- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Video: Cop Goes Nuts When Driver Refuses Search of Car
Video of a police officer going on a profanity-laced tirade against a man who was only exercising his constitutional rights has gone viral.
The dashboard camera video begins with the officer, who is apparently wearing a microphone, walking back to an SUV after apparently checking his license.
He tells the driver he is not going to give him a ticket, but that it appears he was arrested a few months prior for marijuana possession. The driver explains he was holding it for a friend.
The cop then calmly asks if he can check his vehicle for drugs. The driver says, "Not without a warrant."
The officer seems okay with that at first, and then suddenly explodes:
"That'll be just f*****g fine, buddy! You know what? You take this s**t and you go back to f*****g Charleston and you don't f*****g come back here okay?!"
The officer yells a few more profanities before getting back in his car and driving away.
The video does not make clear exactly when or where this happened, but there is a Charleston in both South Carolina and West Virginia, so perhaps it happened in one of those states or neighboring states.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Yeah, I'm sure it was a
Yeah, I'm sure it was a prank, in real life the driver would have got the shit beat out of him and car searched illegally.
If the cops found no drugs they would plant some.
Chuck
According to Watchdog.org,
According to Watchdog.org, this was an ill conceived prank video made by two officers. It is not a real traffic stop; the driver being "pulled over" is a police officer.
Reference: http://westvirginia.watchdog.org/3386/watchblog-police-need-watching-too/
That explains how the video
That explains how the video became public. I wondered why a very calm, professional-acting officer would suddenly go berserk. :D
Even so, this was not a smart thing to do. Many people will not care or even investigate if it's real, they'll only use it to advance their anti-police agenda.
I can hardly think of a
I can hardly think of a better example of a police officer demonstrating why so many people distrust and dislike the police.
I think there had to be something else going on with the officer, though. He started out to be very reasonable and rational. Then he very suddenly overreacted in a big way. I cannot believe he would be this unprofessional on a regular basis. That would have gotten him dismissed from any police force that I know of.
I also wonder how this video was released and became public.
I expect an ambulance-chaser lawyer will have this incident in court before very long.
actually, I can. There was a
actually, I can. There was a video where a CCW holder was being told to shut up when he was trying to tell an officer he had a weapon on him. Then when the officer discovers the weapon, he flips out and says he should have shot him for not telling him about it.
But it is similar... when cops don't get their way, SOME but not all fly off the handle. They don't like having their authority challenged.
I agree. There have plenty
I agree. There have plenty of video incidents on the internet to verify what you say. They include incidents like this and the Lt. John Pike pepper spraying non-resisting protesters. That is an example of police leadership displaying unprofessional conduct.
Yes, I understand that they are human and have their frustrations and hot buttons. Nonetheless, I think we have the right to expect a higher standard of conduct from law enforcement. Isn't that what "professional" means? Better than non-professional?
To be accurate, those Occupy
To be accurate, those Occupy protesters who got pepper-sprayed _were_ resisting. They just weren't resisting _violently_.
@fsilber..they where
@fsilber..they where exercising their constitutional rights, you asshole.
Chuck
If they had a Constitutional
If they had a Constitutional right to remain there, then the fault was in the campus administration for instructing the police to remove them. But I suspect that the students did NOT have a Constitutional right to be there against the will of the college administration.
@fsilber...You suspect wrong.
@fsilber...You suspect wrong.
Chuck
Exactly how were they
Exactly how were they "resisting"? By sitting on the ground in non-threatening postures. I've seen lots of video of that and I didn't see anything that resembled resistance. Is "they were resisting" what Lt. Pike said?
In the unedited, complete
In the unedited, complete footage, you can see that the protesters have completely encircled the officers who had arrested four individuals. Prior to the pepper spraying, they were chanting along the lines of "If you set them free, we will let you go." They were warned that if they did not clear a path, force would be used.
Additionally, the use of pepper spray was standard procedure for the given scenario. If they had not used pepper spray, and tried to move them without it, then their firearms would have been in a very accesible and risky position. This was the "least bad" option, but most importantly, it was the direct result of the protesters actions and they knew it was going to happen.
@erik...provide a link, you
@erik...provide a link, you lying asshole.
Chuck
Why would I lie about
Why would I lie about something so insanely easy to check?
I can't post the video in the comments, but the times below refer to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y#!
@erik...Warning a person you
@erik...Warning a person you will do something illegal is not a lawful order.
Chuck
Forgot to include this
Forgot to include this because it wasn't really relevant, but at 8:55 protesters begin shouting "From Davis to Greece, Fuck the Police."
@erik...Read the
@erik...Read the Constitution, it is not a crime to sass a law officer.
Chuck
Which is why I said "it
Which is why I said "it wasn't really relevant."
Aside from disobeying the
Aside from disobeying the officers' lawful commands, they were linking arms -- holding on to one another -- to resist any officer who might try to lift and carry them a way one person at a time.
@fsilber...A cop can't order
@fsilber...A cop can't order people to disregard their constitutional rights, moron.
Chuck
That's exactly what I meant
That's exactly what I meant by "lawful orders". Just because a police officer tells someone to do something, such as "Stop taking video and give me that camera" doesn't mean it's a lawful order but might be a CYA move when they know they've made a mistake.
I have two close relatives that have been police chiefs in different towns and have worked with the police in three countries. Police are as human as anyone else and, no matter how professional and dedicated, the do make mistakes.
We should also remember the words of Albert Einstein. "Do not assume evil intent to that which can be attributed to simple stupidity." Even the best of us sometimes do things that, afterwards, are clearly astoundingly stupid.
I throw the bullshit flag.
I throw the bullshit flag. What lawful orders? Linking arms is not resisting. It's showing solidarity. In this case, Lt. Pike was the one breaking the law. If I had been there, sitting on the ground and he pepper sprayed me, I would have shattered his knee. That fat, arrogant SOB is a disgrace to law enfocement everywhere.
They weren't pepper sprayed
They weren't pepper sprayed for resisting arrest; they weren't being arrested. The police had arrested ~4 people, and were prepared to leave, but the protesters encircled them and were blocking their path. See above.
@erik...what was going to
@erik...what was going to happen?
The police had guns and other weapons, I'm sure they where afraid. NOT.
Chuck
Were they linking arms to
Were they linking arms to show solidarity, or were they linking arms to resist being lifted and carried away? Resisting being moved is resistance.
@fsilber...Have you ever
@fsilber...Have you ever heard the term civil disobedience?
Chuck
Of course I understand the
Of course I understand the notion of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a violation of the law for a presumably higher purpose. Like revolution, it is an extra-legal response to a perceived (and perhaps actual) government oppression. However necessary it may be at times, being extra-legal it cannot be considered a right under the law (much less a Constitutional right).
Basically, a person practicing civil disobedience violates the law _despite_ the expectation of punishment.
Analogously, though revolution may sometimes be necessary to attain Liberty, and though the Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms in part so that they people will retain the _means_ of revolution, it is nowhere assumed that revolution itself would be legal -- and those who believe revolution to be necessary understand that failure will result in their execution on grounds of treason.
In all of the pictures and
In all of the pictures and video I have seen, no one was linking arms.
Neither of those options is
Neither of those options is completely accurate. They were linking arms to keep the police from leaving with the people they had arrested. I suppose you could say they were collectively resisting someone else's arrest, but I don't know what term would be used to describe their actions.
That said, the technical classification for their actions isn't really relevant. The important thing is that 1) They were preventing the police from leaving with a small number of people who had been arrested; 2) they were warned many times about what would happen if they didn't move before the car arrived; 3) they refused to clear a path despite these warnings.
@erik...Have you ever heard
@erik...Have you ever heard of civil disobedience.
It was use to get civil rights, and protest unlawful orders.
Chuck
The cop was out of line, but
The cop was out of line, but the driver was also out of line for associating with people who smoke marijuana. Until marijuana is legalized, such people share the blame for the violence and anarchy going on in Mexico.
Just like Holder and Obama
Just like Holder and Obama shares responsiblity for the violence in Mexico for selling automatic weapons to them? Or just like Detroit shares responsibility for drunk driving because they sell cars? is it like States share responsibility for theft and embezzlement because they have legalised gambling casinos? Where do we stop in assigning blame to people who live less than completely chaste lives for the despicable actions of a few?
Bottom line, bar none, is that the cop was out of line, and deserves whatever disciplinary action that occurs, including termination and being held liable for civil tort redress. Just because a person was guilty in the past of a minor offense does not mean they are public enemy #1 today. Some people do indeed repent and reform, and the law is supposed to believe innocent until proven guilty.
I didn't say what they driver
I didn't say what they driver did or did not deserve. All I'm saying is that his (or his friend's) use of marijuana gave those murderers a _reason_ to do what they do. If people weren't willing to pay high prices for illegal drugs, no one would bother fighting for control of the illegal drug market.
Things like this happen
Things like this happen probably more than people realize. The drug war has made police target our Constitutional rights. To many of them, our rights are just sources to annoy them as they search for a little bit of marijuana. Lucky for this guy, this cop didn't start saying he smelled marijuana from his car and that was reason enough to force a search.
Jerome McCollom
Of course, if we toss out the
Of course, if we toss out the War on Drugs, we'll probably also have to toss out a lot of our anti-tobacco laws, on the same principle.
@fsilber...Its dumbfounding
@fsilber...Its dumbfounding for you to make comments on a subject you obviously know nothing about.
Chuck
That reminds me of a comic
That reminds me of a comic strip I read recently. The female nerd asked the male nerd when he would finally log off the computer and come to bed. He replied, "I can't -- SOMEONE IS BEING WRONG IN AN INTERNET DISCUSSION!"
Good job, officer. He wanted
Good job, officer. He wanted to show us that our constitutional rights anger and enrage him.
Everything I do, I do it for you.