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: 2362
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
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.
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.
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 15. End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 15.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]