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.

 

Physics Student Owns Cop In Math

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz


A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

abcnews.go.com...-GYw

i believe this has something to do with it. too smart? a bit of a rational, independent thinker? not police material!

edit on 21-5-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)


Police needs people who do, not think - the thinking is done for them on the cloud computing server of intelligence they call it "the goverment"

Drones in the air scare you?
We have been giving guns to two footed drones for 2 hundred years!




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Just like others have mentioned, just how many poor souls are in prison because of this ignorant cop. Only in America can a guy become a cop and make 5k a month and not even know simple grade school arithmetic.

Oh who cares I will just put down whatever in my report! ROFLMAO! The Idiot cop even records himself that he is going to falsify his report which is evidence. Hopefully the judge revokes this cops badge before he does further damage to society.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by an0nThinker
 


If this was Calabases, the closest collage is approx. 3 to 4 miles away(Pierce Collage) and I highly doubt they walked from there. Nobody walks in LA. There are a few bars in the area but it's mostly business and residential. High priced community's at that, some of them gated. If he was walking, as was stated I think the cop was more out to harass potential trouble makers. Like I said high dollar community.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Im not sure if this video is real or not, because its way to dark! But the cop was supposed to change out the tube after each attempt at getting his BAC. Or did I miss that part?

After watching the video again, I noticed there are no lights flashing, except the small blue one in the background. Unless for some reason this "Cop" was on a Bicycle, then there is no reason for him not to have that whole area lit up with the red and blue lights. I dont think this is real
edit on 22-5-2013 by Diggz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJMSN
Can't find much funny when someone drinks and drives.....my wife and two children died because a 15 year old decided he would drive drunk. Doesn't really matter to me whether it was .08 or .018 he needs to go to jail...at least learn about how people suffer when someone is stupid and drinks and drives.


Yeah except 0.018 isn't driving drunk. Therefore he does NOT need to go to jail. Good thing you're not a cop



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
It would be Very hard to make a cop realize he was wrong, and retract his arresting put you handcuffs statement. What a Doof.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Kody27
 


As far as I am concerned it is driving drunk. If you drink alcohol and get behind the wheel you are drinking and driving...no excuse for it...and its people like you that excuse this type of behavior and say its alright and then people get killed. This incident is different in that they guy was walking but I do not see a difference between a little bit of drinking and driving or a lot...especially after losing my 3 year old....my daughter and my wife to a drunk driver....get behind the wheel of a car after drinking...yes you deserve to go to jail in my opinion...period...its stupid and no reason for it



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMSN
reply to post by Kody27
 


As far as I am concerned it is driving drunk. If you drink alcohol and get behind the wheel you are drinking and driving...no excuse for it...and its people like you that excuse this type of behavior and say its alright and then people get killed. This incident is different in that they guy was walking but I do not see a difference between a little bit of drinking and driving or a lot...especially after losing my 3 year old....my daughter and my wife to a drunk driver....get behind the wheel of a car after drinking...yes you deserve to go to jail in my opinion...period...its stupid and no reason for it



Wow.

So in your mind...

washing your mouthout with Listerine while driving to a date should be a jailable offense if you get pulled over to quickly afterward?

Really?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMSN
Can't find much funny when someone drinks and drives.....my wife and two children died because a 15 year old decided he would drive drunk. Doesn't really matter to me whether it was .08 or .018 he needs to go to jail...at least learn about how people suffer when someone is stupid and drinks and drives.


Sorry to hear about the loss of your family. That is horrible.

Saying someone should go to prison for NOT breaking the law however, is a bit extreme, don't you think?

Seems to me, the Cop was the drunk here.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


I am sorry that you didn't understand me....the guy in this story was walking and not driving so no issue...BUT yes if you are STUPID enough to get behind the wheel of a vehicle after DRINKING ALCOHOL...no where did I state from drinking mouthwash....then YES you should be in jail...just my opinion....don't really but the mouth wash story...as you will be tested further once you are arrested....but again YES if you are stupid enough to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking a swallow...a drip...one drink...two then go to jail....again sorry just my opinion...do not drink and drive I do not give a hoot if you think you can handle it...,.don't give a hoot you think .018 is not much....GO TO JAIL....strong opinion but have three reasons...deal with it



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMSN
 


I think a lot of people here fail to realize that in many places you can indeed be charged if you blow under a .08. I was pretty surprised to learn about that while attending a class after getting my DUI. There was a woman there who had blown a .04 and many had heard of people charged with lower amounts. And either way, it's your opinion don't see what the fuss is.

I didn't like the cops attitude and was fairly amused that he messed up so spectacularly. I do wonder if this was actually a cop though, and also if the person doing the blowing was underage as Xcathdra pointed out. I also have no idea how much of an attitude the kid copped (
) at first. I've been in situations where I've made a complete ass out of myself when frustrated with someone else. Either way I got a good laugh out of it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


All your points are true - but allow me to clarify a couple more things..


Point 1 -

.08 * 2 = .16

.16 / .018 = 8.8888

Therefore .018 < .08 < .16 and the officer is incorrect in his math and the guy was correct in his math.

Point 2 -

The officer was quite calm and even pleasant until he made a mistake in his math and his error was pointed out to him.

After his error was pointed out (politely) to the officer, the officer's demeanor changes and he began cursing, and started acting like the southern end of a northbound horse. In the midst of cussing the guy out he states he is taking him to jail. I admit on I am making an educated guess based on human behavior and the video on this next bit - but it seems the officer's sudden change in attitude from pleasant to horse's rear was in response to being proven wrong.

I admit I am no officer. But even in light of your points. Even office's can be incorrect in basic math. I'm not sure having a simple error pointed out politely and correctly by a civilian is grounds for an officer to suddenly start cursing the civilian.

Is it?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


I get the math portion...

As for the behavior of the officer of course not. My intent was not to defend the officers actions. It was done to gain more information to place the situation into context. We don't know what occurred prior to contact or what occurred after the contact ended.

Did the guy receive a citation? If so for what?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Fair enough.


All your points and questions are true, valid, and relevant.

But since you didn't really go into the behavior of the officer very much at all and went into some detail on other points- I wasn't sure if you were giving the officer a passing grade on his behavior in this or not..

All I was trying to say was regardless if the kid was over or under, went to jail or not, etc - it doesn't mean the officer was correct in turning into a jerk when his math error was pointed out.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Fair enough.


All your points and questions are true, valid, and relevant.

But since you didn't really go into the behavior of the officer very much at all and went into some detail on other points- I wasn't sure if you were giving the officer a passing grade on his behavior in this or not..

All I was trying to say was regardless if the kid was over or under, went to jail or not, etc - it doesn't mean the officer was correct in turning into a jerk when his math error was pointed out.





All fair points as well... As for behavior, that does go into asking the other questions, especially what occurred that led to the contact. While I am all about people keeping tabs on law enforcement, there seems to be a tendency at times for some groups to record an encounter only to edit that encounter, showing only the actions of the officer, without showing us everything else. Not saying that occurred here but its something that should be considered.

The video starts out in the middle of the encounter. Did something occur prior to where the video picks up where the guy was being an ass towards the cop?

again, not defending the officers actions. However, I am wanting more info before laying 100% of the blame in the lap of the officer. The issue with math very well may be the only issue here, and if so then the officer needs to grow the hell up and not harass people for being right.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by an0nThinker
 


Bad/dumb, cop. No doughnut!



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Did the guy receive a citation? If so for what?

i'm sorry, you're going to have to argue that in court.

obviously i'm being satirical here.

the person wasn't underage. this is evidenced by him admitting that he consumed two beers to the police officer. there are also no signs of intoxication in the video. i'm guessing the guy wanted to avoid the hassle of performing a field sobriety test, knew he wasn't drunk, and opted to be tested.

you can argue "the particular test type may not be admissible in court" but that begs the question: why is someone being tested with a device that is prone to giving false readings and can't be used as evidence that a crime has been committed? i find that illogical.

if alcohol was present in opened containers no sobriety test would need to be administered, as that would be a crime, so i think we can safely rule that out.

i think we can also rule out drugs, even legal ones. for instance, if the man had taken a benzodiazepine with two beers that would certainly produce evident intoxication. i was pulled over once for a headlight, and once the officer saw a prescription bag they searched my whole automobile and called in drug sniffing dogs even though it was completely legal and i was in no way impaired.

i would say all the points you raised are more speculation and grasping at straws than anything tangible. gotta stick up for the brotherhood after all.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 



the sad part is the immaturity seen in police today: "argue it in court!"


Oh, it's pretty fun to embarrass a cop in court when they are wrong (and I generally like cops, this guy was just a douche). I still thoroughly enjoy reliving my moment of doing so.
Worse yet, he had the opportunity to dismiss the charge early in the court day, but didn't. Would have saved him some embarrassment. Oh well.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
the person wasn't underage. this is evidenced by him admitting that he consumed two beers to the police officer.

So people who are caught by the police dont lie about their actions? College students dont have fake ids?



Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
there are also no signs of intoxication in the video. i'm guessing the guy wanted to avoid the hassle of performing a field sobriety test, knew he wasn't drunk, and opted to be tested.

Actually we dont know this to be true. I have come across people who are drunk as hell who can have a normal conversation. One of the designs of SFST's is multi tasking. That is puporsely done because people who are intoxicated are able to act as if they arent until they are required to do more than one task at the same time.

Alcohol is not the onlything that falls under a DWI/DUI statute. A combination of drugs and alcohol, or drugs alone, or a medical condition (ketoacidosis) all fall under it as well. While 2 beers does not mean a person is intoxicated, it does not mean they are sober though either.

By the way during the academy they go in depth into DWI (at least they did with my academy). 2 beers is the standard answer given by people who are in contact with law enforcement during a dwi investigation / traffic stop.



Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you can argue "the particular test type may not be admissible in court" but that begs the question: why is someone being tested with a device that is prone to giving false readings and can't be used as evidence that a crime has been committed? i find that illogical.

It doesnt give a false reading... Its not a calibrated instrument, which is why a result from a PBT is admissible only to the extent that one was used and tested positive for the poresence of alcohol. Secondly, in almost all states a person can refuse to take a PBT without it being used against them. Refusing (in almost all states) a PBT is not an arrestable offense. Refusing the SFST's or a breath / blood / urine test can though.



Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
if alcohol was present in opened containers no sobriety test would need to be administered, as that would be a crime, so i think we can safely rule that out.

Open container, public intoxication (which is a status offense and pretty much non enforceable for those over 21) and DWI are all different crimes that are not lesser included offense of each other. If I stop a car for reasonable suspicion the driver may be imopaired, and during my investigation I find an open container in the vehicle, and the person is arrested for DWI, then he would be charged with DWI AND open container in a motor vehicle.

Secondly a minor in possession of alcohol, and a minor in possession of alcohol by consumption is a possibilty. A PBT (in most states) can be used to verify the presence and can be used in court.



Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i think we can also rule out drugs, even legal ones. for instance, if the man had taken a benzodiazepine with two beers that would certainly produce evident intoxication. i was pulled over once for a headlight, and once the officer saw a prescription bag they searched my whole automobile and called in drug sniffing dogs even though it was completely legal and i was in no way impaired.

Prescription medications affect the body differently in each person in terms of how they handle the effects. Secondly we would need to know the type of medication / drug, the dosage, the amount of alcohol / other drugs in the system, etc...

As for your example an officer cannot serch a motor vehicle based solely on the presence of a legal prescription medication in its origional container. The only way they are getting into your car is a search incident to arrest (and restrictions apply thanks to Arizona vs. Gant), plain sight, consent or search warrant.

If he asked to search and you said yes, thats on you.



Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i would say all the points you raised are more speculation and grasping at straws than anything tangible. gotta stick up for the brotherhood after all.
Actually I dont stick up for the brotherhood.. What I do in these types of threads is offer the other side of the fence since people simply ignore it and just assume, like you just did with me and my intentions in this thread.

My questions and observations are meant to resolve some of the issues I see and nothing more. There should be nothing wrong with showing the entire encounter, from start to finish, unless of course the people recording have something to hide?

See how easy it is to case dispersion without evidence?

hence the reason for my questions and observations....

the goal is to find the truth, regardless of whether we like where that truth leads or not.

The goal in court is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... Not the truth, the half truth, and whatever helps a clent out.


As I stated, and you obviously ignored.. If the cop did something wrong, then hold him accountible. If the cop acted simply because he was called out, then the officer should go through remedial mtraining and go from there.
edit on 23-5-2013 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



So people who are caught by the police dont lie about their actions? College students dont have fake ids?

caught by police doing what? being innocent? if he was underage he wouldn't admit to drinking. SOME college students have fake id's, but suggesting this is the case is pure conjecture and assumes the person is guilty without any evidence or suspicion.


Actually we dont know this to be true. I have come across people who are drunk as hell who can have a normal conversation. One of the designs of SFST's is multi tasking. That is puporsely done because people who are intoxicated are able to act as if they arent until they are required to do more than one task at the same time.

after blowing a .018? i see a pissed off police officer who is taking his anger out on the person who corrected him.


2 beers is the standard answer given by people who are in contact with law enforcement during a dwi investigation / traffic stop.

perhaps that is because two beers on average is under .08 BAC? it is in no way evidence of a crime, and does not constitute reasonable suspicion.


As for your example an officer cannot serch a motor vehicle based solely on the presence of a legal prescription medication in its origional container.

hmm...i remember saying the exact same thing to the police as they searched my truck. i verbally told the officers i did not consent to a search. probably a result of the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset seen in so many.


The goal in court is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... Not the truth, the half truth, and whatever helps a clent out.

which is why police officers cannot be made to testify for someone, but only against them.


As I stated, and you obviously ignored.. If the cop did something wrong, then hold him accountible. If the cop acted simply because he was called out, then the officer should go through remedial mtraining and go from there.

the officer becoming irate after being corrected is evidence of him doing many things wrong. he should be removed from the force because of his hostile personality and incompetence.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join