There had to be a reason the cop asked you to do a breathalyzer. Were you swerving? Did your truck smell like alcohol? And typically you do field sobriety tests first. Many unanswered questions from your posts. And a 4x4 truck in Boone County is more common that not so I fail to see where profiling took place.

 

This isn't to you generally, but I generally see these arguments on BGP all the time, and they basically keep going like this:

 

People who are Pro-Police:

I'll give the police the benefit of the doubt based on my experiences and I know there are a few police officers who shouldn't be working, but you had to have done something and there's absolutely no way at all you just ran into a tool, so I'm just not believing you. No way that happened!

 

People who are Anti-Police:

I was doing absolutely nothing wrong and ______ occurred.

 

Fill in that blank with something that probably won't register on my, as someone who graduated law school's, scale of some type of thing that would be grounds for a legitimate complaint. Sometimes there people are completely right and the police are completely wrong, but it's probably not worth it anyway. Yea, officer might have been rude and in the wrong, and maybe you could be right (as in not wrong) and just a butthole, but that doesn't really solve much unless you can prove it and it's pretty bad.

 

 

Truth is probably somewhere in the middle of each of those. Just my opinion.

Well it's the exaggeration that you used that rubbed many of us the wrong way and you are still doing it. What someone with dip in their mouth has to do with anything I have no idea, you also apparently aren't pulled over every time you come into Boone County and your exaggeration about 7 squad cars in a 300 yard radius is also extremely exaggerated unless they were there on a response. You see I know for a fact that 7 cruisers would be the entire shift and that would also mean that they all were not in their districts. So maybe it was because you had a bad experience one time yet you have made that one bad experience into labeling Boone County a communist state when you compare it to the Nazi led Germany. The entire profiling thing is also wrong and you know it, if anything you are the one profiling the Boone County Sheriff Dept.

 

Hopefully you instilled good common sense with your daughter and taught her to respect authority figures, although with the way you are ripping the sheriff dept. I would highly doubt you've done that with her.

 

 

Just challenging you and agitating the debate here, but would the most liberal Supreme Court Justice in the history of the U.S. be an authority figure to a police officer and should such officers respect them in their professional capacity? Do you think that principle is ever violated? What do you think the recourse should be in those situations? Do you think it is analogous to the examples you present?

This wasn't a crooked lawyer being appointed by the NFL to investigate themselves in some corporate case.

 

It was a prosecutor brought in that wasn't connected and thus biased in the case.

 

 

I used the NFL as a very loose analogy, and I did for a reason. I also couched things in terms of saying I know nothing about this case.

 

It's asinine to say that there aren't plenty of times when a special prosecutor is appointed to try and quell any perceived bias while working toward getting a verdict that's already been determined by the time they are appointed.

 

I used the NFL as a very loose analogy, and I did for a reason. I also couched things in terms of saying I know nothing about this case.

 

It's asinine to say that there aren't plenty of times when a special prosecutor is appointed to try and quell any perceived bias while working toward getting a verdict that's already been determined by the time they are appointed.

 

Its also asinine to assume the worst of everybody in every situation. I know there are shady people in all professions but I think they are the vast minority.

 

Are you saying all or even most prosecutors are dirty?

Its also asinine to assume the worst of everybody in every situation. I know there are shady people in all professions but I think they are the vast minority.

 

Are you saying all or even most prosecutors are dirty?

 

 

Judging by the "pro-police" crowd's comments toward attorneys, which I'd gladly pull a few dandy's from if you'd like, then yes, when someone who is an attorney says that there is corruption in both

political office and the legal profession, and that such corruption is only magnified when those two combine, then yes, that's something I'll stand by saying.

 

I'm not assuming the worst about everyone in every situation. I was just stating what I believe to be a true justified belief that, hypothetically speaking (of course), there are special prosecutors who are appointed with the end goal in mind, whatever side it may be for.

 

Plenty of these people are elected, and, yes, I believe that that factor alone sometimes plays into the decision.

 

I don't personally know of any instances, and wouldn't share them here if I did, if that's what you are asking, but yes, it probably happens.

 

Judging by the "pro-police" crowd's comments toward attorneys, which I'd gladly pull a few dandy's from if you'd like, then yes, when someone who is an attorney says that there is corruption in both

political office and the legal profession, and that such corruption is only magnified when those two combine, then yes, that's something I'll stand by saying.

 

I'm not assuming the worst about everyone in every situation. I was just stating what I believe to be a true justified belief that, hypothetically speaking (of course), there are special prosecutors who are appointed with the end goal in mind, whatever side it may be for.

 

Plenty of these people are elected, and, yes, I believe that that factor alone sometimes plays into the decision.

 

I don't personally know of any instances, and wouldn't share them here if I did, if that's what you are asking, but yes, it probably happens.

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.

This isn't to you generally, but I generally see these arguments on BGP all the time, and they basically keep going like this:

 

People who are Pro-Police:

I'll give the police the benefit of the doubt based on my experiences and I know there are a few police officers who shouldn't be working, but you had to have done something and there's absolutely no way at all you just ran into a tool, so I'm just not believing you. No way that happened!

 

People who are Anti-Police:

I was doing absolutely nothing wrong and ______ occurred.

 

Fill in that blank with something that probably won't register on my, as someone who graduated law school's, scale of some type of thing that would be grounds for a legitimate complaint. Sometimes there people are completely right and the police are completely wrong, but it's probably not worth it anyway. Yea, officer might have been rude and in the wrong, and maybe you could be right (as in not wrong) and just a butthole, but that doesn't really solve much unless you can prove it and it's pretty bad.

 

 

Truth is probably somewhere in the middle of each of those. Just my opinion.

 

I agree with your post but also must say I'm not pro-police in every situation. In his situation though he only gave the end result (a breathalyzer) and nothing beforehand. There are jerk cops who probably have given breathalyzers for no reason but I also believe the vast majority are given for a reason.

 

And as I stated in my post to him, typically field sobriety tests are given before a breathalyzer is used (although I believe field sobriety tests to be a sham) but he mentioned nothing about whether those were given. If a breathalyzer is given with no field sobriety tests given beforehand (or no option of them being given I maybe should say), could that be an illegal search? Disclaimer: I ask because I do not know the answer.

I agree with your post but also must say I'm not pro-police in every situation. In his situation though he only gave the end result (a breathalyzer) and nothing beforehand. There are jerk cops who probably have given breathalyzers for no reason but I also believe the vast majority are given for a reason.

 

And as I stated in my post to him, typically field sobriety tests are given before a breathalyzer is used (although I believe field sobriety tests to be a sham) but he mentioned nothing about whether those were given. If a breathalyzer is given with no field sobriety tests given beforehand (or no option of them being given I maybe should say), could that be an illegal search? Disclaimer: I ask because I do not know the answer.

 

There are only 3 standardized FST's there actual studies that back up the tests. Each test on its own was validated in the mid 80%'s or higher. The combination of the 3 puts it into the 90%'s I believe. Couple those 3 with a PBT and you can make your decision. There are officers out there who are certified experts who can do tests and tell you with high certainty what drug categories they have taken. FSTs are anything but a sham.

I agree with your post but also must say I'm not pro-police in every situation. In his situation though he only gave the end result (a breathalyzer) and nothing beforehand. There are jerk cops who probably have given breathalyzers for no reason but I also believe the vast majority are given for a reason.

 

And as I stated in my post to him, typically field sobriety tests are given before a breathalyzer is used (although I believe field sobriety tests to be a sham) but he mentioned nothing about whether those were given. If a breathalyzer is given with no field sobriety tests given beforehand (or no option of them being given I maybe should say), could that be an illegal search? Disclaimer: I ask because I do not know the answer.

 

Agree. Sorry, didn't mean to come off as signaling you out, was just using your post as an example.

Sorry my posts have offended. Grand juries are usually just rubber stamps for prosecutors. Public ain't welcome in the proceedings. The 99 percent figure is correct. Here's a piece that explains the process.

 

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7304&context=jclc

 

So about that link? In reference to your 99% comment made earlier.....

Some states opt for a preliminary hearing system vs. grand jury in determining whether to bind over defendant for trial. State's case is outlined in public as opposed to keeping everything hush-hush in grand jury setting. A judge or magistrate determines whether there's enough evidence vs. defendant to send the case to trial. Public's interest here would have been better served in an open courtroom.

 

 

 

Public interest would have been better served in an open courtroom why or how?

I'd say sportsfan is familiar with the process. Just a guess though.

 

I've forgotten most of yesterday before I even remember I have bachelor's degrees in political science and criminal justice. But yes I am somewhat familiar with the process. :thumb:

I guess my source was pretty good?

I'm with guru from early in this thread, the civil case will be a dandy.

 

 

Money will likely be shelled out but not because it's just or makes a difference. Simply because we live in an obscure entitlement society. They will be paid because it's too easy not to be.

I used the NFL as a very loose analogy, and I did for a reason. I also couched things in terms of saying I know nothing about this case.

 

It's asinine to say that there aren't plenty of times when a special prosecutor is appointed to try and quell any perceived bias while working toward getting a verdict that's already been determined by the time they are appointed.

 

JW you really should try to make one of our next BGP get togethers. Your opinions are intriguing.

There are only 3 standardized FST's there actual studies that back up the tests. Each test on its own was validated in the mid 80%'s or higher. The combination of the 3 puts it into the 90%'s I believe. Couple those 3 with a PBT and you can make your decision. There are officers out there who are certified experts who can do tests and tell you with high certainty what drug categories they have taken. FSTs are anything but a sham.

 

 

 

And there you go giving away trade secrets. At least you didn't say which ones lol. Although anyone with google could find out fairly quickly.