• 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

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.... ;)
Sorry you refuse to read and I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. You're wrong. I've provided links that prove it. I cannot make you acknowledge facts. Your posts seem to want to continue with the fiction and accusation. That's fine. You fail, but that's fine.

He was upholding bar POLICY. If you want to cite the Virginia State law, do it. You cannot.
Already discussed and settled. Drinking age is 21. That's the law. You have provided nothing but an article - it's not only policy it's the law. Sorry you deny facts.

And you're assuming, without evidence, he might have intended to drink a green beer if admitted.
Again, don't insult my intelligence. Please.

Bar policy is 10pm. Not a law. There's a difference.
Yet the charges were at 4:14 am. That just doesn't jive with your 10pm policy BS, that has zero facts to support it. Again, I support you failing to prove your point - in fact it's very amusing at this point. I'm wondering how many times you'll double down on the failure. I suspect another day or two.
 
"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.

Right, it's called obstruction of justice without force. A BS charge if there ever was one.

The question is whether "not cooperating" merits a forcible take down and bloodied face. I can't see that as justified given what we know.
 
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.

According to someone else in this thread, fighting it in court without being rude is "acting like a sheep". Such a view by me is very naive and immature... and what would a ticket by ABC cost if he just listened and took the ticket and went home? Instead, we have video of him cutting his head in a struggle and screaming "racist" at the top of his lungs. :roll:

What a rube this guy is.
 
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....

And if he got the zip code right? The first thing to check should be the age and the picture. There is no reason that someone can't forget they moved and get the zip code wrong. That is stupid and a very stupid reason to reject an ID. What if the person had been of age and forgotten his zip code on the ID? I've been turned away from bars or businesses for some stupid policy like this one. It does discriminate because the point of an ID is to show your face and age. Start with that, then go to the other things if a fake ID is suspected.

His mistake was not cooperating with the police (from what it sounds like). Now, if this isn't the case, and the police really did just tackle him and arrest him for no reason except for him being turned away by a pub, then that is an issue. But that is not what this sounded like. It sounds like people trying to cover for an incident where a college student was drinking or at least trying to drink underage and resisted arrest, getting injured as a result of resisting arrest.

And there is absolutely zero evidence that this had anything to do with his race.
 
Right, it's called obstruction of justice without force. A BS charge if there ever was one.

The question is whether "not cooperating" merits a forcible take down and bloodied face. I can't see that as justified given what we know.

How did he get the actual injury? It isn't hard to get a cut on your head, especially if you are struggling. He was clearly in the video we do have (taken after he injured) trying to keep his wrists from being placed in cuffs. That is resisting in itself.
 
Sorry you refuse to read and I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. You're wrong. I've provided links that prove it. I cannot make you acknowledge facts. Your posts seem to want to continue with the fiction and accusation. That's fine. You fail, but that's fine.

No I'd prefer to drop the subject, I'm just enjoying watching the lengths you'll go to not admit you can't cite any law that makes it a crime to be in the Irish Pub at midnight.

Already discussed and settled. Drinking age is 21. That's the law. You have provided nothing but an article - it's not only policy it's the law. Sorry you deny facts.

Right, the drinking age is 21. But you don't have to be 21 to enter a restaurant/pub, only to drink alcohol on the premises. And the policy of the bar in question is in fact to admit underage patrons at any time before 10pm, and after 10pm on Sunday and Monday nights. Hilarious that you can't admit the obvious here. I guess you're asserting they break the law every day by admitting underage patrons before 10pm? LOL.

Again, don't insult my intelligence. Please.

I'm not insulting your intelligence - I'm pointing out your assumption that he intended to drink is irrelevant. It's not a crime until he either 1) attempts to buy alcohol, or 2) drinks alcohol. Even IF he intended to, that isn't a crime.

Yet the charges were at 4:14 am. That just doesn't jive with your 10pm policy BS, that has zero facts to support it. Again, I support you failing to prove your point - in fact it's very amusing at this point. I'm wondering how many times you'll double down on the failure. I suspect another day or two.

That was the time stamp when the summons was signed and has zero relevance to anything. You've really floundering now.

BTW, the statement from the bar owner puts the incident somewhere around 12:30am.

Trinity Irish Pub Releases Statement on Wednesday's Incident - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sports and Weather

On or about 12:15am, he spoke with Fire Marshall officials as well as ABC agents who were positioned outside the restaurant and closer to the street on University Way.

Sometime shortly thereafter, Martese Johnson, who had been in the line described, stepped up to Mr. Badke and handed him his ID.

See how easy it is to both provide a link AND quote the relevant section? You should try that with your link to drinking laws! It would clear up this misunderstanding.
 
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?

this is policy, not law, nor was his attempted entrance a crime. In fact the bouncer thought he was 21 which is why he asked him his zip code only denying him for getting it wrong. consuming alcohol by a minor is an offense, this was not the case. The police had no reasonable suspicion to detain him.

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.

Again, it was policy not law.

and yes, kids MEMORIZE the date... they tend NOT to memorize the zip. it's a good way to weed em out. ;)
 
And if he got the zip code right? The first thing to check should be the age and the picture. There is no reason that someone can't forget they moved and get the zip code wrong. That is stupid and a very stupid reason to reject an ID. What if the person had been of age and forgotten his zip code on the ID? I've been turned away from bars or businesses for some stupid policy like this one. It does discriminate because the point of an ID is to show your face and age. Start with that, then go to the other things if a fake ID is suspected.

His mistake was not cooperating with the police (from what it sounds like). Now, if this isn't the case, and the police really did just tackle him and arrest him for no reason except for him being turned away by a pub, then that is an issue. But that is not what this sounded like. It sounds like people trying to cover for an incident where a college student was drinking or at least trying to drink underage and resisted arrest, getting injured as a result of resisting arrest.

And there is absolutely zero evidence that this had anything to do with his race.

This is kind of off topic, but if you read the law (I've had to at various times), the bar owner is liable if he accepts a fake ID. So once he's determined that the ID might be fake, there is no legal or operating reason for him to take any risk and accept that ID, especially in a college town, especially when the person is clearly close at best to the legal age limit. Every training manual would DIRECT the bouncer (owner in this case) to reject the ID and refuse admission. There is simply no payoff in accepting it - he can lose his license if it's proved fake, and the downside is one kid doesn't get in the bar. Easy decision for a bar owner in a college town.

And I guess I disagree that there is zero evidence this is about race because it was such a quick turnaround from polite and cordial kid at the pub to forcible tackle and bloodied face, when no one has alleged he swore at them, resisted arrest, etc. I've heard too many black men who I respect and who are professionals talk about Driving While Black or Shopping While Black, and the point is they do not get any benefit of the doubt, but white guys in a college town full of rich kids of important people often DO.

I haven't alleged racism, but I can't at all conclude there's no evidence race played a role. I've lived in Charlottesville and race relations when I was there were poor.
 
No I'd prefer to drop the subject, I'm just enjoying watching the lengths you'll go to not admit you can't cite any law that makes it a crime to be in the Irish Pub at midnight.
Not only have I cited law and fact, the only reason I'm still here is watching how long you want to create fiction.

Since you have nothing new and you admitted you backtracked about ABC officers ILLEGALLY stopped Johnson and now stated ABC officers actions were LEGAL, was the turning point. (Your post #180, my post #195).

Since you also no longer can claim some fiction about 10 pm (since the charges occurred at 04:14 am. from your own link that you posted by the way) your posting fiction there was also shown to be not only unsupported (since you cannot cite any verifiable links) but irrelevant. (Post #218)

Your opinions shown to not reflect facts and law. That's called getting 100% debunked. To avoid such in the future, I'd suggest sticking with facts instead of making up or parroting popular narratives, meant to garner air play on television or youtube. You're welcome. Have a nice night! :2wave:
 
According to someone else in this thread, fighting it in court without being rude is "acting like a sheep". Such a view by me is very naive and immature... and what would a ticket by ABC cost if he just listened and took the ticket and went home? Instead, we have video of him cutting his head in a struggle and screaming "racist" at the top of his lungs. :roll:

What a rube this guy is.

But what you fail to acknowledge is there was basis for any ticket until he wasn't sufficiently subservient to the ABC agents. He did nothing wrong except for failing to show the proper respect to authority.

South_Park_Respect_Authority_Gray_Shirt.jpg
 
But what you fail to acknowledge is there was basis for any ticket until he wasn't sufficiently subservient to the ABC agents. He did nothing wrong except for failing to show the proper respect to authority.

Already addressed: Post #210 which identifies "reasonable suspicion"

:yawn:
 
Not only have I cited law and fact, the only reason I'm still here is watching how long you want to create fiction.

Well, you've cited no law - all you've done is provide a link that doesn't support your claim.

But, hey, if you did cite the law, should be easy to do so again - I'll wait.

Since you have nothing new and you admitted you backtracked about ABC officers ILLEGALLY stopped Johnson and now stated ABC officers actions were LEGAL, was the turning point. (Your post #180, my post #195).

I never claimed it was ILLEGAL. Here's the exchange:

JasperL #177: "the ABC agents had no basis to stop Johnson."
Ockham: #178 "Quote which law prevents ABC from stopping Johnson."
JasperL #179 "I said they had no basis to stop him, not that it was ILLEGAL to stop him. "

If there was a misunderstanding, it was cleared up immediately - you keep hanging onto it for some reason. Odd...

Since you also no longer can claim some fiction about 10 pm (since the charges occurred at 04:14 am. from your own link that you posted by the way) your posting fiction there was also shown to be not only unsupported (since you cannot cite any verifiable links) but irrelevant. (Post #218)

What does 10pm have to do with anything. It was BAR POLICY to only admit those 21 or over after 10pm on the night in question. It happened around 12:30am. The bar properly denied him admittance in accordance with their reasonable policy. I've never objected to that. What I've objected to is your absurd and unsupported claim that it was a CRIME for him to try to be admitted any time after 10pm. It wasn't a crime - at worst he was attempting to circumvent bar POLICY. That's it.

Your opinions shown to not reflect facts and law. That's called getting 100% debunked. To avoid such in the future, I'd suggest sticking with facts instead of making up or parroting popular narratives, meant to garner air play on television or youtube. You're welcome. Have a nice night! :2wave:

This has been amusing.
 
This has been amusing.

We finally agree. Debunking your posts containing fictional narratives regarding Johnson has been amusing.
 
We finally agree. Debunking your posts containing fictional narratives regarding Johnson has been amusing.

I would still like to see that VA Code citation - if you think of it, post it for me and the rest of us under the illusion that underage persons can enter the Trinity Irish Pub legally, like they do before 10pm every day, and on Sundays and Mondays at any time the Pub is open....
 
Even so it's not like the kid's Al Capone. It's a trivial offense.

Which still doesn't mean he shouldn't get stopped if he was breaking the law. Most of these such cases involve something more than "he was just breaking this trivial offense". It almost always involves the person refusing to cooperate with the police when they are gathering information about the offense, then resisting arrest somehow, generally after a more than reasonable amount of time has passed. In this case, we don't really know a lot about what happened in between the kid leaving the pub and the video started. Hell, we don't really even know what happened at the club entrance. We only have the owner's statement, not much else.
 
Which still doesn't mean he shouldn't get stopped if he was breaking the law. Most of these such cases involve something more than "he was just breaking this trivial offense". It almost always involves the person refusing to cooperate with the police when they are gathering information about the offense, then resisting arrest somehow, generally after a more than reasonable amount of time has passed. In this case, we don't really know a lot about what happened in between the kid leaving the pub and the video started. Hell, we don't really even know what happened at the club entrance. We only have the owner's statement, not much else.

Who gives a ****? I don't care about any of that ****. I don't care about people enjoying one thing or another. Oh this minor is drinking lets bring in cops and arrest him. **** that. Any cop that enforces that **** deserves nothing.
 
This is kind of off topic, but if you read the law (I've had to at various times), the bar owner is liable if he accepts a fake ID. So once he's determined that the ID might be fake, there is no legal or operating reason for him to take any risk and accept that ID, especially in a college town, especially when the person is clearly close at best to the legal age limit. Every training manual would DIRECT the bouncer (owner in this case) to reject the ID and refuse admission. There is simply no payoff in accepting it - he can lose his license if it's proved fake, and the downside is one kid doesn't get in the bar. Easy decision for a bar owner in a college town.

And I guess I disagree that there is zero evidence this is about race because it was such a quick turnaround from polite and cordial kid at the pub to forcible tackle and bloodied face, when no one has alleged he swore at them, resisted arrest, etc. I've heard too many black men who I respect and who are professionals talk about Driving While Black or Shopping While Black, and the point is they do not get any benefit of the doubt, but white guys in a college town full of rich kids of important people often DO.

I haven't alleged racism, but I can't at all conclude there's no evidence race played a role. I've lived in Charlottesville and race relations when I was there were poor.

Show evidence that there was a "quick turnaround" and that this "quick turnaround" automatically means race was the reason for the "quick turnaround". I work in retail. There is nothing about being black that gets people targeted by our mainly black loss prevention people. What gets anyone targeted is when they saunter in and look around for cameras, start doing stuff that is suspicious.

The main issue is that people believe that they are being targeted because they are black, instead of actually admitting that perhaps their actions are suspicious.

I have been denied alcohol after turning 21, as well as having to completely change plans because of a bar's stupid policy concerning out of state ID cards. There have been places that refused to accept my military ID as identifying my age. There have been places that refused to accept an out of state ID because it wasn't a license (despite the fact that they look exactly the same with the exception being one says "driver's license" and the other says "identification card" at the top. It sucks a lot to be discriminated against because you happen to have an ID that people are too lazy to actually take the time to look at rather than assuming something obscure will catch those doing the fake ID thing.
 
But what you fail to acknowledge is there was basis for any ticket until he wasn't sufficiently subservient to the ABC agents. He did nothing wrong except for failing to show the proper respect to authority.

They had to determine if there was a basis for the "ticket" first, meaning looking at his ID card to determine if it was fake. They had absolutely a reasonable suspicion that he might have a fake ID card and/or that he might have been drinking already that night. The reasonable suspicion comes from his getting turned away by the pub owner, especially if they had overheard the conversation and the only thing they knew was that the pub owner didn't accept his ID card as valid. This then gave them authority to stop to investigate the potential crime, drinking underage and/or possessing a fake ID. They could have seen evidence he had been drinking or they could have simply asked him to see his ID and he refused for whatever reason. It is also possible that they wrongly jumped the gun and simply assumed he either had the fake ID and/or had been drinking and attacked him without him getting a chance to cooperate. We simply don't know what happened. But there isn't information that they attacked him preemptively, before he refused to cooperate.
 
Show evidence that there was a "quick turnaround" and that this "quick turnaround" automatically means race was the reason for the "quick turnaround". I work in retail. There is nothing about being black that gets people targeted by our mainly black loss prevention people. What gets anyone targeted is when they saunter in and look around for cameras, start doing stuff that is suspicious.

That's what the accounts say - he's stopped, and before anyone knows there's a problem, he's on the ground. That's what the witnesses said. Obviously that might be incorrect, but there is no evidence the encounter took more than a few seconds before he was taken down.

And I didn't say it automatically meant anything. I said I haven't alleged racism. What I cannot do is rule race out of the equation. Racism exists, and when cops overreact to someone who has a long history of being a stand up guy, and respectful of authority, the question is what caused this encounter to go so wrong so quickly. Race is one possibility...

The main issue is that people believe that they are being targeted because they are black, instead of actually admitting that perhaps their actions are suspicious.

Or, maybe in some cases they are targeted because they are black. Goodness, when these things arise, the first defense is there is no racial profiling, and the second is always, of course there is because blacks commit all the crimes. It can't be both. When NYC stopped and frisked people, for example, they targeted young men of color - not white guys in Manhattan. So you have to admit in some cases blacks are targeted because they're young and black. I don't know if that happened here or not - it is possible.

I have been denied alcohol after turning 21, as well as having to completely change plans because of a bar's stupid policy concerning out of state ID cards. There have been places that refused to accept my military ID as identifying my age. There have been places that refused to accept an out of state ID because it wasn't a license (despite the fact that they look exactly the same with the exception being one says "driver's license" and the other says "identification card" at the top. It sucks a lot to be discriminated against because you happen to have an ID that people are too lazy to actually take the time to look at rather than assuming something obscure will catch those doing the fake ID thing.

Those are interesting stories, but the bar owner said his interaction with Johnson was perfectly cordial, he was polite, there was no evidence Johnson was drunk and no evidence he stormed out and started raising hell after being denied entry, properly. The evidence is Johnson was disappointed, and then calmly walked away - that's it. And maybe a minute later he's on the ground, his face bloodied.
 
They had to determine if there was a basis for the "ticket" first, meaning looking at his ID card to determine if it was fake. They had absolutely a reasonable suspicion that he might have a fake ID card and/or that he might have been drinking already that night. The reasonable suspicion comes from his getting turned away by the pub owner, especially if they had overheard the conversation and the only thing they knew was that the pub owner didn't accept his ID card as valid. This then gave them authority to stop to investigate the potential crime, drinking underage and/or possessing a fake ID. They could have seen evidence he had been drinking or they could have simply asked him to see his ID and he refused for whatever reason. It is also possible that they wrongly jumped the gun and simply assumed he either had the fake ID and/or had been drinking and attacked him without him getting a chance to cooperate. We simply don't know what happened. But there isn't information that they attacked him preemptively, before he refused to cooperate.

Except for the witnesses....

What we can pretty much know is his 'non cooperation' was mild - he was explicitly charged with obstruction without force, and that got him a take down and a bloodied face. If you think that's good police work, and appropriate, and should be acceptable to the local community, we simply disagree.

The bottom line is I can easily imagine myself, my brother, many friends, in that situation, and I'm positive if they were innocent of any actual crime, I do not believe I'd accept that as good/appropriate/acceptable police work. If you can imagine yourself or your family getting thrown to the ground because you objected that they had you by the arm, and pulled their arm away, great, we have different opinions. Their job is protecting the public, and enforcing the law, not demanding instant obedience from the people they serve and who have given NO indication they're a threat to anyone.
 
Which still doesn't mean he shouldn't get stopped if he was breaking the law. Most of these such cases involve something more than "he was just breaking this trivial offense". It almost always involves the person refusing to cooperate with the police when they are gathering information about the offense, then resisting arrest somehow, generally after a more than reasonable amount of time has passed. In this case, we don't really know a lot about what happened in between the kid leaving the pub and the video started. Hell, we don't really even know what happened at the club entrance. We only have the owner's statement, not much else.

It's funny - the owner is the person who carded Johnson and interacted with him. That should carry some weight. And his statement is perfectly consistent with all the other witnesses we've heard from, who all indicated there was no problem at the pub, and no problem as he left the pub. What do you need?

This owner has to deal with ABC agents nearly daily. What does it help him to undermine the agents if Johnson was drunk, acting like a thug, disorderly? He's causing problems he doesn't need by lying. So the simple assumption is he's recounting what he saw, accurately. Makes no sense for him to do anything else.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a big fan of underaged drinking. I don't mind a kid having a beer with his parents or for that matter with his family at a park. It's trivial and doesn't harm anyone. However, I think it speaks volumes that trivial situations such as these spin out of control so fast. This kid wasn't driving drunk. He wasn't beating up on other patrons. He wasn't selling drugs. He was a college kid out doing what college kids do. They drink, they party, they waste money and at the end of the night, they go home and post about it on instagram. That the situation go to the point where a minor was bleeding on the floor and adults all over the country began arguing about statutes and laws says far more about just how little sense we have as a country anymore. It's absolutely embarrassing.

This situation could have easily been diffused by talking and simply telling the minor the consequences of his actions if he continued. However, they didn't. Somebody got their feelings hurt and an altercation proceeded. Who? I don't know. I don't know enough about the case, but I know for sure that there is no way this would be the first time these guys dealt with a supposedly drunk minor and handled it without it resulting in violence.
 
Last edited:
What's embarrassing is that a mouthy kid trying to get access to alcohol bumps his head (head wounds bleed profusely) and it's a national story. Really should have only made it as far as the local Pennysaver.
 
The police and ABC are known to be abusive does not excuse their abuse. I saw one article that indicates the sidewalk was spattered with his blood. I saw cellphone video taken after they had him down on the concrete while still in the process of cuffing him in which others were already yelling about his head bleeding. It is not clear to me if his charges is related to being drunk or because he told the officers what they were doing is f-ing racist. Seems a pretty unnecessary use of force to me either way.

A couple of years ago the Va ABC surrounded some college girls in plain clothes and drew guns on them after carrying "what appeared to be a case of beer" whole looking under age, except it was bottled water
 
Back
Top Bottom