In a perfect world, yes, but in reality, no.
Police do not have to tell the truth, and if a lie gets them the upper hand, they'll often lie. Asking them to explain your rights, especially after annoying them by being obstinate and repeating to them that you know your rights, is just dumb imo. They have no obligation to teach you or to be honest about them and every incentive not to.....although it would be nice if they did.

Edit: asking for a lengthy explanation after being told 'any answer besides"yes" is considered refusal' is a point where you will be penalized for asking what your rights are....white, black, or purple.

Explain how it's ok to administer a test at any time but this time is harassment because he failed them, please, because that's contradictory.

He parked on the freeway causing suspicion,
admitted to drinking and driving requiring a field test,
didn't follow directions so failed the field test,
then obstinately repeated that with the breathalyzer by not answering yes and taking it. (After being told anything but yes legally means no).
Please, what's harassment there?....because there's definitely something more imo.

Remove race from the equation, and it's a good arrest. Adding race in does nothing to negate that imo.


Edit: I was a white punk with a long Mohawk. I got harassed far worse than this repeatedly, including being thrown to the ground at gunpoint because an officer read my plate wrong and accused me of being a car thief. Attitude usually has far more to do with the outcome than anything else in my experience. When I was polite and followed instructions I almost always walked, even when in the wrong. When I argued, I got slapped hard, like a vandalism charge for a 4" chalk line on a sidewalk or 2 hours of having my car searched in front of my friends house.

If I'm misunderstanding and you aren't claiming this was a dwb arrest, apologies. That's the part I'm debating, because it seems wrong.

No...he admitted to drinking at the dinner he was coming from, a legal reason to field test by itself. There's no question they can field test you for any suspicion, even no reason at all, and fail you for any tiny missteps they determine indicate impairment, then verify with a breathalyzer. Failure to submit to that impartial test is considered admission of guilt in most places.
He was let off most likely because he denied 'refusing' the test and they couldn't prove otherwise without recordings is my guess.

Why not intentionally waste their time and annoy them? Because defending yourself against charges that could be easily avoided is a pain, as he describes. The officers involved won't care if the charges stick, their point is made, they'll show you who can waste who's time and money more effectively, with little fear of consequences.
Edit: there's also the possibility that the police didn't show at the final trial appearance, which could also end up causing a dismissal of the case.

When you're illegally parked/stopped on a freeway shoulder you should expect to be looked at with suspicion, imo.

Well, looking it up on Google the "Sobriety Test" strictly speaking involves three tests that don't involve the breathalyzer, which usually comes after those first tests. But he does say breathalyzer at 5:33, but if it is really an open and shut case because he refused it then why did he get off?
From the sounds of it the cop had no reason to suspect he was drunk in the first place, which renders the tests moot because he probably wasn't drunk and they knew it. As for why waste time and annoy? From his perspective they were wasting his time and annoying him, so why the hell not.

Understood, but he's had it explained to him directly by multiple sifters.....I even cut and pasted the channel description for him.
Hopefully he reads it.

Edit-when it's an improper assignment to the kids channel, it's worth addressing imo, the rest are just annoying.

4:26....at the station, what he's calling a "sobriety test" is, in most states, a breathalyzer test that you must agree to, or blood, and not saying yes and taking it is considered refusal because people do waste time arguing in an attempt to score lower, and ain't nobody got time for that. They told him clearly you must answer yes or no, or it's considered refusal, which is absolutely normal procedure from what I've seen. He answered "Listen, I was a US Marine, ....bla bla bla...let's take a minute....bla bla bla...explain my rights...bla bla." and never took it, which is refusal under the law.
5:33 confirms this, breathalyzer.

They must have claimed he failed the field test or why cuff him and require more tests at the station, something he omits, which makes sense since he said he joked around while taking it, marching left right instead of heel toeing. At first he insisted on making numerous phone calls first, like that's a right....he knows his rights....Then he wants to stop to set up his camera to record the stop...Then argues more about the test itself. The cops were clearly annoyed with him arguing and not complying before he got out of the car, but he persisted right into jail.

I wouldn't trust his biased recollection to include all the facts, especially since he is "conducting a study on racial profiling". Sounded to me like a case of arguing himself into a charge he was lucky to get out of because the cops stupidly didn't record the stop. From his own descriptions, in California at least, he's totally guilty....you have no right to discussions, and only an idiot would believe the cops will tell you your rights honestly anyway, so why keep asking except to waste time and annoy?

2001's Ocean's 11 had a bunch of racially and culturally diverse characters as well. Did you whine about it then too? Or were you not as edgy back then?

Are we supposed to just keep everything white and straight to "keep it real" and make you comfortable? MORE THAN ONE BLACK CHICK??? STOP THE MADNESS!

Warriors against SJW are more annoying that SJWs themselves. Talk about "snowflakes"...

(Also, I counted only one black chick... ???)

Right around the corner from my house, there is an abortion clinic. Every fucking day there is a ton of people standing outside protesting AND they bring a deceptive looking bus that offers free pregnancy tests, etc. I did some research and it is a mobile PRC, which is apparently what they are calling CPC's here in Texas.

It is downright annoying. I've had to call the cops out a couple of times because, between the idiot protesters and the bus taking up half the street, many times you can't even get to the I35 access road.

*promote

Me too. When I posted it, the kindle wasn't recognizing it as 360, so it stretched and warped the whole image in an awesome, trippy way. I rewatched on my pc, and it wasn't nearly as good, and really hard to see what's happening. Disappointing.
They had a short version on rightthisminute.com without 360 that was neat, but they jabber over it annoyingly.

Callister was great apart from one massive plot hole:

DNA doesn’t contain memories.

What’s annoying is that was so easily fixable with almost no story changes.

But the rest of the episode (story, cast, production, etc) was so good I just went with it.

San Junipero is overrated IMO. 15 Million Merits is probably my favourite. Or White Christmas... that was epic.

Yeah, annoying ads.

*sports and annoying *music

Wow that guy made the video annoying to watch. It is a shame he hasn't watched other R/C planes, he might learn that those modern electric motors can generate so much thrust that the body wouldnt even be needed. You would have to try very very hard and add a ton of weight to make a battery powered plane that couldn't fly. And when I say fly I mean "dragged along by a horizontal helicopter blade".

I hear you brother. I have already earmarked an emergency "flights, tickets etc for Slayers last tour" fund. My wife is kinda annoyed that we might have to skip our 10th wedding anniversary, but she'll get over it

Good points.

I'm not a gun nutadvocate, but I have friends who are. I have shot a fairly wide range of guns with them, including an AR-15. For myself, I only ever owned BB guns and a .22 pellet air rifle, for target shooting and varmint control on my family farm. I did go pheasant hunting with borrowed 20 and 12 gauge shotguns a couple times.

My friend that owns the AR-15 is a responsible gun owner. Do I think he needs it? Hell no. But he likes it. Do I need a PC with an i7 processor and nVidia 1060 GPU? Hell no. But I like it.

So I guess it becomes a question of to what extent the things that we like can be used for negative purposes. My nVidia 1060 is unlikely to be used to facilitate a crime (unless games or bitcoin mining get criminalized). However, even though AR-15s might be one of the primary firearms of choice for murderous wackos, the percentage of people that own AR-15's who are murderous wackos is also extremely low.

If banning AR-15s would significantly reduce the rate of mass shootings and/or the average number of deaths per incident, it could be well worth doing even though it would annoy many responsible owners like my friend. ...But, I just don't think that would be the case. Not by itself.

I think we're at a point where we NEED to do something. If the something that we decide to do is to ban AR-15s, well, so be it I guess. But I don't think we'd be pleased with the long-term results of that. It'd be cutting the flower off of the top of the weed. We need to dig deeper, and I think that registration and licensing are sane ways to attempt to do that.