Former NFL player Warren Sapp sues Okeechobee sheriff’s office for wrongful arrest

warren sapp was acting like some of the folks on this board.

 

Don't argue with a police officer in a setting like that. You're not going to win; you're likely going to make things take longer; and you may increase the chance of incorrect actions being taken against you (that's not good for anybody).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

It looked to me the cop was falsely claiming they were going twice the speed limit, which I believe is punishable by jail time and having your car impounded ... and that conclusion was not supported by basic math. He had every right of question that.

 

What do the tattoos say? Curious in case I’m ever summoned for jury duty.

 

Qualified Immunity applies here too? Why do they get special protection?

 

You are correct. Warren Sapp is a piece of crap. Great football player but a terrible human being.

 

He argued about whether or not he "doubled" the speed limit and about "obstruction." Neither one was fruitful, in my opinion.

His words fit this description from MW: "to contend or disagree in words : dispute"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

She said she wrote 53 on the ticket (in a 35); if she called it double, that's really irrelevant (Sapp may have been correct that she misspoke, but she clarified the amount on the ticket, so what's the point?). Was the driver under any threat of being taken to jail or having the car impounded?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

He didn't just state it, he kept going on and on about it (he said the word "double" at least 7 times). For what purpose? How does that contribute to a positive interaction in that setting? He's aware that she expressed the citation was indeed for 53. He's arguing with what she said when all that matters is what's on the citation. If you order food in a restaurant, and the server says that they charge double for beer at 7PM, and the server charges you roughly 50% more instead, how many times are you going to challenge the server for claiming to charge you double? It's just a weird thing to get hung up on.

I think we are all in agreement on that police officer's behavior. We don't seem to be on the same page with Sapp's behavior, but that's ok. I'm just giving my perspective on it. I don't know if you have kids or not, but I doubt you'd want your child to act the way that Sapp did (and again, we all likely agree that we'd rather our child not act the way the police officer did that cuffed Sapp).

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Well, by wrong, in a thread about police, I assumed that wrong means illegal. But I'm assuming you mean wrong is not advisable. We have rights in this country and if you can't exercise them without getting roughed up and/or kidnapped and locked in a cell, do we really have any?

Don't argue with a police officer in a setting like that.
Why? I thought we lived in America with rights to do so. If cops showed up to one of your family member's door while you were there, they answered it, and he said "Move aside, I'm about to search every square inch of this house." Your family member says "No. You can't come in here." You're not going to say "Do you have a warrant? You can't enter this house without a warrant or exigent circumstances." You're not going to take up for your family member? What if the cops showed up to your house and did the same thing? Are you just going to bend over and take it? Not push back at all? (in before "I would let them search every square inch of my house, examining my personal items, likely destroying things and making an absolute mess, then fight in court.)

You're not going to win; you're likely going to make things take longer.
I've seen it be successful numerous, numerous times. Cops count on people not knowing their rights, and it seems like many/most officers take someone standing up for themselves as a threat or obstruction.

You may increase the chance of incorrect actions being taken against you (that's not good for anybody).
Then what does that say about the police in America? The ones that are supposed to remain professional, know the laws they are paid to enforce, and do things by the book. And by incorrect actions, you are bordering on the cops taking an illegal action against you. Are the other cops going to arrest another officer when that officer has obviously broken the law right in front of them? Of course not! Cops are there to arrest the general public, not each other, despite the oath they took and the tasks they are given. It's gang-like. What if instead of the arresting officer saying, "place your hands behind your back," he didn't say anything and just walked straight up to Sapp and punched him in the mouth as hard as he could and just started beating the crap out of him. Would the other officers arrest that cop? Absolutely not, and if you think so, you're either crazy or lying to yourself. Hell, it's unlikely they'd even intervene to stop that officer. They'd probably just start reaching for arms to apply handcuffs. Now if while Sapp was talking, another bystander said "Don't argue with the police in a setting like this," and Sapp punched that guy in the mouth as hard as he could, every cop there would have tackled Sapp and arrested him. They put themselves above the public and Constitution. That's why they falsify police reports, to protect themselves and each other.

 

53 isn't even close to double 35, and he has the right to question that if double the speed limit has greater consequences. Then that other cops says that question this is obstruction, which he also disagrees with. But it seems that what really set the second cop off was when he asked him for his name and badge number. I've watched a lot of these audit the police videos and that's something that always sets them off for some reason. A lot of police departments have policies that say if you ask a cop or their name and badge number, they have to give it to you. Cops love to tell you what to do, but hate it when they have to comply with your requests. Regardless of what you think here, it seems that a Warren Sapp was 100% correct, because the chargers were dropped and it appears, according to the op, that the chief of police admitted it was a bad arrest.

 

The context is lost on me. I didn't say "wrong," and I didn't challenge the notion that the arresting officer was "wrong."

Just as an observation, it seems like some people think that their rights are permanently damaged if they don't exhibit respect and kindness. I see people getting out of control in settings that simply don't call for it. Sometimes police officers are wrong, the time and place to address that isn't by being confrontational with the police. I fully support recording encounters, and if you care, take that information and do what you will with it. But again, what is the upside to the behavior? The only thing I can think of is that you may believe that without such resistance, your rights will be violated. I just don't see it the same way.

Completely different circumstance and not in any way related to the situation portrayed in the OP. Irrelevant. For what it's worth, I would impose every legal means I know of to restrict such a thing, and I would be actively reaching out to people helping me to understand what "every legal means" consists of.

What right was violated by mistakenly claiming that 53 was double 35 but still writing 53 on the ticket? What would a "win" look like in that situation other than getting the police officer to admit that they misspoke about whether or not 53 was double? Again, just a weird thing to get hung up on. Just my opinion.

It says that they are humans and are perfectly capable of making mistakes, sometimes major ones. I bet you don't go marching through bad neighborhoods confidently shouting out you know your rights and nobody is allowed to harm you because (well, among other reasons) not everybody is going to respect the rights that you believe you have. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean exercising the right doesn't make you a fool (why "fool?" because what is the upside that you are looking for in the encounter? The guy apparently sped and was captured/identified as going 53 in a 35). Maybe he wasn't, but you're not going to win that argument on the side of the road.

We can still push for an improvement with police behavior, accountability, funding, etc. while also recognizing when people are acting foolishly. Nothing that I've written should be intended to suggest that there's an either or with conduct here; both sides of an encounter can be criticized.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

The officer issuing the citation that it was 53 in a 35. That should have been the end of questioning whether or not the speed limit was doubled.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Here's the thing, I think people like Warren Sapp (many have testified here to his questionable character) are basically the test of whether rights mean anything or not. Ned Flanders isn't going to argue with the police or test any boundaries. All the supreme court cases which have enshrined these rights have been brought by petty criminals and people on the margins of society (i.e. people acting in ways that could be called foolish), not the people that follow the rules unquestioningly and avoid confrontation. Miranda was a criminal (a suspected rapist in fact)!

 

Completely agree.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS