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: 15
59
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


Who said this guy is a gangster? It seems that he is a rap artist from what I can see. He is a performer dude..




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by etombo
 


Here's mine!

Mayor Anthony G. Chavonne,

The following video is going viral on the net. Approaching 1 million views. Which clearly displays a violation of this young mans rights and a blatant abuse of authority by the officer. This type of behavior is a disgrace to your city and to police officers everywhere. I respectfully ask that this officer be held responsible for the harassment and assault of this young man. Until then I will do everything in my power to see this video receive even more exposure.
www.youtube.com...

Thank You

Concerned Citizen and Avid Tea Drinker



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ReAwakened
 


Nice.. It is important the mayor of the city knows what's up. This police officer took an oath and he violated that oath.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
This video is completely ridiculous. It's pretty sad that it's come down to this.
People need to learn the laws in their states and start challenging these supposed "officers" because half of them do not even know the laws.
It's not going to get better unless people stand up for themselves.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Si Robertson might want to hide.




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by etombo
reply to post by ReAwakened
 


Nice.. It is important the mayor of the city knows what's up. This police officer took an oath and he violated that oath.




See Something! Say Something!



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


I can agree on the cop being a douche but why not let the cop smell the ice tea?


Because it is not his business, and the United States isn't a roaming prison.

I've gone past pitying people like you, and have gone straight to "not caring".



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
he shoulda beat the crap outta that cop. right on camera. he'd have totally gotten away with it. at no time was he shown proof the dude was a cop. so as soon as the cop reached he coulda iced him. dreaming on the concrete hahah. even citizen arrested him after hah! then when the other cops beat him down, as they undoubtedly would, turn around and sue the dept. show the vid in court. payday!

f*** that dumb racist pig.

none of this was justifiable and that scrawny old cop coulda got leveled. too bad that guy was already in a submissive posture as soon as a white guy sounding like a cop started talking loudly.

ppl need to learn what cops are and aren't allowed to do.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by unstoppability
 


Fighting the cop is a terrible idea, even if he is wrong or the law technically allows it in some fantasy theoretical vacuum. Fighting physically only opens yourself up to REAL charges. Speaking from personal experience the best reaction is to put your hands up, offer no resistance, and laugh in his face. Tell him to do what he thinks is right, and make it clear that you are not afraid of him or his authority. Don't insult him or threaten him. Say nothing but "lawyer", and laugh the whole time. I've done this several times, and I'm telling you that you can see the doubt creep across his face when you start laughing. Laughing demonstrates that you are confident in your assertion of your rights, and amused by the situation rather than fearful of it. Police assume that they know more about your rights than you do, until you show them otherwise. It is also difficult to argue that someone was combative if their hands are up and a smile is on their face. He will do a quick mental reassessment of the situation, and reevaluate the lawfulness of the arrest. It doesn't mean he will cut you loose, but it will make him doubt himself at least a little bit, and at least you will not be facing additional assault or resisting charges if he does haul you in.

Its not foolproof, but it has a better chance of yielding a positive result than you'll get if you resist. Lawyers are probably lining up to take the tea guy's case for free right now, and I'm sure they will be suggesting a lawsuit. If the undercover cop is sued he will lose. If the city is sued the cop will not be making any friends at city hall, and will lose again. If you're going to hit them you should do it where it REALLY hurts, and that is financially.

I think this guy handled himself perfectly, and is a fine example of how to handle police harrasment. He asserts his rights and doesn't back down, but he doesn't make the situation worse by giving the cops an excuse.
edit on 3-5-2013 by Slugworth because: additonal point added



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
On the one hand, I totally understand the argument that if there wasn't alcohol in the tea, he had no reason to not let the officer smell it.

On the other hand, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," so did the officer have the right to seize and search (smell) the tea to begin with?

So the question becomes, "was there reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed?" Two people standing in a parking lot filming and drinking from a can promptly identified as iced tea. Is that reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed sufficient to warrant seizing the iced tea and physically examining it against the citizen's consent? I'm not talking about the lawful order to leave the premises. I'm talking about before that. About what instigated the instruction to volunteer his property and effects for search in the first place. You need probable cause for that. Was it there? Not in my opinion.

Now, it is most definitely possible that this is an example of people setting up conditions to increase the likelihood of an incident like this happening so that they can catch it on film. That can and does happen, and this could indeed be that. But we can't assume those are the facts, and even if true, it does not negate the 4th amendment issue in my opinion.

The officer also, again in my opinion, did not properly identify himself, refusing to indicate the badge on his waist until well after the disagreement had escalated and the citizen had asked to see a badge multiple times. Regardless of whether this was an intentional instigation, I can only conclude that the officer acted improperly by my standards. I understand arguments to the contrary, though.

Peace.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by unstoppability
he shoulda beat the crap outta that cop. right on camera. he'd have totally gotten away with it. at no time was he shown proof the dude was a cop. so as soon as the cop reached he coulda iced him. dreaming on the concrete hahah. even citizen arrested him after hah! then when the other cops beat him down, as they undoubtedly would, turn around and sue the dept. show the vid in court. payday!

f*** that dumb racist pig.

none of this was justifiable and that scrawny old cop coulda got leveled. too bad that guy was already in a submissive posture as soon as a white guy sounding like a cop started talking loudly.

ppl need to learn what cops are and aren't allowed to do.


No, you don't need that, the 'authority' was an ass and on camera there was no mention even of a smell of alcohol. Taking the video as shown, it is quite clear that the arrest was illegal, that the patrolman who arrived made no enquiry to a standing crowd or to the owner of premises, nor is there anything on camera of any discourse between the man making an arrest and the owner of the premises in the same time frame.
Let things stay as they sit.
edit on 3-5-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaiode1
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?


Well, he's black isn't he? Plus he has a nice car. And didn't instantly offer to shine the cops shoes. Seems like an obvious criminal to me.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


If you are on the private parking lot of a store, and you're not a customer, you're loitering.
Once he was trespassed, he should have left, and he would not have been arrested. His arrest had nothing to do with what he was drinking, it had to do with him loitering, trespassing, and creating a general disturbance with his car radio.

The police officer MUST be there at the behest of the business in order to trespass, police have no right to trespass you off private property unless they have the business owners consent. The fact that the business had an “off duty” or “undercover” police officer on the lot tells that they have had problems in that area with drinking and loitering already.

Given that fact, the officer already has “reasonable suspicion” to preform a “terry stop”, and check what is in the can. When asked for it, this fool should have handed it over instead of playing games. Now, on top of his trespassing and loitering charges, he will also get “resisting”, which his friend clearly videotaped for the prosecution (I'm going to save this video for the next: “he was laying on the ground with his hands behind his back doing NOTHING when the police beat the crap out of him” thread).

It hurts the private business to have questionable looking folks standing in front of their storefront, and they will hire “off duty” officers to police those areas to deal with the problem. People do not want to patronize a business if they have to walk past loitering obnoxious folks, playing loud music, and acting like thugs in the parking lot. This guy was even going so far as to stand there drinking from his “tall can”, and “dressing” his pants, to look the part.

Your rights end when they cross the lines of another, in this case a business.
And if you are going to try and goad on the “man”, at least know the REAL law, not the make believe, internet, or television version of the law...

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I must have missed the actual report. Do you have any sources to confirm what you are saying?
Thanks in advance as this will clear up the "why" of the story.

CJ



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
OK, bs. How hard is it to put alcohol into an open can?? Not hard at all. To my knowledge carrying an open alcohol container in public is illegal. All that X had to do was let the officer smell the can. Instead he was defiant. This is why many people get arrested for petty stuff, they're stupid and try pressing their luck.
Chances are that X has a rap sheet as long as his leg too. SMh.

ETA: Arizona tea is also popular in many subcultures. Codeine (illegal without prescription/or illegal to abuse) is used in the tea. OP< I know you are aware of this so stop the race baiting.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I don't need one, all this can be gleaned from the video itself and a basic understanding of the law.
1) Police cannot trespass you off private property without the consent of the property owner, a legal renter, or agent.
2) The officer was either “undercover” or more likely working “off duty”.
3) The officer trespassed him, which means that there was some existing agreement between that officer and the owner of the property for him to have authority to police the area.
4) The fact that there was a pre-existing agreement between the officer and the owner tells me that there were ongoing problems in the area. Owners do not pay for “off duty” officers for no reason, its cost prohibitive.
5) “Reasonable Suspicion” and “Terry Stop” are about as basic as it gets in Law, look them up.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
3) The officer trespassed him, which means that there was some existing agreement between that officer and the owner of the property for him to have authority to police the area.


So you assume.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead
Aaaaaaand there's the immediate knee-jerk response to justify the actions of the cops and authorities, no matter how absurd or transparently unjust they may be. Some people just love living under the boot of a police state.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Aaaaaaand there is an even bigger “knee jerk reaction” to label everything that the police do as wrong, even when they are legally in the right. Not surprising considering that there isn't a single “guilty” person in prison... The criminal is always the innocent aggrieved party, and the cop is always in the wrong... At least from the criminal's side of the story.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

No assumption involved here.
Legally the officer cannot tell him he's trespassing unless someone with the legal right to the property has allowed him to do it.

If that were not the case, and he just wanted to “mess” with the guy, he would have found another “fishing law” instead of trespass.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join