Image via Wikipedia
Here’s an interesting little video of a police officer stopping someone for speeding, asking for permission to search his vehicle for drugs, and being refused that permission unless he produces a warrant to search. The cop goes ballistic. I mean bal-lis-TIC!
The cop’s rage is kinda comical.
Nevertheless, the cop does let the guy go without a speeding ticket or a search of his vehicle.
Why?
Two possible answers:
1) The cop may not like the law in the least, but he still respects it. I.e., no matter how much the cop wanted to search the car, he knew the driver was right and a search could not lawfully proceed without the driver’s permission or, failing that, a warrant signed by a judge. The driver refused permission. No judge was available. The cop could not lawfully search.
2) The cop knew that the entire stop was being recorded on his dash-cam. Therefore, as much as the cop might like to beat the crap out of the driver who dared to ask for a warrant, he couldn’t proceed violently and/or illegally so long as “big brother” (the gov-co) was watching “little brother” (the cop) on video.
I’ll bet the answer is #2. As pissed as that cop was, the driver of the vehicle escaped an ass-whoopin’ thanks to the dash-cam on the cop’s cruiser.
A lot of Americans are concerned about the growing number of surveillance cameras that populate our cities. Big bro appears determined to watch us whenever we’re in public. Many Americans don’t like being watched.
But most Americans only see (or are seen by) video cameras for relatively brief moments when they’re out in public. But traffic cops are subject to video surveillance for most of their work shift, every work day. They can’t fart, they can’t sing goofy songs, they can’t talk to themselves without being recorded. I’ll bet a bunch of those cops absolutely hate being under the constant surveillance of their dash-cams.
I’ll also bet that one of these days, another driver will tell the cop that he needs a warrant to search his car and the cop will again go ballistic. But he won’t attack the driver. He’ll return to his cruiser and shoot the crap out of his dash-cam.
Listen for the cop to say “That’s fine . . . that’s just fine”–that’s when the fun begins.
video
00:05:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpeFFcXx6Go&feature=email
TheBurren
March 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Yet another email spam by ADASK that is completely FAKE
I don’t know how I got subscribed to this blog… but I’m starting to wonder if this blog is purely satire?
Adask
March 18, 2012 at 1:21 PM
I, too, have no idea how you were subscribed to this blog. Either you subscribed or someone who knows your email address subscribed for you. I presume that the problem is easily corrected. Next time you receive notice of one of my articles, I presume that there’s an opportunity to cancel your “subscription”. If so, use.
In the mean time, I wonder what part of this article you regard as “completely FAKE”? The video from the cop’s dash-cam or my comments regarding that video? I know that my comments aren’t fake and the video appears to be genuine.
So I’m left to wonder if your comment isn’t “completely FAKE” and/or “purely satire”.
Jim
March 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM
Completely FAKE is the media by an “election” putting a kenyan in the white house!
Winn
March 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Al, aside from the obviously low IQ of the cop, it looks to me like the driver pulled off the public way onto “private property.” You might know more than me, but somewhere I was told that if one is being pulled over by a cop to do what this guy did in getting completely off the “right of way.” Doesn’t it make a difference concerning cop’s authority/jurisdiction or what he writes as the location on the citation?
I was stunned by the immediate change in the cops attitude. All I heard was the driver’s refusal to be searched.
Adask
March 18, 2012 at 10:46 PM
I think you’re right about pulling off onto private property. If the driver’s vehicle was still on the road, it might’ve been towed. Maybe the cop(s) had/have some deal with the local towing company. But, more than likely, we’re just looking at the result of a policy to hire cops with low IQs. Or maybe he had a bad day, or too much coffee, or too much steroids. Hard to say.
But the confrontation reminds me a little bit of Bugs Bunny (as the driver) and Yosemite Sam (as the cop). I can just see Yosemite Sam, unable to search the vehicle, saying “Well, that’s fine . . . that’s just fine . . . .” and then erupting in Loony Tune frustration.
But the cop really did flip out. I’ll bet he doesn’t make it to retirement with that “anger management problem”.
Joseph S Haas
March 18, 2012 at 4:02 PM
5:15 minutes, seen 217,628 times. Why do COPS on a current or present tense case “need” to know FROM where and TO where an individual had come from and is going to? They don’t, and so we ought to what? let them know that it’s on a “need to know” basis, and that they don’t need to know. (;-) That might be the way to go like on a postcard to send in within ten (10) days on some malfunctioning equipment stop, like a light out, of stopped even when you have three spares, as in N.H. needing only one stop lamp. In this case the COP was hoping for what?, a “favor” in return for giving no speeding ticket for going 57 in a 45 of 12 miles over!? Come on, the County Deputy Sheriff told me that the policy is 15+ for him, but then a local woman COP told me her associate even goes for those of 1-5 m.p.h. over, as his radar unit is what? calibrated before each shift? A “favor” to “search” withOUT a warrant? WHY did he get SO upset? He expects one good favor deserves another? He played his card and lost. It seems from his swearing that he’s lost a bunch lately. (;-) If he wants to search for dirt he ought to change jobs, like to get into the car-detailing business. (;-)