Authorities won't release Benson arrest audio

[nfoligno]

Agreed, and that is my issue in all this. The whole "putting yourself in a bad situation" is just very questionable IMHO. To read these posts, w/o knowledge of the actual story, you would think he were on the Minny Love boat w/ hookers and drugs. To read these posts, you would think he was in a situation where people were breaking the law or something.

 

I have thrown this out before, but I consider this a valid example. What if Benson were out at dinner w/ his mom and some friends. At dinner, he has a beer or maybe a glass of wine. According to some on this board, he would be putting himself in a bad situation, as he would be out in public (he should have just had dinner at home) and had a drink (he should have simply drank a shirly temple).

 

The whole idea that a player should not be allowed to go out in public and enjoy himself is a little out there IMHO. Unless evidence comes forward that Benson were drunk and intended to drive the boat, rather than allow his mom or a sober individual to do so, is a bit off to me. Since when did a man have to check his rights at the front door, simply because he signs a deal w/ a pro team.

[LT2_3]

Agreed, and that is my issue in all this. The whole "putting yourself in a bad situation" is just very questionable IMHO. To read these posts, w/o knowledge of the actual story, you would think he were on the Minny Love boat w/ hookers and drugs. To read these posts, you would think he was in a situation where people were breaking the law or something.

 

I have thrown this out before, but I consider this a valid example. What if Benson were out at dinner w/ his mom and some friends. At dinner, he has a beer or maybe a glass of wine. According to some on this board, he would be putting himself in a bad situation, as he would be out in public (he should have just had dinner at home) and had a drink (he should have simply drank a shirly temple).

 

The whole idea that a player should not be allowed to go out in public and enjoy himself is a little out there IMHO. Unless evidence comes forward that Benson were drunk and intended to drive the boat, rather than allow his mom or a sober individual to do so, is a bit off to me. Since when did a man have to check his rights at the front door, simply because he signs a deal w/ a pro team.

 

100% agreement. The only way someone could possibly maintain that Benson put himself in a bad situation is to suggest that he had a designated captain whether he was drinking or not. And even THAT'S a stretch.

 

That's why I'm looking forward to a transcript of the audio. I want to know if the - uh - officers asked who's driving the boat, or whether they asked who owns the boat. It's a key element in determining if they had any possible probable cause to put Benson in a position to "resist arrest" in the first place.

 

Even if they asked who's driving the boat, Benson said HE was, and they wanted to test Benson for being drunk, that's similar to walking into a bar, asking who drove a particular car in the parking lot, and then testing him for being drunk even though he's not driving the car at the time.

[bear trap]

Quick question: What reason did the police have for entering your apartment?

 

They were listening to music. Neighbor was my ex and called them in.

 

My point is that it all comes down to probable cause.

 

Wrong again, As stated by the river authorities, it's summertime and they've been having too many accidents on the lake and are cracking down on drunken boaters. So, their "safety checks give them the authority to board your boat, and since in the photo open containers are visible I would say that it alone provides probable cause to check the sobriety of the person navigating, now I would almost have to bet they asked everyone on board who was the operator and benson whether drinking or not more than likely stood up and acknowledged he was since it was his boat. Like I said I or you for that matter can't say he's guilty or not, but he did not look out for his own back and to not see that is being extremely narrow minded.

 

In Benson's case, it's not illegal to have alcohol on the boat and the engine wasn't running.

 

You are right, but it is enough for probable cause which your are strongly ignoring. Not saying he's guilty, however after the safety check is done a visible open container is sufficient for probable cause. Which is my whole point of him putting himself in a bad situation.

 

. As far as I'm concerned, I can see no probable cause there

 

Already discussed nuff said, but here's an example. You pass through a vehicle inspection check point and cops see an open container in your car. Whether it was yours from a long time ago and you through it in your car b/c you didn't want to litter or take it inside and throw it away it's still probable cause for an officer, It's their jobs and you must realize that cause there's too many jerks out there that get plastered then get behind the wheel of a car and kill families.

 

As you describe your situation, whoever let the cops in is a moron.

 

 

C'mon don't be an idiot. Everyone knows that when living in an apartment duplex the landlord can give the cops the keys to the place so you're just acting juvenile to make that comment. The cops would have came in anyways cause they had the keys.

 

They can't enter without an invitation or a warrant. It's a matter of understanding your rights and the law.

 

Unless they have probable cause and permission by the land lord, which is what my lawyer explained to me.

 

Benson was within his rights and he shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of overagressive, jack-booted, facist, bullyboys.

 

 

B.S. Sure he was within his rights, but don't cry when you give the cops suspicion, whether he was drunk or not, him saying that he was entrapted or whatever is crying over his own doing. Don't have it on board, and if you do have it on board don't drink and drive. If he did do this the only thing he's guilty of is putting himself in a position to be questioned by the police, cause they don't need a probable cause to do an inspection and with the alcohol in plain sight he did it to himself! Point made!

[LT2_3]

Quick question: What reason did the police have for entering your apartment?

 

They were listening to music. Neighbor was my ex and called them in.

 

Where do you live that a noise complaint is probable cause to enter a home? Being loud is a fine at most just about anywhere.

 

My point is that it all comes down to probable cause.

 

Wrong again, As stated by the river authorities, it's summertime and they've been having too many accidents on the lake and are cracking down on drunken boaters. So, their "safety checks give them the authority to board your boat, and since in the photo open containers are visible I would say that it alone provides probable cause to check the sobriety of the person navigating, now I would almost have to bet they asked everyone on board who was the operator and benson whether drinking or not more than likely stood up and acknowledged he was since it was his boat. Like I said I or you for that matter can't say he's guilty or not, but he did not look out for his own back and to not see that is being extremely narrow minded.

 

This is where we disagree. If he wasn't navigating the boat at the time, it would be like a cop walking into a bar and asking who drove the black BMW to the bar and taking them outside for a sobreity test even though he would have had the choice to either not drive home himself or wait until he was sober. There are alot of details that we don't know that would clarify this, but as I understand the situation, the was no probable cause to support the investigation.

 

In Benson's case, it's not illegal to have alcohol on the boat and the engine wasn't running.

 

You are right, but it is enough for probable cause which your are strongly ignoring. Not saying he's guilty, however after the safety check is done a visible open container is sufficient for probable cause. Which is my whole point of him putting himself in a bad situation.

 

You are being incredibly unclear here. An open container is probable cause for what? My point about probable cause is that there is no probable cause to think that Benson was planning on driving the boat impaired and he wasn't driving the boat at the time.

 

As you describe your situation, whoever let the cops in is a moron.

 

C'mon don't be an idiot. Everyone knows that when living in an apartment duplex the landlord can give the cops the keys to the place so you're just acting juvenile to make that comment. The cops would have came in anyways cause they had the keys.

 

OK, first off, I have never heard of a landlord giving keys to the police so I don't know where this "common knowledge" comes from. Secondly, if your apartment or duplex does not have a chain bolt, you should install one. At that point, even if the Police have keys, they can't enter the premises without being invited or have a warrant. In a similar situation, I once had a noise complaint where a cop came and wanted me to open the door. I refused and spoke to him through a window. He got all pissed off and ranted and raved and went back to his car to radio HQ to find out what to do. He ended up leaving me a $50 ticket stuck to my door for failure to comply with a police officer. I paid the fine and never had another problem.

 

They can't enter without an invitation or a warrant. It's a matter of understanding your rights and the law.

 

Unless they have probable cause and permission by the land lord, which is what my lawyer explained to me.

 

If the door is chain bolted, they would still need a warrant to enter the premises if the only thing they had for probable cause was a noise complaint. This does make me wonder further where the heck you live. The bottom line is that the Police can't enter someone's home forcibly without a warrant or probable cause that someone is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm. It's called unreasonable search and seizure and it's in the Constitution. The thing that screwed you was that you didn't have a lock that the landlord couldn't give them a key for. That's on you for not knowing any better in the first place.

 

Benson was within his rights and he shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of overagressive, jack-booted, facist, bullyboys.

 

B.S. Sure he was within his rights, but don't cry when you give the cops suspicion, whether he was drunk or not, him saying that he was entrapted or whatever is crying over his own doing. Don't have it on board, and if you do have it on board don't drink and drive. If he did do this the only thing he's guilty of is putting himself in a position to be questioned by the police, cause they don't need a probable cause to do an inspection and with the alcohol in plain sight he did it to himself! Point made!

 

My point is that he wasn't driving the boat at the time so they had nothing to charge him with even if he was drunk.

[bear trap]

Where do you live that a noise complaint is probable cause to enter a home? Being loud is a fine at most just about anywhere.

 

 

 

This is where we disagree. If he wasn't navigating the boat at the time, it would be like a cop walking into a bar and asking who drove the black BMW to the bar and taking them outside for a sobreity test even though he would have had the choice to either not drive home himself or wait until he was sober. There are alot of details that we don't know that would clarify this, but as I understand the situation, the was no probable cause to support the investigation.

 

 

 

You are being incredibly unclear here. An open container is probable cause for what? My point about probable cause is that there is no probable cause to think that Benson was planning on driving the boat impaired and he wasn't driving the boat at the time.

 

 

 

OK, first off, I have never heard of a landlord giving keys to the police so I don't know where this "common knowledge" comes from. Secondly, if your apartment or duplex does not have a chain bolt, you should install one. At that point, even if the Police have keys, they can't enter the premises without being invited or have a warrant. In a similar situation, I once had a noise complaint where a cop came and wanted me to open the door. I refused and spoke to him through a window. He got all pissed off and ranted and raved and went back to his car to radio HQ to find out what to do. He ended up leaving me a $50 ticket stuck to my door for failure to comply with a police officer. I paid the fine and never had another problem.

 

 

 

If the door is chain bolted, they would still need a warrant to enter the premises if the only thing they had for probable cause was a noise complaint. This does make me wonder further where the heck you live. The bottom line is that the Police can't enter someone's home forcibly without a warrant or probable cause that someone is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm. It's called unreasonable search and seizure and it's in the Constitution. The thing that screwed you was that you didn't have a lock that the landlord couldn't give them a key for. That's on you for not knowing any better in the first place.

 

 

 

My point is that he wasn't driving the boat at the time so they had nothing to charge him with even if he was drunk.

 

 

You're missing my point, which is that we don't know if benson was guilty or not, but they did have the right to question him with the alcohol being in plain sight. I'm no way saying that benson was guilty or not guilty, however probable cause was established with the sight of open containers, and if benson did in fact acknowledge that he was the operator of the boat, which who knows until the audio is let out, the cops did have the right to question him about the alcohol, so they did in fact have every right to SET FOOT on his boat which is what I and madlith are saying. In no way are we saying he's guilty or that the cops had the right to charge him, and neither can you cause none of us know what was said on the boat. Who's to say that the cops asked everyone who was operating the boat and benson says he is? We just don't know, however I still would say that benson put himself in a bad situation by having alcohol on board which gave the cops the right to ask questions once on board. Being on a boat is way different than being in a bar. If what you commented on were to play out like this it's the same: Man walks out of bar and gets in car. Cop pulls car over a few blocks down the road. Cop sees empty beer can on floor board. Cop has the right to give sobriety test with probable cause of beer can in plain sight. I'm not argueing over benson's innocence or the cop's right to charge benson, I'm argueing over the cop's right to perform sobriety test to whoever acknowledges to be the operator and to benson putting himself in position to be subjected to questioning from officers. There was alcohol visible which is why benson put himself at risk to be questioned for more than just a safety inspection.

[LT2_3]

You're missing my point, which is that we don't know if benson was guilty or not, but they did have the right to question him with the alcohol being in plain sight. I'm no way saying that benson was guilty or not guilty, however probable cause was established with the sight of open containers, and if benson did in fact acknowledge that he was the operator of the boat, which who knows until the audio is let out, the cops did have the right to question him about the alcohol, so they did in fact have every right to SET FOOT on his boat which is what I and madlith are saying. In no way are we saying he's guilty or that the cops had the right to charge him, and neither can you cause none of us know what was said on the boat. Who's to say that the cops asked everyone who was operating the boat and benson says he is? We just don't know, however I still would say that benson put himself in a bad situation by having alcohol on board which gave the cops the right to ask questions once on board. Being on a boat is way different than being in a bar. If what you commented on were to play out like this it's the same: Man walks out of bar and gets in car. Cop pulls car over a few blocks down the road. Cop sees empty beer can on floor board. Cop has the right to give sobriety test with probable cause of beer can in plain sight. I'm not argueing over benson's innocence or the cop's right to charge benson, I'm argueing over the cop's right to perform sobriety test to whoever acknowledges to be the operator and to benson putting himself in position to be subjected to questioning from officers. There was alcohol visible which is why benson put himself at risk to be questioned for more than just a safety inspection.

 

I agree that the cops had every right to question him. However, from everything I've read about boating law in Texas, he wasn't considered "driving the boat" because the engine was off and the boat was free floating at the time. The equivalent thing in a car would be that the car is parked legally in a place where it's legal to drink in your car and the keys weren't in the ignition. The cops could talk to the guy, but they would have no reason to give him a sobreity test because he wasn't driving at the time.

 

Oh, and I'd still like to know where you lived that a landlord gives keys to his apartments to cops for any old reason.

[nfoligno]

First, let me point out I think this whole thing stinks. But w/ that said, one thing I think may be key is Benson's boat was adrift, as opposed to being at anchor. You give the analogy of keys not being in the ignition and the car in park, but that isn't really quite the analogy.

 

I think the police likely did have the right to make sure there was a sober driver. My issues are (1) whether or not they really allowed Benson and opportunity to declare whether another person was able to drive and (2) whether or not Benson was in fact intoxicated and failed the test.

 

According to witnesses, the officer on Benson's boat when Benson was being tested asked other passengers whether any others were capable of driving, so it would appear to me at least one officer was doing the right thing, but then the pepper spray happened, and it went downhill from there.

[bear trap]

I agree that the cops had every right to question him.

 

So you agree that he did in fact put himself in a bad situation? Now we're getting somewhere. He may have or may not have done anything wrong, but the fact is he put himself in position to be talked to by police which is exactly what JA and Lovie and madlith from the way I took it meant.

 

However, from everything I've read about boating law in Texas, he wasn't considered "driving the boat" because the engine was off and the boat was free floating at the time. The equivalent thing in a car would be that the car is parked legally in a place where it's legal to drink in your car and the keys weren't in the ignition. The cops could talk to the guy, but they would have no reason to give him a sobreity test because he wasn't driving at the time.

 

Oh, and I'd still like to know where you lived that a landlord gives keys to his apartments to cops for any old reason.

 

I think you took it wrong. The land lord didn't give the cops a key to my apartment, but my apartment building. It's a security building where you must be buzzed in to enter. Once in there the cops were able to walk up to my door and I'm sure they were there before I got there. They must have been inside my ex's apt cause no more than 4-5 min after I walked in they were knocking on the door. The walls in this building are paper thin per say and they heard conversations that my friends were carrying on before I was there. So they had their probable cause before I even entered. Point is that whether or not my friend opens my door or not, they would have had it opened before anyone sobered up. So to call him a moron for opening it is unjustified. Not to mention that he had no idea it was the police seeing as how they didn't have to buzz my apt. Honestly in a small town of 12-15 thousand how hard do you think it would have been for them to get a warrant? So yeah, my friend really couldn't have prevented the inevitable. I may have technically done nothing wrong, however I do acknowledge the fact that I put myself in a bad situation much like benson did. Oh yeah, how's his situation any different than someone getting a dui in his car parked sleeping it off? Sure the keys may have been in the ignition, but to me having the car in park with the keys in and sleeping in it is no different than having a boat anchored with it's keys in it. They may or may not have been planning on moving, but who's to say that they wouldn't have? It's the same thing with the car scenario. My buddy was given a dui while sitting in the bowling alley's parkinglot with the keys in the ignition, but the car off and he was sleeping cause he didn't want to drive drunk. To me it's no different than a boat anchored (much like a car in park) with it's keys in it. The fact is that Benson put himself in a bad position plain and simple, whether he's guilty or not.

[LT2_3]

I agree that the cops had every right to question him.

 

So you agree that he did in fact put himself in a bad situation? Now we're getting somewhere. He may have or may not have done anything wrong, but the fact is he put himself in position to be talked to by police which is exactly what JA and Lovie and madlith from the way I took it meant.

 

No. They had every right to question him under the guise of a safety inspection. That is entirely independent of whether he was drinking or whether they saw open containers on the boat - which in Texas btw is not illegal.

 

Oh, and I'd still like to know where you lived that a landlord gives keys to his apartments to cops for any old reason.

 

I think you took it wrong. The land lord didn't give the cops a key to my apartment, but my apartment building. It's a security building where you must be buzzed in to enter. Once in there the cops were able to walk up to my door and I'm sure they were there before I got there. They must have been inside my ex's apt cause no more than 4-5 min after I walked in they were knocking on the door. The walls in this building are paper thin per say and they heard conversations that my friends were carrying on before I was there. So they had their probable cause before I even entered. Point is that whether or not my friend opens my door or not, they would have had it opened before anyone sobered up. So to call him a moron for opening it is unjustified.

 

Okay, so what did they hear that your buddies say that implied that they were underage? It's not against the law for you to have people over 21 over and let them drink. What was their probable cause for thinking that the people drinking in there were underage as opposed to over 21? If everyone was possibly over 21, what reason did they have for coming into the place in the first place? Because the music was loud? Didn't you turn it down immediately upon request? You don't have to open the door to say: "Sorry. Won't happen again"

 

Either there is alot more to this than you are saying, or you would've been fine by shutting off the music, shutting everyone else up, and not answering the door. They may have had "probable cause" to talk to you, but there is a HUGE threshold when it comes to them entering a domicile by force. No judge is going to grant them a warrant to go in just because the music was too loud earlier in the evening. If you live in the USA, that is a direct violation of the Bill Of Rights.

 

I really don't think you understand the term "probable cause". It varies by the situation. If the cops have a report of someone screaming in terror, they have "probable cause" that someone is in danger and can enter a domicile by force to save them. If thye have a report of loud music and/or hear it themselves, they can ask for it to be turned down, but cannot enter by force. A judge would laugh at them for asking for a warrant for asking to enter by force for loud music that has already subsided.

 

I've also been in a situation where cops felt they had "probable cause", I disagreed, and they ended up beating the crap out of me and a buddy because we were "resisting arrest". It went to court, and it all got tossed because the judge didn't agree with their interpretation of "probable cause". So, when I talk about "probable cause" I'm not talking about the police interpretation of the term, but what is likely to hold up in court.

 

So in your case, they may have had "probable cause" to question you, they didn't have anything that would rise to the point of violating the Constitution - ie entering your domicile by force without a warrant that wouldn't be granted on such flimsy sh!t.

 

Where do you live again? I'm just curious where the educational system is so bad that you don't even understand the Bill Of Rights.

[bear trap]

No.

 

If you honestly don't think he put himself in a bad situation your just argueing over blind ignorance.

 

They had every right to question him under the guise of a safety inspection. That is entirely independent of whether he was drinking or whether they saw open containers on the boat - which in Texas btw is not illegal.

 

Yeah, it may not be illegal, however the police did have the right to ask questions about who was operating the boat. It don't matter if it's legal to have it on board or not, but they did have the right to ask about the operator. The way I view it is if you're being asked about the sobriety of the operator your putting yourself in a bad situation. If you can't see that you're just arguing just to argue without validity.

 

 

 

Okay, so what did they hear that your buddies say that implied that they were underage? It's not against the law for you to have people over 21 over and let them drink.

 

Nothing! Reread my post I believe I said that my ex called it in. Do you think that it's possible in any way that she might know if I'm under 21, or my friends for that matter. Yeah they were first called in for a noise ordinance, which upon arrival and after speaking to her and more than likely hearing "drinking games" being played I think that was enough for them to put 2 and 2 together.

 

What was their probable cause for thinking that the people drinking in there were underage as opposed to over 21? If everyone was possibly over 21, what reason did they have for coming into the place in the first place? Because the music was loud? Didn't you turn it down immediately upon request? You don't have to open the door to say: "Sorry. Won't happen again"

 

What state do you live in where when you don't open the door for police they just go away. After all that doesn't look suspicious of illegal activity right?

 

 

Either there is alot more to this than you are saying, or you would've been fine by shutting off the music, shutting everyone else up, and not answering the door. They may have had "probable cause" to talk to you, but there is a HUGE threshold when it comes to them entering a domicile by force. No judge is going to grant them a warrant to go in just because the music was too loud earlier in the evening. If you live in the USA, that is a direct violation of the Bill Of Rights.

 

I really don't think you understand the term "probable cause". It varies by the situation. If the cops have a report of someone screaming in terror, they have "probable cause" that someone is in danger and can enter a domicile by force to save them. If thye have a report of loud music and/or hear it themselves, they can ask for it to be turned down, but cannot enter by force. A judge would laugh at them for asking for a warrant for asking to enter by force for loud music that has already subsided.

 

I've also been in a situation where cops felt they had "probable cause", I disagreed, and they ended up beating the crap out of me and a buddy because we were "resisting arrest".

 

Then that solves the discussion, cause you are obviously biased and think all cops are dirty and out to get you. You'll never see it from their perspective!

 

It went to court, and it all got tossed because the judge didn't agree with their interpretation of "probable cause". So, when I talk about "probable cause" I'm not talking about the police interpretation of the term, but what is likely to hold up in court.

 

So in your case, they may have had "probable cause" to question you, they didn't have anything that would rise to the point of violating the Constitution - ie entering your domicile by force without a warrant that wouldn't be granted on such flimsy sh!t.

 

Where do you live again? I'm just curious where the educational system is so bad that you don't even understand the Bill Of Rights.

 

Wow that's the single most ignorant comment I've ever seen you post. A comment "trying" to degrade someone about their education. Well here's my poor educational level. I have a bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering Technologies, so I'm far from your level of intelligence. All your cap numbers just blow me away, You're inferior, I'm not worthy.

[nfoligno]

Just to throw in a tad,

 

You may have had bad experiences, but LT2 is correct. A noise violation is not "cause" to enter a private property. Further, they have to have a fair bit more to believe there is under age drinking.

 

I would not bash you or your friends for allowing the police in. It is VERY common. In college, we were simply tought what to do. When an officer shows up, you do not simply open the door and stand there. You open the door and immediatly step outside, shutting the door behind you. The police either need your permission to enter, or must come back w/ a search warrant. That is simply the law, but not all adults, much less minors, know and understand the law, and thus the police can easily get away w/ quite a bit. The police will often ask permission to enter in such an intimidating way as to make you believe they have the right and you do not have a choice. You do.

 

Again, I would not fault you or your friends, as not everyone knows and understands the law, but for future reference, simply having a party is not probable cause for the police to enter your home. Next time, open the door, step outside, and shut it behind you. Refuse to give permission, take the noise violation ticket, and when they leave, walk back inside.

[adam]

Just to throw in a tad,

 

You may have had bad experiences, but LT2 is correct. A noise violation is not "cause" to enter a private property. Further, they have to have a fair bit more to believe there is under age drinking.

 

I would not bash you or your friends for allowing the police in. It is VERY common. In college, we were simply tought what to do. When an officer shows up, you do not simply open the door and stand there. You open the door and immediatly step outside, shutting the door behind you. The police either need your permission to enter, or must come back w/ a search warrant. That is simply the law, but not all adults, much less minors, know and understand the law, and thus the police can easily get away w/ quite a bit. The police will often ask permission to enter in such an intimidating way as to make you believe they have the right and you do not have a choice. You do.

 

Again, I would not fault you or your friends, as not everyone knows and understands the law, but for future reference, simply having a party is not probable cause for the police to enter your home. Next time, open the door, step outside, and shut it behind you. Refuse to give permission, take the noise violation ticket, and when they leave, walk back inside.

I had a similar experience a few years ago and did exactly as you said, and it works. They didn't even give me a ticket, just told me to keep it down or they would be back.

[LT2_3]

What state do you live in where when you don't open the door for police they just go away. After all that doesn't look suspicious of illegal activity right?

 

I live in Illinois. I was living in Rolling Meadows when a cop asked me to open the door, I refused, and they left me a $50 ticket stuck to my door for "failing to obey a police officer". OOOooooooo huge penalty for not opening the door for the cops. I could have beaten it, but it would have cost me more than $50 to hire an attorney for the occasion. I did consult an attorney and he guessed that the cop was hoping that I wouldn't pay it so they could get a warrant issued for my arrest.

 

I was in the parking lot of a night club in Hoffman Estates, when a cop saw green leafy material through the window of a parked car and thought he had "probable cause" only to have the judge toss the whole thing out because the cop had no way of determining that it wasn't tobacco. In other words, if there is another possible explanation, they only have "possible cause" and they don't have the right to trample your civil rights because they THINK something might be going on.

 

Standing up for your rights against illegal search and seizure may look suspicious to the cops, but that doesn't give them the right to enter your house without a warrant. That's like worrying that a cop thinks you're guilty of something just because you refuse to talk to them without an attorney present. If they want to stake out your place all night and wait for people to leave, you just have to wait them out and have no one leave until they are completely sober. Trust me. They will get bored and leave after a few hours.

 

For the record, I have friends that are cops. I am not biased against all of them. Then again, they admit that most people don't understand their rights as well as I do unless they are an attorney, and the police take advantage of that. You are a prime example. You think that you have to do whatever a cop says just because they are cops and obviously have no clue as to what rights you already have.

 

A few end comments:

 

* - It cracks me up that you think that people over 21 don't play drinking games. I'm 41 and still enjoy a good game of "Hi Bob"

 

* - I ask about the education thing because as of the early 80s when I went to High School, all seniors had to pass a "Constitution test" just to graduate from HS. I am personally amazed that so few people understand the Bill of Rights if this requirement is still intact.

 

* - Where DO you live? You've never answered the question.

 

* - Thanks for the kind words about my cap analysis.

[LT2_3]

Just to throw in a tad,

 

You may have had bad experiences, but LT2 is correct. A noise violation is not "cause" to enter a private property. Further, they have to have a fair bit more to believe there is under age drinking.

 

I would not bash you or your friends for allowing the police in. It is VERY common. In college, we were simply taught what to do. When an officer shows up, you do not simply open the door and stand there. You open the door and immediatly step outside, shutting the door behind you. The police either need your permission to enter, or must come back w/ a search warrant. That is simply the law, but not all adults, much less minors, know and understand the law, and thus the police can easily get away w/ quite a bit. The police will often ask permission to enter in such an intimidating way as to make you believe they have the right and you do not have a choice. You do.

 

Again, I would not fault you or your friends, as not everyone knows and understands the law, but for future reference, simply having a party is not probable cause for the police to enter your home. Next time, open the door, step outside, and shut it behind you. Refuse to give permission, take the noise violation ticket, and when they leave, walk back inside.

 

Thanks Nfo.

 

That's what I'm on about. What do they teach kids in college these days that they don't know that they have the right to refuse entry to the police? Heck, I learned that in HS while throwing parties when my parents were out of town.

[DrunkBomber]

Thanks Nfo.

 

That's what I'm on about. What do they teach kids in college these days that they don't know that they have the right to refuse entry to the police? Heck, I learned that in HS while throwing parties when my parents were out of town.

We knew that in high school and exercised it in college. You dont even have to answer the door as long as you dont acknowledge them. If they can see you and you acknowledge them they will come in sometimes if its something like a big party. That happened to me in high school a few times but nobody is really going to take a complaint seriously from a bunch of kids that just got caught underage drinking. In college, it got to the point where if we were having a party and the cops walked in they would say anyone who doesnt live here leave. The look on their faces was priceless when every person left. They cant prove who was there later so theres nothing they can do.

[LT2_3]

We knew that in high school and exercised it in college. You dont even have to answer the door as long as you dont acknowledge them. If they can see you and you acknowledge them they will come in sometimes if its something like a big party. That happened to me in high school a few times but nobody is really going to take a complaint seriously from a bunch of kids that just got caught underage drinking. In college, it got to the point where if we were having a party and the cops walked in they would say anyone who doesnt live here leave. The look on their faces was priceless when every person left. They cant prove who was there later so theres nothing they can do.

 

Absolutely and thank you.

 

For those unfamiliar with the drinking game "Hi Bob", here's a description:

 

Similar to "TV Characters," another old style drinking game steeped in tradition. Mid-High buzz factor. Supplies: people, beer, and episodes of the original "Bob Newhart Show," or even "Newhart," if desperate.

 

Simple rules: whenever anybody on the show says "Hi, Bob!", everybody calls out "HI BOB!" and takes a very generous drink of their beer. People on the show say "Hi, Bob" so often, that even the guys who can hold their alcohol the best will get at least a good buzz.

 

http://www.webtender.com/handbook/games/hibob.game

 

Anyone else over 21 still have any drinking games that they like to partake in?

[jason]

Absolutely and thank you.

 

For those unfamiliar with the drinking game "Hi Bob", here's a description:

 

http://www.webtender.com/handbook/games/hibob.game

 

Anyone else over 21 still have any drinking games that they like to partake in?

 

I drink whenever Madden announces a game and mentions farv. It could be a week 3 game showcasing the Dolphins vs. the Browns and you can damn-well guarantee that farv will get at least two shout-outs.

[azbearsfan]

Absolutely and thank you.

 

For those unfamiliar with the drinking game "Hi Bob", here's a description:

 

 

 

http://www.webtender.com/handbook/games/hibob.game

 

Anyone else over 21 still have any drinking games that they like to partake in?

 

 

Beer pong, caps , spades, quarters, those and more. I'm 32 and still play that stuff. Fun times.

 

And BTW LT2 I teach high school math and they dont make kids take a Constitution test at least in AZ. Sometimes I ask my kids geography questions or history questions and the answers are incredible. Like one kid last year thought Columbus sailed in 1800. Good stuff.

 

 

Trap, hey man Benson didn't let a bunch of underage kids throw a party on his boat so the comparison doesn't really apply. And a bit of advice..... if you live next to your ex....MOVE

[bear trap]

Beer pong, caps , spades, quarters, those and more. I'm 32 and still play that stuff. Fun times.

 

And BTW LT2 I teach high school math and they dont make kids take a Constitution test at least in AZ. Sometimes I ask my kids geography questions or history questions and the answers are incredible. Like one kid last year thought Columbus sailed in 1800. Good stuff.

 

 

Trap, hey man Benson didn't let a bunch of underage kids throw a party on his boat so the comparison doesn't really apply.

 

I never compared it to his, I just stated I used bad judgement and put my self in a bad situation. Just like benson did by having brew on-board his boat. Sure LT2 it may be legal, but riding a motor cycle w/o a helmet is too, you're still putting yourself in a bad situation if you get in a wreck ( or in his case get boarded for a safety check.) I just don't see why people are arguing over this, it's an obvious issue. He had alcohol on board and went to a place that is notorious for partying and had been boarded before. What is there to argue about him putting himself in a bad situation? If he wanted to avoid all this he would have left the brew ashore and taken the party to the place he was staying. Beer+Boat=Bad judgement.

 

 

 

And a bit of advice..... if you live next to your ex....MOVE

 

Dude c'mon this was 9 years ago and as I stated I had just moved out and into an apartment. I'm sure there have been moments in other guy's lives where they date the girl next door. This girl just happened to become a nut and listened through the walls on a regular basis. Kind of a fatal attraction thing I guess. Once my 12 months were up I was out of there. I mean come on did I even have to write this? I stated my story as a simple reference as to the fact that just because you didn't do anything illegal doesn't mean you didn't put yourself in a bad situation. Everyone here thinks just because benson (supposedly) wasn't drinking and that it's legal to have beer on a boat that benson showed no bad judgement, but he really did.

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah and my fav drinking game is @@@-hole which I censored out due to the whole don't want profanity posted. That game is the best, however kings would be a close second.

[nfoligno]

Everyone here thinks just because benson (supposedly) wasn't drinking and that it's legal to have beer on a boat that benson showed no bad judgement, but he really did.

 

That is sort of the whole crux of the issue, isn't it? This thread went off a tad on a tangent, but this brings it back to the point.

 

I understand that you can be perfectly within the law, and still show poor judgment. Tank gave a great example of this. W/ in 24 hours of being arrested, Tank goes out to a club late, get into an altercation, and later his friend is shot. What law did Tank break? None that I know of. However, going out drinking, to a club w/ a very questionable reputation, w/in hours of being released from jail, showed VERY poor judgment.

 

So I think most everyone would agree that a player can show poor judgment w/o having to break the law. But I also think many simply question how Benson showed poor judgment.

 

I have seen several make the following comments.

 

(1) Benson should just invite friends to his house and not be out in public. I personally have a huge issue w/ this one. Just because you sign on the dotted line does not mean your life off the fields ends.

 

(2) Benson should have avoided that particular lake because he had been stopped so many times before. My argument against this is two-fold. (a) Hogwash. Even if you feel you are being singled out, I do not believe that is reason for a person to feel forced to avoid the area. Where the heck would we be in terms of civil rights if that ideal were followed? ( He had always been stopped for safety checks, which it appears he always passed. While annoying, I do not see any reason he should have expected those stops to lead to this. In fact, while it may have been an annoyance, at the same time it never created any significant harm, especially not enough to avoid the lake entirely. Do you not think there was beer on the boat the other times? If it was never taken to the next step before, why should he expect it to be later?

 

(3) Benson should have hired a captain. I still have an issue w/ this. If he were planning on really drinking, then I would whole heartedly agree. But if the witnesses are believed, then I do not believe he should have had to hire a captain. I still believe the comparison is Benson going out to dinner. Often at dinner, a person has a drink, maybe two. So does that mean every time a player goes out to dinner, they should hire a limo driver?

 

Again, it goes back to what story you believe, but IMHO, if Benson in fact only had one or two beers, than I would say he showed responsibility in not being part of the party, and was responsible in holding back so he could drive.

[madlithuanian]

I hear ya...

 

However, I kind of look at it like leaving your keys in the car and walking away. It's not right for the thief to take your car regardles... But you still shouldn't have put your property in that jeopardy by leaving the keys.

 

Madlith - I get your point, but it's not something that you can really argue. Sure, you can say "it would be a good idea if", but it still remains that Benson really didn't do anything wrong short of not having a designated captain.

[madlithuanian]

nfo, you are unfairly putting words in my mouth.

 

I have never once said that any person or player doesn't have the right to do what he or she wants within the parameters of the law. I just said it's not wise to do so.

 

You have the right to hit your elbow with a ball peen hammer. I recommend you don't.

 

To answer you question, yes...he should have had a pool party instead and tried to eliminate picture taking. It's just a wiser move. It's not about what someone has the right to do...it's what the prudent thing to do is.

 

If I'm his agent or confidant, I recommend exactly what I just said.

 

No. It appears that Mad believes that since Benson is a pro athlete, he does not have the right to own a boat and use it on a public lake. He should have simply invited guests to his house for a pool party, though also making sure none had cameras. Is that about right Madman?

[madlithuanian]

bear trap...sorry to hear of that incident. That really sounds like a bum deal...

 

I think you and I are on the same page on this issue...

 

You're really taking the entire thing out of context. No one said benson couldn't own a boat or take it out and have a good time. All we (the people who see the wrong in his decision) is saying is he shouldn't have had alcohol on board. I mean c'mon their grown adults they know what's putting them at risk. Your telling me they couldn't have went to where ever they were staying and had their drinks there? A person is putting himself at risk just by having the crap on board. keep it on land and drink it when you're at rest and away from the wheel of a car or boat or a lawnmower for that matter, cause otherwise you're just showing bad judgement. It's like your friend drinking in your car and leaving an empty can in it. Sure you may feel you've done no wrong, but you're still leaving yourself open to bad situations if a cop sees it. Benson can go do whatever he wants, but if it's alcohol related he better be off any motorized vehicle if he doesn't want to put himself at risk! Not saying he's guilty or not, just that he showed bad judgement. And if he didn't want to put himself in a bad situation he should have had someone else host the get-together, cause 9 times out of 10 the authorities will go after the person responsible or the host of the party, that's just life.

 

Here's an example. Shortly after I moved out on my own I had two friends come over (no presence of alcohol at this time) We played some madden and watched an NBA playoff game. Around 9:00 I left to go meet someone. I told my friends that they could stay and lock-up when they leave. I came home at 11:00PM and found that 5 more people had come over and beer had been purchased and they were playing cards on my table. 4 minutes after my entry the police raided my apt and butsted 4 of my friends for underage consumption and me for providing a place for underage consumption. After a lot of legal issues I ended up accepting a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor. I still insist to this day I did not furnish a place for underage consumption seeing as how I left and no alcohol was purchased and came back and was busted rather quickly after entry. Not to mention I had to take a breathalyzer and showed nothing. But to not see the ignorace at the fact that I left myself in a position to get in trouble is just being blind. I should have made everyone leave when I left I was just trying to be a good friend. So yeah Benson may not be guilty of jack sh##, but he did put himself in a bad situation that maybe his "FRIENDS" exploited. Just as I had done.

[madlithuanian]

LT2_3,

 

DOn't get me wrong...it does appear the authorities stepped over the line, and they should be looked at for doing so.

 

However, my overall point is that Benson and other similar athletes/celebs need to be aware of the realities of these fascits, and put themselves in situations that reduce such risk. Let someone else fight the law...

 

Quick question: What reason did the police have for entering your apartment? My point is that it all comes down to probable cause. In Benson's case, it's not illegal to have alcohol on the boat and the engine wasn't running. As far as I'm concerned, I can see no probable cause there. As you describe your situation, whoever let the cops in is a moron. They can't enter without an invitation or a warrant. It's a matter of understanding your rights and the law. Benson was within his rights and he shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of overagressive, jack-booted, facist, bullyboys.

[madlithuanian]

C'mon nfo...there is a difference between having a dinner with your mom at a restaurant and enjoying a glass of wine versus a party boat.

 

It's alike a guy sporting the Greatful Dead sticker on his car...regardless if he's tokin' like Cheech & Chong or not, the cops are going to look at him before they look at the other car with no stickers.

 

Agreed, and that is my issue in all this. The whole "putting yourself in a bad situation" is just very questionable IMHO. To read these posts, w/o knowledge of the actual story, you would think he were on the Minny Love boat w/ hookers and drugs. To read these posts, you would think he was in a situation where people were breaking the law or something.

 

I have thrown this out before, but I consider this a valid example. What if Benson were out at dinner w/ his mom and some friends. At dinner, he has a beer or maybe a glass of wine. According to some on this board, he would be putting himself in a bad situation, as he would be out in public (he should have just had dinner at home) and had a drink (he should have simply drank a shirly temple).

 

The whole idea that a player should not be allowed to go out in public and enjoy himself is a little out there IMHO. Unless evidence comes forward that Benson were drunk and intended to drive the boat, rather than allow his mom or a sober individual to do so, is a bit off to me. Since when did a man have to check his rights at the front door, simply because he signs a deal w/ a pro team.