The defense attorney says they describe the container as open in the police report, if that’s true, and if the bottle really was sealed when the officer found it, then it’s misconduct despite the specific charges.
Yes when they turned off their body cameras it was interfering which is an additional crime to planting the evidence and the cops should be charged every time unless a third party unaffiliated with the police or courts can verify there was a valid reason to stop documenting the arrest.
Btw the sealed bottle is heard breaking when the police open it in the linked video in the article at 1:05 you silly billy.
They haven’t posted results of the contents of the cup in his car. She verbally didn’t state that the bottle was open in the video. The written report states it was opened. That might be a typo, but it was twice stated (verbally and in writing) that the cup contained alcohol.
He was driving with a suspended license. They had every right to pull him over and arrest him. I’m not defending any wrong doing. I would just like to see more proof that the bottle was sealed.
What does the contents of the cup have to do with the cops breaking the seal and reporting it as open. That’s not a typo that’s misrepresenting the facts aka lying, an example of a typo is writing contets instead of contents not reporting the sealed bottle was open. From that point the report is suspect because we already know they were lying based on the video evidence.
And then on top of that turning off their bodycams to prevent saving further evidence of their crimes? It could be a cup full of lighter fluid and the cops still broke the law and tried to cover it up.
The officer didn’t plant an alcohol bottle in that man’s car. It was already there. Most states require alcohol to be in the trunk, or in the backseat, on the floorboard when transporting it. The only thing in question here is whether or not this man had an opened bottle of alcohol in his vehicle.
No one is discussing World War 2 here. This isn’t an issue that involves me, either. You don’t need to make personal attacks.
So it looks like you have some trouble understanding how conversation works. Someone accused you of being a nazi. A bit out of left field if you aren’t digging through someone’s comment history. Your defense to that was to say it was not World War 2. The topic at hand is whether or not you are a nazi and your defense is that it’s not World War 2. Not “I am not a nazi”, but the go to neonazi defense of “umm actually the nazi party was dissolved in 1945”. It’s just sad.
This article was about an African American male who was pulled over for driving with a suspended license. The officer who pulled him over was female. Someone called me a Nazi out of nowhere for commenting on this article. There are absolutely no nazis in this article. I am not a Nazi. Not even Neo Nazi would be an appropriate insult. People keep attacking me and calling me a Nazi, not realizing that I’m female, not German, and am Catholic. There were no female, non-German, Catholic Nazis. I doubt there are any that are neo Nazis. I’m tired of being verbally abused by men who just want to pick on a white woman for no reason.
The women can’t be Nazis defense, that’s a bold move. Since you’re describing all the things you are that makes it impossible to be a Nazi, do you happen to be 36 years old as well? Or is the 88 in your name just your favorite number for some other reason?
I haven’t turned 36 yet. I will soon. There is an 88 in my name because I was born in 1988. There is also a dragon in my username because 1988 is year of the dragon. Are you done attacking me? Sorry you’re looking for a Nazi. I’m not here to fit your fetish.
How funny, I have so many men leaving me their frustrated comments, in which they call me a Nazi. I seem to attract a lot of men who are looking for a Nazi. You should find yourself a different subreddit.
Yeah, if it was opened, it definitely should not have been in the vehicle, without being stored in a locked glovebox, or trunk, according to Florida law.
Wait. In order for a person to have a DUI, doesn’t the person have to fail a breathalyzer test, or a blood alcohol test? It sounds like the actions by the officer allude to a supposed frame for “open container”. Something is missing.
Also, the man was driving with a suspended license. They had a reason to arrest him. If they suspected DUI, found alcohol in the vehicle, and he then refused to submit to a field sobriety test to prove his innocence, then they had every reason to arrest him under the suspicion of DUI. Did he refuse a breathalyzer test at the scene? Was one offered? If he refused that, or one was not available, then they would need to take him in for a blood test to determine blood alcohol level.
Bottom line here: What was this man’s blood alcohol level?
There is a lot of bullshit here… NAL, but you can make a case that they intended to drink, or if they had a non-0 BAC, you can make a case that they were too impaired to drive. While the 0.08% limit is a “standard”, it’s not a hard and fast line, from what I’m aware of, but NAL. I would assume it’d be hard as shit to make a case that someone was too impaired with a BAC of 0.01%… But that doesn’t mean you can’t try.
You’re literally arguing that they could drink it, so they were intending to drink it? Do you have any knives in your house? Shall we call the authorities because you could murder someone, and therefore intend to murder someone?
I think my intention got mixed up here. I think it’s all bullshit. But essentially what you said is closer to how the law is written.
To be totally clear, the ruling that an officers assessment of someone being impaired is taken as highly, if not higher, as an objective BAC here, is bullshit. It basically means that if they think you are drunk, you are drunk. That’s insane to me.
I had a former cop explain to me once that he had an absolutely fool proof test involving tilting sometimes head and seeing if their retinas jiggle or something. I kinda assumed that it was bullshit, but if he thought that was the case, then he had the “right” to issue a DUI.
My point is that the BAC being really low is not an instant case closed in the way that it should be. Which is highlighting just how ridiculous things can get in these cases and still go to court.
In this case, it shouldn’t even go to court.
Riley shouldn’t go to court but every one of those cops certainly should.
There is a video of an officer planting evidence. That should be the end of the story. But for you it is not.
You trying to control the debate shapiro-style. You create a fictional story, first in conditionals (“if they suspected … then they had every reason”), and by asking questions (“Did he refuse a breathalyzer test at the scene? Was one offered?”). Now there is a vivid image in the readers head, that you use to derail the discussion into a completely different direction (“Bottom line here: What was this man’s blood alcohol level?”).
But the counter to this is very simple: Instead of following your tangent, I will simply un-derail the topic by asking something like:
“Why do you think the officer felt the need to plant evidence?”
I strongly recommend the youtube series “the altright playbook” https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ
Just for giggles I also asked GPT4 oppinion on the subject. His response
The officer didn’t plant it. The alcohol bottle was already in the suspect’s vehicle. No one has proven it was sealed. If it is revealed to have been opened, then this man is guilty of having an opened container in his vehicle, as well as driving with a suspended license.
You don’t need to attack me personally. Save your personal attacks for your therapist.
Rule 2. If you’re here to support the police, you’re trolling.
Stupid Nazi says stupid things
you mean the shapiro thing? I actually thought you intentionally used a shapiro-style argument. I didn’t think you’d take it as an insult.
Now this is a much more interesting line of thought. It doesn’t rely on reframing and red herrings. Instead this arguments directly attacks the central point. This is much better.
I recommend not continuing to feed the racist troll.
The trick is not to follow their tangents. They hate it when you point out their fallacies and rhethoric trickery.
She’s not going to read any of that because she’s a white supremacist as evidenced by her comments on this post.
Who cares? Cops can’t plant evidence. End of story.
If they did, even if the rest of the bust was legitimate, the entire thing goes out the window. If they had an actual reason to arrest him, they should have followed procedure and the law rather than going around trying to plant evidence.
It does make it a little less interesting if the driver was actually drunk imo
AKA, Dick Dastardly Stops To Cheat.
That user is a straight-up Nazi. Look at their comment history:
[Homer backing into the bushes meme.]
Even has the fucking 88.
I completely missed that…thank you for pointing it out :).
Rule 2 - If you’re supporting the police here, you’re trolling. Comment removed.
The fact of the matter is the driver had no open alcohol in the vehicle until the officer placed it there.
“wait, Im racist against all black people and I have an opinion about this black person. I promise its not because he’s black”
Well, I’m sorry you’re racist, but placing your statement of such views in a comment reply to my own comment, is not the place to discuss it. I suggest you find a therapist.
And was he charged with “open container”? The defense attorney says they describe the container as open in the police report, if that’s true, and if the bottle really was sealed when the officer found it, then it’s misconduct despite the specific charges.
The report says it was opened. They should analyze any body cam evidence to see if there is any sound of a seal breaking on the bottle when opened.
Yes when they turned off their body cameras it was interfering which is an additional crime to planting the evidence and the cops should be charged every time unless a third party unaffiliated with the police or courts can verify there was a valid reason to stop documenting the arrest.
Btw the sealed bottle is heard breaking when the police open it in the linked video in the article at 1:05 you silly billy.
They haven’t posted results of the contents of the cup in his car. She verbally didn’t state that the bottle was open in the video. The written report states it was opened. That might be a typo, but it was twice stated (verbally and in writing) that the cup contained alcohol.
You sure are bending over backward trying to defend cops caught falsifying evidence and to paint the suspect in a bad light.
He was driving with a suspended license. They had every right to pull him over and arrest him. I’m not defending any wrong doing. I would just like to see more proof that the bottle was sealed.
What does the contents of the cup have to do with the cops breaking the seal and reporting it as open. That’s not a typo that’s misrepresenting the facts aka lying, an example of a typo is writing contets instead of contents not reporting the sealed bottle was open. From that point the report is suspect because we already know they were lying based on the video evidence.
And then on top of that turning off their bodycams to prevent saving further evidence of their crimes? It could be a cup full of lighter fluid and the cops still broke the law and tried to cover it up.
Can I plant a nazi sign on you, say you’re a nazi and then have prove your innocence?
The officer didn’t plant an alcohol bottle in that man’s car. It was already there. Most states require alcohol to be in the trunk, or in the backseat, on the floorboard when transporting it. The only thing in question here is whether or not this man had an opened bottle of alcohol in his vehicle.
No one is discussing World War 2 here. This isn’t an issue that involves me, either. You don’t need to make personal attacks.
Rule 2 - Removed.
You don’t need to be a Nazi
States do not have a law stating where alcohol is to be transported.
MOST states have laws regarding open containers.
Ahh. The “If it’s after 1945, it’s not naziism, it’s sparkling fascism” defense.
Nothing in this article, or my comments, has anything to do with Nazis. I think you should seek mental health care.
Weird insult, but alright.
So it looks like you have some trouble understanding how conversation works. Someone accused you of being a nazi. A bit out of left field if you aren’t digging through someone’s comment history. Your defense to that was to say it was not World War 2. The topic at hand is whether or not you are a nazi and your defense is that it’s not World War 2. Not “I am not a nazi”, but the go to neonazi defense of “umm actually the nazi party was dissolved in 1945”. It’s just sad.
This article was about an African American male who was pulled over for driving with a suspended license. The officer who pulled him over was female. Someone called me a Nazi out of nowhere for commenting on this article. There are absolutely no nazis in this article. I am not a Nazi. Not even Neo Nazi would be an appropriate insult. People keep attacking me and calling me a Nazi, not realizing that I’m female, not German, and am Catholic. There were no female, non-German, Catholic Nazis. I doubt there are any that are neo Nazis. I’m tired of being verbally abused by men who just want to pick on a white woman for no reason.
I’ve explained this to you in another thread, Nazi is an ideology. ANYONE can be a Nazi. Male/Female/Cathololic/German/Not German or otherwise.
The women can’t be Nazis defense, that’s a bold move. Since you’re describing all the things you are that makes it impossible to be a Nazi, do you happen to be 36 years old as well? Or is the 88 in your name just your favorite number for some other reason?
I haven’t turned 36 yet. I will soon. There is an 88 in my name because I was born in 1988. There is also a dragon in my username because 1988 is year of the dragon. Are you done attacking me? Sorry you’re looking for a Nazi. I’m not here to fit your fetish.
Ok nazi
How funny, I have so many men leaving me their frustrated comments, in which they call me a Nazi. I seem to attract a lot of men who are looking for a Nazi. You should find yourself a different subreddit.
Rule 2.
Source? This certainly applies if the container has been previously opened, but an unopened, sealed container should be fine.
Yeah, if it was opened, it definitely should not have been in the vehicle, without being stored in a locked glovebox, or trunk, according to Florida law.