Happy 4th of July everyone! I hope everyone enjoys their cookouts, parties, fireworks displays, or whatever else you'll be doing today. It's been awhile since we've had an Around the Pound, so let's get to it as the DBN Dawg celebrates the holidays as well.
In this week's Sunday column, Terry Pluto discusses 15 things that he thinks will happen this season. He always seems to speak to the commonsense fan, because I pretty much agreed with everything he had to say. In fact, many of Pluto's predictions are things that I have brought up in the offseason:
In Pluto's column, he also brings up the fact that fans are buying season tickets less and less. The Browns are looking for constructive suggestions on how to improve your game day atmosphere and ticket packages:
The Browns want to hear from fans about what they can do better on game days, with tickets, etc. Please, don't write, "Win more games." Don't send suggestions about coaching, quarterbacks, etc. This is an attempt to connect with fans about how the Browns can improve on the business side. E-mail: suggestions@clevelandbrowns.com
Pluto will also be speaking on the subject of fans at Brook Park Public Library this Thursday at 7:00 p.m.
I believe the trip occurred in March, but the New York Times has a story on several NFL players going overseas for various reasons. Of the players featured is Joe Thomas, who you can see a picture of in Afghanistan at the link provided. Thomas continued to stay in touch with one of the men (Sgt. Eric Harder) he met over there, going out of his way to send the guy's mother an email:
"I am sure he had no idea what an impact it would have on me, but it was huge," said Harder's mother. "There are those in the spotlight that make sure that no act of kindness goes unnoticed. Not Joe. He wrote me an e-mail with absolutely no expectation to bring glory back to himself. He actually seemed uncomfortable with any praise coming his way."
For Thomas, who has invited Harder to a Browns game this season, it was the least he — or any N.F.L. player — could do.
"There’s no doubt that so many guys in the N.F.L. are giving back," Thomas said. "It’s so much a part of what we do and who we are. And we get just as much satisfaction of giving back in any little way we can, whether it’s Afghanistan, Uganda, Cape Town or maybe it’s just in Berea, Ohio."
0 recs | 441 comments
They may not want to hear it, but that is all that it will take. Become a consistent playoff team, and the Browns could electroshock everyone who enters the stadium, and they will still sell out.
gahnki - July 4, 2010
I disagree making the playoff team every year is not an easy thing to do. I will be happy with a team that is in every game.
Suppa Bob - July 4, 2010
Cheerleaders.
golanbatrac - July 4, 2010
Correction hawt cheerleaders!
Suppa Bob - July 4, 2010
yeah but how miserable would it be for one of those cheerleaders in December when the wind comes whipping off the lake…..Joe Thomas might be able to take that wind chill but i dont think we need to see him in that outfit….
sleepy042 - July 6, 2010
I like UFC better than boxing, but I still can’t seem to get into it. I was also rooting for the other guy, because lesnar is a dick.
Up was a fantastic movie.
I don’t know how I feel about Williams in Batman 3. I don’t feel like his shtick would mesh with the more serious tone of the new batman movies.
notthatnoise - July 4, 2010
Williams has done some incredible serious roles as well. Check out One Hour Photo and Insomnia.
talonk - July 5, 2010
He’s also outdated, in the sense that his notorious roles took place years ago. In the finite realm of the public conscious, he has probably faded away from most people’s memory.
gahnki - July 5, 2010
or worlds greatest dad…brilliant movie.
bross09 - July 7, 2010
Robin Williams would be a great Penguin. Too bad the main antagonist is the Riddler. All Pixar movies are great IMO. I love looking for their Easter Eggs too.
SpecialBrownie - July 4, 2010
Toy Story 3 was excellent.
gahnki - July 4, 2010
Yes.
TheRealSlimShady - July 5, 2010
I went with a friend who is a huge Disney freak. I cried three times:
1. She was crying, and I was laughing at her so much I was crying.
2. (Karma?) When the toys all held hands
3. When Andy gave away all of his toys to Bonnie
Did anyone notice that at the shot of the toy chest in the corner there’s a sticker of a Clemson football helmet and it says “Go Tigers!”? Pretty awesome!
emily522 - July 5, 2010
Yep, I posted that over at Shakin’ The Southland.
gahnki - July 5, 2010
It’s a Pixar Easter Egg haha.
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
I was angry when Lesnar won. He is 265 pounds of Douchebag
TheRealSlimShady - July 4, 2010
He should be on Doucheoff.
Doucheoff!
SpecialBrownie - July 4, 2010
Barats and Bereta are always great.
TheRealSlimShady - July 5, 2010
Brock just came back from an illness that could’ve killed him and he defended his title to one of the toughest heavyweights that the UFC could put up against him. I don’t see where you go calling him a douchebag. The guy is cocky and arrogant, which may make some people mad, yes. But, he is one of the most entertaining UFC fighters out there right now. That pay per view will probably end up being one of the most watched UFC events ever as well, mostly because of Brock being in the main event.
Big Ben is who I’d call a douchebag, for the record. Not Brock Lesnar.
Big Daddy Hickman - July 4, 2010
no, if you watched Lesner’s last title match, you know why he’s a douchebag. going through a life-threatening illness does not give you a free pass on douchebaggery.
Big Ben is a douche (in part) because he’s cocky and arrogant. same with Lesner.
notthatnoise - July 4, 2010
Exactly. Just being good doesn’t keep him from being a douche.
TheRealSlimShady - July 5, 2010
Only douches get a full sized sword tattooed on their chest.
Do you know what makes the PPV fight with him so popular? Because he’s good? Nope. Because he’s a douche.
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
he knows that too. he may not be acting the same as when he was in WWE, but he’s still playing a character to some degree.
notthatnoise - July 5, 2010
Brock being cocky got him into the spotlight. If he was a douche, he woulda lost when he had his chance, but he didn’t. And Mr.-sword-tattoo-on-the-chest has defended his title twice now. Douchebags don’t win by submitting their opponents either.
All character from Brock that you see on tv aside, to come back from being close to death like he did, and retaining the heavyweight championship, the dude deserves to be champion.
Big Daddy Hickman - July 5, 2010
You can be a champion but still be a douche.
TheRealSlimShady - July 5, 2010
So, the cure to being a douche is almost dieing? If he came back from that experience a better man, then yes, but I don’t see it. Also, I don’t see how being a champion is also the cure to being a douche. Douches can die and be champions bub.
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
winning doesn’t make you less of a douche.
notthatnoise - July 5, 2010
In almost all causes, it increases the douchebaggery.
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
Brock Lesnar overcoming his illness to return to the octagon is a feat.
That feat doesn’t mean that he still isn’t an ass.
Go back on Lesnar. He broke another wrestlers neck in the WWE because he didn’t think the guy was “selling” his moves well enough. Video.
Then the way he acted after beating Mir, a guy who didn’t act like a complete ass clown when he beat Lesnar, was the icing on the cake for a complete tool.
Bernie19Kosar - July 5, 2010
Happy Indepedence Day. I hope everyone is able to enjoy this day in peace and joy.
Joe Thomas has the potential to be an all-time great Cleveland Brown – definitely the greatest of the current incarnation of the Browns. We need to win a Super Bowl for this guy. I feel bad for Ozzie and Clay not ever making it to the big one – it can’t happen to Joe.
Up is a remarkable movie. Watch the DVD extras; I got a deeper appreciation of the movie from the extras; moreso than other DVDs.
Robin Williams can bring home a great performance. I think he made Good Will Hunting what it is: when I watch that movie again I realize most of the lines and story is rather trite, except for Robin Williams delivering his lines.
Batman 3 will be very interesting. I suspect every actor will pay homage to Heath Ledger; and I believe Robin Williams would bring a unique and thoughtful performance.
How many days to TC?!?!?
Spidey - July 4, 2010 via mobile
Joe Thomas is an inspiration, Up was a fantastic movie, and Robin Williams would play a fine villain, not everything he does is shtick.
North Coast Flea - July 4, 2010
I just think he’s too recognizable, and he’s been comic relief in almost every movie he’s done.
If he were in the movie, it would ruin the immersion, because all of the sudden you would be like, “look, robin williams,” not “look, the penguin.”
notthatnoise - July 4, 2010
I remember a lot of talk that Heath was “too recognizable” before The Dark Knight came out, though.
Adrock2099 - July 5, 2010
Heath Ledger was not nearly as recognizable as Robin Williams, and they slapped a ton of make-up on him.
notthatnoise - July 5, 2010
Was there not a bit of “look, there’s ledger he just died and this role might have had a huge effect on his mental state,” not “look, the joker?”
Also, although i’m not a huge fan of his, Williams has done more than just comic relief.
Villeslgr - July 5, 2010
yes that did exist, but it wasn’t on purpose. They didn’t cast ledger knowing he would die. If they cast williams, that would be with the knowledge that he would break the immersion
notthatnoise - July 5, 2010
It’s too bad Laurence Olivier is dead. We need someone serious to play the frickin’ Riddler!
golanbatrac - July 5, 2010
Jim Carrey?
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
Not serious enough. We need someone who will lend an air of respectability to our juvenile power fantasies. We need someone with a title.
golanbatrac - July 5, 2010
Bale could pull a Mike Myers and play both the Antagonist and Protagonist.
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
Bale doesn’t have a title, so no. And if we were going in that direction, I’d be far more comfortable with Iggy Pop in both lead roles.
golanbatrac - July 5, 2010
Brilliant Idea.
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
Sir Elton John is really the only answer here.
gahnki - July 6, 2010
If the good Sir is going to play any comic book villain it has to be Dr. Octopus.
North Coast Flea - July 6, 2010
golanbatrac - July 6, 2010
I have never really thought about this before, but that is a crazy resemblance!!!!
Kimble_79 - July 6, 2010
I think he was joking as Carrey has already played the Riddler before, in the previous Batman series.
talonk - July 6, 2010
Sir Anthony Hopkins.
JustBob - July 6, 2010
I wouldn’t mind Johnny Depp being the Riddler, but I probably like him more than you guys because he is from my town.
TheRealSlimShady - July 5, 2010
Johnny Depp has the amazing ability to act the hell out of almost any part, regardless of difficulty. He’d be a great Riddler.
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
I would be 100% on board with this.
I would also like Philip Seymour Hoffman as Penguin.
notthatnoise - July 6, 2010
Depp is a great actor…I would love to see him as riddler even though I am not certain he would pull it off amazingly (for his standards)
bross09 - July 7, 2010
I think they screwed up when they didn’t kill the joker off. Are they saying the mastermind just called it a day and went back home?
The naome40 - July 6, 2010 via mobile
maybe they’re going to just have him in the asylum permanently.
notthatnoise - July 6, 2010
he escapes and has facial surgery or something so that they can cast a new actor in his role
Villeslgr - July 6, 2010
considering its a comic book movie, that is not outside the realm of possibility.
notthatnoise - July 6, 2010
Not to change the subject from your conversation above, and not only to NTN, but has anybody went and seen the new Twilight Movie? I’m wondering if its worth paying to see it in the theater?
Kimble_79 - July 6, 2010
My mom and sister liked it.
golanbatrac - July 6, 2010
I think those books are bad for children. This goes beyond the usual Twilight hate, I think those books (and movies) teach kids that abusive relationships are ok.
notthatnoise - July 6, 2010
And Batman teaches kids that facism is okay.
golanbatrac - July 6, 2010
Well this is DBN, where apparently, Hitler, ‘did some good things’
Villeslgr - July 6, 2010
A bit dated, but still funny:
Link
golanbatrac - July 6, 2010
I love that.
emily522 - July 7, 2010
Really? I think that people look way too much into those things and that the movie was never trying to portray that at all. Like the whole “gay” teletubby from a few years back.
Kimble_79 - July 6, 2010
I read the first half of the first book. I had to stop. But I know what happens in all the books, and Edward’s really controlling and pretty much abusive.
emily522 - July 6, 2010
Yuhp.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
This is a textbook abusive relationship, and it’s the type of relationship millions of young girls aspire to now.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
I guess I just take a movie for what it is…a movie. To each their own, I just don’t look that far into them other than entertainment
Kimble_79 - July 7, 2010
but you have to admit that popular culture influences society. Millions of young girls want a relationship like this now, an abusive one. that is real harm being caused by something that’s just a movie.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Yes I do admit there is an influence on some I suppose. That could be said for every action movie ever made though. I just take it for what its worth…a movie made for entertaining me for a few hours.
Kimble_79 - July 7, 2010
the difference is no action movie has affected our culture the way twilight has.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
By the way, just for the record, I’m with you about pulling over teenagers without cause. If their is cause, fine…if their is not, then don’t. Period
Kimble_79 - July 7, 2010
thank you.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
I once attacked a mall Santa Claus after watching Die Hard.
gahnki - July 7, 2010
Ditto.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
I agree and it makes them think there is some false reality where all these romances happen…
twihards are often completely out of touch with reality.
bross09 - July 7, 2010
Twilight sucks. The end.
emily522 - July 6, 2010
I saw it with my g/f and Eclipse surprising does not. Way too much kissing and awkward sex scenes though.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
But to clarify, the books suck. I will not read them as I have already been told the completely obvious story line.
I’m amazed Emily is a girl and is able to break the Twilight curse.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
Haha. I thought it was going to be such a great book because everyone was talking about it, but I was so disappointed. Thankfully my roommate doesn’t like it either. Most of my friends do.
Stephenie Meyer can’t write at all. On Sparknotes, they have this “Blogging Twilight” section and this one guy reads each chapter and rips the entire series apart. It’s hilarious.
Basically, Bella’s a whiny Mary Sue and Edward’s a 108 year old trapped in the body of a 17 year old. Why doesn’t anyone else I know find this creepy?
emily522 - July 6, 2010
Bella is the character that every girl says they are. Mysterious, misunderstood, in an uncomfortable area and looking for someone who understands. So original. Jacob and Edward are luxurious men, muscular, smart and caring. Both care for her and understand her. Their animal abilities are just the driving force in the book, nothing more. Once again, so original.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
Haha!
emily522 - July 6, 2010
Bella is just an empty shell of a character, with no personality. This makes it easy for girls to project themselves onto her, and is in part why the novel was so successful. The author never even describes what she looks like.
Those books are no better than truck stop romance novels.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Ding ding ding!
Actually, I think that Bella’s described as the way Stephenie Meyer looks. Creepy.
emily522 - July 7, 2010
I totally agree. My sister and her group of friends have broken the curse just like you…It is not as unanimous as SB makes out out to be, though it is scarily conforming…
I agree about meyer…Meyer is to writing novels as what Jason Cole is to sports columns (look back at what has been said here about him)
bross09 - July 8, 2010
so the action scenes are worth the theater price then?
Kimble_79 - July 7, 2010
Arkham Asylum is an integral part of the Batman lore. It’s really the Joker’s natural home.
gahnki - July 6, 2010
It’s also a pretty cool videogame.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
there is a good portion he has done with serious roles though, but these don’t get payed attention to as much.
bross09 - July 7, 2010
So we spent our number one draft pick on a nickelback instead of Jimmy Clausen. You got the coveted Shaun Lauvao, and you dare to claim the right side of the line will be weak. A lot of people thought Evan Moore was pretty hot last year, and now that Watson is here he´s not even a side note? And apparently you seem to think Delhomme will start, I think Colt McCoy will challenge in pre season.
mooncamping - July 5, 2010
1. Pluto doesn’t make the decisions so this is all speculation, albeit solid speculation (and admitted speculation).
2. Haden not walking in to a starting role is a good thing. If Eric Wright had to earn his staring job or felt his job was threatened, he would probably play a lot better. They are trying to make Wright live up to his potential now, and not make the same mistake with Haden of simply giving him a starting job. This is a great move if it happens.
If Haden never becomes a good #1/#1A CB in the league, it will be very dissappointing. He should get the chance to start probably around midseason.
3. Lauvao wasn’t coveted by the people who passed on him in the draft (every team in the league) and he doesn’t play tackle, which is more important to the quality of the right side. Even if he plays and plays well, we could still have major problems protecting if the RT sucks.
4. Watson is better than Moore, but Moore does get a positive mention in the artible.
I know you will probably say a lot of things that don’t make sense to me if you reply to this, but your point about Haden is pretty solid; when you spend the #7 overall pick on a guy, he should be pretty damn good. So I felt a reply was warranted.
rufio - July 5, 2010
Same thought on Haden. I liked the pick, but what concerns me is the fact that when you take a guy in the top 10, you usually expect him to start unless he’s a quarterback. I would like to see if Haden is able to beat Wright for the starting job
dawgtribe - July 5, 2010
I’d guess that Haden will be pushing Brown rather than Wright. Brown at Nickel makes a lot more sense than Wright.
golanbatrac - July 5, 2010
Yes, exactly
HenryDawg - July 7, 2010 via mobile
I wouldn’t worry too much about him not starting right away.
Roger Dorn - July 5, 2010
If Haden really is that much better, he’ll start. I don’t think he will be by game 1. If he’s earned it, fine. But make him earn it.
rufio - July 5, 2010
Haden is exciting, but college exciting. That would transfer to free safety for me, he´s a bit light in the pants and he´s not blazing fast. Good football player though.
Your so called cover corners, Wright and Brown, in this instance, could do alright. But if they don´t run the ball right at our monster linebackers they´re going to have a rough time, because it´s going to get quite physical for them.
The draft went exceptionally well for the Browns. Shawn Lauvao at that spot was a steal just as Montario Hardesty and Colt McCoy were. Maybe a late return for taking the elephants in the room off the board, instilling the climate, that lead to Jimmy Clausen falling out of round one.
I sense that you´ve found a compatriot in Mike Holmgren, in devaluating people, to better suit your losing agenda. I´d take Moore over Watson.
mooncamping - July 6, 2010
On
instead of Jimmy Clausen
TheRealSlimShady - July 5, 2010
Gay.
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
You all would call me a homophobe if I made that comment.
TheRealSlimShady - July 5, 2010
Homophobe.
golanbatrac - July 5, 2010
How?
TheRealSlimShady - July 5, 2010
Your inability to detect humor offends homosexuals.
gahnki - July 5, 2010
I even rec’d that.
TheRealSlimShady - July 5, 2010
you really walked into that one. nice setup golan
dawgtribe - July 6, 2010
If we don’t trade for Sheldon Brown, Haden is a starter in week 1. There is no scenario in which a draft pick (even one taken as high as #7) should automatically start ahead of either Wright or Brown.
I look to Haden passing one of the two on the depth chart by mid-season.
golanbatrac - July 5, 2010
I kinda thought he was a little high at 7 but we got a player and if he don’t start that is saying we got two real good corners ahead of him thus a situation I would not be upset to have.
Suppa Bob - July 5, 2010
Yes, agreed. Let’s also keep in mind who we have under contract for the longest out of those 3. Eric Wright is a free agent after next season.
Roger Dorn - July 5, 2010
meaning it’s in the Browns interest for Haden to be very very good.
Roger Dorn - July 5, 2010
bross09 - July 8, 2010
In case you forgot, the entire NFL passed on Jimmy Clausen in the first round.
Bernie19Kosar - July 5, 2010
UP
Great Movie! The Wilderness Must Be Explored! <—— Hilarious line!
kjc - July 5, 2010
I hope you all had a great 4th. I sure as hell did. ;)
Rogers better not start some crap in the organization. He’ll play DE and he’s gunna like it!!
Brownie's Year - July 5, 2010
Yeah… I didn’t. Speeding ticket (sent to court for third offense of overall tickets (two moving violations and a stupid miscellaneous) and my rear tire blew up right under me. I’m going to work on a donut tomorrow… ughhh.
SpecialBrownie - July 5, 2010
Slow down.
golanbatrac - July 5, 2010
It was 13 over and he got me from a 55 to 45 limit change. I think he clocked me in the 55 and said I was going that fast in the 45. He was profiling me aswell. It was a terrible stop.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
Profiling?
golanbatrac - July 6, 2010
How was he profiling you?
Buckeye Brad - July 6, 2010
First thing he asked me was how many I had to drink (because all teenagers drink), asked if the car was too fast for me (because all teenagers race) and why I was acting extremely nervous (because all teenagers smoke pot). I may have mistakenly used profiling for stereotyping. He was still an extremely rude cop. I don’t care if he had to work July 4th, he shouldn’t be a jackass.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
He was doing his job.
golanbatrac - July 6, 2010
I agree with golan. It sounds like he was just asking the questions that he was supposed to ask you. There is nothing wrong with a cop asking a driver that he pulled over if they were drinking.
It sounds to me like you got caught speeding and are trying to blame it on the cop.
Buckeye Brad - July 6, 2010
No, I did what I did, maybe a bit of fudging on his part but what’s done is done. He did his job in a poor fashion though and worded his questions terribly. He worded them as I was already guilty. And how is asking if a car is too fast for me constitute him doing his job?
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
Weren’t you speeding?
Bernie19Kosar - July 6, 2010
He was asking it from a previous incident. It’s still not a sound thing to say, I think it’s unprofessional, but I suppose it’s neither here nor there anymore.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
no, i agree with you. he had no reason to think you were drinking, and he shouldn’t ask if the car was too fast for you. neither of those things are in his job description, so he is not “just doing his job.”
the remark about the car is just him being a dick.
He should have asked “have you been drinking?” instead of assuming you were drunk and asking how many you had.
“just doing his job” would have been giving you a ticket, telling you to slow down, and moving on. all that other stuff is just him being a douche.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
You’re assuming it happened exactly the way he described it. The cop might give a different story. People often have a tendency to retell a story in a way that makes themselves look to be less at fault and others to be more at fault.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
I swear to you that’s what was said. I wouldn’t make a deal about it if it wasn’t. I’ve been pulled over a total of 7 times (twice as a passenger) so I assume I understand a routine stop.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
Your assuming that he is one of the people that have the tendency to make themselves less at fault though. Goes both ways, ya know.
Kimble_79 - July 7, 2010
The have you been drinking line would’ve sat fine with me, not assuming I’m a drinker.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
right. “How much have you had to drink?” is a much different question from “Have you been drinking?”
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
but there is something to be said about cops assuming that all teenagers D&D and that this is the first question you should ask whether it is 8pm or 2am.
I actually got the field test from a cop because they pulled me over…for no reason except that I didn’t have my brights on and then proceeded to grill me about what I did (hung out with a friend). I had gotten my license recently so I was nervous and the cop, just because i was nervous decided to give me a field test and breathalize me…
ironically, I was then 2 months later pulled over for no reason except HAVING my brights on and the same thing happened…but at least this time I was calm, but the cop still tried to find something illegal I did (started putting his flashlight all through my car for no reason…asked if I had anything to hide or anything illegal on me).
Both of these incidents while i was a teen, both I was pulled over for in all intensive purposes, a BS reason, and both I was assumed to have been doing something illegal…maybe the cops where i am stereotype more, but from my experience, what SB is talking about does happen.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
Something very similar happened to me. I was driving an unfamiliar car, and was fumbling with the hood lights, around Midnight. The cop pulled me over, but he was very understanding and polite. It’s the only time I’ve ever been pulled over in my life.
gahnki - July 8, 2010
yeah…a majority of my instances with cops haven’t been to bad, I do get annoyed for getting pulled over for no reason, but they are usually good about it when they realize I am not a problem.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
They try to get you to talk because if you slip up they can try to get you on other charges by way of car search. They WANT to search your car. It’s called raising money for the county.
And those seemed like pretty legit questions to me (I have too much experience with cops) so don’t worry about it.
Brownie's Year - July 6, 2010
Once a cop pulled me over, put me in the back of her car, and asked me how much weed I had smoked in the car. I don’t smoke.
She said she pulled me over because of my rear blinker being broken (it was, though it was fully functional). She pulled me over before seeing the back of my car at all.
This happens all over, and is how they are taught to do their jobs. When they don’t get it right, it is mostly just a waste of time and someone being rude. I imagine they get it right (or at least feel that they get it right) a significant amount of the time or else they would scrap the policy.
rufio - July 6, 2010
Exactly. The strangest stop I’ve ever experienced wasn’t even a stop. I was driving home from the Browns – Bengals game in Cleveland two years ago (the next day, south to Kentucky). I pass a cop sitting in the median, and I wasn’t speeding. The cop waits about half a minute and then floors it out of the median and instead of getting behind me or pulling me over, he just brakes and then drives door to door with me for about 10 seconds and then takes off and turns into another median.
I’ve had some crappy experiences with cops and I also know a few guys who are cops and I don’t have a negative opinion on cops as group. From my experience there are a ton of assholes in the world and when those assholes become cops it just makes any normal situation worse.
It does get annoying to have to hear well they’re just doing their job as if having a badge gives them some blanket immunity to be an asshole and harass people. By letting some get away with this behavior it makes things worse because it emboldens other assholes to attempt the same behavior which puts a strain on community relations and gives other “real” cops a bad name when they don’t deserve it.
There are many cops who do their jobs and do their jobs above and beyond the call of duty who rarely get the recognition and praise that they deserve and it’s unfortunate that certain assholes undeserving of the badge are allowed to call themselves public servants under the title of cop.
Villeslgr - July 6, 2010
Beautiful.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
It’s well known that cops are given’ steroids. This crap happens all the time.
Brownie's Year - July 6, 2010
never heard that
Villeslgr - July 6, 2010
Haha . . . your idea of “well known” is much different than most.
Buckeye Brad - July 6, 2010
You don’t know roid rage when you see it or do you own research on anything?
Oh that’s right, you watch main stream garbage. Where Lindsy Lohan going to jail and Sandra Bollocks divorcing her biker man whore are the biggest stories of the month. BREAKING NEWS!!! Brad Pitt was seen riding a motorcycle in LA!!! All hail the movie stars!!!
You know what, don’t talk to me anymore. All you do is start shit with me and I don’t appreciate your ignorance.
Brownie's Year - July 7, 2010
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
You never run out, do you.
Brownie's Year - July 7, 2010
Ironically enough, this is also jumping to conclusions.
gahnki - July 7, 2010
Ummmm . . . .how exactly do you know what I watch?
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
Also, I love the fact that just because I don’t believe all his crazy conspiracies that means I’m only interested in celebrity-driven news. I guess those are the only two options.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
Wait, was that freakout a serious one?
TheRealSlimShady - July 7, 2010
fallacy of false dichotomy.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
stop.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
He’s got to show off that college education.
Buckeye Brad - July 8, 2010
Nah…I learned about that fallacy stuff in High School on my own time.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
stop criticizing BY’s point???
bross09 - July 8, 2010
Its a conspiracy!
TheRealSlimShady - July 7, 2010
Some, not all, cops are given steroids and train in MMA. It helps the not so big or inexperienced cops who work in ruff areas. Some do it on their own. How is that a conspiracy? A lot of normal people do that too. Why would you think a police officer wouldn’t as well? It’s common sense that officers need to protect themselves.
I have police in my family and I hear things at the table.
Brownie's Year - July 7, 2010
You didn’t say that some cops are taking steroids on their own, which is certainly believable. You said that cops are given steroids (evidently by the government or the FBI or some other group you think is controlling everyone’s life). You definately made it sound like some kind of conspiracy, so why are you backtracking now?
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
How am I backtracking if I defended my original statement by basically saying the same thing? So what if I didn’t include the words "using or taking" in the first post or go into detail. But maybe I should have because you flip out on everything you disagree with on here.
I’m tired of you thinking that I’m some nut job wearing a tinfoil jimmy hat whenever I say something that you have never heard of or don’t believe in.
Brownie's Year - July 8, 2010
First of all, I’m not flipping out. Secondly, you’re not saying the same thing at all. Saying that someone is voluntarily taking steroids on their own is much different than saying that they’re given steroids (and what that implies). Do you really not understand that?
Buckeye Brad - July 8, 2010
All I can think of is you must think I meant "all cops" in the first post. That’s not what I meant.
I hope that clears things up for you.
Brownie's Year - July 8, 2010
I said exactly what I meant. Twice.
Buckeye Brad - July 8, 2010
I guess if I said "cops eat doughnuts" or "cops are mean" you’d jump in and argue that too, right? Everything has to be pin-point to your liking? I have to say "some cops…"? Get off it BB.
And to sit there and say I was talking about a "police state" because you know me is freaking ridiculous. That wasn’t at all what I was talking about.
And as for Google….
Brownie's Year - July 8, 2010
I’m sorry, but did you even read what I wrote? Because it sure doesn’t seem like it.
Buckeye Brad - July 9, 2010
you said cops were GIVEN steroids. that is different from cops take steroids.
notthatnoise - July 9, 2010
Thank you. I’ve said that twice, but hopefully he’ll listen to someone else.
Buckeye Brad - July 9, 2010
Ok, I think I know what’s going on here. I said "given" and am reading it in the sense that their boss gives it to them to help them out. And "some do it on their own" refers to the closet users. I assume you guys are saying it in the sense that it’s secretly being put in their food and water. Now that would be a conspiracy.
Brownie's Year - July 9, 2010
Yeah, that’s what I was getting at. By saying “given” it seemed like you were saying they were forced to take it by someone, not that they were doing it on their own.
Buckeye Brad - July 9, 2010
Now we’re on the same page. That’s why I was confused about the conspiracy talk.
Brownie's Year - July 9, 2010
He made it very clear what he is asking.
TheRealSlimShady - July 9, 2010
We were thinking differently. Don’t come in after it’s over.
Brownie's Year - July 10, 2010
please back this up with a link. maybe MMA would help cops with their job, and some cops do occasionally seem like they would possibly have roid rage…but I would like to see solid proof except that “normal people do it too”
bross09 - July 8, 2010
you serious?
Brownie's Year - July 8, 2010
I don’t see proof of any sort of “conspiracy” or “epidemic”. maybe some cops use steroids but is there statistical evidence that its enough to be an epidemic?
bross09 - July 8, 2010
Yahoo search "cops given steroids", numbnuts. :)
Brownie's Year - July 8, 2010
I don’t see it.
Bernie19Kosar - July 8, 2010
“Some” cops eat doughnuts.
Brownie's Year - July 8, 2010
yeah. I saw that a significant portion of cops USE but are not GIVEN steroids…no conspiracy and not enough evidence or numbers i saw to call it any sort of epidemic…
bross09 - July 9, 2010
rec
Kimble_79 - July 7, 2010
True, but just because someone says that a cop was being a jerk when they were pulled over doesn’t mean that it actually happened like that. Often times people’s view of a situation is much different than how it actually transpired.
Buckeye Brad - July 6, 2010
Yeah, i’m not implying that everyone’s story is the real deal.
Villeslgr - July 6, 2010
Could be that he was sitting in the median, sees you go by and pauses to double check his notes – and sure enough, he supposed to be on the lookout for a (insert year, make, model, color) car. He pulls up beside you for a look. No good. The APB is for 3 (adjective guys), not one (adjective) guy. Wrong car. Go back and try again.
Just one possible explanation.
JustBob - July 6, 2010
Maybe he thought he knew him?
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
Seems to me that there could have been safer way of doing that.
My vote is that he thought i looked familiar.
Villeslgr - July 6, 2010
maybe familiar as someone with an active warrant for their arrest. i don’t see the problem.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
Ditto.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
There’s no problem, I was joking about the looking familiar part because SB said maybe he thought he knew him.
But since you brought it up, how familiar can i look driving past and then not look familiar when he’s driving next to me. Seems to me he would have needed to pull me over to check my familiarity.
My point was that it was a weird situation not that the cop was doing anything shady.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
rec
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
my worst experiences with cops all involve them running someone’s license plate for no reason.
police officers are supposed to have just cause before checking someone’s license plates, yet on two occasions I’ve seen cops just pull up behind someone, run the plate, and pull them over.
once, I was riding with a friend, and a cop pulled him over. My friend asked the cop if he had been speeding, and the cop said “no, but you have a speeding ticket set to expire today, have you paid it?”
the other incidince actually ended up getting the cop suspended. He pulled over my brother and told him “I’m giving you a ticket for driving with a suspended license.” his license had expired the day before, on a holiday, when the BMV was closed. We took it to court, because the cop didn’t have a reason to run his plate, and sure enough, this cop has been giving tickets for years for expired licenses with no other infractions listed. the only way to do that is if you just sit in a parking lot and check everybody’s plate.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Is that plate running thing only in Ohio?
rufio - July 7, 2010
Haha, no. If the car comes with a computer, any cop can run your plates through the dispatcher. Actually, any cop can just call in with your plate. Ever notice a cop sit on your ass a bit too long, or sit at a stop sign behind you for just a bit longer than he should? Usually whenever you do the smallest thing in front of a cop, he will run your plates and if he finds something valid, will find a way to pull you over.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
Cops are taught to profile. My girlfriend’s brother (a Cop), will explain this to you. Only without calling it profiling.
rufio - July 6, 2010
Bingo.
I have worked with cops for quite some time.
Bernie19Kosar - July 7, 2010
in my area it was terrible being a teenager. I’ve been pulled over at least ten times, and have never gotten a ticket. just because it’s midnight and I’m young doesn’t mean I’m drunk or high.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
but if they don’t pull over the kid who is drunk or high and he drives down the road and kills an innocent bystander, then people would screram that the police aren’t doing their job.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
so you would have them pull over every teenager on the street? I have no trouble with cops pulling people over who they think are drunk due to erratic driving. I have a huge problem with getting pulled over because of my age.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
There’s nothing wrong with proactive policing based on sound statistical evidence.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
This.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
almost nobody under the age of 21 drinks and drives:
21-24: 34%
25-34: 31%
35-44: 25%
the 25-34 group was responsible for the most fatal accidents.
There is no sound statistical evidence for pulling over a 16 year-old.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/statistics.html
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
are you from the altoona area?
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
But young people are responsible for the most auto accidents.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
what does this have to do with me being pulled over 10 times and asked if i was drunk?
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
what i mean is, that has nothing to do with policing.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
you’re telling me you’ve been pulled over 10 times, and none of those times did the police have reasonable suspicion to do so?
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
What is wrong with a cop asking if you were drinking after pulling you over? I don’t see a problem with that. That’s his job. Even if a small number of people are drunk while driving (no matter what age), shouldn’t he make sure that you aren’t?
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
I feel like I’m talking to a wall here. I have no problem with a cop asking if I was drinking. I have a problem with a cop pulling me over without a reason, fishing for a DUI.
I have never been in an accident, I have never been ticketed, I have never even been warned. I also have never been pulled over anywhere other than my home town. I am a very cautious driver, and my record proves it.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
again, you’re telling me you’ve been pulled over 10 times and the police never had a reason any of those times?
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
So cops have pulled you over 10 times for absolutely no reason? I’m sorry, but I find that very hard to believe.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
i’ve asked this twice and he isn’t answering.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
I’ve never even been issued a warning. they were wrong to pull me over, and they knew it.
timestamp is 10:22, ten minutes before your comment, asshole.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
thats not an answer. just becasue you didn’t get a ticket or a warning doesn’t mean they didn’t have a reason to pull you over.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
what reason could it be that wouldn’t even necessitate a warning, and how likely is it that it happened ten times?
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
example: you swerve over the yellow line a few times, they run the plate, get info that you are a young driver. they pull you over and ask if you’ve been drinking. you say no, and haven’t been. they say “okay, just be careful and have a good night.” no ticket, no warning. but a valid reason to pull you over.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
I guess you’ll have to take my word for this, because I can’t prove it, but I wasn’t swerving.
I should mention that this was the same 2 or 3 cops every time, in a small town. after a few times, you would think they would give me a warning.
this is purely anecdotal, but I know two people who got tickets for crossing the yellow line too early while turning left, so cops certainly aren’t shy about that in my town.
I also realize the police where I lived could have been particularly bad, and I know cops everywhere aren’t like that.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
bye the way, both of those people were under the age of 18.
my dad, on the other hand, has been let go numerous times for turning right on red at an intersection where its not allowed.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
and that makes sense that they would do that (not that I condone it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened).
you definitely don’t live in lakewood…they pull you over no matter what age.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
Small town. Same 2-3 cops. Sounds like it was a personal issue.
JustBob - July 7, 2010
I think they just liked his tits.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
Or his hummer.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
I drove a 1997 Ford Taurus with dents in the side (from before I bought it).
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Don’t worry, I laughed
Roger Dorn - July 8, 2010
or…they say you need to turn off/on your brights and then start to question you about how much you have drank…one cop told me I should turn my brights off, then a while later, I got pulled over for having them off.
I also got pulled over because there was a report of a party within a mile of where I was and they saw I was a teenager so they started grilling me about drinking.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
Name-calling is not necessary.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
fine, overreaction I my part, and I apologize DawgNuts.
on the other hand, I don’t appreciate being told I’m dodging a question when my answer is on here twice.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
no problem, i just didn’t feel that saying you never got a warning or a ticket really answered the question as to whether or not the police had a reason.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
thank you, I really am sorry I did that.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
timestamp 8:44
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
sorry to shatter your view of cops as upstanding human beings.
listen to me: NOT EVEN A SINGLE WARNING
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
again, irrelevant. and name calling won’t win you many arguments.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
Listen, I know some cops are jerks, just like some teachers are jerks and some doctors are jerks and some librarians are jerks. You’re not shattering any views I have. I guess you’ve just had bad luck with cops.
But just because you didn’t get a warning doesn’t mean he didn’t have a reason to pull you over. I’m not familiar with police procedures, but I don’t think that’s a reasonable argument.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
this is a broad statement which is generally false. a better statement would be
this is wholly true. We discussed these stats in driving school AND I have seen graphs that show that after a year of experience, the rates were still higher, but comparable to drivers with significant experience. After a year, there is a huge drop in risk and it drops minimally for the next 5-6 years or so where it pretty much stays put.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
It’s not a broad statement. Statistics show that drivers age 16-19 are much more likely than other ages groups to get in an accident. See the stats that golan posted elsewhere.
Buckeye Brad - July 8, 2010
yes, but they do not separate first year drivers from all teen drivers…
bross09 - July 8, 2010
fine. but those who do drink and drive under the age of 21 have a higher potential to be extremely dangerous, given their lack of experience drinking coupled with their lack of experience driving.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
read my comment:
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
there are more 25-34 yr olds driving drunk. and it isn’t like they don’t get pulled over and questioned.
also, prevention is a key component here. catching them as teenagers and having them pay the consequences and get educated on the risks will work toward preventing them from being repeat offenders when they reach the 25-34 yoa range.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
now you’re being a hypocrite. here is golan’s comment from before:
you responded with “this.”
now you say there are more 25-34 year-olds driving drunk. where is the “sound statistical evidence” for pulling over a 16 year-old?
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
i also said that the 16 yr olds aren’t the only ones being pulled over. the 25-34 yr olds are also being pulled over.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
not in my area
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
have you looked at the records of every car that has gotten pulled over in your area?
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
Haha. You don’t know that.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
for one, that age group is basically non-existent in my area. I’ve also had a cop explicitly tell me they pull over many more teenagers than adults.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Well if they’re non-existant then that completely invalidates your initial point.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
all I know is, ever since I turned 20 and started driving a nicer car, I haven’t been pulled over once. I haven’t changed the way I drive.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
I’m sorry, but that’s purely anecdotal evidence and it doesn’t prove anything. Surely you know that. Just because you got pulled over a bunch of times before you were 20 and haven’t since then doesn’t mean that all cops everywhere do that.
Also, it seems that you were mostly pulled over in the same area by the same few cops, so maybe it was something with those cops in particular and is not indicative of all police everywhere. It could be that in your area there was a large number of teenage drunk drivers (especially if it was a college town) and they had a good reason to monitor teanngers more closely, or maybe those 3 cops are just jerks.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
Wow . . . I really do know how to spell teenagers. Honest.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
I said all of those things. I said it was purely anecdotal, I said it didn’t prove anything.
I said it could be that I’ve just had bad experiences.
I didn’t live in a college town. Chagrin Falls is a small town that looks like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting. The only crime to speak of is high schoolers getting drunk, but all of the rich suburbanites are terrified that something bad is going to happen to them so we have an obscenely large police force.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Well, it certain didn’t seem like you thought those things with the force you were making your comments here.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
because I’ve seen it before. it is much easier for me to believe it exists other places.
I don’t want to sound like I’ve never had a positive experience with a police officer, because I most certainly have. But even beyond traffic stops, I have found the majority of the police officers I’ve run into to be assholes on a power trip. I’m not talking just my area on that one, I’m talking in general. maybe I’ve just been extremely unlucky, but I don’t see it as a stretch to believe a cop was being a dick.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
to explain why I’m so passionate about this, it made me upset that a cop was instantly given the benefit of the doubt, and even things that were clearly unnecessary (“Is this car too fast for you?”) were given a free pass by so many people. that cop didn’t need to make a snide remark, that’s not his job. and yet people here claimed it was.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Well, that’s assuming the cop actually said those words in that way. As I’ve said many times, people like to retell stories to make themselves look better and place the blame on someone else. Not I’m not saying that it necessarily happened that way, but I’m not going to automatically believe someone who’s upset that he got pulled over for speeding and is trying to make the cop look bad.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
The first word of my third sentence should be now instead of not. I’m having a bad day typing today.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
it happens to all of us.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
The thing is he never said he didn’t deserve the ticket. he acknowledged he broke the law and had no problem with getting cited. this makes me more inclined to believe his story.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Well, he did say that he thought the cop clocked him in a 55 zone but said it was in a 45 zone, so he wasn’t exactly admitting guilt. He basically said that the cop lied to give him the ticket, so that made me suspicious of the rest of his account right away.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
Yes, that tidbit I said helped to favor myself, but I probably did carry the speed over. I knew I was speeding, just didn’t think he saw me when i did.
(I knew you were going to bring this exact statement up as well. You’re predictable BB, ;] )
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
Oh yeah . . . what am I going to say next?
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
That you still don’t believe me and that I broke the law regardless and to stop acting like nothing is ever my fault and to just own up…
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
gotta give it up for him brad, this was funny.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
Ha . . . well, I wasn’t going to say that, but it’s pretty good so I’ll just go with it.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
my guess was you were going to say he was wrong about what you were going to say next.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
My second guess was a statement about tacos.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
Yeah, I was just going to say some random phrase which had nothing at all to do with our discussion. Possibly something about tacos, even!
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
SB has mystical powers of mind reading, but it only works on brad.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Wow, thanks for calling me a sparkling fairy Jackass.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is that comment serious?
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
The dude from Twilight can read minds haha. It was a joke Bro.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
ah ok, now its actually quite funny. forgive my ignorance twilight vampire powers.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
I will join your ignorance. In this situation, ignorance is truly bliss.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
However your first assumption is that the story was retold truthfully/correctly. With the benefit tilted towards the cop.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
should have been “not” retold truthfully/correctly
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
and this is also assuming that SB is making that part up. we have no evidence either way but you are saying we shouldn’t assume that SB is telling the truth and many people don’t tell the truth. you seem to imply in favor in the cop when their is no evidence that this is truly any more right than SBs position (except the authority of a cop).
bross09 - July 8, 2010
Do you really need to jump in on this now? We’ve discussed it to death.
Buckeye Brad - July 8, 2010
This should be green.
SpecialBrownie - July 8, 2010
police officers, in most cases, have to earn the authority they have. they undergo very in-depth background checks and countless hours of training before they ever hit the streets on duty. lets not act like cops are just meatheads who apply for the job and get a badge handed to them.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
That however doesn’t mean that some cant be dicks when they want to be. I’m all for supporting cops as they are they to protect my family, but as with every occupation, there are always guys/girls that get a power trip out of it and can be dicks.
Kimble_79 - July 8, 2010
No one is at all saying that…
but because they are trained and have background checks, their version of events (whether true nor false) is what counts and we should disregard the defendant’s story?
I am merely saying that why should we jump right to assuming SB is making stuff up. It wouldn’t be smart to completely believe his side 100% without evidence, but by the same logic, it wouldn’t be smart to 100% disbelieve what he said.
An example of how people can still be dicks: At my high school, they had security guards who were trained and did have background checks done (though neither one was likely as thorough as the ones cops go through). This didn’t stop a security guard to get me in trouble for doing pretty much NOTHING and blatantly lying to my assistant principal’s face while I was in the room.
Now, a badge and authority does not always turn people into dicks, but just because people are trained, doesn’t make them immune to becoming dickish.
If you want proof of man’s tendency to succumb to power, look up the stanford prison experiment.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
Car Crashes are the leading cause of death for teens in the United States and accidents while driving cause 36% of all deaths in this age group according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Teenage Driver Facts:
Deaths. Each Year over 5,000 teens ages 16 to 20 Die due to Fatal injuries caused Car accidents. About 400,000 drivers age 16 to 20 will be seriously injured.
Risks. The risk of being involved in a car accident the highest for drivers aged 16- to 19-year-olds than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash.
Stats. Teenagers are about 10 percent of the US Population but account for 12 percent all Fatal Car Crashes.
Costs. Drivers (both male and female) under age 24 account for 30% – $26 billion Dollars of the total costs of Car accidents in the US.
Male Versus Female. The car accident death rate for teen male drivers and passengers is more than one and a half times female teen driver (19.4 killed per 100,000 male drivers compared with 11.1 killed per 100,000 female drivers.
New Drivers. The risk of a Crash risk is much higher during the first year teenagers are able to drive.
Why are Teenager Drivers at More Risk? According to Studies: Teenager drivers tend to underestimate hazardous driving situations and are less able than older drivers to recognize dangerous situations.
Teenager Drivers are more to speed and tailgate.
Having Male teen passengers in the car has been shown to increase the likelihood of high risk driving behaviors among teenage male drivers.
Of Male drivers killed between 15 and 20 years of age 38% were speeding and 24% had been drinking and driving.
Teens have the lowest rate of seat belt use. According to surveys about 10% of high school students report they do not wear seat belts.
More Teen Accident Facts: About 23% of drivers ages 15 to 20 who died in car crashes had a Blood Alcohol Counts of 0.08 or higher.
About 30% of teens reported that within the previous 30 days, they had been a passenger in a car with a driver who had been drinking alcohol. One in 10 teens said that they personally had driven after drinking alcohol.
Teen drivers killed in auto crashes after drinking and driving, 74% did not wear a seat belt.
More than half of teen deaths from car crashes occurred between 3 p.m. and midnight and 54% occurred on weekends: Friday, Saturday, or Sunday.
Link
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
I never said teenagers weren’t bad drivers, I said they didn’t drink and drive as much as adults.
none of your statistics about drinking make any sort of argument. None of them are comparative, they don’t discus other age groups. As I pointed out above, teenagers make up an extremely small percentage of drunk drivers.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Stats?
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
I gave them above, but I’ll do it again:
almost nobody under the age of 21 drinks and drives:
21-24: 34%
25-34: 31%
35-44: 25%
the 25-34 group was responsible for the most fatal accidents.
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/statistics.html
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
So 10% of the population accounts for 17% of crashes?
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
and a different 10%, over the age of 25, accounts for 30%. still doesn’t make sense to profile teenagers.
you are also assuming teenagers make up 10% of the driving population.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
this was structured strangely, so I’ll try and be more clear.
you said 10% of the population accounts for 17% of crashes.
a different 10% accounts for twice that.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
The 10% came from the statistics I posted.
It makes sense to profile teenagers because:
“For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash.”
The key words here are “for each mile driven”. Any statistical comparison that doesn’t take into account the number of incidents per mile driven is skewed in favor of teenagers.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
this is a totally seperate, straw man argument. I never said teen drivers in general weren’t more dangerous, because they are. It has nothing to do with drinking though, which was my point.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
So it’s wrong to ‘profile’ drivers who you admit are ‘dangerous’?
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
ok, lets take drinking out of the equation then.
How does pulling over a teenager who did nothing wrong prevent accidents?
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Hello! My friend was pulled over because his car lurched too far taking a stop in Dunkin’ donuts. The fact that three teenagers in the car had nothing to do with it? Uh huh.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
does this separate teen drivers who are still green from ones with at least a year of experience? because if not, it is also somewhat skewed.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
a year of experience doesn’t mean that much. i’m a much, much better driver now than i was after driving for one year.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
well, I have been driving for over 3 and a half years and I am not that much of a better driver than I was 2 and a half years ago, but am light years better than even 3 years ago.
maybe you improved a lot after your first year, but not everyone has that much improvement. Accident rates sharply drop after one year of experience…so I would say that the statistics I learned in Drivers Ed (with sources) are more valuable than your “life experience”.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
ssorry, the percentages are people who died, its from 2008
the line that says “the 25-34 group…” is from 2000 and a different source.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
which is definitely true…however first year drivers are the true risk, not this somewhat arbitrary age group.
and what is the rate of seat belt use of those who are now between the age where they can start AARP to senior citizens (50-65). most of these people are baby boomers like my dad and they grew up in a time when seat belts were an option and not standard. they did not grow up wearing seatbelts so many do not wear them out of habit. Please show me a stat from this group, if anyone has ever bothered to collect it. I would say its very likely it is similar to teen use.
And how many Drunk Drivers who kill themselves DO wear a seatbelt, regardless of age. I would wager not many, though I do not have stats to back it up.
and lets assume that the average teen is up between 8am and midnight. these are somewhat normal hours for someone to be up in general. the time frame you mention is over half of the general time frame I listed. so if a teen is equally likely to drive in any hour between 8 pm and midnight, statistically, over half would occur in your time frame.
what are the stats for adult drivers during that time? is it over half? because if it is, how relevant is it really if teens are also over half in this area,
days where EVERYONE, not just teens, are driving much more. Throwing out these stats shows nothing. it shows the teen numbers, but it gives no comparison to the numbers for adult drivers so we cannot at all judge whether they are truly worse by this standard.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
Sorry but drinking and driving is drinking and driving. Are you saying impaired older driver is better than an impaired younger driver due to the older driver having more experience? That would be exactly why the older driver would be a greater thread, due to overconfidence in their abilities as a driver when they are impaired.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
exactly. I know I would never be able to drink and drive well…but not because of my experience driving. I don’t see myself as being any better if I ever decided to try (which I never would) in 5-10 years…this is a BS argument he made.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
considering nearly every comment you make is laced with bullshit that you’ve made up, and you change your arguments 10 times within one post, this was a pretty ballsy statement.
read the entire conversation before you comment, and don’t act like you know more about this subject than i do.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
here is another hyperbolic statement.
“considering every comment here you make is laced with superciliousness brought on by a feeling of self-entitlement because you are older than many here, and your arguments are not really backed up by data except your “superior experience”, criticizing me here was a pretty ballsy statment".
I am not the one acting like I know more than anyone about this subject. I am just saying that I have seen what alcohol can do to people’s driving and am fairly hog certain that more experience driving, or drinking (not both together however) would not make me safer on the road when I drink and get behind the wheel. Maybe if I had a higher tolerance, but thats something different.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
sorry, i shouldn’t have said you’re acting like you know more about this topic than i do; i should have said you act like you know more about every topic than everyone else on here. hyperbolic enough for you?
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
no…lets keep it getting more hyperbolic…lets exaggerate the truth to a point where the truth was lost long ago.
bross09 - July 9, 2010
that isn’t what i’m saying. at age 36, i’ve been driving for 20 yrs and drinking for 15 yrs. i can have a few beers and safely drive home. a 16 yr old can drink a few beers and be extremely dangerous. we may have the same BAC, but the 16 yr old may not handle it nearly as well. this isn’t a hard fact, but is fairly accurate overall. thats why in PA, the legal limit for underagers is .02 while its .08 for adults.
driving with a BAC over the legal limit is unacceptable and dangerous for drivers of any age.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
I would agree that given a teenager with not much experience in drinking or driving is a greater risk than an experienced older person doing the same.
However, as Villeslgr points out, there are always those “older” people out there that are overconfident in their abilities and think they can handle a 12pk and still drive fine.
If however, we are talking 3 beers for an older and a younger person, then yes I would agree the younger would be more apt to have an accident.
Kimble_79 - July 8, 2010
While I agree with the argument you are making here, I do think BAC is a poor measure of drunkeness, generally speaking. People who drink more often can be less impaired at higher BACs.
As one quick example: The officers at the scene didn’t even suspect Stallworth of being drunk, even though he had a BAC well over the legal limit.
again, this doesn’t have anything to do with the argument you’re making here, just a little aside.
notthatnoise - July 8, 2010
i agree with this as well. driving over the legal limit is unacceptable and dangerous. that doesn’t mean thousands of people don’t do it every single night without incident. tolerance is a whole different wrinkle to the argument.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
I always thought the limit difference was because it’s illegal for underage people to drink in the first place?
Villeslgr - July 8, 2010
that’s part of it, but not all. there’s a separate summary offense of underage drinking to punish that.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
yeah obviously there is another Law…its called underage consumption…However, if teen drivers statistically were actually better drunk drivers than adults, would their limit be higher? No, because it is based on the laws of consumption.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
no, it isn’t called underage consumption in PA. and please, say statistics a few more times.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
sure, statistics, statistics statistics…
I am guessing you don’t like statistics…because they are facts and facts count more in reasoned argument than the “I am more experienced so my opinion matters more” stance.
bross09 - July 9, 2010
Dude, it is the guys JOB.
You lose. Let it go.
If you guys were arguing about long winded two sided posts, you would win.
Bernie19Kosar - July 9, 2010
so because he is in this certain field, he knows more than anyone here on the subject and his opinion is automatically an “experts”.
My dad is a banker, but bringing him in to be an “expert” with the bank financial crisis would not work…
bross09 - July 10, 2010
Buckeye Brad - July 10, 2010
I was looking for this a couple days ago but couldn’t find it.
notthatnoise - July 10, 2010
umm….I think its more about the fact that underage drinking is ILLEGAL than the fact that adult drivers are better when drunk.
you use 16 as an example, but obviously someone who just learned how to drive will be a worse drunk driver because they JUST LEARNED.
By the same logic, the better a driver you are as an adult, the better drunk driver you will be…but this is also a ludicrous assumption. Alcohol is the great equalizer because enough alcohol and everyone is a terrible driver.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
twisting my words and acting like a know-it-all, yet again.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
I really am not trying to act like a know it all or that I know more than you or more than anyone.
I am not twisting your words because you point out that a major reason that states have legal limits for underage drinkers at .02 is because of their inability to ‘hold their liquor’ or ‘drive well while impaired’. It has much more to do with the fact that it is ILLEGAL to drink under 21.
a .02 driver at 16 (or any age under 21) does not equal a .08 driver at 30 when it comes to skill and ability on the road. In all honesty, I trust the 18 year old with only a beer or two over the adult with several beers in them.
bross09 - July 9, 2010
I’m pretty sure in my state you are considered under the influence if you have any alcohol and are underaged, even if its like .01
TheRealSlimShady - July 9, 2010
yeah…its not just driving a car. In ohio, if you blow a .02 and are under 21, it is underage consumption…
Its not like its .08 for underage consumption but them .02 when you are driving…
bross09 - July 10, 2010
and stats show that after about 1 full year of driving, you have enough experience to get into accidents at a comparable rate to adults.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
doesn’t have anything to do with drinking and driving accidents.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
tell that to golanbatrac
notthatnoise - July 8, 2010
so adults, because they have more experience drinking, are better drunk drivers? this is a ludicrous statement made out of clear self-interest.
Drunk is Drunk
.15 BAC is .15 BAC
these are equal whether you are 18 or 48. My father is at least a decent adult driver but he doesn’t drink and drive, not only because of the legal ramifications but because he knows it is NOT SAFE and it makes him a much worse driver.
by saying that teens are more dangerous drunk drivers than adults because of age is effectively condoning profiling of teens over adults for DWIs even if they do it at a lower rate, AND that it is more okay for an adult to D&D than a Kid.
Age does not make you a better drunk driver. It is logically ludicrous to believe and until there are legitimate stats to back up that older people are better drunk drivers, I will believe that alcohol is alcohol and drunk is drunk.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
twisting my words and acting like a know-it-all, yet again.
i’m done, i concede to the “fallacy of false douche-cotomy, stanford i-know-everything, hyperbole, big words, stuff googled and then posted” experiment. i’m just tired of it, day after day, week after week. not arguing anymore.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
fine…
you can believe I say big words and not know what they mean…I would not use them if I didn’t though.
You can believe that I looked up the stanford prison experiment just now but in fact I read about it in high school when I was reading up on psychological studies…
If you want to believe i am a douche, fine…but I never attacked you unprovoked or tried to post anything inflammatory…In fact, when you posted an ad hominem, I did not directly attack you but said something similar but admitted I was exaggerating what someone could perceive from your points.
You can believe what you want…you can believe that because I am under 21, it is safer for you to have a 6 pack and drive than it would be for me…just because you believe it doesn’t make it fact…
bross09 - July 9, 2010
Buckeye Brad - July 9, 2010
good one. i’m definitely done with this entire argument, and apologize to everyone for helping extend it.
Dawg Nuts - July 9, 2010
No apology necessary DN. I think most regular posters here have done this one time or another.
I hereby nominate the False Douche-cotomy Stanford Hyperbole Googling Experiment as a DBN meme.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - July 11, 2010
thanks RDC.
Dawg Nuts - July 11, 2010
From your statistics:
So ‘almost nobody under the age of 21 drinks and drives’, yet drivers between the ages of 16 and 20 cause nearly 1/5th of all drunk driving crashes?
It’s hard to imagine that a sample as insignificant as ‘almost nobody’ would account for that many crashes.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
you’re cherry picking, and it’s obvious, where did people ages 21-54 go?
I’ll tell you, in case you are having trouble wiith reading comprehension today.
21-24: 34%
25-34: 31%
both almost double teenagers.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
why would you profile the group thats fourth on the list?
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Because, per mile driven, they are four times as likely to be involved in a crash than any other driver.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
again, I’ll put it in bold this time: that has nothing to do with drinking
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
are they 4 times as likely to get into an accident involving alcohol? if not, then how likely they are without it is pretty irrelevant.
EVERYONE is a bad driver under the influence of alcohol. age doesn’t give you an advantage…BAC is BAC.
NTN is arguing you shouldn’t profile a group that is the 4th most likely to drink and drive for drinking and driving.
You know what it may be…it may be the fact that teens have the least power to truly defend themselves against this kind of stuff. yes, they can try to get corrupt cops fired, but because of there age, they have much less power, which could make them a good target for a cop who wants to ‘profile’ with minimal backlash.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
yeah, you’re a victim. call your congressman. of course, he’s probably out to get you too, you crazy kid.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
I do think that you shouldn’t be pulling people over soley based on their age. They should give you a reason prior to pulling them over.
Kimble_79 - July 8, 2010
at no point in this entire post have I said teenagers should be pulled over simply for being teenagers. the only thing that came close was when i simply agreed with something golan said early on in the debate, but i’ve also gone into more detail and clarified things since then.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
gotcha, missed those parts. ignore my comment then my man. I just remember seeing where you agreed with Golan when he said that. Didn’t see the clarification…apologies
Kimble_79 - July 8, 2010
no problem. this has been a good discussion overall. its just one that people will never completely agree on.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
what?
I am not even saying anything is true, I am saying this is possible.
I am not at all saying that anyone is “out to get me”. that is a ludicrous statement and clearly not what I said.
That is not someone who is generally “out to get” me or any teen out there. I am saying that it means if a cop has to choose a group to “profile”, teens would be a good group because of their minimal say in society so that if they do get caught ‘profiling’, the social and political backlash against the cop would be much less.
That is not at all saying that policemen are out to get teens, but it is pointing out a possible logical reason why teens may get unnecessarily profiled. It may not be true, but I do not say it is.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
Pointing out that ‘almost nobody’ accounts for 17% of all drunk driving crashes is ‘cherry picking’?
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
you only used the stats that benefitted you, and ignored the ones that disproved your point.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Player A rushes for 2000 yards on 2000 carries. Player B rushes for 1000 yards on 200 carries.
Which back would you rather have on your team? More to the point, if your defense is preparing to face both backs, which back do you spend more time preparing for?
I’m not ignoring any stat. Merely pointing out that the stats you’re using don’t yield a substantive comparison between age groups.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
why don’t they? am I to believe there are substantially more 21-24 year-olds on the road than 16-19 year-olds?
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
for your argument to hold water, there would have to be WAY more than twice as many 21-24 year-old drivers, or they would have to drive twice as far. unless you can provide me with some evidence of this, I have to consider your argument a poor one.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
I’m getting tired of saying this, so this is the last time, that doesn’t say anything about drunk driving. How does that stat validate profiling teenagers as the worst offenders when it comes to drunk driving?
How is pulling over a teenager for doing nothing wrong going to prevent an accident?
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
you are making an argument that no one is disagreeing with. It isn’t debateable that teenagers get into accidents more frequently than other age groups.
It also isn’t debateable that they cause far fewer drunk driving accidents than 21-34 year-olds.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
I don’t know how many 21-24 year olds are on the road. The point is, neither do you, and the instances/mile stat is the only stat posted that makes any attempt to take into account the differences between groups.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
black people commit the most violent crime. statistical fact. still not ok to pull over a black guy to ask how long its been since he last mugged someone.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
apples and oranges.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
how is it apples and oranges?
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
checking to see if an underage driver has been drinking is a simple, legal question by a police officer to potentially protect the safety of the juvenile and the community. your example, based on nothing but race and past behavior, is nowhere near the same thing.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
this is the exact same situation. pulling over a black man and asking him if he just mugged someone is a simple, legal question by a police officer to protect the safety of the community.
you’re example, based on nothing but age, not even past behavior, is nowhere near the same thing.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
i’m done dude. i’ve been a probation officer for 14 yrs, worked with the police, worked with DUI checkpoints, and taught alcohol highway safety class for DUI offenders. i’ll rest on my experience and record.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
and I’m sure you are a great police officer, but please explain to me how discrimination against an age group based on statistics is different from discrimination against a race based on statistics.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
I really, really would like an explanation on this. age discrimination isn’t any different from racial discrimination.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
in theory, they’re very similar. however, the examples we’re talking about don’t fit that.
asking a teenage driver if he’s been drinking, because he’s a teenager, is in no way comparable to asking a black driver if he just committed a robbery simply because he’s black. you surely have to see this.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
maybe I see it, but I’m not sure. what if I used this example instead:
Is it ok to ask a black driver if they’re on crack? crack use is highest amongst african americans.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
the laws in every state allow for random checks for drunk drivers (DUI checkpoints. roving patrols, etc.) the laws don’t allow for random checks for drivers high on crack.
maybe some of your stops were part of a roving patrol. we run them in my county frequently.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
they were sitting in a parking lot next to a farm. unless I’m misunderstanding “roving patrol,” that isn’t what they were doing.
yes, it was the same spot almost every time, and I wasn’t the only kid in school having this issue.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
fair enough. but the first part of my above response stands.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
the root of this was golan saying it was ok to profile teenagers. I have no problem with checkpoints or any other sort of check as long as its targets everyone equally. anything else is descrimination.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
also, once again, apologies for calling you an asshole, totally uncalled for.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
no problem. i enjoyed the debate.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
Well, as I said above, if you’re just dealing with a few incidents in one area then it may be something with just those 2 or 3 cops and not of all police everywhere.
But, to get back to the initial discussion from SB, pretty much everyone thinks they weren’t doing anything wrong when they’re pulled over by the police – or they downplay the extent of their infraction (I wasn’t speeding by that much, I swear!) — so I’m not going to believe that person and think that the cops did something wrong just because they said so.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
I would be cautious too if someone told me “I wasn’t even drunk,” or “I wasn’t going that fast,” as long as they got a ticket.
but you know the probability of me being pulled over 10 times while doing something wrong and not even getting a warning is astronomically small.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
because some people do it, we are to assume all people do it? I will admit that I got caught with a rolling stop and I am not making excuses for it now. I am a brutally honest person with myself and I have been pulled over a minimum of 3-4 times for doing absolutely nothing wrong and been unnecessarily harassed because of my age at the time.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
I never knew about roving patrols for random checks for drunk drivers.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
I have like three OVI checks in a city of 20,000 or less.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
Ok, i had to look up ovi checks. I’ve heard of checkpoints but not a roving patrol. From what i’ve read about checkpoints here in KY, they have to be advertised.
From what i’ve found on roving patrols, it seems they have to have a reason to suspect you of driving drunk and not just randomly stop people.
Which is why i posted that above. I wasn’t disbelieving that they existed just stating that i had never heard of them and didn’t know how they worked.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
i live in PA, i don’t know if they do them everywhere.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
So a roving patrol is just a unit (or a few units) that are specifically out to drive around and look for drunk drivers?
Just trying to understand this concept. I knew of checkpoints but not of these.
Kimble_79 - July 8, 2010
yes. it involves sending out extra officers that are specifically patrolling for drunk drivers.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
You can know someone’s past behavior until you pull them over. Unless you are assuming that they are a mugger, just as you would be assuming that the teenager drinks and drives. Those are both two things you can not know for certain about either person. If you pull that person over just because they are black or because they are a teenager you are profiling.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
Sorry, you can’t know someone’s past behavior
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
In some places it is.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
In some areas that’s called profiling. Also it’s not proactive policing if you just pull over every person who fits a generic profile (which, i might be wrong, but i’m assuming that’s what you mean by sound statistical evidence). If that person fits a profile of someone who is currently being looked for would be a different case. In NTN’s scenario they are just looking for certain people and pulling them over or stopping them hoping to find them. That’s not policing that’s profiling, i could do that.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
And just because you took offense doesn’t mean that the cops were wrong to pull you over.
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
This also.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
I’ve never even been issued a warning. they were wrong to pull me over, and they knew it.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
I agree…Cops on the east side of cleveland are pretty bad at this. I had been pulled over between 4-5 times total while doing nothing.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
profiling is fine in theory. fitting the profile may lead to further investigation. if the investigation turns up evidence of criminal activity, that’s the whole idea.
the problem is when police start harassing people for simply fitting the profile, with no further investigation.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
I have a Honda sticker, a 2 1/4" exhuast, red interior, tinted taillights and I’m lowered 2". I’d like to think my cop profiled me as a stereotypical teenager more than a person speeding over 13. If my dad was driving the car, I have no doubt that it would have been a different story.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
Would your Dad have been speeding?
Bernie19Kosar - July 8, 2010
If my dad was driving and was pulled over for the same situation dude. Wow.
SpecialBrownie - July 8, 2010
The problem becomes when 5’10- 6’2 black male wearing dark clothing with a bald head becomes black male. Substitute teenager if you want.
Obviously you need a description of a suspect to solve a crime, but just randomly stopping people who generally fit the description of known suspects in hopes that they committed a crime without even having any basis for thinking that they have or that a crime has even been committed beyond that persons looks, age, car, etc. is profiling and it’s BS.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
Your daughter disappears from the mall. Last seen being drug through the parking lot by an ‘Asian Male’. Do you want the cops to stop every ‘Asian male’ they see, or do you want them to wait for a more complete description?
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
See that’s a description of a known suspect. I’m talking about no crime and stopping someone because statistics show that someone fitting their profile commits crimes at a certain % of the time. You’re talking about after a crime has been committed. I’m talking about being pulled over or stopped for the simple fact that someone like you does something a certain 5 of the time, even when nothing has been done.
Also as i’m not a cop I can’t be completely sure of this but I would imagine that they would get a better description than just “asian male.” Even if it is just a description of clothing.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
This comment is so not what he said.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
so racial profiling and profiling in general is okay because maybe one day it could save our daughter’s life?
and is wiretapping phones and making laws that violate the 4th amendment okay if they have the chance at stopping one terrorist attack in my lifetime?
bross09 - July 8, 2010
i’m not condoning harassing people just because they’re black, or teenagers, or asian, or handicapped, or anything. profiling is okay in theory and in certain situations, when used properly. its my opinion, but i don’t feel like getting into a new debate over profiling.
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
then that is the disagreement. I don’t think anyone should ever be pulled over or otherwise detained by a police officer without some sort of cause, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
notthatnoise - July 8, 2010
I’m just stating there is a difference between criminal profiling (i guess you would call it) when you are looking for a suspect and profiling (usually matched with the term racial, but could obviously be directed towards other groups) where no crime has been committed but a person is stopped or pulled over for no reason other than fitting a profile of a person who commits certain crimes a certain % of the time.
Villeslgr - July 8, 2010
Is it a weiner wheel? Those are sketchy.
Brownie's Year - July 6, 2010
Adrock2099 - July 6, 2010
Nice avatar pic of JaMarcus Russell.
Brownie's Year - July 6, 2010
Rec’tified, as I didn’t even realize the hilarious truth of this.
Adrock2099 - July 7, 2010
I bet I’m one of the only ones here that hasn’t been pulled over!
TheRealSlimShady - July 6, 2010
I’ve never been pulled over.
golanbatrac - July 6, 2010
I’ve never been pulled over.
Adrock2099 - July 6, 2010
I’ve never been pulled over.
emily522 - July 6, 2010
You’re also one of the few here who can’t reach the pedals yet.
gahnki - July 6, 2010
Ownage.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
Ha!
golanbatrac - July 6, 2010
6 feet tall and I drive
TheRealSlimShady - July 6, 2010
…Your mother’s Mini van.
SpecialBrownie - July 6, 2010
Nice
Kimble_79 - July 7, 2010
My dad’s Avalon haha
TheRealSlimShady - July 7, 2010
I have been pulled over multiple times.
One time I was pulled out at gun point because I didn’t stop. I wasn’t being an ass, I just had my music WAY too loud and didn’t see him. Cop was actually a nice guy.
Bernie19Kosar - July 7, 2010
I always tell them where my wallet is first, where I’m going with my hands and if I’m going to make any sudden movements. I don’t want them to think I’m pulling out a weapon.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
most police officers aren’t trigger happy nuts just waiting to shoot someone. i wouldn’t worry so much.
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
while that may be true, it only takes one.
that said, on a routine stop, I wouldn’t worry about it. maybe in the situation described above, but not for a normal stop.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
Using that theory, it only takes one drunk teenager to kill someone.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
Nobody is fighting this BB. What we’re fighting is, is that you can’t profile every single teenager because there may be one that kills. Profiling every teen and announcing things for cops to not get the one trigger happy one is apples and oranges.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
lots of apples and oranges today. maybe i’ll have fruit salad for dinner…
Dawg Nuts - July 7, 2010
Add a little bit of orange juice and some reisling and you’ll be golden. Just be careful not to drive anywhere if you’re a teenager (completely joking, but seriously that is some good stuff).
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
using this theory, cops should be trigger happy, especially in the presence of a teen, because they may have a gun and kill someone…
so yeah, it will be fun to hear about a teen killed at a routine traffic stop by a trigger happy cop that thought he would pull out a gun.
bross09 - July 8, 2010
well, my friend was actually thanked by a cop because he was the first one to ever openly announce he was reaching for his wallet in his back pocket, so I don’t take chances.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
thats kind of neat actually.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
I know right?
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
I’m not for certain and I don’t want to be an ass but usually the cops tell you not to do anything of that stuff until they tell you to do so. So I would think announcing and doing all those things might be taken the wrong way or maybe the right way depending on how you intend it to be taken.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
I announce if need be. When he asks me for my wallet, I announce where it is and what I’m doing.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
Oh yeah I can agree with that. I thought you were just talking about announcing and reaching for it as they come up to the door. That’s a complete no no.
Villeslgr - July 7, 2010
Hands are on the wheel till they say move.
SpecialBrownie - July 7, 2010
You are still young, give it some time.
Kimble_79 - July 7, 2010
pulled over lots, never given a ticket, or even a warning.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
The breast implants must be paying for themselves, eh?
Brownie's Year - July 7, 2010
Ha!
golanbatrac - July 7, 2010
best investment i ever made.
notthatnoise - July 7, 2010
They definitely need more signage commemorating the Championship years and great players like graham, brown, and yes, even ozzie
HenryDawg - July 7, 2010 via mobile
After sifting through the previous 150 comments about profiling, police, and apples and oranges, I was very perplexed by this comment.
gahnki - July 7, 2010
I’ve been here the whole time and I’m perplexed as well.
Buckeye Brad - July 7, 2010
Yes, imagine someone actually commenting on the article posted. ’tis madness!
gahnki - July 8, 2010
Dawg By Nature - A Cleveland Browns Blog – Where Digression is King
Dawg Nuts - July 8, 2010
Recommended.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - July 11, 2010
rufio - July 8, 2010
Pfft. What guys reads the manual?
SpecialBrownie - July 8, 2010
Never underestimate the ability of bross to make a clusterf’’k of comments.
TheRealSlimShady - July 9, 2010
He settled down a lot lately. Let the dude speak.
I think Brady Quinn fans who are not true Browns fans clutter the DBN threads entirely with fake finesse.
Brownie's Year - July 10, 2010
yeah…and I only get into it when someone starts going at me like what did start to happen here…mostly I am a very docile creature.
bross09 - July 10, 2010
Bross, this should be your new sig.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - July 11, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.