• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Students, governor want U.Va. student arrest investigated




His ID was not fake.

There is no evidence that he was drunk
 

OK, your opinion is noted. This guy OWNS the Pub, it is HIS liquor license, and therefore his entire investment in the business is on the line every day based on how well they screen out underage patrons. And according to the accounts I've seen, he has had few to no citations for serving underage kids at a club in the heart of a college campus full of smart, tech-savvy people with access to color printers etc. so it's odd you're questioning the methods he's using to weed out fakes. It's his pub, his method WORKS, and that's ultimately the bottom line for a Pub owner.

If you'd do it differently, great, but irrelevant.

And what's it an "excuse" for? I have no idea why you're working so hard to dismiss the owner's statement about his interaction with Johnson.
 

The only evidence you are using is "he hasn't been cited". That doesn't mean it works, only that they don't necessarily check inside the bar enough to ensure "it works".
 
His ID was not fake.

There is no evidence that he was drunk

The ID was questioned by the owner of the pub, indicating to a law enforcement agent nearby that it was suspicious. This provides the LEO with a reasonable suspicion that it could be fake since he was refused entry into a bar because of his ID. (The LEO wouldn't know that the owner didn't even bother to first check the age/date on the ID and see that he wasn't of age according to that in the first place.) Second, not being drunk does not mean not drinking. The LEO claims he was drinking (hence why he was released upon being "sober" after he was arrested). Those underage cannot drink, not just can't drink til drunk.
 
Exactly, rogue. The bottom line is, we have no idea, and we don't know anything, really. And his discussion with the bar bouncer and his status as an honor student have exactly zero to do with this.

But we do have some ideas - we have the witnesses who say he wasn't being belligerent. We have the bar owner seconds before he was apprehended stating the kid was polite, courteous, and showed no signs of intoxication, and that he calmly walked away from being denied entry. We have NO witnesses saying he was belligerent. All the available evidence points in one direction - he wasn't drunk or raising hell.

And we know that within minutes, perhaps 1 minute, he's tackled and bloodied. Is the assumption that this honor student, on the honor committee, student leader, a long history of respect for authority, transformed into stark raving thug in the few seconds between the Pub and being approached by ABC agents?
 

He was turned away from the pub because the bouncer/owner refused his ID. This would easily be suspicious to any LEO nearby and lead them to suspect that the ID he had might be fake. They couldn't know the other facts, that the owner/bouncer didn't even look at the age on the ID telling him that the person was underage, nor that the kid simply forgot his zip code change. That gives them reasonable suspicion though of something illegal, fake ID, and potentially that the ID had been used to obtain alcohol illegally. This was reason to detain the student and gather more information.
 

According to the guy it was "moments" before, but that doesn't mean it actually was. There is absolutely no evidence that it was that immediate. Is "moments" seconds or a minute or more? How distracted was the guy? People don't necessarily always judge time correctly especially if they were distracted.
 

Wrong, two private citizens talking, and one walking away is not "REASONABLE SUSPICION"... again, the pubs policy is not state law, nor is it "Reasonable suspicion" a crime has taken place.

What was his BAC.?

Link to "released when he was sober" please.
 


30 feet. "did not appear intoxicated", coedial... why would the bar lie?

Bar Co-owner Says Martese Johnson Was 'Cordial' the Night of His Arrest - ABC News



No crime, no reasonable suspicion.
 


again, wrong.


or suspicious.
 
The only evidence you are using is "he hasn't been cited". That doesn't mean it works, only that they don't necessarily check inside the bar enough to ensure "it works".

This is the oddest fixation on an irrelevant side issue I've ever seen on this board. Evidence he hasn't been cited is the ONLY evidence we can point to as to whether his method works. And, again, the bottom line is he's the owner, it's his liquor license and therefore livelihood on the line, so it's sort of bizarre you're so focused on this triviality. Even if you're right, why does anyone care as it relates to the topic? What is your point?

If you want to call the owner a liar, just call him a liar. No need to make up childish justifications - just say you don't believe him, you suspect (based on nothing) Johnson acted like a thug at the door and deserved to get tackled and bloodied.
 
He got what he deserved and 100% of the protesting punks do not know the facts but it is hip to protest now if the arrestee is a minority. Ignorance is a curriculum in colleges.
 

OK, you sound like a Police spokesman.

This was a party night, in a college town, the pub was in the heart of campus, he's a college student. If they started vigorously enforcing drinking laws at UVa, half the school would graduate with a criminal record or on some kind of probation. So a little bit of time and place perspective is in order, even presuming the "broken window" school of policing is at all effective.
 

Yes, a private conversation that is still within an officer's hearing is able to be used as "reasonable suspicion".

And here is the bail statement.

The Cavalier Daily :: Johnson's warrant of arrest shows two misdemeanor charges

About the sixth or seventh document scanned. "Bail Set <can't determine the first few letters> $1500.00 when sober"

And the third one down has this checked: Other: release on an unsecured bond when sober
 

They weren't enforcing the laws on campus or at private residences, but rather in public drinking establishments. And they should be enforcing fake ID laws everywhere they are suspected.
 
again, wrong.

or suspicious.

His turning his ID away based on the kid not knowing his zip code does make it suspicious. If he had turned the kid away because his ID said "he is under 21", then it would not have been nearly as suspicious, if it could be at all.
 




So it's the same officers that first claimed he was acting "belligerent" to the bouncer, claiming "release when sober", yet don't check BAC nor charge him with underage intoxication.


He was arrested at 4:21, he was released at 6:01
The Cavalier Daily :: University student, Honor Committee member Martese Johnson arrested


So this "beligerent", "intoxicated" person "sobered" up to be released within an hour and a half?


**** doesn't happen like that.
 

It's weird you're having to invent discrepancies in the record to argue the agents had reasonable cause. And if it's a minute or two minutes, so what? A person calm and polite and showing no signs of intoxication walks 30 feet up the street and suddenly goes crazy - that's the working theory here?

Sheesh, the simple alternative is (at a minimum...) the ABC agents BADLY mishandled what should have been a minor encounter (really he shouldn't have been questioned at all...) and a kid breaking no laws ends up tackled, bloodied and arrested, and there is no evidence he posed any threat to anyone including the agents or bystanders.
 
A couple of years ago the Va ABC surrounded some college girls in plain clothes and drew guns on them after carrying "what appeared to be a case of beer" whole looking under age, except it was bottled water

That story was hilarious.

I just have to post it so we can all laugh again at the stupidity of some people:



Virginia ABC: Agents Violated Policy in Clash with UVA Students - NBC29 WVIR Charlottesville, VA News, Sports and Weather



All that for some for some supsected "beer"? :lol: :doh
 
His turning his ID away based on the kid not knowing his zip code does make it suspicious. If he had turned the kid away because his ID said "he is under 21", then it would not have been nearly as suspicious, if it could be at all.



Did they over hear that part of the conversation? DId they miss the very cordial conversation and explanation after that?
 

Within 6 hours of the actual incident. The incident happened at 12:30, not 4 something when the arrest happened. They had to take him to the hospital first.
 
They weren't enforcing the laws on campus or at private residences, but rather in public drinking establishments. And they should be enforcing fake ID laws everywhere they are suspected.

Yeah, OK, but that night the ABC agents would have "reasonable suspicion" to detain and question half the people on the street that night for breaking some law - either publicly intoxicated or underage drinking. They'd need a big f'ing jail to hold all the actual criminals (drunks, underage drinkers) out that night and on lots of party nights at UVA - thousands of criminals. If that's the kind of policing you want, we can agree to disagree.
 
Did they over hear that part of the conversation? DId they miss the very cordial conversation and explanation after that?

They still never got to see his age was wrong. If he was protesting the zip code not being accepted, then why not point out that he was underage if he wasn't trying to use the ID to get into someplace he knew wouldn't let him in underage? This is why there are problems with the explanations given. If you are being carded, using your real ID that you know shows you are underage, wouldn't you wonder why the guy was checking IDs to begin with and not accepting yours based on your zip code rather than your actual age?

But so long as no one ever mentioned that the ID said he was underage, there is no reason for the LEO to not suspect that the ID said he was of drinking age but fake.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…