a taxidermic teetotaler whose affability deflates the whole message
Man, that is one painfully shitty, nonsensical sentence. When I said Denton must have recruited you out of a junior high study hall, I may have been overly kind, Belonsky.
Yeah, the texting PSAs used shock and awe to get their point across, but this one doesn't. It isn't graphic, nor is it markedly campy. I also don't think it "get [sic] straight to the gruesome point," as it's too annoying to even pay attention to and learn from. "Pablo" doesn't distract from the message, nor does he need to, as the annoying talking nostrils that are giving it accomplish that on their own.
@Pope John Peeps II: It'd usually be on at some godforsaken hour in the middle of the night on an obscure channel. Occasionally it'll pop up on one of the main five channels, but it'll be close to midnight if it does.
With this one, however, I reckon there'll be a 30-second edit for normal ad breaks, with a tagline like "see the full version online at: ", with the hope of it going viral.
@Pope John Peeps II: An upload of the original says it'll be shown in schools, but the main text is in Russian or something, so I don't know its accuracy.
I see people texting while driving all the time. It's something I'd never do, as I don't even text while not driving, so I feel no need to watch this myself, but damn straight people who are texting while driving should be looking at it. I don't give a damn if it traumatizes them. They're risking people's lives and I'm supposed to be worried about their poor feelings?
I'm surprised by the fuss over this. We've had these kinds of commercials (some far more graphic than this one) for as long as I can remember in Australia. Is there none of this kind of advertising in the States?
@Benny: I've seen some of Australia's work via YouTube or similar sites, but in the States, we really don't have a lot of places to put a 4:15 commercial unless somebody pays for it.
Certainly the thing is graphic and it definitely drives the point home, but unless a director were to put it in front of their next blockbuster or the unless the government were to underwrite its distribution, it's pretty much up to the whims of YouTube.
@Magister: Interesting. Ours typically aren't as long as this one, but I've seen so many people die horribly in these kinds of ads over the years that, to be honest, I've probably become a bit desensitised.
Here's one which shows an impact with a pedestrian in super slow motion while detailing the specifics of his individual injuries, for example.
Obama could use some smart advertising like this. Imagine if this commercial ended with the screen reading "I bet you wish you had that public option now."
By the by, you don't actually have to show ID to the police in New York State unless they are detaining you.
I am not a lawyer, but I've read New York State's stop-and-identify law (NY CLS CPL ยง140.50(1)), and it refers to officers detaining suspects, which requires "reasonable suspicion" that you've committed a crime.
See also the case People v. De Bour, which lays out four tiers of police intrusion and what the police are allowed to do, and what justification they need to prove to allow them to do it. Simply put, they can approach anyone and talk to them. And cops can ask for ID and other information, but you don't necessarily have to show it to them. If a cop has "a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot", they can ask more intrusive questions, but still can't compel you to identify yourself, and you're free to leave at any time.
Under the third tier, if there's "reasonable suspicion", it's the equivalent of a Terry stop, and they can compel you to show ID, and they can detain you.
The fourth tier requires "probable cause" and is essentially an arrest, if i'm reading it correctly.
However, the upshot is that lots of people get arrested and worse for "contempt of cop", and I wonder how far flexing your rights and asking police to adhere to the law will go. If the cops arrest you, rightly or wrongly, and the judge throws it out, you'll still have gone to jail and have your evening/day/weekend ruined.
@i'm a bottle: That's exactly right, and why a lawyer is a better person to talk to than li'l ol' me. But it remains that a police officer has a higher hurdle to clear when detaining you or making you show ID than when he's just talking to you or asking you questions.
"I do not consent to a search" and "Am I free to go?" are good things to remember. That's no guarantee that it won't antagonize the cop, however...and like I said, being arrested would ruin your day, regardless of whether or not it's a bogus arrest.
Repeat after me: "I don't consent to any search." That is all you have to say. No more, no less, whether you have anything illegal on you or not! Watch the ACLU Busted video. Get all of your friends to watch it - the more we know about our rights, the better we are as a country.
@hibiscusflower: The problem is that all the cop has to state to establish probable cause -- the prerequisite for a body search -- is that the person's eyes were bloodshot or glassy, or that the person was slurring his/her words. The DA will take the cops statement as a fact and you'll have to try your luck -- and shell out thousands of dollars -- to fight that supposition in front of a jury, which will probably believe the cop if s/he actually finds something. It's a fucked up system. It all comes down to the policy that we arrest people for minor things like having a few drinks or smoking a little dope.
@cockeyed: That's not true. Here's the scoop:
No Requirement to Carry ID
TX Penal Code: Sec. 38.02. Failure to Identify.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.
Ed. Note: Here's what this law means in plain English.
(1) You don't have to carry a driver's license or other ID, if you're not driving.
(2) If you've been arrested you have to give your name, address, and date of birth to a police officer who requests it. (They'll police ask you for lots more than this, but these three items are all you're legally required to give them.)
(3) If you've just been detained, not arrested, you don't have to give thm squat. But refusing to identify might cause them to arrest you anyway and take you downtown so they can determine who you really are. If this happens, you still won't be charged with failing to carry ID, because there is no such crime.
(4) It's a crime to give false information about your identity, whether you've been arrested or just detained..
late to the game, but for new yorkers who spend more time walking about, riding public transit and whatnot when they might otherwise be "compromised", try not carrying identification. it's the first thing nypd ask for when they suspect anything. you could also try affecting a foreign accent, and they'll probably pass you up for most anything--too much paperwork.
10/09/09
Man, that is one painfully shitty, nonsensical sentence. When I said Denton must have recruited you out of a junior high study hall, I may have been overly kind, Belonsky.
10/09/09
10/09/09
10/09/09
08/24/09
08/24/09
shorter
08/24/09
08/24/09
With this one, however, I reckon there'll be a 30-second edit for normal ad breaks, with a tagline like "see the full version online at: ", with the hope of it going viral.
These kids with their myfacebook and twitters...
08/24/09
08/24/09
08/24/09
08/24/09
Certainly the thing is graphic and it definitely drives the point home, but unless a director were to put it in front of their next blockbuster or the unless the government were to underwrite its distribution, it's pretty much up to the whims of YouTube.
08/24/09
Here's one which shows an impact with a pedestrian in super slow motion while detailing the specifics of his individual injuries, for example.
[www.youtube.com]
08/24/09
08/11/09
I am not a lawyer, but I've read New York State's stop-and-identify law (NY CLS CPL ยง140.50(1)), and it refers to officers detaining suspects, which requires "reasonable suspicion" that you've committed a crime.
See also the case People v. De Bour, which lays out four tiers of police intrusion and what the police are allowed to do, and what justification they need to prove to allow them to do it. Simply put, they can approach anyone and talk to them. And cops can ask for ID and other information, but you don't necessarily have to show it to them. If a cop has "a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot", they can ask more intrusive questions, but still can't compel you to identify yourself, and you're free to leave at any time.
Under the third tier, if there's "reasonable suspicion", it's the equivalent of a Terry stop, and they can compel you to show ID, and they can detain you.
The fourth tier requires "probable cause" and is essentially an arrest, if i'm reading it correctly.
However, the upshot is that lots of people get arrested and worse for "contempt of cop", and I wonder how far flexing your rights and asking police to adhere to the law will go. If the cops arrest you, rightly or wrongly, and the judge throws it out, you'll still have gone to jail and have your evening/day/weekend ruined.
08/11/09
08/11/09
"I do not consent to a search" and "Am I free to go?" are good things to remember. That's no guarantee that it won't antagonize the cop, however...and like I said, being arrested would ruin your day, regardless of whether or not it's a bogus arrest.
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
08/11/09
No Requirement to Carry ID
TX Penal Code: Sec. 38.02. Failure to Identify.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.
Ed. Note: Here's what this law means in plain English.
(1) You don't have to carry a driver's license or other ID, if you're not driving.
(2) If you've been arrested you have to give your name, address, and date of birth to a police officer who requests it. (They'll police ask you for lots more than this, but these three items are all you're legally required to give them.)
(3) If you've just been detained, not arrested, you don't have to give thm squat. But refusing to identify might cause them to arrest you anyway and take you downtown so they can determine who you really are. If this happens, you still won't be charged with failing to carry ID, because there is no such crime.
(4) It's a crime to give false information about your identity, whether you've been arrested or just detained..
08/11/09
08/10/09