Charges against Ed Oliver dismissed

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

He was stopped for a report about erratic driving which is a good thing but in most states the officer needs to witness it but it is reason according to most jurisdictions to stop someone to ensure it is not drinking, someone on medication, etc.  In this case he had an open can which led to sobriety test.

 

Nothing indicates the officers were unprofessional and nothing Ed Oliver said indicates so.  Lots of commentators added flak which matched their viewpoints.

I am glad everything worked out and Oliver just got a warning "be careful" for there are jurisdictions which would have taken this as chance of revenue enhancement (DC, SC).

 

@Hapless Bills Fan, I think @MAJBobby posted that was a no-go zone for military personnel just to avoid problems. Also, someone for California reported they would get pulled over for impersonating “We’re The Millers”, and obviously anyone from California travels with weed. (They did get pulled over for California plates, reportedly.) 

[Saxum]

Just now, Augie said:

 

@Hapless Bills Fan, I think @MAJBobby posted that was a no-go zone for military personnel just to avoid problems. Also, someone for California reported they would get pulled over for impersonating “We’re The Millers”, and obviously anyone from California travels with weed. (They did get pulled over for California plates, reportedly.) 

 

Well it is Texass.

 

I was there once for a class and was stopped twice due to reported issue with vehicle.  I told them it was a rental and I just got it on Saturday.  Officer saw rental agreement and said he'd get it scratched off list.  Got stopped again and I gave officer details including other officer's name.  He made a comment about him never doing the job properly and left. Fortunately I left state next day.

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Well it is Texass.

 

There is a speed trap section of Hwy 301 (alternative to I-4) in Florida that made 60 Minutes. This is a stretch where you go BELOW the speed limit. Some guy got so pissed he paid for multiple billboards on both sides of the road heading into and out of that stretch of sketchy territory warning people. He saved a lot of people a lot of tickets and fines, costing them some revenue. 

 

In drivers ed as a kid they told us never go more than 10 mph over, you’ll never get a ticket from us. I’ve been driving for 4+ decades and it’s worked for me. (Though my wife got a ticket 10 years ago going 6 over on the highway in SC.) 

[MJS]

3 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

There is a speed trap section of Hwy 301 (alternative to I-4) in Florida that made 60 Minutes. This is a stretch where you go BELOW the speed limit. Some guy got so pissed he paid for multiple billboards on both sides of the road heading into and out of that stretch of sketchy territory warning people. He saved a lot of people a lot of tickets and fines, costing them some revenue. 

 

In drivers ed as a kid they told us never go more than 10 mph over, you’ll never get a ticket from us. I’ve been driving for 4+ decades and it’s worked for me. (Though my wife got a ticket 10 years ago going 6 over on the highway in SC.) 

I've always heard that 5 over is ok. Never heard 10 over is ok. But I bet it's all up to the discretion of the particular police officer and how much he has left on his quota for stops.

[Saxum]

Just now, Augie said:

 

There is a speed trap section of Hwy 301 (alternative to I-4) in Florida that made 60 Minutes. This is a stretch where you go BELOW the speed limit. Some guy got so pissed he paid for multiple billboards on both sides of the road heading into and out of that stretch of sketchy territory warning people. He saved a lot of people a lot of tickets and fines, costing them some revenue. 

 

In drivers ed as a kid they told us never go more than 10 mph over, you’ll never get a ticket from us. I’ve been driving for 4+ decades and it’s worked for me. (Though my wife got a ticket 10 years ago going 6 over on the highway in SC.) 

 

My wife actually got stopped for going to slow.  We were travelling on a holiday and went out of town (Manassas, VA) avoiding I95.

After we went out of town we noticed a bit of people riding other cars bumpers and my wife saw a cop car behind.  She was being very careful to stay at speed limit and a mile or two later cop got out of line, turned on siren and pulled up to our car and indicated to stop.  He came to car and asked why we were going 15 miles under speed limit and my wife said he was going it.  He said the speed limit was 40 not 25 and three miles back there was a speed limit change.  I told him I saw a speed limit sign near where he said one was and it was blocked by branch and could not read it just determine it was a speed limit sign.  He got on radio and another cop said he went by it and yes it was blocked partially due to a broken branch.  We got an apology and left.  His stopping actually cost more time to drivers than my wife "going slow" and there was another speed limit sign a mile later raising it again.

4 minutes ago, MJS said:

I've always heard that 5 over is ok. Never heard 10 over is ok. But I bet it's all up to the discretion of the particular police officer and how much he has left on his quota for stops.

 

And in many jurisdictions whether you have local or out of plate plates.  Multiple times I have seen cops single out of state drivers when in state were driving faster.

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, MJS said:

I've always heard that 5 over is ok. Never heard 10 over is ok. But I bet it's all up to the discretion of the particular police officer and how much he has left on his quota for stops.

 

 

 

I just go about 7-9 mph over, never a problem.

 

Another thing I’ve noticed is my Toyotas seem to overstate my speed by 2-3 mph according to those digital speed checkers on the side of the road, Waze and a GPS I used to use. That means if I think I’m going 9 mph over, it’s only 6-8 over. My wife’s Lexus seems to have about the same spread, though I don’t check that as often. 

[US Egg]

Every state actively support and promote suspicious driving reporting by civilians for good reason.

 

.....sounds like some of the Ed defenders want to reconsider such a notion.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by I am the egg man

[KD in CA]

49 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

@Hapless Bills Fan, I think @MAJBobby posted that was a no-go zone for military personnel just to avoid problems. Also, someone for California reported they would get pulled over for impersonating “We’re The Millers”, and obviously anyone from California travels with weed. (They did get pulled over for California plates, reportedly.) 

Oh please, weed is just for the Mexicans and kids.  We grownup Californians travel with edibles.

[JOE IN HAMPTON ROADS]

7 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

On traffic arrests like this they wait until court is over before a suspension is issued. They sometimes will still suspend players if the arrest was a bad look for the league even if charges are dropped. In this case I can't see Oliver receiving any type of suspension.

LOL can you imagine if in 2020 Goodell suspended a black man who did nothing wrong because being arrested for doing nothing wrong is "a bad look for the league"

 

no, this is 100% over

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, billsbackto81 said:

Looks like the only thing he was guilty of is being a crappy driver and being profiled. The kid was clean and test results prove that. If being a bad driver was criminal 50% of the country and 95% of Florida would be behind bars.

 

that low? ?

 

44 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

Every state actively support and promote suspicious driving reporting by civilians for good reason.

 

.....sounds like some of the Ed defenders want to reconsider such a notion.

 

Suspicious driving reporting is one thing.  If someone is reported for suspicious driving and police investigate and find a problem, that's one thing.

The claim here is that Oliver, apparently not having been observed by police to be driving illegally (as he was not charged), should still have gotten a ticket.

 

If someone reports you for suspicious driving, no drugs or alcohol are found in your system, and police do not observe you driving suspiciously, do you believe you should get a ticket based upon a citizen report? 

 

Yes or no will suffice.

[JohnNord]

8 hours ago, FluffHead said:

 

Ummmmmmm why was Eddie charged again?

[US Egg]

55 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

that low? ?

 

 

Suspicious driving reporting is one thing.  If someone is reported for suspicious driving and police investigate and find a problem, that's one thing.

The claim here is that Oliver, apparently not having been observed by police to be driving illegally (as he was not charged), should still have gotten a ticket.

 

If someone reports you for suspicious driving, no drugs or alcohol are found in your system, and police do not observe you driving suspiciously, do you believe you should get a ticket based upon a citizen report? 

 

Yes or no will suffice.

You can't tell if drugs are in one's system simply by a roadside stop.....well maybe you can.

 

Should I expect to be more moderated in here now ?

 

A yes or no be suffice.

Edited July 23, 2020 by I am the egg man

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Lol other than doc? Nah. Look at this afternoon’s work product.  It’s Georgia Tech vs Cumberland 1916

 

It looks more like me vs you 2016 and 2017 off-seasons.

[major]

Dismissed makes me think of better times?...

[eball]

2 hours ago, GaryPinC said:

As are you.  He provided a sound reference pages ago on a California case that was upheld by the US Supreme Court.  Basically, as long as the 911 call seems legit and police ID the vehicle, they are allowed to stop it immediately and conduct a brief investigation.  Doesn't say they can simply write a ticket based on the call, but they can pull it over at their discretion.  I imagine if they want to get a reckless op or speeding, I'm betting they're going to wait until they witness it first.

 

But simply put, he's right you're wrong.  Sorry.

Did you read the Navarette opinion? The 911 caller in that case described conduct of having been “run off the road” by the subject vehicle, which was conduct deemed specifically relevant to driving while intoxicated. Navarette was stopped under suspicion of DWI, not a traffic infraction. 

 

It’s a matter of opinion whether the 911 call in Ed’s case gave reasonable suspicion to suspect Ed of a crime (DWI) vs a traffic infraction (speeding). I think that probably makes a difference in assessing the “totality of the circumstances.”

 

I concede that stops may occur under the right circumstances; I wonder whether this case met such circumstances. 

[CowgirlsFan]

This native Texan is glad to see there is a DA with some common sense 

[Doc]

19 minutes ago, eball said:

Did you read the Navarette opinion? The 911 caller in that case described conduct of having been “run off the road” by the subject vehicle, which was conduct deemed specifically relevant to driving while intoxicated. Navarette was stopped under suspicion of DWI, not a traffic infraction. 

 

It’s a matter of opinion whether the 911 call in Ed’s case gave reasonable suspicion to suspect Ed of a crime (DWI) vs a traffic infraction (speeding). I think that probably makes a difference in assessing the “totality of the circumstances.”

 

I concede that stops may occur under the right circumstances; I wonder whether this case met such circumstances. 

 

Would be interesting to know if the 911 called mentioned Oliver's skin color.  If she did, we could then start calling her Kia Karen, or something like that.

 

15 minutes ago, CowgirlsFan said:

This native Texan is glad to see there is a DA with some common sense 

 

It's not a matter of common sense.  They literally have nothing to charge him with...except speeding or reckless driving, which they never did, probably because the police didn't witness it themselves.  Again a drunk driver will still drive like a drunk even if the cops are following him.

[2ForMacAdoo]

8 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I thought so, and that is exactly the point.  A majority of white people in the country have a problem with race.  Only a small minority is outwardly racist. 

 

Look, all I can tell you is that I've discovered, as have many other white people discovered lately, that the way you're thinking about this is the way I thought about it until a few weeks ago.  Then the light went on.  So I understand what you think you know, and I understand why you vehemently disagree when I tell you that you're missing the point.  All I'm telling you is that the reality that is so obvious to you, the reality you're so sure you're right about, actually isn't the reality at all.  I believed in your reality until a few weeks ago.  

 

Let me give you an example.  I don't know where you live.  I live in New England.  Cape Cod is a famous, very popular vacation area.  It's an hour or so from Boston.  Lots of beaches, bars, restaurants, hotels.  Jam packed with people every summer, including this summer.  There are practically no black vacationers on Cape Cod.  There are black people cleaning hotel rooms, cutting lawns, and washing dishes, but there are pretty much no black vacationers.  Why not?  There are no laws keeping blacks out.  It's not cheap to go there, but there are plenty of well-paid black people in New England who could comfortably afford a nice Cape Cod vacation.  There's no KKK. 

 

Most of the white people who are on the Cape say what you say - that it's a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the people who cause the problem.  Well, if that's true, and there essentially none of those people in New England, why are there no blacks on Cape Cod?   The answer is that they don't feel welcome.  Why don't they feel welcome?  Because the white people on Cape Cod don't make them feel welcome, that's why.  

 

Now multiply that across the country.   There are millions and millions of people who combine, most of them completely unwittingly, to make blacks feel unwelcome.  We all do it.  We don't do it to Italians, we do it less to Asians than to blacks.  We just do it.  

 

It's a problem pretty much all of us have, including me.   I've gone to Cape Cod for years, and it was only this summer that I noticed for the first time that there are no black people there.  It's like there is an invisible "No Blacks" sign before you cross the bridge.  

Shaw, this is so right on; you nailed it.  Orchard Park born and raised, I've lived in Patriots nation the last 20 years. Have been going to a sports bar in Boston called the Harp (across from TD Garden) forever, a sports bar that converts into a WNY island in the heart of Boston on Sunday afternoons during football season. Well, until this upcoming season if there is one...

 

It wasn't until the George Floyd assassination (and there had been plenty of police brutality episodes prior to this going back to Rodney King in 1991 and then a whole series of visible ones in the cell phone era beginning with Michael Brown in 2014) that I saw the light. Started asking myself questions like: Why in this sports bar where 400+ rabid Bills fans are crammed packed into the upstairs and downstairs sections, why have I never seen a single African-American here in all the years I've been coming here? 

 

Shaw, thanks for taking the time to write that thoughtful piece with a real understanding of social injustice issues and a recognition of the unconscious bias that we all possess, as uncomfortable as it may be to acknowledge.

[GaryPinC]

6 hours ago, eball said:

Did you read the Navarette opinion? The 911 caller in that case described conduct of having been “run off the road” by the subject vehicle, which was conduct deemed specifically relevant to driving while intoxicated. Navarette was stopped under suspicion of DWI, not a traffic infraction. 

 

It’s a matter of opinion whether the 911 call in Ed’s case gave reasonable suspicion to suspect Ed of a crime (DWI) vs a traffic infraction (speeding). I think that probably makes a difference in assessing the “totality of the circumstances.”

 

I concede that stops may occur under the right circumstances; I wonder whether this case met such circumstances. 

I did, and my take from it was that provided there was no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the 911 call, the officer is allowed to simply pull over the car for a basic investigation.

If I'm hearing your argument correctly, your concerns seem to be that the officer would issue a moving violation citation based solely off the 911 call?  (speeding, reckless op)

That doesn't appear to be the case, though Navarette vs Cali did not deal specifically with this issue.

But getting back to EO, the police were allowed to simply pull him over to investigate the possibility of DUI/DWI based on the 911 call.  Perhaps they did not observe or bother to observe him driving unsafely, or perhaps they chose not to cite him for unsafe driving behavior they did observe.

 

I have called in a driver one time because they were driving so erratically it appeared they had to be DUI.  I imagine when any driver 911 calls in another driver a high majority of the time DUI is involved, and perhaps police stop the car regardless of their observations.  If they don't and the car is later involved in a DUI accident, that would seem unethical.

[Don Otreply]

15 hours ago, Uncle Joe said:

Chill Ed. You handled it well and won.
Now go have a great season.

He gets to point out the obviousness of his experience, he was there we weren’t.