--No, I read the transcript.--
It shows. I suppose you believed all those 'descriptions' added in by the kid, too?
Nope. I was only focused on what was actually said. Does the transcript not match the tape?
The point of "having the conversation" was for the officer to assess the kids state of mind and the possibility he'd been drinking. To some of us, the kids answer was quite reasonable, to others it was "smartass" - but isn't the cops job the same, regardless? Being a "smartass" isn't a crime but DWI is, and that's why they were there. The cop could have easily just said "Fine, you don't have to tell us where you've been". Why didn't he?
Citizens have a duty to police the police, whether it's through Police Commissions and city elections or by having a video camera turned on. Again, whether some here think he's a weirdo for having a camera running is beside the point, it was a legal act and without it we never would be having this debate!
--No, I read the transcript.--
"It shows. I suppose you believed all those 'descriptions' added in by the kid, too?"
You are deducted several points in this debate. There is a video link which is consistent with the transcipt. You only go to the razzles dazzle shuffle in the absence of facts. Missed that link eh?