“Most Texans don’t go 60 they go 80”. So he’s getting punished for not going over the speed limit!?!? This is a joke
“Isn’t 60 safer than 70” “Well actually you’re suppose to go the posted speed” “No, that’s the maximum” Holy shit that man came with the factual statements lol.
“You’re getting off with a warning”, then proceeds to ask tons of inconsequential questions. Typical cop behavior, trying to implicate a person for a crime.
One of the things that my driving instructor told me, that has stuck with me decades later is this: “The speed limit is the MAXIMUM speed you can travel, under absolutely PERFECT driving conditions”. Meaning, if it’s raining, traffic is heavily congested or any other number of factors, you should probably be going UNDER the max speed.
It is not unlawful for the police to interrogate you during a stop or even a regular conversation. If the driver would have known at the time ; he could have stopped the interrogation cold. At anytime you can withdraw your implied consent to be interrogated without an attorney present. He was under no obligation to provide the officer details not pertaining to the traffic stop. He should have invoked the 5th.
>> Had an officer do this to me and then change his tune real quick when he saw I’m in the Army. Let me go faster than someone holding a hot potato.>> When they arrest or ticket someone on active duty, the Army for example will investigate the matter and be in contact with the police department who issued the citation.
.. Most people, esp. green card holders, do not understand this. Police are intimidating; and a police officer can ruin your life. People will often just comply to avoid any resistance, and can you blame them? I can’t.>> Why are you here? Why were you vacationing? Why were you born?Why was he asked to go into the cop car to receive the warning? And I am confused why this wasn’t addressed in the video?A warning is like getting an incorrect answer on a quiz before an exam. There’s a reason this happened; maybe you misread a question, lacked domain knowledge, or maybe you ran out of testing time, et cetera. But it gives you something specific that you and your teach can correct, so you get it right in the future. With this warning for his “driving behavior,” there is no specific item for this man to focus on in order to subsequently avoid another warning or citation. (Perhaps he’s advocating doing 80?).@Kurt Wetzel you don’t need to be able to go lower than an f. If an officer breaks the law in any way they fail. There are degrees of success but failure is failure.I’ve actually been pulled over twice in this exact manner, but here in Northern Ontario, Canada. The police officer on both times suspected me of being intoxicated because I was driving slowly (~10km below the posted limit). The first time, it had been raining all afternoon in the fall, and temperatures dropped below freezing and I was driving cautiously as there was ice on the road, and I did not yet have winter tires on. The second time, it was snowing, and we were in town while hauling a very large trailer, and again just trying to be careful.>> This is standard procedure The mission in asking questions is to find a bigger crime or to later attempt to discredit them through inconsistencies in their story in a potential court case>> And if you don’t answer it’s suspicious. No winning
>> He’s trying to find a reason to search him or the car to eventually get a ticket out of him
12 City Police do their Best “Police State” Imitation?
Sandra Bland and the ‘lawful order’ problem
The first problem is knowing what counts as an “order.” If an officer approaches you and asks you to do something, that’s normally just a request and not an order. But if there’s a law on the books saying that you have to comply with the officer’s request, then the request is treated as an order. You can’t know what is an “order” unless you study the law first, which you’re unlikely to have done before the officer approached you.
The even bigger problem is knowing when an order is “lawful.” An order is lawful if forcing compliance would not violate any law. But a citizen is in no position to assess that. Even if the police pulled over the world’s greatest legal expert, the citizen still couldn’t know what orders are lawful because the laws often hinge on facts the citizen can’t know.
Here’s an example. Imagine an officer walks up to you and tells you to put your hands behind your back so he can handcuff you. To do that lawfully, the officer needs at least reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in a crime and pose a threat to him and maybe probable cause that you have committed a crime. But you can’t know how much cause the officer has. Maybe the officer has no cause and is flagrantly violating your constitutional rights. Or maybe ten nuns have just sworn under oath that you robbed a bank in broad daylight that morning. You’re innocent, as it was a case of mistaken identity. But the officer doesn’t know that. And as the citizen, you can’t tell which is which.
Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what the Oregon Court of Appeals wrote about this problem a few years ago:
Whether a particular police order is “lawful” is frequently a complex question involving some of the most vexing and intractable issues in constitutional law. For example, a police order such as “Stop!” can be an unlawful seizure of a person under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, depending on whether the order is accompanied by a sufficient show of authority and the officer who issues the order is subsequently found to have lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was afoot. The inquiry is addressed on a case-by-case basis, there are few if any bright line rules, and there is an almost infinite variety of variables — some of which, such as the officer’s state of mind, could not possibly be known by a defendant. Likewise, an order to disperse might unlawfully interfere with a person’s right of free expression under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution — a determination that can surely confound ordinary citizens and has in fact confounded even judges of this court.You might wonder, wait, if I can’t know whether an order is lawful, isn’t a law punishing me for failure to obey an unlawful order unconstitutionally vague? The courts have said no — citing, ironically, the idea that everyone is presumed to know the law! Here’s the Oregon Supreme Court rejecting a vagueness claim:
That argument, however, merely expands on an old saw — that the common man cannot reasonably be expected to know and understand the complexities of the law. We generally have rejected such arguments, instead presuming that publication and dissemination of a substantive law is sufficient to inform the public of its import. And, to the extent that the lawfulness of an official’s order can be ascertained by resort to the published substantive law, the ordinary citizen must be presumed to know and understand the general parameters of the term “lawful order.” We scarcely could do otherwise: If the extent or complexity of the law excuses obedience, it is no law. In short, we hold that the fact that ORS 162.247(1)(b) only requires the public to obey a peace officer’s “lawful” orders does not deny ordinary citizens a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited.Got it? If an officer walks up to you and gives you an order, you’re “presumed” to immediately know every area of state and federal law. And on top of that, you’re presumed to know all the facts known to the officer that the officer won’t tell you. Great. (Oh, and I don’t mean to pick on Oregon; it just seems to have more clear law on this issue than other jurisdictions I found.)
The uncertainty caused by such laws is likely a contributor to the anxiety and stress people many people feel, particularly in minority communities, when interacting with the police. It’s hard to know if the officer is following the law or violating your rights. And if you don’t know that, you can’t know what you’re allowed to do legally in response to the officer or what kind of reaction is justified. The officer has all the cards.
Faced with this, a citizen’s cautious strategy might be just to do everything the officer says regardless of whether the officer’s command is lawful. Even if you’re right that the order is unlawful, the officer may not know that. You might decide it’s better just to follow the officer’s illegal commands than to be arrested and spend the night in jail out of principle.
But this is America, and we didn’t fight a revolution to make that the only choice. And your options, if you want to assert the rights you have, can be awfully hard to figure out.
Is This What You Want To Do | Cops Out Of Control
- Yet another ticking time bomb just waiting to hurt someone. Hopefully he is removed before he does.
- The cop that’s basically a psycho is used to walking up to people and scaring them. He’s not used to citizens knowing their rights let alone standing up to him.
- It’s frightening just how much that cop has to restrain himself from being violent. I feel so bad for his family.
- Education
- Transparency
- Accountabilit
- Authority
- Boundaries
- Jurisdiction
- Use of Rights
- Knowledge check
- Reinforce trust
- Risk Management
- Who sounds aggressive. The grey beard old Cop, that’s who. A group of the reason for the people to make their law enforcements to pay and carry their each own liability insurance
- Imagine what that one would do on a dark back street when he wasn’t being filmed. Now imagine how the others would support him.
- 5:58 “You sound aggressive sir, calm down!” Officer Berkholz is out of control! He should never be allowed to wear a badge.
- It’s extremely odd how they won’t take PREVENTIVE measure for anyone else (stalking, dv, etc), but they will fight tooth and nail to detour you from basic rights involving them!