Ced 911 Call: 'They are beating a black kid'

One thing is for sure, if Cedric's eyes were not bloodshot before they were stopped, that pepper spray made damn sure that they were by the time his picture was taken.
 
You don't get a jury trial for a resisting arrest charge?

eek.gif
 
The thing I don't understand is why Ced would be getting trashed on the lake with his mom present. Maybe his family just rolls differently than mine, but I can't ever recall having more than a drink or two around my parents in my entire life. I tend to think maybe he wasn't wasted.
 
My bad, I thought we were talking about getting busted for drinking & what the repercussions were for not talking the test.
Didn't realize you guys had a trial by jury for refusing to take a breathalyzer instead of simply going in front of a judge.
 
Not only should you not blow but you should refuse all sobriety tests as well. They are set up for you to fail even if you are sober. And more times than not if you are pulled over because they think you have been drinking, whether you were or not, you are still going to jail.
 
SINCE73 - You seem like one of the few decent OU fans who post on this site, so I'll refrain from any personal comments, but I don't know WTF you're talking about at this point. Your earlier posts indicated that you were absolutely clueless to the fact that an individual accused of BWI and resisting arrest is entitled to a jury trial on those charges.

But now I'm thinking that you're asking only about the repercussions of refusing a sobriety test. Your driver's license is suspended 90 days for the first offense. There's an administrative hearing that focuses solely on probable cause for the stop, so its usually a waste of time. Most folks just get an educational / occupational temporary driver's license.
 
FST are voluntary and they are only us is to self incriminate people. Refusal to take breath or blood test carries extreme penalties in my state(California). An automatic suspension of license for one year. I think MADD has taken DUI laws too far to the point where people under the legal limits are getting arrested.
 
MrSS.
I was simply talking about refusing to take a breathalyzer.
In Oklahoma, refusing a breathalyzer is an automatic 6 months suspended license even if the court decides you were set up & the cop gets fired for pulling you over.
The DOT is a totally separate beast & they only go on what you were charged with, not what happened after that.
If you blow you will only be hammered for 3 months regardless of BAC. (from DOT)
Our laws are different than yours it seems because a DUI is the greater offense in Oklahoma while a DWI is just driving around w/ a few beers in ya.
We also have the lesser, "actual physical control" which is pretty common.
In any case, if the laws are the same & you lose your license for 6 months or lose them for 3, take the 3. You have nothing to gain but not blowing.
No judge is going to believe that you only had a couple of beers after reading the police report that they rubber stamp of blood shot eyes, slurring, unsteady on your feet.
It doesn't make any sense to not blow. Maybe in Texas you guys can get on a DUI/DWI much more frequently than in Oklahoma but it's pretty cut & dry here.
You drink, you blow, you get 3 months for a DUI.
You drink, you don't blow, you get 6 months for a DUI & you still get a DUI.
 
Lord knows I shouldn’t argue law to people on a witch hunt, but some of you have some interesting ideas.

First, if you don’t think its ******** that a black dude gets "safety checked" six times in a row, is fooling themselves. BWB, baby.

Secondly, this is a gem. A juror thought the defendant looked good on video but voted to convict anyway:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You'd be surprised how intellecutally lazy the average sumbitch sitting at home is. The fact is, guilty until proven innocent is *********. People suspect that people are guilty and really need coaxing to believe otherwise. Now, this may work out in their favor most times, but it's hardly full-proof.

I don't know if Ced was drunk or not, and if he was, then he needs to be punished, especailly given the number of people, including athletes of note, who have been killed in boating accidents that involved alcohol.

That said, there is a long list of solid reasons why you shouldn't just accept whatever it is the state tells you to do if you legally don't have to do it. You waive a lot of rights otherwise and that can come back to haunt you. We have plenty of innocent people being released from prison thanks to DNA evidence or re-tested DNA evidence that found that orignal forensics were off.

In other words, the police, the state and, yes, humanity make mistakes, even with so-called modern technology.

But I'll throw another bone out there... if Ced had been stopped five times in five previous excursions, I'm not sure if I were him I'd bother to drink anything, given the odds and the time of day and who he is.
 
You absolutely have the right to a jury trial for resisting arrest. You have the right to a jury trial for a speeding ticket. Read the 6th amendment if you doubt this or talk to any credible criminal defense attorney.

As for the breath test, those are horribly inaccurate. There is a documented case of a carpenter blowing a 0.24 per the breath test. The carpenter calls BS since he had nothing to drink that day. He demands a blood test which shows a 0.00. Apparently the fumes he was breathing in at work caused a false reading with the breathalyzer which only tests for certain types of alcohol and extrapolates. Not saying that Ced is a carpenter. Just pointing out the test is far from rock solid.

In Texas, the breathalyzer test can only be done at the station, which means you have already been arrested. It also means the cop already thinks you are guilty. You do not have much to gain by taking the test unless maybe you are in Williamson County, Smith County, or other uber conservative counties. In Travis or Bexar, refuse the breath test. For that matter, if you have been drinking then refuse the field sobriety test as well. Misunderstand one direction from the cop and you are going to jail. In the comforts of my house those tests are one thing. Having traffic and big rigs whizzing by you at 70 mph, at night, on an exit ramp, under the pressure of knowing that if you screw up you are going to jail is a totally different situation.

If you have not been drinking or really have only had just one beer, then demand a blood test and get video evidence of your request. The cops will refuse on the grounds that they can request a breath test or blood test and the breath test costs them less money. The blood test is basically fool proof, at least in the way that DNA tests are fool proof up to the point that evidence gets fabricated. If the cops refuse, then your attorney can go to town with the jury highlighting the issues with the breath test and that you were willing to take the more accurate test.

Besides, the cops will not draw blood at the station. They will require a nurse to draw the blood. This kills more time for either a nurse to go to the station or more likely for you to go to a hospital.

BTW, this Memorial Day Weekend, Bexar County, along with Tarrant and probably other major counties, will have a judge on hand, assuming he does not back down from the public exposure, to sign warrants requiring a blood test with a nurse standing by to draw the blood immediately. If the blood test comes up 0.08 or higher, then there is basically no way to beat that.

To be absolutely clear about my attitudes, do not drink and drive. It's insanely stupid. I frankly don't care that much if you wrap your car around a tree and kill yourself, but your family will. So will the families of anyone else that you hit/ kill.

Also keep in mind that getting caught drinking and driving with a kid in the car is an automatic charge of child endangerment (3rd degree felony) versus a Class B misdemeanor.
 
Big Horn:

You didn't sit through the trial and see the evidence that we, as jurors, saw. I am an attorney and former prosecutor, so I know about the law. I used to prosecute DWI's myself, and I was certainly going to hold the state to its burden of proof. As far as the trial, I said he didn't look that bad on video. I didn't say he looked great on video. He did sway a little here and there. As I am sure you know, losing mental/physical faculties doesn't mean falling down drunk. He did not take the field sobriety tests because he told the Trooper he had a hip injury from a prior car accident. He also refused to follow the Trooper's instructions. All that, coupled with the fact that he refused to blow 5 hours after he claims he drank his last beer, led me and FIVE other jurors to convict him. The fact that he was going to do a plumbing job at 10:30 pm on a Friday night was just another factor which indicated he wasn't telling the truth. The trial lasted two days, and after the first I was ready to acquit him. During the second day, and upon closer review of the video which did show some swaying, I changed my mind. And yes, I did hold the refusal against him because I am allowed to do that under the law. I didn't hold against him the fact that he had been convicted of DWI a month before the arrest in the case I heard. Don't you come in here stating that I, and my fellow jurors, violated our duty as jurors when you were nowhere near that Courtroom during that trial. If I am ever falsely accused, I hope to hell I have jurors like the five other jurors I sat with. As for the guy we convicted, he was certainly not falsely accused and got exactly what he deserved. I take comfort in knowing that when he gets his next DWI it will be a felony.
 
Cabo, we can agree to disagree, but you originally said he didnt look bad on video which I took to mean that he had the normal use of his mental or physical faculties.

Now you say a presumptively innocent citizen who, according to the undisputed evidence had a bad hip, just got convicted because he swayed a little bit, yet you have no idea of his normal physical facutlies. Maybe he was old, or clumsy or top heavy or the roadway was not even (as none are so water can drain off) or maybe even it was caused by his hip. If that aint reasonable doubt, I dont know what is......that is until you shifted the burden of proof onto the defendant to take a breath test and call witnesses.

But you are right, I didnt see the video, or hear the evidence. I just hope it was a lot more convincing than you explain it.

I am a DWI defense lawyer and you are a former DWI prosecutor. The fact that we disagree is not earthshattering. What is earthshattering is that you got left on a panel.
 
Yeah, I was surprised by that. They knew I was an attorney, but didn't ask me about my previous work experience. Like I said, I was ready to walk the guy after the first day. As far as the burden of proof, I believe the State met it with all the factors I have mentioned. If the Defendant is going to claim that he couldn't do the FST's, or did them poorly because of a prior injury, then he better damn sure come forth with some evidence of that (other than his testimony) if he wants the jury to consider that. There was no undisputed evidence of a hip injury. The Defendant stated that at the scene, and testified at trial about his injury. I, as a juror, am allowed to judge the credibility of that testimony. I'm not shifting any burden here. Is the State supposed to prove that he was never injured?? The fact is that if that guy was telling the truth (2 beers at 5:30pm, pulled over at 10:30pm), then the breath test would have exonerated him.
 
Wow, a former prosecutor on a dwi trial? That' is crazy. I don't think that's good, jmo.


Cabo, how clear cut could it have been if you were ready to acquit him one day and rule that he's guilty the next? So it was the guy's second? Did he goto jail?

I
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top