HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Cop "brake checks" a driv...

Sun May 8, 2016, 03:43 AM

 

Cop "brake checks" a driver. Issues him all sorts of tickets. Drivers dashcam leads to inquiry

Cop faces inquiry after dashcam footage emerges of him suddenly 'brake checking' a driver without warning

Officer Velez of Clifton Police Department in New Jersey is caught on camera as he appears to 'brake check' a driver last month

Footage from driver's dashcam shows officer stopping suddenly in the middle of a roadway

Driver, identified as Omar B, is subsequently forced to brake, though without collision

He says the act could have hurt him, the cop or anyone that was behind him who could not stop in time
Police said incident is being investigated by department's Internal Affairs
By MYRIAH TOWNER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3567613/Cop-faces-inquiry-dashcam-footage-surfaces-brake-checking-driver.html#ixzz4831MHJBu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


At the time that the officer came to a sudden stop there is nothing in front of him, and he is later heard telling Omar B he braked because he felt the driver was going to run into him.
In the video posted to YouTube on April 22, Omar B is seen following in what he later describes as one car length behind the officer while traveling between 22 and 29 mph before the incident occurs.
Officer Velez then gets out of his car and approaches the driver asking, 'How close are you going to drive behind me?'
Omar B responds saying he was 'like a car length away' before he accuses the officer of brake checking him.


'I braked 'cause I... I thought you were gonna run into me,' Officer Velez says in the video.
Later, Omar B is issued three summonses for not having a license plate, for tailgating and for having tinted windows.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3567613/Cop-faces-inquiry-dashcam-footage-surfaces-brake-checking-driver.html#ixzz4831sNGuo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3567613/Cop-faces-inquiry-dashcam-footage-surfaces-brake-checking-driver.html#ixzz4831loMPW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

33 replies, 2230 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply Cop "brake checks" a driver. Issues him all sorts of tickets. Drivers dashcam leads to inquiry (Original post)
Liberal_in_LA May 2016 OP
alphafemale May 2016 #1
woolldog May 2016 #2
alphafemale May 2016 #13
muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #4
mainer May 2016 #7
Human101948 May 2016 #26
alphafemale May 2016 #15
muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #18
trof May 2016 #24
whereisjustice May 2016 #8
alphafemale May 2016 #16
Logical May 2016 #22
safeinOhio May 2016 #3
King_Klonopin May 2016 #5
Lazy Daisy May 2016 #6
safeinOhio May 2016 #20
Sanity Claws May 2016 #10
awoke_in_2003 May 2016 #30
safeinOhio May 2016 #31
Festivito May 2016 #9
muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #11
Festivito May 2016 #12
muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #17
UtahJosh May 2016 #14
Logical May 2016 #23
awoke_in_2003 May 2016 #32
pinboy3niner May 2016 #19
LineLineNew Reply .
Thor_MN May 2016 #25
Liberal_in_LA May 2016 #29
whereisjustice May 2016 #21
Iggo May 2016 #27
mercuryblues May 2016 #28
beevul May 2016 #33

Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 03:55 AM

1. He should not have been following that close at that speed.

A driver in front of you may need to panic stop and you have to account for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #1)

Sun May 8, 2016, 05:23 AM

2. Did you watch the video?

The driver wasn't doing anything wrong and was not following the cop closely at high speed. Not sure why the OP didn't include the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woolldog (Reply #2)

Sun May 8, 2016, 08:35 AM

13. Yes. I did watch it.

That the second car needed to also panic stop shows they were following too closely.

At that speed, on that road, the distance should have been 4 car lengths at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #1)

Sun May 8, 2016, 06:09 AM

4. But the driver did stop without hitting the car in front

thus indicating he had left enough room - which was way more than one car length - while judging distances on wide-angle cameras isn't easy, there's over a second between the cars (watch as they pass objects at the side). At 24mph, that's 35 feet - over 2 car lengths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #4)

Sun May 8, 2016, 06:52 AM

7. It looked like at least 2 car lengths to me too

That was not too close. And I HATE tail-gaters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #7)

Sun May 8, 2016, 11:14 AM

26. Wide angle lens on a GoPro tends to increase apparent distance...

 

Very difficult to assess the actual distance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #4)

Sun May 8, 2016, 08:39 AM

15. Not hitting the car in front of you is not a great definition of not tail-gaitting.

Did he make skid marks and smoke?

Leaving room for the unexpected is a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #15)

Sun May 8, 2016, 08:51 AM

18. No sound of skidding on the soundtrack

He did leave room for the unexpected, and it worked. He stopped without hitting the bad driver in front.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #18)

Sun May 8, 2016, 09:47 AM

24. Just give up, m_v.

I agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #1)

Sun May 8, 2016, 06:53 AM

8. You should follow the facts more closely

before apologizing for another crooked dirty cop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #8)

Sun May 8, 2016, 08:40 AM

16. Yeah. OK.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #1)

Sun May 8, 2016, 09:35 AM

22. Oh FFS, that is your take from this video? Pay more attention. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 05:50 AM

3. Is it illegal to brake check a car behind you?

Seems if the car in the back hits the car in the front, a ticket for failure to stop in the assured distant would be given to the car that rear ended the one in front.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #3)

Sun May 8, 2016, 06:31 AM

5. Yes; It is called "driving to endanger" under most driving laws.

His intention was to induce a rear-end collision in order to "prove" that
the tailgater was driving dangerously close (ironic? yes!) The proper
response would have been to pull him over and issue a citation for
driving too closely, but he had to make his dick-ish point first.

People in Mass. do it all the time to each other. I've done it.
Everyone here tailgates. The driver in front will usually tap their brakes
to "scare" the tailgater and persuade them to ease off, but it usually
causes rage.
Drivers also don't give you a warning by using their turn signals BEFORE
applying their brakes, so most of us are accustomed to the sudden,
inexplicable braking.

2 car lengths is the standard. 1 car length is up-your-ass close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #3)

Sun May 8, 2016, 06:42 AM

6. I guess it would depend on local laws

https://jimcorleylaw.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/slam-brakes-on-tailgating-criminal-charge-prevent-accident-injury-recovery/

Wonder if this applies here.

We’ve all done it, or had it done to us. One car is tailgating another and the front car slams on his brakes to back the second car off. What you may not know is that this tailgate stopping action can lead to both civil and criminal assault charges and can block the front driver from any injury recovery if it actually leads to an accident

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lazy Daisy (Reply #6)

Sun May 8, 2016, 09:01 AM

20. Slamming on the brakes is one thing,

but tapping the brake is another. One might be tapping the brake to slow down or to cancel the cruse control is another. If someone is tailgating me I turn on my 4 way hazard lights. For some reason it makes them back off.

One time at a red light I put my turn signal on to turn left, but turned right. The lady behind me pulled on the shoulder to pass me on the right on a one lane road and ran into me. She had two people that told the cop they saw me signal one way and turn the other. The cop told us he would not issue any ticket. The lady was mad and wanted a ticket issued. The cop told her if he gave a ticket, she would be the one getting it, as she was passing me illegally on the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #3)

Sun May 8, 2016, 07:23 AM

10. Shouldn't police be preventing accidents, not causing them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #3)

Sun May 8, 2016, 02:26 PM

30. Do you think cops

 

are subject to the law? It doesn't appear, to me, that they are subject to any law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #30)

Sun May 8, 2016, 02:34 PM

31. Bingo

I was married to a cop and she would go 100mph and tail gait all the time. "Who's going to arrest me, I'm a cop." Then there was always the "professional courtesy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 07:05 AM

9. I think the officer made sense. Shortened video doesn't show it too close. Driver's cut tho.

Could be that the officer noticed a distracted driver that was getting too close, waited until he was farther away, and then stopped while being ready to speed forward if needed to avoid being hit. He picked a spot with no cars around to do this. Officer's statement about thinking the driver would hit him would make perfect sense.

The police car camera might catch what the driver here edited out.

The judge might ask to see the whole video, which might not look too good for the driver who sounds like he's being impertinent with his edited video and self-assuring excuse of brake checking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #9)

Sun May 8, 2016, 07:24 AM

11. huh? You appear to have watched a different video

No, the cop did not 'wait unit he was farther away', he braked when the following car was the same distance (a bit over 2 car lengths, as determined above) was it had been for some time. No, the cop did not pick "a spot with no cars around to do this"; he did it at the exact point there was both a car coming in the opposite direction, and a parked car on the right hand side of the road.

"Officer's statement about thinking the driver would hit him would make perfect sense" - perhaps that statement made sense to him (though we have seen the cop would have to be a bad judge of distance to think that), but deciding to brake to risk a hit does not.

I can't tell what you mean about a 'shortened video' - it shows the whole incident, and the cop getting out of his car and talking to the driver. All that's edited is later argument between the driver and cop. The version in reply #2 give you about a minute before the incident, with the driver no closer to the cop than in the Daily Mail video (so the Mail did the editing, but that's reasonable, since that minute is pretty boring stuff).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #11)

Sun May 8, 2016, 07:54 AM

12. 1. The STOPPED vehicles were beyond parked cars and oncoming cars.

Yes, there were cars to the side and oncoming, but, the stop could have been planned for the actual stopping position. There is a lot of video showing two cars stopped and NO CARS AROUND ON THE VIDEO WHILE THE CARS ARE STOPPED. I hope that is clear.

2. The video is edited to begin a certain point. Perhaps beyond the close following, but, perhaps there was no close following before the video starts. But, again, the video is edited to begin at a certain point. Unless there is some belief that insists that existence itself began at the beginning of this video clip, the video is edited and edited by the driver. That would be a 'shortened video' that is a video that begins when a driver chooses the video to begin ignoring what came before.

3. If the minute before and two minutes before all concur that the driver was about two lengths away doing 25 mph, then he has nothing to worry about since he has that video. I would not know how long it was from the time the cop felt it was too close until there was a spot where he felt the oncoming cars and parked cars would be passed. If three minutes before, then neither of us have been given that video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Festivito (Reply #12)

Sun May 8, 2016, 08:45 AM

17. "there were cars to the side and oncoming"

Yes, that's the point; the cop braked when his trunk was level with the hood of the parked car on the right, and a car drives by on the left while he's braking. 'No cars around while they're stopped' is just a condition of later traffic, though 3 more cars pass within 30 seconds of the stop, so it's not really true anyway. If the cop planned for that position, he should lose his license. It's one of the worst places he could have picked to do a bit of bad driving like that.

Look at the fuller video in #2, as I have already suggested. We have 40 seconds of driving before the stop, and the car is never any closer than when the cop braked. The cop drives past loads of empty space on the right where both cars could have pulled over, and the oncoming traffic is no busier than it was after the stop. If you're saying the cop thought, earlier than that, "this guy is too close - I'll wait another minute, then slam on my brakes in the most dangerous spot I can find, rather than getting him to pull over", then the cop would be even worse than the video makes him look.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 08:37 AM

14. Either way, the obvious moral of this story is

self-driving cars are the answer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UtahJosh (Reply #14)

Sun May 8, 2016, 09:37 AM

23. I agree! 1000s of life's saved the first year they are sold. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UtahJosh (Reply #14)

Sun May 8, 2016, 03:08 PM

32. We can't even paint lines on the road...

 

for the things to map. No, the answer is what I have always done- if I see a cop ahead or behind me, I either turn down a street and wait, or pop into convenience store for a few minutes. Euless (TX) cops will write a ticket for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 08:54 AM

19. Wrong forum. This should be in Latest Braking News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #19)

Sun May 8, 2016, 10:31 AM

25. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #19)

Sun May 8, 2016, 01:16 PM

29. lol.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 09:31 AM

21. Just another dirty control-freak cop looking to start trouble

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 11:19 AM

27. Cops, everybody!

Let's hear it!



Best of the best!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 11:24 AM

28. Anyone

who thinks the cop was right did not take into consideration a few things.

1/ the guy was able to stop with enough distance between them that you can see the cops bumper.

2/ he did not squeal the breaks in order to stop without hitting him. He came to a safe stop.

3/ the cop had to take at least three steps from the back of his car to the drivers car. that is equal to at least 4 feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_in_LA (Original post)

Sun May 8, 2016, 03:17 PM

33. Am I the only one...?

 

'I braked 'cause I... I thought you were gonna run into me,' Officer Velez says in the video.


Am I the only one who finds the above assertion to be pure unadulterated grade A blue ribbon first class BULLSHIT?

The LAST thing you do if you think someone is going to rear end you on open road is to slow down.


Makes.No.Sense.To.Me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread