The cop didn't say anything. All we have is the statement that was made by the department.
But if the statement is true, that's exactly what happened. Whether or not the teen was or was not using his phone prior to pulling into the drive thru is something the cop will now have to prove in court, should the teen plea not guilty (assuming the process in Canada is the same as the US).
The procedures of pulling an individual over for a traffic violation vary, but it's usually not a situation like you see in the movies where an officer will turn his lights the second he sees someone make a violation. They'll usually follow the vehicle and not turn their light on until they feel they're in an area where the person can safely pull over. This could have been one of those situations, as there really isn't a ton of information about exactly what happened.
Whether the stop was initiated on the road, like the RCMP statement claims, or if the officer's lights weren't turned on until the teen was in the drive-thru, that will be proven by dash cam footage, assuming they have it.
Cops tackling the REAL serious crimes.
Who do you think the department gets their statement from? If they say the kid was being issued a ticket due to what he did on the road rather than the drive through then it's the cop who told the department that.
Exactly. And I'll reiterate, you do know that procedure for making a traffic stop isn't to pull the person over at the exact spot the violation takes place and to do it in an area where it is safe for the driver to pull over, right?
Like the statement said, the officer began the process in the road, and the driver then pulled into the drive through (again, assuming the RCMP statement is true). And the violation was given for using the phone on the road, not in the drive through.
And like I said earlier, I'll believe it once they present proof beyond the cops word.
Not sure why I'm having to repeat myself here.
I think it might be because your stance is ridiculous.
And like I said earlier, I'll believe it once they present proof beyond the cops word.Understandable. But you originally made it sound like you thought the ticket was being issued for using a cell phone in the drive through, not on the road.
Not sure why I'm having to repeat myself here.
What's ridiculous about wanting proof before believing something? Do you think cops don't lie?
What's ridiculous about wanting proof before believing something? Do you think cops don't lie?
Your stance seems to be that the cops are automatically lying unless there is proof otherwise, whereas the teenager is automatically telling the truth unless there is proof otherwiseThis is the entire premise of the judicial system.
This is the entire premise of the judicial system.
Like the statement said, the officer began the process in the road, and the driver then pulled into the drive through (again, assuming the RCMP statement is true).Then the cop should've at least been flashing his lights and giving directions of where to pull off to start the citation.
Its against the law to use hand-held communication (e.g. your phone) and electronic entertainment devices (e.g. DVD player, e-reader) while driving.What about the car stereo?
In fact, simply holding a phone or other device while driving is against the law.
pulled that up, this is canadas law from what I can find. If he was rolling forward (not touching the gas)then he was technically driving still and could have hit someone or something. So going from the wording provided, its fair
This is assuming thats what happened, as opposed to the officer having his lights on the whole time and the teen not noticing it was for him because he was on his phone.
It just seems silly to see someone then tail them for minutes then pull them over and expect them to actually know why they're being pulled over.
Only if you dont know the difference between not guilty and innocent.We presume the driver is innocent. That implies we presume the cop is not telling the truth.
Exactly. And I'll reiterate, you do know that procedure for making a traffic stop isn't to pull the person over at the exact spot the violation takes place and to do it in an area where it is safe for the driver to pull over, right?Except when the cop wants you to pull over on a dark highway and youre arrested for pulling into the next well lit gas station.
Like the statement said, the officer began the process in the road, and the driver then pulled into the drive through (again, assuming the RCMP statement is true). And the violation was given for using the phone on the road, not in the drive through.
Thats not actually the stance that youve presented though.
Your stance seems to be that the cops are automatically lying unless there is proof otherwise, whereas the teenager is automatically telling the truth unless there is proof otherwise.
Thats really shitty.Keys in the ignition is a pretty well-known rule and an important line in the sand to make DUIs more cut and dry.
Had a family member one time have their vehicle break down in the middle of a snowstorm. While waiting for the tow truck he decided to drink some of the six pack he had while sitting there with the heat on. A cop had showed up before the tow truck and he actually received a dui even tho he was sitting in the backseat while drinking the beer bc its considered "driving", if the keys are in the ignition and the car is running.
Keys in the ignition is a pretty well-known rule and an important line in the sand to make DUIs more cut and dry.Thats under the presumption that you can drive the car. If its mechanically broken Ava awaiting a tire truck, youre not driving that vehicle. Then again, I guess you could still put it in neutral and coast down the road. Annnnd there are different levels of break down. Your car could be in limp mode but still drivable.
Thats under the presumption that you can drive the car. If its mechanically broken Ava awaiting a tire truck, youre not driving that vehicle. Then again, I guess you could still put it in neutral and coast down the road. Annnnd there are different levels of break down. Your car could be in limp mode but still drivable.Even if it's broken down now. The fact is the car is on and was driven to it's current location. The cop would have no way of knowing if you were already drinking before it broke down. It's just better not to risk that.
Thats under the presumption that you can drive the car. If its mechanically broken Ava awaiting a tire truck, youre not driving that vehicle. Then again, I guess you could still put it in neutral and coast down the road. Annnnd there are different levels of break down. Your car could be in limp mode but still drivable.That is exactly why it's the hard line rule. To avoid the ambiguity of maybies.
Sounds like your family member is stupid. He seriously couldn't wait till he got home to drink?Theyre not a drunk or anything just had the beer as he was on his way home from work(Worked in nyc but lived upstate). I agree tho drinking while its that cold out isnt smart, as alcohol lowers your body temp. Yet this was way before smart phones so i can see how one or two beers could help pass the time. Its almost below 0* outside what else do you do for a few hours waiting for a tow
What authoritarian shit hole of a country do you live in where you're not innocent until proven guilty?
There is a difference between the state presuming somebody innocent until proven guilty and a bunch of nerds speculating on a message board. That difference being that our views on the case dont actually impact anybodys freedom.Ill be open to the possibility that the person lied once it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
Assuming that the police are lying on the basis that sometime police lie is illogical. We should be open to the possibility that the police have lied, because we know that can happen. We should also be open to the possibility that the person accused of committing a crime has lied, because we know that can happen.
There is a difference between the state presuming somebody innocent until proven guilty and a bunch of nerds speculating on a message board. That difference being that our views on the case dont actually impact anybodys freedom.
Assuming that the police are lying on the basis that sometime police lie is illogical. We should be open to the possibility that the police have lied, because we know that can happen. We should also be open to the possibility that the person accused of committing a crime has lied, because we know that can happen.
I'm open to the possibility that the cops told the truth and I would like proof before I actually believe it. It's perfectly reasonable to have this position. Frankly after how often cops have been caught in lies it's a bit ridiculous to just believe them by default. They've long since lost that trust.Compared to the thousands and thousands of tickets issued that the offender pleads guilty to, or pleads not guilty despite actually being guilty, but negotiates the infraction to something that wont put points on their license.
Our guy should have just shut up about using his phone in the drive-through if the police are claiming he was pulled over from the street into the parking lot.
In 2022, 3,308 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers. Distracted driving accounts for one in every six deadly vehicle accidents.
Yes. I get that a kid pulling up the McDonald's app while in the drive through (assuming he's telling the truth and wasn't also using it while on the road) sounds like a silly thing for a cop to go on a "power trip" about, but let's not pretend that cell phone usage while driving isn't a major problem, or that there's at least a *slight* chance that kid was driving around on the app, placing his order as he was driving to the McDonalds, and that's what the officer observed and ultimately pulled him over for.
Sorry if this kid gets zero sympathy from me and it sounds very "bootlicker" of me to side with the cop, but a friend of my lost their grandfather to a car accident where the person that struck him was distracted by their cell phone.
Still wild to me that the teen admitted he was on his phone, driving through the drive through, and were all STILL saying Fuck this cop unless he can prove the kid was driving while using his phone!
You know cops are bored when.
The section you quoted says he was on his phone before pulling into the Mcdonalds.
Honestly, either party could be in the wrong here and well never know which.
You cant trust people generally when it comes to testimony. Even if they believe theyre telling the truth, they sometimes arent.
Testimony is unreliable, whether it comes from a cop or not.
Still wild to me that the teen admitted he was on his phone, driving through the drive through, and were all STILL saying Fuck this cop unless he can prove the kid was driving while using his phone!
The cop seeing him on the phone before pulling into the drive thru makes sense in that case.
this story made the front page of yahoo. I just saw it. Any of you know was there video or bodycam footage of the stop? if not then what you gonna do?
It's funny you can see the majority of people by the polls think this is BS and then you check the comments and see some of the bootlickers lol
Thankfully cops can't do this in USARight, they just shoot because they claim they thought that the phone was a gun. Feels bad. :(
only in AmericaExcept when its not. ;)
Right, they just shoot because they claim they thought that the phone was a gun. Feels bad. :(
Better solution: Make such apps linked to the device accelerometer and locked-out when not stopped in-place.
.
Except when its not. ;)