Remember Chicken Steve?

[Joe Guy]

"I'd bet" is not an actual basis for either traffic code or criminal culpability; there has to be some actual statute defining the elements of the offense in order to charge anyone with anything.

The man was drinking a beer while operating a machine on a public road. Even if it is legal to drive a scissor lift on a public road, any police officer that's doing his job and sees someone drinking and operating a vehicle on a public road should make sure the man is sober. In the video, drunk Steve is asked twice by the officer to come down and talk to him and he says, "we'll get you back to work". Then Steve starts bouncing up and down. I suppose at that point officer SueU would have said, "Have a nice day. Don't drink too much."

If you can't drive a car on the road that's actually built for the roadways when it has no brake lights or some other violation, it seems that unless there are legal exemptions for scissor lifts being driven on a public road by someone with an open container of alcohol, there are likely many places that it would not be allowed.

You have it exactly backwards. Freedom to engage in any conduct -- including use of public roadways -- is generally available unless there is some law that limits or otherwise regulates it. Automobiles and trucks are subject to the equipment regulations concerning autos and trucks. Bicycles and bicyclists are subject to whatever regulations govern bicycling -- which are not the same as those governing autos and trucks, although both use the same roadways. All manner of construction, landscaping and other "vehicles" are operated on public roadways, many of which require nothing more than a red triangle or other emblem indicating a "slow-moving vehicle." But failing to have such an emblem -- or to ride a bike without a helmet or on the sidewalk or whatever -- doesn't subject the operator to arrest.

Does that 'freedom to engage in any conduct' include drinking alcohol while operating a construction vehicle on a public road?

No, it's my opinion that a police officer shouldn't automatically resort to maximal coercive force when confronted with a minor and legally questionable "infraction."

He didn't "resort to maximal coercive force" until the drunk challenged him.

Yes, he was acting like a goofball. And he was drinking beer and his scissor lift was stocked with more beer.

Yes, and so what?

So the cop did his job.

And then literally ONE MINUTE into the interaction the officer threatens physical violence requiring a trip to the hospital followed by detention in jail. Is that your opinion of a totally appropriate police response?

I laughed out loud when Steve said, "Don't fuck up my beer now!"

I guess that answers my last question, then. Good luck with your civil rights.

Thank you for the work you do. Seriously.

Besides being a potentially drunk driver, the guy shouldn't have been drinking while at work operating machinery.

Not any of the cop's business.

It was the cop's business when the drunk was on a public road. That's the basis of our disagreement.

Do you always go on to spend the rest of the day drinking to excess if you' ve had a beer at lunch? Maybe he was going to put that case of beer in the trunk of his car at the worksite to take home. Maybe he was going to give beers to his co-workers. Maybe it wasn't even his. You have no idea. And neither did the cop.

To answer your question, there were times when I was young when I drank beer at lunch and continued into the night. Especially on a Friday if my boss sent me out on a scissor lift to buy beer. All the other maybes you wrote are possibilities but also unknown. All we know is Steve was drinking and acting silly while operating a potentially dangerous machine on a public road.

Sure, it would be fun to challenge it in court, and there are bases for such a challenge (including your second point re whether the jack is a motor vehicle), but the courts have pretty much upheld many things on a DUI which would into be sufficient if it were a criminal matter.

And if it's not technically a DUI, that wouldn't mean the drunk wasn't a danger to himself and others in public.

We could argue forever about the technicalities of what offense if any may have been committed and whether the proofs would hold up in court. But that completely misses the point of my complaint here: If public safety were really the primary focus of policing, the cop could have resolved this extremely minor situation in a variety of other ways that did not require the excessive time, the needless public and personal costs, and the unnecessary burden on judicial and penal resources that go with the arrest here. But as I said, this cop has only one tool in his kit, and it is emblematic of what is wrong with policing in this country. Moreover, the fact that so many fail to even question the cop's conduct and even attempt to justify it as perfectly reasonable seems to me an indicator of submission to --if not a full embrace of -- authoritarianism and a police state.

The officer tried several times to get drunk acting Steve to cooperate without threatening to use physical force. Steve even challenged the officer to come and get him. I doubt that particular police force has Social Workers on call for situations like that one.

The officer's 'hospital' comment was wrong and if he did beat the guy into submission, that would have been wrong too and I wouldn't have put this thread in the 'Laffs' forum. At least not that part of it.

[Bicycle Bill]

You know, the "stop at the hospital" remark doesn't automatically mean the cop was going to rough up the guy.  It might have merely been a reference to stopping to do a blood draw for the BAC test.

According to the law, if they suspect the breathalyzer or the field sobriety tests may be a little weak or questionable, police can request a blood sample for testing and use this as evidence in court, should it come to that.

But that don't fit with the "fuck da pigs" mentality that some of you are starting to display more and more frequently.

-"BB"-

[Joe Guy]

Good gravy Marie, you people do know how to squeeze the humor right out of a joke. Steve Jessup is known for these types of videos and I am quite sure it is not an actual legal incident, with no actual police involved. Lawyers

@W went and ruined a great discussion...

Oh well....

[Big RR]

You know, the "stop at the hospital" remark doesn't automatically mean the cop was going to rough up the guy.  It might have merely been a reference to stopping to do a blood draw for the BAC test.

According to the law, if they suspect the breathalyzer or the field sobriety tests may be a little weak or questionable, police can request a blood sample for testing and use this as evidence in court, should it come to that.

But that don't fit with the "fuck da pigs" mentality that some of you are starting to display more and more frequently.

-"BB"-

This may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what constitutes exigent circumstances, but generally a warrant is required to compel a blood test unless the person consents (as I recall, there was USSC opinion on this).

[Sue U]

Good gravy Marie, you people do know how to squeeze the humor right out of a joke. Steve Jessup is known for these types of videos and I am quite sure it is not an actual legal incident, with no actual police involved. Lawyers

https://iknowmyrights.com/videos

Oh, well, that's all right, then.

[Big RR]