Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: dennisw
He did not follow instructions because he refused to engage in conversation with the officer.

Incorrect. He responded to the officer's inquiry about his destination with a full sentence stating that he did not wish to discuss his destination. That is conversation - two way communication. It just did not include the answer the cop wanted.

Further, according to the transcript, he did answer the question about whether he had been drinking (in the negative).

Finally, a police officer cannot search a car just because the driver refuses permission to search a car - that has been ruled not to be adequate probable cause. This is a parallel verbal situation. He answered the question in a manner unsatisfactory to the police officer - but did so in a manner that conveyed he was not belligerent or drunk.

527 posted on 01/04/2007 12:49:43 PM PST by MortMan (I was going to be indecisive, but I changed my mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies ]


To: MortMan
He did not follow instructions because he refused to engage in conversation with the officer.

Incorrect. He responded to the officer's inquiry about his destination with a full sentence stating that he did not wish to discuss his destination. That is conversation - two way communication. It just did not include the answer the cop wanted.

BS. The police want to hear you say more than just that. In oder to get an idea if you are high in some way

530 posted on 01/04/2007 12:52:22 PM PST by dennisw (Don't let your past become your future -- Georges Gurdjieff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies ]

To: MortMan; dennisw
Further, according to the transcript, he did answer the question about whether he had been drinking (in the negative).

Well, yes and no.

When the cop asked how he was that night, he replied that he was high.

Oh? You say he actually said "Hi!" -- as in "Hello"?

I'll grant that it says "Hi" on the kid's typed transcript. But, I've got two ears, and I happen to know that the words "Hi" and "High" are the SAME spoken phoneme.

Furthermore, the idea that he said "Hi" (rather than "High") makes no sense in the context. If I ask you "Do you know what time it is?" and you reply "Hi!", it would make just as much sense as for him to reply "Hi!" to the cop's question.

So, from the cop's perpective, right then and there, the ONLY thing that made ANY sense -- and, it made perfect sense -- was to accept that the kid said he was high, when asked how he was that evening.

It all went downhill from there -- rapidly (and, by-design, IMO) -- and I suspect that within thirty seconds, the cop was on the defensive, too busy trying to keep up with the kid (and his "team"? coaching him via wireless earplug, perhaps?) -- too busy to even remember that, hey, this kid said he was HIGH!

In short, we've got a bad situation being challenged via a disingenuous tactic. NEITHER side has anything to be proud of.

583 posted on 01/04/2007 4:01:22 PM PST by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson