• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Students, governor want U.Va. student arrest investigated

JasperL said:
It was in fact a restaurant. You can view the menu here: Trinity Irish Pub | Charlottesville, VaTrinity Irish Pub | Charlottesville, Va There is no law or state rule that prohibits underage patrons from entering, before, or after 10pm. That's only bar policy.

And I've already speculated the ABC agents might have suspected he used fake ID. But the accounts are he was polite and cordial at the bar, was peacefully walking away, and still detained. And because he was insufficiently subservient to police questioning him about his VALID ID, he was arrested. How he reacted to the detention/questioning was the 'crime.' My discussion with Ockham began when he asserted the original crime was trying to enter a bar - that's false. He committed no crime at all except he didn't behave properly for the ABC agents, without force....
Click to expand...

All that is predicated on the assumption that his ID was valid, and that's contraindicated by your statements that he was "at the bar", suggesting he was trying to get alcohol.
 
roguenuke said:
The thing is though, why would the bouncer/owner have to ask the kid about his zip code if he had a license/ID card that showed his real age in the first place? They already reported he was under 21. The owner of the pub could have simply said "you're under 21, we can't let you in here right now, since our policy is no one under 21 after this time at night". It doesn't make any sense that it was his ID if the bouncer/owner of the pub asked such a question. Unless he simply looked at the ID wrong.
Click to expand...

The owner/bouncer has been interviewed and said he didn't bother to check the birth date once Johnson cited the wrong zip code. It's also been reported the zip code he cited was the correct one (for his current address) but that his DL had an older address on it with a different zip code. Further, no one has alleged that he had a fake ID on him or that he tried to present one. It was a mixup, it probably didn't matter because he was underage, but it was fine for him to TRY to get in - no crime.
 
clownboy said:
Could be for the correct stamp or wristband. Especially on celebration days pubs that allow underage folks in have different stamps or wristbands for those who can legally drink and those who cannot. The fake ID would take the presenter into illegal territory. It's not legal to have a fake ID no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...

But then he wouldn't have simply turned him away. He wouldn't have questioned the zip code if he didn't suspect the ID might be fake. And there is no reason to fake an ID that has an age under 21 on it (unless you are trying that stupid idea from the movie where the guys wanted to blackmail teachers for sleeping with underage students by getting the students fake IDs saying they were under age of consent).

And yes, that is pretty much what I was getting at and a very valid reason for either ABC cops or regular officers to stop the kid if they heard the interaction between the owner of the pub and the kid concerning his ID and questioning the zip code on it. That would have been at the very least suspicious and easily considered reasonable suspicion to stop and ask to see his ID and/or question him.
 
JasperL said:
The owner/bouncer has been interviewed and said he didn't bother to check the birth date once Johnson cited the wrong zip code. It's also been reported the zip code he cited was the correct one (for his current address) but that his DL had an older address on it with a different zip code. Further, no one has alleged that he had a fake ID on him or that he tried to present one. It was a mixup, it probably didn't matter because he was underage, but it was fine for him to TRY to get in - no crime.
Click to expand...

Don't know about VA but in OK the attempt is indeed illegal.

A minor younger than 21 in Oklahoma may not purchase, possess or consume alcohol—including “low-point beer,” containing more than one half of one percent of alcohol by volume--in any public place or building. It is also illegal for a minor to enter an establishment that sells alcohol as its main purpose. (Oklahoma Stat. Ann. Section 1215, 163.2(1), 246(A)&(B).) Minors younger than 18 to may not work in any establishment that sells or serves alcohol; nor may minors between 19 and 20 work in a separate or enclosed bar area of such establishments. (Oklahoma Stat. Ann. Section 243(A)&(B).) There are few exceptions to these rules (see below).
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
All that is predicated on the assumption that his ID was valid, and that's contraindicated by your statements that he was "at the bar", suggesting he was trying to get alcohol.
Click to expand...

We have to assume his ID was valid, because the police didn't charge him with the crime of possessing a fake ID, and no one anywhere has alleged he had a fake ID, charged or not. And it's just obviously LEGAL for him to be at or in the "bar." It would be ILLEGAL for him to try to purchase alcohol or to consume alcohol at that bar, but he didn't do either of those. He was requesting admittance - that's it - totally legal act.
 
JasperL said:
The owner/bouncer has been interviewed and said he didn't bother to check the birth date once Johnson cited the wrong zip code. It's also been reported the zip code he cited was the correct one (for his current address) but that his DL had an older address on it with a different zip code. Further, no one has alleged that he had a fake ID on him or that he tried to present one. It was a mixup, it probably didn't matter because he was underage, but it was fine for him to TRY to get in - no crime.
Click to expand...

But any police officers (of any kind) wouldn't necessarily know that, and the conversation itself would give them reasonable cause to stop and question him. They also could have seen something that made him appear intoxicated or as if he'd been drinking (which we still have no evidence that he wasn't). There is evidence that he might have been trying to drink by trying to get into the pub. How did the officers know without stopping him that he didn't have a fake ID? How would they know he hadn't used the ID he had (fake or not) to get into bars and drink? It is their job to enforce liquor laws, including those that prevent underage drinking. (even if people don't agree with those laws)
 
clownboy said:
Don't know about VA but in OK the attempt is indeed illegal.
Click to expand...

That's nice but VA has different laws. Furthermore, it's clearly LEGAL for those under age 21 to be in THAT PUB. I quoted from the owner's statement - their policy is to admit anyone up to 10pm, and to admit those under age 21 after 10pm on Sunday and Monday nights.... I doubt the Trinity Irish Pub is issuing public statements that admit to daily criminal acts....
 
JasperL said:
It was in fact a restaurant. You can view the menu here: Trinity Irish Pub | Charlottesville, VaTrinity Irish Pub | Charlottesville, Va There is no law or state rule that prohibits underage patrons from entering, before, or after 10pm. That's only bar policy.

And I've already speculated the ABC agents might have suspected he used fake ID. But the accounts are he was polite and cordial at the bar, was peacefully walking away, and still detained. And because he was insufficiently subservient to police questioning him about his VALID ID, he was arrested. How he reacted to the detention/questioning was the 'crime.' My discussion with Ockham began when he asserted the original crime was trying to enter a bar - that's false. He committed no crime at all except he didn't behave properly for the ABC agents, without force....
Click to expand...

Because once they establish that they have "reasonable suspicion", as could easily be gained from overhearing a conversation questioning the validity of the presented ID to a bouncer at a pub, then they have the absolute right and should stop the person to question them and determine the validity of the ID card. They had obvious reasonable suspicion to believe a crime, possession/use of a fake ID card, was happening. They might have been wrong, but can't know that without first finding out. That is not an unreasonable request at all. It is not in any way wrong for the police to question him about his ID and whether he had been drinking or trying to obtain alcohol underage or determine if he had a fake ID. Cooperation is not unreasonable nor is it asking for "subservience". It is doing their job, upholding the laws.
 
JasperL said:
Yeah, you keep posting the link and hilariously cannot quote the relevant section from it because IT DOES NOT EXIST AT YOUR LINK.
Click to expand...

Yeah you have to click to find the information there. You should try that.
 
roguenuke said:
Because once they establish that they have "reasonable suspicion", as could easily be gained from overhearing a conversation questioning the validity of the presented ID to a bouncer at a pub, then they have the absolute right and should stop the person to question them and determine the validity of the ID card. They had obvious reasonable suspicion to believe a crime, possession/use of a fake ID card, was happening. They might have been wrong, but can't know that without first finding out. That is not an unreasonable request at all. It is not in any way wrong for the police to question him about his ID and whether he had been drinking or trying to obtain alcohol underage or determine if he had a fake ID. Cooperation is not unreasonable nor is it asking for "subservience". It is doing their job, upholding the laws.
Click to expand...

Just a comment to support that; Reasonable Suspicion is the lowest requirement needed, as opposed to Probable Cause.
 
clownboy said:
Could be for the correct stamp or wristband. Especially on celebration days pubs that allow underage folks in have different stamps or wristbands for those who can legally drink and those who cannot. The fake ID would take the presenter into illegal territory. It's not legal to have a fake ID no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...



His ID wasn't illegal because it wasn't fake.
 
roguenuke said:
Because once they establish that they have "reasonable suspicion", as could easily be gained from overhearing a conversation questioning the validity of the presented ID to a bouncer at a pub, then they have the absolute right and should stop the person to question them and determine the validity of the ID card. They had obvious reasonable suspicion to believe a crime, possession/use of a fake ID card, was happening. They might have been wrong, but can't know that without first finding out. That is not an unreasonable request at all. It is not in any way wrong for the police to question him about his ID and whether he had been drinking or trying to obtain alcohol underage or determine if he had a fake ID. Cooperation is not unreasonable nor is it asking for "subservience". It is doing their job, upholding the laws.
Click to expand...

But no one has even said Johnson resisted interrogation. The worst I've read is an agent had him by the elbow and he wrenched his elbow out of his grasp - that's what earned the take down and bloodied face. It's my view that is a overreach and a failure on their part - they turned what should have been a routine encounter into an arrest, of a person whose only crime was dealing somehow inappropriately, but without any force, with ABC agents. I can't believe they've been trained to take down individuals in those circumstances, and I can't believe anyone would think they did their job well in that circumstance.
 
clownboy said:
All that is predicated on the assumption that his ID was valid, and that's contraindicated by your statements that he was "at the bar", suggesting he was trying to get alcohol.
Click to expand...



The bar/restauraunt has a policy of all ages until 10pm, you can't make the assumption he was trying to buy alchohol illegally. Nor is his being turned away after a cordial conversation "reasonable suspicion" to detain.
 
Ockham said:
Yeah you have to click to find the information there. You should try that.
Click to expand...

I've done it, it's not there, as you know. If you think it's there, take 10 seconds and quote the relevant section or cite the appropriate section of the VA Code.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
His ID wasn't illegal because it wasn't fake.
Click to expand...

Just as a side note: What underage college kid doesn't have a fake ID? Especially on St. Patty's day when everyone knows they're going to be carded. Maybe that's now considered "old school". :)
 
Ockham said:
Just a comment to support that; Reasonable Suspicion is the lowest requirement needed, as opposed to Probable Cause.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am well aware. I have taken a few semesters of criminal justice courses and reasonable suspicion is well established as the first/lowest level required for official police interaction, how it can be used to reasonably detain a suspect. If he had just cooperated and calmly and respectfully explained the issue, they would have had no reason to detain him further. So what happened after the initial contact with the officers? Why did they arrest him if his ID was valid? And the fact that he didn't have his ID out then (someone was saying he was getting it out) suggests that he was refusing to show the officers his ID card. That is where the issue is if he actually refused to show ID/cooperate with the police while they were investigating him.

As I've consistently said, it is much better and less likely to cause injuries or death to simply cooperate with the police rather than being rude or uncooperative, as many we've seen have been. Fight it in court, where you have a much better chance of winning.
 
Ockham said:
Just as a side note: What underage college kid doesn't have a fake ID? Especially on St. Patty's day when everyone knows they're going to be carded. Maybe that's now considered "old school". :)
Click to expand...



I once got in using my car registration. :lol:


The easiest way though to get in was to bring about 10 girls with you. ;)
 
JasperL said:
I've done it, it's not there, as you know. If you think it's there, take 10 seconds and quote the relevant section or cite the appropriate section of the VA Code.
Click to expand...

It's in this section:
APIS - Underage Drinking: Possession/Consumption/Internal Possession of Alcohol


You have failed yet again to provide where in the Virginia statue minors without a parent or guardian are allowed into Pubs to consume alcohol. Which is why Johnson was attempting to get into the Irish Pub on St. Patricks Day and why he was prevented from enterying by the bouncer who's upholding the Virginia State law which states entrants must be 21 to enter and drink.

The other thing is you keep stressing prior to 10 pm. Well... your own link (remember this link you provided?)
The Cavalier Daily :: Johnson's warrant of arrest shows two misdemeanor charges

States this occurred at 04:14 am. Oopsie! :lamo


Johnson.jpg
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
The bar/restauraunt has a policy of all ages until 10pm, you can't make the assumption he was trying to buy alchohol illegally. Nor is his being turned away after a cordial conversation "reasonable suspicion" to detain.
Click to expand...

It was after 12:15 though when he tried to get in. If this was the established policy, then why didn't they know it? Heck, what college kid thinks a pub will let those underage in past a certain time at night?

Of course, if the owner is claiming he didn't look at either the photo or age, then he should probably get in trouble for not actually doing his job either. It indicates that if the kid had told him the correct zip code on the ID, then he would have let him in despite the policy itself. I don't completely believe the press release from the business either though because it sounds funny that he wouldn't check the age but question the zip. That just doesn't seem right.
 
roguenuke said:
Oh, I am well aware. I have taken a few semesters of criminal justice courses and reasonable suspicion is well established as the first/lowest level required for official police interaction, how it can be used to reasonably detain a suspect. If he had just cooperated and calmly and respectfully explained the issue, they would have had no reason to detain him further. So what happened after the initial contact with the officers? Why did they arrest him if his ID was valid? And the fact that he didn't have his ID out then (someone was saying he was getting it out) suggests that he was refusing to show the officers his ID card. That is where the issue is if he actually refused to show ID/cooperate with the police while they were investigating him.
Click to expand...

You've assumed, contrary to reports of bystanders, that we was NOT cooperating with the ABC agents. He was cordial with the bar owner, didn't appear drunk, is a student leader, member of the honor committee, clearly has a history of respecting authority, and somehow a kid who had NO history of bad interactions with policy suddenly finds himself on the ground with a bloodied face. It's at least very possible (very LIKELY in my view) the failure here was by ABC agents with a fairly recent history of being heavy handed in entirely inappropriate circumstances....

BTW, if his ID was invalid, why didn't they charge him with that obvious crime? No one has alleged he presented one or possessed one.

As I've consistently said, it is much better and less likely to cause injuries or death to simply cooperate with the police rather than being rude or uncooperative, as many we've seen have been. Fight it in court, where you have a much better chance of winning.
Click to expand...

That's fine, and that's how I try to interact with police, but as a free person, you're not actually obligated to be courteous or even cooperative to police interrogating you for BS reasons. Failure to show proper subservience is simply NOT a license to take you down, put you in handcuffs, arrest you and bloody your face, and I don't see why any community should treat that as acceptable.
 
Ockham said:
It's in this section:
APIS - Underage Drinking: Possession/Consumption/Internal Possession of Alcohol
Click to expand...

Again, quote from that link or cite the VA Code. You've done it before. I know, and you know, why you're not doing it here - this mythical section does not exist. I guess you think you're fooling someone, but it's not me your fooling.... ;)

You have failed yet again to provide where in the Virginia statue minors without a parent or guardian are allowed into Pubs to consume alcohol. Which is why Johnson was attempting to get into the Irish Pub on St. Patricks Day and why he was prevented from enterying by the bouncer who's upholding the Virginia State law which states entrants must be 21 to enter and drink.
Click to expand...

He was upholding bar POLICY. If you want to cite the Virginia State law, do it. You cannot.

And you're assuming, without evidence, he might have intended to drink a green beer if admitted.

The other thing is you keep stressing prior to 10 pm. Well... your own link (remember this link you provided?)
The Cavalier Daily :: Johnson's warrant of arrest shows two misdemeanor charges

States this occurred at 04:14 am. Oopsie! :lamo
Click to expand...

Bar policy is 10pm. Not a law. There's a difference.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
But no one has even said Johnson resisted interrogation. The worst I've read is an agent had him by the elbow and he wrenched his elbow out of his grasp - that's what earned the take down and bloodied face. It's my view that is a overreach and a failure on their part - they turned what should have been a routine encounter into an arrest, of a person whose only crime was dealing somehow inappropriately, but without any force, with ABC agents. I can't believe they've been trained to take down individuals in those circumstances, and I can't believe anyone would think they did their job well in that circumstance.
Click to expand...

He yanked his elbow out from the grasp can be resisting arrest. And there is no indication that he wasn't being uncooperative. He didn't have his ID card out. Why wouldn't he have already had it out if he was cooperating?
 
JasperL said:
You've assumed, contrary to reports of bystanders, that we was NOT cooperating with the ABC agents. He was cordial with the bar owner, didn't appear drunk, is a student leader, member of the honor committee, clearly has a history of respecting authority, and somehow a kid who had NO history of bad interactions with policy suddenly finds himself on the ground with a bloodied face. It's at least very possible (very LIKELY in my view) the failure here was by ABC agents with a fairly recent history of being heavy handed in entirely inappropriate circumstances....

BTW, if his ID was invalid, why didn't they charge him with that obvious crime? No one has alleged he presented one or possessed one.



That's fine, and that's how I try to interact with police, but as a free person, you're not actually obligated to be courteous or even cooperative to police interrogating you for BS reasons. Failure to show proper subservience is simply NOT a license to take you down, put you in handcuffs, arrest you and bloody your face, and I don't see why any community should treat that as acceptable.
Click to expand...

"Didn't appear drunk" is not the same as "hadn't been drinking". And they had a valid reason to interact with him, whether he wanted to believe it to be or not. Their questioning him (interrogation is completely different) is not unreasonable in any way and not cooperating is generally considered probable cause to arrest a person, depending on the level of non-cooperation.
 
roguenuke said:
It was after 12:15 though when he tried to get in. If this was the established policy, then why didn't they know it? Heck, what college kid thinks a pub will let those underage in past a certain time at night?

Of course, if the owner is claiming he didn't look at either the photo or age, then he should probably get in trouble for not actually doing his job either. It indicates that if the kid had told him the correct zip code on the ID, then he would have let him in despite the policy itself. I don't completely believe the press release from the business either though because it sounds funny that he wouldn't check the age but question the zip. That just doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...

Once a person gets the zip code wrong, he rejects the ID, and what it says about the person's age is no longer relevant. He'd be in trouble if he was caught ACCEPTING Ids from persons who can't correctly cite the info on them, as it would indicate the possibility they're fake or otherwise invalid. Johnson's mistake was understandable as well. Neither party did a thing wrong, but Johnson ended up on the ground with a bloodied face....
 
roguenuke said:
As I've consistently said, it is much better and less likely to cause injuries or death to simply cooperate with the police rather than being rude or uncooperative, as many we've seen have been. Fight it in court, where you have a much better chance of winning.
Click to expand...

I would much rather not go to the police station at all. If they want my cooperation they should have asked me if I accept their authority over me in the first place. I don't, so you know, good luck to them getting anything from me. I know, I know, my view is childish to you, but you know what, people that go around assaulting people and assuming their authority over others are not people I respect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom