United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Hero Cops a Feel
Source:
Eric Peters Autos
URL Source: https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2016/11/18/hero-cops-feel/
Published: Nov 18, 2016
Author: Eric
Post Date: 2017-09-20 08:45:49 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2344
Comments: 17
Here’s a video of a Hero copping a feel – fondling the breasts of an attractive blonde woman – who’d called police (bad mistake) after her car was rear-ended by another vehicle: The woman was injured and shaken by the accident – which the Hero used as pretext to accuse her of being “drunk” (she wasn’t, as subsequently determined by blood tests). The despicable cop paws at her breasts – you know, because a slight blonde woman might be a “threat” to “officer safety.” Lesson? There is no problem that calling a cop won’t make worse. Remember: They are not there to “help.” They are there to “bust” people. And cop a feel, when the victim is an attractive woman. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Lesson? There is no problem that calling a cop won’t make worse. Remember: They are not there to “help.” They are there to “bust” people. And cop a feel, when the victim is an attractive woman. Next time she gets into a two-car accident with injuries she should call her husband. I'm OK with that.
They should have called a policewoman to do the body search. The cop was reaching around, trying to check if she had a blade or gun concealed between her breasts. Clearly, he was trying to avoid direct breastal contact. It is a ticklish situation. I've thought before that there should be some way to use a short rod or a billyclub to poke/prod the breast area or groin area so that male cops can search a female suspect without actually touching them directly with their hands.
If another driver struck her car from behind, then there was not probable traffic violation giving the cop probable cause to do a sobriety test. Like with the guy who was struck by the fleeing suspect in the Utah nurse case, no probable cause existed for this woman being drunk. Whether her car was drivable after the accident may be a factor as if it wasn't then she wasn't about to get back into the car to go anywhere.
Maybe her car was stopped in the middle of the road because she was so drunk she thought she was at home in her driveway.
Maybe her car was stopped in the middle of the road because she was so drunk she thought she was at home in her driveway. Unless the cops saw that or had evidence to support such a possibility.... no.
I'm not sure we have enough video of the incident to determine whether the woman behaved erratically enough to give a cop probable cause to suspect impairment. Even drunk drivers can get rear-ended by another vehicle. The Idaho truck driver hit head-on by the speeding Utah driver was on fire when he exited his truck and had been hit hard head-on and was massively burned. So there is considerable difference in these things when we try to compare them.
Drunk driving or not, probable cause is required, excluding those sobriety checkpoints that are supposed to randomly administered. You don't go testing all drivers at every accident scene for impairment unless there's reason to believe a driver was at fault. In terms of proper legal cause to test for impairment, no, there's not. Neither was perceived to be at fault in the accidents. The amount of injury is immaterial.
We didn't see all of her behavior at the accident scene. I'm not clear on what we're debating here. Are you objecting to any accident victim being observed and possibly tested/arrested for impairment or are you objecting to the slight brush of the woman's breast when the cop was clumsily trying to check her for a weapon concealed between her breasts?
Hey! They even let you grab 'em by the pussy!
The officer should be fired for not doing a weapons search up to his elbow. It's for officer safety! Only if you're a philandering tycoon. Or if you're Orange Hitler. Or both.
I would have searched her more rigorously.
I think you go a step too far in your reasoning here but I recognize we can disagree. Dang, that sounds reasonable. Not that I am but I love that it makes me sound that way.
In a nutshell, yes. I question the cops probable cause to administer a sobriety test to this womam who was just in an accident in which she was clearly not at fault. (I am assuming there is no dispute on that point). She was also clearly injured. She failed the sobriety test but that test was, I contend, administered without reasonable cause. It is not unreasonable for injured people who have just been through a traumatic accident to fail a sobriety test, especially when a burly, armed cop pretty much accuses the accident victim of being drunk, which does have a tendency to making people afraid and angry. Hopefully you've not forgotten, but in the USA there is supposed to be a 4th Amendment protecting us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Admittedly, that right has been significantly eroded, but it still remains true that a cop cannot stop drivers willy-nilly and conduct searches without probable cause, and a sobriety test is most certainly a search. So if the cop had no reasonable cause to have the woman do the sobriety test, then he had no business arresting her for failing it, in which case everything after that point is immaterial. Now some may claim her behavior resembled, to the cop, a drunk person. Well, she was, again, not at fault in the accident and clearly injured. While the facts related to her injury is just that -- a matter of fact, it has to be judged by others, but it certainly turned out she had ZERO alcohol in her system. Ergo, the cop was wrong in his assessment, and in hindsight, arrested a completely sober and injured person for being drunk. So.... no, I won't defend a cop for confusing injury and stress for drunkeness, nor administering a sobriety test to such an injured person for whom there was zero evidence of any traffic violation. This woman, as she said, will not trust cops again, and rightly so.
What if she smelled like liquor? Or pot? Or meth? We don't have a full video.
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
There is no problem that calling a cop won’t make worse.
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)
If another driver struck her car from behind, then there was not probable traffic violation giving the cop
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
#8. To: Pinguinite (#5)
(Edited)
If another driver struck her car from behind, then there was not probable traffic violation giving the cop probable cause to do a sobriety test. Like with the guy who was struck by the fleeing suspect in the Utah nurse case, no probable cause existed for this woman being drunk.
Like with the guy who was struck by the fleeing suspect in the Utah nurse case, no probable cause existed for this woman being drunk.
#9. To: Tooconservative (#8)
Even drunk drivers can get rear-ended by another vehicle.
The Idaho truck driver hit head-on by the speeding Utah driver was on fire when he exited his truck and had been hit hard head-on and was massively burned. So there is considerable difference in these things when we try to compare them.
#10. To: Pinguinite (#9)
Drunk driving or not, probable cause is required, excluding those sobriety checkpoints that are supposed to randomly administered. You don't go testing all drivers at every accident scene for impairment unless there's reason to believe a driver was at fault.
#11. To: Tooconservative (#10)
or are you objecting to the slight brush of the woman's breast
#12. To: misterwhite (#11)
They even let you grab 'em by the pussy!
/s
#13. To: misterwhite (#11)
Hey! They even let you grab 'em by the pussy!
#14. To: hondo68 (#12)
The officer should be fired for not doing a weapons search up to his elbow.
#15. To: Pinguinite (#9)
In terms of proper legal cause to test for impairment, no, there's not. Neither was perceived to be at fault in the accidents. The amount of injury is immaterial.
#16. To: Tooconservative (#10)
Are you objecting to any accident victim being observed and possibly tested/arrested for impairment
#17. To: Pinguinite (#16)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]