Dude Uses Jedi Mind Tricks To Get Through DUI Checkpoint

[Hoofbite]

[youtube]ILqc0DMh84k[/youtube]

Wow, what the hell is that?

Is that really the only thing you have to do is refuse to answer or this is guy imposing his mental powers on them?

 

[5Stars]

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Unreal!

 

[Rynie]

you NEVER have to answer questions from cops.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

awesome but of course the fuzz will say they could tell he was ok and that the three of them had a mind meld and decided to let him go as they knew he was fine

and anyway that is not really a jedi mind trick

that would have gone like this "wave hand, I'm not the drunk you are looking for, "he's not the drunk we are looking for", " i can be on my way" "you can be on your way"

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I would imagine you are well within you rights to refuse to answer the question.

However all it takes is to say no and be on your way. I would not be shocked to find out the guy probably just shook his head no and then she said you can go.

Either way it is kind of a jerk move to pull on the officers.

I have been in some of these check points and just answer no and they just wave you on. You have to have some signs of alcohol before they would detain you.

Most of the time it has been at night and more often than not some of these check points are in colder weather so I try to make it pleasant on the officer with a simple answer or just a light hearted joke.

Once they had a weapons check point. Asked if I had any weapons in the car...I just said my Wife. The officer got a good laugh and while I was pulling away he told a fellow officer what I said and they were laughing.

These guys are just doing their jobs in these check points. Sometimes as part of training. They don't want to do it anymore than the people that have to stop at them.

No need to make it an act of showing how you will refuse to answer a simple question in order to exercise some thing you consider a right. Unless you reek of alcohol, have open containers in the car, slurring your speech or driving/acting eractic...a simple one syllable word "no" will get you through the check point quicker than going through the spiel that jerk in the video was doing.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

We have those checkpoints up here at xmas, they are a pain especially when the cop tries to be cute.

Once he asked have you had anything to drink, I said no, he said not even water, you must be thirsty. I just stared at him and he said go ahead.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

you NEVER have to answer questions from cops.

Exactly. The only thing you have do is ID yourself if they ask. Other than that, he's very well within his rights to thumb is nose at the swine. You have the right to remain silent....

That means you and everyone else. Good going, I think.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I would imagine you are well within you rights to refuse to answer the question.

However all it takes is to say no and be on your way. I would not be shocked to find out the guy probably just shook his head no and then she said you can go.

Either way it is kind of a jerk move to pull on the officers.

I have been in some of these check points and just answer no and they just wave you on. You have to have some signs of alcohol before they would detain you.

Most of the time it has been at night and more often than not some of these check points are in colder weather so I try to make it pleasant on the officer with a simple answer or just a light hearted joke.

Once they had a weapons check point. Asked if I had any weapons in the car...I just said my Wife. The officer got a good laugh and while I was pulling away he told a fellow officer what I said and they were laughing.

These guys are just doing their jobs in these check points. Sometimes as part of training. They don't want to do it anymore than the people that have to stop at them.

No need to make it an act of showing how you will refuse to answer a simple question in order to exercise some thing you consider a right. Unless you reek of alcohol, have open containers in the car, slurring your speech or driving/acting eractic...a simple one syllable word "no" will get you through the check point quicker than going through the spiel that jerk in the video was doing.

It's the principle. If you want to pull me over and bust my chops about something I'm not doing, go ahead. The burden is on the police. We're innocent until proven guilty. They have to have probable cause. And not answering questions doesn't give them that. Most times, if you're not recording they'll arrest you and say you did something else anyway. I have a feeling that Sgt was a decent cop though and just knew the law.

 

[Cythim]

It's the principle. If you want to pull me over and bust my chops about something I'm not doing, go ahead. The burden is on the police. We're innocent until proven guilty. They have to have probable cause. And not answering questions doesn't give them that. Most times, if you're not recording they'll arrest you and say you did something else anyway. I have a feeling that Sgt was a decent cop though and just knew the law.

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legalitysobrietycheckpoints.html

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

It's the principle. If you want to pull me over and bust my chops about something I'm not doing, go ahead. The burden is on the police. We're innocent until proven guilty. They have to have probable cause. And not answering questions doesn't give them that. Most times, if you're not recording they'll arrest you and say you did something else anyway. I have a feeling that Sgt was a decent cop though and just knew the law.

Principle schmiciple.

When I see a check point the only thing I am thinking about is trying to get through it so I can get home. I don't want some jerk with a complex trying to be super principle man in front of me and make me sit any longer in my car and keeping me from getting home quicker. Just say no and move on.

Seriously. The only good thing I can think of is if this guy gets pulled over for actually breaking the law (speeding, busted tail light, sticker that is out of date)...maybe one of the two cops will remember him being a jerk and instead of giving him a warning they go and give him a ticket.

Would serve him right since they are well within their rights to give him a ticket for breaking the law but many times would probably just give a warning.

If they are not acting like turds, don't be a turd yourself. I know just the other day I could have gotten a ticket, but I was respectful with the officer when I could have debated or been a jerk. So due to my respectful tone I just got a warning that even the cop said was nothing.

You don't always have to be a turd to try to make a point or stand on principles. Sometimes you should pick your spots when they are more important.

 

[Hoofbite]

It's the principle. If you want to pull me over and bust my chops about something I'm not doing, go ahead. The burden is on the police. We're innocent until proven guilty. They have to have probable cause. And not answering questions doesn't give them that. Most times, if you're not recording they'll arrest you and say you did something else anyway. I have a feeling that Sgt was a decent cop though and just knew the law.

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legalitysobrietycheckpoints.html

I was going to state my opinion but found this ruling to sum it up a little more nicely.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The Michigan State Supreme Court found that sobriety checkpoints violated the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that properly conducted checkpoints are legal, and reversed the Michigan Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that DUI roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right. However, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued in a majority opinion that sobriety checkpoints are justified because the state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the minor infringement on an individual’s rights.

http://www.duicheckpoints.org/legalitysobrietycheckpoints.html

Interesting. I'm concerned more with too much of something that doesn't need to be there. I think this checkpoint thing is one of them.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Yes, he was well within his rights to refuse to answer any and all questions from the officers. However, I will never understand people who are intentionally billigerent or act childish around respectful and reasonably nice officers just because they want to prove a point or have to "stick it to the pigs". If you have nothing to hide, just answer their questions and don't be a dick. They're just doing their job. You wouldn't treat a clerk who asked for your ID like that.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I was going to state my opinion but found this ruling to sum it up a little more nicely.

Actually, nowadays, the Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that you have to assert your right to remain silent. Now we see the power of appointment, like looking down a sewer at what once were your rights as a U.S. citizens.


"OK, duh, officer, I assert my right to remain silent... as if you couldn't tell by my not saying anything."

=====

Through heavy exposure in print and visual media, the vast majority of Americans are well aware of their “right to remain silent” upon arrest. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist once wrote that Miranda warnings are so “embedded in routine police practice” that they have become “part of our national culture.” So how will American culture adjust to the recent Supreme Court ruling which holds that in order to maintain “the right to remain silent,” a suspect must affirmatively invoke it?

The Story of Van Chester Thompkins

Van Chester Thompkins was arrested, charged with murder and read his Miranda rights, which insisted that he had the right to remain silent. During the three hour interrogation that followed, Thompkins remained silent, save for noting that his chair was hard and refusing a peppermint. However, when interrogators persisted in their interrogation, despite Thompkins refusing to sign a statement indicating that he understood his right to remain silent, Thompkins eventually answered “yes” to the questions: “Do you believe in God?” “Do you pray to God?” and “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Prosecutors used these monosyllabic answers after Thompkins remained silent for hours, to convict him of murder. Thompkins then filed a suit alleging that his Miranda rights had been violated by the continued interrogation after he had invoked his right to remain silent by remaining silent.

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Jul/165066.html

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Yes, he was well within his rights to refuse to answer any and all questions from the officers. However, I will never understand people who are intentionally billigerent or act childish around respectful and reasonably nice officers just because they want to prove a point or have to "stick it to the pigs". If you have nothing to hide, just answer their questions and don't be a dick. They're just doing their job. You wouldn't treat a clerk who asked for your ID like that.

Actually, I looked it up. That's old law. New law says he has to say he's silent. But then that's not really being silent, is it?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Principle schmiciple.

When I see a check point the only thing I am thinking about is trying to get through it so I can get home. I don't want some jerk with a complex trying to be super principle man in front of me and make me sit any longer in my car and keeping me from getting home quicker. Just say no and move on.

Seriously. The only good thing I can think of is if this guy gets pulled over for actually breaking the law (speeding, busted tail light, sticker that is out of date)...maybe one of the two cops will remember him being a jerk and instead of giving him a warning they go and give him a ticket.

Would serve him right since they are well within their rights to give him a ticket for breaking the law but many times would probably just give a warning.

If they are not acting like turds, don't be a turd yourself. I know just the other day I could have gotten a ticket, but I was respectful with the officer when I could have debated or been a jerk. So due to my respectful tone I just got a warning that even the cop said was nothing.

You don't always have to be a turd to try to make a point or stand on principles. Sometimes you should pick your spots when they are more important.

I respectfully disagree. Checkpoints are fundamentally and morally wrong within the underlying principles of our system.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I respectfully disagree. Checkpoints are fundamentally and morally wrong within the underlying principles of our system.

I never argued that check points are right or wrong.

I argued that you don't have to be a turd while at one.

The quicker you say...NO...the quicker you move on.

If you would rather be selfish and take everyone else's time up by being a turd...be a turd.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I never argued that check points are right or wrong.

I argued that you don't have to be a turd while at one.

The quicker you say...NO...the quicker you move on.

If you would rather be selfish and take everyone else's time up by being a turd...be a turd.

If everyone were a turd, they'd stop doing them. I'm against them, so I say, "be a turd!"

:laugh2:

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

"Anyone who's seen even one episode of a TV crime drama knows the drill. After an arrest, sometimes even during the arrest, the police give the suspect the famous Miranda warning: You have the right to remain silent etc.

Real life is more complicated, of course. In some jurisdictions, the police may take someone into custody without officially arresting him, allowing them to question a suspect before reading giving a Miranda warning.

Sometimes, suspects remain tight lipped, refusing to cooperate at all.

But if that criminal suspect wants to either invoke his right to be silent under Miranda, that suspect needs to clearly tell the police as much, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in a 5-4 vote that pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals.

What's more, if a suspect answers a police interrogator's question with even a one-word response that implicates him, that answer can be properly viewed as the suspect waiving his Miranda rights.

The decision in the case Berghius, Warden v. Thompkins clearly shifted the Miranda balance in favor of police."

Full Story: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/06/supreme_court_miranda_ruling_f.html