Police and a Suspected DUI in Idaho

[Steely Dan]

She had that foot up for a long time. WAY better balance than me when I am 100% sober; would have lasted about 3-4 seconds before stumbling.

 

The fact that he had her count to 25 makes me believe he was just waiting for her to be uncoordinated and give him an excuse to arrest. She didn't and he arrested her anyway.

 

 

The Cop was definitely a creep. The way she stood on one leg and counted endlessly showed she was very sober.

Like she was hiding a knife..LOL.

 

That guy should be drummed from the force.

 

 

Shouldn't that be a traffic ticket, instead of an arrest?

 

Yes.

 

 

I was actually stone cold sober when I wrote that.

 

I think we mostly agree, of course. That girl may have "failed" the FST, but not the test we saw. If he failed her on that part, there must be no standard for what passing or failing means. HE'S the one who told her to put her leg down. She was respectful and did everything she was asked to do. He had to know she wasn't intoxicated, so why arrest her for a DUI? (I know she didn't get charged with that, but that is what he arrested her for.)

 

The only place I disagree slightly with you, is the bolded sentence. (I'm guessing we really agree here, too.) The police should be treated with a little more respect than a regular working person. That is, I wouldn't bother to comply with requests like a FST from a random person. But with the additional power we give an officer comes increased responsibility. I think the behavior of a police officer in the line of duty should be held to a much higher standard than the average working guy.

 

I agree. I can't imagine her failing a test like putting her feet in front of her and walking a straight line etc...etc...

 

I'm curious what JIA will think about this. I'm guessing he'll be disgusted.

[Fastback]

I'm very supportive of law enforcement in general, but that guy needs to be fired yesterday. There is simply no excuse for this. That he knew he was on camera and still chose to grope her is beyond disturbing.

[ans4e64]

I'm very supportive of law enforcement in general, but that guy needs to be fired yesterday. There is simply no excuse for this. That he knew he was on camera and still chose to grope her is beyond disturbing.

 

That is the part I can't figure out. If he knew he was going to grope her, or planned on it, why would he align her perfectly in front of the camera? Since he aligned her right in front of the camera, does that mean he honestly thought he wasn't doing anything wrong? Because why wouldn't you be more shady about it?

 

Either the guy is a complete moron, or he thought he was honestly following protocol.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The only place I disagree slightly with you, is the bolded sentence. (I'm guessing we really agree here, too.) The police should be treated with a little more respect than a regular working person. That is, I wouldn't bother to comply with requests like a FST from a random person. But with the additional power we give an officer comes increased responsibility. I think the behavior of a police officer in the line of duty should be held to a much higher standard than the average working guy.

 

 

I agree too... That is given... But, get abused by the cops once and you might not want to give them the respect anymore. I take some might even want to fight to the death. Of course a battle a civilian will not win!...

[ExiledInIllinois]

That is the part I can't figure out. If he knew he was going to grope her, or planned on it, why would he align her perfectly in front of the camera? Since he aligned her right in front of the camera, does that mean he honestly thought he wasn't doing anything wrong? Because why wouldn't you be more shady about it?

 

Either the guy is a complete moron, or he thought he was honestly following protocol.

 

He was banking that she was intoxicated. She did say something that enabled her to be exceptional at the FST...?? Even the cop made note of it too... Maybe he used that in judging that she was drunk? Granted this is screwed up logic and for every blatant cop, there is probably a ton that try and act slick. Notice that he called he by her first name and said that: "I am not doing anything that is inappropiate." Solely for the camera... He knows the force will back him, and that they are doing. And you think other unions are bad?

 

I bet he sh-- a brick when she was found to be sober... Hence the "inattentive driving charge." How can anybody drag this woman through the gutter by the way her and her companion acted?

[BuffaloBill]

That is the part I can't figure out. If he knew he was going to grope her, or planned on it, why would he align her perfectly in front of the camera?

 

 

As has been the case for any of us in the male half of the species - he was thinking with the wrong head and he did something really stupid. Any guy guilty of letting his small head take over his big head will end up doing something irrational. Tell me that you can't point to examples of this in your own life. If not, then plan a trip to the Vatican so you can be sainted.

[Tcali]

As has been the case for any of us in the male half of the species - he was thinking with the wrong head and he did something really stupid. Any guy guilty of letting his small head take over his big head will end up doing something irrational. Tell me that you can't point to examples of this in your own life. If not, then plan a trip to the Vatican so you can be sainted.

sad but true for practically all of us.......BUT when you are in a position of authority like that..its stupidity x10

[The Dean]

Where are the usual suspects, who always come to the officer's defense no matter what the infraction? They are noticeably absent.

[Steely Dan]

Where are the usual suspects, who always come to the officer's defense no matter what the infraction? They are noticeably absent.

 

I think this is beyond defense.

[Fastback]

Where are the usual suspects, who always come to the officer's defense no matter what the infraction? They are noticeably absent.

 

As I mentioned in my post, I usually defend and believe in law enforcement professionals. But I will never defend something the indefensible. I also am not naive enough to believe that all cops are good. Like all professions, there are good ones and bad ones. When you get a bad one we need to can his azz as soon as possible. If your reference is to the recent brouhaha with Gates and Crowley, I actually think the officer was correct in his actions, but that dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition.

[ExiledInIllinois]

As I mentioned in my post, I usually defend and believe in law enforcement professionals. But I will never defend something the indefensible. I also am not naive enough to believe that all cops are good. Like all professions, there are good ones and bad ones. When you get a bad one we need to can his azz as soon as possible. If your reference is to the recent brouhaha with Gates and Crowley, I actually think the officer was correct in his actions, but that dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition.

 

I agree. But, what do you do in cases like this... Obviously this cop in Idaho is real slick... Ya, not too slick because his gig is up... Yet, the department is defending him.

 

I betcha there is a lot of subtle officers out there that like nothing more than pushing people's buttons and getting away with it. How do you handle a problem like that? That is why I am an advocate of treating officers like other workers... Under close quality control standards. Yes, it is hard to do... But IMO it can be done.

 

This officer is going to cost his department a ton of money (and defense of his actions).

[The Dean]

As I mentioned in my post, I usually defend and believe in law enforcement professionals. But I will never defend something the indefensible. I also am not naive enough to believe that all cops are good. Like all professions, there are good ones and bad ones. When you get a bad one we need to can his azz as soon as possible. If your reference is to the recent brouhaha with Gates and Crowley, I actually think the officer was correct in his actions, but that dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition.

 

 

My reference wasn't Crowley, or anything in particular really. There are a few posters (some involved in law enforcement, others who are not) who tend to totally back any action by any law enforcement officer, no matter what. I usually take a middle ground. I know cops have a tough job, and most are very good at what they do. But usually when something makes the news, and gets a lot of public reaction, there is a reason. These aren't the typical cases...there is some question in these cases. Instead of discussing what might have been right, or wrong, in the particular case, some here simply take the side of the cop.

 

There are good and bad in EVERY profession, IMO (and I don't tend to use absolutes very often). And even good people do stupid things, from time to time. I would think the good people would like to weed out the bad, so their actions don't corrupt the image of the profession as a whole. And even if questionable actions are by a normally good person, the action in question really should be addressed if it is out of line, or borderline. Unfortunately, there are too many who defend "their own" totally and without question.

 

I actually think this particular case is less obvious than some in the past. I can't think of any justification for continuing to brutally beat a suspect, when he/she is already helpless, on the ground, and not resisting. (We do not employ the police to administer the punishment for the crime, before trial.) There were several here who defended those actions in the past. In this case, I think it actually looks worse than it might be, as the girl was completely cooperative, didn't look as though she posed a threat, appeared to be quite sober, etc. He looks like he gave a nice girl some very shabby treatment. But one might argue he is allowed, and required, to look for anything dangerous on her person.

[ExiledInIllinois]

My reference wasn't Crowley, or anything in particular really. There are a few posters (some involved in law enforcement, others who are not) who tend to totally back any action by any law enforcement officer, no matter what. I usually take a middle ground. I know cops have a tough job, and most are very good at what they do. But usually when something makes the news, and gets a lot of public reaction, there is a reason. These aren't the typical cases...there is some question in these cases. Instead of discussing what might have been right, or wrong, in the particular case, some here simply take the side of the cop.

 

There are good and bad in EVERY profession, IMO (and I don't tend to use absolutes very often). And even good people do stupid things, from time to time. I would think the good people would like to weed out the bad, so their actions don't corrupt the image of the profession as a whole. And even if questionable actions are by a normally good person, the action in question really should be addressed if it is out of line, or borderline. Unfortunately, there are too many who defend "their own" totally and without question.

 

I actually think this particular case is less obvious than some in the past. I can't think of any justification for continuing to brutally beat a suspect, when he/she is already helpless, on the ground, and not resisting. (We do not employ the police to administer the punishment for the crime, before trial.) There were several here who defended those actions in the past. In this case, I think it actually looks worse than it might be, as the girl was completely cooperative, didn't look as though she posed a threat, appeared to be quite sober, etc. He looks like he gave a nice girl some very shabby treatment. But one might argue he is allowed, and required, to look for anything dangerous on her person.

 

I agree.

 

The thing that is damning is the fellow officers comment. I have know doubt that the officer did that specifically for the camera.

 

How would they feel if it was their daughter, wife, or for that matter WHOEVER.

 

Why they heck was she even pulled over?... She got an inattentive driving, non-alcohol related ticket. Some on the other board are advocating such catchall laws to weed out the other laws... After seeing this, do they really still want that? EVERYTHING can be deemed "inattentive" even if the driver is fully attentive... You see how this officer made a bad judgment call with a person who was well UNDER the legal limit... Basically the effect of 1/2 glass of wine. I had an officer pull me over for nothing one time when I was young... They thought I was drinking... The person ahead of me was going realy slow (about 20 miles and hour in a 45, no passing zone) so I was weaving in an out behind them (ala Indy) to keep my distance... They gave me a breath test and I just laughed (not having drank in a week) and I said: "I am going to blow a zero officers." Which I did... I told them exactly what I was doing. Boy were they grumpy after that and let me go!

[tennesseeboy]

Having been a cop and from a family of cops and prosecutors...that guy should lose his job. Assh0le.

[Tcali]

My reference wasn't Crowley, or anything in particular really. There are a few posters (some involved in law enforcement, others who are not) who tend to totally back any action by any law enforcement officer, no matter what. I usually take a middle ground. I know cops have a tough job, and most are very good at what they do. But usually when something makes the news, and gets a lot of public reaction, there is a reason. These aren't the typical cases...there is some question in these cases. Instead of discussing what might have been right, or wrong, in the particular case, some here simply take the side of the cop.

 

There are good and bad in EVERY profession, IMO (and I don't tend to use absolutes very often). And even good people do stupid things, from time to time. I would think the good people would like to weed out the bad, so their actions don't corrupt the image of the profession as a whole. And even if questionable actions are by a normally good person, the action in question really should be addressed if it is out of line, or borderline. Unfortunately, there are too many who defend "their own" totally and without question.

 

I actually think this particular case is less obvious than some in the past. I can't think of any justification for continuing to brutally beat a suspect, when he/she is already helpless, on the ground, and not resisting. (We do not employ the police to administer the punishment for the crime, before trial.) There were several here who defended those actions in the past. In this case, I think it actually looks worse than it might be, as the girl was completely cooperative, didn't look as though she posed a threat, appeared to be quite sober, etc. He looks like he gave a nice girl some very shabby treatment. But one might argue he is allowed, and required, to look for anything dangerous on her person.

the disturbing things were 1) the way she stood on one foot like a gymnast--and he still booked her for DUI-like she was being tried in an outdoor kangaroo court 2) the way he felt he needed to feel her up for weapons..Ive never seen a less dangerous looking person.NO---his actions weren't brutally obvious...just creepy.