• 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

Within 6 hours of the actual incident. The incident happened at 12:30, not 4 something when the arrest happened. They had to take him to the hospital first.

Good point. I hoped they kept this belligerent drunk shackled and under guard at the ED, to keep the medical staff safe.....
 
They still never got to see his age was wrong. If he was protesting the zip code not being accepted, then why not point out that he was underage if he wasn't trying to use the ID to get into someplace he knew wouldn't let him in underage? This is why there are problems with the explanations given. If you are being carded, using your real ID that you know shows you are underage, wouldn't you wonder why the guy was checking IDs to begin with and not accepting yours based on your zip code rather than your actual age?

But so long as no one ever mentioned that the ID said he was underage, there is no reason for the LEO to not suspect that the ID said he was of drinking age but fake.



Often you can get into places underage, they but a wrist band on those of age.
 
How do we know that wasn't taken and submitted as evidence and simply not released or posted with the other information? We don't know that it wasn't taken and showed he had a BAC.



because the ABC police would have let that leak or reported that ASAP to save the cops asses, plus if it was taken, and it showed a BAC it would have to be listed.
 
Yeah, OK, but that night the ABC agents would have "reasonable suspicion" to detain and question half the people on the street that night for breaking some law - either publicly intoxicated or underage drinking. They'd need a big f'ing jail to hold all the actual criminals (drunks, underage drinkers) out that night and on lots of party nights at UVA - thousands of criminals. If that's the kind of policing you want, we can agree to disagree.

Not necessarily. It is quite possible that many of the underage students simply decided to stay home/on campus and drink there or decided to go somewhere that they knew they could get in. Or perhaps they actually did have a fake ID that said they were of age and they knew the information on the card. Smart people trying to use a fake ID would know the information on the card. And they don't have to take all the kids in that are caught drinking underage. They could simply issue a citation to the kid or the business that they got the alcohol from.
 
because the ABC police would have let that leak or reported that ASAP to save the cops asses, plus if it was taken, and it showed a BAC it would have to be listed.

They don't have to at all. And it could easily be claimed they are trying to persuade the public to view the kid as a thug or something. Look what happened when such a thing was done in Ferguson. Officers/departments are "damned if they do, damned if they don't" in these types of situations.
 
Often you can get into places underage, they but a wrist band on those of age.

But not in this place. And they were still checking IDs, but the kid couldn't give his correct zip. This is an indication of a fake ID, hence why the owner was using it. That would also then give the officer a reasonable suspicion that the ID was fake.
 
Good point. I hoped they kept this belligerent drunk shackled and under guard at the ED, to keep the medical staff safe.....

Belligerent doesn't mean violent necessarily. But that doesn't mean he wasn't trying to resist arrest.
 
Not necessarily. It is quite possible that many of the underage students simply decided to stay home/on campus and drink there or decided to go somewhere that they knew they could get in. Or perhaps they actually did have a fake ID that said they were of age and they knew the information on the card. Smart people trying to use a fake ID would know the information on the card. And they don't have to take all the kids in that are caught drinking underage. They could simply issue a citation to the kid or the business that they got the alcohol from.

The point is on a college campus, on a night like that, there are thousands of law breakers. I don't want cops harassing kids for trivial drinking violations. If you think it's appropriate for ABC to stop and question anyone who might be underage and drinking or who might have a fake ID or who might be drunk and then tackle and bloody and arrest and cart to jail anyone who puts up the least pushback, that's fine. I don't agree.

Pretty simple basic difference of opinion.
 
They don't have to at all. And it could easily be claimed they are trying to persuade the public to view the kid as a thug or something. Look what happened when such a thing was done in Ferguson. Officers/departments are "damned if they do, damned if they don't" in these types of situations.


Let me ask you honestly, do you think it possible the ABC cops in this case acted outside the law?
 
But not in this place. And they were still checking IDs, but the kid couldn't give his correct zip. This is an indication of a fake ID, hence why the owner was using it. That would also then give the officer a reasonable suspicion that the ID was fake.



How would the kid know? how does that turn into reasonable suspicion? Do the ABC police say why they stopped him in the first place?
 
Let me ask you honestly, do you think it possible the ABC cops in this case acted outside the law?

Yes, if they tackled him without provocation or refusal to cooperate from him. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be like so many others and automatically assume that the ABC cops are wrong here and that this kid wasn't drinking or refusing to cooperate with the police. Regardless, they did have reasonable suspicion to at least stop the kid to verify his ID was not fake.
 
How would the kid know? how does that turn into reasonable suspicion? Do the ABC police say why they stopped him in the first place?

It doesn't matter if the kid knew that they had reasonable suspicion, which is why you cooperate with the cops, any cops, to the highest extent reasonable because if they have a reasonable suspicion of something, it might be wrong, but they get the benefit of the doubt. Fight it in court, not with the cops on the street.
 
It doesn't matter if the kid knew that they had reasonable suspicion, which is why you cooperate with the cops, any cops, to the highest extent reasonable because if they have a reasonable suspicion of something, it might be wrong, but they get the benefit of the doubt. Fight it in court, not with the cops on the street.

We don't know he "fought" the throngs of witnesses seem to indicate that didn't happen./
 
Yes, if they tackled him without provocation or refusal to cooperate from him. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be like so many others and automatically assume that the ABC cops are wrong here and that this kid wasn't drinking or refusing to cooperate with the police. Regardless, they did have reasonable suspicion to at least stop the kid to verify his ID was not fake.


What was the reasonable suspicion? Overhearing part of a conversation that had a rational explaination is not reasonable suspicion.

lets say the kid was drinking, what justice was served by the selective enforcement? Who was harmed? who was the victim?
 
We don't know he "fought" the throngs of witnesses seem to indicate that didn't happen./

We know he resisted (it is actually obvious from the video that he put up some resistance in them cuffing him at the least once he was on the ground). The witnesses are mainly his friends and others students so far who generally are not always reliable in accurately determining "resistance". Refusing to cooperate with police in an investigation, which starts with that "reasonable suspicion", is "fighting". Resisting arrest is "fighting".
 
What was the reasonable suspicion? Overhearing part of a conversation that had a rational explaination is not reasonable suspicion.

lets say the kid was drinking, what justice was served by the selective enforcement? Who was harmed? who was the victim?

Overhearing a conversation that a bouncer/ID checker refused to accept a driver's license as evidence of age is reasonable suspicion that the ID might be fake. No judge would disagree with that. Asking to see that ID, verify it is in fact real, not fake, is a perfectly acceptable response to that legitimate reasonable suspicion.
 
We know he resisted (it is actually obvious from the video that he put up some resistance in them cuffing him at the least once he was on the ground).

We don't know what happened before this, he was already bloody.

The witnesses are mainly his friends and others students so far who generally are not always reliable in accurately determining "resistance". Refusing to cooperate with police in an investigation, which starts with that "reasonable suspicion", is "fighting". Resisting arrest is "fighting".


so, the THRONGS of witnesses can't be trusted.
 
Overhearing a conversation that a bouncer/ID checker refused to accept a driver's license as evidence of age is reasonable suspicion that the ID might be fake.

Is this what happened? Did they overhear the conversation? If they were that close, why not ask them there?

or were they not in ear shot and observe the refusal to entry?




No judge would disagree with that. Asking to see that ID, verify it is in fact real, not fake, is a perfectly acceptable response to that legitimate reasonable suspicion.



I think we will find out who's right on this. ;)
 
Yes, if they tackled him without provocation or refusal to cooperate from him. But that doesn't mean I'm going to be like so many others and automatically assume that the ABC cops are wrong here and that this kid wasn't drinking or refusing to cooperate with the police. Regardless, they did have reasonable suspicion to at least stop the kid to verify his ID was not fake.

It seems to me the big difference of opinion is what kind of "non-cooperation" justifies getting tackled, and bloodied, and arrested and carted to jail. Based on what we know, I can't see any way to conclude the ABC appropriately used force against a kid who was, moments earlier, rational, calm, polite, and showed no signs of being intoxicated.

If they ask to see my ID, do I have an obligation to IMMEDIATELY submit to their authority? If I say, "Why the f'k are you hassling me?" is that enough to take me to the ground, and arrest me and cart me to jail for obstruction of justice? It appears that's the level of is "resistance" here - maybe he wrenched his elbow out of the agent's grasp. Worthy of take down and arrest? I just can't see it.

The problem here and in all such encounters is the encounter itself, not dealing somehow appropriately with the cops, creates a "crime" even when the person wasn't otherwise doing anything wrong. It is IMO an invitation for abuse of authority. Those who do not submit meekly to authority become criminals by not submitting meekly to authority. We can all maybe agree that doing so is a good STRATEGY, but I can't accept that's our OBLIGATION as a free person to do so.
 
Last edited:
This thread reminds me of this quote. The subject matter is different, but the reasons are just as stupid.

Government: If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be
confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested.
If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against
clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of
Law. -- Edward Abbey
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom