Andrew Brunette DUI video released

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
But also, why is death the only potential issue?

Long-story short here.....crazy the amount of people suggesting the cop is the worst guy here....lots of overly aggressive cops out there, was his tone or approach annoying at times, perhaps, but it's not like Bruno was assaulted/tackled/tased, etc.....that's what you expect when you hear about how a cop escalated a situation. Then you have people saying no one got hurt, no victim, therefore nothing wrong. End of the day, he's getting a citation for DUI, his life will go on, mostly uninterrupted....big difference vs. if there was a victim that you killed driving drunk....then you are looking at manslaughter.
You're right of course, but just correcting another bogus claim that attempts to minimize the potential hazards and, because it does, will be repeated by anyone who's real focus is to downplay the drunk driving.

You know how these things work. Someone posts nonsense, then it's taken for fact without being checked then repeated many times. Observe in this thread for those thinking it's no big deal the great importance they gave to "It happened in a gated community". The was repeated over and over in attempts to minimize what occurred. Someone even asserted, incorrectly, that it wasn't even illegal inside a gated community.

Even after someone said they knew the area well and it wasn't a gated community, the false claim kept/keeps being repeated.

A quick check shows that, no matter where the stop occurred, Brunette had been driving on public streets in that condition to get from the places he'd said he'd been drinking. Further reports say that the cops had followed him from his last place of drinking..down public streets. Google street view confirms the restaurants he named are located on public streets.

Given how easy it is to check sources and facts, it's pretty clear that a large number of people have no interest in developing opinions based on the truth. They'd rather blow out of proportion the cops remarks and behaviour to the point that, if you didn't watch the video and only went by their description and overwrought indignation, one would think the cop went full-tilt boogie beatdown on Brunette.

It's clear they just have an axe to grind with cops in general.
 
Last edited:
More people die while walking drunk than do while driving golf carts drunk. I bet it’s 100x more.
I'll also bet more people die by accidental drowning than do while walking drunk, so ... I'm not really sure what your point is by raising this. Meanwhile, I'll point out that while some municipalities have laws against it, states have generally not adopted the position that is always illegal to be drunk while walking; they have all decided it is illegal to drive a golf cart or any other motorized vehicle drunk, without exception.

That’s just not true. Where I live in Boulder/Denver the number is quite equal, and the amount of dangerous people on bikes and scooters is higher than vehicles. This is true in other big cities I have been to.
OK. I mean, I'm not really sure what you want from this, but ... good for you, I guess. Or, sorry it's happening.

I think we agree on why the cops don’t investigate them to the same degree, but you seem to think it’s a rare case. I can assure you if you travel outside of your bubble you will realize how exceedingly commonplace this is.
I can assure you I travel "outside of my bubble" far more frequently than you do yours. But again, good for you - or, sorry it's happening, or whatever you want to feel to help you cope with the current moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaaaaB's
You mean this one, where an SUV rammed into the cart from behind??




Imagine if the SUV plowed into a tricycle, you'd be hollering about that darn third wheel for weeks.
Did you read the post I responded to with that article? I'm merely refuting a bogus statistical claim someone made that, after he googled golf cart fatalities, in a year there were less than 10 and there were NONE reported as being traffic accident fatalities.

He posted BS as fact. I merely proved it was BS.

You didn't even bother to read enough to understand what the point of it was, and inventing an argument I never made.
 
Last edited:
Well I'm just wondering how you punish the guy who drives a golf cart or rides a bike drunk but doesn't have a license
Easy. Civil penalties and/or criminal penalties esp if they cause damage or injure someone. Suspending or revoking someone's licence is an administrative penalty.

The law making it illegal to operate a vehicle while impaired and imposes penalties will describe what "impaired" means, and will list what the term "vehicle" includes, many of which require no license.

It varies state-by-state as to whether operating a golf cart requires a driver's licence. North Carolina requires it if you drive on the public roads/streets, and you're limited to streets/roads with a posted speed of 35 mph or less. It also requires you have liability insurance and DMV registration.
 
Last edited:
For the record, also laughing at you.

First of all, literally zero indication in the article alcohol was involved.

Second, you can operate any of thousands of things in a way that makes you more susceptible to danger, from household appliances to children’s toys. That doesn’t make it an agent of danger lol. Are you going to start posting about razor scooters and blenders too? In this case, the most dangerous vehicle on the road certainly wasnt the golf cart, I’d venture to say it was the two ton SUV doing the damage.
Keep grasping at straws bud. Razor scooters and blenders lol, what a silly comment. Gotta be pretty naive to think nine people crammed into a golf cart didn't involve alcohol and the danger of slow moving vehicles on busy highways shouldn't need to be explained. Obviously, the SUV driver f***ed up but the people in the golf cart shouldn't have put themselves in that position and whatever happened with this incident doesn't change the fact that accidents involving golf carts do happen. Usually involving alcohol.

Nonsense.
Good rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Jersey Fresh
I can assure you I travel "outside of my bubble" far more frequently than you do yours. But again, good for you - or, sorry it's happening, or whatever you want to feel to help you cope with the current moment.
Haha I love the posturing you are doing to people in this thread. I correct your assumption and you have to get condescending. You also have no idea how often I travel, but I will end this unpleasant discourse here.
 
it's not like Bruno was assaulted/tackled/tased, etc.....that's what you expect when you hear about how a cop escalated a situation.

The fact that we go straight to "at least they didn't beat the living **** out of him" for suspicion of DUI after failing to come to a complete stop in a golf cart

Maybe our standards are just a wee bit too low.
 
The fact that we go straight to "at least they didn't beat the living **** out of him" for suspicion of DUI after failing to come to a complete stop in a golf cart

Maybe our standards are just a wee bit too low.
My point was that when he decided to try and leave, all they did was grab his arm….what’s the big deal? Not sure why you are mentioning failing to come to a complete stop….at that point of the interaction they were dealing with a drunk.
 
My point was that when he decided to try and leave, all they did was grab his arm….what’s the big deal? Not sure why you are mentioning failing to come to a complete stop….at that point of the interaction they were dealing with a drunk.

And it’s not like he sprinted away. He took two drunken steps and immediately stopped as soon as they blocked his path. He lives in the neighborhood. Absolute worst possible case scenario, they end up with a fugitive on the lam for driving a golf cart after too many beers.

The fact that we’re using assault and tasers as the standard for an inappropriate response to this scenario is pretty insane. Watch Canadian or British cops sometime, they deal with this stuff in a completely different way. A lot of it has to do with taking themselves seriously as professionals.
 
Do you seriously not realize he could've have caused an accident that got himself, his wife or others injured or even killed. And if you don't think it happens then you might want to do some research.

So your argument is that no one should get a DUI unless they've caused an accident with another person. That's real brilliant lol

No, it's not. It's just dumb and you'd be singing a different tune if you had a kid, sibling, parent, spouse etc killed by a drunk driver.

Do some research? Why?

I'm not denying drunk driving causes accidents, I'm saying it's not the government's business what anyone does until such time as their actions cause harm to person or property

Should it be illegal for me to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house swinging a baseball bat?

My family has been impacted by multiple deaths as a result of drunk driving, but it doesn't change my stance on the matter because my position is based on reason, not emotion

There is no grey area when it comes to freedom, we either have it or we don't, and I am an unwavering proponent of freedom

Yeah, I know, that's dumb, right?
 
Do some research? Why?

I'm not denying drunk driving causes accidents, I'm saying it's not the government's business what anyone does until such time as their actions cause harm to person or property

Should it be illegal for me to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house swinging a baseball bat?

My family has been impacted by multiple deaths as a result of drunk driving, but it doesn't change my stance on the matter because my position is based on reason, not emotion

There is no grey area when it comes to freedom, we either have it or we don't, and I am an unwavering proponent of freedom

Yeah, I know, that's dumb, right?
Exceedingly, yes.
 
Do some research? Why?

I'm not denying drunk driving causes accidents, I'm saying it's not the government's business what anyone does until such time as their actions cause harm to person or property

Should it be illegal for me to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house swinging a baseball bat?

My family has been impacted by multiple deaths as a result of drunk driving, but it doesn't change my stance on the matter because my position is based on reason, not emotion

There is no grey area when it comes to freedom, we either have it or we don't, and I am an unwavering proponent of freedom

Yeah, I know, that's dumb, right?
Oh no, that's well beyond dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD
Do some research? Why?

I'm not denying drunk driving causes accidents, I'm saying it's not the government's business what anyone does until such time as their actions cause harm to person or property

Should it be illegal for me to stand on the sidewalk in front of my house swinging a baseball bat?

My family has been impacted by multiple deaths as a result of drunk driving, but it doesn't change my stance on the matter because my position is based on reason, not emotion

There is no grey area when it comes to freedom, we either have it or we don't, and I am an unwavering proponent of freedom

Yeah, I know, that's dumb, right?
When you abuse your freedom, it is forfeit. That’s a basic law of life at every level.
 
When you abuse your freedom, it is forfeit. That’s a basic law of life at every level.
No no... laws are the antithesis of freedom. Freedom cannot be constrained by mere laws.

I'm just confused as to the hows or whys that would lead to such a free spirit to end up posting on an online forum that rules had to be agreed to to post. You'd think that would be an unreasonable assault on freedom...
 
Freedom is a right, sure. But it isn't the only one. Rights have limitations that are met when other people's rights become or potentially become breached.

In the case of DUI, it endangers others' rights to life, security, etc. but also endangers oneself (being under influence, one may lack the ability to rationalize their decision making and fully understand the potential consequences of their act not only upon others but also upon themselves). Waiting until there are victims to act, rather than providing the resources to minimize the risk of reccurrence (not saying the judicial system is perfect in that regard, far from that actually), is simply dumb.

So, it should be illegal for me to swing a baseball bat while standing on the sidewalk in front of my house, right? Because that act could result in a serious injury or even death to someone else

Or, do I have the right to swing a baseball bat while standing on the sidewalk in front of my house, and it's only IF the act causes harm to another that I then face punishment?
 
So, it should be illegal for me to swing a baseball bat while standing on the sidewalk in front of my house, right? Because that act could result in a serious injury or even death to someone else

Or, do I have the right to swing a baseball bat while standing on the sidewalk in front of my house, and it's only IF the act causes harm to another that I then face punishment?
The reductio ad absurdium is strong in that post.

I'll step to your level : Guess it should be legal to start shooting a gun randomly in a park then, as long as I don't hurt anyone.
 
The reductio ad absurdium is strong in that post.

I'll step to your level : Guess it should be legal to start shooting a gun randomly in a park then, as long as I don't hurt anyone.
Mosquito hunting, eh? By all means, have at it!

But you'd best be careful not to hurt anyone, because the consequences for such an act would be quite severe, and rightly so!
 
Last edited:
So, it should be illegal for me to swing a baseball bat while standing on the sidewalk in front of my house, right? Because that act could result in a serious injury or even death to someone else

Or, do I have the right to swing a baseball bat while standing on the sidewalk in front of my house, and it's only IF the act causes harm to another that I then face punishment?

Swinging a bat by yourself is not inherently threatening to the rights of others.

Swinging a bat at a bystander is inherently threatening to the rights of others.

Therefore you have the right to do the former, not the latter. Because your freedom is forfeit when you abuse it.
 
So, it should be illegal for me to swing a baseball bat while standing on the sidewalk in front of my house, right? Because that act could result in a serious injury or even death to someone else

Or, do I have the right to swing a baseball bat while standing on the sidewalk in front of my house, and it's only IF the act causes harm to another that I then face punishment?
What am I reading?

It would seem to me that any Freedom Absolutist such as yourself wouldn't even live in a house with a sidewalk in front since the sidewalk most likely was built on your private land seized by the government under an Eminent Domain statute that gives it the right to do so within a certain distance from the centreline of the public road built with monies confiscated from citizens for that purpose under the threat of being forcibly taken against their will and locked in a cage if they don't pay their taxes.

While the old "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" indeed has applications, it falls apart as a sweeping basis for the Laws' limits if you choose to live in a society...and you are freely choosing to do so if you have a gov-built road and sidewalk for your bat-swinging....with government, courts, etc. The gov derives its power to do what it does from the Inherent Rights of it's citizenry who are willingly living in it to legislate through the citizens' representatives using the mechanisms and limits provided-for in the US and State Constitutions. Deriving power from it's citizens is the only form of government we consider legitimate but the flip side of that is if the citizen chooses to live in that society it recognizes that laws they're asked to abide by, if they meet Constitutional tests, are legitimate even if we don't agree with them for whatever reason. The mechanism to change the ones we don't agree with are also provided-for.

In other words, your argument isn't with "The Government". Ultimately, it's with fellow citizens who through their representatives gave the government the power to criminalize certain behaviours that aren't Constitutionally-protected as immutable, Inherent Rights. Hate to break this to you, but in the philosophy that underpins those Rights and the government system, there is no protected "Absolute Right to Freedom" as you've defined it once the social contract between citizens and government is entered into by choosing to live in it. If that's what you want free from worry of running afoul of laws you don't happen to agree with, you're going to have to move to an unclaimed jungle somewhere.

It's through those Constitutional mechanisms that taxes to build pubic roads and sidewalks on property claimed by Eminent Domain are levied, and laws legislated by the citizens' representatives are passed, including what you believe are freedom-hating drunk driving laws and punishments for breaking them. The same applies to those other pesky laws criminalizing the other "no victim yet" behaviours I mentioned: conspiring to blow up buildings/airplanes, hiring hitmen, planning to shoot up schools, planning to travel abroad for underage girls, sober reckless driving, etc etc.

Hell, every rule and law pertaining to driving on public roads flies in the face of your deeply-held personal credo ...speed limits, stop signs, traffic signals, even the requirement for licensing you, your vehicle, requirement for inspections, etc etc. Must drive you nuts.

Why would you even live in a place that has a sidewalk that you see every day running right across your property when it's a physical manifestation of the freedom-killing hand at the end of the long arm of Government reaching onto your land to give you and your foundational core belief the middle finger?

Is that why you're out there on the sidewalk swinging the bat?...trying to chase that taunting, bird-flipping government hand off your property? Might I suggest taking a jackhammer to the sidewalk instead if you truly practice what you preach. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
 
Last edited:
So, Brunette was traveling down the road, minding his own business, not hurting anyone, when he was stopped by an armed agent of the State, assaulted, kidnapped, and locked in a cage

That is not how freedom works


No victim, no crime
Yes , we should all drive pissed with impunity.
The fanboys/freedom bro's in this thread :loony:

Lol nancies are out
This is sum deep thunkin
 
It seems lost on you that the cop already knows he's talking to a guy so drunk he's already tried to lie to his face about who was driving the cart (even tho he has been in plain view), saying his wife was, then stumbled over trying to invent some reason he was driving using her licence (as if that's a thing) until, in desperation, abruptly played the "I live right there" card.

All the above happened before the "ooooh that's odd" comment.

Of course his tone would seem condescending if the person being addressed were sober, but Brunette was clearly, obviously, not. On the contrary, Brunette was ineptly trying to lie like a child, was behaving like a child, and reaching for a way out like a child with no self-awareness re the situation he was in. The cop is de-escalating confrontation by talking to him on Brunette's childlike state of mind-level while he's gathering information.

While the tone may annoy you, it worked. The situation never escalated until the penny dropped when Brunette was about to try the roadside sobriety test and tried walking away, but that had nothing to do with anyone's tone up to that point.

Again, at the very start Brunette was so out of it he actually tried to deny he was driving an open-air golf cart while in full view of the cop. The same cop he'd interacted with before driving away from the restaurant. This is a pretty sure sign that his brain was in 4 year-old mode. When you were 4 years old your parents probably spoke to you the same way but you never noticed. Nobody does.
First, learn the difference between "physical force" and "physical violence." One is acceptable in the situation in the video, the other obviously isn't. Both are different levels on the force matrix.

And second, as already stated, the cops did not escalate the situation in the case. Brunette did.

It's easy to dismiss this as the cops overreacting, but the fact of the matter is, there's a very real possibility the situation could have become dangerous. The cops know nothing about Brunette. He absolutely could have had a firearm in the cart. Or he could have gotten in the cart and drove off, endangering (at the very least) himself again.
The cop didn’t escalate the situation?!? He did everything he could, from his rude, sarcastic condescending attitude throughout, to this hyper aggressive swearing and doing just about anything he could to find a reason to throw him down. Andrew did nothing remotely threatening and the cop was a complete d*ck and tried, like many American cops, to create a reason to violently attack the guy. Total POS, no business being in any position of authority.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DaaaaB's
Also worth noting - when comparing the capabilities of a golf cart to a car/truck, the typical car/truck has around 50-60X (and in some cases far more) the destructive force capabilities than the golf cart. So there’s no comparison to be made in terms of ‘endangering the public’, it is negligible in the golf cart. Thats why you can openly drink booze while driving golf carts on nearly every course in the world. Theres literally 1000’s of people driving golf carts totally hammered every moment with no ill-effects other than the odd popped tire or ripped up fairway grass.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DaaaaB's
Swinging a bat by yourself is not inherently threatening to the rights of others.

Swinging a bat at a bystander is inherently threatening to the rights of others.

Therefore you have the right to do the former, not the latter. Because your freedom is forfeit when you abuse it.
I can see it now....

A fully-committed Freedom Absolutist is out swinging his bat in the middle of the sidewalk, rendering it too dangerous to use unless he stops.

An approaching pedestrian sees this, analyzes the situation, and decides that someone who's purposely planted himself on the sidewalk instead of his perfectly good lawn where there would be no potential for injury to anyone else is either low-functioning or trying to make a point by being a dick.

Having no inclination or time to engage in conflict or a philosophical debate, and in keeping with a general rule to give dubious people a wide berth if possible, the pedestrian decides to cross the street to the other side, waits at the corner for the signal to change, then steps into the crosswalk whereupon he's promptly run over by a drunk-driving, whiny, self-anointed Sovereign Citizen who believes he can operate using his own childlike interpretation of how road rules and codes re behaviour apply using the long-forgotten and completely irrelevant Articles of Confederation instead of the US Constitution.

The pedestrian lays bleeding, limbs pointing in directions that shouldn't be possible. The pasta sheets his wife sent him to the store for will never make it back to the kitchen, that night's lasagna will remain unmade. He told her he'd walk instead of drive to the store "for exercise", but really it was so on the way home he could sneak a quick one from the pack of cigarettes he's secretly buy, knowing she'd be able to smell the stale smoke in the car later and he'd have to listen to her explaining...again...how he went back on his promise to quit the coffin nails.

The cops show up. Then, the ambulance.

As the EMT's begin to try and stop the bleeding, one of the cops spots a potential witness; a guy nearby on the sidewalk, inexplicably swinging a bat. As he approaches the neighbourhood Babe Ruth and begins to ask if he saw anything, he's instead told he has no right to ask him questions about anything, to stay off his property, and that he's exercising his Right to Freedom to swing for the fences at imaginary fastballs. The pedestrian, at the moment still lucid and observing, feels satisfied that at least his instincts were right about the bat swinger's vibe; weird, with an even weirder sense of priorities.

His attention is suddenly drawn to the sound of shattering glass accompanied by constant, high-pitched, girlish shrieking. The cop dealing with the drunk Sovereign Citizen driver who crushed him immediately lost his patience and then his shit, utterly and completely, when the Dbag driver predictably rolled his car window down exactly 1 inch, told the cop he was recording the encounter, and nervously began reciting his mornonic screed about how he "wasn't driving and didn't need a license because I'm "traveling" and under the Articl."...at which point the window and hell for him broke loose and the funny shrieking began. The pedestrian wasn't sure if it was the EMT's drugs taking effect or just the normal elation that came from watching the cop drag the dunce from his car and begin laying a remedial American History lesson on the fool through the forceful, repeated strokes of his baton. When another cop rolled up and added his taser to the class, the pedestrian softy chuckled, feeling pretty lucky that at least he got to see and hear what so many never get to witness; someone overflowing with so much annoying dipshittery finally getting what's coming to him.

He saw passersby gathering, some holding phones up to record the sights and sweet sounds of Mr. Articles of Confederation every time he learned another valuable historical point with each ride of the lightning, and wondered if they would keep their jobs after this, modern sensitivities being what they are. Knowing they might not, he silently thanked them for their sacrifice, and the show.

The pedestrian needn't have worried. Most of the phones were held up to take selfies which were later posted to social media accounts of those who breathlessly described the drama and trauma they suffered witnessing the affair. When collected as potential evidence, most offered no clear view of the righteous pummelling going on in the background due to stupidly pouty lips and over-protruding big butts arched in ridiculous poses blocking the real center of attention. Snippets and frames of those few that did show something of value only gained traction in the form of comical memes and GIFs because most people don't have an Outrage trigger or gather to demonstrate and certainly not to torch Starbucks and whatnot under the banner of "People We Don't Get What the F They're Talking About Lives Matter".

What the pedestrian did realize instead was, despite their best efforts, the EMTs weren't going to save him. He knew his ticket had been punched by that drunk-driving asshat on the ground next to his car getting his just rewards. But was it entirely that stupid SOB's fault?

What about the ridiculous bat swinger, still over there on the sidewalk where he had been but now feeling smug and victorious after the cop finally gave up trying to get any information about the accident, swinging with renewed vigour at the air filled with imaginary, Government black helicopter-harpies trying to obliterate his Freedom with rockets of Injustice?...it was he and his antics that began the chain of events, wasn't it? Couldn't he have just done his thing in his own friggin yard and none of this would have happened?

Then it hit him with great clarity: He was only walking in the first place because of his own wife...nagging about the cigarettes. Making him promise to quit..essentially forcing him to lie. She caused this. The silly Freedom Absolutist and Sovereign Citizen bleeder were just her unwitting patsies, useful idiots that helped prove she was right...again.... because, dammit, smoking had killed him after all.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad