He failed a field sobriety test per the articles I’ve read, not an official test, my mistake for lack of clarity. And I have no idea what happened, just that its common for people to view part of a situation and think a cop is going overboard, when not knowing police procedure, they could be going by the book. And for every cocky asshole cop, there’s a cocky asshole rich dude who thinks he doesn’t have to do what a cop says. He very well could have been the victim here, but not based on the view of two people who know nothing about police procedure. And trust me, everyone on COPS who gets sprayed or manhandled is usually screaming “I didn’t do nothing”, even when they did.
How can he claim to be doing what the cops said, when he refused a sobriety test? They were on the boat for hours, yet he drinks and only had two beers? I mean come on- if you’re not drunk, why refuse the test?
If you are legally allowed to refuse something, then you can fully obey the cops even if you refuse. For example, if I ask for a search warrant before letting the cops in my house, I am absolutely not “resisting” in any way; certainly not in a way that warrants pepper spray.
It is? You mean I didn’t have to…you mean the cop wasn’t…
I think I need a lawyer.
That’s exactly right. Per what Hippy Hollow said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Benson was the cockiest SOB on the planet. On the other hand, let’s just say I wouldn’t be shocked to hear that the cops, dealing with a obviously well-off black dude who was hanging out with a bunch of good looking women on a party boat, were a little quick on the beat-down, either.
In your home you are correct, but cops don’t need a warrant to test someone for BWI, only valid suspicion that the vehicle operator is impaired.
The cops suspected BWI, and he failed a field sobriety test. He was asked to take a real sobreity test, if he passed that, no problem, free to go. By refusing a real one, the cop then has the choice of letting him go, or taking him in for suspicion of BWI. Once the decision is made to take him in, anything on his part that hinders that is resisitng arrest and can be dealt with using whatever the law allows. The question is, is pepper spray allowed in the specifics of this case, which are in dispute, and did he do anything to hinder the cop.
If he was not drunk as he says, refusing the real test, whether to prove a point about asshole cops or whatever, was incredibly stupid. The real test would have removed any doubt as to whether he was drunk- no guessing on the cops part at all. The way to deal with asshole cops is comply with their instructions within reason and then file a complaint later. Many people think boating drunk is no big deal, but damn near every boating fatality involves alcohol.
Agreed. Your original question was how could he say he obeyed the cops when he refused a sobriety test, and even here in your response to me you seem to acknowledge that the refusal isn’t the same as resisting, since you add that “anything on his part that hinders that is resisitng arrest and can be dealt with”.
Obeying simply means not resisting. It does not mean full compliance. It is fully within my rights to refuse a field sobriety test. Doing so carries severe penalties, but it is within my rights. Similar to just letting the cops in and look around my house will be far less intrusive than making them get a search warrant, which could entail them tearing my couch cushions apart and ripping up my drywall.
You can obey the cops in every way without complying with all their requests. There is a huge difference between refusing a request and resisting an order.
I agree you are correct in noting that I was incorrect. 
Any update on this story and claims being made?
Nothing new that I’ve heard. The latest news I’ve seen being reported here in Chicago is the article in the Tribune that Omniscient linked to.
I hear that the Officer who maced Cedric Benson drafted him in the second round of his Fantasy Draft. Explains alot.
Being Cedric Benson is a legitimate crime though, right?
In some jurisdictions.
ESPN reported last night the Bears say they will not cut him as a result of the incident, so it will be interesting to see if he presses charges now when his job is not on the line.
Why? Isn’t being violated worthy of pressing charges all on its own? Or do you still think he wasn’t legitimately violated, given the evidence on record?
You’d think so, but he probably wouldn’t be the first public figure to accept something unjust just to make the story go away. PR sometimes outweighs the moral high ground. Not that he should or will, but the idea isn’t that far fetched.
This is sometimes true, but I was responding to a post that specifically linked the idea of dropping any charges to the idea of job security. I guess I was feeling pissy because a black NYPD Chief was harassed over the weekend even after he showed his ID to POs and they didn’t believe him. He could have ended up dead.
I apologize for the above hijack but it bothers me that a poster would attempt to be dismissive of what happened to Benson, by relating the possible leveling of what appears to be real charges of police brutality to a perception he has of the situation; if Benson decides not to pursue charges for whatever reason, that’s up to him, but no poster here (or anywhere) has a right to hand-wave away what is a real problem when it comes to some elements of law enforcement in this country.
I’m just disgusted that some of the more rogue elements of law enforcement seem to be able to act with impunity when it comes to citizens they decide don’t deserve the respect of the law, as they see it.
Again, I apologize.
If he was violated he absolutely he should press charges, cut or not cut. The cynic in me feels that if he doesn’t press charges now that he knows his job is secure, then maybe he wasn’t violated. IOW, he could have cried wolf to keep from being cut. If he’s got a boat load of witnesses, including possible video evidence to police brutality, and he gets it all the time and is sick of it, then why not go forth? You can absolutely stick it to a bad cop, nothing should keep you from doing it- where’s the downside? If nothing else, he should do it in honor of those people who are similar victims and don’t have status and money.
I was hoping the OP would have participated in this thread and the follow-up questions, but the OP seems to just sit there on its own.
You seem to have, ahh, greatly exaggerated what is needed for someone to be believed when they say they’ve been violated. An unbiased witness coming forth is not enough for you, so he’s lying. If he decides not to proceed, even inthe interests of honoring less wealthy and influential people, he’s lying. Why can’t it be simply for the reasons Omnescient suggested about the downside? Did you read the link about the eyewitness? What if there is not a boatload of witnesses, video evidence and a record of being repeatedly violated? Is he therefore not to be believed?
Exactly how many eyewitnesses is [del]the[/del] your standard, what will give them the appearance of credibility and what form must the required video evidence take? If all of these criteria are not met, is he therefore definitely lying? Why is it “sticking it to a bad cop” to file charges on rogue behavior instead of participating in the democratic standard of due process of law?
To furthe investigate the example I gave of the harassed NYPD Chief, whose ID wasn’t believed. Would you suggest his ID should have been better? Or that he should have expected to be questioned since he wasn’t what the POs expected a Chief to be and to be a little more patient? Where do you draw the line?