It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man Arrested For Drinking Ice Tea in Parking Lot

page: 11
59
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


reply to post by kimish
 



You guys are both being ridiculous. The "cop" asks to see the drink first, then when he is shown to be wrong he gets upset and demands to smell it. Why do you guys think that's okay? Just submit to a cops every whim? Ever see people drink booze out of brown paper bags? Do you know why they do that, it's not for no reason. Cops shouldn't even enforce such an asinine law and cops in big cities let it slide if they cover it up, if he did have booze in a tea can it's a step beyond that (though in reality it is most likely just tea and not booze at all).

If I had to guess these guys knew that this liquor store had a psychotic rent a cop that harassed anyone he thought might open a drink too soon and they let him set himself up. Regardless the cop is out of line and a dip#.
edit on 3-5-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Judging by all the new "edgy" and racist soda commercials out right now, this is probably just an Arizona Iced Tea ad.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


So would you still think this was police harrasment if the property owner called the police and asked for them to remove this person from the property? Would it still be police harrasment if the property owner previously signed a letter of trespass authority giving the police the right to trespass people from the property?

See we still don't know if that was the case. Until I know that for sure I can't properly comment on this video.


Officers in uniform would have showed up if that were the case. And as you can notice in the video the police dude keeps heading towards the store while arguing. This tells you that he himself was just there to shop there, His ego just got the best of him while he was heading to the store when he saw a young black kid standing there.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GermanShep
 


Wow, just wow. He must be a drug dealer because he doesn't fit your ideal of what success looks like? I think its time we have an honest disucssion about race in this country. As a black guy living in Boston, I see this all the time. And I'll be the first to admit we as black people in this country have some things to work on, but still, don't paint us all with the same brush. And don't made assumptions based on your own beliefs.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Rubic0n
 


I thought this guy was an officer? I also thought uniformed police eventually responded and transported the man.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 


never accused you of being a stormfront member dont even know what that is but im assuming its something to do with white supremacy



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


That’s cool, and I am not here arguing with you.

A few post above yours MrUteTribe posted the music video shot that day. In the video you can see they are filming inside of some businesses. This to me would seem to imply that they had permission from the owners to shoot video there; otherwise they would not have been able to coordinate the shots that were being filmed.
If these people had purchased liquor from the store and continued to loiter in the parking lot, I could then see suspicion of wanting to check the man’s drink. Unfortunately the only noticeable drunk l seen, was able to walk onto the scene and act a fool, only to not be questioned and walk away.

As for your comment of the store owner possibly having made the call, then there would have been no way for an off duty cop with no police radio on hand to receive such complaint.

Like I stated in an earlier post, this man looks familiar to me, and if anything is a rent a cop, I have seen him at the ABC store a couple blocks away on syckamore dairy rd. He usually is open carrying a pistol, and is not a cop!

Then again this could have truly been an off duty cop and if it was, Shame On Him!!!
He should be disciplined and sent on leave without pay from us taxpayers (I would hold my breath, but would likey die from lack of oxygen).

Only time will tell now.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by kimish
 






Chances are that X has a rap sheet as long as his leg too. SMh.


And what exactly led you to believe that?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


So would you still think this was police harrasment if the property owner called the police and asked for them to remove this person from the property? Would it still be police harrasment if the property owner previously signed a letter of trespass authority giving the police the right to trespass people from the property?

See we still don't know if that was the case. Until I know that for sure I can't properly comment on this video.


I'm only guessing here from what it looks like on the video. But, it would seem that the cop is in fact a rent-a-cop for this business, which I think is a liquor store, so, you are partially correct here...The rent-a-cop was probably hired by the liquor store because it's probably in a high crime area, and this may have given the rent-a-cop the reason to go up and ask in the first place, but then why tell him to leave. It appears that the guy just got out of his car at the beginning of the video, so how does he not know he is a customer making his way into the establishment. He was clearly wrong about the beverage, and he should have left it at that, but instead he becomes a prick and starts telling him to leave because he is trespassing, but there is no way in hell they can prove that because the business was open and unless there was an order against this guy not to be there, he had every right to be there. And I don't think there was any order, as you suggest there may have been, because the rent-a-cop would have said so, and he didn't, he just clearly told him to go after he didn't get to sniff his drink. This is all IMO anyways based on what it looks like. Either way, the rent-a-cop was in the wrong on this one.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation
 


I didn't say he was off duty. He could have been working a plain clothes detail. Or he could be a street crimes type officer wearing a more comfortable, little less formal uniform.

I guess I am just different then most people. Being a police officer I get to see both sides. Most people will comment negatively towards something without knowing the full details.

Now if we knew that the store owner didn't call this in, or already signed a letter of trespass authority I would absolutely call foul on this. However that has not been established yet.

Unlike most people I will reserve my judgement until then.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Well if he was hired by the store owner he was probably given a list of job descriptions. 99.9% of the time when a business owner hires an officer or security guard one of the main duties is to ask people who are loitering to leave. Most liquor store owners don't even care if you purchased something from them. They just simply don't want you hanging out in the parking lot afterwards. Their store, their rules.

The officer/security guard had every right to ask what he was drinking and to smell it. However the guy did not have to comply. However when asked to leave the property he must comply if the owner asked the officer to make him leave, or a letter of authority is on file. One warning is all that is needed. If the person refuses an arrest can be made.

That is the problem I have with this article which is floating around everywhere including infowars. It says a man was arrested for drinking tea. That is so sensationalist. He wasn't arrested for drinking tea.

1 of 2 things happened. He was either legally arrested for trespassing or he was falsely arrested for trespassing.

The tea really doesn't play as big of a roll as people are making it to be. The two questions that need to be asked are as follows. 1. Did the owner call the police to have the man removed from the property? 2. Did the property owner already have a signed letter of trespass authority on file? If either of those two questions are true the arrest is absolutely valid. If neither are true then yes there may be an issue.

We simply don't know those answers. I just find it funny how people who don't know the facts, or people who have never even heard of a letter of trespass authority automatically bash the police.

I say learn all the facts before coming to a definitive answer.




edit on 3-5-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-5-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-5-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-5-2013 by TorqueyThePig because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I'm sure most police officers are fine, upstanding people, but don't assume every last one of them has their marbles. In the town where I grew up, over the years one turned out to be a child molester, one was a pillhead, and another(retired) shot and killed a teenager through his front door. These incidents were spread out over time, but it seemed like the police department from hell. Later, I knew a guy who used to be an officer from another municipality who turned out to be a paranoid schizophrenic, but he seemed to do pretty well on meds. To be fair, though, I must state that these incidents occurred many years ago. I think I've just had the misfortune of knowing about a few bad eggs. I do believe that policing is a hard, dangerous job, and I admire them for it. I couldn't deal with, to be polite I'll say jerks, the way they do. I'm not saying this cop was crazy, but I do believe he was in the wrong. I think he was just ticked, and overstepped his bounds.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation
 


I didn't say he was off duty. He could have been working a plain clothes detail. Or he could be a street crimes type officer wearing a more comfortable, little less formal uniform.

I guess I am just different then most people. Being a police officer I get to see both sides. Most people will comment negatively towards something without knowing the full details.

Now if we knew that the store owner didn't call this in, or already signed a letter of trespass authority I would absolutely call foul on this. However that has not been established yet.

Unlike most people I will reserve my judgement until then.


Ok then Mr. Police Officer, who claims to be an Oath Keeper.

If I didn’t know any better I would say you are endorsing the actions of the man in the video.

But I will not assume that.

I am asking you if you endorse the way this was handled?

I do not care what his assigned detail was. If he is not in official uniform, all the more reason he should have properly identified himself!!

If I did not properly identify myself to a cop, that could lead to my detainment, cuffed up in the back of a squad car and possible arrest until they could get me downtown and run my fingerprints to identify me. Do you disagree with this statement?

Do you see what I am getting at?

You expect us to follow the rules, yet cops constantly break them. Way to set an example and help build the public’s trust in the police.

While I know there are some good reasonable cops out there still, they are outnumbered by cops that follow blind orders or are just power/ ego tripping.

Please reserve your judgment, my experience and what my eyes see is you’re guilty till proven innocent. This is another prime example that shows that the Justice system is really geared for “Just-Us”



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


I was only guessing, he may have been an off-duty cop walking up to buy he and the wife some cocktails. I dunno know, but I still think he was wrong and this doesn't even make it to court once the DA see's the video. They are already getting a lot of bad press and will want this to go away quicker than....



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dontaskmeimfrommars
 


Just like many people who are teachers, judges, lawyers, plumbers, waitresses and any other job a human can do have committed crimes. Cops are humans. Some are bad, some are good. Just like any other profession. Thank you for realizing that.

Why do you think this officer was in the wrong? Did you get a chance to read any of my posts? Let me know what you think.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


So would you still think this was police harrasment if the property owner called the police and asked for them to remove this person from the property? Would it still be police harrasment if the property owner previously signed a letter of trespass authority giving the police the right to trespass people from the property?

See we still don't know if that was the case. Until I know that for sure I can't properly comment on this video.


I'm only guessing here from what it looks like on the video. But, it would seem that the cop is in fact a rent-a-cop for this business, which I think is a liquor store, so, you are partially correct here...The rent-a-cop was probably hired by the liquor store because it's probably in a high crime area, and this may have given the rent-a-cop the reason to go up and ask in the first place, but then why tell him to leave. It appears that the guy just got out of his car at the beginning of the video, so how does he not know he is a customer making his way into the establishment. He was clearly wrong about the beverage, and he should have left it at that, but instead he becomes a prick and starts telling him to leave because he is trespassing, but there is no way in hell they can prove that because the business was open and unless there was an order against this guy not to be there, he had every right to be there. And I don't think there was any order, as you suggest there may have been, because the rent-a-cop would have said so, and he didn't, he just clearly told him to go after he didn't get to sniff his drink. This is all IMO anyways based on what it looks like. Either way, the rent-a-cop was in the wrong on this one.


I think you may be more than right!
Once this 'officer' knew he was likely wrong, he still couldn't let it go. You can even see the temper in his face as he put the man down. It is quite obvious this 'officer' should never have been given any authority over anything.
I am also surprised the the patrolman didn't appear to try and get any handle on things at the scene when there are people around to talk to, instead of just acting like a dog warden.
edit on 3-5-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig

We simply don't know those answers. I just find it funny how people who don't know the facts, or people who have never even heard of a letter of trespass authority automatically bash the police.

I say learn all the facts before coming to a definitive answer.


Hear, hear! However, the behavior of the 'officer' is interesting in such a circumstance. One, was the man a LEO or was he a security guard? If he was not a LEO, then answering "Po-lice" is impersonating one, jail time.

If he was a LEO in plainclothes, he would be required to positively establish his identity, at least around here, before exercising his authority as a cop. The locals really don't WANT anyone pretending to be one. And as a citizen, how do I know who you are? So failure to properly identify would seem to present an issue here, certainly in policy and possibly in law.

Next, if he was enforcing a request from the property owner, why would he need to sniff the guy's drink? I certainly wouldn't let you poke your nose in mine as some random accoster. All he has to do is tell the guy to leave the premises, and in fact, he has to do that as the first step. If he's checking for an open container violation as a cop (if they have that there), then he's back to failure to properly identify.

Either way you go, any action as a LEO is hoisted on that failure to identify. Saying "Po-lice" is not sufficient. Any action as a security guard is in danger by falsely identifying as a LEO.

With the putative LEO not positively identifying, I don't see how they can possibly make the resisting charge stick. Hell, he didn't even identify as a representative of the company, some sort of legit security guard or whatnot, and he's not in any readily identifiable garb that would lead me to believe he is an employee. Why should I do ANYTHING he says? He could be some random nutcake with a set of cuffs.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


You realize those commercials weren't really racist right? They were created by a black guy and the only part they said was racist was a lineup at the end where all the people were black. Let me say something about lineups.. you will never see a multiple ethnicity lineup unless the person identifying is blind. I don't think anyone has pointed out how absurd people complaining about an all black lineup actually is. What would be absurd would be saying the perp was black and then bringing in a lineup with a white guy, a black guy, an asian guy, and an indian guy and then asking which one is the perp.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kaiode1
 


He's a racist?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntrinsicMotivation

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation
 


I didn't say he was off duty. He could have been working a plain clothes detail. Or he could be a street crimes type officer wearing a more comfortable, little less formal uniform.

I guess I am just different then most people. Being a police officer I get to see both sides. Most people will comment negatively towards something without knowing the full details.

Now if we knew that the store owner didn't call this in, or already signed a letter of trespass authority I would absolutely call foul on this. However that has not been established yet.

Unlike most people I will reserve my judgement until then.


Ok then Mr. Police Officer, who claims to be an Oath Keeper.

If I didn’t know any better I would say you are endorsing the actions of the man in the video.

But I will not assume that.

I am asking you if you endorse the way this was handled?

I do not care what his assigned detail was. If he is not in official uniform, all the more reason he should have properly identified himself!!

If I did not properly identify myself to a cop, that could lead to my detainment, cuffed up in the back of a squad car and possible arrest until they could get me downtown and run my fingerprints to identify me. Do you disagree with this statement?

Do you see what I am getting at?

You expect us to follow the rules, yet cops constantly break them. Way to set an example and help build the public’s trust in the police.

While I know there are some good reasonable cops out there still, they are outnumbered by cops that follow blind orders or are just power/ ego tripping.

Please reserve your judgment, my experience and what my eyes see is you’re guilty till proven innocent. This is another prime example that shows that the Justice system is really geared for “Just-Us”


First of all if you took any of my comments personally they weren't meant that way. Second I like the way you passive aggressively attacked my ethics. Very mature

I never said I endorsed the way this was handled. I was simply disputing the claim that this man was arrested for drinking tea.

You don't always have to provide your identification to an officer. If I perform a consensual stop you don't have to even listen to me let alone provide your identification. If I conduct a legal traffic stop on you then yes of course you have to provide your ID.

How have I set a bad example? By explaining that the guy wasn't arrested for drinking tea?

Also if you could please provide your source confirming there are more bad cops than good cops. Also may I ask what you do for a living?




top topics



 
59
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join