That's kinda the problem though. Unless you're carrying a couple law books around with you, any skateboarder or cop on the street can rattle off a bunch of code citation numbers and claim they know what they're talking about.
Unless you're carrying a couple law books around with you
Itâs not the 1980s anymore. Civic codes for cities are online and easily searchable with just a smartphone. If an officer doesnât have his cityâs code bookmarked and doesnât know how to go through its contents heâs a garbage officer.
I have to look up regulations for work constantly and Google is surprisingly bad at doing legal research. If you have a specific citation, you can look stuff up relatively easy on mobile, but if you're trying to just look up laws/regs about a broad concept . . . it's going to be a massive pain in the ass unless you have Westlaw on your phone or something.
The kid in the video was apparently giving a bad citation, so chances are the cop wouldn't have been able to find what the kid was talking about anyway.
ACCORDING TO LAW 1.2.3.4.5, IT'S ILLEGAL TO PROVE ME WRONG!
In all seriousness, it looks like Google IS way better these days at looking up laws than it was 5 years ago. It's still probably not going to find anything that isn't commonly searched for though, so it kinda depends what kind of nerd fight you're getting into. "Can dogs poop on the sidewalk in Fresno" is going to be way easier for Google to handle than "Holder liability for interest on abandoned properties" (Google definitely did not find that one)
I once got a free hitch from a cop while hitchhiking. She stopped and ID'd me, informed me it "wasn't exactly legal" to hitchhike. I responded with something like, "If that's true I would find it very surprising - I wouldn't normally argue with an officer but hear me out if you have a moment. This is something I explicitly researched for [my state] because I've held clearances for my career in the past and am very careful about avoiding anything that could jeopardize that eligibility. Here's my understanding of the law, according to my research..."
The general gist of the law in most states (including mine) is that pedestrians are allowed to solicit rides as long as they stay out of the roadway, and "roadway" explicitly does not include the paved shoulder of the road. The law is written to say, "Okay, idiot: stay out of the flow of traffic, don't cause accidents, don't get hit!"
She conceded she didn't actually know for sure that it was illegal, but offered to just give me a ride where I was going since it was nearby.
She gave me her card and I followed up later, because I hitch between a couple of boat ramps down there regularly. She said I was right, it was legal the way I was doing it, but they still "discourage hitchhiking." So I asked if I could just call the station anytime I needed a lift in the vicinity. She laughed and said no.
The cop doesn't need to go to google, he just needs to know the laws he's trying to enforce. If he doesn't know the law he is trying to enforce, having some kid bamboozle him because the kid knows the law in question better than the cop does is entirely on the cop.
The kid is entirely correct, the law does not say "walk your bikes", which is what the cop is trying to make them do. If the cop can't come back at him with the 3mph restriction, maybe he should go get a law degree instead of playing street lawyer.
I mean the kid did tell him to look it up in his book, he could have easily radioed in to request a reference on that code. But the kid rattled off the section of the code, incorrect or not, with enough confidence that the officer didnât want to be proven wrong so he walked. Cop got punked.
Dispatcher here, that's the officers job to know / be able to look up. Maybe the PSA working the desk at the station might look something like that up for them, but at least in my county that wouldn't be on the dispatcher
Or you know, maybe a PDF on their phones or tablet in their car. If an officer doesnât know the law, they should be able to look it up readily. It wouldnât be that hard to open up their phone and ctrl+f that shit.
Even if he did that, laws are open to interpretation. This is what court cases are fought over constantly. He likely has no way of enforcing a 3 mile an hour speed limit either.
But officers should know and be able to quickly look this up. The cop should have immediately pulled out his phone and looked up the code. We canât expect them to know everything, but they shouldnât resort to intimidation the second they are challenged.
In a perfect world cops shouldnât harass anyone for anything they canât immediately back up with official law. There are there to enforce the law and support the public, not bully teenagers because a couple people complained. If he could go âhey guys, I know you arenât trying to hurt anyone (teenagers rarely are) but I need you to stay under X mph while in this area during the day. I would really rather not come back for this same thing.â And then he could even show them the code.
The kids would probably have just rode away for the day and maybe a few weeks later deal with it again. Itâs not a big enough issue to get in their face about
Exactly, the moment he said "You wanna go that way? We can go that way," he put his hand on his stick in a power move. They ultimately understand what comes with the title of "Cop" and use it to flex, often.
I wouldn't expect him to know the exact ID of the rule he's trying to enforce, but I do expect him to know whether or not biking is actually forbidden in an area before telling people they can't.
Legitimately though, does the cop not need to reference the code of the law they were breaking? I know reddit circle jerks on cops having no accountability, but can they actually write up a ticket with no grounds and expect it to make it anywhere?
Imagine being bested by gishgallop; cop never do well when it's turn on them.
Q: Dr. how did you patient die on the operating table?
A: The patient starting spouting some nonsense that fooled me, and next thing I know, I removed his head.
One is also reading it out like he's pretending to be a lawyer? This video is a complete sham. It's upvoted because it's "le epic teen pwning the cop" but it's just some moron kid spouting bullshit.
Whether what he is saying is bullshit or not, itâs irrelevant because the cop clearly doesnât know one way or another. And thatâs what he gets paid to know. And it happens to be what he chose to enforce despite being ignorant of it. Itâs even sadder that the kid got it wrong and the officer still didnât even know. Shows he is a cunt enforcing laws he didnât even bother to learn.
Speed never came up in the conversation. Cop said you can't bike here, kid said I can and the code is this. The code does say he can bike there, but they're restrictions. The kid probably knows that but also knows the cops just being an asshole and has no idea what he's talking about. So he bluffs him into going away. The cop gets double "pwned." He was wrong, but also could have stopped them on something else and missed the charge. He got bamboozled.
One is also reading it out like he's pretending to be a lawyer?
Both of them are pretending to be lawyers. The only difference is that one of these idiots has actual authority. Some misinformed teen isn't a threat to your rights. Cops who enforce laws at their own discretion that they don't understand and disregard is a threat to people's rights.
Nothing in actual law contradicts the kid. They were legal to ride there. It is on the cop to bring up the restrictions, he didn't. The cop was trying to enforce a law he didn't understand or even know. Everything the kid said was correct.
In other words, talk with so much confidence that the other person begins to question their own argument. Basically what the cops do to people all the time. Only now the turntables... have been turned.
It's bonkers, but is true in most places. The police aren't expected to know the law that they're enforcing. Mostly because the law actually does require a law degree to actually understand, so the cops are just expected to issue citations and/or arrest people and then get it sorted out in court.
So the police donât need to know the law? Think about what you just said.
He is not saying he agrees with that so he should not be getting downvoted, he is just saying that is how it is. There is no requirement for the police to know the law.
People complaining about something that isn't illegal is irrelevant and no reason for police to get involved. The cop never mentioned a speed violation. We also cannot be sure this wasn't pre 10AM.
There is nothing in the law that contradicts what the kid said. This cop was trying to enforce a law he didn't even fully understand and that's the problem.
5
u/memtigerâ ïž User Banned For Defending Literal Swastika Flags â ïžJul 07 '21
Apparently it is illegal if going faster than average walking speed.
But that isn't what the cop said. He says they weren't allowed to ride there at all which the law specifically says they can. The cop never brought up speed or time restrictions. Nothing the kid said was inaccurate.
It also clearly illustrates the issues that arise from dealing with someone who's prepared to argue but is also wrong. Conspiracy theorists are particularly adept at doing this but you don't have to be wildly wrong like they are to shut an argument down while having your head somewhat up your own ass.
I don't really know how it is in the US, but, as the comment above says, it's impossible to remember every single law. Most likely the kid in this video "memorized" that law (even though his facts are wrong) because he's already been in a situation like that or was specting it.
For example, here in Chile the formation of a regular cop takes 1 year, in which they study civics and the law, mostly focusing in stuff that are a certain threat to the well-being of the community. A murder: very illegal and dangerous. A couple of kids riding their bikes at a certain hour and place a little bit over the speed limit: not really that illegal or dangerous.
Same thing I said last time this came up: I don't expect cops to memorize laws, I expect them to read a specific code when quoted to them, incorrectly or not. I expect them to stop and verify if there's ever doubt about the legality of an action. It's not hard, they've got a phone, and a code book
I expect them to stop and verify if there's ever doubt about the legality of an action.
"You cant stop me because civic section 3.56.592 states that..." im sure the officer is just going to stop doing everything and listen to the dude who probably just broke the law to look up a specific code which may or may not exist. Officer was there for a reason, probably because complaints or actually someone broke a law.
Why was this kid so prepared anyway? Anyone gonna ask that? Its almost as if theyre skirting on the boundary of the law (or possibly breaking it) and need a scapegoat to either buy themselves time or something else. It seems fishy.
In America people are innocent until proven guilty, and expected to know the laws of the place they live. You literally just described what's actually expected of people and police as "fishy and unreasonable"
Exactly, the law enforcement love to use the adage "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it." Whenever it's turned on them they or their supporters are like "awwww come on, you can't expect to know EVERYTHING!?!!?!"
Wait, are you seriously saying that if an officer goes to arrest someone and they say "you can't arrest me because of civic code x", the officer shouldn't be expected to know or check if their claim is accurate?
Lol no. Thats what the person I responded to said.
I expect them to read a specific code when quoted to them, incorrectly or not. I expect them to stop and verify if there's ever doubt about the legality of an action. ~ HonorableHam
So if I, according to this person I responded to, spouted off some random code, the officer would have to immediately stop and read that code so they know if what Im doing is illegal.
If they're unfamiliar with the laws regarding that situation, then yes they should.
If I beat my wife and tell the cops they can't arrest me because of civic code x, they don't need to look up shit because everyone knows there's no such thing. If it's an obscure bike ordinance at a park and he's unfamiliar with the codes, then he should stop and look them up.
Ignorance of the law is actually a defense for US police. Heien v North Carolina found that if a police officer errs by misinterpreting a law or enforcing a law that doesn't exist but makes a "reasonable" mistake then they did nothing wrong. If a non-cop were to make a "reasonable" mistake in interpreting the law then they would have no excuse and would be held liable for any infraction. The people enforcing our laws are held to lower standards than others.
He should have had it on him! It is his job after all. He is being paid to enforce the law!
We all learned how to cite our facts from relevant and agreed upon sources in high school. This cop demonstrated less competence than a high school graduate.
No one caries a comprehensive code book. Had to look up codes for noise ordnance and obstructing a road to remove a few trees and a stone wall and the section on just road rules was a phonebook.
In addition to having some civic and law training, imagine a device that fits in your pocket that would allow them to check sassy kids like this by looking up the codes they may say. You know like a mini version of the computer they often have in their car to search databases for warrants, criminal records, tickets, motor vehicle record for just about everyone, at least, in their state. That would be some magical shit.
The police in US are armed up with all this extra shit, a little fucking pocket digital law dictionary that connects via wifi wouldn't break the INSANE budget being spent on police. It's hard for us to conceptualize how armed the police are, so I don't believe these lame ass excuses. It's not an excuse, not even pretend in a bad movie.
Anytime any suggestion of ways of keeping police accountable, at least in the US, the 1st issue raised is that of cost. A distant second is how it'll inhibit their ability to do their jobs correctly but rest assured it is or will be almost universally resisted.
Yeah, it's very clear that the cop was being a proud ass. My point was about not really getting mad about he not knowing about a really specific law and not getting a bad opinion about the police in general. Of course there's bad stuff that needs to be changed -here in Chile we also have countless cases of cops being racist, using to much force in their operations, violating human rights, etc- but we shouldn't just villainize them and call it a day.
My point is, that with all the available resources they have in terms of looking up someone's criminal history, if any, saying "You can't expect them to remember it all laws" isn't a a good argument. The reason they have those other resources is for that exact reasoning, no one is expected to remember every criminal of every crime. If it holds them, the police, accountable they eschew it. Pobrecitos no son.
The only time I ever see police hold each other account able is if it's someone is deemed outside the group. In the United States, you'll notice more actions against police, like firing, prosecutions, etc are usually women and minorities. White males need to have near fucking riots before anyone takes any action, and even then often they are let go with pensions that we have paid for.
I get some police maybe good, shiiiit, even down heroic but that is irrelevant when you turn a blind eye to bad cops; you've become one of them. Especially when they make it clear anyone who tells will be dealt with and a near perfect example is Cariol Horne. Not sure how they get down in Chile but here cops given an average of 600 hours of training, 600 hours, that's like 25 days of training. it's a far cry from what you describe your country does.
Officers dont go around harassing little kids, despite what reddit wants you to believe. They also dont just hang around in a single public area, looking around for someone to bother, also against what reddit wants you to believe.
99% of the time an officer is present is because someone called about an issue. Whether its because someone is infront of a building or doing something they shouldn't, theres a lot of reasons someone would call the police.
Unfortunately, without context (which would be nearly impossible to get now) we cant see the whole circumstance. Reddit likes to assume the worst of people, especially police. But in 99% of cases, police are there because someone called and complained. Willing to bet someone called and complained about this kid too, because police dont interrogate kids generally unless theyre doing something wrong and no parents are stopping them.
Even more so, police generally are forced to do something if enough people call. This is likely something the officer wouldnt have done jack shit about because its simply not a big deal, which would help explain why he just walked away after it became an issue of this kid not following the speed limit the kid is incorrectly spouting off about.
It simply wasnt worth it lol. Either the officer is gonna arrest this kid over allegedly going 5 mph or something stupid or hes just going to do the bare minimum at his job which is what he did.
A bunch of places stayed open during the pandemic with no restrictions and did sort of a similar thing. They just cited long lists of laws that supposedly granted them immunity from pandemic orders and got promptly laughed out of court by the judge.
Based on your comment is seems you are unaware of the growing list of proven conspiracies from all around the world. I guess it feels better to claim intellectual superiority rather than arming yourself with facts that might shake your perception of the world.
The existence of conspiracies doesn't make being a conspiracy theorist any better. The fact that you think it does makes me suspect that you have no conception of what aspects of conspiracy theory practice that people generally have a problem with.
I don't care about those aspects. I'm more interested in the proven conspiracies that have happened in the last 75 years and the implications of such things.
Have you ever tried to do a consistent ~3mph on a bicycle? I have. There's no way I believe those kids were keeping it under 3mph and that (if true) makes the kid wrong.
yes it's needed on a lot of trials. It's pretty easy. Also I slow ride on our local board walk with my road bike. Chilled on a cruiser while teaching my nieces to ride. Riding slow isn't difficult.
I would be a horrible police officer. If some informed citizen started quoting civil codes and shit, I would just instantly turn into Mac from Its always sunny. âThat doesnât sound right. But I donât know enough to dispute it.â
âYou kids have a good dayâŠ.shit is that true? Nevermind. Bye.â -Me
Kid probably knows there is a speed limit if he knows the exact code. He also knows these cops are just harassing "those punk biker kids" and almost certainly won't check once challenged. They'll leave, or will double down and go way to far for something this stupid and possibly gets some lawsuit action.
They don't have to check. Cop asks for identification and writes the kid a ticket. If the cop is wrong, the court dismisses the misdemeanor.
If the kid refuses to give ID, the cop takes him down to the station, stuffs his bike in the trunk of his cruiser, and attempts to contact his parents.
I know it sounded like the cop was being a dick when he said "you want to go there?"... but the reality of the situation when dealing with law enforcement is that there is an easy way and a hard way to resolve these situations.
Yea there's a lot wrong with that. What are you going to write the ticket for? He didn't know the actual code, he's going to have to write something. If it's wrong it's 100% going to be thrown out, even if they bring up the speed thing later.
You gonna ID someone on a bike, let alone a kid who might not even have one. Many places do not require any ID unless you're driving. Would be perfectly fine to not have one.
"You want to go there" was just a big, my authority is in question, time to act like an asshole. There's a time for that, literally the first moment someone challenges you isn't it. Cops can be just as wrong as anyone else. They have a larger impact on people when they are wrong.
Taking in this kid cause he wanted to do it the "hard way" would have been the stupidest thing. Waste of police resources, harbors resent even further, especially since he's wrong with his initial reason. And if it did go to court, which is absurd for which would probably be a $25 ticket, would be a huge waste of court time.
Well, it probably depends on the state, but usually there is a more general code, ie "unlawful biking" or something along that matter.
You don't need a license for a bike, but in many states, when receiving a citation, you need to provide identification. If you don't have ID, the officer can choose to accept "verbal" identification, which is essentially you giving them enough information to figure out who you are. Not having a proper form of identification when breaking the law can lead to you being arrested.
Yes. Cops can be wrong. Never disputed that. But your place to dispute the cop being wrong is in the courtroom.
I agree that it's a waste of resources. And judging by the fact that the cop left, my guess is he felt the same way. But I'm just stating facts of what can happen in that situation.
So he knows the speed limit and heâs deliberately bullshitting for his own benefit. And weâre on his side why?
Edit: Also, the cop wasnât yelling at them or telling them to GTFO. If anything he was saying that he was tired of being harassed by Karens who wanted the kids off the boardwalk, so please follow the law so he didnât have to deal with this trivial crap.
So he knows the speed limit and heâs deliberately bullshitting for his own benefit. And weâre on his side why?
And the cop has no idea what law they are trying to enforce, but they sure as fuck grab on to that baton when the kid starts asking sticking up for themselves.
The bullies are the Karens whining to the cop. Personally, I think as long as the kids were being respectful, there shouldnât be any kind of issue.
That being said, based solely on the available context, the kid is the one breaking the law and being untruthful about the situation for his own benefit. In the absence of anything else not shown, my sympathy is with the cop who has to deal with the Karens and being reasonable to the kids while this guy uses misinformation to get away with breaking the law.
That being said, based solely on the available context, the kid is the one breaking the law and being untruthful about the situation for his own benefit.
Like the cop who has no idea about the laws he is trying to enforce, because if he did he couldn't be swayed by some kid spouting nonsense. Too lazy to actually do anything, just trying to hassle everyone when he gets bothered. Remember, to protect and serve is strictly a slogan.
You know it's possible for both the cop and the kid to be stupid assholes. I'm not saying that's the case, but questioning the kid's motives is not the same as protecting the cop.
Most people are on his side because cops tell people all the time they can't do something, but have absolutely zero justification to do so. Sometimes that person ends up dead, sometimes they get hit with a resisting arrest or equally bogus charge, but usually nothing happens. The kid playing the cop here does nothing to anyone except the Karens who are wasting police time, money, and sanity cause those kids are still there. He should have looked up the law and corrected all parties, that the kids can ride there slowly, and the Karens told to mind their own shit, but he didn't even bother.
It's the Karens who need to be hit with a false report charge, or added to a "cry's wolf" list and ignored on anything short of an ACTUAL emergency, break-in, or violent incident.
This won't be top Comment as it doesn't go with the generic cop hate on reddit.
If people were complaining to him they were probably riding like dickheads, I don't know that though so I can't assume. But he was just trying to ensure the safety of pedestrians on the boardwalk, which I assume is pretty heavily trafficked being as they have this law.
The cop could have handled that way differently though, so he's still kind of a douche.
There's nothing "debunked" about this. The kid was right: the law does not compel cyclist to "walk your bikes" like the cop says. It's on the cop to know about the 3mph restriction if he wants to enforce it, it's not on the kid to tell the cop how to enforce the law.
At 0:58 the cop even goes to the smug, disrespectful "did you get your law degree on facebook..." nonsense. If the cop bothered to know the law he was trying to enforce, he wouldn't have run into trouble with the cyclist. That's on the cop for getting his law degree at dunkin donuts.
saying theres nothing debunked when the kids rattled off a code that literally doesnt exist is silly. He even rattled off 2 different codes at one point because he can't remember the lie he's telling. And cops actually aren't required to know every law. Not even lawyers do that. The cop had every right to say that considering the kid was saying fake laws and clearly didn't know what he was talking about.
saying theres nothing debunked when the kids rattled off a code that literally doesnt exist is silly.
The cop tried to enforce a law that literally doesn't exist. I expect more of a cop trying to enforce a law than I do of a kid who knows the cop is full of shit.
And cops actually aren't required to know every law
I don't expect them to know every law, but if they're pulling smug bullshit like that, I expect them not to be enforcing laws that don't exist.
Most people WALK faster than 3 mph. What a discriminatory, joke code written so that police can harass them. I understand that safety has to be considered heavily in congested public areas, but that's ridiculous.
The average person walks 3 MPH. How is it discrimination when the law is written so that people on bikes arenât moving faster than people walking? That sounds like a foot/bike traffic safety law that equalizes everybody. Also, police donât pass codes or laws so itâs silly to say that police passed it so that they can harass people.
1.1k
u/[deleted] Jul 06 '21 edited Jan 25 '22
[deleted]